#but as a hopeful law student I like constitutional correctness

[autogeneratedkahootnickname]

I've seen some mixed takes on this so it would be interesting to see the actual stats.

Non-Brits, how do you think the British monarchy works politically?

If you're British and know the answer please just pick Option 6.

(Also please reblog this because there's no way to tag this so that it breaks containment)

Option 1: The monarchy is an absolute dictatorship only beholden unto itself. Parliament drafts legislation on their behalf and can be consulted for advice on policy, but all power ultimately lies with the King.

Option 2: The monarchy is a branch of government with equivalent administrative power to Parliament, like the US President is to Congress. The King can and does veto legislation from Parliament they don't like, and directs policy initiatives with Parliament's backing.

Option 3: The monarchy is a subordinate branch of government like the British Supreme Court, acting in an advisory capacity to Parliament. The King is a recognised, active organ of state, but he isn't empowered to pass or approve legislation. The monarchy observes and intervenes where they deem necessary, but Parliament gets the final say.

Option 4: The monarchy, though officially a branch of government, serves no active administrative purpose. The King is a cultural ambassador and respiring rubber stamp that can request special exemptions from Parliamentary policy but cannot contravene, criticise or condone anything Parliament attempts to pass.

Option 5: The monarchy has no affiliation with the state anymore whatsover. The Windsors are just a random rich family we keep around for the tourists' benefit.

[beardedmrbean]

With Biden signing $10k in debt forgiveness for people making willing decisions, I want to know where my $10k debt forgiveness is for expenses racked up during COVID. I never got that. Instead all I got was massive debt and no savings left. So what the hell is the Kentucky fried BS? Why am I stuck payin for some idiot getting a gender studies degree?

Not just the gender studies degrees, I did see a interesting proposal come out of someone from the GOP about who should be picking up the tab for this.

Which is the colleges that jacked up their prices and churned out students with degrees that are basically worthless.

There's also this to consider. Just gonna drop a snippet or 2

The Republicans pointed to Pelosi’s own statement from July 2021, saying "thankfully" the speaker "expressed her agreement" with the GOP when she warned Biden did not have the constitutional authority to cancel student debt.

"People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness, he does not," Pelosi said. "He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress."

"Although we may disagree on many things, your statement in July 2021 was correct," the Republicans wrote. "President Biden’s student loan giveaway is unconstitutional and illegal."

"Given your previously stated position and your leadership role as Speaker of the House, it is imperative that you act immediately in defense of our Constitution and the powers of the legislative branch," they continued.

The Republicans asked if Pelosi would "commit to supporting" her previous statement "with definitive action to stand up to this blatant overreach President Biden is enacting," further noting the president’s "move transcends the policies surrounding student loans."

"This is an illegal act by a President desperate for a political win," Hice and his Republican colleagues concluded the letter. "We hope you will heed your own words and act to defend the Constitution and rule of law."

_________________________

nancy's a politician so just like the rest of them the way to tell if she's lying is to hold a mirror under her nose and see if it fogs up, this is going to be a tough one to wiggle out of.

Gonna be 100% honest here though, first thing I did when I saw the announcement was grab my phone and send a message to a very dear friend of mine letting her know it had happened.

My personal opinion on the subject is irrelevant in the long run and the relief I could feel in a palpable way from her when I got the response back was something big.

So I'm not gonna begrudge people that get it, it's gonna be a good sized weight off their shoulders, which gets spread out on everyone but again that's not the doing of the recipient.

As to when are we gonna get ours, probably not going to welcome to real life it's not fair at the best of times and actively malicious at others. ________

I will say if you need a way to laugh about all of in order to relieve some of the (totally reasonable) annoyance you're feeling go look round for all the people saying it's racist or sexist or any of the other things like that that everyone is getting the same amount.

just laugh at the entitlement, don't go too deep or you'll just wind up angry again

final note, try to hang back on the irritation and such here for this one till it's challenged in court.

Could still get blocked, which would be one of the other things I told my friend and will suggest to everyone else.

Don't spend that money yet, might not materialize.

[ackerfics]

hi, rory! <3 what majors would the sc veterans take if they were in the modern world?

hi, anon !! thank you so much for this ask, this is heaven in disguise from all my schoolwork. tbh, the whole time i was working for a lab report, my mind will go back to this ask bc i wanted to have the association as accurate as possible hhhajshw

i asked one of my friends for help and thank God for them bc my single brain cell really said 'it's time for you to rest' after staring at one backlog. without further ado, here are the veterans' majors if they're studying in university:

first off, hange zoe, because if you ask me this question in real life, they would be the only one i can answer. every damn time i would think of them in a college setting, being a biology major is really hange's forte. at this point, this is what everyone would associate them with.

hange is all about experimenting and doing brilliant breakthroughs in any field of science but knowing that they have this unparalleled fascination with the unusual and unexpected life-forms (ahem titans ahem), the biology lab would be the surest place where you could find hange. i feel like biology is too broad so i will add that microbiology or bacteriology are just some of the specializations they will be taking in their time in college.

imagine, being lab partners with hange and immediately knowing that you will have one of the highest grades in the class because they're that well-versed in a specific lab report. and if you're partners with them for the rest of the academic year, you might as well have a shot at an immaculate grade. i'm not saying that you should depend on them too much though hHHHH, hange is still a member of the majority of the student body who relies heavily on caffeine to keep them invigorated. who isn't at this point?

so far, some of the biology majors that i encountered (well, more like chatted behind a screen — online classes suck), they have this energy that could drain my social battery too quickly and hange fits that description. (note that this doesn't apply to any college bc i observed this in mine soooo 🤭) they're the type to always go on a tangent on a certain science article or coerce you into joining this org thing. i can imagine levi just looking at hange like they're the one sucking his brain cells out whenever they speak about a documentary in bbc they watched the night before.

and if you're stuck on anything biology-related, hange will be the best person to ask help from. they're the first ray of sunlight you get while waking up. they're that approachable.

okay, so erwin smith.

don't come at me but he just radiates this ceo vibes and with that, one of his probably majors is business administration. i know this is so stereotypical of me but let's face it, erwin is a smooth talker through and through and if he doesn't take up marketing, business is one way to spend his college years. knowing his personality in attack on titan of establishing deals easily with a determined resolve, he fits the broadest description of being a business administration major. (again, don't come at me because my consultant for this statement is google and nobody comes after google sometimes hhhhh)

just for the benefit of myself, i will add what google says about this major, "[they] learn the mechanics of business through classes in fundamentals, such as finance, accounting and marketing ... students find ways to solve problems using data and they develop communication and managerial skills." and i thank you.

he's also probably the most well-spoken and most professional when conversing with others among his friends (and i'm not saying this to drag the other characters but this is what i pick up on) and that is exactly the qualities his major specializes. it is expected for them to strike deals and be a people person and who better character for the job than our very own erwin smith 🤩

now i mentioned 'one of the probable majors' and yes, aside from business administration, philosophy just exudes erwin smith. ngl, when i imagined erwin in a college setting, this major will always come first. his mind is just so sexy to me??? and i hope you guys think the same, too, because i don't want to be the only one who thinks that 👀 kidding aside, erwin is one of the smartest people in attack on titan and every time he speaks in one episode, my brain will instantly go mush, and that's what i feel when i hear philosophy majors talk.

philosophy majors (according to any other youtuber who does lookbooks for various majors hhhhhh) challenge what is unanswerable and analyze questions with no right answer. i feel like erwin, like hange, will talk all night to explain a theory. just imagine a date with him and you just listen to him rant about a topic that they should be making a report on. just listen to this man, okay?? it's adorable when he lets his guard down to include you in his little bubble of philosophies. he would also mention random things that he learned in classes, sometimes finding joy in knowing the philosophies of other people, or even deciphering levi's dream of an apocalyptic world. (it pisses levi off but he just leave him be.)

if you want a man who can do both of these majors, erwin smith is the answer 😉

sigh, mike zacharias.

this man holds so many talents and will forever amaze me.

i assume all of us here watched the movie perfume. and no, i'm not saying that mike is going to be a murderer but just like the main character of that film, making perfumes will be his forte with that sense of smell of his. and here, i conclude that mike will definitely take up chemical engineering.

he gives me the vibes that if it covers the one thing he does best, he will love his major. (mr. zacharias, can you please spare me that quality because i really need that now 😩) being in the labs while experimenting mundane things that can be found in the environment to create different scents is also a likely situation you can find him in, again, very much like hange. he's the type of student who really puts so much effort in staying afloat the honors list, even to the point of topping midterms in his major, for the sake of his dream. there will never be a moment where you will catch him complain about his major and professors.

he's that type of friend in college who agrees to any rant you say but in reality, he's got his life easy 😭

i headcanon mike owning a perfume shop after college just like how levi always dreamed of having a tea shop.

okay, imagine this little scenario if you're dating mike where he creates this unique perfumes as random gifts for you. they're not the typical perfumes that can seep through the room and can make you gag for no reason, they're subtle scents that will stay for the duration of the day. because again, he's got a sensitive nose, so making perfumes according to what his sense of smell dictates will always result in a revolutionary experiment. if you're randomly blurting out that you want a fusion of flowers and fruits as your perfume, say no more, he's your man.

now, the veteran who i find the hardest to associate a major with — levi ackerman.

after much deliberation and a break from plant physiology, i see him taking up law or criminology.

(i asked some of this from my mom because she attended law school :>>>)

levi is so organized and detailed in the things that he do and he fits in either of these majors since they require tedious memorizations and analysis of laws and crime scenes while being assertive enough to defend someone. he's the typical person who blurts out the true situation of a crime scene when watching film adaptations. yeah, he's that person, the one who sucks the enthusiasm out of you while watching a movie because he just had to correct some of the scenes. nevertheless, he means well though, he just wanted you to understand the reality unlike how films portray gruesome murders. movie nights always end up with levi ranting about half-assed mystery clichés.

levi's binder of readings are always too bright for everyone's good. his notes are full of highlighters and scribbles that it can blind someone. for one, he's always up all night studying his readings and cases for a practice court so by choosing neon highlighters, it's a way for him to wake up. there isn't one book in his possession that he doesn't highlight like it's a fricking coloring book. hange once jokingly said that his binder now acts like his bible and for once, he agrees because he was never seen without one. hange had a field day since levi never agrees with them.

when doing practice courts though, his go-to resting bitch face always come in handy when carrying out his role as one of the lawyers. he's just so sexy with his hands in the pockets of his slacks as he tries to justify his supposed client. the way he questions the accused definitely isn't hot because he's like one of the panelists in your thesis defense, the one who just comes up with questions that have you melting on the spot. he's dangerous i tell you. it also doesn't help if you accidentally hurt one of his friends or just landed randomly in his blacklist for being annoying as hell. relax though, he doesn't mean harm other than the fact that he's ready to throw some hands from all the pent-up rage he gathered in his body.

of course, i couldn't forget how he dresses up like a typical dark academia fanatic so look out for eye-candy.

if you want someone who can recite articles from the constitution, this man is perfect for you 😌

i had so much fun doing this !! again, i'm not generalizing every major i've talked about in these little headcanons, this is all for fun and based on the people i encountered in college. if you want more of this, don't hesitate to ask !! 😚

[bustedbernie]

Joe Biden the same as Trump?

We’ve heard it before. What does Joe Biden’s platform actually aim to do? (compiled by a redditor, taken mostly word-for-word from Joe Biden’s site, joebiden.com) 

Legal reforms:

Decriminalization, rescheduling, and expungement of existing federal marijuana convictions.

End the federal crack and powder cocaine disparity.

End all incarceration for drug use alone and instead divert individuals to drug courts and treatment.

Environmental reforms:

Invest $400 billion in clean energy research and innovation.

Establish an enforcement mechanism to achieve net-zero emissions no later than 2050.

Require aggressive methane pollution limits for new and existing gas operations.

Require public companies to disclose climate risks and greenhouse gas emissions.

Invest in carbon capture sequestration technology.

Support research into new nuclear technology.

Empower communities to develop transportation solutions.

Invest in electric rail roads and mass transit.

Embrace the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.

Demand a worldwide ban on fossil fuel subsidies.

Name and shame global climate outlaws.

Pursue a global moratorium on offshore drilling in the Arctic.

Hold polluters accountable.

Ensure access to safe drinking water for all communities.

Ensure that communities harmed by climate change and pollution are the first to benefit from the Clean Economy Revolution.

Invest in communities impacted by the climate transformation.

Double offshore wind energy by 2030.

Economic reforms:

$15/hr minimum wage.

Bankruptcy reform.

Paid family leave.

Paid sick leave.

Protect and expand union rights.

Repeal the $2.1tn Trump tax cuts.

Increase taxes by $1.4tn on top earners.

Hold corporations and executives responsible for interfering with unionization.

Aggressively pursue employers who violate labor laws.

Ensure federal dollars do not support employers who engage in union-busting.

Penalize companies that bargain in bad faith.

Make it easier for workers who choose to unionize to do so.

Ban state "right to work" laws.

Create a cabinet-level working group that will solely focus on promoting union organizing.

Ensure that workers can exercise their right to strike without fear of reprisal.

Empower the NLRB to fulfill its intended purpose of protecting workers.

Eliminate non-compete clauses and no-poaching agreements.

Put an end to unnecessary occupational licensing requirements.

Expand protections for undocumented immigrants who report labor violations.

Health care:

Medicare-like public option.

Allow Medicare to bargain for prescription drug prices.

Increase the value of tax credits to lower premiums and extend coverage.

Limiting launch prices for drugs that face no competition.

Limiting price increases for all brand, biotech, and abusively priced generic drugs.

Allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from other countries.

End pharmaceutical corporations’ tax break for advertisement spending.

Expanding access to contraception.

Protect and defend a woman's right to choose.

Restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Doubling America's investment in community health centers.

Expand access to mental health care.

Infrastructure:

Invest in historically marginalized communities.

Encourage the adoption of electric vehicles.

Invest $10 billion into transit projects that serve high-poverty areas.

Increase funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by $2.5 billion per year.

Invest $20 billion in rural broadband infrastructure.

Invest $100 billion to modernize schools.

Invest $10 billion in a new Cities Revitalization Fund.

Quadruple funding to provide small manufacturers with the technical expertise needed to compete in a global economy.

Electoral reform:

Introduce a constitutional amendment to eliminate private dollars from our federal elections.

Enact legislation to provide voluntary matching public funds for federal candidates recieving small donations.

Propose a law to strengthen our prohibitions on foreign nationals trying to influence federal, state, or local elections.

Work to enact legislation ensuring that SuperPACs are wholly independent of campaigns and political parties.

Increase transparency of election spending.

End dark money groups.

Ban corporate PAC contributions to candidates.

Prohibit lobbyist contributions to those who they lobby.

Reform funding for national party conventions.

Require that all candidates for federal office release tax returns dating back 10 years.

Prohibiting foreign governments’s use of lobbyists.

Ethics reforms:

Prevent the president or White House from improperly interfering in federal investigations and prosecutions.

Increase transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Empower agency watchdogs (Inspectors General) to combat unethical behavior.

Establish the Commission on Federal Ethics to more effectively enforce federal ethics law.

Prevent the president, other senior Executive Branch members, and Congresspersons from being influenced by personal financial holdings.

Policing reform:

Ending private prisons.

Investing $300 billion in community policing training.

Investing in public health and education.

Create a new $20 billion competitive grant program to spur states to shift from incarceration to prevention.

Expand federal funding for mental health and substance use disorder services and research.

Expand and use the power of the U.S. Justice Department to address systemic misconduct in police departments and prosecutors’ offices.

Invest in public defenders’ offices.

Eliminate mandatory minimums.

Eliminate the death penalty.

End cash bail.

Stop jailing people for being too poor to pay fines and fees.

Ensure humane prison conditions.

Invest $1 billion per year in juvenile justice reform.

Incentivize states to stop incarcerating kids.

Expand funding for after-school programs, community centers, and summer jobs.

Education:

Two years paid public universities and college or job training for those making less than $125k/yr.

Create new a federal grant program.

Double the maximum value of Pell grants for low-income and middle-class individuals.

Make a $50 billion investment in workforce training.

More than halve payments on undergraduate federal student loans.

Stop for-profit education programs from profiteering off of students.

Crack down on private lenders profiteering off of students.

Allow individuals holding private loans to discharge them in bankruptcy.

$10,000 across the board federal student loan forgiveness.

Forgive all undergraduate federal student loan debt for borrowers who attended public colleges and universities, as well as historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and private minority-serving institutions (MSIs).

Immigration:

Repeal Trump era restrictions on immigration

Prioritize deporting threats over deporting hard working, upstanding members of the community.

End child separation and prolonged detention.

Reform the asylum system.

End public funding for the border wall.

Protect DACA recipients.

Hold ICE and CBP agents accountable for inhumane treatment.

Again, you know most of this stuff, I know most of this stuff, but a lot of people don't know most of this stuff. The next time somebody drops a bomb on you like "Biden's not a real progressive, he only believes in half measures!" you can correct them with stuff direct from his policy page.

I hope you found this useful!

[migleefulmoments]

Once again, ccers have labeled some of their favorite fairytale tropes as indisputable facts.

Cassie: 

**************************************************************************************

Anonymous asked:  Okay I’m trying to figure out why people believe C/C is a thing. Not saying you are wrong, I just have 0 context to go on and you seem to have an interesting outlook. Would you mind telling me the background to this? Or why people believe D is in the closet? (Also I’m curious why nobody uses their names and instead letters).

Cassie: Nonnie, that’s a tall order. There’s SO much that absolutely indicates M is a beard and CC is most definitely real (not true. There is NOTHING to prove Mia is a beard or that cc is real).  Not the least of which is the absolute adoration on D’s face whenever he looks at or talk about C. (Wait, so your biggest and best evidence is that Darren looks at Chris with love and adoration? That isn’t proof of anything except for your own bias, your Harlequin Romance ideas about love and that you don’t understand what constitutes “proof”).  I’ve never once seen him look at M that way and usually when he is forced to speak about her, he does it in an almost offhand way and I don’t think it’s EVER in a complimentary way (”Ever” was her typo. This statement is not only NOT proof of a relationship but it isn’t even untrue. The cc fandom picks and chooses the evidence that confirms their bias and proves their point. Darren has looked at Mia with love and adoration and has said sweet things to her.  He also married her which trumps all of the goo-goo eyes they imagine he’s given Chris over the years). He’s said she’s a big girl when told people were bullying her, referred to her as a ball and chain (NO he referred o himself as a “ball and chain”), and frankly, he treats her badly (NOT TRUE. If it was true I don’t understand what you guys even like about him.  A man who treats his wife badly is a dick). He’s repeatedly slammed car doors in her face, walks as far ahead of her as he can, (Both of those scenarios were to avoid paparazzi photos of them together. It’s impossible for us to understand what it is like to have people taking our picture and making up stories about us so we can't compare this behavior to our lives.) got in the car for the sham mockery and left her to fend for herself in that monstrosity she called a wedding gown to try and get into the car (Yes, that is what all grooms do.  That is why the bride has attendants), and shook her hand at one of the first big events they attended after they had supposedly been dating for over a year (This is another flat out lie. As I debunked- Mia and Darren were photographed standing together before the red carpet and he introduced her as his girlfriend to another person standing near them. See what I mean they pick and choose to prove their point even if it means lying)   Contrast that with how reverently he speaks about C and how conscious he always seemed to be when they were in public together and there’s no contest (He tells the exact same story every time. Wonder why?)  The love sick puppy with his whole face lit up like a Christmas tree appears whenever C is mentioned (What are you 12? Nobody who is over the age of 12 and mentally sound believes that puppy dog eyes are proof of a relationship).  Paying attention to background moments is important (In other words slow it down, gif it, add music, repeat lies and notice the small stuff while ignoring the big stuff and maybe you can find cc in all the proof that Darren and Mia are happily married. Hear with your eyes because you will never find cc if you don’t). you will never If you need more, I suggest going through some of the bigger CC blogs and reading them.

As to why we use their initials and not their names means it doesn’t appear when their names are searched.

Anonymous asked: Okay more questions! Didn’t M and D start dating before G/lee? During their college years too right? And I assumed it was to avoid it being searched but it it for reasons? Maybe to avoid rude fans that disagree?

Cassie: Nonnie, if you believe the current version they are spinning, they met pre G/lee, as for when they started “dating,” well, it’s changed so many times I’ve lost track. I think the latest is 2011, but I’m not sure. (There are photos o them lying on next to each other one what is clearly a date with Darren’s pre-Blaine haircut so they have been dating since early- to mid-2010)  They tried to say before G/lee, but D blew that outta the water when he said he had never been committed to anything as long as he had G/lee during one of the interviews he did near when it ended (It is not rational to throw away all of the evidence that they dated before Glee- photos, comments from Darren and MIa and from friends in exchange for one offhand comment he gave to a reporter. This is a perfect example of how the fandom uses confirmation bias t  guide their beliefs)   Honestly, if anyone can keep the ever changing timeline in order, they deserve a reward. D sure as hell can’t. (Just because Darren isn’t. sharing dates with the fandom doesn’t mean he doesn’t know. This is a silly analogy Cassie if one of your students used this type of argument, I know you would shut it down)   They went to college in different parts of the country and M is older than D. 

I could give two shits less about fans that disagree. I don’t use their names in case THEY (or D’s collection of dumbasses that make up his team) search things here (Wait, so you hide the names so that if Darren’s team can’t find it but Abby has said many times that Darren reads your blogs daily and his team does as well? They even change their plans based on what you say.  This is confusing Cassie). The “fans” that don’t agree see everything we post, as they incessantly stalk our blogs and respond directly to what we say. I stopped bothering to see what they were saying a LONG time ago. It’s always the same old crap. But hey, hope they enjoy spending all their time writing epic posts about my fandom that get three notes, maybe four (You should DEFINITELY read my blog, it would keep you from making a fool of yourself believing something that is so obviously untrue because you would see could read about how your “proof” is all untrue. I have debunked the majority of the cc lexicon and  provided evidence to back me up) 

Hi is it okay if you could tell me when WS came into C’s life as a person who’s seen more than a friend? Like when and how long before the hand holding crap. I have no motive or am trying to start any fight, I am just really curious.

Cassie: To the best of my knowledge W first appeared with C in December 2011. (Wrong December 2012) The super awkward hand holding was June 2013, on the 12th, if memory serves. (Sure, I will beleive you) The day D was confirming M as the ball and chain. Never forget that France has super strict paparazzi laws to protect celebs. Everything released has to be with approval, unless something has changed. (We have photographic proof that Chris sat on Will’s lab at Naya’s party 12/7/12. We have a pic of Will kissing Chris at Coachella 4/13. The fact that you believe it happened on “confirmation day” is only because that is what Abby repeats but it isn’t true)

Anonymous asked: Thank you for responding to my WS question, so that means the tame bearding started when C said that stuttering thing implying there’s someone on An/dy’s show. Not surprising tbh. Kinda sad CC literally had to hide from like day 1, hope they won’t have to one day.

cassie1022 answered: Nonnie, you’re exactly correct about when it started with C. He definitely didn’t mean W when he made that comment on AC’s show. It is sad that they’ve had to hide for so long, but I’m hopeful that won’t always be the case. (The Andy Cohen interview was on April 2014. How in the hell Cassie can agree that the “bearding” was tame after that interview when we have Chris on Will’s lap 12/7/12 and a kiss in April 2013 at Coachella. Darren and Mia had been dating for at least 4 years by the time Chris did this interview It’s ridiculous that you can claim that it “definitely wasn't Will” The truth is you have no insight into who Chris was speaking of and all evidence points to Will.  Stop living in your imagination).  

***************************************************************************************

Whenever i see anything m related…Anon

ajw720 Hi nonnie, I am not posting your ask because i can already see the hate coming my way, but i need to make a comment. M’s job is to beard for D, her job, for which she is compensated well. Part of that job is to hide his sexuality. And as part of it, she is supposed to enhance his public image, it is literally her job to look good on his arm and to not embarrass him. (Abby, you know that you have no proof of this and to surmise that “It is literally Mia’s job to look good on his arm and to not embarrass him” is you once again embellishing your own fabricated stories about a man and woman you know nothing about.  It’s really not healthy for you to be living this deep inside your fantasy.  You are getting too specific Your theory that Mia is simply Darren’s arm candy and nothing more proves that YOU have no idea what a feminism is). 

And frankly, aside from her deluded stans, she does the complete opposite, constantly and all the time. It is not badass to vomit on stage and boast about it.  It is not woke or feminist to have offensive, derogatory, and misogynistic themes and decor at a bar she owns and that D is publicly attached to, I would imagine it is against the CA health code to have naked women gyrating on the bar where they serve drinks. (You would imagine? Come on Abby, you're a lawyer, you know you're full of shit. They weren’t naked and people step on the bar all the time. I have never seen you rage about that. You have no understanding of what “woke’ is or what feminists believe.)    It isn’t cool to wear a boob shirt to a professional event your public partner created that is marketed as family-friendly (Are you scared of boobs Abby? You have been to Elsie and it isn’t full of 2 yo’s. Darren has a potty mouth at Elise and I’ve never seen you be upset that his mouth isn’t family-friendly)   It is completely insensitive to be mad that a young man tragically died because it interfered with her interview (This is so overblown.  That wasn’t what she was doing and it’s time you stop using this to rally your troops, it’s a low blow and it isn’ true).  It is frankly criminal in my opinion to raise money from fans and then not use it for the stated cause (another untrue “fact” you keep repeating.  The money was for the project they completed).  And I could go on all day (yes becuase you’ve made most of them up yourself).  She is harmful to his image and becomes increasingly more so every day (This is untrue- she is his wife and Darren is about to have his best professional period in the next 6 months.  I have never seen one bad work about MIa that wasn’t directly tied to the cc fandom, in other words, nobody outside the fandom dislikes Mia and she isn’t negatively impacting his image.  Their wedding was extensively written about and on several best wedding lists without one bad word about Mia which also proves she isn’t hurting his image. You have also been saying this since 2015= of it got worse every day it would be 1,825x worse than when you first mentioned it)  And any team that cared about their client would have removed him from the situation years ago.  And if they needed him to be straight, get him a beard with ambition beyond being a beard.   

*************************************************************************************************

Anonymous asked: What happened with Mia, why everyone hates her? I'm new at this :(

chrisdarebashfulsmiles answered: A/non this is a long story. A lot of us tried to ignore her as much as possible for years (Bwahahahah the lack of self-image is overwhelming)  You of course already know that she’s a beard ( honestly not an opinion but a fact proven by a lot of things, public and not (NOT TRUE) - let’s talk about her living with her real bf “and D” for example) (Again I have disproved this trope, They don’t even comprehend that Ben has a live-in girlfriend and has been with her for a while now) and this wouldn’t have been a problem if she wasn’t the daughter of a powerful couple (jealous much? This wouldn’t be a problem if her parents weren't rich? WTF?)) and she was kind enough to truly love other people than herself (This trope is so untrue. Mia’s friends adore her and comment on how great she is.)   Because in that case she would have been a perfect beard and a wonderful friend for D. (It’s hilarious that she believes this is a valid argument) But unfortunately for D mostly the reality is way different (and yet Darren has never made one comment that suggests Mia is a beard, he is with Chris - in fact they have both denied they were in a relationship- or that he’s unhappy. This trope is 100% cc fabricated).

I can say to you, while suggesting to keep an eye for some posts about her here, that we have public video and post reporting how much awful she could be with D and his fans (I’m curious about this-anybody know what she is talking about?)  Or we wanna talk also about her fans? With the excuse of going full bearding following D everywhere every time ( obviously she talked about grueling work and heavy travel schedule in 2015) she and his group stole the money asked with a fundraising for a new video. And don’t forget: She’s rich AF. (Again, so jealous that her parents are rich-her parent’s money is not her money. She’s an adult. She didn’t steal the money for the video-they made the video Gorilla.  I’m going to write another post about this lie) 

Our despising is mostly related to the shit she does to D, tho.(Which the cc fandom has completely fabricated.  How would they have any info on what she. does to Darren? He’s never said one negative word about MIa) 

leka-1998 It’s been 2 years since they forced the encagement. Almost 1 year since the sham mockery and not even 1 month since everyone and their mother included it in their 2019 recap (Leka morphing into Abby.  As for posting -that is what friends and loved ones do. However, most of the “Recaps” were Top 9′s on Instagram and people don’t choose those pics, they are literally the TOP 9 liked posts of the year). And would you look at what’s happening, there are still people coming here wondering if something’s wrong.(Not a logical conclusion, they are reading your lies and then coming for answers) 

Archives here are a good place to start. Let me just say one thing. She’s mocked Cor/y’s death because an interview had to be rescheduled and she was not happy about it. She’s an all around bad person and the complete opposite of what D stands for. (And what exactly does Darren stand for? IT seems to me that he loves his wife and their life. His potty mouth and love of sex puns fit nicely with her).

Anonymous asked: Not the same anon, but for someone rich, M dresses really really badly. You would think rich people could dress themselves especially since they can actually afford a stylist lmao

chrisdarebashfulsmiles answered: I’m for the people right of choice of wear whatever they want tbh, anon (I stand for freedom of choice except if you are Mia....then I can trash everything about you).   Sometimes she is dressed by AW, sometimes by Lu/lu. The point is that most of the time she chooses the wrong dress alone because of her desire to be a ‘90 badass woman 20 years late. Something that I can understand because of my age but I also have to say that if you have to walk on a red carpet… You need to do it in the right way. She seems unable to understand this fact.(Everyone is free to be you and me except Mia who has to follow the patriarchal rules set forth by society 100 years ago: women are to be seen and not heard, should look pretty but be modest because it’s her responsibility to make sure men do not get boners when looking at her.She is supposed to wear new dresses according to Abby and they should be designer so as to look at Darren’s level. She has to look beautiful as defined by the ccers’ beauty standards or she is a labeled a bad person whom they are then free to bully).   

[jaysstudyplace]

A fresh new start! #Studyblr tag

So... It’s been quite a while since I’ve been active on this blog. It’s been way too long, actually. I’ve deleted all my old posts in an impulse, so that I could start with a fresh new blog. 

So since everything is gone (and since I’ve been gone for so long) I thought it would be cool to introduce myself again, using a studyblr tag. So here I am!

What’s your degree/major?

I’m a law student

What does a typical day look like?

I usually wake up around 6:30, get ready, eat breakfast, attend/watch lectures, study, eat dinner, watch some Netflix and go to bed around 22:30.

What is your weakest subject?

It’s definitely contract law, and just private law in general. I scored 5/20 on contract law... twice. Not my proudest moment. But when I retook it this year I realized how little I understood of it, and now I finally passed it. 

What is your strongest subject?

My highest score I ever had was for European law: 14/20. Might not seem like a lot for some, but this really was an accomplishment for me. Compared to my peers, my best one was constitutional law. Although I scored 13/20, around 75% of those who also succeeded the subject scored a worse grade than I did (so 10-12). 

What is your favourite subject?

European law for sure, I really found a passion in it to be honest

Are you a doodler?

No, I suck at drawing so I don’t want to ruin my notes/bullet journal with them

When do you plan to graduate?

If everything goes okay I’ll graduate from my bachelors the coming year (so 2020-2021), and my masters in 2022-2023. However, whether this will be possible or not depends on the grades I’ll get Wednesday for my 2 resits, so I’m honestly quite stressed. But that’s okay, let’s hope for a graduation in 2020-2021

Do you plan to do a post-grad?

It’s quite standard to do a masters degree here in Belgium, you don’t even have to apply or anything, you can just enroll in it like that. So yeah, I’ll definitely get a masters. I’d love to even go for a second masters degree, but for that they do have requirements and interviews and all that stuff, so I hope I’ll get to enroll in it. If I’d ever get the chance for a PhD I’ll definitely take it, but with my grades I fear that this is just a dream

Are you a morning or night studier?

I’m a morning studier. I’m extremely productive in the morning and as the day passes by, my motivation and concentration both drop massively. 

How often do you go out and party?

Right now I obviously don’t. Before covid, I went clubbing once or twice in a semester. I honestly don’t really enjoy it that much

Do you pull all-nighters?

Nope, I just cannot focus during the night, so it’s better for me to just go to sleep and try again the next morning. 

What’s your proudest academic achievement?

So this year we had this subject, torts, it’s said to be the hardest subject of the second year. And on my exam, I actually got a bonus point for creativity because I was apparently the only one of the entire group (350 students) with that answer, and it wasn’t on the marking scheme either, but what I had answered was correct. 

[ma-freeradical]

The Constitutional Rights of the Peculiar

I remember watching all 51 days of the Waco siege in the Memorial Hall lobby at Geneva College with many of my classmates. Geneva College is affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the RP's practice of Christianity is mildly controversial. As Christian College students, the events vibed with us because it involved Christian.  Peculiar Christians, but Christians nonetheless.

In case you weren’t aware, the basis for all the flavors of Christianity comes down to the fact that we all believe at least part of what the other guy believes is peculiar.  Peculiar enough to have different churches.

Not the least of their controversial beliefs, the RP Church does not use instrumentation in their worship. As a guitar player, I was offended. But I've attended their services. It was compulsory as a student for certain events. And I lifted my voice in worship along with the rest of the congregation.It wasn’t fatal. Just felt like it.  Especially during the singing.

The School scored higher on the controversial scale when they parted way with a professor because he had converted to Catholicism. I recall it as the least scandalous scandal one could imagine. Geneva College is a Protestant institution of higher learning and holds that the authority of God is found in the Bible. ("Sola Scriptura") The Catholic Church holds that the authority of God comes equally from both the Bible and Church tradition.

Geneva College held that the distinction was so fundamental, there was a rule that a professor that converted to Catholicism could not be a professor. The professor knew it. My recollection is that both the professor and the College handled the situation with grace and integrity.

I remember 51 days of astonishment and disbelief. My instantaneous belief was rooted in the knowledge that the Branch Davidians were an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. In short, they were probably nuts. If you're not a Branch Davidian, the logic isn't hard to follow. In short, the idea that they were hoarding guns and were extremists was fairly believable, because at our Christian college, the extremist box was already checked.

But some of us were more curious than that. We weren't sure that David Koresh and his followers weren't having their First Amendment rights trampled. Despite the fact Koresh was a polygamist and was married to teenagers.

The curiosity turned to suspicion when the image of the tank with the American flag flying appeared on the screen. It just didn’t sit right with me, and it’s been an iconic image for me ever since. Frankly, I thought the flag was a foolish decision for anyone trying to resolve the situation. The FBI was camped on the door of the Branch Davidians. The FBI was flying helicopters around, and let’s not forget the incident began with the ATF at the front door locked and loaded and with a warrant. There was no confusion about who the tanks belonged to. So why the flag?

I can’t think of a single compelling reason for a group of people hoping to resolve the situation peacefully to decide to fly that flag. But I am assuming the FBI knew they were the FBI.

During my summers at home while I was in college, I also watched Waco: The Rules of Engagement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco:_The_Rules_of_Engagement) and Paradise Lost (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost:_The_Child_Murders_at_Robin_Hood_Hills). They are each a good watch in their own right. They each also scared the shit out of me for different reasons.

First, I wasn’t that different from Damien Echols.  Weird white kid. Still am. I don’t know if Echols did it, but I do know the evidence produced against him was gathered with such recklessness and negligence that it led to the West Memphis Three entering Alford Pleas. After Eighteen years in prison.

The government can do that. And if they can do that to those three kids, they can do that to me. And you. But this is about me. Eighteen years. That shit is scary.

But, one could say that they got off better than Koresh.

“The Rules of Engagement” is very compelling. One thing that is clear is that Senator Schumer has always been a dick. It’s also compelling from witness testimony that Koresh and his followers held some peculiar beliefs, but lived peaceably and lawfully as a general rule.

Koresh attended gun shows and was a dealer. What the ATF called “stockpiling” is what a gun dealer calls “inventory.” If things had unfolded differently, any case for “stockpiling weapons” might have been summarily dismissed. Because the enforcement of such a law absent the intent to commit a crime is an abridgement of the Constitution.  The enforcement of such a warrant would trample all over Koresh’s First Amendment rights. In a tank flying the American flag.

Of course, the ATF warrant wasn’t predicated on “stockpiling” alone. Two thirds of the warrant was predicated on statutory rape. But, the ATF has no jurisdiction over statutory rape. Other issues with the warrant have been noted to be the fact that it was prepared in a “prejudicial and inflammatory manner,” and “put together in a sloppy fashion.”

And there is the fact that prior to the ATF raid, Koresh had invited the ATF to visit and inspect the compound. The ATF opted to have it all unfold differently. Perhaps they didn’t have time for a visit because they were busy practicing for the raid at Fort Hood with funds they had inappropriately secured by misrepresenting to the military that it was for an anti-drug raid.

Unfortunately, we’ll never be able to study the evidence. Somebody burned the house down. Somebody, perhaps somebody else, crushed all the vehicles. Somebody else lost the tape. Somebody lost the front door. And then no agent on the scene filed a written report of the incident. At best, this is not acceptable for a government agency. At worst…that’s some scary shit.

Senator Tom Lantos said of the Waco siege : “The most plausible single explanation for this nightmare is the apocalyptic vision of a criminally insane, charismatic cult leader who was hell bent on bringing about this infernal nightmare in flames and the extermination of the children, the women and the other innocents,” Lantos said.

Well, I saw it reported that way on television as well. But, "most plausible?" "Single?" Five years later, I still thought Koresh was peculiar, but, I was also still bothered by that tank with the flag

When Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death,” I don’t think he was merely defining a binary solution. Rather, I think he spoke conceptually. I don’t think he viewed his options as “take the liberty or you die.” I think it is better understood as “Give me liberty, or somebody’s gonna fucking die.” Might be you.  Might be me. Or, you could just give me the liberty.

Patrick Henry was calling on the patriots to arm themselves in order to fight the British if the demands of the convention were ignored. As a result, we now have a convention called the Constitution. 

This may have had little to nothing to do with Koresh's peculiar beliefs, and everything to do with Koresh's Constitutional rights. And Koresh may just have chosen the "Give me death."

Unlike Senator Lantos, I can conceive of an explanation of Waco that holds Koresh as a polygamist with some peculiar beliefs that chose “give me death” when the ATF tried to trample his Constitutional rights.

And the ATF was more than happy to oblige. For those of you that struggle with reading comprehension, I am not saying Koresh was a hero. What I am stylistically referring to as peculiar is allegedly immoral and illegal. Texas had run investigation of child abuse at the compound however, and there were no charges however.

We were supposed to learn something from the Waco Congressional hearings. I learned something from the hearings, and I have learned it repeatedly over the last 30 years.

At least in criminal matters, I’ll make a judgment when there is a judgment made.

In the case of Waco, my judgment is that there isn’t enough evidence.  And that is a crime.

Teaser? I wonder if you know what made Geneva College rate high on the controversy scale in the Supreme Court in recent years?

Teaser? I wonder if Bob Dylan has ever been so drunk that he started playing the same song in concert and had to be corrected by the band? At a Vermont airport while opening for the Grateful Dead?

Paradise Lost is also an integral part of Geneva history, Inspiring stained glass in Mcartney library and a painting by one of our Humanities professors. I got a C, and that is the summation of what I remember from that class. 

[momo-de-avis]

Hi! Just wondering about your opinion that if the Catholic Church sold its art&treasures it would no longer be there for the world to enjoy and would fall into private hands&be hoarded away (many saying the church should sell rn) I've often sat in cathedrals like Notre Dame and marveled at what palaces were built for the masses to enjoy. Like a little luxury for all of us, even the least of us. I know you are an art historian and wondered what you thought of this. : ) hope you are well : )

Thank you anon! I hope you are well too!!

To be frank, this is actually a legal question. And as such, it varies from country to country. 

The Notre Dame, for example, is not owned by the Catholic church. I think France has very similar laws in this respect to my country, and what that means is: the monument, itself, is a National Treasure or National Monument (I don’t know the correct definition, but what it means is: it’s a building highly classified, of not just historical interest to the country, but in heritage as well, and as such is prioritized above others).

In my country, for example, if I am not mistaken, churches that are not classified as National Monuments do not belong to the church entirely (they are allowed financial compensation from the Vatican, which should be employed in restoration, but then priests… you know), but if they aren’t, then the State has to stay away from it. This is because our Constitution states the separation of Church and State, and it’s a double-edged sword: if you wonder why stuff like the infamous restoration of that Jesus painting by Dona Cecilia happened, it’s because the church it’s the sole holder of the building and every artefact inside of it. Stuff like that actually happened several times over in our country: because there is no legal classification of the building, nor the artefacts inside of it—thus no legal protection from the State—priests do what the fuck they want and hire retired 80-year-old painters to slap some plastic paint on an 18th century mural (I wish I was kidding but this shit actually happened).

Again, I don’t know how it goes in other countries, but in Portugal, since the law defines ‘culture’ as something that belongs to everyone, everyone is allowed—and motivated to—act if they see a certain building decaying or believe it to be in danger. This is actually something a lot of people don’t know, and instead take it to facebook, but as a citizen, you can walk into your local city hall and present a form of petition (I sincerely forgot what paperwork this involves) requestion for the monument in question to be classified as ‘in danger’. As soon as that classification happens, the withholder of the monument will be inquired, and if anything happens to it, the owner will be fined.

So, what I mean to say is: the actual Catholic church actually doesn’t own lot of the churches out there classified as Monuments. One thing that also helps to preserve these monuments and to maintain them as public property—actually, now that I think of it, I think it completely forbids governments from selling a monument to a private owner—is if they are classified by Unesco. If it’s got a Unesco stamp of approval, it’s public and cannot be private, I believe (though correct me if I am wrong).

When it comes to privately owning art, however… I am for the opinion that art belongs to everyone, and though you are entitled to own art privately, you have to keep in mind that it is not yours, but everyone’s, and thus SHOULD allow for the art you possess to be viewed by the public. I don’t mean display it in a museum, but work towards images and information of the artwork you own to be made public and accessible to everyone. I say this because portuguese art history is a nightmare. You have an insane amount of incredible artists from the 19th century, and the vast majority of their works, you can’t even find an image. 

See, I teach art history, and it’s absolute hell for me. I remember telling my students, super frustrated, that I couldn’t find a single picture of more than 2 or 3 paintings by Aurélia de Sousa. And what is more frustrating is that, the more you progress through history, the less resources you find. Portuguese Neo-Realism is inexistent. If you google it, this is what you get:

The most important painting, the one that set the movement, isn’t even on the first few pages. Now would you believe if I told you we actually have an entire museum dedicated to neo-realism? Would you believe if I told you it was one of the most important artistic movements in the end of second world war, and an incredible voice against fascism at a time? Probably not, because we don’t really have anything out there to be seen.

This happens because, since our market is tiny and absolute shit, most things that exist are privately owned—usually, heirs of the painters or people who bought it in auctions for pennies—in other words, people you have to wait to die out to actually see the paintings. And there’s something incredibly cruel there. I teach this shit and I have nothing to teach, no tools to teach my students, because these private owners of art refuse to share—and I mean refuse. Aurélia de Sousa, for example, was a passionate photographer, which is something people don’t know. Why? Because the man who owns her photos, for years, refused to let anyone even touch them. This raises another issue as well: if you refuse to let anyone get close, then you suck because art needs to be preserved. 19th century photos in particular wither away. With everything, happens.

With that in mind, there’s also the issue of how these privately owned artworks are preserved. Paintings, if you don’t know, cannot be exposed to natural light, especially sunlight—particularly older paintings. Photos and film have to be preserved at a particularly cold temperature. Wood has to be constantly polished, but because of how old it is, it requires the right technique and materials. Same with silver, gold, etc. Of course, a museum, a cathedral, or what have you, they all have teams at ready for that sort of conservation—but when a private owner acquires a piece of art that isn’t legally classified in any way, they can very well be responsible for its distruction.

We’ve had two very important works burn because of that. First, this painting by Vieira Portuense, who is the only other name we have to have defined neo-classicism (it was short-lived here, we were to busy having a civil war or fending off the french). It’s an emblematic painting for its time, because it’s an embryonic moment of transition between neo-classicism and romanticism. But it’s gone, because the house it was in burned down. Another one I don’t remember the name, but it was Josefa d’Óbidos—the first female painter to have her own workshop here in Portugal. Again, a flood caused a short-circuit which caused for the house to burn down, and the painting was lost.

If a painting (and I think other artefacts as well) is classified in some way (National Treasure, National Interest and uhhhh…. there’s a third one I forgot D:), the owner IS forced to keep it preserved. He is forced to clean it and restore it. If he damages in any way, he is fined and the painting can be confiscated from him. Same for buildings that are classified as anything below National Monument. But if it happens to be a work of art that isn’t classified in any way, legally speaking… Well, if it disappears, it’s gone, and the owner just loses a painting. 

So it’s an incredibly delicate issue. On the one hand, privately owning art is necessary for artists, and I speak of both galleries and auction houses. It keeps the flow of the art economy going (though the art world is RIDICULOUS INFLATED economically speaking, but that’s a whole other conversation) and the market value of artists that are alive and, well, need to eat, is raised every time they sell something. Also, a country’s art market increases if they manage to sell more of their art alongside international artists (why Portugal fucking sucks in that respect), so that in itself is of great interest to artists who are alive and practicing, as well as for the country itself.

But on the other hand, it’s really a double-edged sword. Because I still maintain that art belongs to everyone, and no matter how many artworks you own, you have to keep that in mind. I had the chance to work for art collector who was very conscious about this: he lent his art constantly without charging anything and he kept his every artwork so well preserved he actually had restore works after lending them to museums. Now if everyone had that conscience, the world would be a better place.

So I put it this way to sort of generalize it, because I don’t believe, for one second, the church is exempt from this in any way. In Europe, they detain a great part of many country’s heritage. In our own country, they hold like half of our shit. But again: double-edged sword. 

You said something that is very accurate: churches like the Notre Dame were built for the masses. They were built for everyone, because it is the House of God where everyone is accepted and welcomed. Yes, it initially had a purpose, bore a function that doesn’t serve entirely anymore (though mass is still held in it, the fact that it is today a touristic attraction has shifted the church’s initial purpose, so to speak). So to think that the Catholic Church would close it down, or simply decide that suddenly they couldn’t allow people inside because they own it goes against not just (in our case) the legal definition of cultural object, it goes against the very principle of catholicism—something they turn around easily by opening its doors free of charge during mass. There is a huge debate in my country every like, two summers, because some cathedrals you have to pay to get inside—and something about that isn’t right. If you have to pay to enter, that means the building in itself is important enough that it’s classified as something, at the very least National Monument, but by charging money to get inside, you’re already breaking the very definition of cultural object, legally speaking: everyone is allowed to experience culture. This is a serious debate that happens every so often, and reason why it’s moved certain parties to try and end this shit of pay-to-enter churches, which is maddening to me (supposedly, they say, it’s to tame touristic masses a bit, but we all know that ain’t it).

What’s graver, as I said, is the case of small parishes that happen to own ancient artefacts like statues from the 18th century. Because priests aren’t educated on the matter, they think, oh this is a pretty little nativity scene! And hire some old dude to paint over a fresco. The example I mentioned above, where this happened?

This is what it looked like before:

this is after:

Yeah. I mean, I laugh every time cause it is fucking funny, but you gotta do it not to cry lmao

So like, for me, if we are going to entrust the Catholic church with artefacts and monuments—not necessarily sell them, you can legally lend them, like a legal guardian sort of agreement (I’m sorry, there’s a correct legal term for this but I don’t know it, the shit about law is that you have to address things with the right word)—you gotta force these fuckers to respect what they own. Force them to have restorations made, to clean their shit, to maintain their possessions. Force them to make an effort into bringing awareness to the existence of these things. For the love of God, FORCE THESE PEOPLE TO MAKE AN INVENTORY. Bitch, HIRE ME, I’LL DO YOUR INVENTORY FOR YOU.

And bring these artworks into the world. Create a website. Make pictures of these artworks publically available, free of charge, so that people can look at it, study and it and have free access to it. Have you ever walked into a museum and got told you aren’t allowed to photograph the works inside? I’ll tell you that’s bogus. Sure, flash damages the work, but no flash causes no harm. When a museum does that, I can guarantee you it’s one of two things: one, the artwork you are forbidden from photographing is privately owned by some Elongated Muskrat who thinks they’re above everyone else because LoOk aT mE I oWn ArT, and two: the museum is telling you to buy a catalogue.

What museums usually tend to not understand is that the free circulation of images of their artworks is actually what brings MORE people to their museum. Like, this is a fucking proven fact—that’s why they sell postcards, prints and tote bags with their paintings on it. Case in point? London: you think they give a shit if you take up-close photos of their paintings in Tate Britain? I know they don’t cause I was the idiot photographing paint drips on a goddamn William Holman Hunt. And you don’t even pay to get inside. But do you remember what artworks are inside the Museo Reina Sofia in Madrid—aside from the Guernica? Yeah, which one has a strict policy in not photographing their paintings, you ask? Well.

So, tl;dr: if you’re gonna own art, make it available to the public, whether by putting it in a museum or making information about it—including pictures—accessible to all, and the government should be all over your ass annually to make sure you’re not damaging the artworks, otherwise lose custody of the baby and pay a fine. If you’re not gonna abide by these principles, then I am of the opinion that you don’t truly know the real worth of what you’re in possession of, and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to have it. AND THAT MEANS YOU TOO, VATICAN. Fuck your parishes, hire me. There’s a bunch of qualified people to do the job for you, you guys are just lazy and are keeping the Vatican’s money in your pockets.

[idlitalk]

The Kashmir chronicles

Earlier this week, Amit Shah, the Shah of all things Modi-esque, in his own bombastic way, passed a move to ‘abrogate’ two key constitutional provisions - #Article370 and #Article35A. At this moment, all the MP’s in Parliament looked towards Shashi Tharoor with a question mark on their face. Shashi quickly mouthed the word ‘repeal’ as all nodded their understanding.

“What do these articles mean?”, you ask.

This was the question every Indian across the globe asked immediately, as all stopped worrying about their own lives and money for a New York minute. Amit Shah declared J&K as a union territory and not a state. The number one trending hit on google at that very moment was “How is a state different from a union territory”, a question that google itself had to google to answer. Everyone had studied this in 7th grade civics but no one remembered, which takes me back to the state of education in our lives. But I digress. All it meant was that J&K would be under the control of the centre rather than a balancing act between the state and the centre, which is a good thing in the immediate future, but not the best thing in the long run.

As everyone struggled to grasp the meaning of this announcement, while simultaneously trying to show excitement levels to match that of Arnab Goswami, a guy was overheard saying “ thank God for this, I was so scared of this gay law”. No one bothered to correct him that the law he was worried about was Article 377 whereas this was Article 370. But who can blame them. All these ‘articles’ were too complicated for the common man, but that doesn't stop the common man from shouting his views from the rooftop which is known as ‘social media’ these days. But I again digress. 

So what exactly are Article 370 and Article 35A?, you ask.

Wait, why do I have to think of a primer in the land of wikipedia. So here goes:

Quote from Wikipedia:

Article 370 of the Indian constitution was used to give special status to the region of Jammu and Kashmir. This article, along with Article 35A, defined that the J&K state's residents live under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights, as compared to resident of other Indian states.As a result of this provision, Indian citizens from other states cannot purchase land or property in Jammu & Kashmir.

Unquote.

In simpler terms, these 2 articles gave the J&K residents special rights as compared to any other India. Think of them as living in their own mini-country. Abrogating them also gave school students 2 chapters to study in 7th grade civics.

So why was this not scrapped earlier?, you ask.

Well, that's the point. This article was included ‘temporarily’ in 1949 and the  intention was for it to last till the formulation and adoption of the State's constitution. However, the State's constituent assembly dissolved itself in 1957 without recommending either abrogation or amendment of the Article 370. Thus the Article has become a permanent feature of the Indian constitution. Generations after generation, politician after politician, turned their head the other way, stuck their head in the sand, or just plain vigorously shook their head when asked about this. After all, who wants to disturb a sleeping lion. But Atal Behari Vajpayee had dreamt of this and did mention it as something that his party would look at if they got the majority needed. Unfortunately, he didn’t live long enough to see the dream being realised but the great Sushma Swaraj witnessed it as her last act on earth . Her final nostalgic tweet went “ प्रधान मंत्री जी - आपका हार्दिक अभिनन्दन. मैं अपने जीवन में इस दिन को दे��ने की प्रतीक्षा कर रही थी. @narendramodi ji - Thank you Prime Minister. Thank you very much. I was waiting to see this day in my lifetime.”

There, now correcting a 70 year old mistake doesn't feel so bad, does it?

However that's not the full picture either. Nothing is ever so black and white, except the song by Michael Jackson. During this period, there have been generations that grew up and this was their life. They have never known any other alternative. Getting all those people to change their lives and be a part of a ‘new’ country is the tough part here. It might take a generation to do it. But it is worth waiting patiently for that generation to reap the rewards. 

“But how does this help India”, you ask.

Well, this now integrates India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari (as the ‘Chennai Express’ song goes) like never before. It gives India a fresh platform on the global stage to have a discussion on POK. It enables all Indians to have the same rights in J&K as they have in the rest of the country. Importantly, it allows Kashmiri women who marry a man from a different state, to get a share in immovable assets. Previously Indians thought of Kashmir as only a ‘tourism’ state but now they can think of relocating and settling there. 

“Now what's next”, you ask.

Thats something no one really knows but every one feels they know. In the world of social media, there are multiple versions of truth. For now, we wait. We watch. And we hope. For a better India.

Disclaimer: this article (no, not 370 and 35A) is a combination of facts and spoof, and hope you identified and chuckled at the spoofs and not the facts.

[realtalk-princeton]

why are people in our generation so sensitive

Response from Opal:

I am not 100% sure as to what you mean by “sensitive,” but generally, when people ascribe that word to a demographic as sweeping as “our generation,” they are alluding to a perceived trend of overzealous “political correctness” or something adjacent to that. Therefore, I will assume that you are doing the same.  Why is our generation so sensitive? I will be upfront with you and say that I have personally had my fill of people telling me, on the Internet or at lecture events or across the dinner table, that something is wrong with the youth of America today who are so keen to fuss, agitate, and voice their discontent about the state of the world. “Sensitive” is actually a pretty spot-on descriptor for us, but it does not mean, as those same people often imply, that we get upset all the time over nothing of actual import and cannot tolerate being exposed to different ideas. Rather, it means that we are more attuned to what is unjust and what helps perpetuate that injustice, and that we are actually in a position to speak up and do something about it sometimes. We have always lived in a society bounded by structural oppression, and we have always had people who recognized this, fighting to liberate their minds and their bodies from the systems that give certain individuals indisputable and unethical power over others. There is nothing unique about the malcontent of our generation in that sense; we are simply able to build upon the work done in the past to expand our current understandings of what is wrong and what we must change. Just because some of those things are personally not relatable to people from older generations or in power does not mean that they are not real, creating real repercussions on the real lives of real human beings. Those who get the short end of the stick in an unjust society are the ones who are most knowledgeable about the various ways in which it manifests injustice in the first place, and we are doing nothing more than continuing to unlearn harmful internalizations and protect each other by listening to what those important, historically marginalized voices have to say. I am afraid that this whole spiel may be getting a little convoluted, so I apologize and will just leave you with this: Systemic oppression is powerful and pervasive enough to permeate all aspects of our lives, our social institutions, and our interactions with each other, and it is so multitudinous that we are a long ways away from knowing all there is to know about identifying, resisting, and undoing it. Progress, by definition, is made whenever we take another step away from a status quo that does not allow all of us to live freely, but these acts of disobedience will always appear obnoxious, irritating, and uncalled-for, because society as a whole is so conditioned to buy into the narratives of power, and because wherever there is inequality, those who benefit from it will feel threatened by calls for change. I hope our generation stays sensitive. I hope we keep getting better at uplifting each other by refusing to accept subjugation and all its tools - large and small, institutional and interpersonal, conscious and unconscious, obvious and subtle.

Response by Alito:

re: Opal. 71% of Americans believe “political correctness is a problem in America today.” Things have definitely gone overboard from the eyes of an average American (maybe not a Princeton student considering demographics). 

Americans ideals have drastically shifted as a result of generational change. In my theory, Millennials and subsequently our generation wants to “minimize hurt feelings.” While Gen X prides itself in resilience and grit, Millennials and proceeding generations took “tolerance and inclusiveness” and ran w/ it (cough participation trophies cough), making it a “centerpiece” of their “progressive” ideology. Whether that’s now too extreme or not is for you do decide. 

This from my viewpoint has led to extremely “progressive” views being pushed while other narratives that don’t conform 100% to the PC progressive narrative be demonized and deemed “hateful,” when they could potentially be valid. It’s led to a closed-minded/“you versus me” mentality where when one’s view is challenged, he or she personally takes offense (and assumes the incorrectness of the opposing party) rather than trying to debate why one believes his or her view is valid. It’s led to the rise of dangerous authoritarian ideals, like censoring speech. To be specific, censoring any speech not conforming to the “progressive” political viewpoint. It has led to the loss of respect for the rule of law in the name of “feelings” and “progressivism.” Personally, the avoidance (voluntary or forced) of challenging ideas for the sake of “feelings” is indefensible. The Vatican has the Devil’s Advocate for a reason. 

When I first arrived at Princeton, I was quite shocked to see Princeton students call for the death of free speech and anything that is mildly against the Progressive narrative. I have heard students advocating for the hijacking/weaponization an entire academic department for pushing their own political views. This is horrific considering the purpose of academia is original research to discover new things, not confirm preexisting biases. The disinvitation of Amy Wax from a Whig-Clio event on the freedom of speech, followed by the hosting of comedian Chelsea Handler to discuss “wokeness and white privilege” (along with a slew of other spotlighted events covering everything from Marxism to reparations for the black community), is just one of the examples I’ve encountered regarding this phenomenon here. 

Sorry, I’m v tired rn and my words might not make much sense. I’ll follow up later and maybe extend this response, but this is what I have for now. 

Response from Opal:

re: Alito. There is a lot going on here! I will not respond to all of it, because I have no desire to turn this particular post into a massive debate, but I do think it is important to note that criticizing, protesting, and reacting negatively to certain individuals or viewpoints, both on this campus and anywhere else, does not constitute censorship. We are all entitled to say what we want, but we are not entitled to other people accepting, engaging with, or even listening to us, and that is not to be confused with “the death of free speech.” The disinvitation of a speaker for a campus event, while perhaps a breach of decorum, does not inhibit that speaker’s actual ability to maintain and express their beliefs - especially not Amy Wax, who has multiple publications and a professorship to her name. The Constitutional right to freedom of speech is not a right to an audience, and it is therefore a non sequitur to label all ideological backlash and avoidance as morally wrong because they are violations of free speech. 

It is more pertinent to examine the kinds of ideas that you observe to be either drawing fire or largely ignored. To this, I will say that the sensitivity of our generation is much less about “minimizing hurt feelings” than it is about resisting ideas, narratives, and beliefs that threaten the humanity or existence of entire demographics of people. As a queer woman of color, I believe that my right to move freely through the world, fully as myself, supersedes the rights of others to tell me that my identities make me inferior, subordinate, undeserving, or wrong WHILE expecting that I will not raise a stink about it. Such words are inextricably linked to literal violence and oppression, and listening to them creates pain and fear that go far beyond “hurt feelings.” Say that my poetry is bad, my nose is too wide, or my love for ABBA is embarrassing if you want to hurt my feelings. Say that I am less of a human being than you are, and the Vatican will not even need to supply an advocate for the devil because he just spoke to me directly. Screw “tolerance and inclusivity” - I demand respect and reciprocity. We all do. And I am tired of rhetoric that delegitimizes my demands.

Response from Alito:

re: Opal. 

“I have no desire to turn this particular post into a massive debate”

Likewise

“criticizing, protesting, and reacting negatively to certain individuals or viewpoints, both on this campus and anywhere else, does not constitute censorship.”

Of course! However, I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the issue at hand. The problem with the Whig-Clio incident is that individuals with a degree of authority disinviting speakers cannot be simply accepted as a “protest or criticism,” it’s the literal depravation of a forum for public debate and criticism. We never knew what Amy Wax would have said about free speech. Whig-Clio’s actions were even denounced by Eisgruber I believe. We are depriving her of her voice and her ability to express her opinions as a result of her previous statements. This has nothing to do with audiences, and that is a grave misrepresentation/straw man. 

Also, for speech to be speech, wouldn’t we need an audience? If we don’t have one, it would literally be talking to ourselves… I think that’s what the Founding Fathers meant as speech. 

Let me just say I find students here particularly hypocritical how and to the extent they decide free speech is applied depending on political ideology and opinions taken (the specific issue I would mention is like a nuclear bomb rn, so I won’t). Let me just say a lot of conservative/libertarian ideals and censored and shunned when they could merit DEBATE and value

I won’t respond to your proceeding argument because I don’t wish to start a flamewar, but we shouldn’t ignore 71% of Americans and how they think. 

[molgars]

Law student here. Look, anyone who flies the confederate flag is a racist piece of shit with worms for brains, but making it illegal to fly the flag at all is pretty clearly unconstitutional. I’m not saying this because I think that’s a good thing, but because I think it’s important to set realistic goals with activism and this is, unfortunately, simply not achievable without overturning a century of precedent (which this Court will not do, even if their failure to do so is directly harming Black people; the ones who care at all won’t do something that radical, and the majority of the Court straight-up doesn’t give a shit).

If you want an explanation of why this is unconstitutional, here it is.

Tl;dr: You need to show that symbolic speech is intended to incite violence to ban it, and there is no feasible way to prove that every possible instance of flying the confederate flag is intended to do that.

The First Amendment protects political speech more fervently than any other kind, and symbolic speech is included under those protections.

So, no state has attempted to do this specific thing as far as I’m aware, but they’ve done similar things. First there’s Stromberg v. California, where California tried to ban communist flags from being flown. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that unconstitutional in 1931.

Of course, the Court acknowledged that there are exceptions to free speech protections, including incitements to violence or sedition (“There is no question but that the State may thus provide for the punishment of those who indulge in utterances which incite to violence and crime and threaten the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means.”). They just didn’t think that flying communist flags did that. Let that sink in: in 1931 the Court said that flying communist flags was protected speech and wasn’t an evident threat to the government. Granted, it wasn’t the Cold War era yet, but our comrades were still pretty politically unpopular; if a flag was gonna get banned, it would be this one.

And while I think it’s undeniable that flying the confederate flag contributes to violence against Black people, that is not quite the same as incitement and is unfortunately not enough to uphold a prohibition on symbolic speech. Under the Brandenburg test, you need to intend to incite lawless action, and the speaker’s conduct must be likely to produce such action.

You’d probably have a helluva time convincing this Court that the confederate flag is likely to produce violence, but let’s say that the Court agrees with you. What would perhaps then actually be constitutional: a statute that bans flying the confederate flag with the intent to intimidate or incite violence (see Virginia v. Black).

“Okay,” you might say, “but if you’re flying a confederate flag, knowing the damage it causes and that it is likely to incite violence, isn’t that basically the same as intending to incite violence? So couldn’t you ban all flyings that way?”

Unfortunately, the Court also addressed that question in Virginia v. Black, which dealt with Virginia’s statute against cross-burning. There was a provision of that statute that stated that burning a cross in public view was “prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate.” Prima facie means “accepted as correct unless proved otherwise,” so essentially there was a provision that said that burning a cross at all is proof of intent to intimidate. The Court found that that provision was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, in part because they held that there are other reasons someone might burn a cross than to intimidate (when making a movie, for example, or, infinitely more horrifically, because you want to express your shared ideology with other KKK members). They almost certainly would find similar justifiable reasons for flying the confederate flag, especially considering the nightmare scenario that is our current SCOTUS.

The best we could reasonably hope for is banning the flag being flown with intent to intimidate, which would maybe be better than nothing. But it doesn’t necessarily get to the root of the problem and, depending on your view of the criminal justice system, could do more harm than good.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use this momentum, though. If you’re a white person who signed this petition, use some of that energy to start holding your racist friends and relatives accountable. We have gotta stop letting other white people get away with this bullshit, because Congress isn’t going to effect the change for us.

COME ON, PEOPLE! WE'RE BANNING THE CONFEDERATE FLAG!

Video by the guy that started it below.

-fae

[loudlytransparenttrash]

One of my followers is a lefty, but unlike most left-wingers today, she's an actual liberal. Not the kind that hates conservatives because our ideology is different. But she seems to think that us right-wingers hate black people and the only difference is we're more honest about it than the left. I wanna give her a convincing argument against this notion but I'm not Ben Shapiro or the right-wing equivalent of Jordan Peterson, so what do I say to her, exactly?

Lol you don’t need to be either of them to know that’s simply not true. I think it’s senseless to suggest either side hates black people. I’d love to talk to your follower and find out what reasons she has to believe majority of the country hates blacks considering she believes both sides hates blacks just one is more honest about it than the other. I think she’s confusing the black civil rights leaders who would say the only difference between a liberal and conservative is liberals pose as black’s benefactor while conservatives are more honest about not being blacks’ benefactor. That’s very different to hating black people.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment either, as conservatives openly have no interest in being the benefactors for anyone. Conservatives don’t want us dependent on the government, they’re against creating a socialist welfare state and they’re against creating policies which enforce special treatment to entire groups. They believe in individualism, self-sufficiency and productivity. And this is why they’re considered racists today. They refuse to treat blacks differently and they don’t encourage blacks to be dependent on them, so that clearly must mean they hate black people.

Blacks had always overwhelmingly voted Republican as they once valued family, freedom, independence and personal responsibility. It also helped that Democrats were the party of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, lynching, segregation and anti-civil rights. Only after the black vote started to count, Democrats rebranded themselves as the sympathizers, defenders and saviors of black Americans, telling blacks they will give them the free ride they are owed, they’ll give them reparations and entitlements and welfare in return for their vote. Unfortunately, they fell for it, and Democrat policies and Democrats elected in black-majority cities have turned out to be disastrous for blacks. 

Racism and “the legacy of slavery” is the go-to explanation for the struggles faced by black Americans, and if only the government righted the historical wrongs of whites and promise to coddle blacks and provide for them, and if only we have Democrat/black leaders (despite having a black Democratic president and largely black administration for eight years), well only then can black people succeed. This is the winning formula for the Democrats hooking the black vote, but what would happen if blacks regained their conservative values and stopped asking what the government can do for them and instead go back to asking what they can do for themselves.

Before blacks latched onto welfare and reparation programs and believed success was owed rather than earned, black high schools were doing better than many other majority-white schools, blacks had higher rates of workers than whites, blacks had a lower rate of teenage unemployment, blacks were rising into professional and other high-level positions at greater rates, the large majority of black couples were married, most black babies were born to married parents, the number of teenage pregnancies had been decreasing, both poverty and dependency were declining and black income was rising at equal rates to white income. There was also far less black crime and less black homicide.

Fast forward to the implementation of Democratic welfare and “we owe you” programs and rewarding single mothers, black workers and black teenage employment decreased in half, less than half of black students graduated from high school in 2005, 75 percent of blacks aren’t married, almost every black baby is born to a single mom and raised by a single parent, teenage pregnancy has accelerated, blacks today commit the overwhelming largest rates of murder and violent crime, in many cities blacks constitute majority of shooters even when they’re a minority and black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic males of the same age combined. But let me guess, racism is worse today than it was pre-1960? Or the legacy of slavery is more prevalent today than two generations ago?

You may not think black married families is important, but when you consider almost no black married family live in poverty while the large majority of unmarried, single black mother households do live in poverty, it’s probably something we should be treating more seriously. Imagine what could be possible if we took the values blacks once believed in such as marriage, education, nuclear family, high expectations, holding everyone to the same standards, being self-empowered, respect for law, and combined them with the ceaseless rights, opportunities and freedom we enjoy today. It’s never been done and it probably never be will for as long as conservative values are racist and our rights, opportunity and freedom only exist for white guys…

This is the problem with feeding blacks the idea their lives are hopeless, threatened and oppressed. It makes them feel powerless which is great for Democrats as they become black’s only hope to provide for them like wounded pets but it’s proven to be a massive setback for blacks because once you give up your self-determination and independence, productivity and progress can never exist. Black Americans continue to sit at the bottom and in many ways have fallen backwards more today than 50-100 years ago. No group has ever successfully improved their circumstances by clinging to a counterproductive culture that is supposedly “authentic” in the name of group pride or identity. The only way up is to work for it, the excuses and blame have to stop. We have to reach out, forgive and move on. Walking on eggshells out of fear or guilt or throwing money at the problem solves nothing. 

Apart from the myths about oppression and victimization which push more blacks into welfare, crime, broken homes, poverty, drugs and self-destruction, I despise the well-intentioned, sympathetic liberal view on black people. Have you seen the video where young liberals all agree blacks shouldn’t have to hold an ID to vote because most blacks are either too broke or don’t know how to use the internet to find their local DMV? Or that it’s not black people’s fault for being unhealthy because all they can afford is fried chicken or they don’t know how to find healthier places to shop… I sure as hell believe this liberal shit is more offensive than expecting blacks to be held to the same standards, rules and accountability as everyone else. 

It’s also why they vote for affirmative action and racial quotas, rather than wanting blacks to be better educated or be employed based on skill and merit, they rather just lower the bar altogether and admit based on skin color where they will ultimately fail and drop out or come out of college less educated than before holding an expensive degree in Fuck Trump studies. Just look at the black student who was accepted into a top university just for writing lines of ‘black lives matter.’ Professors are told to not correct the spelling of black students as their broken english is their “own language” and now they want to do away with tests altogether as the results discriminate against blacks. 

We can add the bigotry of low expectations to the list of Democrats screwing over black Americans. Ask your follower if she can come up with a list of examples of Republicans or conservatives “hating blacks” that can out-do the left. She might want to leave out the inevitable incarceration rates though as they perfectly match the black homicide and violent crime rates, plus older blacks support the no-sense approach as they’re just as fed up with young blacks terrorizing their neighborhoods and shooting each other daily. She might also want to read up on Black Lives Matter, their violence, agenda and the facts surrounding their founding martyrs before claiming the right unfairly criticizes the movement. And she sure as heck can’t point to pro-lifers as the majority of aborted babies are black, probably not something racists would protest.

None of this not to say the right doesn’t have its racists or major faults, but if they’re as so honestly and openly racist as your follower believes, surely she could prove it? Thanks :) xx

[brandilovevip]

Diane Black & The State of the Media

I have finally had some time to listen to the full audio of Diane Black’s comments on school shootings. I’ve been asked by a number of news outlets to comment. I have however,  refrained from commenting because I’m concerned about the underlying narrative. I’m disgusted by the attempts of the mainstream media & liberal media to equate every crazy thing to conservatives and or those of us who support President Trump.

If I were to simply say Diane Black is nuts. I worry that the message would then be extended to:  “conservatives are nuts” … just look at what has happened with Rosanne , Kanye etc.  The media is using every crazy statement made by a Trump supporter as an opportunity to extend that “crazy” to all Trump supporters.  

Politicizing what Diane Black said,  when we have a serious mental health & social issue that needs real solutions is the lowest of low. It’s represents a new bottom & to be honest I didn’t think it could get any lower.

What Diane Black said IS wrong. Maybe she is crazy. Maybe she’s pandering. Perhaps she’s an ideologue. I have no idea what she truly believes. All I know is what she said & what the media is trying to do with it.

It’s all disgraceful.

Due to the malicious media frenzy & Trump Derangement Syndrome, Diane Black’s statements have caused media outlets to ask me primarily two questions:

1.  How can you be a conservative or support President Trump when they/he want to ban porn?

2.  What are your thoughts on Diane Black’s statements related to school shootings?

I’ve decided to tackle both of those questions here.

1.  How can you be a conservative or support President Trump when they/he want to ban porn?

Conservatives Don’t Want Porn Banned.

I have talked about this extensively on Twitter over the past two years. The research is clear and irrefutable. “Conservatives” ( Red States ) purchase & consume more adult entertainment & adult products than “Liberals” ( Blue States ).  It’s WHY I have such a steadfast and loyal fan base. I’m one both THEM. A Bible believing, non church going, politically conservative, fiercely Constitutional woman who loves God,  human sexuality & sex.

While there is absolutely a far right religious conservative hatred of porn,  Some of the fiercest challenges to adult entertainment have come from liberals.

President Lyndon B. Johnson

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Stanley v. Georgia that people could view whatever they wished in the privacy of their own homes ( THANK GOD! ). In response, the United States Congress funded the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, set up by President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) to study pornography.

LBJ was HOPING to find proof of the negative effects of pornography.

He didn’t. They didn’t.

What they discovered instead is that there was NO reliable evidence that porn hurts anything or anyone.

Iceland ( Very Liberal):

In a country that is considered one of the most liberal in the world there is an active and ongoing effort to ban adult entertainment.  Iceland's proposed ban on “porn” can be seen as a continuation of earlier legislation to regulate the sex industry.

In 2009 it introduced fines and prison terms for those who patronise prostitutes. Most interestingly, and in my opinion disgustingly, they do not apply the legislation to the prostitutes themselves, which lawmakers consider  victims. In 2010 it outlawed strip clubs. And distributing and selling pornography in Iceland has actually been illegal since 1869.  

According to an article in The Economist, the main reason behind the proposed ban seems paradoxical: it is a result of Iceland being a highly liberal place. The country was run by the world's only openly lesbian prime minister, while 65% of Icelandic children are born outside marriage (more than any other country in the The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or… mostly non shithole countries for those of you in Rio Linda.

MeToo Movement

I couldn’t loathe a movement more than the MeToo movement and so should those in adult entertainment. Why? because of the the strange alliance between #MeToo and the right wing religious conservative anti-porn movement. When these two groups are aligned on an issue you KNOW something has gone haywire in the universe.

Nevertheless, MeeToo and right wing religious conservatives joined forces and sang kumbaya in April THIS YEAR. As noted by The Guardian, the mood was upbeat this week as hundreds of activists gathered near Washington to share stories, talk strategy, and canvass lawmakers on their agenda at a conference organized by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), which recently notched up a major PR victory in getting Walmart to ban Cosmopolitan magazine from checkout counters.

Cosmo. Fucking Cosmo. There’s your MeToo movement at work.

I could go on and on citing statements and legislative efforts from liberal organizations such as “Stop Porn Culture” ( Liberal )  , Dr Gail Dines ( Liberal Feminist ), Dr Diana Russel (Liberal) Sociologist , and let’s not forget the folks behind California’s Proposition 60.

Here are just a few:

“Is it Ok to become aroused by sexual torture which is what porn is.”

“Men become predisposed to rape from viewing pornography”.

“The most popular form of pornography f it shows the woman enjoying being raped which is common in pornography”

2.  What are your thoughts on Diane Black’s statements related to school shootings?

What Diane Black said during a listening session in Clarksville, TN  IS wrong.

Maybe she is crazy. Maybe she’s pandering. Perhaps she’s an ideologue. I have no idea what she truly believes. Regardless of her beliefs or motives,  to equate the increase in school shootings to adult entertainment is dangerous and irresponsible.

Some of Diane Black’s stated positions aren’t crazy however.

For example she said this:

“In response to mass shootings, liberals have called for banning and confiscating all guns. We must recognize mental health issues are the cause of mass gun violence, not the guns themselves,”

That is correct.

We do need to figure out what is going on and why. This isn’t a second amendment issue. This isn’t a “porn” issue.

Maybe however, there is a tie to the erosion of the family unit? Maybe there is something to constant exposure to violent video games. Maybe there is an issue with social media, low expectations, bullying , parental abdication etc.

We do need to get to the root of this regardless of what that says about… or how it challenges our individual world views.

Until then,  there are things that should and could be done in my opinion.

On Location Solutions:

1. Student ID Cards - Only those with them may enter building ( We have this at our local public school ... it works) 2. Metal & gun powder detectors 3. Random unannounced locker checks 4. Armed, retired military/ police on campus .. not just one for a whole school. ( We have this at our local public school ... it works) 5. Student Youth Advocacy Groups 6. Zero tolerance policy regarding bullying 7. Bulletproof locking classroom doors & “safe rooms”

Political / Cultural Solutions:

1. Drain the swamp 2. Real commitment to mental health. ( It’s sickening what we do now ) 3. Balanced media 4. Real parenting 5. Respect for life, marriage & family 6. Respect for the constitution 7.  Equal justice under the law 8.  A shared patriotism as Americans 9.  Faith 10. Culture shift

Regardless of whether or not Diane Black’s comments are right or wrong. There are a few things I’m sure of.  One; The mainstream media outlets are seizing upon every opportunity to divide us. Two, we need get to the actual root of the issue. And Three, we need to implement common sense solutions like the ones I listed above at each and every school.

References:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/apr/07/me-too-anti-porn-conference-cosmopolitan-ban

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/14/us/justice-dept-pornography-study-finds-material-is-tied-to-violence.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Commission_on_Obscenity_and_Pornography

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/05/29/pornography-is-a-root-cause-of-school-shootings-republican-congresswoman-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.68fede8d2f60

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_60_(2016)

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/02/500039336/from-maverick-aids-activist-to-porn-cop-the-man-behind-proposition-60

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/04/23/why-does-liberal-iceland-want-to-ban-online-pornography

[swestergren19ahsgov-blog]

The 3 Ps Assessment: Parties, Political Interest Groups, and PACs

Republican Party Platform

“Parents are a child’s first and foremost educators, and have primary responsibility for the education of their children. Parents have a right to direct their children’s education, care, and upbringing. We support a constitutional amendment to protect that right from interference by states, the federal government, or international bodies such as the United Nations.”

“Their education reform movement calls for choice-based, parent-driven accountability at every stage of schooling.”

“We call on state officials to preserve our public colleges, universities, and trade schools as places of learning and the exchange of ideas, not zones of intellectual intolerance or “safe zones,” as if college students need protection from the free exchange of ideas. A student’s First Amendment rights do not end at the schoolhouse gates. Colleges, universities, and trade schools must not infringe on their freedom of speech and association in the name of political correctness.

The Republican Party would most likely vouche for parent involvement in a case of cyberbullying, as they have “primary responsibility for the education of their children”. It also appears the Party would allow for free speech without interference at the school level, regardless of its contents.

I do not agree with this (inferred) position. Often, parents are kept in the dark as to their children’s online activity. It’s not fair to assume a parent can aid their child in the case of cyberbullying, as they may not recognize it is happening. I also believe hurtful words must be censored, as they benefit no one.

Democratic Party

“Democrats believe all students should be taught to high academic standards. Schools should have adequate resources to provide programs and support to help meet the needs of every child. We will hold schools, districts, communities, and states accountable for raising achievement levels for all students—particularly low-income students, students of color, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities”

“The Democratic Party is committed to eliminating opportunity gaps—particularly those that lead to students from low-income communities arriving on day one of kindergarten several years behind their peers.

The Democratic Party would most likely vouche for school-level interference in a case of cyberbullying, specifically invested in “eliminating opportunity gaps” (as cyberbullying does in discriminating/hating on another student [creating a distraction etc] ). I think this party is dedicated to the success of every student.

I agree with the Democratic Party’s approach to classroom expectations. I think cyberbullying presents an education barrier unacceptable to Democrats, as it creates a gap between students.

Libertarian Party

“We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.”

“Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

I think one thing to note is this idea of a person’s right to engage in free speech that is “peaceful and honest”. I believe the Libertarian Party would not tolerate cyberbullying, as it’s anything but “peaceful and honest”.

I completely agree with this standpoint. Free speech is freedom of the truth… not freedom of internet stalkers, hidden behind false accusations and made-up usernames.

Green Party

“Social diversity is the wellspring of community life where old and young, rich and poor, and people of all races and beliefs can interact individually and learn to care for each other, and to understand and cooperate. We emphasize a return to local, face-to-face relationships that humans can understand and care about.”

It’s interesting that the Green Party emphasizes a return to face-to-face relationships. As I mentioned with the Libertarian party, cyberbullying is quite the opposite. There’s nothing face-to-face about anonymous comments.

I also agree with the Green Party’s view on social interaction. I believe there is no benefit to online communication, especially hateful communication.

Peace And Freedom Party

“Equal treatment and benefits under the law for all families. Guarantee equal child custody, adoption, visitation privileges, and foster parenthood rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

“Equal treatment for all people in the military regardless of sexual orientation.”

“People with disabilities are entitled to equal rights to education, housing, health care, recreation, and transportation. Attendant care and other services or adaptations must be provided to enable fuller participation in all aspects of society.”

I can infer that the Peace and Freedom Party does not support cyberbullying. They believe in a society that does not discriminate against people based on race, sexual orientation, or disabilities. Unfortunately, these same people are often targeted as part of online attacks (@ my last post’s Supreme Court case).

I agree that a person should never be discriminated against for their race, sexual orientation, or disability, and therefore agree with the Peace and Freedom Party’s stance on kindness/equality for all.

C. Other than the Republican Party’s platform, I agree with each party’s stance. Each is built on a similar pillar of character and respect for all--regardless of race, sexual orientation, wealth or disability; all critical target points of cyber bullying. I would vote for a Democratic nominee, as its often a Republican or Democratic candidate that takes office.

2.       Identify one national interest group that represents your issue. Include:

a.       Interest group name: End to Cyber Bullying Organization

b.       A brief statement assessing the position/perspective of the interest group: This organization hopes to provide awareness of cyber bullying by creating a network of students, teachers and parents who are educated on the topic.

c.        Visit the interest group’s website.  Spend a few minutes exploring and reading about what this group believes, what it wants to happen in Washington, and how it seeks to influence politicians. List five important pieces of information which gives a picture of what this interest group believes.

Educators must learn how to protect themselves and others from cyber bullying

Protecting staff is key… each school should have one staffer charged with all investigations of cyber bullying reports

There are currently no laws about cyberbullying, but this organization is lobbying for the addition of such laws

Local police departments and the FBI branch are good starting points for tackling cyber bullying

Victims should always discuss their attacks and never feel alone

d.       From your research, describe one (preferably current) piece of legislation, specific policy action, or candidate this group desires or endorses.

One tab on the website is actually labeled “laws and legislation”. Underneath it lists every state code regarding cyber bullying which the organization supports.

e.        Where is this interest group located? Are there any local meetings you could attend? When?

This interest group is located in New York. There are no local events. All events take place in New York.

f.        Are there volunteer opportunities? If so, what are they?  

Under the volunteer tab, you can apply to become a member of the ETCB, pledging to take efforts to end cyberbullying. This means maintaining internet etiquette and reporting cyber bullying.

g.       Identify additional developments you find interesting from the website/group.

None

3.       Identify one state interest group that represents your issue. Include:

a.       Interest group name: California School Boards Association

b.       A brief statement assessing the position/perspective of the interest group: This board issues regulations, policy briefs and publications on topics like student conduct and technology.

c.        Visit the interest group’s website.  Spend a few minutes exploring and reading about what this group believes, what it wants to happen in Washington, and how it seeks to influence politicians. List five important pieces of information which gives a picture of what this interest group believes.

Students should talk to staff when an incident of cyber bullying occurs

In response to a report of cyber bullying, a district should determine the legitimacy of a threat or if it is a joke

Staffers should supervise students as they’re online

Cyber bullying is the act of bullying through message/sound/text/image

Schools may block websites that are obscene, child pornography or harmful to minors

d.       From your research, describe one (preferably current) piece of legislation, specific policy action, or candidate this group desires or endorses.

Education Code 32261 and 48900(r) defines cyber bullying, including pretending to be someone else, sending mean/threatening messages and posting private information about another.

e.        Where is this interest group located? Are there any local meetings you could attend? When?

This group is located in California.

f.        Are there volunteer opportunities? If so, what are they?  

It does not appear there are volunteer opportunities, other than to oblique to their codes of conduct.

g.       Identify additional developments you find interesting from the website/group.

None

4.       Finally, compare the two interest groups.  Which one seems more organized? More successful?  Who is their target audience? Supporters? Additional thoughts, concerns, observations welcome. Be sure to follow them on twitter.

The California School Boards Association seems more successful, as schools are more inclined to adhere to their policies. The other organization has no actual control over how schools handle cyberbullying; they simply list the ways schools could handle such cases, but have no legal standing or authority.

5.       Choose one PAC or Super PAC that pertains to your civic action issue. Include:

a.       PAC name: KidsPAC

b.       A brief statement assessing the position/perspective of the PAC: KidsPac supports lawmakers who believe in a strong educational system. (This pertains to cyberbullying as school board members are often supported, who can create school codes to address cyberbullying.)

c.        How much money have they raised/total receipt? How much have they spent? How much cash do they have on hand? They have raised $356,448, spent $264,578 and have $160,365 on hand.

d.       How much of their budget is spent on: Republicans? Democrats? Referencing the side-by-side bar graph, it appears almost all of their budget is spent on Democrats, not Republicans.

[afriendlypokealien]

News and useful info on Point of Sale & POS Hardware.

This article was produced through the NPR NextGen/Texas Observer Print Scholars program, a new collaboration designed to offer mentorship and hands-on training to student journalists and recent graduates interested in a career in investigative journalism.

For Greyson’s safety, identifying details, locations, and recent photos of his face have been intentionally left out of this story. 

The lull between spring and fall semester was short-lived at the Rodriguez house. Lauren Rodriguez, a 37-year-old social worker, was busy managing a list of things that need to get done before her teenage son, Greyson Rodriguez, can start college in the fall. But before orientation and moving Greyson more than 1,000 miles away to begin his undergraduate career, the Rodriguez family needed to get through high school graduation.

Several boxes of supplies cluttered the dining room table, ready to be shipped to the school. Rodriguez checked on Greyson for the second time, warning the sleeping teen that he had a student advising appointment beginning in a few minutes. Greyson emerged, sluggish and silent, to sit on an oversized brown loveseat and stare at his phone. The neediest of their three dogs, Daisy, hopped into his lap to demand attention.

“He can be lazy sometimes, because that’s all teenagers,” Rodriguez says of Greyson. “But when he wants something, he’s very driven.”

Greyson has had to be driven. He graduated a year early to escape Texas, which he has mockingly nicknamed “the great state of hate.” Indeed, Texas is one of the most dangerous states in the country for a teen like Greyson.

At 13, Greyson came out as trans. He and his family faced abuse, cruelty, death threats, and aggression.  “While I never read them, I know that during the summer I got death threats when I was 13 from people in my neighborhood who were sending me mail telling me to kill myself and they wanted me to die,” Greyson says. He was forced to switch to an online school and the family eventually moved to the more progressive Austin area to get away from their conservative hometown. Texas ranks second in the U.S. in number of cases of fatal violence against transgender and gender non-conforming people since 2013, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Since he came out, both he and his mother have become advocates for LGBTQ Texans, especially trans youth. In March, Lauren Rodriguez testified in front of the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence in support of House Bill 73, which would have banned the use of the “gay/trans panic” defense. The panic defense, often cited by defendants in cases of violence directed at gay or trans people, argues that after an individual discovered someone was gay or trans, they panicked and assaulted or killed them.

“Currently in the state of Texas, a criminal penalty for a defendants’ violence, including murder, can be lessened or eliminated if the perpetrator claims that the victim’s gender identity or sexual orientation triggered a mental breakdown that resulted in their loss of self control and subsequent assault,” state Representative Gina Hinojosa, a Democrat who filed HB 73, said during the public hearing. 

In more than 100 criminal cases between 1970 and 2020 where defendants attempted to use the “gay/trans panic” defense, the highest concentration of cases took place in Texas, according to W. Carsten Andresen a professor at St. Edwards University in Austin and an expert on the topic.

But the 87th Texas Legislature failed to pass HB 73, signaling to LGBTQ Texans like Greyson Rodriguez and his family that the “gay/trans panic” defense is still an acceptable excuse for violence against vulnerable Texans. The bill was brought to a vote and rejected in the House committee, while the Senate companion never got a hearing. Despite the defense’s conflict with federal hate crime laws and a 2013 resolution from the American Bar Association calling for states to ban it, so far only 15 states and D.C. have passed legislation banning the use of the “gay/trans panic” defense, with bills proposed in Texas and 10 other states. 

*

In 2018, James Miller, a 69-year-old Austin man, was sentenced to six months in jail plus 10 years probation for stabbing his neighbor Daniel Spencer to death. Instead of a murder or manslaughter charge, Miller was convicted of the lesser offense of criminally negligent homicide after claiming that Spencer had made sexual advances and that he acted in self-defense. However, prosecutors called the self-defense claim “ludicrous,” saying Miller didn’t have “so much as a scratch on him.” LGBTQ rights advocates and experts like Andresen point to the light sentence in this case as an example of the “gay/trans panic” defense at work.

“‘Are they going to get away with murder?’ That’s the concern,” Greyson says. “It’s not a matter of if it’ll stop or to lower the rates that we’re being killed. It’s, if we do die at least justice is being served properly.”

During the public hearing, 11 people, including Rodriguez, testified in support of banning the defense and submitted a total of 15 pages of written statements supporting the bill. In contrast, only a lobbyist from Texas Values Action, a conservative think tank and evangelical Christian organization, testified against HB 73. 

“I think it’s not good public policy to include definitions of sexual orientation or gender identity because it forces us to determine what a person perceives,” said Jonathan Covey, the Texas Values Action lobbyist. “You easily run into issues of constitutional vagueness when you use this terminology.”

In 2009, the federal definition of a hate crime was expanded to include crimes motivated by gender identity and sexual orientation in federal cases, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. While Texas’s hate crime statute includes crimes motivated by sexual orientation, it does not include crimes motivated by gender identity.

During the public hearing on HB 73, Covey also said that his organization opposed the bill due to free speech concerns. “It’s typically a bad public policy to ban offensive speech,” Covey said. “Open discussion even in a courtroom is better than allowing supposed bias to fester in a type of subconscious realm.” 

“This is not a free speech bill,” state Representative Ann Johnson replied. “We are talking about the criminal context where it’s assaultive conduct. Right? So it’s not a speech.”

“I understand that,” Covey said. 

Johnson continued: “For example if a 16-year-old has sex with a 32-year-old, we would not allow the 32-year old to say, ‘but she consented.’ We have made a policy decision that there is no consent, correct?”

“I think I’m following what you’re saying,” Covey said. But, “we don’t create laws that hinge on someone’s perception of how much they weigh or create laws that hinge on someone’s perception of how tall they are.”

Greyson Rodriguez poses with his maternal grandparents, who flew into Texas to attend his graduation.  Sadie Brown

Rodriguez says that this failure to support and affirm gay, trans, and gender diverse Texans at the state level exacerbates safety concerns for Greyson. “My son has to live in fear of someone finding out he is trans and hurting him,” Rodriguez said during her testimony.  

In nearly every social situation, Greyson has to consider how someone would react to him coming out as trans. At his first job as a host in a restaurant, Greyson says he “tested the waters” to gauge his coworkers’ acceptance of him by mentioning his long-time boyfriend; he didn’t tell them he was trans.

Rodriguez and her son have strict rules around dating, specifically about coming out to potential partners. Because LGBTQ people are at a much greater risk of intimate partner violence, Rodriguez and Greyson have agreed that the first few dates with a new person will always be in public and that Greyson will only come out if he decides it’s safe and wants to pursue a relationship. He says that conversation is also about mutual respect.

“If I think I want to have a relationship with you and you think you want to have a relationship with me, I still want that to be built on everything being out in the open,” he says. “Not built on your assumptions on what you think is going on, only for that to be thrown out the window and you having a crisis or not understanding what to do with this information.” 

*

On a humid day in early June, Greyson accepts his high school diploma during a socially distanced, in-person commencement ceremony. He’s difficult to spot in his emerald cap and gown with a black mask covering nearly his entire face. 

When his name is called, Greyson walks out onto the stage to shake hands with administrators, as his mother, father, and grandparents cheer from a section near the front of the room. Then he disappears again into the first few rows of seats filled with other teens leaving high school behind.

Greyson also plans to leave behind his activism, at least for a while. “Passing isn’t the goal,” Rodriguez says, but both she and Greyson describe the importance of his identity outside of being trans, and safety concerns around his visibility. 

“There’s some people who think every single person on the planet has a right to know,” Greyson says. “In my opinion it would be great if everyone had the ability to know and it wasn’t a threat. But the less random people who freaking know, the less risk there is.”

Greyson will start college in the fall, 1,200 miles away from his home and parents because he says he isn’t safe in “the great state of hate.” Inspired by the affirming care he has received from his medical team, Rodriguez says that he plans on studying nursing. Lauren had hoped that a bill banning the “gay/trans panic” defense would bring some peace of mind that would allow her family to remain close.

“If we pass this bill, my son may be able to feel safe enough to return to Texas and live as his authentic self,” Rodriguez said during her testimony. “And I would have my son closer to me.”

This program is made possible by gifts from Roxanne Elder in memory of her mother, journalist and journalism teacher Virginia Stephenson Elder, Vincent LoVoi in honor of Jim Marston and Annette LoVoi, and other generous donors.

This post was first provided here.

We trust you found the above useful or interesting. You can find similar content on our blog here: southtxpointofsale.com Let me have your feedback in the comments section below. Let us know what topics we should cover for you in the future.

[afrolatinxsunited]

News and useful info on Point of Sale & POS Hardware.

This article was produced through the NPR NextGen/Texas Observer Print Scholars program, a new collaboration designed to offer mentorship and hands-on training to student journalists and recent graduates interested in a career in investigative journalism.

For Greyson’s safety, identifying details, locations, and recent photos of his face have been intentionally left out of this story. 

The lull between spring and fall semester was short-lived at the Rodriguez house. Lauren Rodriguez, a 37-year-old social worker, was busy managing a list of things that need to get done before her teenage son, Greyson Rodriguez, can start college in the fall. But before orientation and moving Greyson more than 1,000 miles away to begin his undergraduate career, the Rodriguez family needed to get through high school graduation.

Several boxes of supplies cluttered the dining room table, ready to be shipped to the school. Rodriguez checked on Greyson for the second time, warning the sleeping teen that he had a student advising appointment beginning in a few minutes. Greyson emerged, sluggish and silent, to sit on an oversized brown loveseat and stare at his phone. The neediest of their three dogs, Daisy, hopped into his lap to demand attention.

“He can be lazy sometimes, because that’s all teenagers,” Rodriguez says of Greyson. “But when he wants something, he’s very driven.”

Greyson has had to be driven. He graduated a year early to escape Texas, which he has mockingly nicknamed “the great state of hate.” Indeed, Texas is one of the most dangerous states in the country for a teen like Greyson.

At 13, Greyson came out as trans. He and his family faced abuse, cruelty, death threats, and aggression.  “While I never read them, I know that during the summer I got death threats when I was 13 from people in my neighborhood who were sending me mail telling me to kill myself and they wanted me to die,” Greyson says. He was forced to switch to an online school and the family eventually moved to the more progressive Austin area to get away from their conservative hometown. Texas ranks second in the U.S. in number of cases of fatal violence against transgender and gender non-conforming people since 2013, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Since he came out, both he and his mother have become advocates for LGBTQ Texans, especially trans youth. In March, Lauren Rodriguez testified in front of the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence in support of House Bill 73, which would have banned the use of the “gay/trans panic” defense. The panic defense, often cited by defendants in cases of violence directed at gay or trans people, argues that after an individual discovered someone was gay or trans, they panicked and assaulted or killed them.

“Currently in the state of Texas, a criminal penalty for a defendants’ violence, including murder, can be lessened or eliminated if the perpetrator claims that the victim’s gender identity or sexual orientation triggered a mental breakdown that resulted in their loss of self control and subsequent assault,” state Representative Gina Hinojosa, a Democrat who filed HB 73, said during the public hearing. 

In more than 100 criminal cases between 1970 and 2020 where defendants attempted to use the “gay/trans panic” defense, the highest concentration of cases took place in Texas, according to W. Carsten Andresen a professor at St. Edwards University in Austin and an expert on the topic.

But the 87th Texas Legislature failed to pass HB 73, signaling to LGBTQ Texans like Greyson Rodriguez and his family that the “gay/trans panic” defense is still an acceptable excuse for violence against vulnerable Texans. The bill was brought to a vote and rejected in the House committee, while the Senate companion never got a hearing. Despite the defense’s conflict with federal hate crime laws and a 2013 resolution from the American Bar Association calling for states to ban it, so far only 15 states and D.C. have passed legislation banning the use of the “gay/trans panic” defense, with bills proposed in Texas and 10 other states. 

*

In 2018, James Miller, a 69-year-old Austin man, was sentenced to six months in jail plus 10 years probation for stabbing his neighbor Daniel Spencer to death. Instead of a murder or manslaughter charge, Miller was convicted of the lesser offense of criminally negligent homicide after claiming that Spencer had made sexual advances and that he acted in self-defense. However, prosecutors called the self-defense claim “ludicrous,” saying Miller didn’t have “so much as a scratch on him.” LGBTQ rights advocates and experts like Andresen point to the light sentence in this case as an example of the “gay/trans panic” defense at work.

“‘Are they going to get away with murder?’ That’s the concern,” Greyson says. “It’s not a matter of if it’ll stop or to lower the rates that we’re being killed. It’s, if we do die at least justice is being served properly.”

During the public hearing, 11 people, including Rodriguez, testified in support of banning the defense and submitted a total of 15 pages of written statements supporting the bill. In contrast, only a lobbyist from Texas Values Action, a conservative think tank and evangelical Christian organization, testified against HB 73. 

“I think it’s not good public policy to include definitions of sexual orientation or gender identity because it forces us to determine what a person perceives,” said Jonathan Covey, the Texas Values Action lobbyist. “You easily run into issues of constitutional vagueness when you use this terminology.”

In 2009, the federal definition of a hate crime was expanded to include crimes motivated by gender identity and sexual orientation in federal cases, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. While Texas’s hate crime statute includes crimes motivated by sexual orientation, it does not include crimes motivated by gender identity.

During the public hearing on HB 73, Covey also said that his organization opposed the bill due to free speech concerns. “It’s typically a bad public policy to ban offensive speech,” Covey said. “Open discussion even in a courtroom is better than allowing supposed bias to fester in a type of subconscious realm.” 

“This is not a free speech bill,” state Representative Ann Johnson replied. “We are talking about the criminal context where it’s assaultive conduct. Right? So it’s not a speech.”

“I understand that,” Covey said. 

Johnson continued: “For example if a 16-year-old has sex with a 32-year-old, we would not allow the 32-year old to say, ‘but she consented.’ We have made a policy decision that there is no consent, correct?”

“I think I’m following what you’re saying,” Covey said. But, “we don’t create laws that hinge on someone’s perception of how much they weigh or create laws that hinge on someone’s perception of how tall they are.”

Greyson Rodriguez poses with his maternal grandparents, who flew into Texas to attend his graduation.  Sadie Brown

Rodriguez says that this failure to support and affirm gay, trans, and gender diverse Texans at the state level exacerbates safety concerns for Greyson. “My son has to live in fear of someone finding out he is trans and hurting him,” Rodriguez said during her testimony.  

In nearly every social situation, Greyson has to consider how someone would react to him coming out as trans. At his first job as a host in a restaurant, Greyson says he “tested the waters” to gauge his coworkers’ acceptance of him by mentioning his long-time boyfriend; he didn’t tell them he was trans.

Rodriguez and her son have strict rules around dating, specifically about coming out to potential partners. Because LGBTQ people are at a much greater risk of intimate partner violence, Rodriguez and Greyson have agreed that the first few dates with a new person will always be in public and that Greyson will only come out if he decides it’s safe and wants to pursue a relationship. He says that conversation is also about mutual respect.

“If I think I want to have a relationship with you and you think you want to have a relationship with me, I still want that to be built on everything being out in the open,” he says. “Not built on your assumptions on what you think is going on, only for that to be thrown out the window and you having a crisis or not understanding what to do with this information.” 

*

On a humid day in early June, Greyson accepts his high school diploma during a socially distanced, in-person commencement ceremony. He’s difficult to spot in his emerald cap and gown with a black mask covering nearly his entire face. 

When his name is called, Greyson walks out onto the stage to shake hands with administrators, as his mother, father, and grandparents cheer from a section near the front of the room. Then he disappears again into the first few rows of seats filled with other teens leaving high school behind.

Greyson also plans to leave behind his activism, at least for a while. “Passing isn’t the goal,” Rodriguez says, but both she and Greyson describe the importance of his identity outside of being trans, and safety concerns around his visibility. 

“There’s some people who think every single person on the planet has a right to know,” Greyson says. “In my opinion it would be great if everyone had the ability to know and it wasn’t a threat. But the less random people who freaking know, the less risk there is.”

Greyson will start college in the fall, 1,200 miles away from his home and parents because he says he isn’t safe in “the great state of hate.” Inspired by the affirming care he has received from his medical team, Rodriguez says that he plans on studying nursing. Lauren had hoped that a bill banning the “gay/trans panic” defense would bring some peace of mind that would allow her family to remain close.

“If we pass this bill, my son may be able to feel safe enough to return to Texas and live as his authentic self,” Rodriguez said during her testimony. “And I would have my son closer to me.”

This program is made possible by gifts from Roxanne Elder in memory of her mother, journalist and journalism teacher Virginia Stephenson Elder, Vincent LoVoi in honor of Jim Marston and Annette LoVoi, and other generous donors.

This post was first provided here.

We trust you found the above useful or interesting. You can find similar content on our blog here: southtxpointofsale.com Let me have your feedback in the comments section below. Let us know what topics we should cover for you in the future.