#a legal team might have found the right loophole

[melikes-reads]

Nick and Charlie watching the Doctor Who Christmas special at Christmas...

And not just any Christmas special, but The Runaway Bride.

The Doctor and Donna.

David Tennant and Catherine Tate at their finest.

Well done, Heartstopper.

Well done, indeed.

[puckpocketed]

What do you think of the Goodrow trade? How does this factor into the Sharks' future plans, and who do you think he'll play with next season?

yay for the fans who liked him and are glad to see him back here. I'm happy that they're happy! I didn't know him whilst he was a Shark, I hope he grows on me like a barnacle <3

I don't think about lines enough to speculate confidently on what this means for the Sharks in the future, so I can't really answer that part of your ask, sorry!

my unserious answer is i hope one of our prospects gets stapled to him goonwag-style - maybe the plan here was to give kunin to macklin and goodrow to smith? giggling. our beautiful leg weights <3

okay okay time to break character <3 sorry i DO have a Serious take on this one. Per this article (and serveral others) there are reports that Goodrow isn't happy because the Sharks were on his no-trade list. We are not a contender, we aren’t even looking to be one for a hot minute, he wants to keep playing and winning cups, so that makes sense! I don’t know if you made a mistake using the phrase ‘trade’ but… it might not be far from the truth. The going sentiment, per the same linked article, is that there was a quid pro quo situation between Mike Grier and Chris Drury that the Sharks would pick Goodrow up off waivers. This is unconfirmed by official sources. All we have here is looking to the future for any transactions between the two in the wake of this trade. If there was some under the table handshake situation going on... I don't like it at all.

The rest of this answer is going off the assumption that what is being said in that article is true.

The spirit of a no-trade list, of signing any contract, is the reasonable expectation that your wishes will be respected. Players have waived their clauses in the past, but that's on them. To have two GMs collude to basically trade a player to a team they did not want to go to is scummy as HELL, and to me it is a worker's rights issue. If my boss and I agreed to terms on a contract, I would be pissed off if they found some legal loophole around it, and I would feel screwed over. If I found out my new employer was a part of that? I wouldn't feel too good about those guys either.

I have and will make jokes about Goodrow trying to escape. they're funny! but in the end I don't think it's good for the culture to have someone here who possibly doesn't want to be here and isn't committed to the team due to resentment. someone who isn't committed because there are no playoffs aspirations. I'm not saying he would actually behave this way, I don't know him! I'm sure he's a good fella in the end. but I think leaving that up to chance by circumventing the terms of his contract is a stupid move. and skeevy. did I mention skeevy?

More broadly, contracts need to mean something. If two GMs can just shake hands in some backroom deal and ignore the player's explicit wishes about where they want to play, what's the fucking point in signing ANY ntc/nmc? where's the certainty then, if this loophole is open? whats the vibe here? has this happened in the past? will it happen again? I hope the CBA addresses this whenever it's time to negotiate again. and I super don't care about the whole "life isn't fair, players get exploited all the time, shady dealings happen all the time" angle, I don't want devil's advocates answers - my point is that it shouldn't happen, it's wrong, and I hope the player's union they got going on fights to make sure it doesn't happen again.

in a less structured conclusion..,,, the narratives are funny BUT i do be living in the real world lmao!! fuck all bosses forever fuck all gms forever yes even the 'good' ones!! all bosses are bastards and their interests will often run counter to the interests of the worker !!!! players are people with families and long-term plans of their own and presumably when they sign contracts they plan around those contracts accordingly assuming the terms will be honoured!!!!!!!!! their kids and spouses are also people whose education/careers/relationships will all be affected by trades !!!! players are NOT simply assets !!! nor are they simply characters in stories!! i do lean in to the narratives but again this is the REAL WORLD and a worker is being screwed by a boss and thats bullshit .

thank you for listening and im sorry if this wasn't the type of answer you were looking for </3

[devopssentinel]

You thought you'd struck gold. After a long and arduous search, you finally found the perfect candidate: a senior DevOps engineer with a resume that sparkled like a treasure chest. Years of experience, glowing references, and impressive technical skills – they ticked all the boxes. But then, the honeymoon phase ended, and reality set in. Instead of the seasoned expert you expected, you got… well, let's just say they weren't quite living up to the hype. Deadlines whoosh by like speeding bullets, critical deployments crash and burn, and instead of solutions, you're bombarded with a barrage of excuses that would make a politician blush. You've stumbled into a nightmare scenario: the underperforming senior engineer who seems to have mastered the art of deflection and legal maneuvering. This situation is more than just frustrating; it's like a dark cloud hanging over your team, sapping morale and hindering productivity. It's like hiring a renowned chef only to discover they can barely boil water. But don't despair, my friend. Even in this predicament, there are ways to navigate the turbulence and regain control. Unmasking the Underperformance: A Detective's Approach Before you reach for the panic button, take a deep breath and channel your inner Sherlock Holmes. Don't jump to conclusions; instead, try to understand the root cause of this perplexing underperformance. Could it be a skills mismatch? Perhaps the interview process, despite your best efforts, didn't accurately assess the engineer's true capabilities. Maybe their expertise lies in a different domain, or their skills have become rusty with time. It's like hiring a master carpenter to build a spaceship – the skills might be impressive, but they're not quite the right fit for the job. Or perhaps it's a motivational issue. Are they disengaged, bored, or simply lacking the drive to excel? Maybe the role isn't challenging enough, or they're grappling with personal issues that are affecting their work. It's like a thoroughbred racehorse stuck in a stable – all that power and potential, but no outlet for it. Could it be a cultural mismatch? Does their work style clash with your team's collaborative and dynamic environment? A mismatch in communication styles or work ethics can lead to friction, misunderstandings, and ultimately, underperformance. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – no matter how hard you push, it just won't work. And then there's the uncomfortable possibility of intentional underperformance. In some cases, an employee might be deliberately underperforming to avoid work, exploit legal loopholes, or even angle for a severance package. It's a disheartening scenario, but it's important to be aware of this possibility. Navigating the Minefield: A Strategic Approach Once you've identified the potential root cause, it's time to take action. But tread carefully, my friend, for you're navigating a minefield of potential legal and emotional pitfalls. First and foremost, become a meticulous record-keeper. Document every instance of underperformance, every missed deadline, every piece of unsatisfactory work. This creates an objective record that will protect you from potential legal challenges and provide concrete evidence if further action is necessary. Next, initiate an open and honest conversation with the engineer. Express your concerns clearly, providing specific examples of underperformance and its impact on the team and the organization. But don't just lecture; listen to their perspective, try to understand their challenges, and explore potential solutions together. If the issues persist despite your best efforts, it's time to implement a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). This formal document outlines clear expectations, sets measurable goals, and provides a reasonable timeframe for improvement. Offer support and resources to help the engineer succeed, but also make it clear that continued underperformance will have consequences. If the engineer resorts to legal threats or makes accusations, it's time to call in the cavalry. Consult with your HR department or legal counsel to understand your rights and obligations. Ensure you're acting within legal boundaries and protecting your organization from potential liability. If all else fails and the situation becomes untenable, explore alternative solutions. Perhaps a reassignment to a different role, a mutually agreed upon exit, or, as a last resort, termination. These are difficult decisions, but sometimes they're necessary to protect the health and well-being of your team and your organization. Leading Through the Storm: Protecting Your Team and Yourself Dealing with an underperforming senior engineer can be emotionally draining, like trying to extinguish a fire with a leaky bucket. Remember to stay calm, objective, and focused on the facts. Avoid emotional outbursts, stick to the documented evidence, and maintain a professional demeanor throughout the process. Shield your team from the negativity and disruption caused by the situation. Maintain a positive and supportive environment, and reassure your team that you're addressing the issue and have their best interests at heart. And don't hesitate to seek support from your HR department, legal counsel, or trusted colleagues. Sharing your challenges can provide valuable insights, emotional support, and a fresh perspective. Prevention is the Best Cure: Hiring Smart from the Start While dealing with underperformance is sometimes unavoidable, you can minimize the risk by strengthening your hiring process. Think of it as building a fortress to protect your team from underperforming invaders. Conduct thorough technical assessments, behavioral interviews, and reference checks to ensure candidates possess the necessary skills, experience, and cultural fit. Don't just rely on resumes; dig deeper, ask probing questions, and get a sense of their true capabilities and personality. Consider implementing trial periods or probationary periods to assess performance in a real-world setting before making a permanent offer. This gives you a chance to see how they integrate into your team and handle the demands of the role. And from the very beginning, set clear expectations regarding performance standards, work ethic, and team collaboration. Make sure everyone is on the same page and understands the values and behaviors that are essential for success in your organization. Hiring a senior DevOps engineer who underperforms can be a frustrating and challenging experience. But by addressing the issue promptly, documenting everything, following a structured approach, and seeking support when needed, you can protect your team, minimize disruption, and find a resolution that aligns with your organization's goals. And remember, sometimes the best lessons are learned from the toughest challenges. Read the full article

[devopssentinel2000]

