Things I don’t tell Mom

There was a time, long ago before my eyes starting going bad and when foolishness was that bit of mischief all of us get into whether someone is there to see it or not, and that our parents secretly laugh about because it was the same stuff they did.

I was Bat Masterson, Billy the Kid or Wyatt Earp with my bb-gun. No, I didn’t have a Red Rider, I had a Crossman! And, I was a wiz, the terror of chipmunks everywhere. And, of course, me and my friend Benny had bb-gun fights, but we had a rule: no shooting in the face.

Some of you who have read my past writings are not surprised by this, but some of you may for the first time realize that yes, the boy is that dumb. And you have also recognized that this is, yes, another post on the demise of Charlie Kirk by someone who mistakenly believed a gun would solve his problems.

As I grew older I advanced my gun ownership advanced to a Marlin 22, then later to an older 30-06. I liked guns – until one day I realized that gun could solve all my problems, all my days of hatred, loneliness, my want to be different than what I was. One simple pull of one simple finger…

Dad talks of a time when he was in school and was part of an after-school gun club. He would get on the school bus with his gun and take it to school for his after hours activities. I remember when I took my hunter safety courses as a kid. Guns then were a tool; it was how we went hunting, sport targets, and in extreme moments perhaps, personal safety. Somehow they have gone beyond this. Now there are magazines by the truck-load telling us how we need a personal protection weapon as they peddle fear. Our politicians aren’t talking about how we need to deal with the issues that people think they need a gun to help them, but how they have the right to guns and how great and cool guns are.

I guess I’m a horrible person, because I just couldn’t really care less that Kirk is gone. He wasn’t an innocent by any stretch of the word. He advocated hate, he advocated second-class citizenry for those he didn’t like, he advocated for the right of the government to limit the rights of others that he didn’t like, and he even advocated for the loss of life so the importance of keeping his gun rights could be underscored. He advocated for the very scenerio that took his life, in a crushing bit of sad irony.

Who I do care about are those small children in that Catholic School who were shot while praying. No one flew them home on Air Force 2. I didn’t see Cenk Uygur crying for them! I didn’t the sitting republican party politicians calling out in outrage. I didn’t see fucking drumpf demanding retribution for the victims of the Colorado High School that happened that very same day! Somehow seeing one of their own shot was a bridge too far and little innocent children was not. And now, seeing that the shooter was a cis white male maga son of a cop, there went their favorite scape-goat that he was a plant of the Democrats.

But, evidently the nra checks cleared because I’m not seeing any hopeful measures to limit guns to ANYONE! Oh, let me take that back – drumpf wants to limit guns to the Trans community. Haven’t heard from the nra about the atrocity of such a statement yet…?

I once asked myself just what it would take before our children and young people became more important than our guns. I wondered what would it finally be to get people to demand that there be no more. Then I realized that the fear, the anger, the hatred that has been generated has just made us all tense and numb to it all; we are forlorn to the realization that it will never change because those in power are all too willing to sacrifice everything we care deeply about and even one of their corrupt mouthpieces to the money and power that death brings them.

“There is not peace in many of our cities because there is not freedom.” – Pres. John F. Kennedy

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistoryseptember.htm#september10

Friday Fun

Some humor shorts for the weekend. Enjoy! 1 or 2 Blue words in the 2nd video. They are remarkably topical for being a week and a half old!

Let’s talk about more Democratic generational shifts….

Corporate Democrats: Who Are They?

https://www.americandemocracywatch.com/post/corporate-democrats-who-are-they

From left: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, photos by Gage Skidmore, Sen. Joe Manchin, photo by Benedikt von Loebell | CC

According to End the Bribe System, “A ‘corporate democrat’ is a term used to describe a politician or political candidate who is associated with the Democratic Party in the United States and who is perceived to be more aligned with corporate interests than with progressive or left-leaning values.” The term is generally used by individuals critical of those politicians, who they believe prioritize the interests of corporations over their ordinary constituents.

These politicians are generally seen in the mainstream media as more moderate or centrist, and they are more likely to support policies that are beneficial to corporations, such as deregulation and tax cuts. Some corporate Democrats also call themselves “New Democrats.”

They also receive campaign contributions from large corporations and wealthy donors, which creates the perception that they are beholden to their donors rather than their constituents.

The term “corporate democrat” tends to be used by those on the left of the political spectrum who are critical of the influence of corporate money in politics and who support more progressive policies. They might view these politicians as too willing to compromise on important issues, or as not doing enough to address issues such as income inequality, climate change, or access to healthcare.

Although this term can be used in a derogatory manner, not all politicians within the Democratic Party who receive corporate donations are necessarily “corporate Democrats.”

