The Wordsmith&#39;s Forge

Picture Simon and Tolliver dancing in the kitchen. *G*

From:

I expect that Terramagne would've reached that achievement sooner, but yeah, Simon and Tolli would love it. :D

From:

My head canon is that the DADT approach was outright overturned as a violation of civil rights by 2015-16, right under three years in practice. I expect that challenging the law happened immediately, but it took that long for the case to wind through the courts system(s).

From:

I think DADT was overturned earlier than that. I was still in the military, and I retired in 2011.

From:

I'll research the actual dates. The point I was making is that it would have been challenged as unconstitutional faster in Terramagne because they're generally saner than our culture. (Sigh.)

Also, thank you for your service.

From:

Yes but Terramagne doesn’t actually exist.

From:

Next, you'll say that Wakanda isn't real.

(smirk)

From:

Of course Wakanda is real. I’ve been there.

From:

I think I'm jealous. *G*

From:

Lucky you.

I've been to Terramagne. I bring back the most portable of what is best about it -- things that can be implemented here with extant materials. I suppose if I was an engineer I'd bring back different things. I can describe a lot more than I can construct personally though, sometimes well enough that someone skilled in a field can make it.

Where it gets really interesting is that my worldwalking seems to create a path. Once I've described a place thoroughly enough, it gets to where other people can visit the same place -- and notice things I knew about but have not described. If you watch the handful of other folks writing in my settings, you can spot examples of it.

Though I'd call it more impressive to get through Wakanda's truly epic shields, because the damn things cover every dimension. Nothing gets in without that key, or someone letting them in.

From:

Locks don’t hold an honest man.

From:

chanter1944

I saw this! I said oh my gosh! or something similar (I don't honestly remember which delightedly surprised interjection I used), while standing at a public bus stop. XD

From:

Idle curiosity leads me to wonder...

Are they going to reimburse all the people who lost tuition?

Also, will anyone who was discharged be required to re-enlist to access the benefits?

From:

If your discharge is upgraded, you are then eligible for whatever benefits come with the improved discharge. It could also make a difference in applying for jobs, especially gov't jobs.
Someone could try to sue about the tuition, but would be a long and doubtful process. It's a pardon, not a retroactive change.
As for re-enlisting, it would depend if you are currently eligible to re-enlist (age, physical status, criminal record, etc).

From:

That makes the news even BETTER! Sure, I'm thinking that the vast majority affected directly have missed the window, but those among the last should have the option, given otherwise qualifying for enlistment, if that's the career they wanted most and had to give up.

From:

1. Good.

2. It doesn't seem, well, sporting to me that someone could have ended up thousands of dollars in debt when they held up their end of the bargain. And paying back that money could make a big difference to a lot of people.

3. I guess at the very least, I'd hope that they'd pay expenses up until the time of discharge. Then someone who could re-enlist or be reemployed might be eligible to have the rest paid off if they want to rejoin.

I'mm not military myself, so I might be missing some nuances (nevermind government regulations, ugh) but cultural differences aside, I do think that people ought to be treated fairly and with respect.

From:

I agree about treating people “fairly and with respect,” as a philosophical, or guiding concept. That having been said, even if law and/or regulation do try to follow those guiding concepts, as a practical matter, they have to have things laid out, chapter and verse, with specific language. Even though most people rail against that as being “obstructionist bureaucracy,” in fact, no one would actually be happy with handing power to a bureaucrat/gov’t employee, with the instructions of “just do whatever seems fair to you."

From:

People do have an amazing tendency to exploit loopholes, don't we?

I can concede that the whole chapter-and-verse thing makes sense, though I do wish that:

a) legalese were easier to read for laypeople, or at least had a summary at the end of key sections and

b) legal things had an explanation somewhere, which ideally would make it easier to understand why something is in place and if it is still working.

>>...no one would actually be happy with handing power to a bureaucrat/gov’t employee, with the instructions of “just do whatever seems fair to you.">>

Yeah, that would be a horrible idea. There still has to be a better idea then strict adherence to regulations, scripts and forms, though. At the very least, there should be an option to flag stuff for review by another person.

From:

>>People do have an amazing tendency to exploit loopholes, don't we?<<

Laws are like rope: the longer and more elaborate they get, the easier it becomes to escape. If you make a list of things not to do, then anything not on the list is seen as acceptable -- and you can never list everything.

>> a) legalese were easier to read for laypeople, or at least had a summary at the end of key sections and <<

Yeah, it mostly exists to cheat people and force them to pay a lawyer. That's a problem.

>> b) legal things had an explanation somewhere, which ideally would make it easier to understand why something is in place and if it is still working.<<

If a law doesn't have a justification for why it exists, it shouldn't exist.

>>There still has to be a better idea then strict adherence to regulations, scripts and forms, though. At the very least, there should be an option to flag stuff for review by another person.<<

Without regulations, it's up to individuals. If you find an unhelpful person, they have no obligation to meet your needs; but if you find a helpful person, they are free to do whatever will meet your needs.

With regulations, you get exactly what some important person says is to be provided, regardless of whether it meets your needs. Mean people often exult in being able to say, "I did what the law requires, be grateful." It is illegal to meet needs that differ from the law; you have no right to actually getting your needs met. In one particularly egregious case, someone needed an adaptive toilet seat. The landlord bought one that was completely wrong, but had met the requirements of the law -- it didn't say the adaptive equipment had to work for the person in need, only that it had to fall within specific legal parameters. The tenant had no recourse to obtain a usable toilet.

What we really need is a law that says reasonable accommodations must be made, lists options that are commonly helpful, and then allows for other accommodations at the written request of the person in need not someone society cares more about. It would also be a good idea for large organizations to keep a stock of common adaptive equipment like universal handles or adjustable chairs and desks. Also sizes should be in a range, from children through average adults to large adults. So then, if a big-and-tall men's store needed a bench in the disabled fitting room that was 2" taller than the standard maximum, they could do that; but under current law they could not.

For example, here is a list of disabilities and accommodations. You should be able to go to a list like that and pick things you think would help -- but also, if you think of something different, be able to request that instead. Nobody should be locked into someone else's idea of what they "deserve."

From:

>>If you make a list of things not to do, then anything not on the list is seen as acceptable -- and you can never list everything.<<

Hence the 'average person' and 'use common sense' clauses some places have. Although I do recall a funny story about legalese lists...

>>If a law doesn't have a justification for why it exists, it shouldn't exist.<<

Point, though I was thinking more that there's a ton of seemingly-stupid rules posted on all sorts of things, and plenty of laws that are seemingly nonsensical. Like, "Don't get the moose drunk" seems ridiculous, until you realize that a) someone has to fish drunken moose out of the neighborhood swimming pool and b) doing just about anything with a moose, much less a drunk one /really sucks/.

I think the moose thing is a real law somewhere, but I'm not sure. For real laws, I do know why it is illegal to carry an ice-cream in one's pocket, but I have never heard a satisfactory explanation for why it is illegal to hunt whales in Oregon.

>>The landlord bought one that was completely wrong, but had met the requirements of the law -- it didn't say the adaptive equipment had to work for the person in need, only that it had to fall within specific legal parameters. The tenant had no recourse to obtain a usable toilet.<<

That is stupid. I guess the only solutions there would be a) sue or b) but and install the correct seat oneself.

>>...lists options that are commonly helpful, and then allows for other accommodations at the written request of the person in need not someone society cares more about.<<

In theory [my understanding of workplace law] is that there should be a dialogue to find a reasonable accommodation. In practice, it doesn't always work as well as I'd like.

>>Also sizes should be in a range, from children through average adults to large adults.<<

Look at Shaker furniture - I think instructions for the carpentry often include multiple sizes, kid-to-adult. You'd probably get similar results in any similarly community oriented culture.

>>So then, if a big-and-tall men's store needed a bench in the disabled fitting room that was 2" taller than the standard maximum, they could do that; but under current law they could not.;;

In a pinch, try to add a cushion or wooden plank or something to add the extra height.

The other way around (a too tall seating arrangement for a tiny person) try using a footstool (or sturdy box) of an appropriate height such that the persons feet arent dangling over the abyss.

From:

fyreharper

Re: illegal to hunt whales in Oregon - I know whales have swim up the delta into the Sacramento River before. I’m sure they occasionally get lost-or-adventurous ones in the Columbia. And I’m not sure exactly how jurisdiction works along the coastlines, but I expect some amount of ocean is also under Oregon’s control…

From:

It's amazing how small of a space they can fit into and how agile they are in the water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvGCF-K8SiQ

From:

The problem with a pardon is that it's not a statement of wrongful conviction. It says you're excused for doing wrong, not that you never did anything wrong. Better than nothing, but often insufficient as it allows some damage to stand.

From:

With this whole situation, I'd say that ideally the conviction - or whatever other appropriate term, I am not a lawyer - should be completely removed, and any disadvantages received from the conviction (debt, reputation, etc) should be mended.

From:

Ideally, yes, but in that case they usually say "expunged" rather than "pardoned."

T-America has an additional version: "cleared" means the relationship with society has been repaired. It's a common outcome, and a lot of what adjudicators do is aimed at that. Going to court is for people who can't solve their own problems, or don't care.

From: