#or like 'well it's illegal so people know not to do it. it's therefore irrelevant to my worldbuilding'

[sparrowlucero]

I know you had to delete them because people were mad at you, but your posts about r/worldbuilding inspired me and my brother to regularly browse the sub and send eachother the most insane things we see. Thank you for showing us this portal to the most absurd way to create fantasy.

I didn't delete it! that post is here . i still read it frequently.

[thequietmanno1]

TheLreads, Vigilantes ch 96, Replies Part 1

1) “And so, what better way to help my headache than start with vigilantes? Last time we backtracked in pretty much everything that happened so far in the story but at least we got to see Koichi again. For five seconds, but hey, that’s progress.”- You know, in my opinion, if you power through a headache by adding more pains to it, eventually you reach a point where the pain just becomes numb background noise and you don’t even notice it anymore. Sometimes, the best way to cure burns is to apply more fire, or I think that’s how the saying goes. 2) “No koichi, don’t stare directly at the nuclear ball of fire! No Koichi no!”- He witnesses the approaching end, the non-existence of things beyond the manga’s story. 3) “oh hey, it’s Rachel and Bam, and they seem to be at the Cat cafe of justice, oh we’re gonna see all the irrelevant people today?”- Gotta catch up with everybody before everything kicks off. 4) “HOLY FUCK IS THAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE MAGICIAN?!

THEY ARE HERE? FOR REAL? IS THAT A TOPHAT ON HER SHIRT?!”- Branding is an important part of Showbiz….and relationships.

5) “dude

please

for the love of god, it has been three years already, everybody and their mom knows that’s not his name. You guys have been interacting with him on a semi-regular basis for the last three years since the cat cafe is on the neighborhood why are you calling him by the wrong name?!?”- At this point, he either thinks it’s an affectionate nickname for Koichi before he went “mainstream”, since he knew him starting out, or there’s an undercurrent of spite motivating him to keep the name going regardless of reality. I bet he’d carve it into Koichi’s tombstone to mark it as he real hero name too.

6) “…

is that it? You called them all here to say “nothing new, we’ll keep you posted”?

Dude, this could’ve been an email for fuck’s sake”- Sometimes you have to deliver bad – or at least neutral- news face-to-face, just to let them know you’re not dismissing their concerns, but there’s simply no good news happening right now. 7) “Alright I feel bad for that joke, you guys definitely called them here so you could give them some sweets to cheer them up after their friend got put in the fridge. I’m sorry, I was feeling evil.”- A few sweets to stave off the bitter taste of feeling useless and unhelpful. 8) “Yeah I suppose that a regular patron which you guys pretty much endorsed for a few years turning into an homicidal villain and blowing up half the city would be kinda bad for business.

Well, at least she didn’t hurt anyone.”- Certainly put Uraraka’s parents in business for a bit though, assuming they could get the contract to work here. 9) “Yeah, but who’s gonna take care of the cats?”- You could always pass then onto Midnight, given how invested she is in Pop’s survival. Plus, Aizawa’s flashback showed she’s already taking care of one, what’s 15 more? 10) “Feeling a tad paranoid Soga? Feeling like some investigator suddenly flipped a switch and decided to send your asses to jail? Or is that just the procedure when you’re Knuckle’s apprentice? 

Well, I mean, it’s not like it’s difficult to find you fuckers, standing guard outside the hospital and totally-not-doing-something-illegal.”- Not difficult to find the Trio standing out front, but as they’re technically not the ones the police are hunting, having not been officially recorded committing heroics illegally, they’ve got some leeway with the police arresting them/devoting manpower to hunt them down vs Koichi, who’s a priority target. Therefore, they can serve as an early-warning system for Koichi waiting out of sight nearby to get into action, since he’s the one they’re actually counting on to do the heavy lifting when it comes down to brass tacks. 11) “Oh your dad? And you talked to him? Huh, must not have been something important. now let’s see what Dadichi can impart to us with his infinite wisdom and terrific good looks.”- And this is more of an interaction with Koichi’s own father than Izuku’s exchanged in the entirety of MHA. 12) “Throw it Puto! It’s good to keep him on his toes, you never know when he’s gonna need to jump into action. Throw it and see how fast he can catch it”- Every moment is an opportunity to get more training in there before the big fight. 13) “Yeah that’s exactly what I said puto. But it seems like Koichi hasn’t even noticed he’s turning from the Crawler into the Hoper.”- I have liked Koichi’s slow, gradual improvement in his Quirk handling throughout this series, it’s something I think it does very well, but I do wish we’d had more chapters to see Koichi’s improved movement skills after his fight with Bee Pop. He’s now doing stuff on instinct that he’d have had to seriously think about before, just like Izuku got a better handle on OFA by using it as second nature. 14) “Yeah I can imagine it Puto. I can imagine it… Shame soon Phelps will put an end to it anyway.

Eventually.

Maybe sometime in the next three years.”- Try three minutes. 15) “Oh, nice bat there flamey, good thing that’s definitely not illegal or something.”- Baseball is a national sport in Japan, so bats and such are actually pretty easy to get over there, if anybody wants to head to a batting range to practice their swing. 16) “Good work Puto. We can always count on you.”- Soga’s pulling double-time trying to keep this group half-way competent to handle Nomura’s threat.

17) “That he did, my color me impressed, he actually decided to do his job. And look at that, it’s like keeping the cellphone off didn’t mattered since he knew exactly where y'all were.”- Well, not Koichi specifically. The trio aren’t really work the manpower to hunt down, but Koichi’s elevated himself to above-average with his new Quirk handling, so he gets the arrest warrant. 18) “Soga, did you- Did you came all this way to be arrested? Huh? What are you planning?”- He can’t trust Puto not to blab out where Koichi’s hiding during the talks, so he needs to be there in order to handle the interrogation half-way competently. @thelreads

[slickbackdani]

While it's undeniable how horrible a person Reagan was and how much damage he did, I think that, if anyone deserves the dubious title of "root cause of modern society's problems", it's Reagan's GOP predecessor Richard Nixon.

Let's ignore Watergate and take a look at some of his policies: his "southern strategy" involved the use of racist dogwhistles to attract the white racist southerners who abandoned the Democratic Party over their support for the Civil Rights Act and bring them into the GOP fold, and followed through on that by ensuring that racial discrimination was still legal in many ways as long as they bury their intentions under economic jargon instead of openly admitting to racial bias.

Nixon's crony Lee Atwater explained in 1981 how this worked: "You start in 1954 by saying 'N***** n*****, n*****.' By 1968, you can't say 'n*****.' That hurts you. It backfires. So you say stuff like 'forced busing', 'states rights' and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."

One of the ways Nixon consolidated his power and sowed inequality was through policing, and in doing so launched the War on Drugs. Sure, we associate the War on Drugs with the 80s cocaine scare and all that "just say no" crap, but it started with Nixon using drugs as an excuse to legally punish dissenters.

Once again, Nixon stooge John Ehrlichman explained it in detail: "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black but by getting the public to associate hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs?Of course we did."

(Side note: it's weird that this rhetoric and policies are still in effect to this day despite the people behind them openly and publicly admitting that they were immoral power grabs decades prior.

Nixon is also the one who enshrined money in politics into law, killing the relative economic prosperity the USA was experiencing and turning it into the corporate-controlled hell on earth we know today.

On military, Nixon sabotaged Lyndon Johnson's peace talks so he could get elected on a promise to end the Vietnam War… but once in office, he kept the war going for the entirety of his tenure and illegally bombed Laos and Cambodia.

While the Watergate scandal itself is nowadays irrelevant, it and Nixon's disgraced resignation had an undeniable impact on politics as well: almost every subsequent Republican to become President — Reagan, Dubya, and Trump — did so by advertising themselves as rebellious anti-establishment firebrands, and were only able to do so because Nixon's corruption made the establishment untrustworthy and, therefore, anyone who claimed to oppose it look heroic. (Of course, those Republicans I mentioned had policies that were totally indistinguishable from those of "establishment" Republicans of yesteryear; the change was purely aesthetic). So while it's accurate to say Reagan was a monster, consider that he would never have gotten elected if Nixon didn't pave the way for him.

Maybe not every issue with modern America is literally his fault—a lot of problems have been around for a century or longer—but I think it’s genuinely undeniable that Reagan is the root cause of so many of the things wrong with modern America, and I genuinely think he’s the American equivalent of Hitler (at least in terms of late 20th/21st century America, Andrew Jackson explicitly committed genocide so he’s arguably more evil).

[emeraldskulblaka]

On Bootlegs

There's no "read more" option on mobile - sorry!

The Bootleg Discourse™ comes up again and again, and I could have very well posted this post three, or even four years ago. It's not a new topic, but recent developments have really hit a nerve with me.

It should suffice to say that a Broadway performer

(1) criticised a fellow performer for "posting and condoning" bootlegs featuring themself

(2) publicly called out a fan who argued that they cannot attend any Broadway show because of where they live

(3) claimed that bootlegs lead to shows closing.

It's irrelevant who said it - these arguments aren't new and have been repeated over and over again for years.

From an objective viewpoint, the debate is pointless: it's illegal to record bootlegs of any kind, and therefore, you shouldn't actually be able to watch or listen to them.

Once you employ different arguments, your opinion is bound to be subjective.

Let's look at the classic (subjective) arguments against bootlegs:

"Recording bootlegs disturbs other audience members"

Recording audios definitely doesn't. And when an experienced master records a video, it's most likely that no one else will notice. It's the would-be filmers who are the real problem here + people taking photos + arriving late + leaving early + chatting + coughing + singing along + heads in the way. There are SO MANY other factors that influence one's experience of live theatre, and I've never personally seen anyone filming anything (except for the curtain call).

"Recording bootlegs disturbs performers"

Unless there's a blinking light or a flash, performers should be able to ignore it if they happen to notice a camera. They're professionals.

"Bootlegs influence ticket sales negatively"

Oh boy. No, definitely, definitely not. 95% of the audience consists of people who have never heard the term "bootleg" before. The general public just doesn't watch/listen to bootlegs. Most people watching a show are tourists. Yes, there are exceptions - celebrities will attract fans, and there will be lots of Broadway performers and fans in the audience for special occasions such as first preview, opening night, closing night, a performer's last show, muck-up matinees, etc - but these are exceptions.

And even looking at the 5% at most who are involved in some kind of fandom/have watched bootlegs - does watching bootlegs really affect which shows I see? Yes and no. In my case, however, that's always turned out positively for the shows in question.

The first bootleg I watched was Wicked (2013 with Donna Vivino?? Idk). I hadn't known the show before, but the plot had seemed appealing, so I watched it. And LOVED it. AND bought the cast album. I've watched several bootlegs since then, and I would still have seen the show live two months ago (then: lockdown happened) - the only reason why I didn't go see it earlier is because you can only watch a limited number of shows on a fixed number of days. PLUS I would have travelled to Hamburg to see the non-replica production that was set to open this autumn. Would I have become a fan if I hadn't watched the bootleg? I don't know. But now I know exactly what I'd get to see on stage, and I know I'd LOVE it. Maybe I wouldn't have bothered to listen to it all the way through if I hadn't watched the full show? There are other long-running shows I've never listened to, like Chicago. Bootlegs helped expand my knowledge of musicals.

Let's take this last argument even further:

"Bootlegs lead to shows closing"

Do they now? There are thousands of bootlegs of Les Mis, Phantom, Wicked, Hamilton, Dear Evan Hansen and guess what? They're still selling really well! So are shows with fewer bootlegs available: The Lion King, Mamma Mia, Starlight Express (Bochum). Maybe bootlegs don't actually affect ticket sales, huh?

And what about shows that have already closed? Watching bootlegs of those doesn't leading to closings, obviously. On the contrary - they help keep the fandom alive!

"Bootlegs are not live theatre"

No, they aren't. And I truly believe that everyone knows that and would happily trade a bootleg for a ticket to a live show. But more often than not, it's not possible to see the show you're interested in in person. I'd love to be able to travel anywhere in the world whenever I like! But I'm not. I just can't afford it, and yet, I'm lucky because I live in a country that has several major production companies, a country in which musicals are actually A Thing™, a city with its own theatre that offers special student discounts, and I have parents who support me and my hobbies. Many people don't enjoy that privilege. And right now, live theatre simply isn't possible (with exceptions as of this week). People would love to see live shows, but sometimes they just... can't.

I completely understand performers who are upset about being recorded, I do. If they decide to report a filmer to the ushers, I can relate to them. And I don't expect anyone to publicly announce their support for bootlegs, even if some performers post recordings of themselves - Jonas Hein and Kim Folmli, for example - both understudies in the current German production of Tanz der Vampire. They do that in the hopes of getting fans to watch the show on their dates and further spread the love. That's the exception, though.

But lashing out at fans and fellow actors does more harm than good. I make it a rule to unfollow people who are openly aggressive towards fans mentioning/posting bootlegs. Note: aggressive, i. e. they lash out at them when the only thing fans wanted to do was say how much they love said performer.

