#that policy becomes less of an issue

[ratwars]

My new plan of action is to be more unapologetically me at work while still being work me because I am fucking tired of everything and my lack of fucks has apparently hit a new level so instead of fretting about that I am just accepting the damage periods of unemployment does to my personality (work personality? Ability to maintain said personality?) And going with it. If it works great. If it doesn't then they gotta fire me it is whatever I am not even pretending like I care to make a cookie cutter impression.

[neonacidtrip]

I am home from apartment hunting and I would just like to say I am extremely disappointed, as an able-bodied person, to learn only 1 out of the 13 complexes we visited had an elevator.

[fredricwertham]

[apocalypse-angel]

Here is my small piece of advice/plea for for the future for y'all for today, and I may be lightly skirting an NDA to say it, so please listen:

If you can, buy physical books.

I work in publishing and I'm scared about what the election results are going to mean for the future of books by and about marginalized people, especially books for children. There are a lot of things you can do by trying to get involved locally, especially to mobilize against book bans and laws targeting libraries and schools. Voting with your wallet is still an extremely important tactic, because we're going to be hit with economic issues re: diverse books before we get hit with legal ones. But my immediate concern is what might happen with e-books.

It's already a known problem that if you "buy" a book on Kindle or another e-reader, that you're essentially renting it from that retailer, and if that retailer decides to remove that book, they can wipe it from your device. We also know that servers can be shut down. Content policies can change. It could get very difficult to find a copy of the files to pirate, much less to purchase.

But you can't delete a physical book from the world.

Physical books are about to become very important repositories. Collect them, if you can. Go to library sales. Go to thrift stores. Go to your local bookstore -- and bonus point here: independent bookstores are and will be great hubs for organizing in the coming days. Hell, I'd even encourage you to go through Amazon to send a message that these books are still financially viable. Lord knows the latter doesn't want to advertise them to you.

I know (I know) that physical books are expensive and getting more so. I know space is at a premium in a world where we're being pushed to live in smaller and smaller apartments with more and more roommates. But if there's a book that was important to you, and if it's a book you think a bigot wouldn't want to exist in the world, I urge you to get your hands on a physical copy of that book. If nothing else, to preserve it for the next generation.

ALL of us can be librarians. ALL of us can be archivists. ALL of us can work together to preserve marginalized voices, and to ensure that they are heard.

I love you. Keep fighting. We're in this together.

[wilwheaton]

I woke up yesterday morning to learn that Don Trump—the famed rapist, convicted felon, and white christian presidential candidate—had mimed performing a blowjob on his microphone stand to the clear delight of his crowd. There's a famous Christian thinker named Jesus H. Christ who you may have heard about; people will often say his full name when they see things like this. [...] It cuts against the dominant social narrative to say we need to fight the white supremacist cult, and this is for the very good reason that our society is traditionally white supremacist. If you suggest that a white supremacist cult's behavior and intentions are indecent and absolutely unacceptable, there is a general realization that this means not accepting it, which would inevitably mean the social exclusion and isolation of people committed to pursuing unacceptable behavior, and who have made indecent and unacceptable behavior a core part of their identity. And it's very unhealthy to be socially excluded and isolated. And who could be against health? In the eyes of those who control the platforms of communication, and in the halls of power, and in the minds of many comfortable and privileged people, it is a far less divisive act to hold a Nazi rally, crammed with racism and hatred and bigotry and Nazi speakers delivering Nazi slogans and Nazi intentions to enact Nazi policies, than it is to refer to such a thing as "a Nazi rally." In the eyes of those who control the platforms of communication, and in the halls of power, and in the minds of many comfortable and privileged people, saying you intend to fight a white supremacist cult is considered far more divisive and radical than being a part of a white supremacist cult who intends to force a fight with everyone else. In fact "we're still going to be sharing a nation with them and there are millions of them" is usually what's said to anybody who suggests we even oppose them. It's said as a reason to not oppose them, as a reason to not even name them for what they have chosen to be. "You can't just get rid of them," it's said. The suggestion seems to be that in so doing we are excluding them from society, isolating them, dehumanizing them, by naming what it is they have chosen to become (which, again, is a white supremacist cult), and by refusing to accept their unacceptable propositions as acceptable. It's not so popular to suggest that the answer is for white supremacists to change their behavior. It's far more popular to say we need to heal the white supremacist cult. It's far more popular to issue reminders that we need to leave paths open for the white supremacist cult to find redemption

Apology Not Accepted

Another exceptional post from Andrew Moxon that I encourage you all to make some time to read.

When all of this is over, no matter how long it takes to send Shitler to prison, I will not forget and I will not forgive the christian nationalist white supremacists who have brought us here.

This includes people I thought I knew.

We must drive these cancerous, violent, hateful people back into social isolation and societal rejection, where they have always belonged.

This includes people I thought I knew.

