#Profit Of Term Life Insurance

[dailyanarchistposts]

J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state?

The period of neo-liberalism since the 1980s has seen a rollback of the state within society by the right-wing in the name of “freedom,” “individual responsibility” and “efficiency.” The position of anarchists to this process is mixed. On the one hand, we are all in favour of reducing the size of the state and increasing individual responsibility and freedom but, on the other, we are well aware that this rollback is part of an attack on the working class and tends to increase the power of the capitalists over us as the state’s (direct) influence is reduced. Thus anarchists appear to be on the horns of a dilemma — or, at least, apparently.

So what attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state and attacks on it?

First we must note that this attack on “welfare” is somewhat selective. While using the rhetoric of “self-reliance” and “individualism,” the practitioners of these “tough love” programmes have made sure that the major corporations continue to get state hand-outs and aid while attacking social welfare. In other words, the current attack on the welfare state is an attempt to impose market discipline on the working class while increasing state protection for the ruling class. Therefore, most anarchists have no problem defending social welfare programmes as these can be considered as only fair considering the aid the capitalist class has always received from the state (both direct subsidies and protection and indirect support via laws that protect property and so on). And, for all their talk of increasing individual choice, the right-wing remain silent about the lack of choice and individual freedom during working hours within capitalism.

Secondly, most of the right-wing inspired attacks on the welfare state are inaccurate. For example, Noam Chomsky notes that the “correlation between welfare payments and family life is real, though it is the reverse of what is claimed [by the right]. As support for the poor has declined, unwed birth-rates, which had risen steadily from the 1940s through the mid-1970s, markedly increased. ‘Over the last three decades, the rate of poverty among children almost perfectly correlates with the birth-rates among teenage mothers a decade later,’ Mike Males points out: ‘That is, child poverty seems to lead to teenage childbearing, not the other way around.’” [“Rollback III”, Z Magazine, April, 1995] The same charge of inaccurate scare-mongering can be laid at the claims about the evil effects of welfare which the rich and large corporations wish to save others (but not themselves) from. Such altruism is truly heart warming. For those in the United States or familiar with it, the same can be said of the hysterical attacks on “socialised medicine” and health-care reform funded by insurance companies and parroted by right-wing ideologues and politicians.

Thirdly, anarchists are just as opposed to capitalism as they are the state. This means that privatising state functions is no more libertarian than nationalising them. In fact, less so as such a process reduces the limited public say state control implies in favour of more private tyranny and wage-labour. As such, attempts to erode the welfare state without other, pro-working class, social reforms violates the anti-capitalist part of anarchism. Similarly, the introduction of a state supported welfare system rather than a for-profit capitalist run system (as in America) would hardly be considered any more a violation of libertarian principles as the reverse happening. In terms of reducing human suffering, though, most anarchists would oppose the latter and be in favour of the former while aiming to create a third (self-managed) alternative.

Fourthly, we must note that while most anarchists are in favour of collective self-help and welfare, we are opposed to the state. Part of the alternatives anarchists try and create are self-managed and community welfare projects (see next section). Moreover, in the past, anarchists and syndicalists were at the forefront in opposing state welfare schemes. This was because they were introduced not by socialists but by liberals and other supporters of capitalism to undercut support for radical alternatives and to aid long term economic development by creating the educated and healthy population required to use advanced technology and fight wars. Thus we find that:

“Liberal social welfare legislation … were seen by many [British syndicalists] not as genuine welfare reforms, but as mechanisms of social control. Syndicalists took a leading part in resisting such legislation on the grounds that it would increase capitalist discipline over labour, thereby undermining working class independence and self-reliance.” [Bob Holton, British Syndicalism: 1900–1914, p. 137]

Anarchists view the welfare state much as some feminists do. While they note, to quote Carole Pateman, the “patriarchal structure of the welfare state” they are also aware that it has “also brought challenges to patriarchal power and helped provide a basis for women’s autonomous citizenship.” She goes on to note that “for women to look at the welfare state is merely to exchange dependence on individual men for dependence on the state. The power and capriciousness of husbands is replaced by the arbitrariness, bureaucracy and power of the state, the very state that has upheld patriarchal power.” This “will not in itself do anything to challenge patriarchal power relations.” [The Disorder of Women, p. 195 and p. 200]

Thus while the welfare state does give working people more options than having to take any job or put up with any conditions, this relative independence from the market and individual capitalists has came at the price of dependence on the state — the very institution that protects and supports capitalism in the first place. And has we have became painfully aware in recent years, it is the ruling class who has most influence in the state — and so, when it comes to deciding what state budgets to cut, social welfare ones are first in line. Given that such programmes are controlled by the state, not working class people, such an outcome is hardly surprising. Not only this, we also find that state control reproduces the same hierarchical structures that the capitalist firm creates.

Unsurprisingly, anarchists have no great love of such state welfare schemes and desire their replacement by self-managed alternatives. For example, taking municipal housing, Colin Ward writes:

“The municipal tenant is trapped in a syndrome of dependence and resentment, which is an accurate reflection of his housing situation. People care about what is theirs, what they can modify, alter, adapt to changing needs and improve themselves. They must have a direct responsibility for it … The tenant take-over of the municipal estate is one of those obviously sensible ideas which is dormant because our approach to municipal affairs is still stuck in the groves of nineteenth-century paternalism.” [Anarchy in Action, p. 73]

Looking at state supported education, Ward argues that the “universal education system turns out to be yet another way in which the poor subsidise the rich.” Which is the least of its problems, for “it is in the nature of public authorities to run coercive and hierarchical institutions whose ultimate function is to perpetuate social inequality and to brainwash the young into the acceptance of their particular slot in the organised system.” [Op. Cit., p. 83 and p. 81] The role of state education as a means of systematically indoctrinating the working class is reflected in William Lazonick words:

“The Education Act of 1870 … [gave the] state … the facilities … to make education compulsory for all children from the age of five to the age of ten. It had also erected a powerful system of ideological control over the next generation of workers … [It] was to function as a prime ideological mechanism in the attempt by the capitalist class through the medium of the state, to continually reproduce a labour force which would passively accept [the] subjection [of labour to the domination of capital]. At the same time it had set up a public institution which could potentially be used by the working class for just the contrary purpose.” [“The Subjection of Labour to Capital: The rise of the Capitalist System”, Radical Political Economy Vol. 2, p. 363]

Lazonick, as did Pateman, indicates the contradictory nature of welfare provisions within capitalism. On the one hand, they are introduced to help control the working class (and to improve long term economic development). On the other hand, these provisions can be used by working class people as weapons against capitalism and give themselves more options than “work or starve” (the fact that the attacks on welfare in the UK during the 1990s — called, ironically enough, welfare to work — involves losing benefits if you refuse a job is not a surprising development). Thus we find that welfare acts as a kind of floor under wages. In the US, the two have followed a common trajectory (rising together and falling together). And it is this, the potential benefits welfare can have for working people, that is the real cause for the current capitalist attacks upon it. As Noam Chomsky summarises:

“State authority is now under severe attack in the more democratic societies, but not because it conflicts with the libertarian vision. Rather the opposite: because it offers (weak) protection to some aspects of that vision. Governments have a fatal flaw: unlike the private tyrannies, the institutions of state power and authority offer to the public an opportunity to play some role, however limited, in managing their own affairs.” [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 193]

Because of this contradictory nature of welfare, we find anarchists like Noam Chomsky arguing that (using an expression popularised by South American rural workers unions) “we should ‘expand the floor of the cage.’ We know we’re in a cage. We know we’re trapped. We’re going to expand the floor, meaning we will extend to the limits what the cage will allow. And we intend to destroy the cage. But not by attacking the cage when we’re vulnerable, so they’ll murder us … You have to protect the cage when it’s under attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power. And you have to expand the floor of the cage, recognising that it’s a cage. These are all preliminaries to dismantling it. Unless people are willing to tolerate that level of complexity, they’re going to be of no use to people who are suffering and who need help, or, for that matter, to themselves.” [Expanding the Floor of the Cage]

Thus, even though we know the welfare state is a cage and part of an instrument of class power, we have to defend it from a worse possibility — namely, the state as “pure” defender of capitalism with working people with few or no rights. At least the welfare state does have a contradictory nature, the tensions of which can be used to increase our options. And one of these options is its abolition from below!