There are different definitions of what a “corporate Democrat” is depending on who you ask. Some argue that a corporate Democrat is any politician who supports corporations, but that is not the best definition. End the Bribe System defines corporate Democrats as “…any Democratic Politician who accepts money from rich donors for favors (but claims it doesn’t influence them).”

Although corporate Democrats may support some policies their constituents want, when they have to make a decision, they will do what their wealthy donors prefer.

Most Republicans today can be considered “corporate Republicans,” given the majority of them accept corporate PAC money, and their policies almost always favor the desires of corporations, rather than their constituents.

Although the common wisdom is that Republicans raise more corporate political donations than Democrats, the actual difference is less dramatic when it comes to PACs. In 2022, Republicans received 55% of their contributions from corporate PACs and business-related associations while Democrats received 45%.

According to the Othering & Belonging Institute, Corporate Democrats have employed a narrative of pragmatism in the face of increasing political polarization. They see themselves as the brokers between Republicans and progressive Democrats. They also claim not to tow party lines and to only vote with their constituents’ interests.

Corporate Democrats see themselves as bipartisan and willing to compromise with Republicans to enact legislation in a time of partisan gridlock.

Examples of corporate Democrats on the state level include California Assembly members Rudy Salas, Adam Gray, and Jim Cooper, who describe themselves as fiscally conservative, “middle of the road”, and voices for the “silent majority,” as in the middle and working-class people who are not represented by the liberal coastal elite.

On the federal level, some examples of centrist or corporate Democrats include Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Senator Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona was also a notorious corporate Democrat until she recently became an independent.

Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders even attacked Senator Kyrsten Sinema in 2022, calling her a “corporate Democrat” who “sabotaged” party priorities following her announcement that she was becoming an Independent.

Sanders said Sinema did not have the guts to take on special interest groups while attacking Sinema’s voting record.

“She is a corporate Democrat who has, in fact, along with Sen. [Joe] Manchin [D-W.Va.] sabotaged enormously important legislation,” Sanders said.

According to the Othering & Belonging Institute, Corporate Democrats say increasing government regulations on corporations negatively impacts job prospects for their middle-class and low-income constituents.

Despite the fact that some of them use anti-elite, populist rhetoric, corporate Democrats consistently vote in direct opposition to the well-being of their working-class constituents. Many progressives even argue that corporate Democrats’ failure to deliver for the working class for decades led to Trump getting elected president.

There is also some empirical evidence of the existence of corporate Democrats. According to a Princeton University study in 2014, there is no correlation between what the average American wants policy-wise and what is adopted. But there is a high correlation between what special interest groups and rich Americans prefer, and what policies are adopted.

Some political scientists argue that the study, along with others, provides enough evidence to conclude that the United States is not really even a representative democracy, Rather, it would be more accurately described as an oligarchy with democratic features.

Some Democrats have decided the only way to combat this issue of money in politics is to pledge not to accept any corporate PAC money. In 2022, more than 70 members, almost all Democrats, said they would not accept such contributions.

“Refusing corporate PAC money is one way to show a commitment to addressing the problem of money in politics, and its popularity helps keep the issue at the top of the agenda,” said Adam Bozzi, vice president for communications at End Citizens United, a group aligned with Democrats that tracks which members pledge to decline donations from corporate PACs.

“We expect the trend to continue to grow, and it will help us work toward progress on anti-corruption legislation, like ending dark money,” Bozzi said, using a term for committees that spend money to influence elections or policy but do not disclose their donors.

It is unclear if there will be any real widespread change though anytime soon, given major campaign finance reform or legislative changes have not even been proposed or voted on.

What We Can Do, And What We Can Help Our Leaders Do-

Linked on TenBears’s blog.

A key point: Josh Marshall has been writing about how to leverage the separate sovereignty of the states against Trump. “Strategic depth,” he calls it, from military studies:

Understanding the critical role of the sovereign powers of the states as a redoubt beyond the reach of Trump’s increasingly autocratic power is really the entire game right now, at least for the next 18 months and, in various measures, almost certainly through the beginning of 2029. People can march, advocate, campaign, donate to candidates, all the stuff. But in many ways the most important thing right now is both communicating to and demanding of state officials that they act on this latent power.

There are key areas where Democrats in Congress may have moments of power, the ability to slow a few things down. But to a great degree, the battle is already lost within the federal government until the next election. It’s only in the states where opponents of Donald Trump hold executive power outside the reach of and the hierarchies of the federal government. That’s where the whole game is. It is strategic depth not in extent or remoteness of territory but in the structure of government and the state. And states have vast amounts of power, far more than we tend to realize because we’ve never been in a position where the mundane daily activities of state and local government have become so critical — its taxing powers, its policing powers, the ways in which the federal government actually struggles to effectively extend its powers to the local level at scale without the active participation of local government.

======================================

As Real As It Gets

Published by Tom Sullivan on August 25, 2025

Something Jason Sattler wrote yesterday needs repeating this morning:

Everything we do makes it easier for our neighbors to stand up or sit down for this regime. We all know there’s a crisis coming that will force all who pay attention to make a choice that could define the rest of their lives.

Will people do it? In most cases, it depends on what they see us doing next.

SEE us doing. That’s the key.

How the less-engaged make up their minds about political matters, Anand Giridharadas observed (based on Anat’s work), is more akin to how they decide to buy pants: What’s everyone else wearing this year? What are normal people like me doing? Not in one-and-done big rallies but every day. Your resistance must be visible and persistent for that to work and give the less engaged permission to join the resistance movement. Calling your senator five days a week is fine, but which of your neighbors sees that?

Plus, if you want people to join your party, throw a better party. We’re out in the streets multiple times a week now. I bring dance music.

A friend pointed to this TikTok by someone going by @logicnliberty. She advocates a unified front by blue-state governors with trifectas. It’s not that they are not already unified, coordinating, and suing. They are. Govs. Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker, Kathy Hochul are speaking out and holding press conferences. (State AGs too.) But not necessarily as a team. Are they leveraging their trifectas proactively to erect firewalls in their states against Trump’s gutting of the Constitution? They should.

(snip-TikTok video embedded on the page)

Would the press cover it if they did? We are already in the slow civil war Jeff Sharlet described. The blue and the gray meets the blue and the red. Run with it. The press loves controversy. Generate more, blue state governors.

Josh Marshall has been writing about how to leverage the separate sovereignty of the states against Trump. “Strategic depth,” he calls it, from military studies:

There are key areas where Democrats in Congress may have moments of power, the ability to slow a few things down. But to a great degree, the battle is already lost within the federal government until the next election. It’s only in the states where opponents of Donald Trump hold executive power outside the reach of and the hierarchies of the federal government. That’s where the whole game is. It is strategic depth not in extent or remoteness of territory but in the structure of government and the state. And states have vast amounts of power, far more than we tend to realize because we’ve never been in a position where the mundane daily activities of state and local government have become so critical — its taxing powers, its policing powers, the ways in which the federal government actually struggles to effectively extend its powers to the local level at scale without the active participation of local government.

Understanding the critical role of the sovereign powers of the states as a redoubt beyond the reach of Trump’s increasingly autocratic power is really the entire game right now, at least for the next 18 months and, in various measures, almost certainly through the beginning of 2029. People can march, advocate, campaign, donate to candidates, all the stuff. But in many ways the most important thing right now is both communicating to and demanding of state officials that they act on this latent power.

And those actions must be not only public, but in-your-face public. Their actions and yours.

Update: Read it. It’s where your neighbors are.

The human heart hangs on to hope until there’s no other choice. People will not fight back in the ways that will work, until they realize there is no other choice, until the only other choice is their own imprisonment or death, or that of someone they love. For many of us, that moment is already here. But for most of us, it’s not.

* * * * *

Have you fought dicktatorship today?

50501 – Labor Day events
May Day Strong Labor Day Events
No King’s One Million Rising movement
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink – Search on Labor Day events near you
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense

First Enslaved Africans Arrive in VA, & The Equal Opportunity Act Is Signed, In Peace & Justice History for 8/20

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistoryaugust.htm#august20

Reblog From Annieasksyou

Please Watch This Urgent Conversation Between the Historian and the Governor!

Snippet:

“You can make the argument that you are supporting these institutions, not undercutting them...

Newsom observed that “Donald Trump will represent this nation on our 250th anniversary, and he’s up to this?”

Richardson’s response was “We’re going to represent the nation. The most important office is that of citizen. ‘We the people’ is foundational.”

Newsom quickly seized that assessment. “You’re reminding Americans they do have agency,” he said. “It’s not what happens to us; it’s how we respond to what happens to us. He [Trump] can’t take it away from us if we don’t allow it.”

Wait-Don’t Boycott Costco!

It’s important to remember things, and to keep “issues” in context. Also, who have we asked for the Epstein files today? 😂

No, Rightwing Sh*tbirds Didn’t Pressure Costco Out Of Selling Abortion Pill by Rebecca Schoenkopf

Let’s not give a bunch of hate groups a win they didn’t earn. Read on Substack

With the neverending firehose of incredibly disappointing information, it’s easy to assume that everything is garbage and everything sucks all of the time. Yesterday, I yelled “Well, fuck Costco!” after reading a Reuters article titled “Costco to stop selling abortion pill mifepristone at its US pharmacy stores” — because that’s some bullshit, right?

Well, it was, just not in the way you might immediately assume. Costco never actually sold mifepristone, so they couldn’t “stop” selling something they never sold to begin with.

Stories later in the day did get it right (our link is to the archived very wrong version!). Costco had apparently been deliberating on whether or not to sell abortion medication at their pharmacies (it requires a certification to be able to carry it), and decided against.

Reuters and several other sources noted that the move came after “pressure” from anti-abortion groups, as well as Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, which even went so far as to issue an utterly insipid victory statement.

“We applaud Costco for doing the right thing by its shareholders and resisting activist calls to sell abortion drugs. Retailers like Costco keep their doors open by selling a lifetime of purchases to families, both large and small. They have nothing to gain and much to lose by becoming abortion dispensaries. Retail pharmacies exist to serve the health and wellness of their customers, but abortion drugs like mifepristone undermine that mission by putting women’s health at risk,” said Michael Ross, the group’s legal counsel.

For the record, mifepristone has an extremely low rate — 1 percent — of complications. It is more safe than Viagra or even Tylenol. Abortion is not the only use for the drug, either. It is also used to help safely expel a miscarriage so that one does not become septic (and perhaps require penicillin … yet another drug that is less safe than mifepristone). Groups like the ADF think that if they just keep confidently repeating blatant lies about abortion medication like they are universally accepted as true, that everyone will just go along with them. Just like maybe they’ll believe that the ADF and other groups are so influential that they actually did successfully push Costco to refuse to sell mifepristone.

But there is no reason to believe, without evidence, that Costco’s decision actually had anything to do with “bending the knee” to them or any other insane religious organizations dedicated to making life hell for women, LGBTQ+ people, and anyone who doesn’t share their religious beliefs.

Why? Because the company has no history of doing that, at all, for any reason. In fact, the company has notably refused to “bend the knee” to Republican Attorneys General and whiny conservatives across the land who have been demanding they ditch their DEI policies.

“If these are the policies you see as offensive, I must tell you I am not prepared to change,” CEO Richard Vachris wrote to a “concerned” customer who emailed him, upset about the company’s DEI policies and demanding to know if the company was hiring people based on “skin color” or “gender identification.”

“Attacks on DEI aren’t just bad for business — they hurt our economy. A diverse workforce drives innovation, expands markets, and fuels growth,” Costco board member Jeff Raikes wrote on social media.

Why would a company willing to risk the ire of these groups in that way suddenly decide to capitulate to them in another?

While it’s certainly disappointing that they didn’t change their policy of not selling mife, and those of us with Costco memberships should let them know that, the company has not said that this decision had anything at all to do with wanting to put a smile on the faces of the bigots at the ADF.

Rather, they said they didn’t think there was a demand for it.

“Our position at this time not to sell mifepristone, which has not changed, is based on the lack of demand from our members and other patients, who we understand generally have the drug dispensed by their medical providers,” Costco said in a statement. It’s not what we want to hear, obviously, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they did this because of pressure from the Right.

It’s also worth noting that Costco is known to treat their workers well, paying them, on average $31 an hour with good benefits — quite a bit higher than many of their competitors.

They also have a strong history of not being shitty in this way.

It would be a mistake to roll over on one of the few companies out there that isn’t completely evil. In addition, we shouldn’t hand groups like ADF an unearned “win,” which they have made clear they want to use to pressure other companies — including CVS and Walgreens, which are certified to dispense mifepristone — to stop selling abortion medication, as well as to make the rest of us feel that they are winning the culture war.

It’s like when the One Million Moms (one mom) take credit for getting TV shows canceled or commercials pulled off the air when those decisions actually had nothing to do with them at all. Claiming victory, for these groups, is a way for them to rally their base and to make other companies think they have more influence than they actually do.

The majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal, and they’ve demonstrated this by voting in favor of keeping it legal in their states at practically every turn (not in Florida, because Florida requires 60 percent of the population to approve a ballot measure, which is some bullshit).

If Costco thinks there isn’t enough demand for mifepristone (which, yes, is a weird thing to say because it’s not like a medication anyone gets on a regular basis), then we should convince them that there is, by encouraging them to change their mind and get the certification necessary to sell abortion medication. You can go directly to their website and click the “Feedback” tag on the right side of your screen, call them at 1-800-774-2678, or send them a letter at Costco Wholesale, P.O. Box 34331, Seattle, WA 98124.

Samuel L. Jackson!

Snagged it from Jeff Tiedrich’s Substack.

Snippet: here are your heroes of the day: the Swedish state-owned energy company Vattenfall, who hired Samuel L. Jackson to star in a commercial entitled “Motherfucking Wind Farms.”

enjoy.