#twice-prosecuted

[transsexula]

I was gonna leave this in the tags but holy shit. How is no one pointing out the blatant fucking lie in the original post:

The electoral college is NOT "unelected". We literally vote every four years for our representatives. They nominate those mfers. You can harass them for picking badly. That's literally their job. That's YOUR job as a voter.

The idea is that we vote for a person who sees our votes and votes accordingly. If they do not give their vote to the appropriate person, why the fuck would we elect them again?

I'm not saying that's how it actually works- we have billionaires, people can be swayed, bought, etc.

But holy fucking shit. Maybe instead of doing work for trump and telling people it's useless, we can stop lying about how our government works? Give real tangible options for change?

Do you know some states are trying to push for ranked choice voting? Did you know you can work within the system to change your life and those lives around you for the better? Did you know you can still do revolutionary action WHILE voting?

Also Clinton lost due to voter mapping. Only five defectors went to Trump. There was a difference of like 77 electoral college votes.

The problem isn't people in the general public "voting for nothing, because it doesn't matter at all"

The problem is how much power we have given to the electoral college. It's repeatedly allowing the election of mfers who redraw voting areas so Republicans can get more votes. It's continuing to not do SHIT and actively discouraging people from doing shit that will help even a tiny bit.

We just saw how local elections can mean life or death. Arizona has been battling old ass abortion laws and do you know who's been fighting it? Local dems. Who the state voted for. Someone they wanted and got who's doing their fucking job fighting archaic laws. Do you know what that means?

It means while they are doing that battle, the people that voted for them can continue to push for change in other ways- anywhere from campaigning (working within the system) to protesting, to taking action (working outside the system for change)

Anyways, the point is still there: even with all of the good points this post is making. It is still doing footwork for Republicans and fascists, who benefit in the long run from you not voting. This may not be the intention, but as we have seen repeatedly in history- it certainly works that way.

here's the thing: if you're not a member of the electoral college in the USA, it literally does not matter if you vote. electoral college members take the popular vote numbers, officially, as a *suggestion*, and they are full within their rights to vote against it (historically this was justified using the potential case of the ballots being collected just prior to some major event that would clearly invalidate a prior vote, such as a candidate being killed by another candidate). it literally only matters whether these unelected 538 people (unrelatedly, the USA has ~700 billionaires) vote for a given party. literally everyone in the country could vote for one candidate, but if those 538 people decided they didn't want to, they could just elect the other one, and it would be perfectly within the bounds of the US's constitution and so-called bourgeois 'democracy'.

Lenin said:

Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for the slave-owners.

[kerink]

i want to talk about this idea the fandom has that curly didn't do anything to help anya. the fact of the matter is, curly didn't do anything to help anya on screen.

when we first join the conversation, anya's already told curly about the assault and is just updating him on her pregnancy status. we're never privy to what that first conversation looked like, what anya said or how curly responded or what decisions were made about it. but given that anya confided in him twice more about the situation (that she was pregnant and later that she had told jimmy), i have to assume his response to the initial assault disclosure was sufficient enough in her eyes that she knew she could continue confiding in him.

this exchange reads to me like "what to do about the assault" has been an on-going conversation between them, but curly has limited options to help her. but if he could figure out something to do, he'd do it.

let's look at the options available:

report it to HR. i don't think this option is very viable for a few reasons:

first, pony express doesn't seem to care about its employees. there aren't locks on their bedroom doors, there's only enough food and oxygen to get them from port to port with no emergency allotment, there are more crew than cryopods, they're not allowed to sleep for more than 5 hours a night, etc. i don't think they would have done anything to support her even if they had reported it.

HR may even blame anya for the assault, they may say that it happened because of something she did or did not do. it's her responsibility to take, not theirs.

second:

(thank you to @mudstoneabyss for pointing this one out to me)

curly needs this money because he's considering changing careers, which is likely to result in a pay cut or some amount of time job-hunting without income. swansea has a family back home he needs to provide for. it's daisuke's first year on the job and what a piss-poor welcome a pay cut would be, and he's an intern so the pay cut may be all or most of his salary. jimmy is living in poverty. anya has no savings.

it's entirely possible anya asked curly not to file an HR complaint not only because it would make her financial situation worse, but because she doesn't want to ask him, swansea, and daisuke to literally pay for jimmy's actions.

third:

even if curly did file an HR report he may have been told to do nothing. it's a long trip and they need all hands on deck to make the delivery on time! productivity over employee welfare. it's his job to keep the peace but keep jimmy working.

given how much stress curly's shown to be under, it can be assumed being captain is an extremely taxing job with a lot of both assigned duties and off-book duties. it may not actually be feasible to run the ship without a co-pilot.

maybe all he could do was talk to him.

2. go to the police. are there even police in space? i have to assume so because the alternative poses way too many questions. so there's space police. curly and anya call them and they come to the tulpar and dock on the ship and do an investigation and what happens to that limited food and air supply? the late delivery fee?

i'm a psychologist and my first psychology job was working as a crisis counselor for my county. my primary job was to sit with rape survivors as they had their rape kits done and support them as they made their reports to the police. this may not be true everywhere or across the board or in this dystopia but in my experience the police won't take a rape case seriously, or will have limited options to prosecute, or maybe won't even take the case at all without a rape kit.

so curly and anya call the police. they're going to have to file with HR too, to let the company know what's going on. and now anya has to pay for an HR complaint, a late delivery, and a rape kit.

is she going to get this paycheck at all?

