#things / policies like this are so broad until we see actual affects all we can do is keep minding out business and protecting our peace

[theloveinc]

It’s not bait sorry if it came off that way. I live in a red state and I yam scared and I just wanted to see what others thoughts were on it 😭

you know.... i wish i had something more hopeful to say but like......... red states have been going nuts with the censorship stuff lately, not even in terms of just internet safety, but like.... literally raiding schools for LGBTQ books and banning changing your gender on your drivers license and stuff..... so i have no idea !!!! how this will go or what to think abt it!!!

i def think it's stupid and just apart of the government's larger goal of using stupid "laws" to oppress and silence people (i can imagine so many ways this "policy" wouldn't even alter spaces like tumblr and would instead be used to target individuals trying to spread helpful information)

but until we know........ 1. if there is a likelihood of this being passed, and 2. how it will actually affect us..... i'm just not going to worry abt it (and you shouldn't either, unless you live in like....... florida. sorry florida).

[everydayanth]

Let’s talk about talking about politics! Yay! Everyone’s favorite!

Over the past few weeks/months/years, I have had this strange insider seat to a bunch of criminal justice/poly sci professionals (as in, they get paid as professors or scientists or compliance officers, etc.) as they talk about politics and get angry at the general public for our lack of understanding, without having the patience to teach or explain. 

Two problems: 1. the ivory tower issue of watching and not actively engaging in the social part of social science, but as their friend, I will note much of this comes from burnout through negative engagement and attacks; 2. expecting others to have had an adequate education to even know many of these tools exist in order to discuss things beyond our average public school education that cuts out Fridays and makes random half days because we can’t afford teachers or textbooks. 

As an awkward observer, here are some things I never talked about in school, despite having a better political/civil/economics education included in my curriculum than many of my friends:

1. When we vote for someone, we are voting on a trend in politics. Not as a result, but a direction to move, and most voters vote for the candidate who is closest to their current values already, rather than following the trend of voting for who would move policy to match their needs. 

2. Our values change far more than we think they do and they almost always align with a problem we require a solution to or a fear we would like to stabilize or go away, such as property taxes. Because we need to trust the person to solve our problems, especially if we are projecting large fears, candidates who are most likable. We don’t like to stir the pot, we just want it to go where we want, fighting for something is exhausting for everyone.

3. We consider political agendas to be moral agendas but do not agree on obligations. Many feel powerless, others are powerless, we talk about responsibility, but without acknowledging those first two things, it sounds more like blame. We also imagine many things to be wishful thinking that are enacted successfully elsewhere and fail to understand or use logical reasoning to really discuss issues. Anything will be an experiment because the US is so huge, but it is a scalable experiment working in other places, often we don’t understand that until we’re abroad and sick.

4. We’re not sure how to translate policy, and our country was built by and for lawyers. There are very little areas where we agree as a society on black/white right/wrong, and in many ways that’s good, but when it comes to discussing policy, it can be very confusing.

To account for these aspects, people use charts and grids. Much like personality tests, these are useful for creating a foundation upon which to debate and discuss, but are ultimately made by humans in order to generalize and will have errors and discrepancies. But the political spectrum has rarely been the single line most of us were taught. Instead, it is often a grid used to navigate the direction and preference of trends. Most people are much more moderate than they think, but have problems that need cooperative solutions, like the water crisis and fires on the west coast, disaster relief in the south, crop failure in the midwest, and ticks and diseases in the northeast. We all have huge problems and some areas are insulated from them for now, but they will come. How we navigate and demand solutions for those problems is what creates policy and the policies we agree with because of our value is what dictates our vote. 

So here’s some charts that human people made to talk about these things with and they have helped ground a lot of engaging conversations with people as I watch them argue but not get angry, because there’s a visual thing to talk around. Those kinds of tools should be everywhere. 

The political compass:

via Wikipedia: political spectrum

^

^A generalization of what different areas might look like. I’ve seen so many versions of this, but I liked the way this one because it gave me a better understanding of words I’m more familiar with and where they fall within the broad concepts. I couldn’t find the source. 

^ Here is another one from Google that took me to a shady site, so I didn’t link it, but the goal is to just be familiar with the different ways people structuralize and use definitions and terms to divide them up, in the end, the general understanding is all that matters, and our goal is to be functional, for the government to be usable by the people. Hamilton, the musical, was/is so important for many reasons, but one of the big ones is that it reminded us that this fight of trends and moving around the board has been going on since the very first election of a president to America. It’s always about one group pulling another, creating a tug-of-war that keeps us near the middle, hopefully.

This is a graph showing the individual party ideologies of past presidents by a site called Fact Myth. It is showing the party split between individuals and while we could argue and speculate about accuracies and meanings, whether a president was pushed to make a decision as a person, etc. in the end, they represent the will of the people and the trends we with to follow to solve problems at the time. 

^An outline someone made of 2020 candidates on Reddit that has been going around for a while. Jake showed this to me and while he was perfectly receptive to me saying that yeah, but a person made this and they can have agendas and just put people places, he also had some really great points on how Americans often think we’re moderates, but what we perceive to be in the middle is often skewed by capitalism. That’s not to say it’s bad, simply that if we’re talking trends and problems and solutions, we have to understand where we are on the real scale, not just our own. We will also tend to vote for those who are closest to us, rather than moving in the direction of us, so, say someone sits right where Ryan is, Ryan drops out; now, despite their personal political preference being on the edge of the middle moderate square, they move to Biden rather than Warren or Sanders because Biden is closer to their original place, even if, coming from Trump, moving to Warren/Sanders would pull the political trend back toward their moderate preference. 

Not everyone does this, obviously, but I’m fascinated by how our individual personalities affect how we decide politics. Are you a “next best thing” kind of person? Are you a “obsess relentlessly until it’s done” kind of person? Are you a “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke? Or what about “out of sight out of mind, doesn’t bother me, I don’t care” kind of person? So many of the ways we solve our daily problems are reflected in the ways we move our own political affiliations during voting times. I just think that’s interesting because I’m a social science nerd though. 

A friend from Brown who is much older than us (also a social science nerd <3) pointed out that she grew up with such antagonizing propaganda during the cold war and beginnings of technological boom and peak oil, and it all said the same thing, anything outside the blue is morally wrong and heavily corrupt. I thought that was an interesting point about exposure and remembering past problems, how voting ages overlap to find new solutions or rely on old ones, and what it would cost us to see American politics on a global scale. 

^This is a global scale of values (not politics) from the wikipedia page on political spectrums, and I thought it tied into the conversation in interesting ways, especially when we look at American generation differences in individualism and social cooperation and how they are viewed by each other to both be equally negative. There’s a whole world of solutions and different ways things our done, but we’ve been taught from birth that some are bad and others are exceptions and ours is good. 

Vox has an interesting tool to figure out where abouts you would lie on the compass. I think debating it with others is a better way, since it’s a primarily relative scale (unless you prefer those structuralist ones, but keep in mind that it’s a preference, not a requirement). But I thought I’d include it for those who may not have access to that kind of conversation. 

In the end, consider your morals and how they are different from your current values, and how your current values are affected by your current problems, and how you want the world to look, how you want trends to move, and how your biases of experience or ignorance might play a role in that. I honestly didn’t really think about healthcare until I was in Ireland and saw how simple an alternative was and how freeing it felt. My parents can’t even imagine it (and they are of the class who should most desire those changes), they don’t have enough of a base knowledge to understand how it works, it’s electricity after gaslamps. 

Anyway, just thought I’d share some of those tools. As a skeptical person, I want to remind everyone that these are tools, not documented facts, and fighting about where people are on the graph and where we might be is part of how we come to conclusions about rights and wants and solutions and needs and what we actually value. Most of us, in the end, value comfort and hope, and we vote for the people we think provide that to us. The problem often lies in people misunderstanding their own comfort and relying on ignorance rather than hope. I found these graphs useful in grounding my talks with overwhelming professionals and finding some semblance of peace in what I wanted to hope for and I hope maybe for some of you they can provide that as well. ❤️

If, like me, you reached your 20s and realized a gaping hole in your education, I also recommend the Crash Course series on US Politics. It helped me understand a lot of things that were skimmed over in textbooks or left as multiple choice answers on a standardized test. Politics are a series of solutions to the problems we face as a social group, and knowing how to talk about them completely changed my own feelings of helplessness when communicating to others. 

