#and being homeless is a political statement when its by choice

[invisibleicewands]

Michael Sheen's The Way echoes Tata steelworks reality

When Michael Sheen was filming clashes between steelworkers and riot police in his home town Port Talbot, little did he know 2,000 jobs at its steelworks would be at risk by the time it premiered.

"We had no idea when we were developing the story what would be happening at the steelworks when this came out," he said.

"It's incredibly unfortunate that the story we've written has come bizarrely very close to the truth."

Speaking ahead of The Way's premiere at Port Talbot's Reel Cinema, he insisted the three-part BBC drama - originally conceived in 2016 - was a fictional story and not about the Tata steelworks.

"But obviously, knowing the town, knowing the relationship the town has with the steelworks, knowing the insecurities and the anxieties that have always been there in my lifetime around employment and work there - that was part of what drew us to setting the story in this town," said Sheen, 55, who both directed and starred in the drama.

He said Port Talbot's steelworks was the "spiritual centre of the town" and "part of our DNA" and the news of job losses had been "devastating".

The Way is written by James Graham, created by Sheen, Graham and documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis and stars a number of Welsh actors.

The cast includes Steffan Rhodri (Steeltown Murders and Gavin & Stacey), Mali Harries (Hinterland), Sophie Melville (The Pact), Callum Scott Howells (It's a Sin) and Mark Lewis Jones (Men Up and Keeping Faith).

Episode one sees growing concern over the future of the steelworks, leading to protests, which later turn to riots.

Some take to the streets to join the fight, others frantically try to escape or hide in their homes as helicopters fly overhead.

The streets become a warzone and the town is locked down by armed police.

With Port Talbot facing an uncertain future, could life imitate art?

"It's not like we're saying 'this is what you should do as a result of what's going on' by any means, but obviously I have huge sympathy for the steelworkers," said Sheen.

"In no way is this a blueprint to how people should react, but you don't know do you? I have no idea how people are going to react.

"People will try and be as resourceful and as positive about it as they possibly can I'd imagine because that is the spirit of the people in this place - but at the same time you don't know and people are very angry as well."

For Sheen, "everything" is political.

A long-term champion of the NHS, in 2015 he was applauded for delivering a passionate speech to a pro-NHS march in Tredegar, Blaenau Gwent, and he is currently in rehearsal for a National Theatre production about NHS founder Aneurin Bevan.

In 2019, he sold property to bankroll the Homeless World Cup in Cardiff when funding for the £2m project fell through at the last moment.

In 2020, the actor, who was born in Newport and raised in Port Talbot, said he had handed back his OBE so he could air his views about the monarchy without being a "hypocrite".

In 2021, he said he had turned himself into a "not-for-profit" actor, using the money he earned from acting to fund projects.

He has been vocal on a range of issues from children in care to Welsh independence.

Was he trying to make a political statement in The Way?

"Everything is connected, everything happens for a reason, things are the way they are in this town and any town not just by chance, it's because of choices and various things... I think inevitably this was going to be a political story," he said.

"Part of the reason why we wanted to set it here... we needed to feel there was a great sense of discontent amongst a lot of people in the place, a lot of anxiety, a lot of feeling of not having their voices heard."

He said when people were made to feel that they were not being listened to and did not matter "that sense of frustration and anger can boil over".

Sheen made his name as an actor initially in the theatre before winning acclaim as a screen actor playing real people from Tony Blair, David Frost, Kenneth Williams and Chris Tarrant to lead roles in series including Good Omens, Masters of Sex and Staged.

In 2011, he directed and starred in a 72-hour epic theatrical production of The Passion, which moved around different locations across Port Talbot drawing huge crowds and critical acclaim.

It is perhaps unsurprising that he would choose to make his TV directorial debut in the town too.

"[The Way] was definitely very personal," he said.

"I feel like I knew what I was filming and I felt anchored and connected to what was going on."

Sheen now lives near Port Talbot with his partner Anna Lundberg and their two children Lyra and Mabli.

"It's somewhere I inevitably keep coming back to and it's an endless source of inspiration," he said of the town.

"It's the source of all my imaginative explorations really because it's my home.

"It's where I grew up, it's where all the most important things happened to me, it's where my family still lives, it's where I now live again and as I've got older I've realised more and more how important the beginning of my life was and all the opportunities people gave to me."

One of those people who gave him opportunities was Godfrey Evans, a drama teacher who helped shaped generations of actors through the West Glamorgan Youth Theatre and died in November, aged 82.

At the premiere across the road from the town's Aberavon Beach, Sheen dedicated the screening to both his former teacher and Port Talbot's steelworkers.

What are his hopes for those in his home town currently fearing for their jobs?

"Particularly at a time like this when there's so much anxiety and so much concern about the future it is so important to feel like you're supported and you can talk about what's going on and to find connection with other people who are maybe going through the same things," he said.

"We wish everyone the best and hope there's plenty of support for people in the future."

#Michael Sheen #The Way #Port Talbot #Interview #Movie #BBC

[please-return-to-villanelle]

This Is Not A Game, It’s My Life

S3E6 recap

The bitter pill of reality has been a hard one to swallow for Eve, Villanelle, Konstantin, and Carolyn over the course of this series. What this episode highlights well is that this spy-life and entanglement with the Twelve is no longer a game for anyone one, but rather a reality they are all living in whether they like it or not.

One of the ways this episode roots the characters in this newfound reality is through select color choices of the title cards and the character’s attire.

Light blue is associated with understanding and tranquility while darker blues represents knowledge, power, and seriousness. This title card is indicating that this episode will revolve around realization for the main characters while each of them uncover new information that allows them to come to terms with their realities.

Eve’s reality

The title cards in season 3 have transitioned from establishing where characters are located and are now giving insight into the psyche of the main characters.

Piss Off Forever

Forever flashes to signify that Eve is coming to terms with finally accepting the reality of her failed marriage with Niko.

It's interesting that this title card is yellow. The color yellow can symbolize optimism or cowardice. Maybe the yellow words are ironically representing the optimism with which they once viewed their relationship; but that is not the reality they find themselves in now.

This whole situation happened because neither Eve nor Niko were brave enough to express what they wanted and end their toxic relationship once and for all. The act of ending their marriage has played out like a game between the two of them. Both of them waiting for the other to make the final move to end it.

We learn that Niko is usually asleep every time Eve comes to visit. Is he avoiding her or actually unconscious? I’m thinking the former as Niko’s injuries wouldn’t equate to an unconscious state (see my other post for a medical break down if interested). Niko deliberately avoiding Eve would play homage to how the two of them are not being direct with each other. Neither of them has the courage to cut ties with each other. While it’s clear that Niko is over having Eve in his life, he doesn’t directly verbalize this to Eve until he is lying in this hospital bed after almost being murdered himself. It’s worth noting that Niko is still wearing his wedding ring in this scene, again showing that neither of them has fully let go of the other up until this point.

I told him, don’t marry her. She will make your life a great big ball ache.

This statement from Niko’s family member indicates that there was inequality in this relationship from the very start that was noticeable to people observing Niko and Eve’s relationship.

I’d also like to point out Eve’s outfit in this scene. She is wearing earth tones as she often does, which are muted and flat colors. This could signify Eve hiding her true nature, as she often does when she ties her hair back, and existing in the moment rather than living in it. I think it’s significant to this scene with Niko because she is taking this interaction and mulling it over internally while Niko makes his move to end the game.

This can’t be about the bus.

Still got it... this is the phrase used by someone playing a game, but Eve knows that this is a game Villanelle isn’t playing with her. They made that clear with the kiss.

Someone else is playing a game with Eve.

Sometimes you just need to let it win.

But Eve, ever the control freak and someone that needs to be right all the time, would not easily let someone else, let alone her own emotions as Bear alludes to, beat her at a game.

She teaches wee kinds to do roly-polies.

Eve puts two and two together that Dasha trains others to imitate and therefore was imitating Villanelle to mess with her. 

Game on, Dasha.

Before confronting Dasha directly, Eve visits Carolyn to collect intel on her opponent. She is wearing the same outfit as before but with a purple scarf

Purple combines the calm stability of blue and the fierce energy of red.

Through her wardrobe, we see Eve slowly transitioning from plain MI5 Eve that was married to Niko to the Eve that is more in tune with her own desires and feelings. She does what she wants and answers to no one.

But if it’s the Twelve Eve, does it really matter who?

I could say the same about Kenny.

This scene shows that the Twelve murdering and harming loves ones is personal to both Eve and Carolyn. Eve is homeless and jobless (does the Bitter Pill even pay her?) while Carolyn is working off the clock to find out what happened to Kenny.

Up for a game?

The title card depicts the location Barcelona in red letters. Red is the color of fire and blood, passion and strength, desire and love. With a such a passionate color choice, we would expect to see a more state of mind title card rather than a simple location. I think this is because Eve is calm and collected when she comes to see Dasha rather than overtly emotional. She is wearing a purple turtleneck to show us this.

Purple combines the calm stability of blue and the fierce energy of red.

She has found a balance and is wearing her hair is down. The real Eve Polastri has arrived and is here to end this game with Dasha.

You think you are winning. You will never win at this game. You can’t beat us, you understand?

I think this is the crux of what is happening in the overall plot with the Twelve. We have 4 people who became inveigled with this organization and are all trying to escape their ties to it. But they are all slowly realizing that dealing with the Twelve and working for the Twelve is not a game.

I know you’re working for the Twelve. I know you’re working with her.

I just love how Eve and Villanelle don’t use each other’s name when taking to other people and everyone just understands they are referring to one another. It’s as if everyone on the planet is aware of their sapphic relationship. I just love it.

She will never be loyal to you.

Eve does not view her relationship with Villanelle as a game and knows there is some thread of understanding between them. It’s the only thing she can rely on anymore and I think we will see more of that in the final 2 episodes.

In the final moment of Eve’s storyline in this episode, she plays her last move and in her purple turtleneck with her hair down she finally lets go of Niko.

End of game.

Villanelle’s Reality

Villanelle is a visual contradiction of projecting power with her wardrobe (dark blue suit and gold shoes) contrasted with her unhinged emotional state in which she is powerless to her raging emotions.

Helene’s phone conversation sets the stage for the game Villanelle is trapped in.

This exposition gives Villanelle insight into how Helene and Dasha are managing her.

At first Helene is speaking directly to her daughter. She tells her daughter what she wants to hear to placate and calm her down. Afterwards, she has a conversation with grandma who has full knowledge of her daughter’s complaints and Helene’s tone and verbiage shifts to reveal her true intentions.

She’s doing all this to get our attention.

Villanelle acts out because she seeks attention.

Put some cream on it. That’ll calm her a bit.

Give Villanelle things to make her feel better temporarily: money, houses, the illusion of freedom and control.

Its official. To Villanelle the Keeper.

Villanelle smiles and downs the entire glass of champagne in triumph. She is temporarily basking in her freedom until... she receives the post card and the illusion of power is shattered.

This is the same stuff I was doing before. This is bullshit

You bargained for what you wanted, and we are giving it to you. You’ll get all the material perks you were expecting. What more do you want?

It becomes apparent that the Keeper position Villanelle was granted was nothing more than another tool her handlers were using manipulate her with.

This made me think of Villanelle’s Roman centurion and emperor metaphor. A centurion, or foot soldier, is someone who takes orders and carries them out similarly to how assassins are told who to kill by their handlers. While the title of emperor holds power and gives the perception of being in charge, this is not always true in reality. Sometimes a political title can be nothing more than a symbol of power for the figure head of the state while the minor politicians give the orders behind the scenes. This is Villanelle the Keeper’s reality.

Villanelle is over the Twelve and seeks the only family she has left: Konstantin.

They kill you the second they realize it.

I want this.

He reveals his plan to exit the Twelve for good likely with the 6 million euros he has stolen and his daughter Irina in tow. But exiting the Twelve is no simple task.

Do you know what this means? It means you have to leave everything: the clothes, apartment, and her.

I know.

