#social conventions declares you cannot say no under such circumstances

[seeking-elsewhither]

GUESS WHO GOT IMPROMPTU INVITED TO OUR HOME TODAY

Every time I miss a social cue, it keeps startling me just how clueless I am at socializing.

My sister had a friend coming over to our house. Except, she was meant to come a few days back and she didn't.

So she turns up today, when I'm home alone and my parents and sister have gone out.

I look through the peephole, open the door and, without preamble but with a sheepish grin, address her, "[Sister's Name] isn't here, actually."

Maybe she nods her head imperceptibly and I don't notice, but she doesn't say anything to that. She just stares, kind of blankly and insistently.

And I, socially inept as I am, start racking my brain for what I said wrong. Ah, I wasn't clear enough. "She's gone out with her parents," I try again, hoping to clear the confusion.

She still lingers in front of me, her eyes shining, with an indecipherable look. I just force the smile on my face to stay even if she doesn't return it.

Eventually, reluctantly, she turns away after a shared awkward nod of understanding.

It's only after my family gets back home that I realize: Oh, she wanted to be invited in.

[restthecase1234]

WILL INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE LAW HELP DISTRESSED AFGHANS FIND A NEW HOME?

As the air in Afghanistan seems to get tensed in fear and chaos after the Talibani intervention, the world has stepped in to offer refuge to the people of Afghanistan in crisis. While countries like the UK and the US reassess their refugee policy and citizenship rules by accepting 5000 and 20,000 Afghanis, respectively, countries like Tajikistan, the neighbouring country, have announced accepting 1,00,000 Afghans.

Introduction

To understand how International Law can mitigate the struggle of Afghanis and reinstate the Afghan peace process, let’s first understand what International Refugee Law in the first place is -

The movement of men and women between states, whether refugees or ‘migrants ‘, takes devote a context in which sovereignty remains important, and specifically that aspect of sovereign competence which entitles the state to exercise prima facie exclusive jurisdiction over its territory and to decide who among non-citizens will probably be allowed to enter and remain, and who will be refused admission and required or compelled to leave.

Like every sovereign power, this competence must be exercised within and based on law. The state’s right to regulate the admission of non-citizens is susceptible to certain well-defined exceptions favouring those looking for refuge and others.

The Convention Refugee Definition

Article 1A(1) of the 1951 Convention applies the definition of ‘refugee ‘first to any person considered a refugee under earlier international arrangements. Then, Article 1A(2), read now together with the 1967 Protocol and without time or geographical limits, supplies a general definition of the refugee as including any person who is outside their country of origin and unable or unwilling to go back there or even to avail themselves of its protection, owing to well-founded anxiety about persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group (an additional ground not within the UNHCR Statute), or political opinion.

Stateless persons are often refugees in this sense, where the country of origin (citizenship) is understood as ‘country of former habitual residence ‘. However, it’s not necessary to flee because of fear of persecution or even actually to be persecuted.

Persecution and the Reasons for Persecution

Although central to the refugee definition, ‘persecution itself isn’t defined in the 1951 Convention. Articles 31 and 33 refer to threats to life or freedom, so clearly it contains the threat of death, or the threat of torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. A comprehensive analysis requires the overall notion to be linked to developments within the broad field of human rights. The recognition that concerns with persecution and lack of protection are interrelated elements. The persecuted don’t enjoy the protection of this country of origin, while proof having less protection on either the internal or external level may produce a presumption regarding the likelihood of persecution and to the well-roundedness of any fear.

Non-refoulement

Besides identifying the primary characteristics of the refugee, states party to the Convention also accept specific obligations which are essential to achieving the target of protection, and thereafter an appropriate solution. Foremost among these may be the principle of non-refoulment. The word refoulement derives from the French fouler, which means to drive back or even to repel. As set out in the Convention, this prescribes broadly that no refugee will probably be returned in virtually any manner whatsoever to any country where they would be at risk of persecution.

The idea that a state ought not to return persons to other states using circumstances was initially referred to in Article 3 of the 1933 Convention associated with the International Status of Refugees. It was not widely ratified, but a new era began with the General Assembly’s 1946 endorsement of the principle that refugees with valid objections should not be compelled to return to their country of origin.

An original proposal that the prohibition of refoulement is absolute and without exception was qualified by the 1951 Conference, which added a section to deny the advantage of non-refoulment to the refugee whom you can find ‘reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country or who, having been convicted by your final judgment of a grave crime, constitutes a danger to town of the country.’ Besides such limited exceptions, however, the drafters of the 1951 Convention made it clear that refugees should not be returned, either to their country of origin or to other countries in which they would be in danger; additionally, they categorically rejected a proposal permitting ‘cancellation of refugee status in cases of criminal or delinquent behaviour after recognition.

Convention Standards of Treatment

Every state is obliged to implement its international obligations in good faith, which often means incorporating international treaties into domestic law and establishing appropriate mechanisms to identify and treat those that should benefit. A procedure for the determination of refugee status thus goes a long way towards ensuring the identification of these eligible for protection and causes it to be easier for circumstances to fulfil its international obligations.

As well as the core protection of non-refoulment, the 1951 Convention prescribes freedom from penalties for illegal entry (Article 31) and freedom from expulsion, save on the absolute most serious grounds (Article 32). Article 8 seeks to exempt refugees from the application of exceptional measures which might otherwise affect them by reason only of their nationality. In contrast, Article 9 preserves the proper of states to take ‘provisional measures on the causes of national security against a specific person. States also have agreed to supply certain facilities to refugees, including administrative assistance (Article 25), identity papers (Article 27), and travel documents (Article 28).

Asylum

No international instrument defines ‘asylum ‘. Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that ‘Everyone has the right to find and take pleasure from asylum from persecution in other countries. Article one of the 1967 UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum notes that ‘Asylum granted by a State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, to persons eligible for invoke Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shall be respected by all other States.’ But it’s for ‘the State granting asylum to judge the causes for the grant of asylum’.

Refugees and Human Rights

The refugee problem cannot be separated from the field of human rights in general. It touches on both causes and solutions to ensure that knowledge and appreciation in understanding the refugee concept. Local laws of a country play an essential role in ensuring that international rules and human rights laws are applied effectively.

Keeping these International Refugee Laws and Human Rights Law in perspective, it is ascertained that the displaced refugees have a place to go.

With the dialogues floating around between the United Nations and its member countries to set up an International Rescue Committee, the refugee laws seem to be the ray of hope Afghanis have been seeking. For, to the world too, Afghan Lives Matter.

What are International Treaties and Why Should You Care About Them?

[heinidee]

Not my writing but totally agree. Let’s Imagine – Then Let’s Face Reality

davisvanguard.org - 5 hours ago



Let’s imagine California has been invaded by a terrorist force, either foreign or domestic. This force has within the past 8 months killed 53 of our Yolo County residents and is known to have injured or affected another 2,957 of us with 32 new people affected in the last 24 hours.

Let’s suppose we know this force likes to attack people in large groups, especially indoors in close proximity. Our law enforcement, in order to better protect us, has issued stay at home orders and banned gatherings of more than 10 people. There are similar findings and orders in surrounding counties and our Governor has issued emergency orders for any similarly affected counties.

How many of you believe under these circumstances, there would not be almost universal compliance with the recommendations to take cover until this group could be contained by authorities?

So explain to me why we are seeing denial of the fact that this is exactly what has happened only with an invisible enemy, COVID-19. You may wonder why I am writing this now since COVID-19 has been with us since January. This article from the Sacramento Bee prompted me to write.

Please note the difference of perspective of the now resigned health officer and the statement of the county administrator. Both believe they are acting in the best interest of their constituents. The administrator believes she has the “bigger picture in mind”. The health officer apparently believes the broader picture of economic health, mental health, and overall societal health cannot be achieved without controlling the current pandemic. While the administrator encourages people to follow the guidelines, she states they will not be enforced. This is similar to the position the UCD campus and Yolo County have taken.

But is this position of education rather than enforcement an effective strategy? I think we already know the answer. Back in April and May, Yolo County, by enacting strict shelter in place recommendations, had almost completely contained our viral outbreak. Unfortunately, some segments of our community decided to declare victory, not understanding that the strict order was the reason for success. They pushed for re-opening too soon with the resultant resurgence of cases and prolongation of the need for social isolation. A discouraged and confused populace pushed back hard by not following even the less stringent recommendations for masking and social distancing. We have the ability to enforce, but our local and country authorities have not chosen to do so.

I would argue that our elected officials should take this pandemic which has already killed 190,000 Americans, as seriously as we would take an invading human enemy who had killed the same number. We need a consistent message, consistent rules, consistent application and enforcement of those rules just as we would in a conventional battle situation.

For those who claim they prioritize getting back our “normal lives”, I would say this is our new normal life. There is no benefit to pretending this danger is not present in our communities.

