tony 🇺🇲

Married to an over-educated woman. Dad. Bug fixer.

[Charlotte Clymer 🇺🇦 @cmclymer]

Over the past few months, I’ve had folks—most often complete strangers—reach out and ask me some version of the following question:

“This Democratic candidate took an anti-trans position. Should I still vote for them?”

Folks, I acknowledge that you want to be thoughtful about all this. I appreciate that you want to get a trans person’s opinion. I understand that y’all take allyship seriously, and I’m grateful for that. I truly am.

Fortunately for all of us, the moral and ethical calculus here are very simple.

An election cycle is split into two parts: the primary season and the general election.

The primaries are over. A lot of candidates across the political spectrum stepped up, offered their ideas, and pitched the voters. The ballots were cast, and some of those candidates won and most of those candidates lost.

We are now in the general election portion of the cycle, and almost every U.S. Senate and U.S. House race offers a straightforward choice: there is a Republican and there is a Democrat.

One of those two candidates will win, and ONLY one of those two will win.

There is no third potential outcome.

On the Republican side, you have a political party led by a sociopathic pedophile who has dismantled critical federal agencies, gutted health care for tens of millions of American working class families, engaged in widespread corruption that would make Richard Nixon blush with secondhand embarrassment, hobbled our economy with deeply asinine and self-serving financial incompetence, alienated all of our longstanding diplomatic relationships with other countries, involved us in an array of irresponsible and dangerous and unnecessary military actions, lost a stupid and pointless war with the theocratic, human rights quagmire that is the Iranian government, made it clear he’s oblivious to the consequences of data centers and other unaccountable bullshit carried out by AI companies, raised our gas prices, raised our food prices, raised our housing costs, raised our childcare costs, raised our health care costs, and continues to cover-up his role in a massive child sex trafficking operation by keeping millions of files hidden from the public.

On the Democratic side, you have a party led by national leaders who are somewhat uninspiring but nevertheless deeply committed to stopping all the above and building a brighter future for working class families in our country.

On the Republican side, you have an entire political party being held hostage—some of them more than likely through blackmail—to the fleeting whims and temper tantrums and probable dementia of the aforementioned sociopathic pedophile.

On the Democratic side, you have a party that is often at each other’s throats but also the furthest thing from a cult, which, ironically, is a sign of very good health and embodying enduring faith in the democratic (small d) process.

You ask me for my thoughts on anti-trans ads or comments put out by Democratic candidates and whether you should still vote for them against Republicans?

Yes. Of course you should vote for them.

Not only should you vote for them but you should get your family and your friends and your neighbors and your colleagues and your mailman and the door-to-door salesperson currently waiting patiently on your front porch to vote for them.

For example, I am not a fan of Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. I do not like her. I think she’s very cynical. Among other things, she has taken unnecessary votes that harmed trans service members and veterans and our families in order to pander to moderates.

Guess what? Her Republican opponent is 10x worse for trans rights. If I lived in her congressional district—WA-03—I would vote for her without hesitation and get everyone I know to vote for her, too. Because I’m not an idiot.

Or take James Talarico, who is running for the U.S. Senate in my beloved home state of Texas. In an interview with Fox News, he stated his conditional opposition to trans youth in sports and pandered to anti-trans social conservatives about opposing already non-existent surgeries for trans youth.

Guess what? His Republican opponent, Ken Paxton, is easily 100x worse for the trans community. Paxton is an anti-trans exterminationist. He does not want the trans community to exist. He would gladly support criminalizing the existence of trans people. He has spent the past four years using his position in the state government to harass and terrorize the parents of trans youth.

Not only am I supporting James Talarico, but if God opened up the clouds above and offered me a deal of exchanging my left arm for the guarantee of Mr. Talarico beating Paxton, I would agree to the deal in a heartbeat.

This is not a complicated decision.

I feel the exact same way about Dr. Annie Andrews, who has spent her career serving working class families in South Carolina and is now tantalizingly close to flipping that U.S. Senate seat currently held by Darline Graham, sister of the late Lindsey Graham.

Do I care that Dr. Andrews put out an ad opposing trans youth in sports and already non-existent surgeries for trans youth? No, I do not care. I do not give a shit.

