Would it be possible to construct a building that has four sides of apartments surrounding a central spiraling stairwell, but the stairwell is also adjacent to a conventional emergency stairwell that can be entered from every floor of the central stairwell? You would have to shrink all the apartments on one side of a building to make room for it, but I can see the layout in my head. Furthermore, you could connect another tower of apartments to the same emergency stairwell.
This just reads like a bipolar person recounting their various episodes, presenting themselves as the victim when others get tired of them being obnoxiously confrontational and blaming everyone but themselves despite all the drama they somehow attract, as if by magnetism.
I think jurisdiction and the choice of prosecutor and judge do more to explain the incredible discrepancies we see in the mess that is the American justice system. You have to be very careful when contrasting different cases in different areas—there are so many cases and so many outcomes that it's very easy to cherrypick any two to make any point you want. Two examples:
The son of multimillionaire entrepreneur James Khuri killed a woman while speedracing his Lamborghini through Los Angeles. He was sentenced to serve a pathetic seven to nine months not in prison but in a youth camp and home detention.
On the other hand, Cameron Herrin killed a mother and her baby while speedracing his Mustang through the streets of Tampa—he was sentenced to twenty-four years in prison.
They're the same age. They're both rich. They're both white boys. They were both speedracing. And yet their sentences could not be more different. Frankly, it sounds like California is just soft-on-crime when it comes to vehicular offenses.
In the case of the Cuban truck driver, he was railroaded by local sentencing laws that forced the judge to sentence him to consecutive terms for each individual victim. Even the prosecutor in that case is now filing motions to get his sentence reduced.
>Intel joined other prominent U.S. companies Monday pledging to do more to address systemic racism in the wake of the killing of an African-American man, George Floyd, by a police officer in Minneapolis.
>“Black lives matter. Period,” CEO Bob Swan wrote in a memo to employees Monday, embracing the rallying cry of contemporary civil rights activists. “While racism can look very different around the world, one thing that does not look different is that racism of any kind will not be tolerated here at Intel or in our communities.”
I do feel like we're reliving the seventies in more than one—among them, crime, inflation, the end of an unpopular war, the rise of social and racial movements, and the Nixonian backlash against them. Biden makes for a very credible Carter, and who is Trump if not Nixon? But while the seventies saw a backlash against the sixties, it was not a defeat for the forces of the new social movements. They regrouped and consolidated their victories in many other ways. They organized minorities and fought for their rights through the courts, they graduated and became the educators of future generations, they staffed the philanthropic foundations, and they entered the culture industry. They accomplished all this despite how much the majorities that gave Nixon and Reagan their overwhelming victories never wanted any of it.
We may have seen the end of the most noisy and obnoxious phase of wokeness, but its aims may very well survive in a more mature and effective form.
So, are societies allowed to maintain any standards at all if it can be argued that the maintenance of standards has disparate impacts on racialized bodies?