For example, with regards to municipal housing, anarchists will be the first to agree that it is paternalistic, bureaucratic and hardly a wonderful living experience. However, in stark contrast with the right who desire to privatise such estates, anarchists think that “tenants control” is the best solution as it gives us the benefits of individual ownership along with community (and so without the negative points of property, such as social atomisation). The demand for “tenant control” must come from below, by the “collective resistance” of the tenants themselves, perhaps as a result of struggles against “continuous rent increases” leading to “the demand … for a change in the status of the tenant.” Such a “tenant take-over of the municipal estate is one of those sensible ideas which is dormant because our approach to municipal affairs is still stuck in the grooves of nineteenth century paternalism.” [Ward, Op. Cit., p. 73]

And it is here that we find the ultimate irony of the right-wing, “free market” attempts to abolish the welfare state — neo-liberalism wants to end welfare from above, by means of the state (which is the instigator of this individualistic “reform”). It does not seek the end of dependency by self-liberation, but the shifting of dependency from state to charity and the market. In contrast, anarchists desire to abolish welfare from below. This the libertarian attitude to those government policies which actually do help people. While anarchists would “hesitate to condemn those measures taken by governments which obviously benefited the people, unless we saw the immediate possibility of people carrying them out for themselves. This would not inhibit us from declaring at the same time that what initiatives governments take would be more successfully taken by the people themselves if they put their minds to the same problems … to build up a hospital service or a transport system, for instance, from local needs into a national organisation, by agreement and consent at all levels is surely more economical as well as efficient than one which is conceived at top level [by the state] … where Treasury, political and other pressures, not necessarily connected with what we would describe as needs, influence the shaping of policies.” So “as long as we have capitalism and government the job of anarchists is to fight both, and at the same time encourage people to take what steps they can to run their own lives.” [“Anarchists and Voting”, pp. 176–87, The Raven, No. 14, p. 179]

Ultimately, unlike the state socialist/liberal left, anarchists reject the idea that the cause of socialism, of a free society, can be helped by using the state. Like the right, the left see political action in terms of the state. All its favourite policies have been statist — state intervention in the economy, nationalisation, state welfare, state education and so on. Whatever the problem, the left see the solution as lying in the extension of the power of the state. They continually push people in relying on others to solve their problems for them. Moreover, such state-based “aid” does not get to the core of the problem. All it does is fight the symptoms of capitalism and statism without attacking their root causes — the system itself.

Invariably, this support for the state is a move away from working class people, from trusting and empowering them to sort out their own problems. Indeed, the left seem to forget that the state exists to defend the collective interests of the ruling class and so could hardly be considered a neutral body. And, worst of all, they have presented the right with the opportunity of stating that freedom from the state means the same thing as the freedom of the market (so ignoring the awkward fact that capitalism is based upon domination — wage labour — and needs many repressive measures in order to exist and survive). Anarchists are of the opinion that changing the boss for the state (or vice versa) is only a step sideways, not forward! After all, it is not working people who control how the welfare state is run, it is politicians, “experts”, bureaucrats and managers who do so (“Welfare is administered by a top-heavy governmental machine which ensures that when economies in public expenditure are imposed by its political masters, they are made in reducing the service to the public, not by reducing the cost of administration.” [Ward, Op. Cit. p. 10]). Little wonder we have seen elements of the welfare state used as a weapon in the class war against those in struggle (for example, in Britain during the miners strike in 1980s the Conservative Government made it illegal to claim benefits while on strike, so reducing the funds available to workers in struggle and helping bosses force strikers back to work faster).

Anarchists consider it far better to encourage those who suffer injustice to organise themselves and in that way they can change what they think is actually wrong, as opposed to what politicians and “experts” claim is wrong. If sometimes part of this struggle involves protecting aspects of the welfare state (“expanding the floor of the cage”) so be it — but we will never stop there and will use such struggles as a stepping stone in abolishing the welfare state from below by creating self-managed, working class, alternatives. As part of this process anarchists also seek to transform those aspects of the welfare state they may be trying to “protect”. They do not defend an institution which is paternalistic, bureaucratic and unresponsive. For example, if we are involved in trying to stop a local state-run hospital or school from closing, anarchists would try to raise the issue of self-management and local community control into the struggle in the hope of going beyond the status quo.

In this, we follow the suggestion made by Proudhon that rather than “fatten certain contractors,” libertarians should be aiming to create “a new kind of property” by “granting the privilege of running” public utilities, industries and services, “under fixed conditions, to responsible companies, not of capitalists, but of workmen.” Municipalities would take the initiative in setting up public works but actual control would rest with workers’ co-operatives for “it becomes necessary for the workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism.” [General Idea of the Revolution, p. 151 and p. 276–7] Thus, for example, rather than nationalise or privatise railways, they should be handed over workers’ co-operatives to run. The same with welfare services and such like: “the abolition of the State is the last term of a series, which consists of an incessant diminution, by political and administrative simplification the number of public functionaries and to put into the care of responsible workers societies the works and services confided to the state.” [Proudhon, Carnets, vol. 3, p. 293]

Not only does this mean that we can get accustomed to managing our own affairs collectively, it also means that we can ensure that whatever “safety-nets” we have do what we want and not what capital wants. In the end, what we create and run by ourselves will be more responsive to our needs, and the needs of the class struggle, than reformist aspects of the capitalist state. This much, we think, is obvious. And it is ironic to see elements of the “radical” and “revolutionary” left argue against this working class self-help (and so ignore the long tradition of such activity in working class movements) and instead select for the agent of their protection a state run by and for capitalists!

There are two traditions of welfare within society, one of “fraternal and autonomous associations springing from below, the other that of authoritarian institutions directed from above.” [Ward, Op. Cit., p. 123] While sometimes anarchists are forced to defend the latter against the greater evil of “free market” capitalism, we never forget the importance of creating and strengthening the former. As Chomsky suggests, libertarians have to “defend some state institutions from the attack against them [by private power], while trying at the same time to pry them open to meaningful public participation — and ultimately, to dismantle them in a much more free society, if the appropriate circumstances can be achieved.” [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 194] A point we will discuss more in the next section when we highlight the historical examples of self-managed communal welfare and self-help organisations.

[tittyinfinity]

Yes, it is going to be hard whenever capitalism comes to an end.

But the reality is that it's already collapsing in on itself and will only get worse from here on out.

Whenever people say they're done with the US government, it's not because they don't care about how people will be negatively affected – it's because it will be so much harder to fight later on down the line.

Capitalists have already been working together to make sure everyone is broke and exhausted. A good portion of our life is controlled by the corporate world & land-owners. Our bosses, landlords, and cops can control just about anything we do. Our phones spy on us and can send our info to the cops.

Capitalism is enforced through violence. There is public information about politicians taking money from corporations like health insurance & oil companies. There's public information about the US committing coups in communist and socialist countries to install fascist leaders. It has come out several times that our military is used to secure oil and other resources through terrorism. It's well-known that prisons are used to draft as many people for slave labor as they can. These companies that both pay off and install politicians to enforce policies that make them richer rely on this violence for their profit.

No capitalist candidate will never have your best interest at heart. Anyone willing to sacrifice lives for the sake of money will sacrifice your life the moment it's most convenient – all while saying that they're Helping The Country Get Better, Actually. And if our main goal is "less people dying," thinking short-term is not gonna save us. Especially when so many are already dying right now. Today.

If you're scared about the bad things that will happen when capitalism falls.....how do you think the people suffering & dying under the current system feel?

The people who have lost their homes and families? The people forced into slavery? Indigenous people who continue to lose more and more land?

All for the gas in your car, the lithium in your batteries, the land you live on, the job you work, and hell, most of the products we use.

You're worried about what might happen.... it's already happening, just not to you. And relying on the government to save you from the government isn't realistic.

Either you want imperialism, colonization, and genocide to end, or you don't. Stand up and fight while you have the chance.

Get your friends and neighbors together for direct action groups. Print out posters and put them all over the town. Don't just join protests, START them. Strike. Join the IWW. Get your coworkers together to start a union. Tell your boss to pay you more or you're all walking out. Stealing shit isn't even stealing shit – corporations & capitalists are already stealing tax money & the money produced by the labor of their workers. They take and take while they give us crumbs. We don't have to put up with this shit

[jkl-fff]

You are ruler of your country for a day! You can enact one law and it will still be in effect after you leave. What do you do?

Only one? Well, in typical USA fashion, I'm going to get around that by drafting one law (a bill) with a fuck ton of riders that are considered part of that one law (yep, even if they have nothing to do with the primary purpose of the bill and are actually something many legislators would oppose) (yet one more thing that's fucked up about this government). AND I'm going to go a step above that to guarantee these all remian in effect by declaring their enactment is as Constitutional Amendments.

Henceforth, all elected positions (presidents, governors, mayors, senators, representatives, etc.) are to be held for a term of four years, with a strict limit of two terms per person. Anyone who will turn 75 during the coming term will be deemed ineligible for office.

ALL judicial positions will be subject to a strict code of ethics (ESPECIALLY the fucking SUPREME COURT gods above, how is this already not a thing), and those who are accused of violating it will be subject to a trial with a jury of 12 judges. If found guilty of violating this code by at least 7 of the 12, they will be cast out of office ... and into prison. Also, judges can only serve at a given level for 16 years (no more of this lifetime terms bullshit).

No elected official may be reimbursed for their service at a rate higher than their state's minimum wage. Nor may they receive government benefits (like health insurance) above what the average citizen is entitled to receive. If they want more, they'd better improve the lives of their poorest citizens.

