You can check out El-Sayed’s amazing 20-point progressive campaign in more detail HERE!
- Fight inequality in all forms
- Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour
- Implement state-level single-payer healthcare
- Protect a woman’s right to choose and eliminate the gender pay gap
- Never accept a dime of corporate money and get the money out of politics
- Rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges
- Make college tuition free for families earning under $150K & Reinvest in public education
- End the profit motive in public education
- Reform auto insurance to reduce costs while protecting people
- Fund and implement universal Pre-Kindergarten
- Amend civil rights legislation to enumerate protections from LGBTQ+ Michiganders
- Reform our criminal justice system & tackle mass incarceration and police violence
- Transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050
- Legalize marijuana
- Fight for clean water for all and shut down Enbridge’s Line 5
- Tackle the opioid epidemic through comprehensive mental health reform
- Stand with labor to end Right to Work and protect Prevailing Wage
- Provide high-speed broadband internet to every community in Michigan and protect net neutrality
- Support child and elderly care for Michiganders
- End gerrymandering and legislative term limits and reinstate FOIA for public officials
Saw this shared on FB. It covers counter-arguments for a lot of the most common pro-gun points you’ll see people raise. Long read, but very helpful.
This is amazing. Thank you dude for doing all this work.
Kali Holloway, writing originally at AlertNet, found at Truthout.
A quick and easy guide to finding their opponents, and then donating your time and/or money to anyone willing to stand up against these assholes.
And let’s reinforce the lesson everyone should have taken away from the 2016 election:
THE PERFECT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE GOOD.
I DON’T GIVE A SHIT IF THE PERSON RUNNING AGAINST THE WHITE SUPREMACIST DOESN’T THINK COLLEGE SHOULD BE FREE
OR THAT WE SHOULD HAVE UBI
OR ISN’T A FUCKING VEGAN
OR WHAT-THE-FUCK-EVER IS UP YOUR ASS TODAY
YOU VOTE AGAINST THE WHITE SUPREMACIST.
PERIOD.
AND IF YOU’RE LUCKY ENOUGH NOT TO HAVE A WHTIE SUPREMACIST RUNNING IN YOUR DISTRICT, FIND ONE SOMEWHERE ELSE AND GIVE YOU TIME AND MONEY TO THEIR OPPONENT.
THIS ISN’T FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE.
Trigger warnings for basically every-fucking-thing.
During our #POTUSonNewsHour town hall with @barackobama in 2016, the president stuck around after the broadcast to answer more questions. When asked about Second Amendment rights and gun control, here’s part of what he said. #guns #gun #guncontrol #2ndamendment #rights #potus (at Elkhart, Indiana)
Given the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, and the ill-defined phenomenon known as Trumpism, it’s vital that we understand the psychology that attracted Americans to the real estate mogul in the first place. Research suggests such voters are driven by a combination of racial resentment and authoritarianism.
Sociologist David Norman Smith cited both in a just-published paper, in which he argues hardcore Trump supporters “target minorities and women” and “favor domineering and intolerant leaders who are uninhibited about their biases.”
And yet, there’s something puzzling about that equation. If authoritarians, by definition, revere authority, why would they support an anti-establishment candidate like Trump? And why are they OK with his administration slandering bedrock American institutions as the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A second recently published study provides an answer: There are different strains of authoritarian thinking. And support for Trump is associated with what is arguably the most toxic type: authoritarian aggression.
The study suggests the bulk of his supporters, at least in the Republican primaries, were not old-fashioned conservatives who preach obedience and respect for authority. Rather, they were people who take a belligerent, combative approach toward people they find threatening.
The notion that there are different types of authoritarians was proposed in the 1980s by University of Manitoba psychologist Robert Altemeyer, and refined in 2010 by a research team led by John Duckitt of the University of Auckland. In the journal Political Psychology, that team defined right-wing authoritarianism as “a set of three related ideological attitude dimensions.”
