Why I Don’t Want to Draft Bernie – AKA Machiavelli Knew His Shit

I don’t care what jersey he’s wearing, he’s on OUR team.

“Divide and conquer” is a cliché for the same reason all clichés are clichés: truth.

Divide and conquer or unite and win?

“You decide?”

“Divide and rule, a sound motto. Unite and lead, a better one.”

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

#NotMeUs
#FeelTheBern

Chris Hayes: Bernie Sanders in Trump Country

There’s another one coming up, and it is clear that Bernie is the leader of the opposition right now.

Why would we mess with that?

bernie in trump country

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/web-extra-bernie-sanders-in-trump-country-831409731852

(P.S. You might want to search YouTube for Chris Hayes Bernie Sanders in Trump Country. I would just embed it, but WordPress doesn’t seem down with that, so I can’t.)

Coutney Barnett being adorable and awesome

All the live versions of “Pedestrian at Best” are so varied that the object randomness of the range of options is actually a constant.

I picked this one, not becaue it’s the best version; best sound, best of  the shifting beat of the lyrics- syncopated or not so much – but because it’s the most Courtney.

 

Not my Theme Scene but now necessary: Stephen the Irishman

I would prefer just the first scene, truth be told, but I made the decision to include – because of its example of pure perfection in character definition.

(Keeping in mind that several things are happening at once, but for the audience, the primary issue, although as is the case in the most intricately executed storylines, it is one most likely not grasped consciously, yet the tension is there: we might forget that up until now everyone surrounding “William Wallace”/Mel Gibson is well known to us. They have deep histories with the main character, but now, new, unknown people are showing up and a natural, nebulously felt tension is there.

This concise, unequivocal second scene with Stephen the Irishman tells us, and, equally important, shows us, who he is, what he is made of, and that he is now vital to this group of knowns.)

Yes, it effectively initiates Stephen into the knowns.

I also admire the fact that, although in his introductory scene what is most memorable are Stephen’s words, those words are also accompanied by bold, swift, and effective action, and this process is reaffirmed and confirmed; again, in an excellent lesson in conveying purpose and primacy to a new character.

And, in case you don’t think about such things, it is not Stephen who actually seals the mold on this. The clip ends with Mel Gibson looking heavenward, the “bagpipes” -(not)- playing, and what is as unmistakable a recognition and confirmation of the solidity of this certainty as is rarely seen, ever, in film. Especially of a supporting role.

Stephen the Irishman

Florida appears to actually have gotten something RIGHT

I am admittedly always a bit terrified when I get any legal updates on any law having anything to do with Florida.

Especially when the first sentence of that legal update leads with the words 

“…a Florida law adopted by citizen initiative

          Like most  people who care about human rights, my mind goes here:

But amazingly enough, this particular update was not only not negative, in my opinion, it’s quite the opposite:

Charles. v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc.

Court: Florida Supreme Court Docket: SC15-2180 Opinion Date: January 31, 2017
Areas of Law: Health Law, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

Florida Constitution Article X, section 25 (Amendment 7), adopted by citizen initiative in 2004, provides patients “a right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident.” “Adverse medical incident” includes “any other act, neglect, or default of a health care facility or health care provider that caused or could have caused injury to or death of a patient.” Amendment 7 gives medical malpractice plaintiffs access to any adverse medical incident record, including incidents involving other patients [occurrence reports], created by health care providers. The Federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, however, creates a voluntary, confidential, non-punitive system of data sharing of health care errors for the purpose of improving medical care and patient safety, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21(6), and establishes a protected legal environment in which providers can share data “both within and across state lines, without the threat that the information will be used against [them].” The Supreme Court of Florida reversed a holding that Amendment 7 was preempted. The Federal Act was never intended as a shield to the production of documents required by Amendment 7. The health care provider or facility cannot shield documents not privileged under state law by virtue of its unilateral decision of where to place the documents under the federal voluntary reporting system.

 
 
 
 

A rambling, random, free-flowing audio mostly on SCOTUS – Sotomayor, Breyer, Thomas, and David C. Frederick

justices

“You know how you know you’re in trouble with Justice Sotomayor? She says, ‘I’m confused, here.’ And she ain’t – she’s never confused.” 

Keep in mind that any audio I record like this, unless it is clearly an interview or some other specific record of an event ii is always for me and me only –the ultimate form of talking to myself – but that lack of self-editing also makes it, at times, humorous, so I figure maybe I’ll start sticking some of it up. It’s not like it’s going to get a lot of listens, but it does, however, preserve it to some extent.

In this case it’s clear I’m doing other things while I’m recording, which is common. There’s a fairly long pause at one point early on – although in such a brief snippet “early” is more relative than usual. The case I’m referring to is Universal Health Services, Inc. v United States and Massachusetts, ex rel. Julio Escobar and Carmen Correa.

I then ramble into the greatness of David C. Frederick’s arguments, Justice Breyer’s ability to go right to the heart of an issue, and cut if off after pointing to how all this added up to Justice Thomas reading an opinion from the bench. Although admittedly in a far less sensical way than expressed here. (It’s more fun via the audio, however.)

*Just one post script – it is completely nonsensical that nonsensical is a word but that sensical is not, so fuck that – just one more system to buck.)

I don’t see any way this doesn’t end up in front of SCOTUS

Case Name Sarsour v. Trump IM-VA-0005
Docket / Court 1:17-cv-00120 ( E.D. Va. )
State/Territory Virginia <!—->
Case Type(s) Immigration
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration/Refugee Orders
Case Summary
<!–

–>

This class action, filed January 30, 2017, challenges President Trump’s Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

read more >

This class action, filed January 30, 2017, challenges President Trump’s Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The plaintiffs are Muslim Americans residing in the U.S. Many are public figures in the U.S. or have otherwise prominent roles in their communities. Many are executive members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Some are students, and others are asylees. Still others are at risk of not being reunited with their families.

The complaint argues that one of the purposes of the executive order is to “initiate the mass expulsion of immigrant and nonimmigrant Muslims lawfully residing in th

e United States by denying them the ability to renew their lawful status or receive immigration benefits afforded to them under the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Moreover, it argues that the Executive Order applies only to Muslims. As such, the executive order has an illegal purpose and effect, and violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause and right to free exercise of religion, Fifth Amendment equal protection rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The complaint seeks class declaratory and injunctive relief as well as jury demand. The case is ongoing.

I’m still advocating for David C. Frederick. We want David Frederick arguing this. Trust and believe.

https://www.oyez.org/advocates/david_c_frederick