The novel coronavirus is an ongoing aspect of the reality of our current lives. The sooner we stop pretending it is not, the sooner we will be able to relax our behaviors. There is no way to back out of this. The only path is to accept, adapt and move forward.

[junaou]

𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏 𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐋.

Brain worms said ‘go write Junao’s relationship call!’ so here I am, writing this relationship call. Please come and cherish this man. Or pick a fight, whatever’s your thing. Now, as of writing Junao is not in FGO servers outside of JP yet, so there are some spoilers regarding LB4 and all that. These are things I can usually leave out in normal threads/convos, but deeper social links would require me to prod into some of those topics. Tread carefully!

(This ended up being long. Like, really long. I’m so sorry.)

Like this post or reply with the number corresponding to the ideas below that you think would jive well with Junao and your muse. By default I’ll use Tumblr’s messaging system, but if you don’t prefer that/have other options my Discord ID is also available for the taking - just ask! I’ll also make sure to send any memes I find interesting, poke you when the brainworms come out, etcetera.

01. GENERAL IMPRESSIONS. 

Junao is a very pleasant person to be around, and chances are most would find him to be good company - especially if this is their first meeting with the guy. Small talk is a good start to being acquainted with him! Most of the time he’ll just be there to point out things, maybe lend a hand or two.

But at the same time one might notice that a lot of this is very surface level. Less mimicry and more detached if anything, like floating clouds. His optimistic behavior will always be directed at others. Junao is a god, an observer with no personal preferences. He doesn’t really feel emotional about a lot of things, so chances are you’re not gonna get a rise out of him: he’ll just simply disagree or agree, and move on.

02. OCCASIONAL CURIOSITIES. 

His world came into a standstill during ancient times. He might be aware of new innovations and modern changes thanks from Chaldea’s database or due to the circumstances of his summoning, but knowing and actually experiencing these things are two very different things. A lot of the environment is bound to catch his attention - whether it is about the urban horizon or the noise of arcade machines down the street. Junao would be up to trying out pretty much anything, so it’s really easy to entertain his questions or drag him into participating activities.

03. ARTS & CRAFTS. 

Creation and destruction are his domains as a god, but creating stuff with merely the use of his Authority wasn’t very fulfilling at all. There’s joy in the process itself, so even back in Chaldea he had been trying to create with conventional means. The end result isn’t as perfect, of course, but he still finds it fun regardless. The nature of the craft can vary, from carving wood to folding origami or even assembling model kits! Chances are if you find him in a shop he would be looking for DIY items to try out.

04. DIVINITY. 

Junao’s status as a god is quite strange. He wasn’t born as one and he wasn’t supposed to become one. Needless to say, his current performance as a god is…well, it’s not quite stellar. Of course it’s not like he hasn’t communed with gods in the past -  his father is one after all. But all of his prior experiences have been under the position of one who followed and worship them. Now that he walks among them, he’s not quite so sure. Anyone who also happened to be a god in their own world would be of interest to him, just to know how it is like for them to have divine inhumanity in their blood.  He has to realize that not every god shares his emotional detachment.

05. TO PURGE ALL EVIL. 

He inherited the majority of his divine aspect from Kalki, one who is said to cleanse the world of all evil. In his hopes and dreams for a perfect world he tried to remove all known sources of it, only to end up going overboard. (Overboard is an understatement.) Now aware of this flaw, Arjuna has narrowed down his definition to anyone who threatens those close to him, which is a good starting point! So uh, don’t mess with them or you’ll have to face the wrath of a god.

That being said, he’s aware that figuring out the complexities and the nuances between good and evil is something he needs a better grasp on, something that would take an eternity for one to learn. There are some things that he can easily consider to be evil of the bat, but the moral grey is something he needs to face directly and address if he wanted be do better at his job.

06. I HAND YOU MORE YEARNING. 

“How enviable. That is truly the form of a human. They continue to struggle even as ugly as they are. They act valiantly, but they continue to tremble in fear. They cry out saying they don’t want to die, and yet risk their lives to save another. Something inside me insists… ‘I want that. I want to be that.’”

Gods use humans as their proxies, but men do not become gods. Arjuna Alter’s existence is an anomaly, one that breaches this rule. And yet, no matter what happens, his status as a god shall never change. He can no longer return to become human again. That is why he looks at humans from a distance - in all their beauty and ugliness, their strength and their love and their passion, the way they rise and fall and rise again. Longing for something he has discarded.

07. BY CONTINUING TO QUESTION. 

So. Remember what I said about him being a god with no preferences, detached from all forms of desire and emotion?

Now throw all of that out of the window.

Arjuna is an imperfect god. Beneath all these layers of divinity, underneath the functions and the code, therein lies a human soul. One that by all means should have disappeared into the void once he has absorbed nearly every god and yet despite everything he has retained his individuality. Call it a paradox or a miracle, but this is something that can only be achieved by those we call heroes.

Of course this is something that not everyone would be privy towards, but if one pursues a closer relation with Junao it is inevitable that one would end up unearthing these aspects. This personality may be muted, but there are just simply things that he cannot help but react towards. What sides would resurface would depend on specific interactions, however. After all, Arjuna is human, possessing positive and negative traits in equal measure.

07A. WHITE. Bonds are important to Arjuna, whether it is from friends or from family. He is devoted to those who trust and respect him, and those he has grown to trust and respect in return. He still loves his theatrics, whether it’s showing off a skill or just being plain dramatic, and is a willing participant when it comes to competition. He’s no longer afraid of expressing himself, and thus any smile or sign of gratefulness is the genuine thing.

07B. BLACK. He is not above pettiness or resentment. One cannot easily forget pride and honor, and he would come to rise in his own defense or on others when necessary. There are things that are still capable of riling him up, such as injustices that he cannot find himself to forgive. While he is trying to rid himself of his perfectionism, a part of it still exists, and he might find himself going overboard when blinded by emotion. As much as he would deny it, there are things he has begun to question - about his destiny, about his dharma, things he would claim to be unfair despite declaring himself as the greatest sinner of them all.

07C. BHAGAVAD GITA. And herein lies the root of his existence, the point where the fates of the Berserker Arjuna has diverged from the Archer Arjuna. His decision to absorb all gods was a decision rooted in the deepest depths of despair. It was the overabundance of suffering and moral dilemma that has had him think that it would be better to feel nothing at all, and why he has given up his emotions and personality. Why he forgot what was he supposed to fight for in the first place.

He still cannot confront them, after all this time. To face it head on is to have it break down all the walls he has built up for millennia, and no matter when it occurs he would not be ready for that backlash. He has failed in where the Archer Arjuna succeeded, and he is full aware that to acknowledge them again would break him. It has already broken him before.

What lies beyond the song of gods? I do not know. But eventually he has to go back there again, to that time where he has sacrificed everything for nothing. And when he does, he needs to find an answer. May you help him find that, no matter what it may be.

If you have reached this part of this post…congratulations! And thank you so much for reading this up to the end. Of course, I am also open to any ideas that aren’t listed here. Feel free to poke me on messages, plotting is fun and good.

[tomasorban]

THE ZODIAC: LIBRA THE SCALES

Date of Rulership: 22nd September-23rd October; Polarity: Positive, male; Quality: Cardinal; Ruling planet: Venus; Element: Air; Body part: Back, kidneys, and ovaries; Colour: All shades of blue; Gemstone: Sapphire, jade; Metal: Copper or bronze.

Libra is probably the first sign in which we see a comprehensive exploration of the concept of duality and a conciliation of opposing forces like order and chaos, activity and passivity, truth and falsehood, equality and inequality, and so forth. The sign is primarily concerned with this conflicting relationship and interaction between opposites because it inherently understands that opposing forces in the universe facilitate the fruition of equilibrium. Sadly, this is one theme that more often than not eludes all other archetypes standing along the wheel of heaven. With Libra, we begin to acquire a much deeper understanding of the cosmos as an inhabited space of conscious and superconscious extensions and examine questions such as whether or not two things or people can co-habit the same space and partake in symbiosis. If so, can the two be synchronized in such a way as to foster the allusion that the two are actually one? Can two people or things of variant compositions and teleological hardware be made to step, skip, or even march to the same rhythm? According to Libra, such affiliations can be successfully developed and maintained otherwise the world would lapse into a lapsarian state of war and disarray. The psychological and social friction caused by the everlasting battle between thoughts of yes and no and the actions of give and take mediate compromised experiences from which more than a single person learns and grows. Hence, what we find with the Libran formative force is that it is always juggling with two or more conflicting viewpoints and attempting to harmonize them in such a way as to leave the minds from whence they originated mutually satisfied. When this process of unanimity works it has the power to transmute base matter to gold. Alternatively failure to make peace between them results in negative consequences like alienation, disenchantment, and self-destruction.  

