https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/22/uber-suspends-diversity-chief-karen-bo-young-lee
 

This is… unfortunate from my perspective. It may not have gone over well, but I would hope that people of all backgrounds could appreciate the desire to not be stereotyped or called names (like “Karen” if in fact that is not your name). The motivations in this case seem appropriate.

Incorporated municipalities derive their authority from the State. It’s bad behavior, but almost certainly legal (I’m sure it will be litigated though). California did this during the pandemic related to local jurisdictions wanting to pass laws in opposition to State policy, there are exceptions but in general the State can override local jurisdictions (City or County) if (and only if) there is a conflict between the local laws and State. When there’s a direct conflict, State law supersedes the local authority.

I laughed…

14 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Note that Bryansk is 75 miles into Russia.  Word is that the Russians are so spooked by Storm Shadow that they're just shooting down any radar return they see, and this is all friendly fire.

Possibly true, they’ve also been using glide munitions to fire at Ukrainian targets from within Russian airspace. I can see Ukraine looking at that as a reason to make them fair game.

Edit: I see Russia pulled back their report on shooting down “two Ukrainian jets” in the area. Looks like Friendly Fire incidents, Ukraine is having a field day. Impossible to know for sure, but sure looks like Russia hitting their own aircraft.

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I feel compelled to point out that changing the Constitution is not unconstitutional. It's a feature. The guy wants to enact an amendment to modify a prior amendment. Doesn't seem well considered, TBH. He probably read Starship Troopers and thought "neat idea!"

 

“Service guarantees citizenship, would you like to know more?”

Yeah, where I live we have only 6 deputies covering the County at a time and we are in the North Bay Area. They’re intentionally spread out but response time can vary. In the back regions it could be 30+ minutes, for sure.
 

As to a reason to intervene, I would respectfully disagree with the statement by the Sheriff regarding the relevance of immigration status specific to Mr Oropeza, as he was not lawfully able to acquire the firearm he was in possession of based on said undocumented immigration status. Unless I’m mistaken (which is possible) one needs to be a legal resident of the State to do so with a valid ID and a valid “alien number”. He appears to have been violating Federal Law simply through firearms ownership. Had that existing law (18 USC §922(g), it appears, which prohibits a person who “is illegally or unlawfully in the United States” from possessing “any firearm or ammunition”) been enforced, in this case it might have saved lives. The Sheriff had legal grounds to intervene, particularly if as alleged there were prior complaints.

If we are going to pass laws restricting firearms, which have subsequently withstood legal challenge, a reasonable first step might be to enforce them rather than the common practice of lamenting the lack of sufficient laws or regulations.

”The penalty provision for a violation of § 922(g) appears at 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), which provides that a person who "knowingly" violates § 922(g) "shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." 

 With regard to the morality of his actions, yes murder is murder. On that I’d agree. 

I would say “front yard” is even more of the same thing. Why in the actual heck would you approach that guy? Call the cops. That is the reason they exist. 
 

People are not their best selves right now. I get very scary behaviors in the community all the time, we had them before post-pandemic it is increased by a factor of two or three. Suicide, physical altercations, mental health disorders that have significant safety ramifications, homelessness. All are way higher than three or four years ago at a local and regional level. 
 

Many are higher nationally (homelessness is not evenly distributed nationally… that’s an entirely different discussion). It’s a scary time, perspectives as to reason - well reasonably minds my differ.

18 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Quote from that article:

 

"It is the latest in a string of shootings resulting from seemingly normal and even mundane interactions."

 

I'd say drunken neighbor shooting a firearm in his backyard in the middle of the night falls out of the scope of "seemingly normal and even mundane interactions."

 

This is exactly what police are for. Even if it's just loud music. Someone's  acting out, have people in uniform come out and settle them down. Be safe.

Why in the heck would you engage with a (likely intoxicated) neighbor firing a gun next door? Call the cops. Literally why we have them, it’s extremely imprudent and obviously that’s not someone you should be approaching at that moment.

 There are bad people in the world. Be careful.

I could see it. He can deliver the editorials…

I don’t think I’ve ever watched OAN, this isn’t likely to increase the odds of that changing.

The confused Tucker memes are going to be lit.

34 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Generally, it requires some historical justification...often rather stretched, perhaps well in the past, but recognizably present.

You can identify historical justification for most groups at some point in their history. Humans have not been very nice to one another.

4 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

North Carolina Judge Convicts Journalists Of 'Trespassing' While Covering Eviction Of Homeless Encampment

It’s public land, that’s ridiculous. If it was private property, okay maybe technically… but this is silly

14 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

And I saw Birth of a Nation in film studies class, so I guess that makes us even.

Ah, so the knowledge of Canadians IS equivalent to those their southern neighbors…

Hey, I know about Canada. I saw Nanook of the North in my Canadian Studies class at Chico State, I figure that makes me some kind of expert…

I’ve come to the conclusion that essentially political beliefs have become something of a faith tradition versus an intellectual exercise in policy decision making. It’s profoundly unacceptable and even offensive to question doctrine, or even seek to understand the thinking behind it more deeply with any form of critical question. 

2 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

By Musk's own estimation, he had reduced T(w)itter's valuation to $20 Billion, or less than half of what he paid for it around six months ago.

And given the aforementioned function of business, he should be fired. The shareholders ought to be absolutely livid, that is gross incompetence.

50 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

I was thinking of some hypothetical weapon that would do the equivalent of EMP to a living body's electrical system, effectively shutting off the person, i.e. killing them, at a distance.   I don't think it's possible now, but maybe someone will figure out how to do it.

That seems to meet the criteria of “dangerous and unusual” weapons set by Heller, so it would be banned right out the gate without heavy governmental oversight. Like machine guns, flamethrowers, and grenade launchers it can be restricted by the State (is my understanding).

It’s not surprising, the function of business is pretty much to make money. The value she provides them is marketability, that is as it has always been. They put nice words on their press releases precisely to sell product, but despite SCOTUS cases to the contrary corporations are not people (I acknowledge that’s not exactly correct legally speaking in a speech sense).
 

I don’t expect anything different from business/industry, and would consider an actual expectation of some sort of moral driver of behavior to be pretty naive after everything we’ve seen the past couple hundred years. Scholastic wants to sell books in Texas and Florida as well as California and New York, and doesn’t want to risk losing markets. Her opinion as presented in an author’s note risks that for them, so they apparently don’t want to publish it. As an author she is free to seek other publication resources that are more in line with her beliefs, maybe with a more regional focus, and if that moves the needle on their profits they’ll likely pay attention to her concerns. If it doesn’t, it won’t bother them… they’ll have other product to promote.

I don’t have young kids, and am not a target audience for Scholastic at this time though. Maybe it’ll cause sufficient economic pressure for them to back away from their position. 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/11/us/daniel-perry-greg-abbott-pardon-case-explained/index.html
 

The CNN article, still pending a majority of the parole board providing a recommendation to pardon. Abbott cannot pardon without that step, and they’re ostensibly an independent check on the governor’s authority (although since they’re appointed by the Governor that’s definitely extremely debatable).

3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Here's the Wikipedia article about the case, which summarizes the evidence:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Garrett_Foster

 

IMO, while eyewitnesses are unreliable, this guy's Twitter statements are pretty damning evidence of a motive. The prosecutor made a point about the weapon being on safe and having an empty chamber, but that's totally irrelevant, since the affirmative defense was a weapon pointed at the shooter.

 

Here's a video of the incident. Looks like the car is slowly moving into the protest crowd, provoking them. I'd say his actions with the vehicle align with his earlier tweets. Looks like he was trying to provoke a response:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/texas/video-2217414/Video-Video-shooting-protest-Austin-Texas.html

 

The conviction looks legit to me.

Probably so, which is why I said in this case the guy with the AK-47 in an angry mob might be the one worth protecting. It’s not a great look for the victim, but that doesn’t mean he should get murdered.

Without the twitter statements, it’s a different story, but he said what he said so there you go.

3 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Governor Abbot seeks to pardon man convicted of murder in BLM case. (He can't just do it; he can only pardon people if a board recommends it. He can request the board recommend it though)

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-governor-seeks-pardon-man-convicted-murder-black-lives-matter-shooting-2023-04-09/

This is a difficult one for me, primarily because he tweeted about “might have to shoot someone” or words to that effect, and threatening statements before encountering the BLM protesters. Has he not done that, I would likely be sympathetic - given that there was significant violence reported including property destruction (shifting away from “peaceful protest” to “angry mob”) and the only individual he shot was carrying an AK-47 in the midst of this environment (not a subject of dispute) and allegedly pointed it at him.

 It’s not self defense if you intentionally create a situation where you have to defend yourself by driving to the scene and seeing out the scenario to justify deadly force. So it’s hard to know if that’s what happened, but it seems possible given the tweets and at least the jury thought so. I don’t love the idea that a participant in an angry armed mob is the party we need to be looking out for… but maybe? In any case the Governor’s motivations are suspect, there’s no need to weigh in on this until the Pardon review process is complete.

28 minutes ago, Clonus said:

 

That will put the McConnell court in the position of having to balance their anti-abortion stance with their anti-federal regulation stance.  

I don’t believe there’s really any conflict there. Talking points aside both parties are extremely FOR federal regulation, just only in the areas they prefer. Oh and “rules for thee, but not for me”.

18 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

Recently Indicted Maryland Sheriff Has Links to Constitutional Sheriff, Anti-Muslim and Anti-Immigrant Movements

Making false statements to federal enforcement agencies is… unwise. Particularly when you run a business that profits from said false statements. That’ll be a problem for him in court, and reminds me of the Santa Clara County Sheriff who was issuing CCW permits to folks who paid her. Didn’t go well for her either and that was not a federal issue…

https://abc7news.com/santa-clara-county-sheriff-laurie-smith-corruption-trial-verdict-found-guilty-resigns/12413963/

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.

It’s difficult to have any level of nuance in discussion of complex issues in the public arena, and politicians are absolutely complicit in attempts to steer the conversation in line with their own interests. Whether it’s the Republicans pushing to make this an issue about perpetrator sexual or gender identity, an effort to discuss arming teachers, or avoiding discussion of reasonable restrictions on weaponry in civilian hands the playbook is self evident. Similarly, absolutist positions on “a good first step” every time there’s a restriction on second amendment rights, and ignoring case law and Supreme Court precedent in crafting new regulation restricting those rights related to firearms ownership, as well as deflection on any number of competing factors (such as criminal possession of firearms where existing laws would have been completely adequate if enforced, appeal to emotion, disingenuous descriptors of firearms and the like) are features of the Democrat playbook on this issue. Fundamentally, one group sees this as a rights issue and the other sees it as a public safety issue. It can be both, you can have an individual right to bear arms (which is not absolute as with any of the Bill of Rights, but it’s not a “second class right” either as noted in both the Heller and Bruen decisions) and there can be pressing public safety issues which need to be considered and responded to by the State. I don’t see anyone in our binary system having that discussion. Not a ton of space for moderate positions in public discourse these days.