Author:
Blog About:
I know politics isn't a particularly safe topic here, but the shenanigans around and after the USA elections have been making me feel anxious to the point of not being able to think straight. If people want to disagree with me, that's fine, I am just describing how it seems to me to explain why I'm so terrified.
I'm a native-born USAan trans woman, and for the past 4+ years, I have been watching the way the people who have seized power in the USA have been targetting LGBT+ people and trans people in particular. (They particularly go after us trans people because we're a convenient "wedge issue.") I've spent the time wondering if I should be making plans to flee the country, and whether if I wait too long, it won't be possible. (Memories of what happened to German Jews trying to flee Germany in the late 1930's.) The way that they can do and threaten horrible things and the people who could do something to stop them do nothing or even facilitate their stuff takes me back to my childhood, during which I was surrounded by people who hated me, and the rest of the people around me just watched and did nothing or even supported them.
The threats by he-who-must-not-be-named to overturn the election results just made it worse, and Wednesday's coup attempt sent me into a state of sheer terror. As I see it, the thin veneer of civilized behavior -- the social contract that restrains the Strong from abusing and exploiting anybody who is momentarily weaker than them -- is in danger of being ripped away, and I have the impression that a very large fraction of the USA population is in favor of it (70+ million voted for it, after all, and a lot of the elected officials whose lives were in danger on Wednesday are still openly supporting it.) I look at what's happening in Syria and Somalia and Iraq and wonder how long before the USA ends up like that.
And when I come here and look at the stories on this site, it's hard not to think, "how can they still devote their attention to stories centered around high heels and make-up and stuff like that when the world is falling apart all around us?" Rationally, I realize that a lot of us, maybe even most of us, don't feel the danger like I do, and in fact a lot of people here aren't in the USA and so are in less danger than we in the USA are.
It's just hard not to feel like I'm watching people partying on -- on the Titannic.
Comments
A, temporary, relief from trouble
When things are bad people turn to show business and similar to get some relief. Some escape into it. Some use it for gathering forces and then get back to handling the problems, in other places.
It's been so hard.
I approached the VA about being admitted to the Psych ward. Today things seem much better.
Gwen
My Two cents
It does not matter what your views are on any subject, political, environmental, LGBQT, racial issues, etc. Everyone in the US has the right to their own opinion and also the right to a peaceful protest.
When your protest becomes physical, you have crossed the line into criminal activity.
Honestly to stand up and say there was no ballot tampering, when everyone knows it happens to some degree, is an insult to our intelligence. In the state of Illinois the running joke is how many dead voters they have in Chicago, and that everyone should "vote early and often" Do I believe the tampering was enough to change the election...NO.
This was just one of how many riots that have taken place over the past year. How many riots took place in the US alone during the year 2020, 30-40?
The question we need to ask ourselves. Were those riots publicized as strongly as this latest one? Who or what group was responsible for each of the riots? What can we do to stop or at the very least reduce the occurrence of rioting?
We the willing, led by the unsure. Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
We are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
Tamper Tantrums
Imagine that...
All this ballot tampering and not enough evidence to convince ONE judge to take a serious look at a single one of the dozens of legal actions that were brought before them about it. Boy, that must be some conspiracy!! I'm gonna have to go with Occam's Razor on this one- the guy's just making stuff up. As usual.
"Government will only recognize 2 genders, male + female,
as assigned at birth-" (In his own words:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1lugbpMKDU
Have to be on guard
The current drive has the same refrain as what was essentially Make Germany Great Again pre WWII.
Since I am an American of Chinese descent and the Chinese government being the horrible assholes being the excuse to embrace racism even more deeply as those Brown Shirts have shown, I await my camp placement one day. I should flee right with you.
Just look at the rallies that took place
History does repeat itself. 1930's Germany and 2020 USA.
Lots of flags, jingoism and incitement.
Then sit back and leave it to the audience you have whipped up to do your dirty work for you whilst you condemn the whole thing.
devilishly simple when you have a playbook ready and waiting for you.
