Posts in Hard Hitters
U.S. Capitol Under Siege

The last time the Capitol Building was overrun was over two centuries ago, when it was taken by the British in 1814. As was the case in 1814, the individuals laying siege to the U.S. Capitol Building are insurrectionists, terrorists. Their actions are seditious and treasonous, but the difference is that these people hail from the United States, not Britain.

Nonetheless, they are still terrorist insurgents. They are ignorant, hateful, cowardly racists, homophobes, and xenophobes who are terrified at the thought of a United States that doesn’t go out of its way to favor and cater specifically to the whims of straight white Christians. They are not patriots.

The implications of this coup on the long term (or short term) health of our nation are unknowable. Personally, I am in awe, and I am furious.

Here’s what I think should’ve happened to them. They should have been gunned down by the United States Capitol Police. They should have been treated as enemy combatants, a threat to be neutralized as swiftly and efficiently as possible, and as enemy combatants, they should be afforded no constitutional rights. The fact that the Capitol Police were so laughably unprepared for this, juxtaposed with their ludicrous over-preparedness during the Black Lives Matter protests, is another blinding example of institutional racism.

What do I think should happen to the insurrectionists now? I think they should all be immediately arrested and held without bail to face trial for treason. The odds of that happening are slim, so here’s to hoping they spread plenty of vicious COVID cases amongst themselves and their families.

What did Donald Trump say to them? He affirmed “this election was stolen from us, it was a landslide”, and followed it up with “we love you, you’re very special.”

The question now, is what should happen to Donald Trump.

Twitter and Facebook should immediately ban him from their platforms lest he continue to pour gasoline on the flames, but that’s just the start. He is clearly unfit for office. He needs to be ousted from the presidency immediately. He deserves to be impeached and removed from office immediately. At this point, I wouldn’t put it past Mitch McConnell. If impeachment is not the solution lawmakers choose to take, then the 25th amendment should be invoked. Let Mike Pence take over for the next two weeks and facilitate the transition to Biden’s administration. I wouldn’t necessarily put it past Pence and the Cabinet at this point, either. Once he’s out of office, he needs to be put in jail to rot. I wouldn’t even take the death penalty off the table at this point: his actions have cost countless lives and had an immeasurable destructive impact on the foundations of our democracy.

As for his pathetic minions and mouthpieces who incited this rebellion, namely Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Rudy Giuliani, they should face jail time. All the representatives and senators who challenged the results of the election should be expelled from Congress. This parasitic weed has deeply intertwined itself in our national politics, and we must rip it out, root and stem, before it chokes the life out of the Great American Experiment.


 

If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.

— Ulysses S. Grant

Thoughts on The Possibility of Touchscreen Macs

The possibility of touchscreen Macs coming to market in the next handful of years is a hot topic with a lot of intense debate, and I want to add my thoughts to the discourse about what I think Apple will do and what I would like Apple to do.

I think Apple is going to introduce Macs with touchscreens the next time they update the physical design, likely in late 2021 or 2022. I was curious if they would introduce touch screens when they announced the M1 Macs, but in hindsight, it wouldn’t have made a ton of sense.

For argument’s sake, let’s presume that Apple always knew that within the next two years or so that they were going to 1. transition to Apple Silicon chips, 2. update the physical design of the MacBook Pro (which has been the same since 2016) and possibly the MacBook Air (which has been the same since 2018), and 3. add touchscreens. That’s a lot of advancements. And as difficult as it is to get sustained attention in today’s media environment, I think it makes sense from a marketing perspective that they would try to time these advancements to give them the most positive coverage as possible. Given how powerful and efficient the M1 is, it seems obvious that Apple knew beforehand that they would get a lot of great press when they released machines that used it, regardless of whether the machines looked the same on the outside or not. That’s exactly what happened. The other two changes, however, had the potential to feel cosmetic (in the case of the physical design update) and overdue and gimmicky (in the case of touchscreens), if they were to incorporate those features asynchronously. To me, it seems like the best way to roll out those three updates would be to first put out the new chips, let people “oooh” and “aaah” over them, and use the next year or so to iron out any kinks. Then, a year or two later, release machines with a new form factor and touchscreen support, completely ushering in a new era of Mac hardware, and reap the media coverage benefits of a new design and a new input method at the same time.

There are a few breadcrumbs I point to as indicators that this is probably Apple’s plan, namely the updated UI elements in macOS Big Sur. I know, I know, Craig Federighi has said that they didn’t even consider touchscreen support when redesigning some interface elements, but of course he said that. The truth is that elements like the Control Center, the straight-from-iOS widgets, and the new, rounded-off-square app icons are all begging to be poked by a crude, imprecise finger, as opposed to clicked by a nimble little cursor. Frankly, if they weren't designed for touch, then they’re just unattractive and inefficient, wasting display real estate (particularly Control Center, they could’ve fit so many more toggles and checkboxes in there if they were appropriately sized for manipulation with a cursor).

As far as what I would like for Apple to do: I want them to add touchscreens.

Now, I understand the concern that touchscreen Macs would have to go through some rather extensive UI redesigns to make the whole operating system navigable via touch. For a while, I was solidly on the team who never wanted touchscreen Macs. After all, pretty much all touchscreen laptops suck, and it’s uncomfortable to spend any amount of time with your arm hovering in the air to touch a vertical pane. But just because other companies couldn’t do something well doesn’t mean Apple can’t come right in and eat their lunch, “best not first” is Apple’s whole schtick. But the fact that touchscreen laptops are uncomfortable and finicky to use is not at all the point. Many PC manufacturers really put their eggs in the touchscreen basket, and they positioned their touchscreen machines in a very gimmicky way and created so much (undeserved) hype that made it seem like you were supposed to use your finger to control them all the time.

Apple knows the Mac is at it’s most powerful as a cursor-first device, and they won’t try to change that any time soon for a brief spell of good advertising fortune. I think they love the Mac as it is, but I think they recognize that they can make it better by allowing people to use their fingers to interact with the Mac when it feels natural. Not everything needs to be done with a finger, and redesigning the entire UI to that end would waste tons of screen real estate and slow down most users. But they could redesign a few things without harming the experience, and the convenience of being able to touch the screen would provide more value than it would cost.

When I first tried the iPad Pro Magic Keyboard, I was skeptical about cursor support on a device that was always designed for Touch. The truth is, it’s not a perfect experience. There are instances where the cursor seems too small and slow, and where my finger could whip around the operating system with a lot more ease. But it does have its advantages: for example, selecting text is far more convenient with a cursor. The situation would be similar on the Mac. Using your finger all the time wouldn’t be a perfect experience, but for simple gestures like scrolling or tapping an app icon, it can be a lot faster and more convenient. In fact, since I bought the iPad Pro Magic Keyboard, my use of my iPad has increased by a factor of ten, seriously. I’m so used to it that on a weekly basis now, I embarrass myself by reaching up to touch the screen of my Mac. It’s not that I don’t like my Mac and have therefore made a conscious choice to use the iPad instead, it’s just that it offers me more input methods that give me greater flexibility to manipulate small on-screen objects with precision and still enjoy the convenience and expediency of swiping and tapping the screen with a finger. More input methods has directly led to fewer annoyances when interacting with the device, and I think the Mac could enjoy the same (inverse) benefits.

Campaign Staffer For U.S. Senator-Elect Bill Hagerty (R-TN) Says Campaign Considered Trump Voters ‘Ignorant Sheep,” But That Trying To Win Without Them Would Have Been “Political Suicide”

CopyrightBro is releasing a series of damning screenshots in which a staffer on the campaign of Senator-elect Bill Hagerty (R-TN) admits that their loud endorsements of President Donald Trump’s policies is largely based on political convenience, and that he and the campaign actually see the Tennessee voters who elected them as ignorant sheep, falling prey to Trump’s divisive demagoguery, whom they simply intended to use to get into office.

During my time at the University of Tennessee, I was marginally involved in the Student Government Association, and that was how I met now-Hagerty campaign staffer Aaron Northcutt. To make a long story short, he was a good guy who was involved in a corrupt SGA campaign whose leaders were exposed, by me, for election corruption. I pretty much single handledly drove that campaign out of the race, and Aaron was the only person on said campaign for whom I felt bad after the dust settled. He and I originally got in touch in the months before all of that happened, just for the sake of discussing the vitriolic nature of the online discourse surrounding the student government campaigns. Through these conversations I learned that he was genuine and kind, and while he and I disagreed on a fair number of political issues (he saw himself as a moderate conservative while I considered myself a slightly left leaning moderate), we agreed that Donald Trump was an idiot and a terrible president. The discussions he and I had were always respectful, and his points were made in good faith despite our varying beliefs. He gave me hope for a future where Republican politicians would be honest and serve with integrity, and that maybe the two party system could survive in a fairly healthy way, if people like him were running the GOP. However, my confidence in Aaron began to fade when, after college, he got involved with Bill Hagerty’s senate campaign.

Over the course of several months, he and I had a few conversations about his role with the campaign, as well as the state of American politics in general. As the election go closer, Aaron started tweeting things that were wildly out of character for him. I called him out a few times, and he blamed those tweets on his involvement with the campaign, saying he was obligated to share them, and that nondisclosure agreements prevented him from sharing how he truly felt. This surrendering of his legal ability to share his thoughts openly was the first point at which I was afraid Aaron might be slipping out of the realm of levelheaded political hopefuls, and into the realm of corrupt, dishonest, self serving career politicians.

As time progressed, the posts on Northcutt’s twitter got worse and worse. Over the course of a few weeks, he graduated from Fox News-level bad faith arguments to OANN-level nonsense. All the hope I had that Northcutt would be a positive force in conservative politics is now completely gone, so I’ve decided that it’s time to hold another member of that old student government campaign to task, except this time, the campaign Northcutt is working for is a lot more organized and has a lot more potential to do real harm. So here I am, screenshots in hand.

ANDM1.png
ANDM2.png
ANDM3.png
ANDM4.png

These excerpts from my conversations with Northcutt put on display the worst, most corrupt instincts of the Republican Party. Despite the fact that Hagerty ran as a Trump Republican, it’s clear that that’s not truly the line of thinking he subscribes to, and nor do his staffers. If I were a Trump supporting Tennessean who voted for Hagerty, I would feel insulted and betrayed by these statements.

This concept of Republican congressional candidates riding Trump’s coattails while actually disagreeing with his policies and being disgusted by the way he treats people is not new, and it isn’t unique to Tennessee; in fact, it seems to span across Republican politicians from a variety of backgrounds, from veterans to businessmen, and from reliably red states to swing states. In October, CopyrightBro reported that Chris Taylor, former U.S. congressional candidate from Arizona, was pressured to get on board with Trump’s divisive messaging, despite personally feeling that Trump was a cancerous force to American democracy. However, the differences between Taylor and Hagerty couldn’t be more stark: Taylor publicly endorsed Joe Biden, while Hagerty is hoping his voters aren’t observant enough to recognize that he’s double crossed them.

Choosing Trump In 2016 Wasn’t A Tough Call, But My 2020 Decision Was Much Easier

I’ve said before that neither of the presidential candidates in 2016 were great options, and that I even considered voting for a third party candidate. However, as a swing state voter, I felt obligated to eventually chose a side. While it would’ve been novel to see our first female president, I felt like Hillary Clinton was too corrupt and too entrenched in the Washington muck: she didn’t seem trustworthy. Donald Trump was not the first person I would’ve chosen to be president, nor would he have been the first pick for the vast majority of people when he announced his candidacy, but I did end up choosing him (fairly enthusiastically, I might add), and I felt surprised and vindicated when he pulled off an upset that nobody saw coming.

There were a multitude of reasons that I ultimately chose to vote for Donald Trump in 2016. He was a political newcomer who clearly wasn’t going to use the typical Washington playbook, and it seemed like he may have been able to shake things up. He was irreverent and spoke his mind, and while he was often rude or uncouth, it was a breath of fresh air to hear a political candidate tell you what they really thought. There was also the allure of his business background: we’ve had decades worth of career politician presidents, so perhaps giving the reigns to someone whose successful career was based on savvy business dealings could give the economy a revitalization and make things better for the middle and working classes. There was also the issue of the open Supreme Court seat in 2016 following the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, which would be filled by whoever was elected president and swing the court to the right or the left.

If I’m being honest though, there were also some unsavory aspects of Donald Trump that appealed to me. The fact that most politicians on both sides of the aisle seemed to strongly dislike him made me want to play devil’s advocate, and it seemed to indicate that while he may screw up some of the systems ingrained in American government, he could bring real change to our politics. I believed (and still do believe) that the U.S. needs to do something major to overhaul our immigration system. Donald Trump’s proposal of a wall spoke to me on multiple levels, some practical, some silly, some subtly cruel. On the one hand, a large physical barrier seemed remarkably effective at reducing illegal immigration from Mexico. I was also just a fan of large, government projects in general; I saw them as monuments to a country’s power (think something like the massive, dystopian concrete walls and other structures from the “Hunger Games” movies), and I wanted the U.S. to have something cool like that (not just one wall though, I also wanted one on our northern border because the asymmetry of only having one massive wall separating our country from the rest of the continent bugged me in a sort of OCD-ish way). But there was also an aspect of the wall proposal that was subtly race based, and fell back on the notion that immigrants from Central America were second class people who didn’t necessarily deserve to live in the United States. I don’t think this was ever a conscious thought I had, but it certainly provided the bedrock for some of my isolationist, pro-wall views. While I did support the idea of a wall, I also wanted the legal immigration system to be updated to make it easier for people to come here legally, but that wasn’t as enticing for potential voters as the wall was, so Trump didn’t really spend a lot of time talking about that.