“As ye make your bed, so shall ye sleep in it,” says Libra in a stern voice. “Many of the preceding inhabitants of the zodiac–Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, and Virgo–see me as being rather cold, distant and impersonal. I can come across that way, especially when my superego Osiris springs into action. Would you like to know what Osiris tells me every night as I’m drifting off to sleep? He says that everything that exists on the physical, mental, or spiritual planes is subject to the cosmic law of cause and effect. For every action there is a reaction, and for everything that is pushed there will be something pulled away. He also says that irrespective of class, gender, distinction, social rank or privilege, every individual in possession of a soul is born into this world with a dowry. If he or she utilizes this dowry to the best of his or her ability whilst remaining faithfully orientated towards justice and truth, life usually materializes as sympathetic and kind. If, though, egotistic gratification becomes the reason for one to commit social misconduct and misbehaviour, the universe will react by drawing the noose around his or her personal freedom and squeeze the life out of him or her, bit by bit.

On the whole, I think listening to these short lectures on moral and social codes has made me a much better entity. Furthermore, I’m much more apt and skilful at weeding out liars, swindlers, bullies and cowards than I used to be, and can easily detect any irruptions of emotion, cunning justifications and intellectual arguments generated to obstruct pathways to the truth. Don’t you dare think that I’m not a merciful power; there’s plenty of compassion and empathy in me. I can understand how someone’s personal circumstances might compel them to commit a crime against another or humanity as a whole, but that in no way diminishes my belief that violation of another’s rights or social transgression should be punished accordingly.

In any case, I’m a social animal and need to be around people, especially those that share similar interests and are composed of the same moral clay as myself. I feel that people should be treated respectfully at all times; courteous interactions and social etiquette are a must! I cope well with most things, vent occasionally, and can be exceptionally understanding and tolerant of others’ vices. I’m happy to say that unlike many of my co-stars on the zodiacal band, I do fight fairly and respectfully. I also see nothing wrong with looking after oneself. Much can be discerned about one’s personality and character from grooming and personal hygiene. Like attracts like; if I want to attract the beautiful to myself, I too must make an effort to look beautiful. I care what likeminded others think of me; more often than not, looking good steadfast earns their approval so I’m all for it!”

Libra is a sign that is intimately linked to cerebral processes which have governed the evolution of human consciousness and the historic induction of a civilized life based on social parameters, moral codes and conventions. Thus it would be more than appropriate to declare that Libra is a faithful advocate for the acknowledgment of interpersonal relationships between two committed people regardless of race or gender. There is something of the sacred and divine in the love that exists between two committed individuals, and in Libra’s eyes these partnerships should be acknowledged, endorsed and held in the highest honour by all citizens unified under the umbrella of culture. The inclination towards convention is not to say that Libra is narrow-minded, bigoted, or totalitarian in any way, shape, or form–far from it! Libra respects and recognizes all unions of matrimony regardless of the dynamic and nature of the partnership whilst at the same time expressing preference for monogamistic lifestyles. It is not opposed to polygamy, but does not wish to revel in it itself. Libra is a firm believer in the adage that “everyone is born equal” and does not believe in gender-specific roles, colours, or any other qualities quantified and standardized by Western culture in that way.

With respect to its personal life, the Libran psyche can go on forgiving the mistakes and wrongdoings of significant others until it begins to feel a sense of hopelessness. When this threshold is reached, Libra can become cold-hearted, detached and mercilessly unyielding. It should also be mentioned that Librans can be quite charming and seductive and often enjoy flirting more than the sexual encounter itself. They are brilliant schemers and diplomats and will never act on impulse. For a Libran, deliberation is more appealing than immediacy and long-term goals and effects are far more important than fleeting and momentary pleasures. Libra is a cardinal energy and cannot stay inert for too long without becoming restless. Nevertheless it needs intermittent breaks between prolonged periods of activity to diffuse tension and excess stress otherwise its mental health can become afflicted.

There are two symbols associated with the zodiacal sign of Libra. The first, a set of scales, is the only inert object to exemplify a zodiacal sign in the Western zodiac as well as the perfect exoteric expression of Libra’s rudimentary quality–balance. All ancient civilizations, from the Indians and Persians to the Hellenes and Babylonians stood united in attributing to the seventh sign concepts which enabled the universal derivation of order from primordial chaos. The Romans attributed special significance to this sign because the foundation stone of Rome and thus of Italian self-determination was laid on October 4th, a date which falls under the mediation of the Libran house. In ancient Egypt, Libra was inexplicably connected to the concept of maat, a word used to denote the providential state of order, truth, balance and justice and personified as an Egyptian goddess with an ostrich feather strapped to her headdress. In ancient Egyptian society it was widely held that maat had been inaugurated by the gods at the moment of creation and was supposed to be upheld by the pharaoh, the living incarnation of Horus, through temple construction and the enactment of ritual. A surviving body of ancient Egyptian literature coined Instructive or Wisdom Literature illuminates just how vital justice, ethical standards and social etiquette were to the lives of the ancient Egyptians but especially to their eschatological practices and beliefs. Maat played a pivotal role in day-to-day undertakings but it played an even bigger role in the psychostasia, the judgement that was thought to occur following the death of an individual and determined whether or not he or she would continue to exist in an alternate dimension known as the Amenti. According to instructional texts connected to the moral code, any expression of disorder, envy, deceit, rebellion against established authority, laziness, injustice, and ingratitude were crimes against maat and set the individual soul upon the road which led to punishment, an eternal state of non-existence.

The second symbol is an astrological shorthand for the zodiacal sign utilized by astrologers in the creation of astrological charts and looks like a yoke. Interestingly, the ancient Greeks called Libra “Zygos” which essentially means “yoke”. An even more striking parallel exists between this pictogram and the ancient Egyptian hieroglyph used to denote akhet, the horizon or place of the rising and setting sun. In ancient Egypt the just mentioned word was originally used as an ideogram for “horizon” and “mountain of light” until the Ptolemaic Period when Hellenistic culture introduced Chaldean astrology to Egypt and connected the latter with the seventh house of the zodiac. From that moment onwards the word akhet was also a synonym for Libra and was appropriate given that the appearance of the full moon in this sign signals a return of the solar orb to the vernal equinox that might be interpreted as a tipping of the scales in the opposite direction and a reinstatement of universal balance.

In retrospect, both astrological sign and shorthand recall positive elementary and cardinal traits belonging to Libra–tenderness, tranquillity, fondness, orderliness, and sophistication. Dispassion, impartiality, relaxation, and sporadic inertia are also indigenous to its psychic make-up, a notion consistent with a lull in agricultural movement during the transient period of its government. The sign thrives when polar opposites coexist in a state of harmony but any psychological or physiological affliction can throw the scales off balance and result in protean temperaments and wild mood swings. The propensity of this sign to discern both sides of an argument and equate, measure, and quantify all possible trajectories before rationalizing a final judgement marks it as the personal abode of diplomats, judges, governments, and law-makers.

[kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkillme]

