Guard Dog

It's a beautiful system ain't it? Imagine a system that is DESIGNED to paralyze itself. It's a masterwork! Not being sarcastic.

Baseball and politics don't intersect much (these days) but when they do it's funny: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/goose-gossage-spouts-off-about-state-of-mlb-its-like-the-democrats-are-running-baseball/ar-BB10Q1LZ?ocid=spartandhp

Lucky us. I suppose it could be worse. Not sure how... but somehow I guess.

Warren is out: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/05/elizabeth-warren-drops-out-of-presidential-race.html There is also rumbling that if Bernie does not get the nomination he will try as IND. I doubt that will happen but you never know.

Personally nothing would incite me to violence other than hurting my critters or stealing my stuff. But suppose the decision does not go the way he wants and one of those people he roused up in the speech guns down Kavanaugh at his kids softball game. It could happen. And the court case is not that big a deal anyway. And there is already past precedent going the other way. So this really is shouting fire when there is no fire.

Spoken in a such a tone before a mob on the steps of the court, it could be credibly called an incitement to violence. Suppose all of that was the same but it was a gun control decision and the targets were Kagan and Sotomayor. Would that seem more threatening then? Of course Trump showed is orange buttocks by suggesting Sotomayor & Ginsburg should recuse themselves from any cases involving him because they criticized him in public. They probably shouldn't have but no law against it. Obama showed his calling them out in the SotU address a few years ago. It's far too late to pretend the court is not hopelessly politicized. It's just one more turd in the toilet now.

I remember a quote from the otherwise terrible move "****tail" "All things that end, end badly. Otherwise they wouldn't end". https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/tom-brady-and-bill-belichicks-recent-phone-call-about-upcoming-free-agency-didnt-go-well-per-report/

More on Schumer showing his rear end: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/486061-harold-ford-jr-slams-schumers-pay-the-price-remarks-you-cant-incite-violence @Gromnir there are no angels in hell

Biden has a 7 point lead in Michigan. If he wins there Bernie's road gets rocky indeed. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/04/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-michigan-121160 The other day Biden gave a speech promising to return character, honesty, and dignity to the white house. As appealing as I find that message I find the messenger somewhat lacking in credibility. But, at least on the last count he would be an improvement over what we have now. Those first two things... ain't been seen in these parts in a long, loooong time. Who was our last good President? Ford? Eisenhower? By good I mean the last one the roaches didn't scurry when the lights clicked on. In some way Ford was ideal. He didn't WANT to be President. All he ever wanted was to be the Speaker of the House. Spiro Agnew resigned as Vice President and took a plea on tax evasion and other stuff and the House Republicans forced Nixon to accept Ford. He wanted to retire at the end of Nixon's second term. Which as you know came much sooner than expected.

Charles Schumer does not get to use the phrase "independent judiciary" anymore: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036

Oh no it's still around. We deal with it all the time at work.

MLB.com has a free game stream 2-3 times a week. They simulcast on Facebook sometimes. Hulu has all the games but you have to pay for the service and I don't know if it's accessible outside the US. The San Diego Padres and a few other teams have a subscription service on YouTube TV. Once again, not free. However MiLB (affiliated minor leagues) have games on YouTube all the time that are free. But your best bet is https://www.mlb.com/ Just look to the left and when you see "free game of the day" you can stream it from anywhere.

So bring back the TVA huh?

You know I don't think that is correct. That Heller changed the reading I mean. The prefatory and operative clauses have always been what they were. It's just that in the years after courts chose to read them in a way that did not conform to the meaning because it suited them to do so. Also the individual right to carry, carry concealed at least, does not exist. That particular privilege, and that is what it is, has been left to the states. For example in my state in order to carry a concealed firearm I have to apply for a permit that they can grant or deny at their pleasure. For any reason or none. In Wyoming, no permit. Come as you are. In California there are permits but no one get's them. In Illinois, New York, & NJ for example concealed carry is illegal. Period. Early in his term Trump was talking about national reciprocity for CC permits. As big an advocate of firearm freedom as I am I would oppose that 100%. It should not be up to the Federal government to tell the states how to manage their business. Nor should the process of one state permit a special privilege in another. You know what is ironic? The Heller and McDonald decisions essentially replaced a SCOTUS decision from the 1930's US vs Miller. The gist of it was the plaintiff was arrested for owning a shotgun of a certain length. I think it was 18". Don't remember for sure. Anyway, it was illegal whatever it was. They sued that the law that made the weapon illegal was a violation on the 2nd Amend. The Supreme court said no. They said such a weapon had no use in a civilian militia and was therefore not protected by the 2nd Amend. Now, fast foreword 75 years to Heller. The majority decision in that case left room for restrictions on certain types of weapons. The one firearm everyone talks about restricting is the AR-15. The every thing they have against it is that it is a "military style weapon". Forget for a moment the complete vacuous stupidity of thinking a weapon is more dangerous because it looks scary. If Miller was still the controlling case on Gun Control it would be impossible to restrict the AR-15 BECAUSE it is a military style weapon! I find that incredibly ironic! In the act of "expanding" (or restoring) gun rights the SCOTUS made it possible to ban the scary gun everyone is afraid of. Of course it ain't gonna happen because there are an estimated 5-10 million AR-15 in private hands. Many of whom would rather start a civil war than hand them over. Congress does not have the appetite to chew on that one. Personally I thought that whole platform was a mickey mouse piece of s--t and I'd never own one. But that's me.

You missed the target just slightly here. It is not a State right, it is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is a right of every citizen that no state, nor the Federal government can infringe. Although they have and not without good reason in some cases. The rights affirmed in the first 10 are all individual rights. But again, they are not without some limitations. What you have to remember about Heller is the District of Columbia's position was "Thou shalt not own any firearm of any kind in thy home". There is no interpretation of the 2nd Amend that allows total prohibition.

I think you know what I was referring to there. You are the one taking a ride down the slope with your response. It was obvious to me at least I was referring to the compulsory kind of collectivism where the goods you produce, the ore you mine, the books you write or the labor of your hands are not exclusively yours. Yes, the miner does not own the mine nor the ore he digs up (probably) but he does own his own hands and his labor that he can sell to the one who does on a price they agree on without interference. He has the choice not to work for that mine. He has the choice to sell his labor to another mine if he wants. The kind of collectivism I was referring to takes choices away from people. And you know exactly what I was talking about

Wealthy people buy favors from the government because the government will sell favors to wealthy people. The solution I'm hearing is "give the government more power". So it can sell bigger favors? Rather than trusting the government to go after the "wealthy people" I say take away the governments power to do favors for them. Besides, no problem has ever been solved by employing the same means that created the problem. You cannot fight fire with fire so to speak. The trouble with health care in the US is the costs are out of control. When the end user is not responsible for the cost the provider has no incentive to lower the cost. That is what has come from subsidizing the ability to pay. The ACA built in regional protections so health plans and medical facilities don't have to compete with each other for business. No competition for business mans again, no incentive to reduce cost. Every possible wrong thing has been done to address the one problem that has made it a mess: cost. Now that isn't saying there isn't something that can't be done. I've argued for this before. Rather than "free" (which isn't) health care for all how about a catastrophic health insurance plan for everyone. Say they the individual is responsible for all health care cost up to a certain number. Just throwing out a number here so we'll say $10k. If you get a cold and need antibiotic, need stitches, need a knee brace, etc then it's on you. There will no doubt be numerous insurance products to cover the some of the "first $10k" costs. After that THEN there is a public program to help. So, you sprained your ankle? Too bad, take care of that yourself. Oh you have cancer? Come this way and we'll take care of you. That is a more workable idea IMO.

It is not. There are two clauses in the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the prefatory clause. Prefatory clauses were commonly used in writing at the time to provide a reason or explanation of what follows. Madison was saying WHY the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The operative clause, the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is in no way modified by the prefatory. You could re-write it this way: Because a well regulated militia.... The militia in Madison's day was everyone. They didn't wear uniforms. They didn't drill. They were every able bodied American who could hold and fire a weapon. Some folks have argued the militia is the National Guard. That is an absolute self serving and deliberate mischaracterization.

This does not make a lot of sense: https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/03/03/could-tom-brady-and-jimmy-garoppolo-trade-places-dont-discount-the-49ers-buzz/

Can you not appreciate how f-----g awesome I am??? Even when I'm being sarcastic I'm on the cutting edge! In all seriousness that genie has long since left the bottle. The problem with barter economics things are entirely valued by scarcity. Well, they are in real life too but values or goods and services are a lot more stable this way.

Objectively there is nothing inherently wrong with the theory of communism. It's just ill suited for humans. One of those things that works on paper but not in practical application. We are just not built for collectivism. And a system that allows evil people to do evil things is always something to be avoided. And, as Shady pointed out, no one is seriously talking about turning the US communist. The thing to worry about is a slow creep towards collectivist authoritarianism. IMO better to never take the first step. Not even for "free" stuff. Just as an example, the position I always argue on gun control is a literal interpretation of the right to bear arms. It's not that I don't think there are reasonable restrictions that can and should be placed on it. I do agree on that. It's that I understand those restrictions are not going the be the end of it. Each one begets the next, and the next, and the next until it's all gone. A creep towards authoritarian collectivism is just like that. Better to fight over the first step while you still can.

Depends on which one you want and what you've got to offer. I have quite a few!

Nope. I saw we go back to barter. I'll trade you 48 eggs, 20 coyote pelts, 2 gallons of sourmash 'shine, and a bushel of watermelons for 100 gallons of heating oil and two bottles of good maple syrup!

Interesting piece from Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/youngs-dont-care-about-ussr/607249/ The gist of it is, young people who were not around when the Soviet Union was a thing don't have first hand knowledge of how communism has been used by governments to do terrible things. So they are not afraid of it. I have one simple question: Do you trust your government? If the answer is anything other than "NO" then you are probably not paying attention to it. And if the answer is "NO" then how could you support any economic system that empowers it so?

Not necessarily. Hillary Clinton is still the most hated political figure in the US at that time. Nasty, shrill, arrogant, and condescending, and those were he good qualities. Given a viable alternative (meaning not Jeb Bush) and Clinton's flaws there is still a real good chance she loses in '16.