#saying we need immigrants so we can make them work the low-wage jobs

[non-un-topo]

Thinking about going back to support group because I'm sick to my stomach with the amount of transphobia I've heard/dealt with over the past week alone, but also eww vulnerability

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

WIBTA for mentioning college again to my online friend, despite her telling me she knows it's not for her/not making a decision about it right now?

We both turned 18 this year, and are in our last years of highschool, and hopefully will both graduate this year! We met two years ago, and call and play games together sometimes, send each other selfies, share our silly crushes—she's the best girl friend I have right now and im very grateful for her.

Some info about me: both of my parents grew up very low income and from rough places and got full scholarships/a deal(like they pay for your college, and then you work for them after), because of this they're financially doing much better than both their families(my mother regularly sending money back home to pay for surgeries , bills, etc.). All of this is to say I've been raised with the mindset that higher education is my ticket to bettering my life, and I take school very seriously. I live in an area with a lot of immigrants, and all my friends do plan on going to college. Here is my disclaimer that I know college is *not* for everyone, and you do not need to go to college to be successful. But my friend is in the same stage in life as me, and I think it could be beneficial for her. She's not the best student at all(also home-schooled and does online schooling), but she's passing all her classes. We've talked about it before and I've asked if she's thought about college, and she said no because everyone in her family who went was just left with debt. Additionally she's not motivated in school now, so she doesn't think she would be motivated in college and would just end up as a "money dump". She's also talked about college with her mom, who said that she was only 18 and didn't need to make decisions about it right now. Right now her plan is to get a minimum wage job after high school(she's mentioned a fast food chain). I do think it would be good for her to get out of the house because right now she's basically stuck at home because her mom doesn't like going places. To my knowledge she has no friends irl, because of the homeschooling. Which is one of the reasons why I think college would be great for her--the chance to be with other people your own age.

We've only talked about college one time where I just asked, and after that I haven't mentioned it because I don't want to act like I have any say in her life decisions or make her feel bad. I've just been thinking about it lately because logically to me it seems like if she did want to go to college, now would be the best time because she would have the support of her online school where she has a counselor. Her mom didn't go to college and she isn't in regular contact with her dad.

For more context my family is middle class and I'm not sure what her financial situation is, but I do know comfortable but not deeply so. I would hate to bring up college if it's something she knows she cant afford( but long term I think going to college would help her make more money than any job she started now, which is why Im thinking about bringing it up again). I don't know if this is enough context, and I'm willing to provide more! I'll admit I'm not the smartest teen out there, so if you see any thing wrong with my thinking or think I'm a total asshole please tell me and I'll check my behavior. Im also keeping in mind her lack of motivation that she mentioned she had in school, and of course her mental health and wellbeing is of like. the utmost importance.

so, would I be the asshole for bringing up college with her again, despite knowing her situation? I really love this friend and the last thing I would want to do with her is be disrespectful and insensitive. thank you for very much, Tumblr! any advice you can give in the comments would be greatly appreciated.

What are these acronyms?

[robertreich]

Why Child Labor in America is Skyrocketing

Corporations are bringing back child labor in America.

And some Republicans want to make it easier for them to get away with it.

Since 2015, child labor violations have risen nearly 300%. And those are just the violations government investigators have managed to uncover and document.

The Department of Labor says it's currently investigating over 600 cases of illegal child labor in America. Major American companies like General Mills, Walmart, and Ford have all been implicated.

Why on Earth is this happening? The answer is frighteningly simple: greed.

Employers have been having difficulty finding the workers they need at the wages they are willing to pay. Rather than reduce their profits by paying adult workers more, employers are exploiting children.

The sad fact of the matter is that many of the children who are being exploited are considered to be “them” rather than “us” because they’re disproportionately poor and immigrant. So the moral shame of subjecting “our” children to inhumane working conditions when they ought to be in school is quietly avoided.

And since some of these children (or their parents) are undocumented, they dare not speak out or risk detention and deportation. They need the money. This makes them easily exploitable.

It’s a perfect storm that’s resulting in vulnerable children taking on some of the most brutal jobs.

Folks, we’ve seen this before.

Reformers fought to establish the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for a reason — to curb the grotesque child labor seen during America’s first Gilded Age.

The U.S. banned most child labor.

But now, pro-business trade groups and their Republican lackeys are trying to reverse nearly a century of progress, and they're using the so-called "labor shortage" as their excuse.

Arkansas will no longer require 14 and 15 year olds to get a work permit before taking a job — a process that verified their age and required permission from a parent or guardian.

A bill in Ohio would let children work later on school nights.

Minnesota Republicans are pushing to let 16 year-olds work in construction.

And 14-year-olds in Iowa may soon be allowed to take certain jobs in meatpacking plants and operate dangerous machinery.

It’s all a coordinated campaign to erode national standards, making it even easier for companies to profit off children.

Across America, we’re witnessing a resurgence of cruel capitalism in which business lobbyists and lawmakers justify their actions by arguing that they are not exploiting the weak and vulnerable, but rather providing jobs for those who need them and would otherwise go hungry or homeless.

Conveniently, these same business lobbyists and lawmakers are often among the first to claim we “can’t afford” stronger safety nets that would provide these children with safe housing and adequate nutrition.

So what can stop this madness?

First: Fund the Department of Labor so it can crack down on child labor violations. When I was Secretary of Labor, the department was chronically underfunded and understaffed. It still is, because lawmakers and their corporate backers want it that way.  

Second: Increase fines on companies that break child labor laws. Current fines are too low, and are treated as costs of doing business by hugely profitable companies that violate the law.

Third: Hold major corporations accountable. Many big corporations contract with smaller companies that employ children, which allows the big corporations to play dumb and often avoid liability. It’s time to demand that large corporations take responsibility for their supply chains.

Fourth: Reform immigration laws so undocumented children aren’t exploited.

And lastly: Organize. Fight against state laws that are attempting to bring back child labor.

Are corporate profits really more important than the safety of children?

[shakespearean-snape]

*Waves*

My mother's parents are first-generation American immigrants from Japan. Co-filial residence is common in Japan and not something culturally frowned upon as a failure for the children to launch out on their own. In fact, children caring for their parents and having them live with them is considered the natural cycle, and showing respect to the parents who raised you.

When my grandparents both became older my parents had a suite just for them in the house and they've been living with my parents since I was a child. They have their own space and privacy but growing up my mom's parents were always there and you would be surprised how much easier that made it for my parents who both worked because I was never home alone after school. Instead of being a latchkey kid, I was able to bond with my grandparents and have an extended sense of community and family.

My dad's parents lived independently of us but they still lived basically one house over too. My dad's father was very smart with money and when he bought his house he also purchased the one next to it, renovated them both at a low cost for back then, and my dad basically had a house ready for him if he wanted it and he definitely didn't sneer at that or treat it as an adulting fail to be able to have a house practically given to him by his dad and them be neighbors.

The whole American outlook on what it means to be an adult is very dated and honestly kind of toxic for how it also discourages community and family bonds past a certain age. Especially now when the cost of living is so much higher, families living together and supporting each other is a way to lift some of the financial burden.

Of course, it goes without saying that if you have a toxic family I can understand wanting to strike out on your own and put distance but otherwise, we need to change the way we look at adulthood and family or even found family and communal aid. Inter-dependence isn't a sign we've failed to be functional or successful adults, it should be the norm! People should help people, especially as long as corporate interests penalize people for having children and government aid programs are insufficient when it comes to the assistance they provide to the disabled, the elderly, or otherwise.

Ridiculing people for that is honestly just feeding into the conservative-driven capitalist myth of the "self-made" employee who "pulls themselves up by their bootstraps" and is supposedly living the good life because they did it all on their own and without any "handouts" or "special advantages."

Never mind the fact that the reality is most of us work unreasonably long hours at barely or below living wages while our employers make many times our salary and take advantage of our labor and time and penalize everything from childcare to sick leave to special work requirements due to disability or that our parents' generation did better even without a college education than we do deep in debt for college degrees (which often limit our abilities for home ownership) that are now required for most good paying jobs and may still not guarantee our employment.

Point being, the cake is a lie so don't perpetuate it by mocking people who have embraced communal living and assistance because right now it is, unfortunately, one of the few immediate solutions we have available to us in the face of capitalist oligarchies dominating US politics and the ongoing conservative sabotage of government programs (including Social Security people have paid into and should be rightfully theirs but comes with all sorts of caveats having been chipped away at over the years and programs like Medicare and Medicaid) designed to assist people who need them.

Just a reminder that people who still live with their parents as adults deserve respect and for you to stop being ableist. There are multiple reasons someone could still live with their parents! From invisible to visible disabilities, finance issues, and more!

Stop using the “well they’re gonna turn into a creep living in their parents basement” punchline! It’s disgusting. STOP. BEING. ABLEIST. STOP. FORGETTING. THE. POOR.

[truck-fump]

Why Child Labor in America is SkyrocketingCorporations are...

New Post has been published on https://robertreich.org/post/717502268313927680

Why Child Labor in America is SkyrocketingCorporations are...

Why Child Labor in America is Skyrocketing

Corporations are bringing back child labor in America.

And some Republicans want to make it easier for them to get away with it.

Since 2015, child labor violations have risen nearly 300%. And those are just the violations government investigators have managed to uncover and document.

The Department of Labor says it’s currently investigating over 600 cases of illegal child labor in America. Major American companies like General Mills, Walmart, and Ford have all been implicated.

Why on Earth is this happening? The answer is frighteningly simple: greed.

Employers have been having difficulty finding the workers they need at the wages they are willing to pay. Rather than reduce their profits by paying adult workers more, employers are exploiting children.

The sad fact of the matter is that many of the children who are being exploited are considered to be “them” rather than “us” because they’re disproportionately poor and immigrant. So the moral shame of subjecting “our” children to inhumane working conditions when they ought to be in school is quietly avoided.

And since some of these children (or their parents) are undocumented, they dare not speak out or risk detention and deportation. They need the money. This makes them easily exploitable.

It’s a perfect storm that’s resulting in vulnerable children taking on some of the most brutal jobs.

Folks, we’ve seen this before.

Reformers fought to establish the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for a reason — to curb the grotesque child labor seen during America’s first Gilded Age.

The U.S. banned most child labor.

But now, pro-business trade groups and their Republican lackeys are trying to reverse nearly a century of progress, and they’re using the so-called “labor shortage” as their excuse.

Arkansas will no longer require 14 and 15 year olds to get a work permit before taking a job — a process that verified their age and required permission from a parent or guardian.

A bill in Ohio would let children work later on school nights.

Minnesota Republicans are pushing to let 16 year-olds work in construction.

And 14-year-olds in Iowa may soon be allowed to take certain jobs in meatpacking plants and operate dangerous machinery.

It’s all a coordinated campaign to erode national standards, making it even easier for companies to profit off children.

Across America, we’re witnessing a resurgence of cruel capitalism in which business lobbyists and lawmakers justify their actions by arguing that they are not exploiting the weak and vulnerable, but rather providing jobs for those who need them and would otherwise go hungry or homeless.

Conveniently, these same business lobbyists and lawmakers are often among the first to claim we “can’t afford” stronger safety nets that would provide these children with safe housing and adequate nutrition.

So what can stop this madness?

First: Fund the Department of Labor so it can crack down on child labor violations. When I was Secretary of Labor, the department was chronically underfunded and understaffed. It still is, because lawmakers and their corporate backers want it that way.  

Second: Increase fines on companies that break child labor laws. Current fines are too low, and are treated as costs of doing business by hugely profitable companies that violate the law.

Third: Hold major corporations accountable. Many big corporations contract with smaller companies that employ children, which allows the big corporations to play dumb and often avoid liability. It’s time to demand that large corporations take responsibility for their supply chains.

Fourth: Reform immigration laws so undocumented children aren’t exploited.

And lastly: Organize. Fight against state laws that are attempting to bring back child labor.

Are corporate profits really more important than the safety of children?

[qqueenofhades]

Okay, I’ve read Joe Biden’s plans.

I’ve just sat down and spent several hours actually reading all the damn plans on his website, the whole thing, so you don’t have to. And here’s the conclusion:

They’re pretty good.

Are they absolutely everything we want immediately? Maybe not. Are they a solid Democratic agenda anyway? Yes they are. Are they better than Trump?

Light years!

His Violence Against Women plan is lengthy, detailed, and pays specific attention to violence against Native, lesbian and bisexual, low-income, disabled, rural, transgender (especially trans women of color) immigrant, domestic abuse victims, and other vulnerable women. He calls for replacing and expanding Obama-era policies and funding for campus sexual assault programs that DeVos trashed, and for providing money for culturally specific services that are sensitive to the diverse backgrounds of survivors. He also notes that sexual assault, while it predominantly affects women and girls, needs to be taken seriously and addressed for people of all gender identities.

His gun safety plan is forceful and lays out several steps for banning assault weapons, taking existing weapons from offenders, closing gun purchase background check and other legal loopholes, addressing the intersection between domestic violence and weapons ownership, and reducing or eliminating weapons and ammunition stockpiling.

His plan for tackling climate change and creating green jobs is also lengthy. He makes the connection between economic, environmental, and racial justice. He pledges to immediately rejoin the Paris Agreement and restore American leadership on the issue in pushing for even stronger climate standards, make climate change a central part of our trade, international, and justice goals, demand a worldwide ban on fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks (!!!) and if the Green New Deal is passed, to sign it, as well as for the U.S. to achieve 100% clean energy and zero percent net emissions by 2050.

His healthcare plan is decent. It offers an immediate public option for all Americans regardless of private, employer, or no coverage, and generous new tax credits to put toward the cost of coverage. It strongly protects abortion rights and federal funding for Planned Parenthood, as well as rescinding the “gag rule” that prevents U.S. federal aid money from being used to provide or even talk about abortions in NGOs abroad. It attacks generic and drug price gouging. It calls for doubling the capital gains tax on the super-wealthy (from 20% to 39.5% paid on capital gains by anyone making over $1 million) to help fund healthcare reform. He also has a separate plan on the opioid crisis in America, and on older Americans and retirement, including the protection and re-funding of Medicare and Social Security.

His immigration plan is lengthy and detailed. He apologizes for and acknowledges the excessive deportation that occured during the Obama-Biden administrations, pledges to do better, and attacks Trump’s current inhumane acitivities on every front. The policy of children in cages, indefinite detention, the metered asylum system, and the Muslim Ban are gone on day one. In this and his LGBTQ plan, he notes the vulnerability of LGBTQ refugees, incuding LGBTQ refugees of color. He proposes streamlining of visa applications and prioritizing the immediate reunification of families. It also specifically states that ICE and CBP agents will be held directly accountable for inhumane treatment.

Speaking of which, his LGBTQ plan is comprehensive. It pays attention to multiple intersectional issues, down to the high rates of incarceration among trans people of color. (He also notes the rates of violence against trans women of color particularly.) He calls for a complete ban on conversion therapy and the discrimination against HIV-status individuals, as well as removing the ban on blood donation from gay and bisexual men. He will remove the transgender military ban immediately. He calls for funding for mental health and suicide prevention among LGBTQ populations.

His plan to empower workers calls for raising the federal minimum wage to $15, as well as indexing this to median hourly wages to ensure that working-class and middle-class wages grow closer to parity, and implementing strong legal protections for unions. He expresses support for striking workers and to empower the National Labor Relations Board in workplace advocacy. Farmworkers, domestic workers, gig economy workers, and other non-traditional labor groups are included in this. He will restore all Obama-Biden policies related to workplace safety and regulation.

His plan to restore American dignity and leadership in the world calls for immediately investing in election security and reform, restoration of the Voting Rights Act, immediately restoring White House press briefings and other Trump refusals of information, tackling criminal justice reform and systematic racial discrimination, calling for campaign finance reform, and basically blowing up all the stupid things the Trump administration does on a daily basis. It also calls for an end to all ongoing wars in the Middle East, restoring the Iran nuclear deal, and new arms control treaties with Russia, among general repairing of international alliances.

His plans for K-12 education and post-high school education call for greatly expanded funding across all levels of 2-year, 4-year, and other educational options. There will be no student loan payments for anyone making under $25,000 a year; everyone else will pay a capped amount and be completely forgiven after a certain period. Public servants qualify for up to $50,000 in loan forgiveness. This is not total loan forgiveness for everyone, which is obviously important for me and many of us, but it’s acceptable to start with. Additionally, his wife is a teacher and has a proven track record of calling for education investment and supporting public school funding.

His plan for housing addresses the needs of formerly incarcerated, LGBTQ, veteran, low-income, sexual assault survivor, black and Hispanic, and other vulnerable populations at risk of losing housing. It calls for a tax on companies and corporations with in excess of $50 billion in assets to fund comprehensive new housing initiatives, including $100 billion in accessible and low-income housing development. It includes extensive investment in public transportation and a high-speed rail system. This ties into his plan to repair infrastructure and invest in new technologies across the country.

His plan for criminal justice reform calls for the end of mass incarceration, the decriminalization of marijuana, the automatic expunging of all cannabis convictions, and an end on jail sentences for drug use. It highlights systematic institutional racism and the impact on black and brown people particularly. It calls for an end on all profiteering and private prisons. It focuses on reintegrating offenders into society and funding the needs of people released from prison. It proposes to “expand and use the power of the U.S. Justice Department to address systemic misconduct in police departments and prosecutors’ offices.” It broadens funding for social services and other programs for people who are otherwise placed into the prison pipeline.

There are more plans, which you can find here. These are the ones I read top to bottom. I am not by any means a Joe Biden fangirl; he was not my first choice, my second choice, or really anywhere on my list. However, having carefully read through his policy documents, I can say that:

He has at the least a good team of advisors who are keenly aware of the political climate, and is willing to both restore Obama-era standards and to improve on them where necessary. Obviously, all politicians’ promises are politicians’ promises, but this is a solid Democratic platform with obvious awareness of the progressive wing of the party.

If progressive legislation is passed in the House and Senate, he will sign it, including the Green New Deal.

He represents a clear and definite improvement over Donald Trump.

Is he everything we want? No. Are his policies better than I was expecting? Yes. I advise you to read through them for yourself. It has made me at least feel better about the likelihood of voting for him.

I realize it’s an unsexy position, especially on tumblr, to advocate for an old centrist white man. I’m not thrilled about having to do it. However, speaking as someone who was very resistant to Biden and still doesn’t agree with all of his previous legislative track record, that’s my consensus. He is a candidate who broadly aligns with values that I care about. His policies represent a concrete end to the damage of the Trump administration and gets us on the right track again.

Joe Biden, if he is the Democratic nominee, will receive my vote on November 3, 2020. I urge you to consider what I’ve laid out above and join me.

[dwellordream]

“Throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, more girls than boys went to secondary school in an increasing ratio in all parts of the country. Girls represented 53 percent of all students in 1872 and 57 percent in 1900. They were especially overrepresented in public schools. Although private schools had equal percentages of male and female attendees, by 1900 about 60 percent of the students in public high schools were girls.

In the West girls attended high schools at an especially high rate in relation to the attendance of boys, whose labor was generally too valuable for families to forgo. Most students in secondary schools lived in the Northeast, however. The educational historian Joel Perlmann’s rich statistics from Providence, Rhode Island, allow us to consider the role of class and parentage in determining girls’ high school attendance.

In 1880 about 14 percent of all teenage girls were enrolled in high schools in Providence, compared with perhaps 2–3 percent nationally. Although high schools were supported by public funds, those who sent their children needed to be able to do without their labor. Native whites in Providence sent a third of their teenage daughters to high school and nearly a quarter of their sons. White-collar workers (whether immigrant or native) also sent a third of their teenage daughters and just over a quarter of their teenage sons to high school. (The elite were more likely to send their children to private schools.)