3. curly acts on his own accord. this is the one that makes the least amount of sense to me, personally.

if curly just beats the shit out of jimmy then what? now jimmy's mad and embarrassed and takes it out on anya. we're going to confront him and risk making her suffering worse?

curly can't lock jimmy in his quarters for the duration of the trip not only because, as i said, maybe having a co-pilot is necessary for the ship to operate, but there are not locks on the doors.

curly can't lock him in the cargo hold because a) pony express would probably be beyond pissed off about that and who knows if the crew's pay would get docked or curly would get fired or if dragonbreath would sue them all for property damage and contamination. b) how do we get food and water to him? let him go to the bathroom? we open the doors and he busts out and who knows how violent he'll be then.

curly isn't going to kill him because a) that's one of his oldest friends, and i don't care what he's done or how angry curly is or how badly he wants to help anya, i really don't think it's realistic to think he'd be able to separate the anger from the love enough to end his life. b) it's cold-blooded, premeditated murder. it'd be one thing if curly caught jimmy in the act and killed him in defense of anya, he could maybe get away with that. but after the event is over? curly's going to jail for that, possibly for the rest of his life. if you worked at the post office and a coworker told you your best friend since childhood raped her are you clocking out and going to his house and killing him? it's not reasonable. i'm also just really floored how often i've seen this option brought up on the "prison reform abolish the police no matter how bad you are you still deserve human rights" website.

i also don't think it's reasonable, realistic, or kind to ask curly to act on his own accord without consulting anya. for curly to go against her wishes or act without her consent, that's further taking agency away from her. that's another man deciding what happens in her life. even if curly wanted to beat jimmy up or lock him away or kill him, maybe anya asked him not to.

so i ask, what was curly supposed to do? what did he and anya explore as options? what did anya ask him to do? we don't know and we'll never know. and that was intentional on wrong organ's part.

i don't say any of this to discount or discredit conversations or explorations or analyses about the role The Boys Club, toxic masculinity, and bro culture play into the plot, themes, narrative, or personal take-away players have. i fully 100% agree with, support, and endorse those narrative because despite everything i just said above, it's also true that curly is partially responsible.

it's true that he was irresponsible and an enabler for helping jimmy cheat on his psych exam, but there's no evidence at all that he's a conspirator to sexual assault and abuse, that he was going to cover for jimmy in a court of law. all he said was they would figure it out, and that could mean a whole lot of things.

i think curly has some percentage of the blame for what happened on the tulpar, i just don't think that percentage is as large of a number as a lot of people seem to believe. i'm not asking that we forgive or apologize or absolve curly, what i am asking is that we try to look at the situation with more nuance and empathy and good faith.

i don't think curly was a bad man or a bro who was ignoring anya and covering for jimmy's actions. but i also don't think he did enough to help her. he was never good at seeing the small details amongst the larger picture. he couldn't see jimmy for the dead pixel he was.

i think curly was sleep deprived, possibly under-fed, definitely overworked, and juggling too many balls with not enough options. i think he made the wrong choice, but i think he thought it was the lesser of the evils.

[storiesfromgaza]

It is very important to read this and share it

Today the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor Observatory stated that Israel dropped over 25,000 tons of explosives on the Gaza Strip as part of its ongoing extensive war since October 7th, equivalent to two nuclear bombs.

The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Observatory, based in Geneva, highlighted the Israeli army's acknowledgment of targeting more than 12,000 objectives in the Gaza Strip, setting a record in the number of bombs dropped, surpassing 10 kilograms of explosives per person.

With the advancements in bomb quantity and effectiveness, while maintaining a consistent amount of explosives, the quantity dropped on Gaza could be equivalent to twice the power of a nuclear bomb.

Additionally, Israel deliberately employs a mixture known as "RDX" (Research Department Explosive) commonly referred to as "the science of complete explosives," with a power equal to 1.34 times that of TNT.

This means that the destructive power of the explosives dropped on Gaza exceeds what was dropped on Hiroshima, taking into account that the city of Hiroshima covers an area of 900 square kilometers, while Gaza's area is no more than 360 square kilometers.

Furthermore, Israel has been documented using internationally banned weapons in its attacks on the Gaza Strip, particularly cluster and white phosphorus bombs. White phosphorus is a highly toxic incendiary substance that rapidly reacts with oxygen, causing severe second and third-degree burns. The Euro-Mediterranean team has documented cases of injuries among the victims of Israeli attacks that resemble the effects of dangerous cluster bombs, as they contain small high-explosive submunitions designed to penetrate the body and cause internal explosions, resulting in severe burns that melt the victims' skin and sometimes lead to death. These submunitions also cause peculiar swelling and toxin exposure in the body, including transparent shrapnel that does not appear in X-ray images.

The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Observatory has emphasized that Israel's destructive, indiscriminate, and disproportionate attacks constitute a clear violation of the laws of war and the rules of international humanitarian law, which stipulate the obligation to protect civilians in all circumstances and under any conditions. Killing civilians is considered a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts and can rise to the level of a crime against humanity.

The 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, along with the 1949 Geneva Convention in its latest formulation, established fundamental human rights during wartime to limit the deadly health consequences of internationally banned weapons, some of which could lead to the "genocide" of civilians.

Article 25 of the Hague Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land prohibits "attacking or bombarding towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are not defended."

Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "any destruction by the occupying power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."

According to Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the destruction of property that is not justified by military necessity and on a large scale is considered a serious violation that requires prosecution. Such practices are also classified as war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Observatory has called for the formation of an independent international investigative committee to assess the magnitude of explosives and internationally banned weapons used and continue to be used by Israel against civilians in the Gaza Strip.