All in all, my vote for Donald Trump was a devil’s advocate vote. To borrow a quote, it was a vote to burn the house down and start over, in many regards. Perhaps I was a bit of an anarchist.


 

If you’ve always considered yourself a Republican or a conservative and feel repulsed by the idea of voting for a Democrat no matter how much you dislike the Republican, I know where you’re coming from. I was raised in a staunchly conservative Christian household, and for a long time, nothing made me question any of my positions. But like most Republicans, the past few years have probably left you feeling at least a little bit of internal conflict. You’ve seen our president and the leaders of the Republican Party make arguments in bad faith, you’ve seen them flip flop and change their “beliefs”, and you’ve seen them support positions that don’t reflect the views they claimed to hold when you voted for them. It’s okay to be concerned, and it’s okay to admit that voting for someone wasn’t a great choice. I voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and in hindsight, I can admit that I made a mistake. 

If you’re a Republican or a conservative and you don’t have ANY qualms with how your leaders have been behaving lately — even deep down, secret things you’ve never told anyone because you don’t want to risk being painted as a liberal snowflake — there’s a decent chance that your beliefs are founded on racism, homophobia, xenophobia, general bigotry, or a perverted and oppressive theological doctrine which you likely call “Christianity” but which doesn’t actually resemble the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you are in that camp and you see no issues with the behavior of Donald Trump and his “Republican” allies, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. If that’s you, then stop reading, because this article is not for the close minded. But my guess is that if you’ve read this far, you have had at least some doubts about Donald Trump.

Don’t get me wrong, I still don’t like Hillary Clinton, but the last four years have shown me that voting for Trump and encouraging others to do so may have been one of the most destructive decisions of my life. That said, it took me a long time to reach that conclusion, and it was not a comfortable journey. I spent a long time trying to justify my vote for Donald Trump. I convinced myself that even though he was unconventional, America could use someone who would turn over a new leaf and shake things up in Washington. “Drain the swamp” was a remarkably appealing message. Allowing Donald Trump to burn the house down doesn’t sound like the worst option until you realize that he doesn’t have a plan to get you out of the house before he sets it ablaze.


 

By 2018, I was beginning to seriously question my decision. There was no progress being made on any of the issues I’d cared about when I cast my ballot for him. On top of that, while I still appreciated his candor and unfiltered thoughts, I couldn’t justify some of the things he said or did, like his remarks about “very fine people” who happened to be torch-carrying white supremacists and Nazis. He was beginning to cross red lines, striking matches and pouring gasoline as he went.

Another point of inflection for me was when I found out how exactly he had managed to pull off his 2016 upset. I’m not talking about Russian interference (though I do now believe that they did try to influence voters), I’m talking about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, wherein the Trump campaign used personal data from millions of Americans to target individual voters in specific counties in specific states to help them win an electoral college majority without trying to win the popular vote. They understood the weaknesses of the Electoral College, and they used modern technology and unethically collected personal data to influence only the voters they needed with disinformation, and they also used that data to conduct racist voter suppression, showing ads to black people to discourage them from voting. They gamed the system. They cheated.

Unflattering as that may have been, I could’ve looked the other way if he had been delivering on his policy promises. I could’ve told myself that he was technically playing within the rules, and that it was just an example of why the Electoral College was an outdated system that needed to be reformed or abolished. But he wasn’t delivering on anything, and he continued to cross red lines.


 

When I voted for Donald Trump, I expected him to be a champion of our military. I expected him to respect them and appreciate their sacrifices, but he’s shown time and time again that he simply does not care about them. He’s a draft dodger, and he’ll never understand or revere our troops the way a Commander in Chief should, and high ranking military leaders in his administration have condemned his actions that take advantage of our troops.

I’m a big believer in the second amendment, but Donald Trump is not doing what a responsible Republican president would do in this day and age. With the incredible frequency of mass shootings, it’s clear that something needs to be done: the curriculum for our children’s first day of school each year should not include where to hide in case of a shooting. Yet, Trump refuses to address this problem because of the overwhelming support he receives from big donors like the NRA. Respecting the second amendment means not only respecting the right of the people to bear arms, but also respecting the specific aspect of that same amendment that calls for thorough regulation.

Climate change is an issue that a lot of people — young people in particular — care a lot about. We are seeing the effects of climate change from wildfires decimating the landscapes of California and Australia to record numbers of hurricanes brutalizing the east coast. Yes, the earth goes through periods of warming, but the evidence that humans have accelerated global warming is incontrovertible. Donald Trump just refuses to acknowledge it because it’s unpopular among big donors whose businesses rely on lax environmental regulations. To those who don’t believe in climate change, I say this: let’s apply a common theological argument used by Christians to convert non-believers. If climate change is a hoax and we waste our time trying to prevent it by transitioning to clean energy and less harmful manufacturing processes, then no real harm will be done. But, if climate change is real and we do nothing to address it, the consequences will be dire. Even if you don’t believe the evidence, we can all agree that there is no harm in making our environment cleaner and less polluted. Donald Trump apparently can’t follow this logic, becasue he’s been rolling back environmental protections throughout his term.

In regards to immigration: it doesn’t take four years to build a wall, and it certainly doesn’t require eight years, but despite having Republican majorities in both chambers of congress, Donald Trump didn’t build a wall. In fact, he’s only put up a few miles of fencing (nothing like the “Hunger Games”-style wall I was imagining), and sections of it have been cut through, sections have blown over, and the people he tasked with building the wall actually tore parts of it down to sell the scrap rebar on craigslist. It flies in the face of what I wanted when I voted for him. And of course, there have been zero improvements to our legal immigration system. 

Racism has been a hot topic this year, and Trump simply hasn’t met the moment. He’s stoked fires rather than trying to extinguish them because he knows that division is good for his re-election odds. What he clearly doesn’t realize is that America’s strength is in our diversity. We’ve always had issues with race in this country, but while he tells the Proud Boys to “stand by” and says that white supremacists are “very fine people”, real patriots recognize that this behavior is not the best America has to offer. The pursuit of justice and equality is not a zero sum game in the greatest country on earth, but Donald Trump would have us believe that it is.

Abortion is another important issue for a lot of people, and while there are tense disagreements, there are a few things that the majority of people do agree on. Most people believe abortion should be an option in cases where the mothers life is in danger, and most people also agree that the fewer abortions we collectively have, the better. Unfortunately, this is an issue that Trump has flip flopped on several times, so we don’t really know whether he agrees with those things or not. He’s described himself as pro-life and pro-choice, he’s said that he thinks partial birth abortion is terrible yet that it should be legal. It’s impossible to trust anything he says or does in regards to abortion at this point. Personally, I want the number of abortions in this country to go down, but Donald Trump has done nothing to make that happen. We know that better sex education and increased access to contraceptives and birth control can reduce the number of abortions: Trump has made no effort in any of those areas.

When it comes to healthcare, Trump has accomplished nothing at all, and he knows it.  He’s tried and failed to undo Obamacare. He’s still trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act (which ensures coverage for people with preexisting conditions) but he has nothing to replace it with. He simply doesn’t have a plan, yet he’s trying to kick tens of millions of Americans off their current plans in the middle of a pandemic. It’s stupid and it’s cruel.

Speaking of the pandemic, yes, Trump banned travel from China and that was a smart move, but even that was too late. He didn’t ban travel from Europe until even later, which is where almost all of the United States’ cases came from. And what has he done since then? He’s pushed back against relief efforts, stalled stimulus checks so they could print his name on them (as if he were dispensing them from his own personal fortune), and suggested we ingest bleach. He’s undermined the scientists in his own administration because he thinks telling the truth is a bad look for him; he habitually avoids and discredits science and facts that are inconvenient for him. He’s been so reckless that not only has he allowed more than 8,000,000 people to contract COVID-19 and 220,000+ to die, he’s been so ridiculously stupid that he contracted it himself.

As far as the economy goes, Trump’s potential to make life better for middle and working class Americans was clearly just an illusion, because he drove the economy into the ground. Donald Trump is not a great business man, he’s a tax fraud. As was recently pointed out, he’s spent a great deal of his career exploiting tax laws in an attempt to hold on to the money he made as a result of other people’s successful business ventures. His tax records showed us that most of the business dealings he managed directly lost exorbitant amounts of money, and he’s personally in debt to the tune of $400M-$1.1B. The notion that he’s a successful businessman whose business acumen would benefit the greater American economy simply has not proven to be the case. After all, companies spend unbelievable amounts of money each year examining and mitigating various risks, and the greatest risk to the American economy, COVID-19, was by and large ignored by the Trump administration because the president found it unflattering. Ignoring your problems isn’t exactly a great business strategy or a good P.R. move.

Now, it’s not uncommon for a president not to accomplish everything they intended, but it’s not common for them to accomplish virtually nothing. The Trump administration accomplished so little that they aren’t even telling you what they would hope to do during a second term, if re-elected. For the first time in history, the Republican Party didn’t even put together a party platform, presumably because they know that Donald Trump is so erratic that anything they could possibly write down as their official agenda for the next four years would be swiftly and completely abandoned by the schizophrenic old man at the top of their ticket. Even Trump’s own website doesn’t list anything he hopes to accomplish if re-elected. They’re asking you to elect them without a plan. 

You know who does have a plan? Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. They have a lot of good, moderate plans that are supported on substance by a majority of Americans. Do you want to elect someone who will respect the second amendment and pass common sense gun legislation to reduce mass shooting? Elect Joe Biden. Do you want to elect a president who has the resolve to stand up to white supremacy? Elect Joe Biden. Do you want a president who will empower and respect our military rather than denigrating and disrespecting their sacrifices? Elect Joe Biden. Do you want to elect someone who will put measures in place to allow greater access to contraceptives and birth control and subsequently reduce the number of abortions, while ensuring that it remains a safe option in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life? Elect Joe Biden. Do you want to elect someone who will improve our immigration system in meaningful ways so that we know who’s entering our country? Elect Joe Biden. Do you want to elect someone who will create thousands of well paying clean energy jobs to get us out of Trump’s recession and turn the tide on climate change? Elect Joe Biden. Do you want to elect someone who will finally get the pandemic under control and get our economy firmly on the path to recovery? Elect Joe Biden. Do you want someone who will bring kindness, honesty, empathy, and strength back to the Oval Office? Elect Joe Biden.

You maybe thinking, “well I don’t really like Donald Trump, but isn’t Joe Biden a socialist?” Fortunately for America, the answer to that question is no, Joe Biden is not a socialist. In fact, the reason he won the primary and became the Democratic nominee is specifically because he was not a socialist. He ran against a socialist, Bernie Sanders, and he beat him. By a lot. Despite what you might hear on Facebook or Fox News, the vast majority of Democrats, including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, do not want socialism. Many people are trying to paint this election as one where we’re having to chose the lesser of two evils, and while that was the case in 2016, it’s not the case now. Joe Biden is a good man — even many Republicans agree, including Lindsey Graham — and whether you like all of his plans or not, at least he has plans and he’s honest about them.


 

Again, regardless of what you think about the aforementioned policies, we should be able to agree that preserving our democracy should always be our top priority. However, in recent days, members of the Republican Party have begun to abandon even that foundational principle of our nation, seemingly preferring rule by the wealthy elite.

For a long time, people have been tempted to call Trump an authoritarian and a dictator, ready to dismantle our democracy at the first opportunity. He certainly has those autocratic, fascistic impulses, and he would love to be the strongman dictator of the United States for years to come, but the truth is that he isn’t strong enough or intelligent enough to follow through on those desires

No, Donald Trump is not a dictator. He’s a weak, dumb, self conscious old man who stumbled into the presidency and whose only skill is taking advantage of the people around him. Unfortunately, the president’s ineptitude doesn’t mean that he isn’t still a fundamental threat: his haphazard abandonment of political norms, outright corruption and nepotism, and blatant disregard for the rule of law could very well be setting the stage for a true dictator in the United States. The most progress he’s made when it comes to tearing down our democracy was more or less a coincidence: since he announced his candidacy five years ago, he has been attacking the press and trying to discredit them when their coverage is critical, and he’s succeeded in creating an alternate reality with “alternate facts”. He’s also cracked down on peaceful protestors, authorizing force to be used against them without provocation. Even these fundamental threats to our freedom of the press and freedom to peaceful assembly were byproducts of his narcissism as opposed to deliberate attempts to undo the First Amendment. Imagine how much worse things could be if a real, competent dictator takes his place.


