Thank you for your writing and advocacy, and thank you for opening your comments section to everyone. I know it invites trolls and bots, but dammit—why is so much “good” content behind paywalls, while “bad” content is free? Anyone can log on to youtube and watch hours of video from right-wing provocateurs, but a sensible critique by most…
Thank you for your writing and advocacy, and thank you for opening your comments section to everyone. I know it invites trolls and bots, but dammit—why is so much “good” content behind paywalls, while “bad” content is free? Anyone can log on to youtube and watch hours of video from right-wing provocateurs, but a sensible critique by most major media is behind a paywall. How do we get around that?
I’m thinking of Will Bunch, who writes incredible columns for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Usually I’m lucky enough to read from a gift link posted by someone who subscribes to that paper—but that doesn’t help most readers.
My advice to everyone: read books, ride a bike. Two very subversive activities!
Great advice! And I agree about paywalls. I try to gift-link when I can. It’s a problem that the verified, reported stuff is inaccessible to most; this is one of the reasons I like writing for the Guardian. They ask for donations but there is no paywall.
We need to get this point out front. The airwaves on A.M. radio and Fox News are drowning our least educated citizens. Most of the least educated are good, hard working people, many whom we love. They just don’t know what they don’t know.
I support the Guardian and three Substack writers. I want the well-informed writers to earn a good income from their hard work. I will slowly add to my paid subscriptions. Thank you to the many substack writers who allow their articles to be freely read and shared.
I also support the ACLU and Mother Jones, great defenders. I need to recoup after political donations for a couple months, then add to my paid subscriptions.
Thank you for sharing this whole post and all the useful comments collected here. I am seeing way too much Democratic recriminations and way too little media self critique about the sanewashing and normalization of Trump’s policy radicalism. The discussions about project 2025 barely entered legacy media (Don Moynihan got one oped) and the journalists accepted as truth the utterly incredible claim Trump made that he knew nothing about it. The transition is already bringing all those loyalists from Project 2024 into positions of authority. But what to do now?? 1. Hold the legacy media to account for covering the plans being unrolled now as the threats they are and not a normal transition. 2. Hold ourselves accountable for calling out the lies in our interactions with others.
Here’s one example.
I don’t usually do this kind of writing, but I needed to say something. Apologies for length:
To my Republican friend who can’t understand why I’m taking this election so personally:
We meet at the dog park almost every day. We’ve done this for years. We are friendly. We sit at a picnic table in our upscale neighborhood and talk about our dogs and our lives, vacations, my RV and your grandchildren. We commiserate about health and family issues. I wish you and your family well, and I sincerely believe you wish the same for me. Everything has seemed equal – or at least equal in the context of the park and the dogs - voting a matter of personal preferences and what I took as your good-natured needling about the Democrats.
But here’s the truth – we are not equal. And in this election, your vote did not only affect you.
I need you to understand that for me to be able to sit at that table with a wife, a good job, a new car (just like yours), a nice house, and many of the rights you never question has taken decades of struggle. For me, these rights are new and they are fragile. And I am now in danger of losing every one of them.
I did not have the legal right to have an intimate relationship with my spouse until the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), a case that involved a man who was arrested for engaging in consensual sex with an adult in his own home. In their dissent to the majority opinion, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas, called the majority decision: “a massive disruption of the current social order.”
My spouse did not have the right to inherit my property until the Supreme Court decision in US v. Windsor, in 2013. In this case, Edie Windsor challenged the inheritance tax on an apartment where she had lived with her wife for decades (they married in Canada in 2007). Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito dissented. Alito wrote: “Same-sex marriage presents a highly emotional and important question of public policy—but not a difficult question of constitutional law. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.”
I did not have the right to marry my spouse until the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Rodgers (2015). Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented, writing: “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision…But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
I did not have protection against job discrimination until the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock (2020). This case established that Title VII applies to sexual orientation and gender identity and that it provides protection against discrimination. Kavanaugh and Alito dissented, with Kavanaugh writing: “Common usage in the States underscores that sexual orientation discrimination is commonly understood as a legal concept distinct from sex discrimination.”
Every one of these rights is under threat. With the exception of Rehnquist and Scalia, every one of these Justices still serves. Two were appointed by Trump. He will likely appoint even more. And recently, in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe, Justice Thomas wrote that all of the Court’s “due process precedents” should be reconsidered – including Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell.
So now what?
We need to be truthtellers like this on every issue from deportations to trans rights to the economic rights that unions provide us.
So even though you may not care for all the news in The Inquirer, you can read Will Bunch (who I admire), for only $1 for 6 months with the special offer.
Thank you for your writing and advocacy, and thank you for opening your comments section to everyone. I know it invites trolls and bots, but dammit—why is so much “good” content behind paywalls, while “bad” content is free? Anyone can log on to youtube and watch hours of video from right-wing provocateurs, but a sensible critique by most major media is behind a paywall. How do we get around that?
I’m thinking of Will Bunch, who writes incredible columns for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Usually I’m lucky enough to read from a gift link posted by someone who subscribes to that paper—but that doesn’t help most readers.
My advice to everyone: read books, ride a bike. Two very subversive activities!
Great advice! And I agree about paywalls. I try to gift-link when I can. It’s a problem that the verified, reported stuff is inaccessible to most; this is one of the reasons I like writing for the Guardian. They ask for donations but there is no paywall.
We need to get this point out front. The airwaves on A.M. radio and Fox News are drowning our least educated citizens. Most of the least educated are good, hard working people, many whom we love. They just don’t know what they don’t know.
I support the Guardian and three Substack writers. I want the well-informed writers to earn a good income from their hard work. I will slowly add to my paid subscriptions. Thank you to the many substack writers who allow their articles to be freely read and shared.
I also support the ACLU and Mother Jones, great defenders. I need to recoup after political donations for a couple months, then add to my paid subscriptions.
Precisely. We defeat ourselves with paywalls.
Thank you for sharing this whole post and all the useful comments collected here. I am seeing way too much Democratic recriminations and way too little media self critique about the sanewashing and normalization of Trump’s policy radicalism. The discussions about project 2025 barely entered legacy media (Don Moynihan got one oped) and the journalists accepted as truth the utterly incredible claim Trump made that he knew nothing about it. The transition is already bringing all those loyalists from Project 2024 into positions of authority. But what to do now?? 1. Hold the legacy media to account for covering the plans being unrolled now as the threats they are and not a normal transition. 2. Hold ourselves accountable for calling out the lies in our interactions with others.
Here’s one example.
I don’t usually do this kind of writing, but I needed to say something. Apologies for length:
To my Republican friend who can’t understand why I’m taking this election so personally:
We meet at the dog park almost every day. We’ve done this for years. We are friendly. We sit at a picnic table in our upscale neighborhood and talk about our dogs and our lives, vacations, my RV and your grandchildren. We commiserate about health and family issues. I wish you and your family well, and I sincerely believe you wish the same for me. Everything has seemed equal – or at least equal in the context of the park and the dogs - voting a matter of personal preferences and what I took as your good-natured needling about the Democrats.
But here’s the truth – we are not equal. And in this election, your vote did not only affect you.
I need you to understand that for me to be able to sit at that table with a wife, a good job, a new car (just like yours), a nice house, and many of the rights you never question has taken decades of struggle. For me, these rights are new and they are fragile. And I am now in danger of losing every one of them.
I did not have the legal right to have an intimate relationship with my spouse until the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), a case that involved a man who was arrested for engaging in consensual sex with an adult in his own home. In their dissent to the majority opinion, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas, called the majority decision: “a massive disruption of the current social order.”
My spouse did not have the right to inherit my property until the Supreme Court decision in US v. Windsor, in 2013. In this case, Edie Windsor challenged the inheritance tax on an apartment where she had lived with her wife for decades (they married in Canada in 2007). Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito dissented. Alito wrote: “Same-sex marriage presents a highly emotional and important question of public policy—but not a difficult question of constitutional law. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.”
I did not have the right to marry my spouse until the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Rodgers (2015). Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented, writing: “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision…But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
I did not have protection against job discrimination until the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock (2020). This case established that Title VII applies to sexual orientation and gender identity and that it provides protection against discrimination. Kavanaugh and Alito dissented, with Kavanaugh writing: “Common usage in the States underscores that sexual orientation discrimination is commonly understood as a legal concept distinct from sex discrimination.”
Every one of these rights is under threat. With the exception of Rehnquist and Scalia, every one of these Justices still serves. Two were appointed by Trump. He will likely appoint even more. And recently, in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe, Justice Thomas wrote that all of the Court’s “due process precedents” should be reconsidered – including Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell.
So now what?
We need to be truthtellers like this on every issue from deportations to trans rights to the economic rights that unions provide us.
Yes, thank you so much for the open comments. I enjoy your writing and the great comments.
Some of us are old political activists and want to stay relevant, but have limited means.
But I’m fighting for my kids, grandkids and two great grandkids. MAGA won’t stop me; I’d like to see them try.
And it is a cause worth donating to.
Exactly. On of my go to sources and I can get the UK news as well.
So even though you may not care for all the news in The Inquirer, you can read Will Bunch (who I admire), for only $1 for 6 months with the special offer.