Ranxerox

If anyone's interested in an outside perspective on this issue, here's an article dated yesterday from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's (CBC) news department: What's real, and what's not, about the U.S. border crisis.

Those are the posters that I am most inclined to believe look like their avatars.

I'd rate that as highly likely.
 
 
Wormhole.
 
 
Hulk SMASH logic.

Internal debate within the ACLU when different civil liberties come into conflict with each other is not a bug; it is a feature.
 
We live a perilous juncture in American history, where either the thoughtless championing of free speech (I see you, Facebook, Twitter) or the abandoning of free speech could easily plunge our country into fascism. *Gasp! The Horror!*  We may actually have to proceed forward with a nuanced response, and Goddess knows that as a country we are not good at those.
 
So, if the organization, that has spent more time thinking about civil liberties than any other, is passionately debating how best to go forward, that is a good thing.  Maybe all those fine, passionate, committed, legal minds can help us thread the needle between giving our enemies all the communication tools they need to hopelessly divide our country  and sacrificing the very liberties that makes our country special.
 
Right now the ACLU is enjoying huge surge in support, but they are also having to weather a huge surge in commitments.  They are engaged in a 150 lawsuits against the Trump administration, and you know that is going to eat a lot of resources.  Resource allocation is going to remain crucial moving forward.  One of the internal complaints among ACLU staffers was that white supremacist cases seemed to get to jump to the front of the line.  Would it be the death to liberty if Nazis and Klansmen had to enter the back of the queue like everyone else?
 
"The city council has denied has denied out request to march on city hall in protest of the new housing project they are planning for the n*****s and the illegals!"  "That not right.  Your voices have a right to be heard.  We will take you case.  Our next case opening will probably be in 8 months."  "Eight months!  Our march is suppose to be 6 weeks!"  "Well, sorry about that, but we have a huge number of people seeking our help, and I just don't see how we can help you any sooner than that.  Maybe, you can win the case on your own, and if not, well, we will help you with your appeal in 8 months."
 
To me the above conversation, seems perfectly reasonable to me, and if members of the ACLU staff reprioritize how they take cases that might be for the best.  The ACLU has a history of championing the underdog, and white supremacist aren't quite the underdog that they were a couple years ago.  Adapting to changing circumstances is necessary for any organization that wishes to have a future.  Let them talk, let them debate and let them adapt.  Remember that the ACLU doesn't pass laws and isn't proposing outlawing Nazi marches, and I have no doubt that if someone else proposes such a law that the ACLU will speak out.    

Personally, I don't believe that Franklin quote, because it is not a Ben Franklin quote.  The actual quote is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
 
Lest someone ask what the difference between the two quotes, it is the difference that of a wise man and fool. 
 
Pretty much every law demands that you give up a liberty, be it the liberty to drive the speed that you want to drive, the liberty to tell lies in order to make a profit, or liberty to kill your daughter's boyfriend because he has it coming.  It turns out that these liberties, even that last one, aren't considered essential liberties.  Nor is it just a matter of what type liberty is a stake, the safety being won is also critical to the equation.  If the safety is not little or temporary, even things that one might regard as essential liberties are up for grabs.  The government can demand that I support it with my tax dollars, because if taxation were made voluntary the government would soon fail.  It can restrict my freedom of speech even in matters of conscious where state secrets are concerned.  It can restrict my sincere practice of religion if that practice places other people in danger.
 
So, yes liberty is important and it is worth sacrificing safety in it's name, but Benjamin Franklin understood that is it it was not and could not be a total absolute.  Therefore, Mr Franklin put qualifiers in the statement in order to extol the importance of liberty but also to give us something workable the real world and not just for the benefit of those taking the liberty.
 
 
Also, it is worth noting, that the Charlotte city council denied the march permit out of concerns for public safety.  These concerns turned out to 1000% justified.  The Charlotte city council was right and the ACLU was wrong.  One can say that hindsight is 20/20, but this wasn't hindsight.  This was foresight on the the part of the city council.  They looked at the dangers and at the tools that they had to address those dangers and correctly decided that it wasn't worth the risk.  In the wake of the tragedy that followed, had the ACLU not had a crisis of confidence that would have said something unflattering about them.

