Categories For later read

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
I’m afraid I think this definition of sovereignty (“freedom to make your own law”) is either useless or incoherent.


Very large numbers of international treaties require the UK to make, or not make, law. The UN Treaty requires us to impose sanctions. The Antarctic Treaty requires us to prohibit unlicensed operators organising tours to Antarctica. GATT restricts our ability to set tariffs.

appears to think that such provisions do not infringe his definition of “sovereignty”, but he fails to explain why not.

He asserts, without explaining why, that a level playing field term would infringe “sovereignty”. But the LPF terms being discussed simply set out actions that the EU is able to take if the UK legislates (or does not legislate) in certain ways.

Why is that different in legal principle from WTO rules that (for example) allow other states to impose high tariffs on our widget industry if we exercise our sovereign freedom to pass laws that exempt widget-making from UK tax?
i’ll keep saying this but for example look no further than the ku klux klan, theatrical and silly and also deadly serious


we often talk about the overthrow of reconstruction as a singular organized effort, but it should be understood as something more disparate and fractured, with success tied less to martial superiority than the indifference of authorities to intimidation and violence.

a group of guys — maybe the owner of the general store, and the sheriff and some farmers who fought in the war — gets together to gripe and complain and plot a little mischief. they put on masks and grab guns and go beat up a black sharecropper or local clerk or whatever...

everyone knows who did it. but there’s no one to stop them. the army, if it’s even in the state, is tens or hundreds of miles away. and mustering a militia may risk open conflict. the guys realize they can do this and getaway with it. so they do it again.

maybe they have a few more people with them this time. maybe they escalate, not just beating up local blacks and their white allies but killing a few.
I want to break down Lindsey's letter, because it is breathtakingly hypocritical and stoking division with every sentence, despite claiming to be concerned with healing.


1) "But now, in your first act as Majority Leader, rather than begin the national healing that the country so desperately yearns for, you seek vengeance and political retaliation instead."

Trump incited an attack on the Capitol, on Congress, and on a free & fair election.

Trump has yet to concede, to apologize, or to admit he was lying about the outcome of the election. He has done nothing that demonstrates he does not continue to present a danger to our nation.

Trump's supporters continue to conspire to overthrow the government--with Trump's implicit, and quite possibly explicit--support. At this very moment, over 20,000 troops are stationed in our nation's capital to ensure the inauguration of President-Elect Biden can be completed.

It is not "vengeance" or "political retaliation" to insist a man that has fomented and continues to inspire a violent insurrection against the government is unfit ever to hold office again.

This is, in fact, a bare minimum protection for our country against future harm by Trump.
No


No

https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS


Incitement is speech that is:

1️⃣ intended to cause, and
2️⃣ reasonably likely to cause
3️⃣ imminent
4️⃣ lawless action

It needs all 4 elements

If any of those 4 are missing, it's First-Amendment protected speech

And constitutionally protected speech is never sedition

No


Immediate is imminent
4 minutes from now is imminent
4 hours from now might be imminent but probably is not
4 days from now definitely is not
I think we have to allow for emerging identities. That's basically my thread. Traditionalists (the op) are important and necessary because they hold onto important knowledge.

But diaspora and urban Indigenous inevitably means emerging identity with combined medicine.


Corn provides a striking model for this. It is so central to some civilizations that it features in their creation stories. It is food and it is also medicine. And there are songs and ceremonies related to it that are different in different civilizations.

Who owns it?

Corn, maize, didn't always exist. We know that. It developed over centuries of hybridization and selecting for traits. It was such a complex process that for a while scientists didn't even think it was related to teosinte, but other scientists proved that it is.

It started in Mexico, went down to Peru where it developed more, came back to Mexico where it transformed that society and then travelled across the continent to the Hauds.

It is food and medicine and ceremony.

Who owns it?

We are corn.

We do not exist as we did thousands of years ago. We also have developed over centuries of hybridization and selecting for traits. We continue to develop and right now a new people is emerging. The Anishnaabe aren't the only ones with this prophecy btw.