#infrastructure and job proposal

[ofmdrecaps]

9/10-17/2024 Daily OFMD Recap Pt 3

TLDR; David Fane; Lindsey Cantrell; Nat Torres; Damien Gerard; Dominic Burgess; Fan Events: OFMD Rewind; S2 Trailer (Because the Night, Belongs to lovers); Trends; Fan Spotlight: Relax I'm From The Future; OFMD Colouring Pages/Paper Pete; Love Notes;

Part 1 / Part 2

== David Fane ==

David is teaching at ICAN International! Check them out on their website!

"ICAN’s focus is to help create opportunities in work force development, build infrastructure and establish placement goals by amplifying training with extensive ongoing master classes, by bridging connections beyond Hawaii." More videos on the Repo

Source: David Fane's Instagram Stories

== Lindsey Cantrell ==

Our beloved set designer, Lindsey Cantrell has so much going on too right now! Did you know she's going to be at Comic Con LA! Our friend petrichor (aka gheyandwoke on twitter) is spreading the word about the OFMD Panel happening Oct 6, 1 PM PST featuring none other then Linds Cantrell!

Source: GheyandWork on Twitter Oh and in case you are a fan of Only Murders In The Building, it just won an Emmy for Outstanding Music Composition For A Series! This was another great show she worked on and if you'd like to check out some BTS/other things she shared for it, feel free to visit here!

Source: Lindsey Cantrell's Instagram

== Nat Torres ==

One of our fabulous writers, Nat Torres making a quick appearance.

Source: Nat Torres Instagram Stories

== Damien Gerard ==

Damien, our dear Father Teach has some WONDERFUL NEWS. Five Years Clear of Cancer! Congrats sir!

Source: Damien's Twitter

In other news, he's on Dragon Age: Vows of Vengeance Episode 1! Listen in if you're interested!

Source: Damien's twitter

== Dominic Burgess ==

Dominic, (aka Jeffrey Fettering) keeping up with the current events!

Source: Dominic Burgess Twitter

== Fan Events ==

OFMD Rewind Eps 5-8 with @adoptourcrew and @astroglideofficial is happening tomorrow, 09/19/24! Did you miss out on the fun on twitter on the 12th, or just don't have access to twitter? No problem! You can see the whole thread here on the repo.

"Join us and @astroglideofficial for our rewatch of Episodes 1-4 of S1 of #OurFlagMeansDeath! We’ll see you on Twitter at 2:30PM PDT to talk it through…as a crew ����‍☠️ #LubeAsACrew#OFMDRewind#ofmd"

Source: AdoptOurCrew's Instagram

== S2 Trailer Anniversary ==

Adopt Our Crew lead the charge with the S2 Trailer "Because The Night Belongs To Lovers" S2 Trailer, anniversary on Sept 14th! They asked some fun questions to boost engagement! Feel free to reach out to them to answer any of the questions! Don't know which trailer we're talking about? Check it out below!

Source: Adopt Our Crew Twitter

Source: Adopt Our Crew Twitter

== Trends ==

Oh and great job everyone, looks like some great trends on twitter from the 14th!!

Source: Politest Menace's Twitter

Source: AOC's Twitter

== Fan Spotlight ==

= Relax I'm From The Future! =

So this is VERY late because of my delays but I was given permission by the fabulous @citrussyndicate and all folks involved to share this phenomenal Relax I'm From The Future Cosplay w/Rhys! Thank you so much for allowing me to share this, it's so cool!

Source: @ CitrusSyndicate's Twitter

== OFMD Colouring Pages / Paper Pete! ==

Our fantastic friend @patchworkpiratebear is back with more colouring pages, and something new and exciting-- Paper Pete! These were all done as part of the @ofmdaction event, and they are awesome!

Source: Patchwork Piratebear's Twitter

== Love Notes ==

Hey there lovelies. Gosh, I can't believe it's been a week. I have to give it up to the ofmd fan crew cause they do week long reports and oh my god is it exhausting. I tip my hat to you lovely folks for all the work you did for so long with weeklong updates. Tonight, I wish I had more in me so I could properly express myself. I am so very grateful for all of you wonderful crewmates who have been patient, and kind and supportive over the past week to me. It's been a lot, and I try to keep people up to date, but I also try not to go too crazy cause it's a lots of heavy stuff going on (not just with me, with everyone on a personal level, with the world, etc), so whether you left passing hugs, or a kind word, I just want you to know you are so very incredibly appreciated and it means so much to me. So please accept so many hugs coming your way from me, and some ghostly forehead kisses.

Sometimes life hits us with some of the absolute craziest shit, and you know what helps get us through it? Each other. A hug, or a kind word makes a world of difference. Someone checking on you, or reminding you to drink water, it can honestly save someone's life/sanity and it kept me going this week. So please know that you make such an amazing difference, in my life and so many others. <3

But also, please remember. if you need support too, reach out, I know sometimes it's hard to ask for help, but we're here for you <3. We only have this one life, and there's no use going through it alone. Love you so much crew, thank you again for being such a wonderful group of kind hearted, compassionate folks. I am so honored to know so many of you <3.

Source: The Latest Kate's Tumblr

Source: BloomWithChristie Instagram

[probablyasocialecologist]

Today, the label luddite is an epithet for someone afraid of technology and the change it can bring. Merchant’s book makes clear that Luddites did not fear automation in the sense of being afraid of the machines or longing for an idyllic past. On the contrary, as Merchant points out, clothworkers were often themselves intimately engaged in improving the technology they used. Some of them proposed paying for job retraining by taxing factory owners who implemented the automating machines, earning the workers the title of “some of the earliest policy futurists,” according to Merchant. These efforts—to use official channels at the local and parliamentary levels—failed, however. With their futures rapidly foreclosing, the clothworkers invoked the fictional Ned Ludd (alternatively, Ludlam), an apprentice stocking-frame knitter in the late 1700s who, the story went, responded to his master whipping him by destroying the machine. Inspired by his act of sabotage against a cruel employer, the Luddites campaigned to halt the spread of the “obnoxious machines.” Soon factory owners found threatening letters signed by Captain Ludd or General Ludd or King Ludd. The letters also allude to another hero of working people from Nottingham, Robin Hood. Merchant argues that the mutability of Ned Ludd served as an organizing symbol akin to a playful but potent meme.

[...]

The Luddites used the tools at their disposal and did so through collective action. Merchant details the day-to-day organizing efforts of the movement’s leaders. We are ushered into a clandestine world of codes and oaths, of backroom meetings and nighttime training. The scheming makes for entertaining reading. But beneath the private planning and public sabotage lurks a more lasting lesson: movements to dismantle automation’s physical infrastructure often depend on building relational infrastructure. Tight-knit communities are extraordinarily important here: they buffered the Luddites from harm and fostered creative thinking rather than merely alienation among adherents and their allies. Increasingly finding themselves wrung out by those in power, these communities coalesced around shared causes that overlooked intragroup differences. This opened space for women, Merchant tells us, to claim the nom de guerre Lady Ludd and charge into markets to demand fair food prices from shop owners and food suppliers. It worked. The “auto-reductions,” as they were called, demonstrate the power of people working together to force change. Similarly, resistance to automation can be creative and provide openings to bring myriad others into the tent.

[beguines]

The Indian state has already begun to evict indigenous communities from their homes. In late 2020, tribal communities received notice that labeled their homes as illegally occupying forest land. Their homes were demolished. This bears an eerie resemblance to Israel's targeting of Bedouin communities of Naqab, where Israel gave the lands of these communities to Jewish settlers and the military. The logic of Bedouin dispossession was premised on the fact that as nomads, they had no right to the land.

In Kashmir, these communities were living on lands that the Indian state wanted to use for the development of tourist infrastructure. Part of the plan is to transfer agricultural land to Indian state and private corporations. Kashmir has already lost 78,700 hectares of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes between 2015–19. This decline in agricultural land—which a majority of Kashmiris still rely upon as the foundation of their economy—will disempower farmers, result in a loss of essential crops, make Kashmir less agriculturally self-sufficient, and create grounds for economic collapse in the near future. It is of course, only when Kashmiris are economically devastated that India's job in securing their land will be made even easier.

Alongside the destruction of agricultural land, the Indian government has also been charged with "ecocide" in Kashmir, which, "masked under the development rhetoric . . . destroys the environment without care, extracting resources and expanding illegal infrastructure as a way of contesting the indigenous peoples' right of belonging and using the territory for their own gain." During the lockdown in late 2019, the valley saw unprecedented forest clearances. In June 2020, the Jammu & Kashmir Forest Department became a government-owned corporation, allowing it to sell public forest land to private entities, including to Indian corporations. The rush to secure and extract Kashmir's resources has typically come at an immense cost to the region's vulnerable ecology, prompting local activists' fears that a lack of accountability will almost certainly exacerbate the climate crisis in South Asia. Just as Israel has secured control over Palestinian resources, India's stranglehold of Kashmir's natural resources and interference with the environment will ultimately make Kashmiris dependent on the Indian state for their livelihoods.

All of these shifts in land use reflect the "Srinagar Master Plan 2035," which "proposes creating formal and informal housing colonies through town planning schemes as well as in Special Investment Corridors," primarily for the use of Indian settlers and outside investors. Indeed, the Indian government has signed a series of MOU's with outside investors to alter the nature of the state by building multiplexes, educational institutions, film production centers, tourist infrastructure, Hindu religious sites, and medical industries. Kashmiri investors are no competition for massive Indian and external corporations and have a fundamental disadvantage in investing in land banks that the government has apportioned toward these purposes. Back to back lockdowns have resulted in massive economic losses for Kashmir's industries, including tourism, handicrafts, horticulture, IT, and e-commerce. Furthermore, "as with other colonial powers, Indian officials are participating in international investment summits parroting Kashmir as a 'Land of Opportunity', setting off a scramble for Kashmir's resources, which will cause further environmental destruction." India has always kept a close eye on Kashmir's water resources and its capabilities to generate electricity, while intentionally depriving Kashmir of the electricity it produces.

As more economic and employment opportunities are opened up to Indian domiciles, Kashmiris will also be deprived of what little job security they had. In sum, "neoliberal policies come together with settler colonial ambitions under continued reference to private players, industrialization and development, with the 'steady flow of wealth outwards.'"

Azad Essa, Hostile Homelands: The New Alliance Between India and Israel

[tomorrowusa]

Right now is the time to get involved in the defeat of America's most dangerous enemy since the Cold War.

The traditional election season, starting on Labor Day, is a thing of the distant political past. And considering the magnitude of the threat to democracy, even waiting for the end of the primary season may be too late.

The worst president in our history is, arguably, stronger within the leadership ranks of the Republican Party than he has ever been. He is now the most dangerous presidential candidate in U.S. history. As a consequence, the great question before the rest of us is whether enough of us are ready to do whatever is necessary to defeat this threat as we have all those that have come before. Sadly, there is reason to believe that this time we may not meet the challenge. Right now, Donald Trump is one of two people who could be our next president. The race, at the moment, between him and President Joe Biden, is too close to call.

The people with their heads up their ass over Biden's age are either hypocrites or dissemblers. On Inauguration Day 2025, Donald Trump will be 95.66% of Joe Biden's age. And Trump will also be older in January of 2025 than Biden was upon assuming office in 2021. Biden may have a lifelong stutter but he is still grounded in reality in a way the narcissistic nepo baby Donald Trump never was.

Joe Biden by any objective metric has been one of the most successful presidents in modern U.S. history. He has led the creation of more major legislative initiatives benefiting the American people than any president in 60 years. He oversaw the creation of more than 14 million jobs during his first three years in office. He has brought down inflation and reduced the prices of vital medicines to affordable levels. He has restored American leadership worldwide, expanded our vital alliances like NATO, and stood up to our enemies. All presidents face challenges and make missteps. But it is hard to deny that in the wake of the U.S. economic recovery, the passage of the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the CHIPs and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the expansion of NATO, and the creation of new Indo-Pacific alliances, Biden’s record is formidable. That a president with this record is in a horse race with a candidate who is a menace to the country, who led an insurrection, who is a pathological liar whom courts have found to be a fraud and a rapist, and who has no real ideas, no credible policy proposals, no record of actually ever achieving anything for the American people is chilling.

In normal times, over 40% of US voters would NOT pick a notorious sex offender for president. But these are not normal times.

You would have thought that the sight of mobs carrying Trump flags and weapons and chanting for the death of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, would have been alarm enough. You would have thought the same of Trump’s Access Hollywood tape, in which he confessed his impulse to abuse women. You would have thought the two dozen women who accused him of abuse would have had that effect. Even if none of those things were quite warning enough, you would have thought the findings in the E. Jean Carroll case would have been enough. After all, respected federal judge Lew Kaplan wrote, “The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused—indeed, raped—Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established and is binding in this case.” It should have been enough. But so far, it has not been.

And who would have thought that the party of Ronald Reagan is now led by a stooge of the Evil Empire?

You would have thought that Trump reaching out on national television to our Russian adversaries for aid during the 2016 campaign would have been enough. You would have thought the conclusive findings of every major U.S. intelligence agency that Russia sought to aid Trump’s campaign would have been enough. You would have thought that Robert Mueller’s finding 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump would have been enough. You would have thought Trump kowtowing to Vladimir Putin and taking his word over that of our intelligence and law enforcement communities would have been enough. You would have thought his illegally withholding aid to Ukraine to seek dirt on Joe Biden would have been enough. You would have thought his impeachment for that would have been enough.

Are you willing to spend more time and money than in previous election cycles to end a major threat to Western democracy and to undermine homegrown fascism for at least the rest of this decade?

So, ask yourself, is that enough to make you do more than you have done? Is that enough to commit for the next 10 months to do more than you have ever done during an election year? To give more? To canvas more? To spread the word more? To help get voters to the polls? To ensure every member of your family, your friends, your co-workers do the same? The stakes are too high to do less than everything you can.

I rarely quote Margaret Thatcher and would probably disagree with at least 90% of her views. But she did know something about winning elections and combating the USSR. If she was good for just one thing, it's for this observation in a speech made in her retirement.

[N]o battles are ever finally won; you have to go on winning them by example and by being prepared to defend your way of life against those who would attack it.

If we learn just one thing from the Trump threat, it's that we can never rest on our past laurels. A slacker democracy is one which will not outlast a determined demagogue.

Civic involvement by pro-democracy citizens is absolutely necessary to maintain freedom.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Elizabeth Warren on weaponized budget models

In yesterday’s essay, I broke down the new series from The American Prospect on the hidden ideology and power of budget models, these being complex statistical systems for weighing legislative proposals to determine if they are “economically sound.” The assumptions baked into these models are intensely political, and, like all dirty political actors, the model-makers claim they are “empirical” while their adversaries are “doing politics”:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/03/all-models-are-wrong/#some-are-useful

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/04/cbo-says-no/#wealth-tax

Today edition of the Prospect continues the series with an essay by Elizabeth Warren, describing how her proposal for universal child care was defeated by the incoherent, deeply political assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office’s model, blocking an important and popular policy simply because “computer says no”:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-04-04-policymakers-fight-losing-battle-models/

When the Build Back Better bill was first mooted, it included a promise of universal, federally funded childcare. This was excised from the final language of the bill (renamed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill), because the CBO said it would cost too much: $381.5b over ten years.

This is a completely nonsensical number, and the way that CBO arrived at it is illuminating, throwing the ideology of CBO modeling into stark relief. You see, the price tag for universal childcare did not include the benefits of childcare!

As Warren points out, this is not how investment works. No business leader assesses their capital expenditures without thinking of the dividends from those investments. No firm decides whether to open a new store by estimating the rent and salaries and ignoring the sales it will generate. Any business that operates on that basis would never invest in anything.

Universal childcare produces enormous dividends. Kids who have access to high-quality childcare grow up to do better in school, have less trouble with the law, and earn more as adults. Mothers who can’t afford childcare, meanwhile, absent themselves from the workforce during their prime earning years. Those mothers are less likely to advance professionally, have lower lifetime earnings, and a higher likelihood of retiring without adequate savings.

What’s more, universal childcare is the only way to guarantee a living wage to childcare workers, who are disproportionately likely to rely on public assistance, including SNAP (AKA food stamps) to make ends meet. These stressors affect childcare workers’ job performance, and also generate public expenditures to keep those workers fed and housed.

But the CBO model does not include any of those benefits. As Warren says, in a CBO assessment, giving every kid in America decent early childhood care and every childcare worker a living wage produces the same upside as putting $381.5 in a wheelbarrow and setting it on fire.

This is by design. Congress has decreed that CBO assessments can’t factor in secondary or indirect benefits from public expenditure. This is bonkers. Public investment is all secondary and indirect benefits — from highways to broadband, from parks to training programs, from education to Medicare. Excluding indirect benefits from assessments of public investments is a literal, obvious, unavoidable recipe for ending the most productive and beneficial forms of public spending.

It means that — for example — a CBO score for Meals on Wheels for seniors is not permitted to factor in the Medicare savings from seniors who can age in their homes with dignity, rather than being warehoused at tremendous public expense in nursing homes.

It means that the salaries of additional IRS enforcers can only be counted as an expense — Congress isn’t allowed to budget for the taxes that those enforcers will recover.

And, of course, it’s why we can’t have Medicare For All. Private health insurers treat care as an expense, with no upside. Denying you care and making you sicker isn’t a bug as far as the health insurance industry is concerned — it’s a feature. You bear the expense of the sickness, after all, and they realize the savings from denying you care.

But public health programs can factor in those health benefits and weigh them against health costs — in theory, at least. However, if the budgeting process refuses to factor in “indirect” benefits — like the fact that treating your chronic illness lets you continue to take care of your kids and frees your spouse from having to quit their job to look after you — then public health care costings become indistinguishable from the private sector’s for-profit death panels.

Child care is an absolute bargain. The US ranks 33d out of 37 rich countries in terms of public child care spending, and in so doing, it kneecaps innumerable mothers’ economic prospects. The upside of providing care is enormous, far outweighing the costs — so the CBO just doesn’t weigh them.

Warren is clear that there’s no way to make public child care compatible with CBO scoring. Even when she whittled away at her bill, excluding millions of families who would have benefited from the program, the CBO still flunked it.

The current budget-scoring system was designed for people who want to “shrink government until it fits in a bathtub, and then drown it.” It is designed so that we can’t have nice things. It is designed so that the computer always says no.

Warren calls for revisions to the CBO model, to factor in those indirect benefits that are central to public spending. She also calls for greater diversity in CBO oversight, currently managed by a board of 20 economists and only two non-economists — and the majority of the economists got their PhDs from the same program and all hew to the same orthodoxy.

For all its pretense of objectivity, modeling is a subjective, interpretive discipline. If all your modelers are steeped in a single school, they will incinerate the uncertainty and caveats that should be integrated into every modeler’s conclusions, the humility that comes from working with irreducible uncertainty.

Finally, Warren reminds us that there are values that are worthy of consideration, beyond a dollars-and-cents assessment. Even though programs like child care pay for themselves, that’s not the only reason to favor them — to demand them. Child care creates “an America in which everyone has opportunities — and ‘everyone’ includes mamas.” Child care is “an investment in care workers, treating them with respect for the hard work they do.”

The CBO’s assassination of universal child care is exceptional only because it was a public knifing. As David Dayen and Rakeen Mabud wrote in their piece yesterday, nearly all of the CBO’s dirty work is done in the dark, before a policy is floated to the public:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-04-03-hidden-in-plain-sight/

The entire constellation of political possibility has been blotted out by the CBO, so that when we gaze up at the sky, we can only see a few sickly stars — weak economic nudges like pricing pollution, and not the glittering possibilities of banning it. We see the faint hope of “bending the cost-curve” on health care, and not the fierce light of simply providing care.

We can do politics. We have done it before. Every park and every highway, our libraries and our schools, our ports and our public universities — these were created by people no smarter than us. They didn’t rely on a lost art to do their work. We know how they did it. We know what’s stopping us from doing it again. And we know what to do about it.

Have you ever wanted to say thank you for these posts? Here’s how you can: I’m kickstarting the audiobook for my next novel, a post-cyberpunk anti-finance finance thriller about Silicon Valley scams called Red Team Blues. Amazon’s Audible refuses to carry my audiobooks because they’re DRM free, but crowdfunding makes them possible.

[Image ID: A disembodied hand, floating in space. It holds a Univac mainframe computer. The computer is shooting some kind of glowing red rays that are zapping three US Capitol Buildings, suspended on hovering platforms. In the background, the word NO is emblazoned in a retrocomputing magnetic ink font, limned in red.]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

John Nichols at The Nation:

Donald Trump has made no secret of his determination to govern as a “dictator” if he regains the presidency, and that’s got his critics warning that his reelection would spell the end of democracy. But Trump and his allies are too smart to go full Kim Jong Un. Rather, the former president’s enthusiasm for the authoritarian regimes of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Tayyip Erdoğan, and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán suggests the models he would build on: managing elections to benefit himself and his Republican allies; gutting public broadcasting and constraining press freedom; and undermining civil society. Trump, who famously demanded that the results of Georgia’s 2020 presidential voting be “recalculated” to give him a win, wants the trappings of democracy without the reality of electoral consequences. That’s what propaganda experts Edward Herman and Frank Brodhead once described as “demonstration elections,” in which, instead of actual contests, wins are assured for the authoritarians who control the machinery of democracy. The outline for such a scenario emerges from a thorough reading of Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership, which specifically proposes a Trump-friendly recalculation of the systems that sustain American democracy. The strategy for establishing an American version of Orbán’s “illiberal democracy” is not spelled out in any particular chapter of Mandate. Rather, it is woven throughout the whole of the document, with key elements appearing in the chapters on reworking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In the section on the DHS, for instance, there’s a plan to eliminate the ability of the agency that monitors election security to prevent the spread of disinformation about voting and vote counting.

How serious a threat to democracy would that pose? Think back to November 2020, when Trump was developing his Big Lie about the election he’d just lost. Trump’s false assertion that the election had been characterized by “massive improprieties and fraud” was tripped up by Chris Krebs, who served as director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the DHS. The Republican appointee and his team had established a 24/7 “war room” to work with officials across the country to monitor threats to the security and integrity of the election. The operation was so meticulous that Krebs could boldly announce after the voting was finished: “America, we have confidence in the security of your vote, you should, too.” At the same time, his coordinating team declared, “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.” This infuriated Trump, who immediately fired the nation’s top election security official.

In Mandate’s chapter on the DHS, Ken Cuccinelli writes, “Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinformation efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth.” Cuccinelli previously complained that CISA “is a DHS component that the Left has weaponized to censor speech and affect elections.” As for the team that worked so successfully with Krebs to secure the 2020 election, the Project 2025 document declares that “the entirety of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on Day One.” The potential impact? “It’s a way of emasculating the agency—that is, it prevents it from doing its job,” says Herb Lin, a cyber-policy and security scholar at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.

This is just one way that Project 2025’s cabal of “experts” is scheming to thwart honest discourse about elections and democracy. A chapter on public broadcasting proposes to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as part of a larger plan to upend NPR, PBS, and “other public broadcasters that benefit from CPB funding, including the even-further-to-the Left Pacifica Radio and American Public Media.” More destabilizing than the total funding cut that Project 2025 entertains is a parallel plan to end the status of NPR and Pacifica radio stations as “noncommercial education stations.” That could deny them their current channel numbers at the low end of the radio spectrum (88 to 92 FM)—a move that would open prime territory on the dial for the sort of religious programming that already claims roughly 42 percent of the airwaves that the FCC reserves for noncommercial broadcasting. And don’t imagine that the FCC would be in a position to write new rules that guard against the surrender of those airwaves to the Trump-aligned religious right.

[...]

While project 2025 seeks to rewire the FCC to favor Trump’s allies, it also wants to lock in dysfunction at the Federal Election Commission, the agency that is supposed to govern campaign spending and fundraising. Established 50 years ago, the FEC has six members—three Republicans and three Democrats—who are charged with overseeing the integrity of federal election campaigns. In recent years, however, this even partisan divide has robbed the FEC of its ability to act because, as a group of former FEC employees working with the Campaign Legal Center explained, “three Commissioners of the same party, acting in concert, can leave the agency in a state of deadlock.” As the spending by outside groups on elections “has exponentially increased, foreign nationals and governments have willfully manipulated our elections, and coordination between super PACs and candidates has become commonplace,” the former employees noted. Yet “the FEC [has] deadlocked on enforcement matters more often than not, frequently refusing to even investigate alleged violations despite overwhelming publicly available information supporting them.”

John Nichols wrote in The Nation about how Project 2025’s radical right-wing wishlist of items contains plans to wreck and subvert what is left of America’s democracy.

See Also:

The Nation: June 2024 Issue

[salted-caramel-tea]

‘flamingo land will ring in jobs for scotland’ they want to destroy part of the loch lomond and the trossachs national park for it. an area of wild highland that already bring in so much tourism . near balloch which is already struggling to cope with tourist traffic and road infrastructure . scotland already has a theme park that’s fallen to shit. there’s plenty of opportunity to reinvest the funds for the proposed flamingo park into m&ds and either turn that into the park it used to be or make that a flamingo land in its own right there’s not fucking need to ruin rural areas for heavy water reliant and polluting structures that are a threat to the natural wildlife

[beardedmrbean]

Australia will introduce a cap on the number of new international students it accepts, as it tries to reduce overall migration to pre-pandemic levels.

The nation has one of the biggest international student markets in the world, but the number of new enrolments will be limited to 270,000 for 2025.

Each higher education institution will be given an individual restriction, the government announced on Tuesday, with the biggest cuts to be borne by vocational education and training providers.

The change has angered the tertiary education industry, with some universities calling it "economic vandalism", but Canberra says it will improve the quality and longevity of the sector.

Australia is host to about 717,500 international students, according to the latest government figures from early 2024.

Education Minister Jason Clare acknowledged that higher education was hard-hit during the pandemic, when Australia sent foreign students home and introduced strict border controls.

He also noted, however, that the number of international students at universities is now 10% higher than before Covid-19, while the number at private vocational and training providers is up 50%.

"Students are back but so are the shonks - people are seeking to exploit this industry to make a quick buck," Mr Clare said.

The government has previously accused some providers of "unethical" behaviour - including accepting students who don't have the language skills to succeed, offering a poor standard of education or training, and enrolling people who intend to work instead of study.

"These reforms are designed to make it better and fairer, and set it up on a more sustainable footing going forward," Mr Clare said.

The restrictions will also help address Australia's record migration levels, he said, which have added pressure to existing housing and infrastructure woes.

The government has already announced tougher minimum English-language requirements for international students and more scrutiny of those applying for a second study visa, while punishing hundreds of "dodgy" providers.

Australia to halve immigration, toughen English test

Enrolments at public universities will be pared back to 145,000 in 2025, which is around their 2023 levels, Mr Clare said.

Private universities and non-university higher education providers will be able to enrol 30,000 new international students, while vocational education and training institutions will be limited to 95,000.

The policy would also include incentives for universities to build more housing for international students, Mr Clare added.

But higher education providers say the industry is being made a "fall guy" for housing and migration issues, and that a cap would decimate the sector.

International education was worth A$36.4bn (£18.7bn, $24.7) to the Australian economy in 2022-23, making it the country's fourth largest export that year.

According to economic modelling commissioned earlier this year by Sydney University – where foreign students make up about half of enrolments – the proposed cuts could cost the Australian economy $4.1bn and result in about 22,000 job losses in 2025.

Vicki Thomson, chief executive of a body which represents some of Australia’s most prestigious universities, described the proposed laws as “draconian" and "interventionist", saying they amounted to "economic vandalism" in comments made earlier this year.

Mr Clare accepted that some service providers may have to make difficult budget decisions, but denied the cap would cripple the industry.

"To create the impression that this is somehow tearing down international education is absolutely and fundamentally wrong," he said.

[puppyeared]

crumbs of a story im writing

clumsy rookie news photographer chasing after a gentleman thief to start an advice column ^_^

the thiefs legit job as a librarian doesnt pay enough to cover his rent (not enough public funding?), so he steals from rich politicians.

he kind of sees it as "hitting two birds with one stone," since the politicans are more interested in infrastructure than public funding anyway, and they have more than enough money so he doesn't feel bad doing it

since its done out of necessity, the thief is extremely meticulous and plans out his thefts. but hes also a theatre kid, so he makes a costume and more or less garners the attention of the community

the rookie is a newspaper photographer who has been following the thief for some time and has grown to admire him

the newspaper he works for is community oriented (organizing events and programs, advocating for the public) and believes the thief shares similar values

basically he proposes to start an advice column with the thief to build a rapport with the community, with the goal of winning over the public

the thief is hesitant because he's really only doing it for himself and doesnt want to get anyone else involved, but the rookie tells him to think of it as a way of helping everyone

the rest is kinda fuzzy.. i wanted to touch on community effort and public interests. I don't know if this will be the kind of story that encourages people to take action, I don't see myself as being any kind of model citizen. for now I'm just focused on pouring all my thoughts and faith in humanity into a story setting

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Kevin (KAL) Kallaugher

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 23, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 24, 2024

On Thursday, Moody’s Analytics, which evaluates risk, performance, and financial modeling, compared the economic promises of President Joe Biden and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. Authors Mark Zandi, Brendan LaCerda, and Justin Begley concluded that while a second Biden presidency would see cooling inflation and continued economic growth of 2.1%, a Trump presidency would be an economic disaster.

Trump has promised to slash taxes on the wealthy, increase tariffs across the board, and deport at least 11 million immigrant workers. According to the analysts, these policies would trigger a recession by mid-2025. The economy would slow to an average growth of 1.3%. At the same time, tariffs and fewer immigrant workers would increase the costs of consumer goods. That inflation—reaching 3.6%—would result in 3.2 million fewer jobs and a higher unemployment rate. 

Trump’s proposed tariffs would not fully offset his tax cuts, adding trillions to the national debt. 

Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said that Trump’s tariff policy “would be bad for workers and bad for consumers.” Chief Economist of Moody’s Analytics Mark Zandi said: “Biden’s policies are better for the economy.”   

In the New York Times today, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the president of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute at the Yale School of Management, debunked the notion that corporate leaders support Trump. Sonnenfeld notes that he works with about 1,000 chief executives a year and speaks with business leaders almost every day. Although 60 to 70 percent of them are registered Republicans, he wrote, Trump “continues to suffer from the lowest level of corporate support in the history of the Republican Party.”

Among Fortune 100 chief executives, who lead the top 100 public and private U.S. companies ranked by revenue, Sonnenfeld notes, not one has donated to Trump this year. 

While they might not be enthusiastic Biden supporters, unhappy with his push to enforce antitrust laws and rein in corporate greed, the president has produced results they like: investment in infrastructure, repair of supply chains, investment in domestic manufacturing, achievement of record corporate profits, and transformation of the U.S. into the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. 

In contrast, they fear Trump. The populist plans that thrill supporters—like hiking tariffs and taking financial policy away from the independent Federal Reserve Board and putting it in his own hands—are red flags to business leaders. Such positions have more in common with the far left than with traditional Republican economic policies, Sonnenfeld says. Those policies reflect that Trump has surrounded himself with what Sonnenfeld calls “MAGA extremists and junior varsity opportunists,” while the more senior voices of his first term have been sidelined. 

On Saturday, Trump spoke in Philadelphia with a message that The Guardian’s David Smith described as “light on facts, heavy on fear.” He appears to be trying to overwrite his own criminal conviction with the idea that Biden’s immigration policy has brought violent undocumented migrants to the United States, creating a surge of crime. He told rally attendees that murders in their city have reached their highest level in six decades, while in fact, violent crime in the city is the lowest it’s been in a decade. 

In February, Trump pushed Republican lawmakers to reject a strong bipartisan border bill so he could use immigration as his primary issue in the election. That focus on immigration was key to the rise of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán to power, and it is notable that Trump’s picture of the United States echoes the rhetoric of the authoritarians hoping to overturn democracy around the world.  

On Friday, during a podcast hosted by venture capitalists, Trump blamed Biden for starting Russia’s war against Ukraine by calling for Ukraine’s admission to NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that resists Russian aggression. This statement utterly rewrites the history of Trump’s support for Russia’s annexation of the same Ukrainian regions it has now occupied: as Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort testified, the Kremlin helped Trump’s 2016 campaign in exchange for the U.S. permitting Russian incursions there.

More significant in this moment, though, is that Trump, who is running to become the leader of the United States, is siding against the United States and parroting Russian propaganda. Mark Hertling, a retired lieutenant general of the United States Army who served for 37 years and commanded U.S. Army operations in Europe and Africa, wrote: “This statement is—to put it mildly—stunningly misinformed and dangerous.”

Trump told host Sean Spicer that the U.S. is a “failing nation,” claiming that airplane flights are being delayed for four days and people are “pitching tents” because their flight is never going to happen. In reality, as Bill Kristol pointed out, with 16.3 million U.S. flights, 2023 was the busiest year in U.S. history for air travel, and the cancellation rate was below 1.2%. This was the lowest rate in a decade. 

Trump is insisting at his rallies that crime is skyrocketing under Biden. In reality, crime rose rapidly at the end of Trump’s term but is now dropping. From 2022 to 2023, according to the FBI, the only crime that went up was motor vehicle theft. Murders dropped by 13.2%, rape by 12.5%, robbery by 4.7%, burglary by 9.8%. The first quarter of 2024 showed even greater drops. Compared to the same quarter in 2023, violent crime is down 15.2%, murder down 26.4%, rape down 25.7%, robbery down 17.8%, burglary down 16.7%. Even vehicle theft is down 17.3%. 

Trump’s negative picture might play well to his die-hard supporters, but portraying the U.S. as a hellscape has rarely been a recipe for winning a presidential election.

President Biden and Trump are scheduled to debate on Thursday, June 27, and Trump’s team is trying to lower expectations for his performance. He became so incoherent in Philadelphia that the Fox News Channel actually cut away while he was talking. The Biden-Harris team has taken simply to posting Trump’s comments, prompting Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo to note: “It’s pretty bad when one candidates rapid response account just posts the other guys quote verbatim with no explanation at all.”

After months of insisting that Biden is mentally unfit, now Trump and his surrogates are saying Biden will perform well in the debate because he will be on drugs. There is no evidence that Biden has ever used performance-enhancing drugs, but curiously, Trump’s former White House physician Ronny Jackson (whom Trump repeatedly misidentified as Ronny Johnson last week) gave Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo a very detailed list of drugs that could sharpen attention and clarity. One of the ones he mentioned, Provigil, was on the list of those widely and improperly distributed by the White House Medical Unit in the Trump White House. 

Jackson said that he was “demanding” that Biden take drug tests before and after the debate. A White House spokesperson responded: “[A]fter losing every public and private negotiation with President Biden—and after seeing him succeed where they failed across the board, ranging from actually rebuilding America’s infrastructure to actually reducing violent crime to actually outcompeting China—it tracks that those same Republican officials mistake confidence for a drug.”

With the evaluation that Biden is better for the economy and Trump’s apocalyptic vision of the U.S. is not based in reality, it jumps out that on Thursday, a filing with the Federal Election Commission showed that the day after a jury convicted former president Donald Trump on 34 criminal counts, billionaire Tim Mellon made a $50 million donation to one of Trump’s superpacs. Since 2018, Mellon has contributed more than $200 million to Republicans, giving $110 million to Republican candidates and funding committees in the 2024 election alone. He has also given $25 million to independent candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. 

In a 2015 autobiography, Mellon embraced the old trope that “Black Studies, Women’s Studies, LGBT Studies, they have all cluttered Higher Education with a mishmash of meaningless tripe designed to brainwash gullible young adults into going along with the Dependency Syndrome,” saying that food assistance, affordable health care “and on, and on, and on” had made Americans on government assistance “slaves of a new Master, Uncle Sam.” “The largess is funded by the hardworking folks, fewer and fewer in number, who are too honest or too proud to allow themselves to sink into this morass,” he wrote. 

It is this trope that the Biden administration has smashed, returning to the idea that the government should answer to the needs of all its people. The last three years have proved the superiority of this vision by creating a roaring economy; rebuilding the country’s infrastructure, supply chains, and manufacturing; cutting crime rates, and reinforcing international alliances. 

As Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor and chief executive officer of the energy company Canary, told Wall Street Journal reporter Tarini Parti about Mellon: “He’s clearly terrified of Biden remaining the president.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[workersolidarity]

🇮🇱⚔️🇺🇳🇵🇸 🚨

ISRAELI OCCUPATION AUTHORITIES DEMAND THE DISMANTLING OF UNRWA BEFORE ALLOWING AID INTO THE GAZA STRIP

The Israeli occupation authorities have submitted a proposal to the United Nations demanding the dismantlement of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine, also known as UNRWA.

In an article published in the British liberal news website The Guardian, a source within the United Nations (UN) describes a proposal submitted by the Israeli occupation authorities to the UN for the dismantlement of UNRWA in return for the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) allowing humanitarian aid to flow into the besieged Gaza Strip.

According to The Guardian, the proposal was submitted last week by the Israeli Chief to the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi to UN Officials stationed in occupied Palestine who forwarded the proposal to the United Nation's Secretary General, António Gutierrez on Saturday.

The agency itself had no part in the discussions as the IOF refuses to deal with the humanitarian organization beginning last Monday with accusations occupation authorities made against the organization which remain unproven, even according to The Guardian.

Still, "Israel's" allies acted quickly to back their claims, with 16 major donors immediately withdrawing funding from the organization, cutting off the aid agency from more than $450m in funding, at a time when nearly the entire population of Gaza, around 2.3 million Palestinians, are dependant on UNRWA for food.

The United States Congress went so far as to ban funding for UNRWA in a recently passed budget bill, however some countries have restored funding to the aid agency, citing a lack of evidence provided by Israeli authorities.

Under the terms of the potential agreement, Zionist authorities are prepared to allow large amounts of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, with the only limiting factor being the capabilities of the United Nations and the newly formed aid agency, however the agreement would gut the humanitarian infrastructure already existing, and hollow out the agency by transferring 300-400 UNRWA staff to other UN agencies such as the World Food Programme (WFP).

According to The Guardian, more UNRWA staff could be transferred at a later date, however details are few and far between for how another humanitarian organization could be created on a scale necessary to provide for the humanitarian needs of the civilian population of Gaza, nor where the staff for such an organization would come from. Also absent were any security guarantees for humanitarian staff, nor who would provide such security guarantees.

Such an arrangement will likely sound attractive for those wishing to see an end to "Israel's" starvation campaign in Gaza, however, unlike whatever organization could be created on such short notice, UNRWA has been established in the Gaza Strip, and in the occupied Palestinian territories, going back to 1950, and over generations has earned the trust of the Palestinian population there, providing countless jobs for a Gazan population under blockade by "Israel" for the last decade and a half.

The Guardian quotes UNRWA's Director of External Relations, Tamara Alrifai, as saying, “Unrwa has not been systematically privy to conversations related to coordinating humanitarian aid in Gaza."

Alrifai also said the size proposed by the Israelis for the new humanitarian organization would "hobble its ability to effectively deliver aid in Gaza" at a time when it is so desperately needed by the civilian population in the Palestinian enclave.

“This is no criticism of WFP, but logically if they were to start food distribution in Gaza tomorrow, they’re going to use UNRWA trucks and bring food into UNRWA warehouses, and then distribute food in or around UNRWA shelters,” Alrifai told The Guardian, “So they’re going to need at a minimum the same infrastructure that we have, including the human resources.”

The Guardian article also mentions that some UN officials told their reporters that they see the proposal by the Israelis as a way to portray the United Nations as unwilling to work with the Zionist entity to get aid into Gaza in time to prevent a famine.

On Thursday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague, in the Netherlands, implemented additional provisional measures in South Africa's case investigating "Israel" for the crime of genocide, ordering the Zionist entity to take "all necessary and effective measures" to ensure the large-scale delivery of humanitarian aid be provided to Gaza.

The Guardian also mentions that some inside the UN see this as the "culmination of a long Israeli campaign to destroy UNRWA."

UNRWA has long been a target of the Israelis. As the UN agency in charge of maintaining the records of Palestinian families who were displaced from their homes during the Nakba, and where those family's homes were located, the organization essentially guarantees their Right to Return under International Law.

Israeli authorities see this record keeping as a threat to their expansionist aspirations, and hopes that by dismantling the agency, they will help eliminate the threat those records pose to their settler colonial agenda.

“If we allow this, it is the slippery slope to us being completely managed directly by the Israelis, and the UN directly being complicit in undermining UNRWA, which is not only the biggest aid provider but also the biggest bastion of anti-extremism in Gaza,” one UN official is quoted as saying.

"We would be playing into so many political agendas if we allowed this to happen.”

UNRWA derived its mandate from an act passed by the United Nations General Assembly, which The Guardian says, "in theory" remains the only organization with the authority to end that mandate.

The United Nations Secretary General's office did not respond to The Guardian's inquiries into the proposal, nor did the Israeli occupation army before the time of publishing.

#source1

#photosource

@WorkerSolidarityNews

[sourcreammachine]

LABOUR PARTY MANIFESTO 2024 SUMMARY ie, the agenda of the party that'll win

tldr: Milton Keynes, by which i mean it's keynesianism but really boring. it's the principle of keynes, but with its ambitions scaled so far back that it no longer even qualifies as social democracy

you’ve probably heard that they want to increase spending without increasing tax. the theory goes that state investments reap dividends — the deficits you run will grow the economy, so your dividends will go up, so debts will always be repaid. this how this manifesto can justify being so scant on revenue-raising, the existing sources of revenue should automatically reap more over time

but, keynesianism is very fundamentally sociodemocratic. state expenditure goes to big-ticket economic infrastructure to improve AND to public services, to improve health and wealth, which serves to grow the economy further – a slightly cold but contextually understandable framing for the fact that stamping out poverty and delivering vital public services is a moral imperative and a good thing

this wheezy manifesto fails in all that, fundamentally. there are spending plans for public services but they are tiny compared to the big-ticket economic investments. it's keynesian theory in liberal practice, and i say that derogatorily. it's the same neoliberal system with the smallest yank back towards un-neo liberalism to try to save it from itself

literally, in the Innsmouth debate last week starmer was asked why he wouldn't raise taxes on high-earners to fund the beleaguered public services that've been crushed and broken, and starmer gave a coward's answer, saying it wasn't the right thing to do, in the poorest town in the country, in front of an audience of fishpeople, not an audience of aristocrats and six-figure salarymen

which serves my point. this isn't a manifesto of enlightened, committed socioliberalism, far from it: this is a manifesto of cowardice. rumours suggested it could've been about 30 pages long, around a third of the typical length. and while it's not that short, it's been padded to hell and back with justifications, waffle, and masses of promises with no policy to make them so. even objectively non-economic policy is anaemic, with scant plans for reform, scant plans for social policy, and scant plans for anything

labour alleges it's plan is to decentralise power and end the autophagic hypercentralist leadership. but no, that couldn't be further from the truth. sir kid starver is running for president. he wants a blank cheque. he wants the right to make decisions. he "changed the labour party" to centralise power to override internal power controls, and not because he's an evil scheming autocrat, but because he has zero faith in democracy. they are the decisionmakers. they are the governors. participatory democracy is impossible, shut up and do your job: putting them in power

it’s also the only manifesto i’ve found a typo in, on page 125. naughty naughty

💷ECONOMY

LITERALLY NO TAX PROPOSALS

abolish nondoms and 'end the use of offshore trusts'

restore the industrial strategy council quango with legal authorities

make the independent minimum wage commission 'account for the cost of living', maybe raising it one maybe two bob idk, and abolish the age bands so everyone gets the adult wage

ban zerohour contracts, ban fire-rehire, strengthen rights to to sick pay, parental leave and protections from unfair dismissal

extend the oil/gas windfall tax for five more years, raise it by three percent, and close loopholes

"people who can work should work, and there will be consequences for those who do not fulfil their obligations"

reform the work capability assessment system, though based on above, it'll be to get more and quicker rejections

not increase the internationally tiny business tax for the entire parliament, letting the invisible hand wank everyone off

more registration/reportage requirements at HMRC, tactical focus on the tax avoidance of corporations and the rich [which like, aint that how it's supposed to be already?]

unify employment law / workers' protections authorities into a single enforcement body, "we will strengthen the collective voice of workers, including through their trade unions" [clarification needed]

programme to get under-21 neets into free training or work programmes with a focus on mental health

£7b centralised national wealth fund for economic investment including automotive gigafactories and steel

new state energy company, long an ephemeral promise of theirs, now confirmed to be backend-only, responsible for building and maintaining infrastructures, while the private companies remain responsible for selling the electricity to the people

remove planning restrictions on datacentres

strengthen Equality Act regulations for gender, racial and disability pay imbalances, increasing workers' ability to sue the pants off their employers

create a regulatory innovation office to coordinate new regulations for rapidly moving economic sectors, ie big tech, with a specific pledge to introduce 'binding regulation on the handful of companies developing the most powerful ai models”

aim to double the size of the cooperative/mutual sector

turn a blind eye to the City just like all other major parties

🏥PUBLIC SERVICES

free breakfasts in primary schools, but not lunches

put misogyny on the curriculum

i mean like. teaching about misogyny. that it's bad

reform royal mail 'so that workers and customers can have a stronger voice', implying preventing its privatisation to that czech billionaire

found the national care service

recruit 8500 mental health staff, reform the mental health acts

6500 more 'expert' teachers [citation needed]

double the number of CT and MRI machines

'end HIV cases by 2030'. they won't do it tho

mental health professionals in every school

build a boatload of new inhouse integrated features into the NHS app, with an inhouse appointment system, local service referrals, vaccination reminders and a pool of personal medical guidelines and treatment information

convert some colleges into specialist technical colleges

3,000 "new" nurseries glued onto primary school sites

finally end the "charity" status of for-profit private schools to make private parents pay their fair share

ok, here's the bulk of labour's trans policy, and the unfortunate reason why i've chosen to list it under public services: they've pledged to reform the Gender Recognition system, per them, "to remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor". they continue with an equally cowardly statement to 'support the implementation of single-sex exceptions'. this is a coward's position because the labour leadership is terrified of the commentariat and the terf cult it stands by. that's also why there's a fleeting line to "implement the expert recommendations of the cass review". lmao, they should call him wes fleeting. truth is, they have no plan to reform gender recognition. the abolition of the transmedicalist clause is the minimum amount of feasible and meaningful reform that could have any sort of political momentum, but that minimum is over the line for the terfs and will cause commentariat outrage. the labour right has no ability to change the situation of trans people by staying on the fence, they'd have to commit to supporting the struggle for freedom — and their choice is to stay on the fence

reintroduce the age-gated fag ban, maybe raising it from 2006 to like 2008

limit the number of branded items of uniform schools can require

replace ofsted headline grades with a 'report card system', 'bring multi-academy trusts into the inspection system' but not abolish the indefensible MAT system

🏠HOUSING

ban no-fault evictions, introduce more powers for renters to challenge rent increases

reintroduce mandatory housebuilding targets, national target to build 1.5M in five years

abolish leaseholds, ban flat leaseholds and replace them with commonholds

scramble and deploy more planning officers to local councils, which are to keep stronger housebuilding plans, and with combined authorities given full power (and requirement) to plan and housebuild with their funding

reform compulsory purchase compensation laws to force the price of appropriations down to actual value rather than speculative value

explicit threat to nimby councils: "we will ensure local communities continue to shape housebuilding in their area, but where necessary [we] will not be afraid to make full use of intervention powers to build the houses we need"

prioritise brownfield development [clarification needed] but release and build on 'grey belt', their neologism for shit green belt that nobody wants

ensure social housing is central to the building scheme

ban new developments being sold to international buyers before construction ends, ie, slowing the hypergentrification of luxury districts, though possibly not fixing these areas or even doing enough to stop the trend

new New Towns, which'll be 'part of a series of large-scale new communities' [clarification needed]

🚄TRANSPORT

simply wait for the franchise-concession system to lapse, established in 2020 when the private franchise system collapsed, then give british rail the contracts as a single island-wide renationalised train operator with a unified consumer frontend

return to local councils the ability to franchise their own bus networks (ie, not centrally fund their doing so) and let them create their own unified travel networks (like the bee in Manchester)

expand freightrail

devolve to mayors rail british rail planning for their areas

restore the 2030 ban of new petrol cars, build more ev chargers

👮FORCE

raise defence spending to 2.5% GDP

points-based immigration system and restrict visas, ban employers who break migrant labour laws from hiring any migrant again, intelligence border command 'hundreds of new' officers to stamp down on desperate people wanting a better life, new home office unit for mass deportations

recognise palestine… but no commitment to do it immediately or unambiguously, only “as part of the process” etc etc etc. “push” for an immediate ceasefire

'Respect Orders', ASBOs 2, with power to ban people from entering town centres

'force' fly-tippers and 'vandals' to 'clean up the mess they have created'

mandatory referral to reoffending programmes for young people caught with knives

end the sengoku period by enacting katanagari

SVU in every police force, 'using tactics normally reserved for terrorists and organised crime

upgrade any and all hate crimes to aggravated offences, though not actually amend the definition. Brianna Ghey's slaughter was, under the letter of the current law, not a hate crime, despite one of her killers openly admitting to targeting her due to her being transgender

ban conversion therapy including for trans people

make spiking a specific criminal offence

extend protection against domestic violence in marriages to cohabitees

reduce relations with china

'build on the online safety act', not ruling out the potential for a bad internet bill

massive building of new prisons

"labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. we will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling" is the entire section on gambling. don't get me wrong, this is scandalous. the country's gambling laws are lax beyond words and an international laughing stock. The House have not hidden their infiltration of the labour party lobbies - their biggest catch is probably Tom Watson, former deputy leader-turned-gambling lobbyist, who waged civil war on corbyn, founded the major caucus against him, and so commands major respect from the labour right MPs who'll be in the new government. this pathetic paragraph means The House can continue to demolish lives for the next five years at least and the public health emergency will continue to burn. i fucking BEG prime minister starmer to remove all equivocation from the first two sentences of this paragraph, and throw the third in the bin. a punt on the game, a night in the bingo hall, the lottery are all brilliant and beloved, but The House being let loose to make money on people's lives makes it an enemy of public health.

continue to be the american empire’s prettiest bitch

🌱CLIMATE

zero-carbon electricity by 2030**: quadruple offshore wind, triple solar, double onshore wind, rollout Small Modular Reactors

**two asterisks: first to maintain a 'strategic reserve' of gas stations for energy security, and second "ensure a phased and responsible transition" to not Thatcher the communities that're employed in gas. idk, it seems like you can't do that in six short years without a radical plan

commitment to upgrading the Grid (a long-looming problem), which may well push through projects that annoy the nimbys

no new licenses for oil extraction, no new coal licenses, permaban on fracking

three new national forests, plant millions of trees, expand protected wetlands, woodlands and Pete Boggs, seed new woodland

LEAVE WATER PRIVATE despite the shit situation (shituation), but ban bonuses of dumping bosses and criminalise repeat dumping

introduce a land-use framework for economical usage of land, a policy shared by the liberals

end the badger cull, ban trailhunting, ban trophy imports, ban puppy farming

🗳️DEMOCRACY

votes at sixteen

immediately evict all 92 hereditary Filth, but keep the 25 bishops

immediately introduce an 80-year age limit for the Filth, with evictions occurring at the end of the parliament the Filth turns 80. also introduce minimum attendance requirements, and eviction for rulebreaking. 308 of the 709 filth who aren't hereditary or bishops are 75 or older right now

"Whilst this action to modernise the House of [Filth] will be an improvement, Labour is committed to replacing the House of [Filth] with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them." okay. look. i know you're intelligent enough to see that this paragraph is just a get-out-of-jail-free card. president starmer has no plans to replace the Filth with democracy, because the patronage spoils system is too useful for his closed-door regime. that's also why there's nothing about electoral reform, the dumb bad stupid system simply serves him and regime-minded political operators too well. democracy is for chumps. end of story. sorry peasants

keep the indefensible voter id system

new council of all first ministers and mayors for some reason

more combined authorities, with devolution of transport, adult education, housing, and 'employment support', give the new CAs 'strong governance arrangements' and renew those of the existing ones so the CA areas have better governments

create a commons modernisation committee to modernise the commons' useless old practises, with its purview including replacing the pairing system with proxying

ban on MP second jobs in advisory or consultancy roles, task the (above) committee in restricting other second jobs, 'enforcing restrictions on ministers lobbying for the companies they used to regulate' [clarification needed]

[mariacallous]

In a fighting State of the Union address, much of which could have been delivered at a campaign rally, President Joe Biden directly criticized his predecessor more than a dozen times and drew lines that he hopes will define the 2024 presidential election. He was an unabashed liberal on social policy, a populist nationalist on economic policy, and a traditional postwar internationalist on foreign policy.

Biden’s forceful delivery was meant to signal that he is not too old to serve out a second term, which most Americans currently think he is. Indeed, projecting vigor and strength was one of the main objectives of the evening. Gone was his tendency to speak in a near whisper; through much of the speech he practically shouted. He ended his speech with an argument that his age is an advantage—that through extended experience, he has learned what he needs to lead the country in challenging times.

“The state of the union is strong and getting stronger,” President Biden declared. He may well have had no choice. The fact remains that the American people don’t agree with him. In a new CBS poll, 61% of Americans described the state of the country as “divided,” 45% as “declining,” 37% as “weak,” and just 15% as “strong.” Tellingly, only 25% of Democrats saw the state of the country as strong. Biden clearly hopes that he began to change their minds and that subsequent events will vindicate his optimism in time for the election. It remains to be seen whether his decision to lean against public sentiment will reduce his credibility and make him look out of touch.

To the surprise of few, the defense of democracy against autocracy at home and abroad was a central theme of the speech, which depicted Donald Trump as a threat to both. To the surprise of many, Biden led off the speech with an impassioned defense of the need to aid Ukraine and stop Vladimir Putin from conquering Ukraine and threatening all of Europe. Quoting Trump’s own words, he accused him of bowing down to Putin and moved on to accuse his predecessor of trying to “bury the truth of January 6th.”

Biden’s defense of his economic record was lengthy and detailed, with references to massive job creation, sustained low unemployment, small business creation, a manufacturing revival, and a shrinking racial wealth gap. He appealed directly to workers without college degrees, touting his enforcement of long-neglected “Buy American” laws and massive investment in infrastructure projects. He noted the recent surge in consumer confidence and must hope that a continued shift in the public mood about the economy will help him move from defense to offense on this critical issue. It remains to be seen whether his attack on drug companies and other corporations for alleged price-gouging will help him defuse the issue of high prices, the public’s main complaint about his economic record. And while the lengthy list was impressive, it fell short of being the sort of concise narrative that could be easily understood on the campaign trail.

The case was very different when it came to freedom of choice, where there were no such ambiguities. He condemned Donald Trump and his supporters for overturning Roe v. Wade and called for national legislation to restore Roe as the law of the land. In a similar vein, he criticized the move, which started in Alabama, to interfere with access to in vitro fertilization, many couples’ only chance to have biological children, and he called for national legislation to secure access to IVF nationwide. In this context and others, he invoked the political power of women and urged them to use this power to defend their freedom.

Turning to plans for a second term, Biden presented a lengthy laundry list of liberal proposals on health care, education, housing, and taxes. Most were aimed at the high prices middle-class Americans face that prevent them from giving Biden credit on the economy. While these measures may help fire up the base, they may not appeal to undecided swing voters, let alone the Haley voters whom the president invited to join his coalition just days ago.

Still, the president did better on offense than with the issues that have put him on the defensive. On immigration, he ignored advice from some Democrats to shut the border immediately and contented himself with calling on Congress to pass the bipartisan border bill that Senate Republicans abandoned under pressure from former president Trump. Similarly, he did not go beyond traditional Democratic proposals for fighting violent crime and missed an opportunity to break new ground on the fight against the epidemic of fentanyl and other deadly opioids.

He was more innovative about Hamas’ murderous attack on Israel and the situation in Gaza, which have already cost many thousands of civilian lives. He insisted that Israel has a responsibility to minimize civilian casualties, even as they pursue a ruthless enemy that uses human shields as a cornerstone of its military strategy. He also cited an urgent need to get food and other humanitarian aid to desperate Gazans and ordered the construction of a temporary port in the sea that would permit American vessels to get this aid where it is needed without, the president promised, putting American boots on the ground. He reiterated his support for a temporary ceasefire and an eventual two-state solution, which he characterized as the only path to durable peace between Israel and its neighbors in the region. Not until November will we find out whether these initiatives will be enough to soothe the anger of Arab and Muslim Americans whose defection threatens the president’s hold on the vital swing state of Michigan.

During his speech, President Biden referred with approval to two past presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. But it was the spirit of Harry Truman’s 1948 campaign that suffused everything he said and how he said it. Biden and his advisors have signaled that they regard blunt, no-holds-barred partisanship as the best path to victory against Donald Trump, whom he trails in most polls. In a time of intense polarization, they believe, mobilizing the base is Job One. The president talked optimistically about America’s comeback, but the speech was intended to promote his own comeback as well.

[saydams]

Amtrak expansion comment period ends tomorrow! (march 8 2024)

you can leave your comment here

This will restore service to places that used to have passenger trains, and add trains to exisiting routes to make service daily instead of just alternating days. it would also add new routes (in green, below)

bulletin from railroad workers united:

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is conducting an Amtrak Daily Long-Distance Service Study to evaluate the restoration of daily long-distance intercity rail passenger service and the potential for new Amtrak long-distance routes. This study will ultimately create a long-term vision for long-distance passenger rail service and identify capital projects and funding needed to implement that vision. The initial proposal would add 15 long-distance routes, serving 61 additional metropolitan areas to create a true national network. The FRA is seeking public input by Friday, March 8. After public comment, the FRA will make capital and operating cost estimates, and make recommendations to Congress. This Amtrak expansion plan has been 50 years in the making and of course, should have been executed in the 1970s or 1980s. Amtrak has survived against endless budget cuts, threats to eliminate various trains, micro-managing by Congress on food service options, and attempts to dismantle or privatize parts or even its entire system. So this is a huge step forward. That said, the forces allied against this proposal are huge, led by Class One rail carriers. They fight tooth and nail against any proposed new Amtrak route or additional frequency. RWU feels that the best way forward is to bring the railroads under public control, at least the basic infrastructure (track, signals, yards, terminals, etc) or it is very unlikely that we will see much in the way of passenger train expansion. In the meantime, smart Class One rail carriers will welcome the additional income stream from accommodating passenger service and the access to public money for track improvements that will improve freight service as well. Many sectors are coming together around a publicly run rail network - like the Plumb Plan of old - one that is administered by professional railroaders, representatives of the craft workers, and government appointees to protect the public interest. Check out the listing of endorsing organizations to date HERE. Do you want to make your voice heard on this vital question of an expanded passenger rail network? If so, please read through the presentation materials and make a comment by Friday, March 8.

read about the study here

high speed rail alliance reactions to the study

comment on the study here

Rail Passengers Association news on the FRA Study

THE ROUND THREE LD MAP IS OUT! February 16, 2024

You can click here to download all 163 pages of meeting materials we reviewed last week and this week. Your job as interested citizens and advocates is to review the materials, and offer constructive, fact-based feedback on how the routes are put together, what kinds of continuing planning should be done, and whether and how an independent entity should be created to ensure that as these route projects unfold the served communities continue to have a voice in making sure they really happen. You have until March 8th to review the materials and then draft and submit your feedback to the study team using the email address contactus@fralongdistancerailstudy.org. Remember, constructive, fact-based, specific observations and suggestions are the way to go here. Some 5,000 comments have been reviewed to date, and comments truly did help shape the final routings selected by the FRA team.

15 NEW TRAINS: CLOSER TO OUR LONG-DISTANCE GOALS February 16, 2024

Keep an eye out for the public release of the study materials on the FRA long-distance study website (which you can reach by clicking here), but here’s a brief rundown of the 15 new routes FRA offered up for our consideration in the upcoming Round Four later this spring: 1 – Chicago to Miami, via Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa. 2 – Dallas/Fort Worth to Miami, via Marshall, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Pensacola, Tallahassee, and Jacksonville. 3 – Denver to Houston, via Trinidad, Amarillo, and Dallas/Fort Worth. 4 – Los Angeles to Denver, via Barstow, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Cheyenne. 5 – Phoenix to Minneapolis/St. Paul, via Flagstaff, Albuquerque, Amarillo, Newton, Kansas City, Omaha, and Sioux Falls. 6 – Dallas/Fort Worth to New York, via Oklahoma City, Tulsa, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Pittsburgh. 7 – Houston to New York, via New Orleans, Mobile, Montgomery, Atlanta, Chattanooga, Roanoke, Lynchburg, Lorton, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia. 8 – Seattle to Denver, via Portland, Boise, Pocatello, Salt Lake City, and Grand Junction. 9 – San Antonio to Minneapolis/St. Paul, via Dallas/Fort Worth, Tulsa, Kansas City, and Des Moines. 10 – San Francisco to Dallas/Fort Worth, via Merced, Bakersfield, Barstow, Phoenix, Tucson, El Paso, and Midland. 11 – Detroit to New Orleans, via Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville, Montgomery, and Mobile. 12 – Denver to Minneapolis/St. Paul, via Cheyenne, Pierre, and Sioux Falls. 13 – Seattle to Chicago, via Yakima, Kennewick, Spokane, Sandpoint, Helena, Billings, Bismarck, and Fargo. 14 – Dallas/Fort Worth to Atlanta, via Marshall, Jackson, Meridian, and Birmingham. 15 – El Paso to Billings, via Albuquerque, Trinidad, Denver, Cheyenne, and Casper.

FRA STUDY DRAFT: MORE TRAINS, MORE PLACES February 9, 2024

If this map is fully realized, 89 percent of the U.S. population would have access to Amtrak trains, including 19 million more Americans in the most-populated metropolitan areas. In this plan some 13 million Americans who lost service to the various Amtrak cuts over the years would get it back. This new map would add 102 stations in rural communities, nearly doubling service in rural areas. Tribal areas would see 112 percent more access, and for people living in what the Dept. of Transportation defines as “health-disadvantaged areas” – that is, areas with poor access to medical facilities and hospitals – there would be 66 percent greater access. Five million people without good medical access could get it via this new map, which would ensure that 86 percent of all U.S. medical centers are served.

source

@amtrak-official, did you know about this?

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Politico/E&E News:

CARPINTERIA, California — Two hulking platforms have sucked oil out of the ocean floor off this sunny local beach for nearly five decades.

The Hogan and Houchin platforms are now rusting monuments to California’s once-powerful fossil fuel industry. Abandoned by their last owner, they should have been torn down years ago.

But a series of companies tied to the platforms say it’s not their job — and now, they want the federal government to take on the multimillion-dollar responsibility.

The saga echoes the unfolding fight to clean up the nation’s deteriorating fossil fuel infrastructure. More than 2,700 offshore oil and gas wells and 500 platforms are overdue for decommissioning in the Gulf of Mexico alone, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office.

The Interior Department has long struggled to ensure oil companies pay up and clean up once they’ve stopped pumping oil, a challenge that could only increase as decades-old infrastructure off the nation’s coastlines faces retirement. If not maintained, old platforms and their wells can leak toxins and degrade ecosystems, becoming serious environmental hazards.

“The agency has recognized these problems for years,” said John Smith, who worked on decommissioning at Interior’s former Minerals Management Service (MMS). “When it comes to doing something about it, they’re weak-kneed.”

Interior could soon find itself on the hook for the millions of dollars required to safely remove the two California platforms. That’s because the companies that once owned a stake in Hogan and Houchin — ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum and Devon Energy — are appealing an order to take the platforms down, testing a federal regulation that requires former owners to ensure cleanup.

The stakes are high for Interior. Experts say its rule may not withstand opposition if oil majors take it to court, with uncertain consequences for a potentially enormous backlog of oil and gas wells, platforms and pipelines that are past their prime and owned by midsize companies more likely to go into financial distress.

In a statement, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said those beefed-up requirements would “ensure the taxpayer is protected from financial loss from offshore decommissioning liability.”

Environmental groups are already on board with President Joe Biden’s proposed rules. They look at Hogan and Houchin as a preamble to the kind of costs that could emerge during the gradual retirement of the nation’s oil program due to its climate impacts.

[mihrsuri]

I asked @theladyelizabeth about this but thinking about some OT3 verse in universe history things*

There’s actually not a debate about the extent of Cromwell’s role in government even pre reveal of the OT3 but there is debate about his closeness to the royal family - like is this a friendship and a governing partnership? It does seem to be but on the other hand, it might just be that he’s so very useful and good at his job. On the other hand, the monarchs (and their children’s) very adamant defence of the man.

I do know there is discussion over whose idea X Legislation/Policy is - also that Anne took an active role in ruling (attended Privy Council meetings, endowed universities, schools and hospitals, had buildings built under her own name, corresponded with other royals and scholars) but there’s a ‘was she only focused on the female sphere/female education etc’ (In this world, like Hurrem Sultan Anne endows schools for girls, including universities). People tend to see the Duke of Essex (aka Cromwell) as focusing on infrastructure and the foundations of what will become the social welfare system/UBI and Henry far more on things like endowing buildings but one thing that Maya’s discovery proves is that their work really is a joint effort.

(For example of the above - the laws against child abuse are actually Anne and Henry’s work for Thomas, but a lot of the ideas are his - as is the legal framework, the formation of what is universal healthcare access is Henry’s passion project (historically he actually proposed something like that). The development of a merit based civil service has a lot to do with all three of them, as does the genuine religious pluralism (though a lot of that is Anne).

It’s remarked on how unusual (though not unprecedented - there have been royal families who keep their children with them) it is that Anne and Henry are very hands on with all their children.

*Obviously this is a very different world but also some frameworks are the same.

Also would people like to be tagged in Tudors OT3 posts? Let me know if that is the case.(reply or like this post)