Some western observers don’t quite understand why General Igor Kirillov was a legitimate military target (see: what is a “general”?) or understand that lying war criminals are actually bad. Kirillov was behind the dumb propaganda that there were US/Ukrainian biolabs about to threaten the RU/UKR border. I always thought this was a little bit of a backhand at the US for claiming mobile biolabs in Iraq before 2003. But it is totally not the case and never was. And the fuckers who play games with the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant have no business talking up Ukrainian “dirty” nuclear bomb threats anyway.
Which brings me to Elon Musk, incoming US president in fact if not in name, who is goofing with a government shutdown even before his old-age addled proxy is sworn in, threatening the GOP Speaker (presumptive) of the next Congress and also lying his dumb goofy pale face off. He says this on his dumb loss-leader propaganda site:
Remember me just recently pointing out Liz Churchill to you? Well, this is her, boosting hypnotically cult-like speaking pro RU and pro-Assad Trump DNI hopeful Tulsi Gabbard: (snip-embedded tweet on the page, also see some ‘shtuff’ from this blog’s nemesis, Libs Of TikTok)
December 19, 1940 Civilian Public Service (CPS) camps were established for conscientious objectors following the institution of the first peacetime draft (a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor). It was the first time members of peace-oriented religious groups (e.g., Quakers, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren) could legally avoid military conscription. Fire fighting. CPS 30, Walhalla, Michigan (Brethren) Though they worked nine-hour days except Sundays, they had to pay their own room-and-board, and were not released from the camps until 1947. Civilian Public Service (Aside from the above working conditions, they were not paid at all, so nothing to send home, either. This link is a good read for info.)
December 19, 1962 Juan Bosch Gaviño Juan Bosch Gaviño was elected President of the Dominican Republic in its first free elections in 38 years. The election of journalist and writer Bosch followed shortly after the end of 31 years of military dictator Rafael Trujillo who had been assassinated the previous year. Bosch was overthrown by a U.S.-backed coup just seven months later. Bosch’s brief political career
December 19, 2010 Police in a provincial city in Tunisia used tear gas late on Saturday to disperse hundreds of youths who smashed shop windows and damaged cars, witnesses told Reuters. The beginning of Arab Spring. Read more (Reuters)
Since 2020, Democracy Docket has extensively covered and tracked important litigation related to voting rights, elections and redistricting and now has a database of over 660 cases. As in previous years, we are providing a comprehensive year-end report on all the democracy-related cases filed and decided in 2023 that directly impacted voters.
Considering it was not a federal election year, 2023 was quite busy for democracy in the courts. While there were not as many new lawsuits filed this past year relative to 2022, there was a notable influx of consequential outcomes stemming from democracy-related cases that directly impacted voters.
Between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2023, we tracked:
73 new democracy-related lawsuits filed across 31 states.
146 court orders that impacted voters across 34 states.
83 victories for voters across 26 states.
The statistics in this report are based on the lawsuits in our case database as of Dec. 31, 2023. For the purposes of this report, we excluded the 57 active redistricting lawsuits and the small number of criminal cases we are tracking.
Throughout 2023, we tracked 73 new democracy-related lawsuits across 31 states.
Despite not being a federal election year, 2023 nevertheless saw over 70 democracy-related lawsuits spanning dozens of states. By comparison, in 2021 — another off-cycle year — Democracy Docket tracked 57 new democracy-related lawsuits across 18 states.
As expected, the number of new lawsuits filed in 2023 was lower than the 175 new democracy-related lawsuits filed in 2022 both before and after the midterm elections. In anticipation of the upcoming 2024 presidential election, we expect the number of new lawsuits to once again drastically increase this year.
In 2023, we tracked more pro-voting than anti-voting lawsuits and saw a nearly even split amongst lawsuits filed in federal and state courts. Lawsuits that centered around election administration — especially relating to direct democracy and the ballot initiative process — were most prominent among democracy-related litigation filed this past year. We observed how Republicans are doubling down on their anti-voting efforts in court, with GOP litigants bringing 68% of anti-voting lawsuits in 2023. Meanwhile, lawsuits filed by nonpartisan organizations — such as the NAACP or League of Women Voters — accounted for the vast majority of pro-voting litigation.
Below, we break down our comprehensive database of lawsuits that were filed in 2023 and provide analysis of the broader trends that characterized the past year’s litigation landscape.
Unlike in 2022, there were more pro-voting than anti-voting lawsuits filed in 2023.
