ViperMan

Agree, mostly because congress abdicates their responsibilities.

Yes, absolutely they do. What we have decided, however, is that some level of collective risk-management is appropriate (to moderate the degree of risk). This comes to us in the form of laws that we are all required to obey. Your second point is also true - no one needs to go driving out on the highway if they feel the risk of driving 55 if too much for them - they can walk, take the bus, or drive on surface streets. Your final comment re: "you shouldn't be able to tell me..." is a non-starter - it undermines all law.

You racing on a closed track is up to you. You speeding on a public highway is not up to you. The distinction isn't whether or not you interpret it as dangerous. The distinction is whether or not your actions put other people at risk.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-religion-california/u-s-supreme-court-sides-with-challenge-to-californias-covid-19-religious-service-curbs-idUSKBN28D2B2 Here are cases where governors restricted (arbitrarily) certain activities while preferencing others. Supreme court to the rescue.

11F. Generally, I think masks are a good idea. What are not good ideas? Limiting (actual) essential business hours - because it increases the density of people. Limiting entrances and exits to essential businesses - because it increases the density of people. Forcing people to take a vaccine - because it violates their rights. Having virus "passports" - because it violates their rights. Paying me and my co-workers (bros) stimulus money - because they don't need it. Paying airline pilots their full salaries - because they don't need it. 90%+ of the money spent/allocated on the latest stimulus - read it, if it doesn't piss you off, there is something wrong with you. What are good ideas? Temporarily shutting down non-essential businesses - this is most things - way more than what is currently allowed to operate (i.e. ALL restaurants, most big box stores). Continuing to funnel money to people, through their employers, to be able to barely make ends meet. Suspending bills/payments/etc until the worst of this is over. This meme is true, but only because our government is run by pussies who didn't have the courage to actually shut the m'fer down. That's me, because at this point, it is what we have collectively decided is the way forward, but it doesn't make it less ridiculous/kabuki theater.

It's not a silver bullet - it's part of an array of strategies that are supposed to help us manage the disease and mitigate its impact. Remember, once upon a time washing your hands was considered controversial, but now, no one disputes its value: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/handwashing-once-controversial-medical-advice/ https://www.history.com/news/hand-washing-disease-infection https://globalhandwashing.org/about-handwashing/history-of-handwashing/ Honestly, though I do see some aspect of theater in this, I don't get the hyper-fretting over mask-wearing. But I see where a bit of the noise is coming from. That said, mask-wearing's role in helping diminish COVID's R-value is completely uncontroversial.

In fairness, I will point out that the signature above his belongs to his civilian boss - remember, just because he's a four-star doesn't mean he answers to no one... Personally, I'm just looking forward to seeing what gets classified as "inappropriate" this time around. Should provide good fodder for roll-calls (when they come back). Last round, dudes had to take down pictures of their family's beach vacation because their wife happened to be wearing a bikini. I shit you not.

God I would love to see the Thunderbirds have to change their mascot because of shit like this...GD that would be funny.

Dudes, whether or not it "filters" COVID out of your breath is not the point - of course it doesn't. What masks do accomplish is reducing the "energy" of your breath, thereby minimizing the size of the cloud and the distance it travels. That is why it's more difficult to breathe through, and that is the point - to minimize the spread. It takes more than one individual virus to infect you, so the less exposure you have, the less chance you have of contracting the disease and spreading it yourself. Point being: masks are accomplishing their stated goal.

RE: education One thing we need to do if we really are concerned about the rise in education costs is ask ourselves why the cost of education has gone up. It's all well and good to lament the cost of higher ed and just throw more money at the problem - which is exactly what student debt "forgiveness" (transfer) is, in actuality. The solution is likely counter-intuitive, though, and IMO this means eliminating all (yes, ALL) student loans from the federal government. I get that this is a problem affecting a generation, but if we are going to solve this problem, let's solve it permanently, and avoid going around the merry-go-round for another lap. There is good evidence that the student loan program which has swelled from $3B in 1970 to over $160B in 2017 (https://www.mercatus.org/publications/education-policy/reevaluating-effects-federal-financing-higher-education) is driving up the cost of college - it just makes sense, right? I mean, if you're an institution of higher learning, what incentive do you have to not raise the price when there is effectively and unlimited stream of money to tap into? Other studies have determined that for every $1.00 subsidy (in student loans) the price of college rises between $0.58 and $0.78 - not much bang for our tax buck (https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/02/22/how-unlimited-student-loans-drive-up-tuition/). My compromise? Fine, let's all "forgive" student debt, but any discussion along those lines needs to come with an admission that the student loan program has unequivocally failed, having had the opposite effect from its stated goal, and hence will be permanently scuttled.

Nah bro. All I said was state welfare for NK wasn't the only way forward. I guess that was against your orthodoxy. For the record, I thought going into AFG - in the way we did - was a mistake in '01. And for the record, I thought going into Iraq (in '03) was also a mistake. That's where I'm coming from. Now, I'm gonna go hang out in a thread that has reading comprehension. Peace.

