Nobody Cares: PRS

[Jolene Benoir]

The threats of violence are totally unacceptable. However, as an extreme parliamentary tactic -- denying the majority a quorum -- in recent times, Democrats have done this in Texas and (I think) in Minnesota or Wisconsin. It's an extreme tactic, but entirely legal and, I think, fair for either side. I don't like it when it's done to sabotage legislation to help avert disastrous climate change; I hate it. But calling it irresponsible as a tactic is wrong. To call it irresponsible in their duties to the human species and the all the non-human species that -- willy nilly -- we have stewardship over, I agree with entirely.

I don't understand. They were elected to do a job. That job is to take votes whether their side wins or not. As far as I am concerned they are derelict of duty. Else, I guess, from now on, whenever legislators do not like what the other side is doing, say, giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy they too can just walk off the job? Perhaps gather their own militias?

Furthermore, threatening violence upon officers? One stated that they better send bachelors. They rely upon militias to use brute strength? This is what elected representatives of the people are to be and do?

 

[Spirits Rising]

Hot damn, Reddit finally quarantined the_donald. Apparently they were making threats to kill police officers who have been sent to retrieve the Oregon runaway Senators (THAT is a whole other wtf story) as well as the head of DHS.

WTF is this Oregon story? 12 Senators leaving the state to deny climate change legislation from passing. To top it off at least one of them has said he would commit violence against the State Troopers sent to retrieve them. The 3%er militia has vowed to rush to their aid from both Oregon and Idaho.

WTF, WTF, WTF? These people were elected to do a job. They clearly don't want to do it. Jail them for the threats, then impeach them. Jail those 3%er's too. interesting how the pro-cop side (when they're killing young black men) now deem murdering cops perfectly fine.

Republicans are fecking nuts and they are incredibly dangerous to any form of democracy at this point.

Armed Militias Pledge to Fight for Fugitive Oregon GOP Lawmakers ‘At Any Cost’

Reddit ‘Quarantines’ Pro-Trump Forum Over Anti-Police Threats

The threats of violence are totally unacceptable. However, as an extreme parliamentary tactic -- denying the majority a quorum -- in recent times, Democrats have done this in Texas and (I think) in Minnesota or Wisconsin. It's an extreme tactic, but entirely legal and, I think, fair for either side. I don't like it when it's done to sabotage legislation to help avert disastrous climate change; I hate it. But calling it irresponsible as a tactic is wrong. To call it irresponsible in their duties to the human species and the all the non-human species that -- willy nilly -- we have stewardship over, I agree with entirely.

I don't understand. They were elected to do a job. That job is to take votes whether their side wins or not. As far as I am concerned they are derelict of duty. Else, I guess, from now on, whenever legislators do not like what the other side is doing, say, giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy they too can just walk off the job? Perhaps gather their own militias?

Furthermore, threatening violence upon officers? One stated that they better send bachelors. They rely upon militias to use brute strength? This is what elected representatives of the people are to be and do?

Frankly? Vote Yay, Nay or Abstain. Period.

A Filibuster? Meh, no problems with that - hell with most vote delay tactics.

This shit?

This ought to be grounds for immediate removal and replacement though a special election.

 

[Govi]

If we Democrats use a tactic -- denying a quorum by absenting themselves -- saying that the Republicans using the same tactic is unacceptable is childish. Their respective constitutions require quorums and it is in the power of dissenters to deny a quorum. Don't like it? Change the constitution. State constitutions are much more malleable than is the federal constitution. But such a change cuts both ways.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Jolene Benoir]

A Pregnant Woman Who Miscarried After Being Shot in the Stomach Is Now Being Charged With Manslaughter in Alabama

Let's get this straight. Woman gets into argument, gets shot by other woman in the stomach. Shooter is initially charged with manslaughter but grand jury declines to indict. The pregnant mother is indicted for manslaughter on the grounds that she started and continued the fight, therefore is responsible for the baby's death.

Wait? Did she force that other woman to pull out a gun and shoot her? A fight is a fight. To my mind, it is that other person who CHOSE to use a gun. Unless the reasonable expectation in an argument these days is that you will be shot, given how gun-happy we are maybe, this is preposterous to me, still.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Brenda Archer]

What the actual fuck.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The graphic novel Crecy explains

Spoiler: Because several large images

 

[danielravennest]

This ought to be grounds for immediate removal and replacement though a special election.

Oregon has a recall process for elected officials. If the people feel their representative isn't doing a good job, they can get rid of them.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

A Pregnant Woman Who Miscarried After Being Shot in the Stomach Is Now Being Charged With Manslaughter in Alabama

Let's get this straight. Woman gets into argument, gets shot by other woman in the stomach. Shooter is initially charged with manslaughter but grand jury declines to indict. The pregnant mother is indicted for manslaughter on the grounds that she started and continued the fight, therefore is responsible for the baby's death.

Wait? Did she force that other woman to pull out a gun and shoot her? A fight is a fight. To my mind, it is that other person who CHOSE to use a gun. Unless the reasonable expectation in an argument these days is that you will be shot, given how gun-happy we are maybe, this is preposterous to me, still.

Who/what is behind this kind of prosecution?

By that, I mean that some reasonably senior figure in the state prosecution system has taken the decision to spend considerable amounts of the state's money on launching a prosecution that appears utterly fanciful and which even the most fervent supporters of that state's draconian fetal homicide laws say is an abusive prosecution based on a cruel and warped misreading of their law.

So what has motivated someone to launch a prosecution it seems no one else thinks is a good idea, and why is he able to get away with it?

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

I don't understand. They were elected to do a job. That job is to take votes whether their side wins or not. As far as I am concerned they are derelict of duty. Else, I guess, from now on, whenever legislators do not like what the other side is doing, say, giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy they too can just walk off the job? Perhaps gather their own militias?

Furthermore, threatening violence upon officers? One stated that they better send bachelors. They rely upon militias to use brute strength? This is what elected representatives of the people are to be and do?

Not only was it dereliction of duty, it was also a chickenshit move. They didn't want to go on official record as being against avoiding climate change, so they ran away. Utterly contemptible!

 

[Brenda Archer]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Profile of one of the men involved in planning and carrying out the murderous London Bridge terrorist attack, drawn from evidence given at the inquest into the deaths of the eight people murdered by the three attackers, and into the deaths of the attackers themselves.

Khuram Butt: The partygoer who turned into a killer

A cannabis-smoking petty thief from east London, Khuram Butt embraced extremism and became a murderer.

www.bbc.co.uk

An interesting and revealing portrait of a young man, obviously not without some brains and ability, who went from being a hedonistic drifter on the edges of the criminal underworld to being a murderous Islamist terrorist.

London Bridge Inquests

 

[Han Held]

Mike Dunleavy vetoes $444 million from state operating budget

The article lists a bunch of the cuts, the ones that affect me and my two friends (who are also disabled):


• Adult public assistance payments to needy aged, blind and disabled Alaskans have been cut by $7.5 million through a veto.

• Medicaid dental coverage has been eliminated for adults, a cut of $27 million.

There's additional medicaid cuts that the article doesn't specify, the total for that is $50 million. In particular my roommate relies entirely on it for his medical treatment -bestie and I rely on it for our treatment and medications.

Dunleavy and crew are promising more cuts next year.

I am pretty much in hysterics right now. The best thing I can say is that I probably won't be homeless (same as when I posted about the shutdown).

With us all being poor and disabled, I can't think of anywhere that we three would be able to move to if it turns out that we need to next year.

 

[Han Held]

For the last ten years, we've had what's called the "u med" neighborhood; it's the university and the hospital. It's been a driver of economic activity for Anchorage -this budget and the cuts pretty much craters that (UUA will be crippled if not closed, without funding the hospitals will pretty much collapse).

Apparently our hockey team has said "screw this" and is leaving -I haven't confirmed that, however.

[eta]here's a related link: Dunleavy Veto is devastating say University of Alaska President

 

[Brenda Archer]

Mike Dunleavy vetoes $444 million from state operating budget

The article lists a bunch of the cuts, the ones that affect me and my two friends (who are also disabled):


• Adult public assistance payments to needy aged, blind and disabled Alaskans have been cut by $7.5 million through a veto.

• Medicaid dental coverage has been eliminated for adults, a cut of $27 million.

There's additional medicaid cuts that the article doesn't specify, the total for that is $50 million. In particular my roommate relies entirely on it for his medical treatment -bestie and I rely on it for our treatment and medications.

Dunleavy and crew are promising more cuts next year.

I am pretty much in hysterics right now. The best thing I can say is that I probably won't be homeless (same as when I posted about the shutdown).

With us all being poor and disabled, I can't think of anywhere that we three would be able to move to if it turns out that we need to next year.

Omigod this is horrible I am so sorry.
(((Extra hugs)))

 

[Han Held]

Omigod this is horrible I am so sorry.
(((Extra hugs)))

Thank you I'm amused in a gallows humor way that the folks who bitch about homelessness and crime in Anchorage haven't seen anything yet -they've got no idea what's coming down the pike. Not a clue.

 

[detrius]

Who/what is behind this kind of prosecution?

By that, I mean that some reasonably senior figure in the state prosecution system has taken the decision to spend considerable amounts of the state's money on launching a prosecution that appears utterly fanciful and which even the most fervent supporters of that state's draconian fetal homicide laws say is an abusive prosecution based on a cruel and warped misreading of their law.

So what has motivated someone to launch a prosecution it seems no one else thinks is a good idea, and why is he able to get away with it?

Allow me to answer your question by posting a picture of Mrs. Jones (the lady who got shot):

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if things aren't a bit more complicated than at first they appear.

I can see the reasoning that could have led the grand jury to decide that Ms Jemison, who fired the fatal shot, was acting in lawful self-defence (though I find it difficult to understand why it's necessary to brandish a firearm, still less discharge it, during the course of an argument, no matter how heated, with someone who doesn't appear to have been armed herself) and nevertheless wanted to blame someone for what can only be described as the sort of tragic accident you are bound to have when you allow people to wander around armed to the teeth in case they are attacked by someone else, similarly armed.

I'd have blamed whoever drafted the state's law on self-defence, myself, but that's by-the-by.

What's less obvious, to me, though, is whether they would have chosen to blame the unfortunate Ms Jones under this Fetal Personage law that Alabama has just passed unless the prosecutor gave them a strong hint that that might fly in court.

This got me wondering why the prosecutor should have thought that, since it seems pretty far-fetched, and I am now wondering if the prosecutor didn't -- cruelly and cynically, admittedly, but this is an Alabama District Attorney we're talking about, so maybe that's not a surprise -- think this would be an excellent opportunity to give the superior courts the opportunity to consider the state's absurd fetal personhood law in a context that has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose.

I was expecting the first case to be about the fetus' rights to habeas corpus, due process and separate legal representation should its mother find herself in lawful custody, but this does pretty well too, though at a terrible cost to Ms Jones.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

The NRA had a hand in Alabama's laws on self defense. They have a Stand Your Ground law that sets a very low bar for self defense claims, even against unarmed opponents. If you felt "reasonably" threatened, good hunting.