<!-- saved from url=(0069)http://csivc.csi.cuny.edu/americanstudies/files/lavender/decwom2.html --> <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"><title>Declaration of the Rights of Woman, 1791</title><style type="text/css">.backpack.dropzone {  font-family: 'SF UI Display', 'Segoe UI';  font-size: 15px;  text-align: center;  display: flex;  flex-direction: column;  justify-content: center;  align-items: center;  width: 250px;  height: 150px;  font-weight: lighter;  color: white;  will-change: right;  z-index: 2147483647;  bottom: 20%;  background: #333;  position: fixed;  user-select: none;  transition: left .5s, right .5s;  right: 0px; }  .backpack.dropzone .animation {    height: 80px;    width: 250px;    background: url("chrome-extension://lifbcibllhkdhoafpjfnlhfpfgnpldfl/assets/backpack/dropzone/hoverstate.png") left center; }  .backpack.dropzone .title::before {    content: 'Save to'; }  .backpack.dropzone.closed {    right: -250px; }  .backpack.dropzone.hover .animation {    animation: sxt-play-anim-hover 0.91s steps(21);    animation-fill-mode: forwards;    background: url("chrome-extension://lifbcibllhkdhoafpjfnlhfpfgnpldfl/assets/backpack/dropzone/hoverstate.png") left center; } @keyframes sxt-play-anim-hover {  from {    background-position: 0px; }  to {    background-position: -5250px; } }  .backpack.dropzone.saving .title::before {    content: 'Saving to'; }  .backpack.dropzone.saving .animation {    background: url("chrome-extension://lifbcibllhkdhoafpjfnlhfpfgnpldfl/assets/backpack/dropzone/saving_loop.png") left center;    animation: sxt-play-anim-saving steps(59) 2.46s infinite; } @keyframes sxt-play-anim-saving {  100% {    background-position: -14750px; } }  .backpack.dropzone.saved .title::before {    content: 'Saved to'; }  .backpack.dropzone.saved .animation {    background: url("chrome-extension://lifbcibllhkdhoafpjfnlhfpfgnpldfl/assets/backpack/dropzone/saved.png") left center;    animation: sxt-play-anim-saved steps(20) 0.83s forwards; } @keyframes sxt-play-anim-saved {  100% {    background-position: -5000px; } } </style></head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff"> <center><h2>Declaration of the Rights of Woman, 1791</h2> Written by Olympe De Gouges, 1791</center><p> <img src="./Declaration of the Rights of Woman, 1791_files/olympe.gif" hspace="10" align="right"> "[Olympe] De Gouges was a butcher's daughter ... who wrote several plays and a number of pamphlets on the coming Estates General.  In this work [<i>Les Droits de la Femme</i>] de Gouges states that the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen is not being applied to women.  She implies the vote for women, demands a national assembly of women, stresses that men must yield rights to women, and emphasizes women's education."--Darline Gay Levy, Harriet Branson Applewhite, and Mary Durham Johnson, eds., <i>Women in Revolutionary Paris, 1789-1795</i> (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1980), p. 87.</p><p> <i>Note:  De Gouges's devotion to the cause of women's rights led to her being charged with treason under the rule of the National Convention.  She was arrested, tried, and later, in November of 1793, executed by the guillotine.</i></p><p> <br clear="all"> </p><center><h3>The Rights of Woman</h3></center>      Man, are you capable of being just?  It is a woman who poses the question; you will not deprive her of that right at least.  Tell me, what gives you sovereign empire to opress my sex?  Your strength?  Your talents?  Observe the Creator in his wisdom; survey in all her grandeur that nature with whom you seem to want to be in harmony, and give me, if you dare, an exampl of this tyrannical empire.  Go back to animals, consult the elements, study plants, finally glance at all the modifications of organic matter, and surrender to the evidence when I offer you the menas; search, probe, and distinguish, if you can, the sexes in the administration of nature.  Everywhere you will find them mingled; everywhere they cooperate in harmonious tpgetherness in this immortal masterpiece.<br>      Man alone has raised his exceptional circumstances to a principle.  Bizarre, blind, bloated with science and degenerated--in a century of enlightenment and wisdom--into the crassest ignorance, he wants to command as a despot a sex which is in full possession of its intellectual faculties; he pretends to enjoy the Revolution and to claim his rights to equality in order to say nothing more about it.<p> </p><center><h3>Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen</h3></center> For the National Assemby to decree in its last sessions, or in those of the next legislature:<p> </p><center><h3>Preamble</h3></center>      Mothers, daughters, sisters [and] representatives of the nation demand to be constituted into a national assembly.  Believing that ignorance, omission, or scorn for the rights of woman are the only causes of public misfortunes and of the corruption of governments, [the women] have resolved to set forth a solemn declaration the natural, inalienable, and sacred rights of woman in order that this declaration, constantly exposed before all members of the society, will ceaselessly remind them of their rights and duties; in order that the authoritative acts f women and teh athoritative acts of men may be at any moment compared with and respectful of the purpose of all political institutions; and in order that citizens' demands, henceforth based on simple and incontestable principles, will always support the constitution, good morals, and the happiness of all.<br>      Consequently, the sex that is as superior in beauty as it is in courage during the sufferings of maternity recognizes and declares in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following Rights of WOman and of Female Citizens. <center><h3>Article I</h3></center>      Woman is born free and lives equal to man in her rights.  Social distinctions can be based only on the common utility.<p> </p><center><h3>Article II</h3></center>      The purpose of any political association is the conservation of the natural and impresciptible rights of woman and man; these rights are liberty property, security, and especially resistance to oppression.<p> </p><center><h3>Article III</h3></center>      The principle of all sovereignty rests essentially with the nation, which is nothing but the union of woman and man; no body and no individual can exercise any authority which does not come expressly from it (the nation).<p> </p><center><h3>Article IV</h3></center>      Liberty and justice consist of restoring all that belongs to others; thus, the only limits on the exercise of the natural rights of woman are perpetual male tyranny; these limits are to be reformed by the laws of nature and reason.<p> </p><center><h3>Article V</h3></center>      Laws of nature and reason proscibe all acts harmful to society; everything which is not prohibited by these wise and divine laws cannot be prevented, and no one can be constrained to do what they do not command.<p> </p><center><h3>Article VI</h3></center>      The law must be the expression of the general will; all female and male citizens must contribute either personally or through their representatives to its formation; it must be the same for all: male and female citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, must be equally admitted to all honors, positions, and public employment according to their capacity and without other distinctions besides those of their virtues and talents.<p> </p><center><h3>Article VII</h3></center>      No woman is an exception; she is accused, arrested, and detained in cases determined by law.  Women, like men, obey this rigorous law.<p> </p><center><h3>Article VIII</h3></center>      The law must establish only those penalties that are strictly and obviously necessary...<p> </p><center><h3>Article IX</h3></center>      Once any woman is declared guilty, complete rigor is exercised by law.<p> </p><center><h3>Article X</h3></center>      No one is to be disquieted for his very basic opinions; woman has the right to mount the scaffold; she must equally have the right to mount the rostrum, provided that her demonstrations do not disturb the legally established public order.<p> </p><center><h3>Article XI</h3></center>      The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of woman, since that liberty assures recognition of children by their fathers.  Any female citizen thus may say freely, I am the mother of a child which belongs to you, without being forced by a barbarous prejudice to hide the truth; (an exception may be made) to respond to the abuse of this liberty in cases determined by law.<p> </p><center><h3>Article XII</h3></center>      The gaurantee of the rights of woman and the female citizen implies a major benefit; this guarantee must be instituted for the advantage of all, and not for the particular benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.<p> </p><center><h3>Article XIII</h3></center>      For the support of the public force and the expenses of administration, the contributions of woman and man are equal; she shares all the duties and all the painful tasks; therefore, whe must have the same share in the distribution of positions, employment, offices, honors, and jobs.<p> </p><center><h3>Article XIV</h3></center>      Female and male citizens have the right to verify, either by themselves of through their representatives, the necessity of the public contribution.  This can only apply to women if they are granted an equal share, not only of wealth, but also of public administration, and in the determination of the proportion, the base, the collection, and the duration of the tax.<p> </p><center><h3>Article XV</h3></center>      The collectivity of women, joined for tax purposes to the aggregate of men, has the right to demand an accounting of his administration from any public agent.<p> </p><center><h3>Article XVI</h3></center>      No society has a constitution without the guarantee of rights and the separation of powers; the constitution is null if the majority of individuals comprising the nation have not cooperated in drafting it.<p> </p><center><h3>Article XVII</h3></center>      Property belongs to both sexes whether united or separate; for each it is an inviolable and sacred right' no one can be deprived of it, since it is the true patrimony of natire, unless the legally determined public need obviously dictates it, and then only with a just and prior indemnity.<p> </p><h3>Postscript</h3>      Woman, wake up; the tocsin of reason is being heard throughout the whole universe; discover your rights. The powerful empire of nature is no longer surrounded by prejudice, fanaticism, superstition, and lies. The flame of truth has dispersed all the clouds of folly and usurpation. Enslaved man has multiplied his strength and needs recourse to yours to break his chains. Having become free, he has become unjust to his companion. Oh, women, women! When will you cease to be blind? What advantage have you received from the Revolution? A more pronounced scorn, a more marked disdain. In the centuries of corruption you ruled only over the weakness of men. The reclamation of your patrimony, based on the wise decrees of nature-what have you to dread from such a fine undertaking? The <i>bon mot </i>of the legislator of the marriage of Cana? Do you fear that our French legislators, correctors of that morality, long ensnared by political practices now out of date, will only say again to you: women, what is there in common between you and us? Everything, you will have to answer. If they persist in their weakness in putting this non sequitur in contradiction to their principles, courageously oppose the force of reason to the empty pretentions of superiority; unite yourselves beneath the standards of philosophy; deploy all the energy of your character, and you will soon see these haughty men, not groveling at your feet as servile adorers, but proud to share with you the treasures of the Supreme Being. Regardless of what barriers confront you, it is in your power to free yourselves; you have only to want to....<br>      Marriage is the tomb of trust and love. The married woman can with impunity give bastards to her husband, and also give them the wealth which does not belong to them. The woman who is unmarried has only one feeble right; ancient and inhuman laws refuse to her for her children the right to the name and the wealth of their father; no new laws have been made in this matter. If it is considered a paradox and an impossibility on my part to try to give my sex an honorable and just consistency, I leave it to men to attain glory for dealing with this matter; but while we wait, the way can be prepared through national education, the restoration of morals, and conjugal conventions.<p> </p><center><h3>Form for a Social Contract Between Man and Woman</h3></center>      We, _____ and ______, moved by our own will, unite ourselves for the duration of our lives, and for the duration of our mutual inclinations, under the following conditions: We intend and wish to make our wealth communal, meanwhile reserving to ourselves the right to divide it in favor of our children and of those toward whom we might have a particular inclination, mutually recognizing that our property belongs directly to our children, from whatever bed they come, and that all of them without distinction have the right to bear the name of the fathers and mothers who have acknowledged them, and we are charged to subscribe to the law which punishes the renunciation of one's own blood. We likewise obligate ourselves, in case of separation, to divide our wealth and to set aside in advance the portion the law indicates for our children, and in the event of a perfect union, the one who dies will divest himself of half his property in his children's favor, and if one dies childless, the survivor will inherit by right, unless the dying person has disposed of half the common property in favor of one whom he judged deserving. <p>      That is approximately the formula for the marriage act I propose for execution. Upon reading this strange document, I see rising up against me the hypocrites, the prudes, the clergy, and the whole infernal sequence. But how it [my proposal] offers to the wise the moral means of achieving the perfection of a happy government! . . .<br>      Moreover, I would like a law which would assist widows and young girls deceived by the false promises of a man to whom they were attached; I would like, I say, this law to force an inconstant man to hold to his obligations or at least [to pay] an indemnity equal to his wealth. Again, I would like this law to be rigorous against women, at least those who have the effrontery to have reCourse to a law which they themselves had violated by their misconduct, if proof of that were given. At the same time, as I showed in <i>Le Bonheur primitit de l'homme, </i>in 1788, that prostitutes should be placed in designated quarters. It is not prostitutes who contribute the most to the depravity of morals, it is the women of' society. In regenerating the latter, the former are changed. This link of fraternal union will first bring disorder, but in consequence it will produce at the end a perfect harmony.<br>      I offer a foolproof way to elevate the soul of women; it is to join them to all the activities of man; if man persists in finding this way impractical, let him share his fortune with woman, not at his caprice, but by the wisdom of laws. Prejudice falls, morals are purified, and nature regains all her rights. Add to this the marriage of priests and the strengthening of the king on his throne, and the French government cannot fail. </p><p> From Darline Gay Levy, Harriet Branson Applewhite, and Mary Durham Johnson, eds., <i>Women in Revolutionary Paris, 1789-1795</i> (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1980), pp. 87-96.</p><p> </p><h6><a href="http://csivc.csi.cuny.edu/americanstudies/files/lavender/liberty.html">Return to the Beginning</a></h6> <div id="UMS_TOOLTIP" style="position: absolute; cursor: pointer; z-index: 2147483647; background: transparent; top: -100000px; left: -100000px;"></div></body><umsdataelement id="UMSSendDataEventElement"></umsdataelement></html>

