Gromnir

sure, but you need also graduate law school. for a long time, there were a single state exception to the law school requirement: louisiana. no longer an exception. so sure, you can go to Princeton and fail and is possible to then go to university o' virginia, and fail. don't give up and instead go to university of buffalo and fail and final apply and get accepted to american samoa law... which don't actual exist btw. we were talking 'bout teaching and school, yes? this were all in response to a teacher allowing multiple tests takings. am suspecting there might be a law school somewheres which allows a student to re-do ad nauseum, but is not gonna be an aba accredited school, which is gonna at least initial make you presumed goal o' working as an attorney far less likely. teach a kid endless redo is an option is not practical rl experience and it sure as heck don't prepare you for any advanced degree work we ever hear o' neither; not gonna get through law school that way and not grad school for sure. the bar exam? sure. one extra body in a huge room o' sweating and nervous humanity requires no resources to make available another opportunity to charge test fees. is no Teaching involved in the bar exam save self-teach. brings to mind a singular example. we knew the story o' a guy who were a vietnam vet and he literal had brain damage. not dribble cup brain damage, but he had difficulty with certain aspects o' cognition. the guy took the ca bar every year, twice a year, for something like eight years. eventual a veterans group, after veteran's story made local tv news, cobbled together money and came up with specialized tutoring, and the guy failed again, but he did eventual pass the bar. the thing is, the veteran never did law school as he took an extreme unlikely apprenticeship route which is even more difficult today than it were in the 70s. regardless, am not thinking that existence o' an exceptional example somehow proves your point. gonna actual defend the redo test scheme by pointing out it is possible to spend years retaking bar exam or medical boards? need retake test multiple times would seem to be proof that somewhere along the line the educational process failed. if point to graduate law school or med school is to, in part, prepare you to pass bar exam and/or boards, then need retake such tests over and over is just proof the teaching model failed. btw, pretty much every law school posts their first time bar passage rate compared to statewide bar passage rate, 'cause such is deemed an important measure o' relative value o' the education provided. as to your most recent comment, am gonna note how dismissive we were earlier o' the mindless knowledge tests which demand the student regurgitate data or proper identify facts, as if such is somehow meaningful. redo such tests is even more pointless as is zero chance the student proves learning by redo. the bar exam, for example, is not testing knowledge o' facts. even the multi-state multiple choice portion does not simple ask what is the rule of law in dumpor's case. instead there will be a unique question the examinee has likely never considered specific which involves successive assignments by leaseholder and if examinee understands the rule in dumpor's, they should be able to pick the correct answer from the provided list o' options. nevertheless, am understanding hurl don't have a choice. current models and requirements means that he needs cover multiple significant events, people and conflicts during a relative short period o' time, and state exams will then test to make certain his students were actual exposed to all that nonsense which any kid who knows how to access google may self-teach if hurl has provide more important learning skills. am personal amazed so many trained educators nevertheless embrace the current models. hurl teaches middle school, yes? why not take a semester and teach protestant reformation or post civil war reconstruction. nothing else. go deep rather than broad and make certain kids know how to do research and real analysis and critical thinking. teach kids how to read critical and then write persuasive. every kid already knows how to use internet to discover facts, so teach 'em facts is a waste o' effort in our mind. should be teaching kids skills and how to learn. but again, am understanding hurl don't have autonomy. nevertheless, am baffled by current goals o' teaching; even if we is told how important is critical thinking and problem solving, is clear such stuff is not a priority on those standardized tests which measure student/teaching success. HA! Good Fun! ps am not knowing what happened to the vietnam vet after he became a lawyer. our understanding is he went to work for a firm and were successful practicing for at least a few years, but the feel good story were pretty much completed with the eventual bar passage by a guy who had been severe injured in vietnam and nevertheless persevered in spite o' improbable obstacles.