Because Darline Graham has made anti-trans extermination her entire political brand and seems to spend every waking moment obsessed with how to make the lives of trans people miserable, not the least due in part to her lack of any policy ideas to help working class families in South Carolina and needing a scapegoat to conceal her own strident mediocrity.

You’re goddamn right I support Dr. Andrews for that U.S. Senate seat. I would gladly vote for her if I lived there, and I’d be canvassing every day in support of her, too.

This is not complicated.

Pick any U.S. Senate race and U.S. House race, and my opinion is gonna be the same every damn time. Because the primaries are over, this is the general election, and there are only two choices: either an imperfect Democrat with whom I disagree on a handful of issues or a Republican currently subscribed to a death cult that wants people like me to cease existing entirely.

Some of y’all will bring up that there are trans people who disagree with me. I’m sure there are. That’s their prerogative. They have a constitutional right to express their opinion that certain Democratic candidates should be boycotted. We do, after all, for the moment, live in a free country.

But they’re wrong. They’re dead wrong. They could not be more wrong. Their curious sense of aimless and flailing political strategy honestly makes me wonder if they have a shred of survival instinct in their bones.

Again: this is not complicated. If you care about the future of trans equality in this country, you will march your happy ass to your polling location and fill in the bubble next to every name on that ballot with a (D) next to the name.

Then you will make sure your family and friends and neighbors and colleagues and mailman and door-to-door salesperson still waiting on the front porch have all done the same.

The past two years are all the proof you need that sitting out an election because the better candidate happens to not be perfectly to your liking is completely stupid and self-destructive.

On Election Night, I am going to celebrate Democrats taking back Congress and saving democracy from the anti-trans fascists of the GOP. I will sleep-in the next morning. Then, I will wake up and get to work being an insufferable pain-in-the-ass on the importance of trans equality for the Democrats who were just elected.

God love democracy.

Do not complicate an easy decision. Go vote for Democrats.

[Mark Cuban @mcuban]

So I went down the rabbit hole of trying to determine what are the economics for someone, who is currently healthy , to go to a HDHP with a 10k plus deductible.

The question I asked is “I dont trust insurance companies. What happens if I have a million dollar emergency and they won’t pay “. All I can say is WTF

If they don’t pay, there are Independent Review Organizations, who are supposed to be independent, and their decision to pay or not is final. I asked for examples of companies. One was ExamWorks. That rang a bell.

These motherfuckers are the same company that issued a ridiculous denial for a patient I was trying to help. So I knew the Too Big To Care, vertically integrated insurance companies hired them to do DENIALS !!! WTF.

The biggest customers of the companies that are the final decision makers for insurance carrier denials, are the biggest insurance companies.

That is beyond fucked up. It’s the definition of conflict of interest. How do state insurance commissioners allow this ?

The high deductible plans that many people say is the solution to fixing how we do insurance, may be effectively compromised

If you are looking at a HDHP, BE CAREFUL

It might just be rigged against you

[Mark Cuban @mcuban]

Share this with your governor. Share this with every politician you know. It will cut the healthcare costs in your state.

