#PELOSI OCASIO-CORTEZ

[bigtittygirl420]

FUCK kamala harris and FUCK the dems

Show acceptable respect to Palestinians to earn my vote.

It’s the ONLY way.

[wastedandbasted]

AOC is a fucking sellout.

[houseofbrat]

Democratic party civil war, you say?

Matt Stoller on Kamala Harris:

There's a fair critique here of Kamala Harris skeptics. What basis do we have for skepticism? I'll lay out my views, which are largely policy-centered. I realize no one cares about what kind of leader Harris will be as President, but if there's one lesson we should take away from this moment, it's that we as a party should try to think more than five minutes ahead instead of panicking ourselves into a rushed decision. I started paying attention to Harris when she became California AG in 2010, because some friends worked to get her elected. It was in the middle of the financial crisis, Bush's and Obama's handling of which eventually led to the emergence of Trump. While AG, she had her most important test as an executive presiding over a big political economy decision - what to do about foreclosure crisis in California. Her position was unusual, because California is a big state, so the AG office is, staffed with many lawyers who can do complex finance analysis. Most states don't. There are only a few places - Texas, NY, Illinois, California - who have the capacity to truly wage independent litigation against powerful institutions like big banks. Harris pledged to do so. [Harris] pledged take on the banks and get something genuinely meaningful for homeowners for a mass legal violation called foreclosure fraud that put them on the hook for trillions. The details aren't important but if you want to know them read Dave Dayen's Chain of Title. It's something I was involved in. After two years where it became obvious Obama was on the wrong side, it was exciting to see a Democrat finally stand up.

Only, she didn't. Harris signed a sham settlement with a big fake fine number, that mostly let the banks do whatever they want, and I believe even get a tax deduction for the fines they did pay. As a result, a lot of people lost their homes who shouldn't have. That was a tragedy. But then when she was running for President in 2020, she *bragged* about what she did. It was rancid, similar to the worst of Obama. https://theintercept.com/2019/03/13/kamala-harris-mortage-crisis… Later it came out that her staff had given her memos on how she should have prosecuted (later) Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's bank OneWest, but just chose not to. It's not hard to see that, had Obama (and Harris) actually put the bad guys away, a whole slew of Trump officials would have been in jail rather than in the cabinet. https://politico.com/news/2019/10/22/kamala-harris-attorney-general-california-housing-053716…

I didn't pay as much attention to her big tech work or her time in the Senate, but she's quite close to a whole slew of people in the industry, top execs at Google and Facebook like Sheryl Sandberg. While AG, which was when these companies cemented their dominance in America, Harris's office saw Facebook as "a good actor." She took no actions against big firms as AG, opposed important legislation, and even started a privacy-related "monthly working group that included representatives from Facebook, Google, Instagram, and Kleiner Perkins. In internal documents, Harris' office referred to the companies as "partners."' Again, standard operating Obamacrat stuff. https://businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-silicon-valley-big-tech-facebook-attorney-general-2021-11…… Harris's circle of friends and family are biglaw Obamacrats. Her brother-in-law Tony West was a high-level Obama official, and now GC of Uber. Her niece worked at Uber, Slack, and FB, and her husband was a biglaw partner at Venable and DLA Piper. His clients included Walmart, Merck, and an arms dealer, and there were ethics questions since DLA Piper had a long list of foreign clients. https://nytimes.com/2020/08/17/us/elections/doug-emhoff-kamala-harriss-husband-takes-a-leave-of-absence-from-his-law-firm.html…

How does this differ from Biden's track record? As a Senator, you could read him like Harris. Biden did whatever the credit card companies wanted, was in on bad trade deals, and was VP when Obama mishandled the financial crisis. But Biden always had a tinge of populism. In the 1990s, he went after Stephen Breyer in his hearing for the Supreme Court, calling him an elitist for instance. He was a foreign policy guy, and never liked the Silicon Valley and Wall Street execs, he always thought they looked down on him. As President, he delegated and ignored most domestic policy, and so some of it went to populists and union people while most of it went to neoliberals like Janet Yellen and Neera Tanden. The net result of Biden's choices is a mix - good policy in a few areas, and rank incompetence across a host of them, as well as fantastically incompetent messaging. What was Harris's role? As VP, she's largely been absent from most policy areas I follow, so I don't know how to think about her views on Biden's economic agenda. She's certainly never talked about or been involved in anything competition or regulatory minded that I can see. She does not seem to be a player in any of the big money areas. That said, Harris has proven incapable of managing important tasks like addressing or even explaining the obviously dysfunctional asylum process at the border, so it's hard to know how much she *can* actually do in terms of competence. There's also a lot of inertia here, it's not like she can change everything on a dime. She will inherit Biden's legacy and officeholders, and she hasn't done much as VP to thwart economic policy, for good or ill.

So how will she be as President? I don't want to overstate my read, it's just a guess. But since we're all just guessing, what I suspect is she'll lead to a total wipeout of Dems in 2026 and 2028 as the party turns wholly against working people, and a more complete Trump-y style realignment. And that's if she wins. So that's the optimistic scenario.

Dem Civil War commencing...

[anarchistettin]

2019 it's a bad plan to expect elected figureheads to "represent" you

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

“Spread love, it’s the Brooklyn way.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries clearly won the day on Tuesday. He made history as the first Black House caucus leader; it was also the first time (to the best of my fact-checking ability) Brooklyn’s Biggie Smalls was quoted on the House floor. While Republicans savaged one another, Democrats spread love. Jubilant, they looked like they were in the majority, not (narrowly) outnumbered by Republicans. While it’s still extremely unlikely, Jeffries went to bed closer to being House Speaker than he was Tuesday morning. Let it be said that in all three roll calls, Jeffries got 212 votes, at least nine more than McCarthy, and only a few shy of what the next Speaker will need.

Debased House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy is still not speaker, after three roll call votes in which he actually lost support. What happens when a man tries to sell his soul but finds no buyer? (A question for House Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, too.) McCarthy gave the wing nuts virtually everything they asked for—the ability for only five members to force a vote to oust him as leader, key committee appointments, other rules changes, a gutted ethics committee, the ability to defund federal departments they don’t like. But they didn’t budge, and in fact their numbers climbed from an estimated five in the morning to 20 at 5 PM.

