Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You Know What I Hate MK I

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cerealkiller
    started a topic You Know What I Hate MK I

    You Know What I Hate MK I

    Heartburn. I love chili but this is an evil and HELL I wish upon no one.

  • monteparnas
    replied
    Originally posted by AnubisXy View Post
    I found a pair of workboots from a nice brand that normally cost ~$120 on sale for only $20 on Amazon. When I buy boots I typically get them in wide because my feet are wide, but the only ones on sale were regular. No problem, I figured, saving $100 bucks was a good deal and I could just stretch them in over time. So I bought a pair but when they sent them to me, they accidentally sent me the steel toe version. I'm definitely not stretching those in. Now the steel toe version of the shoes normally retail for around $150 so that's an amazing deal. But they're kind of uncomfortable. Unfortunately I'm a sucker for a deal and I don't really want to send them back since I basically "saved" $130 on these boots. So now I'm wearing somewhat uncomfortable boots I didn't want because of how much money I ended up saving.
    Why don't you re-sell them locally for the $150?

    Then you'll get the nice feeling without actually hurting your feet.

    Leave a comment:


  • AnubisXy
    replied
    I found a pair of workboots from a nice brand that normally cost ~$120 on sale for only $20 on Amazon. When I buy boots I typically get them in wide because my feet are wide, but the only ones on sale were regular. No problem, I figured, saving $100 bucks was a good deal and I could just stretch them in over time. So I bought a pair but when they sent them to me, they accidentally sent me the steel toe version. I'm definitely not stretching those in. Now the steel toe version of the shoes normally retail for around $150 so that's an amazing deal. But they're kind of uncomfortable. Unfortunately I'm a sucker for a deal and I don't really want to send them back since I basically "saved" $130 on these boots. So now I'm wearing somewhat uncomfortable boots I didn't want because of how much money I ended up saving.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Whelp, adding to the list of 6-3 nonsense!

    West Virginia vs the EPA: This is a bit less "controversial," in that it's actual conservative legal logic rather than making shit up on the spot, but it's still insipid in the unwillingness to do some higher order thinking. Basically, the SCOTUS theocrats have said that the EPA can't enforce new air quality regulations because current Clean Air Act didn't include those specific regulations, and we can't know (despite the fact that we can absolutely know by just asking them, the rule in question was added in the 1990s most of the people that wrote it and voted for it are still around) what the people that wrote the Clean Air Act would have done with new updated regulations.

    The SCOTUS isn't inherently wrong that the legislature should actually be doing things like passing new amendments like they used to in order to update the CAA on a regular basis, but the idea that the EPA can't do its job to protect air quality based on well established policy processes in the meantime is insane. It would be like the SCOTUS saying that since Congress has yet to fix the "Yellowstone Zone of Death*" any murders that take place there cannot be prosecuted at all. A weird jurisdictional technicality shouldn't be a free pass on crimes, and the Courts shouldn't let it be just because nobody's bothered to fix the loophole yet (since politicians rarely waste time on theoretic problems over actual problems, and nobody's ever gotten away with murder because of the Zone of Death). The executive branch shouldn't be forced into inaction because the legislative branch is refusing to act, while the executive branch has existing powers granted to them by the legislature as it is. "Congress should update the executive power granted," is much less compelling than, "well if Congress doesn't like what the executive is doing with the powers they have, they should change the law to stop it rather than relying on the court to do it." If West Virginia wants to pollute more, their federal representatives should be making that case to the legislature and the people, not using the courts to avoid having to vote on laws saying that they want to poison our children.

    --------

    Oh, and other horrible US legal news.... if you think this month is bad, next year we officially find out if the SCOTUS will decide to make state-level autocracy legal (and thus corrupt the federal government with it). The next SCOTUS term is going to include hearing a case on the inane legal "theory" that the constitution allows state legislatures to ignore state law and assign electors however they wish. If the SCOTUS rules for this concept... hope for a peaceful path out of this dies.

    --------------

    * - The Yellowstone Zone of Death is an odd legal loophole. The basics are that the state of Wyoming has jurisdiction over all crimes in Yellowstone National Park, however a small sliver of the park is actually in Idaho. Any crime committed there that results in a criminal trial requires a jury from Idaho, but Wyoming can't empanel jurors from Idaho unless they also have a legal residence in Wyoming. Since there don't seem to be enough potential jurors, no case could ever be brought to trial and have a conviction. There is an extremely simple fix to this, but as noted, Congress hasn't bothered with it because the worst crime that's been avoided because of this is poaching which still has automatic fines attached to it that don't go through the trial process.

