#we need to overhaul the democratic party and leadership

[qqueenofhades]

So it looks like Sinema, having gotten her requisite pound of flesh for her billionaire hedge fund buddies (basically, they agreed to keep the carried-interest tax loophole and replace it with an excise tax on stock buybacks), has finally agreed to support the Inflation Reduction Act, otherwise known as the $740 billion "pretty much Build Back Better but we are calling it something different" bill that Manchin and Schumer came out with. If/when it passes, which could be as soon as this weekend, the Democrats will have achieved -- with a 50-50 Senate with two habitual Manchurian candidates, a four-seat House majority, a rampantly fascist opposing party, a Supreme Court openly bent on destroying democracy and personal liberty, and an active criminal investigation into the previous administration -- at least the following:

The American Rescue Plan, aka the first post-inauguration $1.9 trillion Covid relief package, which was the largest investment in the working class since the New Deal;

The bipartisan infrastructure bill, which is the first major structural and transportation modernization and systemic overhaul for the country since the 1970s;

The first significant gun safety legislation in 30 years and since at least the Clinton administration;

Multiple executive orders now signed on protecting abortion rights and access to reproductive care, including travel out of state if necessary;

A bill in the works to officially codify same-sex marriage and thus protect it from SCOTUS;

Reauthorization and improvement of the Violence Against Women Act, including strong new protections for LGBTQ+ and Native American victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault, including the ability for Native courts to prosecute non-Native offenders for sex crimes for the first time in history;

Finally (FINALLY) making lynching a federal hate crime;

The largest climate legislation ever passed in America (this bill), which also establishes a federal minimum 15% corporate tax rate and lowers healthcare costs, including for essential medications like insulin, by, like, a lot;

Passage of the PACT Act, aka expanding healthcare for disabled veterans exposed to burn pits, also the biggest expansion in this field for a generation despite Republicans briefly killing it in an outburst of pettiness;

Consistent big packages of support for Ukraine, rebuilding of foreign alliances, huge bipartisan support for including Sweden and Finland in NATO (hahahaha fuck you Josh Hawley);

The CHIPS act, which creates tech and manufacturing jobs in America and was made even sweeter by how thoroughly they fucked over McTurtle to do it (since oh boy does he deserve a taste of his own medicine);

Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on SCOTUS, and not an awful white supremacist stand-in like Clarence Thomas, but a genuinely progressive and thoughtful jurist;

Cancellation of almost $6 billion in student loans for the poorest and most defrauded borrowers, such as those who attended scam for-profit "colleges";

And so on and so forth!!!

So like. Please tell me more about how the Democrats are incompetent, their leadership is bad, they are in Disarray TM, you are a terrible person if you support Biden or give them any credit at all, and you're just not excited to vote because they haven't done anything. Like yes! There is a lot more to do! Despite them suddenly deciding to play ball on this particular occasion, Manchin and Sinema still need to be made irrelevant as soon as possible! But as I said, this is happening with the thinnest of imaginable Congressional control, as the other party is literally trying to destroy democracy in real time before our faces. That is not irrelevant.

Also: ruby-red Kansas curb-stomped an attempt to outlaw abortion rights, and approximately 77% of the entire country supports this current bill. The generic Congressional ballots have all shown major movement toward Democrats, and frankly, I have a feeling that we have only just started to see the full impact of post-Roe fallout. So if you get off your asses, quit whining, and put the work in, we could actually win the midterms and then do EVEN MORE!

So yeah. Uh. Food for thought.

[bllsbailey]

Mike Johnson's FISA Flip-Flop Looks Even Worse Now That He's Opened His Mouth About It

It’s another case of the good, the bad, and the ugly on Capitol Hill, the fallout of which will put another dent in the House Republican majority concerning their inability to trip over themselves. Speaker Mike Johnson let us down. In this fight, however, I’m willing to take the sting of the bad press because FISA needs to be overhauled. 

On Wednesday, the procedural vote for FISA’s re-authorization got torpedoed by House conservatives. On paper, yes, it’s a blow to the Republican majority. Still, one of Johnson’s own doing—the House Speaker also opposed this reauthorization earlier (via Associated Press):

A bill that would reauthorize a crucial national security surveillance program was blocked Wednesday by a conservative revolt, pushing the prospects of final passage into uncertainty amid a looming deadline. The legislative impasse follows an edict earlier in the day from former President Donald Trump to “kill” the measure.  The breakdown comes months after a similar process to reform and reauthorize the surveillance program fell apart before it even reached the House floor. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has called the program “critically important” but has struggled to find a path forward on the issue, which has been plagued by partisan bickering for years. The procedural vote to bring up the bill Wednesday failed 193-228, with nearly 20 Republicans voting no.  It marks the latest blow to Johnson’s leadership as he faces being ousted from his job in the same stunning fashion as his predecessor. Hours before the vote, the Republican leader made a final push urging for passage, saying Congress must “address these abuses” without cutting off the surveillance program entirely. 

These spy warrants, which have been abused and weaponized by the FBI to go after the enemies of the Democratic Party, were lambasted by Mike Johnson in the past. Why did he change course? Well, the FBI sat him down for a classified briefing, and like magic, he changed his mind. Talk about ‘the swamp’ in action here:

Speaker Mike Johnson elaborates on his FISA flip flop from when he was a rank and file member of the House, explaining that after receiving classified briefings he has a “different perspective.” pic.twitter.com/mrLj9ouEji— Haley Talbot (@haleytalbotcnn) April 10, 2024

— Haley Talbot (@haleytalbotcnn) April 10, 2024

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 11, 2024

Johnson is facing a motion by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), where, like Kevin McCarthy, he would have the speaker’s gavel wrested from him. But do we have a better person to lead House Republicans? Johnson has disappointed, like most politicians, but while the motion to vacate is probably warranted, I don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel if we pull the trigger this time. I also think there’s a risk of Hakeem Jeffries becoming speaker. It’s bad all around.

Does this thing ever strike you as one gigantic, self-licking ice cream cone of a psy op? https://t.co/qTz5XK02ZX— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) April 12, 2024

[robertreich]

Georgia Runoffs: How You Can Help Flip the Senate

The battle for the Senate is far from over. Both of Georgia’s Senate races are going into runoffs, as no candidate in either race received more than 50 percent of the vote. 

Reverend Raphael Warnock is facing off against Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler. And Jon Ossoff is challenging Republican David Perdue. The winners of the races, and -- therefore -- control of the Senate, will be decided on January 5th. If both Warnock and Ossoff win their races, the Senate is tied 50-50. And with Kamala Harris as Vice President, she’ll have the tie-breaking vote. Here’s what you need to know about the Republicans defending their seats. Kelly Loeffler has used her brief tenure in Congress to praise Trump at every turn, ignore the needs of her constituents, and protect her own bottom line. 

In April, it was reported that she made millions of dollars worth of stock trades before the public knew about the severity of the coronavirus pandemic and the likelihood of a stock market crash. She began making trades the same day Congress received a classified briefing about the virus, and just four days later she accused Democrats of fearmongering about the virus and parroted Trump’s line that everything was under control. She has denied knowing anything about the trades, but the whole saga reeks of corruption. Senator David Perdue also began making suspicious stock trades on January 24th, the day of the classified briefing. That same day, he bought stock in DuPont, a chemical company that produces personal protective equipment. Throughout the pandemic, he joined Loeffler in praising Trump’s deadly response and downplayed the virus to the public. Perdue and Loeffler represent one of the worst tenets of today’s GOP: governing for personal gain while ignoring the needs of their constituents. 

They’re also emblematic of the party’s overt racism: Loeffler called the movement for Black lives and racial justice “divisive” and claimed it “seeks to destroy American principles”, and Perdue recently went viral for intentionally mispronouncing Kamala Harris’ name at a Trump rally. 

Loeffler has even been endorsed by right-wing extremist Marjorie Taylor Greene, a QAnon promoter with a history of making racist comments. 

Oh, and they’re happy to parrot Trump’s baseless claims about voter fraud, even calling on Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State to resign because of supposed “failures in Georgia elections this year” -- without providing any evidence of what those failures were. Georgians deserve better. They deserve senators who will fight for them in Washington -- they deserve the leadership of Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff. Warnock’s platform is all about serving the people of Georgia -- unlike his opponent Loeffler, who only serves herself and her rich friends. Warnock serves as Senior Pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the former pulpit of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He supports Medicaid expansion, instituting a living wage, restoring the Voting Rights Act, and overhauling our cruel system of mass incarceration. Jon Ossoff has dedicated his career to taking on corruption -- a fitting replacement for David Perdue. Ossoff supports campaign finance reform; making massive investments in environmental protection to save our climate; protecting Roe v. Wade; and common sense gun reform. Here’s what you can do to make the biggest impact in this make-or-break fight, which will determine whether we take back the Senate from Mitch McConnell: — Georgians have until December 7th to register to vote in the runoffs. You can make calls to Georgia voters to help them get registered before the deadline. 17-year-old Georgians who turn 18 by January 5, 2021 are eligible to vote in the run-off election that will be held on that date. Please spread the word. — Let locals lead. Donate directly to the candidates’ campaigns and to grassroots organizations led by communities of color, who worked tirelessly to register new voters and mobilize the state for Joe Biden. FairFight Action, New Georgia Project, and Black Voters Matter Fund are a few of the organizations to support in this moment and beyond. You can split a donation between FairFight and the two campaigns by going to GASenate.com, and donate to New Georgia Project (newgeorgiaproject.org) and Black Voters Matter Fund (blackvotersmatterfund.org) at their websites. — Volunteer with the Warnock and Ossoff campaigns. You can find all the information you need by heading to mobilize.us/fairfightaction, mobilize.us/electjon, or mobilize.us/warnockforgeorgia. Georgia, home to John Lewis, is now the ultimate battlefield, thanks to years of grassroots organizing by Black leaders like Lewis, Stacey Abrams, Nse Ufot, Helen Butler, Deborah Scott, Tamieka Atkins, and countless others. Their hard work has gotten Georgia to this crucial junction, and now it’s up to the rest of us to support them in every way possible. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Let’s bring this home, flip the Senate, and usher in the transformative change this nation requires.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Who would you trust to write a new constitution?

