hawkeagleraven.bsky.social
Winged things.
151 posts
20,290 followers
20,193 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
The ants are your friend.
comment in response to
post
For those who don't know, it's "A sml grp of people having control of a country or institution." One indication this regime is an oligarchy: CEOs standing on the inaugural stage. Another: unelected billionaire w/unfettered access to govt systems, law enforcement and citizens' private info.
comment in response to
post
The outrageously petty exemption from ordinary patriotic duty?
comment in response to
post
www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-t...
comment in response to
post
Beauty!
comment in response to
post
It undermines labor power and lowers costs. And they are insulated from any real harm. They also tend to get a lot of concessions from govt to ‘keep the factories running.’ So, yah, recession = party! Morbid Capitalism.
comment in response to
post
The variant: Morbid Capitalism is also nice.
comment in response to
post
He invents, and rehearses, arguments as air cover for the ways in which he plans to extort. On almost everything. If he was serious about the tariffs as a matter of ideology, he'd plan and execute them like a serious person.
comment in response to
post
Dulled by fear and (not to be redundant but) greed.
comment in response to
post
I, for one, would not be sad about that.
comment in response to
post
They very likely won't.
comment in response to
post
Stand with your back to him. Don't give up your place; occupy your place, but give him your back.
comment in response to
post
Oy.
comment in response to
post
Wait. They named it after a WWI Corporal?
comment in response to
post
Just bear in mind that the creatures on offense are the same creatures who are on defense.
comment in response to
post
Spot on.
comment in response to
post
We're in a bad place; no two ways about it. But history does show over and over that events need to be lived; they don't arrive outcome-first. Fighting matters.
My point is that it'd help if people with big reach could focus on pushing for leadership, actions, solutions rather than doomcasting.
comment in response to
post
Respectfully, I think we've hit the limit for the usefulness of such posts. To the extent any of this is written in stone -- which is highly debatable -- we know it. But even if we didn't, the question is what to do about it. On that, we're lacking leadership.
comment in response to
post
I hear ya. There are far less expensive ways to toss Putin a bone, though. No doubt they’d make the most of it, but I’m still not convinced that outcome is what anyone wanted.
comment in response to
post
Yep. But why? What was gained?
comment in response to
post
I guess the question is whether it ended up the way they planned? Why have TASS record that mess? For proof that it was Zelensky's fault that the talks broke down? Or to get a record of Zelensky getting beat up, and being abandoned by US and acquiescing? Did this really go the way they intended?
comment in response to
post
Fight.
comment in response to
post
Yah; he did. Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) voted Yes.
comment in response to
post
That’s my read as well. In a world where the rule of law is at risk, any reason can be deemed sufficient. Though, politically, that’d be more fraught than what they’re currently doing.
comment in response to
post
It’s a good question. I’ve not seen reporting on this, but unless fired for certain reasons (criminal offenses, etc), they should keep vested portions.
comment in response to
post
Those ads should be running now.
comment in response to
post
Or mad, period. Or even emotional for that matter.
Look for podcasts that at least balance your inclination to do and/or understand, with your inclination to feel.
And while we're on the topic, do the same thing with politicians.
comment in response to
post
In most cases, employers are allowed to fire anyone anytime for any reason. So, the law is typically on their side, so long as they are not criminal or violating some kind of labor/employment law. And to be clear, I’m not defending this structure, I’m describing it.
comment in response to
post
They are typically matters for local law enforcement. So, if a boss hit you in the face and broke a tooth, or shoved you in a closet and blasted loud music for three weeks straight, you call the cops. If they try to force you out of the company by “making your life miserable,” you call a lawyer.
comment in response to
post
The Constitution (broadly speaking) defines the relationship btwn the govt and citizens. The relationship btwn private companies and employees is defined by a patchwork of common law, state/local laws/NLRB rulings/OSHA regs, etc. Assault, torture etc are criminal acts everywhere, for everyone.
comment in response to
post
It doesn't "get around" the Constitution. It's very reasonable; just give it a thought.
The problem's not that fed workers get 'special' rights; the prob is that none of us get the rights we need where it concerns our work.
comment in response to
post
you can be fired for anti-govt speech (but you still can't be punished by the govt) because it's not the govt punishing (firing) you, it's a private employer.
comment in response to
post
Per law, all citizens are protected equally by the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Civil Rights, etc. Let's take the 1st Amendment. The government can't punish anyone for anti-govt speech. If you work for the govt, that includes not being able to fire you. If you work in the private sector,
comment in response to
post
You have civil rights no matter where you work. Those rights dictate the relationship between you and your government. If your government is also your employer, then they apply at your workplace as well as outside your workplace. It's more nuanced, but that's the upshot.
comment in response to
post
Can you elaborate; not sure what your point is.
comment in response to
post
them differently because their employer is the government (which is bound by the Constitution). So, we should yell very loudly when those federal worker protections are violated.
comment in response to
post
Federal workers have different rights. I'd argue that all workers should have far more rights than they do, and far more than even federal workers do today, but the rights that federal workers have is a function of how the Constitution applies to
comment in response to
post
Yep; agreed.
comment in response to
post
Agree...they just aren't enough, and they can't enforce or write law...and these federal workers, who are holding the line for the rest of us with their livelihoods and in some cases, sanity, deserve everything we can throw at it.
comment in response to
post
So, in my view, agism is seen from both sides, and the bigotry of it all is the same, no matter where it comes from, and it should be rejected no matter where it comes from. The OP was talking about left-wing bigotry, so that's the angle I came from in my response. That clearer?
comment in response to
post
That being said, the left practices ‘real’ agism.
comment in response to
post
I agree. It’s particularly galling from the left because it’s an argument for the right’s abhorrent behavior. Also, the left is supposed to have something good to say abt equality and anti-discrimination. But yes, it was that right-wing clown that got the ball rolling on the concern.
comment in response to
post
🙂
comment in response to
post
Yah, for sure. Just think these guys deserve protection from the actual government. Fed workers have more rights than private workers, and for good reason. Protection of their rights should not be a matter for negotiation.
comment in response to
post
Yah, unless one of the other choices was A) Sinkhole Opens in Town Square, Swallowing Thousands of School Children and Their Pets, I'm thinking the local layoffs are going to get top billing.
comment in response to
post
Bit of a self-own I suppose since you can't pick up a newspaper (as it were) since the 1980s without seeing such a story. But either way, I think the crushing question here is: so what? Even if it was true (it's not), what exactly is the point of that complaint?
comment in response to
post
If it's "anyone in politics as long as I have been alive is bad (I mean, *there's* a standard?!)," and "young people in politics is good," then not only are you promoting bigotry (obviously), you're also making a logic-free, and pretty gloriously meritless statement. Just advocate for terms limits.