nsplayr

If “the current thing” is not dying of preventable infectious disease, I do indeed support it!

Yep, bunch of weirdo Goop chicks sticking crystals up their cooters and spreading measles around! Good riddance.

Wow, the President wants to look into if we can use an existing vaccine or develop a new one to help protect people from a deadly virus, what an asshole!! /sarcasm Folks, vaccines are really really good. Massive net positive for humanity. The levels of disease and pestilence and death our ancestors regularly had to suffer through are just unthinkable today, in part because of vaccines (and clean water & sanitation!). Life pro-tips: Don’t shit where you eat, don’t drink from that murky stream of runoff, and get your MFing vaccines.

I agree with you 100% on this. As a famous person once said, “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Normal folks would rightfully roast for a lifetime of this kind of “rules don’t apply to me” behavior, and I genuinely don’t want our leaders to be rewarded with power and privilege when they are like this. Bill, Hillary, Trump, too many of them acted this and we all collectively let them off the hook and continue to do so. To their credit, Reagan, Carter, GHWB, Obama and to a lesser extend GWB were not entitled, flagrant rule-breakers IMHO and we should elect more people like them and less who are charismatic “bad boys” who just do whatever they want with few to no consequences (JFK, Bill, Trump). Nixon is obviously also in the “rules don’t apply to me” camp although minus most of the charisma…

Found one from March 24th 2022 after about 6.9 seconds of googling 🤷‍♂️

The ability to borrow at low interest rates, as the US government can, is a tremendously powerful tool. The price of having that tool is paying some interest. Just ask anyone with bad/no credit history how much you get jammed up when you can't take out a loan when you need one. At the rates Uncle Sam gets, I'm fine with borrowing, in fact I wish we would borrow more for things that have a tremendously positive return on investment and less on things that are just a straight-up cost. Basically: borrow to invest, don't borrow as a shortcut to spending above your means. All caveated with the idea that the sovereign debt of the country wielding the world's reserve currency is not like a household budget, that really can't be said enough.

No, it's actually spreading: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-61506562 The point was that it would not be the first time that a tabletop exercise ended up being very prescient. I say good on them, I wish some of the BS exercises I've taken part of had been more accurate to real-world events!

I'm still holding my breath! 😅

I vote we keep this thread more focused on abortion / when does life begin / when are rights conferred and take the odd detour to "Banking 101" to a dedicated thread.

