Increased military preparedness in the Golan Heights area: Following the fall of the Assad regime - the IDF and the Northern Command launched an attack in the buffer zone in the Quneitra area, in order to strengthen the defense of the border.
In accordance with the assessment of the situation by the Northern Command and the Home Front Command, it was decided that in the four Druze communities in the Golan Heights there will be no school classes today. Learning will be allowed in kindergartens.
In the rest of the Golan Heights, classes are taking place as usual.
The IDF is deploying checkpoints along the Golan Heights. Movement in the area will be restricted as necessary. All agricultural areas adjacent to the Syrian border have been declared a closed military area, and farmers' entry there will be restricted.
I'm not going to look at the New York state rules of civil procedure to confirm specifically, but no. Document discovery gives a party to a proceeding the right to access documents in the other party's possession relevant to a material fact at issue in a trial. It is not a pass to demand anything you want from them.
Without knowing the specifics, I doubt Drake's complete text message history is relevant to any material issue on whether UMG conspired with Spotify to boost Kendrick streams.
Given their practice of restrained and selective targeting away from civilians, and public commitment against further escalation, its nearly impossible for me to imagine Iran approving (even tacitly) of an untargetted mass shooting at a transit station in a neighbourhood that is 1/3rd Arab, as an element in Operation True Promise 2.
To me, this raises the question of how the attack then came to coincide nearly exactly with the operation. It seems extremely unlikely that it was a coincidence. Was Hamas informed of the operation in advance by Iran, and they then planned the shooting to coincide with it without telling?
Absolutely, and while manpower is something which could be remedied in the next few years by throwing money at the problem (which the U.S. has) the Navy's rotted sealift supply capacity can not. The resources a fleet consumes during war are astronomical, and American currently could not supply most of its ships simultaneously if it wanted to right now, during a relative peace. The Navy has only 33 active duty auxiliary vessels, and the majority of civilian ships in the sea-lift reserve are not currently seaworthy.
The incomparable logistics advantage the PRC would have in the Taiwan strait (because their infrastructure and industrial base is right there instead of across an Ocean) is another reason why America would be virtually guaranteed to lose a protracted naval war there.
I'm usually one to err on the side of caution when it comes to estimating America's strength, the PLA certainly isn't relying on wishful thinking when they assess the strength of the U.S. military; so I won't either. However, practically all signs point to U.S. shipbuilding being extremely cooked. The best comparison of the relative effectiveness of a country's shipbuilding industrial capacity comes from their share of merchant tonnage. From that, the PRC produces half of global tonnage in civilian ships every year, while the U.S share is 0.2%.
American shipbuilders survive entirely due to military contracts, where their performance is characterized by cost overruns, poor workmanship, and constant delays. On the other hand, the luxury of choices offered to PLANF procurement means China can launch new naval vessels at a rate and price magnitudes better than the U.S. navy. Comparing the difference in production efficiency between the two countries, and it's like how in WW2 the USSR spent one-one hundredth the man hours to build a single T-34 as the Nazis did for a Tiger tank (not an exaggeration, the costs were 3000 man hours for a T-34 and 300,000 per Tiger). And half the T-34s wouldn't break down before arriving to the battlefield.
What lingering advantages the United States would have in a naval conflict come down to their inertia and (IMO) still superior air power. Both edges are fading fast, and 2027 may well be what the Pentagon has determined to be their "point of no return" after which PLA dominance in the Taiwan strait will be undisputed.
In other dying empire news, the US Navy's recently released Navigation Plan has the primary goal of preparing the Navy for war with the PRC by 2027. The plan also reads like a hybrid between marketing speak and a r/worldnews comment
The purpose of effective altruism is to provide a justification to not be altruistic. To them their decision to not tip, to work for an evil tech company, and to support reactionary politics can all be excused as necessary to support the greater good.
For effective altruists, the most altruistic course of action possible is to amass as much money as possible, so that it can be donated to prevent an evil all-powerful ai (the devil), from causing the singularity (rapture), and imprisoning human consciousness for an eternity in virtual torture chambers (hell). Conversely by paying tithes to create a good ai (god), we can create a transhuman paradise on Earth (heaven), and bring the dead back to life to live forever.
They have reinvented Christianity to such an extent that they're even managing to steal the crown from the post-Church crowd as the worst people in a restaurant.
reminder that there's no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics, and this guy won the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel"
The clause that "the Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" has been repeatedly interpreted to mean that all Federal Judges have lifetime tenure, provided they are not removed, and the current SCOTUS would absolutely support that interpretation if they got a chance to.
My initial feeling is these results confirm my take that this was absolutely a winnable election for the opposition. The desire for fresh leadership is widespread enough, and hardships caused by U.S. economic warfare have created ripe conditions for opposing parties to seize advantage of.