am not sure what med schools hurl is imagining. in grad school and law school we couldn't fail classes w/o risk o' being kicked out o' the program. grad school "fail" meant less than a 3.0. day 1 law school started off with the traditional look-left-and-look-right speech. at least 1/3 won't make the cut. limited spaces and resources meant keeping dead weight 'round waiting for an epiphany moment were not gonna happen. competitive med schools is more relaxed than law school? maybe, but would be a surprise. regardless, you don't graduate med school and know how to do genuine surgery neither. residency is where you learn to be a doctor for reals. ... am admitting we know less 'bout residency than we should. residency models as described to us all sound archaic and stoopid. regardless, am having a hard time imagining young doctors is being coddled during residency. HA! Good Fun! ps is our understanding dentists actual beat doctors for many o' the stuff christine lahti mentions. the business side o' being a dentist is particular unforgiving.

am suspecting gd knows enough to realize such an observation hurts his position rather than helps. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIM WOMEN - FACT SHEET first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution makes wearing o' such garb a protected right. in fact even if you could show that somehow wearing a burqa or hijab somehow endangered fellow citizens (am not even gonna try and imagine a relevant hypothetical) the government would need show they were addressing a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means possible. more extreme and arguable butting up against the good public health angle, amish and christian scientists has won any number o' cases 'gainst the state when there is a conflict 'tween free exercise o' religion and the public welfare. 'course state and fed governments nevertheless has a history o' attempting to curtail religious practices o' fringe or disreputable religions by invoking public health. santerians has been oblique targeted with all kinda transparent health code ordinance adoptions as an attempted end around on the Constitution. such efforts fail near 100%, but state and local governments, responsive to their provincial and bigoted constituencies, keep trying. regardless, the theoretical agreements doesn't help 'cause such ain't actual theoretical in the United States, and "rights" don't mean same thing in the US as they do elsewheres. have attempted to explain previous how free speech in US is different. so too is search and seizure laws and the exclusionary rule is almost complete unique to the US, for better or worse. 'course kinda/sorta/not really similar to your driving example, which am doubting would get much legal traction in any US court, is stuff such as basic health care, which a growing number o' people believe should be a fundamental right. right to drive beyond your private property ain't even close to getting a sniff as far as being a potential Constitutional Amendment, and is nothing which would allow even the most flexible legal scholar to imagine into existing common law, case law or legislative history a fundamental right to drive. health care, on the other hand, is something we see as a legit possible amendment in the foreseeable future. while the current Presidential administration has a rather loose grasp o' law and no respect for the Constitution, the Courts remain protectors o' fundamental rights, and while am knowing this conversation has happened more than once, fundamental rights is treated different in the US compared to many/most western nations. when gd and Gromnir speak o' rights, we ain't necessarily speaking same language as folks in the rest o' the world. before anybody gets all sensitive and channels their inner nationalist, am not suggesting US model is better... save for specific the first amendment protections, which am indeed asserting is better than pretty much everywhere else, so there. dedication to fundamental rights means we are all too often protecting genuine evil doers from government interference and prosecution. defendants who has been proven guilty may walk free. kkk members spewing hate and intolerance may burn crosses and active attempt to sew discord and they get same protections as blm activists or 1970s hippie peaceniks. slumlord son-in-law o' prez uses privacy laws to avoid investigations into his questionable business practices. such is the cost o' liberty and is valid and compelling arguments the US does it wrong... with exception o' first amendment. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. gd may have forgotten the rights o' free speech and religious exercise exists as a prohibition on government action, but am more confident he recognizes the comparative value US Courts afford such rights. HA! Good Fun!

you sure as heck are. last response 'cause am disappointed we need have this discussion with gd. go ahead and tell us to avoid maskless d-bags on an elevator who crowd in despite protocols. point out is our responsibility to avoid those grocery store folks when they come up behind you in checkout line and there is literal nowhere to avoid or literal brush past us from behind to get at the yogurt instead o' waiting for us to move or simple asking us to move. etc. btw, is the same people who got their curious liberty notions regarding seatbelts, drunk driving and covid-19 mask mandates who is also not following social distancing guidelines. you provide limited examples o' what a person may to do to minimize the dangers o' maskless morons while ignoring fact the costs o' your choice is potential death. we aren't talking fundamental rights, so such costs is very much a factor. with no way to accurate attribute blame, and a libertarian inexplicable and beyond all expectation shifting blame onto victims, we still must needs balance your liberty interests and the social costs. that is the point o' the democratic process. pretty much every law entails such balancing--speed limits to toxic waste dumping. as a people we weigh costs to society v. value o' liberty. costs https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ it's a freaking mask for chrissakes. a libertarian suggesting that the "right" to go w/o masks is legit 'cause is our duty to mitigate the admitted irresponsibility o' the maskless d-bags? seriously? that is not how libertarianism has been sold in our neck o' the woods. so much for personal responsibility being paramount, eh? and yes, there should be laws which make you extinguish your cigarette in a restaurant even if it is possible for Gromnir to move away from you or leave the establishment. and sure, most drunk driving accidents happen on the road between the hours o' midnight and 3am, so clear all those victims is pushing their luck by driving at such times, but we gotta protect the right o' folks to decide for selves if they are fit to drive after drinking? your seatbelt? well, is no way we can avoid paying for such stoopid, so am not sure how to give you even tongue-in-cheek benefit o' the doubt. society as a whole is the victim, so... mask mandates v. an imaginary right when we are looking at +160k american dead and estimates o' 300k from the washington model promoted by the wh by end of the year? where is the personal responsibility? fundamental rights? sure. through the admitted cumbersome constitutional convention and amendment process we has decided, as a nation, that gd's liberty rights insofar as freedom o' religious exercise means other people may need to mitigate their discomfort 'cause we won't use the government institutions to curb such behaviours. is a relative short list o' such liberties, and for good reason. the reason the list is short is 'cause such liberties is a bar on democracy. HA! Good Fun!

The White House Has ‘Asked About the Process to Add a President to Mount Rushmore’ with any other President, one would think we were linking an onion article. HA! Good Fun!

no you can't always avoid the latter as anybody who has been to a grocery store these past months should be aware... and you are shifting responsibility to the victims which is exact opposite o' what any self-described libertarian should do. oh, and seat belts is another great example particular given recent turn of the thread. is costly to scrape your uninsured arse off the pavement. it costs Gromnir and everybody else money to save your life and then support your infirm self for perhaps decades. we, The People, says "no mas." you got no right to forgo seatbelt wearing and your fellow citizens has decided your irresponsible behaviour is too costly to endure. so wear the damned seat belt and don't smoke in restaurants and use a freaking mask. The People is the government, through democratic process fought for by those "no taxation w/o representation" guys, who make their collective will known. yeah, if fundamental rights is involved, then The People can go sit and spin. otherwise, take some personal responsibility and appeal to the democratic process. victim blaming is unexpected cheap. HA! Good Fun!

had a class at berkeley which were kinda unique. english 1a were the basic writing skills class everybody in, as far as we know, every public CA college system needs take to get any kinda degree. is one o' those classes which professors lament 'cause the % o' incoming students unprepared for the course is increasing. anywho, our professor for 1a, this old guy who looked exact like walt whitman, informed class there were no grades 'less we wanted 'em and we only needed attend class until we proved we had attained satisfactory 1a proficiency. we were to be assigned an essay every week, and if in week one we proved we were skilled at writing, we would never again need attend class. point o' class, 'ccording to walt whitman's doppelganger, were to provide us with the writing skills needed to succeed in university, so stay in class after having proven such proficiency were not required. ... thought the guy were joking. am embarrassed to admit it took us until week two to pass the class. we got no problem with tracy edwards approach, depending on the nature o' her tests. if is mindless multiple choice and short answer knowledge tests, then offer same test multiple times is not gonna show learning. if is random kinda essay questions exams, not necessarily same exact test, or some other skill-based measure, then am okie dokie with rinse and repeat. if goal is to promote learning, then multiple stabs at same target is hardly problematic. 'course one needs also recognize how at some point the do-over mentality won't cut it. if you train kids to expect second and third chances, then when they gets to a competitive university or to real world, they may not be prepared for the cold and harsh reality o' life. focus on 5th graders learning material as 'posed to being concerned 'bout achieving a specific grade? fine. but how 'bout eighth grade? or tenth? HA! Good Fun!