You thought you'd struck gold. After a long and arduous search, you finally found the perfect candidate: a senior DevOps engineer with a resume that sparkled like a treasure chest. Years of experience, glowing references, and impressive technical skills – they ticked all the boxes. But then, the honeymoon phase ended, and reality set in. Instead of the seasoned expert you expected, you got… well, let's just say they weren't quite living up to the hype. Deadlines whoosh by like speeding bullets, critical deployments crash and burn, and instead of solutions, you're bombarded with a barrage of excuses that would make a politician blush. You've stumbled into a nightmare scenario: the underperforming senior engineer who seems to have mastered the art of deflection and legal maneuvering. This situation is more than just frustrating; it's like a dark cloud hanging over your team, sapping morale and hindering productivity. It's like hiring a renowned chef only to discover they can barely boil water. But don't despair, my friend. Even in this predicament, there are ways to navigate the turbulence and regain control. Unmasking the Underperformance: A Detective's Approach Before you reach for the panic button, take a deep breath and channel your inner Sherlock Holmes. Don't jump to conclusions; instead, try to understand the root cause of this perplexing underperformance. Could it be a skills mismatch? Perhaps the interview process, despite your best efforts, didn't accurately assess the engineer's true capabilities. Maybe their expertise lies in a different domain, or their skills have become rusty with time. It's like hiring a master carpenter to build a spaceship – the skills might be impressive, but they're not quite the right fit for the job. Or perhaps it's a motivational issue. Are they disengaged, bored, or simply lacking the drive to excel? Maybe the role isn't challenging enough, or they're grappling with personal issues that are affecting their work. It's like a thoroughbred racehorse stuck in a stable – all that power and potential, but no outlet for it. Could it be a cultural mismatch? Does their work style clash with your team's collaborative and dynamic environment? A mismatch in communication styles or work ethics can lead to friction, misunderstandings, and ultimately, underperformance. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – no matter how hard you push, it just won't work. And then there's the uncomfortable possibility of intentional underperformance. In some cases, an employee might be deliberately underperforming to avoid work, exploit legal loopholes, or even angle for a severance package. It's a disheartening scenario, but it's important to be aware of this possibility. Navigating the Minefield: A Strategic Approach Once you've identified the potential root cause, it's time to take action. But tread carefully, my friend, for you're navigating a minefield of potential legal and emotional pitfalls. First and foremost, become a meticulous record-keeper. Document every instance of underperformance, every missed deadline, every piece of unsatisfactory work. This creates an objective record that will protect you from potential legal challenges and provide concrete evidence if further action is necessary. Next, initiate an open and honest conversation with the engineer. Express your concerns clearly, providing specific examples of underperformance and its impact on the team and the organization. But don't just lecture; listen to their perspective, try to understand their challenges, and explore potential solutions together. If the issues persist despite your best efforts, it's time to implement a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). This formal document outlines clear expectations, sets measurable goals, and provides a reasonable timeframe for improvement. Offer support and resources to help the engineer succeed, but also make it clear that continued underperformance will have consequences. If the engineer resorts to legal threats or makes accusations, it's time to call in the cavalry. Consult with your HR department or legal counsel to understand your rights and obligations. Ensure you're acting within legal boundaries and protecting your organization from potential liability. If all else fails and the situation becomes untenable, explore alternative solutions. Perhaps a reassignment to a different role, a mutually agreed upon exit, or, as a last resort, termination. These are difficult decisions, but sometimes they're necessary to protect the health and well-being of your team and your organization. Leading Through the Storm: Protecting Your Team and Yourself Dealing with an underperforming senior engineer can be emotionally draining, like trying to extinguish a fire with a leaky bucket. Remember to stay calm, objective, and focused on the facts. Avoid emotional outbursts, stick to the documented evidence, and maintain a professional demeanor throughout the process. Shield your team from the negativity and disruption caused by the situation. Maintain a positive and supportive environment, and reassure your team that you're addressing the issue and have their best interests at heart. And don't hesitate to seek support from your HR department, legal counsel, or trusted colleagues. Sharing your challenges can provide valuable insights, emotional support, and a fresh perspective. Prevention is the Best Cure: Hiring Smart from the Start While dealing with underperformance is sometimes unavoidable, you can minimize the risk by strengthening your hiring process. Think of it as building a fortress to protect your team from underperforming invaders. Conduct thorough technical assessments, behavioral interviews, and reference checks to ensure candidates possess the necessary skills, experience, and cultural fit. Don't just rely on resumes; dig deeper, ask probing questions, and get a sense of their true capabilities and personality. Consider implementing trial periods or probationary periods to assess performance in a real-world setting before making a permanent offer. This gives you a chance to see how they integrate into your team and handle the demands of the role. And from the very beginning, set clear expectations regarding performance standards, work ethic, and team collaboration. Make sure everyone is on the same page and understands the values and behaviors that are essential for success in your organization. Hiring a senior DevOps engineer who underperforms can be a frustrating and challenging experience. But by addressing the issue promptly, documenting everything, following a structured approach, and seeking support when needed, you can protect your team, minimize disruption, and find a resolution that aligns with your organization's goals. And remember, sometimes the best lessons are learned from the toughest challenges. Read the full article

[covington-shenanigans]

I genuinely and unironically want a comic/book/movie/whatever about a superhero corps whose only job is taxing the rich and enforcing the fuck out of it, like the IRS (US tax agency) except overpowered, but also very boring. maybe they're an outside group who the IRS consults when some billionaire is managing to evade the IRS and the IRS knows that fucker is hiding money somewhere but they can't track it down so they call in the Special Forces of the tax world.

like, the protagonist, the head of this elite corps, is a 55yo woman named Doris. her entire job is finding where rich fucks have squirreled away their money to avoid paying taxes and making them pay up.

she is, and I cannot emphasize this enough, deeply boring as a person.

her entire life is about her work. not in a tragic "Cat in the Cradle" way, but in a "neuroatypical dream job" way. she's found her niche: auditing and tax law and tiny little legal loopholes that rich fucks use to avoid paying their fair share, and her biggest enjoyment in this life is catching them in some tiny trip-up that gives her one thread to pull. once she pulls that thread she's able to unweave the whole rotten tapestry and they either pay up and continue to pay up, or they go to prison for several decades. it's beautiful to watch, in a stultifying kind of way, if you know enough about tax law to understand what she's talking about.

she has an entire team to assist her. they are, to a person, also excruciatingly boring. they talk about auditing and tax law and tiny little legal loopholes at parties, for fun. not because they're invested in being annoying but because they genuinely find it interesting. they have forgotten more about tax law than any of us will ever know. they are spoken of in hushed tones by aspiring CPAs in business school and by the very IRS agents who brought them on in the first place. they are legends.

one billionaire gets all high and mighty behind the scenes of a right-wing fundraiser, unaware he's being recorded by a highly motivated waiter who lives to rat out their shithead employer. he starts bragging a little to his other rich fuckhead friends about how much more they're raking in at his online shopping company now that they've started cutting break times and staffing and forcing their warehouse employees to work double shifts at the last minute, often cutting power to a minimum to save on the utility bill, forcing employees to work in the dark.

two days later his expansive, airy, sunlit office is invaded by a small army of finance nerds, lawyers with stacks of paperwork, and very cranky, very large, very serious FBI people with guns, just in case the billionaire gets any bright ideas about calling in some goons to avoid this particular conversation.

can Doris and her Special Forces enforce employee/employer law? no, they can't - that's not their job and maybe that billionaire isn't technically doing anything illegal yet in regards to his treatment of his warehouse workers. right to work state and all that. but Doris knows a rat when she smells one, and she's been collecting little bits of evidence on this guy for a while now. just little tidbits - an anonymous tip here, a trove of emails there. the waiter's recording was the last little bit she needed to provide her team with concrete evidence to give the IRS, enough to get the FBI involved and have this billionaire trust fund baby arrested in the middle of a board meeting in front of his horrified stakeholders.

the company stock plummets within five minutes of his arrest, obviously. the public audit and legal battle that follows takes a while, but in the end he's sitting in prison for a very long time and the government breaks up his company into about twenty different parts, which probably should have happened a while ago anyway.

it's possible Doris might have gotten access to the man's Outlook calendar somehow.

every one of the nerds in this crack unit are so, so fucking boring that you'd chew your own arm off rather than be cornered by one of them droning on about their beancounter shit, but by god since they started assisting the IRS not one billionaire has opened his fucking mouth to whine about his employees demanding a living wage because they know Doris and her Special Forces are just itching to have one excuse to audit their books.

and Doris never, ever fucking loses.

Let's do that again.

[stuckinapatriarchalbullshitland]

From all 5H members contracts Camila’s is the one that keeps me thinking and that seems to be a lot more complex than the others. The fact she was the chosen one to go solo with full investment could mean hers it’s better, but that’s not something I can state for sure. I read a lot about how she took to her solo career the last two albums the group owed Epic, which I think it’s possible, but again we can’t be sure.

I did some research and found something very interesting in Musicians Union:

1. A typical record deal with a major record company might be for one year plus four options, calling for five albums. (So we have 5 years or 5 albums).

2. Even with larger companies who can afford advances, if recordings have not been released in the major markets of the world within a certain time, you should be able to terminate the agreement. (My loophole theory fits right here, yay).

The last one is not really Camila’s case, but this MU also states that legally speaking the courts have being frowning long-terms contracts, the ones passing the 5 years/5 albums. This gave me a little hope that she signed a 5 years deal and that she could leave when it ends independently of the amount of albums released.

Even so I’m still worrying about what was negotiated along with the recording deal. Like her ex-band mates not being able to debut until her first solo contract ends was part of it or that was something 4H accepted so they could go solo themselves? Could C’s contract be extended unilaterally or automatic renewed? Was it one of those contracts that she can have her masters afterwards? Or they could use it as bargain to resign her?

So it’s not just a matter of time, but we have to wait and see what was negotiated by the bald man back then - he’s definitely not trustworthy, in my opinion. We have to catch as many hints as we can with this new era, Stuck. And also we should be paying more attention to her team, because they seem to be in favor of everyone but her. And if that’s right her recording deal it’s the least of our worries.

The way the label is promoting Familia tells me that they want her to stay, if the contract is actually ending. Camila is a huge brand now and my guess is they’d even give her a little freedom if that means she won’t leave. But we also have to take in consideration what she actually wants and she’s the only one who can tell what she has been through all this time with them: 5 years in the band plus 5 solo.

Sadly I can’t tell if it’s related to her contracts with 5H or the contracts that she has with Epic as a solo artist, but I have a feeling it’s everything intertwined. I hope I helped at least. Again, sorry for the long ask.

BPAnon

Hey buddy. Thanks for answering me.

To be honest, you have left me with more questions than answers about the contracts, because the ideas are good, but we don't have the context or anything regarding what Camila has signed. I do not know. Nor if what she signed has a direct relationship with the girls of 5H, but in relation to Epic wanting her, please no. No more with those sons of bitches, Camila has to get off that fucking label now.

I keep wishing that she is finishing her contracts, but I think it is time that she will say what is in it or not. I hope Music anon can help us too and your ideas are great buddy. Thanks for sharing.

[luvbug724]

yup the situation might be unlikely but i don’t know enough about courts to say if it’s improbable or if it could genuinely happen in a case like andrew’s where it’s an unremarkable assault criminal case that’s like one and done without follow up. other egregious legal situations have also been ignored when the defendant was mentally ill. but that’s not the meds being unrealistic, that’s hand wavey court case magic

i doubt betsy didn’t know andrew was manic. neil knows and he’s kinda of ignorant around all of that stuff, and betsy is extremely competent like you said. but no matter her protests, that’s not her domain because i think she’s purely his therapist. psychiatrists prescribe medicine, therapists do not. neil calls her a psychiatrist, but i don’t know how accurate that is?? whenever we see her she’s performing therapy and a psychiatrist alone is NOT qualified for that (according to my sister who is a therapist idk i don’t know the jargon), so betsy doesn’t have control over andrew’s medicine as a therapist unless she has an additional qualification for psychiatry. but the american legal system absolutely drops the ball when it comes to mental health cases— i very recently had a bipolar relative face legal trouble while manic because of anti depressants and it still took years for someone to figure out the problem. not court mandated medicine, but the legal system in the aftg world is primarily concerned over if andrew is a threat to others. while manic, he generally isn’t, because his thought process is too erratic to commit to any sort of violence. he’ll threaten it and briefly enact it, but he loses interest before the damage is done while sober andrew absolutely follows through when he says he will. even drugging neil, which was the most elaborate show of violence i can remember that andrew does while manic is performed while he’s mostly sober.

as soon as betsy has tangible proof to present to the courts that the meds are doing real psychological harm to andrew (his inability to process the assault), she does get him off the medicine (by having the court order removed). but the text establishes that most people view these meds as a the lesser of two evils for andrew, including his own legal guardian (until drake happened) and medical professionals. i don’t think they would make the decision so lightly off of one therapists opinion when they found him dangerous enough to medicate in the first place.

ur right that college athletes r totally drug tested a lot and there’s even a rule where you can’t drink 48 hours before a game and 24 hours before practice but the aftg ncaa isn’t our ncaa. you can’t really play five active seasons (most teams use a loophole called a redshirt year where the player mostly attends practices while barely competing freshman year), and in 2006 you wouldn’t have a stipend like nicky gets to pay the mortgage. a lot of things in aftg are overlookable because it’s an ambiguous universe slightly to the left of ours, but my problem is people ragging on the medicine and ignoring that the medicine might be made up but the concept is very very real. these issues aren’t his medication being unrealistic, but the situation being odd

begging ppl to stop saying andrew’s meds are unrealistic bc that shit happens all the time. you’re bipolar, you get diagnosed w depression and go on antidepressants, and you become manic bc you’re only medicated for your lows and not your highs

[martelldoran]

Hey hey 🤗���� okay 10, but give me a drabble about it (please and thank you, dearest)

10. Mutual pining or enemies to friends to lovers?

Bec! Oof okay. Let’s see. A challenge. A gauntlet laid down before me. Me, who cannot write anything short to save herself? You rascal.