They are:
- “Conventionalism,” a.k.a. “traditionalism,” which is defined as “favoring traditional, old-fashioned social norms, values, and morality.”
- Authoritarian submission,“ defined as “favoring uncritical, respectful, obedient, submissive support for existing authorities and institutions.”
- “Authoritarian aggression,” defined as “favoring the use of strict, tough, harsh, punitive, coercive social control.”
Duckitt and his colleagues created a survey designed to measure each of these three facets. It was measured by participants’ responses to statements such as “The old-fashioned ways, and old-fashioned values, still show the best way to live” (traditionalism); “Our country would be great if we show respect for authority and obey our leaders” (submission); and “The way things are going in this country, it’s going to take a lot of ‘strong medicine’ to straighten out the troublemakers, criminals, and perverts” (aggression).
A research team led by psychologist Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark used those scales to try to tease out why some studies link Trump support to authoritarianism, while others do not.
It discovered the problem with the latter is they tend to either heavily or exclusively focus on the “submission” dimension, which has traditionally been studied in the context of child-rearing (as in, “Do you expect your children to unquestioningly obey their elders?”).
As it turns out, that’s the facet of authoritarianism that has the least to do with support for Trump.
Ludeke’s study, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, featured 1,444 participants recruited online in April of 2016. They responded to 18 authoritarianism-focused statements—six for each facet—and indicated who, among the presidential candidates remaining in the race at that point, they supported.
“Consistent with Trump’s representation of the world as a dangerous place requiring harsh treatment of deviant minorities,” they write, “Trump supporters were high on authoritarian aggression.”
Strong support for conventionalism/traditionalism was also linked to support for Trump, but high scores on the submission category—that is, respect for authority, and obedience to superiors—was not.
Smith’s analysis of data from the American National Election Study reaches a similar conclusion. He reports “enthusiastic Trump voters are also enthusiastic about domineering leaders, and that they are not especially enthusiastic about respectful children.”
Authoritarianism in the Trump era “is not the wish to follow any and every authority but, rather, the wish to support a strong and determined authority who will ‘crush evil and take us back to our true path,’” Smith and his co-author, Eric Hanley, conclude.
Participants in Ludeke’s study also completed surveys measuring Social Dominance Orientation—the belief that one group has the right to dominate others. Replicating previous research, they found this philosophy, which often accompanies authoritarianism, correlated with support for Trump.
So the very things a majority of Americans find disconcerting, if not disqualifying, about Trump—his need to dominate, his thinly veiled white supremacism, and his blunt, bullying language—is precisely what appeals to his hardcore fans. They are very likely stand to by their man, whatever scandals might emerge.
That said, these results suggest Democrats have a decent chance of peeling away a different slice of the Republican-leaning electorate—if they can defend liberal policies while embodying a more traditional respect for authority. Those “submission”-oriented voters don’t have a natural affinity for Trump. They may prefer candidates who embody a traditional sense of dignity—people they can feel comfortable looking up to.
That possibility aside, the picture painted in both of these studies is pretty bleak from a progressive perspective. Smith’s paper, the lead article in the March 2018 issue of Critical Sociology, concludes this way:
Most Trump voters cast their ballots for him with their eyes open, not despite his prejudices but because of them. Their partisanship, whether positive (toward Trump and the Republicans) or negative (against Clinton and the Democrats), is intense. This partisanship is anchored in anger and resentment among mild as well as strong Trump voters.
Anger, not fear, was the emotional key to the Tea Party, and that seems to be true for Trumpism as well. If so, the challenge for progressives is greater than many people have imagined. Hostility to minorities and women cannot be wished away; nor can the wish for domineering leaders.
