#Anti-All Comers Bill
Text
Fighting the privacy wars, state by state
In 2021, Apple updated its mobile OS so that users could opt out of app tracking with one click. More than 96% opted out, costing Facebook $10b in one year. The kicker? Even if you opted out, Apple continued to spy on you, just as invasively as Facebook had, as part of its competing targeted ad product:
https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar
If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/23/state-of-play/#patchwork
The fact that Apple — a company that has blanketed the world with anti-surveillance billboards — engaged in deceptive, pervasive surveillance reveals the bankruptcy of “letting the market decide” what privacy protections you should have.
When you walk into a grocery store, you know that the FDA is on the job, making sure that the food you buy doesn’t kill you — but no one stops the grocery store from tracking literally every step you take, every eye movement you make (no, really!) and selling that to all comers:
https://themarkup.org/privacy/2023/02/16/forget-milk-and-eggs-supermarkets-are-having-a-fire-sale-on-data-about-you
America’s decision to let the private sector self-regulate commercial surveillance is a grotesque failure of duty on the part of Congress, which has consistently failed to pass comprehensive privacy legislation. There are lots of reasons for this, but the most important is that American cops and spies are totally reliant on commercial surveillance brokers, and they fight like hell against any privacy legislation:
https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/13/public-interest-pharma/#axciom
The private sector’s unregulated privacy free-for-all means that cops don’t need to get warrants to spy on you — they can just buy the data on the open market for pennies:
https://pluralistic.net/2020/08/18/fifth-pig/#ppp
The last Congressional session almost passed a halfway decent (but still deeply flawed) federal privacy law, but then they didn’t. Basically, Congress only passes laws that can be sandwiched into 1,000-page must-pass bills and most of the good stuff that gets through only does so because some bought-and-paid-for Congressjerks are too busy complaining about “woke librarians” to read the bills before they come up for a vote.
The catastrophic failure to protect Americans’ privacy has sent human rights groups hunting for other means to accomplish the same end. On the federal level, there’s the newly reinvigorated FTC, under the visionary, muscular leadership of Lina Khan, the best Commission chair in a generation. She’s hard at work on rules to limit commercial surveillance:
https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/12/regulatory-uncapture/#conscious-uncoupling
But FTC regs take time to pass, and it can be hard for ordinary individuals to trigger their enforcement, which might leave you at the mercy of your local officials when your privacy is invaded. What we really need is a privacy law with a “private right of action” — the right to go to court on your own:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/you-should-have-right-sue-companies-violate-your-privacy
The business lobby hates private right of action, and they trick low-information voters into opposing them with lies about “ambulance chasers” who sue innocent fast-food outlets for millions because they serve coffee that’s too hot:
https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/12/hot-coffee/#mcgeico
With Congress deadlocked and privacy harms spiraling, pro-privacy groups have turned to the states, as Alfred Ng writes for Politico:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/22/statehouses-privacy-law-cybersecurity-00083775
The best provisions of the failed federal privacy law have been introduced as state legislation in Massachusetts and Illinois, and there are amendments to Indiana’s existing state privacy law — 16 states in all are working on or have some kind of privacy law. This means businesses must live with the dread “patchwork of laws,” which serves the business lobby right: they must do business in potentially radically different ways in different states, and small missteps could cost them millions, in true fuck-around-and-find-out fashion.
As Ng writes, these laws don’t have to pass in every state. America’s historically contingent, lopsided state lines mean that some states are so populous that whatever rules they pass end up going nationwide (the ACLU’s Kade Crockford uses the example of California Prop 65 warnings showing up on canned goods in NY).
As Congress descends further into self-parody, the temptation to treat the federal government as damage and route around it only mounts. It’s a powerful, but imperfect strategy. On the negative side, it takes a lot of resources to introduce legislation into multiple states, and to win legislative fights in each.
Think of the incredible fuckery that the coalition of Apple, John Deere, Wahl, and other monopolists got up to defeat dozens of state Right to Repair laws, even snatching victory from the jaws of defeat in New York state, neutering the incredible state electronics repair law before it reached the governor’s desk:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/17/more-details-on-how-tech-lobbyists-lobotomized-nys-right-to-repair-law-with-governor-kathy-hochuls-help/
Indeed, the business lobby loves lobbying statehouses, treating them as the Feds’ farm-leagues, filled with naive, easily hoodwinked rubes. Organizations like ALEC use their endless corporate funding to get state legislation that piles farce upon tragedy, like the laws banning municipal fiber networks:
https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/15/useful-idiotsuseful-idiots/#unrequited-love
The right has always had hooks in state legislatures, but they really opened up the sluice gates in the runup to the 2010 census, when a GOP strategist called Thomas Hofeller started pitching Republican operatives on a plan called REDMAP, to capture state legislatures in time for a post-2010 census mass-redistricting that would neutralize the votes of Black and brown people and deliver permanent rule by an openly white nationalist Republican party that could lose every popular vote and still hold power.
Of course, that’s not how they talked about it in public. Though the racial dimension of GOP gerrymandering were visible to anyone on the ground, Hofeller maintained a veneer of plausible deniability on the new REDMAP districts, leaving the racist intent of GOP redistricting as a he-said/she-said matter of conjecture:
https://www.klfy.com/national/late-gop-redistricting-gurus-files-hint-at-partisan-motives/
That is, until 2018, when Satan summoned Hofeller back to hell, leaving his personal effects in the hands of his estranged anarchist daughter, Stephanie, who dumped all her old man’s files online, including the powerpoint slides he delivered to his GOP colleagues where he basically said, “Hey kids, let’s do an illegal racism!”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pked4v/the-anarchist-daughter-of-the-gops-gerrymandering-mastermind-just-dumped-all-his-maps-and-files-on-google-drive
Sometimes, laws that turn on intent are difficult to enforce because they require knowledge of the accused’s state of mind. But there are so many would-be supervillains who just can’t stop themselves from monologing, and worse, putting it in writing.
As bad as state politics can be, they’re still winnable battlefields. Last year saw a profound win on Right to Repair in Colorado, where a wheelchair repair bill, HB22–1031, made history:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/06/when-drm-comes-your-wheelchair
That win helped inspire Rebecca Giblin and I when we were writing Chokepoint Capitalism, our book about how Big Tech and Big Content rip off creative workers, and what to do about it.
https://chokepointcapitalism.com
Many readers have noted that the first half of the book — where were unpack the scams of streaming, news advertising, ebooks and audiobooks, and other creative fields — is incredibly enraging.
But if you find yourself struggling to concentrate on the book because of a persistent, high-pitched whining noise that you suspect might be a rage-induced incipient aneurysm, keep reading! The second half of the book is full of detailed, shovel-ready policy proposals to get artists paid, including a state legislative proposal that works from the same playbook as these state privacy laws.
If your creative work entitles you to receive royalties, your contract will typically include the right to audit your royalty statements. If you do audit your royalties, you will often find “discrepancies.” We cite one LA firm that has performed tens of thousands of record contract audits over decades, and in every instance except one, the errors they discovered were in the labels’ favor.
This is a hell of a head-scratcher. I can only assume that some kind of extremely vexing, highly localized probability storm has taken up permanent residence over the Big Three labels’ accounting departments, making life hell for their CPAs, and my heart goes out to them.
Anyway: if you find one of these errors and you tell your label or publisher or studio, “Hey, you stole my money, cough up!” they will pat you on the head and say, “Oh, you artists are adorable but you can’t do math. You’re mistaken, we don’t owe you anything. But because we’re good natured slobs, we’ll offer you, say, half of what you think we owe you, which is good, because you can’t afford to sue us. And all you need to do to get that money is to sign this non-disclosure agreement, meaning you can’t tell anyone else about the money we’re stealing from them.
“Oh, and one more thing: your accountant has to promise never to audit us again.” As Caldwell-Kelly said when we talked about this on Trashfuture, this is like the accused murderer telling the forensics team, “Dig anywhere you’d like in my garden, just not in that corner, I’m very sentimental about it.”
https://trashfuturepodcast.podbean.com/e/amazon-billing-amazon-for-amazon-feat-cory-doctorow-and-rebecca-giblin/
Now, contracts are a matter of state law, and nearly every entertainment industry contract is signed in one of four jurisdictions: NY, CA, TN (Nashville), and WA (games companies and Amazon). If we amended the state laws in one or more of these to say, “NDAs can’t be enforced when they pertain to wage theft arising from omissions or misstatements on royalties,” we could pour money into the pockets of creative workers all over the world.
Yes, the entertainment giants will fight like hell against this, and yes, they have a lot of juice in their state legislatures. But they’re also incredibly greedy and reckless, and prone to such breathtaking and brazen acts of wage theft that they lurch from crisis to crisis, and at each of these crises, there is a space to pass a law to address these very public failings.
For example, in 2022, the Writers Guild of America — one of the best, most principled, most solidaristic and unified unions in Hollywood — wrested $42 million from Netflix, which the company had stolen from its writers:
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/wga-wins-42-million-arbitration-netflix-1235333822/
Netflix isn’t alone in these massive acts of wage theft, and this is certainly not the only way Netflix is stealing from creative workers. There’s never just one ant: if Netflix cooked the books for writers, they’re definitely cooking it for other workers. That means there will be more scandals, and when they break, we can demand more than a bandaid fix for one crime — we can demand modest-but-critical legislative action to fix contracts and prevent this kind of wage-theft in the future.
The state legislatures aren’t an intrinsically better battlefield for just fights, but they are an alternative to Congress, and there is space to make things happen in just some of the 50 state houses that can ripple out over the whole country — for good and bad.
[Image ID: Blind justice, holding aloft a set of unbalanced scales; in the lower scale is a map of the USA showing the state lines; in the higher scale rests the capitol building.]
#pluralistic#states rights#laboratories of democracy#privacy#gdpr#federalism#contract law#chokepoint capitalism#wage theft#redmap
66 notes
·
View notes
Link
This whole article is worth reading, but let me cut to the really juicy part.
The revelation of secrets.
Secret One: The angry phone call from a Bret Baier staffer, over, she thinks, making life difficult for Bret Baier's college roommate and best friend Steven Hayes.
…
First, you may remember that I have talked a lot about Weekly Standard pissboy Jim Swift's public Twitter campaign to get Washington Examiner reporter Selena Zito fired.
He kept retweeting people accusing her of inventing entire quotes and entire people in her coverage of Trump supporters that the media had overlooked. He basically joined a coordinated (paid?) political operation to get her fired and in fact drummed out of the journalism industry entirely.
This was bizarre not because Jim Swift was attempting to cancel a conservative-leaning journalist -- that's par for the course for this crew -- but because she was in fact a co-worker, as both the Washington Examiner and Weekly Standard were owned and operated by Clarity Media.
I have never seen before someone publicly attempting to take out a colleague -- and not being told to stop it by his bosses, like William Kristol and Steven Hayes.
I'm not a fool; I know this kind of cutthroat ratf***ing goes on all the time in organizations.
But behind the scenes. Not right out in the open on a public forum.
So my first bit of information here comes from a source familiar with the Weekly Standard, who believes that Jim Swift's plan was to so badly damage the Washington Examiner that Phil Anshutz, owner of Clarity Media, would be forced to keep the Weekly Standard in print.
If two children are competing for Daddy's Love (and money), one sociopathic child may think: kill the other child and then Daddy will be forced to love me.
…
Here's the context for my second bit of information: NeverTrump and the Conservative, Inc. whiners who say that the Weekly Standard was "murdered" make this claim based on the belief that some people were interested in buying the Weekly Standard and keeping it afloat. Most likely as a Fake Conservative Anti-Republican propaganda outlet, which is what it had become anyway.
The Standard was allowed to keep on operating -- all the while losing Phil Anshutz money -- while they sought out a White Knight Leftwing Investor to buy the worthless neoliberal rag.
But then, suddenly, Clarity Media and Phil Anshutz pulled the plug, and would not entertain any offers to buy the magazine. (I don't think they had any actual offers, just "possible interest.")
And here's what a source tells me about that. This source has acquaintances in Clarity Media itself.
And he tells me that the sudden decision to kill the Weekly Standard, rather than trying to get some minor amount of money in selling it, was provoked by the realization that a Weekly Standard employee, Jim Swift, was attempting to destroy the other Clarity Media publication, the Washington Examiner.
