#biden has actually made some good steps

[local-magpie]

ngl considering the increasing focus i see in leftists on walkable cities, public transport, and other urban features, im... really not surprised people keep thinking "rural" just means south. rural folk really are invisible huh

[reasonsforhope]

"In cities across the country, people of color, many of them low income, live in neighborhoods criss-crossed by major thoroughfares and highways.

The housing there is often cheaper — it’s not considered particularly desirable to wake up amid traffic fumes and fall asleep to the rumble of vehicles over asphalt.

But the price of living there is steep: Exhaust from all those cars and trucks leads to higher rates of childhood asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and pulmonary ailments. Many people die younger than they otherwise would have, and the medical costs and time lost to illness contributes to their poverty.

Imagine if none of those cars and trucks emitted any fumes at all, running instead on an electric charge. That would make a staggering difference in the trajectory, quality, and length of millions of lives, particularly those of young people growing up near freeways and other sources of air pollution, according to a study from the American Lung Association.

The study, released [February 28, 2024], found that a widespread transition to EVs could avoid nearly 3 million asthma attacks and hundreds of infant deaths, in addition to millions of lower and upper respiratory ailments...

Prior research by the American Lung Association found that 120 million people in the U.S. breathe unhealthy air daily, and 72 million live near a major trucking route — though, Barret added, there’s no safe threshold for air pollution. It affects everyone.

Bipartisan efforts to strengthen clean air standards have already made a difference across the country. In California, which, under the Clean Air Act, can set state rules stronger than national standards, 100 percent of new cars sold there must be zero emission by 2035.

[Note: The article doesn't explain this, but that is actually a much bigger deal than just California. Basically, due to historically extra terrible pollution, California is the only state that's allowed to allowed to set stronger emissions rules than the US government sets. However, one of the rules in the Clean Air Act is that any other state can choose to follow California's standards instead of the US government's. And California by itself is the world's fifth largest economy - ahead of all but four countries. California has a lot of buying power. So, between those two things, when California sets stricter standards for cars, the effects ripple outward massively, far beyond the state's borders.]

Truck manufacturers are, according to the state’s Air Resources Board, already exceeding anticipated zero-emissions truck sales, putting them two years ahead of schedule...

Other states have begun to take action, too, often reaching across partisan lines to do so. Maryland, Colorado, New Mexico, and Rhode Island adopted zero-emissions standards as of the end of 2023.

The Biden administration is taking similar steps, though it has slowed its progress after automakers and United Auto Workers pressured the administration to relax some of its more stringent EV transition requirements.

While Barret finds efforts to support the electrification of passenger vehicles exciting, he said the greatest culprits are diesel trucks. “These are 5 to 10 percent of the vehicles on the road, but they’re generating the majority of smog-forming emissions of ozone and nitrogen,” Barret said...

Lately, there’s been significant progress on truck decarbonization. The Biden administration has made promises to ensure that 30 percent of all big rigs sold are electric by 2030...

Such measures, combined with an increase in public EV charging stations, vehicle tax credits, and other incentives, could change American highways, not to mention health, for good."

-via GoodGoodGood, February 28, 2024

[phoenixyfriend]

Calls for Action, Call Your Reps: 2/13/24

This is USA-specific, as that is the place I live and know.

Find your elected officials.

Today, much of my information is coming from Democracy Now!, which I generally listen to as a podcast (functionally, it is a radio news broadcast, like NPR or BBC), and I am quoting from the text versions on their website.

The Senate passed a $95 billion military funding package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan in the pre-dawn hours this morning. But the bill’s fate remains unclear after House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed the measure over its failure to include hard-line immigration restrictions. This comes after Johnson and other Republicans rejected an earlier version of the bill which did contain the border crackdown they had demanded. Johnson has told Republican congressmembers he will call a House vote on a stand-alone funding bill for Israel.

From the same page, we are hearing that President Biden is urging Israel to refrain from invading Rafah, where a million or so Palestinians are currently sheltering, but is not actually threatening any kind of repercussions for said invasion. Reports from both official sources (e.g. the Hamas-run health ministry) and less official (e.g. American doctors returning from relief services in Palestine) indicate that over half of the deaths in Palestine are children.

I am not going to pretend that I know what is going through Biden's head.

Both House and Senate:

Reinstate funding for UNRWA. While the claims made by Israel that employees of the relief agency were involved in Oct. 7th are troubling, THEY are not well supported, and western officials did not do their duty in investigating the claims before cutting funding. This arm of the UN is currently providing food, water, shelter, and medical care to the 2.3 million displaced peoples of Gaza. It is especially disturbing and concerning that the many children of Gaza, who are already suffering due to this conflict, are now having this support revoked. Many sources are also claiming that the evidence is flimsy at best.

Urge both Senate and House to refrain from funding Israel, or to at least put some strings on it. The IDF cannot be given funding without some regulations on what they can do with it. They have proven that they are unwilling to take steps to protect civilians.

FOR THE SENATE: Urge your senator to put their support behind Bernie Sanders and his motion to restrict funding to Israel until a humanitarian review of the IDF’s actions in Gaza has been completed. Cite it as Senate Resolution 504 if your Senator is right-wing enough to react negatively to the mention of Sanders by name. NOTE: This resolution was TABLED by the Senate on 1/16, but it is being brought back in as conditions continue to escalate.

FOR THE HOUSE: Urge your representative to put their support behind Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s petition for the US government to recognize the IDF’s actions in Gaza as ethnic cleansing and forced displacement, and put a stop to it. ALTERNATELY: recommend that they support House Resolution 786, introduced by Rep. Cori Bush, Calling for an immediate deescalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine.

On the House Floor this week, to call your rep about:

H.Res. 994: Married persons tax break. Vote nay. Loses billions in tax revenue and explicitly targets green energy.

H.R. 2766 and H.R. 4039: Condemnation of China's actions against the Uyghurs. Can't tell you which way to talk on this. Seems good on the surface, but given who's presenting it, I worry there's something worse tucked into the text. Hopefully someone can provide a better take.

H.R. 3016: IGO Anti-Boycott Act. Vote Nay. This appears to be intended to force US companies to do business with US allies instead of participating in boycotts. This appears, to me, to be an attack on movements like BDS. To Dem Reps, argue that this refuses the right of peaceful protest to US citizens. To Republican Reps, argue that this is a dangerous government overreach and that it is not the right of the government to force US citizens to purchase products and materials from specific foreign partners.

H.Res. 966: Condemnation of sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas against Israel on Oct. 7. Vote Nay. We know sexual violence is bad. Hamas has already been condemned for their actions. This is, at best, lip service. It is a waste of time. There are much bigger, more impactful things to work on, and this is going to waste time and resources in the Senate if it passes.

If you wish to support my political blogging, I am accepting donations on ko-fi.

[decolonize-the-left]

Real talk

You know it's funny, the way liberals sound saying "if you don't vote blue then you're allowing project2025 and fascism" sounds just like an abuser saying "it's not My fault I'm hurting you, you're the one who didn't wanna talk to me"

Like actually you could just vote 3rd party. That's an option. Like 63% of Americans would. Most. The majority would.

In fact!

Source

You know what this means?

It means now is the time if you've wanted a 3rd party president. Those are good polls for this early in the campaigns. 20% is a lot of votes.

For perspective: 33% would be the even divide between 3 parties.

Which means the only people in the way...are in fact Democrats. The singular people unwilling to sway from their shitty party.

The rest of us are fed up and are just waiting for an actually good candidate

"if it had votes" they say, holding the votes hostage. Not even all Democrats would have to vote 3rd party if RFK is gonna split republican votes too 👀 just the progressive Dems probably

Like nobody even WANTS Joe. People say it, social media says it, polls say it.

Why are y'all arguing if you meant it when you said "if third parties had more support, I would"

Now is objectively the best time to try risking it.

And before y'all something: Bernie started out by having events in peoples backyards.

You know who made him big? Fill stadiums?

Progressives. Leftists. Socialists.

So don't tell me that we can't do it or there's no chance of it's unrealistic when it's already been done before.

The only reason he lost is because Democrats scared voters with threats of fascism to settle for a conservative democrat. Cuz they said she had the "best" shot of fighting trump.

And you know what happened? She lost. And she wasn't even commiting an active genocide.

But you think that people will stay loyal to the party of the guy currently being referred to as Genocide Joe and Genocidin' Biden?

And Democrats (before at least) agreed on Hilary- progressives wanted Bernie but Dems wanted Hilary, you know? But even those people are now swearing they're never voting for Joe specifically, that they don't know Who to vote for but it ain't blue.

....and I see y'all still trying to push the same tactics and rhetorics expecting it to work the way it has before and no. Y'all can learn right alongside Israel that you're gonna have to step your propaganda game up for that. Cuz we aren't buying it. I'm even making this post half out of posterity to say someone called y'all out.

Wake the fuck up.

Anyone further right than Bernie Sanders does not stand a fucking chance; has no business running. This is me telling you, telling any dem listening.

Just like we meant it when we said we'd rather Not Vote than vote Hillary, I mean I'd rather not vote than vote Biden.

Please don't take this as an invitation to harass me or change my mind. You won't. You wont gaslight me into consenting to genocide. You aren't going to change a LOT of minds. People have watched that genocide play out on our phones for a month. Some of us have fundamentally changed as people and renewed our values and humanity.

And humanity is more important than comfort. Than Democrats.

And this year that won't be something we compromise.

Listen to yourselves ask us otherwise, do you hear yourself? And each time you ask, understand our resolve is stronger because it shows how little you care for human lives.

Understand that's why you'll lose the vote and election. Not because anyone split the vote by exercising their right to vote in a democracy, but because your party is undeniably supporting genocide and it disgusts us to even think about supporting that same party.

For those undecided:

Learn about Claudia de La Cruz. She supports Palestine and her party has organized events for BLM, for Palestine, against ICE, etc. They're politically active, aware, engaged, and on the ground. Most importantly, they have not ever funded or committed genocide. As far as I know they also actively challenge bigotry of all kinds meaning they also fight for women's rights, queer rights, and civil rights.

I think if we rallied behind her like we did with Bernie this would be a piece of cake for her to win. She just needs the voices of support online to get the ball rolling.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

No. You are anti science.

Ok so let me start this off by saying one thing very clearly. Far leftists are 100% anti science. They will deny facts right in front of their faces so long as it goes against their narrative, because they only thing they are even good at doing is gaslighting. And most of the time they are not even good at that.

What do I mean? Ok, so what have I seen or heard from Leftists (IE: People that worship the fact they are on the left) are as follows. And while not a comprehensive list, it's enough.

1-"All vaccines are safe and can't harm you"

2-"There is no differences between the sexes"

3-"There are no differences between physical races/ethnicities"

4-"Cat's can be vegan"

5-"Solar and Wind are actually better for the environment than anything else"

6-"Hormone blockers don't have side effects"

7-"Cow farts are killing the planet"

8-"The US and every 'White' Country are responsible for most/all the pollution on earth"

And I could go on. But let's address these shall we?

Vaccines are not a one size fits all. They never have been. Far leftists went from "I won't ever take Trumps vaccine" to "If you don't take Biden's vaccine you deserve to never get healthcare again and or deserve to be put into a wood chipper. Also we don't care if you are immunocompromised the "Vaccine" is perfectly safe. St. Faccui said it was safe for absolutely everyone." I'm sorry if you are like this, you are not "Pro Science". And on ONE person is "The Science". And if you believe otherwise you are a lunatic. Also, adverse reactions are a thing. No matter how rare they are some can lead to life long issues. And some can lead to death. That's just a fact.

There are a NUMBER of Differences between the sexes. And while I could write a BOOK worth of how, I'll stick with a few things. Immune Strength, Quick twitch muscle fiber, reproductive organs, hormonal influence on the body, fat retention, muscle building capacity, speed of development, etc, etc. *The list is long*

OK so this one is one of the dumbest ones I've heard, but let me explain something simple. Between melanin and MANY other variants genetically, we ARE different. Scandinavians are often extremely tall, Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese people tend to be very small. Then there is Sickle cell disease which is ALMOST exclusive to people with darker skin, more often much darker skinned people. WE HAVE DIFFERENCES. And the reason people are often scared to talk about this is because they are afraid that if they do talk about these things that it will lead to bigotry and racism. Except by pretending that all people from all places in the world are EXACTLY the same you are in fact denying science.

I'm not even going to go deep into this. SOME ANIMALS ARE JUST CARNIVORS! Cat's are one such animal. Stop being stupid because YOU chose something for your own life.

OK so I could BOOK this one as well but let me just say a few things. Battery tech has almost not advanced at all in the past 20 years. Every step we have made has been very.....minimal. However Solar panels only last between 5-8 years more often than not, and the amount of resources they take to make needs YEARS to offset how much carbon used to make them. This not also including the destruction of entire ecosystems due to the mining for the resources in 3rd world counties, which have also managed to pollute water reservoirs. No telling the amount of kids that die in the slave labor needed to mine all of this stuff. Or the long term effects on the natives of those lands. Same with wind. Except with wind, they need petrol to work. Specifically the lubes that keep the turbines working. And they don't last very long either. And when they break, much like solar panels, they can't be recycled. And the production of those needs 8-10 years to offset what it costed to produce them. Not to also discuss the amount of land decimated to put up both of them. Specifically bad with wind turbines that tend to kill avian life at a high rate, and when put into the water or on the water, they screw with the sonar of animals in the water that use sonar. Which has sadly killed a number of whales.

Hormone blockers actually have a metric shit ton of side effects. Though I guess you can more say effects. One of which, which is actually REALLY scary for younger people is Osteoporosis. Which is REALLY rare in people under 50. As often you develop it as you age. Except people that take blockers for long enough stop developing. That's the entire point in some cases. And here is what many of you LUNATICS don't seem to get. YOUR BODY needs he hormones it produces for you to develop properly. Your body does not just "Rebound" when you stop taking them. And when you take cross sex hormones, your body does not just "start development again", It has to actively fight it's own hormone production as well as your genetics meaning that there can be many medical side effects in general that can occur. But talking just about blockers your body does not just restart. Your hormones dictate a number of things. Brain development, bone development, immune health, height and weight determinates, as well as most of all your internals. If you pause your development, your body does not just pick up where it left off. If you take blockers for 2 years, you lose 2 years or almost 2 years of development. Many doctors have actually backed up all of this. Denying this makes YOU anti science.

This one is me just taking the piss as it were. Cows live off of what ever diet they have access to. However I have heard people, in no small numbers, say that we should reduce the number of cows. Not that we should change their diets. But that we should just CULL them. Despite the argument being "What they are being fed is producing more methane than usual. So it's fun to consistently hear from leftist that we should just kill a lot of animals.

China, India, and Africa have been not only not reducing their emissions. They have actually switched to using a lot of coal. And their emissions have only spiked over the last several years. It's not even remotely close. Meanwhile the US, UK, and most other Euro nations, have greatly done a lot to reduce emissions over time. If you think "The West" is the issue when it comes to your climate alarmism, then you are SORELY mistaken.

[debunkingtherightwing]

Drowning in the Pool; Debunking the December 6th, 2023 Edition of the Tim Pool Daily Show.

From what I know about Tim Pool, he is a generally great source for completely ridiculous and inane takes. Despite seeing people talking about how dumb most of the crap he says is on YouTube, this is my first time listening to the entirety of one of his shows....yay?

I would say that Tim is a step above the Daily Wire on the path to alt-rightness. While he is still alt-lite, as most of the guys we cover on here are are, Tim does things that the Daily Wire wouldn't dare do if only to avoid complete and total embarrassment. He has interviewed Alex Jones, which the Knowledge Fight podcast did an excellent episode on, and regularly spews alt-right talking points...that is when he isn't blatantly contradicting himself.

We are talking about the Daily Show Podcast here as "TimCast IRL" is mostly just him interviewing people and I want to see how Pool stands on his own without anyone else.

Turns out, not so good. While I want to save my full rant for the conclusion, Tim was such a complete and utter dipstick not just from an opinions standpoint but from a journalistic one that he makes the Daily Wire look like the New York Freaking Times. So let's get into it shall we?

01:19: "Last night, Donald Trump spoke with Sean Hannity and there was this tremendous exchange which has the Democrats losing their minds. When asked if he would abuse his power to go after his enemies, Trump said 'Only on day one. After that I'm not a dictator.'"

Ah yes, the "Dictator for a day" remark. I didn't hear Michael Knowles talk about it on his Wednesday show but I'd imagine that Ben Shapiro probably did since he's the guy who usually spends his entire show talking about pure politics instead of culture war drivel like porn turning your kids gay.

Trump has been hinting at abusing his power by getting revenge on his perceived "enemies" for a while now. He recently referred to his political enemies as "vermin", a pretty clear attempt at dehumanizing them in the eyes of his followers. Tim seems to think all this is pretty cool, I'd imagine if Biden said that he'd devote fourteen episodes and three interviews on TimCast to talking about the "evil Democrats".

01:52: "But Hannity was asking Trump 'Will you go after your enemies to get revenge?' and Donald Trump kinda dodged the question but I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that he dodged in just that Trump does what Trump does, I don't view it the same way."

This is the joy of listening to Tim Pool, half the time you cannot understand what the hell he is talking about and to be fair I don't think he does either. So Trump dodged the question but wait, he didn't actually dodge the question because Trump is Trump. What the hell is going on here?!

02:12: "Now, it's important, because a few months ago Rachel Maddow made the claim that Trump literally wants to kill her."

Hey guys, ignore this flagrantly dictator-y claim from Trump, look at this thing Rachel Maddow said!

Rachel Maddow did say that Trump wants to put MSNBC on trial for treason and "execute us". However if you watch the clip, it's clear that she isn't exactly serious about this claim. She says it in a pretty sarcastic and offhand tone as opposed to the cowering and insane woman that Tim is trying to portray.

Also, it wouldn't be shocking if Trump tried to engage in some form of retribution against NBC, he's threatened it before.

04:30: "This is a fundamental problem in the culture war. The right will interpret and translate for Democrats, stop doing that, use their words. It really is annoying, Joe Biden will come out and go (Tim then says gibberish) and people will be like 'We know what he's saying, he was trying to imply this' and it's like, just use his words."

So, according to Tim, every single time a politician makes a verbal gaff we should just take what they say on face value instead of trying to comprehend what they are saying? How does that make any sense?!

And what's more, Tim literally just brushed off Trump's comments about being a dictator for a day as just "Oh that Trump, getting all excited!". What happened to just taking words at face value? Oh wait, I forgot, the rules don't apply to Tim's team. Silly me!

04:55: "But what we're seeing now is that Taylor Swift doesn't like Donald Trump, or at least that's the assumption. So when she said quote 'if she doesn't win at least I tried' they are like 'Aha she hates Trump' and I'm like that statement implies she's trying to help him win, at least."

A): Why are we talking about Taylor Swift?! This has zero to do with the topic at hand. Focus Tim, focus. You're supposedly a journalist so you should know not to mix up two stories.

B): She wasn't even talking about Donald Trump in that clip! It came from a documentary made in 2020 called Miss Americana and the "he" was the democrat running against Senator Marsha Blackburn, meaning she wanted a Democrat to win in the context of this clip and more importantly wasn't even talking about Trump.

So to recap, god-tier journalist Tim Pool just grabbed a clip off the internet without fact-checking it first and just rolled with it on his show.

06:31: "I gotta be honest, if Sean Hannity said 'Would you abuse power?' Trump can be like 'I'm not going to abuse power because I don't need to. I'm going to instruct my attorney general to immediately seek out criminal charges for the people who have committed crimes'. That's not an abuse of power, that is the appropriate use of power, and that is upholding the law. That's what I'd love to hear."

WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE?! I'm not even pissed, I find this hilarious in a depressing way. Not just because Tim is parroting long debunked election denial conspiracy theories and saying that Trump should throw people he thinks helped steal the election in jail, which is terrifying, but because this is awful from a pure journalistic standpoint.

We went from Tim introducing the topic, to Tim talking about the "culture war", to Tim talking about Taylor Swift, and now Tim is basically ranting about his stupid Donald Trump fanfiction. There is absolutely zero focus. At least with the Daily Wire the hosts can focus on one piece of hateful bile at a time. Oh yeah, and at least the Daily Wire pretends to do competent reporting and use rock solid sources. Tim's sources on the other hand are "I saw this video of Taylor Swift on Twitter!"

08:04: "In what world has anyone ever entertained the possibility that Donald Trump wants to put Rachel Maddow on trial for treason, which implies she's aiding and abetting a foreign adversary at a time of war."

First of all, I obviously think that putting journalists on trial for treason is disgusting and, like I said before, Maddow was being facetious.

But...does Tim not know what treason is? Treason isn't just "aiding and abetting a foreign adversary at a time of war", otherwise American's could betray their country during times of peace and get away with it because it isn't a time of war.

The official definition of treason is; “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

So for instance, leaking documents could be viewed as betraying the country. So could trying to overthrow the government, and Tim would know a lot about that since he likes to run cover for insurrectionists.

So either Tim doesn't know what he's talking about or he's misinterpreted the definition of treason, either one is painful to think about when you remember that people take this guy seriously as a news source.

08:56: "Donald Trump getting elected and going after criminals, liars, manipulators, and the corrupt is exactly what we need."

Ignoring the crimes Donald Trump has personally committed, Trump better start going after his own supporters!

Roger Stone is a pretty good example of a corrupt Trump associate, making false statements to congress and threatening Randy Credico with the removal of his service dog. Or how about George Santos, who's lies were so insane that he ended up recently getting thrown out of Congress.

09:07: "Look man, we have a Constitution-"

And judging by your idea of how treason works, you have read none of it.

09:51: "You see, Rachel Maddow is scared, because she knows she's one of the demons."

In between reading the constitution, Tim might have stumbled across this thing called the "First Amendment" that protects the freedom of the press.

We've gone down this road before. OAN tried to sue Maddow for comments she made about them on her show but the court ruled it was just opinion. Thanks to free speech and the freedom of the press, Rachel Maddow is free to express her opinion in the same way Tim Pool is. He's also allowed to criticize her just like how I am allowed to criticize him.

But Trump throwing her in jail for practicing journalism, that's a bridge too far.

13:13: "There are government actors who are working with media outlets. How many pundits for these cable channels are former intelligence officials or worked in the intelligence sector? A lot of them!"

Yeah, citation needed there buddy. You can't just drop "All left wing pundits used to work for the CIA" and not elaborate any further. And no, Tim doesn't give an example with proof of any pundits previously working in the intelligence sector.

I actually think this tops the Michael Knowles blackface episode for sheer ridiculousness. At least Michael did basic-ass shit like citing your sources when you make a claim and managing to keep track of the topic he was talking about. This episode is unintentionally hilarious. It feels like a parody of Tim Pool instead of the real thing.

Hey guys, remember when this was about the Trump dictator comments? I barely do. I was too blindsided by Tim saying that every anti-Trump pundit secretly works for the CI fucking A!

15:02: "I do believe that Trump lost 2020."

What?! Then what was all that crap about how Rachel Maddow is secretly a CIA Agent who intentionally spread misinfo about Trump and how Trump should go after all the "criminals" who helped take the election away from him? Tim is the most election truther-ish believer that Trump lost in human history.

But fine, I agree, Trump did lose 2020. I will take whatever win I can get here.

Tim then talks about how mail in voting messed up the election, so I guess he does believe the election was stolen. Whatever.

19:33: "Young people even saying they're more likely to vote for Trump now, at least in some polls. We're getting some new polls showing that it's actually going towards Biden, but these are different pollsters so we shall see."

Alright, so young people are inclined to vote for Trump, but actually they aren't. Even as pure right-wing propaganda this sucks. Tim contradicted himself and thus undermined his entire argument that the youth are swinging towards Trump in the span of two sentences.

21:13: "I think one thing we should do is remove party affiliation from ballots."

Wait what?!

I literally had to rewind that to make sure I was hearing that correctly and then promptly burst out laughing when I realized my hearing was correct.

But there's more, Tim tries to back this galaxy brained take up.

21:14: "Explain to me why we put party affiliation on ballots in the first place. Seriously, I mean it, comment, let me know. Because I think if you don't know who you're voting for, you shouldn't vote for them."

Well, since Tim wants an explanation, I'll give it to him.

Parties generally hold a certain set of values that voters identify with. For example; Democrats might push for more gun control whereas Republican's might push for less gun control. By putting party affiliation on ballots, it simplifies the voting process and allows people to vote for a candidate that they know will represent their ideals.

While I agree that people should look into their elected officials instead of just blindly checking the box beside their name, their party affiliation also helps give voters a general idea of what they stand for.

Also, if you took party affiliation off of the ballots, chances are people would just look up which party the candidate represents and vote partisanly anyway.

22:02: "If that was the case, people would actually be voting for who they thought should win and other people would vote randomly. Some might argue that whoevers on top would win because people would just vote for the first person. OK, the ballots can randomly align the names. I think this would result in Republicans winning."

So....people wouldn't be voting for who they think should win, they would vote randomly. But don't worry, that's ok because they can just scatter the names on the ballots and that will somehow lead to Republican's winning forever.

...

WHAT ARE WE-

22:27: "Because Democrat voters don't know anything and it's the ballot harvesting where they're like 'fill this out and vote for this person.' Now they could certainly do that still but a lot of this stuff is vote Democrat, vote Democrat, imagine if they had to refine this message and say 'Vote John Doe, Jane Doe, Jack Doe' in every district.

So essentially Tim's point is that Democrats will vote randomly because they don't know anything but voting Democrat. However I can think of a bunch of people who would be inclined to vote Democrat for really good reasons.

LGBTQ+ people would be inclined to vote Democrat because the Democrats have a more progressive stance on LGBTQ rights. Women who are concerned about their reproductive rights and abortion would be inclined to vote for the Democrats because they are firmly pro-choice. People who are concerned about gun safety would be inclined to vote Democrat because the Democrats want to reduce gun violence.

Also, does Tim want party affiliation to be removed during elections period and then when the person is elected they go "Surprise! Here's my affiliation"? Because it sure sounds like he does.

Even if party affiliation is taken off the ballots, it stands to reason that politicians would still campaign as Democrats instead of focusing it on "voting for Jack Doe" or whatever. And again, that info would still be up on the internet for anyone to find.

This makes absolutely no sense.

23:25: "But, for the time being lets stay focused on whether or not Trump is going to execute Rachel Maddow."

Tim is so insanely lost in the weeds here. The Maddow stuff was a sub-topic of Trump's dictator for a day comments which is supposedly what this segment is about and is also what the episode is titled after.

Make like a Ford and focus!

The segment ends about 30 seconds later, but the Tim Pool Daily Show podcast is an hour and a half of Tim's YouTube videos stitched together into one Frankenstein's monster of a show.

That first segment as we established was pretty damn bad. Tim was all over the place, contradicted himself a couple times, said batshit crazy things like that all left-wing political pundits used to work at the CIA, grabbed random misinformation from Twitter and reported it as news, and got some hilariously stupid takes about the election.

But hey, we've still got an hour left. Maybe Tim Pool was just having a bad day when he made that video, maybe Tim will swoop in and blow me away with his ingenious political takes in the next segment. After all, he is viewed as a valid source of news for the 1.35M people who subscribe to him, surely there must be some merit to what he says...right?

25:08: "When it comes to the issues that we're seeing at Harvard, UPen, and MIT where Elise Stefanik asked these representatives at these universities if calling for the genocide of Jews warranted bullying and harassment."

So, this story is making shockwaves through the right-wing grifter-sphere and all of them are misrepresenting the question, most likely just how Stefanik intended. The question was as follows;

"Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?"

The answer was as follows;

"If targeted at individuals not making public statements."

This is a loaded question. The universities bullying and harassment policies and really the general definition of harassment are that the act must be targeted at a specific person. This isn't about what their opinions are, this is about what the policy says!

Also, while I don't doubt that there have been instances of antisemitism on campus, portraying every single protestor as calling for the genocide of Jews is completely loaded. If Stefanik can give an example of an entire protest group calling for the genocide of Jews, I would love to see it! They are also ignoring that if such a group did exist they would be violating a litany of other rules and policies, just not this specific one that Stefanik has cherrypicked to create outrage.

By the way, considering that Stefanik is a big fan of Donald Trump who has a long history of antisemitism, she has zero right to call anyone else antisemetic.

27:04: "However, the woke left made the argument that they should be allowed to censor anyone and this brings us to the story and what I view as a major strike into the heart of the hypocrisy of wokeness."

First of all, Tim isn't being censored, he just isn't. I have yet to see one of these guy realize the total irony of them going onto their large platforms with millions of viewers and whine about being "censored".

Secondly, does Tim even know what the word "woke" means anymore? It's kind of just became his catch-all term for the political left to the point where it has lost all of it's meaning outside of "Left bad, get angry".

At the end of the day, Tim has boiled the conflict in the Middle East down to another piece of his culture war bullshit, and that's pretty ghoulish behavior.

28:48: "These other universities, they will silence the moderate opinions of, say, conservatives, they will ban people from speaking, they will shut you down and then when it comes to people attacking quite literally someone for being Jewish they will say it's 'context dependent'."

Conservatives really aren't being censored at universities. How about the multiple speaking engagements that Ben Shapiro and Co at the Daily Wire do at universities where they perform speeches and then "destroy" college kids who aren't prepared to handle their rhetoric? Same thing with Turning Point USA.

Also, for the last time, the protestors aren't calling for the death of all Jews.

30:26: "They're fascistic, they believe there's no truth but power, they want to impose their view through authoritarian means."

When Trump says he literally wants to be a dictator it's "Trump being Trump", when students exercise their right to protest "Oh my God, look at how fascist they are." Tim is a complete and utter hypocrite.

Also, might I remind you that Tim pals around with Matt Walsh who is literally a self proclaimed theocratic fascist and an old favorite to debunk here at Talking Points USA.

30:50: "So I read an academic paper about the economics of Nazi Germany and guess what they used to enforce their economic plan; cancel culture. That's it."

The Nazi's blacklisting, killing, and shunning people for not supporting a literal genocide is extremely different from people getting criticism over saying slurs and general bad behavior. Also, again, why are we talking about cancel culture now? Weren't we supposed to be talking about what is going on at universities?

I can't figure out if this is some sort of strategy Tim uses to distract his viewers from how flimsy his points are or if he is just naturally that rambly.

30:56: "What would happen is if you are a steel mill and you wanted to produce steel for cars or something you would get people coming to you like 'Hey man, I heard you aren't helping the war effort' and then they would ostracize you, shun you, and cancel you. Nobody would wanna work with you, nobody would wanna buy your product, you'd be forced to bend the knee and produce and produce the product they wanted you to produce. Kind of like what we see with DEI movies."

So we have producing tanks and producing slightly more inclusive movies. I kind of think that the stakes with one are higher than the other.

I don't see how a film company interpreting a film differently for more modern audiences is such a big deal. The original Snow White cartoon was radically different from the original Grimm Fairytale because THAT audience probably wouldn't want to see cannibalism and a woman dancing in red hot slippers until she died a brutal death. How is changing it now any different?

Tim then plays the MIT bullying and harassment clip. I honestly came so close to forgetting that this was what Tim Pool was talking about. We already talked about this so there's not much need to repeat ourselves. Tim then waxes poetic for two minutes about the nature of free speech, nothing particularly important there, just Tim saying a whole lot of nothing. Then this happens;

41:24: "Most Conservatives and most Liberals would agree on certain things that cross the line into targeting someone with harassment and it's not just calling someone a name, it's typically-well I shouldn't say the left-"

If you think I am misinterpreting that quote, go to the time stamp I provided and hear it for yourself....oops. In case you aren't following along; Tim accidentally admitted that he knows the left knows what crosses the line into harassment then proceeded to backtrack and correct himself on air then proceed to just run with it as if it never happened.

And he doesn't go any further on "well I shouldn't say the left", he just goes on with his sentence! I suppose if you aren't listening to this show critically, which most of Tim Pools fanbase probably isn't because otherwise they would have turned it off during the ballot affiliation nonsense, it is easy to miss. But it is both hilarious and telling if you do catch it.

Considering that Tim's show is mostly YouTube, he could easily cut embarrassing shit like this out and save himself the face of looking like a complete doofus. And yet here we are.

43:08: "I think shining a light on this speech is the most important way to combat it."

If that's the case, I'd like to see the video of the hoards of university students calling for the death to all Jews.

46:46: "I had this conversation with someone recently and I said this, listen. People talk about white privilege, let's talk about white privilege."

I am so exasperated right now. So, Tim's point is essentially that white privilege doesn't exist (which might I add follows up three minutes of him basically saying that he isn't a racist in twelve different ways) and he goes about explaining why this is by telling this anecdote about him telling someone else an anecdote and *sigh*, let's just let Tim explain it.

46:53: "Let's say you go to a job interview and you wanna get a job at a bank and you show up wearing a dago tee and baggy jeans and sneakers and you walk in, you've got a sideways cap and you're like 'Yo whatsup dude. I think I could work your bank pretty good man' (Tim says this in what I think was his attempt at a stereotypical black accent) they're gonna be like 'I don't know if that's the right job for you', right. The people in the banks, they wear suits."

Ok, pause for a minute. What exactly do you think the likelihood is that anyone, minority or otherwise, would wear a dago tee and sneakers to a bank and proceed to say "I think I could work your bank pretty good man" to the manager?! I guarantee you that has never happened once, people are smart enough to know to dress up if you're going to try and apply to work at a bank.

I mean yeah, in this strawman universe Tim has constructed for his audience it would make sense for the bank manager to turn this hypothetical guy down. However what Tim is implying here is that all minorities stroll into job interviews poorly dressed and speak in stereotypical "hood" lingo and that's why the system tends to exclude minorities, if they just learned to act more polished (read; White) they'd be fine!

What Tim is ignoring is that even when minorities do try, the data shows that they still aren't getting ahead compared to whites. Here is a really interesting study about discrimination if you want to read further.

47:49: "It's not about race, it's not about language, it's about 'are you here to work with us? Are you gonna be a good worker? Are you gonna be able to help and cooperate and be part of a team?' Those things matter and culture matters. So when that guy walks in slouching (and) wearing street clothes, it doesn't matter what your race is."

Well, if you look at the numbers it clearly does. For example, the study I mentioned found that African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed as whites.

Tim then switches to his next segment, it's about the border tensions between Venezuela and Guyana. Most of the beginning portion is just Tim reading about what the situation is so we can comfortably skip over that. Tim thinks this will lead to WW3 because if war breaks out and the US gets involved the USA will be involved in three wars. Given all the wars in the middle east America has gotten involved in, by Tim's logic we would have been in WW3 a long time ago.

Warning for this next part: Tim decides to (surprise, surprise) be a massive transphobic bully in this next segment. I you're not comfortable with that, I totally get you, I barely am either. Feel free to click off and I'll see you in the next one!

1:00:03: "Dylan Mulvaney recently spoke at Penn State and nobody showed up."

Absolutely nobody outside of these reactionary media outlets that want to mock Dylan because she is transgender is talking about this because who cares?

A speaker didn't draw a huge crowd, so what? She's still getting paid at the end of the day and it looks like the folks who did come had fun.

Also, it's exam season! I would imagine that part of the reason why there weren't very many people is because most students are studying for or writing finals.

1:00:29: "This is exemplified by Bud Light sales continuing to decline."

We're still talking about this stupid story huh? If you haven't heard of this story, it essentially boils down to Bud Light hiring Dylan Mulvaney to do a promotion and the entire right wing collectively throwing a bigoted tantrum over it because Dylan is trans and boycotting the brand.

Eagle eyed viewers might be thinking to themselves "Wait, didn't Tim decry this exact thing earlier in the episode?" Well, just to refresh everyone's memory, here is exactly what Tim said!

"What would happen is if you are a steel mill and you wanted to produce steel for cars or something you would get people coming to you like 'Hey man, I heard you aren't helping the war effort' and then they would ostracize you, shun you, and cancel you. Nobody would wanna work with you, nobody would wanna buy your product, you'd be forced to bend the knee and produce and produce the product they wanted you to produce"

What Tim claims to hate is exactly what he is doing here. Cancelling a company because they dared to have a transgender person in their ads. And yet apparently it's the woke left ™ who is doing all the cancelling. This story is a great example of how painfully hypocritical guys like Matt Walsh, Tim Pool, and Steven Crowder are. One minute they are all about the free market and how they hate cancel culture but the second a company decides to act more excepting towards a marginalized group that they don't like they become everything they claim to hate, a bunch of whiny snowflakes whining about a commercial that doesn't even effect their lives.

01:01:28: "But I think what we are looking at is a warning to the American people and to parents about what these machines will do."

Oh, heaven forbid we have a transgender person on the internet with a sizeable following. It can't be because of her content, it's got to be the algorithm! Seriously, do these guys just think about trans people 24/7?! I have trans friends who I guarantee you think about trans people less than these guys do.

01:01:50: "What we are looking at with Dylan Mulvaney is the story of an individual desperate for attention and the machine plugged Dylan Mulvaney in, that's it. Then you've got sideshow gawkers, carnival goers, who wanted to egg on an individual who was influenceable and suffering, and that's what they did."

I highly HIGHLY object to Tim's indirect comparison of transgender people to circus freaks. Also, this is obviously not true. I went on Instagram and looked at the comments on her most recent post and most were really positive and supportive.

01:02:24: "I don't believe Dylan Mulvaney is trans, I believe Dylan Mulvaney is getting surgeries that make Dylan Mulvaney fit a cast or a character."

First of all, downplaying somebodies sexuality by saying they are just "playing a character" is a nasty thing to do.

Second of all, what the hell is up with Tim using Dylan's full name all the time? Just say "she", come on, it's not that hard.

Tim then rants about how he has "more influence" than Dylan does and how his events sell out more, just basic immature "I'm bigger than you, nyanyanyanya." shit. Then he drops this gem.

01:07:16: "What if, there actually are no followers? What if the reality is that Dylan Mulvaney is mostly followed by bots and they're not real people?"

So a majority of 10 million people are bots?! She's clearly met a lot of her fans in person, a fair amount of them have posted about meeting her, hell three of my friends who I know in person follow her and one regularly comments. Plus she has a reasonable amount of merch which her fans have posted pictures of them wearing!

Do I sense a twinge of jealousy in Tim regarding followers? "Yeah, I have 9 million less followers than you but guess what?! Your followers are all BOTS while mine are real, ha!"

01:09:00: "We take a look at the average turnaround, or conversion, for a view on other shows compared to ours."

Careful throwing the c-word around Tim. Michael Knowles might accuse you of planting subliminal messages in TimCast to turn people gay.

01:11:21: "AOC makes shocking claim that all schoolgirls will be forced to undergo genital examinations if biological men are barred from woman's sports."

This quote is being taken out of context by Tim Pool and other reactionaries on the right. What actually happened was that she responded to Goss Graves who said "It's terrible, in some states any individual can challenge whether someone is a girl enough to play. In some states, it requires actual genital verification, it's shocking."

AOC responded by saying "Under the guise of not only trying to further marginalize trans women and girls, we are talking about opening up all women and girls to genital examinations when they are underage, potentially just because someone can point to someone and say, ‘I don’t think you’re a girl."

So right out of the gate, this isn't some unprompted thing that came completely out of left field like Tim is saying. AOC was responding to something Graves said.

It's not like what she is saying isn't without merit either. Ohio attempted to advance a trans sports ban with genital examinations, thankfully the genital examinations were later removed (although the bill itself is still transphobic and discriminatory so not too thankfully).

01:12:21: "I would like to introduce Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to something called a physical."

Again, she was responding to what Graves said about genital examinations and pointing out the slippery slope that trans sports bans can lead up to. Physicals weren't a part of the initial conversation, the conversation was about genital examinations.

Also, if it's a trans female who is suspected of being a "biological male", a physical could turn into a genital examination really quickly.

01:14:18: "So there are trans people, children, who are getting their birth certificates changed."

Yes, you can amend your gender to your preferred one on a birth certificate. I don't see how this is a bad thing, unless you're like Tim Pool and don't believe that trans people actually exist (and even if they do they are completely invalid and undeserving of the right to have their sexuality respected).

This is also only tenuously related to the topic at hand which is that out of context AOC quote. I am slowly coming to the realization that Tim's general lack of focus is probably a conscious decision. Blindside your audience by hopping from topic to topic in order to distract them from how completely without merit what you are saying is.

01:17:15: "AOC is claiming that trans people are criminals. That's right, that's what she's saying. She's saying that if we say that males should not be on female sports that the males will lie and cheat anyway."

Or, that more masculine females would be subject to genital investigations because the authorities would suspect them of being transgender. Castor Semenya is a prime example of this.

01:19:51: "Democrats are evil."

Can't get much more hatemonger-ey than calling an entire political affiliation evil just because of some quote on politician said that is being taken out of context. Isn't this guy supposed to be a centrist or something?

Conclusion:

Well, that was...an episode of a podcast. Ignoring allll the other dumb stuff that happened in this podcast, this was some of the most genuinely terrible journalism I have seen ever. From reporting on tweets with blatant misinfo in them to painful lack of focus to some of the dumbest takes I have covered for this blog so far this was one of the most painful yet fascinating things I have covered here.

I am both excited and dreading to cover more Tim Pool but other people and things need our attention first. We'll be dipping our toes into a new soon to be recurring grift-er-character on this blog next.

Until then, if you have any other suggestions for a right wing figure who you would like to see debunked/made fun of on the blog, I'd love to hear it.

Cheers and I'll see you in the next one.

[mariacallous]

To exactly no one’s surprise, Xi Jinping will secure a third term atop the Chinese Communist Party at this week’s 20th Party Congress. Xi’s political triumph—which has been months, if not years, in the making—overturns decades of party precedent that used to limit Chinese leaders to two consecutive five-year terms. But in breaking the rules, Xi has done the United States and its allies a favor by taking the guesswork out of China’s path forward.

The formal extension of Xi’s tenure locks in China’s current policy orientation—one that is unabashedly hostile to political pluralism and free market forces. Indeed, for the last few years, Xi has outlined, often in excruciating detail, his desire not only to deepen the party-state’s influence over China’s economy and 1.4 billion citizens but also to extend that influence far beyond China’s borders. Rarely has a geopolitical rival so unambiguously telegraphed his plans. Yet the Western world remains woefully unprepared for the coming “decisive decade” in its rivalry with China, as U.S. President Joe Biden described it last week.

Policymakers may not realize it yet, but the relative certainty that comes with Xi staying in power is actually a gift in disguise. With his takeover complete, what you see with Xi is what you get, including his proclivity to recycle his own talking points and rehash his familiar vision of China’s future. Indeed, today’s great-power irony is that while Xi appears to have no new ideas to cope with a changing geopolitical landscape and clings to policy prescriptions formulated during the pre-pandemic era, the West appears awash in a whole range of competing ideas to effectively counter China.

That’s why this period of seemingly endless China policy inertia in the West—and the lack of a unifying framework with clearly defined end-states—needs to end and soon.

With the Cold War’s demise, Kremlinology, or the study of Moscow’s inner political workings, largely went out of style. (It has since come back into vogue following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February.) For China watchers, however, this sort of divining of hidden meanings has always been a mainstay, especially following a leadership shake-up. While top-level turnover in the Soviet Union often occurred after a leader’s passing, Chinese transitions have functioned like clockwork for more than a quarter century. What invariably followed each reshuffle were years spent by Western scholars parsing public speeches and essays in party journals in an attempt to uncover each new generation’s governing philosophy—and with it, China’s likely trajectory.

Time spent by Western governments studying each new leadership cohort’s intentions often came at the expense of formulating, revising, and executing their respective China policies. Meanwhile, Chinese leaders made the most of the West’s mystification and used that time to codify their policy agendas, first in private among the party elite and then later and only selectively with outsiders. More importantly, however, Chinese leaders capitalized on these nebulous interludes to take steps aimed at shaping, and in some cases neutralizing, actions by the West and other competitors that could undermine China’s position or revisionist aims.

One need look no further than the last Chinese leadership transition to understand how Western uncertainty about a new leader has benefited Beijing. Back in 2011, during former Chinese leader Hu Jintao’s final months in power, China overtook Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. China’s rapid rise raised serious questions in Western capitals about how Beijing profited from its connectivity to world markets despite stacking the deck against foreign firms seeking to tap into China’s lucrative market. Responsibility for allaying Western concerns (and buying much-needed time) fell to Xi at the start of his first term. That’s why, in a 2013 speech during the party’s Third Plenum, Xi hinted at a significant number of “decisive” economic reforms, including enhancing the role of the market—not the state—in determining the allocation of resources and capital. Xi’s liberalization language was directed at least in part at the outside world, and it went a long way in mollifying the West.

The international response to Xi’s overture, particularly from financial markets still reeling from the global economic crisis, was overwhelmingly positive. Observers hailed Xi as “bold,” with some calling him the second coming of Chinese reformer Deng Xiaoping. The Obama administration went on to champion cooperation with Beijing on “shared regional and global challenges” such as “economic growth” while eschewing serious measures to rein in China’s market abuses. Western companies and capital rushed into China, leading various stakeholders to pressure their governments to avoid confrontation with Beijing. Yet Xi spent the next decade thoroughly and systematically dismantling any hint of liberal economic governance. Instead, he deepened the party’s organizational integration throughout the commercial sector, wielding industry regulation and political control as both a sword and a shield.

The culmination of Xi’s efforts, articulated during this week’s Party Congress, is nothing short of a new ideology-infused economic order, in which the party-state’s ostensible ability to steer economic development and technological modernization is seen as maintaining a distinct systematic advantage over freer markets.

As Xi has consolidated his control over the party and rooted out potential competitors, he has employed this same approach on a range of other issues—but always in ways that benefit Beijing. For instance, Xi’s evolving interest in global governance and standard-setting was initially predicated on China’s ostensible desire to contribute to a “more just and fair” world order. Similarly, Xi’s recently unveiled Global Security Initiative purports that China’s security model represents the world’s best hope to avoid wars and ensure international peace. Such messaging is consistent with Xi’s rhetoric at the Party Congress that the Chinese way offers a “new choice” for humanity.

But unlike in the past, when China’s ambitions appeared at least outwardly ambiguous, it is now abundantly clear that China’s interest in setting and shaping global narratives, values, and norms is not for mankind’s betterment. Rather, Beijing’s growing discourse strategy blatantly seeks to bolster China’s composite national strength and, more importantly, to legitimize the party-state’s power at home and abroad.

What makes Xi’s coronation a gift, then, and what distinguishes this moment from other transitions is that Xi has effectively laid nearly all of his cards on the table, with the single ace still up his sleeve being his Taiwan “reunification” timetable. Regardless of whether Xi assumes the title of party chairman—not used since the Mao Zedong era—this year’s Party Congress makes clear that Xi already has this power in all but name. An ever more entrenched Xi will not risk burning down what he has spent the last 10 years constructing by embracing political liberalization and market reform or even softening China’s general hostility toward the United States. Instead, like most autocrats, Xi intends to double down, with China’s economy and people set to suffer the most from his self-destructive policies.

But whereas Xi and his predecessors previously benefited from an initial post-transition honeymoon, during which they quietly formulated their ambitious agendas, China need not enjoy any such grace period this time around. That is, unless Western capitals continue to spin their wheels on the China challenge.

To be fair, the United States and its allies faced difficulties coming to terms with the Soviet threat, particularly in the immediate aftermath of World War II. The current debate around China—crystallized in the Biden administration’s recently released National Security Strategy—risks an unnecessary repeat. Western leaders and policymakers mistake competition with Beijing for an end, not a means, eschewing the hard work of defining the West’s desired end-states vis-à-vis China. Moreover, Washington’s current approach clings to a fast-fading unipolar period rather than the likelihood of a coming multipolar moment and all of the burden-sharing opportunities that kind of order will bring. Even worse, the White House’s not-so-subtle strategy of pitting countries against one another along democratic or autocratic lines risks alienating like-minded partners that might not be impeccable democracies but that share Washington’s concerns about China’s belligerence and have a vested interest in modernizing—not toppling—the creaking rules-based order.

Policymakers of all political stripes have also spent altogether too much time responding to each and every Chinese provocation rather than prioritizing those issues that matter most to core Western interests. If left unchecked, the West will continue wasting its limited resources on a range of illusory Chinese threats. And, lastly, even on issues such as trade, in which the West has agency to promote a prosperity agenda capable of rivaling China’s geoeconomic clout, too many countries, including the United States, lean instead on protectionism.

Which gets to the other gift that could come with Xi’s third term and the certainty of China’s policy stance: simply that Xi’s unbridled boldness could finally force Western countries to get out of the habit of endlessly studying the China problem and get on with the much harder work of confronting it.

[nonfer]

LIFESTYLE

When it’s St. Patrick’s Day in New Orleans, get ready to catch a cabbage

13TH | FULL FEATURE | Netflix

Netflix 28M subscribers - 14,663,109 views Apr 17, 2020

amultiverse.com/comic/2016/08/15/new-republicans/

amultiverse.com/comic/2019/05/28/turing-incomplete/

vodkaonthelawn/745301863821361152/after-eniac-worlds-first-spelling-and-grammar

amultiverse.com/comic/2019/07/22/magnates-mendicants/

funny how congress never heard of e-ink or doesn't care about schoolbooks? just as tragically ironic to see higher educational institutions, partially funded publicly, claim research or software as 'intellectual' property?

[image below 3/19/24]

let me guess where your bad habit(s) came from. how about bad arguments you made poor decisions regarding. that sound like it?

youtube.com/watch?v=SjefpfNQoZY&t=4138s

destroying legacies by failing to educate or inform isn't good ad copy. providing opportunities for learning would be promotional.

eTextbooks - Online Textbooks - Digital Textbooks | eCampus.com

today in the news? spring break was better in ft. lauderdale because it's always been ft. lauderdale.

"- drinking ages varied state by state; and while some states, like California and Arkansas, maintained a drinking age of 21 from the end of Prohibition onward, Florida maintained a drinking age of 18 until 1987."

Multigrain Rice (Japgokbap) recipe by Maangchi

"Maangchi's Pickled Daikon Radish: A Tangy Twist to Elevate Your Culinary Skills!" - Pickle Anything

Ponytail kimchi (Chonggak-kimchi) recipe by Maangchi

[anthonybialy]

Casual Embargo

I’m not buying that.  Commercial opposition happens as quickly as it does naturally during an era where every purchase seems political.  Reacting to harangues has replaced bagging items as the transaction’s last step.  Democrats got just the economic system they wanted.  You’ll have to seek riches internally.

A boycott sounds a bit too involved.  Will there be meetings?  I’d rather keep pace with the DVR than gather to review who’s presently been red-flagged.  I’ll just not purchase from any storefront whose primary product is gender dysphoria.

Liberals can’t comprehend lots of things, which in this case specifically means personal decisions about procuring stuff.  Like everything else, indignant liberal preeners think empty aisles at social justice-pimping stores are organized artificially.  But the audience is simply responding to incentives, which stands in defiance to one party’s platform.

Appealing to the public now applies to brands who’ve decided they need to flaunt ideologies.  Make a quality commodity available at a fair price and consumers will decide it’s worth the exchange.  By contrast, bottle a beer not fit to serve raccoons endorsed by a dude prancing around while flaunting the lamest stereotypes of women imaginable and wonder why delivery drivers don’t seem as busy.

Condescension takes different forms depending on bank balances.  Americans are officially fed up with a sermon accompanying buying.  Exhausted virtual mall walkers who look at stupid junk a company puts on exhibition and just decide they will keep credit cards holstered have made a loudly quiet statement.  Notice what isn’t being bought.

An organic process frightens control freaks who demand political oversight over every transaction for peace of mind.  You wouldn’t understand what good insurance includes, so economic wizard Joe Biden will select a caring plan on your behalf.

Present examples could be taught in business classes.  Bud Light says it’s a real beer, and I believe that as much as I do that its most prominent spokesperson switched sides.  The frat swill’s value remains diluted to the point that you’d think they had brewed it.

Meanwhile, Target just can’t stop stocking merchandise that guilt those looking for throwback t-shirts into tolerance. A display that’s designed to hector and not hawk leads to fewer dollars per customer than anticipated.

Your Doritos dealer wants to shame you for believing gender is predetermined.  Companies never realize that they could sit out divisive culture wars initiated by lunatics who oppose the one we presently have.  This particular battle can be waged by not fighting back.

Ignoring tantrums is the most peaceful path too victory.  Curiously self-righteous dry goods purveyors simply must share opinions about how the Supreme Court voted.  Making it slightly harder to kill babies outraged some vendors to the point they alienated those in opposition.  Enterprises that should welcome money from anyone instead ask that you take what keeps them afloat elsewhere.

Opponents of political lectures to those pushing shopping carts emphasize knowing your audience.  But avoiding forcing baffling notions should be universal.  Your business’s new fans won’t be expressing their fondness with acquisitions.  As with pretending an invasive government causing harm actually helps, the support is symbolic.  Leftists believe in patronizing of a different kind.

Entrepreneurial entities haven’t been harmed enough.  Ridiculous wages to stack shelves with costly goods that aren’t even available was just the start.  Chronic protesters never create anything worth advertising themselves.  Trying to shut even more storefronts is how Democrats finish the job.

The nastiness of organized assaults on particular commerce stands in contrast to getting socks somewhere other than the gender-bending swimsuit peddlers.   Blacklist hobbyists engage in perpetual maneuvers against Chick-fil-A for the crime of being Christian.  Picket any family member who attends regular church services while you’re at it.  Not splashing a rainbow over a logo through June is the woke religion’s unforgivable sin.  It takes quite a bit of vitriol to oppose alleged hate.  Giggling during the sermon will get you damned.

Simply resisting unscientific pernicious frenzies is labeled an act of defiance.  But we were just shopping.  Liberals hate open bartering because people decide what and what not to buy.  You’re not being guided by a carefully-elected professional, and such unhinged chaos leads to angry right-wingers driving past places that sell creepy reflections of grotesque adult delusions to kids.

Retailers are not obligated to offer anyone anything, which is the most offensive idea of all to leftists.  Your subversive autonomy prevents humanity from enjoying unity through very optional forced compliance.  Pesky dissent means a conglomerate could go the entire month without sharing a rainbow.  The worst blasphemy possible is permitted because of some amendment.  Legalities prevent us from all being eternally blissful through undisputed tolerance.

You can’t have your brats read anything different than what older whippersnappers once did, you book-burning censor.  Changing one’s mind about a reading list equals incineration.  Alleged bans are simply editorial discretion.  Deciding a different title may be more appropriate for a certain grade is the free market in action, and schools want to avoid teaching their charges to think for themselves.  Government is supposed to be the only option, which is the whole furtive point of public education.

Smirking about the right to not buy something is the only response from those who actually loathe the process.  The only time fans of the Cold War’s wrong side are interested in voluntary trade is when they can exploit it.  Such inherent selfishness explains why control freaks are so distrustful.  Possessing no useful skills to create something in return will drive the affected to compensate by dragging down others.

Everyone’s presently confused about how buying works on account of how there are so few examples on shelves paired with the de facto worthlessness of the paper slips used to obtain them.  But conglomerates should still know better.

Equating buying things with sanctimonious social media replies will not increase sales.  Swapping currency for woke approval better help the balance, as appeasing people with no earning power who’d never shop there fails to enhance profitability.  Leftist advocacy will never go far enough for anti-consumers who don’t believe in the process at all.  No longer carrying parachute pants is just one way to dodge playing along with cultural fads.

[college-girl199328]

The senator's health remains under scrutiny as he continues his treatment in the hospital, and there are serious questions about what Democrats might do if the senator chooses to resign.

Fetterman's team has made no indication that he will resign, and Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro has said there is no "contingency plan" if he does resign.

Shapiro would be tasked with selecting someone to fill Fetterman's seat in the event, but there would then have to be a special election in 2024. That would take place at the same time as Democratic Senator Bob Casey is seeking reelection—and during the presidential election, where Pennsylvania is a crucial swing state.

Political experts who spoke to Newsweek suggested that a Fetterman resignation could be an opportunity for Democrats to put questions about the senator's health behind them, but it could also carry significant risks.

Fetterman's health problems have been the subject of intense scrutiny since he suffered a stroke in May 2022, and they have only grown since the Democrat checked himself into the hospital in February.

If Fetterman chooses to resign from the Senate, it would be a "headache" for the party, according to Mark Shanahan, an associate professor at the University of Surrey, in the U.K., and co-editor of The Trump Presidency: From Campaign Trail to World Stage.

"But it could also offer an opportunity," Shanahan told Newsweek. "Governor Shapiro will be able to appoint a replacement for Fetterman in the short term, but that person will face a special election in 2024—a date when the other Pennsylvania Senate seat comes up for election and the state will be pivotal in the Democrats' defence of the Senate."

Robert Singh, a professor of politics at Birkbeck, University of London, U.K., told Newsweek that "in one sense" it would be "preferable for the party to try to get a more conventional and reliable official who is actually serving in the Senate and has the chance to consolidate the Democrats' appeal."

"In another, it would open the seat up for a new election in 2024, alongside the other Pennsylvania Democratic senator, Bob Casey, which could prove problematic in a presidential election year with the increased turnout. In some sense, there are no good options," Singh added.

Next year is a presidential election year, and President Joe Biden has said his intention is to run again, though he has not formally announced a campaign. Democrats may not welcome another election in Pennsylvania if it can be avoided.

Shanahan noted that Democrats will "be looking to hold the White House and win back the House of Representatives, so another election in a state the GOP could quite conceivably win is a high risk."

"But it's an opportunity too to reset the playing field and move on from the contentious Fetterman candidacy," Shanahan went on. "John Fetterman was the first Democrat from western Pennsylvania to reach the Senate since 1940—ideally, the Democrats would like to find his successor in the same region."

Thomas Gift is the founding director of University College London's Center on U.S. Politics, and his home state is Pennsylvania. He told Newsweek that it's "hard to see how Fetterman's resignation has a clear political upside for Democrats."

"It would put the issue to bed; yes, an open seat in two years—rather than six—is reason enough for Democrats to hope Fetterman can hold on," Gift said.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has said "it is 100 percent Senator Fetterman's decision as to what he will do in the future," but the governor would be the person who has to choose a successor if Fetterman steps aside.

Gift told Newsweek that Shapiro "might be able to install a party loyalist into Fetterman's seat now." But even if Democrats can hold the seat in a special election in two years—hardly a foregone conclusion—that new senator would almost certainly be more moderate than "far-left Fetterman."

"Consider, for example, a likely replacement like former U.S. Representative Conor Lamb," Gift suggested. "He has broad appeal in Pennsylvania. Yet he couldn't make it through the Democratic primaries' last go-round because he was too middle-of-the-road."

Gift said that compared to Fetterman, "an independently minded replacement could pose headaches for party leadership."

Shanahan noted that "there's a growing clamour for Pennsylvania to elect a female senator."

"Combine meeting those needs with trailing the west of the state, and the field is pretty small, very inexperienced, and has virtually no national exposure," he said.

Shanahan said, "This could move the Democrats on from an unhappy Senate campaign and outcome and offer something—and someone—new to pair up with senior Senator Bob Casey."

"Whatever happens, Pennsylvania is likely to be an absolutely crucial state for the 2024 congressional and presidential elections," he said.

Newsweek has reached out to Fetterman and Shapiro's offices about the possibility of resignation.

[ausetkmt]

Alabama gets $52M more to fight PFAS contamination in drinking water

EPA Administrator Michael Regan in Lowndes County, Ala. in 2022. Regan and the EPA announced $52.6 million in additional funding for Alabama to address PFAS contamination in drinking water on Feb. 13, 2023.Dennis Pillion

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced this week that it is dedicating an additional $52.6 million in funding to address removing chemical contaminants from drinking water in Alabama.

The funding will be distributed to local water systems across the state to help install special filters to remove the chemicals and to fund testing for PFAS — a class of man-made chemicals now widely found in bodies of water across the country. PFAS chemicals have been linked to serious health problems including cancer after long-term exposure.

Funding for the program comes from the federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted in 2021.

“I am thrilled that the Environmental Protection Agency is providing over $52 million to Alabama communities to expand access to clean water in our rural and underserved communities,” U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell said in a news release. “I was proud to vote for President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law because grant programs like this will make a world of difference in the lives of Alabamians.

“Every American deserves access to safe and clean water, and this investment is a transformative step forward.”

PFAS chemicals have been used in a wide variety of consumer products since the 1950s, creating non-stick surfaces on cookware and stain-resistant or waterproof coatings on fabrics. These chemicals by design do not break down easily in the environment and persist for long periods of time in water. As such, they are now found in nearly every body of water on the planet, and almost all people sampled have some level of these chemicals in their bloodstream.

However, research has shown that even low-level exposure to these chemicals over a person’s lifetime — mainly through drinking water or by eating fish from contaminated waters — is associated with higher risks of certain health conditions, including some cancers.

“Too many American communities, especially those that are small, rural, or underserved, are suffering from exposure to PFAS and other harmful contaminants in their drinking water,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a news release. “Thanks to President Biden’s leadership, we are investing in America and providing unprecedented resources to strengthen our nation’s water infrastructure while safeguarding people’s health and boosting local economies. These grants build on EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap and will help protect our smallest and most vulnerable communities from these persistent and dangerous chemicals.”

The EPA announced additional funding this week in a number of states through a program called “Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities.”

Drinking water systems across the state will be able to apply for grants to install additional treatment options to remove PFAS or to conduct additional testing for PFAS contaminants. Those grants will be administered by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.

The funding is in addition to $463 million awarded through ADEM last year for projects to improve drinking water and wastewater projects across the state.

“This is more good news for Alabama as we continue to work to upgrade our water infrastructure,” ADEM Director Lance LeFleur said in a news release. “We are grateful to the EPA for recognizing the needs in Alabama, especially in some of our under-resourced communities, and for allocating this significant funding to meet those needs. Alabama is actually receiving more money than some of our sister states with larger populations.”

[reasonsforhope]

"In cities across the country, people of color, many of them low income, live in neighborhoods criss-crossed by major thoroughfares and highways.

The housing there is often cheaper — it’s not considered particularly desirable to wake up amid traffic fumes and fall asleep to the rumble of vehicles over asphalt.

But the price of living there is steep: Exhaust from all those cars and trucks leads to higher rates of childhood asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and pulmonary ailments. Many people die younger than they otherwise would have, and the medical costs and time lost to illness contributes to their poverty.

Imagine if none of those cars and trucks emitted any fumes at all, running instead on an electric charge. That would make a staggering difference in the trajectory, quality, and length of millions of lives, particularly those of young people growing up near freeways and other sources of air pollution, according to a study from the American Lung Association.

The study, released [February 28, 2024], found that a widespread transition to EVs could avoid nearly 3 million asthma attacks and hundreds of infant deaths, in addition to millions of lower and upper respiratory ailments...

Prior research by the American Lung Association found that 120 million people in the U.S. breathe unhealthy air daily, and 72 million live near a major trucking route — though, Barret added, there’s no safe threshold for air pollution. It affects everyone.

Bipartisan efforts to strengthen clean air standards have already made a difference across the country. In California, which, under the Clean Air Act, can set state rules stronger than national standards, 100 percent of new cars sold there must be zero emission by 2035.

[Note: The article doesn't explain this, but that is actually a much bigger deal than just California. Basically, due to historically extra terrible pollution, California is the only state that's allowed to allowed to set stronger emissions rules than the US government sets. However, one of the rules in the Clean Air Act is that any other state can choose to follow California's standards instead of the US government's. And California by itself is the world's fifth largest economy - ahead of all but four countries. So, between those two things, when California sets stricter standards for cars, they effects ripple outward massively, far beyond the state's borders.]

Truck manufacturers are, according to the state’s Air Resources Board, already exceeding anticipated zero-emissions truck sales, putting them two years ahead of schedule...

Other states have begun to take action, too, often reaching across partisan lines to do so. Maryland, Colorado, New Mexico, and Rhode Island adopted zero-emissions standards as of the end of 2023.

The Biden administration is taking similar steps, though it has slowed its progress after automakers and United Auto Workers pressured the administration to relax some of its more stringent EV transition requirements.

While Barret finds efforts to support the electrification of passenger vehicles exciting, he said the greatest culprits are diesel trucks. “These are 5 to 10 percent of the vehicles on the road, but they’re generating the majority of smog-forming emissions of ozone and nitrogen,” Barret said...

Lately, there’s been significant progress on truck decarbonization. The Biden administration has made promises to ensure that 30 percent of all big rigs sold are electric by 2030...

Such measures, combined with an increase in public EV charging stations, vehicle tax credits, and other incentives, could change American highways, not to mention health, for good."

-via GoodGoodGood, February 28, 2024

[xtruss]

Analysis: Biden’s Half-Hearted Policy Towards Southeast Asia

Washington has stepped up its game in the region but is constrained by its unwillingness to do trade deals.

— By Derek Grossman | January 10, 2023 | Foreign Policy

Indonesian President Joko Widodo and U.S. President Joe Biden greet at the G-20 summit in Bali, Indonesia on Nov. 16, 2022. Dita Alangkara/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Even though Southeast Asia is a strategic region in the emerging U.S.-China standoff, the Biden administration’s policy toward it in 2021 left much to be desired. During its first year in office, the Biden team lacked a strategy for the region, was short on ambassadors, and paid little attention to cultivating top-level ties. But in 2022, the administration stepped up its game in the region by showing up in person, clarifying its approach in key strategy documents, and boosting cooperation through initiatives such as the elevated Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). But heavy lifting remains: The administration still has no viable economic strategy, its emphasis on containing China threatens to alienate key countries in the region, and prioritizing a values-based foreign policy is a non-starter in a region of mostly authoritarian and semi-authoritarian states.

One crucial improvement in 2022 was that the administration made a point of actually showing up. Especially after two years of only virtual engagement due to the pandemic, high-level, face-to-face meetings are a prerequisite for success on issues and policies. Last November, U.S. President Joe Biden personally attended three critical multilaterals: the U.S.-ASEAN and East Asia summits in Cambodia, as well as the G-20 summit in Indonesia. Although Biden did not participate in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Thailand—he was at his granddaughter’s wedding at the White House instead—he sent Vice President Kamala Harris to attend in his stead. Other high-level visits included U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s trips to Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines; Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s travels to Cambodia, Indonesia, and Singapore; and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s visit to Laos, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

But showing up in Southeast Asia was not the only way the administration stepped up its engagement. In May, Biden hosted a historic U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit at the White House, bringing together nearly all ASEAN leaders. (Myanmar’s junta leader was not invited, and then-Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte did not attend due to his country’s impending presidential election.) Although the outcome was thin on actual policy deliverables, the summit was a signal that the United States still wields significant influence, despite China’s growing political, economic, and military clout in the region.

The Biden administration in 2022 also released key strategy documents that clarified its approach to Southeast Asia. Most importantly, the new U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy consciously steered the conversation away from competition with China—a topic that tends to make Southeast Asian countries uncomfortable. Instead, the strategy focuses on building bilateral cooperation to “strengthen health security, address maritime challenges, increase connectivity, and deepen people-to-people ties.” These are some of the most pressing issues for Southeast Asians—and where the United States can deliver more than China.One obvious problem that remains is that the administration still has no real economic strategy to counter China in the region.

Another essential document, the Biden administration’s National Security Strategy, was released in October and served as an update to the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance from March 2021. In the new strategy, the Biden team notes that it is “deepening our five regional treaty alliances and closest partnerships.” This was a good revision. The interim guidance specifically called out Vietnam and Singapore as close partners of the United States; even if that is true to some extent, emphasizing it in the context of a public U.S. strategy made them unnecessarily uncomfortable in their relationships with China. The callout also seemed to sideline others, particularly the Philippines and Thailand, which are both U.S. treaty allies. In the new strategy, the White House says it seeks “deeper bonds with Southeast Asian partners,” affirms “the centrality of ASEAN,” and pledges to “expand our regional diplomatic, development, and economic engagement, with a particular focus on Southeast Asia.” Separately, the administration’s new National Defense Strategy states that Washington “will invigorate multilateral approaches to security challenges in the region, to include by promoting the role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in addressing regional security issues.”

As much as they please Southeast Asian ears, words only go so far. Deeds matter more. One concrete deed is the Biden administration’s promotion of its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF), a policy that pledges to cooperate with a number of countries on advancing sustainable, competitive, and fair economic growth. Of course, IPEF is also designed to counter China’s growing economic influence in the region. Unveiled in May, the Biden team was able to get seven out of the 10 ASEAN countries to sign up. Cambodia and Laos were not invited, probably because the Biden team already believes they are Chinese client states, and neither was Myanmar following the coup there in February 2021.

IPEF is much less ambitious than the multilateral Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-country trade and investment deal including four Southeast Asian states (Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam), from which then-President Donald Trump withdrew in 2017. But IPEF at least carries some promise of U.S.-led economic collaboration with Southeast Asia. And getting seven out of 10 ASEAN members to sign up is no small feat. The main criticism, however, is that IPEF is simply an agreement to negotiate and not an agreement itself. IPEF provides no additional trade access to the United States, which is what Southeast Asian countries want, and there are no prospects for Washington to get back into the TPP (which has since been renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership), likely over doubts about getting a new trade deal through the U.S. Congress and Biden’s desire for stronger protection of American workers.

Another important deed occurred during Biden’s attendance at the U.S.-ASEAN Summit last November. Biden and ASEAN leaders agreed to elevate their cooperation to the level of a so-called comprehensive strategic partnership, a U.S. diplomatic phrase that translates into deeper cooperation on foreign affairs, economics, defense, health, transportation, women’s empowerment, environment, climate, energy, and other areas. The Biden administration’s ability to get this done not only has substantial policy implications but also counters China’s achievement in 2021 of launching its own similar partnership with ASEAN.

Finally, the Biden administration’s ambassadorial nominees to the region have all been confirmed by the Senate. Washington now fields ambassadorial-level representation to every ASEAN state. This is an impressive feat, particularly considering that Biden had only a few confirmed ambassadors at the end of 2021—and that many of his nominees to other geostrategically important countries, most notably India and Saudi Arabia, remain stuck in the confirmation process. Furthermore, after five years of operating with only a chargé d’affaires, the Biden administration reelevated its engagement with ASEAN headquarters by getting a new ambassador to the bloc confirmed last August.

All told, the balance at the Biden administration’s two-year mark looks significantly better than this time last year. One obvious problem that remains is that the administration still has no real economic strategy to counter China in the region. The vague objectives of IPEF simply cannot match the TPP’s heft as an actual trade agreement. What Southeast Asian countries really want from Washington is additional market access to the United States, and that is a political non-starter for the Biden administration. Meanwhile, China in 2022 began participating in the ASEAN-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), along with U.S. partners such as Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. Trade within RCEP accounts for approximately one-third of global GDP—and the United States is on the outside looking in.

Additionally, at the bilateral level, Beijing continues to become the most important economic partner for virtually every country in Southeast Asia—including U.S. treaty allies.

This is particularly true when it comes to Beijing’s global investment and infrastructure program, known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and the enormous benefits it provides to developing countries in Southeast Asia. Every ASEAN member is also a BRI participant. In 2022, the Biden administration had few good answers to these competitive economic challenges. One notable exception might be the G-7’s new Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. Funded at $600 billion and a clear counter to BRI, the program will offer infrastructure projects throughout the developing world while emphasizing transparency, sustainability, and democratically driven forms of engagement.

It’s no secret that Southeast Asia is increasingly uncomfortable with U.S.-China competition and how it might impact the region’s security and stability. For many, if not most, governments in Southeast Asia, the Biden administration has fanned the flames of competition by resurrecting the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, which partners the United States with Australia, India, and Japan. ASEAN members probably wonder how they are supposed to remain “central” to the region when the Quad is working independently to push back against China to ensure a “free and open” Indo-Pacific. Similarly, the Biden administration’s announcement, in September 2021, of the Australia-United Kingdom-United States security pact, known as AUKUS, rattled nerves among some ASEAN members. Indonesia and Malaysia, for example, worry about a new arms race, and Jakarta has openly questioned whether AUKUS violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty because it authorizes Washington to assist Canberra with nuclear-powered submarines. Despite what the administration has pledged to Southeast Asia, it is clear from Washington’s actions that bolstering security remains the top priority.

Yet another significant challenge for the Biden administration is how to square its values-based foreign policy with the difficult reality of Southeast Asia, where authoritarian or semi-authoritarian states predominate. It was quite embarrassing, for example, when the Biden administration hosted its Summit for Democracy in December 2021 and could only invite the three democracies in the region—Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines—to attend. In March, when the Biden administration hosts the second such summit, another round of discomfort is likely to follow, unless or until the Biden administration recognizes the limitations of its values-based approach.

Overall, however, the Biden administration had a much improved 2022, and progress is likely to continue this year. As long as U.S.-China competition does not boil over, Southeast Asian states will feel comfortable deepening their ties with Washington. To elevate its game further, however, the Biden administration needs a viable economic strategy that includes Southeast Asia. Without this, Washington will have a much tougher time keeping Beijing in check.

— Derek Grossman is a Senior Defense analyst at the Rand Corporation, an Adjunct Professor at the University of Southern California, and a former daily intelligence briefer to the U.S. assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs.

[arpov-blog-blog]

Most people are blaming Joe Biden for conditions setup by Republicans and DJT. Folks say the withdrawal from Afghanistan was sloppy, but actually DJT set the original withdrawal date and also made a deal to free Taliban leaders from a Pakistan prison a year before. By the time Biden Administration began the withdrawal, The Taliban had already taken over all but Kabul.

People complain about gas prices and inflation, they ignore that the crisis in global not just in the US. Inflation was created by countries that like China that manufacture a significant portion of the world's product. They ignored worker protections during the pandemic and now they don't have enough workers to meet the world demand for products. That is part of the 'Supply Chain' crisis. That crisis drives up prices.

Gas prices are driven by the increase in the price per barrel for oil. Those prices currently driven by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Oh yeah, it turns out a substantial part of the word depends on the farmers of Ukraine to provide essential grains for food. Guest what country is now stealing the grain? I would remind you that DJT all but rolled over for Putin to rub his tummy. If he were President today, NATO would not be in position to assist Ukraine in fighting for off the Russians.

In the meantime major American companies are reporting record high profits, and you're asking why isn't Biden doing anything? Where were you folks when the discussion of the powers of the President were compared to the powers of King were taught in school? Where were you when Conservatives were reminding former President Obama that he wasn't a King?

Biden is the right President to clean up the mess left by DJT and Republicans, you folks just have to get out and vote smart to increase the number of Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives. They need to add three to four seats to the 50 they hold so that people like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema can't stall the agenda for more progressive and fair policy making, and the US Government can tax those businesses profiting off of the pandemic, oil prices, and price gouging..."The Joe Biden who ran in 2020 appeared wiser, sadder, somewhat deflated, and seemed to be taking on the presidency as a public service and a burden. Time and tragedy had tempered Biden, and I liked him even more than I did in his flashier, Jason Sudeikis–like youth. These days, I think he’s done a pretty good job, especially given the fact that he’s dealing with a pandemic, revelations about an attempted American coup d’état, and an economic slowdown over which he had no control.

Oh, and by the way: He’s also managed (so far) to head off World War III and a possible nuclear conflict. We seem to forget that this is Job One for every American president, but while we’re griping about the gas prices (over which Biden also has no control), the Russians are replaying the Eastern Front against 40 million Ukrainians and also threatening NATO. It’s been reassuring to have a steady hand in charge of our foreign policy.

So why can’t the president catch a break? The public blames him for almost everything, and his approval ratings are cratering. What’s going on here?

Forget about the Republicans; controlled by their wackiest members (I would say “the fringe,” but they are now “the base”), they have fallen into a vortex of nihilism and desperation. They’re almost a lock to win the House in 2022, but they’re not sure why they want it, other than to protect themselves both from having to live among their own constituents and the slow but steady approach of justice for GOP involvement in January 6.

One might have hoped, however—and by one, I mean “me”—that the Democrats would hold their fire and stop their whispering about what happens if Biden steps down, or even dies. And if Biden does hold on—well, there are some prominent young Democrats who haven’t decided if they’re going to support him. (And by young Democrats, I mean “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.”)

My suspicion is that the full weight of our foreign and domestic crises has not broken through the self-absorption and solipsism of not only our political parties but the American public. We are just not capable of understanding that at home, we are inches away from the meltdown of our constitutional system of government, and abroad, we are one errant cruise missile away from a nuclear crisis.

But this is all the president’s fault because Joe Biden is old and talks like … well, like Joe Biden.

This is part of a more general problem in American politics: We have come to regard the presidency as a temporary appointment to Superman, and the White House as a gleaming Fortress of Solitude full of potential miracles. In doing so, we let ourselves off the hook for any responsibility either for our own actions as voters, or for any requirement to face our problems together with resilience and understanding."

[antoine-roquentin]

it’s nice that FAIR published this right before the announcement of the us withdrawal from afghanistan, which will inevitably cause a cavalcade of “think of the women” pieces from neocon cutouts in the us press:

The vast majority of the world was against the US attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks in 2001. However, the idea had overwhelming support from the US public, including from Democrats. In fact, when Gallup (Brookings, 1/9/20) asked about the occupation in 2019, there was slightly more support for maintaining troops there among Democrats than Republicans—38% vs. 34%—and slightly less support for withdrawing troops (21% vs. 23%).

Media coverage can partially explain this phenomenon, convincing some and at the least providing cover for those in power. This was not a war of aggression, they insisted. They were not simply there to capture Osama bin Laden (whom the Taliban actually offered to hand over); this was a fight to bring freedom to the oppressed women of the country. As First Lady Laura Bush said:

We respect our mothers, our sisters and daughters. Fighting brutality against women and children is not the expression of a specific culture; it is the acceptance of our common humanity—a commitment shared by people of goodwill on every continent…. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women.

Wars are not fought to liberate women (FAIR.org, 7/26/17), and bombing people is never a feminist activity (FAIR.org, 6/28/20). But the New York Times was among the chief architects in constructing the belief in a phantom feminist war. Within weeks of the invasion (12/2/01), it reported on the “joyful return” of women to college campuses, profiling one student who

strode up the steps tentatively at first, her body covered from face to foot by blue cotton. As she neared the door, she flipped the cloth back over her head, revealing round cheeks, dark ringlets of hair and the searching brown eyes of a student.

The over-the-top symbolism was hard to miss: This was a country changed, and all thanks to the invasion.

Time magazine also played heavily on this angle. Six weeks after the invasion (11/26/01), it told readers that “the greatest pageant of mass liberation since the fight for suffrage” was occurring, as “female faces, shy and bright, emerged from the dark cellars,” casting off their veils and symbolically stomping on them. If the implication was not clear enough, it directly told readers “the sight of jubilation was a holiday gift, a reminder of reasons the war was worth fighting beyond those of basic self-defense.”

“How much better will their lives be now?” Time (12/3/01) asked. Not much better, as it turned out.

A few days later, Time‘s cover (12/3/01) featured a portrait of a blonde, light-skinned Afghan woman, with the words, “Lifting the Veil. The shocking story of how the Taliban brutalized the women of Afghanistan. How much better will their lives be now?”

This was representative of a much wider phenomenon. A study by Carol Stabile and Deepa Kumar published in Media, Culture & Society (9/1/05) found that, in 1999, there were 29 US newspaper articles and 37 broadcast TV reports about women’s rights in Afghanistan. Between 2000 and September 11, 2001, those figures were 15 and 33, respectively. However, in the 16 weeks between September 12 and January 1, 2002, Americans were inundated with stories on the subject, with 93 newspaper articles and 628 TV reports on the subject. Once the real objectives of the war were secure, those figures fell off a cliff.

Antiwar messages were largely absent from corporate news coverage. Indeed, as FAIR founder Jeff Cohen noted in his book Cable News Confidential, CNN executives instructed their staff to constantly counter any images of civilian casualties with pro-war messages, even if “it may start sounding rote.” This sort of coverage helped to push 75% of Democratic voters into supporting the ground war.

As reality set in, it became increasingly difficult to pretend women’s rights in Afghanistan were seriously improving. Women still face the same problems as they did before. As a female Afghan member of parliament told Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies (CounterSpin, 2/17/21), women in Afghanistan have three principal enemies:

One is the Taliban. Two is this group of warlords, disguised as a government, that the US supports. And the third is the US occupation…. If you in the West could get the US occupation out, we’d only have two.

However, Time managed to find a way to tug on the heartstrings of left-leaning audiences to support continued occupation. Featuring a shocking image of an 18-year-old local woman who had her ear and nose cut off, a 2010 cover story (8/9/10) asked readers to wonder “what happens if we leave Afghanistan,” the clear implication being the US must stay to prevent further brutality—despite the fact that the woman’s mutilation occurred after eight years of US occupation (Extra!, 10/10).

Vox (3/4/21) asserted that the US occupation of Afghanistan has meant “better rights for women and children” without offering evidence that that is the case.

The trick is still being used to this day. In March, Vox (3/4/21) credulously reported that Joint Chiefs of Staff chair Gen. Mark Milley made an emotional plea to Biden that he must stay in Afghanistan, otherwise women’s rights “will go back to the Stone Age.” It’s so good to know the upper echelons of the military industrial complex are filled with such passionate feminists.

In reality, nearly 20 years of occupation has only led to a situation where zero percent of Afghans considered themselves to be “thriving” while 85% are “suffering,” according to a Gallup poll. Only one in three girls goes to school, let alone university.

And all of this ignores the fact that the US supported radical Islamist groups and their takeover of the country in the first place, a move that drastically reduced women’s rights. Pre-Taliban, half of university students were women, as were 40% of the country’s doctors, 70% of its teachers and 30% of its civil servants—reflecting the reforms of the Soviet-backed government that the US dedicated massive resources to destroying.

Today, in half of the country’s provinces, fewer than 20% of teachers are female (and in many, fewer than 10% are). Only 37% of adolescent girls can read (compared to 66% of boys). Meanwhile, being a female gynecologist is now considered “one of the most dangerous jobs in the world” (New Statesman, 9/24/14). So much for a new golden age.

The “think of the women” trope is far from unique to Afghanistan. In fact, 19th century British imperial propagandists used the plight of Hindu women in India and Muslim women in Egypt as a pretext to invade and conquer those countries. The tactic’s longevity is perhaps testament to its effectiveness.

[theinvisibledreamergirl]

Sweet dreams, TN

Pairing: Ethan Ramsey x F!MC (Helena Craig) x M!OC (Clay Banner)

Words count: ~2.1k

Category: Smut/Angst/AU

Warning: 🔞 content/Language

A.N: I really wanted to picture something else. What if my MC didn’t get her place at Edenbrook Hospital in her first year and her boyfriend did? And what happens if she comes as a surgical resident in the 2nd year? Also I’ve decided that in this fic I’ll call MC in her middle name Helena or shortened Helen/Ellie. It’s the alter-ego of Klaw so it has nothing to do with her. After posting this I’ll log off from Tumblr ‘cause I know it’s a disaster😭😭😭😭

Song: “Sweet dreams, TN” - The Last Shadow Puppets (pls hear this first to understand it better ❤️)

MASTERLIST

———————————————

I just sort of always feel sick without you baby

I ain’t got anything to lick without you baby

Nothing seems to stick without you baby

Ain’t I fallen in love

“Do you have the keys for the handcuffs?”

“Whoa. Is someone getting a little afraid hm?”

“Well I don’t want to be useless without my hands. So I can touch you.”

“I do have the keys darling.” The two faces were closer breathing into each other’s air. “But I need you to be quiet now.”

“Show me then.”

It’s just the pits without you baby

It’s really just the pits without you baby

It’s like everyone’s a dick without you baby

Ain’t I fallen in love

The command was clear and both of them entered to the inevitable path.

Feeling each other’s skins in the most obscenely way and falling to that wild imagination that both of them had been restraining for a long time.

It was a heavenly and a desirably emotion that led themselves to be part of this trap.

They could hear their accelerated heartbeats as more and more they looked hungrily and darkly like animals fighting for domination.

Blue vs Brown.

“I missed you.”

“I missed you too.”

And all my pals will tell me is that I’m crazy

You bet I’m loopy alright

And I just don’t recognise this fool

That you have made me

Whoa I ain’t seen him for a while

Panting breath wasn’t in their expectations and shared a laugh before they reached the culmination and he unlocked her handcuffs to fall completely in his arms.

Their strong embrace fitted perfectly the curves of their bodies despite their sweat. When he was about to pull off she pouted in a whisper.

“No. Stay.”

“I will.” He promised with a searing kiss.

“But you did left me.” Her expression changed completely and in a mere of seconds she wasn’t there.

He blinked. “What?”

The sound of the alarm woke him up and suddenly he felt his underwear soaked.

“Holy shit I did this again!” He growled in frustration as he rubbed his face.

He made attempts to get up but his knees were too weak to keep his balance. Another attempt and he slowly started to walk. Or better a crawling you may call it.

He turned on his bathtub to make a quick shower and to clear this mess of himself. But the hot water made him feel again those goosebumps of that sweet dream and closed his eyes again.

She looped his arms around his waist and start to kiss his shoulders slowly and gently while moving her hands up and down his bellybutton. He let a content sigh while drifting again to that imaginary scene.

And as your shrinking figure blows a kiss

I catch and smash it on my lips

Darling I can’t seem to quit.

When there wasn’t a shoulder to lean on his head, he slapped his face growling loudly and continued his shower in disappointment.

Completely falling to bits

I really might be losing it

The idea that you’ve existed all along is ridiculous

I don’t know what to say

He missed her.

Not longer after that he arrived at Edenbrook gladly on time thanks to his fast BMW vehicle. He carried his bag through the hall of the hospital and a megawatt smile that he recognised it very well stopped him.

“Yo yo look who’s back again. My mann!” They clapped their backs.

“Ooff Bryce!” He was breathing hardly. “We were celebrating yesterday for the end of our intern year. I’m sure that we didn’t miss each other that much.”

“C’mon Banner can’t you just be funnier person in your life for once hm?”

Clay rolled his eyes. “Anyways I have to change my clothes unless you don’t have anything else to say.”

“I do actually.” He wiggled his eyebrows. “I met someone today.”

“So?”

“You have no idea whom I have met.”

“Let me guess did President Biden come here?” He snorted when he saw Bryce’s not amused reaction. “Okay fine go on.”

“As I was saying I met today a female but let me tell you man... this woman is not like the others. She’s like a goddess that entered to this building and blessed my life when I made eye contact with her.”

Clay was really trying his best not to laugh to this exaggeration. “You have met plenty of women and it’s not your first time Bryce.”

“Tsk. It is my first time. And may I add she was like queen Cleopatra that summoned everyone when she walked here.” Bryce added in a wandering gaze while he was doing his usual ministrations. “Black stilettos clicking and wearing those black leathery pants revealing her curves...ohh I’m thinking I’m going to fall in love man. She had a long coat on her shoulders and that white shirt mmhmm.” He closed his eyes. “She truly was the boss and I’m betting on this... her elegant body will be in my bed. But-”

“And there’s always a but right?”

“Can you believe I didn’t get her name?! Not even her number!”

His friend squealed in laughter. “What did you think fool? That she was going to follow you straight into the on-call room?”

“Yes!” Bryce exclaimed. “That’s what I thought too man but I lost her because that damn nurse came to me for signing a patient in a surgery.” He sighed and shook his head. “I lost the most perfect chance today and I don’t even know what she was doing here... she can’t be a doctor though ‘cause she’s too beautiful for this job.”

“Well then good luck on finding her ‘cause I have to go now. See you.” He trailed off to the direction of the elevator.

“Yea see ya.” He waved back at him before he muttered. “Go back to surgery Bryce before Tanaka cuts you off.”

————————

“This is going to be your office.”

“Thank you so much Mist- Dr. Tennant!” She corrected herself briefly before she would say another embarrassing thing. “I really don’t know how to express my gratitude for this.”

He scoffed. “Please can you just talk normally Dr. Craig? I think at the first time we met the rule was by names. Call me Simon.”

“Sure. Simon.” She really wasn’t used to it though. First no title of Miss/Mister and now calling by names. USA had really big differences with UK not only in titles but also in medical policy and legacy.

“And now I must say to you congratulations!” They shook hands. “And also I’d like to introduce you to our Diagnostics Team.”

She nodded in agreement.

When they finally arrived at the front door Simon stepped first to get the attention of his colleagues who seemed to be occupied as they were studying a case so he cleared his throat loudly. All of them turned their gazes to him except for an attending who didn’t even have to recognise his friend’s voice.

“What now Simon?”

“Hello to you too my pal. You know everyone that there was going to be a resident in the absence of Edgar’s, right?”

“Yes we know that.” The Japanese-British woman spoke.

“Have you brought him here?!” Judging by his accent it was an Indian man who exclaimed happily.

Simon chuckled. “Yes Baz but it’s her.”

“Ooooohh.”

“Let’s hope she’ll be useful for this job.”

“Don’t worry Ethan. She was selected as the best surgical intern in Imperial College of London Hospital and many other things among but I’ll let her to present herself.” He made her a signal to come inside.

“Everyone this is Dr. Helena Craig.”

“Please you can call me Helen or Ellie if you want.”

“I like Helen better.” The woman got up and shook her hand. “Dr. June Hirata.”

“Me too! Hi I’m Dr. Sebastian Mirani but everyone calls me simply Baz.”

“Ethan?” Simon asked quietly to get up and greet with her but he wasn’t moving any inch.

Helen gave him a knowing smile and said without breaking her gaze to him. “It’s alright for me if we don’t shake hands. I feel the same way too when I meet people that haven’t given me a good and a reliable impression at first so I completely understand your condition now.”

She caught him off guard. Ethan Ramsey expected her to scowl or glare into his eyes but instead she was killing him with that radiating smile.

Fuck.

The same smile that was reserved for him yesterday at Donahue’s bar.

In the corner of his eyes there was an unfamiliar face that stayed some stools away from him.

She lit up a cigarette even though Reggie had been strictly to every client not to use it but it seemed she didn’t care about it.

Her blonde hair was tied up in a bun revealing her constructed jaw and her long neck.

She had also earrings pierced. Was she a troublesome woman? Or maybe a drugs dealer judging by her extravagant outfit. But what caught his attention was that she didn’t look amused or happy.

She was sad. And exhausted.

Along with her was a small luggage that she had carried with herself here. She called Reggie to bring her a strong scotch and found by the latter that she was British and it was her first time in Boston.

She had also asked him for a hotel nearby this place and Reggie suggested some of them including “La Vista” Hotel which was the best. She thanked and left him the payment.

Now her eyes landed on the icy blue that had been staring on her for a long time and gave him a wicked smile. She raised her glass in purpose and licked her lips after drinking bits of it.

She was really gorgeous in all of his honesty and they didn’t break their eye contact for maybe a couple of minutes. He could do it every time without any hesitation just to rest in those piercing brown’s.

He was a very handsome man and even though he seemed older than her, she didn’t give a single shit. She could imagine his toned muscles and abs beyond those pesky clothes. She was marveled and could sense that he felt the same too.

It was like they both understood each other.

No words needed.

Only looks.

But she knew who he was. Ethan Ramsey. And she was glad that made him completely at her mercy and was enjoying it.

Poor man she thought.

She couldn’t wait for his reaction tomorrow when he would find out who she was actually.

His colleague.

Helen could imagine his flustered face and transfixed into her with his mouth agape.

She got up from her seat slowly in a tantalizing move while he drank in one gulp his scotch and called Reggie again for another fill.

She walked past him but before leaving with her luggage she lowered her head to his ear whispering dangerously. Her breath was a tingle in his ears and could almost feel her lips brushed.

“Thank you for the distraction. I really needed it.” 

She left unceremoniously when something dropped from her and he immediately caught it.

It was one of her earrings with the initial ‘H’. He was about to call her but she was gone.

Maybe he would find her tomorrow again. Here.

And he really found her. In the most obscenely and the most embarrassing way if he could describe it. Instead of what she said he got up with his smuggling look.

“Wrong observation.” When she heard his deep voice for the first time she gulped and could see his eyes glimmering triumphantly. “I hope you don’t ruin this opportunity.”

He caught her off guard. While they were touching each other’s palms an unknown heat coursed down in their bodies. Bullshit they thought because he was just an attending and she was a resident. Suddenly another voice was approaching to them.

“I’m terribly sorry for my lateness but I was-”

He abruptly stopped himself when he saw her.

His eyes were widened and his breath hitched.

She was here.

Baby we ought to fuck

Seven years of bad luck

Out of the powder room mirror

Could I have made it any clearer

She saw him too.

But not with a happy or a grateful face that always had welcomed his heart.

This was a mere seconds of glaring and then a plastered smile that he knew too well.

Clay Banner had screwed things up a year before he entered Edenbrook Hospital.

And now the woman of his dreams was standing right in front of him with his attending.

His girlfriend.

His Helen.

Or... was?

It’s love like a tongue in a nostril

Love like an ache in the jaw

You’re the first day of spring

With a septum piercing

Little Miss Sweet Dreams, TN

—————————————————————-

TAGS WILL APPEAR IN A REBLOG!

Ps: if this fic doesn’t surpass The Grinch Girl fic notes... there’s not going to be a part two😂😂 sorry...and Happy (late) International Women’s Day💪🏻💋🥰🥰

UPDATE: Part two is posted and it’s called- She’s thunderstorms