[northgazaupdates]

A group of journalists held a public appeal yesterday for an end to Israel’s siege of the northern Gaza Strip, where practically no food aid has entered since October 2023. People in the north are living and dying in famine due to the complete blockade by the IOF.

To make matters worse, most mainstream media outlets are ignoring the plight of north Gaza, as the journalists and other people remaining in the north are predominantly Arabic-speaking. The north of Gaza is starving in silence.

Instagram user faridaek has been kind enough to repost the appeal with English subtitles added. This is a significant undertaking that we greatly appreciate, and we ask everyone with an Instagram account to share the video.

The journalist speaking is Islam Bader. He and his colleagues are making this appeal on behalf of the people of northern Gaza. The journalists present include Abed Alqadr Sabbah, Mahmoud Al-Awadia, Momin Abu Owda, Mahmoud Sabbah, Mahmoud El-Shareef, Anas Al-Sharif, Islam Bader, Mohammed Ahmed, and Fadi Al-Whidi, among others. The subtitles read

From the north of the Gaza Strip, we, as journalists still stationed here in the north stand today driven by our ethical responsibility and national duty as a voice for all those who remain steadfast in Gaza and its north who are being subjected to a policy of extermination and a policy of starvation which is no less than extermination. The markets have been emptied of all essentials, and there is no flour available except in rare instances. The occupation does not allow aid to enter, maintaining its obstinate siege against our people and our families. We are of this people, and today we speak for Palestinians, for the besieged and for those denied life’s essentials. The most basic necessities have now become extremely rare in Gaza.

Therefore, we issue this call as a final warning, about a severe famine that is unprecedented on a global scale and impacting all facets of life, particularly children, individuals with chronic conditions and society’s most vulnerable groups. We hold the Israeli occupation and the international community especially the United States responsible for this starvation because it is happening in front of the eyes and ears of the entire world without any concrete action [on the ground] to stop it. The occupation’s claims of aid delivery are deceptive and unfounded. In reality, nothing has entered the north of the Gaza Strip.

Therefore, this final call, on behalf of all these people, on behalf of our fellow journalists, on behalf of our families and on behalf of Palestinians and the displaced in the north of the Gaza Strip is for the world to uphold its responsibility. North Gaza is starving, and this famine must be stopped.

Source: Islam Bader et al via faridaek on Instagram

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Farida EK (@faridaek)

[salamanderinspace]

I volunteer, and I find it enjoyable, but I feel like the anarchist response to this election being "well we just have to volunteer harder and build community ourselves" is misplaced. At some point the federal government takes trillions of dollars and gives almost nothing of value. Telling people to do these assholes jobs for them, unpaid, is not the best advice.

So here is my advice. You have to pay attention. You have to read actual newsources, like AP and Reuters and NPR and your local paper. You have to be informed. Today NHPR posted an article contemplating whether Trump is going to revert to the Schedule F changes for civil servants. Do you know exactly what that means? Do you know which employees in which offices would be affected, and how? Do you know if you even support or oppose that actual policy change? What about context - what's the median salary for workers in that field, and how has it changed under Biden?

Nobody can know everything about everything, so pick a couple of issues you care about and get REALLY, really informed. Research deep dive. Triple check sources. It's not enough to disagree with Trump's general brand. If you're able to go into the next election with concrete policy changes Trump made that you disagree with, it's going to be less emotional to confront Trump supporters and gauge how misinformed they really are. I know it's boring and stressful, and the absolute worst part of it is that you're going to find there are an awful lot of policy points where this asshole doesn't diverge from what the Democrats did / wanted to do at all. The DOT was equally underfunded under Trump and Biden, for example. If you care about bridges and highways and trains and airplanes, maybe make that one of the issues you get informed about. Or make a friend you trust who is covering that, and get updates from them. Do not depend on mainstream news outlets.

Find out the names of all the mutual aid and advocacy groups in your region. Are there a whole lot? What have they accomplished? Don't jump right into volunteering until you know what their work fully entails. Who are they helping? Who do you want to help the most? And if the answer to that question is not "people who have the least" but rather "people who are like me," think hard on that.

Your time is precious. Use it to become an expert, and then share that expertise freely. We are fighting wars on the fronts of attention and information.

[liberalsarecool]

From Professor Christopher Robichaud, Senior Lecturer in Ethics and Public Policy, Harvard:

“I'll say this, and then I likely won't be saying much more on here for quite some time, to the relief of some, I'm sure. But my farewell warning is this.

Everyone in the days and weeks ahead will use this loss as an opportunity to seek validation for their own hobby horse complaint. Harris lost because she campaigned with Liz Cheney. Harris lost because she didn't embrace Gaza. Harris lost because she didn't choose Shapiro. Harris lost because she wasn't progressive enough (possibly my favorite one).

Take a good, hard look at the map, my friends. Trump has won the popular vote. Trump ran the table. Explaining that with your hobby horse issue isn't going to cut it, tempting and consoling as it may be. The problem isn't the electoral college. The problem isn't that we didn't have a full primary. The problem isn't Harris. The problem isn't that Dems didn't have the right message. The problem isn't even inflation or the border.

