To be sincere, I do think the message being put forward by Bernie, @NotHimUS, @Roots_Action, and others is the right one: the Democrats don’t deserve our votes, but that doesn’t mean we can afford four more years of Trump.
it seems more like: people who believe Trump's sociopathy is as transparent to everyone in America as it is to them, think Biden is doing well. whereas, if you don't feel that way, or doubt it, as I do, it seems like a disaster for Biden.
it makes sense to silently laugh and shake your head at Trump if the audience sees him the way you do: as a despicable narcissist who cares only about himself. it might not be wise if you're trying to reach people who don't already feel that way.
I could feel it coming the entire episode but still threw my phone when it came: @nytimes reporter on The Daily saying Trump’s personal debts are the same as how he ran the federal government, racking up deficits that we’ll be “paying for in years to come.”
Reports are his wife called the police bc he was armed and threatening suicide. (He was committed under FL's "Baker Act," which has been criticized for criminalizing mental illness.) It's not at all clear, from this video, why he should have been tackled.
A south Florida elected told me, FL's "use of force matrix is very broad" and the SWAT team was likely justified (under its terms) in the takedown. But activists have long argued those policies are over broad, leading to unnecessary brutality and fatal encounters.
If conservatives feel sympathy or shock at the brutality of the video, they should know the Black Lives Matter movement is pushing for legislation to make such encounters less frequent.
Brennan's dissent in Harris v McRae is a fascinating document (he saw the Hyde Amendment as an attempt to impose the moral judgment of "the majority" on a decision the Constitution entrusts to the individual), but more so for the highlighted portion below: tcf.org/content/report…
In other words, in upholding Hyde, SCOTUS found that the government may use its coercive power to withhold state spending from the most financially insecure citizens in order to to accomplish the same end that the state is forbidden to write into law.
I find these post Roe v Wade decisions fascinating bc you see how rooting the abortion right in a privacy framework put the Court in a symptomatic (liberal) bind: how is depriving someone of the resources to exercise a fundamental right different from violating their rights?
all of the public school teachers i know are irate or depressed or both. i don't think we've gotten close to accounting for the failure we're forcing them to endure
in "normal" times, educators are tasked with resolving the effects of the social failures we refuse to address in the rest of society. They are then blamed for failing to fulfill an impossible task. The same is happening now.
incredibly, the teachers I know hardly ever even make this argument! they feel an obligation to do an impossible job well!! bc they fucking care about the kids and their families!!! it's just astonishing.
I’ve thought a lot over the past few years about the relationship between privacy and justice, selfhood and community. Tried to summarize some of that in here. ssense.com/en-us/editoria…
I’ve wondered from the beginning of the pandemic how to derive solidarity from an ethical demand for isolation. I think a similar problem has dogged tech-lash debates about social media. A mismatch between our desires (and needs) and the ethos of digital privacy.
When it comes to online, we clearly want what makes us sick. But the healthier practices often seem to sublimate rather than alleviate our symptoms, a new way of experiencing our sickness.