This dialogue parallels with the end of season 2 when Konstantin encouraged Villanelle to run away after killing Aaron Peele. She wasn’t ready to let go of Eve then because keeping Eve was still part of her ultimate end game. But now the game is over, and she just wants to be free and at this point in time is prepared to give up everything including Eve to get the one thing she wants: her freedom.

This is bullshit.

At the end of the episode we see Villanelle completely botch a kill and get injured in the process. Killing and watching the life drain from people’s eyes used to be something that made Villanelle feel powerful and gave her a sense of ultimate control. This is no longer the case as Villanelle comes to terms with her complete lack of autonomy and her inability to escape her emotions.

I’m done with this shit. I’m done with it, I’m leaving.

Carolyn’s Reality

Carolyn finally gets Kenny’s phone records that were being withheld by her boss Paul (confirmed plant for the Twelve). She is over this game the Twelve is playing with her as well and she decides to go straight to the source of the several in going and outgoing calls Kenny received before his demise: Konstantin.

Carolyn is also done with the game Geraldine is playing with her. She confronts her directly about the secrets held between them with regards to her involvement with Konstantin. I suspect we will get more answers to whatever is going on here in the next episode. Regardless, Carolyn is over it.

The drought can be endured but rot is an instant killer.

Konstantin’s Reality

Carolyn’s “I’m over these games” energy leads he straight to Konstantin who, judging by the title card, wishes he was free in Cuba. The color pink could symbolize love and romance. In this context, I think it is alluding the romantic history between Carolyn and Konstantin and his love for his daughter Irina.

Are you in a rush?

No, impatient.

During their car ride, he reveals that he might be Kenny’s father and while that is interesting information it is likely not a conversation that requires several phones calls to clear up. Indicating once again that Konstantin is being deceitful with everyone around him as a way to survive this game.

Interestingly, the aria Carolyn was listing to when taking to Mo about Kenny is playing in the background during the car ride. The song, Dido’s Lament, is about an apocalyptic romance between Aeneas and Dido in which one of the lovers leaves out of duty and the other is left to die (foreshadowing?). I’m wondering if this song is signifying that this is the last time Carolyn and Konstantin see each other. Much like Aeneas and Dido, these lovers leave a lot unresolved between them as they part ways.

Later on, Paul, Konstantin’s boss this season, orders Konstantin to track down the person that ordered the hit on Kruger’s wife, which we all know is Konstantin.

Game over for Konstantin.

He immediately packs his bags and goes to collect Irina. But his desire to be free does not outweigh his love for Irina as he stays behind to watch over her in the next episode after she kills her mom’s new boyfriend. Really interesting that he made sure Villanelle was ready to leave Eve behind, the woman that has her heart, but Konstantin was not willing to leave behind his daughter, the girl that has his. Perhaps Konstantin can’t imagine a reality without his daughter or maybe he has more loose ends to tie up before heading to Cuba.

#killing eve #killing eve analysis #end of game #Eve Polastri #villanelle #Carolyn Martins #konstantin vasiliev #villaneve #dasha #killing eve season 3

[dathen]

I’m so angry that tumblr put my read more WITHIN THE ASK ITSELF so I’m copying the whole post since I worked hard on it:

Ask from @ blue-electric-angel

Hi Dath! Would you feel up to rant about the trolley problem? I've never liked it but I don't know WHY or at least can't articulate it, so I would be interested in hearing another person's thoughts 🤔 But it's okay if you don't want to!!

OKAY TWO DISCLAIMERS

a) I was reminded that I should clarify my dislike of the trolley problem bc of @callmearcturus talking about its issues, so can’t take full credit here!

b) I am not a philosophy expert and find ethical thought games only useful in how they apply to the real world, and find worth in ethical discussions in how they’re applied/affect how people think more than how complex/challenging they are.

THIRD DISCLAIMER I’m very sleepy and pretty sure I have surpassed my words quota of the week so this may be a bit disjointed!!

Some background on my ire:  I’m a CPA.  Which means majoring in business.  Which means being around business majors.  Which means BUSINESS ETHICS CLASSES.  My eyes start to water every time I think about how many American Dream dudebros tried to apply the trolley problem as a flimsy excuse to devalue those they thought were reasonable sacrifices for their own greater good.  Is it worth testing weapons on your own population, if you can then use those weapons to end a war faster?  Should we get rid of regulations about medical tests on people, if it would result in life-saving medicine being produced faster?  And so on.  Rules, protections, and just anything that would require giving another human being agency are treated like nuisances in the way of Great Minds moving and shaping the world as they see fit.  

I went and did a search to see if anyone already put my thoughts about the trolley problem into words, and the article The Trolley Problem Will Tell you Nothing Useful About Morality sums it up right from the get-go:

It discourages us from examining the structural factors that determine our choices.

[cut for length]

One thing that drove me BATSHIT about philosophy classes is I was never allowed to bring historical or social context into any of the discussions.  I couldn’t challenge Aristotle’s view of women as ranking somewhere near livestock, because if I couldn’t word puzzle my way into a truth, nonsense like “disenfranchisement of women in Ancient Greece” and “self-perpetuating social structures enforcing class and gender divides” didn’t belong in my discussions, apparently!  

Which, needless to say, is a huge issue when you start getting into topics of “who should we sacrifice for the greater good” as applied to political policy.  I don’t even need to elaborate on this one.  It’s always those whose lives are valued less and who have less power in that society.  The “greater good” is intensely subjective, and will always include the well-being of the person making the choice.  

The trolley problem works from a long list of assumptions that will rarely reflect reality, and shortcut past the most important discussions to be had:

- The person behind the switch has the sole power or responsibility for making the choice.  They don’t have the chance to communicate, they don’t have the chance to get input from the people in danger.  

- The person behind the switch is the only one with agency, and the only one who CAN have agency.

- The safety of the person behind the switch is assumed.  No possible choice could involve them being in danger.

- There’s a time limit that allows nothing more than an impulse decision.

- There’s no examination of why there is only one person with power over the situation, or why those at risk are 100% powerless to leave their situation

- There’s no chance of examining why the trolley is rolling down the tracks in the first place

That last one is where my rage comes from about the misapplication of this thought game re: insisting philosophy must be ahistorical.  But the thing that especially gets under my skin is how the agency of other human beings is just completely taken off the table.  A non-issue.  Something we have to assume wouldn’t make a difference, something we should assume isn’t possible to begin with.

[Stop reading here if you’re avoiding The Magnus Archives spoilers to episode 101]

Since this came up in a TMA context, I’ll veer it over to TMA: I see it get brought up in the context of Gertrude sacrificing Michael to save the world.  But this dehumanizes Michael as a person who could have been given agency and information, when in fact we know he was kept ignorant so that he could be more easily manipulated.  It places Gertrude behind the switch with no other options other than to pull a lever one way or another.  But therein lies the issue with the application of this experiment to “real life” scenarios.  Where is talking to Michael instead of betraying him?  Where is letting him make a choice of his own?  We learn later that his sacrifice wasn’t even necessary, but with the limited information Gertrude had at the time, how much were other options (LIKE GOOD OL C4) explored before she decided to ruin the life of someone who trusted her?  Why does she get to ensure her own safety behind the switch, rather than considering herself in the trade of “one life to save the world”?

TMA 155 - Cost of Living is a fantastic deconstruction of how rich and privileged people try to apply the trolley problem to excuse their choices and their abuse of others.  The statement giver rationalizes murdering dozens of people to fuel her own life, excusing it with “but I can do so much good if I’m alive!”  Meanwhile we’re left horrified that she clearly finds those she postures as being so helpful towards as expendable and “less valuable to society,” such as homeless people and the elderly.  We’re left side-eying the idea that a rich person giving to charity while living comfortably as being an indisputable “greater good” when all that’s really happening is one person valuing her own life over the lives of so many others.  The statement giver insists the net gain of the world excuses her actions, and tries to narrow the choice down to those two tracks:  Don’t pull the switch and lose “all the good she could do,” pull the switch and lose just a handful of people.  Listening, we know that the only person on the other track is her, and that her rationalization only enables her to kill again and again.

And that is why I hate the trolley problem.  

#there are spoilers for TMA 100 in here but I mark where they start #so if you're not interested in TMA or catching up you can read the rest of me hating on the trolley problem

[greatfay]

controversial opinions?

Cold pizza actually not good. Tastes like angry bacteria.

There’s a completely separate class of gay men who are in a different, rainbow-tinted plane of reality from the rest of us and I don’t like them. They push for “acceptance” via commercialization of the Pride movement, assimilation through over-exposure, and focus on sexualizing the movement to be “provocative” and writing annoying articles that reek of class privilege instead of something actually important like lgbtqa youth homelessness, job discrimination, and mental health awareness.

Coleslaw is good. You guys just suck in the kitchen.

Generational divides ARE real: a 16-year-old and a 60-year-old right now in 2021 could agree on every hot button sociopolitical topic and yet not even realize it because they communicate in entirely different ways.

Sam Wilson is a power bottom. No I will not elaborate.

Allison’s makeover in The Breakfast Club good, not bad. She kept literally and metaphorically dumping her trash out onto the table and it’s clearly a cry for help. Having the attention and affection of a smart, pretty girl doing her makeup for her was sweet and helped her open up to new experiences. Not every loner wants to BE a loner (see: Bender, who is fine being a lone wolf).

Movie/show recommendations that start with a detailed “representation” list read like status-effecting gear in an RPG and it’s actually a turn-off for me. I have to force myself to give something a try in spite of it.

Yelling at people to just “learn a new language” because clearly everyone who isn’t you and your immediate vicinity of friends must be a lazy ignorant white American is so fucking stupid, like I get it, you’re mad someone doesn’t immediately know how to pronounce your name or what something means. But I know 2 languages and am struggling with a 3rd when I can between 2 jobs and quite frankly, I don’t have the time to just absorb the entire kanji system into my brain to learn Japanese by tomorrow night, or suddenly learn Arabic or Welsh. There are 6500 recorded languages in the world, what’s the chance that one of 3 I’ve learn(ed?) is the one you’re yelling at me about. Yes this is referring to that post yelling at people for not knowing how to pronounce obscure Irish names and words. Sometimes just explaining something instead of admonishing people for not knowing something inherently in the belief that everyone must be lazy entitled privileged people is uh... better?

Stop fucking yelling at people. I despise feeling like someone is yelling at me or scolding me, it triggers my Violence Mode, you don’t run me, you are not God, fuck off. Worst fucking way to "educate” people, it just feels good in the moment to say or write and doesn’t help. Yes I’ve done it before.

Violence is good actually.

Characters doing bad things ≠ an endorsement of bad things. Characters doing bad things that are unquestioned by the entire rest of the cast = endorsement of bad things, or at the least, a power fantasy by the creator. See: Glee, in which Sue’s awfulness is constantly called out, while Mr. Shue’s awfulness rarely is because he’s “the hero.” See also: the Lightbringer series, in which the protagonist is a violent manipulator who is praised as clever, charming, diplomatic, and genius by every supporting character (enemies included), despite the text never demonstrating such.

Euphoria is good, actually. It falls into this niche of the past decade of “dark gritty teen shows” but actually has substance behind it, but the general vibe I get from passive-aggressive tumblr posts from casual viewers is that this show is The Devil, and the criticism of its racier content screams pearl-clutching “what about the children??” to me.

Describing all diagnosed psychopaths as violent criminals is a damaging slippery slope, sure. But I won’t be mad at anyone for inherently distrusting another human who does not have the ability to feel guilt and remorse, empathy, is a pathological liar, or proves to be cunning and manipulative.

It’s actually not easy to unconditionally support and love everyone everywhere when you’ve actually experienced the World. Your perspective and values will be challenged as you encounter difficult people, experience hardship, are torn between conflicting ideas and commitments, and fail. My vow to never ever call the cops on another black person was challenged when an employee’s boyfriend marched into the kitchen OF AN ESTABLISHMENT to scream at her, in a BUSINESS I MANAGED, and threaten to BEAT the SHIT out of her. Turns out I can hate cops and hate that motherfucker equally, I am more than capable of both.

Defending makeup culture bad, actually. Enjoy it, experiment, master it, but don’t paint it as something other than upholding exactly what they want from you. Even using makeup to “defy the heteropatriarchal oppressors!” is still putting cash in their pockets, no matter how camp...

