think it should be legal, properly regulated, taxed and viewed as a profession.
A hesitant yes to this. I have two main concerns (I'm in the US). First is that protection for the workers should be paramount, and I'm not sure how that gets enforced with all the corporate fuckery that goes on. I'd give it perhaps three seconds before someone Ubers the idea, making everyone on their list an "independent contractor" and enshittifying the entire thing.
My second concern is that "game of telephone" story several years ago. Someone pointed out that in Germany, job agencies could technically require women on unemployment to apply for jobs in brothels. Again, with the current state of things, with red-pilled incels on the rise and fringe elements suggesting the government should assign them a girlfriend, I'm not sure this is something I would feel safe implementing at this time.
I think Trump is shutting it down to prevent more stories of how quickly he's ruined this institution for the arts.
Well, there's that. Plus he fucking hates the OG Kennedys and how revered they are. Plus now he gets to destroy the building and grift the rebuilding. He sees it as all wins.
In 2012, Mette-Marit told Epstein he was “very charming” and asked if it was “inappropriate for a mother to suggest two naked women carrying a surfboard for my 15 yr old sons wallpaper?”
Høiby is facing 38 charges, including the alleged rape of four women as well as alleged assault and drug offences. [...] Høiby has denied the most serious charges, including those of sexual abuse.
“This momentum is an important first step in what we see as a long-tail lifecycle for both the film and the forthcoming docuseries [...] The First Lady previously announced a spin-off series for her documentary, which she said was coming in a “few months.”
Oh God, they're making a series!
First off, blatant bribe here. Secondly, I'm guessing, from Melania's perspective, this is her trying to set herself up for a relevant and glamorous life once her husband dies (you know he won't have left her much, if anything). And even if she doesn't make it into Hollywood, it at least gets her some of her own money.
They said that reviewers had to buy their own tickets, instead of the free tickets or previews that they usually get. One reviewer in New York said there were 5 people in his audience and at least two of the others were also reviewers.
That's how most of the deaths in the labor camps (as opposed to the extermination camps) happened. Overcrowded, not enough shelter from the elements, drastically underfed, minimal if any medical treatment available, and disease just rips through the camps, killing people.
Authorized by the National Cultural Center Act of 1958, which requires that its programming be sustained through private funds, the center represents a public–private partnership.
So it sounds like the government pays for building maintenance, and donors pay for programming.
I remember reading a ?WaPo article saying that attendance was down to about 57%, with almost half the seats unfilled. And that was just from Trump taking control of the board, before the renaming. And that attendance was that low, despite staff having access to an unprecedented number of free tickets for family and friends and other giveaways. The article said that staff would close off the upper levels and relocate people to disguise half-filled houses, and that attendees were repeatedly encouraged to move closer to the stage.
And of course, since he stuck his name on it, things have only gotten worse, with many artists cancelling their performances. I suspect the closure is petty retaliation for all the artist cancellations.
Having read the announcement, it also sounds like he's planning on tearing down the entire thing, and putting something hideous in it's place. I've been there and the Kennedy Center has a quiet elegance; I have no doubt that anytime this uncultured bore makes will be tasteless, flashy, and built to the cheapest possible standards.
I read an article a few weeks ago, which pointed out that ICE does work internal to the US and is generally pretty restrained. CBP works at the border and is generally more aggressive, chasing down and subduing people who've crossed the border, usually in remote and hostile territory. They said that CBP could often be violent, and now those people were being released to use those same tactics against American cities.
So yes, this is exactly what some CBP officers are like.
Is that per month or per week? Unless you work in a restaurant, have your own (large-ish) garden, or have chickens or something, I'm not sure how anyone in the West lives on $35 a month without living on ramen, rice and beans.
one doesn’t have to be a physician to conclude that a person can’t get skull fractures on both the right and left sides of their head and from front to back by running themselves into a wall
The chase car has been removed - but no one's seen the self-driving cars either, not since the chase car was removed. It's another intentional misdirection.
orders U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers only to target immigrants who have criminal charges[1] or convictions[2].
[1] They were also supposed to leave people alone who were only charged with crimes - let the legal system (creaky as it is) decide guilt or innocence first, have the guilty serve their time, and then deport them.
[2] They were supposed to be targeting only those with felony convictions, not someone who bounced a check forty years ago.
All of this chaos is at least partially driven by the quotas the regime has imposed on ICE. I mean, if an immigrant is a murderer who has successfully hidden from ICE for a couple decades, they're not going to be easy to find, and ICE will find one or two of them a week.
You know who is easy to find? People checking into their flights at the airport. People turning up for their mandatory immigration status meeting. People showing up for court dates. People going to work in a sector with a lot of immigrants. Etc.
And the thing is, the people in charge knew this would happen, they expected and encouraged it to happen, they wanted it to happen this way. But by putting in quotas, it allows them distance and deniability from the actual implementation and chaos that ensues. They can go on Faux and say both, "We're going after these people with everything we have" and "Well, there was a misunderstanding about [what | how] they were supposed to do things on the ground".
A hesitant yes to this. I have two main concerns (I'm in the US). First is that protection for the workers should be paramount, and I'm not sure how that gets enforced with all the corporate fuckery that goes on. I'd give it perhaps three seconds before someone Ubers the idea, making everyone on their list an "independent contractor" and enshittifying the entire thing.
My second concern is that "game of telephone" story several years ago. Someone pointed out that in Germany, job agencies could technically require women on unemployment to apply for jobs in brothels. Again, with the current state of things, with red-pilled incels on the rise and fringe elements suggesting the government should assign them a girlfriend, I'm not sure this is something I would feel safe implementing at this time.