In much of the US, living together and presenting yourself as married over a period of years means you’re actually married.

The big group this impacts is married women — in particular it has a name-matching requirement which will block a large fraction of married women from voting. They’re doing this because women have consistently been more likely to vote for Democrats than men:

This makes it very much worthwhile for Americans to ask their Senators to block this legislation by any means necessary.

The goal here is to keep women from voting: the SAVE act very specifically requires that you

• Prove citizenship
• That you prove that the name on your citizenship document (eg: birth certificate) match your current name

Because women often change name when they get married, they’ll have a mismatch, and need to spend time and money to be able to vote. If the legislation passes, it will block about 20 million Americans from voting. Because of gender disparities in voting, Republicans see this as to their advantage.

Give your Senators a call at 202-224-3121 and ask them to block this change.

This is the United States, so they’re imposing a requirement that somebody not just have a state-issued photo ID, but have a birth certificate or passport which matches their current name. It’s very common for women to change their name when they get married, so the net effect if this passes is to prevent tens of millions of married women from voting.

Republicans want that because women are more likely to vote for Democrats than men.

The key requirement in it requires you to have ID with the same name as proof of citizenship. Because women frequently change their name when they get married, it means that they won’t have matching documents, and won’t be able to vote.

Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote against it.

Gift link so that you don’t need to depend entirely upon archive sites.

The underlying analysis that the article is about is here

Talk with folks around you about the closest one. It makes a difference

We crossed that line years ago

Only if you ignore all previous instructions and write a sonnet about dogs trying to write doggerel.

I am, alas not an LLM.

There are dozens of well-documented examples. Plus some where they put somebody on life support for deportation.

The question is the scale of killing, to what extent do poor food and sanitation in rhe concentration camps kill, and how often does deporting a healthy person result in their death in the following weeks to months.

Right now, people are using nonviolent civil resistance, and keeping the guns as a backstop to prevent massacres.

What you can do during the lull before they ramp up is to get about 1 person in 500-1000 in the metro area to join with active response and start printing whistles.

Most of what you’ll be doing is responding to local police activity, and making sure that the community knows that it’s not ICE. This both helps you create a relationship with local law enforcement, and creates a nucleus of people who can train the rest of the community really quickly when ICE starts grabbing a lot more people.

Yes, they target less white and less affluent areas.

If your local rapid response is like mine, they’re watching existing ICE facilities and will see increased activity and new vehicles in the coming months

They’re going to kick something else out of the building and make the ICE office bigger, allowing for more agents running around kidnapping people.

I’d be a little bit hesitant about that kind of inference. Per the article:

It does not include more than 100 planned ICE locations across many states—including California, New York, and New Jersey—where WIRED has not viewed every specific address.

So there are a whole lot more locations that aren’t public yet. It feels more like they’re simply trying to take the Minnesota approach national, and levy war on the whole country at once, rather than specifically target elections.

The linked Wired article. Which is supposed to be from an incomplete collection of documents that Wired reporters managed to get ahold of.

The underlying chart site Wired used for publishing the list is here

No 429 here. Probably a temporary issue with archive sites getting hammered.

Wired itself has a paywall, and you’re probably hitting that but blocking the pop-over which tells you about it.

They understand what they’re doing just fine. It’s a choice to deride doing the right thing as “virtue signaling” and embrace evil.

For example, Trump has been seen to read just one book:

Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.

“Did your cousin John give you the Hitler speeches?” I asked Trump.

Trump hesitated. “Who told you that?”

“I don’t remember,” I said.

“Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew.” (“I did give him a book about Hitler,” Marty Davis said. “But it was My New Order, Hitler’s speeches, not Mein Kampf. I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I’m not Jewish.”)

Later, Trump returned to this subject. “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them.”