I’ll be honest up front. I am a MAMIL (Middle Aged Man in Lycra). At 58 years old, I had to Google to see if I was still considered middle aged, as I know a piece like this is going to get fact-checked like a Trump speech on CNN.

I am one of those guys who dresses like he is a more serious cyclist than he actually is. (Though truth be told, I have the same number of Tour de France titles as Lance Armstrong.) I am also a guy who drives in urban areas — namely the greater Washington, DC area — on a daily basis. Over the last 4 years I have averaged 11,700 miles of driving per year. In that same stretch I have averaged a little over 8,000 miles per year on my bike. As such, I am keenly interested in any of the myriad arguments over bike lanes and cyclists in traffic.

The arguments against road cyclists and bike lanes seem particularly virulent and, well, popular. That said, they can be largely boiled down to the following six arguments:

1. Cyclists don’t follow laws

2. Bicycles on the roads are dangerous

3. Bike lanes take up too much space

4. No one uses bike lanes anyway

5. Bike lanes cause traffic congestion

6. Cyclists should pay taxes

And in a tip of the hat to current events, I’ll add a seventh:

7. They’re DEI?

The key to keeping an open mind while reading this is twofold: 1) stop picturing a MAMIL every time you see the word “cyclist,” and 2) don’t read this while driving.

Without slowing you down any further than I do while biking in front of you, here are some counterpoints to those arguments.

Cyclists don’t follow laws

Get into a debate about bikes on roads and this is likely one of the first things you’ll hear. On its face, it makes sense. We’ve all seen the Lance Armstrong wannabes rolling right through that red light we’ve been stuck at for so long that we were able to complete our Wordle AND check our Insta feed between changes. But is it actually true? Study after study, whether here or abroad, whether observational or based on self-reporting says, “No, it isn’t true.” At worst, cyclists obey traffic laws at the same rate as car drivers (estimates hover around 85%). But that comes with a caveat bigger than a Chevy Suburban: that statistic doesn’t include speeding, and it is estimated that around 80% of us speed at least on occasion. “Us” meaning drivers, not “us” meaning MAMILs.

Some of the confusion around cyclists being traffic scofflaws stems from the fact that most drivers (most people, in fact) don’t know cycling laws, aside from the general assumption that “bikes follow the laws of the road, just as a car does.”

This isn’t always the case. For instance, in the District of Columbia (and many other places), cyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs, they may split lanes to get to the front of the line at red lights, they may go right on red after a complete stop, and they can also go on a walk signal even if the traffic light is still red.

When it comes to bike safety on roads there IS something to be said for experience. Most cyclists also own a car and drive. Most drivers do not cycle regularly. This unique experience of being both a driver and a cyclist gives the cyclist the advantage of knowing how to best navigate safely on the roads — and a greater familiarity with the law.

Being outside, exposed to the sights and sounds of traffic — and knowing how vulnerable I am on a bike — gives me a different awareness of the same streets I drive. That perspective has value.

I suspect some angry blog posters are less upset about the danger of a cyclist going through a red light than about the seeming unfairness. Why should that cyclist get to go through while I have to sit here and wait? But put that same cyclist directly in front of them when the light turns green, starting from a dead stop, and suddenly it’s: “Why is this guy in my lane? Why is he going so slow?” Apparently, we’re objectionable both when we get out of the way and when we stay in it. Giving cyclists a safe head start can help avoid that conflict — which is one reason some cities let us proceed on the walk signal before drivers get a green. Sometimes different rules — even ones that seem unfair — make practical sense.

Bikes on The Roads Are Dangerous

This argument is an interesting one for car drivers to make. Take your own experience for example. Have you ever been in a car accident? Did it involve a bicycle, or did it involve a car? It is almost certain it involved another car. And car accidents are not uncommon. For example, Alabama’s transportation department estimated a typical driver’s lifetime crash probability at more than 90%, while Allstate’s 2026 claims analysis put the national average interval between collisions at 10.86 years. Virtually none of them involve bicycles.

In 2024 alone, more than 39,000 people in the United States were killed in car crashes.