[aspire-to-the-light]

Micro-disability

I cannot follow pointer fingers, or rotate objects in my head. If you point at an object on a table of objects, I usually can't pick out the one you're talking about unless you get close enough to almost touch it; I just can't draw that invisible line in space and select the object you're trying to indicate. If you're giving me directions, you can't point to a house and say "turn left there" - all I'll do is look puzzled and repeatedly ask where you mean until you clarify with a description.

I knew someone once with an old shoulder injury that meant he couldn't lift one arm directly above his head. He could lift it most of the way, but not the whole way, so his reach was just a little less than others might have assumed, and sometimes he got odd looks if he had to ask for help reaching a high shelf.

A partner of mine can't be in rooms where too many conversations are happening at once. His brain can't filter out the ones he isn't listening to from the one he is, so he quickly gets overwhelmed and distressed and needs to leave.

I can't walk quickly without it taking up my entire concentration and becoming tiring very fast. I walk at an astonishingly slow pace naturally, and if I consciously speed up my steps then they subconsciously get smaller, and if I consciously lengthen my steps then they subconsciously get slower. Something about going faster is just very rapidly physically and psychologically exhausting, and I don't know precisely what it is. I can run forever without dropping at my comfortably mid-speed loping pace, but I can't go much faster than it.

None of these things fit the criteria to be disabilities, under the 'standard' definition. We aren't incapable of holding jobs or having fulfilling home lives because of these limitations. We don't need paid carers, or the government to give us benefits because we can't work, and it probably isn't worth medical help to fix the problem.

At the same time, a huge amount of the discourse around disability rights is valid and useful for discussing these problems. My partner ought to be able to say that a room is overwhelming because of the number of conversations happening, and people ought to respect that by taking him elsewhere to continue their own conversation. He shouldn't be judged for it, or have people assume he just isn't trying hard enough, or be shamed. He certainly shouldn't be fired for it; accommodations should be made.

Like with 'full' disabilities, micro-disabilities can become more disabling when there's an intersection of them. I also have auditory processing disorder; I struggle to hear people if there's background noise, or if they're looking away from me and not projecting towards me. In other words, if you're walking in front of me, I can't hear you - and because I walk slowly, I'm almost always trailing behind the back of the group. It makes me feel constantly excluded and dismissed from conversations while I'm walking with people, like nobody values me enough to slow down so that I can hear them.

The concept illustrates some aspects of how we think about providing accommodations, asking for evidence, and validating disabilities. Often, the policy of institutions is to require evidence of a disability before they will accommodate it. You can't get free medical treatment unless a doctor certifies you actually have the disease, or you can't get extra time on tests unless you fail some other tests, or you can't sue your employer for firing you unless you can demonstrate it's actually your disability that's making you late all the time. The thing about micro-disabilities is that almost nobody will ever be able to prove that they have one, because it simply isn't worth diagnosing. I can't go to a doctor and get a certificate that says I get nauseous if I wake up too early, or I struggle to follow pointer fingers, or I have to keep my hair short because I find it painful to hit a tangle when I'm brushing my hair, or I get stomach bugs more often because of my hopeless addiction to biting my nails.

My doctor simply does not have the time or inclination to measure my ability to understand finger-pointing, decide whether it falls below some threshold, and issue a certificate that says I am now Officially Disabled and my employer will be in Big Trouble if they fire me for being unable to follow pointer fingers. So if I want this to be accommodated - if I want people to give me descriptive directions rather than assuming I can see what they're gesturing at - I have to simply ask them to trust that I really am trying my hardest, I just can't do this.

How you treat micro-disability is, I think, a good lens into whether you truly respect the needs of disabled people. If you'll grudgingly provide accommodations to those who can prove they are really disabled, that's one thing. But people with micro-disabilities aren't really disabled. They're just... a little bit disabled. So do we accommodate them? Do we respect them when they say 'hey, I can't do this' or do we raise our eyebrows and ask them to try harder? Do we listen when they say things are harder for them than for others, or do we look at them oddly and tell them we've never heard of that disability before?

It's a more complicated question than it might seem, I think. Because we accommodate all sorts of micro-disabilities all the time - the ones that are ordinary enough that we don't even think of them as disabilities. Being too short to reach high shelves, or too weak of grip to open jars, or too broad-shouldered for a small-size jacket; these are things we accommodate all the time.

We don't think of someone as disabled for needing reading glasses, but neither do we think that they're faking because they only need the glasses sometimes.

The micro-disabilities people doubt are the odd ones, the ones we struggle to explain and understand. Neither I nor doctors understand why I walk slowly, and it isn't a common problem to have, and that's precisely why people assume I could just try harder and keep up.

Which is awkward when micro-disabilities are so often just tiny, rarely-reported or lesser-known symptoms of "official" disabilities. I have a diagnosis of ADHD, and the common perception is that that means that I can't concentrate or sit down. But it actually affects so much more than that. How many of my tiny mental symptoms are my ADHD expressing itself in ways nobody knows are associated with ADHD? Who knows.

It is meant to illustrate that disability is a spectrum. We cannot draw a line, anywhere in the progression from 'gets tired easily when walking' to 'walks with a limp' to 'can only walk with a cane' to 'can't walk and uses a wheelchair', and say with confidence that people on one side of the line are really fully disabled and those on the other side aren't. 'Micro-disability' merely points at the existence of some centre place between fully abled and being so disabled that it majorly impairs your ability to have an ordinary life; it's still a fuzzy category, with boundaries that almost make less sense the more you think about them.

It's a more inclusive view of disability, certainly. Almost everyone has some kind of micro-disability, whether it's slow reading or a food sensitivity or a chronically infected toenail that hurts when stepped on. Disabled people aren't some odd group of cripples hidden away in hospitals that you'll never meet; disabled people are everyone who can't do certain things that others can do, for reasons that aren't their fault. Some of us may need more or less help and support than others, but all of us just deserve people to listen to us about what we need.

It took a long time, but I ended up reframing a lot of my little difficulties in this way, and I think it makes my life better. I don't force myself to just try harder to navigate any more; I just take my phone everywhere and use Google Maps, rotating the screen for every turn I take because I can't do it in my head. It's... a thing worth introspecting about.

[gtorres21ahsgov]

Media Assessment of Racial Injustice

Brands Have Nothing Real to Say About Racism  https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/brands-racism-protests-amazon-nfl-nike/612613/

Subject: This source talks about the powers of the media. How huge brands with massive followings have participated or rarely peek their head out on the comments of racism and police brutality following the death of George Floyd. Why is it that big platforms as Nike,Twitter, and even the NFL have hardly touched on this subject? Is it because of political backlash like the majority of them claim it is?

Author: Amanda Mull is a staff writer for the Atlantic. She’s written on a wide variety of topics such as nutrition, health, beauty, but also branches out towards feminism, sports, and the changing culture of America.

Context: Article was published on June 3, 2020 weeks after the death of George Floyd. This article followed even after the media outrage sparked due to George’s death as millions protested, rioted, and spoke amongst themselves and the community. With big brand names getting called out to say their views on the situation at hand this article is a good representation on how big brands deal with real life social issues. How easily they can be dragged into discussion and what they will provide to their audience because of the recent event which was so widespread throughout the United States and possibly even the world.

Audience: The source was published for everyone that is involved with big brand companies or even media itself. And with media widely available for everyone in the United States it is hard not to be sucked in. The reliability for the source can be supported on the fact these big brand names are supported by hundreds of millions of people in the United states. Those who are the media lab rats who are conducted to be glued to their phone and exposed to all the trending media simply by swiping their fingers. It’s purpose is to awaken those who are trapped in this mindless media usage when this can be a big factor in everyone's lives.