This committee would hold accountable those responsible, including those who issued orders, made plans, executed actions, and took measures aimed at achieving justice for Palestinian victims.

[hedgehog-moss]

Update on May 1st protests and how the french goverment handled them?

^ The May 1st protests were pretty violent esp. in Paris; two cops were set on fire (they're ok, one has 2nd degree burns), lots of destruction in city streets, and hundreds of injured protesters. The French gov is sticking to its M.O. of denying any police violence against protesters, emphasising protesters' violence and portraying it as mindless anti-democratic savagery rather than the result of their own anti-democratic policies.

There were more people protesting in the streets on Monday than at any other May Day protest in the past 20 years (by a large margin—7 to 10x more people than usual.) And the numbers are still impressive in terms of this current social movement—there were about 1.2 million people at the first protest against the pension reform in January, 900K at one of the February protests, around 1.1M on March 7 and I think 1.2M on March 23rd... We're in May and there were 800K people in the streets on Monday (using the police's probably low estimate). The first marches earlier this year were peaceful; people started destroying shit in March after the 49.3 (=the gov not letting elected representatives vote on the reform); in the following weeks we saw a brutal escalation of police violence + suppression of just about any means of non-violent protest, which results in more violence.

The vast majority of protesters are still peaceful, but in terms of providing context for the increased violence, well—people protested peacefully, peaceful protests got banned. People banged pots and pans, pots and pans got banned and confiscated. People started a petition on the National Assembly website which got a record number of signatures, the petition was closed before its deadline and ignored. MPs asked (twice!) for a national referendum on the reform to be held, their requests were denied. Electricity unionists cut power in buildings Macron was visiting, now he travels around with a portable generator. Unions tried to distribute whistles and red cards (penalty cards) to football supporters before the French Cup finale last week, so the ones who wanted could use them if Macron showed up (he ended up hiding and greeting the footballers indoors rather than publicly on the stadium lawn); the police prefecture tried banning union members from gathering outside the stadium to distribute these items (although the ban was struck down by the judiciary as it was illegal, like most bans these days...)

Confiscating saucepans was already so absurd it felt like a gratuitous fuck you, but now they're trying to prevent the distribution of pieces of red paper. Cancelling petitions that would have had no real impact anyway. Prosecuting people for insulting Macron. Arbitrarily arresting hundreds of nonviolent protesters to intimidate them out of protesting (guess who's left then?). The French gov is systematically repressing democratic or nonviolent means of making your opinion heard, and when people get more violent they're like "This is unacceptable, don't these terrorists know there are other means of expressing dissent??" Where? This week a 77-year-old man was summoned to the police station and will be forced to take a "citizenship course" for having a banner outside his house that read "Macron fuck you" (Macron on t'emmerde). Note that he would have been arrested (like the woman who was arrested at her home and spent a night in police custody for calling Macron "garbage" on Facebook) but they decided not to only because of his age.

So that's where we're at; on Monday two cops caught on fire (well, their fireproof suit did) after protesters threw a Molotov cocktail at them. (The street medic who tried to help them with their burns ended up getting shot by a cop's riot gun a few seconds later—with French police no good deed goes unpunished!) The media talked a lot more about this incident than about the fact that the cop who got most severely injured on that day (broken vertebrae) was injured by an explosive grenade that a colleague of his meant to throw at protesters (you can see it at the end of the video below). If police with all their protective gear get so badly injured by their own weapons, no wonder the worst injuries have been on the protesters' side. (nearly 600 injured protesters on May 1st, 120 severely, according to street medics.) I'm not including images of these incidents in the video but on May 1st a protester had his hand mutilated by a police grenade + a 17 year old girl was hit in the eye by a grenade fragment, may end up losing it (during the Yellow Vests protests, Macron's first attempt at repressing a social movement, 38 protesters lost an eye or a hand).

What you see in the video: cops charging the front of a march to tear a banner off people's hands then retreating and drowning the street in tear gas when protesters throw paint bombs at them (protesters have umbrellas because of police drones); at 0:30, a journalist saying "They're not even arresting him, just kicking him when he's down—they kicked him right in the face!" then police spraying with tear gas protesters who try to fend them off; at 0:46 when a protester being arrested asks a journalist if he's filming and starts reading out loud a cop's ID number, another cop shoves the journalist and throws him to the ground; at 0:54, an Irish journalist runs away from the police tear gas grenades that you hear going off, at 01:08, the incident mentioned above when a cop drops a grenade he tried to throw, which explodes in his group, breaking another cop's vertebrae. There's a lot more I'm not including, like how CNN said "there's so much tear gas in Paris, our foreign correspondent can barely breathe", how another journalist was hit by a sting-ball grenade (he was also bludgeoned on the head so hard it broke his helmet—even though cops know the people wearing helmets are journalists...), and yet another journalist who was calling out a cop for aiming at people's heads with his riot gun (which is illegal) ended up having the guy aim the riot gun at his head from 2 metres away (getting shot with this "less lethal weapon" from that distance would be lethal.)

All of these videos are from May 1st (most of them from this account monitoring police violence.)

So yeah, nonviolent protests followed by violent police repression and bans of nonviolent means of protesting result in more violent protests. The French government responds by a) pikachu surpris, b) condemning violent protesters and praising violent police to the skies, c) continuing to ban everything they can think of. Confiscating saucepans didn't work but confiscating pieces of red paper will do the trick! Let's prosecute people for bashing or burning an effigy of Macron, because banning symbolic violence always works to prevent actual violence! And this week after the May 1st protests we learnt that the gov is thinking of making street barricades illegal, because that'll definitely solve everything. It's going to be interesting for history teachers to teach students about the 1789 revolution that allowed us to take down an absolutist regime and become a republic, under a government that banned barricades because they see them as terrorist anti-republican structures.

