twitter
facebook twitter tumblr newsletter

Findings from around the Internet.

 

The crowd encompassed the police.

January 27, 2017

signal-2017-01-27-162032

The small army that had just kettled hundreds of people were now themselves surrounded. The crowd encompassed the police. While the cops slowly processed the detained protesters, the outer force yelled anti-police chants and messages of solidarity to everyone inside the kettle. Pepper spray, tear gas, and flashbang grenades shot out again.

Read More | “on the ground at the anti-inauguration riots” | Ash Jegroo | Mask Magazine

 

This writer is an Innovator. What are you? And who cares?

December 7, 2016

_92852931_screenshot2016-12-06at9-21-00am-1

This writer is an Innovator. What are you? And who cares?

When those who take the survey complete it, they are then told they fall into one of four broad, psycho-political categories.

The survey told this writer he is in the Innovator group. The other groups are: Cooperators, Guardians, Pragmatists, and Challengers.

Where do these categories come from? Vox Pop does not deign to tell you. The company does, however, give you an utterly redundant demographic breakdown of people in your category, based on age, gender and other characteristics.

In the case of Innovators, the average age is, apparently, 37.

So what?

How does this help elucidate or clarify the issue of electoral reform?

It doesn’t. And that, sadly, is the point.

Liberals who have cooled to the idea of changing the electoral system, and who are downright hostile to any change that includes a significant element of proportionality, are hoping this survey succeeds in covering the entire reform process in a blanket of dense fog.

The more confused and disaffected Canadians are with the entire process, the easier it will be to ditch it entirely.

Read More | “Liberals’ online survey is a tactic to derail electoral reform” | Karl Nerenberg | rabble.ca

 

“twisting everything into a confusing, funhouse-mirror Wild West of morality-based, selectively applied regulations where everything is allowed for some, nothing for others”

December 5, 2016

untitled-1

There, I ran into two longtime performers: Fauxnique, an outspoken female drag queen who has toured the world performing, and Profundity, another female drag queen presence on the scene. We spoke for a long time about big issues like the housing crunch in the Bay Area, how expensive it can be to open or perform in licensed venues, how there have always been and always will be underground spaces, how creative kids are always going to do creative things in creative places, and how America’s weird Puritanism combined with its “pioneering spirit” was twisting everything into a confusing, funhouse-mirror Wild West of morality-based, selectively applied regulations where everything is allowed for some, nothing for others.

“This tragedy points to the need for our community to really be mature about the necessity of these spaces and how we can take care of ourselves and each other,” Fauxnique said. “It can feel like we’re on our own here.” And indeed, in the aftermath, architects, engineers, counselors, therapists, and more from the community have offered to help guide people through running and maintaining an underground space.

Read More | “In the Ghost Ship aftermath” | Marke B. | 48 Hills

 

“Flag-burning has no such history. It has, in fact, no history of being directed against any target but the government.”

November 29, 2016

fire-14369_1280

Senator Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill, which is sponsored by Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.

It’s hard to see this as anything but pandering — there certainly isn’t any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn’t been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends. Even then, it was a rarity that certainly never put the nation’s security in peril.

The bill attempts to equate flag-burning with cross-burning, which the Supreme Court, in a sensible and carefully considered 2003 decision, said could be prosecuted under certain circumstances as a violation of civil rights law. It’s a ridiculous comparison. Burning a cross is a unique act because of its inextricable connection to the Ku Klux Klan and to anti-black violence and intimidation. A black American who wakes up to see a cross burning on the front lawn has every right to feel personally, and physically, threatened. Flag-burning has no such history. It has, in fact, no history of being directed against any target but the government.

Read More | “Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode” | The New York Times