The problem is so much worse than any of those things. Those are all technical problems, with straightforward expertise fixes. If only it were so! No, our problem is not technical. It's very much adaptive. A party that embraced the Big Lie, supported an insurrection, and has been selling conspiracy-addled madness for years, [which] was widely and enthusiastically embraced. Voter turnout was profound! People didn't sit this out.

Simply put, the problem--as some of you have rightly posted--is cultural. America, culturally, has completely abandoned a politics of decency and respect and has embraced instead a politics of resentment, revenge, false nostalgia, and bullying. And if you look at the demographics, you also won't be able to comfort yourself that it's just a white thing, or a working class thing, or an education thing. It's multi-class, multi-gender, multi-educational, and multi-racial. That's what winning the popular vote means. That's what running the table amounts to.

A culture that has descended to this level of debasement is not easily fixed. In fact it may not ever be fixed. The timeline for changing something like this is decades--at best--not two-to-four year election cycles. You can extend that in this case, because with the GOP likely controlling all branches of federal government and the courts, they will ensure that mechanisms are in place to keep them in power long after their popularity has waned. You can count on that.

The GOP evolved into a party of rage, lies, and revenge--and it correctly diagnosed that there was and is a large appetite for that. That's what the country wants. At least enough of the country wants it to ensure broad appeal and widespread electoral success. The old GOP will never return, and the Dems have nothing to say to American culture at the moment. Nothing. They've been speaking to a country that's gone, like dust in the wind.

And that's my final thought, which my posts last night alluded to. The America I knew and loved is gone. This new America--nah, I won't even bother. I will say that cultural change is less likely to occur in politics or in the academy. You're not going to get people to see how vulgar they've become through a clever argument or a nice campaign speech, that's for sure.

This would be time for the arts, broadly understood, to step in. The arts can change hearts and minds. Too bad the arts have been systematically dismantled in education in this country, and on the other end, the tech industry's assault on the arts through AI is sure to hollow out any good-faith efforts that might emerge.

And for the rest of the world, America's rightward lurch is, I'm afraid, bad news for you too. I know you know this. Because it's not isolated, is it? It's just at the moment the most prominent example of a burgeoning trend. And this will embolden others in other countries, to be sure. We need not speculate what happens when countries become mired in lies, embrace resentment, and savor bullying. We know exactly what happens. Bloody conflict and global destabilization.

The first quarter of the 21st century will, therefore, in hindsight, be viewed as the seed-planting stage for the absolute shit show that's about to unfold globally over the next two and a half decades. Count on it.

Adopt whatever coping and endurance strategies you have available. You're going to need it.

I think that's all I've left to say.”

The least evolved. The most paternalistic.

The bully. The liar. The most resentful.

This is the reality we are in. FOX and Republicans have been repeating the script for decades.

The Dark Ages are conservative aspirations.

The abdication of values/principles is complete.

'Good faith' no longer exists on the Right. The more reprehensible the action/person, the bigger the addiction. Trump proves this.

Anti-paternalism, anti-fascism and anti-bullying are my paths forward. Join me.

[taliabhattwrites]

Less Fearmongering about Testosterone, Please, Or: There is no "Boy HRT"/"Girl HRT" Dichotomy

Hello folks, I'm a trans woman and I'm on testosterone gel.

As an immigrant to a regime that is currently setting trans standards of care on fire, there is no way I can acquire any of the drugs I need to put in my body through the official channels. I've been on E monotherapy (weekly injections, no T-blocker, works out really cheap and I have a few years' worth stockpiled) for a while now, and started T-gel about a year ago.

We initially grabbed it because my wife was interested in microdosing and I decided to do so with her (though she's on injections now). Most feminizing HRT regimes nuke our T levels to lower than the healthy range for cis women, and that frankly isn't good and can lead to various health issues. T is, ultimately, just a hormone, and even if I had too much of it in the past, I still need some of it to be healthy. One noticeable effect for me is that it's helped a lot with my energy levels.

In terms of acquisition, T is actually relatively abundant compared to E because a lot of cis men buy and take steroids, while most cis women who need E are just getting it prescribed by their doctors without much fuss. Our community is the only one that really has a need for E-compounders, while the population of people who consume steroids is way higher.

Funnily, our biggest challenge in acquiring the gel was just finding a forum that would point us to a gel supplier instead of just insisting that "Gel doesn't lead to enough gains, bro! Here just buy these injections." All very well-intentioned advice, of course, but that was very much not my goal and not what I needed.

Where I am, it's legal to purchase and own T, just not to sell it. T possession is not particularly harshly cracked down upon, given that its use amongst a certain crowd is basically an open secret. Gauge your level of risk but ultimately, the official policy on trans existence is discouraging transition and making it harder for us to be able to change our sex. A friend from Germany showed me this extract that explicitly advocates for therapy to dissuade bodily transition:

It's from the guidelines for transition-related care by the association of German health insurances!