weed is pretty freaking terrible if your brain hasn't fully developed. we got no problem with restricting weed sales if only to keep out o' the hands o' young people. unfortunate reality is weed is most popular with the age groups who is most susceptible to problems. young people. an adult in 30s or older? am not certain what is the motivation for criminalizing the use o' weed by folks who is at least 30. what is the minimum age for most states which has legalized pot? should probable be 25 based on studies, but am doubtful you could make more than 21 given inevitable but inappropriate paralleles to alcohol. am ok with whatever the democratic process decides as we got no personal axe to grind on this topic, but we recognize how folks is over-dismissive o' the dangers o' cannabis use on developing brains, and brains frequent continue to develop into late 20s. why should Gromnir care if kids is forcibly damaging their brains? 'cause is social costs for such behaviours even if such ain't apparent at age 15 or 18 or 21. is no reason we should need pay for young people being stoopid... or young people making themselves even more stoopid. HA! Good Fun!

you are channeling vol and skarp_one. honest. as we predicted, gd blames and meme and simultaneous defends. sheesh. this is not the late show with you providing opportunities for Gromnir to do his carnac the magnificent impressions. and gd has weird ideas 'bout who is government and what is the purpose o' its existence. if a large number o' people engage in an activity they should not be doing, particular activities which put lives at others at risk, The People reasonable respond by demanding those irresponsible people stop their dangerous behaviours. is why we got drunk driving laws. The People, through elected representatives and democratic process decide that drunk drivers need nannies. most o' us can see the wisdom in not relying on personal responsibility o' drunkards and callous d-bags who get behind the wheel after drinking. sure, one may say many drunk drivers has never caused an accident, so why do we criminalize for behaviour which ain't yet actual caused harm? is even less rationale for applying gd's should not rationale to masks. at least with the drunk driver we ordinarily know who is responsible for accidents. yeah, there is hit & run situations, but typical we know who caused the accident which killed a woman and two o' her kids when a drunk driver swerved into oncoming traffic on a 2-lane highway. with covid-19, the person responsible for death o' grandma may be complete unknown. some maskless jerk at a supermarket spreads covid-19 infecting a couple other people, and those asymptomatic people spread to others, and so on and so on. eventual, an otherwise careful person nevertheless becomes infected and brings the disease home to grandma. proximate cause nightmare does not change reality o' an unnecessary death. gd argument presumes personal responsibility, but covid makes it extreme difficult to assign responsibility. there is no right to be maskless. democratic process says behaviours and activities is fair game for legislation as long as law passed is rational related to espoused goal and don't otherwise abridge some other fundamental right. rational. reasonable. and again, takes into consideration other fundamental rights 'pon which The People may not tread. gd's stand on masklessness "right" is a matter o' principle? generalized notion government should not tell folks what to do? gd admits it ain't reasonable to be maskless, and seems to realize there is no actual right to masklessness. nevertheless, gd defends right to engage in a dangerous activity which makes assigning personal responsibility problematic. *snort* as to the US healthcare system, am admitting it is broken, just not the way most people assume, and costs o' fixing is rare genuine considered before making changes. hospitals is stoopid and is caught in an insane cycle, but +90% o' the time they ain't gouging folks. the reason why folks with no insurance may sometimes/infrequent negotiate bills which is pennies on the dollar is precise 'cause the current business model assumes X number o' folks will not be able to pay. prices o' procedures keep rising because hospitals need to cover the costs o' many unpaid hospital bills. is absolute idiotic and insane, but the entire industry is caught up in the self-perpetuating insanity. in the 80s, bob went into the hospital for burst appendix and surgery saved him. lucky for him? he couldn't pay his bill 'cause insurance only covered a fraction of costs. hospital didn't wanna show as a loss, so they kept bob's bill on the books as long as possible, and as a solution they raised the price o' a bunch o' other procedures in hopes o' recouping what they knew would need be a loss. 'course bob's credit were destroyed, but at least his life were saved. a couple years later, doug has a burst appendix and same problem as bob, but the hospital has been raising costs since bob. is now even more folks like doug than there were in bobs time 'cause prices increased so much... and so on and so on and so on... is all complete insane. procedure costs went up cause so many people couldn't pay their bills, and 'cause costs went up, more people failed to pay bills and the industry as a whole started charging more 'cause o' the obvious (albeit flawed) logic. after all, if hospitals were charging more for procedures, then why aren't doctors and nurses making more money? costs go up and everybody wants a cut, which only exacerbated the problem. and am only addressing one underreported issue with healthcare. is so many things wrong with the healthcare system and while is a few notorious sinister mercenaries who make headline news, the general problems ain't a result o' greed or graft. decades ago the medical industry adopted a self-perpetuating scheme o' stoopid and they got no way to extract themselves from the mess they collective created. folks like bernie is part o' the problem, though ironic, his approach to the healthcare may be the only possible way to deal with the issues. bernie plan for healthcare reform appeals to many precise 'cause is big picture and general. actual costs is just details for bernie. you can't just bottom line costs if you ignore a whole bunch o' costs such as billing industry evaporating overnight and the current debt load hospitals is current carrying... debt load which has been made worse by covid-19 btw as elective surgeries is how many hospitals were carrying staying above water 'cause o' bobs and dougs, and those elective surgeries aren't happening. charlie fox. the thing is, if you know all the details and costs, it is gonna paralyze you. is no way to get legislators on board en masse once costs is presented intelligent and thoughtful. as most reasonable people would expect, but few wanna admit, there is no simple and ez solution to healthcare. bernie's plan sucks. bernie is misleading on costs. ok. now what? am thinking we gotta recognize there is no good plan and perhaps what is more important is getting people to support change. is so against our personal nature, but perhaps we can resolve to work out the details later, but what is most important today is getting people to agree that wholesale change is required. bernie's plan sucks, but it may be the plan we need. HA! Good Fun!

