#inaction injunction

[mtgatherercomments]

[hermit-frog]

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.

[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 शास्त्��ों 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

[quiet-kunoichi]

“so… did you miss me?”

[ a confession || s. ]

more than she wished to admit, even to herself.

It was a resurrection – the second coming of an unholy God, the only man she’d bruise her knees for in wicked worship. When she had first caught this crepuscular b u c k within her fog-beam sights once again, Kimiko could recall an amalgam of similar moments in which he’d been the sole proprietor of this breath that held in suspension within her exposed throat. It was his presence alone that possessed her with such steely resolve, a single look into stygian eyes that reclaimed every inch of her – body and soul. With certainty, she had not anticipated his manifestation until he was already confronting her with such unceremonious grandeur. As if she hadn't been stealing coveted glances at him within the presumed safety of her dreams. As if his return was nothing less than a supernatural phenomena one peers upon in transfixed awe. And since then, she's been buzzing. Electrified with a transmutable energy persistent in its rise to a monolithic crescendo. A thickening in her veins as everything has been left to simmer for too long. There was an undeniable desire long-festering within her very marrow, this prolonged inaction now churning into a steady boil and beseeching swift release. His sudden return had wordlessly conducted this entrenched a c h e to suddenly uncover itself and sear white-hot through the surface of where she had once hastily buried it. While she knew this hunger to be unfettered by the prolonged absence endured, Kimiko now feared it to be unyielding; a gaping mouth with a pitless stomach. Even still she holds herself back from letting these thorns melt into velvety petals, from giving in to this internal calamitous demand for an long overdue collision within the carnal horns of her stag. Unbearably so, he still felt eerily spectral; poised like a prey animal, muscles rippling with the anticipation to take flight through the underbrush at any wrongly perceived hint of danger. The Tamashi feared one wrong move might spell her own infernal demise. Reaching out to close the distance between them now might very well be what dissipates this heavenly dream. She hates to think about how deep the wound would run if she were to risk sinking fingers into it. Despises even more this inconsolable passion with no safe space to unleash it unto. If she were to grab ahold of him now, might he just utterly evaporate into smoke? It's what holds her so statuesque, vibrating and unbearably inert all at once. A stalemate. So when her solemn deity implores another confession from her copper-tinged lips, Kimiko is a mere witness as the truth wrests itself through vocal chords as though it had been a living thing merely waiting for the opportunity. ' almost intolerably so. ' time spent suffering was not inconsequential, for it were a blessing to have someone like <h i m> to yearn for. and as if her voiceless prayers had been answered by a God more merciful than he, Kimiko carved up the courage to supplicate her own pondering. Invoking this harbinger of death she'd readily devout herself to -- a plea to bless her tonight with an injunction that might just enlighten her to his intentions. ' can you say the same ? '

[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

[hardynwa]

Imo Labour strike: Gov Uzodinma bows to pressure

Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodinma has finally surrendered to the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, as its industrial action entered day 5. The Organised Labour announced a strike throughout the state last Wednesday as a result of the disruption of the Workers’ Day celebration. A temporary injunction prohibiting the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) from taking part in any strike in Imo State was also issued by a national industrial court in Owerri. The directive was given on Thursday by the presiding judge, Nelson Ogbuanya. However, DAILY POST learnt that the Imo State Government has agreed to resolve the issues with NLC. This was confirmed in a joint statement made available to newsmen in Owerri, signed on the side of the government by the Secretary to the State government, SSG, Cosmos Iwu and the Attorney General/Commissioner for Justice, Barrister Cyprian Akolisa. On the part of the organised labour were Comrade Onyeka Chris, NLC, headquarters, Comrade Tony Ebaho, TUC headquarters, Imo State Secretary NLC, Comrade Anukworji Nduka and Chairman TUC, Imo state, Comrade Amalu Charles. The resolution states that “Tripartite representatives of the state government, Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, and the Trade Union Congress should expeditiously look into and resolve the areas of disagreement and misunderstanding between the government and labour.” “Both parties condemned the circumstances that resulted in the alleged disruptions of the May Day celebrations and pledged to ensure peaceful conduct of all NLC and TUC activities in the state. ���Even though it is not at fault, the government looks for solutions to help those who may have experienced losses due to the aforementioned interruptions. “The leadership of the Nigeria Labour Congress and the Trade Union Congress, TUC, agree to halt the current strike in Imo state to facilitate the peaceful settlement of any remaining disputes in a spirit of reciprocity. “Both sides promise not to penalise any employee or official for their actions or inactions resulting from their industrial actions.” Read the full article

[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

[colettesmorgan-blog]

What Happens If You Get an FTC Investigation?

The Federal Trade Commission can initiate an investigation of a company. This is done by sending a letter to the company that is listed as the receiver or the subject of the complaint. If you are not sure what this means, don't worry. The FTC does not do any other kind of legal work. If it senses that a company is being unfair or deceptive in some way, it can open an investigation into that company.

