Certified Meme Stealer™

Does anyone else remember Brett Kavanaugh throwing one childish mantrum™ after another during his confirmation hearings? But yeah, sure, please keep telling me how AOC is the “emotional” one.

moon/sun

ice/fire

beauty and the beast

cat/dogs

melody/lyrics

angel/demon

stars/earth

summer/winter person

one bed/two people

Jared, 19/the written language

ducks/the unhindered need to destroy

3 am/a glass of fucking water on your bedside table

the inherent eroticism of a 100+ quizlet on the exact topic needed/me

morning person/night owl

I hate to kill you/I hate to die

this is capitalism in it’s final form

First, it’s not that new.

Did you know that there was a time in U.S. history—which is by definition recent history—when a corporation was generally intended to have some sort of public interest that they served? I mean, that’s the whole point of allowing corporations to form. Corporations are recognized by the commonwealth or state, and this recognition is not a right but a privilege, in exchange for which the state (representing the people) is allowed to ask, “So what does this do for everyone else?”

The way the economy is now is a direct result of a shift away from this thinking and to one where a corporation is an entity unto itself whose first, last, and only concern is an ever-increasing stream of profits. What you’re calling “benevolent capitalism” isn’t benevolent at all. It’s a pure profit/loss calculation designed to distract from—not even paper over or stick a band-aid on—the problems capitalism creates. And the fact that you’re here championing it as “benevolent capitalism” is a sign of how ell it’s working.

Let’s take Toms, as one example. The shoe that’s a cause. Buy a pair of trendy shoes, and a pair of trendy shoes will be given away to someone somewhere in the world who can’t afford them.

That’s not genuine benevolence. That’s selling you, the consumer, on the idea that you can be benevolent by buying shoes, that the act of purchasing these shoes is an act of charity. The reality is that their model is an inefficient means of addressing the problems on the ground that shoelessness represents, and severely disrupts the local economies of the locations selected for benevolence.

(Imagine what it does to the local shoemakers, for instance.)

The supposed act of charity is just a value add to convince you to spend your money on these shoes instead of some other shoes. It’s no different than putting a prize in a box of cereal.

Heck, you want to see how malevolent this is?

Go ask a multinational corporation that makes shoes or other garments to double the wages of their workers. They’ll tell you they can’t afford it, that it’s not possible, that consumers won’t stand for it, that you’ll drive them out of business and then no one will have wages.

But the fact that a company can give away one item for every item sold shows you what a lie this is. A one-for-one giving model represents double the cost of labor and materials for each unit that is sold for revenue. Doubling wages would only double the labor.

So why are companies willing to give their products away (and throw them away, destroy unused industry with bleach and razors to render them unsalvageable, et cetera) but they’re not willing to pay their workers more?

Because capitalism is the opposite of benevolence.

“Charity” is by definition exemplary, above and beyond, extraordinary, extra. “Charity” is not something that people are entitled to. You give people a shirt or shoes or some food and call it charity, and you’re setting up an expectation that you can and will control the stream of largesse in the future, and anything and everything you give should be considered a boon from on high.

On the other hand, once you start paying your workers a higher wage, you’re creating an expectation. You’re admitting that their labor is more valuable to you than you were previously willing to admit, and it’s hard to walk that back.

Plus, when people have enough money for their basic needs, they’re smarter and stronger and warier and more comfortable with pushing back instead of being steamrolled over. They have time and money to pursue education. They can save money up and maybe move away. They can escape from the system that depends on a steady flow of forced or near-forced labor.

So companies will do charitable “buy one, give one” and marketing “buy one, get one” even though these things by definition double the overhead per unit, but they won’t do anything that makes a lasting difference in the standard of living for the people.

Capitalism has redefined the world so that the baseline of ethics is “How much money can we make?” and every little good deed over and above that is saintly.

TWO WOMEN WHO vandalized the Dakota Access pipeline in an effort to halt construction have been indicted on charges that carry up to 110 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. They are among the harshest penalties environmental activists have faced in the last decade.

Civil liberties lawyers say the charges are in line with industry-inspired scare tactics meant to deter citizens from participating in direct-action protests or acts of sabotage against oil and gas companies. As the deadly impacts of carbon emissions grow ever clearer, the fossil fuel industry has increased pressure on lawmakers and government officials to penalize those who would inhibit their projects’ operations.

At the same time, a growing number of activists have demonstrated willingness to break laws in order to highlight the urgency of the climate emergency and other ecological crises. Ruby Montoya and Jessica Reznicek, who stand accused of damaging pipeline valve sites using a welding torch, “tires ignited by fire, and gasoline-soaked rags,” are part of that trend.

The arrests come more than two years after Montoya, 29, and Reznicek, 38, publicly took responsibility for a series of acts of sabotage that they said was necessary to protect the rivers and waterways under which the Dakota Access pipeline passes. Both women had been involved in the Indigenous-led struggle to stop the pipeline, which attracted thousands of people to opposition camps in North Dakota and Iowa in 2016 and 2017.

“We are speaking publicly to empower others to act boldly, with purity of heart, to dismantle the infrastructures which deny us our rights to water, land, and liberty,” Montoya and Reznicek stated at a press conference in July 2017.

They told The Intercept at the time that they planned to use a necessity defense to argue that they had no choice but to act. Civil liberties attorneys said they are not aware of such a defense being accepted in a federal case related to climate change or environmental issues. It has, however, begun to gain traction in lower courts, where a handful of pipeline protesters have successfully argued that they acted out of necessity.

...

“I wish the government would use the same resources to go after the oil companies and pipeline companies, but clearly they’re not interested in that,” said Bill Quigley, an attorney who previously represented Montoya and Reznicek. “They shouldn’t be prosecuted; they should be praised. They’re trying to stop the destruction of the human race.”

...

By the spring of 2017, however, the pipeline company had overcome the water protectors; construction was all but complete and the camps mostly cleared. It was then that a series of above-ground valves along the pipeline route were pierced by welding tools.

In response, the mercenary security company TigerSwan launched a multi-state dragnet in search of the saboteurs, who they referred to as eco-terrorists. Montoya and Reznicek were their primary suspects, but internal reports TigerSwan filed to Energy Transfer Partners also described how security personnel cast suspicion on an array of other activists. They reached out to pipeline opponents’ neighbors and local businesses for help in their search. They surveilled one Native couple’s private home and photographed their property. A TigerSwan contractor posing as a water protector sought information about Montoya and Reznicek from pipeline opponents who believed him to be a friend. The documents show repeated instances of the company attempting to feed information to local and federal investigators.

...

At an energy industry conference in 2018, Kelcy Warren, CEO and board chair of Energy Transfer, mentioned Reznicek and Montoya’s actions. “I think you’re talking about somebody who needs to be removed from the gene pool,” he said.

The oil industry used the acts of sabotage to push for a crackdown on pipeline opponents. In 2017, the American Legislative Exchange Council introduced model legislation that would increase penalties for anyone who interfered with oil industry operations. Iowa and at least seven other states have passed related anti-protest laws. More recently, industry lobbyists, as well as members of the Trump administration, have proposed federal legislation to make it a felony to inhibit pipeline operations. Most of the legislative proposals are broad enough to net individuals who commit no acts of property destruction.

Meanwhile, since it started operating, the Dakota Access pipeline has had at least 10 spills, and this past June, Energy Transfer announced plans to nearly double the pipeline’s capacity. A recent study indicated that current fossil fuel infrastructure leaves humanity with less than a 50 percent chance of avoiding unmanageable climate crises.

Energy Transfer did not respond to a request for comment.

In parallel to industry lobbying, fossil fuel opponents have advanced their own efforts to set legal precedents that protect dissent. “The state of the necessity defense in climate cases is emerging, and it is gaining acceptance in state courts across the country,” said Quigley.

Pipeline protesters in Massachusetts have had the most significant success in mounting the climate necessity defense. In March 2018, a judge found 13 opponents of a Spectra gas pipeline not responsible for civil charges related to their attempts to block construction, because the environmental risk posed by the pipeline made their actions necessary.

...

Meanwhile, the most severe penalties for participants in the movement against the Dakota Access pipeline have been borne by Indigenous opponents. Red Fawn Fallis, for example, faced a potential life sentence after a gun in her possession went off as she was tackled to the ground by police. The Oglala Lakota Sioux water protector is serving a five-year sentence.

...

It’s unclear why the investigation took more than two years, but a possible historical parallel can be found in a string of arrests in the mid-2000s, during a period known as the Green Scare. Law enforcement officers arrested environmental activists accused of involvement in arsons, years after they committed the alleged crimes. The FBI had used that time to build cases against an array of actors. “Based on past experience and based on some of the other clues that I’m seeing, I certainly have a concern that there may be more than two defendants, but that is real speculation,” said Regan, who represented many Green Scare defendants.

The indictment against Reznicek and Montoya claims that the acts were carried out “with other persons known and unknown by the Grand Jury.” In an interview shortly after their confession, Reznicek told The Intercept, “At no point was anyone else involved in these activities. Not even in consultation. Not in anything.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of Iowa declined to comment.

Regan called the charges against Reznicek and Montoya evidence that the industry’s legislative initiatives are a public relations stunt. “What these charges indicate to me is that the state does not need any of these gifts to the fossil fuel industry. The existing crimes are more than adequate, because obviously ‘malicious use of fire’ is not a crime that was drafted by ALEC,” Regan said.

Harry Potter low cost version

…

However, because of labor needs in the armaments industry, by 1942 the Nazis saved some able-bodied Jews as workers. According to [Rudolf Höss, commandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau]: “The railways cars were unloaded one after another. After depositing their baggage, the Jews had to individually pass in front of an SS doctor, who decided on their physical fitness as they marched past him. Those who were considered able-bodied were immediately escorted into the camp in small groups. Jews selected for gassing were taken as quietly as possible to the crematories.” Only those selected for labor were given numbers; Jews sent to the gas chambers were not.