#Obama appointed her | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sourcreammachine · 6 months

Text

✨My Favourite Moments of 2024!✨

uk prime minister keir starmer resigns in disgrace after accidentally referring to a trans woman by her correct pronouns

elon musk attempts to prove the safety of the tesla truck by letting mitch mcconnell drive. both men die within seconds of entering the vehicle

in response to worldwide famine, the World Food Programme appoints taylor swift as its director-for-life

the IDF continues carpetbombing occupied gaza after the ghosts of hamas are spotted. all gazans are required to evacuate into a shallow grave

the conclave repeatedly fails to elect a new pope, causing a schism. one conclave elects some italian bishop you’ve never heard of while the other conclave elects agent Q

the IMF buys pakistan

donald trump wins the republican primary carrying 60 states, 14 countries, and 8 circles of hell. during his victory broadcast from prison he suffers what it clinically described as a MegaStroke, removing his ability to move and speak. he declares one of his busty nurses to be his running mate and leads biden by 30 points

following the death of musk twitter is divided by gavelkind amongst multiple rival warlords

joe biden finally finishes his 13th genocide, winning a bet he made with obama

after it retreats from ukraine and georgia, putin personally murders every single member of the russian army. he is reelected in a landslide

his holiness the ayatollah ali khamenei dies peacefully of old age surrounded by his loving family and a grieving nation. days later he is found in a disused oil pipeline hiding from protesters while off his tits on heroin, and is dragged through the streets and beaten to death

the largest war in human history erupts in africa, costing dozens of millions of lives. it is a slow news day at the UN

president millei attaches argentina to the dollar. the us economy immediately crashes and undergoes apocalyptic hyperinflation, the dollar becoming the first currency to have a negative value. the only surviving american industry is joe biden ‘i did that’ stickers

the PLA begins its amphibious invasion of taiwan. the war claims the lives of one million PLA soldiers, ending within 20 minutes when the generals learn that tanks can’t swim

donald trump wins the us presidential election carrying all 100 states. during his victory broadcast from the intensive care unit, he suffers what is clinically described as a Heart Apocalypse, rupturing every single artery in his body and leaving him as pile of blood and gore. the supreme court rules that despite being, quote, “the most dead person ever recorded”, he is still eligible to be president. he and vp-elect Busty Nurse will be inaugurated on 20 january

due to a weird loophole, elon musk’s trans daughter inherits his entire estate. she immediately uses all her wealth to found a mutually-owned food distribution network, ending world hunger

the switch 2 still doesn’t have fucking analogue triggers

#196

105 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 11 months

Text

BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME!!!, SCOTUS edition:

Clarence Thomas: appointed by George H.W. Bush (Republican)

Samuel Alito and John Roberts: appointed by George W. Bush (Republican)

Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett: appointed by Donald Trump (Republican)

Conservative total: 6

Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan: appointed by Barack Obama (Democrat)

Ketanji Brown Jackson: appointed by Joe Biden (Democrat) replacing Stephen Breyer, appointed by Bill Clinton (Democrat), who also appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg;

Liberal total: 3

Most common split on all these bad decisions: 6-3

Gee, it's almost like SCOTUS actually is incredibly important, Hillary Clinton and the entire mainstream Democratic electorate knew that in 2016, Democratic presidents consistently appoint the justices who are on the side of the rulings that you agree with, it was maybe a bad idea to let a man charged with 71 felony counts including criminal espionage appoint one-third of the current court, and yet BUH BUH BERNIE AND HER EMAILS.

#hilary for ts #politics for ts #hillary clinton was right about everything: the redux redux redux #i will never not once ever not be salty about this #and how the purity brigade and decades of GOP bile aimed at hillary #have gotten us to exactly this point that all of us with brains in our heads saw coming back in 2016 #urrrrrrgh

205 notes · View notes

moodyfish · 2 years

Text

The creators of She-Hulk legitimately don't know what they're doing

I think a lot of people have heard the director state

"There's a lot of talk about her body type and we based it on Olympian athletes and not bodybuilders."

Does anyone want to know a specific "Olympian" they based She-Hulk's body off of?

"Olympian Misty Copeland was a body that we referenced, you know, of someone who was very, very, very strong, but also could walk through the world and operate in the normal world at a scale that is very large, but it's still very human because she has to go on dates she has to work in a regular office."

Misty Copeland. Misty. Freaking. Copeland. She is a goddess and an icon. Here are some of her greatest accomplishments.

"2008 Leonore Annenberg Fellowship in the Arts and was named National Youth of the Year Ambassador for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America in 2013. In 2014, President Obama appointed Copeland to the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition. She is the recipient of a 2014 Dance Magazine Award and was named to the 2015 TIME 100 by TIME Magazine." - American Ballet Theatre

Misty Copeland is an amazingly talented person, who has dealt with immense struggles due to her body type, but she is not an Olympian. She's a ballerina. Ballet, by definition from Oxford Languages,

"...is characterized by light, graceful, fluid movements."

I'm especially pissed because when growing up, I was a ballerina. And my sister was a Track & Field thrower. When I heard of She-Hulk as a kid, I always imagined her looking like my sister. Looking like her build - not the ones of prima ballerinas.

While writing this, I've been sitting here thinking about how many great ACTUAL Olympians they could have used as inspiration for She-Hulk's build.

Raven Saunders aka The Hulk. 2020 Tokyo Olympics Silver Medalist in Shotput.

Hidilyn Diaz. 2020 Tokyo Olympics Gold Medalist and Record Holder in 55 KG Weightlifting.

Tamyra Mensah-Stock. 2020 Tokyo Olympics Gold Medal in Freestyle Wrestling.

There are so many incredible female Olympians they could have used as inspiration. There are so many strength-based sports. The Summer Olympics alone have 33 sports.

But they specifically wanted She-Hulk's build to be inspired by

"not bodybuilders."

Even if this meant putting more work on the VFX Artists of the show who made her larger to begin with. Sean Ruecroft, a VFX Artist who worked on Infinity War and Moon Knight, took to Twitter to let people know the struggles Marvel put their team through.

"I was at a company that did VFX for this. Apparently, she was bigger early on, but the notes kept saying to ‘make her smaller.'"

They put more work on the artists, pushing them into the same inspiration that was used for Natasha Romanoff.

"...light, graceful, fluid movements."

The creators didn't want a Hulk. They wanted grace, sex appeal, and a tiny waist on an hourglass figure.

#she-hulk #she hulk #shehulk #rant #Olympics #athletes #marvel #Disney

1K notes · View notes

matan4il · 4 months

Note

Thank you for your daily updates.

I've been seeing people discussing why/not the ICJ case is valid, but nothing on how the judges are likely to rule, a discussion that happens often when there is a big SCOTUS case.

What of their temperaments? Sure there's a Lebanese judge, that doesn't inherently make him antisemitic. Do you know if the judges are more "left" or "right?" My hopes are not high, considering they refuse to see evidence of the actual Oct 7 massacres (shame, since Hamas really wanted that broadcasted).

Hi Nonnie,

I usually try to reply to asks at the same order I got them, but I'll make an exception, because of how relevant this is to the current proceedings at the ICJ right now.

I don't think that being Muslim makes anyone inherently biased, nor do I think being Jewish means a person is free of the antisemitism of their environment, so I generally believe it's impossible for judges to be completely disconnected from what their country's position is. I believe the ICJ recognizes this as well, and that's why, a country that is suing or sued at the ICJ without having a representation among the permanent judges, has the right to appoint one. Specifically when it comes to Lebanon, I have to admit that IDK how possible it is for the Lebanese judge to ignore the fact that his country has for decades implemented an actual apartheid, a legally imposed policy of discrimination against Palestinians who live there.

Well, for this trial, we have an Israeli judge, a SA judge, and the 15 permanent judges. Here's one analysis about the 15 that I read:

American judge: had worked as a legal advisor to the administrations of Clinton and Obama, believes the scope of international law is limited (so she's less likely to grant SA a provisional measure that's a legal precedent).

Russian judge: advises Russia on two legal matters (regarding Georgia, and Kosovo), believes the scope of international law should be wider, has voted against demanding of Russia to stop the military operation in Ukraine, and has published independently his opinion that the ICJ has no right to judge the Russia-Ukraine conflict, because Russia didn't recognize its authority on this. Has visited Israel in 2015 for an international space conference, and together with 2 other ICJ judges, has conducted a "trial" regarding space law.

Slovak judge: sees the scope of international law as narrower, in the past he indicated that he thinks the crime of committing a genocide can't be decided in this court (that it should be in a criminal one), he has also said that quotes uttered in "the heat of battle" (the kind at the basis of SA's lawsuit) are not indicative of policy intent, they're just war propaganda. Has visited Israel in 2015 for an international space conference, and together with 2 other ICJ judges, has conducted a "trial" regarding space law.

French judge: Jewish, considered critical of Israel. In the past, while arguing against Israel, he has also said that the conflict here is political by nature and that the involvement of the ICJ in it is unhelpful to dialogue between the parties.

Moroccan judge: in the past, his decisions included non-legal considerations (for example, he said he's not sure Ukraine's move against Russia fits the convention on the prevention of genocide, but he still was in favor of granting Ukraine the provisional measures it was asking for). He was also a minority vote in the matter of whether the Serbs committed a genocide against the Bosnian Muslims, where the majority determined that the conditions to define it as such were not met.

Somali judge: there are no past indications of how he might rule from an international law perspective. He's Muslim, but in the past he has joined an Iftar dinner at the home of the Israeli ambassador at the Hague, and has also once opened a Holocaust Day lecture for the ICJ.

Chinese judge: has worked for her government in the past. She has voted against the provisional measures Ukraine has asked for against Russia, saying that it seems like an attempt to use the convention in order to get the ICJ to decide in broader political matters than the convention allows for. She has also argued against provisional measures that only demand one side would stop the fighting.

Ugandan judge: has worked for her government in the past. There are no past indications of how she might rule from an international law perspective.

Indian judge: tends towards an expanded view of what is discrimination. Has visited Israel in 2015 for an international space conference, and together with 2 other ICJ judges, has conducted a "trial" regarding space law.

Jamaican judge: has worked for his government in the past. Has voted against Russia when it came to the provisional measures demanding it stops its fighting against Ukraine.

Lebanese judge: has expressed anti-Israel views in the past, and has also repeatedly shown that he takes his country's position into account in his decisions. Has argued in the past that in situations of military occupation, the burden of proof is very low, or that the burden of proof should be on the occupier.

German judge: in the past, he has published his opposition to an Israeli law professor's article, arguing that a wider view is required when it comes to the right to self defense.

Japanese judge: in the past, he has published an article that sees the right of third party countries to appear before the ICJ (as is SA in this case) as limited.

Australian judge: very active in the field of women and gender rights. In the past, she has criticized ICJ rulings that allowed the coalition forces a lot of freedom in Iraq.

Brazilian judge: in the past, he has referred to the PLO as a terrorist organization (at the time about which he was writing), but he did the same regarding the Jewish underground movement, the Hagana (which worked to protect Jews, and to smuggle them "illegally" into the Land of Israel to save them from the Nazis during WWII).

According to one legal correspondent that I listened to, SA has asked for so many provisional measures, that the ICJ is unlikely to turn them all down. This reporter believes that the ICJ will likely not grant the provisional measure calling on Israel to stop the fighting, but it will probably grant at least two other provisional measures. She had a bet which two, the provisional measure calling on more humanitarian aid to be brought into Gaza (if true, this would be so redundant. One of the points made at the ICJ proceedings, was that Israel has agreed to allow in as much humanitarian aid as could be taken in on the Gazan side, and was willing to expand its operations on the Israeli side for this to happen. In other words, what's currently limiting the amount of aid going in is the capacity to handle it on the Gazan, not Israeli, side), and to collect evidence regarding the fighting in Gaza (which Israel is already doing).

I hope this helped! xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

86 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 1 year

Text

And right on schedule, Mitch McConnell has returned to block the now-deadlocked Judicial committee from selecting a replacement for the ailing Feinstein. So Democrats are now successfully blocked from appointing any of Biden’s judicial nominees to the bench. Feinstein stepping down and allowing California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, to name her replacement is one easy way to end this Republican farce, but she won’t do what’s best for her constituents. (source)

Feinstein has been missing in action for months now. Her absence is materially harming the nomination and appointment of judges—judges who could counter the radical zealots that Trump seated. If she cannot do the job any longer (and there is a lot more to be said on that front), then she needs to make room for someone else who can.

I understand that a lot of Blue MAGA sycophants do not like to read, see or hear anything even slightly negative about RBG, but the truth is that she had cancer and knew that her health was failing.

Despite two previous bouts with metastatic pancreatic cancer and public pleas from Democratic law scholars, she decided not to retire in 2013 or 2014 when Obama and a Democratic-controlled Senate could have appointed and confirmed her successor. Waiting until Hillary could replace her was a selfish and incredibly risky gambit, and in the end, she lost. Now everyone else is paying the price for her hubris.

Had to be said. Sorry.

I’m not necessarily his biggest fan, but at least Stephen Breyer understood that when a Supreme Court Justice decides to retire, and who will pick their replacement, is an important part of post-electoral politics.

Look, I’m a BIG believer in going hard and doing all the good you can, while you can. This goes doubly for people in positions of power, like politicians. Because guess what? Tomorrow is not promised to anyone.

This is another reason why I have such a problem with “pragmatism”… we won’t always win, but we must always fight for what is right. Settling for what you can get is one thing, but deliberately aiming low so as not to make waves or upset the conservative base is entirely different.

So IF you can get more good things™ done today, then you should go for it while the getting is still good. Time is a luxury and incrementalism favors the wealthy and powerful. Republican strategist Lee Atwater understood that stalling and delaying on a political outcome was just as good as winning the battle. Because stalling and delaying, with only minor cosmetic changes, maintains the status quo.

Democrats need to understand that “triangulating” and “pragmatically” waiting for a better time is precisely what Republicans want. It’s acquiescing.

I believe in what MLKjr called the fierce urgency of now, not the fierce urgency of pragmatically waiting for conservatives to decide on when would be a better time for progress.

It’s super easy to be “pragmatic” and wait just a bit longer when it’s not YOUR rights that are being denied and trampled on.

Anyway, Dianne Feinstein needs to retire. Now.

#politics #dianne feinstein #mitch mcconnell #rbg #scotus

290 notes · View notes

thebreakfastgenie · 1 year

Text

Some man on twitter took the opportunity of someone literally celebrating Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 90th birthday to push the "Ginsburg should have retired and this is her/Democrats' fault" line and unfortunately I have some time on my hands so you're getting this rant from me again.

First and foremost, putting the blame on a dead woman when there is a living man who is more directly responsible for losing control of the Supreme Court is profoundly stupid and while I doubt it's consciously misogynistic it does reflect a society that holds women responsible for everything.

I don't know how many times I can say this, but we didn't lose the court in 2020, we lost it in 2018 when Anthony Kennedy retired and Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed. A 6-3 conservative majority is certainly worse, but the Dobbs decision, for example, would have been the same.

You don't get to blame Democrats or Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the fact that you dismissed the importance of the Supreme Court in 2016. Whatever you think should have been done in 2014, you knew what the reality was in 2016. There was already an open seat on the Supreme Court during that election.

If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, Antonin Scalia would have been replaced by a liberal justice, likely Merrick Garland, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have been replaced by another liberal justice. Anthony Kennedy would either have remained in his seat or been replaced by a moderate or liberal justice. The tentative 5-4 liberal majority we had prior to 2016 would have become a tentative 6-3 majority with a solid 5 liberal votes. This Supreme Court would not have overturned Roe and would not be threatening policies like student loan forgiveness and affirmative action. That is the court we would have if 50,000 people in three states had voted for Hillary Clinton.

Instead, Donald Trump appointed three Supreme Court Justices and there is a solid 6-3 conservative majority that will continue handing down horrible decisions that are nakedly political and barely even bother with constitutional justification. At the moment we're basically waiting for a couple of them to die and hoping there is a Democratic president and senate when it happens.

I think the position that Ginsburg should have retired in 2014 is heavily influenced by hindsight, but even accepting that it was a good idea, it's not as simple as people who began believing it in 2020 make it sound. First of all, I cite 2014 because Democrats lost control of the senate that year. This argument relies on Democrats seeing that loss coming. Even if they could do that, Democrats did not have filibuster-proof majority in the senate in 2014. At the time, senate rules required such a majority for supreme court confirmations. Harry Reid had only recently changed the rules to allow all other federal judicial nominations to be confirmed with a simple majority.

It's easy to forget now, but the level of Republican obstructionism during the Obama administration was unexpected. The rule change came about because there were so many judicial vacancies. Unfortunately, not all of them were filled even after the rule change, which allowed a number of Republican appointments during the Trump administration. I didn't have a position on senate rules in 2012-14 because I was in high school, but my position now is that I support ending the filibuster.

I think it's very clear that Republicans will simply change the rules to benefit themselves anyway the second they have power, so Democrats are not gaining anything by preserving the filibuster. However, I reached this position with the benefit of having observed Mitch McConnell's actions as Majority Leader between 2015 and 2019. Democrats in 2012-14 did not have that benefit. I don't know how predictable this Republican behavior was, but it's certainly not the same as having observed something that already happened. If Mitch McConnell had not already changed the rule for Supreme Court confirmations in 2017 in order to confirm Neil Gorsuch, I would have urged Democrats to do it in order to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson. But I don't know if it's fair to expect Democrats to have done so in 2014.

It's also worth remembering that the open politicization of the Supreme Court is fairly recent. It's been obviously political at least since the 1980s, but for quite a long time both parties kept up a pretense that it wasn't. It's easy to see why Democrats might not have expected Republicans to keep a seat open for an entire year rather than even give a Democratic nominee a hearing.

I think "in hindsight, things would be better if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired in 2014 and Harry Reid had changed the senate rules so Democrats could confirm a replacement" is a reasonable take. But it's academic. There's no point in assigning blame. And Democrats clearly did learn from this, because Stephen Breyer retired and was replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson.

And, once again, whatever you think should have happened in 2014, we all went into 2016 knowing exactly what did and did not happen. Few people were saying Ginsburg should have retired at that time, and even those who were would not have been justified in not voting for Hillary Clinton, or discouraging others from supporting her, or downplaying the importance of the Supreme Court.

#the way i feel about scotus is so weird like #if any of the people i spent 2016 begging to care about the supreme court came to me like i'm sorry you were right #i don't think i would feel anything??#like tell me something i don't know!!#and yet it DOES bother me when i see takes like this on twitter #like you STILL refuse to accept responsibility and will blame literally anyone else huh?#i'm just angry that i'm living under the thumb of an unchecked right wing extremist court and it didn't have to happen #it's turned me into a person who cheers when an old man falls down and breaks his ribs #and openly hopes for several other old men to die

314 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 8 months

Text

Biden should support the UAW

On September 22, I'm (virtually) presenting at the DIG Festival in Modena, Italy. That night, I'll be in person at LA's Book Soup for the launch of Justin C Key's "The World Wasn’t Ready for You." On September 27, I'll be at Chevalier's Books in Los Angeles with Brian Merchant for a joint launch for my new book The Internet Con and his new book, Blood in the Machine.

The UAW are on strike against the Big Three automakers. Biden should be roaring his full-throated support for the strike. Doing so would be both just and shrewd. But instead, the White House is waffling…and if recent history is any indication, they might actually come out against the strike.

The Biden administration is a mix of appointees from the party's left Sanders/Warren wing, and the corporatist, "Third Way" wing associated with Clinton and Obama, which has been ascendant since the Reagan years. The neoliberal wing presided over NAFTA, the foreclosure crisis, charter schools and the bailout for the bankers – but not the people. They voted for the war in Iraq, supported NSA mass-surveillance, failed to use their majorities to codify abortion rights, and waved through mega-merger after mega-merger.

By contrast, the left wing of the party has consistently fought monopoly, war, spying, privatized education and elite impunity – but forever in the shadow of the triangulation wing, who hate the left far more than they hate Republicans. But with the Sanders campaign, the party's left became a force that the party could no longer ignore.

That led to the Biden administration's chimeric approach to key personnel. On the one hand, you have key positions being filled by ghouls who cheered on mass foreclosures under Obama:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/06/personnel-are-policy/#janice-eberly

And on the other, you have shrewd tacticians who are revolutionizing labor law enforcement in America, delivering real, material benefits for American workers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/06/goons-ginks-and-company-finks/#if-blood-be-the-price-of-your-cursed-wealth

Progressives in the Biden administration have often delivered the goods, but they're all-too-often hamstrung by the corporate cheerleaders the party's right wing secured – think of Lina Khan losing her bid to block the Microsoft/Activision merger thanks to a Biden-appointed, big-money-loving judge:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/14/making-good-trouble/#the-peoples-champion

These self-immolating own-goals are especially visible when it comes to strikes. The Biden admin intervened to clobber railway workers, who were fighting some of the country's cruelest, most reckless monopolists, whose greed threatens the nation:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/11/dinah-wont-you-blow/#ecp

The White House didn't have the power to block the Teamsters threat of an historic strike against UPS, but it publicly sided with UPS bosses, fretting about "the economy" while the workers were trying to win a living wage and air conditioning for the roasting ovens they spend all day in.

Now, with the UAW on strike against the monopolistic auto-makers – who received repeated billions in public funds, gave their top execs massive raises, shipped jobs offshore, and used public money to lobby against transit and decarbonization – Biden is sitting on the sidelines, failing to champion the workers' cause.

Writing in his newsletter, labor reporter Hamilton Nolan makes the case that the White House should – must! – stand behind the autoworkers:

https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/whose-fault-is-it?

Nolan points out that workers who strike without the support of the government have historically lost their battles. When workers win labor fights, it's typically by first winning political ones, dragging the government to the table to back them. Biden's failure to support workers isn't "neutral" – it's siding with the bosses.

Today, union support is at historic highs not seen in generations. The hot labor summer wasn't a moment, it was a turning point. Backing labor isn't just the moral thing to do, it's also the right political move:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/14/prop-22-never-again/#norms-code-laws-markets

Biden is already partway there. He rejected the Clinton/Obama position that workers would have to vote for Democrats because "we are your only choice." Maybe he did that out of personal conviction, but it's also no longer politically possible for Democrats to turn out worker votes while screwing over workers.

The faux-populism of the Republicans' Trump wing has killed that strategy. As Naomi Klein writes in her new book Doppelganger, Steve Bannon's tactical genius is to zero in on the areas where Democrats have failed key blocks and offer faux-populist promises to deliver for those voters:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

When Democrats fail to bat for workers, they don't just lose worker votes – they send voters to the Republicans. As Nolan writes, "working people know that the class war is real. They are living it. Make the Democratic Party the party that is theirs! Stop equivocating! Draw a line in the sand and stand on the right side of it and make that your message!"

The GOP and Democrats are "sorting themselves around the issue of inequality, because inequality is the issue that defines our time, and that fuels all the other issues that people perceive as a decline in the quality of their own lives." If the Democrats have a future, they need to be on the right side of that issue.

Biden should have allowed a railroad strike. He should have cheered the Teamsters. He should be on the side of the autoworkers. These aren't "isolated squabbles," they're "critical battles in the larger class war." Every union victory transfers funds from the ruling class to the working class, and erodes the power of the wealthy to corrupt our politics.

When Democrats have held legislative majorities, they've refused to use them to strengthen labor law to address inequality and the corruption it engenders. Striking workers are achieving the gains that Democrats couldn't or wouldn't take for themselves. As Nolan writes:

Democratic politicians should be sending the unions thank you notes when they undertake these hard strikes, because the unions are doing the work that the Democrats have failed to accomplish with legislation for the past half fucking century. Say thank you! Say you support the workers! They are striking because the one party that was responsible for ensuring that the rich didn’t take all the money away from the middle class has thoroughly and completely failed to do so.

Republican's can't win elections by fighting on the class war. Democrats should acknowledge that this is the defining issue of our day and lean into it.

Whose fault is a strike at the railroads, or at UPS, or in Hollywood, or at the auto companies? It is the fault of the greedy fuckers who took all the workers’ money for years and years. It is the fault of the executives and investors and corporate boards that treated the people who do the work like shit. When the workers, at great personal risk, strike to take back a measure of what is theirs, they are the right side. There is no winning the class war without accepting this premise.

Autoworkers' strikes have been rare for a half-century, but in their heyday, they Got Shit Done. Writing in The American Prospect, Harold Meyerson tells the tale of the 1945/46 GM strike:

https://prospect.org/labor/2023-09-18-uaw-strikes-built-american-middle-class/

In that strike, the UAW made history: they didn't just demand higher wages for workers, but they also demanded that GM finance these wages with lower profits, not higher prices. This demand was so popular that Harry Truman – hardly a socialist! – stepped in and demanded that GM turn over its books so he could determine whether they could afford to pay a living wage without hiking prices.

Truman released the figures proving that higher wages didn't have to come with higher prices. GM caved. Workers got their raise. Truman touched the "third rail of American capitalism" – co-determination, the idea that workers should have a say in how their employers ran their businesses.

Co-determination is common in other countries – notably Germany – but American capitalists are violently allergic to the idea. The GM strike of 45/6 didn't lead to co-determination, but it did effectively create the American middle-class. The UAW's contract included cost-of-living allowances, wage hikes that tracked gains in national productivity, health care and a defined-benefits pension.

These provisions were quickly replicated in contracts with other automakers, and then across the entire manufacturing sector. Non-union employers were pressured to match them in order to attract talent. The UAW strike of 45/6 set in motion the entire period of postwar prosperity.

As Meyerson points out, today's press coverage of the UAW strike of 2023 is full of hand-wringing about what a work-stoppage will do to the economy. This is short-sighted indeed: when the UAW prevails against the automakers, they will rescue both the economy and the Democratic party from the neo-feudal Gilded Age the country's ultrawealthy are creating around us:

https://doctorow.medium.com/the-end-of-the-road-to-serfdom-bfad6f3b35a9?sk=207d6afdb89b0351b92233cc3318ab94

There's a name for a political strategy that seeks to win votes by making voters' lives better – it's called "deliverism." It's the one thing the Trump Republican's won't and can't do – they can talk about bringing back jobs or making life better for American workers, but all they can deliver is cruelty to disfavored minorities and tax-breaks for the ultra-rich:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/10/thanks-obama/#triangulation

Deliverism is how the Democrats can win the commanding majorities to deliver the major transformations America and the world need to address the climate emergency and dismantle our new oligarchy. Letting the party's right wing dominate turns the Democrats into caffeine-free Republicans.

When the Dems allowed the Child Tax Credit to lapse – because Joe Manchin insisted that poor people would spend the money on drugs – they killed a program that had done more to lift Americans out of poverty than anything else. Today, American poverty is skyrocketing:

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4206837-poverty-made-an-alarming-jump-congress-could-have-stopped-it/

Four million children have fallen back into poverty since the Dems allowed the Child Tax Credit to lapse. The rate of child poverty in America has doubled over the past year.

The triangulators on the party's right insist that they are the adults in the room, realists who don't let sentiment interfere with good politics. They're lying. You don't get working parents to vote Democrat by letting their children starve.

America's workers can defeat its oligarchs. They did it before. Biden says he's a union man. It's time for him to prove it. He should be on TV every night, pounding a podium and demanding that the Big Three give in to their workers. If he doesn't, he's handing the country to Trump.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/18/co-determination/#now-make-me-do-it

#pluralistic #uaw #bidenomics #strikes #united autoworkers #labor #unions #union strong #evs #now make me do it #deliverism #democrats #hamilton nolan

116 notes · View notes

brf-rumortrackinganon · 1 month

Text

Timeline: Part 10 - December 11-31 2017

For earlier timeline posts: click here or here.

There's a limit to how many links you can put in a tumblr post. Who knew. Anyway, continuing where we left off...

12/11/2017: Andrew Morton announces new biography of Meghan. Rebecca English writes about Meghan's yoga influencing. Meghan's "Sexy Santa" costume from Deal or No Deal is republished. Kensington Palace announces William and Kate's trip to Sweden and Norway, and The Times debunks The Crown.

12/12/2017: Harry and his friends kill 15 boars during German hunting trip (Meghan's not happy). Harry and Meghan take credit for William and Kate showing a little PDA on an engagement, while Meghan merches her parka. Later, William and Harry attend the Star Wars premiere.

12/13/2017: Kensingon Palace officially confirms Meghan is spending Christmas with the royals. Meghan is revealed as Google's most-searched celebrity of 2017. Meghan merches her handbags, especially Strathberry's, and modernizes the monarchy.

A UK survey finds that a majority of their respondents are unhappy with Harry's engagement:

67% of women surveyed are devastated by the engagement announcement.

20% of overall respondents prefer Harry to be single.

57% of respondents are against Harry marrying Meghan.

And Meghan leaks that Kate has taken her under her wing to protect her from negative parts of royal life. She tells The Express that "Harry is like a brother to Kate and she has never seen him so happy."

12/14/2017: Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, announces that he expects to preside over the royal wedding. In the morning, the royals attend a service for Grenfell Tower at St. Paul's Cathedral (Meghan isn't allowed) and they gather again in the afternoon for The Queen's annual Windsor Christmas luncheon at Buckingham Palace (Meghan is invited). In the evening, the Kensington Palace Christmas party is held at a nearby restaurant that Harry and Meghan may or may not have attended (it's claimed they left early) while William and Kate are papped leaving.

Meghan merches Strathberry again and she is named the #4 Fashion Influencer of the Year, besting Kate who comes in at #5. (I really doubt Kate cares about this.)

12/15/2017: Kensington Palace announces the wedding date. Palace gift shops begin selling engagement memorabilia. Harry visits Sandhurst Academy and awards Cadet of the Year. Idris Elba shows support for Meghan while Meghan merches tea tree oil.

12/16/2017: Meghan teases a Canada tour post-wedding again.

12/17/2017:

The Daily Mail reminds us that Meghan is attending royal Christmas.

Harry announces that he has interviewed Barack Obama for BBC Radio 4 Today, but the interview won't air until the end of the month.

Meghan used to work at a yogurt store in LA as a teenager and everyone just loved her.

William's diary clash: Harry scheduled his wedding on the same day as the FA Cup Final, which William usually attends.

To prep The Queen and Prince Philip for spending Christmas with Meghan, Harry says he has shown them clips of Meghan in Suits.

Windsor hotels begin to profit off the wedding by marketing Meghan and Harry.

12/18/2017: The Cambridges release their Christmas card photo and Kensington Palace announces that Charlotte will begin nursery school in the new year. Meghan is voted one of the UK's ideal Christmas dinner guests and she leaks that The Queen likes her better than Kate but Buckingham Palace hits back with a denial.

12/19/2017: William and Kate attend the Royal Variety Performance. Meghan tries to ride their coattails by hinting she and Harry may be their guests and Harry is appointed Captain General Royal Marines, succeeding Philip.

Sketches of potential wedding dresses are published/leaked again.

Doria is papped at a LA laundromat.

Meet Meghan's lookalike

Will Meghan have to curtsey to Kate?

Meghan is crowned Hello Magazine's "Woman of the Year."

12/20/2017: Meghan hypes up her Kate-like style makeover from the Windsor Christmas luncheon at Buckingham Palace and merches her dress again. More wedding dress sketches are published.

12/21/2017: The royal engagement photos are published and:

Prince Philip and The Queen leave London for Sandringham.

Meghan modernizes the monarchy.

Meghan merches Ralph & Russo.

Body language analysis

Yorkies are papped at Soho House.

Meghan leaks that The Queen wants her and Harry to have a prenup and that she (Meghan) is hurt the family thinks she has an ulterior motive for marrying Harry. (Well...) In the same article, Meghan teases her and Harry's individual net worths and hints at the wedding budget - £22 million minimum overall cost and her dress budget is £375,000.

Harry debunks Meghan's PR about the prenup, saying no one asked for one and that William and Kate don't have one so they don't need one.

Meghan v Kate fashion showdown over their engagement photos.

12/22/2017:

Princess Michael's Blackamoor brooch controversy kicks off.

Cambridge vs Sussex engagement portraits showdown

Meghan merches her Ralph & Russo gown again

Press criticism of the engagement photos begin

Meghan takes credit for Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner posing together.

12/23/2017: Meghan announces that Guy has broken two legs in an unprecedented Kensington Palace statement and her lookalike does a wedding dress photoshoot.

12/24/2017: Meghan leaks that Harry will not participate in the royal family's Boxing Day shoot because it would upset her.

12/25/2017: Meghan joins the royal family on their Christmas Church Walk. She merches her coat and her hat is the stuff of poo memes.

12/26/2017: Criticism from Meghan's Christmas Church Walk continues with coverage on her curtsey fail and sticking her tongue out. Meghan also merches her outfit again.

12/27/2017: Harry's interview with Barack Obama is finally released. He makes a "we're the family she never had" comment that sets the Markles off. Harry also bans blood diamonds from Meghan's jewelry and Meghan merches her lip gloss.

12/28/2017: Some poor media intern who listened to the Harry/Obama interview realizes that Harry invited the Obamas to the wedding. Meghan deals with more curtsey criticism. She deflects by announcing that she was shortlisted to be the new Bond Girl but she had to give the role up because of her relationship with the Harry. Meghan also merches the Soho House restaurant she and Harry had their first date.

12/29/2017: The royal family's engagement count for the year is released and Harry worked more than William and Kate. The Markles begin popping off about Harry's "we're the family she never had" comment.

12/30/2017: No new Meghan or Harkle stories.

12/31/2017: No new Meghan or Harkle stories.

#brf #timeline #sussexes #pr shenanigans

29 notes · View notes

kevinmchalenews · 1 month

Text

Glee Icon Lauren Potter

Not many got close to the ruthless, sharp-tongued Sue Sylvester, except Becky Jackson! Lauren Potter joins Jenna and Kevin to discuss her iconic role as Becky, including how she got the role, what it was really like working with Jane Lynch, one of her favorite days on the set involving Cory Monteith, and, of course, Becky and Artie's date at Breadstix! Plus, Lauren reveals what it was like being appointed to the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, going to the White House, and meeting Michelle Obama!

#Kevin McHale #Jenna Ushkowitz #Lauren Potter #Cory Monteith #Glee #And That's What You Really Missed

20 notes · View notes

violetfaust · 2 years

Text

In the last two weeks alone, Trump's Supreme Court has:

Overturned Roe v. Wade.

Severely limited Miranda protections by ruling that citizens can't sue the cops who don't read them their Constitutional rights.

Expanded gun rights less than two months after schoolchildren were slaughtered and weeks after a racist shooting in a community supermarket, by striking down sensible New York gun control laws.

And now eviscerated the power of the EPA to do its job and try to protect against climate change by ruling it can't regulate emissions from power plants.

These "justices" are not only legislating from the bench and making decisions that are stripping human rights and WILL CAUSE DEATHS in opposition to decades of precedent (50 years for Roe, 60 for Miranda, 110 for the NY gun laws):

Many of them are unfit to serve.

Clarence Thomas's wife is an insurrectionist and election denier who is refusing to cooperate with the January 6 committee. Thomas has also not recused himself from decisions regarding the January 6 committee. He is married to a literal traitor to this country and has blatant conflict of interest. He MUST resign or be impeached and removed.

Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the bench was rammed through the Senate despite credible accusations that he is a rapist (as well as possibly guilty of financial misconduct or crimes). Investigators refused to consider evidence. This investigation must be reopened, and if more evidence is presented (as I suspect it will be), he should be impeached, removed, and prosecuted.

Neil Gorsuch perjured himself in his Senate confirmation hearings about Roe. He said he recognized and respected it as the law of the land, yet last week he cosigned Alito's reactionary brief that claimed not only that Roe was not law, but that it never had been. Thus Gorsuch should be impeached, removed, and if possible prosecuted for lying under oath.

While I don't know of evidence that Amy Coney Barrett is legally unfit to serve (despite being a far-right-wing reactionary), her appointment was illegitimate under the Republicans' own arbitrary rules: they refused to even consider Obama's candidate for the Court after Scalia's death because it was "in an election year" although that was MARCH, then forced through Barrett's a WEEK before the election (and less than a month after RBG's death). Senate Republicans need to acknowledge that either her appointment or Gorsuch's was illegitimate (and McConnell should be censured for it).

#scotus #us politics #roe v wade #gun sanity now #clarence thomas #brett kavanaugh #neil gorsuch #continuing trumpocalypse #stack the court #i'm so fucking angry #also alito should be investigated for ties to the far right because he's a nutjob and i'm sure they're there but that's another post #sorry for going off #i wanna post fandom stuff but this is INSANE #op

464 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 months

Text

“We have to be a nation that trusts women.”

March 15, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

The most significant political development on Thursday was the appearance by Vice President Kamala Harris at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota. Her appearance at a women’s healthcare clinic was the first by a U.S. vice president (or president) at a facility that provides abortion services. See CNN, Kamala Harris becomes first VP to visit abortion provider with Planned Parenthood visit.

The visit was part of Kamala Harris’s “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour. She is taking the lead on an issue where she can be (and has been) a more effective and outspoken advocate than President Biden. Her leadership on the issue of reproductive liberty is a good development for Harris, Biden, and the American people.

V.P. Harris said, in part,

I’m here at this health care clinic to uplift the work that is happening in Minnesota as an example of what true leadership looks like. . . . The reason I’m here is because this is a health care crisis. Part of this health care crisis is the clinics like this that have had to shut down and what that has meant to leave no options with any reasonable geographic area for so many women who need this essential care.

Harris framed the issue as one that pitted politicians against women’s control over their bodies:

How dare these elected leaders believe they are in a better position to tell women what they need. To tell women what’s in their best interest. We have to be a nation that trusts women.

Harris’s visit was historic. But it also showcased Kamala Harris’s campaign skills, including her ability to connect with women and young people on the campaign trail. For readers who remember Kamala Harris only from the debate stage in 2020, I urge you to watch a few minutes of her appearance in Minnesota.

No soaring rhetoric. No shouting. No anger. No pep rallies. Instead—like Joe Biden—she is a relatable candidate speaking to the American people about their needs, wants, and fears.

I was impressed and by Kamala Harris’s appearance in Minnasota, and I hope you will be, too.

But there is more. In a similar speech last week in Arizona, Kamala Harris touched on a matter of extreme urgency for all women and men: The plan by religious fundamentalist extremists to make contraception illegal.

In Arizona, Harris said,

And right now, other extremists, as you have heard and know, are in court trying to bring back a law from 1864 that would completely ban abortion in Arizona — 1864. Understand: 1864, before women had the right to vote, before women could own property, before Arizona was even admitted as a state.

So, the 2024 ballot will not only include access to abortion service, but access to contraception. See The Independent, Republicans are taking aim on contraception — and they’d rather you didn’t know.

In short, Kamala Harris is fast becoming the leading voice for reproductive liberty on the Biden-Harris team.

Readers sometimes send emails suggesting that Joe Biden replace Kamala Harris by appointing her to the Supreme Court or to serve as Attorney General in Biden’s next administration. When I question readers about their desire for a different vice presidential candidate, some say Harris is not “likable.” That (mis-)impression is an unfair hangover from her appearances on a debate stage with sixteen other Democratic candidates in 2020. Watch the video above if you still labor under that misapprehension.

Other readers say (wrongly) that Harris is not “ready” to be president if called upon to replace Biden. As I tell readers who raise that concern, she has more experience than did the following presidents when they began their first term: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John F. Kennedy, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. She has comparable experience to George H.W. Bush when he was elected president.

Biden and Harris are a formidable team. That fact will become increasingly apparent when Trump picks a V.P. candidate from a rogue’s gallery of sycophants willing to debase themselves by serving as running mate to an insurrectionist, coup-plotting, extortionist, document-stealing sexual abuser.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

#women's rights #human rights #totalitarianism #Robert B. Hubbell #Robert B. Hubbell Newletter #Kamala Harris #women #reproductive rights

13 notes · View notes

grits-galraisedinthesouth · 6 months

Text

November 17, 2023

Brother-in-law of Stacey Abrams charged with human trafficking

Brother-in-law of Stacey Abrams, federal judge Leslie Abrams' husband charged with human trafficking.

Jimmie Gardner is married to Leslie Abrams, a Georgia Federal Judge appointed by Obama. Leslie Abrams is on Joe Biden's short list for a judicial appointment.

Gardner lives and works in Georgia where he served as a motivational speaker and emotional intelligence trainer for students for those formerly incarcerated.

Jimmie Gardner spent 27 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of sexually assaulting an elderly woman.

TAMPA, Fla. — The brother-in-law of two-time Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and the husband of Georgia Federal Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner is facing human trafficking charges.

On Friday, Jimmie Gardner, 57, was arrested in Tampa, Florida after a 16-year-old girl said she had been involved in sexual acts with him inside a hotel room.

Tampa police say the teenage girl told them that Gardner contacted her just before 1:45 a.m. and invited her to his hotel room and she accepted.

Once there, Gardner reportedly offered the girl money for sex. She initially agreed, but when she changed her mind, she said he became angry and began choking her.

After he stopped and left the hotel room, she called 911.

By the time police arrived, Gardner was gone. He was arrested just a few hours later, according to jail records.

He’s charged with human trafficking, lewd or lascivious touching of a minor and battery.

#stacey abrams #Georgia #Leslie Abrams #Tampa #obama #biden #judiciary

36 notes · View notes

ridenwithbiden · 10 months

Text

HERE COMES THE JUDGE "When Judge Tanya Chutkan presides over the new criminal case against Donald Trump, it won’t be her first time tangling with the former president and his lawyers.

In fact, the U.S. district court judge already dealt the ex-president one of the most significant legal blows of his lifetime, triggering perhaps the greatest deluge of evidence about his bid to subvert the 2020 election — a scheme for which he now stands charged with serious crimes.

The Obama-appointed jurist ruled in fall 2021 that the House Jan. 6 select committee could access reams of Trump’s White House files — a ruling that was subsequently upheld by an appeals court and left undisturbed by the Supreme Court. That evidence — call logs, memos, internal strategy papers and more from the desks of Trump’s most trusted advisers — became the backbone of the committee’s evidence and shaped much of the public’s understanding of his effort to seize a second term he didn’t win.

Much of that evidence resurfaced Tuesday in special counsel Jack Smith’s four-count indictment of Trump, which referenced call logs and White House records that were already familiar to Americans who tracked the Jan. 6 committee proceedings. Chutkan was randomly selected Tuesday to preside over Trump’s latest criminal case, his third in the last four months.

“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” Chutkan wrote in her 2-year-old ruling, a rebuke that is sure to echo as she prepares to preside over the newest criminal case against the current GOP frontrunner for the presidential nomination in 2024.

Chutkan, 61, was born in Kingston, Jamaica, and came to the U.S. for college as a teenager, attending George Washington University and then law school at the University of Pennsylvania. She spent more than a decade as a public defender in Washington, D.C. She later worked for the law firm Boies Schiller & Flexner before being confirmed as a federal trial judge in Washington in 2014.

Chutkan has avoided some of the most pointed criticisms of Trump that some of her colleagues on the federal bench in D.C. have delivered as they’ve sentenced defendants who participated in the Jan. 6 mob that attacked the Capitol as part of Trump’s bid to remain in power. Judge Reggie Walton has called Trump a “charlatan.” Judge Amit Mehta has said Jan. 6 defendants were “pawns” of Trump and his allies. Judge Amy Berman Jackson has chastised Republicans for refusing to level with Trump about the 2020 election.

“It is not patriotism, it is not standing up for America to stand up for one man — who knows full well that he lost — instead of the Constitution he was trying to subvert,” Jackson said at a sentencing last year.

But Chutkan has delivered some of the harshest sentences to Jan. 6 defendants and made her disgust and horror over the attack clear, lamenting the prospect of renewed political violence in 2024 and noting that no one accused of orchestrating the effort to subvert the election had been held accountable.

“You have made a very good point,” she told Jan. 6 rioter Robert Palmer at his December 2021 sentencing, “that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged.”

“The issue of who has or has not been charged is not before me. I don’t have any influence on that,” she said. “I have my opinions, but they are not relevant.”

But Chutkan also said that reality wasn’t a reason to go easy on those who bought into the election lies and acted upon that belief.

“The people who planned this and funded it and encouraged it haven’t been charged, but that’s not a reason for you to get a lower sentence,” she said. “I have to make it clear that the actions you engaged in cannot happen again. Every day we’re hearing about reports of antidemocratic factions of people plotting violence, the potential threat of violence, in 2024.”

Chutkan has alluded more specifically to Trump in other Jan. 6 sentences, including her first — to misdemeanor defendant Carl Mazzocco, who Chutkan said “went to the Capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country.”

During those early months of the Jan. 6 investigation, Chutkan also staked out territory that some of her colleagues were reluctant to tread: She pointedly rejected the equivalence some defendants were drawing between violence adjacent to Black Lives Matter protests and the riot at the Capitol.

One Trump-appointed judge, Trevor McFadden, had raised sharp questions about whether Jan. 6 defendants were being treated more harshly than people accused of similar conduct during the summertime violence of 2020.

“I think the U.S. attorney would have more credibility if it was even-handed in its concern about riots and mobs in this city,” McFadden said at the time.

Chutkan, while sentencing a defendant in a different case, appeared to allude to her colleague’s remark, before saying she “flatly” disagreed.

“People gathered all over the country last year to protest the violent murder by the police of an unarmed man. Some of those protesters became violent,” Chutkan said of the protests and rioting that followed George Floyd’s death. “But to compare the actions of people protesting, mostly peacefully, for civil rights, to those of a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and ignores a very real danger that the January 6 riot posed to the foundation of our democracy.”

34 notes · View notes