collections that are raw as fuck ➝ shantanu & nikhil, india bridal fashion week 2013
not everyone who blogs about social justice issues is a social justice warrior! there are social justice clerics, social justice rogues, social justice rangers, and social justice wizards, among other classes. nobody’s going to get anywhere without diversity; if you go into any boss dungeon with a party consisting entirely of social justice warriors and expect to beat it then you are going to be sorely disappointed.
"MAN THIS STORY I’M WRITING IS GONNA BE SO GOOD I’M SO PUMPED"
"I CAN’T WAIT TO DEVELOP THE SHIT OUT OF THESE CHARACTERS"
"HOT DAMN THAT ONE SCENE NEAR THE MIDDLE IS GONNA BE BITCHIN’"
"THIS PLOT TWIST IS THE SINGLE BEST IDEA I’VE EVER HAD IN MY LIFE"
~one hour later~
PACIFIC RIM CUT SCENES WITH TOPLESS IDRIS ELBA?? YOU FUCKING MONSTERS.
I only vaguely know what Pacific Rim is, but I know exactly what a great tragedy this is
Do Stacker Pentecost and Hercules Hansen have cooler names than Idris Elba and Max Martini?
This is a question I am struggling with.
I have been wondering this, and take into consideration their real full names are Idrissa Akuna Elba and Maximilian Carlos Martini. You can’t make this up.
The Safest Suburb In The World Did It By Ending The Culture Of Cars
Houten’s main road, which was not actually a road but a winding path through what looked like a golf course or a soft-edged set from Teletubbies: all lawns and ponds and manicured shrubs. Not a car in sight. We rolled past an elementary school and kindergarten just as the lunch bell rang. Children, some of whom seemed barely out of diapers, poured out, hopped on little pink and blue bicycles, and raced past us, homeward.
“We are quite proud of this,” Tiemens boasted. “In most of the Netherlands, children don’t bike alone to school until they are eight or nine years old. Here they start as young as six.”
“Their parents must be terrified,” I said.
“There’s nothing to fear. The little ones do not need to cross a single road on their way home.”
South Africa’s constitution is the constitution of a nation that is profoundly aware of how governments can go wrong — and why the inherent human rights of every individual must be honored to ward off atrocity.
In 2012, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the impolitic suggestion that “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012,” instead pointing foreign constitution drafters to the constitution the late South African leader Nelson Mandela signed in 1996. Her statement received the predictable response from many conservative voices. One publication called for her to resign.
The truth, however, is that the United States could learn a great deal from South Africa’s constitution. As Ginsburg noted, that constitution was drafted much more recently than America’s 226 year-old founding text. Accordingly, its drafters benefited from more than two centuries of human experience that our founding fathers did not have. Ginsburg in no way impugned the genius of George Washington, James Madison or Alexander Hamilton when she suggested that these men could not possibility have known the things that we know today — and that nations drafting new constitutions should benefit from the full range of human experience.
The South African Constitution begins with an absolutely breathtaking first passage: “We, the people of South Africa, Recognise the injustices of our past.” This is not just a document drafted by men dissatisfied by their lack of representation in a distant central government. Rather, this the constitution of a nation that is profoundly aware of how governments can go wrong — and why the inherent human rights of every individual must be honored to ward off atrocity.
No doubt for this reason, the South African Constitution is structured very differently from our own. Our own founders believed that the best way to protect liberty is to structure government in a way that hinders attacks on individual freedom. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men,” James Madison famously wrote, “you mustfirst enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” To accomplish this goal, “[a]mbition must be made to counteract ambition.” Senators must be played against representatives and justices against presidents — all to ensure that no one body acquires the power it would need to effect tyranny.
For this reason, our Constitution begins by laying out the structure of government. Article I is Congress, Article II the executive branch, Article III the judiciary. The concept of explicitly protected individual rights was largely an afterthought. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until a few years after the Constitution went into effect, and it was originally understood only to place limits on the federal government — not the states.
The South African Constitution, by contrast, devotes 32 different articles to individual rights before it even mentions the structure of government. While America’s founders were primarily worried about how lawmakers would be selected and what powers they would and would not have, South Africa’s Constitution begins with a statement of human rights. It’s drafters wanted first and foremost to ensure that nothing like apartheid would ever exist again.
One obvious difference between South Africa’s constitution and ours is the sheer breadth of the rights protected by their national charter. Familiar rights such as the rights to equality, faith, free speech and privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures are all protected by the South African Constitution, but so is a right to “fair labour practices,” to “form and join a trade union,” to “an environment that is not harmful to … health or well-being,” and to “sufficient food and water.” As a reminder than many South Africans endured a kind of dehumanization that few Americans could even comprehend, their Constitution also protects rights such as the right “to a name and a nationality from birth” and to “not to be used directly in armed conflict” while still a child.
There are valid arguments against defining positive rights such as the right to food or a healthy environment in a constitution — these sorts of rights are rarely self-executing, and ultimately will depend on the nation’s legislature enacting sensible laws. But Americans could learn a great deal from how precisely many of the rights protected by the South African Constitution are defined. The United States is currently in the middle of a great constitutional debate over whether our Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” applies to gay people. In the 1970s, we went through a similar debate over the rights of women. Our Constitution’s vague words provide very little guidance on what forms of discrimination are forbidden. South Africa’s Constitution, by contrast, provides that “[t]he state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.”
Similarly, our Constitution’s guarantee that no person shall be deprived of “liberty … without due process of law,” provides judges with far too little guidance about what “liberty” means our what kind of “process” is “due.” For much of the Twentieth Century, conservatives read into these ambiguous words a right to overwork workers for little pay, and to forbid them from joining unions. More recently, Roe v. Wade read these same words to protect the right to an abortion — a right that is now on life support thanks to a conservative judiciary. South Africa’s constitution, by contrast, does not suffer from the same ambiguity that our own founding document does. It provides, for example, that “[e]veryone has the right to have access to … health care services, including reproductive health care.”
Though the South African Constitution does not begin to lay out the structure of South African government until the document’s 40th article, their government is well-designed to avoid what is probably the greatest defect in the American Constitution. In virtually all cases, a bill cannot become law in the United States unless it is enacted with the consent of two houses of Congress plus the president — each of which are elected on separate ballot lines and on different schedules. The United States is, thus, unusual among modern democracies in that different political factions can control Congress and the White House, or the House and the Senate, at the same time.
The American people got a very unfortunate demonstration of why this kind of government is dangerous last October. Because Democrats and Republicans could not agree on how to keep the government open, our government shut down. And we came within a hair of defaulting on our national debt. In our system, bitter political rivals often have to agree on must-pass legislation — potentially risking catastrophe if the legislation does not pass. Worse, it allows figures like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to essentially extort their political rivals by threatening to block must-pass bills unless their rivals agree to unreasonable concessions.
South Africa also has a bicameral legislature and a national president, but their government is structured to prevent the kind of brinkmanship America saw in October. Unlike the United States, where the president is elected separately from the Congress, South Africa’s constitution provides that “[a]t its first sitting after its election, and whenever necessary to fill a vacancy, the National Assembly must elect a woman or a man from among its members to be the President.” Thus, there is far less risk that the national legislature will reach a dangerous impasse with a president from a rival political faction.
Additionally, while there is some complexity to South Africa’s legislative process, their constitution permits the the lower house of parliament to pass most bills — including budget and appropriations bills — without necessarily obtaining the consent of the upper house. For this reason, South Africa does not risk a standoff similar to last October’s shutdown because its two houses of parliament cannot agree upon legislation.
None of this, of course, means that South Africa is a utopia. To the contrary, Ginsburg’s most pointed word of advice to nations drafting new constitutions was that there are limits to what such a document can achieve — “a Constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best Constitution in the world won’t make any difference.” As Aviva Shen noted this morning, South Africa remains plagued by economic inequality. South African President Jacob Zuma is currently embroiled is a corruption scandal alleging that he spent taxpayer money on a swimming pool and other upgrades to his private home. A Harvard study found that former President Thabo Mbeki’s AIDS denialism led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. No constitution can rescue a nation from bad governance.
But in a nation committed to the rule of law and good governance, a well-drafted constitution can ward off avoidable crises, guide a nation’s commitment to individual rights and help ensure that power rests in the true representatives of the people.
in terms of memes the icemark chronicles is about 50% ‘surprise bitch i bet you thought you’d seen the last of me’ and 50% ‘you came to the wrong neighborhood motherfucker’
NEW YORK — A New York attorney on Thursday said the life of a murdered transgender woman wasn’t worth the same punishment as if his client had killed someone “in the higher end of the community.”
