#the class was government provided to be clear. it was free

[kp777]

By Julia Conley

Common Dreams

Aug. 16, 2024

Proposals to lower housing, childcare, and healthcare costs for millions of families are "a welcome step in the right direction," said one advocate.

After announcing earlier this week that U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris plans to take on corporate price gouging with the first-ever federal ban in the food and grocery industries, the Democratic presidential nominee's campaign on Friday unveiled details about Harris' broader economic agenda, making clear to advocates that she is focused on lowering numerous costs facing working households.

Along with a four-year plan to boost housing construction, provide financial help to first-time homebuyers, and rein in predatory corporate landlords, Harris announced plans to lower medical costs and provide financial assistance to new parents and families raising young children.

The proposals, which Harris is expected to officially announce at a campaign event in Raleigh, North Carolina on Friday, send the message that "the days of 'what's good for free enterprise is good for America' are over," Felicia Wong, president of the progressive think tank Roosevelt Forward, toldThe Washington Post.

"Harris has made a set of policy choices over the last several weeks that make it clear that the Democratic Party is committed to a pro-working, family agenda," Wong said.

Within Harris' plan to lower healthcare costs, the vice president will include proposals to expand Medicare's cap on prescription drug costs at $2,000 annually to all Americans and to place a limit of $35 per month on insulin. Both policies are provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and currently apply only to Medicare recipients. As the Postreported, allowing all Americans to benefit from the price limits "could face resistance from the pharmaceutical industry and Republicans," who have fought to block Medicare drug price negotiations that were also included in the IRA.

Harris said she would work to expedite those negotiations, the first round of which yielded lower costs for 10 widely used medications that were announced by the Biden administration on Thursday.

"Policies that lift up families will always be popular with voters. Working people want to see action from our federal government to address sky-high costs."

The vice president would also work closely with states to cancel medical debt for millions of people "and to help them avoid accumulating such debt in the future, because no one should go bankrupt just because they had the misfortune of becoming sick or hurt," said the Harris campaign. "This plan builds on Vice President Harris' leadership in removing medical debt from nearly all Americans' credit reports and in helping secure American Rescue Plan funds to cancel $7 billion of medical debt for up to 3 million Americans."

The final plank of the economic plan announced on Friday was focused on "cutting taxes for the middle class," the campaign said, with the vice president pledging to restore and expand child tax credits. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's campaign has been focusing on the issue in recent weeks as vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) has come under fire for his criticism of people who don't have children and for his absence from a Senate vote on expanding the existing child tax credit, which nearly the entire GOP Senate caucus voted against.

The Harris campaign said the vice president would restore the expanded child tax credit that provided a credit of up to $3,600 per child for middle- and lower-income families; the program was passed as part of the American Rescue Plan in 2021, but expired at the end of that year due to opposition from the Republican Party and conservative Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.), then a Democrat.

Harris would also push for a further "historic expansion of the child tax credit: providing up to $6,000 in total tax relief for middle-income and low-income families for the first year of their child's life when a family's expenses are highest—with cribs, diapers, car seats, and more—and many parents are still forced to forgo income as they take time off from their job."

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the proposal would also work hand-in-hand with Harris' housing plan to "positively impact families' ability to pay rent."

Vance earlier this week called for boosting the child tax credit—currently $2,000 per year—to $5,000, but Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who proposed a package last month that would have raised the cap on the credit for low-income families, said Vance's failure to vote on the legislation exposed him as "a phony."

"If JD Vance sincerely gave a whit about working families in America, he would have shown up in the Senate a week and a half ago and voted for my proposal to expand the child tax credit and help 16 million low income kids get ahead," said Wyden. "He didn’t even care enough to use his platform to call on his Senate Republican colleagues to support it."

Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, said that with plans to extend tax cuts that disproportionately benefited corporations and the wealthy, "Trump and Vance are going to look out for bosses and billionaires, while Harris and [Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim] Walz are showing working people that they have their backs."

"Policies that lift up families will always be popular with voters. Working people want to see action from our federal government to address sky-high costs," said Mitchell. "By committing to take on greedflation, lower prescription drug costs, and make housing more affordable, Kamala Harris is listening to the voters she needs to turn out in November."

A Data for Progress poll late last month showed that 75% of Americans support slashing prescription drug prices, 79% support making corporations pay their fair share in taxes, and 58% support restoring the expanded child tax credit.

Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, called Harris' economic agenda "a welcome step in the right direction, particularly with its focus on tackling corporate price gouging, reining in predatory corporate landlords, reducing prescription drug prices, and providing real relief to working families burdened by medical debt."

"However, to truly address the root causes of economic inequality, we must push for comprehensive reforms that dismantle the structural issues enabling corporations to exploit consumers and workers," said Geevarghese. "The Harris-Walz plan's proposals are critical first steps, but the progressive movement will be watching closely to ensure these policies are not only enacted but rigorously enforced to deliver the meaningful change that Americans desperately need."

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.8.5 What about the lack of enclosures in the Americas?

The enclosure movement was but one part of a wide-reaching process of state intervention in creating capitalism. Moreover, it is just one way of creating the “land monopoly” which ensured the creation of a working class. The circumstances facing the ruling class in the Americas were distinctly different than in the Old World and so the “land monopoly” took a different form there. In the Americas, enclosures were unimportant as customary land rights did not really exist (at least once the Native Americans were eliminated by violence). Here the problem was that (after the original users of the land were eliminated) there were vast tracts of land available for people to use. Other forms of state intervention were similar to that applied under mercantilism in Europe (such as tariffs, government spending, use of unfree labour and state repression of workers and their organisations and so on). All had one aim, to enrich and power the masters and dispossess the actual producers of the means of life (land and means of production).

Unsurprisingly, due to the abundance of land, there was a movement towards independent farming in the early years of the American colonies and subsequent Republic and this pushed up the price of remaining labour on the market by reducing the supply. Capitalists found it difficult to find workers willing to work for them at wages low enough to provide them with sufficient profits. It was due to the difficulty in finding cheap enough labour that capitalists in America turned to slavery. All things being equal, wage labour is more productive than slavery but in early America all things were not equal. Having access to cheap (indeed, free) land meant that working people had a choice, and few desired to become wage slaves and so because of this, capitalists turned to slavery in the South and the “land monopoly” in the North.

This was because, in the words of Maurice Dobb, it “became clear to those who wished to reproduce capitalist relations of production in the new country that the foundation-stone of their endeavour must be the restriction of land-ownership to a minority and the exclusion of the majority from any share in [productive] property.” [Studies in Capitalist Development, pp. 221–2] As one radical historian puts it, ”[w]hen land is ‘free’ or ‘cheap’. as it was in different regions of the United States before the 1830s, there was no compulsion for farmers to introduce labour-saving technology. As a result, ‘independent household production’ … hindered the development of capitalism … [by] allowing large portions of the population to escape wage labour.” [Charlie Post, “The ‘Agricultural Revolution’ in the United States”, pp. 216–228, Science and Society, vol. 61, no. 2, p. 221]

It was precisely this option (i.e. of independent production) that had to be destroyed in order for capitalist industry to develop. The state had to violate the holy laws of “supply and demand” by controlling the access to land in order to ensure the normal workings of “supply and demand” in the labour market (i.e. that the bargaining position favoured employer over employee). Once this situation became the typical one (i.e., when the option of self-employment was effectively eliminated) a more (protectionist based) “laissez-faire” approach could be adopted, with state action used indirectly to favour the capitalists and landlords (and readily available to protect private property from the actions of the dispossessed).

So how was this transformation of land ownership achieved?

Instead of allowing settlers to appropriate their own farms as was often the case before the 1830s, the state stepped in once the army had cleared out (usually by genocide) the original users. Its first major role was to enforce legal rights of property on unused land. Land stolen from the Native Americans was sold at auction to the highest bidders, namely speculators, who then sold it on to farmers. This process started right “after the revolution, [when] huge sections of land were bought up by rich speculators” and their claims supported by the law. [Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 125] Thus land which should have been free was sold to land-hungry farmers and the few enriched themselves at the expense of the many. Not only did this increase inequality within society, it also encouraged the development of wage labour — having to pay for land would have ensured that many immigrants remained on the East Coast until they had enough money. Thus a pool of people with little option but to sell their labour was increased due to state protection of unoccupied land. That the land usually ended up in the hands of farmers did not (could not) countermand the shift in class forces that this policy created.

This was also the essential role of the various “Homesteading Acts” and, in general, the “Federal land law in the 19th century provided for the sale of most of the public domain at public auction to the higher bidder … Actual settlers were forced to buy land from speculators, at prices considerably above the federal minimal price.” (which few people could afford anyway). [Charlie Post, Op. Cit., p. 222] This is confirmed by Howard Zinn who notes that 1862 Homestead Act “gave 160 acres of western land, unoccupied and publicly owned, to anyone who would cultivate it for five years … Few ordinary people had the $200 necessary to do this; speculators moved in and bought up much of the land. Homestead land added up to 50 million acres. But during the Civil War, over 100 million acres were given by Congress and the President to various railroads, free of charge.” [Op. Cit., p. 233] Little wonder the Individualist Anarchists supported an “occupancy and use” system of land ownership as a key way of stopping capitalist and landlord usury as well as the development of capitalism itself.

This change in the appropriation of land had significant effects on agriculture and the desirability of taking up farming for immigrants. As Post notes, ”[w]hen the social conditions for obtaining and maintaining possession of land change, as they did in the Midwest between 1830 and 1840, pursuing the goal of preserving [family ownership and control] .. . produced very different results. In order to pay growing mortgages, debts and taxes, family farmers were compelled to specialise production toward cash crops and to market more and more of their output.” [Op. Cit., p. 221–2]

So, in order to pay for land which was formerly free, farmers got themselves into debt and increasingly turned to the market to pay it off. Thus, the “Federal land system, by transforming land into a commodity and stimulating land speculation, made the Midwestern farmers dependent upon markets for the continual possession of their farms.” Once on the market, farmers had to invest in new machinery and this also got them into debt. In the face of a bad harvest or market glut, they could not repay their loans and their farms had to be sold to so do so. By 1880, 25% of all farms were rented by tenants, and the numbers kept rising. In addition, the “transformation of social property relations in northern agriculture set the stage for the ‘agricultural revolution’ of the 1840s and 1850s … [R]ising debts and taxes forced Midwestern family farmers to compete as commodity producers in order to maintain their land-holding … The transformation … was the central precondition for the development of industrial capitalism in the United States.” [Charlie Post, Op. Cit., p. 223 and p. 226]

It should be noted that feudal land owning was enforced in many areas of the colonies and the early Republic. Landlords had their holdings protected by the state and their demands for rent had the full backing of the state. This lead to numerous anti-rent conflicts. [Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 84 and pp. 206–11] Such struggles helped end such arrangements, with landlords being “encouraged” to allow the farmers to buy the land which was rightfully theirs. The wealth appropriated from the farmers in the form of rent and the price of the land could then be invested in industry so transforming feudal relations on the land into capitalist relations in industry (and, eventually, back on the land when the farmers succumbed to the pressures of the capitalist market and debt forced them to sell).

This means that Murray Rothbard’s comment that “once the land was purchased by the settler, the injustice disappeared” is nonsense — the injustice was transmitted to other parts of society and this, the wider legacy of the original injustice, lived on and helped transform society towards capitalism. In addition, his comment about “the establishment in North America of a truly libertarian land system” would be one the Individualist Anarchists of the period would have seriously disagreed with! [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 73] Rothbard, at times, seems to be vaguely aware of the importance of land as the basis of freedom in early America. For example, he notes in passing that “the abundance of fertile virgin land in a vast territory enabled individualism to come to full flower in many areas.” [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 2, p. 186] Yet he did not ponder the transformation in social relationships which would result when that land was gone. In fact, he was blasé about it. “If latecomers are worse off,” he opined, “well then that is their proper assumption of risk in this free and uncertain world. There is no longer a vast frontier in the United States, and there is no point crying over the fact.” [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 240] Unsurprisingly we also find Murray Rothbard commenting that Native Americans “lived under a collectivistic regime that, for land allocation, was scarcely more just than the English governmental land grab.” [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 1, p. 187] That such a regime made for increased individual liberty and that it was precisely the independence from the landlord and bosses this produced which made enclosure and state land grabs such appealing prospects for the ruling class was lost on him.

Unlike capitalist economists, politicians and bosses at the time, Rothbard seemed unaware that this “vast frontier” (like the commons) was viewed as a major problem for maintaining labour discipline and appropriate state action was taken to reduce it by restricting free access to the land in order to ensure that workers were dependent on wage labour. Many early economists recognised this and advocated such action. Edward Wakefield was typical when he complained that “where land is cheap and all are free, where every one who so pleases can easily obtain a piece of land for himself, not only is labour dear, as respects the labourer’s share of the product, but the difficulty is to obtain combined labour at any price.” This resulted in a situation were few “can accumulate great masses of wealth” as workers “cease … to be labourers for hire; they … become independent landowners, if not competitors with their former masters in the labour market.” Unsurprisingly, Wakefield urged state action to reduce this option and ensure that labour become cheap as workers had little choice but to seek a master. One key way was for the state to seize the land and then sell it to the population. This would ensure that “no labourer would be able to procure land until he had worked for money” and this “would produce capital for the employment of more labourers.” [quoted by Marx, Op. Cit., , p. 935, p. 936 and p. 939] Which is precisely what did occur.

At the same time that it excluded the working class from virgin land, the state granted large tracts of land to the privileged classes: to land speculators, logging and mining companies, planters, railroads, and so on. In addition to seizing the land and distributing it in such a way as to benefit capitalist industry, the “government played its part in helping the bankers and hurting the farmers; it kept the amount of money — based in the gold supply — steady while the population rose, so there was less and less money in circulation. The farmer had to pay off his debts in dollars that were harder to get. The bankers, getting loans back, were getting dollars worth more than when they loaned them out — a kind of interest on top of interest. That was why so much of the talk of farmers’ movements in those days had to do with putting more money in circulation.” [Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 278] This was the case with the Individualist Anarchists at the same time, we must add.

Overall, therefore, state action ensured the transformation of America from a society of independent workers to a capitalist one. By creating and enforcing the “land monopoly” (of which state ownership of unoccupied land and its enforcement of landlord rights were the most important) the state ensured that the balance of class forces tipped in favour of the capitalist class. By removing the option of farming your own land, the US government created its own form of enclosure and the creation of a landless workforce with little option but to sell its liberty on the “free market”. They was nothing “natural” about it. Little wonder the Individualist Anarchist J.K. Ingalls attacked the “land monopoly” with the following words:

“The earth, with its vast resources of mineral wealth, its spontaneous productions and its fertile soil, the free gift of God and the common patrimony of mankind, has for long centuries been held in the grasp of one set of oppressors by right of conquest or right of discovery; and it is now held by another, through the right of purchase from them. All of man’s natural possessions … have been claimed as property; nor has man himself escaped the insatiate jaws of greed. The invasion of his rights and possessions has resulted … in clothing property with a power to accumulate an income.” [quoted by James Martin, Men Against the State, p. 142]

Marx, correctly, argued that “the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of that private property which rests on the labour of the individual himself; in other words, the expropriation of the worker.” [Capital, Vol. 1, p. 940] He noted that to achieve this, the state is used:

“How then can the anti-capitalistic cancer of the colonies be healed? . .. Let the Government set an artificial price on the virgin soil, a price independent of the law of supply and demand, a price that compels the immigrant to work a long time for wages before he can earn enough money to buy land, and turn himself into an independent farmer.” [Op. Cit., p. 938]

Moreover, tariffs were introduced with “the objective of manufacturing capitalists artificially” for the “system of protection was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, or expropriating independent workers, of capitalising the national means of production and subsistence, and of forcibly cutting short the transition … to the modern mode of production,” to capitalism [Op. Cit., p. 932 and pp. 921–2]

So mercantilism, state aid in capitalist development, was also seen in the United States of America. As Edward Herman points out, the “level of government involvement in business in the United States from the late eighteenth century to the present has followed a U-shaped pattern: There was extensive government intervention in the pre-Civil War period (major subsidies, joint ventures with active government participation and direct government production), then a quasi-laissez faire period between the Civil War and the end of the nineteenth century [a period marked by “the aggressive use of tariff protection” and state supported railway construction, a key factor in capitalist expansion in the USA], followed by a gradual upswing of government intervention in the twentieth century, which accelerated after 1930.” [Corporate Control, Corporate Power, p. 162]

Such intervention ensured that income was transferred from workers to capitalists. Under state protection, America industrialised by forcing the consumer to enrich the capitalists and increase their capital stock. “According to one study, if the tariff had been removed in the 1830s ‘about half the industrial sector of New England would have been bankrupted’ … the tariff became a near-permanent political institution representing government assistance to manufacturing. It kept price levels from being driven down by foreign competition and thereby shifted the distribution of income in favour of owners of industrial property to the disadvantage of workers and customers.” This protection was essential, for the “end of the European wars in 1814 … reopened the United States to a flood of British imports that drove many American competitors out of business. Large portions of the newly expanded manufacturing base were wiped out, bringing a decade of near-stagnation.” Unsurprisingly, the “era of protectionism began in 1816, with northern agitation for higher tariffs.” [Richard B. Du Boff, Accumulation and Power, p. 56, p. 14 and p. 55] Combined with ready repression of the labour movement and government “homesteading” acts (see section F.8.5), tariffs were the American equivalent of mercantilism (which, after all, was above all else a policy of protectionism, i.e. the use of government to stimulate the growth of native industry). Only once America was at the top of the economic pile did it renounce state intervention (just as Britain did, we must note).

This is not to suggest that government aid was limited to tariffs. The state played a key role in the development of industry and manufacturing. As John Zerzan notes, the “role of the State is tellingly reflected by the fact that the ‘armoury system’ now rivals the older ‘American system of manufactures’ term as the more accurate to describe the new system of production methods” developed in the early 1800s. [Elements of Refusal, p. 100] By the middle of the nineteenth century “a distinctive ‘American system of manufactures’ had emerged . .. The lead in technological innovation [during the US Industrial Revolution] came in armaments where assured government orders justified high fixed-cost investments in special-pursue machinery and managerial personnel. Indeed, some of the pioneering effects occurred in government-owned armouries.” Other forms of state aid were used, for example the textile industry “still required tariffs to protect [it] from … British competition.” [William Lazonick, Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor, p. 218 and p. 219] The government also “actively furthered this process [of ‘commercial revolution’] with public works in transportation and communication.” In addition to this “physical” aid, “state government provided critical help, with devices like the chartered corporation” [Richard B. Du Boff, Op. Cit., p. 15] As we noted in section B.2.5, there were changes in the legal system which favoured capitalist interests over the rest of society.

Nineteenth-century America also went in heavily for industrial planning — occasionally under that name but more often in the name of national defence. The military was the excuse for what is today termed rebuilding infrastructure, picking winners, promoting research, and co-ordinating industrial growth (as it still is, we should add). As Richard B. Du Boff points out, the “anti-state” backlash of the 1840s onwards in America was highly selective, as the general opinion was that ”[h]enceforth, if governments wished to subsidise private business operations, there would be no objection. But if public power were to be used to control business actions or if the public sector were to undertake economic initiatives on its own, it would run up against the determined opposition of private capital.” [Op. Cit., p. 26]

State intervention was not limited to simply reducing the amount of available land or enforcing a high tariff. “Given the independent spirit of workers in the colonies, capital understood that great profits required the use of unfree labour.” [Michael Perelman, The Invention of Capitalism, p. 246] It was also applied in the labour market as well. Most obviously, it enforced the property rights of slave owners (until the civil war, produced when the pro-free trade policies of the South clashed with the pro-tariff desires of the capitalist North). The evil and horrors of slavery are well documented, as is its key role in building capitalism in America and elsewhere so we will concentrate on other forms of obviously unfree labour. Convict labour in Australia, for example, played an important role in the early days of colonisation while in America indentured servants played a similar role.

Indentured service was a system whereby workers had to labour for a specific number of years usually in return for passage to America with the law requiring the return of runaway servants. In theory, of course, the person was only selling their labour. In practice, indentured servants were basically slaves and the courts enforced the laws that made it so. The treatment of servants was harsh and often as brutal as that inflicted on slaves. Half the servants died in the first two years and unsurprisingly, runaways were frequent. The courts realised this was a problem and started to demand that everyone have identification and travel papers.

It should also be noted that the practice of indentured servants also shows how state intervention in one country can impact on others. This is because people were willing to endure indentured service in the colonies because of how bad their situation was at home. Thus the effects of primitive accumulation in Britain impacted on the development of America as most indentured servants were recruited from the growing number of unemployed people in urban areas there. Dispossessed from their land and unable to find work in the cities, many became indentured servants in order to take passage to the Americas. In fact, between one half to two thirds of all immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants and, at times, three-quarters of the population of some colonies were under contracts of indenture. That this allowed the employing class to overcome their problems in hiring “help” should go without saying, as should its impact on American inequality and the ability of capitalists and landlords to enrich themselves on their servants labour and to invest it profitably.

As well as allowing unfree labour, the American state intervened to ensure that the freedom of wage workers was limited in similar ways as we indicated in section F.8.3. “The changes in social relations of production in artisan trades that took place in the thirty years after 1790,” notes one historian, “and the … trade unionism to which … it gave rise, both replicated in important respects the experience of workers in the artisan trades in Britain over a rather longer period … The juridical responses they provoked likewise reproduced English practice. Beginning in 1806, American courts consciously seized upon English common law precedent to combat journeymen’s associations.” Capitalists in this era tried to “secure profit … through the exercise of disciplinary power over their employees.” To achieve this “employers made a bid for legal aid” and it is here “that the key to law’s role in the process of creating an industrial economy in America lies.” As in the UK, the state invented laws and issues proclamations against workers’ combinations, calling them conspiracies and prosecuting them as such. Trade unionists argued that laws which declared unions as illegal combinations should be repealed as against the Constitution of the USA while “the specific cause of trademens protestations of their right to organise was, unsurprisingly, the willingness of local authorities to renew their resort to conspiracy indictments to countermand the growing power of the union movement.” Using criminal conspiracy to counter combinations among employees was commonplace, with the law viewing a “collective quitting of employment [as] a criminal interference” and combinations to raise the rate of labour “indictable at common law.” [Christopher L. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic, p. 113, p. 295, p. 159 and p. 213] By the end of the nineteenth century, state repression for conspiracy was replaced by state repression for acting like a trust while actual trusts were ignored and so laws, ostensibly passed (with the help of the unions themselves) to limit the power of capital, were turned against labour (this should be unsurprising as it was a capitalist state which passed them). [Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 254]

Another key means to limit the freedom of workers was denying departing workers their wages for the part of the contract they had completed. This “underscored the judiciary’s tendency to articulate their approval” of the hierarchical master/servant relationship in terms of its “social utility: It was a necessary and desirable feature of the social organisation of work … that the employer’s authority be reinforced in this way.” Appeals courts held that “an employment contract was an entire contract, and therefore that no obligation to pay wages existed until the employee had completed the agreed term.” Law suits “by employers seeking damages for an employee’s departure prior to the expiry of an agreed term or for other forms of breach of contract constituted one form of legally sanctioned economic discipline of some importance in shaping the employment relations of the nineteenth century.” Thus the boss could fire the worker without paying their wages while if the worker left the boss he would expect a similar outcome. This was because the courts had decided that the “employer was entitled not only to receipt of the services contracted for in their entirety prior to payment but also to the obedience of the employee in the process of rendering them.” [Tomlins, Op. Cit., pp. 278–9, p. 274, p. 272 and pp. 279–80] The ability of workers to seek self-employment on the farm or workplace or even better conditions and wages were simply abolished by employers turning to the state.

So, in summary, the state could remedy the shortage of cheap wage labour by controlling access to the land, repressing trade unions as conspiracies or trusts and ensuring that workers had to obey their bosses for the full term of their contract (while the bosses could fire them at will). Combine this with the extensive use of tariffs, state funding of industry and infrastructure among many other forms of state aid to capitalists and we have a situation were capitalism was imposed on a pre-capitalist nation at the behest of the wealthy elite by the state, as was the case with all other countries.

[fatehbaz]

When Sarah Norris joined a “community art build,” a protest that invited community members to work on art projects in a public park in December 2021, she had no idea she would soon face felony charges stemming from her action. Norris was part of a mutual aid group called the Asheville Survival Program, which supported a houseless community that regularly converged in Aston Park, a centerpiece of downtown Asheville, North Carolina. Like many American cities, Asheville faces skyrocketing housing costs, which is why local activists began supporting the encampments of those pushed out of indoor housing by rising rents. [...]

“Mutual aid is showing up for each other from a stance that we all deserve care, that we all have the same inherent dignity, that there is space for all of us,” says Norris, who explains that her collective provides weekly deliveries of food and camping gear to the people in the park. The encampments faced daily sweeps, where police clear the people out of the park [...].

In December 2021, activists from Asheville Survival Program and others in the city organized a multiday protest in the park demanding the city provide a sanctioned location for unhoused folks to camp, and include sanitation services. Then, police descended, arresting activists and journalists alike. From December through April 2022, a total of 16 people were arrested on warrants for their work in the park, facing charges like “felony littering” and “conspiracy to commit felony littering,” and local politicians, as text messages obtained by The Asheville Free Press showed, cheered on the arrests.

While the Asheville defendants may face uniquely severe consequences for their efforts, their experience is not uncommon, as police increase attention on groups supporting communities that lack resources. [...]

