#where American democracy dies

[verycleverboy]

Portrait Of An American Sunset

The author's summary from Bluesky: "In a shocking week even by the low standards of Republicans, I wrote about where we are and how we got here, and how many often forget that supremacy and fascism are things Trump found and harnessed, not his innovations. He didn't invade; he was summoned."

Having our bodies and lives dominated forever by greedy religious freaks is still largely unpopular with the larger population of awesome freaks who are not greedy freaks or religious freaks, however, and it's also against our constitution, too boot. In order to deal with this problem of unpopular and illegal goals in a governmental system that's meant to run on what is popular and legal, the fascists also intend to end democracy, and they sure have been making strides with rules they've changed and rules they're changing. In the swing state of Georgia, Republican election saboteurs have seized control of the election process and are rather predictably sabotaging the election, which they claim they are doing in the name of protecting the election. And Republicans are pushing an election law they call SAVE, which they claim is written to protect elections from fraud, even though the danger they are safeguarding against is non-existent, and one real effect of the rule may be to prevent women from voting. And they're trying to move the goalposts in Nebraska—even though the voting has already started—to claw back a single electoral vote Republicans have managed to let squirt free of its moorings, and they say they're engaged in this clear disenfranchisement of the people in the name of letting the will of the people be heard. This means that every 2 years or so the main choice we're making is whether or not we ever get to make choices again, doesn't seem sustainable, probably because it isn't sustainable. It's like playing football against a team that only has to score a single touchdown to win no matter what the scoreboard says, because instead of playing football they spend their energy changing the rules, and now they've got one that states that if they (and only they) score one touchdown, then they get to execute any referees they don't like—according to the head referees, who they have been bribing. And if all the cheating fails and they lose anyway, then retaliatory violence is all but assured, partly because that's what happened last time and partly because that's what they are promising. This gang wants killing and they intend to have killing, one way or another.

Moxon's article not only touches on the Mark Robinson nightmare in my backyard, but the depressing contention that CNN (the outlet whose "unforgivably leftist" tag only works when you've cultivated a population that's never read or seen anything "unforgivably leftist" in their lives except as a sitcom trope) didn't even touch the worst of it because it was unpublishable. Which begs the question, "How do you (a corporate news source) define 'unpublishable' in 2024?"

And he includes a reminder that Mitt Romney, the Republican who other Republicans still send death threats for having one moment of conscience, also ran on an anti-immigration platform in 2012. The main difference between then and now, Moxon argues, is conservatives (in the leadership, at least) don't pretend to be decent about it anymore.

They're doing all this openly because doing it openly is maximally menacing for the people they want to target, and fascists enjoy the fear of others, because the fear of others demonstrates that they are still dominating others. They're lying about why they're doing it, not because most of them don't know that they are lying, but because getting away with lies demonstrates domination. And the lies are ridiculous and laughably obvious because getting away with obvious lies demonstrates more dominance than being forced to craft believable ones does. They're calling themselves heroes for doing it, even while they mock and scorn true heroism, because being held blameless for abuse when you are the cause demonstrates dominance most of all. And they're getting away with it, because our institutions and systems and even the political opposition favors civility and politeness to truth and consequences. Even acting as if fascists intend to do what they say they intend to do is seen as gauche. And so fascists play on, in a land of zero consequences for fascists.

(Oh for god sakes, read the full thing. Then when you're done reading, keep reading some more. Read harder. Read better.)

[porterdavis]

A message to 72 million Americans

That's the number of you who found a way to justify to yourself voting for Donald Trump for President. His character is well-known and disqualifying on its face....felonies, sexual assaults, fraud, deceit, and a documented lack of qualifications. Nonetheless, you chose him over a generational talent with proven capabilities, not least of which is a sense of joy in governing.

My message to you is short and concise: You own this. From this point on -- it's on you.

Every woman that dies in a hospital parking lot because the ER can't deal with her miscarriage, blocked by Trump's abortion laws -- that's on you.

Every family that is torn apart by brownshirt government agents in middle-of-the-night deportation raids -- that's on you.

Every train derailment due to safety regulations being eliminated, spilling toxic chemicals killing and poisoning people for generations -- that's on you.

Every Ukrainian woman killed in her house by a Russian drone because the US has abandoned its support -- that's on you. Same with Gazans, West Bank settlers, Lebanese, and Taiwanese. That's on you.

Twice in the last eight years I have allowed my hopes to be raised by the prospect of the US getting a sane, female leader to break the cycle of old white men doing the same old things. That was on me.

But now it's time for rear-guard action. No, not some preposterous militia-style play-acting like Proud Boys or III percenters. No, it's time to observe, take notes, offer resistance where possible, preserve evidence for possible judicial action if democracy survives.

I will never forget and I will never forgive the 72 million who chose selfish interests to let misogyny and racism determine their votes for a man who has promised to destroy the democracy that millions of our forbears fought to defend both at home and on foreign shores.

My time is almost done. I'm not worried for myself, but I look at my grandchildren and I cry for what will be denied them...the democracy and freedoms that 72 million people have so cravenly cast aside.

This is on you.

[darcylindbergh]

I've talked a lot about why you should vote AGAINST Trump. No fucking shit, right? But I want to vote FOR something, too.

Kamala Harris hasn't had time yet to put together her platform documents, though no doubt we'll see those in the coming days. But this is a good analysis of where she and Joe Biden stand - and Kamala is more progressive on every front.

Abortion rights: Joe would've restored Roe, but Kamala would expand it to prevent states from limiting access. The pre-clearance measure discussed here is a non-starter but I'd expect Kamala to be looking at how to frame the issue for another try.

Israel and Gaza: it's true that Kamala hasn't broken with Joe publicly about Gaza. However, the article goes on:

Harris hasn’t exactly broken with Biden over the issue. But she has expressed more public sympathy than Biden has over the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have died during Israel’s counterattack. In March, she was one of the earliest high-profile leaders in the administration to call for an immediate temporary cease-fire in March. She also delivered the sharpest rebuke against Israel’s handling of aid flows into Gaza and described the conflict as a “humanitarian catastrophe” for innocent civilians. And privately, she has told Biden and other top officials that the administration needed to take a stronger stance against Netanyahu and focus on a long-term peace to the decades-long conflict, people familiar with her remarks have previously told POLITICO.

Kamala has also declined to preside over the upcoming session of Congress that Netanyahu is speaking at, on invitation by Republicans. She wasn't scheduled to before this, but I think declining now is a clear indicator that her foreign policy will not include the broad support we saw from Joe.

Climte Change: Honestly, the Build Back Better bill was so fucking substantial and incredible I think Kamala would be hard-pressed to do much more. I think Kamala needs to have a solid response ready to the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Chevron, which is the biggest threat to the EPA and other agencies in our lifetimes. (Trump, by the way, would abolish the EPA and the vast majority of environmental protections.)

Student debt relief: She was more progressive earlier, and I expect we'll see many of Joe's relief packages continue expanding.

Similarly:

Free college: Kamala's in full support. I understand Joe's position that students from wealthy families should pay their own way, but I also know from experience that students from wealthy family not immune to financial abuse by controlling parents.

Trade: this is actually a great one to know, because Kamala's hesitance on these trade agreements are related to a) environmental concerns, and b) outsourcing American jobs. Republicans love to lose their shit over outsourcing American jobs. Here's more significance in the trade sphere:

This is going to be a HUGE talking point for your conservative-leaning relatives. Business leaders do not want Trump in office, because the agenda laid out in Project 2025 will make it harder for them to do business - it will make it harder for them to attract global talent, costlier to import and export, and stunt economic growth. Do you know that "undecided" voter who votes red for "fiscal responsibility?" This your talking point. Kamala's platform spends, but in such a way that it will stimulate economic growth and solidify the US as a business leader worldwide.

Artificial Intelligence: I'll let Kamala speak for herself.

“History has shown, in the absence of regulation and strong government oversight, some technology companies choose to prioritize profit over the wellbeing of their customers, the safety of our communities, and the stability of our democracies,” Harris said during her visit to the U.K. for November’s AI Safety Summit.  Last July, during the early days of the White House’s mobilization on AI policy, Harris led a meeting among civil rights, labor and consumer protection groups where she rejected the “false choice” between promoting innovation and protecting the public.

The article also talks about data privacy, where Kamala and Joe are very similar, and animal welfare. Historically, Kamala defended animal welfare protections in CA, but remember that as Attorney General, Kamala's job was to defend the law no matter what her personal feelings were. Biden made some strides here, but many will agree not enough - I think this is a place where Kamala has to tread very carefully because progressives are in favor of more stringent animal welfare protections, but agricultural and rural voters are already a demographic inclined to view progressive agendas negatively, feeling forgotten, misunderstood, and passed over in favor of large cities. It's definitely a weakness for the Dems so I wouldn't expect to hear much about animal welfare as a voting issue.

IN SUM

I'm very happy to vote FOR Kamala, not just against Trump. I think she stands to take stronger action on abortion, stronger action on Israel and Gaza, stronger action on college and student debt relief. I think she'll continue work inherited on environmental protections and infrastructure. I think she will do more to protect LGBTQ+ individuals and unions, as well as standing strong on disability reform and criminal justice reform (yes, I know she was a prosecutor, and I also know that she worked on several important CJ reforms during her time as AG - here's an article about her progressive record as DA).

Remember, there's no such thing as a protest vote. The only people who benefit by third-party voting or choosing not to vote are the far-right.

[littlestpersimmon]

Jose Rizal, the philippine national hero (chosen by the American occupation but whatever lol) believed in peaceful means to achieve liberation, even tried to convince his contemporaries to NOT revolt. And the Spaniards still marched him off to prison where he was eventually executed via firing squad.

Andres Bonifacio, dude who rebelled against both the Americans and the Spaniards, started the revolution that lead to the philippines being among the first democracies of Asia and the entire global south. And the American occupation had him assassinated by the puppet government they set up.

Rizal grew up a member of the bourgeoisie, while Bonifacio grew up among the lower classes. And it didn't matter, because regardless of how differently they resisted, they were both killed by the oppressive regimes they were under. The difference is that Andres died fighting, dedicating his life to the rebellion, and his dream of liberating his people.

Anyways. If a lot of you guys are constantly picking between two lesser and greater evils, what difference do you have from medieval peasants waiting for a benevolent king to have mercy on you.

[librarycards]

I’ve seen a lot of discourse about Aaron Bushnell and madness, with reactionary genocidaires saying it is madness, and leftists saying it is not madness but principled protest. In my mind I am thinking about madness and sanity under empire, thinking I am surely mad and wondering why anyone is trying to be sane. If you have the capacity, can you share your thoughts on the madness of this moment, or point to others who have shared those thoughts?

you have very much captured the spirit of what i think! there's that common aphorism that goes something like, 'if this world is sane, then of course i'm mad' etc. etc., while i think this doesn't fully capture the specific genealogy and politic of Madness as contemporary scholar-activists understand it, it does provide a quick & effective explanation of Aaron's (z"l) decision to make the ultimate sacrifice in support of Palestinian liberation.

it isn't useful to understand his choices as solely Mad (in terms of an embrace of opacity and nonsensicality/illegibility - in fact, quite the opposite, he took pains to be explicit and serious as to his reasoning and methodology so that u.s. media discourse would struggle to obfuscate it [even though they still are]).

however, it *is* useful to use a Mad conceptual framework for some elements of Aaron's choice, and as a means of understanding pathologized forms of protest –– not only suicide, but med strike, hunger strike, etc. these forms of protest, as many have said, are designed to distress onlookers. they are designed to push against the bounds of the common[/]sensical, to gift us with possible alternatives to, you know, getting a police permit and marching in circles, AND, to the complacent, grease the stopped-up gears of their own imaginations. because Aaron did what is, in many ways (even to those of us who have attempted suicide before) unimaginable: he died. we have not yet died. he died yelling "Free Palestine." he died, and lived his last moments with a degree of moral turpitude, courage, and singleminded commitment to a cause that few will ever achieve, and yet one that –– as Aaron himself acknowledged Palestinians must muster every day.

here is where Madness comes in: Aaron acted as a linker of worlds: between that which many usamericans, and many others who have never undergone military siege/genocide, find exists outside the realm of the imaginable. a world that many would prefer to pretend does not, can not, could not exist. a world from which hegemonic media would have "us" (white americans/others in the ~western world~) believe could never exist, not least because our own military hegemons (with Aaron, until the other day, as one of their sentient weapons) protect "democracy" –– that is, the supposed exceptionality/exemption of the "(white) u.s. citizen" from terror, from sociopolitical Madness, from the absolute violence of settler colonialism. Aaron, in short, brought that unimaginable violence home. he forced us to reckon with the brutal truth of martyrdom, here. as someone on here mentioned, he used his status as an airman in what is perhaps the most effective weaponization of privilege i have ever seen. he killed a soldier, and that soldier was himself.

of course media is leaping and will continue to leap on this as evidence of extremism, of dangerous insanity, etc. etc. in radical movements. always has been. read The Protest Psychosis. the idea of insanity has been used by basically every state power to justify disposal, because it's convenient: by claiming one is insane, you also claim all of their appeals to reason are the result of their insanity. this is called anasognosia. it's a cute little trick. it isn't new. the best way to approach this is to maintain two things: one, that Aaron's choice was rational given a clearsighted understanding of the scale of genocide that's currently taking place. AND, to question those –– leftists included! pro-pal folks included! –– who uncritically cite 'mental illness' as the reason for Aaron's suicide.

this is not because Aaron wasn't what some would call "mentally ill" –– i don't know him, i do not live in his head. the point is, it does not matter if he was diagnosed with anything or not. it does not matter if he was already suicidal or not. it does not matter if he had tried to kill himself before. none of it fucking matters, and attempts to reduce this act to the result of a mad(dened) mind is to distract from the political project he pursued. he performed a politically Mad act, to which his imagined internal pathology was irrelevant. he broke consensus reality, even if only for a moment. he linked worlds. Palestinians felt it. that is what matters.

so, how did he connect worlds? he did something Mad. it is useful to understand suicide as a Mad act, so long as we are careful not to fall into the pathologizing traps that exclude suicidal people as interlocutors outright. he showed many of us, activists included, what we could be doing - the lengths to which it is possible to go in support of liberation. he did not, and i am not, encourage/ing everyone else to kill themselves. self-immolation is effective, in many ways, because so few people do it. we need to stay alive to continue the fight. however, Aaron tore the fabric of the reasonable, the possible, and the legal (consider the pigs who approached his burning body with guns) to disrupt a collective consciousness that would rather move on, equivocate, forget, tune-out. that is Mad. Madness is necessary in our movements, all of them.

[detroitpedxing]

(Archived News, Sept. 17. 2024) Second Apparent Assassination Attempt on Trump Prompts Alarm Abroad

There is widespread concern that the November election will not end well and that American democracy has frayed to the breaking point.

In the nine years since Donald J. Trump entered American politics, the global perception of the United States has been shaken by the image of a fractured, unpredictable nation. First one, then a second apparent attempt on the former president’s life have accentuated international concerns, raising fears of violent turmoil spiraling toward civil war.

Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, has said he is “very worried” and “deeply troubled” by what the F.B.I. said was an attempt to kill Mr. Trump at his Florida golf course, fewer than 50 days before the presidential election and two months after a bullet bloodied the ear of Mr. Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania.

“Violence has no part to play at all in any political process,” Mr. Starmer said.

Yet, violence has played a core part in this stormy, lurching American political campaign, and not only in the two apparent assassination attempts. There is now widespread concern across the globe that the November election will not end well and that American democracy, once a beacon to the world, has frayed to the breaking point.

In Mexico, where elections this year were the most violent in the country’s recent history, with 41 candidates and aspirants for public office assassinated, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said in a post on X, formerly Twitter: “Even though what happened is still unclear, we regret the violence against former President Donald Trump. The path is democracy and peace.”

At a time of wars in Europe and the Middle East and widespread global insecurity as China and Russia assert the superiority of their autocratic models, American precariousness weighs heavily.

Corentin Sellin, a French history professor, said the “brutalization of American politics” had left France “wondering whether the presidential campaign will finish peacefully.”

France was stunned, he said, by the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters, and “there is this notion that the story that started with that insurrection has not yet ended,” and that the Nov. 5 election will determine how it does.

The threat of violence — at times, even the need for it — has been a core part of Mr. Trump’s message.

He has already cast doubt on the credibility of the coming November election results. He has persistently laced his language with calls to “fight” and used incendiary terms to insult immigrants. Just before the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, he urged followers to “fight like hell” or they would not “have a country any more.” In general, he has shown an ironclad incapacity to accept many truths, including the result of the 2020 election.

Democrats have responded by depicting Mr. Trump as a direct menace to American democracy, a “weird” would-be autocrat of fascist tendencies and a “threat to our freedoms,” in the words of Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee. The left-leaning New Republic magazine portrayed Mr. Trump as Hitler on a recent cover, expressing the view that a second Trump term is likely to lead to some form of American tyranny.

