glennhiggins.bsky.social
@glennhiggins.bsky.social
Combat Cosplay Barbie thinks that putting on the "Nazi Bitch" costume is just another media shoot. Much to her surprise, it's taken seriously. Deadly seriously.
January 14, 2026 at 12:01 AM
Combat Cosplay Barbie thinks that putting on the "Nazi Bitch" costume is just another media shoot. Much to her surprise, it's taken seriously. Deadly seriously.
Well, that clears the way for a state investigation.
January 13, 2026 at 11:59 PM
Well, that clears the way for a state investigation.
I'm going to guess that a lot of other genre music with a slight 'Christian' slant is now being characterized as 'Christian music'. No real change, just a blurring of where the lines are drawn.
December 24, 2025 at 11:15 PM
I'm going to guess that a lot of other genre music with a slight 'Christian' slant is now being characterized as 'Christian music'. No real change, just a blurring of where the lines are drawn.
Consideration of ANY drug's effects is not ridiculous. From aspirin to ricin, we need to know EXACTLY what these drugs do. This allows us to use them effectively and safely, or at least as safe as possible.
December 6, 2025 at 1:04 PM
Consideration of ANY drug's effects is not ridiculous. From aspirin to ricin, we need to know EXACTLY what these drugs do. This allows us to use them effectively and safely, or at least as safe as possible.
I'm in favor of making corporations answer to the stakeholders, not just the shareholders. This allows more 'humane' corporations to exist without legal and fiduciary challenges from greedy shareholders.
November 27, 2025 at 2:17 AM
I'm in favor of making corporations answer to the stakeholders, not just the shareholders. This allows more 'humane' corporations to exist without legal and fiduciary challenges from greedy shareholders.
Three points to rein in corporations:
1. Corporations are NOT persons. They have no inherent rights, only what we give them.
2. All political contributions are public back to the source of the cash.
3. Corporations must consider the rights of all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
1. Corporations are NOT persons. They have no inherent rights, only what we give them.
2. All political contributions are public back to the source of the cash.
3. Corporations must consider the rights of all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
November 27, 2025 at 1:43 AM
Three points to rein in corporations:
1. Corporations are NOT persons. They have no inherent rights, only what we give them.
2. All political contributions are public back to the source of the cash.
3. Corporations must consider the rights of all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
1. Corporations are NOT persons. They have no inherent rights, only what we give them.
2. All political contributions are public back to the source of the cash.
3. Corporations must consider the rights of all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
We need to remove 'corporate personhood'. A corporation is NOT a person, does not automatically receive ANY rights, and has no claim to the First Amendment. As an artificial legal construct, it should have just the rights we want it to have, and no more.
November 27, 2025 at 1:40 AM
We need to remove 'corporate personhood'. A corporation is NOT a person, does not automatically receive ANY rights, and has no claim to the First Amendment. As an artificial legal construct, it should have just the rights we want it to have, and no more.
They're not bothering to hide the corruption. They want THIS to be the new "business as usual" so that they can keep stealing under Democrats.
November 15, 2025 at 2:36 PM
They're not bothering to hide the corruption. They want THIS to be the new "business as usual" so that they can keep stealing under Democrats.
A “catastrophe” is a disaster or imminent disaster involving violent or sudden event affecting the public.
Yeah, Kimmel didn't break THAT law.
Yeah, Kimmel didn't break THAT law.
September 22, 2025 at 4:04 PM
A “catastrophe” is a disaster or imminent disaster involving violent or sudden event affecting the public.
Yeah, Kimmel didn't break THAT law.
Yeah, Kimmel didn't break THAT law.
The public harm will be deemed foreseeable if the licensee could expect with a significant degree of certainty that public harm would occur. A “crime” is any act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law.
(cont)
(cont)
September 22, 2025 at 4:03 PM
The public harm will be deemed foreseeable if the licensee could expect with a significant degree of certainty that public harm would occur. A “crime” is any act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law.
(cont)
(cont)
(c) For purposes of this rule, “public harm” must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.
(cont)
(cont)
September 22, 2025 at 4:03 PM
(c) For purposes of this rule, “public harm” must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.
(cont)
(cont)
(b) Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances.
September 22, 2025 at 4:02 PM
(b) Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances.
(2) It is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm, and
(3) Broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.
(cont)
(3) Broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.
(cont)
September 22, 2025 at 4:02 PM
(2) It is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm, and
(3) Broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.
(cont)
(3) Broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.
(cont)
Sounds convincing, right? But here's the ACTUAL Federal Code.
73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.
(a) No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if:
(1) The licensee knows this information is false;
(cont)
73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.
(a) No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if:
(1) The licensee knows this information is false;
(cont)
September 22, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Sounds convincing, right? But here's the ACTUAL Federal Code.
73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.
(a) No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if:
(1) The licensee knows this information is false;
(cont)
73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.
(a) No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if:
(1) The licensee knows this information is false;
(cont)
"47 CRF 73.1217 No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe." (cont)
September 22, 2025 at 3:59 PM
"47 CRF 73.1217 No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe." (cont)
I considered that it might have been. To my thinking, the getaway is where we'd find out if it were a professional job. He just wouldn't be found quickly, if ever. As the details emerged, it looked less and less professional.
September 17, 2025 at 1:29 AM
I considered that it might have been. To my thinking, the getaway is where we'd find out if it were a professional job. He just wouldn't be found quickly, if ever. As the details emerged, it looked less and less professional.
They'll use her as a figurehead as long as the money is coming in. Once she and Charlie fade from the headlines, she'll be replaced by a man, and retired to a safe 'supporting' role. The patriarchy uses women, it doesn't give them power.
September 17, 2025 at 1:26 AM
They'll use her as a figurehead as long as the money is coming in. Once she and Charlie fade from the headlines, she'll be replaced by a man, and retired to a safe 'supporting' role. The patriarchy uses women, it doesn't give them power.
If you're not a part of hunting culture, you tend to forget that hunters can acquire a significant amount of expertise even as an amateur. It does not directly translate to combat expertise, but there is a lot of overlap.
September 16, 2025 at 12:57 PM
If you're not a part of hunting culture, you tend to forget that hunters can acquire a significant amount of expertise even as an amateur. It does not directly translate to combat expertise, but there is a lot of overlap.
What's the saying? "When you make protest illegal, you make revolution inevitable". The man who's bring back company towns is also trying to get rid of unions.
For someone who's wealth is based on highly flammable products, he's really pissing off a lot of people.
For someone who's wealth is based on highly flammable products, he's really pissing off a lot of people.
August 21, 2025 at 7:29 PM
What's the saying? "When you make protest illegal, you make revolution inevitable". The man who's bring back company towns is also trying to get rid of unions.
For someone who's wealth is based on highly flammable products, he's really pissing off a lot of people.
For someone who's wealth is based on highly flammable products, he's really pissing off a lot of people.
Since a lot of US citizens are moderates, that sounds like appropriate representation for a 'big tent' party.
August 15, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Since a lot of US citizens are moderates, that sounds like appropriate representation for a 'big tent' party.
And what actions will you take when you are no longer 'playing nice'? Remember, you still have to govern effectively or it's just wasted effort.
August 15, 2025 at 10:49 AM
And what actions will you take when you are no longer 'playing nice'? Remember, you still have to govern effectively or it's just wasted effort.
That's not a plan, that's an aspiration, a goal. Now tell me how you're going to get there.
Here's an idea: politics is a combination of actions and messaging. You need both, and they have to complement each other to be a successful politician. What are you actions, your messaging?
Here's an idea: politics is a combination of actions and messaging. You need both, and they have to complement each other to be a successful politician. What are you actions, your messaging?
August 15, 2025 at 10:46 AM
That's not a plan, that's an aspiration, a goal. Now tell me how you're going to get there.
Here's an idea: politics is a combination of actions and messaging. You need both, and they have to complement each other to be a successful politician. What are you actions, your messaging?
Here's an idea: politics is a combination of actions and messaging. You need both, and they have to complement each other to be a successful politician. What are you actions, your messaging?
Start a study to determine the optimum size of a deliberative body of representatives in a democratic government. We already have evidence that too small lacks representation for minority groups, but too big can't get anything done effectively or quickly. It's likely that there's a sweet spot.
August 11, 2025 at 3:34 PM
Start a study to determine the optimum size of a deliberative body of representatives in a democratic government. We already have evidence that too small lacks representation for minority groups, but too big can't get anything done effectively or quickly. It's likely that there's a sweet spot.
Start a study to determine the 'ideal' ratio of citizen to representative. If there is no one answer, how do we calculate this ideal ratio for different circumstances? This tells us how many representatives we need for functional representation at a given level of democratic government.
August 11, 2025 at 3:32 PM
Start a study to determine the 'ideal' ratio of citizen to representative. If there is no one answer, how do we calculate this ideal ratio for different circumstances? This tells us how many representatives we need for functional representation at a given level of democratic government.