#arbitrary and capricious

[astro1derland]

In today’s transits, the Moon 🌙 at 21° Sagittarius ♐️ 40’ 36”, Mercury at 23° Leo ♌️ 12’ 23”, and Chiron at 23° Aries ♈️ 30’ 26” all form a perfect Grand Trine. Our emotional needs, intellectual mind, and capacity to heal from our wounded selves align and work well together in a fiery, impulsive, regal way. Look for ways to refuel one’s passions, motivations and desires today. Realize how our motivational energy has been damaged and wounded and how we may transform that today. Take steps toward transformation today.

Also in today’s transits, the Sun ☀️ at 26° Cancer ♋️ 34’ 3” forms a sextile with Uranus at 26° Taurus ♉️ 26’ 14”. Our sense of illumination aligns and blends nicely with our sense of freedom and ability to invent in an emotional, lucrative and luxurious way. Escape depression today.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

more words for characterization (pt. 2)

Attributes of behavior: [A-D] abstemious, accident-prone, acid, acrimonious, adamant, affable, affectionate, agreeable, aimless, aloof, amuck, animated, anxious, arbitrary, ardent, arrogant, ascetic, attentive, austere, avid, backhanded, bad, barbarian, barbarous, beaming, belligerent, big, blindly, boisterous, bossy, brassy, brazen, brusque, cagey, calm, capricious, casual, cavalier, cheeky, chill, chummy, clumsy, cocky/cocksure, combative, comic/comical, compassionate, complaisant, compulsive, conciliatory, considerate, contemptuous, contrary, convivial, cordial, corrupt, courageous, courtly, cowardly, crabby/crabbed, cranky, craven, crotchety, cruel, cunning, daring, dauntless, debonair, decent, decided, defensive, defiant, deliberately, delightful, delirious, demure, detached, diffident, disagreeable, disarming, discreet, disgruntled, disinterested, disobedient, disorderly, disputatious, disruptive, dissolute, distraught, divisive, doctrinaire, dolorous, doting, double-dealing, draconian

[E-J] eager, easy, edgy, effervescent, emotionless, envious, equable, evasive, even-tempered, excitable, exuberant, faithful, fake, false, fanatical, favorably, fearful, feigned, ferocious, fervent/fervid, fickle, fiery, finicky, flamboyant, flighty, flirtatious, foolhardy, foolishly, forceful, forward, fractious, freely, fretful, frivolous, fussy, gamely, genteel, glacial, gluttonous, goody-goody, graceless, grandiose, gritty, gruff, gung ho, halfhearted, hardhearted, haram-scarum, headstrong, hearty, helpless, high and mighty, high-handed, high-strung, holier-than-thou, hot, huffy, humble, hypocritical, idle, ill-mannered, ill-natured, ill-tempered, impatient, impertinent, impolite, importunate, impudent, inactive, inconsiderate, ingratiating, inhuman/inhumane, innocuous, insidious, insubordinate, intractable/intransigent, introverted, invidious, irreconcilable, irreverent, jaded, jaunty, jazzed-up, jovial, jumpy

[K-R] keen, kittenish, lax, lecherous, lethargic, liberal, lifeless, light-headed, litigious, lofty, loquacious, loud, loving, Machiavellian, maladroit, malicious, mannered, martial, mean, meat-eating, menacing, merciful, mercurial, militant, mischievous, miserly, mousy, munificent, naive, nasty, naughty, neglectful, neighborly, nervy, nomadic, noncompliant, nonconformist, nosy, obedient, obliging, obsequious, obtrusive, offhand, on edge, on purpose, orderly, ostentatious, overbearing, overwrought, parsimonious, passionate, peevish, pent-up, peppy, peripatetic, permissive, pert, petulant, philosophical/philosophic, phobic, pitiless, plaintive, playful, plucky, politic, pompous, pragmatic, precipitous/precipitate, predatory, presumptuous, prickly, prissy, profane, prompt, propitious, provident, prudish, puerile, pumped, puritanical, quarrelsome, quick-tempered, racy, raffish, rash, ready, rebellious, reckless, regardful, relentless, remiss, remorseless, renegade, repugnant, resigned, responsible, restful, restrained, retiring, revolutionary, rocky, rollicking, rootin’-tootin’, rousing, rude, runaway, ruthless

