Lectryk

Oh, the original form of the quote, and when it took place, are better than this truncated form. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sanders-abortion-womb-classroom/ " Context It’s true that Sanders said this. A video of the remark went viral after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized abortion in the U.S., was overturned on June 24, 2022. The clip was recorded a month prior on May 24, however, the same day as the deadly school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. More of Sanders’ speech is featured in the story below. Fact Check On May 24, 2022, Arkansas Republican gubernatorial candidate Sarah Huckabee Sanders made a campaign promise that touched on the subject of abortion, saying, “We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they’re as safe as they are in a classroom, the workplace, a nursing home. Because every stage of life has value. No one greater than the other.” This was a genuine quote. " And, since she made this *after* the news would have broken ... doubleplusungood the doublethink the modern gop has going on.

Sure, it's possible. A lot of things are possible, if we could martial the unified political willpower :) The likelihood of that happening (national ban) is inverse to the likelihood that Mitch is chumming the waters to try to gin up votes for the mid terms. If he's saying 'it's possible', it's not going to happen. The Republicans would need 60 to 65 seats, to allow 'moderate' party members who would those thier seats if they voted for a ban cover of not voting 'Aye', while still keeping a 50 vote majority. And they'd need control of the House by a similar margin, and the Presidency, since they wouldn't have the numbers to override a veto. So - certainly possible. Likely? The numbers haven't been that favorable for the party, ever.

Alito isn't wrong in his assessment, Ginsburg also said similar things. But, what are principled people to do, when the State governments are full of jack asses? https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/politics/roe-v-wade-supreme-court/index.html This might be the final spur needed to get liberals motivated to support candidates for Congress, who will take steps to protect rights. For example, to enact supreme court reforms (impose an age limit, length of service, whatever is best; not pack the court but raise the number to the existing number of circuits rationalizing the system, same for ethics rules, etc). This new congress could also act to roll back the Federal retrenchment that Republicans are/have been spearheading. I doubt that will happen. There's nobody in the Democratic Party, who the Party supports, who will come out as the standard bearer for the change that is needed. It's such a shame - this and the voter rights restrictions are such core values the Democrats ran on in the 50's, 60's, 70's... rights and freedoms to the people.

In Texas? Yes, this is a vote getter: ordering a state agency in charge of protecting children to do it's job by stopping children from receiving a list of damaging medical procedures will only help him (unless the state undergoes a sea change in local state wide politics). It will also continue to enhance his standing among the people that already are like minded, his leadership against the tryany of wokeness and whatever else the right is crusading against, and it will only enhance his national profile in he chooses to run for President. The various states that have attempted to pass gender based laws (anti bathroom bills, sports participation, etc) will be continue to be encouraged by Texas' leadership in this area. Expect to see more of this type of thing from other state governments.

https://www.michiganradio.org/public-safety/2021-12-05/ag-nessel-offers-independent-review-of-schools-actions-related-to-oxford-shooting The review should be conducted by an outside agency, so this is good. I wonder how much the two reports will vary...

The law doesn't work on shoulda/coulda/woulda - specific things have to happen to set the crime and severity charged, and specific elements have to be proved, to support the charge. The prosecutor charged involuntary manslaughter. The facts don't appear to support that charge, from the story (no prior problems with discipline, for ex). Additionally, the intervening actions of other adults dilute their responsiblity (the kid who is being charged as an adult, and the multiple school officials involved, who took no actions to prevent this obviously troubled teen from doing the crime). Will the prosecutor be charging every school official who could have said 'Go home', but didn't? Michigan doesn't have a safe storage law, and while I think they aren't fit parents or responsible gun owners, there's nothing else mentioned about charges they might actually be guilty of under the current laws. Even if the county prosecutor manages to pull off a Clarence Darrow level case and convict, there are more levels of appeals to go through - all in settings that aren't emotionally charged by the case. I don't know if the filings include lesser, more applicable crimes. I hope they do, or that the judge that lands the case will allow them to be added early on (as opposed to Rittenhouse). We'll see what actually goes forward when the charges are filed, not just talked about in a news article. And, we'll probably see some new laws proposed in state government to tighten up laws around this sort of thing. Since the State houses are controlled by the Republicans now, I wouldn't expect those to go anywhere.