That’s when Representative Tom Cole moved to adjourn until noon on Wednesday. There had been talk that McCarthy and Co. wanted at least one more roll call vote, to “wear down” the opposition. But since the opposite was happening—the opposition was emboldened—most of the House did McCarthy a solid by voting to end his grueling day of trial by procedural combat.

Let it not be said, however, that the divided House GOP majority changed nothing. Shortly after noon on Tuesday, House security officials took down the weapon-detecting magnetometers, installed after January 6, that were intended to make sure no one entered the House chamber with a weapon. So there’s that.

There will be plenty of assessments of McCarthy’s plight after Tuesday, but I want to focus on Jeffries’s victory, even if it only lasts a day. It was also Nancy Pelosi’s: As she turned over her leadership post to Jeffries, she also bequeathed him a caucus schooled in sticking together, left, liberal, and center, when it matters most. I don’t think Beltway reporters addicted to a “Dems in disarray” story line ever understood what Pelosi accomplished, whether it was delivering her whole caucus for the Affordable Care Act in 2010, when the left was itching to bolt, to all the times she kept her members united under Donald Trump, to the selective defections she allowed—by the so-called Squad as well as centrists—as she pushed President Biden’s agenda in the past two years, knowing that certain members might need to go their own way given the proclivities of their districts.

So far, Jeffries hasn’t needed to grant any dispensation to Democrats to vote for someone else as Speaker. He won all Democratic votes, in a Speaker battle, for the first time since Pelosi did in 2007. That makes sense: Even though he is a liberal not unanimously beloved on the left, he won his caucus leader post by unanimous acclamation. Any reservations members had about him, whether from the left or the center, got subsumed by learned behavior: Being united has paid dividends for Democrats. Why stop now?

Midafternoon Tuesday, several reporters with GOP sources began floating the idea that Democrats might leave the floor, reducing the overall number of votes McCarthy would need to become Speaker. (The victor needs a majority of those present and voting for a named candidate, not of the entire House). I called bullshit at the time. It made no sense, given how Republicans were self-immolating. If there were a vital House Democratic center, maybe there would be people trying to cut deals with Republicans. (And while there isn’t, it’s still possible some incompetents are trying.)

Actually, a vital House Democratic center might be approaching Republicans in districts Joe Biden won to get them to vote for Jeffries. There are at least five: in Southern California, central New York, and southeastern Pennsylvania. Maybe Problem Solver Josh Gottheimer can work his magic? I doubt it. In fact, a much-gossipped-about photo capturing Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez chatting amiably with GOP psycho dentist Paul Gosar, who once produced a cartoon of himself killing the Bronx-Queens leader, turned out to show AOC gently disabusing Gosar of the notion that Democrats were ready to walk out and make it easier for McCarthy to win. “Dems in disarray,” d’oh! That message is strong.

It must be said that despite ideological fractures within the Democratic caucus, Jeffries had the unanimous support of the Congressional Black Caucus, and his historic leadership role, by most accounts, trumped policy differences. Progressives bristled last cycle when he joined with Gottheimer to thwart progressive Democratic challengers and refused “to bend the knee to democratic socialism,” as he put it. (As if anyone asked him to.) But when I heard Cori Bush cast her vote for Jeffries the first time, I knew he’d get all 212 Democrats. And he did. Three times.

After a brutal House GOP caucus meeting Tuesday morning, implacable McCarthy foe Matt Gaetz of Florida, who seems to have survived sex trafficking accusations, allegedly said, “I don’t care if we…elect Hakeem Jeffries.” I don’t believe that any more than I believe anything Gaetz says, but it’s still out there. Not counting on it, not betting on it, but whatever happens, Jeffries is in a hugely stronger position after this GOP multiple-vote shit show than he was even when Tuesday began. No matter who becomes Speaker, he’s going to be the most important House leader.

[hondacivictrucknuts]

Ted Rall, WSJ:

As a progressive, I salute the 20 holdout representatives who denied Kevin McCarthy the House speakership until the 15th vote. I disagree with their conservative objectives, but their tactics were superb. They extracted substantial concessions consistent with their beliefs and their promises to constituents.

I dream that the House Democratic Caucus will someday have an analogous faction: purist, leftist, determined to force leadership to bend to their will. Finally, the progressive base of the Democrats, the majority without whom the party could never win, might have a seat at a table long dominated by corporatists.

Democrats do have Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the “Squad.” What if they were to set aside stunts such as preening for the cameras at the Met Gala and pretending to be handcuffed, and instead engaged in direct confrontation with a party leadership that snubs and ignores them?

AOC is capable of tough talk. In December 2020 she called for Nancy Pelosi to be replaced as speaker, demanding “new leadership.” Weeks later, she choked.

Democrats had a 222-211 advantage when Congress re-elected Speaker Pelosi in January 2021. Two Democrats voted against her and three voted “present.” The six members of the Squad—AOC and Reps. Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush—would therefore have been sufficient to deny her a majority.

Progressive commentators urged them to hold out unless Mrs. Pelosi agreed to bring Medicare for all for a floor vote. They ignored these pleas because, as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez explained, “we are just an extremely slim amount of votes away from risking the speakership to the Republican Party.”

Yet the Republicans showed it’s possible to get what you want without handing the gavel to the other party. As long as the Squad members had cast votes for somebody, they could have denied any candidate a majority and forced new votes.

In the same way that Republican holdouts kept returning to Mr. McCarthy to ask for more, the Squad could have withheld their support from Mrs. Pelosi unless she gave in to their demands, such as naming them to key committees. They could have required her to upgrade the toothless Select Committee on Climate Change to a full-fledged body with subpoena power authorized to send bills to the House floor. They could have demanded floor votes on other progressive priorities like a higher minimum wage and student-loan forgiveness. Mrs. Pelosi refused to schedule votes on bills unless passage was assured. But it would have been valuable to progressives to force conservative Democrats onto the record with their opposition to popular measures.

As speaker, Mrs. Pelosi achieved the highest level of party unity since CQ Roll Call began quantifying the measure in 1956. That’s admirable only if you think politics is about party loyalty rather than ideas.

This contrast really drives home how the recent (current?) progressive obsession with young-woman-of-color-leaders (to which I myself was not immune ca. 2015) selects for self-aggrandizing media whores.

