accidentally On Purpose
reblog -
- 6
We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.

-Chris Hedges (1956– )

(Source: flommus)

Posted: Jul 31 「26 notes」

If we really saw war, what war does to young minds and bodies, it would be impossible to embrace the myth of war. If we had to stand over the mangled corpses of schoolchildren killed in Afghanistan and listen to the wails of their parents, we would not be able to repeat clichés we use to justify war. This is why war is carefully sanitized. This is why we are given war’s perverse and dark thrill but are spared from seeing war’s consequences. The mythic visions of war keep it heroic and entertaining…

The wounded, the crippled, and the dead are, in this great charade, swiftly carted offstage. They are war’s refuse. We do not see them. We do not hear them. They are doomed, like wandering spirits, to float around the edges of our consciousness, ignored, even reviled. The message they tell is too painful for us to hear. We prefer to celebrate ourselves and our nation by imbibing the myths of glory, honor, patriotism, and heroism, words that in combat become empty and meaningless.

-Chris Hedges (via wakethesheeple)

Posted: Jul 31 「2,192 notes」
There has also been a trend over the last 20 years or so toward laws that don’t require prosecutors to show criminal intent. This means you can be prosecuted for crimes you had no idea you were breaking — even laws you actively tried not to break. A 2010 study co-authored by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Heritage Foundation found that in its rush to criminalize more and more behavior, Congress has been passing poorly-drafted laws that increasingly lack any requirement at all to show intent. Even when intent is included, the study found, it tends to be vague and open to interpretation (which also means open to abuse) by prosecutors.

-Radley Balko (via letterstomycountry)

Posted: Jul 31 「56 notes」

Until now, the driver of copyright legislation has always been Big Content, and there’s never really been a driving force on the free speech side or the tech side. So that has yet to develop. And I don’t know that is going to effectively develop this year, but I think its time to take a look at these issues.

For example, why is it that you can spend a billion dollars and develop a medication, and by the time you get it to market you’ve only got 15 years left on your patent term—but the ditty that advertises the medication is protected for 100 years. What is the rationale for that?

-Rep. Zoe Lofgren, one of the only people on capital hill that actually understands the concerns of the tech industry, and copyright law in general. (via letterstomycountry)

Posted: Jul 31 「30 notes」