#governmental corruption

[theweeklyshowwithjonstewart]

Democracy Under Threat

Despite what cable news may have you believe, Fuckface von Clownstick is not the sole threat to our democracy. This week, we’re peeling back the rhetoric and taking a look at where the vulnerabilities in our institutions lie. In conversation with Jane Mayer, chief Washington correspondent for The New Yorker magazine and Noah Bookbinder, President of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Jon explores the roots of our democratic dysfunction. From ever-multiplying dark money to shark tanking ideas for tax transparency, this episode has it all. Plus, hear from producers of the pod and get a taste for what you can expect in episodes to come! Fact Check: Jane Mayer mentions that Jon said the FEC is about as useless as male nipples. It was, in fact, Jordan Klepper who said this.

Jon Stewart on Who Writes Legislation and Passing the PACT Act

Jon Stewart recalls an experience where a bipartisan group of congresspeople agreed on his proposal to support veterans suffering from toxic exposures but asked him to write the legislation! This leads Jon, Jane Mayer, and Noah Bookbinder to dive into the vulnerabilities in our democracy.

[ahb-writes]

"Who is more the thief: the government that preys on its people, or those who must become thieves in order to survive?"

"Xiang" (A Clash of Steel: A Treasure Island Remix by C.B. Lee)

[old-skyguy]

I'm halfway through FMA: Brotherhood and I'm absolutely obsessed with it. if you know anything about me, you know I am also very much an Ace Attorney fan and I have a habit of assigning characters in new shows I like their own AA alignments and I just had to share this.

Bonus: wow! Cute workplace ship! I sure hope nothing bad happens to them!! :D

(no spoilers)

[natbplease]

actually while we're talking garages do you guys want to see my cd ideas

that was a rhetorical question btw. here they are <3

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

I’m sorry but the best Jon Snow AUs are those where he is some sort of civil servant. I always see people headcannon him as ROTC/soldier or cop but I think they kind of miss the mark. GRRM has steadily been moving away from the traditional warrior archetype with Jon and more into the counts-pebbles ruler type. So the cannon compliant AUs are the ones where he ends up as some sort of government official. Maybe he could be a city hall manager or an ombudsman. He could be a state representative or maybe even a senator. Let me remind people that he’s the only elected leader in the series. AU!Jon Snow would totally be the extremely competent but also extremely depressed congressional representative from like, idk, Alaska.

[comehithercornking]

People are sometimes so quick to forgive historical figures with the argument of them being a “product of their times” and saying we know better now. So like. Where are the people who know better now? They certainly aren’t in our governments, because if we knew better Israel wouldn’t be committing genocide with the support of multiple world leaders. This is no different from the displacement and genocide of the Native American people, the Inuit, the Aboriginal Australians—I could literally go on and on. The only difference between us and our ancestors is that our weapons of mass destruction are more effective.

[stardustto-dust]

Shout out to my college for cancelling one of my modules, putting me in a module for a subject I don't do, and when my classmates and I complained about it, sending us an email saying "don't worry, we'll lie about it on your official record :)".

[thisusernamewasntavailable]

Most, if not all politicians these days, as well as CEOs and big corporations are never ever acting in your best interest. They act on their integrity to one another. Not on the integrity they should feel towards the people they represent, that voted them. And to be frank...i am frustrated and feed up with those people not giving a flying fuck about our peoples future because money will always shine brighter to them

[uhhh-justcallmegabe]

I want a mini game in hades 2 just likes this. It seems like you’re gonna have to fight him for some reason but then you have the explain ordinary everyday things to Zag, like pizza and taxes

[thewordenreport]

Much more subtle, yet even more damaging, than the ethical lapses by some U.S. justices is the imprint of extra-juridical partisan ideology on the Court, and the related bias in the Constitution that implicitly encourages it. https://thewordenreport-governmentandmarkets.blogspot.com/2025/01/undermining-us-supreme-court-on-roles.html

[serious2020]

A Spy In Your Pocket? Ronan Farrow Exposes Secrets of HighTech Spyware In New Film “Surveiled”

www.democracynow.org/2025/1/1/surveilled_spyware

[arewelemmings]

Priority

Priority

I yearn to be someone's priority. But I don't see that as me being selfish. Why? Simple.

I'm not alone in this. I want myself and many others with me to be someone's priority. Who's priority? That doofus I voted for, along with many others voting for them, that won the election but still won't represent me and work on my behalf, or the behalf of all of us who cast ballots, thus granting them their distinguished positions.

It's not selfish to demand accountability of the people you elect to work for you in governmental positions. Or, did we forget that, once elected, they work for us, the voters.

Whether local govenrment, county, state or federal, there are many individuals who get voted into office and use their positions for reasons that have nothing to do with helping those who cast the votes to get them there. We can't just cast votes and forget about these people. We have to watch them to see if they keep their campaign promises, or if they go running off to do things quite different from the reasons why we elected them. If they're not working for us, we should vote them out, and replace them with new people in office, again and again until we get good people in office who will do as they say when they're stumping for our votes.

This is the power of the people in a democracy. A democracy is designed to allow the people this power and more. When the people we elect try to cancel this power of the people, they are attempting to destroy democracy from within. We can't let them get away with this.

Keep an eye on what your elected officials do, and how that affects the general population, how it affects you. Then, reevaluate who you're voting for and why. You should vote for those who will do their jobs in a way that makes you their priority. Vote smart.

[arewelemmings]

Anyone who see what I post online can easily tell that I am a liberal. I'm one of those people who believes in doing the right thing, and avoiding doing the wrong thing. As much as I would like to see the government I vote for actually work on my behalf, I want to see them work on behalf of everyone. I am a liberal. And I'm very proud to say that.

[cranberrysaucebauce]

If you write off MGRP as a madoka clone I’m stealing something from your house

[kaiserin-erzsebet]

I would LOVE to hear more gripes about accuracy of portrayal of historical monarchies!!!

I have been wanting to do this for a while, because there is a lot that irks me. And this ranges across board from big budget period dramas to how people write royalty AUs, which means this isn't one specific thing I'm pointing at. And if it is helpful on a writing tips level, I'll be happy with that.

Long post under the cut:

Disclaimers:

I research 19th century European history, which has a lot of questions about what a monarchy is and why they continue to exist. That's the perspective I am bringing to this.

I probably shouldn't have to say this, but: this is not about modern monarchism. This is about history. I don't want to debate whether you think certain countries should continue to have their monarchs be public figures who are only nominally head of state.

The short version:

Monarchies are institutions. They are part of how the government functions and that should have implications for how someone writes them. A monarch is a person with a built in job that they were born into.

Monarchies are not all absolute. They can exist in a multiple forms with very different structures, and often discontent within a monarchy wants to reform the system not replace it.

My biggest advice would be this: figure out how your fictional or historical monarchy is structured. You don't have to exposit about it, but you do need to know it.

The long version:

The King has a job and there is a right and wrong way to do it.

Fantasy monarchies that draw upon history seem to have Versailles in mind in terms of an aesthetic space and royalty with a lot of power over the people around them. This also includes a lot of lounging around and looking pretty and doing lavish things. However, the issue is that this is a mental image of the dysfunction in the French monarchy close to the revolutions. You can't "Après moi, le déluge" through several centuries of government.

A King (or Queen) has a job, a really important one. They are the head of state, the highest authority in the country, and the highest judge on legal matters. At least in the platonic ideal of absolute monarchy, those jobs being concentrated into one person means their responsibility and good judgement will give the state stability and consistently.

Enlightened absolutism was exactly that: monarchs staunchly holding onto the ideals of the Enlightenment and making reforms from the top down. People who read texts about ideal government and natural rights and put it into practice.

A lot of fiction takes that and goes: Oh, so they have unlimited power and can do whatever they want. Being king means you can do what you want without oversight? That's why someone would want to be king?

And yeah, sure, in theory. But the problem with having a job is that you can do it poorly and people will object to you doing it poorly. If someone is not fulfilling obligations, it is noticeable because the state functions poorly. The premise of Robin Hood is that the king is doing his job poorly. He's overtaxing, the officials are corrupt, there's disorder. The solution? Bring back the true king who is good and fair, and thus functional.

Ludwig II of Bavaria gets ousted from his throne for being more interested in opera and extravagant building projects than ruling. Again, it is a problem and people notice.

Historically, if you want to protect from someone being bad at the job you can support the idea that there should be more oversight and safeguards: Other bodies that control parts of the government alongside the king's ability to approve or disapprove. This tactic takes away the ability to be arbitrary since laws and such are not just coming from the crowned head of state. That would be a constitutional monarchy.

Not everyone needs to be Franz Joseph, waking up at the crack of dawn and working on governmental papers and meetings until bedtime. However, if a monarch is shown in fiction lounging around or talking to courtiers all day but never doing any actual governing, I'm going to assume they are very bad at their job.

2. You're probably understanding Courts and Ministers wrong.

I run into the issue quite a bit that courts are flattened to random servants, ladies-in-waiting, and people trying to be the king's sole advisor (for malicious power grabbing reasons).

The first problem: Being at court isn't an easily accessible thing. You're probably nobility or a scion of an important family. Your presence is built on family prestige and your own skill. Yes, even people in service to the monarch. There are no random people here, because proximity heightens the likelihood of greater promotion.

For example, I'm currently doing my research on a prince from an important dynasty in the 19th century. His secretary is a Baron.

It's not impossible for someone not of noble birth to get to be at court. They could have risen up the ranks of the army or be an exceptionally skilled civil servant promoted to the rank of minister. Though depending on the time period, expect these "new men" to get pushback from nobility by blood.

Ministers also matter.

Unless your fictional monarch is one of the few people who decides (to mixed results) to do all of the thinking about government on their own, there is a cabinet and ministers.

These are skilled people whose job is to think about aspects of government and be knowledgeable about them. A monarch might have many of them that argue and balance each other.

Or, you can write a particularly skilled statesman in a leading role that makes them just as prominent as the monarch if not more so. There are many historical examples of ministers who define their period:

If your monarch character isn't a strong person politically, but is intelligent, having them find a minister to take over most of the governing is a good idea. This person is promoted based on merit, even if the monarchy is hereditary.

I have rarely if ever seen fiction do a good job with a prominent minister as a character (except A Royal Affair, which everyone should watch).

Think of monarchies as whole institutions of government. They have people within them who do all the jobs of governing. But the structure of the government and the personality of the monarch can determine whether it is one person (Joseph II, Peter the Great, etc.), a prominent minister (like a Metternich or Bismarck) or a counsel or congress.

The structure can support a person not doing a lot as monarch, but you as a writer need to think what structures are around them allowing that.

3. Revolutions are scary.

There is a common trend in fiction to make your good guys pro-republic. They're revolutionaries who want to get rid of the king, so they must be good.

But here's the thing: Revolutions are a step into the unknown and have historically happened rather rarely and with very mixed results. That's because the system has to be really broken for something totally new to sound better than what you already have.

A monarchy can create a sense of stability: A fixed head of state who will be there until they die. Historically, people aren't seeking to change that. More often, the call is for a change within the existing structure. The Magna Carta or a written Constitution. Firing of Bad Ministers or the abdication of a bad king in favor of their heir. Creating elected bodies under the sovereign. These are all shifting the monarchical paradigm but keeping the monarchy intact.

And historically even the most liberal of people wanted to place restrictions of some sort on voting, especially property and gender restrictions.

There is a myriad of ways to change the system, the person at the top, or both while maintaining a monarchy. You can have a monarchy be elected as the best person among the nobility (though it didn't go that well for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

Completely throwing the whole thing out means risking all stability vanishing. That could be anarchy. That could mean a charismatic strongman who is also bad at governing in power. You could end up with a guillotine and rivers of blood in the streets. You could end up with a restoration eventually because Cromwell or Robespierre doesn't actually produce something people want to live under and they want the old certainty back.

People have a sense of inertia about changing government. What you have is better than what you don't know, especially if there can be internal reform. Making your character a Republican (in the Jacobin sense, not the US politics sense) means that they are a radical in most times and places and will likely be in the minority.

If there is one thing I would say is the point here is that monarchies are government systems, and thinking through how someone exists in that system in fiction is important. Being king isn't actually much of a fun job unless you're very good at delegating or very irresponsible. Unless you want to be celebrity, president, congress, and moral center of the state all in one, being king isn't a great deal.

[wilwheaton]

Republicans are not the victors of a tumultuous campaign week that saw President Joe Biden flub his first debate and former President Donald Trump win a landmark Supreme Court ruling — the oligarchy is, a new analysis contends. Slate writers Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern presented an alternative Wednesday to the predominant political narrative that Biden’s campaign is nosediving while a newly disciplined Trump reaps the benefit. Rather than look at the face of the political parties, they raise the specter of Supreme Court rulings they say demonstrate a cataclysmic governmental shift. “Make no mistake about it,” the pair write, “When a court that has been battered by near-weekly reports of undisclosed oligarch-funded vacations (and gifts and super yachts and tricked out RVs and secret conferences with high-paying Koch supporters getting access to justices) decides to make it easier to bribe public officials—as it did in Snyder v. U.S.—that’s a very public signal that the conservative supermajority does not care what you think.”

'Make no mistake about it': Op-ed warns an elite 'supermajority' has already won 2024

The thoroughly corrupt MAGA 6 must be impeached and removed from the court. Democrats must take off the gloves, and fight as dirty as the other side. Literally everything is at stake.