Aha. And boy did I fail. This stream of consciousness ended up being so long. It’s not even really a drabble. It’s a tumblr post masquerading as five headcanons in a trenchcoat masquerading as a fic. Or something. I don’t know. 

Enemies to friends to lovers with a dash of mutual pining? Let’s go!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Okay, picture the scene. Bucky’s the slick corporate lawyer. Steve is the harried, overworked avocado at law a la Matt Murdock and Foggy Nelson. He works out of a crappy office with broken A/C that keeps dripping on the carpet and spends his time fighting against exactly Bucky’s brand of arsehole. But then, of course, for hand wavy plot reasons they’re assigned the same case. The horror. 

And it is awful. They hate it. Bucky takes one look at Steve’s office, wrinkles his nose and makes some backhanded comment that gets Steve’s hackles up. And Steve wants nothing more than to smack this perfectly coiffed prick in his perfect teeth and maybe rumple up that stupidly expensive suit of his. They try to get out of it. They try every trick they know. Bucky tries to pass the case to Natasha but she refuses. 

“It’s a conflict of interest,” she says and Bucky wants to shake her. 

“How?” he cries, drawing stares from all around and Natasha smiles her coy Natasha smile as she reapplies lipstick, using the back of a spoon as a mirror.

“Oh, because I’m sleeping with your client.” [the client is Clint, of course.]

So they’re stuck with each other. Steve thinks Bucky is pretentious, self-serving, and everything wrong with the legal profession and Bucky thinks Steve is a self-righteous martyr who’d rather take on yet another bleeding heart than make rent. But they’re professionals. They can put aside this pettiness for the sake of their client. Right?

Well, sort of. It turns out that they end up working really well together. Bucky has the connections and Steve knows just about every legal loophole in the book. They make a damn good team, the opposition doesn’t stand a chance. And god, isn’t frustrating that even when they’re arguing at 11pm about the best course of action on the case, Bucky looks that good with his tie loosened and shirt sleeves rolled up past his elbows. 

But simmering underneath it all, there’s a begrudging respect. Bucky can see that Steve does what he does because it’s the right thing to do and it’s coming from a place of genuinely wanting to help people, and he starts to think that maybe he misjudged him, and that maybe treating the law like a game to win isn’t serving anyone’s best interests but his own. 

Then after a particularly gruelling day in court, they get a drink because, fuck, they’ve been working themselves to the bone and, “It’s been a ball ache of a day, Rogers. Let’s just go blow off some steam because if I have to go back to your ratty office, I might off myself.”

They drink at a bar that’s too expensive for Steve’s taste but at least they have the beer he likes and, hey, it turns out the company isn’t that bad either. Bucky can be utterly charming when he wants to be and when he leans into Steve’s space to make some snarky comment about a mutual colleague, there’s a spark in the air that wasn’t there before. 

And if they happen to fall into one another in the back of the cab on the way home? And if they happen to trip and fall into bed? Well, that wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. For us, I mean. They’re mortified. So caught up in the moment, they don’t stop to think, but once they’re lying next to one another in the dark? All they can do is think.

“This never happened,” Steve says, pants half on and shirt still unbuttoned. 

He’s frowning something terrible. He didn’t mean to do that. But then Bucky had leaned across in the back of the cab, goading him, practically daring him and looking up at him from under those long lashes of his. And when the tip of that pretty pink tongue darted out to wet his bottom lip, Steve was a goner. He lost time. He fell off into a delicious darkness that was filled with all things Bucky.

There’s nowhere to run after that. They can’t leave their client high and dry, not when they’re so close to the end of the case. They’ve worked too hard to hand it off to someone else. But god is it awkward. All Bucky can think about is the fact that Steve has bruises on both his shoulders, hidden by his creased shirt. They’re there on his stomach too. And sucked onto his inner thighs. All he can think about is the way Steve’s fingers bit into his back and left tiny, stinging cuts that seared when he stepped into the shower for the first time.

Do they acknowledge any of this? Ha. No! They push through the case, stiff and overly polite and everybody notices the shift in dynamic.

“You fucked him,” crows Natasha. “And now you’ve caught The Feelings.”

And Bucky can’t deny it. Except Steve said that it ‘never happened’ and he changes the subject any time Bucky tries to bring it up again.

The case goes in their favour and in the high of the win, they’re beaming and hugging before they can stop themselves. Suddenly so much closer than they’ve been in weeks. All Steve can smell is Bucky’s expensive cologne, the toffee scented gum he uses to style his hair, and, under all of that, the smell of warm, salt sweet skin. He almost loses all his resolve in that moment. He’d kiss him right there in the courtroom if he could, in front of Peirce and Fury and Clint, but he holds back - extracts himself with a gruff, “Well done” and a clap on the shoulder. 

There’s no reason for them to see one another now. And Steve kind of hates it. he misses the way Bucky would strut around his tiny, scruffy office as if he owned the place, how he’d slather on the charm so thick with the administrators and secretaries that you could rot your teeth on it but it meant they always got the forms they needed, the deadlines could always be pushed back just a little bit further, and “If there’s anything else you need us to do, Mr Barnes, you just let us know.” Bucky pushed him to be a better lawyer, to see things from a new perspective. 

It’s as he’s moping about this and debating whether he should go home and eat or buy takeout for the third time that week that Bucky appears in the door of his office; tieless, collar open, shirt sleeves rolled up, and suit jacket crumpled in one hand. His eyebrows are pinched together and he can’t seem to stand still. All the air has been sucked from the room. Steve can’t breathe and he’s pretty certain it’s not from the asthma. 

“I can’t stay away from you,” Bucky says. It’s half-choked, hoarse, and framed almost like a question - like he can’t work out why he’s found himself here in Steve’s office with the steady drip, drip, drip of the broken A/C in the background. 

“Then don’t,” Steve rasps, pulled taut and fighting the tug to close the gap between them.

But Bucky doesn’t need to be told twice and he crosses the room in three long strides to crush their mouths together. The kiss is hot and hungry and more than a little desperate. It’s downright bruising. But they like it. They like it a helluva lot.

Right. I’m ending this here because this is getting out of hand. I spent far too long on this - well, whatever this is. *facepalm* I have zero chill. 

[devopssentinel]

You thought you'd struck gold. After a long and arduous search, you finally found the perfect candidate: a senior DevOps engineer with a resume that sparkled like a treasure chest. Years of experience, glowing references, and impressive technical skills – they ticked all the boxes. But then, the honeymoon phase ended, and reality set in. Instead of the seasoned expert you expected, you got… well, let's just say they weren't quite living up to the hype. Deadlines whoosh by like speeding bullets, critical deployments crash and burn, and instead of solutions, you're bombarded with a barrage of excuses that would make a politician blush. You've stumbled into a nightmare scenario: the underperforming senior engineer who seems to have mastered the art of deflection and legal maneuvering. This situation is more than just frustrating; it's like a dark cloud hanging over your team, sapping morale and hindering productivity. It's like hiring a renowned chef only to discover they can barely boil water. But don't despair, my friend. Even in this predicament, there are ways to navigate the turbulence and regain control. Unmasking the Underperformance: A Detective's Approach Before you reach for the panic button, take a deep breath and channel your inner Sherlock Holmes. Don't jump to conclusions; instead, try to understand the root cause of this perplexing underperformance. Could it be a skills mismatch? Perhaps the interview process, despite your best efforts, didn't accurately assess the engineer's true capabilities. Maybe their expertise lies in a different domain, or their skills have become rusty with time. It's like hiring a master carpenter to build a spaceship – the skills might be impressive, but they're not quite the right fit for the job. Or perhaps it's a motivational issue. Are they disengaged, bored, or simply lacking the drive to excel? Maybe the role isn't challenging enough, or they're grappling with personal issues that are affecting their work. It's like a thoroughbred racehorse stuck in a stable – all that power and potential, but no outlet for it. Could it be a cultural mismatch? Does their work style clash with your team's collaborative and dynamic environment? A mismatch in communication styles or work ethics can lead to friction, misunderstandings, and ultimately, underperformance. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – no matter how hard you push, it just won't work. And then there's the uncomfortable possibility of intentional underperformance. In some cases, an employee might be deliberately underperforming to avoid work, exploit legal loopholes, or even angle for a severance package. It's a disheartening scenario, but it's important to be aware of this possibility. Navigating the Minefield: A Strategic Approach Once you've identified the potential root cause, it's time to take action. But tread carefully, my friend, for you're navigating a minefield of potential legal and emotional pitfalls. First and foremost, become a meticulous record-keeper. Document every instance of underperformance, every missed deadline, every piece of unsatisfactory work. This creates an objective record that will protect you from potential legal challenges and provide concrete evidence if further action is necessary. Next, initiate an open and honest conversation with the engineer. Express your concerns clearly, providing specific examples of underperformance and its impact on the team and the organization. But don't just lecture; listen to their perspective, try to understand their challenges, and explore potential solutions together. If the issues persist despite your best efforts, it's time to implement a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). This formal document outlines clear expectations, sets measurable goals, and provides a reasonable timeframe for improvement. Offer support and resources to help the engineer succeed, but also make it clear that continued underperformance will have consequences. If the engineer resorts to legal threats or makes accusations, it's time to call in the cavalry. Consult with your HR department or legal counsel to understand your rights and obligations. Ensure you're acting within legal boundaries and protecting your organization from potential liability. If all else fails and the situation becomes untenable, explore alternative solutions. Perhaps a reassignment to a different role, a mutually agreed upon exit, or, as a last resort, termination. These are difficult decisions, but sometimes they're necessary to protect the health and well-being of your team and your organization. Leading Through the Storm: Protecting Your Team and Yourself Dealing with an underperforming senior engineer can be emotionally draining, like trying to extinguish a fire with a leaky bucket. Remember to stay calm, objective, and focused on the facts. Avoid emotional outbursts, stick to the documented evidence, and maintain a professional demeanor throughout the process. Shield your team from the negativity and disruption caused by the situation. Maintain a positive and supportive environment, and reassure your team that you're addressing the issue and have their best interests at heart. And don't hesitate to seek support from your HR department, legal counsel, or trusted colleagues. Sharing your challenges can provide valuable insights, emotional support, and a fresh perspective. Prevention is the Best Cure: Hiring Smart from the Start While dealing with underperformance is sometimes unavoidable, you can minimize the risk by strengthening your hiring process. Think of it as building a fortress to protect your team from underperforming invaders. Conduct thorough technical assessments, behavioral interviews, and reference checks to ensure candidates possess the necessary skills, experience, and cultural fit. Don't just rely on resumes; dig deeper, ask probing questions, and get a sense of their true capabilities and personality. Consider implementing trial periods or probationary periods to assess performance in a real-world setting before making a permanent offer. This gives you a chance to see how they integrate into your team and handle the demands of the role. And from the very beginning, set clear expectations regarding performance standards, work ethic, and team collaboration. Make sure everyone is on the same page and understands the values and behaviors that are essential for success in your organization. Hiring a senior DevOps engineer who underperforms can be a frustrating and challenging experience. But by addressing the issue promptly, documenting everything, following a structured approach, and seeking support when needed, you can protect your team, minimize disruption, and find a resolution that aligns with your organization's goals. And remember, sometimes the best lessons are learned from the toughest challenges. Read the full article

[devopssentinel2000]

You thought you'd struck gold. After a long and arduous search, you finally found the perfect candidate: a senior DevOps engineer with a resume that sparkled like a treasure chest. Years of experience, glowing references, and impressive technical skills – they ticked all the boxes. But then, the honeymoon phase ended, and reality set in. Instead of the seasoned expert you expected, you got… well, let's just say they weren't quite living up to the hype. Deadlines whoosh by like speeding bullets, critical deployments crash and burn, and instead of solutions, you're bombarded with a barrage of excuses that would make a politician blush. You've stumbled into a nightmare scenario: the underperforming senior engineer who seems to have mastered the art of deflection and legal maneuvering. This situation is more than just frustrating; it's like a dark cloud hanging over your team, sapping morale and hindering productivity. It's like hiring a renowned chef only to discover they can barely boil water. But don't despair, my friend. Even in this predicament, there are ways to navigate the turbulence and regain control. Unmasking the Underperformance: A Detective's Approach Before you reach for the panic button, take a deep breath and channel your inner Sherlock Holmes. Don't jump to conclusions; instead, try to understand the root cause of this perplexing underperformance. Could it be a skills mismatch? Perhaps the interview process, despite your best efforts, didn't accurately assess the engineer's true capabilities. Maybe their expertise lies in a different domain, or their skills have become rusty with time. It's like hiring a master carpenter to build a spaceship – the skills might be impressive, but they're not quite the right fit for the job. Or perhaps it's a motivational issue. Are they disengaged, bored, or simply lacking the drive to excel? Maybe the role isn't challenging enough, or they're grappling with personal issues that are affecting their work. It's like a thoroughbred racehorse stuck in a stable – all that power and potential, but no outlet for it. Could it be a cultural mismatch? Does their work style clash with your team's collaborative and dynamic environment? A mismatch in communication styles or work ethics can lead to friction, misunderstandings, and ultimately, underperformance. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – no matter how hard you push, it just won't work. And then there's the uncomfortable possibility of intentional underperformance. In some cases, an employee might be deliberately underperforming to avoid work, exploit legal loopholes, or even angle for a severance package. It's a disheartening scenario, but it's important to be aware of this possibility. Navigating the Minefield: A Strategic Approach Once you've identified the potential root cause, it's time to take action. But tread carefully, my friend, for you're navigating a minefield of potential legal and emotional pitfalls. First and foremost, become a meticulous record-keeper. Document every instance of underperformance, every missed deadline, every piece of unsatisfactory work. This creates an objective record that will protect you from potential legal challenges and provide concrete evidence if further action is necessary. Next, initiate an open and honest conversation with the engineer. Express your concerns clearly, providing specific examples of underperformance and its impact on the team and the organization. But don't just lecture; listen to their perspective, try to understand their challenges, and explore potential solutions together. If the issues persist despite your best efforts, it's time to implement a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). This formal document outlines clear expectations, sets measurable goals, and provides a reasonable timeframe for improvement. Offer support and resources to help the engineer succeed, but also make it clear that continued underperformance will have consequences. If the engineer resorts to legal threats or makes accusations, it's time to call in the cavalry. Consult with your HR department or legal counsel to understand your rights and obligations. Ensure you're acting within legal boundaries and protecting your organization from potential liability. If all else fails and the situation becomes untenable, explore alternative solutions. Perhaps a reassignment to a different role, a mutually agreed upon exit, or, as a last resort, termination. These are difficult decisions, but sometimes they're necessary to protect the health and well-being of your team and your organization. Leading Through the Storm: Protecting Your Team and Yourself Dealing with an underperforming senior engineer can be emotionally draining, like trying to extinguish a fire with a leaky bucket. Remember to stay calm, objective, and focused on the facts. Avoid emotional outbursts, stick to the documented evidence, and maintain a professional demeanor throughout the process. Shield your team from the negativity and disruption caused by the situation. Maintain a positive and supportive environment, and reassure your team that you're addressing the issue and have their best interests at heart. And don't hesitate to seek support from your HR department, legal counsel, or trusted colleagues. Sharing your challenges can provide valuable insights, emotional support, and a fresh perspective. Prevention is the Best Cure: Hiring Smart from the Start While dealing with underperformance is sometimes unavoidable, you can minimize the risk by strengthening your hiring process. Think of it as building a fortress to protect your team from underperforming invaders. Conduct thorough technical assessments, behavioral interviews, and reference checks to ensure candidates possess the necessary skills, experience, and cultural fit. Don't just rely on resumes; dig deeper, ask probing questions, and get a sense of their true capabilities and personality. Consider implementing trial periods or probationary periods to assess performance in a real-world setting before making a permanent offer. This gives you a chance to see how they integrate into your team and handle the demands of the role. And from the very beginning, set clear expectations regarding performance standards, work ethic, and team collaboration. Make sure everyone is on the same page and understands the values and behaviors that are essential for success in your organization. Hiring a senior DevOps engineer who underperforms can be a frustrating and challenging experience. But by addressing the issue promptly, documenting everything, following a structured approach, and seeking support when needed, you can protect your team, minimize disruption, and find a resolution that aligns with your organization's goals. And remember, sometimes the best lessons are learned from the toughest challenges. Read the full article

[reading-writing-revolution]

Heather Cox Richardson:

December 9, 2020 (Wednesday)

Today’s big story remains the loss of our neighbors to Covid-19. Today, our official death count passed the number of those killed in the 9-11 attacks. On that horrific day in 2001, we lost 2977 people to four terrorist attacks. Today, official reports showed 3,140 deaths from Covid-19, the highest single-day toll so far. Hospitals are overwhelmed, our health care workers exhausted.

As the country suffers, Trump has launched a new approach in his attempt to steal the 2020 election. While he has previously insisted that he actually won, and that his “win” must be recognized, this morning he tweeted simply “OVERTURN.” Republican leaders have ducked the question of Trump’s refusal to acknowledge Joe Biden’s win in the election by saying that the president has a right to challenge an election through legal means. Few of them commented on this new attack on our democracy.

Instead, the Republican attorneys general of seventeen states supported a lawsuit Texas has asked the Supreme Court’s permission to file against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, suing them over their voting processes. A majority of voters in those four states voted for Biden, thus giving him their state’s electoral votes and the presidency. The states that want to sue are all Republican-majority states. They are hoping they can get the Supreme Court to allow them to sue, and that it will then agree with their complaint and throw out the votes from those states so the Republican legislatures there can then choose their own electors and give the win to Trump.

Astonishingly, this argument comes from the party that claims to oppose “judicial activism.”

The states that have declared their support for Texas’s lawsuit are: Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. They are essentially asking the Supreme Court to disfranchise the majority in the United States and to let them put their chosen president in the White House. This assault on American principles is breathtaking.

Trump has also filed a motion to join Texas’s lawsuit in his personal capacity as a presidential candidate. His lawyer says that he “seeks to have the votes cast in the Defendant States unlawfully for his opponent to be deemed invalid.” Tonight, at a White House Hanukkah party, Trump told the crowd that with the help of “certain very important people, if they have wisdom and if they have courage, we are going to win this election.” The attendees chanted “four more years.”

Legal experts say this case is a non-starter. University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck writes, “It is lacking in actual evidence; it is deeply cynical; it evinces stunning disrespect for both the role of the courts in our constitutional system and of the states in our elections; and it is doomed to fail.”

But the fact that Republican leaders have accepted, rather than condemned, this attempt to overturn a legitimate election says they are willing to destroy American democracy in order to stay in power. On CNN tonight, former Ohio Governor John Kasich, a Republican himself, called the lawmakers supporting Trump’s attack on democracy “morally and ethically bankrupt.”

Republicans might be stoking attacks on our electoral system because they know the courts will shut them down. After all, Trump’s lawyers are currently 1-51 in court, and it is unlikely the Supreme Court will take up Texas’s lawsuit. So siding with Trump is a cheap way for leaders to avoid alienating his voters when they will want those voters in 2022.

But they are playing a deeply cynical and wildly dangerous game. Yesterday, the official Twitter account of the Arizona Republican Party asked followers if they were willing to die to overturn the election, then posted a clip from the film “Rambo” in which the main character is threatening someone’s life, saying “This is what we do, who we are. Live for nothing, or die for something.”

Today, talk show host Rush Limbaugh told his listeners that they are, in fact, still a majority but they are plagued with “RINOs” who are selling them out. “I actually think that we’re trending toward secession,” he said. “I see more and more people asking what in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York? What is there that makes us believe that there is enough of us there to even have a chance at winning New York? Especially if you’re talking about votes….” (New York City has more people than 40 of the 50 states.) He went on: “There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs. We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way.”

The theme of civil war, and of America tearing itself apart, was one pushed hard by Russian operatives in 2018. On Twitter, “Civil War” trended today. An actual civil war is highly unlikely, but the unwillingness of leaders to stop this language is already leading to death threats against election officials. The longer they permit it to go on, the worse things will get.

Republicans are working to undermine the incoming Democratic administration in other ways, too. Last week, Attorney General William Barr announced that he appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as special counsel in October to investigate the FBI agents who worked on the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. While the law about special counsels says they must come from outside the government, Barr claims to have found a loophole in that rule. Durham can be fired only for specific reasons such as conflict of interest or misconduct. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) applauded the appointment and the continuation of the investigation.

