#and all programs would be reformed to actually benefit people and help with their goals not just abstience

[mac-n-cheese-flavored-arson]

Not only should drugs be legal they should also be free (in addition to comprehensive and reformed healthcare, not a substitute for it), you should be able to go to any pharmacy in the country and ask for a gram and them give you exactly a gram of exactly the substance you're asking for with a controlled dosage for free AND free and clean supplies to use it along with any harm reduction information you want about it

[qqueenofhades]

Can you please explain how the myth that "CoNsErVaTivEs ArE gOoD fOr TeH EcOnOmY!" Came to be? I know it's propaganda but just don't get how it's stuck around.

Several reasons:

1) Ronald Fucking Reagan. (I mean, when in doubt, blame Reagan and you have a 95% chance of being correct.) In the late 1970s, America (along with the rest of the world) was in a profound economic crisis. This wasn't necessarily the fault of Democratic president Jimmy Carter, but as the incumbent usually does, he took all the blame for it, and was generally perceived as responding inadequately to the energy woes as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran hostage crisis. Reagan, running on the slogan -- you guessed it -- "Make America Great Again" -- won in a landslide in 1980 and immediately instituted what has been known ever after as "trickle-down" or "supply-side" economics, which started the tradition of Republican fiscal "policy" as it is as today. Aka, giant tax cuts for rich people and big corporations, and the business end of the free-market fuckstick for everyone else. Despite massively running up the deficit and hiking taxes on working- and middle-class people no less than twelve times during his eight years as president, Reagan left office with the laurels of a Great Economic Reformer and every president since has been pressured to follow his lead to some extent. Biden is the first ever post-Reagan president to explicitly denounce Reagonomics as what it is. To wit, a get-richer-at-the-expense-of-everyone-else massive scam that has been sold as the height of Responsible Economics for decades, because capitalism!

2) Every Republican president ever since has tried to do the same thing, with the result that... welp, they crash the economy. We all remember what happened in 2008 as the result of Dubya Economics, right? Or the Trump tax cuts that added literal trillions to the deficit, while Biden has reduced it by $1.4 trillion in his first year alone. The Republicans act like cutting government spending alone is responsible economics, and a compliant corporate media owned by ultra-rich oligarchs who personally benefit from GOP policies is often only too happy to play along. So we are made to exist in this fantasy land where cutting massive amounts of revenue and forcing working-class people to carry the tax burden for the super-rich, aside from being morally reprehensible, somehow has a) no effect on the budget, and b) doesn't actually and massively affect the quality of life and smooth functioning of the entire country in generational and long-lasting ways. You would think that for people who profess to be such big fans of capitalism, they would know that it takes money to run a country effectively, and investment in critical public, health, and infrastructure services. But all they want to do is get richer for themselves, not help people, so lololol.

3) As discussed, the Democrats (despite being by any reasonable metric the more fiscally responsible party) have been labeled Big Spenders, because -- gasp -- they dare to expand government spending and social programs, rather than just slashing everything they can get their hands on. Yet again, because of forty Fucking years of Reagonomics and its successors, any spending at all is viewed as "irresponsible" and "too ambitious," while creating giant black holes in the budget to the tune of trillions of dollars is the Party of Fiscal Responsibility! It's like a kindergartner's idea of responsibility, where you just throw out everything. An adult would recognise that "responsibility" encompasses many different areas and goals, but good luck with that.

4) Every Democratic president that has come into office after a Republican has inherited an ungodly economic mess that they then get blamed for not fixing fast enough. The Republicans like to blow it all up and then fundraise and campaign on Democrats Being Bad For The Economy (That We Broke In the First Place, But Shh).

5) As I also said in the previous post: It's The Racism, Stupid. Democrats' social programs and government spending is designed to help people of color along with white people, and that is unacceptable to the white people who would otherwise benefit from these policies, but refuse to support them out of white grievance and racial resentment. As noted, the media is often more than happy to push the Democrats Bad For The Economy narrative, because all the companies and super-rich people who control and set this narrative don't want Democratic policies to ever be widespread or popular or authentically supported. Because then they themselves might be impacted, and might make less money or pay a lot more in taxes. Horrors.

Anyway, yes. There you have it. It is deeply stupid on many levels. Alas.

[monocle-teacup]

On Getting Mandroid To Open Up

Because I keep writing a fic that may or may not see the light of day online, I keep thinking about what exactly it would entail for Mandroid to develop a positive relationship with someone. I'm mostly focusing on friendship because Mandroid is far too crazy for romance.

He's been on his own for years and any sort of interaction he's had with another person/being involves threats, manipulation, or violence. His conversation with Dot in Age of Evolution is most likely the only positive interaction he's had in a long time.

His goal of destroying all Transformers has obviously warped his mind. He approaches every social interaction with the thought of how it could benefit him. His treatment post accident from other people has also made him a recluse. However, he clearly wants some sort of companionship or else I highly doubt he would've programmed the Arachnamechs to have personality.

He's going to initially be distrustful of another person. The severity of distrust would depend on the context of the situation. Normal person? Highly doubt he'd even bother with them unless there was an external factor. GHOST agent? They could be the nicest person in the world but he'd automatically dislike them. He'd be polite and formal until the other person does something to piss him off.

A big part in getting him to feel differently would be how the person interacts with the Arachnamechs. His creations saved his life and the humanizing moments we've seen with him involve them. A person being scared of them wouldn't surprise him because he made them to be intimidating. As long as the person doesn't treat them like things, they're off to a good start. If they start talking to them? Mandroid seal of approval.

A person being nice to him would make him suspicious because he fully expects there to be a motive. He's been treated like shit in the past so why would this person be any different? He'd never admit it, but there's a strong level of fear about opening up to other people.

It would take something drastic for Mandroid to accept the person's kindness as genuine. Some examples would be:

-A life or death situation where the person could easily save themselves but chooses to help him instead -They see him at a low point like a PTSD episode and don't mock him or treat him like he's broken

Either way, he's going to be mind blown. He's not going to immediately think of the person as a friend, but will relax a bit. He'll be the one to start conversations and to actually inquire about how the other person is doing.

Of course how the person feels about Transformers is going to come up sooner or later. This is the tricky part. As long as the person is indifferent or hates them, things will be fine. If a person likes them? That's going to undo progress. He won't immediately reject the person as long as they don't interfere with his plans. Trying to talk him out of his mission is also going to be a sticking point.

Mandroid getting to the point of considering the person a friend is going to be a slow burn. It's basically going to be one day he realizes that he truly cares about the other person and wants them in his life. Would it make him reform? No, but it would be a start.

[fittrrmy]

What To Do When You’re Just Not Feeling What’s on Your Workout Plan for the Day

It’s a reality that our energy and emotional, mental, and physical readiness for physical activity fluctuates from day to day. Exercise philosophies like intuitive movement lean into that fact, and encourage people to move in the way that brings them joy or fulfillment, based on how they’re feeling in the moment. In contrast, weekly or monthly workout plans pre-determine what a person’s activity is going to be in advance. These regimens can be helpful for people trying to achieve certain goals, like getting the CDC’s recommended amount of exercise (150 minutes of moderate activity, or 75 minutes of vigorous activity, per week), training for a race or strength feat, or for the person who really just wants to move their body, but doesn’t want to have to think too hard about how to do that. So, what do you do if you find yourself not in the mood to do what’s on the schedule that day? Maybe you’re tired and the thought of a speed run sounds like the opposite of what you want to put your legs through. Maybe you have a ton of energy and you want to hit a cycling class instead of lifting weights. In a myriad of ways, your body, mind, and schedule could be out of sync. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer. You have to come back to the “why” of your workout plan, and then decide whether sticking with what you’re slated to do, or making an adjustment, is the best course of action. Questions to ask yourself if you’re not in the mood for your workout House of Athlete trainer Alex Lyons suggests asking yourself, “Is the opportunity cost of skipping that worth it to me?” Meaning, what do you get instead, and what do you lose out on? Maybe, if you’re working out to ensure a good night’s sleep, but you’re already bone tired from an unusually active day, perhaps you don’t need a gym session to achieve that goal. But if you’re planning to race a 10K at the end of the month, and you’re feeling blah on a crucial training day, then you’re just going to have to make up the run later, anyway. So would you rather do it now or later? Making these opportunity cost assessments also comes down to getting in tune with what you’re feeling. So if you’re dreading what’s on your plan for the day, stop and ask yourself, Why? Can you flip the “why not” question on its head, and ask what you’re in the mood for instead? What to do if you have an intense workout planned, but you’re not in the mood to work out If your energy levels aren’t quite up for what’s listed on your calender, check in with yourself about your goals. Are they flexible enough that you can do the intense workout you have planned on a different day? What would be the consequences if you skip or opt for a different activity? Sometimes, getting started is the hardest part. That could be especially true if you’ve been stationary for a long period of time, so you’re feeling low energy from lack of blood flow. Lyons suggests committing to just doing a warmup, and seeing how you feel after, giving yourself full permission to stop if you’re still not feeling it. If the issue is physical or mental fatigue, you want to understand where the feeling is coming from. “It’s really coming back to understanding the mental barriers,” Lyons says. “Is the program actually too difficult? Am I just too sore, or do I just not enjoy what I’m doing in the moment?” Finally, you might just want to switch things up if you feel like pushing yourself is not what you want or need. “If you had a really heavy lift or really heavy run and you know that if you something might happen to your body, switch it for something more low impact like a Pilates or reformer or yoga,” Lyons says. “You’re still benefiting from the mental aspect of getting moving, getting your day going or winding your day down, but you shifted your priorities.” How to avoid not being in the mood for your workout in the first place Having a well-rounded fitness plan that allows for variety and flexibility can help minimize these misalignments. If your program hits different parts of your body, combines different types of activities, and incorporates rest days, you ideally will be primed for the workout you have planned on the day that it arrives. Plans can even be designed around the idea that every day is going to be different. So maybe if you’re someone who works best with flexibility, then the goal could be to do a certain amount of strength days per week, but not predetermine the day. “If you are training for a run or on a weightlifting plan, that’s one aspect of your training regimen, but you also need to have something else that you just super enjoy that may not impact a certain goal or output,” Lyons says. “Everyone’s exercise arsenal should have a multitude of options.” Read the full article

[violet-t-9]

My take on why Caleb doesn’t trust Astrid and Eadwulf

Why does Caleb not trust Astrid even though she helped the M9 multiple times by now and let them leave? Well, Liam has always kept good track of what happened in previous episodes of the campaign and I believe Caleb was drawing information from all his previous encounters with Astrid and Eadwulf, so here is just some highlights on what they know about them so far. This is another long post. Again, all quotes are not exact and straight from my memory. This is just my biased personal interpretations so take it as you will.

To illustrate my points, I recommend that you watch the Narrative Telephone episode Widogast’s Web of Words. It described the three of them this way:

1. Eadwulf as the boy whose mind was eaten, and he had “no mind of his own”.

2. Astrid as the girl whose eye was cut out, and she “never saw true again”.

3. Caleb as the boy whose heart was swallowed he “never knew love again”.

1. Eadwulf: From all the interactions we have seen with Eadwulf in it, he always appeared to defer to Astrid/Trent and this very much reminded me of the “no mind of his own” aspect. He “looks to Astrid” for what to do for multiple situations, and is clearly pretty content to be a follower. Otherwise, Eadwulf didn’t get to interact with Caleb a lot in general so to Caleb he must still be kind of an enigma. Whenever Eadwulf did answer Caleb’s questions he seemed like he was pretty content in his role as a Volstrucker as well and was pretty nonchalant about his job (basically talking about it like a summer job and very casually) without showing any hesitancy about what he does/carrying out his missions. His apparent association with the Raven Queen fascinates me and I don’t think Caleb knows what to make of that either. So far from what we’ve seen, Eadwulf clearly still cares about Caleb but also has lost some capacity to think for himself due to the trauma and abuse he suffered. This may also be why Eadwulf could be harder to reach than Astrid in a sense. So far, he has not given any indicator that he doesn’t believe in Trent’s system.

2. Astrid: “never saw true again” gave me the impression of her being “blind” to what is actually right and the true nature of Trent’s system, and given the evidence so far Caleb is right to think she is still buying into Trent’s ideology. When Caleb went to Astrid’s house to talk with her, she apologized and Caleb made a very high insight check. Astrid was “genuinely mournful for his pain” but there is also something “hardened” in her that was more like a “I’m sorry that you have suffered, as many people have, life is suffering and sometimes it is necessary”. Clearly, she on some level believe that what they are doing as Volstruckers to be the right thing. She said she felt guilty about her actions sometimes, but did believe that they were making a necessary sacrifice to protect the rest of the empire. Caleb even remarked that “he blinded you”. Basically, Astrid thought that Trent’s system and ideology is a necessary evil that is ultimately good for the empire because the Volstrucker does hard things so civilians can be safe. However, there is doubt in her, especially since Caleb continued to try to reach her. She made a remark at the dinner episode, something like “what we did was for the greater good... right?” and she sounded uncertain. I do think changing her mind would be easier and she may have started to see the flaw in Trent’s system already. As of right now though, Astrid seems to be already training other Volstruckers (I could be wrong, but she mentioned “tutelage”) and Caleb/Liam’s comment about her buying into the system is clearly not mistaken based on what we have seen from her so far. 