Now... If the villain was to employ a Trans character who wormed their way into the inner circle and even became romantically involved with the villain you could have a great story.
Samantha
Jerks Are Jerks
Two things:
1.) It has been said by many that 70 million people voted for Trump and his agenda. This is NOT remotely true. A big share voted in favor of ridding the country of Roe vs. Wade. Another slice voted to protect their guns. Another slice voted for the Republican because they've never voted for a Dem and never will. Another chunk voted AGAINST Joe Biden. Another group, with deep pockets, backed Trump for tax cuts.
After you take out all of that you get to the scum who want to tear apart our government. They have always been there and only crawled out from under their rocks when invited to do so when Trump came down that escalator spouting his racist nonsense. Our laws and social norms will quickly push those people into their dark corners. These are The Timothy McVeys of our times. The Proud Boys have used Trump's words to recruit.
The only thing wrong with the first list of groups is that they failed to see Trump for what he is or just didn't care as long as they got what they wanted.
2.) Cruz and company are guilty of too much ambition. They deserve the punishment they will get of being voted out of office. McCarthy never served time. He deserved it. He had the strong backing of the Kennedys. He dated two of the Kennedy girls and Bobby served on his staff.
Cruz and his ilk had backed themselves into a corner with their Big Lie. Their choices were admitting their dishonesty with last-minute conversions like Graham and other piles of pus -- or continuing on with their charade.
The amount of voter fraud in the U.S. is negligible. Our polls are staffed by white-haired men and women of both parties who take their jobs very seriously. They are your neighbors. They would have screamed to high hell had they seen irregularities. Local elections are highly accountable and national results are built on local ballots.
There have already been dozens of arrests. Personally, I would like to see Trump, his son, Rudy and the others who incited -- held accountable. I'm sure there are hundreds of plaintiff attorneys salivating over the civil actions for the victims.
This is a great country. Trump is NOT us.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
A Real Danger
I think that I should put the lion's share of my response and my views in a story. Perhaps we should all do that, and restrain our responses here. Just a couple disjointed comments for now.
Things only became seriously dangerous in Germany when the Great Depression hit, and the leadership did minimal to alleviate the human suffering for several years.
"Nyeah, nyeah! Look at what we can do, and you can't do a damn thing about it." I've had the sense of that for way too long.
"Men Who Hate Women, and the Women Who Love Them" is a book written a few decades ago. There's a political analogy.
"Better an honest enemy than a false friend." There are evil-doers, and then there are enablers and fifth-columnists.
-- Daphne Xu
TBH
To be honest, i don't think I could live with myself if I didn't take time to write. What has happened scares me and truth be told, it occurred to me that I may have to flee the country if things get worse. This should be a wake up call for everyone, but I'm afraid there are some people who have buried their head in the sand. I live in a conservative state and there are three houses flying campaign flags of a certain overgrown tangerine just one street over from me. I have seen so many facebook posts from friends and relatives, thanking that man for being such a great president. I just can't understand it. I can't.
Have delightfully devious day,
And then there's this...
Rep. Andy Kim, D-NJ
“I was just overwhelmed with emotion,” Kim, 38, told NBC Asian America. “It’s a room that I love so much — it’s the heart of the Capitol, literally the heart of this country. It pained me so much to see it in this kind of condition.”
So for the next hour and a half, he crouched down and filled a half dozen trash bags with debris. When he finished cleaning up the rotunda, he began working on the adjacent rooms, including the National Statuary Hall and the Capitol crypt downstairs.
Love, Andrea Lena
Content warning
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-99178053752
See Munich, beer hall, silly moustache, etc. Same thing.
msnbc.com
msnbc.com won't let me see the content without disabling my ad blocker. The trouble is, I don't use an ad blocker! However, Firefox is set to block all trackers, which is not the same thing. Is msnbc.com actually tracking its users, while pretending only to offer ads?
Same trouble
I'm having the same trouble on some other sites and I don't use an ad blocker, either. Someone is selling ad blocker detectors that don't work. It will probably clear up as soon as the corporate victims of this scam retaliate with lawsuits. Lawyers get rich, it's the circle of life.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
The answer is, as with most
The answer is, as with most things, yes and no.
if you block the cookies being planted, then they don't "know" you're the same person moving around their site. That's very important to these people, as one IP address could conceivably contain thousands of people.
So the 'ad blocker' can be cookies. I've seen that a few times - I use NoScript.
Frankly, the best thing to do is allow cookies, and manually purge them once a week or so. That'll allow you to keep persistent connections to sites, including shopping carts, while still allowing privacy (you'll just have to do the reauthentication each week, especially if you use multi-factor authentication)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
My Adblocker
(Adguard) has blocked close on 0.5 million ads in 3.5 years and almost 1 million trackers.
That speaks for itself does it not?
Then there is something that Erin will know all about. Hacking and DDOS
My blog has been subject to a series of DDOS attacks over the past few days. I've blocked most of them but last night a new site sent a flood of hack requests to it. By a flood, I mean over 1000 in under a minute. The hacks were searching for files underneath my blog web site. Thankfully they are all locked down tight.
If you put the IP address of those hack attempts into a search engine with a 'whois' prefix, you will see many results. The chances are that the IP is already marked as 'suspicious'. you can download lists of these suspect Ip addresses. The latest one is ... 98,500 addresses long.
Blocking them at a firewall is a lot of work but it is something that I'm having to consider.
With trackers, adverts(trying to get you to spend money that you don't have) and hack attempts, the Internet is really like the Wild West. Shoot first and don't ask questions.
Just a thought.
Samantha
DDOS mitigation
DDOS mitigation can be made easier by using tools like fail2ban. That way instead of blocking hosts through IP addresses listed in files, you dynamically add them when some pattern is detectd in log files (e.g. access attempts to admin tools in the webserver error log).
While this technique may still cause short overloads at the beginning of the attack, it may help to reduce the time to recovery of your webservice.
All of my servers employ
All of my servers employ fail2ban. Mostly to protect SSH and the email ports. It's a bit more of a PITA for apache for me.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
That doesn't sound like a
That doesn't sound like a DDOS. That sounds like a single system being used to try to brute force random security flaws.
Remember, DOS is Denial Of Service - it can be deliberate, or it can be accidental. I have had accidental DOS directed at my servers before. One was a few days ago. I firewalled off that IP, then reported it to the upstream IP provider, who took the server itself down until they could investigate it. DDOS is 'distributed denial of service', which I've had to deal with before. One of the popular ones was reflected DNS attacks. (DNS amplification). That means it's from multiple IP's, usually hundreds to thousands at once.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Running away from America... where?
Sometimes staying in America can have downsides - even serious ones. However, these might be still better than what can happen to you elsewhere.
Suppose that Trump (or any new Trump) had started a civil war. Would you run away to Taiwan? You probably wouldn't even be able to, as China would likely have attacked it and taken it over already. South Korea? Would likely be already invaded by North Korea, with Chinese and Russian backing.
Australia or New Zealand? Wait until after China deals with Taiwan - that is, likely less than a week - and you will likely see them invaded too. Maybe not the very next day, but I can't imagine that dragging for an entire year. Unless China needs that time to prepare militarily, of course... If Trump loses that civil war quickly and easily, there can be hope for them, but what if he doesn't? Same about most of East Asia, sooner or later. Japan might be the last, but probably won't last an entire decade later.
Europe? If America is busy with a civil war, that would be a once-in-million-years chance for Mr. Putin. Would his own generals forgive him if he misses it? Looks unlikely to me. And the Russian army and occupational administration would not be as kind and caring as the followers of Mr. Trump. (Think "The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am.") Middle East? I beg to not even start on this. Africa? Poorest countries there might be safe from an external attack for the first couple of years... to the disappointment of the unlucky residents there.