The leading causes of car crashes on both highways and city streets in the United States are distracted driving, speeding, and alcohol impairment. Other contributing factors include reckless and aggressive driving, running red lights and stop signs, adverse weather conditions, driver fatigue, unsafe/improper turns and lane changes, inexperienced drivers, vehicle defects and mechanical failures.

Bicyclists on the road don’t make the list.

This makes sense. Cars can achieve speeds of up to 110 mph or more. This MAMIL is lucky to hit 17 mph.

Plus, the aforementioned Chevy Suburban weighs approximately 5,800 lbs. My Specialized Roubaix bike weighs approximately 17 lbs. (I will NOT disclose how much it weighs with my MAMIL derriere on it. Though I will maintain it is comfortably below 5,800 lbs.)

It’s almost as though a MAMIL on a 17-pound bicycle traveling at 17 mph isn’t the biggest threat on the road.

Bike Lanes Take Up Too Much Space

I hear this argument often. And if you are on any community app or website like nextdoor.com you can likely read them regularly. They are filled with stories of new bike lanes causing hours of additional commute time for drivers in the course of a week, or the havoc this is going to wreak on ambulances and the elderly. There will also be a lot of lamenting of how “the bicyclists are taking over” and that drivers are ceding way too much to MAMILs like me.

Let’s see how that argument holds up to reality:

There are approximately 4,219,172 miles of vehicular roads and highways in the United States. That’s enough roadway to go to the moon and back nearly 9 times. Yes, THE moon.

There are approximately 4,400 miles of protected bike lanes in the United States. That’s about enough to go from Maine to California and halfway back.

Based on conservative estimates of road and highway widths (roads estimated at 30 feet wide and highways estimated at 100 feet wide), roads and highways in the United States cover approximately 30,000 square miles of land.

At an assumed width of 6 feet, ALL the protected bike lanes in the United States take up approximately five square miles.

The other lament of vehicle drivers is that bike lanes take away valuable parking spaces. Sounds totally legit. Parking is at a premium in the United States, right? Right?

Well, not so fast. There are somewhere between 3 and 8 parking spaces for every car in the United States. Yes, for every single car… all 250 million of them. (That’s helpful when you consider the average car in the US sits unused 23 hours a day.) Using the lower number of three, if these spaces were all clumped together, they would take up approximately 9,000 square miles… or put another way, there are 1,800 times as many square miles to park our cars than there are protected lanes to pedal our bikes.

Admittedly, distribution of parking spaces across the United States is uneven — in some urban areas parking is scarce and in some suburban areas, overly abundant. That said, one would still be hard-pressed to effectively argue that cyclists are greedily grabbing all the land from drivers.

No One Uses Bike Lanes

This seems like a good place to discuss the concept of “induced demand.” Induced demand is the phenomenon wherein adding new vehicle lanes to a particular route doesn’t reduce traffic as one might expect. Rather it attracts additional commuters who may have avoided that route because of congestion. It applies to bike lanes in this way: many cyclists don’t have a contiguous route of bike lanes on their commute, so they find the simplest and safest route they can — even when it means they may not use existing bike lanes.

To paraphrase a famous line from Field of Dreams, “If you build them, they will come.” More safe, connected bike lanes will attract more cyclists. More people choosing bikes means fewer cars on the roads — if they are protected bike lanes (PBLs) it will also mean fewer cyclists in traffic. And there are lots of cyclists. My neighboring county, where I bike daily, Arlington County, Virginia, has bike counters strategically placed on trails and bridges in the county and it has counted over 3.9 million bike crossings so far in 2026. PeopleForBikes estimates that 112 million of us rode a bike at least once in 2024.

Bike lanes cause traffic congestion

The truth is cars cause traffic congestion. Taking space from cars doesn’t automatically make traffic worse. Bikes and bike lanes, done properly, offer a way out of it. A well-designed street (or street improvement) can accommodate bikes, improve safety, and keep drivers moving. Well designed bike lanes can lead to traffic calming and reduce the number of vehicle/cycle crashes. Some research even suggests that dedicated bike lanes reduce all types of crashes, not just those involving bikes.