I could count all the politicians whose authority I would trust on the subject on one hand, with fingers to spare. I can't even imagine how the colonists must have felt during the Revolution, having their founding document drafted by a cabal of rich southern slaveowners and their enablers. It would be like if we let a bunch of billionaires and CEOs make all the decisions today (gee, how awful would that be?)

Politicians (local, state, federal), judges, lawyers, political scientists, pundits, journalists, advocates, philanthropists, protestors, religious leaders, businessmen, doctors; are any of them up to the task? Frankly, anyone who would want to rewrite the constitution probably doesn't deserve to rewrite it. Is there such a thing as an objective meritocracy? Who are our experts, and by whose authority do we define their expertise? Experts I trust aren't going to be trusted by everyone else, and I certainly don't trust the nutjobs my neighbors trust, so how can we be sure that the voice of the people cuts through all the lobbyists and special interest groups trying to sway public opinion. Evil people can so easily manipulate the gullible and impressionable.

What's best for the country isn't necessarily what's best for specific individuals, so how can we fight the polarization and get people to come together for a greater good? How can we convince assholes to think about others for a change? I've made concessions based on what I want versus what other people want, so how do we make this a national phenomena? How do we teach empathy to millions of people who love to hate? Not everything I believe is 100% correct 100% of the time, I can admit that, I can work around that, but how do we fix the imbalance of power when half the country's leaders are notorious for compromising and ceding ground while the other half steps all over them to get what they want at all times? We need to abandon the two party system because a lot of people are single issue voters who throw all their support behind candidates who have none of their other interests at heart, just because they wear a tie that's one color instead of the other color.

These are the questions we need to find answers to, but none of our leaders are working on them because they don't want to acknowledge the issues at hand. They don't think things are as bad as they really are. They want to believe that their colleagues across the aisle are all good people, even though they would gladly sell half the country up the river to make a quick buck. Just because you've worked with someone for a long time, just because you're personal friends, doesn't mean they are a good person who deserves to have a seat at the table. They don't deserve to be the ones in charge. They don't get to choose who lives and who does.

My sympathies lie with the left, so as long as we're stuck with the two party system it seems we will need to work (begrudgingly) through the lens of the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean "VoTe bLuE nO MatTeR wHo," accepting the authority of establishment centrists and moderates. No, it means we need to infiltrate and party leadership and overhaul it from the top down; if Donald Trump can completely co-opt the Republican Party in half a decade, surely someone magisterial enough could take the reigns of the Democrats Party. The problem is that anyone who has the (for lack of a batter word) "charisma" necessary to take control of a party is not going to be the type of person who gives up that control and does what's best for the people. There's no such thing as a benevolent dictator. We don't need a leftist strongman to combat the right wing strongman. We need a system where individual strongmen can't consolidate enough power to rule by decree in the first place.

This means we need to abandon the old system and the old leaders, but they won't go quietly. That said, there are very few absolute monarchies left in the world. If the people can reject the divine right of kings, so too can they reject the infallibility and intractability of our current political climate.

[theinvisibledreamergirl]

Has everything changed?

Pairing: Ethan Ramsey x F!MC (Klaw Craig)

Words count: ~ 2.5k

Category: Angst

A.N: Sooo I know that I’m late but with everything that happened in the first episode of OH Book 3 I decided to do some changes. I know you’ll hate me. Waiting for your thoughts!

MASTERLIST

———————————————————

The third year of residency began for our doctors of Edenbrook Hospital. Sorry BloomBrook Hospital. Oops again it’s Bloom Edenbrook ladies and gentlemen. Mistakes happen please.

More like a broom which has cleaned all of what the old hospital looked like.

And it had cleaned people’s character too.

And she knew this was going to happen one day. Before she would sleep her mind would go in the most irrelevant thoughts and think about what rich people can do to the other category.

The middle classes and the poor ones.

Of course she was part of the rich people but never spent her money for her pleasure nor she did accept her parents money to live. Because she wanted to be independent and to show that she could do everything on her own until the day of being a doctor came.

Her friends were the most excited ones to see the big changes of their new (as she would call) “tourists attraction” hospital and the facilities that were put in every corner like it was a casino’s place or a museum with advanced technology equipments. She didn’t share the same thoughts with them. When Jackie, Bryce and Rafael invited her to the massage place she refused it and said the same thing to Elijah for playing ping pong. While Sienna was enjoying the new coffee machine Aurora saw her leaving the rest room with a concerned look.

“Hey.” She took her arm gently. “You okay? You seem to be lost on yourself.”

“Do I really give that impression?”

“Well if we don’t see you carefully then it is obvious. Look... I know that your tensing and I can imagine what’s like but I think we should try to fit into this kind of-“

“Change? No thanks. I don’t think I will... I just need to go Aurora and please tell the others that I’m in an operation room.”

“Sure...as you wish Klaw. But if you need to talk again I’m here. We are here.”

She only nodded with a smile.

Klaw wasn’t mad about this. Of course she wanted the best for the hospital and in many others too. To provide everything in need for the patients. But the thing she worried about was the fact that Leland would be always sneaking into the diagnostics office and reminding her team to work about his wife’s case. She didn’t know how someone like him can be such a deliberate and a money maniac to take over a hospital which he didn’t have any idea how to actually handle it.

Klaw had a fear that his stubbornness and insistence will give serious affects to all of the medical staff and all of this façade would break down (that she really hoped) one day and someone else would direct it.

She was thinking of someone who knows all the struggles, all the concerns and all the medical training staff.

The one and only.

Dr. Naveen Banerji.

He was the best option for her to be not only the chief but the boss of this building. One of the most hardworking doctors in his forty years of experience in the field of medicine- who else could surpass him?

But he was nowhere to be seen and Klaw started to worry if Bloom had done something to him. She could feel a pang on her chest that something wasn’t right.

All of this glorious and masquerade day would be soon vanished and then the real face of Leland Bloom would appear and no one- not even the bravest doctors could face him if he or she didn’t want to lose their jobs.

She had to find the answers.

Ethan.

She opened the door of Diagnostics Office where she finds unexpectedly Harper Emery seated comfortably on her chair, Ethan the same too and also a never-seen-such pensive Baz staring blankly at a point. She could understand his condition right now and she wanted nothing more than to give him a friends comfort hug.

It was really strange to see Harper in the diagnostics team but in the same time she was glad for her presence as with her intelligence could help the team solving the cases. In fact she was hoping if Jackie or Aurora would join the team because they both have worked hard for the place she was holding now. But maybe because June was an attending it had to be replaced by another attending considering that Harper wasn’t anymore the Chief of Medicine. She congratulated her, gave a hug and then began with their first case.

Ethan could feel that even behind of that smile and reasonable face of his resident was something doubtful that he knew very well. Maybe it was about Harper’s appearance. He knew that she wasn’t jealous and never would be. Klaw had such an ego that sometimes had scared him and many times he thought that if her character was really like this. He should’ve told her before Harper would join the team and felt somehow guilty about it considering now that their past was gone for good.

In the meantime a voice interrupted them which definitely made them annoyed. Especially her.

“Well here’s our best diagnostics team working along fighting to beat the impossible things!” He saw their hardened gazes as he leaned on the door. “Am I interrupting something doctors?”

Klaw’s chest was rising and falling from his scrutinised face that asked such a dumb question and couldn’t even hold herself. “Yes you are interrupting us. Are you happy now?”

“Ouch Dr. Craig.” He acted as if he was hurt. “That was really mean. I expected better from you and your leaving during my speech gave me a slight concern.” His voice was playful and didn’t seem to care that much what the young resident just admitted.

Yes- she left. When he grabbed the microphone standing in the center of everyone up in the railway and giving his speech of the new Edenbrook she couldn’t stand it and walked away while digging fingers on her palms whereas her friends were still standing there listening.

Her debate with Bloom when he gave the cheque- that day was still imprinted on her mind and couldn’t forget it. She ripped it without thinking twice. Not even taking her friend’s or Ethan’s opinion because she knew the game of the rich: ‘Once you give your palm, they take your arm.’ And she knew he remembered too- the scene in front of her still fresh on her mind.

“I will never and ever make compromise with someone like you because I know how you are going to treat us. Firstly you’ll just do some cocktails party and you’ll build all the facilities the hospital needs until everyone would be gawked by your marvelous project. Then after seeing these the doctors and the nurses will forget their duties and start to have much more fun with their high wages that a hell knows what will happen next and then all this thing of yours will turn not into a hospital- but into a circus. And you will be the main clown.”

He then admired her witty response and said it was just a testing for her but she could tell that he was pissed off when she left his mansion.

By the way Mr. Bloom your constant trying to make the impossible to possible will be a failure. I suggest to you to spend your time with something much more valuable.

And she hoped he would give up. But no.

“You should be worried.” She replied angrily not breaking her glare.

“Dr. Craig.” Ethan reminded again and gave her a stoic expression to not continue it anymore because it wasn’t worthy. She silenced herself letting him handle it. “Yes Leland do you have any issues that you came here suddenly?”

“Oh nothing at all... just wanted to see how your team selects the cases.”

Is he serious?

“Simple. I review the available cases and select the ones most needing our attention. Why? Are you planning to ‘overhaul’ that process as well?”

“Oh not at all! Your team’s reputation is stellar, so you’re clearly doing something right.” Said with a chuckle. “Rest assured, I want to make sure you still choose cases that interest and challenge you. That part won’t be changed.”

Ethan nodded in agreement or almost in agreement. “Right as I was saying-.”

“I only have one request. I want this team to run more democratically... horizontal leadership if you will. In my experience, hierarchies are the death of good ideas.”

Klaw narrowed her eyebrows to a shocking-but-composing-himself Ethan knowingly as if giving him a message.

‘You wanted to deal with him? Here he is. Right in front of you.’

Harper saw her hardened gaze fixated to Ethan as they exchanged quick glances. She knew they were both stubborn people but never thought Klaw would react such in that way towards Leland. It wasn’t her. Harper knew her limits and she needed a bit of comfort later.

“But...why?” Baz finally asked and it was weird to Klaw that she was hearing his voice now. This was a strange feeling. “Our team has worked perfectly with Ethan’s leadership... and if you’re impressed with your results...”

“Ahh but what if those results could be even more impressive? We can’t know without at least running a test.”