She is also ambitious in a sense that she wants to replace Trent, and she keeps reminding Caleb of that (”race you to the top”, “he is just an old man...”, “it could be an opportunity if you struck first”). She sees Caleb as an opportunity (I think Matt confirmed something about it or about her ambition when the Traveler was analyzing Astrid but can’t quite remember). She clearly doesn’t like Trent, and wants Trent gone, but it doesn’t mean she doesn’t believe in Trent’s system (all evidence suggests she does still buy into it). She also likely wants to use Caleb to further her own goals, and like Fjord said “not in an evil way” but that Caleb defying Trent would be very beneficial/convenient for her own goals. She clearly still cares about Caleb a lot and is happy to see him again, and like I said, this doesn’t mean she is trustworthy. Caleb’s concern is mostly what Astrid would do if she does replace Trent and he is right to assume things wouldn’t change much given Astrid’s belief in the system right now (her mindset of “Volstruckers are necessary and they do the dirty work so the empire can thrive”). Her helping M9 doesn’t really cancel out her ideology, it just shows that she genuinely cares for Caleb. Furthermore, so far Caleb’s presence is good for her goals. We don’t really know what she would do if Caleb appears more a threat than a benefit to her ambitions one day. 

So far, Caleb is the first one to break away from Volstruckers and I do think that gives Astrid hope that Trent can be taken down, but she could very well want to keep the program around if she ever gets in charge after Trent. She is very much dangerous, ambitious, conflicted and fascinating. Her caring for Caleb is clearly not all of her character, she has her own plots and I love her for it (thanks Liam for developing this character) and I love how Matt portrays her.

3. Caleb: another reason why Caleb may not trust his “old friends” is that his heart has very much been broken. “He never knew love again” is an apt description. This is more just interpretation from my part, but I think Caleb has partially lost his ability to trust others and he doesn’t trust anyone outside the M9, his immediate found family and their extended families (it took him a LONG time to trust them as well). Honestly? He is for the most part right to not trust people so far (exhibit A: Essek reveal) and all his paranoia from early episodes have come true, so I would not be surprised that this one does as well. [I wanted to use Yussa as a counter argument for trusting people then I remembered they trusted him with the knowledge of Aeor and he proceeded to yeet himself into the astral sea in 48 hours (the poor man).] 

So yeah, reason 3 is that Caleb is just not a very trusting individual in general. He has expressed that he loved Astrid and Eadwulf, but that feeling has of course faded after more than a decade of not seeing them. He does still care for the both of them, but he does not - and should not - trust them to want to reform the Volstrucker system and change the Empire the way that Caleb wants it changed. 

Now there is clearly still hope that Eadwulf and Astrid can change their mind, especially if Caleb keeps reaching out. Astrid has already shown some hesitancy and reconsideration. They also both helped the M9. I do believe that it is possible for them to eventually see Trent’s system as it is, and they have the capacity to change for the better. Right now though? Yeah, they are still pretty much buying into Trent’s system as far as I can tell. Helping M9, caring for Caleb and wanting Trent dead are separate issues and have nothing to do with what they believe in ideology-wise. I really hope that Caleb does make it back and gets to try reaching out to them again after the whole city thing is dealt with. I am very excited to see where both of these characters will go. They are very complex and fun to think about.

[vendettacanons]

🗣 franklin and andreas!!!

⚔️ Strong Opinions Meme // CLOSED ⚔️

ANDREAS

// Andreas really doesn’t like the military. Obviously as a government agent, he has a bit more information to go off that helps him formulate an opinion but even before he was IAA he hated the military industrial complex. And it’s extreme. Like, he was such a quiet goody two-shoes growing up, never bothered anyone and barely ever spoke but the one time a recruiter came up to him and tried to sell him on joining the Air Force, Andreas blew up at him and full on cursed him out saying it was the government equivalent of some creepy guy in a van saying he had candy. Then of course becoming an agent and seeing all the stuff from an insider perspective just made it worse honestly.

// He basically came to the understanding that even though it’s a federal body, the military is just a business. His understanding of it is that the military has just 3 goals: establish a presence within ally nations (through things like embassies), try to intimidate enemy nations (which in his opinion, nuclear firepower and the fact that US has already proven its willingness to violate Geneva Conventions time and time again seems intimidating enough and essentially makes troops unnecessary in terms of the cost of human lives), and to look like it’s doing something to justify receiving a budget increase every year. (Yeah he knows damn well the troops are never actually going to come home because they did, the military wouldn’t get the checks for their performances anymore.)

// Don’t even get him started on the resources for the troops, or lack thereof. Andreas doesn’t have anything against the actual people who serve, he just feels bad for them because not only were they promised things by recruiters that never ended up happening and suckered into serving, but then there’s so few actual resources for veterans to reintegrate into civilian life and so many of them end up homeless with a stigma against them. And the programs that are meant to help them tend to be complicated and he’s almost certain they’re intentionally designed to be hard to navigate just so people are discouraged from claiming the few benefits they actually are entitled to. Plus, there’s just something deeply disturbing to him about the fact that the military might promise to pay for schooling under the condition that you might die before you can actually get a degree. And also, service contracts. And the draft still existing.

// Just... everything about the system pisses him off. And do not mention cops or he WILL go apeshit-

FRANKLIN

// One thing that Franklin feels very strongly about is prison. The system of incarceration as he knows it is bullshit. For the short time he was there he learned that prisons used to be about reform and betterment but has since shifted to simply be a cage for people to just sit in until society thinks they’ve learned their lesson. He actually did look into it and oh man, does he fucking despise how the system has ended up developing to literally thrive and enrich itself off of incarceration numbers.

// Give him like 30 minutes and he will explain to you literally everything he hates about prison starting with how solitary confinement is an outdated archaic form of punishment that has literally cost hundreds thousands of people their lives to prison food to the free labor they make inmates perform and the ironic lack of security, aka “if the other inmates don’t get you then the guards will.” And that’s not touching on his experiences with organized criminal groups he encountered. Plus the huge disparity in the legal system between adults and children and how the courts can literally fuck with a kid’s head because they aren’t considered people in some jurisdictions. Like everything about the legal system in regards to prisons infuriates him because it actually does fuck all and maybe if it was still about reform he would have turned out different. Instead, he thinks society is punishing him for being put in a compromising position by its own standards.

// The double standards of society and law in general just pisses him off. He’s well aware that it’s set up to keep people at the bottom down with no wiggle room and he hates it with a passion.

[evilelitest2]

How much did Warren and Bernie really differ policy wise?

I keep meaning to get to this, but I keep getting off topic.  So Warren and Sanders mostly agree on things, certainly compare to what they disagree on. But their disagreements come down into three areas, ideology, tactics, and aesthetics.  And for the 2020 primary, really what this came down to was primarily aesthetics.  

Ok so ideological difference between the two is that Sanders is a conservative Democratic Socialist while Warren is a progressive Social Democrat.  So I am going to explain the difference between those two positions are, bear in mind that while a lot of people talked about the different ideologies between the two, in practice it has very little to do with the actual issues going on here. But lets do this because it is interesting. 

First we should understand in leftist circles there are three basic issues that are being dealt with. 

1) The Political Question, or “Freedom From”  That is basically civil liberties and democracy ways in which the goverment can’t hurt you and your right to participation in goverment.  Traditional Liberalism usually merges this with a love of capitalism and the free market.  So Liberalism is really interested in the Political Question but often not the Social Question or the Civil Rights Question

2) The Social Question or “Positive Freedom”.  Basically the welfare state, right to education, food, housing ect, creating a more materialistically egalitarian society.  Socialism is really into the Social Question while not necessarily being interested in the other questions.  

3) Finally we have...well there isn’t a single term for this, its sometimes called the Civil Rights question, or the Tolerance Question, which basically focuses on trying to ensure equal rights and freedom from bigotry for marginalized communities.  It isn’t one single movement, rather it is a multitude of movements including Feminism, Black Rights, Immigration Rights, Queer Rights, Religious Tolerance, Jewish Rights, Muslim Rights, Disability Rights, Asian American Rights...its a long list basically various marginalized peoples who are threatened with persecution and want society to stop that.  These people are sometimes called Progressives.  

One of the biggest issues in Leftist circles is that many people want one or two of these, but not all three and you get a lot of battles here.  That isn’t the case for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, both of them care about all of these issues deeply.  

There are actually a few other groups other groups, The Greens (Environmentalism) the Peace Movement (Anti War), Positivist (Good Governance and Science) but they aren’t really the subject here. 

    So Socialists as in full on capital S socialist think that capitalism is evil and must be destroyed and replaced by a strong welfare state with collective ownership and unions, often (but sadly not away as we will get too later) mixed with egalitarian progressive messages.  Socialism really cares about the Social Question and thinks as long as capitalism exists, there can be no hope for addressing inequality.  Not all socialism believes in democracy preferring violent or non-violent revolution, but there is a group that does, Democratic- Socialists.  Democratic.  These guys want to democratically be elected and then implement policies that will slowly and surely kill Capitalism.  Sanders is one of these, he wants to become president and then use his powers to slowly get ride of capitalism by first making the US a more egalitarian wellfare state.  Sanders gets a lot of heat by more committed Socialists and Communists for this more moderate stance.  Actually technically he is a Progressive Democratic Socialist since he also believes in justice for marginalized communities.  

    Elizabeth Warren is what is called a Social Liberal.  Social Liberals following FDR’s New Deal Example.  Unlike Democratic Socialists, Social Liberals think the Free Market has some benefits (or at least is too difficult to kill) and think it should be allowed to exist...but should be heavily regulated  and come alongside a strong welfare system.  So Warren things that if we can get a more democratic society which provides healthcare, education, housing, food, security, and opportunity to all its citizens via high taxes on the wealthy, we can allow the Free market to exist within that framework.  Sanders things that is the first step to the next great battle....destroying the Free Market. Like Sanders, Warren would technically be a Progressive Social Liberal because she also supports the rights of marginalized communities.  

So in the short term, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren basically want the exact same thing and are proposing almost the exact same policies.  Warren is just imagining these reforms as the end goal, while Sanders is imagining them as Step 1 in his three step program to kill capitalism, but they had basically the same policies.   So while some folks will say that Warren is pro capitalist, they are deliberately misrepresenting her to seem more conservative, in terms of short term policy both Warren and Sanders want the same thing, to move the nation further to the left than ever before in American history.

The last ideological point is that while both Warren and Sanders were progressives, Warren was far more inter-sectional than Sanders.  Sanders does care about stopping racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of marginalized oppression, but he kinda falls into that “class first” approach.  Aka the best way to address issues of marginalization is to first address class issues with this “Rising tide raises all ships” attitude”.  Warren instead goes for a much more aggressively inter-sectional approach though to be clear, both are Woke.  

   The problem is that a segment (and to be clear a minority segement) of Sander’s Fanbase were part of the “Dirtbag Left” aka the super bigoted “leftists” who want to address class inequality while being as sexist as they possibly could, hence the Snake Emojis. 

Ok so those are the differences in ideologies.  Now lets talk about differences in methods

Sanders took a super confrontational tone in the election where he basically was running simultaneously against the Democratic Party while he ran against the Republicans, so it was a very anti establishment and drew much more heavily on openly revolutionary schemes.    He didn’t make much effort to reach out to party leaders and instead hoped to take over the Democratic Party.  This wasn’t helped by the more...zealous of his fans engaging in mass harassment campaigns, though Sanders himself did not encourage this 

Warren was basically trying to win the primary without making any enemies beyond Bloomberg, which meant that most people in the party liked her but she wasn’t ever seen as the first choice (which I blame a lot on sexism).   

But if you look at their actual policies, Sanders and Warren tended to have the same core ideas except Warren went into a ton of detail.  Sanders preferred rhetoric while Warren preferred details.  

Finally aesthetic.  Sanders draws a lot on old school style socialist imagery, blue color workers, cranky old dude who is angry at the system.  Warren embraced a much more multi cultural approach which was like AOC lite

[betterhealthvalues]

Health Care Reform - Why Are People So Worked Up?

Why are Americans so worked up about health care reform? Statements such as "don't touch my Medicare" or "everyone should have access to state of the art health care irrespective of cost" are in my opinion uninformed and visceral responses that indicate a poor understanding of our health care system's history, its current and future resources and the funding challenges that America faces going forward. While we all wonder how the health care system has reached what some refer to as a crisis stage. Let's try to take some of the emotion out of the debate by briefly examining how health care in this country emerged and how that has formed our thinking and culture about health care. With that as a foundation let's look at the pros and cons of the Obama administration health care reform proposals and let's look at the concepts put forth by the Republicans?

Access to state of the art health care services is something we can all agree would be a good thing for this country. Experiencing a serious illness is one of life's major challenges and to face it without the means to pay for it is positively frightening. But as we shall see, once we know the facts, we will find that achieving this goal will not be easy without our individual contribution.

These are the themes I will touch on to try to make some sense out of what is happening to American health care and the steps we can personally take to make things better.

A recent history of American health care - what has driven the costs so high?

Key elements of the Obama health care plan

The Republican view of health care - free market competition

Universal access to state of the art health care - a worthy goal but not easy to achieve

what can we do?

First, let's get a little historical perspective on American health care. This is not intended to be an exhausted look into that history but it will give us an appreciation of how the health care system and our expectations for it developed. What drove costs higher and higher?

To begin, let's turn to the American civil war. In that war, dated tactics and the carnage inflicted by modern weapons of the era combined to cause ghastly results. Not generally known is that most of the deaths on both sides of that war were not the result of actual combat but to what happened after a battlefield wound was inflicted. To begin with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail's pace and this caused severe delays in treating the wounded. Secondly, many wounds were subjected to wound care, related surgeries and/or amputations of the affected limbs and this often resulted in the onset of massive infection. So you might survive a battle wound only to die at the hands of medical care providers who although well-intentioned, their interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls can also be ascribed to everyday sicknesses and diseases in a time when no antibiotics existed. In total something like 600,000 deaths occurred from all causes, over 2% of the U.S. population at the time!

Let's skip to the first half of the 20th century for some additional perspective and to bring us up to more modern times. After the civil war there were steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new surgical techniques and in physician education and training. But for the most part the best that doctors could offer their patients was a "wait and see" approach. Medicine could handle bone fractures and increasingly attempt risky surgeries (now largely performed in sterile surgical environments) but medicines were not yet available to handle serious illnesses. The majority of deaths remained the result of untreatable conditions such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlet fever and measles and/or related complications. Doctors were increasingly aware of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.

This very basic review of American medical history helps us to understand that until quite recently (around the 1950's) we had virtually no technologies with which to treat serious or even minor ailments. Here is a critical point we need to understand; "nothing to treat you with means that visits to the doctor if at all were relegated to emergencies so in such a scenario costs are curtailed. The simple fact is that there was little for doctors to offer and therefore virtually nothing to drive health care spending. A second factor holding down costs was that medical treatments that were provided were paid for out-of-pocket, meaning by way of an individuals personal resources. There was no such thing as health insurance and certainly not health insurance paid by an employer. Except for the very destitute who were lucky to find their way into a charity hospital, health care costs were the responsibility of the individual.

What does health care insurance have to do with health care costs? Its impact on health care costs has been, and remains to this day, absolutely enormous. When health insurance for individuals and families emerged as a means for corporations to escape wage freezes and to attract and retain employees after World War II, almost overnight a great pool of money became available to pay for health care. Money, as a result of the availability of billions of dollars from health insurance pools, encouraged an innovative America to increase medical research efforts. More Americans became insured not only through private, employer sponsored health insurance but through increased government funding that created Medicare and Medicaid (1965). In addition funding became available for expanded veterans health care benefits. Finding a cure for almost anything has consequently become very lucrative. This is also the primary reason for the vast array of treatments we have available today.

I do not wish to convey that medical innovations are a bad thing. Think of the tens of millions of lives that have been saved, extended, enhanced and made more productive as a result. But with a funding source grown to its current magnitude (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) upward pressure on health care costs are inevitable. Doctor's offer and most of us demand and get access to the latest available health care technology in the form of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tools and surgical procedures. So the result is that there is more health care to spend our money on and until very recently most of us were insured and the costs were largely covered by a third-party (government, employers). Add an insatiable and unrealistic public demand for access and treatment and we have the "perfect storm" for higher and higher health care costs. And by and large the storm is only intensifying.

At this point, let's turn to the key questions that will lead us into a review and hopefully a better understanding of the health care reform proposals in the news today. Is the current trajectory of U.S. health care spending sustainable? Can America maintain its world competitiveness when 16%, heading for 20% of our gross national product is being spent on health care? What are the other industrialized countries spending on health care and is it even close to these numbers? When we add politics and an election year to the debate, information to help us answer these questions become critical. We need to spend some effort in understanding health care and sorting out how we think about it. Properly armed we can more intelligently determine whether certain health care proposals might solve or worsen some of these problems. What can be done about the challenges? How can we as individuals contribute to the solutions?

The Obama health care plan is complex for sure - I have never seen a health care plan that isn't. But through a variety of programs his plan attempts to deal with a) increasing the number of American that are covered by adequate insurance (almost 50 million are not), and b) managing costs in such a manner that quality and our access to health care is not adversely affected. Republicans seek to achieve these same basic and broad goals, but their approach is proposed as being more market driven than government driven. Let's look at what the Obama plan does to accomplish the two objectives above. Remember, by the way, that his plan was passed by congress, and begins to seriously kick-in starting in 2014. So this is the direction we are currently taking as we attempt to reform health care.

Through insurance exchanges and an expansion of Medicaid,the Obama plan dramatically expands the number of Americans that will be covered by health insurance.

To cover the cost of this expansion the plan requires everyone to have health insurance with a penalty to be paid if we don't comply. It will purportedly send money to the states to cover those individuals added to state-based Medicaid programs.

To cover the added costs there were a number of new taxes introduced, one being a 2.5% tax on new medical technologies and another increases taxes on interest and dividend income for wealthier Americans.

The Obama plan also uses concepts such as evidence-based medicine, accountable care organizations, comparative effectiveness research and reduced reimbursement to health care providers (doctors and hospitals) to control costs.

The insurance mandate covered by points 1 and 2 above is a worthy goal and most industrialized countries outside of the U.S. provide "free" (paid for by rather high individual and corporate taxes) health care to most if not all of their citizens. It is important to note, however, that there are a number of restrictions for which many Americans would be culturally unprepared. Here is the primary controversial aspect of the Obama plan, the insurance mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to hear arguments as to the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate as a result of a petition by 26 states attorney's general that congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution by passing this element of the plan. The problem is that if the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate, it is generally believed that the Obama plan as we know it is doomed. This is because its major goal of providing health insurance to all would be severely limited if not terminated altogether by such a decision.

As you would guess, the taxes covered by point 3 above are rather unpopular with those entities and individuals that have to pay them. Medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all had to "give up" something that would either create new revenue or would reduce costs within their spheres of control. As an example, Stryker Corporation, a large medical device company, recently announced at least a 1,000 employee reduction in part to cover these new fees. This is being experienced by other medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies as well. The reduction in good paying jobs in these sectors and in the hospital sector may rise as former cost structures will have to be dealt with in order to accommodate the reduced rate of reimbursement to hospitals. Over the next ten years some estimates put the cost reductions to hospitals and physicians at half a trillion dollars and this will flow directly to and affect the companies that supply hospitals and doctors with the latest medical technologies. None of this is to say that efficiencies will not be realized by these changes or that other jobs will in turn be created but this will represent painful change for a while. It helps us to understand that health care reform does have an effect both positive and negative.

Finally, the Obama plan seeks to change the way medical decisions are made. While clinical and basic research underpins almost everything done in medicine today, doctors are creatures of habit like the rest of us and their training and day-to-day experiences dictate to a great extent how they go about diagnosing and treating our conditions. Enter the concept of evidence-based medicine and comparative effectiveness research. Both of these seek to develop and utilize data bases from electronic health records and other sources to give better and more timely information and feedback to physicians as to the outcomes and costs of the treatments they are providing. There is great waste in health care today, estimated at perhaps a third of an over 2 trillion dollar health care spend annually. Imagine the savings that are possible from a reduction in unnecessary test and procedures that do not compare favorably with health care interventions that are better documented as effective. Now the Republicans and others don't generally like these ideas as they tend to characterize them as "big government control" of your and my health care. But to be fair, regardless of their political persuasions, most people who understand health care at all, know that better data for the purposes described above will be crucial to getting health care efficiencies, patient safety and costs headed in the right direction.

A brief review of how Republicans and more conservative individuals think about health care reform. I believe they would agree that costs must come under control and that more, not fewer Americans should have access to health care regardless of their ability to pay. But the main difference is that these folks see market forces and competition as the way to creating the cost reductions and efficiencies we need. There are a number of ideas with regard to driving more competition among health insurance companies and health care providers (doctors and hospitals) so that the consumer would begin to drive cost down by the choices we make. This works in many sectors of our economy but this formula has shown that improvements are illusive when applied to health care. Primarily the problem is that health care choices are difficult even for those who understand it and are connected. The general population, however, is not so informed and besides we have all been brought up to "go to the doctor" when we feel it is necessary and we also have a cultural heritage that has engendered within most of us the feeling that health care is something that is just there and there really isn't any reason not to access it for whatever the reason and worse we all feel that there is nothing we can do to affect its costs to insure its availability to those with serious problems.

OK, this article was not intended to be an exhaustive study as I needed to keep it short in an attempt to hold my audience's attention and to leave some room for discussing what we can do contribute mightily to solving some of the problems. First we must understand that the dollars available for health care are not limitless. Any changes that are put in place to provide better insurance coverage and access to care will cost more. And somehow we have to find the revenues to pay for these changes. At the same time we have to pay less for medical treatments and procedures and do something to restrict the availability of unproven or poorly documented treatments as we are the highest cost health care system in the world and don't necessarily have the best results in terms of longevity or avoiding chronic diseases much earlier than necessary.

I believe that we need a revolutionary change in the way we think about health care, its availability, its costs and who pays for it. And if you think I am about to say we should arbitrarily and drastically reduce spending on health care you would be wrong. Here it is fellow citizens - health care spending needs to be preserved and protected for those who need it. And to free up these dollars those of us who don't need it or can delay it or avoid it need to act. First, we need to convince our politicians that this country needs sustained public education with regard to the value of preventive health strategies. This should be a top priority and it has worked to reduce the number of U.S. smokers for example. If prevention were to take hold, it is reasonable to assume that those needing health care for the myriad of life style engendered chronic diseases would decrease dramatically. Millions of Americans are experiencing these diseases far earlier than in decades past and much of this is due to poor life style choices. This change alone would free up plenty of money to handle the health care costs of those in dire need of treatment, whether due to an acute emergency or chronic condition.

Let's go deeper on the first issue. Most of us refuse do something about implementing basic wellness strategies into our daily lives. We don't exercise but we offer a lot of excuses. We don't eat right but we offer a lot of excuses. We smoke and/or we drink alcohol to excess and we offer a lot of excuses as to why we can't do anything about managing these known to be destructive personal health habits. We don't take advantage of preventive health check-ups that look at blood pressure, cholesterol readings and body weight but we offer a lot of excuses. In short we neglect these things and the result is that we succumb much earlier than necessary to chronic diseases like heart problems, diabetes and high blood pressure. We wind up accessing doctors for these and more routine matters because "health care is there" and somehow we think we have no responsibility for reducing our demand on it.

It is difficult for us to listen to these truths but easy to blame the sick. Maybe they should take better care of themselves! Well, that might be true or maybe they have a genetic condition and they have become among the unfortunate through absolutely no fault of their own. But the point is that you and I can implement personalized preventive disease measures as a way of dramatically improving health care access for others while reducing its costs. It is far better to be productive by doing something we can control then shifting the blame.

There are a huge number of free web sites available that can steer us to a more healthful life style. A soon as you can, "Google" "preventive health care strategies", look up your local hospital's web site and you will find more than enough help to get you started. Finally, there is a lot to think about here and I have tried to outline the challenges but also the very powerful effect we could have on preserving the best of America's health care system now and into the future. I am anxious to hear from you and until then - take charge and increase your chances for good health while making sure that health care is there when we need it.

[imuktadul-blog]

The Next Big Thing in Health Care Reform - Why Are People So Worked Up?

Why are Americans so aroused about health care reform? Statements like "don't touch my Medicare" or "everyone should have access to state of the art health care regardless of cost" are in my opinion uninformed and visceral responses that indicate a poor understanding of our health care system's history, its current and future resources and therefore the funding challenges that America faces going forward. While we all wonder how the health care system has reached what some ask as a crisis stage. Let's attempt to take a number of the emotion out of the talk by briefly examining how health care during this country emerged and the way that has formed our thinking and culture about health care. thereupon as a foundation let's check out the pros and cons of the Obama administration health care reform proposals and let's check out the concepts put forth by the Republicans?

Access to state of the art health care services are some things we will all agree would be an honest thing for this country. Experiencing a significant illness is one among life's major challenges and to face it without the means to buy it's positively frightening. But as we shall see, once we all know the facts, we'll find that achieving this goal won't be easy without our individual contribution.

These are the themes i will be able to touch on to undertake to form some sense out of what's happening to American health care and therefore the steps we will personally fancy make things better.

A recent history of yank health care - what has driven the prices so high? Key elements of the Obama health care plan The Republican view of health care - free market competition Universal access to state of the art health care - a worthy goal but tough to realize what can we do? First, let's get a touch historical perspective on American health care. this is often not intended to be an exhausted check out that history but it'll give us an appreciation of how the health care system and our expectations for it developed. What drove costs higher and higher?

To begin, let's address the American war . therein war, dated tactics and therefore the carnage inflicted by modern weapons of the age combined to cause ghastly results. Not generally known is that the majority of the deaths on each side of that war weren't the results of actual combat but to what happened after a battlefield wound was inflicted. to start with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail's pace and this caused severe delays in treating the wounded. Secondly, many wounds were subjected to wound care, related surgeries and/or amputations of the affected limbs and this often resulted within the onset of massive infection. So you would possibly survive a battle wound only to die at the hands of medical aid providers who although well-intentioned, their interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls also can be ascribed to everyday sicknesses and diseases during a time when no antibiotics existed. In total something like 600,000 deaths occurred from all causes, over 2% of the U.S. population at the time!

Let's skip to the primary half the 20th century for a few additional perspective and to bring us up to more times . After the war there have been steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new surgical techniques and in physician education and training. except for the foremost part the simplest that doctors could offer their patients was a "wait and see" approach. Medicine could handle bone fractures and increasingly attempt risky surgeries (now largely performed in sterile surgical environments) but medicines weren't yet available to handle serious illnesses. the bulk of deaths remained the results of untreatable conditions like tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlatina and measles and/or related complications. Doctors were increasingly conscious of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but that they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.

This very basic review of yank medical record helps us to know that until quite recently (around the 1950's) we had virtually no technologies with which to treat serious or maybe minor ailments. Here may be a juncture we'd like to understand; "nothing to treat you with means visits to the doctor if in the least were relegated to emergencies so in such a scenario costs are curtailed. the straightforward fact is that there was little for doctors to supply and thus virtually nothing to drive health care spending. A second factor holding down costs was that medical treatments that were provided were purchased out-of-pocket, meaning by way of an individuals personal resources. There was no such thing as insurance and positively not insurance paid by an employer. apart from the very destitute who were lucky to seek out their way into a charity hospital, health care costs were the responsibility of the individual.

What does health care insurance need to do with health care costs? Its impact on health care costs has been, and remains to the present day, absolutely enormous. When insurance for people and families emerged as a way for companies to flee wage freezes and to draw in and retain employees after war II, almost overnight an excellent pool of cash became available to buy health care. Money, as a results of the supply of billions of dollars from insurance pools, encouraged an innovative America to extend medical research efforts. More Americans became insured not only through private, employer sponsored insurance but through increased government funding that created Medicare and Medicaid (1965). additionally funding became available for expanded veterans health care benefits. Finding a cure for nearly anything has consequently become very lucrative. this is often also the first reason for the vast array of treatments we've available today.

I don't wish to convey that medical innovations are a nasty thing. consider the tens of many lives that are saved, extended, enhanced and made more productive as a result. But with a funding source grown to its current magnitude (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) upward pressure on health care costs are inevitable. Doctor's offer and most folks demand and obtain access to the newest available health care technology within the sort of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tools and surgical procedures. therefore the result's that there's more health care to spend our money on and until very recently most folks were insured and therefore the costs were largely covered by a third-party (government, employers). Add an insatiable and unrealistic public demand for access and treatment and that we have the "perfect storm" for higher and better health care costs. And by and enormous the storm is merely intensifying.

At now , let's address the key questions which will lead us into a review and hopefully a far better understanding of the health care reform proposals within the news today. is that the current trajectory of U.S. health care spending sustainable? Can America maintain its world competitiveness when 16%, heading for 20% of our gross national product is being spent on health care? What are the opposite industrialized countries spending on health care and is it even on the brink of these numbers? once we add politics and an election year to the talk , information to assist us answer these questions become critical. we'd like to spend some effort in understanding health care and checking out how we expect about it. Properly armed we will more intelligently determine whether certain health care proposals might solve or worsen a number of these problems. What are often done about the challenges? How can we as individuals contribute to the solutions?

The Obama health care plan is complex needless to say - I even have never seen a health care plan that may not . But through a spread of programs his plan attempts to affect a) increasing the amount of yank that are covered by adequate insurance (almost 50 million are not), and b) managing costs in such a fashion that quality and our access to health care isn't adversely affected. Republicans seek to realize these same basic and broad goals, but their approach is proposed as being more market driven than government driven. Let's check out what the Obama plan does to accomplish the 2 objectives above. Remember, by the way, that his plan was gone by congress, and begins to significantly kick-in starting in 2014. So this is often the direction we are currently taking as we plan to reform health care.

Through insurance exchanges and an expansion of Medicaid,the Obama plan dramatically expands the amount of usa citizens which will be covered by insurance .

To cover the value of this expansion the plan requires everyone to possess insurance with a penalty to be paid if we do not comply. it'll purportedly send money to the states to hide those individuals added to state-based Medicaid programs.

To cover the added costs there have been variety of latest taxes introduced, one being a 2.5% tax on new medical technologies and another increases taxes on interest and dividend income for wealthier Americans.

The Obama plan also uses concepts like evidence-based medicine, accountable care organizations, comparative effectiveness research and reduced reimbursement to health care providers (doctors and hospitals) to regulate costs. The insurance mandate covered by points 1 and a couple of above may be a worthy goal and most industrialized countries outside of the U.S. provide "free" (paid for by rather high individual and company taxes) health care to most if not all of their citizens. it's important to notice , however, that there are variety of restrictions that many Americans would be culturally unprepared. Here is that the primary controversial aspect of the Obama plan, the insurance mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to listen to arguments on the constitutionality of the insurance mandate as a results of a petition by 26 states attorney's general that congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution by passing this element of the plan. the matter is that if the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate, it's generally believed that the Obama plan as we all know it's doomed. this is often because its major goal of providing insurance to all or any would be severely limited if not terminated altogether by such a choice .

As you'd guess, the taxes covered by point 3 above are rather unpopular with those entities and individuals that need to pay them. Medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all had to "give up" something that might either create new revenue or would scale back costs within their spheres of control. As an example, Stryker Corporation, an outsized medical device company, recently announced a minimum of a 1,000 employee reduction partially to hide these new fees. this is often being experienced by other medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies also . The reduction in good paying jobs within the se sectors and in the hospital sector may rise as former cost structures will need to be addressed so as to accommodate the reduced rate of reimbursement to hospitals. Over subsequent ten years some estimates put the value reductions to hospitals and physicians at half a trillion dollars and this may flow on to and affect the businesses that provide hospitals and doctors with the newest medical technologies. None of this is often to mention that efficiencies won't be realized by these changes or that other jobs will successively be created but this may represent painful change for a short time . It helps us to know that health care reform does have an impact both positive and negative.

[berniesrevolution]

Brothers and Sisters–

I am writing to let you know I have decided to run for president of the United States. I am asking you today to join me as part of an unprecedented and historic grassroots campaign that will begin with at least a million people from across the country.

Please join our campaign for president on day one and commit to doing what it takes to win this election.

Our campaign is not only about defeating Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history. It is not only about winning the Democratic nomination and the general election.

Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

Our campaign is about taking on the powerful special interests that dominate our economic and political life. I’m talking about Wall Street, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, the military-industrial complex, the private-prison industry and the large multi-national corporations that exert such an enormous influence over our lives.

Our campaign is about redoubling our efforts to end racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry and all forms of discrimination.

Our campaign is about creating a vibrant democracy with the highest voter turnout of any major country while we end voter suppression, Citizens United and outrageous levels of gerrymandering.

Our campaign is about creating a government and economy that works for the many, not just the few. We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. We should not have grotesque levels of wealth inequality in which three billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the country.

We should not have 30 million Americans without any health insurance, even more who are under-insured and a nation in which life expectancy is actually in decline.

We should not have an economy in which tens of millions of workers earn starvation wages and half of older workers have no savings as they face retirement.

We should not have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth and a dysfunctional childcare system which is unfair to both working parents and their children.

We should not have a regressive tax system in which large, profitable corporations like Amazon pay nothing in federal income taxes.

Make no mistake about it. The powerful special interests in this country have unbelievable power and they want to maintain the status quo. They have unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns and lobbying and have huge influence over the media and political parties.

The only way we will win this election and create a government and economy that works for all is with a grassroots movement – the likes of which has never been seen in American history.

They may have the money and power. We have the people. That is why we need one million Americans who will commit themselves to this campaign.

Stand with me as we fight to win the Democratic nomination and the general election. Add your name to join this campaign and say you are willing to do the hard work necessary to transform our country.

You know as well as I do that we are living in a pivotal and dangerous moment in American history. We are running against a president who is a pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe and someone who is undermining American democracy as he leads us in an authoritarian direction.

I’m running for president because, now more than ever, we need leadership that brings us together – not divides us up. Women and men, black, white, Latino, Native American, Asian American, gay and straight, young and old, native born and immigrant. Now is the time for us to stand together.

I’m running for president because we need leadership that will fight for working families and the shrinking middle class, not just the 1 percent. We need a president who understands that we can create millions of good-paying jobs, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and construct the affordable housing we desperately need.

I’m running for president because we need trade policies that reflect the interests of workers and not multi-national corporations. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, provide pay equity for women and guarantee all workers paid family and medical leave.

I’m running for president because we need to understand that artificial intelligence and robotics must benefit the needs of workers, not just corporate America and those who own that technology.

I’m running for president because a great nation is judged not by how many billionaires and nuclear weapons it has, but by how it treats the most vulnerable – the elderly, the children, our veterans, the sick and the poor.

I’m running for president because we need to make policy decisions based on science, not politics. We need a president who understands that climate change is real, is an existential threat to our country and the entire planet, and that we can generate massive job creation by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

I’m running for president because the time is long overdue for the United States to join every other major country on Earth and guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare-for-all program.

I’m running for president because we need to take on the outrageous level of greed of the pharmaceutical industry and lower prescription drug prices in this country.

I’m running for president because we need to have the best educated workforce in the world. It is totally counter-productive for our future that millions of Americans are carrying outrageous levels of student debt, while many others cannot afford the high cost of higher education. That is why we need to make public colleges and universities tuition free and lower student debt.

I’m running for president because we must defend a woman’s right to control her own body against massive political attacks taking place at the local state and federal level.

I’m running for president because we need real criminal justice reform. We need to invest in jobs and education for our kids, not more jails and incarceration. We need to end the destructive “war on drugs,” eliminate private prisons and cash bail and bring about major police department reform.

I’m running for president because we need to end the demonization of undocumented immigrants in this country and move to comprehensive immigration reform. We need to provide immediate legal status for the young people eligible for the DACA program and develop a humane policy for those at the border who seek asylum.

I’m running for president because we must end the epidemic of gun violence in this country. We need to take on the NRA, expand background checks, end the gun show loophole and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons.

I’m running for president because we need a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, diplomacy and world peace. The United States must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight against climate change, militarism, authoritarianism and global wealth inequality.

That is why we need at least a million people to join our campaign and help lead the movement that can accomplish these goals. Add your name to say we’re in this together.

Needless to say, there is a lot of frightening and bad news in this world. Now, let me give you some very good news.

Three years ago, during our 2016 campaign, when we brought forth our progressive agenda we were told that our ideas were “radical,” and “extreme.” We were told that Medicare for All, a $15 an hour minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, aggressively combating climate change, demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes, were all of concepts that the American people would never accept.

Well, three years have come and gone. And, as result of millions of Americans standing up and fighting back, all of these policies and more are now supported by a majority of Americans.

Together, you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revolution. Now, it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.

So here is my question for you:

Will you stand with me as part of a million person grassroots movement which can not only win the Democratic primary, not only win the general election but most importantly help transform this country so that, finally, we have a government that works for all of us and not just the few? Add your name to say you will.

Together we can create a nation that leads the world in the struggle for peace and for economic, racial, social and environmental justice.

And together we can defeat Donald Trump and repair the damage he has done to our country.

Brothers and sisters, if we stand together, there is no limit to what we can accomplish.

I hope you will join me.

Thank you very much.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

[rasoir-national]

This was bound to happen : I’m talking about immigration law

@ghostplantss i don't know v much about french immigration law would you tell me about it? i'm v curious?

Oh wow. First tea, and now this ? Either you are my secret Santa, or my enabler.

So let me tell you about the passion of my life, Immigration and refugee law, and the fuckery this country has made of it.

The way a city, community, country treats the “other” is one of the oldest legal questions in the History of Humanity. From Antique Greek cities to the Jus Gentium of the Roman Empire, laws concerning foreigners might be the first form of international law known to man. In many ways, it’s by acknowledging the existence of “others”, by giving and restricting their rights, that a social group both truly asserts itself as a “political community”, yet acknowledges the transcending quality of “humanity” of the outsider.

Nowadays, this question is as politically charged as ever : the way a country regards foreigners, welcomes them, rejects them, is one of the most interesting ways you can define the country, one of the ways the country sees itself. By the way we treat the one who is not “us”, we highlight which rights we consider to be inherent to humanity in and of itself, as well as which ones we consider intrinsically rooted in our identity as “citizen”.

And all this proud History, all this contemporary tension, makes Immigration law fascinating to FUCKING NO ONE.

Look, one thing you have to know about lawyers is how much they love intellectual wankery. A nicer way to put it would be to say lawyers love systems. And theory. And generalisation. And categorizing. They like to look at a set of rules and see a pattern, a logic, a paradigm. They like to be able to neatly present it in two titles, each divided in two subtitles, each divided in two sections, and repeat that until they run out of microsoft font points.

And Immigration law... It’s not that. It’s not that at all. It’s the opposite of that. It’s a law that’s almost entirely dictated by conjoncture, by what a government needs it to say, by whichever concept they’re going to twist then to suit their needs. Whatever few theoritical concepts Immigration law might have been based on have been destroyed by years of either haphazardous or plainly malignant reforms, often both.

And not only does that mean that this at this point is an intensely, punitively complex law, it has also become - if it hasn’t always been - illogical and incoherent. The only “logic” behind it anymore is how much it can be weaponized against its subjects - foreigners. Because that’s the only thing that politicians care about, and because lawyers and especially academics have pretty much given up on it, leaving the terrain free for the former. You have to realize, in terms of pure numbers, Immigration law is the most practiced law in the country. It represents almost a third of all disputes. Yet it is taught in NO university in France. Not a single one. There are no courses, no grad school, no thesis program about immigration law in all of France. There is no money in Immigration law : almost all involved subjects are destitute. There is no intellectual curiosity, because the discipline, from a theoretical point of view, is pretty uninteresting. There isn’t even public interest, because deceptively, the general public hears so much about immigration from either ignorant or ill-intentioned people, that getting through the complexity of the topic is immensely complicated and unrewarding.

Lawyers, for the most part, have deserted the topic for selfish reasons, despite the fact that this is perhaps where they were most needed to make sure fundamental rules were enforced, that politics didn’t come in the way of good justice. They abandoned the most vulnerable subjects of law to the whims of lawmakers and political interests. That’s unforgiveable.

So as a result, Immigration law today mostly resembles a cat-and-mouse game where the law sets up as many traps as possible for the immigrant to fall into, with dozens of obstacles to navigate to finally, finally be able to legally settle in a country you might be have been living in for several decades. There are specific stay rules for retirees. That’s a thing. Every rule is meant to exclude as many people as possible. As a result, immigrants must get increasingly creative or even downright shifty in order to qualify for a stay. And in turn, public opinion will yell and say they are manipulating the system - well, duh. We’ve made a system in which it’s impossible to win fair and square and then we criticize immigrants for trying to game it.

Let’s have just one example : demands of admission because of sickness. French law categorizes different reasons for an immigrant to be admitted to live on french soil for a little while : study, work, family matters, and health. France has a very good health system compared to the worldwide standard, so many people come here to receive treatment they might not be able to benefit from in their country of origin for various reasons. Some people already don’t think that’s a reason for welcoming them, but fuck those people. Anyway, there are many, many people who will ask for permission to stay on the grounds of an “invisible” illness : depression, PTSD, personality disorder... all of which are very difficult to prove. Before 2017, the prefect had to decide based on the opinion of a doctor from the regional authority after they’d met with the author of the request. But the administration quickly realized that doctors tend to have that pesky thing called deontology or even - perish the thought ! - empathy. So there was a reform, and now the way it works is the ill immigrant goes to a doctor who writes a report, then mails it to the person’s lawyer, who then mails it to a doctor that will do a second report based on that report, and will send that second report to a group of 3 doctors who, on the sole basis of that document, will advise the prefect on whether or not the person is ill, and whether or not they could have access to treatment in their country. And when I say advise, I mean they mail a form with boxes checked. That’s it. No text. So we have a prefect, who’s not a doctor, making a decision about the health situation of a person based on a box-based form filled by doctors who have never met the person, who themselves are judging based on the report of another doctor who has no met the person either, this last doctor writing based on the report of another doctor who might have met the person once. And all of this can take up to a year. That’s time during which the immigrant cannot work, or receive benefits. And then, if the prefect decides against letting the immigrant stay, then they have only 2 months to challenge that decision, otherwise after those 2 months have passed, they can be arrested, incarcerated and deported at any time.

So given all that, is it any wonder that immigrants tend to “discover” illness after illness and constantly ask for stays based on that ? This system is so random and unfair, that all you can really do is try and try again hoping something will eventually stick. So now you have people complaining that immigrants are faking mental illness in mass, causing prejudice to the “real” mentally ill immigrants. And yes, that’s the effect. But make no mistake : the cause is how difficult it is for an immigrant to have their illness acknowledged when it’s not something “extreme” enough to have you cross the border on a gurney. Because it’s not enough to google “availability of x medication in x country” to make sure the person can actually access treatment in their country of origin.

So that’s the hypocrisy infusing (haha, tea joke) the whole system. And on top of that, the procedure is getting more complicated with every reform : miss one deadline, fill out one form wrong, and you’re out. And please remember we’re dealing with people who for the vast majority do not speak french (the ONLY language allowed in administrative matters according to the Constitution) and know nothing of our administrative system. It’s up to the person’s lawyer to basically map out the life of each of their client. And because there is no money in immigration law - you only get paid in judicial aid from the state - there aren’t many immigration lawyers. You have to do this out of conviction, cuz you’re certainly not doing it for the money or career opportunities. In the practice I interned at last year, each lawyer would at all times manage on average 50 to 80 active cases. And let’s be clear, a lot of them are assholes, because lawyers in general tend to be assholes. But the work they do in downright heroic.

So that’s where I come in to fix it all, right ? Yeah, no. This entire system is fucked, and given what the world looks like right now, it might be for a while. I’m under no delusion that I can do anything to change that. My goal is to help the way I can : I want to become an administrative judge, the ones who are in charge of examining administrative decisions regarding immigrants. This type of challenge represents roughly 50% of the activity of any administrative tribunal : every chamber, no matter their specialty, has to do a little of it, otherwise the system is so backed up it would collapse. Some of those judges do amazing work, and are some of the most compassionate people I’ve ever met. Some of them are not. Most of them are plain bored by this type of claim, because they’re repetitive, not really technical from a legal standpoint and always depressing. And a handful of them have ties to the far-right and are there just to expel as many immigrants as possible. So yeah, if all goes well I’ll be a judge in a few years, and I’ll be one of the only ones who came to the job because of immigration law, not in spite of it. It’s not bragging on my part, it’s just a sad fact. Judges at the tribunal where I’ve worked had a schedule for who was supposed to be in charge of new immigration claims arriving, and some judges would hide from court reporters in order not to get attributed cases that arrived right before their shift was over. So yeah, if I can be a small drop in the bucket and be someone who actually looks at these cases with the explicit intent of finding a reason to approve the claim, that’ll be good enough for me. Because Immigration law, or at least what we’ve made of it, might not be “interesting” but it’s goddamn important, and people should pay attention to it.

[kemetic-dreams]

In 2011, Eric Ries made a big splash in Silicon Valley with his book “The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses.” He defines “startup” rather loosely (“an organization dedicated to creating something new under conditions of extreme uncertainty”) and encourages organizations of all sizes to avoid creating elaborate business plans and instead work “to test their vision continuously, to adapt and adjust…” This is almost precisely the same argument made by NYU economist William Easterly in his controversial 2007 bestseller, “The White Man’s Burden: Why West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good,” which is a direct assault on traditional development economics, the very field he has dedicated his life to. For the past half century, he argues, development economics has been beholden to a “legend”, a legend he once very much believed in: That poverty traps constrain impoverished nations and these poverty traps can be overcome with a “Big Push” – massive Western foreign aid packages and tops-down plans for eradicating poverty, disease, and illiteracy, while promoting various forms of economic growth. This attempt at a big fix – massive programs of aid with lofty goals but little accountability – has been the world of classically trained development economists, who he derisively dubs “The Planners.” They think they have the answers, he says, and rhetorically they have the advantage because they promise great things, such as “the end of poverty.” Reality, however, is much different according Easterly. There are no easy answers. “The only Big Plan is to discontinue the Big Plans,” he says. “The only Big Answer is that there is no Big Answer.” The promises of the Planners, such as his professional rival Jeffrey Sachs, “shows all the pretensions of utopian social engineering,” he writes rather caustically. Yet they flourish in a world without feedback or accountability, and where big plans and big promises play well with politicians and celebrities. Nobody (especially those with no direction connection to the problems) wants to promote small but achievable objectives. They want “to do something” – and do it big. Easterly claims that the West, perhaps innocently and unintentionally, has written itself into the hero role in saving the uncivilized world. Indeed, he writes, “…the development expert…is the heir to the missionary and the colonial officer.” In contrast to the Planners, the author encourages those who want to help to “think small”: the little answers that work and that can make a material, if not revolutionary, difference on the lives of the impoverished. He calls these people, mostly locally-based activists, “The Searchers.” They possess an entrepreneurial and experimentation mindset, and naturally embrace the iterative testing model promoted by Ries in “The Lean Start Up.” They get regular feedback from the poor they serve and are held accountable for their work. They don’t promise to solve world hunger, but they often make incremental yet substantive impact where they work. “The dynamism of the poor at the bottom,” he writes, “has much more potential than plans at the top.” The book is broken into four parts, each of varying interest and value. The first part, “Why planners cannot bring prosperity” is dedicated to undermining the theory of the “Big Push,” which Easterly writes is demonstrably false. He claims that “Statistically, countries with high aid are no more likely to take off than are those with low aid – contrary to the Big Push idea.” Likewise, attempts to promote free markets from the top down, as is often the case with IMF and World Bank-led structural reforms, ambitious schemes to promote capitalist growth that Easterly admittedly once believed in wholeheartedly, are doomed to failure. The same goes for top down efforts to promote democracy, although he sees democracy as important because it can supply the two things most important for meaningful reform: feedback and accountability. In Part two, “Acting out the burden,” Easterly accentuates “The tragedy of poverty is that the poorest people in the world have no money or political power to motivate Searchers to address their desperate needs, while the rich can use their money and power through well-developed markets and accountable bureaucracies to address theirs.” He highlights the insanity of the international development industry, which he likes to repeat has pumped $2.3 trillion (yes, “trillion”) into the developing world since the end of World War II – and for what? He says. He cites Tanzania as a typical case study in development economics absurdity, as that country was forced to produce 2,400 reports and host over 1,000 donor visits in a single year. The author hammers home on his two main themes of feedback and accountability, noting what little input the poor actually have on the aid that they receive and that the Planners at the top are usually divorced from reality on the ground. Easterly writes that development aid is a classic “principle/agent” relationship, where the principle is a rich donor country and the agent is the aid agency. The actual target, the poor, are nowhere in the system of response. The principle wants to see big results, and yet is in no position to check on the work and achievements. The agents are thus cloaked in a sort of invisibility – and it’s under this invisibility, the author claims, that the Planners take over. The Planners thrive in the dark, Easterly says; the Searchers in direct light. The Planners benefit from the fact that there are so many aid agencies, all with very similar missions, all supposedly coordinating efforts, yet no single entity is ultimately accountable for achieving results. The smaller and more focused an NGO’s mandate, the better. Or, as Easterly complains, “If the aid business were not so beguiled by utopian visions, it could address a more realistic set of problems for which it had evidence of a workable solution.” If the aid agencies have failed because their mandates are too broad, what about the IMF, which has the relatively narrow mission of promoting “trade and currency stability”? Easterly argues that the IMF suffers from poor data, a misplaced one-size-fits-all approach, and is all too willing to forgive loans. What should be done? Simple, Easterly says, focus the IMF on emerging markets only and reserve the true bottom billion for aid agencies, thus removing the politically unpopular conditionality that has marked IMF interventions over the past several decades. Part 3, “The White Man’s Army,” is lengthy and the least insightful in the book. Easterly’s core message, as told through vignettes about Pakistan, the Congo, Sudan, India, and Palestine/Israel is that Western meddling with the Rest has been damaging, whether it was colonialism, de-colonialism or well-intentioned aid intervention. He further argues that US efforts to restructure societies via military force, either directly or through proxies, has all the hallmarks of utopian planner mentality, as suggested by case studies on Nicaragua, Angola and Haiti. In other words, neo-conservatives are the Right wing on “The Planner continuum”, with idealists like Sachs on the Left. In Part 4, “The Future,” Easterly argues that 60 years of Planners in control of the economic development agenda is enough. It is time to drop the utopian goals of eradicating poverty and transforming governments. “The Big Goals of the Big Plan distract everyone’s attention…” he writes. “The rich-country public has to live with making poor people’s lives better in a few concrete ways that aid agencies can actually achieve.” Even worse, he writes, “The Planners’ response to failure of previous interventions [has been] to do even more intensive and comprehensive interventions.” It is time to empower the Searchers, those who probe and experiment their way to success with modest efforts to make individuals better off, even if only marginally. As far as the aid agencies are concerned, Easterly recommends: 1) end the system of collective responsibility for multiple goals; 2) and instead encourage individual accountability for individual tasks; 3) promote aid agencies to specialize rather than having many all pursue significant goals; and 4) employ independent auditors of aid activities. The central theme developed by the author throughout this book is that aid agencies need to be constantly experimenting and searching for modest interventions that work. And they must employ more on-the-ground learning with deeply embedded staff. Thus, Easterly encourages the idea of “development vouchers” that would empower local communities to get the aid they most need from the agencies that are most effective. Theoretically, those agencies that either don’t deliver value and/or don’t deliver as promised would be put out of business. It’s a compelling idea that Easterly nevertheless stresses is no panacea. Easterly writes with a certain punch, which I’m sure ruffled more than a few feathers not only with his arguments but with his style, which can be cynical and snarky. For instance, when looking to catalog the redeeming benefits of U.S. interventions over the past several decades, he cites an “Explosion of Vietnamese restaurants in the United States” for Vietnam, “Black Hawk Down was a great book and movie” for Somalia, and “Salvadoran refugees became cheap housekeepers of desperate housewives” for El Salvador. He goes on to characterize U.S. Angolan ally Jonas Savimbi as “to democracy what Paris Hilton is to chastity.” Amusing commentary, for sure, although perhaps a bit misguided given the gravity of the subject matter. In closing, Easterly makes a compelling case to “go small” with development efforts and always seek feedback and accountability. He may not be on the Christmas card list of Bono and Angelina Jolie, but I’m afraid he is much more insightful and directionally correct than their hero, Jeffrey Sachs.

[fitfitnessmagazine]

Every fiber in my body was against my unsorted decision of getting a cable crossover machine for my home gym. I ended up getting my very first one. Well, this was eight years ago. Back then, I was living hand-to-mouth just barely scraping by but was such an avid fitness freak that I spent my last dime on my home workout equipment and prepping and all the sorts. So you can imagine The resistance was obvious when I decided to get my first cable weight machine. Alas! The regret was obvious too. It felt like I got an airplane without knowing how to operate it.

Long story short, the investment was a complete and utter bummer. At that point in my life, it was just pain adding to the pain. I should have listened to my natural impulse. A reformed ‘me’ would not have got these cable weight machines. Nevertheless, I learned my lesson the hard way.

For those who don’t know, there happened to be some interesting twists and turns in my life. I am no longer the hand-to-mouth object or the rat-race victim that I used to be. Lady Luck happened to smile at me, and my fibers were hyper-active to make the most of all the opportunities that were laid in my path. Fast forward to today, I am doing very well financially, mentally, and of course, physically too. Being a fitness freak that I am and the type of testing, I kept acquiring these machines for use in my commercial gym and in my home as life kept on improving and we kept reviewing and testing them. I had some terrible and some fascinating experiences.

Allow me share to some of my top cable crossover machines for home use

  1.  XMark Functional Trainer Cable Crossover Machine

Are you looking to build some serious muscles from the comforts of your home? The XMark Functional Trainer can attend to your needs like a boss. It’s a versatile piece of workout apparatus that’s engineered with jaw-dropping innovation and excellence to strip off the need for a gym visit. This crossover machine offers a complete range of muscle building and functional cable crossover exercises to achieve a strong, flexible, and well-toned body from home. Whether you are doing high intensity training or just wanting to improve the strength and functionality of your body this is an excellent choice!

Key Features and Benefits

200 lbs Weight Stack: Yes, that’s right. This machine comes with a 200 lbs weight stack on each side. So, you get a grand total of 400 lbs of weight stack to achieve your fitness goals. Guys, this would be a treat even for an elite bodybuilder. The weight stack is literally on par with any commercial machine in a fitness centre. So, go ahead and put your body to the test against the 200-pound weight stack.

  Limitless Exercise Variations:  Your training possibilities are almost infinite. The versatility that this machine has to offer is unbeatable. With interchangeable accessories and quick pulley adjustments, you should be good to do dozens and dozens of cable crossover exercises. The machine can be used to train every muscle group in the body. It’s sold in two different colors—white and black.

  Free Goodies: To reboot your fitness level, the makers have included a lot of useful accessories such as the long strap handles, triceps rope, long bar, short bar, hand strap, ankle strap, leg extension, and a leg curl strap. A workout poster is also thrown in to show you a bunch of the exercises you can do.  Frankly speaking, I almost flipped out when I saw these free goodies.

  What Are Customers Saying?

For many customers, the XMark Functional Trainer has been their favorite piece of fitness equipment in their home gym. The product has left most users impressed with the fit and finish. Users have commented that it’s a well-manufactured piece of fitness equipment. Some users did state that it’s not cheap, but worth it.

Warranty

The heavy-duty steel frame along with the commercial grade rig and pulley system provides the product a very long life. You’ll get at least ten years out of the machine. As such, the product carries a lifetime warranty on the frame, and one-year warranty on the cables, pulleys, and other hardware. Keep in mind that the warranty is non-transferable. It’s provided only to the original purchaser of the equipment.

Dimensions

The XMark Functional Trainer weighs over 300 lbs. The assembled product stats are given below:

65” Width

43.5” Length

83” Height

Last Words

If you want to go big on strength exercises without stepping into the gym, don’t hesitate to pull the trigger on the XMark Functional Trainer.  The machine can easily cater to the majority of your strength training desires. As they say, “Go big or go home.” On a personal front, I guess, I might never feel the need to eat my words for recommending a home gym equipment of this quality.

  2. Fusion CST

If your focus is on home fitness, Fusion CST can help. With an unprecedented focus on strength as well as cardio training, the machine can help you stay fit from home all throughout the year. At least, that’s what the company wants us to believe. Of course, you shouldn’t accept everything that falls on your ears in today’s age and time. Therefore, let’s find out how good of a gym hack this product actually is. So, disable your smartphone notifications because we are about to get started with the review.

Key Features and Benefits

Superior Workout Options:  There is literally nothing that you can’t do on this machine. The machine combines strength and cardio training to deliver a power-packed health punch like nothing else out there. Better yet, it helps one bust out great results in a short amount of time. A chest strap is also included to help a user monitor his/her heart rate to increase or decrease the workout intensity for better results.

  Magnetic Resistance: The Fusion CST incorporates magnetic resistance for smooth Cable machine workouts. Compared to free weights, most users found it easy on their joints, knees, and back. Therefore, the general consensus is that anyone can train on this machine. Past users have complimented the machine for its butter-like smooth and gentle resistance.

  Virtual Personal Trainer: For the sake of personal guidance and motivation, the machine comes with a tablet computer that can be placed at different heights and angles to best suit your needs. This complementary feature pushes you to give your best shot even if you were to train in the middle of an ordinary day.

  Space Conscious:  With a meager ‘42’ wide footprint, it’s compact enough to fit into most living rooms for practical everyday use for low-impact home training. So, without cutting your living space into half, the machine can keep you actively engaged in a healthier lifestyle for several years and beyond.

  What Are Customers Saying?

Most customers have stated that the Fusion CST has positively impacted their lives. For those who train in the morning, it has given them a reason to be excited right out of bed. The personal trainer feature got people encouraged to get better and stronger. Customers also appreciated the fact that the machine is apt to offer a challenging workout in as little as 20 minutes.

Warranty:

The warranty on the parts and labor is valid for a period of one year. But, the Fusion CST frame has a lifetime warranty on it. So, you are good for life on the frame. The makers also provide a generous 30-day money back guarantee on the purchase of this home-gym equipment.

Dimensions:

The Fusion CST doesn’t leave a large footprint. The numbers are listed below for you to check.

42” wide

61” long

Last Words

Everything considered, the Fusion CST could easily be the future of home-gym equipment. It does come with a high price tag, but it has received great ratings to back the asking price. If you are a person who wants to do both strength training and cardio from home, I don’t mind pushing you to consider the Fusion CST home gym machine. For luxury shoppers, the Fusion CST is a no-brainer choice.

  3. PowerLine PCCO90X Cable Crossover

The PowerLine PCCO90X Cable Crossover proves that affordable crossover machines for home use shouldn’t be out of the question for a regular hard-working family. The PowerLine machine helps you expand your daily workout program without costing you or your family a fortune. It’s well-made, handy, useful, functional, and affordable, all at the same time. So, let’s take a tour of this crossover machine to know more about it.

Key Features and Benefits

Total Body Conditioning Made Easy: The machine comes with one ankle strap and two cable handles to offer you good workout options. Moreover, the machine is smartly designed to offer a 180-degree range of motion for total body conditioning. So, it can be used to strengthen and tone every muscle group in your body.

  Exercise Variety:  From cable flys to lunges, hip extension, glute extension, seated cable rows, and more, the PowerLine PCCO90X Cable Crossover can support a variety of different exercises. In fact, one can also do lat pulldowns and a bunch of others by adding useful fitness accessories to the equipment. As such, the machine supports both standard as well as Olympic plates.

  Smart Design: Compared to the other cable crossover machines, the frame of this machine is tall and wide on purpose. It has eight large diameters and sealed ball-bearing to facilitate a smooth and reliable workout. It comes with a top as well as bottom pulleys. Above all, the 180-degree motion provides amazing workout flexibility like nothing else out there.

  What Are Customers Saying?

Judging by customer reviews, it’s easy to tell that the product is solid enough to hold a lot of weight. I can confirm this to be true because I weighed nearly 260 pounds at one point in my life. At my peak weight, I was able to train comfortably on this crossover machine without any fuss. With 20+ pages of simple sketch illustrations for assembly instructions, some users did complain about the time taken for assembly. Frankly speaking, the assembly time ran a little over two hours for me. I had my first sweat session in the process.

Warranty

The makers of PowerLine PCCO90X Cable Crossover offer a pragmatic solution to put customer’s mind at ease. They offer a lifetime warranty on the frame, and all the other parts carry a one-year warranty. So, if you uncover any problem within the warranty period, you know that the makers are there to offer you free assistance.

Dimensions

The PowerLine PCCO90X weighs 49 kg once fully assembled. The assembled product dimensions are listed below (in inches) for easy reference.

82″H

112″L

39″W

Last Words

For the low asking price, one shouldn’t be afraid to pull the trigger on this machine. It’s a well-designed piece of workout apparatus for home use. Truthfully speaking, it’s hard to beat this equipment for its price point. Any serious or intelligent fitness enthusiast, pro or novice should consider this machine without missing a heartbeat. It’s an absolute bargain for the money you pay for it.

  4. Marcy Smith Cage Workout Machine Total Body Training Home Gym System

The Marcy Smith Cage Workout Machine Total Body Training Home Gym System is an ideal fit for those who are looking for a machine that allows them to do all the exercises cramped into one workout station. Believe it or not, you will be able to do more than 90% of the gym workouts from home. It lets you manage your own workouts from the comforts of your home at a reasonable price point.

Key Features and Benefits

All-in-One Station: You get lots and lots of workout options. Frankly speaking, the machine literally leaves no functions for any other machine. One can train from head to toe on this highly versatile workout station.  Given the workout options, you can train purely from a functional standpoint as well. It’s multipurpose, well-built, and durable enough to fill the gym void like nothing else in the market.

  Bells and Whistles: The Marcy Smith Cage Workout Machine Total Body Training Home Gym System comes with all the bells and whistles that you would expect from a high-end home gym system, but without the high-cost affiliated to it. For instance, the product comes with a bunch of useful accessories such as ankle straps, triceps rope, lat bar, chrome handle, and much more. Furthermore, there are adjustable safety stoppers and bar catches in place as a safety measure.

  What Are Customers Saying?

The product arrives in 3 (heavy)boxes. It’s a beast of a machine. Past users did mention that it takes a lot of space. Given the possibilities of cable crossover exercises, the working space is optimally utilized. So, users have given the product the credit where it deserves. Most customers were also pleased with the smoothness of the machine.

Warranty

There is no warranty in place for this product. However, the makers have used aircraft grade components along with powder coated finish for longevity. The gym system is housed in a heavy-duty steel frame for the sake of durability. The lack of a warranty has not distanced customers

Dimensions

A lot of labor hours is required for assembly. The assembly information is picture based. Personally speaking, I found it helpful to have my wife on-call to hold a few things and to prevent jumbling of nuts/bolts to make my job easier. Once it was put together, it almost felt as if I performed a small magic. The finished product looked damn beautiful.

As an assembly tip, give yourself a lot of time and get a good helper too. If it helps, get three beer bottles as well. Nevertheless, once assembled, here’s are the product stats:

95″ Height

79″ Width

86″ Depth

Last Words

If you are conscious about your body or if you don’t have extra time for a gym visit, the Marcy Smith Cage Workout Machine Total Body Training Home Gym System can come to your aid. It’s easily the most complete home workout system out there today. With solid fabrication, amazing craftsmanship, and supreme versatility, this machine can offer you the best bang for your fitness bucks on any given day of the week.

  5. Body-Solid Cable Cross Training Center

The Body-Solid Cable Cross Training Center helps people catch up with the home-gym tradition that’s flourishing like crazy. The fitness machine is versatile enough to encourage you to start your day with excitement when everyone else is sleeping. You can look at it as a modern-day evolution of strength and circuit training. It has something to offer to all levels of fitness enthusiasts.

Key Features and Benefits

Versatility like Nothing else: Unlike traditional cross-training machines that offer simple movement, the Body-Solid Cable Cross Training Center allows one to work both the primary and the secondary muscle groups for body-toning and to support practical lifestyle activities. Furthermore, the integrated chin-up bar, cable handles, and few other useful accessories combine value, function, and versatility like nobody’s business.

  Ease of Use:  Features dual independent weight stack system for dedicated resistance while performing isolateral movements. The cables and the pulleys provide smooth and consistent movement while training on them. Furthermore, the pulleys are easy to setup and use at different levels to fit the needs of every user for every exercise. For those who don’t know, it comes with two 160 lbs weight stacks in 10-pound increments.

  Space Saver: It’s designed with minimal frame and depth to leave a small footprint during use. But, the sacrifice doesn’t affect the product’s usability or efficiency. As hinted before, it’s compact and versatile enough to perform a lot of pulling and pushing exercises.

  What Are Customers Saying?

Most customers are of the opinion that the flexibility of the machine is excellent. They voiced a common opinion that the equipment can take a lot of abuse. Even while lifting heavy weights, the machine stays sturdy. It doesn’t wobble like other inferior equipment out there. It’s not easy to max out on most of the exercises. Customers have further stated the assembly may not be an impossible task, but it could be quite challenging for first-timers. From opening the box to getting the unit ready, most users took 4 to 6 hours to finish everything up.

Warranty

The Body-Solid comes with a lifetime warranty. Remember, Body-Solid is a well-known brand in the fitness industry. Their customer base runs in millions. Given their reputation and the generous lifetime warranty, most users don’t hesitate to give this fitness equipment a shot. I too found the final product to be quite good.

Dimensions

The advertised dimensions of the machine are given below:

42.3″ W

72.5″ L

83.8″ H.

Last Words

On the whole, the Body-Solid Cable Cross Training Center offers an unbeatable value for money in today’s fitness world. It’s billed to be good for individuals, family, and also pro-athletes looking to get strong and functionally better in life. I had no regrets purchasing this fitness apparatus.

  Benefits of Cable Crossover Machines

  Diversity: Yes, diversity is the name of the game over here. Cable machines allow you to break free from the old school training that might have plateaued your body from making gains. Unlike weight training equipment, these machines also make room for multi-planer movements.

Functionality: A cable crossover lets you be functional and fit. It requires you to use all your stabilizing muscles to keep your body under control. It not only provides gym-quality workout from home, but it also goes a step further and makes you functional more fit.

Safety: In a gym environment, you may not always feel safe without a spotter. These machines are well built, designed, and easy to use. So, you don’t have to worry about getting buried under a pile of weight stack because you can’t let go of the cables when you are not able to finish a rep. The weight will simply return to the stack without causing any damage.

Spoiled for Choice:  Home cable machines let you do a myriad of exercises. A good one allows you to add a lot of fitness accessories to increase the scope of exercises. You could really be working every part of your body in a dynamic fashion. Even if you are gym-goer, these machines can cut back on your gym visits.

Target Weak Muscles:  The exercises that you can do on these allows you to target weak muscles to bring them on par with the stronger muscles.  By allowing you to do several variations of most exercises, cable machines can help you add power to your weakest muscles like nobody’s business.

Rehabilitation:  Functional cable weight machines are deemed an excellent choice for rehabilitation as well. Believe it or not, it’s often prescribed by therapists to their patients to slowly develop the muscles around the injured area.

Fitness Investment:  In the long run, a home cable crossover machine proves to be an inexpensive gym affair. After all, it will allow you to do most of the exercises you would ideally do in a gym. Say hello to saving a ton of gym fees money over its lifetime.

Did you find this guide to the best cable crossover machines helpful? Share with your friends!

Recommended Reading:

Best compact home gyms for small space

Bowflex HVT Home Gym: Detailed Review

The post What Are The Best Cable Crossover Machines for Home? Detailed Review appeared first on Fit Fitness Magazine.

[magesona]

YO EVERYONE HEY

BERNIE IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AGAIN

REPEAT - BERNIE SANDERS IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS

This is the turn of the era everyone, honest to everything holy and whatever you hold dear, i really truly believe this is our opportunity to fix the fucked up shit Trump has been doing, and to lead America and humanity into a more positive and progressive future! This isn’t a petition or asking for a donation (though it will ask after you sign, you don’t have to, but y'know it’d be helpful if you can afford it), Bernie just wants to know and be able to show we’ll all be with him during this campaign!

This is all it takes, for real just sign!! Sign if you’re with this wonderful sweet man who has been screwed by elite class countless times, he wants to and can do so much to help our people, but we have to work together on this!! Believe me, even if the system is corrupt, even if it may not work in the end, it’s worth a shot! I’d say it’s worth the biggest shot we have, don’t let pessimism hold us back! Things have changed over the past few years, we have more of an advantage now with people realizing just how wrong they were to trust the man we’ve put into power. It’s the only way we can fight him and the broken system, TOGETHER!!

https://act.berniesanders.com/signup/em_bern_message/

Below the cut, i’ve included the rest of Bernie’s email. It includes all the promises he’s making for us, explains what we’re up against, and why he thinks we have a chance this time. It’s astounding how many important topics he addresses, universe bless this precious man, please don’t let the system fail him again.

---

I am writing to let you know I have decided to run for president of the United States. I am asking you to join me today as part of an unprecedented and historic grassroots campaign that will begin with at least a million people from across the country.

Please join our campaign for president on day one and commit to doing what it takes to win this election.

Our campaign is not only about defeating Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history. It is not only about winning the Democratic nomination and the general election.

Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

Our campaign is about taking on the powerful special interests that dominate our economic and political life. I’m talking about Wall Street, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, the military industrial complex, the private prison industry and the large multinational corporations that exert such an enormous influence over our lives.

Our campaign is about redoubling our efforts to end racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry and all forms of discrimination.

Our campaign is about creating a vibrant democracy with the highest voter turnout of any major country while we end voter suppression, Citizens United and outrageous levels of gerrymandering.

Our campaign is about creating a government and economy that work for the many, not just the few. We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. We should not have grotesque levels of wealth inequality in which three billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the country.

We should not have 30 million Americans without any health insurance, even more who are underinsured and a nation in which life expectancy is actually in decline.

We should not have an economy in which tens of millions of workers earn starvation wages and half of older workers have no savings as they face retirement.

We should not have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth and a dysfunctional childcare system which is unfair to both working parents and their children.

We should not have a regressive tax system in which large, profitable corporations like Amazon pay nothing in federal income taxes.

Make no mistake about it. The powerful special interests in this country have unbelievable power and they want to maintain the status quo. They have unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns and lobbying and have huge influence over the media and political parties.

The only way we will win this election and create a government and economy that work for all is with a grassroots movement – the likes of which has never been seen in American history.

They may have the money and power. We have the people. That is why we need one million Americans who will commit themselves to this campaign.

Stand with me as we fight to win the Democratic nomination and the general election. Add your name to join this campaign and say you are willing to do the hard work necessary to transform our country.

You know as well as I do that we are living in a pivotal and dangerous moment in American history. We are running against a president who is a pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe and someone who is undermining American democracy as he leads us in an authoritarian direction.

I’m running for president because, now more than ever, we need leadership that brings us together – not divides us up. Women and men, black, white, Latino, Native American, Asian American, gay and straight, young and old, native born and immigrant. Now is the time for us to stand together.

I’m running for president because we need leadership that will fight for working families and the shrinking middle class, not just the 1 percent. We need a president who understands that we can create millions of good-paying jobs, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and construct the affordable housing we desperately need.

I’m running for president because we need trade policies that reflect the interests of workers and not multi-national corporations. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, provide pay equity for women and guarantee all workers paid family and medical leave.

I’m running for president because we need to understand that artificial intelligence and robotics must benefit the needs of workers, not just corporate America and those who own that technology.

I’m running for president because a great nation is judged not by how many billionaires and nuclear weapons it has, but by how it treats the most vulnerable – the elderly, the children, our veterans, the sick and the poor.

I’m running for president because we need to make policy decisions based on science, not politics. We need a president who understands that climate change is real, is an existential threat to our country and the entire planet, and that we can generate massive job creation by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

I’m running for president because the time is long overdue for the United States to join every other major country on Earth and guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare-for-all program.

I’m running for president because we need to take on the outrageous level of greed of the pharmaceutical industry and lower prescription drug prices in this country.

I’m running for president because we need to have the best educated workforce in the world. It is totally counterproductive for our future that millions of Americans are carrying outrageous levels of student debt, while many others cannot afford the high cost of higher education. That is why we need to make public colleges and universities tuition free and lower student debt.

I’m running for president because we must defend a woman’s right to control her own body against massive political attacks taking place at the local, state and federal level.

I’m running for president because we need real criminal justice reform. We need to invest in jobs and education for our kids, not more jails and incarceration. We need to end the destructive “war on drugs,” eliminate private prisons and cash bail and bring about major police department reform.

I’m running for president because we need to end the demonization of undocumented immigrants in this country and move to comprehensive immigration reform. We need to provide immediate legal status for the young people eligible for the DACA program and develop a humane policy for those at the border who seek asylum.

I’m running for president because we must end the epidemic of gun violence in this country. We need to take on the NRA, expand background checks, end the gun show loophole and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons.

I’m running for president because we need a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, diplomacy and world peace. The United States must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight against climate change, militarism, authoritarianism and global wealth inequality.

That is why we need at least a million people to join our campaign and help lead the movement that can accomplish these goals. Add your name to say we’re in this together.

Needless to say, there is a lot of frightening and bad news in this world. Now, let me give you some very good news.

Three years ago, during our 2016 campaign, when we brought forth our progressive agenda we were told that our ideas were “radical” and “extreme.” We were told that Medicare for All, a $15 an hour minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, aggressively combating climate change, demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes, were all concepts that the American people would never accept.

Well, three years have come and gone. And, as result of millions of Americans standing up and fighting back, all of these policies and more are now supported by a majority of Americans.

Together, you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revolution. Now, it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.

So here is my question for you:

Will you stand with me as part of a million person grassroots movement which can not only win the Democratic primary, not only win the general election, but most importantly help transform this country so that, finally, we have a government that works for all of us and not just the few? Add your name to say you will.

Together we can create a nation that leads the world in the struggle for peace and for economic, racial, social and environmental justice.

And together we can defeat Donald Trump and repair the damage he has done to our country.

Brothers and sisters, if we stand together, there is no limit to what we can accomplish.

I hope you will join me.

Thank you very much.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

[dallasareaopinion]

Border Wall: I’ll give Trump one, and then another

Maybe Trump has a plan for the border wall. I will give him the opportunity to espouse it. And I hope he takes it. Maybe he should spend time explaining to the independents and undecideds how his border wall fits into the big picture. Maybe he can give us a comprehensive immigration reform package along with it. All in all he should.

 So, Mr. President to help you give us a plan I will frame some ideas I have. Feel free to run with them.

 Immigration reform has popped up as an issue infrequently, yet enough times to actually mean something to the political body of these United States. And we really do need reform. For example, have you seen how many different types of cards immigrants, refugees, temporary workers, permanent residents, temporary residents are handed out by the State Department in general. And it breaks down into subtypes for some of these categories. Once you receive one card for residence the immigrant works their way through hoops to become either a permanent resident or possibly even a citizen.

If you are curious, here are a few websites you would need to research to get started.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process.html

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/all-visa-categories.html

https://ar.usembassy.gov/visas/what-to-expect-after-your-visa-is-approved-and-issued/

 And this is just a walk through of various sites a person would have to navigate if they want to come here. And by no means is this everything. Do the internet search.

 Consolidating just some of this process will be helpful to people wanting to come here, yet it would also be helpful to the people who must manage this program.

 And then you need to manage the different types of groups, individuals, refugees, workers students, tourists, asylum seekers, people who want to live here and become citizens.

 So as part of this process lets break down some of the categories and talk about what we want to do with each group and afterwards discuss border security. The “Wall” in your parlance Mr. President.

 This is not an all-inclusive solution for all problems discussion. This is a rough draft of some ideas our Congress and you should be developing instead of hacks like me.

 I think we can agree many people want to come here and live, hopefully experiencing the greatness of our country and the Constitution. We want to grant this opportunity to people who want to come here and contribute.  Our nation is great because of the diverse groups of people who have migrated here, found success, and raised families instilling in them the virtues and values upon which we are founded.

 Do we make it harder than before to become a citizen to maybe limit the number of people entering our country? Do we open up more? I think that is a question our Representatives need to ask their constituents to get a feel. And then bring their answers to DC to begin the process of the whole reform.

 Procedurally it must be easier. We should break down the categories into:

People applying for permanent residence and/or citizenship should have the same criteria, same application, and well same red tape. And right now this is pretty similar. The goal becomes how stringent do we make the qualifications to apply.  One card, one process, one group with our government to manage them and keep track of them.

 The next group(s) get a bit trickier. Let’s make refugees and asylum seekers the second priority. Why? I think we need to define what we consider potential eligible refugees and asylum seekers in advance.  We lay out the criteria in general and so anytime there is a crisis around the world, our State Department can apply to Congress for people under this situation to become eligible to apply. The process becomes the same no matter where they come from once the situation is pronounced to meet the criteria. Every single person from everywhere gets the same card, has the same restrictions, must follow the same rules, and must contribute to finding a solution to get them back to their country of origin. We do not have to and maybe we shouldn’t offer blanket citizenship or permanent residents to a refugees at all. They can eventually apply via the process determined for residency, but have to meet the criteria established with the first group above. And each year the State Department would come to Congress and prove there is still a need for the group in question to still fit under refugee or asylum seeker status. Congress keeps passing laws for all sorts of situations. We need to have one shoe to fit all feet so to speak. And have it reviewed every year. And with predetermined criteria built into the system, this annual process should be somewhat cookie cutter and also allows flexibility throughout the year when a crisis develops. Once a scenario is determined to be safe again, our State Department begins the process of repatriating the refugees. Yes, this will incur some tax payer expense, but allows the government to better manage the flow of people becoming citizens in general and people overstaying their time. More on this when I discuss border security.

 The third major group is temporary workers. And this category encompasses a wide range of possible applicants, yet the same procedural philosophy can be applied. All people wanting to be a temporary worker uses the same application, goes through the same sub-group within our government, follows the same rules and restrictions as all within this group, and has an exit strategy with one exception which I will come to. The rules here apply to anyone wanting to work here either on a short or long term basis. The only different group would be people who work here year in and year out for seasonal or contracted work, yet go home for part of the year. They follow all other rules except they do not have an exit time frame. In days gone by, the term migrant farm workers might come to mine, yet we would be a bit more expansive. The exit time frame can be years from application, yet they are not here to become citizens or permanent residents and only for those hired by companies for job specific purposes. Here are some proposed rules for their employment. First there is modified minimum wage requirements. And this is especially important for the seasonal or temporary permanent workers. It applies to all though. Second, they do not pay income taxes as we know it. Instead they would pay fees based on their income. It would work like our graduated income tax is suppose to work. Income tax is another disaster conversation for another day. I wish people would remember there is a Constitutional Amendment (16) around this topic. For now though I propose a graduated fee for working here on a temporary basis. This fee is withheld from workers paychecks and is used to help fund the Immigration policies, procedures, and personnel the government manages. It isn’t the full budget for immigration, yet helps to offset the costs of the overall program.  There are no forms to fill out like a 1040, no refunds, no extra pay at end of year, it is an amount determined as a graduated percentage by the amount of pay. And if pay varies, so does the amount withheld. Also a small portion can be set aside to help employers pay workman’s compensation which also has limited benefits, yet allows the temporary worker full medical coverage for injuries on the job. They do not pay into or earn social security. They do not receive unemployment benefits and if there job tenure ends early they still need to leave early. Employers have three responsibilities, one if they hire illegals fines are much higher than they are now and possible jail time could be explored, two, they must report if the employee is no longer working to the appropriate government group and give last address, contact and family info known to them.  A 2b would be they need to update the temporary workers info regularly, and three they make sure they comply with fee withholding and sending to the government. Enforcement comes from the fees collected by the employers.

 Next group is student visas. This can be real cut and dry. I am open about them being allowed part time employment while students, but face same rules as the temporary workers for the employment. Second the school is responsible for their information being updated with the government once they graduate or leave school. They can apply to go to a different school, but that must be approved with the same process as their original application to study here. The cannot arbitrarily change schools.

 There are other categories, but this is a good over view of what can be done, still allow immigrants, yet manage our resources. And if you didn’t catch it, each category has its own subgroup within the State Department’s umbrella. This allows the government worker to get to know and better understand the groups they are managing.

 Border security would be part of the mix in the comprehensive reform to be passed by Congress. And let’s talk categories of people that cause problems under the theme of border security. You can generalize and say anyone not meeting the criteria established in the immigration reform is an illegal alien and can be deported immediately. For now we will talk about the more infamous situations.

 Drug smugglers and drugs being imported into our country. I am not going to address this because my ideas are so controversial that saying we need to make marijuana legal is the least controversial part of the program. There are an enormous amount of players involved that would need to be brought into the negotiations and there is too much detail for this post which is already running long. One benefit is the chance for Mexico to develop a larger middle class once the program is fully established. Mexico having a stronger middle-class was one of the selling points of the original NAFTA, yet corporate greed killed that so we need to follow through if this proposal comes to fruition.

What about all the bad guys Mr. President? I agree we need to be tougher. I think if an illegal or even legal immigrant breaks the law they have two choices. Serve full time for the crime as any citizen of the US would or be deported. No plea bargain and no time off for good behavior, they receive max time under the law once found guilty of any crime, then they get sent home. No appeal. If they come back, even without committing another crime, if found would serve twice the adjudicated sentence with no chance to go home until the full sentence is served. This may sound harsh to some, yet this is where the average citizen has a right to feel protected in their homes and in this country. This is the law, no exceptions.

 People caught smuggling humans into the country, Smugglers get full prison term and the people smuggled are treated as refugees with immediate determination of their home situation to see if it meets the criteria determined as outlined above. If no crisis in their home country, they are sent home via the same process as refugees who are determined not to be given refugee status anymore.

 And in general we build a better tracking system for all people entering our country for their benefit and ours. When their time is up they have “X” amount of time to return home. If they do not return timely, our government can seize assets to pay for their return home. Sounds harsh, but if we want to have a successful immigration policy that allows a vibrant interchange of culture and people we must protect ourselves against people overreaching or taking advantage of the situation. Everyone has time to leave respectfully, but there is a limit. Our government is given their information routinely by employers etc, so there is no excuse or there are penalties for failure to comply.

 These are just a few examples of developing a broad immigration reform policy, yes that might sound harsh on the surface, but if managed openly, transparently, and gives people the chance to become permanent residents or work here as wanted or needed we should embrace them being here. It is up to us as citizens to teach and show them our culture and our values in a positive way to make their experience beneficial for the short or long duration.

 See Mr. President you can have immigration reform and not spend one dime on a wall that is counter productive to the growth of our nation. Remember for over 400 years that area of the world has been in flux from exploration to the mix of people enjoying life, sharing culture and trade, a moving boundary that is arbitrary at best, and one that for generations actually means nothing because it is all family.  Maybe it is only important to decide the most basic of necessities, but if you live, work, or play on the Southwest border you know how wonderful this part of the world can be if you treat the area and all the people with respect. Problems can be solved if you define and identify the problem and leave what works alone.

 Cheers.

[hisvanity]

Tourism in Alola

i’ve been sitting on this headcanon for a really long time so here we go.

just like tourism in hawaii is a highly contentious issue, tourism in alola has always been a giant mess. on a regular basis, tourists consume alolan culture as though it’s made for them, running roughshod over local customs or mindlessly fetishizing them whenever it was convenient.  they also showed great disrespect toward pokémon and the environment, leaving the place they visited worse off than when they went there. in particular, overseas trainers caught species for competitive battling sometimes to the point of endangerment. native alolans were horrified and saddened by what had happened, knowing their homeland and their very identity was constantly being disrespected--and yet some of them also felt as though the tourism industry was the only place that they had a future. after alolan independence, they knew things had to change.

with independence, the alolan government was better able to take control of its tourism issues. though the country is still burdened by the fact that the alolan economy is heavily dependent on tourism, it has begun a multi-year program to try and wean itself off of that dependence. they have begun to limit the amount of people who can come to the country every year, steadily decreasing the number of permitted tourists every year. they also set certain environmentally friendly standards for the hotels on the island, and have attempted to ensure that a large portion of the revenue generated by tourism actually benefits the community instead of just being skimmed off the top by fat cats. this was to fix the discrepancy between the economic prosperity and the relative poverty of many native alolans: the country saw stunning success as long as the industry boomed, but its native people were left out of that success--and were the hardest hit every time tourism took a downturn.

they also put in stronger penalties for and more enforcement against the poaching of endangered species, banning anyone--foreigner or alolan citizen--from capturing, killing or otherwise harming a pokémon of a certain kind (though native alolans are of course allowed to use those species for cultural practices). we don’t see those pokémon in the alolan pokédex because the government has literally removed them from the dex--they are not available to be registered by anyone other than a scientist, and even then only with explicit government permission. in addition, trainers are limited to a certain number of catches per month for all species, whether vulnerable or safe (catching and releasing doesn’t count toward your limit).

you would not believe the amount of bitching that came from competitive battlers that resulted from both measures--people acted as though they were entitled to alola’s native species, even when depletion via capture had led to literal population depletion. they claimed the new policy hurt their competitive chances. the alolan government’s response was simple: if you’re not creative enough to have a competitive chance without exploiting our pokémon, then you never had a competitive chance at all.

other than pokémon policy, the most defining part of the new alolan tourism policy is that they have become extremely strict about regulating the behavior of tourists. a few years after its independence, alola increased its pokémon ranger force just over fivefold to keep an eye on the most important cultural heritage and environmental sites. there is a national blacklist of badly behaved tourists who are literally not allowed to reenter the country because they did unbelievably stupid shit. certain forms of improper behavior before the blacklist was put into place is also enough to get you on it; many trainers who captured endangered species for competitive battling usage were outraged (unrightfully so) to find that they had retroactively been banned from entering alola ever again. this is the rule that people have thrown the most amount of fits about, since you can actually get yourself banned fairly easily, but alolans see it as a necessary measure of regaining their national dignity. (for his part, wallace is a staunch supporter of the policy, and has made a career out of snarking back at people who like to complain.)

More details: The Hano Grand Resort

part of the government’s reforms is that it has set national standards for hotels to follow. the hano grand resort is a perfect example of hotel policy in alola in general. even though the resort is the largest in alola, it’s also smaller than large resorts in other regions due to the limits that the government has placed on tourism--and this is especially so since it is close to a region where there’s a lot of wildlife. the reason why it’s canonically booked up a year in advance, is not only because of its popularity but also because the government is controlling how many people can enter the country. and while it’s not a requirement for hotels to be run by native alolans, the general manager of this particular resort is alolan themselves so that’s always a plus.

the resort is also an example of the standards that the alolan government is now setting for its region’s hotels. 100% of its energy is solar power, all of its appliances are energy and resource efficient. it locally and sustainably sources its food. it has actually gone above and beyond the call of duty by making 100% of its energy solar power and all of its appliances energy efficient--it has reached the goal that alola’s government wants all hotels and indeed all businesses in general to uphold eventually.

Bonus Worldbuilding: Wallace Cup 2018

given that the wallace cup brings in many tourists from around the world no matter where it’s held, wallace had to go through a thorough vetting process before he was even allowed to hold the event in his other native homeland. as the person who runs it, he takes full responsibility for any environmental damage that the event does--which means that if even one person attending misbehaves by taking home pyukumukus in their pocket unlicensed he’s going to have to pay for it. 

he was also limited to a crowd size smaller than the usual turnout at a wallace cup (but which he made up for by increased volume of international broadcasting)--and he had to pay an additional sum for “reserving” that amount of people out of the entire tourism quota. though tickets for a normal wallace cup are usually booked up a few months in advance, tickets have been booked up for this cup for two entire years.

as with the limits on pokémon capturing, this was met with an incredible amount of bitching from entitled fucks who thought they could just waltz into a country that has had a terrible relationship with tourism just because their favorite star held a contest there. in the weeks leading up to the contest, wallace’s twitter account was plastered with sassy backclaps against people who whined about the effect of alola’s tourism policy on the wallace cup. it goes without saying that it made international news, and was received with much laughter and support in alola.

in addition, like with any event that brings in tourism, wallace is also obligated to send a portion of his proceeds back to local communities. he decided to send 10% of ticket revenue to an organization dedicated to helping native alolan trainers from low-income families--something that means a lot to him, as he’s a quarter native alolan on his mother’s side. like the hano grand resort, he’s also going above and beyond the call of duty. he’s staying behind after the contest is over to work with native alolan coordinators who wish to break into the international stage, a coordinating workshop that is also being hosted at the hano grand resort--with all expenses paid for low-income attendees. honestly the reason why he wanted to have the wallace cup in alola was because he wanted his contest to be hosted for the first time in a nation that meant a lot to him--and he was 5000000% willing to go through all the trouble and expense to make it happen.