Categories
life politics reviews

On Liquid Democracy & Realistically Hopeful Insights into Vermont’s Future

I’m currently reading a book titled Liquid Reign. While terribly written on a sentence-by-sentence level (c’mon, man! stick with a consistent tense!), its non-dystopian/non-utopian vision of a future run on liquid democracy and the blockchain is one of the most inspiring books I’ve read. The intelligence, humor, and cultural preferences of the author shine through the text, as does his clear-eyed, evidence-based understanding of the negative impacts of his vision. I also love how at the end of each chapter he links the reader to whatever inspired the concepts he introduces or explores. Finally, I love that the author published the novel using a Creative Commons license, living up to the novel’s obvious ethic.

In case you’ve never heard of it (as I hadn’t just a few weeks ago), liquid democracy is the radical idea that you should be in charge of your vote.

In the most idealistic version of American democracy, every two years, you are allowed to select from among your neighbors an individual to travel to Washington D.C. to represent your and/or your community’s interests. On every question that comes before the American people for the next two years, you delegate your vote to this representative.

Additionally, every four years, you have the opportunity to influence the selection of the nation’s chief executive. Your influence is minimal though not insignificant (depending on which state you live in), and it allows you to breathe at least some of your preferences into the spirit of our nation’s laws.

Finally, every six years, your entire state receives the opportunity to delegate its vote on every question to one individual who lives in your state but whom you’ve probably never met and who almost certainly will never know your name.

When you’ve delegated your vote on every question to three individuals, two of whom you’ve probably never met and the last of whom you probably barely know, why would you believe you live in a democracy?

To be fair, direct democracy is difficult in small societies and untenable in large ones. We cannot expect every voter to be legitimately informed on every question (of course, when the United States Congress is passing 5,000+ page bills less than 24 hours after they’ve been released, we obviously don’t expect our well-paid, professional representatives to be legitimately informed either).

But a liquid democracy provides voters with the opportunity to vote directly (and participate directly) on every question that sparks their interest or to delegate their vote to whomever they like on any topic or question for which they don’t have the time, knowledge, expertise, or interest.

A quick example. While I care a lot about the corruptive effects of money on our democracy, I don’t have enough understanding of the nuances involved to vote on the low-level regulations necessary to counteract it. However, I’ve listened to enough speeches and read enough articles by Lawrence Lessig to know I trust him on the issue. Instead of directly participating in any of the many decisions necessary to enact meaningful anticorruption laws, I could delegate all my votes on the topic to him.

If, in turn, Mr. Lessig knew someone he trusted more than himself on the issue, he could delegate my vote and his vote and any other vote he controls on the issue to that more trustworthy person. I would be notified of the change and would be able to decide whether to keep my vote with that new person or take it back for myself.

And I could do something similar on virtually every decision that needs to be made in our democracy.

Additionally, because I can retract my vote from my delegates at any time, there is no more election cycle. Delegates must continue to prove their worthiness to carry my vote, and the minute they lose my faith or someone else impresses me more, I can change who represents me.

The idea is so powerfully simple that it seems like a no-brainer, with the only questions being ones of implementation. How private is a person’s vote? How does the system stay informed as to who is delegated by whom and on what range of issues? How does a voter know when their delegate has cast their vote? What issues are available to vote on? Etc.

The book answers most of its implementation questions with “the blockchain,” but not in a way that means “magic.” When it comes to blockchain technology and its potential over the next several decades, the author seems to know what he’s talking about, and he’s nerdy enough to include most of it in his plot, characterization, and dialogue.

I, however, cannot distinguish this sufficiently advanced technology from magic, and so were you to ask me, I’d simply say, “the blockchain.”

One thing that excites me about the book is the level of research and insight it demonstrates. It must have been so fun for the author to look deeply into a wide variety of technological possibilities and threats (not just blockchain, but virtual reality, artificial intelligence, green transportation, resilient communities, and so much more), combine them with a deep knowledge of alternative political and economical models (such as anarchism, socialism, liquid democracy, the military-industrial complex, etc.) and a fun sense of oracality for cultural and social movements to provide a deeply realistic vision of the future, one where the worst of us still lives and thrives among the best of us.