^ Statue symbolising the French Republic (on Place de la République in Paris) dressed with a 'Macron resign' shirt by protesters on May 1st.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

NEW YORK, NY — Following the guilty verdict handed down against former President Donald Trump, New York Prosecutor Alvin Bragg used the case to issue a stern warning that nobody in America is above the law he made up to convict Trump.

Bragg's sobering statement came after he and his prosecution team successfully manufactured a case to convict Trump of a crime that remains unidentifiable by legal experts and served as a clear example of what will happen to other Americans if they brazenly run afoul of laws he makes up in the future.

"This is a nation of laws, and I'm the one who makes them up," Bragg said in a celebratory press conference following the Trump conviction. "Every American should think twice before violating the laws that I haven't made up yet, because once I make them up, they'll be held accountable for breaking the new laws they didn't know existed until I came up with them."

The case against Trump, which was unprecedented because Bragg hadn't yet made up the charges, sets a new bar to which all Americans must hold themselves. "Chances are, you're in violation of something," Bragg warned. "I don't know what law you're violating yet, exactly, but once I come up with what you've done wrong, you can be sure that you will all face the consequences."

[tpquill]

America, what have you done!

I am tonight sitting here (Australia) speechless from what has transpired these last 12 hours or so, what the hell happened?

Why on earth did he get voted back in?

What in the world went wrong?

8 years ago he was elected whether you choose to believe it or not, through nefarious means (Russia influence) at the time people fell for his charisma & charm, but soon realised just like women realise when they fall for the charm and the boyish behaviour, there’s a darker side they don’t reveal until it’s too late. Congratulations America, he revealed it pretty early on once he got his claws into the Resolution Table in the Oval Office.

We (the world) watched in horror as he separated families and deported illegals. He overspent on his billionaire friends and made middle and working class suffer. Had no health care plan, no infrastructure or employment plan. No commerce or education - nothing, zilch. He employed sycophants who bowed and grovelled to do his biding (half of them his own family - nepotism much?) he ran America like one of his bankrupt businesses and almost brought America to the ground. He was responsible for not taking responsibility when a pandemic hit the world and over 1 million died under his watch.

America impeached him twice, investigated him multiple times. Decided then they’d had enough and voted him out. You had four years of peace, of prosperity, of employment health care, higher wages and lowering costs. Your country opened up again and healthcare was restored, you started bouncing back, you’re coming has never been better. Meanwhile he ranted and raged the election was stolen, even though every court hearing and document was thrown out. America had turned a page in history for four years.

What the hell happened?

Joe Biden stood for another term but that wasn’t good enough, the America media had an axe to grind and so did it seemed those who were influential in the media circus and he stood aside for a women he picked as his vice. A woman with an incredible record in prosecution and protection of law. A woman who had fought against cartels and won. A woman of scruples and integrity. Who was willing to stand up to him and hold him accountable. A man who has current,y 34 felony convictions including falsifying business records and inflating assets to hide tax fraud. A man with 6 bankruptcies and multiple accusations of predator and rapist behaviour AND YOU HAVE VOTED HIM BACK IN?

Why?

Was it because you like someone with a need for vengeance? Someone who had made it very clear he intends to run America like Russia? A man who stole your nations top secrets and in some cases sold them off? A man for whatever bizzare reason is allowed to do whatever the hell he likes with no repercussions, because he’s Donald Trump?

This is not the America I remember as a child. This is not the president I saw growing up, who took care of his people, who cared for his country, supported their military and stood up to foreign enemies.

I sit here tonight devastated for all the brave and wonderful women and men, who voted to protect theirs and their daughters basic human, reproductive and civil rights. To the persons of all colours and religions, to the victims of domestic and sexual violence. To the wonderful trans community, to the gay marriages built on love. To all those who have fought both home and abroad in service. To the dreamers who see America as a shiny beacon of light & hope. To those who have crossed many roads in search of protection, in a country who had always welcomed you. I feel all of your sadness and anger at what has transpired.

None of this makes sense, none of this adds up.

Kamala Harris was a future light of hope and peace, of working with both sides for democracy to move America forward - now it seems she will be pulled back into the darkest part of her history. Back to when women had no right to vote, no opinion that was listened to, no voice protecting her own body.

She will be silenced once again.

Immigrants will no longer be welcome.

The church will control what happens in marriages and government decisions.

You will no longer be accepted as a trans or LGBTQ+

If you suffer a medical emergency during pregnancy, you will be forced to endure the consequences of either the child dying inside you, or be forced to give birth at “God’s will” Rape is just a word - a pregnancy from it will be unfortunate but a necessary as your right to choose will not matter anymore.

None of this adds up.

I will not accept that a man who got almost the exact same amount of votes as he did in 2020 can be declared the winner and Kamala only got 60 million, where did the other 20 million go? The votes came in too quickly the declaration called too soon. I’m by no means a conspiracy theorist but the math doesn’t add up?

Bomb threats - is America the Middle East? Interference through social media via Elon Musk and China. Giving away money to people who would vote for Trump. It stinks like rotten fish on a warm summers day here in Oz.

My final take.

If I devoted my entire like in government, in prosecution, in upholding the constitution - I would have questions, I would want answers as to how this happened with no increase in Trumps collective votes from 2020, he didn’t increase, he stayed the same.