Today Biden’s son Hunter told the media that he has just learned that he is under investigation by the Department of Justice for tax issues, although CNN suggested it is a much wider financial investigation than that, and that it began in 2018. The Justice Department is also investigating a company related to Joe Biden’s brother James. While the DOJ is supposed to be independent of the president, these investigations echo Trump’s own calls for such investigations. Immediately Representative Ken Buck (R-CO) called for a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, and tonight, Trump tweeted that “10% of voters would have changed their vote if they knew about Hunter Biden…. But I won anyway!”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told Fox News Channel personality Laura Ingraham today that Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) should be “removed from Congress” after an Axios report that a Chinese intelligence operative had worked to ingratiate herself with California lawmakers between 2011 and 2015. The operative targeted a number of politicians, including Swalwell, and she fundraised on his behalf, but there is no evidence she broke any laws. In 2015, FBI officers alerted Swalwell, who immediately cut all ties to her. He was never accused of any wrongdoing. The operative left the country unexpectedly during the FBI investigation.

Although the Axios story was about Chinese espionage, right-wing media is aflame with attacks on Swalwell in what seems an attempt to discredit a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Don Jr. tweeted that Swalwell “was literally sleeping with a Chinese spy,” an allegation that is nowhere in the story, although the story mentions that two unidentified midwestern mayors had affairs with her.

The White House appears to be trying to sabotage the Biden administration not only by keeping the Biden team from information it needs, but by tying its hands and slowing it down. The day after the election, the Trump administration proposed a new rule requiring the new Department of Health and Human Services appointees to review most of the department’s regulations by 2023. The rule would automatically kill any regulations that haven’t been reviewed by then. This would mean that, just as the new administration is trying to fight the coronavirus, it would be slammed with administrative paperwork. The department’s chief of staff denies the unusual move is political, saying that a review is necessary because one hasn’t been done for 40 years.

Now that the transition process has finally started, Trump loyalists are blocking meetings, or sitting in on them to monitor what is being said, especially at the Environmental Protection Agency. At Voice of America, Trump’s appointed head, Michael Pack, has refused to give meetings or records to Biden’s team. For their part, Biden’s transition folks are avoiding fights in order to get whatever information they can.

Republican senators are also signaling that they intend to delay confirmations on Biden’s nominees, although in the past 95% of Cabinet nominees have had hearings before an inauguration, and 84% of those were approved within three days. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), for example, questioned the experience of Biden’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra. Becerra is the Attorney General of California, and he sat on the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversees health issues, during his 24 years in Congress. “I don’t know what his Health and Human Services credentials are,” Cornyn told The Hill. It’s not like [Trump’s HHS Secretary] Alex Azar, who worked for pharma and had a health care background.”

[khhunniewriting]

The Others (15)

[ Mafia/Gang AU ]  [ Index ]

Warning: Suggestive/Mature content

In order to give you and his son an official title Joonkyung went to work. He had to find Jia’s real father, assert his dominance over Ambition, and most importantly... divorce Kylie.

Joonkyung presented the divorce forms to you as a result of his work the past few weeks. Everything was in place. He worked his lawyers day and night to look for any and all loopholes. If he was going to do this he had to make sure everything was covered. 

He would keep all of Illionaire and Ambition. He would share custody of Ji-hoon until he was of age to make his own decisions. If money was all that Kylie wanted then Joonkyung would willingly compensate her, he would give half his fortune as long as he was free of her. Besides, he could always make more money. His businesses were in place and would continue to make revenue while she piddled away at the finite amount. 

By then she would be another man’s problem.

“I thought you said divorce was impossible.”

It was strange, Leo knew nothing of other families except for what he had seen on television but he knew this wasn’t normal. Their lives revolved around these meeting-like gatherings in Joonkyung’s office.

It was obvious Ji-hoon was used to it by how he often tuned in and out at appropriate times. 

“Our marriage was based on a contract between my father and hers. I handed over the contract to the lawyers who specialize in the laws of our organizations. They know the rules pertaining to the others.”

The others meaning, the other son and mother.

You looked over at Leo who simply looked back showing no sign of discomfort. 

After several weeks of this, he found himself quickly adapting. All he had to do was sit idly and listen to the information. Like this, he quickly found out what kind of man his father was. He found out what he did, how he did it, and why his life was so complicated after finding out he was his son. 

Despite knowing his father’s circumstances, a part of Leo refused to accept him. He felt that if he truly loved his mother he could have looked for her despite her leaving him. He obviously had the means to look for people.

His thoughts were broken by Ji-hoon’s abrupt stance. 

Ji-hoon sat up stomping his feet on the ground to lean forward. Everything seemed in place to the adults but there was one problem Ji-hoon wished to address.

“She can’t force me to go with her right?”

Both you and Joonkyung put your qualms on hold to address the teen’s concerns. 

“Shared custody means she has equal rights of interaction with you. The lawyers took into account the fact that you have been living with me for the past five months and that you are enrolled in a school nearby. If anything your mother can claim her rights every weekend. You won’t have to live with her but-”

“I have to see her every weekend? What if I don’t want to? Is she just going to show up like last time?”

Clearly, Ji-hoon had many concerns that you felt were best handled by Joonkyung. You gave him a look asking him to assure Ji-hoon that everything would be alright but Joonkyung had his own way of handling his son.

“I can’t stop her from claiming her parental rights until you are eighteen.”

“Joonkyung, I’m sure you can do something if he doesn’t want to go with her.”

Ji-hoon had been dejected until you stepped in to help him. His eyes grew wide with the hope that perhaps he could set the limit on his interactions with his mother. As it was now, seeing her every other weekend was enough of a challenge. She continuously asked about his father’s business and interactions, pestered him to continue studying things he had no interest in, and polishing his image.

Joonkyung silently contemplated. 

He hadn’t foughten for full custody of Ji-hoon knowing very well that Kylie was solely interested in their son inheriting everything. He figured this would be the only way she would sign the papers. If he dared to fight for full custody it was probable this would amount to nothing. 

“There’s not much we can do.”

Ji-hoon looked over at you with pleading eyes knowing there was a much better chance of you convincing his father.

You held his hand assuring him you would do your best to help.

“But there is something right?” You were quick to catch onto the meaning behind his words.

Joonkyung relented and regathered the papers that would have to be redrafted. “I’ll see what I can do.”

\\\

After weeks of drama with their parents and each other Leo and Ji-hoon were happily getting back to their usual routine- despite the legal talk. They would go to school where they could be themselves- to a certain extent. 

Leo still forbade Ji-hoon from calling him little brother while Jihoon practically begged to hear him call him big brother once more.

“Don’t we have a game soon?” Ji-hoon asked Cjamm as he settled down into his seat and put his feet up onto his desk. After being benched the last game due to having missed so much school and practice, he was feeling a build-up of energy and possibly aggression. 

Cjamm nodded, “Should be this week but coach says it might be canceled.”

“Why?”

“The team we’re going up against has some major issues. A few of their stars were injured after going up against this really tough team. Their team was small to begin with so there aren’t many people to stand-in.”

“I really want to play~” Ji-hoon groaned.

“Don’t worry, we might play that tough team instead.”

“Anyone is fine just let me play-” Ji-hoon yawned not even a few minutes after arriving into his classroom. He pulled the hood of his jacket down over his eyes and began drifting not without mumbling first. “Leo’s mom really wants to see...”

Nauen immediately perked up hearing Leo’s name.

“I want to see Leo’s mom,” Cjamm sighed.

Ji-hoon immediately sat up, “Don’t even think about it.” Now he understood Leo’s previous actions. Leo’s mom wasn’t just Leo’s mom anymore. She was also his father’s girlfriend- Illionaire’s Lady. 

“Not you too... she’s not your mom.”

“Still, she and my dad-”

That’s all Naeun was able to hear before the bell rang signaling the beginning of class.

\\\

After following Kylie around Beenzino was able to report the places she frequented to Dok2. Out of all the places, there were a few hits for known money launderers and they all pointed to one group.

“So it’s JM?” The Quiett speculated who out of the group was the one crazy enough to associate with Kylie. They had a few high-ranking officers that would attract Kylie but only a couple of names came to mind. “Could it be Vasco?”

“He’s married and has his own kids.”

“That’s clearly not a problem,” Hyoeun chimed in.

“Then what about Swings, he has a long history.”

Beenzino nodded bringing said list to their attention. “There are five kids, all boys from different mothers, the youngest is seventeen. I looked into them but none were ever married to him. They all got compensated but none hold power of JM.”

“Did he suddenly mature and grow a conscience?” Changmo asked.

Beenz shook his head, “According to my information, it seems he has maintained a stable relationship since then with a married woman. Is this married woman Kylie, you ask?” Beenz tried to add some dramatic pauses before slamming down the damning evidence. “It is!”

There it was a picture of Swings and Moon Jia.

“Swings, legal name Moon Ji-hoon.”

No one had been able to dig up much of his personal life. Swings wasn’t like them who inherited their groups or were born int the organizations they serve. He built it up from nothing, he was an orphan with no record... or so everyone thought.

Joonkyung held back his anger. Seeing his wife’s lover wasn’t the problem, what bothered him was the fact that she dared to name their son after him. It was a slap to his face and his ego.

“Donggab arrange a meeting with the lawyers.”

“Yes,” The Quiett immediately stepped out of Dok2′s office relieved he was dismissed after such a revelation.

The rest awaited their chance to escape never meeting Dok2′s eyes.

“You three,” Dok2 pointed to the top three Ambition guys. Hash Swan, Changmo, and Hyoeun. They had been newly recruited when Ambition first came into his possession so they were incredibly loyal to Dok2 despite deriving from Ambition. “Find out who knew about this and who within is still loyal to Kylie.”

“Yes Boss,” the three responded and escaped in unison. 

Only Beenz remained. He was now able to take a seat in one of the empty chairs. “What now Boss?”

“I need 100% assurance that it’s his.”

Beenz was slightly startled by the dark tone. Jia suddenly became an object rather than a person as Dok2 continued to talk about them.

“I can’t just get a sample from JM’s leader.”

“Do the same thing you did with Leo and Ji-” Dok2 inhaled sharply unable to say his own son's name. “Get one of his sons to cooperate. A willing testimony from one of the older ones should assist our case. Compensate if you have to.”

“Yes, Boss.”

Once his office was emptied Dok2 slammed his fist into the desk. Now he knew why she insisted on naming their son. She had been playing him for a fool all these years. 

“What!” he shouted when he heard a knock on the door.

You hesitated but opened the door slightly. “Sorry, I thought you said to come back at this time.”

Joonkyung had sent you off to another room where he asked you to look through countless files pertaining to AOMG while he held his meeting. You had to quickly familiarize yourself with the threat in order to assist him.

“No, it’s fine- come in.” Dok2′s hands unclenched feeling the slightest bit of relief after seeing you.

You stepped up to him going beyond his desk to stand beside him and set the files down. “I went through everything and-” you jumped at the feeling of his hand running up the back of your thighs before resting on the bottom of your ass. 

“What are you DOING?!” Your voice went an octave higher as his other hand joined in the mischief.

He wrapped his arms around you pulling you against him so his face hid in your abdomen while his hands continued to evoke a blush from you. There was no response for a while. He eventually sat you down on his lap securing you there with his arms around your waist, only moving them when your hair or clothes got in the way. 

Joonkyung kissed your shoulder continuously going up to your neck and ear.

“I’m upset.”

“What did I do?” You quickly asked not aware of the situation.

“Not you.”

His responses were annoyingly short.

“Then why- ah!” You groaned loudly as he bit down on your sensitive spot. “Joonkyung!” You slapped his hands but he responded by readjusting them on the swell of your chest. 

Your shirt began to ride up as his movements became needier. You tried pulling it back down into place but Joonkyung got a hold of your hand and instead brought it behind you to rest on his lap.

Instantly you felt his need and began to hear the thumping of your heart. Blood was rushing to all the wrong places. Your mind was no longer thinking straight, you were no longer wondering what upset him. All you could feel was the warmth that overtook you. 

It was strange how often you found yourself going along with his desires. It took a lot more out of you to match his pace now than before when you first met but- “Joonkyung we just... this morning.”

“So?”

His hand held your chin turning you to the side so his lips could claim yours. The kiss was automatically deepened as he felt starved for attention. His heart was settled having you near but his mind was in a bad place now due to the new information. He felt like killing someone but he knew he couldn’t... yet. Instead, he would focus on what he could do now that Kylie had dug her own grace. 

Now he could fully enjoy your company to his heart’s content.

“It’s never enough,” he panted as he released your lips. By now your shirt was rolled up to your neck, one of his hands was inside the black lacey cup, and the other was on your lap working on the button and zipper of your jeans.

A knock on the door startled you into a panic imagining yourself being caught exposed like this. The door was clearly not locked, as you had proven by entering earlier. If someone uncourteous were to come by they would open the door to a sight.

“Go away!” Joonkyung immediately responded. 

At this point, he could no longer be stopped.

His kisses were deeper, his tongue pushing past your lips to tangle itself around yours. There was nothing he wanted to do more than you. 

“Clothes off,” he demanded after finally letting you go.

“What, here!?” Your eyes widened seeing him toss his own shirt and jacket aside, now only his chains hung around his neck. It was a sight that took your breath away. “What if someone-”

He didn’t allow you to finish voicing your concerns. He continued to kiss your neck until your mind was once again muddled. With only Joonkyung on your mind and in your eyes, you began acting on instinct.

Outside Dok2′s office, The Quiett stood watch knowing exactly what was going on behind the closed door when his assistant informed him you were the last person to enter. If anyone else were to interrupt they would all surely pay for it. Since the lawyers were all present in the building and available he thought it best to bring them by as soon as possible. He was only gone a few minutes, he never imagined his Boss would be so quick to get in the mood.

The Quiett ignored the lawyers questioning looks and directed them to instead wait in one of the meeting rooms. 

“I will bring the Boss shortly.”

The Quiett’s low voice was overpowered by a sudden chorus of moans on the other side of the door. Everyone in range averted their eyes as they pretended to hear nothing.

“Joonkyung!” You bit your lip unable to suppress every moan. Your hands were holding the edges of Joonkyung’s desk, knuckles turning white, to avoid from falling face-first into the wooden surface. 

Papers were scattered everywhere in the heat of the moment but Dok2 didn’t care. He was enjoying the intimate moment- as primal as it was. After rekindling their relationship Joonkyung had yet to be this brazen or demanding.

It was embarrassing but you were also enjoying. It reminded you of your younger selves when Joonkyung could hardly keep his hands to himself. When you heard him begin to grunt you knew he was close.

Soon his grip on your hips began to tighten and his movements became far more erratic. “Y/N I’m-”

“I know,” you panted allowing him to finish however he pleased.

There was one last moan. 

The Quiett sighed pinching the bridge of his nose. He was trying to rid himself of the blush that had inadvertently taken over his face. If he hadn’t left his notes in Dok2′s office he would have run off without a care in the world. 

He waited several minutes before knocking once more.

This time there was no verbal response only shuffling. 

Dok2 quickly picked up the papers that littered his floor while you locked yourself in his personal bathroom. Once everything seemed normal, to an extent, he called Donggab in.

The Quiett warily entered his eyes focused solely in Dok2′s direction afraid of seeing something he shouldn’t. “The lawyers are in the meeting room on the second floor.”

“Alright, let’s go talk to them.” Dok2 quickly knocked on the bathroom door to let you know he would be leaving. 

It was then that The Quiett saw the disarray of files on the boss’ desk. That was the end of The Quiett’s patience. “There is a couch right there!” He exclaimed while pointing out the nearly new leather couch in the corner of Joonkyung′s office.

\\\

After cleaning and straightening out your appearance you emerged into the empty office clutching onto your chest. The adrenaline and euphoria that helped you forget your environment were now gone. The thought of stepping out and meeting people after what you just did had your heart thumping in your ears.

You decided to wait for Dok2 there. Sitting down in his chair you began to fix the files that had been corrupted. Some were torn and crumpled rendering them useless but you did what you could. 

As you organized you came across the files pertaining to Jia and her father. It wasn’t clear whether you were allowed to read these files but you were hardly able to look away. When you saw the picture of a  man carrying a little girl you immediately put two and two together. 

“This must be Moon Jia...” you realized she looked exactly like Kylie. It was scary to think there would be another version of her to deal with later in the future. Although you hoped she would be far less threatening than her mother.

Next, you picked up a stapled packet, thick with various pages. You quickly browsed them until you were left with an unhinged jaw. “Five different mothers!”

Joonkyung walked in at that moment with The Quiett in tow.

You quickly put the scary file together and stacked it atop the rest. 

“What’s wrong?” he asked seeing your shock still clearly present on your face.

“Nothing, it’s just-” your eyes wandered to the file. “Jia’s father is... busy.” Busy was the only word you could manage to use to describe him. 

The Quiett would argue you two had no right to talk when you couldn’t be trusted to be left alone in an office.

“You read it?” Dok2 circled his desk but allowed you to remain sitting while he stood. You deserved to rest after what he just put you through. 

“Not all of it.”

Dok2 searched through the documents to pull out the old juvie record from a foreign country of a young Swings. “He goes by Swings, his real name is Moon Ji-hoon.”

Once again your jaw was left to hang. “Ji-hoon,” you repeated. It was hard to call it a coincidence. Had she not known about Leo and Ji-hoon having their blood tested she might have begun to suspect Kylie was unfaithful long before Jia. Still, she had the nerve to taunt Joonkyung like this?

“I have people looking into their relationship for anything useful that might help us with my son’s case.”

\\\

At home Leo finished his homework, having started as soon as they arrived from school while Ji-hoon lazed around and took a nap. 

“Finished already?” Ji-hoon stumbled into Leo’s room not bothering to knock despite Leo’s constant warnings to do so. “if only we were in the same class...” he sighed wishing he could just copy his little brother’s work.

Leo silently glared at him not bothering to remind him that he could easily do so if he would do well on more than just the tests.

Of course, Ji-hoon understood that is what he meant with that glare- now that he was proficient in his brother’s silent language. “There’s more to life than school and basketball my dear little brother.” He plopped down on Leo’s well-made bed with a sly smile. “Don’t you have any other interests?”

Leo looked over at the trophies and belts that rested in a display case on the opposite wall.

“Besides Taekwondo.”

Leo blinked, there was nothing else he particularly found interesting.

“What about video games, cars, motorcycles, fashion, girls...” Ji-hoon suddenly remembered how much attention his silent brother got from the female population at school. “What kind of girls do you like?”

Leo shrugged.

“Fine, I’ll say it first. I like sexy girls that like to dress provocatively and wear strong perfume.” Ji-hoon thought for a moment what else was important, “big boobs too.”

Leo rolled his eyes at the last part. “You would say that.”

Although Leo had never put much thought into what kind of girls he found favorable, he knew what he didn’t like. “As long as she isn’t annoying.”

Ji-hoon laughed. “Sure but what about looks?”

“Does it matter?” Leo shot back. Honestly, he didn’t think much of the girls that approached him. They always seemed to be like the girls Ji-hoon just described. He noted they tended to roll up their skirts and unbutton their shirts until a portion of their chest was visible. “Someone with some sense would be better,” he thought out loud.

Ji-hoon nodded understanding what it was all amounting to. “So you like the smart shy types.”

“Smart and shy is better than dumb and annoying.”

-end-

A/N: I’m setting up a lot for the future content of this series. That’s the best I can do when it comes to smut and such.

I also included an index since this is getting lengthy.

[argentdandelion]

The Perils of Being Literally Not Human

Image by Zarla-s

Terminology

Monsters are obviously not human. Not only do they look non-human, but they also have very different bodies and abilities, and see no problem in calling themselves “monsters”. Inconveniently, the very term “monster” connotes something scary that ought to be killed or avoided. (Assuming Mt. Ebott is in the United States, one wonders if humans would suggest the word “Teratoan-American?’) Knowing this, people who haven’t personally encountered monsters before might be easily manipulated into hating them.

Perpetual Armament

Monsters can also produce large amounts of magical bullets at whim. While it’s possible for monsters to direct bullets away from targets (e.g., Toriel) or reduce the amount of damage they do (e.g., Asgore and Papyrus), the very fact monsters emit magical bullets as an everyday occurrence of self-expression would put them into conflict with humans. In most cases, humans can drastically reduce other humans’ killing power by disarming them, but there’s nothing to disarm for monsters. Thus, some humans might consider monsters perpetually armed, and therefore incorrigibly dangerous. Furthermore, while monsters can surely be taught to avoid emitting bullets around humans, or in areas with high human density, depending on when monsters gain the power to emit bullets, their children may be too young to properly control them. Thus, humans may feel threatened even around monster children. Even if, somehow, monsters found a technology that would safely block accidental bullet emission around humans, or every child had great self-control, humans may still feel uneasy. After all, some monsters (e.g., Asgore) are physically imposing, have sharp horns, claws, teeth, or other so-called natural weapons, or are outright made of fire (e.g., Grillby).

Laws

There’s also the long history of humans equating “human” with “person”. Humans often get over their natural reluctance to kill sentient beings or their own kind by describing other humans are beasts, vermin, or monsters. Since humans can dehumanize their own kind, they could easily dehumanize monsters. Worse, humans could characterize monsters as not only non-equivalent or inferior to humans, but inherently evil. Some monsters could be loosely described as “demons”, such as the bulky devil-like one in the MTT Resort. Moreover, the fact Asgore is an imposing, horned, goatlike, fire-associated being with a trident who rule(s)/ruled an underground realm parallels the Devil of Christianity, so more religious humans may consider all monsters suspect by association.

As humans often equate “person” with “human”, it might be hard for people to give monsters legal protections, since laws are made with the assumption only humans can be legal persons. Until some law is made to protect monsters, even if only a stopgap law (like legally classifying them as great apes, if the territory around Mt. Ebott has strong great ape welfare laws), humans could kill monsters freely. However, even a stopgap law that prevents torture and experimentation would have many loopholes. If monsters were not considered legally equivalent to humans, humans could reject monsters from service or jobs, and monsters would have no legal recourse. Even if protected from experimentation and torture, humans could still exploit monsters. (e.g., underpaying them in bad jobs) That humans can stomach being cruel to intelligent animals (e.g., dogs), but also compassionate towards other humans suggest humans might care less about unethical treatment towards monsters than towards humans.

Ease of Murder

As the movie Independence Day shows, teaming up against a non-human entity can unite humanity behind a shared cause. The human brain is hardwired to love whatever one’s own tribe (or team) does, and hate whatever the other tribe (or team) does. A shrewd (and evil) politician could present monsters as a threat to humanity as a ploy to unite a large voting base and gain power, regardless of whether they actually believe monsters are a threat. Once riled, humans may love to hate monsters. Any conversations to the contrary can easily be shut down with, “They are obviously not humans.”

It would also be easier to kill monsters than humans, both in psychology and strength. More unhinged humans who would love to get away with murder might find it socially feasible, or at least less worthy of punishment, to kill monsters. Monsters which cannot talk, such as Moldsmal, would be psychologically easy to kill. Other monsters, such as Whimsuns, would have such low stats and poor defensive abilities it would be physically easy to kill them, even for someone with no LOVE.

Furthermore, monsters are vulnerable to hateful intent, to the point a child with a notebook can (under the right circumstances) beat a super-strong monster. Anyone who starts with a great hatred for monsters could kill even strong monsters with ease. Due to psychological hardening (of LOVE and in general), stat increases from gaining LOVE, and the stat-increase effects of using actual weapons to fight, any human that kills a monster would find it easier and easier to kill more. Eventually, such humans would find it easy to kill even monsters that look more similar to human beings. (e.g., Undyne or Mettaton)

Monster-murderers would also find it easy to get away with murder. Monsters don’t leave behind bodies when they die, only dust. It would be difficult to do forensics on a murder scene to figure out murder patterns. Worse, if monsters only leave a small pile of dust, then even if it’s as heavy as a big sack of flour it would be much easier to transport and hide than a human corpse. If monster dust is like normal dust and not, say, mud, any dust on a murderer’s body would be easy to clean with some water or hand sanitizer in a few seconds. Unlike blood, which is harder to explain, if monster dust is white or grey one could easily excuse it as road dust (when an area has white soil), flour, or white soot.

Transport

Larger monsters might have trouble fitting in standard cars, public buses, trains, subway vehicles, and especially cramped airplanes. (see Undertale Character Heights Part 2) Large enough monsters would only be able to safely drive or even fit inside the biggest vans, customized vans, or in convertibles with the roof down. Even if they can fit, differing proportions mean they may be unable to use standard seatbelts, putting them at risk of both car crashes. (and unavoidable seatbelt ticketing) While extra-big monsters would probably face physical inconveniences and disapproving looks on crowded public transit, extra-small monsters (e.g., Whimsuns, Froggits and slimes) might be inadvertently stepped or sat on in crowded conditions.

Monsters that aren’t proportionately similar enough to a “standard” human may be banned from most airplanes entirely, both for logistical packing reasons and their own safety in case of a crash. Very big monsters (e.g., Onionsan) would find it impossible to use any but the most specialized transit, such as trains formerly used to transport circus elephants. Overall, many monsters would differ so much from human standards that they would be in danger when using cars, be functionally banned from travel, or forced to use specialty monster transit. If less human-proportioned monsters have no compatible cars and are functionally banned from public transit, it would be difficult to leave town quickly in case of anti-monster riots or, worse, roaming murderers.

The author of this post would appreciate funds to her Ko-Fi and Patreon.

Related Reading The Perks of Monsters Being Literally Not Human Undertale Character Heights

[tetch-a-sketch]

I have created this post to attempt to articulate why I believe veganism is unethical, negatively impacts the environment, and is unsustainable in the long term.  I tried to make this rant largely evidence-based and have tried to limit my own personal input on these subjects.  Nonetheless, this rant still has a clear bias.  Lastly, I do not care about your own opinions on the information I am about to present, so please do not send me anons about this post unless you want to add helpful information or have a genuine question.  

I want to start off by discussing how veganism negatively impacts the environment and local ecosystems, as well as the livelihood of individuals in other countries.  The reason why I am starting off with this is that it is a very common misconception that veganism is somehow “better for the environment,” when that isn't necessarily true when you look at the statistics.  

To start, the scale at which produce is grown for export to other countries negatively impacts the lives of individuals in the country of origin by destroying the local economy, leading to massive deforestation, and affecting the overall national market.

For this example, I am going to be focusing on the avocado market in Mexico.  This is a popular topic in the news right now, but there are dozens of cases just like this with other produce and products around the world, but you can search for those on your own time.  The Guardian reports that in Mexico the avocado, which “used to be a dietary staple, is now too expensive for many ordinary consumers. And, now the country where the avocado is believed to have originated is considering the unthinkable: importing avocados from abroad.”

Economic secretary Ildefonso Guajardo further expands on this by reporting that “we’re not ruling it out” as “avocados are so popular on the international level that it’s generating price pressure in the national market.”  Avocados have now become so expensive that regular citizens who do not have much extra money to spend cannot make enough to afford them.  As stated in the articles above, this even applies to avocado farmers themselves.

Before this article was published, The Guardian published another article in 2016 titled, “Rising avocado prices fuelling illegal deforestation in Mexico.” It briefly illustrates how “the size of the market ... has become a lucrative business for Mexico’s drug gangs, with extortion money paid to criminal organizations such as Los Caballeros Templarios (The Knights Templar) in Michoacán – the state that produces most of Mexico’s avocados – estimated at 2bn pesos ($109m) a year.”  

The mass avocado farming in Mexico has also lead to rapid deforestation. This rapid deforestation not only affects the local environment but also the global one.  This is because there is a massive number of species that migrate to Mexico’s forests for breeding, shelter, food that now have to compete for land and die off.  This includes Monarch butterflies and raptors, among other birds.  

Not only is this horrible for the natural ecosystems, but Greenpeace Mexico reports that people are also suffering from this for a multitude of reasons.  They write, “beyond the displacement of forests and the effects on water retention, the high use of agricultural chemicals and the large volumes of wood needed to pack and ship avocados are other factors that could have negative effects on the area’s environment and the wellbeing of its inhabitants,”.  Not only is this issue leading to deforestation and killing populations of animals, but the chemicals used in these illegal operations also poison the land and the inhabitants nearby.  

On the topic of human health, as stated briefly before, veganism is not a viable option for a large population over a period of time.  

There was a biophysical simulation done in which a team of scientists “calculated human carrying capacity under ten diet scenarios. The scenarios included two reference diets based on actual consumption and eight ‘Healthy Diet scenarios that complied with nutritional recommendations but varied in the level of meat content.”  Overall this study found that carrying capacity (X,X) was “higher for scenarios with less meat and highest for the lacto-vegetarian diet. However, the carrying capacity of the vegan diet was lower than two of the healthy omnivore diet scenarios.”  To summarize, this study found that the average “vegan diet is actually less sustainable than two of the vegetarian diets and two out of the four omnivorous diets they studied.”  PBS has analyzed this study and many more; someone wrote an entire article breaking down why “going vegan isn't the most sustainable option for humanity.” In this article, PBS/NOVA also states, “Even partially omnivorous diets rank above veganism in terms of sustainability; incorporating about 20 to 40% meat in your diet is actually better for the long-term course of humanity than being completely meat-free.”

Not only is the diet unsuitable, but it is also unethical as it can actually lead to more fossil fuels being used, which overall is worse for the environment. Paul Fishbeck, a professor at Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, states that: “eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,”  This is because some of the most common vegetables require more resources per calorie than meats like pork and poultry.  Chris Hendrickson, a Professor of Hamerschlag University, and Ph.D. student Tom Michelle Fishbeck studied how the obesity epidemic in the U.S. is specifically affecting the overall environment. Carnegie Mellon University states: “On one hand, the results showed that getting our weight under control and eating fewer calories, has a positive effect on the environment and reduces energy use, water use and GHG emissions [X] from the food supply chain by approximately 9 percent.

However, eating the recommended “healthier” foods — a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy, and seafood — increased the environmental impact in all three categories: Energy use went up by 38 percent, water use by 10 percent and GHG emissions by 6 percent.”

Lastly, I want to talk about prison labor in the U.S.  I am aware that this is old news to some, and doesn’t necessarily always apply to vegans and choice food suppliers, but after the infamous Whole Foods prison scandal (X,X,X), I find it necessary to add, especially since Whole Foods suppliers defended their use of prison labor back in 2015. American slavery was technically abolished in 1865, but a loophole in the 13th Amendment has allowed it to continue “as a punishment for crimes” well into the 21st century. The private prison labor industry is still growing at a rapid rate in America because of this loophole and has been since the ’80s.  Section 1 of the 13th amendment states that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” As linked above, there are dozens of articles and hours of research that people publish in which they go into details about which corporations are the biggest offenders of using this loophole.  If this subject is new to you, I recommend you researching it on your own time (X,X,X). Lastly, on the subject of forced prison labor, I briefly want to touch upon this short documentary and corresponding article by the Atlantic (X).  This overviews the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola.  In their short documentary/article titled  “for Life: Rehabilitation and Reform Inside the Louisiana State Penitentiary,” they reveal: “There are more than 6,000 men currently imprisoned at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola—three-quarters of them are there for life, and nearly 80 percent are African American.” Not only is the heinous, but they are reporting that this prison is an old southern slave-plantation-turned-prison, they also in passing state that there are prisoners in this prison/plantation whose ancestors were slaves at this exact plantation when slavery was still legal in the U.S. I will warn you that this documentary does try to focus on the rehabilitation of the prisoners and paints attempts to paint this loophole as a beneficial, when in reality a lot of these plantation prisons are supplying produce for those areas and corporations around them. (X,X)  Forced prison labor is used extensively in the U.S., and it is ironic how many vegans, who claim to care about the wellbeing of others, buy products (especially cheap produce) that are supplied by corporations that use forced prison labor.

I just wanted to conclude this post by saying that I personally think that veganism can be applied to a large population eventually, but for right now the vegan diet wastes too many scarce resources that can be better spent feeding more people effectively in other ways.  There is no ethical way to be vegan while still relying on capitalism.  If this post does for some reason end up getting popular, I might make a second one going into the vegan “ethical treatment of animals” and beekeeping for honey vs sugar cane plantations.  But for now, this rant is already very large.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made a name for herself in the Democratic primary as a woman with a plan. Her liberal policy proposals are sweeping and often expensive, a fact that her rivals have seized upon as she has risen in the polls. And the policy that is intended to fund her vision is no less ambitious.