In certain urban areas, dedicated lanes for cyclists and pedestrians (along with other improvements) actually make motor vehicle traffic more efficient, despite reducing speeds. Morning driving times driving from 96th St. to 77th St. Manhattan for example, decreased 35% after the implementation of a combination of bike lanes and left turn lanes (which enabled bikes to continue straight unimpeded).

Cities like Paris and Amsterdam have mindfully developed a cycling culture and the infrastructure necessary to support it. And both cities have seen a dramatic increase in bike usage, significant drops in motor vehicle usage, and have seen massive reductions in pollution and substantial improvement in air quality.

In other words, cities can not just function, but function vibrantly even with those pesky bikes and bike lanes being near ubiquitous.

Cyclists should pay taxes if they want all these bike lanes

Cyclists do pay taxes. They pay for roads and bike lanes and wars and schools and national parks. General tax funds are used for roads and infrastructure both federally and locally. So cyclists pay things like income tax and property tax and sales tax. (Believe me, we MAMILs pay plenty of sales tax. Have you seen the cost of Lycra these days?) And while a cyclist who doesn’t own a car isn’t paying a gas tax per se, remember that most cyclists also own cars.

Everyone can recognize that it would be absurd to say to a homeowner “if you want a fire hydrant in your neighborhood, you should pay taxes.” Because they do. Of course they do, and for the most part, they don’t mind doing so. Fire hydrants are a safety feature that benefits the entire community.

So then why do we say to cyclists “If you want bike lanes you should pay taxes?” Easy. It’s because your bike lane-hating, community blog-posting neighbor has run out of arguments.

Which brings us, finally, to the last and latest anti-bike argument:

They’re DEI

I’ll admit, I am not entirely sure what this means, but President Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy have eliminated or stalled most funding of any cycling infrastructure projects, and even tried to shut down a part of MY commute — the 15th St. bike lane in DC. Why? Because woke. Obviously.

And just who signed one of the first laws allowing cities to designate parts of roads as bike lanes? Was it Bernie Sanders? Pete Buttigieg?

No, it was that famous liberal, Ronald Reagan.

I need to go now and ride my bike while my bike lanes still exist. Besides, the light is about to change.

In Defense of Road Cyclists and Bike Lanes and Other Things You Detest was originally published in Extra Newsfeed on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

President Joe Biden has only completed one year in office, but some pundits are already discussing who is most likely to replace him. If Biden runs for re-election, he’ll likely have most Democrats firmly behind him.

However, Democrats are less sure who they’ll back in 2024 if he passes on a second term. Most of the focus would likely first turn to Vice President Kamala Harris. But other contenders could emerge and deserve a full airing.

Commentators have suggested that several who have previously run for president may try again, including Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Senator Amy Klobuchar. Governors including Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, New Jersey’s Phil Murphy, and North Carolina’s Roy Cooper could also have a path to the nomination in a Biden-less race.

But one potential candidate who has been floated in recent news stories is more perplexing and should give Democrats pause: Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo.

Raimondo’s record is littered with reasons Democrats should not take her seriously as a presidential candidate. As Governor of Rhode Island, she presided over state agencies that were rife with mismanagement, bungled court cases, and troubled corporate contracts. She was rightfully criticized for not doing enough to diversify senior government positions and her executive staff, in a state where the demographics of leadership has not kept pace with a changing population.

Raimondo’s record on abortion is also questionable for a Democrat. NARAL Pro-Choice America rated her a “mixed choice” and gave Rhode Island a failing grade for abortion access under her leadership. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem opposed Raimondo’s re-election in 2018.

Raimondo’s record in Rhode Island suggests she is more committed to corporate interests than to public welfare. She proposed copying Trump corporate tax breaks into state law. She touted the removal of almost a third of Rhode Island’s regulatory checks on corporate power. At the height of the initial 2020 emergency, in response to a request from lobbyists, she granted legal immunity for COVID deaths to the corporations that owned nursing homes. She proposed to illegally cut state funding to low-income areas of Rhode Island during the pandemic, and proposed cutting the state Medicaid budget — and transferring a portion of the savings to insurance companies.

