#it DEFINITELY strikes me that most of the people who oppose bans the most are people who reference other lost archives

[lorenzobane]

I cannot believe I am doing this, but it's just driving me fucking crazy. This is about the utterly exhausting and circular and goddamn endless discourse about AO3, and I simply cannot take it anymore. The hyperbole, bad faith arguments, and deeply strange interpretations of what is going on are..... Why. Don't we have enough problems?

Recognizing that this is exhausting and stupid (it was trending on Twitter???? GUYS??) I'm putting this under a cut to not clog up people's dashes. I just feel like there really are solutions and people keep talking around each other and lobbing wild accusations. Come on- CP apologists? Pro-censorship? Let's take a breath. Apologies, per usual, I talked way too much.

First- let's get some perspective. Fanfiction is a hobby. That is all it is- it is not, at its core, more moral or less moral than crocheting. That isn't to say that you can't be a remarkably talented fic writer or that fic writers are never professional writers (though when professional writers are writing professionally, they are not writing fic. Therefore they are not engaging in the hobby of fic writing. They're engaged in the vocation of writing.).

Just like any other hobby, people who do it often get better at it and begin to hone their skills in much the same way that any other hobbyist does in any other skill. But at their core, the point of writing fanfiction is to have fun doing a creative activity with people who are interested in similar topics to you. It is not going to solve racism or cure wealth inequality, or usher in a new shining dawn for gender equity. It, because it is written by very normal people, will always reflect the real flaws and virtues of real and normal people. To suggest otherwise is self-aggrandizing and nonsensical. I'm glad people find joy and pleasure in writing fic (I am one of them!), but we have got to stop saying things that deify fic above other forms of art or writing. AO3 is basically a hobbyist forum and that is okay.

Now- onto my actual point: whatever happened to nuance?

"These freaks will do anything to defend child porn/racism." Okay- well, that is a pretty incendiary thing to say. What is actually being said? People who oppose bans are typically looking at the censorship on TikTok, Tumblr, Facebook's attempts at monitoring, and fanfiction.net and see nothing but colossal failures. So when people suggest potentially banning or deleting erotic works with minors, others who have never seen it done well and have only ever seen it backfire for basically every other tech company are understandably skeptical. Why would it work on Ao3 when it hasn't worked anywhere else? And if these people are still going to write it, except untagged, now we have an even bigger issue because you can't avoid it.

The typical solution for this is "okay, well, hire moderators or build an algorithm," which is expensive and will almost certainly lead to more backlash because they'd need to fundraise for even more money that people already resent having to do at all. Not to mention the backlash when they do/don't decide that something is harmful that other people might/might not. This is especially true of issues regarding racism- unless everyone they hire has a Ph.D. in the topic, I doubt taking the problems to a random committee will solve anything. And maybe I'm insane, but I REALLY do not want a computer taking charge of issues as sensitive as this. As a general rule, I do not want an archive to be making moral decisions about anything. As even more of an aside, I just refuse to describe a dead person as "unalive" in a fic because an algorithm went too far.

Okay- but does that mean we shouldn't do anything about those problems? Do I think the people who sincerely believe we need to fix things are "pro-censorship"? Of course not. There really are existing solutions that are common sense and broadly popular that would put the power in the hands of the readers as opposed to censoring the writers. Instead of focusing so hard on regressive policies to punish or try to eliminate the problem (which is pernicious enough that a simple ban wouldn't work anyway), why not focus on progressive policies that people agree on and can actually work to make people's lives better? People are capable, smart, and thoughtful- when given the tools they absolutely can manage their own online experience.

Author blocks: People should absolutely be allowed to block authors. This one is easy and obvious- it doesn't do much by way of protecting people before they see content but it does help protect themselves from ever seeing it again.

Saved excluded tags: Create a system where you can input certain tags that you always want blocked no matter which fandom you're looking on at the site. This one is another great way to put power in the hands of the reader.

Community fics: Allowing authors to select a group of people that they want to share their particular fic with. If you want to write your cannibal mermaid fic about Hamilton and you don't want to face backlash? Just set it to only be accessible to selected users.

For ideas that go a bit further*:

Stronger age restrictions: If the concern is that young people are being groomed, maybe a solution here could be to have members (I really can't remember how this works because I signed up so long ago) give their birth year. Then just automatically filter out any E or M rated fics for people under 18, similar to how they filter out member-specific fics.

Member-specific fics: On a related note, an option could be to have fics that include an "underage" tag and are E/M are automatically member-restricted.

*Caveat: these two face a similar unintended consequence that would restrict minors from interacting with erotic content at all. Now, for little kids that is fine but for a 16 year old... I mean, there really are teenagers who write porn and there really are young people who are going through puberty and... well. This restriction would obviously be a burden specific to them, but would protect them. Also- they can just lie, lol.

Anyway- as with all policies and all problems, you are always going to deal with unintended consequences of any new policy you put out but you have to be willing to accept that and at least think them through. It drives me CRAZY when people act like we either decide to do an ineffectual ban or we do nothing at all. I am begging you to be at least willing to LOOK for middle ground.

But at the end of the day, remember: This is a HOBBY. It really is not that deep. There are about 5 million users, and even if you say that the real number is closer to 8 million that is still .1% of the global population. I am BEGGING you guys to stop calling each other CP apologists and freaks and pathetic losers and pro-censorship weirdos and purity culture losers. There IS a real problem here and everyone is a little bit right. Just, like, chill a little.

#ao3 discourse #ao3 #what if everyone took a chill pill #its actually interesting because at the base of this stupid internet argument #is a really really fascinating look into different people's views on the philosophy of speech #and the philosophy of loss #it DEFINITELY strikes me that most of the people who oppose bans the most are people who reference other lost archives #they use free speech as their defense but its so often couched in fear #and its not unwarranted! Internet censorship has worked exactly zero times #but there are other solutions and other ways to think about problems

[directdogman]

There is one thing that always bugged me. Why does Mingus still have power? Why is she still Mayor at the end of the game? She is so detached from reality and from her citizens that to keep her in a position of power is only hindering her development. I do believe that she has the potential to be a good leader, but at the moment, even at the end of the game, she isn’t there yet. Having her develop and learn how to be a decent person while also being in charge of a whole ass town seems a bit dangerous. And as a side off question, how would she react to being a regular member of the community? How would she handle herself?

Great question. To begin: Mingus isn't exactly in power in the same way she was at the start of the game. The Mingling has been disbanded, and she has a very attentive new sheriff who is making sure she stays out of trouble and does all of her business above board. She's accountable for all of her actions now, unlike before, and Sheriff Norm Allen is a hard man to fool indeed. If you're asking why Norm and Gingi didn't try to get rid of her at the very end, well... It was really an act of mercy. Mingus had just more or less directly admitted that she's willing to try to be better and simply put, she'd become a worse person if she was stripped of her title unceremoniously. She'd have reverted back to her old self once left alone for long enough. Simply admitting you have a problem is only the first step, healing comes from the support/encouragement of those who care about you. If you took her title away and put her in charge of, say, a bakery, she'd very soon start scheming to put the bakery across the street out of business (insisting that they're planning to take HER down, so she has to strike first), and whoever takes over her position would find her to be a VERY annoying citizen. She'd totally back-seat-mayor, be insufferable during any press QnA's and possibly even end up banned from attending any. She would not be a better person, her field of influence would just dramatically shrink. Also, to be frank, and this is just as important as the last reason: You'd be hard-pressed finding someone in Dialtown qualified enough to actually do her job. Mingus isn't a completely incompetent person and most of her failures come from her choice of staff (that, and her driving away qualified people with her machiavellian malarkey), which naturally is less of an issue once she begins working closely with Norm. Does Mayor Mingus deserve to keep her job? Definitely not. But, the only other person in town who's qualified enough to attempt to do the job in her place is Norm, who (to be fair) ALSO just tried to kill Mingus right in front of you. They're kind of two slightly broken people, both caught agape in the aftermath of the destruction of their old worldviews, who make each other slightly better people. If this is the best future for Dialtown or 'just' is something that I'll leave you decide for yourselves. This isn’t as much ‘my’ choice for Dialtown, and more something that came from me mulling this over in my head and deciding what I think the main cast would agree at the end of the game. But, I can say for a fact that Dialtown's canon ending is the best possible future for Mayor Mingus (keeping her job, though no longer being too powerful to oppose/correct.) And honestly? It's the best future for Norm too.

[swifty-fox]

dude! more history rants, that was great!! I honestly probably learned more in that than I ever have in a history class

dude! Learning about history is SO much better when the person you’re listening to has a genuine passion for it! My Russian prof used to take his shoes off and bang on the table to prove his point, he would imitate historical figures down to the Russian accent (with great skill he lived in the USSR through the entire nineties which if you know anything about nineties Russia that is a FEAT. His wife to be at the time ((now a german history prof at my college)) was offered a ride in a helicopter by the Russian mob. She declined) 

Russian history is also just such a rich and dramatic and WILD history. Theres so many things to focus on like an entire semester was spent JUST studying the revolution and that was only an introductory course

Anyways since I’m here and can rant lets talk about two fun things! Lenins  name and his family as well as Vasily Grossmans greatest and most controversial works!

So Vladimir Lenin is a pretty iconic name. A pretty cool name in fact! Really rolls off the tongue and strikes FEAR into enemies hearts.

Did ya know it’s not his fuckin name? Nope! the guy straight up chose a new last name for himself! This former law student (oh yeah he wasn't even a politician no wonder the fucko didn't know how to run a country) was actually born Vladimir Ulyanov! 

but why the name change? Ulyanov is still pretty easy to say, still pretty memorable. Rolls of the tongue so on and so forth.

this, ladies, gentlemen, and everything in between and beyond, is because of Lenins older brother Aleksandr Ulyanov! 

(this guy has better hair than i could ever hope to, thanks diluted slav genes) 

now sweet Aleks here was also four years Vladimirs Senior and was also a revolutionary! (seems like it ran in the family) 

Not only was he a revolutionary but he was a MASSIVELY FAMOUS ONE and kinda helped set the ENTIRE downfall of the soviet union in motion long before the revolution was even a whisper of a thought. 

How you ask? well uh.

he tried to kill Tsar Nikolas II’s dad. 

yes, that Tsar Nikolas who later was overthrown and was executed by firing squad. Sorry the Romanovs are all very very dead we found all their bodies the animated movie was very wrong. 

Anyways, sweet kolya’s father was Tsar Alexander III and he was known throughout the land as the Peacemaker! 

(also yes they're both called Aleksandr. Russians only have like. Ten names to choose from)

wow sounds like he must be a great guy with a nickname like that huh? Why would anyone wanna kill him! Sadly, the nickname is only because Russia entered no wars under his rule. He was in fact, a huge bastard. Outside of being physically and emotionally abusive to his family (he would often berate Nikolai for being weak which definitely led to some of his issues with his authority and pride being questioned later on...) he was incredibly reactionary and heavy handed when it came to ruling. he opposed ANY movement that might minimize his authority as emperor. He was famous for executing a LOT of anti-imperialist terrorists.

he also looked like this

not to insult bulldogs but this guy sure looks like one. 

Anyways, Aleksandr Ulyanov helps devise a plot wherein he and a bunch of other revolutionaries will ride by Tsar Alek’s carriage and chuck a bomb through his window and then boom no more emperor. basically, it was the 1887 version of a drive by shooting. 

Naturally, it failed, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about this! Anyways, All the conspirators were captured and sentenced to death. (5 were later pardoned none of which were Lenins brother.) They were all hanged.

Although Lenin was involved in politics before this to some degree, this action really radicalized him and really got the ball rolling for the eventual Soviet Union. Talk about butterfly effect. 

Alright time for history lesson part TWO!! Lets talk about Vasily Grossman and his work In The Town of Berdichev! Though more technically I will be talking more about the film adaptation titled Commissar(1967). 

quick background time! Vasily Grossman was born to a Jewish family and due to prosecution (of both Jewish people and Ukrainians) at the time was forced to conceal his heritage. He actually studied to be a chemist at first and was quite successful until he transitioned later in life to being a writer and reporter! His accounts of the Ukrainian famine are the some of the most detailed accounts as well as the most controversial (to the Russian state) he also was a war reporter for WWII and intensively documented the ethnic cleansing going on. Understandably.

he was strongly supported by Maksim Gorky! (yes that Maksim Gorky, famous writer, and the man who helped develop the entire soviet education system that kinda was just brainwashing and propaganda. Reportedly later in life he considered that to be one of his greatest regrets((he was also a massive homophobe too because same sex relationships were actually legal for a while there in russia!))

Long story short, Vasya believed strongly in several things. he believed in the human spirit, he believed in supporting his Jewish brethren, he believed strongly in mother Russia and the communist party. But more than that he believed that those who do not learn from our mistakes are doomed to repeat them. 

Thus came about his work. I’ll post a quick plot summary here from Wikipedia of the movie. it’s a really good film honestly I highly recommend it. 

