#ethics reform
Text
Clarence Thomas can take millions in paid vacations and gifts from donors with cases before SCOTUS and Federalist Society folks will smile with pride in their corrupt creation.
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
Endless Stunt Investigations is All the House GOP Will Do, Because It's All They Can Agree Upon
Having finally secured his chair as House Speaker, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has given his caucus marching orders -- and those orders are "do nothing but launch petty performative investigations of the Biden administration".
Kevin McCarthy has told House Republicans to treat every committee like the Oversight panel — that is, use every last bit of authority to dig into the Biden administration. That work begins in earnest this week.
Several sprawling probes — largely directed at President Joe Biden, his family and his administration — set the stage for a series of legal and political skirmishes between the two sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. It’s all with an eye on the true battle, the 2024 election, as Biden flirts with a reelection run and House Republicans hope to expand their control to the White House.
After two impeachments of former President Donald Trump and a select committee that publicly detailed his every last move to unsuccessfully overturn the 2020 election results, GOP lawmakers are eager to turn the spotlight. And their conservative base is hoping for fireworks, calling on Republican leaders to grill several Biden world figures, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, retired chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci and presidential son Hunter Biden.
This isn't at all surprising, of course. In fact, it was probably inevitable after the Speaker vote fiasco exposed just how bitterly divided the GOP is (and how in thrall it is to its nihilist caucus). They're never going to forward an affirmative policy agenda, since they can't agree on any particulars beyond sloganeering (and also, policies tend to require money, which the GOP adamantly refuses to raise or spend unless it is on gut-busting upper-bracket tax cuts). But investigations? That doesn't require any policy agenda at all -- that's just mugging for the camera and talking about how much they hate Democrats. Right in their wheelhouse!
That the GOP is still nursing ludicrous levels of grievance over the terrible unfairness of a House panel exposing why coups are bad only exacerbates their belief that this is naught but turnabout being fair play. And as the New York Times reported the other day, the GOP's view of "investigations" is to take it as a divine axiom that they and theirs are being abused, then pursue that axiom to hell and back no matter how little evidence ends up supporting the proposition.
So this is entirely within expectations for the new GOP House. Expect nothing but loud yelling investigations for two years as they throw everything they can at a wall and wait for something to stick. They don't agree on or even believe in anything else, but they can agree on doing that.
via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/k46hDip
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
"The idea of reforming Omelas is a pleasant idea, to be sure, but it is one that Le Guin herself specifically tells us is not an option. No reform of Omelas is possible — at least, not without destroying Omelas itself:
If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed. Those are the terms.
'Those are the terms', indeed. Le Guin’s original story is careful to cast the underlying evil of Omelas as un-addressable — not, as some have suggested, to 'cheat' or create a false dilemma, but as an intentionally insurmountable challenge to the reader. The premise of Omelas feels unfair because it is meant to be unfair. Instead of racing to find a clever solution ('Free the child! Replace it with a robot! Have everyone suffer a little bit instead of one person all at once!'), the reader is forced to consider how they might cope with moral injustice that is so foundational to their very way of life that it cannot be undone. Confronted with the choice to give up your entire way of life or allow someone else to suffer, what do you do? Do you stay and enjoy the fruits of their pain? Or do you reject this devil’s compromise at your own expense, even knowing that it may not even help? And through implication, we are then forced to consider whether we are — at this very moment! — already in exactly this situation. At what cost does our happiness come? And, even more significantly, at whose expense? And what, in fact, can be done? Can anything?
This is the essential and agonizing question that Le Guin poses, and we avoid it at our peril. It’s easy, but thoroughly besides the point, to say — as the narrator of 'The Ones Who Don’t Walk Away' does — that you would simply keep the nice things about Omelas, and work to address the bad. You might as well say that you would solve the trolley problem by putting rockets on the trolley and having it jump over the people tied to the tracks. Le Guin’s challenge is one that can only be resolved by introspection, because the challenge is one levied against the discomforting awareness of our own complicity; to 'reject the premise' is to reject this (all too real) discomfort in favor of empty wish fulfillment. A happy fairytale about the nobility of our imagined efforts against a hypothetical evil profits no one but ourselves (and I would argue that in the long run it robs us as well).
But in addition to being morally evasive, treating Omelas as a puzzle to be solved (or as a piece of straightforward didactic moralism) also flattens the depth of the original story. We are not really meant to understand Le Guin’s 'walking away' as a literal abandonment of a problem, nor as a self-satisfied 'Sounds bad, but I’m outta here', the way Vivier’s response piece or others of its ilk do; rather, it is framed as a rejection of complacency. This is why those who leave are shown not as triumphant heroes, but as harried and desperate fools; hopeless, troubled souls setting forth on a journey that may well be doomed from the start — because isn’t that the fate of most people who set out to fight the injustices they see, and that they cannot help but see once they have been made aware of it? The story is a metaphor, not a math problem, and 'walking away' might just as easily encompass any form of sincere and fully committed struggle against injustice: a lonely, often thankless journey, yet one which is no less essential for its difficulty."
- Kurt Schiller, from "Omelas, Je T'aime." Blood Knife, 8 July 2022.