Not every villain needs to be redeemed, some of you just never outgrew projecting yourself onto monsters and killers.

Writing teams and networks queerbaiting is not the same as individuals queerbaiting. Nick Jonas performing exclusively at gay clubs to generate an audience really isn’t criminal; if they paid to go see him, that’s on them, he didn’t promise anyone anything other than music and a show. Do not paint this as similar to wealthy, bigoted executives and writing teams trying to snatch up the LGBTQA demographic with vague ass marketing and manipulative screenplays, only to cop out so as not to alienate their conservative audiences. And ESPECIALLY when the artists/actors/creators accused of queerbaiting or lezploitation then come out as queer in some form later on.

Queer is not a bad word, and I’ve no clue how that remains one of few words hurled at LGBTQA people that can’t be reclaimed. It’s so archaic and underused at this point that I don’t get the reaction to it compared to others.

People who defend grown-woman Lorelai Gilmore’s childish actions and in the same breath heavily criticize teenage religious abuse victim Lane Kim’s actions are not to be trusted. Also Lane deserved better.

Keep your realism out of my media, or at least make it tonally consistent. Tired of shows and movies and books where some gritty, dark shit comes out of nowhere when the narrative was relatively Romantic beforehand.

Actually people should be writing characters different from themselves, this new wave in the past year of “If you aren’t [X] you shouldn’t be writing [X]” is a complete leap backward from the 2010s media diversity movement. And if [X] has to do with an invisible minority status (not immediately visible disabilities, or diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, persecuted religious affiliations, mental illness) it’s actually quite fucked up to assume the creator can’t be whatever [X] is or to demand receipts or details of someone’s personal life to then grant them “permission” to create something. I know, we’re upset an actual gay actor wasn’t casted to play this gay character, so let’s give them shit about it: and not lose a wink of sleep when 2 years later, this very actor comes out and gives a detailed account of the pressure to stay closeted if they wanted success in Hollywood.

Projecting an actor’s personal romantic life and gender identity onto the characters they play is actually many levels of fucked up, and not cute or funny. See: reinterpreting every character Elliot Page has played through a sapphic lens, and insulting his ability to play straight characters while straight actors play actual caricatures of us (See also: Jared Leto. Fuck him).

I’m fucking sick of DaBaby, he sucks. “I shot somebody, she suck my peepee” that’s 90% of whatever he raps about.

“Political Correctness” is not new. It was, at one point, unacceptable to walk into a fine establishment and inform the proprietor that you love a nice firm pair of tits in your face. 60 years ago, such a statement would get you throw out and possibly arrested under suspicion of public intoxication. But then something happened and I blame Woodstock and Nixon. And now I have to explain to a man 40 years my senior that no, you can’t casually mention to the staff here, many of whom are children, how you haven’t had a good fuck in a while. And then rant about the “Chinese who gave us the virus.” Can’t be that upset with them if you then refused to wear your mask for 20 minutes.

Triggering content should not have a blanket ban; trigger warnings are enough, and those who campaign otherwise need to understand the difference between helping people and taking away their agency. 13 Reasons Why inspired this one. Absolutely shitty show, sure, but it’s a choice to watch it knowing exactly what it contains.

Sasuke’s not a fucking INTJ, he’s an ISFP whose every decision is based off in-the-moment feelings and proves incapable of detailed and logical planning to accomplish his larger goals.

MCU critique manages to be both spot-on and pointless. Amazing stories have been told with these characters over the course of decades; but most of it is toilet paper. Expecting a Marvel movie to be a deeply detailed examination of American nationalism and imperialism painted with a colorful gauze of avant-garde film technique is like expecting filet mignon from McDonalds. Scarf down your quarter pounder or gtfo.

Disparagingly comparing the popularity and (marginal) success of BLM to another movement is anti-black. It is not only possible but also easy to ask for people’s support without throwing in “you all supported BLM for black people but won’t show support for [insert group]” how about you keep our name out your mouth? Black people owe the rest of the world nothing tbh until yall root out the anti-blackness in your own communities.

It is the personal demon/tragic flaw of every cis gay/bi/pan man to externalize and exorcize Shame: I’m talking about the innate compulsion to Shame, especially in the name of Pride and Progress. Shame for socioeconomic “success,” shame for status of outness, shame for fitness and health, shame for looks, shame for style and dress, shame for how one fits into the gender binary, shame for sexual positions and intimacy preferences, shame for fucking music tastes. Put down the weapon that They used to beat you. Becoming the Beater is not growth, it’s the worst-case scenario.

Works by minorities do not have to be focused on their marginalized identities. Some ladies want to ride dragons AND other ladies. The pressure on minorities to create the Next Great Minority Character Study that will inevitably get snuffed at the Oscars/Peabody Awards is some bullshit when straight white dudes walk around shitting out mediocre screenplays and books.

Canadians can stfu about how the US is handling COVID-19 actually. Love most of yall, but the number of Canadian snowbirds on vacation (VACATION??? VA.CAT.ION.) in the supposed “hotbed” of my region that I’ve had to inform our mask policies and social distancing to is ASTOUNDING. Incroyable! I guess your country has a sizable population of entitled, privileged, inconsiderate, wealthy, and ignorant people making things difficult for everyone, just like mine :)

No trick to eliminate glasses fog while wearing my mask has worked, not a single one, it actually has affected my job and work speed and is incredibly frustrating, and I have to deal with it and pretend it’s not a problem while still encouraging others to follow the rules for everyone’s safety and the cognitive dissonance is driving me insane.

It’s really really really not anti-Japanese... to be uncomfortable with the rampant pedophilia in manga and anime, and voice this. I really can’t compare western animation’s sneakier bullshit with pantyshots of a 12-year-old girl.

Most of the people in the cottagecore aesthetic/tag have zero interest in all the hard work that comes with maintaining an isolated property in the countryside, milking cows and tending crops before sunrise, etc. And that’s okay? They just like flowers and pretty pottery and homemade pastries. Idk where discourse about this came from.

You think mint chip ice-cream tastes like toothpaste because you’re missing a receptor that can distinguish the flavors, and that sucks for you. It’s a sort of “taste-blindness” that can make gum spicy to some while others can eat a ghost pepper without crying.

Being a spectacle for the oppressive class doesn’t make them respect us, it makes them unafraid of us. This means they continue to devour us, but without fear of our retaliation.

Only like 4 people on tumblr dot com are actually prepared for the full ramifications of an actual revolution. The rest of you just really imprinted onto Katniss, or grew up in the suburbs.

Straight crushes are normal. They’re people first, sexual orientation second. Can’t always know.

The road to body positivity is not easy, especially if what you desire is what you aren’t.

You’re actually personally responsible for not voluntarily bringing yourself into an environment that you know is not fit for you unless you have the resolve to manage it. Can’t break a glass ceiling without getting a few cuts. This one’s a shoutout to my homophobic temp coworkers who decided working a venue with a drag show would be a good idea. This is also is a shoutout to people who want to make waves but are surprised when the boat tips. And also a shoutout to people who—wait that’s it’s own controversial opinion hold up.

Straight people can and should stay the fuck out of gay bars and queer spaces. “yoUrE bEInG diVisiVe” go fuck yourself.

[gay-jesus-probably]

Non-Ridiculous Cold Weather PSA

Because I’ve been seeing a lot of hysterical PSA posts about surviving the cold weather, and while watching americans be terrified about negative temperatures is deeply amusing to me, the polar vortex is still dangerous and some of the ‘advice’ going around has been useless, stupid, or just straight up wrong.

So. Some calm advice from your local canadian that’s actually helpful, because let’s be real here there’s a reason that all this panic has been aimed at American’s, and that’s because we’re already used to this shit so we’re not freaking out.

First, debunking the stupider advice I’ve seen:

You don’t have to sleep naked. That’s weird and unnecessary, but I’ve actually seen people advising that. You’re not going to freeze to death in your sleep because you sweat. Wear your damn pajamas. Wear socks and a hoodie to bed if you want. Pile on the blankets. You don’t need to take survival precautions overnight in a heated building, and even if you did, nudity wouldn’t do anything.

Don’t build an igloo. Why the fuck have I even been seeing that as a suggestion? If your home loses power for heating, first step is to pick a single room, and have everyone in the house cuddle up together under a mountain of blankets. Body heat, yo. And if you still feel there is a legitimate risk of freezing to death, leave the building AND GO SOMEWHERE WITH HEATING. If you try to build a fucking igloo to survive, you’ll waste your time and energy getting cold and wet fucking around in the snow, and if you manage to actually create a structure (which is unlikely), it’s probably going to fucking collapse on you when you try to use it, and then you’re freezing cold and soaking wet. And that’s if you don’t suffocate under the snow. Don’t build a fucking igloo. I don’t remember who was suggesting that, but I’m going to kick your ass.

Your dogs can still go outside. Obviously, not for long, and under supervision, but you don’t need to get a fucking kiddie pool full of grass for them to go in. Seriously? It’s not a hurricane. You're not in mortal peril the second you step outside. Your dog is covered in fur, it can handle going outside for a few minutes, doing its business, and then coming back in immediately. If you’re that worried, get a dog coat and put it on them, or cuddle your dog to warm it back up once you’re back in. If you have to go out along with your dog... well sucks to suck, but you can also put on a coat and handle a few minutes of cold.

And now the actual advice that you need, that I haven’t seen anyone getting.

Wear a hat. Cannot emphasis how important a warm hat is. Canadian’s aren’t wearing toques as a fashion statement (tho we do look good), it’s cause your head is a major heat loss, so you stay a lot warmer if you cover it up.

Anything wet will drain heat. If you have the choice between wet clothes and nothing, take nothing. Do not leave a heated building with wet/damp clothing. Do not leave a heated building with wet/damp hair. On that note, if you DO leave the house with wet hair, it will freeze, and it can break. That’s not a safety thing thats just a tip, don’t touch your hair if it freezes, just wait for it to thaw on its own unless you want an impromptu haircut.

Wool/fleece/any fuzzy thing isn’t always the best idea. If it’s dry? Perfect, excellent insulator, good warm winter gear. But it gets wet, which it easily does, you’re fucked. Mitts/gloves, coat, boots, and snowpants should all be waterproof. Everything else, there’s not really any point lmao. Non-waterproof gear is better than nothing, but be careful about getting snow on it.

There is no style to winter gear. There is no shame in wearing weird shit to stay warm. There is no such thing as too bundled up. Seriously, when it’s this cold, ideally you’re not exposing any part of your body to the outdoors. I live in the prairies, and regularly see people wearing ski goggles out and about during cold snaps. Myself included. Seriously, you don’t need to look good, you just need to be warm. I promise anybody looking at you is just wishing they’d thought of that. ...Just remember to remove all facial coverings the moment you enter a bank, or any kind of business establishment, because otherwise you will be giving the wrong impression about your reasons for being there.

Do not sleep in shoes/boots. Never do that. I don’t care how cold your feet are, put some socks on and suck it up. Sleeping in boots messes with your circulation, and makes it worse. Take em off.

Do not use alcohol to warm up. It will seemingly induce warmth, but it actually leaves you colder. ...That’s not a metaphor, that’s just a fact, it will feel like it’s warming you up, but it doesn’t actually help. Go for an actual warm drink or something.

Bring your cats inside. You shouldn’t have outdoor cats at all! Do you know how much shit can kill them out there? More than that, they’re an invasive species, they’re devastating the ecosystem. But they’ll freeze to death in the cold, so bring them in and (ideally) never let them out again, you’re an irresponsible pet owner.

On that note, stray cats often use cars for shelter in the cold. Before starting up your car, check the wheels, and then bang on the hood. I’ve seen warnings about checking the wheels already, but cats can also get under the hood, and will curl up there for warmth. If the car is turned on while a cat’s on the engine block... well, I think you can guess it’s not pretty. Smack the hood of your car before you get in; anything in there will wake up and bolt, or at least announce its presence. Either way, you don’t accidentally shred a cat. Apologies for that mental image.