I’d like to do something similar, but concentrate my efforts on my local community. I’ve written an experimental novel that attempts to imagine an alternative future for my state, but it was (and was intended to be) wholly divorced from reality. In its second chapter, it introduces an eight-year-old girl with “a third eye in the middle of her forehead, [a] persimmon-irised, ebony-eyeballed third eye in the middle of the child’s pale, white forehead.” From that moment on, everything I wrote in the book said “Fuck it” to reality (or in the language of the novel, “skrinkle lee”).

I’d like to try again — not to write another novel on the secession of Vermont, but to envision a non-fantasy-based, evidence-riven, activist-driven, hopeful future for my community.

In 2005, our local environmental guru, Bill McKibben, penned a book entitled, Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America’s Most Hopeful Landscape: Vermont’s Champlain Valley and New York’s Adirondacks. The book is based on a long, multi-day walk that McKibben takes from his home in the heart of the Green Mountains to another home he owns in the heart of the Adirondacks. Along the way, he visits with and tells the story of a number of entrepreneurs and activists who call the valley between them home, and he uses what he learns to suggest a reality-based vision of what’s possible.

Meanwhile, for the past 10 years, I’ve been actively working with young people who live at the southern end of McKibben’s same valley, people whose daily lives are filled with trauma and struggle and who can hardly lift their head high enough to hope for something better.

I want to help these people connect with the resources they need to participate in the hopeful future McKibben so beautifully writes about. I want to research the wide variety of ways our local entrepreneurs, educators, and activists can help individuals who are struggling cross the gap between what is and what can be, and like the author of Liquid Reign, I want to use my skills for research and writing to do it.

Categories
politics

A Layperson’s Guide to H.R. 1

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, also known as the For the People Act of 2021. The bill aims “to expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.”

This is a monumental bill, but it has little hope of passing the Senate, thanks to their insistence that our democracy bow to the will of the minority; however, if enough Americans push their Senators to support the wisdom of the bill, maybe, perhaps, a supermajority will win out.

To that end, here’s a detailed summary of what the For The People Act will do.

Voting & Elections

It requires states and/or local governments to build websites where individuals can register to vote, and for individuals who do not have access to the Internet, an automated-telephone system that allows them to register.

It mandates that states create an automatic voter-registration system that defaults to registering any eligible voter who is identified by a state-run system (e.g., if the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles has enough information to prove a person is eligible, then the state must register that person to vote, even if the person didn’t request it). Under this automated system, eligible voters must opt out of being registered, rather than opt in. Thankfully, the bill protects individuals from being held accountable if the automated system makes any errors on their behalf.

It authorizes $500 million to be appropriated from the Federal coffers to help states implement the above mandates. 

It mandates that states allow same-day voter registration at each polling place. 

It protects registered voters from being removed from a state’s voter rolls incorrectly, and it requires any de-registrations to occur no later than six months prior to the next election, allowing voters ample time to correct the record.

It mandates that each state provide a wide variety of voter-registration statistics to Congress in the first quarter of each year to ensure that each state continues to promote its voter registration efforts.

It authorizes $25 million to be granted to states that encourage their minors to participate in public-election activities, including (but not limited to) expanding their use of the pre-registration process and modifying high-school curriculums to promote civic engagement. 

It prohibits individuals from corrupting or hindering the voter registration process or from corrupting or hindering any individual who is trying to aid another in the process.

It requires states to allow individuals who are older than 16 but younger than 18 to register to vote. While the bill does not give 16 year olds the right to vote, it does expand voter registration efforts while also making it easier to expand the franchise in the future.

It mandates that states allow individuals with disabilities to vote by absentee ballot and to deliver absentee ballots to those individuals by default.

It prevents states from removing voters from the rolls using “voter caging lists.”

