#2.02 new year new rules

[moonylantsovs]

RULES | 2.02: INCLEMENT WEATHER

summary: gabriella kane and what is left of the hundred get separated from the dropship camp after the battle with the grounders. people who gabriella buried and mourned join them on earth. when she finds out most of her people are missing, she is ready to go through whatever she has to in order to get them back — even if that means making a truce with the grounders

pairings: john murphy x fem!oc, bellamy blake x fem!oc (slowburn)

warnings: best friends to enemies to lovers, enemies to allies to lovers, swearing, daddy issues, blood and gore, murphy being annoying, trauma bonding

taglist: @lotr-got

series masterlist

Walking into the newly named Camp Jaha, made an unsettling feeling appear in Gabriella's stomach. She always considered The Ark her home. A twisted and miserable home but still a home. That was until she got sent down to Earth and the hundred became her family and their camp her new home.

Camp Jaha did not seem right to her and the sight of Alpha Station on the ground made her internaly cringe.

Marcus made a couple of guards escort Gabriella and Bellamy inside, leaving them locked up in a room on their own.

"You doing alright?" Gabriella heard Bellamy question and opened her eyes, turning around to connect their gaze, seeing a concern expression on his face.

"About which part exactly? Seeing John's annoying face after everything he did, seeing my dad for the first time in what feels like years after I thought he was dead or having no idea where our friends are?" The blonde asked, the last words leaving a bitter feeling on her tongue.

Before she got sent to the ground, the only people she had considered friends were Murphy, Jasper, Monty and Raven despite the fact that she was more of a co-worker. After landing in Earth, it felt like she had eighty kids that were her responsibility.

"All of it, I guess." Bellamy shrugged as if it was not a big deal, but Gabriella could still see genuine worry on his face.

And yet another surprising thing that happened, she considered a guard turned janitor turned fake guard turned rebel a friend. Not a close one but still a friend. He was her co-leader and a big part of keeping the delinquents alive. They shared the same priorities now and kept the hundred alive together for this long they knew they needed each other if they were gonna keep doing so.

"Well I'm feeling kinda overwhelmed with emotions right now." Gabriella admitted, shrugging as best as she could with her hands tied behind her back "I feel betrayed and a bit...sad, I guess. But I'm mostly pissed."

Bellamy let out a breathy chuckle. "You can only feel one emotion at a time, Bambi. Otherwise you'll most likely explode.”

"If I do explode, I'd prefer to do so straight in my father's face, thank you very much." Gabriella joked, throwing a small grin over her shoulder at her co-leader.

He cracked a small smile and muttered under his breath, "Cute."

After a few moments of silence, Gabriella frowned at the sight of Bellamy's free wrists and pointed out, "Why am I the only one that gets handcuffed?"

"Because you don't think before you act." Bellamy stated as if it was the most obvious thing in the world.

Gabriella scoffed instantly. "Oh, you're the one to--"

Her words were cut off by the doors opening and her father stepping into the room with a rifle in his hands. A from immediately settled on both Gabriella and Bellamy's faces.

"How long are you gonna keep us locked up in here?" Bellamg asked with an annoyed scowl, a complete contrast to his amused expression from a moment ago.

"Until I'm confident you're no longer a threat to others." Marcus stated coldy, his words making Gabriella scoff.

"The only person I'm a threat to is John Murphy and I'm pretty sure I'd be doing you a favor by kicking his ass out of camp." She sneered, her piercing blue eyes narrowed into a glare and cutting through her father's soul like a knife.

Marcus simply ignored his daughter's words and took a hold of a chair, sitting on it a moment after. "Let's continue. Now you said there were hundreds of grounders attacking. Two hundred? Three hundred?"

"We didn't count." Bellamy snapped, his frustrated tone mirroring Gabriella's frustrated expression perfectly.

"Why do you think they attacked? What provoked them?"

Gabriella rolled her eyes at her father's words and replied in a snarky tone, "What do you think made them attack? The fact that your exodus ship didn't land where it was supposed to and instead of landing in Mount Weather where there was supposed to be supplies, we landed on someone else's territory."

Bellamy nodded in agreement, adding, "We were here. That was enough. We're wasting time. The others didn't just vanish into thin air. They were taken, and we need to go after them."

"Yeah, I second that."

"Search team is preparing to leave but not before we've gotten the untel we need from you." Marcus said, trying to keep his tone stoic but Gabriella still noticed a hint of amusement that just pissed her off even more.

"We need to be on that team." She exclaimed, almost desperately.

"That's out of the question." The new chancellor instantly declined. "You're not trained. It's too dangerous."

Gabriella felt her eye twitch slightly as she raised her voice, "Bellamy was a literal cadet! We both know how to shoot a gun well. Those are our people out there!" A bitter scoff escaped her lips. "You may be the chancellor now, but you are not in control. Not completely. I mean, do you really think the hundred will listen to you if you find them? News flash, they won't. You sent them down here to die but Bellamy, Clarke and I were the ones that kept them alive. They listen to us, not the council."

"Those are our people out there. We are the ones who are supposed to keep them safe." Bellamy added, running a hand over his wounded face.

"They're my people too. You want to help them? Tell me what we're up against...grounder tactics, their numbers, what kind of weapons they used..." Marcus said, trying to sound unbothered by Gabriella snapping at him.

Bellamy hesitated, his eyes briefly flickering to Gabriella's before he sighed and answered "Arrows and spears, axes, swords...their teeth."

"No guns?"

When both delinquents shook their heads, Marcus tilted his head curiously. "You had guns."

"Yeah." Gabriella sighed, making the messy hair move from her eyes a little. "We found those at the aid depot. It leveled the playing field but more of us would survived if we had more bullets--"

"There were more bullets." Her father cut her off. "Search team just returned from the bunker, they found two more barrels full of rifles and a third filled with bullets."

"Shit." Gabriella muttered, resting her tied hands on her knees and burrowing her face in the palms of her hands.

"We should have looked harder." She heard Bellamy mutter with a mix of regret and guilt.

"Keep walking."

Both Gabriella and Bellamy scowled simultaneously at the sight of two guards bringing Murphy into the room.

"What's he doing here?" Bellamy demanded, glaring at the boy.

"Excuse me, Sir. Dr. Griffin cleared Mr. Murphy out of medical." Major Byrne explained.

Marcus tilted his head, as if thinking out his options in his head, before he got up and looked from his daughter and Bellamy to Murphy. He sighed and pointed to a corner. "Put him over there, Major Byrne."

The blonde woman motioned for two guards that carried Murphy in to tie him up while another tied Bellamy down to a metal column by his wrists. In the meantime, Major Byrne grabbed Gabriella by her forearms and did the same thing with her, but on another column.

"Wow." Gabriella scoffed in disbelief. "If you're gonna start locking us up with the biggest psychopaths of the hundred maybe you should go look for Dax's body in the woods, I'm sure he'd really appreciate that "

Murphy gave her a puzzled look while Bellamy briefly rolled his eyes at her poor attempt to lighten up the mood.

"Well, this should be fun."

-

Gabriella squinted, biting her bottom lip in frustration as she tried to hear what the commotion outside camp was about, but could not make out anything: just her father and some people yelling. When the arguing stopped, Gabriella tried to listen for a few more moments until she realized she was not going to pick up on anything and let her head fall against the metal column she was leaning on with a loud thud.

Only ten minutes later, when she was finally starting to enjoy the peace and quiet, a loud scream of pain echoed through camp and made her eyes snap open. Raven.

Now that Abby was there, she was able to perform surgery on her from the bullet wound but she did not think Raven would be in this much pain, or even awake during the surgery. Gabriella screwed her eyes shut, desperately trying to block out the sound of her friend's desperate screams of pain.

"Yeah. That was me at the grounder camp." Murphy said, his voice sounding as bored as it could get as he rambled. "You know, I did everything I could not to scream, but eventually--"

"But eventually, you broke and you told them everything." Bellamy cut him off, his voice dripping in venom.

"And you wouldn't have because you're better than me." Murphy drawled out sarcastically.

"Damn right. I'm not a traitor. I didn't tell them where they could find us." The Blake responded, not even looking at the younger boy.

Murphy grinned without humor. "And I did." Hia face suddenly turned serious as he let his gaze settle on Gabriella. "Yeah, I did. After they tortured me in their prison camp for three days," he looked back at Bellamy with a glare "but go ahead. You just keep believing, even if you are both in here just like me." When he did not receive an answer he turned his head to stare at Gabriella pleadingly. "Come on, Ellie. You must have stuff to say to me. Scream, yell at me, insult me just say something."

"I really don't have anything else to say to you." The blonde said, refusing to let her walls down in front of him again. "You had two choices, you chose wrong and now you have to deal with the consequences."

-

Gabriella could see the night sky through the small windows in the room they were locked in, a sign the sun has set and that they've been there for almost eight hours, without any food or water.

"Get up." Wells ordered, barging into the room unannounced, Finn right by his side with a backpack in his hand and Monroe staying by the doors to keep guard.

Finn threw the backpack in between Gabriella and Bellamy and announced, "We're going after them."

Gabriella's eyebrows shot up in surprise, almost overwhelmed with Wells' change of morals. A month ago, he would not have dared to go against the chancellor's orders.

Wells must have noticed her surprise and smiled slightly. "You didn't think we'd let you rot in here with Murphy while our friends are out there, did you?"

"Well, it's about damn time." Gabriella grinned back at Wells, before he bent down to untie her from the column she was tied to, while Finn did the same with Bellamy. As soon as her hands were free, Gabriella sighed in relief and rubbed them to get rid of the brief pain. "If I get tied up for this reason one more time this week, I'm going to kill myself."

Bellamy snorted at her insinuation and followed her, Wells and Finn towards the door where Monroe was waiting for them in a hurry, when Murphy called after them, "Wait, wait. What about me?"

Gabriella was quick to shake her head with a humorless chuckle. "As if. You think we would let you loose after everything you did? That's hilarious." Clearly, Bellamy had other plans, as he brushed past his co-leader about to untie Murphy, only to have her stop him with a hand to his firm chest. "What the hell do you think you're doing, Bellamy?"

"He knows where the grounder camp is. He's coming with us." Bellamy simply explained, before shrugging her surprisingly warm hand off of him and untying Murphy.

"No way." Finn shook his head, clearly just as furious about what the boy in question did to his ex-girlfriend.

"Bellamy's right, okay" Murphy said, wincing at the tight grip Bellamy had on his shirt. "I can bring you there."

"Hey, Sterling just signaled. Someone's coming." Monroe called over her shoulder, tapping her foot on the floor impatiently.

"Just a second." Wells told her, before chiming in on the argument. "Finn, stay out of it. They're the leaders here, it's their choice if they let him come with us or not."

Both Gabriella and Finn let out a simultaneous defeated sigh, before helping Bellamy drag Murphy out along with them.

When Wells, Finn, Sterling and Monroe led the three prisoners outside of Camp Jaba and they were sure they were out of sight and earshot, Bellamy finally spoke up, "You don't think anyone saw us?"

"Shh." Finn hissed, lowly. "Keep it down."

Gabriella rolled her eyes and was painfully aware that Bellamy was probably doing the same. Their dislike for Finn did not falter the slightest in the last few weeks. They might be on the same side about the situation at hand, but they both knew the only thing he cared about was finding out what happened to Clarke.

They were just not aware of how far he was willing to go just to find her.

After a couple more minutes of walking further into the woods and farther away from the safety of Camp Jaha, a light blinded Gabriella's vision. She blinked a couple of times and recognised David Miller (Nate's dad) staring at them expectantly.

Gabriella was ready to tell the rest of the delinquents besides her to make a run for it, when the woman behind David revealed herself, coming to the light. She raised her eyebrows at the worried expressions on Gabriella and Bellamy's faces and the slightly shaken up Murphy in Bellamy's hold.

"You're late."

"Bellamy decided to bring company." Finn explained bitterly.

Said male shrugged in slight defence. "He's the only person that's been in their camp."

Gabriella rolled her eyes momentarily and swore she saw the corner of Abby's lips twitch into a small smile at the action, before the female doctor reached into the waistband of her pants to pull out a gun. It was smaller than the rifles Gabriella was so used to using by now, but it was something. The youngest Kane reached for the gun and took it in her hands, letting it rest in the waistband of her own pants with a satisfied look on her face.

Abby pulled out one more gun and passed it over to Finn while David pulled out two rifles and gave them to Bellamy and Wells, the latter still being a bit hesitant in using guns but he still accepted it gratefully.

"Here." David nodded, looking between the two leaders. "Find my son. His name is Nathan Miller."

Gabriella saw recognition flash across Bellamy's bloodied features in the dark and both of them nodded at the older guard in understanding.

"Bring them home."

[theflyindutchwoman]

On Lucy's lack of promotion

I've seen some speculation and frustration regarding Lucy's lack of promotion lately so I just wanted to add my 2 cents on the matter.

As of episode 5.09, Lucy is a P2. Per the LAPD guidelines, one becomes eligible for P3 only after 3 years on patrol. A P3 usually remains a patrol officer, but they can also choose to become a patrol training officer (like Nolan did). Once a P3, you can qualify as a detective or a sergeant, but only after your 4th year in patrol. The show has actually respected this so far : in 2.02, Armstrong mentioned that he switched to detective after 4 years on patrol and he was an exception, not the rule... And in the same episode, we found out that Angela decided to become a detective after 7+ years on patrol (if I remember correctly).

If we stick to the timeline, Lucy has been a P2 for less than 2 years : 3.09 we see her promoted to P2. From there we can add 1 month at the beginning of 4.01 (Nolan's 30 days extension is over) + 3 months mentioned at the end of 4.01 + 13 months of P1 Aaron between 4.02 and 5.03) + whatever months between 5.03 and 5.09 (unlikely to be more than 6 though).

So Lucy not being promoted yet is not a problem in itself. Even more reassuring (to me) is the fact that the writers don't forget about her at all. They keep acknowledging in canon how good she is - this season alone, we have references of her future in 5.02, 5.03, 5.06 and 5.07. And so far, her path is really good : she gained so many different experiences (her own UC operation, sergeant's aide, helped the FBI when they didn't have to invite her on the raid, UC school, acting sergeant...). I mean it is a terrific resume. On that note, I absolutely love that we see her trying and thriving on so many different positions, and thus keeping her options open.

And most importantly, it also keeps in line with the other characters' promotion (minus the very obvious one). Tim had to wait around for his sergeant position, even after passing the exam (first mention was in 1.15 and he got promoted in 4.02), Angela had a bit of a fumble but was able to become a detective in a reasonable amount of time (first mention was in 1.01 and we see her as a fully detective in 3.02). Even with Aaron, while they do mention him being a detective, it is still explicitly stated that it will take time (and not because he failed the Angela/Nyla test). If Tim gets promoted to S-II before Lucy becomes a P3 it will be because in his case you don't have a time constraint in his case. So up to this point, it is relatively grounded in reality (for a TV show obviously).

Except for one character. Now in regards to Nolan... that's where it is pure insanity and all the previous rules goes out of the window. In 3.05, we found out that he could qualify for TO exam in 2 years if he has his college degree... Considering he's still in probation... Nope. And, I find dubious it only took a month to finish his college degree. But the best part (and by that I mean infuriating) is that in the end it only took a year later (4.21) for him to be able to take the TO exam... What happened to needed two years? Whatever. Only he can't take the exam because he is sent in a hole so he'll have to wait two extra years (which is basically what should have been the case from the start). But not to worry, he gets a golden ticket, the thing that is allegedly practically impossible to get (it took years of UC work for Nyla in comparison...). So why the rules that applies to everyone in Mid-Wilshire but not him? Well...

Now I could get past that if at least he was having some troubles with his new position (there's a reason why you don't get promoted immediately : lack of experience is one of them). I liked 5.02 for that... but since then, nada. Worse : after being explicitly told that he should not let Celina drive (again there is a reason and it has nothing to do with Celina), he still does it. Again, whatever.

Anyway, back to Lucy. I get the frustration, especially in comparison with Nolan (I could rant all day seriously). But I don't think the writers would mention all these opportunities and not do something about it. My guess is, we'll have a promotion towards the end of season 5/next season. I think we are going to have a deeper conversation about her future in LAPD in 5B. If only because of her burgeoning relationship with Tim and how it is going to impact their careers.

[atimepieceinparis]

[safflowerseason]

for the ask: dan and amy for (10, 15, 21, 26, 35, 37, 41, 46, 50) hope this helps distract!

Hi anon - this was very distracting, thank you!

For my sanity, I’m going to ignore S7. I think there’s a way to incorporate S7 into some of these answers but only if Bill has died and fifty years have passed and Dan’s in his luxury Laguna Beach bungalow on his fourth divorce and regretting everything. S7 Dan has no feelings or inner life whatsoever, he’s just a sex robot made up of teeth-whitening products and GQ magazine fashion tips. 

10 - If something already happened to tear them apart, what would make them come back together? Is it even possible? In the show, Amy somewhat gets over the fact that Dan sleeps with her sister, which is like maybe the worst thing you can do to someone in the normal world (not even close to the top of the list in Veep-world.) And while she is justifiably furious and horrified by it, I think her terrible experience with Buddy and the fact that Dan actually made it clear to her that he only slept with Sophie for professional reasons is what allows her to open up to him again in the back half of S6. 

Wait, I am already breaking my rule—I do think there was a way for S7-Veep to bring them together at the end (I explore it in this fic here: https:/archiveofourown.org/works/18572953), but it would have required more attention to their relationship than Mandel was interested in giving. If he had allowed the sex-psychopath version of Dan to actually feel his attraction to Dark!Amy (and not immediately reject it for whatever mysterious reason—girlfriends don’t count, this is Dan), to consider where it could take them, there was a compelling narrative way for them to move forward and to create a new kind of relationship between them. It would NOT have resembled the earlier version of their relationship, but it would have been very in keeping with the S7 absurdity, and the fact that they didn’t go there says all you need to know.

15 - Who misses the other more, or really thinks about them more? On a day-to-day basis, I imagine Dan thinks about Amy more, and probably texts her a lot throughout the day because he can’t stand the idea that she might not be thinking about him 24/7. Amy is a lot better at blocking out distractions (Dan) when she needs to focus on work. During their estrangement, I think Amy dwelled over their relationship and her hurt feelings a lot in S5, and then refused to let herself think about him anymore when Buddy came along. In S5, Dan’s too busy pretending he doesn’t care to really think about her, and then in S6, he’s too busy exploring all the pleasures of his new NYC media life. 

I do have a head-canon that he drunks-dials her one time while she’s in Nevada. 

21 - What’s the thing they miss most about each other? Dan misses the way Amy’s always busting his balls, the way she’s always fired up about something, misses how transparent she is around him, misses how smart she is (I love that moment when he gets all annoyed with Brie about the IRS and her taxes or whatever.) Basically, he misses his political partner-in-crime. Amy misses how paradoxically relaxing she find Dan’s presence (when he’s not being an asshole to her on purpose), misses how well he takes direction from her, misses the way he makes her laugh. 

26 - Who would take longer to let go? Do they ever really “let go”? I think Amy lets go of things eventually, but she never forgets. Dan lets go of things instantaneously, as needed. 

35 - Do they have any regrets (regarding the other, or just in general)? Dan would say he doesn’t have any regrets. However, I do think S5 Dan probably on some level regrets sleeping with Sophie, because he gained nothing from it and it blows up his relationship with his best friend. He also regrets all the times he wasn’t cunning enough to avoid being fired. But again, he doesn’t actually process any of these things as regrets. 

I also suspect that Amy regrets jumping into things with Buddy so quickly, acknowledging it for the act of emotional desperation that it was. Maybe it helped her get over Dan’s betrayal, but in the end she was humiliated in an even more public way by Buddy than by Dan. In her more humorous moods, she regrets not forcing Selina to fire Dan on day two of his job in the veep’s office.  

37 - Who is more prone to anger? Amy has by far the bigger temper, and runs hot. We don’t see Dan angry very much—he tends to go for whiny and bitchy when something goes wrong, rather than genuine rage—but I think he’s a lot colder and more implacable than Amy is when he’s truly furious. I’m thinking of his reaction to Gary in 4.01, when they’ve realized that Selina is missing her glasses. 

41 - Who’s more likely to protect the other? Dan, not that Amy really needs protecting. But he’s often more attuned to her physical needs and emotional cues—he knows when she’s about to explode and needs a second to breathe, realizes when she’s had one cup of coffee too many, probably forces her to eat something when it’s been too long. See episode 2.02—he defends her from her family, offers her a way to escape them. 

46 - Who stays up at night brooding? - AMY. Dan goes right to sleep like the happy sociopath he is. 

50 - If one of them were to come back after a long time, who would come to who? would it go well? Would the other person take them back?  Whatever might tear them apart, Dan would come back to Amy first and try to pretend like nothing bad had happened between them (how Ron Weasley of him). I actually do think the funeral in the finale is evidence for this: Dan’s not the one to acknowledge how much time has passed and he basically speaks to her like they ran into each other last week at the grocery store. In S5, he only brings up Sophie one time, right after they get back from Nevada, and otherwise, he clearly wants to forget the whole thing ever happened.

As for Amy taking him back…we obviously never get there in the show, but I do think it’s notable that when Dan reenters her life in S1, after having used her so callously, by the end of S4 he occupies a central role in her life again, after two-ish years of working together so closely and relying on each other personally and professionally. Basically, he unconsciously proves himself as someone she can trust again, and maybe the only person who really understands her and likes for who she is. So she has taken him back, in a way (I would also argue that Dan is a lot more into her at that point than when they first met.) But obviously neither of them would ever frame it like this. 

[a-queer-seminarian]

summing up Polity

this is another post that’s probably only of interest to other PCUSA folks -- it’s a compilation of the most important polity-specific notes that i took in my Presbyterian Heritage and Polity class last spring.

“Reformed” = our theology; “Presbyterian” = our polity

“The polity provides the architecture for the things I find precious.” - Cliff Kirkpatrick

Our theology connects to our life through the organization that polity provides

The Presbyterian Church has split up many times; some of those splits have been reunified over time, and some have not.

our polity leaves room for differences, but the question of what issues are worth splitting over is always in the background

we leave room for argument – “argument is an important ingredient in trying to discern God’s will for us” – Amy Pauw

The Constitution of the PCUSA consists of the Book of Confessions & the Book of Order, the latter of which is divided into principles of polity; form of government; the directory for worship; and the rules of discipline.

Recent changes to the Book of Order reflect a move from a church-centered polity to a missional polity, and from a polity based on common structures and procedures to a polity based on common principles (allowing for more flexibility based on context)

HISTORY: Calvin and Polity

Calvin was less about new theology and more about new polity

He wanted to change how power structures in society as a whole worked

Priests and bishops etc. had much power over not only their congregations but over society as a whole

Calvin made it clear that when you are ordained you are not endowed with special access to God

priesthood of all believers

a priest is called to a specific kind of priesthood – functional, not ontological; you don’t become a different kind of person, you step into different role

Calvin and other reformers also wanted to flip the monastery inside out

Monks spent their whole lives studying scripture -- let’s bring that to everyone, so everyone is studying scripture all the time

instead of saying God’s grace is focused on specific objects wielded by priests, see God’s grace as everywhere

The more each believer can have access to what’s in the Bible, the less susceptible they’ll be to the manipulation of those in power

if we don’t know the Greek and Hebrew, they can tell us anything is in there and we’ll have to take their word for it

THE BOOK OF CONFESSIONS

jk jk i already talked about the confessions yo!! see this post!

Great, now we can dive right in to the less interesting...

THE BOOK OF ORDER

What’s in this thing anyway? Basic outline:

F - Foundations of Presbyterian polity

G - Form of Government

W - Directory for Worship

D - Rules of discipline

Okay, time to dive into the most notable details in each of those above parts. Let’s throw it under a readmore cuz it’s boring to anyone who doesn’t need the info to like. say. pass a super important exam or conduct a session meeting or whatevs

Foundations of Presbyterian Polity

Each section has chapters whee!

F-1: The Mission of the Church

F-1.01 talks about God’s mission! “The good news of the Gospel is that the triune God...creates, redeems, sustains, rules, and transforms all things and all people. ...The Gospel of Jesus Christ announces the nearness of God’s kingdom...proclaiming the Lord’s favor upon all creation” ... “Human beings have no higher goal in life than to glorify and enjoy God now and forever, living in covenant fellowship with God and participating in God’s mission.”

The next few sections talk about who Christ is in charge of the Church and gives it life & hope, how the Church is the Body of Christ...

F-1.0302 -- the Marks of the Church -- we’re “one holy catholic and apostolic” -- meaning God’s gifts to the church are unity, holiness, catholic (universal), and apostolic (sharers of the gospel).

Unity is a gift; being joined to one another “is to become priests for one another”; “Division into different denominations obscures but does not destroy unity in Christ” so the PCUSA strives for ecumenical relationship

“In the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, God overcomes our alienation and repairs our division.“

“The Church bears witness in word and work that in Christ the new creation has begun, and that God who creates life also frees those in bondage, forgives sin, reconciles brokenness, makes all things new, and is still at work in the world.” -- we are called to “participate in God’s new creation, God’s kingdom drawing the present into itself”

F-1.0303 -- the Notes of the Reformed Church

“Where Christ is, there is the true Church. Since the earliest days of the Reformation, Reformed Christians have marked the presence of the true Church wherever:

the Word of God is preached and heard,

the Sacraments are rightly administered, and

ecclesiastical discipline is uprightly ministered”

F-1.0403 - Unity in Diversity

“The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism regardless of race, ethinicty, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The PCUSA shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership.”

F-2: The Church and Its Confessions

2.01 - In the confessions “the church declares to its members and to the world who and what it is, what it believes, and what it resolves to do.”

2.02 - the confessions are subordinate to the authority of Jesus who is the Word of God, “as the Scriptures bear witness to him.”

We’re open to reform of doctrine and governance

Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei -- “The church is reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God”

F-3: Principles of Order and Government

3.0101 - God is Lord of the Conscience -- and so “rights of private judgment” are “universal and unalienable”

3.0103 - Officers (i.e. “ordered ministers”)

Jesus appointed officers to preach the gospel, administer the Sacraments, and to exercise discipline

3.0104 - “By their fruits ye shall know them” -- “there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty”

3.0105 - mutual forbearance

people of good character may have differences in belief, so we should respect that yo

3.0202 - “the church shall be governed by presbyters, that is, ruling elders and teaching elders (also called ministers of the Word and Sacrament).”

elders are chosen by the congregation to help guide it towards the Word of God and to help nurture its faith

Ministers of the Word and Sacrament teach the faith in word and in deed, equipping the people of God for their ministry and witness

The Form of Government

G-1: Congregations and their Membership

1.0101 - “The congregation is the basic for of the church, but it is not itself a sufficient form of the church. Thus congregations are bound together in communion with one another, united in relationships of accountability and responsibility, contributing their strengths to the benefit of the whole, and are called, collectively, the church”

so for 100+ years before this change, we were saying that the Church is the church universal; congregation is the particular church; only 6 years ago or so did we start saying congregations are the foundational church

this evinces a new prioritization and recognizing the importance of congregations as core to church’s mission

Congregations should be agents of God’s mission in the world

“The congregation reaches out to people, communities, and the world to share the good news of Jesus Christ, to gather for worship, to offer care and nurture to God’s children, to speak for social justice and righteousness, to bear witness to the truth and to the reign of God that is coming into the world.”

G-1.02 - The Organizing of a Congregation

only done by a presbytery in response to application from potential members

issues nowadays that we discussed in class: alienation from structures and organization; nowadays lots of informal groups worship instead of seeking to fit under a structure.

There’s currently a goal to get 1001 new communities in America (CCC is one and so is Elmer’s home churches; there are a lot of unorthodox ones like bar ministry, tend to be much more inclusive)

G-1.03 The Membership of a Congregation

 Faith and baptism as the keys to entrance into membership (G-1.0301)

“A congregation shall welcome all persons who trust in God’s grace in Jesus Christ and desire to become part of the fellowship and ministry of his Church” (see also F-1.0403)

Membership comes with responsibilities (1.0304), including proclaiming the good news; supporting the ministry of the church with money, time, and talents; and (an item added a couple years ago) caring for God’s creation

G-2: Ordered Ministry, Commissioning, and Certification

G-2.0101 - Christ’s ministry shows us that ministers are “not to be served but to serve.” The whole people of God are called to be ministers -- “form whose midst some are called to ordered ministries, to fulfill particular functions”

and then they define deacons and ruling elders and teaching elders yeet

G-3: Councils of the Church

Four councils: sessions, presbyteries, synods, General Assembly

G-3.0101 - Councils as an expression of the unity of the church

“Councils of the church exist to help congregations and the church as a whole to be more faithful participants in the mission of Christ.”

G-3.0105 - Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly, Revised, except when it is in contradiction to this Constitution.”

G-4: The Church and Civil Authority

there’s stuff about property here and stuff

G-5: Ecumenicity and Union

G-5.0101 - The PCUSA “will seek to initiate, maintain, and strengthen relations with other Reformed and Christian entities.”

G-5.0102 - The PCUSA “at all levels seeks new opportunities for conversation and understanding with non-Christian religious entities” because of “God’s intention for the wholeness of all humankind and all creation.”

G-6: Interpreting and Amending the Constitution

G-6.02 - The General Assembly provides authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order

Directory for Worship

Preface

“This Directory for Worship reflects the conviction that the faith, life, and worship of the Church are inseparable.”

W-1: The Theology of Christian Worship

W-1.0101 - “Christian worship gives all glory and honor, praise and thanksgiving to the holy, triune God. We are gathered in worship to glorify the God who is present and active among us—particularly through the gifts of Word and Sacrament. We are sent out in service to glorify the same God who is present and active in the world”

W-1.0302 - “The mystery and reality of God transcend our experience, understanding, and speech, such that we cannot reduce God to our ways of speaking. Yet we are compelled to speak of the glory, goodness, and grace of the God who is revealed in the world around us, in Scripture, and above all, in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament speaks of God in personal ways, as creator, covenant-maker, comforter, liberator, judge, redeemer, midwife, mother, shepherd, sovereign, bearer, begetter. It addresses God as “Lord,” a word that conveys the sovereignty of God while standing in for the hidden name revealed to Moses at the burning bush. It also borrows images from nature, describing God as rock, well-spring, fire, light, eagle, hen, lion. The Gospels show how Jesus used and adapted these images when speaking to and about God, particularly in his intimate use of Abba, Father. He also claimed some of these terms in speaking about himself—as good shepherd, bridegroom, and Son of Man. In worship the church shall strive to use language about God that is intentionally as diverse and varied as the Bible and our theological traditions. Language that appropriately describes and addresses God is expansive, drawing from the full breadth and depth of terms and images for the triune God in the witness of Scripture. Language that authentically describes and addresses the people of God is inclusive, respecting the diversity of persons, cultures, backgrounds, and experiences that flow from God’s creative work. Such language allows for all members of the community of faith to recognize themselves as equally included, addressed, and cherished by God. Since Pentecost, the Church of Jesus Christ has been a community of many nations and cultures, united by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore our churches worship in many languages. The words we use in worship are to be in the common language or languages of those who are gathered, so that all are able to receive the good news and respond with true expressions of their faith. Through the rich variety of human speech we bear witness to God’s saving love for all.”

W-1.0304 - “Christian worship is contextual—emerging from a particular community and incorporating the words, images, symbols, and actions that best convey the good news of Jesus Christ in that gathering of God’s people. It is also cross-cultural—reflecting the diversity of traditions and cultures within and beyond the community of faith. Christian worship is transcultural—proclaiming the universal message of God’s grace in Jesus Christ and rooted in common elements of human life that transcend all cultures. It is also countercultural—asserting the scandal of the gospel and anticipating God’s reign of righteousness, justice, and peace. Finally, faithful worship should be an intercultural event—fostering mutuality, dialogue, and equality among all people.”

W-2: The Ordering of Reformed Worship

W-2.0102 - “Christian worship has always been marked by a tension between form and freedom. ...Fixed forms of worship are valuable in that they offer consistent patterns and practices that help to shape lives of faith and faithfulness. More spontaneous approaches to worship are valuable in that they provide space for unexpected insight and inspiration. In whatever form it takes, worship is to be ordered by God’s Word and open to the creativity of the Holy Spirit.”

W-2.0202 - “The gifts of the Spirit are for building up the Church. Every action in worship is to glorify God and contribute to the good of the people. Worshipers and worship leaders must avoid actions that only call attention to themselves and fail to serve the needs of the whole congregation.”

W-3: The Service for the Lord’s Day

W-4: Pastoral and Occasional Services

W-5: Worship and Christian Life

We worship not only in church but at home; communally and individually. We also provide education.

Also called to evangelism and “compassion” -- feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, etc. Also to seeking justice and caring for creation 

W-5.0401 - “The Church’s activities do not bring about God’s realm; they are our grateful response to the grace of God at work in the world. We seek to worship and serve God faithfully, with the confidence that God’s reign has already been established and the hope that it will soon be revealed in fullness and glory.”

Rules of Discipline

D-1: Principles of Church Discipline

“The purpose of discipline is to honor God by making clear the significance of membership in the body of Christ; to preserve the purity of the church by nourishing the individual within the life of the believing community; to achieve justice and compassion for all participants involved; to correct or restrain wrongdoing in order to bring members to repentance and restoration; to uphold the dignity of those who have been harmed by disciplinary offenses; to restore the unity of the church by removing the causes of discord and division; and to secure the just, speedy, and economical determination of proceedings.”

D-2: Judicial Process Defined

D-3: Jurisdiction in Judicial Process

D-4: Reference

D-5: Permanent Judicial Commissions

D-6: Remedial Cases

D-7: Trial in a Remedial Case

D-8: Appeal in a Remedial Case

D-9: Request for Vindication

D-10: Disciplinary Cases

D-11: Trial in a Disciplinary Case

D-12: Censure and Restoration in a Disciplinary Case

D-13: Appeal in a Disciplinary Case

D-14: Evidence in Remedial or Disciplinary Cases

Whew. We get it, there are lots of rules when you gotta discipline someone

[youngneemleaves]

Journal: 2019

A list of my literary activity through the year.

January 01 - April 30

Writing

- 2,243 words on episodes 2.01 and 2.02 of Killing Eve

- Beloved: a short story for Holi

- episode 04 of Clara Oswald: The Untold Adventures

- [plus my book reviews]

Books

- Dave Rudden, Twelve Angels Weeping: twelve stories of the villains of Doctor Who (2018) | SFF, short stories [read the review on Downtime]

- Emily St. John Mandel, Station Eleven (2014) | SFF (hope-punk, dystopia, post-apocalypse, pandemic), literary fiction [review]

- Amitav Ghosh, Dancing in Cambodia and Other Essays (2008, first published 1998) | memoir, nonfiction, travel [review]

- Ellen Oh and Elsie Chapman (ed.), A Thousand Beginnings and Endings (2018) | SFF, short stories

Other Stories/Articles

- Rana Dasgupta, The demise of the nation state: After decades of globalisation, our political system has become obsolete – and spasms of resurgent nationalism are a sign of its irreversible decline

- Suzanne Rivecca, Ugly, Bitter, and True: After years of feeling hopeless and barely human, one talented writer manages to find her will to live [warning: discussion of suicide, suicidal ideation, depression] [this one brought me close to tears because of how relatable it is, like the one by Anna Borges] 

- Star Trek: Discovery fanfiction by @onaperduamedee: Sand and Water; Ruling Power; if our life is less than a single day; Last Tango in San Francisco

- Caroline Weber, ‘My Favors Cost a Great Deal’ - book review of The Girl Who Loved Camellias by Julie Kavanagh, a biography of Marie Duplessis (a celebrated courtesan-turned-countess of 19th century Paris)

- Emily Mullin, How Tuberculosis Shaped Victorian Fashion: the deadly disease—and later efforts to control it—influenced trends for decades

- Jonathan Carroll, Mama Bruise

- Carrie V. Mullins, The Myth of the Consistently Great Writer

- Jonathan Mahler and Jim Rutenberg, How Rupert Murdoch’s Empire Of Influence Remade The World

- Anna Borges, I am not always very attached to being alive: Chronic, passive suicidal ideation is like living in the ocean. Let’s start talking about how to tread water [warning: discussion of suicide, mental illnesses, and suicidal ideation]

- Jedediah Berry, The Woman Who Rewrote Me [warning: discussion of domestic, physical, and psychological abuse]

- Doctor Who and Sarah Jane Adventures fanfiction: Andrew Davis, A Painted Ocean; Janine Rivers, Apophis; Zoe Lance, A New Melody part one and two

[allimariexf]

alli’s Arrow 2x02 rewatch thoughts

(Aka: Felicity establishes some friendship rules for OTA)

Diggle: “Why the sudden interest in my love life?” Oliver: “If it’s important to you, it’s important to me.” aww! (and yet, it’s easier for Oliverto acknowledge a real love and friendship for Dig because his feelings toward Dig are straightforward, unlike his feelings toward Felicity)

Felicity “I quit!” With newfound confidence, self-worth, sass. Partially because this is her professional sphere, where she always had a lot of confidence. And partially because she has become more aware of her own strength, bravery, and sees herself as more of an equal.

I think this change in Felicity is very similar to the change we see in her after Oliver “dies” in his duel with Ra’s al Ghul. When he comes back, everyone has gone through a lot without him, and in 3x13 Felicity’s like “That doesn’t mean we can go back.” We never get to see what they go through when Oliver leaves after the Undertaking, but it’s safe to say it had a profound effect on them. Felicity grows more confident - both because during the Undertaking she helped mitigate the damage and was heroic and self-sacrificing, and because she had to come to terms with fear and pain in its aftermath.

She always did have fight in her when pushed, when her unconscious confidence rose to the surface, but she’s not holding herself back now. Last season I measured progress in her almost-touches, but this right here she jabs him in the chest unapologetically. “Which you think I am going to accept.” And unlike the Oliver of old who held himself apart, he kinda plays along lolol. She jabs him and he reacts bodily like she pushed him hard (the first in a long line of Oliver-reacting-to-Felicity-punching-him-as-if-it-hurts), looking down like “did you really just do that?” ADORABLE. (But he basically accepts it and this is the real start of Oliver and Felicity being handsy with one another.)

“Every time we need to discuss how we spend our nights.” // “And I love spending the night with you.” OMGGGG though I’m so struck this time around by how much this flirty sexual tension is ON THE SURFACE. Like, ON. THE. SURFACE. I’m just picturing Diggle already thinking they need to get a room.

Meanwhile I love how Oliver tries to catch John’s eye like “can you believe the big deal she’s making over this?” but instead John adds his own, “Well it could be worse. My secret identity’s as his black driver.”

So she gives in but she makes sure to let him know she won’t make this easy for him: she’s gonna be loud and opinionated! Slamming her hand on his desk, clomping loudly in her high heels, and then: “May I get you a cup of coffee?”

She’s provoking him, instead of simply holding silent. She wants him to know she’s serious. She wants him to know that she’s done silently doing his bidding while fading in the background. Also, the dress. The clothes and the attitude definitely go together. And the hair. All of it deliberately provocative. My godddddddd this scene is everything!

----------------

And then THIS SCENE after Oliver’s ambushed by the SCPD:

Felicity reaches out and almost touches his arm in sympathy, but then at Dig’s mention of Laurel: “Hey! Go easy on him!” (“It’s all right, Felicity.”) “No. It’s not.” SHE GRABS HIS ARM and this is the first time she’s ever grabbed him and he looks down like “wtf is happening?” I think he’s equally caught off guard by the fact that she grabbed him and the fact that he’s letting her.

“You don’t get to jump down his throat just because you happen to be having a lousy week. You’re pissed - he invoked the almighty Laurel.” This is the first time she calls out the way he reveres Laurel. Definitely Oliver’s personal life has always been “off limits,” but she’s done with that. And she’s mocking him over it.

Felicity’s speech and anger on John’s behalf basically draws a sharp contrast between the way Oliver treats Diggle and Felicity versus the way Oliver treats Laurel. On the one hand, Dig and Felicity know his secrets, have his trust, and risk their lives for him, while Oliver constantly questions their judgment, disregards their advice, and leaves them out to dry. On the other hand, Laurel doesn’t know anything about who he is now, doesn’t risk her life for him, and now is actively working against them, while Oliver continues to keep her on a pedestal and disallows anyone from saying anything bad against her.

So in this scene Felicity is defending Dig, but she’s also standing up for herself, requiring that Oliver recognize that THEY ARE IMPORTANT. They are people too, and they are actual friends who deserve respect, and he’s got to listen to what they have to say and he can’t just act without taking their needs and concerns into consideration anymore. (And yeah, I 100% believe she’s still bitter about him making her his EA without at the very least consulting her. Wow! Just realized how deep this boy’s patterns of behavior run. Season 2, season 4 (and now, dammit, season 6 😫 though I blame that on bad writing, not a lapse in Oliver)).

The thing about the way Oliver and Felicity communicate is that he always catches her subtext. I am sure he caught this subtext, which is why it had such an impact on him - why he seems apologetic to her, even though the argument was ostensibly over Oliver’s treatment of Diggle.  

But she turns her back on him and walks away. I think this is the first time she ever actually turns her back and walks away from him. And it cuts him because maybe without him even realizing it they’ve gotten to the point where her opinion of him matters.

-------------

Mmkay just so we are clear: Felicity as Oliver’s EA is just so delicious, one of my favorite things about season 2, and I absolutely think it helped bring them closer faster. I wishhhh we saw more of it on the show. Thankfully there’s EA fanfic, some of which I’m writing.

“Miss Smoak.” “Hmm?” “Would you get my guest and I some coffee?” HE IS ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY TRYING TO PUSH HER BUTTONS HERE. You can tell by his little smile that it’s a challenge. (ADORABLE!)

OH OLIVER, FELICITY HAS COME TO PLAY: “You know, I would Mr. Queen, but it seems someone’s broken our coffeemaker. Violently.” ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: PLAYFULNESS (and deeper respect).

---------------

Oliver: “I got wrapped up in my own suffering and I forgot that some other people might be suffering too.” OH YOU THINK, OLIVER? At least we’re seeing the immediate payoff of Felicity’s influence right here. *sigh*

AND THEN: The coffee cup of emotions. “One.” She brings him that coffee because she can see he’s feeling down, and because she sees he’s apologizing to Dig and just generally trying. So the context of her bringing the coffee has entirely changed, which is why she allows it: this isn’t the action of an EA, but of a friend.

AND THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS HOW YOU BUILD A BEAUTIFUL, STRONG, SLOW-BURN SHIP BASED ON MUTUAL RESPECT.

(further random thoughts below the cut)

Workout montage 😍

Season 2 Oliver in a suit is just something to behold. And then. The grey t-shirt. Which I am also very okay with.

(Not gonna lie, I skimmed through a lot of the flashback and Laurel stuff because honestly none of that ends up being really significant in the long run. And as I said earlier, I find Oliver/Shado to be icky, and Laurel in season 2 to be pretty annoying, so….)

So season 2 was the debut of Katie Cassidy’s new chin and I have never been a fan, sorry. I mean, a person can do what they want as long as it makes them happy, but there was nothing wrong with her original chin. :\

I had forgotten about the weird Laurel/Sebastian relationship thing. Uck.

*ring* “It’s Felicity.” (Oliver to Felicity:) “Tell me.” Those communication skills tho.

She’s just gained so much confidence in the Arrow Cave, too! Her voice, her attitude, it’s awesome.

(“Who in the hell could be feeding us year-old surveillance?”) Bwaahaaa, cute confident Felicity, that’s who!

Chien Na Wei is so awesome. I miss the old-fashioned fights that didn’t have progressively-unbelievable “canary cries,” if I’m honest.

Eermigerd tho this little BrOTP Oliver/Diggle scene: “I didn’t need one of your trick arrows.” “I couldn’t risk it. Where would I be without my black driver?” WHEN THESE TWO JOKE WITH EACH OTHER, YOU GUYS. It’s like the alignment of all the planets and there are like rainbows and puppies and library fines amnesty.

@jules85 @blondeeoneexox @hope-for-olicity @memcjo

[orbemnews]

Prince Albert of Monaco Fast Facts (CNN) —   Here’s a look at the life of His Serene Highness, Prince Albert II. He was formally invested as Monaco’s ruler on July 12, 2005, following the death of his father, Prince Rainier. Birth date: March 14, 1958 Birth place: Monte Carlo, Monaco Birth name: Albert Alexandre Louis Pierre Grimaldi, His Serene Highness, the Hereditary Prince of Monaco, Marquis of Baux Father: Prince Rainier III Mother: Princess Grace, formerly the actress Grace Kelly Marriage: Charlene Wittstock (July 1, 2011-present) Children: with Charlene Wittstock: Princess Gabriella Therese Marie and Prince Jacques Honore Rainier; with Nicole Coste: Eric Alexandre Stephane; with Tamara Rotolo: Jazmin Grace Rotolo. Education: Amherst College, BA, 1981 Military service: French Navy He is interested in environmental issues, alternative energy and hybrid vehicles. An avid athlete, he has competed in five Winter Olympics (1988, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002) in the sport of bobsledding but has not won any medals. He has been a member of the International Olympic Committee since 1985. His two oldest children are not in line for the throne because they were born out of wedlock. March 31, 2005 – Monaco’s Crown Council transfers the regency of the tiny kingdom to Prince Albert, the heir to the throne, saying that Prince Rainier can no longer carry out his duties as monarch. April 6, 2005 – Prince Rainier III dies of organ failure and Prince Albert becomes Albert II, Sovereign Prince of Monaco. July 6, 2005 – Publicly acknowledges paternity of his son, Alexandre, born to Nicole Coste, a flight attendant from Togo. July 12, 2005 – Part one of the formal investiture as Monaco’s ruler is Mass at St. Nicholas Cathedral, marking the end of the mourning period for Prince Rainier. November 17, 2005 – Part two of the formal investiture is the enthronement ceremony at St. Nicholas Cathedral. April 16, 2006 – Travels to the North Pole by dogsled to highlight global warming. June 1, 2006 – Acknowledges paternity of his daughter, Jazmin Grace Grimaldi, born to an American former waitress, Tamara Rotolo. March 2, 2007 – Presides over the opening ceremony in Paris of International Polar Year, a research program with a focus on the Polar Regions involving 50,000 scientists from 63 countries. January 28, 2008 – Is named as one of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) “Champions of the Earth.” April 22 2008 – Receives the UNEP award which recognizes individuals who show extraordinary leadership on environmental issues. January 5-14, 2009 – Completes an expedition to the South Pole evaluating climate impact on Antarctica along the way. He is the only head of state to have visited both poles. June 23, 2010 – The palace announces Prince Albert’s engagement to Charlene Wittstock, 32, a former Olympic swimmer and school teacher from South Africa. July 1, 2011 – Prince Albert marries Charlene Wittstock in a civil wedding ceremony in the throne room of the Palace of Monaco. July 2, 2011 – A second wedding, a religious ceremony including Mass, is held in the main courtyard of the Palace of Monaco. The ceremony is broadcast to the 3,500 invited guests who could not fit inside the palace. October 2013 – Loans pieces of his private collection of Olympic torches for the Russian exhibition of Olympic torches. October 7, 2013 – Is one of the first torch bearers for the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. December 14, 2015 – Prince Albert is presented with the 2015 Global Advocate Award by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for his work on climate change research and environmental conservation efforts. October 2016 – Buys his mother’s childhood home in Philadelphia, with the idea of turning it into a museum or offices for foundation work. Monaco is a sovereign principality, meaning it is ruled by a prince. It is the second smallest country in the world, after the Vatican. At 2.02 sq km (77 sq miles), Monaco is about half the size of New York’s Central Park. It sits on the French Riviera and is bordered on three sides by France. It is a popular tourist destination, famous for its casino and luxury hotels. Monaco is also the capital of the principality. The official language is French. The other major languages spoken are English and Italian. Monegasque, a mixture of the French Provencal and Italian Ligurian dialects, is also spoken there. Source link Orbem News #Albert #Facts #Fast #Monaco #Prince

[neethypaksham]

Professor R. Ramakumar on PM Modi’s Untruths Regarding Kerala

Date: 

December 28, 2020

The global angle to the farmer protestsIt is not just domestic firms that are potential beneficiaries of the new farm laws; foreign agribusinesses are a danger too

30/12/2020 

APManish Swarup/AP

The farmers’ movement for the repeal of the three farm laws which affect them closely but have been rammed through without consulting them, has now entered its second month. It is of historic significance. It is not just about minimum support prices but also about the survival of the entire system of public procurement and distribution of foodgrains. Without ensuring the economic viability of foodgrains production in North India — the grain basket of the country — no continuity can be ensured for the public procurement and distribution system, which, despite its drawbacks, continues to provide a modicum of food security to vast numbers of our population.

Recreation of colonial times

Northern industrial countries, namely the United States, Canada and the European Union (EU), cannot produce the tropical and sub-tropical crops in high demand by their own consumers while they have mountains of surplus grain and dairy products, the only goods their single-crop lands are capable of producing for climatic reasons. They must find export markets for these. For over two decades, they have put relentless pressure on developing countries to give up their own public procurement systems, insisting that they should buy their food grains from advanced countries, while diverting their food-crop-producing land to contract farming of export crops that these industrial countries want but cannot themselves produce. In short, they want a re-creation of the economic scenario of the colonial period.

Dozens of developing countries, ranging from the Philippines in the mid-1990s to Botswana (Africa) a decade later, succumbed to this pressure. They paid the price when with rapid diversion of grain to ethanol production in the U.S. and the EU, world grain prices trebled in a matter of months from end-2007. Thirty-seven newly import-dependent countries saw food riots, with urban populations being pushed into greater poverty.

Food security for the developing world is far too important a matter to be left to the global market, but the relentless attack on their public stocking of grain for ensuring food security continues. India had barely managed to pull back from the brink a decade ago: procurement prices were raised substantially after virtually stagnating during the six years preceding the 2008 price-spike, and grain output in Punjab grew again from near-stagnant levels as economic viability improved. But absorption of foodgrains did not improve as much owing to continued exclusion of many of the actually poor from ‘Below Poverty Line’ ration cards, while unemployment caused by the 2016 demonetisation followed by the 2020 pandemic has reduced aggregate demand by now to a historic low.

A case of unfair trade

Our farmers have been exposed for no rhyme or reason to unfair trade, and to the volatility of global prices that has plunged them into unrepayable debt and distress — in one village in Punjab, there were as many as 59 widows of farmers forced into suicide. Trade with the North is unfair, because the advanced countries in the mid-1990s, converted their own price support measures to massive subsidies given as direct cash transfers to their own farmers, transfers that in a blatantly self-serving manner they wrote into the Agreement on Agriculture as ‘not subject to reduction commitments’. India along with other developing countries signed the Agreement with very little idea of the implications of the small print. For the U.S., the direct cash transfers it gives to its 2.02 million farmers, amounting to a huge half or more of its annual farm output value, uses up only 1% of its budget. For India, over 50% of the entire central government annual Budget would be required to give even a quarter of annual farm output value to our 120 million farmers, which is an economic impossibility and an administrative nightmare.

It’s about a reasonable price

The farmers have made it amply clear that they do not want petty cash handouts; all they want is a reasonable price for the vital crops they produce for the nation, so that they can cover costs and live at a modest standard. In Indian circumstances, the price support system is in fact the only feasible one. While depletion of groundwater in Punjab is a real problem, the solution lies in introducing improved agronomic practices such as the System of Rice Intensification which economises water, not in reducing rice production. One does not cut off one’s head because of a headache.

It is precisely the support prices for crops that had been deliberately put by advanced countries under completely arbitrary and absurd computation rules in the Agreement on Agriculture. The U.S. complained against India to the World Trade Organization in May 2018 that since the ‘reference price’ for calculating support was the 1986-88 average world price of a crop which they converted to rupees at the then prevailing ₹12.5 per dollar exchange rate, India’s support price per quintal for rice and wheat in 2013-14 should have been at the most ₹235 and ₹354, respectively! The actual support prices were ₹1,348 and ₹1,386, and the difference, over ₹1,000 per quintal, was then multiplied by the entire 2013-14 output of rice and wheat, and came to 77% and 67% of their output values (https://bit.ly/3mROANe). This, the U.S. claimed, was support provided in gross violation of the permitted 10%!

Two months ago the U.S. sent fresh questions to India. Every kind of dishonest and absurd rule had been put into the Agreement on Agriculture to short-change gullible developing countries. Our farmers are among the lowest cost producers in the world, and the support prices in 2013-14 at the prevailing exchange rate of ₹60.5 per dollar were well below global prices, which means that actual support was negative.

Right assessment

Current compression of global demand means that wheat and rice prices are at historic lows, advanced country farm subsidies are at historic highs and their desperation to dump their grain on our markets has intensified. While our protesting farmers have correctly identified domestic firms as potential beneficiaries of the new marketing laws that they oppose, foreign agribusiness corporations are as great a danger.

Farmers have already experienced contract farming with foreign agribusinesses in Punjab and Haryana. They say clearly that they do not wish to deal with powerful, faceless private corporations that renege on price and quantity contracts when it suits them. Despite all its inefficiency and payment delays, they prefer to sell to government agents at the stipulated minimum support prices. They are absolutely correct in thinking that deregulation of markets as mandated by the new laws, and the entry of business firms, which will be not only Indian but also foreign, mean a severe undermining of the entire system of public procurement and minimum support prices.

The ‘green energy’ push

There are many Indian intellectuals who argue that importing subsidised grain from the North will benefit poor consumers here. They forget that there is an increasingly powerful opinion advocating ‘green energy’ in advanced countries, pushing for even greater conversion of grain to ethanol; hence initial low-priced grain imports, if permitted today, will not only destroy our farmers but will soon give way to a scenario of price spikes and to urban distress as experienced earlier by developing countries forced into import dependence. Anyone with a concern for our own hard- working farmers and poverty-stricken consumers, must support the farmers’ demands against the machinations of both local and global business elites.

Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University

[atimepieceinparis]

Bree and Kennedy are quite taken with the new kid on the BLOK.

[ericfruits]

Nordstrom Racked by Macy's Good Numbers

May 17, 2018 6:21 p.m. ET

Macy’s M 2.02% cheery report on Wednesday, when it posted strong first-quarter earnings, was a positive sign for retail—and a welcome rebuff of the notion that the sector is doomed. It wasn’t so great for Nordstrom, however, which was put in the unenviable position of having to follow Macy’s act.

On Thursday, the department store reported first-quarter earnings of 51 cents a share, beating analysts’ expectations of 43 cents a share, and revenue of $3.56 billion, a 6.3% increase from the same period last year. Yet shares tumbled over 6% in after-hours trading, in part because same-store sales only rose 0.6% year-over-year.

“Department stores are measured against themselves, and Macy’s set a tough bar,” says Simeon Siegel, an analyst at Nomura Securities. At least Nordstrom did better than J.C. Penney , whose shares fell 12% after it reported earnings Thursday morning.

The short-term stock move isn’t a good indicator of Nordstrom’s longer term prospects.

Nordstrom opened its first brick-and-mortar store in Manhattan last month—a men’s store—that signals its bet both on male shoppers, one of the fastest-growing sectors in apparel, and on New York, its biggest online sales area in North America. The store apparently breaks retail rules—from a new option to reserve clothes online to try on in-store to a second-floor Clubhouse serving liquor, with which consumers can roam across the store.

A women’s store is slated to open across the street next year.

The company is aggressively chasing e-commerce sales, too. In 2017, 26% of Nordstrom sales were online. That number should rise to 50% in a few years, according to the company.

All of this should help to dispel the cloud that has settled over the retailer since a deal to take the company private by the Nordstrom family failed over price. The buyout attempt should actually be encouraging to investors.

“It showed that management is very committed to the future of the company,” says Mr. Siegel.

https://ift.tt/2INE1ei

[paininmyassachusetts]

Principality of Monaco Principauté de Monaco

General information

Monaco is a small city-state located on the coast of the Mediterranean, wholly surrounded by the Republic of France, save the coastline. It has a population of roughly 38,000 souls, and is the most densely populated nation on earth. Monaco has an area of .78 square miles, or 2.02 square kilometres. Interestingly, Monaco's area continues to grow, as they have a programme of land reclamation which has expanded the landmass of Monaco by nearly 20% since these programmes first started.

Government

Monaco is a small and independent city-state ruled by the Prince, currently Albert II of the House Grimaldi, which has ruled Monaco, with little interruption, since 1297. Aside from the Prince, the city-state is run by the National Council which consists of 24 elected officials.

As Monaco is a city-state, it is its own capital. The city is divided into 10 wards.

Being a small country, Monaco does not have much in the way of an armed forces, and what it does possess numbers only about 255 souls. In the event of hostilities, the defence of the country would be the responsibility of France, with whom it has a good relationship. At 255 souls, Monaco possesses one of the smallest armed forces in the world.

Economy

As many may know, a great chunk of the Monegasque economy is gambling and tourism. Aside from this, Monaco is a renowned “tax haven” and has no income tax and minute business taxes, meaning that many companies set up residence in the country.

The population of Monaco is about 30% millionaires.

Demographics

As previously stated, the city-state has a population of roughly 38,000 people. It has a population density of about 19,000 people per square kilometre. Though French is the official language, a great many people speak English or Italian, and some speak a local dialect of the Ligurian language called Monegasque. About 90% of the inhabitants profess the Catholic faith.

History

Monaco has a very long history, beginning in antiquity.  I will focus, however, on history since the founding of the independent nation we know today.

In 1297, Francesco Grimaldi dressed as a Franciscan monk entered the castle of Monaco. This event is commemorated on the Monegasque coat of arms. Though he only held it for 4 years, the Grimaldi family would continue to rule for some time, through to the present day.

During the French Revolution (from 1793 to 1814), the Principality was held by the French. Upon being freed again in 1814, the Principality was made a protectorate of the Kingdom of Sardinia.

Monegasque sovereignty was again confirmed in 1861 when the Franco-Monegasque Treaty was signed. France annexed the towns and areas of Menton and Roquebrune, which had been owned by Monaco for quite a long time and made up about 95% of the area of the realm.

Monaco remained neutral during WWII, though then-Prince Louis II had very strong pro-(Vichy) French sympathies, which caused no small bit of turmoil in his little principality. Important as well in this, much of the population was of Italian descent and many supported Mussolini. In November 1942, Italy invaded Monaco and set up a puppet government. Soon, Italy fell, and Germany swooped in and deported quite a few Jews who lived in the city.

In 2002, a new treaty was signed between Monaco and France, which among other things clarified that should the Prince die without an heir, the Principality would remain an independent nation.

[coin-news-blog]

How Fiat Money Fails: Deconstructing the Government’s Paper-Thin Promise

New Post has been published on https://coinmakers.tech/news/how-fiat-money-fails-deconstructing-the-government-s-paper-thin-promise

How Fiat Money Fails: Deconstructing the Government’s Paper-Thin Promise

How Fiat Money Fails: Deconstructing the Government’s Paper-Thin Promise

Fiat money has a surprisingly short lifespan. The almighty U.S. dollar currently serving as world reserve currency is not exempted, in spite of all proclamation that it cannot fail. Throughout history, fiat money has failed over and over again, where sound assets like gold have survived. Ruling out acts of god and unforeseen circumstance, the number one reason fiat fails is due to unsound economic policy. This is where gold and bitcoin stand to truly prevail.

Good as Gold

There’s a reason no one hears people saying “good as fiat” to describe something trustworthy or valuable. Gold has been used as currency for thousands of years, since at least 700 B.C., when it was favored by Lydian traders. The oldest fiat money still being used today has only been around for a little over 300 years, beginning in 1694 with the founding of the Bank of England. Prior to its use as currency, gold was used in barter and trade all over the world, in the absence of political mandate. By contrast, “fiat” means “by decree” or “let it be done” and depends on the force-backed laws of a state or monarch to demand its use, or else.

Slowly At First, Then All At Once pic.twitter.com/8tOeiaOMkl

— PlanB (@100trillionUSD) October 20, 2019

Exponential Failure

A recent tweet by user @100trillionUSD makes an interesting observation. When fiat failure strikes, it tends to happen first as a gradual build, and then spiral out of control suddenly, skyrocketing to oblivion. The German gold mark was a gold-backed currency for the empire from 1873-1914. After the gold standard was abandoned in 1914, the paper mark would soon become worthless, hyper-inflating itself to toilet paper tier within 10 years.

This is an extreme case, to be sure, but even where the most reliable fiat money is concerned, it always devalues into relative worthlessness at some point. As mentioned, the current title holder for longest lasting fiat currency is the British pound sterling, at 325 years old. Compared to its initial value in silver, when it was created to help finance war in 1694, it has lost almost 100% of its value.

Reichsbank Berlin, October 1923

The devaluation story of the U.S. dollar is no less dismal. As noted by one prominent inflation calculator:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index, today’s prices in 2019 are 2,493.53% higher than average prices throughout 1913 … The 1913 inflation rate was 2.06%. The current inflation rate (2018 to 2019) is now 1.71%. If this number holds, $1 today will be equivalent in buying power to $1.02 next year.

So the real question with fiat is not how stable is it, but “How long until it’s suitable for kindling?” A much cited but highly disputed 27-year fiat lifespan study found that 20% of the 775 fiat currencies examined failed due to hyperinflation, and that 21% were destroyed in war. 24% percent were reformed through centralized monetary policy. This means that the majority of failure or discontinuance of fiat is by way of government intervention, warfare and economic policy.

Emphasizing the inability to wage large scale warfare in the absence of this paper fiat, dollardaze.org states that “Initially, money is a tangible commodity. That commodity is then concentrated by those who issue paper receipts merely representative of the underlying commodity. The reason for doing this is to lend out more in paper receipts than what can be legitimately backed.” In other words, the powerful amass hard assets via scammy, obfuscated pilfer, while the poor suffer hardship, forced to use the garbage currency being offered instead.

Section of the Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table

  Modern Fiat Faceplants

For a highly detailed list of modern cases of hyperinflation, the Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table is an eye-opening resource illustrating the unreliable nature of government money. Though now slightly dated and not including recent examples like Venezuela, the data is presented in starkly direct fashion. In August 1945, prices in Hungary doubled in only 15 hours. Brazil experienced a daily inflation rate of 2.02% from December 1989 to March 1990. Even Austria is not immune historically, the crown hyper-inflating for almost a year from October 1920 to September 1922. The Hanke-Krus study is a sobering reminder of what happens when sound economic principle is ignored. As Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises put it:

The most important thing to remember is that inflation is not an act of God, that inflation is not a catastrophe of the elements or a disease that comes like the plague. Inflation is a policy.

And further: “The gold standard did not collapse. Governments abolished it in order to pave the way for inflation. The whole grim apparatus of oppression and coercion — policemen, customs guards, penal courts, prisons, in some countries even executioners — had to be put into action in order to destroy the gold standard.”

Whether or not one agrees with the proclamation of the renowned economist is immaterial in the face of the economic reality. Fiat money is, was and always will become worth less over time by its very nature. Bitcoin and crypto stand to remedy this if leveraged properly and by a large and determined enough market. Judging by the current regulatory climate and history itself, however, fiat won’t fall without a fight.

Source: news.bitcoin

[maxwellyjordan]

Opinion analysis: Felons-in-possession must know they are felons

In order to convict an unauthorized immigrant for gun possession, a federal prosecutor must prove not only that the defendant knew he possessed the gun but also that he knew he was out of immigration status, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Friday in Rehaif v. United States. The decision will almost certainly lead to collateral attacks on convictions under a much more commonly invoked provision criminalizing gun possession by convicted felons.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion stated that the federal law in question, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), criminalizes possession of firearms by a person falling into any of nine enumerated status categories, one of which is aliens unlawfully in the United States, and another of which is anyone convicted of an offense punishable by at least a year in prison. The majority explicitly held that the government “must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.”

In a vehement dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, protested that the decision will lead to a flood of challenges by people currently incarcerated under Section 922(g), most of them in the felon-in-possession category. Noting that 6,032 people were convicted in fiscal year 2017 alone under Section 922(g), with an average sentence of 64 months, Alito warned of a coming flood of litigation. Those whose direct appeals are not yet exhausted will “likely be entitled to a new trial,” said Alito, and others will move to have their convictions vacated under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Alito specifically outlined the group of prisoners who could file under Section 2255. “[T]hose within the statute of limitations will be entitled to relief if they can show that they are actually innocent of violating Section 922(g), which will be the case if they did not know that they fell into one of the categories of persons to whom the offense applies,” he wrote. “If a prisoner asserts that he lacked that knowledge and therefore was actually innocent, the district courts, in a great many cases, may be required to hold a hearing … and make a credibility determination as to the prisoner’s subjective mental state at the time of the crime.”

Petitioner Hamid Rehaif will be among those who get a hearing on whether he actually knew he was out of immigration status. He had come to the United States on a student visa to study at a university in Florida, but he was academically dismissed. In informing him about his dismissal, the university’s email notified him that his immigration status would be terminated if he did not transfer to another school or leave the United States, neither of which he did. Instead, he stayed in Florida. During that stay, he went to a firing range, purchased ammunition and fired weapons. Hotel staff tipped off the FBI that Rehaif was engaging in suspicious behavior.

At the ensuing trial, the district court instructed the jury that it need not find that Rehaif knew he was out of immigration status, and the jury convicted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed, noting substantial agreement among its fellow circuits that the term “knowingly” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to possession of the weapon, but not to the status category of the possessor.

Breyer’s majority opinion rejected that position. “In determining Congress’ intent, we start from a longstanding presumption, traceable to the common law, that Congress intends to require a defendant to possess a culpable mental state regarding ‘each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct,'” wrote Breyer. “Here we can find no convincing reason to depart from the ordinary presumption in favor of scienter [requirement of guilty mind].”

The phrase “otherwise innocent conduct” strongly echoed concerns voiced by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh at oral argument. They had noted that possession of a gun alone is not blameworthy and therefore that one’s membership in a prohibited status category is all that stands between innocent and criminal conduct under Section 922(g). If the status divides innocent from criminal conduct, then the defendant should have to know of that status in order to be convicted, they suggested. Along those lines, the majority opinion acknowledged that the statute’s “harsh” maximum punishment of 10 years played a role in its decision.

Now that the court has decided that knowledge of status is required for a conviction under Section 922(g), prosecutors must think about what kinds of tangible evidence can be used to show that state of mind, and those looking to challenge their convictions must scour their records to find some evidence casting doubt on the existence of such knowledge. These tasks are complicated greatly by the fact that there are nine different status categories. While reminding prosecutors that they may prove state of mind through circumstantial evidence, the majority refused to get too specific, saying, “We express no view … about what precisely the Government must prove to establish a defendant’s knowledge of status in respect to other Section 922(g) provisions not at issue here.”

However, the majority opinion did mention two hypothetical fact scenarios in which there could be reasonable doubt that the defendant knew his status. Echoing a remark by Justice Sonia Sotomayor at argument, the majority pointed out that a failure to require knowledge would criminalize firearm possession by “an alien who was brought to the United States unlawfully as a small child and was therefore unaware of his unlawful status.” The court made the same observation about “a person who was convicted of a prior crime but sentenced only to probation, who does not know that the crime is ‘punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.'” This would seem a particularly important scenario, given that the vast majority of convictions occur by plea bargain, where the lawyer, not the defendant, does the negotiating. Moreover, the average defendant’s curiosity only extends to the prosecutor’s actual offer, not to the theoretical maximum punishment that the prosecutor could have sought under the statute.

The dissent expressed concerns that the majority’s decision will lead gun owners to keep themselves in the dark about their membership in Section 922(g) status categories. “Consider a variation on the facts of the present case,” wrote Alito. “An alien admitted on a student visa does little if any work in his courses. When his grades are sent to him at the end of the spring semester, he deliberately declines to look at them. Over the summer, he receives correspondence from the college, but he refuses to open any of it. He has good reason to know that he has probably flunked out and that, as a result, his visa is no longer good. But he doesn’t actually know that he is not still a student.”

The majority did not address this hypothetical, but it seems extremely unlikely that such a gambit would succeed. Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) addresses the very situation contemplated by the dissent, sometimes referred to as the “ostrich defense” — sticking one’s head in the sand and then pleading ignorance of incriminating facts. Under this provision, because the hypothetical student was aware of a “high probability” that he was out of immigration status, his refusal to confirm that fact will not prevent a conclusion that he knew it.

Although nothing in the Model Penal Code is legally binding on its own accord, it seems unlikely that the court would reject Section 2.02(7). After all, the majority openly relied on Section 2.02(4) to support its conclusion that the term “knowingly” should apply to all nonjurisdictional elements of the offense. Perhaps more importantly, if the ostrich defense were permitted in Section 922(g) cases, it would be hard to explain why that gambit should not be permitted to defeat the knowledge requirements in hundreds or thousands of other criminal statutes nationwide.

The post Opinion analysis: Felons-in-possession must know they are felons appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-felons-in-possession-must-know-they-are-felons/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[neethypaksham]

The farmers’ movement for the repeal of the three farm laws which affect them closely but have been rammed through without consulting them, has now entered its second month. It is of historic significance. It is not just about minimum support prices but also about the survival of the entire system of public procurement and distribution of foodgrains. Without ensuring the economic viability of foodgrains production in North India — the grain basket of the country — no continuity can be ensured for the public procurement and distribution system, which, despite its drawbacks, continues to provide a modicum of food security to vast numbers of our population.

Recreation of colonial times

Northern industrial countries, namely the United States, Canada and the European Union (EU), cannot produce the tropical and sub-tropical crops in high demand by their own consumers while they have mountains of surplus grain and dairy products, the only goods their single-crop lands are capable of producing for climatic reasons. They must find export markets for these. For over two decades, they have put relentless pressure on developing countries to give up their own public procurement systems, insisting that they should buy their food grains from advanced countries, while diverting their food-crop-producing land to contract farming of export crops that these industrial countries want but cannot themselves produce. In short, they want a re-creation of the economic scenario of the colonial period.

Dozens of developing countries, ranging from the Philippines in the mid-1990s to Botswana (Africa) a decade later, succumbed to this pressure. They paid the price when with rapid diversion of grain to ethanol production in the U.S. and the EU, world grain prices trebled in a matter of months from end-2007. Thirty-seven newly import-dependent countries saw food riots, with urban populations being pushed into greater poverty.

Food security for the developing world is far too important a matter to be left to the global market, but the relentless attack on their public stocking of grain for ensuring food security continues. India had barely managed to pull back from the brink a decade ago: procurement prices were raised substantially after virtually stagnating during the six years preceding the 2008 price-spike, and grain output in Punjab grew again from near-stagnant levels as economic viability improved. But absorption of foodgrains did not improve as much owing to continued exclusion of many of the actually poor from ‘Below Poverty Line’ ration cards, while unemployment caused by the 2016 demonetisation followed by the 2020 pandemic has reduced aggregate demand by now to a historic low.

A case of unfair trade

Our farmers have been exposed for no rhyme or reason to unfair trade, and to the volatility of global prices that has plunged them into unrepayable debt and distress — in one village in Punjab, there were as many as 59 widows of farmers forced into suicide. Trade with the North is unfair, because the advanced countries in the mid-1990s, converted their own price support measures to massive subsidies given as direct cash transfers to their own farmers, transfers that in a blatantly self-serving manner they wrote into the Agreement on Agriculture as ‘not subject to reduction commitments’. India along with other developing countries signed the Agreement with very little idea of the implications of the small print. For the U.S., the direct cash transfers it gives to its 2.02 million farmers, amounting to a huge half or more of its annual farm output value, uses up only 1% of its budget. For India, over 50% of the entire central government annual Budget would be required to give even a quarter of annual farm output value to our 120 million farmers, which is an economic impossibility and an administrative nightmare.

It’s about a reasonable price

The farmers have made it amply clear that they do not want petty cash handouts; all they want is a reasonable price for the vital crops they produce for the nation, so that they can cover costs and live at a modest standard. In Indian circumstances, the price support system is in fact the only feasible one. While depletion of groundwater in Punjab is a real problem, the solution lies in introducing improved agronomic practices such as the System of Rice Intensification which economises water, not in reducing rice production. One does not cut off one’s head because of a headache.

It is precisely the support prices for crops that had been deliberately put by advanced countries under completely arbitrary and absurd computation rules in the Agreement on Agriculture. The U.S. complained against India to the World Trade Organization in May 2018 that since the ‘reference price’ for calculating support was the 1986-88 average world price of a crop which they converted to rupees at the then prevailing ₹12.5 per dollar exchange rate, India’s support price per quintal for rice and wheat in 2013-14 should have been at the most ₹235 and ₹354, respectively! The actual support prices were ₹1,348 and ₹1,386, and the difference, over ₹1,000 per quintal, was then multiplied by the entire 2013-14 output of rice and wheat, and came to 77% and 67% of their output values (https://bit.ly/3mROANe). This, the U.S. claimed, was support provided in gross violation of the permitted 10%!

Two months ago the U.S. sent fresh questions to India. Every kind of dishonest and absurd rule had been put into the Agreement on Agriculture to short-change gullible developing countries. Our farmers are among the lowest cost producers in the world, and the support prices in 2013-14 at the prevailing exchange rate of ₹60.5 per dollar were well below global prices, which means that actual support was negative.

Right assessment

Current compression of global demand means that wheat and rice prices are at historic lows, advanced country farm subsidies are at historic highs and their desperation to dump their grain on our markets has intensified. While our protesting farmers have correctly identified domestic firms as potential beneficiaries of the new marketing laws that they oppose, foreign agribusiness corporations are as great a danger.

Farmers have already experienced contract farming with foreign agribusinesses in Punjab and Haryana. They say clearly that they do not wish to deal with powerful, faceless private corporations that renege on price and quantity contracts when it suits them. Despite all its inefficiency and payment delays, they prefer to sell to government agents at the stipulated minimum support prices. They are absolutely correct in thinking that deregulation of markets as mandated by the new laws, and the entry of business firms, which will be not only Indian but also foreign, mean a severe undermining of the entire system of public procurement and minimum support prices.

The ‘green energy’ push

There are many Indian intellectuals who argue that importing subsidised grain from the North will benefit poor consumers here. They forget that there is an increasingly powerful opinion advocating ‘green energy’ in advanced countries, pushing for even greater conversion of grain to ethanol; hence initial low-priced grain imports, if permitted today, will not only destroy our farmers but will soon give way to a scenario of price spikes and to urban distress as experienced earlier by developing countries forced into import dependence. Anyone with a concern for our own hard- working farmers and poverty-stricken consumers, must support the farmers’ demands against the machinations of both local and global business elites.

Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University

[benrleeusa]

[Eugene Volokh] The First Amendment and Criminal Libel Law

I thought I'd serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions; here is the section on criminal libel law -- the article argues that anti-libel injunctions are like mini-criminal-libel laws.

[You might also read my first post on the subject, Anti-Libel Injunctions and the Criminal Libel Connection; or you can read the whole article in PDF. To see the footnotes below, click on the "MORE" link at the bottom of the post first, or click here.]

The threat of jail has historically been one potential deterrent to libelers, though under the rubric of criminal libel rather than anti-libel injunctions; and it remains a potential deterrent in some states.

Criminal libel laws that are consistent with First Amendment libel law rules—generally speaking, ones that require a showing of defendant's "actual malice"[1]—are constitutionally permissible: Civil and criminal libel cases "are subject to the same constitutional limitations," including when the speech is on a matter of public concern and is about a public figure or official.[2]

All the other First Amendment exceptions that the Court has explicitly recognized authorize criminal liability for speech, since such criminal liability is often the only viable way to punish and deter the unprotected speech: incitement, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, fraud, threats, or speech that is an integral part of criminal conduct.[3] The Court has never suggested that the defamation exception, alone of the First Amendment exceptions, doesn't authorize such criminal liability.

True, many legislatures have repealed criminal libel laws, or declined to reenact them after overbroad criminal libel statutes have been struck down. But fourteen states still have generally applicable criminal libel statutes,[4] and criminal libel prosecutions continue in most of those states;[5] indeed, after the Minnesota criminal libel statute was struck down as overbroad in 2015,[6] the Minnesota legislature reenacted a properly narrowed statute.[7]

A 1978 Alaska Supreme Court decision struck down a criminal libel statute on the grounds that the definition of "defamatory"—"any statement which would tend to disgrace or degrade another, to hold him up to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to cause him to be shunned or avoided"—"falls far short of the reasonable precision necessary to define criminal conduct."[8] Those who agree that criminal libel statutes are unconstitutionally vague should take the same view about catchall anti-libel injunctions enforceable through criminal contempt law.

But it seems to me that, if a criminal libel law statute is limited to knowingly (or perhaps reckless) false and defamatory speech (as the Alaska statute was not), it should be clear enough to be constitutional, as several courts have indeed held.[9] The limitation to knowing or reckless falsehoods would limit the substantive reach of the statute, diminishing any concern that the vagueness of the law would chill a wide range of speech.[10] The definition of libel also has a well-established "common law meaning," a matter that the vagueness precedents view as significant.[11]

And the line between falsehoods that tend to lead to disgrace, hatred, contempt, or ridicule and other falsehoods yields a good deal of black and white, though also some amount of grey. "[T]he mere fact that close cases can be envisioned" doesn't "render[] a statute vague"—"[c]lose cases can be imagined under virtually any statute."[12] Rather, a statute is unconstitutionally vague only when an element is "indeterminate[]," as with statutes that criminalized "annoying" or "indecent" speech—"wholly subjective judgments without statutory definitions, narrowing context, or settled legal meanings."[13]

"Condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language";[14] but the definition of libel seems no more uncertain than the constitutionally valid definitions of fighting words and of incitement, which also turn on the tendency of words to produce certain actions or beliefs among listeners.[15] And while it may be unclear whether an allegation is false, or spoken with knowledge of its falsehood, that sort of factual uncertainty isn't enough to render a statute unconstitutionally vague.[16]

[* * *]

Criminal libel laws, then, are constitutional. But one can certainly be worried about their potential chilling effect. If they are enforced, after all, any time anyone writes anything potentially derogatory about anyone else, the writer should worry about the risk of prosecution. Though they generally require the prosecutor to prove that the speaker made a knowingly or recklessly false statement of fact, some speakers might worry that the prosecutor and the factfinder will misjudge this; and even the threat of an unsuccessful prosecution can deter many speakers. This may help explain why they have largely fallen out of favor.

[In upcoming posts, I'll turn to how anti-libel injunctions aim to recover some of the value of criminal libel laws while decreasing the chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech—but, unfortunately, sometimes losing some of the important procedural protections that criminal libel laws provide.]

[1] Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 349 (1974), requires a showing of "actual malice" before punitive damages are recovered, even in lawsuits brought by private figures. It follows that criminal punishment should also require such a showing, even as to libels of private figures.

A similar showing might not be required as a First Amendment matter as to speech about matters of purely private concern. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985) (allowing punitive damages without a showing of "actual malice" in such cases). But general principles of criminal liability would in any event usually call for a showing of at least recklessness as to attendant circumstances in criminal cases, see, e.g., Model Penal Code § 2.02(3), which roughly maps to actual malice; and this may reasonably be viewed as a First Amendment requirement when it comes to criminal libel in particular.

[2] Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 157 & n.1 (1979); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 67 (1964) (taking the same view as Herbert); In re Gronowicz, 764 F.2d 983, 988 & n.4 (3d Cir. 1985) (en banc) (likewise); Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1073 (10th Cir. 1995) (upholding a narrowly drawn criminal libel statute); State v. Carson, 95 P.3d 1042, 2004 WL 1878312, *2 (Kan. App. Aug. 29, 2004) (noting that the trial court had upheld a narrowly drawn criminal libel statute; the defendant did not argue the First Amendment on appeal); People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935, 941 (Colo. 1991) (upholding a narrowly drawn criminal libel statute, when limited to speech on matters of purely private concern).

[3] See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 717 (2012) (plurality op.) (giving this list of exceptions, together with "speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent"); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (describing when incitement may be criminalized); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (upholding criminalization of obscenity); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 (1977) (same, despite Justice Stevens' argument in dissent, id. at 317, 321, that obscenity law should only be enforceable through civil remedies); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (upholding criminalization of child pornography); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (upholding criminalization of child pornography); Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (upholding criminal punishment for true threats); United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (upholding criminal punishment for certain speech that was seen as integral to criminal conduct).

[4] Idaho Code §§ 18-4801 to 18-4809 (2016); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6103 (2017 Supp.); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:47-14:50 (2016); Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.370 (2004); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.765 (2016); Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-212 (2017); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:11 (2016); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-11-1 (2004); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-47, 15-168 (2017); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-01 (2012); Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §§ 771-774, 776-778 (2011 & 2017 Supp.); Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-404 (2017); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-417 (2014); Wisc. Stat. Ann. § 942.01 (2015-16); see also 14 V.I. Code §§ 1171-1179 (2012). Two of these statutes have been held unconstitutional as to statements on matters of public concern, but remain valid as to statements on matters of private concern. State v. Snyder, 277 So. 2d 660, 668 (La. 1973), rev'd on other grounds, 305 So. 2d 334 (La. 1974); State v. Powell, 839 P.2d 139, 147 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992).

A few states have libel statutes that are focused on libels of particular businesses, such as banks. See, e.g., Ala. Code § 5-5A46; Tex. Fin. Code § 119.202. Query whether that sort of content classification is constitutional given R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 384 (1992), which states that libel laws that distinguish among libels based on content may be unconstitutional, unless the content distinction focuses just on more damaging libels. See, e.g., United Food & Comm. Workers, Local 99 v. Bennett, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1196 (D. Ariz. 2013) (striking down statute because it created special remedies for defamation of employers, as opposed to defamation of others).

[5] See, e.g., David Pritchard, Rethinking Criminal Libel: An Empirical Study, 14 Comm. L. & Pol'y 303, 313 (2009) (finding, on average, four criminal libel prosecutions per year in Wisconsin from 2000 to 2007); Eugene Volokh, Criminal Libel: Survival and Revival (in draft) (discussing prosecutions in other states).

[6] State v. Turner, 864 N.W.2d 204 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).

[7] Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.765 (2016).

[8] Gottschalk v. State, 575 P.2d 289, 292 (Alaska 1978). The ACLU of New Hampshire has likewise challenged the New Hampshire criminal libel law on vagueness grounds. Complaint, Frese v. McDonald, No. 1:18-cv-01180 (D.N.H. Dec. 18, 2018).

[9] See, e.g., How v. City of Baxter Springs, 369 F. Supp. 2d 1300, 1305–06 (D. Kan. 2005); Pegg v. State, 659 P.2d 370, 372 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. 1983); Davis v. Weston, 501 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Ark. 1973); State v. Stephenson, No. 06CA0901, at 2–3 (Colo. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2008) (relying on People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1991), which didn't expressly address a vagueness challenge but implicitly rejected the dissent's vagueness argument).

Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195 (1966), struck down a common-law criminal libel rule on vagueness grounds, but only because the rule—inconsistently with modern libel law—extended to "any writing calculated to create disturbances of the peace." Id at 198–99; see also Williamson v. State, 295 S.E.2d 305, 306 (Ga. 1982) (same). Likewise, Parmelee v. O'Neel, 186 P.3d 1094, 1104 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008), rev'd only as to attorney fees, 229 P.2d 723, 728 (Wash. 2010), and Fitts v. Kolb, 779 F. Supp. 1502, 1515, 1518 (D.S.C. 1991), struck down criminal libel statutes as unconstitutionally vague only because they banned "malicious" speech without making clear that this referred to the New York Times "actual malice" standard rather than to the normal English definition of the term. See also Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1097–98 (8th Cir. 1973) (striking down a federal ban on defamatory mailings as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, because, among other things, the law made it unclear "whether truth would still be punishable unless coupled with good motives," "whether Congress deemed it necessary that 'malice' be an element of the offense for either private or public libels," "whether libel must be knowingly falsely made or may be 'negligently' made," and "whether the libelous or defamatory statements must necessarily lead to an immediate breach of peace").

[10] See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 873 (1997) (concluding that a statutory criterion becomes less vague when other required elements of the offense ""critically limit[] the uncertain sweep" of the overall statutory definition).

[11] See, e.g., Winters v. N.Y., 333 U.S. 507, 519 (1948); Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).

[12] United States v. Williams, 552 U.S. 285, 305 (2008).

[13] Id. (giving examples drawn from Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 (1971), and Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870–71 & n.35 (1997)).

[14] Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110 (1972).

[15] Chaplinsky v. N.H., 315 U.S. 568, 574 (1942) (holding that a fighting words statute interpreted as limited to "words likely to cause an average addressee to fight" was not unconstitutionally vague); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (endorsing an incitement test limited to "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action").

[16] Williams, 552 U.S. at 306.