1) you don't have a right to abstain from wearing a mask in many situations. is not debatable. perhaps gd believes everyone should have a right to forgo masks, but is not actual a legal right. need discuss? hope not. 'course the hastily crafted venn diagram complete misses the point many freedom loving patriots similar ignore and that is even if there were a right to not wear a mask, would it be wise to do so? the florida man who set a quran on fire had a right to do so. fed government had no authority to stop florida man from doing his florida thing. however, burn quran is nevertheless a contemptible act which should be criticized by all. both you and florida man got the right to free speech. such freedom provides you with Personal Responsibility. "right to ________ " thorough misunderstood concept. problem with rights is people conflate noun with the adjective. just 'cause you have a right don't mean exercise o' such is the right thing to do. 2) fact some is taking political advantage o' school reopening, or covid in general, does not alter the underlying science gonna ignore the tinfoil hat bit 'bout "public control," but there is no doubt any number o' skeevy political creatures is using fears related to schools to further polarize their bases. so what? can say such 'bout any political relevant issue. were a whole lotta northern politicians who didn't care one bit 'bout slavery in the early 1860s who nevertheless chastised and ridiculed southern democrats. fact there were indeed politicians who were exploiting the slavery issue for personal political gain didn't change inherent evils o' slavery. particular with so many single parents who do not work at home, school openings is a vital concern and predictable the political vultures is swooping in to get their piece o' the quickly decomposing carrion. distraction. irrelevant. any political charged issue with enough people interested will bring out more than one political vulture. so what? 'course gd is out on the fringe where he presumes they, the ubiquitous political operatives at all levels of government, is all corrupt... or at least so uniform corrupt that any choice makes no difference. *insert eye roll* blame on meme? am suspecting gd will defend, and then blame on meme. can't have both ways. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

once again you go speaking for Gromnir when is best to only speak for self. am not certain how many times you need be confronted with the same error. HA! Good Fun!