Oxford is about 60 miles from me. I know something about Michigan laws. The charges she laid weren't the right ones, as with Rittenhouse case. The covering law (750.321) is driven by intent (always a hard thing to establish in cases) - involuntary means there wasn't intent, but still the death occured. I don't see lesser charges listed, but I'm not digging into the filings, they may be there. The facts required to prove the case (that the parents caused the deaths unintentionally) also apply to the school officials that allowed him to return to class, and frankly those are more supportable and proximate - the school discovered the drawing, the school discovered the gun was carried in, the school saw the searches for ammunition, the school failed to act to protect their charges by allowing him to return to class without notifying appropriate mental health/child saftey organizations/the Sheriff's Department, etc (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/03/us/crumbley-parents-charged-michigan-shooting.html). She's weakened her own case by also charging the kid as an adult - it'll be harder to show negligence or causation on their part, since he is considered in the eyes of the legal system to be a competent adult, and therefore putatively able to know 'right' from 'wrong'. Another hill to climb is the no prior bad acts/disciplinary problems on his record issue - even if there were parenting or gun storage laws they had fallen afoul of, there's no offical indication of an issue, until the shooting. And, her arguments about clear cut warning signals will be are only from her vantage point (with the facts as presented by the article) - there's a wide variety of opinion on how people should raise their children, like it or not. Yet another uphill fight the prosecutor will have is seating a friendly jury in that country - it only flipped from Republic control in this last election - for a very long time it has been a conservative chunk in southeastern Michigan, and there's a strong tradition of gun ownership, hunting 'up north' , outdoorsmanship, etc. If she has charged lesser counts, or they are allowed a plea deal, they'll get some negative outcome. If it's balls to the wall like with Rittenhouse, expect a similar outcome. I think it's a bad situation, I think that we should have better aligned laws than we do, but the law is the tool that the prosecutor has to work within, and making this a political statement as much as a legal one (see numerous clips of her talking about it) isn't helpful, at all. Her 'thinking it's criminal' and being able to prove that statement in court, before a jury, limited by rules of evidence, are two very different things. Someone made a comment about retainers/fees up thread - she has made this another cause celebre that will have defense donations pouring in, the Crumleys don't have to worry about how they'll pay for it.

Um. Who decides if belief sets are Superstition, Magic Kool Ade, or some other Tainted Water?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/21/politics/sinema-veterans-quit-advisory-board/?hpt=ob_blogfooterold

You'd rather see nothing at all, than something? I wouldn't call 1.9 TRILLION in new spending a cut back, I'd call it a good start; this is all new spending, spending that doesn't exist right now, spending that will help Americans. If the Democrats can deliver on that, they can springboard off that success in the second half of his term and get another 2 trillion in new spending. Haven't you ever heard the quote 'The art of politics is the possible...'? Or, 'Half a loaf is better than none'? If everything and the kitchen sink isn't possible right now, then cut back til something is - your party can do whatever it wants, ffs - they control the entire process (until the mid term losses caused by their inability to deliver anything)! They don't need Republicans! Republicans aren't the problem here! But the Democrats sure are a long way down the road to getting nothing at all, which will hurt America more than not passing SOME amount of new spending to address SOME of the the issues Progressives claim to care about. You want to be disappointed in something? Be disappointed in the Progressives who demand so much, they kill the chances of getting progress. Because it's not America cutting their chances this term, it's themselves.

No. Unless you spent all of your time with them (work, private, etc) and never left them alone. You don't know where those influences that affected this person came from, you don't know what they might have believed to begin with that might make them susceptiable, and you may only know about some of the life changes they've faced that led to this change. You aren't responsible for their changes, and don't take the responsibility on for 'not being there when...'. You've seen the stuff about spouses being surprised about their partner's turn? Yeah, don't hold yourself to a higher standard than one involving a person you are joined with. People in this space (libertarian, Oath Keepers, Q Anons, crazy believers in...) don't suscribe to the consensus reality, but to the little slice their in-group has created. All you can do, as multiple articles/essays/thought pieces posted here have said, is to let them reach their own realization that they are incorrect in their belief set. And so much of that belief set is about actualizaton, ego fulfillment and so on, that returning from that space is hard. Offer/don't offer friendship while avoiding polarizing topics? That's up to you. But don't take blame/responsibility for them not avoiding their change.

The article cites language in several places that shows the court and plantiff's counsel certainly thought it was contemptous. I'm surprised the judge let this drag on as long as it did (5 different orders were disregarded), Jones should have been jugged earlier in the process, but the judge has ultimate discretion over declaring someone in contempt (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.21.htm Sec. 21.002. CONTEMPT OF COURT. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (g), a court may punish for contempt.) Maybe each change of representation caused the presiding judge to change, because of the schedule change? The ruling judge made clear the way Jones' actions hurt him, with a directed judgement, and direct move to the penalty phase. This is more punishment than a simple contempt charge could level at this point - Jones, InfoWars and the parent Free Speech something lost, and will face the penalties assessed by the jury. His actions (refusal to mount a defense is not solid grounds for an appeal) will be weighed in any appeals process he/they try to start.

