VirtualExile

 some people would rather kill babies than vote for Harris

Did not realize the Democratic Socialists of America is officially against statehood for Puerto Rico and the other overseas territories of the US, including the already-a-state Hawaii. (But they're OK with Alaska as a state for some reason? because it can be reached via land?  Or am I being nitpicky.)

Instead they favor decolonization, aka full sovereignty, aka independence.  If the residents of Puerto Rico wanted independence, I'd support that ... I'm not sure that's top of their list ...

But an interesting result of the DSA's position on Puerto Rico is that they will not allow a Puerto Rican branch of the DSA to exist.  Instead they will work with the democratic Left of Puerto Rico as allies.  This is a high level of consistency of thought for a political organization.

The same statement seems to support turning over all the ancestral lands of any indigenous peoples within the current borders of the US, to full sovereignty for those peoples.  I'm not sure that's what all those peoples would want.  There are benefits that flow from belonging to a single, large, political and economic unit the size of the US.  So it's a trade-off.  Independence is always a trade-off.  The more sovereign political entities that exist, the more difficult it is to address global problems, the more difficult it is to exchange goods and services or travel, the more difficult it is for people to migrate across borders.  The more likely it is these different political entities will clash militarily.  Will the newly independent nation of Puerto Rico develop its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own nuclear weapons?  Its own currency?  Will it join a trade bloc?

Also, independence movements tend to be based around myths of nationalism, racism, or ethnicity, and generally assume that having a more local set of elite rulers will automatically work out better for the 99%.

I mean, if people want independence, I don't want to fight them over it, but think it through all the way.  I don't think it is my position to say I support their independence before they've come to that conclusion themselves.

And before fully embracing decolonization as a strategy, I invite the audience to investigate the mixed bag that has been decolonization in Sub-Saharan Africa.  It definitely hasn't always resulted in well-run democratic governance.  I kind of prefer the modern French approach in which all French territory has been fully integrated into the French state, with full funding of public services (roads, hospitals, schools, police) and full participation in French democracy -- France is France, wherever on the globe you may stand.  No other rich country treats all of its territories as full and equal participants in the state.

So if Puerto Rico or any other group wanted independence, I'm cool with that, but first I'd immediately grant statehood to every territory of the US so that every territory is treated equally under federal law with every state.  Then if you want to leave anyway, cool.  If Texas wanted to leave, cool.  If Maine wanted to leave, or Alaska, or Hawaii, or Guam, cool.  But first I'd make sure you have a full and equal seat at the table of the United States as a state.

As T read the verdicts to me while I was cooking dinner last night, the first thing I thought was:

They can't convict him on all three charges, that makes no sense.  The defense will appeal, and it is likely the appellate court will throw out some of the charges.  The charges were meant as multiple choice, not all of the above.  Juries of non-experts, sigh.

But, ignoring that legal technicality, I was relieved the jury found the asshole guilty.  He'll likely spend years in jail, even after the appellate court reduces his sentence.  Though, I suppose we can expect some riots when that sentence reduction comes down.

-----

Meanwhile, cops continue to kill three people per day on average in the US, and non-cops with guns continue to kill more than a hundred people per day (usually including themselves) -- 13,000 dead from gun violence so far this year in the US!  The killings are so common we only focus upon those that have particularly sensational circumstances, while ignoring the vast majority of the daily violence, the crushing load of unsolved murder cases, and the millions of mourners left behind.  And we do nothing about it -- no bill addressing gun violence can pass the broken US Senate.

A lot of political rhetoric presumes there's only one side to every issue, instead of addressing the reality that most issues are a balancing of competing interests.

[I'm sure I'm guilty of this also.]

American Left: Let me Breathe

American Right: Let me Breathe on You

When I saw that President Biden had placed Vice President Harris in charge of the "crisis" at the southern border, I imagined her therapist encouraging her to "practice saying 'no'". The VP doesn't work for the President, the Vice Presidency is a separately nominated Constitutional position, separately chosen by the Electoral College, and the incumbent does not serve at the pleasure of the President. The VP can only be removed from office via impeachment and conviction by Congress.

So Harris could say "no" to Biden, "No, I'm not going to fix your fucking southern border 'crisis' for you, fix it yourself."

-----

There's little condemnation on the Left of Biden's response to the increasing numbers of people seeking asylum in the US or crossing the US border away from US checkpoints. Biden himself told wanna-be immigrants on national television, "I can say quite clearly: Don't come over…Don’t leave your town or city or community," while his DHS Secretary is publicly gearing up to make more border apprehensions than we have "in decades". If this were still the Trump administration, the Left would be hopping mad at how the President is treating these people -- "No Human is Illegal" right? That's what the Left said under Trump.  That's what the yard signs in my neighborhood say.

"No children in cages," we all said!

But under Biden the slogan is "stay home", and the media are not allowed to visit the detention facilities where immigrant children are detained.

People choosing to exercise their legal right to apply for asylum in the US is called: a "crisis" at the southern border.  Biden tries to stop them, just like Trump did, but partisanship in the US means the Left sits by quietly as Biden prepares to apprehend more migrants than any of his predecessors.

VP Harris, just say "No"!

-----

I think at one point I wrote in here that the US, despite its great wealth, cannot take in every person on the planet.  Not all 7 billion who aren't here already.  But that was before I adopted Green Communism.  Now I'd say, yes, that's exactly what we should do, we should share our wealth with everybody, open our borders to everybody.  But we don't have to wait for them to come here, we can share our wealth with everybody regardless of where they live.

I'm certain that even in a nation like ours where a majority claim to be Christians, that sharing our wealth with everybody would be unpopular.  The American claim to Christianity has always been a pile of crap, more concerned with regulating sexual & reproductive behaviors than sharing the wealth.  Catholic Bishops in the US have recently been arguing over whether the COVID vaccines are immoral because they were developed in part using technology derived from stem cells taken decades ago from aborted fetuses -- these are not a group of men (still all men) who put saving lives ahead of regulating them.

But this is what I advocate as a Green Communist: I advocate dissolving national borders and treating every human the same.  Personally, I've been increasing my charitable contributions to put more of my money where my beliefs are, but I hope when I retire from my current job in 2027 to practice a lifestyle even more in keeping with my ideals.  Maybe as a pro bono immigration attorney representing asylum seekers.  I dunno, we'll see where I end up when I don't have house & pets & job keeping me here.

If I were in charge of increasing the number of Democratic Senators, I wouldn't advocate for Open Borders and reducing the US standard of living by 80% to share our wealth broadly.  But sometimes I advocate for my beliefs instead of pushing a party line.  Perhaps I should do more of the former and less of the latter.

Without the daily contrast against President Trump, big-state Democratic Governors are suddenly in big trouble -- Cuomo in New York is facing possible impeachment, Newsom in California is facing possible recall.  The contest for worst asshole in the US has switched its focus toward other deserving targets.  The outrage has to go after somebody!  Please don't make us wait until the next regular election to get rid of these assholes!

There's a good description of what the bill contains over at Wikipedia.

If I were dictator there are pieces of it I would remove for being poorly targeted, and I'd increase taxes to fully pay for it.  But not even Democrats bother to increase taxes anymore.  We're just gonna keep borrowing trillions until the bond market breaks.

Poorly targeted --> sending $1,400 checks to every adult or child regardless of need, temporarily expanding the child tax credit to $3,000 per child regardless of need.  These lump sums go to people/families whether they've remained fully employed or not.  Instead, we could focus this kind of cash on the people and children who live below the poverty line.  I've heard people say the combination of these two benefits will reduce child poverty by half this year.  If we'd focused the benefit specifically to reduce poverty, we could've eliminated child poverty this year.  But -- it's also just a one-time lump sum, not an ongoing program to eliminate poverty.  Child poverty will then double back next year.

Enjoy your one year of not being poor, half of you!

There's $350 billion for state & local governments, regardless of whether these governments actually need the help.  Although some states saw tax revenues decline during the recession, others did not, so this is like the checks to every adult -- poorly targeted.  Instead, how about revenue replacement aid -- a grant matching the amount by which state or local revenue declined from 2019 to 2020 (but adjusted downward for any tax cuts the state or local government enacted for 2020).