And that he was being allowed to do this, at least tacitly, by Steven Hayes, Jonathan Last, and Bill Kristol, any of whom could have -- and should have -- immediately ordered him to stop his online campaign to cancel Salina Zito.
…
Now, I'm not 100% sure that it was only that that killed any deal for selling the worthless money-pit called the Weekly Standard.
The bosses at the Weekly Standard had serially ignored or subverted efforts by Clarity Media to turn the Weekly Standard into an actually-influential, highly-trafficked magazine.
Phil Anshutz was not bothered by its increasingly neoliberal politics, but by the fact that it was failing to attract readers and show influence, even in the small sphere of Beltway-born-and-bred-neoliberals-pretending-to-be-conservatives.
So Anshutz and Clarity Media already were annoyed at the Weekly Standard. It wasn't just losing them money, but Kristol and Hayes were arrogant, recalcitrant, and defiant in deciding they would continue losing money exactly as they saw fit, without any "interference" from the actual owner.
Insubordinate, really. Incapable of managing themselves, and defiant of any efforts to impose management on them.
They even started paying out huge salaries to late-comers like Charlie "3-Wives" Sykes! Just throwing out money to a bunch of useless, audience-poor NeverTrumpers in some kind of Grifter Charity effort.
Anyway, Clarity Media already had a reason to pull the plug. But my source says the Jim Swift Gay Ops Incident was the last straw among many last straws.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
UFC 267 predictions: ‘Blachowicz vs Teixeira’ late ‘Prelims’ undercard preview
© photo by using Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC by way of Getty photographs some of the sport’s most unexpected champions meets one of its most timeless veterans this Saturday when Jan Blachowicz defends his UFC mild Heavyweight title towards the immortal Glover Teixeira atop UFC 267. also on tap are a Bantamweight title combat between Petr Yan and Cory Sandhagen and the return of Khamzat Chimaev against Welterweight slugger Li Jingliang. four more UFC 267 “Prelims” undercard bouts continue to be to be examined (check out the primary batch here). we could take a gander? one hundred fifteen lbs.: Amanda Ribas vs. Virna Jandiroba although a united states Anti-Doping company (USADA) suspension kept her out of action for 2 years, Amanda Ribas (10-2) made up for lost time through profitable her first 4 UFC bouts. This set up a pivotal clash when Marina Rodriguez, who survived Ribas’ grappling onslaught to stop her in the 2d (watch highlights). She’ll delight in one inch of top and two inches of attain on “Carcara.” After winning and defending the Invicta Strawweight title, Virna Jandiroba (17-2) stepped up on short notice to face Carla Esparza in her UFC debut, resulting in the first lack of the Brazilian’s profession. She has considering won three of four, all three by way of finish inside two rounds. Her fresh stoppage of Kanako Murata marked her first expert (technical) knockout win and her fourteenth stoppage ordinary. Ribas’ Octagon success has come generally from her overpowering wrestling and robust Brazilian jiu-jitsu, which Jandiroba can theoretically suit or exceed. “Carcara” is without doubt one of the most valuable wrestlers within the total division, and Ribas doesn’t submit the form of submission chance that Mackenzie Dern used to close down her takedown offense. Jandiroba additionally confirmed a great deal-enhanced arise in her win over Murata, suggesting that she will grasp her personal on the feet as neatly. provided that she stays aggressive and doesn’t let Ribas set the tempo like she did Dern, Jandiroba grinds her solution to one other Octagon victory. Prediction: Jandiroba by the use of unanimous decision one hundred forty five lbs.: Ricardo Ramos vs. Zubaira Tukhugov Ricardo Ramos (15-three) — a graduate of “Lookin’ for a battle” — won five of six earlier than falling brief against fellow up-and-comer Lerone Murphy. He did more advantageous for himself towards bill Algeo, whom he took down eight instances en path to a unanimous decision win. He has ended 10 professional fights inner the gap, seven via submission. a mixture of a failed drug examine and a suspension from the UFC saved Zubaira Tukhugov (19-5-1) out of action for 3 years, even though he managed to get back heading in the right direction with a draw towards Lerone Murphy and brutal knockout of Kevin Aguilar. He wasn’t fairly as fortunate towards Hakeem Dawodu, who rode a late surge to a break up determination victory. He faces a one-inch peak drawback and a four-inch attain disadvantage. It’s challenging no longer to be a little disappointed with how Ramos and Tukhugov have panned out. despite showing massive promise early of their Octagon careers, neither has specially stood out in recent efforts. this is almost a make-or-spoil battle — they’re each nonetheless fairly young, but I don’t see the loser mountaineering the mountain. If each men are at their optimum, Tukhugov’s wrestling offers him a excellent aspect that Ramos’ fancy-pants kickboxing can’t overcome. If Tukhugov comes in out-of-form and gasses to death again, Ramos has the capabilities and cardio to capitalize in a big way. I’ll split the change and say Tukhugov does ample decent work early to ride out the inevitable comeback attempt. Prediction: Tukhugov via cut up choice 185 lbs.: Albert Duraev vs. Roman Kopylov Albert Duraev (14-3) — who began his professional profession 5-three — claimed ACB’s Welterweight and Middleweight titles during his unbeaten run in the advertising. a three-yr layoff adopted, which he led to Sept. 2021 with a contract-winning submission of Caio Bittencourt on “Contender series.” His 14 skilled wins consist of 9 by using submission. Roman Kopylov (8-1) tore through combat Nights global’s Middleweight division during his tenure, knocking out all 5 of his opponents and successful their title in the technique. This led to a 2019 UFC debut in opposition t Karl Roberson, who out-lasted Kopylov to choke him out within the third round. He steps in for Alessio Di Chirico on brief note for his first fight in nearly two years. putting aside the recency bias, which is all Duraev, this is nevertheless a tough out for Kopylov. The latter showed a distinct vulnerability to low kicks and robust submission assaults, which Duraev has in spades, and compromised his in fact robust technical boxing by letting Roberson dictate the tempo. even though he’s a fair bit sharper than Duraev on the toes, Kopylov looks to have too a good deal coming his solution to profit from it. Kopylov is still skilled adequate to sprawl-and-brawl his approach to victory if he executes perfectly, but it’s difficult to look him doing so after that rough debut and lengthy layoff. within the end, Duraev wears him down for an eventual finish on the mat. Prediction: Duraev by the use of 2nd round submission one hundred seventy lbs.: Elizeu Zaleski vs. Benoit Saint-Denis Elizeu Zaleski (22-7) put a UFC debut loss at the back of him with seven consecutive wins, together with three Fights of the night and a wheel kick knockout of Sean Strickland. He right now finds himself in a 1-2 skid, most lately losing a controversial decision to Muslim Salikhov on “battle Island.” He fights for the first time in 15 months. France’s Benoit Saint-Denis (8-0) entered the fast-rising brave CF promoting at 4-0, simplest to endure a “No Contest” as a result of a headbutt-triggered reduce in his debut. He returned to kind with 4 consecutive wins, amongst them two arm-triangles in 2021. “God of battle” has submitted seven opponents and knocked out one different. here is one of those unique fights where there’s no real middle ground; one man will dominate on the feet, the other on the mat. Saint-Denis is much too easy to hit to continue to exist a prolonged astonishing exchange with “Capoeira,” who in flip has few solutions for Saint-Denis’ effective exact video game. however he has underperformed in his remaining few fights, I desire Zaleski. at risk of takedowns he may be, however he’s rather complicated to hang down and has certainly not been submitted as an expert. Zaleski will in reality have satisfactory alternatives to catch Saint-Denis on the toes, and he hits greater than hard adequate to benefit from them. in brief, he catches Saint-Denis with anything nasty within the first two rounds. Prediction: Zaleski by means of first round technical knockout I don’t need to sell this card to you, specially no longer when it is going to stream for “free” on fundamental ESPN+. See you Saturday, Maniacs. current UFC “Prelims” Prediction list for 2021: 149-76-2 (2 NC) bear in mind that MMAmania.com will bring reside round-with the aid of-circular, blow-with the aid of-blow insurance of the whole UFC 267 battle card appropriate here, starting with the early ESPN+ “Prelims” suits online, which are scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. ET, before the leading card beginning time at 2 p.m. ET on ESPN+. To check out the latest and optimal UFC 267: “Blachowicz vs. Teixeira” news and notes be certain to hit up our complete adventure archive appropriate right here.
토토사이트
1 note
·
View note
Note
How about Killing Eve for the favourite’s 🖤
Ooh, yay! Thanks for the ask. (After answering these I’m all the more hyped for S3 to come out.)
my favorite female character - Eve Polastri is probably my favorite because she’s so inscrutable. She’s awkward and passionate and smart and idiotic and warm...except is she actually warm, or is she just social? And what does it mean that she’s so willing to do awful things? Also Eve wouldn’t be nearly as interesting if she weren’t so interested in Villanelle, and I have to say Villanelle might be even more my favorite character than Eve!
my favorite male character - Bill! May he rest in peace.
my favorite book/season/etc - I really loved a lot of moments in Season 2, but Season 1 was just INCREDIBLE. Having Phoebe Waller-Bridge writing so much of it was a huge plus, and I’d never seen anything quite like Season 1 before.
my favorite episode (if its a tv show) - 1x8, “God I’m Tired.” The conversation between Eve and Villanelle about their mutual obsession is just some of the best TV I’ve ever seen!
my favorite cast member - Everyone in the cast seems fantastic and I’m of course a big fan of Sandra Oh and Jodie Comer, two delightful people! But I really love Fiona Shaw and every interview I’ve read with her has been utterly fascinating, so I’ll have to go with her.
my favorite ship - Eve/Villanelle, of course, but also, um, Eve/Carolyn because they’re both funny people with really wack moral compasses and it’d be interesting. Admittedly Eve/Carolyn works much better as a Season 1 ship.
a character I’d die defending - Elena! She’s so good and I miss her!
a character I just can’t sympathize with - Aaron Peel. EW EW EW EW EW. Also, he’s written in such a way that he’s meant to be entirely unsympathetic. The same can’t be said for Niko, but I can’t sympathize with him either, not really. He’s strangely passive in a way that infuriates me pretty much every time he’s onscreen. I get that he spends much of his time being manipulated and lied to, but he should, um, think about stuff a little more.
a character I grew to love - Konstantin. I have lots of complicated feelings about him and his role on the show--with Villanelle, with Carolyn, with his organization, with his daughter and his family more broadly.
my anti otp - Eve/any man. Especially Eve/Niko and Eve/young asshole coworker she sleeps with after eating the chicken. Yuck!
From this faves meme. Send me a fandom (book, movie, or TV) and I’ll answer these!
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
Jurisprudence
John Roberts Just Bulldozed the Wall Separating Church and State
His stunning 5–4 decision forces states to fund religious schools—and augurs even more radical rulings down the road.
— By Mark Joseph Stern | June 30, 2020 | Slate.Com
Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh attend the State of the Union address on February 5, 2019. Pool/Getty Images
On Tuesday, in a sweeping 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court forced a majority of states to fund private religious schools in a ruling that compels millions of U.S. taxpayers to subsidize Christian education—even if financing another religion violates their own beliefs. Incredibly, this maximalist decision did not go far enough for two conservative justices who would apparently let states establish an official religion. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor described the majority’s decision as “perverse.” That may be an understatement: Its decision is the culmination of a yearslong assault on secular governance and augurs even more radical rulings down the road.
The basis for Tuesday’s decision in Espinoza v. Montana originated in a creative scheme devised by the Montana Legislature to fund sectarian schools. The Montana Constitution contains a “no-aid” provision that bars the state from providing public funds to religious institutions, as do 37 other state constitutions. To work around this rule, the Legislature granted tax credits to residents who donate money to Big Sky Scholarships, which pays for students to attend private schools, both secular and sectarian. (Montana’s demographics ensure that the only sectarian schools that participate are Christian.) In other words, residents get money from the state when they help children obtain a private education, including religious indoctrination. In 2018, the Montana Supreme Court found that this program violated the state constitution’s no-aid clause. But instead of excluding sectarian schools, the court struck down the whole scheme for all private education.
Chief Justice John Roberts revived Montana’s tax credit scheme on Monday in a convoluted opinion that announces a startling new constitutional principle: Once a state funds private education, “it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” Twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico all provide tax credits or vouchers to families that send their children to private schools. Under Espinoza, they must now extend these programs to private religious schools.