[S-Z] safe, sanctimonious, sassy, savage, scintillating, secluded, self-conscious, self-righteous, sentimental, serpentine, severe, shameful, sheepish, shifty, short-sighted, shy, simple, sincere, skittish, slippery, sluggish, small, smooth, snappy, snide, snooty, sober, soft, solid, sophomoric, spineless, spontaneous, sporting/sportive, sprightly, square, staid, starchy, staunch, stealthy, stiff, stingy, stoic/stoical, stony, strained, strait-laced, strenuous, stringent, stuck-up, suave, submissive, subversive, supercilious, supine, surly, sympathetic, tactful, tame, tearful, tempestuous, tender, tense, thankful, theatrical, thieving/thievish, thoughtless, tight, tipsy, touchy, traitorous, treasonous, truculent, true-blue, turbulent, two-faced, unaffected, unasked, unattached, unbridled, uncivilized, uncontrollable, uncouth, undependable, underhand, unemotional, unfriendly, unguarded, unintentional/unintended, unkind, unmerciful, unprejudiced, unreasonable, unrelenting, unruly, unseemly, unsettled, unsophisticated, unsympathetic, untoward, unwary, unwise, unworldly, uppity, urbane, vainglorious, valorous, vengeful, vibrant, vicious, vigilant, violent, virile, vital, volatile, wacky, wanton, warm, wary, watchful, wayward, well-bred, wicked, willful, wily, winning/winsome, witless, yellow, zany, zealous

NOTE

The above are concepts classified according to subject and usage. It not only helps writers and thinkers to organize their ideas but leads them from those very ideas to the words that can best express them.

It was, in part, created to turn an idea into a specific word. By linking together the main entries that share similar concepts, the index makes possible creative semantic connections between words in our language, stimulating thought and broadening vocabulary.

Source ⚜ Writing Basics & Refreshers ⚜ On Vocabulary ⚜ Part 1

[specialagentartemis]

in middle school during my Intense Greek Mythology Phase, Artemis was, as you can likely guess, my best girl. Iphigenia was my OTHER best girl. Yes at the same time.

The story of Iphigenia always gets to me when it's not presented as a story of Artemis being capricious and having arbitrary rules about where you can and can't hunt, but instead, making a point about war.

Artemis was, among other things--patron of hunting, wild places, the moon, singlehood--the protector of young girls. That's a really important aspect she was worshipped as: she protected girls and young women. But she was the one who demanded Agamemnon sacrifice his daughter in order for his fleet to be able to sail on for Troy.

There's no contradiction, though, when it's framed as, Artemis making Agamemnon face what he’s doing to the women and children of Troy. His children are not in danger. His son will not be thrown off the ramparts, his daughters will not be taken captive as sex slaves and dragged off to foreign lands, his wife will not have to watch her husband and brothers and children killed. Yet this is what he’s sailing off to Troy to inevitably do. That’s what happens in war. He’s going to go kill other people’s daughters; can he stand to do that to his own? As long as the answer is no—he can kill other people’s children, but not his own—he can’t sail off to war.

Which casts Artemis is a fascinating light, compared to the other gods of the Trojan War. The Trojan War is really a squabble of pride and insults within the Olympian family; Eris decided to cause problems on purpose, leaving Aphrodite smug and Hera and Athena snubbed, and all of this was kinda Zeus’s fault in the first place for not being able to keep it in his pants. And out of this fight mortal men were their game pieces and mortal cities their prizes in restoring their pride. And if hundreds of people die and hundred more lives are ruined, well, that’s what happens when gods fight. Mortals pay the price for gods’ whims and the gods move on in time and the mortals don’t and that’s how it is.

And women especially—Zeus wanted Leda, so he took her. Paris wanted Helen, so he took her. There’s a reason “the Trojan women” even since ancient times were the emblems of victims of a war they never wanted, never asked for, and never had a say in choosing, but was brought down on their heads anyway.

Artemis, in the way of gods, is still acting through human proxies. But it seems notable to me to cast her as the one god to look at the destruction the war is about to wreak on people, and challenge Agamemnon: are you ready to kill innocents? Kill children? Destroy families, leave grieving wives and mothers? Are you? Prove it.