We started Cost Plus Drugs because the prescription drug market is too complicated, too opaque and too expensive.
Our model is simple: we show what we pay for a drug, add a transparent markup and pharmacy fee, and show the customer the price.
No games. No hidden spread.
And a large percentage of our customers already have insurance.
They come to us because our cash price is often lower than what their insurance plan asks them to pay.
That tells you something is wrong.
Here are five things Texas can do about it.
1. Let patients shop for cheaper drugs
If someone's insurance says a prescription costs $500, but they can buy the exact same drug for $100 cash, let them buy it for $100.
Then credit that $100 toward their deductible and out-of-pocket maximum wherever Texas has authority to do so.
Patients should be rewarded for saving themselves and their health plan money.
They shouldn't be punished for it.
That's how you create something healthcare desperately needs:
Price competition.
2. Standardize PBM and TPA contracts
Texas should require the state, cities, counties and school districts to use standardized model contracts and mandatory terms for PBMs and TPAs.
I've reviewed these contracts.
They routinely run hundreds of pages.
I've seen contracting packages longer than a thousand pages.
There is no human being—or group of human beings—on this planet who can stay awake and understand every provision in contracts that complicated.
I don't care how much coffee they drink.
I call it contractual terrorism.
The vendor only has to sneak a couple of tricks through hundreds of pages.
The employer has to find every one.
It can't.
I've developed a model PBM contract designed to eliminate the major tricks and hidden economics we've identified.
Texas can have it for free.
Use mine. Improve it. Open source it.
I don't care.
Just stop making every government entity negotiate these contracts from scratch.
3. Make the economics public
If taxpayers are paying the bill, taxpayers should know the price.
Pricing. Fees. Rebates. Guarantees. Pharmacy reimbursement. Affiliate compensation. Audit rights.
Make them public.
I'm not talking about patient information or legitimate security information.
I'm talking about the money.
You cannot have an efficient market without price discovery.
Without price discovery, you get information asymmetry.
And when one side knows dramatically more than the other, guess who wins?
Not taxpayers.
Not employers.
Not patients.
Open the contracts up and let competitors see what they have to beat.
That giant sucking sound you hear will be money moving away from healthcare conglomerates that are too big to care and back toward taxpayers, employers and patients.
In the immortal words of Charles Barkley:
I guarantee it.
4. Kill the gag clauses
PBM contracts are like Fight Club.
The number one rule of Fight Club is that you can't talk about Fight Club.
The number one rule of many PBM contracts seems to be that you can't talk about your PBM contract.
That's insane.
Let employers compare pricing, rebates, fees, guarantees and reimbursement terms.
Markets work better when buyers know what other buyers are paying.
5. Make enforcement hurt
If a healthcare company commits a serious violation, give them one mulligan.
But after a second material federal or Texas enforcement action within a defined period, make them ineligible for new Texas government contracts for a period of time.
Two strikes.
You're out.
Today, some of these companies can make billions, get caught, pay a fine and write it off more easily than I wrote off an NBA fine.
That's not deterrence.
That's a cost of doing business.
And Texas should spend more on enforcement.
If Texas spends $10 million auditing contracts and analyzing claims and prevents $100 million in unnecessary spending, that's not overhead.
That's a 10x return on investment

[Team Talarico @TeamTalaricoHQ]

.@JamesTalarico: Scripture tells us that you can’t love God and hate other people. You can’t love God and abuse the immigrant. You can’t love God and oppress the poor. Matthew 25 tells us Christians exactly how we’re going to be judged — by feeding the hungry, by healing the sick, by welcoming the stranger.

I often wonder what would Jesus do if he visited the US Senate. I think he would tell the senators on the floor, ‘Depart from me, for I was hungry and you cut my food assistance. I was sick and you kicked me off Medicaid. I was a stranger and you deported me and my family.’

And then I think he would flip over those fancy desks on the floor of the US Senate and demand that we take care of all of our neighbors — especially the least of these.

[Assemblyman Tri Ta @TriTa4CA]

Hasan Piker’s remarks about Vietnamese refugees are deeply offensive and cannot go unanswered.

Those who have chosen to campaign alongside him, and anyone on the political left who has remained silent, are enabling this kind of rhetoric. They have a responsibility to speak out and make clear that it is unacceptable. Here in Little Saigon, I will not stay silent when my community is targeted. We expect better from those who seek to represent and engage with our community.

[Matt McDermott @mattmfm]

Must watch: NYT just released a damning forensic analysis of the ICE shooting in Minneapolis.

It flatly refutes Trump administration claims — confirming the motorist was driving away, not toward the officer, and the officer was not hit by the vehicle.

https://t.co/n8opkxbtmU

[Ari Cohn @AriCohn]

This argument would still be dead wrong, but it would be slightly less hypocritical, had the right (and this very administration) not done basically the same (if not worse) to not only both the Capitol Police and FBI, but also relatively powerless people like NIH doctors.

[Senator Mark Kelly @SenMarkKelly]

Over twenty-five years in the U.S. Navy, thirty-nine combat missions, and four missions to space, I risked my life for this country and to defend our Constitution – including the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out. I never expected that the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would attack me for doing exactly that.

My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head– all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder. Generations of servicemembers have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.

Pete Hegseth wants to send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way. It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.