The upshot: Taxpayers in most of the country will soon start funding overtly religious education—including the indoctrination of children into a faith that might clash with their own conscience. For example, multiple schools that participate in Montana’s scholarship program inculcate students with a virulent anti-LGBTQ ideology that compares homosexuality to bestiality and incest. But many Montanans of faith believe LGBTQ people deserve respect and equality because they are made in the image of God. What does the Supreme Court have to say to Montanans who do not wish to fund religious indoctrination that contradicts their own beliefs? In short, too bad: Your rights just don’t matter as much. This decision flips the First Amendment on its head. The amendment’s free exercise clause protects religious liberty, while its establishment clause commands that the government make no law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Just 18 years ago in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a bare majority of the Supreme Court ruled that, under the establishment clause, states were allowed to fund private schools through vouchers or tax credits, over vigorous dissents from the four liberal justices. Now the court has declared that, under the free exercise clause, most states are compelled to fund private religious schools. The conservative majority has revolutionized church-state law in record time.
“The conservative majority has revolutionized church-state law in record time.”
How did the court chart this catastrophic course? The barrier between church and state took a hit when five justices permitted state financing of sectarian schools in Zelman. It nearly collapsed when the court expanded religious institutions’ access to taxpayer money in 2017’s Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, which held that states cannot deny public benefits to religious institutions because they are religious. The court claimed to find this dangerous rule in the First Amendment’s free exercise clause—even though, as Sotomayor pointed out in her searing dissent, separating church and state does not limit anyone’s ability to exercise their religion. She closed with a warning: “In the end, the soundness of today’s decision may matter less than what it might enable tomorrow.”
Tomorrow has arrived, and it is as absurd as Sotomayor predicted. Roberts’ majority opinion follows Trinity Lutheran to its logical, outrageous conclusion: A state violates free exercise, the chief justice wrote, when it “discriminate[s] against schools” based on “the religious character of the school.” The government, Roberts explained, has no compelling interest in preserving the separation of church and state beyond what the First Amendment requires. Nor does the government have any interest in protecting taxpayers’ right not to fund religious exercise that infringes upon their own beliefs. “We do not see how the no-aid provision promotes religious freedom,” the chief justice wrote tersely.
Perhaps Roberts can’t see it, but James Madison certainly could. As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent, Madison famously opposed a Virginia bill that would have taxed residents to support teachers of “the Christian Religion,” condemning it as “a signal of persecution” that violates religious liberty. Montana’s Christians-schools-only program illustrates how states that fund religion wind up funding the faith shared by a majority of residents. Breyer, quoting Madison, noted that state funding of a particular religion may “destroy that moderation and harmony” among different faiths that is a hallmark of America’s religious tolerance.
This extreme outcome was not enough for Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito. Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, asserted that the very concept of separating church and state “communicates a message that religion is dangerous and in need of policing, which in turn has the effect of tilting society in favor of devaluing religion.” According to Thomas, enforcing church-state separation amounts to “religious hostility” and must end immediately. The justice reached this conclusion by reiterating his conviction that the First Amendment’s establishment clause was “likely” designed to preserve states’ ability to establish official religions.
In his own separate opinion, Alito attacked the “no-aid” clauses in 38 state constitutions, including Montana’s. He claimed that these provisions were motivated by anti-Catholic animus, and it is true that nativists supported them in the 19th century. But Alito omitted the fact that advocates for universal education also encouraged these provisions for perfectly legitimate reasons before nativists rallied around them. And he waved away the fact that Montana readopted its no-aid clause in 1972 for the express purpose of shielding religion from state entanglement. Alito will not let inconvenient facts stand in the way of his campaign to invalidate 38 states’ constitutional guarantees against state subsidization of religion.
If there is any silver lining to Roberts’ opinion, it is that he did not adopt Thomas’, Gorsuch’s, or Alito’s radical positions. At least, not yet. The only limiting principle Roberts lays out is that states “need not subsidize private education” in the first place—so, in theory, states can abolish public funding of private schools entirely to avoid funding religious ones. But that’s what the Montana Supreme Court did here, yet Roberts condemned its decision as “discrimination against religious schools.” If a legislature tries to end a voucher program in light of Espinoza, the Supreme Court’s conservatives could easily find more proof of anti-religious “discrimination” and force it to revive the program. Having gutted protections against the establishment of religion, the majority is limited only by its own sense of what it can get away with.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Soooo I'm gna get mauled here but tumblr's unquestioning praise of Killing Eve as a progressive, prestige show about womanhood and sexuality is... looking like a problem to me.
This is not to shame people who watch the show or even to guilt people out of enjoying it, especially seeing as I've done both, (unabashedly admiring Phoebe Waller Bridge's distinctly quirky humour and Fiona Shaw's deliveries). This is to say, though, that the Killing Eve franchise is something to think more critically about before we give it more praise, more money. We can be critical of media we like, not limit activism to media criticism and not feel that media criticism in some way robs us of something. In my opinion.
[tw for discussions on sex, rape, pedophilia, violence, death, q slur]
[[more]] <---more --!>
Firstly the generation-wide age gap: Eve's original portrayal in the book is 24, exactly two years Villanelle's senior so the only logical excuse for it be added in the adaptation was bc the crew were desperate for big name actors. And while I love Sandra Oh, it was not worth it to create bizarre sexual tension between a forty year old and a twenty year old. This isn't even the first time Jodie Comer was the on-screen love interest to a middle aged person (see also Dr Foster), which is doubly messed up. Ideally replace Oh with an actor Comer's peer or replace Comer w someone Oh's age. It's not that hard.
Second, the age gap is exasperated by Villanelle's "mental age" which is far below twenty. Honestly the fact that both these problems were added into the adaptation by female actor/writer Phoebe Waller-Bridge makes me wna scream. Book!Villanelle was appropriately mature enough—emotionally, psychologically, intellectually—to warrant her high-ranking status as an assassin. Her behaviour, while still devoid of empathy, manages to be a believable portrayal of an upper-class 20 yr o behaving like a thirty year-old. Phoebe Waller-Bridge (and co)'s reinterpretation has Villanelle being a hyperfeminine, materialist, petty teenager that slowly spirals into impulsive outbursts and a scene where she's crawling around a suburb in a onesie. How do we reconcile Villanelle's lust and her love of violence with this childish persona? How is Eve's attraction to her justified? How do ppl think that's hot? It's comedic shock value flirting with homophobia, pedophilia, and the Born Sexy Yesterday trope. Not to mention the violent little girl trope. Despite all of Luke Jennings' flaws, he at least did not do That and my God is the bar low.
Both book and show heavily overplay Villanelle's sexual promiscuity to the point of being voyeuristic. Villanelle's sociopathy is largely an excuse for her violence, sex life, and lack of empathy to be over-the-top, even comedic, especially in the show adaptation. Villanelle's only true human connection is her infatuation with her language teacher, Anna. Which, rather than explore the show's pedophilic undertones, only serves to justify it via backstory.
The show does handle this way worse though: through Anna's dialogue, we're assured that the attraction was mutual ("She seduced me.") and that they've had sex. Which at the time would be when Oxana (Oksana) was in her late teens as she was still a high school student under Anna's tutelage. In the show, Villanelle murders Anna's husband partially out of revenge and possibly bc she took Anna's joke too literally. Book!Villanelle meanwhile castrates Anna's rapist. The former attempts to draw parallels between Eve and Anna, Nico and Anna's husband, treating the story like a melodramatic Shakespearean love triangle while once more reminding us of Villanelle's immature social skills. Which, again, serves to justify age gap lust. Meanwhile, the book attempts to question Villanelle's warped attempts at human connection via vignettes of violent shock value, it's marginally better than the adaptation but in the overall scheme of things I'm not sure Jennings makes enough commentary on violence against women to warrant this.
Finally sexuality in the franchise is a big question mark. Eve and Villanelle's attraction to each other is explained simply by obsession and lust intermingled with violence. Villanelle and Anna's relationship devolves into much the same in the show. Eve and Nico have a relatively stable yet dispassionate relationship meanwhile Bill is implied to be bisexual with an open marriage, though this is never seen and he's murdered shortly after this confession. A Chinese politician has a hospital fetish and, in the book, a right-wing fascist has a kin/kink for Eva Braun which leads us to a highly disturbing transphobic scene involving an exploding dildo. Notably, Villanelle's on/off frenemy romance with Lara (who is... you know... her age) in the book is cut and replaced Nadia, whom she basically kills as soon as possible.
The relationship between Oxana and Lara is explored more in the book (and it's post-season 1 sequel) though ultimately, Lara dies and Villanelle can't feel remorse let alone love. Both book and show have Villanelle hooking up with various people but the book goes into painstaking detail about her sexual promiscuity being motivated by her desire to manipulate peole. Clearly, Jennings shows that Villanelle's sex life includes all genders yet with little regard for her intimacy and level of attraction for anyone. She is "bisexual" (or "lesbian") only insofar as actual physical sex is concerned. Emotionally, she is attracted to no one. Which let me just say is a capital y Yikes.
And the cherry on top of course is that the show is getting accused of queerbating due to the heavy marketing a nd WLW undertones despite Sandra Oh's denial of any romance btwn her and Jodie Comer's character. 🙄
All of these play heavily into existing homophobic stereotypes. The predatory lesbian. The hypersexual bisexual. The manipulative, hedonistic, childish, lustful qu**rs, who, having foresaken family values to screw anything and everything, are not emotionally mature enough to be first class citizens. From watching the show and reading the book, the writers play with these "dark" themes with little introspection to how these relate historically to LGBT politics, how their use of sociopathy and age gaps has political and sociological significance. There's little real deconstruction or reflection on gender, sexuality, violence etc to be considered satirical and these aspects are largely thrown in for entertainment's sake.
Jennings and Waller-Bridge have both, respectively, made attempts at thematic critiques of wealth and gender. Neither of which in my opinion saw its theme through enough to be satirical. There's something to be said about how PWB converted Jennings' anti-materialist subtext into "empowering" aspects of literally weaponised feminity (i.e. all of Villanelle's weapons are high-end women's products) almost as a critique of cultural dismissal of femininity and it's association with materialism. PWB seemed to want to create a comedic, empoweringly gendered, spy movie but this theme of weaponised femininity nose dives at Villanelle's immaturity not to mention its superficiality. Weaponised femininity directed at whom? The show seems much more fascinated with Villanelle herself than the fact that she's employed by The Twelve, which obscures the importance of who Villanelle is killing, who Villanelle exerts weaponised feminity against and why. Not to mention the concept of the feral, empowered or weaponised woman has always been positively attributed to white women, which to make a long story short is not new or progressive or empowering.
I'm not too puritanical to understand the use of taboo themes in satire. This is not satire. KE's appeal seems to be the sexualisation of its deuteragonists at the expense of nuanced conversations about sex, violence, and gender. PWB was way more fixated on comedy than I think she should have been, and both creators rely most on shock value than anything else in how they construct what they believe be the most entertaining and well-structured narrative. There's little evidence that they regard the responsibility they have in portraying bisexual women in positions of power, in age gap relationships or as violent characters in a political espionage thriller. This is not satire this is a very eclectic comedy with clumsy homophobic caricatures at best.
Lastly, there are essays on why leftist fixation on "representation" is a symptom of our digital hyperreality and at best will never truly address material problems faced by real people. Big ass metas on tumblr is not necessarily activism and as I'm sure you know the revolution will not be televised. But should show runners and co be rewarded for so called groundbreaking dark comedy that in fact seems to support harmful stereotypes? And goddamnit am I tired of people unironically romanticising Villanelle and Eve. Thank you for listening to my TEDtalk.
20 notes
·
View notes
Note
All the questions about widow. Except the ones where the answer is obvious, you can skip over those, i guess. 🙃
This is long so under a cut :)
Also spoilers if anyone cares, including for the chapters posted today (9 and 10).
1: What inspired you to write the fic this way?
It was actually Jodie Comer’s comment about not wanting to play an assassin because of the leather and high heels, which got me thinking about the MCU and how they could have done more with their Russian Assassin and they didn’t. So I just decided to mash the two together. I don’t think I’ve made as much use of the MCU as I could have, and I don’t think they’re super relevant, but you can see earlier that I tried to lean into that more (I did think it would be funny to make Raymond the Winter Soldier, but I thought it would probably only be funny to me.)
