#it's not smaller state elections are very important

[be-the-glenn-to-my-maggie]

I just need to rant okay. As a kid who has grown up hearing pretty much everyone complain about the government this and our horrible society that I’m honestly just… done all around. No Grandma Agnus, I don’t care about how you think lgbtq+ people are all going to a hell I don’t even believe in but you know what, cousin Cadence? I also don’t care about how all homophobic people are the true evil ones. No, I don’t care that trans people exist but guess what? I also don’t care that there are people who think differently because people are entitled to their own fucking opinions so long as they aren’t actively harming others (if you don’t like them don’t interact with them more than you have to on both sides, it’s not a hard concept).

Yes I understand that racism has played a huge role in our country but I’m pretty sure that’s not why they got your order wrong at Wendy’s Uncle Jason. Yes I understand that women have had it tough in the past but guess what, last I checked we’re doing a hell of a lot better and no men are not stupid or evil for fuck’s sake and yes they do have problems of their own even though they’re not women

No, I don’t think that all rich people are evil or owe us something (and that’s coming from someone who used to live in a tiny little trailer and only got a small packet of gum for Christmas once) but I also don’t think that workers are over-exaggerating some of their horrible conditions such as payment. No, I don’t care what pronouns you use Finley but guess what when you come at me for “assuming your gender” or whatever twice in the same day despite the fact that it changes literally every hour then that’s where we start to have problems. No, I don’t care that you believe in god but fun fact I am a heavy believer in the separation of church and state and will you look at that, it seems like church and state are getting a bit too chummy up in this house when you claim that all women who get abortions are murderers who are gonna go to hell and abortion should be criminalized for the sake of their souls Auntie Susana.

On top of that I become old enough to vote and stuff soon but honestly I don’t really want to. All I’ve seen my whole life are a bunch of adults going at each other’s throats like rabies-infested dogs and for what? So that they can try to get an extra bit of rope in ya’ll’s tug-of-war? And then older people come at people my age who don’t want to be involved in the shitshow? It almost makes me want to laugh my ass off because that’s like polluting a well and then pleading for the townsfolk to drink that nasty water.

Sorry for my harsh words. I just had a lot of frustrations and really needed to say something anywhere. Know that none of this was directed at you or anyone with strong opinions in a malicious way, I’m honestly just so tired. It feels like everyone everywhere is fighting and for what? No one listens to anyone anymore. I do fully intend to vote when I’m old enough, I’m just done with everyone shouting at me from all sides.

I am very confused as to why this rant was brought to me, because I literally am one of the people you're complaining about.

When I saw this ask, I had to stop looking at this website for like three days. It's a very privileged take, honestly. I don't blame people for getting tired of hearing about politics and world issues all the time, it is exhausting. But as someone who's frequently called exhausting, well, I'm fucking sorry if hearing about the people suffering around you is bothering you. That is a privilege. You can feel that way, but recognize you feeling that way is a luxury.

Your (I'm assuming) metaphorical Grandma hating gay people isn't the same as your metaphorical cousin calling homophobes evil. As I said to my mom yesterday in a very similar conversation, your grandma has the luxury of leaving that conversation any time. So do you. I, as well as other gay people, do not have that luxury. Getting annoyed or tired about any debate on basic human rights I understand, but equally at both sides is bizarre to me. It's like getting mad at a random person in 1912 and the Titanic passengers equally for continuing to talk about the Titanic. One of these groups hAS TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE TITANIC RIGHT NOW. You're not on the Titanic, so you can shut your newspaper and get annoyed it's all you hear about. THE TITANIC PASSENGERS CANT! One side is there because it's literally them being talked about. The other is there because they have too much free time and are demons.

I understand why you feel like people are fighting all the time. They are. But politics are not very black and white. In America it's really just the right and the farther right. But individuals are fighting because things need to be fought for, simply enough. Silence is complicity, and your first two paragraphs are just that.

@antigirlb0ss look at this shit

[lesspopped]

since I’ve spoken to a few different people who were disappointed by the outcome of the elections, especially people who haven’t voted in many elections previously, and so were surprised to hear this: y’all, this election actually went shockingly well for the democratic party. as a rule, the sitting president’s party does not do well in midterms, especially the first midterm after that president is elected. this is the best a sitting president’s party has done in the midterm in twenty years. the last time it went this well for the sitting president’s party was 2002, when the republicans were still riding the post-9/11 jingoism wave. in the first midterm after obama was elected, the democratic party lost 63 house seats; last I checked the nyt's final projection for them to lose this time was somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.

yes, it sucks that we’re likely losing the house and it sucks that the senate is still up in the air and it super sucks that the democrats have basically given up on bothering to campaign in florida. but losing the house was always likely and we have not lost it by nearly as much as we were predicted to, and honestly, without a filibuster-proof majority, even having both chambers of congress isn’t a guarantee of being able to get much done there. there are definitely disappointments, but this is nowhere near a disaster. ultimately, from what I can tell, there are a lot more republicans disappointed by this election than democrats, because this was supposed to be a massive blowout for the republicans and it very much has not been. like, at all. 

again I am not saying there are not things to be disappointed by, and it sucks immeasurably that we have to take “this didn’t go as badly as it could have” as a victory, but also, it really, really is a victory. at the very least, it’s not a flat-out defeat, and there are a lot of reasons not to feel despair. the smaller, state-level victories are not as flashy and dramatic as the higher-profile ones like the house or senate, but they’re extremely important, and will make a huge difference in a lot of people’s lives — in many cases a greater difference, day-to-day, than the senate or house elections will make. it’s really important not to lose sight of these wins.

(personally, what was really keeping me up at night was a) abortion referendums and b) the number of 2020 election deniers who were running for state- or local-level seats that would have put them in the position of being in charge of election administration in 2024 and beyond, making it much easier for them to rig future elections. well, republicans have pretty soundly gotten their asses handed to them on both counts, which is fan-fucking-tastic. like I said, these are not necessarily the things that get a lot of attention on the national level, but they’re so, so important and will make a big difference for a lot of people in the coming years.)

[born-in-hell]

Hi!

As some of you might know, southern Brazil, specifically the state of Rio Grande do Sul, has been struck by heavy rains and a consequential flood. The rains started on monday (29/abr) and only stopped today (5/mai), in Porto Alegre ─ the state capital, and the city i live in ─ and in the other cities nearby.

The lake that borders PoA (named Guaíba) has reached more than 5m up its normal level. This is higher than on the historic 1941 flood. The city's center ─ a big residential and commercial hub, beyond being the host of most of our public services (such as the city hall and the state government) ─ is completely taken by the water. Many other neighbourhoods were also affected.

Smaller cities that also border Guaíba were even more heavily affected, such as Eldorado do Sul, whose territory was almost 100% flooded.

The state is, for a lack of a better word, abandoned by the people that were supposed to aid.

Our governor, Eduardo Leite, is more worried about his plitical campaign ─ making dramatic videos, changing his facebook pfp to one of him with a public defense vest, making streams with no useful information ─ than with the people's lives. This year, he destinated only R$50.000 (~ USD250.000) for the Civil Defense. For the entire year. He is now, delegating the responsibility of recuperating our state to the Federal Government, stating that "the rbuilding of the RS will demand a Marshall Project".

Porto Alegre's mayor, Sebastião Mello, has vanished. He sold our city out to big enterprises ─ Melnick, Zaffari and Panvel, mainly ─, and hasn't destined any public resources to maintaining the Mauá wall (a wall built after the 1941 flood with a system made to protect the city from other floods), which caused many points to fail and the water to invade the city.

This is the danger we all face with a neoliberal system.

Neoliberalism is an individualist ideology. All these people and companies I named did close to nothing to help us. Or even made it worse. The Civil Defense, for example, published a map of all the areas that would be affected, but had to take it back, since it didn't consider the topography.

Its the people for the people.

This situation is being aided by people using their own resources. Donations of various natures and volunteer work. It is very beautiful, in a way. It shows that colaboration and union can do great things. It shows, at least to me, that the world can reach, one day, a self sustaining way of living, contrary to the ultra-individualistic capitalism some preach. Humans can, and are, good.

But it also lays out how much the people that govern us failed us.

Human lives were lost because of their negligency.

This flood isn't normal. It is a product of the huge levels of degradation multi-billionaire companies are causing the world, supported by higher class and their representatives. Eduardo Leite changed almost 500 points of our state's Environmental Code, for the worst, when he was first elected in 2019. His actions, and the actions of all other neoliberal politicians, such as our ex-president Bolsonaro, are what created this situation. They are responsible for everything that is going on here.

This flood isnt the only environmental crisis this state has faced in the last 6 months. This isn't the last one that will happen.

This text is, beyond a personal vent, a warning. We need to keep fighting against a system that is actively trying to kill us. Please, do not support ideals and people ─ especially if said people will rule you ─ that go against the environment, that preach that the capital, the money, the posesions, are more important than lives. Of the people, of the animals, of the environment. Fight for a better world, i know there can be one.

Always be aware of the climate in your areas. Things like this won't happen only here. Please be safe.

Sorry for the long post.

If you're interested in donating, @decaf-lesbian made this post with some links for international and national donations.