 

I noted earlier that the Trump administration has no plan, but it’s not entirely true that they have nothing they want to accomplish in a second term, it’s just that their aims are so corrupt that they can’t say them out loud. Following the leaked tax information from a few weeks ago, we learned that the president is in a massive amount of personal debt. The entire time he’s been in office, he’s refused to step away from his businesses, and has illegally exploited political relationships with domestic and foreign agencies and investors to make more money for himself and his family, ostensibly to reduce the burden of the personal debts from his many failed business ventures.

We were correct to assume that a businessman in the Oval Office could make a lot of money, but we were wrong to assume he would be interested in using those skills to the people’s benefit. Donald Trump’s business savvy served only himself and his family during his term, not the American people. From the start, this has been all about him, not us.

He sees his life as a tv show: he’s the main character, and the only thing that matters is how many people tune in to watch the show. He’s found a fan base in the Republican Party, a bloc of voters who were so fed up with politicians that they were willing to elect a reality television star.

Dont let a reality tv show host convince you that he’s a Republican president of the same caliber as Ronald Reagan. There’s a growing list of well-known Republicans who have denounced Trump, and while he has tried to label them as RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only), he’s the real RINO. He doesn’t actually value conservative ideas, he’s just playing the part—it’s a performance.

The scary thing is that not only is he not a true conservative, most of the officials in the Republican Party aren’t either, because he’s coopted their allegiance. There are instances where Republican congressional candidates have been required by the party to vocally support Trump despite not actually liking him. His presidency is destroying what’s left of the Republican Party: to be a Republican today, it’s not enough to simply have conservative beliefs, you have to be a vocal advocate for Donald Trump. There is no room for debate. You fall in line, or you aren’t a Republican. Group think like this — “herd mentality”, if you will — would be cancerous to any organization, but especially to one that prides itself on individual freedom.


 

In 2016, a vote for Donald Trump wasn’t just a vote for Donald Trump, it was also a vote for the future of the Supreme Court. This time, though another seat came open very soon before the election, the seat has already been filled, and the court now has a solid conservative majority of 6-3. The prospect of an open seat being filled by the winner of the election was a strong motivator for people; the high stakes in the court helped the vote for Trump go down a little more smoothly for conservatives who didn’t like him. The odds of Trump getting to replace another liberal justice in the next four years are exceedingly low, so the only reason one would vote for Donald Trump this time is if you like his personality or his literally nonexistent policies.

Furthermore, you shouldn’t want Trump to appoint any more justices. He’s slowly shifting the court away from a liberal or conservative tilt, and appointing justices whose loyalties will lie with him specifically. It’s corrupt, it’s not what the judicial branch was designed for, and it’s going to cost people their rights. In the next few weeks, the court will hear a case that could strip insurance coverage from millions of people with preexisting conditions, and they may potentially rule on the outcome of the election, should it be contested. The nonpartisanship of the judiciary branch is unraveling at the seams, and Trump continues to pull the loose strings because it benefits him personally.


 

My decision to vote for Donald Trump in 2016 wasn’t a difficult one, but it was a mistake. However, I believe it’s a mistake that history will judge as being a forgivable one. Nobody can be right 100% of the time, but the closest we can come is to acknowledge when we make mistakes and correct them. The time has come for America to correct one of our greatest wrongs, for the sake of our rights.

Voting for Donald Trump in 2020 will not be a mistake future generations are likely to forgive. It’s not a mistake that many people today will be likely to forgive either: in my view, anyone who has lived through the past four years and still decides that voting for Donald Trump is a good decision is a racist, a homophobe, and a xenophobe. Point blank.

That’s a strong statement, but I want to reiterate that while I have my own biases and discrete life experiences, as we all do, this isn’t about partisanship for me — I’m a registered independent and most of the candidates I’ve ever voted for have been Republicans — this is about preserving the foundations of American democracy for generations to come, and demonstrating to the world that the United States of America is truly the greatest nation on earth by rebuking hatred and division in favor of empathy and honor. The decision to choose Trump over Clinton was not very difficult for me. But the decision to choose Joe Biden over Donald Trump — to choose honor, truth, integrity, science, and democracy — that was a much easier choice.

Vote.

The Canary In The Conservative Coal Mine: Former Congressional Candidate Chris Taylor

Most people first heard about Chris Taylor back in February when he garnered a few national headlines. Eight months ago, Taylor was running as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives seat for Arizona’s 1st congressional district, but he dropped out of the race when it was reported that he was struggling from a drug abuse relapse that resulted in a traumatic heroin overdose. Check out his interview with a local Arizona news channel to learn more about his personal story.

Now, CopyrightBro has some original reporting to contribute which adds color and context to Taylor’s story.

Following the news of his overdose and withdrawal from the race, we decided to poke around his campaign website a bit. As you might imagine of a Republican campaign site for a congressional seat in a swing state in 2020, it was extremely Trump-y. Every opportunity to name drop the president was taken. They opted for utilitarian fonts that appeal to men with militarized concepts of masculinity. The policy section was light on specifics but used plenty of inflammatory language and relied on common tropes one might hear from Tucker Carlson or Rush Limbaugh. It was extremely polarizing. Interestingly though, the website offered up Taylor’s personal phone number. I decided to reach out to him, personally.

To be frank, my initial intentions in contacting him weren’t entirely innocent and devoid of political influence. I did want to wish him well, but in doing so, I wanted to demonstrate that empathy is more important than dying on political hills, and that connecting through our shared humanity is a good way to traverse the widening ideological boundaries that plague our country and are often exacerbated and exploited by Republicans. I truly did want to wish him a swift and successful recovery, but I also intended for my message to serve as a subtle indictment of the way his party has abandoned honor, empathy, and respect in recent years, as well as their inaction when it comes to addressing America’s opioid crisis. The message I sent read:

Hi, my name is Broc. I’m from NC and may not have been a fan of some of your political views, but I just saw your story online and wanted to say I hope you get the help you need and that your recovery goes well. The opioid epidemic doesn’t discriminate based on political parties, and well wishes for folks trying to overcome that challenge shouldn’t either. 🇺🇸🤟🏼

To my surprise, he responded. And his response shocked me. He said:

Thank you so much! And I bet we aren’t too far off, politically. I actually can’t stand Trump.

Wh.. what? I was blown away. I didn’t expect a reply, and I certainly wasn’t expecting him to say that. My response was a bit incredulous:

Dude really? Your website is very ride-or-die Trumpian haha. I guess you gotta play to your audience a bit. […]

Again, Chris’s reply struck me:

Yeah, I had to, but it’s not worth selling my soul for his hatefulness.

Hatefulness and selfishness are not only afflictions that ail Donald Trump, they’re endemic to the friends he’s found in the Republican Party. The only politician to contact Chris while he was in the hospital recovering from his overdose was his Democratic opponent—no one from the Republican Party reached out to him. He recently announced that he is now supporting that Democratic candidate who was his former opponent. That’s not the only Democrat he’s supporting, though.

In further conversations, Chris revealed to me that he was privately supporting Pete Buttigieg in the presidential primaries, and even told me that Mayor Pete was the only candidate he had ever donated money to. I was also a big fan of Pete, and I personally donated to and volunteered for his campaign, in addition to endorsing him here on CopyrightBro. It was remarkable for me to learn that we really were on the same political page, as he had suggested in his first message to me. It gives me a little bit of hope that not every Republican in office right now is as bought into the performance as they seem.

If you’re a lifelong Republican, it’s worth considering how many more Republican politicians may be running under that label whilst being manipulated by the puppet masters of the Republican Party. How many others’ commitments to Donald Trump self serving, devisive antics are simply a facade they’ve been forced to erect for the sake of receiving support from the Republican Party’s political machine? For people who truly hold some conservative beliefs, considering this paradox for more than a few seconds will lead you to an uncomfortable mental place.

Do your allegiances lie with Donald Trump? If so, you should be offended by the prospect that many Republican politicians don’t actually support him, and are taking advantage of your votes by riding his coattails.

-or-

Do your allegiances lie with your conservative principles? If so, you should take note of the fact that Republican politicians who share your beliefs are breaking from Donald Trump, and consider that Trump is more of a demagogue than a true conservative.

The Republican Party is in disarray: they’re corrupt, they lie, they’re running out of principled stances. That doesn’t mean that the same is necessarily true for conservatism; not all conservative principles are useless or harmful. America’s political system is being ruined by the two party system, and what we need is more parties, not less. For the sake of the future of American politics, let’s hope there are more people like Chris who could build new, righteous political parties that incorporate some legitimate conservative principles once the current Republican Party inevitably implodes.

Today, Chris Taylor tweeted a message announcing his endorsement of Joe Biden. In the wake of his endorsement this morning, we reached out to Chris again, and he provided the following statement regarding his decision:

I swore an oath to the Constitution, I will defend it with my life. There is a reason we don’t swear an oath to the President, but that’s where the allegiance lies today in the Republican Party and that’s why I can’t be a part of it anymore. We need to defend all of the constitutional amendments as vigorously as we defend the Second Amendment: especially the First Amendment, all of it. Freedom of religion means all religions, not just Christianity. Freedom of speech means that athletes have the right to kneel in protest during the national anthem, that people have every right to peacefully protest racial inequality and police brutality, that businesses have the right to mandate masks during a pandemic. Freedom of the press means not discrediting and disregarding reputable news organizations by calling them fake news and “the enemy of the people” simply because the coverage is unflattering.

With all the different serious fires raging in our country right now, the ideal situation would be to elect a once-in-a-generation kind of leader. A professional firefighter, figuratively speaking— a fire science expert who knows exactly what to do to put the fires out and who possesses the courage needed to advance the firehose to the seat of the raging inferno. Someone to finally close this devastating chapter in American history and ultimately heal and unite our wounded nation.

How we long for the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln, the talent of JFK, the energy and compassion of Bobby Kennedy, the tenacity of Teddy Roosevelt and the steady crisis leadership of FDR. I don’t pretend to believe Joe Biden will be that caliber of leader. But I know in my heart that Joe has the love, empathy, compassion, and courageous soul needed to at least attempt to put those fires out. 

With the current occupant of the White House, the little hope I ever had that he would even try to do the right thing in any given situation is lost completely. I’m endorsing Joe Biden because I know at the very least, he won’t start anymore fires. Donald Trump has and will continue to light new fires, and he will keep pouring gasoline on the ones that are already raging. He’s unfit for office of any level, and his repeated, disgusting remarks about America’s war heroes wholly disqualify him from continuing to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

It’s evident that Chris’s decision to support Joe Biden did not come as a result of him being a closeted Democrat. He made this decision because Joe Biden is a better vessel of many true conservative ideals than Donald Trump. 

In any case, publicly endorsing Biden is an incredible, courageous conclusion to his 2020 character arc of political reckoning and personal growth. I don’t know Chris terribly well, but if I know anything about him at all, these three things are true:

  1. He has massive balls.

  2. He gives me hope for the future of responsible conservative ideas.

  3. He makes me proud, and whether he gets back into the fray of national politics or not, he’ll make you proud. Anyone in America would be lucky to have a Congressman like him.

Quotes from text messages have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.

Story Time: An Example of Public School Sex Education in the Southeast United States

The United States has a uniquely backwards relationship with sexuality that can be traced back to the Puritans, and it’s something that most other developed countries aren’t plagued by. Anything relating to sexuality is shamed and considered taboo. There’s a willful ignorance when it comes to the sexuality of teenagers and young adults. Harmless, natural expressions of sexuality are actively repressed, especially in kids and teenagers. Anyone whose attractions fall outside of the “normal” heterosexual variety are shamed and compelled to hide their sexuality. Some preach abstinence for these groups, even though mountains of data exist proving that abstinence-only sex education leads to increases in STIs and unwanted pregnancies. Still, many states have abstinence-only sex education, or sex education that’s so inhibited by what the instructors are allowed to tell the students that it’s effectively useless.

Because we’re trained to see any topic relating to sexuality as impolite and shameful, the problems we face with regards to sex education naturally aren’t something that we talk about very often. I think it’s an important conversation to have for a plethora of reasons, so I wanted to offer my personal experience with public school sex ed as an example of how inadequate it is and why things need to change.

The school system I attended (shout out to Gaston County, whose interstate welcome signs aptly read “Welcome to Gaston County, Please Don’t Litter”), offered two opportunities for students to receive a watered down version of sex education, which, in both cases, required a signed permission slip from a parent for the student to attend.

Fifth Grade

The first course, offered in the final weeks of fifth grade, was a single, sex-segregated, two hour presentation called “family life” (a name that none of the kids in the class really understood before or after the course). Even though it was specifically tailored for a room full of of boys, the class spent almost the entire two hours teaching us about the female reproductive system. One of the two hours was devoting to watching videos of how a babies grow in the womb. And periods! My god, did they tell us about periods. They probably spent thirty minutes telling us about periods and thirty seconds telling us about ejaculation, but hey, why would we need to know about the fluids that would eventually be produced by our own genitals?

I came away from it having learned very little new information about my own body, and nearly nothing I hadn’t already guessed. It was all very hypothetical and entirely divorced from any degree of specificity. A lot of it didn’t make sense, but the atmosphere was so tense that nobody asked questions for fear of getting in trouble. They devoted about ten minutes to covering the male body. The extent of the knowledge presented about what changes we should expect was:

  • Soon enough, you’ll get taller and your voice will change.

