so, why don't i criticize the russians?

because they rarely do things worth criticizing.

i mean, don't get me wrong - i wouldn't want to live in russia, not now and probably pretty much at no point in it's history. at right this moment, russia is struggling with population replacement, and pretty hostile to queer people as a consequence of it. the western media wants to blame this on putin, but it's primarily the church at the crux of it, and kind of a bottom-up problem - i might not face technical legal restrictions in most of russia, but i'd be in constant threat of being lynched, pretty much anywhere outside of downtown moscow. there's video footage of, like, queer-bashing mobs beating people up in the street. i think the smart analysis is that it's a reactionary movement against state restrictions on religion and probably generational, but how long it takes for russia to once again free itself from the effects of christianity is a hard thing to put bounds on.

i'm aware that i wouldn't be welcome there.

but, in terms of geopolitics, of strategic manipulation - it's the russians that are acting like a rational, humanitarian actor, here. it's the russians that are upholding international law. and, it's the americans that are acting like boorish mongoloids, drunk at the party, disinterested in any concept of law.

in theatre after theatre, it is simply the case that the russians are actually right and the americans are actually wrong - and the only argument that any american could come up with that isn't disingenuous is that might makes right, and self-interest defines what is correct, which is of course just an argument for nihilism and chaos.

i'm an anarchist, but i'm not a nihilist.

when the russians fuck up, i'll call them on it. but, they don't - so i don't.

and, hey, listen - i live across the river from detroit.

i know what a city looks like when it gets taken over by these kinds of attitudes.

at the end of the day, i hope that the employees of amazon are able to find somebody in congress that is willing to stand up for them.

you know, it seems like that kid in new york is going to be running against amazon in the next election, which may be a tough fight. she may have shot herself in the foot on this.

i'll just reassert the point that she hasn't produced any substantive policy at this point, making her more of a shit-disturber than anything else. and, what was the point of this, really? it seems like empty political rhetoric.

nobody doubts that bringing amazon in would create a lot of jobs. the argument against it is apparently that the wages are too low. but, how does sending the jobs somewhere else fix the thing? moving the jobs somewhere else doesn't improve wages or working conditions. the answer you'd expect from a socialist candidate is to fight for a higher minimum wage - not to tell the company to locate somewhere else. i mean, you'd think a real socialist firebrand would see the opportunity to organise that many workers in her district as a godsend. you'd think she'd be all over it. if you send the jobs to a district with a less progressive representation, you just decrease the chances of the workers getting a wage increase. it's consequently pretty harshly anti-worker...

...which i suspect was the actual point. base nimbyism aside, the actual driver probably had to do with district demographics, which was some kind of combination of the existing residents not wanting to get flooded with amazon workers and the representative not wanting to get flooded with voters that work for amazon.

it's hard to avoid her right now, and when that happens you know there's money afoot.

stated bluntly, i don't trust her, and think you shouldn't, either.

simply legalizing prostitution and shrugging it off is not a policy, it's a non-policy that will lead to immense amounts of human suffering.

and, this is a good demonstration of the difference between a socialist and a liberal, which is actually my point: a liberal may be content to leave it up to the coercive effects of the market and allow for the reduction of the prostitute to salaried wage work, whereas a socialist wants to eliminate the coercive root causes of most prostitution, thereby reducing it strictly to the realm of enthusiastic consent.

ok, so nobody knows where she stands on anything at all, because she just caters her positions to the polling. i'm still getting to know kamala, but some clarification is opening up: career politician with little if any conviction on much of anything. pay-to-play.

and, we're talking about prostitution...

you'd expect reason to frame the issue in terms of market theory, rather than in terms of human dignity, and i'm going to just throw that entire discourse in the trash bin - this is neither about supply nor is it about demand, but actually about economic opportunity. i'm not naive about this: there will always be women that would rather sell their bodies. it's easy money, and lots of people are lazy. they shouldn't be thrown in jail, but the system should be modified so that they're all that's left. if you want to use the language of market theory, adopting policies that restrict the supply by shifting labour out of the market would have the effect of increasing the price, which is the ideal end point. prostitution should only exist on the highest of scales, with the wealthiest of clients - and the most enthusiastic types of consent.

the best policies around prostitution have to do with social policies ensuring that women have access to affordable child care, to affordable housing, to education and to addictions services. women need to be given better options. the issue needs to be reframed in these terms, not reduced to a crass discussion about a market interaction.

and, i actually suspect she might agree with me if she'd get a little bit of conviction and take a stance.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/26/kamala-harris-sex-work-legal-fosta