Their is a wealth cap at $500 million in private or corporate assets. Everything after that is confiscated for the public good. Anyone found guilty of trying to dodge that will lose everything and go to jail for the rest of their life (anyone with more than $10 million must be audited annually to ensure no tax fraud is being committed).

Corporate personhood will be acknowledged, but so will a corporate death penalty. If a company is found to have violated laws protecting the environment or public to a degree greater than $10 million in damages, then the company will be disbanded, and *all* assets of the executives will be seized while *half* of all middle management will be seized. (This way, rank and file workers will be incentivized to keep their company honest so they don't lose a job, management and executives will be incentivized because they stand to lose 50% or 100% of their wealth).

In a similar vein, all punitive fines are to be scaled according to the wealth of the offender. Like, a speeding ticket is $250 for a poor person, $25,000 for a millionaire.

The military can only receive as much funding as the Department of Education, which will disperse its funds to the poorest schools in a district first. But charter and religious schools are prohibited from receiving federal and state funds (if they want to be private, that's fine ... but they gotta pay for everything themselves while still being subject to federal regulations).

Business subsidies can not surpass welfare funding throughout a state. Also, if a business makes a profit one year, they are ineligible to receive subsidies the next.

Election Day is now on a Sunday, and all non essential services are to close so people can go vote. Tiered voting is to be instituted, too.

Convicted felons cannot be president even after serving their time (c'mon, people, seriously). Though they can vote again once released.

I could add others, but this has gone on long enough, and these already would be huge improvements. Thanks!

[sabaramonds]

if anyone is wondering if im going to do an analysis of double & mikoto i uhhh need to find more stuff to read in english about psychiatric care and dissociative disorder patients in japan but given what ive found so far im like. well this is what i expected from milgram ill be honest having read the voice drama tl and watched the mv 8573485 times (omg hanae natsukis vocals) i do have a few thoughts. mentions of CSA and childhood abuse below as well as medical abuse - mikoto2 ("john" LMFAOOOO) claims he was born from mikotos workplace stress and implies that mikoto did not have DID prior to that; DID is only developed in childhood, but its common to live your life without knowing about it until adulthood (the average age at diagnosis is 29-35 years as of a 2007 paper on sciencedirect i just double checked; according to a 2009 piece from the national library of medicine, the average patient for a diagnosis is a woman of about 30 years old and a retroactive view of the patients medical history and symptoms tend to reveal a lifetime of DID symptoms) so basically im saying that its equally possible deco and yamanaka are unaware of this or mikoto2 is lying his ass off because why would he want to tell some amnesiac teenage prison warden btw the reason i exist is because mikoto was abused as a child. why do you think our mom divorced our dad. even if es likely researched it themself and is probably aware of the statistical likelihood that mikoto experienced long term childhood abuse, why would mikoto2 say it...especially if that abuse was sexual in nature - according to this video recorded by a japanese man (a recovering hikkikomori who experienced forced hospitalization in the past), the 2017 statistics for mental hospital inpatients was that there were 280,000 patients at the time, and 170,000 of those were hospitalized for over a year. 90,000 had been in hospital care for more than 5 years and 26,000 had been in care for 20 years. he also references that most psychiatric care facilities are private in nature, not government-run, so they prioritize the amount of patients they receive in a short period of time because it earns them more profits (another video i watched compared this practice to a mcdonalds burger vs a proper restaurant; make more at a cheaper cost). likewise, long term care facilities dont want to let their patients go easily, because even if families or the patient cant afford to cover the cost, insurance or the government social security system will cover it. a combination of the psychiatric business as its run and the broader cultural attitude towards mental health (in some cases, families do not want their shame to be public, and actively do not want their mentally ill relative to be released from the hospital; if this is the case, its more likely for a patient to be forcibly hospitalized long term without anyone outside to advocate for their release) so im kind of like. hm. (see saw motion with my hand) as far as rep goes i think its kinda middling, especially because mikoto2 is the Alter Who Kills People For Some Reason trope, which always sucks and basically every journal, article, or vlog ive looked into from people with DID has said "god please stop with the murder alter trope please please", but considering the source material i think its...well, its honestly better than what i was expecting. but milgram is designed to be abstract to a certain extent and were still missing information, so who knows. maybe yamanaka and deco have something else up their sleeve regarding mikoto. but yeah i couldnt find anything specifically regarding patients with DID (or related disorders) but i did only poke around for like 2 hours in the middle of the night soooo ill come back to it and that concludes my findings on this topic for today. stay tuned for my next mikoto fic installment or whatever

[theculturedmarxist]

What would the world look like if the pandemic never ended, if Covid was causing widespread, long-term illness, and if all this was being covered up by the government?

You might expect to see record levels of sickness and disability. You might expect to see hard evidence that the ‘herd immunity’ plan failed, with children continuing to die at staggering rates. You might expect record numbers of absences in schools and workplaces, tons of canceled concerts and airline flights, more sudden/unexplained deaths in all age groups, and a rise in opportunistic infections (caused by damaged immune systems), like fungal infections or strep A. There would be a coordinated effort to hide data from the public to obscure the truth of the threat. Hospitalizations, cases, and transmission numbers would all be hidden or manipulated. The government probably wouldn’t try to hide the data all at once, because it would be easier to dismantle reporting over the course of several months or years.

Eventually, updates might cease altogether (despite rising cases). The CDC would likely have to hide death data as well. Powerful people with vested interests in keeping the economy running would probably engage in astroturfing online, spreading misinformation to convince the public the threat has passed (to get people back to work and boost corporate profits). The rich and powerful would continue to take precautions, while telling you everything’s fine. This would take a lot of effort, and there would have to be a pretty carefully-coordinated campaign to confuse (and wear down) the public. They might tell you repeatedly how much you shouldn’t be panicking. Hospitals might prioritize a sense of “normalcy” over infection control, so as not to be held (legally and financially) responsible for their role in the unfolding disaster.

The ruling class (who would have access to the truth of the situation) would use their knowledge of what’s coming to invest in long-term care facilities, nursing homes, disability services, and hospices. Some people would obviously figure out what’s going on (like scientists, for example) and start shouting about it from the rooftops. So you’d probably see extreme censorship measures happening on social media sites. As conditions worsen, government officials might start preparing the public to accept mass death, reassuring us that it will only happen to the ‘vulnerable.' Life insurance companies would take note and move accordingly, denying coverage to people suffering from Long Covid. Meanwhile, the scientific evidence would keep mounting.

We are still in a pandemic.

The pandemic is not over. Basically everything you have been led to believe about the virus is a lie. Covid is more dangerous, more transmissible, and more out of control than everyone in power is telling you. We are not back to normal. We are in freefall.

We were lied to at every step of the way. First we were told not to panic and to stay six feet apart. We were told not to panic, ordered by the surgeon general not to buy up face masks, which we were assured we wouldn’t need. Then, we were told to only wear masks if sick or caring for someone with symptoms. When we were all finally told to wear masks in April 2020, we were given bad information about which masks could keep us safe. Cloth and surgical masks do not protect against aerosols (respirators do). And we were told by the people in power these flimsy masks would keep us safe. This was a lie.

The lies that killed us

Documents show that the World Health Organization knew from the start that SARS-Cov-2 was airborne.  They knew that “[a]irflow and ventilation were identified as important factors influencing efficient spread in hospitals,” but did not provide ventilation guidance to the public for years. Instead, this information was withheld from the public; they told the world that Covid spread through droplet transmission and repeatedly insisted Covid was not airborne. Because WHO withheld this crucial information, people around the world did not take necessary airborne precautions, like wearing respirators instead of baggy surgical masks.

Images from the World Health Organization’s publications acknowledging airborne transmission of SARS, juxtaposed with their guidance to the public in 2020. Compiled by Maarten De Cock (@mdc_martinus) on Twitter.

When the vaccines were first made available in late 2020, many leaders and prominent experts told people that the shots would prevent transmission entirely. This was never true; vaccines provide some protection, but don’t stop transmission (and only slightly reduce your risk of Long Covid). Americans were told by the president that they had a choice: “vaxxed or masked,” leading many vaccinated people to stop masking.

Throughout 2021, Americans were told repeatedly that Covid was only a threat to the unvaccinated. The CDC confidently asserted through December 2021 that “Cases of reinfection with COVID-19 have been reported, but remain rare.” While they were pushing this claim, the CDC was conveniently no longer reporting vaccination status alongside information on Covid deaths. (That information would remain hidden until April of 2022).

Once vaccinated people were getting sick with Covid in large numbers and the data could no longer be fully suppressed, the government told everyone that a vaccine plus a breakthrough infection would give you hybrid immunity. Experts declared that this form of ‘immunity’ would be the ticket to ending the pandemic. Then Omicron happened and cases skyrocketed.

The lies continued from there. We were told Omicron was somehow ‘milder,’ we were told that because nearly everyone got it, that we would finally reach population-level ‘immunity.’