If you’re homeless: I can’t give you any specific locations cause idk, check other posts for that, but seriously you do not want to be on the streets right now. Libraries are good, as are coffee shops/restaurants that are open 24/7. Libraries you can’t get kicked out of, but businesses... worth a shot, honestly. You might need to try and buy something, and honestly I would advise just straight up asking the employees if you can camp out there all night despite only buying one thing at the start, but strong odds says they’ll let you stay. Be honest and polite, apologize for the imposition, and you’re more likely to be left alone all night. The employees had to go through the cold to get to work, they know it’s miserable out. Or go to a shelter or warming station or something. Seriously. DO NOT SPEND THE NIGHT OUTSIDE.

If you have exhausted every single option and are stuck outside overnight. Do not sleep. Do not stop. It is going to be the most miserable night of your life, and you will be lucky to survive, but it’s not impossible. Keep walking. Doesn’t matter where you go, just that you are on your feet and moving. Movement creates body heat, and that is desperately needed. If you fall asleep, you will never wake up again. You’re probably going to be tempted to do it anyways, you will definitely cry, and it will literally feel like torture, but keep going. Survive. Nobody should ever have to endure an ordeal like this, but if there’s no other options, staying on your feet is the only way to survive. If you pull through the night, find a local library, and go in the second it opens; you’ll need to warm up and get some sleep, and a library can’t kick you out.

I know that last one sets something of a grim tone, but seriously, stay calm. You’re going to be fine. That’s the worst case scenario advice, and I hope to god nobody needs to use it. If you’re homeless, yes you should definitely be worried about this, and take every possible precaution to avoid being out on the streets overnight. If you’re not homeless... Seriously calm the fuck down, you’re okay. I know, for most of us it would literally be warmer in Antarctica, or on fucking Mars. But what else is new? Up north we’re surviving this shit every year. The only time frostbite isn’t on the table is May to August, and I mean really even then.

Anyways, stay calm, stay safe, and stay warm. Worst case scenario, you can always try singing the Canadian national anthem, it gives you an automatic resistance to cold. If nothing else, you’ll definitely come out of this understanding why Tim Hortons is such a Thing here. My condolences to all of you for having to endure this cold without any timmies. We’ll pour one out in your honour.

Oh yeah and if you start hearing things like gunshots, despite it being America it may not actually be gunshots this time; when it’s really cold sometimes trees explode. Liquid expands when it freezes, so if enough of a tree freezes... boom. Don’t approach until the trees stop exploding, tree shrapnel can fuck you up. Have fun!

#cold #cold weather warning #psa #polar vortex #that last bit isnt bullshit btw #trees can actually explode in the cold #its rare tho so dont worry about it

[ekahnomist]

Draft - Policy analysis for post-covid housing

Table of Contents: 

Section I: Background and fundamental theory Section II: Policy options without needs-based assessmentSection III: Discriminating based on need

The coronavirus has ushered in a particular conversation around welfare, both at the federal level and the local level. Politicians and NGOs are touting numerous, contradictory policies to address many chronic problems that are flaring up in this moment of crisis. Lessons from welfare economics give us a useful framework with which to analyze policy decisions. The basis of welfare economics is the claim that it is possible to actually measure and compare the impacts of well-defined policies. The field is based around the basic welfare equation, which is formulated to “maximize social welfare” just as a basic private company might “maximize profit”. In this essay, we ask the question: how do we maximize social welfare with respect to the housing market in the wake of the COVID-19  crisis?

A note on welfare theory

Welfare economics has plenty of critiques, and is by no means a political panacea. A leftist may disagree with the notion that quantifying and comparing utility is useful at all. They may instead believe it prudent to draw a hard line around core human rights that must be agreed to wholesale. Many believe that a specific set of goods fall into the category of “human rights” and thus should not be commodified or discussed in any marginal terms (e.g., housing). From the opposite side of the political spectrum, the political right is devoted to free market economics and considers welfare economics to be overly prescriptive - as an unnatural affront to pillars of “choice” and “property rights”. We would encourage both of these parties, and everyone in between, to consider how the Greeks defined analysis - as the breaking down of a subject in order to better understand it. Welfare economics cannot claim any more or less than that exact endeavor - to break down social questions into their component pieces and arguments in order to better understand them. Frequently, fragments of that “analysis” by themselves may yield an ugly or displeasing thought. It is important to hold them in their fragmentation as we do in the whole - as dependent pieces of the larger whole, each themselves powerless without their context.

Concrete numerical analysis is a near-impossible task in welfare economics. Politicians want to be able to say “A is better than B by exactly X dollars”. Getting that level of rhetorical certainty requires either a herculean effort or some very generous assumptions, bordering on unethical. However, we can rely on a combination of general theorems, specific observed economic principles, and a healthy dose of government intervention to make some powerful claims about the proper steps forward. In this remainder of this essay, we focus specifically on the question of housing security in a renter’s market like Oakland, California. 

SECTION I - Background and fundamental theory

In Oakland, you have two competing claims from renters and landlords. 

Renters assert that they shouldn’t be made to pay rent, because they can’t afford to in a crisis. They claim that for no fault of their own - no violation of their end of the social contract - they are experiencing job loss, increased child care costs, and personal health precautions. Under the status quo, these shocks to their personal finance means eviction, which they will (quite literally) attempt to avoid at all costs because of its nonlinear cost. Which is to say, someone who requires a dollar to stay housed will require (much) more than one dollar after they lose their house (see: Claim 2). 

Landlords assert that their livelihoods require that tenants pay. That the financial hit of a rent freeze would be an economic hit from which they cannot recover. Landlords would view a rent freeze as the government saving one constituency at their own expense. 

Claim 1: There exists a solution: As a first step, we draw some boundary conditions around the problem. Obviously, there is at least one way to meet the demands of both parties, which is for a third party (the government) to shoulder the entire costs of this economic shock. It is possible that the government could pay all landlords the rent that their tenants cannot pay. For obvious reasons, this boundary condition is not a likely scenario, since it is prohibitively expensive for the government. And regardless of what side of the tenant-landlord line one falls, it is hard to argue that this would be the least expensive solution for the government or for our society. It follows that any policy must at least be as cost-effective as this full government subsidy. 

Claim 2: Nonlinear cost of eviction: Someone who requires a dollar to stay housed will require (much) more than one dollar after they lose their house. Thus, from a social welfare perspective, prioritizing basic housing security is a welfare-maximizing pursuit. Otherwise, the social cost tomorrow will be the same cost of housing plus associated costs of housing instability. A recent study shows that an appearance in eviction court increase the likelihood an New Yorker visits the emergency room by 79%. It also found that it increases that same person’s likelihood of spending a night in a homeless shelter by almost 20%. Other social costs remain uncertain - missed school days by children facing eviction with their family, for example.

With these two claims, we now consider the welfare statement at the core of this debate: How can the government invest in the housing market at the lowest cost in order to realize maximal social benefits?

SECTION II - Policy options without needs-based assessment

Base Case: Renters can’t pay rent and are evicted by the county.

In this case, Claim 2 is broken early and often. Under this scenario, the most number of citizens experience homelessness, and the nonlinear costs of eviction are accrued quickly and massively. As of this writing on April 10th 2020, ten million Americans have filed for unemployment during this crisis - the single biggest job loss event in American history. In any region in the US, renters will be faced with their inability to pay rent. Renters would continue to self-discriminate if they can, those with the means to pay rent would continue to do so to avoid eviction. 

Case 1A: Evictions are banned in the short term, but unpaid rent during this time can be used to evict tenants after the moratorium expires.

This is the most common operating procedure in the state of California. In this case, evictions are avoided in the short term, but they are liable to increase dramatically after the pandemic. Under this scenario, some tenants affected by COVID-19 are able to arbitrage over the course of weeks and months to pay back rent and avoid eviction. Fewer evictions are likely to occur when compared to the base case, as renters who can pay rent do so after the pandemic. Though the nonlinear costs of eviction are accrued at a later date and to a lesser extent, these costs are only minimized by a combination of discerning federal aid packages and improving local economies. 

Case 2A: Evictions are banned in the short term, unpaid rent during this time cannot be used to evict tenants after the moratorium expires, but instead converts to consumer debt. Oakland has taken a middle-of-the-road approach, which is to quell the concern of eviction with an eviction moratorium. The most important clause of this ordinance is that a tenant who cannot pay rent during this crisis can never be evicted for having missed rental payments in this time window. A key stipulation is that you have to be able to prove financial hardship as a result of the crisis. This is a fantastic step in the right direction that should be applauded, as it staves off the destabilization of eviction in the short term. The technical details of the ordinance, however, mean that any rent deferred during this emergency period will be converted to consumer debt and renters will continue to be held liable for it. In the months following the COVID crisis, landlords can take their tenants to small claims court, suing for the unpaid rent. Tenants would likely be instructed to pay in installments, liquidate assets (cars), and pay whatever they could. Landlords would get most of their rent back, but a share of it would be lost to transaction costs, which lawyers and consultants would incur in sizable amounts. Knock on effects of unemployment and eviction would likely cost the local government a sizable amount, though no direct government payments would result in this case. Landlords would self-discriminate to an extent - those with more wealth may view the burden of small claims court to be overly costly would attempt to settle with their tenants outside of court, perhaps forgiving rent in some cases and absorbing the cost. 

Case 3A: Renters can’t pay rent and landlords are held entirely liable for rent owed during the crisis. This would have the lowest impact on renters, and would result in similarly low levels of eviction. Many landlords who can afford to absorb foregone rent will do so at varying economic costs. Others would become financially insolvent. It is unclear to the authors at this time how that would affect their net worth. That being said, the average landlord/ business owner in the US has approximately 32x the level of wealth compared to the average renter. Such a significant difference in wealth would suggest that a landlord has a higher capacity to arbitrage (i.e. reallocate resources to adapt to an economic shock) than would a renter (Fessler and Shurz 2018). This case would be of little to no financial cost to the government. Without any needs-based restrictions, such a scenario would likely result in an decrease in rent payments and an increased burden on landlords. Many tenants who can afford rent may decide not to- having been given legal permission to not pay rent. That being said, an identical stipulation to the one given in the 1A Oakland case (above) could continue to require a tenant to provide evidence that COVID has impacted their financial stability.

Section III - Discriminating based on need

The previous cases prescribe the same policy across all citizens, not discriminating based on need. In the next couple cases, the government takes on a more discerning role, where the population is broken up into component groups with different financial profiles. 

Case 2A: Renters are liable for rent immediately after the crisis ends, but can apply for payment assistance from local governments. This strategy has been alluded to by the city of Hayward, though its details have yet to be made public. The city has halted evictions during the crisis, but provides no such protection against eviction for unpaid rent as soon as the crisis ends. Without the post-crisis eviction protection provided in Cases 1B and 2B, such an assistance program is required to work remarkably fast in order to fulfill its mandate. Any delay in the program execution may encourage landlords to go ahead and evict tenants instead of waiting for arbitration. As a result, this case is logically inconsistent and only differs from case 1A if the program proves remarkably fast at allocating its resources. Such a hasty process would likely result in the misallocation of said resources, diminishing social welfare. We will spend no more time elucidating its problems, as they are identical to Case 1A. 

Case 2B: Renters hold consumer debt after the crisis, but can apply to a needs-based rent forgiveness program at the city or county level. In this (entirely theoretical) scenario, local governments set up a fund to help renters cover their rental debt from the COVID crisis. This case can be envisioned if Oakland started a rent forgiveness program for tenants and has a few key characteristics that are worth specifying. 

The lynchpin factor at the center of evaluating these needs-based programs is the value of information symmetry. A needs-based system focused on the renter will, by construction, elicit any surplus wealth held by the renter, and reduce payments accordingly to pay no more than the difference between the rent owed and the tenant’s ability to pay. Said another way, this program might require that the renter reallocate any resources they have in order to pay the debt they owe, and then the government would agree to cover the rest of the rent. 

What remains noticeably absent is any information on surplus held by the landlord. Does the landlord need a full rent paid in order to remain financially solvent? Is the landlord charging a rent that is higher than operating costs? Did the rental amount include any scarcity rent captured as profit due to rent inflation in the Bay Area? It is reasonable to assume that if the answer to any of these questions is yes, the government is overpaying, and there is deadweight loss in our result. 