    Leave a comment:


  • TempleBuilder
    replied
    Originally posted by Darksol-aeternium View Post
    hope is just the 1st step on the road to disappointment.
    Hope is also the first step on the road to joy. Of all the monsters in Pandora’s Pithos, Elpis is both the most beautiful and most terrible. Without hope, how could the world change for the better?

    I don’t know what the future holds. It may be dark and full of horrors. It also may not be. Our choices matter. Together, we will make that future. And it very well could be terrible one, despite our collective efforts. But it certainly will be horrible, if we do not try for a better one.

    If clinging to hope for a better tomorrow makes me a fool, so be it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darksol-aeternium
    replied
    Given that Thomas is clearly nothing but a fundamentalist religious fanatic, I rather doubt he'll find the presence of mind to slow this rapid degradation of civil liberties. That would require he use a reasoning that sort of person typically lacks. Roberts can shake his head in dismay all he wants, spin won't help him now. Thanks to the idiocy of Jan 6, I don't see a simple shooting in the works for actors such as these, this country really loves escalation and right wing fanatics have already burned down churches within the last few years. Court reform does seem like a hope to hold on to, but hope is just the 1st step on the road to disappointment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Considering the McGrit decision two years ago, which was a very similar case legally, was split on the exact same issues (so eight of the nine Justices voted exactly like they voted last time, the difference is Barret taking Ginsberg's seat), this one wasn't a huge shocker. As Gorsuch himself has pointed out the only consistency the SCOTUS has had regarding tribal sovereignty is disregarding it, the McGrit decision was the really change of pace all things considered.

    Also.... minorities have been targeted all over the place this term. With a 6-3 majority and the ability to lose individual conservative justices on a given case, the fact that this has probably been one of the worst years for civil rights in the US judiciary in decades was pretty expected.

    The only real question is how hypocritical they're going to be in the future when cases they don't like get challenged on the new legal standards they're setting. If someone challenges Loving, is Thomas going to apply the same legal principles he applied to Dobbs and rule his own marriage isn't constitutionally protected, or is he going to come up with some nonsensical reason why Loving should be upheld but Roe shouldn't? Though really Lawrence or Girswold would have the same impact on the public perception of the court.

    Either they're going to slow down and go back to just chipping away at rights slowly over decades and hope this blows over as people put more blame on the other branches of government, or they're going to keep this up and soon we'll be lucky if none of them gets shot. Even Roberts used to try to put up a case that the Court cared about the public faith in its rulings, but nobody is going to buy that now and he knows it. He can spin things if it's "just" this year as people blowing things out of proportion because of a bunch of big cases all coming at once, (and we haven't even gotten the EPA ruling where they're going to make fighting climate change impossible), but not if this is the new normal in the court. It'll be too late for way too many people, but much like the vast majority of centrist Democrats came around to needing to nuke the filibuster after years of defending it, they're going to come around to court reform too.

    Hopefully that'll save us from a civil war.... but that's a lot of hope on not a lot of evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darksol-aeternium
    replied
    I would have thought they'd wait for at least another year before targeting minorities. Hell, I'd have bet money they'd go after anything non-hetero first. They really do want this new civil war don't they?

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Another day in June, another shitty SCOTUS decision, but at least this time it was "only" 5-4 as Gorsuch got really pissy at his fellow theocrats for doing law wrong. Also probably because they undermined his ruling from two years ago (where he was the lone conservative siding with four liberal Justices). But now indigenous people in the US have less rights (hey, it's a theme!) than before, and a potential avenue of providing abortion services in certain states was just closed shut hard, as the SCOUTS has ruled in defiance of 150 years of prescedent that instead of Tribal lands being under federal jurisdiction for when non-tribal people commit crimes on tribal lands, the federal government (aka the people those tribes have treaties with establishing the rules of sovereignty here) and the state the crime took place in have shared jurisdiction.

    While in theory this shouldn't be a huge deal, in application it is because the states with large tribal populations tend to have extremely shitty laws when it comes to respecting the civil rights of said tribes. State laws frequently result if far lesser sentences or even not guilty verdicts, for crimes that are slam dunks in federal hands. So it's going to be even easier for people to violate tribal sovereignty than before, and get away with it because state law is far less restricted in respecting the rights of those tribes than federal law is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Gerry, along with many of the other Framers, were not actually interested in direct democracy for a number of compelling reasons. Gerry himself had to deal with the consequences of a popular uprising against the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and was one of the many in the group that felt that political parties were a corrupting force in governance. That's why the US Constitution is so focused on indirect democracy instead of things like proportional representation. They wanted representative to.... be representative of their immediate constituents instead of being beholden to party leaders. The whole idea was to provide checks and balances so no part of government - even the citizenry itself - could ever have too much control.