Determining if a law has been violated

Before the Federal Trade Commission can carry out an investigation, it has to determine whether the actions or inactions by a company fit into an exception or a violation of the law. For example, if there was fraudulent conduct, the agency has to prove that a consumer was harmed because of that conduct. It also has to show that the harm came about because of the FTC's regulation.

When can the FTC investigate?

The Federal Trade Commission can only investigate a company if it receives formal notice from the Federal Court. The formal notification should include an order from a court declaring that the company committed or is violating the law. The order could be a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or a Permanent Injunction. If the company violates the order, the FTC can then commence an investigation.

Investigating private companies

Generally speaking, the FTC does not undertake investigations of private companies. If a privately held company conducts business without the proper licensing or permission, that company can be investigated. If a product is promoted or discounts are offered without a license, the FTC can come in and make a ruling. If the ruling refers to fraud, the FTC can come in and fine the company. Click here to know more about FTC defense lawyer.

Initiating the investigation

Before undertaking an FTC investigation, the FTC will send a letter to the company. They will ask for information related to the company's sales practices. They will want to know how well the company's marketing materials are working for them. The FTC will also want to see proof that the company follows all of the laws regarding their products and that they do not unreasonably discriminate against consumers.

Once the FTC has received all of this information, the agency can proceed with the investigation. At this point, it may be up to the company to resolve the problems. The FTC will let the company know what the violation is, and if the violations continue, they can request that the company either cease trading or seek license renewal.

Summing up

After an FTC investigation, the company can still compete in the market. However, they must operate in a way that is consistent with the guidelines set forth by the FTC. If the company does not follow the guidelines, it may be banned from trading in the future. 

[snibnoom]

...here we go again. i might have some stuff wrong (so please take this with a grain of salt), but this is what i’ve been able to decipher from here: 1, 2, 3.

fantagio corp and CEO park haesun is in a dispute with their current largest shareholder, L&A holdings.

L&A holdings took over the majority shares back in may with a stock transfer contract (just means the largest share holder changed). a shareholder’s meeting is required to appoint internal and external directors and auditors for L&A holdings. the shareholder’s meeting is currently set for july 24th, more than two months after L&A purchased the shares.

L&A also filed an injunction with the seoul central district court on the 18th to ban fantagio from issuing new shares.

basically, L&A holds the majority shares and therefore is entitled to a hand in management. however, they’ve been unable to take on their management duties since may due to fantagio delaying the shareholder’s meeting.

experts believe the inaction fantagio corp has taken on this matter (delaying the appointment of directors to take on management duties within the company) means that CEO park haesun intends to not give up management rights to the company.

KOSDAQ (the korean stock market exchange) informed fantagio on june 25th that it could designate the company as an unfaithful disclosure corporation, citing this delayed disclosure of appointment for management duties. the apparent deadline for deciding this designation is july 16th.

stock prices for fantagio are expected to fluctuate throughout this conflict. in addition, there are fears that the tens of billions of dollars invested in this dispute may disrupt the management of the company’s artists.

formerly, the largest shareholder of fantagio’s stocks was gold finance korea. the stock exchange shifted to L&A holdings following the arrest of the ceo of jc group, gold finance korea’s parent company, on grounds of illegal financing and fraud. this eventually led to the bankruptcy of hong kong gold finance, the parent company for jc group and gold finance. when this crisis occurred, park haesun (former director of KBS entertainment) was appointed the CEO.

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: AN INTRODUCTION TO HADITH: Part 12

Avoiding Innovation

It is related that Aisha, may Allah be well pleased with her, said that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Anyone who introduces an innovation in this affair of ours which is not part of it, that will be rejected.”

One version in Muslim reads:

“He who does an act which we have not commanded will have it rejected [by Allah].” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Sulh, 5; Sahih Muslim, Aqdiyya, 17, 18. See also: Sunan ibn Majah, Muqaddima, 2).

NARRATOR

Aisha

Aisha was a very intelligent woman who learned how to read and write at a very young age. She never forgot anything that she had learned and memorized.

The most important point in relation to the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha was it's being contracted through the direct commandment of Allah.

The Messenger of Allah loved Aisha greatly. When he was asked, “Who do you love most?” he replied, “Aisha.” When he was then asked, “(What about) from among the men?” he said, “Her father.”

Aisha was born nine years before the Emigration, in the city of Mecca. She passed away on the seventeenth day of Ramadan (676 CE), on a Tuesday, in Medina.

EXPLANATION

Innovation in religion is referred to in Islam as bid’a.

1. Allah declares the following in relevant Qur’anic verses:

“…What is there, after the truth, but error?” (Yunus 10:32).

This verse demonstrates that there is no connection between truth and being on the wrong path. What behooves the human being is to be on the side of and in the way of truth. All kinds of innovation in religion and every fabricated thing that does not have its basis in Islam is deviation. Deviation of all kinds has been deemed unacceptable.

“…We have neglected nothing in the Book…” (al-An’am 6:38).

Some scholars have asserted that implied in “the Book” is the Qur’an. This is because none of the proofs and obligations necessary for human beings has been omitted therein.

“…And if you are to dispute among yourselves about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger” (an-Nisa 4:59).