There are also some pieces that have nothing to do with COVID, they're just thrown in because Congress is spending a lot of money anyway.  It's easier to hide $100 billion of favors to special interests when you're already spending $2 trillion.  Such as $86 billion to bail out underfunded private sector pension funds -- instead of forcing the private sector to keep its own pension promises.

And $4 billion in debt forgiveness for "socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers", which apparently means POC farmers and ranchers -- I would never condition federal relief on the basis of skin color like this, we should help economically needy people with universal safety nets.  If a farmer or rancher needs help under some definition, then help, don't give extra help to POC -- this is the sort of thing Team Trump will use to convince white farmers and ranchers that Democrats hate them.  I would not be surprised if white farmers sue for similar relief, and I'd be on their side.

Although most people in the US are still not allowed to sign up for a COVID vaccine shot yet, we're already flooded with think pieces trying to explain why some folks don't want to get the vaccine.

A lot of these think pieces are trying to explain why one particular subculture is supposedly more resistant to uptake than the rest of us.  I've seen think pieces saying that LGBTs are more resistant, that Blacks are more resistant, that Hispanics are more resistant, that White Evangelicals are more resistant, that young people are more resistant, that old people are more resistant.  I'm not sure there's anybody left who isn't more resistant!

Bottom line is that perhaps a third of adults don't want the vaccine, for a large variety of reasons, no matter their racial, sexual, religious, etc., identities.  But nowadays we're so stuck on viewing people through their subculture identities that we can't see the forest for the trees.  A third of adults don't want the vaccine!

And I'm going to ask -- so what?

One proffered reason for caring is that to achieve "herd immunity" so we can all go back to normal, we need some high percentage of the population to be immune to the virus.  Nobody knows the exact high percentage, because no country has achieved herd immunity from COVID yet.  This assumes herd immunity is possible for COVID!  It might not be.  If immunity wears off quickly after a few months, if the virus keeps mutating to escape our immunity, if the virus continues to spread & mutate in poor countries unabated -- COVID could be like influenza, with no such thing as herd immunity.  Not every disease can be wiped out via vaccination.

There's also the idea that for purposes of equity and non-discrimination we should reach out to various subcultures to make sure they are protected by the vaccine; we're supposed to help them overcome their resistance to the shots so we can save their lives for them (against their will).  Not by forcing them to get the shots, but by changing their minds against their will.  Via Public Education Campaigns, Outreach, Role Models, etc.  OK ... but these campaigns don't actually change many minds.  People can sniff when the government is trying to convince them to do something they don't want to do.

Also, businesses want to offer safe spaces for customers to spend money, so they'll want to ensure their staff and customers have been vaccinated.  I'm sure there are plenty of stores and resorts that can't wait to advertise that their staffs are fully vaccinated.  So businesses will want to force people to get their shots, and they'll lobby governments to back them up on this.

But we don't require adults to get any sort of shots in the US!  Medical care for adults is voluntary, if you can afford it at all.  And these shots have only been around for months, or weeks, and were approved on an emergency basis.  There is no such thing as a fully-approved COVID vaccine in the US, and won't be, for years.  People are right to be skeptical of new technologies that haven't been used in humans before.

I've been studying these vaccines so I can make an informed decision of my own, but that doesn't mean everybody should have to get a shot.

And most people do not really want to wait until we reach "herd immunity" before we return to normal.  A lot of us want to return to normal as soon as we get our own shots.  A lot of us want to return to normal NOW, shots be damned.  There will be a solid supermajority of people wanting to return to normal as soon as all of the adults who want their shots have received their shots, which Biden said would happen by the end of May.

So, I counsel tolerance and patience with regard to the people who don't want their shots.  Let them make up their own minds.  Let them see whether the shots work on us guinea pigs.  Let them sign up at their own pace.  Let's not turn getting shots or not into another goddess damned culture war, we have enough of those in the US already.