But viruses do not automatically evolve to become milder. And Covid did not become milder; it became more insidious, more contagious, and more immune evasive. We now know it is neuroinvasive (even in cases with ‘mild’ acute symptoms), vascular, mass disabling, and far deadlier than what official totals have led us to believe. We know now that most transmission happens asymptomatically, and that reinfections are even more dangerous than initial infections. We know that at least one in ten infections leads to Long Covid, a debilitating neurological disease with no cure. We know this virus dysregulates immune systems, destroys T cells, and directly infects arteries in the heart. And as a result of all of this, we’re seeing unprecedented levels of sickness on a global scale.

We are living through an ongoing democide, being covered up in real time.

Hiding the bodies

The people in power have used every tool at their disposal to downplay, lie about, and cover up the truth of this pandemic. As the cases continued to rise (despite their assurances that things were under control), the US government took even greater steps to keep the public calm and unaware. They changed the way they calculated and shared information about community transmission, changing the scary-looking red map from a comforting green one overnight. The number of cases didn’t go down. But the green map gave people a false sense of belief that things were improving. The CDC called the new map system the Community Levels map. Most people mistakenly thought low Community Levels meant low community transmission, but this confusing system relied on hospitalizations, a lagging indicator.

After, and before. The mostly-green map on the left is dated March 10, 2022 and the map on the right is dated March 9, 2022.

In addition to changing the map, the CDC also made major changes to the ways that Covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were tracked. The changes always served to ensure that totals were undercounted. The CDC was manipulating the data, sweeping bodies under the rug. But these changes were made gradually and largely without the public’s awareness. In January 2022, they moved to end daily Covid death reporting by hospitals; by February, they had officially done so. By March 2022, some US states started shutting down daily Covid death reporting altogether.

What the public did eventually hear via the news was that the numbers were trending down. ‘Hospitalizations are down,’ the news told everyone—neglecting to inform all of us of the changes the CDC made to its reporting that artificially deflated these totals in multiple ways.

Hiding the data was not enough to get everyone to accept continued, repeated infections. The government wanted all of us to believe that catching Covid repeatedly was unavoidable and the acceptable cost of keeping everything running. If people were able to avoid becoming repeatedly infected, this lie wouldn’t hold. So they changed the guidance for schools, saying that there was no longer a need for masks, testing, or quarantines. They changed the isolation guidelines so that infectious people were sent back to work after just five days (down from ten)—at the request of the CEO of Delta Airlines. They ended the mask mandates in healthcare and transportation. Allowing people longer absences from work would set a precedent for workers demanding regular sick leave; it was crucial to not let ten-day absences become the norm or the expectation.

Testing moved to the private market, and fewer and fewer people retained the ability to test themselves regularly. And the people who are testing are largely relying on at-home rapid tests—whose results are not being reported anywhere.

On top of all of this, the CDC director called masks the “scarlet letter” of the pandemic. Over and over, the messaging from leadership stated that masks were a burden, masks marked you as an outsider, masks were outdated. They created immense social pressure for people to stop masking. As long as people continued to wear masks in public spaces, the threat remained visible and on others’ minds. Pushing everyone to drop their masks was big business’s way of ensuring people believed the pandemic was over so that they would resume traveling, spending money, and stimulating the economy without reservations.

In August of this year, just three months after ending the global public health emergency, the World Health Organization went as far as to stop sharing Covid-19 Epidemiological Updates. When announcing this change, they stated that “reported cases do not accurately represent infection rates due to the reduction in testing and reporting globally.”

Now, wastewater data is the only accurate data we have left. This data shows the concentration of Covid in sewage wastewater samples from across the country (the virus is shed in our poop when we get sick). And this crucial data is also under threat. Biobot Analytics, the company that provided much of the US wastewater data, lost its contract with CDC NWSS this month. The new contract went to Verily, a company owned by Alphabet (Google’s parent company). The switch is leading to data gaps, as well as changes in sample processing and analysis that will make data from some sites no longer directly comparable with the sites covered by Biobot. Others have noted that, unlike Biobot, Verily offers “little in terms of comprehensible data in regional or national terms.”

Without accurate data on current cases, transmission rates, hospitalizations, and deaths, we have no way of knowing the full scope of the current crisis. Our house is on fire; alarms removed, the public sleeps.

Government mitigations

The government knows that the pandemic is not over. The US Department of Defense is investing in state-of-the-art wearables that can predict if wearers are getting sick. The devices use biometrics and predictive algorithms (trained on hospital-acquired data) to detect infectious diseases up to 48 hours before any symptoms appear. The wearables are part of the Rapid Assessment of Threat Exposure (RATE) project, which recently got $10 million worth of additional funds.  

Everyone who meets with President Joe Biden is PCR tested beforehand.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre recently confirmed that strict COVID-19 testing protocols remain in place, saying, "Anybody who meets with the president does indeed get tested." White House interns still have to agree to wear masks when asked.

When Biden gave a maskless speech last year at Richard Montgomery High School during a period of high Covid transmission, gym windows were removed to rig a temporary high-end ventilation setup. Parents at the school were outraged, and teachers took to Twitter to share photos of the air handling units. NALTIC Industrials called the setup “unprecedented.” Meanwhile, the US government continued to insist on the safety of America’s schools, telling parents to send their kids maskless to poorly-ventilated classrooms.

[fatehbaz]

Traditional scholarship in the history of science associates the quantifiable, universal human body with the European Enlightenment or ‘new science’. This measurable, universal body, it is argued, came to define modern medicine. Behind it lay the driving forces of political economy, [...] life insurance, and modern industrial [profit] [...]. But this widely accepted history of the universalisation and systemisation of human corporeality [...] [involves] an earlier global history of enslaving and measuring bodies in the Indies, born of the Iberian slave trade between Africa and colonial Iberian America. It was in the violent and profitable world of this slave trade that universal concepts and calculations of health risks, disease and bodily characteristics [...] emerged. Indeed, the scale of data production about bodies in the early modern world of Iberian slave trading far outpaced all contemporary systems of production of knowledge about the human body.

The key concept in this early modern quantification of the body was the pieza de Indias (Spanish) or peça da India (Portuguese). [...]

The appearance of this new measure and epistemology was intimately linked to the unprecedented rise in the size and complexity of the transatlantic commerce in human bodies during the first decades of the 17th century. The new, universal measure of man was the result of the slave trade’s need to quantify the risks of investing in human corporeality and its modern afflictions. By the late 16th century, Iberian slave traders, governments, corporations and financiers from around Europe (particularly from Genoa, Florence and the Netherlands) were already thinking of the transportation of slave bodies as units of risk.

---

The original licences for slaves transacted in Iberia were contractual concepts that did not refer to bodily characteristics [...] [and] were of limited help [...] for calculating the productivity [of a slave's body] [...]. Consequently, slave traders and slave-trading organisations, including the House of Trade (Casa de Contratación) in Seville, developed methodologies that allowed them to translate slave bodies into numbers and calculate the inherent value [...] as it related to an increasingly normalised, constant unit called the pieza. The concept of the pieza (the piece) allowed for the creation of contracts where investors, providers and the state could prospectively calculate tariff, gains and risk using quantifiable notions of bodies [...].

The historical record makes clear that the concept of ‘the piece of the Indies’ itself was already firmly established across the Atlantic basin by the early 1600s. [...] In addition to peça, Portuguese slave traders [in West Africa] used several other terms to refer to slaves who were not adult [...], reflecting an increasingly rich taxonomy [...]. Muleque or muleca [...]. Slave traders began using these terms to refer to young bodies that they discounted at rates [...]. Calculating the value of cañengues, muleques and mulecas by converting them into standard adult [...] piezas was a common practice [...]. Portuguese officials in Sao Paulo da Assumpcao de Loanda deployed the concept when they tallied ‘the dispatch’, or fees due to the Portuguese crown, for the embarkment of African slaves bound for the Americas. Such methods to appraise slave bodies became normative in Spanish America for determining the tariffs that traders had to pay to introduce slaves in the New World.

By the late 1530s, crown officials were counting the ‘pieces of slaves’ (piezas de esclavos) disembarking in Santo Domingo and selling them to miners [...] [and] hacienda owners [...] to work in the mines and estates of the island. [...] [A] concept of an ideal body for transportation and labour [...] had emerged across the Atlantic, and during the first decades of the 17th century it was disseminated across the Pacific and Indian Oceans, being widely used in Dutch trading records. [...] [S]lave traders and government officials used the term pieza to talk about other captive bodies from the Indies, most notably native or 'Indian' bodies in the Caribbean.

---

The concept of the piece of the Indies appears in full form in the 1660s as part of negotiations of the terms of the asiento de negros or slave monopoly between the Spanish crown and the Genoese financiers Domingo Grillo and Ambrosio Lomelín. The contract with the Grillos established that they would ‘bring 24,500 blacks, piezas de Indias, over the course of seven years and starting in 1662’. The monopoly established as one of its conditions that ‘the said quantity of blacks should be piezas de Indias, each one seven cuartas of height and up’. [...] Slave traders used height as a proxy for life histories of health and nutrition and as a predictor of the slave’s potential productivity [...] [and] created a complex system around the marker of height [...].