If Pete Hegseth, the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in our country’s history, thinks he can intimidate me with a censure or threats to demote me or prosecute me, he still doesn’t get it. I will fight this with everything I’ve got — not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don’t get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government.

[Stephen Richer @stephen_richer]

re: latest claims that Georgia's 2020 vote was fraudulent.

They are highly inaccurate.

It's basically like saying that because McDonald's printed your receipt, but didn't hand you the receipt, your order was fraudulent.

In the 2020 election, Georgia used Dominion's ballot-marking touchscreen devices.

To vote in Georgia in 2020, you had to have been a registered voter.

Registered voters went to their assigned voting locations.

They checked-in using an "e-pollbook."

They showed identification to an election worker to confirm identity matches registered voter.

That voter is then "checked-in."

The number of check-ins was logged by each e-pollbook.

Those check-in logs are still available.

To vote, the voter selected his preferences on a touchscreen.

When done, the touchscreen printed a paper ballot with voter's choices.

The voter confirmed his choices and then took his paper ballot to a scanner (tabulator).

The tabulator scans the ballot, saves the results on its internal memory drive, and logs +1 for number of ballots cast.

At the beginning of the day, election workers run a "zero report."

This "zero report" prints a receipt-like paper that says how many ballots have been tabulated by the scanner.

At the end of the day, the election workers run a similar receipt report that says how many ballots the tabulator has tabulated.

During early voting, the receipt report from the close of the voting location the night before should match the "zero report" the next morning.

At the end of all voting, the memory drives were removed from the scanners/tabulators and then brought to central count for aggregation and results reporting.

George election rules -- NOT Georgia state statute -- mandate that those paper receipts and "zero reports" be signed by election workers.

Workers in Fulton County produced every single one of those receipts and "zero reports."

Those receipts and "zero reports" are still available.

They reconcile.

What some workers forgot to do, however, was sign the receipts and "zero reports."

Now, some people are saying that as a result, all ballots tabulated by those scanners are fraudulent.

But this ignores a few things:

1) Those receipts and "zero reports" are still available and they reconcile.

2) Georgia also did reconciliations of the number of check-ins at each voting location with the number of ballots tabulated at each voting location.

3) Georgia did multiple full recounts of all ballots. This would have revealed if any scanner/tabulator double counted any ballots. They did not.

4) None of the current allegations prove a single fraudulent check-in or ballot scan.

Accordingly, it is silly to think that a CLERICAL OVERSIGHT somehow invalidates the reconciled ballots of 300,000+ ballots.

This of course would never hold up in a court of law.

But it is popular on Twitter!

A few more tidbits:

1) I'll remind people that the November 2020 election was during the pandemic. This made it harder to train poll workers in-person, and it meant lots of normal poll workers chose to not worker, and jurisdictions had to recruit newbies. This perhaps makes the clerical mistake a bit easier to understand.

2) Not a single current or past certified election official is cited in the original publication of this story (at The Federalist), despite the fact that there are thousands of such people. That's because this is not a big deal, and no election worker would ever endorse this as somehow fraudulent. It likely happens in lots of jurisdictions (clerical errors), but Fulton County was chosen, likely for political reasons.

I hope this helps.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Happy Sunday! I'm currently in a close fantasy football matchup in my league's semi-finals, so I needed this distraction from constantly checking the score.

Thanks!

Stephen

[Dilan Esper @dilanesper]

I want to quote at lenght a letter Andrew Sullivan published today, refuting the unitary executive theory. It's delightful.

"Your reader wrote that the unitary executive is a fact “spelled out explicitly in the first sentence of Article II” — but they should try reading more of Article II and the rest of the Constitution. In particular, POTUS doesn’t have implicit full control of the entire executive branch. Not only do all ambassadors and other principal “Officers” need to be approved by the Senate, but POTUS doesn’t even have the Constitutional power to appoint a federal dogcatcher: “but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers ... in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

"Congress decides how the executive branch is staffed, period. And even Cabinet officials are implied to have their own distinct power, independent of POTUS: note they are listed separately as options to whom Congress may grant appointment power. Plus the Founders felt the need to write that POTUS “may require the Opinion ... of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.” That sure doesn’t sound like something a unitary executive true believer would ever write.