I wanted to explore a more ‘sympathetic’ version of Villanelle for Eve, in saying she was made this way (although I guess it could turn out that way on the show depending what we learn about her family next season), but I haven’t ended up playing with that idea much as her and Eve aren’t having heart-to-hearts, and I don’t want to woobify V.
It’s mainly from Eve’s POV and I feel like Villanelle’s POV would ruin a bit of the mystery, so I’ve used her quite sparingly.
2: What scene did you first put down?
Um it was actually Bill dying! (Sorry!). The whole thing was very different though - Bill came to collect Eve from the hotel and Villanelle busted in and threw him off the balcony lol. Poor Bill :(
3: What’s your favorite line of narration?
Hmm.
“Evedoes feel a little kidnapped, now, as much as you can when eating chips, atwinge of fear at being unable to contact anyone else. Kidnapped-adjacent, shethinks, if that’s a thing. It annoys her.”
“It’salmost intimate, the way neither of them is put together, neither of them attheir best.”
4: What’s your favorite line of dialogue?
‘Are you going to say goodbye?’ Carolyn says. ‘Terribly rudeto just hang up.’
‘So, the truth is that Eve Polastri doesn’tlie, other people just don’t act how they should?’ - Villanelle.
5: What part was hardest to write?
The space between Eve learning she needed to leave and the ‘Lazy Susan’ incident (which is now my favourite chapter ending).
The motivation for seeing Faith again, and the way V reacted, were really hard to fit in organically, especially as I knew they’d meet next chapter and I wanted to keep writing that. Originally, V was much more reactive to the news, and I had the bit where she rips out the woman’s heart at the end (drama queen that she is).
But then I realised I’d given myself a gift with Eve’s fake name, and even if the chapter was no fun to write, I really wanted to nail that reveal.
6: What makes this fic special or different from all your other fics?
It’s multi-chapter and long, and the central idea (Eve feeling more sympathy for Villanelle because she’s been ‘made’ and had an obviously hard childhood) has not really materialised at all. Normally I have a really concrete idea of what I want to explore and achieve, whereas this has evolved so much.
It’s also much more plot/action oriented than my other fics, which are a bit more introspective (although ymmv on Thirty-Five). It makes it fun to write, as instead of doing too much navel-gazing I can write a bit of humour, a bit of drama, a bit of action and not get weighed down by the feels so much.
It’s also the first fic I put up, and the one I keep coming back to!
7: Where did the title come from?
Tbh I was originally tinkering with the idea of making it a fake-out and having Niko die (so Eve was the Widow) but that’s probably not going to happen. I don’t like killing him when it’s more satisfying for Eve to just leave him. Or like, never go home to him again.
8: Did any real people or events inspire any part of it?
Only the fact that I couldn’t eat Skittles for a few years as a kid because I got food poisoning after eating them. Also the ‘You can’t steal a car’ line made me think of the anti-piracy spoof from the IT crowd, but I didn’t think Villanelle would know it so I couldn’t get her to say ‘You wouldn’t shoot a policeman’ :(
9: Were there any alternate versions of this fic?
Yeah, as I mentioned, it was quite different when I wrote some of the main scenes eg Bill dying, Raymond’s death (Villanelle originally helped a lot more), Eve and V were meant to have kissed by now (as Faith and Eve)… there’s a lot of darlings I killed in this fic.
10: Why did you choose this pairing for this particular story?
I love them.
11: What do you like best about this fic?
I like that it allows me to write (or attempt to write!) the humour and the drama of the show from a bit of a different angle. I love all of Eve and Villanelle’s interactions, and so getting to write a lot of them together is great, in the same way that Thirty-Five was fun to write.
(I also like that you like it so much!)
12: What do you like least about this fic?
I think it starts too slow. In the context of the broader fic, I think it works, but I feel like I could have had a punchier start.
13: What music did you listen to, if any, to get in the mood for writing this story? Or if you didn’t listen to anything, what do you think readers should listen to to accompany us while reading?
I listen to everything and anything while writing, and instrumental music (generally the Battlestar Galactica soundtrack) when I’m editing. But Florence + the Machine, Stromae, The Jezabels and Amanda Palmer have been on a rotating playlist.
Florence and The Jezabels make me feel calm, sometimes a little sad, which helps when you’re looking for a bit of depth. Stromae is a bit more upbeat with a twinge of anger, which is good for the action-y scenes or the ‘funny’ scenes, and Amanda Palmer marries black humour and anger together so well that I enjoy listening to her when I have a snappy scene to nail.
I don’t think there’s a real soundtrack for this fic - just something with a good drum beat from Chapter 5 on though.
14: Is there anything you wanted readers to learn from reading this fic?
Not really? I just want readers to enjoy it, I don’t mind if it’s not educational. Oh wait. There is a petrol station chain in France called Total Petrol.
15: What did you learn from writing this fic?
Phew, so much. I’m really learning how to kill my darlings. It’s really challenged me in regards to making sure the journey is organic - I can tend to focus too much on where I want the characters to be, but it’s not satisfying if they get there without any kind of realism/struggle. So for example changing Raymond’s death was hard, but it just didn’t work with the 25000 words before it so it had to go.
I think I’m also learning where my strengths lie. I generally have a sparse way of writing where the imagery is there to set a tone or share an idea - which you can’t really do with an action story. So I think in the early chapters I struggled a bit to give enough information about surroundings without making it an info dump (like who really cares about the layout of a room?). Now that they’re together and I can let the dialogue lead the story it’s a bit easier to work out what people need to know and what they don’t.
5 notes
·
View notes
Link
via Politics – FiveThirtyEight
Down the stretch they come! No, it’s not the Kentucky Derby — today, Kentuckians will vote for governor in their party primaries. Incumbent Gov. Matt Bevin will likely win renomination in the Republican contest despite being incredibly unpopular. But Democrats have a competitive three-way race between state House Minority Leader Rocky Adkins, state Attorney General Andy Beshear and former state auditor Adam Edelen. Beshear appears to be in the lead, but it’s unclear how big that lead really is and whether a Democrat can even still win a general election in a state that is now so deeply red.
Until Kentucky’s 2015 gubernatorial race, Democrats held most major statewide offices, and the GOP had won the governorship only once in the past 44 years. But Bevin won handily in 2015, and in 2016 Republicans captured the state house for the first time since the 1920s, giving them full control of state government.1 Thus, state politics now more closely align with Kentucky’s preferences in national races — the GOP presidential nominee has won Kentucky by at least 15 percentage points going back to 2000, and in 2016, President Trump won the state by 30 points.
All the same, Bevin (assuming he wins tonight) may still face a tough re-election fight next November. And that’s because he’s currently the most unpopular governor in the country, based on Morning Consult’s approval data for the first quarter of 2019.2 As you can see in the chart below, Bevin’s disapproval rating has been above 50 percent since the second quarter of 2018, which might have to do with his repeated run-ins with teachers, public sector unions and even his own party.
In April 2018, for example, Bevin vetoed legislation that raised taxes to expand public education spending only to have the Republican-controlled legislature override his veto while teachers rallied outside of the state capitol. He’s also made controversial comments, like when he said school closures allowing teachers to rally at the capitol may have caused children to be “sexually assaulted” or “physically harmed” because they couldn’t attend school.
Bevin’s approval numbers are even worse when you consider just how Republican-leaning Kentucky is. He had the worst approval rating of any governor relative to his state’s partisan lean,3 according to my colleague Nathaniel Rakich’s “Popularity Above Replacement Governor” rankings.
The latest ‘Popularity Above Replacement Governor’ scores
Governors’ net approval ratings for the first three months of 2019 relative to the partisan leans* of their states
Governor State Name Party Net Approval state Partisan Lean PARG KY Matt Bevin R -19 R+23 -42 RI Gina Raimondo D -11 D+26 -37 HI David Ige D +11 D+36 -25 WV Jim Justice R +14 R+30 -16 CT Ned Lamont D -4 D+11 -15 SD Kristi Noem R +18 R+31 -13 NY Andrew Cuomo D +9 D+22 -13 OR Kate Brown D -3 D+9 -12 CA Gavin Newsom D +12 D+24 -12 OK Kevin Stitt R +26 R+34 -8 UT Gary Herbert R +25 R+31 -6 NJ Phil Murphy D +8 D+13 -5 WY Mark Gordon R +43 R+47 -4 AK Mike Dunleavy R +12 R+15 -3 IL JB Pritzker D +11 D+13 -2 NE Pete Ricketts R +22 R+24 -2 IA Kim Reynolds R +6 R+6 0 ID Brad Little R +36 R+35 +1 NM Michelle Lujan Grisham D +8 D+7 +1 ND Doug Burgum R +34 R+33 +1 WA Jay Inslee D +15 D+12 +3 VA Ralph Northam D +5 EVEN +5 MO Mike Parson R +26 R+19 +7 IN Eric Holcomb R +27 R+18 +9 AR Asa Hutchinson R +34 R+24 +10 AZ Doug Ducey R +20 R+9 +11 OH Mike DeWine R +18 R+7 +11 DE John Carney D +26 D+14 +12 TN Bill Lee R +40 R+28 +12 MS Phil Bryant R +27 R+15 +12 GA Brian Kemp R +25 R+12 +13 ME Janet Mills D +20 D+5 +15 AL Kay Ivey R +44 R+27 +17 TX Greg Abbott R +34 R+17 +17 SC Henry McMaster R +34 R+17 +17 CO Jared Polis D +18 D+1 +17 MN Tim Walz D +21 D+2 +19 MI Gretchen Whitmer D +20 D+1 +19 NV Steve Sisolak D +19 R+1 +20 WI Tony Evers D +20 R+1 +21 PA Tom Wolf D +21 R+1 +22 NC Roy Cooper D +22 R+5 +27 FL Ron DeSantis R +34 R+5 +29 LA John Bel Edwards D +15 R+17 +32 NH Chris Sununu R +41 R+2 +39 MT Steve Bullock D +26 R+18 +44 KS Laura Kelly D +24 R+23 +47 VT Phil Scott R +32 D+24 +56 MD Larry Hogan R +57 D+23 +80 MA Charlie Baker R +59 D+29 +88
A Democratic governor with a net approval of +2 in an R+7 state has a PARG of +9 (2+7 = 9). If the same state had a Republican governor with the same approval rating, the PARG would be -5 (2-7= -5).
Shaded rows denote governors whose seats are up in 2019 or 2020, excluding those governors who are not seeking reelection.
* Partisan lean is the average difference between how a state votes and how the country votes overall, with 2016 presidential election results weighted at 50 percent, 2012 presidential election results weighted at 25 percent and results from elections for the state legislature weighted at 25 percent. The partisan leans here were calculated before the 2018 elections; we haven’t calculated FiveThirtyEight partisan leans that incorporate the midterm results yet.
Sources: Morning Consult, media reports
A big part of Bevin’s problem is that he’s struggling with his base. Morning Consult found in that poll that just 50 percent of Republicans approved of him while 37 percent disapproved. Compare that to the 86 percent of Kentucky Republicans who approved of Trump, and it’s understandable that Bevin is now trying to tie himself to the president, hoping to boost his numbers.
One bit of positive news for Bevin is that he avoided a high-profile primary challenge when U.S. Rep. James Comer — who Bevin beat by just 83 votes for the GOP nomination in 2015 — decided not to run. However, Bevin didn’t escape a primary challenger altogether. State Rep. Robert Goforth is running against him and even loaned his campaign $750,000 (as of early May, Bevin had raised a little over $1 million). But Goforth doesn’t seem to pose a serious risk to Bevin, at least not according to the scant polling we have: A survey from earlier in May from the GOP pollster Cygnal found Bevin leading Goforth 56 percent to 18 percent. Still, 32 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they had an unfavorable view of Bevin in that poll, so Goforth’s share of the primary vote on Tuesday could be an indicator of how strong or weak Bevin is among the Republican faithful.
But today’s main event is the Democratic race. The front-runner is Andy Beshear, the first-term attorney general and political scion whose father Steve preceded Bevin as governor. The younger Beshear squeaked out a narrow 0.2-point victory in 2015, with Bevin winning by 9 points at the top of the ballot. Since they took office, the two have been at loggerheads over many issues, including education, health care and pensions. These fights are one of Beshear’s main selling points in the Democratic primary, but Adam Edelen is running to Beshear’s left, hoping his support for abortion rights, decriminalizing marijuana and renewable energy will attract Democratic voters. And on Saturday, the state’s largest newspaper, the Courier-Journal, endorsed Edelen.
