*Idaho librarian resigns over "atmosphere of extremism" and "intimidation tactics"* of the right-wing Christians.

At this state of the fight, resigning in protest can be a powerful gesture. However, as time goes on, it will be necessary for librarians to find ways to fight that don't involve taking themselves out of the battle.

New Zealand calls on the world's nuclear powers to get serious about nuclear disarmament.

It is a valid argument that, if countries have nuclear weapons, sooner or later some country is likely to use them. By the same argument, if it is possible to build nuclear weapons, sooner or later some country will build some.

Thus, abolishing nuclear weapons globally will take us one step further away from a nuclear war, but not in an irrevocable way. We will be in a less acute variant of the same dilemma we are in now.

So I think global nuclear disarmament calls for a strategic plan: if after global nuclear disarmament one country builds nuclear weapons again, how should the rest of the world respond?

• What if China is that country?
• What if Russia is that country?
• What if the US is that country?
• What if India is that country?
• What if Pakistan is that country?
• What if Israel is that country?
• What if Iran is that country?
• What if Saudi Arabia is that country?
• What if North Korea is that country?
• What if South Korea is that country?
• What if Burma is that country?
• What if Ethiopia is that country?
• What if Hungary is that country?

Along what lines should the world respond?

• Ignoring the nuclear weapons, acting as if they did not exist?
• Pressuring that country to get rid of them?
• Building nuclear weapons and making that country back down?
• Some other approach?

I pose these questions but I do not have answers for them.

US citizens: call on Biden to agree to the non-nuclear deal with Iran.

More information about the situation.

To sign without running nonfree JavaScript code from the web site, use the Salsalabs workaround.

Some Michigan Republicans, including officials, got their hand on some voting machines in Michigan and did various "tests" on them.

I can't be sure what those machines actually do. It turns out that the term "tabulator" is used for all sorts of machines that generate total vote counts. It is possible that voters vote directly on those machines, and the machines output only totals. Using that kind of machine with a computer in it makes the voting system vulnerable. If so, the state should eliminate their use.

However, those vulnerabilities don't spontaneously exploit themselves. They can be exploited by people. The people most likely to rig an election through voting machines, are those who are (1) their manufacturers (because they have opportunity), (2) given to wild conspiracy ideation such as QAnonsense, or (3) willing to break any law for their cause. Each of those three groups is mainly Republican.

I would not put it past those conspirators to have inserted a back door into the machines they got control over. But it could also be the common Republican play, Blow Smoke Then Cry 'Fire'.

Making things even more shocking and dangerous, one of the conspirators is now running for Attorney General of Michigan, endorsed by the corrupter. I'd expect him to quash the investigation if he is elected.

If you find any reliable information on what part of the election these machines actually do, I would appreciate it if you send it to me with its URL.

*Herewith the 6 rules for getting a second (or third or fourth) chance to sell a giant con.*