President Joe Biden in his last few months of power, should launch an investigation because it’s not a case of well America decided to perform a lobotomy on itself and completely wiped the years between 2016-2020 from her memory and only remember the last 102 days, or something or someone played a hand in some very nefarious and illegal vote tampering.

Madam Vice President - do not concede.

[mayasaura]

My ideal franmaya is where Franziska has a crush on Maya but is dramatically von karma brooding over how she prosecuted Maya for murder so obviously Maya will never return her feelings and she is a von karma she was meant to be alone

meanwhile Maya is like. Yeah, she's saved my life like twice she's basically my own personal plumed punisher!! :D

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Thousands of Brazilians march against bill that equates abortion to homicide

Thousands of Brazilians took to the streets in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro to protest proposed legislation that equates abortion with homicide and restricts legal abortion to 22 weeks of gestation, including in cases of rape. The proposal was approved last week for urgent discussion in the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil’s lower house.

According to Brazilian law, abortion is currently legal in three circumstances: cases of rape, when the mother’s life is at risk, or when the fetus is anencephalic. The proposed bill aims to limit the period for these abortions to 22 weeks, whereas the current law allows them at any stage of pregnancy.

If an abortion occurs after this 22-week period, the woman could be prosecuted and convicted of murder, with potential sentences ranging from six to 20 years in prison. The crime of rape in Brazil carries a sentence of six to 12 years. This means that a woman convicted of homicide for an abortion — even in rape cases — could receive nearly twice the sentence of the rapist.

The proposal sparked a massive backlash, mainly on social media, but also with protestors gathering in the streets. Social movements and NGOs defending women’s rights came together and launched the “children are not mothers” campaign, with a petition to put pressure on congressmen, which already has more than 343,000 signatures.

Continue reading.

[captainfantasticalright]

Sir Terry Pratchett and the banana daiquiris.

The origin story: (x)

Let me tell you about banana daiquiris. Years and years ago, there was a world science fiction convention in New Orleans. It had been a really hard day. I'd driven all the way from Pensacola and was quite tired. The hotel had done the usual: "Sorry, sir, we have no record of your reservation at this time." When I showed them the fax confirming my reservation, they denied the existence of the fax. Finally, after being ever so unpleasantly English about it, I got a very, very nice room on the top floor. An American friend said, "I know. I shall take you out to the All-Night Frozen Daiquiri Shop on Bourbon Street!" By that time, I wouldn't have known if we were heading to the All-Night Bourbon Shop on Daiquiri Street. I didn't know that there was alcohol in a daiquiri. I thought it was a pleasant fruit drink. So I had the liter size. I thought, "It's been a long day, and I need a refreshing pick me up." I will say this for the Americans: In England, if you'd ordered a drink that was twice the normal size, they'd water it down. But in New Orleans, a liter daiquiri has twice as much alcohol as a half liter daiquiri. It was so delicious that I had another one. Then I thought I'd try a liter of the peach daiquiri, and I had about half of that one. In the 1950s comic books, sometimes a character would have a nuclear reactor fall on him. Then he'd become "Mr. Atomic". I drank so much banana daiquiri that night that I think every cell in my body was full of banana daiquiri. I became Dr. Daiquiri. I think that's the only way I survived. I couldn't feel my upper lip for quite awhile after that, though. The point is, if you make a real daiquiri, according to a real recipe, you don't feel well again until tea time the next day. If you make it with real cream and the two types of rum and all that, it is seriously bad for your head. The Bourbon Street daiquiris were a lot of fun. But when I'm in Australia I drink beer, because if you are in Australia and you don't drink beer you are prosecuted.- Terry Pratchett

[magicpiano]

AU where Von Karma kills Miles instead of Gregory

Manfred Von Karma just got a dent in his perfect record. Gregory Edgeworth almost took away the thing that mattered most to him. Isn't it only fair that he destroy what matters most to Gregory in return? Besides when that elevator opened it became obvious that the child was the one to shoot him in the shoulder. Turnabout is fair play, right?

So Gregory lives, but his son is dead and despite being the only possible suspect, Yanni Yogi gets away with it. His son's murderer walks free, so Gregory quits his job as a defense attorney. It is hard to believe in what he does anymore.

His life is mostly quiet— lonely. He doesn't really talk to his friends anymore. He doesn't do much of anything anymore. He does some kind of boring law work, like property law or contracts or something and everyday he goes home to an empty house.

Until one day he gets a call from his dead son's best friend. You see Phoenix Wright has been accused of murder.

Phoenix lost his taste for defense attorneys when one got his best friend's murderer off, and somewhere along the line he decided he wanted to become a prosecutor. He wanted to be the best prosecutor so that no guilty party ever got away with murder again. That goal led him to the court house one day, and led him to meeting his current girlfriend. Then it led to a murder accusation.

No, Phoenix doesn't quite like defense attorneys, but... He still remembers how Miles saved him that day. He remembers how Miles talked about his father the same way he talked about the Steal Samurai. Like he was a hero. And right now, Phoenix really needs a hero. Who else would he trust with his life?

Gregory hasn’t defended anyone in years. He is out of hope and out of practice, but Phoenix won't accept anyone else. For all that he has given up years ago, he can't let Miles' friend down. Because Phoenix is one of the only people still alive that remembers Miles— that still cares about him. Because in all the pictures where Miles was smiling the brightest, Phoenix was next to him. Because Miles thought Gregory was a hero. He isn't. He couldn't even save his own son, but maybe, just maybe he can save his son's friend.