It reminds me of that idea about nuclear codes, the concept of implanting the key in the heart of one of the Oval Office staffers who holds the briefcase, so the president would have to stab a man with a knife to get the key to launch the nukes. “That’s horrible!,” it’s said the response was. “If he had to do that, he might never press the button!” And it’s interesting to see Artemis offering Agamemnon the same choice. You want to burn Troy? Kill your own daughter first. Show me you understand what it means that you’re about to do.

[bemusedlybespectacled]

I don't understand the chevron law thing, could you explain it like I'm five? Should we be working towards fixing whatever the courts just fucked up?

So, okay, I am condensing like a semester of a class I took in 2017 into a very short explanation, but:

It would be really annoying for Congress to individually pass laws approving every new medicine or listing out every single poison you can't have in tap water, so instead there are agencies created by Congress, via a law, to handle a specific thing. The agencies are created by Congress but overseen by the executive branch (so, the president), which is why we say things like "Reagan's EPA" or "Biden's DOJ" - even though Congress creates them, the president determines how they do the thing Congress wants them to do, by passing regulations like "you can't dump cyanide in the local swimming pool" and "no, you can't dump strychnine, either."

However, sometimes people will oppose these regulations by saying that the agency is going beyond the task they were given by Congress. "The Clean Air Act only bans 'pollutants,' and nowhere in the law does it say that 'pollutants' includes arsenic! You're going beyond your mandate!" To which the experts at the EPA would be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided arsenic is a pollutant." On the flip side, the EPA could be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided that arsenic isn't a pollutant," and people would oppose that regulation by being like, "But the Clean Air Act bans 'pollutants,' and it's insane to say that arsenic isn't a pollutant!" So whose interpretation is correct, the government's or the challengers'?

Chevron deference basically put heavy weight onto how the agency (i.e. the government) interpreted the law, with the assumption that the agency was in the right and needing pretty strong evidence that they were interpreting it wrong (like, blatantly doing the opposite of a clear part of the law or something). If there was any ambiguity in how the law was written, you'd defer to the agency's interpretation, even if that interpretation was different depending on who was president at the time.

(Note: there are other ways of challenging regulations other than this one, like saying that they were promulgated in a way that is "arbitrary and capricious" – basically, not backed by any evidence/reasoning other than "we want it." Lots of Trump-era regulations got smacked with this one, though I think they'd be better at it if Trump gets a second term, since they've now had practice.)

Chevron deference wasn't all good – remember that the sword cuts both ways, including when dickholes are in power – but it was a very standard part of the law. Like, any opposition to a regulation would have some citation to be like "Chevron doesn't apply here" and every defense would be like "Chevron absolutely applies here" and most of the time, the agency would win. Like, it was a fundamental aspect of law since the 80s.

The Supreme Court decision basically tosses that out, and says, "In a situation where the law is ambiguous, the court decides what it means." That's not completely insane – interpreting law is a thing judges normally do – but in a situation where the interpretation may hinge on something very complicated outside of the judge's wheelhouse, you now cannot be like, "Your Honor, I promise you that the experts at NOAA know a lot about the weather and made this decision for a good reason."

The main reason it's a problem is that it allows judges to override agencies' judgements about what you should do about a thing and what things you should be working on in the first place. However, I don't think there's really a way of enshrining that into law, outside of maybe adding something to the Administrative Procedure Act, and that would require a Congress that isn't majority Republican.

I will say that kind of I expected this to happen, just because IIRC Gorsuch in particular hates Chevron deference. IMO it's a classic case of "rules for me but not for thee" – Scalia and other conservatives used to rely on Chevron because they wanted their presidents to hold a ton of unchecked power (except for the EPA), but now that we've had Obama and Biden, now conservatives don't like Chevron because it gives the presidents they don't like unchecked power.

[abominable-space-they]

A thing I try to remember about Hannibal Lecter is that when he says god would drop a church on a room full of beloved grandmas and laugh about his abuse of power. What he means is, god would murder a little girl in the cruelest manner imaginable then feed that little girl to her brother. Her brother who was a strange little boy that no one understood. A little boy who had no human connections but that little girl. A little boy who as an elder brother was supposed to protect that little girl.

He means he believes god did that, destroyed his sister, his life, future, and universe, not because god works in mysterious ways, but because God works in obviously cruel and capricious ways, because god enjoys the power of destroying the innocent and faithful. He's saying that he has looked at the world, seen the worst and best of humanity, and the only conclusion he could come to was that god thinks hurting his creations is funny.

