<....And so when one of this generation's most effective campaign finance deregulators, attorney James Bopp, manufactured a case about a Hillary Clinton documentary, the master plan sprung into action. Rather than crafting a narrow decision, Roberts ordered the case to be reargued on more precedential questions and then assigned the opinion to Kennedy, who authored the expansive 2010 Citizens United ruling that overturned McCain's campaign finance law.

Building directly off Powell's earlier ruling on corporate speech, the decision fully legalized unlimited spending in elections, insisting that putatively independent expenditures "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

As election spending by billionaires and corporations subsequently skyrocketed, the same legal machine forged by the Powell Memo manufactured cases designed to prompt the court to deliver additional rulings encouraging even more corruption.

In one such case, conservative justices shamelessly used a mid-20th-century court ruling that protected civil rights groups from Jim Crow thugs to protect billionaire- and corporate-funded dark money groups from disclosing their donors to regulators responsible for enforcing nonprofit laws. Another string of high court rulings then overturned law enforcement officials' corruption convictions and gutted longstanding federal bribery statutes.

As for the government's remaining anti-corruption regulators, the master planners made sure they were also defanged: Republicans packed the Federal Election Commission with appointees opposed to enforcing even the most minimal campaign finance laws, and they have bullied the Internal Revenue Service out of policing dark money groups.

"It Doesn't Have Any Effect On Me"

In the wake of this rampage, master planners today typically argue that everything is fine and democracy is safe, because money supposedly does not buy election results. They cite the occasional outspent election winner or overspending election loser as proof that cash does not determine political outcomes.

But those are rare exceptions in a country where those who spend the most are able to most repetitiously communicate with voters - and therefore almost always win. And that money almost always comes with big donors' transactional expectations.

"People say, ‘Oh, it doesn't have any effect on me,'" said now-retired Rep. Barney Frank in a candid interview a few years after Citizens United. "Well if that were the case, we'd be the only human beings in the history of the world who on a regular basis took significant amounts of money from perfect strangers and made sure that it had no effect on our behavior."

Data about legislative action buttresses Frank's point. One study found that for every $1 of corporate donations, a business gets more than $6 of state tax breaks. Another study found a correlation between unlimited campaign spending and a reduction in corporate taxes. Still another study found that the more freely corporations are allowed to spend in elections, the more likely lawmakers are to pass laws that protect corporate management.

The same holds true for legislative and political inaction.

Health insurers' cash explains why Americans have no guaranteed right to medical care, and pharmaceutical industry cash explains why we continue to pay the world's highest prices for medicine.

Wall Street cash explains why private equity tax loopholes that could be closed with the stroke of a pen remain open, and why bankers who cratered the global economy continued to reap bailouts rather than prosecutions.

Rail industry cash explains why Congress has refused to pass rail safety legislation after the East Palestine disaster, and Boeing cash explains why the company gets a slap on the wrist and even more government contracts after its deadly crashes.

The list of such examples is endless, ultimately confirming Princeton and Northwestern researchers' conclusion: "Economic elites and organized interest groups play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence" over the government operating in its name.

Even worse, an electorate pining for reform is typically given few political choices that promise any escape from it.

The 2024 campaign exemplifies the sad reality. On one side is the choice are policy-free vibes that pretend working-class voters' and elite donors' conflicting interests can both coexist under the same big tent. On the other side is a 900-page manifesto promising an explicit corporate takeover and final gutting of whatever's left of campaign finance laws - all written by a group whose seed funding was originally prompted by the Powell Memo....>

<...."The Election Of Federal Officials Is Not A Private Affair"

In the two years it has taken to report out Master Plan, our reporters discovered documents illustrating just how deliberate the attack has been on America's anti-corruption and campaign finance laws. Beholding a never-before-unearthed 1971 photo of Philip Morris' CEO giving Powell a judicial robe emblazoned with corporate logos, you can't help but see the image as a prophecy of all that would come to pass.

And yet even as we live in Powell's world and democracy teeters amid this year's multibillion-dollar election extravaganza, there is a silver lining: The fact that this present reality came from a plan means it can be reversed, especially because the solutions are so obvious and straightforward.

First and foremost, every political jurisdiction can pass laws forcing the disclosure of those who spend money to influence elections and policy. States have already started doing this, and the federal government could, too. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has already written the DISCLOSE Act, which was co-sponsored by Harris, who as California attorney general tried to force dark money groups to disclose their donors. In 2025, she could be in a position to make a disclosure bill the law of the land.

This shouldn't be a partisan or ideological issue: After all, the Citizens United decision explicitly touted the necessity of robust transparency, and even ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with such notions, writing in a separate case that "requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed."

Beyond transparency, there is what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had the temerity to bellow at the Democratic convention's corporate suites.

"Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections," he said in his keynote address last week. "For the sake of our democracy, we must overturn the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision and move toward public funding of elections."

Immediately after Sanders made that demand, the DNC handed the microphone to Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who bragged about being a billionaire, and then to the chairman of a venture capital firm for a speech insisting that Harris will be "both pro-business and pro-worker" - as if there never needs to be a choice between the two. It was a scheduling juxtaposition that undoubtedly reassured the convention's corporate sponsors that (to use Joe Biden's donor-speak) nothing will fundamentally change. But it should.

Overturning Citizens United will be a slow constitutional amendment process - but one that's already making progress, and could over time generate some bipartisan support.

The latter is already happening in states and cities across the country. It may seem like a pipe dream at the federal level, but remember: The idea twice came within a hair of happening in response to corruption scandals that rocked Washington.

"The election of federal officials is not a private affair. It is the foundation of our government," said the Senate report that accompanied the chamber's passage of a public financing bill in the mid-1970s. "We shall not finally come to grips with the problems except as we are prepared to pay for the public business of elections with public funds."

By today's standards, such a clear statement from Congress's upper chamber seems unfathomable - but it didn't happen because senators were more altruistic back then. They came so close to game-changing anti-corruption reform because the public was so enraged by the Watergate scandal that their representatives felt the need to try to act....>

<....Watching convention-goers stroll the United Center halls and barely notice the corporate brands advertising their ownership of the Democratic Party, it is difficult to know if such rage can be mustered anymore. Even as today's corruption makes the scandals of the 1970s seem quaint, such disgust seems absent from an electorate inured to the dominance of money politics.

Whereas the Watergate scandal prompted the first major campaign finance reforms of the 20th century, and the fundraising excesses of the 1980s and 1990s prompted McCain's crusade against the master plan, today's corruption seems on the verge of becoming like the water in David Foster Wallace's parable about fish - many are so accustomed to swimming in it, they have stopped noticing it. Worse, some even demand contrition from those who dare to identify it as a problem.

In 2020, there was Sanders feeling compelled to apologize for a surrogate invoking the word "corruption" when rightly criticizing Joe Biden's all-too-close relationship with corporate donors.

In 2024, there was Rep. Katie Porter being vilified for pointing out that billionaires spent millions to "rig" her primary contest.

As this election season heads into its final two months and produces a new president, there will be even more such pressure to keep quiet, conform, and insist on repentance from those who dare mention the corruption that America is drowning in.

Succumbing to that code of silence is exactly what the master planners want - and exactly what will end whatever's left of democracy.>

<The hype preceding Kamala Harris’ first and utterly unremarkable “sit-down” interview as a 2024 presidential candidate is a reminder that nobody running against Donald Trump is ever graded fairly. Imagine arguing that Harris, an elected district attorney, attorney general of California, U.S. senator and incumbent vice president, should treat an interview with a CNN reporter as a high-stakes affair; that is, that she could say something that made her appear less qualified than Trump.

Imagine arguing that Harris, an attorney general of California, U.S. senator and vice president, should treat an interview with a CNN reporter as a high-stakes affair.

Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance, apparently believing Trump’s ticket needed even more misogyny, suggested in a social media post Thursday that Harris would be incapable of holding her own. It is as it has ever been since Trump has been on the political stage: We watch to see if anything Trump says isn’t a lie, and we watch to see if other politicians say anything that’s the least bit false. In an ideal world, nobody would have been sitting on the edge of their seats wondering if Harris would sound knowledgeable or prepared for an interview — if only because she could never sound less knowledgeable or less prepared than her opponent so often does.