A significant subset of gay men identify with refusing to ever use condoms.  I just saw a guy on Twitter who had the phrase "Raw Top" in his tagline, like this is the first thing he wants anybody to know about him.  He's not just a top, but a raw top, which in the gay vernacular means he never uses condoms.

Before AIDS came along, I don't remember guys identifying and advertising as raw or bareback.  Maybe they did, that was a long time ago, there wasn't an Internet yet, and I didn't know all the gays.  There were definitely gay guys who didn't like to use condoms, but I don't think they'd organized into a community like this.

I think it started during the AIDS years.  Public Health officials and the gays who wanted to save lives tried to organize campaigns promoting condoms.  Some of us called it the "Condom Code" -- this was how we were going to save our lives and the lives of those we loved, by using condoms when we fucked.

But this campaign led quickly to a rebellion by those who didn't want to wear condoms.  I think this is when lots of gay fellas started to identify with barebacking.  But back then, it was viewed not only as rebellious, but also as nihilistic.  You were courting death, on purpose.  You didn't give a damn about death so much, that you were willing to fuck without condoms.  If it killed you, maybe that was even part of what turned you on about it, that you were deliberately sharing HIV, swapping HIV.  There were guys who called themselves "Bug Chasers" because it turned them on to take HIV up their buttholes.  I'm not making this up!  And there were guys who got turned on by infecting others.

Nowadays, the availability of Prep in the rich countries has changed the equation.  You aren't risking death by foregoing condoms.  Instead you are celebrating the fact you can't die from sex anymore.  "Fuck Without Fear" was one of the slogans promoting Prep.

As any reader of my LJ knows, I'm not one of those guys, I do not identify with going raw.  I'll dispense with condoms if we're in a relationship and we have mutual communication and trust about our sexual behaviors.  But otherwise I require a condom, even if you're on Prep or HIV-blocking medicines, because there are other STDs out there, including potentially new STDs or mutated STDs that we haven't "discovered" yet.

Generally the fellas I hook up with don't identify as raw, at least not if they want to fuck me.  They're generally willing to use condoms if asked.  Which feels like the polite thing to do.  Maybe you prefer not to use condoms, but you would use one if asked.  Doesn't that sound so very polite?  Like if your dinner host asks you to use this spoon for the gravy, and that spoon for the stuffing.

But the raw guys refuse to use a condom if asked.  It's part of their identity.  They say stuff like "Raw is Law!" to each other.  As I said, it is part of their identity.  They put stuff like "Raw Top" in their tagline so you know better than to ask, don't waste your time, or their time, saying the word "condom".

I feel this wouldn't be a gay subculture if we'd never had AIDS.  Just as the barebackers were rebelling against AIDS while AIDS was still killing half of us, today's raw fellas are still rebelling against AIDS.  They're rebelling against the Condom Code that people like me built back during the 1980s and 1990s.  Yes, this deadly STD exists, but I'm taking a pill, so I can't catch it, therefore I'M NEVER USING A CONDOM TO FUCK!  It's defiant, it's an expression of power, an expression of community.

And, unfortunately, it's what will create the ecology for another disease like AIDS to take us by surprise someday.

But this raw identity sure feels a lot like the rebellion against using masks that we're seeing among Republicans today.  I feel it's driven by the same set of needs -- the need to feel powerful, to feel defiant, to feel rebellious.  In the face of death, you refuse to kneel.  You are stronger than death!

I mean, it's ridiculous, but this is the attraction, feeling stronger than death.  It's the same attraction that fuels Christianity.  And maybe we shouldn't be surprised that the same political party that harbors the most demonstrably Christian among us, also harbors those who would defy Science, defy climate change, defy ecological destruction, defy public health, defy masks, defy death.

It's transgressive.  To the extent that public health advice has become the standard, with required childhood vaccinations, sewage treatment plants, hand washing, pasteurization, and now wearing masks in crowded spaces -- these people are fighting back, reclaiming their own autonomy from public health, pretending to be stronger than death.

The group who holds a mask-free gathering indoors in late 2020 or early 2021 is the equivalent of the bareback gays gathering at the local bathhouse in the early 1990s.  They explicitly refuse to let the fear of death tell them what to do.