Before she became governor, Raimondo served as state treasurer. In that position, she handed over 14% of state pension fund investments — more than a billion dollars — to hedge funds whose owners actively opposed organized labor. This was a slap in the face of a unionized state workforce, which delighted the Koch Foundation-funded right-wing legal activist group ALEC. She invested state funds in her own venture capital firm, and in a firm that was fined by the SEC for making illegal campaign contributions. And she did all this while cutting benefits for beneficiaries. Labor unions actively opposed her nomination to be President Biden’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, which was ultimately withdrawn.

Raimondo’s record of undercutting American workers has expanded during her time at the Commerce Department, which approved the sale of automotive semiconductor chips to Huawei, the Chinese company under U.S. sanctions. Meanwhile, due to the ongoing chip shortage, GM shut down five automotive plants for weeks this past summer, laying off thousands of manufacturing workers for weeks at a time — even as spiking demand for motor vehicles in a recovering economy could have supported significantly higher levels of production, and the well-paying jobs that come with it.

And just last month, Raimondo came to the defense of Big Tech giants like Google and Apple in response to European Union actions to protect consumers from harmful Internet content. More than 20 pro-competition organizations noted that her remarks were in direct conflict with stated Biden administration policy against “abusive monopolies,” and Senator Warren wrote that the Secretary of Commerce should not “run interference” for U.S.-based multinational corporations.

Raimondo has repeatedly put herself in situations that blurred the line between the public interest and her personal and campaign financial interests. Her venture capital firm invested in a company that later received a contract from a public agency led by her husband. Her business used her image for profit during the years she was in public office. And she delayed taking action for months after it was reported that she had received political contributions tied to Purdue Pharma, the manufacturers of OxyContin who knowingly profited from opioid addiction.

Perhaps none of these actions taken in isolation is disqualifying. But as a whole, Raimondo’s record shows a pattern of favoring the interests of the financial and business sector (and herself) over the public welfare. America deserves leaders who understand that they are accountable to all the people, not just the wealthy. Should Biden choose to retire rather than seek a second term, the Democratic Party will have an opportunity to define its image by choosing a new standard-bearer. It would be a mistake for the Party to look to Raimondo.

Gina Raimondo: Not in the Public Interest was originally published in Extra Newsfeed on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

(Washington, DC)

May 5, 2022

The quiet, inner sanctum of the Supreme Court has once again been exposed by a leaker within the chamber. Coming on the heels of the shocking leak of a draft opinion indicating the court is on the cusp of overturning Roe v. Wade, this second leak shows the personal interactions of the justices during a lunch break.

Transcript (Best read in Nina Totenberg’s voice)

Chief Justice Roberts: Okay, everyone, let’s break for lunch. What should we order?

Justice Coney Barrett: Let’s pray first.

Justice Alito: Let’s get Chick-fil-a.

Justice Thomas (chuckling): I once saw a film called “Fill-a-Chick…” if you know what I mean. It starred an actor named Long Don…

Justice Roberts: That’ll do, Clarence

Justice Kavanaugh: Boof!

Justice Sotomayor: That’s disgusting.

Justice Alito: Shhhh!

Justice Breyer: Let’s get something healthy, but not too expensive.

(The door opens, justice-designate Ketanji Brown Jackson peers in.)

Justice-designate Brown Jackson: Is it too soon for me to place an order?

Justice Alito: Oh, God… there’s another one of them?

Justice Gorsuch: Oh, God… there’s another one of them?

Justice Coney Barrett: Did someone say “God?” Can we pray?

Justice Breyer: Sure, Ketanji… here, take my seat. I am not sticking around long anyway.

Justice Roberts: Actually, Ketanji, these deliberations are for sitting justices only. Please respect our privacy.

Justice Alito: Privacy shmivacy! What’s that?

Justice Gorsuch: Privacy shmivacy! What’s that?

(At this point Justices Alito, Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas high five one another, as Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor look on with mouths agape. Justice Roberts nervously sits between the two groups, barely concealing a chuckle while looking right, and looking somber and distraught when looking left.)