[H]aving grey hair, for instance, translated into a reduction in value of one cuarta or one-seventh of the standard pieza. The conditions of 'cloud in one eye [cataracts]' signified a reduction of two cuartas; scurvy, two cuartas; phlegm, one and one-half cuartas; a 'benign hernia', one cuarta [...]. Being older than 35 years merited a one-cuarta deduction [...]. The presence of lobanillos (small tumours) was worth one and one-half cuartas’ reduction; small fingers, one-half cuarta; incapacitating scars (burns), one and one-half cuarta; [...] localised ulcers, one-sixth of a cuarta; generalised ulcers, one cuarta; [...] short-sightednesss, two cuartas; [...] missing molars, one cuarta [...].

---

The contractual articulation of the concept of the piece of the Indies [...] formalised slave-based knowledge production about human bodies. The contract assembled a vast storehouse of knowledge, much of it held in the House of Trade in Seville, obtained from thousands of records of bodily characteristics and diseases for hundreds of thousands of bodies [...]. The Grillos’ contract set a precedent for the 1679 contract between Spanish and Portuguese merchants and the Dutch West India Company. The 1696 asiento between Spanish crown and [financier F.M.] and [financier N/P.], for example, agreed they would transport 10,000 tonnes of freight including 30,000 piezas de Indias of the ‘regular measure of seven cuartas’. Similarly, a 1709 contract between the French Compagnie de Guinée and Dutch slave traders, settled in Amsterdam, specified that the French would pay 110 pièces de huit (pieces of eight) ‘for each black piece of Indies’ delivered in the Caribbean.

As the ‘new science’ of the European Enlightenment dawned in Europe, the piece of the Indies was well established as the most disseminated universal measure of the human body.

---

All text above by: Pablo F. Gomez. "Pieza de Indias: Slave Trade and the Quantification of Human Bodies". A chapter in New World Objects of Knowledge: A Cabinet of Curiosities (edited by Mark Thurner and Juan Pimentel), pp. 47-50. Published 2021. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Presented here for commentary, teaching, criticism purposes.]

[thissugarcane]

again, write before anything else in the morning MIGHT = me getting something posted this year. augh.

anyway, there are two scenes in 4x02 I want to keep almost the same; one is the moment where Brian tells the headhunter a shitty job isn't worth it and Justin's all "you're just taking an awfully big risk [not taking the job], you could wind up destitute" and Brian's like, "well. what's one more?" as if he's like, accepted Justin, accepted he's working for himself, etc., what IS one more risk??

and then the other is brian telling ted, "you've hit bottom with a resounding thud. of course, there's only one way to go from there... rhymes with...?" "up"? Which is clearly like, Brian empathizing [to a certain degree] with Ted, staring down his life from the vantage point of having clawed his way one step away from rock-bottom, but knowing just how much farther he has to go. just like brian.

now picture that brian terrified of cancer.

~

Justin got out of the shower to find Brian laying naked on the bed and clenching his fist while he charmed someone on the phone. "Two thirds my previous salary and no profit sharing for the first five years?" he asked. "That's an interesting way to negotiate."

An unintelligible mumble came from Brian's cel phone. Justin couldn't help but grin as Brian pulled him down and flipped him onto his back. Justin squirmed as Brian stroked his face and neck, down to his shoulder, and then pinched his ribs.

"Times are tough," Brian agreed. "Which leads me to wonder what other kinds of benefits they've decided junior--" and he put a little more emphasis on 'junior' (oh, great, his ego was rearing its head)-- "associates don't get? Let me guess, stock options come at the same time as profit sharing? Medical and dental have six month waiting periods? Oh, I know. Travel reimbursements after a year-long probationary period!"

Another unintelligible mumble; Brian had stopped moving altogether, staring at the wall instead of Justin as he listened. Justin watched his face, moving a hand slowly along the nape of Brian's neck as Brian's face slowly collapsed in infintessimally small increments.

So. That was a resounding yes to the medical waiting list (and probably no expenses or stock too).

Then Brian pulled his mask back on, even smiled (vaguely Justin remembered his [etiquette teacher] once saying 'if you have to sound pleasant, smile, even if its fake; it comes out in your voice!'). He moved his hips just enough to stroke his semi-hard cock along Justin's balls and told whoever it was on the phone, "You can inform them I've taken a new position; one with more impressive returns."

Another unintelligible murmur. Brian ran his fingers through Justin's hair with his free hand, twisting it, as he started frowning. "I suppose there's no harm in keeping my resume out there. But if this is your best efforts, I doubt it."

Justin distinctly heard the woman on the phone saying, "then best of luck to you, Mr. Kinney," before Brian snapped his phone closed and tossed it off the bed (where Justin heard it skitter across the bedroom floor).

"So, no expense account?" Justin asked, trying to be cheerful.

Both of Brian's hands were in Justin's hair, and Brian dropped his forehead to rest against Justin's collarbone. "Six month waiting period, like all the rest." He snorted. "I bet it's the same fucking insurer as Vangard, honestly."

"Shit." Justin bit his lip. "Still, it didn't sound like a bad salary. And as long as I'm at Starbucks--"

"You need to go back to school, Sunshine."

Now was not the time to get into that argument; Justin still had [a few weeks] before winter term registration closed. Justin bit Brian's neck gently. "So what are you gonna do?"

Brian collapsed his weight onto Justin, letting his body sink until they were touching all over, Justin's legs cradling Brian and Brian's face tucked into Justin's neck. "Fuck if I know. You heard her. That was 'the best offer she'd seen in weeks, and I'd be lucky to get it'."

"Shit."

Brian nodded against Justin's neck, not that Justin could see his face.

"Was it a good idea to tell her to fuck off?"

Brian shrugged against him; Justin felt his cock twitch. "She won't give a shit if something else comes along that she wants me to interview for." All of a sudden, Brian shifted up so he could stare into Justin's eyes. "Fuck it," he declared. "I can do better working for myself."

["I thought you'd contacted your clients and they weren't ready to jump ship."]

"Not yet they aren't," Brian told him. "Give me a few months and they'll be begging to take me back. Besides, I can get others. Ones who aren't pathetic."

Justin thought about it. He, above everyone else, knew that at least half of Brian's confidence was carefully hidden bravado; sometimes a lot more than half. But down in the core of Brian was a healthy chunk of (well-deserved) self-confidence too, and determination, and faith, even, in his own ability to survive and thrive. The fuck'em mentality, brought to life.

Justin didn't disagree, but Brian had had so many fucking upsets, so many shocks, in the last few weeks, he just didn't... want him to be reacting because of that. "What if you can't get the clients?" Justin asked. "You'll be destitute."

And then Brian said the thing that made Justin realize why he was really doing this -- why he was truly ready. "And I'm not now, Sunshine?" Brian countered. It was said matter-of-factly, Brian's eyes clear, and Justin realized that Brian had finally accepted his current state of affairs, at least about the job, had internalized it and started thinking four steps ahead again. Brian continued, "No job, no money, maybe [four months'] worth of expenses in the bank, and [an MRI] to find out if I'll have to shell out [a hundred thousand bucks] to pay for fucking cancer treatment?"

"It's still an awfully big risk."

Brian looked right at him, before replying seriously, "Well, what's one more? At least I'll get to pick the fucking insurance package." Justin blinked, and Brian continued quietly, like a confession, "Besides. If I don't do this now, I never will."

Brian raised his eyebrow, Justin nodded, a little movement of his head, as Brian twined his fingers into Justin's hair absently. There was nothing else that needed to be said.

[gay-sin]

Severance, flip phones, far from home: the impossibility of opting out 

I finished Severance by Ling Ma about a week ago. I loved it so much. I am not in school anymore and I am having a hard time trying to fulfill my desire for intellectual conversation. It’s not like I’m not learning anymore. I’m learning so much. These days, I am filling in the gaps of my learning in the sections of life that I chose to put off while prioritizing academia. I’m learning to take care of myself, complete tasks, hold myself accountable, and generally survive. It is hard and I miss the conversations I would have in school that felt like they truly challenged and deepened my worldview. Reading has been a great solace to me in that way but it often feels lonely to read something and not get to discuss it with others. I can never simply read or watch something without wanting to dig in and discuss the implications. I like to use fiction to interrogate real things. I have so many thoughts about Severance and what it had me thinking about in my own life as I read it. I decided to write it down to at least converse with myself as I did so. I'm posting it online to see if anyone would want to engage in conversation with me as well. It is not in MLA or whatever. I’m not in school. I can write how I want. 

I think that the title of Severance is very layered. On the surface, it references the phenomenon of severance checks (payments given to terminated employees that are fired due to layoffs or retirement). The payments are based on the amount of time that an employee has worked for the company. Effectively, it aims to take care of the people that have taken care of the company until they can find new work. Severance describes how companies have cut long-term employees and these checks in order to maximize profits at the cost of minimizing quality. This seems to echo a larger trend that the novel revolves around: a cutting off (or severance) from our interconnectivity under our current systems of hetero-patriarchal white supremacist colonial capitalism. What a mouthful. But basically… Society is severing us from the things that make living meaningful, and for many, possible. 