Yes, he is going to introduce the episodes like Alfred Hitchcock did on his show.

Personally, I don't believe that Franklin quote, because it is not a Ben Franklin quote.  The actual quote is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
 
Lest someone ask what the difference between the two quotes, it is the difference that of a wise man and fool. 
 
Pretty much every law demands that you give up a liberty, be it the liberty to drive the speed that you want to drive, the liberty to tell lies in order to make a profit, or liberty to kill your daughter's boyfriend because he has it coming.  It turns out that these liberties, even that last one, aren't considered essential liberties.  Nor is it just a matter of what type liberty is a stake, the safety being won is also critical to the equation.  If the safety is not little or temporary, even things that one might regard as essential liberties are up for grabs.  The government can demand that I support it with my tax dollars, because if taxation were made voluntary the government would soon fail.  It can restrict my freedom of speech even in matters of conscious where state secrets are concerned.  It can restrict my sincere practice of religion if that practice places other people in danger.
 
So, yes liberty is important and it is worth sacrificing safety in it's name, but Benjamin Franklin understood that is it it was not and could not be a total absolute.  Therefore, Mr Franklin put qualifiers in the statement in order to extol the importance of liberty but also to give us something workable the real world and not just for the benefit of those taking the liberty.
 
 
Also, it is worth noting, that the Charlotte city council denied the march permit out of concerns for public safety.  These concerns turned out to 1000% justified.  The Charlotte city council was right and the ACLU was wrong.  One can say that hindsight is 20/20, but this wasn't hindsight.  This was foresight on the the part of the city council.  They looked at the dangers and at the tools that they had to address those dangers and correctly decided that it wasn't worth the risk.  In the wake of the tragedy that followed, had the ACLU not had a crisis of confidence that would have said something unflattering about them.

Personally, I don't believe that Franklin quote, because it is not a Ben Franklin quote.  The actual quote is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
 
Lest someone ask what the difference between the two quotes, it is the difference that of a wise man and fool. 
 
Pretty much every law demands that you give up a liberty, be it the liberty to drive the speed that you want to drive, the liberty to tell lies in order to make a profit, or liberty to kill your daughter's boyfriend because he has it coming.  It turns out that these liberties, even that last one, aren't considered essential liberties.  Nor is it just a matter of what type liberty is a stake, the safety being won is also critical to the equation.  If the safety is not little or temporary, even things that one might regard as essential liberties are up for grabs.  The government can demand that I support it with my tax dollars, because if taxation were made voluntary the government would soon fail.  It can restrict my freedom of speech even in matters of conscious where state secrets are concerned.  It can restrict my sincere practice of religion if that practice places other people in danger.
 
So, yes liberty is important and it is worth sacrificing safety in it's name, but Benjamin Franklin understood that is it it was not and could not be a total absolute.  Therefore, Mr Franklin put qualifiers in the statement in order to extol the importance of liberty but also to give us something workable the real world and not just for the benefit of those taking the liberty.
 
 
Also, it is worth noting, that the Charlotte city council denied the march permit out of concerns for public safety.  These concerns turned out to 1000% justified.  The Charlotte city council was right and the ACLU was wrong.  One can say that hindsight is 20/20, but this wasn't hindsight.  This was foresight on the the part of the city council.  They looked at the dangers and at the tools that they had to address those dangers and correctly decided that it wasn't worth the risk.  In the wake of the tragedy that followed, had the ACLU not had a crisis of confidence that would have said something unflattering about them.

The thing is, free speech is already less than absolute. Sure there's the obvious "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, but there are many others, as well.
In a system where you could never be punished for the content of your speech, the following things would all have to be legal.
Blackmail - It's legal for me to say anything I want about someone. And a threat to say something is still just more speech. Extortion - As long as I don't follow through, I've done nothing illegal. Assault (in the sense of threats of bodily harm) - Once again, as long as I don't follow through. Slander & Libel - Well, duh. Perjury - Hey, I can say whatever I want. Incitement to violence - As long as I don't commit the violence myself. Heck, I could lie and tell you whatever I think it would take to get you to beat up some guy I don't like.  If you consider yourself a free speech absolutist, to you think all of these should be legal? If not, then clearly there are limits to free speech. Nazis aren't just telling people that Jews are bad. They are trying to change the system to make it so that Jews can, once again, be rounded up and exterminated. By allowing this "viewpoint" to be treated just like the opposite —Hey, let's not round up and exterminate the Jews and other minorities— we give it credibility. I think that as a civilized society, we can set limits on what is reasonable discourse. You want to advocate for the menadatory separation of the races, fine. That makes you a bad person, but whatever. You want to campaign that I* should be killed? Nope. That's out. It's illegal to try to convince someone to commit murder. Why should it be legal to convince a lot of people to commit genocide?
 
We strive to be a society of rights, that's true. But none of those rights are absolute. The paradox of tolerance is ever present.
 
So, tl;dr if you don't believe all the things on the list above should be legal, then you agree that there is a line where speech can be made illegal. We just disagree with where the line is.
 
*This is not theoretical. I'm trans. There are, in fact, large number of Nazis arguing that that means that I should be killed.

Internal debate within the ACLU when different civil liberties come into conflict with each other is not a bug; it is a feature.
 
We live a perilous juncture in American history, where either the thoughtless championing of free speech (I see you, Facebook, Twitter) or the abandoning of free speech could easily plunge our country into fascism. *Gasp! The Horror!*  We may actually have to proceed forward with a nuanced response, and Goddess knows that as a country we are not good at those.
 
So, if the organization, that has spent more time thinking about civil liberties than any other, is passionately debating how best to go forward, that is a good thing.  Maybe all those fine, passionate, committed, legal minds can help us thread the needle between giving our enemies all the communication tools they need to hopelessly divide our country  and sacrificing the very liberties that makes our country special.
 
Right now the ACLU is enjoying huge surge in support, but they are also having to weather a huge surge in commitments.  They are engaged in a 150 lawsuits against the Trump administration, and you know that is going to eat a lot of resources.  Resource allocation is going to remain crucial moving forward.  One of the internal complaints among ACLU staffers was that white supremacist cases seemed to get to jump to the front of the line.  Would it be the death to liberty if Nazis and Klansmen had to enter the back of the queue like everyone else?
 
"The city council has denied has denied out request to march on city hall in protest of the new housing project they are planning for the n*****s and the illegals!"  "That not right.  Your voices have a right to be heard.  We will take you case.  Our next case opening will probably be in 8 months."  "Eight months!  Our march is suppose to be 6 weeks!"  "Well, sorry about that, but we have a huge number of people seeking our help, and I just don't see how we can help you any sooner than that.  Maybe, you can win the case on your own, and if not, well, we will help you with your appeal in 8 months."
 
To me the above conversation, seems perfectly reasonable to me, and if members of the ACLU staff reprioritize how they take cases that might be for the best.  The ACLU has a history of championing the underdog, and white supremacist aren't quite the underdog that they were a couple years ago.  Adapting to changing circumstances is necessary for any organization that wishes to have a future.  Let them talk, let them debate and let them adapt.  Remember that the ACLU doesn't pass laws and isn't proposing outlawing Nazi marches, and I have no doubt that if someone else proposes such a law that the ACLU will speak out.    

Internal debate within the ACLU when different civil liberties come into conflict with each other is not a bug; it is a feature.
 
We live a perilous juncture in American history, where either the thoughtless championing of free speech (I see you, Facebook, Twitter) or the abandoning of free speech could easily plunge our country into fascism. *Gasp! The Horror!*  We may actually have to proceed forward with a nuanced response, and Goddess knows that as a country we are not good at those.
 
So, if the organization, that has spent more time thinking about civil liberties than any other, is passionately debating how best to go forward, that is a good thing.  Maybe all those fine, passionate, committed, legal minds can help us thread the needle between giving our enemies all the communication tools they need to hopelessly divide our country  and sacrificing the very liberties that makes our country special.
 
Right now the ACLU is enjoying huge surge in support, but they are also having to weather a huge surge in commitments.  They are engaged in a 150 lawsuits against the Trump administration, and you know that is going to eat a lot of resources.  Resource allocation is going to remain crucial moving forward.  One of the internal complaints among ACLU staffers was that white supremacist cases seemed to get to jump to the front of the line.  Would it be the death to liberty if Nazis and Klansmen had to enter the back of the queue like everyone else?
 