Justice Kagan: Come on. Let’s focus. I can order something for us on Doordash.

Justice Alito: Shhhh! It’s been decided. We are getting chick-fil-a.

Justice Gorsuch: Shhhh! It’s been decided. We are getting chick-fil-a.

Justice Kavanaugh: Boof!

Justice Sotomayor: Don’t we get to choose?

Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett: (erupt in laughter)

Justice Alito: No, Sonia, it’s settled.

Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney Barrett in unison: Ha! That’s exactly what we told Susan Collins!

Justice Kavanaugh: Also, I’d like a beer. No, scratch that. I’d LOVE a beer. I. Love. Beer!”

Justice Thomas: I would like a Coke. A can of Coke. Without the pubic…

Justice Roberts: That’ll do, Clarence. And as for drinks, I can’t decide. You all make your choices, then I will pick mine.

Justice Alito: It’s settled.

Justice Gorsuch: It’s settled.

Justice Kavanaugh: Boof!

Justice Coney Barrett: Can we close with a prayer?

And that’s how the court dining hall got sent Chick-fil-a, and our country got sent back 50 years.

Stand up for women. Stand up for girls. Stand up for freedom and justice. Click here and contribute to Planned Parenthood today!

Leaked: Transcript of SCOTUS Ordering Lunch was originally published in Extra Newsfeed on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

I can think of no greater tyranny than the denial of bodily autonomy. To have the government dictate when you can bear children. Whom you can have sex with. Whom you can marry. What kind of medical treatment you will be subjected to. Your freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. To me, this seems pretty self-evident. How can you have a stable democracy when the government can dictate so many deeply personal choices?

I’m 54 years old. Roe v. Wade became law when I was 5, so I have enjoyed the reproductive freedom Roe and Griswold, the precedent Roe was based on that legalized contraception (frankly, I can’t even BELIEVE contraception was ever ILLEGAL) my entire life.

I carefully weighed out the pros and cons and intellectually decided early on that I could find no good reason to have kids. I’ve always been painfully aware of the damage humans and particularly over-population have done to the planet. In college, I read the “Limits to Growth” paper and felt humanity was headed for impending doom. Pollution…mass extinction…climate change…nothing has changed since I graduated from college, and in fact, things have gotten worse. I couldn’t justify bringing a child into a doomed world.

I always thought that if I felt the desire for a child, I’d adopt one. There are plenty of unwanted children in the world. Fact is, I never once felt that desire. I like other people’s children. Children love me, and I love them. I just never wanted one of my own.

Griswold and Roe enshrined my right to decide when or whether to have children. Free, safe contraceptives ensured I would never need an abortion. What does Roe say? It says the government has no right to interfere with health decisions made between a WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR. Despite having sailed past my childbearing years with that right, and no longer at personal risk if it’s overturned, I am still upset and mad as hell that extremists on the current Supreme Court are set to strip it from younger women.

I’ve seen the right wing try to dismantle Roe for decades. I’ve marched. I’ve donated to Planned Parenthood (which is where I got my first prescription of birth control pills after a pregnancy scare at the age of 17). I’ve manned phone lines. I’ve voted solely for politicians who are passionately pro-choice. When Trump was running for President, he made no secret of his intention to nominate “pro-life” Justices and judges. He even went so far as to say women who have abortions should be jailed (never mind that, according to Ronan Farrow, who investigated the National Enquirer’s “catch and kill” policy on Trump scandals, he’s paid for at least one abortion in his lifetime).

So, this leaked Alito decision was no surprise. However, like a lot of politically aware progressives who intellectually knew that the day when SCOTUS would overturn Roe was coming, it still felt like a gut punch to wake up and read about this leaked decision and the news SCOTUS had a majority to overturn Roe yesterday. I wanted to just go back to bed, close my eyes, and hope it was a bad dream. (The title of this article comes from a pundit interviewed on MSNBC about the leak).

I realize this decision was written in February and is subject to change. But when I read it, I not only felt sick at how extreme it is, but also how FLAWED it is from a judicial standpoint. It sure reads as if Alito is grasping at straws to justify a purely POLITICAL decision, and that he brings his own personal values into it — something a jurist should never do.

He frets that the basis of Roe could lead to legalized drug use or (gasp!) prostitution. Heaven forbid we get rid of vice laws. Never mind that states with legalized weed are thriving financially, or that countries with legalized prostitution aren’t crumbling to the ground. We’ve had Roe for 50 years, and there is still only one state with legalized prostitution, and only a few states with fully legal marijuana. His antiquated views make an argument for term limits on the Court. This decision shows how out of touch he is.

He also argues that the privacy right behind Roe is not “deeply rooted in history.” So, fifty years isn’t “deeply rooted”? And does this mean anything that never happened before, can’t happen now? The U.S. simply can’t progress, huh? And things that ARE “deeply rooted”, like slavery and racism, are A-OK, I suppose.

Well, folks — welcome to the new American theocracy.

As Lawrence O’Donnell points out, “A majority of the Supreme Court now supports a law that would force a 12 year old child who is raped to have a child.” How can the same people who whine about the government forcing them to wear masks, be okay with the government forcing a raped child to give birth to a child? Yet most of the “trigger” laws ready to go in red states when Roe falls would make no exception for rape or incest. In fact, a Republican in Ohio said something that turned my stomach. And should’ve turned anyone’s stomach. “Rape is an opportunity.”

Republicans have made some pretty shocking, wackadoodle comments about rape. I am old enough to remember when such comments ended a politician’s career. For example, Missouri Rep Todd Akin’s (burn in hell, 2012) comment that “legitimate rape doesn’t result in pregnancy”. But viewing a 12 year old child giving birth to her rapist’s baby as an “opportunity” takes the cake, and is apparently fine now.

Don’t be fooled. Alito’s decision makes it clear SCOTUS won’t stop with Roe. His vehement hammering of the decision as being “egregiously wrong”, and his denial of the privacy rights the Warren Court determined was articulated in the Constitution, show that every decision based on the 14th Amendment is now on precarious grounds.

A whole slew of rights we’ve been taking for granted are on the chopping block.

If Roe falls, these cases are likely to be next:

1. Obergefell v. Hodges — the 2014 decision that gave us marriage equality. Do we really think Republicans, who’ve been furiously passing hateful anti-LGBTQ laws in the states they control, and even vengefully attacking corporations that refuse to go along with their bigoted policies, are going to let this decision stand? Of course not.
2. Griswold v. Connecticut — the case the Court used as a basis for the Roe v. Wade decision that legalizes contraceptives. It makes no sense to me that the right is against abortion, but ALSO wants to get rid of the right to have safe, legal contraception. Failed Reagan nominee Robert Bork tore Griswold apart in his confirmation hearing (which our current president helped torpedo), ensuring he would never sit on the Court. The GOP has been butthurt about this ever since. Biden even pointed out that Alito’s leaked decision uses a lot of the same language about Griswold that Bork used back then.
3. Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington — Alito mentioned this case, which challenged the constitutionality of a Washington State statute that banned all assisted suicide. States that legalized euthanasia should be on the alert — clearly the right is coming for our right to painlessly end our own life, with a doctor’s assistance — a right many other western industrialized countries without a significant, rabid evangelical population have allowed for decades.
4. Lawrence v. Texas — this case, which Alito also mentioned, overturned a Texas law making sodomy illegal. I can’t imagine how anyone who claims to be a patriot who loves democracy can be okay with police enforcing laws against what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms, but bigotry sells in the GOP. It’s how they get their poorly educated and evangelical base to vote for politicians who screw them.
5. Loving v. Virginia — don’t think that just because Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage he won’t make them illegal. Do you honestly think that because conservatives love to ban abortions, that they never GET abortions? Or that they never take their girlfriends or mistresses to get abortions? We know that’s not the case. Of course these hypocrites live by the creed of one law for me, another law for thee.

Indiana Senator Mike Braun recently stated in an interview that interracial marriage should be illegal. The blowback forced him to walk it back, but I’m not buying it. These extremists always say crazy things like that, and it’s decidedly not a mistake. They know what their wealthy corporate donors require of them. They all goosestep in line with it. It’s a white nationalist agenda that I’m sure advocates making interracial marriage illegal. Because white nationalism is fundamentally about increasing the number of white people to prevent that “replacement theory” Tucker Carlson keeps warning his poorly educated racist base about. Braun was probably floating out a “trial balloon” to gauge how much resistance a repeal would get.

The Supreme Court is no longer an impartial body upholding the rule of law. It is now an instrument of fascism.

What do we do about it?

1. Push for the expansion of SCOTUS. Yes, we need to vote Republicans out in November. But that’s not enough. We face an IMMEDIATE threat to our rights. There is nothing in the Constitution dictating the number of Justices. One way to balance out the right-wing extremists is to add more left-leaning Justices. In order to do this, though, we need to:
2. Demand that Congress eliminate the filibuster. But, you may be asking, how will this ever happen when corporate whores Manchin and Sinema are against it? VOTE IN MORE DEMOCRATS IN NOVEMBER. This will require more than just voting. We must all get people to the polls. Write postcards and letters. Join a phone bank. Whatever it takes.
3. March march march. Protest protest protest. In numbers too big to ignore. Alito may have beligerently declared in his confirmation hearing that the Court shouldn’t care about public opinion, but when its decisions risk a civil war, they damn well SHOULD care. When their decisions lead to the erosion of democracy, they should care. John Roberts has indicated he does care about public opinion. As do other Justices.
4. Push for impeachment. There are Justices who deserve it. Kavanaugh lied in his confirmation hearing. Multiple times. We still also don’t know who paid his gambling debts, and the way he got his seat is shady. It appeared that Trump may have blackmailed Justice Kennedy, whose son helped Trump acquire loans at Deutschebank — this warrants an investigation. Not to mention, the over 1000 FBI tips about Kavanaugh and the sexual assault allegations against him that died at the hands of Bill Barr. Clarence Thomas continues to refuse to recuse himself in cases where his QAnon kook wife has a vested interest. Not to mention, her participation in the insurrection. Why are we letting insurrectionists remain on the Court and in Congress? That’s a separate article I’m working on.
5. Donate money to organizations that are fighting for our rights, like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

Also, if you know anyone who needs an abortion, or if you need one, go to prochoice.org for a list of providers.

Tldr: if Roe is overturned, we’re fucked.

Copyright 2022 S. Wade

The Sky Is Falling was originally published in Extra Newsfeed on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Right after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the newly-established republic of Moldova saw a territorial change of its own with Transnistria, a pro-Russian separatist region in the West of the country trying to break out and seek independence.

This move was followed by the Transnistria war that lasted until 1992. Initially, when the war started in 1990, Russia adopted a policy of neutrality. Two years later, however, the fighting escalated and the nature of Russian engagement changed into active participation in combat. Eventually, the war ended with a Russian-backed ceasefire agreement and Russia began a peacekeeping operation in the region, which essentially meant it decided to keep its soldiers there.

Since the end of the war, Transnistria has been developing strong political and economic ties with Russia and Putin has been offering financial and military support to the breakaway state.

As of 2019 the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Transnistria numbered 1500 troops.

Over the years, Moldova and international structures such as NATO repeatedly urged Russia to withdraw its troops from Transnistria but the country has been refusing to do so.

Having its soldiers in Transnistria allows Putin to indirectly affect policies in Moldova and to slow down its integration with the European Union.

For Moldova to be able to boost its economic and political development, getting closer to being accepted into the EU, Russian troops must leave Transnistria.

Moldova wants to be part of the EU, but Transnistria does not

‘Moldova wants to become a member of the EU one day,’ said Maia Sandu, the country’s current President.

In recent years Moldova has entered into close economic cooperation with the organisation, which resulted in the EU and Moldova signing the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFRA) part of the Association Agreement in 2014. That triggered lower tariffs and faster customs procedures, which resulted in increased exports from Moldova to EU member states. Now, the EU accounts for more than fifty per cent of Moldova’s total trade.

In addition to gradual economic integration, Moldova has also been working on advancing political cooperation with the EU. For instance, Moldova is covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy, designed to promote democracy, drive social development, and increase stability in countries located to the east and south of the EU territory.

Despite Moldova’s pro-European ambitions, its society remains divided between those who want to pursue European integration and those who want to get closer to Russia.

In Transnistria especially, people hope to one day be annexed by Russia so developing ties with the EU is not in their interest. And sadly, as long as Transnistria dreams of a Russia-aligned future, Moldova will not be able to push for EU membership.

Moldova’s integration with the EU is slow because of Russian troops

Even though for the time Russia’s unification with Transnistria is unlikely, Putin refuses to give up his influence in the breakaway state. Having his troops there and offering economic and political support to Transnistria allows him to have a certain degree of control over Moldova.

One of Putin’s greatest ambitions is to prevent the expansion of NATO, especially with regard to Eastern states.

Moldova’s constitution guarantees the country’s neutrality, which is why Moldova has no intention of joining NATO. But still, it cooperates with the alliance and, as NATO reports, ‘seeks to draw closer to Euro-Atlantic standards and institutions.’ That is not very much to Russia’s liking. Neither is Moldova preferring to sign trade agreements with the EU rather than joining Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union.

As Putin aims to shift Moldova’s political strategy from pro-European to Eurasian, he would not use force to annex Transnistria but instead will continue strengthening ties with the separatist republic, making it increasingly dependent on Russia’s assistance.

In an interview with Reuters, Maia Sandu, current President of Moldova said ‘unfortunately, we do still have the Russian troops on our territory.’ She also added that ‘joining the EU is Moldova’s choice.’ And yet, through making Transnistria its pawn, Russia can negatively affect Moldova’s ability to pursue wider cooperation with both the EU and NATO and the choice Sandu mentioned is at least partially dependent on Putin’s will.

It seems like not allowing Moldova to focus on fostering democracy and making the most of its freedom is an embodiment of Putin desperately holding on to the remnants of the Soviet Union. After all, in his eyes the USSR was the greatest empire the world had ever seen.

The withdrawal cannot happen overnight

The withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria is necessary for Moldova to prosper but enabling such a scenario requires more than convincing Putin to do so.

Thanks to Russian investments and training, the Transnistrian military has grown to be stronger than the Armed Forces of Moldova.

‘Moldova counts about 6,000 soldiers in its small army, while Transnistrian military forces number between 10,000 and 15,000 soldiers. Moreover, while the Moldovan army has no warplanes or tanks, the breakaway Transnistrian army has both,’ Balkan Insight observes. Moreover, Russia frequently organises military exercises in Transnistria, making sure that soldiers based there are ready for any possibility of military action.

For Transnistria, having Russian troops on its territory means increased stability and a more professional army. Consequently, the separatist region will do everything it can to keep them there.

Then, there is the Cobasna ammunition depot, one of the largests weapons depots in Eastern Europe, containing up to 20,000 tons of Soviet-era munitions. Guarding it is the official reason for the presence of Russian troops in the breakaway state. For the withdrawal of Russian troops to be able to happen, weapons stored in the depot need to be withdrawn and destroyed. In the past, there have been several attempts to take weapons out but these were stopped by the Transnistrian government asking Russia not to give up its presence in the region.

Keeping Transnistria under Russia’s influence is a strategic move, allowing Putin to take the lead in the geopolitical competition with the EU over Moldova’s attention. Maintaining a military presence in Transnistria is one of the easiest ways for him to keep his grip on power in the region.

At this point, Russia has an established position in Transnistria so the eventual withdrawal would need to happen gradually. Forcing such a move could lead to Moldova facing a backlash from the pro-Russian population of Transnistria.

Still, just like Serbia will not be able to join the EU until it deals with the Kosovo issue, Moldova needs to find a solution to the frozen conflict in Transnistria to have a chance of making its EU dream come true.

Hence, calling for the withdrawal and preparing for it should be a priority for Moldova’s government in the months, or more likely years, to come.

For Moldova to be able to join the EU, Russian troops need to leave was originally published in Extra Newsfeed on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.