Edelen, the former state auditor, has also been on the offensive, attacking Beshear for his connection to a former aide who was convicted of bribery (however, there is no evidence Beshear knew about these activities). Edelen’s upstart campaign has also been aided by an influx of cash from his wealthy running mate, Gill Holland, and Better Future PAC, an outside group backing Edelen (primarily funded by Holland’s mother-in-law).
Meanwhile, state House Minority Leader Rocky Adkins is running to the right of Beshear and Edelen on social issues, claiming that his anti-abortion views and support for coal are more likely to appeal to the rural parts of the state where Democrats have been decimated in recent years.
Beshear currently seems to be ahead, but the only data we have are competing internal polls. Additionally, the two most recent surveys are from mid-April, so it’s hard to know if things have changed substantially in the past month. For what it’s worth, Edelen’s campaign found Beshear in first with 43 percent of the vote, Edelen in second with 23 percent and Adkins in third with 22 percent. Meanwhile, Beshear’s internal poll put him at 44 percent compared to 17 percent for Adkins and 16 percent for Edelen. So Beshear appears to be the polling front-runner, but a win by Edelen or Adkins shouldn’t be ruled out; internal polls are notoriously unreliable, the polling we do have is old and three-way races can be incredibly fluid.
Looking ahead to the general election in November, election handicappers view Kentucky as a toss-up or leaning in the GOP’s direction. Still, it’s possible a Democrat could take back the governor’s mansion. It’s early, but the pollster Mason-Dixon found Beshear up 48 percent to 40 percent in a Bevin-Beshear matchup in December. So if Bevin remains as unpopular as he is now, there could be an opening. Then again, the Bluegrass State’s politics are pretty darn red.
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Line of Duty Series 6 Cast: Who are the New Characters and Who’s Coming Back?
https://ift.tt/3kEZfv6
Adrian Dunbar, Vicky McClure and Martin Compston are to Line of Duty what the ravens are to the Tower of London; if they ever leave, the kingdom will surely fall. Luckily for us, those three are going nowhere for the new seven-episode run which is due to start on BBC One from Sunday the 21st of March at 9pm.
Superintendent Ted Hastings, Detective Inspector Kate Fleming and Detective Sergeant Steve Arnott will return as AC-12, investigating a brand new, possibly bent copper as played by Kelly Macdonald. Here’s what we know about her and the other new and familiar faces we can expect to see in series six.
Kelly Macdonald – DCI Joanne Davidson
Scottish Black Mirror, Boardwalk Empire and Trainspotting actor Kelly Macdonald will play “the most enigmatic adversary AC-12 have ever faced” according to Line of Duty creator Jed Mercurio. In the official press release, DCI Joanne Davidson is billed as “The senior investigating officer on an unsolved murder case whose suspicious conduct attracts the attention of Anti-Corruption.”
Who’s the murder victim? Did Davidson do it? Is she helping to conceal whoever did? Or could this actually be the first innocent officer AC-12 has investigated? Macdonald is billed as appearing in all seven episodes of the new series.
Shalom Brune-Franklin – DC Chloe Bishop
Since the shock loss of PC Maneet Bindra in series five, there’s been a hole to fill in AC-12, and it looks as though young up-and-comer Detective Constable Chloe Bishop is the one to fill it. Bishop, played by Roadkill and Cursed’s British-Australian actor Shalom Brune-Franklin, is a new recruit to Hastings’ anti-corruption unit who’s “joined AC-12 to help with a tricky upcoming case” between the events of series five and six. She’s also billed as appearing in all seven episodes.
Andi Osho – Gail Vella
Also credited in all seven episodes of series six is actor and stand-up comedian Andi Osho, who’ll be in an as-yet-undisclosed role. A quick rummage through Osho’s online Spotlight CV though, and it seems she’s playing a character called Gail Vella, a name that should ring a bell among the Line of Duty faithful.
In this series six teaser announcing this year’s additional episode, Arnott tells Hastings: “Regardless of the personnel involved, Vella’s still the highest-profile inquiry engaging this force.” So we can expect the I May Destroy You (pictured above) and Curfew actor to have a key role in series six’ main investigation. Vella, fella!
Perry Fitzpatrick – TBC
Recently seen alongside Vicky McClure in Channel 4’s semi-improvised I Am anthology drama series, Perry Fitzpatrick is perhaps best recognised for playing Flip in This Is England, police officer Harper in BBC Three comedy Man Like Mobeen and Roscoe in Channel 5’s Suspects. He and McClure have known each other since they were children and both trained at the Nottingham based Television Workshop drama group. His character, who’s credited for all seven episodes of series six, is yet to be announced.
Prasanna Puwanarajah – TBC
The name of Prasanna’s Puwanarajah’s Line of Duty character hasn’t yet been released, but the of actor-writer-director has a history of collaboration with Jed Mercurio. Puwanarajah appeared in Critical, Mercurio’s 2015 medical drama for Sky, and currently has a project – Sleeper – in development with Mercurio’s production company. Like Mercurio, Puwanarajah also qualified as a doctor and worked in medicine before making the switch to the creative industries. He’s perhaps best known for his roles in Patrick Melrose, Doctor Foster and Defending the Guilty.
Read more
TV
Line Of Duty series 6: release date, cast, plot, episodes and more
By Louisa Mellor
TV
Line of Duty Series 6 Cast: Where Will This Series 5 Character Fit In?
By Louisa Mellor
Michael Yare – DCI John Rix
Irish actor Michael Yare’s highest profile screen role to date was opposite Peter Dinklage in a 2015 Game of Thrones episode, playing a slave trader (pictured above, right). Despite him only being credited as appearing in one episode, Yare’s agent’s website describes his Line of Duty part as “a key role”.
Rosa Escoda – Amanda Yao
A specialist technician in Central Police’s cybercrime unit, fans should er, “definately” remember Rosa Escoda’s character as the person who worked with Superintendent Hastings when he posed in an online chatroom as the leader of the OCG. The Holby City actor appeared in two episodes of series five and is billed as returning for another four Line of Duty series six episodes.
Amy De Bhrún – Steph Corbett
Here’s a surprise. We all assumed that the story of DS John Corbett ended not long after Ryan Pilkington dragged that knife across his throat in series five, but apparently not. Corbett’s widow Stephanie, played by Irish actor Amy De Bhrún, is credited with several appearances in series six. We delve into the Corbett history and what this could mean for series six here. De Bhrún is best known for her role as Jarl Hrolf in Vikings season six, as well as parts in Krypton and Coronation Street.
Nigel Boyle – DCI Ian Buckells
A blast from the past here: Ian Buckells goes all the way back to Line of Duty series one. He has an antagonistic history with AC-12, and with Kate Fleming in particular. Buckells was the senior investigating officer who replaced Tony Gates on the Jackie Laverty murder case when Gates’ relationship with the victim was revealed. He then turned up again in series four as the senior officer replacing Thandie Newton’s Roz Huntley on the Leonie Collersdale and Baswinder Kaur murders. That time, he immediately clocked Kate Fleming as a UCO, and needed to be warned off from exposing her undercover identity by Hastings and Arnott. Interestingly, he’s listed here as a Detective Superintendent rather than a DCI, which would mean he’s risen through the ranks at some pace.
Claire Louise-Cordwell – Leland
Also not listed on IMDb but credited on her agent’s website as reappearing in series six (and strongly hinted at in this Tweet by Jed Mercurio) is Claire Louise-Cordwell (above, left), who played one of the two HMP Brentiss private security company employees who poured boiling water over DI Lindsay Denton’s hands in series two. The Bodyguard actor is expected to return alongside Maria Connolly’s ‘Merchant’ (above, right)– a couple of wrong’uns. Are we going back to Brentiss?
Elizabeth Rider – Deputy Chief Constable Andrea Wise
Not listed on IMDb, Elizabeth Rider is credited with a “2020” role in Line of Duty as DCC Andrea Wise on her online Spotlight acting CV (in addition to a “2018” role, when she appeared in series five). That suggests we’re going to see the return of DCC Wise, the head honcho overseeing the operations of AC-12 and several other departments.
cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });
Line of Duty series six starts at 9pm on Sunday the 21st of March on BBC One and iPlayer.
The post Line of Duty Series 6 Cast: Who are the New Characters and Who’s Coming Back? appeared first on Den of Geek.
from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3e6Osc6
0 notes
Text
Espinoza V. Montana Department of Revenue
By Kayla Blevins, Liberty University, Class of 2020
July 10, 2020
Five years ago,the Montana legislature passed a bill that made it financially easier for families who desire to send their children to private, religious schools. This made religious schools an option for many families (instead of public schools) because it made it more affordable. The tax credits amounted up to $150 a year. The problem is that Montana’s Constitution forbids the government from giving financial aid to religious schools. The Montana legislature knew this law was not in sync with the Montana Constitution, so the state Department of Revenue created Rule 1. Rule 1 prevents families from using the scholarships at only the religious private schools, not the private schools in general. (1) The Montana Department of Revenue is legally responsible for both managing the tax credit and guaranteeing that Rule 1 agrees with the Montana Constitution. (2)
The ACLU sued because they felt it unnecessary to give tax credits to religious schools. The case eventually made its way to the United States Supreme Court. In a ruling of 5-4, the Court surprisingly held the Montana Constitution was infringing upon the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution. It was determined that Article X, Section 6 of the Montana Constitution was illegal because it made it financially difficult for parents to send their children where they wanted to send them. (3)
The ruling is critical because the Court reversed an article in a state constitution instead of changing a newly passed law; plus, it affects whether the government can dictate how financial aid programs relate to religious schools. (4)The Court compared Article X, Section 6 of the Montana Constitution to the Blaine Amendment.(5) The Blaine Amendments forbid the government from using public funds for religious schools. Now because of the Espinoza ruling, any state constitution that contains any form of a Blaine Amendment is subject to a review and a reversal. (6)
The Blaine Amendments were named after Republican Senator James G. Blaine of Maine in 1875. (7) James Blaine proposed these amendments to Congress because the Catholic schools were making efforts to secure better funding for their schools. The Catholics were unhappy with public schools because (back then) they promoted Protestant beliefs such as reading the King James Bible (which is a Protestant Bible).(8) Because the Catholics were unhappy and because many people were Protestant and did not understand Catholic beliefs, anti-Catholicism became so bad to a point where President Grant was concerned about another domestic war that was based on religious differences. (9) Consequently, a movement called “The Know-Nothings” was created and became a powerful political force because they convinced the electorates in several states to adopt laws or constitutional provisions restricting public funding of Catholic schools. (10) However, they used the word “religious” instead of “Catholic.” President Grant compelled Congress to create an amendment that would forbid “religious” schools (Catholic schools) from receiving public funds. James Blaine created the Blaine Amendments, which had an anti-Catholic agenda. But instead of saying that, they worded it differently to hide its anti-Catholic agenda.
Justices’ Opinions
The majority of Justices were the following: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.Chief Justice Roberts, with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurring, mentioned the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer (2017) case. This ruling held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment shields religious institutionsfrommistreatment. (11) Also, any laws targeting a religion solely because they are religious, are subject to strict examination because they are targeting religious organizations. (12) Roberts held that Article X, Section 6 (referred to as the “no-aid provision”) did not have the right to exclude religious schools from receiving the tax credit because it is religious discrimination, “Disqualifying otherwise eligible recipients from a public benefit ‘solely because of their religious character’ imposes ‘a penalty on the free exercise of religion that triggers the most exacting scrutiny.’” (13)
Chief Justice Roberts continued, “To be eligible for government aid under the Montana Constitution, a school must divorce itself from any religious control or affiliation. Placing such a condition on benefits or privileges ‘inevitably deters or discourages the exercise of First Amendment rights.’ The Free Exercise Clause protects against even ‘indirect coercion,’ and a State ‘punishe[s] the free exercise of religion’ by disqualifying the religious from government aid as Montana did here.” (14)
Justice Alito explained that it is imperative to understand the anti-Catholic sentiment in the Blaine Amendments to understand why the majority Justices ruling, “The no-aid provision’s terms keep it ‘[t]ethered’ to its original ‘bias’ and it is not clear at all that the State ‘ confront[ed]’ the provision’s ‘tawdry past in reenacting it.’” (15)
Justice Gorsuch explained that Montana showed religious prejudice against all types of religious beliefs,
The Constitution forbids laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. That guarantee protects not just the right to be a religious person, holding beliefs inwardly and secretly; it also protects the right to act on those beliefs outwardly and publicly. ... So, whether the Montana Constitution is better described as discriminating against religious status or use makes no difference: It is a violation of the right to free exercise either way. ... Calling it discrimination based on religious status or religious activity makes no difference: It is unconstitutional all the same. (16)
Justice Thomas explained the Establishment Clause is currently used by the Court to“[J]ustify the government’s infringement on religious freedom.” (17) Under the modern view, states are wrongfully separated from and silent about religious rights. If the Establishment Clause is understood properly, it does not forbid the states from “favoring” religion. (18) Justice Thomas believes that the current interpretation of the Establishment Clause impedes freedom of religion, "This interpretation of the Establishment Clause operates as a type of content-based restriction on the government. ... Historical evidence suggests that many advocates for this separationist view were originally motivated by hostility toward certain disfavored religions. ... So long as this hostility remains, fostered by our distorted understanding of the Establishment Clause, free exercise rights will continue to suffer.” (19)
Dissenting Opinions
Justices Ginsburg and Kagan disagreed with how Article X, Section 6 violated the First Amendment because they think no violation ever occurred, “The Montana court remedied the state constitutional violation by striking the scholarship program in its entirety. Under that decree, secular and sectarian schools alike are ineligible for benefits, so the decision cannot be said to entail differential treatment based on petitioners’ religion.” (20)
Justice Sotomayor believes the First Amendment rights were in danger of being abused because the Montana Supreme Court struck down the tax credit scholarship program entirely,
Neither differential treatment nor coercion exists here because the Montana Supreme Court invalidated the taxcredit program entirely.Because no secondary school (secular or sectarian) is eligible for benefits, the state court’s ruling neither treats petitioners differently based on religion nor burdens their religious exercise. ...It appears that the Court has declared that once Montana created a tax subsidy, it forfeited the right to eliminate it if doing so would harm religion. ...Without any need or power to do so, the Court appears to require a State to reinstate a tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand in the first place. (21)
Nevertheless, the ruling in Espinoza opens the door for the government to respect the parent’s decisions about what school to put their children in and it supports First Amendment rights. By endorsing families having the public funds to place children in religious schools, the Court also made it possible for any Blaine Amendments in other states to be reversed and remanded.
________________________________________________________________
(1) Ballotpedia, “Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.” Ballotpedia.com. July 6, 2020, https://ballotpedia.org/Espinoza_v._Montana_Department_of_Revenue.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Dick Komer, “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Blaine Amendments.” The Institute for Justice. Jan. 1, 2020. July 6, 2020. https://ij.org/issues/school-choice/blaine-amendments/answers-frequently-asked-questions-blaine-amendments/.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Supreme Court of the U.S., Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, decided June 30. 2020, https://ballotpedia.org/Espinoza_v._Montana_Department_of_Revenue#cite_note-opinion-2.
(12) Ibid.
(13) Ibid.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Ibid.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Ibid.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Ibid.
0 notes
Photo
New Post has been published on https://magzoso.com/tech/placement-is-the-much-needed-talent-agent-for-jobseekers/
Placement is the much-needed talent agent for jobseekers
“We’re giving away money to strangers on the internet” is a pretty cavalier pitch for a new startup. But the more I learned about Placement, the smarter it sounded. In exchange for 10% of your income for 18 to 36 months, Placement will find you a much higher paying job, prep you for the interview and help you move to your new city of employment.
Actors, athletes and musicians have talent agents. Why shouldn’t office workers? That’s co-founder and CEO Sean Linehan’s vision for Placement. The former VP of product at Flexport thinks he can consistently get people a 30% raise on their cost of living-adjusted income if they’re willing to relocate from either their sleepy hometown or an overpriced metropolis.
“We think you can transform your life without becoming an engineer. You just have to be in the right place,” says Linehan. Not everyone is going to learn to code, and Placement isn’t a school. “We’re not in the business of training people to do jobs. We’re in training people to get jobs.”
Placement sits at the lucrative center of a slew of megatrends. People switching jobs more often. The desperate need to pay off crushing student loan debt. The rise of mid-size cities as rent gets out of control in San Francisco and New York. Social apps keeping people in touch from afar. The search for deeper fulfillment going mainstream.
Placement co-founder and CEO Sean Linehan
Through the normalization of income sharing agreements, Placement has found a way to powerfully monetize these societal shifts. That potential has attracted a $3 million seed round led by Founders Fund and backed by Coatue’s new seed fund, XYZ Ventures, The House Fund, plus angels like Flexport CEO Ryan Petersen, Eventbrite founders Julia and Kevin Hartz, DoorDash CEO Tony Xu, 137 Ventures MD Elizabeth Weil and her husband Facebook Calibra VP of Product Kevin.
With the cash to build out its jobseeker’s software toolkit, Placement could grow far beyond the Jerry Maguire-style boutique talent agency into a scalable way to put millions on a better career track. “The number one problem that I see in the American economy right now is the lack of income mobility,” Linehan says. “There are so many services for making rich people get richer, but what about services to help low-income people to get to the middle, or help those in the middle to improve?”
“If I stayed home, there’s just no way”
The CEO’s own rise was “a tried and true American tale,” he tells me. “I grew up in a pretty low-income neighborhood in San Bernardino . . . below the poverty line.” But a chance to attend UC Berkeley brought him to Silicon Valley, and the economic powerhouse city of San Francisco (before the housing crisis made it so expensive). “I don’t think I could have been as successful if I went to another place. If I had stayed in my home town, there’s just no way.”
Yet after college, when friends moved away and he broke up with his girlfriend, Linehan found himself living in a bunkbed by himself with extra space. “I called a friend back home working a minimum wage job, still living at home, and said ‘Your life kinda sucks. Come crash with me!,’ ” Linehan recalls. “He was super smart — smarter than most of the people I went to Berkeley with, but he never got on the train out of town.”
In the following years, Linehan coached his friend through becoming a professional and navigating interviews. “Now he’s tripled his income on a cost of living adjusted basis. He went from minimum wage to $70,000 to $80,000.” That ignited the idea for Placement. “How do you take that process of tapping people who are special and just need economic opportunity, and bring it to more people?” But Linehan needed a co-founder who could execute on getting these up-and-comers jobs.
That’s where Katie Kent came in. Also from the product team at Flexport, Kent had helped start Zipfian Academy as the first data science bootcamp in America. The 12-week crash course had been placing 93% of graduates into full-time roles when Zipfian was acquired by Galvanize, where Kent became director of outcomes with the mandate to get students great jobs. The right idea, experience and the track record of turning Flexport into a $3.2 billion freight forwarding unicorn led investors to jump at the chance to fund Placement.
Share me the money
So how exactly do Placement’s income sharing agreements work? “They only pay us if they make more money on a cost of living adjusted basis” Linehan explains.
First, the startup recruits through targeted advertising and word of mouth referrals, which the company says 100% of clients have provided. Primarily, it’s seeking business professionals with a skill mismatched to their city, such as sales, human resources or operations in a place without companies competing to hire for those roles. They might have never left their hometown or returned after school at a mid-tier college, suppressing their earning potential. But lack of knowledge about jobseeking, fears of leaving their support network or a lack of funds to finance a move keep them stuck there.
“There are two moments when society puts a gentle hand on your shoulder saying its okay to move away: when you go to college and when you graduate college,” says Linehan. “We’re trying to engineer a third moment. We give people the permission and space to have that conversation with their family by providing that forcing function.” Placement serves the same utility the CEO did for his friend, revealing that if they seize the opportunity of moving to a growing but still affordable city like Denver, Austin, Raleigh or Seattle, “people’s lives would be so much better.”
The other demographic Placement seeks is the 10 million-plus workers who’ve gotten in over their heads in some of the country’s priciest cities. “If you’re ambitious and talented but not an engineer in SF, this is a hard life. The costs are exceeding the benefits at this point.” Placement looks for cheaper cities where their skills are still relevant and they might even earn the same or a little less, but they can fetch a huge increase in income on a cost of living-adjusted basis and they have a path to buying a house. Linehan declares that “Our controversial opinion is that more important than reskilling people is getting them to the right place where the work is happening in the first place.”
Placement then evaluates the prospective client in what is currently an extremely selective process to determine if they’re undervalued based on their skills, qualifications, shortfalls and redflags. If they’re already being adequately or overpaid, it won’t accept them. Those eligible are offered access to Placement’s research on all the optimal salary and location/hirer pairs for their role, which most people wouldn’t or couldn’t do themselves. Linehan says, “We run their job search for them. We’re kind of like a concierge.”
Once they’ve selected some targets, Placement quarterbacks their preparation process, helping them to improve their LinkedIn and resume, practice telling their story and offering mock interviews with experts in their field. As they progress through interviews Placement sets up and requires hirers offer remotely, it teaches clients to negotiate to get their best possible compensation.
“If you’re a normal person who didn’t go to an elite institution or are a couple years out of school, there’s no resources,” Linehan laments. While some top coding schools and other bootcamps place graduates, and some startups like Pathrise are also working on interview prep, most seeking a new employer end up relying on mediocre job hunting tips they find online. That’s in part because it was hard to get people to fork over significant cash in exchange for instruction that wasn’t guaranteed to help.
How Placement income sharing agreements work
The Placement income sharing agreement is designed to align incentives, though. It’s vested in getting clients not only the best job and salary, but one they’ll want to stick with. As long as the startup nets them a higher adjusted income, clients pay 10% of their earnings. That lasts for 18 months, or 36 months if they receive Placement’s $5,000 relocation stipend and human support. There are also caps on the total Placement can get paid back, and the agreement dissolves after five years so clients aren’t locked in if things don’t work out.
For example, Placement aims to help someone earning $40,000 per year pre-taxes reach $52,000 on a cost of living adjusted basis. They’d end up paying Placement $7,794 over the course of 18 months, or $433 per month. After the bill, they’d still be earning $3,900 per month, or $567 more than they used to. If they take the $5,000 relocation stipend and extra assistance, their ISA extends to 36 months and they’ll end up paying back $15,588 total, including the stipend.
Clients are likely to keep growing their compensation after their Placement ISA ends, so they’ll start reaping all the added proceeds. The startup has worked with fewer than 1,000 clients to date, but is supposedly growing quickly.
Eventually, Placement could move into working with programmers and designers, but it sees a big gap in assistance for business roles. Linehan notes that “We’re providing an option that will be available to a lot more people than a Lambda School or Galvanize coding bootcamp. Not everyone’s going to be software engineers.”
Making America anti-fragile
The biggest hurdle for Placement will be scaling what can be quite a hands-on, relationship-driven process of matching clients with the right hirers. “It’s one thing to get one person a job. It’s another to get 10,000 people a job,” Linehan admits. But he conquered the same problem at Flexport, which was moving 1,000 shipping containers across the ocean but had to figure out “how the hell do you move 1 million?”
Placement co-founders (from left): Katie Kent and Sean Linehan
That requires Placement to pour product know-how into building tools that equip clients to take more initiative to match themselves with hirers and teach themselves interview skills. It also must automate more of its marketing outreach, client screening and connections to recruiters while retaining a human element worth a four to five-figure price.
Right now, the startup’s team numbers just four, and though it will expand to seven soon, it may need to raise a bunch more to chase this dream. Some investors have been understandably skeptical about the whole “handing out $5,000” model without onerous ISAs.
For comparison, the one-year MissionU school for business and data jobs that was acquired and shut down by WeWork asked for 15% of income for three years without a relocation stipend, or $23,400 on a $52,000 per year job. ISAs for General Assembly’s tech job education cost 10% for 48 months, even if students don’t earn more than in their old job. Pathrise’s slimmer offering costs just 7% for one year. Colleges are jumping on the trend too, with some working with startup Leif to run their ISAs.
