#anyway arguments acknowledged and agreed with. i remain unconvinced. this time

[rearranging-deck-chairs]

periodically watching video essays about doctor who to remind myself of how skewed my perspective is

[ouyangzizhensdad]

(1/2) isn't it hypocritical of you to pick on cql fans for their purposeful misreading of canon (which some do, i'm not denying that at all) and then turn around and do that to someone who hasn't said anything critical of mdzs? that person was just listing the merits of each adaptation and you just tore into them as if them saying that cql has any merits at all is an insult to mdzs.

2/2 for example, you pick on the three bows thing, but that is novel canon too and cql shows multiple instances of people bowing in respect only twice, so it's not insanely far-fetched that the three bows are read as an acknowledgement of their marital status. anyway, you're perfectly free to see it as bows of respect, but there's little need to ridicule someone who says they see it differently and that they like cql because of it.

3/2 and i'm sorry if i'm taking too much of your time, i guess i'm a little upset because i've always seen you as a voice of reason in the fandom. to see you make multiple posts tearing down what is an uncontroversial statement (that canon and all adaptations have their own merits, and people shouldn't be judged for preferring one over the other) is a bit hurtful. you say you don't hate cql, but you certainly seem eager to shit on anyone who has anything nice to say about it? 

Hi anon,

I’m not sure I’d consider it hypocritical. I don’t think I’ve ever operated with the caveat that I should only be critical of the arguments of people who have been critical of the book in turn--I guess the baseline is that I am critical of all things I come across. I am not likewise sure I’ve “torn down” into that person or “ridiculed” them. I’ve quoted one part “all adaptations are equally good” and said (yes, as per usual, in a bitter and pretentious tone): “at least take the subjective route of equally enjoyable”. I don’t see how that’s being extremely mean about cql: my view was more that it irks me, for a lack of a better word, that people truly just push aside all the very real issues at a technical level (aside from anything that has to do with the writing or creative choices) that prevents cql, imo, to be considered comparable to other adaptations like the audio drama or the donghua even if it is not my particular cup of tea--but that this does not mean I said that c/ql cannot be enjoyable. I guess I have my issues with people generally being unable to distinguish with a well-made piece of fiction versus one they enjoyed. And that I am still a little bit flabbergasted that it remains a controversial statement to explain that c/ql, despite trying very hard, has many issues that directly impact it’s ability to stand as a well-made tv series.

Then, I think a few days later, I showed the arguments being leveraged by that same person to argue c/ql was just as good or what it ‘brought’ to the table that the other adaptations didn’t (partly because they were representative of many others I had encounter) and ‘responded’ to them one by one underlining how I was left unconvinced by them. I mentioned how one argument in favour (it includes more emotional scenes of wwx crying and being angry) could be read as a failure of the adaptation to stay true to the characterisation of the main character, who is textually said to rarely cry or get angry. I questioned whether it was such a “win” for c/ql to include more scenes of wq and jyl considering how we can infer why this change too place, and how it focuses on a quantitative reading--it’s less a ‘the book handled female characters sooooo much better’ argument than a a ‘we’re really going to give kudos to a tv series because we saw the female characters more often, regardless of how this impacts their characterisation, agency and impact on the story on a narrative and thematic level or why this change likely was made?’.

Then, the three bows thing. I won’t pretend to be an expert here, but my understanding which has come from discussion with Chinese or chinese-diasporic people, is that the third bow must be to one another (bow to the heaven and earth 一拜天地, to the parents 二拜高堂, then to each other 夫妻对拜). We can consider the three bows a wink-wink from the production team because that was the best they could do in the circumstances, maybe. But can we say that these can really be read as an “acknowledgement of their marital status”? It’s different from the novel because wwx talks about reserving that third bow to one another for later. This relates as well to the way fandom have sort of exaggerated aspects of CQL due to misunderstanding certain cultural or linguistic aspects of it, as we have with people being convinced zhiji must always be a grand romantic declaration. Is it a crime to choose to interpret/headcanon these things that way? Of course not. But does it make for good arguments to argue c/ql brought something special to the table that the other works didn’t? I don’t think so.

Overall, I won’t pretend I don’t have a very bitter and pretentious way of phrasing things but I do wonder if that’s where I consider it gets into ‘ridiculing’ territory--I didn’t call them names or anything, I just responded to their points. But the truth is, as you might think that I am targeting that person, whoever they are, for ‘liking c/ql,’ that’s just how I am in general, about all things: I am critical of any arguments I hear and I have no filter. I’m actually trying to be courteous by keeping my responses to my blog, not reblogging from their posts, cutting off the person’s profile picture or name, etc. because in any case more often than not they simply represent to me an illustrative example. Hell, I even get to re-read how I worded things which makes them come out way better than in real life.