Luckily for Maduro the counter-revolution is incapable of rallying around the sort of candidate who could win. A SocDem who claims they'll preserve broadly popular social programs but eliminate their "corruption", talks about standing up for human rights, and seeks to normalize relations with the U.S (but who is not ready to coup the Venezuelan government for Uncle Sam if given the slightest chance to) would have a great chance of winning. This is so obvious that even the ghouls in Washington backed Guaido because he was opposition figure closest to meeting these criteria, except of course that of not being a spineless traitor.
María Corina Machado the leader of the counter-revolution, is not that. She proudly identifies as being on the extreme right of Venezuelan political spectrum, with her central policies being to privatize the state-owned oil company (PDVSA) and eliminate welfare for the poor. She has also supported every effort by a foreign government to overthrow the government of Venezuela.
The Venezuelan counter-revolution also continues to be very clearly overtly racist against Afro-Venezuelan and Mestizo peoples, in their rhetoric and aims.
Of course no mainstream media in the Global North will examine the very clear reasons for the Venezuelan counter-revolution's incredible streak of L's continued today, and will instead peddle Mike Lindell tier conspiracy theories.
In the final analysis, the state is an organ of class rule. But a class which must rely on the naked power of state coercion to rule in the first analysis as well, is one living in a state of siege, rebellion, war or revolution. As such, the State strives to rule through consent and neutralize the class conflict which would otherwise tear it apart, and does so by appearing to be a power standing above society, which mediates class conflicts and keeps them within the bounds of order.
However, as much as it is an institution for the enforcement of a Capitalist mode of production, the Liberal state cannot appear to be impartial and just, without in on occasion being just by checking the most blatant and hypocritical excesses of unrestrained Capitalists. This is discussed in part by E.P. Thompson:
If the law is evidently partial and unjust, then it will mask nothing, legitimize nothing, contribute nothing to any class's hegemony.
The essential precondition for the effectiveness of law, in its function as ideology, is that it shall display an independence from gross manipulation and shall seem to be just. It cannot seem to be so without upholding its own logic and criteria of equity; indeed, on occasion, by actually being just.
The rhetoric and the rules of a society are something a great deal more than sham. In the same moment they may modify, in profound ways, the behaviour of the powerful, and mystify the powerless. They may disguise the true realities of power, but, at the same time, they may curb that power and check its intrusions
As someone working in a free legal clinic serving low-income clients I see this daily. I fully appreciate the ways in which laws and state institutions -in my jurisdiction- provide real protections to workers against their bosses, tenants against landlords, and consumers against corporations. However, at the same time I cannot lose sight of the fact that in every excess of Capitalism that the state shields the working class from, the state enforces the class-domination from which it arises; class-domination whose other (legal) immiseration are protected by state power.
One of the greatest strengths of neoliberal reformists in Iran is that they are the side less associated with decades of violently enforced moralism, especially the mandatory hijab. For millions of Iranians striking back against the Guidance Patrol at home is a more prescient issue than their country’s policy abroad.
Ideally there’d be a Socialist voice supporting multipolarism, the working class, and freedom from moralistic dictates, but the very forces aligned with Jalili have plenty of responsibility for such a voice not existing.
Sir Keith has delivered a whopping 1.7% higher vote share for Labour than they got in 2019, when Sir Keith intentionally sabotaged Corbyn with his “People’s Vote” maneuver, and 6% less than Corbyn in 2017.
Contrary to Liberal interpretations, this ruling doesn't change much. If the President was capable of openly assassinating politicians, or launching a military coup to overthrow democracy, they would not be deterred by 9 people in black robes telling them they may be liable to criminal charges in the future for doing so.
Until the Chief Justice gets their own division to command, the Court only has as much power over the Federal Government as they are allowed to, which is invariably determined by their usefulness to politically dominant factions of Capital. See what happened after the Marshall Court made a decision impeding the interests early-American Capital had in forcefully dispossessing Indigenous peoples from their land.
I still believe the most incisive commentary on the Law's function in society was given by Marx. He succinctly attacks the Liberal idea that all social structures (economics, politics, etc.) arise from the letter of the law. Rather:
Society is not founded upon the law; this is a legal fiction. On the contrary, the law must be founded upon society, it must express the common interests and needs of society — as distinct from the caprice of the individuals — which arise from the material mode of production prevailing at the given time. This Code Napoleon, which I am holding in my hand, has not created modern bourgeois society. On the contrary, bourgeois society, which emerged in the eighteenth century and developed further in the nineteenth, merely finds its legal expression in this Code. As soon as it ceases to fit the social conditions, it becomes simply a bundle of paper.
The process of legally converting a business to an employee-owned cooperative can vary significantly depending on what jurisdiction you're in. There's different criteria for creating one (some places might require more than 3 directors to create a Coop) and all sorts of statutory considerations unique to wherever you are.
If you're serious about doing this, I would sincerely recommend reaching out for legal advice first. This is your livelihood, and you do not want to make a mistake that creates difficulty down the line. Depending on where you live, there may be a public interest organization, or business law clinic, that can provide some legal information for free. You could look up "(where you live) non profit legal assistance" and see if anything shows up.
Machine translated tweet by IDF military correspondent