#newletters | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 1 month

Text

“We have to be a nation that trusts women.”

March 15, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

The most significant political development on Thursday was the appearance by Vice President Kamala Harris at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota. Her appearance at a women’s healthcare clinic was the first by a U.S. vice president (or president) at a facility that provides abortion services. See CNN, Kamala Harris becomes first VP to visit abortion provider with Planned Parenthood visit.

The visit was part of Kamala Harris’s “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour. She is taking the lead on an issue where she can be (and has been) a more effective and outspoken advocate than President Biden. Her leadership on the issue of reproductive liberty is a good development for Harris, Biden, and the American people.

V.P. Harris said, in part,

I’m here at this health care clinic to uplift the work that is happening in Minnesota as an example of what true leadership looks like. . . . The reason I’m here is because this is a health care crisis. Part of this health care crisis is the clinics like this that have had to shut down and what that has meant to leave no options with any reasonable geographic area for so many women who need this essential care.

Harris framed the issue as one that pitted politicians against women’s control over their bodies:

How dare these elected leaders believe they are in a better position to tell women what they need. To tell women what’s in their best interest. We have to be a nation that trusts women.

Harris’s visit was historic. But it also showcased Kamala Harris’s campaign skills, including her ability to connect with women and young people on the campaign trail. For readers who remember Kamala Harris only from the debate stage in 2020, I urge you to watch a few minutes of her appearance in Minnesota.

No soaring rhetoric. No shouting. No anger. No pep rallies. Instead—like Joe Biden—she is a relatable candidate speaking to the American people about their needs, wants, and fears.

I was impressed and by Kamala Harris’s appearance in Minnasota, and I hope you will be, too.

But there is more. In a similar speech last week in Arizona, Kamala Harris touched on a matter of extreme urgency for all women and men: The plan by religious fundamentalist extremists to make contraception illegal.

In Arizona, Harris said,

And right now, other extremists, as you have heard and know, are in court trying to bring back a law from 1864 that would completely ban abortion in Arizona — 1864. Understand: 1864, before women had the right to vote, before women could own property, before Arizona was even admitted as a state.

So, the 2024 ballot will not only include access to abortion service, but access to contraception. See The Independent, Republicans are taking aim on contraception — and they’d rather you didn’t know.

In short, Kamala Harris is fast becoming the leading voice for reproductive liberty on the Biden-Harris team.

Readers sometimes send emails suggesting that Joe Biden replace Kamala Harris by appointing her to the Supreme Court or to serve as Attorney General in Biden’s next administration. When I question readers about their desire for a different vice presidential candidate, some say Harris is not “likable.” That (mis-)impression is an unfair hangover from her appearances on a debate stage with sixteen other Democratic candidates in 2020. Watch the video above if you still labor under that misapprehension.

Other readers say (wrongly) that Harris is not “ready” to be president if called upon to replace Biden. As I tell readers who raise that concern, she has more experience than did the following presidents when they began their first term: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John F. Kennedy, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. She has comparable experience to George H.W. Bush when he was elected president.

Biden and Harris are a formidable team. That fact will become increasingly apparent when Trump picks a V.P. candidate from a rogue’s gallery of sycophants willing to debase themselves by serving as running mate to an insurrectionist, coup-plotting, extortionist, document-stealing sexual abuser.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

#women's rights #human rights #totalitarianism #Robert B. Hubbell #Robert B. Hubbell Newletter #Kamala Harris #women #reproductive rights

13 notes · View notes

hermizery · 1 month

Text

it’s either i get that biomed degree or that biomed degree gets me

#newletter📜 ₊ ˚. 🕯️ ⊹₊ ⋆#mizisokay!#mizeryagain #biomedicine #biomedschool #medecine #science side of tumblr

6 notes · View notes

writingmonster · 5 months

Text

Finally an update on my newsletter, a narrative essay on cultural identity and the lack thereof. Inspired by the memoir "Crying in H Mart".

Please give me a read and share.

https://wiltedgarden.substack.com/p/she-is-an-uncharted-island

#writing #newletter #updates #substack #subscribe #cultural identity #please share

8 notes · View notes

kroger-fr · 3 days

Text

turned on notifications for my mail app so i’d get notified when Steam and AO3 email me and now I’m forced to look at my 1,709 alerts every day please help

#this is what i get for signing up for all those newletters #damnit

3 notes · View notes

vampiricsheep · 1 year

Text

New fishing rod and cape in the gemstore, and name changes + tmk are getting a 20% discount!

#the cape looks cute in the newletter screenshot but ive got to know its physics.#how does it flow. what does it clip with. how badly

6 notes · View notes

new-letters · 6 months

Text

Part 2: Solar Lab´s logo has been developed by Kenshō Agency - based of Laif typeface.

Laif´s characters have been manipulated in order to achieve a unicase logotype, with adjustments made to various letterforms in order to improve legibility and scalability.

www.new-letters.de

#branding #kenshoagency #design #graphicdesign #solarlabs #typography #Laif #typeface #logotype #newletters #typefoundry

52 notes · View notes

versary · 2 years

Text

did you know this?

#from the depths of wikipedia newletter #save this for later

16 notes · View notes

emyn-arnens · 1 year

Text

'Yes, I am white now,' said Gandalf. 'Indeed I am Saruman, one might almost say, Saruman as he should have been. But come now, tell me of yourselves! I have passed through fire and deep water, since we parted. I have forgotten much that I thought I knew, and learned again much that I had forgotten. I can see many things far off, but many things that are close at hand I cannot see. Tell me of yourselves!'

This has been said before, but something I really love about how Tolkien writes his characters is how realistic and grounded they are. Even great, supernatural beings like Gandalf have their limits. He comes back empowered, but he’s no Marvel hero perfectly equipped for every task set before him; he’s renewed in strength and wisdom, but it comes at the cost of forgetting some of his previous knowledge and wisdom; he has foresight, but he cannot see everything. He, and all of the characters that could easily be stereotypical action heroes, are incredibly human in their limitations and weaknesses. And it's refreshing.

#i say that fully acknowledging the irony of calling gandalf human #lotr newletter #gandalf #.txt

3 notes · View notes

kelmcdonald · 1 year

Text

See You at VanCAF

This is copy pasted from my newletter.

Hey all! My main thing is I'll be at VanCAF which is in Vancouver, British Columbia on May 20&21. They haven't posted con maps yet, so I don't know what my table number is. But I'll be there and it's free to get into. So stop by!

Like I said the big thing this month is going to VanCAF. The rest of the month is mostly keeping my nose to the grindstone.

This month's full moon movie is The Wolfman again. This time the remake. While watching the original Wolf Man, myself and other folks in the discord talked about some of the stuff that was changed in the remake (stuff like the remake is twice as long.) So I figured doing a back to back would be kinda fun. So if you wanna join, we'll be watching it May 5th at 6pm PST. Join the discord if you want.

As always I'll be streaming art on Twitch. My schedule is currently the following:

Tuesday 8pm-10pm PST

Wednesday 8pm-10pm PST

Thursday 6pm-9pm PST (during the Iron Circus Geekshow)

I mentioned last month that I was redoing the live reading of Fame and Misfortune. My mic worked this time so I've saved it and posted it on my youtube. We go over through the whole story in about 30 mins. Then I answer some questions from fans.

I'll definitely doing something like this for The Better to Find You With. As I'll get to in the next section, I got a lot of stuff on my plate. It will probably be some time in the fall.

I spent a lot of April still playing catching up on things. I was really backed up on my work for Seven Seas. I think I got it handled now, but Blue Moon is still not done. I think that has to be my primary focus this month. I was hoping to get the current chapter of You are the Chosen One last month, but that didn't happen. It's penciled so for the next few Fridays I'll post the pencils of the rest of chapter.

By the time those go up, I'll hopefully be done with Blue Moon and can give You are the Chosen One more attention. I hate to do it, but I have to put something on hold. The City Between being free means it gets me more new readers/attention and You are the Chosen One takes longer. And after I write Blue Moon, I should probably make sure the next batch of You are the Chosen One script are ready for drawing. So here's my to do list/priority:

Write Blue Moon

Keep up with The City Between

Freelance thing that is NDA

Clean up Murky Water to make a book

Finish Chapter 3 of You are the Chosen One

Review next few chapters of You are the Chosen One

Anyway, that's quite a lot. I barely had time to read or watch new stuff this month. So kinda a short list this month.

Darling by Olivia Stephens - Darling is a Western Horror about a black woman who's living as a werewolf to escape the racism of 1800s America. She meets a black man on the run and the two have an instant connection Olivia art is excellent and rendering makes every page look both beautiful and haunting. It's one of the best werewolf comics I've read. You should all go back it here.

Love is Hard for Otaku - This is one checked out because Mangasplaining did an episode on it. They had a kinda mixed opinion of it, but I was curious to look into it myself. It's about a gal who's a big nerd but is hiding it from her day job because her last boyfriend dumped her for being too nerdy. A nerdy guy friend proposes they date each other because since they are both nerds she won't have to worry about him dumping her for it. There is a manga and an anime. The manga is a little rough. The pacing seems to be kinda wonky. The anime does a better job landing the jokes, mostly because a lot of the jokes involved references to anime. So the joke works better when they can copy the scene from Evangelion shot for shot, rather than translation the animation into a comic. I don't 100% buy the characters as a couple so I'm on the fence about continuing to watch it.

Nope - This was something that was on my I should get around to seeing this movie since it came out. It was streaming so I made a point to watch it. It's less than a year old so I won't go into details about the plot. But I really liked the point it makes about random chance and nature. I also really liked the relationship between the two main siblings. It was a good mix for conflict, frustration, and affection.

Anyway, thanks for sticking with me through the big workload that's going on. Please back my Patreon if you can. Every little bit helps!

#newsletter #kel mcdonald newletter #werewolves #comics #webcomics #fame and misfortune #the city between #you are the chosen one #nope movie #love is hard for otaku #olivia stephens

2 notes · View notes

ursulazampieron · 1 year

Photo

Sono lieta di presentare questa cucciolata tanto ambita, un sogno che si avvera. Ringrazio chi mi ha sostenuto sempre in questo progetto credendo in me, non la nomino ma Lei sa. I cuccioli sono nati il 2 febbraio tra le 00.00 e le 6.00 Mamma e cuccioli stanno bene 3 maschi neri 1 femmina nera 6 femmine marroni Alcuni cuccioli ancora disponibili I Cuccioli Saranno Consegnati Al Termine degli 80 GG. Saranno Consegnati Con: -2 Sverminazioni -Libretto Sanitario -Svezzati -2 Vaccini -Microchip - Iscrizione All'Anagrafe Canina -Certificato Di Buona Salute -Kit Puppy -DNA Depositato -Pedigree -Avviati a sporcare all’esterno Non scrivo che sono adatti per show e sport o altre corbellerie del genere. Per me tutti i miei cuccioli sono adatti ad essere AMATI. Chi avesse intenzione di impegnarsi e donare amore ed a riceverne il doppio, ci pensi e mi contatti privatamente... non c'è fretta… (cit. di una allevatrice che ammiro) La mamma è nutrita e supportata con @farminait e curata @fluidopet e assistita amorevolmente dal dottor @lluisfd presso la @sanmarcovet #cinquantasfumaturedisigfrida #dobermanlovely #dobermannpuppies #dobermannbrown #dobermannsofinstagram #dobermannitalia #puppydoberman #newletter (presso Colli Euganei) https://www.instagram.com/p/CoUwMAgNz-H/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

#cinquantasfumaturedisigfrida #dobermanlovely #dobermannpuppies #dobermannbrown #dobermannsofinstagram #dobermannitalia #puppydoberman #newletter

6 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 4 months

Text

Nick Anderson, RA News

* * * *

Take a deep breath!

December 21, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

DEC 21, 2023

Opening comment.

After Colorado ruled that Trump could not appear on the state’s presidential ballot, a curious thing happened. People who wished for years that Trump would be held accountable for his crimes suddenly expressed second thoughts, deep reservations, and fear for the future of democracy if the plain words of the Constitution were applied to Donald Trump. Otherwise sober scholars predicted “another Civil War” if the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado decision.

Let’s all take a deep breath. Yes, we are in uncharted territory, but we have the Constitution, legal precedent, and the rule of law to guide us. We live in the world’s largest democracy, which is fueled by the world’s largest economy—twin pillars that create enormous momentum and heft in favor of institutional stability.

We must overcome our irrational fears by grounding our analysis on the terra firma of the Constitution and the history of a nation that has—for more than two centuries—survived civil war, insurrection, depression, financial panic, plague, bigotry, demagoguery, and political corruption. We will make it through this crisis, too—assuming (but not conceding), that applying the Constitution to Trump qualifies as a crisis.

Below, I review the reservations expressed by many commentators and readers of this newsletter. I also examine some of the legal arguments that may decide the issue of Trump's disqualification from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The most important point. It is imperative to say the most important thing first: Whatever else happens—and regardless of the result—we must apply the Constitution and the rule of law to Donald Trump in the same way it would be applied to any other citizen. If we fail to do that, we will inflict grievous injury on the Constitution and invite further assaults until “all the laws have been cut down.” If that were to happen, “Do we really think we could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?” (Paraphrasing Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt.)

Every hesitation, reservation, and exhortation to “make an exception” because of potential violence or political chaos is an invitation to abandon the Constitution. We do so at our grave peril and possibly for the first, last, and only time—because if we set our great charter aside once, there is no logical stopping point for setting it aside again when it serves the pleasure of a president who views the Constitution as an obstacle rather than a safeguard.

Addressing the arguments for ignoring Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

What happened. On Wednesday, voices were raised from many quarters arguing that applying Section 3’s disqualification bar to Donald Trump is a bad idea that should be rejected on practical and political grounds. For example,

RFK Jr. claimed that barring Trump from the ballot would make the nation “ungovernable.”

Lawrence Lessig asserted that barring Trump would result in “a second Civil War.”

The Texas Secretary of State threatened to bar Joe Biden from the Texas ballot if Trump is barred from Colorado’s ballot.

Chris Christie said that “the people should decide” who will be president.

Why it matters. Each of the above arguments, in its own way, suggests that an “exception” should be made to the Constitution because Donald Trump has threatened violence if he does not get what he wants. Those arguments are born of fear and have no place in considering the application of Section 3. If the threat of violence is all it takes to suspend the Constitution, we are lost.

The threat by the Texas Secretary of State falls into its own unique category of MAGA bad faith. It asserts, “If you apply the Constitution as written, we will violate the Constitution by unlawfully barring Joe Biden from the ballot in Texas.” We have heard that argument before in various manifestations—“Democrats shouldn’t take X [lawful action] because Republicans will retaliate.” (See, e.g., impeachment.) If threats of unlawful retaliation are all that it takes to suspend the Constitution, we are lost.

The constitutional bar must be applied to Trump precisely because he resorted to violence in 2020 to overturn the Constitution—and threatens to do so in 2024. Arguing that political or practical realities—including violence—justify suspending the Constitution by giving Trump a “free pass” for insurrection is wrong.

Would it be better to defeat Trump at the ballot box? Define “better.” Who among us believes that Trump's base will accept the legitimacy of a defeat at the ballot box in 2024 any more than they accept the legitimacy of his loss in the 2020 election? Arguing that we should “let the people decide” because Trump's base won’t accept the legitimacy of a Supreme Court decision barring him from the ballot also amounts to an abandonment of the Constitution. The Constitution deserves better from us.

And let’s be clear: No one is making the argument that Democrats will refuse to accept the legitimacy of the 2024 election if Trump is not barred and defeats Joe Biden. When arguments consist of “The only legitimate election is one in which we win”—the premise of the “let the people decide” argument—we should not treat those arguments seriously. We should, instead, apply the Constitution as written.

A brief review of some of the legal issues raised by the Colorado decision.

What happened. We experienced a blizzard of legal commentary on Wednesday. There were many superb articles, but I will discuss three because they cover a range of reactions and provide some hints at how the Supreme Court will decide the case. Let’s take a look at three articles.

First article: “Calling the originalists’ bluff.”

The reactionary majority on the Supreme Court frequently resorts to “originalist” or “textualist” approaches to the applying the Constitution. Those approaches—although conceptually different—often result in a stilted, mechanistic application of the language of the Constitution as the words were understood when the Constitution and amendments were enacted. (“In theory, originalism is committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning as it was understood at the time of adoption.”)

Adam Sewer addresses the originalist philosophy of the reactionary majority through the lens of the Colorado ruling barring Trump from the Colorado ballot. See Adam Sewer, The Atlantic, The Colorado Ruling Calls the Originalists' Bluff (Accessible to all).

Sewer argues that the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution bars Trump from holding federal office because

“The evidence that Trump engaged in the sort of conduct the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to address is overwhelming.” [¶]

“Originalists are not supposed to rule based on the impact of their decisions, a tendency they derisively refer to as “results-oriented judging.” Instead, they are merely supposed to ensure that the law is implemented to the letter, as it was intended to be.”

The text of Section 3 is plain, and a court found that Trump engaged in insurrection (after an evidentiary hearing). If the reactionary majority is true to their judicial philosophy, they will uphold the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court in short order.

Second article: The argument that Trump is not “an officer” of the United States.

Those who seek to block the application of Section 3 to Donald Trump argue that Trump is not an “officer” of the United States. By its terms, Section 3 applies to anyone who has taken an oath “as an officer of the United States.” The Constitution repeatedly refers to the President as holding “office” and taking “an oath of office.” That should be the end of inquiry because Section 3 is plain on its face; there is no ambiguity.

But Trump supporters argue that an earlier draft of Section 3 explicitly referred to “the President” and that the later omission signals a clear intent to exempt the president from Section 3’s disqualification provision. The problem with that argument is that it is not based on the text of the Constitution but on something omitted that appeared in an earlier draft.

Lawrence Lessig argues that the omission of the term “the President” from Section 3 as enacted is clear evidence of the Drafters’ intent that the term “officer” in Section 3 does not include the President of the United States. See Lawrence Lessig in Slate, The Supreme Court must strike down Trump’s ballot removal.

Lessig writes:

“The puzzle in Section 3 is that it seems as if the framers of that text were just sloppy in their enumeration. The clause bars insurgents from being “a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or [to] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.” The obvious question is why they would enumerate “Senator or Representative” — not to mention “elector of President” — but not the president.” “Defenders of the Section 3 argument suggest this was a mere drafting error but that the clause applies to the president nonetheless, since the president occupies an “office … under the United States.” And in any case, these lawyers argue, it would be “absurd” to read the clause to apply to every elected official, including electors for president, but not the president.”

I believe Lessig is wrong—because he would ignore the plain text of the Constitution and instead rely on something not included in the Constitution to change the meaning of its unambiguous words. Moreover, if the Supreme Court were to examine the reason the Drafters excluded the term “the President,” the Court would find that the Drafters omitted the term “the President” because they believed it was encompassed in the term, “officer.”

Third article: Even the dissenters in the Colorado ruling agree that Trump engaged in insurrection and is an officer of the United States.

George Conway III wrote an article for The Atlantic entitled Don't Read the Colorado Ruling. Read the Dissents. Conway convincingly demonstrates that although the Colorado ruling was split 4-3, even the dissenters agreed with the majority’s key rulings that Trump engaged in insurrection and is an officer of the United States.