"The city council has denied has denied out request to march on city hall in protest of the new housing project they are planning for the n*****s and the illegals!"  "That not right.  Your voices have a right to be heard.  We will take you case.  Our next case opening will probably be in 8 months."  "Eight months!  Our march is suppose to be 6 weeks!"  "Well, sorry about that, but we have a huge number of people seeking our help, and I just don't see how we can help you any sooner than that.  Maybe, you can win the case on your own, and if not, well, we will help you with your appeal in 8 months."
 
To me the above conversation, seems perfectly reasonable to me, and if members of the ACLU staff reprioritize how they take cases that might be for the best.  The ACLU has a history of championing the underdog, and white supremacist aren't quite the underdog that they were a couple years ago.  Adapting to changing circumstances is necessary for any organization that wishes to have a future.  Let them talk, let them debate and let them adapt.  Remember that the ACLU doesn't pass laws and isn't proposing outlawing Nazi marches, and I have no doubt that if someone else proposes such a law that the ACLU will speak out.    

http://www.foolreversed.com/why-your-larps-safety-system-will-fail-a-hackers-guide-to-engineering-player-safety/

Something to warm the heart. A kid was dangling over a ledge and a guy climbed the front of the building to save him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44275776

Personally I enjoyed Iron Fist. The martial arts were bad, but I watched Arrow for years and its martial arts were in there own way just as bad despite the years of practice their actors had doing them.  The pacing was good, without the the feeling that episodes 8 through 12 were just there as padding like so many Netflix series.  The story with Ward and his father was compelling.  Madame Gao was a good villain.  Colleen Wing was cool.  Moreover, prepare yourselves for heresy, I liked the character of Danny Rand.
 
Yes, if I was a fan of Danny Rand from the comics, I probably would have hated him in the Netflix series.  However, Danny Rand in the comics never really did anything for me.  The Netflix's Danny Rand at least I found interesting.  The idea that taking an orphan and training him for years to be some ultimate warrior would result in not some peaceful zen warrior but instead in a really emotionally messed up man struck me a wonderful overturning of a stale troph.  Every good thing about Danny Rand was stuff that he brought with him to K'un-Lun as a sweet, innocent boy.  All K'un-Lun added was violence.  If you doubt this, look at messed up Davos is.  Early on we see him subduing and tying up a food truck owner to use his truck to spy on Danny, and to pass the time he scares the s*** out his prisoner.  Had Danny Rand not won it instead, this is the guy who would have become Iron Fist.  Think about that.
 
I also liked him in the Defenders.  I found him to be a refreshing counterpoint to everyone else's angst and cynicism. 

Deleted Scene From The Black Panther
 
 

Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

Deleted Scene From The Black Panther
 
 

Why Canadian police are so good at not shooting people

Thanks to those who recommended Black Lightning. 6 eps in and quite enjoying it.
 
Good cast, script is very good in places. The first two eps were excellent. A couple of ham fisted moments; the attempt to give the main villain a deep and human background (a la the way Cottonmouth was flashed out in Luke Cage) struck me as particularly shoe-horned and ineffective. I have enjoyed all the in-show references to Black Lightning's look. The "Earth Wind and Fire" costume.
 
I can't help but make comparisons to Luke Cage. I think Luke Cage is a better show. For it's villains if nothing else. But I enjoy the family dynamics in Black Lightning. Very well done. I will say it's the best DC show I've yet seen.

California is one of 14 states that sends more money to the federal government than it gets back in benefits (link).  So, I'm really not sure what mistakes it is that the family thinks they are being asked to clean up.  It is certainly not financial help that they are giving us.

California is one of 14 states that sends more money to the federal government than it gets back in benefits (link).  So, I'm really not sure what mistakes it is that the family thinks they are being asked to clean up.  It is certainly not financial help that they are giving us.

I sometimes think the lack of transparency in this White House is the only thing that lets me sleep at night.

Agreed on both points.  
 
ROM was like Micronauts in that it was much better than it had any right to be based on it's original toy origins.