-> If you're from Brasil, check this link, that has a copilation of maps of risk areas, shelters, places to donate to, etc, made by a UFRGS student.

[communistkenobi]

Hi, you tend to have well-thought-out political opinions (I don't always agree with you, but your reading liveblog were the kick in the ass to make me read Orientalism, and you have managed to change my mind more than once), maybe might have a better answer here than me.

Is there an ideological reason that American (b/c it typically is, god help me) left-of-center types love electoralism so much online (and offline too, tbh. College continues to deal new and fun kinds of psychic damage), but only in the context of the general national elections? I so often receive various extensive breakdowns of reasons that I MUST vote for Biden in 2024, but less about the benefits of, like, getting really invested in my city council elections or the school board.

We have so many freaking elections for goddamn everything because the US/Canada are fuck-off huge that it's super easy to argue for the importance of participating in electoralism and instead I (especially recently) see so many people picking the worst hill to die on, that I really struggle to. Well. Understand why.

I’ll speak mostly to Canada since that’s where most of my formal knowledge comes from and also because I live here lol. Also a lot of what I’m talking about is coming from books I’ve read - Still Renovating by Greg Suttor for example is a pretty in depth history of social policy (primarily housing) in Canada, it’s very dry but is useful for this conversation. This is off the dome and not meant as a PSA or anything, it’s my own perspective, if people want sources for what I’m discussing I can go dig those up, but I’m just putting this disclaimer at the top in case this post leaves my circle.

To answer your question, my instinct is that it’s because north american democracy is increasingly necrotic and disconnected from the general public (with the usual list of caveats about how much liberal capitalist democracies have ever been “for the people”). Reading up on social policy in Canada directly post-WWII is pretty bleak when comparing it to today - social housing used to be a robust part of the housing market, people were paid far better and had far more economic security, our healthcare was freshly socialised and invigorated, the promises of the Keynesian welfare state were generally being met (for a predominantly white middle class electorate, of course), and so on. Even conservatives were basically on board with these things in the 60s, at least in Canada, although that obviously did not last long. And over the decades we have become entrenched in neoliberal cutbacks, the gutting of public institutions, the sale of public space and utilities, the downloading of responsibility for social welfare onto provincial and then municipal governments who have smaller budgets and more limited institutional power, the massive expansion in public-private partnerships, the militarisation of the police - these things really kicked off in the 80s/90s in Canada and have showed little signs of stopping or even really slowing down since (something that also obviously happened in the US). People make the joke that if libraries were suggested as a policy goal today it would be called a communist plot, but it’s true - all of the shit the government offered us forty years ago is unthinkable to even suggest now. Life in general has gotten more difficult as private wealth and deregulation has taken a progressively stronger hold on domestic affairs. This happened slowly over the course of decades, and as political horizons shrunk in terms of what you could expect/demand of your government, there was a real air of this being inevitable, not a result of conscious political decisions but just some organic outcome that no one had control over (“the invisible hand of the market”). Democratic civic responsibility demands we vote as citizens of our country, but for all the reasons outlined above plus a bunch of others I’m sure I’m forgetting, the liberal conception of democratic participation shrunk to the ballot box alone.

And while we all joke about everyone having the historical memory of a goldfish, I think the pandemic made this a deeply dissonant position to hold onto - we saw the government seemingly awake from a long slumber to exercise its might. It placed eviction bans on landlords, enforced mass quarantines and social distancing measures, provided economic relief to people who lost their jobs, stationed itself inside every building and public space to enforce mask mandates, rolled-out universal vaccination programs that were mandatory if you wanted to keep your job - we saw the government flex its power in labour, in housing, in healthcare, in civic life, and at the border in a way previously unheard of, particularly for people who were not alive to experience the welfare state of the 50s and 60s and even 70s. The state revealed itself as the life-structuring force it always had been before receding again, telling everyone to go back to normal as if nothing had happened, as if millions of people had not died in a global plague, as if it had not just demonstrated to everyone in the country that the state can at the drop of a hat order your landlord to stop evicting you and your boss to give you paid time off. This of course didn’t really happen in the US, or at least not nearly to this degree, which resulted in the deaths of over a million people.

So now when politicians perform this same incapacity to do anything, when they trot out hyper-specific policies that might benefit a couple thousand people at most, when they make stupid non-promises and shrink away from even mild forms of social democracy (eg Sanders-style campaign promises), I don’t know how much people buy it. I’m not particularly optimistic about the pandemic radicalising large amounts of people, but I think even if it doesn’t, we saw what happened! And we’ve all seen a million fucking articles about how people don’t want to go to work anymore, about labour shortages, we’ve seen essentially every sector of labour go on some kind of strike in the past two or three years - there is popular organised political participation happening far away from the ballot box, and is only growing in power by the day. Socialism is now a word that exists in the national consciousness, something that was unthinkable even a decade ago. Currently right now we are seeing an international conversation about (and global popular support for) indigenous sovereignty, we are seeing a full-throated articulation of what a LandBack policy would look like, and this comes on the heels of the national Canadian conversation of residential schools and missing and murdered indigenous women. Decolonisation is now a household term. In the case of the US, we are seeing people make the very obvious point that America can conjure billions of dollars to bomb hospitals and civilians, but any social policy to help its own citizens is too expensive, pie in the sky fantasy nonsense.

And by the same token, there is organised right-wing and fascist violence happening in the streets, massive increases in hate crimes, insane political stunts and demonstrations like the Freedom Convoy and 1 Million March 4 Children (inspired by the Capitol Hill storming in the US), Qanon plots to kidnap and execute elected officials - things that right wing parties are actively encouraging, particularly the PPC and CPC. More and more we see that electoral politics is the domain of the far-right, whose culture war issues have the best chance of being realised through the sacred portal of the ballot box. Democrats can’t even offer people legalised abortion now!

I think this is why liberals are in a state of hysteria. A healthy liberal democracy does not require constant, unrelenting reminders to “vote your ass off.” Liberals are very much aware, even unconsciously, that voting does less and less of what they want every single day - you see this openly admitted to by American liberals, who are now doing Hitler % meter calculations about which fascist to vote for come the next federal election. Voting itself is what matters, even as they openly, frantically admit it will do nothing but slightly delay the inevitable.

So to like directly answer your question: I think it has less to do with federal elections as a specific political strategy and more just an expression of anxiety about the fact that voting does not do what you want it to do, or what it once did - perhaps encouraging larger questions if voting does anything at all. If national federal elections don’t do anything, if you voting for the most powerful position on the planet doesn’t really change very much regardless of who’s in power, what is the point of voting at all? So I don’t think they are articulating an actual political strategy or way of doing politics, because by their own admission it’s not going to do much of anything (while at the same time being an existential crisis). I’m in a similar boat to you, I vote in smaller elections where I feel they will do some measure of good (in part because municipalities are responsible for so much more of civic life than they were a few decades ago), I have engaged with the Ontario NDP for several years (although that has come to an end now because of their position on Palestine). Electoralism is a compromise, it is an avenue for potential good, but not always, or even most of the time.

Thankfully there are other avenues for politics - labour organising, protesting, mutual aid support networks, getting involved with community work, even something like local neighbourhood councils. Those are places of political potential, and a single person’s presence in them can make a legitimate noticeable difference (speaking from several years of heavy involvement in community orgs). I have never really felt like I was making a change while voting, but I have felt that way helping community members not get evicted, or offering them free daycare a few times a week, or running programs from lgbtq kids who don’t want to go home after school. Those things legit save peoples’ lives, a lot of them are low stakes relative to their benefit, and they help stave off the alienation and loneliness I know everyone feels. Obviously you run into the same structural problems you would everywhere else, it’s not a paradise by any stretch of the imagination, but they are so many avenues outside of voting that do actually help people around you.

And I think if liberals admit that these actions are more powerful, more effective than voting, they are admitting to themselves that their core beliefs are wrong, that the communists and anarchists are correct and have been correct long before their dumbass was born. They can no longer point to any institution that gives a fuck about them as a defense against left-wing critiques of liberal electoralism. I think that is part of what animates their hysteria, their temper tantrums, their screaming about the only thing to do is do nothing at all. It is a full-throated defense of self-defeat. They are wailing as everything they believe in dies. I’d be pretty upset too if that were me! Luckily I grew out of that when I was like 19

[supersymmetries]

a vaguely-presidential looking seal appears on your dashboard to the sound of trumpets--

and my large, sweaty face appears on your screen. even through the low resolution of the pre-recorded broadcast you can tell that the gel is melting out of my hair and my suit is ill-fitting.

hello fellow musers. 2024 is an election year for large chunks of the planet. primaries are well underway for many. we all love to vote here, and i would like to encourage those of you eligible to make sure that you participate in your country's elections this cycle!

recall the number of polls over the last year that we had no business winning because all of us came together and voted as one. even if that song or album wasn't our favorite. even when we didn't win. even when all it got us 2nd or 3rd place. i want you to bring that optimism and determination to the ballot box this year.

this doesn't apply just to presidential elections, but to any local races that may be underway as well. participation in local elections is lower, and your individual vote has greater sway in a smaller voting pool. this is truly where you have the opportunity to make outsized changes to the politics of your immediate area. these changes in local politics can and will result in greater changes further up the chain.

encourage your friends, musers or not, to go vote as well. go online to search for local resources that can ensure that your vote ends up being counted if work, disability, or other circumstances hamper you (your votes matter even more!).

i'm aware that it feels tired saying this in 2024, especially for those of us in the united states who will most likely have to choose between trump and biden once again. but i hope that i can convince you of the importance of not abandoning the most vulnerable of us in allowing greater demagogues to take power and at the very least, the ability to say that you did your part to preserve democracy in a time when the very future of voting is uncertain.

but this can't be the end of it. voting out of fear of the greater evil and pinching your nose every time cannot be what motivates us. fear is exhausting and can be exhausted in a short period of time, but the world order will not change overnight and we cannot expect it to with one election. instead, we have to let ourselves be motivated by love. dare yourself to love your fellow citizens, to want better for them and yourself, to believe that we all deserve better and that "better" is within our grasp.

feed someone. attend a protest. talk about your wages at work. question dichotomies. we maintain what we have, support one another, and grow. even a relatively small number of people can do powerful things when we all work together. i've seen it happen here, and it can happen anywhere, even on the scale of nations.

see you all at the polls!

[mercurytrinemoon]

Astro basics: electional astrology

A few years ago I made a few posts about electional astrology in the context of social media profiles. Obviously you can still apply those rules to other topics but since I strictly focused on having the most favorable internet presence, I thought let's take it back to basics and talk about electional astrology in general. So here we are.

You can use elections in everyday life although no one wants to get too paranoid about that so what I recommend is, plan important things ahead of the time - so that you have a lot of options; and then, when it comes to smaller things, you could try to at least do things according to the Moon cycles (like transiting Moon in Gemini is good for doing errands, Moon in Virgo is good for doing any kinds of corrections, Moon in Libra is good for throwing parties or love confessions etc; btw I might do a separate post on it if anyone's interested). So this is moreso for major things like announcements, submitting applications, engagements, weddings, moving houses, important business decisions, signing contracts, travel, releasing projects etc. Also, keep in mind that starting something may be as important as releasing it into the world. So for example, wanna write a book? Not only think about the release date but also at what time you're starting to write it. But let's get into the do's and don'ts.

Generally speaking, of course, you want to aim for the best chart possible. A lot of trines, sextiles or benefic conjunctions? Noice. But these are the things you would want to pay attention to:

Position of the Moon

Moon is the most important thing but also the easiest to navigate around since it only takes a month to go around the entire zodiac. Moon in Cancer (domicile) and Taurus (exaltation) is very favorable. I don't recommend having Moon in the signs of its fall/detriment, which is Scorpio or Capricorn. Moon aspects are obviously as crucial - you want to aim for it to make positive aspects and better yet if those aspects are applying (for example Moon at 5° Aries applying to Mercury at 7° Leo with a trine) - that way it's amazing for the progressions. By positive aspects I mean trines and sextiles. With conjunctions it depends on the planet - a conjunction to Mars wouldn't be very beneficial (same with Uranus and Pluto). A conjunction to Saturn or Neptune wouldn't be that bad depending on what is the election for, but in that case I would rather aim for it to be a separating aspect (for example Moon at 25° Aquarius with Saturn at 22° Aquarius). The best thing you can get would be a nice Moon-to-the benefic aspect (Venus or Jupiter; or better yet, both). Moon-Mercury aspects are also great, especially if you're dealing with a mercurial situation (a job interview, contracts, sending an important e-mail, writing or publishing etc).

1. Moon applying with trines to planets in water signs; 2. Moon applying to a conjunction with Jupiter + sextiles to planets in air signs

Don't use elections when Moon is void of course. That means, when it's not making any aspects to any planet within 12°. This doesn't happen often but it's important. Unaspected Moon means lack of whatever you're trying to gain or achieve.

Examples of void of course Moon:

Moon phase: it's always better if Moon is growing - so between the New Moon and the Full Moon BUT at least 12° after the New Moon. It's because its phase is symbolising the growth of the thing you're starting. When the Moon is still New and you can't see it in the sky, it's kind of like its little phase of being in the dark, literally and figuratively. Then on the other hand, after the Full Moon its momentum is slowly dying, so it's loosing its peak moment. That being said, waning Moon is not THAT bad if you don't have any other choice - just make sure that (if choosing a date right after the Full Moon) you wait for it to be at least 12° separating from the opposition to the Sun.

A lot of sources also state that the Moon shouldn't be anywhere around the ascendant (and the 1st whole sign house in general). None of the sources give the explanation tho so don't ask me why.

The ascendant and its ruler

The ascendant itself can vary. I'd say with that you can do whatever you want. It is said that ascendant in any of the fixed signs (Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, Aquarius) symbolises longevity, although keep in mind that Scorpio, for example, can bring out negative qualities due to it being ruled by a malefic. Aquarius can be similar. Signs ruled by benefics (Taurus, Libra, Sagittarius and Pisces) with good placement for the ruling planet would be an ideal choice. I personally also like Leo rising with a good Sun placement cause that's pretty universal for elections, but that one became tricky ever since Saturn ingressed into Aquarius and is going to stay tricky after Pluto takes its place.

But what's important is the ascendant's ruler. Similarly to the Moon, we want to aim for a) positive aspects; b) the ruling planet being in a friendly or at least neutral sign. Example: if it's Venus it would be nice to have it exalted in Pisces or in one of its domicile signs: Taurus or Libra. Avoid Venus in Aries or in Virgo. The rest of the signs would be neutral. And c) a good house placements, like an angle, an angular house (that is the 1st, 4th, 7th or 10th) or houses 5th, 9th or 11th.

Retrograde planets

Obviously avoid the most important: Mercury and Venus in retrogrades. Mercury retrograde is a no-no for big purchases, signing contracts or a big travel. Venus is a no-no for things related to money and most importantly, love and romance (don't get married during Venus rx!). Jupiter can be as important if we're talking about legal stuff (including marriage). Mars is a no-no for medical procedures (sometimes along with Venus if it's related to beauty). The ruler of the chosen ascendant shouldn't be in retrograde either.

What about malefics?

Keep them tucked away in cadent houses. Be careful not to put them in a house that is the main topic of your election (like in the 9th if you're travelling or 2nd if you're making a big purchase or dealing with money). Make them as nicely aspected as you possibly can. You can also ease their malefic impact with choosing either a night or a day chart (if Mars is causing problems, make a night chart; if it's Saturn - a day chart) - if you can, obviously, not everything can be done during the night. But most importantly, keep them away from the angles or angular houses. Sometimes Saturn in an agular house and a day chart can be acceptable tho, depending what the election is for and Saturn's aspects.

House placements

Those depend on the thing you're electing for. If it's a creative project, maybe consider having nice planets in the 5th house; if it's for a wedding, a nice 4th, 5th or 7th house placements would be appreciated as well. If you're just trying to give the best impression with whatever you're doing, a Sun, Moon or Venus on the MC; Venus in the 1st house etc. This is the most tricky part overall because often you can't choose the exact hour you want. So, planetary aspects will always take the lead in that regard.

Example charts: April 5th 2023; January 18th 2024 (exalted chart ruler in aspect to a benefic, malefic in the 12th house, Moon applying to Jupiter etc.)

Your own chart

Lastly, don't forget to make sure the electional chart you chose is in nice aspects to your own natal chart. You can cast a synastry chart of both and see if you have a bit of a support from the election or if it completely clashes with it.

Always remember that there's no such thing as a perfect chart. And what I always say, if something is supposed to be a lasting success, it will. We're trying to navigate the astrology and pick the right time for major events but most of the time, no matter how we try, it's the astrology that rules us - what we're trying to do is just avoid a diasaster so it's good to be aware of the energies and planetary influences.

Some examples of popular releases (with no exact time)

On the left: Psy's Gangnam Style (I know, lol). Both Venus and Jupiter co-present in the same sign of Gemini, with Moon applying with a conjunction. The presence of the south node seems to be significant as well. The air stellium is in a trine with Saturn and Mars - both in Libra and in a sextile with Uranus in Aries. Gemini planets can underline the aspect of an internet phenomenon (with the fast mercurial energy).

On the right: UPSAHL's viral tik tok song Drugs. Venus in an applying conjunction with Jupiter in Sagittarius. Moon is applying to them with an opposition. Mars is applying with a trine to both benefics. South node being close to the Sun. Side note: Venus and Jupiter are right on top of her Sagittarius planets.

On the left: Game of Thrones release date. Exalted Venus in Pisces. A nice Aries stellium (the martian war element is very strong here) with co-present Jupiter, exalted Sun and a domicile Mars. An approaching Full Moon conjunct exalted Saturn. Mercury is retrograde, which can signify public's later upset with how the show went on.

On the right: Wednesday Netflix release: Exact Mercury-Venus conjunction in Sagittarius (it's dark and witty yet still visually appealing and entertaining). An out-of-sign applying New Moon. The Moon is in Scorpio but it's applying to a domicile Jupiter with a trine. Both malefics in a trine to each other.

[sustainabilitythoughts]

Primary elections and caucuses

If you live in the US, the next few months will decide who is running for the various elected positions in the November 2024 general election. Caucuses and primary elections select candidates from all levels of government, from local to national.  Some states use the caucus system, where a group of political party members meets to select the candidates from that political party who will be on the ballot in the general election.  In general, at caucuses a relatively small number of people select the candidates. In the case of the presidential election, the caucus selects delegates who are sworn to support a specific candidate at the national convention that choses that party’s candidate for the general election. Those who attend the caucuses are generally very active members of the political party and their views don’t always match those of the general membership of their political party.  Other states hold primary elections to determine which candidates will move forward to the general election.  These primary elections are generally specific to a particular political party and usually have a much smaller turnout than general elections.  However, these early candidate selection processes are very important, because they affect who is on the ballot for the general elections.  If you want a candidate on the ballot who represents your point of view, get involved in these early primaries and caucuses. Your participation may help select candidates that more closely represent your point of view. 

[steelbluehome]

"Stan . . . is at his greatest whenever he taps into this marriage between a swollen superiority complex and paralyzing insecurity that make up the fabric of the reality TV star turned unlikely President of the United States"

The Playlist

The Apprentice’ Review: Sebastian Stan as Donald Trump? It Works! (click for article)

Rafa Sales Ross

May 20, 2024 3:22 pm

Five years ago, Iranian-Danish filmmaker Ali Abbasi broke out internationally with the Oscar-nominated “Border,” a thorny little beast of a fable about love, complicity, and guilt. His latest prods at some of the same themes, although the thorny little beast at the center of “The Apprentice” is far from a fictional creature of fables.

Abbasi’s newest chronicles the rise of former American president Donald Trump (Sebastian Stan) through his relationship with lawyer and political fixer Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong). Before diving into the fatidical first meeting between the two men, the director makes an important disclaimer about the film that is to come: the people you will see on-screen are real; their stories might have been fictionalized. Then, he cuts into a very factual piece of footage: Nixon’s infamous 1973 speech at the height of Watergate. The grainy tape shows the soon-to-be-fallen president sternly claiming: “I’m not a crook!”

This on-the-nose initial parallel brilliantly sets the tone for the two hours ahead, a ride that does away with subtlety without leaning into overexposition. Said ride begins in a swanky members-only club in New York, where the overconfident Cohn gravitates towards a meek, unsure Trump. He brings him under his wing, first offering to help get him out of a discrimination lawsuit filed against his family’s property development business and later stepping into a much more fatherly position. His advice ranged from Bribery 101 to the clauses that should be added to his pre-nuptial agreement.

The crucial decade separating that initial meeting and the tragic demise of the relationship between the two men encompasses many of the main tidbits we associate with the Trump of today, from his unstoppable quest to build a phallic-shaped empire at the heart of the Big Apple with his Trump Tower to his troubled marriage with Czech-American model turned socialite Ivana Trump (Maria Bakalova). The cinematography follows this transition, going from the lush, grainy texture of ’70s film to the washed-out hues of ’80s camcorders.

When the project was first announced, many were skeptical of the idea of a biopic about one of the most contentious public figures of modern times starring a hunky Marvel alum and eyeing a big premiere at a glitzy film festival. While all these concerns remain true, especially given this is an election year in the US, Abbasi manages to thread the lines between tabloid fodder and veiled endorsement with great skill. There’s a running comic vein throughout the film that flirts with mockery while bypassing the pastiche, like when the camera catches a glimpse of an empty-brained Donald as he sits alone at the big boys’ table, with no big boys to play with or when the broad man bumps into the slim, cool Andy Warhol at a party he has no business being in, his ineptitude making him feel smaller and smaller while his ego begins showing the first signs of inflation.

Stan finds in Strong a great match. Abbasi’s latest sees the “Succession” actor play a Roy once more, although this time he is not as much the plagued victim of daddy issues as his benefiting perpetrator. The big, boisterous Roy of the early ’70s is much, much fun to watch, and when the larger-than-life scammer disguised as a prosecutor begins suffering the consequences of AIDS, Strong plays him with a pained reticence that is at once greatly moving and deeply effective in its understanding of how the illness affects the dynamics between the duo. Cohn was a closeted gay man for all professional intents but led a very open life with his younger partner, who also died from the complications of AIDS.

With “The Apprentice,” Stan continues his run of lining up weird, big-swing projects of the likes of “Fresh” and “A Different Man” to shake off the ghost of Bucky Barnes. The bet pays off. Stan plays Trump without an overreliance on the frazzled blonde wig and increasingly pronounced prosthetics. The actor is at his greatest whenever he taps into this marriage between a swollen superiority complex and paralyzing insecurity that make up the fabric of the reality TV star turned unlikely President of the United States.

Trump’s reaction to Cohn’s lifestyle is one of the most interesting (and formative) aspects of the evolution of the central relationship. While at first young Donald emulates Cohn in all major aspects of his life — from copying the prosecutor’s number plate to leaning more and more into the orange-hued pleasures of fake tan — Cohn’s frailing health nags at the mogul, not necessarily because it is a physical reminder of his mentor’s sexuality, but because it makes him look weak.

Weakness, of course, has no space in the life of Donald Trump. No longer the whining mentee of his much savvier friend and pumped to the nines with diet pills filled with amphetamines, Trump morphs into a delusional broken radio, one stuck on the audiobook for his best-selling business bible “The Art of the Deal.” There is, of course, a fear that a film like “The Apprentice” might pose a dangerous chance to endear this buffoon to audiences. Alas, the Trump at the center of Abbasi’s sleek satire is the same Trump already etched in the cultural consciousness — an incompetent, disloyal, criminal fool. That, one hopes, will only cater only to those already indoctrinated. [B+]

[mariacallous]

A particularly subtle Kabuki theater performance has been unfolding in recent weeks at the United Nations headquarters in New York, which has been gearing up for the annual vote of the U.N. General Assembly, conducted by secret ballot, to choose five countries to sit in rotating nonpermanent seats on the U.N. Security Council. The only contested race: a brawl between Belarus and Slovenia for the slot reserved for Eastern Europe.

Belarus, which has been angling for the seat for years, argued that it deserved it and accused Slovenia of jumping into the race late; Belarus’s U.N. ambassador called the move “extremely politicized.” 

But countries that had earlier pledged their support to Belarus, which declared its candidacy in 2007, were starting to rethink things. Belarus served as a staging ground for Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. More recently, Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, who has been president since 1994, said that Russia had begun moving tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus and claimed that there would be “nuclear weapons for everyone” willing to join the Union State of Belarus and Russia. And Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, one of Lukashenko’s exiled political opponents, who inspired tens of thousands of supporters to take to the streets of Belarus’s capital of Minsk in 2020, was recently sentenced in her absence to 15 years in prison.

“Yes, Slovenia may have disrupted an otherwise straightforward race,” said Richard Gowan, the International Crisis Group’s U.N. director. “But Belarus has been an accomplice to a war of aggression. And in the grand scheme of things, one of those is more important than the other.”

At the heart of the drama, the arcane rules of the U.N. made the election for the Eastern European seat, if not a nail-biter, at the very least a potential bellwether. Even if Belarus failed to win the seat, a strong showing might serve as a propaganda coup for Russia, still reeling from a vote by the General Assembly in February of this year, when 141 countries condemned its invasion of Ukraine, and only seven countries, including Belarus, were in its camp. 

And it’s not symbolic, either. Nonpermanent members of the Security Council don’t have the clout of the five veto-wielding permanent members, but they do chair council meetings and shape the agenda in rotating monthly presidencies. Having Belarus on the council could also help Russia and China round up the votes to block initiatives without having to use their veto power as two of the five permanent council members, which also include France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Resorting to the veto can lead to unwelcome headlines and require explanations in the General Assembly.

After entering the race in December 2021, Slovenia’s diplomats chose to campaign on its perspective as a small state that could relate with the concerns of small states in other regions, rather than emphasizing their country’s support for Ukraine. Tanja Fajon, Slovenia’s foreign affairs minister, repeatedly swatted down questions about Belarus during a campaign swing through New York for the election by saying that she was refraining from a smear campaign.

Running for the Security Council can be a time-consuming and expensive process. Slovenia, an Adriatic country of 2 million that belongs to both NATO and the European Union, is among the smaller countries to have sought this honor. It can’t afford a vast diplomatic network stretching around the globe. So when Slovenia decided to run, its foreign service ramped up its travel to introduce itself at multilateral meetings and countries where it doesn’t have embassies. Even within the U.N. system, “there is always a running joke that people aren’t quite sure whether it’s Slovenia or Slovakia,” Gowan said. For many Americans, Slovenia may only be familiar as the birthplace of Melania Trump.

Slovenia knows firsthand how bruising drawn-out bouts for the Security Council can be. After serving one term in the 1990s, in its second attempt at the brass ring in 2011, Slovenia stepped aside after 16 inconclusive rounds, allowing Azerbaijan to clinch the seat in the 17th round. But in historical terms, you might say they were just warming up. In 1979, the Latin America group went 155 rounds in a stalemate between Colombia and Cuba, before Mexico ultimately stepped in as a compromise candidate.

But if the race for a Security Council seat can be expensive and grueling, it serves as shiny consolation for even more grueling diplomatic grunt work. The Eastern European diplomats send around spreadsheets dividing up seats on various councils, committees, and treaty bodies, often work that is a real grind. That is what makes a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council, even if only for a two-year term, a reward for years of dutifully showing up for meetings in small conference rooms in the basement of the U.N. Secretariat building. 

As the vote drew near, tempers flared at a campaign debate, where the best thing going for it was that both candidates showed up. That hasn’t always been the case, according to debate moderator Aziel-Philippos Goulandris, who said, “I don’t think they would have come if they saw it as a negative.”

Valentin Rybakov, the Belarusian ambassador, began by complaining about the injustice—his word—of having to compete for a seat on the Security Council. Slovenia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bostjan Malovrh, criticized the Belarusian for making “a number of really outlandish claims that are outright offensive.”

Then Russia waded into the fray for its ally. Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia characterized the Slovenian campaign as an “attempt to hijack a seat in the Security Council.” He challenged the Slovenian ambassador to explain what “value add” Slovenia would bring to the table. “The international community knows pretty well the position of Belarus on international and regional issues,” Nebenzia said. “How does the position of Slovenia differ from that of the European Union?” 

Slovenia’s ambassador countered that he was there on behalf of his nation’s capital, Ljubljana, “and not on behalf of Brussels or anybody else, just the same as I hope that Ambassador Rybakov is here on behalf of Minsk, and not on behalf of the Commonwealth of the former Soviet republics or the Union State of Russia and Belarus.” 

The General Assembly gathered to vote on June 6, Russian Language Day at the U.N., even as floodwaters from the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam in eastern Ukraine earlier in the day served as a catastrophic endnote to a raucous campaign. In the end, though, it wasn’t even close. Slovenia emerged victorious in the first round, with 153 votes. Belarus received 38 votes, far short of the 64 that it needed to push the balloting to a second round. Belarus’s 15-year wait ended in disappointment, and Russia didn’t score a propaganda coup.

The jubilant Slovenian delegation sprang to their feet, hugging each other and wiping tears from their eyes. Tsikhanouskaya, the Belarusian opposition candidate, tweeted that Slovenia’s victory sent “a powerful signal of global solidarity with the people of #Belarus.”

[uboat53]

Well, election day is now in the bag and, though many results are yet to be settled such as who will control each of the houses of Congress, there's quite a bit that we can say for sure. I'll mostly skip over the big headline stories as I imagine you've seen those already and focus on smaller ones that I consider interesting, prepare for a LONG RANT (TM).

THE BIG STORIES

All right, just to get this out of the way, the predicted "red wave" did not happen. Republicans did okay and they're on track to control the House and have an outside shot at the Senate, but it wasn't supposed to be this close. A combination of bad candidates, skewed polling (a lot of Republican-allied pollsters released a ton of polls in the final stretch, seemingly skewing the averages), and some generally unpopular leaders and policy positions have put them in a position where this might just be the best midterm result for a party that controls the Presidency since 2002.

In the Senate, Democrats won the Senate races in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire where Republicans had made a push while Republicans won the races in Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Ohio where Democrats had made a push. The races in Arizona and Nevada are still uncalled (the Democrat leads in AZ and the Republican in NV) while Georgia's race will go to a runoff because no one got over 50%. Of the three races that are yet to be decided, the party that wins two of them will control the Senate.

As far as governorships, Democrats held Wisconsin, Michigan, and Kansas and flipped Maryland and Massachusetts which had had moderate Republican governors as a holdover from the Obama years. Republicans held Florida, Georgia, and Texas where Democrats made a push. Meanwhile, Arizona and Nevada are both uncalled at this point, in AZ the Democrat leads and in NV the Republican does, both of which would represent a flip if those leads hold.

STATE LEGISLATURES

Now, onto the less "headline" stuff. People don't pay a ton of attention to state legislatures, but they're super important. Most of the governing that actually matters to real people happens in the states, many state legislatures have been gerrymandered to the point where they no longer truly match the opinions of the voters, and many other states are simply so far in one column or the other that there's not a real competition. That said, two swing states defied their gerrymandering and tilted toward the Democrats (none went to the Republicans).

Michigan held its first election under new district maps ordered by the courts after they found that the previous were so gerrymandered as to infringe on the rights of voters to choose their own representatives. The result is that Democrats will now control the State Senate and the State House is currently 53-53 with 4 races too close to call (Democrats currently lead in 3 of those 4 districts). Since they held the governorship these results would give the Democrats total governing control of the state which is impressive for a state that featured total Republican control as recently as 2018.

In Wisconsin the Democrats did not win enough seats to take control, not even close, but they were able to overcome one of the most severe gerrymanders in the country to prevent the Republicans from obtaining a supermajority in the state legislature. With a Democratic governor, this will allow Democrats to sustain his vetoes and prevent the Republican legislature from simply overriding him and governing alone.

MEDICARE, ABORTION, AND THE MINIMUM WAGE

I'll talk about other ballot measures in a bit, but I wanted to look at these three in particular because they share two features in common. (1) All three are generally supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans and (2) all three are very popular when put to a popular vote.

South Dakota this election voted to expand Medicaid which makes it the seventh state to expand Medicaid via ballot measure after the governor and legislature refused to do so. In fact, this particular question has never failed in any state when brought to a vote. There are now only 11 states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), it will be interesting to see how many of them continue to hold if ballot measures are offered.

Nebraska this election increased its minimum wage, voting to increase it to $15 an hour by January 26th. In the last six years there have been 8 ballot measures to increase the minimum wage in states as politically diverse as Maine, Arizona, and Arkansas. All have passed fairly convincingly. In fact, you have to go back to 1996 to find the last time that a minimum wage ballot measures failed.

Abortion was also on the ballot in five states this election. California, Vermont, and Michigan enshrined the right to abortion in their state Constitution and voters in Kentucky and Montana rejected measures that would have restricted abortion. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no state has passed a ballot measure restricting abortion and many have passed measures protecting abortion since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, even states ordinarily considered to be extremely pro-life in their politics like Kentucky and Kansas.

OTHER BALLOT MEASURES OF INTEREST

As far as other ballot measures go, five states had ballot measures to legalize Marijuana and two of those passed. Pot will soon be legal in Maryland and Missouri, but not in Arkansas or South Dakota (or North Dakota probably, but they're still counting). That will make 21 states where pot is fully legal for medicinal and recreational use.

Unions had a bit of a mixed bag. Illinois passed a measure to protect union membership while Tennessee passed a "right to work" measure. It's probably a net positive for unions given that they're gaining in Illinois and nothing really changed in Tennessee (which already had right to work laws approved by the state legislature), but it's definitely a sign that their arguments aren't breaking through everywhere.

Arizona made a huge step toward limiting medical debt. They just passed a measure that limits interest on medical debt to 3% and limits the ability sieze property and wages for medical debt. Also in the southwest, New Mexico passed a measure to improve pre-K childcare with money from the state's sovereign wealth fund. Both of these are kind of sleeper issues that seem to cross partisan lines so definitely worth keeping an eye on.

Finally, on a more personal note, California passed a measure to increase spending on arts programs at public schools. As the spouse of a music teacher, I approve of this.

CONCLUSION

Overall the results paint an interesting picture of the politics of the country. We are overwhelmingly in favor of some things that Democrats support, but we're pretty split as far as the parties themselves. Candidate quality did end up mattering quite a bit, it's easy to imagine an alternate reality where Republicans won the Senate seats in Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania quite easily with better candidates, and so did major issues like abortion that were kept forefront in some voter's minds despite economic headwinds. The stars aligned this time around to prevent the blowout that usually happens in a President's first midterm (Trump lost 40 seats in the House and Obama lost 60), but we probably won't have full Democratic control of Washington come January.

Keep an eye on the issues, though, I have a feeling that we're going to be seeing more direct democracy and it will be interesting to see how the voting publics even in states that are pretty solidly in one part or the other differ from the expressed opinions of their representatives.

Hope you enjoyed this or at least found it interesting!

[enny43]

Let's talk about Colorado's 3rd congressional district.

Lauren Boebert and Adam Frisch are locked in a ridiculously close election in a race a lot of people are watching very closely. Seeing Boebert unseated would be a huge win and may turn out to be crucially important in a midterm the Dems (shockingly) still have a chance to take the House in. It has been razer thin for several days, and over a long lapse in reporting, Fisch lead by less than 70 votes with ~90% of the vote in.

As of right now, Boebert holds a lead of 1,136 votes with about 98% of the votes counted. It might take until next Thursday for the remaining votes to be counted and a winner declared, as there are an estimated 5,898 votes still to be counted. This does not include overseas and military votes or ballots that need to be cured, but we'll get to that.

First lets address a question many people have:

Why is this taking so long?

The short answer is, it's not. The main reason it seems to be taking longer than most races is directly related to how close the race actually is. See when news media "call" races, they are actually just projecting the winner based on the possibilities in remaining math. If it becomes reasonably impossible for a certain candidate to win, they call the race. The projected loser may even concede at this time. But that is not an official result, nor does the counting stop at that point. Just like in CO-3, counting continues following the guidelines set by the state to tabulate an official result. This race only hasn't been called yet because with the remaining votes, either candidate can still win. Colorado also has a gold-standard level election system.. so we can expect counting to take a little longer due to such a high percentage of ballots there being mail-in (Colorado sends ballots to all voters by default)

As far as the timeline goes, this is not abnormal.

So what are Adam Frisch's odds of winning and how can we calculate them? This is a more complicated answer, but I'll do my best to keep it simple.

As I said, there are an estimated 5,898 votes remaining to be counted. The bulk of them (2,365) come from Pueblo County which favors Frisch by 3.3%, and another large share (700 votes) comes from Pitkin County which favors Frisch by 29.2%

If all math followed those numbers, this would be a pickup of 565 votes for Adam Frisch. Boebert also has an advantage in Mesa County of 7.8% where there are 726 estimated votes remaining. This would give her a pickup of ~112 votes. In the remaining counties where there are less than 300 votes remaining to be counted, we can estimate that the votes would mostly cancel out, with a slight edge for Frisch.

All the math with these smaller counties included points to Frisch coming up short by about 770 votes (this would still fall in the range of an automatic recount).. but this does not account for all the outstanding ballots.

There are still an indeterminate number of absentee ballots from overseas and military votes to count, in addition to provisional ballots that may have been cast on Election Day (Colorado has same-day voter registration, so these are uncommon).. and there is also a curing period for ballots that may have had a mistake and need to be verified (such as someone forgetting to sign the envelope when mailing their ballot in)

We can expect the military and overseas ballots to favor Frisch. Not only does the military slightly lean Dem as it is, Southern Colorado is home to a lot of active duty Air Force which has an even more liberal tilt than the military broadly. As for the cured ballots, it's hard to say.. but my intuition tells me Democratic voters would be more energized and likely to fix their ballots by the deadline (there's also a lot of outreach being done to help people through this process, something I imagine the Boebert camp will be less capable of doing)

Are there any guarantees the remaining votes will follow the trend exactly? Of course not. They may favor one candidate or the other to a greater degree than the averages represent. Without knowing how many outstanding ballots there are from the military, overseas, and cured counts.. it is fundamentally impossible to know how this race will turn out. What I can say is not to expect many updates between now and next week. This one is going to come down to the wire, and whatever candidate ends up winning will do so by a very tight margin. No matter the result, I expect a recount will be triggered leading us to even more waiting to find out the official results.

My suggestion to everyone is to be patient and let this process play out. I have no reason to be worried about the results of this race, which is already much closer than anyone expected it would be going into Election Day. After all, CO-3 is an R+6 district. The race being this close is something no one expected.

Here's a chart with all of the data I discussed:

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Any hope that the Republican Party has that it will reclaim Arizona's 11 Electoral College votes in the 2024 presidential election will likely hinge on the party's appeal to the growing number of independents in the state.

However, as the New York Times' Trip Gabriel reports, if Donald Trump is the GOP's presidential nominee the odds of a win in the state worsen because of his unpopularity in the once reliably conservative state.

As the report notes, President Joe Biden, if he is the Democratic nominee, might also struggle to win all the votes belonging to the independents who show up at the polls in 2024.

According to one former Republican turned independent, it will be either Biden or a third-party candidate who will receive her vote even if the former president isn't the GOP nominee.

“The entire Republican Party went so far to the right,” lamented Sheri Schreckengost, 61, before adding, “Donald Trump changed all that for me. The way things are now, there’s no way I’d vote for a Republican.”

Richard Mocny, a retiree who left the GOP because of Trump, added, "I think we have bigger problems than just Trump being re-elected. Polarization in this country is just fierce. I believe in looking at some of the new third parties popping up.”

The Times report notes, "Arizona’s independent voters, a sampling of whom were interviewed after having participated in an earlier New York Times/Siena College poll, are sure to be just as essential to Mr. Biden next year as they were in 2020. His 10,500-vote margin in Arizona, less than one percentage point, was his narrowest of any state. The Electoral College map of states likely to be the most contested in 2024 has narrowed to a smaller handful than usual: Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."

Independent Margot Copeland, stated keeping Trump out of the Oval Office was paramount.

"I’ll get to the polls and get everybody out to the polls too,” the retiree said before warning, “It’s very important that Trump does not get back in.”

[a-noone]

The best sci-fi explores social issues. The best Star Trek is at the cutting edge of social commentary.

Obviously, I'm Pagan, and psychic, and so I had a choice about whether to post this on my pagan tumblr (and to frame it as a dialogue between Morrigan, Ogma, Apollon, Hermes, Dionysos, and myself -- which it was) or my sci-fi tumblr (and to frame it as things to explore in stories I will later write -- which I will), and I chose here.

There are four things that don't really exist, except for through consensus, but that some people treat as immutable. We know they're not real because they don't consistently work the same way or mean the same things in all places and all times for all people.

Laws.

A law is a threat of violence. Its reality is enforced with military might. Importantly: nothing that is natural or real needs to be enforced with guns. However, this does not stop us from claiming that the laws we make up are "the natural order," or attributing their rightness to some invisible person who lives in the sky.

Prompt: Consider two worlds, one of which is a perfect anarchy, and one of which is a law-driven society with draconian punishments. Research how humans behave when disaster strikes and the "rule of law" breaks down (spoilers: people are kinder to one another, as their true animal instincts -- cooperation and empathy -- take hold.) An ambassador must wright a peace treaty between the two. How do they see one another? What do they get horribly wrong about one another? In which society is a person safer?

Ownership.

No one owns anything. We just pretend like we do. The only difference between a car you own and a car you don't own is that if you drive away in a car that's not yours, the cops will shoot you. To say that you own a person is merely to state that you have a right to do violence to that person.

Prompt: While visiting a new world, one of your characters accidently goes somewhere or touches something that, according to the laws of the society, means that the character is now the property of the local Lord. His perspective is that he has a very important title, and that the laws of nature state that he can own slaves. Another character must talk him around to get their friend back.

Money.

Paper currency has no real value. Digital currency has even less. Money is merely a means of communication, a sort of I.O.U. for real goods later. At the intersection of ownership of certain things (ideas, immortal souls, land), you have the least real shit imaginable.

Prompt: Envision a society with an alternative way of communicating the communal I.O.U. --- go full metal weird, or go home. OR, imagine a society that has taken the abstraction of a money-like concept way beyond our present society's level of absurdity.

Authority.

The really weird thing about dictators is that, despite their efforts to paint themselves as in charge in the most absolute way possible, they are far more likely to be executed than a democratically elected leader where all members of the society fairly participate. In smaller groups, people vote with their feet. Great nations and empires collapse when the majority feels that they have no say. No matter how we turn it, or spin it, no one has authority unless it is conveyed upon them by a critical mass of other people willing to follow them.

Prompt: Your characters encounter an absolutist totalitarian government, and run afoul of its Sovereign God-Emporer. They are thrown into prison, and escape, only to find themselves among the overwhelmingly disenfranchised proletariat on the eve of a revolution. Perhaps your Captain wants to talk the Emperor into a peaceful transition of power. Perhaps rebels are captured, imprisoned, and shot, only to win anyway because of their overwhelming numbers. Perhaps all of the rebel leaders are captured, and it looks like order will be restored, but the Emperor monologues about how little the will of the people means, only to be shot in the head by a supposedly loyal soldier. Illustrate the futility of trying to hold all the power as a single person.

[indelicateink]

important for my fellow Texans. early voting is open NOW. vote to increase retired teachers' cost-of-living because it's not built into their retirement plans, to make child care more affordable, to put $1 billion towards our broken water infrastructure, to give money for research grants to more Texas universities, to put $1.5 billion toward equitable broadband access, and more. (when and how to vote)

State Constitutional Amendments

We've got a slew of constitutional amendments on the ballot this year coming out of the 88th legislative session. It's funky that our state does this, and for many years the Chronicle recommended voting against all such amendments in protest of cluttering the state constitution. But this is part of how our state functions, so we've done some digging through the clutter so you don't have to.

1) Protecting Bad Neighbor Farmers: No

Texas already has a broad Right to Farm statute, which was further broadened in the last legislative session anyway. Adding a constitutional amendment on top of that is not only unnecessary, it also gives an unprecedented level of protection for agricultural businesses that are bad neighbors, creating unreasonably high standards for cities to sue over threats to public health like overuse of pesticides. Texas Farm Bureau, which represents larger agribusiness, lobbied hard for this, and organizations representing smaller farmers like the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance have come out against.

2) Property Tax Exemption for Child Care Centers: Yes

Part of the reason younger generations are not having kids is because child care is too damn expensive. We should do everything we can to reduce that cost – allowing owners of child care centers to access tax exemptions for properties used to operate those facilities could help do that.

3) Blocking a Net Worth Tax: No

Republican legislators would like to amend the Texas Constitution to prohibit a hypothetical wealth tax, or "net worth" tax, which shifts tax burden to wealthier Texans; they argue that it penalizes business owners and people who may have significant assets but low cash flow. The Legislature isn't currently considering a net worth tax, but this would eliminate the option of ever doing so.

4) Big Three Property Tax Compromise: No

Property tax relief and increasing school funding were two of very few priorities that Democratic and Republican legislators agreed on going into the 88th legislative session. They failed to address the dire state of school funding in any meaningful way, but a big package of tax breaks for property owners – with a pittance offered to public schools – did reach Gov. Greg Abbott's desk after a second special session. Texas voters are now being asked to amend the state constitution to allow the package to take effect. This proposal devised by the state's Top Three Republicans would not add any new funding into the state's beleaguered public school system, but it would temporarily reduce the amount of revenue districts need to generate through property taxes by giving schools a one-time injection of funds from the state's budget surplus. We encourage Austin voters to reject this premise; the state should simply increase the basic allotment for schools in the state budget. This relief proposal also leaves renters out of the equation, though they indirectly pay a quarter of state school property taxes. Democrats pushed to include direct relief for renters because there's no guarantee homeowners will use tax savings to reduce or stabilize rents. That didn't make it into the proposal, and that's another good reason to vote this prop down.

5) Adding University Funding: Yes

In the past, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University have received most of the state's available research grants. Proposition 5 would create two new funds that would provide money for research grants to some of Texas' other large universities, including Texas State University, Texas Tech University, the University of Houston, and the University of North Texas. This will strengthen these universities, benefiting regional and state economic development.

6) State Water Fund: Yes

A $1 billion investment in Texas' broken water infrastructure is needed, and will address the roughly 50 gallons of water a day lost per home through leaky pipes. Part of the fund is also appropriated toward new supply projects, including marine desalination and treated fracking wastewater, as well as education programs about water loss. Sierra Club has not taken a position on Prop 6, as there are concerns about low-income rural communities not being prioritized for infrastructure investments and about the environmental and health impacts of possible supply projects, but the Chronicle feels an urgent investment in water is necessary, and we'll be watching the Texas Water Development Board for a transparent rulemaking process.

7) Incentives for New Gas Plants: No

Though the ballot language is vague enough to seem positive, Prop 7 would actually just give low-interest loans and grants to encourage the construction of new gas plants – benefits that they already get from the private market – and literally stipulates that new battery construction projects need not apply. Yes, we need more energy sources, but this would essentially create a taxpayer-backed subsidy for gas plants alone, creating an unfair disadvantage for renewables and their backups.

8) Expanding Broadband: Yes

Broadband access is not equitable in Texas, and Prop 8 would create a broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed internet to Texans statewide, including where private companies don't operate. This has broad bipartisan support, and the Legislature has already appropriated $1.5 billion to the proposed fund, contingent on voters approving this amendment.

9) Raising Teacher Retirement: Yes

Retired teachers in Texas do not have a cost of living adjustment built into their retirement plans, so some retirees have trouble keeping up with their bills. This year, legislators approved such an adjustment, proposing to transfer $5 billion from the current budget surplus to the Teacher Retirement System in order to keep it solvent. The transfer must be approved by voters, however. The Texas AFL-CIO, Raise Your Hand Texas, Texas Association of School Administrators, Texas Association of School Boards, and many other groups support this proposition, and we do too.

10) Corporate Tax Break on Medical Devices: Yes

We're generally against tax breaks for corporations, but at least this one would go to manufacturers of medical devices and biomedical products. Let's just hope that the executives at those manufacturing companies will pass their tax savings on to hospitals and patients who need those devices.

11) Adding El Paso Parks: Yes

Currently, most large counties in Texas are allowed to issue bonds to create parks and improve those they already have. El Paso County is not one of these, however, which has hampered its ability to develop a network of recreational facilities. Prop 11 would allow it to join the other counties. We support El Paso in voting to invest more in their parks.

12) Eliminating Galveston Treasurer: No Endorsement

Proposition 12 would eliminate the office of the county treasurer of Galveston County effective January 1, 2024, which would mean assigning the duties of the treasurer's office to people in other county offices. There's some history in Galveston driving this proposed amendment, but the Chronicle News team is not well-positioned to report on it, so we're staying out of this one.

13) Older Judges Allowed: Yes

Proposition 13 would raise the age at which state judges are required to retire from 75 to 79. As 84-year-old federal Judge David Hittner recently demonstrated in placing a temporary restraining order on the state's anti-drag bill, older judges can do a lot of good.

14) Historic Investment in State Parks: Yes

This $1 billion fund coming out of the surplus would support the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department in buying land to establish and develop new state parks, something sorely needed to conserve natural areas and to keep up with the demand of 10 million (and counting) Texans a year trying to access our current parks.

[bills-bible-basics]

MY F4C3 M4SK POSITION

Concerning all of the recent online chatter concerning face masks, social distancing, lockdowns, etc. being reimplemented in coming months, as we approach another important national election, let me say the following:

As we all know, in the United States of America, we have three branches of government: legislative, judicial and executive.

This system of government is so designed so that each branch can keep a check on each other, and maintain a balance of power.

Congress — the House of Representatives and the Senate — creates bills. The Supreme Court interprets laws based on the Constitution of the United States. The executive branch — meaning the president — can either sign a bill into law, or veto it, but he CANNOT make laws. Of course, Congress can override a veto if it has sufficient votes.

Furthermore, we need to understand that executive orders are NOT laws. After all, if they were, then it basically turns a president into a dictator. As is, some presidents make it a habit of abusing this executive privilege. It is a loophole and a very tricky matter.

The point I am trying to make here is the following: Many things are foisted upon the American public which are not technically laws, through peer pressure, intimidation and being publicly shamed. Sound familiar?

An order, mandate, recommendation, or whatever you want to call it — whether from some government institution, health organization, or whatever — is not necessarily a legal, enforceable law, yet we the public are forced to abide by it. This is EXACTLY what happened with the va€€ines …. and which may soon happen again.

Many of you know exactly what I am talking about. Here on Guam, very draconian measures were put into place, meaning mandatory face masks, social distancing, the total closure of non-essential businesses, the va€€ines, school closures, a two-week required quarantine for all incoming island visitors, etc.

It was so bad that our tourism industry — which is vital to our island economy — came to a total standstill for about two years. In fact, it is STILL recovering.

Our local business sector was likewise seriously affected for that same two-year period. In fact, many smaller businesses were forced to shut their doors permanently, because they simply couldn’t survive financially.

Our education system likewise suffered, because our schools were closed, and kids were forced to stay home, and eventually begin to study online. As a result, many fell behind.

Even with establishments which were allowed to remain open, if one refused to wear a mask, they were not given admittance. Labs, doctors’ offices and other medical facilities STILL require face masks in 2023. Some people still wear masks, for whatever their reasons.

So as you can see, these government mandates — which are NOT really legal laws — really hurt us, and made life very difficult for many of us here on Guam.

Now there is chatter in the wind that it is all going to happen again, just as we enter another very important election season. Is it just a coincidence?

In fact, what I have just stated is NOT just hearsay. I have ALREADY read a few online reports and commentaries which state that some places in the USA have ALREADY re-implemented face masks. And, of course, the CDC has already begun stirring up fear with talk of new dangerous strains entering our borders. We know what happens next.

I don’t know how bad the lockdowns got in the continental USA compared to where I live. From news reports I read back then, I got the impression that it wasn’t as bad as here on Guam where it was pretty much a total lockdown. Were we the test lab being as we are an island with a confined population?

Anyway, I just wanted to share these thoughts with my online friends for your consideration. We must each decide what we are willing or not willing to do, should the online chatter become a widespread reality in the coming months.

Personally, I still remain unva€€inated. In fact, I haven’t been va€€inated for anything since I was a kid in elementary school, and I will soon be 70 years old.

Regarding face masks, that may be a different story, particularly if they resort to the same harsh tactics as last time. I hope not, because I absolutely hate wearing those things!

Please note that by saying the above, I am NOT advocating anarchy, lawlessness or violence. Doing so would be contrary to my Christian beliefs, which dictate that I obey the laws of man, just as long as they do not contradict God’s Word and my conscience, which is guided by God’s Word and Spirit.

[publiususa]

Federalist 2023 Essay #1 - Is America Broken?

Record crime and gun violence, painful inflation, people leaving large cities and polls showing most Americans are not proud of their country anymore; is America broken?  We believe the answer is yes.  But why is America broken and can it be repaired?

Not since 1786 (236 years ago) have we unknowingly collapsed the very time and distance recipe of social interaction that made the unique American republic form of government work so well for 200+ years.

To better understand, let's take a trip back in time and imagine it's late 1786 (237 years ago) and you're one of the people preparing for the upcoming summer Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  You and many others are convinced the new nation under the Articles of Confederation is not working.  Important issues like revolutionary war, veterans pay not yet been resolved, and each state’s own worthless currency are but some of the key factors many believe will doom the young nation.  The economy of the late 1700s is a mess, with inflation and runaway prices hurting every American.

Also try to imagine yourself in the daily life as a citizen in 1786.

It takes days (more if the weather is bad) to travel dirty, muddy and rocky roads, where the same distance in 2023 would take us mere minutes or hours by car (with heat and air conditioning).

In 1786 it takes weeks to send a letter (no sealed envelope in most cases, just multiple paper folds tied by string and the hope for privacy).  It takes weeks then to receive a response, if the letter gets there at all.  Many times, the subject (an upcoming birth, an illness or a marriage date) is long over before the correspondence is complete. 

Of course, but hard for us to imagine today, in 1786 radios, mobile phones, and the internet did not exist.  There was a time and distance formula much different than we live with today.

Politics was very local, close and with immediate communication between the voters and those they elected to city, county and state offices.

In fact, the average American was born, lived and died within a thirty-to-fifty miles area their entire lives.

Compare this to email and text messages today where communications move back and forth in seconds.

Of course, if you lived in the early American time period, you knew nothing different.  Today in 2023, we live in an era where time and distance have very different meanings compared to the period when our republic form of government under the constitution came into being.  Yet, because we live in it, we also know nothing different and often lose sight of how changes have impacted a government system put into place so long ago.

This is a key piece … introspection.  We need to be able to look at the past, and today, from the outside.  We need to remove ourselves from the closeness of our modern day-to-day. We need to view things as we would, looking on a place inhabited by our descendants of the future.  A place we are willing to help and guide forward as a whole, even if that means some individual sacrifice is necessary, or changes in our government to match the changes in our society are needed.

Let's start with the theory of political time and distance, also referred to by political theorists as "size", it includes the comparison of the relative position of the citizens from their government representatives.

James Madison, one of the most prepared delegates to the Constitutional Convention, studied the political world of people around the globe in 1786 in preparation for the coming Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787.

His studies included a renowned political philosopher, Charles-Louis Montesquieu of France.  Montesquieu was searching for a new form of French government and theorized that a republic form of government was most effective the smaller the geographic "size" of the area of those being governed.  The closer the time and distance between the people and their elected representatives, the better he claimed.

Madison, in what is still considered a stroke of political genius, turned this theory on its head when he arrived in Philadelphia with his own theory contradicting those of Montesquieu.  After all, France and many other countries were struggling to establish effective governments, making it harder to convince Madison of the best recipe for American success.

According to Madison, the American Confederation of states proved itself weak and inept because the "size" of each state meant the citizens were too close, in time and distance, to their state legislators.  The citizens were so close that their varied opinions on one side or the other of any important issue (taxes or debts for example), created political paralysis.  Nothing was getting done because those elected were fearful of alienating the very people who voted for them, and more importantly, these people would decide their political fate in the next election.  Angry citizens might even show up with hot tar and feathers!  State-level population/society closeness meant political paralysis for the states under the Articles of Confederation.

Madison greatly strengthened the argument for a new form of government for America by hammering home that a new federal republic form of government in far-away 'Washington City', would do a much better job in making the country successful because the time and distance of the congress, judiciary and executive branches (the political “size”), would be great enough to unburden them and free them to be ableto lead and make decisions in the collective best interest, without the citizens looking over their shoulder.

To modernize the concept of political "size", we maintain the time and distance elements and observe "time" is shortened between people by one-to-one and one-to-many technological communication advances.  These reduce the time it takes for people to communicate with other people.

The "distance" element is when many-to-many technological advances reduce the size of our community groupings my reducing the geographic effect of distance to communicate en masse in an automated bi-directional manner (sending a communication and issuing a response to many people in both or all directions).   A definition of many-to-many communication can be found here:  Many-To-Many Communication

Technology has changed the time and distance relationship between people, forever.  Yet, unbelievably, while technology has impacted one-to-one, or one-to-many communication (both time elements), it has done little, until recently, to impact the many-to-many communication process between people (the distance element).

One-to-one technological innovations include the telegraph and telephone.  One-to-many innovations include the modern printing press (newspapers) and television.

Yet, none of these would have a direct impact on both the political time and distance elements because they did not impact the many-to-many communication paradigm.  For example:

-        Telegraph:  A one-to-one communication invention and spotty in terms of message and direct delivery to the intended recipient.  For example, the message typically had to go through a third person on both ends to send and receive the communication.

-        Telephone: Another one-to-one communication invention with no "many-to-many" feedback element.  You called someone directly or through a shared party line system.

-        Newspapers: A powerful and a leading one-to-many invention, but again, with no many-to-many feedback element.  Professional journalists and writers identified, wrote, printed and distributed the news, editorials, sports and local information for public consumption.

-        Television: Probably the most powerful one-to-many innovation by man, yet with no many-to-many feedback element.  Professional writers and producers identified, wrote, reported and distributed worldwide news, commentary, sports and local information for public consumption.

All of these innovations created a reduction in the time it took to dispense information but none provided the citizens (the many) with a response mechanism, thereby having no impact on the "distance" element of political size (size comprised of both time and distance).

It was not until free enterprise overlaid the 20th century's arguably single largest technological innovation, the internet, was the construct of many-to-many communication forever altered.  This has no greater start date than August 6, 1991, the first public day of the World Wide Web.

This is when anyone could create a 'www' place in cyberspace and do anything with this new found capability.

For the first time in human history, many-to-many communication became common.  But the many-to-many communication explosion truly took place with the aptly named overlay innovation of "social media"; including, early innovations like AOL and today's components like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and more.

Social media forever impacted both the time and distance of the political “size” of our American republic, reducing time and distance in the communication theater, to create a defect in our republic form of government.  The first real societal defect in 200+ years.

Today, there is no longer a far-away Washington, D.C., and our representative form of government is again burdened by a citizenry looking directly, and in real-time, over the shoulder of our elected federal representatives.

Twenty-first century technology has effectively brought us back to a defective inability where, not since we were under the Articles of Confederation, have we as citizens become again so close to oversight to those we elect.  So close that varied opinions on one side or the other of important modern-day issues (hate, gun violence, immigration, healthcare and many more), has created political paralysis. 

Nothing again is getting done because those elected are fearful of real-time alienation of the very people who voted for them, and more importantly, they are fearful, should they vote for something, how their vote will play in deciding their political fate in the next election since social media does not forget.

We have unknowingly collapsed the very time and distance recipe that made our unique American republic form of government work so well for 200+ years.

Technology listens to us and shows us the way, it expands discoveries and our horizons in amazing ways.  But has our form of government kept up?  Is our nation slowly deteriorating in its inability to remain agile with what technology brings to the American people?

Think about it, the last constitutional amendment was completed on May 7, 1992, less than a year, or just 276 days, after the recognized birth of the World Wide Web on August 6, 1991.  Since then, while technological advancements have exploded more than ever in our country's history, our form of government has remained unchanged.  No amendments and no reform to the republic form of our federal government system during a time when we’ve probably witnessed some of the greatest technological achievements for mankind; including (automated space travel, medical therapies to render pandemics and other ailments much more harmless, self-driving cars, satellite expansion in everything from GPS abilities to images of the earth to better forecast weather patterns).  The list of our advancements is incredible.

However, it appears recent technological advances have overrun our aged government process.  Put simply, we have outsmarted ourselves.

This explains many things including why we are so dissatisfied with congress and aghast at the federal election process.  But we also feel there is nothing we can do about it. 

Yet, we are the only ones who can affect change and must rise to the challenge to keep our country and its unique form of representative government an ongoing success for the world to witness.

We are friends of technology and in fact have had many countrywide successes because of advancements in technology.  But like everything else, not all technological advances are necessarily good; or, more likely, they may have unforeseen negative ramifications.  We have seen many examples where new advancements were not used as intended nor generated the originally designed outcomes.

Twenty-first century technology has effectively brought us back to a defective republic form of government where, not since we were under the Articles of Confederation, have we as citizens become again so close to oversight to those we elect, that our varied opinions on one side or the other of any important modern-day issue (immigration, abortion, transgender, healthcare and the debt for example), have now become political paralysis. 

Nothing, again, is getting done today because those elected are fearful of alienating the very people who voted for them, and more importantly, they are fearful more and more for their safety.  They ask themselves, should they vote for something?  They wonder, many times aloud, how will it play out in deciding their political fate in the next election?

What are the consequences should our republic form of government defect not be addressed?  We've already seen many recent examples in terms of hate, gun violence, crime, blame and corruption, but we will get to those later.

Now that we have a plausible explanation as to how we came to our modern-day federal government defect, what's next to understand and how, if at all, can we better our collective course as Americans?

We will explore the following in our next essays:

-        Quick potential solutions to our many-to-many communications defect.

-        Other ways our federal government may be defective.  Is it just the collapse of political time and distance or are there other key element of human nature involved?

-        What are the consequences should our current republic form of government defect not be addressed?  Have we already seen some of the consequences in our economy, in the crime in the streets?  Have we seen consequences in our relationship to other governments around the world in terms of peace, trade and monetary policy?  Have we witnessed American outcomes in terms of wages and economic opportunity with a tie to American civil unrest?

-        How does the collapse of time and distance affect our social collective on issues like abortion, hate, gun violence, immigration, public education, and healthcare?

-        Probably most important, how do we fix the modern-day collapse of political time and distance to rally behind our long tested, tried and true form of government and keep America strong?

Please stay tuned …