Moreover, every economic transaction is subject to transaction costs, which accrue to the parties involved in the transaction. In this case, the government and the renters who apply for assistance are subject to the transaction costs. Consider the tenant who makes a wage. The cost of engaging in this program are the foregone wages that they would’ve accumulated had they been working instead. Additionally, job insecurity may prevent a tenant from being able to spend the time applying to this program. Does the application require access to technology? Does it require going to a municipal building? The transaction costs of such a program could include any number of prohibitive costs that would keep tenants from participating, lowering social welfare and increasing the number of residents who face eviction. 

Case 2C: Landlords hold mortgage debt, but can apply to a mortgage forgiveness program at the city or county level. 

Case 1B and Case 2B look similar enough, that many may assume they result in the same outcome. However, there are some key differences to consider both in the realms of transaction costs and asymmetric information. 

By construction, this system will determine whether a landlord is, in fact, at risk of becoming insolvent as a result of this epidemic. As mentioned in Section 1C, the average landlord is, on average, 32 times wealthier than the average tenant. It is far more likely that landlords can absorb an economic shock (e.g., COVID-19) than can renters, many of whom cannot absorb a $500 economic shock to their finances without going into consumer debt. Such a landlord-focused needs-based application would discern between landlords that actually need financial support to stay solvent, and those who can afford to absorb the shock as “ a survivable risk to their portfolio”. Capturing this surplus would drastically decrease the cost of the entire program by 1) excluding landlords who do not require assistance and 2) elucidating and paying the true cost of housing by providing eligible landlords with a more precise amount of support that compensates them for their risk, but does not pay them scarcity rent that had been benefiting from for decades (the difference between lower mortgage payments and high rents).

With respect to transaction costs, we can safely assume that each renter in the bay area has one home (excluding for a moment extraneous cases not exceeding 2%). However, many landlords have multiple properties. Consider a landlord with five units. Whereas in Case 2A and 2B, each of those five tenants might apply for the program, only one application is filed under this case (2C). There are major efficiencies gained by targeting such a program to landlords in this manner. Not every landlord has multiple properties, but for every extra property a landlord has, the marginal cost of application decreases geometrically. 

Moreover, many landlords and property owners have staff trained in property management, who could take care of an application at much lower cost than to tenants who do not have the same professional requirement for financial education. After all, it is the landlords themselves who are currently claiming that being a landlord “is their job”, so such an application would be of lower cost to them.

GK COMMENTS:

[patriotsnet]

Who Gives More To Charity Republicans Or Democrats

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-gives-more-to-charity-republicans-or-democrats/

Who Gives More To Charity Republicans Or Democrats

Republicans Give Less In Democratic

Who LIES More- Republicans or Democrats?

Whether Republicans lived in a red county or a blue county affected their giving, the study found. Republican donors tended to give less in Democratic-leaning counties.

One theory was that taxes tended to be higher in counties where a majority of residents were Democrats. Republicans had less to give, and they were not persuaded to give more to reap a bigger tax deduction.

A second hypothesis is that donors do not necessarily have confidence in giving when their beliefs are not shared or the institutions they are giving to might support causes that are not theirs.

If Im a Republican and only in the minority, my preferences are not held in common or high regard, Dr. Christensen said. When theyre in the majority, they feel they can share their wealth this way.

Republicans Vs Democrats: Where Do The Two Main Us Political Parties Stand On Key Issues

After an impeachment, a positive coronavirus test and an unforgettable first presidential debate rounded out the final months of Donald Trumps first term, it seems fair to say the past few years have been a roller-coaster ride for US politics.

On November 3, Americans will decide which candidate will win the 2020 presidential election, sparking either the beginning, or end, for each nominee.

But how does it all work?

Well, the US political system is dominated by two main parties the Democrats and the Republicans and the next president will belong to one of those two.

Just how different are their policies?

Heres what you need to know, starting with the candidates.

Republicans Give More To Charity Than Democrats But Theres A Bigger Story Here

November 3, 2018; New York Times

The political differences between Republicans and Democrats dont play out solely at the ballot box; they also predict how likely people are to donate to charity. This finding from a newly published research project reflects a key difference, one tied to political affiliation, about how our nation should take on critical social issues like homelessness, poverty, and health care. The data also suggest that in times of political strife, both parties supporters pull back, making problem-solving harder.

Using voting and IRS data for the residents of 3,000 counties across the nation, the four-professor research team found, according to the New York Times, that counties which are overwhelmingly Republican report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated counties, although giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes. But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall. The full study was recently published in the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

Importantly, the study did not find that in Republican counties, private funds replaced public funds so that social services were equally supported.

Don’t Miss: Snopes Trump Republican Dumb

Elected Officials Seen As Out Of Touch In Us France And Uk

Nearly two-thirds of Germans say the statement elected officials care what ordinary people think describes their country well. However, fewer than half of those surveyed in France, the U.S. and the UK express this opinion.

The share of Germans who say elected officials care what ordinary people think has risen precipitously since 2018, when only 44% held this view. In France, too, the share saying elected officials care has risen 9 points . Indeed, all partisan groups in France studied registered an increase in the percentage who say this.;

In the UK and U.S., however, the share who say elected officials care about ordinary people has remained largely unchanged since 2018, although it has risen in the UK among those who identify with Conservative Party and decreased among those who identify with the Labour Party. Today, Conservatives are more likely to say elected officials care than are Labour Party supporters. Those who have a favorable view of the Brexit Party are also more likely than those who have an unfavorable view of the party to say elected officials care what ordinary people think .;

Partisan identity colors opinion about whether elected officials are seen as caring in each of the countries surveyed except for Germany. For example, in France, about two-thirds of those who identify with President Emmanuel Macrons party En Marche say elected officials care, compared with fewer than half of supporters of the Socialist Party and the Republicans .

Republicans Winning Money Race As They Seek To Take Over House In 2022

The National Republican Congressional Committee announced Wednesday that it had raised $45.4 million in the second quarter of 2021, the most it has ever raised in three months of a non-election year, as Republicans seek to take over the House in 2022.

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy This story has been updated with additional developments Wednesday.

Also Check: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

Can A Religious White Republican Party Survive

The partisan gap between black and white voters is the most durable and powerful split in modern American politics. Soon after President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he remarked, I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come. He wasnt wrong. Afterward, the Republicans courted racist white voters by opposing school and housing integration.

Among white people, religion is the most stable and important determinant of party choice. But the way religion shapes party attachment has changed. Today, the best way to sort the population of white voters is not by which religion they belong to, but by how religious they are.

Among white Americans:

else

Religious

The number of religious white Americans is plummeting. In the long term, that spells disaster for Republicans. I dont think the Republican Party right now has a sustainable business model, said Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University.

The party knows this. Or at least it should. After Republicans lost the 2012 election, the party leadership commissioned a report on how to move forward. One answer was clear: appeal to nonwhite and less conservative voters. But in the years since, the Republicans led by Mr. Trump have doubled down on white identity politics and seem to believe that their path to a majority is through gerrymandering, voter suppression or attempts to skew the census.

Recommended Reading: Do Republicans Or Democrats Give More To Charity

Democrats Tend To Have A Lot More Anger And Negativity In Their Rhetoric According To Them If You Support President Trump Well Then You Are A Racist And A Nazi

They generally seem to be out to get someone making things more personal.; Why are they so afraid to use the facts to reinforce what they want to do? Its agenda first then find or make up facts to support the rhetoric.

If they cant beat you at the polling booth, they try and beat you in court and thats just a great example of something thats not a pleasant experience. And not quite working in the long run. They keep getting overturned.

Recommended Reading: Democratic Controlled States

Democrats Or Republicans: Who Has The Higher Income

In the end, many people assume Republicans are richer based on these figures. Although, this is only a look at the richest families and politicians in America though. In everyday American households, it seems that Democrats have a higher mean salary. Its true that many of the wealthiest families in the country are contributing to Republican campaigns. On the contrary, families registered as Democrats have higher annual salaries than Republicans, statistically speaking.

These findings still have some loopholes in them, of course. For instance, the data was collected over the last 40 years or so. Moreover, it is only based on the most recently collected information. As you know, demographics are constantly changing. These figures may have been affected as well. There is also a margin of error with every type of data collection like this. So, what do you think? Who is richer? Democrats or Republicans?

The Political Force Of Michael Bloombergs Tactical Charity

Conservatives & Christians are Far More Charitable than Bleeding-Heart Liberals & Athiests

Reddit

In his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, more than that of the major Democratic candidates combined. But, ironically, focusing on his immense campaign budget underrates the impact of Bloombergs money on his chances. Just as important is the political force of his charitable giving.

Traditionally, presidential nominations have been than by grassroots mobilization. Bloomberg may be able to gin up some public support through campaign ads and Tammany Hall-style politics, but in the inside game, it would seem he is at a disadvantage. He has never run for national office, has supported Republican candidates, and was himself a Republican.

But politics in America is increasingly organized around institutions reliant on big-donor philanthropy. Candidates, local and state parties, advocacy organizations, think tanks, and many foundations are in a constant scramble for money. Few leaders of these organizations will want to offend a man whose personal wealth makes their entire operating budgets look like a negligible rounding error.

Don’t Miss: Percentage Of Americans That Are Republican

If A Party Gets What It Wants In The Pursuit Of Delivering Something Most People Want Most Of The Time So Be It

Theres nothing morally wrong with being the party of corporate interests. Theres nothing wrong, for that matter, with viewing politics as the preserve of the few, not the many. Whats wrong is lying about it. Whats wrong is treating the opposition as if it does not have a legitimate claim. Whats wrong is setting off a conflagration of white-power fury that consumes nearly everything, even the republic itself, in order to slake a thirst for power. The day Joe Biden decided to run for president was the day this white-power fury burned through Charlottesville, screaming, Jews will not replace us. That day, according to published reports, is the day Biden chose to fight to restore the soul of America.

Maybe hes full of it. Maybe Biden and the Democrats dont really believe what they say when they talk about everyone being in this together. Thats certainly what the Republicans and their media allies believe. A critic said Thursday that we can expect to see from Biden lofty rhetoric about unity, while acting below the radar to smash norms to implement the Left-wing agenda. The same day, a Times reporter asked the White House press secretary why the administration has not offered a bipartisan fig leaf to the Republicans, given the president putting so much emphasis on unity. Maybe the Democrats dont mean what they say. Maybe its just politics-as-usual.

Not All Parties That Employ Populist Rhetoric Are Opposed To Liberal Democratic Principles

Greeces Coalition of the Radical Left, more commonly referred to as Syriza, is one of the only major parties of the radical left in the west to favour populist over pluralistic rhetoric.

Though an overwhelming majority of western parties described by ParlGov as liberal and conservative are likely to be positive towards ethnic minorities, the same cannot be said for their attitudes towards immigration.

You May Like: Leader Of The Radical Republicans

Are Republicans More Ethical Than Democrats

It is easy to be cynical about the corrosive effects of power. ;No party has a monopoly on corruption and misuse of public office.; Yet cynicism is not the same as wisdom.; Such every day cynicism helps Democrats escape from the uncomfortable moral challenges posed to big government advocates by the slew of scandals erupting in Washington.;

What we are seeing involves systemic flouting of the law by Democrats, from elected and appointed officials to unionized bureaucrats, who have targeted ordinary citizens because they are political opponents, riding rough shod over our rights to free speech, assembly, freedom of the press and equal application of the law.;

There has not been abuse of power on this scale in this baby boomers lifetime.; This is beyond the ordinary, and ordinary cynicism will not suffice.; The debate over whether our President is guilty of active abuse, leadership by example, or incompetence is important.; But it is not the most important thing going on.; The problem is far larger than the Oval office, and will extend past this presidency unless there is significant government reform.