[maxwellyjordan]

Wednesday round-up

The justices have one oral argument on their agenda this morning, in Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, about whether dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under a federal statute that limits prisoners’ ability to file lawsuits without paying the filing fees. Margo Schlanger previewed the case for this blog. Emma Horne and Nicole Jaeckel have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

Yesterday, the justices boosted their disposition rate for the term, releasing opinions in four cases. In Hernandez v. Mesa, the court held 5-4 that the family of a Mexican teenager who was killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in a cross-border shooting cannot sue the officer for damages under the Constitution. Amy Howe has this blog’s opinion analysis, which was first published at Howe on the Court. At Fox News, Ronn Blitzer and Bill Mears report that the court held that “precedent regarding lawsuits against officers, known as ‘Bivens claims,’ does not apply to cross-border shootings’: [Justice Samuel] Alito noted the high standard of extending Bivens to a ‘new context’ and gave several reasons why it was inappropriate in this case.” At Capitol Media Services (via the Arizona Capitol Times), Howard Fischer reports that “Tuesday’s ruling is virtually certain to quash a nearly identical lawsuit filed by Araceli Rodriguez following the 2012 shooting death of her son, Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez.” For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “[i]n a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, called on the court to overrule the Bivens decision entirely.” Additional coverage comes from Kevin Daley at The Washington Free Beacon.

At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman notes that “[i]f any case not on all factual fours with Bivens represents a new context, the majority gets where Justice Thomas wants to go, without the political cost of overrulings.” At Vox, Ian Millhiser argues that “[t]he Supreme Court’s decision in Hernández transforms the Bill of Rights into a paper tiger in many cases involving law enforcement overreach.” Tuan Samahon wonders at PrawfsBlawg whether “[a]fter Hernandez, … Congress [is] ready yet to codify Bivens.” Kym Stapleton discusses the opinion at Crime & Consequences.

In another 5-4 decision, the court ruled against a death-row inmate in McKinney v. Arizona, holding that a court of appeals, not a jury, can reweigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances on collateral review. This blog’s opinion analysis comes from Amy Howe, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger writes that “[a] great deal of post-conviction litigation in capital cases consists of claims that some marginally relevant mitigating evidence, often with no connection to the crime, was erroneously omitted from the sentencing process,” and that “[a]llowing the state collateral review court to say ‘even assuming that was an error, the aggravating still outweighs the mitigating, and the sentence is still proper’ would go a long way toward mooting those claims relatively early in the process.”

In Monasky v. Taglieri, the court ruled unanimously that under the Hague Convention on international abductions, a child’s “habitual residence” depends on the totality of the circumstances, not on categorical requirements such as an actual agreement between the parents. Amy Howe analyzes the opinion for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. In another unanimous ruling, Rodriguez v. FDIC, the court held that a judicially created rule about how courts should determine ownership of a tax refund paid to an affiliated corporate group is not a legitimate exercise of federal common law rulemaking, and sent the case back for the lower courts to apply state law.

Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times that during yesterday’s argument in United States v. Sineneng-Smith, the court “seemed doubtful that a 1986 federal law that makes it a crime to ‘encourage’ unauthorized immigrants to come to or stay in the United States could be squared with the First Amendment.” At Education Week’s School Law Blog, Mark Walsh reports that “[t]he lively hour-long argument … touched on the roles of sanctuary cities and advocacy groups in aiding undocumented immigrants, as well as other areas in which speech inducing someone to commit a legal violation might be at issue.” For The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Jess Bravin reports that “[s]everal justices questioned whether the statute could be read more narrowly, limiting its application to clearly criminal conduct and sparing the court from having to strike down the law as unconstitutional.” At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson observes that the argument “criss-cross[ed] the lines between conduct and speech, between criminal law and the First Amendment, and between constitutional avoidance and judicial ability to redraft a statute.”

Noah Sachs analyzes Monday’s argument in U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, involving the power of the Forest Service to grant rights of way through lands traversed by the Appalachian Trail, for this blog. Ellen Gilmer reports at Bloomberg Environment that “[t]he Atlantic Coast pipeline appears likely to clear a major legal hurdle after a majority of Supreme Court justices seemed to lean in favor of allowing the project to cross the Appalachian Trail.” At E&E News, Niina Farah reports that, although the outcome “will remain unknown until the Supreme Court issues its opinion in the coming months, legal experts said they largely expect the justices to overturn a lower court’s finding that the Forest Service could not authorize the trail crossing.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]

At Fox News, Edmund DeMarche reports that “[i]n a remarkable public rebuke, President Trump late Monday called on Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from any cases involving his administration over their past comments.” Robert Barnes and Ashley Parker report for The Washington Post (subscription required) that “Trump interpreted as biased a dissent from Sotomayor about his administration’s tendency to seek emergency interventions from the Supreme Court” and “[h]e reminded Ginsburg of remarks she made about him as a candidate in 2016, for which she has expressed regret.” Mark Sherman reports at AP that “[j]ustices decide for themselves when to step aside from cases the court is considering, and it is highly unlikely either justice would sit out cases involving Trump, including two cases the court will hear on March 31 over subpoenas for Trump’s tax, bank and financial records.” At The Washington Free Beacon, Kevin Daley reports that “[t]he justices generally do not disclose why they remove themselves from particular cases, though reasons are sometimes readily identifiable.” At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson comments on ‘[t]he seemingly persistent question of the type of bias of SCOTUS Justices that should merit recusal.”

Briefly:

At the Brennan Center for Justice, Andrew Cohen weighs in on the court’s decision last week to allow the federal government to enforce a new “public charge” rule limiting noncitizens’ access to green cards, the case that triggered Sotomayor’s dissent, arguing that the court has “already has declared itself in Trump’s camp this term, over and over again, using stay procedures as both a shield and a sword for the administration, without paying much of a price in terms of its institutional credibility.”

Ian Millhiser writes at Vox that Fulton v. Philadelphia, a challenge to Philadelphia’s exclusion of Catholic Social Services from the city’s foster care system because the group will not place children with same-sex couples that the court will hear next term, “is a significant escalation from most of the Supreme Court’s previous cases asking when religious people may seek an exemption from the law.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/02/wednesday-round-up-513/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[rightsinexile]

Do refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach?

This short piece was contributed by Joël Reland, Factchecker at Full Fact, the UK’s independent factchecking charity. He states that he had help writing this article from Dr Violeta Moreno-Lax, Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Law and Founder of the Immigration Law Programme at Queen Mary University of London.

“[The people trying to cross the Channel from France to the UK] are not refugees…

“Because no one needs refuge from France. Or any of the other numerous safe countries they’ve passed though [sic] en route…

“And who under the Geneva Convention should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. If they were genuine, that’s what they’d do. They’re not genuine. Just illegal migrants on the take.