If you can get it from a doctor, good. Do that and don't forget you'll constantly have to advocate for yourself. Even if you can, however, you should frankly have your back-up options sorted out, because we live in times increasingly hostile to transitional care, and we all need to have fallbacks.

Maybe the world will eventually become less trans-eliminationist, but in the meantime, transition is always going to carry with it a certain level of risk. All I can really advise is to take charge of your own bodily autonomy, to decide how you want to shape your sex, and if you feel like you can't currently do that, to start making plans for when you eventually can. That kept me going for five years in the closet, and eventually paid off.

Good luck, and death before detransition.

[antianakin]

”I can see the original intention [of the Jedi Order's no attachment rule] was to not be possessive or clingy. I take issue with the idea that a toddler's love for their caregivers falls there. It seems more like the people making that kind of demand are toxic.”

I'm guessing this is a reference to how the Jedi prefer not to provide training to those who've reached a certain age. Thoughts?

I mean. A toddler is generally considered a kid from the ages of 1 to 3 years old. The Jedi don't seem to have any issues taking in kids in that age range and, in fact, that seems to be the most NORMAL age range for when they adopt children. I don't know precisely where this information comes from, but my understanding was that the age cut-off for adoption was around 5 years old, which is two whole years beyond when a child would be considered a toddler. Anakin himself is NINE, now six years beyond being a toddler, when he's declared too old. So I think we've already got an issue with this statement given that, if we're specifically discussing the Jedi's policy about age cut-offs for adoption, they have zero issue with toddlers and specifically adopt toddlers BECAUSE there's less issues with adjustment to the Jedi lifestyle at that age.

But if we set that weirdness aside and pretend that they just meant any child's love for their parent regardless of how old said child is, I still think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue here. It's not that the child's love for their caregivers (presumably their biological parents most of the time) is automatically already an attachment and that's why the Jedi won't take in kids older than a certain age. The problem is that the child, once they've reached a certain age, is going to struggle a little bit more with that separation because that connection becomes really important once you've made it. It's not impossible, obviously, just harder. It could cause the child some pain upon separation and the Jedi then have to consider whether the child will benefit enough from Jedi training to make that pain worthwhile in the long run. The other issue is that the child likely has started to learn certain things that don't work very well with the Jedi way of life and so the child is then going to have to UNLEARN those things. Again, not an impossible task, it just makes the path to becoming a Jedi more difficult for an older child than for one who was raised as a Jedi from a younger age and never had to unlearn anything first.

The question the Jedi tend to face when they have to choose whether to adopt older children or not is whether the child is going to actually be happy as a Jedi or not, and whether the child might in fact be happier in a life more similar to the one they're already familiar with. They have to consider whether this child might be happier staying with the family they've already connected to and whether the separation from that family is going to be more distressing for the child than the rejection. Being a Jedi is not at all an easy path. It can be a really rewarding and satisfying path, obviously, and plenty of Jedi seem very happy in the life they've chosen, but that doesn't make it easy. So if it seems like the child in question isn't really going to find any happiness as a Jedi because of a prior connection to a caregiver or because the behaviors and worldviews they've already learned are incompatible with the Jedi lifestyle, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to force them down that path anyway. It's just going to make everyone unhappy.

And this is where the attachment things come in to play because if that child DOES end up becoming a Jedi anyway, those struggles probably just mean it's a little more likely that the child will struggle with attachment down the line than a Jedi child brought in earlier might.

So it's not that the Jedi think the child's love is CURRENTLY an attachment so much as they have to consider whether the child's connection to another caregiver is going to cause them enough distress when they're separated that it could create greater issues with attachment later on than the child would have had otherwise.

And this is why I personally don't think Anakin would've ever been happy as a Jedi, even in a world where Palpatine gets murdered during TPM and Anakin never gets manipulated against the Jedi. I think the separation from his mother is something he struggles with and that there are signs that Anakin has already learned behaviors that are going to make the Jedi lifestyle difficult for him in a way that it isn't for someone like Obi-Wan or Ahsoka. I think Anakin is always going to want a specific kind of relationship that the Jedi simply do not provide, and while I think he wants to help people, he also wants to help them in his own way (when and where and how he wants) and chafes at the limitations the Jedi work with. Anakin's upbringing means that the Jedi way of life is never TRULY going to work for him in the long run. If he'd been found as a toddler, he would've probably been fine, but he wasn't.

I'm not sure what kind of "demand" this person is referencing, I assume the idea is that the Jedi demand that the child give up all connection to their original families/caregivers or something, which isn't even precisely canon. There's a pair of twins in TCW. Both Depa and Adi have family members in the Order that show up in the films. In Legends, Plo Koon has a niece in the Order. And we see multiple Jedi engaging in the culture of their birth planet in different ways (clothing, tattoos, alternate religious connections), so it doesn't really make sense that the Jedi would allow that but not allow their members to reconnect with their birth families if they chose to. Even with Anakin, there's no actual indication that he wasn't ALLOWED to see Shmi or try to contact her at all. He never indicates that that's why he hasn't gone back, Obi-Wan never tells him anything like that when the subject is brought up. The only reason it's kind-of an issue later in AOTC is because he's actively abandoning a mission he's already on in order to go see her. There isn't even any particularly negative reaction from the Council when they discover he's on Tatooine nor any indication he was ever disciplined for that. Which leaves one conclusion: If Anakin didn't go see his mother, then it's because he CHOSE not to go see his mother, not because the Jedi demanded it.

If the "demand" is that the Jedi just simply not show love to anybody, then I think enough people have discussed how that just plain isn't true and doesn't make any sense, so I won't get into that.

I don't think it's toxic for the Jedi to recognize that older children have a more difficult time adapting to their lifestyle and that this can lead to further pain and issues in the long run. I don't think it's toxic for the Jedi to be able to recognize the signs that an older child is not ready to adapt to the Jedi way of life and refuse to adopt them into it. I don't think it's toxic for the Jedi to understand that a little bit of pain from the rejection in the moment could spare the child a lot of pain in the future.

Our best example of this is, obviously, Anakin himself. The Council are 100% RIGHT about Anakin. While Palpatine obviously does manipulate Anakin away from Jedi teachings to some degree, he's also primarily just exacerbating issues that Anakin already has. Anakin struggles his entire life as a Jedi with attachments to people (he obsesses over Padme for TEN YEARS despite not seeing her once in that time). Anakin struggles with respecting the Council's authority for his entire life as a Jedi and literally passes on that disrespect to his own Padawan almost immediately. Anakin admits to believing his personal feelings are more important than his ideals when speaking to Padme and the way he speaks to Obi-Wan during the reveal of his history with Satine implies the same feeling. Anakin explicitly chooses to live a secret double life because he wants things that the Jedi lifestyle simply does not offer him and does not allow. Anakin has either discussed wanting to leave the Order with his own Padawan, or he's just so obviously about wanting to leave the Order that his own Padawan has picked up on it without him having to say it out loud (and if Ahsoka's picked up on it in the like... year and a half that she's known him, then you can be damn sure that Obi-Wan is aware of it and so are Yoda and Mace probably). Anakin struggles with being a Jedi THE ENTIRE TIME HE IS ONE and barely even wants to be a Jedi most of the time. The Jedi's lifestyle is a bad match for him and the struggle to adjust to it as well as the separation from his mother causes him pain for the rest of his life.

My personal theory for why the Council ultimately took him in despite their reservations is because the return of the Sith got confirmed and so protecting Anakin as a Force sensitive child became a priority. Training him as a Jedi would've seemed like the best way to protect him, and Anakin did risk his life to help save the people of Naboo, so it's not like he has none of the qualities it takes to be a Jedi and they choose to take a chance on him. Just because that choice goes badly doesn't necessarily mean it was the wrong one to make in the moment, either. Much like many of the choices the Jedi are forced into making in the Prequels, all available choices kind-of stink and they have to do the best they have with the information they've got in front of them.

All of that to say, the Jedi aren't arguing that a child's love for their caregiver is toxic and selfish, that's not the reason they tend to refuse to adopt children over a certain age.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Harris stretched her coalition into incoherence. Inhumanly—as well as fruitlessly—she attempted to score points from the right on immigration, accusing Trump of insufficient dedication to building the wall. Her cack-handed performances of sympathy with Palestinians accompanied an evident commitment to follow Benjamin Netanyahu into a regional war. The Harris campaign featured a grab bag of policies, some good, some bad, but sharing no clear thematic unity or vision. She almost always offered evasive answers to challenging questions. And she adopted a generally aristocratic rather than demotic manner, which placed the candidate and her elite friends and allies at the center rather than the people they sought to represent. In these ways, Harris repeated not only Hillary Clinton’s errors but many of the same ones that she herself had made in her ill-starred 2019 presidential campaign, which opportunistically tacked left rather than right, but with equal insincerity and incoherence. Who remembers that campaign’s biggest moment, when she attacked Biden for his opposition to busing and what it would have implied for a younger version of herself, only to reveal when questioned that she also opposed busing? Or when she endorsed Medicare for All, raising her hand in a debate for the idea of private insurance abolition, only to later claim she hadn’t understood the question? Voters, then as now, found her vacuous and unintelligible, a politician of pure artifice seemingly without ideological depths she could draw from and externalize. She often gave the sense of a student caught without having done her homework, trying to work out what she was supposed to say rather than expressing any underlying, decided position. Even abortion rights, her strongest issue, felt at times like a rhetorical prop, given her own and her party’s inaction in the years prior to Dobbs. How many times before had Democrats promised to institutionalize and expand the protections of Roe, only to drop the matter after November?

[...]

The Democrats, in other words, comprehensively failed to set the terms of ideological debate in any respect. Their defensiveness and hypocrisy served only to give encouragement to Trump while demobilizing their own voters, whom they will no doubt now blame—as though millions of disaggregated, disorganized individuals can constitute a culpable agent in the same way a political party’s leadership can. But the party’s leaders are to blame, not that many in the center have cared or even seemed willing to reflect on a decade of catastrophe. Has anyone who complained that the 2020 George Floyd rebellion would cost Democrats votes due to the extremism of its associated demands reckoned with the empirical finding that the opposite proved true? That the narrow victory of Biden in 2020 was likely attributable to noisy protests that liberals wished would be quieter and calmer? Has anyone acknowledged the unique popularity of Sanders with Latinx voters, a once-core constituency that the Democrats are now on the verge of losing outright? The pathologies of the Democrats, though, are in a sense not the result of errors. It is the structural role and composition of the party that produces its duplicitous and incoherent orientation. It is the mainstream party of globalized neoliberal capitalism, and at the same time, by tradition anyway, the party of the working class. As the organized power of the latter has been washed away, the commitment has become somewhat more aspirational: Harris notably cleaned up with the richest income bracket of voters. The only issues on which Harris hinted of a break with Biden concerned more favorable treatment of the billionaires who surrounded her, and her closest advisers included figures like David Plouffe, former senior vice president of Uber, and Harris’s brother-in-law Tony West, formerly the chief legal officer of Uber, who successfully urged her to drop Biden-era populism and cultivate relations with corporate allies.

8 November 2024

[leroibobo]

when the homes in the depopulated palestinian village of lifta were originally built is impossible to tell and most likely varies from house to house. the area's been known since ancient times, including having been written about in the hebrew bible. it's retained multiple different names throughout history - lifta by romans, nephto by byzantines, clepsta by crusaders, then lifta again by arabs. in more recent times, the area saw battle in the early 19th century, when it saw a peasant's revolt against egyptian conscription and taxation policies. (egyptian-ottoman ruler muhammad ali had attempted to become independent from the ottoman empire, and sought to use the area of "greater syria" which palestine was apart of as a buffer state.)

the village was predominantly muslim with a mosque, a maqām for local sage shaykh badr, a few shops, a social club, two coffee houses, and an elementary school which opened in 1945. its economy was based in farming - being a village of jerusalem, farmers would sell their produce in the city's markets. an olive press which remains in the village gives evidence to one of the most important crops its residents farmed. the historically wealthy village was known for its intricate embroidery and sewing, particularly of thob ghabani bridal dresses, which attracted buyers from across the levant.

lifta also represents one of the few palestinian villages in which the structures weren't totally or mostly decimated during the 1948 nakba. 60 of the 450 original houses remain intact. from zochrot's entry on lifta:

israel's absentee property law of 1950 permits the state to expropriate land and assets left behind, and denies palestinians the right to return to old homes or to reclaim their property. it's estimated that there's around 400,000 descendants of the village's original refugee population dispersed in east jerusalem, the west bank, jordan, and the palestinian diaspora.

like many depopulated palestinian houses, some of those in lifta were initially used to settle predominantly mizrahi immigrants and refugees, in this case 300 jewish families from yemen and kurdistan. the houses weren't registered in their names, and the area generally saw poor infrastructure and no resources including water and electricity provided by the government. most left in the early 1970s as a part of a compensation program to move out people who'd been settled in depopulated palestinian houses - if they didn't, they were referred to as "squatters" and evicted. (holes were even drilled in the roofs of evacuated buildings to make them less habitable). the 13 families which remain there today only managed to do so because they lived close to the edge of the village.

in 1987, the israeli nature reserves authority planned to restore the "long-abandoned village" and turn it into a natural history center which would "stress the jewish roots of the site", but nothing came of it. several more government proposals on what to do with the land had been brought up since then. this culminated in in 2021 when the israel land administration announced without informing the jerusalem municipal authorities that it issued a tender for the construction of a luxury neighborhood on the village's ruins, consisting of 259 villas, a hotel, and a mall. since 2023, they've agreed to shelve and "rethink" these plans after widespread objection.

the reasons for the objections varied significantly between the opposing israeli politicians - who see the village as an exemplar of cultural heritage and "frozen in time" model of palestinian villages before 1948 - and palestinians - who largely see the village as a witness of the nakba and a symbol of hope for their return. lifta is currently listed by unesco as a potential world heritage site, a designation netanyahu has threatened to remove several times.

many palestinians who are descendent from its former residents still live nearby. like with many other depopulated palestinian villages, they've never ceased to visit, organize tours of the village, and advocate for its preservation.

[despazito]

You're not being a dick! The dog world can be very convoluted.

Most reputable breeders show their dogs, and honestly it's a red flag if your breeder doesn't do any kind of activities with their animals (doesn't necessarily have to be conformation showing, can be any work/sports or obedience eventing).