Solutions contravening the criteria espoused by Allah and His Messenger and which violate the truths of the Qur’an and the Sunnah lead the human being and society to an impasse. Individuals and even broader society come to believe, at times, that the most perfect solution lies in their self-discovered and tried paths, methods, and systems. They can even convince others of this also. Finding the resolutions to such great issues, however, is only possible through appeal to Allah and His Messenger, and through putting the Qur’an and the Sunnah into practice, without oversight, and free from any innovations.

This hadith constitutes one of the most important foundations of Islam. Anything that does not rest upon the Book and the Sunnah cannot be accepted. Such a thing cannot be considered to be part of religion. Those who disregard the worship and deeds befitting the Qur’an and the Sunnah, lessen or alter them and who thus manipulate (corrupt or distort) religion are also innovators in religion. Their deeds too are rejected and are on no account accepted.

Innovation (in religion) is that which does not have a basis in and which cannot be reconciled with the Qur’an or Sunnah and which has no application in the Muslim community. Here, however, it is used to mean the fabrications put forward in religion without an authoritative source. Rendering inactive the Qur’an and Sunnah or neglecting them breeds innovation and gives rise to their fostering and thriving. In that case, the sole way of preventing innovations in religion is to spread the culture of the Qur’an and Sunnah and to prepare the grounds for these to become a way of life. That being the case, how must innovations be understood?

According to Imam Shafi’i, innovation is of two kinds:

“Anything that contravenes the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the learned consensus, and the way of the Companions is a deviatory and evil innovation; those things and good practices that do not contradict these are good innovations.”

This is the reason behind the use of the terms bid’a hasana (good innovation) and bid’a sayyi’a (evil innovation). Shafi’i substantiates this with the words of Umar who responded to a group of Companions performing the Tarawih Prayer particular to Ramadan in the congregation, remarking, “What a good innovation this is!”

2. The Messenger of Allah said the following in relation to good and evil innovation:

“Whoever introduces a good practice that is followed after him, will have the reward for that and the equivalent of their reward, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest. Whoever introduces an evil practice that is followed after him, will bear the burden of sin for that and the equivalent of their burden of sin, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.” Sahih Muslim, Zakah, 69. See also: Sunan an- Nasa’i, Zakah, 64.

The Companions undertook a great many things that were not in question during the time of the Prophet and reached a unanimous consensus regarding their acceptance and legitimacy. The Qur’an’s being compiled into book form during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and duplicated and distributed to various regions during the caliphate of Uthman are the most known examples in this regard. Efforts in later periods to record, in full, texts of Arabic grammar, the religiously obligatory, accounts, Qur’anic commentary, and hadith constitute further such examples. Even if these are to be termed innovations, they cannot be said to be wrong, as this is precisely how knowledge was preserved, spread and transferred to succeeding generations. This needs to be considered thus with respect to our time and mass media organs, modern printing and publication houses, the Internet, and military and social developments. Those who do not keep pace with such advancements would have no chance of survival in such a world.

The sources of Islamic jurisprudence are clearly defined

The Qur’an: The leading source in Islamic jurisprudence. The religion of Islam is learned first and foremost from the Qur’an. “The best among you are those who learn the Qur’an and teach it.”

The Sunnah: The words and actions of the Prophet. Constitutes the second primary source in Islamic jurisprudence. The Sunnah is applied in the absence of clear injunctions in the Qur’an. In the same way that the Prophet has instructed adherence to his Sunnah, he has also enjoined adherence to the practice of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs as well as his Companions. Such innovations as the supererogatory Prayer during Ramadan performed in the congregation during the caliphate of Umar and the establishment of the Call to Prayer inside the mosque for the Friday Prayer during Uthman’s caliphate, constitute the practice of the Companions and must be followed.

Ijma al-Umma (Consensus of Scholars): Ijma is the term employed to refer to the consensus of Muslim jurists on a theological matter in a given era. The consensus of scholars on a matter is a source of legislation in Islam and is appealed to when a matter is not found in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. For instance, the Tarawih Prayer performed in congregation during Umar’s caliphate.

Qiyas al-Fuqaha (Analytical Reasoning of the Scholars): The term qiyas literally means measuring two things with each other and drawing comparisons between them. Umar is known to have advised Abu Musa al-Ash’ari to “Identify similar and analogous cases, carefully examine their causes, and then use qiyas (analytical deduction).”

WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED

This hadith constitutes one of the cornerstones of Islam.

That which does not abrogate or contradict the Qur’an and Sunnah is accepted (The compilation of the Qur’an in book form, the commemoration of the Noble Birth, and the like).

Innovation (bid’a) is categorized into good (hasana) and evil (sayyi’a) innovation.

Muslim scholars have considered an innovation in five parts: necessary (wajib), recommended (mandub), permitted (mubah), unlawful (haram), and disliked (makruh). The discovery of weapons of warfare and the readying of forces suitable for the conditions of the time is necessary. Establishing universities and institutes and publishing scholarly works, spreading knowledge, teaching it to others, building schools and the like are recommended and accepted. Eating and drinking of the lawful are permissible, while the unlawful and disliked have been clearly defined and determined in Islam.

Both the one who sets an evil precedent (in evil innovation) and the one who follows in their path are equally wrongdoers.

[zedecksiew]

Political Blackness In Multiracial Britain

This is Mohan Ambikaipaker’s ethnography of the Newham Monitoring Project (NMP), an anti-racist grassroots organisation based in one of London’s boroughs. It is insightful and personal (as fieldwork for this book, Mohan worked as an NMP caseworker). It’s hard to read; the racial violence that it recounts is traumatic, ubiquitous, and puts paid to any claim that the modern UK is in any way a post-racial society -- In fact, the tendency for people to say: “Oh but we solved racism!” is directly addressed.

Mohan posits “everyday political whiteness” -- basically the myriad ways in which the ideological positions and actions (or inactions) of liberal British society, and the liberal British state, align to prefer white people and whiteness.

+

Chapter 2 of Political Blackness describes the harrowing racist harassment that a British Indian woman, Amina, suffers:

‘ “Get out of here, you Paki! Go home to your own country, you wogs! All of you black bastards are the same!” he shouted. It wasn’t the first time that Smith had come to Amina’s door and created a scene. He then shouted that he would bite her the next time she dared to come out. He claimed that he was HIV positive. “I’ll have you! You better watch your back,” Smith continued and banged the door hard. He then also threatened to harm her sexually.

Amina could see the door coming loose ... ’

This goes on for months. But it culminates in an ordeal that is (to me) way more damning.

Amina’s case finally goes to court, after dogged engagement with disinterested authorities:

‘Amina’s council-appointed barrister was a young, ambitious, and up-and-coming white British councilman from Southwark. One of his first comments to me about the case was that he was shocked that such hate speech and harassment were still social problems in Newham. He opined that such crude racism was far more characteristic of a bygone era ...’

Mohan begins to ‘detect an odd alignment of sympathy between Amina’s barrister and the perpetrators, Smith and Robson’:

‘ During the court hearing I witnessed the barrister interact more with them than he did with his own client ... Our barrister was sympathetic to their unfamiliarity with court processes and would frequently guide them in court. ’

The judge is also white, and also seems to side with the perpetrators:

‘ “I have to deal with this as a matter of impression ... There is something to be said about giving the Smiths and the Robsons the opportunity to show that they will not behave in an anti-social way ... Let’s give all the parties every opportunity to live in harmony.” ’ 

Amina and Mohan are crushed. They'd spent five months building a case, collecting irrefutable evidence, canvassing authorities -- all to secure a measure of freedom from daily harassment. But the injunction they sought was now overturned.

‘“It looks like it came down to their word against ours,” Amina said to the barrister. She started to break down.

“What can I do about that?” the barrister retorted, suddenly becoming angry with her ... As he left us in the courthouse, he added, “To be honest with you, Mr. Smith and Mr. Robson do not come across as thugs!” ’

+

Essentially: The belief of elite progressives that Racism Isn’t A Thing Anymore is complicity -- it perpetrates racism, because it helps them disbelieve accounts of racist abuse; it conveniently preserves white hegemony, because things aren’t a matter of seeking urgent justice, but preserving an existing “harmony”.

+

Am still processing this book; trying to see what I can learn from it, and apply to the Malaysian context.

During Mohan’s panel at GTLF2018, he was asked whether he thought the Pakatan Harapan government could address the tangle of Malaysian race-relations -- something to that effect.

Mohan replied: Don’t depend on PH.

Political Blackness demonstrates how the liberal British state, despite overt rhetoric and policy aimed at combating racism, is mainly concerned with hiding it. Here is how the Newham Council edits a report to downplay racism in the borough:

‘ For example, in the draft text that initially read, “Significantly, racism is within their top 3 issues facing Newham, just behind crime and the availability of jobs,” the editor deleted the word “racism” and refashioned the sentence to read, “Crime, the availability of jobs and issues relating to promoting community cohesion are the top 3 issues facing Newham” (NMP 2013) ’

It is the NMP that catches this. Things like the NMP -- ie: focused, sustained grassroots activism -- are the only ones that can.

The lesson’s pretty clear: don’t hope for governments, however progressive, to fix shit. Governments have different priorities. We’ve got to do it, ourselves.

It’ll be hard. (The book closes with the shutdown of the NMP in 2015, and asks sobering questions about what comes next.)

But what alternative is there?

+

(A good review of Political Blackness In Multiracial Britain by an actual academic here: http://csalateral.org/reviews/political-blackness-in-multiracial-britain-ambikaipaker-kapstein)

[maxwellyjordan]

Symposium: The “intensely factual” question of physicians’ admitting privileges

Robin Fretwell Wilson is the Roger & Stephany Joslin Professor of Law and Director of the Epstein Health Law & Policy Program at the University of Illinois College of Law.

Last month I lost someone close to me after an infection that began as double pneumonia ravaged her body. In the space of a day, a mother of nine in the prime of her life slipped away. It was so improbable. So permanent. And if that loss was not tragedy enough, the husband she left behind contracted MRSA, an antibiotic-resistant bug that can be deadly. MRSA lurks in the very facilities that care for us. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 90,000 people die from healthcare-associated infections every year, more than double the number of people who die in auto accidents.

That my friend could die from an infection so suddenly is hard to process. But complications often arise during the course of medical treatment, including at large hospitals and small clinics.

This forum considers the Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Services v. Gee to stay Louisiana’s latest regulation of abortion providers — one that the sponsoring legislator explained as providing “a safe environment … that offers women the optimal protection and care of their bodies.” Louisiana would require physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic.

Two simple questions have occupied me: Are women experiencing medical complications when having abortions? Would Louisiana’s new requirement actually help them if the cataclysmic occurs?

What I’ve learned

In the most recent year for which CDC provides data, 2013, the number and rate of reported abortions across the nation reached “historic lows,” due, in part, to increased access to contraception. In that year, four women died as a result of complications from legal abortions — a year in which medical professionals performed 664,435 abortions.

Between 1973 and 2014, 437 women died from complications after a legal abortion — women whose deaths are as devastating as my friend’s death from septic shock brought on by pneumonia. These women also leave behind families, friends and futures cut tragically short.

Abortions carry risks including blood clots, heavy bleeding, cuts, tears, perforations, and infection.

Simply being in a healthcare facility carries risk: Roughly 4.5 infections occur for every 100 hospital admissions, a risk that extends to office-based surgical suites and free-standing surgical centers. Still, given the tens of millions of abortions performed since Roe v. Wade, the procedure is remarkably safe.

Didn’t we decide this already?

It feels like we just had this conversation about admitting privileges, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. There, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’ dual regulation of abortion — an admitting-privileges requirement and a requirement that abortion clinics meet the physical-plant rules for ambulatory surgical centers. The court held that both requirements imposed an undue burden on a women’s right to seek a pre-viability abortion.

Like Louisiana, Texas required physicians to “have active admitting privileges at a hospital that … is located not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced.” Previously Texas required that a physician have privileges or a relationship with a physician who does. Texas justified the stricter requirement as “help[ing] ensure that women have easy access to a hospital should complications arise during an abortion procedure.”

The rub: Statistics and testimony showed it is “extremely unlikely that a patient will experience a serious complication at the clinic that requires emergent hospitalization.” Instead, most complications “occur in the days after the abortion, not on the spot.”

Abortion-rights advocates skewered Texas for requiring abortion providers to have privileges while ignoring dentists, cosmetic surgeons and other providers whose patients also experience complications.

And at oral argument Texas’ attorneys could not cite a “single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment.”

The requirement erected a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice.” Why? Because some Texas hospitals will not extend privileges unless the physician admits so many patients per year. Indeed a physician who had “delivered over 15,000 babies” across 38 years “was unable to get admitting privileges at any of the seven hospitals within 30 miles of his clinic.” The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that “the record contains sufficient evidence that the admitting-privileges requirement led to the closure of half of Texas’ clinics.”

All eyes on Kavanaugh

Already, observers are reading the tea leaves about whether the Supreme Court’s new composition will affect the outcome in June Medical.

In a striking dissent from the grant of the stay, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the “intensely factual” question of physician admitting privileges.

Because the law had not taken effect, he observed, “the parties have offered, in essence, competing predictions about whether those three doctors can obtain admitting privileges”:

Louisiana has three clinics that currently provide abortions. As relevant here, four doctors perform abortions at those three clinics. One of those four doctors has admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, as required by the new law. The question is whether the other three doctors—Doe 2, Doe 5, and Doe 6—can obtain the necessary admitting privileges. If they can, then the three clinics could continue providing abortions. And if so, then the new law would not impose an undue burden for purposes of Whole Woman’s Health. By contrast, if the three doctors cannot obtain admitting privileges, then one or two of the three clinics would not be able to continue providing abortions. If so, then even the State acknowledges that the new law might be deemed to impose an undue burden for purposes of Whole Woman’s Health.

The district court concluded that the three doctors likely could not obtain admitting privileges and enjoined the law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded they could and lifted the injunction.

Facts will matter, as will the justification for the law

Already, two courts have made wildly different predictions about Louisiana’s law — based on facts surmised in a facial challenge.

The 5th Circuit chalked up the possibility that a physician might struggle to get privileges to the physician’s own “intervening … failure to apply for privileges in a reasonable manner.” The “almost-universal requirement” by Texas hospitals that their medical staff “maintain minimum annual admissions” operated as “a per se bar.” But here:

There is an insufficient basis in the record to conclude that the law has prevented most of the doctors from gaining admitting privileges. Similarly, any clinic closures that result from the doctors’ inaction cannot be attributed to Act 620.

What drives admitting privileges?

Importantly, Louisiana’s legislature offered a different spin on requiring admitting privileges. It heard testimony that Louisiana women experiencing complications “had been treated harshly by the provider.” A patient who “began to hemorrhage, [was told] ‘to get up and get out.’”

For Louisiana lawmakers, admitting privileges were crucial not only for responding to complications, but also for ensuring “continuity of care, qualifications, communication, and preventing abandonment of patients.” This meant all patients. Louisiana’s requirement brought abortion providers “into the same set of standards that apply to physicians providing similar types of services in [ambulatory surgical centers].”

Admitting privileges have long operated to bind patients to their physician: When a person seen in the emergency room is admitted to the hospital, their primary-care physician takes over their care, assuming that physician has privileges. This both ensures continuity of care and avoids patient abandonment. It makes good on the duty of physicians to follow through in caring for patients during the spell of illness. It also prevents hospitals from poaching every emergency-room patient who is regularly seen by a member of the hospital’s medical staff.

The weakness of this traditional model is obvious: Not everyone has a primary-care physician and not everyone gets sick near their physician’s hospital. Over time, hospitalists developed to admit patients to the hospital when their own primary-care doctors could not. But that development has largely passed Louisiana by. Although the number of hospitalists in the U.S. has grown from 10,000 in 2003 to over 50,000 in 2016, in 2013, Louisiana had the lowest number of hospitalists in the country. This places an even greater premium on one’s physician having privileges somewhere.

Some reflexively assume that Louisiana hospitals, many of which are religiously affiliated, will deny privileges to doctors who perform abortions. After all, Louisiana, like Texas, is a stronghold for opposition to abortion. Louisiana is a heavily Catholic state.

Although requirements for admitting privileges differ from institution to institution, the one thing facilities that receive certain federal funds cannot do is “discriminate” against physicians based upon their religious or moral beliefs about abortion. These conscience protections have insulated physicians who want to do abortions in their private offices or clinics from losing their livelihoods, just as they protect abortion objectors.

What does all this mean?

Perplexingly, few people seem to be asking these fact-dependent questions. Instead, ideology about abortion seems to drive how many view Louisiana’s law.

If Louisiana’s law could prevent the kind of loss I recently experienced, I think many people would approach it with an open mind. But without a thicker factual record– without more from lawmakers about the value and feasibility of the physician-privileges requirement or, at this juncture, without waiting to see whether the doctors can in fact obtain admitting privileges and what effect this has on access–it is hard to tell whether Louisiana’s law will actually do that.

And that is part of the problem. In what remains the most divisive conflict in America, lawmakers would do well to develop the facts instead of asking for our blind trust.

***

Past cases linked to in this post:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016)

The post Symposium: The “intensely factual” question of physicians’ admitting privileges appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/symposium-the-intensely-factual-question-of-physicians-admitting-privileges/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

This is the Trump Docket, where we track some of the most important legal cases of the Trump presidency and how their results could shape presidential power. Questions, comments, or thoughts about cases to cover? Email us here.

After two years of legal wrangling, the Trump Foundation will soon be no more. Last month, in the midst of a dramatic month for cases that stem from President Trump’s pre-presidency life, a judge signed off on a plan to shutter Trump’s much-criticized personal foundation. Under the new agreement, the foundation will be dissolved under court supervision.

In effect, the deal implies that the foundation cannot be trusted to disburse its remaining $1.7 million to legitimate nonprofits. But even though the foundation is dissolving, the lawsuit against the foundation will continue, with the New York attorney general seeking damages for the foundation’s alleged “extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law,” including the illegal use of foundation money to pay off legal settlements, buy portraits of Trump, and promote Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The December settlement is an important reminder of the risk that the state of New York poses for Trump. In particular, New York is uniquely well-positioned to go after Trump where it could hurt him most — through his businesses. In fact, New York has been one of the most significant and I’d argue most underrated legal hazards for Trump since he began his campaign for president. Here are three reasons why.

New York has jurisdiction over Trump’s family businesses

Pursuing legal challenges against Trump has become something of a sport among Democratic attorneys general over the past two years, but most of these fights focus on actions taken by Trump’s administration rather than matters that implicate him personally. But because Trump’s businesses and his presidential campaign are registered in New York, state officials have the authority to investigate and potentially prosecute him for violations of state law.

Trump’s attorneys have argued in a separate case that involves a former “Apprentice” contestant who’s suing Trump for defamation in New York that as president, he should be immune to lawsuits in state courts. It’s an open constitutional question, but two judges have already come down against Trump, saying that when unofficial conduct is involved, there’s no reason to exempt the president from state lawsuits. The case is still being appealed, but even if it’s decided in Trump’s favor, legal actions could still be brought against his businesses or children.

Worse still for Trump, state prosecutions are pardon-proof, since the president’s power to grant clemency extends only to federal crimes. This means that while Trump could pardon an associate or family member implicated in, for example, the Mueller investigation (or even try to pardon himself), his get-out-of-jail-free card won’t work in New York. There’s even been a push to amend New York’s double jeopardy laws to make it possible for someone convicted (and, hypothetically, pardoned) under federal law to be prosecuted for corresponding violations of state law.

State prosecutors are especially tough on financial misconduct

Then there’s the fact that the offenses where Trump has the greatest potential liability in New York — for example, tax or other kinds of corporate fraud — are ones the New York attorney general’s office is particularly adept at handling. Over the past 15 years, New York has steadily stepped up its prosecutions of financial crimes. “Fraud cases are the linchpin of what most attorneys general do, and the laws are particularly strong in New York,” said Paul Nolette, a political science professor at Marquette University who studies state attorneys general.

Trump knows this firsthand, because of a previous tangle with former attorney general Eric Schneiderman. The state sued Trump University for defrauding customers in a case that was settled for $25 million. And because Trump ran for office, opening his businesses to a whole new level of national scrutiny, the Trump Foundation lawsuit may have only been the beginning. Before he resigned last year, Schneiderman was reportedly cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller on matters related to Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and state tax officials said they’re looking into potential massive tax fraud by the Trump family after reporting from The New York Times last fall. Meanwhile, New York’s new attorney general, Letitia James campaigned on a promise to hold the president accountable across a wide range of issues, including his businesses and finances.

“The Mueller investigation is the shiny object everyone is watching,” Berit Berger, a former federal prosecutor and the executive director of Columbia Law School’s Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity, told me. “But under everyone’s nose are what look like much more straightforward violations of state law, including some pretty flagrant tax fraud. Depending on what happens with Mueller, that could be what actually sinks the big ship.”

New York prosecutors may have the clearest shot at indicting Trump while he’s president

Finally, legal experts told me that if New York officials have sufficient evidence against Trump and the appetite for a protracted legal battle, they may have the best chance at testing a high-stakes constitutional unknown: Is it possible to issue a criminal indictment against a sitting president?

Unlike their federal counterparts, state prosecutors are not bound by a Department of Justice policy that says that a sitting president is immune from indictment (a former president is fair game). “I think it would be hard for a judge to tell New York that it can’t pursue charges for criminal violations of its own state law by Donald Trump that occurred before he was president,” said Andy Wright, former associate counsel to President Obama.

Not everyone I spoke with agreed with this view, however. Andrew Coan, a law professor at the University of Arizona and the author of a new book about special prosecutors, said there might even be a stronger argument against allowing state attorneys general to indict a president. “The attorney general of New York only speaks for her state’s voters, not the country as a whole,” he said. “So it seems strange to let that person do something that would significantly impair the president’s ability to serve.”

But even without an indictment — which would unleash an epic constitutional showdown — New York could still threaten Trump’s business empire through civil suits or prosecutions of his family members and inflict a significant amount of political damage on the president in the process.

None of this, of course, answers one key question: If New York is such a danger to Trump, why haven’t prosecutors or the attorney general filed charges or a lawsuit against the president or his businesses?

The Trump Foundation case is actually a good example of why one shouldn’t read too much into the state’s relative inaction. Reports that the foundation was being used for Trump’s personal benefit began while he was still running for office, but the lawsuit wasn’t filed until 18 months after Trump took office. (There is currently one other case in New York involving Trump — the lawsuit from the former “Apprentice” contestant — that we’re tracking as part of the Trump Docket.) But New York officials could be waiting until after Mueller’s probe is concluded to take further legal action — or they might be investigating other instances of potential corporate fraud that we aren’t yet aware of.

Other cases

Pre-presidency Trump

Attorneys for Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chair who was recently accused of violating his plea agreement with special counsel Robert Mueller, failed to fully redact sensitive details from a recent legal filing in the case. As a result, we learned that Manafort was accused of sharing presidential campaign data with a business associate who has links to Russian intelligence, and that during the campaign he discussed a plan for peace in Ukraine — which Russia and its allies were advocating as a path to lifting Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia. On Tuesday, a subsequent, correctly redacted filing from Mueller spelled out a few more details, including a confirmation that Konstantin Kilimnik, a former Manafort aide with alleged ties to Russian intelligence, is still a focus of the investigation.

Sentencing may be postponed for Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and business partner of Manafort, who has been cooperating with Mueller’s investigation. Prosecutors requested a two-month delay in his sentencing because Gates is still assisting with “several ongoing investigations.”

President Trump

Although the case is paused until the partial government shutdown ends, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments in the District of Columbia and Maryland’s emoluments lawsuit against Trump for the court’s March 19-21 session.

The Trump administration

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s injunction in a case involving Trump’s ban on transgender military service members, concluding that the previous judge had incorrectly concluded that the policy was a “blanket ban on transgender service.” The decision had no immediate impact, though, because three other lower courts still have an injunction against it.

A second trial over the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census concluded in California on Friday. During the trial, an expert testified that the question would deter Latinos and noncitizens from responding to the Census.

A trial also ended last week in a case involving the Trump administration’s decision to revoke temporary protected status for Haitian immigrants. During the proceedings, Trump’s use of the word “shithole” to describe Haiti and other countries came up repeatedly. Attorneys for the Haitians are arguing that the decision to end the policy was spurred by racial bias.

The Supreme Court rejected an unusual challenge to Matthew Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general last November. In a case involving separate issues related to gun rights, the plaintiff and his lawyers asked the Supreme Court to remove Whitaker’s name from the case — arguing that his appointment was illegal — and instead name Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as a party in the case. Without spelling out their reasons, the justices denied the request on Monday.

A district court judge in New York struck down the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, saying Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross illegally violated federal law when he added the question. Notably, the judge said that while Ross wasn’t honest about why he added the citizenship question, the plaintiffs hadn’t proved that his aim was discriminatory. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, and ultimately, the case could end up before the Supreme Court.

[deep-green-existentialist]

Ignore me if this is just an expression of anguish but I know the answer. Cops are for doing violence.

There is one primary law that all others are derived from. The primary law is violence. Nonspecific, undirected violence.

The secondary laws are threats: I will hurt you if you do this, and I will hurt you if you don't do that.

The state will harm you if you kill someone else, example of a threat against an action.

The state will harm you if you don't pay taxes, example of a threat against inaction.

There's a third type of law which is exception from threats. The state will harm you for growing cannabis, unless you have a license exempting you from that threat.

(There's also weird outliers, like budgets are passed as laws, and sometimes a legislature will want to say things in the most official voice possible so they pass an open letter as a law, but I think that's a case of them adapting old tools to new purposes and that such actions can't truly be considered laws, at least not in this simplified framework.)

The thing is, every one of those threats is meaningless if you know the state can't follow through. No matter how loudly my governor shouts "don't grow weed" I'm still going to do it unless I think there's something he can do about it. Even if he came to my home and kicked my plants over and pulled them up out the dirt, I'd do it again, since I want to smoke pot and I like growing plants.

Unfortunately for me, there is something he can do about it. There's a regular army with mortars and planes and tanks at his command as the National Guard. There's a network of highly-mobile gunmen who roam the highways as State Troopers, who answer to the state legislature. There's county employees who's job is violence as Sheriff's Deputies. My town pays shooters to walk the streets as Police. Even my school pays for its own gunmen as University Police.

And it's not about the guns, specifically, it's about the violence. Even if they didn't have guns, their job would still be to do violence. Imagine I pick up an expensive ring at the jeweler and walk away with it. The jeweler calls for the police to apprehend me and force me to return the ring. They find me on the sidewalk and block my way. I step around them and they sink to their knees, defeated by my ingenuity. Nah, I'm getting tackled or grabbed or restrained or struck with clubs- application of violence is the only way for them to reach the desired result.

Even when violence isn't the immediate action -let's say they follow me home, knowing I can't hold onto this ring forever- it's still present as background. They can force their way into my home to recover it, or come back later with a warrant saying that I have to let them in to look for the ring. If I refuse the warrant, they will force their way in. If I try to stop them, they'll hurt me until I give up.

All of the nonviolent law enforcement is based on the threat of violent enforcement. You appear in court voluntarily because you don't want to risk the arrest. You allow them to arrest you because you don't want to risk violence. You allow them to beat you because you don't want to risk dying. You don't fight back because they will kill you- we've seen it happen hundreds of times.

Let's examine a modern law that makes this connection clear as diamond.

The Oklahoma legislature wrote a law that allows anyone* to sue anyone who knowingly aids in an abortion in any capacity, from donating money to an abortion fund, providing transport to an abortion, or helping someone find a provider. It's twisting and self referential, I'm going to diagram it later with symbolic logic because even though I'm good at reading laws and there are sections I made no sense of because they're such word salad.

If the plaintiff wins, they will be awarded at least $10,000 per action, and can also get all their court and attorney fees covered, and additional compensation for emotional damage. There will be "Injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this act or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this act" which means a specific court order to the defendant to stop and not do that again.

If the defendant wins the courts are explicitly prohibited from awarding them court costs or attorney fees.

How does this stop abortions though? It's all rules about private citizens suing other private citizens in civil court, and that doesn't seem like a threat of violence.

But if you're sued and you don't go to court, you'll get hit with Failure To Appear, a criminal charge and the case is really easy for the state to make. In this case, the evidence is your absence, and they have witnesses.

If you're sued and you go to court and win, you're losing money on your lawyers and court fees. That's best case- a hard lawsuit with your hands tied and success means paying the lawyers and the court.

If you're sued and you go to court and you lose, the injunction against you is a specific threat of violence. They're also going to take a whole lot of money. If you don't have the money they can take your assets (except for the home you live in and a primary vehicle) and garnish your wages, taking 25% of your income. That could lead to you losing housing if you can't make payments, and you will be evicted at gunpoint. Taking people's money and assets is usually called robbery and properly recognized as violence. Kicking people doors down and pulling them from their home is violence.

This law, even though it's apparently about money, is actually about violence, because all of the enforcement mechanisms around the money are violence.

That's what police are for.

*State employees can't sue according to this law, nor can someone who impregnates a person by illegal actions (rape, sexual assault, incest, or other prohibited acts) who's victim then seeks abortion

the texas shooting boils my blood because there were cops outside the school who were supposed to be protecting the students inside, and the shooter was inside the school for FORTY MINUTES while parents were at the school begging to be let in to try to save their children and. they. did. nothing.

The cops just let this person murder 18 (???) schoolchildren like ????