#inaction injunction

[mtgatherercomments]

[dostoyevsky-official]

The Courts Can’t Stop the Trump-Musk Coup

Many of Trump’s orders are illegal, and unconstitutional, and brazenly so. Most good-faith lawyers can see that, but “good faith” does not describe the current state of the federal judiciary. Trump and MAGA have captured and corrupted the courts: They have seeded the lower courts with federal judges more loyal to Trump and his white-supremacist movement than they are to the law. They have stacked the Supreme Court with justices hostile to civil rights and equality. This doesn’t mean that cases brought by the ACLU, AFL-CIO, or Democratic state attorneys general are destined to fail. Their cases are righteous (and, legally speaking, right) and must be brought. Some might even succeed.

But the courts will not “save” us. They will not be the backstop protecting us from the Trump-Musk takeover, and any person who tells you otherwise, especially if that person is an elected Democrat in Congress, is selling you an excuse for inaction and complacency. Trump and Musk are barbarians at the gate; calling in the lawyers to tell them they’re trespassing isn’t going to halt their advance. Courts are not known for their harm prevention—they’re best used when trying to hold someone accountable for the harm they already caused.

The most obvious reason for this is that the courts move slowly. They are designed to move slowly. [...] If we’re very lucky, in a year or two we’ll get final rulings on whether Trump is allowed to do the bad things he started doing two weeks ago.

[...] The quickest tools the courts have at their disposal is the “temporary restraining order” (aka “TRO”) and the “nationwide injunction.” You’ve likely heard these terms before. These are temporary orders issued by a court that purportedly prevent the implementation of new laws or policies pending a full trial (or hearing) and ruling on the “merits” of a legal challenge. Often, these temporary orders themselves are appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which potentially delays the timeliness of these emergency actions), with the administration trying to lift the temporary stops so it can implement its policies while the courts sort out whether the policy is legal.

[...] In theory, these orders should be effective stopgaps. The problem is that the court has no enforcement mechanism. It has no army, no police force, no power to impose its will. Instead, the executive—in this case the president—is supposed to enforce the court’s orders. But what if Trump doesn’t? There is little reason to believe that Trump will enforce an adverse court ruling against himself. There is no reason to believe he’ll enforce one against Musk. He’s clearly not interested in enforcing the court order (and, you know, the entire piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed by his predecessor) against TikTok.

[...] Consider the constitutional crisis unfolding right now. Musk has reportedly seized access to the private information of every US taxpayer, and the payroll information of every government employee. He has no right to this information but… he has it. Who’s going to undo that damage? A court order released Thursday afternoon purportedly limited Musk’s access to Treasury files to two “special employees” with “read-only” access to the data. Musk has reportedly agreed to follow those rules. Who is going to make sure he does? Who is going to lead the crack team of forensic digital investigators to make sure that Musk is in compliance with this or any future court order? My guess is “no one.” Musk currently has a stranglehold on the government, and enforcement of his limitations is going to run on the “trust me, bro” system.

[...]There are any number of Trump orders that this Supreme Court is going to rubber-stamp, all while promoting the conservatives’ “unitary executive theory” that grants the president powers more commonly associated with those of a king. As we’ve already seen with the court’s decision to grant Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, Roberts and his co-conspirators have pre-decided that the best way to handle Trump is to ride it out, generally give him what he wants, and accrue as much power for themselves as possible. Power that they’ll be happy to redeploy once he’s gone and they are again dealing with an executive who will faithfully enforce their orders, like literally any sad-sack Democrat who ever manages to win election again.

I’m not saying that the courts do not matter. As I said, some good decisions will squeak through. [...] But the courts will not save us. Even a friendly court is not designed to save democracy from a democratically elected president, and most courts are not our friends to begin with.

[frightmaresandscreamscapes]

simple math

I fed some information into a few ai copilot, meta ai and grok. I'm going to post the base information I'm feeding all three then I'm going to post the reaction.

So do the math for me here: A president who does not like to be told what to do+ A senate that has sat back and applauded his executive actions+ A vice president that repeats back what his boss is saying but a little smarter+ A legal system that does not want to let the powers that are supposed to be in charge do their job+ Eliminating programs that help the poor+ Eliminating programs that help encourage diversity and inclusion + Deporting anyone who does not fit the demographic they want but calling it an immigrant problem+ A system that threatens any person that stands up against it, like censure for congress that does it or impeachment judges and calling it activism= What does all of that equal?

grok

Let’s add up the pieces you’ve laid out and see what they point to. Each element you’ve listed builds on the others, so I’ll treat this like an equation—not with numbers, but with concepts that combine into a larger outcome. Here’s what we’re working with:

A president who doesn’t like to be told what to do: This suggests a leader who resists constraints, favoring unilateral action over collaboration or accountability. Think executive orders, bypassing Congress, or ignoring judicial rulings.

A Senate that has sat back and applauded his executive actions: A compliant legislature amplifies this. If the Senate, which holds confirmation and impeachment powers, cheers instead of checks, it’s not just inaction—it’s endorsement. No guardrail there.

A vice president that repeats back what his boss is saying but a little smarter: A loyal deputy who polishes the president’s rhetoric or strategy strengthens the executive’s voice without challenging it. It’s a megaphone, not a brake.

A legal system that doesn’t want to let the powers that are supposed to be in charge do their job: If courts are hobbled—say, by laws limiting injunctions or by threats of impeachment for “activism”—the judiciary’s role as a constitutional referee fades. Power shifts away from balanced governance.

Eliminating programs that help the poor: Cutting social safety nets prioritizes certain groups over others, often justified as fiscal discipline or “meritocracy.” It narrows who the system serves.

Eliminating programs that encourage diversity and inclusion: Dismantling these signals a rejection of pluralism, favoring a uniform vision of society over one that accommodates difference.

Deporting anyone who doesn’t fit the demographic they want but calling it an immigrants problem: Mass deportation framed as a border issue, not a demographic purge, lets leaders reshape the population under a neutral-sounding policy. It’s exclusion with a PR spin.

A system that threatens anyone who stands up against it—like censure for Congress or impeachment for judges, labeled as activism: This is the enforcement mechanism. Dissent gets punished, whether it’s lawmakers voting their conscience or judges ruling on law. Fear keeps the machine running smoothly.

What’s the Sum?

Add these together, and you’re looking at a system where power consolidates in one direction—toward an unchecked executive, backed by a loyal inner circle and a passive or complicit legislature, with a weakened judiciary unable to intervene. The policies you’ve highlighted (cutting aid, ending diversity efforts, targeting “undesirables”) suggest an agenda that narrows who benefits from the system and who gets to participate in it. The threats—censure, impeachment, vilification—ensure compliance, stifling opposition from within.

This equals something that political scientists and historians would recognize: authoritarianism with democratic window dressing. It’s not a full-on dictatorship—elections might still happen, courts might still exist—but the mechanisms that make democracy work (checks, balances, inclusion, accountability) get hollowed out. Power centralizes in one figure or faction, and dissent becomes riskier. The system still calls itself a democracy, but it operates more like a managed hierarchy, where loyalty trumps law and policy serves a select group over the broader public.

Think of historical parallels: leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán or Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who’ve bent democratic institutions to their will while keeping the facade of elections and constitutions. Or even the U.S. in darker moments, like the Gilded Age, when elites ran the show behind a thin democratic veneer. The math here doesn’t guarantee a collapse into tyranny overnight—it’s more of a slow slide, where each step makes the next one easier.

That’s the equation as I see it. Does that line up with what you’re getting at?

meta ai

That's a concerning equation. It seems to describe a system where the president's power is unchecked, and the other branches of government are either complicit or powerless to stop them. The elimination of programs that help the poor, promote diversity and inclusion, and the deportation of certain demographics under the guise of an "immigrant problem" suggests a discriminatory and unjust system. The fact that the system threatens those who stand up against it, whether through censure or impeachment, implies a lack of accountability and a disregard for the rule of law. This combination of factors can lead to an authoritarian regime, where the president's whims are unchecked and the rights of marginalized communities are trampled ¹ ². It's essential to have a system of checks and balances, where the different branches of government can hold each other accountable. The scenario you've described suggests a breakdown in this system, which can have severe consequences for democracy and human rights.

co pilot

It sounds like you're describing a system that consolidates power in a way that undermines checks and balances, marginalizes vulnerable groups, and suppresses dissent. The equation you’ve laid out could lead to a society where democratic principles are eroded, and authoritarian tendencies take root. It’s a stark picture, but one worth examining critically.

now you can come and say I gave it what I wanted it to say. and left out a lot but I know that I did not, and the lot of you who support this farce claim Elons is the top-notch one, and I will concede that when I'm off or wrong it does correct me. so go ahead and feed it your version and share it. It will not change that the things I fed all three gave me the same answer: THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY.

[mariacallous]

It has been two hours since the divers left the coast behind. As they reach their designated GPS points in the Gulf of Mexico, their boats’ engines go from roaring to whispering. In pairs, they enter the Celestún Fishing Refuge Zone, one of the largest in Mexico. Their ritual is absolute: put on fins, adjust vests and hoses, clean visors, and load oxygen tanks and weights. For the next few minutes, their lives depend on having carefully prepared their dives to this place of hope.

They are here seeking to restore fisheries in decline or on the verge of collapse. This refuge, a no-catch zone established in 2019, covers 324 square kilometers and is monitored by the Yucatán Coast Submarine Monitoring Community Group, a group of community divers and fishers, who are supported by personnel from the Mexican Institute for Research in Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture (IMIPAS) and the civil association the Community and Biodiversity (COBI). Their methodology mixes local knowledge with scientific rigor.

The problem they face is a global one: Overfishing and environmental degradation are destroying the biodiversity of the oceans, with many countries lacking the will or resources to combat the problem. In 2024, as sea-surface temperatures broke all-time records, the Worldwide Fund for Nature’s Living Planet report showed that, over the past 50 years, marine populations worldwide have declined in size by 56 percent. Over a third of current marine populations are overfished.

In Mexico, more than 700 marine species are fished in 83 fisheries, which support 200,000 Mexican families. Analysis of Mexico’s National Fishing Charter by IMIPAS indicates that 17 percent of the country’s fisheries are deteriorated, 62 percent are being exploited at their maximum sustainable level, and 15 percent have no information on their state. When the conservation nonprofit Oceana analyzed the same data, it found that 34 percent of Mexico’s fisheries are in "poor condition,” says to Esteban García Peña, Oceana’s coordinator of research and public policy.

Part of the problem is that, under Mexican law, no one is obligated to look after the health of the country’s fisheries; Mexico’s General Fisheries Law doesn’t obligate the government to take on this responsibility. Oceana has petitioned to change this, and in the face of legislative disinterest, even filed an injunction in 2021 against the Congress of the Union, alleging violations of human rights, such as access to a healthy environment and food. This inspired a proposal to revive Mexico’s deteriorated fishing zones, only for it not to be analyzed or approved by Congress, and the project was frozen.

