1. Short thread - on the various claims we're seeing from Republican politicians over the last few days that the Democratic push for accountability is "divisive." Damn right it's divisive - that is what it has to be.

2. It is intended to enforce a clear division between those who accept and are committed to democracy and those who are willing to turn to violence when the vote doesn't turn out the way that they want it to.

3. One of the basic implications of Adam Przeworski's theoretic work is that democracy is made out of mutually reinforcing expectations, and those expectations are fragile. If some actors think they would be better off defecting from the democratic bargain, they will.

4. In other words: democracy and armed factionalism are far closer than we think, or we would like them to be. This means that it is incredibly important to police the boundaries between them. Allowing some to turn to violence can lead to expectation collapse and cascading ruin.

5. When we allow the divisions to become blurred, that means that we are running the perpetual risk of things getting fucked up. If a major faction turns to violence, and no-one responds, things can get really fucked up really, really fast.

1. Juan O’Savin for verifying this. “Plane crashes are targeted kills.”

Here is a brief summary for those who may not be familiar with Kennedy History:

Our pretensions to civilization have become very thin. Political violence was legitimized last year and is spreading wildly now. "Might makes right" is clearly the only "principle" behind freedom of speech. That's why Chinese Communists will never be censored by Big Tech.

When every "principle" becomes nothing but a ruthless exercise of power, it's not surprising that a growing number of people conclude they must demonstrate some sort of power in order to be taken seriously. Violence is the crudest exercise of power.

A well-run civilization makes it clear *universally* that violence is absolutely unacceptable. Giving free passes for irresponsible rhetoric and destruction to groups favored by the dominant political ideology of the State undermines that message.

We must also people peaceable means of expressing themselves and controlling their own lives, to relieve the pressures that can lead to violent outbursts and other forms of lawlessness. The less healthy discourse and freedom of action you have, the more pressure builds up.

It's dangerous when large numbers of people begin drawing the conclusion that might makes right, that laws and principles bend easily for those who have the political strength to bend them. Might makes right is the code of anarchy and barbarism, the antithesis of civilization.

Despite the massive triumphs of the world's largest corporations and most rapacious billionaires during the covid crisis, neoliberalism is in ideological retreat: more people are more critical of the idea that "free markets" can solve big problems than at any time in my life.

1/

The Democratic nomination race was a fight between the neoliberal wing of the party and the Democratic Socialists, with the candidates representing a spectrum between those two sides (and the odd outlier on either side).

2/

Supposedly, the party grandees brokered peace between the two main factions, but the left is rightfully suspicious about whether Biden - and Republicans-who-sit-as-Dems like Joe Manchin - will deliver anything beyond symbolic gestures.

3/

One bright spot: Bernie Sanders is finally chairing the Senate Budget Committee, giving him enormous power over muscular covid relief packages, Medicare expansion, and rolling back Trump and Bush tax-cuts on the

This is where Sanders' long experience in the Senate, and his virtuoso work using its procedures to advance his position, will serve him well. As we saw with McConnell, the ability to wield procedure is a powerful asset in getting stuff done.

5/

💥Ted Cruz, Ali Alexander, and CJ Pearson.

The road to the January 6th insurrection.

Thread

This thread involves 3 main players:
1)Ted Cruz
2)Ali Alexander
3)CJ Pearson.

The first two you are aware of but let me give you a brief overview to give some context.

You've all seen the Stop the Steal clip by now with Ali Alexander.

But what you might not have known is that the person standing next to Ali Alexander on stage with Sidney Powell & Lin Wood is a young republican by the name of:

CJ Pearson

But we'll get back to him soon.

First, let's talk about Ted Cruz.

Cruz was one of the leading & most influential figures responsible for the Jan 6th insurrection.

I won’t go too deep into Cruz as we generally know his story. But @donwinslow does a good job of representing his

The second player is Ali Alexander (Formerly Ali Abdul Razaq Akbar) but what you may not have known is that Ali has been in this game for a LONG time.

Alexander actually got his beginnings in 2007-2008 during the Tea Party movement to which he claims he co-founded.

@Rahmeljackson ===CORN POP CRITICAL EXEGESIS===

first, the fabula:
1. a young, Joseph R. Biden becomes the lifeguard at an integrated community pool (a rarity at the time)

2. this community pool, located in Wilmington, Delaware was a frequent haunt of a Black gang of local toughs called "The Romans". The Romans were led by the notorious and redoubtable, Corn Pop.

3. Joseph Biden, one of the few white employees at the community pool, is keen to establish himself as the legitimate authority of this space. He singles out his mostly likely presumptive challenger, Corn Pop, and instigates a conflict with him by calling him "Esther Williams".

Footnote to 3.