"Moreover, the unitary executive theory grants POTUS broad and exclusive powers in the world of foreign affairs, while ignoring the fact that the Constitution only specifies that he is commander-in-chief and can nominate and receive ambassadors. His treaty power requires the approval of two-thirds (!) of the Senate.

"Congress, however, gets a long list of explicit powers in the realm of foreign affairs: declaring war, making rules to govern the armed forces, defining and punishing violations of international law (“Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations”), exercising authority over all military bases, calling up and managing the militia, authorizing privateering (“letters of Marque and Reprisal”) ... not to mention explicit economic powers in foreign affairs: “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” and “to regulate the Value ... of foreign Coin.”

"POTUS is required to report to his congressional bosses each year on the state of things, and they can remove him from office. Nobody should be able to thoughtfully read the Constitution and conclude that the president is a co-equal to Congress, as opposed to its subordinate in almost all respects — with veto and pardon powers being the huge exceptions (although the former is overridable). POTUS must faithfully execute the laws, and Congress gets to set the laws in every aspect of the executive branch’s conduct, including foreign and military affairs."

[Jeremiah Johnson 🌐 @JeremiahDJohns]

It's incredible how low-IQ morons have institutionally captured the GOP.

Sorry if you're a Republican, but your entire party is controlled by the dumbest mouth-breathers in the country. Your choices are to defect to the libs or just swim in idiot soup until your soul dies.

[60 Minutes @60Minutes]

Erez Reuveni, a former DOJ lawyer, says a superior ordered him to argue against Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s return by telling a judge he was an MS-13 gang member and terrorist. “That is not factually correct. It is not legally correct. That is-- that is a lie, and I cannot sign my name to that brief." Reuveni says he told his DOJ superior. https://t.co/pWKfcHjHKO

[Charlotte Clymer 🇺🇦 @cmclymer]

It was only seven days ago that Donald Trump announced the first phase of a peace deal between the Israeli government and Hamas had officially gone into effect.

The remaining living Israeli hostages were released on Oct. 13th after nearly two years in captivity. Netanyahu had agreed to draw back Israeli troops to agreed upon lines. Humanitarian aid would soon flood into Gaza.

Trump took a highly publicized victory lap.

He first traveled to Jerusalem and delivered a celebratory speech to the Knesset—the Israeli Congress—where, among other things, he inappropriately called upon President Isaac Herzog to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his many pending charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

He then went on to Egypt for what was billed as the “2025 Gaza Peace Summit,” where representatives from thirty nations and several international organizations had gathered—absent Israel and Hamas—to toast the end of hostilities.

It was there that he declared to the world that the war in Gaza had come to an end and boasted it was “the historic dawn of a new Middle East.”

I don’t mind saying that a small part of me hoped he was right. As relieved as I was that the hostages had finally been released and the killing of Palestinian civilians had temporarily been halted and humanitarian assistance would soon be on the way, a small part of me hoped this might be the first time Trump followed through.

And yet, I couldn’t bring myself to accept it. Like any rational adult observing the Trump administration, it had all the usual Donnie hallmarks of a shameless PR campaign that was thin on salient, constructive details. It felt like another big Trump lie, and I did my best to ignore that gut feeling.

Let’s wait and see, I thought. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he actually did it. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to be wrong about Trump for once?

Many of our democracy’s grand stewards in legacy media did not take that approach, eager as they were to seize upon the opportunity to praise Trump, immediately putting him on a pedestal. A number of political reporters hailed the claimed peace deal. Beltway newsletters framed it as his crowning foreign policy achievement.

TIME Magazine rather boldly put Trump on its latest cover with the headline “His Triumph” and sub-header articles “The Leader Israel Needed” and “How Gaza Heals” — although Trump himself was none-too-pleased with the photo they used.

The Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker wrote a fawning op-ed that aged about as well as milk left out in the D.C. summer heat:

"In announcing the signing of his eponymous peace declaration, Trump was the president we’ve been waiting for. (If you keep rolling your eyes like that, they might freeze, you know.) He spoke eloquently and stayed on point. He was deferential, humble and respectful toward leaders from Egypt, Qatar and Turkey, who had joined him for the signing… […] …Biblical is the word that comes to mind. Miraculous is another, considering Trump’s achievement in ending the conflict. More than a feather in his cap, the peace declaration is a gift to the Middle East and the world."