Some Europeans see things in a very different light.

“They tried to do everything,” said Andrea Di Giuseppe, a lawmaker with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing Brothers of Italy party. “They tried to bring Trump down with trials, they tried to bring him down with insinuations, they tried to bring him down by scaring people that ‘if Trump arrives democracy ends.’ Then, since all these attempts did not work, they tried to kill him.”

The authorities have identified a suspect in the Florida episode, Ryan W. Routh, a 58-year-old building contractor with a criminal history and a passionate embrace of the Ukrainian cause. He was charged in federal court with two firearms counts. More charges may follow.

Responding to the apparent assassination attempt, Carsten Luther, an online editor for international affairs, gave voice to deep concerns about the survival of American democracy in the respected German weekly Die Zeit. “The warnings of a civil war can be heard and no longer sound completely unrealistic,” he wrote. “It seems almost banal, as if it was bound to happen at some point.”

Of course, other Western societies, including France and Germany, are also viscerally divided and have seen the rise of xenophobic, far-right parties with many of the same messages as Mr. Trump. In May, an assassination attempt on Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia left him critically injured.

But a far more restrictive European gun culture has curbed the extent of political violence while leaving Europeans alarmed and incredulous at the ease with which Americans are able to obtain weapons.

Félix Maradiaga, a former Nicaraguan presidential candidate and political prisoner who is now a fellow at the University of Virginia, said that polarization, intolerance and the widespread availability of high-caliber weapons in the United States had led to a “perfect storm.”

“The world is watching, and the stakes could not be higher,” he added. “Russia and China are undoubtedly taking satisfaction in this deterioration of democracy.”

Lebohang Pheko, a senior research fellow at South Africa’s Trade Collective, an economics research institute, said that she perceived “a militarization of everyday life in the United States, and this essentially seems to be spilling into these elections.”

Mr. Trump has often appeared to seek this very militarization of which he has narrowly escaped being a victim. The multimillionaire son of a real-estate developer from Queens, he has positioned himself as the defender of the gun-toting, God-fearing American frontier against what he portrays as the Democrats’ politically correct socialist takeover.

Alluding to his Democratic opponents, he has blamed “the things that they say about me” for the first assassination attempt and the second episode, not the easy access to guns that he defends.

The question now is how violent will this political confrontation in America prove. For many around the world, it seems to contain the seeds of rampant conflict.

“There is a sort of reciprocal delegitimization, where the political opponent is no longer a normal political competitor, but also an existential enemy,” said Mario Del Pero, a professor of United States and International History at Sciences Po University in Paris. He called this process “a degradation of political and public discourse.”

In the United States, this has been a degradation compounded by guns, as much of the world sees it.

“Style over substance. Image over issues. Lies over facts. Distractions over policy. Repeated violence,” said Tomasz Płudowski, the deputy dean of the School of Social Science, AEH, in Warsaw. “That seems to be the contemporary American reality.”

The core confrontation in Western societies is no longer over internal issues. It is global vs. national, the connected living in the “somewhere” of the knowledge economy vs. the forgotten living “nowhere” in industrial wastelands and rural areas.

There lies the frustration, even fury, on which a Trump or a Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right French National Rally, or Ms. Meloni in Italy have been able to build.

The perceived vulnerability of American democracy has already provoked many reactions around the world, from Russian gloating and interference to European anxiety about its security. Few countries in the developing world want American lessons in how to run their societies these days.

Yet, a fascination with the United States endures, and the checks and balances of its institutions have proved resilient, including through the first Trump term.

Mr. Trump often cites the template of Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary: neutralizing an independent judiciary, subjugating much of the media, demonizing migrants and creating loyal new elites through crony capitalism. But it would not be easy to impose in America.

Still, the world is anxious. The 48 days to the election feel like a long time.

“In the end, the only real final word is for the American people,” said Mr. Di Giuseppe, the Italian lawmaker. “And if you want to defeat a person whom you think is not fit to govern the United States of America, you have to defeat him in a democratic system with elections, not with justice or Kalashnikovs.”

[liquidorcard]

Eyyy, well look at that. I call Lily somewhere in between being a neoliberal and classic conservative, and she proves me exactly right but not a day later. That was nice of her. Thanks, Lorch.

Because emotions are high right now, I want to very much stress that, yeah-- the American election was between the Dems being their typical shiteating selves and the Republicans reaching their final form as explicit, out-and-out facists. Uh, clearly those weren't two equally valid choices-- even compared to last time Trump won, where he at least put effort into appearing more as a moderate.

But let's be frank here, the nature of the capitalist hellscape the west currently exists in means that more than ever, people are desperate to be thrown a bone when it comes to the economy. And because in the west we also have piss poor econ comprehension and can barely recognize a Pyramid scheme on the small scale, let alone the nationwide one we currently have, people have been conditioned to vote red when they're struggling financially-- despite Republicans routine history of making the economy worse.

In addition to that, devastatingly large amounts of the voting population is too mentally exhausted to actually keep up with politics, if not vote at all. Why Reps win when they do can't be boiled down to a single primary factor-- but they do remarkably better the less people actually go out and vote. That's why Reps put so much time and effort into voter suppression-- and what probably really won Biden the election last time was how accessible voting was made because of covid.

Similar factors at play here in Canada, but, just speaking on the specifics of the American system here in particular.

Anyone with any degree of meaningful knowledge of history knows-- though not an absolute rule-- facist rhetoric tends to get it's big break in the wake of economic hardship and extreme financial inequality. Yes, the Biden administration did a lot to improve the economy. Yes, a lot of the economic hardship was a direct result of the first Trump term-- but there's just not enough economic and political literacy in the west to have that understood.

People tend to focus on the true MAGA voters here-- and though they are a significant portion of Trump's success in the 2024 election, don't get me wrong; the reality is, the swing demo here was likely a lot of people who were tired and frustrated, saw the orange man be big strong tough bullish leader man, and made their choice out of ignorance and ideas popagandized to them from birth about how the political system works. Or just couldn't be fucked to vote at all out of a sense of doom. As someone who wholly believes in democracy I want to steer away from the idea the population is just too dumb to vote responsibly. They're not. But western democracy has been eroded away by decades of upon decades of small obfuscation that adds up over time to a death by a thousand cuts.

Of course though, Lily so wholly believes in the system, is so profoundly fucking ready to make an appeal to the meritocracy of the western Democratic system as it currently is-- nah. Can't be the system is broken. Can't be that we are in need of radical reform.

I know there's some debate there as to whether or not the Dems' passive support for the Palestinian genocide really costed them the election or not. I personally think it did-- but not that they would have nessesarily won by a sweeping success otherwise. Of course, there are a million other factors that likely added up. To some extent (though it's debatable to how much) Kamala is a woman of colour. She was already heavily associated with the Biden administration and already technically in power. That disastrous first debate with Biden probably did a profound amount of damage out of the gate.

But she did ALSO run on an anti-immigrant position (just a more moderate one.) She also didn't do enough to distinguish herself from the Biden administration-- and she might have not have been able to. She changed her stance on fracking. She didn't do enough to outline (even just as a lie) about how she was going to simulate the economy from the bottom-up position. And though her campaign engaged in some of the smack-talk dunking on the Reps' ridiculous wedge issue bullshitting near the beginning, they very stupidly didn't keep up that energy for some absolutely godforsaken reason even though it was what was carrying her momentum at one point more than anything else. Despite myself never really fucking trusting politicians, I actually really liked Waltz. They fucking leashed him almost immediately in an absolutely braindead move.

And once again, here's fucking Lily being Queen Ghoul over here saying Harris was campaigning on a platform of "harm reduction" over a fucking GENOCIDE. Holy shitballs Lily. That's quite the take, EVEN FOR YOU. You could have blamed Biden. You would have been wrong, but. Antisemitism is unfortunately still pretty acceptable in the left, and people generally don't get the difference between Israel's government and its citizens-- or jewish people as a whole. You've been comfortable being antisemitic in the past, your fanbase is already primed for it. I'd prefer you not being the fucking bigot you are at all Lily, but like, at least that would have been your average level of awful. NOT MAKING EXCUSES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH GENOCIDE. The fuck is wrong with you!?

Also, there's no way to transition into this but, I gotta point this out: Yes Lily is being her usual profoundly unselfaware self as per fucking usual-- even though I don't think every person who voted republican is inherently a monster, her own fucking beloved brother ABSOLUTELY IS.

We actually agree on that point, Lily. Cameron and people like him need to be shot into the fucking sun.