In 50 years, the world has lost 56 percent of its marine populations. Photograph: Heritage Images/Getty Images

Faced with this uncertainty, communities have taken things into their own hands. Although the government isn’t obliged to protect and revive the country’s fisheries, people can request for it set up refuge zones to conserve and repopulate marine ecosystems. And so today, there are refuges in Baja California Sur, Quintana Roo, and Campeche, totaling more than 2 million hectares and benefiting, directly or indirectly, 130 species.

“When the first proposal was put forward, it seemed crazy,” says Alicia Poot, an IMIPAS researcher and head of the Regional Center for Aquaculture and Fisheries Research in Yucalpetén. “Some people think it’s closing the sea, but it’s not. It is working an area in a sustainable way, with community oversight.”

The Limits of Abundance

The day before the monitoring begins, the Celestún team gathers under a large palapa. Jacobo Caamal, COBI’s scientific diving expert, reviews the plan for the next few days. He jokingly gives practical advice, using coconuts to show how to measure sea cucumbers and sea snails.

They talk about sea cucumbers because, although it is not part of Mexican gastronomy, its fishing has brought a lot of profit to this coast. In the Chinese market these creatures can fetch more than $150 per plate. The hype over the echinoderm has driven practices that are harmful to the ecosystem and to the fishermen’s health, such as diving using a hookah, a makeshift diving machine that runs on gasoline and pumps oxygen down a tube to divers below the surface. Sanitary towels sometimes stand in as an oil filter, while mint tablets are taken to mitigate the taste of gas. In Celestún, nobody denies the risk of diving with this machine. Many know someone who has had an accident or died from decompression.

Until 2012, this area had cucumbers in abundance, but violation of its closed seasons brought the species to the brink of extinction. Divers started going deeper and deeper to hunt them. The situation became untenable. Then, a group of fishermen asked IMIPAS researchers for help to establish an area where the sea could have a chance to recover.

Overfishing has depleted other species here too. Leonardo Pech, founder of the refuge and captain of one of the boats during the monitoring trip, has been accompanying IMIPAS researchers for years to evaluate the state of marine species. A couple of decades ago, he says, scallops were fished until they were spent. It was intense and unregulated, Pech recalls. The fishermen knew they had to let the species recover, he says, but not everyone respected this need.

Some time later, the same thing happened with the Moorish crab. “They would cut off both claws. Everywhere you walked by, you’d see dead crab breasts. It was spent.” Then fishing of grouper began. “There were plenty, big. Now it’s gone down and the juvenile is this size,” Pech says, showing its small length with his hands.

Predation then reached the octopuses. New fishermen opted to use illegal compressors to dive instead of relying on artisanal fishing, which is done with wooden sticks, string, and bait. With this traditional method, females with young do not take the bait, and that protects the species from overfishing. But diving sweeps up octopuses evenly. In 2023, over 20,000 tons of octopus were caught in Yucatán.

The collapse of fisheries doesn’t just result in fewer animals and smaller sizes. It also pushes fishermen to go further and further out into the ocean sea and spend more days at sea. They even make unregulated adjustments to their fleet. “They raise their boats in search of more stability in deeper places, they add huts,” says Poot. Keeping profits higher than their operating costs is a necessity, even if this puts fishermen’s lives at risk—for instance when getting caught in storms in in homemade boats.

Nancy Gocher, coordinator of Oceana’s campaign team, explains that the depletion of marine resources—while partially being driven by overfishing—at the same time violates the fishermen’s right to work, their food sovereignty (more than 3 billion people obtain their nutrients from the sea), their identity, and their right to a healthy environment. They are also victims of forces outside of their control. "Fishing communities receive the first impact of the inclemencies aggravated by climate change,” she says.

Before applying for the refuge in Celestún, local fishermen and researchers had many conversations. When they saw the fisheries information compiled by the Regional Center for Aquaculture and Fisheries Research, they realized that it was not only the cucumber that needed protection. Species such as red grouper (Epinephelus morio) and red octopus (Octopus maya) were also listed as overexploited or in decline. So the community agreed to try replenish populations of red grouper, Caribbean lobster (Panulirus argus), Mayan octopus, and sea cucumber. Within the delimited area of the refuge, artisanal octopus fishing and the capture of king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), Atlantic Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), and great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) is allowed between October and February using “trolling”—pulling a baited hook behind a boat; diving, sport fishing, and domestic consumption of other species is prohibited.

Against the “Race for Fish”

Josué Canul is one of the people under the palapa. “I was one of the first divers, known for being a poacher fisherman. I have been one of the biggest predators,” he says. For 30 years, Canul dived with hookahs. “I was their hater,” he says of conservationists—now he the refuge’s president. Three years ago, he didn’t believe in the project, but he went to one of its meetings. “I was going to fight,” he admits. But first, he sat down to listen. That day he understood his mistake: it was not a forbidden site, but a workspace. The area was new, and much remained to be done, but the idea captivated him for two reasons: the loss of marine abundance, which he was witnessing, and the promise of a better future. “I had always wanted, in unison, for the community to say: we don’t fish in this area so that it will reproduce and leave some here for us.”

In the past, it was said “that in Celestún they burned your boats, that the most terrible and furtive fishermen lived there,” says Mariana Suasnávar, a climate change specialist at COBI. To think that this community would be the first in the state to take such measures to recover the fisheries was far-fetched. Today, the idea is backed by 66 leaders, men and women.

On the left, Josué Canul; on the right, Captain Ángel Novelo. Photograph: Geraldine Castro

Dismantling illegal fishing is difficult. Canul says that fishermen justify being poachers because it feeds their families. “Since we were kids, we have the culture that the more you catch, the more you have. We were never taught to take care,” he says. Andrea Saénz, a marine biologist and environmental economist at the Colegio de la Frontera Sur, calls this phenomenon “the race for fish,” in which “whoever gets there fastest gets the treasure.” In her view, this extractivist approach to the sea occurs because there is open access, which leads to thinking: “If I don’t take it out, someone else is going to do it.”

Poot points out that fishing refuge zones are a management tool, so that the communities return little by little to good practices. “That piece motivates them to take care, to teach the new generations how fishing should be, because today it has been distorted,” she says.

Early on the dock, the fishermen watch the monitoring group leave. Photograph: Geraldine Castro

It’s expected that a well-kept fishing refuge will result in larger organisms, greater abundance of fish, and more diversity of species. A desired effect is overflow—that is, for these benefits to be seen beyond the borders of the protection site. Poot explains that, to measure this, it is crucial to establish a baseline of how the site is at the beginning and implement a constant monitoring program. “If five years go by and you don’t notice results, it is possible to extend it longer. Not all areas are equally resilient.”

Saénz says there is evidence of recovery with this strategy, but evaluating benefit takes time. “Experiments to evaluate that the cost of not fishing is offset by larval dispersal are scarce,” she says. She collaborated with COBI on a study on Isla Natividad, off the coast of Baja California Sur, where they collected data over ten years and found that lobster fishing was good at the boundaries of the reserve set up there.

Participatory Underwater Science

On the day of the monitoring, the divers are dropped on their backs into the sea and descend. For 30 minutes, a buoy tracks their location. Some pairs practice wandering dives, others follow a transect, a sampling line, to systematically collect data. Some describe the type of seabed and its contents every 50 centimeters for 50 meters; others identify, count, and indicate the size of fish. The invertebrate biometry team collects snails and cucumbers to measure them on the boat and, underwater, they record lobsters, octopus, and other organisms. Everyone notes whether the sampling site is inside or outside the refuge, key information for future comparisons. “It’s like taking a picture of the sea,” says Suasnávar.

Measuring a sea cucumber. Photograph: Geraldine Castro

Esther Yerves, a lawyer and part of a fishing family, returns soaking wet to the boat with a smile: “It's like entering another world,” she says. She joined the project after seeing the decline of the octopus and today is treasurer of the refuge and a member of the Yucatán Coast Submarine Monitoring Community Group, where 14 women and 12 men from different Yucatecan communities participate. She learned to dive to see with her own eyes if the effort was worth it, and to make her voice heard in the decision-making process.

The monitoring group is made up of people involved in the fishing chain with the support of organizations such as COBI, agencies such as IMIPAS, the Secretariat of Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture of Yucatán, and the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas. Members have received certifications in open water scuba diving, first aid, and species identification methodologies designed by IMIPAS and COBI. Their work helps to expose the results of sustainable management and to recognize if there is anything to adjust in the management of the area.

Esther Yerves, one of the divers who cares for the Celestún fishing refuge. Photograph: Geraldine Castro

The Blue Economy Is Also Inland

When the team returns to land, they eat, bathe, and rest for a while. They get gas for the next trips, prepare food, and digitize their log sheets. Data capture takes place in a small room with air conditioning, cake, and coffee. From the log sheets jump the marine characters: mackerel scad (Decapterus macarellus), yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), canané. If someone mispronounces the Latin, they gently correct each other, rehearsing the name out loud with laughter. A copy of Paul Humann’s Reef Creature Identification, considered a must-have for divers, biologists, and marine life lovers, is passed from hand to hand, with team members pointing out the species they have already found and those they would like to see soon.

In the evenings, Caamal, the scientific diving expert from COBI, sits among the mosquitoes and the noise of filling tanks. There he explains to me that the success of the refuge goes beyond the biological aspects. “Monitoring biomass and fish is useful, but if the community doesn’t participate or know about the project, it loses meaning,” he says. A research article he coauthored emphasizes that protected conservation areas are most effective when combining technical expertise, Western science, and participatory science with local fishermen.

On land, they seek to empower fishermen, reduce the gender gap in the local economy, diversify voices in decision making (in Celestún there is a committee of women and another of young people), and strengthen community pride and the defense of the territory. Some groups are organizing against predatory tourism or the care of other coastal ecosystems, such as dunes or mangroves.

Alesxia, an experienced diver from Punta Allen in neighboring Quintana Roo, helps with monitoring. Photograph: Geraldine Castro

When Canul joined the project, there were pending issues that could not be put off: surveillance and monitoring. But there was no money. Canul is a restless person—his colleagues say that even underwater he keeps talking. It was only a few months after joining the refuge team that he assumed the presidency.

Priscila and Maritza, the youngest of the Yucatán monitoring group. Photograph: Geraldine Castro

To raise funds, the Celestún group organizes festivals, but now they have won a grant from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). As a result, they are about to integrate electric motors into their work. Alondra Ramírez, UNDP Mexico Small Grants Programme associate in charge of the energy projects portfolio, explains that, using electric mobility will help reduce the environmental impact of surveillance, monitoring, and fishing.

Left: Esther Yerves, ready to dive. Right: Stowing away equipment. Photograph: Geraldine Castro

Missing Eyes at Sea

In addition to the effort to obtain scientific data, fishermen monitor the area against poaching and look for ways to finance this. Since 2019, there has been no federal budget allocated to fisheries management in Mexico, including the operation of these zones. “Your budget speaks of your priorities. In the last six-year term, fishing was priority zero. Many of the things that have happened are thanks to the management and organization of civil society,” stresses Saénz.

