I like how when we're trying to get #Medicare for all and student #debt relief there's all this handwringing about "who's going to pay for it" and "it's not fair to those who made sacrifices" but when a bank fails...

"Actually, all that money was fake. We just need to adjust this ledger with a few numbers and boom! It's like it never happened! Carry on, citizen!"

Let me just come right out and say it: I love Bernie Sanders.

I love Bernie because he has more guts than any politician I know.

Hell, he has more guts than just about anyone I know. https://robertreich.substack.com/p/why-i-love-bernie-sanders

I'm fascinated (if that's the right word) by conferences (including ones about #disability !) refusing any hybrid or virtual access as many return to in-person (often with little mitigation, as if the last years never happened).

Tbf, args against virtual options seem to repeat standard anti- #accessibility excuses: too much money, too hard, loses too much, not enough demand, our people don't want it, etc.

So, what makes the justification to refuse all virtual access for conferences ethical?

Here's one difference between #Mastodon and #Post (I'm not a fan of Post): I posted (at Post) a question about how something works over there. I got 2 "thumbs up" but no answers.

If I do that here, I get a wonderful onslaught of suggestions, replies helping me through the issue.

This has been a public service announcement.