It prevents anyone from formally challenging an individual’s right to vote, unless the challenger has personal knowledge of the voters ineligibility and their claim is supported by written documentation. The challenger has to be willing to make their challenge under the penalty of perjury. If it is election day, it prohibits anyone other than a state official from making the challenge.

It makes it illegal to lie about someone else’s endorsement of a candidate, and it instructs the Attorney General to submit a yearly report of all allegations of deceptive practices to Congress and the public.

It restores voting rights to all individuals who have been convicted of a criminal offense but who are no longer serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution. 

It requires that all states use an “individual,  durable, voter-verified paper ballot” that counts as the official ballot in cases of recounts or audits. It mandates the paper ballots be counted by hand during recounts and audits, and that the paper ballots supersede any electronic vote tally as “the true and correct record” of the vote. It also requires stipulations for individuals with disabilities to ensure those who are blind or who don’t have the manual dexterity to make their mark have equal access to a “durable” ballot. Finally, it provides $5 million in grants for the development of technological systems that assist in this effort.

It extends protections to the handling of provisional ballots.

It mandates that all states allow early voting: States must accept ballots at least 15 days before the election. It also ensures that early-voting polling places stay open for at least ten hours a day during those 15 (or more) days, and that at least some of those hours are before 9am and after 5pm.

It mandates that all early-voting polling places be within walking distance of a stop on a public transportation route or (for rural areas) in communities that provide the greatest access.

It reduces impediments to voting by mail by forbidding states from imposing any conditions on the eligibility requirements for absentee ballots: if a registered voter requests a mail-in ballot, they get a mail-in ballot — end of story. Furthermore, if a voter requests a mail-in ballot, the state must assume they will always want a mail-in ballot, which effectively legalizes mail-in voting for all future elections. States must also develop websites and automated telephone systems to allow the requests to be made at a distance. Finally, it mandates that each state allow a wide variety of ways for the absentee ballot to make its way back to election officials, including through volunteer-driven ballot-harvesting operations. 

It provides special instructions to protect the right of military personnel and overseas citizens to vote, as well as the rights of their family members back stateside.

It forbids states from forcing mail-in voters to pay for postage.

It provides grants to states for poll-worker recruitment and training, pegging the amount of the grant to each state’s percentage of the nation’s voting-age population.

It prohibits “chief state election administration officials” from taking an active part in any political campaign affected by a Federal election (e.g., the Secretary of State of Florida would no longer be allowed to concurrently serve as the co-chair of a presidential candidate’s statewide election effort).

It mandates that institutions of higher education designate a “Campus Vote Coordinator” who will notify students of the location of polling places, explain various methods for getting to those locations, and provides links to voter-registration websites. It requires participation in the automatic voter-registration system for any educational institution that, in its normal course of operations, affirms a student’s citizenship. It also creates grants for institutions that can demonstrate excellence in their voter registration efforts.

It sets up minimum notification-requirements to ensure states give a voter whose polling place has changed enough time and opportunity to make a plan.

It requires states with voter ID laws to accept, for purposes of registration and voting, “a sworn written statement, under the penalty of perjury,” attesting to the voter’s identity and their ability to vote in the election. It also requires states to provide a pre-printed version of the statement at each polling place for use by any voter.

It provides accommodations to voters residing in Indian lands by relaxing controls around ballot pickup and collection locations and requiring multilingual voting materials.

It establishes a national toll-free hotline where concerned and aggrieved voters can receive answers to their state-based questions, file complaints against officials, or report intimidation tactics or any other information to the Attorney General about any problems they faced while voting or registering to vote.

It requires each state provide a sufficient number of voting systems, poll workers, and other election resources to ensure that no individual waits longer than 30 minutes to cast their ballot.

It protects the right of voters who have arrived at a polling place before it closes to cast their vote.

It ensures that all polling places in a state keep the same hours, give or take two hours. 