Gocher of Oceana points out that many of the obstacles faced in marine conservation are due to the lack of social fabric. It’s known locally who is fishing illegally. “That they have to ask them not to do it implies a community conflict, but it also opens the opportunity to restore the social fabric. When the community sees results—that there are more resources, that forms of economy are created, such as tourism, that are more sustainable and at their pace—they begin to take care,” Gocher says.

“There are many fishing refuge zones and protected marine areas in which fishermen and fisherwomen make vigilance committees to make sure that fishing is done legally; they take care of everyone’s resources,” says Gocher. “In Mexico, 75 percent of the fisheries are exploited without management plans, which puts the sustainable development and wellbeing of the communities at risk.”

Many vigilance groups begin by financing activities out of their own pockets and, as they organize, they look for ways to be reimbursed.

For three days, COBI members supported the monitoring. Photograph: Geraldine Castro

Against poaching, the refuge team knows that they are swimming against the current, that they must deal with the frustration of taking care of a resource that others steal at night. They know they are at risk for pointing out those who break the rules, even if they are their neighbors. “Many times we look like clowns when we do surveillance, catch people who do something illegal and the law does nothing to them,” says Canul. During the monitoring, one of the captains notices a boat on the horizon and deduces that they are coming from illegal fishing. He picks up the radio and asks the others what to do; they decide not to interrupt the monitoring.

“We have little data to know how to fight illegal fishing. Inspection and surveillance in Mexico are not robust,” Gocher says. Analysis from Oceana has revealed a reduction in surveillance patrols by the National Commission of Aquaculture and Fisheries. In 2023, 332 maritime patrols and 99 land patrols were recorded, the lowest figures in 15 years. “There is no information on what happens when someone is caught or a vessel or product is seized. After the complaint, almost no one knows what happens. There is opacity in the data and a high level of impunity,” Gocher says.

Mexico is in the process of establishing 14 fishing refuge zones, which would total more than 100,000 hectares of conservation in seven states—mainly in Sonora and Yucatán. This year the peninsular state added two more refuges, one in El Cuyo and another in Chabihau; months ago, the Actam Chuleb refuge was made official, which had been operating as a community marine reserve for years. Due to the growing interest in the refuges, the creation of a National System of Fishing Refuge Zones has been proposed. A consultancy, financed by the World Bank and the French Development Agency, in coordination with the Mexican government, reviewed the idea. Suggestions include incorporating fishing goals as part of the National Development Plan, strengthening community management, creating a national fund, and providing legal security for coastal communities to manage their territory.

The vision for recovering the productivity of the sea, says Saénz, is an example of “coupled scales.” First, work with those who access a maritime territory, then see how they connect with their neighbors, then with currents, and with land-based activities. “You need a complete understanding of these phenomena.” What is impossible, she assures, is to try to recover a species without listening to the fishermen.

Juan Pech has seen marine beauty and also a damaged sea. The diver explains his commitment with an anecdote. Years ago, the man who taught him commercial diving told him where to go to find fish. Juan followed his instructions, but came to a dead site; nothing his teacher described was still there. If he ever has children, he says he doesn’t want to tell them about a sea they can’t see.

[erik-even-wordier]

MANIPULATED BY THE FOURTH ESTATE

Posted by Thaddeus Howze to Facebook on March 5, 2025.

MANIPULATED BY THE FOURTH ESTATE

QOTD: What do you call this psychological misdirection?

Something insidious is happening in the way American politics is reported. Whenever Republicans engage in blatant misconduct—whether it’s breaking laws, eroding democratic norms, or openly violating ethical standards—the media rarely treats the wrongdoing as the central issue. Instead, the narrative almost immediately shifts.

The real story isn’t "What law did Republicans just break?" or "How does this threaten democracy?" but rather "Why aren’t Democrats doing anything about it?"

Suddenly, the conversation isn’t about Republican criminality, but Democratic weakness. The frustration, rather than being directed at those committing the offense, is redirected at those struggling to legally undo it. And, like clockwork, media outlets find a conveniently placed “former Democrat” or “lifelong independent” who claims they are “done with the Democrats because they won’t fight back.”

This is not a coincidence. It is part of a carefully constructed psychological and media manipulation strategy that combines asymmetric political framing, false equivalency bias, and manufactured disillusionment—all of which serve to benefit Republican political interests while demoralizing opposition voters.

----------------------------- + + + + +

ASYMMETRICAL POLITICAL FRAMING

Why Republicans Are “Strong” and Democrats Are “Weak”

The media, whether intentionally or not, applies different standards to the two major political parties. Republicans are routinely framed as bold, decisive, and action-oriented, even when they are breaking laws. Meanwhile, Democrats are framed as weak, ineffectual, or bureaucratic, even when they are following legal processes to challenge illegal actions.

This difference in framing fundamentally alters the public’s perception of political power. When Republicans commit misconduct, the media doesn’t spend much time discussing the wrongdoing itself—instead, the story quickly pivots to "Why can't Democrats stop it?"

This creates a no-win situation for Democrats. When they follow legal procedures to overturn an unlawful Republican action—such as taking cases to court, filing injunctions, and going through due process—it is seen as slow and ineffective. Meanwhile, Republicans are praised for "getting things done," even when their actions are outright unconstitutional.

This framing subtly absolves Republicans of wrongdoing while shifting blame to Democrats for not responding fast enough. And this is where manufactured disillusionment comes into play.

----------------------------- + + + + +

THE MANUFACTURED DISILLUSIONMENT EFFECT

The “I’m Done with the Democrats” Psyop

After every Republican scandal, a predictable media script emerges:

• The Republican wrongdoing is reported.

• The focus quickly shifts to Democratic inaction or weakness.

• A “disillusioned Democrat” or “former lifelong liberal” appears to declare, “I’m done with the Democrats. They never fight back.”

Notice what’s missing? Any sustained discussion about Republican criminality. The public’s anger is redirected, not toward the wrongdoers, but toward the opposition party for not stopping them fast enough.

This effect is deliberate and strategic. Right-wing media outlets actively promote voices of supposed “former Democrats” who claim they are abandoning the party because of its perceived ineffectiveness. In many cases, these voices are astroturfed—meaning they are not genuine grassroots complaints but rather part of a coordinated effort to demoralize opposition voters.

Even when real Democratic voters express frustration, media outlets amplify those voices instead of ones calling out Republican corruption. The effect is the same: voters are convinced that Democrats are powerless, that voting is pointless, and that no action will ever be enough. This leads to depressed voter turnout, which disproportionately benefits Republicans.

----------------------------- + + + + +

FALSE EQUIVALENCY BIAS

How the Media “Balances” Democratic Legal Action with Republican Lawlessness

Another media tendency that reinforces this manipulation is false equivalency bias—the idea that both political parties must be treated as equally flawed, no matter how disproportionate their actions are.

If Republicans engage in blatant corruption or anti-democratic behavior, the media often feels compelled to find a Democratic failure to “balance” the story—even when no equivalent failure exists. This is why, after every Republican scandal, headlines emerge like:

• "Republicans Defy Law—Democrats Struggle to Respond"

• "Biden Faces Political Crisis After GOP Power Grab"

• "Democratic Weakness on Display Amidst Republican Legal Maneuvering"

Instead of treating Republican actions as singular threats to democracy, the media portrays them as just another partisan fight, minimizing their seriousness. This normalizes Republican misconduct while reinforcing the idea that Democrats are weak and ineffective.

----------------------------- + + + + +

STRATEGIC IMPATIENCE VS TACTICAL PATIENCE

The “Action vs. Process” Illusion

Republicans thrive on outrage politics and immediate action, while Democrats rely on legal processes and governance. The media capitalizes on this contrast.

Republicans are willing to break laws to push their agenda, giving the appearance of strength. Democrats, constrained by legal and constitutional limitations, take longer to undo damage. Instead of acknowledging this reality, the media frames speed as strength and due process as weakness.

This is not a flaw in Democratic governance—it is a symptom of trying to operate within a democracy while the other side embraces authoritarianism.

----------------------------- + + + + +

THE NORMALIZATION OF REPUBLICAN CRIMINALITY

Shifting the Overton Window

One of the most damaging effects of this media manipulation is the normalization of Republican lawlessness.

When Republicans break laws, the media focuses on the political ramifications rather than the criminality itself. This shifts the Overton Window, making previously unthinkable actions seem normal. Over time, the public stops reacting to Republican corruption because it has become expected.

This is why:

• Republican lawbreaking is framed as a political strategy, rather than a crime.

• Democratic legal responses are framed as weakness, rather than governance.

• Republican power is normalized, even when built on illegality.

The authoritarian strongman appeal plays a role here. Rule-breaking is not framed as a flaw—it is framed as strength.

----------------------------- + + + + +

THE CONSEQUENCES: LEARNED HELPLESSNESS AND APATHY

The relentless narrative of Democratic failure—regardless of reality—creates learned helplessness among voters. If Democrats are "always failing," even when they succeed in court or policy, voters start to believe that no action matters.

This leads to:

• Lower voter turnout.

• Increased Republican electoral victories by default.

• A growing sense of inevitability about Republican dominance.

This is not an accident. Right-wing strategists have gamed media narratives to create an illusion of inevitability—one where:

• Every Democratic action is framed as inadequate, no matter how effective.

• Every Republican wrongdoing is downplayed as just politics.

• The real story is the criminality of the GOP, but the media keeps reframing it as Democratic ineffectiveness, ensuring Republican misconduct is never the focus for long.

And that is the greatest manipulation of all.

[submersero]

Something I don't get is WHY Armand didn't try to save Louis. And WHY did he save Louis from the coffin if he intented Louis to die on stage?? Is it just cowardice or am i missing something here?

Have literally two posts about why Armand didn't try to save Louis, guys do at least some minimum research, + rewatch the ep.

Have already shared my take on why Armand had released Louis out of the “banishment” but unfortunately for you, i still got few thoughts.

Louis was supposed to go with Claudia, burning alive in one or two minutes is much better than a slow, agonizing death. I know that Armand's inaction in the 70s was basically torture and punishment, but in this case Armand is the one aching with remorse, rightfully so (unlike 70s Louis). It was haunting him, the screams, the image of Louis, someone he loves, lying there in his claustrophobic darkness, starving and grieving, losing his mind. I find it interesting how Louis' starvation had fed Armand's guilt. I'm afraid you can't disassociate your way out of this one, Mandy. He couldn't take it.

Armand might be the strongest in the coven, but ironically, he is also one of the weakest. I mean, for god’s sake, he got played by Sam (and later Rashid and Daniel. cringefail lmao but it's not about that, it's about his psychological state). If we can trust Santiago (him being the mastermind) and the plot, that Armand wasn't actually pulling the strings since the beginning, like in the books, but was indeed given an ultimatum, then he's more pathetic panicked wet 🥺 loser than i had expected, lol. If Armand was in fact outcasted, humbled and humiliated, it made him extra vulnerable and sensitive to be around Louis, witnessing his pain was too much to bear. I 100% believe that Armand loved Louis. That theory going around that Armand was only with Louis to piss off Lestat, yeah, hate that. Lestat🤝Y'all attempting olympic level gymnastics in order to make everything about Lestat. No, thank you.

