If Congress does not pass legislation protecting the tribe and the legal challenge fails, the Mashpee would be stripped of their right to exercise sovereign jurisdiction over their land.
Jessie Little Doe Baird, the tribe’s vice-chairwoman, told Al Jazeera that loss of jurisdiction would prevent the tribe from running indigenous language schools, tribal courts, and housing projects, as well as its own police.
“We have our own police force, which is important because they’re tribal citizens and since we’ve had our own police force, none of our men have been beaten or shot, which we’ve had before with non-tribal police,” she said.
I think people really underestimate how fucking evil a large chunk of American Christianity is, when they try to say to antichoicers “well if you’re against abortion, at least you should support things like WIC and SNAP, so that women facing an unplanned pregnancy can still feed their future kid”
I’ll be blunt, to American Christians like this, “but single mothers and their kids will starve!” is the entire fucking point. Being ostracized by your family and community and left for you and your bastard child to starve alone in abject misery and deprivation is what they believe the Godly punishment should be for being “unchaste,” and that things like food benefits and contraception are destroying moral society because they let women have unapproved sex without being as controlled by the fear of being cast out to starve with an unwanted kid (this also heavily ties into misogynist racism against woc, especially black women, who are accused of being “welfare queens,” draining good, properly chaste white Christians with kids born from their supposedly mindlessly lustful and irresponsible behavior, that can only be kept in check with threats of starvation or violence).
“Women (especially woc) cannot overcome their base urges and live virtuous lives without being heavily trained and coerced by threats of deprivation, isolation, and violence” is one of the most important unspoken ground rules of reactionary movements, both religious and secular
Evangelicals have no long-standing theological problem with abortion. My parents have been married for longer than evangelicals have been against abortion. Evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t care about abortion. Being against abortion was a Catholic thing. Evangelicals thought abortion is unfortunate, but not evil.
What changed?
Bob Jones v. US (1983).
Bob Jones University, an evangelical school, had a segregationist dating policy. It means what you think it does – they wouldn’t allow white students to date black students. They also wouldn’t admit black students who supported interracial marriage. This was in the mid-70s. Loving v Virginia was nearly a decade in the rearview mirror. The government threatened to revoke their tax-exempt status as a university unless this Jim Crow shit stopped. The school sued, and this eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Court, unsurprisingly, agreed with the government.
What was clear to evangelical leaders, then, in 1983, was that out-and-out racism was no longer going to be tolerated. What could they focus on that would have the same effect? What could rally the base without openly espousing racist views?
Reagan, with his “welfare queens” dog-whistle politicking gave them a like-minded politician glad of their support. And Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was only to happy to tell people what he thought of abortion.
So here we are, thirty-five years later, with every evangelical doing their damnedest to pretend that evangelicals have always been against abortion. They’ve lied themselves into believing it, and now they claim they’re against birth control too. That’s even more spurious – If they actually thought life begins at conception, then birth control would be a necessity, because fertilized eggs being rejected is the norm. Most of what they want to call human life never even gets implanted in the womb, or lasts very long if it does. And if they cared about life, welfare programs ought to be the most important, to ensure everyone has a good standard of living worthy of human beings.
But they don’t care about those things, so the only conclusion is that they are not pro-life. They just don’t want to see family planning and health care go to women, people of color, LGBTQ folks, etc.
It was never about being pro-life.
(and incidentally – Bob Jones v US was an 8-1 decision. Who was the dissenting voice? None other than William Rehnquist. Who was elevated to Chief Justice by Reagan when Warren Burger retired a few years later. None of what has happened has happened by accident)
And it’s worth noting that Bob Jones University defended their policy exclusively on religious freedom grounds, but Rehnquist’s dissent was based entirely on procedural grounds. Even the one justice who was “on their side” didn’t buy their argument and had to justify it on other grounds. It’s been a long road from BJU v. US to the Hobby Lobby case.
I have a similar theory about why evangelicals fight so hard against believing climate change when supposedly humans are stewards of the earth. It’s all about evolution. Climate change is a proxy war. It’s all the same rhetoric about scientists being corrupt and only looking out for their own interests and trying to shove their research down other people’s throats.
For a group of people who supposedly believe that God charged them with taking care of the Earth, they really seem to have bought into the whole “I can do whatever I want to the planet because God put us in charge of it” mindset really hard. Of course, maybe this is just the 21st century version of manifest destiny.
I think another problem is that with a large chunk of US evangelicalism, the world ending is what they want. The apocalypse means that the chosen few get carried off to heaven as a reward for beating the shit out of their gay kid or whatever, while the rest of us who failed to give the true believers the obedience respect that they feel entitled to are left behind to die in slow agony before being cast into eternal hell. It’s really hard to get people to give a shit about the planet dying when they view literally would have the world end to own the libs
It’s ABSOLUTELY what they want. During the Bush years, they were pretty up front about it, too. The entirety of the Evangelicals’ support of Israel is explicitly so that the Jewish People rebuild the Solomon’s Temple; which is a prerequisite for the events of Revelations to happen. The sooner it’s built, the sooner the Rapture can sweep them up into Heaven so they can laugh as all the “sinners” suffer the End Times. They don’t ACTUALLY care about Israelis or the long lasting sociopolitical factors of the area; they’re literally just pawns for the most death cult aspect of American Evangelical Christianity. It’s legitimately terrifying that people like this run large sections of a nation already capable of destroying all life on the planet.
It’s a fatal but common liberal mistake to assume that evangelicals are motivated by (misguided) compassion. They’re not. They will watch you die and be pleased about it because youve gone to hell faster.
It’s maybe not immediately apparent to USAmericans under the age of thirty, because of the way human beings (myself included when I’m not careful) tend to parse anything they can’t personally remember as “history.” But anytime you read about the government deporting Central Americans who have lived in this country for 20 or 30 years, it’s important to recognize that you are reading about refugees from wars that the United States funded.
This history is exceedingly recent. Anyone in the region over the age of about 35 has clear memories; people in their mid-to-late 40s were adults when the wars ended (early 1990s); folks in their late 50s lived through arguably the bloodiest years of state terrorism in the early ‘80s, when atrocities like El Mozote or Dos Erres were being committed on a regular basis (cw: everything you’d expect when discussing stomach-turning war crimes). Odds are quite high that they personally know at least one person who was tortured or raped or murdered or disappeared – or that they have experienced or witnessed or been threatened with this kind of violence themselves.
Central American justice systems are only just managing to prosecute some of the people who orchestrated the death squads now. Forensic anthropologists are still exhuming mass graves. Efraín Ríos Montt died weeks ago, before he could be re-convicted of genocide after the initial guilty verdict (the first time a head of state has been convicted of genocide in his own country, iirc) was overturned on a technicality. Military and government leaders who were actively involved in committing and/or covering up human rights abuses are still very much a part of the power structure in these countries and in our own. (One suggestive example: Jose Rodriguez – the CIA’s deputy director for operations post-9/11, who infamously destroyed videotapes of interrogations and remains defiantly unapologetic about torture – joined the CIA in 1976 and spent virtually all of his career in Latin America.)
A lot of otherwise well-meaning and informative journalism fails to contextualize this. A disappointing amount of immigration activism fails to contextualize this. And it’s REALLY IMPORTANT CONTEXT. You can draw a pretty direct line between the US government’s refusal to grant asylum to refugees fleeing right-wing dictatorships during the 1980s – because doing so would have required them to acknowledge that their allies were indeed committing human rights abuses, and thus (at least theoretically) to cut off funding to them – and the question of who does and does nothave legal immigration status today.
Greetings friends! The midterms are so close, are you registered to vote?
You: I can’t vote, I’m an Ex-Offender
ARE YOU SURE?
I live in Vermont or Maine: You never lost your right to vote
I live in DC, Hawai’i, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland*, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, or Utah: You can vote upon your release from incarceration.
That’s cool but I don’t live in those states. I live in: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington (state), West Virginia.: You can vote once you have completed your sentence (parole and/or probation)
Wow! That’s really cool. But, um. I don’t live in those states. I live in:
Alabama: You cannot vote if you have been convicted of any felony listed here. Crimes of ‘moral turpitude’ including: Murder, Manslaughter, Kidnapping, Rape, Sodomy, Sexual Torture/Abuse
Arizona: First time offender? Complete your probation and payment of any fine or restitution and you can vote. Multiple Offender? You have to apply to a judge to vote.
Delaware You cannot vote if you have been convicted of murder, bribery or sexual offenses. If you have been pardoned or had your sentence completed, get your vote on!
Florida Rights must be restored via the governor and a clemency board. In the November elections Floridians have the opportunity to vote for Amendment Four and restore voting rights to over a million Floridians. So that man that threw an alligator at someone can vote?? YES but so can your dumb little brother who thought carrying a concealed weapon would be cool when he was 19. So can the drug addict who robbed a convenience store but has been clean for 20 years.
Iowa You must petition the governor
Kentucky You must petition the governor
Mississippi If you have committed one of the following crimes: armed robbery, arson, bigamy, bribery, carjacking, embezzlement, extortion, felony bad check, felony shoplifting, forgery, larceny, murder, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, rape, receiving stolen property, robbery, statutory rape, theft, timber larceny, and unlawful taking of a vehicle. you cannot vote unless a bill passed by both houses of the legislature or through the governor. If you did NOT commit one of those crimes, you can vote even while incarcerated
Nebraska Voting rights are automatically restored two years after the completion of all supervised release
Nevada Voting rights are restored automatically after sentence completion if convicted of a non-violent felony. However, those convicted of a violent felony and all second-time felony offenders (whether violent or non-violent) can only have their rights restored by the court in which they were convicted.
Tennessee Individuals convicted of a felony since 1981–except for some felonies such as murder, rape, treason and voter fraud–may apply to the Board of Probation and Parole to have their voting rights restored once their sentence is completed.
Virginia: You can vote if you completed your sentence, including probation and parole. This is not a law but an order by the governor. A new governor can repeal this.
Wisconsin-Voting rights are automatically restored upon completion of all supervised release
Wyoming- Voting rights restoration is dependent on the type of conviction: first-time non-violent felony offenders can apply to the Wyoming Board of Parole five years after completion of sentence. All others must apply to the Governor for either a pardon or a restoration of rights, but must wait ten and five years, respectively, after completing their sentence.
In many cases you must RE-REGISTER to vote but you can vote.
*If you are guilty of buying or selling votes, you have to get the governor to pardon you.
This is not intended to be comprehensive, you should check out your state’s laws for any quirks.
Remember people of color are disproportionately incarcerated. Double check you may be able to make your voice heard
god this is a big ask but I really wish there were like….. a site where you could plug in your state/district/whatever and tick some boxes on issues you prioritize and then the site would give you a rundown of the potential candidates in your area and where they stand on those issues in like….. clean simple bullet points. gimme the cliffnotes, I literally do not have the time or energy to comb through god knows how many articles and shit to figure out who to support, just tell me what their stance is on X, Y, and Z, and that’s gonna have to be enough.
It goes through who’s on your ballot and explains things like that based on your address.
this is really great. it gives you bullet points on what each candidate has said and done on each issue.
very illuminating, frankly, seeing the candidate’s own words and actions. for instance, under ‘defense/veterans’ the republican candidates almost always say something about a well-funded military, and the democrats almost always say something about getting veterans the medical care they need. makes it pretty obvious that republicans don’t care about soldiers once they’re done with them.
fuck every democrat who says the issue of trans rights is a “distraction.” fuck every single liberal who say that the threat of stripping every trans person of legal recognition is a red herring or a losing issue and if we focus on it too long we’ll throw the election. we’re talking about human rights, access to medical care, sex education, discrimination, citizenship, and a whole lot else, for millions of people.
trans people aren’t a “distraction.” we’re human beings. the fact that so many liberals turn their backs on trans people is fucking despicable.
Okay…but this, right here? This is exactly what the Republican party wants. Young voters turning against the Democratic party and either not voting at all, or voting in favor of some third party candidate that has literally zero chance of pulling in enough votes to win. They want division among the ranks. They want to split our vote.
In political terms, calling something a ‘distraction’ means it’s a distraction tactic, not that the issue itself isn’t important. The Republican party has a very longstanding history of dropping hints of major policy changes right before big elections in the hopes of getting the “hot-headed liberals” all fired up about it so we start bickering among ourselves. They deliberately drop issues that they know are hot-button topics because these are the topics that have the potential to be the most divisive.
They’re awful but they’re not dumb. They know trans rights is an issue that could potentially split the democratic vote. It’s an issue that’s very heavily weighted toward the younger side of the party, which again, was a deliberate move on their part. If they can convinced you that the “big bad Democrats don’t care about you little trans and nonbinary kids so why bother,” then they’ve effectively won the election in a walk because the democrats went in divided–again.
Look, the democratic party isn’t perfect. Not by a long shot. But it’s literally the only party that has a snowball’s chance in hell at overtaking the republican majority right now. If we as trans and nonbinary individuals ever want our identities respected and protected, it’s the only party that’s going to be able to get us there, because it’s the party going in the direction we need to go. If you want to vote in favor of our rights, then vote Democrat. No number of videos with pennies is going to change the fact that right now, in this political climate, third party candidates are not going to have enough power to effect the changes we want.
Warning against something being a distraction doesn’t mean “don’t look at it or worry about it,” it means, “hey, I know this is majorly upsetting, and absolutely something needs to be done, but don’t let it divide us.” It’s literally because the issue is so important that democrats are warning against it as a distraction tactic–if we want to prevent that kind of change from happening under republican rule, we have to keep our heads and not let them keep us from voting as a unified party.
Please don’t let the political rhetoric make you think that the democratic party isn’t going to be fighting for us and our rights. That’s kind of exactly what the Republican party wants you to think. It’s a division tactic. Don’t fall for it.
The Republican party has a very longstanding history of dropping hints of major policy changes right before big elections in the hopes of getting the “hot-headed liberals” all fired up about it so we start bickering among ourselves.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
I’ve been voting since 1998. This is what they do every single election.
tora42's nonsensne 