Right now I'm missing Melissa Harris Perry. On her show she would read a letter she wrote, usually to someone who would not want to hear what she had to say. So in that spirit, I wrote a letter. Since I don't know where to send it, I'm just going to float it out into cyberspace and let it go where it may. Hopefully, it will reach the intended destination.
Dear Megyn Kelly,
I must admit I am not one of your fans. I think Fox News is not news, but a propaganda machine for some pretty disgusting views. However, I do view you as a human being and I respect your right to be wrong. As I would hope that you would respect mine.
You are someone who has influenced God only knows how many people from your perch at Fox News. You have seen a close-up view of your Republican "friends" go back and forth about the outrageous things that candidate Donald Trump has said.
Endorse him, don't endorse him, un-endorse him? Yet, and still, now that the votes are in, we are now looking at President elect Donald Trump.
I really wanted to believe that most American's are not racist, sexist, homophobic, bigotry minded people. The things said on the campaign trail by Mr. Trump do not line up with the values that I believe America stands for. To be honest when he said all those awful things about you. I thought your fans would drop him like a hot potato.
When the interview with Billy Bush came out. Again I thought he was done. After that all the women claiming sex harassment and unwanted advances. After all, this was the party of "family values".
The world has been a dangerous place since the very beginning. Men have never found away to make peace. They have definitely found many ways to make money off the death and misery that comes with the wars they orchestrate. We now have a man with a short fuse controlling a button that can destroy the planet. (How do you really feel about that?)
This didn't just happen. This is what happens when hate and racism is preached, implied and spoon fed to people who are hungry to eat it. Instead of more Benghazi hearing, or repealing Obamacare, or Hillary emails, how about a detailed report on what exactly the republican party had done for the average American citizen for the last twenty years.
This is the party that talks about rigged elections and they know they are rigged because of the rig them. We had eight "wonderful" years with George W. Bush ending in two wars and the world's economy on the verge of total collapse. Followed by eight years of President Obama trying to clean up the mess and get the Republicans to move on anything. They did not move, their priority was making him a one term President. THAT WAS THE PRIORITY, NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! White people who could not see an intelligent man, just a black man. And Fox News made sure to remind them that a black man should not be in the White House.
So after eight years of a black man, America would not stand for a woman. So now while Putin and the other world leaders are negotiating deals and making chess like moves. Some of us will be wondering if Trump's mind is playing strip poker with one of the sexy aides they are sure to bring along (all is fair in dirty dealing).
I don't know if Donny ever gave you a real apology for the things he said about you. So I will apologize for all men who should be better than that. Even your former boss at Fox News. There does seem to be a predatory pattern among these entitled conservative white men that someone should be investigating.
As I close I want you and everyone at Fox News to know that you played a vital part in whatever happens next. Nero fiddled as Rome burned. Just remember the Roman people did not elect Nero, but "America" has elected Trump!
F. D. Brake
1/6/2017
About the Creator
F.D. Brake
Keep reading
More stories from F.D. Brake and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Polanski Says Local Mayors Should Be Given Power Over Rent Controls
A growing debate over housing affordability has taken a new turn after Polanski, a prominent lawmaker and urban policy advocate, called for local mayors to be granted greater authority over rent control policies. Speaking at a regional housing conference this week, Polanski argued that city leaders are best positioned to understand the unique housing pressures in their communities and should have the power to adjust rent regulations accordingly. The proposal has sparked widespread discussion among housing advocates, landlords, economists, and tenant groups, highlighting the ongoing struggle to balance affordability with sustainable housing development. A Call for Local Decision-Making Polanski’s argument centers on the idea that housing markets vary significantly from city to city. While some urban centers face severe shortages and skyrocketing rents, others struggle with declining populations and vacant properties. “A one-size-fits-all policy does not work for housing,” Polanski said. “Mayors are on the front lines of this crisis. They know where families are being pushed out, where development is stalled, and where regulations need to be adjusted.” Under current law in many regions, rent control policies are set at the state or national level, leaving local governments with limited flexibility. Polanski believes this structure prevents quick responses to sudden changes in housing demand, such as population growth or economic downturns. Support from Local Governments Several mayors have welcomed the proposal, saying it would allow them to tailor housing policy to local realities. Leaders from high-cost cities argue that stronger rent protections are needed to prevent displacement of low- and middle-income residents. “We are losing teachers, nurses, and service workers because they can no longer afford to live in the communities they serve,” said one city mayor. “Local authority over rent control would give us a tool to stabilize neighborhoods.” Some smaller municipalities also expressed interest, noting that flexible rent policies could encourage investment where housing stock is aging or underused. Concerns from Property Owners Landlord associations and real estate groups have raised concerns that expanding mayoral power over rent controls could discourage construction and maintenance of rental housing. They warn that strict limits on rent increases could reduce profits and make it harder for property owners to cover rising costs for repairs, taxes, and utilities. “Rent control, if misused, can shrink the housing supply,” said a spokesperson for a property owners’ organization. “Giving local politicians unchecked authority could create uncertainty for investors and developers.” Economists remain divided on the issue. Some studies suggest rent control helps protect vulnerable tenants in the short term, while others show it can lead to reduced housing availability over time. Tenant Advocates Applaud the Idea Tenant rights groups have praised Polanski’s proposal, calling it a step toward addressing what they describe as a housing emergency. They argue that rent increases have outpaced wages for years, forcing families to spend an unsustainable share of their income on housing. “People are choosing between rent and food,” said a housing activist. “Local governments need real power to intervene when markets fail.” Advocates say mayors are more accountable to residents than distant state agencies, making them more responsive to community needs. They also point out that local control could allow for targeted protections for seniors, low-income households, and essential workers. Political and Legal Challenges Granting mayors authority over rent control would require changes to existing laws, a process that could face resistance from lawmakers concerned about fragmentation of housing policy. Some legislators fear that different rules in neighboring cities could create confusion and drive renters and investors to relocate unpredictably. Legal experts note that rent control has long been a controversial subject, with court cases challenging its constitutionality and economic impact. Any shift in authority would need clear guidelines to prevent abuse and ensure fairness. “There must be safeguards,” said a constitutional law professor. “Local power must come with transparency and limits.” A Broader Housing Crisis Polanski’s proposal comes amid a wider conversation about how to solve housing shortages and affordability problems. Governments are experimenting with zoning reforms, public housing investments, and tax incentives for developers. Many analysts argue that rent control alone cannot fix the crisis and must be paired with policies that increase housing supply. Without new construction, they warn, price pressures will continue regardless of who sets the rules. “The real challenge is building enough homes,” said an urban economist. “Rent control is only one piece of a much larger puzzle.” Public Reaction Public response has been mixed. Some residents see the proposal as overdue and necessary, while others worry it could backfire. “I trust my mayor more than distant politicians,” said one renter. “At least they see what’s happening in our streets.” A property owner offered a different view: “Housing policy should be stable and predictable. Constant changes at the local level could make things worse.” What Comes Next Polanski plans to introduce legislation that would allow cities to opt into localized rent control frameworks, subject to oversight and periodic review. The proposal will likely face intense debate in the coming months as lawmakers, advocacy groups, and industry representatives weigh its potential impact. Whether the plan moves forward or not, it has reignited a critical discussion about who should control housing policy and how best to protect both tenants and the long-term health of housing markets. As rent continues to rise in many parts of the country, the question remains unresolved: should housing decisions be made from the top down, or from the city hall up? Polanski’s proposal suggests the future of rent control may depend on trusting local leaders with greater responsibility—and greater accountability.
By Fiaz Ahmed 2 days ago in The Swamp
Rules Over Which Jails House Trans Prisoners Challenged in Court
Across the United States and several other countries, a growing legal battle is unfolding over a deeply sensitive and complex question: where should transgender prisoners be housed? Long-standing prison policies—traditionally based on biological sex assigned at birth—are increasingly being challenged in court by transgender inmates, civil rights organizations, and advocacy groups. At the heart of these challenges lies a tension between individual rights, institutional safety, and evolving understandings of gender identity. As courts begin to weigh in, the outcomes could reshape prison systems, redefine standards of care, and influence how governments balance security with human dignity. The Traditional Model of Prison Housing For decades, correctional systems around the world have relied on a simple framework: inmates are housed according to their biological sex, usually determined at birth. This approach was designed for administrative clarity and security, reflecting a binary understanding of gender. Under this model: Transgender women (assigned male at birth) are typically housed in men’s prisons Transgender men (assigned female at birth) are typically housed in women’s prisons Prison authorities have long argued that this system minimizes operational risk and prevents abuse. However, mounting evidence suggests that for transgender inmates, this approach often results in heightened vulnerability, harassment, and violence. Why Trans Prisoners Are at Higher Risk Numerous studies and human rights reports indicate that transgender prisoners face disproportionately high levels of abuse, including physical assault, sexual violence, and psychological harm. Key risk factors include: Isolation from both staff and other inmates Targeting due to gender expression or identity Placement in solitary confinement “for protection,” which can cause severe mental health damage According to advocacy groups, housing transgender women in men’s facilities—or transgender men in women’s facilities—often places them in environments where they are seen as outsiders, making them easy targets. These risks have become central arguments in lawsuits challenging prison housing rules. The Legal Challenges: What’s Being Argued Court cases challenging trans prisoner housing policies generally rest on constitutional and human rights grounds, including: 1. Cruel and Unusual Punishment In the United States, plaintiffs argue that placing transgender inmates in facilities where they face known risks violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Courts are being asked: Does knowingly placing a transgender inmate in a dangerous environment constitute deliberate indifference? Is failure to protect a violation of constitutional duty? 2. Equal Protection Some lawsuits claim that blanket policies based solely on birth sex discriminate against transgender individuals, denying them equal protection under the law. 3. Human Rights Obligations Internationally, cases often cite human rights frameworks that emphasize dignity, safety, and freedom from degrading treatment. Key Court Cases Driving the Debate Several high-profile cases have pushed the issue into the national spotlight. In some jurisdictions, judges have ruled that prison officials must consider gender identity, medical history, and personal safety on a case-by-case basis, rather than relying on rigid rules. Other courts, however, have upheld traditional housing policies, emphasizing: Security concerns Logistical limitations The need to protect other inmates This split in legal outcomes highlights how unsettled the law remains. Arguments From Transgender Advocates Advocacy groups argue that current policies are outdated and harmful. Their key points include: Identity matters: Gender identity is a deeply rooted aspect of a person’s existence, not a preference or choice Safety should be individualized: One-size-fits-all policies ignore real risks Medical consensus: Major medical organizations recognize gender dysphoria and the legitimacy of transgender identities Advocates also stress that many trans prisoners are already serving time for non-violent offenses, making their exposure to extreme harm particularly unjust. Concerns Raised by Prison Officials and Critics Correctional authorities and critics of policy changes raise their own serious concerns. Security and Safety Officials argue that housing inmates based on gender identity could: Increase risks of sexual assault Create conflicts among inmates Be exploited by bad actors Operational Challenges Prison systems are already overcrowded and underfunded. Critics warn that: Specialized housing requires resources Staff need additional training Facilities may not be designed to accommodate new arrangements Impact on Other Inmates Some opponents argue that policies must also consider the safety and privacy of non-transgender inmates, especially in sex-segregated environments. Case-by-Case vs. Blanket Rules One emerging compromise in legal rulings is the idea of individualized assessments. Instead of automatic placement based on sex or identity, prisons are being encouraged—or ordered—to evaluate: The inmate’s gender identity History of victimization Medical and mental health needs Potential risks to and from others This approach aims to balance safety with fairness, but it also places significant responsibility on prison administrators. The Role of Solitary Confinement A controversial practice frequently raised in these cases is the use of solitary confinement as “protective custody.” While intended to shield transgender inmates from harm, prolonged isolation can cause: Severe anxiety and depression Increased risk of self-harm Long-term psychological damage Courts are increasingly skeptical of this solution, questioning whether isolation truly constitutes protection or merely shifts the harm elsewhere. International Perspectives Outside the United States, some countries have begun experimenting with more flexible models. Certain European nations allow placement based on gender identity after assessment International human rights bodies emphasize dignity and protection from violence Global prison reform movements are watching these court cases closely However, even internationally, there is no universal standard, and practices vary widely. Political and Cultural Dimensions These legal battles do not exist in a vacuum. They are deeply influenced by: Broader cultural debates about gender identity Polarized political climates Public misconceptions about transgender people As a result, court decisions often spark intense public reaction, with supporters framing rulings as victories for human rights and critics warning of social and institutional consequences. What These Cases Mean for the Future The outcome of challenges to trans prisoner housing rules could have far-reaching implications: Policy Reform: Prisons may be forced to rewrite housing guidelines Legal Precedent: Court rulings could set standards for future cases Training and Resources: Correctional staff may require new education and oversight Broader Recognition: Decisions may influence how institutions beyond prisons handle gender identity Even incremental rulings are likely to shape the conversation for years to come. A Question of Balance At its core, this issue forces societies to confront a difficult question: How do we balance safety, fairness, and human dignity in institutions designed primarily for punishment and control? There are no easy answers. What courts are increasingly signaling, however, is that ignoring the unique vulnerabilities of transgender prisoners is no longer legally or morally acceptable. Conclusion: A System Under Scrutiny As rules over which jails house trans prisoners continue to be challenged in court, the prison system itself is under renewed scrutiny. These cases expose not only gaps in policy but also broader questions about how justice systems treat their most marginalized populations. Whether through court mandates or legislative reform, change appears inevitable. The challenge will be ensuring that reforms protect everyone involved—without sacrificing humanity in the name of order.
By Zahid Hussainabout 8 hours ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.