The interest in the CNN sit-down was elevated, though, in large part because the media had made it such a big issue that she hadn’t done such an interview in the first place. And along with the suggestions that a candidate is deliberately avoiding the media come the suggestions that she’s afraid of the media. Harris exhibited no such fear Thursday. She came across as the typical politician — and I mean that in every sense. She directly answered the questions that she thought would benefit her candidacy, and she was deliberately evasive on specifics.

To her credit, I think that the American media has wrongly contributed to what I’ll call the fetishization of a president’s first day in office. No, the vice president didn’t give a convincing answer when asked what she’d do “day one,” and yes, CNN’s Dana Bash asked the question again in a bid to try to force her to answer it. But the bigger problem isn’t so much that Harris didn’t give a straight answer; it’s an absurd question — even if it’s one that political journalists have come to think they have to ask.

In setting the stage for the interview, recorded at Kim’s Café in Savannah, Georgia, CNN showed a clip of Trump saying of Harris, “She’s not a smart person.” That’s the same tack Vance took in his social media post that likened Harris to a young beauty contestant completely overwhelmed by an interview question. It’s hard to know exactly what part of that attack on Harris’ smarts we should assign to sexism and which part we should assign to racism. But there’s no denying the presence of both. Former President Barack Obama, president of the Harvard Law Review and a “senior lecturer” in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, was one of the most cerebral presidents we’ve seen, and, yet, there were billboards and bumper stickers that, referring to the country where his father was born, read, “Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot.”

Harris doesn’t want to get trapped in questions about identity.

But Harris, as my colleague Zeeshan Aleem recently pointed out, doesn’t want to get trapped in questions about identity. We saw that when she addressed Bash’s question about Trump’s lying and saying she only recently described herself as Black. She told Bash, “Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please.” Nor did she focus on race and sex when asked about the viral photo of her grandniece watching her nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. She said she wants to be the president for everybody.

Her opponents are going to work hard, though, to reduce her to those elements of her identity. And slyly suggest that because of those elements she’s not up to the task.

But they’re the ones seemingly not up to the task, seeing as how they set a bar so low that she couldn’t help but sail right over it.

In response to the interview, Trump described it as “BORING!!!”

He wasn’t wrong about that. But I think Harris is banking on voters’ choosing boring over the drama — no, let’s be real and call it the chaos — that Trump inevitably brings.>

<It is "obvious" to those of us who actually care about the games and put a bit of effort and accuracy into our posts. Not so obvious to slackers, harassers, and has-beens posting just to set some sort of sick maximum posts record.

My perpetual cyberstalker whom CGs refuses to banish shows once again (and again, and again, again, again) that he's simply too lazy to replay the games that he narcissistically comments on for the purpose of chastising memberz. All sonny does iz sit perched to read our posts and then harasses members with his worn-out falsehoods and mischaracterizations of others. How does one get to remain an editor and not play through the games? ? ?

Taking into account his extremist affiliation with the Democrat [sic] party and the Rogoff political garbage dump, such repetitive examples of sonny's constant putdowns, lies, and harassments of members who speak <the truth> are well more than 30,003 fold on this website.

The claimable rule book draw that occurred in Pragg vs Nepo 2024 Sinquefield Cup cannot be declined or omitted from tournament rules; it is much different than a short GM draw offer, a mutually agreed draw, often effortless and perhaps arranged beforehand.

Thus, my original statement that NO DRAW OFFERS are allowed in this tournament remains true despite my attacker's routine off-the-mark swipe.

<GOP vice presidential nominee JD Vance tried to mock Kamala Harris over some of her meandering responses in her CNN interview Thursday, posting a clip of a teenage pageant queen who faced years of ridicule after she verbally stumbled during the Miss Teen USA 2007 event.

The old viral clip shows 18-year-old Caitlin “Caite” Upton, who was Miss South Carolina Teen USA at the time, flubbing an answer after being asked about Americans’ knowledge of geography. Vance posted the video on X and wrote: “BREAKING: I have gotten ahold of the full Kamala Harris CNN interview.”

Upton, who has since appeared on “The Amazing Race” and in a number of commercials, has said that she dealt with depression and suicidal thoughts over the fallout from the incident. In 2015, she told New York Magazine that she “went through a period where I was very, very depressed.”

Upton, who has since appeared on “The Amazing Race” and in a number of commercials, has said that she dealt with depression and suicidal thoughts over the fallout from the incident.

“I had some very dark moments where I thought about committing suicide,” she told the magazine, beginning to tear up. She added: “Sorry, it’s just really emotional. This is the first time I’ve actually been able to talk about it. It was awful, and it was every single day for a good two years.”

On Friday morning, Vance told CNN that he was not aware that Upton had contemplated suicide and said that he hoped she is doing well. The Ohio senator went on to say that it would be best to just laugh it off.

“Look, I’ve said a lot of things on camera; I’ve said a lot of stupid things on camera,” he said. “Sometimes when you’re in the public eye, you make mistakes. And again, I think the best way to deal with it is to laugh at ourselves, laugh at this stuff and try to have some fun in politics.”

Vance also took issue with being asked about the post instead of the “real” crises facing American families, lamenting that “politics has gotten way too lame” and “way too boring.”

“You can have some fun while making a good argument to the American people about how you’re going to improve their lives,” he said.

When asked if he would apologize, given what he now knows about Upton, Vance replied:

I’m not going to apologize for posting a joke, but I wish the best for Caitlin. I hope that she’s doing well. And again, what I’d say is, one bad moment shouldn’t define anybody, and the best way to deal with this stuff is to laugh at ourselves.

Vance’s attempt at scoring internet points — and then his refusal to apologize — was not received well, including by Upton herself.

In a post on X on Friday morning, she wrote: “It’s a shame that 17 years later this is still being brought up. There’s not too much else to say about it at this point. Regardless of political beliefs, one thing I do know is that social media and online bullying needs to stop.”

Upton’s account appears to have since been deleted.>

In point of fact, Vance is not unlike my <stalker> here, who is naught but a piece of flotsam and deserves immurement.

#heartlandscumowned

<....Three remains twice more than once.>

<Allies of former President Donald Trump on the Georgia state election board are stirring up chaos by passing new mandates ahead of the November election in a bid to dissuade voters and overwhelm local election officials, election experts warn.

The Georgia elections board passed a handful of rule changes this month that election officials across the state have decried as unnecessary and burdensome.

One rule, passed by a 3-2 partisan line vote Aug. 19, would allow county election board members to delay the certification of votes by investigating discrepancies between ballots cast and the number of voters.

The board the same day also advanced a rule requiring those ballots to be counted by hand.

And earlier in August, the board adopted a rule to allow local election boards to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” of election results – without defining what exactly that means.

The Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials, which represents over 500 officials across the estate, asked the board to stop making sweeping rule changes in the weeks leading to the election.

Cathy Woolard, former Chair of the Fulton County Board of Registrations & Elections, said normally, the association itself would have come to the board to ask for particular changes – well ahead of an election cycle.

“That has not happened in any of these rule petitions,” she said on a call with reporters this week organized by advocacy group Fair Fight Action. “They have come from citizens who, generally speaking, have been, I hate to say it, but election deniers and activists who have kind of continued to stir the pot and have dialogue that there's something wrong with our elections.”

She continued: “This is 159 counties, election administrators and people who do the work day in, day out. When they come back and say: ‘You know, we don't need this. This doesn't clarify something. This is going to be a problem for us, just in terms of the logistics.’ And then they run roughshod over that and vote and with a partisan split. You have a problem there.”

Patrise Perkins-Hooker, the former chair of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, said the changes are driven solely by partisanship – in favor of Trump.

“As they become more politicized, they have become a political weapon of parties, a preference to undo the confidence in the election system, to raise doubt about the election system so they become much more politicized in their approach, and these rule making things are just evidence of it,” Perkins-Hooker said on the call with reporters.

Perkins-Hooker, a county attorney for Fulton County, pointed out that research shows voter fraud is rare and that Georgia in particular has a solid reputation for handling elections.

“if there is nothing, if there's no problem, and we've had courts say there's no problem in the conduct of elections in Georgia, why do you need all of these rules?” she said.