Democracy Docket categorized the 73 new lawsuits filed in 2023 as either “pro-voting” or “anti-voting.” In total, we tracked 51 pro-voting lawsuits and 22 anti-voting lawsuits filed in 2023.
While this past year’s breakdown is a departure from the trend we saw in 2022 — in which there were more anti-voting lawsuits (93) than pro-voting lawsuits (82) — it is more in line with what we saw in 2021, when there were 49 pro-voting lawsuits and 8 anti-voting lawsuits.
Between 2022 and 2023, we noticed a distinct shift in who was behind new democracy-related litigation, with pro-voting parties bringing the bulk of all new lawsuits in 2023. While anti-voting parties brought 53% of the total lawsuits filed in 2022, they only brought 30% of new lawsuits filed in 2023. Inversely, pro-voting parties brought 47% of the total lawsuits filed in 2022, but nearly 70% of new lawsuits filed in 2023.
This is likely explained by the fact that most off-year election litigation focuses on pro-voting challenges to new voter suppression laws. In both 2021 and 2023, we saw waves of new anti-voting laws enacted by Republican-controlled legislatures. On the other hand, in even-numbered years, litigation tends to focus on how elections are administered and votes are counted — two areas where the anti-voting parties are particularly litigious. (snip-graphics and much More Info on the page)
December 18, 1865 Following its ratification by the requisite three-quarters of the states earlier in the month, the 13th Amendment was formally adopted into the U.S. Constitution, ensuring that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude… shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” “Selling females by the pound”
December 18, 1999 Julia Butterfly Hill descended from her tiny platform 180 feet up in a giant redwood tree (sequoia sempervivens) named “Luna,” after perching there for 738 days to protect it from loggers. Luna survived a chainsaw attack in 2001 but still stands. “The question is not ‘Can you make a difference?’ You already do make a difference.It’s just a matter of what kind of difference you want to make during your life on this planet.” – Julia Butterfly Hill More about Julia Butterfly Hill and Luna Luna Today Earth Medicine
The first entry may be a clue as to why Musk is supporting the Don; he could wish to turn the US into S. Africa. As hard as we worked when we were young until now, progress doesn’t seem to have stuck, here.
December 17, 1982 The U.N. passed a series of 4 resolutions attacking apartheid in South Africa: To organize an international conference of trade unions on sanctions against South Africa (approved 129 to 2); To encourage various international actions against South Africa (126 to 2); Support of sanctions and other measures against South Africa including international sporting events (139 to 1); Cessation of further foreign investments and loans for South Africa (138 to 1). The U.S. was the only country to have voted against all 4 resolutions (joined only by the United Kingdom on two).
December 17, 1990 Jean-Bertrand Aristide Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a radical Roman Catholic priest and opponent of the dictatorship of Jean-Claude Duvalier who had been deposed in 1986, was elected president in the first free election in Haiti’s history. He was overthrown in 1991 in a military coup led by Brigadier-General Raoul Cedra. More about Jean-Bertrand Aristide Jean-Bertrand Aristide Fast Facts
December 17, 2010 In Tunesia jobless graduate Mohmad Bouazizi starts selling vegetables. When police seize his cart, he sets fire to himself and later dies. This event believed to be the ignition of Arab Spring. A UK Guardian interactive timeline
I’ve felt sick and disgusted since November, and those feelings only increased after I read about what ABC News did. If Donald Trump sues me for doing my job, I will not cave like ABC News, and I’ll tell him to go suck a lemon (replace lemon with something else).
Trump has villainized the media and has tried to take away the credibility of the press. Trumpers believe legitimate news outlets are “fake news” while they share “news” from YouTube and repeat Trump’s lies. Back when I freelanced for CNN and I’d try to discuss an issue with a MAGAt, they’d say, “Oh, you’re with CNN. That explains a lot,” without ever telling me exactly what it explained.
Anytime a Trumper tells you a news outlet lies, they can’t cite one example. Yet, these same idiots are in a cult that worships a man who told over 30,000 in a span of four years.
And it’s not just the cultists who are kissing Trump’s ass.
Jeff Bezos is donating $1 million to Donald Trump’s inauguration. He also pulled an endorsement from The Washington Post which was for Kamala Harris. When Bezos purchased the Post, he promised he would never meddle with editorial decisions. Bezos said he’s “very optimistic” about a second Trump administration (sic) and will be meeting with the orange goon this week. What’s Bezos’ deal with kissing Trump’s ass after years of criticizing him? It’s Elon Musk.
