Can they murder people on their property? Or is there some limit to their ability to make rules?
GoodbyeBlueMonday
joined 1 year ago
Hunter S. Thompson reflected on the problems with Objective Journalism throughout his career: summarized well in a section of his obituary for Nixon.
Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism — which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.
When I say I'm dying to see the new Godzilla movie again (it was excellent, by the way), I'm not literally dying.
That said, I honestly don't know what the Obamas are doing, and they certainly don't need me defending them. I wouldn't rely on what makes it to wikipedia as a source of how much they're trying to improve the world, though. Given the backlash she received for trying to reduce childhood obesity, and the backlash Barack received just for existing, I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to donate/contribute with as little fanfare as possible to avoid further backlash. Just my opinion, though.
It’s difficult not to sound overly dramatic or hyperbolic about the situation but it really does feel like the US is uncomfortably close right now to a christofascist state.
To add to this: while it may sound hyperbolic to some folks, for plenty of us we've seen this brewing for decades. White evangelicals and right-wing politics unified in the 1980s in a way that was a clear danger to democracy, and they've only solidified their power since, given how mainstream their views are now.
IMHO Frank Zappa said it best in 1986: he got called out as being hyperbolic, but he clearly saw the writing on the wall. He's of course not the most scholarly source, but damn it Jim I'm a biologist, not a historian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlePLLlfH4Q
Have you considered she may be empathetic to those who don't have the money to easily move to any country on the planet? It's a good thing to be concerned for the welfare of others IMHO.
As much as I'll happily rag on the prequels, I think a lot about a line from the Phantom Menace, as said by Yoda: “Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering.”
To reply to myself, because it merits its own giant text box: for anarchist-minded folks like myself, I'd highly recommend reading Homage to Catalonia, because it gives some glimpse of how things might work in a less-hierarchical military (in the cases like in Trek's Starfleet that weapons are sometimes unfortunately needed).
https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0201111.txt
The main sections I want to quote are:
The essential point of the system was social equality between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette, you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.s but there was no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society. Of course there was no perfect equality, but there was a nearer approach to it than I had ever seen or than I would have thought conceivable in time of war.
But I admit that at first sight the state of affairs at the front horrified me. How on earth could the war be won by an army of this type? It was what everyone was saying at the time, and though it was true it was also unreasonable. For in the circumstances the militias could not have been much better than they were. A modern mechanized army does not spring up out of the ground, and if the Government had waited until it had trained troops at its disposal, Franco would never have been resisted. Later it became the fashion to decry the militias, and therefore to pretend that the faults which were due to lack of training and weapons were the result of the equalitarian system. Actually, a newly raised draft of militia was an undisciplined mob not because the officers called the private 'Comrade' but because raw troops are always an undisciplined mob. In practice the democratic 'revolutionary' type of discipline is more reliable than might be expected. In a workers' army discipline is theoretically voluntary. It is based on class-loyalty, whereas the discipline of a bourgeois conscript army is based ultimately on fear. (The Popular Army that replaced the militias was midway between the two types.) In the militias the bullying and abuse that go on in an ordinary army would never have been tolerated for a moment. The normal military punishments existed, but they were only invoked for very serious offences. When a man refused to obey an order you did not immediately get him punished; you first appealed to him in the name of comradeship. Cynical people with no experience of handling men will say instantly that this would never 'work', but as a matter of fact it does 'work' in the long run. The discipline of even the worst drafts of militia visibly improved as time went on. In January the job of keeping a dozen raw recruits up to the mark almost turned my hair grey. In May for a short while I was acting-lieutenant in command of about thirty men, English and Spanish. We had all been under fire for months, and I never had the slightest difficulty in getting an order obeyed or in getting men to volunteer for a dangerous job. 'Revolutionary' discipline depends on political consciousness--on an understanding of why orders must be obeyed; it takes time to diffuse this, but it also takes time to drill a man into an automaton on the barrack-square. The journalists who sneered at the militia-system seldom remembered that the militias had to hold the line while the Popular Army was training in the rear. And it is a tribute to the strength of 'revolutionary' discipline that the militias stayed in the field at all. For until about June 1937 there was nothing to keep them there, except class loyalty. Individual deserters could be shot--were shot, occasionally--but if a thousand men had decided to walk out of the line together there was no force to stop them. A conscript army in the same circumstances--with its battle-police removed--would have melted away. Yet the militias held the line, though God knows they won very few victories, and even individual desertions were not common. In four or five months in the P.O.U.M. militia I only heard of four men deserting, and two of those were fairly certainly spies who had enlisted to obtain information. At the beginning the apparent chaos, the general lack of training, the fact that you often had to argue for five minutes before you could get an order obeyed, appalled and infuriated me. I had British Army ideas, and certainly the Spanish militias were very unlike the British Army. But considering the circumstances they were better troops than one had any right to expect.
FRIENDLY NOTE: I don't mean this to sound combative, I just want to offer a different (more optimistic) perspective.
What's missing here is the central conceit of Trek: that humanity grew up. We could have a utopia now if people would just stop being greedy little shits, and decided to embrace empathy and forgiveness. There's nothing stopping every single person in a modern conflict from dropping their weapons, but we still want vengeance and punishment. and I'm not saying I'm above that: someone kills someone I love, and I'm going to want blood. On paper I'm against capital punishment, but I know if I was faced with a war on my doorstep, bombs being dropped, my morals may not hold.
In Star Trek, they had WW3/the Eugenics Wars, and after that...humanity finally had enough. Never again, but for all the ills of humanity, in a way.
So very few people in the Trek world would actually complain about working a shit detail, because they're in it for the greater good. We saw in TNG episodes that randos from the 20th century could just waltz around the ship at their leisure, and how lax security is...because people just generally behaved well. Humanity really did bind themselves to a stronger social contract, if that's the right term.
As for needing ships: there seem to be plenty of civilian ships out there, from trading and light exploration to proper science vessels. Not all Starfleet, though the shows have focused on them. So I can only imagine there's plenty of opportunity for non-Starfleet folks to get out there.
Granted, DS9 pushed back on all this a little, as the Maquis are comprised of a lot of Federation members that went feral/colonial and don't hold themselves to the Federation ideals that seem to keep the rest of humanity and others acting in good faith at almost all times. Likewise still plenty of BadMirals out there, and they do show the Tom Paris-es of the world in some kind of prison, so it's not all roses, and could definitely be spun as drops of dystopia in a utopia, but we're also told (and have no reason to doubt) that it's all well-above board, humane, and focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment.
Also, all that said, I do wish it wasn't so hierarchical, but that's my anarchist streak flaring up.
Radix malorum est cupiditas: the root of evil is greed. Or more colloquially, the love of money is the root of all evil.
One of the few things I'll hang on to from my religious childhood.
Compromise time: he's a (mostly) retired Batman, and we can have a younger actor as Batman Beyond?
Have you read the declaration of secession?
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Or the Cornerstone Speech?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
Yes, the confederates were complaining about more than just slavery, but slavery was central to secession. In the examples you gave it's still all about slavery. I think looking at foundational documents and speeches makes it clear that the cause was as simple as "slavery".
Water is tangible though. Clean, safe drinking water isn't cheaply and widely available (in the USA, anyway) by accident: it's a huge endeavor that requires tax money to maintain public infrastructure. See the ongoing crises in places with tainted water to see how challenging it is to maintain.
Housing is harder than water, but public water and sanitation systems are incredibly expensive, so I wonder what the comparison would be like against more public housing.