“During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), a female commissar of the Red Army cavalry Klavdia Vavilova (Nonna Mordyukova) finds herself pregnant. Until her child is born, she is forced to stay with the family of a poor Jewish blacksmith Yefim Magazannik (Rolan Bykov), his wife, mother-in-law, and six children. At first, both the Magazannik family and "Madame Vavilova", as they call her, are not enthusiastic about living under one roof, but soon they share their rationed food, make her civilian clothes, and help her with the delivery of her newborn son. Vavilova seemingly embraces motherhood, civilian life, and new friends.Meanwhile, the frontline advances closer to the town and the Jews expect a pogrom by the White Army as the Red Army retreats. Vavilova attempts to console them with a Communist dream: "One day people will work in peace and harmony", but the dream is interrupted with a vision of the fate of the Jews in the coming world war. She rushes to the front to rejoin her army regiment, leaving her newborn behind.“

- White army was the anti-soviet army during the revolution. Red Army was the soviets. Pogroms were targeted areas of ethnic cleansing against Jewish peoples, namely they were villages or towns that were wiped out. 

this film was banned for something like forty years for anti-soviet sentiment. But why? it seems pretty damn pro-soviet doesn't it? 

Well firstly lets talk about how oppressive the soviet regime was by this point! In 1967 Russia was in the dying throes of Stalins regime. Yes he had died a little over a decade earlier but the government was still very much being run by his ideals. All independent newspapers were banned. EVERYTHING every single piece of art, literature, news, commercial, WHATEVER, had to be state approved. And by god was it hard to get things approved. Grossman routinely wrote of his frustrations and struggles of getting anything published because if a Russain character was portrayed as anything but a happy go lucky communist then it would be censored. Grossman first ran into this issue when he was reporting on the iron and coal mines in siberia. the conditions were terrible but Grossman had to lie and say everything was fine. It let to a real crisis of ideals for him.

The first red mark against this movie is that well, it focuses on a woman. It’s an incredibly feminist movie, with the idea of motherhood and duty and the strength of a woman being just as much if not more than a man. (for reference a Commissar is like an army Officer) 

Secondly, she abandons her post! to have a child! In communist Russia NOTHING comes before your duty to the motherland. But again she eventually realizes that the call of her country is stronger than the call of this simple maternal life and she does go on to fight so why is this a problem?

Well ultimately, it boils down to the final scene. 

"One day people will work in peace and harmony" she says. An entirely pro-soviet message. But then it is instantly contradicted by footage of the holocaust. This is a visual representation fo Grossman saying that although the communist ideal is strong in the soviet union that they are being blinded by false enemies, prejudices and will find themselves committing such atrocities (of course they already are but again he DID still support the Soviet State) Basically it was a warning to the Soviet Party! Learn from the mistakes that were made and gentle themselves!

And this, this was a criticism of the Soviet party! And thus, it was shelved for nearly twenty years.

It finally was shown again in the late 80′s  

Grossman, after attempting to publish his magnum opus, Life and Fate, had his flat raided by the KGB and all his notes, manuscripts, letters, books, publications, and pretty much his life's work were confiscated. Grossman died in the mid 1960′s of stomach cancer not knowing if any of his writings or best works would ever be seen or published again. 

Thankfully they were found and published and his massively important legacy lives on in the people who know about him. But his story is a very bittersweet one indeed. 

you can watch the full movie here with English captions! 

(tw: imagery of holocaust, some anti-semitism (if i recall) some children without any clothes bathing if i recall (its not weird but I know it was shocking for me to see at first))

(maybe I’ll talk about the TRUE story of Rasputin another time...) 

#swiftytalks #russian history #again i dont have my notes on me also i went to PAX for half of the movie so i missed some of it #fact checked by google again but still mostly word vomit #every day I say that Lenin was a BITCH #discussions of antisemitism #as always #because russia #Anonymous

[niamheliza-performanceandmedia]

Defining a Plague...

https://youtu.be/N0qgPqemdPM

Above you will find a link that will take you to my Monologue entitled ‘Defining a Plague’ which shows you my take on the coronavirus pandemic and what it means to me.

What is the meaning behind my monologue?

My monologue is entitled “Defining a plague” and it gives a comparison of what we would have perceived a plague to be before the coronavirus pandemic vs how we would perceive a plague now. My main inspiration for the monologue was ‘The Plague’ by Albert Camus. Whilst reading the play I came across words such as ‘Quarantine’ and ‘Self-Isolation’ which shocked me considering the play was first written in 1947 and those words only became part of my vocabulary in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic (Camus and Bartlett, 2017). This sparked the realisation that we are living through a plague and although the pandemic has been labelled as many things, a plague has not been one of them. That entire thought process brought the realisation that perceptions really do change through experience and I wanted my monologue to be a true reflection of that (Gaarder, 2015). Instead of creating a new character I decided to perform the monologue as a version of myself looking back on my past opinions and experiences. My main reasoning for this was to actualise the reality of the pandemic to accentuate the seriousness of the situation in order to really engage the audience.

How was my monologue structured?

I open my monologue by reading out of a history book; this was to show how I was reflecting on the past, almost in mockery of how simple I thought it was to define a plague. I reference a timeline to emphasize how the concept of a plague is usually held in the past and isn’t something I thought would resurface or live in the present (The Great Plague 1665 - the Black Death, 2021). As part of a transition, I get rid of the history book and replace it with a mask, this was to symbolise how the term has redefined into something we now use every day and is no longer just a part of history. When I wear the mask, I introduce the present to the audience; I chose to show footage of moments that people have believed to be the most fundamental to the pandemic. The videos I chose were: an explanation video of social distancing (Foster, 2020), NHS staff swept off their feet (Morgan, 2020), the annunciation of a Christmas lockdown (Burns, 2020) , the West End going dark (The Telegraph, 2020), along with a Boris Johnson Speech (Johnson, 2020). These videos were chosen in order to connect the audience since they all showed something that we had all been affected by as a nation; from a performer’s’ perspective I hoped this would strike a chord and engage them even further. The final part of my monologue was all about visualisation, I incorporated my own personal videos to create empathy but to also show how the small gestures we have done throughout the various lockdowns could have potentially saved someone’s well being without us even thinking about it; I hoped this would bring a sense of joy and pride to my audience.

Was my monologue inspired by any specific practitioner?

My whole concept was Brechtian based. Since I didn’t create a new character but performed as myself learning from experiences, I felt I had a duty to make my monologue informative and visual- for this reason I found Brecht’s performance techniques most fitting. The most evident technique can be found in the middle section where I combine the use of signs and technology. It was so important for me to use signs because during the monologue I never actually use words such as ‘Coronavirus’ or ‘Covid-19’ as I wanted to keep the concept of a plague in the forefront of the audience’s mind. As a result of this I needed to find a way to affix the 2 concepts for the audience. Another technique I used was breaking the fourth wall, through the screen, in order to magnify how much I wanted this monologue to be a personal experience and reflection for both myself and the audience. When I had my mask on I chose to use narration as opposed to sacrificing the quality of the sound and have a muffled voice through my mask in order to create a more pleasurable performance for my audience. As a result of not being able to perform in person, I think these techniques allowed me to create an atmosphere that was just as effective through a screen (The Brechtian Method - Brecht In Practice - Free Online Resource Access, 2021).

What research did I do for this monologue?

Despite performing the monologue as myself I wanted the idea to be collective and relatable to most people. For this reason, I decided to do a lot of research and take the majority of the points I made from the people around me.

The questions I needed answering in order to make my monologue effective were:

·      How would you define a plague?

·      What do you perceive a plague to be?

·      How would you define the Coronavirus?

·      What was the hardest part about lockdown?

I Firstly took a lot of information from one of our Wednesday sessions where I was able to interact with the class and ask them the first 2 questions: How would you define a plague? and What do you perceive a plague to be?

I used this set of responses to form the beginning of my monologue and used their definitions as my definition of a ‘plague’. Since these responses came from my first intended audience, I hope they felt a personal connection during my live performance.

I also used Instagram polls to inspire my ‘curing a plague’ section. I asked the question- What was the hardest part about lockdown? and then used these responses to understand how the solution to the things that we miss the most would be the things that could cure this ‘plague’. I decided to use Instagram as I knew I could reach a wide audience, including some of my closest friends, and pick out some of the most common responses that would be relatable to most people. This worked in my favour since a lot of my responses were unanimous making it easier for me to choose topics to focus on.

How did my workshops help me?

There were 3 specific workshops that helped and inspired this performance. The first and most influential was ‘The Plague’ reading with Michael Carklin in which we did a read through of the play by Albert Camus. Not only did this spark the inspiration for my monologue but also changed my perspective on how I viewed the pandemic and world as a whole, for this reason I had a burning passion to share the message I understood with a wider audience. Despite only reading the play in the session, the time we had for self-reflection influenced my main ideas for this monologue and performance.

The next influential session was my ‘Loitering with intent’ workshop with Hillary Ramsden. The workshop really helped me to understand how sometimes your best ideas come from just walking and taking in your surroundings, therefore whilst preparing for this monologue I took a lot of time away from my computer screen and just went on walks. I found that whilst walking I was able to create some of my most poetic lines.

Finally, a fundamental session for my research was the Elevator Pitch with Sarah Crews. This was the session where I was able to ask questions to my fellow course mates in order to incorporate them personally into my monologue. In addition to this I was able to listen to other people’s ideas which is always helpful when you have such a wide brief to fulfil.

What have I learnt from this experience?

The entire creative process of this monologue has given me new skills that I will keep with me throughout my 3 years at the University of South Wales and beyond. I have learnt that reading things that you wouldn’t usually gravitate towards can teach you some of your most important lessons and give you your most creative ideas. Before my workshop, I would never have read ‘The Plague’ but after reading it I have a whole new perspective on certain subjects and influenced an entire 2 minute performance. I have also come to understand how to use different practitioner’s techniques to emphasize your skills as a performer; since I couldn’t perform live, I had to research who’s practice would best to use in order to give an effective performance through a screen. Additionally, although research has always been important, I have come to realise that we can use our social media platforms for good. By using Instagram polls for a section of my research, I was able to incorporate a personal aspect to my monologue that I couldn’t have accessed from a website or generic YouTube video.

Most importantly I have learnt that ‘A plague doesn’t come in the form of a pin or a needle’ so tell people you love them and stay safe.

Niamh Eliza

Bibliography

Camus, A. and Bartlett, N., 2017. The Plague. UK: Oberon Books Ltd.

Gaarder, J. (2015) Sophies World. 20th Anniversary Edition. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Historic UK. 2021. The Great Plague 1665 - The Black Death. [online] Available at: <https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Great-Plague/> [Accessed 20 December 2020].

Foster (2020) Coronavirus: What is social distancing? - BBC News. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYQjssb7xdk (Accessed 20 December 2020). 

Morgan (2020) Scale of impact of Coronavirus outbreak on NHS health and care staff heard by MPs | ITV News. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMoKgj0jv0k (Accessed 20 December 2020). 

Burns (2020) UK new coronavirus variant “out of control” as countries announce travel bans - BBC News. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB5HtKtGijY (Accessed 20 December 2020).

 The Telegraph (2020) Coronavirus: Theatre closures leave London's West End deserted on a Saturday night. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr8aBboLIGU (Accessed 20 December 2020). 

Johnson (2020) Boris Johnson unveils alert system for England - BBC News. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQcVUaowTbg&t=1s (Accessed 20 December 2020)

Brecht In Practice - Free Online Resource Access. 2021. The Brechtian Method - Brecht In Practice - Free Online Resource Access. [online] Available at: <http://brechtinpractice.org/theory/the-brechtian-method/> [Accessed 19 December 2020].

[wumblr]

Hi, could you please explain that chinese research with the crispr genes like I'm 5? It strikes me as something very serious, but I understand absolutely nothing about it

short answer: imagine that since like 1930 we’ve had a machine that has some chance of generating either an incredible ultrahuman that never catches any diseases, or a horrible mutant that will live in pain for the entirety of its brief life. so for the past almost century we’ve all dutifully been like “no, we’re not using the monster generator,” and every year we have several science conferences to discuss whether we should push the monster button, and every year the experts of the field are like “that’s still a no from me.”

except this year some guy (chinese researcher he jiankui) was suddenly like “hello, actually, i’ve already pressed it seven times. six of them died. rip.”

(note: crispr is not 90 years old, but our awareness of the structure of DNA is. also, i should mention that the claims haven’t been substantiated, but i’m going to write this under the assumption that he wasn’t just telling lies.)

better answer from someone else (link)

long answer:

idk if you’d remember this, but one of the hot-button issues during george w bush’s presidency was stem cell research, and when i say “hot-button issue” i mean like, the pope at the time got personally involved and made several different statements specifically opposing it. stem cell research got summarily banned, and as far as i know it still is in most countries.

stem cells & crispr gene editing are not the same thing, but they might fall under the same ban in some jurisdictions. animal genetics research is sometimes allowed in some places, but human trials have literally up until this very moment in history been considered unconscionable, if not explicitly banned by most countries.

leading up to the stem cell debate (circa 80s-00s?) there was also a lot of hoohah in the press about cloned animals (dolly the sheep, et al). all of this stuff just sort of suddenly disappeared from the headlines when stem cell research was banned, and genetics basically left the public consciousness for a hot minute until GMOs came along. here’s the key thing, i think: the question “What should we do with DNA?” has been on the collective mind pretty consistently, ever since crick & watson stole rosalind franklin’s research. the answer is usually “eugenics,” “capitalism,” or “nothing,” depending on whether you’re the worst kind of asshole or not, but there’s a surprising lack of people willing to risk their career for saying “what if we did something with DNA that wasn’t eugenics or capitalism?”

