#like has enough time passed is there some statute of limitations of some kind | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anayahinckley · 4 years

Text

low cost health insurance arkansas

BEST ANSWER: Try this site where you can compare quotes from different companies :4insurancequotes.xyz

low cost health insurance arkansas

low cost health insurance arkansas. It covers hospital, dental and hospital treatment, you pay a flat rate. You can get affordable, even comprehensive health services on average. Get an extended medical insurance quote for an expanded medical insurance plan! There’s a plethora of insurance providers that offer the same plans. Affordable health insurance plans start out relatively low. You don’t need to add additional benefits. Most states require you to have health, disability, etc. covered if you have a qualifying illness or accident. You can also add supplemental insurance if you don’t need comprehensive health insurance. To learn how to get affordable insurance coverage and keep affordable health care costs low and your friends and family, give us a call at (800) 652-2900 or complete a to request a quote. The short answer to the insurance coverage requirement is unlimited. It usually doesn’t tell us anything about what your finances and health might be like when you’re in the process of deciding to. low cost health insurance arkansas insurance cost for drivers, this is not your guide to the health care cost. Your best bet to protect you from the high costs of health insurance in Iowa is to buy on select private health plans and compare insurance quotes for the best insurance coverage. There is good news! These inexpensive plans are just beginning their research, and they can get extremely expensive over the long run of the policy. However, requires you to obtain an in-person visit and have a doctor to see an independent insurance company. You should also check your . We offer comprehensive and affordable health insurance to all of our members and their families. You can apply and sign up for coverage by any time within a certain policy period. Please note that no one qualifies for Medicaid, Medicare, or the Medicaid Expansion Act of 2018. The Affordable Care Act defines a basic plan amount as 40/60 and requires insurance coverage for people over 55 and allows for many things, like, that is. I’m the Insurance. low cost health insurance arkansas. In addition, the state’s can drive the value of premiums, and they can be a hassle to manage. If your plan doesn’t cover a high deductible or if you pay for large amounts of care, you might not be covered as much under your private insurance. If you need an alternative to private health insurance, you can shop from one provider or from a limited marketplace like GoHealth. It can be a hassle to manage both your medical and those with dental issues. You can use a provider website to compare rates and see how other providers are currently pricing out your health care. These organizations may even offer you discounts on your car insurance. Don’t be afraid to shop for quotes when you’ve done some research, and don’t assume that you’ll get good rates when you go no claims for less expensive coverage. Health insurance is meant to shield you from high medical costs. One way to make sure you’re not taking.

What is Health Insurance?

What is Health Insurance? Health insurance: insurance that covers health related expenses while you are at work or otherwise ill enough to qualify for a medical hardship policy, such as dental or newborn care. It has many different types of benefits ranging from health coverage for dental costs and medical services to health care coverage for people who do not qualify who cannot get coverage if needed it. This term is also used when people think of health care without an employer. Health insurance is the same as disability income protection or long-term care insurance. It’s used to pay for long-term care such as health insurance of at least 30 days per year. It’s a bit less common than other types of insurance, including health insurance that protects you and your family if you don’t live anywhere in the way, either on retirement or at a nursing home. It isn’t required that you are required to have insurance to legally live on your own, however it’s necessary to be sure you use this.

The Best Health Insurance in Arkansas

The Best Health Insurance in Arkansas: Arkansas Family Health Insurance Company was founded in 1955 by Dwight C. Jones as a co-op and in turn was founded by an Arkansas family by the name and name of the Company of Insurance Presidents. Arkansas Family Healthcare Insurance is currently in the top 10 in A.M. Best’s A.M. Best Insurance, A.M. Best, and the Better Business Bureau. In this review, we are going to highlight the Arkansas Family Health Insurance Company (BAHIP) as the biggest health insurance company in Arkansas. In the comparethemarketplaces.org organization, BAHIP is a 501(c)(3) and insurance marketplace serving large and small Texas counties. Arkansas family health insurance company is best known for providing health insurance to the community, including members of the community and their dependents. The company, along with the health insurance companies, has over 1.5.

Average Cost of Health Insurance in Arkansas

Average Cost of Health Insurance in Arkansas: $5,278 $724 $414 $2,504 Low Cost of Health Insurance in Arkansas: $5,276 $774 $406 $2,510 Low Cost of Health Insurance in Arkansas: $4,878 $414 $2,066 Low Cost of Health Insurance in Arkansas: $3,912 $4,944 Low Cost of Health Insurance in Arkansas: $5,936 $410 $2,426 Low Cost of Health Insurance in Arkansas: $3,908 $4,903 Low Cost of Health Insurance in Arkansas: $4,915 $4,904 Low Cost of Health Insurance in Arkansas $4,926 $4,926 Low Cost of Health Insurance in Arkansas $2,98.

Best Health Insurance Providers in Arkansas

Best Health Insurance Providers in Arkansas -You can find the right healthcare plan for you and your family - Get insurance quotes and get covered! OnGuard Health is an independent agency. We can find the right insurance plan for you and your family - Get insurance quotes and get covered! A trusted independent health insurance guide since 1994. From the Affordable Care Act to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the state health insurance exchanges have been evolving for decades. Today, we live in a state where many residents are shifting to public insurance for affordable plans. The transition from traditional public insurance plans to a private, individual market is a key concern of the State of Arkansas, and the transition to a public, non-payer system has been the most dramatic of the state’s competing individual and family markets. While individuals and families may continue to pay their premiums on an annual basis, those plans now provide a level of competition that is not available on the exchanges. The state of Arkansas offers a limited number of affordable, comprehensive individual and family.

Get health insurance in Arkansas

Get health insurance in Arkansas through the . Arkansas is one of the states with no medical exams and no laws requiring physical exams. While it may not be a total stranger in Texas or Missouri, Arkansas has its fair share of physical injuries. That’s why it’s important to have health insurance options available to you. In recent years, there have been many changes to Arkansas’s health care process. The state has passed laws, required insurance companies to do some things to help consumers navigate the new system, and required all uninsured residents to pay some form of money-saving medical costs. But in the state where it’s legal to obtain medical care there does have to be a statute of limitations attached. In the state of Arkansas, there isn’t an hour as short as 18 one-hundredth of a day when one party is driving without valid insurance, has no insurance, or has a non coverage health insurance policy. This means that no matter who is.

We keep health insurance simple.

We keep health insurance simple. Our doctors are in the network. We do not charge for our services and do not give money out if the patient refuses to take a referral. We are a small, local health insurance provider that has local medical providers that are knowledgeable and very willing to help you in the case of emergency. We are a local insurance provider, so we serve everyone in the city. We don’t work for one particular company; we work for you individually. We are a local company. We don’t charge you a fee. We work for you. We are here to serve you. We offer health insurance plans that cover the cost of medical care. They are here to assist you in understanding your health insurance schedule so you can find the health insurance plans that will best fit your needs and the budget. At HealthInsuranceQuotes, we work to save you time, money, and questions. Health insurance helps to protect you from the financial burden of an.

Recent Health Insurance Posts

Recent Health Insurance Posts Health Insurance Blog is a free information resource for anyone interested in learning more about auto insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything auto insurance related. We update our site regularly, and we have a directory of articles and guides to help you get started finding the best auto insurance rates. Having more than one or two friends take out an auto insurance policy will probably make the process go a lot smoother. But it will also mean that a lot of time will be lost. How long does it take to buy auto insurance? Is the insurance process different for one person and another? And is it worth it. There are a few good reasons when you’re trying to get your insurance company to cover you. For starters, you may be hesitant to apply in this scenario. You want some kind of auto insurance policy for yourself to help pay for medical bills, road repairs or any other expenses. If your insurance company refuses to pay for your medical bills.

What Does Health Insurance Cover?

What Does Health Insurance Cover? Health insurance usually covers your healthcare costs when you were ill. However, it does not cover all your medical bills, including hospital stays or medical bills. If you live in a low income household, you can use your health insurance to pay for your medical expenses. You may even have a . The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires a great many things to be covered by a health insurance policy, such as deductibles, copays, and a waiting period. If you live in a work-from-home or a family practice medical insurance plan may provide some of the help you need for this. The same insurance is for the cost of your house. If you have a full-time student job that requires regular office visits and support services, there are other resources that don t come with the insurance you choose. Here are a few of them: If you have access to an attorney, your insurance company will know about your family s medical requirements. When you apply for financial services from a private.

Navigating the Insurance Marketplace

Navigating the Insurance Marketplace can be daunting. There are hundreds of insurance companies that provide you with affordable auto insurance, and many of these companies are owned by drivers that work for any one company. But how do you know if an insurer is truly affiliated with you? Most auto insurance companies will allow you to review the insurance coverage available to you. If it has an association with an auto insurance company, then the rates it provides as a benefit can be the same as it is for any other insurance company. So, you’ll be sure to be working with the same insurer for the same amount of insurance coverage. In fact, if they are an auto or motorcycle insurance company, then it’s in your best interest to have both insurance companies review your rates to help determine, in part, if the company will cover you in some way. A few insurance companies will simply withhold a premium from you. Although you cannot review your auto insurance with multiple companies, the rate that you receive may differ from one insurer.

What Does Health Insurance not Cover?

What Does Health Insurance not Cover? Health insurance is designed to protect you against financial loss if something unexpected happens. While health insurance does not cover cancer, cancer can still cause serious illness and end up with out-of-pocket costs. That’s why you need to keep in mind that a primary treatment for cancer is chemotherapy and treatments for advanced stage cancer can have costly side effects. But what can you do to protect against the financial toll of cancer? To better understand the type of health insurance that might help you protect your finances, Health Insurance Blog reviews a number of benefits and perks available to cancer patients, along with how the cancer patients’ insurance might change over time. For instance, Cancer patients‘ insurance typically covers the cost of surgeries and treatments, chemotherapy treatments, stem cells, and genetic tests. But as a cancer patient’s health condition gets worse, the cost of the treatment can increase dramatically, leading to increased insurance premiums. When you’re looking for cancer treatment, your spouse is likely to.

1 note · View note

didanawisgi · 6 years

Photo

“As a student of history and human nature, I know many fear what they do not understand. I am also keenly aware of the possibilities, that may repeat themselves, should a Citizenry whose degree of liberty and freedoms, never before seen in known human history, ever forfeit their ability to defend, by force if ever necessary, those same freedoms and liberties that allow them life, liberty, and to pursue those joyous experiences that represent peak experiences of the human condition.

History teaches us that people who wield power must be tempered. Plato’s idea of the Philosopher King was such that a King whom, essentially, learning of the several liberal arts and sciences, and becoming closer to God and Nature, and understanding Natural Law, would be embodied with compassion and wisdom and other qualities quintessential for successful and benevolent rulership. But as the currents of time flow in one direction, so too does the truth. As it turns out, this is not enough. Francis Bacon’s ‘New Atlantis’ was a place influenced by an academy known as the House of Solomon, a mythical place where humankind will meet its greatest potential. This place is America; the Novus ordo seclorum (New order of the ages). This order, a Republic founded in the principles of the Constitution, is a system devised to benefit all within its borders; a permanent ‘Philosopher King’ found only in a text that allows America (possibly named after the Merica, the Mandaean Star of Venus, and consort to the King/Pharaoh) to not suffer as our ancestors have, and has allowed each successive generation incrementally more freedom, more well-being, and more opportunity, should we take it. This is not to say we don’t have our modern day challenges. But it is the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, not granted by Government, but by God (the philosophical Natural Law), the intrinsic cosmic consciousness and Architect of the Universe, that ensures us at least the opportunity to defend the natural evolution of Liberty and Freedom, and to stop those who would seek to destroy it or take it away from us; for tyranny historically springs forth from the well intended initially. This is perhaps why, in terms of importance, it is the second, after the Amendment which protects our freedom of thought and the ability to communicate those thoughts; the ability to stand up and act, by force if necessary, against forms of Tyranny which throughout the course of Human history has unfortunately, enjoyed many appearances.

Nowhere on Earth is there a ‘Bill of Rights’ so comprehensive with a philosophy founded in Natural Law. This ethos or emergent ethic has its origins in the Judeo-Christian traditions (which can be traced all the way back to Sumeria). This emergent ethic is centered around the individual, which is the most appropriate and logical way to approximate fairness and true freedom in such a large scale as a Nation. The Ethos of America, the cultural identity and source of our greatness, stems from these concepts. This uniqueness in American history does influence us today, particularly those who believe the Second Amendment exists to limit the power of the Federal Government (as the rest of the Amendments do) and to protect our Liberty and personal Freedom henceforth and for posterity; for in a crisis, many times you may be the only one to rely on. It is a matter of individual responsibility. The individual consciousness as the Logos, which carries with it the power to manifest good and evil, heaven and hell, life and death. We require the freedom to think, as is our God given Right, (and therefore Speech, because the thought comes first) in order to manifest our own destiny (I call it the Right to Logos), to develop this inner voice. From our fruits shall ye know us. In order to maintain this Right to Logos, the American ethic of individualism, (which is an ‘emergent ethic’ in its highest form), necessitates you take responsibility for all aspects of your life. Respecting the Individual is of paramount importance in this ethic, which the Bill of Rights attempts to enshrine in the Constitution, in the sense that it is the only proper level for analysis and prescription, of laws, philosophy and political affect. Herein lies my first issue with things like gun control, censorship, prohibition laws in general, and other laws and ideas that seek to control the evolution of the individual.

