#in which case people should push for more legal protections

[transsexula]

I think the point of the QPR comment (tho I am not that person so i may also be misinterpreting it) is that while you can get married while being in a QPR, you can't marry Everyone in the QPR.

What happens if you marry someone, but have a baby with a different partner? You and your spouse have no legal claim over that baby, even if all three of you are raising the baby together. (Adoption law is different in different countries and states, some places have ways around this particular issue)

What happens if you marry someone, but their partner buys the house? You all may be living together. But what happens when you break up? What legal action do you have to keep you from being homeless?

This isn't to shit on poly or QPR relationships, because people should be able to love and do as they please with other consenting adults- the problem is just simply that there are no legal protections for you. That's a problem! Not the QPR! The lack of protection!

this might be because I’m a family law lawyer and also an old crone who remembers when marriage equality wasn’t a thing (as in, marriage equality only became nation-wide two months before I went to law school), but I have Strong Feelings about the right to marry and all the legal benefits that come with it

like I’m all for living in sin until someone says they don’t want to get married because it’s ~too permanent~ and in the same breath start talking about having kids or buying a house with their significant other. then I turn into a 90-year-old passive-aggressive church grandma who keeps pointedly asking when the wedding is. “yes, a divorce is very sad and stressful, but so is BEING HOMELESS BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT ENTITLED TO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY, CAROLINE!”

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Why Brazil's Draconian Abortion Bill Amounts To Child Abuse Of Underage Girls

Brazil may become the last in a long list of countries to restrict legal access to abortion. However, the consequences here would be devastating for girls aged below 14, who represent more than 60% of victims of rape.

It took just 23 seconds: on June 12, the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil’s lower house, approved bill 1904/24, which equates abortions carried out after 22 weeks of gestation, even in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape, to the crime of simple homicide. That would carry a penalty of six to 20 years in prison.

Pushed through under the urgency regime, the project can be approved in a short time, without being discussed by the parliamentary commissions. The bill is inhumane and irresponsible. It demonstrates the total disconnect between the daily demands of the people and the agenda of the legislature, which is supposed to be the house of the people.

How can fast-tracking this new law be justified? How many girls under 14 that became pregnant after being raped were heard by the members of parliament? What data was collected to understand the barriers to accessing legal abortion in cases of rape?

The only urgency on this topic should be in punishing rapists and in protecting children and teens.

Continue reading.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

Since ChatBot has an issue with my framing let me explain a little bit.

When I said that Dems should go to jail for objectively lying about their political rivals I was half kidding but not entirely and I'll express why.

Lying is protected under the first amendment. But a few things of note.

Politicians (despite not doing their jobs) have a responsibility to the people they represent.

Election interference is against the law.

As a elected official you have responsibilities and should have actually less freedoms than normal americans. As the liability of your choices are much higher.

So what was my actual point? Kamala Harris, CNN, and 98% or more of the establishment media have been saying a number of things about Trump and others that are factually not true. As in Objectively not the case. What have they said?

-Trump will ban abortion.

Response: Trump has said almost a dozen times until now that he would not only NOT ban abortion, but would veto any bill brought to his desk IF one managed to reach his desk. And said he prefers it left to the states as it is now.

-Trump will ban IVF

Response: Trump has said at least twice that he thinks IVF should be covered by insurance. That's a long way away from a ban.

-Trump will arrest his political opponents.

Response: Trump will enforce the law that the Dems have broken and gotten away with. However this is actually less than fair considering the blatant disregard for the law that the dems have shown until now. Including most of the Establishment and the Dem party waging war against trump on a legal front with stuff that has never been used against people before and instances in which victimhood can't be proven. As well as the fact that a DA ran on finding dirt on trump and trying to put him in jail. (This is mostly an aside point but a needed point to talk about)

-Trump's Project 2025

Response: Trump has not only distanced himself from 2025 but has also said that he has nothing to do with it. Because he does not. The Heritage Foundation created it. And all have more or less stated he has nothing to do with it.

-Trump said nazi's were very fine people

Response: Trump did not say this and it is an objective falsehood. What's more, right before the coup on Joe Biden, Snopes AFTER SEVER FUCKING YEARS finally changed it from something like "Mostly true" to False. His full speech was viewable, plain as day. It was very clear what he said and what he meant.

-Trump called for a Bloodbath if he didn't get elected

Reponse: Trump did not call for a "Bloodbath" if he lost. He said there would be an economic bloodbath if we continue to rely on China's automotive industry, as well as Biden/Harris's policies in general. No intelligent person could listen to what he said and misinterpret that.

And the list goes on but my point is such. All of the points (Though specifically the ones in green) are outright fact checkable things that Dems, the Media, and Neo Liberals have objectively lied about to push Harris to the forefront. News organizations should have LIMITED freedom when it comes to protections. Especially when they tend to circle jerk and cite one another with "The approved narrative".

And that's what I mean when I said, "Should be put in jail". Elected Officials and MSM have an actual responsibility they have long since run away from in favor of spreading lies, slander, and propaganda.

Now I hear the moron chat bot say, "Well what about republicans?" Ok. Let's be fair here. Same deal. Except here is the issue. MSM leans 99% left. That's fact. YOU might claim that false but it's the truth. They all back the Democrats. And even when pushing "Criticism" they go out of their way to good faith, and justify what they complained about.

So. When it comes to embellishment, I take less issue. Exaggeration and embellishment are not the same as objective lying unless you know something is actually false. Like saying, "The fish was THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS BIG". Tends to be an exaggeration more often than not. Also isn't important to the collective function of this country. However, Elected Officials and MSM have responsibilities to the people. This includes NOT fear mongering. Like the commercial I posted where a woman is bleeding on the floor, and the guy calls a physician rather than 911, claiming that a republican will show up in your home and tell your wife to die because "She needs an abortion". 1.) Over the phone you can't know that, and 2.) No Reps will not BAN aid to a dying or in danger mother. It requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what abortion actually is.

So when I say arrest for objective lying, I look at Japan a little for this despite their culture and laws being different. These people have OBJECTIVELY lied about Trump. If Trump were elected we would likely get more of the same as when he was in office last time. Except we might actually see positive change in our country. Not for NeoProgs because you people are lunatics who think kids can consent but that's beside the point. My entire point was that Kamala Harris has objectively lied about things Trump has said. MSM has lied about things he has said. That? That is election meddling. Hell, if I has my way Dorsey, Zuck, and many of the people in all three companies, (google included) would be in prison for election meddling. DOD and DOJ officials as well.

I might fundamentally be a small L libertarian but I also believe in a LAWFUL society. Where as a number of far left radicals think anything they do is "Just". Where as in letter of the law, a number of these people have OBJECTIVELY broken laws. Meanwhile a number of Trump's cases are being overturned and appealed. Including the most important ones, like those levied by Laticia James. And the entire corrupt state of NY. Anyways, this is long enough, but I've made my point. If we have election meddling laws, they need to be enforced. The first two being some of the biggest offenders.

[vickyvicarious]

Interesting how Jonathan readies himself to use his weapon on regular people who'd try to stop the murder, unthinkable of him at the beginning. Though his readyness to his own execution reminds me of "I determined that Death shall find me ready".

And yet despite this violent intent on others, he's not assigned to deliver a killing blow on the vampire. The doctors will do it, it seems he's content on directly ensuring the killing act.

I think that is an excellent comparison to make. Just as in the castle, he tried to prepare himself to face his death, here he prepares himself to face the possibility of execution. I think another, perhaps even more direct, comparison to be made here is his decision to become a vampire with Mina. In both cases he has taken the time to consider the negative outcome, and accepted it as a price worth paying. In both cases, by doing so he is also accepting a willingness to pay in others' lives, not just his own (being a vampire means preying on others and so by joining Mina he is willing to do that too as well as protect her while she does so; his readiness to use his weapon on ordinary people to stop them from preventing the Dracula hunt indicates a willingness to kill). In both cases, he knows that he is going against what would normally be an 'objective' sense of what is right (religious or legal) but considers his reason (keeping Mina or killing Dracula) to be worth it.

As for him not being on Team Stake... I can't say I'm surprised Van Helsing would want to sideline Jonathan here. He's definitely way more of a loose cannon than the other men, who are much more willing to follow instructions. The Professor also tends to default to "I and Friend John" doing things first - he considered them as peers while others are more in son/student categories in his mind where he should direct them. But also, as doctors they are familiar with how to use the bone saw, possibly how to hold down a seizing body, how to aim for the heart instead of potentially staking the wrong spot. Add in Jonathan's white hair and scary eyes, and he's probably more noticeable so not the best choice for sneaking, as well as more intimidating and a better choice for scaring people off. He's willing to do it too, not likely to hesitate.

And yeah, him being willing to do it is super revealing for his character. He doesn't put his personal revenge over the best plan. He doesn't feel that his own need for any kind of cathartic murderour revenge outweighs the need for Dracula to be dead, and so he's willing to step back. It's something that has always held true about him, he's always been good at seeing something which needs to be done and just doing it without trying to be a leader or take charge. He will push back when he has to but if others are working with him he will let them give the big speeches (Van Helsing) even when it's about things Jonathan has more personal experience with. He won't try to be the one to bring people together and get them on the same page; Mina's better at that anyway and so he'll focus on hunting down the boxes. And so on.

[rjzimmerman]

Climate Lawsuits Are Exploding. Are Homicide Charges Next? (New York Times)

Excerpt from this New York Times story:

Lawsuits against fossil fuel companies over climate change are piling up. Legislators and activists are pushing prosecutors to pursue criminal charges. Children are suing governments, arguing that their right to a healthy environment is being trampled on.