[plitnick]

Herzog’s bland speech shows Israel still has great power in DC

In a most shameful demonstration yesterday, both houses of Congress, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, celebrated racism and apartheid with no conscience whatsoever. Only Bernie Sanders from the Senate and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Cori Bush from the House had the basic decency and political courage to boycott the speech by Israeli…

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

“By simply existing as women in public life, we have all become targets, stripped of our accomplishments, our intellect, and our activism and reduced to sex objects for the pleasure of millions of anonymous eyes.

Men, of course, are subject to this abuse far less frequently. In reporting this article, I searched the name Donald Trump on one prominent deepfake-porn website and turned up one video of the former president—and three entire pages of videos depicting his wife, Melania, and daughter Ivanka. A 2019 study from Sensity, a company that monitors synthetic media, estimated that more than 96 percent of deepfakes then in existence were nonconsensual pornography of women.”

Recently, a Google Alert informed me that I am the subject of deepfake pornography. I wasn’t shocked. For more than a year, I have been the target of a widespread online harassment campaign, and deepfake porn—whose creators, using artificial intelligence, generate explicit video clips that seem to show real people in sexual situations that never actually occurred—has become a prized weapon in the arsenal misogynists use to try to drive women out of public life. The only emotion I felt as I informed my lawyers about the latest violation of my privacy was a profound disappointment in the technology—and in the lawmakers and regulators who have offered no justice to people who appear in porn clips without their consent. Many commentators have been tying themselves in knots over the potential threats posed by artificial intelligence—deepfake videos that tip elections or start wars, job-destroying deployments of ChatGPT and other generative technologies. Yet policy makers have all but ignored an urgent AI problem that is already affecting many lives, including mine.

Last year, I resigned as head of the Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board, a policy-coordination body that the Biden administration let founder amid criticism mostly from the right. In subsequent months, at least three artificially generated videos that appear to show me engaging in sex acts were uploaded to websites specializing in deepfake porn. The images don’t look much like me; the generative-AI models that spat them out seem to have been trained on my official U.S. government portrait, taken when I was six months pregnant. Whoever created the videos likely used a free “face swap” tool, essentially pasting my photo onto an existing porn video. In some moments, the original performer’s mouth is visible while the deepfake Frankenstein moves and my face flickers. But these videos aren’t meant to be convincing—all of the websites and the individual videos they host are clearly labeled as fakes. Although they may provide cheap thrills for the viewer, their deeper purpose is to humiliate, shame, and objectify women, especially women who have the temerity to speak out. I am somewhat inured to this abuse, after researching and writing about it for years. But for other women, especially those in more conservative or patriarchal environments, appearing in a deepfake-porn video could be profoundly stigmatizing, even career- or life-threatening.

As if to underscore video makers’ compulsion to punish women who speak out, one of the videos to which Google alerted me depicts me with Hillary Clinton and Greta Thunberg. Because of their global celebrity, deepfakes of the former presidential candidate and the climate-change activist are far more numerous and more graphic than those of me. Users can also easily find deepfake-porn videos of the singer Taylor Swift, the actress Emma Watson, and the former Fox News host Megyn Kelly; Democratic officials such as Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; the Republicans Nikki Haley and Elise Stefanik; and countless other prominent women. By simply existing as women in public life, we have all become targets, stripped of our accomplishments, our intellect, and our activism and reduced to sex objects for the pleasure of millions of anonymous eyes.

Men, of course, are subject to this abuse far less frequently. In reporting this article, I searched the name Donald Trump on one prominent deepfake-porn website and turned up one video of the former president—and three entire pages of videos depicting his wife, Melania, and daughter Ivanka. A 2019 study from Sensity, a company that monitors synthetic media, estimated that more than 96 percent of deepfakes then in existence were nonconsensual pornography of women. The reasons for this disproportion are interconnected, and are both technical and motivational: The people making these videos are presumably heterosexual men who value their own gratification more than they value women’s personhood. And because AI systems are trained on an internet that abounds with images of women’s bodies, much of the nonconsensual porn that those systems generate is more believable than, say, computer-generated clips of cute animals playing would be.

As I looked into the provenance of the videos in which I appear—I’m a disinformation researcher, after all—I stumbled upon deepfake-porn forums where users are remarkably nonchalant about the invasion of privacy they are perpetrating. Some seem to believe that they have a right to distribute these images—that because they fed a publicly available photo of a woman into an application engineered to make pornography, they have created art or a legitimate work of parody. Others apparently think that simply by labeling their videos and images as fake, they can avoid any legal consequences for their actions. These purveyors assert that their videos are for entertainment and educational purposes only. But by using that description for videos of well-known women being “humiliated” or “pounded”—as the titles of some clips put it—these men reveal a lot about what they find pleasurable and informative.

Ironically, some creators who post in deepfake forums show great concern for their own safety and privacy—in one forum thread that I found, a man is ridiculed for having signed up with a face-swapping app that does not protect user data—but insist that the women they depict do not have those same rights, because they have chosen public career paths. The most chilling page I found lists women who are turning 18 this year; they are removed on their birthdays from “blacklists” that deepfake-forum hosts maintain so they don’t run afoul of laws against child pornography.

Effective laws are exactly what the victims of deepfake porn need. Several states—including Virginia and California—have outlawed the distribution of deepfake porn. But for victims living outside these jurisdictions or seeking justice against perpetrators based elsewhere, these laws have little effect. In my own case, finding out who created these videos is probably not worth the time and money. I could attempt to subpoena platforms for information about the users who uploaded the videos, but even if the sites had those details and shared them with me, if my abusers live out of state—or in a different country—there is little I could do to bring them to justice.

Representative Joseph Morelle of New York is attempting to reduce this jurisdictional loophole by reintroducing the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act, a proposed amendment to the 2022 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Morelle’s bill would impose a nationwide ban on the distribution of deepfakes without the explicit consent of the people depicted in the image or video. The measure would also provide victims with somewhat easier recourse when they find themselves unwittingly starring in nonconsensual porn.

In the absence of strong federal legislation, the avenues available to me to mitigate the harm caused by the deepfakes of me are not all that encouraging. I can request that Google delist the web addresses of the videos in its search results and—though the legal basis for any demand would be shaky—have my attorneys ask online platforms to take down the videos altogether. But even if those websites comply, the likelihood that the videos will crop up somewhere else is extremely high. Women targeted by deepfake porn are caught in an exhausting, expensive, endless game of whack-a-troll.

The Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act won’t solve the deepfake problem; the internet is forever, and deepfake technology is only becoming more ubiquitous and its output more convincing. Yet especially because AI grows more powerful by the month, adapting the law to an emergent category of misogynistic abuse is all the more essential to protect women’s privacy and safety. As policy makers worry whether AI will destroy the world, I beg them: Let’s first stop the men who are using it to discredit and humiliate women.

Nina Jankowicz is a disinformation expert and the author of How to Be a Woman Online and How to Lose the Information War.

[marksmangeek]

Harris Picks Up Enough Delegate Support to Win Nomination on

Vice President Kamala Harris swiftly secured the Democratic nomination for president, reaching the required delegate threshold just one day after launching her campaign. Following President Joe Biden’s unexpected withdrawal and endorsement of Harris, she has amassed the necessary delegate support to become the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer.

Wave of Endorsements

The rapid accumulation of endorsements from potential rivals, lawmakers, governors, and influential labor and advocacy groups was pivotal in Harris’s quick ascent. On Monday evening, state delegations pushed her over the threshold of 1,976 pledged delegates needed to win the nomination on the first ballot, according to CNN’s delegate estimate.

Harris’s Campaign Kickoff

Harris’s campaign began with a bang. She held a campaign event in Milwaukee and visited the campaign’s headquarters in Delaware, delivering a powerful speech that outlined her vision and set the tone for her campaign. During her address, she emphasized her prosecutorial background and directly confronted former President Donald Trump’s scandals and legal troubles.

Financial Surge

Harris’s campaign announced an unprecedented fundraising haul of $81 million in the first 24 hours, with over 880,000 grassroots supporters contributing. ActBlue, the Democratic donation-processing site, confirmed it was the biggest fundraising day of the 2024 cycle. The Democratic super PAC Future Forward also secured $150 million in commitments within 24 hours of Biden’s announcement.

Uniting the Party

Harris has received widespread support across the Democratic Party. Four governors of crucial Midwestern states — Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, Minnesota’s Tim Walz, Wisconsin’s Tony Evers, and Illinois’s JB Pritzker — endorsed her, along with other notable governors like Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, North Carolina’s Roy Cooper, California’s Gavin Newsom, and Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro.

On Capitol Hill, Harris has garnered the backing of over 40 Democratic senators and nearly 100 House members. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly announced her enthusiastic support for Harris. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are also expected to endorse her soon.

Broad-Based Support

Harris’s support spans the ideological spectrum of the Democratic Party, from moderate populists like Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown to progressives such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The political arms of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Congressional Progressive Caucus, along with key labor unions like the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Teachers, have also endorsed her.

Conclusion

The coordinated and rapid endorsements reflect the Democratic Party’s unity and urgency to rally behind Harris. With no credible challenger emerging after Biden’s exit, the primary focus now shifts to who Harris will choose as her running mate. The overwhelming support she has received underscores her strong position as the party’s nominee and sets the stage for a dynamic 2024 presidential campaign.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

#20yrsago Emotional Design: The Principles ETCON talk notes https://craphound.com/normanetcon04.txt

#20yrsago My ETCON talk, in the Public Domain https://craphound.com/ebooksneitherenorbooks.txt

#15yrsago Apple sez jailbreaking iPhones is illegal and should be banned https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal

#15yrsago RIP, Atomic Ed Grothus, curator and proprietor of the Black Hole of Los Alamos https://web.archive.org/web/20090213231519/http://wps.com/archives/EdGrothus/

#15yrsago Hard data on ebook piracy versus sales — slides from O’Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing panel https://archive.org/details/ChallengingNotionsOffree

#10yrsago Chinese-language Bing searches in the USA censored to match mainland Chinese results https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/11/bing-censors-chinese-language-search-results

#10yrsago The Coruscant Tapestry: 30′ long Star Wars cross-stitchhttps://web.archive.org/web/20140222222211/https://nineteeneightyeight.com/products/aled-lewis-the-coruscant-tapestry

#10yrsago Militant commander accidentally blows up dozens of trainee suicide bombers https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/suicide-bomber-kills-suicide-bomers

#5yrsago Police lobbyist: cops will not be motivated to stop crime unless they are allowed to steal people’s stuff https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/taken/2019/02/03/sc-civil-forfeiture-police-defend-practice-say-funds-essential-law-enforcement/2746412002/

#5yrsago Courthouse shut after sheriff notices bedbugs “falling out of” lawyer’s clothes https://www.3newsnow.com/news/national/oklahoma-lawyer-with-bed-bugs-falling-out-of-clothing-causes-county-courthouse-to-close

#5yrsago Thomas Piketty explains how Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax is American as apple pie https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/piketty/2019/02/12/wealth-tax-in-america/#xtor=RSS-32280322

#5yrsago After promising health care execs that Medicare for All was dead, Pelosi’s team plans toothless pharma deal https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/02/pelosi-advisor-proposes-non-binding-arbitration-road-lowering-drug-prices.html

#5yrsago Netherlands court strikes down Dutch grifter’s patent claim over Ethiopia’s ancient staple grain teff https://qz.com/africa/1545111/ethiopias-teff-flour-is-no-longer-patented-as-a-dutch-invention

#5yrsago Bank lobbyists are scared to meet with AOC because she might humiliate them on Twitter later https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-banks-aoc/banks-weigh-whether-to-embrace-or-avoid-progressive-firebrand-ocasio-cortez-idUSKCN1PV27N/

#5yrsago Barefoot Engineers: rural women from Malawi, trained as solar engineers, who are electrifying their remote villages https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2019/feb/11/barefoot-engineers-malawi-solar-power-in-pictures

#5yrsago Amazon just bought mesh wifi company Eero. Oh, great. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/12/18221441/amazon-buying-eero-disappointing

[kinialohaguy]

The Unwelcomed Welcomed

Aloha kākou. National Emergency: A painting by Jon McNaughton. “Every year hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals march to our southern border and cross into our country. Who are they? What right do they have to come here?” The figures from left to right: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine…

[wastedandbasted]

AOC and the Dems are the ones that are "predatory"

[mariacallous]

As the new House Republican majority stumbles into power, with all the chaotic, embittered bumbling of a rich man’s son who can only seem to fail upwards, another, peculiar kind of political transition is taking place: Nancy Pelosi, 82, is leaving the House speakership, almost certainly for the last time.

Perhaps no individual has come to symbolize the Democrats more to the people who do not like the party. To Republicans, Pelosi has long taken on a kind of mythic malice. To the Fox-watching white male, Pelosi symbolizes liberal elitism, a vague but totalizing specter of corruption, and that particular kind of liberal decadence that can be evoked by the name of the city that makes up nearly all of her longtime congressional district: San Francisco. She’s a woman in power, and she’s long been supportive of gay rights, and she opposed the Iraq war. She’s been a reliable opponent of conservatives’ favorite culture war crusades: she supports gun control and opposes Confederate statues. In an association facilitated by misogyny, her very face is a shorthand for liberal extremism, a visual code that denotes secularism, taxation and frightening new pronouns.

Which was always a bit of a stretch, because the fact of the matter is that the American left tends to hate Pelosi, too. To them, her two terms as speaker – first from 2007 to 2011, and then again from 2019 until this coming January – were eras of strictly enforced centrism. Under Pelosi’s tenure, the congressional agenda was kept well to the right of the base’s preferences, and leftist stars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were needlessly sidelined.

Pelosi has taken positions that frustrate and disappoint the Democratic rank and file. She allegedly knew about waterboarding during the war on terror, and she didn’t object to it; she has backed Israel even in its most flagrant violations of Palestinian rights. And for all the fear and hatred she provokes in Republicans, some Democrats found her insufficiently willing to attack them. Under her leadership, the House impeached Donald Trump twice. But the Rubicon of impeachment was crossed only belatedly, in the face of Pelosi’s long, obstinate resistance. Many Democrats felt that the impeachments – along with other congressional oversight efforts against the Trump administration – were too tepid, and came too late.

Neither of these understandings of Pelosi really capture the most striking aspect of her career – which has been characterized, above all, by an almost preternatural ability to discipline her caucus. Perhaps no speaker has been so successful at securing votes and cultivating the loyalties of her members; in interviews, Democratic House members speak of her with awe, like she’s something between a charismatic high school teacher and an emotionally withholding mom. This charisma is carefully cultivated: she famously tells no one her secrets, but has a long memory – both for past favors and past grievances. Some members seem to be eagerly seeking her approval. None seem willing to cross her. She has a natural’s instinct for politics, able to anticipate what will persuade someone to do what she wants them to do before they often know themselves.

Pelosi cultivated this talent from a young age. At the beginning of her political career, Pelosi painted herself as a mom and housewife, the devoted spouse to Paul, an obscenely wealthy financier, and the doting mother of five. But this pretended humility was always a rather flimsy facade. In reality, Pelosi is the scion of an influential Democratic political family from Maryland: her father was a congressman, and both her dad and brother served as mayors of Baltimore. Her job as speaker was one she had been training for since infancy, or at least since she attended her first presidential inauguration, at 12.

After she and her husband moved to San Francisco, Pelosi swiftly rose in the ranks of the California Democratic party, in part because Nancy, with her comfort among elites and the almost coercive power of her charm, was very good at raising money. She was elected to Congress in 1986, and never looked back; she quickly stood out as a charismatic voice in public and an aggressive negotiator in private. Pelosi became the leader of the House Democrats in 2003, and ascended to become the first – and so far, the only – woman to serve as speaker, in 2007.

Under Pelosi’s tenure, the House Democrats have achieved some herculean tasks of political maneuvering. Everything that the Democrats have accomplished legislatively since 2007, they have accomplished thanks to Pelosi’s control of her caucus. She forced through the Dodd-Frank campaign finance reform bill in the face of the kind of fearsome opposition that a politician of weaker will would have balked at. She managed to pass the massive Affordable Care Act, expanding healthcare coverage to millions, in a show of persuasion and strength that could terrify grown men, and did.

These are the kinds of bruising political battles that would end a different congressperson’s career, but Pelosi’s district is among the safest blue seats in the country. She has never faced a real challenger for her spot; during her election years, she doesn’t even engage in debates. Her re-election campaigns are little more than formalities: everyone, in San Francisco and elsewhere, knows that seat belongs to Nancy Pelosi for as long as she wants it. This safety is what allowed Pelosi to turn to her bigger, more national ambitions. Her real constituency has long been the whole country – or at least, the whole of the Democratic party.

But recent years have taken the shine off of Pelosi. She stood in the way when Democrats wanted to pass ethics reforms that would have forbidden members of Congress from trading individual stocks; this past summer, she made the dangerous choice to travel alone to Taiwan, in a show of defiance against Xi Jinping. And the constant attacks on her personally from the right have begun to take a grim toll. This fall, a crazed man, deluded by rightwing media, broke into her California home with a hammer, and attacked Pelosi’s elderly husband, fracturing his skull; the intruder was there looking for Pelosi.

Perhaps the quintessential moment of this part of Pelosi’s career came during the January 6 hearings, when footage of the speaker taken during the Capitol attack emerged. In the hidden location where the House members had been taken, she makes brisk phone calls, searching for a way to clear the Capitol. Her calm competence, contrasted with her extreme physical frailty, made for a portrait of integrity, endurance, courage. But even then, Pelosi seemed out of place. In the video, her institutionalism, and her faith in the legal process, shines through. You get the sense that she feels strongly that everything will be all right, if only she can make the right phone call. As the mob stormed the Capitol, and Trump orchestrated them on Twitter like a symphony conductor, Pelosi’s technocratic proceduralism could not have stood in starker contrast. She looked, perhaps for the first time, like a figure from a lost era.

[chargetheintruder]

This, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Read the article.  It might be a bit tabloidy but read it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-man-kills-neighbor-because-204600966.html

It isn’t just Nancy Pelosi or her husband.  A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVE LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS AREN’T HUMAN BEINGS.  This is a piece of what’s called “stochastic terror.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/stochastic-terrorism-appears-rise-globally-215511411.html

In plain English, “stochastic” is a statistics term referring to loading dice, or using a tool to tweak the odds in your favor.  Stochastic terror acts happen when lone-wolf types have the use of a Force Multiplier, like the Mass Media, or the Internet, to both get bolder in their tactics, and to get better organized and equipped than usual.  The guy who went after Nancy Pelosi and got her husband instead?  Was led down a pristine, untouched and unanswered path of dehumanizing Democratic people, by his choice of Mass Media, then empowered by Social Media on the internet, most likely, in terms of resources (getting zip-ties, making plans, getting transportation and locating people).

Some on Tumblr would call this “radicalization” but it goes deeper: who bought the zip-ties?  Who doxxed the Pelosi household, revealing a street address?

THIS is the face of the enemy that we face: he’s a punk-bitch hellbent on life-hacking his way into attacking us at all cost and any price.  Sure, there’s more we could have done with the 2022 midterm elections, to try to keep the alt-right the hell OFF OF the Ballot Boxes, for example, but making those too hard to find also makes them too hard for VOTERS TO USE.  Trying too hard to get things off of GPS and to make them non-doxxed also means the resources can’t be used by those legitimately wanting to use them to vote.

And in truth, this shouldn’t even be happening.  This whole Abuser Party/Victim Party dynamic has no business happening.  Trump/Traitor Party abuses “them libs” and Democrats, and we just go limp and take it.  Why is that?  Why don’t we retaliate, ever?  It’s not like soft targets don’t exist among the alt-right: QAnon are a bunch of soft little nerds and wannabe Karens, by and large.  Actual Guy Fawkes wearing Anonymous are so scared of being exposed that they don’t dare do anything violent.  WE have access to the same force multipliers they do.

Well, it’s simple.  For starters, too damned many people adhere to an ineffective and outdated Kennedy/Gandhi mentality when it comes to politics.  Meaning they swear by the “non-violence is the ONLY answer” dogma, when historically speaking?  Uh, no, non-violence is non-action against fascists, racists, misogynists, anti-labor union shits, and cultists.  If you are not violent against the abusive or threatening?  You either get ignored (because you’re out of reach at the moment) or you become the next victims.  Non-violence only works against rational people who know you’re human.  Not against sociopathic sorts who insist you’re an animal to be put down.  You know, like that Fucker Carlson on Fox News, or indeed ANY QAnon freak ever?

And for enders?  This has been a bad habit of mine as well, as an abuse survivor, so I know what I’m talking about here when I say this, fuck some loser and their self-authored Wiki page.  A LOT of us, from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on down, suffer from post-traumatic stress reactions, from having survived real-life abuse and bullying and domestic violence. What this means is that a lot of us have over-extended stress reactions.  Our fight-or-flight reactions go too far and no, your average cognitive behavioral therapist REFUSES to touch this--their de facto cult refuses to admit that anger, or the fight response, even exists.

And this becomes a critical issue that resembles Stockholm Syndrome when you consider the fight-or-flight response actually goes FOUR ways, not two: Fight, Flight, Freeze, or Fawn (a.k.a. Pander, Suck up, or Suck it down).  Too many of us abuse survivors have an over-extended Freeze response (we go quiet, freeze up, shut down and “wait it out” when actually we’re a clenched knot of nerves) and more of us have an over-extended Fawning reaction (we keep trying to reason with or pander to our abusers well past the point of little to no returns, we keep talking and smiling and praying inside that they won’t HIT again).

Does ANY of this ring a bell?  Is anything I’m saying making sense here?  Bullies can smell fear in their victims--human sweat changes during a fight-or-flight response.  When we HAVE a fight-or-flight reaction, everybody who is out  to fuck us over can SMELL the shift to ecchrine sweat (distress/arousal sweat) from down the hall in a large building.  Stress sweats are just that--from stress, and temperature, and humidity, have nothing to do with them.  No really.

No really, you haven’t lived until you have been in a psych ward, for a crisis, and been accused of being an alcoholic by Staff when you’re having a stress sweat because a) the bastards keep waking you and everyone else around you UP every fifteen minutes, and b) the last THREE new clients admitted after you showed up, ended up being grown-ass men having violent breakdowns. Fun times.  My mother died from alcoholic diabetes and emphysema, and I DON’T drink, fuck y’all very much.

Sorry to sidetrack, but the point is, they know.  And in their eyes, our rightful distress marks us as prey and less than human.  And we neither can nor should have to ditch the trauma just to pander to fucknut Trumpist Nazis.  Which means we have to INVEST in self-defense at minimum, if not openly consider organizing ourselves for retaliation purposes.

Stochastic terrorists need their asses kicked by stochastic patriots, is what I’m saying.  We need to do better for future generations, and that starts with doing right BY OURSELVES.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

We've heard a lot about "gaslighting" over the past few years, and often the term doesn't really apply to whatever phenomenon is being discussed. But this past weekend we saw a perfect example, with Republicans and their media allies working overtime to convince Americans that political violence is found on "both sides" of the partisan divide. In the final week of a hard-fought midterm campaign, one might wish be generous and excuse them for bending the truth or being hyperbolic. But this wasn't an ordinary weekend.

In the wee hours of Friday morning, a man wielding a hammer broke into the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and confronted her 82-year-old husband, Paul, repeatedly asking, "Where's Nancy?" and threatening to tie up Paul Pelosi and wait for the Speaker to return home. (She was thousands of miles away in Washington.) Pelosi covertly alerted police and when they arrived, the assailant hit Pelosi in the head with the hammer, fracturing his skull and seriously injuring his arm and hand.

It's obvious to all rational people that the assailant intended to abduct, injure or kill Nancy Pelosi, based on those facts alone. (CNN reported on Sunday night that the attacker was carrying zip ties in a plastic bag.) It's also reasonable to suspect the man had a political motive, since he was echoing the chants that rang through the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Trump's rampaging headed for Pelosi's office. It also turns out, unsurprisingly, that the alleged attacker, 42-year-old man David DePape, also left a long social media trail of unhinged right-wing conspiracy theories, racist and antisemitic rants, incel complaints, QAnon lunacy and more. (CBS News reported Monday morning that DePape had a list of other possible targets. We don't know who else was on it.)

This story is still unfolding and we certainly don't know all the facts yet. But it's pretty clear that yet another right-wing kook committed calculated political violence, and this time the target's spouse took the hit. Imagine how people on the right's hit list must have felt when they heard about this. Their families are in danger.

Honestly, that's nothing new. Last August, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., shared a chilling recording on Twitter:

As it happens, on Friday a different man pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Swalwell. Apparently, he called the congressman's office and told him he had an AR-15 and was coming after him. Last Wednesday, three men were found guilty for their involvement in the plot to kidnap against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat who has been a particular target of right-wing rage.

