#washington dc primary

[q-o-s]

Cool tones.

[noah-luck-easterly]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/01/initiative-83-dc-elections/

Interesting! I tend to prefer approval voting, but ranked-choice is definitely better than first-past-the-post. Semi-open primaries aren’t something I have an informed opinion about though.

I definitely think more local governments switching to a better voting scheme is the most effective path towards getting it implemented at the federal level, which I think would pay huge dividends.

[hometoursandotherstuff]

Lively, colorful, 1911 Mediterranean Revival townhouse in Washington, DC has 4bds, 4ba, $5.4m.

As you may know by now, that door would have to go, as far as I'm concerned. Why do they even make doors like that? Just bust the glass, put your hand in, and open the lock. Why even have a lock?

The first room off the entrance hall is a sitting room with a cool yellow fireplace with black & white marble.

The dining room is a bright orange with a bronze ceiling, which is interesting.

They painted the cabinets a glossy bright blue and changed out hardware.

This family room is a part of the kitchen and has doors to the patio. The wallpaper on the feature wall is very interesting.

Pretty powder room. Look at how small the sink is.

The stairs to the upper levels are in the middle of the home.

They've got the primary bedroom done in a bright royal blue.

And, they also have a large closet.

This is beautiful- a terrace.

Nice shower room.

At the end of the hall is this nice large family room. Love the fireplace.

Cute bedroom is quite roomy.

The secondary bedrooms are surprisingly large.

Nice updated vintage bath.

Stairs to the lower floor.

Nice room.

The 4th bedroom is down here with a door to the outer entrance. It's lovely down here.

There's even a little kitchenette and a bath.

It has a beautiful backyard and parking.

And, out front there's a lovely garden.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2343-Ashmead-Pl-NW-Washington-DC-20009/461809_zpid/

[charlesoberonn]

A quick alternate history scenario I made for the r/AlternateHistory subreddit:

In 1796, George Washington reluctantly runs for a third term as president to prevent Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans from taking hold of government. His third and final term is more rocky than the first two, with the south being especially unhappy with some of his reforms, though they associate them with his vice-president John Adams and Secretary of State Alexander Hamilton. On December 14th, 1799, George Washington dies in office. The nation is in turmoil and mourning. The Democratic-Republicans call for a special election, but vice-president John Adams is declared president instead. On Christmas 1799 a protest march on DC turns violent when federal forces clash with protestors and revolutionary war veterans. Jefferson declares Adams an illegitimate usurper. Adams calls off next year's election. Several state legislatures , especially in the South, declare Jefferson as a provisional emergency leader for the purpose of ousting the Federalist regime. The American Civil War has begun. On January 15, with DC about to be overtaken, an internal vote within the Federalist war cabinet decide to oust Adams and appoint his vice president and war hero Alexander Hamilton as president instead. The tide of the war turns, with the Federalist forces able to protect the north and much of their territory, but it is short lived. The Federalist are forced to abandon DC on April and retreat to New York City as a provisional capital. Hamilton himself refuses to go. He is captured by the Democratic-Republicans along with Adams. Jefferson is appointed president on April 19th. In July, Senator Gouverneur Morris is appointed as temporary leader of the Federalist forces in New York. The war stalls for several months as the Democratic-Republican forces fail to make inroads into the north. Meanwhile Jefferson's administration is poorly received and he is compared poorly to the Reign of Terror in France, especially after the public executions of Adams and Hamilton, and after the French Revolutionary government acknowledges him as the legitimate president. The British back Morris and the Federalists and provide military assistance in return for territorial concessions out west. Despite the Democratic-Republicans trying to paint Morris as a traitor for his British support, the public hates Jefferson more, compounded by a series of military defeats. On December 14th, during a public memorial service for the 1 year anniversary of Washington's death, Jefferson presents himself as the true heir to the venerated general. This creates outrage and leads to a 6 days siege of the White House, at the end of which Jefferson is dragged out and beaten to death by the public and some of his own soldiers. The Democratic-Republican forces subsequently surrender and the capital is captured by Federalist and British forces. Morris is appointed president and his first act is to call in a new Constitutional Convention in order to draft a new constitution, one with the primary aim of preventing another civil war.

[theineffablesociety-dc]

The first @theineffablesociety Good Omens meetup was so great, we started planning the second one before the con drop even set in. What can we say: Evil never sleeps and Good is ever-vigilant! (Although Crowley has gotten in the napping habit and Aziraphale can be a bit distractable.)

The weekend of February 28-March 2, 2025, we're going to Washington DC!

This meetup is being organized by myself (@zeldahime), ShadowsRider (@shadowsrider-blog), and Key (@whoopsmypenslipped). We'll be making regular updates here (and being reblogged to the primary @theineffablesociety page) and on the Discord server. (The Discord server is an 18+ space. For an invitation, send an ask here or at the primary page.)

We are currently scouting locations. We expect to repeat the format of the Philadelphia meetup with a large room and at least two break-out rooms, with the expectation that approximately 45-75 people will attend. As in Philadelphia, we will do our best to be as inclusive as possible, with a masking policy in all event spaces.

We're so excited to be hosting the next event! We hope to see you all there!

[mojave-pete]

Republican Security Council

We feel so sorry for poor Michelle Obama and we hope she is not struggling financially.

Her Twitter bio describes her as a "Girl from the South Side" of Chicago. In her speech last night to the Democratic Convention, Mrs. Obama spoke of her mother and said “She and my father didn’t aspire to be wealthy. They were suspicious of folks who took more than they needed." What would they think of their daughter now?

According to Forbes, Michelle Obama has a net worth in excess of $70 million. The family has three residences and each one has a value in excess of $10 million. Her 30 acre beach front summer home on Martha's Vineyard has an estimated value of $20 million,

The Obama family beachfront estate in Hawaii was built on the site of the mansion used as the primary location for the 1980s hour-long action TV show Magnum P.I. The land alone cost $9 million in 2015, and despite having its own beach, the property has two swimming pools. They also own a mansion in Washington, DC's exclusive Kalorama neighborhood near the French embassy.

According to her Speaker's Bureau, Mrs. Obama receives $750,000 for an appearance and she received a $65 million advance for her memoir "Becoming". The combined Obama family wealth prior to the presidency was $1.3 million.

[mariacallous]

Five years ago, in a splashy speech in Washington, DC, Jeff Bezos rolled out Amazon’s Climate Pledge, a series of commitments to show that the company was serious about addressing climate change.