But you see this girl named Mia Fey really wants this case. Phoenix might not want her as his defense attorney, but that won't stop her. She is going to be Gregory's co-council on this case whether he wants her or not.

And they win of course, but Gregory nearly has a heart attack when Phoenix eats a glass bottle of poison because he can't lose him too— But he is fine. Heartbroken, but fine. And Gregory had saved him.

For the first time in years he has a purpose again.

Mia has a case she is working on, and wouldn't you know it, Gregory is actually kind of involved. So she leaves her job with Grossberg and joins Gregory as he restarts his defense agency.

He starts taking cases again— he starts helping people again. He reconnects with the friends he has been ignoring for years, like Ray. He helps Phoenix study for his law exams. He researches that case with Mia. He starts to live again.

Mia is researching a dangerous case, a long history of blackmail and extortion. If she didn't have help it would have taken twice as long, if she didn't have help maybe she would have died. But she did have help. Gregory wasn't going to let anyone use his son's death as a weapon to hurt others, including the Fey family's reputation.

They find their evidence, press charges and wouldn't you know it, they have a prosecutor on their side, one who is not afraid of Redd White’s threats. Working together, Phoenix wins the case and gains a lot of fame for it.

(And when Larry is accused of murder, Gregory takes that case too, all the while laughing at what troublesome friends his son had.)

All of this is a problem for Von Karma, because Gregory is a very good defense attorney. Phoenix might have been the one to prosecute Redd White, but Von Karma knows where all the evidence came from.

Gregory wasn't a problem when he was depressed and not practicing law, but now all of a sudden he is gaining a name for himself again. He took down Redd White. He is winning cases and someday they might just face off against each other again. And if Von Karma isn't careful, Gregory just might win.

Gregory is the one person capable of beating Von Karma which is why he needs to be dealt with.

Maybe Gregory should have ignored a letter from Robert Hammond, but how could he? The man got his son's murderer off the hook! And so Hammond dies, and Gregory is arrested, but things don't turn out how Von Karma thought they would.

Gregory has a lot of friends who all help him investigate, and Mia has learned a lot under Gregory, and Phoenix has been running around looking for files from the prosecutor's side, and Gumshoe likes Gregory way more than Von Karma and helps in any way he can, and Ray has been doing everything he can to help too. Because while Von Karma has a legacy of victory, Gregory has a legacy of love.

And when Von Karma is arrested for Miles Edgeworth's murder, Phoenix turns to him and promises to be the prosecutor for his trial. He became a prosecutor because his best friend didn't get justice, but he isn't going to let that happen a second time.

It is not a happy ending. For Gregory, the only happy ending would be if his son was still alive.

But he has a reason to live again. There are always bad days, but he has friends who won't let him wallow too long. Every day he helps people, and when he visits Miles' grave he finally has stories to tell.

Phoenix is talking about routing out corruption in the prosecutor's office. For all that it sounds like an impossible task, Gregory thinks Phoenix might even be able to pull it off.

Miles used to think his father was a hero. Gregory isn't that, not by a long shot, but... He hopes he can be half the man his son believed he was.

[glisten-inthedark]

I love how we're supposed to believe Danny and Steve were just bros in spite of the multitude of evidence to the contrary.

Your honor, the prosecution would like the present the following.

Evidence number 1

Steve looking like his puppy was pupnapped when he saw Rachel with Danny. Unless we're supposed to believe he was harboring intense feelings for a woman he saw twice, it doesn't explain why he'd look so heartbroken and betrayed.

Evidence number 2

Steve is the only one Danny allows to call him Danno besides Grace. We're talking about his child here, the light of his life and his entire universe and the other part of it that happens to be a Navy 🦭 with a complex.

After the third time he stopped bitching about Steve calling him Danno, and when was Danny ever known for shutting up when truly annoyed? That's right, never.

Evidence number 3

Danny gave up his chance ar a normal life for Steve. That man had his entire future offered to him on a silver platter, he spent all of the year complaining about being in Hawaii, being away from his child and about everything really.

But when he finally has the chance to leave he does what? Does he go to the airport and flies back to Jersey like one would assume he would? No! He stays.

He knows Rachel, he knows he might as well be closing that particular door for good, but he doesn't care. He chose Steve over his chance of happiness, over Rachel and hell, he doesn't even blink as he does it.

Evidence number 4

Is canon y'all. Danny doesn't usually threatens people with violence, by the time season 2 rolls around the only person we see him doing that for is Grace. Bare in mind Rachel was in the car when it was stollen, and yet he only threatened douchebag to not get near Grace.

Same can be said about anyone else who has ever been in danger, but Matt I'm pretty sure (don't mind me, I'm rewatching it and I just finished season 1 so it'll be a while before I catch up to that minefield). So he threatens someone because of his daughter which he's said over and over it's his life, over Matt that is his fucking brother and that he loves and sees as the reason he made it through the divorce and... *checks notes* Steve.

Am I sensing a pattern here, Jedi?

And bare in mind he didn't just threatens anyone but a fucking CIA agent. I mean how crazy does one have to be do to that? I'd say very.

Evidence number 5

He follows Steve anywhere. Danny is deeply afraid of leaving Grace without a father, and yet he couldn't not go after Steve in North Korea and then Afghanistan.

Both are very dangerous countries for foreigners, both places he very much was in danger of not coming back from, but he still went.

He didn't have to, he could've left Joe handle it, he could've kept himself safe and not be in any danger but he still went. He went even though he knew he could die, that the odds of that happening were high, but he didn't care.