It requires that every county in every states provide “in-person, secured, and clearly labeled drop boxes” at which individuals may drop off an absentee ballot at least 45 days before the date of an election and up to the time the polls close on election day. It mandates that counties include at least one drop box for every 20,000 registered voters and station the boxes where they are the most accessible.

It protects the right of individual jurisdictions to allow curbside voting and prohibits states from imposing any restrictions on an individual in that jurisdiction from casting a ballot by such method — if one voter in a jurisdiction can curbside vote, then all voters in a jurisdiction can curbside vote.

It require states to develop contingency plans for holding elections during a state of  emergency, a public health emergency, or a national emergency, especially in the cases of natural disasters or infectious diseases.

It makes the Federal Election Assistance Commission permanent and removes the limit on its budget.

It expands voting protections to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Election Integrity

It commits Congress to finding a way to restore the protections in the Voting Rights Act of 1964 that were gutted in 2013 by the Supreme Court.

It reconfirms Congress’ desire to admit the State of Washington, D.C. to the United States and to shrink the seat of the Federal government to the Capitol, White House, Supreme Court, the National Mall, and the other principal Federal monuments and buildings.

It creates a Congressional task force aimed at providing full and equal voting rights to the residents of U.S. territories, including voting rights in Congress.

It federalizes control of the redistricting process under Title 1, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution and under the 14th Amendment, and mandates that each state create and follow the plan of an independent redistricting commission, which it also provides the guidelines for. For some reason, Iowa alone is exempt.

It creates ethical guidelines determining who can and cannot sit on an independent redistricting commission.

It provides protections for ethnic, racial and language minorities in the redistricting process and forbids the favoring or disfavoring of political parties. 

It requires the entire redistricting process be transparent and subject to public input and comment. The commission’s final vote approving the plan must also be held in public.

It empowers a three-judge panel to develop a redistricting plan if a state’s legislature fails to act on the commission’s plan.

It gives states $150,000 per Representative to which the state is entitled to fund the independent redistricting commission, excluding states (such as mine) that only get one member. 

It prevents a state from removing the name of any registered voter from the official list of voters unless the state verifies, on the basis of objective and reliable evidence, that the resident is ineligible to vote.

Election Security

It appropriates $1 billion from the Federal coffers in 2021 (and $175 million for each election year between 2021 and 2028) to provide grants to the states to increase election security measures, especially as it relates to voting machines and cybersecurity, with all kinds of stipulations around what the states need to do to qualify for the grants.

It makes the Secretary of the Homeland Security a member of the Board of Advisors of the Election Assistance Commission.

It appropriates $20 million a year for the years 2021-2029 to fund the research and development of election security technology through grants to higher-education institutions (include historically Black colleges and universities), non-profits, and for-profit organizations, associations, and companies, including small businesses. 

It compels the Department of Homeland Security to provide timely threat information regarding elections to chief state election officials, and allows state election officials to receive a security risk and vulnerability assessment from Homeland Security.

It requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to submit a joint report to Congress on foreign threats to elections in the United States.

It mandates the Executive branch create a national strategy and implementation plan to protect democratic institutions “against cyber attacks, influence operations, disinformation campaigns, and other activities,” and creates a commission in the Legislative branch empowered to conduct hearings and investigations in an effort to strengthen those protections.

It strengthens the certification process of election hardware and software by requiring the machines and the software to be tested no later than nine months before every general election.

It requires chief State election officials to submit a report no later than 120 days before a general election detailing the state’s plan for voting system usage.

It creates an “Election Security Bug Bounty Program” that is voluntary to the states and which will reward individuals and organizations for finding bugs in the state’s elections security efforts.

It mandates that all voting machines used in a Federal election be manufactured in the United States.

Campaign Finance

It requires members of political committees and campaigns to notify the FBI of any reportable foreign contacts within one week of making the contact and a summary of the circumstances with respect to the contact, and creates a penalty of not more than $500,000 or not longer than five years in prison for anyone who violates the requirement, and up to $1 million for anyone who conceals or destroys evidence of the contact.

It closes loopholes that have allowed foreign nationals to spend money on U.S. elections, including through PACs and Super-PACs.

It prevents Corporate PACs from allowing a foreign national be a decision-maker in regards to the use of the fund.

It requires an audit after each Federal election to determine the influence of illicit foreign money in each election cycle.

It prohibits contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with ballot initiatives and referendums.

It makes it illegal for individuals and entities to establish corporations for the purpose of concealing election contributions and donations by foreign nationals.

It sets up transparent reporting rules for any corporate donations above $1,000.

It provides rules for judicial review of campaign finance laws.

It mandates transparency around the source of funding for any political ad, expands coverage of transparency regulations to modern technologies (i.e., online ads, satellite networks, etc.), and forces the ad or communication to make the statement “in a clear and conspicuous manner.”

It creates a public, online repository of every request to purchase a qualified political advertisement online made by a person whose total requests exceed $500, and it mandates that any online platform that exceeds 50 million unique American visitors per month report political-advertising purchase requests to the public repository.

It requires television, radio, satellite, cable and online platform companies take reasonable efforts to ensure that foreign nationals do not purchase political ads on their platform.

It mandates a report from the Federal Election Commission on the media literacy of Americans, particularly as it relates the consumption of online political content by voting-age Americans. 

It requires the creators of political advertising to stand by their message by conspicuously revealing either the individual who created the ad or the top five funders of the organization that created the ad (in case of radio ads, the top two funders). This is basically a strengthening of the of “I am [blank] and I approve this message” regulations. It also extends the regulations to include prerecorded telephone calls.

It forbids campaigns from sharing nonpublic campaign information with foreign nationals, including sharing that information with a non-campaign-affiliated U.S. citizen who, in turn, will share it with a foreign national.

It makes any foreign national who attempts to interfere with an election deportable from or and/or inadmissible to the U.S.

It mandates that the F.E.C. notify a state if it determines a foreign national is engaging or has engaged in a disinformation campaign in that state.

It prohibits the use of “deep fakes” and other media manipulation techniques in election campaigns.

It requires the Comptroller General to assess the implications of exemptions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Lobbying Disclosure Act and how revisions to those acts might reduce the influence of foreign government money on elections and the political process.

It requires shareholders of any entity on a national securities exchange to register their preferences for the disbursement of the entity’s funds on behalf of a political campaign (i.e., any political donations from publicly-held entity must be in accordance with its shareholders’ wishes).

It regulates the financing of inauguration committees to prevent corporations and foreign nationals from donating to them, to make public any donor whose donation exceeds $1,000, and regulates the conversion of inauguration funds for personal use.

It makes some bold statements about the Supreme Court’s “misinterpretation of the Constitution” as it relates to the Court’s Citizens United decision, and calls for a Constitutional amendment that will allow Congress and the states to regulate campaign financing methods and prevent artificial entities such as corporations “from spending money to influence elections.”

It creates a pilot program that will provide $25 (in increments of $5 vouchers) to voting-age individuals in three states who can use the voucher to donate to qualified candidates for election to the House of Representatives. It also requires the beneficiary states to submit a report to the F.E.C. about the operation and effectiveness of the program.

It creates a public-financing source — the “Freedom from Influence Fund” — for Congressional elections that provides funds equal to 600% of the candidate’s small-dollar contributions (contributions of less than $200). This will allow candidates who are not wealthy or not connected to a network of wealthy individuals to be financially competitive during an election cycle. It also requires candidates who received money from the Freedom from Influence Fund to amass over 1,000 individual contributions and raise over $50,000 before they can qualify for the fund. It also limits candidates from using over $50,000 of their personal money if they elect to go the public-financing route. Finally, it prohibits candidates from retaining any unspent funds following the elections. 

It increases the public funds made available to candidates for presidential elections to 600% of the candidate’s small-dollar contributions.

It allows candidates from minor and new parties — i.e., parties other than the Democratic or Republican Parties — to receive the same publicly-funded, 600% match of their small-dollar donations up to $250 million.

It allows candidates to use public funds for some personal uses (specifically, childcare, elder care, and similar services, as well as to cover health insurance premiums) in order to help “ordinary Americans” run for office.

It makes it easier for political parties to support candidates through coordinated small-dollar donation funds. 

It reduces the membership of the F.E.C. to five and limits the party-affiliation of the members to no more than two members per party. It also restructures the commission’s voting process to allow a simple majority to rule, prohibits members from being engaged with or employed by any other business during their service, and adjusts a number of rules governing the commission. 

It stops Super PACs and candidates from coordinating their efforts, and treats coordinating efforts as political donations, with all the regulations thereof.

It requires campaigns to file various reports with the F.E.C. before an election takes place so that voters have all the information they need to make an informed vote.

Ethics

It mandates the creation of a code of conduct for Federal judges.

It requires the Attorney General to create a unit within the counterespionage section of the Department of Justice to enforce the regulations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, and gives the unit a budget of $10 million a year.

It ensures government officials disclose anything of financial value that was given to them by a foreign agent, including favorable regulatory treatment or anything that provides an indirect financial benefit.

It mandates the creation of a publicly accessible electronic database of the above disclosures.

It expands the scope of individuals and activities subject to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Individuals who provide counseling services are now subject to the act. It also reduces the threshold the determines when individuals have to register as lobbyists. 

It prohibits individuals who receive compensation for lobbying activity from lobbying on behalf of foreign governments who engage in gross violations of human rights, as determined by the President.

It requires lobbyists to identify themselves as lobbyists whenever they make contact with an official from the executive or legislative branch, and they must identify the client on whose behalf the contact is made.

It forces officials or employees appointed by the President to recuse themselves from any matter in which a party to that matter is the President, the President’s spouse, and/or an entity in which the President has a substantial interest.

It establishes a clearinghouse in the Department of Justice through which members of the public can search and sort registration information related to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938.

It cleans up restrictions on private sector payments to members of the Executive branch.

It slows the revolving door between the private sector and government officials and prohibits government officials from participating in matters concerning their former employers or clients.

It forbids government procurement officers from accepting employment with government contractors or subcontractors, divisions, or affiliates of a government contractor for at least two years after they leave government service. It requires procurement officers to also disclose any job offers made to their relatives. Finally, it forbids procurement officers from participating in awarding a contract to a former employer for at least two years after they left the employer. 

It extends restrictions on the lobbying efforts of former senior officials from one year to two years.

It requires the Director of the Office of Government Ethics to issue guidance on ethical standards applicable to unpaid employees in the Executive Office of the President and the White House.

It prohibits federal funds from being used to procure goods or services from any business that is owned or controlled by certain government officials or their family members. The government officials include the President, Vice-President, the head of any Executive department, or an individual occupying a Cabinet-level position.

It requires Presidents and Vice Presidents to divest of all financial interests that pose a conflict of interest within 30 days of taking office and to place all of those finances in a blind trust. It also requires Presidents and Vice Presidents to disclose the names of their business partners and the value, identity, and category of each asset and liability with a value of $10,000 or more.

It forbids officials from receiving funds for the payment or reimbursement of legal fees or expenses except through a legal defense fund that has been certified by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics. It also ensures that the legal defense fund receives its monies from more than one person and forbids lobbyists, foreign agents and governments, state governments and agents, anyone who has business with the official’s agency, or anyone in the Executive branch from contributing to the fund.

It tightens ethical regulations within the White House, strengthens the job security of the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, and provides instructions on ethical training procedures and compliance for government officials.

It forbids Federal funds from being used for improper travel expenses, and requires a report to be filed every 90 days detailing the direct and indirect costs of Presidential travel, the travel of the President’s immediate family members, and the travel of senior-level officials.

It cleans up rules regulating conflicts from political fundraising.

It improves transparency and ethical guidelines for Presidential Transition Teams.

It forces all appointees in an executive agency to sign an ethics pledge that clarifies the various ethical requirements that the American people expect them to live up to during their tenure, under penalty of law.

It prohibits federal officials from using federal funds to travel on a non-commercial, private, or chartered flight.

It requires member of Congress to reimburse the Federal treasury for any settlements or awards made under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 in all cases of employment discrimination.

It prohibits members of the House of Representatives from serving on the boards of for-profit entities.

It forbids employees in the Legislative branch from using their position to further their pecuniary interests or the interests of their family members.

It forces campaigns to disclose to the F.E.C. if any of their senior officials are registered lobbyists.

It requires the creation of an online portal where members of the public can access (for free) electronic copies of every congressionally mandated report, except those that are exempt from public disclosure and with any necessary redactions completed.

It mandates reports by the Senate and House Ethics Committees on any outside compensation earned by Congressional employees.

It requires every Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate from a major party to submit their 10 most recent tax returns to the F.E.C. within 15 days of receiving the nomination of their party, and to continue to release their tax returns while serving their term. It also forces the F.E.C. to make those returns public.

Conclusion

As you can see from 116 items above, nothing in this act benefits candidates from one party over another, and each items deserves to be made the law of the land. I urge you to contact your Senators to encourage their support of the For The People Act of 2021

Categories
asides

That Sweet Sweet Vaccine

From Teachers, child care workers, more high-risk Vermonters eligible for vaccination next week:

With the Johnson & Johnson vaccine coming online and the federal pharmacy program ramping up, Gov. Phil Scott announced Tuesday that school staff, child care workers and more Vermonters with high-risk conditions would become eligible to receive the Covid-19 vaccine starting [March 8, 2021].

With my wife and I both working as teachers, this is incredible news!

Categories
asides

Bernie Fighting the Good Fight

From Sanders blasts MLB for dropping Vermont Lake Monsters ball club:

“If the multibillionaire owners of Major League Baseball have enough money to pay hundreds of millions in compensation to a single superstar baseball player,” Sanders said, “they have enough money to prevent 40 minor league teams from shutting down in Vermont and all over this country.”

Categories
asides

How to Radicalize Your Parents

From How to Radicalize Your Parents:

When trying to educate older relatives about radical politics, it’s important to remember that you don’t need to—and in, fact, shouldn’t—get everything done in one discussion. It’s much better to start with one topic and branch out from there. Many radical frameworks and policy issues such as prison abolition, defunding the police, decriminalizing sex work, and raising the minimum wage, are related and strongly interconnected. If you can get your relatives on board with one idea, it can be easier to convince them of the next one.

Categories
asides

How Facebook Went Easy On Alex Jones And Other Right-Wing Figures

From “Mark Changed The Rules”: How Facebook Went Easy On Alex Jones And Other Right-Wing Figures:

“Ideology is not, and should not be, a protected class,” a [Facebook] content policy employee who left weeks after the election wrote. “White supremacy is an ideology; so is anarchism. Neither view is immutable, nor should either be beyond scrutiny. The idea that our content ranking decisions should be balanced on a scale from right to left is impracticable … and frankly can be dangerous, as one side of that scale actively challenges core democratic institutions and fails to recognize the results of a free and fair election.”

Categories
asides

America’s Defense Budget Is Ridiculous

From Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?:

On September 8, the Air Force gave the defense company Northrop Grumman an initial contract of $13.3 billion to begin engineering and manufacturing [a new nuclear weapon], but that will be just a fraction of the total bill. Based on a Pentagon report…the government will spend roughly $100 billion to build the weapon, which will be ready to use around 2029. To put that price tag in perspective, $100 billion could pay 1.24 million elementary school teacher salaries for a year, provide 2.84 million four-year university scholarships, or cover 3.3 million hospital stays for covid-19 patients. It’s enough to build a massive mechanical wall to protect New York City from sea level rise. It’s enough to get to Mars.