A core component of that pledge, one that Bezos touted in front of members of Congress during Amazon’s antitrust hearing a year later, was putting 100,000 electric delivery vans on the road by 2030. In a blog post from this July—headlined with a picture of a Prime Rivian van driving through an open field filled with wind turbines—the company proclaims that it has now delivered 800 million packages in the US using EVs, with 15,000 trucks on the road in neighborhoods across the country.

But those EVs might not be doing much to help the climate. The company’s US delivery vehicle emissions have potentially shot up an estimated 194 percent since the Climate Pledge went into place in 2019, according to a new report.

The report, released Thursday from corporate campaigners at Stand.earth, attempts to figure out just how much damage shipping the US’s Amazon orders is doing to the planet. It finds that overall emissions from shipping packages have increased 75 percent since 2019, from 3.3 million tons of CO2 equivalents in 2019 to 5.8 million tons last year. The 2.5-million-ton difference is the equivalent of putting 595,000 additional gas-powered cars on the road for a year.

Those Rivian vans are often just delivering the last leg of a package’s life. Before coming to customers’ doorsteps, packages travel by airplane, cargo ship, and/or long-haul truck—transport methods that are both notoriously dirty and tricky to decarbonize.

Doing the math on Amazon’s delivery emissions entails a lot of guesswork. Unlike some of its competitors, Amazon does not break out details on its emissions associated with shipping and delivery. In fact, the company’s annual sustainability report doesn’t give any hard numbers at all on its logistics operations, despite Amazon dominating the US ecommerce market and delivering 4 billion packages in the US within two days in 2023.

“Stand.earth’s work is based on inaccurate data, a broad mischaracterization of our operations, and by their own admission, a methodology based on assumptions and unverified information,” Amazon spokesperson Steve Kelly said in a statement to WIRED. “The truth is that The Climate Pledge is an ambitious commitment for Amazon and the more than 525 companies that have signed up to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040. It’s only by taking this on that we can work collectively to transform industries such as shipping, transportation, and the built environment, and we need more companies encouraged to take this direction and quick action.” (As well as committing Amazon to addressing climate change, another aim of the Climate Pledge is to get other companies to follow Amazon’s lead.)

Kelly added: “We’ve continued to publish a detailed, transparent reporting of our year-on-year progress. We encourage everyone to track our progress through our annual Sustainability Report, which has correct data, transparent methodologies, and a third-party assurance.”

The company did not provide WIRED with any additional emissions statistics or other additional data for its shipping and delivery operations.

“We’re doing the best we can with the data available,” says Joshua Archer, a campaigner at Stand.earth and the primary author of the report. “Amazon’s [data] doesn’t even scratch the surface of this massive operations network.”

As a result, the Stand.earth report is based on a mountain of third-party data—all US-based—and math equations to get to some ballpark estimates. UPS and FedEx emissions data disclosed in those companies’ sustainability reports allowed researchers to get an idea of the emissions created by shipping packages by truck in the US. Third-party data from two aviation analytics providers helped to tally up the estimated domestic emissions associated with Amazon Air, a fleet of planes that deliver parcels for the company. Maritime shipping estimates are based on manifest data from US ports where Amazon was a signee. Many of these numbers, the report stresses, are almost certainly an undercount, as authors excluded calculations like emissions associated with package returns and packages shipped or delivered by third-party carriers due to lack of data.

The main culprit for Amazon’s increased shipping emissions, the report finds, is from airplanes: US emissions associated with Amazon Air have skyrocketed 67 percent since 2019. According to Kelly, Amazon’s overall emissions have increased since 2019 due to the company’s expansion during the pandemic.

“When you think of things people order through Amazon, a lot of them are things you don’t need the next day,” Archer says. “Nevertheless, they’re getting shipped on airplanes.”

This trend tracks with the rest of the industry. During the pandemic, port disruptions around the world forced providers to switch over to airplanes to transport cargo; much of this air infrastructure remains in place today. Simultaneously, the US ecommerce market shot up by 43 percent in 2020 as everyone stuck inside ordered more and more stuff. In 2023, the US shipped 21.7 billion parcels—that’s 687 packages every second.

There’s one area where things are improving for Amazon: according to the Stand.earth report, emissions per package have been dropping for Amazon since 2020, which, Archer says, is largely thanks to loading more parcels on bigger planes. (Kelly says that the company’s overall carbon intensity—measuring the efficiency of its operations—has improved by 34 percent since 2019, even as its overall emissions went up.) In comparison, UPS’s package emissions intensity has consistently risen since 2020, thanks in part to its increased reliance on aviation.

But even considering small improvements like these, the aggressive growth Amazon has driven over the past few years is, in many ways, incompatible with sustainability. “Keep an eye on the skies for even more A330s delivering for Amazon customers in the coming months and years,” Amazon concludes in a blog post touting its new, more efficient cargo planes. Unless greener alternatives to jet fuel become available years ahead of schedule, it will be impossible for the company to add more planes to its fleet without also making emissions jump up.

“Amazon prides itself on being an ambitious and innovative company, but it’s making quite a problem for itself with its air freight cargo growth,” Archer says. “If Amazon is serious about climate progress, that’s a really easy place to start: stop flying so much.”

Amazon is no stranger to climate criticism. Its overall emissions have skyrocketed since it rolled out the Climate Pledge in 2019, despite an incremental drop in 2023. Last year, Amazon lost the support of a key UN-backed global climate organization, the Science Based Targets Initiative, for not meeting certain deadlines to set targets to reduce emissions; it was one of nearly two dozen companies axed by SBTI from its list of climate-conscious companies. In July, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, an employee group, released a report criticizing the company’s calculations around its claim that it had met a sustainable energy goal. In 2023, Amazon quietly eliminated a goal to make half its shipments carbon neutral by 2030—a goal which, the company says, was superseded by the larger Climate Pledge.

Part of the issue in calculating emissions for Amazon is just how sprawling the challenges it faces are, thanks to its relentless vertical integration: the Wall Street Journal reported in May that in order to expand its control over its logistics processes, the company had already leased, bought, or announced plans to expand warehouse space in the US by 16 million square feet this year. Kelly said in an email in response to WIRED’s request for comment that the vast network of logistics the company has built allows it to deliver packages closer to their destination and avoid driving long miles.

Reading the company’s sustainability report is an exercise in understanding a variety of different ambitious technical and sociological climate goals across different industries involved in its supply chain. In response to WIRED’s request for comment, Kelly listed out Amazon’s membership in two business organizations advancing sustainable shipping, its membership in a buyers’ alliance encouraging the adoption of sustainable aviation fuel, and its investment in electric trucking: in May, the company put 50 electric trucks on the road in Southern California.