No. I do not consider her center. She is extreme left.

Ehhhh, so party "A" makes a LOT of money, and that means party "B" needs to transfer some of their money to party "C"??? mmmmmmkay. Copy timeout. Pk miss. Leave previous point red. Play.

Well it is, though, actually... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline This effort has the support of many "center" democrats such as Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Mazie Hirono, Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Udall, etc. Of course the reality is that group is actually extreme, though few in the mainstream democratic party would place those individuals into the SJW twitter mob...or would they? https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/education/free-college-tuition-four-year/ Plenty of other "mainstream" democrats support the notion of "free" public college. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/22/18509196/elizabeth-warren-debt-free-college Liz Warren wants to give this subsidy to those making between 100-250K/yr...seriously? Forgive me, but this is what passes as "mainstream" now-a-days, so the push back from the right is completely understandable. Even the language that is used around these topics is deceiving. They call it debt "cancellation" when it reality it is more accurately classified as transfer.

The first time I read your response I thought you were replying to someone else - the amount of straw in your response is unreal. It actually made me re-read my post to see if I somehow wandered way off reservation. You completely avoided the point I was making, that is: the way forward with NK isn't exclusively dependent on "welfare" from their betters. The rest of what you responded to is in your head - none of it came from my mouth. NK doesn't have natural resources. Cool. Neither does SK. How is SK so successful? East Germany still has slums from the Soviet era? Cool. Los Angeles still has slums from the democrat era. Are we just gonna throw the towel in with LA? Point being, you brought up a lot of things that had no bearing on the point I was making, but I'm sure it was fun chaffing the lane.

The Rock?

I suppose I basically agree with you, if the only way forward for NK was welfare... Another perspective, though, is that there are companies that are DYING to invest money into NK because what it actually represents is massive, latent economic output which is currently handicapped because of its government...never mind the hundreds of thousands of SKs that have relatives in NK they'd like to reunite with. While it would take "trillions" to repair it, I think the ROI would be positive. Take a look at SK for two seconds...what makes them so different? Nothing. 0. Currently, we're "investing" much more in Africa, which has two things: far more potential, and far, far more cost to getting up to the modern world...yet no one scoffs. NK is NOT far behind what East Germany was post war - they are a nation that currently has the ability to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, yet most of the population lives off of rotten cabbage and a little tiny rice bowl three times a week. They have every bit of potential to be as productive as SK given the opportunity. A lot of trade and "economics" already happens between the two states. Their problem is 100% political. The problem isn't how much it would "cost" - the problem is letting a festering wound continue to fester. Worrying about a 1.2 trillion dollar "hole" misidentifies the root cause. Here's an article calling Corona a $16 trillion dollar event (https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/video-player/18553761#:~:text=The costs of the coronavirus,costs%3A the %2416 trillion virus.). Do you really think Corona is going to end the world...really?.. REALLY? Get some perspective. 20% of all money has been "created" in the last year (https://moguldom.com/310861/strategist-almost-20-percent-of-all-u-s-dollars-were-created-in-2020-alone/). Worrying about cost is cute, but that position has to ignore the broader context. What is the cost of continued conflict in that region for the next 350 years? Hint: far more than 1.2 trillion.

IMO, the condition is a population that knows something about the greater world (Iran) that you can apply indirect pressure against. That's why a strategy like that would work. As far as NK, they don't have a populace that knows much about the outside, so there's no real hope that change can arise internally.

100% in agreement. I say we continue with our current plan...it seems to be working.

I recommend writing a strongly worded letter to them.

Do you think she will?

Soooooo...war or war. Ok. We're not threatening them with destruction - we're giving them a choice between pursuing a policy that will result in them possessing something that will result in their upending, or not doing that thing and continuing with the status quo. Right now, they don't possess nuclear weapons, and we're NOT overthrowing them. So the idea that they have a legitimate right to pursue nukes in order for their own security is a non-starter. NK doesn't give one F about the US - it's a performance. It's a show. We are their boogeyman so they have something to justify their poor existence. 0 reason they actually want to use nukes on us or SK. Iran views Israel as illegitimate and has made statements to the effect that they should be destroyed. That, combined with a desire to use non-conventional means to implement their policy, puts them into a category altogether different from NK - it makes them an actual threat. Like it or not, we are the world's police, and the world order is dependent on us - right or wrong, that gives us the responsibility to ensure suitcase nukes don't blow up in Jerusalem. If that pisses off some al-whoevers, IDGAF.

Nah. The best deal is a simple and clear foreign policy that states "You can't have nuclear weapons. And if you build them, we'll take them away from you and destroy your government."

I guess I just felt like making a point as irrelevant as yours.

That's true, and it's BS. Businesses should be enforcing the mandates in order to minimize the potential for spread. And I have zero toleration for the "F you, I'm good" crowd. That said, those people are a fact of life and it's impossible to avoid them. I'm more irritated by the larger political context that is screaming that the sky is falling and what I consider a fairly immature response across the board.