Good examples of performers dealing with bootlegs:

- Kelly Mathieson and Rachel Anne Moore thanking fans for their love via comments under Instagram posts

- Aaron Tveit posting a screenshot of Hairspray captioned something like: great memories!

- Laura Michelle Kelly re-posting a story post: aww thank you! Did you record this? Sneaky :)

I don't expect anyone to admit they're looking for bootlegs or trading them (Hyoie O'Grady, Ben Platt).

The fact is: bootlegs have existed for decades, and I can't imagine a future without them. It's simply not happening. Pro-shots won't help much - that's just one cast, one production. They'll be popular, but they can neither replace a variety of bootlegs nor the experience of live theatre.

Attacking and shaming fans for watching bootlegs is the worst possible way of dealing with them. Yes, they're illegal. No, they don't really affect ticket sales. Most often, they lead to new fans of performers and shows (and to more artistic content maybe??).

Here's what fans and bootleg watchers shouldn't do:

tag performers in bootleg posts

upload bootlegs publicly to streaming sites

mention bootlegs to the cast / crew

ignore trading rules

There are always two sides of a coin, naturally. But I do believe it's not necessary to have the same debate over and over again.

Feel free to add/comment your opinions! I've read several other people's takes on the topic, and I'm aware that my arguments aren't original or special in any way. But I felt like I needed to state my opinion publicly.

[thecompleteguidetomisery]

How to Drive Like a Local in Southern California: A Guide for Tourists and Transplants

One of the challenges of getting to know any new city is learning the unspoken rules of its roads. That problem is compounded exponentially by the quirkiness, shall we say, of Southern California (SoCal) drivers. Therefore, in order to reduce the chances of a misunderstanding, visitors and more permanent arrivals would do well to educate themselves as much as possible about how the locals operate. 

Drivers from elsewhere will be used to deferring to traffic laws when deciding who goes first at an intersection (e.g., first to arrive, tie goes to the right, straight before turns, etc.). Visitors and newcomers should know that, as a general rule, traffic laws are only occasionally followed in America’s Finest City. 

For the local, rules of the road really means - only apply these practices if you can remember the rules, and only if you feel like doing so. 

Changing Lanes

Most drivers are accustomed to a predictable practice of changing lanes when travelling on the freeway. For the average transplant or tourist, lanes are to be crossed one-at-a-time, with enough space to do so safely, and only after communicating the intention to do so by using a turn signal.

For the local, though, each of these criterion is optional.

First, SoCal drivers treat their vehicle’s turn signals like EpiPens: they only use them in case of an emergency. 

In other words, to fit in with the locals, avoid your blinkers in all but the direst circumstances. And “dire circumstances” means - you want to get over into an adjacent lane but the butthead next to you either doesn’t care or doesn’t want to make room.

In that case, throw on your blinker as a signal to the butthead that you are about to cut them off.

Then cut them off.

On an unrelated note, San Diegans, and SoCal residents generally, refer to their freeways or highways with the title “The,” as in “The Eight-Oh-Five” or “The One-Sixty-Three.”

As though these are the only entities by those names ever in existence. Or the only ones that matter. The newcomer will be bombarded with references to “The Eight” and “The Five,” and have to resist the temptation to ask, “The Eight? Do you mean the novel by Katherine Neville? Or Quentin Tarantino’s Hateful collection?” or “Which five? The Jackson Five or the Slaughterhouse variety?”

The history is that Los Angeles got the jump on most of the country by building some of their freeways ahead of The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Southern Californians named the roads according to their location, such as “The San Bernardino Freeway.” So there was a local tradition of giving roads more personal names than, say, “Interstate Ninety-Five” on the East Coast.

By the time California reworked its road number system in 1964, the “The” habit was already established. Each of the previously charming names, such as “The Harbor Freeway,” were replaced by their numbered equivalents, as in “The One-Ten.”

Anyway, back to lane changes.

A common place for lane-crossing commotion, in any city, is when a vehicle enters the freeway from an on-ramp and hopes to accelerate less restrictive speeds as soon as possible (i.e., get into the fast lane). Tourists and transplants will be familiar with using their turn signals and gradually working their way over, one lane at a time, until they reach the far left lane.  

Rather than limit yourself to that inefficient practice, slice across all lanes, from freeway entrance ramp to the fast lane, on a sharp diagonal without stopping or slowing. The only remaining issue is whether the drivers around you will force you to put on your turn signal before you cut them off.

Finally, reasonable drivers, when getting off a freeway, plan ahead and gradually move right from the fast lane to the exit ramp. For example, if you’ve ever been driving in the far right lane at high speeds in another part of the country, and became aware that you needed to take an exit in two miles, it’s pretty likely you immediately started to work your way over to the exit ramp, one lane at a time, and made it onto the exit ramp without ruining someone else’s day.

You will need to forget this habit.

Instead, stay in the far right lane until roughly a quarter of a mile before your exit. Then, throw on your blinker (either the right or left will do in a pinch since no one pays attention to turn signals anyway), make a ninety-degree right turn, and travel perpendicular to traffic until you make it to the ramp.

When others honk their displeasure, toss up a breezy wave to show that you forgive them for being uptight.

Remember, for SoCal drivers, the key is to create maximum chaos with every move.

Forced Courtesy

Imagine this scenario.

You are driving on a busy side street in one of Southern California’s many villages and there are cars behind you. 

You are a little distracted by the condition of the roads and remember seeing a headline in the San Diego Union-Tribune the other day announcing America’s Finest City will spend $700K to assess the condition of its streets. As your right front tire drops into a crater-like pothole, you think to yourself, “Hey, Mayor Gloria, I’ll save you the money and trouble. These roads need A LOT of work.”

And for those of you who don’t know, the City of San Diego’s 2022 Budget includes the phrase: “Each neighborhood in San Diego deserves ‘sexy’ streets…”

Sexy?

I’d settle for smooth. Even silky. In fact, I think I’d prefer smooth or silky road to a sexy one. And why would you want to drive on a sexy street? Wouldn’t it be distracting? What makes a street sexy anyway?

Okay, we’ve officially opened Pandora’s celebrated box with THAT question.

So back to your drive. You mentally try not to avoid the question what makes a street sexy when you notice a person standing on the corner of the upcoming intersection. All their body language says they intend to cross the road. They are standing on the edge of the curb, leaning forward, and looking in your direction, obviously waiting for you to pass so they can move forward. Key phrase: waiting for you to pass... as in stationary.

And, finally, in this scenario you do NOT have a STOP sign.

If you are a recent transplant or tourist, you likely watch to make sure the pedestrian doesn’t dart out in front of you and, because the person is not moving and you do NOT have a STOP sign, you don’t stop.

Well, you can only get away with that out-of-town nonsense for so long in SoCal.

In SoCal, the correct procedure, while driving 35mph with cars following closely behind you, upon seeing someone standing on a corner who looks even the least interested in crossing your path, is to abruptly slam on your brakes and wave the now baffled pedestrian across the street.

You might think of this as “forced courtesy.” It’s a way of making yourself feel better by proving to yourself what a considerate driver you are.

Never mind the cars behind you. Expect that they will hit their brakes in time not to collide with your backside. Besides, it’s their job to be on their toes, alert for your capricious whims.

The walker will stare at you with something not far from puzzled annoyance. Being compelled to cross the road when one isn’t prepared is the adult equivalent of a child being shoved into the embrace of a least favorite relative, like that uncle with the bad breath. Or the aunt who is an enthusiastic collector of something boring and insipid, like cocktail napkins.

The pedestrian will freeze, lizard-like, unsure of what to do.

And pause, the way you do when that self-important friend of yours interrupts you to say something so dumb and irrelevant that you have to take a moment to recompose yourself.

The pedestrian will be certain something must be wrong with you, since you’d just stopped for no reason other than to let them, a perfect stranger, walk across your path. Your counterpart will wonder if you are planning to run them over once they step off the curb. Why else would you do something as foolish as this?

What is most important at this point is your commitment. You MUST remain stopped and gently but firmly tell the walker to get moving. This is no longer about courtesy, and was never about safety. This is about satisfying your ego. You decided to be considerate and, damnit, this jerk of a pedestrian had better honor that. And be grateful for it.

And so continue to pressure the passerby to get moving. Don’t be surprised to hear a growing cacophony of car horns as the drivers behind you, not aware of your unilateral decision to disregard traffic laws, pressure you to get moving.

At that point, it will dawn on your counterpart that you are truly a San Diego driver, and that stopping illegally to coerce random pedestrians to cross the street is just one of your quirks.

The pedestrian will give you an appreciative wave and walk in front of your vehicle, looking all the while to their right (i.e., away from you). Don’t be surprised if one of the confused, impatient drivers behind you decides to tear around you just as the hapless pedestrian steps in their path.

The other driver will honk, and because they are busy staring into your vehicle to determine what’s wrong with you for stopping in the middle of the street, they will not see the pedestrian until the last second and only narrowly avoid a needless tragedy.

You and the pedestrian will each look at one another, eyebrows raised to the top of your respective foreheads, puff out your cheeks and slowly exhale as if to say, “Well, that was a close one.”

As you drive off, you can yell to your counterpart, “Some people just don’t know how to drive!”

Four-Way Stop Signs

Southern Californians have evolved a couple approaches, in place of legal ones, to handle when two or more vehicles arrive at a four-way stop simultaneously and need to decide who should go first in order to avoid a collision. 

The first is to slow down enough to give fellow travelers the impression that you will come to a complete stop, only to accelerate and roll through the intersection. The purpose of this maneuver is to save everyone else at the intersection the trouble of determining who has the right to proceed first. What a kind, thoughtful approach. Rather than burdening fellow travelers with another decision, you’ve taken the choice right out of their hands and applied it to your advantage. 

It’s a win-win. 

You will quickly recognize those naïve and foolish drivers who still believe in applying adult standards of behavior to the act of operating a motor vehicle. They will look shocked, even angry, as they slam on their brakes to avoid colliding with you, and might honk in protest as you pass. It is important to have an appropriate hand gesture ready for those instances. 

The most common SoCal response is to give a breezy, passive-aggressive wave. This lets the other driver know that you’re the selfless, laid back type who has already forgiven them for having the temerity to make an unpleasant noise at you. 

The other most popular reaction involves a single extended finger.   

The second approach to four-way stops is both more complicated and commonplace. It involves planning, patience, and persistence. 

The most important step is the first. You must get to your limit line (i.e., the white strip behind which you’re supposed to stop) an instant or two before another vehicle arrives. Then, sit patiently and stare at your counterpart while waiting for them to proceed. 

The other driver will likely be confused that you are not moving and will, in their way, wait for you to go, since you arrived at the intersection first. 

Don’t be fooled. This power struggle has only just begun. 

Remind yourself that your fellow traveler is clearly a tourist who hasn’t yet grasped the SoCal system. 

Wave for them to go ahead. 

And flash your high beams to hammer home the point. Make sure you do this before they do or you’ll be obligated to proceed forward. 

No matter how long you have to wait, keep your foot firmly planted on the brake. Consider putting the vehicle in park. 

Then, the moment the other car begins to pull forward, stomp on your accelerator so that your vehicle violently lurches forward about five feet. Just enough distance to get your counterpart to stop moving. 

Then slam on your brakes. 

Your fellow traveler will, in the interim, have come to an abrupt halt. Feeling shocked and betrayed, they will flash their high beams and wave energetically for you to go ahead. 

Remember that this is not about courtesy or efficiency, it is about you and your point of view. You unilaterally determined that the other vehicle should go first, and damnit, you’re the kind of person who sticks to their decision once they’ve made up their mind. 

Besides, if you were to pull forward at that moment you’d lose face. Wait until your new nemesis begins to move, and lurch forward again. This is just a test to make sure that the other driver will really follow through with their commitment. 

They will, of course, stop again. Finally, in an exaggerated manner, throw up your hands as if to say, “What are you waiting for?!?” 

#howtodrivelikealocal

#maximumchaos

#forcedcourtesy

#whatareyouwaitingfor

[hes-writer]

I'm the anon who wrote about the reality-AU ask.

And I have a different view from what you wrote, because for me there where 2 major things:

1. Reader wasn't a strong woman

2. Harry was definitely an arrogant, selfish prick to reader.

I will start with 1.

So, what moral and values? I honestly don't understand that part because for me moral and values mean one thing and I don't see they fitting the situation.

Regardless, MC wasn't a strong woman for several reasons.

She allowed her pain get in the way of her child's life several times, she literally got with the first guy that showed her love when she wasn't ready nor emotionally stable, if we take in mind that she met him at halfway through her pregnancy and in 2 years ish she was already living with him and allowing her child to call him "dad". So she clinged to Connor as a substitute and staple to the family she had planned having with Harry, just like Harry clinged to Camille's offer as a way to have what he dreamed having with Y/N. None of them put their child's best interest first, otherwise she would have found a way to deal with her pain while allowing him to be part of Halo's life and he would have found a way to accept that he would never have what he wanted bc of his mistakes in the past.