Where class and native-born parentage overlapped, as it often did, secondary school attendance was especially high. Yankee, white-collar parents sent the highest proportion of both daughters (46 percent) and sons (36 percent) to secondary school. Though a significant majority of teenage American girls could not afford to go to school, those who did represented a growing and influential segment of the youth population.

These carefully compiled statistics raise some important questions. Why did girls go to secondary school in higher numbers than boys? How might one explain a family’s decisions to allow a girl to remain in school while sending her brother out to work? Conventional wisdom cites the lower ‘‘opportunity costs’’ of educating girls. Girls’ work was sufficiently devalued in the urban labor market that families would consider forgoing the potential income for other desired ends.

One such end, as we have seen, was the goal of refinement, that eighteenth-and nineteenth-century project designed to demonstrate the genteel sensibilities of aristocracy as a means of securing middle-class respectability. The historian Richard Bushman has pointed out the numerous contradictions of this aristocratic aesthetic which coexisted both with a capitalist culture based on labor and a republican tradition that dignified it. He has also argued, however, that the strongest constraints on conduct in the name of gentility were levied on young women, who from the eighteenth century forward were expected to demonstrate reserve and grace to establish their family’s standing.

In the late eighteenth century, this quest for refinement fostered a gendered, ornamental female education. Eliza Southgate, attending school in Boston, responded to her brother’s compliments on her letter writing with thanks and her ‘‘hope I shall make a great progress in my other studies and be an ‘Accomplished Miss.’’’ What that might mean was fleshed out a bit by Rachel Mordecai’s report for her mother of her younger sister’s progress.

She noted that her young charge read well, knew several pages of French nouns, added and multiplied, knew first principles in geography, knew parts of speech and conjugated verbs in grammar, played a number of songs. Mordecai concluded: ‘‘She sews plain work tolerably well, and has marked the large and small alphabet on a sampler.’’ The seamless blending of parts of speech and piano, sums and sampler, characterized an era in female education in which accomplishments were equally academic and ornamental. An educated and accomplished miss was expected to call a certain attention to herself.

The common-school movement of the early nineteenth century educated boys and girls together, and with the republican and Jacksonian revolution in culture, commentators grew less comfortable with the ornament of aristocratic accomplishment. Instead they praised the restraint, reserve, and womanliness of well-educated girls. Refinement in lessons as in life might be measured less by conspicuous self-display and more by selflessness, by learning what not to do, and how not to be. Youth’s Companion expressed these lessons in an 1868 story of an exemplary schoolgirl:

‘‘She was quiet, almost to reserve, though her dimpling smiles were prettier than any language; but when she did speak, her words were well chosen, though few.’’ She had applied the same lesson to her music. Though she played the piano well, ‘‘Jenny made rare use of her accomplishment. She never bored anybody, as the best players do at times.’’ All in all, Jenny had grasped the true restraint which represented a gendered lesson well learned. Whatever it actually delivered (and I shall argue that it largely delivered something else), school seemed to be the best strategy for ensuring that at least one member of the family—the one whose wages could most easily be forgone—might embody the class aspirations of the rest.

To demonstrate class standing, increasingly, young women did not work for wages. The irony was that attending school equipped young women for work—especially for one of the few semirespectable jobs available to them. Accompanying the message that education was refining and improving was a parallel rationale that was often hidden: in the unstable economy of the nineteenth century, education provided an entrée to the job of schoolteaching, a tolerable means of wage-earning for young women in need.

With the expansion of school systems in the nineteenth century and the growth in the national economy opening more lucrative opportunities for men, low-paid women increasingly replaced men as the nation’s teachers. By 1870 about two-thirds of the nation’s teachers were women, a proportion that increased to nearly three-quarters in 1900. In the major cities of the Northeast, more than four-fifths of the teaching profession was female.

Undoubtedly, girls filled high schools in part because high schools prepared them for teaching jobs. Much has been made of the low wages paid female teachers, and that was certainly part of their appeal to cash-poor local school districts. Yet girls had fewer occupational options than boys, and schoolteaching paid better than those other options. As two economic historians put it, ‘‘Access to good jobs for men was acquired through on-the-job training, while access to the good jobs for women was acquired in schools.’’

A contemporary report on the public high school in Chicago in 1899 reported an especially skewed ratio of girls to boys because of this fact. Describing Chicago’s public high school as ‘‘almost entirely a professional one,’’ a reporter noted that 70 percent of the student body was female, with 60 percent of them seeking admission to normal school, the training ground for teachers.

The statistical correlation between girls’ attendance at high school and the feminization of teaching suggests a powerful economic undercurrent to girls’ high school attendance. Yet especially at midcentury, few parents, commentators, or girls themselves would confess to such vocational thinking. Teaching was to be either a temporary expedient or an insurance plan for daughters who would find their highest destiny within the domestic sphere.

Writing in the 1840s, Jason Whitman, in his Young Lady’s Aid to Usefulness and Happiness, had cautioned girls concerned about self-support against learning a trade, instead suggesting inculcation of ‘‘the whole round of ordinary, domestic, female duties and labors.’’ Such training would allow a girl to dismiss her father’s servants, or to take their place in someone else’s house. As a last resort only Whitman recommended paying attention in school, so that a girl could become qualified to teach.

A fictional heroine too suggested that in genteel circles, teaching was the dirty secret, rather than the noble end, of school attendance. In Anna White’s novel Kate Callender, subtitled School-Girls of ’54, the heroine’s impoverished parents consider teaching as an option for a daughter they can scarcely support. ‘‘But would she accept it? Ah! there was a doubt. He had heard her say more than once that she would pull weeds, rake and pitch hay, even; but she would not sink into the insignificance of a ‘schoolma’am.’’’

Writing in the South following the Civil War, one diarist expressed sympathy for a classmate confronting the need to make her own living. After describing her as ‘‘well educated,’’ ‘‘a strong, intellectual woman,’’ with ‘‘open candid eyes,’’ she acknowledged, ‘‘It is a pity anyone like her should have to teach, while a great many, worthless, stupid girls seem to be the favorites of fortune.’’ Few families seemed to want to admit to the increasing likelihood that their daughters would teach.

The ability to teach then was a subtext rather than the professed rationale for school attendance for many girls in the second half of the nineteenth century. Even historians looking back at the evidence have hedged their bets. Catherine Kelly notes the ‘‘haphazard approach’’ of families and daughters who ‘‘agreed on the value of an education’’ yet were ‘‘uncertain as to how the particulars of that education might be turned to the service of kin and community.’’

Kelly concludes that secondary education was ‘‘not a necessity, part of a rational plan to prepare their daughters for careers in teaching.’’ John Rury found no statistical evidence to argue that girls attended high school in order to teach, although that was often the outcome of their educations. Instead, girls’ school attendance was inspired by several complementary but not equally acknowledged motives.

Privileged parents might send their daughters to school to occupy and improve them during years they might otherwise be underoccupied, before anticipated marriage. (They might send their sons to high school, too—on their way to college.) Striving lower-middle- class parents might send their daughters to high schools with similar aspirations, while sending their sons directly onto the job. This difference in plans for sons would account for the greater numbers of girls in schools.

Both sets of parents would likely agree on the preferred outcome for their daughters: comfortable, refined homes with good providers. Both sets of parents, however, would welcome the insurance plan provided by schooling for girls. Being a ‘‘schoolma’am’’ was not a glamorous or an attractive option within the context of genteel Victorian culture. Aside, perhaps, from pseudonymous writing, there was no attractive vocation in those terms. Schoolteaching, however, was the better option among degraded alternatives, including domestic service and factory work, and that was good enough.

The reason that public secondary schools could seem a route to class mobility was that education had long been a critical marker of class. In the early republic, only daughters of men of wealth and standing could secure an education at young ladies’ seminaries, institutions opened following the Revolution as a means of securing ‘‘republican mothers’’ for a new citizenry. Beginning in the Northeast and spreading west and south in the nineteenth century, the common-school movement offered free primary education to all children. Often set in a rural one-room school with students ranging in age from six to twenty, the nineteenth-century common school attempted to fulfill the democratic promise of the republic by educating an intelligent citizenry.

At the secondary level, though, until the 1850s and thereafter students would need to pay, either at young ladies’ seminaries, Catholic convent schools, or at the privately funded ‘‘academies,’’ many of them coeducational, that were scattered throughout the Northeast. Catholic convent schools and young ladies’ Protestant seminaries both offered religious programs taught by staffs of mostly unmarried women.

That the two venues shared many fundamental principles emerges in the enthusiasm with which Protestant men of property, especially in the West, supported ‘‘the Sisters’’ in their project of supplying schools for their daughters. In fact, the efforts of Catharine Beecher, an early–nineteenth century advocate for female education, were in part competitive, as the Catholic orders began to build a significant network of secondary girls’ schools, numbering 202 in 1860. Some convent schools in the West educated more non-Catholics than Catholics and advertised their openness to Jews as well.

The founding of the public high school was an outgrowth of the same Jacksonian, democratic principles which promoted elementary, common schools. The first ‘‘free’’ high schools opened in the 1820s, and indeed Massachusetts directed its towns of more than five hundred families to build high schools in 1827. Many of the early high schools subsequently closed, though, and the public high school movement in Massachusetts languished until the 1850s. (One early high school, Boston’s Girls’ High School, apparently closed shortly after it opened in 1826 because it was besieged with applications from more than three times the number of girls that it could accept.) It was only in the 1880s, according to one historian, that public high schools nationwide educated more students than private secondary schools.

It would be easy, though, to overestimate the distinctions between these high schools and one class of precursors, the private academies that preceded and coexisted with high schools scattered through the Northeast. Academies often drew on a diverse rural population, including farmers’ sons and daughters, and were not primarily designed to prepare students for colleges or more advanced learning.

The tributes accorded rural academies mirror twentieth- century tributes to the urban high school as the source of encouragement and social mobility for hardworking and able youths of humble background. Often early so-called public high schools were not in fact free, and equally often, local townships bore some of the costs of supporting local academies.

