I don’t believe it’s helpful to be hyperbolic about these things or to come to conclusions supported only by speculation and innuendo. Let’s please be clear-eyed in how we handle the coming shit storm.

Noted Trump sycophant Bondi did NOT “admit” there is an enemy list. That’s opinion on the part of TNR and it takes a certain amount of hand waving to get to “there is an enemy list”. She said “There will never be an enemies list within the Department of Justice”.

I’m not saying there isn’t an enemy list - there is in Patel’s book after all - but this headline is at best deceptive.

Absolutely. They could also have given us a lot of important information on how to handle it all through cultural burning. Instead we made their practices illegal and jailed/killed native americans for doing what they’ve done for millennia in part to “protect” timber “resources” but mainly to drive them off their land.

An interesting tangent here is that the ecosystems here are co-adapted to these cultural practices. IOW, native burning of areas has co-existed with and altered the landscape over thousands of years. The notion that this land was “untrammeled by man” is racist fiction.

Yosemite Valley is a good example of this and you can even compare what it looked like in photos from the 19th century. It was predominantly wide-open meadow with widely spaced very large trees that were extremely resistant to fire. We suppressed fire and now it’s incredibly susceptible to it. Duh.

The good news is that we are finally waking up to the importance of this historical native knowledge and their practices.

Here’s an interesting recent article on this: https://www.savetheredwoods.org/redwoods-magazine/autumn-winter-2024/banned-for-100-years-cultural-burns-could-save-sequoias/

And this one talks about Yosemite and nearby areas in particular: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-indigenous-practice-good-fire-can-help-our-forests-thrive

Great post but I have one quibble.

Californians did not build their houses in wildfire country

In fact we did. Most of the state is comprised of fire-adapted ecosystems. I think it would be more correct to say that we built in wildfire country when the impacts of wildfire were manageable.

I only mention this because I believe it’s important to accept that fire is good and a part of these ecosystems that we need to embrace if we are going to live in them. It’s not that climate change has “introduced” fire it’s that it, the scale of human development, and over a century of misguided fire management has made it so dramatically impactful.

As we like to say here in Ummerica: All hat no cattle.

People love violence and extra judicial killings “in the name of justice” as long as it’s on TV or the internet and they are nice and safe at home. Guns? Yeah, fun to go pew pew in the backyard or parade around with. But actually get involved or do something like stand up to an authoritarian government? “Ha ha no thanks you first.”

Hey dipshit? That’s your response? ARE YOU 12?

No doubt you will be first to sign up for said militia. Being so brave 'n all.

How very brave of y’all to downvote. Undoubtedly you are all organizing your state militias as we speak.

How very brave of you to post this.

No shit. But do you automatically assume that or do you merely speak figuratively when saying that about men?

Seriously? Did you not read anything else?

WTF. You think it’s “sexual favors” if it’s a woman but… what exactly? if it’s a man?

I’m making the point that her potentially sleeping with Trump is completely irrelevant to her being a garbage human and that it’s all kinds of misogynistic to imply that she only has his attention because of “sexual favors”.

Geebus fuck.

I think that’s becoming an increasingly old fashioned way of thinking.

One would hope. But judging from many of the comments here, along with the furious downvoting… not enough.

Nobody is saying that though

That is exactly what they are saying. And how do we know? Because that’s what gets mentioned first and most often. That’s the thing that is used to frame the rest as bad. That’s the thing that is to validate every other point.

It’s the exact same thing that has been used to invalidate women’s accomplishments for approximately forever. Oh, she’s not first and foremost a scientist… she’s “hot”. She only got where she is because she slept her way to the top. In this case they are saying that Looner only had influence because she slept with Trump. Not because she’s a capable and clever lunatic on her own. Nope.

Sexuality is never a good thing in women but it’s always a good thing in men.

Wait, do you think nobody has ever said anything about Elon sucking Trumps dick or vice versa?

Of course. But there is a significant difference. Unfortunately, this being the interwebs all nuance is gonna get lost and I doubt very much this point will come across adequately. I’ll try anyway.

When saying such things you are not saying either party is a horrible human because they are sucking dick but because they are being subservient and/or self-serving. You are not actually referencing the sexuality of the situation as negative in itself. Whereas people here literally are saying Looner is bad because she had an affair.

IOW: women being sexual is inherently bad. Men being sexual is never inherently bad.

Because she’s a woman. If she were a man they’d call it “exerting dominance” and clap.

since the photos are what I wanted to share with you

So you make assumptions. With your eyes and your prejudice. Oh look, they may have had some vague physical contact, I guess she must be some kinda whore.

Same old show.

This isn’t a “haha women can only success if they use their bodies” so much as a “haha she miscalculated that using her body would give her a close position to Trump but he moved on pretty quickly and prefers Elon’s money”.

Not judging from the comments here. They all center on using the fact that she’s a woman who MAY have had an affair to reflect on her character rather than the hundred other reasons she’s a terrible person.

It does reflect on her despicability

Really? That she, a woman, may have had sex with someone?

She’s despicable for a hundred reasons. Using the tired old trope of “loose woman” is not one of them.

And she thinks 9/11 I was a false flag inside job.

Yes. And THAT is one of the many reasons she’s a shitty human. Not the fact that she’s a woman.

I think it’s telling that (a) you see an affair there; (b) you assume that an affair reflects more poorly on Looner than it does Trump.

Bonus: ( c ) You think the Times of India is a good place to get factual information.

She very, very likely sucked Trump’s dick.

So what if she did?

Edit: No really. Like who cares? Does the fact reflect on her despicability or is she despicable all on her own?

“Very obvious”? When I searched for that all I got was rumor and innuendo and mention of a defamation lawsuit she filed.

But regardless, why is the immediate conclusion always that women use sex to advance their careers and that this makes them “whores”. Why is this always considered awful and distasteful but when men do it it’s celebrated?

And ya, I can’t believe I’m defending this piece of garbage.