DNA is like the world’s most complex microscopic knot, and if you’ve ever tried to understand programming code written by somebody else, then try to imagine code written by nobody at all that just sort of appeared a billion years after some lightning struck a swamp – and that’s kind of what DNA is like.

so you go in with a microscope like “ah yes, here are the genes that make this human baby susceptible to HIV, let’s just turn those off,” but like… how do you know you are actually doing what you think you’re doing? how do you know it’s not going to make significant changes elsewhere? how do you know you didn’t just make them susceptible to some worse disease? how do you know they’re not going to have some never-before-seen and lethal birth defect? you don’t, because it’s never been done before, and anybody who isn’t as mad as a hatter generally considers it way too complex to even reasonably approach… making the assumption that you or anyone is capable of knowing enough about DNA to even touch it is so arrogant and hubristic it puts classical epic and myth to shame.

(this isn’t strictly speaking true, particularly as we build smarter computers, and i’d like to see a future that perhaps includes ethical gene therapies, but at the moment, most reasonable researchers stick to using cripsr for applications like making mosquitoes sterile to eliminate malaria – and even this is so controversial it has never been tried outside a research facility. even with the significantly reduced complexity within mosquitoes, we still don’t know whether it will work as planned, and no one has really been able to come to a consensus on whether it’s responsible to proceed when there are so many unknown risks on the table.)

so when this guy (he jiankui) got up at a genetics conference like “actually i’ve done it, and the seventh trial resulted in a successful pregnancy,”

like i don’t know what else i can say, this is clearly a watershed moment for better or worse and i can’t possibly imagine where we’re going from here. someone finally stepped forward and said “i’m going to try it and damn the consequences,” and while that’s not an admirable quality for a medical professional, it is definitely, i don’t know, bold?

there are some further nuances like, it’s not entirely clear whether the couples in the trial knew they were participating in a gene editing experiment (although they knew they were participating in an HIV treatment trial and one parent in each couple was HIV+), and not informing your patients what you’re doing to them is thankfully another huge no-no in the medical community

i don’t support or condone this but i am shocked and amazed by it

#sorry mobile users this really is under a cut

[greatessaywritingservice]

Tavor 7 For Sale

 Pretty much every military workmanship has some kind of weapon that is some of the time significantly exhibited at a dojo or at workshops. The weapon will be whatever that specific military craftsmanship has used it for in the past to either safeguard oneself or to head off to war with.

It ought to be noticed that most hand to hand fighting weapons are illicit to convey or use in the city in many pieces of the nation and I am certain this additionally applies to the remainder of the cultivated world in a manner of speaking. This implies that all your preparation with a weapon or weapons will be bound to the dojo, preparing lobby or conceivably your home.

Showing the weapon in other more open spots may get you captured and furthermore have your weapon seized. The other option is that a cop will regard you as a potential danger and dangerous power might be unintentionally applied which implies you might actually be splashed with pepper, shot or even both.

An individual with a weapon that is out in the open is dealt with genuinely by law implementation and they won't take risks when managing an obscure circumstance. So the primary principle is; utilize your hand to hand fighting weapon just in the dojo, preparing corridor or your home.

This standard may not make a difference to stick weapons, for example, a hanbo, jo or bo which simply show the various lengths of the wooden sticks. Utilize presence of mind while conveying any kind of hand to hand fighting weapon to and from the dojo or preparing lobby since what appears to be guiltless to you may appear to be totally unique to another person.

You ought to be mindful when managing taking care of weapons consistently. A straightforward answer for conveying wooden weapons is to get a convey case to utilize while shipping them outside in broad daylight. These conveying cases are somewhat modest and can tackle numerous issues before they emerge.

The wide scope of weapons found in combative techniques is very changed and their underlying foundations for the most part come from standard items and devices that were promptly accessible to the average person. This was significant on the grounds that a considerable lot of the weapons were created to use against involving powers like the Japanese in Okinawa. Since clear weapons were banned by the public authority specialists basic homestead devices were adjusted, for example, the bo, sai and tonfa.

With these weapons on display yet secret the average person had the option to acquire capability in safeguarding themselves with such straightforward apparatuses. Streak forward to right now and you will in any case discover these weapons being prepared with in dojos from one side of the planet to the other. A genuine demonstration of the adequacy of these kinds of weapons.

There are different kinds of customary items that have been utilized as weapons like chains, nails and strolling sticks. Add honed things like sickles, lances, cuts and even blades and you have a significant rundown of usable devices for protective and hostile activities.

Despite what weapon is utilized the essential standards of hand to hand fighting are expected to use the weapon in the most ideal manner conceivable. The body developments, the feet situation, the strikes and cautious impeding strategies are completely utilized when preparing with a weapon in your grasp or hands.

Clearly when first taking care of a specific weapon master guidance is encouraged to forestall wounds to yourself or to other people. On a superficial level weapon utilization appears to be fairly direct and this is the place where the main slip-ups normally happen.

In any event, cleaning a katana with the powder and material can bring about a genuine cut since the edge is well honed and doesn't permit errors to occur. So if conceivable track down a certified educator for a wide range of weapons preparing. There is considerably more to dominating any sort of weapon than is distantly self-evident.

Anybody can swing a stick or attempt to cut something with a blade yet to have the option to do it productively and reliably is an entire distinctive story. There are such countless subtleties and body developments that transform an abnormal strike into a smooth and smooth movement. Since there are such countless kinds of weapons I'll simply zero in on a portion of the Japanese weapons that I know about and have prepared in.

These incorporate the hanbo, jo, bo, weighted chain, tanto, bokken, naginata, yari and the jutte. This load of weapons are customary in nature and have a long history of utilization by the samurai and the everyday person. The samurai is most connected with the long sword frequently alluded to as the katana. Then, at that point as is presently blade preparing was with a bokken or wood sword as to forestall genuine wounds or demise.

Even following seven years of preparing the bokken is as Tavor 7 For Sale yet an undeniably challenging weapon to employ with exactness, precision and control. Add to the essential bokken prerequisites; balance, smooth motions, timing and center and you will find out about what is expected to try and get a respectable comprehension of the weapon and it's utilization.

My idea is to rehearse fifteen minutes per day on one specific weapon which will ultimately prompt creating muscle memory, weapon commonality and regular body development while dealing with the weapon which ought to be your definitive objective.

There are rules of behavior when taking care of or utilizing weapons which ought to be perceived and recalled all through your preparation. Here are a portion of the fundamental guidelines:

1.) Never venture over a weapon that is laying on a mat. Step around it and this is typically to one side of the weapon.

2.) Never play with a weapon in the dojo and consistently use it in the way recommended by the educator

3.) Never play with a weapon against an individual understudy even jokingly

4.) When giving a bladed weapon to an individual understudy consistently have the cutting edge confronting you. This additionally applies to wooden blades and swords regardless of whether the cutting edge is wood

5.) When utilizing weapons with an individual understudy use alert and control on the grounds that genuine wounds can happen

6.) When bowing in or out of class the weapon ought to be to your right side and in case it is an edged weapon the edge faces you

7.) If you have your own wooden blade or blade ensure that the surface is smooth and sanded down. Splinters will hurt an individual understudy and occasionally verify whether there are any breaks in the wood which can bring about the wooden weapon spitting and flying across the dojo.

8.) Do not open someones katana without authorization and certainly don't contact the cutting edge with your hands or fingers. The dampness on all fours can cause rust whenever left unattended.

9.) Do stick to the standards of the dojo when it relates to weapons and weapons preparing.

One thing to consider when you are working with weapons and another understudy is to keep up with your concentration and mindfulness consistently. I will rehash this again, your concentration and mindfulness ought not falter while preparing with weapons. It is basic that you stay totally at the time to forestall injury to your kindred combative techniques understudy and to yourself.

A wooden weapon can without much of a stretch air out your head or break a bone in the event that it hits you which should happen. This additionally applies to bladed weapons that generally are not sharp but rather which are in some cases utilized by and by to show a touch more authenticity.

While rehearsing Iaido with a sharp katana then all out center is an outright should in light of the fact that it can cut profoundly with even the smallest slip-up. When cutting bamboo mats otherwise called tamishigiri you should be absolutely mindful of your environmental elements and who is inside the cutting distance of your blade. A decent similarity is treat these weapons as you would a firearm.

This is certainly not a game or the motion pictures where an error influences nobody and isn't genuine. Genuine wounds can and do happen when preparing with weapons and this typically is the consequence of need or mindfulness or regard for the actual weapon.

Something else to consider is that in numerous conventional dojos in the event that you turn your back, turn away from your preparation accomplice or show an absence of mindfulness that preparation accomplice has the implicit authorization to assault you. This assault normally doesn't bring about contact yet it shows that in case it were genuine you would support unnecessary injury. A light tap or contact is everything necessary to remind your accomplice that they weren't engaged and mindful of whatever was going on. This state is called zanshin in Japanese and supporters eye to eye connection consistently with your mindfulness taking in the entirety of your environmental factors simultaneously.

It's smarter to be helped to remember your break in mindfulness and focus in the dojo as opposed to on the road where the results can be dangerous.

You will see that when preparing is weapons numerous individuals will have an aimless way to deal with weapons preparing. Their assaults will be unfocused, their stance poor and their assaults coming up short on a genuine expectation. This kind of preparing is absolutely pointless!

These kinds of assaults antagonistically influence the capacity of the protector to sufficiently use the strategies that that have been instructed. Without an engaged decided assault it is difficult to make any feeling of authenticity and both the safeguard and aggressor don't acquire significant input.

The mentality of the protector is " on the off chance that you hit me, cut me or strike me it's my deficiency". This onus is on the protector so the assault ought to be genuine and without a second thought. Then again, the safeguard ought to be similarly engaged and with full fixation. On the off chance that focus slips, the guard will be wretched and with potential wounds to the safeguard.

Best to begin delayed with conscious developments that are rehashed again and again to foster muscle memory. Going quick at the outset generally brings about an extremely poor and messy strategy that will not improve with age. Be that as it may, customary predictable practice will give you a more noteworthy comprehension of the weapon, it's capacities, your body's developments comparable to the assault and how to best kill the assault.

When seven days is without a doubt the base you ought to prepare in a specific weapon and furthermore supplement your preparation at home.

The inquiry you should pose to yourself is the thing that is the reasonableness of preparing with a weapon that was utilized many years prior in another country far away. Another point is that it isn't normal to f

#Tavor 7 For Sale

[dipulb3]

Amy Coney Barrett's potential role in abortion battle surfaces in debates

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/amy-coney-barretts-potential-role-in-abortion-battle-surfaces-in-debates/

Amy Coney Barrett's potential role in abortion battle surfaces in debates

When asked whether he would want his home state of Indiana to ban all abortions should Barrett’s presence help overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling affirming the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion, Vice President Mike Pence praised Barrett but did not directly address the question.

“For our part, I would never presume how Judge Amy Coney Barrett would rule on the Supreme Court of the United States,” Pence later said. “But we’ll continue to stand strong for the right to life.”

When asked whether she would want her home state of California to enact no abortion restrictions in such a scenario, Sen. Kamala Harris similarly demurred.

“I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body,” she ultimately said. “It should be her decision, and not that of Donald Trump and Vice President Michael Pence.”

The week prior, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden also had referred to Roe in a debate that soon devolved into chaos.

“The President also is opposed to Roe v. Wade,” Biden said. “That’s on the ballot as well (as) in the court. … So that’s also at stake right now.”

Trump pushed back. “Why is it on the ballot? It’s not on the ballot,” he said, later adding, “There’s nothing happening there. And you don’t know her view on Roe v. Wade. You don’t know her view,” of Barrett.

The comments align with how activists on both sides of the abortion debate are framing the implications that the contentious battle over the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court vacancy will have on Roe.

While overturning the ruling is not literally on the 2020 ballot, many abortion rights supporters decry Barrett’s ascent as synonymous with Roe’s inevitable death knell and a fate that only a Biden presidency or a left-pressured Senate could prevent. Anti-abortion activists, on the other hand, assert that her constitutionalist views are by no means a guarantee but more broadly increase their odds of weakening Roe — tea leaves that only time will tell.

“We’re not supporting her because we think that she’s some kind of a secret agent out to put Roe down,” said Steven Aden, chief legal officer and general counsel at Americans United for Life. “We support her because she’s a committed constitutionalist. We think that aligns with our view of the Constitution, but just as with other justices, we’ll have to wait and see if we’re right.”