New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman daydreams of what he and fellow liberals could accomplish ruling America with all the powers of the Chinese Communist Party.; Republican politicians, no matter how power hungry and narcissistic, know that is a nightmare.; Their followers know that is a nightmare.; Democrats do not.;

Democratic Party Enters 2021 In Power And Flush With Cash For A Change

The Democratic National Committee has a roughly $75 million war chest, raising the partys hopes of keeping power in 2022 and accelerating a Democratic shift in the Sun Belt states.

After years of flirting with financial disaster, the Democratic Party entered 2021 not only in control of the White House, the House and the Senate but with more money in the bank than ever before at the start of a political cycle.

The Democratic National Committee will report to the Federal Election Commission on Sunday that it ended 2020 with $38.8 million in the bank and $3 million in debts, according to an advance look at its financial filings. In addition, there is roughly $40 million earmarked for the party, left over from its joint operations with the Biden campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. This gives the Democrats a roughly $75 million war chest at the start of President Bidens tenure.

This is a number that is unimaginable, said Howard Dean, a former party chairman.

Party data, resources and infrastructure undergird candidates up and down the ballot, and Democratic officials are already dreaming of early investments in voter registration that may accelerate the political realignment Democrat are hoping to bring about in key Sun Belt states.

We had to juggle who we were going to pay, Tom Perez, who until earlier this month was the chairman of the D.N.C., said of the early part of his tenure, which began in 2017.

Recommended Reading: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Americans Are Especially Likely To Say Politicians Are Corrupt

This report examines peoples trust in government and satisfaction with democracy, as well as their attitudes toward elected officials and political reform.

For this analysis, we use data from nationally representative telephone surveys of 4,069 adults from Nov. 10 to Dec. 23, 2020, in the U.S., France, Germany and the UK. In addition to the survey, Pew Research Center conducted focus groups from Aug. 19 to Nov. 20, 2019, in cities across the U.S. and UK . We draw upon these discussions in this report.

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and the survey methodology.

As they continue to struggle with a public health crisis and ongoing economic challenges, many people in the United States and Western Europe are also frustrated with politics.

A four-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in November and December of 2020 finds that roughly two-thirds of adults in France and the U.S., as well as about half in the United Kingdom, believe their political system needs major changes or needs to be completely reformed. Calls for significant reform are less common in Germany, where about four-in-ten express this view.

Trust in government has also increased slightly in the UK, although while it has risen among supporters of Prime Minister Boris Johnsons Conservative Party, is has actually declined among those who identify with the opposition Labour Party.

Save Story

Save this story for later.

House Republicans Pressuring Democrats To Return Donations From Ocasio

House Republicans’ campaign arm on Monday launched a website calling on a number of vulnerable House Democrats to return campaign donations from progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The website, dubbed “Socialist Give Back,” comes after Politico reported last week that Ocasio-Cortez donated $5,000 to a number of House Democrats. The;National Republican Congressional Committee;highlighted the Democrats who have returned the donations, including Rep. Chris PappasChristopher Charles PappasNew Hampshire Republican Matt Mowers jumps into key House race, setting up 2020 rematchTop Democrat: ‘A lot of spin’ coming from White House on infrastructureFormer Trump aide announces run for New Hampshire House seatMORE .

Ocasio-Cortez’s Courage to Change PAC donated to the New Hampshire Democrat on March 29, but Pappas’s campaign returned the funds, citing a clerical error.

Other House Democrats who returned the campaign cash include Reps. Conor Lamb , Elissa SlotkinRonald James KindGOP sees Biden crises as boon for midterm recruitmentDemocrats fret over Trump-district retirements ahead of midtermsMORE .

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Chris Hayden told Politico last month that the campaign arm was appreciative of Ocasio-Cortez’s efforts, adding “due to a miscommunication, some transfers were made in error, but that has been addressed.

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans In California

Democrat Or Republican: Whos More Charitable

J. Hugh Liedtke Professor of Marketing

Lay belief suggests that Democrats are more charitable than Republicans because of a more community-minded orientation. However, surveys of giving show that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats, though the charitable giving also includes religious organizations. A careful reading of the evidence precludes strong conclusions.

A recent study by WalletHub;compiled charitable giving data from different states. When combined with state-level political identity data from the American National Election Studies;a simple analysis was conducted. A simple regression suggests a positive association between charitable giving and being a Republican. You can find your state in the graph above.

This simple analysis, however, does not tell the whole story. Understanding charitable giving by Republicans and Democrats is more complex than portrayed in this graphic. My colleagues Karen Page Winterich at Penn State and Yinlong Zhang at UT-San Antonio conducted a series of controlled experiments to investigate this issue. The study published in the International Journal of Research in Marketing;can be downloaded here:

Specifically, the study showed:

Overall, Democrats and Republicans are equally likely to be charitable.

In another study, we created two descriptions of âChildrenâs Advocatesâ. They started with the same introduction, but had two different descriptions, one republican-oriented and another democrat-oriented:

versus

[statetalks]

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

Republicans Have More Friends Across The Political Divide Than Democrats Study Finds

When David Huzzards friend posted some QAnon conspiracy theories on Facebook in the fall, Huzzard first assumed the best of intentions. He recalls thinking: Maybe they just got tricked.

Huzzard, a 40-year-old pet store owner in Virginia Beach, is well-versed in the art of maintaining friendships with people who dont vote like he does. Huzzard is a Democrat in a city that narrowly went for President Biden in the 2020 election.

Then his friends rhetoric got stronger. Shortly before the election, Huzzards friend posted on Facebook again, this time sharing falsehoods about how mail-in ballots were subject to fraud. Huzzard and his wife were taking extra caution to avoid covid-19 as they were expecting a baby in November and planned to vote absentee. Huzzarddidnt address the issue with his friend directly, instead publishing his own Facebook post saying: If youre against mail-in voting, youre against my voting rights and youre no longer my friend.

Still, Huzzard and his friend remained cordial whenever they saw one another in person. He considered inviting this friend and her husband over for dinner. But as the other couple continued sharing online disinformation about the efficacy of masks and the vaccines, Huzzard and his wife decided that for the safety of their family and their unvaccinated children, they would no longer socialize with them.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

READ MORE:

Partisan Ideological Leanings Unchanged

Although Americans as a whole are a mix of ideological viewpoints, the two major political parties have become increasingly polarized over the years in their tenor.

The 51% of Democrats identifying as liberal matches the prior high from 2018, but it has been near this high-water mark for the past five years. The next-largest group of Democrats are ideological moderates, at 35%, followed by conservatives, at 12%.

While the conservative share of the Democratic Party is not insignificant, it has shrunk by more than half over the past quarter-century, falling 13 points since 1994. Moderates have seen similar shrinkage, down 13 points, while the percentage liberal has about doubled.

Line graph. Annual trend from 1994 to 2020 in Democrats’ ideology, with 51% in 2020 identifying as liberal, 35% as moderate and 12% as conservative. This marks a sharp change since 1994, when 48% were moderate, 25% liberal and 25% conservative.

Ideological uniformity is much higher among Republicans, 75% of whom now consider themselves conservative, up slightly from 73% in 2019 and the highest proportion yet in Gallup’s trend since 1994.

Meanwhile, one in five Republicans describe their views as moderate, down from 33% in 1994, while just 4% say they are liberal, similar to most years.

Line graph. Annual trend from 1994 to 2020 in independents’ ideological views, with 48% in 2020 identifying as moderate, 29% as conservative and 20% as liberal. This is consistent with the broad pattern since 1994.

How We Got Here

California is now all but synonymous with the Democratic Party, but for decades it leaned to the right. Republicans won the state in all but one presidential election between 1952 and 1988, and California had both Democratic and Republican governors during that period.

Republican recall hopefuls seek to differentiate themselves in San Francisco debate

Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox and Assemblyman Kevin Kiley of Rocklin traded views on issues such as homelessness, the minimum wage and Gavin Newsoms zero car emissions executive order.

The state was once known for producing moderate Republicans who tended to hold more liberal or at least libertarian positions on social issues than the national party. But as the state grew more blue overall, its shrinking GOP contingent became decidedly more conservative.

Consider Californias last two Republican governors, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The whole way both men conducted their administrations, it was generally pro-choice, fiscally conservative, pro-environment, said Joe Rodota, an author and political consultant who worked for both Wilson and Schwarzenegger.

Experts say Wilson and Schwarzenegger embodied a more moderate California Republican ethos than the positions taken by most of the 2021 Republican gubernatorial field.

Party concentration has also moved inland, with Republican votes in Los Angeles and the Bay Area starkly declining.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Republicans and Democrats are the two main and historically the largest political parties in the US and, after every election, hold the majority seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the highest number of Governors. Though both the parties mean well for the US citizens, they have distinct differences that manifest in their comments, decisions, and history. These differences are mainly ideological, political, social, and economic paths to making the US successful and the world a better place for all. Differences between the two parties that are covered in this article rely on the majority position though individual politicians may have varied preferences.

Climate Change And Pollution

Pollution in the United StatesClimate changeClimate change denial

Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, repeatedly contending that global warming is a “hoax.” He has said that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” a statement which Trump later said was a joke. However, it was also pointed out that he often conflates weather with climate change.

Although “not a believer in climate change,” Trump has stated that “clean air is a pressing problem” and has said: “There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of climate change. Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water.”

In May 2016, during his presidential campaign, Trump issued an energy plan focused on promoting fossil fuels and weakening environmental regulation. Trump promised to “rescind” in his first 100 days in office a variety of Environmental Protection Agency regulations established during the Obama administration to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, which contribute to a warming global climate. Trump has specifically pledged to revoke the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the United States rule, which he characterizes as two “job-destroying Obama executive actions.”

Trump wrote in his 2011 book that he opposed a system to control carbon emissions.

Parties Favouring Populist Rhetoric Are More Likely To Be Nationalistic

What do we know of populism? Populist movements are typically nationalistic, critical towards immigration and cynical about liberal democratic principles.

The above chart illustrates a pretty clear trend: the more multilateralist you are, the less populist you will be. There are, however, some quite clear outliers. Both Syriza and New Zealands National Party are classed as multilateralist populists. And then,of course, there are Denmarks Social Democrats. Sensitive to the collapsing support for the hard-right Danish Peoples Party, the Social Democrats tacked right on migrants issues in their 2019 election campaign as they sought to tempt voters to their side. Party leader Mette Frederiksen told one televised debate: You are not a bad person just because you are worried about immigration. The party topped the poll – albeit with a reduced vote share – and Frederiksen became prime minister.

Since this is the first year the survey has been carried out, we cannot measure change. We cannot say, for example, to what extent Trump has changed the way the Republicans are positioned. We can only say that – right now – the world sees his party as highly populist, poor on ethnic minority rights, and prone to undermining basic democratic principles. That might be a concern for us, but its probably not for him: insular populists tend not to care what the rest of the world thinks.

Confidence In Scientists And Other Groups To Act In The Public Interest

Though the survey finds that climate scientists are viewed with skepticism by relatively large shares of Americans, scientists overall and in particular, medical scientists are viewed as relatively trustworthy by the general public. Asked about a wide range of leaders and institutions, the military, medical scientists, and scientists in general received the most votes of confidence when it comes to acting in the best interests of the public.

On the flip side, majorities of the public have little confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials. Public confidence in K-12 school leaders and religious leaders to act in the publics best interest falls in the middle.

Fully 79% of Americans express a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in the military to act in the best interests of the public. The relatively high regard for the military compared with other institutions is consistent with a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, which found 78% of the public saying the military contributes a lot to societys well-being.

Confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials is considerably lower; public views about school and religious leaders fall in the middle.

More Negative Views Of The Opposing Party

Beyond the rise in ideological consistency, another major element in polarization has been the growing contempt that many Republicans and Democrats have for the opposing party. To be sure, disliking the other party is nothing new in politics. But today, these sentiments are broader and deeper than in the recent past.

In 1994, hardly a time of amicable partisan relations, a majority of Republicans had unfavorable impressions of the Democratic Party, but just 17% had very unfavorable opinions. Similarly, while most Democrats viewed the GOP unfavorably, just 16% had very unfavorable views. Since then, highly negative views have more than doubled: 43% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats now view the opposite party in strongly negative terms.