    Land-area based representation is an outcome of that desire. They wanted local mutual interests to be the base political "unit." Districts were meant to be built around people of similar backgrounds so that a government representative selected for a rural district was picked because he understood the needs of rural citizens and their desires from government, while an urban representative would be be similarly pressured to see to the interests of city dwellers. Even today this still exists to help ensure minority populations government representations by having land-area districts that are designed to give them majority control over areas they cluster in.

    The failure was, of course, a lack of check or balance on politicians actually respecting this. The end of the 1790s through the 1820s were a repeated series of politicians, many of whom were there for the beginning of all side, playing the system they helped create instead of upholding the norms established among the group. Jefferson and Burr figured out how to game the Electoral College, the Whigs and Democratic-Republicans both starts releasing they could influence how districts where drawn to influence things in favor of their supporters (Gerry got screwed by this because of his refusal to join a party at the time).

    To me, the sad thing is not that they were making this up as they were going along and mistakes were made, but that all of these things were known faults in the system that were debated and in the end power beat ideals.

    Leave a comment:


  • monteparnas
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Well, it let me offer a short rant about how history distorts individuals based on small moments of their lives. Americans go on and on about the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution... Gerry was one, and ended up rejecting the final draft of the Constitution over concessions to slavery. It's an important part of history that shouldn't be forgotten. The evils of slavery in the colonies is not historical revisionism, it's something people were adamant about recognizing at the time too.
    It was quite interesting and enlightening, for sure. I never understood why was it called "Gerrymandering" to begin with, and the result is disturbingly revealing.

    The whole area-based system is quite bizarre, but I guess it comes with being the oldest modern democracy. Not that they couldn't do better, in a quick search it seems there was some discussion on Proportional Representation since eleven years before the drafting of the US Constitution, but there was no frame of reference to really stop them from making it as that (or, by the way, guarantee it would work).

    Comes with the territory, anyway, going back to the matter that by being the first, but never revised, the American system basically went roughly from Hero to Zero as a functional Democratic System. Which isn't exactly the same as saying it isn't democratic, but may result in an inability to deal with the current democratic backsliding it is suffering. And I think it will.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Well, it let me offer a short rant about how history distorts individuals based on small moments of their lives. Americans go on and on about the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution... Gerry was one, and ended up rejecting the final draft of the Constitution over concessions to slavery. It's an important part of history that shouldn't be forgotten. The evils of slavery in the colonies is not historical revisionism, it's something people were adamant about recognizing at the time too.

    Leave a comment:


  • monteparnas
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Also that, though Gerrymandering was only justified by the fact that it was legal.
    Not my best example, but the best I could conjure in time to go to work, as I was already almost late.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Also that, though Gerrymandering was only justified by the fact that it was legal. The redistricting process that Gerrymandering corrupts is supposed to help ensure a good division of representation in a land-area based system so that representatives are reflective of their constituents. Since the US Framers realized they couldn't come up with a good one-sized fits all definition of how to construct a good district (and that didn't give them enough pause to reconsider and use a system that awards seats based on percent of the vote), they just left it really vague and thus open to the abuses that we call Gerrymandering (though we've also be doing it for over 210 years now... so also tradition!).

    Alas, poor Elbridge Gerry, who's entire political career is forgotten because the process used to remove him from office through drawing maps bears his name. Gerry might have been a complete shit regarding actual democracy, but he should be remembered for refusing to sign the Constitution because it allowed for slavery and his complete and utter refusal to consider the 3/5s compromise anything other than moral bankruptcy.

    Leave a comment:


  • monteparnas
    replied
    On-the-job training does more than any screening for formal knowledge, and while some figures like Trump and Bolsonaro are clearly unfit for the task, most politicians learn a lot through the "simple" process of getting there.

    At the end of the day, what we need in a democracy is to educate the people, not the politicians. Making their personal history public so voters can easily access relevant information and judge by themselves, educate people at school about how the political processes work and how each office fits in the system, having mechanisms for transparency and public participation during tenure, those actions are effective as far as anything can be.

    We all feel the same thing: the people err, and end up abused by bad actors. But taking the power out of the people to ensure "quality" is what justify the Electoral College and Gerrymandering. Democracy does not produce smart decisions all the time, but it needs to work from the people as much as possible to avoid power being hijacked by those same bad actors.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X