One other way in which public high schools resembled academies was that they were sometimes coeducational and sometimes single sex. Given the gendered divisions within nineteenth-century society, it made sense that citizens who proposed public secondary schools for youth initially imagined separate academies for girls and boys. The city of Boston, which opened the first publicly funded secondary schools, reflected that predisposition in its separate girls’ and boys’ high schools. Based on that prototype, Boston and a number of other northeastern urban school systems retained separate boys’ and girls’ high schools well into the twentieth century. (New York City’s famous all-girls’ high school, Hunter College, still reflects that heritage.)

The fact was, though, that the economics of school funding militated against sexually segregated schools. As it was, it was a hard sell to persuade taxpayers to support another tier of schooling on top of the commitment to primary grades. School districts founding high schools in the latter half of the nineteenth century concluded that there were neither the money nor the students to maintain two separate secondary systems.

In debating the merits of coeducation, the nation’s magazines—and especially a new journal, Education���vigorously debated what was largely a fait accompli by the late century. By 1890 a national advisory board announced: ‘‘The question in its practical aspect, is settled. . . . The public mind is made up.’’ Five years later, 94 percent of American cities provided only coeducational public high schools.

The debates about the relative merits of same-sex and coeducational learning for girls have been reignited in recent years, though, so it is of interest to consider the nineteenth-century evidence. How did girls’ descriptions of coeducational academies and public high schools compare with all-female seminaries and private girls’ day schools in curriculum, culture, and expectations? And how did both compare with the home environment and its domestic culture? Given the heterogeneity of nineteenth-century schooling, it is difficult to make useful generalizations. It is clear, though, that for different reasons but with similar impact, girls’ schools and coeducational high schools challenged the dominance of domesticity in defining girls’ lives and their expectations.”

- Jane H. Hunter, “Competitive Practices: Sentiment and Scholarship in Secondary Schools.” in How Young Ladies Became Girls: The Victorian Origins of American Girlhood

[lanformant]

Los Angeles Stereotypes

Written by Dante Augello Los Angeles is a big city with a lot of rich and famous people in it and this is something the entire world knows. This fact is probably the main reason there are so many stereotypes about LA and some of them are totally true. However living in LA and being very disconnected from many of those stereotypes myself, I find it of some importance to get some of these stereotypes straight.

“More than 780,000 people in Los Angeles spend 90% of their paycheck on rent. “

One stereotype that I love because of how untrue it is, and how lovely it would be if it were true, is that everyone in Los Angeles has a nice car or is rich. This one baffles me actually and I have heard some people from other states say it. The reason it is so confusing to me though is because of how famous Los Angeles is for being full of homeless people (about 70,000 in fact), illegal immigrants (who usually are not rich), and poor black neighborhoods where most of the county’s riots have taken place and where a lot of west coast rap came from.

So I say to you who think that Los Angeles is all rich people in nice cars, no it’s not. And that leads me to another stereotype that is 100% true; Los Angeles is full of homeless people. Yes it isVery very full of homeless people. There are many reasons for this homelessness but it probably stems from the 1980s when Ronald Reagan decided to defund mental health facilities putting thousands of mentally disabled people on the streets.

Also at the end of the cold war, the jobs in the defense industry dwindled, many of which were based in Los Angeles. They were replaced with minimum wage jobs that could not support the high cost of living in Los Angeles. 

More than 780,000 people in Los Angeles spend 90% of their paycheck on rent. Another stereotype that makes a lot of sense actually is that everyone in Los Angeles everyone wants to or does work in the entertainment industry. The truth is no not everyone works in the entertainment industry and many come here for other jobs as it is usually a bustling economy for construction, engineering, and many other jobs. Only about 250,000 people work in the entertainment industry here, which in the entire county amounts to just about 2.4% of the 10.4 million inhabitants. No, unfortunately, most of us here in Los Angeles are not included in the nepotism fueled industry of film and entertainment.  Most people here actually work for low paying corporations like grocery stores and other large stores. There are a lot of construction workers here too. It’s futile to list the amounts of people in different industries because as it is for every big city, we need all kinds of people to keep it running. If it were run completely by the entertainment industry I assume the entire city would not only go completely bankrupt in a few days but be a vain, prima-donna in the process. That is another stereotype about Los Angeles; Everyone in Los Angeles is vain and obsessed with their looks. This stereotype is definitely more true than in many other cities, however, the word “everyone” is a little much. Yes there are more people here who make their money around the way they look and many of them are vain, but most people here are just like anyone else. If you want to avoid the people who are vain and obsessed with their looks, just don't build all your relationships around actors and models. That goes for any city.

A lot of people are friends with celebrities here. That's a very true stereotype. My dad is friends and neighbors with a celebrity cake maker, My grandmother lived next to the drummer from the foo fighters and works for fox studios with major actors all the time, and I was friends with Andy Dicks son. 

This is one of the only stereotypes I can relate to. Most people here either directly know, have family who knows or had a friend who knows some kind of celebrity, which is not weird at all considering most of them live here.

However, most people are not friends with the really big stars, which leads to my next stereotype; people in Los Angeles don't get star struck. They do. When someone sees a major celebrity most people can’t help but talk about it for the rest of forever until its the last thing you ever want to talk about. 

Sometimes even with lesser-known celebrities. Seeing the most popular celebrities though is something that most people tend to be starstruck by here and everywhere else.

“I can guarantee that the stereotype of bad traffic in Los Angeles is definitely true.”

Los Angeles is full of stereotypes and that's not unusual for any big city. The fact is most stereotypes are over-generalizations of issues or traits that maybe just a little more pronounced in a particular subject. Los Angeles is no exception. A lot of stereotypes about LA are false just like stereotypes in general. However, some are totally true. Especially the ones about traffic, but take your stereotypes with a grain of salt. No matter what the subject.

[la-muerte]

Recap from debate:

Great substantive Presidential debate on issues! Just what the American people wanted. The moderator did a good job as well.

So what did we learn:

Biden will raise taxes/Trump lower them

Biden will phase out and kill the oil industry/ Trump will keep us energy independent protecting 10 million jobs while America leads the world in environmental controls

Biden will legalize 11 million aliens/ Trump is for slow safe fair legal immigration

Biden will socialize medicine/ Trump will keep it private

Biden will require masks nation wide and would rather pay business and schools to stay closed/ Trump will open the country both schools and businesses

Biden is pro late term abortion/ Trump is pro life

Biden can’t tell you who he would put on supreme court/ Trump nominated three and has a list of more if needed all strict constitutionalists who support 2A, and pro life

Biden made a mistake when he voted to lock people up for long sentences/ Trump got criminal justice reform passed with bipartisan support

Biden wants to raise federal minimum wage causing inflation and unemployment/ Trump says states should decide because each state has a different cost of living and he doesn’t want to burden small business recovering from the pandemic

Biden wants the Green New Deal which would ban air travel, ban gas cars making autos more expensive and out of reach for many poor Americans. He wants you to drive five hours in your electric car then stop at his”his” electric charging station wait in line then take a few hours charging then get back on the road and repeat this process three times before you get to grandmas 1000 miles away/ Trump wants you to stop for 10 min fill up on cheap $2 a gallon gas and keep on going getting there many hours sooner. Trump wants you to keep flying, not force you to buy electric cars, reconsidered the cost benefit to the environment wind energy brings.

Biden at 77 would be 81 at end of first term/ Trump is 74 at end first term

Biden’s son made money off his dad being VP/ Trumps Ivanka and Jared work for free at the White House where Ivanka fights human trafficking and Jared brokered two Middle East Peace deals

Biden has Harris/ Trump has Pence

Biden spent 47 years in office/ Trump spent 3.5 and favors term limits for congress

Biden has 0 Law Enforcement Associations support/ Trump has all of them

Biden is for gun regulation/ Trump protects 2A

Biden got 100s of millions in campaign contributions from Facebook Twitter and Google/ Trump will regulate them and break them up for their violations of free speech silencing conservative voices

Biden is against tariffs on China/ Trump used the tariffs to help farmers and brought back manufacturing jobs from China

Biden has 10 cars at a drive in rally/ Trump has 10,000 in the venue and 10,000 waiting outside and does 10 x more rallies

Biden is for character/ Trump is for competency

Biden spoke of fear tonight and 200,000 Covid deaths by Christmas/ Trump promised a vaccine by Christmas

Biden says climate change is an existential threat meaning we are all going to die in 9 years/ Trump says we got to get China and Russia and India to stop polluting before we make a climate deal otherwise our companies will not be able to compete if the US companies are the only ones following low carbon emissions standards

Biden says hire more teachers and make classrooms smaller/ Trump says give em school choice

Biden says free community college/ Trump says create jobs

Biden says free health care/ Trump says price transparency and favored nation status with big pharmaceuticals will drive prices down. Which is want you want to do before you negotiate a new healthcare plan. Start with low costs so your plans are not locked into inflated prices

Again a great debate now we can look at the issues and see who has a better track record most recently and after prayer we vote.

Thanks for reading my analysis.

🇺🇸

#TRUMP2020

[mariamotrero]

Lack of Money due to Forgotten Opportunities

The current society is divided in different social classes and economic systems. There are people that lack of money, people that have low incomes, middle class and upper class. In Colombia we tend to see a lot of homeless on the street and with the pandemic going on they are seen way more on the street. Ask yourself, why people that lack of opportunities and money continue living that way? It might be because these people have no other option rather than living this way or they do not have the sufficient capacities for a job. Also, there might be different reasons such as the capitalism system current society uses or maybe they prefer living that way; Capitalism can be a good system since it allows people to live in better conditions and lets them create their own businesses, but it has some imperfections that might be the cause of poverty for others. 

 Nowadays the society that people consider normal is the one where people can work and do other stuff to reach a better economic condition compared to the one, they were born in or live in. People can create their own businesses about things they like and get profits from it that permits them to have a better life. This is not the only way in which people can ascend economically, since there are other options to obtain money; people can also work in stores, restaurants and as any other store employee to get the money they need to live in a good way and to be able to save some money, to spend it on vacations, gifts or in something that can help them generate some money and sell it again for a higher price.  However, we must take into account that an employee's salary is not the only priority, the employer must pay the employees a great amount of money that ensures the employees are living good condition; their health, household expenses and transport. Also, we must mention that the minimum wage is different in every country, in some places is lower and in other is higher, but this depends in the living cost of every country; in USA as an example the hourly minimum wage is about 7.25$ and in Colombia the hourly 1minimum wage is of 2.66$ (Word Population Review, 2021) but many things like food or other necessities would have a higher price in US than in Colombia. So, this permits that the things people must pay for and the amount they earn working is balanced. 

 Daily we see poor, homeless people in the streets, there might be a lot of reasons why they are living that way, although in some cases, people are guilty of their own situations. As an example, everyday there are a lot of opportunities that people can have and, in those ways, gain a lot of money, however, the problem starts when people don’t know how to handle the money received, so they can get big amounts of money every month but if they don’t use it well and spend it on things that are not important, they can lose everything, even reach bankruptcy, at the end without opportunities and without a way to live in good conditions. In the same way, people do not have the income for basic needs because they do not take advantage of the opportunities that are given to them, such as studies, jobs, money, housing and more. A lot of people have the opportunity to study in a school with great education but for some reason they do not take advantage of that benefit, instead they play around or leave school work behind, so when they are looking for a job that pays a good amount of money, they will not have much facility to have one due to lack of study and knowledge, and might end up not living in a good way.  An example of this, or an evidence is when parents work hard for their kids to have a good education but the children give up on their education and don’t prioritize it so when they are older, they might not have the same opportunities as their classmates and live off pensions. Another clear example of why these people live in this way is the number of poor Venezuelans in Colombian streets. As Daniel Prado BBC world correspondent in Colombia (2021) says, “Of the almost two million Venezuelans in the country, 90% live in the informal economy and 56% do not have a regular immigration status. This prevents them from receiving social and economic services from the State, having a formal job, renting a property, opening a bank account, accessing the public health system or, when the opportunity arises, being vaccinated against covid-19". They prefer to do nothing, receive help and not accept job offers. Sometimes being on the streets allows them to make more money than having a job that pays the minimum wage. 

 Capitalism could be a bad system because in it many people live in poor or low conditions and the society and the government do tend to do nothing about it, as an example the government and politicians steal people's money with corruption. Some people do things in an incorrect way to get more and more money. This happens because having a lot of money is part of the things that the current society is interested in. However, not everyone has the opportunities because of family situations or economic past. Another huge disadvantage when getting a job is when people suffer from a disability that makes it difficult for them to work in well-paying jobs. As some authors say:

“This form of Capitalism is profoundly mistaken and directs change toward extreme inequality, widespread human suffering, and degradation of the planet. However, other forms of Capitalism can be just as powerful as change engines and do a better job of aligning self-interest with the common good. These forms of Capitalism work, not by replacing traditional moral systems with a price system, but by scaling up the essential elements of traditional moral systems” (View Life, 2020) . 

Besides, capitalism is not a perfect system because even though that is looks for equality, not always this goal is achieved, due to the fact that many people that are in extreme poor conditions will never have a better, it is really hard for the government and for them to live in a better way.

To conclude, most of the people that live in a badly off life live this way because they do not take advantages of opportunities given, they do not manage their money in a good way or they don't have the enough knowledge for a job. We should also take into account Capitalism since it can make people live-in high-end conditions, but on the other hand it does not help part of the population and places them in lower social conditions. Therefore, people should start looking for decent job opportunities, in places they will feel comfortable and will be able to have a balanced life. Don’t let things go; take advantage of opportunities given. All we have is now, and people should realize that in a future all these problems of poverty are going to be the same or worse if people don’t handle money correctly. We should learn to invest the little amount of money that can help to leave from poverty and life a happy and decent life.  

References:

Word Population Review (2021) Minimin Wage by Country 2021, World Population Review. Taken from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/minimum-wage-by-country

BBC News Mundo. (2021, February 11). Migrantes venezolanos en Colombia: qué derechos tendrán cuando regularicen su situación. Taken from https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-56019820#:%7E:text=De%20los%20casi%20dos%20millones,migratorio%20regular%2C%20seg%C3%BAn%20cifras%20oficiales.

Publius. (April 14, 2020). Why Capitalism Fails. Web site of this view of life. Taken from: https://thisviewoflife.com/why-capitalism-fails/  

[jennymanrique]

How communities can heal post-pandemic

Experts warn that even if the United States reaches the elusive herd immunity, closing the growing inequality gaps separating low-income communities of color from the rest of the country will require more work.

Health care and education disparities. Lack of affordable housing. Racism and police abuse. Job loss. These are just a few of the inequity gaps — exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic — that face low-income communities of color. Professionals who work with them directly say closing those gaps will require a complicated healing process.

“We know COVID is the disease that has revealed our illness as a society: the valleys of inequality that pre-existed COVID have been flooded with the tsunami of the disease,” said Manuel Pastor, University of Southern California Distinguished Professor of Sociology and American Studies & Ethnicity and Turpanjian Chair in Civil Society and Social Change, speaking at a May 7 briefing hosted by Ethnic Media Services.

Many mixed-status families that included undocumented immigrants were locked out of federal assistance until the March 2021 passage of the American Rescue Act, Pastor said. Now they are “kind of reluctant to tap in, because they’re worried that may count against them if there’s eventually a route to legalization in the future.”

Two-thirds of California’s undocumented immigrants have been in the country for more than a decade and are waiting for Congress to work out their path to citizenship. COVID has affected them like no other population because lack of insurance, mistrust and fear have prevented them from accessing health services.

“Every state relief program should try to think about what it can do to be fully accessible to undocumented Californians,” said Pastor, who also sits on the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Last summer, the California Healthy Places Index indicated that the virus was going to devastate Blacks, Latinos and Asians, but the state did not bring COVID tests to those communities. Without data on positivity rates, counties couldn’t determine how safe it would be to reopen.

California decided to allocate 40% of vaccines to the 25% of communities that scoring worst on this index. Local mobile clinics receive doses, mobilize trusted messengers and run campaigns to encourage vaccination.

Still, the initial vaccine rollout was “a recipe for racial inequality,” added Pastor. Doses were available to anyone of a certain age category or occupation, but the older populations are overwhelmingly white while younger populations belong to communities of color.

“It could be argued that everyone in that age category had an equal shot at getting the vaccine, as long as they had a computer (to make the appointment), high-speed Internet, a job where they could take three hours off in the middle of the day to chase down a vaccine, and access to a car, rather than mass transit,” said Pastor.

Education is another gap area for communities of color. They’ve experienced a tremendous loss in learning and, despite the reopening of schools, are the most reluctant to come back. Black and brown families who suffered from the virus in their homes are afraid to send their children to places where they may be infected, and the digital divide has accentuated students’ difficulties in keeping up with their homework.

In Los Angeles County, 13% of K through 12 white children lacked a computer with high-speed Internet, but for black and Latino children, the figure was around 40%, Pastor said.

He added that the pandemic also has disproportionately affected the incomes of communities of color. While it has not caused a 2008-like recession, which hit the economy evenly, we’re facing a “micro recession.” Stock markets and property are up, so the wallets of people with annual incomes of more than $100,000 are unaffected, but those at the bottom of the labor market have lost income, employment and wages.

Mental health is yet another area of disparity, Pastor said. “The level of mental health trauma is high and we need to have culturally sensitive mental health resources available. We need to destigmatize the issue, make it be seen as something that is social and at the community level, not just your individual failing, so people feel confident accessing those resources.”

The Community Coalition, founded in South Los Angeles by Congresswoman Karen Bass, is one example of fostering post-pandemic healing by having multiracial, multigenerational communities generate the solutions they need.

Leslie Johnson, Vice President of Organizational Development at Community Coalition, told the briefing that it launched a website in English and Spanish that allows residents to check on their emotional health, instituted a teletherapy program with licensed therapists of color, and held healing circles in local parks to address “the devastating impact (of COVID) all around on physical, financial and mental health.”

She added that targeted funding and having elected officials understand these kinds of interventions are essential: “Racism is the true pandemic that we are fighting against. COVID-19 has exacerbated a lot of pre-existing conditions in our community that are fostered by institutional racism and white supremacy. We must call for solutions that are bold, not just at the individual level but at the systems level.”

Community Coalition has raised funds to buy personal protective equipment, made direct cash payments to families to help cover rent and utilities, provided laptops and hardware to students and installed Internet hotspots. It also offered Pfizer vaccinations in a local park, including nighttime appointments so people wouldn’t have to miss work.

Los Angeles will receive about $1.3 billion from the federal government from the American Rescue Plan. With its share of those resources, The Community Coalition will make loans to women business owners, help people with rent and mortgage payments and utilities, and increase youth employment opportunities.

Originally published here

Want to read this piece in Spanish? Click here

[chilifrylizard]

So a relative on Facebook has this list of claim of bad things Biden has done and they’re literally all untrue/misconstrued. The picture of these is at the bottom so you can see what I’m talking about. I wrote a whole thing refuting each one but I don’t want to start drama so I thought I’d share it here:

I am unsure what source is providing the number of 53,000. However, on the website for the company building the pipeline that Biden is against, the jobs lost estimated near 11,000. While not great, we have to keep in mind that these jobs were temporary construction positions that would have lasted 4-8 months. This means that many employees would not have a job after that anyways and would need to find a different job, just like if they were never hired in the first place

They are correct on this one. He has ended energy independence. I personally do not think that’s such a bad thing though,l.

While Canada has expressed displeasure over Biden’s order to stop the pipeline from being built they are not suing him or his administration. Texas is suing Biden, they are correct there.

This is another one where they are partially correct. While protests are happening in these areas I would not consider it to be “burning them down”. The only burning that happened was when 1 small group burned an American flag. The “worst” thing they’ve done other than that is vandalism, which while not great, is not on the same level as destroying cities.

I would like to first open this by saying the national guard would not have had to have been there if not for the riots in support of trump. However, yes, they did have their break areas in the parking garages. None of them were forced to stay there- they all had hotels. Some of the hotels were further away, and soldiers were taking any chance they could get to rest. They were not living in the parking garages. As for the bathroom thing- yes that was bad.

I honestly think on this one that they are misunderstanding what it means. Boys are not going to be suddenly playing against girls. People aren’t just getting to decide where they play. I honestly don’t think that any self respecting boy would go through the trouble of pretending to be a transgender girl in all aspects of their life just to play agaisnt girls in sports to look good/talented. That’s a lot of work, and I’m sure they’d have to keep up the low pretty much everywhere if they were to stay on the team. I don’t think anyone is willing to do that

The order he signed is not one requiring a mask. It simply says on federal property you need to follow CDC guidelines. Because Biden is outside and largely alone, he is within these guidelines. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-violate-mask-mandate/

Biden has frozen deportations for those who are not criminals (other than illegally entering) or have recently entered for 100 days only. This is to allow the government to review the immigration policies. This also means that the people currently being held in cages and inhumane conditions will not be there for these 100 days. This is subject to change, depending on the conclusions they make.

For republicans this is actually a GOOD thing. Especially because in Texas, this means they will have 2 more seats in congress. Having them in the census does not mean that they can vote or anything, they’re just being counted as the populations, because you know, illegal or not they’re physically there.

Biden can not eliminate the COVID-19 pandemic in 4 days. The vaccine is rolling out and they are clearly making it more important to follow guidelines. There’s not much else he can do right now.

While certainly nearly met by Trump, I don’t see the issue with Biden sticking to the same goal. 1,000,000 a day is good no matter who it’s coming from

This is untrue, as the DOE has already frozen student loan payments until September

The reason stimulus checks are not out right away is because the hill has to go through Congress. If you want to blame someone, blame congress. It is currently estimated that they will be out by April.

He has paused it for 60 days. Pausing previous presidents policies is common. If he were to actually rescind it, I would agree, that’s a really bad thing.

I’m unsure where this fact is coming from. Is it because of COVID that these wages were lost? Because that was definitely happening when Trump was president too. Biden is actively working to get his stimulus plan through and is raising the minimum wage

This is true. However the same thing has been happening for multiple years before this. The timing of this one could definitely be signaled towards scaring Biden, but they were also doing it during Trumps presidency

Honestly people just need to do research. I’m happy to provide my sources if anyone wants them

[bustedbernie]

In 2007, Sanders voted six times to block the comprehensive immigration reform bill which would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States. Eight years later, Sanders said he did not regret those votes.

Sanders has repeatedly used rhetoric that says guest workers and H-1B visas reduced wages for American workers and took jobs away from Americans.

In 2007, Sanders said, “Instead of paying better wages and benefits, they want to import cheaper workers.”

In 2007, a Sanders press release stated, “At a time when the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages it makes no sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years, would bring millions of ‘guest workers' into this country who are prepared to work for lower wages than American workers.”

In 2007, Sanders said, “there are those in this Chamber and across the country who are very concerned that in many instances the H-1B program is being used not to supplement American high-tech workers when they might be needed but instead is being used to replace them with foreign workers who are willing to work for substantially lower wages.”

In 2013, a Sanders press release stated, “One of the areas I have serious concerns about and want to see improved as the bill progresses is the huge increase in guest worker programs. At a time when unemployment remains extremely high, these programs bring hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers into our economy making it harder for U.S. citizens to find jobs.”

In 2013, Sanders said, “At a time when nearly 14 percent of the American people do not have a full-time job, at a time when the middle class continues to disappear, and at a time when tens of millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, it makes no sense to me that the immigration reform bill includes a massive increase in temporary guest worker programs that will allow large corporations to import and bring into this country hundreds of thousands of temporary blue-collar and white-collar guest workers from overseas. That makes no sense to me.”

In 2013, Sanders said of guest worker programs, “this is a massive effort to attract cheap labor, a great disservice to American workers.”

In 2015, Sanders said, “There is a reason why Wall Street and all of corporate America likes immigration reform. And it is not that they are staying up nights worrying about undocumented workers in this country. What I think they are interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to depress wages in America, and I strongly disagree with that.”

In 2015, Sanders said, “So to my view is of course we need a path toward citizenship for undocumented workers, of course we should not be dividing up families, of course I support the DREAM Act, but I do worry that corporate America and the big money interests of course want to bring cheap labor into this country in guest worker programs and continue the race to the bottom, something which is devastating to this country and forcing millions of people in this country to work longer hours for low wages.”

Sanders’s rhetoric on immigration reform has been criticized. FWD.us president: “It’s troubling – because at a high level, he accepts the utterly false premise that our economy is zero-sum, and putting forward the totally-debunked notion that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting Americans – specifically young people, Latinos, and AfricanAmericans.” Dylan Matthews: So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea [“open borders”] when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein.”

Sanders voted for a waste removal compact that moved radioactive waste from Maine and Vermont to a dump site near a tiny community in Sierra Blanca, Texas. Sanders said the compact was “good environmental policy” and said he was “in strong support of the bill.” Critics of the deal said that the site was not only environmentally unsound, but also near a small community that was low income and largely Hispanic. The compact was opposed by LULAC and the NAACP, and a local opponent to the deal called it "environmental racism."

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Pluralistic: 10 Mar 2020 (Pandemic firewalls, water neoliberalism meets covid, Piketty backs Sanders, Sonos stops bricking, Brave vs canvas attacks)

Today's links

Safe and moral societies need "firewalls" between immigration and public services: The UK's "hostile environment" puts everyone at risk.

Detroit will reconnect water services during the Covid-19 emergency: But it's $25/month thereafter.

Thomas Piketty endorses Sanders: both his program and his electability.

Sonos "recycling mode" no longer bricks working speakers: Fire the person who came up with this deeply shitty idea.

Brave will randomize browser profiles to fight fingerprinting attacks: More from the most privacy-friendly browser.

This day in history: 2005, 2010

Colophon: Recent publications, current writing projects, upcoming appearances, current reading

Safe and moral societies need "firewalls" between immigration and public services (permalink)

The UK took the decision to "create a hostile environment" for migrants, which entails denying medical care to those who can't prove their entitlement to it. Seeking care in the UK comes with threats to your residency and/or titanic bills.

http://crookedtimber.org/2020/03/10/covid-19-and-migration-we-need-a-firewall/

This creates enormous deterrents to seeking medical care, which means that migrants – disproportionately found in low-waged jobs including cleaning and food service – are less likely to seek care or present themselves for testing if they develop symptoms. It also means that they're not entitled to paid leave, which means that potentially infectious people are being incentivised to turn up for work.

In "The Ethics of Immigration," Joseph Carens argues for a "firewall" between public services and immigration enforcement, specifically to address situations like these (and also related issues, like spousal abuse, child abuse, etc).

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-ethics-of-immigration-9780199933839

A civilised society shouldn't put people at risk of violence in order to attain its immigration goals.

A healthy society – one that contains the spread of pandemics – can't afford to put its immigration goals ahead of these matters.

It's both ethical and pragmatic.

Likewise (and doubly so) for the refugee gulags created Greece and Australia. It's not only inhumane to deprive the people in these camps of care – it's also a way to create and sustain reservoirs of illness that will spread into your general population.

As Chris Bertram writes, "[Authoritarians will] use COVID-19 to advance their nationalist and anti-immigrant agenda. Journalists need to ask them what they are doing to stop that very agenda from having consequences that shame and endanger us all."

Detroit will reconnect water services during the Covid-19 emergency (permalink)

Michigan has been a living laboratory for neoliberal cruelty, as gerrymandering has allowed the rich white people to dominate the state, stripmine its public assets, and privatize its services, leading to mass evictions (and the lead crisis in Flint).

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/detroit-to-restore-water-service-to-unpaid-homes-to-allow-people-to-wash-their-hands-to-avoid-coronavirus

In Detroit, many people are without (substandard) water, as they've been faced with the choice of paying rent or paying the water bill. This means that they can't wash their hands. So the state of Michigan and the city of Detroit have teamed up to turn on peoples' water during the crisis. The reconnection fee of $25 (a tax on poor people) will be picked up by the state. But it will be $25/month afterwards.

Many people will be able to afford the $25/month. Some will not. Who doesn't have $25/month for water? The poorest, most vulnerable people, who are disproportionately likely to be immunocompromised and susceptible to Covid-19.

Michigan – whose neoliberal belief in "moral hazard" dictates that poor people should not have benefits – has engineered a situation in which the state is full of desperately poor people who will sicken the people around them.

If you or someone you love in Detroit has no water, you can get your service reconnected starting tomorrow at 313-386-9727.

Thomas Piketty endorses Sanders (permalink)

Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century quantified the rise of inequality, provided evidence for the policies that create and preserve it, and warned of the social instability it engenders (that is, guillotines).

https://boingboing.net/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in-t.html

Piketty's Capital was notable for laying out a rigorous, quantitative basis for the left's concerns over inequality, and it also rebutted the right's idea that inequality was an emergent property of meritocracy. Boris Johnson once told City bankers: when you shake a cornflake box, the big flakes rise to the top and the little flakes sink to the bottom.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/28/boris-johnson-iq-comments

Piketty showed that the most reliable predictor of increased wealth over time wasn't accomplishment, it was wealth. Rich people get richer, regardless of whether they contribute to society. Poor people generally don't, no matter what they contribute.

Today, Piketty has endorsed Bernie Sanders's candidacy, policies, and electability, applying the same rigor to these that he applied to his time-series data on capital flows and inequality.

https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/piketty/2020/03/10/sanders-to-the-aid-of-democracy-in-the-united-states/

It "is not an 'extremist' statement" to say that Medicare for All will "enable the American population to be cared for more efficiently and more cheaply than the present private and extremely unequal system."

"Sanders is right when he proposes large-scale public investment in favour of education and public universities…The failure of [Reagan-style education policy] is patent today with growth of national income per capita being halved and an unprecedented rise in inequality."

Piketty endorses a $15 federal minimum wage: "Learn from the experiences in co-management and voting rights for employees on the Boards of Directors of firms implemented successfully in Germany and in Sweden for decades."

On a wealth tax that tops at 8%: "this corresponds to the reality of the excessive concentration of wealth in the United States and the fiscal and administrative capacities of the American federal state, which has already been demonstrated historically."

And on polls: "The problem of the repeated assertions that Biden would be better placed to beat Trump is that they have no objective factual basis… Sanders mobilises the working-class electorate more than Biden.. mobilises the vast majority of the Latino vote and crushes Biden amongst the 18-29 years age group, as he does in the 30-44 years group…Sanders has the best scores amongst the underprivileged… whereas Biden, on the contrary, has the best scores amongst the most privileged.

"The highest potential for mobilisation is amongst the most underprivileged social categories.

"…The cynical, and unfortunately very commonplace vision amongst the Democratic elites, that nothing can be done to mobilise further the working-class vote, is extremely dangerous. This cynicism weakens the legitimacy of the democratic electoral system itself."

If you (like me) loved Warren's campaign because it appealed to the wonk in you, then this should be of real significance. Piketty is the wonk's wonk, an expert whose key work is a 15-year-long study of 300 years' worth of capital flows, which shifted the global debate.

Piketty's endorsement of Warren's wealth tax was hugely important. His endorsement of Sanders' entire program, and Sanders' electability, is even more important at this phase of the battle to abolish Trumpism and save our planet.

(Image: Sue Gardner, CC BY-SA)

Sonos "recycling mode" no longer bricks working speakers (permalink)

When you get rid of a Sonos product – either through a trade in or disposal – the company advised you to trigger "recycling mode" to wipe your account data. But this didn't wipe the speaker – it bricked it.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/03/sonos-backtracks-on-bricking-your-trade-ins-will-allow-reuse/

IOW: invoking the Sonos "recycling mode" made your device into e-waste (if you want to wipe your personal data, you could just factory reset the speaker).

Thankfully, the company has seen the error of its ways. The app no longer has the "recycle mode" option. The company is working on an alternative (which, one hopes, will not be as malicious and deceptive as the previous version). The reason for bricking devices is obvious: it eliminates competition from used devices. The reasons not to do it are also obvious: it's terrible.

Whomever came up with this policy at Sonos is a colossal asshole. The whole company should be ashamed. I am a Sonos customer (bought Sonos One speakers when they started making a model with no mic) and I enjoy them, but I don't know that I'll ever trust the company.

Brave will randomize browser profiles to fight fingerprinting attacks (permalink)

Brave is one of the two browsers I use every day (the other is Firefox). I really like the company's approach to privacy and user-control, which is deeply embedded in their culture (unlike Mozilla, Brave fought against DRM in browsers at the W3C, for example).

One of the risks to web privacy is "canvas" or "fingerprinting" attacks, which identifies users by the unique attributes of their browsers (version, OS, fonts, plugins, screen size, etc). EFF has been sounding the alarm about this for years.

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

This has gone from "theoretical risk" to "main tool for user tracking" in a few short years. Browsers take different approaches to fighting these attacks, but I like Brave's: it's going to randomize browser data when it's requested by servers.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/brave-to-generate-random-browser-fingerprints-to-preserve-user-privacy/

Brave says the other tactics used to block fingerprinting are "useless" and describes how randomization is more effective, citing peer-reviewed studies to support its case.

https://brave.com/whats-brave-done-for-my-privacy-lately-episode3/

This is the kind of best-practice that ever browser vendor should be adopting. Of course, we also need a federal privacy bill with a private right of action, and until we get one, this is doubly important.

This day in history (permalink)

#15yrsago Israeli Army thinks D&D players are weak-minded security risks https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3052074,00.html

#10yrsago TSA analyst indicted for tampering with terrorist watchlists https://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/339185/former_tsa_analyst_charged_computer_tampering/

Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources: Naked Capitalism (https://nakedcapitalism.com/) and Slashdot (https://slashdot.org).

Hugo nominators! My story "Unauthorized Bread" is eligible in the Novella category and you can read it free on Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/

Upcoming appearances:

Museums and the Web: March 31-April 4 2020, Los Angeles. https://mw20.museweb.net/

LA Times Festival of Books: 18 April 2020, Los Angeles. https://events.latimes.com/festivalofbooks/

Currently writing: I'm rewriting a short story, "The Canadian Miracle," for MIT Tech Review. It's a story set in the world of my next novel, "The Lost Cause," a post-GND novel about truth and reconciliation. I'm also working on "Baby Twitter," a piece of design fiction also set in The Lost Cause's prehistory, for a British think-tank. I'm getting geared up to start work on the novel afterwards.

Currently reading: Just started Lauren Beukes's forthcoming Afterland: it's Y the Last Man plus plus, and two chapters in, it's amazeballs. Last month, I finished Andrea Bernstein's "American Oligarchs"; it's a magnificent history of the Kushner and Trump families, showing how they cheated, stole and lied their way into power. I'm getting really into Anna Weiner's memoir about tech, "Uncanny Valley." I just loaded Matt Stoller's "Goliath" onto my underwater MP3 player and I'm listening to it as I swim laps.

Latest podcast: Disasters Don't Have to End in Dystopias: https://craphound.com/podcast/2020/03/01/disasters-dont-have-to-end-in-dystopias/

Upcoming books: "Poesy the Monster Slayer" (Jul 2020), a picture book about monsters, bedtime, gender, and kicking ass. Pre-order here: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781626723627?utm_source=socialmedia&utm_medium=socialpost&utm_term=na-poesycorypreorder&utm_content=na-preorder-buynow&utm_campaign=9781626723627

(we're having a launch for it in Burbank on July 11 at Dark Delicacies and you can get me AND Poesy to sign it and Dark Del will ship it to the monster kids in your life in time for the release date).

"Attack Surface": The third Little Brother book, Oct 20, 2020.

"Little Brother/Homeland": A reissue omnibus edition with a very special, s00per s33kr1t intro.

[realitysangle]

Okay, I’ve read Joe Biden’s plans.

I’ve just sat down and spent several hours actually reading all the damn plans on his website, the whole thing, so you don’t have to. And here’s the conclusion:

They’re pretty good.

Are they absolutely everything we want immediately? Maybe not. Are they a solid Democratic agenda anyway? Yes they are. Are they better than Trump?

Light years!

His Violence Against Women plan is lengthy, detailed, and pays specific attention to violence against Native, lesbian and bisexual, low-income, disabled, rural, transgender (especially trans women of color) immigrant, domestic abuse victims, and other vulnerable women. He calls for replacing and expanding Obama-era policies and funding for campus sexual assault programs that DeVos trashed, and for providing money for culturally specific services that are sensitive to the diverse backgrounds of survivors. He also notes that sexual assault, while it predominantly affects women and girls, needs to be taken seriously and addressed for people of all gender identities.

His gun safety plan is forceful and lays out several steps for banning assault weapons, taking existing weapons from offenders, closing gun purchase background check and other legal loopholes, addressing the intersection between domestic violence and weapons ownership, and reducing or eliminating weapons and ammunition stockpiling.

His plan for tackling climate change and creating green jobs is also lengthy. He makes the connection between economic, environmental, and racial justice. He pledges to immediately rejoin the Paris Agreement and restore American leadership on the issue in pushing for even stronger climate standards, make climate change a central part of our trade, international, and justice goals, demand a worldwide ban on fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks (!!!) and if the Green New Deal is passed, to sign it, as well as for the U.S. to achieve 100% clean energy and zero percent net emissions by 2050.

His healthcare plan is decent. It offers an immediate public option for all Americans regardless of private, employer, or no coverage, and generous new tax credits to put toward the cost of coverage. It strongly protects abortion rights and federal funding for Planned Parenthood, as well as rescinding the “gag rule” that prevents U.S. federal aid money from being used to provide or even talk about abortions in NGOs abroad. It attacks generic and drug price gouging. It calls for doubling the capital gains tax on the super-wealthy (from 20% to 39.5% paid on capital gains by anyone making over $1 million) to help fund healthcare reform. He also has a separate plan on the opioid crisis in America, and on older Americans and retirement, including the protection and re-funding of Medicare and Social Security.

His immigration plan is lengthy and detailed. He apologizes for and acknowledges the excessive deportation that occured during the Obama-Biden administrations, pledges to do better, and attacks Trump’s current inhumane acitivities on every front. The policy of children in cages, indefinite detention, the metered asylum system, and the Muslim Ban are gone on day one. In this and his LGBTQ plan, he notes the vulnerability of LGBTQ refugees, incuding LGBTQ refugees of color. He proposes streamlining of visa applications and prioritizing the immediate reunification of families. It also specifically states that ICE and CBP agents will be held directly accountable for inhumane treatment.

Speaking of which, his LGBTQ plan is comprehensive. It pays attention to multiple intersectional issues, down to the high rates of incarceration among trans people of color. (He also notes the rates of violence against trans women of color particularly.) He calls for a complete ban on conversion therapy and the discrimination against HIV-status individuals, as well as removing the ban on blood donation from gay and bisexual men. He will remove the transgender military ban immediately. He calls for funding for mental health and suicide prevention among LGBTQ populations.

His plan to empower workers calls for raising the federal minimum wage to $15, as well as indexing this to median hourly wages to ensure that working-class and middle-class wages grow closer to parity, and implementing strong legal protections for unions. He expresses support for striking workers and to empower the National Labor Relations Board in workplace advocacy. Farmworkers, domestic workers, gig economy workers, and other non-traditional labor groups are included in this. He will restore all Obama-Biden policies related to workplace safety and regulation.

His plan to restore American dignity and leadership in the world calls for immediately investing in election security and reform, restoration of the Voting Rights Act, immediately restoring White House press briefings and other Trump refusals of information, tackling criminal justice reform and systematic racial discrimination, calling for campaign finance reform, and basically blowing up all the stupid things the Trump administration does on a daily basis. It also calls for an end to all ongoing wars in the Middle East, restoring the Iran nuclear deal, and new arms control treaties with Russia, among general repairing of international alliances.

His plans for K-12 education and post-high school education call for greatly expanded funding across all levels of 2-year, 4-year, and other educational options. There will be no student loan payments for anyone making under $25,000 a year; everyone else will pay a capped amount and be completely forgiven after a certain period. Public servants qualify for up to $50,000 in loan forgiveness. This is not total loan forgiveness for everyone, which is obviously important for me and many of us, but it’s acceptable to start with. Additionally, his wife is a teacher and has a proven track record of calling for education investment and supporting public school funding.

His plan for housing addresses the needs of formerly incarcerated, LGBTQ, veteran, low-income, sexual assault survivor, black and Hispanic, and other vulnerable populations at risk of losing housing. It calls for a tax on companies and corporations with in excess of $50 billion in assets to fund comprehensive new housing initiatives, including $100 billion in accessible and low-income housing development. It includes extensive investment in public transportation and a high-speed rail system. This ties into his plan to repair infrastructure and invest in new technologies across the country.

His plan for criminal justice reform calls for the end of mass incarceration, the decriminalization of marijuana, the automatic expunging of all cannabis convictions, and an end on jail sentences for drug use. It highlights systematic institutional racism and the impact on black and brown people particularly. It calls for an end on all profiteering and private prisons. It focuses on reintegrating offenders into society and funding the needs of people released from prison. It proposes to “expand and use the power of the U.S. Justice Department to address systemic misconduct in police departments and prosecutors’ offices.” It broadens funding for social services and other programs for people who are otherwise placed into the prison pipeline.

There are more plans, which you can find here. These are the ones I read top to bottom. I am not by any means a Joe Biden fangirl; he was not my first choice, my second choice, or really anywhere on my list. However, having carefully read through his policy documents, I can say that:

He has at the least a good team of advisors who are keenly aware of the political climate, and is willing to both restore Obama-era standards and to improve on them where necessary. Obviously, all politicians’ promises are politicians’ promises, but this is a solid Democratic platform with obvious awareness of the progressive wing of the party.

If progressive legislation is passed in the House and Senate, he will sign it, including the Green New Deal.

He represents a clear and definite improvement over Donald Trump.

Is he everything we want? No. Are his policies better than I was expecting? Yes. I advise you to read through them for yourself. It has made me at least feel better about the likelihood of voting for him.

I realize it’s an unsexy position, especially on tumblr, to advocate for an old centrist white man. I’m not thrilled about having to do it. However, speaking as someone who was very resistant to Biden and still doesn’t agree with all of his previous legislative track record, that’s my consensus. He is a candidate who broadly aligns with values that I care about. His policies represent a concrete end to the damage of the Trump administration and gets us on the right track again.

Joe Biden, if he is the Democratic nominee, will receive my vote on November 3, 2020. I urge you to consider what I’ve laid out above and join me.

[smokeybrand]

The Rising Tide Raises All Ships

I don't understand people who are so ardently against social systems. Like, it's pulling eye-teeth just to have what little we do. I can't tell you how many f*cking time some MAGA cultist attacks food stamps or welfare like it's the worst thing ever but it's like, the ones who abuse it like you say, look like you. They don't look like me. There's always bad actors in any system, but if the majority carries on the way they should, then that system should function regardless. We know it can because it's being executed in real time, all over the world. There's a reason why the happiest places on earth, have the most expansive social welfare systems. Its fine to drive capitalism, no one's telling you not to work hard, but if we expanded those processes, everyone benefits. If everyone contributes a little more to the pool, all of our boats rise with the tide. I mean, seriously, if 2020 has taught us anything, it's that the systems we have in pace right now, don't work. They are easily exploited, easily manipulated, and completely counter intuitive to living life. There is a literal f*cking plague going on and our president is forcing people back to work and kids back to class because the economy. If that don't scream broke and needs fixing, I don't what does.

Free Healthcare means no worries going to the doctor. Paper cut, baby delivery, broken bone, or f*cking cancer, there'd be no stressing over how to pay those ridiculous bills. They wouldn't be ridiculous. I think in Canada an ambulance ride is, like, $230 dollars, average, depending on circumstances. In some places, it's as low as $45 and others, as high as $385. The average here in the States is closer to $1200 f*cking dollars. For just the ambulance. That's not even beginning to address the hospital visit and hope you don't an extended stay. These mother*ckers gave me a bill for close to $50,000 for my two week stay the first time I almost died. Bro, there's no way I am ever going to pay that. The f*ck is you saying? I read an account of someone going to the emergency room in the Philippines and it cost her $15 dollars. To see the doctor. It would have been free but she's not a citizen. More than anything, universal healthcare would force Big Pharma to price their medications appropriately. There would have affordable prescriptions for everyone. When I left my job, I lot my insurance. When I checked prices on my meds, just a single prescription was $400 f*cking dollars for one month's worth. In Canada, that prescription would have been $15. The ill thing? The $400 dollar one was the cheapest I could find stateside. I take five medications for my heart. Uninsured, I'd be dropping close to $3800 a month, on sh*t I need to live. Who the f*ck has a loose $3800 when they have to pay that much in rent every month? Insulin is, like, $300 for 10 days worth here. In Canada, it's f*cking $30. Sh*t's even cheaper in Egypt. Small businesses wouldn't have to worry about employee healthcare or anything like that. If you have more than two employees, the cost you save in insurance coverage is more than enough to offset that tax increase. You'd be able to actually pay a more livable wage, while pocketing more profit at the same time. How is any of this bad? How can you spin this sh*t as a negative?

Free education means a more literate populace. We wouldn't have near as many Anti-Vaxxers and Flat Earthers. Motherf*ckers would understand the science of social distancing and mask wearing during a goddamn pandemic. I wouldn't be so f*cking mad having to dumb myself down just to interact with society. If we follow the Nordic system, you get your four years worth of education, graduate with a proper degree, and get placed into a position immediately out of college to tenure in your focus for the next four years. It's not an internship but a real job. You not only get a degree, but you immediately start earning a living in that field, while accumulating experience. Once you complete your four year employment obligation, you can continue your employment, start the process  over with a new major in mind, or you're free to travel abroad with four years experience and a BA in your pocket. Not only would the populace be more literate, more people would be employed thus stimulating the economy. Those that enter into science and engineering, would have to innovate in their fields for four years, minimum, so you'd have hungry minds creating the future, just like back in the day when “America was great” or whatever. More education, means more jobs, means a stronger economy, means less crime. Again, how is this a bad thing? You wouldn't even have to do away with private college or studying whatever you want. If there wasn't a free program to take advantage of, just pay for your classes. I'm sure there'd still be grants and scholarship and financial aid available for aspiring painters or wannabe film makers, or any number of vanity degrees. F*ck it, man, if you want to go to Harvard just for the clout, you can still totally do that. F*ck, dude, you can do it after getting your free degree even. Graduate school, bro. Motherf*cker can be making six figures paying that stupid, clout chasing, tuition out of pocket because you can afford it with the job you got with that free degree. That's the beauty of the Nordic system; Everyone gets what they want.

That's just the surface of these benefits. I'm not even going to go into what universal income, maternity leave, vacation time, strong unions, and subsidized child care. I'm not even going to touch on how prisons over there are built to rehabilitate, not to humiliate and effectively enslave. For Profit prisons are the modern plantations. Look that sh*t up. I'm not even going to go into detail about the benefits collective legalization for all drugs and how crime plummeted because of it, or how they treat addiction like a mental illness and not a criminal offense, or the way they house their homeless and treat them humanely, while transitioning them into society with counseling, job placement, and social work. All of this, for, maybe, an extra hundred or two a year. That's, what? An extra $30 a month out of your check? Less than $10 a f*cking week? That one trip to Starbucks. That's two Quarter-Pounders. That's nothing. How does that math not work? How do these universal benefits, not jive with everyone? How does this sh*t not make sense to people, when you can see it working the world over? The illest thing in this whole situations is the fact that we, as the US, have absolutely more than enough to implement this system, this type of social democracy which benefits everyone, if we just rearranged our budget. Admittedly, we couldn't just implement the healthcare out the box. I mean, we could, but that would entail getting motherf*ckers who make trillions, like Amazon, Facebook, and Tesla as well as Zuckerberg, Musk, and Bezos, to pay their fair share without circumventing said responsibilities Corporate Welfare is crippling the working American and people are too dumb to even pay attention to it, distracted by buzzwords like “communism” and “immigrant.” So we do the free education thing first. That's only $4 billion a year. I checked. That's pittance compared to the defense budget.

Motherf*ckers wouldn't even need to “tax the rich” or “hold them accountable” if we just cut the defense budget. We can keep pretending that trickle down works and that Wall Street works for us and not corporate gluttons and that Reaganomics works, and whatever else the conservatives want us all to believe. Whatever, right? The US spends $650 billion on defense. That is, quite literally, $400 billion more than the next country, China. The rest of the world, minus the US and China, spends a collective $831 billion. That's an average of less than $50 billion a year, worldwide. F*ck, if you add China back into that, it's still less than $65 billion a year. Did i mention that these are yearly budgets? And these are old numbers. My guy, we can afford to drop a few billion of that defense budget. We can probably skim $50 billion and enrich a lot of people's lives but we don't even need that much. Drop $4 billion off of that gratuitous $650 tril, and you can fund free education for everyone. Following the Nordic system, that means more jobs. That means more taxes. That means a better economy and more revenue to implement the universal health care, which would further lessen the burden of employers and employees, putting even more money back into everyone's pockets, which would grow the economy even more. Happy and secure people, spend more money. The only people this system hurts, are those hurting us with the current system. Are they literally too dumb and/or selfish to let go of a little extra and uplift all of us? How do you argue that math? No one loses but the people forcing you to lose right now, in real time. F*ck, man, 2020 has exposed this entire system and there are still people who will die for a country that won't even give you enough money to be safe during a whole ass plague and I don't understand that at all.