There are 2 highly contextual story elements endogenous to the chronotype of early 1962 Wilmington. Biden, in recounting the story in 2017, stresses their peculiarity-"And to show you how things have changed,"

He's not talking about race relations, but Pomade.

(con't)

Pomade was a water-based styling gel made from lanolin, beeswax, or petroleum jelly, and was popular (along with hair relaxer) in 1950s-60s African-American young men's fashion.

This detail is not simply "cosmetic', but ironically integral to the story's main conflict.

1/ Political violence is NEVER an appropriate call to action. It is certainly not appropriate for a sitting United States Senator like @CoryBooker to call on Americans to head to the Capitol to "get up in the face of Congresspeople." #incitement

BIDEN LIED THREAD: The 46th President of the United States has a long and well-documented history of dishonesty. This thread includes just a few examples that #BidenLied.

51. Continued from previous Tweet...

About January 23, Congressperson would submit impeachment articles on [B]iden. They would use the 25th Amendment.

By January 23, arrests would start including [B]iden and [H]arris

By January 24, Expect the EBS and a major release of...

A list of questions about the 1/6 siege: a thread. About motives, planning, and operations.

Did members of Congress or their staff unwittingly take participants in the riot on private tours before the rally? If so, and after the tours, did any of them have reason to think that these tours would be used in service of a seditious act?

Did these private tours (if they happened) bring participants by leadership offices? Did the participants request to see certain Democratic offices? Did they gain access?

During the hour snd a half that President Trump was watching the insurrection in real time, did he explicitly say no to a request for National Guard troops?

Did Acting SecDef Miller speak with the President during this period? Did Trump convey disapproval tacitly? Was he in communication with any outside advisers during this period?

Where are we at as of 1450 CET?

Talks continuing, could go on for a while longer. One informed source is suggesting that because the fish deal was agreed at the high political level (btn @vonderleyen and @BorisJohnson) it was left to officials to translate it into real numbers

2/ Some reflections from an EU diplomat briefed on the rest of the deal, which appears to be in place:

3/ "There is nothing particularly surprising. It is consistent with what we've been hearing all along. The UK red lines are respected. Our concerns are also respected. Of course we have to see the fine print, but in general there is a robust level playing field."

4/ The LPF mechanism is said to be a "complicated structure" which works both ways.

5/ "It doesn't mean that because you have these structures you necessarily have to use them. The mood at the moment is, do you want to diverge [from EU standards] for the sake of diverging? In reality, most likely, pragmatism will prevail."

Dear @HouseDemocrats:

HR 1 requires that the voter “have the option to mark his or her ballot by hand.”

Pls add the following for clarity: “For jurisdictions w/ in person voting, this option shall be provided to the voter at the polling place.” @RepTedLieu @katieporteroc 1/

Without this clarifying language, jurisdictions cld still force all in person voters to use risky touchscreen voting machines called ballot marking devices (BMDs), as long as vote by mail is also an option. That won’t suffice to protect election integrity & faith in elections. 2/

Unlike #HandMarkedPaperBallots (pen and paper), BMDs are vulnerable to electronic failure, screen freezes, miscalibration, disproportionate distribution (causing bottlenecks & long lines in suppressed areas), and hacking. 3/

4/ I also suggest that you supplement HR 1 to specify that BMDs “must not put votes into barcodes or QR codes.” This language is important because barcodes & QR codes are not transparent, further endangering integrity and confidence in elections.

5/ We are only beginning now to understand how these barcodes and QR code’s unnecessarily increase the attack surface for bad actors seeking to interfere in our elections. This is unacceptable & unnecessary.

The votes are in! It looks like you want me to do a thread on monetizing your knowledge. There's quite a bit of ground to cover here, but I'm up for the challenge of doing it in a monster thread :)

So here we go: Monetizing Knowledge, from the ground up - the Thread. [1/39]

Let's start with the question of: What does it actually mean to "monetize your knowledge"?

There's two ways to go about this. The "simpler" one is to offer your knowledge as a service ("consulting"). If you know a lot about a particular problem area, you can sell your time.

But how do you accumulate this knowledge, and how do you know it's worth actual money?

I like to think there's a relatively simple formula for this, and comes down to doing the same thing over and over again: Solving problems.

In fact, you can think of it a little like mining.

We'll start with the problem. This can be almost anything - an obstacle, a bad situation, a shortcoming, the gap between how we want things to be and how they actually are.

If you can identify describe something in terms of a problem, you're already halfway to solving it.

For this to work, though, you have to pick a problem you're very interested in - because in order to level up, you're going to have to solve this problem *a lot*. As in, every day.

It could be anything from "how do I make this app suck less" to "how do I become a famous writer?"