Evidence number 6

Landing the plane on the beach instead of doing it in the water. Danny knew that doing so could get him killed, would most likely get him killed but at that point he didn't care.

We see Danny once again choosing Steve over anything and anyone else. Choosing to die instead of living without him.

At that point I could argue that he chose him over his own children. Charlie was still a child, Grace still needed a father, but losing Steve would kill him just as much as losing one of his children so he doesn't have a choice.

If he Steve dies there will be only wreckage, so following right behind its the only thing he can do. It's a thousand times better than the alternative.

Evidence number 7

Steve being willing to lie to the FBI for Danny, than to follow Danny and helping with the whole Matt situation.

Evidence number 8

Steve helping Danny with Grace and getting Rachel to drop the visitation bullshit. And then helping in the hearing and even dressing in his blues for it.

Steve showing time and again Danny wasn't alone, that he had him on his corner now for better or for worse.

Evidence number 9

Steve looking like he was sucker punched when he heard Danny begging Rachel to take him back in that freaking voicemail and looking torn when he saw they reuniting later on. Why would anyone look like that to their very platonic, not very love of their life's partner?! I blame Alex for everything

I will continue as I rewatch because I forgot most of everything but for now, I rest my case.

[no-saints-no-scholars]

Total Drama social media au

Inspired by this post!

Cody replies to every single one of Gwen's tweets. Every single one. He also posts screenshots of his A+ ranks on League.

Heather shills mlms (multi-level marketing schemes)

Katie and Sadie also shill mlms (men loving men.)

Trent tweets like Hozier. He posts about music and theory and vagues about the love of his life (Gwen). His videos of experimental midwest emo guitar tracks get nearly no interaction, but his ONE Ed Sheeran cover blows up. He hates it.

Bridgette posts links to animal activism groups/charities for humanitarian crises, beach photos, and photos of her training for surf competitions- she ended up getting into the competitive scene after TDI.

Geoff's profile is parties, surfing, and shower thoughts. He has an entire saga of posts showcasing him trying to domesticate a dolphin. When he posts about Bridgette (OFTEN) he exclusively refers to her as "the wifey", and "the homey in matrimoney" (he can't spell.)

DJ exclusively posts casual pics with friends and photos of Bunny. His mom follows him and likes every one. He has no idea how to be a Twitter celebrity. He stays in his lane. He is unbothered. Everyone else wishes they were him.

Courtney's account is highly curated, with aesthetic fall photos of big scarves and studying at the library, but her replies and appearances on the others' accounts are UNHINGED.

Gwen's account is a mashup of vibey photos, music, shitposting, and photographic evidence of her committing crimes. You'd think it'd be Duncan, but Gwen posts pics of her urban exploring- haunted buildings, abandoned churches, and anywhere with a "trespassers will be prosecuted" sign.

Duncan's pfp is his fucking mugshot

His profile is chaotic. He posts photos from road trips on his bike, of Brittany (he calls her his daughter), and Courtney. There's multiple videos of him committing felonies. He says every unfiltered thing he feels like posting. He has been banned twice. He posts "slay" and it gets 20k likes.

[offender42085]

Post 1305

Tyler Pascuzzi, New York inmate 17A1625, born 1990, incarceration intake April 2017 at age 27, parole eligible June 2025, scheduled for full release February 2042

Manslaughter, Aggravated Vehicular Homicide

In April 2017 an Albany New York man was sentenced in a drunk driving crash that killed two people. A jury convicted Tyler Pascuzzi on both manslaughter and vehicular homicide.

A judge sentenced him to 8 1/3 to 25 years in prison.

In 2014, Alicia Tomboia and Cody Veverka were in the car with Pascuzzi when police say he crashed into another car and a tractor-trailer on the Thruway in Guilderland.

During the hearing, the prosecution argued forensic evidence proved Pascuzzi drove his car faster than 150 MPH and his blood alcohol content was twice the legal limit.

The defense claimed the prosecution lacked convincing DNA evidence. They said Veverka was the one behind the wheel.

4l

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jill Filipovic at Slate:

Should the very state of being pregnant place women in a subclass of citizen, vulnerable to criminal prosecution or civil penalties for behavior that would be perfectly legal from a nonpregnant person? Judging by their proposed legislation and various legal antics, the anti-abortion movement says: Yes. Pregnant women simply should not have the same rights as any other U.S. citizen. Take, for example, efforts to criminalize the crossing of state lines for abortion. There is a very, very long tradition in the U.S. of allowing people to travel out of state to access medical care, and it’s so deeply ingrained we barely think about it. Consider, for example, the businesswoman who lives in New Jersey but works in New York City and so goes to the dentist in midtown Manhattan, or the dad who lives on the Kansas side of Kansas City but takes his sick kid to a specialist at a hospital on the Missouri side. A great many Americans don’t think twice about crossing state lines for health care. Abortion opponents are trying to change that for one group of people: pregnant women.

Conservative legal groups are already drafting model legislation to prevent pregnant women from traveling for abortions by legally penalizing anyone who helps them, a strategy used by the state of Texas in one of its abortion bans, which allows anyone in the U.S. to sue those who assist women with abortions—and be rewarded with a bounty paid by the state. The architect of that Texas abortion bounty law was Jonathan Mitchell, an anti-abortion activist (and Donald Trump lawyer) who is currently representing a Texas man in his quest to probe into his ex-girlfriend’s abortion, which she allegedly sought outside of their home state. Mitchell filed a petition to learn the details of this woman’s abortion for, he says, a potential future lawsuit. But to be clear, the woman in question did absolutely nothing illegal: Traveling out of state for health care, including abortion, is not against the law in Texas or anywhere else. It’s just that Mitchell and other abortion opponents would like to change that—and are apparently happy to represent controlling (and, in another case Mitchell took on, allegedly abusive) men to do it.