Idk how close to the truth Assad is in this interview, but if he's right, then i suppose there's little to no room for speculation behind Armand's actions at that moment. There could've been a theory (maybe there is) that Armand had used Louis like Lestat “You let it happen?” “Yes.” “You led him there, so he could destroy it.”, in this case to get his power back, but had miscalculated Louis' mind state, what he's capable of when blinded by rage and revenge. Resulting with him sitting on the ashes of his previous life, and having no option but to go with Louis.

But i don't like it, it doesn't make sense. Daniel ponders: “Thirteen to one. Maybe you were hedging your bets? See who emerges from the ash heap.” Armand had released Louis, and later when faced with consequences couldn't kill him again. To love him, to betray, to witness the trial, to hear Louis scream and suffer… Could Armand do it after everything they had, after the brutal betrayal that took Louis' daughter? Was Louis' determination to avenge Claudia and sacrifice himself in the process a turning point for Armand, just like in the tunnels? Armand couldn't attempt to kill Louis for the 3rd time, so he just let him.

Indeed the entire theatre paid for his grief and his rage, and justly so perhaps. I can make no judgment. I did not love those decadent and cynical French mummers. Those I had loved, and those who I could love, were, save for Louis de Pointe du Lac, utterly beyond my grasp. I must have Louis, that was my injunction. I knew no other. So I did not interfere when Louis incinerated the Coven and the infamous theatre, striking, at the risk of his own life, with flame and scythe at the very hour of dawn.

Have in mind that this is the book Armand, the one who had orchestrated the whole thing since the beginning, so you can only imagine how show Armand felt.

[transfemme-shelterdog]

welll..... I am also a redhead who plays magic: the gathering, and my favorite deck is a mono-blue commander deck where the entire gimmick is removing everyone else from playing until i lose every friend i have! (also continually reshuffling my graveyard back into my deck) Makima playing mono-blue makes sense to me, as a different, yet still evil redhead.

(the decklist is below, because it is truly evil, and nobody wants to play with me any more ;u;)

//Commander 1 Baral, Chief of Compliance #!Commander

//Lands 27 Island 1 Reliquary Tower 1 Skyline Cascade

//Artifacts 1 Elixir of Immortality 1 Primal Amulet // Primal Wellspring 1 Ring of Evos Isle 1 Staff of the Mind Magus

//Enchantments 1 Aqueous Form 1 Arcane Adaptation 1 Arcane Melee 1 Bonds of Quicksilver 1 Call to the Kindred 1 Chronic Flooding 1 Claustrophobia 1 Control Magic 1 Dismiss into Dream 1 Encrust 1 Future Sight 1 Ice Cage 1 Ice Over 1 Imprisoned in the Moon 1 Jace's Sanctum 1 Mind Control 1 Paralyzing Grasp 1 Volition Reins

//Instants 1 Bone to Ash 1 Cancel 1 Comparative Analysis 1 Decision Paralysis 1 Essence Scatter 1 Exclude 1 Leave in the Dust 1 Negate 1 Psychic Barrier 1 Redirect 1 Summary Dismissal 1 Take into Custody 1 Turn Aside

//Sorceries 1 Baral's Expertise 1 Call to Mind 1 Distant Melody 1 Inaction Injunction 1 Mind Sculpt 1 Reminisce 1 Rush of Ice 1 Sleep 1 Spelltwine 1 Talent of the Telepath 1 Talrand's Invocation 1 Traumatize

//Planeswalkers 1 Jace, Ingenious Mind-Mage

//Creatures 1 Aether Adept 1 Archetype of Imagination 1 Battlefield Thaumaturge 1 Curious Homunculus // Voracious Reader 1 Docent of Perfection // Final Iteration 1 Dungeon Geists 1 Fleet Swallower 1 Fogwalker 1 Ink Dissolver 1 Lighthouse Chronologist 1 Lunar Mystic 1 Magus of the Future 1 Neurok Invisimancer 1 Niblis of the Breath 1 Nimble Obstructionist 1 Puppeteer 1 Stormtide Leviathan 1 Talrand, Sky Summoner 1 Thousand Winds 1 Vedalken Entrancer 1 Warden of Evos Isle 1 Watertrap Weaver

redhead plays MTG

My ex finally found my blog.

Also, of course the mono blue commander is Baral. Second most iconic mono blue deck aside from Urza.

You should look into running a Mystic Sanctuary for recursion, and an Archmage Ascension for free tutors each turn, just my two cents.

[dankusner]

Conservative justices wash their hands of Trump’s threat to the rule of law

I’m not a legal scholar, but I understand and appreciate fairness and common sense.

And the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that federal courts cannot bar a president’s administration from engaging in unconstitutional actions throughout the country falls short on both measures.

The case in question, involving lawsuits by two states and an organization, stems from President Donald Trump’s blatantly unconstitutional Executive Order 14160 declaring as a matter of policy that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to certain people born in the United States.

The order attempts to sidestep the plain language and the intent of the 14th Amendment, as well as decades of legal precedent further establishing that all people born on U.S. soil — with narrowly defined exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats — are U.S. citizens.

It’s not something that someone can arbitrarily proclaim otherwise under the color of making and executing policy.

This is so clear that three federal judges in different districts immediately recognized the executive order’s deficiency and issued so-called universal injunctions to prevent the order from being carried out nationwide.

After all, what’s unconstitutional in Maryland is unconstitutional in Texas, Florida, California and everywhere else, and anyone whose rights could be trampled by such an order merits protection.

Apparently, the Supreme Court is no longer interested in safeguarding constitutional rights and is more interested in enabling executive misconduct — er, policy.

To that misguided end, the high court, in a 6-3 vote June 27, struck down those injunctions, arguing that the only people whom district judges can protect from such actions are the ones who manage to bring lawsuits.

And to make matters worse, the Supreme Court ignored the critical matter of birthright citizenship that started this mess.

“The applications do not raise — and thus the Court does not address — the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in her opinion for the conservative majority.

How convenient.

It’s notable, however, that the Supreme Court has not been shy to offer opinions that go beyond the scope of the primary questions raised when doing so suits the justices’ political agendas and regardless of whether it was necessary.

Consider the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the nonprofit Citizens United complained that campaign finance laws unfairly prevented it from promoting and airing a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Instead of ruling solely on whether Citizens United had a right to proceed, the court’s conservative majority took it upon itself to craft a new framework for organizational political spending — i.e., PACs and super PACs — and essentially granted corporations human status when it comes to political spending.

The court made assumptions about the future of such activity that were not argued by either party in that case and which have proven erroneous over the years.

Here, it’s patently obvious to all except the six conservative justices — well, it no doubt is to them also; they just pretend to be oblivious — that the president is intent on embarking on an unconstitutional crusade that will affect people throughout the country, not merely in locations where people have formally sought judicial protection of their rights.

After all, many states’ leaders are happy to abet Trump’s vilification of undocumented immigrants, so to make the defense of their rights dependent on those leaders is Kafkaesque.

The Supreme Court is essentially saying that only it can hold the president accountable while making it equally clear by its inaction and other rulings that it has no interest in doing so.

It’s an act of political hand-washing that would embarrass Pontius Pilate.

The clear implication is that only people with sufficient understanding of the legal processes for safeguarding basic constitutional rights and the wherewithal to pursue such measures are entitled to them.

And the result is that people in some states are protected from a rogue president violating the Constitution while those in other states are left vulnerable to abuse.

Consider the consequences of this decision when following it to its logical conclusion.

The only ways to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential executive order such that everyone is protected regardless of where they live is to file separate lawsuits in all 94 federal court districts or perhaps create a class action, a process that the Supreme Court has also been hostile to in the past.

If that’s not done, unconstitutional orders could be barred in some states and implemented in others.

In the case of Trump’s birthright citizenship order, a person born in one federal court district could be a citizen while another born under identical circumstances in a different district is not.

Also, in a grotesquely nonsensical twist, this ruling means that after a federal judge has concluded that an executive order violates the Constitution, the president can continue to implement it in other districts until people in those districts file additional lawsuits.

And it’s possibly worse than that as the majority suggests that an injunction can only protect named plaintiffs, meaning that two people born in the same court district could have different citizenship status.

It all defies logic and common sense, something you can find in the dissenting opinions of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Jackson asks a basic and critical question: “May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?”

If the answer is “no,” as the majority has proclaimed, then can anyone order the president to follow the law?

And if the answer to that is only the Supreme Court and it declines to do so, the de facto result is that the president doesn’t have to follow the law or the abide by the Constitution.

Then we’re back to 1977 when interviewer David Frost asked former President Richard Nixon whether he believed it was permissible for a president to do something illegal if that president deems it to be “in the best interests of the nation or something.”

Nixon’s reply was shocking even to his most ardent supporters: “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Today’s Supreme Court would phrase things slightly differently: “When the president does it, that means it doesn’t matter whether it’s unconstitutional unless you’re part of a lawsuit. For everyone else, it’s not unconstitutional unless we say it is … if we get around to it … which we will generally avoid doing if — or for as long as — we can.”

Sotomayor counters Barrett’s tortuous legal mumbo jumbo with common sense by rhetorically asking why the government only sought a partial stay — not one that would also enable it to carry out the executive order against the named plaintiffs.

The reason, she correctly concludes, is obvious.

To win on that front, the administration “would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice.”

So instead, the administration staked out a fallback position in which it asked the Supreme Court to play along with its gamesmanship in holding that no matter how illegal a law or policy is, no court can ever bar its enforcement universally.

Consequently, Sotomayor writes, the government asserts that “it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit.”

Jackson said it best: “The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”

[itsrattysworld]

Without Prejudice Mervelee Myers End HMCTS CPS CJS SRA BSB DBS IOPC JCIO CCMCC HMPPS MOPAC CLCC Miscarriages Of Justice NHS UNISON Housing For Women The Housing Ombudsman Service LEA LSB Southwark Council Adult Social Care Barclays Nationwide Building Society Santander FOS Involve In Breaches Of Equality Act Protected Characteristics Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley Signed IN HONOUR OF STRONG WOMEN EVERYWHERE At A New Met For London Launch June O'Sullivan Sanctions The Discrimination At BIB After I Front Ofsted With Richard Harty MIC Drag Queen Storytellers Abusers Wants To Be Remembered As A Disruptive Influence Zaiba Qureshi Modern Slavery Thriving In UK Employ Samantha Gibbs Trina Philbert Black Females Do Dirty Work Coercive Control Debbie Gilchrist Target Tenants Raised Legitimate Concerns Repairs Disbanding Customer Scrutiny Panel Hony Premial ASB Author Devonshires Solicitors LLP Narin Masera Possession Letter July 2023 Bereavement Disabilities Barrister Miranda Grell Trap Me During Grieving For Husband Neglected Byron Ward Kings College Hospital Removed From Bedside 6th April Windrush Vigil A&E 7th AET Died 8th 6 Hours Before Nurse John Started Work To Be Informed DJ Sara Elizabeth Beecham Get HHJ Richard Roberts To Trigger Atypical Parkinsonism Hide Judgement Online State ASB Started May 2022 Am Calling On Social Media ITV News Sky News Kings College London Border Crossings Cancer Research UK Parkinson's UK Macmillan Cancer Dementia Friends Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin To Report On Ms H Presley Ms Gilchrist Whose Lives Changed Results Richard Blakeway Failures To Act About Complaints Reach Stage 2 Of Procedures I Did University Of Huddersfield Damp Mould Research RADAR-CNS Heal-D Dr Maria Hudson The Experience Of Multiple Discrimination Was Tristan Salter Groomed To Make Me Homeless Charging Me To Pay For ASIAN Contractors Brought To Take Jobs Homes British Citizens Windrush Generation HHJ Richard Roberts HHJ Marquand DJs Greenidge Swan Sterlini Hayes Pigram Bell Bastin Naidoo Reference Claim No: GO8YJ214 DJ Manning CCCS CN: F21YM135 TAA-17584-25-0101-IR Crime No: 4221169/23100 PC Kate Willoughy-Parsons 693MR Directorate Of Professional Standards-AS PSU CHS 34217/21Ap25 29102/20Apr25 Why I Have 18 Pages Report Met Police Crime Number Dating 30/10/2017 To Date Police London Ambulance Service Attempts To Section Murder Kidnap Me At 16 Alma Grove Bermondsey London SE1 5PY Made Inactive Patient No GP Because I Refused Risperidone To Make Me Unable To Function H4W Can Get Money Keep Me Sedated Shorten My Life To Get My Home To House Traffic Women To Work In Sex Industry LEYF Paedophiles Jumping Ship In EYFS At Richard Harty UEL Why He Panic Call Mobile Kick Me Out Track Patterns Of Breaches Of Equality Act To Know Rogues Gallery Of Offenders Will Expose UK As Nye Bevan NHS Founder No Society Can Legitimately Call Itself Civilised If A Sick Person Is Denied Medical Aid Because Of Lack Of Means Nelson Mandela Purpose Of Freedom Is To Create For Others I Have Been Writing From IVAN SANDYMAN NEMBHARD Was Stricken With Parkinson's Disease PERLINE LOUISE CHAMBERS-NEMBHARD Sacrifices Will Be Part Of My Legacies Of Foundations I Created Online Intellectual Property Copyright Pedagogy Images CPPDP Harvested Build Brands Am Made A Criminal Need ERT Violent Nuisance UURICA-LE To Cover A-Z Of Gaslighting Misogyny I Have Written Open Letters Participated Research As An Expert Authority On Subjects Cradle To Grave Did The Unlawful Injunction State I Must Remove My Windrush Oral History If The Lion Don't Learn To Write The Hunter Will Always Tell The Story Why Nanny Of Maroon Take To The Hills Against British And Is A Heroine 22/4/2025

Refer to Changes to legislation: Equality Act 2010 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 16 April 2025. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. View outstanding changesstatus warnings Collapse all – Introductory Text Collapse –Part 1 Socio-economic inequalities 1.Public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities 2.Power to amend…

[thellawtoknow]

Laches: A Legal Concept of Equity and Temporal Justice

Laches: A Legal Concept of Equity and Temporal JusticeI. Introduction II. Historical and Doctrinal Foundations III. Essential Elements of Laches1. Unreasonable Delay 2. Prejudice to the Defendant Interplay Between Delay and Prejudice The Role of Judicial Discretion and Equity IV. Application in Jurisprudence1. Intellectual Property Law: The Conflict Between Temporal Equity and Statutory RightsPetrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014) Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) 2. Trust and Fiduciary Law: Laches in the Shadow of Good Faith 3. Land and Boundary Disputes: Stability Over Stagnation 4. Family Law and Paternity Actions: Balancing Certainty and Justice 5. Administrative and Public Law: Limiting Retroactive Challenges Laches: A Legal Concept of Equity and Temporal Justice I. Introduction The doctrine of laches is a principle of equity law rooted in the maxim “Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.” Distinct from statutory limitation periods, laches is a common law defense that bars a claimant from seeking equitable relief due to an unreasonable delay in asserting a right, coupled with prejudice to the opposing party. It serves not merely as a procedural device, but as a reflection of fairness and the ethical demands of judicial conscience.

This essay examines laches as a legal concept, its historical evolution, core elements, judicial interpretation, and its implications in modern jurisprudence. It also reflects on the deeper philosophical concerns underlying this defense—those of time, responsibility, and fairness. II. Historical and Doctrinal Foundations Laches has its origin in English chancery courts, which developed equitable principles to temper the rigidity of the common law. While common law courts would enforce rights strictly within prescribed limitation periods, chancery courts asked whether justice would truly be served by enforcement—particularly when a claimant delayed taking action without justification. The doctrine thus emerged as a mechanism to prevent injustice—not because a deadline was missed per se, but because the claimant’s delay, in equity, made relief unjust. In American law, laches has been widely adopted and recognized across federal and state courts, particularly in cases involving injunctions, property disputes, fiduciary obligations, and intellectual property. Though still an equitable doctrine, it can have considerable consequences when invoked successfully. III. Essential Elements of Laches The doctrine of laches is not governed by a rigid formula or mechanical test, but rather by a judicial inquiry into fairness, equity, and the totality of circumstances. Nevertheless, two principal elements consistently structure this inquiry: 1. Unreasonable Delay At the heart of the laches doctrine is the notion that a claimant, by failing to assert a known right within a reasonable time, forfeits equitable relief. The law does not encourage inertia when one's legal interests are at stake—especially when silence or inaction creates detrimental reliance in others. To establish unreasonable delay, courts ask several interrelated questions: - When did the plaintiff become aware—or when should they have become aware—of the cause of action? The doctrine distinguishes between genuine ignorance and willful blindness. A delay is unlikely to be excused where the plaintiff had constructive knowledge, meaning that they had access to the relevant facts or should have exercised reasonable diligence to discover them. - What is the length of the delay, and how does it compare to any analogous statutory period? Although laches is not bound to statutes of limitations, courts often use statutory time frames as persuasive guides. A delay that exceeds the typical limitation period for a similar legal claim is more likely to be deemed unreasonable, though not automatically so. - Was the delay justified by special circumstances? Courts give careful consideration to mitigating factors, such as the plaintiff's ill health, incapacity, ongoing negotiations, war, political instability, or efforts to settle the dispute informally. In some cases, especially in trust or fiduciary relationships, a delay may be viewed more leniently due to the inherent inequality or power imbalance. Ultimately, reasonableness is a context-sensitive judgment, rooted in equity's refusal to apply rules without a moral assessment of the plaintiff’s conduct. A delay is “unreasonable” not merely when it is long, but when it reflects indifference, opportunism, or neglect inconsistent with justice. 2. Prejudice to the Defendant The second element—prejudice—grounds laches in its ethical function: to prevent unfair disadvantage to a party who reasonably believed no claim would be asserted. There are two principal forms of prejudice: - Evidentiary Prejudice: Over time, memories fade, documents are lost, and witnesses become unavailable or pass away. A delayed claim may therefore impair the defendant’s ability to mount a defense, raising concerns about the reliability and completeness of evidence. This is particularly serious in disputes involving historical property rights, fiduciary conduct, or events shrouded in subjective interpretations. - Economic or Expectational Prejudice: A defendant may take costly actions or enter into agreements in reliance on the assumption that their conduct is lawful and unchallenged. For example, a party who invests heavily in a trademarked brand or builds infrastructure on disputed land may suffer serious financial harm if a delayed legal challenge is suddenly allowed. Courts weigh whether the plaintiff's silence allowed the defendant to change their position to their detriment, rendering equitable relief unjust. Importantly, the prejudice must not be speculative or theoretical. The defendant must show tangible harm, whether in the form of evidentiary loss or economic hardship. However, actual harm is not always required; a substantial risk of such harm, especially in light of the delay, can suffice to invoke equity's protective function. Interplay Between Delay and Prejudice The two elements are not entirely independent. A longer or more inexcusable delay strengthens the inference of prejudice, just as significant prejudice can make even a shorter delay unreasonable. Courts consider the interrelationship between time and harm in determining whether enforcing the claim would offend equity. Moreover, courts may also examine the plaintiff’s motive in delaying. A delay intended to gain a strategic advantage, wait for market conditions to change, or allow the defendant to make irreversible investments may tilt the scales in favor of laches. The Role of Judicial Discretion and Equity What distinguishes laches from statutory deadlines is its flexibility—and its moral dimension. The doctrine is applied not by counting days, but by weighing conduct. It requires courts to don the garb of the ethical adjudicator, asking not simply “Was the claim timely?” but “Was the delay fair, and was it fair to act now?” This flexibility makes laches both a powerful shield and a potentially unpredictable one. It requires the court to interpret silence, to infer intentions from inaction, and to divine harm from the subtle erosion of opportunity or evidence. As such, it represents a domain where law touches closely upon human behavior and moral judgment. The doctrine of laches, in its essential elements, demands a fusion of legal insight and ethical reflection. The delay must not only be significant, but culpable. The prejudice must not only exist, but be materially linked to that delay. Courts are thus called to be not only arbiters of law, but guardians of fairness—balancing rights with responsibilities, timelines with trust, and silence with justice. In this way, laches serves not merely as a procedural device, but as a moral barometer within the legal system—measuring when the pursuit of justice comes too late to be just at all. IV. Application in Jurisprudence The legal doctrine of laches is one of the rare principles where time, as an abstract quantity, becomes an active force in the determination of justice. Across various domains of law—intellectual property, fiduciary duty, land claims, family law, and administrative law—laches is invoked not merely to challenge stale claims, but to protect defendants from the corrosive effects of delay. 1. Intellectual Property Law: The Conflict Between Temporal Equity and Statutory Rights Perhaps the most prominent battlefield for laches in modern jurisprudence is intellectual property, where claimants often delay enforcement while the alleged infringers invest time and resources into the development and branding of products. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014) In this landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court drew a critical distinction between legal claims and equitable relief. The case concerned a copyright dispute over the screenplay that inspired the Rocky film series. The plaintiff, who inherited rights from the original author, waited 18 years before bringing suit. The defendant invoked laches, arguing that the delay had prejudiced their economic and evidentiary position. The Court, however, held that laches cannot be used to bar a claim for legal damages that is brought within the Copyright Act’s three-year statutory period. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, underscored that statutory limitations represent the legislature’s judgment on what constitutes timely action and that equitable doctrines must not override explicit legislative directives. Nonetheless, the Court conceded that laches remains viable in equity: if the plaintiff seeks an injunction or specific performance, the court may consider delay and prejudice in deciding whether such relief is appropriate. In other words, while laches may not nullify a legal right, it can still restrain the exercise of that right through equitable discretion. This decision is foundational in highlighting the boundary between law and equity, and it serves as a reminder that while legal remedies are rigidly time-bound, equitable relief is shaped by fairness and conduct. Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) This case illustrates a contrasting situation where equitable relief was denied due to laches. Here, the plaintiff, Danjaq LLC, asserted copyright ownership over elements in the James Bond franchise, years after Sony had initiated its own projects based on similar claims. The Ninth Circuit found the delay to be both lengthy and unjustified, noting that the plaintiff had access to all relevant information and failed to act diligently. Moreover, the court stressed prejudice to the defendant—Sony had committed substantial resources to its projects, relying on the apparent absence of a legal challenge. Allowing Danjaq to proceed would have not only disrupted years of development but also rewarded strategic delay. This case reveals how laches operates not merely as a procedural defense, but as a tool to prevent opportunism, protect investment-backed expectations, and uphold the principle that equity aids the vigilant—not those who sleep on their rights. 2. Trust and Fiduciary Law: Laches in the Shadow of Good Faith In the realm of trusts and fiduciary duties, laches emerges as a safeguard for trustees and fiduciaries who, over time, lose the ability to defend themselves against claims rooted in long-past conduct. For example, in cases where beneficiaries fail to act against mismanagement, self-dealing, or concealment, courts evaluate whether the delay has impaired the trustee’s capacity to justify actions taken, often in good faith and in the absence of clear records. Unlike statutes of limitations, which often do not apply in equitable trust actions, laches fills the temporal void, ensuring that equity does not serve to punish fiduciaries based on retrospective scrutiny, particularly when the delay has rendered full investigation or rebuttal impossible. Courts tend to be more sensitive to delay in fiduciary contexts because of the erosion of evidence and the vulnerability of fiduciaries to claims made with the benefit of hindsight. The principle is not to immunize bad faith, but to shield against unfair revivals of liability long after the facts have grown cold. 3. Land and Boundary Disputes: Stability Over Stagnation In real property law, especially in disputes over easements, encroachments, and boundary lines, laches often undergirds decisions where long periods of undisturbed use create de facto arrangements. Courts have barred claims where landowners acquiesced for decades to a neighbor’s use of property and later attempted to reclaim their rights when land value appreciated. Here, laches reflects the broader policy of repose: that long-standing apparent resolutions, even if informal or unwritten, should not be unsettled by latecomers seeking technical vindication of rights that equity no longer recognizes as actionable. 4. Family Law and Paternity Actions: Balancing Certainty and Justice In select family law cases, particularly those involving paternity, custody, or child support, laches is applied cautiously but purposefully. Courts may refuse to allow a paternity claim decades after birth, especially if the child has long believed another man to be the father and has developed a relationship accordingly. The core concern in such cases is psychological and emotional prejudice, where altering familial roles after many years would be damaging to the child’s identity or the family’s integrity. However, this must be weighed carefully against the child’s right to support and the potential consequences of injustice. The application of laches here is rare and fact-intensive, as courts prioritize the best interest of the child. 5. Administrative and Public Law: Limiting Retroactive Challenges In administrative law, where agencies regulate conduct and issue permits or licenses, laches may arise when regulated parties fail to contest a decision or file a challenge until after the administrative process has been completed or the regulated party has undertaken significant actions in reliance on final decisions. Courts often apply laches to bar untimely judicial review of agency actions, promoting regulatory stability and preventing disruption of established administrative outcomes. The doctrine of laches, as reflected in jurisprudence, is neither a weapon of delay nor a tool of denial. Rather, it is a judicial compass, guiding courts through the murky waters where time, conduct, and justice intersect. It protects not the passage of years, but the integrity of expectation. Its application reveals a vision of law not merely as a system of rules, but as an architecture of fairness, responsibility, and repose. Through its jurisprudential usage, laches reminds us that justice is not only about what is right, but also about when it is right to act—and that sometimes, even truth, when untimely, becomes too late to be justly enforced. V. Philosophical and Ethical Underpinnings At its core, laches is not merely a rule of thumb—it is a manifestation of temporal justice. The law, particularly in equity, recognizes that time alters the moral landscape of a dispute. Delay undermines trust, erodes memory, and destabilizes the foundations of fairness. From a philosophical perspective, laches embodies the tension between rights and responsibilities. While legal rights are theoretically perpetual, their enforcement must align with the principle of good faith and diligence. A party who knowingly withholds action allows harm to accumulate, thus rendering their eventual claim morally questionable. In this sense, laches echoes the Aristotelian notion of equity (epieikeia)—as the correction of legal justice where strict application of law leads to unfairness. It also speaks to Kantian ethics, in which actions are to be judged not only by their legality but by their respect for the autonomy and expectations of others. VI. Laches vs. Statutes of Limitation A critical distinction must be made between laches and statutory limitations. While limitation periods are legal deadlines set by legislatures and strictly enforced, laches is discretionary and requires judicial evaluation of circumstances. This flexibility is both its strength and its weakness. On the one hand, it allows the court to consider the nuances of delay, such as a claimant’s ignorance, illness, or external obstacles. On the other, it introduces uncertainty, as the boundaries of what is “unreasonable” or “prejudicial” are not clearly defined and may vary between jurisdictions or judges. VII. Contemporary Relevance and Criticism In modern times, the doctrine of laches has drawn criticism for its subjectivity and potential to unjustly bar claims based on judicial perception rather than firm criteria. Read the full article

[ailtrahq]

John Reed Stark, the former head of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Internet Enforcement, is calling on federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), to bring criminal charges against the parents of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried. Stark expressed surprise that the authorities did not include Bankman-Fried’s parents as defendants in their legal actions. Sam Bankman-Fried Parents Could Be Named ‘Relief Defendants’ John Reed Stark suggested Bankman-Fried parents as individuals who might have benefited from the alleged wrongdoings of their son. He said the SEC should have brought them into the lawsuit, possibly as relief defendants. Relief defendants are typically not accused of wrongdoing but may hold assets acquired through illicit means. “I cannot comprehend why the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have not added SBF’s parents as defendants. For the SEC, SBF’s parents should at least be named as relief defendants,” Stark said. Bankman-Fried is the child of Allan Bankman and Barbara Fried. Allan Bankman is a Stanford law professor, while Barbara Fried is a professor emerita at the same law school. Last week, FTX initiated clawback actions against Bankman-Fried’s parents. The bankrupt exchange alleges they manipulated their relationship to enrich themselves and are looking to recover their gains. Stark also called on the DOJ to initiate criminal proceedings related to crypto. He highlighted that the agency has remained silent on crypto-related prosecutions, even though the SEC has initiated several enforcement actions. According to him, the DOJ’s inaction is “mind-boggling,” which has allowed certain cryptocurrency stakeholders to downplay the significance of SEC enforcement actions. He cited examples such as Tyler Winklevoss of Gemini, who likened SEC allegations to “manufactured parking tickets,” and major crypto companies like Coinbase and Binance, which have seemingly embraced their SEC lawsuits as a mark of distinction. Stark stated that to change this situation, the DOJ must support the SEC and show that it will impose serious consequences, including the possibility of prison time, for crypto-related offenses. “Until crypto-grifters face the threat of DOJ prosecution (i.e. prison time), they will continue to treat SEC enforcement-related risks (like injunctions, penalties and disgorgement) as the cost of regulatory arbitrage and just another liability item on their balance sheets. Wake up US DOJ, we need you buddy,” Stark concluded Source

[daphenominchief]

Rolly C. Castillo vs Hon. Miguel S. Asuncion, Presiding Judge, Branch 99, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City, Rizal, A.M. No. RTJ-23-039, August 20, 2024

FACTS

Rolly C. Castillo filed a Complaint against Hon. Miguel S. Asuncion, Presiding Judge of Branch 99 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Rizal. Castillo and other plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against Princeton Figures Construction and Development Corporation. The case was raffled to RTC Branch 99, presided by Judge Asuncion.

On April 1, 2016, Judge Asuncion conducted a hearing on the plaintiff's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda within 13 days of receipt. While the plaintiffs submitted their memorandum, the defendants failed to submit theirs. 

On July 20, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Re-Opening Hearing and a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. Judge Asuncion did not resolve these motions, despite compliance by the parties.

Castillo then filed a complaint against Judge Asuncion, alleging that the Judge's failure to resolve their prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction constituted Gross Inefficiency. Judge Asuncion averred that his failure to timely resolve the plaintiffs' motion was due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Asuncion is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty in the performance of his duties as judge.

RULING

Yes, Judge Asuncion is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty in the performance of his duties as judge.

Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, OCA Circular No. 243-2022, Rule 140, Section 9(2)(a) of the Rules of Court, as amended.

The Court found that Judge Asuncion was clearly negligent in timely resolving the matter, in accordance with Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and OCA Circular No. 243-2022 similarly remind judges to promptly act on cases and observe the prescribed periods to decide pending incidents. The Court found Judge Asuncion's seven-year delay inexcusable and that the complexity of the case or the filing of dilatory motions by the parties did not justify the delay. 

Judge Asuncion's inaction constitutes Gross Neglect of Duty, punishable by suspension from office. Considering the nature and gravity of Judge Asuncion's offense, the Court found it proper to increase the penalty to a fine of PHP 201,000.00, pursuant to Rule 140, Section 9(2)(a) of the Rules of Court, as amended, which allows the Court to increase the penalty to an amount not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed fine for a period.Judge Asuncion is GUILTY of Gross Neglect of Duty and is ordered to pay a FINE of PHP 201,000.00. He is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

[iskconchd]

श्रीमद्‌ भगवद्‌गीता यथारूप 2.47 https://srimadbhagavadgita.in/2/47 कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन । मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥ २.४७ ॥ TRANSLATION तुम्हें अपने कर्म (कर्तव्य) करने का अधिकार है, किन्तु कर्म के फलों के तुम अधिकारी नहीं हो । तुम न तो कभी अपने आपको अपने कर्मों के फलों का कारण मानो, न ही कर्म न करने में कभी आसक्त होओ । PURPORT यहाँ पर तीन विचारणीय बातें हैं – कर्म (स्वधर्म), विकर्म तथा अकर्म । कर्म (स्वधर्म) वे कार्य हैं जिनका आदेश प्रकृति के गुणों के रूप में प्राप्त किया जाता है । अधिकारी की सम्मति के बिना किये गये कर्म विकर्म कहलाते हैं और अकर्म का अर्थ है – अपने कर्मों को न करना । भगवान् ने अर्जुन को उपदेश दिया कि वह निष्क्रिय न हो, अपितु फल के प्रति आसक्त हुए बिना अपना कर्म करे । कर्म फल के प्रति आसक्त रहने वाला भी कर्म का कारण है । इस तरह वह ऐसे कर्मफलों का भोक्ता होता है । जहाँ तक निर्धारित कर्मों का सम्बन्ध है वे तीन उपश्रेणियों के हो सकते हैं – यथा नित्यकर्म, आपात्कालीन कर्म तथा इच्छित कर्म । नित्यकर्म फल की इच्छा के बिना शास्त्रों के निर्देशानुसार सतोगण में रहकर किये जाते हैं । फल युक्त कर्म बन्धन के कारण बनते हैं, अतः ऐसे कर्म अशुभ हैं । हर व्यक्ति को अपने कर्म पर अधिकार है, किन्तु उसे फल से अनासक्त होकर कर्म करना चाहिए । ऐसे निष्काम कर्म निस्सन्देह मुक्ति पथ की ओर ले जाने वाले हैं । अतएव भगवान् ने अर्जुन को फलासक्ति रहित होकर कर्म (स्वधर्म) के रूप में युद्ध करने की आज्ञा दी । उसका युद्ध-विमुख होना आसक्ति का दूसरा पहलू है । ऐसी आसक्ति से कभी मुक्ति पथ की प्राप्ति नहीं हो पाती । आसक्ति चाहे स्वीकारत्मक हो या निषेधात्मक, वह बन्धन का कारण है । अकर्म पापमय है । अतः कर्तव्य के रूप में युद्ध करना ही अर्जुन के लिए मुक्ति का एकमात्र कल्याणकारी मार्ग था । ----- Srimad Bhagavad Gita As It Is 2.47 karmaṇy evādhikāras te mā phaleṣu kadācana mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr mā te saṅgo ’stv akarmaṇi TRANSLATION You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty. PURPORT There are three considerations here: prescribed duties, capricious work, and inaction. Prescribed duties are activities enjoined in terms of one’s acquired modes of material nature. Capricious work means actions without the sanction of authority, and inaction means not performing one’s prescribed duties. The Lord advised that Arjuna not be inactive, but that he perform his prescribed duty without being attached to the result. One who is attached to the result of his work is also the cause of the action. Thus he is the enjoyer or sufferer of the result of such actions. As far as prescribed duties are concerned, they can be fitted into three subdivisions, namely routine work, emergency work and desired activities. Routine work performed as an obligation in terms of the scriptural injunctions, without desire for results, is action in the mode of goodness. Work with results becomes the cause of bondage; therefore such work is not auspicious. Everyone has his proprietary right in regard to prescribed duties, but should act without attachment to the result; such disinterested obligatory duties doubtlessly lead one to the path of liberation. Arjuna was therefore advised by the Lord to fight as a matter of duty without attachment to the result. His nonparticipation in the battle is another side of attachment. Such attachment never leads one to the path of salvation. Any attachment, positive or negative, is cause for bondage. Inaction is sinful. Therefore, fighting as a matter of duty was the only auspicious path of salvation for Arjuna. ----- #krishna #iskconphotos #motivation #success #love #bhagavatamin #india #creativity #inspiration #life #spdailyquotes #devotion

[sciencespies]

This week's deadly heatwave shows we need a new way to talk about climate change

https://sciencespies.com/environment/this-weeks-deadly-heatwave-shows-we-need-a-new-way-to-talk-about-climate-change/

This week's deadly heatwave shows we need a new way to talk about climate change

New normal. Record-breaking. Unprecedented.

In recent days, as Western Canada and the United States have been broiling under a climate-fueled heat crisis, all sorts of superlatives have been used to describe never-before-seen temperatures: the British Columbia community of Lytton hit a mind-boggling 49.5 C on June 29, breaking all-time temperature records three days in a row.

People are understandably shocked and scared by those numbers. But should this have come as a surprise? No.

Scientists have been warning about the link between longer, more intense heat events and climate change for over 40 years. The language of “normals” and “new records” is rapidly becoming meaningless.

But the notion that humanity should have known, or should have done something about the crisis earlier — that we should be ashamed for our lack of inaction — is unhelpful for dealing with the climate crisis.

Talking climate

So, what’s a better, more helpful approach to communicating climate change?

The first thing to do is to spend more time talking about climate change. There is far too little discussion around this issue in the public sphere. Global heating is the biggest emergency the planet has ever faced, but one would not know it reading or listening to the news.

Last year, stories about climate change represented just 0.4 per cent of all major US broadcast news coverage. In 2019, it was 0.7 per cent. Even in the midst of an unprecedented heat wave stretching from California to Yukon, references to climate change are few and far between.

Information deficit model

Ironically, one of the biggest blind spots has to do with how information about this issue is shared with the public.

The conventional approach relies upon what’s known as the “information deficit model.” The deficit model builds on the assumption that people will take action on climate change if they have more information about it.

This information-based approach has shaped all sorts of communication, from public safety ads on drinking and driving to news reporting about climate and other important issues.

Unfortunately, the relationship between how much people know and how they act is not always linear. Feeding more facts to someone who is highly politically motivated to dismiss climate change will not convince them to pay more attention to the problem.

Climate change is a tricky story to wrap one’s head around. It can feel too big, too scary and too difficult for any one person to fix. Information, while important, is not always enough.

For there to be engagement with this subject and, by extension, political action, the climate crisis must feel personal, relatable, understandable and, most importantly, solvable.

Above: Estimated per cent of adults who think the Earth is getting warmer. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations of the data presented here.

Charts and graphs — even polar bears — rarely achieve that goal. Eighty-three per cent of Canadians agree that the Earth is getting warmer. But just 47 per cent think climate change will harm them personally.

To have people connect on climate, we need to have more conversations about how people are working to solve it and how those solutions are improving their quality of life where they live. These conversations foist an otherwise abstract, intangible and scary subject into the realm of the everyday — and make it feel solvable.

Solutions matter

Environmental communicators have long pointed to an excessive use of fear messaging around climate change as one of the main problems with engaging the public on this subject.

The challenge is to pair fear messaging with information about efficacy, namely what people can actually do to mitigate the fear. The combination of fear and efficacy leads to what is known as “danger control,” actions to mitigate the danger, as opposed to “fear control,” actions to shut down the fear.

In the case of COVID-19, the sense of efficacy was clear: hand washing, social distancing, masking. With climate change, efficacy information is far less obvious, and more difficult to act upon.

It’s often argued that the large emitters, notably fossil fuel producers, are the ones that harbor the most blame, and are responsible for cleaning up the mess. The Guardian points out that 100 companies are responsible for 71 per cent of emissions.

Yes, it’s clear the world needs to stop burning fossil fuels — oil, gas and coal. But to get there, individuals can also set examples of what pro-environmental behavior looks like.

It can be as simple as posting photos to social media from community cleanup drives, nature walks or posts about any kind of pro-environmental behavior, such as taking transit. This form of communication — as opposed to images that promote a high-carbon lifestyle — normalizes the urgency, importance and possibility of protecting the Earth.

Some of the most effective communicators are TV news meteorologists, who often have loyal followers. More of them are discussing ways the climate crisis is being addressed where people live.

Seeing is believing

Most communication around risk, builds on the standard of moral injunctions — that one should or must act to do something, or else. For example, a park sign might tell visitors not to feed the ducks because human food is bad for them. And yet, visitors keep feeding the ducks.

Instead, communicators should rely on “descriptive social norms,” descriptions of behavior that others, like them, are already doing and benefiting them.

In the United Kingdom, a 2015 campaign urged people to “Take your litter home, other people do.” It was more likely to reduce illegal littering than signs that said “Please keep your park clean by not littering.”

Solutions, notably in the form of stories about people and communities taking action to solve the climate crisis, are among the most effective ways of communicating the emergency.

The National Observer‘s “First Nations Forward” series is a great example of this type of reporting. Story after story details how First Nations communities in British Columbia are leading the way in the transition to a renewable-energy future.

Mainstream news media outlets, like the one I work for, Global News, are also spending more time on climate and rethinking how they cover it. One recent national story reported on the massive energy transition already under way in Alberta.

Such stories about change that is working send a message that action to mitigate the climate crisis by ordinary people is doable, normal, empowering and desirable. They energize and mobilize members of the public ready to take action, by providing visual examples of who is leading the way.

They also move the conversation beyond the conventional emphasis on skeptics and deniers, and normalize pro-environmental values and behaviors for the growing number of people who are already alarmed or concerned about the climate emergency.

Far from driving the fear narrative, stories of climate solutions unlock people’s sense of efficacy and agency in the face of impending danger. In other words, they engage the public on climate change by doing what all good communication does: meeting people where they are at, through a mobilizing story.

This is storytelling 101: engaging audiences, not turning them away, as most climate reports do.

Kamyar Razavi, PhD candidate in the School of Communication, Simon Fraser University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

#Environment

[ravnicaforgoblins]

Ravnica for Goblins

Laws of the Guildpact

Laws are a big deal in most worlds. On Ravnica, laws are literally the only thing preventing ten massive armies of Sphinx, Angels, Demons, Lich, Elementals, Giants, Wizards, Ghosts, Nightmares, and Kaiju from tearing each other apart in perpetual war. How is this possible? It’s possible because the Guildpact is not just words on flimsy paper. Guildpact Laws are Unbreakable Magical Effects. When all ten Guilds agreed to the Guildpact, they granted it absolute power.

How and why would many of the more evil and chaotic Guilds agree to something like this? Because Ravnica’s Guildpact is designed not only to account for each and every Guild’s lifestyle, but to empower it. There are laws that protect necromancy, laws that protect human experimentation, laws that protect torture, laws that protect murder, and laws that actually protect breaking the law. In addition to laws protecting peaceful citizens and law enforcement officials.

How can any civilization function like this? Balance. You may not be able to arrest a Dimir Agent for stealing, but you can absolutely break their face in. The goal of Ravnica’s laws is to preserve all ways of life for the Guilds, for better & for worse. Within your Guild’s set legal parameters, you are not just free but empowered to carry out that lifestyle. That lifestyle is written into the laws and protected by them. Which is why the single most important law is that you’re not allowed to punish a Guild member for obeying the Guildpact.

This is the most important law, but also the law that ended up destroying the Guildpact. House Dimir’s duty is literally to oppose the Guildpact, so when their Parun decided to kill the Boros Parun in broad daylight and got arrested by a Boros Wojek, the system kinda broke itself. Punishing a Guild for obeying the Guildpact by disobeying the Guildpact, resulting in: Error.4 *does not compute*

Fast-forward to the days of Jace Beleren as the Living Guildpact, and the laws have changed somewhat. The only laws that are still magically binding are the laws Jace verbally confirms. Once he does that, the person he says it to need only speak the law aloud and it’s an instantly unbreakable magical effect.

Now comes the tricky, difficult, infuriating part. For being so vitally important to Ravnican life, we don’t actually know what most, or really almost any, of the laws are. How are players supposed to utilize the effects of written laws if they don’t actually exist? Why didn’t WotC release an official Guildpact? That’s because a document that can actually encompass everything the Guildpact is theoretically supposed to be able to do would be an absolutely massive undertaking for a Card Game Company that doesn’t really need it for their card game, just for those of us playing D&D in their setting. Furthermore, even if they did put in the work, create a document, and release it; the internet (that’s us!) would tear it apart for flaws & loopholes. The internet would give the Orzhov, the Dimir, and the Rakdos a run for their money. Hence WotC doesn’t want to do this because it’s literally just a recipe for self-defeat, migraines, and disaster.

So instead, they give us little bits here & there. Promotional materials, card flavor texts, character stories, etc. Here is pretty much everything I’ve been able to gather that is either an Official Guildpact Law, references Law Magic, sounds close enough to Law Magic, or even just sounds true enough to the spirit of a Guild’s core beliefs to be potentially acceptable for invoking Guildpact Magic:

General Laws

*Petty theft is a violation of personal property with a charge dependent on judicial ruling. (Family Values)

*In consonance with the New Accord of the Guild of Ravnica, you are granted the right of exposure and are obligated by duty to present your evidence of financial corruption to the Living Guildpact. (Family Values)

*The Living Guildpact rules that coffee is an acceptable substitution for rest, as specified in subsection . . . whatever. (Catching Up)

*The magic of the Guildpact gives aegis to the spirits pressed into its service. Upon entering the afterlife, they find new focus and are charged with defending the Guildpact against those who would see it broken. (Guardian of the Guildpact)

Azorius Senate

*You have the right to remain silent. (Azorius Arrester)

*Your potential to commit a crime warrants further investigation. (Azorius Justiciar)

*To prevent action is to prevent transgression. (Inaction Injunction)

*We have confiscated your spells as evidence. Once we conclude our investigation, you may petition to have them returned. (Render Silent)

*Thanks to the magic in his Writ of Passage, alms beasts lumbered aside, anarchs bowed their heads, and even Rakdos acrobats rolled their spikewheels out of his way. (Azorius Knight-Arbiter)

*....A clause that ties the average length of prison sentences to recidivism rates. Theoretically, we could end up having negative-term sentences should the rate fall low enough.... Referenced an ancient Azorius Law, 394-H. (The Ascension of Reza)

*Azorius Law 3455-J: Failure to submit proper identification will result in detention for an indefinite amount of time. (The Ascension of Reza)

*If it happened in the Thinktank, I'm afraid we have no jurisdiction there. (The Ascension of Reza)

*Azorius Law 2795-V, Non-compliance with arresters.... (The Ascension of Reza)

*Azorius Law 3343-J, Traveling in a stolen vehicle.... (The Ascension of Reza)

*By the prerogative writ of emergency, and by a unanimous vote, I hereby declare Hendrik Azmerak Grand Arbiter pro tem of the Thinktank Enclave. As the leader of your people, do I have your permission to put the following law into effect? (The Ascension of Reza)

*To be Azorius is to serve as an exemplary model of moral conduct. (Azorius Guild Kit Instruction)

*Always keep your uniform pressed and your armor polished, in accordance with Regulation 654.2, Part 87, Section 28. (Azorius Guild Kit Instruction)

*Should you witness a criminal act, signal the Sky Hussars immediately and begin documenting the occurrence and details of the crime scene. (Azorius Guild Kit Instruction)

Boros Legion

*Your brother’s crimes are your crimes. You stood by and lent support, so you too must face judgement. (Wojek Embermage)

*It promises protection to those in need and proclaims a warning to any who would threaten Ravnican law. (Boros Guildgate)

*Stand tall. Even your posture should embody justice! (Boros Guild Kit Instruction)

*Act with honor, in all things. (Boros Guild Kit Instruction)

*Protect the innocent, at any cost. (Boros Guild Kit Instruction)

*You are never truly off-duty. Evil never rests! (Boros Guild Kit Instruction)

*Stay in top physical condition. (Boros Guild Kit Instruction)

*If you see evil, crush it. (Boros Guild Kit Instruction)

House Dimir

*All those who trade in questions must answer to the Dimir. (Citywatch Sphinx)

*Welcome to the Dimir Public Offices. Not responsible for death or loss of property. Basement off-limits. (Dinrova Horror)

*Do not disclose your affiliations with REDACTED (Dimir Guild Kit Instruction)

*Extract knowledge whenever possible. (Dimir Guild Kit Instruction)

*No fact is unimportant. (Dimir Guild Kit Instruction)

*Always REDACTED. Never REDACTED. (Dimir Guild Kit Instruction)

*Be invisible, silent, and ethereal. (Dimir Guild Kit Instruction)

*Know every exit from any building. it could save your life. (Dimir Guild Kit Instruction)

Golgari Swarm

*Waste nothing. Seek value in what they discard. (Golgari Guild Kit Instructions)

*Death is no excuse to abandon your responsibilities. (Golgari Guild Kit Instructions)

*Take pride in the decay that fuels our kingdom. (Golgari Guild Kit Instructions)

*Fear neither Death nor Darkness. They can be your greatest allies. (Golgari Guild Kit Instructions)

*You are now a part of the Swarm. Every action you take should serve the interests of the Guild, so that we may all rise together. (Golgari Guild Kit Instructions)

Gruul Clans

*We are the heart of the wild, the fire in its eyes, and the howl in its throat. Come, join the battle to which you were born. (Gruul War Chant)

*Nature is the ultimate mindless destroyer, capable of power and ferocity no army can match, and the Gruul follow its example. (Savage Twister)

*They are the voice of the wild, crying out with nature’s fury and bringing forth its primeval might. (Wild Cantor)

*Enter and leave the shackles of society behind. (Gruul Guildgate)

*Burn. Smash. Fight. Win. (Gruul Guild Kit Instructions)

Izzet League

*The only action worth taking is one with an unknown outcome. (Nivix Guildmage)

*Erase “impossible” from your vocabulary. (Izzet Guild Kit Instructions)

*Strive to discover something NEW every day! The point of science is not to endlessly confirm what is known- it is to map the barriers of reality to better demolish them. (Izzet Guild Kit Instructions)

Orzhov Syndicate

*Article 12 of the Orzhovniha, a governing person of Orzhov recognition may be granted entrance to the Obzedat's Chamber with proof of identity. (Family Values)

*Entrance is free. Donations are required. (Syndic of Tithes)

*Alms coins are only redeemable at Orzhov businesses. (Alms Beast)

*The fine print of countless contracts has ensured we are never defenseless. (Immortal Servitude)

*The rights of ghosts are strictly protected under Orzhov bylaws, and those who enforce them can count on the ghosts’ assistance. (Imperious Oligarch)

*Pay in gold. Pay in blood. Pay with the servitude of your spirit kin But pay you must. (Pitiless Pontiff)

*We have no need for military might. We wield two of the sharpest swords ever forged: Faith in our left hand, Wealth in our right. (Castigate)

*Remember by whose gift you ascend. (Gift of Orzhova)

Cult of Rakdos

*If the pig’s blood drips on you, you’re next on the chain. (Gore-House Chainwalker)

*Never suffer alone. That’s selfish. Pain is meant to be shared with others! (Rakdos Guild Kit Instructions)

*Revel in your pain, in all pain, for it is freedom! No wound compares to the suffering of a dull, law-abiding life. (Rakdos Guild Kit Instructions)

*Make a grand spectacle of your pain, and play to your audience! If they aren’t screaming, laughing, or both, your performance has failed. (Rakdos Guild Kit Instructions)

*Blood and fire look good on everyone. And make excellent decorations. (Rakdos Guild Kit Instructions)

*Always be creative, especially in your bloodiest ventures. New modes of carnage delight the Lord of Riots, and it is wise to seek his favor. (Rakdos Guild Kit Instructions)

Selesnya Conclave

*So many oppose us, but we are the reed that bends without breaking. (Druid’s Deliverance)

*From the seeds of faith, great forests grow. (Scatter the Seeds)

*Within the song of Mat’Selesnya, one becomes all. (Camaraderie)

*No one in the Conclave acts alone. (Armada Wurm)

*Just as leaves fall and the tree blooms again, one day I will fall and the Conclave will endure. (Conclave Cavalier)

*Whatever hatred destroys, a single act of trust can revive. (Emmara, Soul of the Accord)

*We are the shield that never breaks, the bough that never burns, the song that can never be silenced. (Join Shields)

*When you hold a shield, lend your shield. (Privileged Position)

*There are no soloists in the chorus of Selesnya. (Trostani, Selesnya’s Voice)

*Enter and rejoice! The Conclave stands united, open to one and all. (Selesnya Guildgate)

Simic Combine

*Life has no mistakes, only experiments. (Skitter Eel)

*Within each of us, the potential for great power waits to be unleashed. (Sauroform Hybrid)

*Look beyond, to the vascular awareness that all life is a map to greater knowledge. (Momir Vig, Biomancy, Volume I) (Biomantic Mastery)

*As I contemplate what is, I dive ever deeper into the depths of possibility. Then I set an experiment in motion and watch the truth rise to the surface. (Gyre Engineer)

*Fruits of magic, roots in science. (Vigean Hydropon)

*The unnatural pressures of life in this city are best withstood by lifeforms that adapt with unnatural swiftness. (Novigen, Heart of Progress)

*Mystery is beauty. Within the unknown we plumb revelation. (Simic Guildgate)

*Analyze every living thing you see, from the smallest tadpole to the mightiest dragon. Each one holds unique secrets of life, ready to be unlocked through careful study. (Simic Guild Kit Instructions)

*Modification of another’s body without their express permission will not be tolerated. (Simic Guild Kit Instructions)

*Learn to see the patterns all around you; let them illuminate truths that transcend species. (Simic Guild Kit Instructions)

*When you study a life form, identify its weaknesses, then eliminate them. (Simic Guild Kit Instructions)

[templepurohit]

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 4 Verse 22 - TemplePurohit.com nirāśīr yata-cittātmā tyakta-sarva-parigrahaḥ śārīraḿ kevalaḿ karma kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam Word Meanings: yadrccha — out of its own accord; labha — with gain; santustah — satisfied; dvandva — duality; atitah — surpassed; vimatsarah — free from envy; samah — steady; siddhau — in success; asiddhau — failure; ca — also; krtva — doing; api — although; na — never; nibadhyate — becomes affected. Explanation: This verse gives the keys to being free from reactions which leads to bondage in the material existence. If one performs all activities in this manner they will neutralise reactions to bodily actions but will still remain bound if there is still any affection for previous actions that are presently being renounced. To this Lord Krishna emphasises being content with whatever comes, unsought, by its own accord. Being satisfied in one’s mind with material things coming unexpected without the least desire or motivation for more and no effort to receive them. If one gets or does not get their mind remains equipoise in tranquility and never agitated by dualities such as success and failure, jubilation and sadness, triumph and disaster, elation and despondency, achievement and non-achievement. Such a spiritually enlightened being never performs an action that is devoid of a connection to the Supreme Being of all. Thus such a person situated in Vedic knowledge can never have a selfish motive or perform a selfish action; on the contrary even if such a person is requested to perform yagna or worship to the Supreme Lord on behalf of someone else and that person is blemished or tainted by material desires then even still one will not be affected by any reactions for performing such an activity to the Supreme Lord due to they are in knowledge. Some explain in this verse that a yogi or one who developing their individual consciousness to be in communion with the ultimate consciousness after renouncing all desires and enjoyments, including even begging to sustain their physical sustenance should maintain themselves by accepting what comes unsought by its own accord and this insures that their actions become inaction and not subject to reactions. In the normal sense such a person appears to be begging to worldly people but in actual fact according to the injunctions of the Vedic scriptures this not the case and the actions of such a yogi are factually inaction. In this manner such a yogi performs activity for the maintenance of their body by only accepting what comes unsought by its own accord even though for society it appears as if one is begging. Also such a yogi incurs no negative results in the form of reactions by behaving so because all reactions leading to bondage are destroyed by the fire of knowledge. https://ift.tt/32jVxyZ