what makes the gop pushing the kanye campaign particular curious, beyond his attacks on harriet tubman is the recognition that pollsters believe kanye west voters will not be minorities-- will be young male nihilists who ain't minority. thus far, kanye's appeal is limited to a small subset o' trump voters. HA! Good Fun!

Kanye West indicates that his spoiler campaign is indeed designed to hurt Biden headline misleads a bit, but is a fun/brief read. HA! Good Fun!

ordinarily when we speak o' an artist sounding as if they is in pain while singing, we speak o' emotional pain. or virtual any fiona apple song evar. russian guy is fantastic, but literal sounds as if he is suffering. ... am admitting we like performance precise 'cause he sounds as if he is perpetual on the cusp o' descending into a fit o' lung cancer coughing. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure why some yutz in texas is somehow the voice o' american exceptionalism. sure, a bunch o' clowns clapped when he made the comment, and it appeared to resonate with skarp_one *chuckle* but let's be honest 'bout so-called american exceptionalism rather than making texas guy its poster child... and keep in mind am not specific directing this at gd. habit? we don't necessarily agree, but american exceptionalism embraces conscious and w/o remorse the recognition many americans will fail and suffer. the opportunity to achieve greatness comes with admitted unpleasant social consequences. not everybody will succeed. not everybody is smart enough or works hard enough to achieve the american dream. however, for those who genuine strive to better their stars, there is ample opportunity in the US to achieve... whatever. american exceptionalism is not how texas guy describes. american exceptionalism, perhaps a bit callous, embraces the existence o' poor and hopeless as actual some kinda proof that the system is working. there needs be an unpleasant cost for losing if you want people to join the race and try to win. whether is our health system or welfare or any number o' social programs, the american exceptionalist shakes head sadly at the misguided europeans (and texas guy) who just don't get it. what makes america exceptional is opportunity but if you want opportunity, the american exceptionalist demands personal responsibility. *shrug* am not trying to sell american exceptionalism. is a whole lotta inequality inextricable worked into the system which makes opportunity for some far different than opportunity for others. am NOT supporting the narrative as it is most often presented. however, teaching kids how great is everything in the US compared to the rest o' the world is not teaching american exceptionalism. am thinking is worth pointing out how the guy from the john oliver video is the wrong pinata 'pon which to trade your swings. HA! Good Fun!

might wanna argue for institutionalization o' Gromnir, but am not thinking we count as an institution. am suspecting you don't understand the term you use. regardless, "racism is everywhere," is hardly the validation you believe. as you attempt to use, it literally would excuse having made same response no matter what were the contents o' our post... or any other post. hurl's observation 'bout invisible gene hackmans? sure. is appropriate, 'cause racism is everywhere? w/o context, such words is meaningless. HA! Good Fun!

sound quality o' video is such we cannot recognize national origin o' the would-be plumber/rocketeers. we wanna assume it is australians, or possibly muppets. thanks to years o' farscape viewing, we don't see much difference 'tween muppets and australians. when looking for the farmer's commercial, we discovered the following: HA! Good Fun!

... similar to skarp_one earlier, your unhinged response does wonders to prove our point. speaking for Gromnir is always a bad idea for vol as vol can barely string together coherent ideas for himself. stick to what we said as 'posed to what you attribute to us and you will make fewer mistakes. fewer. not expecting miracles. and is tough to work up much compassion for vol's most recent victimization troll seeing how he is the one who curiously injected race into our criticism o' the republicans who attacked kushner. you bring up race outta nowhere and then have a little fit o' apoplexy when somebody observes how inappropriate were your fixation on race... which predictable set you off on a race-based rant. okie dokie. as for skarp_one... *chuckle* you cannot help self, can you? we already responded to your "change it, " charge, but you either forgot or didn't understand. possible spam: we got no solutions save obvious bit o' overused pith: think globally, act locally. solutions is not gonna come from washington dc or even nashville. get enough localities to change and eventual you will see the same kinda homogenization which occurred to bring 'bout our current difficulties with policy and training fails 'mongst police. horrible solution... complete unsatisfactory and is assuming a temporal remote timeline for widespread change. fundamental problem is US police is different, as is so much in the US. we look like much o' the western world from the pov o' a casual outside observer, but our Constitution and values is different. requires unique solutions. 'course you could change the Constitution and make federal police possible. so, our response is: read it. not only is changing the Constitution on a polarizing issue so utter improbable as to be equivalent o' suggesting we use a billon gummy bears to fix the police problems, but it ain't even desirable. next time, read it. HA! Good Fun!

is a little disquieting how readily you turn our comment into an opportunity to indulge white male victimization anxiety. am not surprised, but it is disquieting. HA! Good Fun! ps we did our darndest to find a relevant vox article.

whether breathing or not, there will be air in the lungs 'cause nature abhors a vacuum. will be harder for the zombie to expel air as am assuming lungs don't work no more. corpses tend to float, and even when they eventual become complete waterlogged and sink, that hardly gives 'em the relative density which would be needed to actual "walk" anything approaching normal 'cross the bottom o' a lake, much less a sea or ocean. every current would push 'em 'round like rag dolls. watch those videos o' astronaut training. takes astronauts a bit o' practice to walk on the moon, and such training tends to happen in swimming pools. takes practice. learning zombies is kinda contrary to the whole concept o' zombies. 'course zombies is magic, even when the explanation is s'posed science. if you need a zombie to walk across the sea floor, they will do so just as long as the story calls for such. "Just basing that on bodies decaying at about twice the speed in water." 'tween saltwater and any number o' carrion feasting sea creatures, one wonders how far a rapid decaying (and gas producing) corpse would get if we is talking purposeful locomotion. am suspecting after every storm, the island fortress dweller would need check his/her nets, jic. some o' the strangest stuff washes ashore after storms. HA! Good Fun!

can't believe am responding, but am thinking the pictured zombie apocalypse fortress is safe from all but a couple zombies who accidental ate rocks or kettlebells and even then am not sure what kinda range a zombie has on sense o'... whatever or however they sense prey. some kinda simple netting in the few places where would be possible for a floater to wash ashore might be your only concern as far as zombie incursions. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna admit we didn't like the jared's father angle. there is criticisms o' jared related to his father which is legit, but to casual suggest jared ain't trustworthy 'cause his father is a convicted felon and slumlord is unfair. am personal not blaming anybody for the sins o' their parents. evar. lincoln project don't pull punches, but that were a shot below the belt and possible a tyson ear bite. HA! Good Fun!

first, we already addressed the national police issue. requires a change to the Constitution. second, poland is not the US. we have a 2nd amendment well armed populace which is far more diverse than is poland's, resulting in a police force which is necessarily fearful whenever confronting the public and consequently resulting in portions o' the public being distrustful o' cops. also, as Gromnir and the vox article points out, our police training is focused on suppression o' escalation as 'posed to genuine avoidance o' conflict or de escalation. but yeah, go ahead and prove our point. we observed foundational problem is being overlooked and you serve yourself up as a case in point. we cannot have a national police force. a singular national police is prohibited by the Constitution, which results in thousands o' local law enforcements needing find their own way. edit: am knowing how to a casual and outside observer, skarp_one would appear to perhaps be a Gromnir dopple we set up just to say the most easily refuted nonsense sole to provide us the opportunity to beat the stuffing outta him. instead o' needing deal with a reals and intelligent response, we post as skarp_one so we can control the dialog. am admitting such a ploy, while not Gromnir's style, would be an appealing conspiracy conclusion, 'cause how could a poster so routinely be skarp_one and be real? however, is not true. am not skarp_one. HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir alternative for 2020-2021 nfl season have teams play each other in madden. teams choose one player on roster to be their madden guy each week, and schedule is played as normal. oh sure, is small time and would not be televised national with big advertisement purchase, but on the positive side, nobody's grandma would need die 'cause an infected player or staff brought disease home (or to a strip club or bar) and then after a couple degrees o' separation a stranger ends up on a ventilator. on the positive side, fantasy football could continue as normal and threat o' players opting out for the year would not be an issue... though we wouldn't be shocked to see a digital richard sherman making some kinda' stink after game three. ... am mostly joking. is looking to be too late to institute a bubble kinda approach for this season o' the nfl and madden won't be the alternative. HA! Good Fun!