She published that on Friday, even while there were reports of Hamas executing innocent civilians and claims by Gaza that the Israeli government had already violated the ceasefire agreement several dozen times.

And then, yesterday—predictably and tragically—the whole thing fell apart.

The “peace deal” lasted six days.

Six. Days.

Israel launched its heaviest bombardment on Gaza since the ceasefire took effect and suspended humanitarian aid following two of its soldiers being killed by Hamas, which followed the Israeli military allegedly murdering Palestinian civilians, which followed…, etc. etc. etc.

The Gaza blame game is an endless maze of finger-pointing, this begat that and that begat this, on and on and on, responsibility being nowhere in sight. It’s all a dry seabed of funhouse mirages in the desert, and the inclination to care about the slaughter of innocent people anywhere is greeted with compounding sleights-of-hand everywhere.

Trump did not achieve lasting peace in Gaza. He didn’t achieve a week of peace in Gaza, just like we all knew he wouldn’t. Because Trump only cares about Trump, and whatever narrative can be wrangled in support of Trump is what he’s going with, regardless of the consequences.

He lied about the success of taking out Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He’s lied, many times over, about his support for Ukraine. He’s lied consistently about his communications and negotiations with world leaders. He lied about the tariffs and he lied about the trade wars and he lied about Hegseth’s competence on national security and he lied about… well.. we could be here a while itemizing all this, couldn’t we?

Meanwhile, Trump carried out yet another attack on a civilian vessel just off the coast of Venezuela this past week. That makes six such attacks—and 27 people killed—since early September, all of them supposedly targeting drug smugglers, though it remains unclear what evidence, if any, there is to support that claim.

His administration announced that two survivors of this latest attack are being repatriated to their home countries rather than being prosecuted by the U.S. government. No further information has been offered.

That’s another way of saying the Trump admin more than likely conducted an illegal operation based on bad intelligence and murdered innocent people.

Because Trump lies. That’s what he does.

This is the disgusting excuse for a human being in which so much of legacy media has placed all their hopes to save the Middle East.

They never learn, and I’m not sure they want to.

----
Full essay available here for easier sharing: https://t.co/N7pxiqdJdP

[Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan]

Big questions now: how many elected Republicans will be forced to answer questions about this the next time they’re on cable or Sunday shows? How many Democrats will make noise about this and keep this story in the limelight?

Again, imagine if the situation was reversed.

[Aaron Rupar @atrupar]

Q: Politico reported on a group chat of young Republicans. Does this just reflect some bad apples?

HOCHUL: Some bad apples? These are the future of the Republican Party. This is so vile it's hard to find the words to put into context that these are people who are part of one of two major parties and they believe in gas chambers and rape and discrimination based on the color of people's skin. These are racist, sexist, disgusting remarks ... there's gotta be consequences. Kick them out of the party. Take away their official roles. Stop using them as campaign advisers. This bullshit has to stop.

[POLITICO @politico]

EXCLUSIVE: Thousands of leaked messages show leaders of Young Republican groups joking about gas chambers, slavery and rape in a private Telegram chat.

Inside rising GOP leaders’ racist chats — obtained by POLITICO and spanning more than 7 months👇 https://t.co/yvz8Jwbrmf

[TIME @TIME]

“Like with the demise of Reconstruction, the struggle over shame is key to understanding the reactionary politics that we see today in the post-BLM era,” writes Brandon Terry in an op-ed for TIME
https://t.co/zfZbmgxzk4

[TIME @TIME]

“Wiping out our collective memory is part of their targeted strategy to suppress historical literacy, empathy, and our capacity to fight for a racially just democracy,” writes Kimberlé W. Crenshaw in an op-ed for TIME https://t.co/OjJKEUq5ah

[Angry Fleas @AngryFleas]

#thankYou #factsMatter

🙏

[@ijbailey @ijbailey]

In addition to this story below, which is still unfolding, we have another one developing in Myrtle Beach. This time, race really is being used against a white victim. A quick thread. 1/