  • Some hair is gonna grow in new places: in your pants, on your legs, your armpits, maybe even your chest in a few years, if you’re lucky.

  • You may need to start shaving soon.

  • Your penis won’t necessarily look like all your buddies’ because a lot of you had the tips chopped off when you were born but some didn’t. It’s called “circumcision” but it doesn’t matter or make a difference either way.

  • For roughly the next decade, it’ll be normal for your dick to get hard at random times throughout the day and no you can’t control it but you should be embarrassed by it and do everything you can to hide it. (Why does it get hard, you may wonder: so did we, but they never told us why erections happen.)

  • At some point, your balls will start to make sperm, the ingredient that combines with a female’s egg to make a baby start to grow. (You may wonder how it combines with an egg: again, so did we.)

  • Deodorant is EXTREMELY important. The teacher probably mentioned a dozen times how essential it was to start wearing deodorant.

And that was pretty much it. They did curtly ask if we had any questions, and I presume everyone had so many questions that we didn’t have a clue what to ask. One brave soul did raise his hand to mumble a question about condoms, which the instructor refused to answer. I had no clue what “condom” meant; the instructor hadn’t mentioned anything about them (the boy who asked the question must’ve heard about them from an older brother or something). No further questions were taken.

I did walk away with a goody bag, though, after being sworn to secrecy and threatened with a trip to the principal’s office if we discussed any of what we had just learned after the class had ended. What was in the goody bag, you ask? A tiny stick of deodorant, some paperwork, and a signed card promising I would wait (though they never explained what it was I was waiting for). Certainly no condoms or anything useful, but rumor had it that the girls’ bags had pads in them.

Naturally, my parents asked what I’d learned, and I told them it was mostly about girls and deodorant. Some of my male friends’ parents had apparently received similar responses from their sons, because I specially remember overhearing several phone conversations between my parents and my male friends’ parents about the course, wondering why they’d chosen to exhaust the two hours focusing primarily on the changes girls could expect rather than boys.

Seventh Grade

The second course was actually a series of three, hour-long classes worked into the health class curriculum and taught by the PE coach, so it was also segregated by sex. It was certainly more informative and frank than the first course, but it was still very inadequate. This time, the class focused on puberty and maturation a bit more broadly, with the first day being dedicated to how our bodies would develop, from height and musculature to our nutritional needs and safe ways to exercise. There were only brief mentions of deepening voices, growth of body hair, and genital development.

The second day focused on the science of reproduction, explaining in great detail how a fertilized egg becomes an embryo, a fetus, and eventually a baby. Of course it’s important for prospective parents to understand that process in detail, but is it necessary for 12 and 13 year olds who don’t even know how the process starts? Most of us were quite bored and uninterested that day.

The last day was only half the length as a result of our regular class schedule, so it was primarily used to answer questions. Middle schoolers are certainly less innocent than elementary school kids, so there were a couple questions fielded by the health teacher that didn’t come up in the fifth grade class. The funniest and most memorable question was when someone asked if the penis was a muscle, to which the coach emphatically informed us that it is NOT a muscle and, as if he could read minds, urged us not to try to stretch it or otherwise exercise it with the goal make it bigger (he offered us a consolation prize though, promising us that they’d get bigger with time and that no partner worth having would care how big it is anyway). We were all ready to leave the class after that. Nobody was brave enough to ask the biggest question we all had.

___ Ed.

You may have noticed that none of my sex education addressed anything to do with sex, the verb. Never any mention of what happens during sex, what consent means, how to put on a condom, how to avoid sexually transmitted infections, etc. There was certainly no mention of oral sex or what options may be available to the boys in the class who were attracted to the same sex.

There was absolutely no reference to sexual intercourse at all, much less as something that people would ever do for fun or for emotional benefit. The closest we came to an acknowledgment that sex is not exclusively for reproductive purposes was when the PE coach told us (in response to a rather blunt question about the definitions of “ejaculation” and “orgasm”) that ejaculation and orgasm sort of the same thing, and that that’s what it’s called when semen comes out of your penis and that it feels really good. The coach was kind of a bro.

You may be thinking, “well, by middle school, some kids are going to know what sex is”, and that’s true. Some of my classmates did know what sex was by that point, but the problem lies in that the coach wasn’t allowed to define it for the majority of us who didn’t know what it was, and that resulted in most of us feeling like we were on the wrong side of an inside joke most of the time.

Call me a late bloomer, but I was in ninth grade before I realized what sex actually was, and that a penis had to go inside a vagina for the sperm and egg cells to come together, and I only learned that when I discovered porn (I guess up until that point I thought naked cuddling was sex). The sex education I received was so inadequate that for four years after my first sex ed class and two years after my seventh grade sex ed class, I honestly thought sperm crawled out of a man’s penis, across the bedsheets, and into a female’s vagina like sticky, microscopic inchworms. Laughable. But not actually that funny when you consider the theoretical consequences.

The sex education my classmates and I received was woefully incomplete. As a matter of fact, though, the consequences weren’t all that theoretical. One of my classmates missed a few weeks of class in eighth grade following the birth of her daughter, and now, there’s a little girl running around somewhere named after a “twilight” character because she was born amidst a teenybopper, pop culture phenomenon and her mother was a thirteen year old girl. Talk about consequences.

Donald Trump Has COVID-19

I wouldn’t wish sickness on anyone, but Donald Trump isn’t just anyone. He’s the man trying the hardest to unravel our democracy for personal gain. He’s spent countless hours denying the gravity of and spreading misinformation about the pandemic which now ails him because he thought it made him look bad, and the optics were more important to him than the 200,000+ lives lost as a result of his negligence. Karma is a bitch, and Donald Trump deserves this.


This news raises a few practical questions and concerns for the next few weeks. Will Trump get a boost out of pity? Will his base see this news as a national tragedy and rally around him, potentially pulling in some undecided voters? I doubt it. I don’t see how news of Donald Trump getting infected with the virus he played down for months will do anything other than make him appear weak to his base, or force them to believe he was lying the whole time. If anything, I think this will raise concerns about Trump’s longevity and help Biden. After all, Trump’s beloved stock market doesn’t seem to have a ton of confidence in him.

Some people have suggested that the president may not have COVID-19 at all, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think any “look how strong he is for beating COVID” bump he may receive would be extremely small, and the people who would say that are almost certainly in his base already. It could drive turnout a little bit, but I doubt it. A campaign’s most valuable resource is the candidate’s time, and even if Trump wanted a get out of jail free card for the last two debates, having to spend half the time between now and the election quarantined is an astronomically high price to pay.

If his case is asymptomatic or very mild, he could actually take this as a chance to say “look, I had it and it wasn’t bad, so it was smart of me to downplay it”, which could be more influential for undecided voters.

However, reports indicate that Trump is already experiencing mild symptoms, which raises the question, if his sickness progresses and becomes more debilitating or even life threatening, what happens? Surely, Trump won’t participate in the next presidential debate in person. Could the rest of the debates be cancelled altogether? If Trump’s sickness progresses the point of requiring ventilation, what happens on Election Day? Mike Pence will be in charge of the country while Trump is incapacitated, and presumably, votes for Trump will be counted as usual and he will resume power after he comes off the ventilator. What if he were to die before the election; do votes for Trump then count as votes for Pence? Can the Republican Party nominate someone else in the days before the election? Can votes already cast for a Trump/Pence ticket then be converted to support the new nominee? I don’t think so.

Another important question: what if Joe Biden gets sick? He spent nearly two hours on stage with the man yelling like a maniac. Fortunately, Joe Biden and his wife Jill have just tested negative, so we won’t wander too far down the path of hypotheticals, but man, there’s a lot to ponder.

For more articles about the United States’ failed federal response to the pandemic, check out CopyrighBro’s COVID-19 Roundup.

UPDATED: 10/02/20, 16:44

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Passes Away, American Democracy Hot on Her Heels

I could spend a long time talking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s past and her impact on women’s rights and American history in general, but I don’t claim to be an RBG expert, and I certainly wouldn’t do her justice. Instead, spend a few minutes reading the other justices’ statements on her passing.

I don’t want to politicize a tragedy, but 2020 has been one politicized tragedy after the next. It’s been a bit like a movie — if political thriller were a popular genre — with about seven hours worth of plot shoved into ninety minutes, and RBG’s death is the plot twist.

When I got the CNN breaking news alert on my watch, I felt my stomach drop; I’m desperately afraid we’re about to see the great American experiment finally collapse on upon itself. Throughout this year, we’ve seen just how dysfunctional and corrupt the majority of our federal government officials truly are. One much needed respite from the bad faith politicking came when a majority of our Supreme Court justices proved that they were, at least for the time being, still managing to hold the judicial branch above the political warfare that has consumed the executive and legislative branches.

Now the high court faces a real chance of receiving a Trumpian makeover that will throw the last remaining branch of our federal government into hyper-partisan disarray. Trump will have yet another opportunity to nominate someone to the court, and the group of people who are capable of standing in his way is hopelessly small and demonstrably spineless. I think we can be sure that Trump’s third nominee to the court will not be as moderate or as qualified his second, or especially his first. After all, in the coming months, the Supreme Court very well may be in a position where they’re making decisions regarding the election results, or hearing cases on any number of Trump’s alleged crimes. It’s all but guaranteed that Trump’s next nominee’s loyalties will lie not with the law, but with the most dangerous demagogue in our nation’s history.

Hopefully, notorious flip flop and shameless Trump simp Lindsey Graham still wants his words used against him.

The Thirteen Keys Point Toward a Biden Presidency

I first heard about Allan Litchman in the weeks before the 2016 election, and at the time, his prediction that Trump would win seemed far fetched. Still, I was enthralled with his “thirteen keys” system, and anxious to see if it would prove accurate for that election cycle. Of course, it did. However, Trump’s win wasn’t the only thing Litchman predicted: he also predicted that Trump would be impeached way back in 2017. Suffice to say he has a strong track record, and I trust his judgment.

Allison Gordon, reporting for CNN:

He has correctly predicted the winner of each presidential race since Ronald Reagan's reelection victory in 1984 using his "13 keys" system. […]

Now, Lichtman and his "13 keys" are ready to call 2020.

In an interview with CNN, Lichtman was definitive in his answer: "The keys predict that Donald Trump will lose the White House this year."

Lichtman bases his prediction on a model of "13 keys" that can be answered as either true or false for any given election. The "13 keys" in his system include factors such as the economy, incumbency, social unrest and scandals, as well as the candidates' personal charisma. […]

When asked if the key model could account for something as cataclysmic as the Covid-19 pandemic, Lichtman remained confident. "Look, retrospectively and prospectively, the keys go all the way back to 1860. They are what we call a robust system. So, I don't fiddle with them. They've lasted through enormous changes in our politics, in our economy, in our democracy. Don't fiddle with the keys," he explained.

I’ve been feeling pretty good about Biden’s chances the past few months, and this really cemented my belief that he will win the election (I’m knocking on wood read hard, though, believe me). Things can certainly change, and this doesn’t mean we should let off the gas in our attempts to get people excited about the Biden Harris ticket, but for the past 12-18 months, you could just feel Trump’s public support eroding. He still has his inalienable base, of course, but I think he’s losing ground among fair-minded people. I believe America has enough non-racists, non-xenophobes, non-white supremacists, non-homophobes, and non-bigots to outvote Trump’s base. The the issue now is whether we can get enough of those people to turn out to be able to counteract the damage that will be done by his blatant efforts to cheat.

If you’re interested in learning more about the thirteen keys, here’s a good place to start.

In Response To Unconcerned Southerners...

I live in the south, and though many people here don’t realize it yet, we’re about to get slammed with a wave of COVID-19 infections. In conversations with family members, friends, and coworkers, a frustrating trend has popped up where, even after being presented with valid data or charts showing the increases in COVID-19 cases in the south, they still seem largely unbothered. When you ask why this is, you typically get one of two responses.

The first retort that comes up from people here in the south who aren’t taking the pandemic seriously is that they think hospitals are greatly exaggerating the number of cases they have in an effort to acquire three to four times more money from insurance companies. This piece from USA Today explains some of the details behind that. While it would be possible for a hospital to exaggerate their numbers and receive more money, the amount of the increase in funding is far less significant than fearmongers would have you believe. Additionally, the piece seems to indicate that only Medicare is subject to these possible manipulations, not private insurers. Regardless of these finer details, allow me to pose two questions.

  1. Many people claim to know nurses and other hospital staff who provide them with “insider knowledge” of this alleged insurance fraud. But how could one trust the word of such a source, if that source is a person who regularly sees such fraudulent and immoral activities transpiring and doesn’t have the integrity to speak out publicly or report them?

  2. If the rise in COVID-19 cases is primarily attributable to dishonest hospital staff, why are states in the sun belt experiencing such an explosion of cases while other areas of the country are not? Do the people who live there suffer from a lack of morals that allows them to be comfortable with their complicity (a lack of morals which, if based on areas with more reported COVID-19 cases, doesn’t seem to affect the northeast or the west coast)? Or is it more likely that the demonstrably less defensive responses of the states with the most severe increases (Florida, South Carolina, Arizona, Texas, etc.) simply led to an increase in new infections in the region?