Ethan scratched his beard in thoughts. “I see your point. You’re saying that every team needs its own leadership.” Maybe that wasn’t such a bad idea to him he thought even though he didn’t want to agree with everything he said.

“Exactly! I’m glad you understood it! So your votes are-?”

“Obviously I vote for yes. I think there’s no one else who could say no.”

“I’m with Ethan since he’s the expert here. Baz what about you?” Harper asked.

“Oh me? Uhm... yeah I vote the same way.”

“Wha-“

“What about you Dr. Craig?” This time it was Leland who was asking while cutting Harper to do the same. Harper tried to smile even though she was annoyed too.

That seemed to get her attention back to reality. Because she was pretending to not listen to them even though it was disrespectful and she didn’t care.

While they were talking she got a message from Edgar that Naveen hadn’t been in the hospital today altogether with Zaid and Simon. What the hell was going on? Have these men been dusted from Bloom or what? Whatever the reason her suspicions were going to form the puzzle inside of her mind. And she hoped it wouldn’t be an unsolved issue.

“I vote for... No.” She said indifferently catching everyone’s attention. Ethan’s especially while he was parting his lips. “I don’t think that we are prepared well enough to form new leaderships in our new teams. We need to do a lot of training for interns and residents who want to be part of this kind of programme and I think is going to take a lot of time.”

“I see...Well sorry to say it but the most wins Dr. Craig.” His expression was in an amusing way. “And I think you should agree with the new...changes.”

“Of course I will Mr. Bloom.” She said with a plastered smile but surely was cursing under her breath.

With that he left the office when his phone rang giving them now the space the doctors needed. They discussed the case and set the treatment but the resident was not so much interested on it as that rat face wouldn’t get out from her mind. Harper and Baz had already left and she was about to do the same but his voice (as always) stopped her.

“Can we talk a bit?”

“For what? About how I seem to you right now? Jealous to Harper?” She scoffed.

“What? I didn’t say anything and my discussion is n-.”

“You didn’t but yet I can see that. Your eyes are telling me that you still think I am that clueless intern girl right?”

“How can you even think about this? I’ve never called you clueless and I know that you’re not jealous about Harper.”

She looked like she wasn’t believing him and it worried him as how was possible that she had lost it? Did she lost his trust? Then before he could add something else she didn’t let him speak again.

“How could you agree with him?” Obviously the question was for Bloom and Ethan was thinking for mere seconds if she heard his words before or not.

“It was the only way.”

“You think by siding with him everything would go as flowing as it was?”

This was already too much to him. Enough was enough.

“And with your behaviour you think you can solve anything?” He spit back.

“Excuse me?” She frowned shockingly.

“Yes- your snarky, ironic responses are not helping us and we’re just losing our time instead of doing our job!”

“So you think that just because I didn’t agree with you and with the others my opinion doesn’t matter? Oh wait I forgot you are my boss and I should do as you please huh? Well if you are wrong then you are Dr. Ramsey so I won’t shut up my mouth when there’s injustice here!”

“This is not about injustice here! It has been since in the ancient times and no one has ever stopped it!” When he saw where the debate was going he decided to ease it a bit. He didn’t want to fight with her. “Look I’m worried too as much as you are but you don’t have to act like this.”

She said those words before she could stop them. She regretted so much. “Oh you care about me so much don’t you!”

That behaviour.

That cold demeanour.

That selfish character was back and was slapped at Ethan’s face.

He thought she had changed a bit.

From what he remembered from her first year her behaviour was only because of avoiding her feelings but this- was entirely something else.

Egoistic. Which he didn’t except that.

He clearly was disappointed given after everything they’ve been through these past three years.

Something was for sure- she would never change and felt a pang on his chest that now it wasn’t his fault about this.

It was hers.

“Get out.”

“What?”

“I said- GET OUT!” His anger was raised so much that made her jolt. That authoritative voice was back again and her heartbeats accelerated. “Until you don’t get your shit together don’t even try to step in this office!”

She knew she had crossed her limits by her words. She had hurt him so badly that there was no excuse of making up with him so instead she walked out and slammed the door behind it.

He knew he had crossed his limits too. If he could analyse it overall she was right in a way. Leland was trying to be everywhere and meddling with his theories about how a medical team should work and how the medicine should be which was completely out of his league.

Both of them were madly in love but this time the scars of the past seemed to not leave them alone.

-----------------------------------------

P. S: Ouch this was damnnnn. Thank you for reading folks. And guess what? Now I have downloaded tumblr on my phone which gives me much more time to edit and write fics. If school gives me time of course 🙄 And if you have seen emojis from me lately yeah it’s because of new iphone 😂😂😂 And do you want a 2nd part of this? Let me know!

TAGS WILL APPEAR IN A REBLOG!

PART TWO

[darkshrimpemotions]

The airwaves are already full of bad-faith trolls (and well-meaning dupes) talking about all the reasons Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are bad and shouldn’t get your vote. I’m not bothering with the bad-faith trolls.

And you know what? I’m not arguing with the reasons of the well-meaning dupes, either. Because if I’m perfectly honest, I agree with most of those reasons. I didn’t vote for Biden or Harris in the primaries and would never have. They were not my first OR second choices. So I’m not about to tell you why you should be happy about the prospect of voting for them.

But here’s what I will do. I want to present you with your options for actions that you can take in the November election, assuming your ultimate goal is to prevent Trump from getting a second term and create the possibility for positive change in the U.S. You can do one of the following:

Submit a third-party or write-in ballot, voting your conscience in the hopes that the stars will align and your particular third party candidate will be the one to garner not only ALL third-party and independent votes, but also  the entirety of the die-hard liberal centrist votes that comprise the Democratic party...and in the hopes that this unlikely popular vote win will be validated by the electoral college as well.

Submit a joke ballot, registering your disdain for the current system (that no one will actually report on) but affecting no actual change.

Submit a blank or “protest” ballot, registering your discontent with the government (that no one will actually report on) but affecting no actual change.

Choose not to vote at all, registering your discontent with no one and affecting no actual change.

Submit a ballot for Biden/Harris, put careful thought into your congressional, state, and local candidate choices, and then pledge to use all other methods at your disposal to both push the federal government for incremental positive change while working locally to affect larger positive change in your area. Then follow through.

Which of these--realistically and without requiring a complete, successful, and lasting overhaul of our political and cultural consciousness as a country in the next THREE MONTHS--has the best chance of getting you to your goal? Which is most likely to result in another four years of Donald Trump doing further damage to our political system and, far more importantly, to millions of people.

I get that this is not an inspiring ticket. I get it’s not what most of us would want to see, if we had our druthers. But I need you, I am begging you, to move past the idea that voting for Biden/Harris is some kind of selling out or giving up and begin to consider it, instead, as a form of harm reduction.

Harm reduction, in this case, means:

ending border separations

ending border concentration camps and the expansion of ICE’s powers and jurisdiction (preferably dismantling ICE and the DHS entirely)

ending the deployment of secret police into cities to quash peaceful protests and kidnap citizens from the streets

ending the conducting of foreign relations via the daily issuing of threats and misinformation on Twitter

stopping the hemorrhage of government funds into Trump’s private business interests and ever-growing golfing/vacation budget

ending government suppression and contradiction of scientific facts when it comes to managing threats to our public health

engaging the federal government in meaningful actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19

re-engaging with global efforts to stymie climate change

restoring our government’s credibility and reputation with our allies

These are not the only things that need fixing, not by a long shot. But they do need fixing, and they can only be fixed by a change in our national leadership. Voting is not activism and should not be your only action. But that doesn’t mean it’s not important. So please, take the time and effort to vote, and put some real thought into the actual results your choice will have.

[quakerjoe]

The DNC is a fucking JOKE. Climate Change reforms that won’t be in full swing for a decade? Fuck that! WE ARE OUT OF TIME! On top of that, they’re presuming that they’ll keep power long enough to see this through. The next GOP leadership will shitcan all of it and the effort will be useless. 

No M4A? During a PANDEMIC? When we’re all losing our coverage? We’re all about to lose our homes? Fuck this party. 

A $15/Hr min. wage by 2026??? Fucking IDIOTS! By then, we’ll be needing over 20 an hour for THAT to be a livable wage!!! Their platform makes ZERO promises. It’s all LIP SERVICE with no substance! No wonder they lose all the fucking time. At least the evil, racist, ignorant GOP has the goddamn decency to fuck us to our faces. Here’s the article in full. You need to read this bullshit:

Democrats on Tuesday night officially approved a new party platform, outlining a sweeping set of policies on key issues including health care, climate change and the economy.

But the platform also reinforced divisions among the party’s moderates and its liberal wing, which has expressed disappointment that the official Democratic agenda does not support “Medicare for all,” the universal, single-payer health care proposal championed by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont that has become a pillar of the progressive movement. Some refused to vote for the platform as a form of protest.

A largely symbolic document, the party platform does not contain specific legislation or binding commitments. Taken as a whole, however, it provides a broad look at the party’s agenda and the principles and values that Democrats, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., embrace.

The platform was written by a drafting committee that included members from the party’s progressive and more moderate wings. The Democratic National Committee’s platform committee then voted on the platform before sending it to all of the delegates who voted remotely on whether to approve it.

Last month in a parallel process, six Biden-Sanders “unity” task forces gave their own broad policy recommendations to the platform committee. The recommendations amounted to a collection of broadly accepted liberal policy proposals — much like the new platform.

The coronavirus pandemic remains front of mind for many Americans, and Democrats signaled in their platform that responding to the crisis is a top concern. It is the first full policy section of the platform.

Many of the proposals are broadly consistent with what Democrats have so far supported, including increasing funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and providing more aid to state and local governments for initiatives specific to Covid-19, such as contact tracing.

Democrats also support free coronavirus testing and treatment for everyone, as well as free vaccines when they become available. And they want to expand paid sick leave and unemployment insurance to help workers impacted by the health crisis.

Health care

The section on health care is something of a catchall that broadly outlines Democrats’ desire to bring down the cost of prescription drugs, reduce health care costs and improve the quality of care. While it nods to Medicare for all, it stops far short of backing it.

But perhaps the most interesting part of the party’s stance on health care is how exactly it plans to expand coverage. Borrowing language from Mr. Sanders, the platform asserts that “health care is a right for all.” But it seeks to secure universal health care through a public option, not Medicare for all.

“Democrats believe we need to protect, strengthen and build upon our bedrock health care programs, including the Affordable Care Act,” the platform reads. “Private insurers need real competition to ensure they have incentive to provide affordable, quality coverage to every American.”

The economy

The section of the platform that is devoted to the economy blends and borrows ideas from across the Democratic Party’s ideological spectrum. There are echoes of Mr. Sanders (“The U.S. economy is rigged against the American people”) and wonky subsections that address “Curbing Wall Street Abuses” and “Tackling Runaway Corporate Concentration” — issues highlighted repeatedly by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Over all, there are few surprises here. Democrats, for instance, support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026, a policy already widely backed across the party. They want to invest in infrastructure, including high-speed rail.

Democrats also support aggressive steps to encourage homeownership by increasing affordable housing and by giving a $15,000 tax credit to first-time home buyers, among other initiatives.

Perhaps most notably, the platform promises to “reject every effort to cut, privatize or weaken Social Security.” The pledge is particularly relevant following President Trump’s push to cut payroll taxes, which Democrats said could jeopardize the funding stream for the popular government program.

Climate change

The party’s platform sets aggressive goals of eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035 and achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions for all new buildings by 2030, with the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

But the platform makes no mention of the “Green New Deal,” a sweeping congressional resolution to combat climate change that is widely supported by the party’s progressive wing. It also does not call for an end to fossil fuel subsidies — an omission that has frustrated activists — although Mr. Biden’s plan does.

Other highlights

The Democratic Party platform is filled with promises, many of them grand and somewhat vague.

But the lengthy document does contain several specific endorsements, such as supporting statehood for Washington, D.C., and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Interestingly, Democrats want to “fast-track this process for those workers who have been essential to the pandemic response and recovery efforts.” The party also wants to end for-profit detention centers and instead “prioritize investments in more effective and cost-efficient community-based alternatives to detention.”

Here is a look at some of the other proposals:

Criminal justice and racial justice

Democrats want to “overhaul the criminal justice system from top to bottom.” But notably, the platform does not include support for defunding the police, which has become a rallying cry for some activists amid the nationwide reckoning over racial justice and police brutality. Instead, Democrats support “national standards governing the use of force” like banning chokeholds. The party also wants to eliminate cash bail.

Democrats support decriminalizing marijuana and legalizing its medical use. But the platform advocates for leaving it up to the states to determine whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use — a position that disappoints many progressives.

Education

Democrats support making public colleges and universities tuition-free for students whose families earn less than $125,000. The proposal does not go as far as the plan proposed by Mr. Sanders, which stipulates tuition-free public colleges and universities for everyone. The platform, however, does support making community colleges and trade schools tuition-free for all students.

Democrats also want to “ban for-profit private charter schools from receiving federal funding.”

Foreign policy

Democrats support a two-state solution that would establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Democrats also believe Jerusalem should remain the capital of Israel. Some activists have expressed disappointment with the platform because it does not criticize Israel’s “occupation” of Palestine.

[newstfionline]

Friday, January 22, 2021

Teenager’s Snow Cave Enters Canadian Survival Lore (NYT) In Canada, a country of rugged snow-covered mountains and frigidly cold weather, there have long been extraordinary tales of winter survival. There was the story of John Gow, who in 1969 survived a plane crash and five days in the mountains of British Columbia. There was the 2-year-old in Rouleau, Saskatchewan, who in late February 1994 was found frozen on her doorstep after five hours in minus 8 degree Fahrenheit weather, but miraculously lived. And now there is Robert Waldner, a 17-year-old chess-loving teenager who built an elaborate snow cave shelter in British Columbia last weekend after getting stranded on a mountain during a family outing. It is a feat of survival without the drama of a plane crash or frozen toddler but with a happy ending that has nevertheless captured Canadian imaginations. On social media, Canadians have praised the teenager’s studious pragmatism, with some suggesting he join the scouts or a search-and-rescue team. Robert said he hoped to be an emergency room nurse or a paramedic.

‘America is back’ (Reuters) Joe Biden got to work undoing Donald Trump’s policies hours after being sworn in, signing 15 executive actions and making his first moves on the pandemic, immigration and climate change. Further executive orders today will direct that disaster funds be used to reopen schools and will require people to wear masks on planes and buses. World leaders have welcomed Biden in a series of messages with a common tone: ‘The United States is back’, ‘America is back’, and ‘Today is a good day for democracy.’ Investors got their Biden bounce on, with world stocks racking up record highs on hopes of major U.S. stimulus to cushion the coronavirus’s economic damage.

Biden tells appointees ‘I will fire you on the spot’ for showing disrespect to colleagues (Yahoo News) President Biden issued a warning Wednesday to his appointees that a hostile workplace will not be allowed in his administration. Addressing approximately 1,000 political appointees during a virtual swearing-in ceremony on his first day in the White House, Biden said: “I’m not joking when I say this: If you ever work with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I will fire you on the spot. No ifs, ands or buts.” “Without unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury,” Biden said during his speech, adding, “Politics doesn’t have to be a raging fire, destroying everything in its path. Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war.” “Everybody is entitled to be treated with decency and dignity. That’s been missing in a big way the last four years,” Biden told the appointees he swore in.

Biden faces a more confident China after US chaos (AP) As a new U.S. president takes office, he faces a determined Chinese leadership that could be further emboldened by America’s troubles at home. The disarray in America, from the rampant COVID-19 pandemic to the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, gives China’s ruling Communist Party a boost as it pursues its long-running quest for national “rejuvenation”—a bid to return the country to what it sees as its rightful place as a major nation. For Joe Biden, that could make one of his major foreign policy challenges even more difficult as he tries to manage an increasingly contentious relationship between the world’s rising power and its established one. The stakes are high for both countries and the rest of the world. A misstep could spark an accidental conflict in the Western Pacific, where China’s growing naval presence is bumping up against America’s. The trade war under President Donald Trump hurt workers and farmers in both countries, though some in Vietnam and elsewhere benefited as companies moved production outside China.

Republicans grapple with post-Trump future (AP) For the first time in more than a decade, Republicans are waking up to a Washington where Democrats control the White House and Congress, adjusting to an era of diminished power, deep uncertainty and internal feuding. The shift to minority status is always difficult, prompting debates over who is to blame for losing the last election. But the process is especially intense as Republicans confront profound questions about what the party stands for without Donald Trump in charge. The party now faces a decision about whether to keep moving in [the course Trump set], as many of Trump’s most loyal supporters demand, or chart a new course. Trump left office with a 34% approval rating, according to Gallup—the lowest of his presidency—but the overwhelming majority of Republicans, 82%, approved of his job performance. Even as some try to move on, Trump’s continued popularity with the GOP’s base ensures he will remain a political force.

Sell high (Foreign Policy) London’s financial district was discovered to be an unusual site for entrepreneurial agriculture after police found 826 marijuana plants growing in a building close to the Bank of England. London police said they were tipped off by the strong smell emanating from the building and blamed the reduced footfall during COVID-19 lockdowns for not finding it sooner. Speaking at an event on Wednesday, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey took the news in stride. “We are now going to be the subject of endless jokes about ‘now we know what the Bank of England has been on,’” he said.

Universities degree ‘not the only route to success’ (BBC) Education and training for young people in England after the age of 16 is to be overhauled to ensure employers get the skilled workforce they need. Ministers are setting out plans to improve vocational education, saying it is an “illusion” that degrees are the only route to success. They say funding will be targeted at training relevant to the labour market. Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said: “These reforms are at the heart of our plans to build back better, ensuring all technical education and training is based on what employers want and need, whilst providing individuals with the training they need to get a well-paid and secure job.”

Greece-Turkey tensions (Foreign Policy) Greece’s parliament voted to extend its territorial waters in the Ionian sea by six nautical miles on Wednesday, following negotiations with Albania and Italy. The move comes as Turkey and Greece prepare to meet in Istanbul on Monday to discuss their competing claims in the Aegean Sea, a situation made more tense by Turkish survey vessels testing territorial boundaries in recent months.

Even in jail, Russia’s Navalny knows how to enrage his rival Putin (Washington Post) Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny wasted no time showing why the Kremlin finds him such a threat: From behind bars in a coronavirus isolation cell, he released a bombshell video accusing President Vladimir Putin of colossal corruption. The YouTube video—released Tuesday less than 48 hours after Navalny returned to Russia in a direct challenge to Putin and his security services—crossed all Putin’s red lines. Videos and social media—anchored by his network of 40 offices across Russia—remain the core of Navalny’s opposition power, pointing out alleged abuses and indulgences by Russia’s leaders under Putin. Navalny’s video published an architectural plan and drone footage of a gigantic palace near Gelendzhik on the Black Sea, including a cellar winery, an indoor ice rink and a casino. The video alleged it was built for Putin using a complex “slush fund.” It included a photo of teenager Elizaveta Krivonogikh, who it claimed was the secret daughter Putin fathered with a lover. Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the video was “a con” and “pure nonsense,” denying that the palace was related to Putin, but he gave no details on who they say is the owner.

Twin suicide bombings rock central Baghdad, at least 28 dead (AP) Twin suicide bombings ripped through a busy market in the Iraqi capital Thursday, killing at least 28 people and wounding 73 others, officials said. The rare suicide bombing attack hit the Bab al-Sharqi commercial area in central Baghdad amid heightened political tensions over planned early elections and a severe economic crisis. No one immediately took responsibility for Thursday’s attack, but Iraq has seen assaults perpetrated by both the Islamic State group and militia groups in recent months.

[feyariel]

In other news, I'm still thinking about the Jimmy Dore vs. AOC/withhold votes for Pelosi until there's a floor vote for M4A issue.

Because of course I am: I am a type 1 (autoimmune, insulin-dependent) diabetic with a host of other health issues who will be losing their ACA health insurance next year and will have to make do on charity and such until the Medicaid expansion finally kicks in (c. August). The issue came up right as the deadline for saying "Hey, I made $12.xk this year" passed. I'm biased.

But so is the majority of America. And it's not like M4A is the farthest left thing we could want. (Not sure how much farther left you could go than nationalizing the medical industry, given that past that it becomes non-governmental and that turns into a private company again, but whatever.)