Perspective: This is leaning towards liberal as it comes from a perspective of an individual who can be related to many other individuals who are in agreement with her view of society and the issues we live in,

Significance: Amanda Mull uses behind the scenes credentials such as Nike’s video discussing the racial injustice cause. With the words “Just don’t do it” going against their original slogan of “Just do it”. After this many smaller branches of sports media and even athletes followed up on the discussion which in attention brought millions of eyes to the topic. Famous athletes following up on the discussion will then engage their audience to speak up about the issues as well. With horrific videos being broadcasted all over the media reaching even young children it shows importance to those empowered that we must have changed now.

The Evils of Injustice and the Danger of Mobocracy

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-evils-of-injustice-and-the-danger-of-mobocracy/

Subject: Source discusses the mobs that have risen throughout these racial injustice times. Claims a rise of mobocracy which is a rule or dominations from the masses. It states that issues don't address the cycle of angry mobs that can be cited from any point in time of history even before the discovery of the United States that people will seek to come to power. And if issues are not to come to a conclusion that works amongst the angry protestors and activists then the cycle of history will continuously repeat itself.

Author:Yuval Levin the director of social, cultural, and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute and the editor of National Affairs, a quarterly journal of essays on domestic policy and politics. He has been a member of the White House domestic-policy staff under President George W. Bush and a congressional staffer. Because Yuval Levin has political office experience it gives him more of an insight view and knowledge that most other people don’t have. Can be very in-formatting and widen audience understanding.

Context: Published on June 2,2020 again following after the media outrage of George Floyd with riots and protest rising out as a consequence. The post explains how higher authorities have failed to grasp the concept in which people desire a unity of law and social norms. That no one in our society should have to in any way show they are no harm to a higher authority and this issue has sparked outrage on millions of activists who will continuously seek change until change is given. Easily due to his previous experience working as an office member he can read the president's intention and motives. Accurately giving a breakdown on the thought process that is behind our very own president.

Audience: The targets are aimed towards the ones who may oversee this issue as just another media outrage without understanding the cycle of mobs and angry masses of people being a cycle of history. One’s who are blind or give a shoulder to the people who seek change and ask for the help and support to make those changes come through. The focus is to discuss the negative outcomes will only become worse if help is not involved with the people. And for those who simply are a viewer on the sidelines it talks about getting on the field with your people and to believe in a cause you stand for. And if the cause you stand for is not met then make it a primary objective to meet that standard with your higher authority or the history will always repeat itself.

Perspective: Perspective comes from a conservative standpoint because it explains the history and promotes social institutions for context of civilizations in which addresses how people can get involved and what even different levels of involvement people can be into. Instead of activists simply being informed on the topic is simply enough to get others in discussion. And to see past media and to believe in your own social norms.

Significance: “Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”  A quote said from Lincoln who had the ability to see pass this wall that constricts people's outlook on society. That wall is the ideas and beliefs that are passed down from generation to generation and that wall will forever be continuously there until we are able to overcome the wall and see the things we aren’t supposed to see.

17 Year old arrested after 2 killed during unrest in Kenosha

https://www.themonitor.com/2020/08/26/17-year-old-arrested-2-killed-unrest-kenosha/

Subject: Shows how even young generations can be negatively involved in a social cause as a 17 year old shoots down two innocent people in a third straight night protest. One of them being Jacob Blake who tragically died over an irrational decision that was brought by the 17 year old. This shows acts can be facilitated through horrific actions such as shooting those who are against your belief. Explains how ununified we actually are in America more than we thought.

Author: Mike Householder and Scott Bauer are first response reporters. Their jobs are to collect hard cold facts and make them broadcasted. Obtaining those facts throughout interviews and quickly arriving at scenes where destruction is caused where they can then see first had the issues that rise and write about it from their perspectives followed by factual evidence.

Context: Published on August 26,2020 it accurately follows the events that took place during the Protest in Kenosha. Because it was published soon after events took place it gave them a more accurate writing as there was little to no time at all for other media to cover the issues and change the story. The true story is that the 17 year old was convicted of homicides in which he killed 2 and injured 1 person after sparking a shooting at the protest against those supporting the racial injustice movement.

Audience: Shows to everyone that this generation being involved in this negativity is a greatly disgusting and horrific thing to see and hear about. A child who had possibly his whole life ahead of him is not facing sentence in jail for killing and gunning down people. Does it not frighten those who have kids that this is the world in which their own children can me sucked into. And as young adults ourselves how possibly someone like this can be around us in supposedly safe environments maybe even such as school. The audience targeted are the ones who see the cause for change.

Perspective: Objective because of the facts and evidence that are amongst the article. They just talk about the event in which it took place as well as the reasoning behind the shooting. Simple and hardcore evidence of large social issue.

Significance: Again makes people question the world we live in. With just the topic itself a 17 year old boy had the courage to attend this event and shoot people. Obviously a lack of education is in fault of parenting and the school system for not addressing more knowledge on these kids in which in turn around these kids whose brains are like sponges are not only absorbing the negativity in which is presented in front of them and only know that. Article shows the needs for change with evidence provided .

The similarities are all the discussion on change for a more positive outlook on society. How we all are wanting change but our actions of negativity are actually straying us from our goal further and further. The differences are how people are expressing those wants and needs. Many are protesting either peacefully or violently. We need to come to a common conclusion that we all see fit as we all who are involved in the movement just want to see a common goal be achieved which is the ability to see others who are different in race and be socially accepted.

The source I identify most with would be The Evils of Injustice and rise of Mobocracy because I do believe that higher powers are failing to understand our true desires and only see our negativity as a rebellious act when it is trying to gain their attention that we want change. 

[popolitiko]

Peggy Noonan: Clueless Political Pundit Claims That House Tea Partiers Represent The Thinking Of Almost Half Of The Country

Posted on March 2, 2015 by Elaine Magliaro

I rarely watch the Sunday morning “nooz” programs these days. One reason is the clueless talking heads that are frequently invited on shows like Meet the Press and Face the Nation to provide Americans with their wisdom and insight. One of those political pundits is Peggy Noonan–or “Our Lady of the Magic Dolphins” as Charles Pierce refers to her. Her cranium appears to be filled with helium–or some gas that is lighter than air.  I think the old Pegster would be perfect for the starring role in a movie titled Clueless, The Senior Years.

Long ago in a galaxy far, far away, Noonan was a primary speech writer and Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. “Our Lady of the Magic Dolphins” also worked as a speech writer for Vice President George H. W. Bush. According to Wikipedia, Noonan reportedly coined the phrase “a kinder, gentler nation” and popularized “a thousand points of light,” two memorable catchphrases used by Bush 41. Noonan was also said to have written the speech in which Bush promised: “Read my lips: no new taxes” during his 1988 presidential nomination acceptance speech in New Orleans.

I think Simon Maloy pegged Peggy perfectly in an article he wrote for Salon titled Peggy Noonan’s “wisdom”: Build Keystone XL so American boys will become men last November.

Maloy:

Peggy Noonan has one of the most high-profile jobs in American media. She’s a weekly political columnist for the Wall Street Journal, the country’s largest newspaper by circulation, which also hosts her irregularly updated blog. The Sunday shows seek her out when filling the ranks of their weekly pundit panels. She’s among the more influential commentators in American media, and the fact that she inhabits this perch despite being objectively terrible at her job should obliterate whatever faith you have in the concept of meritocracy.

Noonan’s chief failing is one that afflicts many pundits: She generally has no idea what she’s talking about. Her analysis is powered largely by her own warped perception of politics and policy, which she confidently ascribes to the rest of the country. Peggy Noonan always seems to know exactly what “America” is thinking, and this often results in her being hilariously wrong.

I didn’t have a true understanding of the depth of Noonan’s dipshittery until I heard what she said in a panel discussion about the release of torture memos by the Obama Administration when she appeared on ABC News’ This Week With George Stephanopoulos back in 2009.