Abortion opponents

Barrett’s track record on abortion from three years on the bench is limited but includes defenses of the restrictions she has reviewed, and she has left some clues. In a 2013 law review article, she cited public opposition to Roe as rejection of the notion that the judicial principle of “stare decisis,” meaning adherence to rulings in past cases, “can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging.”

Her criticisms of abortion have often stemmed from religious grounds that Aden and others charge represent personal views separate from judicial intent. But these factors don’t guarantee an outcome, abortion opponents argue.

“He can’t possibly know, and neither can she, how she’s going to rule on a future case,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, told Appradab of Trump, adding that “he cannot prejudice her if a case does come up like that.”

“He promised pro-life Supreme Court justices, and that’s because his understanding of the Constitution, and ours, is that the rights of unborn children should be protected there,” she continued. “But that’s a very different thing than claiming how you think that’s going to unwind in a particular case coming.”

The President’s debate indignation over Biden’s assertion aligns with his prior moves keeping the specifics of Roe at arm’s length from his characterization of his nominee. Trump said late last month that he had not discussed Roe or other specific cases with Barrett before nominating her to the Supreme Court.

“I didn’t think it was for me to discuss that with her, because it’s something she’s going to be ruling on,” Trump said in a “Fox & Friends” interview last month.

This runs counter to Trump’s blunt assertions while campaigning in 2016 that he would “appoint judges that will be pro-life” to the Supreme Court and it would overturn Roe “automatically” if he appointed enough conservative justices.

Supporters of abortion rights

For abortion rights supporters, Pence, Trump and Barrett’s prior messaging is enough for them to think that Biden’s debate line — coming on the heels of last year’s slew of laws from state legislatures restricting abortion — rings urgently true.

“Roe v. Wade is most definitely on the ballot this November,” Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, wrote to Appradab. The President and the Senate determine Ginsburg’s replacement, who “will determine the future of Roe and whether people in much of the country can get an abortion if they need one.”

“If the court overturns Roe, Congress and state lawmakers will have the power to determine whether we take this personal decision away from women and families and hand it over to politicians,” Dalven added.

Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told Appradab that “the combination of the legislative stakes, the political stakes and the judicial stakes mean that Roe is central to what people are voting on in November.”

“This is a tried and true strategy of Trump and the GOP. It’s sort of gaslighting women,” Hogue said. “He promised to only nominate justices that would end Roe and criminalize abortion, but when we’re in the middle of a confirmation hearing, he’s like, ‘You’re crazy! What are you talking about? Roe’s not under threat!’ We’ve been to this dance multiple times, and we take him at his word.”

Kelley Robinson, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, pointed to Barrett’s record opposing abortion as well as the slew of anti-abortion bills that arose following Justice Brett Kavanaugh‘s confirmation in 2018.

“They were enacting their playbook, which was a clear strategy to push bills through the courts that would have a pathway to the Supreme Court that would undermine and ultimately gut Roe v. Wade,” she said, later adding, “I think the choice is with voters to make sure that that doesn’t happen.”

Aden and Dannenfelser acknowledged increased odds of abortion outcomes preferable to their organizations simply by virtue of Barrett not holding Ginsburg’s views.

Their hopes haven’t always been realized, however. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, notably sided with liberals to strike down a Louisiana abortion law in June. But he cited the undue-burden standard established in the landmark Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey over more recent standards — a move that has been cited by lower courts in support of abortion restrictions.

“If that’s the kind of thoughtful judging you would get from this nominee or any other, I think it would be a significant improvement over the approach that the plurality, led by Justice (Stephen) Breyer and including Justice Ginsburg, set out,” Aden said.

Barrett “could decide against any of those (future anti-abortion laws before the court) because of different reasons, like how they were brought, standing, all sorts of stuff,” Dannenfelser said. “I don’t know how abortion law can ever change without some change in Roe. … I hope she is going to increase the odds that we’re able to make inroads around Roe somehow.”

[em-exceeds-change-zearu]

I have a question, because I trust your expert opinion on these matters.... What do you think of yugioh sevens?

sorry it took so long for me to answer you, anon! i was puzzling over how to answer this for a long time, because i really wanted to give my honest opinion but i had a Lot to say and not all of it positive. also i’m in the middle of moving out of my apartment with the husband and that’s really busy lol.

so. hm. okay. given that I’ve only seen the first episode so far (I watched it when it first came out and haven’t gotten the chance to see the other two), I can’t say my opinion will be super informed! however, I can give my initial first impressions based on what I saw from the first time I watched it! the impressions will be under the cut, but let’s just say that my opinions are. Mixed. again, my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt, because i’ve only seen episode one and I really expect the show to show it’s true colors by mid-season, but this is just a really quick first impression after mulling over my initial impressions for a few days. 

I think overall, my impressions of the first episode is that I can see the potential, but the execution is somewhat shoddy. It honestly doesn’t feel like the producers used the extra six months or so from ending VRAINS early to their best advantage here, but there’s an...effort? I can at least see why people are charmed by the show so far. I’ll break it down piece by piece to show what initial problems I had with it that prevented me from enjoying it fully. It’s still a very charming show, and I plan on giving it a chance, but I feel like the show itself is still finding its footing. And that’s to be expected, most ygo spinoffs are just Like That when they start, but it’s definitely one of the weaker starts to a series i’ve seen. I’ll break it down by its aspects to show what I both like and dislike about it!

Setting - Okay, so I’m actually rather charmed by the setting itself. It feels like it’s a direct callout to how the ygo meta has gotten in real life - there are a few decks that stand out over the rest and sometimes tournaments can come down to being between one type of deck and its counter. Yuga wanting to make his own type of dueling because he feels like the world around him is getting stale is incredibly charming, and the rules he’s come up with absolutely feel like something an elementary schooler would come up with (I used to make fun of pendulum summoning being the same type of thing, but this is just straight up reminding me of the days when pokemon trading cards were super popular and none of us little brats knew the rules so we made up our own as we went along). Yuga’s a little kid who dreams about giant dueling robots and wants dueling to have the mystery and fun and pizzaz it used to, and who doesn’t? I support this baby boy and his dueling robot dreams. 

The world around him is established to be pretty restrictive and somewhat eerie as well - the school is largely managed by robots that regulate things down to the smallest level (I don’t think there’s even any adults around, which ???), and even the smallest innovations Yuga does to help make life more efficient, like adding a carrier to his bike to carry his bookbag, are rejected as out of line. There’s actually a nice level of show and don’t tell here and there, like showing how the robots scan each student while greeting them happily at the door, or how duel disks are automatically shut down and locked during school hours. One particularly chilling moment is watching robots clamp down on students trying to trade cards informally in the schoolyard, calmly and cheerily informing them that such trading is prohibited and must be done in a sanctioned G-Corp trading location. What seals the deal is that the student’s don’t express annoyance and anger at this, merely accepting such a restrictive rule as a mildly inconvenient part of life - which shows how such an indoctrinative lifestyle has already affected their manner of thinking. I feel like the first episode would have benefited more from being stretched out into two episodes instead of trying to cram a duel inside the end of the first episode, because the crammed nature of it all meant these moments are very few and far between, lost in how quickly the episode rushes through these plot points.

Characters - Okay, overall the dynamics of our main cast look like they can be really cute. We have our rebellious protagonist that wants to shake up everything and have fun, our uptight class president that wants to enforce the rules but gets swept up in the chaos protag-kun brings, the rival character that thinks protag-kun could change the world around him and looks at him with respect and also might possibly be a chuuni dumbass, and the token female character who’s Totally Not Interested In This Dueling Thing, No Way, Really. But honestly, in the first episode a lot of this characterization is lost in...screaming, actually. They’re very. Loud. Particularly our president, who honestly looks like he’s got multiple facets to his character (he briefly expresses admiration for yuga’s modified bike and its convenience before immediately reverting to screaming about rules, eventually does come around to helping yuga out because he doesn’t want to get Insta-Banned for being near him, etc), but we lose so much of it because, again, he spends 95% of the time screaming. we also get a lot of forced humor and gonk-y reactions that seem kind of exaggerated, partially because said reactions tend to be Spelled Out for us as opposed to just letting us see it happen, but this is lack of how the characters are themselves and more about how they’re being handled so far. which i’ll explain more when i get to talking about storyboarding.

music - it’s...okay? the OP is growing on me and is actually pretty cute, but I’m not getting anything that stands out. the BGM hasn’t really had any pieces that really get my attention so far, but maybe we’ll see something better in the future? i don’t know

storyboarding - okay. I’m not going to be talking about the animation because i’m not harping on the style (although it does admittedly look woefully generic and not very YGO at all) given that they’ve moved to a completely different (and cheaper?) movie studio. i’m not going to talk about the shoddy cgi or the stilted animation or anything like that. i’m specifically talking about the storyboarding itself, how scenes are being framed and arranged, and how the main story is being told. and this key part is where SEVENS entirely falls apart. 

the problem is that the story is going by entirely too fast and is craming all sorts of things into its timeslot. the characters react loudly and obnoxiously to every little thing, with exaggerated pratfalls and gonkfaces as opposed to...actual reactions. it’s understandable from yuga and possibly even the high strung class president, but when even characters that are established to be a little more mellow minded (see, rook and romin) end up acting like that, it kind of contradicts what little we know about them. Not that it’s bad for them to act like that, but it has more impact if we see this after we have established characters for them (although if rook is actually established to be a chuuni dumbass later, i would immediately forgive them for that instance specifically, because that’s adorable). it honestly comes off as the animereaction equivalent of Johnny Test - all the exaggerated sound effects and janky reactions to compensate for the lack of animation or storytelling. it’s kind of upsetting to look at.

speaking of establishing character. It’s honestly done rather poorly for a first episode, which is a problem. I need to have a reason to be invested in these characters, and when you rush through their introductions it leaves me wanting. for example, my previously mentioned example of our class president clearly showing interest in yuga’s inventions but having it completely smothered in his need to appeal to authority and his high strung anxiety is a good point! but we get so little of it that it’s very much lost in his constant screaming and yelling - so seeing him portrayed as part of yuga’s friend group from day one is a bit jarring. another more telling example is rook immediately showing interest in yuga because this kid really keeps trying to modify his duel disk. okay cool. why. why should we care about this. we haven’t seen any instance of him before this, and when he’s introduced he talks about this Secret Hidden Backdoor Legend That’s Totally Prominent!!!! except we don’t see any hints in the series leading up to it, it literally comes out of nowhere. there’s no mystery or mystique in this, we haven’t seen rook try challenging this on his own, he’s just immediately dropping the wham ball of OH YEAH I ALREADY BANNED MYSELF, OOPS. speaking of: why is it bad that they get banned?? what happens? obviously you get locked out of your duel disk but then what? clearly, it should affect these kids’ standing in society somehow because the extreme control over said disks and card management means something, but we see rook attending school like nothing is wrong. nobody notices him, he’s not established as a troublemaker or a wanted figure by the nearby robots, he’s just...there. so there’s no emotional impact to seeing that yuga is one strike away from being banned, or that rook was already Banned (you’d think him getting banned at such a young age would cause Problems, but See it’s Fine, So). also yuga reminiscing about how he’d forgotten what he wanted to do with his new style of rush dueling and how he wanted to bring fun back into it falls really flat because, again, we can’t really see why it’s important for him to do this. him spelling it out for us suddenly when he’s close to losing a duel lacks the emotional impact because we haven’t seen how it affects him specifically. we can see little things - he’s already tried so many times, he keeps printing out little robot designs, he’s somewhat annoyed with being locked out of his disk during school or harranged for every little thing he does, but we haven’t had enough time to see why this is so important to him or why he does what he does. 

again, a large majority of these problems would be solved if they handled this the way zexal and vrains handled it - having most of the worldbuilding be in episode 1 and introducing the main duel mechanic in episode 2 with a full on duel that was started at the end of episode 1. maybe show some standard dueling as a contrast and use those show-not-tell instances from the setting to show how restrictive or repetitive it is (maybe yuga and co hanging out at one of those G-Corp Mandated Trading Stations after school and watching/playing some duels? yuga trying to show off rush dueling in there and getting kicked out?), then introduce rush dueling as a thing in episode 2 when he’s introduced to the Secret Backdoor Trial by Rook after seeing hints/rumors/etc about Mystery Programmer Man Who Did This For Some Reason. but rushing it through like this, especially when introducing a Whole New Dueling Format AND a new type of card, isn’t ideal. but trying to cram things together like this makes the weakness in storyboarding really stand out, and it taints an otherwise good story. not that the story in itself is bad, but it’s not presented particularly well.

it could be like how vrains clearly improved in storyboarding after episode 14 or so, after the initial rush was over with, so i’m willing to give sevens another chance on this. but this isn’t a very strong way to introduce us to the characters or the world they want to show us. 

overall: charming ideas, shoddy execution, will be looking to see if they improve on this. i’m willing to give it a chance, though, because yuga is a darling boy that deserves it. also the class president. i may not remember his name but i also stan him.

#sevens #is that the tag we're using #i don't know #ygo sevens #yugioh sevens #????? #i aint gonna lie every time i hear about ygo sevens i accidentally think about the sevens webnovel #it's got a very yugioh plot without the card games but it's mostly fantasy adventure harem adventures #decent read! but this isn't about the sevens webnovel it's about the yugioh sevens #so i'll shut up now #ask shenanigans

[markablogs]

Why you shouldn’t punch a Nazi ‘just cuz’

When I first saw the clips and memes of Richard Spencher getting punched it was good for a chuckle since I most certainly don’t like the guy or his ideas and I can’t say I feel sorry for him. But I was disturbed when it soon turned out that supposed progressives were not only applauding this behavior, but calling for more of it.

So, here’s my small effort to oppose such a mentality by telling you why one shouldn’t just punch a Nazi just for being a Nazi:

1. You guessed it: free speech

Here’s a thought: people have the right to be wrong. And they have a right to say wrong things. Now some will argue racism and homophobia and so forth is hate speech, and I would agree, but policing speech where definitions aren’t crystal clear (such as with threats of physical violence) can backfire badly.

Sure, today you may render expressing far right sentiments illegal, but what happens when that cat’s out of the bag and a right-wing government comes to power and the tables have turned? When they start, for example, passing laws that say criticizing religion is hate-speech? What happens when they start banning things like hip-hop for supposedly promoting violence? If you think that’s far fetched, look up what the PMRC was, read up on blasphemy laws in Ireland or Russia or or Spain, check out all these banned video games in Australia. Even in the west where free speech and freedom of expression is considered a pillar of society censorship absolutely happens, don’t give it more legs to stand on.

Either we allow free speech absolutely or free speech is subject to the whims of those in power. When has banning speech ever worked anyway? The South African government, for example, during the apartheid era was incredibly restrictive of information and controlling of media, but it didn’t work. Because speech and ideas cannot be restricted. Bad ideas have never been defeated by suffocating them with laws, but by better ideas! Yes, some times bad hateful ideas gain popularity, but if you look at history, as someone once said: “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”, meaning that eventually right right ideas will come out on top, but people need to be given the option to come to that conclusion.

2. You by implication promote violence on a wider scale

Okay so there was a twitter thread going around about why it’s okay and should be encouraged to punch a Nazi: https://twitter.com/meakoopa/status/823319604386791424

In short, the person in the tweet argues that Nazism should not be included in the discourse because it as an ideology is inherently undemocratic as it (among other things) is an affront to a fellow citizens citizenship. Furthermore fascism wriggles its way to power by insisting it should be heard and then achieving critical mass. And thus Nazis need to be punched to prevent them from being relevant.

The problem with that is that there are quite a number of ideologies that fit the description of undemocratic and affronting fellow citizens. So if you assert that one group should be punched for this, by extension all of them should be.

Let’s take the example of homosexuality. Do you know how many Christians or Muslims would like to see it be punishable by law? Plenty. And unlike nazism, both today and in the past, these beliefs are put into practice wolrdwide:

(blues are good, yellow is bad, orange and red is horrible, click here for more details )

There are few things democratic or egalitarian in the holy books of the Semitic religions, and haven’t all theocracies risen to power by ‘insisting they should be heard and then achieving critical mass‘? Consider these Norwegian Muslims who consider themselves moderate and have no problem with the idea of queer people being banished or striking women (@1:05):

Are all you valiant Nazi-punchers going to be showing up at Islamic events like these and start punching Muslims? I hope not. Even the most fundamental  person, as horrendous as their beliefs may be, so long as they’re not violating someone else’s rights, has the right to their belief and expressing this belief without getting punched. Like I said before, people have the right to be wrong, just not to the point of violence. And even if they did...

3. It’s not practical.

Speaking of attacking religious people - The Westboro Babtist Church (the the people with the ‘GOD HATES FAGS’ signs) have been assaulted during their appearances a couple of times. And in those moments the resolve of the WBC and the Phelps family was strengthened, they were not distanced from their ideology and came closer to the opposing side, it was the opposite. Fortunately many of the members left the church and what convinced them was not force and violence but good arguments and reason.

Richard Spencer and his supporters didn’t go home that day and started re-thinking their world views or were afraid to go outside the following morning. No, they felt satisfied that they were able to bring out the worst in their opponents. Learn from history a lil’ bit and remember that Nazis rose to power in the first place by convincing people that their opponents are violent and dangerous and they were the ones who would bring order and stability.

Also remember, these Nazi types are essentially activists. When’s the last time you heard an activist of any kind be deterred by violence? Would you give up the causes you believe in, be it gay rights or women’s rights or civil rights or animal rights, if getting hurt was a likelihood? Probably not. So what makes you think they would?

Perhaps you’ve heard the quote that ‘you can kill a man, but you can’t kill an idea’ or ‘ideas are bulletproof’ or some variation of that notion. And it’s true. See, we can punch all of the Nazis, we can shoot all of the Nazis, we can gather all the Nazis up in death camps, but at the end of the day Nazism is an idea and the only way to fight an idea is with another idea. If Nazism could be physically stopped it would’ve happened during WW2, don’t you think?

Actually, here’s a sentiment I’ve seen a couple of times: “Used to be that when you punched a Nazi you got a medal!”

Well yes, because Nazis were armed and shooting at you. However if you attacked a bunch of unarmed Nazis that weren’t putting up a fight you would’ve been committing a war crime. Or maybe you think this is behavior becoming of a civilized society:

I sincerely hope not.

Fuckface Richard Spencer was just standing around answering questions, he was already being opposed by several people around him. Seems to me clocking him was unnecessary. Even if it was okay to attack someone who was not violent, you sure make yourself look like a douche. You know when cops pepper-spray people who are just walking by calmly because they’re annoyed by them? Like that.

4 And in closing...

Call me old fashioned, but I'm of the opinion that violence other than defense or self-defense is unacceptable. Violent attacks are not something a humanist civilized society should tolerate.

You might think it’s strange to end this with an MLK quote, but nothing could be more appropriate; Dr King believed that ‘hate cannot drive out hate’, he could’ve opposed the racists of his day with force, he could’ve told his followers to sucker punch segregationists, but he understood both from the compassion towards his fellow man and a practical standpoint that 'returning violence for violence multiplies violence’. 

Punching a nazi doesn’t make you Indiana Jones, or Captain America, or Hellboy (I wish it did, I love Hellboy), it makes you someone who doesn’t believe in the power of their ideas; if you’re so convinced what you believe is better than Nazism, what are you so afraid of? Debate them, expose them for the morons they are, if you don’t allow these people to be part of a discussion they'll just fester in silence unchallenged and grow in numbers as a result. It’s really not that hard and it’s certainly better than perpetuating violence. 

#Richard Spencer #Nazism #progressivism #free speech #politics #non violence

[tears-of-araxes-blog]

The Shelby Star, Saturday, February 15th 2003. Page 4A Opinion

The Left's strange opposition to pre-emptive war

By Tibor Machan

[This Op. Ed. piece was written by someone staunchly libertarian and pre-free market anti-taxation of any kind. He presents his own reason for opposing an invasion of Iraq in 2003, and it is a good reason. The way he frames people on the left who oppose the war, though, with glaringly false equivalences, comparing government regulation on cigarettes and taxation for civil development, with a full military invasion of Iraq. He says he understands that there is no evidence to believe Iraq is a threat to the united states, but he seems to claim that there is similarly no evidence for any of the things the government bans or regulates such as cigarettes and excessively fire hazardous material as similarly unproven. This is a very interesting read.

As I can’t help myself, I added my annotations throughout the piece.]

It is a puzzle that so many people from the Left are opposed to a pre-emptive, preventive war against Iraq. After all, from the point of view of most Leftists it is perfectly justified to send in government thugs to prevent various evils in a society.

Consider that all government regulations are preemptive measures. [??? ok let’s see where this goes] When government threatens to fine or jail someone for producing, say, pajamas that might catch fire, this is pre-emptive. There are no immediate, imminent dangers at hand. The pajamas may never catch on fire, they simply might — or there is some evidence they could. 

All the bans on smoking now being enacted across the country are similarly preventive measures — when the individual smokes, he or she may risk seriously adverse health conditions. But that is not imminent, and yet thousands of politicians, especially those with Left wing leanings, insist that such measures must be implemented. 

[Except that serious adverse health conditions have been definitely proven to be caused by smoking, so the risk is in no way just “possible”]

In the law these measures are also referred to as prior restraint — acting against persons or organizations (like companies) before any harm has been done to anyone, before anyone's rights having been violated. In a bona fide free society such legal measures are usually forbidden. 

[Except fire hazards have done harm to anyone, and smoking has been proven to not only bring harm, but bring deadly harm to those around them, which is, in a way, an infringement on second hand smoker’s rights to be healthy, or at least chose to avoid proven deadly health risks, but wHATEVER]

But statists of both the Left and Right wings do not want government to be so limited. They want it to act aggressively so as to prevent evils. Just think of the war on drugs or vice squads arresting and jailing people who engage in various peaceful activities, merely on the grounds that something bad could arise. When defenders of the war on drugs say that even a little bit of indulgence can lead to bad things, so we need to ban such indulgence, the state is being urged to act pre-emptively, to prevent possible but by no means imminent evils. 

Yet, when the current administration in Washington, D.C., calls for pre-emptive war against Iraq, the very same folks who find the previous type preventive aggression perfectly OK claim to be outraged. 

[The author apparently sees absolutely no distinction between preventing harm to one country’s one citizens by banning or limiting the production of certain products that have empirically proven to be harmful.... and a military invasion of a different and sovereign nation, based no evidence at all, that were made dominant in the media by a Presidential Administration through a vast propaganda campaign to spread their lies fed by fear that took shameless advantage of a recent national tragedy, and also aimed and succeeded to cover up or discredit criticism of the war, all with not even a single semblance of physical empirical evidence that the country to be invaded was any not just immediate threat to the United States, but any threat at all. ]

It reminds me of the hundreds of thousands who opposed the war in Vietnam and refused to pay their taxes because they disagreed with that government policy yet saw absolutely nothing wrong with taxing millions of people for other government projects they eagerly championed but those millions would not fund voluntarily. 

[Funding public projects that benefit most or all citizens and kill no one is totally the same as funding illegal wars, good job]

The very idea that such statists on the Left consider it wrong to undertake a preemptive war must, therefore, be questioned. Is that really what they oppose? Or perhaps what they oppose is the United States going to war against Iraq? There wasn't a great deal of opposition to U.S. involvement in the Balkans not so long ago, for example. In that instance the enemy was not even so dangerous to the rest of the world — only to the people in its own region — as Iraq is today. 

[While I don’t like how he makes it, this is not a bad point, and does point out the degree of hypocrisy in certain parts of the Left -- but just as this author I’m sure distinguished himself from the pro-war Right with his clearly staunchly libertarian politics, he is still politically Right wing, so he must recognize that not everyone from each political leaning agree with each other? Or maybe no, it’s just the right, ok sorry.]

Also the fact U.S. involvment in the Balkans was not met with much resistance from the Left does not exactly support the author’s possition that being against pre-emptive war with Iraq is just a propaganda device. U.S. involvement in war in the Balkans in the 90′s was never sold as a pre-emptive attack taken in order to prevent them from attacking the United States first. The Iraq was a sold almost entirely on that “point.” And even if U.S. military involvement in the Balkans was sold as a pre-emptive attack, and the American Left did nothing to oppose it then, that does not make a pre-emptive strike on a nation that shows no evidence of posing a threat to the United States is ever justified. It just means the American  “Left” had their heads in their asses in the 90′s, and nothing more. ]

Something is amiss with the current peace movement. Perhaps what irks so many on the Left is that the United States may benefit from being the country to get rid of yet another dictator in the world. [????????]

My own opposition to war with Iraq is straightforward: Unless it is demonstrated to me that there is a clear and present danger that Iraq is about to be aggressive toward the United States, there is no justification for any kind of pre-emptive war against the country, It makes no difference whether Iraq is in defiance of the U.N. resolution that followed its defeat after the Gulf War. The issue is what justifies aggression against it by the U.S. military and that would be either direct or the clear and present danger of its aggression against the United States, period. 

[And that is the reason to object to the war. The idea that it is at all “pre-emptive” depends on the belief that there is something to pre-empt at all. ]

But those who favor aggression against free people everywhere on the mere grounds that they might possibly do harm to someone, sometime, perhaps, have no rational grounds for opposing the current American administration's willingness to do the same kind of thing to Iraq. 

Indeed, conservative Republicans, who do not mind prior restraint — some even favor censorship—are more consistent here than are those on the Left who protest against President Bush's pre-emptive war plans. Most of them have never pretended to be against preventive aggression in principle, only if it doesn't work! 

[Work????]

Tibor Machan, a professor of business ethics at Chapman University, is an adviser for Freedom Communications, the parent company of The Star.

#iraq war #2003 invasion of iraq #libertarian war opposition

[sh8peshifter1-blog]

Make Rap Songs

In addition they enjoy the way in which it truly is shown. Perhaps in the event you aren't certainly partial to rap audio report, you can find some tracks on the market which have come out to become so big everybody has heard of them. Once they could possibly be played on the radio they may probably be decades-old but still well-known.

There has been rather few female rap stars to come our technique. 1 of top rap tracks is from the pair called Salt N Pepa. They may be regarded as a hit wonder from your 80is. There track referred to as Force It genuinely attracted the eye together with the music business although. For most people, it was the very first publicity they had of reputation audio. From there they proceeded to explore many artists.

You will find plenty of radio stations dedicated to enjoying only rap audio that is popular. You will be ready to be controlled by them within your car or on your desktop. With iPods nowadays' acceptance it's possible to also get your favorite rap tunes and consider them. Some radio stations wont enjoy with numerous rap tunes though as a result of controversial lyrics. You'll find typically two types of such melodies though that you'll have the ability to access.

It seems as though the melodies for rap documents took on a life of the own. They are typically critiqued for the words they contain nonetheless as opposed to the audiofiles they provide. You will identify not all rap tracks are about performing medicines, gangs sex, or eliminating the authorities. Some of them are merely plain fun. Others are strict in character as these designers have discovered that is their calling however they enjoy the audio of reputation popular music.

Reputation performer Icet has been correctly identified for his songs that were controversial. Killa released in 1992 is just a simple that didn't stay nicely with many individuals. Really, police departments all in the country rallied to have individuals to ban getting the recording. For numerous though the simple proven fact that it was therefore dubious merely fueled the fire acquire it and togo out.

The top areas to get the prime rap songs of the moment would be the weekly Billboard and charts. While websites such as for example Doipod and Ontheradio record the reputation performers downloaded most regularly on iTunes Billboard employs the airplay sizes of BDS to look for the most popular rap songs. Retail sites including Amazon also have music charts record top-selling artists by type. Presently, these graphs are centered by Drake, Lil Wayne Florida, Kanyewest and B.o.B. The following rap strikes seem at the very top of multiple music charts and currently receive the most radio airplay and produce significant revenue of cds and singles.

Enjoy the Way You Lie

Eminem Offering Rihanna

The number-one rap tune about the Rap Graphs, "Love How You Lay" holds various impressive rankings on other music charts, including the following:

-# 1 on AOL Radio

-#2 on Yahoo Video

-Number 3 to the Billboard Hot 100

-No 4 on American Top40

-# 6 on Songs

-Number 6 in sales

The melody is also positioned by Billboard while the most downloaded ringtone at this time. That is one of hiphop songs or several reputation to achieve acceptance outside of the variety, probably a direct result Rihannais venture . Together, the 2 performers have attained recognition a feat not easily accomplished, across numerous types.

Fancy

Drake Presenting T.I. & Swizz Beatz

Unlike the existing hit of Eminem, Fancy is actually preferred hip hop community and by the reputation. Nevertheless, its rating at 32 on the Billboard Hot 100 is background that is extraordinary for an artist with such a brief information. Until this summer, just one of Drake's rap tunes called "Permanently" observed success, as well as it was due to the artists Eminem Kanye and David West. Currently, place that is second is taken by Drake to Eminem about the Billboard Rap Tunes. He ranks third with " Miss Me " Featuring Lil John and contains other rap tracks that are several featured on various charts.

Like a G6

Far*East Activity Dev & Offering Cataracs

Just Like A G6", " despite its rating of eighth put on the Rap Data is more worthy of interest because astronomical rise in acceptance, than higher-ranked tracks. Currently rated second on Billboardis Digital Melodies Data and sixth to the Hot 100, "Just Like A G6" was named and recently jumped up from 13th place on the Billboard Rap Graph the week's "Greatest Gainer". These ranks are specially outstanding, due to the fact the song has merely been around the maps for a measly one month and Far*East Action, the artist, is really a somewhat new experience inside the music community. Odds are, "Like a G6" can strike the Billboard Top Songs inside the near future and the very best spot on the Recent 100.

You need to turn to a cheap and simple way to begin first if you like to master steps to make your own rap online well! You can make your rap tracks that are own personal online real simple, for those who have application on your desktop which has more than 100,000 beats all at your finger tips. There's a lot of application outthere that enables you to download these beats and tools you'll require in your reputation trip that is building.

How can you think you'd do a year's coarse over? If you are serious about creating your own personal reputation songs application like this is just what you need to remain together with your beat making recreation within your make an effort to make songs, and that`s just what this OFFICIAL SHORT FILM type of software is going to do. As there created you will have potential upgrades to all-the latest defeats, and all-the beats in the latest tunes out now. Should you stick with this online, you'll be producing fantastic rap songs using the reputation beat-maker tools you get.

To Produce Your Own Reputation Online Focus On The Mixing

To create your reputation tunes that are own online the very first thing you must do is learn the mixing, when your learning, the way that is simplest to have truly fantastic in the mixing, there is no greater spot. Creating music online gets popular. Mixing is among the most significant skills you have to discover, if your going to create almost any wonderful reputation tracks. If you like to become good over-time at building your personal reputation songs this is were you begin. it wouldn't be tough for you yourself to think of some good ideas if you have each one of these beats in a single place.

To Create Your Personal Rap Its Not That Complicated

You are possibly contemplating to yourself, how tough could it be definitely to make your personal reputation tracks online. It is possible to search online for-free software that will not would you that much great since you will not get all-the newest defeats. You will get defeats which are 'removed out with the indian's'. You see if you do not have the program to generate defeats, you then cannot do it fullstop. For you yourself to mix different sounds and then place these beats into your own melodies, it doesn't have a large amount of ability but it does have a little bit of your time. If you listen to rap constantly, you should already have recommended of rap music, that will be an advantage to you, because then you will understand what form of defeats you want within your tune, with this specific application you don't need to be worried about something it will all bond nicely for you. Much like it did for me personally.

[itsfinancethings]

New story in Politics from Time: What Kamala Harris Means For Joe Biden’s Campaign—and the Democratic Party’s Future

In selecting Kamala Harris as his running mate, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden did more than make history by putting the first Black woman and first Asian-American on a major national ticket. He all but anointed an heir, positioning Harris as the future standard bearer of a party in transition.

Biden announced the selection in a text message to supporters Tuesday afternoon. In a series of tweets, the former vice president called the California senator “a fearless fighter for the little guy, and one of the country’s finest public servants,” noting that she had served as a state attorney general alongside his late son Beau. In a fundraising email to supporters, he called her “smart, tough and ready to lead.” The two are scheduled to hold their first official event together on Wednesday in Wilmington, Del.

Harris, who ran against Biden for the Democratic nomination, had long been considered a front-runner for the vice-presidential pick, which was the subject of intense and unusually overt jockeying. Biden took the unprecedented step of pledging to select a woman, and many activists urged him to choose a Black woman, especially in the wake of this summer’s racial-justice protests. The only Black woman in the Senate, Harris, 55, brings both racial and generational diversity to the ticket. More than Biden himself, she reflects a Democratic Party that is increasingly young, diverse and cosmopolitan.

Harris, also on Twitter, said Biden “can unify the American people because he’s spent his life fighting for us. And as president, he’ll build an America that lives up to our ideals.”

  Biden’s pick took on outsize importance due to his age. At 77, he is the oldest major party nominee in American history, and has described himself as a transitional figure. More than most would-be presidents, Biden was choosing not just a governing partner, but the woman who would lead the Democratic Party into the future. In Harris, he saw someone who could accomplish three things at once: help him win the November election, help him govern through a national crisis, and help him pass the torch to a new and diverse generation of Democrats.

Analysts described Harris as a sort of Goldilocks choice: not too far left or too inexperienced, she would neither jeopardize a Democratic Senate seat nor give the GOP unnecessary ammunition. “She checks a lot of boxes,” says Democratic strategist David Axelrod, who advised then-Democratic nominee Barack Obama on his 2008 decision to put Biden on the ticket.

Her selection is a nod to the pivotal role that Black voters have played as the engine of Biden’s own campaign, which roared back into contention in the primary thanks to the overwhelming support of Black South Carolina voters. Black voters are seen as crucially important to defeating Trump in November. Black turnout dipped in 2016 when Democrats nominated an all-white ticket, which may have cost the party vital votes in battleground states. Black women in particular are increasingly acknowledged as the party’s most loyal voting bloc: 98% of black women voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, while roughly half of white women voted for Trump.

The selection comes at a precarious moment for the country. The COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic devastation have heightened the stakes of the race; if elected, Biden will assume office during a national crisis. Biden’s experience as a senator and two-term vice president gave him a keen appreciation of what the job entails, and a strong desire for a running mate he could work closely with in the White House. He and Obama didn’t know each other well when they ran against one another in 2008, and their relationship was rocky at points during the fall campaign. But they grew close, and Biden describes their partnership as a model of what he was searching for. As one former Obama administration official put it: “Biden has a template, and the template is Biden.”

Harris’s biography is full of firsts. Born in 1965 in Oakland, Calif., to a Jamacian father and a Tamil Indian mother, she grew up mostly in Berkeley, where she attended a Black Baptist church and a Hindu temple. She went to Howard University, becoming a member of the legendary Black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha, followed by law school at the University of California, Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. She worked her way up in local district attorneys’ offices before being elected San Francisco District Attorney in 2003. In 2010, she was elected California’s attorney general, becoming the first Black top prosecutor in the state’s history and the first woman to serve in that post. In 2016, she was elected the second Black woman and first Indian-American ever to serve in the U.S. Senate.

In California, Harris—who lives in Los Angeles with her husband and two stepchildren—has long been considered talented but politically malleable. Well-connected and skilled at winning over wealthy donors, she was equally comfortable in San Francisco’s elite parlors and its low-income neighborhoods. She impressed audiences less with a clear ideology than with personal charisma and infectious optimism. As D.A., she angered the San Francisco police union by refusing to seek the death penalty for a young gang member who killed an officer. But she also angered criminal-justice reformers with aggressive tactics, such as threatening to prosecute parents whose kids were chronically absent from school.

As attorney general, she went after big banks and the pharmaceutical industry, for-profit colleges and oil companies. She refused to defend the voter-approved Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, paving the way for the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision legalizing it. But she also backed down from many fights, declining to endorse ballot initiatives that would have reformed the three-strikes law and ended the death penalty. She even appealed a federal court decision striking down the death penalty as unconstitutional, successfully reinstating a penalty she claimed to oppose.

In the Senate, Harris thrilled liberal audiences with her punishing interrogations of Trump Administration officials such as former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as well as Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But when she attempted to parlay that appeal into a 2020 presidential campaign, she struggled to articulate her driving values, instead speaking to vague themes of unity and “truth” that left audiences befuddled. She called for abolishing private health insurance in an early interview, then took it back and released a health-care plan that would allow both public and private health insurance.

Many liberals viewed Harris’s prosecutorial record as a strike against her, especially in the era of Black Lives Matter and amid heightened awareness of the criminal-justice system’s brutal disparities. She attempted to retroactively cast herself as a “progressive prosecutor” who was trying to reform a flawed system from within, a description that rang hollow to many who followed her rise. Prominent Black Lives Matter activists say her prosecutorial record is more complex than the caricature. “While there are some valid criticisms of her actions during her time as a prosecutor, I can also say pretty definitively that she was seen as an enemy of the police,” says Oakland-based Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza, who saw Harris’s policies in California firsthand. “If you were to talk to the police unions at that time, you would have thought that Kamala Harris was Huey Newton, the way they talked about her.”

Harris also sought to convince voters that her experience uniquely qualified her to prosecute the case against Trump. “This guy has completely trampled on the rule of law, avoided consequence and accountability under law,” she told TIME in a September 2019 interview. “For all the sh-t people give me for being a prosecutor, listen. I believe there should be accountability and consequence.”

Harris and Biden have a history. They memorably clashed in their first debate in June 2019, when she attacked him in emotional terms for his opposition to federally mandated busing in the 1970s. “That little girl was me,” she said, leaving Biden struggling to articulate a response to an allegation he considered unfair. But Harris’s subsequent surge in the polls dissipated when she couldn’t answer follow-up questions about her own position on busing, or her plans to end the continuing segregation of America’s schools. By December, languishing in the single digits in polls and running out of campaign funds, Harris quit the race before any votes were cast.

Speaking to the National Association of Black Journalists and National Association of Hispanic Journalists last week, Biden said that he did not “hold grudges” against Harris for the exchange. “It was a debate, it’s as simple as that,” he said. But some in Biden’s inner circle took the attack as a sign of political ruthlessness and worried she would not be sufficiently loyal if selected. Former Senator Chris Dodd, Biden’s close friend and the head of his Vice Presidential search committee, reportedly complained to a donor that Harris “had no remorse” for the debate exchange. Some party operators who disliked Harris pushed instead for Representative Karen Bass, a well-liked Californian with good relationships in Congress who was perceived to be, as Dodd reportedly put it, a “loyal Number 2.”

The efforts to undermine Harris may have ultimately strengthened her bid. Feminist Democrats seized on Dodd’s comment, rallying to her defense and noting a male candidate never would have been slammed for being perceived as ambitious. “It’s undeniable how qualified she is, how symbolic she is, but also just how ready she is to assume this level of leadership,” says Democratic strategist Jess Morales Rocketto, who was pushing for Biden to choose former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. “She’s aggressive in the best possible way. The leadership style she has is really fitting to this moment.”

Even though Harris’s presidential bid fizzled out, many Democrats saw it as proof that she had been tested by the rigors of a national campaign and would be unlikely to embarrass Biden with scandals or surprises. “You don’t want to throw people into the deep end of the pool,” says Axelrod, who said a similar calculation informed Biden’s selection. Harris also appears politically aligned with Biden: an Obama-style moderate Democrat who mostly refrained from embracing the progressive movement represented in the primaries by Senators. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

As he weighed his choices, Biden was faced with several competing political realities. On the one hand, the nationwide uprising to demand racial justice in the wake of the killing of George Floyd increased the pressure on Biden to pick a Black woman. A running mate like Warren or Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer would have struck many activists as tone-deaf under the circumstances. And yet the spate of crises the nation faces would make it difficult for a talented but less experienced pol, like Representative Val Demings, a two-term member of Congress, or former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who has never held elected office, to learn on the job.

But Biden’s chief political priority in selecting Harris was the Hippocratic imperative to do no harm. On the eve of his nominating convention next week, the Democrat holds a steady lead over President Trump in national and swing-state polling; Republicans accuse Biden of avoiding the spotlight as he seeks to keep the electorate’s focus on the unpopular incumbent. That dynamic made it all the more important to avoid picking a running mate who could give Trump ammunition by creating embarrassing scandals or unwelcome political contrasts.

After Harris’s selection was announced on Tuesday, Trump’s campaign quickly published a video that accused “phony Kamala” of “rushing to the radical left.” But any attempt to paint her as a flip-flopper will have to compete with the President’s own record. When Harris was running for re-election as California A.G. in 2014, both Trump and his daughter Ivanka contributed to her campaign.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2DKsLyv via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

[nebris]

US is a Classic Empire and Is Becoming a Repressive Police State at Home

July 4, 2019 by Dave LIndorff

As I set out to fly home from the UK on Monday following a short film project in Cambridge, I found my boarding pass, which I had been blocked from obtaining online the night before, carrying a bold-faced SSSS stamp in the lower right corner. Asking about it I was told by the British employee at the United check-in counter, “That is because you are on a US Department of Homeland Security list, sir.”

Later, after my son and I got the boarding gate, my name was called and I was ushered through a door in the wall behind the gate desk where two British security agents pawed through my bag and ran a cloth over computer, phone and all the zippers on my suitcase and computer bag looking for traces of explosives. After that I was politely told that I and my son (whose luggage was left uninspected) could board the plane. When I asked why I, a journalist with no criminal record, was being treated like a suspected terrorist, they laughed and said I would have to inquire of the DHS.

It’s not the first time this has happened to me. The same thing happened when my wife and I flew to Vienna in March where she was playing a concert on Vienna State Radio. That time at a checkpoint between Heathrow’s Terminal 5 and Terminal 2, my boarding pass was rejected, and when I got it reprinted a red stamp saying “ICE Security” was added. As on Monday, I was subjected to a special search in a separate location near the gate by an apologetic British security officer.

Today is July 4, and many American citizens will be bringing blankets and lawn chairs to local fireworks displays to celebrate American independence. Of course, those fireworks really hark back to the “rockets’ red glare” referred to in Francis Scott Key’s racist national anthem, which was largely a condemnation of the freed black slaves that the British employed in their effort to conquer Baltimore harbor during the War of 1812.

What, really, have we got to celebrate?

The US today is a global empire. Our country’s military, ballooning to some 2.1 million in uniform at a time that there is really no significant war underway. US military spending, greater in constant dollars than at any time since WWII, represents 34% of all global military spending, and the US military budget, depending on how one counts it, is larger than the next largest eight-to-ten countries’ military budgets combined. To show how ridiculously huge the US military is, consider that at $220 billion for fiscal year 2020, the US budget for Veterans Affairs alone (that’s the agency that provides assistance of all kinds, including medical, to those who served in the military, not counting career soldiers who receive a pension that is counted separately) this one military budget line item is larger than the entire military budget of China, and is more than three times as large as the entire military budget of Russia, considered by many to be our primary “adversary”!

And remember — US empire and militarism is and has always been supported by both political parties.

Here at home, our police are increasingly militarized to the point that most people now view the police as a potential threat, cowering politely in any interaction with cops, and fearing to assert their rights when they disagree with a stop for fear they will be cuffed, brutalized and arrested for speaking up. Our militarized, power-tripping law-enforcement officers insist on “respect,” are quick to make up reasons to take us down and take us in (like “resisting arrest” or “causing a disturbance”) if we don’t show it, and are quick to fire a taser or a gun if they “feel threatened,” knowing that prosecutors and the courts will almost always give them the benefit of the doubt even if video evidence shows them to have been in the wrong.

I’m 70, and the decline in freedom in this country has been a long but quite visible process back at least to when I was a young adult resisting the draft and the Vietnam War. Being on a “watch list” is nothing new for me. I learned from the FBI file I obtained back in the late ‘70s when the Freedom of Information Act was still actually working as originally intended, that I was on a list back during the war years and in fact was scheduled to be arrested by the US Attorney in Hartford, CT for draft resistance until the order, all unknown to me, was rescinded at the last minute. The FBI visited a colleague of my father’s at the UConn Engineering School in 1971 looking into an effort I and my wife made at the Chinese Embassy in Ottawa, Canada to obtain permission to visit China.

Is the US a police state? Yes, certainly it is for some people. It is certainly a police state for immigrants, legal and undocumented alike, for black people wherever they reside, for hispanics and Native Americans, and for those like myself who oppose the political policies and foreign policy of this country. And I guess that answers the question. One doesn’t define a police state as a place that represses everyone, since by definition those who keep their heads down, support the political status quo and those in power, are doing what the state wants them to do. There is no need to show the iron fist or the jackboot to them. A police state is a place that applies force and the tools of repression to those who challenge it. So even before we consider the concentration camps for immigrants along the border, the outrageous separation and imprisonment of babies, toddlers and children by Border Patrol thugs, and our latest president’s desire for military parades to honor himself on this day, the real answer is: Yes! the US must be considered, today, to be a police state.

So what’s to celebrate?

I read that a recent Gallup Organization poll shows a significant drop in the percentage of US Americans who are “extremely proud” of their country. True, 45% still say they are “proud” of America, but normally that is how many say they are “extremely proud” to be Americans. That’s a significant fall-off. Even among normally super-patriotic Republicans the percentage of those saying they are “extremely proud” this July 4 of this country was down to 76%, a 10% drop from 2003, and close to the 68% low point reached at one point during the Obama administration.

The main cause of the loss of patriotic ardor appears to be dismay or disgust with the US political system. According to the poll, only 32% of Americans say they are “proud” (forget “extremely proud”!) of America’s vaunted political system. In a close second for popular disgust, only 37% said they are “proud” of the US health care system.

So I guess I’m in pretty good company. I won’t be oohing and aaahing at the local fireworks display this year. It’s basically a glorification of US war-making anyhow, and there’s nothing at all to be proud of in that regard, particularly with the US in the midst of a $1.5-trillion upgrade of its nuclear arsenal, threatening war with Iran, pulling out of a Reagan-era treaty banning intermediate-range nuclear missiles, and embarking in a new arms race both in space and in virtually unstoppable hypersonic cruise missiles.

In my view, my country has become the world’s leading “rogue” nation, dismissive of all international laws and codes of conduct, actively attacking many countries on its own authority, without the support of UN Security Council resolutions, exonerating war crimes committed by its soldiers, and committed to the first use of nuclear weapons, both as a first strike against major power rivals like Russia and China, and against non-nuclear nations like Iran, and equally dismissive of all efforts, large and small, to respond to the crisis of catastrophic global heating. At home, the US legal system has become a supine supporter of virtually unlimited executive power, of unchecked police power, and of repressive actions against the supposedly constitutionally protected free press.

It’s tempting to hope that the decline noted by Gallup in the percent of Americans expressing “extreme pride” and even of “pride” in the US, but support for the US among the country’s citizens still remains shamefully high in the face of all these negatives.

Anyhow, count me among those who won’t be celebrating today’s July 4 national holiday.

https://thiscantbehappening.net/us-is-a-classic-empire-and-is-becoming-a-repressive-police-state-at-home/

[jacewilliams1]

Low and fast – a bad combination

Some pilots know that I am opposed to the practice of low-altitude flying for thrill purposes. This includes buzzing airports, houses, friends etc. While researching for this article and a presentation I gave on the subject, I found that this subject is debated by others as well. One person I debated years ago said that this practice is “perfectly safe.” So let’s start the discussion there. Is low altitude flying, often called “maneuvering flight” by the NTSB, or sometimes called “buzzing,” or to borrow a term from the Navy, “flat hatting,” perfectly safe? If you think the practice is legal and safe – change my mind. Comment on this article.

The Navy banned low altitude flying or “flat hatting” decades ago because of the aircraft and aircrew losses they suffered. The Navy wisely enshrined its opposition to such flying in OPNAVINST 3710.7 under Part 5.5.1.6 titled Flat Hatting, which noted:

“Flat hatting or any maneuvers conducted at low altitude and/or a high rate of speed for thrill purposes over land or water are prohibited. Any acts conducted for thrill purposes are strictly prohibited.”

And added, “Pilots shall not perform or request clearance to perform unusual maneuvers within class B, C, or D airspace if such maneuvers are not essential to the performance of the flight. ATC personnel are not permitted to approve a pilot’s request or ask a pilot to perform such maneuvers. Unusual maneuvers include unnecessary low passes, unscheduled fly-bys, climbs at very steep angles, practice approaches to altitudes below specific minimums (unless a landing is to be made), or any so-called flat hatting wherein a flight is conducted at a low altitude and/or a high rate of speed for thrill purposes.”

In a fast airplane, it’s tempting to fly low.

Even though the practice is banned, the Navy lost a T-45 and two pilots last year for this behavior. The Air Force lost two pilots on April 3, 2004, at Savannah, Georgia, in a T-6 Texan II for similar reasons.

The 2017 Nall Report issued by AOPA for data from 2014 reported 53 accidents (29 fatal) involving maneuvering flight. The report’s authors noted:

“The great majority of fixed-wing maneuvering accidents, whether losses of control or collisions with obstructions, are initiated at low altitude. Some occur in the traffic pattern, but many of the crashes following unintended stalls and nearly all collisions with power lines, broadcast towers, and ridgelines arise directly from the pilot’s decision to fly needlessly low in inappropriate locations, making spins unrecoverable and leaving the airplane vulnerable to obstacles that could easily have been overflown. Very often these sudden impacts are not survivable, so maneuvering accidents are consistently one of the two top causes of deaths in general aviation.”

The general aviation fleet has suffered more than a few of these kinds of accidents (usually fatal). Years ago a 15,000 hour, ATP-rated Lancair 360 pilot buzzed his own house in Placerville, California, after picking up his daughter from college. The pilot pitched up into a steep attitude, stalled the aircraft and crashed in his neighbor’s front yard. The NTSB database is filled with many stories like this.

Another pilot posted this on a blog:

“I posted a video of my Legacy and what you see is a ‘low approach’ directly over the runway a maneuver that is perfectly legal and safe [emphasis added]. Everybody I have met that has seen the video has enjoyed it. I’m sorry that some feel it demonstrates reckless behavior, I simply disagree. I built my airplane to enjoy and I’m proud of the video we shot. For those that may be unhappy with my video I’d rather you just appreciate it for what it is and go on your way without comment.”

Was he correct? Is it safe?

How low is too low? This definitely is.

Maybe a better question is, “What are the hazards of low altitude maneuvering flight and is the flight worth the risk?” As a former military bombardier/navigator, I can tell you Navy aircrews flew very low and very fast for a living, at night, in the mountains, before NVGs came along and sometimes in poor weather. We received extensive training and spent many hours practicing so we could do it as safely as possible. What were the hazards? Misjudgment of altitude and terrain, other aircraft, bird strikes, wires, towers, emergencies or abnormalities at low altitudes that distracted us from flying the jet, etc. In spite of the hours of training and practice, we lost many aircraft and aircrew to CFIT (controlled flight into terrain).

During my research on this topic, I read a report about an accident that occurred near Minneapolis, Minnesota, involving a Cessna 172 that hit a wire crossing the Mississippi River. The report includes a link to a video recorded by a witness on the ground. In this case the pilot was likely unaware of and did not see the wire in time to avoid it. That is one hazard of low altitude maneuvering flight. There are many more.

When I debated this topic with a group of pilots in our region, they opined that low altitude flying is legal. Is it? Check out these videos and ask yourself, “Is it legal?”

https://www.facebook.com/mike.weaver.127201/videos/1760768977302575/?t=10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7547fxKVos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMGUTeQZEu0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OAEGPVcvhU

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=airplane+water+skiing

Consider the regulation that governs aircraft altitude during flight. 14 CFR §91.119 states:

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

What is open water? There’s a specific definition.