Among all Democrats, 27% say GOP policies are a threat to the well-being of the country; among all Republicans, more than a third think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

Even these numbers tell only part of the story. Those who have a very unfavorable impression of each party were asked: Would you say the partys policies are so misguided that they threaten the nations well-being, or wouldnt you go that far? Most who were asked the question said yes, they would go that far. Among all Democrats, 27% say the GOP is a threat to the well-being of the country. That figure is even higher among Republicans, 36% of whom think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

Republicans supported Woodrow Wilson‘s call for American entry into World War I in 1917, complaining only that he was too slow to go to war. Republicans in 1919 opposed his call for entry into the League of Nations. A majority supported the League with reservations; a minority opposed membership on any terms. Republicans sponsored world disarmament in the 1920s, and isolationism in the 1930s. Most Republicans staunchly opposed intervention in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. By 1945, however, internationalists became dominant in the party which supported the Cold War policies such as the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO.

Issues For Which Location Plays Some Role

Though taxes and concern about the budget show relatively little geographic variation, one topic that touches on similar issues of government size and scopeopinions of Obamacareshows more . Support is strongestbetween 60 and 70 percentin the Bay Area and central and coastal LA, and weakestless than 40 percentin the rural far north and east of the state. Yet most of our places remain lukewarm toward the law, with support between about 40 and 60 percent. This includes most of the Central Valley and most of the coast outside of central and coastal LA and the Bay Area.

Where Do Trump And Biden Stand On Key Issues

Reuters: Brian Snyder/AP: Julio Cortez

The key issues grappling the country can be broken down into five main categories: coronavirus, health care, foreign policy, immigration and criminal justice.

This year, a big focus of the election has been the coronavirus pandemic, which could be a deciding factor in how people vote, as the country’s contentious healthcare system struggles to cope.

The average healthcare costs for COVID-19 treatment is up to $US30,000 , an Americas Health Insurance Plans 2020 study has found.

Inglehart: Traditionalistsecular And Self Expressionistsurvivalist

World Values Survey

In its 4 January 2003 issue, The Economist discussed a chart, proposed by Ronald Inglehart and supported by the World Values Survey , to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like , , and the importance of the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the traditionalist position on issues like these , while at the top is the secular position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of and , and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as , as well as willingness to engage in political . At the right of the chart is the open position, while at the left is its opposite position, which Inglehart calls survivalist. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, European Union countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone countries on the middle right, Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left and ex-Communist countries on the top left.

The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

The Republican Party is often referred to as the GOP. This abbreviation stands for Grand Old Party. Its logo is an elephant. The Republican Party is known to support right-leaning ideologies of conservatism, social conservatism, and economic libertarianism, among other -isms. Thus, Republicans broadly advocate for traditional values, a low degree of government interference, and large support of the private sector.

One main standpoint of the Republican Party platform is a strong focus on the family and individual freedom. Generally, the Republican Party therefore often tends to promote states and local rights. That means that they often wish for federal regulations to play a lesser role in policymaking. Furthermore, the GOP has a pro-business-oriented platform. Thus, the party advocates for businesses to exist in a free market instead of being impacted by tight government regulations.

Actions While In Office

American Health Care Act2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals

President Trump advocated repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act . The Republican-controlled House passed the American Health Care Act in May 2017, handing it to the Senate, which decided to write its own version of the bill rather than voting on the AHCA. The Senate bill, called the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017” , failed on a vote of 4555 in the Senate during July 2017. Other variations also failed to gather the required support, facing unanimous Democratic Party opposition and some Republican opposition. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bills would increase the number of uninsured by over 20 million persons, while reducing the budget deficit marginally.

Actions to hinder implementation of ACA

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

President Trump continued Republican attacks on the ACA while in office, including steps such as:

Ending cost-sharing reduction payments

Cost sharing reductions subsidy

President Trump’s argument that the CSR payments were a “bailout” for insurance companies and therefore should be stopped, actually results in the government paying more to insurance companies due to increases in the premium tax credit subsidies. Journalist Sarah Kliff therefore described Trump’s argument as “completely incoherent.”

Religion And Marital Status

Ideological groups are distinguished by certain societal attributes, such as , marital status, and gun ownership, yet are relatively similar in terms of race and ethnicity. Generally, liberals were more likely to be secular, single and in possession of a college degree while less likely to own a gun. Conservatives, most of whom adhere to as well as fiscal conservatism, tended to be more religious and more likely to be married, employed and own firearms.

The majority of Social Conservatives and Pro-Government Conservatives attended church services once a week. Weekly churchgoers were also in the plurality among the general population and all ideological demographics, except liberals. Of liberals, a plurality, 43% attended church services “seldom or never”, compared to 25% of respondents overall. Conservatives were also more likely to be married than Liberals or the Democratic voter base in general. Finally, 77% of Enterprisers were married, compared to 44% of Liberals.

Disadvantaged and Conservative Democrats had the highest union membership rates at 23% and 18% as well as the highest percentage of minorities . In terms of gun ownership, the majority of Enterprisers and Social Conservatives had a gun at home, compared to just 23% of Liberals. Liberals were the most educated group with 49% being college graduates compared to an average of 26.5% among all the conservative groups . Disadvantaged Democrats were the least educated, with only 13% having a college degree.

Nolan: Economic Freedom Personal Freedom

Nolan Chart

The Nolan Chart was created by libertarian David Nolan. This chart shows what he considers as “economic freedom” on the horizontal axis and what he considers as “personal freedom” on the vertical axis. This puts in the left quadrant, in the top, in the middle, in the right and what Nolan originally named in the bottom. Several popular online tests, where individuals can self-identify their political values, utilize the same two axes as the Nolan Chart, including The Political Compass and iSideWith.com.

The Us Presidential Election 2020: Last Lap Reflections

27 October 2020

For the vast majorority of voters, this extraordinary election is more like a referendum on the incumbent. Youre either for Trump or against him.

Being against Trump is a whole lot easier than being for Biden. Joes lacklustre persona was painfully evident during the last debate, when he scrambled an alarming number of his words, and recited the Covid-19 death toll as if he were memorising a shopping list.

The truth is that he has difficulty thinking on his feet. When the President ludicrously equated himself with Lincoln in anti-racist achievement, Biden didnt think of reminding him of LBJs Great Society. When Trump chanted his mantra against socialised medicine, Biden might have mentioned that when Roosevelt introduced social security, Republicans hurled the same S word. You could be forgiven for wondering whether, in the top offices of Democratic Party HQ, theres actually a real appetite for winning this election.

Americans tend to like their Presidents to be assertive, positive and with an energetic presence. Alas, they also almost always elect the taller candidate. Trump, in all his awfulness, ticks those boxes.

Even Obamas vigorous campaigning for Biden may backfire. It seems to underline the comparative inadequacy of the carry-over from the previous administration.

Two questions should be foremost in the voters minds, regardless of whether they opt for orange or beige.

Figure 11 Views On Gun Control Display A Strong Urban

NOTES: Question wording is In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now? Shading represents the share of Californians who say laws should be more strict. Estimates come from a multilevel regression and poststratification model as described in Technical Appendix A. Full model results can be found in Technical Appendix B.

Wildlife Conservation And Animal Welfare

In October 2016, the Humane Society denounced Trump’s campaign, saying that a “Trump presidency would be a threat to animals everywhere” and that he has “a team of advisors and financial supporters tied in with trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other abusive industries.”

In February 2017, under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture unexpectedly removed from its public website “all enforcement records related to horse soring and to animal welfare at dog breeding operations and other facilities.” The decision prompted criticism from animal welfare advocates , investigative journalists, and some of the regulated industries .

Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Reuters: Carlos Barria

The Democrats are the liberal political party and their candidate is Joe Biden, who has run for president twice before.

A former senator for Delaware who served six terms, Biden is best known as Barack Obama’s vice-president.

He held that role for eight years, and it has helped make him a major contender for many Democrat supporters.

Earlier this year, Biden chose California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate.

The 77-year-old has built his campaign on the Obama legacy, and tackling the country’s staggering health care issues.

He is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters. He would be the oldest first-term president in history if elected.

According to 2017 Pew Research Centre data, a vast majority of the African American population supports the Democratic party, with 88 per cent voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections.

Why Are Democrats Left And Republicans Right The Surprising History Of Political Affiliations

The terms right and left refer to political affiliations that originated late in the eighteenth century in relation to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. During the French Revolution of 1789, the members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king and supporters of the revolution.

The aristocracy sat on the right side of the Speaker, which was traditionally the seat of honor, and the commoners sat on the left. This gave birth to the terms right-wing and left-wing politics. The Left had been called the party of movement and the Right the party of order.

During the French Revolution, the National Assembly was divided into supporters of the king and supporters of the revolution. Lamartine in front of the Town Hall of Paris rejects the red flag on 25 February 1848

However, it was during the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871 that the political parties formally adopted the terms left and right to define their political beliefs.

The Representatives of Foreign Powers Coming to Greet the Republic as a Sign of Peace

According to the simplest Left and Right distinction, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right.

In British politics the terms right and left came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.

Homosexuals Do Not Deserve Equal Rights

This comes from their religious beliefs, which form the basis for a lot of policy. Republicans believe that homosexuality is a choice and, as such, gay people should not be acknowledged in the same way as other groups. Therefore, according to a Republican, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, nor should they be allowed to adopt children.

Popular Political Views In The Us

One thing that you will notice right away is that most popular political parties and political philosophies in the U.S. are located at the top half the of the diagram. The makes sense because in the U.S. most Americans value freedom . 

While there may be some outliers on the more authoritarian fringe, they have never received popular support in the U.S., although sometimes these groups will try to stir up support or try to trick the local population into voting for them by hiding their true motives.

Greenberg And Jonas: Leftright Ideological Rigidity

In a 2003 Psychological Bulletin paper,Jeff Greenberg and Eva Jonas posit a model comprising the standard leftright axis and an axis representing ideological rigidity. For Greenberg and Jonas, ideological rigidity has “much in common with the related concepts of dogmatism and authoritarianism” and is characterized by “believing in strong leaders and submission, preferring ones own in-group, ethnocentrism and nationalism, aggression against dissidents, and control with the help of police and military”. Greenberg and Jonas posit that high ideological rigidity can be motivated by “particularly strong needs to reduce fear and uncertainty” and is a primary shared characteristic of “people who subscribe to any extreme government or ideology, whether it is right-wing or left-wing”.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/where-are-republicans-on-the-political-spectrum/

[queendom25]

Wage Slavery: A Black and Irish Tale

If you are a proud Irish-American and you gas light Black people with the phrase, The Irish were slaves too, then buckle up buttercup because history has documented your forefathers' hatred of my ancestors through the centuries. The problem is that American textbooks have strategically omitted that little snapple fact and for a good reason- to prevent unity. The topic of discussion is going to be centered around the struggle of Irish-American plight to assimilate into being white by being Anti-Black. The history of labor in America is deep rooted in wage exploitation and racial hierarchy perpetuated by the ruling class.

Before I talk about the Irish Famine, I want to take another look at the Civil war and the mandatory draft. The Conscription Act of 1863 was what fanned the flame of tension further between Irish-Americans and Black people, because poor Irish were forced to fight in the war while free African-Americans could volunteer through the Emancipation Proclamation. The overall attitude of Irish-Americans was that they believed that the very institution of slavery was wrong but it wasn’t their problem. When their forefathers reached American soil from their native home, they were welcomed with  No Irish Need Apply signs posted in store windows and caricatures of “Bridget and Patrick” in the newspapers. The Irish-Americans were forced into shacks and were in no way welcomed by English Protestants. The way that the Irish immigrants were treated in the 1800s is similar to how America treats homelessness in present day- newspapers depicting them as “drunkards” and them filling up the jails and workhouses. The Great Hunger resulted in an estimated amount of one million deaths, with around the same amount of refugees having no choice but to leave their homeland. During this devastating time, the British ruling class exploited the Irish by benefitting from the blight through export records. Exports such as peas, butter, and livestock actually increased as malnutrition and death ransacked the countryside. The passage to the New World was no easy feat either, because the Irish were met with death and disease on the ships thanks to cholera. The dreaded road to hell being paved with good intentions is echoed through the actions of the Liberator himself- Daniel O’Connell. 