“I think it creates a lot of challenges for the broader transportation industry if every company just does what Amazon does and brings air freight in house,” Archer says. “Then you’ll have a situation where a lot of people are flying a lot of planes.”

There’s a real question of whether or not the company making significant changes would just move emissions from one company’s balance sheet to another’s as the rest of the industry keeps growing. Atlas Air, a subcontractor of Amazon Air, announced in May that it would stop domestic flights carrying Amazon parcels in favor of concentrating on other customers, including Chinese ecommerce titans Shein and Temu.

Still, with Amazon dominating so much of the US market—and with the capacity to kick off trends that other suppliers then follow, like expedited shipping—the company has an opportunity to set an aggressive example, like throwing a substantial effort into decreasing plane use and helping the US build out infrastructure for more sustainable long-haul trucking. (The company didn’t provide figures on how much it has spent on partnerships, research, lobbying, or other activities to decarbonize the trucking sector in the US.)

As for that splashy electric van pledge? The Stand.earth report projects that at Amazon’s current growth rates, if the company puts all the electric vans it promises on the roads by the end of the decade, that would still only account for a third of the company’s deliveries. If Amazon’s sales keep growing on pace, it would need 400,000 EVs to deliver all its packages.

“The 100,000 vans by 2030 is way too little, way too late,” Archer says.

[eretzyisrael]

BY ALLISON TOMBROS KORMAN

As the war ramped up, it was clear that this issue was not going away. Not only was I struggling to process Oct. 7 with friends, family, and my community, I was also navigating the conflict every day at work. As the only Jewish voice in the organization, I was repeatedly put in the position to speak for all Jewish people—an impossible task—or to defend my perspective and why it did not align with that of Jewish Voices for Peace, a group that purports to represent Jews but rejects the basic premise of a Jewish homeland, or similar entities. At the same time, if I advocated for DCAF staying out of this discussion, I was told I was silencing the organization and its staff. I shared my heartbreak about the violence against both Israelis and Palestinians and how, though complex, these feelings could coexist. In return, it was explained to me, often by people with no direct connection to the land or its people, that I needed to understand “context.”

At the same time, other abortion funds and reproductive health organizations began issuing statements about what was happening in Gaza. These statements contained much of the same offensive nomenclature as DCAF’s draft and some, like ARC-Southeast’s letter, went further, calling Zionism—the belief that Israel simply has a right to exist—“a contradiction to Reproductive Justice.” Every member of the DCAF staff except me signed on to a letter to the board advising them that they would be participating in a walkout in support of Palestine. The letter noted, “We are using our collective power as DCAF workers to show up for Gazans and call for an immediate ceasefire, as well as liberation for Palestinians ... we cannot ignore the mass violations to human rights and sexual and reproductive health outcomes that we’re seeing out of Gaza.” Remarkably, the letter neglected any mention of health outcomes for the Israeli survivors of rape or assault, or for the hostages.

In an effort to work collaboratively and keep focused on our primary objectives, we agreed that establishing social media procedures was a critical next step. On Nov. 14, I and the communications team sat down to decide what, if anything, DCAF would be posting about the war and to ensure there were not more situations like that which occurred around the “Gaza Carousel.” I recognized that my colleagues felt strongly that DCAF should weigh in on this discussion, and in an effort to compromise, I agreed to a process that would allow DCAF to uplift existing content from trusted partners in the field, but not create original content, as this would be beyond our expertise. We agreed to abstain from using nomenclature that could be distracting or divisive to our community, such as the “Free Palestine” hashtag or calling Israel’s actions “genocide.” We developed a system to review and discuss potentially controversial content related to the war before posting, starting with a small group of reviewers, including me, and escalating to a vote by a mix of board and staff.

The following morning, I circulated the notes from that meeting to DCAF leadership and members of the Board. At 3 p.m. that day, I was alerted by a Jewish DCAF volunteer that the DCAF Instagram feed featured graphics from The Washington Post about deaths in Gaza with commentary overlaid, specifically that “collective punishment is the tool of fascists” and that what was happening in Gaza was “a prime and top-of-mind example of said collective punishment.” I immediately flagged this for the communications team and asked if perhaps the content was posted inadvertently since it violated the norms we had established in the meeting the previous day. Surely, equating the actions of the entire State of Israel with fascism was a perspective that needed to be discussed as potentially controversial. They assured me the post was intentional (they later stealthily removed it).

Immediately, DCAF received angry messages from Jewish members of their community. The messages criticized DCAF for being so one-sided on the issue. They were furious that DCAF, who claimed to deeply value reproductive justice, had remained silent on the rapes of Israeli women. They stated that as Jews, they felt abandoned by and isolated from the organization.

[ape-apocalypse]

Road To The Kingdom - Fall of Man Comics

The Fall of Man comic arc is the most recent comic series focused on the reboot trilogy. It is unique in that it doesn't feature Caesar and his troop of escaped apes at all. Some might find that a bit dull but I like to see the world building away from Caesar. It is set 4-5 years after the Simian Flu outbreak and follows a human soldier named Julia who is tasked with protecting and moving apes to Washington DC in the hopes of finding a cure. Along the way, Julia reflects on how the world has descended into chaos while fighting against a human militia, the Army of Man, who are killing apes and "monkey loving" humans alike.

The comic is a typical apocalyptic tale, though I feel like the large cast of apes and humans don't get much personality. Julia falls in love with a fellow soldier/scientist she's traveling with and I don't even remember his name, despite reading this a few days ago. Buster and the other apes get some good fight scenes but only Buster gets a name and I have a hard time figuring out what they want. When we first see the apes, Buster seems to ignore Julia's reassurance that she'll protect them and he signs to the others "ape protect ape". I thought it was setting up that the apes would leave the humans the first chance they got to take care of their own. But then they're willingly fighting alongside the human soldiers in DC, even when the apes could easily run off. I don't expect there to be a bond between Buster and Julia like Caesar and Will had in Rise, but I never understood how Buster felt about his human counterpart. Even in the very last panel, I can't tell if Buster is happy or having doubts about how the journey ends. If the story was meant to show humans and apes working together and forming a united front, I don't think the comic succeeded. It doesn’t feel like the apes care about Julia or the mission and I would have preferred Buster and his crew to just leave the humans behind.