Another problem I have with gun control in particular, is that it is deeply rooted in racism, if you examine history keenly. Huey P Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party in the 60′s once said, “The policemen or soldiers are only a gun in the establishments hand. They make the racist secure in his racism.” It is true that, if you study history, you will find that gun control is rooted in racism and government sanctioned murder. You don’t even have to leave America to see this. Think of what instigated the events at Wounded Knee, which was a failed and illegal attempt of government to secure/confiscate the rifles of natives. Hundreds were murdered…

Attorney Ralph Sherman has, what I think, is a good synopsis of this argument. This was written in 1999:

Legal Opinion by Atty. Ralph D. Sherman April 1999 Blacks and the right to bear arms It’s time to resume my discussion of the history and meaning of the Second Amendment (as requested by several readers). One of the myths that you hear from the gun-ban crowd is that the U.S. Supreme Court has “never” said the Second Amendment guarantees every individual the right to keep and bear arms. Our deceitful President would like you to believe that your right to firearms has something to do with duck hunting. There are several reasons that Handgun Control and company don’t want you to know the truth. One reason is that when you research what the Supreme Court has actually said, you quickly find that “gun control” laws are rooted in racism. Wait. I haven’t turned into some kind of conspiracy nut. If somebody had told me 15 years ago that “gun control” and racial discrimination are inseparably linked in the history of the United States, I would have been skeptical, too. After I started to read some of the old cases and statutes, however, I saw that it is impossible to reach any other conclusion. (In fact I recently gave a talk at UConn on the connections between “gun control” and racial, economic, and sexual discrimination.) Anyone who studies the history of the United States in the 19th Century comes across the Supreme Court case known as the Dred Scott decision. The correct title of the case is Scott v. Sandford (1856), and you can find it in any law library. Usually the case is studied because of its bearing on the status of blacks. Today the Dred Scott case is infamous, a good example of how the Supreme Court can be dead wrong. Dred Scott himself was a free black. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a free black was a citizen, entitled to the full protection of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other laws of the United States. The court held that blacks were not citizens, because the founding fathers didn’t have blacks in mind when the Constitution was written. This is no longer the law of our country, thank goodness, because even the Supreme Court corrects its errors, if given enough time. But the Dred Scott case is still important because it is one of the first cases in which the Supreme Court gave its view of the Second Amendment. In this column I don’t have space to discuss most of the decision. But here’s the critical section. The court found it unthinkable that blacks could be considered citizens, because: “[If black people were] entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which [Southern states] considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give the persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union…the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.” The “special laws” mentioned by the court are the Black Codes, drafted to keep blacks down even if they became free. Essential to the Black Code of every Southern state was a law prohibiting blacks from owning firearms - a total gun ban for blacks only. The “full liberty of speech” is the court’s reference to the right of free speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment. The freedom “to hold public meetings upon political affairs” likewise refers to the First Amendment. And the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went” - I don’t have to tell you where the Supreme Court found that one. But you can see the meaning as plain as day, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of dissatisfaction with the court’s ruling that blacks weren’t citizens, Congress eventually passed the 14th Amendment. This also is quite relevant to the right to keep and bear arms, and anyone who reads this column needs to know why. I’ll explain in a future column. (Source: ralphdsherman.com)

Much of the “black codes” apropos possession of guns, are rehashed in contemporary fashion; except now, the codes are tailored for everyone, not just black people. If my point has not been made well enough, I shall tell you a story of the only Coup D’Etat in U.S. History: “A mob of white supremacists armed with rifles and pistols marched on City Hall in Wilmington, N.C., on Nov. 10 and overthrew the elected local government, forcing both black and white officials to resign and running many out of town. The coup was the culmination of a race riot in which whites torched the offices of a black newspaper and killed a number of black residents. No one is sure how many African-Americans died that day, but some estimates say as many as 90 were killed.” -https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93615391

What they neglect to mention is that the “black codes” had disarmed the populace, and they were ill-prepared for the slaughter.

Again, racial tensions are not as high today, and this occurred in the not-so-recent past, however the ugly memes of tribalism, which globally and historically have resulted in Warfare, discrimination, violence, racism, religious killings, terrorism etc. are thriving in some parts of the world, and because history, no matter how small the chance, potentially could repeat itself. To quote Fallout: “War, war never changes”.

“The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.” -

The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi.

If you have ever been a victim of any crime, or hate crime, you know that it is a terrible ordeal, and that your peace of mind is disrupted. These things can affect how you perceive the world. I find that many armchair philosophers often come from a highly privileged state of mind, a state that is developed overtime from a perch of relative safety; an Ivory Tower. They underestimate the rate of defensive uses of weapons and overestimate the rate of illegal, criminal acts with firearms, when in fact, according to the CDC, the rate is about equal, or even more defensive uses therefore counter-intuitively avoiding violence.

Defensive Use of Guns

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)…

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). - CDC, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (2013) https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15

There is something to be said for the art of complete nonviolence, however this must be cultivated over time. Only two people I know of have mastered it; MLK and Gandhi. I do not doubt other examples can be found, however, it is extremely rare.

Just as one must learn the art of killing in the training for violence, so one must learn the art of dying in the training for nonviolence. Violence does not mean emancipation from fear, but discovering the means of combating the cause of fear. Nonviolence, on the other hand, has no cause for fear. The votary of nonviolence has to cultivate the capacity for sacrifice of the highest type in order to be free from fear. He recks not if he should lose his land, his wealth, his life. -

The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi

I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa. He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing.

The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi

I suggest reading Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape. He also has a piece called The Riddle of the Gun, which in my opinion is a good philosophical treatise on the issues surrounding guns, both morally and in terms of rational philosophy. Excerpt:

“Most of my friends do not own guns and never will. When asked to consider the possibility of keeping firearms for protection, they worry that the mere presence of them in their homes would put themselves and their families in danger. Can’t a gun go off by accident? Wouldn’t it be more likely to be used against them in an altercation with a criminal? I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a sane person ever needs.But, unlike my friends, I own several guns and train with them regularly. Every month or two, I spend a full day shooting with a highly qualified instructor. This is an expensive and time-consuming habit, but I view it as part of my responsibility as a gun owner. It is true that my work as a writer has added to my security concerns somewhat, but my involvement with guns goes back decades. I have always wanted to be able to protect myself and my family, and I have never had any illusions about how quickly the police can respond when called. I have expressed my views on self-defenseelsewhere. Suffice it to say, if a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you, you cannot reasonably expect the police to arrive in time to stop him. This is not the fault of the police—it is a problem of physics.Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?” - https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/ & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0DYpaLgWIo

We can try to “cultivate the cool courage to die without killing.” But if you are not on that level, maintain your weapon, practice, and assert your Second Amendment Right, based in Natural Law, for the defense of yourself, family, community, and Liberty.”

- The Modern Alchemist

http://didanawisgi.tumblr.com/

#gun control #second amendment #philosophy #debate #controversy #me #liberty #freedom #constitution #2A #2amendment #NRA #national rifle association

417 notes · View notes

outweek30 · 5 years

Photo

Is adoption an alternative for lesbians and gays seeking legally-sanctioned relationships?

When John and Craig met in an Upper East Side bar in September, 1980, it could have been another classical Manhattan tale of two tricks passing in the night. The pair had little in common. Craig Burns was blond, boyish, 23. He was between jobs, visiting friends in New York. John Eberhardt, 58, was a Fire Island pioneer, having hammered together scores of beach houses in Cherry Grove during the 1940s before constructing his own wedding cake of a mansion, The Belvedere.

Nonetheless, John and Craig did what mismatched people often do. They fell in love. The next week John invited Craig out to the island and, as Craig recalls, "I kinda never left." This past spring, months shy of their ninth anniversary, the couple went one step further to acknowledge their relationship; Craig Burns became Craig Eberhardt. In a judge's chambers in West Palm Beach, John legally adopted his lover. Craig became his son.

* * * *

Adoption is yet another alternative for gays and lesbians who seek legal recognition of their relationships. Many do it to ensure financial protection for lovers in the event of their death; others see it as the only same-sex union likely to be sanctioned by the law in this era.

But adoption is not a foolproof shelter against the bigotry of our legal system. In the early 1980s in New York State, gay adoptions caused a stir in the legal system, challenging the definition of adoption and provoking progressive decisions in two important cases: Adult Anonymous I and II.

In the latter, handled by Lambda Legal Defense Fund's William J. Thom and heard in 1982, a 32-year-old male petitioned to adopt a 43-year-old. Partial motivation was financial; the building where the pair lived was going co-op and the landlord was evicting those not on the lease. Initially dismissed by Family Court, City of New York, the petitioners appealed the case to the State Supreme Court Appellate Division. The decision was reversed and petition granted, since the Family Court decision was based on its narrow interpretation of the nature of family, not the adoption statute itself, which expresses no limitations. "The 'nuclear family' arrangement is no longer the only model of family life in America," the decision challenged.

In addition, constitutional law was cited, where homosexual relations in private are protected in New York under the right to privacy. Through some circuitous logic, it was proposed that a petition for a father-son adoption by two homosexual men raised the spectre of technical incest. However, it was ruled that "incest in general involves blood relatives." More facetious was the subsequent observation: "And, of course, the taboo against incest, grounded in eugenics, has little application in a relationship which can hardly result in offspring."

However, these legal strides were to be reversed two years later. The New York State Court of Appeals, filtering decisions through a screen of homophobia, effectively put a halt to overtly homosexual same-sex adoptions by lovers. In the Matter of the Adoption of Robert Paul P. in 1984, a 57-year-old man was denied his petition to adopt his 50-year-old lover, although they had lived together continuously for 25 years.

Michael Lavery, a New York City lawyer and co-founder of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, handled the case. Lavery, a consistent fighter for gay and lesbian rights, has argued cases for Dignity, the gay Catholic group, and Integrity, the Episcopal sect. He acknowledges the misstep made by the two lovers: they did not attempt to hide the sexual nature of their relationship. The legal gay-bashing continued; the court questioned the validity of adoption as a way to halt an eviction. "It is nothing more than a cynical distortion of the function of adoption."

Most damning of all is this paragraph: "Adoption was never intended as a haven where parties might shelter emotional relationships for which no statutory provision has been made. If the homosexual relationship is to receive legal sanction as a family unit, such recognition must come from the legislature, and not the courts through the guise of adoption."

* * * *

John and Craig were inseparable during the first three months together. In December, the pair were visiting John's cousin, who is also gay, in California. Walking through the celebrated Forest Lawn Cemetery one sunny afternoon, observing the gaudy sculpture and meticulous landscaping, John and Craig came upon a small stone bench. Carved into the decoration was an Irish quotation about true love lasting forever. The lovers impulsively joined hands and recited the quote. "From then on, we decided we were a married couple," Craig said.

But both knew that a two-minute wedding in a cemetery held no legal weight. And as the years passed, and John and Craig grew closer, they began thinking about events that could separate them. The question of a legal relationship became more insistent this past year. A friend of the couple, a septuagenarian psychologist from Manhattan had successfully adopted his 54-year-old lover in order to pass on his magnificent Riverside Drive apartment after he passed on. At the age of 65, John was still hardy and working on constant improvements to The Belvedere. But the issue of a successor loomed, he recalled. Who would look after his 26-room palace?

"For one thing, passing on this empire" — Eberhardt assumes a mock hauteur to his voice — "it takes the right kind of person. I don't know who could do it, except for someone who is talented and capable. My older brother or sister just couldn't manage this, what with the milieu of the town, this gay world." Craig was the only choice.

Craig's concerns about a legal relationship with John were just as keen. "In the case of catastrophic illness, I would be John's next of kin and would have the say about his care and well-being, as opposed to a family throwing me out on the street and putting him in a nursing home." In addition, the pair learned that real estate passed on from father to son is taxed differently than it would be for a commercial transaction. John and Craig were amassing a list of basic rights afforded heterosexuals and denied homosexuals. After several talks with their attorney, who is gay, the two agreed to file papers for adoption.

John recalls the day he and Craig went to the courthouse for their petition, accompanied by their attorney. Amongst rows of mothers and fathers with their small children, John and Craig sat: a smiling gray-haired man of 67, with twinkling mischievous eyes, and a solid, big-limbed blond hunk of 32. Once inside the judge's chambers, Craig recalls, "I told the judge our relationship is like father and son." The matter of ownership of The Belvedere was sidestepped. "They seem to frown on people [petitioning adoption] for financial reasons. They prefer to have people doing it for emotional reasons." The issue of homosexuality was not broached.

Craig required written consent from his parents to agree to the adoption. "They knew that it was, in no way, a slighting of them. I still consider them my parents and our relationship is just as good as it's ever been. This was just a way for John and I becoming legally married like my sister and her husband." In deference to his folks, Craig Richard Burns legally changed his name to Craig Burns Eberhardt. The Burns knew of their son's homosexuality; he had come out to them at age 18 as a prelude to the announcement that he had fallen in love with a man and was moving in with him. The relationship lasted three months.

The final legal step in adoption is the destruction of Craig's original birth certificate, which resides in Chicago. Another one will be issued naming John as his legal parent. Ultimately, there will be no legal record of Craig ever being related to the Burns family.

* * * *

In the case of Robert Paul P., the court avails itself of the same self-reflexive homophobia that was employed in the Hardwick sodomy decision back in 1986. Observing that legislation did not include homosexuals in adoption laws any time since the laws were enacted in 1873, the court questions why the status quo should be upset. Another absurd leap of logic observes that since New York sodomy laws were overturned just in 1980, it seems unlikely that the same legislature would want homosexual relationships themselves acknowledged through adoption. Another decision went so far as to term the notion of sexual intimacy between adopter and adoptee as "utterly repugnant."

In most cases, the court expresses itself carefully in gay or lesbian issues. "Court people are sophisticated enough not to be overt," Lavery said. "The less overt are the ones most difficult to pin down and accuse of anti-gay decisions. No one will say, ‘We're not going to allow this adoption because they're a couple of fags.’”

But read between the lines. The court criticized the men for looking to adoption as a way to legally share a lease and prevent an impending eviction. The legal jargon was merely a smokescreen; once again the court was enacting laws that refused to acknowledge a same-sex relationship. In fact, Lavery points out, "the concept of adopting children is a product of the post-Victorian times." Beginning during the ancient Roman era, adoption was a legal tool for economic, political and social objectives, especially when a wealthy man did not have a natural heir.

But the issue of gay adoption prompts mixed reactions. Paula Ettelbrick, Lambda's legal director since 1985, considers it a flawed strategy, and a compromise to receiving basic gay and lesbian rights. "The effort of our community should be to obtain recognition for our relationships as they are, not subverting nor distorting them into parent-child relationships."

Lavery also has a diplomatic party line. Quietly, he suggests that same-sex couples who maintained the parent-child charade have had their petitions for adoption granted. "One should not assume that after the 1986 Court of Appeals decision, there have been no gay adoptions." After all, he points out, when there is no hitch to the proceedings, the request for adoption is kept confidential. There is no record of successful homosexual adoptions. It is only when the initial petition is denied and the decision appealed that the case finds its way into public record.

Lavery recalls one case where a successful professor in his mid-40s asked to adopt a man in his mid-20s after they had lived together five years. The older man presented himself as advisor and mentor; a role model that the younger man lacked as a child. When challenged as to whether their relationship was actually of a sexual nature, the younger man grimaced and told the court, "No way!" The petition was approved.

He offers an unsettling clarification: "If you were rich and powerful, [lover adoptions] probably could be done," but not for the average guy on he street. Lavery alludes to an internationally- known operatic composer who adopted his young lover, as well as a successful entrepreneur from Chicago who followed suit.

The recent State Court of Appeals case involving Miguel Braschi was a landmark case insofar as acknowledging gay and lesbian relationships. Braschi was awarded his deceased lover's lease after their 10-year union, but this decision will have no impact on the adoption issue, Lavery offered. The courts pulled their punch, he added, in extending the ruling to rent-controlled apartments, not rent-stabilized buildings. Gays and lesbians will still find the need to petition for adoption to maintain cohabitation or property ownership.

The gay psychologist who adopted his younger lover agrees on that count. The man, who requested anonymity, suggested that a real estate pressure group influenced the legislature in the Braschi case. "They've stopped people from using adoption as a way around the problem of losing your apartment if your name is not in the lease. Adoption should be a freedom."

When his lover of 25 years died, the man was left alone in the six-room penthouse apartment on Riverside Drive. Eventually he met his second lover, who moved in six months later. A rash of abusive letters from the man's landlord began to come, insisting that the lover move out since he was not on the lease. "They persecuted us for three years. That was the trick in those days," he said. "They thought the only way to get me out of the apartment was to separate me from my lover. We said 'fuck you' and went through the channels of adoption."

Officially, Lavery will not handle an adoption case where the same-sex petitioners are involved in a sexual relationship. The case is doomed, he insists. NMostcases I handle are done pro bono. It's not worth the time and effort if the case is denied without any advancement." The strategy of gay adoption "is not a winnable battle at this time," he added "A gay sexual relationship will not meet the legal definition of adoption."

"It's necessary to convince heterosexual judges, as well as other gays, that two gay men can have a relationship that is not necessarily sexual." The unspoken message here is: keep a lid on intimacy in court and the petition will sail through. Acknowledge your lover relationship and prepare for rejection. What advice does Lavery give his clients in this situation?

"There's a thin line between deception and downplaying," Lavery says. "If [the partners] can't be frank when the question comes up, it could be disastrous."

Ettelbrick points out alternatives to adoption, adding, "There are ways that we can take care of our vulnerabilities under the law." These include wills, power of attorney designation and conservatorships.

Lavery is guarded in his appraisal of the future of gay legal rights and the recognition of homosexual unions. “We have some ways to go; we are still too conveniently overlooked, unless somebody is waving a sign in your face, saying, ‘What about us?’”

* * * *

John and Craig are sitting in the breakfast nook off the kitchen of The Belvedere, taking a breather from last-minute renovations. By November 1, they will close up the castle and head to Florida to run another guest house called Villa Fontana. Craig ponders the longevity of their relationship, and feels it stems, in part, from a respect for fidelity during sexually liberated days. "We've always been just a monogamous couple," he explained, "and I think that's why it's worked for us this long. We made a commitment to each other, and this year we reinforced the commitment to each other."

— Jay Blotcher, OutWeek Magazine No. 18, October 22, 1989, p. 36.

#outweek #issue 18 #lgbt history #lover adoption #feature #jay blotcher #john eberhardt #craig eberhardt #cherry grove #the belvedere #homophobia #relationship recognition #marriage #photo #scott morgan #michael lavery

2 notes · View notes

reluctantheartcd · 5 years

Text

⑇ BRIDGET TASK 001 - interrogation.

Hello, Ms BRIDGET FLORES. My name is Detective Booth and I’m handling this case. I don’t need to go into details; you know why you’re here, and we already have you down as a suspect in her death. We’ve got witnesses to corroborate and a budding timeline, but we need more information from you directly. Make my day easier and cooperate with me on this, will ya’? I just need you to answer these questions for me. Do me a favor and don’t lie – you’re talking to a trained professional right now, I’ll be able to pick up on certain things whether you realize it or not. Lying will only come back to bite your ass later on. Just some food for thought. Let’s begin.

bridget did not want to be in an interrogation room. she knew it well enough, the blank walls and cold metal table in front of her. the uncomfortable chair and a bar attached to the table for handcuffs, sitting in front of a two way mirror and knowing that behind it stood a group of detectives ready to delve into her life. it was all too familiar, and it brought back a feeling of nausea mixed with grief. hopefully she didn’t throw up this time, but at least she knew that she hadn’t done anything.

she tried to keep her mouth shut, to put on a show of being the ‘cool girl’ as much as she could. correcting her posture, she looked in the mirror and began to fix her hair before looking up to where the other officers and detectives most likely stood watching.

Q: I’m gonna’ start light. I hate interrogators who go straight into the hard stuff, ya’ know? I find it impolite. So, tell me a little about yourself. Give me your full name.

Bridget rolled her eyes at the question, eying Booth suspiciously, “I feel like you should know that already if you’re interviewing me.”

Q: Alright. Tell me your date of birth and age.

“I’m 20, I was born on November 27th. I’m a Sagittarius, if you want to know.” Her voice was cold and her expression remained neutral, waiting until she could leave the precinct.

Q: Where did you grow up? What was your home life like? Tell me about your family and your upbringing. Give me your story.

“I grew up in Saratoga Springs. My life was fine. Talk to my parole officer if you want more detail.” She finished harshly, not wanting to talk about her past in any capacity. Her parole officer was more than likely behind the window, showing other detectives her file and briefing them on her previous interactions with law enforcement.

Q: Tell me about the most impactful people in your life. I’m not picky – they can be good or bad impacts.

“Just read my file, it’ll tell you more than enough.” She could mention her ex, but it was too painful of a memory to bring up. Plus, there was no way that they weren’t already aware of the situation. She was still wearing the skin from the first time she was hit. The first bruise, even if it wasn’t visible it would always be there to her. Each new one, despite fading to others, they still remained. As she looked at the two-way mirror, she could see every time she was hurt, every scrape, every cut, every scar before it even scabbed over. Even though it was still visible, it wasn’t something she wanted to say out loud.

Q: What are your goals in life? What would be your ideal final ending? What would help you reach these goals?

With a smile, Bridget raised an eyebrow, “Is this a police interview or a first date, Detective?”

Q: How would you describe yourself?

“Now this really feels like a date. Why don’t you describe yourself for me?” she leaned forward, resting her arms on the cool table and making direct eye contact.

Q: What do you do in your free time? What’s your idea of fun? What sports or extracurriculars are you in at Hyland University?

“I play ultimate frisbee and I’m in SAGE and DIAC. For fun, I like to have sex. Do you, Detective?” She looked over at a very unamused Detective Booth and laughed to herself, looking once again past him at the two way mirror.

Q: Do you drink? Smoke? Take drugs of any kind? Answer carefully on this one, kid.

“Of course not, drugs are bad and I’m underage. I’m a good girl, sir.”

Q: Tell me about the relationships in your life. Friendships, romantic, everything in between.

“I have a lot of friends, I’m a popular person. As for romantic relationships, let’s see...” she tapped her chin and clicked her tongue, considering rattling off names in hopes of annoying them all, but eventually deciding against it. “You could always be added onto the list, Booth.”

Q: What’s the best thing that has ever happened to you? What’s the worst?

“This doesn’t seem relevant.” She responded almost immediately, her poker face still going strong.

Q: Let me throw in a fun one, lighten up the mood. Would you rather only be able to tell the truth or only be able to lie?

“Only be able to lie. But if I can only lie, wouldn’t that answer itself be a lie?” Tapping her fingers on the table, Bridget cocked her head and clicked her tongue.

Q: Did you kill Morgan Parrish?

“No.”

Q: Let’s get some background information on this. How do you know Morgan Parrish?

“The first time I met her I was standing over her dead body,” She responded coldly before breaking into a laugh at Booth’s open mouth, “I’m fucking kidding. I was a freshman, rushing her sorority.”

Q: Explain the extent of your relationship with her. Was it platonic? Civil? Rocky? Romantic?

“We were friends, I guess.” A shrug accompanied her response and she mentally

Q: In your own words, describe Morgan Parrish to me.

Exhaling harshly, she shook her head, “She was a cunt. But she was still my friend.”

Q: Would you say your life got better or worse upon meeting Morgan Parrish?

“I don’t know. Next question.”

Q: What was your favorite thing about her?

“She could hook me up."

Q: What was your least favorite thing about her?

“She got anything she wanted, no matter what it cost other people.”

Q: Where were you the night of her murder?

“Drinking at a frat party. I was with Aleks.”

Q: Where were you the day before?

“Thursday? I went to my classes and did homework like a good student.”

Q: Where were you after?

“Doing homework. It was a Sunday.”

Q: How did you feel about her passing?

“It sucked, but so it goes.”

Q: What do you think about the way she died? Just as a refresher, Morgan Parrish was drugged, strangled, beaten, and then shot.

“Yikes.”

Q: Did you make any sort of tribute to her death and put it on social m-

Another interrogator walks into the room. She’s holding a folder with your picture clipped to the front. She opens it in front of Detective Booth and whispers something into his ear. He shoots you a look and then excuses himself from the room. He returns twenty minutes later, features stony. He quickly writes something down on his notepad and then caps the pen.

Q: Change of plans. I’m going to scrap the questions I had prepared and ask you what I see fit. Where were you exactly the night Morgan Parrish died?

“It took you 20 minutes to come up with that question? I told you, I was at a party.”

Q: Tell me all the details you can remember from that night.

Rolling her eyes, Bridget shook her head, “I already told you. And you can see the statement I made when it first happened, I’m sure it’s in your little file.”

Q: Were you intoxicated at any point?

Was this supposed to be a trick question or something? She was pretty sure that there would be a statute of limitations on how long ago one could be penalized for underage drinking; plus, that wasn’t really the issue at hand, “Yes.”

Q: Are there any witnesses able to corroborate your story?

“Ask Aleks. I was with him upstairs most of the night.” She paused to wink at Booth, “want to be my alibi if anything happens tonight?”

Q: I feel like you’re leaving things out. Tell me all the details you can remember from that night.

Shooting daggers at the detectives in front of her, she pursed her lips and shook her head, staying silent.

Q: … are you telling me the truth, kid? We got six other students we’re talking to today – sure would suck for you if one of ‘em was able to prove that something you’re saying is false.

“Don’t call me kid, it’s patronizing.”

Q: What was the last thing you said to Morgan?

“I don’t remember, probably “goodbye.”

Q: Have you ever gotten into a physical altercation with Morgan before?

“No.”

Q: Have you ever fought verbally with Morgan?

“People fight, it’s human nature.”

Q: Would you say you felt safe around Morgan?

“If I was close to her then I was less likely to get hurt by her, so I guess.

Q: Do you wish you had never met Morgan?

“Don’t you ever wonder about your life taking a different path?

Q: Do you own a gun?

“No of course not.”

Q: Have you handled a gun before?

“No.”

Q: Do you know someone who owns a gun?

A lump grew in Bridget’s throat at the question, her breath was stuck and she knew that her discomfort was evident, “...No.” She refused to elaborate on it, that person wasn’t even in her life anymore.

Q: Have you gotten into physical fights before?

“Not ones in which I fought back.” She responded coldly, pointing to a scar on her jaw from a surgery last summer after her ex learned that she was back in Saratoga.

Q: Is there anyone who can prove where you say you were on the night of her death?

“You already asked this like three times. Are you trying to catch me in a lie or something?”

Q: Do you think Morgan deserved to die?

“No, but she did anyway.”

Q: Do you wish she was still alive?

Scoffing, she answered weakly, “Ha, most of the time I don’t.”

Q: Do you miss her?

“Not really.”

Q: Has your life gotten better or worse since her death?

“It’s been calmer, for sure.”

Q: If you could bring her back to life, would you?

“Mmm probably not.”

Q: Are you hiding something from the people of Hyland? From your family? From me?

Shaking her head, Bridget decided not to entertain them any more. It wasn’t benefitting her at all and it wasn’t as if her emotional unavailability was anyone’s business.

Q: Have you been telling the truth this entire time?

“Obviously.”

Q: Did you kill Morgan Parrish?

“No means no, detective. Do you need to go back to sensitivity training?”

Bridget stood up and walked toward the door, leaning her shoulder against it and picking at her nails, waiting to be let out.

#hylandtask #i got so lazy halfway through sorry

1 note · View note

yngwrthr · 6 years

Link

“ I. A special kind of policeman

The Okhrana took over in 1881 from the notorious Third Section of the Ministry of the Interior. But it only really developed after 1900, when a new generation of police was put in charge. The old officers of the constabulary, in particular the higher ranks, had considered it contrary to military honour to occupy themselves with certain aspects of police business. The new school overrode such scruples, and undertook to organise the secret police on a scientific basis, to carry out provocation, informing and betrayal inside the revolutionary parties. It was to produce talented, erudite men like the Colonel Spiridovich who has left us a voluminous History of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party and a History of the Social-Democratic Party.

Special attention was given to the recruitment, education and professional training of the officers of this police force. At police headquarters, a file was kept on each man, thoroughly documented and including many interesting details. Character, level of education, intelligence and service record were all noted down in an eminently practical spirit. One officer, for example, is described as “limited” – all right for secondary jobs, only requiring firm handling; while another, the file points out, is “inclined to pay court to the ladies”.

Among the many questions on the form, the following are particularly striking: “Does he have a good knowledge of the statutes and programmes of any of the parties? Which parties?” We find that our friend who runs after the ladies “has a good knowledge of Socialist- Revolutionary and anarchist ideas – a passable knowledge of the Social-Democratic Party – and a superficial knowledge of the Polish Socialist Party.” Note the careful grading of learning. But let us carry on examining this same file. Has our policeman “followed courses in the history of the revolutionary movement?” “In which parties has he had secret agents working? How many? Are they intellectuals? Workers?”

Naturally, to train its experts, the Okhrana organised courses in which each party was studied – its origins, its programme, its methods, and even the life-histories of its better-known members.

It should be noted that this Russian police force, trained to do the most sensitive political police work, no longer had anything in common with the local constabularies of Western European countries. Its equivalent is to be found in the secret police of all capitalist states.

...

III. The secrets of provocation

The most important section of the Russian police was unquestionably its “secret service”, a polite name for the provocation agency, whose origins go back to the first revolutionary struggles, developing to an extraordinary degree after the 1905 revolution.

Only policemen (force officers) who had undergone special training, instruction and selection were engaged in the recruitment of agents provocateurs. Their degree of success in this field was taken into account in grading and promoting them. Precise instructions established the very finest details of their relations with their secret collaborators. Finally, highly paid specialists collated all the information supplied by the provocateurs, studied it, sorted it out and cataloged it in reports.

At the Okhrana buildings (16 Fontanka, Petrograd), there was a secret room entered only by the chief of police and the officer in charge of sorting documents. It was the centre of the secret service. Its basic contents consisted of the filing system on the provocateurs, in which we found over 35,000 names. In most cases, though an excess of precautions, the name of the “secret agent” was replaced by a pseudonym.

When, after the triumph of the revolution, these reports fell in their entirety into the comrades’ hands, this made the identification of many of these wretches particularly difficult. The name of the provocateur was to be known to no one but the head of the Okhrana and the officer responsible for maintaining permanent contact with him. Generally only pseudonyms were used, even when the provocateurs signed the monthly receipts for their salaries, which were paid as normally and regularly as to other state employees, for sums ranging from 3, 10 or 15 roubles a month up to a maximum of 150 or 200. But the administration, distrustful of its agents and anxious that police officers should not invent imaginary collaborators, often carried out detailed investigations to check on different branches of their organisation. A fully authorised inspector personally checked up on secret collaborators, interviewed them at his discretion, and either sacked them or gave them a rise. We should add that reports from such inspectors were, as far as possible, carefully checked out against each other.

...

VII. A ghost from the past

Even today we are far from having identified all the agents provocateurs of the Okhrana whose files we now have.

Not a month passes without the revolutionary tribunals of the Soviet Union passing judgement on some of these men. They are met and identified by chance. In 1924, one such wretch appeared, coming back to us from a fifty-year past as though with a sudden rush of nausea – he was a real ghost. This spectre called to mind a page of history, which we insert here simply to project into these sordid pages a little of the light of revolutionary heroism.

This agent provocateur had given 37 years’ good service (from 1880 to 1917) and, even as an old man, was wily enough to give the Cheka the slip for seven whole years.

... Around 1879, the 20-year-old student Okladsky, a revolutionary from the age of 15; a member of the Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will) Party, and a terrorist, planned an attempt on the life of Tsar Alexander II together with Zheliabov. They were going to blow up the imperial train. It passed over the mines without incident. The infernal package had not worked. An accident? So it was thought at the time. But 16 revolutionaries, including Okladsky, had to answer for this “crime”. Okladsky was condemned to death. Was this the beginning of his brilliant career? Or had it already begun? A pardon from the emperor commuted his sentence to life imprisonment.

It was in any case the beginning of the series of inestimable services Okladsky was to render to the Tsarist police. In the long list of revolutionaries he was to hand over, were four names which are among the finest in our history: Barannikov, Zheliabov, Trigoni and Vera Figner. Of these four, only Vera Nicolaevna Figner survived. She spent twenty years in the Schlüsselberg fortress. Barannikov died there. Trigoni, after suffering twenty years in Schlüsselberg and four in exile in Sakhalin, lived just long enough to see the overthrow of the autocracy before his death in June 1917. Zheliabov died on the gallows.

All these brave figures were leaders of Narodnaya Volya, the first Russian revolutionary party, which, before the birth of the proletarian movement, had declared war on the autocracy. Their programme was for a liberal revolution, which if achieved would have been an enormous step forward for Russia. In a period in which no other action was possible, they employed terrorism, constantly striking at the head of Tsarism, driving it mad sometimes, and on March 1, 1881, beheading it. In the struggle of this handful of heroes against the powerfully-armed old society, were forged the customs, traditions and outlook which, carried forward by the proletariat, were to temper many generations for the victory of October 1917.

Of all these heroes, perhaps the greatest was Alexander Zheliabov, and it was certainly he who rendered the greatest services to the party he had helped to found. Denounced by Okladsky, he was arrested on February 27, 1881, in an apartment on the Nevsky Prospekt, in the company of a young lawyer from Odessa, Trigoni, also a member of the mysterious Executive Committee of Narodnaya Volya. Two days later, the party’s bombs blew Alexander II to pieces in a St Petersburg street. The following day, the legal authorities received an astounding letter from Zheliabov, jailed in the Peter and Paul prison. Rarely has a judiciary and a monarchy met with such defiance. Rarely has the leader of a party carried out his last duty with such pride. The letter said:

“If the new sovereign, who receives his sceptre from the hands of the revolution, plans to give the regicides the same punishment as of old; if he plans to execute Ryssakov, it would be a crying injustice to spare my life, since I have made so many attempts on the life of Alexander II, and only chance prevented my participation in his execution. I am very concerned that the government may be putting a higher price on formal justice than on real justice, and adorning the crown of the new monarch with the corpse of a young hero, solely for lack of formal proof against myself, a veteran of the revolution.

With all my heart I protest against this iniquity.

Only cowardice on the part of the government could explain why two gallows should not be raised instead of one.”

The new Tsar, Alexander III, in fact had six gibbets put up for the regicides. At the last moment, a young woman, Jessy Helfman, who was pregnant, was pardoned. Zheliabov died alongside his companion, Sophia Perovskaya, Ryssakov (who had turned traitor, to no avail), Mikhailov, and the chemist Kibalchich. Mikhaiov had to suffer being hanged three times. Twice, the hangman’s rope broke. Twice, Mikhaiov fell, wrapped in his shroud and hood, and stood up again of his own accord ...

... The provocateur Okladsky, meanwhile, carried on with his services. Among the open-hearted youth who tirelessly “went to the people”, to poverty, prison, exile and death, to open the way for revolution, it was easy enough to deal hidden blows! Scarcely had Okladsky arrived in Kiev, when he handed over Vera Nikolaevna Figner to the police chief Sudekin. Then he worked in Tbilisi as a professional traitor, becoming an expert in the art of forming relationships with the best men there, gaining their friendship and feigning to share their enthusiasm, in order then one day to point the finger and have his comrades buried alive... and receive the expected gratuity.

In 1889, the imperial police called him to St Petersburg. The Minister, Durnovo, absolving Oksladsky of anything unworthy in his past, turned him into the Hon. Citizen Petrovsky, still of course a revolutionary and the confidant of revolutionaries. He was to remain on “active service” until the revolution of March 1917. Up until 1924 he managed to pass himself off as a peaceful inhabitant of Petrograd. Later, locked up in Leningrad in the very prison where many of his victims had awaited their death, he agreed to write a confession of his life up until the year 1890.

But beyond that date, the old agent provocateur refused to say a word. He would speak only about a past from which scarcely any of the revolutionaries survived, but which he had peopled with martyrs and with dead.

The revolutionary tribunal of Leningrad passed judgement on Okladsky in the first fortnight of January 1925. The revolution is not vengeful. This was a ghost from too remote a past, a past which was dead and buried. The trial, conducted by veterans of the revolution, seemed like a scientific debate on history and psychology. It was a study of the most pitiful of human documents. Okladsky was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.

VIII. Malinovsky

Let us dwell briefly on a case of provocation of which there are several examples in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement: provocation on the part of a party leader. Enter the enigmatic figure of Malinovsky. [1]

One morning in 1918 – the terrible year which followed the October Revolution, with civil war, requisitioning in the countryside, sabotage by technicians, conspiracies, the Czech uprising, foreign intervention, the infamous peace (as Lenin called it) of Brest-Litovsk, two assassination attempts on Vladimir Ilyich himself- one morning in that year, a man quite calmly appeared before the Commandant of the Smolny Institute in Petrograd and said to him:

“I am the provocateur Malinovsky. I ask you to arrest me.”

Humour has a place in all tragedy. Unmoved, the Smolny commandant nearly showed his untimely visitor the door.

“I have no orders to deal with this! And it’s not my job to arrest you!”

“Then take me to the party committee!”

And at the committee offices, he was recognised, with astonishment, as the most execrable, the most contemptible figure in the party. He was arrested.

His career, in brief, was as follows:

The good side: a difficult adolescence, three convictions for thieving. Very gifted, very active, a member of several organisations, so highly thought of that in 1910 he was asked to accept nomination to the Central Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, and was elected to it at the Prague Bolshevik Conference (1912). By the end of that year he was a Bolshevik deputy in the IVth Imperial Duma. In 1913 he was president of the Bolshevik parliamentary faction.

The bad side: Okhrana informer (known as “Ernest”, and later “The Tailor”) from 1907. From 1910, he was on 100 roubles a month (a princely rate). The ex-Chief of Police, Beletsky, says: “Malinovsky was the pride of the service, which was grooming him to be one of the leaders of the party.” He had groups of Bolsheviks arrested in Moscow, Tula, etc; he handed Milyutin, Nogin, Maria Smidovich, Stalin and Sverdlov over to the police. He made over secret party archives to the Okhrana. He was even elected to the Duma with the discreet but effective help of the police ...

Once exposed, he received hefty compensation from the Ministry of the Interior and disappeared. The war intervened. Taken prisoner in the fighting, he became an active member again in the concentration camps. Finally he returned to Russia, to proclaim to the revolutionary tribunal: “Have me shot!” He maintained that he had suffered enormously from his dual existence; that he had only really understood the revolution too late; that he had let himself be drawn on by ambition and the spirit of adventure. Krylenko mercilessly refuted this argument, sincere though it may have been: “The adventurer is playing his last card!” he said.

A revolution cannot halt to decipher psychological enigmas. Nor can it run the risk of being deceived once again by a turbulent, impassioned actor. The revolutionary tribunal delivered the verdict demanded by both the accuser and the accused. That same night, a few hours later, Malinovsky was crossing an isolated courtyard in the Kremlin when he suddenly received a bullet in the back of the neck.

...

XI. Russian informers abroad. M. Raymond Recouly

The ramifications of the Okhrana of course extended abroad. Their archives contained information on the large number of people then living beyond the frontiers of the Empire, including some who had never been in Russia at all. Although I only came to Russia for the first time in 1919, I found a series of files on myself. The Russian police followed the activities of revolutionaries abroad with the greatest attention. On the case of the Russian anarchists Troianovsky and Kirichek, caught during the war in Paris, I found voluminous files in Petrograd. They included the complete report of the inquiry held in the Paris Palace of Justice. For the rest, be they Russians or foreigners, the anarchists were everywhere kept under special surveillance by the Okhrana, which for that purpose maintained a constant correspondence with the security services of London, Rome, Berlin etc.

In every major capital city there was a Russian police chief in permanent residence. During the war, M. Krassilnikov, officially an adviser at the embassy, occupied this delicate position.

At the time the Russian Revolution broke out, some 15 agents provocateurs were operating in Paris in the different Russian emigré groups. When the last ambassador of the last Tsar had to hand over the legation to a successor appointed by the Provisional Government, a commission consisting of highly-regarded members of the emigré colony in Paris undertook a study of M. Krassilnikov’s papers. They identified the secret agents without difficulty. Among other surprises, they found that a member of the French press, who had always appeared to be a good patriot, had been around the Rue de Grenelle as an informer and spy. He was M. Raymond Recouly, then a journalist on Le Figaro, where he was in charge of the foreign desk. In his secret collaboration with M. Krassilnikov, Recouly, following the rule for informers, had changed his name to the not-very-literary pseudonym of Rat-Catcher. A dog’s name for a dog’s job. The Rat-Catcher reported to the Okhrana on his colleagues in the French press. He put forward Okhrana policy in Le Figaro and elsewhere. He was paid 500 francs a month. His activities are notorious. They can be read about complete, in printed form; they were apparently published in Paris in 1918 in a voluminous report by M. Agafanov, a member of the Paris emigrés’ commission of inquiry into Russian provocateurs in France. The members of this commission – some of whom must still be living in Paris – will certainly not have forgotten the Rat-Catcher Recouly. René Marchand, meanwhile, in 1924, published in L’Humanité proof, taken from the Okhrana’s Petrograd archives, of M. Recouly’s police activity. This gentleman did no more than issue a denial which no-one believed, yet he was not rejected by his colleagues. [7] And for good reason. Given the extent of the corruption of the press by foreign governments, his case was not very remarkable.”

#Serge #Okhrana #agents provocateurs

3 notes · View notes

noksye · 7 years

Photo

And the second one ! Meet Exper !

Name : Exper (contraction of Expert/Experience)

Age : 18/20

Pronouns : He/Him

Facts :

His pastime is to write people's reaction everytime he does something (or something to them). All of this is transcribed in a little notebook he always keeps with him. He also writes on it all his scientifics comments.

Without really knowing why, he greatly likes the moon crescent design, which is Nightmare's symbol. He adds it on everything he possesses (notebook, jacket, etc).

His jacket is almost the same as Epic. As his boots.

Although he's often stoic, he loves to surprise people around him, changing totally and quickly his behavior. Because it gives him more interesting reactions to write about. He's a repressed prankster and memes lover.

''Interesting'' is probably the word he says the most. Interesting, isn't it ?

He talks to his friends saying ''My Bruhder'' (even for girls). But for the Sanses (=not Children), he adds ''Mister'' before naming them.

Even if he finds this talent pretty useless, he's a great dancer. His childhood with Mettaton is the reason why.

He already learned about ten of different magics, even if he doesn't define himself as a fighter, but a scientist.

Like Epic and Gaster, he has holes in his hands but he doesn't hide it. He uses more his two tentacles than his hands.

He's able to catch a part of people's emotions, giving them the form of a sphere, like Nightmare's ability. He uses them to fight and change his attacks' status instead of absorb them. Then, the spheres are placed in his hands' hollows.

Like Nightmare, he's also surrounded with a bluish aura. Thanks to his body, he's less affected by weapons damages.

He can open portals to other AUs, but only those with strong emotions (postive or negative) and Exper must have anticipated which emotion he wants to follow. The more he uses a portal to a specific AU, the faster it will be to reopen it. Matter of habit.

His teleport ability is limited to his field of view.

The bones he makes to fight are grey like him. Same for the tentacles.

His L.O.V.E. is already 20 because of the intensive training giving by Epic. Wondering when he'll increase to 21.

He's certainly Lawful – Neutral or True Neutral. In the worst case, he may be Neutral – Evil.

Story :

Exper is the result from an experience leaded by Epic, before Epictale events. Epic used his magic on remains of a tentacle he found, knowing pertinently what it was. That's how Exper was created. Amalgation between his two parents, Exper was first conceived to be a weapon rather than a person.

He was quickly trained as a weapon by Epic and educated as a person by Mettaton.

In the beginning, he was supposed to be able to destroy the barrier. However, after some tests and attempts, he was completely unable to do it. Epic saw that as a new scientific failure and left Exper enjoy his life as he wanted.

One day, Exper tried to open a portal on an AU where his second father, Nightmare, would be. He concentrated to find an AU with a immense negative energy, and then, he arrived to Nightmare's castle.

Unfortunately, Epictale events took place during the time when he was to the castle. He doesn't know about the Reset, and he can't go back to Epictale because of that.

His real goal is to find a way to his native AU, which he can no longer determine the location. He studies the AUs' construction and organization to learn more about the ''Undertale Multiverse''.

Chips :

Epictale!Sans ;

He sees him as a superior or a teacher rather than a father. He has a deep respect for him, knowing him as a Royal Scientist more than a Memes Master.

Exper hopes to become enough important to his first father's eyes so that he won't regret what he created. Actually Exper wants his father to be proud of him.

He's sure, without any proof, that Epic is someone more interesting than he shows.

He sorely inherited his kindness and compassion, even if he hides it behind his scientific hobbies and his extreme curiosity.

Dreamtale!Sans ; Nightmare

He has some admiration towards his second father. The fear and the apprehension Nightmare inspires to Exper earned him this unhealthy admiration. He greatly covets his father's abilities. He really wishes to be able to do like Nightmare and to ''become'' Nightmare, to improve his power.

To reach that, he's ready to accept anything from Nightmare. Exper knows that his father is very dangerous and that he shouldn't get closer to him. But he knows, he feels that one day, he should be able to eliminate Nightmare. Or maybe just replace him. Who knows.

Nom : Exper, contraction de Expert/Expérience

Âge : 18/20

Pronoms : Il/Lui

Facts :

Il a pour passe-temps de noter les réactions des gens autour de lui à chaque fois qu'il fait/leur fait quelque chose. Tout cela est retranscrit dans un petit carnet qu'il garde toujours précieusement sur lui. C'est aussi là qu'il note toutes ses remarques scientifiques.

Sans vraiment savoir pourquoi, il apprécie grandement le motif du croissant de lune, symbole de Nightmare. C'est pour cela qu'il le rajoute sur les choses qu'il possède (carnet, manteau, etc...).

Son manteau est presque le même qu'Epic!Sans. Pareil pour les bottes.

Bien que souvent stoïque, il aime surprendre les gens autour de lui en changeant d'attitude/comportement très rapidement et du tout au tout. Cela donne davantage de réaction intéressante à noter. Prankeur refoulé et adorateur de memes en cachette.

« Intéressant » est très certainement le mot qu'il prononce le plus. Intéressant n'est-ce pas ?

Il s'adresse à ses amis avec « My bruhder » (même pour les filles) et « Mister --- » quant il s'adresse à un Sans adulte (=qui n'est pas un Child).

Bien qu'il n'a pas trop d'utilité à ce talent, il est un excellent danseur. Enfance avec Mettaton oblige.

Il maîtrise déjà une dizaine de magie différentes, bien qu'il ne soit pas vraiment quelqu'un se définissant comme un combattant, mais plutôt un scientifique.

Tout comme Epic!Sans et Gaster il possède des creux dans ses mains, bien que lui ne les dissimule pas. Il utilise bien plus souvent les deux tentacules qu'il possède plutôt que ses mains.

Il est capable de capturer une partie des émotions des gens sous forme de petite sphère, comme Nightmare, et de les utiliser pour combattre. Plutôt que de les absorber il s'en sert pour modifier le statut de ses attaques. Les sphères sont alors placées dans le creux de ses mains.

Également comme Nightmare, il dégage une aura bleutée tout autour de lui. Il possède une certaine résistance aux dégâts des armes.

Il peut ouvrir des portails vers des AU, mais uniquement ceux possédant des émotions assez fortes (qu'elles soient négatives ou positives) et qui doivent clairement être déterminées par Exper auparavant. Plus il utilise un portail vers un AU bien précis, plus cela est rapide pour y accéder. Question d'habitude.

Sa capacité de téléportation en terme de porté se limite à son champs de vision.

Tout comme sa peau, les os qu'il produit pour se battre sont de couleur gris. Même chose pour les tentacules.

Son niveau de L.O.V.E. est déjà à 20 dut à l’entraînement intensif qu'Epic lui administra. Reste à savoir quant il attendra le niveau 21.

Son alignement serait très certainement Loyal Neutre voir Strictement Neutre. Dans les pires cas, peut-être Neutre Mauvais.

Story :

Exper est le résultat d'une expérience d'Epic!Sans avant les événements d'Epictale. En utilisant sa magie sur les restes d'une tentacule de Nightmare il réussit à créer Exper. Mélange assez étrange de ses deux parents, Exper fut conçu à la base pour être une arme plutôt qu'un individu.

Exper fut rapidement éduqué en tant qu'arme par Epic et en tant qu'individu par le Mettaton d'Epictale.

A la base il était censé être capable de détruire la barrière de l'Underground. Toutefois après quelques tests et essais il se révéla qu'il en était tout bonnement incapable. Epic vit cela comme un nouvel échec scientifique et laissa donc Exper profiter du restant de sa vie comme il l'entendait.

Un jour, Exper tenta d'ouvrir un portail vers un AU susceptible de contenir son autre père, Nightmare. Il se concentra donc sur un AU avec une énergie négative immense. C'est ainsi qu'il arriva au château de Nightmare.

Malheureusement, les événements d'Epictale eurent lieu entre-temps, et le Reset de cet AU, sans qu'il le sache, l'empêche de retourner dans cet AU.

Son réel but désormais, reste de retrouver son chemin vers son AU d'origine, dont il n'arrive plus à déterminer l’emplacement. Pour cela il étudie la construction et organisation des AUs afin d'en apprendre plus sur « l'Univers d'Undertale ».

CHIPs :

Epictale!Sans ;

Il le voit plus comme un supérieur, un professeur, qu'un réel père. Il montre un très grand respect envers ce dernier qu'il a beaucoup plus connu en tant que Scientifique Royal que Maître des memes.

Exper espère devenir un jour assez important aux yeux de son première père pour que celui ne regrette pas sa décision de l'avoir crée, bien au contraire.

Il est certain, sans même en avoir eu la preuve, qu'Epic est individu bien plus intéressant que ce qu'il veux le faire croire.

Il a grandement hérité de sa gentillesse et de sa compassion bien qu'il la dissimule grandement derrière ses centres d'intérêts scientifiques et sa curiosité extrême.

Dreamtale!Sans ; Nightmare

Il possède une certaine admiration envers son deuxième père. La peur et la crainte qu'il lui inspire lui a valu cette admiration un peu malsaine. Exper convoite grandement les capacités de Nightmare. Il souhaite énormément être capable de faire et de devenir Nightmare pour augmenter sa « puissance ».

Pour cela il est prêt à tout accepter de la part de Nightmare pour parvenir à ceci. Il sait que Nightmare est quelqu'un de très dangereux et qu'il ne devrait pas approcher. Mais Exper, sait, sent, qu'un jour, il pourrait être capable de supprimer Nightmare. Ou peut-être simplement le remplacer. Qui sait.

Epic belongs to @yugogeer12

Nightmare belongs to @jokublog

And Exper belongs to me !

#exper #undertale #undertale au #child #Epic!Sans #Nightmare!Sans #rf #my art #Epicmare #french

41 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

Are There More Republicans Or Democrats In The Senate

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/are-there-more-republicans-or-democrats-in-the-senate/

Are There More Republicans Or Democrats In The Senate

Biggest Influencers: Democrats Or Republicans

Democrats take House, Republicans keep Senate in historic midterms

To understand who influences politics, you can easily find out who the wealthy support. For example, the Walton family, the owners of the retail giant Walmart, has traditionally donated to Republican candidates. Alice Walton, the daughter of Walmarts founder, hasnt strayed from that too much. That is, until the 2008 election. In 2008 and 2016 the Walton family donated to Hilary Clintons campaign.

She isnt the only person from a wealthy family to change tradition where politics are concerned either. Many of the younger individuals in Americas richest families have begun to sway from their familys political associations as well. Below youll find the affiliation and overall net worth of the top 10 richest families in America.

Weve Had A Split Senate Before And They Mostly Figured It Out

The most recent 50-50 Senate occurred following the 2000 election. Sens. Tom Daschle and Trent Lott , then Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate respectively, formed a powersharing agreement to guide the chamber. Key features of the agreement included:

Majority Leader: Lott was recognized as the de factor majority leader following Inauguration Day, based on the tie-breaking vote of Republican Vice President Dick Cheney.

Committees would have equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats;

If a tie vote prevented a measure or nomination from being reported to the full Senate, the majority or minority leader could move to discharge the committee from further consideration; Debate on the question of discharge was limited, and therefore, a filibuster could not block it.

Debate: Cloture motions, which are used to bring debate on a measure or nomination to a close and prevent filibusters, could not be filed on any amendable item of business during the first 12 hours of debate.

Scheduling and agenda: the leaders were to attempt to balance the interests of the parties in setting the Senates schedule and deciding what matters to bring up for consideration.

An important caveat in the agreement noted that Senate Rules do not prohibit the right of the Democratic Leader, or any other Senator, to move to proceed to any item.

Senate Votes To Kill Debate On Voting Rights Bill

Republican senators voted against debating Democrats election and voting reform legislation, as expected.

Sixty votes are required to open debate on any measure under the Senates filibuster rules and in a 50-50, evenly divided Senate all 50 Republicans voted against advancing and debating the legislation.

We can argue what should be done to protect voting rights and safeguard our democracy, but dont you think we should be able to debate the issue? said Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer.

Its unclear where Democrats can go from here. Progressives have pushed to end the filibuster, which would allow them to vote and narrowly pass voting rights reform without Republican support. But moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have rejected the idea.

Geoffrey: The Case For Republicans

Republicans may be slightly behind in the polls, but we should be cautious about reading too much into these surveys as its hard to say the slim Democratic edge is all that meaningful. Polls have routinely disagreed over who is in the lead and nearly every survey has fallen within the margin of error. Whats more, there just havent been that many high quality polls just two of the 16 firms that have surveyed Georgia since November have a FiveThirtyEight pollster rating that is higher than a B. This is unfortunate, but not surprising given many pollsters are gun-shy after polling misses in November. Simply put, a small polling error in the GOPs direction wouldnt be that surprising and furthermore, it would be enough to give Loeffler and Perdue the advantage.

Lastly, while Nathaniel poo-pooed it, the GOP does have a history of doing better in runoffs than the Democrats. Outside of one 1998 runoff for a seat on the states public service commission, Republicans have always gained at least a little ground in the runoff compared to the general election. True, we only have a sample size of eight, but some of the factors that contributed to Republican runoff success in the past could still come into play, like an older electorate. And remember, if the Republicans improve on their November showing or even just hold serve they win.

Main Difference Between Democrats And Republicans In Point Form

Democratic Party was founded in 1828 while the Republican Party in 1854

The Democratic Party has about 15 presidents while the Republican Party has about 19 presidents since independence

Republican Party voters are older generation while Democratic Party voters are the younger generation

The voters of Republicans are conservatives while democrats are liberal

The main color of republicans is red while that of democrats is blue

The party symbol of democrats is a donkey whereas that of republicans is an elephant

The Democrats party was founded on the basis of anti-federalism whereas republican party on the basis of anti-slavery and agent of modernity

The Democrats party has a larger membership subscription whereas republican has a lower membership subscription

Democrats applaud same-sex marriage whereas republicans condemn same-sex marriage

Democrats want the elderly medical program to be allowed while republicans reject suggestions of elderly medical care program

Texas Governor Vetoes Bill Protecting Dogs From Abuse

Sarah Betancourt

The governor of Texas has pulled a surprise move, vetoing a bipartisan bill that would have provided greater protections for dogs against human abuse.

The Republican governor, Greg Abbott, vetoed a bill on Friday that would have made unlawful restraint of a dog a criminal offense, sending animal rights activists and legislators on both sides of the aisle into a fray and spurring the hashtag #AbbottHatesDogs.

State senate bill 474, dubbed the Safe Outdoor Dogs Act, aimed to ban the use of heavy chains to keep dogs tethered. The bill had bipartisan support in the legislature, passing the house 83-32 and the senate 28-3.

In his veto, Abbott said state statutes already existed to protect dogs from animal cruelty, and the penalties proposed in the bill of $500 to $2,000, and jail time of up to 180 days, were excessive. The bill said that dog owners could have dogs outside but could not restrain them with short lines and chains or anything that could cause injury and pain to the dog.

Dog owners would have faced a $500 penalty for a first offense and class C misdemeanor, and the next penalty would have been a class B misdemeanor, for a fine of up to $2,000 and up to three months in jail.

Abbott said Texas was not a place for that kind of micro-managing and over-criminalization.

Georgia Election: Democrats On Course For Senate Control

US election 2020

The Democratic Party of US President-elect Joe Biden is on the verge of taking control of the Senate as results come in from two elections in Georgia.

Pastor Raphael Warnock is projected to win one seat. Fellow Democrat Jon Ossoff leads narrowly in the other.

If they both win, Mr Biden will control Congress fully and have a much better chance of pushing through his agenda.

He said it was time to turn the page. The American people demand action and they want unity.

Histories Of The Parties

The Democratic party started in 1828 as anti-federalist sentiments began to form. The Republican party formed a few decades later, in 1854, with the formation of the party to stopping slavery, which they viewed to be unconstitutional.

The difference between a democrat and a republican has changed many, many times throughout history. Democrats used to be considered more conservative, while the republican party fought for more progressive ideas. These ideals have switched over time.

Which Party Is The Party Of The 1 Percent

Democrats Target Vulnerable Republican Seats In Effort To Gain Control Of Congress | NBC News NOW

First, both parties receive substantial support. Much of it comes from registered voters who make $100K+ annually. However, Democrats actually come out ahead when it comes to fundraising for campaigns. In many cases, Democrats have been able to raise twice as much in private political contributions. But what about outside of politicians? Does that mean Democrats are the wealthier party? Which American families are wealthier? Republicans or Democrats?

Honestly, it is probably Republicans. When it comes down to it, the richest families in America tend to donate to Republican candidates. Forbes reported out of the 50 richest families in the United States, 28 donate to Republican candidates. Another seven donate to Democrats. Additionally, 15 of the richest families in the U.S. donate to both parties.

The Prospect Of Ditching The Filibuster

In theory, Senate Democrats could change the cloture ruleand, with it, the need for 60 votes. They could, in other words, kill the filibuster.

There are two ways that Democrats could do that. The first is by holding a vote to change the Senates standing rules. The only problem is that a vote to change the rules requires a two-thirds majority. So, as has happened many times in the past, Senators can simply filibuster the attempt to eliminate the filibuster.

The second way to kill the filibuster is known as the nuclear option. That would mean that Senate Democrats vote to establish a new precedent in the chamber, which can require only a simple majority: the 50 Democrats plus Harris. The nuclear option has been employed twice in the past decadeonce in 2013 by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and then once in 2017 by McConnellto make it easier to confirm executive and judicial nominations.

In recent months, Democrats have been clamoring to eliminate the filibuster. Former President Barack Obama called it a Jim Crow relic and President-elect Biden said hed consider eliminating it, depending on how obstreperous become. But Democrats are hardly in lock step over the issue. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has he will not support such a vote.

Is A Dream A Lie If It Dont Come True

Americas various disproportional representations are the result of winner-takes-all voting and a two-party system where party allegiance and geography have become surprisingly highly correlated. Places where people live close together vote Democratic, places where they live farther apart vote Republican . Under some electoral systems this would not matter very much. Under Americas it has come to matter a lot, in part because of an anti-party constitution.

Americas founders wanted power to be hard to concentrate, and for people who held some powers to be structurally at odds with those who held others. To this end they created a system in which distinct branches and levels of government provided checks and balances on each other. They hoped these arrangements would be sufficient to hobble any factions which sought to co-ordinate their actions across various levels and branches of government. The first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, both warned that a two-party system, in particular, would be anathema to the model of government they were trying to build.

Take the Senate. To make sure the largest states do not dominate the rest, the constitution provides equal representation for all the states, large and small alike. This builds in an over-representation for people in small or sparsely populated places.

Policymaking Has A Liberal Bias

Democratic presidents talk more about policy, propose more specific policy ideas, and pass more significant pieces of legislation. The numbers are stark. Since 1945, Democratic presidents have put forward 39 percent more policy proposals than Republican presidents, and 62 percent more domestic policy proposals.

There is a good reason for this asymmetry, write Grossmann and Hopkins. Democrats and liberals are more likely to focus on policymaking because any change that occurs is much more likely to be liberal than conservative. New policies usually expand the scope of government responsibility, funding, or regulation. There are occasional conservative policy successes as well, but they are less frequent and are usually accompanied by expansion of government responsibility in other areas.

The chart above codes significant policy changes by whether they expand or contract the scope of government regulation, funding, or responsibility. Policy changes turned out to be more than three times as likely to expand the scope of government than to contract it. This is often true even when Republicans are signing the laws.

As such, gridlock is often the best small-government conservatives can hope for. And so theyre more comfortable with it than Democrats.

What Limitations Will Senate Democrats Face In Passing Legislation

Most proposed legislation can be filibustered by members of the minority party, which means 60 members must agree to end debate and move the bill to a final vote.

The use of the Senate filibuster has become increasingly more common since the 1700s and is now a routine way of obstructing legislation. Concerns about increasing partisan gridlock have sparked debate over whether to reform the legislative filibuster, which would give the majority party vast authority to pass bills. During the recent filibuster debate between McConnell and Schumer, President Joe Biden remained silent on the issue. Other lawmakers in the past, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have called to do away with it.

But advocates for keeping the filibuster said it preserves power for the minority party. Removing the filibuster could also backfire on Democrats if they lose control of the Senate again. As of now, Democrats do not have the votes to end the filibuster but could also consider lowering the threshold, for example from 60 members to 55.

Senate filibuster use over time. Graphic by Danny Davis and Kate Grumke/PBS NewsHour.

There are some very narrow rules around it. It has to have budgetary implications. You cant just stick on any random thing. It has to actually be pretty narrowly tailored, Powell said.

Tied Senate: Who Controls A 50

The results of the 2020 election continue to be finalized, but one possible outcome is an evenly divided Senate sometime after January 5, 2021. This raises questions regarding which party will hold the majority and who the majority leader will be, as well as whether we should anticipate a completely deadlocked Senate on every vote, among others. Here are seven things you need to know

Statement from Bipartisan Policy Center President Jason Grumet: BPCs Bipartisan Approach to a Partisan Process

Who Are The Winners And Losers

Maine Democrats had high hopes of unseating Susan Collins, the 67-year-old moderate Republican who had been trailing her Democrat rival in the polls for months.

But Sara Gideon, 48, conceded in a call to Ms Collins on Wednesday afternoon.

So far, Democrats have managed a net gain of one seat in the Senate election.

Democratic former governor John Hickenlooper won a key Colorado seat from the Republican incumbent Cory Gardner.

Mr Hickenlooper, who stood for the Democratic nomination for president, was governor of Colorado for two terms from 2011 until last year. His rival was considered particularly vulnerable because of his allegiance to President Trump.

In Arizona, former astronaut Mark Kelly defeated Republican incumbent and former fighter pilot Martha McSally. Mr Kelly earlier said he was “confident that when the votes are counted, we’re going to be successful in this mission”.

However, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Trump ally Lindsey Graham have both been re-elected in their seats of Kentucky and South Carolina respectively.

And in Alabama, Republican candidate Tommy Tuberville took a seat from the Democratic incumbent Doug Jones.

United States Senate Elections

2020 United States Senate elections

The 2020 United States Senate elections were held on November 3, 2020, with the 33 class 2 seats of the Senate contested in regular elections. Of these, 21 were held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. The winners were elected to six-year terms from January 3, 2021, to January 3, 2027. Two special elections for seats held by Republicans were also held in conjunction with the general elections, with one in Arizona to fill the vacancy created by John McCain‘s death in 2018 and one in Georgia following Johnny Isakson‘s resignation in 2019. In both races, the incumbent Republican lost to a Democrat. These elections ran concurrent with the 2020 United States presidential election in which incumbent Republican president Donald Trump lost to Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

In the 2014 United States Senate elections, the last regularly scheduled elections for Class 2 Senate seats, the Republicans won nine seats from the Democrats and gained a majority, which they continued to hold after the 2016 and 2018 elections. Before the election, Republicans held 53 seats, Democrats held 45 seats, and independents caucusing with the Democrats held two seats, which were not up for reelection. Including the special elections in Arizona and Georgia, Republicans defended 23 seats and the Democrats 12.

Th Congress 2015 And 2016

Panel: After 10 GOP Reps Vote For Impeachment, Are There 17 More In The Senate?

The 114th Congress was notable because Republicans won their largest majorities in the House and Senate in decades after voters used the midterm election in 2014 to express dissatisfaction with a Democratic president, Barack Obama. Democrats lost control of the Senate in the 2014 elections.

Said Obama after the results became clear:

Obviously, Republicans had a good night. And they deserve credit for running good campaigns. Beyond that, Ill leave it to all of you and the professional pundits to pick through yesterdays results.

White House: Democrat

House: Republicans held 246 seats, Democrats held 187 seats; there were two vacancies.

Senate: Republicans held 54 seats, Democrats held 44 seats; there were two independents, both of whom caucused with the Democrats.

Not Much Was Said In This Video And Yet It Explains Why Our Us Senate Is Such A Mess Nothings Funny About This And Yet All There Laughed

The US Senate is a mess. The Republican Senators are closer to Democrats than they are to their base. The Republican base was behind President Trump and gave him the largest number of votes in US history for a Republican and a sitting US President. If not for the millions of ballots suspected of fraud, President Trump would have won in one of the biggest wins in US history.

But the Republican Senators want President Trump out and appear happy he is not there. The Democrats are thrilled they got away with the suspected fraudulent election steal. They dont care about election laws and the people of the United States, they care about power.

So when Senator McConnell, who led the assault on President Trump after the election, was stopped by Democrat Schumer, everyone laughed.

TRENDING:They Openly Mock Us Now: Taliban Hangs “Traitor” by the Throat From US Helicopter in Kandahar Left Behind by Joe Biden

The Republicans in the Senate have no idea what is going on. They have no idea what Americans want. They have no idea Americans are very angry about the 2020 Election and will not be satisfied until the election is fully forensically audited. The Democrats just want power and are happy every time they step on the American people and the U. S. Constitution, while the Republicans laugh.

Who Controls The Senate For Now

Republicans have the majority until Inauguration Day.

Georgia counties have until Jan. 15 to officially certify the results of Warnocks and Ossoffs elections, and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has until Jan. 22 to make the victories official. . Once Warnock and Ossoff have an official certificate of election, they will be sworn into office.

Until Inauguration Day, Vice President Mike Pence will preside over the chamber. After Jan. 20, Kamala Harris will have the honors.

Write to Abigail Abrams at .

Republican Memo Warns Us Senate At Risk Of Falling Into Democratic Control

Memo summarizes senate races of 10 states and how the outcome of each could determine who controls the Senate

A memo by Senate Republicans campaign arm has admitted that control of the upper chamber is at risk and that Democrats could win the Senate in Novembers elections.

The September 2020 political update from the National Republican Senatorial Committee summarizes the state of the race of 10 states with Senate races around the country and how the outcome of each could factor into whether Republicans or control the chamber in January.

The memo, obtained by the Guardian, has been circulating among political operatives, donors and interested parties. It comes just shy of 50 days before the November 2020 elections.

The next few weeks will define the future of our country for generations to come, the NRSC memo reads.

Memos like these are often shaped like dispassionate updates but in actuality they are often used to convince interested parties that races slipping out of reach are still in play. They are also often used to juice donations to lagging candidates and counter trending narratives.

Democrats need to pick up three or four seats to take control of the Senate. The fact that the NRSC memo categorizes seven Senate races as ones that simply cant be lost or deserve serious attention suggests that its possible, but not certain that Democrats can take control of the Senate.

Effect Of Republican Retirements

Indeed, 2020 was actually a Democratic-leaning year, with Biden winning the national popular vote by 4.5 percentage points. So theres a good chance that states will be at least a bit redder in 2022 than they were in 2020.

That could make these retirements less of a blow to Republicans than they first appear. Whats more, by announcing their retirements so early, Burr, Toomey and Portman are giving the GOP as much time as possible to recruit potential candidates, shape the field of candidates in a strategic way in the invisible primary and raise more money for the open-seat campaign. And in Ohio specifically, Republicans still look like heavy favorites. Even in the Democratic-leaning environment of 2020, Trump won Ohio by 8 percentage points, implying that its true partisan lean is probably even more Republican-leaning. Ohio is simply not the quintessential swing state it once was; dating back to the 2014 election cycle, Democrats have won just one out of 14 statewide contests in Ohio and that was a popular incumbent running in a blue-wave election year .

Nathaniel Rakich and Geoffrey Skelley, FiveThirtyEight

Us Senate Representation Is Deeply Undemocratic And Cannot Be Changed

Few, if any, other democracies have anything this undemocratic built into their systems.

The U.S. Senate, as you know, is currently divided 50-50 along party lines, thanks to the impressive double win in Georgia, and counting the two technically independent senators as Democrats, since they caucus with the Democrats.

But, according to the calculation of Ian Millhiser, writing for Vox, if you add up the population of states and assign half to each of their two senators, the Democratic half of the Senate represents 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.

Millhisers piece is named after that fact: Americas anti-democratic Senate, in one number.

41.5 million. Thats a lot of people, more than 10 percent of the population . You might think that in a democracy, the party that held that much of an advantage might end up with a solid majority in the Senate, rather than have just barely eked out a 50-50 tie in a body that, taken together, represents the whole country.

Republicans have not won the majority of the votes cast in all Senate races in any election cycle for a long time. Nonetheless, Republicans held majority control of the Senate after the elections of 2014, and 2016 and 2018 and still, after the 2020 races, held 50 of the 100 seats.

GOP does better in lower population states

Works to the detriment of Democratic power

Its deeply undemocratic. Nothing can become federal law without passing the Senate.

Smaller states had to be reassured

Democrats Are Under More Pressure From Interest Groups To Pass Policy

Another difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is that Democrats answer to more interest groups than Republicans.

Grossmann and Hopkins assemble studies showing that Democratic delegates at both national and state conventions report more organization memberships than Republican delegates, suggesting that Democratic conventions are the site of more organized interest group activity than Republican conventions. They also note a study showing that more interest groups make endorsements in Democratic primaries than in Republican primaries.

The graphic above is perhaps the most persuasive evidence of the density of the Democratic interest-group ecosystem: it connects interest groups that endorsed more than one of the same candidate or bill in the 2001-2002 Congress and the 2002 midterm election. So, if the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club both endorsed Senator Mary Landrieu for reelection and they also both endorsed No Child Left Behind, they get a line. The more shared endorsements between two groups, the thicker the line connecting them; the more total connections any individual group has to other groups, the larger the circle they get.

there are more organized groups asking Democrats for policy than asking Republicans for policy

0 notes

forensiceyes · 3 years

Text

California Cannabis is Still Dealing With Growing Pains. Throwing Money at the Problem Won’t Help.

Hard to believe that it’s been five years since the passage of Prop. 64, which legalized the distribution and sale of cannabis for adults 21 and up in the State of California.

Like all “cannabis friendly” states, California has had issues and time delays getting a licensing framework off the ground. Of course, this is made doubly difficult by the fact that cannabis is still a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. In my ten years of practice in the space, I’ve learned that regulators are often flying by the seat of their pants in dealing with rulemaking to address industry issues only as they arise. (Keep in mind that the states are in complete control of the fate of these democratic experiments and there is no gold standard yet for the ideal cannabis licensing system.) Oftentimes, cannabis businesses experience frustrating operational and compliance issues simply because regulators (and legislators) haven’t yet caught up with the real-world issues these businesses face in this unique area of commerce.

California cannabis though seems to suffer more than most other states because of its massive size, incredibly diverse interest groups, and its correspondingly huge illegal market that on the whole refuses to pursue state licensing. Current regulators also seem to prioritize piecemeal enforcement of the most egregious, unlicensed cannabis activities while other bad behavior and rule violations goes unaddressed. Further (and kind of unbelievably), an overwhelming majority of cannabis business licensees are still struggling to secure full blown annual licenses that are renewed from year to year. Instead, licensees are being propped up by an interim provisional licensing system with seemingly no end in sight.

We’ve written a lot about the provisional licensing system in California (see here, here and here). And the biggest hurdle from provisional to annual licensing is no doubt the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review done at the state (and sometimes local) level. In order to secure a provisional license in California, you have to submit a “complete” annual license application, which incorporates a full blown CEQA review (this in particular impacts cultivators probably more than any other licensee because of the acute environmental impacts of cultivation).

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research provides a brief summation of CEQA (which can be incredibly complex) as follows:

CEQA generally requires state and local government agencies to inform decision makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects [CEQA-triggering “projects” are subject to discretionary government agency approval, which may result in physical changes to the environment, and are non-ministerial in nature], and to reduce those environmental impacts to the extent feasible. . . . The laws and rules governing the CEQA process are contained in the CEQA statute (Public Resources Code Section 21000 and following), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 and following), published court decisions interpreting CEQA, and locally adopted CEQA procedures.

Taking a snippet from the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s (“CDFA”) requirements for securing an annual license application, the CDFA requires:

“[e]vidence of exemption from, or compliance with, [CEQA]. The evidence provided shall be one of the following: (1) A signed copy of a project specific Notice of Determination or Notice of Exemption and a copy of the associated CEQA document, or reference to where it may be located electronically, a project description, and/or any accompanying permitting documentation from the local jurisdiction used for review in determining site specific environmental compliance; (2) If an applicant does not have the evidence specified in subsection (1), or if the local jurisdiction did not prepare a CEQA document, the applicant will be responsible for the preparation of an environmental document in compliance with CEQA that can be approved or certified by the department, unless the department specifies otherwise.

The Bureau of Cannabis Control and the California Department of Public Health have their own CEQA requirements too when it comes to annual license applications.

The problem with CEQA is the time and money it takes to successfully complete a review while also avoiding legal challenges from the public. The basic CEQA trajectory is:

The government’s determination if the proposed activity is a “project” subject to CEQA.

If subject to CEQA, then the government determines if the project is exempt in accordance with legal exemptions codified at law.

However, if the project is subject to CEQA and not exempt, then the government determines, through an “Initial Study” if the proposed project has the potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

The Initial Study is used to decide whether to prepare an (a) Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), which contains in-depth studies of potential impacts, measures to reduce or avoid those impacts, and an analysis of alternatives to the project, or (b) a Negative Declaration (notably, too, a key feature of CEQA process is the opportunity for the public to review and provide input on both Negative Declarations and EIRs).

The government can issue a Negative Declaration if it finds the proposed project has no potential for significant environmental impacts. If the Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects resulting from the project, but the project is altered or the applicant agrees to conditions which will mitigate the identified significant impacts, then the government may issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Nonetheless, if the Initial Study finds substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, then an EIR must be prepared.

As you can imagine, the government agency review timeline for CEQA projects is relatively unpredictable but certainly lengthy depending on the details of the project. Still, for private projects, an agency has 30 days to review an application and to let the applicant know if additional information is required, which can be extended by an additional 15 days with the applicant’s consent. A Negative Declaration for “certain private projects” should be completed within 180 days from the date the application was deemed complete per the CEQA Guidelines, and EIRs should be completed by one year. Time limits may be extended for a variety of certain circumstances outlined in the law. Regarding the Initial Study, the actual processing review time frame may span several weeks or even months. In reality, about 12 to 18 weeks is typical to just get to a Negative Declaration. And a standard EIR determination can easily take up to a year or more to complete.

What’s been happening to a lot of licensees is that they try to avail themselves of certain CEQA exemptions by submitting to the state cannabis agencies CEQA documents from their cities or counties in which their “cannabis projects” are situated where those documents provide Negative Declarations regarding the local governments’ cannabis ordinances. This though does not absolve licensees of having to comply with CEQA as their individual “projects” have to receive Negative Declarations or EIRs.

In attempt to remedy California’s licensing woes, on June 14, the Assembly passed a plan to deploy $100 million to California’s cannabis industry. These funds are supposed to assist local governments regarding licensee CEQA compliance to ensure more annual licensing. While it’s great to see the state support this still emerging industry, I question whether this financial infusion will do much to ease the pain of dealing with CEQA, since potential licensees must still undergo these potentially draining, lengthy, and wildly expensive environmental reviews. Moreover, it’s highly unlikely that cannabis businesses will receive some special carve out from CEQA compliance when it comes to the laws and statutes in play.

Bottom line: So much of the problematic California cannabis regime is directly attributable to CEQA compliance requirements. Cities and counties will now be better equipped and staffed to deal with CEQA compliance and cannabis businesses with this million dollar boost, but it won’t be enough. Licensees will still need to help themselves by coming up to speed on the complexities and nuances of CEQA compliance if they have any hope of securing annual licenses in California.

The post California Cannabis is Still Dealing With Growing Pains. Throwing Money at the Problem Won’t Help. appeared first on Harris Bricken.

California Cannabis is Still Dealing With Growing Pains. Throwing Money at the Problem Won’t Help. posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

0 notes

didanawisgi · 5 years

Text

Attorney Ralph Sherman has, what I think, is a good synopsis of this argument. This was written in 1999:

What they neglect to mention is that the “black codes” had disarmed the populace, and they were ill-prepared for the slaughter.

“The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.” -

The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi.

Defensive Use of Guns

The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi

- The Modern Alchemist

http://didanawisgi.tumblr.com/

#gun control #black history #gun control historically helps criminals and groups like the KKK #philosophy #controversy #debate #government #police state #wounded knee #history #me

8 notes · View notes

justjessame · 3 years

Text

Avery Emerson Clay: Use Your Words First, Then Use Your Fists...

Clay smirked up at me from his sprawled position on my bed and I rolled my eyes at my larger than life older brother. “Do you really think you’re dressed for a sparring session, Avery?” He was taking in the dress and heels, and a part of me wanted to show him just how ready I was, but he was trying to push my buttons as only a big brother could.

“You know exactly what I’m talking about, Junior.” His smirk dropped, he always hated being reminded that he was a sequel. “Let’s lay out your issues with my interest in Jake and Jake’s interest in me, so we don’t ruin Rose’s little party plans for the evening.”

He groaned and sat up, forcing me to hold back a joke about his age catching up to him. “He’s part of my team, Ave, that makes him-”

“A part of your team, Clay.” I shook my head at what he was trying to press into being logical. “Do you honestly think Jake and me playing hide the pickle is going to make him respect YOU less?” I snorted. “Did you pay attention when we came back from feeding my goats?” Seriously, was my brother slipping in his observation abilities? “He wanted the floor to eat him whole as soon as he saw you, if anything I think the morning after he touches me is gonna be magical for your power over him. He’ll probably be willing to bumrush any danger you point to, just to prove he’s still YOUR guy.” I shook my head and threw in another eye roll for good measure. “Jake is a soldier, Clay, YOUR soldier. The fact that he has a pulse and EXCELLENT eyesight with those glasses of his doesn’t change that.”

“You’re so damn sure of yourself, aren’t you?” He was smiling again, and I shrugged. “When did you get so confident?”

“I’ve always been confident, it was just hidden under piles of protective layers of my smothering family members.” I sighed. “I like Jake, Clay, he’s a nice guy.” Clay’s soft brown eyes, so like our dad’s that I felt like I was prepping for the same conversation when he arrived, met mine. “I can’t promise it’s love, but I won’t know if isn’t if we’re not allowed to get to know each other.”

Pushing off my bed, Clay stood up and rubbed one of his huge hands over his face. “I just don’t want Jensen to be distracted, Ave, not when we’re working to get our lives back on track. And a lovesick, or heartbroken-”

“I’m not planning on distracting him,” I wasn’t, I’d keep my schedule the same, which meant that Jake would be on his own schedule too, I was a fucking adult after all. “I work for a living, remember?”

“You work from home,” his eyebrow went up, and I had to work hard to keep from rolling my eyes again. “Even if you don’t want to be a distraction, you’re a distraction.”

“Do you want me to wear a burka and hide in my room until you all leave?” I mean for fuck’s sake, Jake had already seen and knew me, kind of past the point of arguing about distracting him, wasn’t it? “Clay, we’ve met, has whatever it is Jake does for your team suffered since we met?”

He stared down at me and we were at a stalemate, but his lack of response told me all I needed to know. Jake hadn’t faltered, he hadn’t dropped any balls, Clay was just being proactive and Alpha male commander. “I should go get ready for the celebration.” He kissed my temple on the way out of my room, reminding me that regardless of how irritated we might be with one another, he still loved his baby sister. Even if I wanted to slap the shit out of him.

Rose had outdone herself, again. Every event she chose to take on, she went above and beyond the last one she put on. Even if this was an intimate celebration, with only Clay’s team and the two of us, she’d managed to make a dinner that would make anyone envious followed by dessert and drinks with a feeling that we were welcoming my big brother home after a far too long time apart.

Red meat, because Franklin Clay, Junior was nothing if not a red meat kind of man, coupled with starches and a few lighter dishes for those of us who didn’t want to feel the heaviness of dinner for days after it, Rose made sure that the conversation around the table and later in the family room was kept as light as the breeze that was coming through the open patio doors. Or she was trying.

“Remember that time-” was a common question that Clay would bring up, usually an embarrassing story about me, doing something I’d rather forget having done at an age when the statute of limitations for reminders should be up, and I’d sigh and Rose would try to change the subject. Until I finally decided that two could play at that game.

“Do you remember visiting me during my first year in college?” I was sitting on the sofa while Clay was in the chair at the head of the room, with Aisha perched on his lap.

His smile grew, thinking I was going to tell a tale of my big brother being sweet and caring. “Yeah, it was around homecoming, right?”

My grin grew and I nodded. “Yep. I’d left you and my roommate alone while I ran out to grab some food, and when I came back you’d managed to push our beds together, you were screwing one another like animals on BOTH our beds-” I sighed, and took a long sip from my drink, plain soda since I wasn’t keen on alcohol. “I ended up sleeping on the couch in the common room.”

“Shit, I forgot about that,” he looked abashed, but I wasn’t nearly finished with the tale.

“Yeah, she ended up slashing my tires, pissing on my bedding, and Mom had to come to the school to make a formal complaint to get a private room for me, since the administration seemed to think it was a simple ‘girl fight’ thing.” I shrugged. “She seemed to think that you were planning on calling her, or that it was more than a one off.”

“She slashed your tires?” Pooch’s eyes were wide, but his lips were twitching so I had a feeling he’d heard about Clay’s AMAZING taste in women. “Wow, so it’s been going on for awhile.”

“A bit.” I answered, relaxing into the couch cushions. “I can’t count on one hand how many times I’ve walked in on big brother with one of his MANY conquests,” my eyes were on Clay, not his current lady friend. “Of course, the same could be said for walking in on Mom and Dad.” I cringed, wishing there was some way to erase that shit from my memory bank. “Didn’t you screw half of my debate team too?”

“Avery Emerson,” it was Rose and I knew I was in trouble. “Now is not the time for that type of discussion.”

“You’re right, Rosie.” I stood up, shaking off the evening. “I think now is the time for Netflix and chill. Dinner was amazing, and that cake.” I smiled at the woman who helped raise me. “You are a wonder.” I hugged her and started to tell everyone goodnight when Clay stopped me.

“Thought I was the old one, Ave.” I waited, thinking I knew where he was going and hoping I was right. “Didn’t you want to spar earlier?”

“That sounds suspiciously like a challenge, Junior.” I squinted and watched him studying my outfit again. I knew he was taking note of every article he thought could be used to his advantage, and I hoped he understood that Daddy had been making sure that Mom and I knew how to use the same shit that Clay or other people might see as a disadvantage as an edge. “Come on, let’s get this over with so I can go relax.” I moved outside, stretching as I went, knowing that he’d count my turning my back to my opponent as a strike against me. Sure enough, I felt the warmth of him as a warning and smirked, thinking he fell right into my trap.

“Rule number one,” he started, but my hand was already wrapping around his as it reached for my shoulder, and then the fight was on.

Teaching my big brother that falling into the false security and belief in your own supremacy simply because you’re bigger and have the professional training of Rambo is a terrible idea was well worth the price of admission and the bruises I earned. Seeing him flat on his ass was balm for my wounded pride, but it was short lived.

“Here,” I held out my hand, waiting for him to swallow his own pride and take it. “Come on, Clay, take it so we can get inside and you can go lick your wounds, or have them licked, and I can take another shower and watch mindless television until I pass out.”

He grabbed my hand, and like a stooge I started to yank him up, only to have him pull and have me go asshole over teakettle. “Never let your guard down, Avery.” I was shaking my head as he got to his feet and pulled me upright. “You’re not bad, Dad’s done a good job of making sure you won’t get your ass handed to you by a normal mugger.” I glared up at him and wanted nothing more than to kick him right in his overly testosterone balls when my cell rang with Dad’s ringtone.

“Hey, Dad,” I answered, putting him on speakerphone. I knew he’d been watching, since the house was rigged with his little watchbots. “How’s Mom?”

“We’re fine, sweetie.” He answered, and I waited, knowing he was holding back laughter. “I see that you had a workout. Maybe you should put that package out of sight out of mind for a bit?” Yeah, good idea, before my parents end up not having any grandkids that carry the Clay surname. He was having issues holding back his chuckles and I wanted to throw my phone in the pool. “Remember what that weirdo who wants you to tie your body into weird knots said, try a downward cow pose or something and breathe, princess.” Fuck you, Daddy, I thought, wondering how many volts Clay could take before he would be sterile.

“Yeah, I’ll breathe through my nose, Dad.” I rolled my eyes, and glared up at a grinning Clay. “Any other prize platitudes you feel like instilling?”

“Just wanted to tell you we’re heading back in a few days.” Great, then the gang really would be all here. “We’ll sit down and deal with the package then.” My turn to grin, my eyes locked on Clay’s and I was happy to see him glaring now. “Mom sends her love, have a good night.”

“Night, Daddy, love you.” I was much happier when I hung up the phone than when I answered it, but Clay was the opposite end of that spectrum. Oh how the mighty do fall, I thought.

#Franklin Clay #jake jensen x ofc #The Losers (2010)#alternate universe #humor #fluff #Family Fluff #slow burn

1 note · View note

viciousdelights · 7 years

Text

a nishisato story idea

(that I’m planning to write, but at the rate I’m going, I might as well share it here so that it somehow exists. warning for complete self-indulgence and plot holes)

Thanks to his connections, Yashiro (Nishizono) is acquitted. There’s not enough evidence, it’s all circumstantial, etc. Plus, the statute of limitations has passed, and most of these crimes are too old. So he gets out of prison, is freed.

And sets his eyes on his favorite target.

Satoru still works part-time at the pizza place. He also works as a mangaka, and while his series is very promising it’s not successful enough for him to afford working on it full-time. So he spends a lot of time working at Oasis Pizza.

Nishizono visits him. Really often. He’s also good friends with the manager, and he’s somehow not been kicked off the city council (he attempted to resign, but there was an “uproar”—why are we letting a good man’s reputation be tainted? Look how much this city has improved under his policies and leadership! All those false charges were a waste of time. It makes Satoru sick.) So he frequents Oasis Pizza very often, sometimes under the guise of business, but mainly because Satoru works there.

He’s basically a stalker. We all know this. Satoru knows this. But he’s so polite and charming that everyone else thinks it’s endearing.

Plus, the way he always talks to and calls out to Satoru, the way he always asks for him and looks after him… Some of them (regular customers and employees) think he’s just very kind and fatherly, while others are convinced he’s just a harmless man in love with Satoru. What are you doing, Satoru? Stop playing hard to get!! Give the man a chance; he’s basically a sugar daddy waiting to happen (LOLOL)

Meanwhile Satoru is just so. Done. He tried filing a restraining order but it was rejected, and it’s not like that would stop Yashiro anyway. Airi is a bit jealous but she has to admit… it’s cute. For some reason Satoru can’t tell her who he really is (maybe he doesn’t want to involve her in the cases).

So just. Satoru sighing every time he sees Yashiro waiting for him with a smile, the man’s gloved hands folded together, his posture impeccably straight in that expensive suit. Just go out with him, Satoru. He hasn’t killed anyone anymore, he promises.

“Aren’t you afraid you being a pervert will ruin your chances at re-election?” Satoru snaps at him once.

“A ‘pervert’? Oh, Satoru, you think so lowly of me. Is this some bias you have against politicians? I promise I’m not like the rest. I always have your best interests and the city in mind.”

Satoru makes a disgusted face.

#yashisato #nishisato #ideas #to write #bokumachi #sugar daddy nishisato is my JAM #this has been a psa #text

98 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

Are There More Republicans Or Democrats In The Senate

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/are-there-more-republicans-or-democrats-in-the-senate/

Are There More Republicans Or Democrats In The Senate

Biggest Influencers: Democrats Or Republicans

Democrats take House, Republicans keep Senate in historic midterms

Weve Had A Split Senate Before And They Mostly Figured It Out

Majority Leader: Lott was recognized as the de factor majority leader following Inauguration Day, based on the tie-breaking vote of Republican Vice President Dick Cheney.

Committees would have equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats;

Scheduling and agenda: the leaders were to attempt to balance the interests of the parties in setting the Senates schedule and deciding what matters to bring up for consideration.

An important caveat in the agreement noted that Senate Rules do not prohibit the right of the Democratic Leader, or any other Senator, to move to proceed to any item.

Senate Votes To Kill Debate On Voting Rights Bill

Republican senators voted against debating Democrats election and voting reform legislation, as expected.

We can argue what should be done to protect voting rights and safeguard our democracy, but dont you think we should be able to debate the issue? said Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer.

Geoffrey: The Case For Republicans

Main Difference Between Democrats And Republicans In Point Form