This is an interesting fear, since the GOP has had trifecta control of the Texas state government since 2003 🤷‍♂️ Can't say I blame the Democrats for any laws passed in Texas anytime recently... @Lord Ratner I think you've argued in good faith here, cheers. I am not a lawyer, but here are a my thoughts on some of the topics you've posted about previously, in no specific order (too many to quote). Feel free to respond if you'd like, or just skip the #WallOfText and have a great day: It seems like while you don't like abortion, you're basically pro-choice, along the lines of what Roe allowed, as modified by Casey. Early-term abortion is perhaps regrettable yet is allowed, but not late-term abortion, life of the mother medical exemptions notwithstanding. The exact definition of where the line falls has changed over time but is now IVO 15-21 weeks. Do you agree with that characterization? In fact, this is where I fall. I'm "pro-choice" if you ask me in a survey but I've only personally been a part of two pregnancies and we have two children, so we've "chosen life" both times, easy call. I am opposed to abortions after the point of fetal viability unless there's some threat to the life of the mother. The vast majority of abortions that take place in the US (approx. 95%) happen before 15 weeks, and 98% happen before 21 weeks. That is the status quo under Roe et al today and it feels like a fair line to say ok, that's the tipping point between a woman's freedom of choice and the fetus' freedom to have a life, both of which I can see the argument for. Therefore why are we overturning an important right (in my view) and landmark precedent for the 2-5% of cases that are unsavory to my personal morals? Maybe you support the likely decision on Dobbs simply because you believe Roe was badly decided to begin with rather than because you are rabidly anti-abortion in all cases, and that's fair. But don't be deceived, several state laws already on the books ban abortion entirely, from 0.001 weeks onward, and have no exemptions for rape, incest or the life/safety of the mother. Idaho and Texas come to mind there. Many others have full restrictions except for life of the mother situations, i.e. no timetable, no rape/incest exemptions. These laws will take effect immediately if Roe is overturned. I get what you're saying in that states should have the right to legislate as they see fit, but the courts have always found limits to that - state and federal lawmakers aren't free to enact things that are not permissible under either their state or the federal constitutions, it's been that way from day one of our current system of government. Ok so you can't enact things that are unconstitutional, and presently under Roe total abortion bans are unconstitutional, so moving a thing from one category to another is a big deal! Which I can see why maybe you've been mad all along if you think Roe was wrongly decided, and now the forthcoming Dobbs decision would just undue that past wrong. I disagree. Granting a constitutionally protected right like Roe did is a major precedent that should not be overturned lightly, which is basically what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB promised Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (and the Democrats) in their SCOTUS appointment hearings. Sic "Roe is settled law" and etc. I don't remember exactly what Alito and Thomas said on the subject. Roberts at least seems to be signaling that he is anti-abortion but doesn't want to destroy the Roe precedent, and especially no in the way that Alito does, which IMHO threatens other rights as well. If Roe is overturned for the reasons that Alito sketched out in the leaked draft opinion, I'm also very concerned it will open an enormous can of worms that will spill out into many other issues that everyday people will notice and care about. If the 14th Amendment is essentially gutted, which is where I think we're headed, i.e. the Due Process Clause (and perhaps the Equal Protection Clause also?) no longer include unenumerated rights and really it only protects rights with a (sic) "long historical tradition" as Alito puts it, that would allow states to legislate away gay marriage, sodomy, and perhaps even reinstitute segregation in schools. I can think of some very recent times when banning gay marriage and sodomy were A+ cool and not so long ago when segregated schools were also perfectly fine in the eyes of both the law and the public. None of those rights are specifically enumerated in the federal constitution nor do they enjoy a "long historical tradition" in my view, and therefore are vulnerable under Alito's logic. I for one don't want states to be able to get rid of the right to marry who I want, stick it in whatever hole I want, or send my kids to an inclusive and equal school with peers of all races/religions/etc., just because they don't like it, and I know basically all Democrats and even a sizable share of Republicans who share that view, especially ones < age 55. I will bet you a bottle of fantastic Tennessee whiskey that there will be a state that looks at Alito's logic, passes a ban on gay marriage, and that such a ban would be upheld by the current makeup of SCOTUS because well now the 14th Amendment just ain't what it used to be. Let's give it 10 years, you can Manchester me on that one if you want. Alito tries to says that's not on the table because abortion is a special case where there are X-factors blah blah blah, I don't believe it. Some state will argue passionately and honestly that they believe it's a huge moral imperative to preserve traditional marriage, and I think a state-level ban on gay marriage would pass muster if brought before SCOTUS again, overturning Obergefell. Despite what the polling says today, as recently as GWB's second term the GOP wanted to enact a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage! There are certainly crazy-ass state legislators who would be chomping at the bit to ban it in their state if they had the power to do so. Final parting shot: I know you have not argued this, but others have argued vehemently that "life begins at fertilization, and all human rights for the unborn fetus begin there." Essentially any act that intentionally destroys a fertilized egg is a heinous crime. Got it, that is a coherent worldview, even if I don't share it. Do we ban IVF treatments then? That process definitely involves destroying fertilized eggs, all in the name of actually getting the most viable one(s) implanted and successfully turned into a baby, often times for couples desperate to "choose life." If folks want to subscribe to the worldview that fertilized egg = full human with all the rights of you and I, IVF has to be banned unfortunately and they need to be honest about that. FWIW this is the view of the Catholic Church (full disclosure that I am Catholic), and ok fair enough. But a lot of fairly hard-line pro-life protestant christians I know are fine with IVF and I'm struggling to understand their rationalization there. Maybe it boils down to, "Look, I'm against things I don't like and think are bad and am fine with things I do like and think are good and I want the law to reflect that," with no underlying, coherent logical or legal throughline, and ok, that's probably the case honestly. Enough for now, good talk. 🇺🇸