'Jones and InfoWars managed to burn through six separate defense attorneys throughout his legal defense and is now on his seventh, Brad Reeves.' Was the attorney participating in the wrong doing? Is there proof of that participation? Two hurdles to clear first. The attorney isn't being ordered to turn anything over, the attorney isn't disregarding the courts orders, the attorney isn't a named party to the action, why would the attorney be sanctioned?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/us/politics/trump-dominion-voting.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20210921&instance_id=40945&nl=updates-from-the-newsroom&regi_id=59430290&segment_id=69508&te=1&user_id=6c9389d03dad9fe20eccb0f72439fd4b Trump Campaign Knew Lawyers’ Voting Machine Claims Were Baseless, Memo Shows Days before lawyers allied with Donald Trump gave a news conference promoting election conspiracy theories, his campaign had determined that many of those claims were false, court filings reveal.

They did not allow the law to stand, the denied the request for injunction: "In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application" About the law itself, they say: "In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf The majority is trying to thread a fine needle, and the way the court handled it wasn't good optics, but hey, that's our politics today. There is a procedural/martinet element to the slapdown (do it right, punks!) and in justices that were more thoughtful and less ideological, I would say they're actually asking for a chance to re-affirm the constitutionality of Roe v Wade through the power of the court, not just trying to buy time by getting a proper challenge to the law in front of them.

Um, you mean they won't carry stories like this one? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/us/politics/sidney-powell-election-sanctions.html?searchResultPosition=1 I'm with grailknight; what are you reading? I can't look at a regular media site without seeing stories critical of Trump or his policies or his business dealings... I mean, One America News (or whatever it is) fellates him at every opportunity, but any credible and wothwhile site tears into him (Fox is neither, and the many net based sites are at best questionable if not out right shills also).

Listing mitigations would take.... more words than we have reams and reams (or website and website) are filled everyday (not counting the historical thinkers) with ideas to mitigate the problems facing us. The issue is finding the few that we could probably implement, that wouldn't be hurtful, and wouldn't in some way make things worse..... the person/group that does *that*, I want running things. It's almost like these people don't read newspapers, or do google/Westlaw searches before proposing their paricular silliness - https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/11/federal-judge-rules-that-california-ban-on-offensive-vanity-license-plates-violates-freedom-of-speech/

You've got two seperate things here - the factual based points you raised (non-funtional, etc), and the feeling/opinion based 'this is what the government should be doing, but isn't' and you use the latter as evidence for the former, which it just isn't. If you want to say the people are basically awful, self centered, churlish, hateful scum that you wouldn't have over to your house for dinner - I'll whole heartedly agree. Is it any surprise that the system of governance that those horrid things have devised is bad for us, and might be killing us slowly? Not at all. But it works the way they want it to, the way they devised it to work, and unfortunately it's the best system (supposedly) they've devised yet. As I said above, I probably agree with the majority of your thoughts about what in general is wrong with the state and shape of the world, and I may agree with several of the causes, so there's probably no reason to continue this particular discussion - we're talking past each other on this point. As to demise, you can put your mind at ease. Humans are the intelligent cockroaches of this world. The species has survived worse environmental conditions than the worst the specialists are predicting for the forseeable future. Fine, we'll lose all coastal habition that currently exists, a band around the equator will become only semi-habitable, the ideal growth band is going to shift north and south from it's current position (our Canadian friends will have a choice to make about the unruly idiots to their south), and the globe will only support 2-3 billion at most (if current technology survives). Our currently existing society and governmental system won't survive the changes that the nation/hemisphere/world is going to face (hell, they've both changed in my lifetime - and my grandparents were born in the 1890's - how much has changed since then?), but unless something stupid happens involving a world wide nuclear exchange, this planet isn't tough enough to wipe us out, only people can do that. It won't be a happy or easy life to survive, but life is evolved to survive. I never saw any loss of temper - if this is you losing your temper, you are a very polite and low key angry person . My tone got out of hand a few times, and I should have stopped sooner, most likely. You have my apologies - no direct insult was intended.

Nothing you sent in your two replies supports your thesis (listed above, again). How is the government not incentivized to responsiveness to the citizens, and how is the government not functional. In answer to the points you raised, my answer would be - things you don't like will change when enough other people who don't like those things act in concert to effect a governmental change in line with their desires. Again, I cite the last election as a prime example of the government being incentived by the people - "don't do what we like, we kick you out and try someone else." There are several names for governmental systems and nations that are not responsive to citizen demands, that don't work on the model of representative incentivation from their citizenry. What are their track records on issues you think important? How is China's record on contribution/mitigation of global warming? Or maintaining civil rights for the population? Our wealth inequality inside their borders? Racial equality/treatment of ethnic minorites? Yes, we face challenges on several points. I think the battle on climate is lost, and mitigation looks iffy; huge chunks of the oceans have already surpassed the 2 Centigrade mark, and oceans are a main driver of climate. We've been seeing more forceful storms, stronger/longer fire seasons, droughts, the heat dome going on right now, etc. These are only the precursors of what we'll see in our lifetimes, ratchets on the roller coaster ride at the start up the hill - each click should be telling us what we're going to face soon. Even if the people of the world committed to a world wide effort tomorrow to not only decrease new inputs of carbon into our closed system but also to scrub out what is in the system currently, we're committed to the upswing of effect - again for our lifetimes. And if the efforts to scrub go too far, our grandchildren will be facing a different cycle (not that it shouldn't be tried, but that is an agrument for not trying that I've already seen in literature). Yes, there is income inequality and it is grossly accelerating in this country and around the world. And, yes, efforts to change this are being blocked by people who are incentivized by their constituents to not change (even Manchin - his state is not exactly blue). But, again, incentivized to take a position. You can even say that certain groups have disproportionate weight in the incentivation process - but that isn't the same as saying incentivation doesn't work. How it works is just engineering and tweaking of the balances (n.b. Citizens United). I will probably agree to some extent with any negative example you want to provide, but the reality is there is no national will to address these issues and there won't be change until there is will to act. Protests, demonstrations, riots, sit-ins, whatever you example you want to cite are not will. Voting and involvement in supporting change is. And we don't see a lot of involvement, really. The Democrats anemic performance this last cycle shows that. But the system as a system (incentivation to provide certain outcomes/functions from a government or else) is working just fine. And saying that it doesn't work is just isn't a supportable or defensible position.

Which part of the pledge do you think obligates you to be a servant of the government? I can't think of a part that does, so I'm asking. Even web searches (does the pledge of allegiance make you a servant to the government) that should have brought some hits, don't come up with anything after going 7 pages deep into 6,800,000 returns. It just got further and further away from the topic.

How is it not incentivized by the people? We just had an election, and changed government. I'd say the former administration didn't do a proper job, and the people made their choice and lack of happiness clear - they fired the group they weren't happy with. If Trump wasn't incentivized by the upcoming election, why did he do everything he did to curry favor with his voters? If our system doesn't incentivize politicans in general, why do they work so hard and boast so much about everything they do for their constituency? Why do they do so many non-explicitly job related activities to get re-elected? Why do administrations try for big wins on initiatives/laws/whatever? Why is there so much pork doled out to states and districts if there's no incentive? The reward (incentive, if you will) for politicans here would be re-election and being able to continue running/leading the government. What do you see as our Federal Government not functioning "properly"? What is your definition of "properly", I guess that's where we should start, because the government I see (at all levels) provide a hell of a lot of regulatory, safety, and legal potections; at the State and Federal level military protections are afforded as well. I have been involved in a few of those things. For not working properly, they certainly seemed to be effective at meeting the goals (and paying my salary) that were set for them by the government in response to citizens demands for service.

How did he explain (if it was asked) that it didn't work historically? That companies would forsake the profit motivation out of the altruistic, public minded civic spirit that they all hold dearest?

There are reasons you see articles talking about the 'objectivist hell' places turn into, when anything close to Randism is practised.

I'm building a character, and part of the concept is certain skills bought as powers. I pick a skill to start with (Lockpicking), and part of the concept is that people won't see the character doing the lock intrusion. I go to Power Modifiers, and Invisible Power Effects isn't listed as a possible Advantage. Looking at the reason why it's unavailable resulted in this - The other skills I checked were the same. Then I looked at 6E1 p124 'Sensing Powers and Special Effects' to verify this, and Skills aren't listed as a type of power that would visible on p126 Obviousness. I thought if I bought it with a Focus Limitation (one of the sections on 126), then IPE would become available - nope, again. I skimmed through p283 Skills as Powers, and didn't see anything explicitly in that section they cause effects. You built the app using the rules logic and what I've found so far indicates there aren't visible effects on skills as powers. Since I first started playing Champions up until now, some version of p124 has existed - powers have a mix of visible effects. I admit my reading might not have been careful enough (it's late for me, and a lot of type was skimmed looking for Visibility wording) - could you tell me what I missed in the rules that excludes skills as powers from this requirement? Thanks.