Add one more thing to the list of retro things young Americans are rediscovering: unions. According to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, 76 percent of new union members in 2017 were younger than 35. That’s pretty significant, considering that workers 34 and under make up just 40 percent of the country’s total workforce. In short, young workers may be kicking off a trend that could strengthen a labor movement that’s been brought to its knees by decades of attacks from employers, corporations, and hostile lawmakers
The Baltimore Police Department is currently in court over one of the biggest scandals in the history of American law enforcement. The corruption case is replete with intrigue as police reveal secrets that sound like something out of an urban-fiction novel or a lost season of The Wire. It has revealed how one of America’s largest cities just happened to be filled with crooked cops, but no one seems to be talking about it outside of Baltimore.
According to the Baltimore Sun, it started when a 19-year-old woman from New Jersey overdosed in 2011 and authorities began tracing the origin of the drugs. It led them to a Baltimore drug crew and the discovery that a Baltimore police officer was involved. By the time they finished investigating, eight members of the elite Gun Trace Task Force had been charged with crimes ranging from racketeering to robbery.
You want robbery? How about the story of the corrupt squad stopping a drug dealer during a traffic stop and robbing him of $6,500, then going to the man’s home without a warrant and taking another $100,000 out of a safe? Sgt. Wayne Jenkins would ask suspected drug dealers, “If you could put together a crew of guys and rob the biggest drug dealer in town, who would it be?”
If you’re interested in police targeting regular citizens, maybe you should read about how the Maurice Ward had a technique of driving fast at groups of people, slamming on the brakes and chasing whoever ran. Perhaps you hear how Jenkins believed that all young men with backpacks were dope boys. Or people who drove Honda Accords with tinted windows.
And then there’s the revelation that the supervisor of the unit instructed officers to carry a toy gun just in case they found themselves “in a jam” and needed to plant one. When one of the officers, Marcus Tayor, was arrested, officials couldn’t figure out why he had a toy gun in his glove compartment.
10 Things to Know About Explorer 1, America's First Satellite
Sixty years ago, the hopes of Cold War America soared into the night sky as a rocket lofted skyward above Cape Canaveral, a soon-to-be-famous barrier island off the Florida coast.
1. The Original Science Robot
Sixty years ago this week, the United States sent its first satellite into space on Jan. 31, 1958. The spacecraft, small enough to be held triumphantly overhead, orbited Earth from as far as 1,594 miles (2,565 km) above and made the first scientific discovery in space. It was called, appropriately, Explorer 1.
2. Why It’s Important
The world had changed three months before Explorer 1’s launch, when the Soviet Union lofted Sputnik into orbit on Oct. 4, 1957. That satellite was followed a month later by a second Sputnik spacecraft. All of the missions were inspired when an international council of scientists called for satellites to be placed in Earth orbit in the pursuit of science. The Space Age was on.
3. It…Wasn’t Easy
When Explorer 1 launched, we (NASA) didn’t yet exist. It was a project of the U.S. Army and was built by Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. After the Sputnik launch, the Army, Navy and Air Force were tasked by President Eisenhower with getting a satellite into orbit within 90 days. The Navy’s Vanguard Rocket, the first choice, exploded on the launch pad Dec. 6, 1957.
4. The People Behind Explorer 1
University of Iowa physicist James Van Allen, whose proposal was chosen for the Vanguard satellite, had made sure his scientific instrument—a cosmic ray detector—would fit either launch vehicle. Wernher von Braun, working with the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in Alabama, directed the design of the Redstone Jupiter-C launch rocket, while JPL Director William Pickering oversaw the design of Explorer 1 and other upper stages of the rocket. JPL was also responsible for sending and receiving communications from the spacecraft.
5. All About the Science
Explorer 1’s science payload took up 37.25 inches (95 cm) of the satellite’s total 80.75 inches (2.05 meters). The main instruments were a cosmic-ray detector; internal, external and nose-cone temperature sensors; a micrometeorite impact microphone; a ring of micrometeorite erosion gauges; and two transmitters. There were two antennas in the body of the satellite and its four flexible whips formed a turnstile antenna that extended with the rotation of the satellite. Electrical power was provided by batteries that made up 40 percent of the total payload weight.