She said political and outside influence is driving election board decisions – not what’s in the best interest of Georgians.

“What has happened with the SEB is it has been populated by public comment from people who will believe our election system is flawed, and they want to curtail the free access of voters to elect their candidates,” she said.

The Trump allies on the Georgia Election Board are focusing on a little-known part of the voting process: certification.

Local election officials are tasked with certifying election results as a ministerial duty under statute.

Certification doesn't happen until local election officials have repeatedly verified the results during the canvas and audit process — which includes everything from cross-checking ballots and tallies against voter lists to verifying signatures on mail-in ballots. States can address suspected errors and fraud with mechanisms from recounts, to audits, to evidentiary hearings before state election boards.

State laws make it clear that election officials have no discretion to refuse to certify election results,

Legal experts have told Salon that they expect courts will reject any efforts by local officials to question election results and delay certification.

Those experts say they’re more concerned about the role of state legislatures and the Trump-friendly Supreme Court coming to Trump's aid as he sows the kind of discord and doubt in the nation’s electoral processes that preceded the violence in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021....>

<....Woolard said it’s likely that Trump allies who try to delay certification will end up outvoted by other local board members.

“You may have counties where there's a lot of attention right now, like Fulton County, where they most likely will be outvoted, because we understand what certification is,” she said. “But then you have other counties, where we might not be focused, perhaps maybe a county like Coffee County, where they might actually not certify the election.”

Still, she’s concerned about counties that might not certify and the confusion and disorder that could be unleashed.

“It gets back to that sowing chaos problem that you know that's happening to this day, quite frankly,” she said.

Woolard said when she was previously director of the Fulton County board, the two Republicans and three Democrats on the board almost always ruled unanimously.

“We identified things that we needed to look into, and including things that were brought from my Republican colleagues, but we still came to a measured conclusion,” she said. “Now we have the same partisan split, but we have two people who aren't voting for certification, who are entertaining notions of things that are being brought from other counties, from the Republican Party, from groups that don't have anything to do with what is before us in terms of administering an election.”

ProPublica revealed that election deniers, through the rightwing Election Integrity Network, have secretly pushed a rule adopted by the state election board to make it easier to delay certification.

Woolard said she and other election officials are highly concerned about how the rule changes could throw election preparations into disarray.

“Getting ready to run an election like in Fulton County, we have 1000 volunteers, 250 Election Day precincts,” Wollard said. “Our traffic is a nightmare, and we're having the same deadlines and time concerns in smaller counties that you know might have 1000 voters. We have 800,000 voters. It becomes very challenging to get about the work of running those elections when you're constantly having this barrage of craziness that has nothing to do with what is before you as set out by law.”

She said our society often considers such logistical concerns will just get worked out at the end of the day.

“That's sort of a concern that we don't pay a lot of attention to, because you just assume it's all going to go right,” she said. “But you know, what we do logistically is amazing, and it's set up by state law. We follow it to the letter, even when it's challenging. But then you throw all this other stuff on top of it that our staff has to deal with, and you really run the risk that you're creating the potential for a failure that you know could have been avoided if people had time to actually do their work.”

Fair Fight Action CEO Lauren Groh-Wargo said even if votes end up certified at the end of the day, election deniers allied with Trump may achieve their overriding goal of stowing disinformation and distrust in the voting system.

“Their disinformation is already disenfranchising American citizens by getting it into law,” she said.

She pointed out that Trump allies are trying to invalidate categories of ballots, including provisional, out-of-precinct ballots.

“That is a successful strategy,” she said. “That is successfully disenfranchising voters. Number one, we have to take it seriously from that way, because it's moving into statute.”

Groh-Wargo said the U.S. has seen more voter suppression, anti-voting bills passed in this country's history in 2021 and 2023 than any time before.

She said the Trump effort in 2020 to pressure local officials to switch votes to him was alarming and noted that while some members of the Trump “voter suppression architecture” have ended up pleading guilty, the system moves slowly, and voters must understand both their rights and how local election officials have worked for years to develop a trustworthy system.

“Having gone through what we all went through four years ago, we take it seriously and know the power that these disinformation narratives have, and are ready for them to try to execute on all of this at a higher level,” she said. “Because the big difference from four years ago is that the MAGA, anti-voting election deniers, they have moved their way into so many local boards and state, state election boards all over the country. And so we know there's an organized conspiracy, but we also know there are all those rogue actors.”>

Hahahahaha!!

<Moms for Liberty has positioned itself as a champion for parental rights and freedom in education, but their actions often tell a different story. This group, while claiming to advocate for liberty, promotes policies that restrict personal choice and challenge diverse perspectives in schools. Many parents and educators question how a movement that rallies against certain books and ideas can truly call itself a defender of freedom.

With chapters across 45 states, Moms for Liberty has gained visibility in education politics. Their push for influence in school districts raises concerns about the limits they want to place on curriculum and expression. This blog post explores ten notable examples that highlight how their agenda can contradict the very values of liberty and freedom they purport to support.

As this discussion unfolds, it becomes clear that the issues at stake go beyond educational choices. They touch upon broader themes of inclusivity, freedom of speech, and the diverse fabric of American society.

Defining 'Liberty' and 'Freedom'

Liberty and freedom are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings.

Liberty refers to the protection of individual rights and the absence of oppression. It's about having the legal and social space to make choices.

Freedom, on the other hand, can mean the power to act, speak, or think without hindrance. It's more about the ability to pursue personal desires.

In a democratic society, both are essential for human dignity.

Moms for Liberty positions itself as a champion of parents’ rights. Yet, their actions often contradict their claims about supporting true liberty and freedom for all.

By limiting access to certain books or topics in schools, they restrict the freedom of students to learn and explore. This creates a tension between their stated goals and the actual impact of their actions.

Understanding these terms helps clarify the debate around organizations like Moms for Liberty. It shows how their belief system can shape policies that may not align with broader definitions of liberty and freedom.

Educational Censorship

Educational censorship is a growing concern as different groups push to control what students learn. This movement often focuses on banning books and shaping classroom discussions, which can limit students' exposure to diverse ideas.

Banning Books

Banning books has become a notable strategy. Groups like Moms for Liberty often target specific titles that address topics like race, gender, and sexuality. They argue that these subjects are inappropriate for students.

Many schools have faced pressure to remove certain books from libraries and reading lists. This action creates gaps in education. Students miss out on important discussions about society and history. For instance, classics that tackle civil rights issues may get pulled. This not only limits freedom of choice but also diminishes critical thinking skills in young readers.

Controlling Classroom Content

Controlling classroom content is another tactic used by Moms for Liberty. They advocate for removing lessons that introduce concepts related to social justice and identity. Their focus is often on ensuring that political views align with specific ideologies.

Teachers may find themselves restricted in how they address topics in class. This can lead to a watered-down curriculum that avoids important issues. For example, discussions about historical injustices might get minimized or skipped altogether. When educators cannot discuss various perspectives, students lose the chance to develop a well-rounded understanding of the world around them.

Opposition to Inclusive Policies

Moms for Liberty often challenges inclusive policies, focusing on LGBTQ+ rights and racial equity. Their stance leads to heated debates within communities, limiting the support for diversity in schools.

Resistance to LGBTQ+ Rights in Schools

Moms for Liberty has actively opposed policies that support LGBTQ+ students. This includes pushing back against discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation in classrooms.

They argue that these topics should not be part of school curriculums. Their campaigns often focus on banning certain books or materials that include LGBTQ+ narratives.

Many school board meetings see strong vocal opposition from Moms for Liberty members. Their influence raises concerns about students feeling safe and represented, as they push for a more traditional approach to education....>

<....They argue that these topics should not be part of school curriculums. Their campaigns often focus on banning certain books or materials that include LGBTQ+ narratives.

Many school board meetings see strong vocal opposition from Moms for Liberty members. Their influence raises concerns about students feeling safe and represented, as they push for a more traditional approach to education.

Challenging Racial Equity Initiatives

Moms for Liberty also opposes racial equity initiatives in schools. They argue that these programs create division.

Members often claim that teaching about systemic racism is anti-American or promotes “critical race theory,” even when such teachings are not part of the curriculum.

This opposition can lead to the rejection of programs aimed at promoting diversity and inclusion. They seek to eliminate discussions that highlight historical injustices, which can prevent students from understanding different perspectives.

This resistance can limit resources meant to support marginalized students, impacting overall school culture.

Parental Rights Overreach

Moms for Liberty often advocates for parental rights in ways that some see as overstepping boundaries. This can affect health and safety measures in schools and infringe upon the choices of other families. The implications of these actions are significant and raise questions about individual freedoms.

Health and Safety Measures

In their push for parental control, Moms for Liberty has challenged essential health and safety protocols in schools. One notable example is their opposition to mask mandates during health crises. They argue that parents should decide whether their children wear masks, but this stance can compromise the safety of the entire student body.

Additionally, this group has pushed back against vaccination requirements. By questioning established health guidelines, they risk creating environments where preventable diseases could spread. Their actions often ignore the broader public health implications, focusing solely on individual parental choice.

Infringing on Other Parents' Choices

Moms for Liberty’s focus on parental rights can inadvertently affect other families' rights. For instance, when advocating for book bans in schools, they impose their values on all students. This limits access to diverse perspectives and important topics, which can help shape young minds.

Moreover, their initiatives can place undue pressure on educators. Teachers may feel forced to avoid certain subjects to comply with parental demands, impacting the quality of education. In this way, the push for expanded parental rights can lead to a narrowing of educational content, which can harm all students.

Interference with Curriculum Development

Moms for Liberty often challenges curriculum decisions in schools. Their actions raise concerns about how their involvement affects educational choices.

Critique of Curriculum Experts

Moms for Liberty has taken steps to question the expertise of curriculum designers. They believe that parents should have a strong say in what children learn. This point of view often leads to dismissing input from educational professionals.

For example, when schools adopt certain materials, these parents might push back, labeling them as inappropriate. This can create tension between educators and parents.

The result? Educators may feel pressured to alter lesson plans to appease concerned parents. This interferes with the educational process.

Limiting Teacher Autonomy

Teacher autonomy can take a hit when groups like Moms for Liberty get involved. Teachers typically select materials and methods to suit their students' needs. When parental groups pressure schools, it can limit educators' choices.

For instance, teachers may shy away from diverse perspectives in literature or science due to fear of backlash. Instead of encouraging open discussions, they might stick to safer, less controversial topics.

This restricts students' learning experiences. A narrow focus on certain viewpoints can limit critical thinking and understanding. It affects the overall educational environment, making it harder for students to explore complex issues.

Advocacy Against Evidence-Based Education

Moms for Liberty actively challenges the principles of evidence-based education. Their actions raise concerns about the reliance on established research and factual history in schools. Here’s a closer look at two significant aspects of this advocacy.>

<....Rejecting Scientific Consensus

Moms for Liberty has been known to oppose scientific findings, especially those related to health and education. They tend to favor personal beliefs over the conclusions supported by experts.

For example, this group often questions the importance of mental health initiatives that rely on data-driven approaches. They argue against programs that highlight the impact of social and emotional learning, dismissing them as unnecessary. This kind of rejection can limit students’ understanding of crucial topics like mental health and wellness.

Promotion of Historical Misrepresentations

The group also promotes selective versions of history that misrepresent facts. In efforts to influence school curriculums, Moms for Liberty pushes for bans on teaching slavery and civil rights topics. They believe these subjects create discomfort for students and parents alike.

This advocacy can lead to an incomplete education. Omitting such key historical events prevents students from understanding the complexities of race and society. Instead, students may be presented with a sanitized view of history that ignores significant struggles and achievements.

Political Maneuvering

Moms for Liberty actively engages in political strategies to influence local education. They focus on targeting school boards and use emotional tactics to push policy changes.

Electioneering School Board Campaigns

Moms for Liberty aims to place their candidates on school boards across the country. They have launched campaigns to support candidates who align with their conservative values.

Their strategy involves grassroots efforts in communities, mobilizing parents and like-minded individuals. They organize events to drive voter turnout and raise awareness about school issues. This focus on local elections has made them a notable player in education politics.

With over 275 chapters in 45 states, they work to ensure representation that echoes their vision. This approach creates a network that can effectively challenge opposing views.

Policy-Making Through Fear

Another tactic employed by Moms for Liberty is using fear to influence policy decisions. They often highlight issues such as critical race theory and gender identity in schools. These topics can evoke strong emotions among parents.

Moms for Liberty calls for book bans and strict policies regarding curriculum content. By framing these actions as necessary for children's safety, they gain support from concerned parents. This fear-based strategy is effective in achieving their goals.

Their messaging resonates with many who feel anxious about modern education. By capitalizing on these fears, they seek to reshape public education to fit their ideals.

Undermining Professional Educators

Moms for Liberty has been criticized for actions that challenge the authority and expertise of teachers. This approach can create a hostile environment for educators and diminish the quality of education students receive.

Dismissal of Teacher Expertise

Moms for Liberty often questions the qualifications and methods of professional educators. They argue that teachers are not to be trusted with sensitive topics, claiming these professionals push certain ideologies.

Teachers spend years studying and training to understand how to educate their students effectively. By undermining this expertise, the group can create a divide between parents and educators. This can lead to conflicts at school board meetings and an atmosphere of suspicion.

Such actions might result in teachers feeling unappreciated and undervalued. When teachers worry about their job security or reputation, it can lead to less effective teaching practices.

Encouraging Distrust in Educators

Moms for Liberty advocates for transparency in schools. While this sounds good, it often breeds distrust among parents towards educators.

By promoting ideas that teachers are responsible for indoctrinating students, they create fear and concern among parents. This makes parents more likely to challenge teachers' decisions or methods without a clear understanding.

Such distrust can harm the classroom environment. Educators might feel the need to look over their shoulders, impacting their teaching style. Instead of focusing on learning, teachers may spend time justifying their choices to parents and school boards.

This breakdown in trust not only affects teachers but can also create a negative atmosphere for students trying to learn.

Stifling Student Expression

Moms for Liberty has faced criticism for actions that seem to limit student expression in schools. This includes restricting student speech and discouraging critical thinking. These actions raise concerns about how students engage with different ideas and perspectives....>

<....Limiting Student’s [sic] Speech and Clubs

Moms for Liberty has been linked to efforts that restrict student speech. This includes challenges to student-organized clubs that promote diversity and inclusion.

For example, some schools have seen pushback against clubs that focus on LGBTQ+ issues. Members of these clubs often face strong opposition, limiting their ability to create a supportive environment.

Parents have voiced concerns about these clubs, saying they conflict with their values. Consequently, school administrators sometimes feel pressured to remove or limit these clubs.

This creates an environment where students may feel unsafe expressing their identities and beliefs. Many students cherish these clubs as their safe spaces to discuss important topics.

Discouraging Critical Thinking

Another concern is the trend of discouraging critical thinking in classrooms. Moms for Liberty promotes a certain viewpoint on various issues, often pushing back against curricula that include diverse perspectives.

For instance, they have challenged books and educational materials that present different historical viewpoints or explore complex social issues.

This can lead to a narrow understanding of important topics for students. It limits their ability to engage in discussions and form their own opinions.

When students are not exposed to a wide range of ideas, they miss out on essential skills needed for critical thinking. Encouraging curiosity and questioning is crucial for their development.

Promotion of Homogeneous Ideology

Moms for Liberty's actions often reflect a consistent pattern of promoting a narrow set of beliefs. This approach can lead to a lack of diverse educational experiences for students. Here are two key areas where this ideology is evident.

Advocating for 'One-Sided' Learning

Moms for Liberty pushes for educational policies that favor specific viewpoints. This often means supporting curricula that highlight conservative perspectives while sidelining alternative ideas. For example, they have opposed lessons that include topics like critical race theory and sexual orientation.

This focus can create a limited view of history and social issues. When students only learn about one perspective, they might struggle to understand broader societal dynamics. Effective education thrives on presenting a variety of viewpoints.

Opposing Diverse Perspectives

The organization frequently challenges programs that aim to include diverse voices. They argue that introducing concepts related to race, gender, and LGBTQ+ identities threatens traditional values. For instance, Moms for Liberty has taken steps to block LGBTQ+ protections in schools, claiming these measures infringe on free speech.

