SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
LOVE HAPPY.
do not just enjoy it.
Save it. Archive it.
Humanity depends on you.
Marxism 4ever!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JztuhPBaTUU
Did you know Rush is still on the air?
So, I'm driving along, and none of the stations are coming in well. I'm scanning the FM spectrum, looking for SOMETHING that isn't retarded. Finally, something came in clear - some asshole spouting his opinion about something. That something was COVID19. I listen a few seconds. Hmmmm - interesting.
The per capita COVID fatality rate is lower in all of those states that kept their economies going, than in any of those states that simply shut down for COVID.
Hmmm - wonder if that's true? And, who is that asshole? Listen awhile longer - hell, it's Limbaugh.
So, I'm still wondering if it's true. So, right now, after beginning my journal entry, I'll try to find numbers . . .
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/
Hmmmm - something's not right. There are supposed to be eight states that did not shut down. There are 15 states with lower fatality rates than Arkansas, which did not shut down. Soooooo - the statement that every state that did NOT shut down has a lower death rate than any state that did shut down cannot be true.
Which states did NOT shut down again?
April 3 - not quite what we're looking for here. https://www.travelbinger.com/13-u-s-states-have-not-ordered-a-lockdown-yet-take-a-look/
April 17, but it seems to reference much the same as Limbaugh was pontificating over.
https://www.lendio.com/blog/coronavirus/states-lockdown/
However, 8 states (Arkansas, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Utah, and Wyoming) still do not have any lockdowns or stay-at-home orders.
Compare that list of 8 to the table found in the first link - and Rush is full of shit. Oh well. There's a reason I never liked listening to him . . . Only on those rather rare occassions when the AM/FM couldn't find anything except Rush Limbaugh, did I ever listen to the old fool.
The chart does seem to indicate that all of those 8 states have had low mortality rates, compared with New England and Great Lakes states. Then, there's Louisiana, ranking right below the District of Columbia.
Well, all I can say is, "Fuck you, Rush!" The fool had me hoping that something all scientifical-like was going to prove all the fuss to be wasted.
face masks at work
I suppose everyone knows that every politician, and every executive officer in the world feels the need to "do something" about Covid19.
We've been doing that social distancing thing since early in the game. Everyone has. Face masks, not so much.
Suddenly, our executive branch has decided that face masks are mandatory to even enter the plant. I went to the doctor's office immediately to get an excuse not to wear the mask. Doctor and I had an interesting discussion, in which she reiterated what I already know: masks are bad for healthy people.
Meanwhile, I talked to my co-workers, and told them all that if they didn't want to wear the masks, they needed to get a medical exemption. Everyone says, "I'm getting mine tomorrow morning!" Then it became, "I'm waiting to see what they do about you before I give them mine!" Bunch of no-balls assholes, this is why collective bargaining never works in the south.
So, I take my medical note to HR. Stupid broad lets me work without a mask - for one night. But she's talking on the phone to some bitch somewhere far away, and the second night, I'm barred from entering the plant. Talk, talk, talk, all around the country with people who all think that they're important.
Finally, it's decided that I need to wear a mask to get through the turnstile, and walk through the plant, to my shop. More, I'm being offered a half dozen different options for masks, as opposed to that silly gauze hanging off my ears. I'll test them all out, and see how they work.
BUT - most importantly, I don't have to wear the damned mask for eight, or ten, or twelve hours. Only when I'm face-to-face with someone. Otherwise, the stupid mask can be stuffed into my belt, or pocket, or whatever.
And, I got a near-admission that the masks are pretty meaningless. They do not stop the transmission of the common cold, flu, or Covid19. It's just a feel-good stopgap that shows everyone cares. And, it helps to mitigate any potential liability the company may face for keeping the plant in operation.
Funny thing about the masks I've already seen. There are no brand name tags, or instructions, or anything on them. The best thing I've seen yet, is just a tube, you pull over your head, and down around your neck. Single layer of some artificial fabric, stretchy, and very easy to breathe through. No hot air blowing back in your eyes, or whatever. Did EVERYONE in the boardrooms forget that it's summer now? It's far too damned hot to be breathing into some stupid bag of gauzey cotton or paper.
I got my point across pretty effectively though. If those assholes in the offices want me to wear a mask that interferes with breathing, they need to bring their fat asses into the factory, follow me around, and breathe through the same damned masks they want me to breathe through.
The message would have been far more effective, if all of my co-workers had followed through on their promises to bring doctor's excuses in on Monday, like I did. Assholes all need to grow a pair. They can talk a good story, but they have no real fight in them.
I promise that whatever mask I decide to carry around with me, it will almost never be over my face.
Tonight, we see what we see. Maybe they'll just get pissed off, and lay me off. I can lay around the house and collect unemployment for awhile!!
BTW - as an aside - I mentioned 8, or 10, or 12 hours above. Which explains why I've not been so active here on Soylent. Too many days and too many hours for me to spend much time on the internets. Nice paydays though!
I'll try to post back, and let you all know which mask works best for me.
And, yes, claustrophobia is a legitimate excuse not to wear some stupid rag over your face. There are others, but claustrophobia is about the easiest to "prove" to anyone's satisfaction.
Arbery update.
I'm quite justifiably doubtful of the justice system, sad as it is. But so far, so good. It looks like we have a lead investigator who is doing his job, and a special prosecutor who is doing his job, and a judge who is doing his job. As long as that is the case, I feel compelled, and I think we should all feel compelled, to give them a chance.
I have another craptube link for anyone that wants to follow this, the full testimony of the lead agent, it's well worth listening to and carefully. The testimony is likely to be essentially repeated at trial, though certain parts might be testified to by other people rather than Mr Dial at that time.
One thing I want to point out though, they have these craptastic "breaking news" graphics all over it, and one of them says "The McMichaels were initially not charged with shooting due to Georgia's citizen's arrest law" which isn't true at all.
But it's CourtTV. Their analysis tends to be a bit sensationalist, don't watch them for their analysis. Watch them for stuff like this - the full testimony rather than a 20 second soundbite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ4oj5aNSJE
Trump signs Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
Sås = https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY
Issued on: May 28, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Arbery situation.
But since our resident old imposter pederast himself has seen fit to release the napalm, I thought I should go ahead and lay down some facts.
One important fact about the case that should be kept in mind is that the initial headlines were click-bait and race-bait. This is unfortunate, as it predictably leads to some people writing it off because it quickly fit the pattern of fake news narrative they are (reasonably) tired of being deceived by.
Whatever else one can say here, this was not just a case of a black man jogging in the wrong neighborhood and being shot for that alone. Which is the narrative that a lot of the media went with and is still stuck in many heads.
There's a considerable back-story implied with the few facts that have been reliably reported. It will be the job of the trial court to evaluate all available evidence and testimony and drag those facts to light.
That said, I think it's absolutely indefensible that this was not prosecuted until a bit of a national stink was raised about it. The initial effort to simply sweep the incident under the carpet without real investigation, let alone a trial, was a disgrace.
Was it an instance of racism? Possibly. But there are other possible motivations. Regardless of motivation, it strikes me as very worthy of investigation, and at the very least removal from office. Given just the information initially available to the prosecutor, the decision not to investigate further seems indefensible. Racism, corruption, simple willingness to betray the law for your old buddy - I can't think of a defense that doesn't suck here.
But please, let's have a trial, not a war. Or, at the very least, let's wait for the trial before we decide whether or not to have a war.
Aristarchus just wants you dead so he can bugger your little boys anyway, don't listen to him.
Alright, I've rambled long enough, I'll introduce my brother the lawyer to discuss the finer points for those that are interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-HMjlr1sU [18:18 craptube video]
Intelsat, files for bankruptcy
Intelsat, launcher of 1st commercial communications satellite, files for bankruptcy… it’s a friend we didn’t know we had
By Andrew Dickens, a London-based freelance writer
Born in the Cold War, powered by rivalry and unhindered by free-market restrictions, Intelsat linked the planet with its satellites – but hardly anyone knew about it. Now, it struggles to stay afloat.
Anyone who remembers television in the late 20th century will remember the thrill of watching international broadcasts. The grainy pictures of faraway and foreign places, with their strange road signs, adverts and people. The sound delayed and crackled like a long-distance phone call.Now we live in an age where a crystal-clear conversation with multiple people on multiple continents using a device lighter than a deck of cards is as commonplace as sliced bread, it’s easy to forget how powerful that early magic felt.
It’s even easier to forget the organization that launched the world’s first commercial communications satellite (Intelsat 1) in 1965, bringing many of us those miraculous early broadcasts that changed history and propelled us to the connected world, because we probably never knew its name. Now its prospects are less certain.
Intelsat filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Wednesday. The move is a part of restructuring process to help the company cut millions of dollars in debt and free resources for fresh projects.
This vast entity was born from the Cold War, having been instigated by John F Kennedy in 1961 as part of the space and technology races with the USSR. It was a satellite network that aimed to be a more expensive but also more reliable rival to the Soviet Molniya (Lightning) satellites.
It wasn’t a purely American venture, either. This was a different US to the current one. It was capitalist, no doubt, but a less voracious strain that didn’t view public spending as ‘socialism’ –especially when it came to besting the Russians, who had their own network with other Eastern Bloc countries.
So, the US government pumped money into satellites that weren’t available to the highest bidders, but rather to its strategic allies. Intelsat was an intergovernmental consortium, beginning with seven partners in 1964. Founding members included the UK, Canada and Spain. Within ten years it had had over 80 signatories.
Although he didn’t live to see the formal creation of Intelsat, what Kennedy started thrived for decades, bringing live pictures of major news and sport events from around the world to the world. It made the planet smaller, and made us all more a little more cosmopolitan.
In filing for bankruptcy, the company cited the Covid-19 pandemic, but that’s not what did the damage. Intelsat was hit by a ‘triple threat.’ First, the ruthless neoliberal economics that came to the fore in the 1980s and abhorred the unprofitable.
This was followed by the end of the Cold War (or that version, at least). Not that the US didn’t still have enemies, but the Big One had gone, which made it hard to justify the public money that went into it. So, in 2001, it was privatized, with shares being distributed among partners according to their use of the service. Four years later, it was sold to four private equity firms.
https://www.rt.com/news/488856-intelsat-satellite-bankruptcy-friend/
Intelsat will mean little if anything to the younger generations. For some of us, it's an opportunity for some nostalgia.
27 minute video on the the first launch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKH-GijnAGk
A pop song on the subject - best listened to sitting inside a 1955 DeSoto - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryrEPzsx1gQ
Will there be a second round for coronavirus stimulus checks
The IRS hasn't finished sending stimulus payments for up to $1,200 per person to millions of Americans, and already some are wondering if those checks will do enough and if there will be a second coronavirus relief bill. The "economic impact payments" being issued by the IRS by checks in the mail and via direct deposit to banks were introduced as a one-time payment designed to help curb the financial blow caused by the outbreak of COVID-19.
With more than 33 million people filing first-time unemployment claims since mid-March, the unemployment rate reaching 14.7% and the country barreling toward a recession that economists predict globally could be the worst since the Great Depression, talk of a second 2020 stimulus check to keep people afloat is already starting in Washington.
Today, while there is not broad enough support in Congress to pass a second stimulus package for individuals -- which some are calling the "CARES 2 Act" -- a handful of ideas from members of Congress are being discussed and gaining traction. Here's what we know about a second round of stimulus payments in 2020 for individuals.
IMO, money should be reserved for those most in need. Corporations are out. I should be out. I haven't missed a payday since this whole thing started, FFS. People in need should be targeted. Yeah, it was nice getting some "free money", but I didn't "need" it.
Small businesses, and people out of work should come first. Everyone else can stand in line, and make their cases, one by one. And, again, the large corporations don't even need to get in line. Any company with overseas subsidiaries, offshore banking, and questionable tax filing practices is definitely out. Such companies are not "American", they are international and global. (I'm looking at you, Apple, Microsoft, Google, WalMart, and a boatload more.)
Thoughts?
Does the DNC monitor their email replies?
Join us.
Runaway,
You've been hearing a lot about the importance of campaign fundraising recently, and I wanted to take a second to explain more about a big piece of that: Our opponents' massive fundraising lead.
Donald Trump and the RNC have more than $240 million in the bank for the general election. That's a historically unparalleled number -- in huge part because of when they started. At every turn, Trump has used his office as an opportunity to campaign instead of lead, and he's already begun to spend his war chest on attack ads against Joe Biden. We’ve always known that Democrats don’t need to match Trump’s fundraising numbers dollar for dollar, but we can’t afford to fall further behind and let our candidates face Republican attacks without our full support.
We’ve built an incredibly strong Democratic Party infrastructure in the last three years, and we’re in a good position to capitalize on these efforts as we get closer to November. That said, our financial disadvantage puts us in a tough position. A lack of resources means we’re less able to plan ahead and act strategically, and that could have major consequences for our presidential nominee and Democrats down the ballot. That's why I'm asking you to do something important today:
Will you make a $7 donation to the DNC today to close the gap on Trump's fundraising lead and help Joe Biden and Democrats in competitive races fight back? Every bit helps.
DONATE: $7
DONATE: $10
DONATE: $25
DONATE: $50
DONATE: $100
Donate another amount
Since Tom Perez took over as chair in early 2017, the DNC has made unprecedented investments in organizing, data and technology infrastructure, and voter protection efforts. We know that the presidential election is likely to be an incredibly close race, and with so many House and Senate seats up for grabs, we can’t risk not fully funding these critical programs.
That’s where you come in, Runaway. Grassroots supporters like you are the lifeblood of the Democratic Party, and victories up and down the ballot this November require your early support.
With just 184 days until the most consequential election of our lifetimes, we need Democrats like you to commit to our shared goals now, while there’s still time to make a difference. Can I count on your $7 today?
Thanks and stay safe,
Patrick
Patrick Stevenson
Chief Mobilization Officer
Democratic National Committee
P.S. Trump’s fundraising advantage is arguably the single biggest reason he could be reelected. The good news: You can fight back, Runaway. Make a $7 donation and help close the gap today.
If you no longer wish to receive emails from the DNC, submit this form to unsubscribe. If you’d only like to receive our most important messages, sign up to receive less email.
If you’re ready to elect Democrats in all 50 states, make a contribution today.
Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not tax deductible. Paid for by the Democratic National Committee, www.Democrats.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
Runaway
2:56 AM (2 minutes ago)
to feedback
I've heard a lot about campaign fund raising, yes. I haven't heard a lot about any candidates that I can support. Is Creepy Joe lucid today?
_________________________________________________________
I've been sending similar replies for more than a month now, to two or more emails each day. You would think they might figure things out.
Michigan militia puts armed protest in the spotlight
Gun-carrying protesters have been a common sight at some demonstrations calling for coronavirus-related restrictions to be lifted. But an armed militia’s involvement in an angry protest in the Michigan statehouse Thursday marked an escalation that drew condemnation and shone a spotlight on the practice of bringing weapons to protest.
The “American Patriot Rally” started on the statehouse steps, where members of the Michigan Liberty Militia stood guard with weapons and tactical gear, their faces partially covered. They later moved inside the Capitol along with several hundred protesters, who demanded to be let onto the House floor, which is prohibited. Some protesters with guns — which are allowed in the statehouse — went to the Senate gallery, where a senator said some armed men shouted at her, and some senators wore bulletproof vests.
For some observers, the images of armed men in tactical gear at a state Capitol were an unsettling symbol of rising tensions in a nation grappling with crisis. Others saw evidence of racial bias in the way the protesters were treated by police.
For some politicians, there was fresh evidence of the risk of aligning with a movement with clear ties to far-right groups.
Prominent Michigan Republicans on Friday criticized the showing, with the GOP leader of the state Senate referring to some protesters as “a bunch of jackasses” who “used intimidation and the threat of physical harm to stir up fear and feed rancor.”
President Donald Trump, who has been criticized in the past for condoning extremist views, called the protesters “very good people” and urged Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to “make a deal.”
Michiganhas been the epicenter of the political showdownover how to contain the spread of the deadly virus without decimating the economy. About a quarter of the state’s workforce has filed for unemployment and nearly 4,000 people have died.
for the rest of the story click spoiler or click the link
Rally organizer Ryan Kelley said the event was intended to pressure Republicans to reject Whitmer’s plan to continue restrictions on work and travel. He called the protest a “huge win,” noting the Republican-controlled Senate refused to extend Whitmer’s coronavirus emergency declaration — though she said Friday her stay-at-home order remains in effect.
Kelley, a 38-year-old real estate broker, said he and other organizers are not part of a formal group but represent people who have been harmed by the stay-home order. He said he invited the Michigan Liberty Militia, which is listed as an anti-government group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to serve as “security.” He suggested anyone who had a problem with their presence should read the Constitution and “live life without fear.”
Gun-carrying protesters outside state capitols are a regular occurrence in many states, especially in Republican-leaning ones. But rarely do such protests converge at the same time around the country like they have during the coronavirus pandemic.
In Wisconsin, about a dozen men, several wearing camouflage, carried what appeared to be assault rifles and other long guns and stood around a makeshift guillotine at a protest attended by about 1,500 people. In Arizona, a group of men armed with rifles were among hundreds of protesters who demonstrated at the Capitol last month demanding Republican Gov. Doug Ducey lift his stay-home order. Many in the crowd also carried holstered pistols.
Gun groups have been involved in organizing several of these protests — which drew activists from a range of conservative causes. Gun rights advocates believe the restrictions on some businesses and closure of government offices are a threat to their right to own a gun, said Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, a group that bills itself as the “no compromise” gun lobby.
Hammond said he routinely gets messages and emails from people around the country, complaining that authorities are making it impossible to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In some cases, that has meant orders closing gun shops or gun ranges or offices shutting down that process permits.
But Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, a gun-control group, considers these protests organized by the ultra-right and not necessarily reflective of most gun owners.
While it’s legal to openly carry firearms inside some state capitols, Watts called it “dangerous to normalize this. Armed intimidation has no place in our political debate.” She said those carrying guns at protests are almost always white men, and are “a vocal minority of the country” that opposes the stay-at-home orders.
An overwhelming majority of Americans support stay-at-home orders and other efforts to slow the spread of the virus, according to a recent survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
The visual of heavily armed protesters, mostly white men, occupying a government building to a measured response by law enforcement is a particularly jarring one for many African Americans.
It draws a stark contrast to the images that emerged from Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, when crowds of unarmed, mostly black men, women and children took to the streets in protest after a white police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager named Michael Brown. Police shot tear gas to disperse the crowds, further inflaming the tensions between predominantly black community and law enforcement. It worsened when members of an armed militia group called the Oath Keepers arrived, some of them armed and sitting on rooftops. Jon Belmar, who was then St. Louis County’s police chief, said at the time that the presence of the group, whose members wore camouflage, bulletproof vests and openly carried rifles and pistols, was “unnecessary and inflammatory.”
“Systemically, blackness is treated like a more dangerous weapon than a white man’s gun ever will, while whiteness is the greatest shield of safety,” said Brittany Packnett, a prominent national activist who protested in Ferguson.
The Michigan demonstrators, she added, “are what happens when people of racial privilege confuse oppression with inconvenience. No one is treading on their rights. We’re all just trying to live.”
Trump, meanwhile, suggested it was Whitmer who should be moved to action.
“The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire,” the president tweeted Friday. “These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.”
It's an AP story, several sites are carrying it, I chose to use https://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/news/us-politics/michigan-militia-puts-armed-protest-in-the-spotlight/