So let’s break this regulation down. The first paragraph says “except when necessary for takeoff or landing no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes…” So unless you are truly taking off or landing, you cannot go below either 500 feet agl or 1000 feet agl, depending on the congested area portion of the rule. Clearly in the case described by the Legacy owner, he was not intending to take off or land. Just because there is a patch of concrete with numbers and a centerline does not give one authorization to play Maverick – but I’ll come back to that later.

The second paragraph says, “at least 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet of the aircraft when operating over congested areas of cities, towns, or settlements, or open air assemblies of persons” – pretty clear, right? What is an open air assembly of persons? How about a ball game, or county fair, or three people standing on the ramp?

The third paragraph causes some confusion and misunderstanding because of its construct, but let’s break it down. It is easy to understand if you divide the paragraph into its clauses or parts. The first clause is, “Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface.” This clause means you cannot go below 500 feet agl over other than congested areas – period.

The second part of this paragraph provides an exception when over open water and sparsely populated areas. It says “…except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.” So over open water or sparsely populated areas you can go down to the surface. What is “open water?” Well, the FAA defines “open water” on the back of aeronautical charts. Basically it is off the east coast or west coast, over the Great Lakes and Great Salt Lake, as explained in the graphic.

Some pilots have learned the hard way that there are rules about low flying – even at airports.

What is “sparsely populated”? Unfortunately the FAA does not define this term so we have to turn to NTSB administrative law judge rulings to see how the Federal government has interpreted this regulation. This website is instructive on these issues.

If you put 91.119 into the search parameters you can find lucky aviators who have been suspended for buzzing airports like the one below who was busted by our local FAA FSDO inspector for buzzing a nearby airport. The inspector was driving out to the airport and saw the infraction and so it began.

As I said earlier, this topic is not unique to one particular community of pilots. Check out this discussion on Van’s Air Force. Most pilots there are advocates for low altitude flying; some are not. I think most know it’s not legal, hence their comments. One interesting comment came from a wise CFI:

Interesting posts. Let’s see if I can summarize:

The rules are for everyone else, not me. 

I can do whatever I want, as long as I’m willing to lie about it.

If I do it at some other airport, it’s okay.

If someone reports me for doing something wrong, they’re the bad guy.

If no one sees me doing it, no problemo.

If I’m not sure it’s okay, I’ll do it anyway – easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission.

What happened to being a good neighbor? What happened to the rules? The more noise we make close to the ground and the more people we aggravate, the sooner we end up loosing [sic] our privilege of flight. Sometimes, even being “right” doesn’t matter. Have fun and fly safe. 

Terry, CFI

Like Terry CFI, I see some pilots believe their “right” to have fun in their airplane cannot be infringed by anyone. They mistakenly believe that the airspace belongs solely to them for their enjoyment. Some erroneously believe that they can see all traffic in the pattern all the time, know where all the hazards are, or believe that all towers and utility lines are charted on sectional charts (they are not). I wish I was omniscient like them. Some of this bad behavior is exacerbated by social media like YouTube where pilots are encouraged to post video of themselves doing stupid things in airplanes. These pilots don’t like to follow the regulations in the air and perhaps anywhere else.

The FAA has researched and commented on these poor pilot traits. The following is an excerpt from the FAA publication, Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge:

The FAA oversaw an extensive research study on the similarities and dissimilarities of accident-free pilots and those who were not. The project surveyed over 4,000 pilots, half of whom had “clean” records while the other half had been involved in an accident.

Five traits were discovered in pilots prone to having accidents. These pilots:

have disdain toward rules.

have very high correlation between accidents on their flying records and safety violations on their driving records.

frequently fall into the “thrill and adventure seeking” personality category.

are impulsive rather than methodical and disciplined, both in their information gathering and in the speed and selection of actions to be taken.

have a disregard for or tend to underutilize outside sources of information, including copilots, flight attendants, flight service personnel, flight instructors, and ATC.

As pilots we have a tremendous responsibility to our families, passengers, our community and to ourselves to set a high bar for safe operations. Set a good example for others to follow and stay safe!

The post Low and fast – a bad combination appeared first on Air Facts Journal.

from Engineering Blog https://airfactsjournal.com/2019/04/low-and-fast-a-bad-combination/

[rebeccahpedersen]

The Two Sides Of B.C.’s Foreign Buyer’s Tax

TorontoRealtyBlog

I found this to be either highly ironic, or expertly-timed.

Earlier this week, I read an article about the lawsuit filed in British Columbia on behalf of foreign buyers who believe the Foreign Buyer’s Tax is unfair.

Later in the week, the CMHC released a study that shows most Canadians believe that foreign buyers are influencing the price of real estate.

Two courts are at work here: the courts in British Columbia, and the court of public opinion…

By a quick show of virtual hands, does anybody think that foreign buyers have affected the Canadian real estate market, specifically those in BC and Ontario?

Good.  You all raised your hands.

Now my second question would involve a slight alteration to the first: Does anybody think that foreign buyers have substantially affected the Canadian real estate market?

Now perhaps the room is split.

To define “substantially” is, of course, a whole other task.

But I think it’s fair to say that in the context of supply and demand, foreign buyers have shifted the curve.

Take a very simple example – there’s a town with 100 properties for sale, and there are 100 buyers.  That market is in perfect equilibrium.

But then add, say, five foreign buyers, and suddenly demand exceeds supply, and there’s a deficit.

Now what if you added…….twenty foreign buyers.  How much would that have an effect on price?

To suggest that 20% of buyers in Canada are foreign is a massive stretch.  And to suggest that, at any point here in Toronto, foreign buyers represented even a double-digit percentage of buyers, is probably an exaggeration as well.

But what about Vancouver?

We know that no matter how hard the CMHC tries, they can not, and never will, come up with any accurate data on the percentage of foreign ownership, anywhere.  We can’t even define foreign ownership, because when either a “Permanent Resident,” or, a Canadian Citizen purchases a property in Canada, but the money came from overseas, and the property is really, truly, “owned” by a person overseas, there’s just no way to account for this information.

So then, may we use empirical evidence?  And by that, I almost mean opinion, guesstimation, and gut-checks?  Because that’s essentially how the folks in Vancouver came to the conclusion that foreign buyers were blowing up their market.  And to be quite honest, it’s a measure that I may have used myself, a few times.

Recall the first four months of 2017, which many of us refer to as “the craziest market we’ve ever seen.”

I specifically recall condos that I had for sale downtown, where most of the buyers were, in some way, shape, or form, foreign.

This is an inexact science, and I’m opening myself to criticism here, especially in the obsessively politically-correct social structure of 2018.

But when you look at the name on the offer, the name of the agent, the brokerage the agent belongs to, and then………interact with that agent, you have a pretty good idea where these folks originate.

So having made that inexact, unscientific, possibly-offensive definition, let me go back to early 2017.

Last February, I had a listing for a 1-bedroom condo at Yonge & Front, that produced 15 offers.

How many of the buyers did I suspect had roots in a foreign country?  13.

13 of 15.  It was epic.

This trend continued until April when the market changed, and after that, the “foreign-sounding” names went away.

What was going on in the market was not a secret, and as listing agents, we dealt with buyer agents who would tell us that their clients were in China, in reference to the timing of receiving a deposit cheque, or their ability to sign the offer, etc.

This is one case where the “word on the street,” exaggerations and exacerbations aside, would probably be more accurate than some survey that the CMHC sends out.

So where does that leave us now, approaching the summer of 2018?

Well, it leaves us dealing with this:

“Foreign Buyer’s Tax On Trial – But B.C. Claims Crisis Called For Action”

Ah yes, in the wonderful world of 2018, every right is a wrong, and every wrong is a right.  Those who have been wronged, rightfully or wrongly, can seek to make things………..right?

Here’s the meat of the CBC article, but click the link above to read it all:

    A landmark civil trial kicked off Monday testing the legality of a foreign buyers tax enacted by the province of British Columbia in response to a housing affordability crisis.

The legal battle pits the government against a proposed class of foreign nationals who claim they’ve been discriminated against in violation of the Canadian Constitution.

A lawyer for the province told B.C. Supreme Court Justice Gregory Bowden that the volumes of arguments, affidavits and authorities on display in his courtroom belied the very simple set of circumstances that gave birth to the law.

“There was an affordability crisis in the Greater Vancouver real estate market,” Karen Horsman said as she laid out the justification for the tax.

“Local residents were in effect being priced out of the market.”

Introduced in July 2016 under the previous Liberal government, the tax initially required foreign entities (including foreign nationals) to pay an additional 15 per cent on the purchase of residential property in Greater Vancouver.

The current NDP government increased the amount to 20 per cent in February and expanded its reach to include the Fraser Valley, Capital Regional District, Nanaimo Regional District and the Central Okanagan.

The province has asked Bowden to determine whether or not the tax is legal in a summary trial — as opposed to beginning with a certification hearing on the class action.

The province will argue that the tax is not in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And that even if it were, the infringement is the kind of reasonable limit allowed given the pressing need for political action in the face of the housing crisis.

The plaintiff, Jing Li, is a Chinese student who moved to Canada in 2013 to complete a master’s degree in public administration.

Weeks prior to the introduction of the tax, she claims she signed a contract for the purchase of a $559,000 home in Langley.

She says the foreign buyers tax added an additional $83,850 to her bill.

    What I find more interesting than the lawsuit, and the article itself, is that as mentioned above, there is another story out this week on foreign buyers, only this one is on the public opinion:

“Many Homebuyers Still Believe Foreign Ownership Is Heavily Influencing Housing Prices: CMHC Survey”

From the article:

    A study from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation released Wednesday found that 68 per cent of Vancouver respondents, 48 per cent of Toronto respondents and 42 per cent of Montreal respondents believe foreign buyers are having “a lot of influence” on their markets and are driving up home prices.

The insight into perceptions around foreign buyers that 30,000 respondents in the three cities shared with the Crown Corporation between September and mid-October is in stark contrast with recent data from Statistics Canada showing foreign buyers own only 4.8 per cent of Vancouver properties and 3.4 per cent of homes in Toronto.

“What is striking is the significant gap between perceptions of the public and available data, so much so that the perception of non-resident ownership takes centre stage when discussing the drivers of price growth,” CMHC’s report said.

    Wow, it’s like they took the words right out of my mouth!

Statistics Canada shows that only 3.4% of properties in Toronto are foreign-owned, and if you asked any experienced Toronto real estate agent with listings what they thought, that number would be at least double.

And 48% of Torontonians think that foreign buyers are “having a lot of influence” on the market.  To be fair, many of the people surveyed might have absolutely zero evidence, insight, or data to support this, but rather they might just be jaded that they can’t afford what they want, and when offered with the suggestion that foreign ownership is driving up prices, they agreed.

In any event, as the trial in B.C. takes shape, I find the survey results incredibly ironic.

I believe that if you took a poll – with absolute anonymity, of residents of entire country, an overwhelming amount of Canadians would vote to incorporate a foreign buyer’s tax, a ban on foreign ownership, or restrictions of some type, rather than pay more personal income tax.

I mean, why wouldn’t they?

We’re living in very strange times, where nationalism, at all costs, is making a huge comeback in certain countries.

Canada has always been different.  Sometimes, a bit too left-leaning for my liking, but somewhat level-headed in the context of the other 200-something countries around the globe.

So as this trial in B.C. takes shape, one has to wonder whether an idea as far-fetched as foreign buyers suing the government of a country in which they’re guests, for imposing a tax as they are (and this is in debate) legally permitted to do, will lead to our government caving-in, and turning face, even as the rest of the country silently sits by and grits their teeth.

And perhaps that’s the issue: people don’t speak up enough.

“People don’t speak up enough.”  I can’t believe I just said that, in a time when every human on the planet has a voice, through technology and social media.

But whereas most people choose to take photographs of their salad and put it on Instagram, I don’t know if enough people care to opine on something like whether or not foreigners, who look at a Canadian one-hundred-dollar bill as though it were a penny in the ashtray of their Maserati, should be able to “drive the price of real estate higher for Canadians.”

This trial in B.C., plus the survey from the CMHC coming out in the same week, simply must get people talking about this.

My question is: will the government listen?

If 68% of Vancouver residents believe that foreign buyers are having an influence on the market, then perhaps even more would be in favour of some sort of efforts to curb, or restrict, their ownership.

And what do we make of the fact that non-permanent residents in Hong Kong are subject to a 15% tax on the purchase of real estate, and there’s a similar 18% tax in Singapore?

Could it be that we’re only now seeing this issue take shape?

When I brought this topic up in the office on Thursday, specifically speaking of the case before the B.C. courts, a colleague said, “This will be the last of it.”

I’m not so sure.

I honestly think we’re closer to the beginning of this story, playing out long-term, than we are to the “last of it.”

For those not polled by the CMHC (that means all of you reading this), I’m eager to hear your two cents…

  The post The Two Sides Of B.C.’s Foreign Buyer’s Tax appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from https://ift.tt/2KwYamr