#instead your governments both local and federal should be helping people

[adhdasfuck]

Russian PsyOps

I recently became aware that a certain user might be Another Russian Operative trying to sway people into not voting or voting third party, this one even said to vote for a non-Trump republican candidate (imagine being any progressive person at all and advocating progressive voters vote for a conservative, that'll show em, NOT).

So I looked into the third party candidate this person endorses:

Jasmin Sherman

I went through a few of the pages on Jasmine's website and have concluded that they're totally fucking full of shit.

They want to keep the death penalty and offer the options of morphine overdose and FIRING SQUAD as the federal standard to make it "more efficient" instead of simply abolishing it like a true progressive, since there are so many cases of innocent people receiving this draconian punishment.

They also want to GET RID OF SSI. They want to replace it with UBI, but congress WOULD NOT pass UBI, and running on any platform that abolishes SSI for any reason at all is a huge FUCK NO! I'm on SSI and shit is hard enough already. What SSI needs is greater support from the government, for the asset limit to be changed drastically or gotten rid of, and for people who are on SSI to not feel like they CAN'T GET MARRIED OR THEY'LL LOSE THEIR BENEFITS. What we don't need is for SSI to be gotten rid of because "it's inefficient and ineffective" are you fucking KIDDING ME?

Also because their platform of UBI was mentioned on their page about abolishing SSI, I looked at their page for UBI and it's completely out of reach. They are advocating for us to implement a system NOT A SINGLE OTHER COUNTRY HAS PASSED. NONE OF THEM. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this would get out of the senate alive. They can't even pass the bills to expand SSI and increase the amount of money we receive a month to be higher than 30% of the fucking poverty line.

This is a much more minor problem but they have Minnesota misspelled as "Minisota" on the UBI page, which is such a small problem, but something that should have been noticed very quickly because the graph it is in is supposed to show legitimate data to uphold their UBI proposal.

In short: This person is not progressive, this person is paying lip service while acting as an obvious Spoiler (a spoiler is a third party candidate who pulls votes from one of the other major parties, this is how Bush won the first time). And Russian PsyOps are back on this website trying to encourage genuinely progressive people who don't know any better to vote for someone who Will Not Win because it "feels better" than voting for a democrat.

Sorry it has to be this way, but take it from me, someone who is from Minnesota, with the highest voter turnout in the country, and also some of the most progressive policies. If you want a third party candidate to win, you START LOCAL, and build the presence of the party up from there. That's how we got an Independent for Governor in the late 90s and early 2000s. And you should participate in your local elections both in years like this and for the midterms! You have to Stay Involved for it to get better.

Conservatives worked for decades using that "frog in a pot that slowly heats up til it boils" method of introducing their fascism. We have have a great opportunity here to vote in progressive candidates who can help us push the needle back towards sanity and caring about people. It's going to take SUSTAINED EFFORT. We have to shout at our candidates to do the right thing, but the other side won't even listen, so this is the side we have to choose. Palestinians have LITERALLY SAID Harris is the better option here.

So go out and vote. Not just this election but every election. You CAN make change, it is going to be slow, but that time will pass anyways, so why not start working for a better future?

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

By Elie Mystal

“Civil asset forfeiture” is the legal euphemism for when the cops steal your stuff. In this country, if you are stopped or arrested, the police can take all the personal property you have on you and call it “incident to the arrest.” That property can include your phone or your legally purchased guns, and it almost always includes your car.

When cops decide to help themselves to your property, they can do it without a warrant, without securing a conviction, without even charging you with a crime. Once they’ve taken it, the cops then force people to engage in a long legal fight to get their stuff back. Often, the value of the property stolen by the government is less than the cost of lawyers needed to fight the government. There’s no right to public counsel when the cops steal from you, so most people can’t afford to fight them, never get their stuff back, and the cops end up selling it for profit.

Civil forfeiture is a booming business and has become a key source of income for some cities and entire states. According to “Policing for Profit,” a report from the Institute for Justice, federal, state, and local governments made $68.8 billion from civil forfeiture between 2000 and 2019.

Most people I know think that civil forfeiture should be unconstitutional as a point-and-click violation of the Due Process clause. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments both say that we should not be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Civil forfeiture is literally depriving people of their property with no process at all.

Unfortunately, most people I know are not on the Supreme Court. On Thursday, the six unelected Republicans who rule this country said that civil forfeiture can continue to happen so long as the government eventually provides a hearing, even if the hearing takes place long after the theft and most people can’t afford to appeal.

The case is called Culley v. Marshall and deals with two straightforward civil forfeiture examples from Alabama. Halima Culley loaned her car to her son, who was stopped and arrested while driving with marijuana. Lena Sutton loaned her car to a friend who was subsequently busted while driving with methamphetamines. Alabama cops seized both vehicles, even though they didn’t belong to the person driving them, and didn’t return them to their real owners even after they learned of their mistake. Instead, the cops made a civil forfeiture claim and attempted to keep Culley’s and Sutton’s cars.

A report from the Southern Poverty Law Center found that Alabama made $2.2 million in 2015 from stealing property through civil forfeiture, so the cops are fairly heavily incentivized to take property even when the owners are not guilty of anything. But according to alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, Alabama’s grand theft auto operation is just fine.

Writing for a 6-3 majority (it was the usual split: all Republican justices in the majority, all Democratic justices in dissent), Kavanaugh reduced the issue to one of timing. The plaintiffs Culley and Sutton wanted the state to provide a “preliminary” hearing and force the police to justify stealing their cars. Kavanaugh said that the state already provides a “timely” hearing and said that all the plaintiffs wanted was to get their stuff back more quickly. He argued that the plaintiffs’ arguments were just “a backdoor argument for a more timely forfeiture hearing to allow a property owner with a good defense to recover her property quickly.”

As he does so often, Kavanaugh willfully missed the point. The plaintiffs want to stop the government from taking their property, not argue after the fact that the government should give it back. Remember, we’re talking about cars here. If the cops arrest somebody and take their car, then find out later that the car does not belong to the person they arrested, the normal (and constitutional, and basically decent) thing to do is return the car to its rightful owner. But instead of returning the cars to the people who own them, the police in these cases wanted to not only keep the cars but then force the owners to enter into litigation against the police to get the cars back. That’s not a timing issue: That’s a mugging issue.

Think about it this way: If the cops arrest somebody and throw them in jail, the accused is entitled to a preliminary hearing where the government has to explain to a court why that person should be kept in jail and denied bail. That hearing is different from the trial to convict and sentence the person. As a threshold issue, cops have to explain why they locked somebody up. The same constitutional rule should apply to a person’s property. If the police jack a car, they should be forced to explain to a court why they’re keeping the car instead of releasing the car on its own recognizance (just pretend that the car is Lightning McQueen).

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) made a critical distinction between criminal forfeiture and civil forfeiture. It’s one thing if the property involved is the subject of crime. If the car itself is stolen, or if the car is a getaway vehicle that may contain blood or other evidence of criminal activity, one can understand why the cops might need to keep it. Criminal asset forfeiture can also be a form of punishment—for instance, in the unlikely event that a Wall Street type is ever forced to disgorge illegal or fraudulently obtained profits.

Civil forfeiture, however, requires no crime. Sotomayor notes that 80% of civil forfeiture cases “are not accompanied by any ultimate criminal conviction.” She further argues that unchecked civil forfeiture can also lead to false pleas and settlements from property owners desperate to just get their stuff back. She writes:

“Loss of a car not only 'takes away one’s ability to commute' but also imposes a barrier to 'buy[ing] necessities, access[ing] healthcare, and visit[ing] family members, pharmacies, grocery stores, hospitals, and other essential services.' … Given these burdens, low-income communities are also the most vulnerable to pressure from unchecked prosecutors, who can use coercive civil forfeiture processes to extract settlement money from innocent owners desperate to get their property back.”

Kavanaugh was unmoved by these arguments, noting only that states are free to rein in civil forfeiture abuses through legislation but the Constitution does not require them too. It’s worth noticing that the Republicans who claim to care so much about private property and protecting citizens from government “theft” when it comes to environmental regulations or tax laws have no problem allowing states to steal cars from innocent citizens who aren’t even charged with crimes.

For what it’s worth, while Kavanaugh is probably off at a Buffalo Wild Wings somewhere wondering if Alabama can use its forfeiture funds to hire better offensive coordinators for their football programs, Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed at least to struggle with his intellectual hypocrisy. Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion (joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) where he declared both the majority and the dissent to be right.

Oh, he came down on the side of the Republican majority of course, because even if both sides are right, Gorsuch usually thinks the Republican position is more right. And, because this is Gorsuch we’re talking about, he treated us in his opinion to an archaic, intellectually masturbatory discussion of the law of “deodand”—which (I’ve now been forced to learn) was the 11th-century English equivalent to civil forfeiture: Property that caused someone’s death was forfeited “to God” or “the Crown,” but usually the local lord who needed some cash.

Luckily, Gorsuch didn’t seem fond of this particular 11th-century law (probably because he couldn’t figure out how to use it to hurt women or Black people), so the legal upshot of Gorsuch’s concurrence was this musing:

“Why does a Nation so jealous of its liberties tolerate expansive new civil forfeiture practices that have 'led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses'?… In this Nation, the right to a jury trial before the government may take life, liberty, or property has always been the rule. Yes, some exceptions exist. But perhaps it is past time for this Court to examine more fully whether and to what degree contemporary civil forfeiture practices align with that rule and those exceptions.”

What I think Gorsuch is saying is that if some kind of carefully crafted lawsuit came before the court, Gorsuch (and Thomas) would declare at least some aspects of civil forfeiture unconstitutional. I don’t know what that lawsuit would look like. In this case, Culley and Sutton were asking the court to impose a process, that of a “preliminary” hearing, on the states, but we already know that justices like Gorsuch and Thomas don’t like for the courts to do anything to proactively stop the states from violating the Constitution or civil rights (unless the states are trying to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters—then they think the Constitution gets violently angry). They were never going to go for this one, theft of private property be damned.

But perhaps a lawsuit challenging the asset seizure itself instead of the timeliness of the hearing would tickle Gorsuch’s fancy. I’m sure he could find something from Beowulf about the proper procedure for stealing a golden cup.

In the meantime, the cops will continue to rake in billions of dollars from taking people’s stuff. As usual, Republicans have rendered the Constitution impotent in the face of any two-bit criminal who happens to wear a badge instead of a ski mask.

[mariacallous]

The meeting between top US election officials and their cybersecurity partners from the federal government almost went off without a hitch. Then Mac Warner spoke up.

Warner, West Virginia’s Republican secretary of state, didn’t have a mundane logistical question for the government representatives, who were speaking at the winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State in Washington, DC, on February 8. Instead, Warner lambasted the officials for what he said was their agencies’ scheme to suppress the truth about US president Joe Biden’s son Hunter during the 2020 election and then cover their tracks.

“When we have our own federal agencies lying to the American people, that’s the most insidious thing that we can do in elections,” Warner told the officials from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), who watched him impassively from the stage. “You all need to clean up your own houses.”

Neither of the officials responded to Warner, and the NASS meeting—a semiannual confab for the nation’s election administrators that deals with everything from mail-in voting to cyber threats—quickly moved on to other business. But Warner, who attended an election-denier rally after Biden’s 2020 victory and is now running for governor on a far-right platform, isn’t a fringe voice in the GOP. His impassioned speech reflected a growing right-wing backlash to the election security work of agencies like CISA and the FBI—one that now threatens the partnership that the federal government has been painstakingly building with state leaders over the eight years since Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

CISA plays a critical role in helping states run secure elections, but its work alerting social media companies to misinformation has earned it special contempt from conservatives. While most GOP secretaries of state are holding their fire about CISA’s efforts to combat online lies, Democrats and nonpartisan experts worry that that could change in the coming years. With national Republicans increasingly turning against CISA—investigating its activities and voting to slash its budget—the agency’s partnerships with GOP leaders in the states are more vulnerable than ever before.

“The hard and necessary work of securing our elections should not be a partisan issue,” says US representative Chris Deluzio, a Pennsylvania Democrat and former cyber policy scholar. “So I am very concerned that some Republican secretaries of state might undermine that work just to serve their selfish partisan interests.”

Stumbling Into Controversy

The federal program that earned Warner’s wrath began as a response to the rampant mis- and disinformation that has spread online since the 2016 election.

Determined to avoid another contest marred by viral false claims about voting processes, CISA in 2018 began coordinating conversations with social media companies and other federal agencies about the best ways to counter dangerous and destabilizing lies. During the 2020 election, through a process known as “switchboarding,” CISA alerted social media firms to complaints from state and local election officials about online misinformation, such as posts advertising incorrect voting times and locations.

It was in this spirit that FBI officials met with Twitter and Facebook executives in the lead-up to Election Day 2020 and advised them to be wary of Russian disinformation operations involving fake documents. That warning later led both companies to suppress posts about a controversial New York Post story about the contents of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden.

Silicon Valley’s response to the Hunter Biden laptop story outraged conservatives, who began accusing tech companies and their federal partners of conspiring to censor speech in an effort to rig the election. In subsequent investigations, CISA found itself squarely in the crosshairs. The agency had already earned the ire of former president Donald Trump and his allies for reassuring the public about the integrity of the 2020 election, but the new controversy practically made it a pariah on the right.

In June 2023, a House Judiciary Committee report blasted CISA as “the nerve center of the federal government’s domestic surveillance and censorship operations on social media.” A few months later, a federal appeals court partially affirmed a district judge’s ruling that placed limits on CISA’s ability to communicate with tech companies, finding that the agency’s work to fight disinformation “likely violated the First Amendment.”

Stunned by the intense backlash, CISA stopped working with social media platforms to combat mis- and disinformation. The FBI, too, scaled back its interactions with those companies, halting briefings about foreign interference activities. “The symbiotic relationship between the government and the social media companies has definitely been fractured,” a US official told NBC News.

CISA has staunchly avoided acknowledging the reality that its reputation has been damaged.

“CISA’s election security mission is stronger than ever,” says Cait Conley, a senior adviser to director Jen Easterly who oversees the agency’s election work. “We remain engaged with election officials in all 50 states and will continue to conduct all of our work in an apolitical and nonpartisan manner.”

A GOP Split

As the controversies have eroded CISA’s bipartisan brand, Republicans who run elections have split into two camps over whether to keep working with the agency to fight hackers, online falsehoods, and polling-place threats.

West Virginia’s Warner is the indisputable flag-bearer of the anti-CISA camp. “I’ve pulled away from them,” he tells WIRED at the NASS conference, a few hours after venting his frustrations to the federal officials. “I’m not attending their briefings, because I haven’t found anything useful out of them.”

Warner says he’s proud of the “tremendous advances” that federal and state officials have made together on election security since 2016, but he warns that CISA and the FBI will continue losing conservatives’ trust until they investigate their roles in the controversies of 2020. “I’ve brought this to the attention of CISA officials,” he says, “and there’s no effort there to do this.”

Warner argues that CISA’s warnings about foreign disinformation, AI-powered deep fakes, and death threats to election officials are “distractions from the real threat to American democracy” posed by censorship.

It remains unclear how many of Warner’s colleagues agree with him. But when WIRED surveyed the other 23 Republican secretaries who oversee elections in their states, several of them said they would continue working with CISA.

“The agency has been beneficial to our office by providing information and resources as it pertains to cybersecurity,” says JoDonn Chaney, a spokesperson for Missouri’s Jay Ashcroft.

South Dakota’s Monae Johnson says her office “has a good relationship with its CISA partners and plans to maintain the partnership.”

But others who praised CISA’s support also sounded notes of caution.

Idaho’s Phil McGrane says CISA is doing “critical work … to protect us from foreign cyber threats.” But he also tells WIRED that the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), a public-private collaboration group that he helps oversee, “is actively reviewing past efforts regarding mis/disinformation” to determine “what aligns best” with CISA’s mission.

Mississippi’s Michael Watson says that “statements following the 2020 election and some internal confidence issues we’ve since had to navigate have caused concern.” As federal and state officials gear up for this year’s elections, he adds, “my hope is CISA will act as a nonpartisan organization and stick to the facts.”

CISA’s relationships with Republican secretaries are “not as strong as they’ve been before,” says John Merrill, who served as Alabama’s secretary of state from 2015 to 2023. In part, Merrill says, that’s because of pressure from the GOP base. “Too many conservative Republican secretaries are not just concerned about how the interaction with those federal agencies is going, but also about how it’s perceived … by their constituents.”

Free Help at Risk

CISA’s defenders say the agency does critical work to help underfunded state and local officials confront cyber and physical threats to election systems.

The agency’s career civil servants and political leaders “have been outstanding” during both the Trump and Biden administrations, says Minnesota secretary of state Steve Simon, a Democrat.

Others specifically praised CISA’s coordination with tech companies to fight misinformation, arguing that officials only highlighted false claims and never ordered companies to delete posts.

“They’re just making folks aware of threats,” says Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state, Adrian Fontes. The real “bad actors,” he says, are the people who “want the election denialists and the rumor-mongers to run amok and just spread out whatever lies they want.”

If Republican officials begin disengaging from CISA, their states will lose critical security protections and resources. CISA sponsors the EI-ISAC, which shares information about threats and best practices for thwarting them; provides free services like scanning election offices’ networks for vulnerabilities, monitoring those networks for intrusions and reviewing local governments’ contingency plans; and convenes exercises to test election officials’ responses to crises.

“For GOP election officials to back away from [CISA] would be like a medical patient refusing to accept free wellness assessments, check-ups, and optional prescriptions from one of the world’s greatest medical centers,” says Eddie Perez, a former director for civic integrity at Twitter and a board member at the OSET Institute, a nonprofit group advocating for improved election technology.

Worse, some CISA projects will become less effective as they lose participants. The EI-ISAC’s information-sharing initiative is only as valuable as the information that state and federal agencies submit to it.

Even if most states stick with CISA, it would only take a few holdouts to create systemic risk. “America's election security posture is only as strong as its weakest jurisdiction,” says David Levine, the senior elections integrity fellow at the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy.

Cautious Optimism Despite ‘Strain’

Election security experts and Democratic officials express cautious optimism that there won’t be a GOP exodus from CISA this year.

“I have faith Republican secretaries of state will continue to prioritize their voters and collaborate with CISA to ensure a secure 2024 election,” says Mississippi representative Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Lawrence Norden, the senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Elections and Government Program, notes that some of CISA’s new regional election security advisers “have worked in recent years as or for Republican officeholders,” giving them credibility with GOP leaders.

According to Minnesota’s Simon, “the vast majority of secretaries find these partnerships valuable.”

Still, Warner says some secretaries quietly support his pushback against CISA and other aspects of the Biden administration’s election security strategy. “There [is a] meeting of the minds by some of the secretaries, especially on the right, with some of these similar concerns,” he says, even if “they’re not as outspoken as I am.”

That shared skepticism of CISA means that, even after Warner leaves office next year, the agency will remain on precarious footing with some of its Republican partners. For now, CISA’s allies are left hoping that the agency’s time-tested bonds will prove stronger than pressures from conservative activists.

“You can have strain in some areas of a relationship and still have a strong relationship,” says Arizona’s Fontes. “That’s what being a grown-up is about. And I think most of us are doing that pretty well.”

[mightyflamethrower]

(The Center Square) – Border security is a top priority for Republicans in Congress in 2024, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said ahead of another congressional delegation trip scheduled Wednesday in Eagle Pass, Texas.

The area has been hard hit by illegal border crossers and is at the center of several lawsuits between the federal government and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott over border barriers.

The congressional delegation will be briefed by law enforcement and local officials about current conditions and hear concerns raised by residents living along the Texas-Mexico border.

Lawmakers also will discuss their plans for this year after Congress adjourned in December without agreeing on funding packages for Israel and Ukraine, which were tied to funding for border operations. Opponents of the funding packages have argued no more taxpayer dollars should be sent overseas. Instead, funding should be prioritized on helping Americans struggling with high inflation and securing the border.

Before the Christmas holiday, Johnson sent a letter to President Joe Biden calling on him to secure the border while also blaming him for the crisis.

“The southern border of our nation is being overrun and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is at a breaking point. This catastrophe requires your administration’s full attention and commitment,” he wrote.

Johnson also cited record numbers of illegal entries, record fentanyl seizures, “countless children and adults” who’ve been trafficked into the U.S., the impact on local communities by violent criminals and Americans being “more vulnerable to a terrorist attack” after Biden took office.

He reiterated claims made by Abbott and others that the border crisis “is the direct result of your administration’s policies.” He said the president has “clearly undermined America’s sovereignty and security by ending the Remain in Mexico policy, reinstating catch-and-release, suspending asylum cooperative agreements with other nations, ignoring existing restraints on the abuse of parole, and halting border wall construction.”

The solution, Johnson said, includes implementing “statutory reforms designed to restore operational control at our southern border,” which “must start now, and it must start with you.”

The letter urges Biden to “immediately take executive actions … to stem the record tide of illegal immigration.” The administration argues the executive actions that have been taken are providing an orderly, humane process to allow more people to enter the U.S.

Johnson called on the president to end the Obama-era catch-and-release policy it reinstated after the Trump administration abolished it, and to turn back or detain all illegal foreign nationals apprehended between ports of entry. The administration has argued in several lawsuits filed over its policies that it does not have enough space to detain everyone illegally entering, which is why they are being released into the country. Plaintiffs argue this policy violates laws established by Congress and that releasing people en masse into the country, instead of processing them for removal, is illegal.

Johnson also called on the president to “stop exploiting” the parole system, when the administration created more parole programs than previous administrations and has said it doesn’t plan on stopping them. He also called on the president to negotiate with Mexico to reinstitute the Remain in Mexico program after both presidents met roughly one year ago and expressed no plans on doing so.

He called on the president to “immediately renew construction of the border wall” after the administration already announced it was doing so in certain areas.

While Johnson urged the president “to regain operational control of the border,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas argues operational control exists. And when announcing record high illegal border crossing data for November, CBP Acting Commissioner Troy Miller said the agency needed more funding from Congress to process more people into the U.S.

U.S. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., has scheduled hearings this month to address the border crisis. The committee released a series of reports after a nearly year-long investigation into "the causes, costs, and consequences of the crisis at the Southwest border and how the reckless decision-making and legally dubious policies” of the president and Mayorkas “have precipitated the worst border crisis in American history."

The fifth report was released last month, as well as interview transcripts with Border Patrol chiefs who explained how “illegal aliens are spreading the word the border is open;” and agents being reassigned to process and release “illegal aliens into the country rather than patrolling the border between ports of entry” has increased security risks.

The border trip in Eagle Pass comes as a record number of known, suspected terrorists are being apprehended by CBP agents—including an Iranian national with terrorist ties who was arrested on Dec. 21 near Niagara Falls, New York.

In the first three months of fiscal 2024, 80 KSTs were apprehended, with the majority, 46, at the northern border.

These apprehensions are on track to exceed fiscal 2023 apprehensions of 736. The majority of them, 487, or 66%, were apprehended at the northern border.

[kiratrajsingh]

Kirat Raj Singh  Green Energy Tips That Can Make A Difference!

Kirat Raj Singh Professional tips provider. Now, more than ever, people are concerned about the energy we use in this society. Green energy tips are being sought out, more and more. Being "green" not only saves the environment, but it also can save you money in the long run. Continue reading for some great tips to make your life greener.

Air dry your laundry. If the weather allows you to, after you wash your laundry, instead of running it through the dryer, dry it on a clothesline outside. Let the sun and wind dry your clothes for you. Using an electric dryer will only use up energy, and if the weather is nice, you can save energy easily. In addition, your clothes will last longer.

If you have a dishwasher, do not turn it on until it is full. An equal amount of water and energy is used, whether it is full or not. Also ensure that it is set to air-dry if you are aiming to reduce your energy consumption.

A helpful tip to live greener and conserve energy is to have the windows in your home tinted. The windows in your home act like glass in a greenhouse and when you want you home to be cool, the windows will heat it up and work against your air conditioner and cost you a bundle.

If you are planning on installing solar panels, understand the amount of maintenance required. You have to keep the photovoltaic cells clean. If the cells are installed on your roof, this could mean climbing all over your roof as often as once a month. If you are not able to do that, you'll need to hire someone.

Making changes to an existing home is very costly. If you want to start using green energies, you should think about moving or getting a new house built. Look for certain features such as running water or good exposure to the sun and wind when buying a new property or home.

Replace your furnace with one that has the Energy Star seal on it. You can save 15 to 20 percent on your month energy costs if you purchase a highly efficient furnace. You can even get a federal tax credit that will help cover the cost of your new furnace!

Take advantage of any federal or local rebates that you may be entitled to receive. Local utility companies often offer rebates for upgrades. You may also be able to get tax credits or deductions from the government for your upgrades. These tax savings can reduce the net cost of installing alternative energy technology considerably.

Kirat Raj Singh Qualified tips provider. You can use biofuels as home heating fuels. Biofuels are made out of a variety of things, including: oil, wood, and animal/vegetable fats. In many cases, if your furnace is propane, a professional can make the necessary changes that will allow you to heat with a blend of fuels. Most furnaces use between 20 to 99% bio-diesel fuels. Professionals should be consulted before any changes are made to your current furnace.

Going green means many things, including saving energy in your home. One of the easiest and best money-saving ideas is to insulate your attic. The recommended insulation level for most attics is approximately 12 to 15 inches, depending on the type of insulation you are using. Attic insulation can save you a bundle on your energy bill!

Replace your toilet with a water-saving model. Toilets account for fifty percent of the water used in a home. Older toilet models use up to 70 percent more water per year than newer ones.

Installing storm windows can go a long way in helping you save on energy costs. There are both interior and exterior options to choose from. Installing storm windows is said to save you anywhere from twenty-five to fifty percent of heat loss. Make sure to add weather-stripping at movable joints of the storm windows.

If you simply cannot afford to upgrade or replace any part of your home's energy systems, then change your energy-using habits instead. For example, take short showers instead of long baths and only wash maximum capacity loads of clothes or dishes to cut back on water consumption. Likewise, shut off any lights or appliances before leaving a room.

Use the weight of your car to save gas while you are driving. You can increase the miles per gallon of your car by reducing the use of your gas pedal and also your brake. Stop accelerating at least one eighth of a mile before each stop and cut down on fuel usage.

Kirat Raj Singh Expert tips provider. Don't use your dishwasher until you have a full load. Make sure your dishwasher is full before using it, hecause it takes the same amount of water and energy to wash a full load as it does half a load. Use the shortest cycle possible, if you can, turn the dishwasher off prior to the drying cycle, opening the door. This allows the dishes to air dry.

Lighting has changed immensely over the last couple decades, and one energy efficient method for lighting a home that many consumers still have not grasped is the energy saving light bulb. These not only save you money on energy costs, but they last longer anyway. If you have not switched to energy-efficient light bulbs in your home, now is the time. The quality and variety of these lights is better than ever.

Know when your appliances need to be replaced. If you have a major appliance, such as a furnace or air conditioner that is over 10 years old, you should replace them with newer, more energy-efficient models. Buying the newer, Energy Star appliances can save you a lot in the years to come.

Kirat Raj Singh Most excellent service provider. Being "green" can make the difference in your life because, ultimately, you end up saving money. But using green energy can make a great difference to the world around us, as well. The more people who use green energy, the more we conserve our resources and keep the world looking beautiful.

[henrybusinessblog]

Your Guide to Manitoba's Cost of Living: Budgeting Tips for Success

Ah, Manitoba—the region in the center of Canada, where prairies and lakes converge, and bustling cities coexist with the tranquil countryside. 

Understanding the cost of living in Manitoba is important, whether you're a local trying to settle down or a newcomer considering making this province your home. Let's dissect the financial structure of this province, from housing to daily costs, and provide you with crucial budgeting advice for a well-balanced lifestyle.

What Is the Cost of Living In Manitoba, and Where Should I Live?

There are many different ways to live in Manitoba, each with a different cost. The vibrant capital of Winnipeg combines urban comforts with ethnic diversity. 

A one-bedroom apartment typically costs $1011 per month to rent, with some regional variations. For products here, you will have to spend approximately $370 per month per person.

Brandon offers a peaceful alternative for people who seek a calmer pace. This city has a strong sense of community and relatively low living expenses. Housing expenses are frequently even more reasonable in rural areas; however, you might have to give up some conveniences.

Supports and Initiatives from the Federal Government In Manitoba

It makes sense to take advantage of the support networks the federal government has built for provincial residents instead of payday loans Manitoba before delving further into budgets. As safety nets, the Canada Child Benefit (CCB), Old Age Security (OAS), and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) offer financial assistance when required.

The CCB helps families by providing tax-free monthly payments to help with childcare costs. OAS and GIS, which provide financial padding for seniors during their golden years, can provide comfort. Being aware of these may have a significant impact on your financial planning.

Another program, the Canada Workers Benefit (CWB), is made to help the lowest-paid workers, who frequently fill crucial roles in the economy, supplement their income.  

Through the current tax return payment, the CWB may offer as much as $1,428 CAD for lone employees or as much as $2,461 CAD for families. This will significantly contribute to reducing the rising expense of living.

Thanks to state and provincial programs, Manitoba has now become a more attractive place to live. The estimated population of Manitoba in 2022 was 1.41 million, nearly 300,000 more than in 2000.

5 Budgeting Tips and Insights for Living in Manitoba

Harmony in Housing

Your home may be your biggest expenditure. Make sure everything fits into your budget, whether it's buying a lovely house or renting a pleasant apartment. Consider roommates, look into the neighborhood, and strike a balance between comfort and expense.

Navigating Transportation

The cost of transportation can change depending on where you live and work. Public transportation in Winnipeg is effective, but having a car may be necessary if you live in a more remote region. Consider the cost of fuel, insurance, and maintenance as a whole.

The Basics of Necessities

Your budget is impacted by electricity and groceries. Even though Manitoba offers a good quality of life at an affordable price, you still need to budget properly. Be savvy when you shop, choose regional markets, and embrace meal preparation. Similarly, conserve energy to reduce your electricity costs.

Health Comes First

Although Manitoba's healthcare system is impressive, unexpected medical costs can still happen. To be ready, set aside money for prescription drugs, dental cleanings, and eye care.

Finding Fun on a Tight Budget

A balanced existence requires both leisure and entertainment. Several activities are inexpensive or free in Manitoba. Discover your neighborhood parks, attend neighborhood gatherings, and take advantage of nature's marvels without breaking the bank.

Conclusion

As you welcome the idea of relocating to Manitoba, keep in mind that wise budgeting is the secret to achieving financial stability. Every part of Manitoba has something special to offer, from the metropolitan attraction of Winnipeg to the peaceful beauty of country life.

Consider government assistance, exercise fiscal restraint, and update your budget as circumstances change. You can live a life that is both full of experiences and financially secure by finding a balance between taking advantage of the many different things this province has to offer and managing your funds wisely.

Although the expense of living in Manitoba is a problem, it may be resolved with careful preparation and a dash of ingenuity. Therefore, start your new chapter with the confidence that you are prepared to understand Manitoba's financial complexities and make the most of everything this beautiful province offers.

[canadianvesselregistry]

Importing a Boat into Canada? – Here Is Your Checklist

If you are interested in purchasing a yacht, it may not have been made in Canada. It would help if you thought about whether or not your watercraft will be subject to import tariffs and whether or not it will be permitted into Canada at all before you purchase a boat, regardless of whether or not it is new or used, a catamaran or powerboat. Importing a boat into Canada is more complex than buying one from a local dealer or online store. Particularly if you purchase your vessel from a source outside North America, the regulations governing vessel importation are extremely particular and convoluted. Check out the “Checklist” for all the steps you must take when transporting it back from another country if you are already acquainted with importing your watercraft into Canada.

Research the Import Regulations Because Canada is such a large country, the federal government has enacted numerous import regulations to ensure the safety of its citizens, their property, and their animals. These regulations cover everything from automobiles to aircraft components to domesticated animals. If you want to transport a watercraft into Canada, you must comply with these regulations.

The good news is that the federal government of Canada maintains an entire webpage dedicated to explaining the criteria that must be met to bring a watercraft into the country. Some of these guidelines seem self-explanatory, but others might take you by surprise.

Determine Whether You Need To Get a Permit to Import a Boat into Canada This is an especially convoluted subcategory because many variables influence whether or not an import license is required. The simple response is yes if your watercraft is longer than 24 feet and is being delivered to you from outside of Canada. There is usually no need for one on a plastic or metal yacht under 24 feet long. Shipping a watercraft from the United States adds another complexity to the process.

Canada still has the right to “import vessels temporarily for personal use,” as the US Coast Guard states, even without an import license. The boat must be for personal use and not “for sale or resale” when imported into the nation, but it’s good to know that, at least in the United States, you can transport vessels over 24 feet long without an import permit. Details can be found on the US Coast Guard page.

Determine Whether It Will Be More Cost-Effective To Purchase or Rent a Vessel in Canada Purchasing a new or used automobile may be some people’s most practical means. Some states have import limitations on cars older than a certain age and ones with high miles, so keep that in mind if you plan to purchase a vehicle for your relocation. There may be barriers to importing a boat into Canada due to differences in emissions and safety regulations between states. Therefore, before buying your car, you should double-check with the Registrar of Imported Vehicles.

Suppose you’re bringing a used car across the border into Canada as your primary residence from the United States. In that case, you should be aware that your provincial government may require you to pay sales tax on the car’s value if you’re doing so less than six months after purchasing the vehicle in the United States. If you hire a car instead of buying one, ensure your trip times are within the rental term to avoid additional daily or weekly fees.

Find out What Your Insurance Requirements Are, Both in Canada and the United States The first thing you need to do is research the laws of the nation where you intend to ship your watercraft. A certificate of sale or other formal boat ownership document will be required in most instances. If there is no ownership, have the vendor provide you with a certificate of sale that specifies who the legal proprietor is.

You should also must if you have to pay any taxes on the deal; you can do so at the customs office where you bring your watercraft. Moreover, getting a watercraft can be difficult based on where in Canada you reside. If you are unsure how to go about this, contact the immigration agency in your area.

Contact the National Vessel Registry Center with any questions about importing a boat into Canada from the United States. The National Vessel Registry Center is your first choice for vessel importation into Canada, and we can help you through the process.

[ideal1234]

Sustainable Real Estate: How These Builders are Making a Difference

Housing is a critical component of everyone's life. We spend the majority of our time at home, even more so now that the current pandemic allows us to work from home.

For many people, however, this does not simply have advantages; small rooms and apartments do not allow for efficient working circumstances. An even more serious issue is that many people do not even have a safe place to reside.

Sustainable real estate and sustainable cities must be implemented to address these and other concerns. Even the United Nations has mentioned this issue in its Sustainable Development Goals.

The purpose of sustainable real estate is to create buildings that suit present demands without jeopardizing future generations' needs in terms of the environment, society, and economics.

The goal of real estate builders is to develop and sell properties, such as houses, apartments, commercial buildings, and other types of real estate, for a profit. Builders may also be involved in land development, which involves the acquisition, planning, and construction of infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and community amenities.

Real estate builders aim to identify profitable real estate development opportunities, secure financing, and oversee the design, construction, and marketing of properties. The ultimate goal is to create high-quality, desirable properties that meet the needs of buyers or tenants while generating a return on investment for the builder.

Definition of Sustainable Real Estate Development

Environmentally friendly design techniques, materials, and technologies are included in the building process in sustainable real estate development. Instead of employing materials and tactics that raise a home's carbon footprint, sustainable real estate development, top builders in kolhapur tries to lessen the environmental impact of a specific property, from the materials used to daily operations. This allows homes to cut operating costs while also helping the environment.

"Green" real estate development projects, sometimes known as "greenhabbing," are the sustainable version of a regular flip, but with one major difference: an emphasis on environmentally friendly procedures and materials. Except for the obvious differences, the two tactics are indistinguishable. Both exit plans might easily be argued to have the same purpose, which begs the question: how can sustainable real estate development differentiate your company from the competition?

DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE REAL ESTATE

Sustainable real estate development entails constructing sustainable communities that are energy and water efficient, as well as providing people with an environmentally friendly community. Eco-friendly, or sustainable, real estate developments contribute significantly to Texas having some of the most active commercial real estate markets in the country. Consider some of the advantages of sustainable real estate development and why investors should consider investing in it.

THE ADVANTAGES OF SUSTAINABLE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

Residential redevelopers (and even commercial redevelopers) are awarded a wide range of incentives, many of which offer enhanced investment results, due to their intrinsic focus on sustainable methods and minimizing their carbon footprint. Let's look at some of the reasons why you should include sustainable real estate development strategies in your firm as soon as possible.

FUTURE PROOF YOUR COMPANY

Sustainability is the future of practically every business, including commercial enterprises. Natural resource consumption is at an all-time high, and governments all over the world are implementing legislation to minimize emissions and consumption. These rules are being adopted not only at the federal level but many local communities which are mandating all new commercial real estate to be self-sufficient, as well as energy and water efficient. When considering why you should invest in commercial real estate, consider whether the facility will be environmentally friendly and self-sustaining to avoid future costly upgrades to meet those standards.

Reasons to Construct Sustainable Real Estate

Buildings, according to the International Green Building Council, account for more than 40% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Governments around the world have been chastised for not doing more to reduce emissions, thus the public has become a driving force in the movement, resulting in an increase in demand for sustainable real estate. Companies and people are preparing to make the switch and build a property that complies with the Australian government's new and evolving building rules. Many houses are not built in a sustainable manner.

[darkwood-sleddog]

I do think it’s pretty gross that so many people will see poor people managing their dog(s) to the best ability that they can while living in poverty and be like “imma ban that bc uwu animal cruelty”.

[octothorpetopus]

spence and derek are together and the team doesn't know but then one of then gets mad bc they are tired of hiding, so angst w happy/fluffy ending

Give A Little Bit (Derek Morgan x Spencer Reid)

After six months of dating in secret, Spencer is ready to tell their friends. Derek isn’t quite so sure.

A/N: I had a lot of fun with this one, especially Derek’s introspection towards the end. I hope you like this!

Tags: @thebostonreaper @criminalminds-world @agenthotchner @rxseinbloom @cha0ticbisexual @starsandsupernovae

“Coffee. Now.” Derek paused in the doorway to the round table room. “Uh, please.” Emily looked up from where she stood by the coffee machine, arching her eyebrows.

“You look awful.”

“I feel awful.” He slumped into his chair, accepting the styrofoam cup gratefully when she offered it to him. “God, why does no one remind me not to drink too much?”

“You’re a grown-ass adult, Morgan. At this point, if you’re hungover on a work day, that’s on you.”

“Yeah, that’s not helpful. Coffee is helpful.” He chugged the entire cup in one go, wincing at the bitter taste.

“Man, what did you do last night?” He shrugged, and the rest of the team filed in. Spencer sat down next to him, his eyes curious.

“I went out.”

“Hot date?” Derek smirked.

“I guess you could say that. We were clubbing for awhile, then went back to my place for a nightcap, things got out of hand, and now…” As if to prove his point, he knocked his sunglasses over his eyes, blocking out the brilliant overhead fluorescent light.

“Wait, wait, wait. This is the fifth night in like, two weeks you’ve had a date. Derek Morgan, do you have a girlfriend?” He laughed easily, but shifted in his seat.

“Come on, Em, I-“

“Who is she? Come on, tell me.”

“You don’t know her.” Spencer cleared his throat, smiling flatly.

“Hey, guys?” He gestured to the front of the room, where Penelope was waiting patiently.

“If you guys would please stop flirting, I’d like to start the briefing.” Sheepishly, Derek waved a hand.

“My bad. Proceed.”

“Thank you. Now, if you’ll look at your tablets, you’ll see- oh, god, I didn’t mean to look at that…”

It was a local case, and as it turned out not one that they could be helpful in, so Derek went home to his little house in Arlington, flopped down on his sofa with his German shepherd’s head in his lap, and flipped on a cooking show. He was ready to doze off to Rachel Ray’s pickled onion recipe when his doorbell rang.

“I swear to god, if you’re a Jehovah’s Witness or someone trying to sell something, I will throw you into the Potomac!”

“It’s me.” Derek’s mood brightened. He raced to the door, skidding on the hardwood floors. and threw it open.

“Hey there, pretty boy,” he said, leaning against the door frame as nonchalantly as he could.

“Hi.” With the awkward sweetness Derek had grown accustomed to, Spencer leaned in to kiss him quickly, his hands wrapped tightly around the strap of his messenger bag.

“Oh, come on, you can give me more than that.” Derek seized Spencer’s face firmly in his hands and kissed him, really kissed him, long and slow and sweet and warm. The beginnings of rain floated through the air. “Come on in,” he said, holding open the door. Spencer stepped inside, but didn’t go straight to the kitchen like he almost always did (Derek always had a steady supply of baked goods from Penelope, most of which Spencer ate). Instead, he stood in the foyer, shifting uncomfortably from foot to foot.

“What’s up, Spencer?”

“Uh, can we sit down?”

“Yeah, sure.” They sat down in the living room, and that’s when Derek knew something was happening, something big. Spencer always sat on the floor in front of the sofa, for some reason, and despite Derek’s protests that it was bad for his back. This time, however, he sat in one of the soft but rarely used leather armchairs, his fingers tapping out a nervous rhythm on the stiff black leather.

“Spencer, baby, talk to me.” Derek absentmindedly scratched the top of Clooney’s head.

“Do you remember our first date? Like, our first real date?”

“Sure. It was about a month before Emily came back.”

“That was six months ago, Derek.”

“Yeah. Wow. Spence, what’s your point?”

“My point is that it’s been six months, or actually six months, two weeks, and four days, and we haven’t told a single member of our team.”

“...Spencer, we’d lose our jobs. We could face legal repercussions. We’re government agents.” Derek leaned back, smiling, but his stomach turned. This was more serious than he’d thought and he knew it.

“Derek, you know Hotch wouldn’t report us. Penelope and Kevin make it work. Why can’t we? Tell me, why can’t we make it work?”

“Look, I don’t want to argue about this tonight.”

“Derek.” Spencer clutched his hand, pleading. “I need to tell my friends- our friends- our family.”

“Why? Why do they need to know?” Spencer got to his feet, stammering and starting to pace.

“I don’t know, Derek, maybe because I’m sick of hearing you talk about all the girls you go out with when I know damn well that at the end of the day, I’m the one you come home to. I don’t want to have to hear you talk about your ‘girlfriend’ who doesn’t exist just so you don’t have to tell Emily. What is going on with you? I understood not wanting to tell people for the first few months, but we’re six months into this thing. Do you… do you not want to be with me?”

“Spencer, of course that’s not it.” Derek stood up and took Spencer’s hands, but Spencer ripped them away.

“Then what? Are you embarrassed of me? Of how young I am? Or is it just because I’m… odd?”

“No. Never, ever think it’s because I’m ashamed to be with you.”

“Then why?”

“I just want some damn privacy! Don’t you? We let these people into every little nook and cranny of our lives whether we want to or not, and I want- no, I need something that they don’t get a say about!”

“They don’t get a say, but I sure as hell should.”

“I’m doing this for us! I’m doing this for you, Spencer!”

“I- what?” Spencer stepped back, puzzled.

“Look at us, kid. You were a child prodigy and had three PhDs by the time you were twenty-four. And me, well… you know me. What are they going to think?”

“They’re our friends, Derek. They’re our family..

“Friends don’t always have the response you want them to. Come on, you know that.”

“So, what? You don’t want them to know about us because if they know we’re queer-” Derek flinched at the word, but Spencer didn’t seem to notice. “-then they’ll think I’m even weirder than they already think I am? I don’t care about that, and I honestly don’t really think you do either. I think this is about you. You don’t want them to view you as any less of the alpha male hypermasculine son of a bitch that you try to be.”

“Don’t you dare profile me, doctor,” Derek snarled, and even though they were the same height, Spencer seemed tiny by comparison. “You know, I thought you were different than them. I thought you were willing to give me a little privacy. Our fourth date, we made a promise not to profile each other. Ever. You just broke that promise, so I don’t think you get to tell me anything about our relationship right now.” Spencer bit his lip, still obviously angry, but he couldn’t seem to come up with anything else to say. “Why did you have to do this, Spencer? We have a good thing going, don’t we?”

“Sure. But what’s the point of a good thing if it never sees the light of day?” Before Derek could respond, both of their phones buzzed.

“New case.”

“New case.” They stared at each other for a moment.

“We should-”

“I think I’ll take my own car.” Spencer pressed his lips together until they disappeared in a thin white line, and Derek couldn’t tell if he was trying not to scream or cry. “I’ll see you there.” Without waiting for a response, he left, slamming the front door behind him and abandoning Derek, who stood quiet and helpless in the living room, Clooney whimpering at his feet. He was so tired of fighting, but something in him wouldn’t let him tell them. Something in him screamed YOU CAN’T YOU CAN’T YOU CAN’T over and over and over again, bouncing around his head like an echo in an empty cathedral. But if he didn’t, he would lose Spencer. Those two things weighed in the scales of his mind, but he pushed them aside. They had a case, and he didn’t have a choice.oice.

At some point while they were arguing, the light mist had turned into heavy rain, and by the time Derek made it into Quantico he was soaked from head to toe. He dripped water on the round table room floor. Spencer was already there when he arrived, folded into his chair, his expression not angry but sober, introspective. When Garcia started the briefing, his head snapped up, as if waking from a dream.

“Last week in Harlon, Kentucky, three former inmates from a federal penitentiary were found stabbed to death and buried in shallow graves in a park. They were found by a woman walking her dog, who used to be a K-9.”

“They were killed fairly close together, that means this unsub isn’t hesitant,” Rossi mused.

“We should be looking at other released inmates.” Hotch set his tablet down on the table.

“Victims and families of their crimes, too,” Emily added.

“Could be a corrections officer gone rog-“

“We should be looking at everyone working in the criminal justice system when they were put into prison,” Spencer said, interrupting Derek without a second thought or glance.

“Uh, yeah.” Hotch’s eyes flirted back and forth between Spencer and Derek. “We’ll do a preliminary profile on the plane. Wheels up in thirty.” Everyone stood to leave, but Hotch didn’t move. “Morgan, stay behind for a minute.” He paused halfway to the door, briefly considered making a break for it, but stayed. When he turned around to look at Hotch, Hotch was more concerned than anything else. “What’s going on with you and Reid?” Derek shrugged, trying to seem as nonchalant as possible.

“Nothing.”

“Really? He seems upset. Specifically at you.”

“I don’t know, Hotch.”

“Morgan, if there’s something going on with you two-“

“Hotch, I promise. Everything’s fine.” Hotch didn’t look as if he believed Derek, but he didn’t press the issue further.

“Fine. Grab your go bag, let’s get this show on the road.”

That was how it went. It was another short case, not a hard one either. Spencer ignored Derek, Derek let him, and the rest of the team stood by in awkward silence, unsure what was happening but not willing to say anything about it. That was how it went. At least, until the plane ride back to Washington. They sat at opposite ends, instead of curled up next to each other like they always slept, like they had always done even when they were just friends, or at least before they realized that they were anything more than that. Derek watched Spencer turn the pages of his book absentmindedly. He knew that Spencer couldn’t be reading, because it was taking him far too long. Hesitantly, quietly, he got up and crossed the plane to sit across from Spencer, who pointedly didn’t look at him. Everyone else was dead asleep, but Derek couldn’t and he could tell that Spencer couldn’t either.

“Talk to me,” he whispered, fighting the urge to reach over and squeeze Spencer’s bony knee like he always did when they were making up from a fight.

“About what?” Still, Spencer didn’t look up.

“Spencer, goddamnit, I can’t see why you’re so upset with me.”

“Really? You really can’t see it?”

“If anyone has a right to be upset, it’s me. I told you, I’m not ready.”

“And that’s exactly it. You’re thinking about how this affects you. ‘I’m not ready.’ I am. We have to make these decisions together, and you’re not even considering-“

“I don’t need to consider anything,” Derek hissed, trying to keep his voice low but failing. “I’m not ready, and it’s not fair of you to expect me to-“

“No, you know what’s not fair?” Spencer wasn’t thinking anymore, and his volume was increasing steadily. Out of the corner of his eye, Derek saw JJ start to stir. “What’s not fair is for you to expect me to not tell my friends about our six-month relationship. What’s not fair is that even though neither of us has been out with another person in those six months, you refuse to let me call you my boyfriend.”

“Keep-“ Derek’s head darted around. Everyone else was still asleep. “Keep your voice down.”

“Yeah, I’ll keep my voice down,” Spencer said, very much not keeping his voice down. “Fine. But I’m sick of you telling me that I have to pretend like everything’s normal when it’s not.” JJ was fully awake now, and Derek could see her gently shake Emily.

“Spencer, I have my reasons. But I also need a certain amount of privacy, even from you. I have things I need to work through and frankly, I need more time!”

“You’ve had six months! Six months to work through these things! What am I supposed to think, Derek?”

“Guys, I-“ Spencer waved a hand to silence Hotch, who stepped back, stunned.

“You act like I don’t get a say in this. Like your feelings and whatever the hell you’re going through only affects you. I’m tired.” Spencer bit his lip. “I’m so tired.”

“I’m tired too, kid.” They stood, just staring at each other. Derek felt the weight of everyone else’s eyes on them.

“So that’s it, huh?” Spencer asked, and in the crack in his voice was everything that wasn’t said. As angry as he was, he would not do to Derek what Derek would not do to himself.

“Yeah, kid. I think that’s it.” Derek had to lean against a seat in order to keep from falling to his knees.

“Morgan, go sit down,” Hotch said firmly.

“I’m gonna go- I-“ Derek gestured vaguely towards the bathroom and stumbled away, his breathing choked and heavy. He hardly closed the door behind him before the first sob racked his body, and he clapped a hand over his mouth to muffle the sound. His shoulders heaved and tears began to surge down his cheeks, but he endured it all in as much silence as he could, curled on the floor of the BAU jet bathroom. Outside, he could hear soft, unintelligible whispering, but no one came after him. They all knew better than that, and anyway, the one person he actually wanted to see right now was the last person who would want to talk to him. He briefly considered calling his mom, or even one of his sisters, but he wouldn’t do that. He wouldn’t be pushed away from the few people on this earth who knew everything about him- well, almost everything. Slowly but steadily, Derek got to his feet. His entire body felt heavy, like he was trying to walk through water. When he opened the door, everyone tried very pointedly not to look at him. He sat down across from Rossi, who flinched but didn’t look up from his magazine.

“You okay, kid?” He asked, so quietly Derek almost thought he imagined it.

“No.”

“Do you want to talk about it?”

“No.”

“Okay.” Still not looking up, Rossi pulled a magazine off the seat next to him and tossed it to Derek. It was a Newsweek from two weeks ago, but Derek still felt a surge of gratitude. Not enough to dull the sensation that his heart was quite literally breaking in two, but it was something. No one else spoke, not to Spencer, not to each other, and certainly not to him. They might not have had any idea about what was going on (if they did, they didn’t show it), but they got the idea that it didn’t involve them. Maybe it should, Derek thought to himself. But if he told them now, any of them, what was any of it for?

The little house in Arlington was the same as he’d left it, except that Clooney’s water dish had been refilled by his friend who dogsat for him whenever he was out of town. Stopping only to scratch the elderly German Shepherd behind the ears, Derek headed straight for the living room, collapsing in a heap of limbs on the sofa. He couldn’t deny that it was his fault anymore, could he? Spencer really hadn’t been asking that much, when it came down to it. Just that they could be together in public, in the eyes of their friends. Because that was what you did when you were with someone. Only they had never really been together, because Derek had always laughed it off when Spencer had asked if they were boyfriends. Why was that? Why couldn’t he get up the courage to be something with someone? Not even just someone, but someone he thought he maybe loved.

So, it was love. Then why couldn’t he ever bring himself to say those words, or any like them, out loud? It wasn’t like he had never been in a long-term relationship before. It wasn’t like he had never been someone’s boyfriend, or like he’d never said “I love you”. All the dates he’d been on, the late nights shared on this same sofa, dinners with his family, introductions to his friends passed through his head like the old-school viewmaster he had loved to play with as a kid. It took him a moment to realize why this was so different than all of those other times, and when he did, he fell off the sofa onto the floor, knocking his head against the coffee table as he tumbled down. He had been a boyfriend, he had said “I love you”, he had been out in public and met the parents and the friends before.

But he had never done it with a man.

Why it had taken him this long to figure that out, he didn’t actually know, and kind of wanted to smack himself for, but then he noticed the blood dripping from his head where he had hit the coffee table, and decided he’d probably injured himself enough for one night. While he was getting up to find the first-aid kit he kept in the hall closet, he looked back, incredulous. Sure, figuring out he liked men had been a fairly recent development, but he honestly didn’t see it as life-changing at the time. No, he hadn’t told anyone, but that was because it wasn’t anyone else’s business… right?

No. That wasn’t right.

In the dim light of the bathroom, Derek inspected his injury. It wasn’t a super deep cut, but it would take a while to heal, and he’d probably have a scar for a while. Watching his blood dilute and swirl down the drain, he remembered a specific day from his childhood he hadn’t thought about in years. He had only been twelve, maybe thirteen, and playing basketball with a few friends after school when they heard yelling from around one side of the community center. That had been the first hate crime he had ever seen- a gay kid got beat up simply for being gay. And as a Chicago cop, and an FBI agent, it was not the last. It wasn’t the last time he heard slurs tossed around like they bore no weight, casual ignorance from the coworkers in the locker room or friends on the street. If they’d known about him, would they have stayed quiet? Would they have kept their vitriol to themselves until he was gone and then let it spew, melting the world around them like acid? Or would they have done to him what they did to that kid that day at the community center? No, he was too big and too strong for that. Being big and strong was what protected him, from fists and rage, but also from prying eyes. No one ever expected that the 200 lb former linebacker and Judo black would be the one with the dirty little secret. Maybe if they did, it would be easier. Maybe if he thought it would surprise everyone less, it wouldn’t be quite so hard. When Spencer had come out to the team a few years ago, no one had seemed surprised. It wasn’t hard to see how the skinny kid with the messy hair, who’d never really had a girlfriend, who wore sweater vests and sneakers everywhere, who could carry a conversation with only his endless fount of knowledge, could be different from the rest of them. Only he wasn’t that different, was he? No, his coming out had been what sparked Derek’s journey of self-discovery, so they weren’t as different as they seemed. What he truly couldn’t endure was the surprise. He didn’t want to be seen in a different light- he was just Derek Morgan, same as always. But that was never really the case with a bomb like this. No one ever just took it without flinching, without questions that demanded answers he couldn’t give.

The scales in his mind, which up until this point had been weighted so heavily towards that one side, that side that said everything would go wrong and his life would change forever, began to tip now. Because now he was in his home office, staring at the bulletin board over his desk. His office was the one place no one else ever went in his house (his bedroom was almost his own, except the time he’d let Emily sleep in his bed after getting a little too wasted at the FBI Christmas party). But no, his office was his and his only, so that was where he kept all the reminders he needed for himself, without anyone else’s input. A signed puck from a Chicago Blackhawks game he’d gone to with his father before he died. A dried flower from the bouquet his mom had sent him when he was accepted into the FBI academy. But he wasn’t looking at those things right now, right now his eyes were fixed on the photo that had taken a prominent position front and center. If he’d been profiling himself, he would have said that the reason was that that photo had some kind of importance. It was him and Spencer, about three months earlier, at a Washington Wizards game, basketball being the only sport he could convince Spencer to go to. The picture was a close-up of the jumbotron, during the third-quarter Kiss Cam (he had paid the guy working the Kiss Cam twenty bucks for the footage). In it, Spencer was wearing one of Derek’s old Wizards jerseys, and he was still in the middle of saying something when Derek had kissed him. His wide eyes made it obvious it had been a surprise, but his smile and the hand resting on Derek’s backwards baseball cap gave him away. Derek loved that picture, that’s why he had put it on the board right where he could see it as he worked. He wanted to go back to that, to the quiet ease and the loud feelings, to blending into a world that told them they had to stand out.

The scales were tipping. On one side, there was the world. On the other, there was Spencer. Spencer, who loved brownies and foreign films. Spencer, who wore his sneakers to The Capital Grille. Spencer, who should have been jaded and cynical but still had an optimism about the world Derek couldn’t quite refute. The scales were tipping, and Derek made no effort to stop them. With every minute he stared at that picture, every minute he thought about the last six months, they tipped further and further until there was no denying that one outweighed the other. With a little resignation, a little relief, and a lot of apprehension, Derek got up, turned off the office light, and went to bed.

The round table room was dead silent when he walked in, not that anyone had been talking before he’d arrived. Rossi and JJ were watching everyone with wide, wary eyes. Emily was staring into her coffee. Garcia bit her lip, her nerves obviously getting to her. Hotch was scrolling through his tablet. Spencer sat in his chair, staring off into the near distance. His hair was more of a mess than normal, his tie was crooked, and his eyes were heavy-lidded and red, like he’d stayed up all night.

“Garcia.” Hotch nodded. “Let’s get started.”

“Okay, well-” Penelope’s voice wobbled, and she started suddenly as Derek raised his hand. “I- what?”

“Can I say something before we start?” Confused, a little freaked, she looked to Hotch for confirmation. Hotch looked equally as confused, but nodded.

“Go ahead, but try to make it quick.”

“I will.” On shaky legs, Derek stood. Everyone looked at him, their interests piqued, except Spencer, who continued staring off at some point Derek couldn’t see. “Six months ago, I met someone. Well, no. I already knew them. Six months ago, I saw someone I knew in a different light. And for the last six months, I’ve been falling head-over heels in love.”

“Derek, how come you never told me?” Penelope gently squeezed his hand. “Whoever she is, I’m sure we’d love her.” He smiled, shaking his head.

“That’s just it. You’re not going to love her, because there is no her.” Confused, the team glanced at each other, but remained silent. “He is so incredibly special to me, and I’ve wanted to scream it from the rooftops for six months, but I just… I couldn’t.” Now, for the first time, he turned to Spencer. “Spencer Reid, I love you.” Spencer’s head snapped up, his eyes wide like he’d just woken up. His mouth opened and closed a few times but he didn’t say anything. Derek wasn’t watching anyone else, but he was sure they were wearing identical looks of shock. “I’ll never be as sorry for anything else in my life as I am that I never told you that, and that I made you keep this secret for so long.” He crouched in front of Spencer, taking his hands. “I had to think. I shouldn’t have had to, I should have just let myself be with you, but I did. I’ve seen a lot, Spencer, a lot of myself and a lot of the world. And I hate to say it, but I’ve got way too much fear for my own good. But I realized that if I weigh whatever fear I have against you, it’s no contest.” He cleared his throat and straightened, facing his startled friends. “I’m bisexual. It took me a while to figure it out, and even longer to come to terms with it, but it’s who I am. Six months ago, about a month before you came back, Em, I asked Spencer to go to the movies with me. We’ve been together ever since. Last week, he asked me if we could tell you. I let my demons get the better of me. I’m not gonna do that anymore. Spencer.” He held out a big, weathered hand, pleading silently for Spencer to take it. Spencer stares up at him, clearly hesitating. But then he blinks, and whatever reservations he had disappeared. He took Derek’s hand and let himself be pulled into a hug. Derek felt his narrow, bony arms wrap around his shoulders and his head bury into the crook of his neck. “I’m so sorry,” Derek whispered, knowing the rest of the team was still watching, not really caring.

“I forgive you,” Spencer murmured.

“I love you.”

“Yeah, I got that.” Derek frowned. “Sorry. Love you too.”

“Ahem.” Hotch cleared his throat. “Sorry to interrupt, I’m very happy for you guys, but can we finish the briefing first?” Derek and Spencer untangled their limbs, both grinning sheepishly. They sat back down, an awkward but cheery silence sweeping the room.

“Wow. Uh, okay.” Penelope wiped her eyes and Derek realized she was crying a little. So was he, just a few little happy tears in the corner of his eyes. In fact, it looked like there wasn’t a dry eye at the round table. “So, yesterday in Sacramento, one Mr. Paul Young was found in a dumpster with his hands cut off- ew.”

“Morgan. Reid. Hang on a minute.” Hotch beckoned for them to stay as the rest of the team headed to the jet. Derek winced. He’d known there would be something, but he’d hoped rather foolishly that Hotch would give them a few days. Nope.

“Hotch, listen-“

“Guys, just… hold on.” Hotch scanned them both with those dark, analytical eyes. “I won’t tell Strauss if you don’t want me to, which I’m assuming you don’t. I’m guessing you two know that this isn’t going to be easy.”

“Hotch-“

“I’m not done. You cannot have anything happen like what happened on the plane yesterday. If you do, I will tell Strauss. I’m not threatening your jobs, and even if I do tell Strauss, I will fight for you to keep your jobs. But that can never, ever happen again. Am I clear?” Derek nodded vigorously, and out of the corner of his eye saw Spencer doing the same. “Good.” Hotch remained serious for a moment, then broke out smiling. Derek couldn’t remember the last time he’d seen Hotch smile so brightly. “I’m happy for you guys. Really.”

“Thanks, Hotch.” When Derek glanced over at Spencer, he was flushed bright red.

“Alright. Get your stuff, get on the jet. I’ll see you there.” He pushed between them, leaving them alone by the round table.

“I’m sorry too, you know,” Spencer said, turning to face Derek.

“You have nothing to be sorry for.”

“Neither do you, really. You needed to process things I didn’t even know you were thinking about. I’m sorry if I ever made you feel like those feelings weren’t valid, or if your feelings weren’t as important as mine.”

“No. Never.” Derek took Spencer’s face in his hands and smiled, feeling the happy tears resurface. “It all worked out in the end.”

“No. Not the end. The beginning.” Slowly; hesitantly at first, Spencer leaned in and kissed him, and Derek let him, pushing back with more fervor.

“We should go,” he said quietly, breaking the kiss and leaning his forehead against Spencer’s. “Hotch’ll be pissed if we’re late.”

“Let him.” Spencer grabbed the collar of Derek’s t-shirt with one hand, the back of his head with the other, and pulled him in for another kiss. When he broke the second kiss, he held out his hand, which was soft and bony in comparison to Derek’s. Derek took his hand and let Spencer lead him out of the room. He was right, really. This wasn’t the end of a secret not worth keeping. It was the beginning of a real love story.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 9, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

After weeks of pleading with Americans to get vaccinated as Republican governors opposed mask mandates, ICUs filled up, and people died, today President Joe Biden went on the offensive.

Saying, “My job as President is to protect all Americans,” he announced that he was imposing new vaccination or testing requirements on the unvaccinated. The U.S. government will require all federal employees, as well as any federal contractors, to be vaccinated. The government already requires that all nursing home workers who treat patients on Medicare and Medicaid have to be vaccinated; Biden is expanding that to cover hospital workers, home healthcare aides, and those who work in other medical facilities. “If you’re seeking care at a health facility, you should be able to know that the people treating you are vaccinated.”

Using the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Biden will also make employers with 100 or more employees require that their employees either be vaccinated or show a negative coronavirus test at least once a week. He pointed out that big companies already are doing this, including United Airlines, Disney… and the Fox News Channel.

Together, the new vaccine requirements will affect about 100 million Americans, making up two thirds of all U.S. workers.

Biden also urged those who run large entertainment venues to require vaccines or show a recent negative test for entry. He has already required teachers at the schools run by the Defense Department to get vaccinated, and today he announced that the government will require teachers in the Head Start program, which is federally funded, to be vaccinated. He called on governors to require that all teachers and staff be vaccinated for coronavirus, as their states already require a wide range of vaccinations for other diseases.

Calling out those like Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who has taken a stand against mask mandates and is threatening to withhold the salaries of school officials who defy him, Biden said that “if these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as President to get them out of the way.”

He is using the Defense Production Act to increase production of rapid tests and has worked with major retailers to sell those tests at cost for the next three months. The government has also expanded free testing at 10,000 pharmacies and will spend $2 billion to distribute nearly 300 million rapid tests to community health centers, food banks, and schools. He has ordered the Transportation Safety Administration to double the fines on travelers that refuse to mask.

After deploying nearly 1000 healthcare workers to address this summer’s surges in 18 states, the president is now sending in military health teams from the Defense Department. Meanwhile, he said, the U.S. continues to donate vaccines to the rest of the world, “nearly 140 million vaccines over 90 countries so far, more than all other countries combined, including Europe, China, and Russia.... That’s American leadership on a global stage, and that’s just the beginning.” The U.S. is now shipping 500 million more Pfizer vaccines to 100 lower-income countries.

“Many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinated, even though the vaccine is safe, effective, and free,” Biden said. More than 175 million Americans are fully vaccinated, and for the past three months we have created 700,000 new jobs a month. But while nearly three quarters of those eligible have gotten at least one shot, the highly contagious Delta variant has ripped through the unvaccinated, who are overcrowding our hospitals, threatening the health of our children, and weakening our economic recovery.

“[D]espite America having an unprecedented and successful vaccination program, despite the fact that for almost five months free vaccines have been available in 80,000 different locations, we still have nearly 80 million Americans who have failed to get the shot…. And to make matters worse, there are elected officials actively working to undermine the fight against COVID-19,” Biden said. “Instead of encouraging people to get vaccinated and mask up, they’re ordering mobile morgues for the unvaccinated dying from COVID in their communities. This is totally unacceptable.”

“[W]e have the tools to combat COVID-19, and a distinct minority of Americans—supported by a distinct minority of elected officials—are keeping us from turning the corner…. We cannot allow these actions to stand in the way of protecting the large majority of Americans who have done their part and want to get back to life as normal.”

“We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us,” he said. “So, please, do the right thing.”

The Biden administration is pushing back, too, on Texas’s Senate Bill 8, which prohibits abortion after 6 weeks and thus outlaws 85% of abortions in the state. Today, the United States of America sued the state of Texas for acting “in open defiance of the Constitution” when it passed S. B. 8 and deprived “individuals of their constitutional rights.” The United States has a “profound sovereign interest” in making sure that individuals’ constitutional rights can be protected by the federal government, the lawsuit declares. "The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said.

What is at stake in this case is the ability of the federal government to defend Americans’ constitutional rights against local vigilantes, a power Americans gave to the federal government in 1868 by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution after white former Confederates in southern states refused to accept the idea that their Black neighbors should have rights.

Since the 1950s, the Supreme Court has used federal power to protect the rights of minorities and women when state laws discriminated against them. S. B. 8 would strip the government of that power, leaving individuals at the mercy of their neighbors’ prejudices. The government has asked the U.S. district court for the western district of Texas to declare the law “invalid, null, and void,” and to stop the state from enforcing it.

This issue of federal supremacy is not limited to Texas. Glenn Thrush of the New York Times today called out that in June, Missouri governor Mike Parson signed the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which declares federal laws—including taxes—that govern the use of firearms “invalid in this state.” Like the Texas abortion law, the Second Amendment Preservation Act allows individuals to sue state officials who work with federal officials to deprive Missourians of what they consider to be their Second Amendment rights. “Obviously, it’s about far more than simply gun rights,” one of the chief proponents of the bill, far-right activist Aaron Dorr, said to Thrush about his involvement.

There were other wins today for the Biden administration. Today was the deadline for federal agencies to produce a wide range of records surrounding the events of January 6 to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and according to the committee’s Twitter feed, those records have, in fact, been forthcoming.

And Taliban officials did allow a plane carrying about 115 Americans and other nationals to leave Afghanistan.

Biden’s new approach to the pandemic is, as Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo points out, good politics as well as good for public health. About 65% of the voting age population is already vaccinated, and older people are both more likely to be vaccinated and more likely to vote. With most Americans vaccinated and increasingly frustrated with those who refuse, there is little political risk to requiring vaccines, while Republicans standing in the way of public health measures are increasingly unpopular. Florida, where deaths from coronavirus soared to more than 300 a day in late August, has begun to limit the information about deaths it releases.

If Biden’s new vaccine requirements slow or halt the spread of the coronavirus, the economic recovery that had been taking off before the Delta variant hit will resume its speed, strengthening his popularity. Those Republican lawmakers furious at the new vaccine requirements are possibly less worried that they won’t work than that they will.

Notes:

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/lawsuit-doj.pdf

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/09/politics/biden-administration-texas-abortion-law/index.html

https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-committee-issues-sweeping-demand-executive-branch-records

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/09/business/economy-stock-market-news

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b3CD2rFn105IQ7ziTfcTT5m8bzv1gBXE5-RXEV0phMM/edit

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/us/politics/missouri-gun-law.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-news-taliban-to-let-americans-evacuate-flights-from-kabul-airport/

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/as-covid-deaths-soar-florida-curtails-public-records-on-which-counties-hit-hardest/2547538/

Josh Marshall @joshtpmThe vax mandate is good public health. It’s also good politics. A big majority of the voting age population is already vaxed. About 65%. Propensity to vote and likelihood of being vaxed both rise with age. The vaxed are losing patience w the voluntarily unvaxed who …

288 Retweets1,742 Likes

September 10th 2021

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[plannedparenthood]

Medicaid vs. Medicare

Disclaimer: Planned Parenthood believes in using gender-inclusive language. However, when we’re referencing government data and statistics, we have to use the data points they chose, which often don’t reflect the full range of gender identities. We hope that in the future, all research will better reflect and respect the diversity of gender. 

It’s easy to mix up Medicaid and Medicare. They sound super similar and they’re both well-known government programs that help people get health care across the country. But it’s important to know the difference so you and the people you care about can benefit.

The Difference Between Medicaid and Medicare

Although Medicaid and Medicare are complex, here’s the main difference: 

Medicaid is insurance that aids people of all ages who have low incomes. Medicaid covers 21% of the U.S. population.

Medicare is insurance that primarily cares for people ages 65 years and up (with any income).  Medicare covers 14% of the U.S. population.

Here’s where this gets tricky: Medicare also covers people of all ages who have disabilities or who are on dialysis — including people who need reproductive health care, such as birth control and pregnancy services. What’s more, people can be on both Medicaid and Medicare at the same time. (For these “dual eligible” beneficiaries, Medicare pays their claims first and Medicaid pays second.)

What Medicaid and Medicare Have in Common

Overall, Medicaid and Medicare provide health care for almost 108 million Americans. These federal programs also provide health care to a greater number of women than any other single source in America. 

Together, their coverage includes several reproductive and sexual health care services — like wellness exams, STD tests and treatment, cancer screenings and treatment, prenatal and postnatal care, and labor and delivery. 

Medicaid: America’s #1 Source for Reproductive Health Care

When you think of Medicaid, think of it as THE reproductive health care program in the United States. Here’s why:

Women and girls are the majority of Medicaid’s 75 million enrollees. 

Medicaid covers more women’s health care than any other payer.

Nationwide, Medicaid covers one in five (21%) of all women and girls of reproductive age. That’s 13.2 million people ages 15 to 44 years old. 

Medicaid covers nearly half of all births and 75% of family planning services.

Medicaid Serves People of Color

Due to racism and other systemic barriers that have contributed to income inequality, women of color disproportionately comprise the Medicaid population, or roughly 57% of women in the program overall. And they are also over-represented given their share of the general population. For example, 30% of African-American women and 24% of Hispanic women are enrolled in Medicaid, compared to only 14% of white women. 

Why is that important to know? Because any limits on Medicaid hurt women of color in particular. 

One example of a limit on Medicaid that hurts women of color: states refusing to adopt Medicaid expansion. As a result of the Affordable Care Act, adults who don’t have children and have incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level are entitled to Medicaid coverage if their states choose to expand Medicaid. To date, 37 states (including D.C.) have adopted the Medicaid expansion, and 14 states haven’t adopted the expansion. States that haven’t adopted Medicaid expansion lag behind in covering people with low incomes and vulnerable populations.

Medicare: Meeting Your Health Care Needs Later in Life

Similar to Medicaid, the majority (56%) of Medicare’s older enrollees are women. That’s 24 million women, ages 65 and up.

Medicare covers some of the same sexual and reproductive health services as Medicaid, but not all. Whereas Medicaid always covers birth control, only some Medicare plans do. That’s because Medicare focuses on the needs of older adults. To that end, Medicare covers special services for older women — like bone density screenings and medication for post-menopausal osteoporosis. 

Because of the gender pay gap throughout their lives, older women are more likely to live in poverty and qualify for Medicaid than older men. Of the 50 million Medicare users age 65 and up, more than half (56%) are women. The gender disparity grows larger as people age: Two of every three Medicaid beneficiaries age 85 and up are women.

Who Pays for Medicaid & Medicare?

Medicaid is a jointly-run federal and state health insurance program.  This means both state and federal tax dollars pay for Medicaid. 

Medicare isn’t a joint federal-state program. Instead, Medicare is a federal insurance program. So, your federal tax dollars mostly pay for Medicare.

Do Planned Parenthood Health Centers Take Medicaid and Medicare?

Most Planned Parenthood health centers accept Medicaid, and some providers at Planned Parenthood health centers accept Medicare. Find a Planned Parenthood health center near you to learn what insurance plans they accept. You can also call 1-800-230-PLAN to speak with a Planned Parenthood staff member who can help you figure out coverage and costs. 

Whether you have Medicaid, Medicare, any other insurance, or no insurance at all, you can always visit your local Planned Parenthood health center for the care you need, when you need it.

Can Medicaid and Medicare Cover Abortion?

No, in most cases, you can’t use Medicaid, Medicare, or any other federal health insurance program for abortion. 

An unfair policy called the Hyde Amendment blocks federal funding for abortion with three narrow exceptions: when the pregnancy could kill the patient, or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. Federal health programs cannot cover abortion even when a patient’s health is at risk and their health care provider recommends they get an abortion.

Still, 16 states with pro-reproductive health leaders have taken the bold step to cover safe, legal abortion with state funds for people who use Medicaid. That includes 15 states already covering it and Maine, whose coverage law will go into effect March 2020.

Failed Efforts to “Defund” Planned Parenthood Have Targeted Medicaid Beneficiaries 

Anti-abortion politicians in the Trump-Pence administration, Congress, and certain statehouses across the country are trying to put safe, legal abortion out of reach. One of their key tactics is attempting to shut down Planned Parenthood through legislation they misleadingly named “defunding.” They made up that misnomer to confuse people about how funding works at Planned Parenthood. 

“Defunding” policies block patients who use public health care programs — like Medicaid and Medicare — from accessing preventive health care at Planned Parenthood health centers. Preventive health care includes birth control, STD testing and treatment, and cancer screenings.

The politicians behind “defunding” don’t care that their policies make Planned Parenthood patients lose access to lifesaving preventive care. “Defunding” has one goal: to shut down Planned Parenthood and make safe, legal abortion harder to access (along with a lot of other sexual and reproductive health services).

Getting Political

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)’s Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) oversees the two programs. How you get your health care in the United States depends on what HHS prioritizes. And changes politicians make to Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP mean the difference between millions of people getting reproductive and sexual health care — or not. 

Right now, CMS is overseen by Seema Verma, a former corporate health care consultant who thinks maternity coverage should be optional and made millions of dollars dismantling Medicaid in Indiana. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has forced Planned Parenthood out of the Title X program through a dangerous gag rule. 

If you care about health care access in America, stay up-to-date on the politics behind Medicaid and Medicare. Visit PlannedParenthoodAction.org to learn more and get involved. 

Open Enrollment

You may qualify for low-cost or free health insurance through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), depending on your income and what state you live in. If you qualify for either program, you can enroll anytime without waiting for the enrollment period. To find out if you’re eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, visit your state’s Medicaid agency. 

-Miriam at Planned Parenthood

[patriotsnet]

Did Democrats Or Republicans Founded The Kkk

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-democrats-or-republicans-founded-the-kkk/

Did Democrats Or Republicans Founded The Kkk

The Kkk Was Founded By Democrats But Not The Party

Democrats Founded the KKK.mp4

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by ex-Confederate soldiers Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe in Pulaski, Tennessee. The group was originally a social club but quickly became a violent white supremacist group.

Its first grand wizard was Nathan Bedford Forrest, an ex-Confederate general and prominent slave trader.

Fact check:

Experts agree the KKK attracted many ex-Confederate soldiers and Southerners who opposed Reconstruction, most of whom were Democrats. Forrest even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

The KKK is almost a paramilitary organization thats trying to benefit one party. It syncs up with the Democratic Party, which really was a;racist party openly at the time, Grinspan said. But the KKK isnt the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party isnt the KKK.

Although the KKK did serve the Democratic Partys interests, Grinspan stressed that not all Democrats supported the KKK.

The Anti-Defamation Leagues Center on Extremism senior fellow Mark Pitcavage told the Associated Press that many KKK members were Democrats because the Whig Party had died off and Southerners disliked Republicans after the Civil War. Despite KKK members’ primary political affiliation, Pitcavage said it is wrong to say the Democratic Party started the KKK.

Fact check:Yes, historians do teach that first Black members of Congress were Republicans

The Conservative Coalition Vs The New Deal Coalition

Now that we know the basics, the changes in both parties in the 1900s are perhaps best understood by examining;the Conservative Coalition;and the New Deal Coalition.

The Conservative Coalition was a coalition between the anti-Communist Republicans like Nixon and Reagan and conservative Southern Democrats. It arose to oppose FDRs New Deal progressivism, and it blocked a lot of the progressive legislation the New Deal Coalition tried to pass from the 1930s to the 1960s. The socially conservative solid south;was still its own entity. It sometimes voted;with other Democrats, and sometimes broke off into its own factions. See the 1960 election Kennedy v. Nixon v. Harry F. Byrd. The Coalition tellingly dwindled post 64 Civil Rights and ended in the Clinton era as conservative southerners became Republicans and formed;the modern construct of the Red States and the Blue States.

Meanwhile,;the New Deal coalition explains the progressive coalition of Democrats and Republicans the Conservative coalition opposed. Today the two parties largely resemble these coalitions.

A Summary Of The Solid South Switch

To summarize the above claims before we get to the details:

In 1860 the Democratic Party Platforms were about Small Government and States Rights, and the more aristocratic Republican Platform about Federal Power and Collective;Rights, but by;2016, the opposite is;true .

This is because the conservative south and old Republican Progressives can be said to have switched parties in reaction;to events that occurred from the Gilded Age to the Bush and Clinton years. These changes that are well symbolized by the 1968 election, but not explained by that alone.

To understand what changed, we must become familiar with;people like W. J. Bryan, Teddy, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, Henry A. Wallace, Strom Thurmond, FDR, MLK, and Hoover. We must look at the Red Scare, the Dixiecrat States Rights Parties, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Nixons Southern Strategies, the New Deal Coalition and Conservative Coalition, etc. See;Democrats and Republicans Switched Platforms.

The full story aside, in the early days:

Populist social liberals used to ally with the populist socially conservative solid south .

The social liberal elite like Gouverneur Morris and Alexander Hamilton were in the Federalist party with classical conservative Tory-like figures and factions.

That pairing;of factions is either hopeful or a blight on history, depending on your perspective.

How the South Went Republican: Can Democrats Ever Win There Again? .

Also Check: Is Red The Color Of Republicans

In The Wake Of Trump’s David Duke Controversy Many Republicans Have Tried To Tie The Kkk To Progressivism

Its not news that Donald Trump appeals to white supremacists and his slowness in rebuking former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Dukes support hardly qualifies as surprising at this point. Whats instructive is how right-wing figures react. Earlier this week, political troglodyte Jeffrey Lord attempted to deflect criticism by calling the Klan a leftist terrorist organization perpetuating violence to further the progressive agenda.

That, of course, is entirely wrong. A short lesson in the basics of 20th;century American political history explains why.

White supremacist Southern Democrats were a key part of President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal Coalition. They used their large numbers, unity and seniority to exclude as many black people from as much of the New Deal benefits and protections as possible and to stop the federal government from doing anything about lynching. Then the black freedom movement and white allies insisted on civil rights. In reactionary response, those white southern Democrats left the Democratic Party en masse, as evidenced by Strom Thurmonds Dixiecrat presidential campaign in 1948 and Richard Nixons opposition to school busing and play for segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallaces constituency.

White southern Democrats were explicit about their racism, and its no mystery that they left the party when it yielded to civil rights movement pressure, and as blacks began to make up a larger part of its constituency.

Did The American Political Parties Switch Clarifying The Semantics

People often ask,;did the American political parties switch?, but this question is semantically wrong, and thus we should address it before moving on.

Parties can switch general platforms and ideologies .

Voters can switch parties .

However,;the parties themselves only switch when they hang-up their hat to become a new party;.

Recommended Reading: Why Do Republicans Want To Impeach Obama

You May Like: When Did Political Parties Switch Platforms

Southernization Urbanization And Big Government Vs Small Government

Today the Republican party doesnt have a notable progressive left-wing and the Democratic Party doesnt have a notable socially conservative right-wing.

Instead both parties have establishment and populist wings and the parties are divided by stances on social issues.

In other words, regional interests and the basic political identities of liberal and conservative didnt change as much as factions changed parties as party platforms changed along with America.

The modern split is expressed well by;the left-right paradigm Big Government Progressivism vs. Small Government Social Conservatism, where;socially conservative and pro-business conservative factions banded together against socially liberal and pro business liberal factions, to push back against an increasingly progressive Democratic Party and America .

This tension largely created the modern parties of our two-party system, resulting in two Big Tents;who disagree on the purposes of government;and social issues. This tension is then magnified by the;current influence of media and lobbyists, and can be understood by examining;what I call;the Sixth Party Strategy and by a tactic called Dog Whistle Politics).

The result is that today the Democratic Party is dominated by liberal Democrats and Progressives.

Meanwhile, most of those who would have been the old;socially conservative Democrats now have a R next to their name.

Read Also: Is The Media Biased Against Republicans

Great Depression Shrinks Klan

The Great Depression in the 1930s depleted the Klans membership ranks, and the organization temporarily disbanded in 1944. The civil rights movement of the 1960s saw a surge of local Klan activity across the South, including the bombings, beatings and shootings of Black and white activists. These actions, carried out in secret but apparently the work of local Klansmen, outraged the nation and helped win support for the civil rights cause.;

READ MORE: How Billie Holiday’s ‘Strange Fruit’ Confronted an Ugly Era of Lynchings

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson delivered a speech publicly condemning the Klan and announcing the arrest of four Klansmen in connection with the murder of a white female civil rights worker in Alabama. The cases of Klan-related violence became more isolated in the decades to come, though fragmented groups became aligned with neo-Nazi or other right-wing extremist organizations from the 1970s onward.;

As of 2016, the Anti-Defamation League estimated Klan membership to be around 3,000, while the Southern Poverty Law Center said there were 6,000 members total.

You May Like: Why Are Republicans Wearing Blue Ties

Limited Government States Rights And Anti

Had the populist liberals, who agreed with;limited government but did not agree fully on social issues, not aligned, there would have been a Federalist dominance in early America. The;dominant factions would have been northern know-nothing-like nativists, social progressive Roosevelt-like or Hamilton-like elites, and quasi-loyalist Aristocrats like Adams.

The founders were not pro-slavery. However, slavery;was part of the culture and economy of many nations; the South was one such region.

Abolishing slavery meant crippling the Souths votes and industry. This was the;main argument for slavery by the Solid South historically. It;didnt stop the abolitionists like Hamilton from pushing for the abolition of slavery;as;he pushed for a central bank or federal control . However, it did result in many key compromises from the 1770s to mid-1800s.

A Reconstituted Early 20th Century Kkk Attracts Members From Both Sides

The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party

After Reconstruction, and as the Jim Crow period set in during the 1870s, the Klan became obsolete.;Through violence, intimidation and systematic oppression, the KKK had served its purpose to help whites retake Southern governments.

In 1915, Cornell William J. Simmons restarted the KKK. This second KKK was made up of Republicans and Democrats, although Democrats were more widely involved.

The idea that these things overlap in a Venn diagram, the way they did with the first Klan, just isnt as tight with the second Klan, Grinspan said.

Recommended Reading: Did Donald Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Why It Doesnt Make Sense To Equate Modern Democrats With The Old Southern Democrats

The Democrats, formally the;anti-Federalists,;had an;aversion to aristocracy from the late 1700s to the progressive era.

That truism;led to the southern conservatives of the solid south like;John C. Calhoun and small government liberals like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van Buren allying;in the same party;for most of U.S. history.

However,;that changed;after Civil Rights under LBJ and the rise of Goldwater States Rights Republicans .

Today the solid south, and figures like Jeff Sessions, are in an alliance in the big tent of the Republican Party . This was as much a response to the growing progressiveness of the Democratic Party as anything.

One simple way to confirm this is to look at the factions of;Lincolns time. There were four. They;were:

The Northern liberal Whig/Republicans,

The;Nativist Know-Nothing; allies of the Whig/Republicans,

The Southern Democrats and their Northern allies , and

The;Free Soil;;allies of the Democrats who;took a libertarian like position.

Todays Democrats are more like socially liberal Whig/Republicans , libertarians are like Free Soilers , Trumpians are like Nativist Know-Nothings , and Southern Democrats are like the modern Southern conservative Republicans.

The current parties are thus:

Social Liberals and Neoliberals vs. Social Conservatives and Neoliberal Conservatives AKA Neocons .

Clearly, the country has never been fully polarized, even at its most polarized.

Military Reconstruction And The Birth Of The Kkk

After the Civil War, during Reconstruction, the northern elite Radical Republican Progressives used the military to force the south to reform. At the time the Deep South used things like apprenticeship laws to extend slavery past the end of the War. The KKK took a;stand in defense of the old Southern way of life in a society divided by murder, military occupation, and;mayhem.

To be clear, Military Reconstruction is a term that;describes;the occupation of the South, and the KKK;formed as a response to it.

From that point on the South becomes Redeemed by Southern BourbonsAKA Northern Oligarchs who help the South;replace slave labor with wage labor.

The above might;be viewed less critically;if it wasnt for a notable speed bump:

Before Reconstruction could end naturally, in 1877, the Republican establishment traded the reformation of a few southern states for the Presidency when Tilden beat the Republican Hayes.

At that point, the Gilded Age began.;Gilded Age Republicans Redeemed the South and liked to be seen as putting aside the issue of race to focus on modernization and becoming a superpower.

The Gilded age gave way to the Progressive era. And in those eras, most of the country again minimized;issues of;race to focus on;other minority rights such as womens rights. Then, after that came the World Wars.

Radical Republicans From PBSs Reconstruction: The 2nd Civil War.

Don’t Miss: Who Gives More Democrats Or Republicans

The Rise Of Modern Social Liberalism And Social Conservatism

Later we get a third way with Bill Clintons New Democrats. This third way is an extension;of the;progressive bourbon liberal wing, but mashed-up with the progressive social liberal wing, and Reagan-era;conservatism. These three social liberal ideologies which Clinton embodied can collectively be referred to as an;American liberalism. These factions, which we can today denote as;progressive, neoliberal, and social liberal, can be used to differentiate types of liberals on the political left from the New Deal Coalition and the modern Democratic party of today.

TIP: As noted above in the introduction, there is no one way to understand Americas political ideologies, but each angle we look at things from helps us to better understand;bits of the historic puzzle.

Outside The United States

Aside from the Ku Klux Klan in Canada, there have been various attempts to organize KKK chapters outside the United States.

In Australia in the late 1990s, former One Nation member Peter Coleman established branches throughout the country, and circa 2012 the KKK has attempted to infiltrate other political parties such as Australia First.

Recruitment activity has also been reported in the United Kingdom.

In Germany, a KKK-related group, Ritter des Feurigen Kreuzes , was established in the 1920s. After the Nazis took over Germany, the group disbanded and its members joined the Nazis. Another German KKK-related group, the European White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, has organized and it gained notoriety in 2012 when the German media reported that two police officers who held membership in the organization would be allowed to keep their jobs.

A Ku Klux Klan group was established in Fiji in the early 1870s by white American settlers, although its operations were quickly put to an end by the British who, although not officially yet established as the major authority of Fiji, had played a leading role in establishing a new constitutional monarchy that was being threatened by the activities of the Fijian Klan.

In São Paulo, Brazil, the website of a group called Imperial Klans of Brazil was shut down in 2003, and the group’s leader was arrested.

You May Like: When Did The Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms

The Rise Of America First Nativism: Anti

During the 1830s to 1850s, as tension builds, third parties spring up like the northern nativist Know-Nothings;. This faction;pushed back against immigration in places like NYC and was more likely to be allied with the Whigs than the Democrats.

The conflict between Catholic immigrants and Know-Nothings is;the subject of the movie Gangs of New York.

These Know-Nothings were like a Northern version of the KKK but were notably;more concerned with immigration than slavery.;The soon-to-be KKK and the earlier;Know-Nothings shared an aversion to Catholics, Jews, non-whites, and non-Protestants in general, but much else was different.

The Know-Nothings were accused of being in bed with;Northern abolitionists,;and;their American party really never;caught on in the south due to them being perceived as more elitist and northern.

Thus, although each region breaks into;different groups, one should note that the slavery south is not;the only faction with socially conservative position, and certainly, they arent the only authoritative group. Remember, they are opposing northern elitists who are perpetuating their brand;of economic and political inequality.

Looking To The Classics And Factions For Proof

One good and not-so-divisive way to explain history is to look at the classics, especially those who focus on state-based political factions over political parties.

Classic works of this sort of political history, like V.O. Keys Southern Politics in State and Nation , make it very clear that the Solid South had historically always voted lock-step for the Democratic Party . Of course, the voting map over time, actual recorded history, and so much else tell this story too, but a well respected book like this is a great secondary source!

Today the Solid South is with the Republican Party and today old Socially Progressive Republicans like Teddy arent in the party .

This isnt to say that some of the more progressive Dixies, Bryan followers, and even economically minded Southern;Bourbons arent in the Democratic Party, they obviously are, just look at Carter, Clinton, Gore, and Bernie .

Likewise, the GOP have their constants. The;conservative Federalist pro-business faction, the neocons be they switched Bourbons, Gilded Age post-Reconstruction Republicans, or traditional Federalists, and the Federalist War Hawks are still in the Republican Party, as are the nativists;of the north Know-Nothings.

However, despite what didnt change, a ton did, including the party platforms, key factions, and a large swath of the voter base.

Modern Democrats know this well, they lost the 2016;election and didnt get one state in the Southern Bloc for Hillary .

Read Also: Democrats Have Tried To Impeach Every Republican President Since Eisenhower

A Century Of Jim Crow But Otherwise Lots Of Progress

From 1877 to at least the 1960s, the Solid South KKK-like;Progressively Socially Conservative Democrats remained a formidable faction of the Democratic Party.

This is true even though the party was increasingly dominated by Progressives like William Jennings Bryan. We can see in Wilson that both factions held sway in the party, Wilson was both a progressive liberal and a son of the Confederates.

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow | PBS | ep 1 of 4 Promises Betrayed.

TIP: During the late 1800s and early 1900s Eugenics was a popular theory. In this era, we might find;Margaret Sanger, liberal economists and social scientists, Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Ford, a young Hitler, and the KKK all agreeing on aspects of eugenics. There are many sides;of the eugenics argument, and one must study its history in earnest before making a judgment call. Very;radical right-wing propaganda equated birth control with;genocide, but there was a wide range of beliefs. An espousal of;negative eugenics is part of the dark history of the Democratic party.

[queerpyracy]

PORTLAND, Ore. — Angela Foster started showing up in the early days of the protests in Portland as one of the novice activists standing off to the side with no gear to protect herself.

Roughly 40 demonstrations later, she has moved toward the front, wearing a mask, goggles and a helmet, and bracing for law enforcement officers to charge at her.

“We’re not leaving,” Ms. Foster said in interview on Sunday.

While President Trump on Sunday described the unrest in Portland as a national threat involving “anarchists and agitators,” the protests have featured a wide array of demonstrators, many now galvanized by federal officers exemplifying the militarized enforcement that protesters have long denounced. Gatherings over the weekend grew to upward of 1,000 people, some of the largest crowds in weeks.

Some protesters have exhibited the lawless behavior that federal officials have cited to justify their crackdown: Some have thrown cans and bottles, shot fireworks or pointed lasers at officers. One was recently accused of hitting a federal officer with a hammer. On Saturday, protesters set a fire in the police union headquarters.

But others have demonstrated in the streets through peaceful means, appalled by the aggressive responses by federal officers that have left some protesters injured and the air inflamed with tear gas. They have held signs and marched. At times when people have thrown bottles, other demonstrators have rushed to try to stop them. On Saturday, a group of women locked arms and chanted: “Feds stay clear. Moms are here.”

Attending a protest for the first time over the weekend was Christopher David, a Navy veteran and a 1988 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He said that, as a Navy veteran, he felt the need to confront the federal officers to ask, Why were they violating their oath to the Constitution?

But as Mr. David went to do just that late Saturday, he didn’t get a conversation. Instead, as Mr. David stood still, according to video of the encounter, a federal officer dressed in camouflage fatigues began hitting him with his baton before another doused him in pepper spray.

Mr. David said in an interview on Sunday that he needed to have surgery on his hand.

Luis Enrique Marquez, a self-described anti-fascist who has been a fixture at protests in Portland for years, said the purpose of the federal officers’ arrival had appeared to be to scare the protesters. But he said the officers had instead galvanized them by displaying the types of actions that have concerned protesters for years.

“With every act of violence they commit, our numbers seem to grow, people seem to get more angry,” Mr. Marquez said.

Demonstrators in Portland, including some who identify as antifa, the loose coalition of self-described anti-fascist activists, have had years of conflict with law enforcement. But after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis set off a nationwide movement for racial justice and police accountability, the protest in Portland drew thousands to the streets.

That created powerful scenes including images of protesters blanketing the Burnside Bridge, each lying face down on the pavement for eight minutes and 46 seconds in remembrance of Mr. Floyd.

While those initial mass crowds have waned, hundreds of protesters have continued on with near-nightly confrontations with law enforcement.

Unlike demonstrators in Seattle at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest, or CHOP, in which they established a permanent location that created tensions over how the police should handle unrest inside the area, protesters in Portland have brought the same feel of communal support throughout the downtown area. Volunteers wearing red crosses hand out ear plugs, eye wash and hand sanitizer. A mobile snack van provides Gatorade and food.

Jeremy Vajko, who operates the snack van, said he initially operated in the CHOP zone in Seattle and then came to Portland to support the people on the streets.

“I noticed there was problems with nutrition,” he said. “People are sleep deprived.”

During the daytime, the protests can draw families, businesspeople and political leaders such as Jo Ann Hardesty, a city commissioner. At night, the crowd is made up mostly of young people. Dozens of protesters at the front carry homemade shields made out of materials such as 55-gallon drums. Others stand farther back, shining lasers or gathering materials for building barricades.

But protesters’ tactics have strained the city. Business owners, already struggling because of the coronavirus pandemic, have cited the protests as a reason residents have been staying away from downtown. Some leaders in the Black community have also questioned the tactics, suggesting that some demonstrators have seized the moment in the aftermath of Mr. Floyd’s killing to advance their own causes.

Last month, officers from the Portland Police Bureau repeatedly fired tear gas and made arrests of protesters, who have variously called for the abolishment or defunding of the bureau, and for more accountability for law enforcement officers. The city’s officers now operate with new limits on the use of tear gas after a judge ordered it to only be used if it’s needed to keep people safe.

Protesters have focused much of their attention on Mayor Ted Wheeler, who also serves as police commissioner. Crowds have at times gathered late at night outside Mr. Wheeler’s condo building, shining lights and chanting about the perceived failures of his administration.

For weeks, Mr. Wheeler has called for an end to destructive demonstrations, saying he is concerned about “groups who continue to perpetrate violence and vandalism on our streets.” But as federal agencies have moved in to play a role in combating the unrest, Mr. Wheeler has said he told the federal officials to stay away.

City police leaders have said they are not coordinating with federal agencies on the protests. But at one point early Saturday morning, a line of federal officers was moving up one street while a line of local police officers was moving up another, both advancing to keep protesters on the move. It was unclear what level of coordination was involved in that effort.

Mr. Trump said in a Twitter post on Sunday that federal officials were “trying to help Portland, not hurt it.” Mr. Trump, who has said states need to “dominate” protesters, said Portland officials had lost control.

“They are missing in action,” Mr. Trump wrote. “We must protect Federal property, AND OUR PEOPLE.”

Local leaders have grown increasingly vocal in opposition to the federal presence after one protester appeared to have been shot in the head with what was described as a less-lethal munition, severely injuring him in a bloody scene that was captured on video. Federal officers have operated from unmarked vans, at times seizing protesters and pulling them into the vehicles.

Joel B. Barker, who runs a marketing agency, said that he had frequently participated in protests during the day near the Justice Center, which includes the county jail, and that he usually left before 9 p.m. at the latest. He said that the protests drew a diverse crowd, reflecting a range of racial backgrounds, age and socioeconomic statuses, and that there was a sense of unity.

He lives about a mile away, and the demonstrations have not had any repercussions close to his home. The demonstrators, he said, were largely peaceful and not there to foment disorder.

Mr. Barker said he felt rage that the city was being used for what he believed was a ploy for the president in an election year.

“It’s really terrible,” he added, “and I want America to understand how terrible it is to feel like a city you love is being occupied by your own federal government, because that’s how it feels.”

Oregon’s attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, has filed a lawsuit seeking to halt some of the detainment tactics used by federal officers. Her office has also opened a criminal investigation into the case of the protester who sustained a head injury.

Lisa Reynolds, a pediatrician who is running as a Democrat for a seat in the Oregon House of Representatives, said she had tried to keep her distance from the protests, largely because of the coronavirus crisis. But on Sunday, she said, she was going to be fitted for a respirator so she would be safer at protests where tear gas is used.

“I think my fear kept me away,” she said. “I think this is a step where I need to put myself out there a little more.”

Sergio Olmos reported from Portland, Rick Rojas from Atlanta and Mike Baker from Seattle. John Ismay contributed reporting from Arlington, Va.

[politicotalk]

Cultural Identity in Canadian Politics

When I talk to foreign people about Canadian politics, they always come to me and ask me what the hell the issues in Canada can be. That place looks like paradise land. Is the biggest issue how to avoid having your car buried in a pile of snow, or how to teach mooses how to play hockey. All countries have their internal issues, including countries such as Canada, Norway or Sweden which seem to be perfect on the outside. I’m going to try to explain what the major issues Canadian Federal politics face, issues specific to Canada.

Indigenous people Indigenous people of Canada, also refered to as the aboriginal people, have been in the shadows, cast aside, for a very long time in Canadian everyday politics. Actually, since the arrival of European colonisers in the 16th century, they have been sort of cast aside. The first Europeans to come and stay were the French, and they had a lot of issues when they came. First off, they had scurvy; the indigenous helped them with that. Secondly, they didn’t know how to survive harsh Canadian winters, the indigenous people helped them with that. French and First Nations traded with each other and created alliances and systems of relations where both parties benefited from each other’s presence. French population grew in the mean time. The British came and settled, and the tables really started to turn after the American Revolution; a lot of people living in the 13 colonies were faithful to the British Crown and fled North to modern day Canada. This brought a complete shift in demography; all of a sudden, the indigenous (and French) populations were outnumbered by the British. First Nations were pushed out of towns slowly but surely. Come the 19th century, bad boy United States was a major threat. They had something called “manifest destiny”, where they saw the West as a baren wasteland in need of colonisation by white people. The Canadian government freaked out, because this meant they could encapsulate Canada and absorb it into the United States. Well, the Canadian government also looked at the west and thought “well fuck, bud, we gotta claim this land”, so they started building a railroad from modern-day Ontario to British Columbia, all the way on the Pacific Coast. There was a big problem though, you see, this area wasn’t a wasteland; there were a lot of First Nations living there, including aboriginal and Métis people. What did the government do? Adopt the Indian Act in 1876. Yeah, no joke, it’s literally called the “Indian Act”. This land these people lived on was full of natural resources, but these people would not cede to the federal government because fuck you. So the government came up with this stupid law. Indigenous people were forbidden from creating their own governments, hold religious ceremonies, hire lawyers or go against the government over land claims. From the 20th century, when education became an important thing for children, with the help of local religious groups, the government started opening what is called “residential schools” and this is brought on a clusterfuck of problems we are faced with today.

The government gave itself the right to take Indigenous children from their families and force them to go to these schools, where they resided. The parents had no say in whether these children were allowed to go or not. These kids had their heads shaved, were forced to keep short hair, banned from wearing any traditional clothing, speak in their native languages – instead they had to speak English or French –, practice their religion – instead, they were brought into the Catholic Church or any Protestant Churches – and they were banned from contacting their families. I mention hair, some people might thing “so what?”; well, long hair is really important in Native Americans’ cultures. It’s as if you were to tell someone from Bavaria that they were no longer allowed to wear lederhosen. The point of this was to strip these kids of their identities, make them white, and so they would cede their lands more easily to the government, so it could profit off of it.

I can’t tell you how badly that backfired. From the 90’s, these poor kids who were, for the majority, adults started to take the government to court for wrongful abuse made towards them, in claims of abuse done towards them. You probably know that the Catholic Church does not have the best record, especially when it comes to violence done towards children, and Ireland was on the forefront of the international stage years ago for allegations of sexual abuse done by members of the clergy towards children. Well, this wasn’t an exception for Canada. To further prove this, the bodies of thousands of dead children were found buried all around these ex-residential schools in 2020. This was orchestrated by the Canadian government AND the Churches.

Thankfully, the Indian Act, though it still technically exists, is kinda stripped. Aboriginal people have the right to assembly, have the right to practice their religion, speak their languages, practice their cultures, etc. All good right? Right?

Well, not quite, this comes to a second point that was brought up again in the recent elections. What would the candidates do in regards to clean drinking water for the aboriginal? To examine this question, we need to rewind, again (sorry). The aboriginal live, for the majority, on what is called “reserves”. They are lands that are under their local governments’ control, where they all live. If you went to Montreal, Toronto, or even Moose Jaw, you could turn on the tap in the kitchen and drink the water there, no problem. Well, the residences on these reserves, not only are in deplorable states, but they also do not have clean, running water. Canada is not the Sahara. We are not lacking water. Canada has actually the world’s highest amount of natural drinking water. Fly over the country and it’s rivers and lakes everywhere. Yet, these people don’t have running water? So this topic has come back several times in the elections over the last 20 years and no one has done anything.

This is barely scratching the surface of issues surrounding aboriginal people in Canada. These two issues were the ones that came up in the last federal leaders’ debate.

French people Canada is a multicultural country. As mentioned before, the French-speaking population has been in Canada for over four centuries now. They have also been marginalised in some ways, and several attempts to assimilate have been made, but to no avail. Today, the French-speaking population is spread over all of Canada’s provinces, but the majority resides in the province of Quebec, where the official language is only French. Several French speakers live in Acadia (in the East of Canada) in Ontario and in Manitoba. Only New Brunswick is officially bilingual. French people – especially the people of Quebec – have seen themselves as different from the English speakers. They see themselves as an entirely different nation (I should point out that I use the term “nation” in the sense of the term synonymous with “population”). Issues flared up in the late 60’s and lead to a lot of tension in the 70’s, where the culture really started to solidify, and lead to a referendum in 1981 and 1995 in regards to whether Quebec wanted to become an independent country. In short, both times, the answer was no. In 1995, the answer was very slim, with the results being 49% to 51%. The situation in Quebec is very similar as the one in Catalonia and Scotland. 1995 might seem like yesterday to some, but I will remind you that this was 26 years ago. Things change in 26 years. New people are made, old people die. The thought of independence is a far away memory in most people’s imagination, and the young people are pretty cool with not wanting an independent country. This doesn’t mean that all of a sudden, Quebeckers are cool with the federal government and kissing the flag; they still see themselves as different, but have come to accept their place in the country, as the government has accommodated more and more for the French language, and given Quebec flexibility over their governance. But you see, Quebec’s aggressive stance over its language gives the other French speakers the ability to continue existing; media, culture and academic content come largely from Quebec. Without Quebec, these other French speaking cultures fear ceasing to exist.

So what about today? Well, firstly, the health sector is governed by the provinces. This means that Quebec was mostly in control of handling Covid, and they want to deal with all issues surrounding this.

Another thing to mention, is that, most likely because of its catholic culture, Quebec is very left leaning. Most votes for the NDP and a portion for the Liberals come from Quebec, and barely any go to the Conservative. They are in favour of public health services, public education with low fees for higher education, help to families and issues talking the environment. Canada currently heavily relies on industries in the primary sector, especially the West. So if Quebec is so in favour of not allowing pipelines to be built, or not excavating for oil, this wouldn’t affect them so much.

In conclusion, this is what Canada has to deal with, long tensions amongst its three main cultural groups. Let me know what your thoughts are and what your country is tackling in terms of internal conflicts.

[ishkah]

A Love Letter To Failing Upward

Failing upward is simply the concept of failing by mainstream standards and yet achieving more fulfilling outcomes in the long run. Often this is connected to a feeling of unlocking opportunities you didn’t even know existed.

-

Power – Failing to take every opportunity to lead from the front

Due to the unfair distribution of power in society in the hands of very few, the good any one person can strive to achieve is immense, because one can imagine wielding the kind of power those at the top currently have to do good. But this power is unnatainable to many.

So, like how a figure like Bernie Sanders could have harnessed the position of presidency to do lots of good, how he did educate the masses on the positives of socialised government institutions and, if he’d gotten into power, mobilise a grassroots movement to demonstrate and strike to push through bills.

But, most importantly power can be a mirage. It’s the carrot dangled in front just beyond our reach. We need to create opportunities for ourselves, to achieve great acts of good on our own, like the personal heroism of people flying to Syria to fight Islamic Fascism or organising edible gardens in low-income neighbourhoods.

As well, even though we may cherish those opportunites to do great deeds today, counter-intuitively, the goal should be to move to a world where grand feats of good deeds aren’t necessary or possible. So that more people get a chance to strive to do good.

So a move to devolve government power to a multi-party system through preferential voting, to… Some local government positions being elected by sortition, to… The majority of society being so content with worker-co-ops and syndicalist unions that we transition from representative democracy to direct democracy. So, a chamber of ministers to federated spokes councils.

We all know the experience of living under a conservative culture that accepts bigoted assumptions.  And we all know of certain unproductive actions which some counter-cultures have dogmatically valorized as the best form of resistance.  Both cultures incuclate their members with a ‘willing epistemology of ignorance.’  That is, a conspiracy to fail to view the world as it is, in exchange for the benefits being a member of that cultural group.

In response, we can simply work hard to fail to be swayed by the fear of what embracing radical compassion will turn you into.  Therefore, we must avoid the pitfalls of an illusory politics of resistance which wears its activists out faster than it inspires lasting change.

-

Time – Failing to rush to achieve a bunch of outcomes without fully considering the value.

With the ever expanding knowledge each new generation is able to harness, the hard material outcomes of our goals in life will always be out performed better or faster than before.

So, while some people fret about failing against others, which makes them feel their life is not worth living, you, by failing to set strict goals for yourself and instead giving a leg up to those around you, can just observe everyone acting around you, contemplate your time and place in history and experience a peace of mind knowing you’re part of the fabric of everything.

We were nothing before we were born and we’ll be nothing again after we’re dead. The zoomed out size of the universe and length of time we aren’t around for overwhelms the blip of time we are here. This not-self follows us like a shadow throughout our life, like a chalk outline on the pavement, with every less able iteration of ourselves in between, refracted along a scale and merging back into the universe with other people’s similar layers.

A philosophical denial is just a view, a theory… it does not get one actually to examine all/ the things that one really does identify with… as ‘self’ or ‘I’, / This examination, in a calm meditative context, is what the not-self teaching aims at. It is not so much a thing to be thought about as to be done.

Finally allow ideas to percolate to the surface, don’t rush to nail down what an experience meant to you for time in perpetuity.

-

Authenticity – Failing to modify your behaviour to be more comprehensible

It can be annoying or hurtful for others to presume they know everything about you, but rather than assert their wrongness and make them defensive, you can acknowledge it as a common human failing and find nice creative ways to hold a mirror up to what life experiences they’ve had that lead them to jump to that conclusion.

One way is a kind of playful authenticity, telling a lie about a lie, to get back closer to the truth. So don’t outright challenge the idea, but don’t live up to it either, in fact live down to it. Playfully undermine the idea by failing to live up to the glamour of what it would mean to be that person, then find a way of revealing that it was a misunderstanding all along, so they needn’t worry about it applying to you.

-

The Middle Way – Failing to achieve short term gratification

Take satisfaction in starting a project with the tools at your disposal in which you have no idea whether it’ll ever be valuable to others, just that you learnt something new and that you really enjoyed the process.

There’s a quote I really like from the Tao Te Ching which explains how we can harness our higher inner character through acting with a conscious awareness about the way the universe works:

The way of heaven is like the bending of a bow. The high is lowered, and the low is raised. If the string is too long, it is shortened; If there is not enough, it is made longer.

The way of heaven is to take from those who have too much and give to those who do not have enough. Man’s way is different. He takes from those who do not have enough to give to those who already have too much.

.

Knowledge – Failing to keep track of every piece of information

It’s great to live with people who are observant of clues as to your mindset and can offer suggestions to help you or give you the room to learn from your own mistakes where the consequences aren’t dramatic.

It’s less useful to try and acquire every piece of gossip about a person and come into interactions with funny presumptions about who they are and why they act the way they do.

-

Meaning – Failing to live up to expectations

Through having an accurate accounting of some of the worst possible outcomes at any moment and having a healthy way of coming to terms with that, we can truly decide if the road we want to be on us is as much ‘our choice’ as anything can be.

Compassionate comedy for the wholesomeness of peoples mistakes is one really great way of feeling comfortable in your own skin. In being able to laugh at ourselves, we can feel freer to experiment and enjoy a culture with more complex forms of expression being understood.

-

Vulnerability – Failing to avoid pain

Love is the feeling that you almost had no other choice than pursuing the road you’re on. It’s both a scary feeling for opening yourself up to pain and a wonderful feeling for realising a passionate interest you may not have even been aware you had. Embrace it.

-