Anyway, the internal contradiction with this issue is as follows:

AOC wants Pelosi out of the Speakership. This isn't theoretical, speculative, or an observation based on history: she has said so recently (this week, I think), outlining the various reasons and associated issues.

Pelosi is essentially running for the Speakership again.

AOC and her supporters claim she doesn't have leverage because the alternative is a Republican.

This is the same issue as happened during the election, but it's less egregious because the other potential SOTHOTUS isn't Trump.

In a negotiation, if one party wants something and approaches another, the other has leverage: they get to name an initial price and the person who brought the issue up for negotiation can respond (accept, reject, or haggle).

AOC doesn't want the Republican Speaker, but Pelosi has shown that she's as much of an obstacle to AOC's policies, so it's a lose-lose scenario: AOC gains very little from having Pelosi in power -- and most of what she gains is an in with the Democratic Party, which she loses by virtue of not being a corporatist.

Thus, AOC is in a position of power with the negotiations. She gains too little in voting for Pelosi on the face of it, but she is willing to do so, so she can offer a cost for her vote.

"$15 minimum wage!" The corporatists now accept this because inflation has well outpaced that demand. Too little, too late, nothing gained.

"Progressives in leadership positions!" Only that? Remember, they're haggling here: AOC needs to go high.

"Green New Deal!" Great idea, but not the opportune moment. Yes, we need to deal with the climate catastrophe and the economy, but this is enough of an overhaul that it would take more than the Speakership to make an effective bargain. Further, the immediate crisis on everyone's mind is the pandemic, not the environment. The environment is responsible for the pandemic, but it's not as emotionally gripping right now because the pandemic is enough of a menace on its own to be occupying everyone's thoughts.

Once you deal with the pandemic, then the broader climate catastrophe will come forward. But since it's so vast, it's harder for people to understand, let alone feel something about. The pandemic, by contrast, has immediate consequences that are screwing with everyone's lives in very direct ways. (And even so, there are still people who deny it exists. That's the broader issue with environmentalism: it seems like it's abstract, even though it isn't.)

Point being, the zeitgeist is such that not supporting M4A really should be political suicide. Forcing a floor vote on it would then start a reaction. If it passes and heads to the Senate, then pressure will mount on senators. If it doesn't pass the House, it's liable to spark calls for primarying or even recalling representatives at the least; there will be some form of mass protest, whether it be within the system or insurrection, because the pandemic is so immediate an issue.

In short, AOC has everything lining up behind her for a push on M4A. She's refusing to for now, either because she doesn't recognize the opportunity for what it is (the spark that will start a blaze) or because she's become corrupted (insofar as career politicking is itself corruption). Hopefully, she recognized the leverage she has and changes her mind on what to do.

[justpod]

The Dems are divided in two

The divide between the Democratic groups is getting wider. While I agree with AOC that Pelosi and Schumer need to go, it is for vastly different reasons.

From The Blaze:

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) need to vacate their positions in the government and let the younger generation of burgeoning lawmakers take over.

She also said that the Democratic presidential legacy of stacking administrations with previous Democratic appointees and big business heads needs to stop.

What are the details?

In a recently published interview with the Intercept's Jeremy Scahill, the young congresswoman said that the Democratic Party needs a serious leadership overhaul.

There's just one problem, she says: Democrats have no idea how to move forward.

"If you create that vacuum, there are so many nefarious forces at play to fill that vacuum with something even worse," she warned.

"A lot of this is not just about these two personalities [Pelosi and Schumer], but also about the structural shifts that these two personalities have led in their time in leadership," she explained. "The structural shifts of power in the House, both in process and rule, to concentrate power in party leadership of both parties, frankly, but in Democratic Party leadership to such a degree that an individual member has far less power than they did 30, 40, 50 years ago."

She also said that Pelosi and other House members need to prepare for what comes after Pelosi retires.

"The left isn't really making a plan for that," she said. "So I do think that it's something that we really need to think about."

As for the newly minted congresswoman, the speaker position is not something she is ready to tackle — yet.

"The House is extraordinarily complex and I'm not ready," she admitted. "It can't be me. I know that I couldn't do that job."

What else?

Ocasio-Cortez also took a swipe at the incoming Biden administration and said that the president-elect is stacking the vacancies with former Obama appointees and big business players, calling it "horrible."

"I think it's ... part of a larger issue that we have right now, which is ... the Biden administration is bringing back a lot of Obama appointees, which, depending on where you are in the party, may sound nice, I guess," she explained. "But I think what a lot of people fail to remember is that we now have a Biden administration that's bringing back a lot of Obama appointees, but when Obama was making appointments, he was bringing back a lot of Clinton appointees."

The Intercept reported that "dozens of people" from Goldman-Sachs, McKinsey, Facebook, and Google have "quietly been added to the Biden transition team in recent weeks."

Ocasio-Cortez explained that those very types of appointments are a "huge reason why we got [President] Donald Trump in the first place."

"In addition to just the racism that was waiting to be reanimated in this country, [there] was just an extreme disdain for this moneyed political establishment that rules Washington," she proclaimed.

Visit us at www.justpod.net for more articles.

[cthibault21hasgov]

Political Party Action

Republican Party 

The Republican party believes that our immigration system should protect American working families and their wages, citizens, and legal immigrant alike. They believe legal immigrants play a vital role in our economy and culture. They want to encourage the preservation of culture and the native language. However, they also support English as a national language and say it's vital for immigrants to advance in society. They also say illegal immigrants endanger everyone, exploit the taxpayer, and insult those trying to legally enter the country. That being said they believe it's our greatest priority to secure our borders and ports and enforce immigration laws. They support building a wall on the southern border. They also support harsher punishments for illegal aliens who don't follow the laws in place. They say sanctuary cities violate federal law and should no longer be funded because they support illegal entry into the U.S. The Republican party also thinks it's indefensible to provide permanent residence to the immigrant workers when our unemployment rates are so high. 

I agree with their statements on the vital role immigrants play in our economy and society. I also agree that we should protect working families and their wages. However, I disagree with their idea of building a wall and making it more difficult for immigrants to enter the U.S. I also think it's very unamerican to deny residence and jobs to working immigrants to protect unemployed Americans. I think immigrants should not be required to know English if they want to enter the U.S. Lastly I disagree with the Republican party's villainization of immigrants. 

Democratic Party

The Democratic party believes the Trump administration's immigration policies have made our communities less safe, undermined our economy, and tarnished our image around the world. They say the Republican party has dehumanized immigrants by putting people in cages, deporting veterans and essential workers, and denying asylum seekers entry into our country. Democrats believe America has to and will do better. Democrats say immigrants uphold our economy and support us and that they are us. They say we need to make a 21′st century immigration plan that reflects our values, repairs our harms, heals our communities and renews our global leadership. They plan on ending funding for the border wall, terminating travel and immigration bans, and support legislation that ensures no president can create discriminatory bans ever again. They will protect and expand the asylum system and other humanitarian systems. Democrats believe the fight to end systemic racism in America extends to the immigration system. They will eliminate unfair barriers to naturalization and FastTrack the process of citizenship. They will prioritize immigrant family reunification and make it easier to get family-based visas. Democrats will not let employers underpay immigrant workers and will hold employers accountable if they do. They also plan to make detention centers the last resort and make alternatives to detention centers that are more community-based. 

I agree with almost all of their statements and plans on immigration reform. I too believe the system we have in place is discriminatory and needs to be changed. I also think we need to make it much easier to become an American citizen and that our current system is outdated. 

Libertarian Party

Libertarians welcome those who come peacefully and encourage those who are coming to start a new safer life. They note that America is a country of immigrants and that some families have just been here longer than others. They also believe a free market requires the free movement of people, not just ideas and products. Libertarians respect and admire the courage it took for immigrants to leave their home and are proud they chose America as a place of freedom and prosperity. They also support deporting, blocking entry, and arresting those with criminal records and plans for violence. They believe our current immigration system is a joke and designed to hurt the immigrant's chances of entry. They believe if Americans want immigrants to enter legally we need to make that easier to do.

I agree with their notes that America is a country of immigrants and those seeking a new life should be welcome. I also agree that those with a criminal record or plans for violence should be denied entrance. However, I think it has to be made very clear that they plan for violence and their criminal record is serious. I think an unbiased court should decide on the intentions and safety of an immigrant to ensure fairness. 

Green Party

The Green party believes immigrants only leave their homes because it is unsafe or they can not provide for themselves and their families. That means any immigration policies should be treated as a way to address humanitarian needs. They believe all law must be just and human or else it does not coincide with our nation's values. They believe the U.S. needs a complete overhaul of immigration laws because our current laws have created too much social injustice. They think undocumented immigrants who already reside in the U.S. should be able to easily and cheaply become legal citizens unless there are obvious reasons against them. They want work permits to be easily attainable for Mexican and Canadians to limit the number of illegal workers. Additionally, permanent residency should not be denied based off of political, religious sexual, and beliefs or racial identity and disability. They want those who live in countries the U.S. has endangered or hurt to have special consideration because it is our fault they are leaving. 

I agree with all the Green party has to say about immigration. I agree our current system is problematic and does not follow our nation's values. I especially liked their notes on making it easier for those we hurt to come into America. If it's our fault their leaving we should make it much easier for them to enter. 

Peace and Freedom Party

Members of the Peace and Freedom part call for open borders. They also demand an end to the deportation of immigrants. Lastly, they want full political, economic, and social rights for resident non-citizens. 

I don't know if I agree with this party's views because they have no plan. They did not say anything about how or why they want open borders or what they mean by that. They also did not discuss what they would do when they get rid of deportation if people commit crimes or have ill intent. They don't have a system they would put in place if elected. 

Reflection 

I agree with the ideas of the Democratic, Libertarian, and Green parties. I would not vote for either the Green or Libertarian party because the third party never wins so my vote would be wasted. I agree most with the Democratic position and I think they had the most thought-out plan for immigration reform. I am not surprised I agree with the most because I was stated as liberal on the political party test. I would vote for their candidate because the only other candidate with a chance of winning is Republican and has almost opposite views. 

[alexsmitposts]

America’s Hundred Year War on Socialism The Democratic Party and the US media are facing a new challenge: the rise of an avowed Social Democrat to first place in the competition for Democratic candidate in this year’s presidential election. In 2016, the media were convinced that Donald Trump couldn’t be elected: they have been ‘eating crow’ ever since. This time around, the Democratic Party (supposedly the party of the working class) didn’t believe that the 77 year old democratic socialist that Hillary sidelined last time around could actually rise to the top in its primary elections. Just to make sure he didn’t become the candidate, it rewrote the rules to make room for last-minute candidate, the billionaire former Mayor of New York, Mike Bloomberg, in the debates, having refused to bend them for candidates ‘of color’ such as Julian Castro and Cory Booker. Although Bloomberg did poorly in his first confrontation with the other candidates, in chorus, the media warned that were Bernie Sanders permitted to pursue his lead all the way to the nomination, Trump would be re-elected! Never mind that many of Trump’s voters came from Bernie’s ranks, after he was pushed out by Hillary Clinton’s dirty tricks. Never have I witnessed such a shocking display of politically-dictated ‘news’: almost a century after FDR’s New Deal, the Democratic Party still cannot allow a left-leaning candidate to become president, and this is why the United States, alone among developed nations does not recognize the basic human right to health care. In desperation, the Democratic Party got a pollster to list all of Sanders’ negatives: socialist, seventy-seven years old, recent heart attack, eliciting predictably negative answers from potential voters to each of these characteristics. This didn’t stopped Bernie from being ten points ahead of his nearest competitor closing in on the California primary, which has the largest number of delegates in the nominating convention. This is nothing new: Barack Obama — the nominal head of the party until another Democrat becomes president — is backing the former Republican and his billions over his former VP, Joe Biden, apparently also approving the idea of Hillary Clinton becoming his running mate! As for Bernie, his followers doubled down after he was cheated out of the nomination in 2016, but there is also a growing interest in socialism, especially among the young. This was demonstrated by the recent election to the House of Representatives, of four ‘minority’ women, including three Muslims, under the leadership of the charismatic Hispanic, Alexandria Ocasio Cortes. Aside from the short-lived ‘Progressive’ era that brought Franklin Roosevelt to the White House in the midst of the great depression of the early thirties, Socialists had been barred from the airwaves, with socialist literature confined to obscure presses, until very recently. Still not accepting FDR’s commitment to social democracy after almost a century, the Democratic Party clearly instructed morning after pundits to claim that voting for Bernie would put Trump back in the White House, quoting the BBC’s Katty Kaye saying that ‘Americans are defined by their work, whereas Europeans are eager to call it quits’ the minute the clock strikes.’ But whether they refer to Bernie’s philosophy as ‘Democratic Socialism’ or ‘Social Democracy’, journalists haven’t a clue as to what distinguishes both from straight-up ‘Socialism’, in which workers actually own the ‘means of production’. Social democrats, accept the need for government to protect ordinary citizens from capitalism’s excesses, and that is what the plans of Elizabeth Warren, who refers to herself as ‘capitalist to the core’, are designed to do. Ideologies and the theories behind them were long ago replaced in the United States by the principle that “There’s no such thing as a free lunch”, a foundational American principle that individuals are expected to stand on their own two feet, like the pioneers. Thanks to the paucity of information about the rest of the world, only recently has the younger generation become aware that some form of socialism is ubiquitous — including in post-communist China and Russia. (China touts ‘capitalism with Chinese characteristics’ while President Putin’s recent government overhaul is intended to further improve the lives of ordinary Russians, who lost a lot of ground under his American-backed predecessor, Boris Yeltsin.) As Bernie surges in the latest primary voting, the media is frantic. We have to hope his voters will continue to realize that the wealthiest country in the world CAN afford to provide free health care to all, if it ceases to wage wars of choice. Alas, the announcement by the intelligence community that Russia is supporting both Bernie and Trump is being treated with righteous indignation: not a single journalist has pointed out that it is based on the fact that both candidates, while polar opposites in every other way, oppose attacking that country.

[hogtown-socialist-alternative]

France 1968 and the Historic Role of the Working Class

By Patrick Ayers -October 27, 2018

Because of the continuing significance of the events in France in 1968, Socialist Alternative is republishing the pamphlet France 1968: Month of Revolution written by Clare Doyle of the Committee for a Workers International with which we are in political solidarity. First published by the Militant Tendency in 1988 for workers in Britain, we believe the lessons drawn out by the pamphlet will be of enormous interest to radicalizing youth and workers who are asking questions about how society can be changed. Below is an extensive new introduction to the pamphlet which connects these world historic events to debates on the left today.

The greatest general strike in history happened in France in 1968. Over ten million French workers went on indefinite strike for several weeks between May and June. At the height of the movement, President Charles de Gaulle, who had built his image as a strong authoritarian leader, fled the country in despair over his failure to bring the movement to heel.

The legacy of these events is still important for a new generation. Earlier in 2018, France was once again gripped with mass strikes in opposition to French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for neoliberal workplace reforms. Almost immediately, memories of the events in 1968 were evoked. In the U.S., a new generation has become politically awakened by the crisis of capitalism and they too will look to the history of 1968 for inspiration in the struggles ahead.

“In the last week of May 1968,” writes Doyle, “a rallying call to the working class to take political power into their hands would have tolled the death knell of capitalism on a world scale.”

While there had been many revolutions and upheavals in neo-colonial and developing countries in the post World War II period, most left-wing thinkers, both today and in 1968, have serious doubts that revolution led by the working class is possible in advanced capitalist countries.

But in France in 1968, the working class was looking to what would have been a revolutionary solution – i.e. a “people’s government” – and they had the support of a decisive majority of society. It was one of the most favorable situations ever for the working class to take power away from the corrupt capitalist class and reorganize society.

“The only ‘force’ needed in these circumstances was that of forceps applied at the correct moment,” argues Doyle. “The general strike of ten million workers had done the lion’s share of the job of transferring power from one class to another.”

Why didn’t the transfer of power to the working class happen? Doyle explains that it was the lack of a leadership prepared to carry through the struggle to the end which held back the working class from going the whole way.

What Was Possible

What is unique about the CWI’s pamphlet is that it provides an explanation for what a revolutionary leadership could have done. This is important because as the crisis of capitalism deepens today, many of the questions from 1968 will arise anew. In fact, with the socialist movement growing today in the U.S., the age old questions of reform and revolution have come to the surface again.

Naturally we are not comparing the situation in the U.S. today directly to that in France in 1968. However, we are now in the midst of a huge social and political crisis flowing from the massive growth of inequality and decades of neo-liberal attacks on the living standards of working people and social services. Confidence in capitalist institutions has been profoundly undermined leading to unprecedented political polarization, waves of protest and the growth of both left and right populism. We now see a clear potential for the re-emergence of class struggle. The next historical period in the U.S. and internationally clearly points to new revolutionary crises like 1968.

In the Spring 2018 issue of the left-wing journal Jacobin, Jonah Birch contributes a lively and well-written piece on the events of France 1968. He writes “nowhere else in the Western world over the past century was such a threat to capitalism posed.”

Yet he concludes: “However, that does not mean that revolution was on the agenda.” Indeed, capitalism was not overthrown in France but that hardly exhausts the question.

He quotes former leaders of the self-described French Trotskyist group, the Revolutionary Communist League, Alain Krivine and Daniel Bensaid: “The strikers in their mass wanted to settle a social problem, shake the yoke of an authoritarian regime. From there to revolution there was still a long way to go.”

It needs to be noted that this quote is taken out of context. Krivine and Bensaid were making a bigger point in the same text that there was no revolutionary party in France 1968 and the forces of the LCR were too small. Doyle deals with the role of the LCR in Month of Revolution, but what matters here is Birch’s choice to use this quote. Because, in fact, the leaders of the French Communist Party (PCF) said a similar thing on June 8, 1968 in their newspaper:

“It is not enough that the main forces of the nation should be in movement – which was the case – it is also necessary for them to be won to the ideas of a socialist revolution. But this was not the case for all the ten million workers on strike – even less so for the middle sections particularly the peasants.”

The question is: What more was needed to win French workers to the idea of socialist revolution? Ten million workers were on indefinite strike and demanding a “people’s government”!

Certainly if any party was in a position to lead the working class toward revolution in France in 1968 it was the French Communist Party. It was one of the largest workers parties in Europe and it grew rapidly during the general strike. Birch criticizes the PCF leaders but, by echoing their arguments, he lets them off the hook for failing to seize a historic opportunity.

While revolution was ruled out, “that doesn’t mean a better outcome was impossible,” says Birch. “What that might have looked like is up for debate.” Birch doesn’t offer answers himself to the question of how the policy of the leaders of the movement in France could have been better. He speculates that maybe more reforms could have been won.

In fact, workers did win significant gains in 1968 because the ruling class was petrified of revolution. Arguably, they could have won even more, short of revolution. But if we are talking about more profound change that would encroach on the capitalists’ control of the economy this would have required the working class taking power.

Birch and many others on the left implicitly or explicitly do not believe in the ability of the working class to reorganize society along socialist lines. Rather they believe in radical reforms – won at least in part through working class mobilization. But unless capitalism is actually overturned, reforms can be clawed back later – which is precisely what happened internationally in the neo-liberal era. This is even more true today than in 1968 during the later stages of the postwar economic upswing when there was more room for the capitalists to make concessions such as expanding social services and the “welfare state.”

To root out the power of the billionaire class today, we call for taking the top 500 corporations into public ownership and developing a democratically planned economy organized to meet the needs of people not profit. We point out that such a development is only possible by the working class coming to power and replacing the existing capitalist state with a workers state that radically expands democracy, including into the workplace. This contrasts with the vision outlined by Jacobin editor Bhaskar Sunkara in an article in  the New York Times last year on the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. He essentially explains that socialism would entail a radical overhaul of capitalism without ending capitalism per se: “Worker-owned cooperatives, still competing in a regulated market; government services coordinated with the aid of citizen planning; and the provision of the basics necessary to live a good life (education, housing and health care) guaranteed as social rights. In other words, a world where people have the freedom to reach their potentials, whatever the circumstances of their birth,” (“Socialism’s Future May Be It’s Past,” NY Times, 6/26/2017).