Suzanne Evans, 3 January 2019

The above comments, made by former UKIP politician and Brexit campaigner Suzanne Evans, relate to the recent cases of people trying to cross the Channel from France to England in small boats.

Ms Evans cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications.

She is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this — an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.  

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach

Ms Evans is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

Ms Evans describes those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats as “illegal migrants”.

Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.

This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. The European Court of Human Rights has previously found an EU country (Greece) to pose a risk to an Afghan refugee, therefore upholding the refugee’s right to seek asylum elsewhere (Belgium). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

[vitalmindandbody]

Two American Reveries: how a dumbed-down society lost spate of a great impression

As Clinton and Trump prepare to debate next week , princely models are overwhelmed in a culture where most Americans do not know what is real anymore and the dream of equal opportunity is just a fantasy

Every child had a pretty good shot

To get at least as far as their old boy got

But something happened on the way to that place

They hurled an American flag in our face.

Billy Joel, Allentown

Its one of the greatest fabrications of all time, and just like it says on the dollar bill novus ordo seclorum it established an entirely new tell in human affairs. After millennia of pharaohs, lords, lords, kings, sultans, caesars and czars, with all their attendant gentries and locked-down social structure, a country was founded where birth and lineage didnt topic so much, where by application of your genius, force, labor and willingness to play by the rules, you could improve your information spate in life and achieve a measure of financial insurance for yourself and your family. Peasants and proles could aspire to more than mere survival. Progressive!

We know it today as the American Dream. The now-obscure historian James Truslow Adams coined the expression in his book The Epic of America, characterizing the American reverie as TAGEND

a dream of a social order in which each man and each girl shall be able to attain to the fullest prominence of which they are innately capable, and be recognised by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of delivery or position.

Adams was writing in 1931, but the dreaming was there from the beginning, in Jeffersons pursuit of happiness formulation in the Declaration of Independence, joy residing in its 18 th-century appreciation of succes, thrive, wellbeing.

Nobody ever came to America with a starry-eyed dream of working for famine compensations. Spate of that offered in the old country, and thats precise why we left, escaping serfdom, peonage, tenancy, indenture all different iterations of what was essentially a rigged organisation, to set it in current political verbiage that channeled the profits of our proletariat upstream to the Man. We came to America to do better, to secure for ourselves the liberation that financial defence accompanieds, and for millions largely lily-white males at first, and then slowly, sputteringly, women and people of color thats the direction it used to work , nothing less than a revolution in the human condition.

Upward mobility is indispensable to the American Dream, the notion that people can rise from working to middle class, and middle to upper and even higher on the prototype of a( imaginary) Horatio Alger or an( actual) Andrew Carnegie. Upward mobility across classes peaked in the US in the late 19 th century. Most of the benefits of the 20 th century were achieved en masse; it wasnt so much a phenomenon of great numbers of people emerge from one class to the next as it was standards of living rising sharply for all world-class. You didnt “ve got to be” exceptional to rise. Opportunity was sufficiently broad that hard work and steadiness would do, along with implicit buy-in to the social contract, allegiance to the system proceeding on the assumption that the system was mostly fair.

The biggest additions occurred in the post-second world war epoch of the GI Bill, cheap higher education, strong labor unions, and a progressive taxation code. Between the late 1940 s and early 1970 s, median household income in the US redoubled. Income inequality contacted historic lows. The median CEO salary was approximately 30 durations that of the lowest-paid hire, compared against todays gold-plated multiple of 370. The top tax bracket strayed in the neighborhood of 70% to 90%. Conceded, there used to be far less billionaires in those daylights. Somehow the society survived.

America is a dream of greater justice and the possibilities for the average “mens and”, if we are not able acquire it, all our other accomplishments amount to nothing. So wrote Eleanor Roosevelt in her syndicated pillar of 6 January 1941, an apt lead-in to her husbands State of the Union address eventually that day in which he enumerated the four exemptions necessary to American republic, among other issues freedom from want. In his Government of the Union address 3 years later, FDR expanded on this concept of freedom from want with his proposal for a Second Bill of Privilege, an economic statute of rights to antagonize what he viewed as the growing tyranny of the modern economic tell TAGEND

This Republic had at its beginning, and originated to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political claims among other issues the right of free speech, free press, free hero-worship As our person has grown in length and stature, however as our industrial economy has expanded these political claims have proved inadequate to assure us equality. We have come to a clear understanding of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic its safety and independence.

Political claims notwithstanding, liberty doughnuts excessively hollow when youre going nickel-and-dimed to extinction in your everyday life. The Roosevelts recognized that compensation peonage, or any organization that inclines toward subsistence level, is plainly incompatible with self-determination. Survival is, by definition, a constrained, desperate position; ones horizon is necessarily limited to the present daylight, to getting enough of what the body needs to make it to the next. These daylights a minimum wage laborer in New York City clocking 40 hours a week( at$ 9 per hour) earns $18,720 a year, well for the purposes of the Federal Poverty Line of $21,775. Thats a scrambling, anxious world, narrowly bounded. Close to impossible to decently feed, robe, and shelter yourself on a compensation like that, much less a family; much less buy health insurance, or save for your kids college, or are represented in any of those other good American concepts. Down at peon stage, the pursuit of prosperity sounds like a bad gag. Its “ve called the” American nightmare, George Carlin cracked, because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Necessitous mortals are not free males, said FDR in that 1944 State of the Union speech. Beings who are ravenous and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are stimulate. A dreadful proclamation, demonstrably genuine, and especially unsettling in 2016, a point in time when the American Dream seems more viable as nostalgia than a lived phenomenon. Income inequality, asset distribution, mortality rates: by every measure, the average individual that Eleanor Roosevelt celebrated is sinking. Exceptional people continue to rise, but overall mobility is stagnant at best. If youre born poverty-stricken in Ferguson or Appalachia, chances are youre stay around that road. Ditto if your early retentions include the wading pool at the Houston Country Club or ski exercises at Deer Valley, youre likely going to keep your perch at the top of the heap.

Income inequality, gross disparities in opulence: were to say daily, perpetually, that these are the necessary the effects of a free market, as if the market was a force-out of quality on the order of weather or tides, and not the altogether manmade construct that it is. In flare of recent biography, blind credence of this sort of financials would seem to require a firm commitment to folly, but makes accept for the moment that its genuine, that the free market exists as a universe unto itself, as immutable in its workings as the regulations of physics. Does that universe include some ironclad convention who are in need of inequality of opportunity? Ive yet to sounds the suit for that, though doubtless some resourceful thinktanker could produce one out of this same free-market economics, together with stenches of genetic determinism as it relates to calibers of self-discipline and reputation. And it would be bogus, that case. And more than that, vile. That we should allow for wildly disparate possibilities due to accidents of birth ought to impres us as a crime equal in violence to child abuse or molestation.

Franklin Roosevelt:[ F] reedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is ensure equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place. The proposition leads deeper than sentimentality, deeper than programme, deeper even than adherence to equality and the pursuit of gaiety that are set out in the Declaration. It cuts all the way to the nature of democracy, and to the prospects for its very existence in America. We may have democracy in its own country, wrote state supreme court right Louis Brandeis, or we may have great capital concentrated in the sides of a few, but we cant have both. Those few, in Brandeiss judgment, would inevitably use their capability to subvert the free will of the majority; the super-rich as a class simply couldnt be trusted to do otherwise, a thesis thats being starkly acted out in the present period of Citizens United, Super Pacs, and truckloads of dark money.

But the occasion for economic equality goes beyond even equations of influence politics. Democracys premise rests on the idea that the collective wisdom of the majority will demonstrate right more frequently than its incorrect. That have enough opening in the pursuit of happy, your population will develop its genius, its ability, its better judgment; that over time the national capacity for discernment and self-correction will be magnified. Life will improve. The way of your uniting will be more perfect, to borrow a phrase. But if a critical mass of your population maintained in peonage? All its vigor spent in the cuts of day-to-day existence, with insufficient opportunity to develop the full range of its faculties? Then how much poorer the prospects for your democracy will be.

Economic equality can no more be divorced from the smooth functioning of republic than the ballot. Jefferson, Brandeis, the Roosevelts all realise this home truth. The American Dream has to be the lived world of the two countries, not just a moderately tale we tell ourselves.

I have always go much more advertisement than anybody else.