The characters of the book all seem to be struggling with the desire to opt out of this system (who wouldn't want that?) The narrator, Candace, immigrated to Salt Lake City from Fuzhou as a child. This severance from her ancestry, culture, and family was done in aims of giving her a better life in the United States. In many ways, it was an action done by her parents in order to attempt to opt out of the struggles of life in Fuzhou, made increasingly difficult under global capitalism. Even so, the choice was really just opting into a new set of struggles. The book describes the complex effects of this immigration on Candace and her family. In addition, it describes the guilt of leaving and the burden of feeling as if you are in a country that despises you while you must constantly prove yourself to it.

Candace’s ex-boyfriend felt dehumanized by the working in corporate America and therefore lives on the fringes of the system, skimping by. He believes himself to be opting out of the system. In this quote, Candace interrogates his lifestyle.

“I know you too well. You live your life idealistically. You think it’s possible to opt out of the system. No regular income, no health insurance. You quit jobs on a dime. You think this is freedom but I still see the bare, painstakingly cheap way you live, the scrimping and saving, and that is not freedom either. You move in circumscribed circles. You move peripherally, on the margins of everything, pirating movies and eating dollar slices. I used to admire this about you, how fervently you clung to your beliefs—I called it integrity—but five years of watching you live this way has changed me. In this world, money is freedom. Opting out is not a real choice” (205).

The illusion of opting out is a privilege. Jonathan, unlike Candance, is American. This gives him the ability to exist in America without questioning or proving his belonging. He does not carry the weight of supporting his family or really anyone but himself. Even so, he barely manages that. Candace, not afforded many of Jonathan's privileges, works for in a corporate office. Jonathan, idealistic and blind to his own advantages, is consistently criticizing this choice.

I have always had dreams of opting out. I've spent much of my life dreaming of this. I think that part of why I went to college was to opt out of joining the workforce for four more years. I studied art because it seemed like that would be opting out of the monotony of having a Real Job. I bought a flip phone to opt out of smartphone addiction. I moved across the country to opt out of my family. 

Severance depicts a world-ending incurable pandemic. The illness is called Shen Fever and it is somewhat akin to a zombie apocalypse without the eating of humans. The sickness comes for everyone, even if it does demolish the areas with the least privileges first. In the end, everyone is susceptible. You cannot opt out. You cannot buy your way out of an incurable disease. 

You cannot buy your way out of climate change, even if you can avoid its consequences for longer. Sure, you may be privileged enough to be given the illusion of opting out but this planet is deeply, densely interconnected. You are not opting out. You are delaying the inevitable. 

Over the summer, I went to an anarchist bookstore in Philadelphia and bought a book called Meaningful Flesh: Reflections on Religion and Nature for a Queer Planet. I would read the essays on my breaks from work, trying to see if I could be someone that reads academic theory in my free time. It ended up being very dense and difficult to get through but it was incredibly interesting to me. I was reminded of the second essay of the text when reading Severance. It is called, “Irreverent Theology: On the Queer Ecology of Creation” by Jacob J. Erikson. The essay aims to queer our ideas of nature and matter with a theological lens. That is a massive oversimplification of the text but I don’t want to stray too much from my original point here. I just wanted to include a quote from the essay to gesture to how these concepts in Severance have resonances in so many areas of life.

 “For this particular nature-cultural moment, we must be irreverent of old stories and ideas in our constructive creativity. Ideas of pristine nature, untouched wilderness, essential selves, essential genders, and uncomplicated assumptions of desire and sexuality, deaden and violate the messy and embodied realities of creativity, embodied ecology, and enfleshed divinity” (74).

Collectively, we have attempted to sever ourselves from the environment that we are interwoven with, dependent on, and constantly in conversation with. The consequences are far-reaching and the effort is inevitably futile. You cannot sever yourself from the environment that sustains you. You are the environment.

On Saturday, I took an Uber home from my friend’s house and chatted with the driver. We talked about daylight savings and how stupid it is. Why make the sun go down sooner? I wish I could opt out of it, but then I’d be an hour early to every event from now until spring. I told him that I thought that the government was supposed to get rid of this system but apparently they were too busy committing genocides. We talked about Palestine and how clear it is that what is happening is devastating but how some people still blindly support Israel. We agreed that people have lost a fundamental part of their humanity: a severance from the part of themselves that sees innocent people dying and is devastated and outraged. In America, we have the choice to participate in these colonial ideologies,  push against them, or to not have an opinion (to “opt out"). It is an American privilege, the illusion of opting out of mass murder. None of us are separate from this conflict. Our tax dollars are being spent on the weapons that do the killing.

I am a white American. I have a large array of privileges that give me the illusions of choice. But at the end of the day, none of my choices have truly opted me out. At the end of the day, these severances have only handicapped me in other ways. I have gotten lost and missed appointments that I could have simply typed into Google Maps on a smartphone. I walked to urgent care by myself when I could have called my mom to pick me up if I didn’t move so far away. I carry the debt of my art degree and I will be making monthly payments from now until forever. I don’t have enough money to get out of an unhealthy living situation.  How free am I? How much have I opted out? You can opt out and be crushed by the weight of what it means to be alone, still dependent and existent within the system you’ve supposedly broken out of. But if you opt in, do you get sucked in? What choice is there?

“To live in a city is to take part in and to propagate its impossible systems. To wake up. To go to work in the morning. It is also to take pleasure in those systems because, otherwise, who could repeat the same routines, year in, year out?” (290).

In Severance, the fevered mindlessly repeat patterns. Their condition is an identifiable sickness. Yet, at the same time, Ma also gestures to the fact that it is not too different from the condition that we all share. Our daily repetition, often mindless, trying to find pleasure. The condition one must adopt to survive in this world. The sickness is not individual, it is collective. The cure is not individual, it is collective.

My coworker is moving home across the country after moving away from his family many years ago. He told me about how stressful the process has been for him. I could relate a lot to what he had said. The unsustainability of not having family closeby. The feeling of - what am I proving? The unsustainable nature of being alone and the sometimes equally unsustainable nature of family. Every choice seems to be a choice to sever yourself from one thing or sever yourself from another. Either way, the choice is rarely to come together. The deeper we just get into becoming a mess of severed pieces. 

I got a flip phone back in 2021 when I took a year off from college. At the time, I had fallen headfirst into a lot of the crushing realities that I had never really wanted to face. I was back home living with my family. I was coming to terms with my health, my sexuality, my lack of funds, my place in the world. I was cut off from my illusions of Making it Big and was faced with what Making it Small would entail. I was trying to shoulder the weight of the world that seemed to slowly be collapsing. I got a flip phone as an experiment, to see if I could do it, to see what it would feel like.  I wanted to know what it would be like to have to figure things out on my own, to be in silence, to be present in the moment that I was in. I wanted to stop opting out of being alive. 

About a month ago, I switched back to my smartphone on a whim. To see if I could, to see what it would feel like. It hasn’t solved anything. It hasn’t cured me. It has made my life easier in a lot of ways but harder in others. I miss the way I could walk around with a built-in excuse as to why I had not seen your email. I liked not having the pressure of every piece of knowledge at my constant disposal. I miss the way I felt I could walk around the world without trying to sever myself from it. I would walk in silence instead of trying to impose some soundtrack onto my reality, the soundtrack of the life I’d rather live.

[lol-jackles]

I love your insights and agree that Jensen’s deal with Amazon seems to fit more like a actor’s holding deal. If I understand how those work, it’s where the studio pays the actor a salary for a year to hold them to try and find a role for him/her in a tv show or movie. Is that correct?

You’ve said Amazon doesn’t pay actors very well, so what is your guess to Jensen’s salary that Amazon is paying him? (Is that how he was able to afford a $10million mansion in Connecticut?)

Do those work like typical salaries (weekly/monthly) or because it was also tied to his production company, was that annual salary paid to him in an upfront sum with hopes the ackles would use the money to develop a project?

given the strike, the ackles cannot develop anything, do they have to refund any money back to amazon?

Thank you and yes, in typical holding deals the actor will receive a salary for at least one year while the studio finds a suitable project for them. Similarly, Jensen would get paid X amount of dollars for the term no matter what. He would get a check every month that comes out of the millions in his deal, this will go to pay for overhead of running Chaos Machine, including employee salaries., office space, etc. So any advanced money the Ackles received is their's to keep even if there are no project(s) for Amazon's original programming.

With that said, I highly doubt that the CMP received the typical starter $10 million for production overheads as the deal was to hire Jensen for his acting (and his fandom). Jensen may have received $1 million in retainer fee instead.

