Electoral College

Abolishing the Electoral College can apparently be done without a constitutional amendment, but it would have to clear legal hurdles and opposition from the less-populated states. 

The Electoral College could finally be on its way out. Democrats now have a path to effectively replace it with a national popular vote before 2028, ensuring that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes across the country actually takes office.

The math is looking remarkably encouraging.

Axios and The New York Times report that Democratic victories in five crucial states have brought the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact closer to implementation than ever before. (See also National Popular Vote.com)

The agreement already includes 18 states and Washington, D.C., which together account for 222 electoral votes. It needs 270 to take effect.

Democrats now control the state governments in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona. Those states hold a combined 61 electoral votes, which would bring the compact’s total to 283 if all five joined.

That would comfortably clear the threshold and transform presidential elections without requiring a constitutional amendment.

Reform is long overdue.

For decades, Americans have watched candidates reach the White House after losing the national popular vote. George W. Bush did so in 2000. Donald Trump followed in 2016, securing the presidency despite receiving nearly three million fewer votes than his opponent.

The Electoral College has also turned presidential campaigns into a relentless battle over a small collection of competitive states. Candidates spend billions pursuing voters in places such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, while millions of Americans in reliably Republican or Democratic states receive comparatively little attention.

Under the compact, every ballot would feed into the same national total and carry equal weight, whether it was cast in rural Alabama, downtown Los Angeles or suburban Philadelphia.

That is the fundamental principle behind the reform: every voter should count equally.

Opponents are already preparing for a fight. The Washington Examiner reports that conservative election advocates are raising constitutional objections and warning of lawsuits and a potentially chaotic legal battle before 2028.

Those legal questions are genuine. Additional state legislatures still need to approve the agreement, and courts could ultimately decide whether it can take effect.

But the basic argument for a national popular vote remains straightforward. The candidate who earns the most votes should win the presidency.

Democrats now have a rare opportunity to reshape how Americans choose their president, replacing the disproportionate influence of a handful of swing states with a system that treats every voter equally.

If they can get the compact across the finish line before 2028, it could become one of the most consequential electoral reforms in generations.

The Other 98%

SpaceX launch

The next "test" flight is scheduled to occur this coming Friday from Boca Chica (aka Starbase) in Texas. This will be the first time they try to catch the returning booster and "Ship." Musk is such an asshole, I just hope one or both of them explode in the air and fall into the ocean. 

Flight 15 of Starship is preparing to launch as soon as Friday, November 13, pending regulatory approval. The 75-minute launch window will open at 4:45 p.m. CT.

A live webcast of the flight will begin about 30 minutes before liftoff, which you can watch here and on X @SpaceX. Coverage is planned to continue through ship catch, with the potential for hours of live views from Starship as it orbits Earth, powered by Starlink. As is the case with all launches, the schedule is dynamic and likely to change, so be sure to check in here and stay tuned to our X account for updates.

The upcoming flight is planned to be the first to return both Starship and Super Heavy to the launch site for catch. If successful, this will mark the first full recovery of an orbital launch system and a breakthrough moment in making Starship a reliable, rapidly reusable rocket. 

Starship’s initial return to launch site mission is expected to orbit the Earth at an altitude of ~275 km and complete approximately 14 orbits around the planet over the course of a more than 22-hour flight. Similar to Starship’s first orbital mission, the flight profile has been designed with the opportunity to insert into a passively safe suborbital trajectory or safely deorbit at multiple pre-determined areas over the ocean after raising to an orbital altitude. Read more about the testing, mission design, and safety measures for first planned Starship catch. 

Starship’s previous mission was the culmination of more than a dozen flight tests and years of development, sending Starship to orbit and deploying meaningful payloads to space for the first time. Watch “Go For Orbit”, the latest episode in the ongoing Starship series experience the moments behind flying the most ambitious Starship mission yet.

The booster’s primary objective on Flight 15 will be executing a successful launch, ascent, stage separation, boostback burn, and return to the launch site for catch. This will be the first return and catch attempt for a Super Heavy V3 booster. Three V1 boosters were successfully caught on earlier flight tests with two demonstrating successful reflights.

The Starship upper stage’s primary objectives include the deployment of 26 Starlink V3 satellites and the first return to launch site and catch at Starbase. Starship will only execute a return to launch site if the flight control team has ensured that the vehicle systems critical for reentry maneuvers and final landing burn and tower approach are healthy. 

Starship will deliver 26 Starlink V3 satellites to orbit, which aim to greatly expand the network's capacity and user speeds. Each Starlink V3 satellite will add 1 Terabit of capacity to the constellation, with all 26 satellites equaling ~10 Starlink V2 Mini launches on Falcon 9. 

After deploying from Starship, the Starlink V3 satellites will unfold their antennas and deploy their solar arrays and make initial contact with the ground and the rest of the Starlink constellation via radio frequency and laser links. The satellites will then begin raising their orbits with their onboard thrusters. Following their on-orbit checkouts, the satellites should begin serving customers as soon as a few weeks after launch. 

Three of the satellites have been modified with a suite of cameras to scan Starship’s heatshield and transmit imagery down to operators. This method of analyzing Starship’s heatshield has been tested on previous flights and is one of several data sources to help inform Starship’s readiness to return to the launch site on Flight 15.

Starship’s heatshield will incorporate the improvements made on Flight 14 including additional retention mechanisms on tiles in areas deemed to be at highest risk of falling off during ascent and addressing areas with a flow path for plasma to get behind the tiles. The vehicle will also have a large portion of the heatshield equipped with a curved tile design that has shown the ability to reduce heating in the gaps between tiles.

from SpaceX

Epstein shadow

One way or another, we have to get ALL of the Epstein files into the public, unredacted. This crap has gone on far too long. 

The Shadow Donald Trump Can’t Outrun

Epstein Epstein Epstein

Donald Trump has spent the better part of a decade trying to convince America that Jeffrey Epstein was little more than an acquaintance who drifted through the periphery of his glamorous life. It is the political equivalent of watching someone frantically shovel dirt onto a fire while smoke continues to billow into the sky for everyone to see. Every time Trump insists there is nothing to see, another photograph resurfaces. Another interview is rediscovered. Another document is released. Another promise of transparency dissolves into another cloud of grievance, outrage, and self-pity. If there is one thing Donald Trump has mastered over the course of his life, it is not accountability. It is convincing millions of people that what they saw with their own eyes never actually happened.

The documented relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein is not a matter of opinion. They knew each other. They socialized together. They attended parties together. They were photographed together repeatedly over many years. Trump publicly praised Epstein before the world knew the full extent of his crimes, calling him a “terrific guy” and remarking that he liked beautiful women “on the younger side.” Those words belong to Donald Trump. No journalist put them in his mouth. No political opponent manufactured them. They were his own.

That fact alone does not establish criminal wrongdoing, and anyone interested in truth should be careful not to claim otherwise. But it does establish something equally important. Donald Trump has spent years attempting to recast a documented relationship into something so insignificant that Americans should simply stop asking questions. That is not transparency. That is reputation management.

What has always fascinated me is not merely Trump’s connection to Epstein. It is the machinery built around protecting Trump from the consequences of uncomfortable facts. Every reporter becomes corrupt. Every investigation becomes a witch hunt. Every prosecutor becomes politically motivated. Every judge is biased. Every witness is lying. Every document is suspect. Every story is “fake news.” The pattern is so predictable that it has become muscle memory. Reality itself is placed on trial while Trump casts himself as the perpetual victim.

It is a remarkable trick.

Not because it is clever.

Because it has worked.

Millions of Americans have been conditioned to distrust virtually every institution capable of holding power accountable. If investigative journalists uncover damaging information, they are enemies. If law enforcement investigates, it is corruption. If courts weigh evidence, the system is rigged. The only acceptable source of truth becomes the man with the most to lose from the truth being told.

The Jeffrey Epstein story should never have been about protecting Republicans or embarrassing Democrats. It should never have been about scoring political points. It should have been about justice for the countless young women whose lives were exploited by a predator who surrounded himself with extraordinary wealth, influence, and power. Those victims deserved an investigation that followed every lead, examined every relationship, and asked difficult questions of every powerful person whose name surfaced, whether that person lived in Manhattan, Palm Beach, Buckingham Palace, Silicon Valley, or the White House.

Instead, we continue to watch political tribalism consume basic moral judgment.

If the names belonged exclusively to Democrats, Republicans would demand every page be released immediately. If the names belonged exclusively to Republicans, Democrats would demand precisely the same thing. Principles that evaporate the moment they become politically inconvenient are not principles at all. They are marketing slogans.

Today, the questions surrounding Donald Trump’s association with Jeffrey Epstein remain part of the public conversation because they have never been fully eclipsed by the next manufactured outrage. Trump has denied wrongdoing. He has denied specific allegations made in recent reporting. Those denials deserve to be reported. They also do not erase the documented history that preceded them. In a democracy, both things can be true at the same time: a public figure is entitled to deny allegations, and the public is entitled to scrutinize the historical record.

That is how accountability works.

Or at least how it is supposed to work.

What troubles me most is watching otherwise intelligent people pretend that documented history somehow expires the moment it becomes inconvenient to defend their political hero. Photographs are dismissed. Interviews are forgotten. Public statements are ignored. Investigative reporting is reflexively branded a conspiracy before a single page is read. Loyalty has become more valuable than evidence.

That is not skepticism.

It is surrender.

The shadow following Donald Trump is not Jeffrey Epstein himself. The shadow is something much larger. It is the growing expectation that Americans should abandon their own eyes, their own judgment, and their own commitment to evidence whenever those things become uncomfortable for a man who has spent his entire public life insisting that accountability is something that happens only to other people.

History is stubborn that way.

It does not disappear because a politician demands it.

It does not vanish because a lawsuit is filed.

It does not cease to exist because millions of people decide they would rather look away.

Donald Trump has outrun countless scandals by exhausting the American public with an endless cycle of chaos, distraction, and grievance. But some stories are simply too consequential to bury beneath the next headline. Jeffrey Epstein is one of them, not because speculation should replace evidence, but because evidence should never be buried beneath loyalty.

The victims deserve better than selective outrage.

The American people deserve better than selective transparency.

And the presidency deserves better than a man who has spent years asking us to believe that documented history should simply disappear if it becomes inconvenient enough.

-Michael Jochum

Not Just a Drummer: Reflections on Art, Music, Politics, Dogs, and the Human Condition.

Science Daily

This article originated on the Science Daily site. I have an RSS feed for this site on the right-column of this blog, along with multiple others. I forget to check them myself sometimes, but there is almost always something worth investigating. 

It looks like NASA is revamping itself and trying to keep more engineering in-house and not rely too heavily on outside providers like Musk's SpaceX or Bezos' Blue Origin, and that's a good development. This pic bears no relation to the story below. I just like it.

NASA reveals bold new plan to return astronauts to the Moon in 2028

NASA has revealed new details about its accelerated effort to return American astronauts to the Moon in 2028. The updated strategy includes testing two competing lunar landers, streamlining rocket preparations, and introducing a lighter spacesuit to help make the first moonwalks possible sooner.

During an October 23 briefing, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman and other agency leaders outlined the next steps for the Artemis program. The revised approach centers on two major missions: Artemis III, a test flight scheduled for 2027, and Artemis IV, which is intended to land astronauts on the lunar surface in 2028.

The announcement builds on priorities introduced earlier this year through NASA's Ignition initiative. Agency officials also highlighted recent progress in spacecraft development, mission preparations, and partnerships with private aerospace companies. These efforts are intended to reduce technical risks, accelerate the schedule, and establish the foundation for a lasting American presence on the Moon.

"This is a very energized NASA, and these updates are only a small part of that story. We are bringing extreme focus to the mission to ensure delivery of world-changing outcomes as quickly, safely, affordably, and successfully as possible," said Isaacman. "NASA is driving outcomes to make Moon missions a reality, and we're not waiting for others to bring their plans to us -- the campaign must move with urgency as strategic competitors pursue a permanent presence beyond Earth."

Artemis III Will Test Two Lunar Landers in Earth Orbit

Before attempting another crewed Moon landing, NASA plans to conduct a major rehearsal in Earth orbit. The Artemis III mission will bring together NASA's Orion spacecraft and experimental lunar landers developed by SpaceX and Blue Origin.

Four astronauts will travel aboard Orion, launching on NASA's powerful SLS (Space Launch System) rocket. During the planned 14-day mission, the crew will practice rendezvous and docking procedures with both companies' lander test vehicles. Rendezvous involves guiding two spacecraft to meet in orbit, while docking allows them to connect so astronauts can move between vehicles.

These demonstrations are designed to verify important spacecraft capabilities before Artemis IV attempts to carry astronauts to the Moon's surface.

The tests will take place in a carefully planned sequence. Blue Origin will first launch a test version of its Blue Moon lander into Earth orbit. NASA will then send Orion and its four astronauts into space aboard the SLS rocket, where Orion will rendezvous and dock with the Blue Moon vehicle.

Next, SpaceX will launch a test version of its Version 3 Starship lunar lander. Orion will separate from Blue Moon and perform another docking maneuver, this time with Starship. By testing both systems during a single crewed mission, NASA aims to gather essential operational experience while reducing uncertainties before the 2028 landing attempt.

NASA Cuts Rocket Preparation Times and Costs

The new mission details follow other recent Artemis progress reports. According to NASA, the hardware needed for Artemis III remains on schedule, and improvements in processing have reduced preparation timelines by approximately 50%.

The agency also reported a significant engineering achievement involving a critical rocket fuel-line component. Rather than relying on an outside supplier, NASA engineers redesigned, manufactured, and tested the component themselves in just five months. The work cost roughly one-tenth of an earlier estimate from an external vendor.

"NASA should be expected to do this kind of work, and we have some of the best technical knowledge in the world on rocket hardware and operations to do it," said Jeremy Parsons, the agency's Artemis program manager. "It's an example of how we are rebuilding our core competencies and developing centers of excellence in technical functions instead of continuing to outsource expertise."

The improvements reflect NASA's broader effort to strengthen its internal engineering capabilities, shorten development schedules, and reduce the cost of preparing missions for launch.

SpaceX and Blue Origin Offer Different Paths to the Moon

For Artemis IV in 2028, NASA intends to launch astronauts aboard Orion using the SLS rocket from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Once in space, the crew will rely on a lunar landing system developed by either SpaceX or Blue Origin to reach the Moon's surface.

Both companies have revised their original mission designs to make operations simpler, more efficient, and more adaptable. Although they share the same objective, their approaches to transporting astronauts to the lunar surface differ considerably.

SpaceX plans to use its Starship spacecraft, which will take on additional propellant while orbiting Earth. After refueling, Starship will meet Orion and carry the spacecraft toward the Moon. Refueling in orbit is an important part of SpaceX's strategy because it allows the vehicle to receive the propellant needed for its journey after leaving the launchpad.

Blue Origin is developing a different approach using its Blue Moon Mark 2 lander. Its plan calls for additional propulsion stages in Earth orbit to send the lander toward the Moon. The lander will then meet Orion in a relatively low lunar orbit before carrying astronauts down to the surface.

Both companies are working toward having their systems ready to support a crewed Moon landing in 2028. Maintaining two potential landing systems gives NASA greater flexibility as development and testing continue.

NASA Explores New Rocket Options for Artemis IV

NASA is also considering two possible upper stages for the SLS rocket used on Artemis IV. An upper stage is the portion of a rocket that provides additional propulsion after the earlier stages have completed their work, helping send a spacecraft toward its destination.

One option is the interim cryogenic propulsion stage already used by SLS. The other is an extended version of United Launch Alliance's Centaur V upper stage, which would hold additional propellant.

By developing both possibilities, NASA hopes to preserve flexibility in its launch plans and avoid becoming dependent on a single technical solution. Having alternatives could help the agency respond to engineering challenges without jeopardizing the broader Moon landing schedule.

A New Lightweight Spacesuit Could Speed Up Moonwalks

Another important change involves the spacesuits astronauts will wear while exploring the lunar surface.

NASA is working with Axiom Space on a second, lighter design known as the "Sortie suit." The new suit is intended specifically for the first Moon surface excursions and weighs approximately half as much as Axiom's larger primary spacesuit.

The lighter design could simplify preparations for the earliest landing missions and help astronauts begin exploring the lunar surface sooner.

However, the Sortie suit is not intended to replace the primary design. Axiom's more capable suit will remain part of NASA's plans for future missions that require longer periods outside the spacecraft and more demanding surface activities.

Building a Permanent Human Presence on the Moon

NASA's ambitions extend well beyond returning astronauts to the lunar surface for a single mission.

As the Artemis program advances, the agency intends to send crews on increasingly challenging expeditions near the Moon's South Pole. This region is an important focus of future lunar exploration, and the missions are designed to expand how much of the Moon humans can investigate directly.

NASA describes the effort as part of a new Golden Age of innovation and exploration. The agency expects its lunar missions to support scientific discoveries, generate economic benefits, and encourage the development of technologies needed for more ambitious space exploration.

Ultimately, the goal is to establish an enduring human presence on the Moon rather than repeat the brief visits of earlier lunar expeditions. The experience gained from operating spacecraft, supporting astronauts, and carrying out increasingly complex missions on the lunar surface will also help NASA prepare for another historic objective: sending the first astronauts to Mars.

Science Daily

Dylan Downs

Ever since the blue tornado ripped through red America, I have seen lots of great writing by various Americans. This one is from a Nashville resident, Dylan Downs. Dylan writes mostly about how misled Republicans have been by their "leaders," namely the idea of kids being forcefully sex-changed at school. This idea is so unbelievable it's still shocking that so many seem to believe it. Just because "leaders" claim something doesn't mean it's true. Use your brain, people. It's just absurd that so many lies have been tossed around, and so many believe them, without thinking. 

Which reminds me of one of the more stupid ideas coming from Greg Abbott, the soon-to-be ex-governor of Texas (yea!!) During the campaign, he said, more than once, that Gina Hinojosa, the soon-to-be governor of Texas (yes!) wanted to install Sharia law in Texas. Uh, hey idiot, Gina is a CATHOLIC, and they have as much desire to install Sharia law in America as you wanting to stick your head into a wood chipper. The Guardians of Pedophiles (GOP) metaphorically got tossed into the wood chipper on November 3rd. Wanna give it a shot, Gov?

Can we PLEASE clear something up?

I’m a liberal. I’m on the left. And I am absolutely exhausted by hearing what certain people insist people like me supposedly want to do to this country.

We don’t want to hurt your babies. We don’t want to take your children away. We don’t want to turn your sons into daughters. We don’t want to eliminate Christianity, destroy the family, or burn America to the ground.

And for the LOVE OF GOD, nobody is sending little Johnny to elementary school in the morning and having him come home as little Jane after gender reassignment surgery!

WHERE IS THIS SCHOOL?!

Most schools can barely keep the copier working, but apparently elementary schools across America have fully staffed surgical wings tucked between the cafeteria and the gymnasium?!

Come on, people. THINK.

Schools aren’t performing secret sex-change operations. That’s not how medicine works. That’s not how parental consent works. And that’s certainly not how public education works.

You know what I actually want?

I want children to be safe, loved, educated, and fed. I want women to have autonomy over their own bodies. I want families to be able to afford groceries, housing, and healthcare. I want LGBTQ people to live without fear or discrimination. I want people to worship freely, or not worship at all, without the government telling them what to believe.

I want clean water, decent roads, good schools, affordable medicine, and a country where we can disagree without treating our neighbors like enemies.

That’s it. No secret agenda. No underground operating rooms. No sinister plot to destroy America.

And I’m tired of the constant fearmongering. I’m tired of politicians and partisan media, including Fox News, pushing frightening narratives instead of encouraging people to understand the facts. I’m tired of social media turning outrageous claims into viral posts. And now we’ve got AI-generated pictures, videos, and stories making it even harder for people to distinguish reality from fiction.

People are genuinely frightened by things that have never happened. They’re angry at people they’ve never met over intentions those people have never expressed.

And that’s the part that isn’t funny.

We can disagree about taxes, immigration, abortion, education, and government spending. Those are legitimate conversations worth having. But we cannot have productive conversations when one side is arguing against an imaginary version of the other.

So please, before you share that terrifying Facebook post, ask yourself one question:

IS THIS ACTUALLY TRUE?

Because I’m telling you, some of y’all are fighting an entire imaginary war against people who just want their neighbors to have healthcare and their kids to get a decent education.

We don’t have to agree on everything. But for God’s sake, we ought to be able to agree that facts matter.

And no, the elementary school does not have an operating room. Good grief.

Dylan Downs

Julie Waters

The postscripts from the blue tsunami continue to reverberate around the country. Here is an article by another Texan, Julie Waters, a wife, mother of 3, and attorney and public education advocate. She takes rural Texas voters to task for voting so consistently for Republicans, no matter what. I'm glad I'm on her side.

Rural Republicans, you and I need to have a come to Jesus talk. I know many of you are angry and scared with Democrats sweeping not only Texas but practically the entire country. You are scared of "gays, trans and Muslims." You are scared of Sharia law, communism and socialism sweeping the country.

I get that. I get your fear. Not because I share those fears but I feared the tyranny of Trump. I literally feared for my life the night before the elections.

And many have feared Trump and what he has unleashed over the last two years, hence the blue sweep across the country. The people have spoken through their vote.

So I am not going to dismiss or belittle your fears.

But I am also not going to let you attack me. I have not changed through this anti-data center journey. I have said from the very beginning that my purpose was to VOTE out every single politician who did not listen to their constituents about data centers.

And guess what???

We accomplished just that. We voted out the people that brought this horrible plague to our land. This is a MAJOR VICTORY for Texans United Against Data Centers!

Most of you thought it was impossible because it seemed impossible. It seemed like Republicans had this stronghold that could never be broken and that is exactly WHY they behaved the way they did.

They thought they could get away with taking millions from Big Tech and ignoring their constituents. They were blinded by their own corruption. (Someone still is.)

They thought Texas would stay red forever and that they could take land for 765KV lines and data centers and rural Republicans would allow it.

Did you? Did you allow it??

When your lakes and wells went dry and your county roads were ruined by hundreds of 18 wheelers a day, did you still vote red? Did you vote against your own interest?

From the beginning, I told you that your vote was the only thing that would stop data centers. I asked you to call Governor Abbott and tell him to call for a special session if he wanted to keep your vote. 

And many of you called.

But did you mean it when you called???

From all the "I'm disappointed in you, Julie" comments to "I thought we were on the same page" I take it you did NOT vote differently.

Clearly you do not hate data centers as much as you hate "Muslims, gays and trans." And that is really sad and downright racist.

Because I guarantee you that in West Texas, there are data centers closer to you than a Muslim or trans person. There are no Muslims in Crowell, TX. But there is a data center every direction 30 miles, east, west, south and north of Crowell.

There are more data centers than there are Muslims in rural Texas.

Some of my closest friends are Muslims and none of them are pushing Sharia law or trying to kill Christians.

Timmy is not going to go school one morning and come back as Tammy. Public schools can barely afford pencils, much less surgeries.

Good Lord, have some common sense.

In fact, I should be disappointed in you. I thought YOU were against data centers and depleting what little water Texas had left. But no some of you are happy to defend Elon Musk and all the jobs that he has brought to Texas...while he is at the very center of the AI universe. Have you lost your mind?? He wants to buy a state park! He tried to buy a US Senate seat!

"I hate single issue voters." I didn't vote on just data centers. I also voted on public education. Abbott has singlehandedly dismantled public education in Texas. My own children's school was closed due to a lack of funding. I vote on the things I have been personally affected by. When has a "gay, trans or Muslim" person ever done anything personally to YOU? I bet you have never met two out of the three people you fear. Yet this is what you vote on, not the data center being built 3 miles from your house on unincorporated land. Not the fact that when you were on water boil notice for weeks or months, your elected officials didn't care one iota.

No, you just elected the same man to continue not caring about you.

“You just voted for higher taxes.” Democrats won’t have to raise taxes if they stopped all the corporate welfare given to Big Tech by Republicans. Make corporations pay their fair share and use that money for public education and healthcare.

"You'd better hold the Democrats to their campaign promises." Well, duh. Why wouldn't I? Why would I fight this hard and just roll over? Of course the fight continues. If fact, it gets easier. We now have allies in the state House and every statewide office. There are people in power that will actually listen.

So the reality is that Nov. 3, 2026 is a HUGE win for data center opponents. Every data center is sweating bullets right now. There's a bunch of you whining that Gina isn't going to do anything but her mere presence is giving data center CEOs a cold sweat. Data centers KNOW they are in big time trouble and that is why their stocks crashed yesterday. Regulations are coming BIG TIME.

Data centers are actually fleeing the country. Google and others just announced they are building in Malaysia. They knew they were done for once the Democrats won so many seats across the country.

So overall, this is a WIN!!!

And I am not going to let you steal that joy from me. If you don't like what I post, don't stop at unfriending me. Block me.

I will engage in civil dialogue, even if you disagree with me. But the minute you attack me personally, use foul language or name calling, I will block you.

Some of you think I write because I am planning to run for office. If this were true, I would try to be more diplomatic in my posts, not encourage people to block me. If I were running for office, I would actually care what people thought about me - because that is how you earn votes. By making friends, not enemies.

I write because most people are too afraid to. I write about things that matter like our land, water, democracy and not being racist. I'm not writing for likes or monetary gain or to run for office.

Someone has to say the hard things.

Someone has to fight for others.

And today, that someone is me.

So block away.

Julie Waters