Also featured is a French gorilla named Pug who is raising an ape army against the Army of Man, and killing anyone who gets in their way. This story is secondary to the main tale, with neither of them intertwining at all. I wish Pug's story had been the primary focus; though seeing the last bits of governments and civilization is interesting, I much preferred Pug. We get little of his background but see that he spares and feeds human children who were held captive by the militia. It seems he can even rally human adults to his cause. His tale is brief compared to Julia and her team but I really enjoyed Pug more. Plus it's great to see what's happening in another country that isn't the USA, where Caesar and his apes live. I think both stories suffered from feeling rushed by having to share the comic, rather than each getting their own arc but Pug's story was much more intriguing than Julia's in the long run.

The world building of humanity crumbling is always a good read to fans of apocalyptic stories and it makes sense to look at how the governments and health organizations fell apart. But my favorite parts were the small bits of hope seen amongst the chaos. I loved the glimpse of orangutans in Malaysia willingly working with human survivors. Pug was instantly fascinating when he took care of the human children his group freed. While a civilian army growing around the world to kill apes makes sense, it was nice to see pockets of people and apes getting along. All in all, not my favorite of the POTA comics but still a fun apocalyptic story for the apes series.

Intro / Previous / Next

[beardedmrbean]

Kamala Harris has said she no longer wants a ban on plastic straws in a policy U-turn.

In 2019, the Democrat presidential nominee had told a CNN town hall meeting: “We do need to ban the plastic straws.” But her campaign has now said she has changed her mind and “doesn’t support banning plastic straws”.

“She cast the tie-breaking vote on the most consequential legislation to combat climate change and create clean energy jobs in history, and as president, she is going to be focused on expanding on that progress,” a Harris campaign official told Axios.

“She joked even then about how crappy paper straws are and the need to come up with better eco-friendly alternatives.”

The move may be intended to prevent further attacks from the Donald Trump campaign, which has previously highlighted the policy.

Jason Miller, a senior adviser in the Trump campaign, told NBC in July: “Kamala Harris had a long, liberal, radical record in California well before she even became vice-president. I mean, heck, she wants to get rid of plastic straws, for goodness’ sake.”

A number of US cities have already banned single-use plastic straws, including Seattle, Washington DC, and Malibu. They have also been banned in the UK and in parts of the EU.

Ms Harris has been criticised for changing her position on a number of key issues since being nominated.

Her team has said – via anonymous aides – that she no longer supports Medicare for All or mandatory gun buy-back programmes, both of which she called for during her 2020 Democratic primary campaign.

Last month, Ms Harris also revealed that she no longer wants to ban fracking, another position she held during the 2020 primary race. 

The change is likely to increase her chances of winning the swing state of Pennsylvania, a hotbed for oil and gas drilling, and she told CNN she now believed it was possible to “grow and increase a thriving clean-energy economy without banning fracking”.

Ms Harris insisted during the interview that her “values have not changed”, even if some of her policy ideas have.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Edward-Isaac Dovere at CNN:

Top aides and people close to��Kamala Harris have divided over whether she should head home to run for California governor in 2026 — and it all comes down to whether they believe she could win the Democratic nomination for president in an expected competitive primary in 2028. Some believe a repeat run, after quickly improving her reputation and raising more than $1 billion over her surprise 100-day race, should be hers for the taking. Others worry that in a longer campaign, against some of the other major Democratic contenders who already sat out 2024 in deference first to Joe Biden and then to her, Harris might fizzle out and follow her loss to Donald Trump with the humiliation of being rejected by her own party. The governor’s race, meanwhile, looks like a lay-up: Harris was elected statewide three times and served 10 years combined as state attorney general and US senator, and when asked by CNN, several major candidates made clear either directly or through aides that they would likely step aside if she got in. In CNN’s conversation with over a dozen current and former Harris advisers and other top California Democratic players, the only consensus around the vice president is that she likely can’t do both, since that would essentially require launching a presidential campaign soon after being sworn in as governor.

Getting into the governor’s race, top Harris advisers believe, would require making her intentions clear at the latest by the summer of 2025. That means Harris will need to decide very soon after Trump’s inauguration if she will quickly give up on her dream of being president – which she feels got short shrift from the circumstances of this year – and instead go for a job that, while one of the most powerful in American politics, would clearly be a fallback. Harris would have to think of running for governor as “more of a capstone than a stepping stone,” said one person who has advised her in the past. “If you’re thinking of running for president in 2028, the worst thing you can do is run for governor in 2026.” Another person close to Harris told CNN that the gamble of skipping the governor’s race is worth the potential payoff.

“Running for governor would be a step down, and it would interfere with her ability to run for president again,” the person said. “I don’t know if she’s going to run for president again, but a shot at running for president again is worth giving up running for governor.”

‘Not going quietly into the night’

Several people who have spoken with the vice president directly told CNN that she remains undecided herself, unsure how to channel feelings she has, for now, worked into stock lines like “you haven’t seen the last of me,” and “I’m not going quietly into the night” repeated to supporters who ask her what’s next. More than one person has noticed she has not shut down the conversation when the topic of running for governor has come up. In the meantime, Harris has kept a noticeably low profile, appearing at just a handful of public events since her concession speech, while her thank-you phone calls with donors and other supporters have often gone long, with tears on both ends, according to people familiar with the calls. She did host many staff from her office and from her campaign for a holiday party at the Naval Observatory this past Wednesday, and a smaller group of close friends and supporters for a black tie dinner there on Friday night. On Tuesday, Harris will deliver a speech in the Washington, DC, suburbs to high school and college students, as well as recent graduates and apprentices. A White House official in the announcement said it will be “a continuation” of her “broader, future-focused leadership,” but those remarks will be a more generalized message about their engagement than any tip to her own plans, according to several people who’ve seen drafts.

Harris and those who are most committed to her do not want Trump to have written her end for her and for her last major official act ever to be presiding over the certification of his Electoral College win on the four-year anniversary of his supporters rioting at the US Capitol trying to stop Biden’s and her own certification. Some people note that there’s also option C: being done with politics, inking a book deal and running some kind of organization that lets her stay involved without ever hitting the trail again. But when questions swirled in the weeks after the election about Harris’ presidential campaign possibly being left with debt, one break-glass option those closest to her definitively ruled out was selling the list of emails and contacts compiled by the campaign — currently by far the most valuable list in Democratic politics. She would need that if and when she decides what campaign is next, they said. And it’s part of why those same people are frustrated that the campaign continues to send out fundraising emails, worrying that this is leading donors and supporters whom she will eventually need to unsubscribe or sour on her.

[...]

