| Time |
Event |
| 5:35a |
Corps. hounding and crushing individuals
George Monbiot: *In the UK and around the world, those who challenge
rich corporations are being hounded and crushed with
ever-more inventive penalties.*
*Why in the UK, can you now potentially receive a longer sentence for "public nuisance"
— non-violent civil disobedience — than for rape or manslaughter?*
Monbiot connects this to plutocracy.
See the recent Greta Thunberg example.
|
| 5:35a |
|
| 5:35a |
Demand for weak policies on climate
*European politicians weaken climate policies
amid farmer protests.*
It's much more comfortable in the short term not to bother preparing to keep climate
disaster small enough to survive it. But it is foolish in the long term.
|
| 5:35a |
Protesters prosecution dismissed, London
Climate defenders were prosecuted for continuing a nonviolent protest
in London after being ordered to stop.
The case was dismissed on the grounds that the order was not communicated to them properly.
That was the right result, but the reason for it means that human rights are not safe in
the UK. In effect, this judge turned this case into a warning shot.
|
| 5:35a |
Top journalist silenced for coverage, CAN
Canadian thugs arrested journalist Brandi Morin as she was covering their dismantling of a
homeless indigenous people's
camp.
|
| 5:35a |
When Greenpeace blocked Energy Intelligence Forum
How
Greta Thunberg was arrested
and charged with a crime for a nonviolent climate defense protest.
The thug that conveyed the threat to Ms Thunberg did so in a refined
way, avoiding verbal brutality. However, the substance of the demand
supported a policy that kills a substantial number of people now,
and will kill much larger numbers in the future. The message of
the protester at the trial was right on:
Fossil fuel corporations are most responsible for the climate crisis,
and we will continue to hold them to account no matter what the state
throws at us. We have to, because nothing is worse than losing
everything.
The charge against her was later dropped on a technicality,
but the threat to repress future protests remains active.
|
| 5:35a |
|
| 5:35a |
Lobbying addiction harmful to US
Are socially harmful widespread practices caused by
market failure, or
by bad government
regulations? This article argues that "market failure" is usually caused by bad
regulations, and often that is true. But what causes those bad regulations, and why don't
we change them?
Why, for instance, doesn't the US regulate the emissions of SUVs and
pickup trucks
like cars?
Environmentalists have pressed for this, but they have been rebuffed by the US government.
That is lobbying at work. Any bad regulations in the market tends to
benefit some companies, and they will spend part of the benefits to
lobby to maintain the regulations that benefit them.
Most economic policy choices are not between a "free" market and a nonfree one.
A market requires rules;
the question is, which rules will it have? And how are they to be chosen?
In a democratic country, those rules are decided democratically. In a flawed democracy
such as the US, they are decided by contention between democracy and lobbying. Almost
every bad regulation is protected by lobbying, so fixing it requires a battle.
That's why I support election of progressive officials, such as Senator Sanders and
Representative Pressley, who will be eager to go against the lobbyists and fix the bad
regulations and laws.
|
| 5:35a |
A socially constructed behavioral crisis
*Human "behavioural crisis"
at root of climate breakdown,
say scientists.*
*[They propose] that climate breakdown is a symptom of ecological overshoot, which in turn
is caused by the deliberate exploitation of human [behavioral engineering]. Unless demand
for resources is reduced, many other innovations are just a [band-aid].*
|
| 10:35a |
Ohio amendment to end gerrymandering
Ohio is voting on a constitutional amendment to end gerrymandering in
that state, by having an independent commission draw the electoral
districts.
</li>
|
| 10:35a |
|
| 10:35a |
Contributions to re-election campaign of NYC night-mayor Adams
Alleging local business magnates illegally contributed indirectly to
the re-election campaign of NYC night-mayor Adams.
The reason to do this would be to buy support for their interests, and
that would not work unless Adams knew what policies he had to support
or block in order to earn those contributions.
</li> |
| 10:35a |
Coral reef heat damage warning system
The coral reef heat damage warning system has added new levels of
warning that will be required by the higher ocean temperatures our
greenhouse emissions have brought about.
</li> |
| 10:35a |
Thailand law on speaking of the monarch
Thailand has forbidden campaigning to change the law that forbids
speaking of the monarch or the monarchy in a less than respectful way.
</li> |
| 10:35a |
Paris plan to triple SUV parking charges
*Paris residents set to vote on plan to triple parking charges for
SUVs.*
The extra parking charge would be good, since it would discourage
SUVs. But parking is only one of the areas in which SUVs do harm.
They make collisions more damaging to pedestrians and people in other
vehicles, and they increase pollution. The SUV penalty should be bigger
and apply everywhere.
</li> |
| 10:35a |
Plan by woman to play Richard III
A campaign based on what some call "ableism" condemns the plan by a
women to play Richard III. Peculiarly, not because of a gender
difference, but because she is not "disabled".
Can a non-disabled 21th-century actor properly play a powerful but
physically disabled 15th-century noble? Can a disabled 21th-century
actor properly play a powerful non-disabled 15th-century noble? I
think we can only answer, "Maybe — try and we'll see."
This production raises a similar issue about gender: Can a
21th-century woman play a 15th-century male king? Is it reasonable
for her to try? Can a 21th-century man play a 15th-century reigning
queen? Is it reasonable for him to try? I think we can only answer,
"Maybe — try and we'll see."
Interestingly, the article does not even mention that question. It
accepts that a woman can play a male character. If society accepts
that, why object? Try it, and we'll judge your acting ability.
So why not do the same for disability?
The dispute may be based on confusion about the 15-th century facts.
Was Richard III "disabled" as we understand the term? I can't be
certain but it seems that he was not.
He had scoliosis, but a doctor says this would not have been apparent
in the court because clothing could hide it.
Whatever pain or inconvenience scoliosis caused him, it did not
interfere with his physical activities. He could ride a horse in
battle, wield a sword in battle, and lead an army to victory.
He impressed people through success in vigorous sports.
My conclusion is that he was not disabled in any practical sense.
I think that disabled actors will be better off if they are accepted
for playing any and all roles, rather than guaranteed all the disabled
characters' roles.
</li> |
| 10:35a |
Result of British state funds cut to universities
As the British state cuts funds to universities, it makes them turn
increasingly to wealthy foreign students, whose money keeps them afloat.
This is, of course, bad for British students. But that's the general
pattern: right-wing budget cuts are bad for nearly all the non-rich.
The cuts were started by the Tory party when it stood purely and
simply for dooH niboR (take from the poor and give to the rich).
Now that the Tory Party has moved towards the extreme right, it sees
this as an opportunity to knock down the non-rich and weaken them.
The Labour Party of the past would have offered to undo the cuts,
but now that it has become a center-right party it is not interested.
(Here's the latest example
of Labour's new alignment.)
Labour is also about to eliminate most of its planned investment in avoiding
environmental disaster
even as it courts business with deregulation.
</li> |