As we pointed out in replying to Sunkara’s piece:

“Without a doubt, such changes would represent a significant step forward despite being under threat of attack every time capitalism entered into one of its periodic crises. But this is not the same as the goal of socialism: a global, classless society which does away with capitalism’s organized apparatus of repression and replaces it with a new political order based on mass democratic organs of working people and the oppressed. This has always been the destination called for by the socialist and Marxist movement. Many today, even on the left, may see this vision as hopelessly utopian. But as Marx argued, it is the massive development of human productivity under capitalism which has laid the material basis to eradicate class division and oppression rooted in scarcity,” (SocialistAlternative.org, 9/30/2017).

The Role of Leadership

The question of the aim and program of the workers movement and working-class parties is a decisive question. This was shown in France ‘68. As Doyle points out, the PCF, in reality, was led by a reformist leadership who had no intention of preparing the mass of the French working class for what would be necessary to carry out a socialist transformation of society. The French workers were far more interested in carrying through a decisive struggle against the regime than the leaders of the PCF. An agreement negotiated by union leaders with close ties to the PCF was overwhelmingly rejected by workers at the end of May. The PCF leaders later disappeared from view and their absence paralyzed the movement. The government was able to then reassert itself and the PCF helped direct the movement off the streets and toward elections in which they lost more than 600,000 votes due to workers’ disappointment.

However, it’s utter nonsense to say, as the PCF did, that revolution was not possible because “all the ten million workers on strike” had not been “won to the ideas of a socialist revolution.” Leon Trotsky answered such arguments in his classic article “The Class, The Party, and the Leadership” written after the defeat of the the revolutionary movement in the Spanish state in 1936-1937:

“The historical falsification consists in this, that the responsibility for the defeat of the Spanish masses is unloaded on the working masses and not those parties which paralyzed or simply crushed the revolutionary movement of the masses.”

Trotsky wrote extensively about the role of leadership in the Russian Revolution, to date the only successful workers revolution in modern history. In the introduction to his History of the Russian Revolution, he writes: “The masses go into a revolution not with a prepared plan of social reconstruction, but with a sharp feeling that they cannot endure the old régime. Only the guiding layers of a class have a political program, and even this still requires the test of events, and the approval of the masses.”

But Trotsky was also at pains to stress that the central role of a tested revolutionary leadership in no way changes the fact that working class is the key force in its own liberation: “[leaders and parties] constitute not an independent, but nevertheless a very important, element in the process. Without a guiding organization, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam.” In fact, at key points in 1917, the masses were ahead of the ranks of the Bolsheviks who in turn were ahead of the majority of the party’s leadership.

Doyle writes about France 1968: “The French workers in their great mass wanted better conditions, big increases in wages, the eradication of slums, a decent education for their children, a massive boost in spending on social services, etc. At the same time they had instinctively understood that no matter what short term concessions were extracted from the capitalists, these would be snatched back unless a fundamental transformation of the situation was carried through.”

Later she continues, “The chief role of a revolutionary party in this situation is to imbue the masses with a sense of their own power, to make conscious what was already unconsciously at work in the minds of the masses. Unless a systematic and unswerving plan for the conquest of power is prepared and carried out in good season, an ebb will set in. The masses lose faith, begin to fall into indifference, and the forces of the counter-revolution begin to raise their heads.”

While there are obviously no guarantees that France ‘68 would have resulted in a successful revolution with a better and more determined leadership, the point is that the objective situation was not the key limitation. At the height of the movement, the working class was well organized and prepared to struggle; it had the vast majority of people on its side and the ruling class was split and unable to contain the crisis. The missing element was a revolutionary leadership with real roots in the working class. This lesson is crucial to draw out for the new generation attracted to socialist ideas today.

Skepticism Then And Now

As Clare Doyle points out, before the French general strike there was widespread skepticism about the possibility of working-class action on this scale, at least in the West. This flowed from the popular idea on the radical left in the 1960s that the working class had been “bought off” and revolutionary working-class movements in the West were ruled out for the foreseeable future. Just months before the outbreak of the movement in France, both Ralph Miliband’s Socialist Register – which in many ways is the forerunner of Jacobin – and leaders of the Fourth International, of which the LCR in France was part, made comments to the effect that such events were off the agenda.

Instead, many on the left in the 1960s looked to other forces including students and peasant-centered struggles in the neo-colonial world as the decisive force to challenge capitalism. This, in effect, meant that much of the “revolutionary left” had turned away from seeing the working class as the key force for changing society. The Marxists who founded the CWI and later Socialist Alternative in the U.S. left the Fourth International in 1964. They set out to build a new international organization of Marxists rooted in the working-class movement and defending the central role of the working class in the struggle for revolutionary change.

As Marxists, we believe the capitalist system in its early development represented an enormous step forward in the development of productive forces despite the enormous brutality entailed in early capital accumulation. However, capitalism now represents an absolute barrier in the development of human economy and society. Capitalism also creates the modern working class, the social force which can end savage exploitation and class oppression, or as Marx put it, capitalism’s “gravediggers.”

Through its ability to shut down the economy and to organize and implement a program for transforming society, it is the historical task of the working class to unite all those oppressed by this system, in reality the overwhelming majority of society, around a program for fundamental change.

This was posed in France. The heavy battalions of workers shut down the key industries of French capitalism and demonstrated how the organized working class was a powerful backbone for a revolutionary transformation of society.

The Working Class Today

Similarly to 1968, many on the left today have doubts about the revolutionary potential of the working class in the U.S. in 2018. This is understandable given the role of conservative trade union leaders in the past decades that have contributed to defeats for working people and a massive retreat of the labor movement. Some people question whether the working class is a key force for change at all given changes in the workplace. Manufacturing makes up a far smaller percentage of the workforce today than it did in the 1960s.

But contrary to those who say that globalization or automation have eliminated the American working class, it remains, without doubt, the majority of society. While the capitalist media is at pains to obscure this, just-in-time production, logistics hubs, and other large concentrations of workers, like in airports, show that the big corporations are vulnerable to collective action. Kim Moody’s 2017 book On New Terrain, points to the massive, continuing power of the U.S. working class, particularly in the logistics sector.

The biggest change in the U.S. working class in recent decades has actually been the massive growth of women and people of color in the workforce. This highlights how the struggle against racism and sexism are not separate from the struggle to build a united working-class movement against capitalism, but an integral part of it. Indeed it is is heavily female workforces, including nurses, teachers, fast-food workers, and now hotel workers who have been in the vanguard of recent struggles.

But the key issue is whether the working class moves from being an objective reality, a “class in itself” to being a force that sees its interests as counterposed to those of the capitalists and organizes to challenge their power. Since the Great Recession, working people in the U.S. have become keenly aware that the top 1% and even the top .01% have gained disproportionately while the bottom 99% and especially the bottom 50% are sliding backward.

There is massive anger at social inequality and the social crisis which faces large sections of the working class. There is a loss of faith in institutions and especially in the political establishment. There is a growing awareness that the future under capitalism promises endless inequality, automation replacing good jobs, and a developing climate catastrophe. In poor countries, wars, famines, and massive displacement of people are likely to intensify. Capitalism no longer pretends to offer a vision of a more abundant future for ordinary people.

The growing anger of working people and young people was reflected in the 2016 campaign of Bernie Sanders who called for a “political revolution against the billionaire class.” It is also reflected in the massive interest in socialism, especially among young people. This is continuing with the wave of “democratic socialist” candidates including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But in the absence of a political force that clearly represents the interests of the working class, the door was opened to the right populism of Donald Trump who also attacked “free trade” deals and proclaimed himself a champion of the working class. This has led to a dangerously reactionary regime which threatens to destroy any remaining gains made through past struggles by workers, women, and African Americans.

But until recently, working-class revolt was only expressed in a partial way and largely on the electoral plane. The retreat of organized labor continued – now down to less than 7% of private sector workers.

This is why the revolt of teachers in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado, and North Carolina is so important. There are important organizing drives among airport workers. In Missouri, voters defeated an anti-labor “right-to-work” law brought in by the Republicans by a two-to-one margin. In Europe, Amazon warehouse workers in three countries went on strike in July which could inspire workers in logistics here. McDonald’s workers went on strike against sexual harassment and now hotel workers have gone on strike in several cities. These are clear signs of a desire to fight. What is desperately needed is leadership and a new direction away from the failed approach of labor leaders of the past 30 years – their refusal to use militant tactics or to assert labor’s independent political interests. This also points to the need for a new political party based on the interests of working people. The next period will see real opportunities to take this critical step forward toward class independence.

The American working class has a rich tradition of struggle over the past 150 years. In the 1930s and ‘40s, powerful multiracial industrial unions were built using bold tactics including local general strikes and workplace occupations (“sit-down” strikes). Black workers were the driving force of the civil rights movement which brought down Jim Crow in the South in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Working-class women were the driving force in changing chauvinist attitudes in the ‘60s and ‘70s as part of massive rank-and-file labor upsurge.

Undoubtedly, the recent resurgence of labor struggle is inspiring a new generation to look to organizing workers as a key part of fighting for a different future. The key question for socialists is whether capitalism can be reformed and the working-class movement should restrict itself to mobilizing as an auxiliary to gradual transformation carried out by socialist politicians from above, or whether a working-class movement will need to be built on a perspective of revolutionary change from below. This isn’t just a question just for the future but informs what we do today.

In this regard, the debate over the meaning of France ‘68 foreshadows important debates to come about the future of the socialist and working class movement. Month of Revolution is an important contribution to those debates today and should be read by all socialists in the U.S.

[berniesrevolution]

Amid raging California wildfires, rising sea levels, and a sudden wave of Democratic power in Congress, the idea of a Green New Deal to create millions of new jobs combating the climate crisis is surging.

In her first day of orientation as a new member of Congress, on November 13, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stood with around 200 protesters in Representative Nancy Pelosi’s office demanding just such a deal in the upcoming Congress. “This is about uplifting the voice and the message of the fact that we need a Green New Deal and we need to get to 100 percent renewables because our lives depend on it,” she told reporters outside Pelosi’s office.

As news of the protest proliferated, Pelosi soon backed the move via Twitter, albeit in general terms. “Deeply inspired by the young activists & advocates leading the way on confronting climate change. The climate crisis threatens the futures of communities nationwide,” wrote Pelosi. Despite Pelosi’s friendly words, 51 young Sunrise Movement activists were arrested and later released.

Since then, Sunrise Movement, which has been waging feisty actions to propel the Green New Deal forward, has kept up the momentum—and the pressure. On November 19, Sunrise activists in Rhode Island disrupted a speech by Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez, demanding that party leaders “pledge and adopt a #GreenNewDeal into the party platform.” Today, hundreds of young people will be fanning out across the country, protesting at congressional representatives’ offices, as part of a national day of action.

Support for a Green New Deal is building, both on the streets and inside Congress. In the past week, nearly a dozen members of the House—mostly newcomers like Representative Rashida Tlaib, but also a handful of sitting representatives like Ro Khanna, John Lewis, and Jared Huffman—have backed a proposal by Ocasio-Cortez for a select committee for a Green New Deal. This committee would be tasked with drafting a 10-year green jobs and infrastructure plan to radically reduce carbon emissions while expanding living-wage jobs. As detailed on Ocasio-Cortez’s website, “The select committee shall have authority to develop a detailed national, industrial, economic mobilization plan…for the transition of the United States economy to become carbon neutral and to significantly draw down and capture greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and oceans.”

It’s an ambitious plan and an inspiring one, even as questions abound: What exactly would this Green New Deal look like? Will Democrats and their leadership make this blend of environmental salvation and economic justice a top priority and lend it all their political will? Or will they remain far behind the climate-change curve, soft-pedaling moderate reforms? And even if they push it forward, what’s Plan B when the Republicans stifle it in the Senate?

As the Green New Deal hoopla builds, it’s important to understand what it actually means. More than a decade in the making, the Green New Deal has many iterations, spanning from technocratic to transformational. It’s a giant policy bucket that includes “clean tech” job incentives and credits, energy-system overhaul, massive expansion of renewable energy, green urban public works, agroforestry, and more.

The immense potential of green jobs is well-documented. According to a 2018 report by Data for Progress, an expansive plan could generate “10 million new jobs over 10 years” through a mix of employment and training programs. In fact, one study, by the International Trade Union Confederation, estimates that “spending 2 percent of annual GDP on the green economy could create over 15 million green jobs in 5 years.”

For sheer job creation, green economy and clean energy production far outflank fossil fuels, the report found that “In 2017, there were 800,000 Americans employed in low-carbon emission generation technologies, and 2.25 million employed in energy efficiency. This compares to only 92,000 for coal-fired generation.” Solar industry jobs “have grown 168 percent over the past seven years.”

These jobs run the gamut from “entry-level” to highly trained work and include everything from tree planting and building weatherization to wetlands restoration, sustainable agriculture and soil restoration and modernizing and expanding renewable energy grids. Refuting facile stereotypes of green jobs as an elite privilege, a 2016 Brookings Institution report concluded, “The clean economy offers more opportunities and better pay for low- and middle-skilled workers than the national economy as a whole.”

(Continue Reading)

[antoine-roquentin]

Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) said he and some other Republicans are committed to backing Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for Speaker if she agrees to enact a package of rule reforms.

Reed, co-chairman of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, said the growing frustration with gridlock, polarization and a top-heavy leadership approach in Congress are the reasons why several members in his party are willing to supply Pelosi with some Speaker votes in exchange for extracting an overhaul of the House rules.

“I would be willing, as a Republican on the floor of the House, to support a Speaker candidate, including Nancy Pelosi, who supports these rule reforms,” Reed said at an event for The Hill sponsored by American University's School of Public Affairs and the Kennedy Political Union.

“There are other members that are as committed as I am to this on the Republican side that are willing to do that. But I’ll let them address it individually,” he added.

“That’s a big deal!” interjected Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Reed’s fellow co-chairman on the Problem Solvers Caucus.

Pelosi is fiercely working to line up as many votes as possible as she seeks to reclaim the Speaker’s gavel, with a vocal group of insurgents plotting to take her down. The group claims to have more than 20 lawmakers willing to vote against her on the House floor, which would be enough to block her accession.

But at a jam-packed press conference at the Capitol on Thursday, Pelosi said she has the votes, right now, to win the gavel on the floor with only Democratic support. And she said she would refuse any offers of help from the Republicans.

“Oh, please,” she said. “No, never.”

“I intend to win the Speakership with Democratic votes,” she said.

If some Republicans cross the aisle and back Pelosi for Speaker, they will have some cover from the White House. A day after Republicans' midterm drubbing, Trump endorsed Pelosi for Speaker and even suggested some Republicans should vote for her, though some have speculated that he just wants to have the GOP’s most well-known foil atop the Democratic caucus.

“In all fairness, Nancy Pelosi deserves to be chosen Speaker of the House by Democrats,” Trump tweeted last week. “If they give her a hard time, perhaps we will add some Republican votes. She has earned this great honor!”

Any Republican who votes for Pelosi on the House floor would be sure to face fierce criticism on the right and could open themselves up to a primary challenge. Reed acknowledged the tough situation, calling it “bizarro world.”

But Republicans could opt to just vote “present” on the floor, which could help give Pelosi the gavel by lowering the overall threshold she needs to clinch it.

Meanwhile, nine Democrats have vowed to withhold their support for Pelosi — or any other Speaker nominee — unless the candidate commits, in writing, to certain changes in House rules designed to empower rank-and-file lawmakers.

Pelosi huddled with Democrats from the Problem Solvers Caucus on Wednesday to discuss their proposed rules package, with Gottheimer saying Pelosi was receptive to the changes. Pelosi is now crafting her own proposal that will outline what she is willing to commit to, which she is expected to send to the caucus next week.

remember, voting totally matters

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Last Wednesday, two U.S. representatives — Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida and Democratic Rep. Ben McAdams of Utah — tested positive for the new coronavirus. And over the weekend, GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he had tested positive. In total, nearly 30 House members are at some stage of self-quarantine and five senators are self-quarantining.

The outbreak of the coronavirus on Capitol Hill has underscored just how ill-equipped Congress is to govern when its members cannot be physically present. Already five Senate Republicans had to miss Sunday’s vote to pass an emergency economic stimulus package because they were quarantined. And if more members become unable to appear in the Senate or House chambers, we could eventually see a struggle to achieve an in-person quorum.

Technically, the Constitution only requires the Senate and House to have a majority of members present to establish a quorum to pass legislation, but both chambers have rules that require senators and representatives to be physically present to cast votes. Leadership in both chambers also largely oppose allowing members to vote without being physically present, but this hasn’t stopped some legislators from renewing calls for remote voting.

In the Senate, Democratic Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Republican Sen. Rob Portman introduced a resolution to allow for remote voting for up to 30 days under extraordinary circumstances. After that, the measure could be extended if three-fifths of the Senate votes in favor.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed opposition, telling reporters last week, “We will deal with the social distancing issue without fundamentally changing Senate rules.” The Senate has tweaked its procedures to increase the amount of time allotted for each vote so that fewer senators have to be on the floor at the same time, but at this point, it hasn’t made moves toward any larger overhauls.

In the House, Democratic Reps. Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell of California and Republican Rep. Van Taylor of Texas have asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to adopt rules for remote voting, and more than 50 members have signed onto the request. There isn’t a specific piece of legislation attached to the letter, but Pelosi did ask House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern to examine the issue, and on Monday the committee released a memo reviewing possible adjustments to voting procedures. It sounded a dubious note on the use of remote voting, but was more supportive of proxy voting — whereby an absent member has another member vote on her behalf — which has precedent in the House and Senate (the Senate allows proxy voting in committee).

The memo’s opposition to remote voting lines up with the views of the House leadership. Pelosi has said privately that she opposes remote voting, though the House is planning to alter its voting procedure in some way. McCarthy is also skeptical, particularly about how remote voting would work with parliamentary motions, which may require members to interject quickly to be heard.

To better understand the stakes of Congress voting remotely, I spoke with two legal experts — one in favor of such a step and the other opposed. Daniel Hemel, a professor at the University of Chicago School of Law and proponent of remote voting, stressed to me that there is nothing in the Constitution stopping Congress from allowing members to cast votes from afar.

Yes, the Constitution requires a quorum for the Senate and House to conduct business, but it doesn’t say anything about lawmakers having to be physically present. That requirement comes from chamber rules, which Hemel argues could be rewritten to allow for remote voting in crisis situations. While there might be security concerns, Hemel pointed out that corporate boards permit videoconferencing to count toward a quorum, so it’s unclear why Congress would be incapable of using a similar system to conduct its business.

If remote voting isn’t adopted, Hemel suggested COVID-19 could cause other problems too. “You can imagine a circumstance where one party actually gets a majority because the other party is more affected,” said Hemel, which could create concerns about the long-term legitimacy of votes taken in such circumstances.

Case in point: All five senators currently quarantined are Republican, which has reduced the GOP’s edge in the Senate from 53-47 to 48-47. This has already affected the party’s ability to advance an economic stimulus bill on Sunday, although even without the quarantine, Republicans would have needed some Democratic votes to move forward because of cloture rules, and both sides voted the party line. Still, we can see how abstentions due to health concerns could make it difficult for lawmakers to weigh in on vital issues down the line.

But Joshua Huder, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, worries that remote voting could make it easier for leadership to ride roughshod over their party’s legislators. “We’re already at a place where party leaders have outsized control over the policymaking process,” said Huder. “When the rank-and-file aren’t around for the backroom deals and negotiations, you create a legislature that’s a rubber stamp for what the leaders want to pass.”

Huder didn’t rule out using alternate voting systems in a crisis, suggesting that members could remain in Washington and call in from their offices. But he did worry that remote voting would reduce face-to-face interactions, inevitably cutting down on members’ chances to make personal connections, which could exacerbate the divides that already exist in Washington. He also said it’s possible this could establish a precedent where remote voting was used in non-crisis situations because it becomes “a long-term or permanent solution through which Congress is going to pass legislation.”

Still, if the coronavirus crisis keeps getting worse in the U.S., there will be a lot of pressure on Congress — including from its own members — to make changes. “At a time when we’re asking Americans to make huge sacrifices to stop the spread of COVID-19, it is bad leadership for our politicians to then make none of those adjustments themselves,” said Hemel.