Such actions can lead to an environment where students feel excluded or marginalized. By opposing a rich tapestry of perspectives, they limit students’ ability to engage with the world around them. This stance raises concerns about inclusivity and understanding in educational settings.>

By the bye, <fredthebore>, isn't it the worst thing you've ever heard that I am within 4600 posts of 60k, the number you love to hate? Every day, I edge closer, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, so choke on it, ass****!!

<Donald Trump is trying to crush Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’ persona as a force of change and to destroy her personal credibility as a potential president as their still-fresh competition careens into the final nine weeks before Election Day.

In recent days, the ex-president has unveiled a broad assault using the insult-driven politics with which he won power in 2016, even as his advisers have been pleading with him to focus his attention on top voter concerns including high prices and immigration.

He is seizing on foreign tragedies to accuse the vice president of responsibility for the deaths of US troops in Afghanistan and claiming she’s complicit in killings of hostages in Gaza. He and his running mate, JD Vance, implied her mixed race — heritage that millions of Americans share — is evidence of a sinister “chameleon”-like character that also explains policy reversals on energy and immigration. In an ugly moment, he amplified a sexually themed social media slander against her. And his dark campaign ads allege she will slash Social Security benefits by welcoming millions of undocumented migrants to the country. And in a reprise of past GOP campaigns branding Democratic nominees as extreme liberals, Trump and his supporters are trying to frame Harris as a communist and a “Bolshevik.” South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem blasted Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, as a “security risk” because he once taught in China. And Trump has also started to imply the coming election might not be “free and fair” and said in an interview that aired Sunday that it was ridiculous to indict him for “interfering” in the 2020 election. This and other recent comments raised the specter of another national nightmare if he loses in November and refuses to accept defeat.

Trump’s desperation to find traction has also seen him perform his own policy gyrations on reproductive rights as he seeks to narrow a huge gender gap in polling. But his credibility may already be shattered after he built the conservative Supreme Court majority that overturned the nationwide constitutional right to an abortion. Vance also seems to have a knack for alienating female voters — like when he compared Harris to a nerve-struck Miss Teen USA contestant.

Trump is not simply being true to his ill-disciplined self. He’s illustrating his struggle to respond to Harris’ transformation of the race. Increasingly brazen attempts to puncture Harris’ bubble of hope also betray frustration in the Trump camp that she’s managing to distinguish herself from her boss and is presenting a fresher option than her 78-year-old GOP rival. And Trump is showing that there’s almost nothing he won’t do to win.

Trump’s invective amounts to some of the most hardline political rhetoric in years, even by his own standards, and means the next two months are likely to be brutal.

The question is whether this barrage of negative attacks is merely successful in stoking feelings of existential anger Trump uses to drive his base the polls, or whether it begins to tarnish Harris at the margins in battleground states.

It may make some sense for Trump to throw everything he can think of at Harris. In two presidential elections, the ex-president has never risen above 49% of the vote in the so-called blue wall states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin or in the national popular count. So his chances in November may depend more on destroying the current feel-good factor around Harris and depressing her prospects among small groups of persuadable voters in swing states than on holding out hope of winning over new voters himself.

But Trump’s behavior brings its own risks. His antics last week, including a grinning, thumbs-up gravesite campaign photo-op in Arlington National Cemetery that may have broken the law, could bolster Harris’ warnings that Americans are pining for a chance to leave the bitterness and chaos of the Trump era behind.

Even though Harris has restored the contest to a neck-and-neck race, her campaign recognizes the still potent threat from Trump. “Make no mistake: the next 65 days will be very hard,” Harris campaign manager Jennifer O’Malley Dillion wrote in a weekend memo despite arguing the vice president has multiple paths to the White House. “This race will remain incredibly close, and the voters who will decide this election will require an extraordinary amount of work to win over.”

Harris campaigned in Detroit and with Biden in Pittsburgh to mark Labor Day on Monday, reflecting the importance of union members. Blue-collar workers traditionally voted Democrat, but Trump’s cultural transformation of the GOP now appeals to many workers, especially in rural areas. And Harris’ appearance with Biden in the Steel City previewed how the lame-duck president could help her campaign in a state and among a voting demographic where he remains popular....>

<....The campaign swing comes a week before the critical meeting between Harris and Trump on a debate stage slated for September 10 in Philadelphia — one of the final foreseeable turning points of this campaign, with mail-in voting starting later this week.

Trump’s feral political offensive is a warning for Harris about what may lay [sic] ahead and underscores how hard it will be to prolong the smooth rollout of her sudden candidacy, her pick of Walz and her successful convention. But the ex-president’s intensity is also a sign — which is reflected in favorable public polling nationally and in swing states — that his early efforts to negatively define her have not worked.

Harris is being criticized by Republicans for a lack of policy specificity and reversing previous positions on fracking and immigration. But her adoption of centrist positions also appears to be squeezing Trump and frustrating his efforts to land a decisive political attack. Her decision to take on high grocery prices with a vow to clamp down on supermarket giants might explain how she’s narrowed the gap with Trump on who is most trusted on the economy.

The flap over Trump’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery last week also showed how the ex-president’s hardball tactics could hurt him as much as her.

Trump’s honoring of 13 US service members killed in a suicide bombing amid the chaotic US evacuation of Afghanistan in 2021 highlights one of the worst moments of the Biden-Harris administration. And while the vice president joined Situation Room meetings on the crisis, it’s not clear yet whether Trump can saddle her with personal responsibility for the deaths in the minds of voters since Biden was commander in chief at the time.

Harris took steps to counter Trump’s Afghan gambit when she wrote on social media that he had “disrespected sacred ground all for the sake of a political stunt” in filming campaign videos at gravesites and that this was part of a pattern of disparaging the sacrifices of American warriors. Trump responded by posting videos of some of the relatives of the fallen soldiers accusing Harris and Biden of complicity in the murder of their loved ones and supporting Trump.

The harrowing episode showed how Trump is willing to cross lines that more conventional politicians would consider off-limits. While some voters might consider he’s honoring slain troops, others might agree with Harris that he is seizing on the deaths of Americans in foreign wars for political gain.

On other issues, Harris is refusing to be drawn into gutter for political fights with Trump that might tarnish her image. For instance, the vice president was asked by CNN’s Dana Bash in an exclusive interview last week about Trump’s claim that she “happened to turn Black” for political reasons. “Same old tired playbook. Next question, please,” Harris said.

The Harris campaign did, however, jump on Trump’s argument that he did nothing wrong in 2020. The ex-president said in a Fox News interview that aired Sunday: “Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election, where you have every right to do it?”

Harris-Walz spokesperson Sarafina Chitika folded his comment into the campaign’s wider argument that it’s time to consign Trump’s dictatorial instincts to the past. “The American people are ready for a new way forward. They know Vice President Harris is the tough-as-nails prosecutor we need to turn the page on chaos, fear, and division, and uphold the rule of law,” Chitika said.

The exchange encapsulated the bets at the center of the campaign’s bitter endgame: Trump is putting his faith in a searing attempt to do anything it takes to bring Harris down; the vice president is wagering that his extreme attempts to do so will convince enough voters he’s unfit to return to the Oval Office.>

<In 2016 Dayna Craig, a poet from Belfast, Northern Ireland, published a short bit of verse that might well explain every terrible person you’ve ever known, not least a certain former American president.

It’s called “A Narcissist’s Prayer”:

That didn’t happen.

And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.

And if it was, that’s not a big deal.

And if it is, that’s not my fault.

And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

And if I did

You deserved it.

I discovered Craig’s poem on Reddit, where narcissism—what it is, how to spot it, how to deal with friends and family in the grip of it, and how to not deal with them—lies at the heart of some of the site’s most riveting tales of interpersonal drama.

In this column, r/Farhad, I—conveniently also named Farhad—explore the bottomless intrigues of the internet’s best discussion site. One of the most unexpected and useful insights I’ve gleaned during my years perusing Reddit involves narcissism, especially its seeming pervasiveness and its power to explain the otherwise inexplicable behavior of the most difficult people in public and private life.