Marcus Baram (Huffington Post):

On ABC News’ “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” George Will echoed several Bush officials when he criticized the release of the memos, saying “The problem with transparency is that it’s transparent for the terrorists as well.” Will expressed concern about the cost of letting “the bad guys” know what techniques, such as waterboarding, will be used on them. He went on to add, as noted by HuffPost’s Jason Linkins, that “intelligent people of good will” believe the President of the United States can do whatever he wants to “defend the country.”

Baram said Noonan “went even further, articulating a position that upends George Santayana’s famous quote: ‘Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'” Noonan opined, “Some things in life need to be mysterious. Sometimes you need to just keep walking.” Then she added, “It’s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that.”

Right, Peggy, better to keep the Bush Administration’s tales of torture “mysterious.” Who would want to know about such things anyway? Just move along…and forget about what our country did.

Peggy Noonan talks the crazy talk of Washington.

Russ Feingold–who was one of the two Senators from Wisconsin at the time–was appalled by Noonan’s comments. Sam Stein wrote about what Feingold had to say about Noonan remarks on Stephanopoulos’s show.

Sam Stein:  Later, the Senator took a swipe at some of the rationalizations for avoiding prosecution that have been voiced by Washington lawmakers and pundits.

“If you want to see just how outrageous this is, I refer you to the remarks made by Peggy Noonan this Sunday,” he said, referring to the longtime conservative columnist’s appearance on ABC’s This Week. “I frankly have never heard anything quite as disturbing as her remark that was something to the affect of: ‘well sometimes you just have to move on.'”

More recently, Noonan appeared on on Face the Nation on Sunday. Crooks and Liars had a few words to say about Peggy’s appearance:

Peggy Noonan is once again pulling statistics from the land of her posterior. Here she is on this Sunday’s Face the Nation pretending that these teabaggers, or the House Freedom Caucus, or whatever these extremists are calling themselves these days represent “the thinking of almost half of the country.”

Peggy Noonan So Delusional Even David Gregory Calls Her Out

Peggy Noonan, who served in the Iran - Contra Reagan administration, thinks the IRS scandal is the worst thing ever and goes on Meet the Press to attack Obama over it. However, even  David Gregory won't have any of it...

https://flowersforsocrates.com/2015/03/02/peggy-noonan-clueless-political-pundit-claims-that-house-tea-partiers-represent-the-thinking-of-almost-half-of-the-country/

🤥 👺 🤡  🤥 👺 🤡🤥 👺 🤡🤥 👺 🤡🤥 👺 🤡

👇 😜 👇

Dear Peggy, Your “Scandal” Just Evaporated

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/25/dear-peggy-your-scandal-just-evaporated/

Notice, en passant, that the WSJ is now indistinguishable both in party line and total hysteria from Fox News and talk radio (not that it’s ed-page was anything but extreme, but at least it was smart). Now check out the latest details from the IRS about 501 (c) 4 and 501 (c) 3 entities:

The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in their titles also included groups whose names included the words “Progressive” and “Occupy,” according to I.R.S. documents released Monday. … One such “be on the lookout” list included medical marijuana groups, organizations that were promoting President Obama’s health care law, and applications that dealt “with disputed territories in the Middle East.” … “Common thread is the word ‘progressive,’ ” a lookout list instructs. “Activities appear to lean toward a new political party. Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican.” Groups involved more generally in carrying out the Affordable Care Act were also sent to the I.R.S. for “secondary screening.” And “occupied territory advocacy” seemed subject to the most scrutiny of all.

So we begin to see the actual truth (and where it usually is, Page A14): the IRS was rightly scrutinizing a whole slew of new groups claiming to be all about “social welfare” and checking to see how politicized they were – on both sides. 

Most of those on the progressive side were seeking 501(c)3s – not 501(c)4s – so the parallel isn’t exact. But it sure suggests nothing of any malign nature here. Par exemple:

Ameinu, which on its website calls itself a “community of progressive Jews,” received its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status on May 28 — five years after applying. IRS agents peppered the group with 18-page surveys and lingered for months without follow-up, Hiam Simon, national director of Ameinu, said in a telephone interview. He said he was looking at a 4-inch thick folder of Ameinu’s communications with the IRS. “I think they were painting with a broad brush, with worries about Middle East ties to terrorism,” he said of the IRS. “I don’t think it was caused by malice. Ignorance is too strong a word, too. They simply weren’t nuanced enough or careful enough.”

[bountyofbeads]

Trump Policy Favors Wealthier Immigrants for Green Cards https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/us/politics/trump-immigration-policy.html

"The rule has been the top priority of Stephen Miller, the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda, who views it as the most significant change to regulations that had encouraged migrants to come to the United States. Mr. Miller has repeatedly pushed administration officials to finish the regulation, known as the public charge rule, at one point telling colleagues that he wanted them to work on nothing other than it until it was completed."

Trump Policy Favors Wealthier Immigrants for Green Cards

By Michael D. Shear and Eileen Sullivan | Published Aug. 12, 2019 | New York Times | Posted August 12, 2019 |

Leer en español

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will make it harder for legal immigrants who rely on government benefit programs, such as food stamps and subsidized housing, to obtain permanent legal status as part of a far-reaching new policy aimed at altering the flow of legal immigration and reducing the number of poor immigrants.

The move will have the greatest impact on immigrants who are living in the country legally and are likely to receive government benefits, making it much harder for people who are struggling financially to win legal permanent status — commonly known as a green card — so they can remain in the United States.

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, announced the new regulation at the White House on Monday morning, declaring that it would allow the government to insist that immigrants who come to the country were self-sufficient and would not be a drain on society.

“The benefit to taxpayers is a long-term benefit of seeking to ensure that our immigration system is bringing people to join us as American citizens, as legal permanent residents first, who can stand on their own two feet, who will not be reliant on the welfare system, especially in the age of the modern welfare state which is so expansive and expensive,” Mr. Cuccinelli said.

Under the new rule, the financial well-being of immigrants who are in the United States legally on temporary visas will be more heavily scrutinized when they seek a green card. Immigration officials will consider an immigrant’s age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status and education. But the officials will be given broad leeway to determine whether an immigrant is likely to be a user of public benefits, to deny them a green card, and to order them deported out of the country.

Officials said the program would not apply to people who already have green cards, to refugees and asylum-seekers, or to pregnant women and children. But immigration advocates warned that vast numbers of immigrants, including those not actually subject to the regulation, may drop out of needed benefits programs because they fear retribution by immigration authorities.

“This news is a cruel new step toward weaponizing programs that are intended to help people by making them, instead, a means of separating families and sending immigrants and communities of color one message: you are not welcome here,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

She added: “It will have a dire humanitarian impact, forcing some families to forgo critical lifesaving health care and nutrition. The damage will be felt for decades to come.”

Monday’s announcement is part of President Trump’s concerted assault on the nation’s system of immigration laws and regulations. For much of the past three years, the president has railed against what he calls the dangers of illegal immigration. But administration officials have also sought to impose new limits on legal immigration into the United States.

L. Francis Cissna, the former director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, had resisted the rush to finish the rule, drafts of which were several hundred pages long and very complicated. But Mr. Cissna was forced out of his position earlier this year and replaced by Mr. Cuccinelli, a former attorney general in Virginia and an immigration hard-liner who shares Mr. Miller’s view that immigrants should not rely on financial support from the government.

The complex regulation, which is scheduled to go into effect in 60 days, would give the Trump administration a powerful new tool to narrow the demographic of people who come to live and work in the country. According to the new rule, the United States wants immigrants who can support themselves, not those who “depend on public resources to meet their needs.”

The ability of immigrants to support themselves has long been a consideration in whether they were granted the right to live and work in the United States permanently. But the Trump administration’s new move has made predicting the economic well-being of immigrants a more central part of that decision-making process.

An applicant who speaks English, shows formal letters of support and has private health insurance would be more likely to be approved than someone whose economic situation suggests they would probably need housing vouchers or enroll in Medicaid in the future if they were given a green card.

Over time, administration officials hope that the tough policy will shift the composition of the American immigration system by favoring wealthier immigrants.

Asked about the plaque on the Statue of Liberty that invites “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,” Mr. Cuccinelli said that “I’m certainly not prepared to take anything down off the Statue of Liberty. We have a long history of being one of the most welcoming nations in the world.”

But immigration advocates reacted with anger at the announcement, calling it a cruel policy that they said was already causing immigrants around the country to abandon housing and medical benefits because they were concerned about the impact that using them might have on their immigration status or the status of someone in their family.

“Shame on the Trump administration for expanding a rule with racist roots in a shameful ploy to rig the immigration system for the wealthy,” said Cynthia Buiza, executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center. “We thank all who stood up against the administration’s hate-filled agenda, and we will continue to fight for our values of community, compassion, and common humanity.”

The fear touched off by the new rule is illustrated by Maria, a 28-year-old woman from Colombia who is five months pregnant with a baby girl and reached out to her lawyer for advice a couple of weeks ago after she started seeing coverage of the draft version of the public charge rule in the news. Her husband, a childhood friend from Colombia, is a United States citizen, and she is in the United States on a tourist visa while she applies for a green card with him as a sponsor.

Maria’s husband, a high school teacher, had been off work during the summer break, forcing them to enroll in supplemental nutritional program for women, infants and children, known as WIC, in order to afford food and prenatal care. Though the new rule specifically does not penalize pregnant women for seeking such assistance, she said she fears that it could be used against her anyway. She said she wished she could stop accepting the help.

“I can’t,” said Maria, who worked as an industrial engineer in Colombia and asked that her last name not be used because she feared reprisals by American immigration officials. “Right now we need to use it,” she said, adding: “Whatever happens, the most important thing is that the baby is O.K., right?”

How many people the rule will affect is in dispute. Citizenship and Immigration Services did not conduct an “in-depth” analysis to estimate that, according to a senior administration official, who asked for anonymity to brief reporters on the rule.

But in the Federal Register, Homeland Security officials estimated that more than 382,000 immigrants seek an adjustment to their immigration status each year and would be subject to the public charge review. More than 324,000 people in households with noncitizens are estimated to drop out or not enroll in public benefit programs.

Advocacy organizations say the number of people affected by the regulation is vastly larger, estimating that 26 million immigrants living in the United States legally will reconsider their use of public benefits because they fear how accepting assistance could affect their ability to remain in the United States.

Asked whether the agency expected immigrants to drop out of benefits they’re entitled to simply because of fear of losing their protections, the official said, “whether or not somebody disenrolls, you know, that’s a decision the alien would have to make to consider the future immigration consequences but the intention is not to have disenrollment consequences.”

Several immigration groups have pledged to sue the administration in an attempt to block the regulation from going into effect. Tens of thousands of people opposed the rule in a public comment period over the past several months.

The regulation was published in the Federal Register Monday morning with the following acknowledgment: “While some commenters provided support for the rule, the vast majority of commenters opposed the rule.”

Caitlin Dickerson and Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.

[scifigeneration]

Sex robots are here, but laws aren't keeping up with the ethical and privacy issues they raise

by Francis X. Shen

The robots are here. Are the “sexbots” close behind?

From the Drudge Report to The New York Times, sex robots are rapidly becoming a part of the national conversation about the future of sex and relationships. Behind the headlines, a number of companies are currently developing robots designed to provide humans with companionship and sexual pleasure – with a few already on the market.

Unlike sex toys and dolls, which are typically sold in off-the-radar shops and hidden in closets, sexbots may become mainstream. A 2017 survey suggested almost half of Americans think that having sex with robots will become a common practice within 50 years.

As a scholar of artificial intelligence, neuroscience and the law, I’m interested in the legal and policy questions that sex robots pose. How do we ensure they are safe? How will intimacy with a sex robot affect the human brain? Would sex with a childlike robot be ethical? And what exactly is a sexbot anyway?

Defining ‘sex robot’

There is no universally accepted definition of “sex robot.” This may not seem important, but it’s actually a serious problem for any proposal to govern – or ban – them.

The primary conundrum is how to distinguish between a sex robot and a “sexy robot.” Just because a robot is attractive to a human and can provide sexual gratification, does it deserve the label “sex robot”?

It’s tempting to define them as legislatures do sex toys, by focusing on their primary use. In Alabama, the only state that still has an outright ban on the sale of sex toys, the government targets devices “primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.”

The problem with applying this definition to sex robots is that the latter increasingly provide much more than sex. Sex robots are not just dolls with a microchip. They will use self-learning algorithms to engage their partner’s emotions.

Consider the “Mark 1” robot, which resembles the actor Scarlett Johansson. It is regularly labeled a sex robot, yet when I interviewed its creator, Ricky Ma Tsz Hang, he was quick to clarify that Mark 1 is not intended to be a sex robot. Rather, such robots will aim to assist with all sorts of tasks, from preparing a child’s lunch to keeping an elderly relative company.

Humans, of course, can navigate both sexual and nonsexual contexts adeptly. What if a robot can do the same? How do we conceptualize and govern a robot that can switch from “play with kids” mode during the day to “play with adults” mode at night?

Thorny legal issues

In a landmark 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’ sodomy law and established what some scholars have described as a right to sexual privacy.

There is currently a split among circuit courts in how Lawrence should be applied to state restrictions on the sale of sex toys. So far, Alabama’s ban has been upheld, but I suspect that all sex toy bans will eventually be struck down. If so, it seems unlikely that states will be able to wholesale restrict sales of sex robots generally.

Bans on childlike sex robots, however, may be different.

It is not clear whether anyone in the U.S. already owns a childlike sex robot. But even the possibility of child sex robots prompted a bipartisan House bill, the Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots Act, or CREEPER. Introduced in 2017, it passed unanimously six months later.

State politicians will surely follow suit, and we are likely to see many attempts to ban childlike sex robots. But it’s unclear if such bans will survive constitutional challenge.

On one hand, the Supreme Court has held that prohibitions on child pornography do not violate the First Amendment because the state has a compelling interest in curtailing the effects of child pornography on the children portrayed. Yet the Supreme Court has also held that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was overly broad in its attempt to prohibit “child pornography that does not depict an actual child.”

Childlike sex robots are robots, not humans. Like virtual child pornography, the development of a childlike sex robot does not require interaction with any children. Yet it might also be argued that childlike sex robots would have serious detrimental effects that compel state action.

Safe and secure?

Perhaps someday sex robots will become sentient. But for now, they are products.

And a question almost entirely overlooked is how the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission should regulate the hazards associated with sex robots. Existing sex products are not well regulated, and this is cause for concern given the multitude of ways in which sex robots could be harmful to their users.

For example, dangers lurk even in a seemingly innocent scene where a sex robot and human hold hands and kiss. What if the sexbots’ lips were manufactured with lead paint or some other toxin? And what if the robot, with the strength of five humans, accidentally crushes the human’s finger in a display of passion?

It’s not just physical harm, but security as well. For instance, just as a human partner learns by remembering what words were soothing, and what type of touch was comforting, so too is a sex robot likely to store and process massive amounts of intimate information. What regulations are in place to ensure that this data remains private? How vulnerable will the sex robot be to hacking? Could the state use sex robots as surveillance devices for sex offenders?

Sexbots in the city

Whether and how governments regulate sex robots will depend on what we learn – or what we assume – about the effects of sexbots on individuals and society.

In 2018, the Houston City Council made headlines by enacting an ordinance to ban the operation of what would have been America’s first so-called robot “brothel.” At one of the community meetings, an attendee warned: “A business like this would destroy homes, families, finances of our neighbors and cause major community uproars in the city.”

But dire predictions like this are pure speculation. At present there is no evidence of how the introduction of sex robots would affect either individuals or society.

For instance, would a man who uses a childlike sex robot be more or less likely to harm an actual human child? Would robots be a substitute for humans in relationships or would they enhance relationships as sex toys might? Would sex robots fill a void for those who are lonely and without companions? Just as pilots use virtual flight simulators before they fly a real plane, could virgins use sex robots to safely practice sex before trying the real thing?