As for the Ackles' ~ investment in Connecticut, he's going to sell that house in a year or two to an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust, then use the “sale” and the equity in the CT house to buy another house, just like he did with the Colorado house that was brought when he sold the Austin lake house (at half the market value) to the same trust. For example, if the Ackles put down at least 20% for the lake house, when the property’s value goes up by 20% (and it will), the Ackles have now made a 100% ROI and that’s before considering rents and tax write offs. Then when the houses like the lake house is sold for real in 10, 15, or 20 years, it will be sold at it's actual market price. It's a classic use of these types of trusts to make money by reaping the actual profit from the real sale and on top of the previous profit when the house was first sold into the trust. 

Jensen can easily never work again in his life just by living off his net worth, which I’ve speculated to be 20-25 million dollars and if he invest conservatively his net worth will double in ten years. While he's ~investing in real estates, I suspect his main source of passive income comes from investing in target-date funds, they’re a mix of stocks, bonds, and alternative assets and probably in a collection of mutual funds. If Jensen keeps to the common rule of withdrawal limit of 4%, he’ll have at least $1 million fuck-you money every year, more than enough to cover property tax and he and his family will be comfortably wealthy for the rest of their lives without working. But men need to work, hence why he pitched to WB the ideal of continuing SPN after Jared leaves.

@supernaturalconvert techically the trusts own the houses, and the people currently living at the lake house are paying rent to the "beneficiaries", which are the Ackles.

[tj-crochets]

Hey y'all! I am once again in health insurance hell, and could really use some help. I have a specific US health insurance question, but it might get long so it's below a read more

My employer offers two health plan options, and they are both absolutely terrible. I want to get my own health insurance, but the insurance broker lady I used when I worked part time says I can't, because I can get health insurance through my employer, even if I opt out. I spoke to another health insurance person today, and she said if I get a letter on company letterhead saying I'll lose health insurance on [date], as long as it's 60 days or less from now, it counts as a qualifying event and I can buy my own health insurance. She said opting out counted as losing health insurance. Do you know anything about this? How do I get health insurance as an individual NOT through my employer even though my employer offers it? The plans my employer is offering are Aetna, and Aetna is the absolute worst and I despise them as a company so much one of my long term goals is to warn people against them. They suck! They refused to pay for my inhaler until I got my doctor to fill out a form like three times, and also I had to email them A LOT and fill out a LOT of surveys with an emphasis on how horrifying I found it that they as a company clearly valued profit over their customer's lives, and would in fact prefer their customers die before they could reach the ER in case of an emergency, as evidenced by their refusing to pay for my rescue inhaler, a necessary life-saving medication. They also require I fill that form out every year, just in case I magically stop being in the small minority of people who get severe adverse reactions to albuterol and levalbuterol

[horce-divorce]

i'm so over this delta 8 shit. like yeah it's better than not having anything but it's not weed and it's not doing the same thing. i miss weed so much. d8 makes me cough so bad, it's weak as hell even when it's really good stuff, and it seemingly has 0 cbd compounds unless you buy the more expensive, cbd added/"live resin" type stuff. it doesn't help my pain at all, and its so much more expensive than weed no matter how you slice it. plus we always need more of it bc it's so weak. those 1g carts from Michigan were lasting Bel and I about 3 days each between the two of us. we go through a whole 2g cart of d8 in that amount of time or less. it's ridiculous.

and the thing is, when i lived here before, yeah, i had like 3 or 4 weedguys i could rotate between to get real stuff anyway. not so anymore. i've been gone for almost 4 years and they've really been cracking down on drugs around here in the interim. it's given the d8 market a massive foothold, but it's seriously been impossible to find a regular weedguy. every time we've almost found a lead, we start hearing about raids or the guy goes MIA. we'd basically either have to drive to the border ourselves at this point, or just cave and use the d8 that's available locally. and we're broke, so we've been doing the latter, obviously lol

weed has been keeping me off a feeding tube for years. my doctors in michigan told me outright to keep using it because they didn't want to prescribe me opioids. and then i move back to the only state in this whole area where weed is still illegal lmao. d8 has been keeping me off a tube lately, but tbqh i don't think it will continue to. my MALS attacks have been getting more frequent (which makes my POTS a lot worse), I'm eating less again, and even when i do manage to eat, it takes so much out of me and is still so painful, I usually end up having to sleep afterwards. i'm losing so much of my day just for having the audacity to feed myself and it's making me depressed again. i'm even on an antidepressant this time!!! it's also helping a little bit with the pain, but not enough to matter in the long run. i'm still gonna end up on a tube at this rate.

i'm also just sick of living in wisconsin so that makes me cranky, too. i love who i live with, being with my boyfriend and my roommate is great, but i've spent like 16 years living in wisconsin against my will already and somehow I KEEP fucking ending up back here, always against my will, and it's always pissed me off, but now it ALSO has the audacity to be the one (1) state in the whole area that won't let me have the one medication all my doctors have agreed is saving my life. every other state touching us, on every single side, has weed. canada has weed. 24 fucking states have legalized it. but no, wisconsin has to stick it's heels in the mud and keep that boot on our necks at ANY cost, especially over a change that would benefit literally everyone and increase revenue overall. i fucking hate it here.

america as a whole needs to get it's head out of it's ass about pain management. not just cannabis, but opioids and any other alternatives, too. but of course, the cruelty is the point. they want us to be suffering. they want to torture us. they want us to be stuck in ineffective health management loops until we die. more profit for insurance companies and hospitals, less "handouts" needed back, less conscientious objectors and protestors and political dissidents to be bothersome, less noisy disabled voices calling for justice in the world.

i am determined to keep trying to manage my MALS for as long as I can without getting surgery and, hopefully, without being on opioids (not because I buy into the fearmongering, but because of how strict the rules are about being prescribed them, about the lists you end up on, the random piss tests, and all the other bureaucratic crap that comes along with it). and if we end up staying here long-term, then yeah I will be doing everything i can to try and get weed legalized here to.

but i'm just pissed. and tired. i'm sick of having to fight for my stupid little life from every single facet, like, i'm fighting for my life and kicking screaming throwing up etc and it barely even amounts to a squeak in the grand scheme of things.

welp. too bad. i'm surviving out of spite. oh, i don't matter? cool, then it won't matter if I stay alive a bit longer and keep taking those pithy handouts, i guess! thanks! 🤪

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

General Motors (GM.N) on Thursday made a counterproposal to the union representing its U.S. hourly workers in a bid to avoid a costly strike, but United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain called the offer "insulting."

The largest U.S. automaker said it offered workers a 10% wage hike and two additional 3% annual lump sum payments over four years in its offer to the union ahead of the Sept. 14 contract expiration.

Last week, Ford said it had offered a 9% wage increase through 2027 and 6% lump sump payments, much less than the 46% wage hike being sought by the union. The UAW has said 97% of members voted in favor of authorizing a strike if agreement is not reached.

Fain, who represents 146,000 workers at the Detroit Three, said GM's offer was "an insulting proposal that doesn’t come close to an equitable agreement for America’s autoworkers.... The clock is ticking. Stop wasting our members’ time. Tick tock."

GM shares were down 1.3% in mid-day trading.

GM said the wage hike is the largest proposed since 1999. It is also offering a $6,000 one-time inflation-related payment and $5,000 in inflation-protection bonuses over the life of the agreement, along with a $5,500 ratification bonus.

Chrysler-parent Stellantis said Wednesday it planned to make a counteroffer to the UAW this week.

GM said that under its offer, current temporary employees will receive a 20% increase to $20 per hour wage and it would shorten the time it takes to get to the maximum wage rate for permanent employees - mirroring proposals from Ford.

GM President Mark Reuss said in a video posted on Thursday "we need a fair contract that both rewards our employees and protects the long-term health of our business."

A UAW strike that shuts the Detroit Three manufacturers could cost carmakers, suppliers and workers over $5 billion, Michigan-based Anderson Economic Group estimated.

With new car inventories tight, consumer experts have said that could translate into higher car prices - an important component of inflation.

Last week, the UAW filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board against GM and Stellantis saying they refused to bargain in good faith.

The union's demands include a 20% immediate wage increase followed by four 5% annual wage hikes, defined-benefit pensions for all workers, 32-hour work weeks and additional cost of living hikes. GM is proposing to give employees an additional paid holiday.

The UAW also wants all temporary workers at U.S. automakers to be made permanent, seeks enhanced profit sharing and the restoration of retiree health-care benefits and cost-of-living adjustments.

The UAW said Ford's profit-sharing formula change would have cut payouts by 21% over the last two years.

J.P.Morgan on Thursday said supply chain disruptions from a potential UAW strike would cut new vehicle production, drive up used car prices and put pressure on margins in the personal auto insurance business.

[swarajfinpro236]

Maximizing Savings through Income Tax Planning Services in Jabalpur with Swaraj FinPro

Residing in Jabalpur and seeking avenues to reduce tax burdens? Implementing income tax planning strategies can serve as an investment avenue to retain a larger portion of your earnings.

Through astute financial management and capitalizing on available tax-saving avenues, you can curtail tax obligations and bolster your savings.