He has a god complex not because he believes he is a god, not even because he believes he is capable of being as cruel and arbitrary as God.

Hannibal Lecter has a god complex because he believes that a god who would kill a child cruely, and deliver an even more cruel fate on another child for no reason but because he could, does not deserve honoring. He believes that any god that would do such a thing, should not be worshipped, that he should be unseated entirely.

Like Kronos, utterly destroyed for his cruelty to children

He defies god because he believes god should be defied. He worships Will in defiance of god because even as a flawed human who is vicious, vengeful, petty, and mistrusting, even with all his human flaws, Will Graham is more just then god, more reticent to kill then god.

He worships Will Graham as his own personal god of love, death, and war bc he believes Will Graham is more worthy of worship then god.

And that is one hell of a thing

[wilwheaton]

The Supreme Court wrapped up this term with a pair of completely arbitrary and capricious rulings, based on lies and controversies manufactured by far-right political actors, restricting LGBTQ protections and striking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. Both cases were deeply flawed procedurally, but that wasn’t going to stop the six far-right extremists on the court from imposing their will. This illegitimate court has once again wreaked untold future damage on this country. It has to be stopped.

The Supreme Court is out of control and must be reformed

SCOTUS is dominated and controlled by unelected right wing christian nationalists who are so thoroughly corrupt they present a real and direct threat to every marginalized, Othered, protected class in America.

These are the exact same type of people who supported Dread Scott, and they will do it again if we don’t stop them.

[transgenderer]

Taking an edible is an act of devotion to tezcatlipoca in his aspect as the god of capricious fate, the eternal arbitrary. I will get however high I get. If I get scared there will be nothing I can do, and I will think it's forever. Exactlt the sort of classic aztec playacting-with-stakes

[rei-ismyname]

TFW your girlfriend is a God

Current state of canon is that this is not Jean Grey at all - it's the Phoenix/it's complicated. Something I've always wondered is - how does the Phoenix feel about Scott Summers? Clearly it cares about Earth and specifically mutants enough to keep coming back to them (except Chuck - kill his ass) so there must be something going on. There's a lot to be said about the gender politics and power dynamics in this panel, but I'll write about that another time.

As I've said before I don't like how The Phoenix has been beaten to death as a storytelling vehicle (though Kieron Gillen's X-Men Forever/RotPox was a rare exception) and diminished in universe through overuse. I find it hard to believe it would force a bunch of Avengers + Wolverine into a bizarre tournament as part of a million year old legacy resulting in multiple Phoenixes fighting Dark Phoenix Mystique (and being Thor's mother.)

It makes the Phoenix look fickle, capricious, and above all arbitrary - with its recent interest in either possessing or fucking members of the Grey-Summers clan a passing fad. Then again, Jean is 'mother-me' and together they impregnated Hope's mother so there must be at least a corner of the White Hot Room that's just for them.

[vote-democrat-president-congress]

Erin Brockovich: What’s at Stake in November

July 30, 2024

By Erin Brockovich

Ms. Brockovich is an environmental activist.

Every day, I get emails from people asking for help. They think I’m a lawyer. I’m not. They want to know what caused their cancer or why their farm has tested high for chemicals they’ve never heard of. They want someone to fight for them.

The recent Supreme Court decision overturning the 40-year-old Chevron precedent, which allowed federal agencies to interpret the laws they oversee, should wake us up to how truly alone we are when it comes to environmental health protections. If Donald Trump wins in November, things could go from bad to worse. Progress to protect Americans from dangerous chemicals could reach a standstill.

I could list dozens, if not thousands, of contaminants we come in contact with, some regulated by federal and state agencies, and others not. I’ll focus on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, a class of thousands of synthetic chemicals that are finally being recognized for the damage they cause.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they persist in the environment and in human bodies for decades. These chemicals have been used to make common items from textiles to adhesives to food packaging to firefighting foams to nonstick cookware.

The health problems associated with exposure to PFAS include fertility issues, developmental delays in children and increased risk of certain cancers and of obesity, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Scientists have detected PFAS chemicals in the blood of almost all Americans.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox. What’s frustrating is that we’ve known for decades which industries use these chemicals, and we’ve known they are accumulating in the environment. But companies and our regulators delayed action.

Take just one example. From the 1950s through the 1970s, 3M dumped its PFAS waste into pits around Minnesota’s eastern Twin Cities metro area. That led to a more than 150-square-mile plume of contaminated groundwater. Subsequent testing revealed that by 2004, more than 140,000 Minnesotans had tainted drinking water. Years later, a young woman named Amara Strande grew up near the plume.

In 2023, Ms. Strande testified in front of Minnesota lawmakers in support of legislation that would restrict PFAS, which she believed caused her rare form of liver cancer. She died weeks before legislation known as Amara’s Law banned the use of PFAS in Minnesota. She was 20 years old. There are more cases like hers.

The number of U.S. communities reportedly contaminated with PFAS compounds continues to grow. Last year, one or more types of PFAS were detected in almost half of the nation’s tap water.

People like to talk about the risks of federal oversight and regulations. But without those basic guardrails in place, large companies get to do whatever they want, and hard-working Americans get sick.

Some much needed action was taken on PFAS at the national level recently. In April, the E.P.A. mandated that municipal water systems remove six PFAS chemicals from tap water. Such efforts are now at risk.

Under the Supreme Court’s recent Chevron ruling, federal judges get the final say on how laws including the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act should be applied. This weakens the ability of regulatory agencies to do their jobs protecting the public’s health from problems such as PFAS. Future pollution cases could meander through the federal court system for years while drinking water remains contaminated.

Companies will take advantage of this ruling. Water utility and chemical manufacturing companies have filed challenges with the E.P.A., calling the rule “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.”

Now imagine you take these kneecapped regulations and pair them with a second Trump presidency. President Trump rolled back decades of clean-water protections and dozens of environmental rules. The E.P.A. is still reeling from the exodus of more than 1,200 scientists and policy experts during his administration. One of his political appointees meddled with a PFAS assessment, weakening the toxicity value of a chemical.

The E.P.A. already had its problems, but the agency fared even worse under Mr. Trump. He repeatedly tried to slash the E.P.A.’s budget and many staff members fled, meaning fewer inspectors, fewer resources to study the impact of toxins and more companies contravening environmental regulations.

I recently reviewed Project 2025, a playbook for the first 180 days of the potential next Trump administration. (Mr. Trump says he doesn’t support the project, though many of his former White House employees are involved.) In the E.P.A. chapter, PFAS are mentioned twice. Project 2025 says the administration should revise groundwater cleanup regulations and policies to reflect the challenges of contaminants such as PFAS, which seems fair. But then it also says the administration should revisit the E.P.A. designation of PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. That seems contradictory and ill advised. The designation helps make available CERCLA’s enforcement tools and cost recovery, ensuring that the polluters, not taxpayers, fund or conduct investigations and cleanup.

I’m not giving Democratic administrations a pass. We need more accountability for the environmental ills that have passed under their watch. These include the water crisis in Flint, Mich., and Jackson, Miss. The state and federal responses to the toxic train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, left much to be desired. We must expect more from those we put in office; our lives depend on it.

The E.P.A. used to have bipartisan support. The Reagan administration changed that when President Ronald Reagan appointed a corporation-friendly E.P.A. administrator who railed against government regulation.

Rules are effective only if they can be enforced. State and federal agencies have done a poor job of building meaningful enforcement into the well-intentioned regulations that have been enacted, and they must do better. Americans’ health is at risk.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/opinion/erin-brockovich-pfas.html

[freethebook]

Would you give up everything you have, if it meant getting everything you want?

For Morgan Pajpjow, normalcy is perhaps a relative term. To most, moving to a new town twice a year would be a bit unusual, but that's Morgan's normal, and he's resigned to it. After all, what's the point of making new friends when it would just be wasted effort? So he keeps his head down, content to be ignored by most, and staves off the meddling and antagonism of the few who won't.

But when Morgan finds a silver branch waiting for him on his way home, normalcy abandons him. Down a disused fork in his driveway, he tumbles headfirst into the Otherworld--a land of arbitrary laws ruled by capricious fairies. A dance, a gift, or an invitation suddenly become waiting snares, eager to bind him into servitude. Now, far from home, Morgan will have to learn how to embrace vulnerability and ask for others' help, or face being stranded in the Otherworld forever.