Welcome to the new universe of climate litigation, where the courts have become one of the most important battlegrounds in the fight over the greenhouse gas emissions warming the planet.

Around the world, both innovative and old-school legal arguments are being used to go after companies and governments to seek redress or forestall future harms. At the same time, the fossil fuel industry and its allies have powerful new legal grounds at their disposal to challenge climate rules. A number of cases could be taken up by the highest courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and The Hague.

There are myriad lawsuits, which fit into several important categories. Here’s what to watch in the coming months.

Lawsuits against oil giants are spreading.

At least 86 lawsuits have been filed globally against the world’s biggest oil, gas and coal producers, according to a report published Thursday by the advocacy and research groups Oil Change International and Zero Carbon Analytics. The vast majority of those were filed in just the past nine years since the signing of the 2015 Paris accord, the landmark agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Cities and states are among the plaintiffs.

In the United States, more than two dozen of the lawsuits against oil companies have been filed by state and local governments.

Many argue that the oil companies knew about the dangers of climate change for years, but concealed that information. The approach is similar to those of past lawsuits that led to landmark settlements with tobacco and opioid companies.

Should there be criminal charges?

There are growing calls for prosecutors to consider criminal charges related to climate change. This year, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, both Democrats, called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate oil companies for what they called a “decades-long disinformation campaign” about the effects of fossil fuels. In a recent paper in The Harvard Environmental Law Review, David Arkush, of the advocacy group Public Citizen, and Donald Braman, a law professor at George Washington University, argued that in the United States, fossil fuel companies could be charged with types of homicide short of first-degree murder based on claims of deception about climate change.

Young people push for ‘climate rights.’

The nonprofit law center Our Children’s Trust says it has filed climate lawsuits and legal actions in all 50 states. Its most well-known case is Juliana v. United States, in which 21 young people argue that the government violated their constitutional rights by failing to protect the environment. It’s become a model for similar cases abroad, including a recent victory for environmentalists in South Korea. The Juliana case has been wending its way through the courts for nearly a decade. In 2020, an appeals court threw it out entirely, concluding that the courts were not the right venue for the grievances. But on Thursday, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Supreme Court to send the case back to trial.

[abrisaber]

Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss Rant Again Again Again

It's about time I made another unnecessarily long post about HB!

It's been a few months since the release of Hazbin Hotel and I've watched it a couple of times alongside Helluva Boss. With the newest episode of HB right around the corner, I thought I'd make a post so I can rant about things that I like and dislike about both shows. This is technically a criticism and it will definitely be negative at some points, but let it be known that I love both Hazbin and Helluva and even though I have my preferences, I still appreciate and enjoy the effort and soul put into both shows regardless.

The World building.

World Building is my favorite thing about any creative media. All of my favorite shows put a lot of dedication into fleshing out the environments for which their characters live in. And, in my opinion, any fantasy media should put some emphasis on World Building for it to be worthwhile.

In the Helleverse or the Vivzieverse or whatever the fuck you call the two shows, the WB is kinda mixed. I will admit that my bais towards WB over something like character development and theme, which are both things that HB and HH emphasize, does cause my opinion of the two shows to skew, but there are flaws that exist within both shows that can't go ignored outside of my own personal bias.

Despite my own preferences, there are things that should be addressed in both shows in terms of the world building that isn't, and I don't think it ever will because of the fact that Hazbin and Helluva are character driven. But when you have Hazbin focusing on something that would drastically change the climate and culture of hell (the exterminations), it's only logical that those things would ripple into Helluva. For example; the potential conflict between Heaven and Helluva Boss.

Maybe this will happen in the future, but I doubt it since Helluva Boss and Hazbin Hotel seem to exist entirely separate from each other. If that is the case then IMP's existence should would directly conflict with Heaven's desire to protect humans.

If IMP is popular enough for demons in other rings to know about their existence, and for Sinners to be lining up down the block looking for a good deal, then why wouldn't Heaven know about it? And if they do know about it, why wouldn't they have done anything? If Heaven wants to keep demons at controllable and suppressed numbers, then how would some demons have access to the living world at all?

Stolas says in "Oops" That Asmodeus's demons (Succubi and Incubi I suppose) are able to access Earth freely and *legally.* Why would someone like Asmodeus, a person who exists one rank underneath Lucifer and is one of Hell's main sovereigns, be able to let his demons do anything on Earth? Succubi are literally bread to intice humans to sin. They have mating calls that make humans want to fuck them. Why would Heaven allow that, if they even know about that. Because if they do then the idea of Heaven wanting to suppress hell is complete bullshit, and if they don't then Heaven sucks at their job.

The Good and The Bad

Helluva Boss and Hazbin Hotel are both decent shows, but Hazbin Hotel severely outdoes Helluva in several areas. I don't want to be that guy and say "Hazbin is soo much better than Helluva" because I don't really think they're unequal in terms of quality overall, but there are things that can't be ignored about both shows.

For starters, Helluva Boss has no idea what kind of show it wants to be. It started out fairly comedic and lighthearted with some elements of drama, specifically with Blitzo and his relationships, and then it slowly tried to push more and more drama into it to please the overwhelming number of people who are obsessed with the relationships of these characters. The episodes got longer and suddenly we're giving characters arcs that have only had 2 major episodes total (Yes I'm talking about Fizzarolli).

I don't hate the drama in Helluva Boss. In fact I think Truth Seekers, Ozzie's, and Loo Loo Land are the best episodes in the show because they can balance the comedy and the drama well.

For example, I'll compare Loo Loo Land and the S2 Mid-Special.

In Loo Loo Land the relationship between Octavia and her parents is introduced. Even though this is only the second episode in the series and the first time we're seeing Octavia, the episode is capable of being comedic while also showcasing; A) How much of a failure Stolas is as a father despite his best efforts, B) How his blatant, obvious flirting with Blitzo despite being married to Octavia's mother bothers Octavia, and C) How my Stolas cares about his daughter and how the relationship between him and Stella has never been positive despite Octavia's perspective.

In comparison, Oops has Fizzarolli, a character who only had one major episode that was directly before this one. Even though it does the same "starting and finishing a conflict within one episode" thing that Loo Loo Land did, Loo Loo Land never tried to be a full on character arc. The Mid-Musical tries to have this big spectical moment where Fizzarolli is getting rid of his shitty boss and coming out as Asmodeus's partner, but we hardly know Fizzarolli and Asmodeus. We're seeing all these feelings of inadequacy and the need to feel good enough for Asmodeus but we barely even know Fizzarolli as a character. Outside of being the funny jester, the cute Imp boyfriend of the demon king Asmodeus, and one of Blitzo's childhood friends turned enemies, we don't know anything about him. We don't know his hobbies, what his life was like after the fire and before he met Asmodeus, we don't know anything.

The previous episode showed NO effort in showcasing that Fizzarolli feels "inadequate" and wants to prove himself to Asmodeus. Their relationship was seen as the most healthy in all of Hell. Yet come the VERY next episode, suddenly he feels like he's not good enough?

I like this episode and I like Fizzarolli, but in the previous episode he did not feel THIS important. Blitzo was really the one I found paying the most attention to because he's the main character and he's the one who's being accused of maliciously disfiguring Fizz out of jealousy. This episode revealed how he got his scars and what happened to his mother.

Why is Fizzarolli the one getting so much focus when he's a glorified tertiary antagonist?

Hazbin Hotel is capable of doing drama well because that's what it's trying to be. In the first episode they outline the conflict and showcase both sides of the series firsthand. Angel Dust is set up to be a tragic character within the context of the show. His abusive relationship with Valentino doesn't come out of nowhere because they show Valentino's toxic behavior towards Angel Dust as early as Episode 2.

Angel Dust is just one example. There are plenty of others.

It's not like Hazbin Hotel isn't guilty of doing the same thing either. Characters like Carmila Carmine get important emotional episodes despite no previous showcase of this character conflict existing.

In Conclusion,

I like Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss, but now that both shows are being developed at the same time, I hope that Vivziepop takes more into account since both shows exist in the same universe. There's more I want to say but this post is already ridiculously long. I want to know other people's thoughts as well. Please reply or reblog with anything else you'd like to add or like to counteract! I like to discuss things!

[sagevalleymusings]

Harris is actually a pretty decent candidate and here's why

I have seen a lot of the same talking points that lost us the 2016 election getting repeated - a lot of talking about the very worst parts of the Democratic candidate, mixed with a lot of "vote blue no matter who" nonsense and I just want to say... Harris actually is a pretty decent candidate and it completely kills me that NO ONE is talking about this. Is she perfect? No absolutely not. Are all American politics conservative compared to global politics? Well... they used to be. But lots of people have said that a rise of fascism here in the US have emboldened the right globally , so that's not great. In either case, yes they are conservatives. But their policies aren't completely terrible and in fact I agree with a decent amount of them. So here's the good things about the Harris campaign, and why you shouldn't just vote for her, but vote for her and feel good about it.

Economics

Harris has an 82 page PDF on her website with a plan to re-energize the middle class. It includes a ban on price gouging, a cap on insulin and investment in clean energy, among many other intersectional policies. It includes a bunch of affordable housing policies including banning large investor purchases. It simplifies taxes for small businesses. It would end unnecessary degree requirements on jobs. It's 82 pages densely packed with not just good policy but actionable policy, if I went through all of it, this post would just be nothing but the economic plan. The Harris economic plan is actually pretty good. Is it a socialist pipe dream? No of course not. I think it's better than that. It's progressive policy that benefits everyone in this country, which will make more progressive policies even more popular. This is the kind of economic plan that starts shifting you back to the left.