They’re also happy to reclassify pregnant women as a kind of sub-citizen who, by simple virtue of their pregnancy status, are not entitled to the same legal freedoms and protections as anyone else. A Texas woman who goes to a Colorado abortion clinic is being treated differently from any nonpregnant person who travels for a medical procedure—and you can bet that this categorization of pregnant people as suspect, should they travel out of state, will lead to all sorts of investigations and abuses.

Take this hypothetical: Say the anti-abortion movement succeeds and makes it a crime to travel out of state for an abortion. Say a woman in Idaho (where abortion laws are so extreme, they have no exceptions for saving a woman’s health) travels to Washington state, where abortion is legal, and gets her hands on abortion-inducing drugs. Say she’s not pregnant. Say she takes the drugs anyway. Has she committed a crime? Or, to use a more likely legal model, say Texas makes it a crime to help a woman travel for an abortion, and a Texas woman goes to Colorado, gets abortion-inducing drugs, and takes them, despite not being pregnant. Is the friend who helped buy her plane ticket still liable? Presumably not: No pregnancy means no abortion, which means no violation of an abortion ban. But if the two women in these scenarios had been pregnant, the legal calculus would be entirely different.

Or to use a perhaps more realistic scenario: Mifepristone, an abortion-inducing drug, is also commonly used to treat Cushing’s syndrome, and researchers say it has tremendous potential to treat other illnesses, too, from various cancers to PTSD. Under an anti-abortion legal scheme, if a Texas woman with Cushing’s syndrome travels out of state, gets mifepristone, and takes it, she (or those who help her) would face potential legal consequences only if she’s pregnant. It’s her status as a pregnant woman—not the act of traveling or even taking an abortion-inducing drug—that is the problem. And generally, the law frowns on making a person’s status—rather than their actions—the basis of a crime or a lawsuit. That’s part of treating all people equally under the law, and offering all people the equal protection of it.

Preventing pregnant women from crossing into a state for a legal medical procedure isn’t the only way in which the anti-abortion movement is attempting to curtail basic rights and protections for anyone carrying a pregnancy. Earlier this year, abortion opponents argued before the Supreme Court that pregnant patients should be treated differently than nonpregnant ones in cases of serious medical emergencies—that doctors and other health workers should be permitted to give pregnant women a substandard level of care, and to essentially refuse to appropriately stabilize them. If a woman comes in and is very ill, she’s entitled to one standard of care; if she comes in and is very ill and pregnant, that standard of care is lower in states that criminalize abortion.

At issue in the Supreme Court case, a ruling in which is expected early this summer, is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a law initially written to prevent hospitals from dumping seriously ill patients who couldn’t pay. Pregnant women in particular were often coming into hospitals in labor, only to be refused care; there were stories of women birthing in hallways and cars. EMTALA says that any hospital receiving federal Medicaid dollars (which is most hospitals, both public and private) must provide lifesaving care to anyone who walks through their doors, regardless of their ability to pay. That means that hospitals have an obligation to stabilize ill patients. (If they don’t have the ability to appropriately stabilize a patient, they must move the patient to a facility that does.)

Jill Filipovic wrote in Slate the insidious trend of anti-abortion hardliners making pregnant people 2nd class citizens by enacting laws criminalizing access to out-of-state abortion services (this is also applicable to gender-affirming care).

[sweaterkittensahoy]

Rosie Rosenthal going to war and becoming a pilot to personally bomb the fuck out of Hitler because it was the right thing to do as a human being, and then going home, getting back to work, and then getting offered the chance to be part of the Nuremberg prosecution team.

And he meets his wife--a fellow prosecutor--on the ship over to the trial. And they're married basically the moment they land in Europe.

And then he interrogates Herman Göring personally.

Do you remember those Peanuts strips where Snoopy fights against the Red Baron? The WWI fighting ace? That was fucking Göring. Literally. He was the leader of that squadron.

That's who Rosie Rosenthal interrogated for Nuremberg. His literal mirror image.

He flew 52 fucking missions. He broke his arm twice. He was training to pilot in the Pacific because that war wasn't over even as the ETO came to a close. And his encore to his war service was to fucking take out Herman fucking Göring.

I think the reason WW2 stories stay so close to our hearts if we're Allies is because even if the most unassuming of people became heroes but also, even the unquestionable heroes went far beyond anything that feels real or true for any of us.

But they did.

And in doing so, they gave us something to strive towards. Do I want to go to war, become an icon amongst terrified men, then go back and kick a war criminal all the way in the ass? God no. Not ever. Do I want to, when I am gone, leave a legacy where people saw me go, "I did this because it was fucking right" and then make decisions in their own lives with an eye towards doing what is right? Yes.

[lawyergamer]

if i had a nickel for every time the fourth case of an ace attorney game involved defending our pretentious, grey(ish) haired rival prosecutor, who claims to hate us but actually has a deep respect for us, against the accusation of murdering a fellow member of the judicial system after, in a moment of thoughtlessness, he picked up a gun which happened to be the murder weapon, all the while the prosecution for this case is someone connected to the murder of said grey haired prosecutor's family member, whose death changed him from a bright, kind young man, into a ruthless, cold prosecutor, i'd have two nickels. which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice