marahmarie: So you said you wanted a cookie... (dark side)
2017-08-19 12:32 am
Entry tags:

COME TO THE DARK SIDE STEVE WE HAVE COOKIES!!!

Darkness Is Good is gone, though no one seems able to figure how that came to be: 1,040,000 Google results pronounce HE'S FIRED while 1,360,000 Google results suggest he resigned - twice (the first time effective Aug. 14th, but in the uproar over Charlottesville I guess he forgot to take himself out the door, though it sounds like once things calmed down Kelly reminded him to pack his bags).

Though my title invites him to switch sides and come swing from the branches with us, we're more likely to collectively win Powerball tomorrow night - without buying tickets - than for him to switch sides, so yeah, surely I jest. Anyhow, he claims he's not racist and Orangado likes to echo him on that for whatever reason (they'd poll better as avowed and even belligerent "racists" with their be-all, end-all base, don'tcha think?) but with the mouth on him he's got, he can go pound sand.

He who indirectly brought an entire right-wing, white nationalist so-called "news" agency into the Oval Office - along with the first program to ever essentially automate a president's tweets, speeches, news conferences and rally notes - surely won't be too sorely missed, and while I'll let bygones be bygones, I won't forget his every-weekend mayhem-wrecking of earlier this year, and neither will the liquor store where I get the vodka I started drinking because of it.

On "the first program to ever automate a president's tweets, speeches, news conferences and rally notes", thank Bannon for working with - and for Trump being funded by - billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah. Cambridge Analytica does more damage to the Republican electorate - as low-information, conspiracy-embracing, false-danger-sensing and Faux Noize-prone as it is - than they could do to themselves.

And Bannon used it - this is my personal belief - to shape and script Trump's every public engagement, no matter how big or small. The general gist of his words was given to him daily by Bannon, after he distilled CA's results down into bullet points which he fed to Trump along with his well-done steaks and McDonald's.

That's my theory. But I have a strong hunch - beyond a hunch, I'd say I'm almost certain - that it's so, after Bannon's last words on that (and trust me, they were on that): "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over". Does he say why? No. Does he drop hints? Sure. Try this (emphasis mine): "[...] that presidency is over. It'll be something else. And there'll be all kinds of fights, and there'll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over" and: ""There's about to be a jailbreak of these moderate guys on the Hill" — a stream of Republican dissent, which could become a flood."

When "asked what the turning point was" he blamed moderate Republicans, but the truth is without the messaging Cambridge Analytica gave him to advise Trump with, to keep the dude "on point" with his base, Trump will be like a little boy who can't find his way back home for the lost puppy he keeps chasing after in the woods.

To see why, you need only know how Cambridge Analytica works*: it uses deep data mining and polls social media for "likes" (the ubiquitous "thumbs-up"), then matches those data points against a "predictive personality model" to find its preferred targets. Right now it prefers right-leaning targets, but it could just as easily be programmed to prefer leftists or florists or Jehovah's Witnesses. As it finds new targets, it learns what each of them wants to see, watch, read and think about, then carefully spoons them more of the same, after tailoring it to their specific interests down to the most granular level. Think a bespoke Facebook or bespoke Twitter.

Which is how just one right-winger browsing Facebook might see video of a man arrested for flying a kite over, say, his state's (Democratic) governor's mansion last week that none of his Facebook friends will ever see because he in particular has shown a strong passion for kites, a strong dislike of Democrats, and happens to live in the same state where the criminal kite-flying occurred.

What CA does is reinforce each target's existing beliefs with more of the same until their thought processes are impossible to budge...almost like learning by rote. The end result is you take the base you want, shape it into the one you find the easiest to handle with the least amount of massaging, then use what you receive from the echo chamber you've created to target it even more repeatedly from within the Oval Office, on Twitter and Facebook, at rallies and pressers, or wherever. It's a brilliant, though insidiously awful, product.

And I'm making it sort of easy to grasp (I've read between 5-10 hours worth of articles over the last year in order to distill it down this much) but the sausage-making that goes into Cambridge Analytica is actually crazy-complicated, though suffice it to say, it works. It works almost too well. It's a form of AI which Mercer money - basically endless - has built into one of the best content and message-tailoring platforms on Earth.

Without it - assuming Bannon used it to influence Trump as much as I suspect he did, and that he pulled it for use in the Oval Office shortly before he was canned or resigned - Orangado will indeed soon be up the proverbial creek without his most precise, content-targeting paddle. But just as he said of Bannon: "We'll see what happens!"

*: Updated this paragraph shortly after posting to describe a bit better how Cambridge Analytica works.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-17 01:45 am
Entry tags:

Conservatives must stand by silently to finish the destruction of the poor and middle class

Poor conservatives, they've got it so tough: they just want to finish ruining life for Poors and the already-gutted middle class but the chief citrus fruit juggler just keeps getting in the way.

Hell they care about some neo-Nazi/KKK fluff, they've got healthcare to eviscerate, taxes to delete for the rich, a minimum wage to abolish, and an environment to finish fucking up, and you wanna talk to them about white nationalism when the hell they care. They are white nationalism. Enough said.

Stepping back into my usual form (I'm about to lose it again, so no worries) you all know how I've hammered on and on and on and on and and on in post after post how Trump voters are just one big, closeted pile of slithering, slimy, silent majority racists? And how at least a few of you, how many times now, inwardly clucked to yourselves that I'm wrong and this could not possibly be the case because like, white people want low taxes, too, so how exactly does that make somebody a fucking racist again?

Fine. Like the head orange peeler, I'm feeling a bit on edge tonight myself, so let's go:

A HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted after the Charlottesville unrest (but before Mr Trump's Tuesday press conference) could also give clues as to why conservatives are taking pause. Fully 77% of Trump voters think the president "did enough" to condemn white nationalist violence in Charlottesville. Two-thirds of them had no problem with the president's delay in mentioning neo-Nazis and white supremacists by name.

Perhaps most remarkably, 48% of Trump voters think the Charlottesville white nationalists either "have a point" (37%) or were "mostly right" (11%). And 68% of Trump voters see "a lot of discrimination" against white people in the US.

Let's look at this again: "Fully 77% of Trump voters think the president "did enough"" to condemn white nationalist violence. So almost 80% of the citrus-eating electorate thinks saying both sides are to blame was like him getting on his knees in contrition for what haters of all stripes think they should do in his name. In other words, they just don't care.

And two-thirds (66%) thought it was fine he waited two days to get tired of Ivanka berating him over the nasty thing he said over the weekend, so to appease her, since they can't (but he definitely wishes they could) do the nasty, he read from a dry and meaningless statement that he didn't write, didn't think over beforehand, and didn't give one flying leap about - not to judge by his brain-dead delivery of it on Monday that - while condemning neo-Nazis and KKK because Ivanka and Jared are probably about ready to flee the country, still failed to condemn the very hate rally ringleaders responsible for what happened.

There was just enough to make Ivanka smile again. No more, no less. Just enough.

But that's cool: 66% of those low-information and truth-aversive enough to vote for him thought waiting two days to make an appease-the-left fake offering was great, because why should he have to pander to fuckin' libruls anyhow? How's Murca gonna be great again if we gotta kiss the asses of every fucking ___ and ___ and _____ and ___ in this country every time we just wanna exercise our free rights to speech? See, Bessy, that's why we gotta keep our guns at hand, you know Bummer almost took 'em away before those FEMA camps he was runnin' got shut down...yeah, woman, that's right - coulda been us, that's what I'm sayin'... *swigs beer*

He also quite glaringly failed to condemn himself for making such a brooding atmosphere of hate possible, an atmosphere that would've receded back into the shadows where it fucking belongs had he simply not had a victory which the entire intelligence community blames on Russian interference - not sufficient votes necessary to win - Russian interference, making him the first and only illegitimate orange drink this country's ever had.

And 48% of our Google manifesto-supporting friends think "white nationalists" - rabid non-white haters, to use the normal English term here - "have a point" or "are mostly right". About what? A monument? Violence against non-white/non-Nazi/non-KKK/non-male demonstrators? Shouting Jewish, racial, homophobic and misogynistic slurs? Did shouting slurs at people who don't look like, or have the same parts or tendencies as them prove their "point"? If so, what was it? "We hate anyone who isn't a white man", was that it? Whatever it might be, 48% of people think they agree with it. Presumably they're not all white or men, so go orange eaters, upholding the palest of patriarchies nor for any good reason, but simply because they can.

"And 68% of Trump voters see "a lot of discrimination" against white people in the US." And I'll bet about 70% of them voted for Trump! So tell me again why these motherfuckers aren't racists, and didn't vote for him simply because they are, while I stop my ears up with my fingers and sing "La la la la I'm not listening" like a two year old, because fuck you, that's why.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-10 12:36 am
Entry tags:

I stand with my LGBTQIA friends both known and unknown to me, all over the world

As a straight, cis, white girl I'm indebted to the LGBTQIA community for my ability to continue Anti-AOL when it was just starting out, when I didn't always know what to do with it or myself, because some members would drop in during my lowest moments and bolster my strength and my belief in it and make me think that I could do it. For that, I never thanked them properly or enough.

I don't know why they came to my blog: I had no visible political or other affiliations that would attract them to my cause, discussed nothing related to theirs, and on my personal blog was quite open and public about being a girly girl (I have quirks - like how I write, not to mention how I think and see the world - that make me believe I'm more androgyne than traditionally femme, but that's another story, and doesn't really matter, as I don't know if it attracted the LGBTQIA crowd to my blog or not).

But because they came to me in numbers here and there over the years and lent me their support (emails, comments, linkbacks, information, online friendships) and were there for me in a way that, to this day, most straight people are not, my gratitude was total. I don't forget kindness, and they took the time to show it to me even at my lowest points, often when absolutely no one else would.

So, though I have no offline LGBTQIA friendships, (thanks to a mostly sheltered life) and though I'm not one to bring up LGBTQIA issues too often, I have no reason not to, and often feel like I can and should do more. In the meantime, I'd like everyone to know that I will stand by the LGBTQIA community, that I consider all of you my friends and compatriots in every battle for justice and equality, and that because I believe women's rights are human rights, I don't think of what I go through as a woman without thinking of every one of you and how you often go through so much more.

In that spirit, I'd like to present a few things that are bothering me - and am hoping I'll stay more up to date in the future on sharing what's going on in the fight for LGBTQIA and women's rights.

Firstly, in the spirit of putting someone in charge of an agency who is known to hate it, who wants to dismantle it - like DeathStar Bannon (administrative state deconstructionist), Suer Polluter Pruitt (EPA disassembler) and Gun For Grizzly DeVos (public education destroyer) - now we have Bethany Kozma, an "anti-transgender activist" (gender equality gutter). I know nothing about her except her official title: "senior adviser for women's empowerment". My ass.

Anyone not empowering LGBTQIA is not empowering women. Period. I could go on about how fluid gender and sexual orientation are, not just for some but many of us, how dumb it is to make assumptions based on birth gender, current or desired appearance, admonitions in the Bible or from parents, teachers or communities, and the state-directed propaganda that is the purulence of Trump and his base, but I get why not being a scaredycat phobic bigot is in humanity's best interest, and I'm just preaching to the choir.

This regime does all it can to feed its ignorant base, as they have no quarter anywhere else, while the majority of us watch horrified as they undo the very tenets of treating each other with respect and kindness.

In the run-up to Trump's latest base-baiting, a GOP Congresswoman named Vicky Hartzler, "[f]resh off a committee hearing where she introduced (and withdrew) an amendment banning transgender people from serving in the military", was quoted as saying: "At a time when we should be focusing on the threats from North Korea, and Putin, and ISIS, we’re having to deal with a threat here at home — a domestic threat — of allowing transgenders [sic] in our service [...]".

As though filing and withdrawing her hate bill and spouting this horseshit was not enough, a month later Trump picked up where she left off by barring transgender from the military. Though he phrased his twit (yes, he actually tweeted an order) as though the ban went into effect immediately just because he'd twitted it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (after Trump claimed he'd already consulted them) denied having any knowledge of it. Then the military announced transgender individuals can still serve - at least for now - as they refuse to discharge anyone without an actual policy in place.

On the same day Trump issued his ban, the Justice Department, without invitation, jumped in on a private lawsuit to argue employers are allowed to fire people for being gay - threatening rights assumed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act - and the regime appointed infamous anti-gay rights activist Sam Brownback as "international religious freedom" propagandist.