Put another way, there are far more unanswered questions about sex robots than there are actual sex robots. Although it’s hard to conduct empirical studies until sexbots are more prevalent, informed governance requires researchers to explore these topics urgently. Otherwise, we may see reactionary governance decisions based on supposition and fear of doomsday scenarios.

The TV show ‘Westworld’ depicts how humans interact with sex robots and other machines infused with artificial intelligence.

A brave new world

A fascinating question for me is how the current taboo on sex robots will ebb and flow over time.

There was a time, not so long ago, when humans attracted to the same sex felt embarrassed to make this public. Today, society is similarly ambivalent about the ethics of “digisexuality” – a phrase used to describe a number of human-technology intimate relationships. Will there be a time, not so far in the future, when humans attracted to robots will gladly announce their relationship with a machine?

No one knows the answer to this question. But I do know that sex robots are likely to be in the American market soon, and it is important to prepare for that reality. Imagining the laws governing sexbots is no longer a law professor hypothetical or science fiction.

It’s a real-world challenge that society is about to face for the first time. I hope that the law gets it right.

About The Author:

Francis X. Shen is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota

This article is republished from our content partners at The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

[drunkexmormonsexplain-blog]

So my dad posted an infuriating article on facebook...

Here's the link: https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-01-22/what-to-do-with-your-questions-according-to-1-general-authority-whos-an-expert-on-anti-church-materials-48843

After reading this absolute garbage, I was so infuriated that in the height of pettiness I decided to write a 3 page rebuttal essay. Then I realized that as much as I want to stir shit with the Mormons, I don't actually want my dad to disown me. So I'm gonna post it here instead of on my dad's facebook. It's extremely rough and overwritten, but since I have no plans to revise it I'm just gonna let it into the wild. There are a few paragraphs where the wording is too poor to convince real diehards, but it should be convincing enough for my fellow exmos at least! LONG POST AHEAD

---

Valerie Johnson’s piece, “What to do with your questions”, covers LDS leader Elder Corbridge’s visit to a BYU campus and outlines his response to concerns many members of the church have about unsavory parts of its history and current practices. It’s an effective piece of LDS propaganda: a piece of media that obscures or inflates the truth in order to advance the beliefs of an organization. As we’ll see below, not only does the piece fail to address the valid concerns of many latter-day saints, but it also uses familiar techniques to undermine the importance of those concerns in the first place. The following outlines both the inaccuracies in Corbridge’s arguments and the subtle ways in which the article discourages LDS readers from thinking critically about the issues at hand.

Let’s start with the first question in the article. “The kingdom of God is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as described in the book of Daniel as standing forever. The question is, will you and I stand?” Corbridge/Johnson asks. While claims about the longevity of “God’s kingdom” are unprovable, it’s evident to any non-church-funded source that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least, is dwindling. Church sources commonly claim that membership numbers are increasing, because they count all individuals who have been baptized but not ex-communicated. On the other hand, counting only active, financially-contributing members reveals that membership is declining sharply. Teens and adults who were raised in the church are leaving at a higher rate than ever. A large portion of the membership inflation reported by the church consists of individuals converted by missionaries as adults, who are counted as members until death although they often stop attending within a year.

From there, Johnson moves on to claim that attacks on the church are broad, including church doctrine that conflicts with “shifting attitudes of today”. This is a common phrase in LDS writing, used to encourage but not specifically state the idea that church doctrine, unlike the rest of the world’s social values, is permanent and unchanging. This is untrue, as many church teachings have changed with time, often shifting to become more in line with North American social norms. A famous and relatively recent example, alluded to in Johnson’s article, is the fact that black men were not allowed to receive the priesthood until 1978. Though there have been many apologetic explanations for this overdue change in doctrine, it’s hard to ignore the fact that its introduction coincided with a government warning that the church would only be able to keep its tax-free status if it got rid of its racist policies. With this and other examples, it’s clear that the church does have a historical precedent to alter teachings in order to keep up with society’s “shifting attitudes.” However, the way it’s phrased in the article contributes to the subconscious idea among many church members that society is at fault for becoming more progressive, not the church for its inability to keep up.

Changing church policy, a history of immoral doctrine, and dwindling membership statistics are only a few of the concerns plaguing modern Mormons. Corbridge and Johnson attempt to address this huge umbrella of issues with a simple response: “Answer the primary questions.” According to Corbridge, these fundamental questions about the church include: “Is there a God who is our Father? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Savior of the World? Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth? Was Joseph Smith a prophet?”

The first three questions refer to the existence God, which is unprovable, and the role of Jesus Christ, a distant historical figure whose true actions in life are hard to discern. In contrast, the last question refers to Joseph Smith, a man who lived in America in the 1800s, whose life is well documented and researched. Was he, as Corbridge asks, a prophet? Researching his life, the answer is clear: hopefully not.

There’s a well of damning evidence on Joseph Smith available with some quick research. He scammed people with his treasure-hunting business, was often jailed for his crimes, and even killed others during his escape attempts. Although the church tried to cover it up for years, he is most well known for his polygamy: by the time he died in 1844, he was married to at least 27 women. The youngest of these, Helen Mar Kimball, was 14 years old. Joseph Smith was 37, which makes him a pedophile on all counts – even in 1843, when they were married, the average marriage age for women was between 20 and 22. If such a man was chosen as a prophet of God, we should question what type of God would choose him, and what type of church would follow his teachings. The church itself has not addressed these concerns, sweeping them under the rug as “lies and deception”, despite multiple sources proving their accuracy. Predictably, Johnson and Corbridge do not mention anything else about Joseph Smith in the article.

Corbridge then moves on to what he calls the “secondary questions,” which Johnson broadly generalizes as “questions about Church history, polygamy, black people and women and the priesthood, how the Book of Mormon was translated, DNA and the Book of Mormon, gay marriage, different accounts of the First Vision and so on,” not going into specifics on any of these topics. Corbridge follows this up with the most bizarre claim in the entire article: “If you answer the primary questions, the secondary questions get answered too or they pale in significance and you can deal with things you understand and things you don’t understand, things you agree with and things you don’t agree with without jumping ship.”

There’s a lot to get into with this statement. Firstly, the article attempts to trivialize many valid concerns about the church. For example, “Gay marriage” is used as a buzzword to cover an array of questions about the church and the LGBT+ community such as why same-sex couples aren’t allowed to be married in the church, if it’s possible for LGB members to be happy even though they’re forced to be celibate, if trans and gender non-conforming individuals are allowed to present their true identity and be fully accepted into the congregation, why children of LGB parents aren’t allowed to be baptized into the church without cutting contact with their family, and so on. These topics are trivialized by presenting them so broadly and following them up with the statement that they “pale in importance” to the primary questions. This is not the case for the LGBT+ individuals in question, or other individuals whose happiness is directly affected by any of the issues mentioned.

Secondly, the idea that some of these secondary questions are also answered by the primary questions is a bold and frankly false statement. Knowing the “correct” answers to the primary questions does nothing to answer the far more nuanced subjects of the secondary questions. A devout Mormon who firmly believes in God and knows that Joseph Smith is a prophet can still easily have questions about why God wouldn’t allow women to hold the priesthood, or how the Book of Mormon can be a historically accurate account of pre-colonial America when DNA evidence proves otherwise. It’s clear that most of these questions fall into Corbridge’s “pale in importance” category, which minimizes the real struggles that even faithful members can experience in the church.

