Gromnir

am gonna admit, there has been some upside to the pandemic. pre pandemic, we never shopped at soopermarkets. however, the whole "ecart" option we have from the local belair/raleys has us doing a considerable amount o' our grocery purchases w/o ever needing to get out o' our car. no dealing with rude fellow customers. don't need chat with the checkout people and make obligatory small talk. didn't brush our teeth and we stink from our morning bike ride? no worries. our pandemic suit is a hoodie, baggie knee length shorts and some kinda slip-on footwear. slight variations almost every single day. however, have not descended to the point am wearing socks and sandals. that is a basement we refuse to enter even during the daily horror movie which has been the covid-pandemic. given our newfound enjoyment o' unapologetic sloth, is quite possible much o' our pandemic lifestyle (at least insofar as grocery shopping is concerned) will continue even after any serious covid dangers has past. HA! Good Fun!

Thomas is being a hypocrite... again. 1) is a couple similar cases with exact same basis for granting or denying relief involving government employees and prisoners in which Thomas went exact opposite. 2) the Court has no business handling this case. most significant, this is not a Constitutional matter (unlike the prisoner situation), so let Congress fix. it sux that Congress likely won't fix anytime soon, but Thomas o' all Justices should be advocating judicial restraint. we don't like the current situation insofar as the feres doctrine is concerned, but is not actual the job of the Court to right wrongs. Constitutional v. Not Constitutional should not be confused with right v. wrong, even if it is difficult to stomach in many instances. nine unelected men and women should not be deciding cases such as the west point issue. the fact the hundreds o' elected men and women in Congress won't fix has never before been motivation enough for Thomas to intrude on the legislative prerogative, so why only recent? am suspecting gd missed the subtext, and is not his fault. is no reason gd should be aware o' what Thomas were actual doing in his dissent, a dissent which clear deviates from his past history regarding similar cases. Thomas were grandstanding. for a couple years now, Thomas has been telegraphing his willingness to overturn precedent... save for when the majority actual does overturn precedent and then pretends they did not. ... this dissent by Thomas had nothing to do with angels or military people, and it sure don't follow Thomas' past opinions, 'cause Thomas has sudden abandoned the one thing which made him an admirable Justice: consistency. Thomas mentioned plessey and brown, but if you don't think people knew he were talking 'bout roe then you are kidding self. J. Thomas is now firm ahead o' the pack in our personal ranking o' worst scotus Justices. were a competition 'tween Sotomayor and Alito previous in a race to the bottom, but Thomas has gone full darkside the last couple o' years and his past record as one o' the most predictable and consistent opinions on the Court has been replaced with the kinda naked political opportunism we condemned in Rehnquist... though am admitting Kavanaugh may give both Rehnquist and (new)Thomas a run for their money. HA! Good Fun! ps is crap like this which plays to the base but simultaneous reveals Thomas abandoning integrity... has us serious considering abandoning the rare capitalization we always afford Justices. not kidding.

pundit draft grades https://www.pff.com/news/draft-2021-nfl-draft-grades-all-32-teams from our pov, the only purpose in doing draft grades is so that three years from now people may look back at all the experts and marvel at just how wrong they were. HA! Good Fun!

from the source least likely to be cutting biden slack: the national review "Turning to the grim details, if this proposal is approved, those earning more than $1 million a year will face a top tax rate on long-term capital gains of 43.4 percent (once the Obamacare surtax on net investment income is thrown in), compared with 23.8 percent today. That would be a top rate higher — generally much higher — than anywhere in Europe, and that’s before considering what state and local taxes can do to the math. Those living in high-tax states such as California and New York will be looking at a top rate in excess of 54 percent, and for those lucky enough to be resident in de Blasio’s New York City, over 58 percent. Those who have been making plans to leave will get moving, and others are likely to join them, something that would come as a major blow to their governments’ already-shaky finances." https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/bidens-vindictive-capital-gains-tax-hike/ 20% for gd unless is a really good year, in which case he gets the surcharge we mentioned earlier in which case is 23.8%. only way gd gets the big new hit is if he is an extreme top earner. the current 20% is indeed a burden for folks trying to make ends meet through small investments in real property and non ira kinda stuff. likely still better than the income tax rate, but is still a burden. yeah, the $1million threshold is not as gracious as it seems for those family farmers we mentioned earlier or for individuals whose entire retirement plan is built 'round selling a business. details will need be worked out to accommodate such inevitable outliers, but is perhaps not near as terrible as gd thought it were. HA! Good Fun!

just to be clear, unless gd makes more than $1 mil in a year, the capital gains change should not make a difference to him. is something like .3% of tax payers the change is gonna impact. is only if you are a top earner the capital gains change is relevant, which sucks for Gromnir if we sell multiple properties all at one time, but c'est la vie. HA! Good Fun!

were a personal choice by tom. can't even blame on bad cgi. HA! Good Fun!

the non-partisan CBO warned that trump's blissful advocacy o' trickle down as the means by which his proposed tax cuts would pay for themselves were misguided and would cost the US enormous amounts o' money. warned before the tax cuts. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54994 and yet we still see trickle down being advocated in spite o' yet another fail. but maybe the fanciful appeals to ye goode olde days has us once again embracing mercantilism or slave labor. heck, the slavery thing worked for the greeks and for the US. @Guard Dog is likely gonna take offense at suggestion the capital gains tax is mostly a tax on windfall profits, but when looking at the total o' money the fed and states generate from capital gains it could be described as such. am suspecting gd ain't some kinda land baron who is enjoying his scrooge mcduck lifestyle as he skis down small mountains o' gold and jewels. nevertheless, when he tries and sells any o' his investment properties, he is gonna see a significant amount o' his profits disappear. is more than a few people who live off their investment income and their sale o' small real property investments, and those folks is not making anywhere near windfall profits. the 3.8% surcharge for families making over 250k per year is indeed a windfall tax, or at least it is meant to be. but again, the capital gains tax is 20%. compared to income tax rates save for lowest brackets, capital gains is extreme low and the rich has been taking advantage o' the capital gains rate to build ever increasing fortunes for many decades. your average american believes the rich is getting away with paying little or no tax, which is bs. nevertheless, the current situation with inheritance tax, hedge fund exceptions and capital gains is all contributing to unsupportable income disparity and trickle down does not boost the economy anywhere near enough to pay for even trump's recent tax cuts which pre pandemic the CBO were projecting would cost americans trillions in the next decade and a half. rich get richer, poor get poorer and gd gets screwed no matter what. HA! Good Fun! ps in the spirit o' full disclosure, Gromnir is pretty much living off our ira at this point, and as such our capital gains on investment is deferred until we withdraw, so am not immediate affected by capital gains taxes. our real property, which am increasing convinced we should unload, will be affected by capital gains taxes at some point, but am not gonna be personal hurt if the capital gains rate were to double. the relative small hit from capital gains is how we were able to make money via real estate. same thread fifteen or twenty years ago and am suspecting we mighta been a bit less critical o' low capital gains.

is not as if the wealthy is gonna stuff their money in a mattress if capital gains increases. is a tax on profit. US capital gains is 20%. the bracket for 40k income earners is 22%. so, where do you think the top 1% is making all their money? corporate tax obvious has the corporates pass the hit on to consumers, so is rare beneficial in the long run. obvious carveouts for personal residences (which there already is) and family owned farms is always considered when there is talk o' adjusting capital gains, but other than the 100ns who also argue in favor o' a flat 15% tax, which would lower taxes on the wealthy significant and disproportionate punish the poor, is tough to come up with a decent argument for maintaining the status quo... other than trickle down which has been a dead-end since reaganomics were laid to rest. "The lower capital gains rate — designed to encourage investment — mainly benefits the wealthy. For the 99 percent of taxpayers making less than $500,000, salaries and wages accounted for 75 percent of their adjusted gross income for 2012, according to the latest period available from Internal Revenue Service returns. Yet for those making $10 million or more, salaries and wages only account for around 15 percent of their income, while capital gains accounted for about half of their earnings." https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/02/bill-gates-calls-for-higher-capital-gains-taxes.html HA! Good Fun!

can't watch it. is clear these folks don't understand the difference 'tween antlers and horns. suspension of disbelief is blown rendering sweet tooth unwatchable. ... kidding, but it does look kinda silly and am admitted exhausted by the fantasy trope o' replacing rl racism with far less subtle bigotry towards elves or faeries or kids with antlers. if it doesn't look better than star trek, then am not seeing the point... which is most assured not an antler pun. HA! Good Fun!