#kurt schiller#ursula k. le guin#quote#quotations#the ones who walk away from omelas#trolley problem#activism#introspection#discomfort#reform#revolution#suffering#ethics#morality
10K notes
·
View notes
Text
Public education is not actually about academia, it's about industry. The purpose of american schools, from day one, was to integrate members of the general people into a society that is nigh dependant on submission to the status quo. If you ask any teacher, student, parent, counselor, or any other person who is invested in public schooling, what the purpose of going to school is, they will respond with some variation on how it's meant to prepare kids for their future careers. What's important is not that one is in touch with their history, or able to perform basic mathematics, or that one can engage with literature and art in a meaningful way. The important part is that schoolchildren have a dispassionately earnest work ethic, an unyieldingly flexible standard of punctuality, and an uncompromising set of inordinate values about properness drilled into them. I don't think it's funny or ironic that school settings are commonly compared to prisons, and I don't think education should have to exist to serve the purpose of monetary and political benefit to be considered worthy of investment. Until public education as an institution is no longer viewed as an extension of industry, intellectualism will never thrive and no number of foundational reworks of the system will be effective at remedying the underlying cause of dysfunction and corruption.
#exilley's diary#education#public education#school system#american school system#schools#apologies for the u.s. cnetric post but i felt it needed to be said#the correct argument for educational reform is not ''current structures perpeuate existing societal inequalities''#but ''the current system is built by capitalists of capitalists for capitalists and that is ethically repulsive''#reform
155 notes
·
View notes
Text
DEO: Department of Extra-normal Operations
This will be an essay that looks into the ethical problems of the DEO. For the purpose of this essay, I am not concerned about the showrunners reasons for their decisions for how the show presents the DEO. I care only about examining the worldbuilding and stories inherent within the world created. So let's dig into some philosophy and theory. Whee! [Minor spoilers]
To start, this department was first created within the Superman/Supergirl universe in order to analyze alien activities after Superman reveals himself on Earth. It's made in retaliation to the appearance of powerful aliens that those in power deem possible threats. Already, the DEO's beginnings are rooted not in true protection but in stopping and eradicating what those in power deem a threat. It's roots start with dubious ethics.
Let's examine it's history:
It was led by Hank Henshaw, who is vehemently anti-alien. Henshaw is also slated to have ties to Cadmus, which experimented on aliens and attempted several rather horrific and genocidal attacks on aliens. (Note that in Supergirl: Season 2, Kara and Lena thwart Cadmus' activities. Lena Luthor saves the day by modifying an alien killing virus to be harmless to all living creatures. Bits and pieces of the worldbuilding around Cadmus showed that the aliens experimented on came from DEO facilities.)
Henshaw dies when Jeremiah Danvers "kills" him when saving J'onn J'ozz, who then takes Henshaw's place until exposed. He recruits Alex sometime before his exposure (Season 1). After J'onn is exposed in Season 1, Lucy Lane takes control. Then after J'onn helps Supergirl defeat the murderous Kryptonian Non, J'onn received a presidential pardon and was reinstated as director. He kept Henshaw's guise for publicity sake.
The show makes it clear that J'onn choses to be the Director to change the DEO. Yet, what evidence is there that this actually happens?
So that's the basic history.
We have a clandestine agency that has unethical procedures that doesn't change under a new director.
The DEO picks up aliens and throws them in a cell to never be seen or heard from again. This would likely terrorize the alien neighborhoods. This is never truly address in any meaningful manner by the Superfriends or Kara.
In fact, if anything, the show positions the DEO as being Good if Alex, J'onn, or Lucy are in charge (Kara, ironically is not in charge of the DEO at any point). However, the DEO becomes Bad if Lex Luthor or Lauren Haley or the real Hank Henshaw are in charge.
This creates a rather large ethical problem.
First of all, the worldbuilding builds up the argument that certain people are good and certain people are bad. The person we see skirting between those two extremes, and living in a morally grey area the most, is Lena Luhor. For the purposes of this essay, I'll put a pin into Lena's characterization and focus only on the DEO.
Secondly, we are told again and again what Kara/Supergirl's ethics are: justice and truth. Yet when we examine Kara's actions within the context of her DEO Supergirl duties, we are confronted with the following:
She must hide her identity, even from her best friend Lena, and thus deceives regularly. Her reasons for not telling Lena are rooted in the pressure from those at the DEO to not tell Lena but also in Kara's intense fear of loss. However, Kara will demand truth from others despite her hypocritical actions. This doesn't seem to fit solidly in the "good" category.
Her "justice" is defeating criminals. Humans go to the police to eventually have a fair trial. However, aliens are not afforded that same right. Her justice for aliens becomes judge and jury. Since she professes to "not kill," she at least doesn't extend that to executioner. This again doesn't fit solidly in the "good" category.
Thus, by examining Kara/Supergirl's actions, we see a disconnect with what the show claims is "good:" truth and justice. Yet, there is no true justice for the aliens fought and captured; their rights are rescinded (if they had any at all).
This is why the show must tell us who is "good" and who is "bad," because people's actions do not fit the show's claims of what "goodness" is versus what "badness" is. Thus the worldbuilding ends up defining Kara's actions as always "good" even if those actions cause harm to those around her.
[Side note: This isn't to say that Kara is "bad." It is to say that the binary within the show's worldbuilding lacks nuance for the complexity within Kara's understanding of the world and how she acts within that understanding. This binary simply cannot allow for such a complex examination as there is no room for it.
Because of this binary, the show actually butchers Kara's character to make her past "not good" actions as somehow "right" and "good" in the end. We see this with how Kara's harmful actions toward Lena (the lying, duplicity, deception etc) is turned into "I did just one mistake" when it wasn't one mistake. It was years of harm, but because the show paints Kara as "good," Kara is not allowed growth.
This binary of good versus bad is already nonsensical in the worldbuilding since Lena Luthor's very existence throws this entire frame out the window. Her actions, always with the intention to do the least harm and try to improve the world, don't fit neatly into the binary. The story often punishes her for this. (She breaks the binary too much I suppose.)
Yet when other people's actions fail to fit neatly into the binary, the show whispers: "Hush, don't look or think, believe us when we say this person is good and this person is bad.']
To reiterate: It's okay to capture aliens and disappear them without any right to trial If the Superfriends are doing it. This good/bad definition collapses ethics into meaningless words since the activities and procedures of both the "good" people and "bad" people don't differ in terms of impact on alien communities. This lack of differentiation is why we must be told who is good. Otherwise, how would we know?
To dig a little deeper, in Season 4, when Kara is on the most wanted list, she learns very little about the true plight of aliens. During this time, the DEO becomes "bad" under the control of Lauren Haley. Lena Luthor and Alex Danvers, who are both working with the DEO still, also work against the DEO but only to clear Kara's name. So justice is done for Kara's sake but not for the other impacted alien communities.
Once Kara's reputation is restored and she's no longer deemed an "enemy of the state," Kara returns to working with the DEO, as it is now labeled as "good" again because Alex is back in charge.
Ironically, the only person in Kara's friendgroup that questions the DEO is Lena Luthor. (Who in Season 5 will have her 'villain arc' only to be redeemed to the good side again at the end of Season 5. She's the only character, who is labeled a villain at one point, that is allowed true redemption.)
We learn very little about what alien communities actually think about the DEO and about Supergirl in particular. The most we get is the Children of Liberty plot line of Season 4; however, this plot line doesn't ever give us a solid viewpoint from impacted alien communities. Instead, we are confronted with:
We are told what alien communities are like and how lacking in rights they are. Very little of this is shown directly outside of "criminal aliens." Or the brief glimpses within Manchester's arc. However, Manchester is viewed as 'in need of redemption' despite having very real grievances with the state of things. The show then tells us that Manchester is 'bad' and the 'good' J'onn and friends must stop him.
The second time we see alien daily lives is Nia's return to her hometown, which is attacked by supercharged humans. This blended town of aliens and humans serve as an outlier. Nia actually admits that the town is unique and not representative to most aliens' experiences. So again, we don't see a direct experience of alien life in National City or other major cities.
Aliens either have significant powers that humans can justifiably find scary or they are human-like with little to no powers. Both are treated the same for the sake of the Children of Liberty plot line, which serves as an immigrant allegory. @fazedlight and @sideguitars did excellent analysis on this and the problems of these allegories based on the worldbuilding and story itself. (Note: thank you to fazedlight for finding the post in question! Click here o read their analysis.)
This makes it easier for the show to pretend that the DEO is "good" when the Superfriends are in charge. Since we don't meet alien families harmed by the DEO's actions, we never truly get an alternate perspective.
Even Lena Luthor's critique of DEO is spat upon by the story, where her alien friends fail to truly counter her valid points. Instead, it's presented in the good/bad binary, which erases all nuance and ethical considerations.
Let's also consider the start of the Supergirl career. Kara is captured by the DEO 12 years after her initial appearance on Earth. However, prior to this moment, we had learned that Kara had nearly been taken by the government -- specifically Henshaw's control of the DEO. Jeremiah Danvers agrees to work for the government in exchange for Kara's freedom from being a government asset.
However, her saving Alex's flight puts her in the crosshairs of DEO, and eventually she is captured. Upon which she learns J'onn is in charge (not the original Henshaw), and J'onn's goals are revealed. He allows Kara to fight her first alien fights as Supergirl. Here we see that J'onn's methods have not actually changed anything about the DEO.
The alien fight results in that alien being captured. Supergirl/Kara never hears what happens to the alien she fought and captured. No thought is given to the rights of that alien or if a fair trial will be given. Instead, we are told the alien is a "criminal' as if that somehow justifies the brutal treatment.
After Alex reveals she's an agent with the DEO, Kara fully trusts the agency.
So Jeremiah gave up his life to make sure Kara wasn't being used by the government, only for Kara later on working for the DEO, which is part of the government. Thus Kara ends up used by the government after all. The irony here.
Kara's blind spot here is:
she's privileged. A white-passing, human-passing alien. It's easier for her to hide as a human and not be clocked as an alien. Also, she's white, so less likely to deal with the complications of racism. The most she has to deal with is sexism and the DEO's procedures. This means she doesn't experience the worst the DEO and the systems that uphold it dish out to aliens.
Kara hasn't really interacted with aliens outside her friend group. She's relatively sheltered since coming to Earth due to Kal placing her with the Danvers and having to hide herself. She has no real knowledge of how aliens survive on Earth. This means she has nothing in which to compare the DEO's claims.
She blindly trusts Alex when it comes to DEO.
We don't see Kara questioning what happens to aliens until Season 3 (if it happens in season 1, I apologize as that season is a bit hazy for me). Here Psi saves Kara's life during a perilous mission. Kara then asks about her accommodations and finds out she has no window in her cell. She then demands Psi be given a cell with a window.
However, notice who Kara takes with her on that Season 3 mission: LiveWire (human but due to an accident became Livewire, so she's not an alien but a meta-human) and Psi (who is labeled a meta-human). So the two incarcerated people that Kara chooses are meta-humans and not actual aliens.
So again, we never see Kara interact with aliens outside her friend group unless she is interrogating them. Once the DEO is done with interrogations and the case "closed," those aliens disappear into these windowless cells. Which, need I remind that solitary confinement is labeled as torture for a reason?
Yet that is where aliens that are dubbed "too dangerous" end up by those with power. No rights given; left trapped in solitary confinement with (likely) no windows to never see the light of day again. Of course, because we are told the "good" people do this, it is thus "okay," despite it not differing in methodology with what the "bad" people did.
2. DEO's procedures don't match law. This is especially true when alien amnesty is put into law.
DEO changes NOTHING about their procedures after alien amnesty is put into law. This means that although aliens now have a legal right to a trial, the DEO does not provide this for them. No captured alien is given this right.
This means the DEO doesn't operate within the law.
So if the DEO can disregard laws if they so desire, then what is to stop them from terrorizing any citizen regardless of whether that citizen or alien or human?
What exactly is the ethics of the DEO?
Is the ethics dependent on who is in charge? But if one compares the tenure of the directors: Henshaw, J'onn, Lucy, Alex, Lauren, and Lex -- we see no difference in how the DEO acts.
They all target aliens and give them no rights. The aliens vanish into the cells never to be seen again. This includes some meta-aliens.
Some will claim that while the Superfriends are in charge only criminal aliens are thrown into solitary cells with no hope of release.
But that begs the question: Why do the Superfriends get to be judge and jury and/or executioner? What makes their decisions good but Lauren Haley's or Lex's or the original Hank Henshaw's decisions bad?
Why do the Superfriends get to decide that criminals get no right to a fair trial? Why do they not interrogate what is causing the criminal behaviors in order to change the conditions to avoid aliens resorting to "criminality" as defined by them?
In the end, it does not matter why an alien or meta-human engages in what the state has deemed "criminal" behavior; the methods used in capture and the end result is the same regardless.
The families of captured aliens see the same results regardless of whether "good" people or "bad" people are in charge of the DEO.
While alien amnesty is in law, the DEO, who is under Superfriend control at the time, does not alter their procedures to give the aliens they capture any rights. We never see the aliens or meta-humans captured ever given a fair trial. Nor do we see any programs to reform "criminals" or give them any chance at parole or redemption.
The only method for dealing with aliens and meta-humans uses a carceral prison system that is based in solitary confinement torture. Even the interrogation procedures used have elements of torture to them. In fact, many of the "interrogation" procedures use leading questions to entrap and force a confession under duress. None of these methods are conducive toward reform or fixing a system that deprives those captured of all rights.
Alternate systems for dealing with criminals are never explored. We never see transformative or restorative justice utilized. Both systems would require extensive dialogue with the communities harmed by the "criminals," and if there is one thing the DEO fail at consistently is dialogue with the impacted communities. Instead, their approach is top down, where their ideas of what is right and best is pushed down upon the communities they claim to serve.
Part of this lies with the fact the Superfriends can't engage in dialogue as long as they adhere to the oppressive methodology and practices of the DEO. Reform has failed to alter the ethical violations within the DEO. Alex Vidale wrote an excellent book called The End of Policing, which digs into the attempted reforms for police and how they have consistently failed. Vidale writes:
“At root, they [reformers] fail to appreciate that the basic nature of the law and the police, since its earliest origins, is to be a tool for managing inequality and maintaining the status quo. Police reforms that fail to directly address this reality are doomed to reproduce it.”
The DEO at its root was created to manage the inequality inherent between human rights and the lack of any rights for aliens. It was also created to control aliens and maintain a human status quo. The Superfriends attempt at reform fails to address this reality, and thus were doomed to repeat it.
Vidale continues:
“Police argue that residents in high-crime communities often demand police action. What is left out is that these communities also ask for better schools, parks, libraries, and jobs, but these services are rarely provided.”
Services to better the conditions of so-called "high-crime" communities are not shown to be rendered in the Supergirl world, while the Superfriends are in control of the DEO. It is not more policing that is needed, but more services which do not get provided for most of the show's story and worldbuilding. Thus, the communities that struggle with survival, who often must resort to "illegal" or "criminal" ways end up with only punitive measures that continue the cycle.
It's only in Season 6 when the Superfriends are no longer with the DEO that we start to see them engage in dialogue with the community in general (Kelly's arcs in particular touch on this for the lower income area that she tries to help, which is shown to be a mixture of nonwhite humans and some aliens).
If J'onn and others truly are seeking to reform the DEO, then that requires them to be in dialogue with the affected communities and to put forth new procedures that provide rights to those impacted. This is never done.
3. The DEO suffers no consequences for its actions.
The "Bad things" that happen under the "Bad" directors -- original Henshaw, Lauren Haley, Lex -- aren't ever addressed. Nothing really changes; instead the "Good" guys get back in control and things continue.
Was any reparations made for those harmed by the bad actors? Are the families impacted ever given compensation? We see some aliens rescued from Cadmus in Season 2 and Lex's Power Plant in Season 4, but what of the families of those murdered by Lex and Henshaw? The show fails to address this.
Instead, we are told that the "good" people are now in charge again and only "criminals" are being taken and incarcerated with no rights.
The concept of "criminality" depends entirely on who is in a position of power to dictate what constitutes "criminal" acts. One of the biggest problems with "criminality" as a concept is that it fails to interrogate the why these behaviors happen. What led to the "criminal act?" Are the people engaging in the act just "bad" people?
Often when basic needs are not being met, people may engage in acts of desperation to meet those needs. These actions may fall under what that society deems as "criminal." However, if the people's needs were met, then they wouldn't need to engage in desperate acts to meet their needs.
Another reason for "criminal" behavior stems from people who lack rights in a society. The oppressed will often fight against their oppressors using a mixture of methods (sometimes nonviolent, sometimes violent) in order to win their rights and transform society for the better. Until they win that fight, their actions are labeled as "criminal" by those in power.
Some rarer individuals may engage in acts of harm because they enjoy it such as Lex. However, this is actually very rare. Property crime and burglary is far, far more common. Yet, even those engaging in horrific violent crimes are still afforded a fair trial. Something aliens in the Supergirl universe are never given.
There's quite a few scenes where the aliens fought by Supergirl are engaging in robberies/burglaries or other property crimes. Those that seek to violently mass murder is actually rarer, and often the big villain of the season. At no point does anyone in the show reckon with the reasons someone may choose to engage in "criminal" behavior. Instead, all "criminals" are painted as "bad" regardless.
J'onn professes to be "reforming" the DEO to stop its reign of terror among alien communities. Yet, the most crucial components in changing an oppressive system? We don't really see him utilize them until Season 4, but by then the DEO is in the hands of Alex, who continues the procedures put into place by J'onn,
Paulo Freire writes in Pedagogy of the Oppressed concerning the "radical" as in the person seeking to end an oppressive system:
"The radical, committed to [human] liberation, does not become the prisoner of a 'circle of certainty' within which reality is also imprisoned. On the contrary, the more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into a dialogue with them."
J'onn recognizes that the DEO's methods are wrong and unethical. When he takes over and poses as Henshaw, he wishes to transform the system. Except, this is where he fails, because he justifies his changes by claiming that now the DEO only locks away forever criminal aliens.
No thought is given as to why these aliens are making these decisions. What pushed them to rob a store? What pushed them to attack? Did they feel like they had no other choice? Was there no opportunities other than to rob for what they needed? Or to fight against a system that they deem is harming them and their communities?
These questions are not analyzed at all by J'onn or the Superfriends. They do not listen to those most impacted by the DEO. The only time we see J'onn seem to listen is when he is trying to work with Manchester in Season 4, but that results in Manchester being presented as bad in the end, while J'onn is shown to be good. Where he tried to redeem Manchester.
Yet Manchester had valid points about the treatment of aliens. His methodology in fighting back against what he saw as oppressive system is problematic, but he listens far more than Kara and the Superfriends to those being harmed by the systems that created the DEO.
So J'onn and the other Superfriends are failing to engage in dialogue with those harmed by the DEO. They fail to unveil what is truly horrifying with the DEO: incarcerating aliens in solitary confinement with no fair trial and no hope of ever seeing the light of day again.
The justification that because they are "criminals" this is somehow okay erases all the contributing factors that may make up the circumstances that lead to the "criminal" behavior. Nothing is truly done to remedy the situations that may drive someone to what the state labels as "criminal" behavior.
It also unveils a horrible truth. Any alien (or meta-human or even human) can be marked an "enemy of the state" and thus a "criminal," where all rights they had prior be rescinded. We see this happen to Supergirl in Season 4. The only reason she isn't locked away in a cell with no windows is because Alex and Lena don't allow it. Unlike most aliens the DEO fights to find and capture, Kara has people fighting for her.
But what about every other alien? Who is actually fighting for them?
J'onn's attempt to reform the DEO falls into the biggest trap for all radical liberators: it is all too easy to become complicit with the system at be and justify this than it is to actually change it from within.
As Paulo Freire puts so succinctly:
“Oppression is domesticating. The gravest obstacle to the achievement of liberation is that oppressive reality absorbs those within it, and thereby acts to submerge human beings' consciousness.”
Thus the DEO fails to be reformed. It's reign of terror in alien communities is not truly diminished. Nor does those fighting to "reform" the DEO engage in any dialogue with those communities to determine their needs or ways to improve conditions to decrease the need to resort to "criminal" activities.
In the end, the DEO stays an oppressive, clandestine agency that has no transparency, answers to apparently no one, takes away the rights of those they catch, and disregards laws as they please.
What the Superfriends have failed to learn and understand is that oppression cannot be defeated by reforming the system that causes the oppression. In other words, liberation cannot be achieved be reform alone.
This is why the destruction of the DEO in Season 6 is perhaps the best result at least within the rules of the Supergirl world. The Superfriends could not reform it from the inside, and by trying to do so, they ended up complicit to a harmful system. As long as they were tied to the DEO, the Superfriends would never be able to live out justice and uplift the rights of aliens and humans alike.
ADDENDUM: However, the Superfriends decision to go full vigilante is a whole other can of worms. They do attempt to be transparent in their actions for the communities they serve, but is there a way for people to hold them accountable? That isn't fully addressed. However, that would require a full essay, and this essay is only about the DEO.
#I know it's CW who failed to ever think about these topics#I wanted to get philosophical about this#if I had more energy I'd give the good/bad problem further depth as it deserves more examination than I gave#The simplification of ethics to good/bad based on who the show labels as 'good' and 'bad' is a bastardization of ethics#I love me some paulo freire#trying to reform a corrupt system from within runs the danger of becoming part of that system#Liberation cannot be achieved by reform alone#I wrote this mostly as an exercise in examining worldbuilding within a liberatory framework#I'm solidly in the DEO cannot be redeemed or reformed camp and needs to be completely taken down#A new method for dealing with dangerous aliens that respect their rights is needed#Restorative or transformative justice is my jam
27 notes
·
View notes
Text
the fix is in!!
#Supreme Court corruption#judicial integrity#legal ethics#accountability#justice system reform#transparency#judicial independence#public trust#legal oversight#ethical standards#judicial misconduct#Supreme Court accountability#judicial power#political thuggery#institutional limits#checks and balances#public pressure#media coverage#judicial reform#democratic principles#constitutional interpretation#judicial impartiality#judicial appointments#separation of powers#government accountability#supreme court ruling#presidential immunity case#Trump legal arguments#congressional impeachment power#criminal charges
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
I have no energy left today, and I have to do classes that I don't have the energy for. I wish there was a way for me to do the finals for these classes in July, when I would have the actual energy for them, but no all I get is fucking manager speak when I say I can't come into class today. I don't want to redo an entire fucking semester, nor do I want to waste the work I've already put into these classes. However I also want to do something called live my damn life, and also to not have to undergo chest pains as a part of my education.
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
Ignorance seems soo nice I can see why people would opt for that. Imagine consuming unethically without a care. Imagine living however you want and still be able to sleep at night. Imagine being unfamiliar with the concept of accountability.
#anti genocide#free palestine#boycott divest sanction#jews for palestine#free congo#free drc#free sudan#labor rights#child labor#slave labor#ethically sourced#accountability#consumerism#late stage capitalism#economic justice#intersectional social justice#intersectional activism#economic reforms#wealth redistribution#environmental justice#israeli occupation#colonialism#colonial violence#boycott disney#boycott starbucks#boycott mcdonalds#grassroots activism#autistic thoughts#social responsibility#environmental responsibility
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
Tired of sci-fi alternate histories where the Nazis won. Has anyone ever written an alternate history where the Protestant Reformation never happened?
#Can you even imagine American culture without puritanism and the calvinist work ethic?#Opening scene Martin Luther on the way to nail his thesis to the door but he trips and is trampled by a horse#cut to 500 years later#We have now reached the limits of my knowledge#Christianity#catholicism#protestant#Martin luther#calvinism#protestant reformation#post o' mine#Alternate history
37 notes
·
View notes
Text
does anyone have any resources or advice for someone who wants to convert to Judaism, but has no Jewish friends or relatives? the someone is me, hi
#jewish mutuals…. lend me your wisdom#i’ve been agnostic for a long time but i’m very interested in Reform Judaism#i believe in its foundational ethics and logic - i want to learn more about Jewish history and contemporary beliefs
32 notes
·
View notes
Text
AN OPEN LETTER to THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Co-sponsor The Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024!
59 so far! Help us get to 100 signers!
A group of House Democrats, led by Reps. Melanie Stansbury, Ilhan Omar and Jamie Raskin, have introduced legislation that would strengthen oversight of the Supreme Court. I’m writing in support of it.
The Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024 would authorize the creation of an office of the inspector general to investigate allegations of misconduct in the judicial branch. The inspector general would also investigate alleged violations of the Supreme Court code of ethics, issued in November; conduct and supervise audits; and recommend changes in laws or regulations governing the judiciary. The inspector general would be required to inform the attorney general when they believe there has been a violation of federal criminal law.
Congress must pass this bill. Confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, and there’s good reason for that. Several of its justices are deeply compromised and everyone can see it.
Please co-sponsor The Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024 right away, so the provisions in it can begin to restore Americans’ faith in our highest court. Thanks.
▶ Created on April 19 by Jess Craven
📱 Text SIGN PWCSGV to 50409
🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409
#JESSCRAVEN101#PWCSGV#resistbot#Supreme Court Reform#Judicial Ethics#Ethics Enforcement#Supreme Court Oversight#Inspector General#Misconduct Investigation#House Democrats#Legislation#Judiciary Oversight#Government Accountability#Transparency#Code Of Ethics#Legal Reform#Congressional Action#Federal Law#Judicial Branch#Legislative Process#Accountability#Justice System#Government Oversight#Ethical Standards#Supreme Court Misconduct#Legal Integrity#Federal Oversight#Legislative Proposal#Legal Ethics#Oversight Committee
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
just saw someone call horrorstör by grady hendrix “cozy horror” i’m sorry but in what world. you have to be so removed from the reality of what working retail is like to be like hehe cozy horror because it takes place in haunted ikea :) also like. was it so super cozy when that girl gets possessed and starts choking on her own snot lol like some of the shit he describes in this book is so vile so please explain to me what part of the book is cozy
#it’s about like. inhumane treatment of prisoners in the past and the imposition of the protestant work ethic on people working#for inadequate compensation and the way that exploitation of labor persists in our modern work lives despite attempts at reform#because the system is so ingrained in a history of abuse fueled by the moral weight of the protestant work ethic#and our culture is so attached to the self made man ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’ narrative#and ladder climbing mentality and ideas about what types of job ‘deserve’ minimum wage vs a livable wage#and we’re so used to pouring all of our time and energy into our jobs that we become part of the corporate machine without having time and#energy left to thrive in our own personal lives#but sure it’s ‘cozy’ because ikea smh#idk it just annoys me because people will just be out here saying shit that doesn’t mean anything because it’s a buzzword
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
When voters cast their ballots in the upcoming April election, they will, in nearly all Illinois communities, select one candidate per race. That could change under legislation proposed in the Illinois General Assembly.
At a House Ethics and Elections Committee hearing this week, two bills were discussed that would bring ranked choice voting to the state. The format, where voters select a first, second, third, and so forth candidate, has gained traction recently in states such as Alaska.
Evanston, home to Northwestern University, became the first city in the state to adopt RCV. A November referendum passed overwhelmingly and would apply to municipal races.
The bills - House Bill 2807 from state Rep. Maurice West, D-Rockford, and House Bill 3749 from state Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago - focus on presidential primaries, and municipal and township office races respectively.
Former Colorado House Speaker Terrance Carroll, now a senior fellow at FairVote, a national nonprofit promoting RCV and election reform, told lawmakers the system would benefit voters in Illinois and nationwide.
Carroll promoted RCV as a way to move past personal attacks commonplace in political campaigns and instead focus on the issues. He said assertions that the elderly and people of color would not understand the process were false and offensive.
"For someone who has been involved in party politics, probably far longer than I should have been in my life, it also helps promote more viable candidates who are running for office," he said, serving as the first Black House Speaker in Colorado from 2003 through 2011. "So, it tends to mitigate against the most extreme candidates in both parties."
Opponents have submitted more witness slips than proponents on both bills as of Wednesday. Among them is Andy Bakker, representing the Illinois Opportunity Project and Stop Rank Choice Voting Coalition in Illinois, who spoke to the committee on Tuesday.
RCV would be a "radical change" to the way Illinoisans vote, and he questioned the benefits Carroll mentioned.
"At the end of the day, rank choice voting is a scheme to disconnect elections from issues and allows candidates with marginal support to win," Bakker said. "It obscures true debate and issue-driven dialogues among candidates and eliminates genuine, true binary choices."
HOW DOES IT WORK?
Instead of one choice, voters in a ranked-choice system select their first choice among a list of candidates and then choose their subsequent second, third, and potentially fourth options.
Under RCV, a candidate automatically wins if they receive a plurality of votes as a first choice. However, in cases such as the recent Chicago mayoral race where no candidate secured a majority, an elimination process would begin.
The candidate with the lowest number of votes would be eliminated and each of their votes reallocated to their supporters’ second choice candidate. The process would repeat until one candidate secured more than 50% of the votes.
Amber McReynolds, a senior political strategist with Issue One, said that based on RCV data from states such as Alaska, New York, and California that already use RCV, voter turnout has improved while helping to manage a large field of candidates.
"This is a better voting model to ensure all voices and choices are reflected in the election results," she said, an Illinois native also visiting from Colorado.
WHAT COUNTIES ARE PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT?
Neither HB 2807 nor HB 3749 have effective dates nor have been moved out of committee, but McReynolds thinks if passed, the legislation could be quickly implemented.
More than 80% of Illinois voters live within a jurisdiction that has the systems and software to use RCV, she said. But more than a third of counties would require updates.
State Rep. Dennis Tipsword Jr., R-Metamora, raised concern about the expense of updating election systems for rural counties.
Julie Bliss, county clerk in Boone County, told committee members part of the increased expense is that ballots will be larger. It also depends on what voting software is used. Bliss added every Illinois county has a separate contract with voting companies.
States such as Vermont, Georgia and Rhode Island that have statewide contracts reduce costs and give voters a more uniform experience regardless of county, she said.
The expense estimated for Boone County, home to about 53,000 residents, ranges from $35,000 to $45,000 to purchase the needed software upgrade, she said.
Sangamon County Clerk Don Gray confirmed an upgrade to the county's Election Systems and Software would cost about $1.8 million. However, a system upgrade only would be part of the expenses, he said. Sangamon County also would need to account for increased printing costs due to larger ballots, certification with state and federal election authorities, a software update, and educating the public on what RCV means.
Aggregating election software at the state level could help with costs, but Gray said he would like to know what that means for security measures. He also noted that counties such as Cook which uses Dominion Voting Services for its tabulation, have different needs and financial abilities when it comes to elections.
"The decentralized factor of how we operate today is a great security feature, especially in the age of cybersecurity."
"Our opponents that would like to be nefarious to the system ... have to access multiple points instead of a single, universal centralized system."
With limited data on the expense, state Rep. Carol Ammons, D-Urbana, urged more research be conducted before the legislature moves forward with RCV statewide. Like Bliss, she also supported a statewide voting system.
"I understand the idea, I understand it works in other places, but I understand our process does not collect the proper data for us to analyze," she said.
#us politics#news#the state-journal register#Illinois#Illinois General Assembly#2023#ranked choice voting#election reform#Illinois House Ethics and Elections Committee#House Bill 2807#House Bill 3749#Maurice West#Kam Buckner#Terrance Carroll#FairVote#Andy Bakker#Illinois Opportunity Project#Stop Rank Choice Voting Coalition in Illinois#Amber McReynolds#Issue One#Dennis Tipsword Jr.#Julie Bliss#Don Gray#Carol Ammons
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
not me adding my direnni (runilaros) to my bg3 roster....
#he's a necromancer. was a reformed worm cultist in TES. still a necromancer but probably more ethical? idk man#he's like 800 and feels it#but won't let himself LOOK 800. because forget that#runilaros || image#runilaros || bg3 verse
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
its just weird bc with energy usage or whatever, we recognise that telling someone to turn the lights off and not overfill the kettle is a distraction from the unfettered consumption of big industry etc, but when it comes to food suddenly you people are like no no it’s the consumption of tofu that is the real issue here!! I’m so sick and tired of this debate because whether or not you eat meat, as leftists and as people with any care for the environment, we should be united in recognising the harms of industrial animal agriculture.
and at a certain point the choices of foods to get mad at in particular start to just come off like an appropriate outlet for your discomfort over someone else eating differently to you. why is it always soy and quinoa and never corn and wheat?? at a certain point you have to acknowledge that all of us consume plant products, and vegans/vegetarians are a very small proportion of that. plant agriculture is perhaps as ethically and environmentally fraught as animal agriculture, but that means we should desire to improve both, rather than NEITHER
#and alllll of it just feels like a cope to get out of recognising that all of our diets have an impact on the world n people around us#no matter how much we dont like it and how much we try#and the solution is largely a reform to our farming practices; our relationship with the land; and our relationship with food#[guy who constantly buys out of season fruit flown from halfway across the world]: omggg soy milk is destroying the planet#i just find it funny as hell when ppl get mad at the current hated plant based product as a gotcha for people who dont eat meat#like girl............are you jordan peterson? you only eat red meat?#not to be this person but that is literally just a textbook tu quoque fallacy lol#vegetarians r like we should improve the global food supply chain somewhat#and u guys r like UMMM but you consume food?#this is what no ethical consumption under capitalism actually means#although the girlies seem to think it exists to defend ur shein purchases and mass produced anime figures#agiudfhgiapghaidufghdfg
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
By Oriana González
Axios
May 14, 2023
Planned Parenthood is calling for the major reform of the federal judiciary less than a year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, including expanding the Supreme Court and adding term limits.
Driving the news: The organization is also demanding an end to single-judge divisions, such as the Amarillo division in the Northern Texas District Court, where its sole judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, issued a ruling halting the Food and Drug Administration's approval of a widely used abortion pill.
Single-judge divisions can lead to "court-shopping," in which plaintiffs seek out a venue where the lone district court judge is known to be sympathetic to their claims.
Don't forget: Kacsmaryk's ruling has been temporarily blocked by the Supreme Court, but the 5th Circuit Court if Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Wednesday.
The three-judge panel that will hear the case is comprised of two Trump appointees and one Bush appointee, all of which have an anti-abortion history.
The big picture: The overturning of Roe, as well as reports around Justice Clarence Thomas' alleged ties to a GOP megadonor, have prompted some Democrats in Congress to push for justice term limits and a code of conduct for the highest bench.
The Supreme Court is the only court in the federal judiciary that does not have a formal code of ethics.
State of play: Planned Parenthood for the first time is calling for Congress to add seats and impose term limits for the justices, as well as create ethics and transparency requirements.
Justices are not "forced to follow a binding code of conduct," and they argue that as a result, "there are no clear consequences for most unethical behavior," Planned Parenthood argues.
They're also urging Congress to increase the number of lower court seats to keep up with the growing U.S. population and caseload.
"Ongoing threats to reproductive freedom, civil rights, and our democratic systems and institutional norms" prompted the organization to issue the calls now, per a press release.
Between the lines: Planned Parenthood has been active in litigation challenging state abortion bans and other women's health matters like the federal Title X family planning program.
What they're saying: “[T]he courts have been used as a vehicle to advance a dangerous agenda against abortion rights, voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and so much more," said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Planned Parenthood "understands that reforms are integral to building the public’s trust that the courts can and will function to uphold hard-won freedoms and advance justice for future generations," Johnson added.
#planned parenthood#judicial reform#federal judiciary#matthew kacsmaryk#code of ethics#u.s. supreme court#clarence thomas
4 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
camo-wolf
Camo Wolf
most-watch-thing
Untitled
toxtricity-v
bird that makes soup
lights-d0wn
Lights Down, You Up & Die
iconz1nhos
!!☆