If it stays in the media, hopefully he will become a pariah. Roberts still holds on to this idea that his court should be seen as legitimate and respected, and Thomas is undermining that more than anyone.
Isn’t that the dream for a capitalist! Labor that sleeps at work. Google takes it a step further and asks employees to pay for being able to sleep at work.
The score is just soulless “lo-fi beats” type of music played all over the grounds to avoid any one person ever having to sit alone with just their thoughts as background noise.
Almost every pregnancy has “complications” The judge is trying to dance around the subject. The fact is you can’t effectively ban abortion. Cave women figured it out, so banning modern women is just virtue signaling to the uneducated religious people. All these laws just remove the safety of abortion. Women with money will just travel, women with out will resort to turkey basters and chemicals, or we’ll see a drastic increase in dumpster babies. If you want to stop abortion sex education and free birth control, as hundreds of other life improvement maneuvers will stop abortion.
the fact that google is charging employees more than motels on the side of the road is surprising, 99 a night is still about 3k a month. granted i know its for temporary until the employee can relocate but, not much of an incentive.
Did he really expect that only a dozen people will attend? You do this kind of “event” in a secure place or just online. He did nothing wrong I’ll give you that, but he did do something incredibly stupid.
This is unfortunately really common in East-Asia. Samsung employees live in Samsung apartments, ride the Samsung metro to work, pay for things with their Samsung wallet, while they listen to Samsung controlled news. Google would love to become the Samsung of the West.
Where does Samsung’s money come from? Like all corporations it comes from extracting the value of its laborers. If you’re working for Samsung, you are paying for the Samsung services, even if it’s not directly apparent.
After a three-day trial in Monroe, jurors found Brown not guilty of depriving Aaron Bowman of his civil rights during a 2019 beating that left Bowman with a broken jaw, broken ribs and a gash to his head.
The acquittal comes as federal prosecutors are still scrutinizing other Louisiana state troopers caught on body-camera video punching, stunning and dragging another Black motorist, Ronald Greene, before he died in their custody on a rural roadside. That federal probe is also examining whether police brass obstructed justice to protect the troopers who beat Greene following a high-speed chase.
The lawyers on both sides have influence on who gets into the jury. If the jury had such an overwhelming bias, then the lawyers are to blame…. As always
You can’t exclude your way to having a representative jury. If the opposing side strikes all/most of the black people, none of your strike choices can make the jury more black.
There are no comprehensive statistics on how often prosecutors strike jurors based on race, but there is little doubt that the practice remains common, especially in the South. In Caddo Parish, Louisiana, prosecutors struck forty-eight per cent of qualified black jurors between 1997 and 2009 and only fourteen per cent of qualified whites, according to a review by the Louisiana Capital Assistance Center. In Jefferson Parish, where a quarter of the population is black, the split was even greater—fifty-five per cent to sixteen per cent—so that twenty-two per cent of felony trials between 1994 and 2002 had no black jurors.
Your original statement was that the lawyers on both sides have influence. Which they do, but only one side is responsible for all white juries. It’s not a failure of the other side for allowing that to happen.
Bob Brown, the former chief of staff, was disciplined for displaying a Confederate flag in his office and admitted the n-word was part of his vocabulary.
This wasn’t a civil case. This was a criminal case. Depriving someone of their civil rights is a federal crime. The officer was prosecuted by Brandon Brown.
U.S. Attorney Brandon Brown, who is not related to Jacob Brown, told AP he was proud of the 48-year-old Bowman for having the courage to tell his story.
“These cases are arguably the toughest that we investigate and prosecute,” he said. “We believe that this victim’s civil rights were violated. Unfortunately for us the jury didn’t agree, and we’ll have to respect their decision.”
You take the officer to civil court, win, take that win and use it for a public interest appeal, win be vindicated. The prosecutor doesn’t take part in the next step homie.
There are confirmation hearings and supposed investigations before these judges were appointed. Whoever did the investigation failed and should be fired as well as their bosses.
This is the root of the problems with housing. We stopped building cities the way cities were built for thousands of years to try a new method. Even after proving that method costs more, uses more land, and is socially isolating, that method is promoted.
I personally think corporate greed helps keep it this way as this type of development promotes more spending. You have to buy a car, gas, insurance and you have to use it to get anywhere. This lets those “I’m already here so I’ll get this” or “I dont wanna drive again so ill buy more” mindsets flourish. Single family homes often leads to everyone owning a lot of stuff as well, private pool, private lawn equipment, private playground for your kid to play alone.
Developer greed also plays a role as buildings are built to be the most profitable, not the most useful, even most new SFH developments are massive, luxury homes. Developers won’t build smaller, affordable homes because they get less money per square foot of developable land.
I don’t think the “corporate greed” argument is that relevant here, not having to buy all of those things means someone has more disposable income, so spending I don’t think really changes, it’s just you spend less on necessities and more on “fun stuff” so to speak. There’s not much imperial evidence to support it either way, and most of the opposition to zoning reform comes from NIMBys who are scared of any changes in the neighborhood and maybe a little bigoted.
Speaking of which - developers: They have good reason to support denser housing, they’ll get higher returns on selling more houses or apartments on the same land. The reason houses are built huge and expensive is that zoning laws specify large minimum lot sizes, forcing developers to sell what few homes they can build for higher prices. Single family zoning creates artificial scarcity (again mostly out of bigotry and paranoia). If developers weee given more freedom to build what they want, it would be most economical for them to build transit-oriented rowhouse developments. This was standard practice a century ago, but since then it’s mostly been banned.
Unfortunately, the political climate favours corporations over public opinion, so corporations have the real power to change our policies. I doubt they would want anything that helps local busniesses thrive (like density and transit) and reduces our dependancy on products like gasoline, cars, and bulk processed foods. Building in a way that the only convenient option is to drive to whatever strip mall is close to you ensures that the corporations in the strip malls and big auto/oil still get your money while they are subsidized by cities/governments.
This seems rather conspiratorial in my opinion, though it’s probably true in a few cases, I doubt it’s the majority. I think a lot of the pushback is from older people who are resistant to the idea for a variety of reasons, and they also happen to be more civically active in a number of places.
I see far more evidence do the latter than the former.
Ditto on pushback coming from private citizens rather than big corporations. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, NIMBYs in my neighborhood killing a proposed denser construction project. The “greedy” development firm wanted to build, the NIMBYs killed it. The article itself even mentions this, this is democracy doing its thing:
Homeowners wielded huge political influence to block any changes they believed could hurt their property values.
Blaming corporate greed is a stupid take. If only we relax NIMBY zoning laws, then the “corporate greed” of developers would automatically incentivize them to build all the dense housing we need (they are in fact very happy to build denser smaller lots if allowed to, contrary to what fire retardant claims), and finally start increasing the supply of housing in order to lower market price.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.