And the clearest sign of that is her conversation with Harry in the last chapter. She did love Connor, but he was only there because Harry blocked her. If he hadn't, he'd have seen the text and be involved in his kids life. So, I know you said something about being emotionally available as a parent and that's my argument for that. Harry wasn't emotionally a dad bc that chance was taken from him out of spitefulness and he still tried to be there, he made a mistake but he never gave up. He was robbed of it countless times bc MC was never healed properly to let go of her personal feelings and focus on Halo, bc I can guarantee you that if given the chance, Halo would forget it and choose to have a relationship with Harry.

Which brings me to my previous point... He wasn't Halos dad, MC made him her dad because she didn't want to deal with Harry when she knew that he had a right to at least be informed about the baby, regardless of her relationship with him. In the story you make it known that he blocked her and that's how she couldn't tell him, but she kept in touch with his family + he contacted her at some point. So, she uses her own actions against him and he let's her out of guilty, showing a bit of manipulation from her side. Both of them were toxic and manipulative. Just bc you were hurt, doesn't give you a right to act as you please, speacially when a child is involved. That shouldn't even be put to argument and I'd have agreed with you more if you hadn't tried to classify MC as a victim at all costs, even when she was the wrong one.

If this was real life, a girl behaving like her would be concerning, so why in a fanfic she's considered strong? Because she standed up for herself and for her daughter? I mean, did she truly stand up for her child? Can we truly say that? Or did she allow her own barriers and insecurities surround them and keep Harry distant? Wouldn't a healed and strong woman be capable of dealing with her ex for their's daughter sake, speacially when she's in a happy and healthy relationship?

Parents are allowed mistakes. None of them know what they're doing and the greatest majority of the world is filled with people who weren't mature enough to be parents, yet somehow were allowed to.

She was unfair and subconsciously used her child to get back at Harry for all the pain he caused her.

He left her, so she didn't tell him about their baby, then when he found out she monopolised his entire relationship with his daughter and did some pretty illegal stuff, and when he committed his first mistake with the child she cut him off completely without taking in account what her daughter wanted.

Have you watched the show The Duchess on Netflix? I think its a great example of my point here, in case you don't understand it.

Also, forgot to say that she was toxic again when she kept threatening him over wanting to be with his kid. Like, we spend tons of times telling people to be responsible with their art, as it can be a door into introducing kids to things. We also spend a ton of time telling boys that they should care about their babies and be there for them. Then you come and write a fic where the guy gets threatened and manipulated when trying to be with his 🤷🏻‍♀️

MC definitely had her right to commit her own mistakes, as I said, parents will do it countless times. But I think that's a bit unfair that she gets as many as she wants bc she got hurt previous to baby being born, yet Harry barely gets one when trying to figure himself out after finding out about his kid. You mentioned that a judge would never give Harry any custody bc of what he did and that was a bit dumb, sorry. Law is based on justice, balance and protecting the victim with fairness and justice, therefore Harry would have been granted at least the benefit of the doubt as his mistakes were minor and the victim in this story is Halo, not MC✌🏽

This is a long one.

Morals and values are not fitting in the situation.

Morals are personal beliefs that a person upholds and values are something that are regarded as important. I think that everybody uses them in most of the things they do so they definitely fit the situation.

She literally got with the first guy that showed her love...

I wouldn’t say that MC clung unto Connor and got into a relationship with him right away. The first couple of instances—they were just friends and weren’t officially together until Reign.

None of them put their child’s best interest first // Reader wasn’t a strong woman

I agree that both parties didn’t act on the best interest of their child but that doesn’t necessarily mean that MC wasn’t a strong woman. Sure, she wasn’t ideal in the context of being a mother—but she mended herself enough to give Harry a chance when he found out, even setting up limits while she was at it.

Wouldn’t you think that that takes courage? Besides the preceding fact that it is courteous to tell someone that you’re having their baby (no argument there), especially to someone who has cheated and betrayed your trust, you are sweeping the pain away. MC was letting Harry back in even if she personally didn’t want to. Harry was a huge part of her life so I think reminiscing on their relationship would never cease; they have a kid together. All the good and bad of their time together will always be present in her mind.

Harry was robbed [of being a dad]

You think that Harry was robbed of being a Dad, I can’t convince you otherwise. You said it yourself though, ‘if Harry hadn’t blocked MC, he would’ve seen the text and he would’ve been a dad to Halo’.

But he did—and the following points of your argument are, in a sense, irrelevant because what you’re pointing out is what could’ve happened if Harry didn’t do what he did. These are the consequences of his actions. “He blearily remembered bitterly blocking her number just as she texted “I need to tell you something,” <- That scene was the turning point of MC’s decision and frankly, a showcase of Harry’s immaturity. MC said she had something to tell him and he retaliated by blocking her.

As well, you mention, ‘if given the chance, Halo would forget about it’—there’s a lot of assumptions in your argument because these aren’t part of the original story. These are what you think should’ve happened.

He blocked her [...] but she kept in touch with his family

MC kept in touch with his family on the pretext that they wouldn't inform harry that the baby was his. This was because of a misunderstanding due to a post on Camille's IG page. H seemed happy with his new relationship. MC didn't NOT tell him out of SPITE—it was because she didn't want to ruin his relationship with Camille.

Harry contacted her at some point // Just because you’re hurt doesn’t give you the right to act as you please

Yes, Harry did contact her—to call her a ‘whore’ and stated that she ‘probably slept around’ during their relationship. [ie. Harry: Why not? Scared that y’gonna have to admit that everything you put on was an act? How can y’move on so fast and give me shit about it?”] I’m guessing that’s probably not the best way for H to ask about MC’s pregnancy and I can imagine that the sheer rudeness and projection will deter most people.

His dialogues were an attack on her personality (that she was a liar and disloyal), on the validity of her emotions (that she was faking them), and on her identity as woman solely because he was crumbling under the truth that he was the one who messed up. I mentioned before that Harry’s insults were a projection as a result of his defence mechanism. Meaning that he was—to some extent—aware that MC hadn’t cheated but convinced himself otherwise to feel less guilty. Therefore, at the end of Halo, he judged the credibility of their child.

If this was real life...

And this is a fanfiction.

Once again, MC might not have been the ideal representation of a strong woman, but she stepped up when Halo was introduced.

Imagine going through a break-up with your SO of two years while you’re pregnant because he went behind your back FOR A YEAR, amidst hormonal changes, still going to work, and trying to find yourself when someone has taken so much of you—that’s traumatizing. Healing isn’t linear. Just because you’re wounded doesn’t mean that you’re not strong.

She was unfair and subconsciously used her child to get back at Harry

MC was honest but she wasn’t truthful. Her intentions were human nature yet keeping Halo away from Harry wasn’t very truthful of her—in legalities and such.

I don’t think MC monopolized H/H’s relationship. She gave Harry a chance to bond with Halo, and they did. As mentioned, MC had set limits and boundaries when discussing Harry’s presence in their daughters’ life. It was a legally binding, word-of-mouth, agreement that Harry assented to.

[he was] threatened and manipulated

In that sense, Harry’s hostility towards MC in Reign was threatening her decision to have him around [ie. You’re not something I would take the time to handle,” // You’re a goddamn mistake is what you are,’]

I understand your concern and I apologize for that. I’m not explicitly saying that this one piece of fiction is satirical in the sense that it’s the opposite of what society chants because that would be vile of me to do. Every circumstance is different though—it really is a choice of preference, validation and weighing out the subject matter.

You mentioned that a ‘judge would never give Harry custody’ and that was a bit dumb...

That line was never part of the story.

"Take it up legally if you'd like. Want to have a custody battle? Bring it on. Let's see whose side the judge is on after they find out that you cheated on me while I was pregnant with Halo."

Suggesting that the conclusion can be one of shared-custody wherein MC has more time with Halo (80/20 visitation schedule).

[ardenttheories]

Sorry if youve already done this hut how about comparing/contrasting light and mind? They definitely seem like similar concepts, albeit, different perspectives, but I’m not very well versed in them and I’d like to hear it from you!

As a general rule of thumb, these are the key words for each Aspect:

Light: Luck, Chance, Probability, Knowledge, Importance, Understanding, Information, The Future, The Plot and Narratives, Truth, Relevancy

Mind: Rationality, Reason, Logic, Justice, Thoughts, Unbiased, Impersonal, Disconnected, Apathetic, Outer Being, Closed Off, Choices, Decisions, All Potentials/Possibilities, Deduction

In essence, Light is about Learning. It’s figuring things out piece by piece, uncovering as much information as you can possibly get, building up a picture from everything you Know. It’s the creation of a Story, the recognition of Plot Points, of Importance - it’s seeing or doing only what is Relevant and True. 

Mind, on the other hand, is about Logic. It’s puzzling things out point by point, standing back to look at things even if you don’t entirely have the full picture. It’s Nonbias towards any Choice or Decision that could be made, and recognition of every Potential that exists. It’s the understanding that Choices must be made, branch out into other Choices, lead to other courses of action, and that you have to plan twenty steps ahead to keep on top of it all. 

So, ironically, Mind’s much more people-based than Light, despite being the Aspect of Apathy. It can’t Understand the way Light does, and Light will always be heavily tinged with the Bias of the person viewing it. Though the Truth is there, that Truth may only be True to the Light Player, who will then make it total Truth. On the other hand, Mind doesn’t presume to know what Truth is, or even care exactly that something is True; it focuses instead on what a person Thinks, what their Reasoning or Logic is, what they, personally, see. 

A Mind Player can’t know what isn’t easily found. They don’t know what’s Important in a session, can’t find endless sources of Information, have no interest in understanding the Truth or what is Relevant. If any of these things get in the way of a Decision being made, a Mind player will Lie. 

They would tell a Player that someone is alive if that is what it took to ensure that the someone’s lover won’t fold in on themselves. They would understand that in any given situation, there are at least a thousand routes that could be taken, a thousand things that could be said - and that every Option has an Outcome, and that every Outcome has its benefits. 

They know that they have to say this specific thing to this specific person because doing so will ensure that a necessary outcome unfolds, even if that outcome isn’t strictly good. 

A Light Player doesn’t have this nuance. They don’t have the same understanding of all the Options and all the Outcomes. They are only aware of the ones that are Important to the Plot, the ones that will cause the most progression, the ones that have to happen. If something isn’t Important, they’re completely blind to it, and this can cause a lot of contention since Importance is a very fickle thing.

A good way of explaining it would be this:

Someone has to die in order for the session to progress. Their death causes a series of events that are ultimately integral for the session’s success, and the survival of that Player is not an Option.

The Light Player is aware of this because the death is Important. It holds use to the bigger picture and it is therefore Relevant for them to know. However, what might not be Relevant is that the dead Player’s brother will be deeply affected if the death happens in a certain way. So long as the death occurs, the session is saved; what happens to the brother is Irrelevant. 

Therefore, the Light Player may be shocked to find, afterwards, that the brother begins to pull away and the friendship between them is broken, no matter how much they try to explain that it was Important. 

The Mind Player would be aware of this. They would be able to see that the brother is inconsolable due to his own person brand of Logic and Reasoning. They would recognise that other Options are available, and that even if the death has to occur, it can be done in a way that doesn’t leave the brother broken as a response.

They might not recognise this as an Important event with a captial i, but they would know that it has to be done because the death allows for the Player to be active in the Dreambubbles - where their powers are better put to use. They’ve seen or know what sort of Choices the Player will make. 

So, in other words, a Light Player can tell you what has to happen, and a Mind Player can ensure that it happens in the Best Possible Way.

There’s also just the general idea that Mind protects and serves the individual integrity of a person’s literal mind, whereas Light protects and serves the concept of Knowledge and Information as a whole. 

A Light Player would never be able to justify hiding Knowledge unless it is 100% Important for that Knowledge to be hidden until a later date; a Mind Player would completely squirrel that Knowledge away if they knew that someone would make a Decision following it that provides a negative Outcome. 

So, definitely in line with the idea that they’re two sides of the same perspective, but it’s pretty important to note the key differences. Like the fact that Light needs Knowledge because if it doesn’t have that, it can’t see the bigger picture, can’t figure out what has to happen and what’s Important in a session full of things - but Mind can see the bigger picture from the start based on the Outcomes of various Choices, and what, Logically, seems like the best Option to go with. 

Another example:

A Mind and Light Player have the same map. It has a key with no text, scribbles written all over it, no landscape drawn on it, and is almost completely illegible and looks more like someone scratched a pen on some paper and passed it off for a map. They’re been reassured that it is a map, though, and that it DOES lead the way out to the exit of the cave they’re about to enter. 

The Mind Player knows enough about the person who made the map to know exactly which path is going to lead to the exit based on how they Think. They know the person is highly Paranoid, and likes to hide codes in amongst everything using Alchemic symbols and sigils that merge letters together. 

They’re also aware of this person’s brand of logic; up means down, left means right, and safe means dangerous. Chances are the map has been mirrored, too. 

It’s understanding the person that allows them to read the map and make it safely out the other side of the cave, with the additional bonus of being able to tell, innately, which Options are safe and which are deadly whenever they come to brances in the path. 

The Light Player knows nothing about the person in question, but can recognise some of the Alchemic symbols because they’ve recently read up on them. As a result, they quickly get to work researching what they could mean, then start trying to figure out what the code could be in the sigils based on traditional ciphers. 

That would lead to more research about possible codes and the different things you can hide in maps, which would reveal the Truth behind its scribbled nature; that each line represents something, and that there’s a series of inversions that make the map harder to read. 

It might take longer, but eventually the Light Player will understand the map completely, and will more easily recognise such ciphers or techniques in the future. They will also be hlped along by the innate feeling of Importance that guides them down each branching path; they might not know what’s down there, the way a Mind Player might be able to deduce, but they’ll at least Know that it isn’t Relevant. 

So, in other words, Light not Knowing what a person is Thinking or being able to influence a person’s own Rationality or Reasoning, and having to rely on their own Reasoning to get their points across; and Mind not Understanding everything that’s Important in the session but figuring out all the Options until they can, without any Bias, Choose the Outcome that has the most benefits for everyone. It’s that odd internal VS external thing that seems to crop up a lot with Aspects, and that’s one of their biggest divisions, I think.

Think how Terezi keeps the group together by ensuring they pick specific Options VS Rose keeping the session in tact by leading them towards Important events. 

Terezi can See that Vriska going off to kill Bec Noir isn’t a good idea because she can see the Outcome of the Option; Vriska gets them all killed because Bec Noir follows her pixie dust trail. She can also see that the Option wherein she kills Vriska outright ensures that Outcome doesn’t happen - and later down the line, when John as his Retcon abilities, she sees a third Option where Vriska is knocked out instead. 

Were Rose in the same situation, she’d probably only be able to See the Important parts; Terezi killing Vriska, or John using his Retcon powers to knock her out. She’d know that this event is Important for the timeline to progress, but might not know the specifics of why - because it’s just not Relevant Information. 

In the same vein, Terezi wouldn’t be able to See anything about the Green Sun. It’s Important to the session, sure, but it’s not something to do with Mind until it gets to the point that Rose starts making Choices that leads up to its creation. Terezi can’t See the Sun itself, can’t just focus in on it at will, but she can See it by proxy of looking down Rose’s Potentials and Outcomes. She can see how Rose’s Options lead up to the Tumor being taken out in the Void and causes the whole thing to appear. Does she have any idea what it is? Probably not. It’s not in her abilities to Know something like that. 

So Mind is centred around the Internal nature of People and their Thoughts, Options, Choices, and the Unbiased attempts to navigate each branching path. Light, on the other hand, is centred around the External nature of Importance, what is Relevant and True and must be known, focusing only on what is Necessary and following that singular path to the end. 

[m00nslippers]

just because the batboys dont see themselves as siblings all the time doesnt mean they don't all have the same (adopted) father. at any one point in time, at least 2 of the boys have considered each other brothers

Just because you have a piece of paper that says something, that doesn’t mean the feelings are automatic. A document that claims them as ‘siblings’ doesn’t automatically give them a sibling bond, you have to earn that with actual sibling interaction, and until very recently in the canon, Jason did not have that with any of the other Robins. Jason also outright said he was ‘no one’s son’ in Under The Red Hood so at the time he pretty much rejected Bruce as his father, even if the history and feelings were still there. So calling them brothers in any capacity until very recently is just a technicality as far as I’m concerned. But for some people that’s a big important technicality so, okay let’s dissect this argument.

I think it’s a little silly that I actually have to discuss this, but let me ask you the question, ‘why is incest wrong?’  because actual incest is definitely wrong in my opinion but there are real reasons for why it’s wrong, and I’ll tell you why. It’s not just because a religious text or two said so. I like to think we’re beyond blindly following ancient texts to designate who is allowed to have a relationship with who. As far as I see it, there’s two main reasons why incest is bad:

1. Genetic issues with children. Basically if you’re blood-related and you have a kid, that kid has a substantial likelihood to develop a genetic disease just because of how gene inheritance and expression works. Incest relationships that produce children are bad for the gene pool and humanity as a species. Inbreeding is how we got dog breeds that can’t survive giving birth naturally or have a 90% chance of having spine issues and early deaths. It’s objectively bad.

2. Potential for abuse and difficulty in identifying abuse. Basically when you are raised together in the way siblings are, especially with one being older and in a position of power over the younger, there is a huge potential for the elder sibling especially to manipulate or abuse the other, possibly without even realizing what they are doing. Siblings are already supposed to and most likely will care for and love each other, and especially if you are young it would be difficult to tell if any romantic love between the two is because both parties want it or because one feels as if they have to, to maintain the sibling relationship or please the other whom they care about. It just gets really muddy, and difficult to navigate, and it’s hard to tell if the feelings are real or gas-lighting on someone’s end, so at least until both people are adults, it’s really just a situation that should be avoided to make sure everyone stays and feels safe. Avoiding a situation that has a high possibility of abuse is objectively a good thing. 

If you can think of another reason incest is wrong besides “yuck! I don’t want to think of my sibling like that!” then I’m all ears. But that being said, do any of these things apply to the batboys?

Well 1 is a non-issue because they aren’t blood-related and it’s mlm so they aren’t in a child-baring relationship. 2 could be an issue with DickDami or Dick Tim since they do have a decent amount of sibling-like interaction, but if the relationship happens when they are both adults I think it pretty much avoids the problems of number 2. But in the case of JayDick or JayTim is think it is a complete non-issue because they don’t have any relationship at all when growing up and they are all pretty much adults anyways by the time they meet again.

So as far as I can see it, the issues of incest are completely irrelevant to most batcest relationships. Can you wave around a piece of paper that says they are adoptive siblings and therefor their relationship is unlawful in a couple of states in the USA? Yeah, I guess you can, but that’s more a ‘follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit’, type issue. Culture/tradition in the past has said that a lot of things were wrong that if you looked at it objectively you’d see there wasn’t really a logical reason behind it. For a long time relationships between the same sex were seen as wrong but when it comes down to it most of the ‘reasons’ boiled down to “It’s different from what I’m used to so I don’t like it, also some religious person told me it was wrong” (By the way, I’m not against religion here, just against blindly following it and ignoring logic/reality and how certain practices can hurt people.)

Now since we are on the subject, let me just plug something that actually colors my feelings on this issue. When I was pretty young I used to watch a show called House M.D. and there is a particular episode of this show that relates to this subject and really kind of stuck with me when I watched it.

for those who don’t know, House M.D. was a very interesting show where a cynical asshole genius doctor and his crew of put-upon other genius doctors would solve medical mysteries ins a sort of Sherlock Holmes manner (the similarities between the name House and Holmes was intentional on the show’s part). A patient would come into their hospital with a complaint or sickness that no one else could figure out, they would dramatically spiral toward death as the crew clamored to figure out the cause and eventually House, being a genius, would diagnose the patient at the last second as save the day–but he was still a jerk so he was never happy.

In one particular episode, the wife in a young couple came into the ER. She was black and her husband was white, they’d run away and eloped, and been disowned by their families because they were a mixed race couple. But they didn’t care because they were deeply in love and had been there for each other since they were teens because they lived right next door to each other. So she is really sick with something and of course everyone scrambles to figure out what the problem is to save her and the whole time her husband is there for her and being loving and wonderful, refusing to leave her side.

Because that’s how this show works, there is a dramatic reveal that isn’t really relevant that is actually some genetic issue or something. But since their relationship was such a focal point of their situation, House had gleaned enough information about them to realize a disturbing truth–the loving husband and wife who were each other’s only support had been half-siblings all along and didn’t even realize it. The man’s father had an affair with the girl’s mother and they’d both hid it. It hadn’t been obvious because on the surface level they appeared to be different races, but they both had a rare color of green eyes. Their parents weren’t against the couple because it was interracial, but because it was incestuous, but hadn’t told either of them. The husband had to be tested for the same genetic issue as the wife and both were devastated at this realization. We don’t see what the couple decide to do, whether they break off their relationship or continue it. But either way, their feelings were real, their husband and wife relationship was real, and being genetically siblings didn’t change that. Neither of them did anything wrong, they just didn’t grow up as siblings, didn’t realize they were supposed to see each other as siblings.

Now, look. I know this is a fictional story, but it illustrates something that is true to life–sibling relationships are something you have to build. They aren’t automatic, they aren’t genetic, they don’t just happen as soon as you have a piece of paper that says you are siblings. And romantic relationships are something that occur between people who are compatible, regardless of technicalities in law or culture that those involved may or may not be aware of at the time. Judging people or relationships and having expectations about people and relationships based on arbitrary rules and technicalities like ‘technically they are brothers because Bruce adopted Jason and then later he adopted Tim after Jason was dead’  is dumb. It’s meaningless. It really just has no bearing on anything. In most states it’s not even illegal because making an issue of it is based on arbitrary, archaic rules. If someone can give me a solid reason why JayDick or JayTim is wrong or bad, then maybe I’ll change my opinion, (but I still wouldn’t be against people writing it because even messed up and really unhealthy relationships can be weirdly cathartic or interesting to read/write and also do happen in real life–PEOPLE CAN WRITE WHAT THEY WANT EVEN IF ITS ‘WRONG’ THEY DON’T HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT TO YOU OR MEET SOME MEASURING STICK OF MORALITY) but personally I just don’t see why it’s a problem for anyone.

[bathroom-sand]

May It Please the Court

Good evening your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury and opposing counsel. Recently the very beautiful Ms. @shaolinbynature made an interesting argument in regards to one of my post. My argument is quite long and so it’s under here just so that nobody has to scroll past it for ages if they don’t want to. Now, without further ado, let's just jump into it...

And while I’m not one to be adverse to criticism I am averse to gross misuse of courtroom procedures paired with improper representation of my post. As someone who spent time as a teen attorney on real court cases with real consequences, I will not stand for disorderly conduct in the courtroom and defend myself. Allow me to begin...

I would like to start off by calling out nature’s rookie mistake. Starting with this

While I’m sure intended to be a fun quip, there was no instance where an objection should be ruled. For starters, the basis of your post implies I am on the stand, and objections are designed for you to shut down the opposing counsel while they are breaking court rules.

In this scenario, I was “being called to the stand” which implies that I am the witness or on trial, which means you cannot object to me. It simply does not make sense given the legal definition of objection. Furthermore, an objection is not a catch-all term used to get the attention of the court. A poor start to an argument full of legal failures and improper representation (something that is objectable).

RELEVANT, your honor. Nicole is not apart of this argument and her loyalty has 1. never been questioned and 2. does not pertain at all to the relationship between Kemi and Bella. It holds no relevance in this case as it does not concern Quirky Queen Nicole.

For one my original post addressed this in the notes and owned up to it. Bella HAS told the other side about Kemi’s actions and painted the target on Kemi’s back. However, you have misrepresented my post by never including my tags. Here is a side by side of my posts, the first on my blog and the second on yours. Do you notice a difference?

Yours: cropped out tags

Mine: with tags that prove your argument is meaningless and repetitive. Another objection, might I add.

ASKED AND ANSWERED, your honor. Ms. Nature has asked a rhetorical question and then answered it. This is their third objectionable offense and this is only their first argument. While dramatic it is not to be tolerated.

The first sentence is simply incorrect. Her goal IS to protect Kemi. Even if you disagree with my argument as to WHY she is protecting Kemi at the end of the day she is still trying to protect Kemi. Your argument here is simply untrue. Furthermore, of course, Bella is trying to help her own game. Why wouldn’t she? Kemi is an ally and a number for her.

Also, the idea that she’s only done this to prevent it from getting back to her is false. The people she told this do NOT like Kemi and have made it known to all of us since day 1 that they “hate” Kemi. Bella started this week one when popular belief was that Kemi’s eviction was permanent and therefore could not find out that it was Bella who ratted her out. Furthermore, her throwing Jess under the bus and claiming that Jess was the head of the alliance and that Kemi and Nicole didn’t appear to want to be a part of it was not necessary to protect Kemi’s image of Bella. It just isn’t connected, your honor. If anything, her exposing Jess ruined her reputation with Kemi and Nicole since they now know that Bella spoke about their secret alliance to the other side of the house.

THEREFORE, the only thing it accomplished was painting a bigger target on Jessica’s back.

Kemi and Jessica were already immediate targets. The idea that Bella is trying to “get rid of the others” is highly illogical since she isn’t in enough control to actually determine the pecking order. This implies that during week one Bella got “rid” of Ovi because he saw through her “rat game”. But the truth is that Ovi didn’t see through anyone’s game. There was no kill the witness. And in week two, Bella knew that the only options to go home were Jess or Kemi. Since she wants to keep Kemi that means Jess must go. Bella has some sway but not enough to get rid of a bigger target on someone else’s HOH. Furthermore, the only one she is getting “rid of” is Jess. Nicole is still safe and off radars. Therefore you can’t say “the others” as Bella actually PROTECTED Nicole as well when she included Nicole in her list of people who didn’t want to be in the alliance. She could have easily included Nicole and put a target on her back but she chose not to. So once again, you’re wrong.

I find this evidence honestly more irrelevant. While I understand that the point was to show that Bella isn’t an actual friend because she’s lying to Kemi. I’d argue that they both just show that Bella is an idiot. I’ve made posts about her being dumb before and I stand by those post however the original post here wasn’t about her intelligence or her ability to play the game. She has bad gameplay and has lied to Kemi, however that doesn’t take away from the fact that when people target Kemi she has tried to shift the blame or minimize the damage (even when the damage comes from Bella’s own actions).

For some reason, Ms. Nature seems to confuse actual friend with a good friend. They are friends. They hang out together, talk about nongame things, and Bella has even tried to keep Kemi in the house longer. I understand that Bella has done dumb things (she really does have sloppy gameplay and will probably lose because of it) and that she is part of the reason Kemi is in this position (although let's not forget that the houseguests are overtly racist and already wanted her out BEFORE  Bella’s actions) however I do believe that the two actually are friends.

Your honor, the prosecution is suggesting that for the “crime” of “creating fake news” that the defense (myself) should be sentenced to the electric chair. I would now like to point out that “creating fake news” is not a punishable offense in the United States of America. The prosecution is suggesting I be killed over something that 1. Is not true as nothing was objectively wrong in the original post and 2. isn’t even a crime. And even if it were to be the suggested sentence is illegal as it violates the eighth amendment which “prohibits cruel and unusual punishment”. For two centuries now this has been interpreted by the courts to mean that excessive punishment for crimes is illegal and violates human rights.

Therefore, your honor. I suggest that Prosecutor Shaolinbynature be revoked of their license to practice law and be made to retake the bar exam due to numerous false objections, lack of knowledge on court proceedings, and attempted violation of the eighth amendment. Thank you, your honor, ladies gentlemen and more of the jury, and opposing counsel for your time and consideration.

[aytendirier]

Organic Search Engine Optimization For Local Business Owners

I have been online marketing for over a decade and I have seen first hand the changes that have occurred especially with regards to Google and their algorithm updates and I'm sure that many of you will be running scared of how to optimize your website or blog anymore. There is a lot of talk about Search Engine Optimization, however not so much about Organic Search Engine Optimization itself. So, I want to tackle that subject first. So, what precisely is Organic Search Engine Optimization? Organic Search Engine Optimization is much like regular Search Engine Optimization event because it is the procedure of optimizing the design of your website so that search engine results, after paying attention to your content, utilizing your prepared list of keywords. The search engine will rank your website higher in the non-paid or natural listings. You will often see these appear below the paid ads at the top of the page on Google. Organic Search Engine Optimization often referred to as Natural Search Engine Optimization, has a slight distinction from normal Search Engine Optimization in specific aspects however the focus here, is to work towards getting the best ranking in Natural search engine results. If you are new to this area of Website Optimization it may be worth your time to invest some money with a Small Business SEO Specialist. They will initially carry out a Website review for you usually Free of Charge then they will create a report detailing the areas that they believe need attention in order to improve your position. You should find the costs reasonable and better yet it gives you the chance to learn a little and focus on your own business rather than trying to learn several new methods at the same time, its just not worth your time, in my opinion. Your chosen SEO team will assess your website thoroughly to see how best to enhance your website's capacity. They will then try to determine any technical issues which could pose a problem and stop your website being indexed properly during the Organic Search Engine Optimization process. One of the methods they will no doubt wish to address is to find the optimum low competition keywords or phrases which you could target and realistically win for yourself in order to rank for and therefore improve your flow of visitors. Keyword analysis must be genuine however, it must look natural, otherwise you end up with a non sensical sentence. You should work your long-tailed keywords into a paragraph and contain the usual content thereafter. It should include details about the function, services and products provided through your website. It must also remain aligned with your goals for marketing your website (getting extra traffic). This is trying to get the best Organic Search Engine Optimization influence possible from the search engines and end users. Some Organic Search Engine Optimization experts will offer you a list of target keywords and phrases that have been ranked previously showing you how commonly they have been used by Internet searchers in the past. Organic SEO starts with picking the right Title and Meta tags, development of on-page text with focus on content and design, and after that is complete you can begin to build your internal links which will go back and forth within your web pages linking Articles with other pages or content so that your visitors can find their way around. If guide is followed by yourself or your team, keyword importance and correct page formatting will increase your natural ranking. Many SEO companies still like to manually submit websites to the various search engines individually, but this is not an essential step and I don't believe that manual submission is any more effective than automated submission. I think automation wherever possible can help get the job done more effectively freeing up time to carry out other Organic SEO activities. Your SEO Firm must rely on creating ethical link structure techniques, not only to safeguard the security of your rankings but to permit your site descriptions to be positioned under the ideal directory site and classifications. Ethical Organic link structure will help your website users to be able to find just the right resource on your website. Once your SEO Team has got you this far, it would be easy to think that you have finished but unfortunately the optimization of your website and its standing in the search engine rankings does not end there. You or your SEO Team will need to continually check to ensure your website maintains of improves its position in the rankings and that there are no errors that may appear on your website like broken links etc. One of the key tools that you or your SEO Team will no doubt do is to set up Google Webmaster Tools to ensure that you take advantage of your free Google My Business Listing as well as submit a Sitemap for your website, this will help the search engines to crawl your website to rank it. Using their webmaster tools can also give you some insight to what is happening what pages have been indexed and to see if any problems have occurred. In business, online and offline, local business must have a website presence, they must also have a social media presence too in order to improve their standing in the community as well as their branding. But the problem most business owners face if that they don't always have the time or the expertise to properly manage their business website and social media campaigns whether they have one or not presently. With my background and experience, I decided to set up my own Digital Marketing Agency for this same reason, small business owners need to outsource their SEO requirements and let these digital agencies take over their social media management and then report back every few weeks with reports of what has been done and what has changed. A typical fee for such management is likely to be anywhere from $300 for a small scale set up to $2,000 for a much larger presence so each set up is likely to be different. For your ongoing SEO needs, once again it depends really what level of cover you are going to need, it maybe possible to bring everything under one team so the work is properly coordinated and managed effectively allowing you to focus on your main business interests. What is expected of every SEO Management Team is regular updates and meetings, with clear concise reports on what is happening. We, ourselves at PixelDigitalAgency.UK only deal with the smaller firms, we can create Fantastic Mobile Friendly Websites which load fast, yet another area of concern for many of the older websites. Then people are accessing the websites using all manner of mobile devices, Smartphones, Tablets, small laptop and desktop PC's so your website must be able to be seen across the range of devices. We can do this using our new software, so whatever your area of expertise we can accommodate you. Organic Search Engine Optimization aims to assist you generate more visitors than you were getting previously, so that your prospective sales will be made the most of in the process. You need to avoid illegal practices and favour Organic Search Engine Optimization more because: 1) Unscrupulous Marketing practices (often illegal or at the least dubious) will never last and will not reflect well on you. There are no shortcuts! 2) Organic Search Engine Optimization does work when done in the right way. 3) Organic Search Engine Optimization does not hurt the search engines, so build it correctly and reap the rewards knowing it has been set up properly. 4) Organic SEO is firmly set in the camp of doing things correctly and to using best practices that have been accepted by most of the Internet world. Organic SEO requires many tools and pieces of software in order to run, manage and monitor what is happening to their campaigns, these all cost substantial amounts of money on a monthly basis for many, which would most likely be prohibitive for most small business owners, so doesn't it make sense to farm out this activity local digital marketing agency? How do you select a suitable local digital marketing agency? Well, I would say just as you would with any other business out there, location is almost irrelevant because the internet is so widespread and the connections via skype help too because you can look and listen to what the agents are saying and how they look. I say this because I've had articles in the past from people who were not natural English speakers, but when the articles came back I had to scrap some altogether and re-write the rest it was a total waste of my time and money so, it's an important point to remember. Cost. is an important factor too and so is value for money, so think it through, ask yourself if you feel that you are getting what you pay for? Time. Things do take time in the SEO world, if you are promised overnight rankings, I would be wary and be asking exactly how, in my experience fast rankings are usually short lived. Contracts. A contract will outline what you can expect what is going to be done and for what price. Plus, it will protect you if things go wrong which they can from time to time, but you need at least some form of get out clause. I would expect an initial contract should be from 3 to 6 months with the option of continuing afterwards if things are going well. Information. Obviously, when you meet after agreeing on a contract you are going to be asked for information about yourself and your business, including this like do you have a list of keywords prepared? Together with a run down on your business, dealings services etc, etc. It will take a while before you get acquainted with your new partnership and like all partnerships honesty and integrity are paramount to its success. Be open to suggestions and outlook and don't be afraid to ask any questions. If you think that things are not working well for you speak up and find out why, if your SEO company has made an error give them time to correct it but monitor them very closely. You can always renegotiate the fee if you are not satisfied. But above all, don't worry, most Local Digital Marketing Agencies maintain a healthy and stable customer base for several years. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/10173016

[wishes-came-true]

Please take the time to read.

wow, people really do try to find a way to make Taylor seem like a liar, don’t they, but not for a second do I believe it, because I know who Taylor is, and I know that she is smart, kind, and she knows what she is putting out into the world. she thinks everything over so that she is sure that she is doing the right thing that will benefit the majority of people. she would never put out a blatant lie for her own good even, unlike the others. Borchetta is trying to make his side more valid by trying to make Taylor seem bad. He added beside an apparent manchester offer the “she declined”. Nobody would put in such a rude “she declined” if it wasn’t to make her seem heartless, even though Taylor has literally expressed er fear of gun violence and the Manchester bombing. THE WOMAN IS ALLOWED TO DECLINE. Whether it is for safety, because she is scared, she doesn't feel well or simply doesn't want to, she is allowed to decline and adding that in this statement was solely to make her seem heartless and make Scott’s point more “valid”. To add to this, the Machester topic is a very serious topic that should NOT be brought into a situation like this to prove a point. Moving on, just like the illegal phone call, sharing a private text is also illegal unless Scott had gotten permission directly from Taylor, which I certainly doubt she would have even given. Needless to say, the text message wasn’t even proving any points or proving Taylor “a liar” in any way It also was earlier announced by Tree Paine, Taylor’s publicist, announced that Scott Swift was not a part of the phone calls, due to him not wanting to hold any information back from his daughter which is two things: 1, A very valid reason and 2, a point that proves that BMR could be holding back and hiding information from Miss Swift. Another lie, maybe? Another couple of things is that whatever Scott may say about them being on good terms doesn’t back up what has happened. Things can change, and so can people. You can’t always be happy with somebody. And to say that Taylor was not nearly in tears when Scooter was mentioned is wrong, because even if Scott couldn’t tell, Taylor still obviously had hard feelings about this mam. And for his wife to say that he didn’t bully her is also wrong, because she clearly felt hurt or threatened by him and nobody’s opinion can change how somebody is impacted by another’s actions. And to say that Scooter is just a great man is a straight-up lie, due to all of the evidence from other artists and clients who have spoken out and said they were manipulated and held secretive by this horrid man. And even though Demi Lovato might have not had a bad experience with this man, first off doesn’t mean that somebody else didn’t and second off could mean that Scooter was being “fake” to Demi in order to keep them working together, as that is something Scooter is known for. Rolling with that information, we know that Scooter is not the greatest of men and that even if he has done well for Taylor apparently,  TAYLOR STILL FEELS HURT OR THREATENED AND THAT CAN NOT BE CHANGED. If that is the way she feels, that is the way she feels. So I don’t think anybody can blame her for not wanting him to own all of the hard work and effort she has ever made. And to speak up and point out the mistakes one has made is not to bully, so for Justin to even start to say that is not true and not thought through. Another thing, Taylor even said that she came to terms with the fact that her music would eventually be sold, but to a person that she is clearly not happy with is rude. and even if Taylor did know ahead of time that all this was going to happen, she still had no choice in the matter and therefore it is not valid to say she was okay with it. It is so sad that these people are taking information and running. They are using facts that are not valid, or not relevant to try to make Taylor look bad again and prove their *invalid* points. Disgusting that all of her previous digital music purchases have been removed too, so all the people who re-buy or buy the music, some of the money will go to Scooter, interesting, right? So. Please stop trying to make this Taylor’s fault. Stop trying to make Taylor a liar. Stop trying to twist a situation into something it is not. Stop trying to take irrelevant information or invalid facts to prove a point. And stop calling false information or manipulative information the truth. Stop trying to make Taylor seem like she's playing the victim when she did not start this or want this to happen. Stop saying that she is asking for sympathy when she is being strong and standing up for herself in a situation she feels strongly about. Stop calling her a bad role model and a bully. Taylor is the one who cares. She just wants things to be right. She wants to keep herself, and everybody else safe and is doing everything in her power to do that. I don’t understand why everybody has to rain on her parade, I thought we were over that.  We are all shaking our heads. This is not okay, and it is not okay that people are making it Taylor’s problem. Have a little more sight next time. See the person Taylor is, and know that she would never do anything or share lies to the world to make her seem right or better. She is the best role model any of us could ask for. She has always been there for us and we will always be there for her. 

We stand with Taylor. 

@taylorswift @taylornation

[onisionisacanceronthisearth]

The Swamp Chronicles: The Appeal (Department of Engineering)

Ok, both appeals are a fucking riot. Like I am so surprised his lawyer was even remotely involved with it but her additions were also marvelous. It is riddled with lies, misunderstanding of facts and the law, irrelevant facts, and stupidity. It’s glorious and so damn obvious as to why they ended up settling because they would have lost and gotten a much worse deal. If it’s in italics it’s a direct quote, if not it’s a paraphrase or my thoughts + government rebuttals. Please enjoy everything wrong with this appeal from choice phrases to every argument they made

“Factual” Background

1.3 Pierce County claimed that the Avaroes had cleared a wetland area with a bobcat. In actuality, the Avaroes were clearing-off noxious weeds - blackberry, devil’s club, and nettles in their garden

So this starts their argument that work was only done in a very specific area that was a pre-established garden on their property. We know this is a lie because work was done much more than in a garden given the video and photographic proof but also, either way Greg needed a permit to use a bobcat to remove anything off his property and only himalayan blackberries are considered to be noxious weeds in his area so he’d need permission for the others as well even if taking them out by hand. By mentioning the other two as weeds being pulled up Greg has accidentally incriminated himself. Glad to know his lawyer gives a shit. Also their garden would have to be in their already landscaped front yard because everything behind their house is classified as a wetland. And regardless you’d need permits to use a bobcat on your yard

1.5 Such noxious weeds endangered the safety and health of Mr. and Mrs. Avaroes’ children

This contradicts Greg telling the government worker that he was giving himself a view of the water which was in the initial reports. This argument comes up over and over in different phrases. Honestly this is such a redundantly-written appeal. Also, cool, let’s say this was their true intentions and the plants they pulled, they still illegally used a bobcat on the property and pulled plants they shouldn’t have. Who assumes they can bring a bobcat on their property? Why didn’t Greg google this? Pulling weeds accidentally without permission? Yeah, understandable, and the county is lenient on this letting people off with warning about this all the time.

1.7 Pierce County has issued an Order to Correct without having the slightest idea about the area in which alleged wetlands are located - Avaroes’ front, rear, or backyard

Um, yeah they do, it’s literally their job and they included an aerial photo of their property showing their property lines and where the wetland is (most of their backyard). This is also followed by 3 more points making the claim that by ~definition~ they don’t live on a wetland and acting like the county is saying all the non-wetland plants on their property was what they planted and making arguments based on that (They have an unequivocal right to maintain such existing landscaping). Again, this is irrelevant because they still got no permits, this is not the argument they are making (this is about their clearing the property and nothing about planting and clearing isn’t maintaining), and legally most of their backyard is a wetland.

1.12 Apparently, Pierce County officials sent Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to search Avaroes’  property and see if their gardening activities had impaired fish and wildlife habitats. 1.13 Without Mr. or Mrs. Avaroes’ permission, two WDFW officers went to their home and conducted a search of their front and back yards. The Fish and Wildlife officers found no violation. But, they passed-on information derived from their illegal search to County officials. Mr. Avaroe had denied County officials permission to search his property

Ok, so here Greg doesn’t seem to understand that he was under investigation initially by two departments (ecology and engineering) and the engineering department reffered his case to other agencies who might find violations like the Fish and Wildlife one and that agencies talk with each other. Greg denied the Ecology department’s head to check out his yard when she visited in August, that doesn’t mean he denied everyone from other agencies. The Fish and Wildlife officers knocked on his door on a totally different date independent of her, no one answered the door so they did a quick look around back and obviously they saw his front yard as they walked up to his door. Greg released a Patreon video showing this from what I assume is a security camera. Besides that this is legal (it’s in his property agreement that government workers can visit the house without permission, they’ve just asked out of politeness), they were there for all of a few minutes to see if he was working in the pond. They saw he hadn’t so they were not involved in the legal action taken against Greg. Nothing in either Notice of Order to Correct involved what these people did or didn’t find so these points are totally moot

“Illegal” search

All this says is that the county can’t use any “illegally-seized materials or information”. Besides actually admitting earlier in the appeal that the Fish and Wildlife people found nothing (and therefore had nothing to do with this appeal), they still say the nothing that was found by these people must be thrown out. I feel like they think that following this trainwreck of thought will cause everything to get thrown out. Not sure why the lawyer didn’t take out the part where they admit nothing was found or used from that department but ok. Btw, choice quote: ”All of the evidence derived from WDFW’s illegal search of Avaroes’ property is tainted and must be suppressed”

“Vague” as Applied

This is my second favourite part of the appeal, here they say the two notices were vague while listing all the codes the notices actually included!

I’m sorry but no, the first part of both notices start with a “violation” section and even I could read the notices and understand what they meant when they specifically list their violations. I included links to both previous posts on this if you don’t believe me or need a refresher.

3.4 The Order to Correct indicates that the Avaroes must obtain wetland approval, fish and wildlife habitat approval, and “obtain permits and approvals in accord with Title 18E or other Pierce County Codes” to authorize their garden maintenance activities (3.5,3.6,3.7 are varriations of this too)

Um, yeah. Certain activities on your property require approval because you live on sensitive land and right on the wetland. And you get those approvals or permits from the appropriate department... What do you not get about that? This is simple to understand, and again, most people wouldn’t think they could just rent a massive machine to work on their yard. Also, adding in the knowledge we have that Greg has cut down trees (the proof is literally on his channel and the aerial shots I’ll add below), who here thinks you can just casually cut down a tree on your own without proffesional help or a permit? Also 18E is all about living on sensitive land, so yeah, it’s the most applicable to yard work in your yard. Take note of the law Greg, then you’ll know when and how to get the approvals and permits you need for any further destruction yard work

3.8 The Order to Correct specifies that if the Avaroes fail to comply with the Order to Correct, that penalties will be imposed in the amount of $1,000, $4,000, and $10,000. It does not specify what acts will trigger the above penalties (note, they did forget the quotation mark after $10,000, that’s not me) 3.9 In addition, noncompliance with the Order to Correct will trigger misdemeanor charges

Another point where I’m convinced the lawyer didn’t read any of the information on the case because even I understood this point. Also because the lawyer would understand that Greg got two notices not one. If Greg does not comply with the requests from the Dep of Eng and Eco then he is fined a a total of 15k for each day of non-compliance. This could be anything from continuing to work (look on his youtube and leaked patreon videos and you’ll see that he did) to every day he is late in doing any of the tasks he was asked to like hiring a specialist. Also 3.9 seems weirdly tacked on afterwards

Correction notice violates Avaroes’ right to use nonconforming property

This is just lying that all the work done on his property was not Greg but the previous owners and that they are punishing them for it (except they admit that Greg did illegally remove plants with a bobcat earlier...). They are saying that because the previous owners did some landscaping Greg can do anything he likes on the nonconforming land. They also say that their house and lot were created before the regulated area was created. Again, they’re not being targetted for things they didn’t do, and not being targetted for owning the damn house. But at least here they admit that their property is on regulated land but they’re claiming the fact that the regulations were created after the property means they should be exempt from any yard work after the fact as well. At one point it wasn’t illegal not to talk on the phone while driving, so can I continue if I used to talk on the phone before it was illegal? No, of course not

4.9 Mr. and Mrs. Avaroe should not be obligated to spend thousands of dollars on permits and studies to authorize them to weed their yard

Dumbass, if you were just pulling the legally noxious weeds that wouldn’t require any permits. If you pulled some fucking dandilions no one would give a shit. You cleared the fuck out of your property with a bobcat! And, the stuff you admitted to was illegal anyways. Also the studies you are being asked to do would not have been necessary for the permit in most cases. It’s called for now because they need to assess the exact damage you’ve done. Of course if you’re doing total landscaping of your property (like you actually did), they will likely call for a specialist to oversee the development to make sure you don’t fuck up (the previous owners had to do)

The rest cries that they should be allowed to maintain their yard and the law allows them to do this. Again, that’s not what they were doing and they already admitted to removing plants not considered noxious or weeds. They also claim that aparently the county regulations are infringing on their right to due process and fairness... in their legal appeal they were permitted to start if they felt the county got the facts wrong. Also ignoring that one of the things they have to do is hire a third party to do impartial judgement on the damage to their property. They also finish off claiming the county didn’t tell them they live on wetland (the contract they signed when they bought the house did though) and again that their nonconforming rights have been violated (when they don’t fall under that ruling)

Additional “defenses”

6.2 Mr. and Mrs. Avaroe were innocent purchasers for value; they had no idea that they were prohibited from weeding their backyard

In both the Notices of Order to Correct the definition of what qualifies as innocent purchasers is explained. It means if you innocently buy a house where the previous owners have broken the law you are not to blame. It does not mean that if you are ignorant of the law you are exempt from it. WTF? Again, did his lawyer not give a shit?

Prayer for relief

7.1 The Tribunal should exclude all evidence procured from the unauthorized search of the Avaroe property

That search found nothing as you yourself said, if nothing is found it means no evidence of wrongdoing, unless there is a blank space on the notices I didn’t notice that aparently represents the fish and wildlife’s search, IT’S NOT PART OF EITHER NOTICE

7.2 The Tribunal should declare that the Order to Correct violates Mr. and Mrs. Avaroe’s right to due process

I have yet to see any reason why, no argument was presented

7.3 The Tribunal should declare that Mr. and Mrs. Avaroe have a right to maintain their existing yard

Even if you were dumb enough to think that removing trees is a normal part of maintaining your yard, 1. why did you tell the government worker you were giving yourself a view of the water, and 2. both notices explain that what you did wasn’t normal maintenance (which they themselves include a definition for in the appeal). Normal maintenance includes mowing lawns, removal of noxious and invasive species (not two of the three plants mentioned and the only permitted removal of natural plants), harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning (not removal) and planting of vegetation (must be indigenous native species). Also they need to provide proof that the work was all done before they moved in and they were just upkeeping what they thought was legal work. One way they could have done that is emailing this claim to the biologist of their area who can, with permission, go through the records for aerial photos of their property before and after purchase

7.4 The Tribunal should declare that Mr. and Mrs. Avaroe are innocent purchasers for value

Again, an incompetent lie

7.5 This Tribunal should accord Mr. and Mrs. Avaroe any other relief which is just and equitable

You would have gotten it if you didn’t lie, didn’t keep working past the don’t work order, didn’t send multiple emails of bullshit to both departments, were compliant, and accepted your mistakes

My conclusion

I think you can see why Greg and his lawyer gave up trying to push this bullshit. But we have the other appeal to deal with next up, and from it, I can’t say that Greg has never made me laugh in recent years. Too bad it wasn’t a joke

[thenuanceddebater]

Sorry I'm just now getting to this post, and thanks for the tag!

TL;DR: Yup, this is a thing. Jurors are not allowed to do internet research as it may bias them, or they may try to apply inapplicable law, or misunderstand the law they are supposed to apply. In fact, this is a pretty big problem. For example, in this case the patch was a pretty insignificant detail seeing as the charge was for resisting arrest and there was no argument that the ICE officers started a fight. Even if the patch was a white supremacist as opposed to a trade patch, it doesn't change the facts here. As for if juries can be lied to, the answer is "yes" but the frequency depends on how you define lie. Depending on the definition, juries are lied to all the time. They have a check through the fact that they can decide what information to believe, and there are also measures that go above the jury to resolve issues of knowing dishonesty by an attorney. Remember: There's always someone on the other side looking for mistakes, lies, and general bad behavior–whether that person is a judge or another attorney.

It is in fact illegal for jurors to do any internet research, or at the very least it violates jury guidelines. This is because jurors are supposed t decide a case based on the information and the evidence that they heard in the case and not based on outside information. One of the most common questions in jury selection for cases that have attracted media attention is if the juror has heard any coverage of the case, and what that coverage was/ if it has influenced the juror at all.

Likewise, jurors are also supposed to rely on lawyers/ the judge to explain the law to them. This is because (1) lawyers understand the law and jurors do not and (2) if jurors were allowed to research the law, they would likely either not understand it or apply law that isn't meant to apply. The number of people I have seen on this website and others look for federal criminal definitions for offenses such as sexual assault, murder, etc. is insanely high when that is an area largely (if not almost exclusively) determined by the state law of the court's jurisdiction. So, it's also a precaution against jurors trying to apply law that doesn't exist.

Furthermore, in this case, the details of the patch were irrelevant. The patch is only relevant if the actions of the ICE agent are relevant, or the moralistic or ethical implications of ICE are relevant. They aren't. This is a case involving whether or not the defendant, a lawful permanent resident, resisted arrest. Whether or not a patch was a trade union patch or a white supremacist patch has no legal bearing on the case. Regardless of whether or not the ICE officer was or was not a white supremacist, the defendant was not entitled to resist arrest when there was a lawful and legitimate warrant for his arrest–even if the cause for the warrant was mistaken. He claims he was reaching for a coat. An officer was injured in some kind of scuffle. The defendant was indicted for assaulting a federal officer. There is no counter implication, to the best of my research, that the ICE officers began the assault. Therefore, the patch on an ICE officer is irrelevant. Wearing a white supremacist patch, which it is not even alleged that the defendant knew about, is not grounds to assault an officer if that did indeed occur. So, I'm not sure if that changes your read on the situation or not. But it certainly affects mine.

As for whether or not juries could be lied to by prosecutors and defense attorneys, well that depends on your definition of "lie." If by "lie" you mean "are told misinformation unintentionally" then this already happens. Prosecutors or defense attorneys occasionally take clients or witnesses at their word, especially about irrelevant or less-relevant details, and that can result in minor falsehoods being told to the jury. Likewise, if a defendant testifies in court and their attorney tries to make the defendant appear credible when they are in fact fabricating information, then the jury is also being "lied to." This is a very common incidence and is why the jury is permitted to decide which among the sources of information it has been presented to believe.

If by "lie" you mean "intentionally put forward false information" then this also happens, though less often. As some post-conviction research has revealed, sometimes police, prosecutors, etc. just flat-out lie to the jury. Likewise, a defense attorney that does not believe their client and believes that the client is going to fabricate testimony is supposed to stop them. However, if an attorney has plausible deniability and believes that the client testifying could help, they may not actually do this. Therefore, the jury could also be confronted by flat-out misinformation and lies as well.

This is why we have an appeals process–for when the jury makes a decision that is not supported by the facts on the ground. Heck, that can even happen if the jury wasn't lied to and is just unreasonably biased for one side over another. If you've ever heard about a motion to "set aside the verdict" or a judge setting aside a jury's verdict, then you know about this phenomenon. Just as there is a check on misinformation from what the jury is or is not willing to believe, there is a further check on misinformation through the ability to set-aside verdicts, motion for retrials if evidence of deception surfaces, and through the appeal and post-conviction appeal processes.

Juries aren't perfect, and quite simply I'm not the biggest fan of juries, but one lawyer's deception is likely going to be counteracted by another lawyer. Lawyers don't like it when you lie to them. And neither do judges.

Finally, the kind of penalty in this case is basically unprecedented. However, the cost in this case ($11,227) is the cost of empaneling the jury and other associated costs. So, essentially the penalty is trying to shift the cost from the state onto the juror who committed misconduct.

So, pretty interesting situation. Happy to take any questions or comments that you might have!

I understand why jurors need to be sequestered from media coverage and stuff, but it's crazy that they're prohibited from doing ANY internet research or fact-checking related to the case. Some guy is being fined $11k because he Googled a patch that an ICE officer was wearing in their case -- the jury was told in court it was a trade workers' union patch, but the guy didn't think it was since he was a retired pipe fitter and didn't recognize the logo. So he went home and googled it and says he found it to be a white supremacist logo. And since he googled it, he's being charged with contempt and fined for the costs of the mistrial he caused by doing so. But like… doesn't that mean that our court system is set up so that juries could be lied to (by prosecutors, etc) and be unable to do any verification or fact-checking without literally committing a crime……?

[byblacks]

By: El Jones

Abdoul Abdi’s sister Fatuma once told me that the reason she and Abdoul do not speak Somali is because when they would speak to each other in their language, the workers would put them on time out and isolate them in their rooms, accusing them of plotting together to escape.

It was like being in solitary confinement, Fatuma told me.

For the last few days, the news is filled almost hourly it seems, with new outrages to migrant children emerging from the U.S-Mexico border. Last night, images of “tender age facilities” filled the news, with reports of crying toddlers traumatized by separation from their families.

Caving to the bad publicity from these shocking images, Trump signed an executive order claiming to end the family separation policy - while allowing for families to be detained indefinitely. The Canadian government, however, appears to feel no shame as they argue for the deportation of Abdi.

“How Canada Welcomes Refugees” says a meme circulating on social media, showing border guards hugging children, juxtaposed with images of children in cages in the U.S. In Canada’s habitual self-congratulation about what a kinder, more compassionate nation we are. There is no space for images of Fatuma and Abdoul as children, isolated in rooms by child welfare workers. Their tears are an inconvenience to a national narrative that insists, always insists, that “it’s not like that here.”

READ: Canada aims to avoid detaining migrant children, but it happens

On Tuesday there was a federal hearing challenging the referral of Abdoul Abdi to a deportation hearing — a hearing that can only end in one result, the decision to deport him to Somalia. Abdoul Abdi’s lawyer Benjamin Perryman argues that this deportation is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and contrary to international law binding Canada to provide special protections to non-citizen youth in care.

Amid the global outrage of the U.S’s violation of the rights of migrant children, lawyers for the Canadian government argued that Abdoul’s human rights, and that more broadly the rights of children, are not relevant and should not be heard. As Perryman pointed out, not one sentence of the submissions for the Minister mention charter rights, or indicate that they were even considered. I keep returning to this: our government argues that the rights of children are so irrelevant that they should not even be spoken about.

Just getting to a hearing where arguments about the rights of refugee children and youth in care can be heard in court in front of a judge is a landmark. Benjamin Perryman along with intervenors Nasha Nijhawan for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Jane Stewart for Justice for Children and Youth are confronting injustices that remain largely hidden in Canada, and that the government has fought every step of the way to avoid considering. In a country where migrants can be indefinitely detained, where deaths of migrants in custody go unremarked and without inquiry, and where we pay human traffickers to deport people to countries too dangerous for officials to enter, perhaps it is no surprise that our government would prefer there to be no hearing at all.

The most bizarre part of yesterday’s argument was the lawyer for the minister opening her arguments by telling us that “the theme for today’s arguments is the letter P.” P is for privilege — citizenship is a right not a privilege. It is for public safety. It is also for policy and parliament, and people, because after all everyone in the system are just people doing their best.

Imagine arguing the rights of children are irrelevant as you try to deport to a danger zone a former child refugee denied his rights by the state, and using a Sesame Street format to make your points. A children’s show.

But P is also for Perryman, who opened his arguments by clearly naming anti-Black racism. “This is what anti-Black racism looks like in this country,” he emphasized.

One major way anti-Black racism is maintained in Canada is by simply ignoring the presence of Black people. If there are no Black people here, then it follows that anti-Black racism cannot exist in Canada.

As Robyn Maynard traces in her book Policing Black Lives:

"Ironically, whites-only migration policies were also seen as ways to avoid the racism found south of the border. A major justification for the functional ban on Black migration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was to avoid the “Negro problem” that existed in the United States. Racism, this suggests, was represented as an American problem that was foreign to Canada. In a similar vein, a historical analysis of media and public opinion at the time found that Canadians were staunchly opposed to Black migration, yet refused to think this racist. It was believed, in fact, that racism could be avoided to the extent that Black people were kept out of the country entirely."

Canada’s aversion to keeping race-based statistics similarly functions to maintain the fiction of race not being a problem in Canada. In yesterday’s hearing, lawyers for the government rejected research from the social sciences demonstrating that children in care are more vulnerable, that they are highly likely to face “crossover” into the criminal justice system, that they are marginalized in educational attainment and employment, that they face instability, and that the trauma they experience as children and in the system has life long effects. These effects, research shows, are compounded for migrant children and for racialized children. These studies were rejected by the Minister’s lawyers, in part, because they are not “statistics” and are therefore not “facts.” Racism and marginalization, in their argument, do not exist, and even if they did exist, are not relevant, and either way, we shouldn’t talk about it.

And if you dismiss any evidence of discrimination, then you can also claim that it is not possible to know about discrimination even if it is happening. There is a deep hypocrisy at work here. On the one hand, the system appeals to authority. Child welfare workers are the experts on what is best for Black families. Canadian Border Services officials are the authorities on who should be deported. These systems should not be questioned, and certainly not accused of bias. To even hold the hearing is “unfair.”

At the same time, there are simultaneous claims to innocence. How could the adults at Department of Community Services know how to obtain citizenship? The delegate for the minister isn’t a lawyer or a judge, how can they be expected to understand Charter rights or apply them?

Keep in mind that while the minister’s delegate cannot possibly be expected to comprehend human rights in Canada (but yet is qualified to make decisions), Abdoul is “culpable” as a child for not understanding citizenship law and not actively seeking a citizenship lawyer as a minor child in care and advocating for his own citizenship — despite minors being unable until last year to apply for citizenship on their own behalf.

The only person guilty in this scheme is the Black child.

Keep in mind as well that the lawyers for the minister rejected all the social science research showing the effects of childhood trauma of children in care. I say keep this in mind because the government went on to argue that Abdoul’s lack of memory or knowledge about his family isn’t a sign of trauma, but rather evidence of him willfully lying to agents. When Abdoul didn’t even have a lawyer, he submitted that his mother was dead and that his father was missing and he didn’t know where he was. Later, he told agents that both of his parents were murdered.

Perhaps a child who spent the first six years of his life in refugee camps, who fled to Canada at age 6, and grew up in care separated from his family might understandably not know about or remember what happened to his parents. If the lawyers had read the research, maybe they would know that trauma affects the memory. But instead, they again blamed the refugee for not knowing, all while arguing that adults not knowing crucial parts of their job such as the charter of rights or the need to obtain citizenship for refugee children is insignificant.

In the hearing, we also learned that prohibited youth records were obtained and used by CBSA in reaching their first referral decision. These records are protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and it is illegal to access them, never mind to reproduce and use them in the decision about his admissibility to Canada. Even when the first referral decision was overturned, they continued to use the youth records unredacted. It was only when Perryman complained that the records were even redacted. Perryman pointed out that redacted passages from the prohibited records are still being used in the government’s submissions and were repeated unredacted in other places.

The minister’s delegate also questioned Abdoul’s closeness to his family, and whether or not he has a relationship with his daughter. I am reminded of how, during enslavement, when Black families were separated it was imagined that Black parents felt no more pain than “pups being taken from a bitch.”

While denying the existence of anti-Black racism during the hearing, it was the Black refugee child who was imagined as somehow oppressing all these powerful systems. He was the one being “unfair”: how terrible of Abdoul to suggest that he was mistreated in the child welfare system, or that the immigration system reveals anti-Black bias. Truly, these are the real victims in this case.

This article originally appeared in The Halifax Examiner.

[ramon-balaguer]

+ Marijuana +

 I need to make a confession right up front. I’ve tried smoking marijuana them we called it Grass, Hay, Pot, Joint, Mary Jane, Reefer, Pakalolo, Herb and Ganja) on at least two, maybe three occasions if I’m not confusing it with hashish (related but not the same); but Never really got High off it and only ended up with bad breath and odor on me (like a dead skunk), a stomach ache and a headache. I’ve never been drunk with any alcoholic beverage, but have and do occasionally drink wine or other spirits. I’ve tried other illicit drug like Cocaine and Quaaludes. I mention this because I’m quite sure that some will object to what I say in here by thinking that I have no right to speak about an experience in which I’ve never personally indulged or became dependent of or on. I think that’s ridiculous thinking on their part when you think of how much we learn from teachers of only text book knowledge… Okay, maybe they didn’t learn as most of us have. But in my case, it’s true, I’ve been there and done that and then some… but I have and Thank God I never got addicted to anything and haven’t messed with stupid junk since my twenties. Whether or not I’ve ever been “high” (and again, no, I haven’t), is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Christians should use marijuana (weed, dagga, hemp, cannabis, blunt, black, boom, blaze, haze, block, burnie, burrito, broccoli, buds, mota, stinkweed, chronic, charge, gangster, skunk, nuggets, 420, rope, dope and I’m sure many more…) for recreational purposes.

All that being said, let’s get started:

 1. Medicinal marijuana should be allowed under a physician's guidance.

I’m not anything remotely close to being an expert on the question of whether or not marijuana should be made legal and available for use in cases of extreme medical distress. But I will give you my opinion. My humble opinion is that a good case can be made for allowing marijuana use in certain instances. I don’t know the criteria one would employ to make the determination as to when marijuana should be used and when not. But it seems reasonable to me, and not at all unbiblical, that if marijuana can be used in some form and under the oversight of a physician to help those in extreme pain or those for whom all other medical remedies have proven ineffective, it should be allowed. I know there are arguments against the medical use of marijuana, but I cannot interact with them today. All that being said, I don’t believe that use of THC has to be or even should be in the form of inhaling as in smoking verses some pill, elixir or edible form of treatment.

 2. Colorado first to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

Not too long ago the citizens of Colorado approved Amendment 64 that allows “the personal use and regulation of marijuana” for adults 21 years and older. Although marijuana is still illegal under federal law, its legal sale commenced on January 1, 2014, in Colorado. This decision in Colorado opened the door to the legalization of marijuana for other than medical purposes in 15 other states thus far; including Michigan, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, Vermont, Illinois and of course California which I thought would be the first (or NY), also our very liberal nation’s capital of DC too.