Bezos has government contracts such as with the Post Office delivering Amazon shipments (which is why you see angry mailmen on Sundays) and through Blue Origins, his rock company (it’s the one that looks like a giant penis). Bezos has lost government contracts to Elon and his rocket company (it’s the one owned by a giant penis). How can Bezos compete when his competition is firmly entrenched up Trump’s ass. It’s why you can’t see Trump anymore without Elon by his side. He’s afraid if he goes to the toilet for one minute, he’ll find Bezos up Trump’s butt when he returns despite the fact he called dibs.
Mark Zuckerberg, who banned Trump from Facebook for a minute (along with Russian trolls until they started paying to post), is also pledging $1 million to Trump’s inauguration and said Trump’s “fight fight fight” after being nipped in the ear was “badass.” Zuck probably also thinks My Little Pony is badass. Zuck is also donating his hydrofoiling board along with his CD that contains Country Roads.
Sam Altman, the owner of OpenAI, is also pledging a million bucks to the grift and said Trump will “lead our country in the age of AI.” That’s great news actually because I hate AI and if Trump is leading it, it’s doomed. But the thing is, Sam knows this and is only saying stupid shit to kiss Trump’s ass.
There’s no word yet on all the donors but former contributors to inaugurations are keeping mum, such as Google, Walmart, Home Depot, Target, etc, but nobody seems concerned about how their money is spent and they’re probably all resigned to the fact their donations will probably be grifted.
Trump raised $107 million for his inauguration in 2017 and a lot of that money disappeared. Sure, they paid for Three Doors Down (opening shot makes me think of what Trump must look like first thing in the morning) to sing Kryptonite and there was a very fine parade of tractors (look at the crowd size), but that didn’t cost $107 million. At least $1 million of it was spent for a ball at what was then Trump’s Washington hotel, but how many more millions landed in Trump’s bank account?
Trump has refused government funding for his inauguration in order to accept private donations. He says he’s saving taxpayer’s money when the truth is, he just wants to be bribed.
The donors didn’t care what happened to the money just so long as they won Trump’s favor, but what’s even more disgusting is when the media kisses the royal rump.
Bezos kissing Trump’s ass and using the Post to do it is one disgusting thing, but then there’s ABC News giving Trump $15 million for his stupid library.
ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Trump. He was miffed by the way George Stephanopoulos used the term “liable for rape” to characterize a 2023 civil case in Manhattan, the one where a jury ruled that Trump, the rapist, was liable for sexual abusing and defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll, who won $83 million from Rapey Trump. The judge noted that the jury’s verdict didn’t mean Carroll failed to prove Trump, the rapist, raped her.
The bar is high for libeling a public figure and Mr. McRapey is the most public of them all. News organizations usually don’t settle these bullshit lawsuits as they have the First Amendment on their side. When they do settle, it’s usually because it’s cheaper than paying their lawyers through a long tedious lawsuit, and not for something like $15.
Fox News had to settle with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million but they were guilty as fuck and they’re not a real news organization. So why did ABC settle with a guy liable for rape?
ABC News, which is owned by Disney, settled to kiss Trump’s ass but all they did was give him more encouragement to file bullshit lawsuits. What ABC selfishly did was hurt the entire news industry, which Trump, the rapist, has called the “enemy of the American people.”
Disney should understand that they shouldn’t kiss the ring of Darth Sidious. They own Star Wars. At least Palpatine never had over two dozen women accuse him of rape and sexual assault, not even a female gundark.
Today, Trump scolded the government for not giving out more information about drones in New Jersey, but if the government knows what’s going on with Jersey drones, then Trump probably does too. Sorry to scare you like this but since he’s president-elect (sic), he’s getting daily briefings which means Vladimir Putin is getting daily briefings. Maybe the drones are delivering Big Macs to Bedminster.
Creative note: Proofer Laura asked if I intended to make a Hunger Games parallel with this cartoon. Since I’m the only person in the nation who’s never watched Hunger Games despite there being abundant nudity with dragons (I’ve been told and I hope it’s not just naked dragons), I did not intentionally make that reference, but it sounds cool the way Laura described it.
Laura told me, “In the Hunger Games the “tributes” are the people forced to fight to the death, and drones are used to deliver gifts from audience members to help the tributes survive.” What kind of drones? Dragon drones? What if they smoked the tributes? Can you say a dragon ate my homework?