Conway writes,

“The dissents were gobsmacking—for their weakness. They did not want for legal craftsmanship, but they did lack any semblance of a convincing argument.” “For starters, none of the dissents challenged the district court’s factual finding that Trump had engaged in an insurrection. None of the dissents seriously questioned that, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump is barred from office if he did so. Nor could they. The constitutional language is plain.” [¶] “And the dissenters didn’t even bother with the district court’s bizarre position that even though Trump is an insurrectionist, Section 3 doesn’t apply to him because the person holding what the Constitution itself calls the “Office of the President” is, somehow, not an “officer of the United States.”

As Conway notes, the dissents relied on a provision of state law they claim stripped the Colorado court of authority to decide the question of Trump's eligibility. The three dissenters lost on that point and—this is important—the US Supreme Court will not review a state court’s interpretation of state law. So, the dissents offer no hope for Trump on appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Two more points worth considering.

First point: The distinction between “appearing on the ballot” and “disqualification from holding federal office.”

Section 3 imposes disqualification from holding federal office. It says nothing about appearing on a state ballot for president—a decision firmly committed to state legislatures and courts.

The ruling in Colorado was that Trump cannot appear on the state ballot. A different state might conclude that Trump can appear on its ballot. Thus, there could be a patchwork of state rulings about appearing on a presidential ballot in elections run by states. That might seem like it invites chaos, but it does not.

If the US Supreme Court affirms the ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection and is an officer of the United States, he is barred from holding federal office—without regard to his appearance on state ballots, any “victories” he may win in those states, or any “electoral votes” he may secure.

The disqualification from federal office is absolute; it supersedes other provisions of the Constitution, and it can be enforced by an injunction prohibiting Trump from being sworn in as president.

Could that situation result in a constitutional stand-off? Sure! But if the Supreme Court rules that Trump is disqualified, it will also issue ancillary relief to prevent him from assuming office. At that point, the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the military will follow the ruling of the US Supreme Court.

Second point: Democrats are not responsible for the complicated judicial and political questions that have emerged from Trump's decision to run for president after attempting a coup.

Josh Marshall wrote the following in Talking Points Memo:

“Whatever complaints Trump or anyone else might have about this, it’s the logical and inevitable result of trying to overthrow the United States government. Don’t want the hassle? Don’t try to overthrow the state. In other words, he brought it on himself. His problem, not ours.”

I would add to Marshall’s list that we are in this pickle because Republicans refused to convict Trump in the Senate on two occasions despite his manifest guilt. Republicans have been hanging back and badmouthing Trump behind his back while hoping Democrats will finally end Trump's political aspirations. Now that Democrats are on the cusp of doing so, any protestations by Republicans are theatrical—as in “theater of the absurd.”

Concluding Thoughts.

There is oh-so-much more to discuss, but I felt it was important to address the disqualification in detail so we have a foundation to process future developments.

How will this situation resolve itself? In a just world, the Supreme Court would affirm Colorado’s ruling and declare that Trump is disqualified from holding federal office. But there are multiple “offramps” that might allow the Court to uphold the gist of Colorado’s ruling (and the plain language of the Constitution) while still allowing Trump to remain eligible to hold federal office.

For example, the Court might rule that the trial proceeding in Colorado did not provide sufficient due process to Trump. I disagree, but several commentators have suggested that conclusion as a face-saving device for the Court to duck the hard question without inflicting (additional) major damage to its legitimacy.

Because the legal issue is out of our hands, the best advice (from readers in yesterday’s Comments section) is to stay the course, get out the vote, and plan to beat Trump at the ballot box by a landslide in 2024. The antidote to anxiety is action. Rarely has that advice been more apt. We can beat Trump. We have done so before; we can beat him again!

#Robert B. Hubbell #Robert B. Hubbell Newletter #Colorado #14th Amendment #SCOTUS

6 notes · View notes