Donald Trump

Then theres that other American dreaming, the numbed-out, dumbed-down, make-believe macrocosm where much of the national consciousness resides, the sum concoction of our mighty Fantasy Industrial Complex: movies, Tv, internet, texts, tweets, ad saturation, celebrity infatuation, athletics infatuation, Amazonian sewers of porn and political bullshit, the entire foray of media and messaging that is endeavouring to separate us from our brains. September 11, 2001 detonation us out of that daydream for about two minutes, but the dream is so elastic, so all-encompassing, that 9/11 was soon absorbed into the the matrix of FIC. This exceedingly complex incident horribly direct in the result, but a swamp when it is necessary to reasons was stripped down and binaried into a reliable fantasy narration of us against them, good versus sin, Christian against Muslim. The week after 9/11, Susan Sontag was virtually executed for pointing out that a few smidgens of historical awareness might help us understand how we came to this part. For this modest overture , no small number of her fellow Americans bid her dead. But if wed followed her induce if united done the hard work of digging down to the roots of the whole nasty thought perhaps we wouldnt still be fighting al-Qaida and its offspring 15 years later.

An 11 -year-old girl wears Trump socks at awareness-raising campaigns event for the Republican nominee at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC. Image: Mike Segar/ Reuters

Heres a hypothesis, ugly, uncharitable, but opened our recent biography it begs probe: the majority of cases most Americans dont know whats real any more. How else to justify Trump, a billionaire on an ego trip capturing a major partys nomination for chairman? Another blunt-speaking billionaire tried twice for the presidency in the 1990 s and used to go in flames, but he made the error of operating as himself, a recognizably flesh-and-blood human being, whereas Trump comes to us as the ultimate individual, and indisputable maestro, of the Fantasy Industrial Complex. For much of his profession until 2004, to be exact he braced status in our lives as a more or less ordinary personality. Large than life, rest assured, cartoonishly extravagant, shamelessly self-promoting, and reliably hateful, but Trump didnt become Trump until The Apprentice debuted in January 2004. The first episode depicted 20.7 million viewers. By analogy, Ross Perot received 19,742, 000 polls in the 1992 general elections yes, Im equating referendum totals with Nielsen ratings but Trump stopped gleaning that robust 20 million week after week. The season climax that year reached 28 million viewers, and over the coming decade, for 13 more seasons, this was how America came to know him, in that weirdly intimate mode Tv has of giving luminary into the exceedingly middle of our lives.

It was this same Trump that 24 million viewers a record, of course tuned in to watch at the first Republican debate last year, the glowering, blustering, swaggering boardroom act representation who devoted every hope of shredding the pols. One amazes if Trump would have ever been Trump if there hadnt been a JR Ewing to pave the way, to show just how dear and real a dealmaking TV swindler could be to our middles. Trumps performance on that night did not dishearten , nor through all the debates in the long progress that followed, and if his consider for the truth has proved more erratic even than that of professional legislators, we should expect just as much. In the realm of the Fantasy Industrial Complex, actuality happens on a slipping proportion. The fact is just another possibility.

I speak the password primeval.

I would give the signaling of democracy ;P TAGEND

By God! I will accept good-for-nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms.

Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

In nine epoches Trump and Hillary will take the stage for their first face-to-face conversation. There will be blood. The bayonets are going to be out, and the ratings are bound to be, need it be said, yuge. The American Dream will no doubt be invoked from both pulpits, for what true-blue patriot was ever against the American Dream? And yet for the past 30 times the Democratic nominee has worked comfortably within “states parties ” establishment thats battered the working and middle classes down to the bone. The brand-new Democrat of the Clinton era are always strong for political privileges, as long as they dont disturbed corporate Americas bottom line. Strong for racial and gender equality, strong for LGBT privileges( though that took occasion ). Meanwhile this same Democratic establishment met with the GOP to push a market- and finance-driven economic prescribe that ameliorates the already rich and leaves the rest of us sucking wind.

Thats the very real feeling Trump to talk to , no fiction there. Bernie as well; small-minded think their constituencies overlapped, though Trumps admitted devotion to the common man stumbles over even the simplest proof. On whether to raise the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, Trumps moral compass has spun from an connoted no( wages are already too high ), to connote yes( wages are too low ), to weasel words( left open up to the states ), to yes and no in the same sigh( I would leave it and grow it rather ), and, ultimately, when pressed by Bill OReilly in July, to yes-but( raise it to $10, but its still good left to the states ). All this from the candidate whos securely in favor of abolishing the estate tax, to the great benefit of heirs of multimillionaires and none at all to the vast majority of us.

Meanwhile, the Fantasy Industrial Complex is doing just fine this election season, thank you. Communicating at a Morgan Stanley investors meeting in March, one of the commanders of the FIC, Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS and a husband whose 2015 compensation totaled $56.8 m, had this to say about the Trump campaign. It may not be good for America, but its damn good for CBS. The fund rolling in and this is fun this[ is] about to become a very good time for us. Sorry. Its a terrible thought to say. But bring it on, Donald. Keep going.

Read more: www.theguardian.com

The post Two American Reveries: how a dumbed-down society lost spate of a great impression appeared first on vitalmindandbody.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2yeTrzz via IFTTT

[vitalmindandbody]

Two American Dreamings: how a dumbed-down society failed view of a great theme

As Clinton and Trump prepare to debate next week , noble principles are overwhelmed in a culture where most Americans do not know what is real anymore and the dream of equal rights is just a fantasy

Every child had a pretty good shot

To get at least as far as their old person got

But something happened on the way to that place

They hurled an American pennant in our face.

Billy Joel, Allentown

Its one of the greatest inventions of all time, and just like it says on the dollar bill novus ordo seclorum it generated an entirely new prescribe in human occasions. After millennia of pharaohs, lords, monarches, kings, sultans, caesars and czars, with all their attendant aristocracies and locked-down social structures, a country was founded where birth and lineage didnt trouble so much better, where by application of your expertises, power, labor and willingness to play by the rules, you could improve your material slew in living and achieve a measure of financial security for yourself and their own families. Boors and proles could aspire to more than mere existence. Progressive!

We know it today as the American Dream. The now-obscure historian James Truslow Adams coined the period in his volume The Epic of America, defining the American daydream as TAGEND

a dream of a social order in which each man and each girl shall be able to attain to the fullest prominence of which they are innately capable, and be recognised by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of delivery or position.

Adams was writing in 1931, but the fantasy was there from the start, in Jeffersons pursuit of happiness formulation in the Declaration of Independence, pleasure residing in its 18 th-century gumption of prosperity, thrive, wellbeing.

Nobody ever came to America with a starry-eyed dream of working for starvation compensations. Plenty of that offered in the old country, and thats accurately why we left, escaping serfdom, peonage, tenancy, indenture all different iterations of what was essentially a rigged plan, to put it in current political verbiage that channeled the profits of our proletariat upstream to the Man. We came to America to do better, to self-assured for ourselves the liberation that financial defence makes, and for millions chiefly white males at first, and then slowly, sputteringly, women and people of color thats the practice it used to work , no less than a revolution in the human condition.

Upward mobility is indispensable to the American Dream, the notion that people can rise from implemented in order to middle class, and middle to upper and even higher on the example of a( imaginary) Horatio Alger or an( actual) Andrew Carnegie. Upward mobility across classifies peaked in the US in the late 19 th century. Most of the benefits of the 20 th century were achieved en masse; it wasnt so much better a phenomenon of great numbers of people emerge from one class to the next as it was standards of living rising sharply for all castes. You didnt have to be exceptional to rise. Opportunity was sufficiently broad that hard work and steadiness would do, along with implicit buy-in to the social contract, faithfulnes to the system continuing on the assumption that the system was basically fair.

The biggest increases happened in the post-second world war era of the GI Bill, inexpensive higher education, strong labor unions, and a progressive tariff system. Between the late 1940 s and early 1970 s, median household income in the US redoubled. Income inequality contacted historic lows. The median CEO salary was nearly 30 hours that of the lowest-paid hire, compared with todays gold-plated multiple of 370. The top excise bracket ranged in the neighborhood of 70% to 90%. Conceded, there used to be far fewer billionaires in those dates. Somehow the society survived.

America is a dream of greater justice and opportunity for the average “mens and”, if we can not find it, all our other achievements amount to good-for-nothing. So wrote Eleanor Roosevelt in her syndicated line of 6 January 1941, an apt lead-in to her husbands State of the Union address later that day in which he listed the four democracies essential to American republic, among other issues freedom from want. In his Country of the Union address 3 years later, FDR expanded on this notion of freedom from want with its own proposal for a Second Bill of Rights, an economic greenback of rights to offset what he viewed as the growing oppression of the modern financial tell TAGEND

This Republic had at its inaugurating, and changed to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political claims among other issues the right of free speech, free press, free hero-worship As our commonwealth has grown in size and stature, nonetheless as our industrial economy has expanded these political rights have proved inadequate to assure us equality. We have come to a clear realization given the fact that true personal freedoms cannot subsist without economic its safety and independence.