Placement has plans to cover prickly edge cases. If someone gets laid off from their new job, the startup will help them find another. “We’re on the hook to make sure they’re successful,” Linehan insists. It only won’t step in if an employee is fired for an ethical problem like sexual harassment or committing fraud. And if someone simply gets lonely in their unfamiliar city, they’re not required to stay, though moving home could hurt their earnings and Placement’s take. That’s why the startup is working to help its clients find community, even amongst each other, so they don’t feel isolated, and prefers sending workers to cities where they know someone.
Meanwhile, Placement must resist the temptation to become a hiring agency paid by employers and instead work fully on behalf of its clients. “When you’re aligned economically with the employer, you’re just chasing dollars from bigger and bigger whales of companies, and at one point you figure out you’re a recruiting firm for the Gap,” Linehan says with a shudder. The complexity of dealing with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is enough hassle, so Placement doesn’t intend to work with jobseekers abroad or those that need visas, as “it’s not good for startups if you’re at the mercy of the government.”
Luckily, U.S. salaries total $8.6 trillion per year, Linehan claims, so it’s got enough of a domestic market. “The American economy is so huge that I don’t see other people tackling problems like that being competitive.” Placement does have potential to use its data to recommend and teach specific skills. “If you just make this change, if you learn Excel, you could totally get this job in a different industry that pays more and that you’ll like more,” Linehan says. He also dreams of one day improving urban planning by suggesting cities build music venues or parks that jobseekers say would soften the landing of moving there.
Zooming out, there’s also chance for Placement make the country more stable and resistant to strong-man populism promising financial security. “A two-tier society is fragile. I don’t want to live in a democracy where there’s a bunch of hay waiting for a matchstick to set it on fire,” Linehan concludes. “There doesn’t have to be a have and a have-not class, and you don’t need the government to do forced redistribituion to make everything fair. You just need people that care about getting on the right track, and that to me is a worthy cause to dedicate a life to.”
0 notes
Text
10 Justifiably Discontinued Cars (and 10 SUVs We’d Love to See Back)
It’s Never Nice to See a Car Go – Unless it’s Garbage, Of Course
Every year, automakers are faced with the decision as to which models will be built during the upcoming model years. A lot of things go into such decisions, but profitability and sales volume are huge determiners. If a vehicle isn’t performing well enough in its market and re-styling won’t save it, it’s bound to find itself in the company of countless discontinued cars which grows year in – year out.
It’s an annual dance that automotive manufacturers go through trying to determine what in their lineup will yield the most profit and what is dragging them down. Actually it’s not even that clear cut.
The ultimate objective is to maximize profit and the easiest part of that is to dump a dog. However there are riskier decisions that may involve discontinuing a solid performer in order to promote a newcomer with great potential or dropping an up and comer from the brand altogether to give it a chance to stand on its own. These are mega dollar decisions and the reason for so many empty Maalox bottles in the executive suites.
But, what does that mean for the average consumer? Usually, it means that the models to be discontinued will be discounted. Dealers will be having fire sales to clear their lots and make room for new inventory. The later in the calendar year, the steeper the discounts will become.
First off, we’ll start with a list of long or recently discontinued SUVs that most people would like to see back, and then we’ll move on to some relatively recently discontinued cars, trucks, and SUVs that we might see again after a while or might not see ever again depending on myriad of factors.
10 Discontinued SUVs Everyone Wants to See Back
Reuters and other sources have suggested that Ford, for instance, sees U.S. car market’s future stacked with SUVs. According to them, SUVs will amount to 40 percent of the entire market by 2020, and they see it as perfect opportunity to expand their SUV portfolio.
Of course, first thing that comes to mind when crossing Blue Oval and SUV is the good old Bronco. It really didn’t take a genius to put two and two together and figure out this was the prime time to do so. But, while the iconic nameplate is getting ready to rise and shine again, others aren’t as lucky.
Considering how SUVs seem to be the future of the car markets for foreseeable time, it’s a no-brainer to take a look at some iconic SUV nameplates that were either discontinued a long time ago or relatively recently. Some of them exhibit a serious potential for making a comeback soon (some have already been announced), while others are just wishful thinking but who knows what the future might bring.
10. Hummer
Let us start with one of the more obvious choices. H1, H2, H3 -it doesn’t really matter. All three generations of the Hummer were highly sturdy and capable, and more or less intertwined. One didn’t simply end for another to take swing. The Hummer H1 was available since 1992 and the H3 bowed down in 2010 after the global recession did its part.
This is one of the reasons the Hummer was so special. But everyone that knows about these cumbersome beasts, also knows that they used to offer much more than simply special. Plus, since global recession is more or less behind us, there are no more genuine reasons for them not to be produced.
09. Mitsubishi Pajero
The current Mitsubishi SUV lineup (or Mitsubishi lineup in general) is nowhere near that from 10 or 20 years ago. They are, however, heading in green direction at least – I’ll give them that.
Regardless, the Mitsubishi Pajero (badged as Montero in the States) is still regarded as one of the best vehicles that Japanese manufacturer has managed to assemble. Of course, the Montero had been gone from the U.S. for over a decade now (being discontinued in 2006), but we haven’t forgotten it. Have you?
The Pajero is still alive overseas where it’s still selling better than it ever did in the U.S. Incidentally, low sales (1,609 units in 2006 compared to 24,802 units in 2001) were exactly the reason for its discontinuation.
08. Land Rover Defender
It’s unrealistic to expect the Land Rover returning to their roots with the Defender, but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t like that. It wasn’t that long they discontinued it, but let’s face it – newer models weren’t the true Defenders for years now anyway.
Their current lineup of SUVs is highly capable and correspondingly luxurious, and there’s simply no place for a bare-bone SUV of old. But, imagine if they actually made one. Of course, it would have been stacked with all the necessary tech, but it wouldn’t have to be as plush as the others. That would help lowering the cost one has to pay in order to drive a Landy. It’s a win win situation in my book.
The next-gen Defender has been announced for model year 2020 and, more importantly, will finally again be available stateside. How the old school sturdiness and new age technology fuse in it, remains to be seen. The last time Defender was available on the U.S. market, Bill Clinton was still in the office. Its short stint on the U.S. market (between 1993 and 1997) was cut due to low profitability.
07. Nissan Xterra
It’s only been a few years without the Nissan Xterra in the markets, but people looking for extreme sturdiness and reliability (at relatively affordable prices) are already missing that SUV. Most of its current or former owners will attest to its indestructibility and capability alike, and there were many who bought it between 1999 and 2015.
Xterra, however, was simply outdated in 2015 when it finally got the axe and that severely affected its sales. It’s not the only Nissan’s vehicle to suffer from the same negligence, but while the Frontier still soldiers on, the SUV is now gone. Given the fact SUV craze is still in its full swing (or yet to take the full swing), we wouldn’t be surprised to see it return. And we certainly wouldn’t mind.
06. Jeep Wagoneer
The Jeep Wagoneer rumors aren’t that scarce or strange. They have been circulating for a while now, and they make sense. Jeep still lacks the true flagship three-row SUV, and the new Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer would be the perfect choice to fill that slot.
Of course, it would probably look much different than we remember it, but the nameplate is what matters. That and exterior wooden panels. Of course, the latter has very slim chance of returning, but it’s our right to dream, isn’t it? The Wagoneer first appeared in 1963 and finally got retired in 1991, making it the longest-running domestic vehicle to be built on the same platform. Being a gas-guzzler (11 mpg combined) during the Gulf War oil shock is the main reason behind its discontinuation.
Although still not official, the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer nameplates have been confirmed for a comeback sometime beyond 2020. That’s great news indeed, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
05. Willys Jeep CJ
It’s been a while since this one was discontinued, but it’s impossible to forget an icon, and Willys Jeep certainly was one. A 42 year long stint of production between 1944 and 1986 only bolsters that statement. Jeep finally discontinued the offspring of the WWII veteran in order to make way for a more contemporary YJ Wrangler.
Of course, it’s impossible to expect the old school bare-boned SUV in a modern era where safety regulations play such an important role. Still, if Wrangler manages, why wouldn’t one slightly rougher version do the same? Moreover, there’s some empty space in Jeep’s portfolio since the Patriot has been discontinued and the Compass might not be long for this world.
04. Chevrolet Blazer
Also known as GMC Jimmy, the Chevy Blazer is one of the best known U.S.-made SUVs to date. Sadly, it hasn’t been around for quite some time. The Blazer first appeared in 1969 and finally got axed in 1995 when it was renamed Tahoe. It was simply a victim of a new corporate strategy which is an anti-climactic end for such a beloved nameplate.
Of course, we now have the Chevy Tahoe and the GMC Yukon, but the second generation Blazer which lasted for almost 20 years is still sorely missed. The Blazer simply had that X factor which its successors lack. It’s similar with Blue Oval’s Bronco and Expedition comparison.
Now, I know that Blazer has made its comeback for MY 2019, but that’s not the Blazer I was referring to above. The new model might be sporty and plushy, but aside from name, doesn’t have anything to do with its iconic predecessor.
03. Toyota FJ Cruiser
Yet again, a car which was axed not so long ago. The Toyota FJ cruiser retired in 2014 (2016 overseas), and left Wrangler as the only rugged, old school off-road SUV on the U.S. market (until the new Bronco finally arrives, that is). Slow sales which never recuperated after the global recession of 2008-09 were the main reason for its discontinuation.
The Japanese are still selling Land Cruisers, but they simply can’t be compared with the compact FJ Cruiser. The FJ had that X factor. That something that made it special. Maybe it were the circular headlamps, or the overall boxy appearance, but I sure wish it was still here.
02. GMC Typhoon
The GMC Typhoon was always different than the rest of SUVs marketed at the time. Two year long production (between 1991 and 1993) and fewer than 5,000 units produced wasn’t exactly the lifespan you’d wish to a car, but the Typhoon was actually meant to be limited. Being a special-edition vehicle, the Typhoon’s life was naturally short and there were no particular reasons for its discontinuation other than that.
It was a performer, and performance-oriented SUVs weren’t really a thing back in early nineties. They are becoming that now, and GMC has something to think about. It’s an expensive process introducing a new SUV to the market – especially a performance-oriented one – but at least they have the name standing ready.
01. Bronco
Considering all the fuss surrounding it, the Bronco is arguably the most wanted comeback vehicle out there. The Expedition is nice and tough, but the Bronco nameplate has some backbone to it that rarely any other SUV nameplate has. Whether it’s the compact models (1965 to 1977) or full-size units (1977 to 1996), the Broncos were highly appreciated among the U.S. buyers. It was a sad day when the Bronco was finally discontinued in favor of a 4-door Expedition which was Blue Oval’s answer to competition – mainly that from GM.
Ford doesn’t have to sell it in white if that’s their problem with the car, but showing some love would be appreciated by everyone – especially by buyers. Come to think of it, a white-exclusive OJ Edition wouldn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing. Just saying.
Anyway, that was my state of mind a few years back and now that the Bronco is finally making a comeback, there’s a sense of nervousness permeating the air around it. What if they screw it up?! Hopefully, the new Bronco will be a different sort of SUV than the new Blazer.
Relatively Recently Discontinued Cars We Might or Might Not See Again
Let’s now focus on some recently discontinued models that we probably won’t be seeing ever again. Some of them, however, have already had a similar stint so not all is lost in their cases. So, say your goodbyes to the ones that are gone and say your prayers for the ones that still might appear.
Volkswagen Touareg
The Volkswagen Touareg was introduced for the 2004 model year. It arrived on an early wave of the craze for upscale crossovers. The Touareg is sportier and more luxurious than most mainstream SUVs, but doesn’t really standout from the other upscale models.
Unfortunately for the Touareg’s future, the added luxury priced it out of many buyers’ range. VW is not going to abandon the segment altogether, though. The company is introducing the Atlas for 2018. The Atlas is being manufactured in North America and is more affordably priced than the Touareg.
While we probably won’t be seeing Touareg in the U.S. any more, it needs to be noted that the nameplate is still very much alive in the rest of the World.
Buick Verano
The life of the Buick Verano has been short (less than 5 years). The first Veranos hit dealerships for the 2012 model year. True to the basic nature of Buick, the Verano was a very comfortable entry-level luxury sedan.
The Verano, unfortunately, is but one victim of the ever-changing tastes of car buyers. Small car sales are down across the North American market. Instead of offering another sedan, Buick plans to fill the niche with the Encore compact crossover SUV, a model that is already popular among buyers and made its debut alongside the now-discontinued sedan back in 2012.
It’s also worth mentioning that the Verano name is still very much active in China.
Chevrolet SS
The Chevy SS is another car with a short life span. Introduced in 2014, the full-size SS crossed the ocean from Australia. GM subsidiary Holden designed the SS as a sporty rear-wheel-drive alternative to the Impala.
The SS offered 415 hp and 415 lb-ft of torque and was fun drive in spite of its size. Sadly, it wasn’t marketed particularly well. Very few people even knew of its existence, let alone wanted to pay the $50,000 sticker price.
Around 13,000 units have been sold over almost five years of sleeper’s tenure on the market. Still, if there was any car that deserved to remain being offered as a niche vehicle, this would be the one. In Australia, the Holden Commodore SS was downsized and is still being offered (continually since 1978).
Volkswagen CC
Introduced in 2009, the Volkswagen CC was a stylish and well-equipped entry-level luxury sedan. Despite its wide array of equipment and solid dependability, the four-door CC was also VW’s lowest-volume car.
Sales started declining rapidly after 2011 and never showed any signs of recuperating, hence the upscale sedan was axed in 2017. They were actually so bad that, at one point, VW sold 40 Jettas for every CC that left a dealer’s lot. VW remains hopeful that it can gain a foothold in the near-luxury four-door market, however.
The Germans will be replacing the CC with the Arteon, but even that business didn’t go down without complications as the new car missed its intended U.S. market train due to complications with emissions testings.
Chrysler 200
All that can be said about the demise of the Chrysler 200 is: “it was about time!” This lackluster replacement for the equally lackluster Chrysler Sebring has needed to be axed since its inception in 2011. This finally happened in 2017.
Sales were decent, but many owners and potential buyers felt the cheap feeling interior and boring styling were disappointing. The sedan segment was just too crowded for poor styling and cheap interiors. Fiat Chrysler had the common sense to put this donkey to bed and add production capability to meet demands for its truck and SUV lines.
However, this move has left the Chrysler lineup seriously shallow with only the Pacifica minivan and the 300 sedan still on the books.
Smart Fortwo
Mercedes-Benz dabbled in the small economy car niche with the Smart Fortwo. These strange-looking cars hit the roads in 2008 and immediately began disappointing buyers. Tiny, unstable-looking, and short on fuel economy, the Smart Fortwo proved to be short on smart and barely able to fit two.
Mercedes-Benz has decided to drop the gasoline versions after the 2017 model year, but will keep the Electric Drive version. Maybe as an all-electric, this urban crawler will finally find its niche. On the other hand, it’ll require some serious progression in terms of its own electric technology if it’s to avoid the gasoline model’s fate.
Infiniti QX70
When the Infiniti QX70 hit the market in 2003 as the Infiniti FX, sales went wild. The QX70 was a radically curvaceous temptress when everything around her was boxy and staid. Unfortunately, sales have been sagging since the 2005 model year and the mid-size luxury SUV was finally dropped in 2018.
To be fair, there was a bit of an economic downturn between 2008 and 2012 to contend with, but sales have never hit an uptick. Infiniti is replacing the QX70 with a totally restyled QX50. With the crossover and SUV fever that has been sweeping the globe for several years, we may be seeing a retooled version of the QX70 in the not-too-distant future.
Dodge Viper
The loss of the Dodge Viper is the saddest thing we have ever had to type. Chrysler introduced the Dodge Viper in 1992 when its lineup contained more junk than a scrap yard. The only thing Chrysler was selling in 1992 were minivans and a few boxy, underwhelming cars. Then, all of a sudden and completely out of nowhere, the V10 Viper hit the pavement.
Buyers started to get excited about a Chrysler product for the first time in decades. Unfortunately, profits per unit have always been minimal. Fiat Chrysler is in need of every dollar of profit possible, so the Viper is being axed.
Even worse, there are no plans to replace it with another car of note and it’s already been a while since the FCA discontinued the Viper in 2017. So with that, we say goodbye to one of the most iconic American sports cars to date. Of all the cars to be discontinued in recent years, this one definitely breaks our hearts the most.
Jeep Patriot
The Jeep Patriot and the Jeep Compass debuted side-by-side as part of the 2007 model year lineup. The Patriot has stuck around for a decade with very few changes or upgrades. Tired and dated are about the only things that can be said about it. It was finally dropped in 2017 in order to make way fro the new Renegade.
When it debuted, the Patriot was the only compact crossover that sported bona fide off-road skills when equipped with the “Trail Rated” 4×4 system. Jeep has made a terrible waste of a potential sales monster by allowing it to lament in near stagnation. Oh, about the Jeep Compass…it gets a major redesign and a fresh marketing campaign to ensure its continued success.
Cadillac ELR
Just because your badge is upscale does not mean you can take a low end vehicle, dress it up, slap a badge on it and make it an upscale vehicle that people will buy. Unfortunately that’s what Cadillac did with its version of the Chevy Volt (remember Cimarron?).
Not only was the all-electric poorly conceived, it was also launched when Tesla introduced its spectacularly successful Model S. The $75,000 price tag for the ELR put a real blanket on potential sales. On the plus side, so few were manufactured that they may become a collectible based on rarity.
The ELR was only available between 2014 and 2016 and the company managed to sell close to 3,000 units during that time.
FCA Dodge Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country
Soccer Moms and car pool drivers are going to have to find another mode of transport when their existing Caravans and Town & Country vans need to be replaced. These seven passenger minivans with not so great fuel efficiency are the victims of a general reduction in demand and FCA’s shrinking share of the market that is there.
The hope was that the redesigned Chrysler Pacifica will fill the minivan needs of both Dodge and Chrysler customers and so far the Pacifica has delivered.
Dodge versions, as you remember, debuted back in late 1983 and are still being sold for the time being, while the Chrysler Town & Country arrived in late 1989 and disappeared in 2016.
And so ends our list of inglorious discontinued cars from recent years. We bid a fond adieu to a couple and wonder why a few others aren’t listed as well? Oh well, something to look forward to in coming years! Speaking of which, this list will be constantly updated with new discontinued models so don’t forget to check back and reminisce about them.
0 notes
Text
Responding to the Green New Deal: Don’t Stop Short
In the forthcoming cover story of National Review magazine, Travis Kavulla, energy director of the R Street Institute, offers advice to Republicans on how to respond to the Green New Deal. “What is the Green New Deal” is interesting for what is said and not said given R Street’s controversial mission to foist a carbon tax on the U.S. economy.
Most of his 1,900-word article is what a conservative or libertarian should say about the 10-year forced energy transformation, social justice scheme. It is extremely unrealistic (“outlandish,” says Kavulla), invites rank cronyism (Solyndra is mentioned), and is a vehicle for remaking society, not only the energy economy.
Kavulla also notes the civil war within the Democrat Party on climate/energy policy—one that, he should have added, calls the alarmists’ bluff of now-or-never forced energy transformation for a livable climate.
Public Utility Regulation Perverted
A public utility expert, Kavulla recognizes the debasing of state regulation of electricity where consumer-minded “just and reasonable” ratemaking has been usurped by the climate issue.
“[T]he energy marketplace consists mostly of local monopolies and other very large companies,” he begins. “They await any policy proposal, not scared of the prospect of new programs and regulations so much as they are eager to co-opt them.” Kavulla continues:
They have captive customers, so they have no great reason to worry about the price effect of government policies. Indeed, many of the most lucrative utilities have seen mini–Green New Deals emerge in states where they operate.
Politicization is rampant:
A green coalition emerges demanding more clean energy and less coal- and natural-gas-fired electricity generation. Politicians endorse it. The bumper-sticker message — e.g., “80 percent renewables by 2040” — polls well enough that the utilities think it will pass.
Rent-seekers win:
[Utilities] bargain with environmentalist groups to present a legislative package to retire fossil-fuel assets and embark on a renewables spending bonanza, usually financed by surcharges on customer bills. This core bargain then becomes a platform for all comers to insert their asks: labor unions, electric-vehicle advocates, technology-development firms looking for a carve-out, and local governments that want investments earmarked to them. The price tag grows, and all of the costs end up flowing through the rates that government regulators permit utilities to charge their customers.
Sad, indeed. And for Kavulla’s analysis, so far so good, twelve hundred words in.
Getting Off Track
Kavulla then calls for Republicans to come up with an alternative to a federal Green New Deal—but not before he gets in some sharp digs at National Review’s conservative audience. He singles out the Republican “skeptical camp,” for “all too often it traffics in an explicitly anti-clean-energy message, raving about climate science, the shadow flicker of wind farms, and the electromagnetic field of smart meters.”
This is unfair on all four counts—and at odds with R Street’s stated “mission to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government.” In fact, the case against climate alarmism and CO2 rationing is much more sophisticated.
The “anti-clean-energy message” is really about the pronounced negative effects of industrial wind turbines and industrial-scale solar installations versus dense mineral energies with a far less ecological footprint.
“Raving about climate science” is the quite justified calling-out of climate alarmism for its falsified exaggerations and neglect of natural forcing (reference Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.). Global lukewarming is the middle ground in this debate.
The “shadow flicker of wind farms” is a nuisance, but noise issues are the elephant in the room. There is traditional noise (watch this video from the Texas Public Policy Foundation) as well as the more subtle infra- and low-frequency noise that have prompted new guidelines from the World Health Organization for turbine siting.
The “the electromagnetic field of smart meters” is an obscure argument. Penny wise and pound foolish “smart” meters are imposed on captives by utilities as new rate base upon which profit margins apply.
To rebut conservatives’ alleged “raving about climate science,” Kavulla resorts to a non-sequitur:
The atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has not been higher since the dawn of human civilization than it is today. No debate about the niceties of climate science can eclipse this basic fact. It is prudent to encourage the development of power plants that emit no greenhouse gases, or less of them.
He does not use the word carbon dioxide, which is not a criteria pollutant but a greening agent with known benefits, as meticulously documented by the CO2 Coalition. The fact that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are historically high (thank you, industrialization!) does not translate into a need for government mitigation policy. If anything, climate change (natural or anthropogenic) is an argument for no-regrets free-market adaptation in a fossil-fuel world.
Customer Empowerment Act
The good news is that Kavulla does not advocate, or even mention, a carbon tax as an alternative to a Green New Deal. Instead, he pitches “a more persuasive and elegant response to the Green New Dealers than what many Republicans have been pitching”—retail customer choice based on mandatory open access (MOA), wholly available in 13 states and partly so in 12 states. In his words:
Democrats have said that consumers are demanding clean energy. They then have demanded massive government programs to invest in it — or to co-opt monopolies to do it for them. Why not instead, if consumers are demanding clean energy, adopt policies that would make it easier for them to get it through their own choices?
Kavulla’s Customer Empowerment Act would universalize MOA. In fact, this is exactly what Enron was pushing in the 1990s as an alternative to the utilities’ “green pricing” programs: Let environmentally minded customers choose to pay a higher rate for more expensive, upgraded (intermittent) renewable energy.
Kavulla’s proposal can be censured by property rights advocates as infrastructure socialism. But assuming MOA, the outsized subsidies to wind and solar should be removed to level the playing field, for starters. Facing real rates, corporations and other buyers would change their minds in some if not many cases. And if these decision-makers actually visited a wind turbine and spoke to local residents, the “greenness” of industrial wind might go away completely. Solar has its own issues. Michael Shellenberger’s “Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet” should be required reading for policy makers and business leaders interested in the energy/climate debate.
Conclusion
The subtitle of Kavulla’s essay is, “Consumers should come first in the GOP’s climate policies.” They should, which rules out a carbon tax and the international tariffs that would come with it. Special subsidies to wind, solar, nuclear, ethanol, and electric vehicles should be ended as well to create a taxpayer-neutral playing field.
But more than this, “free market” R Street should question the premises behind the Green New Deal, including exaggerated claims about future climate change. Motivations, not only coercive energy proposals, are in play.
The post Responding to the Green New Deal: Don’t Stop Short appeared first on IER.
from Raymond Castleberry Blog http://raymondcastleberry.blogspot.com/2019/03/responding-to-green-new-deal-dont-stop.html
via IFTTT
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
lijicavox
Untitled
seriously-susan-blog
Seriously Susan
meiringame
明凜学園ゲームサークル
racoon-in-ass
Racoon.in.ass
overtheimaginationwall
Over The Imagination Wall