______________________________________________________________

So since April is apparently Indie Promo Month, let's try this again.

Hi Tumblr, I'm Kurt and this is my debut novel! Morgan and the Fey sits squarely in the space where Garth Nix's Keys to the Kingdom meets the Nibelungenlied. If you're interested in stories about:

Lonely queer teens discovering friends and support,

Pan-European fairylore,

Getting lost in strange worlds,

Magic, whimsy, and maybe a touch of terror,

then this might be your book!

You can find Morgan and the Fey available for purchase as an ebook at any of the locations below:

Amazon

Apple Books

Rakuten Kobo

Smashwords

Everand

Palace Marketplace

And, if you're interested, you can also purchase directly from me at my Payhip!

[astro1derland]

In today’s transits, Mercury at 6° Capricorn ♑️ forms a sextile with Venus at 4° Scorpio ♏️ and a trine with Jupiter at 6° Taurus ♉️. Our intellect and mind align and blend well with our ability to relate, connect and explore past-lives and align and work well with our ability to communicate creatively in an effective manner that brings abundance in a practical, meaningful, intense, and confident way.

Expect the unexpected today. Be happy with the small details today. Be happy with yourself today. Impress yourself today.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Some Law-Related Vocabulary

for your poem/story (pt. 2/4)

Admiralty - of or relating to conduct on the sea

Alter ego - second self

Attractive nuisance - a thing or condition on one's property that poses a risk to children who may be attracted to it without realizing the risk by virtue of their youth

Bequest - an act of bequeathing

Bequeath - to give by will

Bona vacantia - goods that are unclaimed and without an apparent owner

Capricious - governed or characterized by impulse or whim (e.g., lacking a rational basis; likely to change suddenly); not supported by the weight of evidence or established rules of law—often used in the phrase "arbitrary and capricious"

Colorable - having an appearance of truth, validity, or right

Damnum absque injuria - a loss for which the law provides no means of recovery

Dying declaration - a statement that is made by a person who firmly believes that he or she is about to die and has no hope of recovery and that concerns the circumstances or cause of the presumed death

Eleemosynary - of, relating to, or supported by charity

En ventre sa mere - in the womb

Euthanasia - the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured persons in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy; called also "mercy killing"

Exculpate - to clear from alleged fault or guilt

Filius nullius - an illegitimate child; bastard; called also "filius populi"

Finger - to accuse or identify as guilty

Fireman's rule - a doctrine holding that a property owner or occupant is not liable for unintentional injuries suffered by firefighters or police officers in responding to a problem on the property

First blush - initial view, appearance, or consideration—used especially in the phrase "at first blush"

First degree - the grade given to the most serious forms of crimes

Hereditament - inheritable property

Homestead - a home and surrounding land

Inchoate - not yet made complete, certain, or specific : not perfected

M'Naghten test - a standard under which a criminal defendant is considered to have been insane at the time of an act (as a killing) if he or she did not know right from wrong or did not understand the moral nature of the act because of a mental disease or defect; called also "M'Naghten rule"

Mulct - fine, penalty

Mysterious disappearance - the loss of property under unknown or puzzling circumstances which are difficult to explain or understand

Pierce - to see through the usually misleading or false appearance of

Poison pill - a financial tactic or provision used by a company to make an unwanted takeover prohibitively expensive or less desirable

Prior art - the processes, devices, and modes of achieving the end of an alleged invention that were known or knowable by due diligence before and at the date of the invention

Pur autre vie - for another's life

Shark repellent - any measure taken by a corporation to discourage a hostile takeover attempt

Silent record - a record of a criminal proceeding which does not show that the defendant acted with knowledge or understanding of his or her rights (as in entering a plea of guilty or waiving the right to counsel)

Sui generis - constituting a class alone; unique or particular to itself

Vexatious - lacking a sufficient ground and serving only to annoy or harass when viewed objectively

Wrongful birth - a malpractice claim brought by the parents of a child born with a birth defect against a physician or health-care provider whose alleged negligence (as in prenatal testing or diagnosis) effectively deprived the parents of the opportunity to make an informed decision whether to avoid or terminate the pregnancy

Yellow-dog contract - an illegal employment contract in which a worker disavows membership in and agrees not to join a labor union in order to get a job