The subreddits dedicated to the subject—forums like r/RaisedByNarcissists, r/NarcissisticAbuse, r/NarcissisticSpouses, and r/LifeAfterNarcissism, as well as some subreddits not specifically focused on narcs, like r/AmITheAssh***—have given me something of a map for understanding how narcissism shapes society. Thanks to Reddit, I’ve come to rely on this rule of thumb: If someone often has you asking yourself Why are they acting that way?, a big part of the answer might be narcissism.

What is a narcissist? Narcissistic personality disorder is a clinically defined mental health condition. Psychiatry’s diagnostic manual, the DSM-5, outlines nine behavioral patterns involving grandiosity, empathy, and a person’s need for admiration, of which a patient must meet at least five for a formal diagnosis of NPD. Of course, when people on Reddit use the term colloquially, they’re not usually referring to people who might meet this high diagnostic bar. Another complication is that NPD often goes undiagnosed and untreated, and many mental health clinicians have little experience with it. (A paradox of treating narcissism: Narcissists tend to think they’re not the ones who need therapy. In a clinical setting, patients with NPD “are generally unable to handle criticism from peers or staff and frequently become enraged,” states one review of the condition.)

People also use the term as a generic insult, interchangeable with jerk or jackass. But the narcissists discussed on Reddit aren’t simply assh**** who want to make life difficult for others. Reddit’s narcissists are also not usually defined by our most basic idea of narcissism, the thing that got Narcissus himself in trouble—overt self-involvement, a regard for oneself so obsessive that it eclipses any interest in others.

No, what’s most insidious about the narcissists in Redditors’ lives is a capacity to hide their self-interest: The greatest trick the narcissist ever pulls is convincing the world he cares about others. As a result, a lot of Redditors’ stories about dealing with narcs involve epiphanies.

“I recently came to the realization that my best friend of 4+ years is a narcissist,” begins one post on r/LifeAfterNarcissism. The woman explains that it took going to therapy—for her, not the narc —to understand the complete one-sidedness of the friendship.

“All of our time was spent working on her emotional needs and support,” she writes. “Even though I’ve had my own struggles, it’s as if they can’t measure up to what she’s going through and therefore aren’t important.”

The discovery floored her: “It’s still just hard to realize that the person I was supposed to be ‘closest’ to doesn’t really know me at all and never had empathy for me, when I’ve had so so much for her. … I feel like I’m realizing I’m in the Truman Show.”

Sometimes it even takes a person posting on Reddit to realize that a supposed friend doesn’t really care about them. Consider the woman whose lifelong best friend asked her to be the maid of honor at her wedding—but then requested that the maid of honor not appear in the wedding photos because, after years of fertility issues, she’d recently become pregnant.

“She said that my bump would be too distracting, she didn’t want her pictures to turn into a ‘maternity photoshoot’ and that she just didn’t feel comfortable with it,” the woman wrote. “However, she still wanted me to pay for the bachelorette party, help her plan the wedding, and wanted me to do almost everything MOH except be in pictures and she was debating if she still wanted me to give a speech. She then sent me a bunch of bag-like dresses to choose from as my new dress since I won’t need my MOH dress.”....>

<....The post appeared on r/AmITheA**hole; the OP—Reddit jargon for “original poster”—wanted to know if she’d be the a**hole for declining to attend the supposed friend’s wedding. After receiving overwhelming support from Redditors, the OP decided to talk to the bride about how hurt she was by the request. Bridezilla’s response was manipulation: She tried to argue that staying out of the pictures would be less stressful for the OP.

“If I were to be fully honest, she almost convinced me that the whole idea of just keeping me as MOH but with no pictures was for my benefit,” the woman wrote in an update. But the scales had fallen from her eyes; realizing that her friend was merely using her, OP stepped down as maid of honor, and the bride, after saying “some deeply hurtful things that will take me a long time to recover from,” uninvited her from the wedding.

This saga suggests why Dayna Craig’s “Narcissist’s Prayer” is so often cited on Reddit—it’s the perfect shorthand for identifying the narcissist in your life. The poem captures the narcissist’s go-to tactics: There’s the routine denial and defensiveness about their actions; an inability to take responsibility or admit wrongdoing; the incessant effort to manipulate others into believing an alternate version of reality; and, at the root of it, a deep sense that other people don’t matter. Reddit’s narcissism forums abound with advice for dealing with narcs, but a lot of it boils down to two strategies: Stay away from the narc if you can; if you can’t, try your best to avoid engaging with the narc.

The first is straightforward: Go low- or no-contact with your narcissistic parent, break up with your toxic friend, stop talking to your difficult neighbor.

But sometimes getting away is impossible—if you have a narc co-worker, say. For those people, many on Reddit swear by the “gray rock” method. The idea here is to make yourself as uninteresting to the narc as a pebble on the sidewalk: Avoid conversations or try to steer them to the blandest subjects; pretend you’ve got something else to do or are engrossed in a book or TV show; generally deny them the chance to dictate your actions.

“My mom called me once to berate me, and I started reading different quotes to her from a book of famous quotes,” one commenter wrote. “Every time she tried to interrupt I would say, ‘Wait! Mom, just listen to what (famous historical figure or author) had to say! I know how much you appreciate intelligent writing!’ … I felt that it was well deserved revenge for the years of listening to my mom’s relentless complaining.”

For some, that might be the way to go. But plenty of us have self-centered people in our lives whom we do not want to cut off or gray rock—and for that, we might need to get off Reddit and talk to a therapist.>

This content a problem, <heartland biyatch>? Then stay away!

#heartlandscumowned

<China recently threatened serious economic retaliation against Japan if it imposed further restrictions on the servicing and sales of chip making equipment to Chinese companies. It’s reported that China could react by cutting Japan’s access to minerals which are essential for automotive production.

Cars are one of Japan's biggest exports, and Toyota is one of the most influential organizations in the country. Toyota has also invested heavily into Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC’s plant in Kumamoto, so would certainly be amongst the most affected by the potential new Japanese export restrictions.

This comes as the US has applied pressure on Japan to align more strictly with its efforts to curb China’s technological power, specifically in semiconductor strategy. The US previously imposed an embargo on China to halt exports of the most sophisticated chips (primarily used in military hardware) from reaching the country, but it's reported that some companies were working around the ban.

Chinese domestic industry is not yet able to produce the most high tech chips which power some of the technologies that it leads in (especially AI), but has been able to access the capabilities through cloud computing services to circumvent US export restrictions.

The US has recently funded a program to establish chip manufacturing on US ground, but as it stands, Taiwan accounts for 68% of the semiconductor market. US senior officials are said to be working with Japanese counterparts to protect the supply of crucial materials.

Toyota and chip maker Tokyo Electron are amongst the most at risk if exports are affected, with the latter’s shares falling almost 2% following the news of the strained Japan/China relationship.

It’s not yet clear whether Japan will bow to US demands and introduce export restrictions, or what specific repercussions this would have on Japanese industry. Biden is said to be confident that an agreement will be reached by the end of the year.>

<THE MONEYIST

Dear Quentin,

My dad and his second wife moved to Texas for their golden years.

Unfortunately, he died unexpectedly last September. He had been battling a terminal disease. He was immunocompromised, and a double whammy of pneumonia and COVID-19 was just too much. My stepmother said if I claimed a share of their house, I would be responsible for half the utilities, property taxes and general upkeep.

Here is where it gets complicated: My dad did not have a will. I know I have some right to at least a portion of my father’s personal and marital property. My uncle shared his interpretation of the law with my stepmother, who asked me for my thoughts. I told her to hire a lawyer to make sense of it all, because I just know what I can see online and am not an expert.

Yesterday, she reached out to let me know that she had made a will and that I would get one quarter of her estate, while her three children would get the other three quarters. As she put it, “This is what your dad would have wanted.” She then informed me that her lawyer was sending me a letter that would relinquish my rights to my dad’s estate.

‘We aren’t close’

I never agreed to sign anything, nor do I even know the full value of my father’s estate. She immediately moved to a new subject, and I wasn’t comfortable pushing the topic without additional research to understand my rights. I don’t like to make waves and I’m generally the type that gives in just to keep the peace.

How do I make sure my stepmother is taken care of financially without completely giving up my rights to my dad’s estate? She lives on the other side of the country and I honestly will never see her or her children again. We aren’t close and this isn’t the “The Brady Bunch.” We were never a blended family. I told her to talk to a lawyer.

My stepmother is in her 60s. She could remarry and fall victim to scammers, or even fall under the influence of family members who want to take advantage of her. I am not comfortable signing away my rights and crossing my fingers that everything works out when she passes. This isn’t the first death in my family, and it won’t be the last.

Death and money bring out the worst in people. Do you have any suggestions on how to handle this gracefully?

The Stepson

Dear Stepson,

The only way to handle this gracefully is to ensure that you are both playing by the rules — that is, abiding by the intestate laws in Texas.

Your stepmother has certainly proved that she is unable to handle this gracefully. By insisting that you sign a letter relinquishing your rights to your father’s estate, she is attempting to take advantage of your good nature. You are your father’s only child, and she doesn’t know what he would have wanted. Her stunt provides an estate-planning lesson for all of us: Sign a will to prevent these kinds of 11th-hour shenanigans.

Do not sign the letter from your stepmother’s lawyer. If she intended to split your father’s estate fairly and equitably, she would do so now and not ask you to sign away your rights. As you say, wills can be changed — and if I were a betting man, I would gamble that she will either not write such a will, or write one to show you as leverage and promptly change it. If this doesn’t work, expect her to ratchet up the emotional blackmail.

Your stepmother does not believe it’s her responsibility to take care of you financially. On the contrary, she seems to feel it’s her responsibility to strip you of your inheritance, and she can only do this with your cooperation. Similarly, it is not your responsibility to take care of your stepmother. She appears more than capable of doing that herself. Plus, as you say, she has her own children....>

<....Texas intestate law

My guess is that your stepmother is well aware of intestate laws in Texas. Given that your father died without a will and had a child from a previous marriage, his second wife would retain her half of their community property and one-third of your father’s separate property. You would inherit your father’s half of their community property and two-thirds of his separate property.

Separate property is anything acquired before their marriage, plus gifts or inheritance acquired during their marriage. In Texas, there is a twist: According to Article XVI, Section 52 of the Texas Constitution, your stepmother has the right to live in the house she shared with her husband for the remainder of her life, but ownership of the property will be divided in accordance with intestate law upon her death.

“The laws of intestacy only apply to assets that would normally have passed through a will,” according to the law firm Roman & Sumner, based in Sugar Land, Texas. They don’t apply to the proceeds of life insurance, retirement-fund accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s, property owned in joint tenancy with a third party, property in a living trust or payable-on-death accounts. “This type of property passes to named beneficiaries or surviving co-owners,” the firm adds.

Speaking of potential scammers, your stepmother appears willing to fill that role. She is either incorrect or deliberately peddling a falsehood that you would be responsible for half of the housing expenses if you claimed a share of the home. If she continues to live in the house that she shared with your father, she would be responsible for upkeep, utilities, insurance and property taxes. As the “remainderman,” you are not responsible for these costs during her lifetime.

You can handle it gracefully by hiring a lawyer and petitioning the court to appoint an administrator for your father’s estate.>

<During a rambling speech in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, last Thursday, Republican nominee Donald Trump previewed what voting could look like in the United States if he’s elected president. And (spoiler alert), it’s likely to leave a lot of Americans out of the process. And the rant offered some insight into why he might have been inspired to tell his followers they won’t have to vote again if they elect him in November.

He said:

We have to get back in and we want to change it all. We want to go to paper ballots. We want to go to same-day voting. We want to go to citizenship papers, and we want to go to voter ID. It's very simple. We want to get rid of mail-in voting.”

As president, Trump and his administration wouldn’t have the power to enact these policies on their own. But it’s entirely possible if he’s elected that Trump will take liberties — pun intended — and test those boundaries, given the Supreme Court ruling that granted him immunity for so-called official acts. So it’s worth looking at how these things would actually affect ordinary Americans if Trump and his GOP get their way.

He said “we want to go to paper ballots” — but the overwhelming majority of counties in the United States (98% of them, according to the Brennan Center) already use paper ballots. Machines, however, do most of the counting. But far-right proposals to hand-count ballots could increase the cost of elections, increase the inaccuracy of vote counts and delay the certification of elections in ways that allow bad actors to make bogus allegations of voter fraud.

Trump said he wants to go to “same-day” voting, an apparent reference to “one day” voting he’s backed in the past, which would effectively end mail-in voting. This would hurt rural voters, a large number of whom have thrown their support behind Trump in the past. It would also disproportionately affect disabled voters, whose voter participation was boosted in 2020 thanks to mail-in voting. Residents of states where mail-in voting is immensely popular — like the crucial swing state of Arizona — are unlikely to appreciate Trump threatening their way of life this way. They’ve already rejected Trumpian candidates like Kari Lake, who pushed similar efforts to ban mail-in voting at Trump’s instigation. (Also like Lake, Trump can’t seem to make up his mind whether he is against mail-in voting or for it, as he seemed to be just months ago.)

Trump’s plan to require “citizenship papers” — like recently passed voter ID laws — is also ripe for discrimination. Despite states already having methods to check voters’ citizenship (which is required to vote in federal elections), the GOP-controlled House passed a bill to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. This comes at the same time Republicans have pushed conspiracy theories about noncitizens voting. State voter ID laws passed by Republicans have been shown to disproportionately impede nonwhite people, and advocates warn that a “citizenship papers” requirement could disenfranchise potentially millions of Americans for whom such paperwork is not easily accessible. This group of voters is disproportionately nonwhite and identifies as independent or Democrat, according to NPR.

All of this helps to explain why Trump seems to believe his followers won’t need to vote again if he’s elected. If he can get Republicans to distort the voting process and limit ballot access in ways that target liberal-leaning groups, he can effectively ensure he and his party stay in power with little to no risk of meaningful opposition.>

<Project 2025, the far-right playbook for a second Trump presidency, predictably takes aim at government programs designed to help the most vulnerable populations in this country: poor and low-wage folks, people of color, families that don’t fit the traditional two-parent model and families of mixed legal status.

Project 2025 takes aim at government programs designed to help the most vulnerable populations in this country.

The attack on America’s most vulnerable is especially evident in Chapter 15, which focuses on the Department of Housing and Urban Development. One of the first lines in that chapter reads:

“The Secretary should initiate a HUD task force consisting of politically appointed personnel to identify and reverse all actions taken by the Biden Administration to advance progressive ideology.”

Now, what progressive ideology are they talking about? According to Project 2025 “progressive ideology” is anything that includes language that refers to race, diversity, equity and inclusion, gender or sexuality, or environmental protection.

First off, it’s important to understand why we need this “progressive ideology” in housing policy at all. In the 1930s, as the nation was reeling from the Great Depression, the federal government implemented a program to help struggling Americans with their mortgages so that they could avoid foreclosure.

In an attempt to prevent foreclosure, the Home Owners Loan Corp. sent representatives to appraise homes and neighborhoods. They were tasked with determining the value and identifying any “detrimental factors” that would inform which homes lenders would want to insure. As it turns out, to lenders, being Black was a “detrimental factor.”

Inadequate federal policies allowed these lenders to refuse to insure mortgages in or even near Black neighborhoods. This phenomenon became known as redlining, and its effects can still be felt in neighborhoods across America today. According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, about 3 out of every 4 neighborhoods in the U.S. that were redlined in the 1930s are still of low-to-moderate income and roughly 2 out of every 3 are predominantly populated by people of color.

Throughout America’s history, Black and brown neighborhoods have been treated as “sacrifice zones.”

The government’s housing policies of the 1930s also provided subsidies for developers to build suburban communities and subdivisions, while allowing them to be available only to white people. It was effectively forced segregation. It pushed Black Americans into housing projects and reinforced systems that stagnated inequality, preventing upward mobility for nonwhite people.

Throughout America’s history, Black and brown neighborhoods have been treated as “sacrifice zones.” For example, interstates, highways and industrial zones were systematically built to cut these neighborhoods off from economic and opportunity centers, while, at the same time, exposing them to higher environmental and pollution risks....>

<....For decades, there have been attempts to help America inch closer to equity in housing and undo some of the racist policies of the past. The Biden administration made several important steps toward improving housing equity. Now, Project 2025 wants to undo all of that progress.