[ask-crammaster-ham]

fuck joe biden really and truly. he hasnt done a thing to stop the genocide against Palestinians on their stolen land because it is in his best interest to see to it that Israel reminds a colonial, imperial hub for America to tap into. to vote for joe biden (as would be the case for all complicit world leaders) is to vote for someone whose willful funding of Israeli military actions has led to the unthinkable murders of countless colonized Palestinians by the IOF for simply living on the land Israel seeks to occupy. could you earnestly say that's where you want your vote to go anymore than to a republican? if a palestinian dies either way, what's the point? if americans suffer while their government sends billions in military money overseas, what's the point? democracy is a joke at this point. it just doesn't exist and if we continue to pretend it does, we're further than ever from what it should be. All these politicians leave is a trail of blood. biden is as much of a monster as trump, and perhaps in some ways, it's worse because of how much he pretends he isn't a monster. make the democratic party suffer this november for its unwillingness to represent the majority of Americans: the working class, the underprivileged, those who want to make the world materially better - not starve and make it worse.

if you find your way here, take this seriously. anti-imperialism is the only solution, for the world to get better the american empire must fall. there is no american dream or foundational truth where justice and liberty define america. america is defined by blood.

[reasonsforhope]

"If I wanted to convince you of the reality of human progress, of the fact that we as a species have advanced materially, morally, and politically over our time on this planet, I could quote you chapter and verse from a thick stack of development statistics.

I could tell you that a little more than 200 years ago, nearly half of all children born died before they reached their 15th birthday, and that today it’s less than 5 percent globally. I could tell you that in pre-industrial times, starvation was a constant specter and life expectancy was in the 30s at best. [Note: This is average life expectancy, old people did still exist in olden times] I could tell you that at the dawn of the 19th century, barely more than one person in 10 was literate, while today that ratio has been nearly reversed. I could tell you that today is, on average, the best time to be alive in human history.

But that doesn’t mean you’ll be convinced.

In one 2017 Pew poll, a plurality of Americans — people who, perhaps more than anywhere else, are heirs to the benefits of centuries of material and political progress — reported that life was better 50 years ago than it is today. A 2015 survey of thousands of adults in nine rich countries found that 10 percent or fewer believed that the world was getting better. On the internet, a strange nostalgia persists for the supposedly better times before industrialization, when ordinary people supposedly worked less and life was allegedly simpler and healthier. (They didn’t and it wasn’t.)

Looking backward, we imagine a halcyon past that never was; looking forward, it seems to many as if, in the words of young environmental activist Greta Thunberg, “the world is getting more and more grim every day.”

So it’s boom times for doom times. But the apocalyptic mindset that has gripped so many of us not only understates how far we’ve come, but how much further we can still go. The real story of progress today is its remarkable expansion to the rest of the world in recent decades. In 1950, life expectancy in Africa was just 40; today, it’s past 62. Meanwhile more than 1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty since 1990 alone.

But there’s more to do — much more. That hundreds of millions of people still go without the benefit of electricity or live in states still racked by violence and injustice isn’t so much an indictment of progress as it is an indication that there is still more low-hanging fruit to harvest.

The world hasn’t become a better place for nearly everyone who lives on it because we wished it so. The astounding economic and technological progress made over the past 200 years has been the result of deliberate policies, a drive to invent and innovate, one advance building upon another. And as our material condition improved, so, for the most part, did our morals and politics — not as a side effect, but as a direct consequence. It’s simply easier to be good when the world isn’t zero-sum.

Which isn’t to say that the record of progress is one of unending wins. For every problem it solved — the lack of usable energy in the pre-fossil fuel days, for instance — it often created a new one, like climate change. But just as a primary way climate change is being addressed is through innovation that has drastically reduced the price of clean energy, so progress tends to be the best route to solving the problems that progress itself can create.

The biggest danger we face today, if we care about actually making the future a more perfect place, isn’t that industrial civilization will choke on its own exhaust or that democracy will crumble or that AI will rise up and overthrow us all. It’s that we will cease believing in the one force that raised humanity out of tens of thousands of years of general misery: the very idea of progress.

Changing Humanity's "Normal" Forever

Progress may be about where we’re going, but it’s impossible to understand without returning to where we’ve been. So let’s take a trip back to the foreign country that was the early years of the 19th century.

In 1820, according to data compiled by the historian Michail Moatsos, about three-quarters of the world’s population earned so little that they could not afford even a tiny living space, some heat and, hopefully, enough food to stave off malnutrition.

It was a state that we would now call “extreme poverty,” except that for most people back then, it wasn’t extreme — it was simply life.

What matters here for the story of progress isn’t the fact that the overwhelming majority of humankind lived in destitution. It’s that this was the norm, and had been the norm since essentially… forever. Poverty, illiteracy, premature death — these weren’t problems, as we would come to define them in our time. They were simply the background reality of being human, as largely unchangeable as birth and death itself...

Between 10,000 BCE and 1700, the average global population growth rate was just 0.04 percent per year. And that wasn’t because human beings weren’t having babies. They were simply dying, in great numbers: at birth, giving birth, in childhood from now-preventable diseases, and in young adulthood from now-preventable wars and violence.

It was only with the progress of industrialization that we broke out of [this long cycle], producing enough food to feed the mounting billions, enough scientific breakthroughs to conquer old killers like smallpox and the measles, and enough political advances to dwindle violent death.

Between 1800 and today, our numbers grew from around 1 billion to 8 billion. And that 8 billion aren’t just healthier, richer, and better educated. On average, they can expect to live more than twice as long. The writer Steven Johnson has called this achievement humanity’s “extra life” — but that extra isn’t just the decades that have been added to our lifespans. It’s the extra people that have been added to our numbers. I’m probably one of them, and you probably are too...

The progress we’ve earned has hardly been uninterrupted or perfectly distributed... [But] once we could prove in practice that the lot of humanity didn’t have to be hand-to-mouth existence, we could see that progress could continue to expand.

Current Progress "Flows Overwhelmingly" to the Developing World

The long twentieth century came late to the Global South, but it did get there. Between 1960 and today, India and China, together home to nearly one in every three people alive today, have seen life expectancy rise from 45 to 70 and 33 to 78, respectively. Per-capita GDP over those years rose some 2,600 percent for India and an astounding 13,400 percent for China, with the latter lifting an estimated 800 million people out of extreme poverty.

In the poorer countries of sub-Saharan Africa, progress has been slower and later, but shouldn’t be underestimated. When we see the drastic decline in child mortality — which has fallen since 1990 from 18.1 percent of all children in that region to 7.4 percent in 2021 — or the more than 20 million measles deaths that have been prevented since 2000 in Africa alone, this is progress continuing to happen now, with the benefits overwhelmingly flowing to the poorest among us.

Vanishing Autocracies

In 1800, according to Our World in Data, zero — none, nada, zip — people lived in what we would now classify as a liberal democracy. Just 22 million people — about 2 percent of the global population — lived in what the site classifies as “electoral autocracies,” meaning that what democracy they had was limited, and limited to a subset of the population.

One hundred years later, things weren’t much better — there were actual liberal democracies, but fewer than 1 percent of the world’s population lived in them...

Today just 2 billion people live in countries that are classified as closed autocracies — relatively few legal rights, no real electoral democracy — and most of them are in China...

Expanding Human Rights

All you have to do is roll the clock back a few decades to see the way that rights, on the whole, have been extended wider and wider: to LGBTQ citizens, to people of color, to women. The fundamental fact is that as much as the technological and economic world of 2023 would be unrecognizable to people in 1800, the same is true of the political world.

Nor can you disentangle that political progress from material progress. Take the gradual but definitive emancipation of women. That has been a hard-fought, ongoing battle, chiefly waged by women who saw the inherent unfairness of a male-dominated society.

But it was aided by the invention of labor-saving technologies in the home like washing machines and refrigerators that primarily gave time back to women and made it easier for them to move into the workforce.

These are all examples of the expansion of the circle of moral concern — the enlargement of who and what is considered worthy of respect and rights, from the foundation of the family or tribe all the way to humans around the world (and increasingly non-human animals as well). And it can’t be separated from the hard fact of material progress.

Leaving a Zero-Sum World Behind

The pre-industrial world was a zero-sum one... In a zero-sum world, you advance only at the expense of others, by taking from a set stock, not by adding, which is why wars of conquest between great powers were so common hundreds of years ago, or why homicide between neighbors was so much more frequent in the pre-industrial era.

We have obviously not eradicated violence, including by the state itself. But a society that can produce more of what it needs and wants is one that will be less inclined to fight over what it has, either with its neighbors or with itself. It’s not that the humans of 2023 are necessarily better, more moral, than their ancestors 200 or more years ago. It’s that war and violence cease to make economic sense...

Doomerism, at its heart, may be that exhaustion made manifest.

But just as we need continued advances in clean tech or biosecurity to protect ourselves from some of the existential threats we’ve inadvertently created, so do we need continued progress to address the problems that have been with us always: of want, of freedom, even of mortality. Nothing can dispel the terminal exhaustion that seems endemic in 2023 better than the idea that there is so much more left to do to lift millions out of poverty and misery while protecting the future — which is possible, thanks to the path of the progress we’ve made.

And we’ll know we’re successful if our descendants can one day look back on the present with the same mix of sympathy and relief with which we should look back on our past. How, they’ll wonder, did they ever live like that?"

-via Vox, 3/20/23

Note: I would seriously recommend reading the whole article--because as long as this post is, this is only about half of it! The article contains a lot more information about the hows and whys of human progress, and it also definitely made me cry the first time I read it.

[eugenedebs1920]

If you can’t win. Cheat! That seems to be the platform for the once, Grand Ol Party. That party died with Eisenhower. Nixon was a paranoid, racist criminal, who would do what it took to keep power. The “Reagan Revolution” was nothing more than a script written for a literal actor to do the bidding of Wall Street and big banks. W. Bush was more of the same , but at least he was a war hero. H.W. Bush was the least qualified candidate for president until his maga successor would stumble into the oval office 16 years later.

The Republican Party is the same racist fucks that use to head the Democratic Party before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It’s not blue or red, Democrat or Republican. It’s conservative v liberal. The conservative holding on to “the good ol days”. Yea!? What were those!? When you could treat a person of color like a second class citizen and all your other white friends would smile with approval. Tradition. What tradition is that conservatives?! Do we need to go farther back than that?! How bout when you could own another human being and make him do the work while you sat around and reaped the rewards? If that boy get outta line he’ll be gettin the whip! Fucking disgusting! Conservative. What the fuck you conserving!? Sure ain’t morality! Sure ain’t the rule of law! Sure ain’t the planet! Sure ain’t “family values”! Sure ain’t the Constitution, or our democracy, or our institutions, the courts, the balance of power, ethics, honor, dignity, pride! WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU CONSERVING!?!? Because from where I’m standing, it’s hate. Because from where I’m standing, it’s voter suppression. Because from where I’m standing it’s corruption. Just like Reconstruction, just like the Jim Crow south, same shit. Different time. Same assholes!

Prove me wrong……

I’m almost as pissed At liberals as conservatives! (Not really) Do you want to make a change for good in this world?! Do you want to see equality as the law of the land!? Do you want acceptance and love to be the norm!? Where everyone is taken care of, we’re kind to those we know, and those we don’t. A place where corporate greed isn’t the main itinerary. Where being well educated is achievable to all Americans regardless of socioeconomic status? Do you want to live in a country where the bottom 50% of earners make more than 3% of the wealth?! Do you want fair banking and lending practices? A clean environment to live in, to be able to buy a house, raise a family, in a nation where the air is safe to breathe, where the water is safe to drink, where you don’t have to worry if your kid is going to get shot up at school?! Do you want civil rights, woman’s rights, LGBTQ rights, human rights, elderly protection, environmental protection, liberty, freedom, the right to pursue happiness?! Is that something you would like?!

Then toughen the fuck up! Quit this cancel culture, delicate snowflake bullshit! We’re not woke!!! We’re liberals!. The racist are coming with torches to lynch a motha fucker, you gunna stand up and fight, or curl up in a ball and cry!? The fuckin rules have been thrown out long ago. These pricks DONT FUCKING CARE! They will burn this shit down and wait for us to put it out with our liberal tears. Fuck that! If they’re going to burn this shit down we’re locking them In the fucking building while it burns to the ground. The gloves are off. No more going in to the boxing ring holding true to the sport while our opponent has a baseball bat and is ready to swing for the fences at us.

The high road has got us nowhere but low. So let’s stay there. If they’re want to play dirty and skirt the rules, so can we. If we don’t! And fuckin soon! They’ll be nothing left to fight for.

[catdotjpeg]

On February 2nd, the Associated Press analyzed satellite imagery which showed “new demolition along a 1-kilometer-wide path on the Gaza Strip’s border with Israel.” The images, which revealed the recent destruction of Palestinian farmland, warehouses and other buildings, suggested that Israel had started creating what it has called a “buffer zone” in areas of Gaza adjoining the Israeli border, a project that Israeli leaders have been trying to pursue as part of their invasion of Gaza following Hamas’s October 7th attack. Israeli officials claim that such a step is necessary to allow residents of communities in the south of Israel to return to their homes without fear of another attack. “[All along] the Gaza Strip . . . we will have a margin. And they will not be able to get in,” Avi Dichter, Israel’s agriculture minister, told reporters on October 19th. “It will be a fire zone. And no matter who you are, you will never be able to come close to the Israeli border.”

For months, United States and European officials have repeatedly voiced opposition to the idea of Israel’s permanent militarized border zone within Gaza, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken saying in November that there should be “no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza” and “no reduction in the territory of Gaza”—both outcomes that would likely result from such a zone. But the AP’s analysis, coupled with other recent events, indicate that Israel is forging ahead with creating its “fire zone” despite such objections. Indeed, on January 23rd, Israeli soldiers in Gaza were actively laying mines in and around two buildings in central Gaza close to the border with Israel, intending to destroy them, when a grenade fired by a Palestinian militant caused the explosives to go off, killing 21 soldiers. In the aftermath of the attack, three Israeli officials anonymously told the New York Times Israel was demolishing the buildings to create a “security zone,” while an Israeli military spokesperson said the soldiers who had died were operating to “create the security conditions for the return of the residents of the south to their homes.”

Israel’s work on the zone comes amid widespread speculation about the future of Gaza after the eventual end of Israel’s ongoing genocidal assault, which has already killed at least 27,000 people. American, Arab, and Israeli officials have debated what comes next for the coastal enclave, with Western governments pushing for a revitalized Palestinian Authority to govern Gaza—which Israel opposes—and far-right Israeli ministers advocating to expel Palestinians from Gaza and build renewed Israeli settlements. Yet even as these policy discussions remain unresolved, Israel is unilaterally exerting control over Gaza’s post-war reality by constructing a militarized zone inside the enclave that materially shrinks the amount of Palestinian land while leaving open room for Israeli Jewish resettlement of the Strip. The strategy recalls Israel’s modus operandi in the West Bank, where Israel has built hundreds of settlements in order to create “facts on the ground” to entrench its control before the international community can do anything about it.

Current and former military officials portray the creation of a militarized Israeli zone inside Gaza as necessary to prevent another attack on southern Israeli communities near the border. “People coming back to their homes [in Israel] don’t want to see someone [in Gaza] take out a rifle or an anti-tank missile or come to the fence, cross it, and kill them,” said Jacob Nagel, a former national security advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neoconservative think tank that advocates for US intervention in the Middle East. “We have to show them that the area there is empty. Otherwise, it would be very tough for them to come back.” But Muhammad Shehada, a Palestinian writer and analyst from Gaza, said creating a so-called buffer zone through the demolition of Palestinian homes and neighborhoods will only fuel more violence. “In the areas that were systematically razed and wiped out, you’re giving people a very strong revenge incentive,” he said. “Israel is basically creating a recruitment poster [for Palestinian militant groups].” Indeed, the creation of the zone is likely to add to the list of Israeli war crimes committed in Gaza since October 7th. According to research by Corey Scher, a PhD student at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, and Jamon Van Den Hoek, an associate professor of geography at Oregon State University, Israel has destroyed or damaged 143,900 structures throughout Gaza since October 7th, around 1,329 of which were in the proposed zone. Human rights experts have said that the destruction of civilian buildings and infrastructure may constitute war crimes. And if the Israeli zone continues to be created, more such homes will likely be demolished. “If there are no concrete, direct security grounds for why these houses have to be torn down, the destruction of civilian homes is completely illegal,” said Miriam Marmur, public advocacy director at Gisha, an Israeli human rights group focusing on Gaza. Nagel, however, is not concerned with such complaints: “There are no civilian buildings in Gaza,” he said, claiming that most buildings in the Strip are filled with weapons or contain tunnel entrances.

Keeping Palestinians out of the zone is also likely to involve further violations of international law. Some former Israeli officials have suggested laying mines in the border area, though the Israeli army has not publicly committed to this idea. Nagel predicted that the zone would be enforced by live fire. “I like to call it a ‘killing zone,’ but since ‘killing zone’ is not a nice term, we use the words ‘buffer zone,’” Nagel told Jewish Currents, clarifying that regardless of what the area is called, he thinks that “someone [who] is moving there without permission is going to be dead.” Such a policy would be illegal under international law, said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch. “No territory can ever be a free-fire zone,” he said. Shakir added that, under international law, live fire force can only be deployed during war if it is proportionate—meaning that attacks on a military site must not include harm to civilians that is excessive in comparison to the expected military advantage of an operation—and if it discriminates between civilians and combatants.

There is precedent for Israel using lethal force to limit Palestinians’ access to land near the Israeli border. Since Israel pulled soldiers and settlers out of Gaza in 2005, the army has violently barred most Gazans from coming within 300 meters of the Israeli barrier—a policy that has led to indiscriminate attacks against Palestinian civilians in that zone, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. From 2010 to 2017, Israeli soldiers opened fire 1,300 times in the 300 meter area, killing 161 Gazans there, according to Gisha. In 2018, when Palestinian protestors started the Great March of Return, congregating near the border to call for the end of Israel’s blockade of Gaza and the right of return to lands they were expelled from in 1948, Israeli snipers responded by shooting and killing 223 Palestinians. Over the years, Israeli soldiers have also cracked down on Palestinian farmers and herders working in the zone, sometimes spraying herbicide or razing farmland in order to enforce the prohibition on Palestinians coming near the Israeli barrier. Marmur said that many of these enforcement measures violated international law. “There is little reason to believe that the new buffer zone would be enforced differently, raising concern over an expansion of Israel’s illegal practices,” she said.

The militarized zone Israel is now planning to impose within Gaza would triple the size of the pre-October 7th iteration, severely impacting Palestinians in the Strip. The demolitions would worsen the housing crisis in the enclave, where nearly 70% of homes in Gaza have now been damaged or destroyed by Israeli bombs. In addition to leaving potentially thousands with no home to return to, the zone would deepen food insecurity in the Strip, since a third of Gaza’s agricultural land lies in the proposed zone. Due to Israel’s restrictions on humanitarian aid entering the Strip, Palestinians in Gaza already face a hunger crisis and virtually every family skips a meal every day, with 400,000 people at risk of starvation. The loss of further farmland will only compound this situation. In addition to these dire short term effects, the new Israeli zone may permanently “eat away Palestinian lands, adding to years of systemic dispossession of Palestinians,” Marmur said. Israeli officials claim that their control of this land will be “temporary,” but Nadia Hardman, a researcher in the Refugee and Migrants Rights Division of Human Rights Watch, told Jewish Currents that the scale of the destruction in the region indicates that Palestinians won’t be able to return their homes there “at any point in the foreseeable future.”

A permanent Israeli zone inside Gaza stands to significantly reshape the balance of power in any post-war scenario. In addition to allowing Israel to take over parts of Gaza’s territory—in the process creating, as per Shehada, “conditions that would push people to leave the territory”—such a zone could also pave the way for the building of new Israeli settlements. Resettling Gaza has been a long-standing demand of the Israeli right, one that has gained new momentum since October 7th. Indeed, on January 28th, a thousand Israeli settlers and their supporters—including 12 ministers from the ruling Likud party, along with national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich—joined a Jerusalem conference to promote the resettlement of Gaza. Members of Likud have also proposed legislation to repeal the ban on Israeli civilians entering Gaza, which would allow settlers a foothold in the territory. Observers say a permanent Israeli zone in Gaza is likely to accelerate this process. “We have watched this play out again and again in the West Bank and also in Gaza before 2005: Israeli settlements always start off with a security justification,” said Zaha Hassan, a human rights lawyer and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It starts with a military base going up somewhere and then the area being declared a no go zone. And then slowly that security justification becomes muted—and then we start seeing settlements.”

Yet even as human rights advocates raise such alarms about the consequences of the zone, the US may be softening its opposition to the project. That opposition was never particularly forceful: “There’s been very little outrage from the US administration about the creation of the buffer zone as it’s been happening in real time,” Hassan said. As a result, Israel has proceeded by simply disregarding the US’s reservations, an approach that seems to have paid off. Last month, Blinken hinted the US may accept a temporary Israeli buffer zone inside the Gaza border, saying there may need to be “transitional arrangements” to ensure Israel’s security and “make sure that October 7th can never happen again.” But according to Hassan, “there’s not a lot of credibility regarding Israeli assertions that these things are going to be temporary.” She pointed to how Israel’s separation barrier in the West Bank was originally portrayed by Israeli officials as a temporary security measure, only for it to remain standing 20 years later—with Israeli officials coming to openly describe it as a permanent border between Israel and the occupied West Bank. Israel’s temporary measures, Hassan concluded, “have a way of sticking around for a long time.”

-- "An Israeli “Buffer Zone” Could Shape Gaza’s Post-War Reality" by Alex Kane for Jewish Currents, 6 Feb 2024

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 24, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 25, 2024

This morning, President Joe Biden spoke to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. Earlier in the day, Secretary General António Guterres of Portugal warned that “our world is in a whirlwind” and, having lost the “hot lines, red lines and guard rails” of the Cold War, is dangerous and adrift. In contrast, Biden in his final speech before the body offered optimism.

The president noted that when he first was elected U.S. senator in 1972, the world was also in a time of “tension and uncertainty.” The Cold War simmered, the Middle East was headed toward war, and the U.S. was in one in Vietnam. The United States was “divided and angry, and there were questions about our staying power and our future.” The U.S. and the world made it through that moment, he recalled, but it “wasn’t easy or simple or without significant setbacks.” Nonetheless, the world went on to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, end the Cold War, forge a historic peace between Israel and Egypt, and end the war in Vietnam.

Last year, Biden noted, the U.S. and Vietnam elevated their partnership to the highest level, “a testament to the resilience of the human spirit and the capacity for reconciliation…proof that even from the horrors of war there is a way forward,” he said.

Biden’s message continued to be one of optimism as he recalled the world history he has seen. In the 1980s, he said, the racist regime of apartheid in South Africa fell; in the 1990s, Serbian president Slobodan Milošević was prosecuted for war crimes after presiding over chaos and mass murder in southeastern Europe. At home, Biden recalled, although there is more to do, he “wrote and passed the Violence Against Women Act to end the scourge of violence against women and girls not only in America but across the world.” Then, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. brought the attack’s mastermind, Osama bin Laden, to justice.

Turning to his own presidency, Biden noted that it, too, began in “crisis and uncertainty.” Afghanistan had replaced Vietnam as America’s longest war, and after four American presidents had had to decide whether to withdraw, Biden “was determined not to leave it to the fifth.” Biden said he thinks every day of the 13 Americans who lost their lives along with hundreds of Afghans in a suicide bombing, the 2,461 U.S. military deaths and 20,744 American personnel wounded over the 20 years of that war, and the service personnel of other countries who died there.

Biden said that he came to office determined to rebuild the alliances and partnerships of the U.S. He worked to rebuild the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and NATO allies and partners in more than 50 nations supported Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s February 2022 invasion. Now NATO is “bigger, stronger, and more united than ever with two new members, Finland and Sweden,” he noted. Biden also worked to strengthen new partnerships like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, known as the Quad, which brings together the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India, and whose leaders met last weekend in Delaware to affirm their commitment to the partnership. 

Biden listed the many crises around the world today. “[F]rom Ukraine to Gaza to Sudan and beyond,” he said, we see “war, hunger, terrorism, brutality, record displacement of people, a climate crisis, democracy at risk, strains within our societies, the promise of artificial intelligence and its significant risks.”

In 1919, Biden recalled, Irish poet William Butler Yeats described a world where “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” But, Biden said, “[i]n our time, the center has held.” Leaders and people around the world have stood together to turn the page on Covid, defend the charter of the United Nations, and ensure the survival of Ukraine in the face of the 2022 Russian invasion. 

“There will always be forces that pull our countries apart and the world apart: aggression, extremism, chaos, and cynicism, a desire to retreat from the world and go it alone,” Biden said. “Our task, our test, is to make sure that the forces holding us together are stronger than those that are pulling us apart, that the principles of partnership that we came here each year to uphold can withstand the challenges, that the center holds once again.”  

Biden reiterated the themes of his administration’s foreign policy, urging the countries in the United Nations to continue to stand with Ukraine and to manage competition with China responsibly so that competition does not become conflict. He noted that the U.S. and China are working together to combat the flow of deadly synthetic narcotics around the world, but said the U.S. will continue to push back against unfair economic competition and the military coercion of other nations in the South China Sea, while strengthening a network of alliances and partnerships across the Indo-Pacific. 

Turning to the Middle East, Biden reiterated the horrors of October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and killed more than 1,200 people—including 46 Americans—and pointed out that “[i]nnocent civilians in Gaza are also going through hell. Thousands and thousands killed, including aid workers. Too many families dislocated, crowding into tents, facing a dire humanitarian situation. They didn’t ask for this war that Hamas started.”

Biden noted that the U.S., Qatar, and Egypt have put forward a ceasefire and hostage deal that was endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, and urged Israel and Hamas to finalize it. “Even as the situation has escalated,” Biden said, “a diplomatic solution is still possible.” Indeed, he said, “a two-state solution…where Israel enjoys security and peace and full recognition and normalized relations with all its neighbors, where Palestinians live in security, dignity, and self-determination in a state of their own,” remains “the only path to lasting security.”

Progress toward peace in the Middle East will put countries “in a stronger position to deal with the ongoing threat posed by Iran,” Biden said, to deny oxygen to the terrorists Iran supports and to “ensure that Iran will never, ever obtain a nuclear weapon.” 

“Gaza is not the only conflict that deserves our outrage,” Biden said. In Sudan, a bloody civil war has put eight million people on the brink of famine, and caused death and atrocities. The U.S. has led the world in providing humanitarian aid, Biden said, and is leading diplomatic talks to avert a wider famine.    

The U.S. stands behind the idea that people “need the chance to live in dignity,... protected from the ravages of climate change, hunger, and disease,” Biden said, and he noted that during his presidency the U.S. has invested more than $150 billion in sustainable development—including $20 billion for food security and more than $50 billion for global health—and has mobilized billions in private-sector investment. These principles were laid down in the 1950s by Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, who feared that impoverished populations would be easy prey for religious or political demagogues who could use them to start wars. Biden did not acknowledge that a Trump presidency, devoted to isolationism, would almost certainly abandon them. 

Biden did note that the U.S. worked to repair the damage of Trump’s administration by rejoining the Paris Agreement on climate change. It also passed the most ambitious climate legislation in history, is on track to cut emission in half by 2030, and has promised to quadruple climate financing to developing nations, investing $11 billion so far this year. The U.S. also rejoined the World Health Organization and donated almost 700 million doses of Covid vaccine to 117 countries. Biden vowed to address the outbreak of mpox in Africa and urged other countries to join the effort. He noted that the U.S., the Group of Seven industrialized democracies (G7), and partners have launched an initiative to finance infrastructure in the developing world.

Biden took office warning that the international institutions set up after World War II had concentrated wealth and power among the hands of a few and thus people left behind around the globe were losing faith in democracy. That sentiment is shared at the U.N, and today he sided with those countries calling for an expanded U.N. Security Council, greater youth engagement, and stronger measures against climate change. 

At length, Biden urged the U.N to take advantage of the possibilities and manage the risks of artificial intelligence (AI), which can both usher in scientific progress and push disinformation and create bioweapons. “We must make certain that the awesome capabilities of AI will be used to uplift and empower everyday people, not to give dictators more powerful shackles on…the human spirit,” he said.

So far, Biden’s speech was a retrospective of the changes he had seen in the world in more than 50 years in public service, and how he had tried to approach present-day changes by reinforcing and expanding America’s engagement with the world. But in his last address to the United Nations, he also had something personal to say. 

“Even as we navigate so much change,” he said, “[w]e must never forget who we’re here to represent.”

“‘We the People,’” he said, the first words of the U.S. Constitution, and the words that inspired the opening words of the U.N. Charter, which begins: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war….”  

Biden noted that he “made the preservation of democracy the central cause of my presidency.” He recalled the difficulty of deciding to step away, concluding that “as much as I love the job, I love my country more.”

“My fellow leaders, let us never forget, some things are more important than staying in power.  It’s your people…that matter the most. Never forget, we are here to serve the people, not the other way around. Because the future will be…won by those who unleash the full potential of their people to breathe free, to think freely, to innovate, to educate, to live and love openly without fear. That’s the soul of democracy. It does not belong to any one country.”

It lives in “the brave men and women who ended apartheid, brought down the Berlin Wall, fight today for freedom and justice and dignity,” he said. It’s in Venezuela, where millions voted for change; in Uganda, where LGBTQ activists demand safety and recognition of their humanity; in citizens from Ghana to India to South Korea peacefully choosing their leaders. 

“Every age faces its challenges,” Biden said. “I saw it as a young man. I see it today. But we are stronger than we think. We’re stronger together than alone. And what the people call ‘impossible’ is just an illusion. [As] Nelson Mandela taught us…: ‘It always seems impossible until it’s done.’”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[jennyboom21]

And you replied: "Of course it is." You knew this was a a lie and it landed you in therapy but you want to believe.

This is the fakest moment in American history. Not since the moon landing has anything been so fake.

But you know what?

It's OK. This moment is actually interesting and fun. A certain sort of goofy obsession has seeped in. No, it's not real, but who cares? We all love this phony love affair. We will continue to love it. We will keep loving it until this spectacularly fake relationship dies and Kelce becomes a cautionary lyric on one of Swift's future albums.

For now, however, despite knowing this relationship isn't real, and likely some type of marketing ploy, we're all going to treat this like it's a true love story. The question is why do we like something that we know isn't real? The reasons, I believe, go beyond some of the obvious and superficial ones. It's not just our societal obsession with stars. It goes deeper than that.

Kelce and Swift represent a fleeting moment where we can all be a little nerdy and little obsessed and maybe even laugh at ourselves a little bit. I'm not talking about Swifties or Kansas City fans. Both of those groups are already hardcore and infatuated. This is about the rest of us. The people who don't have time to get obsessed about anything. The people who normally don't care about football, or how many stadiums Swift has sold out, can feel like they're part of something everyone else gets.

There's a more cynical view that says we're infatuated because our own lives are so boring. It's less that and more that our lives are so full. We don't just have our jobs and loved ones but the world seems chaotic and dangerous. There are threats to democracy, financial stress, a rise in white nationalism and extremism, and a general sense that things could go awry at any moment.

It's not simply that Swift and Kelce are a distraction. It's that sometimes we desperately need one.

This story is also about something else. The ability for all of us to laugh at ourselves. It's likely Swift and Kelce are laughing about this, too. So is Kelce's mom, Donna Kelce. Remember that scene in Kansas City when Travis scored a touchdown and Swift wildly celebrated but Donna, well, was just chill? That wasn't because she's seen her son score dozens of touchdowns. It was because she just didn't want to play along. Donna Kelce doesn't play that.

Yes, this is a conspiracy theory, but it's one of the few accurate ones.

I also believe we like the idea of Kelce and Swift as a couple because, at least as far as we know, they both seem like good human beings. We never truly know the people we follow as celebrities and while I don't know much about the singer, I do know the football player. He's known on the team as a diligent and decent person. He's been described to me by a former coach of his as "laid back" away from football.

Swift herself continues to do things away from her day job that have a considerable and positive societal impact. In a recent Instagram post, Swift pushed her 272 million followers to register to vote. The group Vote.org says it recorded more than 35,000 registrations.

"I've been so lucky to see so many of you guys at my U.S. shows recently. I've heard you raise your voices, and I know how powerful they are," she wrote on Instagram. "Make sure you're ready to use them in our elections this year!"

This, along with other things related to Swift and Kelce, caused the heads of right-wingers to explode. One wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter: "Taylor Swift hates America. Taylor Swift hates President Trump. Taylor Swift loves communism. Maybe Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift would be good together.”

Their anger was another reason to love this relationship.

The last time the public had such an infatuation with a couple was Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. There was a belief that relationship, like this one, wasn't real either. That one felt weird to watch.

This one feels great to watch.

For the people who hate this story, don't worry, you're not alone. "I'm already over it," Chargers running back Austin Ekeler told the Dan Le Batard Show with Stugotz. "I'm over the Taylor Swift stuff. Can we move on please?"

No, we cannot. We will not. How dare you even ask?

And for those of you who say you don't care about any of this, well, you've read this far. You obviously do. Just like the rest of us.

Even if it is totally, without question, completely fake.

[normandyxf]

"Fuck the 4th!" by Synth0tic, aka me! 💣💥

🇺🇸❌ Exposing the real American story ❌🇺🇸 From Stonewall 🏳️‍🌈✊ to Palestine 🇵🇸💔 Time to wake up and break the chains! ⛓️💪

🎶 "Being gay and doing crime" - Our rebel anthem 🏴‍☠️🔥 🎶 "Fuck the fourth, and all its fake pride" 🖕🎆

Spitting 🔥 on:

Founding Fathers' hypocrisy 🧑‍⚖️😡

Police brutality 👮‍♂️🚫

Systemic racism ✊🏿✊🏾✊🏽

American imperialism 🌎💰

It's time to face the truth! 👀💯 No more celebration of oppression! ❌🎉❌

Stream it now! 🎧📱 Share if you're ready for real change! 🔄🌟

Lyrics: [Intro] Fuck the fourth! Fuck America! Did you fucking hear ME!?!? [Rap Verse] From Stonewall's uprising to Blair Mountain's rage America's true history is hidden from the page In a nation built on lies, we're just tryin' to stay alive Being gay and doing crime is how we're gonna survive [Chorus] Fuck the fourth, and all its fake pride A celebration of oppression and genocide Native lands taken by force and might Independence for who? Only oppressors in sight. [Verse] MOVE was bombed in Philly by their own police force Now Biden funds a genocide in Palestine without remorse Red flags, red scare witch hunts, silencing dissent This ain't no democracy, just capitalism's fascist descent [Chorus] Fuck the fourth, and all its fake pride A celebration of oppression and genocide Native lands taken by force and might Independence for who? Only oppressors in sight. [Verse] Badges and bullets, another Black life gone System ain't broken, it's working as drawn Your American dream is a nightmare for most Where’s it’s bullshit flag? Time to light it up …toast. [Chorus] Fuck the fourth, and all its fake pride A celebration of oppression and genocide Native lands taken by force and might Independence for who? Only oppressors in sight. [Outro] So we'll reject this holiday, with all its lies And raise our voices loud, as another child in Gaza dies We'll fight for justice, equality, and human rights And on this day, we'll ignite a revolution's light.

[apenitentialprayer]

article by Sunita Puri, published October 5th, 2024. Bolded emphases added.

The first person who taught me something about death and defiance was the mother of a family friend, an older woman who had moved from Punjab to the United States to be closer to her son. I remember her as delicate and draped always in pastel salwar kameezes. After she was diagnosed with breast cancer, which moved quickly to claim her bones and her brain, her desire to return to Punjab intensified. When my parents told me about the end of her life, it was with a mixture of disbelief and conviction: She survived the days-long journey to the village where she’d been born—laboring to breathe for nearly the entire flight, grimacing through prayers when she ran out of pain medication—and died two days after she arrived.

I thought of her story this week as I read about former President Jimmy Carter’s intention to live long enough to vote for Kamala Harris. Carter, who has been on hospice for well over a year, turned 100 on Tuesday and has survived far longer than many expected he would. The notion that he has rallied in order to contribute in one final way to American democracy raises a familiar question that arises in my own work with patients and families: Do we have some control, conscious or not, over when we die? Can a person stretch the days of their life to include a last meaningful act or moment?

As a palliative-care physician, I have encountered the phenomenon of people dying only after specific circumstances materialize. There was the gentleman whose family held vigil in the intensive-care unit while he continued on, improbably, even without the support of the ventilator, dying only after his estranged son had arrived. There was the woman whose fragility precluded any further chemotherapy, but who survived long enough without it to witness the birth of her first grandchild. There was the woman who was deeply protective of her daughter, and died from cirrhosis only after she’d left for the night, possibly to spare her the agony of witnessing her death. The unexpected happens frequently enough that I tell patients and families that two timelines shape the moment of death: the timeline of the body, governed by the more predictable laws of physiology, and that of the soul, which may determine the moment of death in a way that defies medical understanding and human expectations. When people wonder about the circumstance of the last heartbeat, of the final breath, I can see how they never stop searching for their loved ones’ personhood or intention, a last gesture that reveals or solidifies who that person is.

Despite the prevalence of stories suggesting that people may have the ability to time their death, no scientific evidence supports this observation. Decades ago, several studies documented a dip in deaths just before Jewish holidays, with a corresponding rise immediately afterward, suggesting that perhaps people could choose to die after one final holiday celebration. A larger study later found that certain holidays (Christmas and Thanksgiving, in this case) and personally meaningful days (birthdays) had no significant effect on patterns of dying. But this phenomenon doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical analysis, either: The importance of holidays, for instance, can’t quite stand in for the very individual motivations that define the anecdotes shared in hospital break rooms or around a dinner table. And the human truth that many recognize in these stories raises the question of whether we believe them any less fully in the absence of proof.

Palliative care often involves helping people confront and develop a relationship to uncertainty, which governs so much of the experience of illness. And when my patients tell me about themselves and about who they are now that they are sick, willpower often makes an appearance. Many say that if they focus on the positive, or visualize the disappearance of their cancer, or fight hard enough, they will win the battle for more time. I hear in their words echoes of what Nietzsche wrote, what the psychiatrist Viktor Frankl used to make sense of his years in German concentration camps: “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.”

And we want to believe that love or desire or commitment or heroism is still possible right up until the very end. As my patients grow sicker, and as death approaches, I talk with them and their families about what they can hope for even if a cure isn’t possible. That, in fact, death can still contain something generative. A time that may have seemed beyond further meaning becomes instead an opportunity, or an extension of the dying person’s commitments to their country, their family, their dreams. Soon, President Carter will be able to cast that vote: Next week, Georgia registrars will start mailing out absentee ballots; early voting begins the week after that. His promise to himself is a reminder that dying cannot fully dampen purpose, even as a person’s life narrows.

The idea that willpower can be an ally against death is appealing too, because it offers the possibility of transcendence, of defying the limits that the body, or illness, may impose. But, having also seen the many ways that the body does not bend to the mind, I do find myself regarding willpower with caution: What if you as a person are a fighter, but your body simply cannot fight the cancer any longer? I wonder, with my patients, if they can strive for more time without shouldering personal responsibility for the limits of biology. Similarly, two people on ventilators may love their families equally. One may die only after the final beloved family member arrives, whereas the other may die before the person rushing across the ocean makes it home. We don’t always know why. If Carter casts his vote and dies shortly thereafter, that might affirm the notion that others, too, can write the final sentence in their story. But what would it mean if Carter died before casting his vote? If he lived another year, or if he lived to see Donald Trump take office again, or watch the election be violently contested? Living with loss requires remembering that we can locate the person we have loved or admired in any given set of events that comprised their life, not just the last one.

I try to imagine my family friend’s long flight from Los Angeles to Delhi, and her ride in the taxi back to Punjab. I think about how she found a way to endure what she was told she couldn’t, all to feel beneath her feet the soil she knew best, to die in the one place that she felt belonged to her. What if her doctors had been right and she had died on the plane? My family might have mourned her single-mindedness, or we might have admired her defiance nonetheless. What makes these stories so compelling is that they remind us that death, however ravenous, cannot devour hope or possibility, even if what transpires is not the ending we imagined.

[mightyflamethrower]

242024

Philadelphia Collapses Into Anarchy

Philadelphia is where the US Constitution was drafted. It may also be where America’s autopsy report is written up, after the nation has died of moonbattery. Here’s what it’s like to drive a police car through the Democrat-dominated former epicenter of American civilization:

Via Post Millennial:

Police were attacked and their vehicles damaged over the weekend as officers worked to disperse large crowds that had gathered at multiple illegal car meetups and street races at locations throughout Philadelphia, Pennsylvania late Saturday into early Sunday.

At one incident,

One driver in that incident attempted to evade police by driving toward officers, resulting in the driver colliding with a civilian vehicle.

At another, involving over 200 cars,

[O]fficers were attacked and a police vehicle damaged… Just over half an hour later, at 4:33 am, police responded to the area of 15th and Market streets, which is directly in front of City Hall, where more than 100 cars were reported drifting and setting trash on fire. Officials said that officers were also attacked in this incident and multiple vehicles were also damaged.

Five police vehicles were damaged in 11 street racing incidents.

At one intersection, a ring of fire was seen being set to the pavement.

Savages are into that kind of thing.

According to Philadelphia Police Deputy Commissioner Mike Kram…

…at least one person involved in the incidents overnight had a flamethrower.

Won’t the media be delighted when police are forced to defend their own lives by firing into a crowd? Maybe there is still time to get another wave of riots going before the election.

This is what we will face if Kamala wins. Streets full foul mouthed racist mobs raping and killing in the name of Democracy. Heaven help us........now........please.