Usually most of their puppies will go to pet homes, and breeders occasionally pick puppies they really like for showing/breeding prospects or opt to co-own with somebody who will show the dog under the kennel's name. The amount of puppies per litter who have showing potential can depend on how successful the parents are in the ring and how sought after the bloodlines are, but even if they look right they have to have a good temperament to be handled in the ring, and it's not uncommon for pups to fail that training and just become pets. There really shouldn't be a drastic range in soundness between show and pet quality puppies within the same litter or kennel. Most pups do end up in pet homes, and all show dogs are also beloved pets that are often extremely spoiled and doted on!

All these puppies will receive the same care and upbringing show quality or not, although I will say there are instances of puppies being put to sleep for being born without signature breed traits such as ridgeless Rhodesian ridgebacks, but nowadays that's a fringe minority. A good breeder will want all their puppies going to good homes regardless of showdog potential where they will all hopefully have the best QOL.

As for being "better off" if they're closer to the breed standard, that really depends on the standard! Most standards are fine, but here's an illustration of an ideal English bulldog from the American EB club:

imo a dog bred away from this standard to have a longer snout and less bulkiness that has a lower likelihood of developing brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome, a condition which hinders QOL, would be 'better' than one bred closer to standard. This is why I'm cautious of the assumption that breeding to standard=breeding to health, because a handful of standards straight up encourage unhealthy traits..

That being said, someone not breeding to standard and not showing their dogs really should have solid reasoning and an explanation of their goals as a breeder. Because folks who simply "want to breed pets" with random dogs are almost always backyard breeders who breed unsound dogs with dubious temperaments. If they aren't producing working dogs or have extensive history with dogs and are working on, say, an outcross project or trying to solve a health issue within their breed that involves straying from the standard I would be weary of them (and an intensively researched outcross project is not the same as simply breeding doodles, the breeder should have a rigorous health testing scheme for the parents and choose the cross based on more than just how cute the puppies will look and the catchiness of the designer name. if it sounds like they're pulling something out of their ass to justify the breeding, i would leave).

in theory, getting a puppy from titled showdog parents should be an assurance of quality. it shows the parents are even tempered enough to perform in a show ring with many other intact dogs and be handled and touched all over by the judges without any aggression (very green flag if you're looking into serious breeds known for being temperamental). but not all clubs imo have strict enough health screening policies, so sadly a champion parent is not an automatic guarantee that your pup is free of inheritable disease, some of which can be sadly quite nasty. in the very worst cases a breeder can even ignore their dogs hereditary issues because the dog is very pretty and wins ribbons, and you can't always count on club authorities to pull poorly dogs from the ring. this is why i think there needs to be more veterinary involvement in conformation judging and non-optional screenings to enter based on common health issues seen in the breed. you'd be surprised how lax some health screening criteria can be even in the highest rungs of conformation.

in conclusion, it really depends on the breed and the breeder. the best thing you can do is your own research, get familiar with common health issues in your desired breed, and ask your prospective breeder if they've done the proper testing. ask ask ask. a good breeder should be proud of their kennel and bloodlines, if they're cagey run away!!

[allthecanadianpolitics]

While America's southern border remains a hot button issue on the campaign trail, the result of the U.S. election in November could also impact the northern frontier with Canada, which remains the longest undefended border in the world. In their quests for the White House, Republican candidate Donald Trump has vowed to deport millions of undocumented migrants while Democrat Kamala Harris has toughened her stance on unlawful border crossings and asylum seekers. "If Trump were elected and engaged in mass deportation, many of those people are going to be seeking asylum in Canada, so that's something that I suspect people in Ottawa are talking about," McMaster University political science professor Donald Abelson told CTVNews.ca. "With Harris probably less so, in large part because her policies would be less draconian, not to say that she'll be easy when it comes to border issues." If Trump or Harris becomes the next American president, here is how the Canada-U.S. border could be affected.

Continue Reading

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from the New York Times:

At first glance, Dave Langston’s predicament seems similar to headaches facing homeowners in coastal states vulnerable to catastrophic hurricanes: As disasters have become more frequent and severe, his insurance company has been losing money. Then, it canceled his coverage and left the state.

But Mr. Langston lives in Iowa.

Relatively consistent weather once made Iowa a good bet for insurance companies. But now, as a warming planet makes events like hail and wind storms worse, insurers are fleeing.

Mr. Langston spent months trying to find another company to insure the townhouses, on a quiet cul-de-sac at the edge of Cedar Rapids, that belong to members of his homeowners association. Without coverage, “if we were to have damage that hit all 17 units, we’re looking at bankruptcy for all of us,” he said.

The insurance turmoil caused by climate change — which had been concentrated in Florida, California and Louisiana — is fast becoming a contagion, spreading to states like Iowa, Arkansas, Ohio, Utah and Washington. Even in the Northeast, where homeowners insurance was still generally profitable last year, the trends are worsening.

