Linkage

Wow; this guy knows the US Right. His argument that what unites them is a powerful shared vision of what (indeed who) they do not like is utterly sound. By the time they have worked their way through this list, there will be very little satisfaction to be had from watching them turn on each other.

As the broader public turns its attention to these plans, and most people rightfully react with a mixture of horror and concern, a lot of skepticism remains. What is the role of Trump in all of this: Isn’t it more likely that he is going to mess things up, as he has never shown any interest in meticulous planning nor the necessary discipline to enact an ambitious agenda? The Right may try to present a unified front now, but there are so many groups and factions here, and they don’t all share the same ideas about what America should look like: Shouldn’t we expect a lot of infighting and self-sabotage rather than a well-oiled regime? And most importantly, perhaps, haven’t we been through this once before: Isn’t it more likely we get a repeat of the kind of chaos that was so characteristic of the first Trump presidency?

These questions are important. But too strong a focus on Trump’s erratic nature and the many rivalries on the Right obscures the fact that reactionaries are actually united by the desire to punish their enemies, “take back” the country, and restore the “natural order” of unquestioned white Christian patriarchal rule – a unity that is indicative of a broader realignment on the Right towards an aggressive embrace of state authoritarianism. And those who expect merely more of the same chaos that defined Trump’s presidency tend to overlook the fact that the Right would be operating under much more favorable conditions this time: With a fully Trumpified GOP, a reactionary super-majority on the Supreme Court, and with the omnipresent threat of escalating political violence intimidating anyone who dares to dissent.

Trump world wasn’t ready in 2016. The American Right more generally wasn’t ready – they didn’t have the know-how, the plans, or the personnel to get anywhere close to remaking the nation in accordance with their reactionary vision.

They are determined to not make that mistake again. “Project 2025” is evidence that the Right has concrete plans to take over and transform American government into a machine that serves only two purposes: Exacting revenge on the “woke” enemy – and imposing a minoritarian reactionary vision on society. 

To me, the lynchpin that enables the other problems listed here is that "LGBTIQ+ rights are [being] wedged into existing ‘culture-war’ narratives":

Media and political campaigns have positioned the rights of LGBTIQ+ people as negotiable and debatable. Some try to frame the human rights of transgender people as being at odds with women’s rights, even asserting that trans women do not face gender-based discrimination or that they pose a threat to the rights, spaces, and safety of cisgender women.

While they vary by cultural context, these campaigns often portray the push for LGBTIQ+ people’s rights as merely a generational dispute, part of a so-called “culture war”, or in some cases an imperialist agenda. 

Many such narratives position trans and non-binary gender identities as new or Western concepts, ignoring the rich history of diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions, and sex characteristics across cultures and within the global South in particular.  

Falsely portraying the rights of LGBTIQ+ people, and particularly of trans people, as competing with women’s rights only widens divisions in the broader gender equality movement. This has given anti-rights actors space to advance rollbacks on sexual and reproductive health and rights, comprehensive sexuality education, and other critical issues.
 

A handsome new library branch in Inwood, at the northern tip of Manhattan, had its soft opening Thursday. It’s the second library in town during the past year or so to try something clever and innovative: partnering with a 100 percent affordable housing development. New subsidized apartments occupy a 12-floor tower above the library.

These days, NIMBYs are always fighting affordable housing projects. Communities are increasingly desperate for libraries. One obvious solution is the twofer — building housing and a library together — because there’s strength in numbers.

[…]

But that’s only half the Inwood project. In addition to the library and apartment tower, which has its own entrance and name, The Eliza, the development also includes a pre-K, a STEM study center, a teaching kitchen and community spaces.

In part, Ms. Conway acknowledged, she had avoided the spotlight intentionally, living in “stealth mode” for fear that her gender identity would wreck her career. It had already cost her her job once, when she was fired from IBM in 1968 after confiding to managers that she was planning to undergo gender-confirmation surgery, a then-novel procedure that she had to travel to Mexico to receive.

“In many jurisdictions, I could have been arrested and charged as a sex offender — or, worse yet, institutionalized and forced to undergo electroshock therapy in a mental hospital,” she wrote in a 2013 essay for HuffPost.

“Evading those fates, I completed my transition and began building a career in a secret new identity, starting at the bottom of the ladder as a contract programmer. Even then, any ‘outing’ could have led to media exposure, and I’d have become unemployable, out on the streets for good.”

“I covered my past for over 30 years,” she added, “always looking over my shoulder, as if a foreign spy in my own country.”

By 2000, she had decided to begin telling her story — including discussing her early research contributions at IBM, which had been lost to history because they were credited under her long-discarded birth name. She started speaking to reporters, including for a nearly 8,000-word cover story in the Los Angeles Times Magazine, and created a personal website where she aimed to offer “information, encouragement and hope” to others who had transitioned or were in the process of doing so.

Have you ever walked through a great city and thought, wow I love this place? What is it that makes some places great and others ... not? One key factor is what urban planners call a “sense of place.”

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living—a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor—other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power.

• In short: The proposal includes prescribing standards to ceiling insulation, draught proofing, hot water systems, cooling and heating. 
• An academic says the rental standards would improve quality of life for renters and improve environmental sustainability.
• What's next? Victoria is consulting on the new minimum standards until July 1. 

The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey is a household-based panel study that collects valuable information about economic and personal wellbeing, labour market dynamics and family life. It aims to tell the stories of the same group of Australians over the course of their lives.

Started in 2001, the HILDA Survey provides policy-makers with unique insights about Australia, enabling them to make informed decisions across a range of policy areas, including health, education and social services.

The basic idea behind the model of Systems Intentionality may be simply described, and applies equally to corporate and natural defendants. Diamantis has explained how natural persons commonly make use of “extended mind” supports, which are external systems or cognitive aids (such as recipes, maps and notes or records) to facilitate recall and decision-making. So too, I say, corporations adopt systems of conduct that enable them to make and implement decisions consistently and repeatedly, and respond purposefully to events. Indeed, having (unlike humans) no natural memory or cognitive capacity, corporations necessarily employ systems of conduct to direct, coordinate and manage the changing and fallible human (and other corporate) personnel that carry out corporate purposes, over time. The same holds true where human elements within the system are entirely replaced by self-executing (automated) processes.

The critical point is that, on my model, such systems exist in order to achieve some outcome (whether it be coordinated conduct, or consistent output). Thus, Australian courts have described the concept of a system as “an internal method of working”; “something designed or intended in its structure”.35 On this approach, a “system of conduct” is inherently purposive in nature: a “co-ordinated body of methods, or a complex scheme
or plan of procedure”. It is an organised connection of elements operating in order to produce the conduct or outcome.

Following this line of thought, once an adopted system of conduct is identified, it becomes possible objectively to assess the system to characterise the associated intention and other mental states. Here, the heart of the model is the proposition that corporations manifest their intentions through the systems of conduct that they adopt and operate, both in the sense that any system reveals the corporate intention and in the sense that it embodies or instantiates that intention. Another way of putting this is to say that corporations think through their systems—and so assessment and characterisation of the system enables us to know the corporate state of mind. No process of “inference” is required. The same is true of policies and practices, which may be understood as systems operating at higher levels of generality (in the case of policies) and as arising organically (in the case of practices). It becomes possible, from these humble beginnings, to determine from the nature of systems adopted by a corporate actor the spectrum of mental states commonly demanded by the law (such as general and specific intention, knowledge, mistake, recklessness, dishonesty and unconscionability).

Automobile-first ideals dominate in the U.S. Our countryside is carved up by superhighways connecting bedroom suburbs with sprawling cities, with too many nowherevilles surrounded by parking lots and strip malls and ringed with sound barrier walls—all built to serve the sacred automobile. Atop former towns and neighborhoods, broad avenues are lined with drive-through hamburger stands and banks.

Across the country, the car is the only way to get around and not only in rural places. This reliance spawns an ever more disconnected nation of drivers suffering an epidemic of road rage. As Lancaster University sociologist John Urry wrote, “the car is immensely flexible and wholly coercive,” promising freedom but trapping drivers into inhabiting their cars.