Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

https://thehill.com/business/3934301-new-cars-have-become-luxury-items/

 

I noticed this myself, altho in my case, some of this is, I'd really prefer my next car to be electric.  

 

Some of this is Rampaging Featuritis, as it's called in software.  The perceived requirement to throw everything under the sun in.  Collision avoidance systems aren't high end any more, I don't think.  Connectivity options are still, I think, in non-basic trim packages...but they're more common.  I'm not saying they're Bad Things...but they cost money.  And I'm not even including features required by government regs, per se...that's a separate, albeit related, point.

 

Another factor is, small cars just Don't Do Well in this country.  There are some safety concerns, OK, but Americans love their big iron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a line in that story that's particularly significant to me...not to discount the rest, but this resonates:

 

Quote

 “The purpose of this blog is to give voice to an alternative to the dominant <X> and medical paradigm"

 

Their X is trans-activist...a negative-laden buzz term trying to shape perception.  But it's not necessary.  It could be removed.  "An alternative to the medical paradigm" is a double-red hurricane flag for Lying, Manipulation, Fraud, and Disinformation Ahead!  

 

This has been the far right approach to anything that fits outside their worldview, over the last 10-ish years in particular.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

https://thehill.com/business/3934301-new-cars-have-become-luxury-items/

 

I noticed this myself, altho in my case, some of this is, I'd really prefer my next car to be electric.  

 

Some of this is Rampaging Featuritis, as it's called in software.  The perceived requirement to throw everything under the sun in.  Collision avoidance systems aren't high end any more, I don't think.  Connectivity options are still, I think, in non-basic trim packages...but they're more common.  I'm not saying they're Bad Things...but they cost money.  And I'm not even including features required by government regs, per se...that's a separate, albeit related, point.

 

Another factor is, small cars just Don't Do Well in this country.  There are some safety concerns, OK, but Americans love their big iron.


I’ll need to get a car in the next year or so, the timing is not ideal. I’m also likely going to be getting a pickup truck, given that I spend at least 3 weekends each month up near Kyburz in El Dorado County and there are 4-5 months per year that 4 wheel drive is very desirable with snow and off highway conditions. Electric is not prudent given that factor, just yet.
 

It’s going to hurt my finances, for sure.

 

 Edit: I currently drive a 2008 Honda Fit, which is great for parking in the city and absolutely terrible multiple weekends each month. I’ll be providing that beauty to my son, for which I expect his eternal gratitude.

Edited by Iuz the Evil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bill is here, or search for Florida SB 150
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/150/BillText/c1/PDF

 

Key points:

--a GREAT deal of text about guardian programs in schools.  Lots about the training involved.

--anyone who is licensed to carry a firearm, or who passes the criteria to be licensed, is allowed to carry concealed.  The criteria include passing a gun safety course...but the wording allows just a basic course to be sufficient.  (that's down at line 667.)  

--there is no requirement for a background check before issuing a CC permit.

--anyone may carry concealed into a church...but the church, it appears, can ban guns.  (starts at line 834)

--if you have a CC permit, there is no wait period for buying firearms

 

BTW:  the "shameful" refers to how the White House referred to the bill.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2023 at 12:48 AM, unclevlad said:

 

It gets worse.  Not just committee assignments.

https://wpln.org/post/republicans-bar-three-democrats-from-committees-following-their-gun-control-protest-on-tennessee-house-floor/

 

If the Republicans oust them, I have to think this'll go to the state Supreme Court, because this feels utterly unjustified.  It shows, tho, that at least here, at least some of the Republicans don't care about democracy.  

Didnt I just read that they managed to make this worse by enacting punishment on two black men and not on the white woman who engaged in the very same activity?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/06/tennessee-gun-control-protest-house-expel-democrats

🤔

Edited by Doc Democracy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

BTW:  the "shameful" refers to how the White House referred to the bill.  

 

I know, but they still chose to put it into the headline, thus showing their bias.

 

I mean, I'm from Florida, so I know what a bad idea it is to arm more Floridians, trust me. I just found the obvious slant funny. It seems like subtlety has been abandoned, and nobody in the media really cares about putting up the facade of impartiality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I know, but they still chose to put it into the headline, thus showing their bias.

 

I mean, I'm from Florida, so I know what a bad idea it is to arm more Floridians, trust me. I just found the obvious slant funny. It seems like subtlety has been abandoned, and nobody in the media really cares about putting up the facade of impartiality.

 

It's in quotation marks, showing it's referring to someone else's remarks (White House press secretary, which makes it an official statement and hence news-worthy). It's absolutely click bait, but the article itself is mostly factual and dispassionate. Also quite short, so no room for opinioning.

Edited by Lord Liaden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

It's in quotation marks, showing it's referring to someone else's remarks

 

Thanks, I didn't know what those little curly marks around words meant. 😁

 

(TBH, I was being a bit unfair to the author, b/c the headlines are often not written by the person writing the article. But the obvious click-baity, biased headline is still annoying.)

Edited by Pattern Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas rules that the FDA's approval of mifepristone, a drug used to induce abortions, is invalid.

 

In Washington, another judge ordered sales to continue.

 

There's always been "shopping for judges"...but it only seems to get worse.

 

The drug in question isn't new;  the first challenge to it came in 2002.  The FDA's rejected 2 separate attempts to recall it, calling them unfounded, and the GAO found no irregularities in the processes involved, according to NYT.  It appears there's no medical basis for the Texas action...which just begs the question, well, what OTHER drugs will they object to?  We can't even pooh-pooh that concern as groundless, in the face of actions like the Tennessee Republicans trying to boot 3 Democrats, or more close to home, the Texas abortion ban.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years back, I asked a couple of lawyer friends what they knew about candidates for WA Supreme Court. One, an activist with no judicial experience, said she wanted a place on the Court to "be an advocate for minorities and the poor." One of my friends put it this way: "She literally does not understand the job she's applying for. A judge isn't supposed to be an advocate; a judge is who you advocate to."

 

That now seems naive.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas rules that the FDA's approval of mifepristone, a drug used to induce abortions, is invalid.

 

In Washington, another judge ordered sales to continue.

 

There's always been "shopping for judges"...but it only seems to get worse.

 

The drug in question isn't new;  the first challenge to it came in 2002.  The FDA's rejected 2 separate attempts to recall it, calling them unfounded, and the GAO found no irregularities in the processes involved, according to NYT.  It appears there's no medical basis for the Texas action...which just begs the question, well, what OTHER drugs will they object to?  We can't even pooh-pooh that concern as groundless, in the face of actions like the Tennessee Republicans trying to boot 3 Democrats, or more close to home, the Texas abortion ban.  


When this case is appealed it will be heard by the Trump-appointed 5th Circuit, and from there to the Trump-appointed Supreme Court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonian.com/2023/04/07/clarence-thomass-billionaire-benefactor-collects-hitler-artifacts/

 

Quote

When Republican megadonor Harlan Crow isn’t lavishing Justice Clarence Thomas with free trips on his private plane and yacht (in possible violation of Supreme Court ethics rules), he lives a quiet life in Dallas among his historical collections. These collections include Hitler artifacts—two of his paintings of European cityscapes, a signed copy of Mein Kampf, and assorted Nazi memorabilia—plus a garden full of statues of the 20th century’s worst despots.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...