Another rebuttal they’ll offer to support their dismissal of the gravity of the pandemic is the high number of people who experience mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. It’s true that many people who have COVID-19 won’t know it. However, we may not be looking for symptoms in the right places: from the start, we’ve compared sickness caused by the coronavirus to the flu. We looked for respiratory symptoms, but we didn’t necesarily spend a lot of time looking at what other dots we could connect. It’s possible that we missed some things, and new evidence suggets as much. Just this week, we learned that in addition to the serious respiratory symptoms many COVID-19 patients are experiencing, they’re also experiencing serious neurological symptoms. From an opinion piece in The New York Times by Melinda Wenner Moyer:

Earlier this month, French researchers reported that 84 percent of Covid patients who had been admitted to the I.C.U. experienced neurological problems, and that 33 percent continued to act confused and disoriented when they were discharged.

According to Dr. Mady Hornig, a psychiatrist and epidemiologist at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, the possibility that neurological issues “will persist and create disability, or difficulties, for individuals downstream is really looking more and more likely.”

Note that the French President is a very liberal man, and it wouldn’t make any sense for the “fake news media” (which presumably exists in France) would drum up false conspiracies about COVID-19 to make their President look worse.

If you’re in the south and you still don’t believe this is a big deal, you may not be thinking rationally. Maybe you’re stuck under the spell of Trump’s demagoguery, forced to deny the validity of anything that could cast him in a negative light. Or, maybe you have COVID-19, and it’s affecting your cognitive abilities. Whatever the case may be, I encourage you to take a hard look at the data that supports your arguments and question its legitimacy (assuming you have any data to point to).

If you’re in the south and you’re capable of rational thought, check out these charts. They’re frightening but they’re informative, and it’s important for everyone to understand the weight of the threat we face. This is not a left versus right issue. Like it or not, how you react to this will affect others, and how others react will affect you.

Check out CopyrightBro’s COVID-19 coverage roundup.

Black Lives Matter.

This is just a small collection of statements, quotes, and responses from individuals and organizations that I found particularly moving, insightful, and appropriate for the events and the pain our country is experiencing. This compilation has been curated to strike a balance between amplifying black voices and casting a spotlight on constructive remarks from white people, because at the end of the day, the repsonsibility to address systemic racism lies with those of us who have benefited from centuries of privilege at the expense of those who were subjected to centuries of injustice (largely at the hands of those sworn to protect them).

I hope these sentiments will inspire you to start conversations and give you a starting point in the fight for change that our country so desperately needs and deserves.

Ben & Jerry’s very direct statement:

What happened to George Floyd was not the result of a bad apple; it was the predictable consequence of a racist and prejudiced system and culture that has treated Black bodies as the enemy from the beginning. What happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis is the fruit borne of toxic seeds planted on the shores of our country in Jamestown in 1619, when the first enslaved men and women arrived on this continent. Floyd is the latest in a long list of names that stretches back to that time and that shore. Some of those names we know — Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Oscar Grant, Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Emmett Till, Martin Luther King, Jr. — most we don’t.

Akilah Hughes’s monologue on Crooked Media’s daily news podcast, “What A Day”:

How many white men have you watched die in HD video? Can you name five? Cause I bet you can’t name ten. The video footage is shorthand for desensitization. You know, ask yourself why you’re even comfortable looking at a video of someone being murdered. Then ask why you’d share it with everyone you know. If it was a dog, you wouldn’t, so what’s the reasoning? For what reason should we share footage of a person being murdered? […]

When I say “don’t look away”, I don’t mean “consume black death like it’s a meme on TikTok“. I mean “look in the mirror, look at your family, look at the community you live in, look at your friend group, look at the wealthy white woman with the rescue dog in the goddamn park, okay, and don’t look away. Because we know what the problem is. No one is unclear on what the problem is. So where is the justice?

Niall Horan’s tweet:

Marques Brownlee’s vlog, “Reflecting on the Color of My Skin”:

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

J.K. Rowling’s loss for words:

The University of Tennessee Athletic Department’s statement:

Wherever you're reading this, it likely holds true that the cultures that exist in the sports programs at your local high school or college are much healthier than the culture in your local community. Why do these healthy cultures exist in small sports teams' locker rooms all across the country, but not in our larger communities? […]

If you're going to support our Black student-athletes when they compete, please have the courage to support them and their families in their daily pursuit of peace, happiness and equity.

Logan Lerman’s offered some succinct yet widely applicable sentiments in response to a video of a peaceful protestor being arrested:

This incredible tweet:

Taylor Swift had a stern message for President Bone Spurs:

Apple CEO Tim Cook issued a poignant statement on behalf of the company:

To create change, we have to reexamine our own views and actions in ight of a pain that is deeply felt but too often ignored. Issues of human dignity will not abide standing on the sidelines. To the Black community — we see you. You matter and your lives matter.

This is a moment when many people may want nothing more than a return to normalcy, or to a status quo that is only comfortable if we avert our gaze from injustice. As difficult as it may be to admit, that desire is itself a sign of privilege. George Floyd’s death is shocking and tragic proof that we must aim far higher than a “normal” future, and build one that lives up to the highest ideals of equality and justice.

Mugglenet points out that there really is a beautifully well fitted Harry Potter quote for almost any occasion.

“There is no shame in what you are feeling, Harry,” said Dumbledore’s voice. “On the contrary . . . the fact that you can feel pain like this is your greatest strength.”

Keke Palmer had a very moving address to members of the military at a protest:

An important message from Bernice King, daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

Finally, a powerful image taken at a protest in Washington D.C. by my good friend and former coworker, Derek Baker.

IMG_3021.jpeg

Black Lives Matter. ✊🏼✊🏾✊🏿

If you disagree with that simple statement or are too willfully ignorant to educate yourself and try to understand it, you should be ashamed of yourself, and CopyrightBro does not welcome your readership.

For all you real Kings and Queens out there, click here to get started.

UPDATED: 09/28/20, 10:43

Activists Vs. Agitators

Disclaimer: Everything you’re about to read is speculative, but I think it could explain why a lot of the violence, looting, and destruction occurring at the protests following George Floyd’s murder seems to be initiated by a small group of agitators.

It’s no secret that many of the protests occurring around the county have turned quite violent as night falls, and many people are wondering who is causing the violence. There’s not really a clear answer to that, but there are a few theories.

The most common theory of who is behind the violence at these protests seems to be that Antifa is bussing people into these cities to wreak havoc. This theory is usually coupled with the idea that a segment of unruly “animalistic” black people are showing their “true nature” at these riots because the opportunity has presented itself. The theory about Antifa seems like it could hold water (given the many out-of-state arrests that have been made), but anyone propagating the theory about “opportunistic” black people indulging their “animalistic” nature is an irrefutable racist.

In fact, there’s a lot of evidence that suggests most of the violence is being started by white people. There are two reasonable explanations for this. The first explanation could be that Trump supporters and other extremely conservative white people are showing up to the protests to cause trouble, hoping to turn the protests into violent riots to delegitimize them. However, I don’t think a terribly large number of Trump supporters are smart enough to come up with such a plan on their own, but maybe I'm wrong (hopefully I’m not though, because that would mean conservatives are trying to sabotage the protests and maintain the status quo of systemic racism and police brutality).

The second, and I believe the most likely, explanation is that the violence is being caused by a completely unorganized group of extremely liberal white people who make up the ugly, selfish underbelly of the progressive movement. Based on my own observations, that group consists largely of white people who self identify as queer or trans, and likely subscribe unquestioningly to far left ideologies like socialism or Marxism. Not all, but a large percentage of people who fall into those categories are people who have been radicalized and trained by leftist media outlets to feel incredibly oppressed by society and the state in general; they have long been told by the media and by politicians that they’re oppressed as a way to stoke their political engagement, and while there’s no denying that LGB people, trans people, and those with far-left viewpoints have historically been oppressed, their experiences generally pale in comparison to those of black people in this country. I think those radicalized individuals are capitalizing on the current unrest by inciting violence and destroying property as a way to vent their own frustrations with the system (valid or not) under the premise of activism.

If this assessment is correct, then what those white people need to understand is that using a movement about race as a release for their own frustrations is irresponsible, ignorant, and selfish. In doing so, they’re only propagating the systematic injustices that black people face, because their actions are contributing to the right wing media’s ability to delegitimize these protests, thereby squandering the chance we have to affect real change.

It’s worth noting that while violence at protests is generally not helpful, if the police abuse protestors, then they should fight back. And don’t get me wrong, I understand that a bit of destruction usually comes with successful protests, and no amount of destroyed property is worth more than a single person’s life. But having these protests turning into violent spectacles of fire and broken glass do not help black people in the long run, regardless of whether black people are the agitators or not. The people who are breaking into Apple stores, destroying gas stations, looting Gucci stores, and burning small businesses to the ground are either selfish or shortsighted, probably both.

White people do have a role to play in the fight against racism, but no matter what other persecution or injustices those white people may face, their role does not involve selfishly co-opting the Black Lives Matter movement as a way to vent. To do so is just as delegitimizing as saying “all lives matter”. Intentionally or not, they’re missing the point.

Pete For America

A Primer On Pete

This time last year, like most people, I had no clue who Pete Buttigieg was. I first heard about him when my cousin sent me a tweet from The Hill that linked to a story where Chasten Buttigieg, Pete’s husband, told of making Pete taking the Pottermore sorting quiz (R.I.P. Pottermore), and finding out that he was a Hufflepuff. I thought this was interesting and out of character for a politician (they’re a very Slytherin-y bunch), so I decided to look into him a bit more, and I liked what I found.

At the time, Pete had very little name recognition, so he was a bit less reserved in sharing his opinions, and he didn’t have to be quite as “on” in all of his interviews. He felt distinctly human, and he wasn’t afraid to opine on weighty topics like court reform and other issues that more standard candidates weren’t enthusiastic to tackle. One of the most interesting aspects of Pete’s campaign early on was his focus on healing the division in our nation through expanded public service programs. He used his military experience to provide anecdotes to illustrate the strength of service to heal wounds and bring people together who may have drastically different political beliefs and world views. Pete remains the only candidate to have put forth such a proposal, and I think it has real potential.

49515624783_87349ce0bd_k.jpeg

I was also encouraged that the first gay candidate to make a serious run for President wasn’t one who relied upon his sexuality to build a base of support; being gay was a part of Pete’s personal story but it’s far from the dominant aspect of his personality. He’s done a good job of not allowing his sexuality to become his personality, as so many openly gay men do.

Pete’s campaign continued to steadily gain steam from when I first learned about him in March, eventually making it to the debate stage in June, where he impressed me again. He didn’t get a ton of talk time, mostly due to the crowded field of hopefuls, but he did well enough to justify the interest I’d had in him for the past few months. After the second debate, I felt a little let down. It was clear that Pete was gaining in popularity, but he still wasn’t performing how I’d have liked in the debates, and his second round seemed a little weaker than the first. Throughout the next several debates, Pete‘s performances had a very “same story, different day” feel that I couldn’t see past. It was as if his gaining popularity had tongue tied him a bit, and he was more afraid to keep up the genuine persona he had brought forth in the interviews that made me like him so much. He stopped talking about his truly new ideas and started relying on cliches about a “new generation” of American politics. In turn, I began to look toward other candidates for a potential favorite, but I kept Mayor Pete in my back pocket.

Fast forward a few months, and Pete has made it farther than I expected, while no other candidate has been able to pique my interest the way he did. We’re now at the point where a Buttigieg presidency is not a pipe dream. After all, from a delegate standpoint, he’s currently winning the race for the Democratic Party’s nomination (delegates aren’t necessarily the best metric and the race is far from over, but still, he’s doing much better than most people predicted in the run up to the Iowa caucuses).

Pete has a wide base of support, in part because he made it a point early on to welcome independents and frustrated Republicans to his campaign. His appeal reaches across demographics like education level, class, and sex, though he struggles mightily with minority voters. His welcoming rhetoric from a year ago has helped him position himself as serious candidate who is diametrically opposed to Donald Trump in almost every way, though without alienating the moderate Republicans and independents he’ll need to win the general election. While Trump is old, steeped in corruption, temperamental, and offensive, Pete is young, a political newcomer, measured, and compassionate, and he knows that’s what a lot of “future former Republicans”, as he calls them, are looking for.

His appeal to Republicans is not negated by the fact that the way he speaks is strikingly reminiscent of Barack Obama. Many have drawn this conclusion, and for better or for worse, he seems to be leaning into it, having ramped up on the cliches and the dramatic-yet-matter of fact tone of voice. Colin Jost called him out for it on SNL last week, and it was a pretty funny sketch.

Buttigieg has his critics though: he seems to be the internet’s favorite person to attack, lately. The air left, social Justice Warriors, and Bernie fans across the Twittersphere jump at the opportunity to lambast Pete whenever they unearth any tiny morsel of a reason for them to dislike him. Some go so far as to call him a “closet Republican” or a “corporate tool”. They accept his decade-ago work with McKinsey and his openness to accepting donations from wealthy individuals as stone cold proof that he’s a conservative double agent. We shouldn’t ignore relevant evidence that provides insight into any candidate’s intentions, but what they've got on Pete is pretty sparse.