lordy. who were calling tim scott, "uncle tim"? don't feed gd's they are all bad, but the dems are worse and they started it line of silly. there are no doubt many individual dems who are a-holes. they are people, and people are frequent a-holes. however, name the US President who criticized scott as uncle tim. identify the US senator who did so. got a democrat Congressman you wanna single out? no? https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-uncle-tim-hashtag-slur-racism in the fox news piece, they identify a nogoodnik as professor christina greer, who when asked if she found uncle tim trending to be problematic, her answer were, "definitely." is not difficult to recognize the anger o' many minorities who, considering how the republican party (former potus, us senators, us representatives) has recent decided it is ok to cozy up to and shelter white supremacists especial given individuals such as ron johnson has been attempting to blame january 6 on blm, for pundits to observe how uncle tim trending is not a surprise and should not be a surprise to anybody. such name-calling is crude and vulgar and should have no place in american politics, but again, the uncle tim stuff didn't come from american politicians of note. came from angry people, many of whom sat at home watching their tv as confederate flag waving "patriots" and proud boys stormed the Capitol. wanna hold every democrat responsible for the name calling? no surprise. you do have a habit o' blaming blm, yes? tim scott can say whatever he wants, but until the republican party owns their complicity and rejects the trend towards emboldening white supremacists, there is gonna be people who resort to petty, cruel and vile name calling. put those two wrongs on the scales and weigh 'em. embolden the proud boys and groups like 'em in a naked mercenary effort to garner the white and working class vote v. unacceptable name calling. "When someone asserts that the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. And when someone has so recently endorsed [N]azism, it is inconceivable that such a person can legitimately aspire to leadership — in a leadership role in a free society. And when someone has a long record, an ugly record, of racism and of bigotry, that record simply cannot be erased by the glib rhetoric of a political campaign. So, I believe that David Duke is an insincere charlatan. I believe he is attempting to hoodwink the voters of Louisiana, and I believe that he should be rejected for what he is and what he stands for." -- george bush, 1991. you got a better republican examples than tim scott, ron johnson, ted cruz and all the other current enablers o' hate, and you need not go back to 91 to find such. heck, search for the other george bush and his speech on october 19, 2017. HA! Good Fun! ps am not suggesting democrat congressmen is all innocent o' saying hateful things. call 'em out when they do so. we will be first in line to criticize 'em.

the dl from ucla had arguably the best senior bowl week of any defender this last year. a fantastic senior bowl performance don't necessarily translate to greatness in the nfl, but it does minimize the potential bust factor. the lb from lsu were not at a position o' need, but he were far and away the consensus best player available earlyish in the 4th round, and am doubting many woulda' criticized if cox had been drafted by a team late in the second round. am suspecting the cowboy organization and cowboy fans are satisfied with their draft this year, and other than the character issues already mentioned, am finding it difficult to complain. after round three, most picks have terrible long odds o' becoming a long-term solution for a position o' need, so taking a few gambles makes sense. nashon wright may have been a bit o' a head scratcher in round 3, but the cowboys had two other round three picks, so perhaps they found the proverbial diamond in the rough and weren't willing to risk he might be gone by the time they picked in round four. whatever. heck, three years from now perhaps the big wr from stanford is the perennial pro bowl player from this year's boyz draft. wouldn't shock us at all. HA! Good Fun!