---

As cities experience a deepening housing crisis, mutual aid projects have become essential for supporting houseless encampments, refugee communities, and others who are met not only with neglect from government and social service organizations, but also harassment from and criminalization of their activities by law enforcement. “The state recognizes the power of people who are networked, capable, and ready to take action,” says Kelly Hayes, a Chicago-based mutual aid organizer and co-author of an upcoming book on the subject [...]. “When such people are more invested in each other’s well-being than the edicts of the ruling class, they can quickly become a threat to the order of things.”

---

The repression these groups report is often tied directly to the communities they support. This is how the police zeroed in on South Bay Mutual Aid and Care Club in Los Angeles, which has been supporting a houseless encampment for the past two years by coordinating various resources, such as food distribution; providing harm-reduction tools, such as clean injection kits; and providing intermediaries to support those seeking public assistance. Los Angeles’ unhoused population is only growing as the city becomes unrealistically expensive, and with the 2028 Olympics looming, the city has been cracking down on encampments, sweeping the encampment dozens of times and as often as once a week. South Bay Mutual Aid’s goal is to support one particular encampment of about 70 residents near the Port of Los Angeles, coordinating with a network of similar groups across the city and country to share resources. This has, subsequently, allowed the community in this encampment to stabilize, rather than to dissipate whenever a police sweep disrupted their living arrangements. This allows those living there to stay connected to each other [...].

This gets to the heart of what mutual aid organizer and scholar Sean Parson says is the driving force in the repression [...]. He added that escalation in the targeting of mutual aid groups almost always comes alongside efforts to “sanitize” a city for commercial interests. [...]

The answer to repression, Parson says, is more mutual aid, not less [...]. “Build alliances with other homeless support groups if you can,” says Parson.

---

Text by: Shane Burley. “Where Mutual Aid Comes to Its Own Assistance.” Yes! Magazine. 20 March 2023. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me.]

[feministdragon]

‘Financing represents the ultimate chokepoint,’ Christophers writes, ‘the point at which renewables development most often becomes permanently blocked.’ Investors aren’t choosing between ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ electricity generation, but judging opportunities across a wide range of asset classes. Capitalists’ sole concern, as Marx observed, is how to turn money into more money, and it’s not clear that renewables are a very good vehicle for doing this, regardless of how cheap they are to run.

The problem, from the perspective of investors, is ‘bankability’. Investors want as much certainty as possible regarding future returns on their investments, or else they require a hefty premium for accepting additional uncertainty. The challenge for the renewables sector is how to persuade investors that they can make reliably high returns in a market with highly volatile prices, low barriers to entry and nothing to stabilise revenues. The very policies that were introduced to bring electricity costs down – marketisation and competition – have made the financial sector wary. Whenever renewables appear to be doing well, new providers rush in, driving down prices, and therefore profits, until investors get cold feet all over again.

What investors crave is price stability, or predictability at least. Risk is one thing, but fundamental uncertainty is another. Industries characterised by a high degree of concentration, longstanding monopoly power and government support are far easier to incorporate into financial models, because there are fewer unknowns. Judged in terms of decarbonisation, the most successful policies reviewed in The Price Is Wrong are not those which reduce the price of electricity, which would be in the interest of consumers, but those which stabilise it for the benefit of investors. Meanwhile, the extraction and burning of fossil fuels remains a more dependable way of making the kind of returns that Wall Street and the City have come to expect as their due. This is an industry with more dominant players, much higher barriers to entry, and which was largely established (and financed) long before the vogue for marketisation took hold.

Despite the exuberance over the falling costs of solar and wind power, Christophers doubts ‘whether a single example of a substantive and truly zero-support’ renewables facility ‘actually exists, anywhere in the world’. What’s especially galling is that, to the extent renewable electricity remains hooked on subsidies, this isn’t money that is ending up in savings for consumers, but in the profits of developers and the portfolios of asset managers. Paradoxically, the ideology that promoted free markets and a culture of enterprise (against conglomeration and monopoly) has enforced this sector’s reliance on the state. The lesson Christophers draws is that electricity ‘was and is not a suitable object for marketisation and profit generation in the first place’. Ecologically speaking, neoliberalism could scarcely have come at a worse time.

What can be done? It is clearly no good hoping that electricity markets will drive the energy transition, when it’s financial markets that are calling the shots. The option that has come to the fore in recent years, led by the Biden administration, is the one euphemistically called ‘de-risking’, which in practice means topping up and guaranteeing the returns that investors have come to expect using tax credits and other subsidies. The Inflation Reduction Act, signed by Biden in the summer of 2022, promises a giant $369 billion of these incentives over a ten-year period. This at least faces up to the fact that much of the power to shape the future is in the hands of asset managers and banks, and it is their calculations (and not those of consumers) that will decide whether or not the planet burns. There is no economic reason why a 15 per cent return on investment should be considered ‘normal’, and there is nothing objectively bad about a project that pays 6 per cent instead. The problem, as Christophers makes plain, is that investors get to choose which of these two numbers they prefer, and no government is likely to force BlackRock to make less money anytime soon. "

[a-slut-for-vegaspete]

Playboyy – Porn without Plot?

Initial Thoughts on/ Reaction to Playboyy Episode One

As someone who loves to study (quite literally; I’m currently pursuing a MA degree in cultural studies) and investigate depictions of sex and sexuality in media, Playboyy has been one of my most anticipated releases of 2023 and it’s easier for me to work through my issues with a piece of media when I put my thoughts on paper or in a word document; so this post is primarily for myself.

Sex is sometimes presented as a personal, individual matter but in reality, our thoughts on sex, our dislikes and likes are a product or, at the very least, are shaped by, and of course in term can also influence, existing, dominant discourses on sex(uality), gender, class, race etc. One example of this – one most BL viewers/ queer individuals will recognise  – would of course be sex between queer individuals; an issue that remains highly debated. Some people/governments to this day like to think that they have the right to dictate who is allowed to have sex with whom and what sexual practices people can engage in without facing societal/legal punishment. So sex is never just about sex but is always also political; it’s just that this is more obvious to people who are part of a (or multiple) marginalised group(s). Sex is an entangled, complex phenomenon that always needs to be understood in relation to other discourses on e.g. (normative) femininity/masculinity, national identity etc. So any sexual act (on screen/irl), whether intended or not, engages with these discourses, subverts them and/or reaffirms them.

Regardless of whether the creators of Playboyy – or any piece of media for that matter – have meant for this series to serve as a critique or subversion of certain ideas surrounding sex and sexuality, the series (un)intentionally presents us with certain performances of sex and in doing so adds to, intervenes in and shapes existing discourses on sexuality and influences how topics such as kink, queerness, sex work (to name a few) are understood and talked about. 

Since only one episode has been released so far, and since I don't know what goes on in the writers’ minds, I, of course, can’t say for certain whether Playboyy is intended to engage with the political and social aspects of sex. However, I do think that Denice’s Twitter accounts (he is one of the writers (@ VivienneActing)) can provide us with insights into the writers’ intentions behind creating this show. In addition, the opening scene of episode one makes it clear that this piece of media, in some capacity at least, serves as a social commentary on the construction of sexual practices and sexual identities (in Thailand). The viewer is seemingly directly addressed, questions regarding sex are posed and the statement that “sex has many forms and careers in many places with many preferences” is made, which leads me to think that the creators have thought about and want the audience to critically think about how sex is often presented and talked about within dominant discourses. The character goes on to say that “it would be great if we could stop faking it and be frank about it”, which implies that the way we currently talk about sex is dissatisfactory to the character in the show/the creators of the show and that this series intends to present their own – potentially non-normative – views on sex. Especially the comment that “it’s a shame that we can’t be that free in this country” functions as a critique of how sex and the sex industry are frequently conceptualised in Thailand. (And when I say ‘Thailand’ here I of course don’t mean the entire country; I’m specifically referring to people/institutions/political parties that uphold and propagate conservative beliefs on and attitudes regarding sex. And I think this is the part of Thailand the series is critical of here as well).

However, I also don’t want to place too much importance on the intentions of the creators (in part, bc as I have said before, unless we are told specifically we can only speculate about their motives). I for one am also very interested in how I myself (and other viewers) read and interpret the narratives the series presents us with.

Little disclaimer: I watched episode 1 last night, half asleep, I don’t have the best memory and since the story has literally just begun (and there are so many ways this could pan out), my stance on these issues will probably change with the release of future episodes. So my ramblings have their limitations. In addition, I’ve grown up in the West, which influences how I conceptualise sex(uality) and gender; which is definitely something to be wary of and to be critical of, as well. 

As of right now, I’m the most intrigued by Zouey and by how he navigates sex and how he expresses himself sexually. What I find so interesting about his character is his non-normative approach to sex. While he is introduced as someone who apparently hasn't slept with anyone yet, we also see that he has sexual needs and desires. I love that the show does not limit sexual expression to intimate relations between two or more people but also showcases the possibility of exploring it on your own. 

I’m fascinated by people’s initial reactions to Zouey and what people make of his character; in particular people’s thoughts on the scene where he is in a dark room masturbating to a painting. I do wonder how much the colour grading (quite dark and gloomy) and the music (somewhat ominous) might influence or shape viewers’ perceptions of this scene and their conceptualisation of Zouey, and more broadly speaking their reception of expressions of non-normative sexual acts (in media).

The way Zoey negotiates his boundaries regarding sex is so interesting to me, as he clearly feels sexual attraction but does not feel comfortable being touched sexually. (I do wonder if there is a reason for this. Not saying that there needs to be a particular reason; I’m genuinely just curious if we might find out more in future episodes). I personally love how that doesn’t stop him from blowing Teena (twice if I remember correctly). I think his performance disrupts the normative script of sex, (or one of the normative scripts. To say that there is only one normative way to have sex would be incorrect I guess). He definitely doesn't adhere to this script/these scripts, and this seems to have created discomfort/confusion for some viewers, while others seem to really appreciate it. 

Also a little side note: the way Zouey does or doesn’t have sex can also lead us to posing the question of what counts as sex. Only penetrative sex? That seems like a somewhat outdated and not exactly queer-friendly definition of sex, right? And what even is virginity? Is Zouey still a virgin or not by the end of the episode?

I think the first episode already touches on so many different issues and I love it. People have pointed out the different social statuses of First and Soong, so we already have a storyline that highlights how sex and class are interconnected issues. We have seen a fair amount of kinky sexual practices, and sex workers have also made an appearance. So to come back to my initial question, is Playboyy porn without plot? Personally, I wouldn’t classify it as such. In my opinion, while the first episode does heavily focus on sex, sex is used as a tool for storytelling and the creators have taken the unique approach of introducing the viewers to the characters via sex. Plus, there is the mysterious disappearance of Nun/Nant(?). But also to me, it doesn’t really matter whether this is porn without plot or not. Firstly, because I think that sometimes (emphasis on ‘sometimes’, okay?) when something is labelled as porn without plot this is done to discredit a particular piece of media and to paint it as something that is inherently ‘less’ (less serious, less valuable etc.) and I don’t agree with this particular conceptualisation of plot without porn because I think it fails to recognise the value of such stories, not just for people’s own enjoyment but also in regards to academic analysis. And secondly, because I am more interested in how the series is situated (and maybe even actively positions itself) in relation to broader discourses such as (non-normative) sexualities, kink, sex work (in Thailand) etc. and for this we don’t necessarily need a “good” plot structure. So I, for one, am I excited to watch (and analyse) the rest of the show. 

[constantineshots]

ah, here he is. three issues into hellblazer. john is very clearly someone that doesn't hold the popular political opinion, and with the values she held, it's clear why.

i live in. america. so i had to do some separate research on my own during my first read through and feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but she held a policy where basically the government would step back and let businesses collapse if they couldn't make enough money without government support. she didn't want trade unions. she wanted to base the economy on banking and service instead of manufacturing, so people in london ended up successful and pretty much anywhere else in the united kingdom wasn't doing so hot because employment was falling flat. then she pulled government support from the failing industries and people lost their jobs and so many people fell into poverty.

so yeah, after reading all of this, it made it a lot easier to understand why the demons of hell would support her and john would feel tortured listening to her acceptance speech. as you learn more about him through reading hellblazer- and, hell, even in this issue- he's against this sort of thing. gave a quid to a lady to feed her baby, and he's got a friend who's gay and eventually reveals that he has aids. of course, there's more, but i like to have scans as proof and i don't have too many at the moment.

john is for the rights of everyone. he wants everyone to have equal opportunity. the shit thatcher pulls doesn't really provide that, if london is the financial center and places like ireland, northern and western england, and so on are no longer getting support and communities are falling into poverty. it's like fucking people over because you don't think they deserve a chance and getting rid of industries because they're failing and pulling support from them is treating the government like a business rather than something that's meant to have your back when you fall. something that's supposed to lead and protect. you let someone fall into poverty, who are you protecting? the upper class, especially if you aren't doing anything to help get the people in poverty out of it. some might argue it's not the government's job to make sure you have the necessities to survive like food, water, shelter, and in our society a job, but. it is.

i could be missing some things on thatcher, so feel free to correct me or add to this, but yeah. that's the post.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Tom Toles

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 26, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 27, 2024

Yesterday, in a long story about “the petty feud between the [New York Times] and the White House,” Eli Stokols of Politico suggested that the paper’s negative coverage of President Joe Biden came from the frustration of its publisher, A. G. Sulzberger, at Biden’s refusal to do an exclusive interview with the paper. Two people told Stokols that Sulzberger’s reasoning is that only an interview with an established paper like the New York Times “can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.” 