In 2023, insurers lost money on homeowners coverage in 18 states, more than a third of the country, according to a New York Times analysis of newly available financial data. That’s up from 12 states five years ago, and eight states in 2013. The result is that insurance companies are raising premiums by as much as 50 percent or more, cutting back on coverage or leaving entire states altogether. Nationally, over the last decade, insurers paid out more in claims than they received in premiums, according to the ratings firm Moody’s, and those losses are increasing.

The growing tumult is affecting people whose homes have never been damaged and who have dutifully paid their premiums, year after year. Cancellation notices have left them scrambling to find coverage to protect what is often their single biggest investment. As a last resort, many are ending up in high-risk insurance pools created by states that are backed by the public and offer less coverage than standard policies. By and large, state regulators lack strategies to restore stability to the market.

Insurers are still turning a profit from other lines of business, like commercial and life insurance policies. But many are dropping homeowners coverage because of losses.

Tracking the shifting insurance market is complicated by the fact it is not regulated by the federal government; attempts by the Treasury Department to simply gather data have been rebuffed by some state regulators. 

The turmoil in insurance markets is a flashing red light for an American economy that is built on real property. Without insurance, banks won’t issue a mortgage; without a mortgage, most people can’t buy a home. With fewer buyers, real estate values are likely to decline, along with property tax revenues, leaving communities with less money for schools, police and other basic services.

And without sufficient insurance, people struggle to rebuild after disasters. Last year, storms, wildfires and other disasters pushed 2.5 million American adults out of their homes, according to census data, including at least 830,000 people who were displaced for six months or longer.

[smitethestate]

"If voting was worthless they wouldn't be trying to make it harder."

"If voting worked they'd make it illegal."

Okay these are both fun slogans but let's talk about what really happened here in the US.

First they made it so only white landowning men could vote. Then over the years other groups of people kept fighting for the right to vote and winning and the white landowning men were like "fuck well we can't defeat the masses outright on this so we'll just make a bunch of rules that make it hard for them to vote." And the oppressed masses fought against those too and won a bunch of gains on the issue like the Civil Rights Act.

So the powerful learned from their mistakes and made other, more subtle rules to make it harder to vote as the two parties battled back and forth to win the most power and influence and corporate donor money.

Republicans fought by making it as hard as possible to vote because they tend to win when less people vote, and especially when only the privileged with a lot of money and free time can manage it.

Democrats fought by trying to get more people to vote, but it's a bit more complicated than that. They're still beholden to wealthy corporate donors, so they can't just let pure democracy happen. They can't let real leftists become presidential nominees or allow real leftist policy like universal healthcare to pass. What they can do is convince you over and over to vote for the "reasonable" option under threat of Republican Hell so that you not only give them more power, but hand over your money and your time/energy to convince other people to give them more power and money.

Republicans benefit from the same kind of threat to their constituents, even as they're more blatant in their fight to stop people from voting.

The result is a system in which both the statements at the top of this post are true. If our voting system threatened to turn the US into a socialist utopia where the masses had all the power, they'd make it illegal. Democrats have never made a serious move to abolish the Electoral College. They absolutely mobilized to prevent even Bernie from becoming the Dem nominee. They'd do it again.

And you can see the same patterns in similar nations. Labor gained power in the UK only to become an anti-labor neoliberal party practically overnight. France elected a leftist government and Macron just went "nope."

But they're never going to make voting all the way illegal for just landowning men again, let alone make it outright illegal, because they know that would inspire the masses to rise up and make too much trouble again, and who knows what they'd lose? The current situation is working out great for them.

Meanwhile, of course Republicans want to make voting a certain amount of hard because they do want the most power, but even Trump probably knows better than to outlaw voting. At most he'd turn the US into a sham democracy like his idol Putin.

Which would of course suck, but the point it that the two statements up top are both essentially true but reductive.

Voting isn't worthless but those in power are never going to let us vote our was into a society that removes or even significantly reduces their power. You can maybe make things temporarily a little better or prevent them from getting worse for some people by voting.

But the problem is that people aren't just voting. They're voting and then telling themselves that they did their duty and using that as an excuse to do nothing else. Or they're voting and donating millions to Kamala in mere hours while GFMs for Palestinians and other desperate people stagnate. Or they're voting and giving all their attention, energy, and time to the two big party presidential candidates by volunteering or yelling at people on social media or both so all the money and power is funneled back into those who already have nearly all of it.

And nothing is left to actually fight for a better world.

I don't care to tell people whether to vote or how. It feels to me like a choice between a fast death or a slow one, which sucks either way. What pisses me off is that we're letting the powerful convince us to invest so much in them with this perpetual election season as the world circles the drain, and the most powerful know full well that this leaves us with too few resources to ever topple them from their thrones.

You're letting them pull your strings instead of breaking them. Things get worse every year and the longer we do this, the worse it's going to be for us all, and worse still for future generations. How long are you going to fight to slow down the train that's headed for the cliff instead of jumping off it while there's still time?

Don't scold me about voting on behalf of the train conductors hoarding all the train food. It's not a perfect metaphor ok but the point is fuck off and fuck this.