This has led to countless discussions and debates among Christians as to whether the use of marijuana is a Sin. Again, I’m not talking about its use in cases of extreme medical emergencies. We are talking about the recreational use of marijuana when the primary intent is to get “high” or “stoned.”

 3. Does the Bible address the use of marijuana? Yes and No!

Some believe it is explicitly endorsed in Genesis 1:29 where God said to Adam: “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.”

But how many people actually ingest marijuana as food? This passage gives no support for the practice of “smoking” marijuana for a “recreational high.” I know of no food that we consume by smoking. Presumably, no one adds marijuana to brownies because it improves their flavor. The ONLY reason to add this Cannabis plant to foods is because of its effect on our senses, not our taste.

 4. Relating what Scripture says about alcohol to marijuana.

So, aside from this passage in Genesis marijuana is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. The question we then need to ask and answer is this: Do we find in the Bible something that is analogous to the recreational use of marijuana? The answer is Yes: intoxication by drinking alcohol.

But what constitutes “intoxication”? If the Bible permits the use of alcohol in moderation, might it not also permit the use of marijuana in moderation? We know that a person can consume small quantities of alcohol without any intention of getting drunk. Can a person similarly consume small quantities of marijuana without any intention of becoming intoxicated? To answer that we must define “intoxication”.

For alcohol, the unit of measure is the ‘standard drink,’ that is any drink that contains about 14 grams of pure alcohol (about 0.6 fluid ounces or 1.2 tablespoons). A standard drink is conventionally defined as the alcohol content of 12 ounces of 5 percent-alcohol beer or 5 ounces of 12 percent-alcohol wine or an ounce and half (a shot) of 40 percent-alcohol (80-proof) spirits (hard liquor). In most U.S. states, the legally defined level of intoxication typically occurs, depending on pacing, after four drinks for an average-sized woman or five for an average-sized man.

In the case of marijuana, I’m told that it takes only four puffs to induce a state of intoxication. If your intent for ingesting marijuana in any form isn’t for the intoxicating effect, why do you bother? What benefits from it are you seeking? And if your intent in the recreational use of marijuana is indeed some level of intoxication, your action are in fact Sin.

  5. The effects of caffeine vs. marijuana.

But what about caffeine? People drink coffee and Coca-Cola and certain energy drinks to achieve a physical effect. That’s true, but there’s a significant difference. Marijuana temporarily impairs the reliable processing of surrounding reality. Caffeine ordinarily sharpens that processing. Most coffee drinkers hope to stay awake, do their jobs more reliably, and drive more safely. It is certainly possible to abuse caffeine (in the same way we can abuse anything in excess), but, as a natural stimulant, it is most commonly used not as an escape from reality, but as an effort to interact responsibly with reality. Thus, unlike caffeine, marijuana is not generally thought of as an empowering drug that enables you to be a more alert dad, or a more aware mother, or a more competent employee. Rather, for most users, it is a recreational escape, which produces diminished accuracy of observation, memory, and reasoning. And it may have lasting negative effects on the mind’s ability to do what God Created it to do.

 6. Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

We read in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 – “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” Contrary to what non-Christians think about themselves, you, Christian man and Christian woman, you do not have ultimate authority over your body to do with it what you please. Your body belongs to Christ! Your body is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit! Your body is to be used to honor and glorify God!

So, if you should choose to drink in excess (drunkenness) or smoke marijuana for a high you need to ask yourself: “Does this decision make Jesus look good?” We should also ask this about the quality of TV shows we watch, or what we see on the Internet, or the kind of music we listen to, or the rating of movies we attend, or how much we eat or spend, even beyond our means.

 7. Clear minds help us glorify God in our actions.

We read in 1 Corinthians 6:13 that the body is meant “for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” Our bodies are designed by creation and redeemed by the blood of Christ so that they might be instruments for his use and his glory. Therefore, we must strive not to dull or diminish or weaken our God-given physical and mental capacities to glorify and serve God. We must strive to see clearly and think clearly and decide clearly and speak clearly and remember clearly. Our minds are designed by God to know him and love him and grow in our affections for him. We should avoid anything that undermines our minds in this regard. As some preacher put it, “be ruthlessly clear-headed.”

 8. Christians need to lead by example.

What sort of witness for Jesus do we give when we join with the world in the recreational use of a drug whose purpose is to induce a state of passivity and stupor and diminished accuracy in mental observation and memory and basic reasoning powers? Not a good one, in my humble opinion.

 9. Ask the Right questions.

In cases such as this I often think we are asking the wrong question. We ask: “What’s wrong with it?”

“Why shouldn’t I?”

“How far can I go and still not sin?”

Perhaps we should ask:

“Will it promote the cause of Christ?”

“Will this activity lead me and others to treasure Jesus above all else?”

“Will it help me fight the fight of faith with greater success?”

“Will it sharpen and intensify my knowledge of Christ and my commitment to glorify him in all things?” Asking those questions may well elicit a different answer from the one we typically hear.

 10. There is no merit to the recreational use of marijuana.

Finally, let’s remember that the only external power to which you should yield conscious control or under whose influence you should come, is the Holy Spirit of God. “And do not get drunk with wine [or high on marijuana], for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18). My conclusion, then, is that the recreational use of marijuana for the purpose of getting “high” is not an option for the Christian. It is, in point of fact, Sin. L #REBTD

 Here’s a link to an interesting article:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/berenson-marijuana-more-addictive-alcohol-212755958.html

 More info:

Some Signs of Use

Hearing your loved one use any of these nicknames may alert you to the possibility that he or she may be using marijuana. If you suspect your loved one may be using marijuana, you might also recognize in them certain signs and symptoms of marijuana use:

Paranoia.

Disorientation.

Preoccupation with visual, taste and audio     stimuli.

Trouble with memory and ability to focus.

Slower reaction times.

Increased appetite.

Red eyes.

Dry mouth.

Elevated blood pressure and heart rate.

 Health Effects

As much as regular users would like to think that weed is an entirely harmless drug, it really is not. Marijuana use has not only been linked with a significant number of short-term psycho-social problems—including problems with school, work, family, friends, and the law—but is also associated with several longer-term medical and mental health risks:

Problems with brain development. When people     begin using marijuana when they are young, the drug may reduce memory,     attention, and learning functions and affect how the brain constructs     links between the areas in the brain that are necessary for those     functions. The effect on these abilities may last a long time or even be     permanent.

Respiratory problems. Marijuana smoke irritates     the lungs and can cause the same breathing problems as those experienced     by tobacco smokers, including regular coughing, more frequent lung     illness, and a higher chance of lung infections.

Problems with child development during and     after pregnancy.

Increased mental health problems risk. Frequent     use and high-dosage use may cause disorientation or disagreeable thoughts     or feelings of anxiety and paranoia. Marijuana users are also more likely     to develop temporary psychosis and long-lasting mental disorders,     including schizophrenia.

 Signs of Use

Withdrawal Symptoms

Although many proponents of marijuana use may disagree or downplay the problematic potential, for some people marijuana use may become progressively compulsive and contribute to the development of a substance use disorder, or addiction. 

In addition, marijuana use is associated with physical dependence and an associated withdrawal syndrome. In other words, many people who use marijuana for a long period of time are at risk of experiencing certain withdrawal symptoms when they suddenly quit or cut back.

These symptoms are often uncomfortable and can compel continued use to keep them at bay. Common symptoms of marijuana withdrawal include:

Anxiety.

Irritability.

Sleeplessness.

Cravings.

Decreased appetite.

Other less common withdrawal symptoms include anger, bipolar, irritability, anorexia, weight loss and strange dreams.

 Finding Treatment Centers

Marijuana addiction treatment often begins with detox for supportive withdrawal management followed by behavioral therapy and additional recovery work. Although many people perceive weed as harmless, chronic and compulsive use may be associated with a number of problematic mental and social effects. Professional substance rehabilitation programs can help people begin to recover before such negative consequences begin to mount.

Luxury and Executive marijuana rehab centers are known for offering addiction treatment in addition to many high-end luxuries, making your recovery process much more comfortable. If you can’t afford luxury or executive rehab treatment, however, there is always traditional rehab treatment—which offers the same quality addiction care but without the extra amenities or price tag.

 Help is available

Speak with someone today

SAMHSA National Helpline

Confidential free help, from public health agencies, to find substance use treatment and information. Call 1-800-662-4357

 Treatment Center Links:

https://www.rehabs.com/recovery-programs/

 https://luxury.rehabs.com/marijuana-rehab/

 https://luxury.rehabs.com/luxury-rehab-facilities/

 https://luxury.rehabs.com/executive-treatment-services/

[arcticdementor]

Let’s be blunt. The United States has become two nations occupying the same country. When pressed, or in private, many would now agree. Fewer are willing to take the next step and accept that most people living in the United States today—certainly more than half—are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term.

I don’t just mean the millions of illegal immigrants. Obviously, those foreigners who have bypassed the regular process for entering our country, and probably will never assimilate to our language and culture, are—politically as well as legally—aliens. I’m really referring to the many native-born people—some of whose families have been here since the Mayflower—who may technically be citizens of the United States but are no longer (if they ever were) Americans. They do not believe in, live by, or even like the principles, traditions, and ideals that until recently defined America as a nation and as a people. It is not obvious what we should call these citizen-aliens, these non-American Americans; but they are something else.

What about those who do consider themselves Americans? By and large, I am referring to the 75 million people who voted in the last election against the senile figurehead of a party that stands for mob violence, ruthless censorship, and racial grievances, not to mention bureaucratic despotism. Regardless of Trump’s obvious flaws, preferring his re-election was not a difficult choice for these voters. In fact—leaving aside the Republican never-Trumpers and some squeamish centrists—it was not a difficult choice for either side. Both Right and Left know where they stand today… and it is not together. Not anymore.

Those who wanted to Make America Great Again may refer to themselves as Republicans, though many realize that, apart from Trump, the party does not really care about them. Many may also, in some loose way, consider themselves conservatives. But among these plumbers, insurance salesmen, gym owners, and factory workers there’s one question you can pretty much guarantee they never discuss with their family and friends: “What kind of conservative are you?” This question has virtually no bearing on the problems that overshadow their lives.

It is still a question, however, that occupies intellectuals, journalists, and the world of think tanks. And this matters, unfortunately, because however sensible and down to earth the voters may be, an effective political movement needs intellectual leadership to organize and explain the movement’s purposes and goals. This leadership is still divided into—to name a few—neocons, paleocons (not to be confused with paleo-libertarians!) rad-trads, the dissident right, reformicons, etc. A lot of these labels are a distraction. But before I reject these disputes as mostly irrelevant, let me make a couple of points about why we can’t immediately leave this debate behind—and so why an essay like this is necessary.

…

Practically speaking, there is almost nothing left to conserve. What is actually required now is a recovery, or even a refounding, of America as it was long and originally understood but which now exists only in the hearts and minds of a minority of citizens.

This recognition that the original America is more or less gone sets the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy apart from almost everyone else on the Right. Paradoxically, the organization that has been uniquely devoted to understanding and teaching the principles of the American founding now sees with special clarity why “conserving” that legacy is a dead end. Overturning the existing post-American order, and re-establishing America’s ancient principles in practice, is a sort of counter-revolution, and the only road forward.

…

Conservatism, Inc. is worse than useless in this regard because it does not understand through perpetual study what Trump grasped by instinct. As if coming upon a man convulsing from an obvious poison, Trump at least attempted in his own inelegant way to expel the toxin. By contrast, the conservative establishment, or much of it, has been unwilling to recognize that our body politic is dying from these noxious “norms.” Keep taking the poison! it advises. A cynic might suppose that many elements on the right have made their peace with (and found a way to profit from) the progressive project of narcotizing the American people and turning us into a nation of slaves.

What is needed, of course, is a statesman who understands both the disease afflicting the nation, and the revolutionary medicine required for the cure. But no such figure has emerged, and it is unreasonable to pin our hopes on such a savior simply turning up.

What, then, are Americans to do?

…

If you are a zombie or a human rodent who wants a shadow-life of timid conformity, then put away this essay and go memorize the poetry of Amanda Gorman. Real men and women who love honor and beauty, keep reading.

Authentic Americans still want to have decent lives. They want to work, worship, raise a family, and participate in public affairs without being treated as insolent upstarts in their own country. Therefore, we need a conception of a stable political regime that allows for the good life.

The U.S. Constitution no longer works. But that fact raises more questions than answers. Can some parts of the system—especially at the local and state level—be preserved and strengthened? How would that work? How do we distinguish the parts that are salvageable from the parts that are hopeless? How did all this happen, anyway? The answers to these questions are not obvious. Having a coherent plan—thinking through what American citizenship used to mean, what made it noble and made the country worthy of patriotic love, and how to rebuild its best elements—requires input from people, and institutions, who have given these matters a lot of thought.