Laura also said, “In the Hunger Games the gifts sent to competitors are hugely expensive and only very wealthy sponsors can afford to send them, Bezos and Musk types.” That sounds about right. The only people who won’t be eaten by a dragon over the next four years will be people like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.
In the face of the persistent housing affordability crisis, rising eviction rates in many parts of the country, and ongoing threats against unhoused communities, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, some states and localities — often working with philanthropic partners — are taking innovative approaches to provide unconditional cash to people experiencing housing instability or homelessness through guaranteed income pilot programs.
It’s more important than ever that state and local leaders choose strategies that help people with low incomes meet their housing needs with dignity, rather than punishing people experiencing homelessness through fining and, in some cases, arresting and incarcerating them for sleeping outside when they have nowhere safe to go, which evidence shows are ineffective, costly, and racially discriminatory strategies.
Guaranteed income (GI) is emerging as one strategy for helping people afford housing and other expenses like food, clothing, and transportation. Unlike universal basic income, which proposes giving a standard periodic cash payment to all individuals, guaranteed income provides cash assistance to people based on a determined need — such as experiencing housing instability or having income below a certain level — with assistance typically ranging between $500 and $1000 a month. Over 150 programs across the country have begun providing direct cash assistance, with several localities and states having one or more programs that prioritize people and families who are unhoused or at risk of homelessness. Promising findings from individual pilot programs support broader research demonstrating that GI programs can be a mechanism for helping people meet their needs. Ongoing research is helping us understand the ways that unrestricted cash supports can be designed to be most beneficial to the people who need them, including those experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness.
Today’s wave of the guaranteed income movement isn’t new. In the 1960s and 70s, leaders within the National Welfare Rights Organization, racial justice advocates in the Civil Rights and Black Power movements, and feminist thought leaders within the Wages for Housework Movement began advancing GI in response to historical inequities rooted in enslavement, discrimination, and exclusionary policy choices. While GI initiatives alone don’t address the root causes of these inequities, they provide more possibilities for repairing harms caused by deep-seated prejudice in our institutions.
GI is a compelling step forward as policymakers look for innovative ways to:
ensure that people can make decisions about how to best meet their needs;
improve accessibility and reduce administrative burdens in existing economic security programs;
reduce the discrimination people can face when they participate in assistance programs, which is often rooted in racism and stigma against people with low incomes; and
guarantee that everyone who needs assistance receives it.
The rise of GI programs responds to the reality that many people don’t have enough money, even with work or public benefits, to afford basic needs due to reasons not entirely within their control. For example, systemic and structural racism embedded in the housing market and criminal legal system result in people of color, particularly Black, Indigenous, and Latine communities, being disproportionately harmed by a cycle of homelessness and incarceration. The same is true for the labor market, in which people of color are overrepresented in jobs with the lowest pay because of racism in hiring practices and frequent government underinvestment in communities of color — which leads to low-performing schools, chronic health conditions, and other negative outcomes that hurt employment opportunities. The impacts of low pay are also felt disproportionately by other communities that face discrimination, such as people with disabilities and LGBTQ+ people.
A Sample of Guaranteed Income Programs Prioritizing People Experiencing or At Risk of Homelessness in the United States Copy link
Hover over blue states for a list of programs Copy link
(embedded graphic on the page; click on the “Copy link”s to see. There are quite a few.)
Several GI pilots were implemented in 2024. In California, a five-year pilot called It All Adds Up provides 225 families that recently experienced homelessness and are exiting rapid re-housing programs with $1,000 a month for one year. In Massachusetts, through the Somerville GI Pilot, 200 families that are struggling with high housing costs receive $750 a month for a year. And a New York City program supports 100 families that are living in shelters through monthly cash payments of $1,400 for two years to help them meet their needs.
Federal and state policymakers can take the lessons of GI pilot programs and apply them to other economic security policies. For example, reforming cash assistance programs like TANF and SSI to be more accessible and provide higher benefit levels would go a long way in helping older adults, people with disabilities, and low-income families with children meet their needs. Similarly, expanding access to tenant-based rental assistance, which rigorous research has shown can greatly reduce homelessness and housing insecurity, and testing new ways to deliver it — like through direct rental assistance, which is provided directly to tenants instead of landlords — can make it easier for families to find a place to live.
Expanding cash income supports, increasing access to rental assistance, and making these kinds of assistance simpler to access through processes that respect people’s dignity are the right path forward to improve well-being, promote racial equity, and help people stay stably housed.
Scottie's Playtime 