No expected deference in 2028

That afternoon and evening in July after Biden dropped out, while Harris was making calls from the Naval Observatory to line up support, several other potential candidates were checking in with each other: Were they really all going to fall in line? Was there any room for launching a campaign, if only for the sake of a fight for the nomination, if not for the longshot hope of edging her out? They waited out their endorsements for a few hours, some until the next morning, as they decided they couldn’t credibly challenge Harris, according to people familiar with some of the conversations. They would not have the same deference if Harris runs again in 2028, people working with several of the prospective candidates note. Several Harris advisers worry that eager competition might not be her only problem. Even when putting much of the blame for her losing on Biden and economic factors out of her control, they look at her poorer-than-expected showing among younger and Black voters and see cause for major concern. Others say that her empowering the small group of senior aides who have been criticized internally and externally for how they guided her through the fall demonstrates poor decision making that would create even more problems over a presidential campaign that lasts a couple of years rather than a couple of months.

[...]

A possible ‘field clearing effect’ in California

Harris would definitely get more deference in a gubernatorial campaign, though some involved with the race are already privately pointing to how she only barely won her first attorney general race in 2010 and more recent bad in-state polls for her as signs that she might be weaker than assumed. Some connected to other gubernatorial candidates are already seeding the words “consolation prize” in trying to talk down her possible entry, arguing that’s how California voters would see it. People close to Harris who want her to run for governor say that if she gets there, that is exactly why she would need to articulate a clear rationale for getting into the race that is both connected to the proposals of her presidential campaign and not just being anti-Trump. Outgoing Rep. Katie Porter, who lost a run for Senate this year and has been sending around a poll showing her at the front of the gubernatorial field, predicted at a panel at University of California, Irvine at the beginning of December that Harris’ entry would have a “near field-clearing effect,” and California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, who has already launched her campaign for governor, intimated as much in an interview with CNN. “I’m a longtime friend and supporter of the vice president. If she decided to run for governor, I’m sure we would have a conversation first,” Kounalakis said. California political insiders have already started speculating about a ripple effect from a Harris entry, wondering which candidate might shift to which other statewide race to make way for her.

What will Kamala Harris do next? Will she run for Governor in California in 2026? Will she run for President again in 2028? Or will she do something outside of electoral politics? Stay tuned.

See Also:

HuffPost: Kamala Harris’ Top Aides Predict Her Next Move And The Dilemma Ahead

[darkmaga-returns]

In 1994, I ran for a seat in the US Congress from the 29th District in Los Angeles. Democratic Primary against the incumbent, Henry Waxman. I lost. I wasn’t satisfied with the vote-count numbers. I suspected fiddling…but I lost.

During the campaign, reality set in about corruption in Washington DC. I began to wonder what the hell I’d do in Washington if I won. Was there any action I could take that would be effective?

My final conclusion was: I’d hire trucks to drive around DC every day. On very large posters on those trucks, there would be side by side statements showing where members of Congress got their money, and related bills they voted for.

CORRUPT CONGRESSMAN OF THE WEEK, JOHN SMITH. Donors named. Connected bills Smith voted for.

Because I saw no other way to handle political reality in Washington and in the Congress.

Recently, there was the threat something like this (but much worse) would happen, if Matt Gaetz was confirmed as the next Attorney General.

Gaetz would go after members of Congress hammer and tongs. With prosecutions for taking bribes, and other crimes.

Gaetz is out. Trump’s new choice is Pam Bondi. I suspect she isn’t going to follow the path Gaetz would have taken.

She should, but I don’t think she will.

Congress pretty much runs on crime. If you don’t root that out, you’re just playing in the sandbox, as far as the city of Washington DC is concerned.

Of particular interest to me—favors, bribes, even blackmail, involving the Congress and pharmaceutical companies.

There IS one thing Trump can do. If he has the guts:

[hometoursandotherstuff]

This home looks like a rocket getting ready to take off, but the 1919 home is Art Deco and is located in Washington, DC. 3bds, 5ba, $1.995M.

The theme is white, black, & red. Look at this entrance hall. Some glass block, curves, and those shiny black floors.

This sitting room has lovely arches.

There are stairs going off to the right, lots of stairs and 3 levels.

There are also large red X's, as well. The living room is nice and airy- look at the glass walls. Unfortunately, the neighbor's fence at first looked like it was part of the decor.

The living room really looks like you're sitting on a porch.

The dining room is large and has a scalloped ceiling illuminated by wall sconce uplighting.

The kitchen has shiny black cabinetry, gray counters, and red accents.

It has a great bump-out Art Deco banquette.

Look at the amazing swirling stairs. We're looking down from the 3rd level balcony with a glass barrier.

The primary bedroom is large.

There's a walk-in closet.

And, it has this amazing en-suite.

Bedroom #2.

Cool red bath.

Bedroom #3 and its en-suite. This home has some cool baths.

There's a little desk area in the hall with a big X on the wall.

It looks like they started to build walls in the basement.

Small brick patio and yard.

https://www.trulia.com/home/1452-foxhall-rd-nw-washington-dc-20007-434905?mid=0#lil-mediaTab

[evidence-based-activism]

Hello, I really appreciate how you take the time to research and debunk clear attempts to drag women down with men?

Whats your opinion on this article?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/22/rape-cdc-numbers-misleading-definition-date-forced-sexual-assault-column/16007089/

It claims men are raped by woman just as much as women are raped by men. The only reason we don't know why is because they go underreported.

If that's the case, regardless of societal pressure men would be talking about this anways, and never bringing it up when provoked. As in, when women speak out against their assaults.

If that's the case, I think men would actually be taking precautions to be safe from women, I think men would talk about this more rather than the so called "male loneliness epidemic..."

According to,

https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/mens-suicide-rate#causes

Men are killing themsleves due to loneliness (at older ages) now the USA today article never claimed males were killing themsleves due to rape but I figure if it's just as common we would hear about it lot considering men love to bring up their own suicide rates.

Basically, the article doesn't reflect society. Then again, it's from 2014. While looking through some crime statistics too on Wikipedia apparently in 2016 there was an increase in female rapists, that just kinda tells me though men were reporting it and women were being convicted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#:~:text=Men%20accounted%20for%2080.4%20percent,those%20arrested%20for%20property%20crime.

By the way, is USA today a credible source?

Thank you.

Hello! So, the short answer is this article is nonsense and also factually inaccurate. The long answer has many parts which I enumerate below:

First, what does the article claim?

The primary argument in this article is that we should be counting "made to penetrate" (i.e., as in a woman forcing a man to penetrate her vagina with his penis, or other similar sex acts) as a type of rape. They argue that if you do so then statistics show that as many men as women are raped.

