Fischer, the Jan 6. “obstructing an official proceeding” case from Sarbanes-Oxley, is interesting as a documentation of American Supreme Court Justice demeanor in “politicized” cases (how they become “politicized” instead of normal, idk), very strange to see Sotomayor whacking the defendants counsel for poor arguments while Alito stayed silentish.
Its impossible for me to actually summon up that much indignation about cops sweeping up protesters blocking the highway (or train station, or seaport, vel sim). Even when i support the protesters. Highways without ppl willing and able to try and clear them of blockades are tantamount to no highways at all, and a life without highways for supply chains would be pretty bleak. Thats the whole point of activists targeting them in the first place: to hold the economy hostage as a negotiating tactic. There are limits to whst force it will be reasonable to use, but its important there be any threat of force at all. The fact we have cops charged with clearing off interstates is a good thing
Sometimes a blockade will be a proportionate measure in the service of a righteous cause. But “clear away ppl blocking the road, unless their cause is just” is not a social technology it is actually in anyones power to implement in hoc saeculo. Perhaps there is some sense in which, faced with the good kind of protesters, each individual highway patrolman should abandon his post in the service of the categorical imperative or whatever, but obviously expecting that to happen en masse and without any serious effort to make inroads among them is just asking for a miracle, and if you ask for the sea to be miraculously parted and it isnt maybe in a way it is reasonable to be angry at god about it but its pretty stupid to get all outraged at the water
If you are trying to force a blockade of an economic chokepoint, and our porcine friends take exception, i think basically the way to think about it is that they are doing their job, and you need to stay focused on doing yours. Unfortunate that the two have to be at odds with each other like that but thats just life in a fallen world
endorsed, and sums up why i was so annoyed at the social media posts the organizers of the otherwise very well executed housing protest i got arrested at made when they used the line “NYPD is arresting tenants just for standing up for housing justice!” as if we were arrested for exercising our first amendment rights (or for breaking a law because the law itself was our target) and not for disorderly conduct, specifically blocking a public sidewalk which is definitely a thing that should in fact not be tolerated
like can we own what we did? as purely symbolic acts of civil disobedience go the symbolism was pretty good! we were blocking the doors of the real estate board of ny in protest of the real estate lobby blocking tenants’ rights legislation! there was no need to confuse things by locating the injustice in the arrests themselves. it shows a lack of commitment to the logic of your own action and also borders on stolen valor
If you guys were on here at 11 years old what would you be posting about
(via gender-trash)
there was a pigeon in the parking lot of the grocery store I work at today with magnificent purple-and-green head plumage and scruffy white hair around the neck, which reminded me of the Elizabethan white puffy collars and this pigeon was large, probably 1.25x-1.5x the size of most of the pigeons in the parking lot, rivalling a small seagull
it was nice to gaze upon this avian marquis
sometimes i’m kind of self conscious that i may not necessarily phrase my poasts in a way that is natural in english, although that’s also an issue in any other language since i have a somewhat unusual way of speaking due to autism at times. i hope at the least it’s parsable even with the presence of mistakes…
Phrasing things in unnatural but technically valid ways is a vital public service. Without this we constantly risk language decaying into meaningless patter based on social expectation and vague context clues
(via augurydefier)
I’m sick of internet negativity, so let’s combat it: reblog this and saying something nice/pay a compliment to the prev in the tags.
(via eiko-chatter)
Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthropy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his Troubles.
Since sociological/psychological research is mostly fraudulent and, to the extent that it’s not, is falsified post-facto by selective publication and reporting, commiting to making social policy on the basis of “science” just means submitting to the arbitrary preferences of the class of professionals who conduct and report on this research. If you think they’ll always be on your side, then great. But when the day comes that this class of people happens not to take your side on something, you’ll be sorry that you grounded your politics in a false scientism rather than on a set of interests and principles not subject to this kind of arbitrary manipulation.
I was thinking about this because…
So I listen to the politics podcast put out by The New Statesman, which is a left-leaning newspaper in the UK. They are very mainstream left. And today they were talking about a new report on the medical evidence for various trans-related interventions, and they were wringing their hands about how terrible it is that children were being subjected to these treatments that didn’t have the proper evidence behind them. At first they were mostly talking about puberty blockers, but by the end they were with a straight face declaring that it was inappropriate for a teacher to use a student’s preferred pronouns, because that is “social transition” which is a “medical question” and the evidence isn’t in to support it.
Anyway I don’t think I need to spell out any further what I think of that, or what the regional variations in scientific consensus demonstrate about what is going on here. Basically “science” is being allowed to massively overextend itself into issuing diktat about questions of values, norms, principles, language usage, gender relations, and a million other things that are properly to be contested honestly in the realm of public opinion. “Listen[ing] to the science” on these questions is no better than mindlessly deferring to Church doctrine. It robs you of your sovereign right as an individual to organize your own social world and to participate in the collective organization of the social world of the political community.
The only way of coming anywhere near these targets was to increase pressure on the population to work more for less money, with consequences which we shall have to examine later in this chapter.
Although all West Germans started with 40 marks in cash in their pockets, there were some who were more equal than others. In particular those who had assets in the shape of machines, land and factories could now freely mobilise their resources in order profitably to supply a market which was starved of investment goods as well as consumer goods. A tax system which encouraged reinvestment and modernisation furthered accumulation, and an unequal distribution of wealth was created.
but west germany *IS* a really interesting moral experiment for what tabula rasa wealth and tax policy should be
I don’t know anything about postwar german economics but overall whatever they did in west germany is considered relatively successful, right? the germans ended up with a productive economy and relatively high standards of living even in lower income brackets
Yeah, but there’s a lot of weird stuff going on like having their entire shit reduced to rubble and deNazification policies and competition with East Germany and idk how much you can distentangle that.
The only way of coming anywhere near these targets was to increase pressure on the population to work more for less money, with consequences which we shall have to examine later in this chapter.
Although all West Germans started with 40 marks in cash in their pockets, there were some who were more equal than others. In particular those who had assets in the shape of machines, land and factories could now freely mobilise their resources in order profitably to supply a market which was starved of investment goods as well as consumer goods. A tax system which encouraged reinvestment and modernisation furthered accumulation, and an unequal distribution of wealth was created.