Canada? Would likely be safe for an year or two, until Russia and China decide they need a foothold to attack America from. Latin America? Relatively safe for maybe a decade - until the darkness comes to it, too. If you are lucky to be in a stable and democratic country there, like eg. Costa Rica or Uruguay, that is.
So, in such a situation America might still be the safest place to be.
Weird Assumption...
...imo, that a stable USA is the only thing preventing China from taking over half the world -- or that no other country is capable of staving off an invasion on their own. Yellow peril, anyone?
Eric
With all due respect...
... China constantly repeats that it will "reunite" with Taiwan, by force if necessary. Looking at the level of support among the Taiwanese for such an "unification", I do not doubt that force will be needed. Given the difference in the population numbers, the industry output and the army size, what do you think prevents that outcome currently?
Not Viable Options
No single nation is capable of taking over the world. First, you have assumed that the USA is entirely out of the equation, which I think is hardly likely.
Secondly, I think you vastly underestimate the capabilities of countries like Taiwan and South Korea. Taiwan in particular is no pushover. If China had thought they could get away with it they would have invaded already. Believe me, they would sustain tremendous losses. They might win, but I wouldn't put money on it.
For China to get at Australia and New Zealand they first have to go through Indonesia and the Phillippines, neither of which have any love for them. Not saying they couldn't do it, but it wouldn't be cheap.
Then there is a little matter of protecting their flanks. None of the south-east Asian countries, particularly Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia would stand idle because they would fear that it was their turn next.
So I think your scenario is a little overblown.....and there is always Antarctica.
A single nation does not need to take over the world...
... but there are enough nations that would like to try to take over as much as they can.
Taiwan has 1/80 of the population of China, 1/50 of its industrial output, less than 1/10 of its army size, and a government that will not use its citizens as cannon fodder, if that is the cost to win. Yes, if China attacks Taiwan, they will lose at least a hundred thousands of soldiers, maybe more than one - so what? If you believe that this will impress Mr. Xi to the slightest, then I would guess that you have never lived for long in a totalitarian country. (I have.) And China is exactly that.
If China decides to go through any south-east Asian countries, they will have to either let it, or be overtaken. If Taiwan is already squashed, I bet that none of them will prefer the latter.
Currently the only country that can win militarily against China is USA. Russia could do a lot of damage to it with its nuclear arsenal, possibly kill over a hundred millions of Chinese, but would still be overran at the end. And if you believe that losing a hundred of millions of people will impress Mr. Xi...
I would love my scenario to be overblown. However, there were plenty of people who in 1938 believed that such a scenario is...
Democracy in The USA.
The essential societal culture in the USA tends towards a democratic inclination and that is perhaps the best element to secure US, democracy going forward. The threats towards democracy are primarily those concerning the electoral processes, such as the naked gerrymandering of electoral and constituency boundaries by various political bodies bent on favouring their particular parties. This leads to many voters being disenfranchised while yet knowing they have been denied a real choice or a fair appropriation of the representative equation. Whilst in some instances there is occasionally fraud or deception during the vote - and sometimes even the count-, I seriously doubt that it was remotely serious enough to actually affect the outcome of the election.
The more serious issue is the lack of a federal 'boundaries' commission to supervise electoral and constituency arrangements.
The UK has a permanent 'boundary commission' to which all elected authorities must refer when adjusting electoral boundaries to match changing demographics and populations.
Australia goes further down the electoral road by requiring ALL citizens to turn up and vote. There are pro's and cons to this arrangement but at least it forces local elected authorities to make FULL provision for every citizen to reach a ballot box and express his will. If an election is delayed at any voting/polling station then the electoral authority has to face inquiry as to why some queues were too long and/or voters were denied an opportunity to vote.