The last part of this statement is the most telling to Corbridge’s, and more broadly the church’s response to criticism and questioning members. He says that it’s important members deal with these controversial subjects, with “things you understand and things you don’t understand, things you agree with and things you don’t agree with, without jumping ship.” According to Corbridge, Mormons should stay active in the church if they believe in the “primary questions”, even if they have doubts about the “secondary questions.” Historically, many religious groups have been formed by those who share the same primary beliefs as another sect – belief in God and Jesus Christ, for example – but differ on how the church should be run or the details about God’s doctrine. There is even history within the Mormon faith of separate factions who have split off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on their different answers to the “secondary questions”, even though they share belief in God, Jesus Christ, and Joseph Smith with the mainstream branch of LDS faith. It doesn’t make sense for LDS members who disagree with or don’t understand controversial church doctrine to remain members, even if they believe in God, Jesus Christ, or Joseph Smith, as they can seek out other denominations that are more in line with their personal beliefs. Remaining in the church is not beneficial to their spiritual well-being or happiness. Non-believing or disillusioned members can create disharmony within the church, so it isn’t good for the health and harmony of a congregation for leaders like Corbridge to encourage those members to stay. What it is good for, though, is the church’s finances, since LDS members who want to access all the benefits of Mormonism must pay 10% of their income to the church. Therefore, it’s unsurprising that the purpose of this article is to suggest doubting members ignore their concerns and stay active, tithe-paying members.

Johnson’s section on the methods of learning is familiar to anyone experienced with religious anti-science rhetoric. Though it references the scientific method and “analytical learning” (research), those mentions are meaningless as Corbridge states “the divine method of learning ultimately trumps everything else by tapping into the powers of heaven.” This is echoed often in fundamentalist religious writing, and means that whenever scientific evidence, academic research, or social values clash with religious beliefs, believers are to ignore the facts and trust “God”, or the teachings of their church. It’s a way to shut down logical arguments from doubters or non-believers without having to think critically about church doctrine and has been discussed at length in other writing.

A somewhat amusing and unique addition to this article is the concept of “academic learning” as separate from scientific or analytical. The idea that simply reading a text can provide the reader with truth without the “analytical” step of fact-checking and resource gathering is false. After all, anyone can write a piece (such as Johnson’s) and fill it with lies. Without multiple opinions and validations, a text on its own has no truth value.

The final two sections of “What to do with your questions” move away from laughable pseudo-academic claims and give us insight into the far more insidious psychological methods the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious groups use to keep their members in order. The first section is entitled “The Presence or Absence of the Holy Ghost.” Generally, most LDS members and leaders assume the “presence of the Holy Ghost” to mean a happy, warm, and comfortable feeling. This type of feeling commonly occurs in familiar, safe settings such as churches and homes. Corbridge goes on to state that “the gloom I experienced as I listened to the dark choir of voices raised against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ… is the absence of the Spirit of God.” In other words, if members who read about controversial church history and practices feel bad or uncomfortable while doing so, it must mean these claims are false.

The truth is that anyone who learns about information that radically disrupts their current worldview will be uncomfortable. In the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, leaders have so effectively hidden parts of its history from its members and lied about doing so that the discovery of things like Joseph Smith’s history of polygamy and multiple accounts of the First Vision can be shocking and upsetting. Issues dealing with the happiness of LGBT+, women, and black members of the church make many members feel guilty and sad, as they feel empathy for those who have been wronged by the church’s present or past teachings. By equating the natural and understandable feelings of sadness, guilt, and discomfort with the absence of the spirit and therefore falsehood, Corbridge convinces questioning members that they should bury those feelings and ignore their questions. This is not an acceptable way to address controversial church topics, nor is it healthy to encourage members to suppress their emotions.

The final section of the article, “Elimination”, is the final nail in the coffin telling LDS members to keep their doubts private and unanswered. Corbridge reiterates that he and God can’t answer all the member’s doubts – obvious, since he and Johnson have done nothing to address any concerns in this article – and that those who truly answer the “primary questions” will not even need answers to their further questions. This effectively combines the church’s policy of repression and communal guilt: if you are bothered by unsavory aspects of the church’s doctrine, you probably don’t believe in God or Joseph Smith. LDS doctrine already encourages a heavy amount of personal guilt for members who don’t feel they are perfectly living up to the church’s expectations, but if they voice their concerns, they now face the shame of their peers. Nobody in a faith setting wants to be known as the unfaithful member, and Corbridge’s statement is clear: if you want to be respected by your religious peers, keep those questions in.

-North

[earaercircular]

'The ban on washing cars with tap water was just a foretaste'

Pieter Loose stood on the highest Alpine peaks, built a bamboo village in Brazil and took part in the World Rafting Championships in Bosnia. Now he shows off his water technology company Ekopak on the Brussels stock exchange. “Let us also try to become world champions in water recycling.”

Pieter Loose pulls his leg as he receives us. A muscle tear in the calf, the result of an hour of padel. These will be difficult weeks for the man in his thirties, without sports. "I'm a bit hyperkinetic. I need sports to recharge.'” He usually does that on the mountain bike. He covers 10,000 kilometres every year, with tours in Patagonia, Africa, Greece, the Dolomites. And sometimes rides of 5,000 altimeters per day. Suffering. “But for me this is pure holiday: crawling on my bike in the morning and just follow the GPS.”

Loose talks rather quietly and monotonously. Yet he is brimming with enthusiasm. "I've always had a big mouth and I've always been ambitious. But I never dared to think that my company would ever be listed on the stock exchange.” At the end of March, his water treatment company Ekopak[1], supported by main shareholder Marc Coucke, raised 50 million euros and it is now worth about 240 million euros. It is the temporary highlight in Loose's course. With Ekopak, he surfs along with water recycling technology on the realization that we are depleting our water reserves.

He paid "a few millions" for Ekopak. “It was a small, local company at the time, with a lot of knowledge. I put more ambition into it. The ball is rolling now. My dreams become reality. That gives me power.”

The company has been building container installations for many years to produce ultrapure water for chemical, pharmaceutical, textile and food companies, among others. “Compare it to a descaler for the city water in your home, to protect your taps. But we go much further." “For customers who produce high-pressure steam, the entire Mendeleev table has to be removed, otherwise those elements will affect the steam boilers,” explains Loose. “Every customer requires a different degree of purity. For cooling water, water to clean machines, water for chemical processes.”

While until recently Ekopak treated groundwater and drinking water, today - after thorough research - it starts from waste water at the companies themselves. “A technical challenge, but future-proof,” says Loose. In addition, he launched the WAAS (Water-as-a-Service) concept, whereby Ekopak not only builds installations, but also finances and operates them and invoices the customer per drop of water. This should result in unprecedented revenue and profit growth in the coming years. “We have turned a sustainable product into a sustainable business model.”

What is the driving force behind Ekopak's growth?

Loose: "Long ago, investments were made in a network to provide everyone with clean drinking water. Industrial companies have joined the same network. That was the most obvious solution. But the situation has become completely out of balance: factories today use billions of liters of drinking water per hour. This used water is subsequently treated in a biological water treatment plant to be discharged into streams and rivers. It flows to the sea and you lose it. Consequently we have to install desalination plants at the sea side that consume a lot of energy to pump the water inland again. That is not future-proof, and companies are increasingly interested in that.”

How serious are companies about this?

Loose: “Twenty years ago you had Greenpeace with a slogan like 'better a hole in my T-shirt than a hole in the ozone layer”. But that's where it stopped. Now a tipping point has been reached. Companies set themselves concrete targets for energy, CO2 and water use. This is important to attract investors, subsidies and staff. The dominoes are falling, and that's a good thing. Climate change is real.” “The water supply is under pressure. Companies are not only afraid of a blackout, but also of a blue out. We've already had a foretaste of bans on using tap water to wash cars and fill swimming pools, and bans for farmers on pumping water from streams and rivers in certain regions. Water has a value like oil. We never thought about that. But the awareness that there are limits is growing at a rapid pace. We feel that. We keeps us occupied.”

How bad is the water scarcity in Flanders?

Loose: "Very. There is plenty of rain, but because it is a densely populated and paved area, the rain disappears into the sewers instead of seeping into the ground. Moreover, we have an economy with water-intensive sectors: food, textiles, pharmaceuticals, chemicals. In the OECD ranking, we are at the very bottom for the amount of water available per person, behind southern countries such as Spain and Italy. That also offers opportunities. We are forced to find a solution: Belgium will educate the world when it comes to rational use of water. That creates companies like Ekopak. We also intend to score internationally with that knowledge.”