Piece of scum attorney.My blood is fucking boiling.
The attorney and whomever that scum is defending are the worthless ones
All right, listen up, Tumblr. This is one of the few times I’ll actually give a social commentary, so here we go. When you’re a lawyer, your job is to fight for your client. No questions asked. You make whatever argument you can. You verbally rip apart people on the stand when they side against you. You say whatever you need to. Do I think this murderer is a piece of scum? Yes. Do I think his lawyer is probably a piece of scum too? Yes. But this has to be said. When you’re a lawyer, sometimes you’re forced to do dirty work. Because at the end of the day, if people stop fighting for the guilty ones, sooner or later, there’s no one to fight for the innocent ones either. You got a problem with that? Don’t be a lawyer. Problem solved. Does what this lawyer said suck? Yes. But it wasn’t your friend or family member that got murdered and it’s not years of your freedom on the line, so kindly fuck off. This lawyer’s job is probably hard enough as it is.
You’re fucking awful. Kindly fuck off
He said she was less than human.
What does that have to do with his job at all.
How does that make the murderer any less guilty?
I am a lawyer. (Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer. Consult a lawyer in your own state for anything that affects your rights.)
What this scumbag said does not fall under the ambit of zealous representation.
Arguments made to a court have to have a basis in law or a reasonable argument for reversing existing law and/or making new law. (I’m paraphrasing.)
There is no basis in law to argue that the murder laws do not or should not apply to transgender women or sex workers because of what kind of people they are or because their lives are somehow less valuable. None. Zero. Nada.
If I were that judge, I’d have reported the attorney for a Rule 11* violation for even making that argument, and be looking into my state’s rules of professional conduct to see what else he might have violated by doing so. In my state, even without a provision specifically protecting people on the basis of gender identity, I would be comfortable making the argument that this lawyer’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice as a knowing manifestation of bias or prejudice based on sex. See TNRPC 8.4(d) and Comment 3 thereto.
Attorneys get enough shit for legitimate zealous representation issues without muddying the water as if every argument an attorney makes is ok because of zealous representation. It is not. This is not ok.
Also, if the commenter who posted that is a lawyer, they need to take a few more PR CLEs, because zealous representation does not and has never meant “you say whatever you need to.” Doing so violates Rule 11, shows a lack of candor toward the tribunal, and contributes to the degradation of the profession.
Does zealous representation mean we sometimes have to do things that seem unfair - hell, that are unfair? Yep. I can’t give a specific example because of my own professional limitations, but even in the short time I have been practicing law I have had to make arguments based on existing law that I know is unfair.
Does zealous representation extend to making an argument that a human being wasn’t really a person worthy of protection of the laws against violence because of who they were or what job they did? No, I can’t think of a set of facts where that would be true even in a PR hypothetical for students, much less real life. To make a Rule 11-compliant argument, the lawyer would need a cogent and reasoned analysis as to why the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to this victim such that they should be exempted from the protection of the laws against murder. “Because bigotry” is not such an argument. Again, I can’t think of any argument that would pass Rule 11 to get around equal protection of the laws against murder because of the status of the victim.
This is not just a “oh, popelizbet is a dang hippie lawyer” argument, either. Prominent law bloggers with many more years of service than I, whose politics barely brush mine, are condemning this. This kind of hateful garbage brings disrepute on our profession because it is morally wrong to make these kinds of arguments. Scummy lawyers get away with enough fuckery without people excusing things they do that are inexcusable based on their complete misunderstanding of what zealous representation actually is.
*Some states may not designate the rule with this rule number, but in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 is, in part, the rule against making arguments to the court that are not supported in law or do not advance a colorable argument to change existing law. A similar Rule exists in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. To my knowledge, every state has adopted this portion of the Federal Rules.
bitch you lack so much class marx declared you a utopia
Physical books should come with digital copies, or at least a discount code for the ebook.
i’m bored while doing my latin homework i am this close to translating the opening monologue to star trek into classical latin someone stop me quick
caelum. finito terminalis. is cursus est de commissi navistella. sui legatio quintus-annus - munduses ignotus novus exploro. lux nova et cultus novus sequor. cedo audacius quatenus homonis aput iit.
I have a serious problem.