While his policies aren’t as progressive as some of the candidates’, to call Pete a “closet Republican” is severely misguided — I’m unaware of any Republican politicians who are calling for any meaningful action to combat the climate crisis, universal healthcare, more affordable college, gun control, or expanding DACA — Pete would have the most progressive agenda of any President, if elected. At the same time, he’s drawn out his policy proposals carefully, and he hasn’t gone as far as some candidates, not only because he doesn’t want to alienate moderates, but because he’s pragmatic, and he knows that some of the proposals coming out of the Bernie and Warren campaigns simply aren’t feasible.

The Elephant In The Room

Contrary to the historical nature of Pete being the first gay candidate to make a serious run for the White House, his sexuality seems to be the aspect of his candidacy that people are most reluctant to discuss. My primary concern with Pete at this point is that he is gay, and I think we’ve got to stop pretending that America is now so progressive that we don’t even need to look at how running a gay guy against Donald Trump may not be a great plan. The issue isn’t that I believe his sexuality would prevent him from winning, though it would be a hurdle with some voters. Instead, I fear that his candidacy, whether he wins the general election or not, would do more harm than good for LGB people, particularly those in less progressive areas: allow me to elaborate.

Despite Donald Trump’s remarks that he thinks Pete’s marriage is “great” and “absolutely fine”, he knows as well as we do that many of his evangelical supporters do not think Pete’s relationship is fine, much less great. While Trump himself may refrain from outright homophobic attacks, his supporters will not, and we know that Trump has no moral qualm with benefiting from dangerous social problems like racism and xenophobia that enflame his base — to assume that he would be above benefitting from homophobia would be a rosy assumption. Given the extreme political division in our country right now, it’s easy to imagine the outrage from the right and the low levels to which they would stoop to tear down and discredit a Democratic presidential candidate who is gay. The smears and attacks that would emanate from the far right nuts and evangelicals would give young people in less progressive areas who are questioning or coming to terms with their sexuality a debilitatingly grim idea of what the future may hold for them. And that’s not even to mention that Trumpism can be clearly associated with significant increases in hate crimes, which could pose a direct threat to LGB people who are already out in regressive communities.

While LGB rights gained traction with historic haste, a gay presidential candidate would drag LGB issues back into the spotlight just a mere handful of years since the legalization of gay marriage. My personal philosophy is that the best way to achieve societal normalcy and acceptance is to, more or less, fake it ‘til you make it. If you act like you’re already the same as everyone else, soon enough, they’ll see you that way. Obviously, there are going to be some homophobic assholes who never get on board, but feather boas and pride parades aren’t going to convince them, it’s just going to validate their misguided beliefs. I don’t think it’s in our best interest to have our individual liberties thrust back into the arena of public opinion for deliberation such a short time after the legal rights have been afforded to us.

Even despite the unease I feel for the future prospects for young men like myself who will have to deal with coming out to unaccepting family members in the south and other regressive places, I still think Mayor Pete is our best option for 2020. Occasionally, what may be best for you personally or people like you isn’t necessarily what’s best for everyone. Even if same sex attracted people have to sustain a few blows to oust Donald Trump, it will have been for the greater good, and I believe Pete Buttigieg has the best chance of defeating Donald Trump.

Decision Time

There are several good democratic candidates, though they each have their own electability hurdles. Bernie Sanders is clearly Pete’s biggest competition for the nomination at this point, but his self proclaimed status as a democratic socialist will hurt him among moderates and more or less guarantee the absence of any noteworthy level of Republican support, if only for the abysmal connotation of the word “socialism” in the United States. Amy Klobuchar, who’s popularity is spiking, hasn’t really had her record scrubbed yet, and she also has extremely low minority support, and she’s a woman (I’m not saying I wouldn’t vote for a woman or that she’s any less qualified or capable on account of her sex, but that there are still plenty of sexists in the United States who may vote for a man but not a woman (a gay man though, who knows?)). Elizabeth Warren’s support is fading fast, and while her policy positions are clear, her position among the field of democratic candidates is not; increasingly few people seem to have an appetite for Diet Bernie®. Joe Biden's support is crumbling at an astonishing rate. Tulsi Gabbard is simply not a viable candidate. Andrew Yang has now dropped out. Mike Bloomberg is a billionaire, and if the left has learned anything over the past three years, is that candidates who buy their way into power are rarely suited for it.

Regardless of which Democrat wins the nomination, anyone who wants rid of Trump should support them wholeheartedly. In any case, throughout the primary process, we should focus on building up our favorite candidate, not tearing down his or her competition or threatening not to vote for them in the general election.

Pete has demonstrated that he has staying power and that he can attract voters from across the political spectrum. He’s the candidate we need. If you agree that Pete Buttigieg is the best candidate to take on Donald Trump, you can support him by donating to his campaign and telling your friends and family about why you think he’s our best bet.

Iran Briefing

In the wake of what was very nearly a war between the United States and Iran, we need to ask ourselves how we ended up on the brink and take an uncomfortable look at what happened while we were there.

What Went Down

Background info: In 2017, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, an agreement between Iran and the U.S., the U.K., France, China, Germany, and Russia that was negotiated by President Obama in 2015 and arranged for the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for them to ramp down their nuclear developments. The deal wasn’t perfect, but Iran was at least playing by the rules, and (for the most part) continued to do so even after the U.S. pulled out. The current conflict kicked off in May, 2019 with a report from Israeli intelligence officials that alerted the U.S. to an alleged Iranian plot to attack U.S. forces in the region, prompting the United States to send the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to the Middle East as a reinforcement measure, leading to a month of threats between leaders of the two nations. Tensions grew worse a month later when Iran shot down a U.S. drone; they say the drone was in Iranian airspace, the U.S. claims it was over international water. Iran also bombed a Saudi oil field last September; this attack was largely unprovoked, though there was growing pressure within the country for their leaders to do something, due to the recession they were experiencing as a result of the sanctions reimposed by Trump when he pulled the U.S. out of the Iran Nuclear Deal (which caused a 75% decrease in Iranian oil exports). The attack on the Saudi oil field further damaged U.S.-Iranian relations because Saudi Arabia is a United States ally (for some reason).

December 27, 2019: A rocket attack on an Iraqi air base killed one American civilian-contractor, injured four American servicemen, and killed two Iraqis. The attack was allegedly carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah, a military group supported by Iran.

December 29, 2019: The United States attacked five facilities in Iraq and Syria which had ties to Kata’ib Hezbollah; the attacks resulted in the deaths of at least 25 people.

December 31, 2019: An Iran-backed mob attacked the United States embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. No U.S. citizens were harmed because they were able to shelter in a safe room inside the compound, though the mob did start fires and vandalize the embassy. This prompted President Trump to deploy additional troops to Iraq.

January 3, 2020: President Trump authorizes a missile strike killing Qasem Soleimani (the second most powerful person in Iran and the figurehead of the Iranian military) at an airport in Baghdad. Trump warned Iran not to retaliate, and preemptively sent more troops the area as a precaution (at this point, 14,000 troops have been deployed to the Middle East since May, 2019).

January 4, 2020: Donald Trump threatens to attack Iranian cultural sites if they retaliate after Soleimani’s killing. Targeting cultural sites is a war crime under international law.

January 5, 2020: Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have both explicitly contradicted the President’s statement that they intended to target cultural sites, leading Trump to double down on his commitment.

January 5, 2020: Iran announces that they will no longer honor the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, completely abandoning all the commitments they made to limit their nuclear development.

January 7, 2020: Iran attacks Iraq’s Al Asad and Erbil air bases, both of which house American troops. No casualties were reported, and Iranian officials indicated that this would be the extent of their revenge for the killing of Soleimani.

January 8, 2020: Donald Trump delivers an address announcing that the U.S. will refrain from using force in response to the 1/7/20 missile attacks, instead announcing further sanctions and encouraging other nations to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Things To Consider

We aren’t at war right now, and by all indications, this chapter of the saga is over. While I feel compelled to give Trump credit for showing the restraint it took to not respond to the Iranian attack on the Iraqi bases at Al Asad and Erbil with military force, that would be a bit like rewarding a toddler for safely exiting a pool after jumping into the deep end with no floaties. While the United States has had a complicated and troubled relationship with Iran for decades with more than a few points of contention, the U.S. seems responsible for exacerbating things this time. So, why did this whole thing spiral so quickly towards a war?

Simply put, it was because the Trump administration claimed that they had credible intelligence suggesting an imminent attack against Americans, and that killing Soleimani was an effort to stop it: that’s the big kickoff point for this whole thing. Yes, there were events that led up to it, but they were all pretty tit-for-tat, low consequence actions. The Soleimani strike was the headline grabbing event that really catapulted this ordeal to a much higher level.

So, was it justified? Evidence of an imminent attack has not been released, and the White House has so far refused to provide any further information. Democratic and Republican Senators have condemned the administration for providing little to no justification of their decision to kill Soleimani, after having received a briefing from the White House where they were given access to confidential details surrounding the strike (some Senators have also said that the information they receiving was not of a sensitive nature, and should be made available to the public). So, the question here is why the strike was ordered in the first place, given that it seems quite disproportionate to kill Iran’s second highest ranking official as a direct response to a far less significant attack on our Iraqi embassy where nobody was hurt.

A few potential answers to this question exist. Perhaps Trump was itching for a war. After all, he has publicly and repeatedly demonstrated in the past that starting a war with Iran is a good way to win reelection. Perhaps he wanted to distract from the impeachment proceedings at the start of the week when they could’ve potentially gotten ramped up again. Maybe he was expecting the unsavory headlines announcing that John Bolton — Trump’s previous National Security Advisor who was on the infamous Ukraine call at the heart of the impeachment inquiry — was willing to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate, and wanted to do something that take attention away from that development. However, let’s try to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, here. It’s not impossible that the action was truly taken to prevent an imminent attack against the U.S. Unfortunately, this seems less likely given that, after the White House’s briefing, even some Republicans have dismissed the intelligence on the alleged attack as being trivial and disingenuous.

Another thing that we need to ruminate upon is Trump’s willingness to commit war crimes. Soleimani’s killing, given his rank in the government of a sovereign state (and despite his role as a leader of paramilitary terrorist groups) can be categorized as an assassination and therefore a war crime in its own right. This is troubling, but it’s also a gray area. It’s easy to see that killing him wasn’t a proportionate response, but it’s hard to call it a war crime (even though it technically was) given that Soleimani has committed a long list of atrocities and certainly deserved to be taken out (a point where Democrats and Republicans seem to agree). More troubling, though, is that Trump threatened to attack Iranian targets of cultural significance. This displays a blatant disregard for international law, even while Trump’s advisors were adamantly against the idea. Yet, Trump doubled down. There’s not much we can analyze here: Trump threatened to willfully and indisputably break international law. Love him or hate him, that’s not something any voter with a conscience can ignore; it’s enough to give even the most passionate Trump fans pause.

It’s also appropriate that we acknowledge the loss of life that has transpired as a result of the actions our country has taken. Fortunately, only one American lost their life, but that’s not true for the Iranians. Soleimani’s death sent Iran into an emotional tailspin, and at least 56 people died after being trampled in a stampede at Soleimani’s huge, public, very emotional funeral procession. Additionally, 176 people died after Iran shot down a Ukrainian airliner shortly after it took off from Tehran, presumably by mistake, as a result of the heightened tensions and fear of attack that led them to more aggressively defend their airspace. I’m not saying that any of these deaths are the United States’ fault — they all boil down to Iranian government negligence — but none of those people would be dead if we hadn’t exacerbated this conflict by killing Soleimani. It’s not a great look, and our allies likely aren’t thrilled with us right now, as the plane that crashed was carrying not only Iranian citizens, but also Canadians, Brits, Germans, and Swedes.

We must also ask: are we safer? Trump said that killing Soleimani was an action taken to avoid a war, not start one. Unfortunately, one of the most significant consequences of his action against Iran was that it gave them an excuse to get out of the nuclear deal, and they’re now back to unbounded development of their nuclear program. Do you feel safer?

This whole episode is one that should cause Americans to reflect. We almost sent a bunch of nineteen year olds to war with a country who had done little to provoke such response, and for what? What did we stand to gain? What were we defending ourselves from? The American people and our allies deserve answers to those questions, and the Trump administration owes them to us. Hopefully those answers don’t lie in the lined pockets of America’s defense contractors.

UPDATED: 1/10/20, 20:21

Starbucks' BYO Cup Program: A Tale of Disguised Corporate Waste

Let’s get this out of the way: Starbucks’ coffee usually tastes a bit burnt and is generally not as good as local coffee shops. But, Starbucks is convenient because they have a ton of locations (and drive-thrus), and they’re at least consistent in that each location uses the same ingredients (even if their baristas never put the same amount of them in your cup).