^^ I for one am someone who does not agree with what seems to be the forthcoming decision to overturn Roe and Casey, but I do not condone protesting outside Kavanaugh’s house. Folks should have a reasonable right to privacy in their own homes and I also think it’s counterproductive in almost all cases. If I were to protest, it would be outside the Court itself. I agree with the following: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/09/stop-protesting-outside-supreme-court-justice-houses/

If you want to compare real returns over several periods of time that’s great, inflation plays a part in that calculation. But there’s more information needed: when did you you buy, when did you sell, etc. But what you can’t do is say, “The S&P 500 was at 6,900 under Trump, and today under Biden it’s 7,069 but minus 8.5% inflation so it’s really 6,468 ergo it’s lower ergo Libs suck!!!!1” If you would like to have a conversation about stock gains under different administrations, if that is even a good measure of success or failure, how real returns have faired over time, if real wages are growing over time, what measure of inflation best represents the average person’s experience vs what measure can government policy affect in the short term, etc., I’m potentially open to that. If you just want to say, “Stocks down, Biden sucks, LGB” feel free to do that without tagging me 🍺 You will not find me currently arguing stock performance is amazing or that inflation is not a problem - neither are true anymore!

You don’t just deduct an inflation % off of stock indeces closing prices lol 😅

Word, fair enough. I’m with you, I’m up for discussing the legal arguments at stake but not really much of the core issue of abortion - it’s too emotionally charged and people get big mad either way. I’ll just add that Alito at least seems to think the core issue (abortion) does matter here, because in the draft opinion he’s saying specifically that the 14th Amendment doesn’t protect abortion but still does protect the other rights that currently fall under the same logic on which Roe and Casey were built. I’m really skeptical of this and think there’s absolutely no reason why future courts, even ones with the exact same makeup of the current court, couldn’t use Alito’s logic here to strip away gay marriage or free public education or any number of other unenumerated rights. I think the most at-risk thing next would be many common forms of birth control that function by inhibiting fertilized zygotes from implanting in the uterus. If those fertilized zygotes are in fact full human beings with full rights no different than you or I, I’m not sure why those methods of birth control should remain legal. That’s not my personal opinion, just following the reasoning if someone who enthusiastically supports the draft Alito opinion. Folks are rightfully concerned about the specific way in which Roe and Casey seem to be being stuck down here, let alone their dismay at losing the rights Roe and Casey specifically clarified. If Roberts were writing a 6-3 majority opinion upholding Mississippi’s ban and just further degrading Roe without striking it entirely, along with the entire logic that Roe and Casey were built on, I think the reaction would be a bit different. Cheers 🍻

See above. The right to abortion is an unenumerated right based largely on the 14th Amendment, and as a constitutional right, it therefore does not require a law stating it’s legality specifically. That’s the legal theory, you are of course free to disagree or not like that. There are quite a few other rights that fall under that same category, and if/when this opinion becomes official people are understandably worried about the security of those rights going forward.

This is a good explainer on Alito’s potential Pandora’s box opening re: unenumerated rights and the 14th Amendment. He may imply he’s not personally open to re-litigating rights like interracial marriage, gay marriage, sodomy, contraception, etc., but by re-litigating and overturning the 14th Amendment’s protection of abortion rights, there’s no real reason a future court couldn’t use his opinion as precedent for doing so. So he’s not just striking down Casey and Roe, but IMHO greatly weakening the 14th Amendment’s other protections as well. “Distinguishing Abortion From Other Unenumerated Rights in the 14th Amendment The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment grants more unenumerated rights than just the right to an abortion. Alito attempts to distinguish these rights from abortion, holding that Roe and Casey are fundamentally different in that "[a]bortion destroys . . . potential life" and "none of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey "involve the critical moral question posed by abortion." These rights include: The right to interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia), The right to obtain contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut) The right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts (Lawrence v. Texas) The right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges). In distinguishing these unenumerated rights from Roe and Casey, Alito implies these rights could remain untouched by the forthcoming majority opinion in Dobbs. However, Alito's draft version of Dobbs inarguably opens the door to further challenges of the rights granted by the 14th Amendment. From this first draft it appears Justice Alito may not be as receptive to these challenges as he is with abortion, but forecasting any potential future cases is completely speculative at this point.”

