EquallyConfused
@b9n10nt.bsky.social
HS sci teacher in CA Bay Area.
politics, mostly replies,
attempts at humor.
music. On Spotify b9n10nt
politics, mostly replies,
attempts at humor.
music. On Spotify b9n10nt
Pinned
Every time you share a bad take from an overpaid legacy media buffoon you must then share a link from your favorite independent news outlet. As penance
How do I pin this.
Reposted by EquallyConfused
From Amnesty International:
December 8, 2025 at 10:10 PM
From Amnesty International:
Reposted by EquallyConfused
This is the Tufts PhD student who seized by masked agents on the street and jailed for two months because she wrote an op-ed calling for the school to divest from Israel.
December 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
This is the Tufts PhD student who seized by masked agents on the street and jailed for two months because she wrote an op-ed calling for the school to divest from Israel.
Reposted by EquallyConfused
The "major questions doctrine" is just something Supreme Court Justices made up to give themselves more power whenever they feel like it. No basis in law granting the Supreme Court majority additional ability to undo an act of Congress they disagree with because Justices say this one's a big deal.
December 8, 2025 at 4:38 PM
The "major questions doctrine" is just something Supreme Court Justices made up to give themselves more power whenever they feel like it. No basis in law granting the Supreme Court majority additional ability to undo an act of Congress they disagree with because Justices say this one's a big deal.
Reposted by EquallyConfused
Justice Jackson to Solicitor General Sauer (just now, in Trump v. Slaughter arguments):
December 8, 2025 at 4:21 PM
Justice Jackson to Solicitor General Sauer (just now, in Trump v. Slaughter arguments):
Reposted by EquallyConfused
3 days ago, Hakeem Jeffries stated that Donald Trump was right on immigration and the border.
December 8, 2025 at 12:58 AM
3 days ago, Hakeem Jeffries stated that Donald Trump was right on immigration and the border.
No. I don’t need an explainer for “killing people who aren’t an an imminent threat to anyone is murder.
No. I don’t need an explainer for the plain text of the Constitution.
No. I don’t need an explainer for the plain text of the Constitution.
December 7, 2025 at 11:46 PM
No. I don’t need an explainer for “killing people who aren’t an an imminent threat to anyone is murder.
No. I don’t need an explainer for the plain text of the Constitution.
No. I don’t need an explainer for the plain text of the Constitution.
“Actual thinking”: way overrated
Actual research & structured inquiry: increasingly censored and defunded
Actual research & structured inquiry: increasingly censored and defunded
December 7, 2025 at 10:43 PM
“Actual thinking”: way overrated
Actual research & structured inquiry: increasingly censored and defunded
Actual research & structured inquiry: increasingly censored and defunded
Reposted by EquallyConfused
It's largely lost today because we've allowed constitutional law to become the exclusive preserve of lawyers, but the original idea of written constitutionalism was partly one of public education, publicity, & (proto-)democracy—people should be able to read & come to know the law which binds them
The evidence is the text. All you have to do is read the Constitution.
December 7, 2025 at 7:31 PM
It's largely lost today because we've allowed constitutional law to become the exclusive preserve of lawyers, but the original idea of written constitutionalism was partly one of public education, publicity, & (proto-)democracy—people should be able to read & come to know the law which binds them
Reposted by EquallyConfused
Has Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, or any other high ranking minority member in either the house/senate come anywhere close to releasing a similar public statement of solidarity against the unlawful program of racial terror
Know your rights. Protect your neighbors.
New York is — and always will be — a city for all immigrants.
New York is — and always will be — a city for all immigrants.
December 7, 2025 at 5:49 PM
Has Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, or any other high ranking minority member in either the house/senate come anywhere close to releasing a similar public statement of solidarity against the unlawful program of racial terror
Reposted by EquallyConfused
🇺🇸 trifectas get shot at doing something
Obama chose policy (ACA). It didn’t fix the authoritarian problem
Biden chose policy (ARP/IRA). It didn’t fix the authoritarian problem
The platform must be institutional reform next time. Right from the start, as @dhnexon.bsky.social said
Obama chose policy (ACA). It didn’t fix the authoritarian problem
Biden chose policy (ARP/IRA). It didn’t fix the authoritarian problem
The platform must be
If we want to actually be a representative democracy, then the platform needs to be institutional reform. All the Popularism and all the policies follow from that, not the other way around.
- DC/PR/USVI statehood
- Enlarging the House
- MMDs
- New VRA
- Totally revamping SCOTUS: bsky.app/profile/mcop...
- Automatic universal voter registration
- Rewriting the "national emergency" laws: bsky.app/profile/mcop...
- Subordinating the Senate: bsky.app/profile/mcop...
Etc.
- Enlarging the House
- MMDs
- New VRA
- Totally revamping SCOTUS: bsky.app/profile/mcop...
- Automatic universal voter registration
- Rewriting
- Subordinating the Senate: bsky.app/profile/mcop...
Etc.
December 7, 2025 at 4:16 PM
🇺🇸 trifectas get shot at doing something
Obama chose policy (ACA). It didn’t fix the authoritarian problem
Biden chose policy (ARP/IRA). It didn’t fix the authoritarian problem
The platform must be institutional reform next time. Right from the start, as @dhnexon.bsky.social said
Obama chose policy (ACA). It didn’t fix the authoritarian problem
Biden chose policy (ARP/IRA). It didn’t fix the authoritarian problem
The platform must be
Reposted by EquallyConfused
Me when I take out the compost right away.
December 7, 2025 at 3:24 PM
Me when I take out the compost right away.
Reposted by EquallyConfused
“This is not who I am, that wasn’t the real me” may work I guess (?) as an apology for an individual atoning for some past wrongs but it’s not a coherent way to think about a world historical national collectivity or ongoing way of life
December 7, 2025 at 4:27 PM
“This is not who I am, that wasn’t the real me” may work I guess (?) as an apology for an individual atoning for some past wrongs but it’s not a coherent way to think about a world historical national collectivity or ongoing way of life
The progressive cultural power of *ignoring* & ostracizing is barely tapped.
There is no point in debating someone who says a man taking off his shirt as he sits atop his destroyed vessel is a dangerous act that merits an air strike. That person is lying and will lie no matter what you say. At that point you need to tell him that you know he’s lying.
December 7, 2025 at 4:41 PM
The progressive cultural power of *ignoring* & ostracizing is barely tapped.
Materialism should just be called “status competition-ism” and that does all the work of folding in cultural analysis to economic interests.
there's a kind of crass materialism familiar from marxists--and some technocratic libs--according to which politics is mechanically determined by economic forces. what's valuable about @wdavidmarx.bsky.social's work is how, as a culture critic, he shows us that culture has its own forces and logics
Neon Liberalism #55: Has culture stagnated in the 21st century? Do the last twenty-five years feel like a blur? And is Donald Trump the greatest kitsch artist of our time? Join Samantha Hancox-Li and guest W. David Marx, author of the just-released "Blank Space," as they talk all of this and more.
December 7, 2025 at 4:22 PM
Materialism should just be called “status competition-ism” and that does all the work of folding in cultural analysis to economic interests.
It won’t happen because the purpose is spectacle, not news.
What public interest is there in interviewing him?
A same-party Senator being quiet in their PR = support.
The story is Hegseth & Bradley are murderers and the GOP is pro-murder.
An interview adds nothing. But diverting spectacle.
What public interest is there in interviewing him?
A same-party Senator being quiet in their PR = support.
The story is Hegseth & Bradley are murderers and the GOP is pro-murder.
An interview adds nothing. But diverting spectacle.
If they pretend they haven’t heard about the story of the day, end the interview right there.
“I’m sorry, Senator, we wanted to get your perspective on this story, but it seems you’re not fully aware of what’s going on.”
“I’m sorry, Senator, we wanted to get your perspective on this story, but it seems you’re not fully aware of what’s going on.”
December 7, 2025 at 4:10 PM
It won’t happen because the purpose is spectacle, not news.
What public interest is there in interviewing him?
A same-party Senator being quiet in their PR = support.
The story is Hegseth & Bradley are murderers and the GOP is pro-murder.
An interview adds nothing. But diverting spectacle.
What public interest is there in interviewing him?
A same-party Senator being quiet in their PR = support.
The story is Hegseth & Bradley are murderers and the GOP is pro-murder.
An interview adds nothing. But diverting spectacle.
more broadly, interviews aren’t journalism. It’s research that should CONTRIBUTE to the journalism.
For “journalists”, interviews are like a waiter bringing out a bowl of dry ingredients and an egg and cup of milk and saying “your pancakes, sir”.
For “journalists”, interviews are like a waiter bringing out a bowl of dry ingredients and an egg and cup of milk and saying “your pancakes, sir”.
The charade of having liars on to lie should just end
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you support the pardon of the former Honduran president?
SCHMITT: I'm not familiar w/ the facts or circumstances
S: What do you mean you're not familiar? It's been front page news
SCHMITT: You spew Democrat talking points every single week, which is why your ratings are so bad
SCHMITT: I'm not familiar w/ the facts or circumstances
S: What do you mean you're not familiar? It's been front page news
SCHMITT: You spew Democrat talking points every single week, which is why your ratings are so bad
December 7, 2025 at 3:43 PM
more broadly, interviews aren’t journalism. It’s research that should CONTRIBUTE to the journalism.
For “journalists”, interviews are like a waiter bringing out a bowl of dry ingredients and an egg and cup of milk and saying “your pancakes, sir”.
For “journalists”, interviews are like a waiter bringing out a bowl of dry ingredients and an egg and cup of milk and saying “your pancakes, sir”.
Reposted by EquallyConfused
Get a load of this. 😆
December 5, 2025 at 1:35 PM
Get a load of this. 😆
Reposted by EquallyConfused
Reposted by EquallyConfused
Remember folks: if you have any small amount of artistic talent, any sex appeal, or can make your friends laugh, the richest man on earth is crying screaming throwing up because he can’t be you.
December 6, 2025 at 10:59 PM
Remember folks: if you have any small amount of artistic talent, any sex appeal, or can make your friends laugh, the richest man on earth is crying screaming throwing up because he can’t be you.
Reposted by EquallyConfused
@handsoffnyc.bsky.social is training thousands of New Yorkers on how to protect their neighbors from ICE. Today, they are currently running two trainings in Brooklyn and the Bronx, both of which hit capacity because interest was so high.
This is the way, y’all—we protect each other, and we know it.
This is the way, y’all—we protect each other, and we know it.
December 6, 2025 at 7:10 PM
@handsoffnyc.bsky.social is training thousands of New Yorkers on how to protect their neighbors from ICE. Today, they are currently running two trainings in Brooklyn and the Bronx, both of which hit capacity because interest was so high.
This is the way, y’all—we protect each other, and we know it.
This is the way, y’all—we protect each other, and we know it.
I do think that in the highest form of social democracy the state supports lotsa intentional communities as a kind of release valve for weirdos.
The unvaxxed can be ostracized to the rez and Godspeed to them.
The unvaxxed can be ostracized to the rez and Godspeed to them.
We're going to have to jam civilization and science down some people's throats.
December 5, 2025 at 9:25 PM
I do think that in the highest form of social democracy the state supports lotsa intentional communities as a kind of release valve for weirdos.
The unvaxxed can be ostracized to the rez and Godspeed to them.
The unvaxxed can be ostracized to the rez and Godspeed to them.
Reposted by EquallyConfused
We need to talk about the massive loophole that the Supreme Court just carved into election law over the shadow docket—giving states a free pass to enact patently unconstitutional voting rules within nearly *one year* of an election. A stunning new limit on judicial review. slate.com/news-and-pol...
December 5, 2025 at 7:12 PM
We need to talk about the massive loophole that the Supreme Court just carved into election law over the shadow docket—giving states a free pass to enact patently unconstitutional voting rules within nearly *one year* of an election. A stunning new limit on judicial review. slate.com/news-and-pol...
Reposted by EquallyConfused
Counterpoint:
The Supreme Court lacks the authority to change the text of the Constitution.
So either it affirms the text or (further, and more completely) nukes its authority as Constitutional arbiter.
There’s no third option. Art III (courts) can’t just usurp Art V (amendments).
The Supreme Court lacks the authority to change the text of the Constitution.
So either it affirms the text or (further, and more completely) nukes its authority as Constitutional arbiter.
There’s no third option. Art III (courts) can’t just usurp Art V (amendments).
The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to uphold the longstanding principle that grants citizenship to the children of non-citizens born in the U.S., following a legal challenge by the Trump administration. n.pr/48E1oko
Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments in birthright citizenship challenge
The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to uphold the longstanding principle that grants citizenship to the children of non-citizens born in the U.S., following a legal challenge by the Trump administration.
n.pr
December 5, 2025 at 8:12 PM
Counterpoint:
The Supreme Court lacks the authority to change the text of the Constitution.
So either it affirms the text or (further, and more completely) nukes its authority as Constitutional arbiter.
There’s no third option. Art III (courts) can’t just usurp Art V (amendments).
The Supreme Court lacks the authority to change the text of the Constitution.
So either it affirms the text or (further, and more completely) nukes its authority as Constitutional arbiter.
There’s no third option. Art III (courts) can’t just usurp Art V (amendments).
The Iraq war and the Great Recession finally killed fusionism.
Call in the B team.
Call in the B team.
I buy the Cabaret theory of modern politics: current right wing politics was, once upon a time, a thing elites sold to rubes while merely pretending to believe themselves while they pursued wealth, but now the True Believers are actually in charge and acting on sincerely believed insane nonsense.
December 5, 2025 at 6:40 PM
The Iraq war and the Great Recession finally killed fusionism.
Call in the B team.
Call in the B team.
Reposted by EquallyConfused
I buy the Cabaret theory of modern politics: current right wing politics was, once upon a time, a thing elites sold to rubes while merely pretending to believe themselves while they pursued wealth, but now the True Believers are actually in charge and acting on sincerely believed insane nonsense.
December 5, 2025 at 8:07 AM
I buy the Cabaret theory of modern politics: current right wing politics was, once upon a time, a thing elites sold to rubes while merely pretending to believe themselves while they pursued wealth, but now the True Believers are actually in charge and acting on sincerely believed insane nonsense.