some o' the textualist lines is being blurred a bit. when Scalia were 'round, there were an obvious standard bearer. of the so-called conservative Justices, the originalists is making a bit o' a comeback, which woulda' disappointed Scalia more than a little, but the new originalism only holds when and where is convenient. all Justices kinda knee-jerk pretend to be offended at being described with the strict construction label, but most ordinary persons use interchangeable with originalism so is kinda a quibble over nomenclature... which admitted is the job o' Justices. Gorsuch is trying to find his stride, but there has been curious moments. is no question when a 1st amendment religious freedom (not so much establishment clause) case comes before the Court, Gorsuch is gonna embrace an expansive interpretation o' liberty rights. is some good and some bad in that. however, J. Gorsuch defense of obergefell were, to say the least, problematic, and joining the majority in a recent capital punishment case exposed not just Kavanaugh, but the entire majority to a wholly justified and impassioned rebuke from Sotomayor. we can count on one hand the number o' times we has applauded a Sotomayor dissenting opinion, and we would have fingers left over after we were done. nevertheless, Gorsuch is a competent writer and for the most part he has been a conscientious textualist. few complaints from our pov. Alito and Thomas has abandoned ideology as they embrace the political war on big tech insofar as free speech is concerned. worse, J. Thomas' dicta in the recent Presidential election cases were more than a little disappointing and we were in full wtf-mode for a time. larry tribe explains the concerns o' many observers albeit w/o the brevity o' a typical obsidian message board posting. Justice Thomas’s solo dissent is another matter altogether. The question at hand concerned only the relationship between a state legislature and the state constitution as construed by the state’s highest court. But Thomas seized the opportunity to rant against the nonexistent dangers of undetectable fraud and to suggest that the 2020 election — the most secure and reliable election in our nation’s history — was clouded by uncertainty that only the U.S. Supreme Court could clarify. While he had to concede that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision “does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election,” his ominous warning that “we may not be so lucky in the future” stoked the same false and self-fulfilling narrative of fear and victimization that on Jan. 6 wrought death and destruction on the epicenter of democracy. Moreover, Justice Thomas shamelessly distorted the words of Yale Law School’s dean, the distinguished election law scholar Professor Heather Gerken. In the midst of Republicans’ push to pass voter ID laws that ostensibly secured elections but actually disenfranchised Democratic voters, Dean Gerken had observed that anyone bent on pulling off voter fraud on a scale large enough to swing an election would be more likely to “steal some absentee ballots or stuff a ballot box or bribe an election administrator or fiddle with an electronic voting machine.” So here’s the kicker: Gerken’s point was simply that polling places are secure, so they don’t need extra “security” from voter-suppressing ID laws. Her point was not, as Justice Thomas asserted, that mail-in voting is insecure. Turning Dean Gerken’s point upside-down, Justice Thomas cited it for the altogether different and entirely unsubstantiated proposition that voting by mail is unacceptably vulnerable to fraud. Even if that inference could be drawn – which it can’t – it had nothing at all to do with the case before the Court. (edit: underlined by Gromnir for emphasis. am knowing some may not realize, but for a Justice to do this is more than extraordinary.) Justice Thomas’s opinion is particularly egregious because those most aggrieved can hardly speak up. Joe Biden’s need to govern makes it counterproductive to engage in unending debate about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Dean Gerken’s role as head of one of our great law schools makes it awkward for her to chastise that school’s own distinguished alumnus, Justice Thomas, for his intellectual dishonesty. were a bad look for Thomas, and am expecting to see more as 'posed to less. however, our biggest concern regarding the current Court has gone complete under the radar: the shadow docket. To get on the shadow docket, any litigant can apply to a single justice, who decides whether to forward the dispute to the full court. Five votes among the nine justices are needed to grant a request. No oral arguments are made but opposing attorneys can file briefs in opposition. To be granted, the request must meet certain criteria, including that the applicants would suffer “irreparable harm” if it is not granted. The public generally sees the court as sorting out matters of national importance through extensive briefing, oral arguments and lengthy rulings that explain the law. But the number of substantive shadow docket decisions rose dramatically during the Trump administration. In those four years, the government filed shadow docket applications at 20 times the rate of each of the two previous eight-year administrations. The high court granted the government’s requests in a majority of cases. https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-court-shadow-video/the-shadow-docket-how-the-u-s-supreme-court-quietly-dispatches-key-rulings-idUSKBN2BF16Q with acb's arrival those shadow docket cases is occurring at an increased rate and a majority is being decided 5-4 or 6-3, with no written explanation as to why the Court barred State action, granted relief or even executed a human being for all practical purposes. rulings just kinda happen and most don't know what is taking place or accept meekly the new norm the majority is establishing. ... am kinda concerned. HA! Good Fun!

agreed on the rogues gallery o' teams willing to ignore character problems. aside, broncos grabbed another o' our favorite players. belly of the beast, a division 3 player, didn't just hold his own at the senior bowl. dominated... and with a broken hand. get picked in first three rounds means the broncos will keep him around for at least a couple years in the hope he develops. am gonna be rooting for "the gut." quinn had impressive pro day film. HA! Good Fun!