The conclusion of this argument (that statistics indicate as many women as men are raped) is factually inaccurate, even if we agreed to count "made to penetrate" as a form of rape. However, I will extend on this later, as first:

What is (and isn't) rape?

Depending on your jurisdiction (country, state, etc.) there may or may not be an actual crime called "rape" in the criminal code. In the USA, each state and Washington, DC has its own criminal code, in addition to the federal criminal code and a uniform code of military justice (UCMJ) for each branch of the armed forces. Beyond that, various agencies devoted to criminal statistics (FBI, CDC, BJS) all record data in slightly different ways.

The definition discussed (poorly) in the article, is from the CDC. The CDC publishes results from "The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey", which goes into significantly more detail than other reporting agencies [1].

The categories of sexual violence categorized by the CDC (rewritten slightly to simplify) are:

Rape -- completed or attempted unwanted vaginal, oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force or threats to physically harm and includes when the victim was too drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent (stats for each collected individually). They also note that penetration can be completed with a penis, fingers, or object; except for oral penetration which must be done with a penis.

Being made to penetrate -- when a victim was made to, or an attempt was made to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was too drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Examples include a victim being made to penetrate someone vaginally, anally, or orally with his penis or being forced to perform oral sex on a woman.

Sexual coercion -- is unwanted sexual penetration (either direction) that occurs after a person is pressured in a nonphysical way.

Unwanted sexual contact -- unwanted sexual experiences involving touch but not sexual penetration (e.g., being fondled, groped).

Sexual harassment in a public place -- verbal harassment in a sexual way that made the victim feel uncomfortable.

They also aggregate responses for the first four categories into "contact sexual violence".

The author of the USAToday article argues that "made to penetrate" offenses should be reclassified as "rape". This is a gross misunderstanding of the CDC classification system. They have made a very deliberate choice here to break these types of sexual violence down into distinct categories in order to better demonstrate differences between groups.

You'll note that the CDC's definitions are gender neutral such that both a man and a woman could be perpetrator or victim, with the exception of "made to penetrate" which is only asked of men. They are careful to emphasize this in their report, explicating how each offense may apply to a man or a woman.

Is the CDC's definition of rape the "right" one?

That depends entirely on what you mean by "right". The CDC's definition of rape aligns with historical definitions with adjustments to make the crime gender-neutral (i.e., encompass penetration with things other than a penis). The CDC's definition also aligns with the FBI's definition of rape "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim".

Other sources report only on a broader classification of sex crimes, usually either a measure equivalent to the CDC's "contact sexual violence" measure or a measure that combines rape, sexual coercion, and made to penetrate.

The US code criminal code and accompanying sentencing guidelines detail two categories of sex crimes: sexual abuse which includes criminal sex acts (roughly corresponds to CDC items 1, 2, and 3) and abusive sexual contacts (roughly corresponds to CDC item 4). In addition, they specify assaults are aggravated when they involve force, threat of death/serious bodily harm/kidnapping of the victim or another person, or forcible/unknowing administration of intoxicant to render the victim unconscious or nearly so (roughly corresponds to CDC items 1 and 2).

I will not be going through each state's criminal codes but the ones I did look at appear to either: follow the federal code's example or create separate offenses (e.g., rape, sodomy) and then classify them as the same "degree" of offense.

Ultimately, in reference to criminal proceedings the determining factors for sentence length guidelines appear to be: if the victim is a child, if the offense is aggravated, if the victim is grievously injured, and if the offender is a repeat offender. Considered alone, a crime being rape vs made to penetrate doesn't appear to make a difference in sentence length.

So, why is the author of the USAToday so bent out of shape?

They appear to be angry about the "expansion" of the rape definition to include non-forcible offenses. (Although, based on the premise of the article, I imagine they would have been equally upset if the old definition "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will" was retained.)

I am very curious to know which of the "expansions" they specifically object to. The expansion to include anal or oral penetration? To include threats of physical harm? To include penetration of objects other than the penis? Or maybe just the inclusion of "when the victim was too drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent"?

There's also an important note here, that despite common claims to the contrary, being "too drunk, high, drugged, or passed out" does not include "sex while a partner is intoxicated" unless that partner is unable to consent, which most commonly means the victim was either unconscious or very nearly so. In some jurisdictions, even this will only apply when the intoxicant was either forced or unknowingly given to the victim, known as the voluntary intoxication caveat [2]. It’s inconceivable to me that someone would genuinely be trying to argue that having sex with someone while they’re unconscious isn’t rape, so I assume the author must not have actually read the legal codes/CDC definitions. (Side note: there's also generally rules defining sexual acts with individuals unable to consent due to mental disability or age as rape. The CDC didn’t include this in their definition because their results are based on surveys of adults in the US.)

All in all, I'm hard pressed to imagine which of these situations the author would genuinely like to claim isn't rape.

And with all of that: the author's first misinterpretation/misrepresentation of CDC data. They appear to think the CDC is counting coercion and intimidation in the "rape" data rather than in the "sexual coercion" data. I assume they simply did not actually read the report they are attempting to analyze, since I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to miss this otherwise.

Okay, but I think that the definition of rape should include everything the CDC calls rape, sexual coercion, and made to penetrate. If we look at all of those offenses together do we see equal rape rates for men and women?

No :) this brings us to misinterpretation/misrepresentation of the data #2. Let's look at the most recent (2016/17 report, published in 2022) CDC sexual victimization report.

The issue with trying to compare total counts for these three categories is that summing them gives you a significant over-count of victims. This is because many people report victimizations of more than one crime. For example, 27% of women report experiencing rape in their lifetime. Breaking that up we see: 22% experienced completed forced penetration, 16% experienced attempted forced penetration, and 17% experienced alcohol/drug-facilitated penetration. If we didn't have that overall 27% figure, summing these values would have suggested that 55% of women experience rape (or 39% when we exclude attempted rape). Obviously, this is a significant over count.

So, what can we compare?

Well, we can can compare across single offense categories for men and women. With this we see that, in their lifetime:

27% of women and 4% of men experience rape

11% of men are "made to penetrate" (not estimated for women, previous estimates put the percentage around 1%)

24% of women and 11% of men experience sexual coercion

48% of women and 23% of men experience unwanted sexual contact

30% of women and 11% of men experience sexual harassment in a public place

To make a striking point, let’s create a possible range of prevalence estimates using the summing method (where the floor is the highest percent for any single category and the ceiling is the sum of each category), the expanded definition of rape from above would apply to anywhere from 27% to 52% of women and anywhere from 11% to 26% of men. Based on this, the ceiling estimate for men (26%) would still be lower than the floor estimate for women (27%).