Once upon a time, abolitionists were thrilled to partner with O’Connell because of his influence amongst the Irish-Americans based on his track record in Emerald Isle. The Great Liberator was known for spearheading the Catholic Emancipation which was successful in 1830 and leading the campaign of repealing the Act of Union of 1800. Repealing the Act of Union would restore an Irish parliament under the crown so why wouldn’t O’Connell be world famous amongst the Irish? He definitely had some choice words about America’s biggest hypocrisy in 1829 when he said, “ Let America, in the fulness of her pride...wave on high her banner of freedom and its blazing stars...In the midst of their laughter and their pride, I point them to the negro children screaming for their mother whose bosom they have been torn...Let them hoist the flag of liberty, with the whip and rack on one side, and the star of freedom upon the other.” Surely his words would sway the opinions of the Irish in America to believe in the liberation from bondage in all forms but, the more prestigious Irish that resided in Philadelphia disagreed with the Liberator’s approach. These men of means sent a letter expressing to O’Connell that the admiration was there for a man of his character but they believed that, “Here they have rights, privileges and immunities of native Americans.” They wanted O’Connell to ‘remove from the Irish-Americans “the odium which...had been cast upon them…’” Elizur Wright, corresponding secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, reached out to Daniel O’Connell about addressing the Irish-Americans on the topic of slavery because of his strong public views against the institution-and he agreed. Another prominent figure amongst the Irish caucus was James Haughton, founder of the Hibernian Anti-Slavery Society and Dublin grain merchant, also reached out to O’Connell about the political climate amongst the Irish-Americans stateside and said, “[T]he Irishmen in that country...are such a powerful and influential body that they exercise a paramount influence in the election of the president and in the elections of various members of various legislatures there; but most unfortunately that influence has been given heretofore in favor of slavery…” The anti-slavery address was introduced to an American audience on January 28th, 1842 and Bishop John J. Hughes was none too pleased. The “good” Bishop was the most influential figure of the Irishmen in America and he wrote that it was, “ the duty of every naturalized Irishman to resist and repudiate the address with indignation. Not precisely because of the doctrine it contains but, because of their having emanated from a foreign source, and their tendency to operate on questions of domestic and national policy. I am no friend of slavery, but I am still less friendly to any attempt of foreign origin to abolish…” O’Connell’s true colors began to show when there was talk of abolitionism threatening the dissolution of the Act of Union and key abolitionists called him out on it!

Wendell Phillips was an abolitionist that supported the repeal of the Act of Union and even made a statement at the Boston Repeal Association. However, when he and the other abolitionists brought up the topic of slavery, they were quickly dismissed from the floor. According to a letter written by Phillips to a fellow abolitionist by the name of Richard Davis Webb he stated, “He dares not face the demon when it touches him. He would be pro-slavery this side of the pond...He won’t shake hands with slaveholders, no-but he will shake their gold” and referred to O’Connell as “The Great Beggerman”. Irish-American laborers made their stance  very clear on  Anti-Blackness through their enforcement of a color caste system in the workforce. The Pennsylvania Abolition Society did a survey to point out the inconsistencies of labor among freed Black men. The conclusion was noted in 1838 that 30% of 506 Black tradesmen did not practice their trade due to prejudices. In 1851, the African Repository- an official publication of the American Colonization Society, stated that “In New York and other eastern cities, the influx of white laborers has expelled the Negro almost en masse from the excerise of ordinary branches of labor...White men will not work with him.” Frederick Douglass stated in 1853 that, “Every hour sees us elbowed out of some employment to make room for some newly-arrived emigrant from the Emerald Isle, whose hunger and color entitle him to special favor.” If a white employer attempted to hire a Black apprentice, the Irishmen would collectively walk out in protest or react with direct violence. Between 1858 and 1859, white mobs raged against Black people who were working in Baltimore City as caulkers and effectively hired white laborers in their place. In 1862, another example of mob violence against Black people occured in Brooklyn, where primarily women and children who were working in a tobacco factory were attacked by mostly Irish laborers. The mob forced their victims into the upper floors of the building and set the first floor on fire. The factory was allowed to reopen only under the condition that they refuse employment to Black people and hire the Irish. The Conscription Act of 1863 as mentioned earlier, played a significant role in adding fuel to the color caste fire that led to a full-scale riot on the docks. The Irish laborer made the conclusion that if chattel slavery was to be abolished, then they will have unwanted competition with the newly freed Black man. The Irish made their assimilation into whiteness known  with the Longshoremen’s United Benevolent Society established in 1852. Their banner was decorated with flags from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, Hungary, and Italy. It’s safe to say that this form of unity was very much Anti-Black without actually saying it and American textbooks leave this chapter blank. How much longer in present-day will Irish-American descendants continue to refuse the Black Lives Matter movement? How much longer will America convince the masses that “All Lives Matter” as they attempt to erase the part where Black lives never have?

Sources:

How the Irish Became White Noel Ignatiev, 1995.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2003-06-29-0306280006-story.html 

https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/irish/racial-tensions/ 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Irish_Americans_in_Philadelphia 

http://www.victoriana.com/history/irish-political-cartoons.html 

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Wendell-Phillips 

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-OConnell

#black lives matter #no justice no peace #medfordoregon #irish history #human rights #social activism #pacfic northwest #labor and jobs #wage slavery

[themaskedmoderate]

When It’s OK and When It’s Not OK to Judge an Argument by its Source

As a Philosophy undergrad, I loved learning about the fallacies; common logic mistakes that people use when claiming something, accepting a claim or refuting a claim. I delighted in finding them everywhere from political arguments to advertisements to my personal life and still use them as tools to aid my reasoning abilities today. One fallacy that I think is commonly committed today is ad hominem; Latin for “argument against a person.”

Ad hominem is the unfair judgement of an argument by its source or as Aristotle put it, “putting the arguer, not the argument under scrutiny.” The source in question may be an individual person or a more complex entity, such as a media outlet, a single media article or even a business or website. The argument, or claim, is the combination of the premises and the conclusion.

Today, because of the abundance of media, we are hyper focused on the quality of our sources. Dismissing sources as biased is common and when politicians we don’t support make claims, we often refute the claims simply because we don’t like or trust the politicians.

How do we know when is it OK to judge or refute an argument because of its source? The purpose of this essay is to answer that question.

Rule #1

It’s OK When the Source has Made a Claim about the Same Subject that Contradicts the Claim at Hand

If a claim is made and you have reason to believe that there are statements or information from the same source that contradict the claim, it is acceptable to refute the argument.

For example, if a politician takes a stance supporting an issue but his voting record shows that he has not voted in support of that issue, you cannot take his stance at face value, even if his reasoning is sound, simply because it is not the whole truth of what he thinks and what his arguments are. You don’t really have the argument to begin with.

Rule #2

It’s Not OK When the Source Has Made Claims About Subjects Unrelated to the Claim at Hand

 However, if you don’t agree with other unrelated positions the source arguing the claim may have, those should not affect whether you accept or deny a current claim. For example, just because you don’t like a politician’s views on immigration, doesn’t mean it is justified to disclaim her stance on the environment; because immigration and the environment are separate issues. Another example is, even if you think a media source is biased, it doesn’t mean you should discredit all claims coming from this media source. You should read the arguments themselves and let the reasoning behind those arguments convince or dissuade you of them.

At its worst form, this kind of ad hominem is slander – refuting a claim someone has made because the person has made bad choices or has done something immoral, but unrelated to the claim at hand. Personal feelings about a source should not affect whether you accept or deny a claim made by that source.

Rule #3

It’s OK When the Source is the Funder of a Study

When the claim itself relies on data, statistical information or a scientific study, that data, statistical information or scientific study must be examined to determine whether the argument is sound. There are certain conditions required of a good study: it must have a control group and have a big enough sample size, for example. The requirement to examine the data, statistical information or study makes sense, because the statistical information, scientific study, or data is the argument itself.

However, we often don’t have time to read the entire scientific study so we use quick checks for other facts. One such quick check is a check to see who funded the study. The significance of the funding source is of course that, a funder might have influenced the outcome of the study, which is the opposite of Socrates’ urge to “follow the good arguments wherever they lead.” The reasoning and methods itself are more important than the funder, but if you don’t have time to review the whole study, the funding source will give you a clue about the objectivity of the study. The same goes for funding sources of politicians. If the funding source is related to the topic of the politician’s claim, it is OK to assume the funding source is indeed affecting the politician’s claim.

Another such quick check is that we trust certain sources for scientific information over other ones. This is acceptable, too- we don’t have time to determine objectivism for all sources so it is OK to trust certain scientific sources, because the scientific method is grounded in objectivism. This still only applies to data, statistical information or a scientific study.

Rule #4

It’s Not OK When A Second Source Endorses or Denies the Claim

 A quick check that is not OK; however, is a check to see who is a proponent of, or not a proponent of, the claim. If a claim is made and another source endorses or denies the claim, this should not have any bearing on whether you accept or deny the claim.  An example is, rejecting an idea President Trump endorses, simply because President Trump endorses it. Thinking “People I like / agree with endorse this claim, so I will too” and “People I disagree with endorse this claim, so I won’t” is not logically sound because claims must be assessed based on their premises and conclusions. You can still like an idea President Trump supports and dislike President Trump - the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

The Danger of Analyses

The best sources for information are primary sources. For example, if the claim in question is made in a video, no article about the video, transcript of the video, or analysis of the video should be consulted before the video itself. This is because the claim itself is in the video.

The challenge of viewing primary sources is of course that we are most often exposed to them by means of a secondary source. For example, the Wall Street Journal publishes an article on homelessness and cites statistics from a study on homelessness. People who are otherwise not involved with homelessness or with the organization that conducted the study, would not have known about the study if it weren’t for the Wall Street Journal article. The facts (the actual statistics on homelessness) are presented alongside an analysis of those facts (the likely causes and potential effects of those statistics) and sometimes the analysis is even lengthier than the facts. By the time we read the primary source- the actual study that determined the statistics, (if we do at all,) we already have an opinion about it.

The Solution – Read the Same Story on Both Sides

The solution is not to avoid reading media; just the opposite – the solution is to read more media and specifically, to read media that provides a different analysis of similar information. The best thing to do after reading the Wall Street Journal homelessness article is to read another article on the same subject from a source that is likely to have a different analysis of homelessness (like the New York Times.) The idea is to read both the Conservative analysis and the Liberal analysis of the same story. With breaking news, it’s easy to do: media outlets usually publish articles on similar topics within one or two days of each other.

But most people don’t do this. A 2020 Pew Research study found that while Liberals read more sources than Conservatives, there is significantly less overlap between what both groups read than there was 5 years ago. In other words, we’re not even aware of the other side’s analysis. If we are Liberal, we don’t watch Conservative news or commentary; we pride ourselves on avoiding it.

What are we so scared of? Are we scared that exposing ourselves to the other side’s ideas will make us stupid? Are we scared that we will hate the other side’s ideas or are we scared that we will like them?

The control of information, whether regimented by the government, the media or by individual choice, is a feature of extreme social systems like fundamental religious sects and authoritarian governments. Viewing the other side’s analyses won’t make us stupid; more information is more information.

Not only does ad hominem limit our own minds; it hurts our country. Legislation, the only means by which to improve our country, must be approved by both sides. It takes negotiating and it takes compromise from both parties, by design. By limiting our exposure to the other side’s analyses, we are preventing compromise and therefore preventing good legislation from getting passed.

The message of the Greek philosophers still rings true today. Judging an argument by its source is very common right now but in most cases, it is still not OK. Do not fall victim to ad hominem; do not accept claims simply because they are from certain sources and do not deny claims simply because they are from certain sources. If you are a rational thinking human being and you live in a free country, there’s nothing to be gained from shielding yourself from information. You are smart enough to handle content of all kinds. You are capable of assessing an argument. And most importantly, you deserve to choose your own analysis, rather than accepting the first one you read.

#criticalthinking #politicaltheory #logic #fallacy #adhominen #aristotle