Voting is a very calm, simple and safe process in other democracies and in many elections, candidates are not allowed to canvass for votes at or around the polling stations. The process around the electoral college system in the US also needs to be examined there is no reason why the presidential vote in each state has to be plonked in one camp or the other. The vote for president can surely be split pro/rata the total state poll via decimation, or centimation or even millimation.
Other difficulties associated with the US electoral profile is the rigid two party nature of the political split.
Most other democracies have multiparty political splits. Britain has seven different political parties sitting in the house of commons and that enables voters a wider choice of candidates and/ or solutions. More importantly, it reduces the potential for extreme polarisation as evidenced both in the US senate and the US congress.
As for the extreme potential for corruption and compromise in the political lobby system in the US, the less said the better. The Boeing 737 Dreamliner debacle illustrates that insofar as the aircraft manufacturers have shackled the American government department of air safety on the hill.
Small point of order
It's the 737 Max. The Dreamliner is the 787.
In re your other points, always remember that the USA retains different laws in different states, including in how voting is carried out. I rather suspect that if there were a 'boundary commission' equivalent, the Byzantine/serpentine/salamandrine voting districts would be massively simplified--at least until the vested interests took over its control.
A final note: separation of the three aspects of government, with SCOTUS judges appointed politically, and for life? How exactly is that separation? Our House of Lords is stuffed with political appointees, but their real power is limited compared to the Commons. If necessary, the HoC can always override the HoL.
Postscript: I am really enjoying seeing so many imbeciles, strutting their stuff on the internet in 'Before and After' images.
Before: stealing a lectern, feet up on a desk, smashing doors while livestreaming themselves.
After: mugshots courtesy of the FBI.
imbeciles
The sheer number of Americans who still believe that Donald Trump will be the next president of the USA is downright scary. Despite him saying that he will help the transition in a very public statement, they simply don't believe it. That is very worrying.
Samantha.
SCOTUS
Two ideas (beyond the one that the founders who wrote the Constitution weren't expecting political parties to form):
One (and it has worked in the past) is that after a Supreme Court justice is appointed, he or she no longer has to worry about political posturing and can make decisions based on their perception of the law and the national interest without being concerned about partisanship. The most famous example was Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 -- both were Republicans -- who headed an activist Court that the party spent two decades fighting against. It worked both ways; Byron White, appointed by John F Kennedy in 1962, turned out to be a conservative. (Democrat/Republican didn't necessarily mean liberal/conservative back then.)
Nor was Senate approval of the President's selection always a party-line vote; for a lot of history, the opposition party only objected if the nominee clearly seemed unsuitable, expecting the same consideration when they held the Presidency. More recently, a group of moderates from both parties controlled the swing votes that were intended to prevent an ideologue from being chosen. President Obama's selection in 2012, Merrick Garland, was considered a moderate and very likely would have been approved by the Republican-majority Senate if majority leader Mitch McConnell hadn't prevented a Senate vote on him.
Secondly, the lifetime appointments are intended to prevent an administration from stacking the Court when they come into power; there'll always be some remnants of past administrations there to forestall it.
The judiciary has to come from somewhere; I don't think anyone wants it to be self-perpetuating. The founders seem to have done the best they could to make it independent.
Eric
My Solution
To provoke further discussion on these important issues, here is my solution:
1. One person one vote. That is democracy all over the world except the US. The president should get elected by the people not by electors who may of may not be representative of the people.
2. Congress is the peoples house - it makes the laws and appoints the judges. Senate has a role but it is not a democratic institution (it serves states) and should not appoint SCOTUS judges.
3. Voting rights and voting boundaries go to democratic rights and must be protected by an independent body.
4. Disclosure and Education. Democracy in ancient Greece was not one man one vote but a vote exercised by an educated elite. People need to be made aware of issues and of the people standing. I am not disqualifying the ignorant (sometimes wish I could) but promoting better understanding at the ballot box.
5. Truth. This is the hardest thing. Social media has replaced the news media. But any vehicle for information on politics must be held accountable for lies. Lies have poisoned US politics and people just shrug. Self regulation is to be encouraged, but it is doesn't work then we need mechanisms. Our principles protect the right to speak but not to lie or promote division or violence.
How do we fix this?
Maryanne
This might not be popular, but...
This might not be popular, but I think that permanently banning anyone from posting on social media is just a bad manifestation of Cancel Culture and is a strike against a society that supposedly believes in the freedom of expression.
charlie
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/missing-without-a-trace-cha...
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/832524
Banning Posts
I am not suggesting banning anybody, but abusive behavior and inciting to riot are still crimes. Those who post lies with the purpose of oppressing anybody must be held accountable.
If democracy has a flaw it is that the rule of the majority does not protect the minority. Ask any non-Muslim in a Muslim country. But the US calls itself a nation of laws because it is the law that protects those who are not in the mainstream, and that includes people like many of us.
If somebody posts "all transgendered people are child molesters" and follows up with "lynch all those child molesting trans-folk" what then?
"It's Trump being Trump - don't worry about it" - Really. Lies are worse when they come from leaders.
Laws protect people. Nobody is above the law.
That's all I'm saying.
Maryanne
I wasn't suggesting that. My
I wasn't suggesting that. My post just came to me from watching the news and hearing Germany's Angela Merkel commenting that she thought Facebook, Twitter, and everyone banning Trump permanently was "problematic." Then (right after that) Twitter announced that they had just removed the accounts of one thousand of their Twitter customers over tweets "which violated their standards" regarding the recent attack on the Capitol.
It seemed to me like this cancelling of anyone who expresses an opinion you don't like permanently is getting out of hand.
All the time I was growing up, other guys and grownups would keep telling me that I was too idealistic, romantic, and hopelessly naive. I always thought they were overly cynical and mean.
charlie
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/missing-without-a-trace-cha...
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/832524
Opinion?
With respect, no one is being banned for their opinions; they are being banned for violations of terms of service: to wit, using these platforms to advocate violence and other illegal acts. Merkel's hypocrisy on this is what is problematic: these white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Hitler-apologists would get very short shrift under her own country's laws. And those would be state actions with fines and jail sentences, not the working out of private contracts between citizens.
- Gender is between the ears, sex is between the legs and anywhere else you can get it. - Lulu Martine
In theory - yes...
But in theory, locking up The Typhoid Mary without a legal proof of her guilt is also unacceptable, isn't it? There's only that it saved a lot of human lives...
Theory and reality can differ.
It only works if...
... you get the right person. Even then it's atrociously dangerous, with no guarantee that they will limit it to the right persons.
-- Daphne Xu
I suggest you re-read about
I suggest you re-read about Mary Mallon. (Typhoid Mary)
They didn't lock her up just randomly. She was one of a few asymptomatic carriers of typhus, not the only one. She wasn't restricted until she had shown repeatedly that she wasn't going to keep her word. (Basically, stop being a cook. Do anything else, just stop being a cook.) Even then, the final restriction wasn't prison, as such. More like future psychiatric wards would be.
In any case, they traced not one, but several outbreaks to her, with evidence that would even work now. Although now, she'd be given medical treatment, then be allowed to go back to doing whatever she wanted.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Thank you for the suggestion
... but I have examined her case a lot.
She wasn't locked up randomly - but wasn't locked up legally either. At her time, it simply was not known that asymptomatic carriers of typhoid can exist. People were guessing that she causes these outbreaks, but there was no legal proof to that, at this time.
When the court gives you an
When the court gives you an order, based on medical knowledge, to cease and desist certain activities as it is a threat to the community, that is generally considered a legal order. It's on par with a judge ordering a drunk to stop getting behind the wheel of a car. If they breach that order, they are in contempt of court.
No, they couldn't 'prove' that she had typhoid, but it's the same level of proof of "hmm, this person goes to work at this hospital, and her patients start dying at twice the rate. When she goes to another hospital, that rate follows her, and the previous hospital goes back to normal."
(Back then, they had to try to culture the bacteria from the organs after death, i believe)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Not
Cancel culture, if it means anything, is agitating to cancel a tv program or boycott an actor. This has nothing to do with that. We're talking about sedition, conspiracy, terrorism, and taking up arms against the government. Please do not trivialize this as some sort of popularity contest.
- Gender is between the ears, sex is between the legs and anywhere else you can get it. - Lulu Martine
I swore I wouldn't get into these conversations...
I, too, have been very frightened by where things have been going these last couple of months. I am neither Democrat nor Republican, but I suppose somewhere in between. I would love to have a third viable party, as I could vote as I'm registered -- Libertarian.
My concern regarding the US political system is that our elected officials are supposed to represent our interests. No matter which side of the spectrum you are on, they don't. I believe that allowing our state representatives, whether in the senate or house, to have an unlimited tenure -- well, removes them from our states. They no longer represent us, nor do they have any reason to represent us. They represent themselves because they don't have a vested interest in their state anymore. They have it made!
Are they tied in any way to the economic situation in their precinct? No. They get a salary that has no relation to what the people they are representing have. They receive healthcare far and above what the people in their 'home' receive. After so long in politics, they are out of touch with the people back home.
Personally, I think they should receive a salary average to the area where they are from. The same way with healthcare. If they want, they can pay for more just like we can.
Both sides of the spectrum fall into this. How can you represent people that you have hardly dealt with, in any way, for decades?
I don't think it's really possible.
I think there's a huge problem with banning from Twitter, Facebook, whatever. Years ago, I was accused of getting irate because of the "persecution" of a Christian cause I was behind. A friend who was an atheist told me I would never have been mad if it wasn't a Christian cause. I disagreed. I told her, 'the first amendment promises all of us the freedom of speech. If I deny you the right to say something, I'm giving you the right to deny me the right to say something else. It works both ways, and I recognize that.'
People that I know are going to say things that hurt me because I'm trans. I understand that, but there's an old saying that I have to continue reminding myself of -- You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Am I defending Donald Trump? Not at all. I'm talking about taking the first amendment away from people in general. I've talked to people who have been kicked off of Facebook and Twitter, because of their political views. I have friends and relatives from both sides of the spectrum and denying them their first amendment rights is something I can't agree with.
Why deny first amendment rights? Why legislate morality? You aren't going to change someone's mind. You can only offer information that they haven't seen before and hope it may help. As a Christian minister, that's the business that I'm in, and it's not easy by any means. But if you want to really want to make a difference in how a person thinks, that's what you want to do.
Certainly, blocking a person's speech will stop others from hearing it, but if we're to be honest, if their speech can be stopped, ours should be able to be stopped as well.
So... Off of my soapbox and I'll brace for the... disagreements.
HUGS!!!
Hugs!
Rosemary
So few people seem to
So few people seem to understand what freedom of speech actually means. The first amendment only protects you from the government, private entities have every right to ban people from their platforms.
From the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.."
Notice the wording there, "Congress shall make no law".
This article does a good job of explaining it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/first-amendment-free-s...
Have delightfully devious day,
I agree, and I understand the
I agree, and I understand the difference.
My sister and I are both trans. She has transitioned, and I have not. Because of my place as a minister, I do not present as female. Maybe that makes me less trans than other people. I don't think so, but maybe some do. The fact is, I hear things from people I love, that are said in their faith. Do I hate them for that? Not at all. They are actually living what they believe, just as I am. They have a lack of knowledge that limits what they know of my condition. I am trying to give them the information that they lack, so what so many people consider to be hate speech, stops.
That is what I am referring to when I refer to 1st Amendment rights. I said I was not defending Donald Trump. I'm trying to keep things in perspective, but perhaps I misspoke when I referred to kicking people off of facebook and twitter as removing their first amendment rights. There are people that I know who have no idea what I go through every day, and without that perspective, they consider me to be sinning, so in their honest love for me and my eternal life, they tell me that. Yet for someone who is a hermaphrodite, the victim of a genetic defect, they would say that they're not sinning to be the way they are. They do not realize that I have no choice, just as a hermaphrodite has none. I would say a genetic defect - a lack of testosterone in the womb - made my brain the way it is. So perhaps the way to look at my situation is that I'm a 'mental hermaphrodite?'
I'm certainly mental. No one will doubt that.
Why is my brain the way it is? That's my question.
Hugs!
Rosemary
I would try to put the free speech thing in a different way
Can a private company refuse to enable a spread of lies that lead to deaths, riots etc? (In principle. Let's not target the current case, to avoid an argument over whether it fits this description.)
If they decide not to be enablers of that, is this decision a censorship of the liar, if they do not forbid him to speak through other channels?
As for your question - I believe that you cannot be blamed for something that is not your decision or choice. That includes having a brain that does not match your physical sex.
In the case you have
In the case you have mentioned, certainly. As I said, however, I'm not talking about Donald Trump. As I also said, I normally don't get into these types of conversations because of my inability to express myself spur of the moment, and I realize now that I should have stayed out of it. I'm very sorry for bringing anything up.
Hugs!
Rosemary
An Imaginary Freedom-of-Speech Dialogue
Apropos of nothing, probably... I saw a video clip of Salman Rushdie saying something like this: "If someone says, `I believe in freedom of speech, but', I stop listening." Rushdie was victim of freedom of speech violation in a worst way.
I thought of this kind of dialogue, continuing his statement.
Me: So you'd stop listening if I said, "I believe in freedom of speech, but threats don't qualify"?
Rushdie: Of course
Me: So you consider threats to be legitimate free-speech exercise?
Rushdie: Who said anything about threats?
Me: I just did.
-- Daphne Xu
Threats are, of course, very
Threats are, of course, very relevant.
Hugs!
Rosemary
Attitudes
So much of this is down to changing attitudes. A news article today spoke of normalising the idea of killing political opponents. They used the example of a certain individual exhorting his followers to remember the second amendment with regard to Hilary Clinton and any judges she may appoint.
More recently, I blocked someone on Facebook, who had claimed that the victims of school mass murders were all paid actors, and that the shootings had never happened. When there was a spate of mail bombs sent to Dem politicians, the same person wrote "So what if he's a Republican? He's just one of millions keeping America great, and making America great again"
Yes, really. I may just have called him a Nazi **** before blocking him. If I say that he is white, bearded, obsessed with guns and Israel, well, no surprises there.
He is an example of the normalisation of armed insurrection, the murder of political opponents. Yes, he is a Nazi ****.
All I'll say is that in the
All I'll say is that in the US, armed insurrection is part of the founding document of the country, and has even been used at least once during the last 80 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
I am firmly against killing political opponents. You need opposing opinions. However, too many of our elected officials don't give a crap about their constituents. I _do_ think that when you accept a public office, you should also accept the responsibility to NOT tick off the people that elected you without a VERY good reason, and accepting money from a corporation isn't a good reason.
That extends to judges. I'm a strict Constitutionalist, and I'm sick of those that try to claim that it's not relevant. If it's not relevant, then they need to pass an Amendment. It's very simple. If you don't like it, change it. Don't try to claim that the printed words don't mean what they say, even when all of the supporting documents from the period agree with it. You want a national religion? Pass an Amendment. You think guns shouldn't be in the country? Get 2/3rds of the states to agree with you. You want to permanently remove rights from a former felon? You need a constitutional amendment. There's nothing in there that says that even if you've served your time, you don't get the rights back. You simply lose your rights _while incarcerated_. (I'm counting probation as incarceration).
As for millions making America great? I'd say it's the other way around. It's millions trying to make sure that Americans are never great again.
Something that the people _wanting_ armed insurrection need to remember, however, is that the people of the opposing position may be just as well armed as they are.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.