Yeah. TBH I have yet to see a situation in which "tons of compost, mulch, and other organic material" is not a good answer. In clay/silt, it helps to break things up so they drain better and pack less. In sand, it helps to retain moisture so it doesn't drain too quickly. And generally it feeds and introduces those ever-important microbes, on top of the usual nutrients. Really can't go wrong. There was even a master gardener a century or so ago whose entire care regimen was simply to add mulch to about knee-high continuously (IIRC she didn't even water).
StrayCatFrump
joined 1 year ago
Of course political speech is illegal. Always has been. It just isn't nominally legal on paper. People have been indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for it constantly. A famous example is Eugene Debs, who was prosecuted under the Espionage Act and imprisoned for an anti-war speech he made in 1918.
Please don't be taken in by the veneer of moronic constitutionalist liberalism. The state punishes people when it feels like punishing people, and does so especially for political speech and dissent...for being an anarchist; for being a leftist. The propaganda it puts down on paper has never changed that.
Judges protect the state like any other part of the fascist system. Doubtful they'll find a reason to be "sane" or otherwise reasonable to people acting to protect us against the state's own goons.
I guess it's a hope. Just don't count on it. The only people who are really here to protect us is us.
Fair that the video producer probably took the movie a little too seriously. People calling themselves "Marxists" tend to do shit like that. LOL. And hilariously good takes about Stalin and their notion of adventurism.
Still, I think their point about it being presented as some kind of alternative to the book (i.e. THIS is the REAL how-to guide) and not coming with good enough disclaimers is still probably a reasonable take. And sorry, but I find "collaborated with the national-security state just to make sure we don't get in legal trouble" to be extremely weak. One could collaborate with anyone familiar with handling explosives to help you figure out how to change and/or omit important enough details about bomb making (not to mention people like defense attorneys), and changed stuff that would NOT put people at direct risk if they followed the example. Not to mention the shit about collaborating with the state that was also included. These are examples of extremely dangerous misinformation that just shouldn't be included ever, and aren't necessary just to produce a bit of fun and engaging agitprop.
Definitely what the RICO Act was sold to us as being designed for. /s
Fuck the police. Fuck the state.
Probably just adds a little good texture. But yeah, it might be a waste to keep them in the pile taking up space when they can also just be added to the soil directly. IDK if they add much to the process of decomposition.
Every frickin' day, comrade. I aim for the big ol' lizard that's been living in mine and eating the scrumptous bugs. Gives him his exercise.
It's really just that it 1. makes it easy to judge that you have a good ratio, and 2. gives you a start to intermixing them. You really shouldn't leave it in layers, except maybe to have some dry stuff on top to help keep it from drying out. Mix as thoroughly as is reasonable.
Restaurants run on hierarchy, or so I’ve always been told. There’s got to be someone in charge, someone giving orders, in order for the whole thing to run right.... The last person I worked for, one of the most experienced and talented restaurant people I’ve ever met, always said it’s best to run a restaurant as a “benign dictatorship.”
I mean, liberals (and authorities like owners/executives/managers/politicians) will tell you this about literally everything, not just restaurants. So there's no particular reason to believe them, and many millennia of history filled with reasons to not believe them. shrug
No, it is absolutely, 100%, unequivocally worse to have them than to not have them. Almost all of their use is the cops gathering more evidence against people, NOT us being able to use them as evidence against cops. You have no idea how much of the use of bodycams YOU aren't seeing, because it is all within the halls of the police stations, the court houses, and the rest of the criminal injustice system. No. Get rid of them, along with every single other weapon, tool, and resource the cops have.
We still need the cameras to know when the crimes against citizens occur.
This is a silly statement. Bodycams aren't just "cameras". They are cameras whose physical operation is 100% under the control of the cops, and whose footage is 95% under the control of the cops, 99% in control of the criminal injustice system generally, and 1% in the control of defense lawyers and the general public in the most extreme of circumstances when we can actually force its release despite the fact that it's not likely to benefit the cops.
Bodycams are another weapon used against us. The cameras which have a chance of changing things are those which we have a chance in hell of actually controlling ourselves. Cell phone cameras have done far more for us than any increase in the surveillance state—including and especially bodycams—ever will.
Flat taxes are regressive and a really, really, really bad idea. We have too many of them as it is.