two quick points: 1)vox am kinda ambivalent 'bout vox, so am conflicted as 'course we applaud their conclusions (at least where they mirror ours) but is a somewhat akin to finding our self in agreement with anderson cooper. is not as if we put anderson cooper in same trash bin as hannity, but... 2) ok, so now what? the part vox skips over, and the issue Gromnir keeps beating to death, (edit: that were not some kinda intentional bad pun. were, given the current topic, an equal bad unintentional pun) is the overwhelming obstacles to fixing the problems vox and Gromnir identifies. the cops is not some kinda uniform/uniformed group o' anger junkies indulging in personal power fantasies, but there are near endemic training issues and self defeating policy goals. example: pull a guy over for drunk driving, and what is goals? all too often the anticipated outcome is to arrest anybody who fails breathalyzer or sobriety tests when we should be most concerned 'bout how best to protect the driver and others. we got segments o' population which is justifiable terrified o' cops, see police as the enemy, so when cops forceful slap cuffs on a presumed drunk individual as they is trained to do (but is more likely and forceful to do if you are a minority) chances o' situation escalating is remote or predictable? nevertheless, we train cops to be uncompromising and at the first sign o' any threat, they is authorized to use force. once force is applied in a situation with drunk and frightened suspect and an almost as frightened cop. what is chances for further escalation? now what? we identify a problem with training and policy, and will for the nonce ignore how prevalence o' handguns in the US population makes all cop encounters inherent more dangerous than almost anyplace else in the western world. let's assume for sake of argument, training and policy changes is demanded. now what? is thousands o' law enforcement agencies in the US. many such law enforcement departments owe only token fealty to their State governments and none to fed. has taken us more than 100 years to see current degree o' homogenization o' training and policy 'mongst law enforcement agencies and it happened utter organic as there were no directive from on high to bring 'bout such uniformity. we also got police unions. police unions frequent reject change for no reason other than principle. "if we give up/in on training what will be next? a month from now, or a year, they will try and take away our guns." change is not an easy sell to a guy who perhaps already spent a decade as police. cops see the news and they recognize how at the moment they is cast as villains. who is the next cop who is gonna be sacrificed on the pyre o' public opinion when an arrest goes bad? who wants to be that next cop? resist change. there is thousands o' US law enforcement departments including municipalities and sheriffs departments, and the sheriffs department, in particular, may be near autonomous from even State interference under current models. heck, we can't even get all county and municipalities to enforce mask requirements where states has legal legislated and implemented such. now what? we got no solutions save obvious bit o' overused pith: think globally, act locally. solutions is not gonna come from washington dc or even nashville. get enough localities to change and eventual you will see the same kinda homogenization which occurred to bring 'bout our current difficulties with policy and training fails 'mongst police. horrible solution... complete unsatisfactory and is assuming a temporal remote timeline for widespread change. fundamental problem is US police is different, as is so much in the US. we look like much o' the western world from the pov o' a casual outside observer, but our Constitution and values is different. requires unique solutions. 'course you could change the Constitution and make federal police possible.