Political claims notwithstanding, discretion sounds excessively hollow when youre getting nickel-and-dimed to fatality in your everyday life. The Roosevelts recognized that payment peonage, or any organisation that inclines toward subsistence level, is plainly inconsistent with self-determination. Survival is, by definition, a restricted, frantic district; ones horizon is necessarily limited to the present day, to getting enough of what the body needs to make it to the next. These dates a minimum wage work in New York City clocking 40 hours per week( at$ 9 per hour) pays $18,720 a year, well for the purposes of the Federal Poverty Line of $21,775. Thats a scrambling, uneasy existence, narrowly bounded. Close to impossible to decently feed, robe, and shelter yourself on a wage like that, much less a family; much less buy health insurance, or save for your teenagers college, or participate in any of those other good American circumstances. Down at peon rank, the endeavours of merriment is just like a bad gag. Its called the American fantasy, George Carlin cracked, because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Necessitous mortals are not free men, said FDR in that 1944 State of the Union speech. Beings who are thirsty and out of a occupation are the stuff of which totalitarianisms are see. A grim statement, demonstrably true-blue, and especially unsettling in 2016, a point in time when the American Dream seems more viable as nostalgia than a lived phenomenon. Income inequality, abundance dissemination, mortality rates: by all the necessary measures, the average individual that Eleanor Roosevelt celebrated is dropping. Extraordinary parties continue to rise, but overall mobility is sluggish at best. If youre born poverty-stricken in Ferguson or Appalachia, risks are youre going to stay that channel. Ditto if your early remembers include the swimming bath at the Houston Country Club or ski lessons at Deer Valley, youre likely going to keep your roost at the upper part of the heap.

Income inequality, gross the gaps in abundance: were to say daily, incessantly, that these are the necessary the effects of a free market, as if world markets was a army of quality on the order of weather or tides, and not the alone manmade fabricate that it is. In light of recent history, blind credence of this sort of financials would seem to require a firm commitment to stupidity, but gives premise for the moment that its genuine, that the free market exists as a universe unto itself, as immutable in its workings as the laws of physics. Does that universe include some ironclad convention who are in need of inequality of opportunity? Ive hitherto to discover the lawsuit for that, though doubtless some enterprising thinktanker could manufacture one out of this same free-market economics, together with gusts of genetic determinism as it pertains to qualities of penalize and character. And “it wouldve been” bogus, all such cases. And more than that, vile. That we should allow for wildly conflicting openings due to accidents of birth “ve just got to” strike us as international crimes equal in brutality to child abuse or molestation.

Franklin Roosevelt:[ F] reedom is no half-and-half affair. If the ordinary citizen is insure equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal rights in the market place. The hypothesi croaks deeper than sentimentality, deeper than programme, deeper even than adherence to equality and the endeavours of joy as set forth in the Declaration. It cuts all the way to the nature of democracy, and to the prospects for its continued existence in America. We may have democracy in its own country, wrote supreme court of the united states right Louis Brandeis, or we may have enormous money concentrated in the mitts of a few, but we cant have both. Those few, in Brandeiss judgment, would inevitably use their influence to subvert the free will of the majority; the super-rich as a class plainly couldnt be trusted to do otherwise, a thesis thats being starkly behaved out in the current period of Citizens United, Super Pacs, and truckloads of dark money.

But the client for financial equality goes beyond even equations of dominance politics. Democracys premise remains on the idea that the collective wisdom of the majority will prove right more often than its incorrect. That given sufficient opportunity in the pursuit of pleasure, your population will develop its knacks, its ability, its better judgment; that over duration the national capacity for discernment and self-correction is likely to be increased. Life will improve. The way of your solidarity will be more perfect, to acquire a word. But if a critical mass of your population maintained in peonage? All its vigor spent in the excavations of day-to-day existence, with scant opportunity to develop the full range of its modules? Then how much poorer future prospects for your republic will be.

Economic equality can no more be divorced from the functioning of republic than the ballot. Jefferson, Brandeis, the Roosevelts all remembered this home truth. The American Dream has to be the lived world of the two countries, not just a reasonably legend we tell ourselves.

I have always gotten much more advertising than anybody else.

Donald Trump

Then theres that other American fantasy, the numbed-out, dumbed-down, make-believe world-wide where much of the national consciousness resides, the sum concoction of our mighty Fantasy Industrial Complex: movies, TV, internet, text, tweets, ad saturation, celebrity obsession, boasts infatuation, Amazonian sewers of porn and political bullshit, the entire foray of media and messaging that strives to separate us from our brains. September 11, 2001 bombed us out of that reverie for about two minutes, but the reverie is so elastic, so all-encompassing, that 9/11 was rapidly absorbed into the the matrix of FIC. This exceedingly complex event horribly direct in the result, but a swamp when it comes to causes was stripped down and binaried into a reliable fantasy narration of us against them, good versus villainy, Christian against Muslim. The week after 9/11, Susan Sontag was practically executed for pointing out that a few smidgens of historical awareness might help us understand how we came to this phase. For this modest recommendation , no small number of her fellow Americans bid her dead. But if united followed her conduct if united done the hard work of delving down to the roots of the whole horrid thing perhaps we wouldnt still be fighting al-Qaida and its offspring 15 years later.

An 11 -year-old girl wears Trump socks at awareness-raising campaigns occurrence for the Republican campaigner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC. Image: Mike Segar/ Reuters

Heres a hypothesis, ugly, uncharitable, but yielded our recent biography it begs research: most of the time most Americans dont just knowing that real any more. How else to clarify Trump, a billionaire on an ego trip capturing a major partys nomination for chairman? Another blunt-speaking billionaire tried twice for the conference of presidents in the 1990 s and used to go in flames, but he made the mistake of extending as himself, a recognizably flesh-and-blood human being, whereas Trump comes to us as the eventual beast, and indisputable maestro, of the Fantasy Industrial Complex. For much of his job until 2004, to be exact he harboured status in our lives as a more or less normal celebrity. Large than life, to be sure, cartoonishly lofty, shamelessly self-promoting, and reliably hateful, but Trump didnt become Trump until The Apprentice debuted in January 2004. The first episode depicted 20.7 million viewers. By similarity, Ross Perot received 19,742, 000 votes in the 1992 general elections yes, Im likening election totals with Nielsen ratings but Trump stopped sucking that robust 20 million week after week. The season finale that time reached 28 million viewers, and over the coming decade, for 13 more seasons, this was how America came to know him, in that weirdly intimate lane Tv has of delivering celebrity into the extremely middle of our lives.

It was this same Trump that 24 million viewers a record, of course tuned in to watch at the first Republican debate last year, the glowering, blustering, swaggering boardroom activity person who made every hope of shredding the pols. One thinks if Trump would have ever been Trump if there hadnt been a JR Ewing to pave the way, to show just how dear and real a dealmaking TV crook could be to our centers. Trumps performance on that night did not disappoint , nor through all the debates in the long progress that followed, and if his reference for the truth has proved more erratic even than that of professional legislators, we should expect as much. In the realm of the Fantasy Industrial Complex, reality happens on a slithering magnitude. The reality is just another possibility.

I is talking about password primeval.

I would give the sign of republic ;P TAGEND

By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms.

Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

In nine days Trump and Hillary will take the stage for their first face-to-face debate. There is likely to be blood. The spears are going to be out, and the ratings are bound to be, need it be said, yuge. The American Dream will no doubt be invoked from both platforms, for what true-blue patriot was ever against the American Dream? And yet for the past 30 times the Democratic candidate has worked comfortably within a party organisation thats battered the working and middle classes down to the bone. The brand-new Democrats of the Clinton era are always strong for political claims, as long as they dont disturbed corporate Americas bottom line. Strong for ethnic and gender equality, strong for LGBT privileges( though that took experience ). Meanwhile this same Democratic establishment assembled with the GOP to push a market- and finance-driven financial guild that fertilizes the already rich and leaves the rest of us sucking wind.

Thats the very real feeling Trump is speaking to , no imagination there. Bernie as well; small-time amazement their constituencies overlapped, though Trumps declared devotion to the common man stumbles over even the simplest proofs. On whether to raise the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, Trumps moral compass has revolved from an connoted no( wages are already too high ), to imply yes( wages are too low ), to weasel word( left open up to the states ), to yes and no in the same breath( I would leave it and raise it reasonably ), and, eventually, when pressed by Bill OReilly in July, to yes-but( parent it to $10, but its still best left to the states ). All this from presidential candidates whos securely in favor of abolishing the estate tax, to the great benefit of heirs of multimillionaires and none at all to the vast majority of us.

Meanwhile, the Fantasy Industrial Complex is doing just fine such elections season, thank you. Pronouncing at a Morgan Stanley investors meeting in March, one of the leaders of the FIC, Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS and a man whose 2015 compensation totaled $56.8 m, had this to say about the Trump campaign. It may not be good for America, but its damn good for CBS. The coin rolling in and this is fun this[ is] about to become a very good year for us. Sorry. Its a cruel situation to say. But bringing it on, Donald. Keep going.

Read more: www.theguardian.com

The post Two American Dreamings: how a dumbed-down society failed view of a great theme appeared first on vitalmindandbody.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2xKxGIs via IFTTT