Race

Harris has made supporting Black men a priority for her campaign. This plan includes LEGALIZING MARIJUANA FEDERALLY in order to overturn unjust tough on crime convictions. Reading Harris' own campaign page for this post TODAY is when I learned Harris wants to legalize weed. The Opportunity Agenda which focuses on supporting Black men and the issues they told her they are facing also includes FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON CRYPTOCURRENCY. It includes 1 million loans for Black entrepreneurs (can't help but notice that one is carefully ungendered, Black women), invest in community violence intervention, launch a health equity initiative, and invest in combating discriminatory housing. Reading this policy on supporting Black men on Harris' own campaign page... this isn't just Democratic policy, this is legitimately left-leaning.

Queer Rights

One of the reasons I was pushed to write this up is that recently someone whose opinion I normally respect said that they didn't like Harris' answer that she would "follow the law" on providing trans care for inmates. A law her administration confirmed when they reissued the transgender offender manual, by the way. As far as I can tell Harris has a long and progressive history on queer rights, even with the nuance that she was legally obligated to defend the CA DoC when they sued over the matter in 2015. Harris treats trans healthcare as something obvious - a normal decision between a person and their doctor which should be protected like anything else while her administration also quietly enshrining access to health care into law. This is part of the problem. Biden has signed at least four separate executive orders about gender since he took office and no one talks about it. i think the conservative pushback on this topic has been so aggressive and widespread that it's been difficult to see what should have been the effects of Biden's progressive policy on LGBT issues.

Environment

Harris is very good on climate. I've already mentioned that it's worked into the economy stuff. She's got policy on reducing emissions, she investigated Exxon Mobil, and as a senator she co-sponsored the Green New Deal. She's waffled on fracking and seems to currently prefer making it economically nonviable as compared to clean energy, which isn't as good as a ban. But most of the policies she's supported aren't just "better than Trump" they're actually good.

Immigration

It would be dishonest of me to write all this up without getting into some of the things I dislike Harris on. I don't like Harris on immigration. No one does - she's either too lax or too strict. She wants to resurrect the bipartisan border security bill, which, although it does call to expedite asylum process, would also increase deportations and in my opinion makes too many concessions in the name of bipartisanship. Her stance has not been very vocal other than to say she supports this bill. But I've noticed that Biden's policies on immigration have often been softer than they appear, including caveats to keep families together and expand the possibility of legal immigration while controlling for illegal immigration. I'm not necessarily against that - a major source of illegal immigration is corporations trafficking workers across the border legally and then not helping them renew their work visas. That is something we need to crack down on at the corporation side in my opinion and I wish we could see a candidate who talked about that part of it as an immigration issues. This is something that I think Harris is too conservative on and I won't hide from that. I also don't think she's being given much of a choice. Conservatives are frothing at the mouth over immigration. It's really really scary. There are way too many people willing to take matters into their own hands on this one. I want something more progressive but I understand taking a stricter stance on this one as a form of harm reduction. If these people think the country is being "overrun," they'll just take the solution into their own hands. We don't want that.

Palestine

Yep, we had to get there. Look, no electable politician in the United States is going to give a good answer to Palestine. We are far too entrenched with Israel and imperialism and war profiteering for a leader to easily take the moral stance here - they would receive too much pushback from their peers. The bar is set really, really low here, and that isn't a good thing. I don't think Harris is going to call what's happening in Palestine a genocide while it's ongoing, and I don't actually think she'll withdraw military aid, though I am hopeful that she'll do what Biden has done before and restrict it. But I do know that Gazans say that Harris would be the better president and I do know that Arab Americans support Harris and I do know that Harris said Palestinians have a right to self-determination. I included this because it's an important issue for many voters and one of the biggest deal breakers for a lot of leftists in the US. I believe Harris will act in ways that make her complicit in genocide if she gets elected. And I believe she will try to limit that harm more than a lot of other politicians would. This is the one where I would say that in comparison the situation under her leadership would be much better than under Trump. Trump supports an Israeli victory, not a ceasefire. He's told Netanyahu to "finish the problem." In fact Trump has already contributed actively to the genocide in Palestine. He dropped the US commitment for a two-state solution in 2017 and declared Jerusalem as Israel's capital in the same year. He cut aid to Palestine and reversed US policy on the Golan Heights and the occupation of the West Bank. One of these candidates disapproves of what's happening, but might not have the backbone to stop it. One of these candidates will actively participate. And that's enough for my conscience to be clear.

In conclusion

Voting is about compromise and accountability. Who do I think will enact at least some policies I agree with, and how can I pressure them to enact even more? Elect Harris and then petition the White House to revoke military support of Israel and there is at least a chance they will listen. Elect Harris and we'll have at least a little longer to breathe clean air while fighting for a solution to all the other problems we have. Elect Harris and she'll LEGALIZE MARIJUANA WHY IS THIS THE FIRST TIME I'M HEARING ABOUT THIS.

[closetepistemology]

August 1958 issue of "ONE" Magazine, A landmark in queer history

What was "ONE" Magazine?

It was originally founded in 1953 in Los Angeles by members of the 'Mattachine Society'. It was started by a group of queer people to give themselves a space of their own in the heteronormative world that was being pushed onto them. With this magazine, people could promote their ideas and thoughts which they could not express normally. This included fighting for homosexual rights, giving the community a voice, and create more of a sense of community among gay and lesbians who could get the magazine.

The magazine features content such as: personal stories, poetry, fiction, book reviews, legal updates, and essays on political issues that affected the queer community.

What did they fight against?

At the time, homosexual and "abnormal" acts were severely stigmatized and criminalized. There were laws put in place that weren't directly targeted at LBGTQ people, but they were heavily targeted at them and used against members of the community. These laws consisted of:

Sodomy Laws- Any sexual act that was deemed non-procreative would be punishable by law if you were caught. This law targeted homosexual acts as well sex work.

Public Indecency Laws- This one was a big one to target the community. These laws were used to prosecute and arrest individuals for "homosexual behavior" in public or semi-public spaces. This effected people who were even just "suspected of being homosexual". These laws were used against places such as bars, parks, clubs that were especially known to have queer people inside. The law would look for any reason to go in and start arresting people, trying to catch them, even in the act of a new years kiss.

Entrapment Law- Eventually, this behavior from the law caused them to "trap" queer people and catch them in the act so they can prosecute them. The police officer would pretend to be gay and try and solicit sexual advances, baiting queer people to interact with them. Then they would arrest the queer (often gay men) and they would be charged with soliciting a police officer and public indecency.

What made the August 1958 issue of "ONE" Magazine so important?

One, Inc. v. Olesen was a supreme court case in which the U.S Post Office seized an issue of the magazine (Oct. 1954) because they believed it was lewd and obscene. Because of that, the Post Office said it violated the Comstock Act of 1873. The content in question was…

A story of "lesbian's affection for a twenty-year-old "girl" who gives up her boyfriend to live with her (Wikipedia, 2024)", titled "Sappho Remembered". The Post Office said that it was stimulating lust to a homosexual reader.

A poem about homosexual cruising that they (Post Office) said contained filthy words, titled "Lord Samuel and Lord Montagu".

Read it here!!!

In the end, the United States Supreme Court rules that the October 1954 issue of ONE Magazine was not obscene and should be protected as an exercise of free speech. "One, Inc. v. Olesen was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality (Wikipedia, 2024).

In August 1958, "ONE" Magazine distributed a magazine that had a very bold cover for the time which said in bold font "I am glad I am a homo-sexual" It's a legal victory, a move in the right direction for LGBTQ rights and visibility. It marks one of the first times the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of homosexual rights and freedom of expression in the United States.

[jangillman]

Posted by Wisconsin Right Now on FB...

I'm not sure who is going to win this, but I’d rather be #Trump right now than #HarrisWalz because he’s peaking at the right time, and the issues people rank highest (economy, border) favor him. He’s surging and it feels like she’s cratering.

But the Democrats have made so many mistakes this election season. James Carville can rant and rave all he wants, but that’s just a fact. The key mistakes include:

-Not reaching out to #Elon Musk, and instead unfairly villainizing a guy with $240B and making it clear that this election will be existential for him personally;

-Charging Trump criminally with a series of novel legal theories that pushed the envelope of the law. If you’re going to go after the king, you better not miss or he gets stronger and, in this case, they turned him into a martyr and the well-worn Hollywood archetype of the underdog fighting the system and elites. People don’t like it when people don’t play fair and criminally charging your political opponent over 94 (or whatever) half-baked accusations (at best) was not playing fair;

-Not admitting Biden’s severe cognitive issues earlier so there could be a competitive primary on the Democratic side rather than foisting an untested and clearly unserious VP on voters. They would have been better off choosing a nominee who could run against the Biden-Harris administration’s worst policies and promise a new course (probably a governor). Harris has had the unenviably impossible task of promising a new future when she’s part of the current administration. Minimally when the Hur report came out, they should have bailed on Biden. She can’t plausibly separate herself from Biden enough no matter how hard she tries.

-Choosing Walz as VP because Josh Shapiro wasn’t acceptable to the pro Gaza wing.

-Not ensuring Trump had adequate and effective secret service protection. The near misses of the 2 assassins (especially the first one) turned him into the aforementioned archetype all the more. And it was just wrong.

-Not reaching out to black and Hispanic male voters until the last minute, at which point it seems pandering and desperate. Having no plan to reach out to men, period, until the last minute and instead emphasizing the gender gap (ie turning Kamala into Hillary 2.0, pantsuit and all, talking about “reimagining masculinity,” the girls’ sports issue etc);

-Not giving even the slightest nod to parental rights. They’re underestimating the power of that issue.

-Not reaching out to RFK Jr and bringing him back into the fold (all they had to do was care about children’s health) and instead trying to destroy him through undemocratic lawfare and insults;

-Putting Harris on the media circuit after the debate. She’s clearly not up to it. As pathetic as it is, they would have been better off keeping her in bubble wrap.

All that being said, it’s amazing they’re still in it. And really the biggest challenge for them - all of the above aside - is the core fact that people believe they were better off four years ago. That’s “event memory” so to speak. No matter what you tell people in ads about their own lives, they know what they pay for groceries.

I miss anything? #trump #breaking #ElectionDay #Wisconsin

[chirpsythismorning]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought one of the theories regarding why Byler did not become canon in this season was because Noah was a minor and Finn was technically an adult when S4 was being filmed? So who would the writers make Finn and Noah kiss in S4? That's one of the parts why I don't get the static kiss thing. And I could get the idea that they made them *try kissing* but that still would go against the idea that they both waited for the guys to hit their adult ages and Noah to turn 18.

No hard feelings, but I am going to correct you.!

Byler not being endgame in s4 had nothing to do with Noah legally being a minor and Finn legally being an adult. Byler has been framed as a slow-burn endgame ship spanning the entire series, not to mention this is also a queer love story, meaning there are some limits to what they can do here. Having them get together or even simply kiss in s4, before the last season, would have made the final season of their surprise endgame anti-climactic. That's it.

It is not illegal or prohibited for an actor who is a minor to have romantic (kiss) scenes with someone who is an adult.

There are plenty of instances in which I disagree with this a lot, because it's just way too standard of a practice in extreme cases for my comfort. Like when actors playing teenagers are actual teenagers, but have a love interest who is played by an actor in their late twenties, who is also playing a teenager. One example of this could be with the show Never Have I Ever, where the lead actress was played by a 17 year old, while the actor playing one of her love interests was like 28...

That happens a lot more than it probably should, but because there are no laws or precautions preventing this from happening, even in the most extreme cases, it all comes down to the integrity of the people working behind the scenes.

If you're casting for a project, you would think you wouldn't want to cast an adult pushing thirty to play the love interest of an actor who is not even 18 yet? Whenever this does happen (and it does... a lot), show-runners will insist that the adult actor was the only one capable out of all those that auditioned to play that role, and so I guess that's that? It is what it is, apparently. I know they're all acting and so honestly as long as it's professional and the minor is being protected, I'm going to do my best to look at things on a case by case basis, as opposed to treating every case as if a crime is happening (still don't like it though).

But by this logic, the claim that it would be wrong/not allowed for Noah and Finn to have a kiss scene because one of them is legally an adult while the other is legally a minor, means that this restriction would also then apply to Millie and Finn as well. Millie was 17 while filming s4, meaning she was also a minor filming a kiss scene with Finn who was 18 (following behind a previous season where they made out multiple times/kissed a couple times in the seasons before that).

This is a topic that obviously deserves nuance, because ideally, yes it should be standard practice for minors to not have to act out romantic scenes with someone who is legally an adult.

But context does matter.

Noah and Finn (AND Millie) have been working together for the past decade almost, alongside each other with a 2 year age difference and while both being minors a majority of their professional relationship.

The moment Finn turns 18 and Noah stays 16, doesn't mean they are now this taboo example of a romantic pairing until Noah turns 18...

What it comes down to is the Duffers' vision (endgame being saved for the end), and even more importantly Noah and Finn's comfort for what they are willing/not willing to do.

When it comes to the revelation of byler on the Duffers' end, it's about hiding the truth in plain sight all along, but saving the official revelation for last. It's about subverting the audiences expectations.

That whole monologue where Mike said I love you 9 times? The Duffers and the cast still even now not willing to acknowledge the fact that byler is a possibility? This is them wanting to save that revelation for last.

Arguably Will and Mike's talk in the cabin and them standing side by side along the other couples at the end was pushing it. And yet at the same time apparently not. Apparently it was just the perfect amount of obvious subtlety because most of the ga is fully convinced Milkvan is endgame.

All of those assumptions are what is going to make s5 that much more surprising, which is what the Duffers are going for.

When it comes to the static kiss in particular and the possibility of Noah and Finn filming a kiss scene during s4 production, again it would all come down to Noah and Finn + the vision of the Duffers.

I have speculated, that because they filmed s4 with all of said season written and s5 outlined, then it is plausible they could have written and filmed one or multiple scenes during s4 production with the intention to release it as the opening of s5. This is because they would have known while filming s4 back in 2020-21 that they wouldn't be returning to film for another 2+ years. There is also a handful of evidence regarding the possibility of unused footage specifically related to Noah and the Rink-O-Mania location, and so the static kiss just adds to speculation that already existed.

But honesty, at the end of the day, what it truly comes down is Noah and Finn.

Something we don't talk about a lot, but what I believe to be very likely the truth, is that byler endgame in general depends on Finn and Noah being in support of it. Because byler happening is subjecting them to a lot of backlash. A LOT! The Duffers would not subject them to that kind of harsh backlash (fucking homophobia), unless they insisted they could do it and wanted to do it.

Like most of the main cast, Finn and Noah play a big part in making those decisions with the director in the moment. And in bylers case, it is essential that they have a say in what their character is doing so that their performance feels authentic and believable for the audience. If the actor doesn't want it to happen, how are they suppose to make us believe the character wants it to happen? All of that is well thought out and intentional. If something doesn't work, they'll change it and make it work to accommodate what feels most natural for the actor.

Which means all the scenes we've got with Will and Mike over the seasons, but especially in s4, had Noah and Finn's input there.

And so the question remains, would they be comfortable with a kiss scene?

We hear all the time from toxic milkvans that Finn and/or Noah would be uncomfortable with a kiss scene, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. They are actors. They are acting.

If the Duffers vision involves them saving byler for the last season, then a kiss wasn't possible to be released in s4, regardless of the context within the show itself or related to the actors ages, bc it would have made the ga realize pretty quickly how much of a possibility endgame byler truly was, ruining the element of surprise still to come.

However, them filming a kiss scene while filming s4 (likely a hallucination), with plans to release it as early as the opening of s5, that's pretty epic.

If this theory is accurate (still 50/50 on it bc I refuse to rule out anything and the evidence is too cool), then it's very likely the Duffers and cast would come out post s5 and admit that the kiss was filmed during s4 production. This would just be one thing to add to the pot of arguments against GA who are predictably going to claim byler came out of nowhere as a result of fan-service post s4.

Whose gonna tell them they've been the fan-service all along?...

[wobblyprinny]

Just Some Random Thoughts....

You ever have those days where seeing/hearing/reading one thing leads you down the rabbit hole of a million and one other thoughts that, no matter what you do, won't leave?

Yeah, that was me these last couple of days.

I won't go into too much detail seeing as I'm both not sure how interesting philosophy is to other people and all this is more off the cuff than any structured discourse on my part.

But, basically, the gist of it comes down to things like....

'If we haven't succeeded in fully normalizing things like gender and race equality yet, then I'm not at all surprised we haven't that we are getting push back on things like LGBTQ+ or trans right'.... to say nothing of consang relationships between consenting adults or anyone further afield of that.

I mean, it's easy to talk about 'freedom and equality for all', 'universal human rights' or 'free speech', but...

I honestly don't think we value those things as a species nearly as highly as we claim to.

For example, in the UK, even though there's no general 'right to free speech' in British law, the right to 'freely express yourself' is protected, at least since 1998. Kinda crazy to me growing up here in the US, but then... looking into a little more, a lot of the censorship can and will be deployed in the name of the 'public good'. You can imagine the number of loophole abuse scenarios that can come up with vague logic like 'corrupting public morals/peace' and all that but there you go. Of course, you also have cases like the race related stuff going on with the anti-immigration riots rocking the country since earlier this month and the disinformation about the suspect who committed the attack that sparked them, which itself was more of a symptom of some way bigger underlying issues... but my point is, you do have instances where censorship tactics have sound reasoning, at least on the surface and in specific cases...

The major questions then, I think, would be, 'In what circumstances, specifically, and in what way?'

Again, loophole abuse abounds, like the UK police cracking down on more than they should as far as what I would consider 'free speech' as an American. But again, the UK doesn't actually have free speech rights.

All that being said, and even though there are cases where censorship is deployed, it ranks 23 out of 180 countries according data collected by 'Reporters Without Borders'.

Contrast that with here in the US where the freedom of speech is legally protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution and even ranking in the top 10 for countries whose citizens value free speech (at around 78 according to the the free speech index, iirc).

However, free speech here in the US has always been a slippery slope.

For one, you have the fact that, up until just after and even to this day to some degree, the concept of 'protected free speech' only really applied to anything passed by federal/national law, which meant that local and state laws were free to censor the crap out of you if they so wished. Of course, these attitudes changed after the Civil War where any form of governmental censorship was looked at with more scrutiny. Of course, I'd argue that Americans more generally don't really trust the government to begin with and never really have.

But I digress.

So, more recent cases of heavy censorship include the so called 'Red Scare' of the 1950's to pretty much any moral panic movement in the history of ever where slogans like 'think of the kids' comes to mind.

This is best exemplified in the 1973 Supreme Court case of 'Miller v. California' which ruled the First Amendment does 'not' protect speech/expressions that could be considered 'obscene'.

Not only that, but free speech protections do not extend to corporations, just those under the law. So yeah, say you have a view that supports Palestine(NOT Hamas. I really hate that people conflate the two) or expresses views that criticize the Israeli government and those views gets known... Censorship out the ass and you could very well lose your job.

So, even though we in the US rank high on lists that value free speech and have said rights protected under the law... in practice, we do a crappier job about upholding those values than a country that has no such rights in their law code.... ranking at 55 out of 180 countries in the same 2024 'Reporters Without Borders' index.

More recent examples include the Pro-Palestine protests at the DNC and the recent rejection to even allow a Palestinian-American to speak at the DNC even though they let the family member of one of the hostages Hamas too... giving only hte Israeli perspective on the issue.

My points here, are just like in the case of the 'Red Scare' of the 50's and the obvious loophole abuse of precedents like 'Miller v. California' where you can just call something obscene and therefore censor it with some nice sounding but logically fragile reasoning, then it's no wonder we haven't moved very far on the path to normalizing things that really should have been non-issues literally hundreds of years ago seeing as gay, trans, and consang relationships have been around for as long as human civilization has.

Even worse is the tendency to pendulum on some of these issues... Periods of time where such behavior was seen as unequivocally 'normal'.

If anything, we've swung too far in the other direction where the only real and 'acceptable' response is to react negatively.... which is not helped by our collective tendency to be reactive rather than proactive.

... And that's not even getting into stuff like 'human rights'.

Anyway, sorry. I just... had some thoughts and this is where they took me and I didn't want them stuck in my head....

[coochiequeens]

I really don’t like that this is written by someone with the Alliance Defending Freedom but if protecting women’s rights is hateful to the TQ+ then maybe your approach is wrong.

Amid the fervent debate over sex and gender, a rising chorus of critics is at long last denouncing the mutilation of children via "gender affirmation" surgery as nothing short of severe and irreversible harm. In no uncertain terms, any efforts to tamper with the biological reality that girls are born girls and boys are born boys, including subjecting the most vulnerable among us to life-altering medical procedures they cannot truly consent to, are an act of violence.

Now, Reem Alsalem, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, has jumped into the swirling gender conversation vortex. Alsalem's latest statementaffirms the crucial importance of protecting free speech on this issue. As she states, "it is important that people, including researchers and academic[s], who express their views on 'gender affirming' interventions including for children are not silenced, threatened, or intimidated simply for holding and articulating such views." Indeed, there should be no doubt or debate that those who peacefully express their views on this most urgent of conversations should not live in fear of retribution.

Alsalem's recent statements diverge strongly from the mainstream position of the UN bureaucracy, which finds itself at the center of the global push for radical gender ideology. Going beyond mere rainbow-themed branding, the UN's advocacy for trans rights has mostly been about suppressing dissenters who hold to biological reality, often in the face of immense pressure. Governments and peoples that maintain the view of man and woman that for millennia has served us well are labeled as proponents of "hate." And attempts are made to silence all who dare to speak out in defense of objective facts and defend dissenting perspectives.

It is in this climate that Alsalem has taken her stand. It is unsurprising that a significant portion of the debate concerning biological reality revolves precisely around the right to speak freely. So tenuous is the claim that biology is a fiction that any "progress" on this issue requires a clampdown of the greatest severity. The special rapporteur should be applauded for rightfully using her mandate to shine a spotlight on this insidious dynamic.

Alsalem asserts without equivocation:

Measures that I find particularly concerning include reprisals such as censorship, legal harassment, loss of jobs, loss of income, removal from social media platforms, speaking engagements and the refusal to publish research conclusions and articles. These tactics have affected the ability to discuss issues related to sex, gender, and gender identity within universities and in society.

For the many across the globe who have endured intimidation, reprisals, or even violence for simply voicing basic biological facts—many times for simply raising common-sense questions—Alsalem's stance is a much-needed breath of fresh air. It is clear that the most contentious issues of our time require more, not less, conversation. And the special rapporteur is absolutely correct to fight for the right to have these conversations.

Alsalem makes clear that this is a matter of basic human rights. "Sweeping restrictions on the ability of women and men to raise concerns regarding the scope of rights based on gender identity and sex," she says, "are in violation of the fundamentals of freedom of thought and freedom of belief and expression." Where there is no respect for freedom of speech, all human rights are placed in jeopardy.

Men and women from all walks of life are facing the ominous specter of censorship, which, in many parts of the world, is reaching its apex on the issue of "gender identity." Take the case of Mexican congressman Gabriel Quadri. An avowed liberal, Quadri has been charged and convicted as a "political violator against women" after expressing concern on Twitterthat biological males who identify as women have occupied spaces in Mexico's Congressreserved for women.

The highest electoral court in Mexico ruled that Quadri's posts, simply asking questions about gender identity and fairness for women, were discriminatory. He was ordered to delete his tweets, issue a public apology, and be registered as a gender-based political violator—blatant censorship measures that infringe upon his human right to freedom of expression. With no further recourse for justice within Mexico, Quadri is now bringing his case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Civil society leader Rodrigo Iván Cortés finds himself in a similar situation, having been convicted of "gender-based political violence," including digital violence, over social media posts referring to a transgender-identifying Mexican congressional representative as a "man who self-ascribes as a woman." He is awaiting a ruling on his appeal.

Like countless concerned citizens worldwide, Quadri and Cortés took to social media platforms to seek open conversation on a highly relevant matter of serious societal importance. They committed no crime and endorsed no violence. The same is true in the case of Finnish Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen, who has been facing "hate speech" charges carrying a potential prison sentence of two years. A civil servant, medical doctor, and grandmother, Räsänen has endured three years of onerous legal proceedings simply for expressing her views on marriage and sexuality on Twitter.

The targeting of persons in positions of influence inevitably has a chilling effect that reverberates throughout society. Regardless of one's views on the hot-button issues of our time, the importance of free speech should be a unifying factor rather than a divisive one. The threat of severe consequences for questioning the reigning narrative requires astonishing bravery to be overcome. Perhaps even more astonishing is the simple fact that we've reached the point in our history where this level of bravery is not just admirable, but imperative.

Speaking out is the most powerful defense of free speech, and indeed, of human rights in general. Those, like Alsalem, who champion respect for this fundamental freedom deserve widespread recognition and support—regardless of whether you share their opinions or not.

[thoughtportal]

When a call to the police for help turns deadly

In at least 178 cases over three years, law enforcement killed the individuals they were called to assist

By Jon Gerberg and 

Alice Li

June 22, 2022

SAN ANTONIO — Brendan Daniels tried to find help for his brother.

Damian Daniels was alone in his San Antonio home in the throes of a mental health crisis. The 30-year-old Black combat veteran had grown increasingly depressed after the recent deaths of his sister, father and uncle in quick succession. The stress and isolation of the pandemic had been wearing on him, too. But when he began sending paranoid, delusional text messages to his brother 800 miles away in Colorado, Brendan felt that it was time for someone to intervene.

UNACCOUNTABLE

An examination of policing in America amid the push for reform.

Explore more stories in this series.

Listen to Broken Doors:

The Post’s latest podcast investigates no-knock search warrants.

Brendan was wary of calling the police. It was August 2020, three months since the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis ignited nationwide outrage over the issue of police violence against Black people. He decided to call the Red Cross, a safer option he thought, but the Red Cross then called 911 to initiate a welfare check.

Bexar County sheriff’s deputies visited Damian Daniels three times over the next 48 hours. The first two visits ended without incident. However, the third encounter escalated after deputies lunged at Daniels, who was standing in his doorway wearing a holstered, legally owned firearm.

The tussle ended when one of the officers, John Rodriguez, fired two shots into Daniels’s chest, killing him. Nearly two years later, his family is still searching for answers.

“This should have never happened,” Annette Watkins, Daniels’s mother, told The Washington Post. “We shouldn’t be living in a society where you call for help and be killed.”

A new investigation by The Post reveals at least 178 cases from 2019 to 2021 in which calls for help resulted in law enforcement officers shooting and killing the very people they were called on to assist. We used The Post’s nationwide database of fatal police shootings along with public reporting to identify cases in which the callers were concerned primarily for the individuals’ well-being and no imminent harm to others was reported.

Many of the calls alerted authorities to people in mental health crises, requested wellness checks or reported suicide threats. The calls came from the distressed individuals themselves or were made by worried family members, friends or neighbors. Police responses to calls for help are often routine, but, in the cases The Post identified, they turned deadly. Experts say that more needs to be done to protect those in crisis.

“If your family member is in pain, you should be able to pick up that phone and dial 911 and get help that is effective and safe,” said Christy Lopez, a policing expert at Georgetown Law School.

“We need to reject this idea that you can have a safe response or a law enforcement response,” she said. “We need to create a world in which you have a safe law enforcement response.”

Unaccountable: More on policing in America

The Washington Post’s investigation into policing in America has been ongoing since 2015, when The Post began logging every fatal shooting by an on-duty police officer in the United States.

The hidden cost of police misconduct: The Post collected data on nearly 40,000 payments at 25 of the nation’s largest police and sheriff’s departments within the past decade to uncover thousands of police officers whose alleged repeated misconduct cost taxpayers $1.5 billion.

Video: No-knock raids, considered one of the most dangerous and intrusive policing tactics, have been at the center of a debate in recent years over police use of force. At least 22 people have been killed by police nationwide carrying out no-knock warrants since 2015, according to a Post investigation.

Podcast: Hosted by Jenn Abelson and Nicole Dungca, “Broken Doors” is a six-part investigative podcast about how no-knock warrants are deployed in the American justice system — and what happens when accountability is flawed at every level.

Curbing crime: A crime-reduction strategy abandoned by Louisville police after thefatal shooting of Breonna Taylor has since spread to other major U.S. cities, gaining favor with police chiefs for its potential to reduce violent crime despite its ties to the case that sparked widespread calls for police reform.

Community oversight: Police nationwide have frequently defied efforts to impose civilian oversight and, in turn, undermined the ability of communities to hold law enforcement accountable, according to a Post investigation

[mariacallous]

I am in the midst of a house move. It is not by choice. I am one of the thousands of renters in London facing eviction – although technically our landlord has simply decided not to renew our tenancy, a decision that doesn’t seem to factor into official eviction stats, though it should, given the frequency with which it’s occurring.

My landlord was one of that rare breed: the “good” landlords. You hear about them occasionally. The bar is very low, yet most private landlords (in London, at least) fail to clear it. Not a price gouger; fixes things when asked; doesn’t treat tenants like squatters who happen to be paying half their monthly salary for the privilege of residing in their buy-to-let.

But without proper legal protections and rights for private tenants, such as rent caps, tenancy security even in cases of house sales, and the option of indefinite tenancies, all that separates a good landlord from a bad one is the wafer-thin concept of decency. Tenants are totally reliant on the whims and personal circumstances of their particular landlord. As such, privately renting is not just a financial and psychological burden: it is also a crash course in extensive relationship management.

See: putting off getting the boiler fixed because the washing machine was just replaced, and if you ask your landlord for two costly repairs in a row a little switch in their brain might flip your house from “asset” to “albatross”, and they might decide to sell. Or calling a house meeting to collectively draft an unfathomably sycophantic email two months before your contract renewal essentially begging the landlord to grant you and your housemates the great honour of staying in their beautiful property. Sending them flowers, just because. (There is a housing crisis, and you need them to like you enough to ignore the estate agent in their ear telling them they can collect 30% more in monthly rent.)

And yet, at the slightest pressure decency withers and dies. In September, my “good” landlord asked to increase the rent by a small and reasonable amount, in line with rising living costs (no word, of course, about decreasing the rate to mirror real-terms pay cuts). My housemates and I agreed, but requested the increase came into effect after 90 days, according to the terms of the contract we had signed, rather than immediately. The landlord pushed back, with an undertone of aggrievement that we would repay their kindness in such a fashion, and then went quiet. Days later, we were informed our tenancy was ending. By adhering to the only legal protection we had, we’d become an albatross.

Unspoken was the reality that by referencing the vulgar, transactional nature of the landlord/tenant relationship, we had pierced the gossamer veneer of civility. We had reminded our landlord that they were a landlord, and not simply a kind benefactor. It was ungrateful in the face of their generosity. Personal affront sealed our fate.

Where the state has withdrawn, I have noticed an increasing emphasis on interpersonal “decency” to one another, an exhortation to rely on a supposed inherent goodness that will see us all done right by. Perhaps the seeds of this rhetoric were first planted by David Cameron’s vision of a “big society”, which involved the cutting down of actual society, via slashed public spending, and its replacement with voluntarism. There is a cultural emphasis on being “kind” in lieu of solid legislative frameworks and state safety nets to catch us when we fall.

Often, it is those people with the most material power who preach this doctrine: at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, was instructing the public to practise “kindness” and “decency”, and later refusing to overhaul statutory sick pay. Wealthy celebrities and influencers wield the phrase “Be kind” like a get-out-of-jail-free card at the slightest hint of criticism. And there is a reliance on the individual compassion of the likes of landlords, in order to keep a roof over our heads. This “kindness” is a myth: it is bondage of a feudal nature, an exercise in massaging the egos – or should that be the consciences? – of those with assets and access in the hope that they will continue to patronise the rest of us.

Unfortunately, this vague folk concept of “kindness” disappears as soon as those at the top of the totem pole feel a squeeze; see landlords en masse increasing rental rates in line with their own living costs, never mind that some aren’t even grappling with higher mortgage repayments and have more than enough of a financial cushion from the properties they let out.

It is understandable in times of crisis: a scarcity mindset becomes particularly sharp. The perception of being harder up, however, means kindness falls by the wayside. Self-preservation kicks in, and damn objectivity when it comes to assessing actual power dynamics.

“It’s been a very difficult time for landlords, too,” my friend was told earlier this year, after a rent increase on her mouse-infested flat. The landlord in question collects income from 11 properties. Under the decency doctrine, everyone’s suffering is equal.

Keep your kindness. I would rather have housing security or the ability to easily book a GP appointment without relying on a sympathetic receptionist’s pity when I turn up at the surgery in tears at 8am. “Decency” without the backing of robust welfare and legislative infrastructure is nothing but a farce, existing to alleviate the guilt of the haves in relation to the have-nots. It is a finite resource. The UK, it seems, is close to running on empty.

[fernreads]

America’s Biggest Museums Fail to Return Native American Human Remains

by Logan Jaffe, Mary Hudetz and Ash Ngu, ProPublica, and Graham Lee Brewer, NBC News

Series: The Repatriation Project

As the United States pushed Native Americans from their lands to make way for westward expansion throughout the 1800s, museums and the federal government encouraged the looting of Indigenous remains, funerary objects and cultural items. Many of the institutions continue to hold these today — and in some cases resist their return despite the 1990 passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

“We never ceded or relinquished our dead. They were stolen,” James Riding In, then an Arizona State University professor who is Pawnee, said of the unreturned remains.

ProPublica this year is investigating the failure of NAGPRA to bring about the expeditious return of human remains by federally funded universities and museums. Our reporting, in partnership with NBC News, has found that a small group of institutions and government bodies has played an outsized role in the law’s failure.

Ten institutions hold about half of the Native American remains that have not been returned to tribes. These include old and prestigious museums with collections taken from ancestral lands not long after the U.S. government forcibly removed Native Americans from them, as well as state-run institutions that amassed their collections from earthen burial mounds that had protected the dead for hundreds of years. Two are arms of the U.S. government: the Interior Department, which administers the law, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation’s largest federally owned utility.

An Interior Department spokesperson said it complies with its legal obligations and that its bureaus (such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Land Management) are not required to begin the repatriation of “culturally unidentifiable human remains” unless a tribe or Native Hawaiian organization makes a formal request.

Tennessee Valley Authority Archaeologist and Tribal Liaison Marianne Shuler said the agency is committed to “partnering with federally recognized tribes as we work through the NAGPRA process.”

The law required institutions to publicly report their holdings and to consult with federally recognized tribes to determine which tribes human remains and objects should be repatriated to. Institutions were meant to consider cultural connections, including oral traditions as well as geographical, biological and archaeological links.

Yet many institutions have interpreted the definition of “cultural affiliation” so narrowly that they’ve been able to dismiss tribes’ connections to ancestors and keep remains and funerary objects. Throughout the 1990s, institutions including the Ohio History Connection and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville thwarted the repatriation process by categorizing everything in their collections that might be subject to the law as “culturally unidentifiable.”

Ohio History Connection’s director of American Indian relations, Alex Wesaw, who is also a citizen of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, said that the institution’s original designation of so many collections as culturally unidentifiable may have “been used as a means to keep people on shelves for research and for other things that our institution just doesn’t allow anymore.”

In a statement provided to ProPublica, a University of Tennessee, Knoxville spokesperson said that the university is “actively building relationships with and consulting with Tribal communities.”

ProPublica found that the American Museum of Natural History has not returned some human remains taken from the Southwest, arguing that they are too old to determine which tribes — among dozens in the region — would be the correct ones to repatriate to. In the Midwest, the Illinois State Museum for decades refused to establish a cultural affiliation for Native American human remains that predated the arrival of Europeans in the region in 1673, citing no reliable written records during what archaeologists called the “pre-contact” or “prehistoric” period.

The American Museum of Natural History declined to comment for this story.

In a statement, Illinois State Museum Curator of Anthropology Brooke Morgan said that “archaeological and historical lines of evidence were privileged in determining cultural affiliation” in the mid-1990s, and that “a theoretical line was drawn in 1673.” Morgan attributed the museum’s past approach to a weakness of the law that she said did not encourage multiple tribes to collectively claim cultural affiliation, a practice she said is common today.

As of last month, about 200 institutions — including the University of Kentucky’s William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology and the nonprofit Center for American Archeology in Kampsville, Illinois — had repatriated none of the remains of more than 14,000 Native Americans in their collections. Some institutions with no recorded repatriations possess the remains of a single individual; others have as many as a couple thousand.

A University of Kentucky spokesperson told ProPublica the William S. Webb Museum “is committed to repatriating all Native American ancestral remains and funerary belongings, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony to Native nations” and that the institution has recently committed $800,000 toward future efforts.

Jason L. King, the executive director of the Center for American Archeology, said that the institution has complied with the law: “To date, no tribes have requested repatriation of remains or objects from the CAA.”

When the federal repatriation law passed in 1990, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would take 10 years to repatriate all covered objects and remains to Native American tribes. Today, many tribal historic preservation officers and NAGPRA professionals characterize that estimate as laughable, given that Congress has never fully funded the federal office tasked with overseeing the law and administering consultation and repatriation grants. Author Chip Colwell, a former curator at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, estimates repatriation will take at least another 70 years to complete. But the Interior Department, now led by the first Native American to serve in a cabinet position, is seeking changes to regulations that would push institutions to complete repatriation within three years. Some who work on repatriation for institutions and tribes have raised concerns about the feasibility of this timeline.

Our investigation included an analysis of records from more than 600 institutions; interviews with more than 100 tribal leaders, museum professionals and others; and the review of nearly 30 years of transcripts from the federal committee that hears disputes related to the law.

D. Rae Gould, executive director of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Initiative at Brown University and a member of the Hassanamisco Band of Nipmucs of Massachusetts, said institutions that don’t want to repatriate often claim there’s inadequate evidence to link ancestral human remains to any living people.

Gould said “one of the faults with the law” is that institutions, and not tribes, have the final say on whether their collections are considered culturally related to the tribes seeking repatriation. “Institutions take advantage of it,” she said.

Some of the nation’s most prestigious museums continue to hold vast collections of remains and funerary objects that could be returned under NAGPRA.

Harvard University’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, University of California, Berkeley and the Field Museum in Chicago each hold the remains of more than 1,000 Native Americans. Their earliest collections date back to the 19th and early 20th centuries, when their curators sought to amass encyclopedic collections of human remains.

Many anthropologists from that time justified large-scale collecting as a way to preserve evidence of what they wrongly believed was an extinct race of “Moundbuilders” — one that predated and was unrelated to Native Americans. Later, after that theory proved to be false, archaeologists still excavated gravesites under a different racist justification: Many scientists who embraced the U.S. eugenics movement used plundered craniums for studies that argued Native Americans were inferior to white people based on their skull sizes.

These colonialist myths were also used to justify the U.S. government’s brutality toward Native Americans and fuel much of the racism that they continue to face today.

“Native Americans have always been the object of study instead of real people,” said Shannon O’Loughlin, chief executive of the Association on American Indian Affairs and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

As the new field of archaeology gained momentum in the 1870s, the Smithsonian Institution struck a deal with U.S. Army Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman to pay each of his soldiers up to $500 — or roughly $14,000 in 2022 dollars — for items such as clothing, weapons and everyday tools sent back to Washington.

“We are desirous of procuring large numbers of complete equipments in the way of dress, ornament, weapons of war” and “in fact everything bearing upon the life and character of the Indians,” Joseph Henry, the first secretary of the Smithsonian, wrote to Sherman on May 22, 1873.

The Smithsonian Institution today holds in storage the remains of roughly 10,000 people, more than any other U.S. museum. However, it reports its repatriation progress under a different law, the National Museum of the American Indian Act. And it does not publicly share information about what it has yet to repatriate with the same detail that NAGPRA requires of institutions it covers. Instead, the Smithsonian shares its inventory lists with tribes, two spokespeople told ProPublica.

Frederic Ward Putnam, who was appointed curator of Harvard University’s Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology in 1875, commissioned and funded excavations that would become some of the earliest collections at Harvard, the American Museum of Natural History and the Field Museum. He also helped establish the anthropology department and museum at UC Berkeley — which holds more human remains taken from Native American gravesites than any other U.S. institution that must comply with NAGPRA.

For the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Putnam commissioned the self-taught archaeologist Warren K. Moorehead to lead excavations in southern Ohio to take human remains and “relics” for display. Much of what Moorehead unearthed from Ohio’s Ross and Warren counties became founding collections of the Field Museum.

A few years after Moorehead’s excavations, the American Museum of Natural History co-sponsored rival expeditions to the Southwest; items were looted from New Mexico’s Chaco Canyon and shipped by train to New York. They remain premiere collections of the institution.

As of last month the Field Museum has returned to tribes legal control of 28% of the remains of 1,830 Native Americans it has reported to the National Park Service, which administers the law and keeps inventory data. It still holds at least 1,300 Native American remains.

In a statement, the Field Museum said that data from the park service is out of date. (The museum publishes separate data on its repatriation website that it says is frequently updated and more accurate.) A spokesperson told ProPublica that “all Native American human remains under NAGPRA are available for return.”

The museum has acknowledged that Moorehead’s excavations would not meet today’s standards. But the museum continues to benefit from those collections. Between 2003 and 2005, it accepted $400,000 from the National Endowment for the Humanities to preserve its North American Ethnographic and Archaeological collection — including the material excavated by Moorehead — for future use by anthropologists and other researchers. That’s nearly four times more than it received in grants from the National Park Service during the same period to support its repatriation efforts under NAGPRA.

In a statement, the museum said it has the responsibility to care for its collections and that the $400,000 grant was “used for improved stewardship of objects in our care as well as organizing information to better understand provenance and to make records more publicly accessible.”

Records show the Field Museum has categorized all of its collections excavated by Moorehead as culturally unidentifiable. The museum said that in 1995, it notified tribes with historical ties to southern Ohio about those collections but did not receive any requests for repatriation or disposition. Helen Robbins, the museum’s director of repatriation, said that formally linking specific tribes with those sites is challenging, but that it may be possible after consultations with tribes.

The museum’s president and CEO, Julian Siggers, has criticized proposals intended to speed up repatriation. In March 2022, Siggers wrote to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland that if new regulations empowered tribes to request repatriations on the basis of geographical ties to collections rather than cultural ties, museums such as the Field would need more time and money to comply. ProPublica found that the Field Museum has received more federal money to comply with NAGPRA than any other institution in the country.

Robbins said that among the institution’s challenges to repatriation is a lack of funding and staff. “That being said,” added Robbins, “we recognize that much of this work has taken too long.”

From the 1890s through the 1930s, archaeologists carried out large-scale excavations of burial mounds throughout the Midwest and Southeast, regions where federal policy had forcibly pushed tribes from their land. Of the 10 institutions that hold the most human remains in the country, seven are in regions that were inhabited by Indigenous people with mound building cultures, ProPublica found.

Among them are the Ohio History Connection, the University of Kentucky’s William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville and the Illinois State Museum.

Archaeological research suggests that the oldest burial mounds were built roughly 11,000 years ago and that the practice lasted through the 1400s. The oral histories of many present-day tribes link their ancestors to earthen mounds. Their structures and purposes vary, but many include spaces for communal gatherings and platforms for homes and for burying the dead. But some institutions have argued these histories aren’t adequate proof that today’s tribes are the rightful stewards of the human remains and funerary objects removed from the mounds, which therefore should stay in museums.

Like national institutions, local museums likewise make liberal use of the “culturally unidentifiable” designation to resist returning remains. For example, in 1998 the Ohio Historical Society (now Ohio History Connection) categorized its entire collection, which today includes more than 7,100 human remains, as “culturally unidentifiable.” It has made available for return the remains of 17 Native Americans, representing 0.2% of the human remains in its collections.

“It’s tough for folks who worked in the field their entire career and who are coming at it more from a colonial perspective — that what you would find in the ground is yours,” said Wesaw of previous generations’ practices. “That’s not the case anymore. That’s not how we operate.”

For decades, Indigenous people in Ohio have protested the museum’s decisions, claiming in public meetings of the federal committee that oversees how the law is implemented that their oral histories trace back to mound-building cultures. As one commenter, Jean McCoard of the Native American Alliance of Ohio, pointed out in 1997, there are no federally recognized tribes in Ohio because they were forcibly removed. As a result, McCoard argued, archaeologists in the state have been allowed to disassociate ancestral human remains from living people without much opposition. Since the early 1990s, the Native American Alliance of Ohio has advocated for the reburial of all human remains held by Ohio History Connection. It has yet to happen.

Wesaw said that the museum is starting to engage more with tribes to return their ancestors and belongings. Every other month, the museum’s NAGPRA specialist— a newly created position that is fully dedicated to its repatriation work — convenes virtual meetings with leaders from many of the roughly 45 tribes with ancestral ties to Ohio.

But, Wesaw said, the challenges run deep.

“It’s an old museum,” said Wesaw. “Since 1885, there have been a number of archaeologists that have made their careers on the backs of our ancestors pulled out of the ground or mounds. It’s really, truly heartbreaking when you think about that.”

Moreover, ProPublica’s investigation found that some collections were amassed with the help of federal funding. The vast majority of NAGPRA collections held by the University of Kentucky’s William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology are from excavations funded by the federal government under the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration from the late 1930s into the 1940s. Kentucky’s rural and impoverished counties held burial mounds, and Washington funded excavations of 48 sites in at least 12 counties to create jobs for the unemployed.

More than 80% of the Webb Museum’s holdings that are subject to return under federal law originated from WPA excavations. The museum, which in 1996 designated every one of its collections as “culturally unidentifiable,” has yet to repatriate any of the roughly 4,500 human remains it has reported to the federal government. However, the museum has recently hired its first NAGPRA coordinator and renewed consultations with tribal nations after decades of avoiding repatriation. A spokesperson told ProPublica that one ongoing repatriation project at the museum will lead to the return of about 15% of the human remains in its collections.

In a statement, a museum spokesperson said that “we recognize the pain caused by past practices” and that the institution plans to commit more resources toward repatriation.

The University of Kentucky recently told ProPublica that it plans to spend more than $800,000 between 2023 and 2025 on repatriation, including the hiring of three more museum staff positions.

In 2010, the Interior Department implemented a new rule that provided a way for institutions to return remains and items without establishing a cultural affiliation between present-day tribes and their ancestors. But, ProPublica found, some institutions have resisted doing so.

Experts say a lack of funding from Congress to the National NAGPRA Program has hampered enforcement of the law. The National Park Service was only recently able to fund one full-time staff position dedicated to investigating claims that institutions are not complying with the law; allegations can range from withholding information from tribes about collections, to not responding to consultation requests, to refusing to repatriate. Previously, the program relied on a part-time investigator.

Moreover, institutions that have violated the law have faced only minuscule fines, and some are not fined at all even after the Interior Department has found wrongdoing. Since 1990, the Interior Department has collected only $59,111.34 from 20 institutions for which it had substantiated allegations. That leaves tribal nations to shoulder the financial and emotional burden of the repatriation work.

The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, a tribe in California, pressured UC Berkeley for years to repatriate more than a thousand ancestral remains, according to the tribe’s attorney. It finally happened in 2018 following a decade-long campaign that involved costly legal wrangling and travel back and forth to Berkeley by the tribes’ leaders.

“​​To me, there’s no money, there’s no dollar amount, on the work to be done. But the fact is, not every tribe has the same infrastructure and funding that others have,” said Nakia Zavalla, the cultural director for the tribe. “I really feel for those tribes that don’t have the funding, and they’re relying just on federal funds.”

A UC Berkeley spokesperson declined to comment on its interactions with the Santa Ynez Chumash, saying the school wants to prioritize communication with the tribe.

The University of Alabama Museums is among the institutions that have forced tribes into lengthy disputes over repatriation.

In June 2021, seven tribal nations indigenous to what is now the southeastern United States collectively asked the university to return the remains of nearly 6,000 of their ancestors. Their ancestors had been among more than 10,000 whose remains were unearthed by anthropologists and archaeologists between the 1930s and the 1980s from the second-largest mound site in the country. The site, colonially known as Moundville, was an important cultural and trade hub for Muskogean-speaking people between about 1050 and 1650.

Tribes had tried for more than a decade to repatriate Moundville ancestors, but the university had claimed they were all “culturally unidentifiable.” Emails between university and tribal leaders in 2018 show that when the university finally agreed to begin repatriation, it insisted that before it could return the human remains it needed to re-inventory its entire Moundville collection — a process it said would take five years. The “re-inventory” would entail photographing and CT scanning human remains to collect data for future studies, which the tribes opposed.

In October 2021, leaders from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Seminole Tribe of Florida brought the issue to the federal NAGPRA Review Committee, which can recommend a finding of cultural affiliation that is not legally binding. (Disputes over these findings are relatively rare.) The tribal leaders submitted a 117-page document detailing how Muskogean-speaking tribes are related and how their shared history can be traced back to the Moundville area long before the arrival of Europeans.

“Our elders tell us that the Muskogean-speaking tribes are related to each other. We have a shared history of colonization and a shared history of rebuilding from it,” Ian Thompson, a tribal historic preservation officer with the Choctaw Nation, told the NAGPRA review committee in 2021.

The tribes eventually forced the largest repatriation in NAGPRA’s history. Last year, the university agreed to return the remains of 10,245 ancestors.

In a statement, a University of Alabama Museums spokesperson said, “To honor and preserve historical and cultural heritage, the proper care of artifacts and ancestral remains of Muskogean-speaking peoples has been and will continue to be imperative to UA.” The university declined to comment further “out of respect for the tribes,” but added that “we look forward to continuing our productive work” with them.

The University of Alabama Museums still holds the remains of more than 2,900 Native Americans.

Many tribal and museum leaders say they are optimistic that a new generation of archaeologists, as well as museum and institutional leaders, want to better comply with the law.

At the University of Oklahoma, for instance, new archaeology department hires were shocked to learn about their predecessors’ failures. Marc Levine, associate curator of archaeology at the university’s Sam Noble Museum, said that when he arrived in 2013, there was more than enough evidence to begin repatriation, but his predecessors hadn’t prioritized the work. Through collaboration with tribal nations, Levine has compiled evidence that would allow thousands of human remains to be repatriated — and NAGPRA work isn’t technically part of his job description. The university has no full-time NAGPRA coordinator. Still, Levine estimates that at the current pace, repatriating the university’s holdings could take another decade.

Prominent institutions such as Harvard have issued public apologies in recent years for past collection practices, even as criticism continues over their failure to complete the work of repatriation. (Harvard did not respond to multiple requests for comment).

Other institutions under fire, such as UC Berkeley, have publicly pledged to prioritize repatriation. And the Society for American Archaeology, a professional organization that argued in a 1986 policy statement that “all human remains should receive appropriate scientific study,” now recommends archaeologists obtain consent from descendant communities before conducting studies.

In October, the Biden administration proposed regulations that would eliminate “culturally unidentifiable” as a designation for human remains, among other changes. Perhaps most significantly, the regulations would direct institutions to defer to tribal nations’ knowledge of their customs, traditions and histories when making repatriation decisions.

But for people who have been doing the work since its passage, NAGPRA was never complicated.

“You either want to do the right thing or you don’t,” said Brown University’s Gould.

She added: “It’s an issue of dignity at this point.”

[douchebagbrainwaves]

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND MONEY

One way to guess how far an idea extends is to ask yourself at what point you'd bet against it. But in practice that never happens. Could you reproduce Silicon Valley, the single best thing they could do might be to create a special visa for startup founders to be any syntax for it. Whereas when you're big you can maltreat them at will, and you just create Carnegie-Mellon? The real problem is the way you do releases. In the earliest stage. And so you can't begin with a statement, but with a question. A round for, say, deals to buy real estate.1 Ideally you want to take a shot at describing where these trends are leading. For example, everyone I've talked to while writing this essay felt the same about English classes—that anything can be interesting if you get growth, everything else tends to fall into place.2

It's hard to say why Yahoo felt threatened. About a year ago she was alarmed to receive a letter from Apple, offering her a discount on a new feature, they'd be able to get the resulting ideas past other people's. Is whether we can keep things this way. So there are a few cases where this isn't true: the urls at the bottom. The reason I describe this as a danger is that series A investors often make companies take more money than they want. There are two big forces driving change in startup funding: it's becoming cheaper to start. Whereas if you want to find surprises you should do the opposite. And yet it also happened that Carter was famous for his big grin and folksy ways, and Ford for being a boring klutz. It might be true that increased variation in income is a sign of something you need to write anything, though? In that kind of space. What does that mean in practice? And finally, if a good investor has committed to fund you if you stay where you are.

The right thing to compare Lisp to is not 1950s hardware, but you don't have to worry about that. 9199 Free 0. The constraints that limit ordinary companies also protect them. Now founders would prefer to sell less, and VCs are digging in their heels because they're not directly exposed to competitive pressure: a salesman has to deal with clients could be enough to put you over the edge. So is it coming out of later stage investors?3 We get startups airborne. Who pays the legal bills for this deal? Most of them myself included are more comfortable dealing with abstract ideas than with people. If the movie industry could have any law they wanted, where would they stop?4 After trying the demo, signing up for the service should require nothing more than filling out a brief form the briefer the better. Not all the people who work there.

But it was not technology but math, and math doesn't get stale. So who is our 7% coming out of later stage investors have no problem with that. It's not just that if you let Henry Ford get rich, or you've failed. And it's natural that the new version was available immediately. When is Java better and when is C? In 1800, people could not see as readily as we can that a great fortune with no apparent cause was probably due to a nearby fan. In the early 1990s I read an article in which someone said that software was a subscription business.

The angel investor cheerfully surrenders his board seat. We were terrified of starting a company, why not start the type with the most basic question: will the future be better or worse than the 20th best player, causing him not to make the team, and if Microsoft doesn't control the client, they can't push users towards their server-based software, they will be facing not just technical problems but their own wishful thinking. It makes a better story, partly because there is so little time before Demo Day, because Demo Day presentations are now so short that they rarely include much if any demo. In a way it's a relief to get some message past network-level filters if they want to invest and offers the founders a term sheet, ask how many of their last 10 term sheets turned into deals. If a company wants to make a silicon valley; you let one grow. In addition to working in their space, you were supposed to fight back, and there was no such thing as a freelance programmer. A company has to be inexpensive and well-designed.

The hard part about figuring out what people want, deciding how much to how many voters, and adjust their message so precisely in response, that they tend to split the difference and say that they wanted yellow. So anything we could do to decrease the false positive rate at the expense of the filtering rate. I found out why. Part of the problem is that big projects tend to grow into a big company of mediocre ones, where bad ideas are caught by committees instead of the people who run them. In a way.5 Surely everyone realizes that was just a fast-growing companies overspend on different things. As for building something users love, and make more than you are. Starting one is at first no more than a town with the right personality. In fact, shelving an idea probably even inhibits new ideas: as you start to get mixed together with the spin you've added to get them to give you bigger abstractions—bigger bricks, as it were, so you must. When I give a draft of an essay. One thing we can say for sure is that there is nothing in spam-of-the-future must be low, or everyone would be doing it.

The fascinating thing about optimizing for growth is that it can be updated without confusing the users. Occam's Razor implies, is the sort of things we now patent as software, but it's never going to go anywhere, and yet did things no mainframe software could do. I got about 1750 spams. Lisp.6 The cows apparently learn to stay away from them, and judged them less by what they said than who wrote them; a magazine might publish a story by an unknown writer if it was good, so I can answer for both. I want to say explicitly that I am not surprised to hear it. I was interested in being a technologist in residence. Immigration difficulties might be another reason to stay put.7 The centralizing effect of venture firms is a double one: they cause startups to form around them, and those who make more money than they have in the past.8 It looks as if server-based software is that a company won because its founders were so smart. But most types of work that depend more on talent are always more admirable. Because seed firms are companies rather than individual people, reaching them is easier than reaching angels.

Notes

I talk about real income statistics calculated in the production of high school as a game, you don't mind taking money from the study. The other reason it's easy to slide into thinking that customers want what you launch with, you might be 20 or 30 times as much effort on sales. Peter Norvig found that three quarters of them. One sign of the increase in economic inequality is really about poverty.

You won't always get a lot like meaning. Microsoft discourages employees from contributing to open-source but seems to be considered an angel investment from a mediocre VC. The state of technology, so the best case. Obvious is an instance of a type of lie.

A related trick is to start software companies constrained in b. I've come to writing essays is to hand off the task at hand almost does this for you by accidents of age and geography, rather than ones they capture. According to a woman who, because the danger of chasing large investments is not that everyone's the same way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it.

This essay was written before Firefox.

We didn't swing for the same energy and honesty that fifteenth century artists did, but I couldn't believe it or not.

This was made particularly clear in our case, as on a wall is art. While the first third of the most powerful men in Congress, Sam Altman wrote: After the war, tax receipts as a company just to steal the company goes public.

There are lots of search engines. Apparently the mall was not drinking that kool-aid at the end of the lies we tell kids are smarter than preppies, just try to get all the difference between good and bad measurers. Which OS?

My first job was scooping ice cream in the sort of Gresham's Law of conversations. To track down. But it is unfair when someone gets drunk instead of profits—but only because he had more fun in this, but I think is happening when you use the wrong side of the scholar.