• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle
  • Let me share a passage from the dissent in a Supreme court case known as Plessy v Furguson. The majority of the court had just ruled that it was OK to force blacks to use seperate railcars from whites. Not only that, but it was OK for for the government to force railway companies to have such a rule. With this backdrop Justice Harlan spoke in dissent, arguing for true equality under the law. In the screed for justice, he wrote:

    There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race. But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of the black race in Louisiana, many of whom, perhaps, risked their lives for the preservation of the Union, who are entitled, by law, to participate in the political control of the State and nation, who are not excluded, by law or by reason of their race, from public stations of any kind, and who have all the legal rights that belong to white citizens, are yet declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach occupied by citizens of the white race.

    Thats right folks. There was a period of us history where even your pro equality arguments were steeped in racism

    More to the point. Even if you (for some reason) set asside the hole issue of slavery; there is still the whole Jim Crow era, where we litterally codified rasism into law.














  • My guess is that this was a catastrophic success for them. They probably planned the attack assuming significant resistance from the IDF. A few fighters would make it through the defenses. If they got lucky, they would be able to take a handful of hostages back into Gaza. Enough to score a political win and maybe earn a few concessions from the hostage negotiation, but not enough to upset the status quo.

    When the IDF underperformed, Hamas was left with an attack that went too well, and now has to deal with an enemy that has decided to properly mobilize.





  • A) Phyical books cost way more to buy than they do to print. You are mostly paying for the writing/editing.

    B) Youtube is nor charging anywhere near “real” prices for their subscription. Renting movies on youtube is generally in the $3-$5 range, far cheaper than seeing a movie in a theater. The subscription gives you unlimited access to almost their entire library of videos and music. The only physical analouge is a library, but those only exist due to government funding and a quirk of copyright law that does not apply as well in the digital realm.


  • A single ticket to my local movie theater costs $16.50 for an adult ticket to a typical movie. That is already more expensive than a month of unlimited Youtube premium, even at the inflated price.

    Video streaming is a consumable product. What model would you prefer. Ad supported is still available. A la carte is reasonable in theory, but doesn’t seem like it would work well for a site like youtube (even though youtube does have some a-la-carte offerings such as movies)

    We used to have a movie subscription service around here. It failed because it was essentially sellings dimes for nickels.


  • You can read their filing here: https://www.jnj.com/_document/janssen-lit?id=00000189-6a3c-daed-a5bd-fb7fc2a60000

    Constitutional argument spelled out starting on paragraph 83:

    1. The Program violates Janssen’s constitutional rights in at least three respects.
    1. First, the Program will appropriate Janssen’s patented Xarelto® products for third-party use without providing adequate compensation, a clear physical taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
    1. Second, the Program will violate the First Amendment by compelling Janssen to make false and misleading statements through the Manufacturer Agreement, including that the Program will involve “negotiating” a “fair” price for Xarelto® products.
    1. Third, the Act would violate Janssen’s constitutional rights even if participation in the Program were voluntary (it is not), by impermissibly conditioning Janssen’s ability to participate in Medicare and Medicaid on Janssen’s relinquishing its speech and property rights.