Today we have news (that I didn't know of until I searched Google for the links above) that The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) are representing five active duty transgender service members in the lawsuit Doe vs. Trump, aimed at ending Trump's ban because it's unconstitutional. I hope they prevail. If the ban is indeed unconstitutional, then there's no reason why they shouldn't.

In the meantime there are lessons here, going back to what kind of person Trump apparently became in 2015 to play to his intolerant base. Because I'm a New Yorker and grew up hearing about Trump's antics, it irritates me when people say: "Oh, you should've known you can't trust Trump" on LGBTQIA issues. To us - to typical city and outer borough New Yorkers - it sounds kind of nuts, because we had him pegged as the typical showy, pro-abortion liberal who hung out with gays and celebrities, as one does, so we might have thought he was merely putting on the "conservative" act. To fit in. To win.

While one can rest assured he's not pretending - because if it ever was an act, it's become all too real, be it to play to his rotten base, for his own financial gain, to prevail in the 2020 race, to impress his beloved Putin with shows of similar "values", or whatever - after observing him in New York, many of us assumed he'd be just a little more bendy around the edges in respect to LGBTQIA issues than he's actually turned out to be.

Instead he's taken such a harsh stance against LGBTQIA that I have no doubt that without Ivanka around for him to impress, things might be worse - LGBTQIA might be more routinely persecuted; the office of Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment might not exist; civil rights might be completely off the table by now, so...it's not going to be easy out there, and anyone with a more upbeat prediction than that is likely just kidding themselves.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-08 02:15 am
Entry tags:

GOOGbye, asswipe!

I'm so glad to see this dude go, there are no words. Except for these words, in order of the sheer, stereoscopic brightness of my outrage:

Let's not stereotype the stereotyping, now

First paragraph: "and [I] don’t endorse using stereotypes." Last paragraph - actually a bullet point (emphasis mine): "Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

So he doesn't endorse using stereotypes though they are sooooooo accurate aren't they for real so why aren't we using them to train Google employees, already? but hey, he's gotta be politically correct, so he denies in the face of all his carefully hand-crafted evidence to the contrary that they should be used to train people, or something.

You have to consider how insidiousness the creepy-crawly, "I'm not really picking your pocket so stop yelling at me to give your wallet back"-ness of him is, and I'm only up to the first offending snippets.

He thinks stereotypes are bang-on, perfect representations of everyone he thinks fits into one, so much so that they should be used, in his opinion, to teach Google employees how to do their jobs, which to his mind, all involve ceaseless stereotyping in order to succeed. Then he claims he would never "endorse" or "advocate" the use of stereotypes, but hey wait, he just did.

Don't alienate the aliens, now

Some bullet point, way in: "Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require [SIC! Not proofreading your lousy manifesto is NOT a good example of "conscientiousness"!] for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company."

OK, where to start: Bart here has a lot to say about conservatives. He thinks they're more conscientious, a bullshit opinion which he's confused with "obedience to authoritarian dictatorships", which is "not hardly" the same thing, self-sic sic sic. The conscientiousness he so prizes is "self-reported" in most studies that have been done.

Conservatives also self-report being "less open", "less exploratory", and "less open to change"...they're crashing bores, in other words, who are literally (not just self-reported) afraid of everything.

Not the folks I'd want chatting me up at my next dinner party; maybe the ones I'd leave in the yard with "gun for grizzly" to calm dear old Betsy, cowering away inside.

Don't be evil? Heh...don't be "agreeable", now

Some paragraph, way in: "In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable [SIC!] than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women..."

One sentence at a time: "humans are generally biased towards protecting females". Obviously he's not kept up with history, be it ancient (Viking women) or current (female Israeli soldiers; women serving in the US military and fighting for combat spots even as we speak).

"this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men." Eh, uh...no. Women are "generally more cooperative and areeable" because historically speaking, if we aren't, we can be hurt emotionally, physically and economically or even killed just over not being "nice enough". But even given all that, I take offense at the idea that I should be agreeable just because I have parts the author doesn't and vice versa. It isn't part of my "just being me" job description, kthanksbai.

"We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women"....OK, yeah, because? Because men have dominated every arena of public and private life since this country started, so having programs to "protect" us - like having programs to "protect" other vulnerable people - is necessary only because of the inborn privilege men have been inoculated with for hundreds of years to confer them with immunity from competition with us.


It goes on and on - for literally ten pages - but I think I've unloaded the worst of my wrath at this point. Knowing he was fired is the least it will take to smooth over the very real damage he's caused thousands of people with his tired, low-res, 100% recycled (tell me conservatives aren't going green!) claptrap. Don't miss the part where he co-opts our "safe spaces" by calling PC culture "psychologically unsafe" because conservatives are just big, soft, supermelty snowflakes, too!

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-04 01:45 am
Entry tags:

Survey says...

In-house SurveySpot poll tonight asking: I think Donald Trump is...a brilliant leader (29%)| a buffoon (71%)

Bwahahahaha

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-07-13 03:33 am
Entry tags:

Oklahoma just flipped two seats from red to blue. Go....

Oklahoma, for helping us gain at least four seats so far this year.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-07-01 04:37 am
Entry tags:

If you overdose a third time just die

The choice that's always preferred over raising taxes: three overdose strikes and you're out. Also, layoffs. Because he'll take dead bodies and heartbroken families, friends, neighbors, co-workers and communities to any living bodies moping around without a job.

Are we talking a Republican saying this (party affiliation isn't mentioned, so I don't know, but a dig through any available voter records might be in order)? Sounds about right, in that case...

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-07-01 12:31 am

White House and Justice Department purging voter rolls (updated 7-1-17 w/more issues)

Not a good look for this increasingly banana republic administration.

I also don't think that's entirely what they're up to. What I think they're also doing is compiling a list of every registered non-Republican voter. Go figure what they might do with it. Germany made some lists back in the 30s, and look how that turned out.

And if you think I'm just being paranoid, I'll indicate, much like the governor of Mississippi already has, which bridge you might go visit. The Gulf is great this time of year, lemme tell you.

My only other advice (and it's sad for being so little, so late) besides get your birth certificates, passports, and naturalization papers in order: the banana republic is looking hard at dual enrollment - amongst many, many other things - so if you're dual (or triple, or quadruple, or whatever) enrolled (in other words, if you might be on the voter rolls in more than one state) you should probably do something about it.

It's very late to say so; I'm simply hoping Kobach and his minions can't check the voter rolls that fast. While I might recall from past things I've read on him that he has some sort of automated software to look through voter rolls with *(he does; more at bottom asterisk), there might be a window (likely not more than a few days) in which you can get un-enrolled where you need to. I don't know if it'll help (you might still get purged) but if you fix what you can now, it might be proved down the road that your voting rights should be restored.

People should keep a careful eye on what comes out of this. Look out for your own registration however you can.

And not to strike fear into everyone, but the banana republic's formally requested not just any publicly available voter information, but every last bit states can or will provide (and the Justice Department will be suing states that refuse to provide it). The information requested includes information that violates our privacy (party affiliation, voting history, military status, dual citizenship, felon status - some of this in violation of the 1974 federal Privacy Act) and risks our financial security (name, address, last four digits of Social Security number).

I've seen unsourced reports that the nature of Kobach's voter record's request (which is to be completed by email, btw!) can also force states that collect such information to pass along voter's phone numbers and email addresses, and that giving any voter information to the federal government makes the information a matter of public record, but I need to check into that a bit more.

*The NYTimes, at the link above, might be referring in error to the software as "Birth Link". The best-known version of Kobach's voter registration cross-checking system is the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, which Rolling Stone covered in-depth last August.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-06-29 09:58 am
Entry tags:

The real reason right-leaners want you to die without health insurance is...(updated 6-30-17)

From personal experience with some of them (mostly older, working class white men, but not that much older...I'm talking like 45-60 years old) I can say the whole problem, according to how they've gone out of their way to explain it to me, is they're owed whatever perks they get out of life because they work for them and you don't. I've had them tell me so with a straight face even while I was "working for it" just as hard as they were, no if, ands, or buts.

Pointing out I am (or have, or was, or will be again, depending on my situation when we had these conversations) "working for it" just as hard as they were would only lead them to point out that if I ever qualified for or used government entitlements to do anything, like not die of a tooth infection or perhaps not starve for lack of food, then I'm lifelong disqualified from ever bothering the hard-working Murcan taxpayers again.

Simple as that.

I've often wondered how when my work history gets put up against theirs, mine gets erased on the spot for having been supplemented at any point in time. I can be working, but if there's even a whiff of an EBT card on me as I walk by, I'm disqualified from having any perks of American life, like eating or not dying for lack of funds to pay in full at time of visit, so I should go quietly lie in a gutter so as not to bother hard-working folks like them who deserve better than to subsidize me.

Not only am I disqualified, but they want everyone to know they're getting robbed. Not just by me or people like me who've ever leaned on their hard-working taxpayer dollars for a single moment, but by everybody. It's classic that everyone's using them for something: Their employer's using them by overworking their bodies, minds or both for too many hours and not enough pay; their government's using them by making them pay a single dime in taxes for anyone else's existence; everything is described in terms of their financial martyrdom to others.

They keep paychecks to themselves even if their wives or SOs aren't working and have little to no other sources of income; tend to overspend on their kids, then complain the kids are taking advantage and aren't turning out as hoped; tend to overspend on themselves and not week by week, but day by day, then claim it's only because they deserve to have nice things for all the hard work they do and the upholding of the American welfare state that they're personally financing. Not you. Them.

Then they'll complain of being unable to buy groceries or their next beer or whatever, not before another payday rolls around (when it's just Tuesday) and I'll think to myself, "You said you "deserved" all this high-life horseshit; I see where it gets you" because another thing is they seem to think they're rolling in dough even if they make maybe less than (or at most) $20 an hour, yet they talk - and spend money - like the gold-plated toilet is in the bathroom right in back of the living room in their trailer with the 70-inch financed TV hanging up on the wall.

I don't know what drives them. They're usually too incoherent and/or emotionally chaotic to get to the bottom of that. I prefer it when people state their rationales calmly, clearly, sans overly-divisive emotions, but these folks can't do any of that, because their emotions carry their rationales clear out into the Twilight Zone faster than you can hope to know why. I don't know if right-leaning women act or live similarly, but even when I've known these men's spouses, they were polite enough to not quite batter me to death with their opinions - then again, I'd catch them using more bigoted language and higher-strung defenses than the men did in private conversation that did not involve, or include, me.

These men I'm speaking of also had or have randomly volcanic tempers (the worst kind, in other words) and were usually in the throes of strongly denying being wracked by multiple addictions, so whether their other halves went along out of fear of riling them or out of a genuine shared hatred and a feeling of being put-upon and used by the rest of Murca is or was not clear.

Where I'm going with this is, I see a lot of people try to explain the cruelty of yanking people's insurance or Medicaid (or at other times, welfare or food stamps) by saying their thought process must go something like this: "I got mine, so screw you". But that's not entirely it. It's some, but not all of it.

It's more like: "I got mine - and I worked hard for it and the rest of you didn't, or wouldn't if given the chance - so screw you". I can't overstate how martyred they are over having to go to work each day, and pay taxes, and not go fuck up the rest of Murca for putting them through so much for so little, because Murca is literally (to their minds, and to a person) financed on their backs, and their backs are hurtin' so they just want to sit back and collect like "the rest of y'all do", but "you" are "sucking off" them, so they can't* (more on that at asterick).

So if you can't afford health care then that means you either aren't working (or aren't working hard enough), weren't working (or weren't working hard enough) or might not work in the future (or might not work hard enough) and you'll never work as hard as they do, because no one does, so you don't deserve it. They've paid for you long enough, and will pay for everyone like you long enough, so screw you, because they got theirs and they shouldn't have to pay for yours.

I'm mentioning this so you'll get why some working class people (and working class white men, in particular) vote and even literally think in ways that clearly work against their own interests: because their perceptions are skewed in unhealthy and even hateful ways, though they don't see it as hateful so much as they see themselves as taken advantage of by nearly everyone, and especially by the poor. Of course, their self-regard doesn't match the reality in any but the most passing of ways, but let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story, as I often told them, myself. :)

For another, I'm trying to gird people for when the Senate not only rams their Wealthcare bill through about one second past midnight July 5th (or whenever; every time I check the deadline changes again), and then all your working class neighbors erupt in cheers and threaten to wipe every last poor off the face of the Earth if they don't go and just fucking die of something already. Expect both things to occur pretty much in tandem. It's not just rich, white men who want it this way: it's some of their lower class cohorts, too.

We could get into "why" but in fact, another reason I'm posting this is for the sociological aspects of it that might be studied or looked at by others. I want to spread as much fodder as I can and this post adds a little to hopefully figuring out what makes the more cruelly right-leaning tick, though I can't explain much of that myself.

I can only tell you what I know: the few I'm acquainted with aren't thoroughly educated but seem to know everything; have mostly dead-end jobs; not only expect but often demand that their opinion be deferred to; claim they're not prejudiced but complain of every non-white, non-citizen and non-binary group "taking advantage" and "working the system"; have poor attitudes toward women, LGBTQIA, immigrants and non-whites in general; watch FOX News, rock multiple addictions, and have had either missing or exploitative and cruel fathers. Maybe the last two (multiple addictions; bad fathers) are not the norm for most right-leaning people, but either way I'm throwing it out there.

The last part (bad fathers) makes me think they grew up seeing themselves as victims, so the idea that they're being victimized by The Other somehow naturally gets woven through their lives. But with or without any benefit or perk from working, their attitude remains the same: they finance Murca, you don't, so go away.

*Oh, but yes they can. Let's check the hypocrisy of them spending their whole lives shoving anti-poor militancy down everyone's throats, then collecting whatever benefits they can when hard times come along for them. It's happened. One time I was informed of it by the person's son, who laughed because he knew just how stridently "anti-welfare state" his dad was. Though I'd known him about 15 years, still he told me to my face his "family" was helping him through his hard times. We're his "family", folks.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-06-27 12:54 am

Link'ems

Politics

Amazon

  • Amazon now offers reduced fee Prime membership - $5.99 per month for low income earners. "Normal" Prime membership is $99, which in theory would be $8.25 per month, but only if you paid $99 at sign-up to lock in the price, so many people actually pay what I did before "cheaper Prime" came along - $10.99 per month/$131.88 per year - the usual $99 plus a $32.88 Poor People's Poverty Tax.
  • Also check out four more ways to get Prime on the cheap.
  • Amazon ended unlimited cloud storage pretty much the same week I had to jump cloud storage services...*grinds teeth into dust*
  • For cord-cutting Prime members now there's Amazon TV (pick your poison. Yay?).
  • From the email I got, as Amazon has no explainer and Google has nothing indexed: "Now’s the perfect time to take advantage of a game-changing Prime exclusive benefit—Amazon Channels, the first truly a la carte TV service. You can create a lineup you love from over 100 channels, and only pay for the ones you want—no cable required. You get a 7-day free trial of all of our channels, and you can watch anywhere and cancel anytime."
  • About the above - I haven't signed up and will probably be unable to. I also don't know anyone who's signed up. Comcast controls most of the fiber in my area and with them it's cheaper to pay for a TV and Internet package (called the "Double Play") than to just have Internet, so that's mostly what's been stopping me. Will take reviews, though (preferably from people I already know)!

Firefox

  • The search for Goldilocks, indeed. The author says the latest version of Firefox (54) has e10s (multi-process/multi-threaded like Chrome but a max four processes), but it does not have this. I'm using it on an x64 machine with two processors/8GB of RAM, so I can definitively say it has no e10s.
  • Before posting, I found an updated article which says (emphasis mine): "Electrolysis still isn’t on for all users. “Roughly half of Firefox’s user population is using multiple content processes, but Mozilla will be expanding the number over the next few months based on extension compatibility, accessibility support work and other factors,” a Mozilla spokesperson told VentureBeat. To check if you’re in the Electrolysis group, type “about:support” into the URL bar and check to see if it says “1/1 (Enabled by default)” under the Multiprocess Windows line item."
  • While I'm on the topic of Mozilla doing what Mozilla does, and as I made [personal profile] solarbird aware of, standard Firefox add-ons are on their way out, ostensibly to make room for the e10s that they claim exist which for many of us, still don't. People aren't exactly keen on this.
  • Without add-ons as we know them, Firefox basically turns into Opera on Webkit. And though they're killing add-ons as we know them first, a complete browser engine re-write is also on the way. "firefox why u so", indeed!

Invention

  • With this, the author proves he can turn something as ho-hum as a relatively obscure invention into an epic tale that covers everything from original sin to the rise and fall of civilizations to the sad state of mankind's eternal economic Shangri-La. He's also - did I mention this - a great writer.
marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-06-21 02:32 am
Entry tags:

Democratic/left-leaning myopia, ftw (updated 6-27-17 w/link)

In tonight's "myopia" series, I explain people not being able to see the forest for their own asses taking up the entire view. Another case in point: Us. Let's get our heads out of our asses and stop Republican gerrymandering (witness another House seat we should have easily won; we are screwed right through 2018, should this continue) and stop ogling Trump's supporters.

Y'all have damn short memories. I mean really damn short.

Do any of you all recall what it was like to support Bill Clinton after his first election? Any Bill supporters out there?

OK: *waves*...I was. He won with only 43% of the popular vote and the right insta-hated him. I cannot emphasize this enough: they hated him right out of the gate; he hadn't taken his first post-McDonald's jog around the White House before you could feel it in the air that they wanted him gone. You can quibble with me, but I followed Clinton's every word/move/bill/action/reaction almost as breathlessly as though he was the actual prophet selected to announce Jesus's return.

If y'all want to know why, it's because - and I've said this before - I have a strong weakness for the underdog as long as they - unlike Trump - seem honest, above-board and act well-intended enough (though having my political and social preferences also clearly helps).

Bill was the underdog, so Bill was my president, no ands, ifs, or buts. The only time I *ever* disagreed with him - for like a half a second - was after he signed off on NAFTA, and I'm still pissed about that, so yeah, I rather vehemently disagreed. But walk away? Oh hell, no. Back then I had two obsessions: the New York Knicks winning their championship that year (they got eliminated in the East Finals) and Bill Clinton becoming and staying president, and you'd easily pry either concept from my cold, dead hands before I gave them up without a fight.

Has it ever occurred to people that Trump's supporters simply feel the same way?

As a past True Believer, I can tell you you're not going to win the fight for 2018 or 2020 by winning them back, so quit it. Stop talking about their underemployed, opiate-and-Faux News-laden self-made hells on Earth. Stop interviewing them in their fucking trailers. Stop bemoaning their disappearing lung-cancer-causing mining jobs and stop doing summations of Why They Voted For Him that ignore the second most important part of why they did: mostly because they're racists - or the more well-heeled folks after big tax cuts and the hell with the rest of us - so again, mostly because they're racists.

The most important reason, though? They wanted a leader, and to their minds, they got one. Don't ask why; it's an irrational thing considering Trump is all smoke, mirrors and one too many Twitter rants. While edges of his base will peel away, the core will remain. Don't mess with it, let's just move on.

For success in 2018/2020 we need to stop finger-pointing, we need to stop ogling, we desperately need to redraw Republican-gerrymandered districts, and we need to stop being divisive. Oh, and you think that's just Faux News! Well, that's us, too. A house divided will always fall. Why are we doing this to ourselves?

  • Every time a progressive points at a Democrat and says: "not left-leaning enough" that's not only complete bullshit it's divisive.
  • Every time a Democrat blames something on "the Bernie bros" that's not only also complete bullshit it's divisive.
  • Every time Bernie gets mentioned, it's divisive. I hate to rip a page from Orangado's book here, but folks: Bernie lost; get over it.
  • Every time progressives single out publications for their hate - most recently, they went after The Washington Post for not feeling progressive enough, something I cannot forgive because it's my favorite newspaper - it's divisive.
  • Every time an (obviously) self-proclaimed "antifa" hits the streets to stand in opposition to Trumpsters, it's divisive; also, "antifa" are quite possibly just plain nuts.

If "antisoc" had hit the streets in protest every time Clinton supporters breathed in his direction they might arguably have been locked up (not to mention back then, no one would have dared. My, how times have changed). A really good argument can be made in either direction that Republicans/right-leaners/Trump in particular are fascist scumwads OR that Democrats/left-leaners/Clinton in particular are socialist scumwads. I'm entirely capable of agreeing with both arguments equally.

Did I mention I was so fucking mad about NAFTA I nearly turned Republican myself, and have considered myself "moderate" (with a few admittedly more liberal aspects) ever since? While I was never gonna give up on Bill, the entire Democratic Party could pretty much blow me at that point, and while I've recovered most of my left-leaning equilibrium since then, in some ways it still can. And I refuse to feel bad about this.

So stop being divisive, stop Republican gerrymandering, and quit with all the "why Trump's supporters support him" songs and dances. Because, nope. Really. It's not helping.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-06-21 02:08 am
Entry tags:

Historical myopia, ftw

Forex: the idea that TV cultivates authoritarianism. Then explain 1930s-40s Germany - I don't think TV was that big a deal then - or North Korea: I doubt there's a TV set in many homes nor that its mostly starving population stays glued to it like our Faux News addicts do, many of them yelling at it day in and out (oh, and if this reminds you of a fake office holder, that's because it should: Faux News fosters not just division and acrimony, but successful presidential runs based on everyone - including the fake office holder - feeding off said division and acrimony).

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-06-21 01:15 am
Entry tags:

And now we'll never know how Otto Warmbier died...(updated 6-22-2017)

Because his parents refused the autopsy and he's being buried tomorrow morning. While refusal to have an autopsy might be in keeping with the family's Judaism (even if the family hasn't yet publicly raised this as their particular objection) I'm still disgusted that his parents could not make an exception when no one even knows how - or why - their own son died.

Short of that, someone needs to introduce a bill - call it the Otto Warmbier Act - stating that in cases of potential murder (especially by an enemy or rogue state!) the family's wishes are automatically overridden regarding autopsies. Call it outrageous. Call it anti-religion (Muslims raise a similar objection) but let's keep some perspective here: any God who'd reject a spirit over how its body was handled after death isn't a God we should want to spend too much time shooting marbles with, anyhow.


ETA, 6-22-17: In light of my suggestion that a law should be passed preventing families from forbidding an autopsy being performed in certain circumstances (and while I was researching another aspect of this issue, entirely) I ran across an article on Judaism and autopsy which states, with emphasis mine:

In general, Jewish tradition forbids autopsies on the grounds that the body is sacred and should not be violated after death. However, autopsies are permitted in two specific cases:

  1. When the physician claims that it could provide new knowledge that would help cure others suffering from the same disease;
  2. When the law of the land requires it.

The normal stricture against autopsy would be overridden by the requirement to follow "the law of the land" so Warmbier's parents - if the law was in effect today - would be incapable of violating it without violating their own religious tenets.

Another article states autopsy is not forbidden if performing one prevents a possible "plague"; as I pointed out in comments, "botulism" counts, and since that's what North Korea claims put their son in a coma, the parents have little reason to forbid an autopsy, since no medical determination concerning botulism was made stateside before his death.

And though I'm having a hard time finding a more definitive-sounding source, this website on Islamic rulings doesn't rule out autopsy to determine the cause of death when a "crime" is suspected, so in their case, the law might not be needed.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-06-14 05:31 am
Entry tags:

Am I the only one who thinks...

Being in a room full of people making a well-coordinated, flawlessly executed public go at kissing my ass is a rather horrifying spectacle of a situation to find oneself in? Am I the only one who finds it not only cringe-worthy, but the idea of it being done anywhere, in any context, even more so?

In my mental roleplaying of this meeting of ass with lips, I duly note my role as a self-involved narcissist who opens with intensely kissing my own ass for doing everything short of turning water into wine for the Murcan people (but wait, there'll be big, fat, water-to-wine-turning in 2020 right next to that big, beautiful Wall I'm building right after we Lock Her Up - believe me, it'll be a tremendous turning of water into wine).

I'm having trouble getting through the first minutes of it, in other words.

Assuming somehow I did, though, I'm faced with a roomful of people who actually praise, thank, flatter, cajole, joke with, and cringe at me - many of their faces reflecting fear, distrust, and repulsion, despite the smooth words flowing from their lips - like I'm a god. Or simply God, as when Rinse Priapus thanked Trump "on behalf of all of us" for Trump's "blessings", turning it into one of the most intensely churchlike scenes of worship I've seen in a government building.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing; is this what he (perhaps that's "He" in his own mental imaging of himself?) expects?

I'll be blunt: I'd expect a roomful of people coordinating to lavishly praise me to my face on live TV to also be coordinating in the shadows to stick something sharp and pointy in my back any one of these old days.

I could not even read the summations of this meeting (and can't watch more than a minute of the video before my stomach turns) without thinking, "Et tu, Brutus?" No, I wouldn't wonder, wouldn't worry; I'd expect them to turn tail sooner or later. These are the very people I'd put as far away from me as possible in any official capacity, and I mean all of them, as soon as possible: "Thank you for gathering with me today, because now I know who to fire!". And I'm either super-paranoid (just call me Nixon *makes double V signs*) or I'm onto something.

I've seen a widely agreed upon rumination of Why This Occurred - because Trump demands public shows of servile fealty, or else - but I can easily think of two more: one, these people want their jobs and figure they sold their souls just by taking work under this guy, so they have nothing to lose by fawning and cringing a bit more to try they keep them (I have no idea who's idea this meeting was, but that alone might explain a lot) - even if it is extra-disgusting to have to do so on live TV - and two, that they are all literally planning to overthrow him.

Let's hope it's the latter, though it may just be a dream.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-05-20 05:22 am
Entry tags:

Au revoir!

I've never seen anything as fucked as Cheetolini's stupid overseas trip - comprised mainly of him wandering aimlessly through the Middle East while indiscriminately firing off his mouth and cocking his POTUS Twitter account at folks like the loaded weapon it actually is in any angry and temperamental six-year old's hands.

Question, apropos of nothing: would you let your angry and temperamental six year old run a POTUS Twitter account for say, any normal POTUS? Would any sane or thinking person? No, of course not. Yet this six year old is not only running that account, he's running our entire fucking country because some Trumpists both in and outside of Russia thought they should let him. Thanks, y'all.

This trip is gonna go very badly. Why? Two things. There are many, many more things, but let's just focus on two.

  1. He's turned tail on Israel, giving their code-worded, "highly classified" info to the Russians while boasting he gets such "great intel". And now he's going to Israel, because of course he is. I mean, that won't be awkward or anything.
  2. He's supposed to give a speech in Saudi Arabia; guess who's writing it? That's right, smart people: "American Carnage" speechwriter and destroy us some MOOSElims broNazi Stephen Miller because who could do a better job of wording the words? I'm sure it'll go over just swell!

If I were the betting type (and oh, I am) I'd place wagers on which country does the thing first in which something something something will there be a White House procession with Clydesdales is this WWIII are we all fucked now. Obviously I'm a bit biased on how this might turn out, but not in the way you might think.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-05-16 05:51 am
Entry tags:

What if I don't *want* to speak Russian?

The Republicans have washed their hands of this country.

I'm starting to think Trump could break out an Uzi on live TV at his next address to the joint chambers of Congress but as long as he only hits Democrats (the more the merrier, of course) there will be no recourse and no stopping him; no public outcry will change a damn thing, nor will it result in any charges or end up in any impeachment because the Republican's plans are set (and don't think Russia doesn't know and isn't taking advantage of this; they do and they are).

Republicans are handing the keys of US power over to the rich while giving the rich two huge tax cuts to help them take the reigns: one in the form of stripping viable and affordable health care away from the vast majority of Americans; the other in the form of simply giving them another huge tax cut, because why stop at just one tax cut when you can eventually convert the rich into tax-exempt status, two gigantic tax cuts at a time.

Meanwhile, Trump allowed Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov - and by extension, Putin and all of Russia - to flat-out troll us over Comey's firing even as Russia state news agencies published what were supposed to be unpublished pictures of this same meeting, which the US press was not even allowed to sit in on or photograph, all while opening us up to possible espionage in the form of the photographer's so-called "camera". Then Trump immediately handed Russian ambassador Kislyak state intel about ISIS for Russia to do whatever they want with, and all this just one day after he fired FBI Director Comey to obstruct the FBI investigation into his Russian dealings, clearly breaking US law and even more clearly trying to hide not just something, but likely a whole lot of things.

Against all this, including Russia's latest order (likely directed solely at the US) to not respond to North Korea's threats with anything but meek offers of negotiation, if the silence from the Republican faction of Congress was any more deafening my eardrums would split open and pop out of my head onto the floor, which is not nearly as disgusting of an image as what might happen next in this country.

If this is all the reaction Republicans will ever have then we're done, all so we can watch them hand this country over to the elite (which will suit Russia just fine, as oligarchies have always kinda been their thing).

Enjoy the show, folks.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-05-13 01:17 am
Entry tags:

Funny thing about this Oatmeal comic going 'round about the 'backfire effect'...

Is that most of the time, what you're seeing probably isn't one. While Matthew Inman's descriptions (including visual) of why one might feel uncomfortable around new-to-them facts rings true and sounds rather like a fact, a new study suggests the backfire effect may be "a very rare phenomenon" that's not impossible to overcome.

People entrench around factually wrong information for many reasons: personal or in-group bias, feeling an emotional or intellectual discordance, thinking their view of life or actual way of life is under threat, rhetorical or semantical differences, philosophical disagreements...whatever. Calling it a backfire effect - and explaining it by what goes on in your amygdala - does little justice to what disbelieving a fact actually involves. It has little to do with brain chemistry, which I'd say is more a part of the process of fact-disbelieving than its direct cause.

Let me change your mind: people can be convinced to change their minds through a process called "factual intervention".

Which reminds me: people can convince themselves they hate something. Anything. Matthew's image of a house with walls scrawled over with formative reasons for disbelieving facts, which bizarrely enough includes the phrase "hatred of cilantro"? Cilantro is probably on there because it's not something you hate - there are several genes that actually change the flavor of it for some of us. Judging by how I think soap cilantro tastes, I also have the little buggers.

While I'm on the topic of not accepting facts, and while I'm still on the topic of science in general (yes, starting this paragraph counts), science is never a settled question. Some of the latest food studies seem out to prove it by pronouncing butter bad for us again and salt better for us than we thought. It can even help people lose weight, but in doing so increases loss of both fat and muscle, so I'd take this news with a pretty large grain of, uh...

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-05-11 11:54 pm
Entry tags:

Clearing out my bookmarks: the outré 'Comey condensed' Russian edition (updated 8-7-17)

Timeline to dismissal; updates with ongoing Russian contratemps*, Flynn revelations that tie in, Comey set to testify 10am EST on June 8th, June 14th BREAKING NEWS Trump is now under investigation, and other still-unfolding events

Follow me here... )
marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-05-10 10:39 pm
Entry tags:

In which I continue to pick apart Cheetolini's main ingredients (chink in the armor: paranoia)

Updated 5-12-17

What strikes me most about this week's news is that the Head Cheeto is nothing if not a series of easy-to-spot patterns. In this post I discuss two of them.

The first pattern is clear: being his ally/friend/insider/toady/admirer/boot polisher/vote fixer - as much as he insists upon being emotionally and politically worshiped to inflate his oversized and incredibly thirsty ego - will not help: witness the political corpses of Manafort, Page, Flynn, Comey, McMasters (whom Trump is said to be routinely enraged at - the phrase "was heard screaming at him" is used a lot, so we're counting McMasters down, yo).

Turning back in time, let's look at his multi-decade friendship with the Clintons: he turned on Bill during his own presidential run to drag Bill's alleged "abuse" of women out into the open again - 20 years after the original accusations were levied, a time in which Trump and the Clintons remained close friends - and even had a few of the women speak out at press conferences and sit in on speeches to prove his point (which was something incoherent like, "See, I'm not the only one who does it ha ha").

Throughout his run for office he held his personal friend Hillary out for public skewering at rallies, speeches and on his Twitter - "lock her up", "hang the bitch" and a huge run on official campaign hate memorabilia being just a handful of the still-shocking, though inevitable results.

Zooming in to shortly after the election, the Head Cheese Puff highly praised Obama (after about 6 years of trying to convince us he was a jungle bushman - no big deal, right? That Obama even deigned to meet with this libelous orangutan is beyond my can even) only to turn on him recently to announce - adorned in the most perfectly paranoid mental regalia the world's ever seen - that Obama personally had him spied upon and wiretapped while he still resided at Chump Hour - a laughable allegation if ever there was one.

Have I missed any bodies in the political body count? I don't feel like Googling to jog my memory or complete this post, so if someone (or something) has turned up missing, feel free to dive in. ETA2: I missed Corey Lewandowski. And maybe a few others, but I still don't feel like Googling.

The second pattern is one of showmanship. I don't mean how he gave one "good" speech (though I'm not one to agree with the message - no matter how adroitly it's been phrased) out of an endless series of clunkers or being able to recite - if not actually speak in - complete sentences (good for him, because maybe he's not as demented as some people think - is he in good enough shape to stand trial? Based on his performance that night yeah, he's doing just fine... *wink wink*).

I'm talking about the art of distraction and his total mastery of it: there's nothing he won't do to get people to talk about anything but the Russian investigation, and there's nothing he won't do to keep it from happening.

These factors - paranoia and distraction - are keys to destroying his new career.

He's on his endgame. He knows it, we, the American people know it, and the world is catching on. Everyone's talking.

Obviously it would be in his - and our country's - best interests if he resigns, because he's been too busy since the election trying to make us look away from the Russians to get anything else done. It won't work; he's just needlessly wearing himself out juggling too many balls that have nothing to do with what's best for our country: there's no time or mental focus left for that. Which is doing a huuuuuuge disservice to the American people and the world at large. And it needs to stop.

To be clear: lobbing missiles at North Korea? Won't work. Turning American government into a malevolent dictatorship? Won't change a damn thing; if anything, it turns more of us against him. Firing everyone and their uncle? Won't cut it (though this is key to getting the right people to turn on him, so it's fairly important that he keeps on firing pretty much indiscriminately).

As Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie said, "town coming coming down" come hell or high water, so it's time he pulls his head out of his lower regions and starts coming up with more reasons to work on his golf game or admire the shrubs gracing the main lobby at the NYC Trump Tower.

Because he probably won't resign (he doesn't want the job and never expected to have it, but has some too-strong desire to serve his out-of-control base* to walk away now; still, never say never) the endgame's pretty simple: dig for what you can, find and push it out into the open, and never stop working his paranoia. Rumors are essential. Various players gain his trust and expound upon his fears. Onto his (and other) Twitter(s) these rumors no doubt go, pushing him even further into conspiracy-theory basket case territory than he's ever been before.

Make him believe his time's up and one of two things could happen: a) he might yet choose to resign or b) he might break and admit what he shouldn't (highly unlikely, so focus more on a)), which will pretty much force impeachment hearings, should the Rs agree to it (and given enough damning evidence from any source, it might get to the point where refusing to hold hearings exposes their own complicity - I think we're at that point now, but the Rs clearly hold party above country, so it's going to take a lot more).

ETA1: he's gone with choice b) - witness the Head Cheese Puff's paranoia in action (and see this post for a condensed Comey timeline). So color me wrong about which part of my prediction to focus on, as it goes without saying at this point: FOCUS MORE ON b).

*Re: his "too-strong desire to serve his out-of-control base" (ETA3)? Figured that one out, too. It's not that. What he's doing is using them to gut protections for everyone else but the rich - which will also gut any and all protections for his base - before he declares MISSION ACCOMPLISHED AMERICA'S NOW GREAT AGAIN and hands the keys of power over to the people he's already going out of his way to further enrich through his presidency.

What made me think of it is the 2020 census. With the way things are going, there won't be one. But why take one when everyone but rich whites and their families and friends will long be disenfranchised?

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-05-07 04:13 am

Because people are having a (big!) misunderstanding about the Religious Liberty Executive Order

It is not this, okay?

Update your DW posts (posted yesterday/today/tonight; if you know someone* who's posted incorrect info on this, then please let them know) to reflect the final version of the EO - otherwise you're spreading misinformation and sowing needless fear into people's hearts, and that's really not okay!

The new version of the Religious Liberty Executive Order does just two things: it lets religious leaders bully you from the pulpit tell you who to vote for, which is technically illegal, as the Johnson amendment still stands. The second part of the EO addresses that - not from a civil law point of view, more from a strictly financial one - by ordering the IRS to give "regulatory relief" to "religious leaders" *snorfle* who might eventually choose to bully you from their pulpits.

Did y'all read that last sentence? Wtf, right? I don't even know what that means! I almost never write anything I can't understand, so this has been really awkward for me.

*cries*

*If anyone needs a hint that there's at least one person who has perhaps erroneously done this, I have one on my reading list - not a mutual, just someone whose public posts I sometimes read. No one's corrected them as of this writing, and we had a falling out on my blog a few weeks ago, so I won't be doing that, either.