LMGTFY https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft

Am I under arrest officer or am I free to go? Dissecting words here like I’m on trial, good grief. Yes, I, nsplayr of BO.net do hereby once and for all condemn violent protests/riots/insurrections that damage government (or private!) buildings, hurt cops (or innocent bystanders!) and especially which attempt to change government policy via violence, regardless of who participates. In case it was for some reason unclear based on me previously saying I feel “strongly negative” toward these events and “don’t support” them 🙄 Do you feel the same about Jan 6th, 2021? How about the Bundy Standoff? I’m mainly talking there about the 2016 incident in Oregon. How about bombing abortion clinics, the Oklahoma City federal building, or the Nashville Christmas Day bombing? My take: they’re all bad! Violence in the name of domestic political aims or insane political conspiracy theories is bad and people who do it are bad and should be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted if guilty.

See above; no. I don’t support violent protests or riots, I don’t support storming government buildings in order to try to change policy, and I don’t support political leaders inflaming their followers with fighting words that drive more violent action. I’m assuming you feel similarly about the Bundy Standoff in 2016 and the Jan 6, 2021 insurrection & associated statements and in some cases outright participation from GOP political leaders? I genuinely hope so!

Strongly negative. Letting those Portland protests go on for so long was an embarrassment. Go get a job you dirty hippies!

I’m not quite sure what happened on April 3rd, but ok 😅 *If* hypothetical protestors do storm federal buildings, beat up cops and attempt to overturn the working of our government via violence, I’ll be first in line to condemn them! I would not say what Newsome said, next time @ him rather than me. But none of that has happened; Jan 6th, 2021 did happen, and rightly some of those who took part are now being held accountable. As far as the future goes, who knows, but it never fails that…

You are correct, I highly recommend other hobbies!

iPad mini I think is the ideal form factor for an aviation tablet. Using them as EFBs on active duty was great and mine did double-duty when I would fly -172s and similar. The standard iPad size I always found too big like you said. It also blows my mind that armed with nothing more than steam gauges + an iPad mini with a sentry ADS-B box and foreflight, I can have orders of magnitude more SA in a little Cessna than in my multi-million dollar military aircraft that unfortunately is saddled with BS software & poor systems integration 🙄 That civilian setup literally costs like $1,200 plus a $240 per year subscription…for that price I could probably get one (1) military grade 2” stainless steel screw to go screw myself with haha

* If you are an active duty current & qualified manned aircraft pilot with the mins & medical to get hired at a major airline and who is unhappy or neutral with their service in uniform Guard guys, CSOs & RPA where $$$ civ flying is much rarer, and those who just love serving and who are in it to win it until TAFMS retirement, the bonus is a great financial decision…more money to do what you were gonna do anyways! It should be higher but they didn’t put me in charge and I agree that fence sitters should probably just update airline apps if applicable and/or go Guard. Even the current bonus is a better financial decision by far than a FFF (🛥 🛩 💃) indulgence purchase, although those can be a lot of fun too outside the spreadsheet.

Yes, absolutely. Goods that are commercially installed to produce or release energy are all massively energy-positive...otherwise we wouldn't produce them and no one wouldn't buy them. A solar panel requires energy to produce, sure, but then produces much more energy over its useful lifespan. The same goes for an offshore oil rig. Obviously some experimental stuff (like our current fusion research reactors) are not net energy-positive, but they're research projects. Utility-scale solar, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, natural gas power plants, coal-burning power plants, etc. are not research projects. I am with you that ethanol fuels are stupid and I would end ethanol blending rules and subsidies right now. Growing and processing foods in monoculture fields and then burning it to power vehicles is dumb. Other biofuels have more promise IMHO.