Is the industry the main culprit?

Loose: "I'm not saying that. There is also agriculture. And in families at home, only 10 percent of drinking water is used for drinking. We still flush our toilets en masse with drinking water instead of rainwater. But our focus is on industry, which uses a quarter of drinking water in the northern region of Belgium. If we could reduce that, we are taking a big step forward.”

What is the role of politics in the water problem?

Loose: “Everyone is aware of the issues. The Blue Deal of Flanders[2] proving it. Money is earmarked for buffer basins and more wet nature, or for reductions in leakage losses, and so on. Mandatory water audits are introduced at companies and linked to environmental and expansion permits and subsidies. It is being examined whether companies can inject any surplus of recycled drinking water into the network against payment. It wouldn't surprise me either that there will be a limit on applications for which you can use drinking water or groundwater in industry, comparable to measures for your swimming pool.”

How important is the IPO in the growth plan?

Loose: 'It is crucial to roll out the Water-as-a-Service strategy. We will not only build the small water factories at the customers' premises, but will also operate and pre-finance them. This requires money: from 100,000 to 10 million euros per installation, depending on the flow rate and quality. We invoice per drop for a period of ten years or longer. We decrease the customer’s worries. And while tap water is becoming more and more expensive, our price is 20 to 40 percent lower. We therefore also strengthen their competitiveness. That makes companies bend in our direction more quickly. In this way we can tackle the water problem at an accelerated pace.” “The IPO also generates more than just money. It gives you more body when negotiating long-term contracts with multinationals. We are now approaching them as a listed company, no longer as 'that SME from Tielt with a skilled CEO'.'

Do you already have customers for that new concept?

Loose: “Eight projects are up and running, among others at the chemical companies Eastman[3], the copper film producer Circuitfoil[4] in Luxembourg and the vegetable processor Darta[5]. An installation has been started up at the pharmaceutical company Takeda[6] in Lessines to reuse 600 million litres of waste water. That's the equivalent of 18,000 people's water use, which means all of Lessen. We actually connect an entire city to the water network in one go. I also see many small and good initiatives, such as trucks collecting construction site water. But what we realize is of a different order. We are going fast, and sustainability knows no bounds. We also go abroad. Takeda wants to roll out our technology in its factories worldwide.”

You have now lost control of Ekopak. Is that difficult?

Loose: "The opportunity we now have to move forward gives me more satisfaction than the idea of being one hundred percent owner of a small company from which you are not getting the most out of it."

Source

JAN DE SCHAMPHELAERE, Ekopak-topman Pieter Loose: 'Het verbod om auto's te wassen met leidingwater was slechts een voorsmaakje' in: De Tijd, 24-07-2021,

https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/technologie/ekopak-topman-pieter-loose-het-verbod-om-auto-s-te-wassen-met-leidingwater-was-slechts-een-voorsmaakje/10321369.html

[1] https://ekopak.be/en/sustainability/ [2] With the Blue Deal, the Government of Flanders is increasing its efforts in the fight against water scarcity and drought. With this deal, it wants to tackle the drought problem in a structural way, with an increased deployment of resources and the correct instruments, with the involvement of industry and farmers as part of the solution and with a clear exemplary role for the Flemish regional and other governments in Belgium. The Flemish Decree on Integrated Water Policy is officially approved in July 2003 (Belgium Law Gazette, 14.11.03). This decree is the juridical implementation of the European Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive in Flemish law. https://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/en [3] Founded in 1920, Eastman is a global specialty materials company that produces a broad range of products found in items people use every day. With the purpose of enhancing the quality of life in a material way, Eastman works with customers to deliver innovative products and solutions while maintaining a commitment to safety and sustainability. The company's innovation-driven growth model takes advantage of world-class technology platforms, deep customer engagement, and differentiated application development to grow its leading positions in attractive end-markets such as transportation, building and construction, and consumables. As a globally inclusive and diverse company, Eastman employs approximately 14,500 people around the world and serves customers in more than 100 countries. The company had 2020 revenues of approximately $8.5 billion and is headquartered in Kingsport, Tennessee, USA. The chemical company has 2 plants in the Ghent harbor in Belgium. https://www.eastman.com/pages/home.aspx. [4] Circuitfoil develops; Produces and markets high-quality copper foil, while constantly ensuring a safe and healthy environment in its plants, processes and products. rom its corporate headquarters in Luxembourg, Europe, the company distributes and markets its large range of products through a wide network of service centers and sales companies to customers worldwide. https://www.circuitfoil.com/company/profile/ [5] d’Arta is a Belgian family company founded in 1988 that has grown into a global player in the development, processing and commercialisation of fresh frozen products such as vegetables, fruits, herbs and ready-made (side) dishes. It employs more than 900 people and export our products to more than 100 countries. https://www.darta.com/en [6] Takeda is one of the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies in Belgium. Takeda’s presence in Belgium is reinforced by its global manufacturing site in Lessines. This Takeda site has over 18,000 m² of building surface and operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. It is a flexible plant for purification and a packaging center for immunology and hematology products, covering a total geographical span of over 80 countries worldwide. In total, more than 1000 professionals work for Takeda in Belgium, making us a top 5 employer in the pharmaceutical industry. https://www.takeda.com/en-be/who-we-are/contact-us/

[honeyrose-tea]

i would love to hear your demos. im also curious to hear your thesis ideas, if you'd like to share. as for your comment about "annoyed professors who want [you] to shut up", I strongly recommend going to their office hours. professors generally like students who go to office hours and have interesting discussions. what classes are you taking this semester? I think you have a lot of good thoughts, and are clearly well versed in the social and historical aspects of America. is that something you enjoy studying? -🌙

I was so excited to share my demos with you:) as I mentioned the other day, my friends don't really care too much about them and it kinda hurts, so it's nice to have someone who wants to hear them💞

my professors do like me and even though we're not really having formal office hours as a university this semester (professors usually stay after class and/or offer to do a virtual meeting with you if you need it) I have been making a relationship with them. so it's not like they hate me or anything, it's mostly just me projecting my own anxiety onto them. I have a hard time with gauging how much I'm talking, and sometimes I feel like I talk too much in one class session (making like 3-4 comments) or not enough (making none). I also have a difficult time figuring out how relevant my comments/questions are, and I get afraid the professors might get upset with me for taking us away from wherever they're trying to get to. very rarely (if ever) do these things actually happen, so I guess it's just me being an anxious people-pleaser who adores this specific brand of authority figure. it probably is part of why I want to be a professor too, but I digress.

this semester I'm taking:

sociology of deviance

soc. of gender and sexuality

soc. of race and ethnicity

spanish 2

theory and methods in anthropology (which has the option for an intership that I decided to do)

thesis prep

internship prep

I know that seems like a lot but the last two are only one credit hour (they meet once a week and are super chill) so it's really not too bad. I like all my professors a lot and I'm really enjoying my classes so far

I love studying the social problems in the US (as you can probably tell from my coursework) and I enjoy US history to an extent too. history is of course a very broad discipline and there is a lot to study within it. I am especially interested in more comtemporary history (seemingly an oxymoron) by which I mean things that have happened in the last 100-150ish years. most of my history classes said they would cover all tne history until modern day but only got into the early 1900s by the time class was over, and that really disappointed me. I think things from 1900(ish) and on are some of the most important to study as they have had so much impact on today. I have had to take it upon myself to learn about the confusing aspects of our foreign policy and the wars and conflicts- namely with the middle east and russia- that still affect us to this day, and I still have a hard time with understanding them. all of that is a long-winded way of saying yes, I do enjoy history, but I haven't gotten to be educated in it the way I wish I had. that may be slightly remedied since I'm taking a history class next semester, but we'll see.

thank you for writing, my friend. I'll talk to you again soon. as always, I am an open book and I can't wait to answer anything you ask about when we talk again! ❤️❤️❤️