For his part, Stokols reported, Biden’s frustration with the New York Times reflects “the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience,” and their conviction that the newspaper is not taking seriously the need to protect democracy. 

A spokesperson for the New York Times responded to the story by saying the idea that it has skewed its coverage out of pique over an interview is “outrageous and untrue,” and that the paper will continue to cover the president “fully and fairly.”

Today, Biden sat for a live interview of more than an hour with SiriusXM shock jock Howard Stern. Writer Kurt Andersen described it as a “*Total* softball interview, mostly about his personal life—but lovely, sweet, human, and Biden was terrific, consistently clear, detailed, charming, moving. Which was the point. SO much better than his opponent could do.”

Also today, the Treasury Department announced that the pilot program of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that enabled taxpayers to file their tax returns directly with the IRS for free had more users than the program’s stated goal, got positive ratings, and saved users an estimated $5.6 million in fees for tax preparation. The government had hoped about 100,000 people would use the pilot program; 140,803 did.

Former deputy director of the National Economic Council Bharat Ramamurti wrote on social media, “Of all the things I was lucky enough to work on, this might be my favorite. You shouldn’t have to pay money to pay your taxes. As this program continues to grow, most people will get pre-populated forms and be able to file their taxes with a few clicks in a few minutes.” Such a system would look much like the system other countries already use. 

Also today, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Williams-Sonoma will pay a record $3.17 million civil penalty for advertising a number of products as “Made in USA” when they were really made in China and other countries. This is the largest settlement ever for a case under the “Made in USA” rule. Williams-Sonoma will also be required to file annual compliance certifications. 

FTC chair Lina Khan wrote on social media: “Made in USA fraud deceives customers and punishes honest businesses. FTC will continue holding to account businesses that misrepresent where their product[s] are manufactured.” 

In another win for the United Auto Workers (UAW), the union negotiated a deal today with Daimler Trucks over contracts for 7,300 Daimler employees in four North Carolina factories. The new contracts provide raises of at least 25% over four years, cost of living increases, and profit sharing. This victory comes just a week after workers at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, voted overwhelmingly to join the UAW. 

Today was the eighth day of Trump’s criminal trial for his efforts to interfere with the 2016 election by paying to hide negative information about himself from voters and then falsifying records to hide the payments. David Pecker, who ran the company that published the National Enquirer tabloid, finished his testimony. 

In four days on the stand, Pecker testified that he joined Michael Cohen and others in killing stories to protect Trump in the election. Trump’s longtime executive assistant Rhona Graff took the stand after Pecker, and testified that both Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels were in Trump’s contacts. Next up was Gary Farro, a bank employee who verified banking information that showed how Michael Cohen had hidden payments to Daniels in 2016.

Once again, Trump appeared to be trying to explain away his lack of support at the trial, writing on his social media channel that the courthouse was heavily guarded. “Security is that of Fort Knox,” he wrote, “all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial….” But CNN’s Kaitlan Collins immediately responded: “Again, the courthouse is open [to] the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on [trial] days, is easily accessible.”

Dispatch Politics noted today that when co-chairs Michael Whatley and Lara Trump and senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita took over the Republican National Committee (RNC), they killed a plan to open 40 campaign offices in 10 crucial states and fired 60 members of the RNC staff. According to Dispatch Politics, Trump insisted to the former RNC chair that he did not need the RNC to work on turning out voters. He wanted the RNC to prioritize “election integrity” efforts. 

The RNC under Trump has not yet developed much infrastructure or put staff into the states. It appears to have decided to focus only on those that are key to the presidential race, leaving down-ballot candidates on their own. 

While Trump appears to be hoping to win the election through voter suppression or in the courts, following his blueprint from 2020, Biden’s campaign has opened 30 offices in Michigan alone and has established offices in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Florida.

Finally today, news broke that in her forthcoming book, South Dakota governor Kristi Noem wrote about shooting her 14-month-old dog because it was “untrainable” and dangerous. “I hated that dog,” she wrote, and she recorded how after the dog ruined a hunting trip, she shot it in a gravel pit. Then she decided to kill a goat that she found to be “nasty and mean” as well as smelly and aggressive. She “dragged him to the gravel pit,” too, and “put him down.”  

Noem has been seen as a leading contender for the Republican vice presidential nomination on a ticket with Trump, and it seems likely she was trying to demonstrate her ruthlessness—a trait Trump appears to value—as a political virtue. But across the political spectrum, people have expressed outrage and disgust. In The Guardian, Martin Pengelly said her statement, “I guess if I were a better politician I wouldn’t tell the story,” was “a contender for the greatest understatement of election year.”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[akihabaradivision]

Otaku Corps Drama Track 1 - Living Life By One's Own Rules, Not Someone Else's

Pt. 2

— Party of Words HQ, Chuohku Ward —

[Through the bustling streets of Tokyo, the young manga artist, Keiko Yumi, hurried through them, the neon lights casting colorful shadows on her path. She passed by Akihabara, the city's electronic heart, where gamers and otakus thrive, her hometown. It had been almost half a year since she had moved out of her grandparents' house. Though she loved living there, one bad fight with her grandmother had made her decide that she needed some time away from home, so she could live on her own.]

[After approximately a 30-minute walk, she had finally reached her destination: the Party of Words HQ, the center of Japan, both metaphorically and physically. You might be wondering how exactly Keiko managed to balance her life as both a student and as a devoted servant to the government. Most would think upon joining the government, you'd have to sacrifice all your time for them. With Keiko, though, it was a bit different.]

[Suffice to say, Keiko balanced her school and work lives with careful time management and a strong sense of duty. As a dedicated student at Tokyo University, she prioritized her studies, ensuring she excelled academically. Her passion for manga creation was woven into her daily routine, often working on "Red of the Ambitious" during her free time and between classes.]

[Her role as a servant of Chuohku requires constant discretion and a commitment to the tasks assigned to her by her superiors. She used her intelligence and resourcefulness to fulfill these duties without compromising her public persona as a student and mangaka. She often had to juggle sudden requests from Chuohku with her academic responsibilities, which could be challenging.

[To maintain this balance, Keiko relies on a strict schedule, often sacrificing personal time to meet all her obligations. Her family and friends (those who know about her secret life), provide a steady support system, understanding the demands of her life and offering help when needed. Despite the pressures, Keiko remains dedicated to her goals, driven by a desire to make a meaningful impact in both her public and secret roles.]

[Taking a deep breathe, the young blonde-haired student soon entered the majestic building surrounded by walls. Her steps echoed on the marble floors as she headed to her superior, Nemu Aohitsugi's, office. Fortunately, she looked as the woman in question was addressing another servant. Turning around, she spotted her secretary. Sending the servant on her way, she turned giving Keiko her full attention.]

Nemu: *Serious* Secretary Yumi, thank you for coming.

Keiko: *Salutes* Of course, Vice Chief Aohitsugi.

Nemu: *Salutes back* As I stated in the email, Lady Otome wishes to see you in her office.

Keiko: *Tries to maintain her facade, but is nervous* Y-yes, I read your email, Vice Chief. But... if I may ask, what does the Prime Minister want with me?

Nemu: I'm sorry, Yumi-chan. That's not for me to know. Otome-sama simply ordered you to her office. *Points to the elevator in the back of the hall* Take the elevator to the top floor where the Prime Minister's office is.

Keiko: *Nods* Y-yes. Thank you, Vice Chief.

[Saluting each other once more, Keiko obeyed her superior's orders and boarded the elevator. As the doors closed on her, the mangaka felt nervous, not just because of the meeting that was set to take place in a minute or two, but because she had never ventured further than the second floor of the building before. She knew that the Party of Words HQ was a very large and tall building with numerous rooms, hallways, and floors. But what reason would someone who was very low on the totem pole of the Chuohku spectrum have reason to venture any higher?]

[As the elevator slowly elevated her upward, Keiko looked out the clear glass window of the elevator, which showed almost the entire city of Tokyo, whose lights shined brightly, making her eyes sparkle. She had seen such scenes before, but this... this was something else.]

[You're probably wondering just how Keiko got mixed up with Chuohku in the first place. Her journey to becoming a servant of Chuohku was a combination of her personal convictions and a series of events that aligned with the government’s needs. Growing up, Keiko became at odds with her mother after she found out her mother's... career choices, which led her to seek structure and purpose elsewhere.]

[She soon graduated high school at the top of her class. This did not go unnoticed by Chuohku, who, upon taking notice of her talent and intellect, sent Nemu Aohitsugi, the Vice Chief of the Administrative Inspection Bureau to scout the high school graduate for a position as a servant of the Party of Words.]

[Initially hesitant, Keiko was drawn to the idea of serving her country in a meaningful way. The opportunity to work for Chuohku promised a sense of order and contribution that she yearned for. After a rigorous selection process, she was inducted as a Nemu's personal secretary, where she could use her skills discreetly while continuing her public life as a student and mangaka. Chuohku had even helped her to get her manga, "Red of the Ambitious", off of the ground. And now, it was one of the most popular mangas in the world today.]

[Her dual life is a testament to her ability to navigate complex environments and her commitment to her ideals. Despite the challenges, she manages to maintain her cover while fulfilling her duties to Chuohku, all the while pursuing her passion for manga and her studies in nursing.]

[After a minute ride to the top floor, the elevator slowly stopped and the doors opened, revealing the small corridor which lead to the office of Japan's dictator. Walking up to the large, golden double-doors, the manga artist took a deep breathe as she was about to step into the Prime Minister's office. This was a courtesy that only a few in Japan were allowed. Steeling her nerves, she gave the door a few firm knocks.]

???: You may enter.

[Obeying, Keiko opened the doors, letting a bright light envelope her. Once it had cleared, she looked as in the middle of the room, sitting at her desk, signing some papers, was none other than the Prime Minister of Japan, Otome Tohoten. Standing off a few feet away from her was her assistant, the Deputy Prime Minister, Ichijiku Kadenokoji. Rising her head from her papers, Otome looked at Keiko, an unreadable expression on her face.]

Otome: Secretary Yumi, thank you for coming. Please come in.

Keiko: *Salutes* Secretary Keiko Yumi, reporting ma'am.

Otome: *Nods* Thank you for your dedication. *Extends her hand to the seat in front of her desk* Please sit. We have much to talk about.

[Nodding, the manga artist obeyed, sitting in the chair directly in front of the Prime Minister's desk. Otome, seated behind her imposing desk, regarded Keiko with a motherly warmth that belied the seriousness of her position. Her eyes, sharp and assessing, seemed to pierce through Keiko's nervous facade, seeking the steel she hoped to find within the young woman.]

Otome: Tell me, Keiko-chan, do you understand the gravity of the situation that brings you here?

[Keiko's response was hesitant, her voice a mere whisper that carried her uncertainty. She clasped her hands in front of her, as if the physical act could somehow steady her racing heart.]

Keiko: No, Madam Prime Minister, I do not.

Otome: *Smiles* It's fine. I don't blame you. Rest assured, you are not in any trouble or being punished for anything.

[Those words managed to calm Keiko's pacing heart, though she still couldn't help but feel a bit nervous.]

Otome: Tell me, Keiko-chan, how much do you know about the Division Rap Battle tournament?

Keiko: *Surprised* The... D.R.B.? Umm... it involves multiple divisions battling one another for control of one another?

Otome: *Nods* Correct. *Stands up from her seat with her hands behind her, looking outside her window* The Division Rap Battle was initially created because Chuohku wanted to end the senseless violence and futility that comes with wars between the divisions. And to make it more fulfilling, we've made it so it can be seen as something of a show to the people of Japan. However, the D.R.B. is much more than just entertainment; it is a battleground for influence and power.

Otome: *Turns back to face Keiko* Are you aware of just how many divisions are currently participating in the D.R.B., Keiko-chan?

Keiko: *Surprised* Umm... if I recall from the top of my there's: Saitama, Shinagawa, Kyoto, Ueno, Toyama, Okinawa, Sapporo, and Minato among others.

[Otome listened, her nod an affirmation of Keiko's knowledge. But it was the mention of the Minato division that brought a gleam of interest to her eyes.]

Otome: Yes, that is correct. ...And I'm glad you brought up the division of Minato, because that is exactly why I asked for you today.

[At this, a look of confusion and surprise appeared on Keiko's face. At the Prime Minister's words, the manga artist tried to recall exactly who the Minato team was.]

Keiko: You mean... the team known as R.I.P Märchen?

Otome: *Smiles* I'm glad that you are familiar with the teams of each division. ...But no. There is another team in Minato that we are worried about.

[Keiko frowned as she tried to recall another team in Minato other than the team led by the enigmatic woman known as "Queen Card", but none came to mind.]

Otome: ...Well, truthfully, though they are called a "team", they are not registered to participate in the D.R.B. They've appeared to enter under heinous means.

Keiko: *Surprised* What?! Is... is that legal?

Otome: No, it is not. Unfortunately, they seem to be very popular with the people of Minato, so, like it or not, I'm afraid I've little choice but to allow their entree.

Keiko: ...If you don't mind me asking, Prime Minister, who is this new team?

[Instead of answering, Otome looked over to the Ichijiku, who had remained silent up until now. With a subtle nod, she dropped a folder that was labeled 'Oculus' on the desk, nodding to Keiko, telling her to pick it up.]

Otome: They've taken to calling themselves 'Oculus', which is the Latin word for 'eye'. I'm not entirely sure what the meaning behind it is, but apparently their purpose is to 'open society's eyes'.

[Frowning, Keiko picked up the folder Ichijiku had given her and opened it. A stack of papers was inside, with the first page detailing a woman whom Keiko thought looked vaguely familiar.]

Otome: Their leader is someone whom you probably already know: 'Nadya Kuromiya', a.k.a. 'Vipera'.

Keiko: Kuromiya? ...Wait, wasn't she the woman who...?

Ichijiku: "Committed suicide?" Yes, that is what we previously thought, as well. She was a former member of our science team, but we let her go after she... failed to deliver expected results. She apparently committed suicide by bombing a few hours later.

Otome: You're aware of all the riots and the anti-Chuohku sentiment that has sprung up as of late, correct? *Continues without waiting for response* Our sources indicate that Kuromiya is the one behind all of it. We've done what we can to thwart any uprisings but it is becoming more and more difficult.

[Though Keiko wanted to know why that was 'exactly', a frown on the face of Ichijiku warned her not too. Flipping to the next set of papers, Keiko's eyes grew wide as the image of the next member was shown.]

Keiko: ...Is this?

Otome: 'Meari Miracle', a.k.a. 'Bloody Mary.' Lead singer of the heavy metal band, 86.

[Keiko knew who this woman was. Some of her classmates and friends were a big fan of her and her band, 86. She had heard some of the band's material; she wasn't as into it as her peers were. Screamo bands and those that sung about things demonic weren't really her cup of tea.]

Keiko: *Confused* But wait... why would a popular heavy metal singer be collaborating with a known terrorist?

Otome: We're unsure, but we believe the third and final member may be the reason.

[As she was prepared to turn to the last few pages in the file, Keiko looked as she was stopped by the Prime Minister.]

Otome: Before you view the last member Keiko-chan, I feel I need to warn you that you may know them better than their cohorts. So just be prepared.

[A look of confusion sprung on the face of the manga artist. This third member was someone she knew? Who could it be? Who could have possibly joined forces with a heavy metal singer and a criminal against the proud state of Chuohku that Keiko was familiar with? The answer revealed itself as Keiko finally turned the page.]

[The faces of the first two members of the team known as 'Oculus' was already much of a surprise to the low-level servant of Chuohku. However, it was the third member that drew a gasp from the young university student's lips. Why? Because the third member of this team was none other than...]

Keiko: *Shocked* My... mother?

Otome: *Nods* Yes. 'Aika Yumi', a.k.a. 'VeeXn'. A popular adult actress and the third member of the Minato team, Oculus. We believe she is the one who brought all three members together. We also have reason to suspect that she was the one who rescued Nadya Kuromiya and cared for her after her suspected suicide.

[Hearing the Prime Minister's words made Keiko's shock turn into anger as she stared at the confident smirking face of the woman whom she detested. Her mother, Aika Yumi, the woman who had cast a shadow over her her entire life, was there, looking back at her with eyes that held secrets Keiko wasn't sure she wanted to uncover. It was bad enough to know she had been hiding the fact that she was a porn star for most of Keiko's life. But to hear that she had been harboring and caring for one of the most well-known criminals in Chuohku's history? Was there no end to her shame?!]

Keiko: *Angrily* That woman... she's brought nothing but shame and disgrace! Not only to herself and our family, but to all of Japan! And now... you're saying she's involved in this chaos?!

[Otome watched Keiko's reactions closely, her expression one of understanding. She knew the revelations were a lot to process, especially the involvement of Keiko's estranged mother.]

Otome: *Sympathetically* I know this is difficult for you, Keiko-chan. But your personal feelings must be set aside. You have a greater role to play now, one that could change the course of Akihabara's future.

[Keiko took a deep breath, trying to steady the storm of emotions within her. She looked up, her resolve hardening, like armor. Her voice was steady despite the turmoil she felt.]

Keiko: *Looks up at Otome, determined* I understand, Prime Minister. Would you like me to lead an arrest on these three individuals? You have my word, I won't falter or fail.

Otome: *Smiles* I admire your loyalty and dedication, Keiko-chan. But... we actually had another idea in mind.

[Looking to Ichijiku once more, the Deputy Prime Minister nodded and turned to a door on the side of the room. Opening it, she entered, disappearing for a brief second before returning with a large silver suitcase.]

Otome: As your mother and her cohorts are entering the D.R.B., the only suitable means would be to combat them on that front. I don't know how they managed to obtain a team's worth of Hypnosis Microphones, but it matters not, as they can easily be replaced.

[Ichijiku places the suitcase in front of Keiko, who looks at Otome for confirmation. A nod of the head is all that is required for Keiko to open it, viewing what is inside. Her mouth opens with a 'gasp' as inside our three Hypnosis Microphones.

Otome: If this team, 'Oculus', is planning on infiltrating the D.R.B., then that is where we shall face them. ...And by them, I mean you, Keiko-chan. Akihabara needs a champion, and you will lead them.

[It was then that Keiko finally understood why Otome had called her here. She had wanted her to lead a team to face her mother in the D.R.B. With a firm resolve, she looked up at Otome, again determined.]

Keiko: I understand. Thank you, Otome-sama.

Otome: It is fine. Remember, you are not alone in this fight, Keiko-chan. You will have Chuohku's support to aid you. I even have two subordinates who can help you form a team.

[At this, Keiko's mouth opened, then closed. Having two people already would make things easier. ...But could she really trust two people she didn't know? Although she served Chuohku and trusted those who did, she didn't know if she could trust them to help her in a rap battle. ...No, she needed two people who she could really trust to help her. Two people whom she knew since high school. Two friends.]

Keiko: With respect, Prime Minister, may I choose two allies of my own? There are those who I trust, who I know will stand with me in this.

[Otome's surprise was fleeting, replaced by a nod of approval. She understood the value of loyalty and trust, especially in the murky waters Keiko was about to navigate.]

Otome: Very well. But keep in mind, you will only have a week to register. I have no qualms about whom you choose, but make sure they are both ready and willing to follow you into this.

Keiko: *Nods* Do not worry, Prime Minister. I will make sure they are.

[Otome laid out the rules, the guidelines that governed the battles, and Keiko absorbed every word. She was a student once more, but this time the lessons were of a far deadlier nature. When the briefing concluded, Keiko saluted, her oath to not disappoint ringing with sincerity. She turned on her heel and left, her mind already turning to the task ahead.]

[As the door closed behind the manga artist, Ichijiku immediately turned to her dear friend and leader.]

Ichijiku: With respect, Otome-sama, are you sure it was wise to put Keiko Yumi in charge of this? Besides the fact there were far more suitable candidates, can we really trust her to be of sound mind knowing that she is going to be facing her mother, along with Nadya Kuromiya?

[Understanding her assistant's concerns, Otome's reassurance was a velvet-covered steel, her confidence unshakable.]

Otome: Do not fret, Ichijiku. Keiko Yumi's success or failure matters little. If she somehow prospers against 'Oculus', good. If not, then there is no loss. What's important is the game.

[As she said that, Otome's smile that appeared on her face was enigmatic, a sinister curve that promised spectacle and hinted at the machinations that churned beneath the surface.

Otome: ...And I intend to enjoy every last second of it.

To be continued...

[digitalcurrencynewsblog]

Bitcoin Cryptocurrencies: Unraveling the Revolution of Digital Gold

In the world of cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin stands as the undisputed pioneer, heralding a new era of digital finance and challenging traditional notions of money and value. Since its inception over a decade ago, Bitcoin has captivated the imagination of millions, evolving from a niche experiment to a globally recognized asset class with a market capitalization surpassing that of many Fortune 500 companies. Let's delve into the intricacies of Bitcoin cryptocurrencies and their profound impact on the financial landscape. Check their site to know more details  criptomoedas bitcoin

At its core, Bitcoin represents a decentralized digital currency, free from the control of any central authority or intermediary. Powered by blockchain technology, Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a public ledger, immutable and transparent, ensuring trust and security without the need for intermediaries. This groundbreaking innovation not only eliminates the inefficiencies and vulnerabilities inherent in traditional financial systems but also empowers individuals with unparalleled financial sovereignty and autonomy.

One of Bitcoin's most defining features is its scarcity. With a maximum supply capped at 21 million coins, Bitcoin is often likened to digital gold—a store of value immune to inflationary pressures and government manipulation. This scarcity, coupled with increasing global demand and institutional adoption, has propelled Bitcoin's price to unprecedented heights, garnering attention from investors, speculators, and institutions seeking a hedge against economic uncertainty and currency debasement.

Moreover, Bitcoin's decentralized nature makes it resistant to censorship and confiscation, providing a safe haven for individuals in jurisdictions plagued by political instability or oppressive regimes. From remittances and philanthropy to wealth preservation and capital flight, Bitcoin has emerged as a lifeline for those seeking financial freedom and inclusion in an interconnected yet fractured world.

However, Bitcoin is not without its challenges. Scalability, energy consumption, and regulatory scrutiny remain persistent hurdles on its path to mainstream adoption. The debate over Bitcoin's environmental impact, fueled by its energy-intensive proof-of-work consensus mechanism, underscores the need for sustainable alternatives and technological innovation to mitigate its carbon footprint.

Furthermore, regulatory uncertainty poses a significant risk to Bitcoin's long-term viability. While some countries have embraced Bitcoin as a legitimate asset class, others have imposed stringent regulations or outright bans, casting a shadow of uncertainty over its future. Clear and coherent regulatory frameworks are essential to fostering investor confidence, encouraging innovation, and ensuring the responsible growth of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Despite these challenges, the future of Bitcoin cryptocurrencies appears bright. The ongoing development of layer-two solutions, such as the Lightning Network, promises to enhance scalability and efficiency, enabling faster and cheaper transactions on the Bitcoin network. Additionally, advancements in privacy and security features aim to bolster Bitcoin's fungibility and resilience against emerging threats.

Moreover, the convergence of Bitcoin with traditional finance through avenues like exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and institutional-grade custody solutions is paving the way for broader adoption and integration into traditional investment portfolios. As Bitcoin matures and evolves, its role as a global reserve asset and digital gold is poised to solidify, reshaping the financial landscape for generations to come.

In conclusion, Bitcoin cryptocurrencies represent a paradigm shift in the way we perceive and interact with money. As a decentralized, scarce, and censorship-resistant digital asset, Bitcoin transcends borders and ideologies, offering a beacon of hope for financial empowerment and freedom in an increasingly digitized world. While challenges abound, the resilience and innovation of the Bitcoin community continue to propel the revolution of digital gold forward, unlocking new possibilities and redefining the future of finance.

[neverwritewhatyouknow]

I'm the previous anon who was talking about Indian Colonial history

I do follow you but I wanted to remain anonymous because I'm kinda shy 😭. You can call me Madhuri so that it's clear who I am

So I hadn't really put much thought into Shaan being a direct employee of the British monarchy until the other anon pointed it out and the more I think of it, the more weirded out I get because in a fictional novel, I feel that the author has the responsibility to make their content respectful to all groups of people and this move was kind of thoughtless.

Indians were treated like shit when the British governed our land. Basically, the British arrived as cloth traders and by creating this elaborate debt trap for rural weavers, they took over our economy and gained trade monopoly. They got some tax cessations from different kings and finally in the Battle of Plassey, they took over Bengal, a super super important place because it was in the plains, had a long coastline and was one of the most industrialised towns.

They started taxing people to hell and back with no regard for their well being. They told our kings they would provide them arms and forces to protect themselves against other rulers all while instigating whatever the opposite of peace is (I literally cannot think of a work for this, I'm so sorry)

Indians were forced to pay them, work for them without pay and make goods for them at extremely nominal amounts while the British got all the profit. We were kidnapped from our own lands and sent to plantations. There was this inland immigration act which did not allow workers to even exit tea gardens without written permission which was rarely given. They shut down our press and arrested our revolutionaries. Our people were forced to fight in the army. The first revolution actually started because the army was being forced to use bullets greased with pig fat and cow fat one of which was haram for muslims and the other was the product of an animal holy to the Hindus.

They decimated our country and the impact is still felt today.

I have watched a lot of movies about colonialism in India and one of the most chilling lines Ive heard was something along the lines of 'A bullet costs one pound by the time it reaches your gun Soldier. Are you really going to waste it on brown trash' this was followed by the soldiers beating a mother to death in front of her daughter and the entire village.

I'll recommend some movies to you. They are fiction but manage to capture the history so so well. You can find these on Netflix btw.

1) Lagaan- it's about taxation during a time of drought and a surreal way to escape it

2) RRR- honestly, I had watched some part of it but couldn't watch further because of how chilling it was and how hard it hit but it is considered to be amazing

3) Rang De Basanti- It's about college students shooting a film about freedom fighters and it alternates with the story of the revolutionaries and their parallels with the characters. These students are changed forever when one act makes them question the entire system and they become revolutionaries themselves. The ending was surprising and I could feel my heart being ripped out of my chest

Hey, Madhuri! No worries, I totally understand wanting to stay anonymous, I’m literally the same way on here so I get it.

Thank you so much for this! Yeah, my history classes definitely didn’t go over enough about any of this, but I’ll be reading more about everything this week, because it’s important and I want to learn more. It’s clear there is an entire history between Britain and India that I only know the very tip of, so thank you again for writing this all out. I’m sure a lot of people probably don’t know much about this (unfortunately, since our textbooks tend to… you know… veer on the side of the oppressors), so this will all be incredibly educational to anyone reading it. Feel free to send more my way whenever you want! I love this!

I’ve heard awesome things about RRR, but didn’t know what it was about. I’m gonna watch it this weekend! And that last movie sounds really good too! Thanks for the recs!!!

As for Shaan… I honestly think Casey just wasn’t thinking. This isn’t in defense of them, an author should always think about what they’re doing and how it could show up on page or screen, but I truthfully think they just wanted to fill that role with some sort of minority and picked Indian because of the large UK Indian population. I’d bet all of the money in my wallet ($20) that Casey doesn’t know any more than the vague basics of everything you’ve told me. I noticed that they described Nora, who’s Jewish, using some stereotypical Jewish traits too (I can write more on this if anyone wants, don’t want to hijack this post). It really was a guess-and-pick of races and ethnicities for them. I love how diverse the book is, but it’s sorta clear it was done for the spectacle, not for any real heartwarming reason. Casey knew it would probably sell better, since it would be talked about as an incredibly varied collection of characters, I don’t think they thought about more than that, or didn’t think it would matter because of the positives.

Do I think Casey meant any direct hurt with it? No.

Do I think that Casey’s lack of understanding or having any knowledge beyond their contained worldview causes harm indirectly? Yes.

[agtictl23]

SESSION 2. INTERNET CONTENT REGULATION

READ: ICTL TEXTBOOK CHAPTER 2

OPTIONAL REFERENCE ONLY: L&T BOOK CHAPTER 4

A. INTERNET CONTENT REGULATIONS

Freedom of Speech and Expression: Singapore citizens enjoy certain fundamental liberties under the Constitution, but with certain limitations. In particular, freedom of speech appears in Article 14 of the Constitution. What is the relationship between democratic rights to free speech, expression and assembly on the one hand and the Singapore’s content regulations on the other? Content regulation can be direct and indirect, and it is provided under statutes (and subsidiary legislation) as well as in common law. For example, the law on defamation, sedition and contempt of court restrict or prohibit speech. The licensing and rating schemes for films, music and other forms of works as well as outright prohibition of certain types of content also curb freedom of speech and expression. Electronic forms of communication, which is becoming the norm, is no exception, and are subject to regulations, although the content in this medium and disseminated via various electronic platforms have yet to achieve convergence.

Internet Content Regulation in Singapore: The Infocommunications Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Government Technology Organisation (GTO) were set up to “capitalise on converging media and ICT landscape”. Consider the regulatory model that they have adopted specifically for Internet content, in particular the so-called ‘light touch’ approach. Look at the mission statement and other objectives that are enunciated in the regulatory agencies’ websites. Singapore’s Internet content regulation depends primarily on access controls (i.e. class licensing scheme and website registration for certain types of websites, based on the nature of content) and regulatory requirements/legal threats (e.g. performance bond and take-down notices/civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions) to prevent people from posting objectionable content rather than technological methods to block it. Is this a good or bad model? Would you consider it more restrictive or less? Should a different model be considered and adopted? If not, why is the current model defensible? If so, what alternative model would you recommend, and why is the old model not as good as the new one? Note the different regulatory regimes for different mediums - is this rational and what is the reason for the distinctions?

Look at the IMDA policies and content guidelines relating to the Class Licence Scheme and related subsidiary legislation (i.e. the Class Licence Conditions and the Internet Code of Practice) for Internet content and try to answer the following questions in preparation for class discussion and evaluation:

Is there really a convergence in treatment of electronic content versus the same content contained in tangible property (hardware)? What are the challenges to achieving such convergence and the policy considerations involved? Consider the treatment of Singapore news websites.

Who does the Internet licensing scheme cover and how does it work? Is there a distinction made between content conduits, hosts and sources? What is an “Internet service provider” and who does it cover? Is an “Internet content provider” a host, source or both?

Are the rights, protections and responsibilities/obligations the same or different for stakeholders? What are the requirements for business, religious and political websites; and more recently, Singapore news websites?

What type of content is sensitive and is there a good basis for the categorisation? Are the types of prohibited content clear? Consider and critically examine the extent of control and the curtailment of free speech and expression. Is it justifiable in your opinion?

Overall, what is the policy reason behind this content regulatory regime? Is there a conflict of public interest that the government is trying to balance and what are these interests? In your opinion, do you think they have succeeded in doing so?

B. LAWS AGAINST ONLINE FALSEHOODS AND MANIPULATION

Fake News and Social Media: What is the current approach to the regulation of websites that provide ‘Singapore news’? Do the mechanisms/requirements under the Scheme as well as the pre-existing content-related laws (e.g. sedition, defamation and films/publication restrictions under current laws) adequately deal with the issue of ‘fake news’? In Singapore, a public consultation and hearing was conducted on the matter by “The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods - Causes, Consequences and Countermeasures” in 2018, which saw great interest from the public. The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill entered its first reading in Parliament on 1 April 2019. There were two days of debate at its second reading in Parliament on 7 and 8 May 2019. It was read for the third time and was passed on 8 May 2019 by a majority of the votes that were made along party lines. It received the President’s assent on 3 June 2019 and will enter into force on a date that the Minister for Communications and Information (MCI) appoints by notification in the Gazette.

Anti-Fake News Laws: Examine the Singapore Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act of 2019. What are its features and is there justification for such a law?  What are the opposing arguments to it? What is the approach of the Act and what are its strengths and weaknesses? How can it be improved? Compare and contrast the POFMA approach to such a law in one other jurisdiction (e.g. Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Germany, France and the United States) and note its features. Read up on how A.I. and machine learning models are used to suggest news and other content on social media and news platforms as well as how these platforms are dealing with the issue of fake news and unreliable news sources.

Consider the following generally before class:

Critically example the POFMA cases (citations below). What were the issues and how have the Court of Appeal decided? Do you agree with the CA's decision and are there any outstanding problems with the Act?

Examine the current regulations and codes of practice issued by the POFMA Office. In your opinion, have they addressed some of the criticisms and ambiguities in the Act?

What is the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (No. 28 of 2021), what are its objectives and how does it relate to POFMA?

What is the Online Criminal Harms Bill (No. 17 of 2023) and how does it supplement (and replace) the laws preceding its enactment?

How have the law relating to Internet Intermediaries evolved from these pieces of legislation?

Cases: (read only the CA case, HC cases are optional)

The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General and another appeal and other matters [2021] SGCA 96 [POFMA appeal]

Singapore Democratic Party v Attorney-General [2020] SGHC 25 (5 February 2020) [SDP case]

The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General [2020] SGHC 36 (19 February 2020) [TOC case]

Recommended Reading:

Audrey Foo, Case Brief: Deconstructing the Legal Contours of POFMA (2021)

Statutes: (for class reference by instructor only, relevant provisions will be highlighted in class)

Broadcasting Act (Cap. 28) (relevant provisions will be covered in class)

German Network Enforcement Act (for discussion only)

An Act Penalizing the Malicious Distribution of False News and other Related Violations in the Philippines & An Act Prohibiting the Creation and Distribution of False News in the Philippines (for discussion only)

Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 (for discussion only)

Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (No. 18 of 2019)

Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (No. 28 of 2021)

Online Criminal Harms Bill (No. 17 of 2023)

Regulations & Codes of Practice: (for class reference only, relevant provisions will be highlighted in class)

The Broadcasting (Class Licence Notification)

The Internet Code of Practice

References: (optional)

Public Consultation on Enhancing Online Safety for Users in Singapore (IMDA)

Rainie, Anderson & Albright, The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online (Pew Research Centre, 29 March 2017)

[rubireads]

the handmaid’s tale by margaret atwood, five stars.

A striking effect of any novel, particularly a dystopian fiction one, is its ability to place its audience directly into the world the author builds. The aim is to create a shocking society that predicts a future the reader can envision themselves eventually living if they are not too careful. The Handmaid’s Tale achieves exactly this.

This dystopian fiction novel follows a woman the reader knows as Offred serving The Republic of Gilead as a Handmaid for a married couple in a higher position. Due to natural disasters, secular immorality and the formation of new diseases, declining birth rates have become a severe and national issue. By staging a coup of the US Government, the founders of Gilead have created a state in which women serve to reproduce for her society, consequently diminishing female rights altogether. Through this regime, Handmaids are routinely forced into ritualistic sex with their Commander. The reader can immediately grasp that they have not been willingly put into this position but forced there through the totalitarian regime of the state. Throughout the novel, flashbacks to a time before the state takeover are shown, slowly piecing together Offred’s previous life. Her current name represents the Commander she serves, but Atwood never reveals the protagonist’s real name. The meaning behind this aspect significantly highlights the loss of identity women experience within this future, transforming them from their own person into the property of a man. Whilst she makes it clear she does not choose this name for herself it is the only name the reader knows her by. This loss of identity is further expressed through the clothing each economic class is forced to wear in an attempt to maintain the division in society and enforce the hierarchies. Atwood successfully portrays what the book is attempting to argue regarding the decline in female rights and how the increasing laws being placed on women’s bodies, societal stereotypes and upheld outdated traditions will ultimately lead to a totalitarian world in which women ultimately have no choice and men do not follow, creating a state of secrecy. Through the oppressing character of Aunt Lydia, Atwood portrays the thoughts behind this new regime as a form of saving grace for women, protecting them from incidents that occurred such as molestation or rape as ‘women were not protected then’[1]. The reader can clearly see the irony in this, as Handmaids are now being raped under legal justifications instead. They are even less protected than they were before. Whilst it is clear they are trapped, Aunt Lydia’s suggestion they are now free brings the reader to question the true meaning behind the word as well as allowing the reader to dwell on the state of society they are living in, thus evoking important questions.

Atwood provides a very clear and accurate insight into the era this novel was published as well as predicting a scarily accurate future through the tragedies presented. The process that women in this novel went through when slowly losing their rights can be seen in parallels to real life, such as the transfer from a cash to a cashless society. In the past few years, the tendency to spend physical cash has been dwindling due to ease, speed and more recently the need to avoid unnecessary physical interactions on account of Coronavirus. Whilst this feels more convenient to the individual spender, it is easy to forget the effects a cashless society may have on its citizens. The use of purely card transactions leads to greater government control through the access of digital data. This monitoring of economic activity can lead to eventual restrictions put in place which Atwood illustrates as the precursor of the declining women’s rights when the protagonist attempts to purchase a packet of cigarettes and is told her bank account is frozen, any money being transferred control to a male next of kin. The acceptance of a cashless society made this shift to a totalitarian state all the easier to initiate. Whilst one can hope the same ending does not occur, it is interesting to see how Atwood predicted the ways in which our society would develop to such minute detail.

A further noteworthy detail are the parallels to natural disasters within the novel. It is not a secret that our planet is experiencing a climate crisis and on the brink of becoming unliveable, with climate change being an international emergency for the last 30 years and not enough being done about it. The Australian fires that made international news throughout the beginning of 2020 is enough proof that the worlds extreme weather patterns are causing irreversible danger with the world ‘already heated up by around 1.2C, on average, since the preindustrial era, pushing humanity beyond almost all historical boundaries’[2]. Atwood attributes the increasing infertility in women to these environmental concerns as well as man-made environmental disasters. Before publication, the Three Mile Island incident was the worst nuclear disaster in US history[3] and ironically shortly after publication, the Chernobyl incident in Ukraine became the most notorious nuclear plant accident, successfully portraying Atwood’s anxieties. Albeit the 1980s concerns of nuclear threats Atwood refers to are no longer as prominent, we can see a transformation to 21st century concerns of the climate crisis contributing the current decreasing birth rates. Not only is the increasing pollution viewed to have a direct link with infertility, but people are making the personal decision to not have children due to fears of amplifying global warming or forcing them to endure the knock-on effects of it[4]. Sexually transmitted diseases were also a contributing factor to falling fertility rates in Atwood’s 1985 novel. Spread by sexual activity, this real-life pandemic was first recognised in the early 80s and was well reported by the time of the publication of The Handmaid’s Tale. Atwood accurately used the public fears and consequential homophobic tone surrounding this pandemic as a political backdrop in her novel.

The book explores objectification of women to morbid extremes. Using women as purely baby making machines; breeding and bringing up girls to be complacent; limiting education to futile things such as cross stitching; banning the teachings of reading and writing as the pen is just too powerful for them - the list goes on. The author herself stated that when she wrote the novel ‘nothing went into it that had not happened in real life somewhere at some time’[5]. Whilst Atwood is referring to ‘aspects of 17th century New England Puritanism and dictatorships seen in different eras across the globe’[6], all it takes is a look at the abortion debate in the US to know the relation this novel has to current trends is outstanding. In October of this year, a Native American woman named Brittney Poolaw was sentenced to four years in prison for manslaughter of her unborn son after having a miscarriage. The reader does not even have to look beyond the setting that Gilead is based on to see that Atwood’s dystopian future is closer than they think. This idea of women constantly being at fault links back to the ideas of the 1980s that Atwood draws upon within the novel, one being that women were responsible for the sexual assault they experienced based on their own actions and clothing. It is a scary realisation that things are or have been as bad as a dystopian novel and Atwood uses this fear cleverly to grip the reader into a novel that feels more reality than fiction. The narration of the Handmaid forces the reader to experience life through the perspective of the most violated female role within Gilead rather than any of the other roles women were subjected to such as a Martha – a maid – or a trophy wife in order to emphasise this injustice.

Along with real-life events, Atwood modelled her novel after some horrifying aspects of many popular dystopian novels she read such as George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm. These inspirations are clear to the reader through the ‘Big Brother’ type of world that Atwood has created in Gilead, using ‘Guardians of the Faith’ and ‘Angels’ to rival the terror of the ‘Thought Police’. Atwood has become an icon of science fiction through The Handmaid’s Tale but rejects this notion and instead attributes her novel to speculative fiction, contributing to its own type of genre that states there is precedence in the world for the fiction that is written[7]. Whilst this has created controversy within the science fiction world, I cannot deny that I agree with her.  

Atwood uses impactful methods such as constant time jumps between the past and present by means of flashbacks, giving the reader an important insight into life before the takeover of government in a way that suggests these memories have been repressed. This further connects the reader to the reality of the changing state by allowing them to relate to a society that is similar to their own. It is revealed that Offred was separated from her daughter and husband when attempting to flee the changing government of the US and the mysteries surrounding her loved ones maintain a suspenseful tone throughout the novel.

The character development is also a commendable aspect of the novel. Offred starts off being a reserved and obedient follower of the regime which consequently leads to feelings of frustration from the reader. Her character, however, eventually blossoms into a rebellious and proactive one that the audience desires to read about in a novel about challenging the patriarchy and pushing boundaries. Additionally, it is interesting to note the development of the relationship between Offred and her Commander who, over the course of the novel, build an alliance in which he allows her to perform tasks normally prohibited to women – such as reading - in exchange for her consent in kissing him. This unexpected budding relationship humanises Commander Fred and grounds him from a symbol of oppression and power to the position of a simple male who craves innocent affection. The reader gains the sense of how even in a totalitarian state benefitting men as the superior gender, not even they are satisfied.

The acknowledgment of external national powers, such as Canada, opposing to Gilead as a society is another a praiseworthy mention of this novel. Unlike more recent dystopian novels such as The Hunger Games, which fails to acknowledge what is going on in other parts of the world and how they react, The Handmaid’s Taleuses opposing states and resistance group ‘Mayday’ that are still rooted in the present to mirror how the real world would and does react to state atrocities such as Gilead. This acts as evidence to the reader that this state is as concrete as the states around them and is significant in intensifying the reality of the book by transforming it from a dystopian novel into real life.

Atwood has created a terrifyingly realistic account of a totalitarian future that does not seem so separate from our own within The Handmaid’s Tale. She constructs the terrifying truth in a bleak but necessary way and uses simple techniques to portray the difference between the protagonist’s past and present, as well as the similarities between her present and ours, making the novel disturbingly thought provoking for the reader. Those who desire to expand their knowledge on women’s rights, either due to not understanding the seriousness of our current pace in the word or are simply looking to educate themselves further, would benefit from reading this novel along with any avid reader of science fiction and dystopian novels.

Bibliography

Atwood, Margaret, The Handmaid's Tale (London: Vintage, 1996).

Barajas, Joshua, ‘Margaret Atwood on the dystopian novels that inspired her to write ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’’ (2021), PBS https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/margaret-atwood-on-the-dystopian-novels-that-inspired-her-to-write-the-handmaids-tale [accessed 24 November 2021].

Evans, Greg, ‘’Handmaid’s Tale’ Author Margaret Atwood Tells Online Writing Class Those “Bad Things” Really Happened’ (2018), Deadline <https://deadline.com/2018/07/handmaids-tale-margaret-atwood-masterclass-writing-class-bad-things-really-happened-1202424424/> [accessed 24 November 2021].

Gordon, Lewis, ‘The Handmaid’s Tale contains a chilling environmental warning’ (2017), Little White Lies, < https://lwlies.com/articles/the-handmaids-tale-environmental-warning/> [accessed 28 November 2021].

Milman, Oliver and others, ‘The climate disaster is here’ (2021), The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/oct/14/climate-change-happening-now-stats-graphs-maps-cop26 [accessed 28 November 2021].

Shead, Sam, ‘Climate change is making people think twice about having children’ (2021), CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/climate-change-is-making-people-think-twice-about-having-children.html [accessed 28 November 2021].

[1] Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale (London: Vintage, 1996), p. 34.

[2] Oliver Milman and others, The climate disaster is here’ (2021), The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/oct/14/climate-change-happening-now-stats-graphs-maps-cop26 [accessed 28 November 2021].

[3] Lewis Gordon, The Handmaid’s Tale contains a chilling environmental warning (2017), Little White Lies, < https://lwlies.com/articles/the-handmaids-tale-environmental-warning/> [accessed 28 November 2021].

[4] Sam Shead, Climate change is making people think twice about having children (2021), CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/climate-change-is-making-people-think-twice-about-having-children.html [accessed 28 November 2021].

[5] Greg Evans, ’Handmaid’s Tale’ Author Margaret Atwood Tells Online Writing Class Those “Bad Things” Really Happened (2018), Deadline < https://deadline.com/2018/07/handmaids-tale-margaret-atwood-masterclass-writing-class-bad-things-really-happened-1202424424/> [accessed 24 November 2021].

[6] Joshua Barajas, Margaret Atwood on the dystopian novels that inspired her to write ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ (2021), PBS https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/margaret-atwood-on-the-dystopian-novels-that-inspired-her-to-write-the-handmaids-tale [accessed 24 November 2021].

[7] Barajas, Margaret Atwood on the dystopian novels that inspired her to write ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’.

[dailyanarchistposts]

I.8.14 What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?

The most important economic lesson from the revolution is the fact that working class people took over the management of industry and did an amazing job of keeping (and improving!) production in the face of the direst circumstances (a factor often overlooked by the opponents of anarchism and the revolution). Not only did workers create a war industry from almost nothing in Catalonia, they also improved working conditions and innovated with new techniques and processes. The Spanish Revolution shows that self-management is possible and that the constructive powers of people inspired by an ideal can transform society.

Self-management allowed a massive increase in innovation and new ideas. The Spanish Revolution is clear proof of the anarchist case against hierarchy and validates Isaac Puente words that in “a free collective each benefits from accumulated knowledge and specialised experiences of all, and vice versa. There is a reciprocal relationship wherein information is in continuous circulation.” [The Anarchist Collectives, p. 32] The workers, freed from economic autocracy, started to transform their workplaces and how the produced goods.

From the point of view of individual freedom, it is clear that self-management allowed previously marginalised people to take an active part in the decisions that affected them. Egalitarian organisations provided the framework for a massive increase in participation and individual self-government, which expressed itself in the extensive innovations carried out by the Collectives. The Collectives indicate, in Stirner’s words, that ”[o]nly in the union can you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you.” [The Ego and Its Own, p. 312] A fact Emma Goldman confirmed from her visits to collectives and discussions with their members:

“I was especially impressed with the replies to my questions as to what actually had the workers gained by the collectivisation … the answer always was, first, greater freedom. And only secondly, more wages and less time of work. In two years in Russia [1920–21] I never heard any workers express this idea of greater freedom.” [Vision on Fire, p. 62]

As predicted in anarchist theory, and borne out by actual experience, there exists large untapped reserves of energy and initiative in the ordinary person which self-management can call forth. The collectives proved Kropotkin’s argument that co-operative work is more productive and that if the economists wish to prove “their thesis in favour of private property against all other forms of possession, should not the economists demonstrate that under the form of communal property land never produces such rich harvests as when the possession is private. But this they could not prove; in fact, it is the contrary that has been observed.” [The Conquest of Bread, p. 146]

Beyond this five important lessons can be derived from the actual experience of a libertarian socialist economy:

Firstly, that an anarchist society cannot be created overnight, but is a product of many different influences as well as the objective conditions. In this the anarchist collectives confirmed the ideas of anarchist thinkers like Bakunin and Kropotkin (see section I.2.2). The collectives although, as mentioned in section I.8.3, based on key libertarian principles they were a somewhat unexpected development. They reflected objective circumstances facing the revolution as well as libertarian theory and, with regards the latter, were somewhat limited. However, they were organisations created from below by the revolution and so capable of development and progress.

The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes made in the process of liberation by people themselves are always minor compared to the results of a self-proclaimed vanguard creating institutions for people. The Spanish Revolution is a clear example of this, with the Catalan state’s “collectivisation decree” causing more harm than good (as intended, it controlled and so limited the economic transformation of the economy). Luckily, the Spanish anarchists recognised the importance of having the freedom to make mistakes, as can be seen by the many different forms of collectives and federations tried. The actual process in Spain towards industrial co-ordination and so socialisation was dependent on the wishes of the workers involved — as would be expected in a true social revolution. As Bakunin argued, the “revolution should not only be made for the people’s sake; it should also be made by the people.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141] The problems faced by a social revolution will be solved in the interests of the working class only if working class people solve them themselves. For this to happen it requires working class people to manage their own affairs directly — and this implies anarchism, not centralisation or state control/ownership. The experience of the collectives in Spain supports.

Secondly, the importance of decentralisation of management. As discussed in section I.8.4, different areas and industries tried different forms of federation. The woodworkers’ union experience indicates that a collectivised industry can became centralised, with even a democratically elected administration leading to rank-and-file workers becoming marginalised which could soon result in apathy developing within it. This was predicted by Kropotkin and other anarchist theorists (and by many anarchists in Spain at the time). While undoubtedly better than capitalist hierarchy, such democratically run industries are only close approximations to anarchist ideas of self-management. Importantly, however, the collectivisation experiments also indicate that co-operation need not imply centralisation (as can be seen from the Badelona collectives).

Thirdly, the importance of building links of solidarity between workplaces as soon as possible. While the importance of starting production after the fascist uprising made attempts at co-ordination seem of secondary importance to the collectives, the competition that initially occurred between workplaces helped the state to undermine self-management (for example, the state “was actively using its control of finances to contain and stifle radical change” [Graham Kesley, Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State, p. 172]). As there was no People’s Bank or federal body to co-ordinate credit and production, state control of credit and the gold reserves made it easier for the Republican state to undermine the revolution by controlling the collectives and (effectively) nationalising them in time (Durruti and a few others planned to seize the gold reserves but were advised not to by Abad de Santillán).

This attack on the revolution started when the Catalan State issued a decree legalising (and so controlling) the collectives in October 1936 (the infamous “Collectivisation Decree”). The counter-revolution also withheld funds for collectivised industries, even war industries, until they agreed to come under state control. The industrial organisation created by this decree was a compromise between anarchist ideas and those of other parties (particularly the communists) and in the words of Gaston Leval, “the decree had the baneful effect of preventing the workers’ syndicates from extending their gains. It set back the revolution in industry.” [The Anarchist Collectives, p. 54]

And lastly, that an economic revolution can only succeed if the existing state is destroyed. As Kropotkin argued, “a new form of economic organisation will necessarily require a new form of political structure.” [Anarchism, p. 181] Capitalism needs the state, socialism needs anarchy. Without the new political structure, the new economic organisation cannot develop to its full potential. Due to the failure to consolidate the revolution politically, it was lost economically. The decree “legalising” collectivisation “distorted everything right from the start.” [Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, p. 227] This helped undermine the revolution by ensuring that the mutualism of the collectives did not develop freely into libertarian communism (“The collectives lost the economic freedom they had won at the beginning” due to the decree, as one participant put it). Collectives, of course, tried to ignore the state. As an eyewitness pointed out, the CNT’s “policy was thus not the same as that pursued by the decree.” [quoted by Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 230 and p. 213] Indeed, leading anarchists like Abad de Santillán opposed it:

“I was an enemy of the decree because I considered it premature … when I became councillor, I had no intention of taking into account or carrying out the decree: I intended to allow our great people to carry on the task as they best saw fit, according to their own inspiration.” [quoted by Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 212fn]

However, with the revolution lost politically, the CNT was soon forced to compromise and support the decree (the CNT did propose more libertarian forms of co-ordination between workplaces but these were undermined by the state). A lack of effective mutual aid organisations allowed the state to gain power over the collectives and so undermine and destroy self-management. Working class control over the economy (important as it is) does not automatically destroy the state. In other words, the economic aspects of the revolution cannot be considered in isolation from its political ones.

Yet these points do not diminish the successes of the Spanish revolution. As Gaston Leval argued, “in spite of these shortcomings” caused lack of complete socialisation “the important fact is that the factories went on working, the workshops and works produced without the owners, capitalists, shareholders and without high management executives.” [Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, p. 228] Beyond doubt, these months of economic liberty in Spain show not only that libertarian socialism works and that working class people can manage and run society but also that we can improve the quality of life and increase freedom. Given the time and breathing space, the experiment would undoubtedly have ironed out its problems. Even in the very difficult environment of a civil war (and with resistance of almost all other parties and unions) the workers and peasants of Spain showed that a better society is possible. They gave a concrete example of what was previously just a vision, a world which was more humane, more free, more equitable and more civilised than that run by capitalists, managers, politicians and bureaucrats.

[shouperfluous]

The First and Fourteenth Amendments and Discrimination

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the so-called "gay website case," I have seen a ton of just terrible takes arguing what the law does and does not say about discrimination and what the Supreme Court has said.

The simplest version is, the Supreme Court ruled that, if you are engaged in expressly creative services, the state cannot compel you to make a message with which you disagree. The Court did not say that one can broadly discriminate against protected classes in general services. The 14th Amendment says, "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Here, "state" also means any government entity, smaller or larger than the state.

Through successive civil rights acts, the Supreme Court and various Federal and State legislatures have clarified that this means that "places of public accommodation" cannot deny services based on someone's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Public accommodations, under these laws, generally means facilities or business, publicly or privately owned, which are generally opened to the public. If you offer a service or a good to the people at large, in a brick and mortar facility or exclusively online, you cannot deny standard services to people because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In some places, sexual orientation and gender identity have been added to this list.

If you sell something to the public, you have to sell it to black people or women, even if you hate those groups. However, none of these rules prohibit you from denying services to people for basically any other reason.

Except in a few locations, such as Washington DC, and Madison, Wisconsin, political belief and viewpoint discrimination is completely legal. A business has always been allowed to deny services to someone for being a Republican or a Democrat or a Communist or a Nazi. Business are even allowed to fire employees for their political beliefs and expressions in most cases, as happened when a Berkeley, California hot dog business fired an employee for marching in the "United The Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." The Supreme Court has also ruled, repeatedly, that "freedom of speech" means "freedom of expression, so the "speech" need not be spoken, but any sort of creative expression one wishes to engage in.

In West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court ruled that the state, in the form of the local public school, could not force a student to say the pledge of allegiance. Writing for the court, Justice Robert Jackson said: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Just like you have the freedom to speak and say what you'd like, you also have the right to be free from the government ordering you to express yourself in ways you find repugnant.

In 303 Creative v Elenis, (2023), a web designer, Laurie Smith, sued the State of Colorado to prevent them from enforcing a rule which would have required her to serve gay people. Sexual Orientation, in the state of Colorado, is a protected class. According to the public accommodation and protected class rules discussed above, this should be pretty clear, that Smith must provide service to the [hypothetical] gay couple that wanted her to build a wedding website. What she argued, however, was that if the state forced her to engage in the "inherently creative" expression of web design. The court agreed that for specific cases, where the public accommodation engaged in inherently creative services, the state could not compel someone through threat of criminal liability, to engage in that speech.

The court did NOT overrule the entirety of the Civil Rights architecture in the United States. No business can now decide they do not have to sell or serve protected classes if they don't want to. If you sell cheeseburgers, you are not now cleared to not sell those cheeseburgers to black people or gay people. Subway "sandwich artists" are not "inherently creative" in a way that would allow them to deny their service to protected classes either, as the service itself must be creative and providing the message to which one objects. There is nothing about the selling of an even spectacularly creative sandwich to a gay couple would not convey any meaning.

Nor does this decision mean suddenly you can engage in viewpoint discrimination against non-protected classes. You always could and, unless something changes radically, always will be able to. If you want to deny me service or refuse to sell me a bottle of water because I have a shirt with a message you disagree with, you are allowed to do that.

[slotmoara]

How to Be a Yoga Instructor: 6 Things You MUST Know Before You Begin

Yoga is Not Just For The Experts Number one, being a yoga teacher is not about being able to do all the fancy, complicated poses, like headstand, or forearm stand, or some of the arm balances.

What it’s actually about is cuing, which means effectively using your voice to tell people what to do with their bodies, and compassion.

So cuing and compassion.

So don’t get down on yourself if you can’t do all the super fancy things, because really good teachers are about great cuing and being extremely compassionate and loving with their students.

After all, yoga is a form of healing arts.

This doesn’t always come naturally to everyone and that’s okay. You can develop it with hands-on experience and will likely learn it in your teacher training education.

Understand the Yoga Alliance Number two, certification in the yoga world is something that’s very much in flux. Yoga’s not really regulated by the state or at the national level.

So you can pay Yoga Alliance for permission to use their RYT trademark after your name, but it doesn’t actually, really mean anything at the government, state, or national level. Yoga Alliance certifications don’t expire, but they do lapse. If you choose to register with the Yoga Alliance, you’ll need to do a few things every year or two to maintain your certification.

So it may or may not be worth doing, based on your personal goals.

If you wanna deep-dive with me into what certification really means, I absolutely suggest you listen to this podcast, where I go into a lot more detail.

So what is an RYT certification for, then?

It’s mostly for yoga and fitness studios in the US to assure that the yoga instructors they hire have completed a minimum level of education as a yoga instructor. It doesn’t, however, ensure that you actually practice yoga, that you have any teaching skills, or that your training program was of high quality.

While it is certainly helpful when applying for a teaching job at a yoga studio, it’s not necessary for other more lucrative teaching gigs (like being an online yoga instructor).

If you’re clear about your goals for your training program, then you’ll be more clear about whether or not an RYT certification is necessary.

Choose a Teacher Training Program Number three, you definitely wanna do some kind of yoga teacher training (YTT).

Beyond the certification that formal training provides, there are several major benefits to taking YTT that will take your commitment to yoga practice to the next level.

The most common format is to do what’s called a 200-hour teacher training.

So you cover a lot of material in 200 hours, everything from teaching, anatomy, and philosophy. You wanna do research on where you do this 200-hour training because it’s really gonna teach you everything you need to know about how to be a successful teacher.

슬롯사이트 While most yoga studios will focus on vinyasa yoga or vinyasa flow in their certification program, you can totally choose a yoga instructor training that focuses on the yoga and meditation style that most interests you. There are many types of yoga, from restorative yoga, prenatal yoga, yoga Nidra, and Ashtanga yoga, to yin yoga, you definitely have a lot to choose from.

You can do a 200-hour training all at once, in a month-long in-person intensive, over the course of many weekends, or you can even do a 200-hour training online. There are a lot of different types of training depending on the style of yoga, like:

Get Some Practice Teaching Yoga Step number four is, you want to practice… so teach. I think a lot of people think they’re gonna do their 200-hour certification and feel really confident right off the bat.

The reality is it takes years to build up that confidence, to have a presence in your teaching, to really have a strong voice.

So you wanna start practice teaching everyone you can.

Teach your mom, your dog, anyone who’ll listen to you. Offer free yoga classes and practice yoga both on and off the yoga mat.

Just start logging those teaching hours, because, just like anything in life, the more you do it, the better you’re gonna get.

While you certainly learn to teach in training courses, it doesn’t mean that you’re necessarily ready to do so. Just like knowing the yoga asanas doesn’t mean that you can stick them, knowing teaching methodology doesn’t mean that you’re ready.

So get as much experience as you can!

You Might Also Like: 13 Yoga Playlists for Every Style and Taste

Start Making Money Teaching Yoga Step five is charging 릴게임 money for people to take your classes. This could mean that you’re teaching in a studio, or maybe you’re hosting events in your home.

Maybe you’re teaching in corporations, like you’re going into businesses, and teaching there, or partnering with local restaurants to have yoga and wine nights.

You could lead retreats.

You could teach yoga online, like me.

There have never been more opportunities to find success as a yoga teacher in the way that you really enjoy, and are passionate about.

Build a Mailing List ASAP Step six is to start a mailing list.

Have a way that you can keep in touch with the people who come and probably really enjoy your classes.

To me, this is even more important than most other marketing tactics as a yoga instructor. It will help keep you top of mind so that when your network needs a yoga teacher, they know to come to you.

Get Yoga Insurance And last, but not least, don’t forget to get yoga insurance. Once you have that, you are truly in business, and I will link to beYogi, which is my top pick, in the cards and description below.

If you’re considering the yoga teacher training journey, I have dozens of free podcasts all about how to pick a training that best meets your needs, the exact questions to ask, tips and tricks to make the most out of your training experience, and how to know if you’re ready to take the plunge.

And, of course, I offer an online yoga teacher training course that will walk you through all of it.

[eelhound]

"Caillois's definition of play is particularly useful if we apply it to videogames. He argues, first, that play is a 'free' choice; otherwise it loses its nonwork qualities. Second, it is 'separate' from other parts of life, limited in terms of space and time, defined before the activity starts. Third, the outcome is 'uncertain,' meaning the player must take initiative as the results are not fixed beforehand. Fourth, it is 'unproductive,' not creating anything in the process. Fifth, it is 'governed by rules' that create new conventions and ways of doing things while also suspending the regulation of everyday life. Sixth, it is 'make-believe,' meaning it is different to, and set against, real life. When play is defined by these six aspects, it is often structured by games.

We can clearly see each of these qualities with videogames. We make a 'free' choice to play them, usually within the 'separate' environment of the computer or console; we do not know how the play will go in advance, as videogames are 'uncertain' (even if we really good at are the game); the activity is 'unproductive' in the capitalist sense; the videogame contains complex 'rules,' even if many are hidden from the player; and they are 'make-believe' in varying ways. If play encompasses spontaneous and hard-to-capture aspects (what Caillois identifies with the Greek word paidia), then games introduce structured activities with explicit rules (ludus), as well as the elements of competition (agôn), chance (alea), simulation (mimesis), and vertigo (ilinx, referring not to the nausea-inducing physical experience but to the simulation of high speeds or of a reckless rampage). Becoming broadly familiar with each of these qualities will help us make sense of different types of games later.

Caillois was also a surrealist who saw great political potential in avant-garde art. As such, his arguments for politics and games started from the idea that 'for the player to voluntarily be liberated by play/game as a means for a free society, the game has to project a belief system that is beyond a known reality.' In the process, he reproduces part of the magic circle as 'the game has to remain separate from reality.' We can take up these insights from Caillois by reading him through Marx, in which case the concept of play would also begin from a separation, not from reality, but 'from everyday work, separate from the production tools owned not by the worker but by the employer, the capitalist.' The process of play can therefore be a 'means for the worker to cease being a worker, for a limited time, and to become, in a surrealist sense, something else than a slave in the bounds of the capitalist.' This resonates much more with videogame play. Coming home after work to play videogames provides that escape for millions of workers every day. For a moment, each is no longer a worker, but free to explore new worlds outside the drudgery of capitalism.

Videogames provide a space of experimentation, of discovery, but also recovery from capitalist work. In a way, Marshall McLuhan makes a similar claim, arguing that 'art and games enable us to stand aside from the material pressure of routine and convention, observing and questioning. Games as popular art forms offer to all an immediate means of participation in the full life of a society, such as no single role of job can offer to any man.' It is clear that games have historically played important social roles. As McLuhan notes, 'The games of a people reveal a great deal about them.'"

- Jamie Woodcock, from Marx at the Arcade: Consoles, Controllers, and Class Struggle, 2019.