More: Law-Related Words ⚜ Word Lists

[lalondeisms]

" [...] So this is why being introduced to ICP finally makes him snap: it represents a collision between this satirical avatar, the fictional embodiment of this complete joke of an idea, and the fourth wall—breaking exposure to the very content he was designed to mock. On some level Gamzee understands that he's been forced to confront the fact that his entire existence is a joke. He was designed to ridicule that which he reveres. So he just fucking loses it and is never really the same guy again. It's almost a kind of dark, clowny enlightenment, an achievement of chaotic self-awareness. He quite effectively harnesses this grudge by getting revenge on the very story that created him for such humiliating satirical purposes. His method of revenge is linked to Caliborn's modus operandi (whom he comes to revere as the true godhead of his religious beliefs), which is to degrade and defile the story he inhabits. Gamzee's influence appears to be arbitrary, always occuring at the exact right (wrong) moment, to do the exact thing that will fuck things up in a totally incomprehensible way. He becomes an agent of plot chaos, of narrative entropy, and achieves a certain zen in the loathsome, capricious role he plays in the story. These tendencies are linked to his aspect, and could be seen as a certain mastery of it."

bold/italics added by me. anyway this is literally what i am always saying about Gamzee--he is playing a role! he is lashing out against the story itself! he is not a character on the same level as the others are, and, ironically, despite being aware of the falsity of their reality from much earlier on he is the one character doomed to be stuck in the narrative while all the others get to jump ship.

and then:

"Make no mistake: Gamzee sucks. He is, on a conventional layer, a "bad character." His personality is unpleasant, his actions are repellant, and his presence is always an affront to good taste and judgment. Yet, in my view, it's hard to avoid another conclusion that seems to contradict these awful truths about him: there are some potent themes and ideas governing his existence as a character, his actions, and the reasoning behind his dark turn."

hussie admits this is an interesting idea while still dismissing gamzee entirely as an idiotic one dimensional clown. ultimately get the feeling that they believe they wasted the concepts on gamzee but realized they had wrote themself into a wall re: keeping him around. if they thought encouraging fandom to hate him would make them not notice this then well they were mostly right because gamzee is still extremely misunderstood by the majority

[the-cimmerians]

A federal judge in Texas recently blocked a new Federal Trade Commission rule that would have prohibited new employee non-compete agreements starting September 4. Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas ruled on August 20 that the FTC lacked the power to prevent employers from requiring even entry-level fast food workers to enter into really stupid contracts that prohibit them from getting better jobs at competing businesses. And maybe, given recent Supreme Court rulings, the FTC has no power to regulate anything at all, you never know.

Noncompete agreements were supposedly needed to keep executives and industrial secret-havers from stealing important “trade secrets” — like “Arby’s Arby-Q barbecue sandwiches contain no more than 30 percent roadkill” — and giving them to competing businesses. But for workers below the management level, the agreements all too frequently suppressed wages and kept people from changing jobs or starting their own businesses. That’s why Joe Biden started calling for an end to the damn things since his 2023 State of the Union address.

Backers of the FTC rule argued that existing intellectual property laws do a fine job of protecting genuine trade secrets, and that for the vast majority of folks, noncompete agreements amounted to cartel-style barriers to competition. The agency estimated the rule could potentially increase wages by as much as $488 billion over the next decade, amounting to a $524 annual wage increase for the average worker.

But businesses of all sorts, mostly Big, and the US Chamber of Commerce objected, arguing that stifling competition is the American way, and that the FTC has no business interfering with how they break their workers’ spirits and keep wages down. Judge Brown held that the FTC “exceeded its statutory authority,” that the rule was “arbitrary and capricious,” an attitude that is reserved solely for petty dictator jackwad bosses, and that the rule would “cause irreparable harm” to said jackwad plaintiffs.

When the rule was introduced in April, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan argued that the “freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy,” and that noncompete agreements unfairly limited workers’ freedom to seek higher wages and better work conditions, and that noncompetes were bad for business too, “depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand.”

The ruling is pretty much guaranteed to go to the US Supreme Court, because in July, a different federal judge in Pennsylvania upheld the FTC rule, noting in that case that “The FTC's substantive rulemaking authority has been confirmed by circuit courts interpreting the FTC Act, as well as by Congress when it enacted its 1975 and 1980 Amendments to the Act,” which sounds convincing enough until you remember that was a long time ago and the Supreme Court now believes businesses can do almost anything they want.

If we’re lucky, the case may eventually be resolved without the Supremes deciding that indentured servitude is also legal again.

[eretzyisrael]

by Dion J. Pierre

A New York judge has upheld Columbia University’s suspension of its Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter, a measure taken against the campus group after it launched of spree of assaults, hate campaigns, and disruptive protests following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.

SJP, as well as its affiliate pro-Hamas partner Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), sued the university in March, alleging that its suspension perpetuated “already pervasive dangerous stereotypes about Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims,” and other minority groups. Represented by the New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the groups sought to have their status restored by appealing to the courts, as well as the public, whom it attempted to convince that Columbia University, one of the most culturally left-wing higher education institutions in the country, discriminates against minorities of color.

The strategy proved unsuccessful last week, as Judge Nicholas Moyne of the New York State Supreme Court, who presided over the case, ruled that the university had sufficient cause to suspend the two groups.

“After reviewing the record, the court finds that Columbia University’s decision to temporarily suspend the petitioners from their status as recognized student groups was neither arbitrary or capricious, irrational, or in violation of clearly established university policies,” Moyne said in his decision. “Accordingly, the petition is denied and the cross-motion to dismiss the petition is granted. All student groups at Columbia are subject to and required to comply with Columbia’s special events policies, which govern, inter alia, when, where, and how events on campus, including protests and demonstrations, may be held and what notice needs to be given to university officials prior to the commencement of any student group events, demonstrations, or protests.”

Columbia University suspended SJP and JVP in last November, explaining in a statement that the groups had “repeatedly violated university policies related to holding campus events, culminating in an unauthorized event … that proceeded despite warnings and included threatening rhetoric and intimidation.” Both SJP and JVP have been instrumental in organizing disruptive anti-Israel protests on Columbia’s campus since Hamas invaded Israel last Oct. 7 and killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians.

Even after being disciplined, however, SJP members continued their activities in front groups — such as Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a non-campus affiliated organization that supports the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel — staging more protests in flagrant violation of the terms of its suspension.

[paradoxcase]

I don't mean to like, post about JKR, and I promise this won't become a habit or anything like that, but I was commenting on another site in response to someone claiming that no one had had any issue with Harry Potter as a story prior to JKR's public transphobia, saying that I definitely remembered people calling out the house elf slavery issue (and some other stuff) long before that. I remember in other places hearing people defend Harry Potter house elves by saying, oh, she was obviously just making a reference to brownies from British fairy folklore, they really are like that! But no, no they are not really like that. This is what Wikipedia has to say about brownies:

I was like moderately obsessed with British fairy folklore as a kid and a teenager, and this is pretty par for the course for most British fairies - they are capricious beings that operate according to a very strict and (to humans) strange and arbitrary set of social rules, and if you follow the rules to the letter you can sometimes have a mutually beneficial relationship with them, but if you make any misstep by accident they will leave (if you're lucky) or maybe curse you or steal something or someone from you. Generally it's not possible to enslave or control them, the best you can usually do is trick them into not hurting you, or not taking something they wanted to take. The brownies don't leave because you've freed them from some magical contract, they leave simply because you did something to offend them, and they will especially leave if they feel like you're taking advantage of them or treating them as servants, let alone slaves.

And what really gets me about this, is that if JKR had just wanted to show the Lucius Malfoy was evil by having him enslave a magical creature who Harry could then free at the end of the book, there actually is a well-known piece of British fairy folklore about an evil man successfully enslaving a fairy: the selkie story, where the man steals the selkie's skin and hides it, making her unable to leave, and forcing her to become his wife. There's a ton of different variations of this, too, it's not always a seal, there are lots of different stories centered around the human-steals-a-fairy's-true-skin-so-the-fairy-can't-leave idea. Why did JKR base her enslaved fairy creature off of brownies, when she could have based it off of a selkie? There is never any question, in the selkie stories, that the selkie likes being with the human - she is always miserable, because it is actually a story about slavery in its original intent. I'm really mystified why she would have drawn on the brownie story when the selkie story is right there.

Anyway, I was just thinking about this again, and wanted to rant a bit. This will probably be the last post I make about Harry Potter or JKR.