as an aside, am thinking many o' the libertarians don't know Thomas the way they believe they know Thomas. a case almost nobody recalls illustrates our point. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/580/14-9496/#tab-opinion-3706128 facts of case as presented in majority opinion... longish, but worthy o' the read Petitioner Elijah Manuel was held in jail for some seven weeks after a judge relied on allegedly fabricated evidence to find probable cause that he had committed a crime. The primary question in this case is whether Manuel may bring a claim based on the Fourth Amendment to contest the legality of his pretrial confinement. Our answer follows from settled precedent. The Fourth Amendment, this Court has recognized, establishes “the standards and procedures” governing pretrial detention. See, e.g., Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 111 (1975) . And those constitutional protections apply even after the start of “legal process” in a criminal case—here, that is, after the judge’s determination of probable cause. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 274 (1994) (plurality opinion); id., at 290 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment). Accordingly, we hold today that Manuel may challenge his pretrial detention on the ground that it violated the Fourth Amendment (while we leave all other issues, including one about that claim’s timeliness, to the court below). I Shortly after midnight on March 18, 2011, Manuel was riding through Joliet, Illinois, in the passenger seat of a Dodge Charger, with his brother at the wheel. A pair of Joliet police officers pulled the car over when the driver failed to signal a turn. See App. 90. According to the complaint in this case, one of the officers dragged Manuel from the car, called him a racial slur, and kicked and punched him as he lay on the ground. See id., at 31–32, 63.[1] The policeman then searched Manuel and found a vitamin bottle containing pills. See id., at 64. Suspecting that the pills were actually illegal drugs, the officers conducted a field test of the bottle’s contents. The test came back negative for any controlled substance, leaving the officers with no evidence that Manuel had committed a crime. See id., at 69. Still, the officers arrested Manuel and took him to the Joliet police station. See id., at 70. There, an evidence technician tested the pills once again, and got the same (negative) result. See ibid. But the technician lied in his report, claiming that one of the pills was “found to be . . . positive for the probable presence of ecstasy.” Id., at 92. Similarly, one of the arresting officers wrote in his report that “[f ]rom [ his] training and experience, [ he] knew the pills to be ecstasy.” Id., at 91. On the basis of those statements, another officer swore out a criminal complaint against Manuel, charging him with unlawful possession of a controlled substance. See id., at 52–53. Manuel was brought before a county court judge later that day for a determination of whether there was probable cause for the charge, as necessary for further detention. See Gerstein, 420 U. S., at 114 (requiring a judicial finding of probable cause following a warrantless arrest to impose any significant pretrial restraint on liberty); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/109–1 (West 2010) (implementing that constitutional rule). The judge relied exclusively on the criminal complaint—which in turn relied exclusively on the police department’s fabrications—to support a finding of probable cause. Based on that determination, he sent Manuel to the county jail to await trial. In the somewhat obscure legal lingo of this case, Manuel’s subsequent detention was thus pursuant to “legal process”—because it followed from, and was authorized by, the judge’s probable-cause determination.[2] While Manuel sat in jail, the Illinois police laboratory reexamined the seized pills, and on April 1, it issued a report concluding (just as the prior two tests had) that they contained no controlled substances. See App. 51. But for unknown reasons, the prosecution—and, critically for this case, Manuel’s detention—continued for more than another month. Only on May 4 did an Assistant State’s Attorney seek dismissal of the drug charge. See id., at 48, 101. The County Court immediately granted the request, and Manuel was released the next day. In all, he had spent 48 days in pretrial detention. ... am doubting there is any question where @Guard Dog sympathies lie based on facts, yes? cops and techs lied 'bout evidence and petitioner spends almost two months incarcerated 'cause o' the multiple lies by law enforcement, and even once law enforcement knew they had no evidence, manuel were kept locked up for more than a month. majority o' the Court says the fourth amendment protects folks such as manuel against the aforementioned bs even if is a pretrial matter. Thomas and Alito disagreed with the majority. 'ccording to Thomas, manuel coulda' been held indefinite w/o triggering fourth amendment protections just so long as there were no trial court appearance made by the petitioner. nobody remembers this case, but am betting it makes many who bothered to read this far shudder. Thomas is not the friend many believe him to be. HA! Good Fun!