A more accurate comparison would be between contact sexual violence experiences (includes CDC items 1, 2, 3, and 4 and would encompass both sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact per the US legal code). This measurement is 54% for women and 31% for men.

The article's claim that women and men reported rape and made to penetrate at the same rate relied on the 12-month prevalence estimate. This measurement is much less robust, and I generally just ignore it for prevalence estimates; it's best used, I think, for comparisons across time. As an example of this, the data I'm reporting from reports a 12-month prevalence difference of 2% for rape for women and 1% for made to penetrate for men. Clearly, these 12-month estimates are less stable for estimating prevalence, if the women’s rate can be nearly identical to the men’s rate one year and double the men’s rate another year.

In addition to this, the proportion of male victims reporting only female perpetrators was much lower than the proportion of female victims reporting only male perpetrators. (I have previously discussed the issues with obtaining perpetrator prevalence rates from victimization data, so I won't go into this further.)

Okay, what about the rest of the article?

Well, the author references a study using non-probablity/non-random sampling to try and suggest there's a much higher rate of sexual victimization among men than previously found. I've talked before about why this is a problem. The authors of that study are actually not the worst, since they explicitly acknowledge in their discussion that "recruitment strategies ... were not random, thus limiting generalizability". So, bad USAToday author for misrepresenting their study.

The one actually interesting point is about sexual victimization at juvenile detention centers. I would need a whole other post to appropriately dive into that complicated (and sensitive) topic however. Suffice to say that his commentary on this is also partially inaccurate and definitely misleading.

The rest of the article is anecdotal, un-sourced, and essentially seems to be him railing about feminists and also anti-rape initiatives on college campuses.

---

For the rest of your ask:

Is male-on-female rape under-reported/wouldn't we see people talking about this?

I've discussed how female crimes aren't under-reported in the past. Rape in general is under-reported, but female-on-male rape is not significantly under-reported in comparison to male-on-female rape. In general, I agree that if there was a substantial number of men being victimized by women, we'd see an effect of this on/in society.

"While looking through some crime statistics too on Wikipedia apparently in 2016 there was an increase in female rapists" -> I am not able to find this in the Wikipedia article? If you meant to say 2014, observed changes in statistics may have been impacted by the FBI's (extremely belated, like, behind every single other agency ever) change in rape definition from "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will" to "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim".

What about male suicide rates? The male loneliness epidemic?

Men are more likely to commit suicide, as described in the article you linked to. However, women are either equally or more likely to attempt suicide and have suicidal thoughts. (Also discussed in the same article, specific rates vary by source).

Loneliness is a pretty serious problem, particularly among the elderly. However, it's not a "men's problem", it's a "human people problem" [3]. The specific statistics vary by age group, but, overall, women and men appear to experience loneliness at similar rates.

"By the way, is USA today a credible source?"

Depends on what you mean by credible. mediabiasfactcheck.com rates USAToday as left center and mostly factual due to "editorial positions that slightly favor the left" and "editors missing fabricated stories in the past". Of course, reliance on this rating requires you to trust the people behind mediabiasfactcheck. I've found them to be ... somewhat credible. They do best with sources that are firmly (USA) democrat or republican oriented, however. For example, they also rate Feminist Current as "mostly factual" for the "promotion of transphobia" despite no failed fact checks in the past five years. Further cases like this one and related issues damage their credibility. Unfortunately, I really don't have a special way to determine credible sources. My best advice is honestly to look at many different sources, including ones you don't agree with, and critically engage with the content of each of them.

In reference to this article specifically, the more important factor in this case is the "opinion" article flag at the top of the page. This means that someone, who doesn't have to be affiliated with the source, wrote an article that the source is hosting. There's many reasons why they would agree to do so, so speculating isn't very helpful. Researching the author can help establish professional credibility (is he a reporter? a public offical? just some guy?), but it's important not to stray into ad hominem attacks (i.e., check out the author to determine credibility, but focus arguments about article on the content of the article).

In this case, the author is "Glenn Harlan Reynolds" a law professor at the "University of Tennessee College of Law" and writer of the "Instapundit" blog. mediabiasfactcheck rates it as a "questionable source" for "promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, the use of poor sources, a failed fact check, and a lack of transparency with ownership". Reynolds has also been disciplined for the "promotion of violence" over social media. This suggests to me that he lacks credibility, an opinion I'd support by his clear misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of data sources.

References under the cut:

Basile, K.C., Smith, S.G., Kresnow, M., Khatiwada S., & Leemis, R.W. (2022). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Sexual Violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Teravskis, P. J., Grossman-Kahn, R., & Gulrajani, C. (2022). Victim intoxication and capacity to consent in sexual assault statutes across the united states. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.220032-21

von Soest, T., Luhmann, M., Hansen, T., & Gerstorf, D. (2020). Development of loneliness in midlife and old age: Its nature and correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(2), 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000219

[tailschannel]

Here's a complete recap of everything featured in this year's Sonic Central presentation

New collaborations with LEGO, an upcoming Sonic Frontiers DLC update, and a first look at Part 2 of Sonic Prime were among the major highlights in this year's Sonic Central presentation.

Here's everything you need to know.

Sonic Frontiers

Details on the second major content update for Sonic Frontiers was revealed in the Sonic Central. Titled "Sonic's Birthday Bash", it's scheduled for a release on 23 June 2023.

Sonic's Birthday: Celebrate Sonic's birthday in Sonic Frontiers with a new birthday theme, including a festive HUD, environment objects, a new birthday skin, and more!

Open Zone Challenges: Explore the Open Zone with all new challanges scattered throughout.

Spindash: The iconic Sonic move makes a return in Sonic Frontiers!

New Kocos: Some Kocos seem to dawn new outfits and some do seem a bit bigger than usual.

New Game Plus.

Sonic Superstars

A new teaser was shown promoting the new Sonic Superstars and LEGO collaboration, featuring LEGO Eggman as a pre-order bonus.

Following the presentation, SEGA dropped new renders and descriptions for all the characters featured in the upcoming game.

Trip: Not much is known yet about Trip, the mysterious girl first encountered by Fang on the Northstar Islands. While a bit clumsy, Trip is heavily armored and has been enlisted by Fang and Dr. Eggman to protect and guide them around the wonders of this uncharted region.

Fang the Hunter (formerly Fang the Sniper): Fang is a springy jerboa that is light on his feet and is always looking for the next big score. A bounty hunter by trade, Fang the Hunter has been known by many different names over the years, likely due to his “WANTED” status with the authorities. Always trying to stay one step ahead, he’s constantly modifying and upgrading his primary mode of transportation, the Marvelous Queen.

You can check out the rest of the descriptions for Sonic, Amy, Tails, Knuckles and Eggman here.

The official Sonic the Hedgehog YouTube channel also uploaded a new 3-minute video featuring Superstars producer Naoto Ohshima and Sonic Studio creative officer Takashi Iizuka.

They "talk in-depth about Superstars, including inspirations, challenges, and what it's like to create a new character."

Sonic Symphony World Tour

Here are the official tour dates for the Sonic Symphony from 2023 to 2024:

Sept 16, 2023 - London, Barbican Hall

Sept 22, 2023 - Paris, Le Grand Rex

Sept 30, 2023 - Los Angeles, Dolby Theatre

Oct 14-15, 2023 - São Paulo, Brasil Game Show

Oct 21, 2023 - Boston, Emerson Colonial Theatre

Oct 28, 2023 - Chicago, Auditorium Theatre

Nov 17, 2023 - Düsseldorf, Mitsubishi Electric Halle

Dec 15, 2023 - San Antonio, Majestic Theatre

Dec 29, 2023 - Atlanta, Cobb Energy P.A.C.

Jan 05, 2024 - Seattle, Paramount Theatre

Jan 06, 2024 - San Francisco, Davies Symphony Hall

Jan 20, 2024 - Washington DC, Warner Theater

Jan 27, 2024 - Kansas City, Kansas City Music Hall

Feb 11, 2024 - Tokyo, LINE CUBE SHIBUYA

Feb 17, 2024 - Toronto, Meridian Hall

Mar 24, 2024 - Montreal, Wilfrid-Pelletier Theater

Mar 29, 2024 - Portland, Schnitzer Auditorium

For more information such as ticket pricing and availability, check out the above links.

Sonic Prime

A new extended clip of the upcoming second content drop of Sonic Prime was previewed. It's scheduled to make its debut on Netflix in 13 July.

With the help of his ragtag group of Shatterverse allies, Sonic battles the Chaos Council for control of the powerful Paradox Prism, one Shard at a time.

Sonic Dash and Speed Battle

A new Classic Super Sonic skin will be joining SEGA HARDlight's flagship titles Speed Battle and Dash soon.

Other things of note, as reported last week:

To coincide with the release of the 2nd season of Sonic Prime, characters from Prime will be playable in Dash, including Boscage Sonic, Rusty Rose, and Tails Nine.

Alongside the Prime characters, Super Silver and an all new Dragon Hunter Lancelot will make their debut in Dash and Speed Battle later this month.

San Diego Comic-Con 2023

With Comic-Con coming this summer, a new pop-up restaurant featuring the blue blur will open near the show floor.

More details will be announced in the weeks ahead.

Merchandise

New Death Egg Set from Jakks Pacific: Based on the Sonic 4 Episode 2 final boss, fight The Egg Heart in the new Death Egg set.

Streetwear brand Hypland announced their collaboration with Sonic the Hedgehog: The limited edition collection features an assortment of graphic tees and hoodies featuring Sonic and his friends meshed into contemporary streetwear designs.

S-Fire Sonic Statue: Pre-order the new Sonic & Shadow statue today with augmented reality compatibility.

Sonic has officially announced a collaboration with the popular shoe brand Crocs. As reported back in late May: it's available in adult and kids sizes, for $49.99 USD and $44.99 USD respectively. Besides the shoes themselves, Crocs will be offering Jibbitz charms. They will be coming in a pack of 5 with Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, and Shadow, offered at $19.99 USD.

Other things of note: a Sonic-themed Playmate cooler from Igloo, a themed guitar from ESP Guitars, and Sonic and Shadow Cable Guy figures.

Sonic Origins Plus

With Origins Plus out, SEGA released a new launch trailer.

With more content than ever before, and a new premium physical version, Sonic Origins Plus is the definitive way to play 16 classic Sonic games in one timeless collection.

LEGO

SEGA officially previewed the Death Egg Robot set, now scheduled for a release in August.

As reported via a leak earlier this month, it contains a Sonic mini figure accompanied with his speed sphere mechanism and the launcher to it; and the Death Egg Robot piloted by Eggman, and Cubot.

Samba de Amigo: Party Central

As reported, the upcoming Samba De Amigo: Party Central will be featuring the world's famous hedgehog as a guest character.

The game will feature two iconic Sonic tunes, Escape From the City and Fist Bump, alongside the City Escape stage itself.

IDW Sonic the Hedgehog

Today's Central presentation made a brief mention of IDW Publishing's upcoming one-shot issue for the Sonic the Hedgehog comic book series: Amy Rose's 30th Anniversary.

You can read more details in our report from earlier today.

Sonic Speed Simulator

Despite the developer's controversies, the officially-licenced Speed Simulator got a mention in the Central presentation.

Users can celebrate Sonic's birthday in style with the new Tuxedo Classic Sonic skin, out now.

Lastly...

TailsTube got a shoutout, and voice actor Mike Pollock dropped some fire bars in the LEGO collaboration video.

...and that's all! For news and updates anytime, be sure to follow @TailsChannel where you are on social media.

(Files contributed by the Tails' Channel Newsfeed.)

[trainsgenderfoxgirl2816]

Vent to me about trains if ya like :3

YAY :D

So the Milwaukee Road was the First Railroad to use the use 3000 Volt DC power for any significant stretches of Electrification in 1915 (it was adopted by South African Railways in 1925, Cleveland Union Terminal (under the New York Central Railroad), the Soviet Union in 1930, the Delaware Lackawanna and Western Railroad in 1930, Italy in 1933, Brazil in 1935, Spain and Chile in 1945)

however the Primary mainline Electrification system United States would be 11,000 Volts 25 Hertz AC which was Adopted by the New York New Haven and Hartford Railroad in 1907 between Pelham and Stamford in New York (later all the way between Manhattan and New Haven CT), the Pennsylvania in 1915 between Philadelphia and Paoli (later the Entire PRR mainline between Washington DC and New York as well the entire Philadelphia Suburban Network), the Great Northern railroad in 1922 between Wenatchee and Skykomish (de-electrified in 1956), the Virginian Railroad in 1925 between Mullens and Roanoke (de-electrified in 1962), the Reading Railroad in 1928 for their Half of the Philadelphia Suburban Network, and very Briefly the Norfolk and Western had Electrified the Elkhorn grade with this system but de-electrified in 1940

@amtrak-official