All of that happened in the span of just three days, and that's the tip of the iceberg. The country is awash in right-wing violence, from overt threats and assaults against Democratic lawmakers to threats and intimidation directed against election workers and voters themselves.

It's almost miraculous that something hasn't happened to Nancy Pelosi before now. She has been the most demonized political figure in America for many years, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton, her fellow target of right-wing misogyny. Every election cycle, but particularly during the midterms, those who hate her trot out depraved attacks that will turn your stomach. The memes are the stuff of nightmares.

According to the Capitol Police, threats against Pelosi have proliferated in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack. One vicious creep was sentenced to a year and half in jail earlier this year for threatening to behead both Pelosi and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

Max Boot at The Washington Post elaborates:

"The New America think tank found last year that, since Sept. 11, 2001, far-right terrorists had killed 122 people in the United States, compared with only one killed by far-leftists. A study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies last year found that, since 2015, right-wing extremists had been involved in 267 plots or attacks, compared with 66 for left-wing extremists. A Washington Post-University of Maryland survey released in January found that 40% of Republicans said violence against the government can be justified, compared with only 23% of Democrats."

But let's not put the blame only on the delusional malcontents who are deep down the MAGA rabbit hole. How do we explain the cowardly behavior of the Republican leadership? Yes, we expect the fever swamp avatars to push disinformation. (Apparently the new boss of Twitter will also do that, as he did on Sunday.) We can certainly expect the prime-time stars of Fox News to have a fully-formed alternate-universe theory of the Pelosi assault. (The seeds are already planted.) But once upon a time you might have expected more from actual elected officials, if only because they might feel some self-interested empathy for their fellow politicians: There but for the grace of God...

But Republicans believe they don't have to worry about this kind of stuff. They know the current spate of violence isn't aimed at them, don't they? (It's like Donald Trump telling the Secret Service at the Jan. 6 rally to let armed people in: "They're not here to hurt me.") The response of prominent Republicans has been nothing short of stunning. Oh, sure: Mitch McConnell said the attack was "disgusting" and Kevin McCarthy said that "violence or threat of violence has no place in our society." And quite a few others sent the usual pro forma thoughts and prayers. But that's about it.

Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel, last seen mocking John Fetterman, the Democratic Senate nominee in Pennsylvania, for his stroke-related disability, has protested that it's deeply unfair to suggest that Republicans' irresponsible rhetoric is somehow to blame. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who may yearn to be Trump's 2024 running mate, came right out of the gate with a crude campaign message, saying, "There's no room for violence anywhere, but we're going to send her back to be with him in California. That's what we're gonna go do." Another member of the so-called Team Normal weighed in with this fatuous false equivalency:

No, street protests — even if they include looting and property damage — are not equivalent to violent assaults on lawmakers and their families. They are very different forms of political behavior. The first represents a long-standing and legal form of political expression, which is punishable by law if and when it veers into violence. Political assassination is another order of magnitude altogether, aimed at disrupting political order through lethal and unpredictable acts of violence. In historical terms it's certainly not confined to the right, but in recent years in America, only the right has been reaping political profits from it. We are fortunate that so far no prominent political figure has literally been killed, but the intimidation factor is having an effect all over the political system.

The Republican base is highly motivated by the Big Lie and its ongoing hatred for what they perceive as the forces that are destroying American culture — immigrants, Black people, "cosmopolitan" city dwellers (often meaning Jewish people), feminists, liberals (aka "communists"), LGBTQ people and so on. The proliferation of crazy conspiracy theories feeds this hate and leads to the kind of violent attack that severely injured Paul Pelosi on Friday, as well as the ongoing threats against Democrats and civil servants. Republican officials, by and large, cannot quite bring themselves to condemn this. If anything, they wink and nod and suggest that it's all part of the game: Democrats deserve this at least a little, they are prepared to win by any means necessary and, anyway, both sides do it too. No, not really. In fact, not at all. And on the vanishingly rare occasions when that may happen. Democrats step up and strongly condemn any such actions.

To this point, Donald Trump has not said one word, which is probably for the best. I shudder to think what he would say. His eldest son reposted an utterly vile Instagram meme, and you just know Dad is itching to top that.

[stlhandyman]

Supreme Court, U.S FILED In The OCT 2 2022 Supreme Court ofthe United States  RALAND J BRUNSON, Petitioner,

Named persons in their capacities as United States House Representatives: ALMA S. ADAMS; PETE AGUILAR; COLIN Z. ALLRED; MARK E. AMODEI; KELLY ARMSTRONG; JAKE AUCHINCLOSS; CYNTHIA AXNE; DON BACON; TROY BALDERSON; ANDY BARR; NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN; KAREN BASS; JOYCE BEATTY; AMI BERA; DONALD S. BEYER JR.; GUS M. ILIRAKIS; SANFORD D. BISHOP JR.; EARL BLUMENAUER; LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER; SUZANNE BONAMICI; CAROLYN BOURDEAUX; JAMAAL BOWMAN; BRENDAN F. BOYLE; KEVIN BRADY; ANTHONY G. BROWN; JULIA BROWNLEY; VERN BUCHANAN; KEN BUCK; LARRY BUCSHON; CORI BUSH; CHERI BUSTOS; G. K. BUTTERFIELD; SALUD 0. CARBAJAL; TONY CARDENAS; ANDRE CARSON; MATT CARTWRIGHT; ED CASE; SEAN CASTEN; KATHY CASTOR; JOAQUIN CASTRO; LIZ CHENEY; JUDY CHU; DAVID N. CICILLINE; KATHERINE M. CLARK; YVETTE D. CLARKE; EMANUEL CLEAVER; JAMES E. CLYBURN; STEVE COHEN; JAMES COMER; GERALD E. CONNOLLY; JIM COOPER; J. LUIS CORREA; JIM COSTA; JOE COURTNEY; ANGIE CRAIG; DAN CRENSHAW; CHARLIE CRIST; JASON CROW; HENRY CUELLAR; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS; MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE; Ill ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE DINGELL; LLOYD DOGGETT; MICHAEL F. DOYLE; TOM EMMER; VERONICA ESCOBAR; ANNA G. ESHOO; ADRIANO ESPAILLAT; DWIGHT EVANS; RANDY FEENSTRA; A. DREW FERGUSON IV; BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK; LIZZIE LETCHER; JEFF FORTENBERRY; BILL FOSTER; LOIS FRANKEL; MARCIA L. FUDGE; MIKE GALLAGHER; RUBEN GALLEGO; JOHN GARAMENDI; ANDREW R. GARBARINO; SYLVIA R. GARCIA; JESUS G. GARCIA; JARED F. GOLDEN; JIMMY GOMEZ; TONY GONZALES; ANTHONY GONZALEZ; VICENTE GONZALEZ; JOSH GOTTHEIMER; KAY GRANGER; AL GREEN; RAUL M. GRIJALVA; GLENN GROTHMAN; BRETT GUTHRIE; DEBRA A. HAALAND; JOSH HARDER; ALCEE L. HASTINGS; JAHANA HAYES; JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER; BRIAN HIGGINS; J. FRENCH HILL; JAMES A. HIMES; ASHLEY HINSON; TREY HOLLINGSWORTH; STEVEN HORSFORD; CHRISSY HOULAHAN; STENY H. HOYER; JARED HUFFMAN; BILL HUIZENGA; SHEILA JACKSON LEE; SARA JACOBS; PRAMILA JAYAPAL; HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES; DUSTY JOHNSON; EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON; HENRY C. JOHNSON JR.; MONDAIRE JONES; DAVID P. JOYCE; KAIALPI KAHELE; MARCY KAPTUR; JOHN KATKO; WILLIAM R. KEATING; RO KHANNA; DANIEL T. KILDEE; DEREK KILMER; ANDY KIM; YOUNG KIM; RON KIND; ADAM KINZINGER; ANN KIRKPATRICK; RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI; ANN M. KUSTER; DARIN LAHOOD; CONOR LAMB; JAMES R. LANGEVIN; RICK LARSEN; JOHN B. LARSON; ROBERT E. LATTA; JAKE LATURNER; BRENDA L. LAWRENCE; AL LAWSON JR.; BARBARA LEE; SUSIE LEE; TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ; ANDY LEVIN; MIKE LEVIN; TED LIEU; IV ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G. LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; NANCY MACE; TOM MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM; A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN; PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER; GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D. MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE; SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N. MURPHY; JERROLD NADLER; GRACE F. NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS; ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O'HALLERAN; ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.; DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS; CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER; AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M. RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K. ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L. RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P. SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER; AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT; TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES; ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H. V SMITH; DARREN SOTO; ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER; VICTORIA SPARTZ; JACKIE SPEIER; GREG STANTON; PETE STAUBER; MICHELLE STEEL; BRYAN STEIL; HALEY M. STEVENS; STEVE STIVERS; MARILYN STRICKLAND; THOMAS R. SUOZZI; ERIC SWALWELL; MARK TAKANO; VAN TAYLOR; BENNIE G. THOMPSON; MIKE THOMPSON; DINA TITUS; RASHIDA TLAIB; PAUL TONKO; NORMA J. TORRES; RITCHIE TORRES; LORI TRAHAN; DAVID J. TRONE; MICHAEL R. TURNER; LAUREN UNDERWOOD; FRED UPTON; JUAN VARGAS; MARC A. VEASEY; FILEMON VELA; NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ; ANN WAGNER; MICHAEL WALTZ; DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ; MAXINE WATERS; BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN; PETER WELCH; BRAD R. WENSTRUP; BRUCE WESTERMAN; JENNIFER WEXTON; SUSAN WILD; NIKEMA WILLIAMS; FREDERICA S. WILSON; STEVE WOMACK; JOHN A. YARMUTH; DON YOUNG; the following persons named are for their capacities as U.S. Senators; TAMMY BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO; MICHAEL F. BENNET; MARSHA BLACKBURN; RICHARD BLUMENTHAL; ROY BLUNT; CORY A. BOOKER; JOHN BOOZMAN; MIKE BRAUN; SHERROD BROWN; RICHARD BURR; MARIA CANTWELL; SHELLEY CAPITO; BENJAMIN L. CARDIN; THOMAS R. CARPER; ROBERT P. CASEY JR.; BILL CASSIDY; SUSAN M. COLLINS; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS; JOHN CORNYN; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; TOM COTTON; KEVIN CRAMER; MIKE CRAPO; STEVE DAINES; TAMMY DUCKWORTH; RICHARD J. DURBIN; JONI ERNST; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; DEB FISCHER; KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND; LINDSEY GRAHAM; CHUCK GRASSLEY; BILL HAGERTY; MAGGIE HASSAN; MARTIN HEINRICH; JOHN HICKENLOOPER; MAZIE HIRONO; JOHN HOEVEN; JAMES INHOFE; RON VI JOHNSON; TIM KAINE; MARK KELLY; ANGUS S. KING, JR.; AMY KLOBUCHAR; JAMES LANKFORD; PATRICK LEAHY; MIKE LEE; BEN LUJAN; CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS; JOE MANCHIN III; EDWARD J. MARKEY; MITCH MCCONNELL; ROBERT MENENDEZ; JEFF MERKLEY; JERRY MORAN; LISA MURKOWSKI; CHRISTOPHER MURPHY; PATTY MURRAY; JON OSSOFF; ALEX PADILLA; RAND PAUL; GARY C. PETERS; ROB PORTMAN; JACK REED; JAMES E. RISCH; MITT ROMNEY; JACKY ROSEN; MIKE ROUNDS; MARCO RUBIO; BERNARD SANDERS; BEN SASSE; BRIAN SCHATZ; CHARLES E. SCHUMER; RICK SCOTT; TIM SCOTT; JEANNE SHAHEEN; RICHARD C. SHELBY; KYRSTEN SINEMA; TINA SMITH; DEBBIE STABENOW; DAN SULLIVAN; JON TESTER; JOHN THUNE; THOM TILLIS; PATRICK J. TOOMEY; HOLLEN VAN; MARK R. WARNER; RAPHAEL G. WARNOCK; ELIZABETH WARREN; SHELDON WHITEHOUSE; ROGER F. WICKER; RON WYDEN; TODD YOUNG; JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his capacity of President of the United States; MICHAEL RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President of the United States, and KAMALA HARRIS in her capacity as Vice President of the United States and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/243739/20221027152243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf