• Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 10 months ago

    Wait, what?

    Avatar is a terrible movie, but there’s nothing spiritual in it. It’s all weird science.

    Also, prepare yourself to be disappointed towards the end.

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 10 months ago

    Noble. Savage.
    NOBLE. SAVAGE.

    It’s like an Avatar and Dancing With Wolves DVD set vomited up a terrible, unscientifically supported diet.

    • Minus the fact that Dances with Wolves gave us the Spears brothers. But these days, Hollywood prefers not to hire real Indians, opting instead for Johnny Depp, Taylor Lautner, and Booboo Stewart.

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    An excellent dissertation that goes right to the heart of the problem.
    I only wish we could somehow build momentum for a constitutional amendment detailing once-and-for-all the limits of corporate personhood. I’m aware that some level of personhood is required for the purposes of legal representation, but this court has gone flying off the deep…[Read more]

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    HAH. A toilet. Called it.

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    Yeah. It’s a little difficult to go “Well, the Democrats aren’t liberal enough” when the Republicans are being overrun by frothing mad lunatics.
    I know it’s Not All Republicans. There are good Republicans out there… but you guys seriously need to clean house and make this fight less existential before we can really settle down. Banish the far…[Read more]

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    “Integral nationalism is one of five types of nationalism defined by Carlton Hayes in his 1928 book The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism.
    More recently, Peter Alter discussed integral nationalism in his book “Nationalismus” (1985), along with its opposite, risorgimento nationalism. Whereas risorgimento nationalism applies to a nation…[Read more]

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    I can’t even concentrate on reading this blog post because I’m so angry. I specifically braced myself last night and I’m STILL infuriated. I’ve read a half dozen articles on it already, and I know it’s not a total and complete disaster, and I’m STILL frothing mad.

    Time to hit the voting booths, people. We need a “corporations are not people”…[Read more]

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    It’s worth noting that, even though we feel that this is an important law, it’s clear that they’re looking beyond this case to other things. The Supreme Court always has to think ahead to future problems that are seemingly unrelated to the case at hand – and while I don’t necessarily think some of the Judges are sufficiently competent to do that…[Read more]

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    I’m not arguing there aren’t flaws with their approach, but it will remain the law of the land for the time being. It does, however, leave room open for interpretation and alternative means of creating protective laws.

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    Additionally, from ThinkProgress:
    “The opinion in the case acknowledges that states have a legitimate interest in passing laws to preserve access to reproductive health facilities. They’ll just have to figure out how to do it with different policies that “burden substantially less speech.” The justices write that Massachusetts hadn’t tried o…[Read more]

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    Solutions?
    A) Narrowly craft laws meant to keep out the second type of protester
    B) Have escorts ready to help avoid the first type
    C) As this is content neutral, pro-choice people like us are allowed to quietly counter-protest in the same way as the first people, say by engaging said anti-choice protesters.

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    TL;DR on my post:
    They make a distinction between two types of protestors
    1) Protesters who speak gently and hand out material cannot be barred from nearing a clinic
    2) Protesters who shout, wave signs, impede progress, or otherwise make a large nuisance CAN be buffered against.

    • Solutions?
      A) Narrowly craft laws meant to keep out the second type of protester
      B) Have escorts ready to help avoid the first type
      C) As this is content neutral, pro-choice people like us are allowed to quietly counter-protest in the same way as the first people, say by engaging said anti-choice protesters.

    • Additionally, from ThinkProgress:
      “The opinion in the case acknowledges that states have a legitimate interest in passing laws to preserve access to reproductive health facilities. They’ll just have to figure out how to do it with different policies that “burden substantially less speech.” The justices write that Massachusetts hadn’t tried o…[Read more]

    • Protesters who speak gently and hand out material cannot be barred from nearing a clinic
      I presume the Court is also fine with unicorns near the clinic, because I just don’t see those “quiet consensual conversations.” I had to pass a clinic on my regular way to work: I wasn’t going in, just passing by, and I’m also a big male, and they made me…[Read more]

    • I’m not arguing there aren’t flaws with their approach, but it will remain the law of the land for the time being. It does, however, leave room open for interpretation and alternative means of creating protective laws.

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    I skimmed the other Justices’ opinions, not much worth commenting on there aside from a look into their minds.

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    Well, scribe, here’s the thing, it’s a bit like the Stokeley Neo-Nazi marches or the Westboro Baptist Church funeral protests – just because speech is odious and emotionally disruptive doesn’t necessarily mean it should be prohibited.

    The problem is that protesters are infringing the law (and our rights) in ways unrelated to free speech – for…[Read more]

    • I skimmed the other Justices’ opinions, not much worth commenting on there aside from a look into their minds.

    • TL;DR on my post:
      They make a distinction between two types of protestors
      1) Protesters who speak gently and hand out material cannot be barred from nearing a clinic
      2) Protesters who shout, wave signs, impede progress, or otherwise make a large nuisance CAN be buffered against.

      • Solutions?
        A) Narrowly craft laws meant to keep out the second type of protester
        B) Have escorts ready to help avoid the first type
        C) As this is content neutral, pro-choice people like us are allowed to quietly counter-protest in the same way as the first people, say by engaging said anti-choice protesters.

      • Additionally, from ThinkProgress:
        “The opinion in the case acknowledges that states have a legitimate interest in passing laws to preserve access to reproductive health facilities. They’ll just have to figure out how to do it with different policies that “burden substantially less speech.” The justices write that Massachusetts hadn’t tried o…[Read more]

      • Protesters who speak gently and hand out material cannot be barred from nearing a clinic
        I presume the Court is also fine with unicorns near the clinic, because I just don’t see those “quiet consensual conversations.” I had to pass a clinic on my regular way to work: I wasn’t going in, just passing by, and I’m also a big male, and they made me…[Read more]

      • I’m not arguing there aren’t flaws with their approach, but it will remain the law of the land for the time being. It does, however, leave room open for interpretation and alternative means of creating protective laws.

    • Thanks for the summary, Paul. I feel like I have a much better understanding of the Court’s reasoning for what initially seemed like a flagrantly terrible decision. I still don’t like it, and their characterization of “petitioners” engaging in “personal, caring, consensual conversations” is hilariously naive, but at least I understand the legal…[Read more]

      • It’s worth noting that, even though we feel that this is an important law, it’s clear that they’re looking beyond this case to other things. The Supreme Court always has to think ahead to future problems that are seemingly unrelated to the case at hand – and while I don’t necessarily think some of the Judges are sufficiently competent to do that…[Read more]

      • Enforcement, as I have been telling people repeatedly lately, is useless, unless you create inordinately outsized penalties for definitions that have to remain vague in order to combat the problem. Here’s why the solutions you propose don’t work, btw:

        A) Narrowly craft laws meant to keep out the second type of protester
        Unfortunately, these…[Read more]

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    “And no, Paul, currently the 8ft buffer in Englewood, NJ stands until challenged, and there’s a better chance of that staying up because 8ft. =/= 35ft. after all.”

    I’m pretty sure that actually agrees with my statement rather than not, unless you’re differing on a more narrow point. Do you mean the one in Englewood is also infringing upon p…[Read more]

  • Sarah posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    I’m not surprised, but keep in mind this doesn’t strike down ALL buffer zones, just those infringing upon public areas. Buffer zones are still legal in general.

    Where this is a problem is in clinics that abut public sidewalks with no alternatives. We need to come up with an alternative solution for those.