A major reason police officers wear uniforms is for their obvious identification as a legal law enforcement entity formally trained and endorsed by the state. While it’s generally symbolic, it is at least a basic-ass demonstration of good faith identification/adherence to the law. EVEN IF it’s just performative, it’s still at least saying their actions will be in accordance with the law, and at least implying that their intent is enforcement of that same law.

However, if they not only ditch the uniform, but even literally wear things to mask their identity, the symbolism of good-faith action and intent go out the window. Why would any reasonable person trust such a blatant disregard for clear establishment of authority figures? Furthermore, if such symbolism is reversed in such a manner, how could any reasonable person not assume ill-intent? If they’re taking away even US citizens for an indeterminate amount of time and to an indeterminate place, then wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the people that encounter law enforcement to resist by any means–even lethal means? And to further compound the problem, there were recent high-profile political murders by someone impersonating a police officer. So not only are we unable to trust legitimate police officers while they’re in uniform, we now have(admittedly weak(for now)) evidence that the uniform no longer implies good-faith intent of the person wearing it. Which leads me to one final major issue; if our confidence in officers’ law-bound behavior is shattered, and our confidence in our citizen status to ensure our rights is shattered, and our confidence in police uniforms being fairly reliable identification symbolism is shattered, then what amount of confidence is left in any law enforcement officials when they then wear clothing that is symbolically indicative of someone acting in bad faith with ill-intent? And then local law enforcement, in uniform, protect and assist alleged federal law enforcement in their very high-profile raids.

So, moral reasoning aside, it would be unwise to even engage with any law enforcement or anyone that claims to be law enforcement. They can’t be trusted and their intent is unknown. They are visibly armed with a variety of weapons and are currently engaging in illegal operations systematically–even though the confines of current law effectively gives them legal means to do whatever they want. All that said, it can reasonably argued that it’s effectively a death sentence if you get swept up by someone claiming to be law enforcement, regardless of whether or not they can be confidently identified as such. All that to say: some fed bois are gonna get smoked before the end of the year and they’ve earned it by undermining themselves in the public eye. I have extreme confidence that things will get better in the long run, but as for the foreseeable future, the worst is yet to come.

Tl;dr: Law enforcement abandoning clear uniform identification for bad-faith/ill-intent symbolism logically justifies lethal resistance. There will probably be multiple shootings of feds by the end of the year at this rate. If some alphabet feds get shot, could be claimed as a cases belli for some real bullshit.

Man, one thing that kills me is democrats perpetually eating up the rabid opposition to populism. Like, I get it, obviously establishment democrats are gonna push back since it directly affects their status, but it’s like democrats have been falling into this stupid politics as a team sport bullshit real hard in recent years, and you see it with the blanket demonization of something like populism of all things. “Like, akshuallee, the elites are good bro”. They don’t think for themselves anymore.

Man, I think we tend to see stuff like this and oversimplify it as “hUmAn BaD” without actually engaging with what’s going on. I think focusing on farmer’s interactions with the lions running into their property is much more apt than the writer realizes. While it’s true the lack of legislation, poor land management, and predator stigma are all big issues in why lions are getting killed so much in Estosha, but I think the core issue we should grapple with is our general view of living space with other animals.

In our back yard, we’re trying to do our best to cultivate a space that not only benefits us, but also the local wildlife. That means no mowing, no chasing off rabits or squirrels, planting natives, chop/drop invasives(or burning the ones that make it to seed), FUCKING LEAVE THE LEAVES, composting, etc. The attitude my spouse and I are trying to cultivate is to co-exist with the local wildlife, because it’s their home, too. I’m thinking much less about how to protect my property from them and more about considering all my neighbors. The city says it wants us to do a manicured grass lawn like everyone else “for the health and well-being of our citizens”, because the legislation was drafted with the premise of wildlife being a threat vector of disease and property damage. While we’re groaning away about the destruction of the habitats of wildlife due macroeconomic factors, we fail to see it’s manifestation in our literal backyard. Yeah, lions are being killed by humans because the lions directly threaten the farmers’ livelihood by hunting/killing their livestock, but maybe the solution isn’t merely legislation to reduce human and lion interactions with fence and shelter requirements, more zoning laws, and tracking lion movement. Maybe we can find a solution that benefits the lions since, ya know, it’s their home, too.

What if we started bringing into consideration the rights of local wildlife before drafting legislation? Where I would much rather consider the moral obligation exclusively and primarily, I should also bring up that we not only can and should have a mutually beneficial relationship with local wildlife, but we do, indeed, ultimately need them. In my backyard alone, bunnies keep eating up a bunch of invasive plants and their poop is fantastic natural fertilizer, dragonflies/damselflies keep the mosquito population in check, birds help spread seeds and keep grub worm/spider populations in check, coyotes and snakes keep the rodent and bunny population in check, isopods help break down all the poop to keep the nutrient cycle going, bacteria in the soil provide nutrients directly to the plants growing in the yard, ground-cover plants shield the soil bacteria from solar radiation that would otherwise kill them, the shrubs around or house grow deep roots to keep the soil in place around our foundation, the trees provide shade to keep ground temperatures steady and shelter for them critters, etc. The benefits from wildlife aren’t limited to distant functions like the food we eat, the materials they provide, or helping keep neature neat, you can see them right out your window-- even in the big city!

On top of that, we do have an obligation to protect local wildlife from climate change caused by the worst of our species AND we also need their help to combat climate change. While I would prefer our moral compass would be sufficient to support the argument to manage our collective approach to wildlife interactions, I cannot ignore the fact that the practical application is also an act of self-preservation for us all.

TL;DR: While local farmers protecting their livestock from lions is becoming a primary threat to lions’ existence, I think the core issue is bigger than just extinction of certain species, but the problem of framing it as “humans vs other animals” when Earth is their hometown, too.

Even shorter TL;DR: The real problem is fucking NIMBYs.

Should probably mention that the survey for this study was conducted in Australia in 2021 as an online self-report survey. It was funded by the government and the participants were selected and invited via text/email, though. I say this to contextualize more than anything else.

From reading the solutions considered as potentially effective in the paper, it would seem there’s still a big patriarchy problem for younger men in Australia. While it does show younger men had work commitments as a disproportionately higher barrier for them than older men, I wonder how much of it is typical corpo discouragement versus the “gRiNdSeT mInDsEt” bullshit getting shoved on them by those grifter finance-bros on social media. I get that it’s outside the scope of the paper, but surely things like that need more consideration in these studies if they’re looking into this for better health engagement(which is, admittedly, my assumption). I dunno, it just seems like all we’re doing is treating superficial symptoms when some of the suggestions are framing getting medical help as ‘strong rather than weak’ or that pro-active medical consultations can be framed as optimizing job performance.

Man, ‘potentially’ sure is doing some heavy lifting here. For those of you that didn’t read the article, looks like they’re talking about oxidation in the context of the introduction of outdoor ozone inside, combined with all the regular-ass pollutants from cooking, cleaning, etc. The oxidation cloud in question we produce is coming from our naturally secreted oils, which was dampened by lotions and perfumes acting as a barrier. The potentially harmful portion came from the interaction of said oxidation cloud interacting with whatever else is in the air, like what comes out of our sofa when we sit on it. It would seem to be that it’s only potentially harmful because we haven’t really studied these interactions that much yet. You’d be just as correct in saying it’s potentially beneficial.

The real news to me is that we haven’t really studied stuff like this that much. I would have assumed we would have studied the health effects of indoor air from this kind of source many times before, but I usually forget that I tend to severely overestimate the patience researchers have for controlling a variety of highly specific variables. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Tensions within the GOP are growing, with hawkish Republicans supporting Waltz and Trump loyalists opposing him.

Fuckin gottem.