Here's a breakdown of how you can minimize taxes through Income Tax lanning Services in Jabalpur:

Familiarizing Yourself with Tax Deductions and Exemptions: The Indian government offers various deductions and exemptions to individuals aiming to mitigate tax liabilities. By scrutinizing your expenditures and investments, you can pinpoint opportunities to claim deductions under sections such as 80C, 80D, 80CCD, etc., of the Income Tax Act. Contributions to schemes like PPF, EPF, life insurance premiums, home loan EMIs, and health insurance premiums are instrumental in reducing taxable income.

Harnessing Tax-Saving Investments: Allocating funds to tax-saving instruments like Equity Linked Savings Schemes (ELSS), National Pension System (NPS), and tax-saving fixed deposits not only aids in tax reduction but also fosters wealth accumulation over time. These investments offer the dual advantage of tax savings and potential returns, making them an appealing choice for individuals aiming to optimize tax planning.

Retirement Planning: Planning for retirement can yield significant tax benefits. Options such as the National Pension Scheme (NPS) and Public Provident Fund (PPF) facilitate systematic tax deductions, offering a tax-efficient approach to building a retirement corpus. These avenues ensure financial security during retirement and provide a steady income stream.

Seeking Guidance from Financial Advisors: Consulting with proficient Financial Advisors in Jabalpur is pivotal in formulating a comprehensive tax-saving strategy tailored to your unique financial scenario. Given the challenge individuals face in allocating a portion of their income to taxes, the Indian government provides diverse options to enhance income retention, secure retirement, and offer flexibility and diversification.

ELSS scheme : ELSS scheme is a great tax saving option under section 80c, allowed by Income tax department aims to save on tax and build wealth in longer term. A very important feature of the ELSS i.e. Equity Linked Saving Scheme is it has lowest lock in period for say only 3 years. If invested lumpsum or one time, it will be available to withdraw just after completing 36 months means complete 3 years. Another good point is it gives much better return than other tax saving options. Third very important aspect of ELSS fund is it's tax efficiency. It attracts Long Term Capital Gains Tax after completing 3 years tenure.

In such equity oriented schemes, Long Term Capital Gains rules are different from debt funds. In such cases, profit upto Rs 100000 is tax free and above Rs 1 Lakh profit, only 10% tax is applicable.

These all features make it a favourable case to save tax through ELSS.

In summary, income tax planning presents abundant opportunities for individuals to optimize tax liabilities and bolster savings. By staying abreast of tax-saving provisions, making prudent investment decisions, and soliciting professional advice, you can efficiently manage taxes while safeguarding your financial future.

Embark on your income tax planning journey today to pave the path for a financially secure tomorrow.

For personalized assistance and expert advice on income tax planning, don't hesitate to reach out to Swaraj Finpro, a premier financial services provider in Jabalpur.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Michael de Adder, Halifax Herald

* * * * *

Fox dumps Tucker Carlson.

         Fox fired Tucker Carlson on short notice on Monday, surprising everyone, including Carlson. The termination was a victory for American democracy. Carlson’s vile brand of hate and disinformation undermined public confidence in the government and fellow citizens. Good riddance!

         Sadly, the precipitating cause of Carlson’s termination did not appear to be his constant lying, antisemitism, racism, or anti-LGBTQ stance. Instead, according to the LATimes, he was fired for dissing management in private texts and emails that came to light during the Dominion Voting Systems defamation case. In other words, Rupert Murdoch doesn’t care if you cause Fox Corp. to lose three-quarters of billion dollars but don’t dare talk trash about the boss.

         In truth, the Dominion settlement was a likely factor. Let’s assume that Fox must pay the entire $787 million without insurance recoveries or tax benefits. Tucker Carlson generated about $77 million in ad revenue per year. If Fox had a 30% profit margin (a generous assumption), the settlement wiped out 34 years of profit generated by Carlson’s ad revenue. ($787mm/($77mm*0.3))

         While Carlson wasn’t the only on-air entertainer responsible for the settlement, he was the most notable. And the pain isn’t over yet—the Smartmatic lawsuit is in the wings. In other words, keeping Tucker Carlson on the air would have been a long-term money-losing proposition for Fox. Add that fact to carping about Rupert, and you can see why Carlson was given an hour’s notice of his termination.

         Worse for Fox and Carlson, both are defendants in an ugly discrimination lawsuit brought by Amy Grossberg, who claims that Fox and Carlson ran a “poisonous” newsroom with an “entrenched patriarchy” that permitted “abuse of female staff.” Some of the texts sent by Carlson are so vile I won’t quote them in a family-friendly newsletter, but let’s just say that if Carlson ever goes before a jury on a hostile workplace claim, he should bring his checkbook to the witness stand. See Business Insider, Lawsuit Says Fox News Execs Ordered Staff to Spy on Maria Bartiromo.

         There is the possibility of another ticking timebomb relating to Tucker Carlson that has yet to emerge. Something seems amiss, but we shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth. If Rupert Murdoch believes it is a good idea to fire on-air talent with the highest-rated cable show, who are we to second-guess? As one commentator noted, Carlson’s firing is

only the latest in a string of reasons for cautious optimism. Two and a half years ago, if you had predicted the sort of outcomes we’ve seen since, it would have seemed hopelessly, almost absurdly, naive.

         No one woke up Monday morning believing that Fox would fire Tucker Carlson. The unexpected development is a bracing reminder that our minds like to create rational narratives about the future unfolding in an orderly fashion (which is undoubtedly a healthy outlook on life). In truth, the future is filled with surprise and randomness that can reverse fortunes in the blink of an eye. Just ask Tucker Carlson.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[rotationalsymmetry]

1. WE believe that fat people are fully entitled to human respect and recognition.

2. WE are angry at mistreatment by commercial and sexist interests. These have exploited our bodies as objects of ridicule, thereby creating an immensely profitable market selling the false promise of avoidance of, or relief from, that ridicule.

3. WE see our struggle as allied with the struggles of other oppressed groups against classism, racism, sexism, ageism, financial exploitation, imperialism and the like.

4. WE demand equal rights for fat people in all aspects of life, as promised in the Constitution of the United States. We demand equal access to goods and services in the public domain, and an end to discrimination against us in the areas of employment, education, public facilities and health services.

5. WE single out as our special enemies the so-called “reducing” industries. These include diet clubs, reducing salons, fat farms, diet doctors, diet books, diet foods and food supplements, surgical procedures, appetite suppressants, drugs and gadgetry such as wraps and “reducing machines”.

WE demand that they take responsibility for their false claims, acknowledge that their products are harmful to the public health, and publish long-term studies proving any statistical efficacy of their products. We make this demand knowing that over 99% of all weight loss programs, when evaluated over a five-year period, fail utterly, and also knowing the extreme proven harmfulness of frequent large changes in weight.

6. WE repudiate the mystified “science” which falsely claims that we are unfit. It has both caused and upheld discrimination against us, in collusion with the financial interests of insurance companies, the fashion and garment industries, reducing industries, the food and drug industries, and the medical and psychiatric establishment.

7. WE refuse to be subjugated to the interests of our enemies. We fully intend to reclaim power over our bodies and our lives. We commit ourselves to pursue these goals together.

[ahaura]

members of the working class will shit on other members of the working class because they see them buy things they don't consider to be essential to survival therefore it is frivolous and a waste of money etc etc when 1) life is not just about survival like at the end of the day someone buying a second copy of their favorite book is not going to effect you but 2) there is real merit to the fact that when someone is struggling the most visible and accessible people are OTHER working class people, they are surrounded by people who are either in the same situation as them or a missed paycheck, disaster, emergency, or bad week away from being in their situation, and the truth is Most working class people are closer to people in poverty than to the capital owners. and the thing is, like, if you're suffering and something is barely out of reach for you of COURSE you're going to look at someone spending 15-30$ on something they dont need and think 'i really could have used that' because yes you COULD have. and when it comes to making sure people get what they need to just reach the threshold of survival and/or get to a point where they are not JUST surviving but financially stable enough to also thrive (because a lot of the time you will need money to do or get nice things that make your day more enjoyable, or your day to day easier, like shoes that will support ease your back pain or a new phone that actually charges when its supposed to or a nice coat that will last your for the next 5 years or a better pc so you can work and do stuff online easier or a snowblower that will help u get to work on time during the winter and let u de-ice the sidewalk so u dont slip and have to worry about an injury, the list goes on and on) the most direct route is mutual aid, and the most likely people to provide mutual aid are going to be OTHER working class people, especially other people who have been in your shoes, even if they themselves dont have much. rich people would rather die than directly put money into the hands of the people who need it, and ppl like real estate investors DONT want public housing and insurance companies DONT want accessible and affordable healthcare bec then they're missing out on a buck and they WOULD rather a poor person die than not make a profit in the short term when they could be saving lives and improving the material conditions of REAL people in the short AND longterm. and it's not like the working class at large possesses class consciousness or have a lot of localized power to make changes to benefit the public at large right now so this is why we get "isn't it classist to buy a second copy of your favorite book???" discourse