You can of course consider that I was out of line! Perhaps it is the pitfall of considering a person a certain thing. Even if you think of someone a “voice of reason” you might also consider that some of the stuff they do or say is a little bit unreasonable. We all draw lines differently. Just because you generally agree with someone does not mean some of the stuff they say or do won’t make you shake your head in disapproval. And if you dislike these posts of mine but still want to stay for the rest, you can blocklist “brine corner”. Unfortunately, although many have tried to change this, I am an incurable critic who is terminally and brutally honest.

[thepoliticalbreakdown]

Vote 2018: California Midterm Elections

Two years later, we’re back. I miss political blogging sometimes but adulthood only leaves room for so much.

Anyway.

Did a quick writeup of the local propositions (San Francisco) and state measures on the California ballot. Let me know your thoughts, and go vote! First, the local measures.

Prop A: Seawall Renovations.

Yes. Seems fairly straightforward to both fix and upgrade a 100-year-old seawall so that SF infrastructure doesn’t get owned by the inevitable catastrophic climate change (unless we seize the state and radically shift from a thing oriented society to a person and land oriented society including rapidly shifting away from carbon technologies and redefining efficiency as sustainability, but that’s neither here nor there). The detracting arguments seem fairly petty and unconvincing, saying that sea-facing businesses and residents should fix it themselves. I think it’s the government’s job to take care of large public projects and threats to public works, so going to disagree.

Prop B: Privacy Policy.

This one is tricky, but I’m saying Yes. It’s largely symbolic at this point, stating that privacy is important and setting timelines for coming up with concrete privacy guidelines. The major detracting arguments come from the Sunshine Ordinance on public records and concerns that SF officials could tamper and limit it. After doing some reading this concerns seem overblown. Many groups are already watching for it, officials seem to somewhat flout the ordinance already, and the City Attorney has stated he won’t sign off on anything of the sort. So I think for better or worse we’re ok, and I agree with putting plans in place for comprehensive policy on privacy.

Prop C: Taxing Big Businesses to fund Homeless Services.

Yes. This is the big one, and by far the most contentious. Detractors argue there is not adequate accountability or a plan to spend the 300 million this would bring in. That the plan for homelessness is already rife with mismanagement. I was pretty swayed at first, but I have strongly U-turned. For starters, the money is being used for definitive action. Additional shelter for 1k people, cutting to the root (or one of the roots) of the problem by helping over 7k households avoid homeless, and creating 4k supportive car homes. There will be a committee put in place to manage the money and make sure it’s being used adequately. There are big provisions for mental health services as well. I could go on about this one for a while, but anyone who lives in SF knows how bad the situation is, and I simply cannot say no to taxing large tech companies who have brought in an influx of well-paid tech workers - myself included - to take a dramatic swing at homelessness in SF. And no, tech companies are far from solely to blame for homeless in SF. It’s complicated, yes. But they can handle this tax on profits over 50 million, and I want to see the homeless situation get better. Strongly encourage a Yes vote.

https://48hills.org/2018/08/propc-progressive-politics/

Prop D: Cannabis Tax.

Yes, albeit tentatively. However, most other major cities tax their new cannabis industries and do not seem to have come to great harm. Furthermore, the cannabis industry pushed for it to be delayed - and it was, until 2021. This will give the new industry more time to settle. It would also be relatively simple for the Board of Supervisors to modify the tax rate if needed or lobbied for. Welcome to have my mind changed, but it seems alright to me. Prop E: Hotel Tax to the Arts. Yes. Kind of an odd one. Without increasing the tax on hotel rooms, this would allocate a set portion of that money to the arts instead of all of it going into a general fund. I’m going to say yes because art is important and I’m a huge fan of supporting arts initiatives. The only detracting args seem to come from people worried that other taxes will rise because of this money not going directly to the general fund. But I’m doubtful that this is enough money to cause a huge uproar in the general fund. I’m open to having my mind changed, but Yes for now.

Second, the state-wide measures. This is going to be fast and a little rough around the edges. Happy to hear differing opinions.

Prop 1: Bonds to fund housing assistance programs.

Yes. This authorizes $4 billion in bonds for affordable housing programs and veteran home owning programs. I’m for anything that helps to alleviate California’s lack of affordable housing. We need it, so let’s fund it and let’s build it.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-proposition-1-endorsement-20181009-story.html

Prop 2: Bonds to fund housing programs for individuals with mental illness.