6. At the Center of a Space Doughnut
The first scientific discovery in space came from Explorer 1. Earth is surrounded by radiation belts of electrons and charged particles, some of them moving at nearly the speed of light, about 186,000 miles (299,000 km) per second. The two belts are shaped like giant doughnuts with Earth at the center. Data from Explorer 1 and Explorer 3 (launched March 26, 1958) led to the discovery of the inner radiation belt, while Pioneer 3 (Dec. 6, 1958) and Explorer IV (July 26, 1958) provided additional data, leading to the discovery of the outer radiation belt. The radiation belts can be hazardous for spacecraft, but they also protect the planet from harmful particles and energy from the Sun.
7. 58,376 Orbits
Explorer 1’s last transmission was received May 21, 1958. The spacecraft re-entered Earth’s atmosphere and burned up on March 31, 1970, after 58,376 orbits. From 1958 on, more than 100 spacecraft would fall under the Explorer designation.
8. Find Out More!
Want to know more about Explorer 1? Check out the website and download the poster celebrating 60 years of space science. go.nasa.gov/Explorer1
9. Hold the Spacecraft In Your Hands
Create your own iconic Explorer 1 photo (or re-create the original), with our Spacecraft 3D app. Follow @NASAEarth this week to see how we #ExploreAsOne. https://go.nasa.gov/2BmSCWi
10. What’s Next?
All of our missions can trace a lineage to Explorer 1. This year alone, we’re going to expand the study of our home planet from space with the launch of two new satellite missions (GRACE-FO and ICESat-2); we’re going back to Mars with InSight; and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) will search for planets outside our solar system by monitoring 200,000 bright, nearby stars. Meanwhile, the Parker Solar Probe will build on the work of James Van Allen when it flies closer to the Sun than any mission before.
Make sure to follow us on Tumblr for your regular dose of space: http://nasa.tumblr.com.
Republicans treat Trump’s FBI investigation as if it is an abstract idea, not the obvious, fucking reality that their President is a lifelong criminal with a vast background in money laundering for Russians, and these very same Russians, the number one threat to our country Russians, enjoy having a compromised Trump in the White House.
Teacher removed from public education meeting in handcuffs after asking why superintendents get raises but teachers don't
Deyshia Hargrave is an English teacher at Rene Rost Middle Schools in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana; on Monday night, she attended a special meeting of the local school board and, when called upon comment period, politely asked why the board superintendants had voted themselves a raise while the teachers in the school district have been subjected to a long-term pay-freeze.
The superintendent ruled her question out of order and then a deputy Abbeville city marshal who works in the parish schools dragged her out of the room, put her in handcuffs and threw her to the floor while chanting “stop resisting.”
The board of education says it won’t press charges against her. However, the city is holding her on charges of “remaining after being forbidden” and “resisting an officer.”
… in the boot, under the boot
Crime where
I guess dissenting it’s a crime now.
It gets better. The school board president can’t fucking handle himself in a goddamn interview, and was getting all pissy about the “threats and obscenities” his office has been getting thanks to “that stupid a** video” and whining about how “everyone wants to side with the poor little woman who got thrown out.”
Fucker actually says “She made a choice. She could have walked out and nothing would have happened.”
Of course, if you watch the video you will see that she was A) addressed by the board, B) still being spoken to by a board member at the same time the officer was trying to eject her, and C) she did in fact gather her things and walk out peacefully after the board member finished speaking to her.
If anyone else would like to give Vermilion School Board President Anthony Fontana’s office a call and maybe some fresh obscenities to complain about, their number is (337) 893-3973
Conservatives can’t govern for the middle class. Seriously. They are incapable. They simply don’t care.
Truth is, we need immigrants. We need new ideas. We need the one consistent thing that has always made America uniquely better: the people of the world.
The only answer Republicans have is to give more money to their wealthy donors and mess with women, POC, LGBT, mothers, children, and immigrants.
It’s called scapegoating. And the reason scapegoating inevitable leads to fascism, those people you promised that “unpopular group x” is the source of their problems will eventually want real action taken against group x.