TrickstaPriest

My wife is home. She has a heart murmur (in one of the lower chambers of the heart) which they don't think is terribly serious and which in any case, they don't want to deal with right now. She is still having trouble breathing. They wanted to put her in a breath rehabilitation center, which functionally is like a nursing home.
 
My response to that amounted to, "Seriously? In the middle of a pandemic where being in a nursing home is close to a death sentence?"
 
They instead taught her some of the breathing exercises (which she'd already been taught a number of times before) then sent her home.
 
A CAT scan showed shadows on her lungs which makes them think that she was on the verge of developing pneumonia before they hit her with antibiotics. They did blood testing looking for some factors which usually show up in COVID patients just before they get seriously ill but didn't find any. That's as much or more of a relief to the doctors as getting a couple of negative COVID tests.
 
My daughter is still at home in isolation with COVID. She can't shake the cough she has but she isn't having shortness of breath all the time like she was. I'll take that as a good sign rather than the calm before the storm.
 
Thanks for all the prayers and good thoughts sent in our direction.

It's reasonably easy to remove or replace the firing pin on most modern weapons. It does not require a gunsmith or special tools (or, frequently, any tools). I suspect that the condition of the gun would be ruled inadmissable, because there is no way to confirm that it hadn't been changed between the incident and when it was turned over to the police.

I just read the article, including the documentation. I don't see any malfeasance. The crime lab clearly documented the condition the firearm was received in, and investigated why it couldn't be fired. They then reassembled it to see if it could be made to fire.
 
Though I wouldn't consider removing the firing pin "field stripping," that's splitting hairs. (It's not too hard to get at on a PPK/S anyway.)
 
In any event, as Bolo points out, their attorney turned over the gun after the fact. It's hardly valid evidence at this point,  as the defendants have had ample opportunity to tamper with it.

Yes. But that's when he was still treading lightly, wanting to signal support for white nationalists who are part of the base of support he cobbled together, while not completely alienating liberals and provoking a backlash. But by this point Trump has abandoned all pretense of even-handedness. He's decided to fire up his base by openly characterizing the liberal Left as radical, destructive enemies of the American people and way of life. Which he all but proclaims are embodied in himself.
 
The man is clearly frightened and desperate. It would be pathetic if it wasn't so dangerous.

I hate to give you hell, but let me point out that your way of thinking will get at least 5-10% of the entire population hospitalized.
 
Please consider what that means.

Texas has been getting hammered these last few weeks.
 
Dotted line is the national average.  Even here in suburbia the death rate has climbed.
 
It's good to see the hospitalization rate flatten out.  Hopefully the death rate won't lag too far behind.
 
School starts in 26 days.  😐
 
 

Went through a whole cycle of getting sick early last week.  Right after visiting elderly parent.  It hit very hard, went to get tested... already largely feeling better, no idea on test results.  No idea if it spread, but doesn't look like it... will know around the time I get the results.  >_>

That’s the power of selective coverage. Corporate media will always gravitate to whatever footage is exciting. On top of that certain stations go far out of their way to show only violence perpetuated by minority civilians, and then give plenty of air time to self-serving messages from law enforcement. As always the biggest casualty is the truth. 

Update: my wife tested negative for COVID. The doctor doesn't have confidence in that result so he's going to do at least two more tests over the next few days. She still can't breathe well so they're not sending her home but they moved her out of the COVID section of the hospital. They can now give her nebulizer treatments (inhaled medicines), they don't give those treatments in the COVID area because it tends to make the virus airborne.
 
They also think they've detected a heart murmur so they're checking that out. Her cardiologist and her other fairly recent stays in the hospital over the last couple of years haven't detected anything like that but, who knows?
 
She's a lot less stressed after testing negative for COVID. Now it's just like any other stay in the hospital because she can't breathe except that family can't stay with her..

IMO believing an election will happen is the difference between faith in justice and the rule of law, and despair and descending into genuine anarchy. I'm not willing to give up on the former, not unless and until I see it fail.

In high school, I (briefly) dated a narcissist (and his equally problematic mother).  They would absolutely refuse to wear seat belts.  Said mother screamed at me when I put mine on.
 
"Wassamatter?!  You don't trust my driving?!"
 
"I don't trust ANYONE driving!"

I mean, I'm waiting on confirmation on that, not that I expect it'll be that hard...
 
More to the point of what I was stating.  Let's say the 'grabbings' are motivated by what the protesters are doing.
 
They are still grabbing people off the street without identifying themselves, providing charges, or reading rights, not charging them ever, and releasing them the minute there's an actual legal issue about it.
 
How is this supposed to help deal with the 'anarchists'?
 
Again, the entire thing is explicitly what creates these protests to begin with!
 
But I want to introduce a different frame.
 
Please, if you are trying to act in the government's defense, remember what it is you are defending here.  You are explicitly defending the right of the Federal government to grab people unannounced for no apparent legal purpose outside of any legal framework or local authority.  Please, again, consider what it is you are defending here.
 
If these people were considered terrorists, insurgents, there would be charges.  There would be some action.  There would be video tapes.  There would be tracking.  Do we believe the government was somehow able to identify who they wanted to grab without the evidence to charge them?
 
The alternative is the scenario that they don't seem to care.  That is not how the most powerful government in the world should operate, unless you wish it to operate with unchecked impunity.

I won't simply say 'the DHS memo should be ignored'.  I'm all for fact-checking the heck out of any and all official documentation that comes from the government.  Act on information, not on belief.
 
The issue with 'fact checking' is there's investigative and scientific.  Scientific details are easily fact-checked because, you know, they are repeatable.
 
Investigative fact checking involves a record.  And the integrity and completeness of that record becomes very important.  It's interpretive, and selective cuts of information can provide wildly different interpretations.
 
This is why I err on the side of examining the known endemic problems with the police, and push conversations in the direction of resolutions.  I also suggest knowing the tactics used in these protest situations (by the police, by protesters, by looters), and what they accomplish.
 
These are things you can take away from this situation _before_ you get into the details of what's going on.  This knowledge will arm you to better understand the context of these situations.
 
And maybe I can stop seeing conversations that start with "they all deserve it they're all rioters anyway"

I mean, I'm waiting on confirmation on that, not that I expect it'll be that hard...
 
More to the point of what I was stating.  Let's say the 'grabbings' are motivated by what the protesters are doing.
 
They are still grabbing people off the street without identifying themselves, providing charges, or reading rights, not charging them ever, and releasing them the minute there's an actual legal issue about it.
 
How is this supposed to help deal with the 'anarchists'?
 
Again, the entire thing is explicitly what creates these protests to begin with!
 
But I want to introduce a different frame.
 
Please, if you are trying to act in the government's defense, remember what it is you are defending here.  You are explicitly defending the right of the Federal government to grab people unannounced for no apparent legal purpose outside of any legal framework or local authority.  Please, again, consider what it is you are defending here.
 
If these people were considered terrorists, insurgents, there would be charges.  There would be some action.  There would be video tapes.  There would be tracking.  Do we believe the government was somehow able to identify who they wanted to grab without the evidence to charge them?
 
The alternative is the scenario that they don't seem to care.  That is not how the most powerful government in the world should operate, unless you wish it to operate with unchecked impunity.

I mean, I'm waiting on confirmation on that, not that I expect it'll be that hard...
 
More to the point of what I was stating.  Let's say the 'grabbings' are motivated by what the protesters are doing.
 
They are still grabbing people off the street without identifying themselves, providing charges, or reading rights, not charging them ever, and releasing them the minute there's an actual legal issue about it.
 
How is this supposed to help deal with the 'anarchists'?
 
Again, the entire thing is explicitly what creates these protests to begin with!
 
But I want to introduce a different frame.
 
Please, if you are trying to act in the government's defense, remember what it is you are defending here.  You are explicitly defending the right of the Federal government to grab people unannounced for no apparent legal purpose outside of any legal framework or local authority.  Please, again, consider what it is you are defending here.
 
If these people were considered terrorists, insurgents, there would be charges.  There would be some action.  There would be video tapes.  There would be tracking.  Do we believe the government was somehow able to identify who they wanted to grab without the evidence to charge them?
 
The alternative is the scenario that they don't seem to care.  That is not how the most powerful government in the world should operate, unless you wish it to operate with unchecked impunity.

I mean, I'm waiting on confirmation on that, not that I expect it'll be that hard...
 
More to the point of what I was stating.  Let's say the 'grabbings' are motivated by what the protesters are doing.
 
They are still grabbing people off the street without identifying themselves, providing charges, or reading rights, not charging them ever, and releasing them the minute there's an actual legal issue about it.
 
How is this supposed to help deal with the 'anarchists'?
 
Again, the entire thing is explicitly what creates these protests to begin with!
 
But I want to introduce a different frame.
 
Please, if you are trying to act in the government's defense, remember what it is you are defending here.  You are explicitly defending the right of the Federal government to grab people unannounced for no apparent legal purpose outside of any legal framework or local authority.  Please, again, consider what it is you are defending here.
 
If these people were considered terrorists, insurgents, there would be charges.  There would be some action.  There would be video tapes.  There would be tracking.  Do we believe the government was somehow able to identify who they wanted to grab without the evidence to charge them?
 
The alternative is the scenario that they don't seem to care.  That is not how the most powerful government in the world should operate, unless you wish it to operate with unchecked impunity.

IIRC, the Chaz/Chop was literally cut off of supplies.  Consider the Fyre Festival for an example of how that goes...
 
edit:  There are places that spend a lot less on their police forces, or weapons, and places that have a much better balancing of how their society operates around its needs.  Police shouldn't be the be-all-end-all, and it's a definite problem that it's become so strong as to be a literal standing army in every major location in the country 😕
 
 
My main point of contention is the counter to complaints of repeated graffiti on government buildings is escalation to kidnapping people off the street as if to threaten a literal lack of due process.  It's the communication that "we are willing to ignore the laws for any of you, and since we aren't charging someone we don't seem to care who we do it to".  (edit: There are more serious crimes on the list, I know, I address it briefly at the end)
 
There are strategies to deal with repeated damage to federal property without literally doubling the protest or creating their own insurgency scenario. 
 
But honestly ScottishFox, as with "Kettling" tactics, it really seems like the point is to create an "violent anarchist uprising" so they can crush and kill and point at it.  The violent end is the objective of tactics like this.  It's how it's employed in places like Israel.  That's the problem I have here.
 
As for the violent antagonists, well-organized protesters have been shown and video-taped as turning those people over to the police.  Even shoving them into a police line.  This is why protest leadership is needed, not discouraged.

IIRC, the Chaz/Chop was literally cut off of supplies.  Consider the Fyre Festival for an example of how that goes...
 
edit:  There are places that spend a lot less on their police forces, or weapons, and places that have a much better balancing of how their society operates around its needs.  Police shouldn't be the be-all-end-all, and it's a definite problem that it's become so strong as to be a literal standing army in every major location in the country 😕
 
 
My main point of contention is the counter to complaints of repeated graffiti on government buildings is escalation to kidnapping people off the street as if to threaten a literal lack of due process.  It's the communication that "we are willing to ignore the laws for any of you, and since we aren't charging someone we don't seem to care who we do it to".  (edit: There are more serious crimes on the list, I know, I address it briefly at the end)
 
There are strategies to deal with repeated damage to federal property without literally doubling the protest or creating their own insurgency scenario. 
 
But honestly ScottishFox, as with "Kettling" tactics, it really seems like the point is to create an "violent anarchist uprising" so they can crush and kill and point at it.  The violent end is the objective of tactics like this.  It's how it's employed in places like Israel.  That's the problem I have here.
 
As for the violent antagonists, well-organized protesters have been shown and video-taped as turning those people over to the police.  Even shoving them into a police line.  This is why protest leadership is needed, not discouraged.

IIRC, the Chaz/Chop was literally cut off of supplies.  Consider the Fyre Festival for an example of how that goes...
 
edit:  There are places that spend a lot less on their police forces, or weapons, and places that have a much better balancing of how their society operates around its needs.  Police shouldn't be the be-all-end-all, and it's a definite problem that it's become so strong as to be a literal standing army in every major location in the country 😕
 
 
My main point of contention is the counter to complaints of repeated graffiti on government buildings is escalation to kidnapping people off the street as if to threaten a literal lack of due process.  It's the communication that "we are willing to ignore the laws for any of you, and since we aren't charging someone we don't seem to care who we do it to".  (edit: There are more serious crimes on the list, I know, I address it briefly at the end)
 
There are strategies to deal with repeated damage to federal property without literally doubling the protest or creating their own insurgency scenario. 
 
But honestly ScottishFox, as with "Kettling" tactics, it really seems like the point is to create an "violent anarchist uprising" so they can crush and kill and point at it.  The violent end is the objective of tactics like this.  It's how it's employed in places like Israel.  That's the problem I have here.
 
As for the violent antagonists, well-organized protesters have been shown and video-taped as turning those people over to the police.  Even shoving them into a police line.  This is why protest leadership is needed, not discouraged.

IIRC, the Chaz/Chop was literally cut off of supplies.  Consider the Fyre Festival for an example of how that goes...
 
edit:  There are places that spend a lot less on their police forces, or weapons, and places that have a much better balancing of how their society operates around its needs.  Police shouldn't be the be-all-end-all, and it's a definite problem that it's become so strong as to be a literal standing army in every major location in the country 😕
 
 
My main point of contention is the counter to complaints of repeated graffiti on government buildings is escalation to kidnapping people off the street as if to threaten a literal lack of due process.  It's the communication that "we are willing to ignore the laws for any of you, and since we aren't charging someone we don't seem to care who we do it to".  (edit: There are more serious crimes on the list, I know, I address it briefly at the end)
 
There are strategies to deal with repeated damage to federal property without literally doubling the protest or creating their own insurgency scenario. 
 
But honestly ScottishFox, as with "Kettling" tactics, it really seems like the point is to create an "violent anarchist uprising" so they can crush and kill and point at it.  The violent end is the objective of tactics like this.  It's how it's employed in places like Israel.  That's the problem I have here.
 
As for the violent antagonists, well-organized protesters have been shown and video-taped as turning those people over to the police.  Even shoving them into a police line.  This is why protest leadership is needed, not discouraged.

IIRC, the Chaz/Chop was literally cut off of supplies.  Consider the Fyre Festival for an example of how that goes...
 
edit:  There are places that spend a lot less on their police forces, or weapons, and places that have a much better balancing of how their society operates around its needs.  Police shouldn't be the be-all-end-all, and it's a definite problem that it's become so strong as to be a literal standing army in every major location in the country 😕
 
 
My main point of contention is the counter to complaints of repeated graffiti on government buildings is escalation to kidnapping people off the street as if to threaten a literal lack of due process.  It's the communication that "we are willing to ignore the laws for any of you, and since we aren't charging someone we don't seem to care who we do it to".  (edit: There are more serious crimes on the list, I know, I address it briefly at the end)
 
There are strategies to deal with repeated damage to federal property without literally doubling the protest or creating their own insurgency scenario. 
 
But honestly ScottishFox, as with "Kettling" tactics, it really seems like the point is to create an "violent anarchist uprising" so they can crush and kill and point at it.  The violent end is the objective of tactics like this.  It's how it's employed in places like Israel.  That's the problem I have here.
 
As for the violent antagonists, well-organized protesters have been shown and video-taped as turning those people over to the police.  Even shoving them into a police line.  This is why protest leadership is needed, not discouraged.

Went through a whole cycle of getting sick early last week.  Right after visiting elderly parent.  It hit very hard, went to get tested... already largely feeling better, no idea on test results.  No idea if it spread, but doesn't look like it... will know around the time I get the results.  >_>

It might not get over with, and that could be worse.

I want us to come out the other end stronger than before. I'd like a non-violent revolution that addresses the corrupt/greedy healthcare system, our abysmally low standards of education and the damage done to our biosphere, but I'm expecting that the majority will lie back thanks to the ensuing overconfidence high and settle for the mediocrity we've touted as being "exceptional". I want us to help build roads, dams and structures that foster community instead of bombs that do nothing but destroy; we should be looked at the world over as a force for positivity and not a harbinger of doom or exploitation.

...what you said.  "Hit 'em in the wallet" seems to be the only thing many people will even notice these days.
 
I even have close friends--though maybe they are no longer so close as I might think--who have, at best, a highly cavalier attitude toward the virus.  They never wear masks, even while out and about.  Social distancing?  What's that?  They put their kid on a plane to fly out east without a second thought.  Days after another kid gets home from a country at warning level 3, they are mixing and mingling with the public at large.  I have skipped one gathering with them because of these decisions and behaviors, and this weekend will skip another gathering for the same reasons.  My heart aches, because these are good people and I don't want any of them sick or dead.  I also can't stop them.