While I have favorite local coffee shops which I prefer to patronize, sometimes it’s just easier to go by Starbucks in the morning. In these cases, I will usually try to remember to bring my own Yeti cup so I can take advantage of their bring-your-own-cup program. Sure, call me a hippy dippy, tree-hugging liberal, but the biggest appeal is that my drink will stay hot for a lot longer. And, you know, if you can save a disposable cup from a landfill, why not? On top of that, Starbucks actually incentivizes customers to use the program, offering a 10¢ discount on your drink. I don’t go to Starbucks nearly enough for that to add up to anything worthwhile, but nonetheless, it’s slightly better than nothing. Combining those three very mild incentives (a tiny discount, feeling good about saving a cup, and having my drink stay hot) is enough to get me to play along.

Participating is a fairly straightforward process: I’ll place my order and let the barista know I’ve brought my own cup, and they proceed to take my cup and then a few minutes later I find it at the end of the bar with my beverage inside it. For the past several months, though, I’ve been noticing an aggravating and confusing trend.

Occasionally I’ll find myself watching as the barista prepares my drink, and lately I’ve been seeing a paper or plastic cup (depending on whether I’ve ordered something hot or cold) accompany my reusable cup as it makes its way down the line of drinks waiting to be prepared. What’s happening is the baristas are preparing my drink in the paper cup (which bears a sticker denoting what I’ve ordered), and then they simply pour the beverage from the paper cup into my reusable one before giving it back to me.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that this completely defeats the purpose of Starbucks offering a reusable cup discount program. From a financial perspective, Starbucks doesn’t save any money this way because they still end up using a paper or plastic cup anyway. From an eco-friendly perspective, there’s no difference here than if they’d just delivered the drink in the disposable cup anyway. While there’s a slight chance they could be recycling the plastic cups, Starbucks’ paper cups (like most paper cups) are lined on the inside to prevent liquid from breaking down the paper, and lined paper products can’t be recycled at all by most cities in the country. Those cups are definitely landfill bound.

CopyrightBro correspondents interviewed multiple Starbucks baristas and store managers in stores across the southeast, and we’ve been able to learn a bit more about this program and how it’s implemented. One Charlotte-area barista, when asked why she initially prepared the drink in the disposable cup, simply respond with “this is just how we were trained.” When our correspondent followed up with “doesn’t using a paper cup sort of defeat the purpose of having a reusable cup program?” she replied, “yeah, it’s a little off.” These sentiments were echoed by other baristas from other areas of the country, indicating that this is a pervasive issue stemming from a corporate directive, rather than a case of one or two rogue employees in charge of training. When asked what the purpose was behind this policy, one Memphis-area barista said “It kind of makes sense with the drive-thru because we don’t get their cup until they get to the window, but for customers in the cafe, it doesn’t make any sense, it is really stupid and wasteful.” When asked if they couldn’t just prepare drive-thru customers’ drinks in reusable containers before transferring them to the personal cups, he replied “yeah, there’s really no reason that wouldn’t work”.

This barista estimated that while roughly 20% of regular customers might bring their own cups, the total percentage would be far lower, likely around 1%. This figure is consistent with Starbucks’ Global Social Impact Report from 2018, which reported that in the preceding year, 1.3% of customers had received the personal cup discount. The report goes on to presume that the program therefore saved 42 million disposable cups, but this figure ignores reality, because we know that not nearly all of those 42 million transactions actually resulted in a saved cup.

Getting more into the numbers, back in 2011, Starbucks was at 1.9% adoption with their personal cup program, and they set a goal of reaching 5% adoption by 2015; clearly, they missed. By a lot. Interestingly, their 2018 report actually amends their goal and uses grandiose language like “double the use of reusable cups”, which sounds great but ignores the fact that personal cup use has actually declined by 32% since 2011. Doubling an adoption rate of 1.3% still only gets you to 2.6%, and doesn’t account for the fact that many of the transactions represented by those figures still waste plenty of cups. They’ve given themselves several years to achieve what they want you to believe is a lofty goal, aiming to achieve this measly 2.6% program adoption by 2022.

If the point of the personal cup discount is to incentivize customers to use the program for the benefit of the environment, then 10¢ is hardly enough to move anyone to action; if the point of the discount is to simply pass the savings from the one saved paper cup onto the customer, that’s nice of them, but kind of pointless if they end up using a paper cup in the process of preparing the drinks anyway. The barista from Memphis also expressed concerns that “the 10¢ discount is pointless”, and that it doesn’t really incentivize anyone to use the program — it’s hard to imagine that he could be wrong — you could find more than ten cents in a Starbucks parking lot at any given moment. If Starbucks wants people to take this program seriously, they need to stop wasting disposable cups, and they need to offer an incentive greater than a dime; a 25¢ discount as a part of a program that a less than two percent of their customers use seems manageable for a company as successful as Starbucks.

CopyrightBro reached out to the Starbucks Global Communications team for more information on why there’s such a defined trend of employees being trained to waste cups, and a Starbucks Spokesperson provided the following comment: “Starbucks baristas are encouraged to craft beverages directly in customers’ reusable cups whenever possible. Building on our long standing commitment to sustainability and an elevated customer experience, we are currently reviewing guidance to our partners about personal cup use as we continue to be mindful of waste.” While this comment shifts blame to the individual baristas, the pattern observed across a large geographic regions is too pronounced to be so easily explained away. The operative phrase from the comment provided seems to be “whenever possible”. This phrase could provide a tremendous amount of leeway to those mid-level corporate employees issuing directives to train employees in a manner contrary to the official guidance while deflecting the responsibility to the individual baristas by retorting that the official guidance is for them to use their own discretion. Otherwise, it’s hard to explain why so many baristas would report having been trained in a manner inconsistent with the comment provided.

The problem here doesn’t seem to be a few poorly trained employees, but rather a culture that focuses more on looking like they want to help the environment, rather than actually putting effort into doing so: it seems like their commitment to protecting the environment is just a P.R. move for Starbucks. Even more embarrassingly for a Fortune 500 company, it’s losing money from a financial standpoint. What kind of lunacy would lead a company to introduce a program that could cut costs on materials and make a positive environmental impact, only to have employees waste the same amount of materials anyway? They’ve effectively disguised a pattern of material and financial waste as a program designed to benefit the environment.

CopyrightBro does not encourage anyone to take advantage of corporate good will, but if you notice that a barista prepares your beverage in a disposable cup and then throws it away after transferring your drink to your personal cup, you can submit a complaint about what happened on Starbuck’s contact page, and they’ll typically credit your Starbucks Card with five or six bucks to get another drink, as well as pass down the feedback to the store your visited. Customers are going to have to hold Starbucks’ feet to the fire on this one: make sure you let them know how you feel next time their employees are unnecessarily wasteful on your behalf.

PSA: It's Time for A Digital Health Checkup

Once or twice a year, it’s important to take a stroll through your settings and make sure nothing is going on that you aren’t aware of. It only takes about ten minutes to conduct what I refer to as a “digital health checkup”, and there are a lot of things that could go awry if your settings aren’t right, so follow along with this handy guide to make sure you’re doing everything you can to protect yourself from things like data loss, security concerns, and privacy issues. While this is an outline for people who have Apple products (I don’t have enough hands on experience with Android devices to offer a comprehensive guide), many of the settings I suggest modifying are found on Android devices as well, they may just be worded slightly differently. Without further ado, open up your settings app and let’s get started.

This guide was made using iOS 13.2.3, so you’ll want to make sure you’re at least on iOS 13.0 for this guide to make the most sense to you.

Apple ID

First things first, tap the big banner with your name on it to check all your Apple ID settings. This is a really important section, because your Apple ID is what makes 90% of the things on your device work to their full potential. Under this page, there are a few things to check.

  • Name, Phone Numbers, Email — Here, you just want to take a quick peek and make sure that it has your correct name and contact info. If it doesn’t, update it.

  • Password & Security — Your Apple ID is one of the most important things I’m going to tell you about. Make sure you know your password, and make sure it’s a strong one. If you aren’t good at remembering passwords, don’t worry. Just come up with a secure one for now, and write it down so you don’t forget. We’ll come back to a better way to store your passwords in a bit.

  • Payment & Shipping — This tab is another quick check; just make sure the saved shipping addresses and payment info are correct.

  • Subscriptions — This is where you can see things that Apple charges you for on a recurring basis and cancel any subscriptions you no longer want. For example, this is where you’ll see in-app purchase subscriptions like Apple Music, as well as your iCloud storage plan.

The next three headings are all organized under the Apple ID section, so get cozy.

iCloud

While you’re still under the Apple ID section, we’ll want to look at your iCloud settings. This is without a doubt the most important page of settings you’ll need to wrangle in.

At the top, it shows a bar with your iCloud storage. iCloud storage is how a lot of data is saved on your phone, and is what enables it to magically stay in sync across your Apple devices. If your iCloud storage is low or you’re out, its extremely important to upgrade your storage plan. This can feel a little nickel and dime-y of Apple, but they’re truly providing a useful service here (besides, your phone probably cost $700+, what’s another $12-$36 per year to keep it running optimally?).

Below the iCloud storage section is a big list of apps with toggle buttons. There are a few that lead to other menus, but we’ll cover those in a minute. The rule of thumb with the toggles is that everything should be turned on. Assuming you don’t share an Apple ID with anyone, go ahead and flip every toggle to the on position; this makes sure that even if you don’t have a backup of your device, that content will still be kept safe, as well as be kept in sync across your devices. The most important ones are obviously going to be contacts, messages, calendars, iCloud Drive, and notes. It’s worth pointing out that if you don’t have an iCloud email address, turning that switch on will prompt you to create one. We’ll talk more about email later, but it’s a good idea to have an iCloud email account, so go ahead and set one up.

  • Photos — Of the few options that lead to menus, Photos is the first. Under this menu, you’ll want to make sure that iCloud Photo Library is turned on. This is what will save your photos if anything happens to your device, and it’s why it’s so important to make sure you haven’t run out of iCloud storage. You’ll also want to select “Optimize iPhone Storage” over “Download and Keep Originals”. This can save you a lot of storage space on your device, and you’ll still be able to see all your photos just like you always could, they just take an extra second to load the full resolution version. It’s worth enabling, especially if you don’t have a lot of extra device storage (local, on-device storage is different from iCloud storage — it’s a hardware component of your phone, and it can’t be upgraded — you can see how much local storage your iPhone or iPad has under General>iPhone Storage).

  • Keychain — This menu just leads to a simple toggle. Turn it on. It may have you go through a short setup process, but this is well worth the minute it takes to do so. We’ll talk more about iCloud Keychain later and how it can remember all your passwords for you.

  • iCloud Backup — As long as you have all the other toggles turned on, having a backup isn’t quite as important as everyone thinks, but still, having a belt and suspenders never hurts. Go ahead and turn iCloud backup on.

Find My

This is where you can control whether you’re sharing your location with your friends, update which device you share your location from, and temporarily (or permanently) disable sharing.

Family Sharing

If you want to be able to share your iTunes and App Store purchases, have a shared calendar and reminders list, all use the same iCloud storage plan, and share your location with your family, you can set up family sharing. This feature has a lot of benefits, but one drawback is that everybody’s iTunes and App Store purchases go through one person’s payment method. For more info on setting up family sharing, go here.

That’s all we need to do under the Apple ID section. All of the remaining settings you’ll want to check are found under the main settings page, so go ahead and head back there.

General

Another quick one. Under the “General” tab, check these few things.

  • About — Make sure your iPhone is named something like “Broc’s iPhone”, rather than the default “iPhone”. This is important so people can recognize which device belongs to you when using features like AirDrop.

  • Software Update — I’ve already mention software updates once, but they’re very important. If you have a pending software update, do it. Also, make sure you’ve enabled automatic updates so you don’t have to start them manually in the future; your device will take care of it for you in the middle of the night when new updates become available.

  • VPN, Profiles — Scroll down to the bottom of the “General” tab, and if you see a button that says “VPN” or “Profiles”, tap on it. If you don’t recognize the profile or VPN that’s been installed, remove it immediately. Scammers will sometimes try to talk people into installing these because they can provide dangerous access to everything you’re doing on your phone. If you don’t see either of these tabs at all, that just means you don’t have any to worry about.

Face ID & Passcode, Touch ID & Passcode

Make sure you’ve set up a strong passcode and are using Face ID or Touch ID. Biometric data, including your facial recognition and fingerprint scans, are ONLY stored on your device in a Secure Enclave. They’re never shared with Apple, never sent to iCloud, and never shared with your apps. They make your device much safer from theft and unauthorized access, and the features are so fast and work so well that you hardly notice they’re there.

Emergency SOS

This is a relatively new, potentially lifesaving feature that allows your phone to come to the rescue if you’re in danger. It provides a fast way to call emergency services, as well as share your location and send an SOS message to designated emergency contacts when the feature is used. Just make sure you’ve taken a minute to designate those contacts and know how to engage the feature if you ever need help. It’s easy to set up, but if you need some guidance, here ya go.

Privacy

This is the section that will take the most time, but it’s because it’s one of the most critical. For each of the sections below, when you tap on that menu, you’ll be presented with the list of your current apps that have requested access to that particular hardware element or type of data. After adjusting these settings, you’ll be more aware when apps send those white pop up boxes asking for access to your location or camera, and be able to make more informed decisions about whether to allow that access or not.

  • Location Services — First, you want to be using location services, but you want to be smart about it. Scroll through the apps that have requested access to your location, and decide which ones truly need that access to function. Apps can offer up to four location access options: never, ask next time, while using the app, and always. There are almost NO apps that need always on access to your location, and you should automatically be suspicious of any that request it. This comes down to your individual judgement, but almost all of my apps are set to “never”, while some are on “ask next time”. A handful of min are allowed access “while using the app”, but almost none are given “always” enabled access.

  • Contacts — Apps like Facebook will ask for access to your contacts so they can create networks of everyone you know. This is obviously bad, so you should almost always turn off access to your contacts for every app.

  • Photos — A lot of apps will abuse having permsission to your whole photo library. If they don’t need it, cut off their access.

  • Bluetooth — If you don’t know why an app needs bluetooth, turn it off. Bluetooth can be used to track your location even if you’ve already denied that same app access to your location.

  • Microphone — There are a lot of apps that ask for microphone permission, but very few actually need it to work properly. Scroll through this list and turn off everything that doesn’t have an obvious need to hear what’s happening around you when you use that app.

  • Camera — Same deal here: a lot of apps abuse camera privileges (Facebook just got caught doing so). If an app doesn’t absolutely NEED access to your camera to work properly, turn it off.

  • Advertising — Under this menu, make sure you turn on “Limit Ad Tracking”. This is a feature that Apple built to throw invasive advertisers off your trail, and make it harder for companies to spy on you and track your activity across apps. There’s no downside to enabling it, but there’s a huge upside.

Wallet & Apple Pay

I would encourage everyone to set up and use Apple Pay in stores, online, and in apps. It’s much safer than using a normal card because it requires authentication before allowing payments to be processed, and it doesn’t give merchants your real name or card number, so you would be totally protected from breaches like the one that affected millions of Target customers a few years ago. Plus, Apple Pay is a lot more convenient and the transactions process about four times faster than waiting on your chip card to sit in the payment terminal.

Passwords & Accounts

This is that bit I was promising about making it easier to keep up with your passwords. Since you’ve already turned on iCloud Keychain, this is where it becomes useful. Under the “Passwords & Accounts” menu, you can tap “Website & App Passwords” to view all the passwords you’ve saved to your iCloud Keychain.

  • Autofill Passwords — Make sure this is enabled, and your device will automatically fill in your sign in information on apps and websites where you’ve told it to remember your login info. You’ll never have to memorize another password, besides your Apple ID password, which is the master password that protects all of the ones in your keychain (so again, make sure it’s very secure!).

Mail

I personally use a few different email services, but I use iCloud as my main account. It’s a lot safer and more private than services like Gmail or Yahoo!: those companies read through your emails and use the content to send you targeted ads, whereas Apple will never read or share the contents of your inbox. You don’t have to switch all at once, but it’s a good idea to get away from companies like that. In any case, there is one specific setting to adjust no matter which accounts you use.

  • Load Remote Images Ensure this setting is disabled. Having it turned on can allow people and companies who send you emails to know when, where, and how many times you opened their messages using a deceitful technology called “surveillance pixels”. If a sender sends you an email that includes images you DO want to load, you can enable them with one tap for that specific email, rather than having it on by default.

And thats it, your Digital Health Checkup is complete! This may have been more than ten minutes of adjustments for some folks if your device was particularly messy, but for most it’s a quick process of fine tuning that can make your device a lot safer, help it run better, and provide you with some useful features you may not have been taking advantage of. As a former Apple employee, I feel qualified to say that this is a comprehensive overview of the most important and sensitive settings your device has. If you’ve followed along with this guide, you can feel confident that you’re doing everything you can to protect yourself and your data. Should you have questions or run into any issues adjusting your settings, feel free to reach out!

Masculinity and Militarism

I’ve said this before, but American men need to take a moment for some introspective analysis. For many American men, masculinity has become increasingly militarized in recent years, and that can be extremely dangerous. Let me start by clarifying that I’m not here to pedal the belief that masculinity is inherently toxic — though it can become perverse when left unchecked, such as in cases where men feel like violence is a useful way to assert their manliness; we all know that guy who brags about how many fights he’s been in — I think masculinity generally serves a useful purpose in how our society organizes itself and how individuals understand themselves, and allows for a certain level of cultural stability. Plus, it has had undeniable evolutionary benefits.

A common, positive aspect of masculinity is the man’s role as a protector, but that can be taken to an extreme, and I believe that’s what’s happening in cases where civilian men voluntarily adopt an arbitrarily militarized persona. Many men have bought into a sheepdog mentality where their masculinity is related to their ability or duty to defending others. The trouble comes in when these men don’t acknowledge just how boring everyday life is for most people in America. Rather than working to defend others from common, tangible threats, they spend their time obsessing over what they would do in various, wildly improbable scenarios to protect people (but importantly, only those whom they deem as worthy of their protection) from imagined threats of impending violence/warfare on American soil; it’s a self-aggrandizing exercise that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when they prematurely escalate situations, consciously or otherwise, to live out their grizzly, heroic fantasies (often in situations where violence could’ve been avoided entirely).*

These men aren’t difficult to spot. They have American flags, rebel flags, and “don’t tread on me” flags everywhere. They have camouflage on everything, and they typically drive obnoxiously large and boisterous vehicles. They’re probably ashamed of their attractions to men, their small wieners, or both. They have preoccupations with excessively deadly firearms and other weapons of war (I’m not talking about your uncle who hunts, I’m talking about that nut at the pawn shop who has a closet full of illegally obtained automatic weapons and hand grenades). Additionally, they may well be police officers or first responders. Whether they occupy one of those roles or not, they’re all but guaranteed to harbor an obsessive degree of respect for police officers (and armed service members), as well as fire and EMS workers, to a lesser extent.

One only has to look to Nazi Germany to see how a militarized idea of masculinity can lead to widespread violence. The notion of defending one’s country can easily be mistaken as being congruent with xenophobia: defending your country does not equate to opposition to anyone who is foreign or different. On the other hand, we can look to Boy Scouting as an example of a program that uplifts masculinity while toeing the line between instilling a deep respect for our country that actually leads many young men to service, without resorting to the dangerous notion that masculinity can ONLY be achieved through service (which many who haven’t served interpret as a call to nationalist aggression).

American men who have been ensnared by that perverse misrepresentation of masculinity need to realize that while defending loved ones is a desirable masculine quality, it is foolhardy to preoccupy ourselves with preparation for a war that will likely never come, especially while plenty of real threats exist which we could direct our energy toward neutralizing, from public health issues like vaping and obesity, to privacy issues like Facebook and others companies profiting from unethically collected data, to societal issues like intolerance and the lack of credible media sources. While we focus our attention on reinforcing our masculinity through displays of aggression and militarization, we allow the real threats that endanger our loved ones to flourish.

*Graeme Wood made this point first.

UPDATED: 08/29/20, 14:34

Facebook Is Trying To Pick A Side. Don't Let Them.

Facebook has long been a bit vague when it comes to laying out their political leanings. That seems to be coming to a calculated end.

This excellent piece from Popular Information illustrates a case where Facebook is breaking their own rules, seemingly, for political reasons. In this instance, they’re refusing to enforce a rule that bans networks of political “news” pages that work together but don’t acknowledge that they’re affiliated. It seems that most who’ve read this piece are, understandably, perceiving it as a threat because of the massive power Facebook demonstrably holds over the American electorate, which is a valid concern. However, I don’t believe that Facebook’s decision to allow one very successful, very political network of allegedly unaffiliated pages to continue operating was made for the sake of promoting a political agenda; no, this is an exercise in self preservation.

Facebook’s malfeasance is one rare topic upon which liberals and conservatives generally agree. There have been many calls for Facebook to be more heavily regulated from Republican and Democratic legislators alike, however I believe that the Democrats have slightly outpaced Republicans in calling for Facebook to be dealt with, despite the fact that the notion of privacy as a civil liberty seems to fall slightly more in line with traditional conservatism. This trend can likely be attributed to the fact that Democrats and their elected officials tend to be a bit younger than Republicans, and thus more in tune to issues of this nature.

Given the extreme political division our country is experiencing (which Facebook has cultivated for monetary gain), the fact that their deservingness of punishment is one topic most people can agree upon puts Facebook in a very dangerous position, not to mention the fact that the drum beat is growing ever louder, and more and more people are tugging at the curtain.

One solution to that looming threat? Take a side, and further capitalize upon the division you’ve sewn by allowing that side to defend you to the death. Give one side or the other a couple free passes, have a few chats with the right folks, and then step back while that side begins to see you as one of their own, and then you’re good to go. It honestly doesn’t matter which side Facebook takes, because taking either side would all but ensure that party's loyalty, not only because they don’t want to upset Facebook and have their reach limited, but because both parties are so committed to doing the opposite of what the other party wants.

Now, in this case, Facebook seems to have chosen to ally themselves with the Republicans, but again, which side they pick doesn’t really make a difference. In defense of the Republicans, Facebook just as easily could’ve jumped on the left-bound bandwagon — a few public statements in support of people with confusing genders and a few removed Trump ads, and they’d have them in their pocket, too. I believe this choice was made out of convenience; as mentioned above, slightly fewer conservative law makers have gone after Facebook.

If you’re a Republican, this should offend your sensibilities. As stated previously, privacy is a civil liberty that has long been a value of traditional conservatives, and Facebook is the biggest threat to personal privacy our country has ever seen. True conservatives should be outraged that Facebook is even trying to get in bed with them, and that their purported reason for doing so is their mutual support of free speech — what Facebook is trying to paint as free speech (political advertisements that include false statements of fact), isn’t. It’s paid speech, it’s false advertising, and it’s speech that presents a clear and present danger — it’s NOT protected by the First Amendment. In any case, free speech is a patently American value, not a partisan one.

Facebook worked hard for a long time to avoid taking a side, and we should enforce that hard earned neutrality by refusing to allow the public perception of Facebook to shift. They do not deserve to be seen as a company guided by any sort of moral compass or political agenda, because in reality, their chief motivators are, and have always been, financial.

TL,DR: Facebook is picking a political side so that their own regulation will become a partisan issue, and therefore never actually gain enough traction for any meaningful legislation to pass.

#deletefacebook

Google's Filter Bubbles

This research done by DuckDuckGo’s SpreadPrivacy.com does a great job of illustrating why you can’t trust Google Search. It’s rather dense, but polls suggest that online privacy is becoming a mainstream issue, so it’s well worth the time it will take you to read it.

Basically, they had a bunch of participants search for the exact same search terms on Google, and then they analyzed the results. In each case, participants were given different results in different orders based on the personal information Google had collected about them and used to predict which search results might interest them the most, effectively putting each user in their own filtered bubble, regardless of whether they had been using private browsing mode. They do this because the more links a user clicks, the more money they make from advertising. And because they’re shady.

Why is that a bad thing, you ask? Well, if Google knows enough about you to predict which links you’re most likely to click on when you search for a given term, they know enough about you to do some serious damage. Imagine the case of a Google user with strong political beliefs; in a very short amount of time, Google could learn enough about that user to show them results that are most likely to appeal to their beliefs, and they will do so, even if it means promoting results that aren’t factually correct, hiding results that may challenge their beliefs, or taking that user down a habit hole that pushes their opinions further to the edge of the political spectrum. Personalized search results yield huge confirmation bias issues and result in case by case censorship.

I can’t stress enough that everyone should stop using Google as their default search engine; DuckDuckGo is a great alternative that yields accurate search results, and is available to be set as your default search engine on Apple devices.

The Boomer Meme President

From an opinion piece by Molly Roberts for The Washington Post:

There’s something known to those who grew up online as a “cursed boomer meme.” These memes are cursed because they are, basically, bad: occasionally indecipherable and almost never achieving the effect they intend. They’re boomer memes because they come from that crowd-of-a-certain-age that seems to have stumbled onto the Internet and now keeps bumping into things.

Many of these memes are variations on formats popular among millennials, but warped to the edges of recognition by some soon-to-be grandfather who has recently discovered the wonders of Photoshop […]

Some are originals, borrowing only the conventions of meme-making — macros with the white “Impact” font, say, or excessive collaging — to build something bafflingly new. Most of all, they’re deadly earnest, which is sort of the opposite of what memes are supposed to be.

It’s not that the president loves memes, though he does. It’s that he loves these cursed memes in particular. Because as much as Trump is the Nickelback president, or the post-truth president, or the reality TV president, or the 140-character president, he is, above all, the cursed boomer president.

Roberts makes a terrific point here. I think this will ultimately be one of the best ways to describe Donald Trump — the president who was woefully out of touch, not only with his constituents, but with the rapidly changing world he was surprised to find himself “leading.” In most of his actions, but especially in what he does online, Trump really is like an old person who just doesn’t quite get it.

The thing about many people who are around Donald Trump’s age (and a lot of early Gen Xers, too) is that they really don’t seem to understand the nuance of what’s happening in the world around them. Nevertheless, you can bet your balls that they intend to be just as loud and as adamant as they’ve ever been, if not more so, for the sake of exuding a false bravado to mask their perpetual confusion.