Yes, absolutely. Mental health is real and there is a glut of homeless people suffering with mental conditions. Let’s back initiatives to get them the help they need.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-proposition-2-mentally-ill-housing-20181002-story.html

Prop 3: Bonds to fund water projects.

This is a tricky one. It’s a lot of money to support very regional interests, but it’s also public infrastructure, which I’m generally in favor of supporting. The LA Times, which I follow and often trust, says no. The League of Pissed-off Voters says it was one of their most contentious but squeaks by on a yes. There isn’t a perfect answer because while some of the money is going towards pretty legitimate public projects, a good chunk is going to private projects and powerful farms. This seems weird to me. I’m torn, but going with No.

Prop 4: Funds for Children’s Hospitals.

This one’s also weird. Private children’s hospitals lobbied to get it on the ballot. It’s hard to vote against something like a children’s hospital but I have questions about its necessity, especially since tax money would be going to private orgs. I know some people who are voting No as it’s possibly a shady method of private hospitals loading up on money they could pony up themselves. Still, the LA Times and League SF both acknowledge the oddities but ultimately find it legitimate. So I’ll got with Yes.

http://www.theleaguesf.org/#prop4

Prop 5: Expand Prop 13 for Property Owners.

This one is way deeper than I can cover here. Long story short, it allows homeowners to transfer low property tax to other residences of greater value where they’d be paying more. Local communities would lose out on this property tax. Most sources seem to peg us it as another easy method for the rich to get richer and avoid paying their taxes. This one is definitely a No.

Prop 6: Repeal the Gas Tax.

Listen, I’m going to keep this short. The answer is No. Do not repeal the gas tax. There’s a massive backlog of needed road fix and improvement projects that the gas and vehicle tax helps fund. Vote No.

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2018/09/27/fact-checking-arguments-for-repealing-the-gas-tax/

Prop 7: Permanent Daylight Savings.

Whatever. DST is outdated and frankly I think it can go. Yes.

Prop 8: Regulating Dialysis Clinic Charges.

So private for-profit dialysis clinics make a ton of money in profits, which is pretty mediocre. I’m all for providing a service and being compensated for it, but wild profits off others’ medical malaise leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This one is a deeply contentious one. Some say absolutely yes mostly because they’re annoyed with dialysis clinic profits (I agree but it seems a little petty and unfocused too). Others say this could drive out much-needed clinics and we should absolutely not. The problem is, I’m simply not sure what the cap would *do*, and the hardcore “yes” sources seem to very obviously avoid answering that. I’m going to say No, but of all the state and local measurements this is one I’m most receptive to further input.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-dialysis-20180720-story.html

Edit: In the course of writing this, I changed my mind to a tentative yes. If only because capping massive profits on healthcare seems important for turning America into the country it very much is not but could be.

Prop 10: End Restrictions on Rent Control.

This is the “Prop C” of the state measures. Likely the most contentious. I’m voting Yes. It’s a longer story but Costa-Hawkins has been a source of conflict since it was passed and limited enacting rent control. Prop 10 does not enact rent control, but it allows it to be a tool that local government can use to combat homelessness, displacement, and skyrocketing rent. Do your reading - there’s plenty of it on this one - but I’ll reiterate my Yes.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-endorsement-proposition-10-20180915-story.html

https://48hills.org/2018/10/new-study-says-rent-control-doesnt-discourage-new-housing/

Prop 11: Requiring EMTs to remain on-call during work breaks.

Tentative no. I feel like there’s a lot more to this than even the few articles I’ve read has gotten across, but it seems weird for me for ambulance companies to use a ballot measure to win what effectively a labor dispute. Also, don’t call me on my lunch break.

Prop 12: More Space for Farm Animals.

Ugh. Yes. Increase the space that farm animals live in. I don’t love the fact that costs would go up slightly, but from a moral standpoint better conditions for animals I believe trumps it. Yes.

Phew. Cheers. Midterm elections here we come.

Edit: If you want to read more, my sources were mostly The LA Times, the SF Chronicle (though I take them with a lump of salt, as I strongly disagree with their "No" on Prop C), 48 Hills, a careful reading of the City and County of San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet, and the SF League of Pissed-Off Voters.

[stephenmccull]

Without Ginsburg, Judicial Threats to the ACA, Reproductive Rights Heighten

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation, alerting me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously — barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat against the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ginsburg’s death throws an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.

The ACA Under Fire — Again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans — and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit, because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”

Reproductive Rights

A woman’s right to abortion — and even to birth control — also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Roberts argued.

Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly three decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench — which is what Trump has promised his supporters — would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line. The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’’

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Without Ginsburg, Judicial Threats to the ACA, Reproductive Rights Heighten published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/