Warren wants to tax the country’s richest citizens on their accumulated wealth, not just their income. Instead of a more traditional approach to raising money from the rich, like hiking income tax rates, Warren’s wealth tax plan proposes a radical new approach to taxation that would target the fortunes of the nation’s wealthiest people by imposing a tax on all household assets — not just income — above the $50 million mark. And Sen. Bernie Sanders has even announced a more aggressive proposal that would cut some billionaires’ wealth in half in 15 years.

The idea of using a wealth tax to fund some of 2020’s bigger policy proposals is seductive. If it works, it could kill two birds with one stone — both curbing rising income inequality by redistributing some of billionaires’ wealth and providing a new source of tax money to fund social programs. It’s pretty popular, too, among Democratic primary voters. But while most Democratic candidates are united around the idea that the rich should be paying more in taxes, they’re not all convinced that a wealth tax is the best way to do it. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang has expressed skepticism about how it would work in practice, saying that it would have “massive implementation problems,” while Sen. Amy Klobuchar has said, “When I look at this, I think about Donald Trump,” suggesting that the plan might be too divisive for a general election.

How serious a problem are these criticisms for Warren? Could her rivals in the primary undercut one of her signature ideas by arguing that a wealth tax is the wrong solution to the problem of income inequality? There is a debate percolating among experts about whether her plan is practical or even constitutional. But there’s also disagreement about how fatal those flaws would be.

Part of the problem in trying to gauge the potential flaws of a wealth tax is it simply hasn’t been tried in the U.S. before, so we don’t know exactly how much money it would raise or how it would fare in the courts. Economists on Warren’s team have estimated that her wealth tax could raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years while Sanders’s camp has estimated their version would raise over $4 trillion in new revenue over the same span. That is quite a windfall — if they can pull it off. But even some left-leaning experts are skeptical it’ll raise that much money.

Additionally, a wealth tax would almost certainly face a legal challenge from well-funded conservative opponents. And it’s genuinely unclear whether it would ultimately be ruled constitutional. The issue isn’t that Congress can’t enact a wealth tax. It’s that if a wealth tax counts as a “direct” tax, Congress would have to ensure that the amount of money coming from each state was roughly the same on a per-capita basis, as there is a provision of the Constitution that bans direct taxes unless the amount collected is drawn equally from the states based on their populations. Given that wealth is not evenly distributed across the states, that equal distribution would be functionally impossible to ensure.

The fate of a wealth tax, then, would hinge on whether it counts as a direct tax. That’s a tough question to answer, because the Constitution itself doesn’t really define what a direct tax is, beyond the fact that the category includes a poll tax, which is a fixed amount charged for every person. Taxes like tariffs and certain others that can’t be fairly distributed on a per-person basis are generally not considered direct taxes. But how all of this would apply to a wealth tax isn’t entirely clear. The Supreme Court weighed in on this question more than 100 years ago — and not in the wealth tax’s favor. In 1895, the court struck down a federal income tax law because it taxed income generated from property, including land and other kinds of personal property, like stocks and bonds. The decision was controversial, and Congress and the states effectively reversed part of it 20 years later with the passage of the 16th Amendment which allowed Congress to tax income without worrying about how evenly it was distributed. But Congress’s authority to tax wealth wasn’t addressed by the amendment, and the Supreme Court hasn’t really returned to the issue in the past century.

Warren’s defenders argue, however, that the court simply got it wrong back in 1895, and that a modern wealth tax wouldn’t count as a direct tax. But the court’s right-leaning justices might approach the tax with a less favorable eye. And the existence of the old precedent could give the court’s conservative justices a way to dispatch a wealth tax relatively easily, which gives experts like Daniel Hemel pause. “A wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars — or, if it’s struck down by the Supreme Court, it could raise nothing,” said Hemel, a law professor at the University of Chicago. “That’s a really big risk if you care about the redistribution of income and you’re trying to figure out how to get it done.”

Then there are the critics who have argued that even if a wealth tax could survive a legal battle, it would be a nightmare to implement and might not raise as much money as Warren and Sanders have claimed. Yang, in particular, has homed in recently on the practical shortcomings of a wealth tax. In the October debate, he pointed out that many European countries tried wealth taxes of their own but eventually abandoned them, in part because they proved so difficult to administer.

True, the comparison between the U.S. and Europe may not be entirely apt. For one thing, many European millionaires simply moved to neighboring countries to escape the wealth taxes, which would be harder for Americans to pull off. But one lesson that probably would translate, according to Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, is that a wealth tax would be difficult to enforce.

One central concern is that the rich, who are already good at evading taxes, would find new and creative ways to avoid paying taxes on their wealth. Part of the issue is that while income and certain kinds of wealth, like stocks, are easily verifiable, the value of a privately held company or a piece of art is genuinely hard to pin down. And the people targeted by the wealth tax also have the means to hire tax lawyers and accountants to sift through the law in search of loopholes. “I think a wealth tax would certainly raise a significant amount of money,” Holtzblatt said. “But will it raise enough money to pay for everything that’s been suggested? That’s a much harder question to answer.”

From a practical perspective, several experts told me that if the goal is to squeeze more tax revenue out of the rich, there is lower-hanging fruit politicians can go after. But the aspects of a wealth tax that make some tax professors and economists squirm — its newness and its focus on the super-rich — are likely part of what makes it so appealing to voters. A New York Times/SurveyMonkey poll conducted in July, for instance, found that two-thirds of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support Warren’s proposal. Other tax plans floated by the candidates, like lowering the threshold for the estate tax or establishing a universal basic income, have received significantly less support in polls.

So if nothing else, the wealth tax has been a very successful symbol of the idea that the wealthy should pay their fair share. Sanders’s version of the wealth tax would affect more people and explicitly seeks to make billionaires an endangered species, which could make it more vulnerable to criticism. Warren, meanwhile, has so far taken pains to downplay the radicalness of a wealth tax, painting it as a modest strategy for tackling a broken tax system. But the political risks are still real for Warren, especially if her critics decide they want to focus on the details.

[devopssentinel]

You thought you'd struck gold. After a long and arduous search, you finally found the perfect candidate: a senior DevOps engineer with a resume that sparkled like a treasure chest. Years of experience, glowing references, and impressive technical skills – they ticked all the boxes. But then, the honeymoon phase ended, and reality set in. Instead of the seasoned expert you expected, you got… well, let's just say they weren't quite living up to the hype. Deadlines whoosh by like speeding bullets, critical deployments crash and burn, and instead of solutions, you're bombarded with a barrage of excuses that would make a politician blush. You've stumbled into a nightmare scenario: the underperforming senior engineer who seems to have mastered the art of deflection and legal maneuvering. This situation is more than just frustrating; it's like a dark cloud hanging over your team, sapping morale and hindering productivity. It's like hiring a renowned chef only to discover they can barely boil water. But don't despair, my friend. Even in this predicament, there are ways to navigate the turbulence and regain control. Unmasking the Underperformance: A Detective's Approach Before you reach for the panic button, take a deep breath and channel your inner Sherlock Holmes. Don't jump to conclusions; instead, try to understand the root cause of this perplexing underperformance. Could it be a skills mismatch? Perhaps the interview process, despite your best efforts, didn't accurately assess the engineer's true capabilities. Maybe their expertise lies in a different domain, or their skills have become rusty with time. It's like hiring a master carpenter to build a spaceship – the skills might be impressive, but they're not quite the right fit for the job. Or perhaps it's a motivational issue. Are they disengaged, bored, or simply lacking the drive to excel? Maybe the role isn't challenging enough, or they're grappling with personal issues that are affecting their work. It's like a thoroughbred racehorse stuck in a stable – all that power and potential, but no outlet for it. Could it be a cultural mismatch? Does their work style clash with your team's collaborative and dynamic environment? A mismatch in communication styles or work ethics can lead to friction, misunderstandings, and ultimately, underperformance. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – no matter how hard you push, it just won't work. And then there's the uncomfortable possibility of intentional underperformance. In some cases, an employee might be deliberately underperforming to avoid work, exploit legal loopholes, or even angle for a severance package. It's a disheartening scenario, but it's important to be aware of this possibility. Navigating the Minefield: A Strategic Approach Once you've identified the potential root cause, it's time to take action. But tread carefully, my friend, for you're navigating a minefield of potential legal and emotional pitfalls. First and foremost, become a meticulous record-keeper. Document every instance of underperformance, every missed deadline, every piece of unsatisfactory work. This creates an objective record that will protect you from potential legal challenges and provide concrete evidence if further action is necessary. Next, initiate an open and honest conversation with the engineer. Express your concerns clearly, providing specific examples of underperformance and its impact on the team and the organization. But don't just lecture; listen to their perspective, try to understand their challenges, and explore potential solutions together. If the issues persist despite your best efforts, it's time to implement a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). This formal document outlines clear expectations, sets measurable goals, and provides a reasonable timeframe for improvement. Offer support and resources to help the engineer succeed, but also make it clear that continued underperformance will have consequences. If the engineer resorts to legal threats or makes accusations, it's time to call in the cavalry. Consult with your HR department or legal counsel to understand your rights and obligations. Ensure you're acting within legal boundaries and protecting your organization from potential liability. If all else fails and the situation becomes untenable, explore alternative solutions. Perhaps a reassignment to a different role, a mutually agreed upon exit, or, as a last resort, termination. These are difficult decisions, but sometimes they're necessary to protect the health and well-being of your team and your organization. Leading Through the Storm: Protecting Your Team and Yourself Dealing with an underperforming senior engineer can be emotionally draining, like trying to extinguish a fire with a leaky bucket. Remember to stay calm, objective, and focused on the facts. Avoid emotional outbursts, stick to the documented evidence, and maintain a professional demeanor throughout the process. Shield your team from the negativity and disruption caused by the situation. Maintain a positive and supportive environment, and reassure your team that you're addressing the issue and have their best interests at heart. And don't hesitate to seek support from your HR department, legal counsel, or trusted colleagues. Sharing your challenges can provide valuable insights, emotional support, and a fresh perspective. Prevention is the Best Cure: Hiring Smart from the Start While dealing with underperformance is sometimes unavoidable, you can minimize the risk by strengthening your hiring process. Think of it as building a fortress to protect your team from underperforming invaders. Conduct thorough technical assessments, behavioral interviews, and reference checks to ensure candidates possess the necessary skills, experience, and cultural fit. Don't just rely on resumes; dig deeper, ask probing questions, and get a sense of their true capabilities and personality. Consider implementing trial periods or probationary periods to assess performance in a real-world setting before making a permanent offer. This gives you a chance to see how they integrate into your team and handle the demands of the role. And from the very beginning, set clear expectations regarding performance standards, work ethic, and team collaboration. Make sure everyone is on the same page and understands the values and behaviors that are essential for success in your organization. Hiring a senior DevOps engineer who underperforms can be a frustrating and challenging experience. But by addressing the issue promptly, documenting everything, following a structured approach, and seeking support when needed, you can protect your team, minimize disruption, and find a resolution that aligns with your organization's goals. And remember, sometimes the best lessons are learned from the toughest challenges. Read the full article