hmmm. am not a fan o' Thomas for reasons we has stated previous, but he were dogged consistent and he adhered to his ideology. better judge than Justice perhaps, but we had respect for his integrity even if we disagreed with him. however, recent decisions has us concerned. Thomas has been floating unsubstantiated voting conspiracy theory nonsense via dicta in recent cases and he has done similar with internet free speech. even if Thomas is a political creature, his opinions has always been free of such baggage. sure, his legal theory regarding the scope o' the civil war amendments is more narrow than any other Justice and as such Thomas has been adversarial to any number o' affirmative action and civil rights positions advanced by historical disenfranchised groups, which has contributed to lack o' popularity o' Thomas. and let's be honest, the anita hill thing raised enough red flags that Thomas likely should not have been added to the Court-- "anita hill," for many will be the first thing they think o' when they consider Thomas and his legacy, which is a bad starting point. even so, we has always had respect for Thomas as a judge and as a Justice. however, our respect is quick evaporating. the inappropriate dicta is a bad look for Thomas. am having difficulty squaring with his espoused ideology. HA! Good Fun! ps am also knowing we has explained the 10th amendment don't mean what most believe it means. national bank created so soon after passing 10th amendment thorough undercuts many o' gadsen flag folks notions o' the 10th amendment. and am knowing we has invoked south dakota v. dole many times to explain fed involvement in education n' such.

the new cdc study were unknown to us. interesting. however, assuming you weren't cherry picking purposeful: “The second dose of mRNA vaccines induces a level of virus neutralizing antibodies about 10-fold greater than the first dose,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory panel. “Also, the second dose induces cellular immunity, which predicts not only longer protection, but better protection against variant strains.” "It’s also not clear how long first-dose protection lasts without the boost from a second dose, Dr. Fauci said during a White House press briefing in April." HA! Good Fun!

if rodgers wants out of gb 'cause o' jordan love being drafted last year, which we still find difficult to believe, then am suspecting the 49ers just got a lot less likely as an option for rodgers. talent is important insofar as team success is concerned. the draft represents the single most significant opportunity for a team to improve talent during a given year. is understandable people fixate. 'course is no way to know for certain if a draft were a success until a few years removed from the draft, and is kinda common for drafts which look fantastic the day after the draft is over to end up being busts down the line. and is not as if the patriots were geniuses when they passed over tom brady, like every other nfl team, for the first five rounds and 198 picks o' the 2000 draft. converse, we guarantee almost every qb starved team in the league would have drafted mac jones, tre lance, justin fields, trevor lawrence or zach wilson if those guys had somehow slipped into the second round, but is also an extreme high probability more than one o' those guys will be a bust in the nfl. good moves v. bad moves by gms in choosing players is rare as simple as is made to seem. *shrug* that said, one reason we tend to focus on character is 'cause unlike the speed o' the nfl and injuries and chemistry with players and coaches, character from college to pros is kinda predictable. sure, some rare guys do mature, but if you got busted outside strip joints multiple times in college, convince an nfl coaching staff you has sudden become a model citizen who will always make curfews and will be first in line for community outreach efforts is gonna require the nfl coaches be willful obtuse. aside, the chiefs got one o' our favorite players. https://www.nfl.com/prospects/nick-bolton/3200424f-4c67-8301-cd66-2b7e4543922a reminds us o' zach thomas. a bit slow (relative) and undersized, but plays with great instincts and anticipation. can't help rooting for this guy even if he is on the chiefs. HA! Good Fun!

it doesn't. only other explanation is natural resistance. HA! Good Fun!

am not quite sure how he managed the 80% resistance number. am sure WHO and the cdc would love to hear 'bout his natural resistance to a novel corona virus. fascinating. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7402559/ is just one example, but after a relative short period o' time, a majority o' passengers on a cruise ship tested positive for covid-19, and this were in spite o' an active effort to quarantine the sick. not resistance, but there is a whole lotta folks who is asymptomatic in spite o' their covid infection. 'course covid is actual most contagious early following infection and before one would begin displaying symptoms. got a whole lotta folks spreading covid-19 w/o any obvious signs o' being infected. have seen a whole lotta guesses 'bout relative transmissibility o' covid and just one part o' the difficulty in coming up with specific numbers is that the variants is undermining any meaningful effort to come up with meaningful results for such measures. uk variant has been estimated as being 45% more contagious than the original covid-19 strain, and 'ccording to a reuters article we saw early april 2021 (am admitting we didn't check sources) the uk variant is now the most common strain in the us. uk variant is s'posed as approximate as contagious as the spanish flu were, and a bit more contagious than seasonal flu... which is kinda meaningless as the basic reproduction number for the spanish flu and seasonal flu is ranges, and a relative considerable range at that depending on a whole host o' variables. covid-19 is highly contagious, but 'bout 80% o' people is asymptomatic. not same as resistant. not at all the same. get a vaccine which is 90% effective (the 90% numbers were generated before the uk and sa variants became widespread, so am not sure how much stock to put in such) also has added benefit as the likelihood o' needing hospitalization if one is infected also drops dramatic for those vaccinated with all o' the major vaccines. am thinking there is a whole lotta folks innocent conflating numbers. very understandable ignorance is undermining some o' the vaccination efforts. kinda a shame. that said, childhood traumas is highly resistant to numbers. we once sat on a bench w/o realizing there were a hornet's nests suspended on the underside. got stung dozens o' times including up nose and in ear and other sensitive places. nowadays, many decades removed, anytime we see a black and yellow flying insect, we wanna kill it. not any kinda exaggeration. we have a genuine urge to swat, smash, and/or crush any bee, or hornet which crosses our path. gorth aversion to medical injections is different, but we sympathize. HA! Good Fun!

perhaps the only good thing about having multiple needs is you are able to choose best player available w/o it being a bad decision. dt or safety were also options if you really didn't wanna take samuel. as we noted, joseph were in that 6.30-6.20 range which contained a large number o' players who had similar projected nfl success. so, choose the guy less likely to make headlines via his mug shot or some bat crap story which takes place at 2:00am and nowhere near a football field. HA! Good Fun!

kelvin joseph were also kicked off the lsu squad for their fiesta bowl appearance a couple years ago-- unspecified infraction o' team rules. keep in mind, two other players initial suspended for that game but allowed to play were involved in a robbery which resulted in gunshots being fired. it takes a lot to get suspended at lsu. apparently joseph were gonna have to sit additional games the following year, so he transferred to kentucky. is also worth noting joseph got benched during the florida game this last year 'cause he got torched repeatedly and kinda mental collapsed during the game, blowing coverages and acting like a whinny little... dallas just can't help themselves. kelvin has tons o' athleticism, but he relies on that athleticism to react to plays. needs to learn to study and develop anticipation. also needs to grow up and he needs do it fast. HA! Good Fun! ps am kinda taking it out on the cowboys, but we loathe all the nfl teams who talk 'bout the importance o' character while drafting guys such as parsons. is no accountability and players has learned there is no real cost for most kinds o' bad character as long as they produce. cowboys is most obvious, but we could be talking 'bout the browns who had a case o' insta amnesia and signed kareem hunt, or any o' a dozen other teams.

made sloppy joes a few days ago. served on hamburger buns. will be hamburger buns today and tomorrow and possible the next day. am suspecting if we run out o' buns we will eat sans bread or perhaps on our eggs, and am still gonna have sloppy joe leftovers. we don't use green bell pepper in our sloppy joe mix. *gasp* replace with jalapeño. we always make far too much for one or even two people. isn't too much o' a problem as we prefer sloppy joes the next day after the meat has genuine absorbed all the sloppy goodness. HA! Good Fun!

tough part is even at twelve discs, you probable still gotta go out and buy five deadly venoms. HA! Good Fun!

am agreeing the underlined portion is tough to ignore, not that he owes Gromnir some kinda explanation. am thinking he may owe @Bartimaeusand other gb fans an explanation at some point, but... HA! Good Fun!

our first thought were recalling the stolen laptop from january 6, so for us it weren't misleading, but am seeing how it could easily be read so. the judge, for anybody who bothers to read the twitter thread and ted cruz's op-ed at wsj, is a former bush appointee. @Guard Dog would, we surmise, approve o' most judge luttig opinions and positions seeing as how he is (was? now retired) arguable libertarian and his opinions were common in opposition to the so-called conservative position (pro-cop) in his defense o' 4th amendment protections. twice the judge were on the short list o' scotus candidates. so, not a lib. however, the judge is paid by coca-cola in a special advisor role, so is not as if luttig felt a need to correct cruz outta some kinda sense o' justice. nevertheless, will be intriguing to see if/how cruz responds. HA! Good Fun!