Among other proposals, it recommends that the next conservative president, “Immediately end the Biden Administration’s Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (PAVE) policies” and “Repeal the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation reinstituted under the Biden Administration.”

These policies were designed by the Biden Administration specifically to chip away at the decades of housing inequality still affecting communities today by preventing racial bias in home appraisal, actively undoing segregation and allowing lenders to address the effects of our history of housing discrimination.

But Project 2025 doesn’t end there. On page 509, the mandate says the department should “prohibit noncitizens, including all mixed-status families, from living in all federally assisted housing.” That means tens of thousands of immigrant families — including those with spouses, parents or children who are legal U.S. citizens — will face eviction. According to HUD, about 55,000 children would face eviction under that proposal.

Another policy inside Project 2025 proposes putting strict limits on public housing residents by scrapping “housing first” models of assistance. “Housing first” models have been extensively studied and found to be far more effective at reducing poverty and homelessness than “treatment first” models, which often require sobriety and mental health treatment. Those models have higher rates of failure and recidivism, because, the fact is, if you are trying to recover from addiction, you need housing first.

On page 512, the mandate also recommends, “maximal flexibility to direct the [Public Housing Agency] land sales that involve the existing stock of public housing units. Congress must consider the future of the public housing model…where land can be sold by PHAs and put to greater economic use.” In other words, it recommends that Congress allow land currently used for public housing to be sold to private developers for the right price.

It’s clear Project 2025 plans for a second Trump administration will only make it more difficult for low-income, already-disadvantaged Americans to achieve stable, safe, affordable housing — likely putting the American dream of home ownership even further out of reach.>

<From the presidential election to the insurrection at the Capitol, Donald Trump and the MAGA movement are usually portrayed as a national news story. But the impact it's had on local politics is just as serious — and often quite devastating. Taking advantage of the low turnout at local elections, QAnoners, election deniers, and anti-vaccination extremists have been able to gain power on city councils and school boards, where they often proceed to wreak havoc on the local community.

In "Chaos Comes Calling: The Battle Against the Far-Right Takeover of Small-Town America," journalist Sasha Abramsky documents how two rural communities in the Pacific Northwest were overwhelmed by far-right radicals. It's a sobering story, but also one that offers hope. Concerned citizens in Clallam County, Washington, beat back the MAGA menace, offering a model for others looking to protect their communities, whether their immediate town or the nation. Abramsky spoke with Salon about his work and why it matters for the future.

What communities did you decide to follow for this book, and why?

The book is focused mainly on two communities in the Northwest. One is in the far north of California, called Shasta County. The other one is on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington and the county is Clallam, where I focused on a small town called Sequim. They both had an extraordinary lurch rightward that gathered pace during the pandemic. Shasta County had long been right-wing, with a militia presence and the idea of seceding from the rest of California. Then the pandemic debates over social distancing and school closures and then the vaccines turbocharged everything. There was this purge, where moderate Republicans who had been in charge of the county beforehand lost out to the hard-right: Republicans who were aligned with the militia movement, who were spouting QAnon theories and who were very involved in the MAGA movement.

Sequim was historically a fairly liberal place but had low voter participation for local elections. So an organized hard-right seized power, simply because people weren't paying attention. In the pandemic era, the city government was taken over by somebody who was using city time and city resources to promote QAnon. It triggered a good governance backlash, where locals organized and pushed back successfully against QAnon and MAGA.

If you look at what happened in Shasta and you look at what happened in Clallam County, they provide a study of contrast, which has huge implications for our national story. A we going to be able to organize nationally, to push back against the MAGA movement? Or is the MAGA movement ascendant? It was a window into a much bigger story that was occurring nationally.

Even though these stories go in different directions, I was struck by a similarity: the dramatic emotional impact on the people these stories, because of their community tearing itself apart.

What happens when local communities get into this kind of political battle is neighbors turning against neighbors. It gets very bitter, very quickly. People on the left get embittered by people on the right. People on the right get embittered by people on the left. The room for a conversation disappears.

I was interviewing people on the left. I was interviewing people on the right. I was interviewing militia members. I have voices from across the community. And what I wanted to do was tell their stories in a complex way. I didn't want to reduce anyone to a caricature, because that defeats the objective. With what happened around the pandemic with the schools closing, with businesses shuttering, with the economic and social dislocation, I have sympathy with people on all sides, even those I disagree with. This was one of those issues that tore the country apart. It injected both irrational and rational anger into our politics. And it's still playing out today.

You can't understand the story I'm trying to tell without understanding three things. One of them was the rise of social media, which turbocharged the politics of rumor. The second thing was the rise of Donald Trump, which was intimately linked with the rise of social media. He injected a vast amount of anger into the politics of the country. The third thing was the pandemic, which just tore everybody apart, tore communities apart. I want people to understand the dislocation that was occurring and that still is occurring, not just at the national level, but on Main Street. Unless you understand that, it's impossible to navigate a way forward. And there has to be a way forward because the current moment is so dysfunctional. No democracy can survive that much anger over a prolonged period. For the sake of survival, we have to work out a more civil discourse....>

<....A lot of us experience Trumpism and the MAGA movement as a national story. In these particular communities, it was felt on this granular local level. Why has this national story become such a localized phenomenon in some places?

Pragmatism used to define local politics: getting roads built, filling in potholes, making sure kids had safe spaces on the way to school. All of that local pragmatic politics got swamped by the sheer rage of the national discourse. But it goes the other way, too. The more local politics came to be defined by these increasingly angry battles, the more it played into a national narrative. A local story would be picked up by someone like Tucker Carlson, who would use it to whip up rage. Not just nationally, but because of social media, it would be picked up internationally.

One of the public health doctors that I focus on is a young woman named Alison Berry who was the public health officer for Clallam County. She was effective and smart. She came to grips with the local pandemic. When the state reopened for business, she noticed that there were these huge spikes in infections and that the spikes in infections were concentrated around bars and restaurants. And so she came up with this idea to impose a temporary vaccine mandate to sit indoors at a restaurant or a bar. Very rapidly the infection rates went down. It was a public health success, but it aroused a tremendous local backlash. Because of social media, the opponents were able to coordinate with people all over the world. And so Alison Berry, this anonymous, local public health official, suddenly was getting death threats from 10,000 miles away. You had the local anger. And then you had it amplified on bigger channels like Fox News. And then you had it amplified even more on social media. This is a toxic environment. Unless we get a handle on these technologies, unless we learn to use social media more responsibly, we're heading into a dark period where rumor replaces fact and that makes democracy extremely hard to function.

You retell a story from Forks, Washington, where rumors that "antifa" was coming to town got whipped up in 2020. An innocent family was threatened. What were people thinking, that they were ready to believe antifa was invading their small town?

You have to put yourself back in the mindset of the summer of 2020. We're in the depths of the pandemic. People have been socially isolating for months. People are dying every day by the thousands. So there was this terror of outsiders anyway. On top of that, you had the George Floyd protests, where all of this pent-up anger and frustration poured out onto the streets. And in small towns, there was a barrier mindset. People felt, "We've got to stop outsiders from coming in because we don't know who they are or where they're coming from or what their motives are."

In small towns around the country, these rumors took off that the big city anarchists were coming into the small communities to burn them down. Racial rumors started that people were coming to attack white folk. On the Olympic Peninsula, a few days into the protests, a rumor starts that a white school bus is going to come into town filled with people who are "antifa." And they're going to burn the local communities down.

Unfortunately, this mixed-race family comes in looking only to camp and to escape from the pandemic a little bit in the woods. They get stopped by locals who are terrified that they are "antifa." They're followed into the woods by dozens of mainly young men on all-terrain vehicles with guns, in an incredibly remote part of the country. There's all the potential for a complete tragedy. There's all the potential for a lynching. Now it does get diffused in the end, after the sheriffs come in and convince the young guys to go home. But this family was at risk of serious physical harm because of this uncontrolled rumor mill.

It's tempting for many to believe this stuff is in the past, especially after the pandemic. But Donald Trump is seeding the idea that Democrats are gonna steal the 2024 election. He's signaling to local election officials that they need to interfere in the November election.