Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[AlabamAlum]

The durian was cut open at a park and smelled like foot odor with a hint of sewage. Opened, it has a custard appearance with a delicate sweetness. Its flavor belied its aroma.

Wiz, I await you developing a durian sauce to spin your frozen wings in. It would be the hit of Ogallala.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I will name them after you...

The Stinky Gay Bear Loving Durian Wings

[AlabamAlum]

I’m honored.

[iam416]

You’re insane. For a number of reasons.

[Jeff Buchanan]

That's not true anymore.

Unless something I'm unaware of in GA law has changed since 2020, this is the law:

Georgia law allows a person to protect their property with force from another’s unlawful interference or trespass onto that property. Furthermore, under certain circumstances, the law will also allow a person to stand his or her ground and use legally justified deadly force to protect property.

Georgia law provides substantial protection for property owners acting in defense of property other than their home (their habitation).

https://www.uslawshield.com/home-defense-georgia/

Something could have changed as a result of an overly liberal federal judge or state district court judge's precedent setting ruling in a more recent case involving a death of a AA. But GA's self defense and stand your ground laws are still on the books as far as I know.

[AlabamAlum]

Talent,

For tasting fresh durian? Always wanted to. I’m a food adventurer. It’s not something I would go to again, but seeing Bourdain eat it years ago and Zimmern nearly hurl trying to eat some made me curious. I tried it. The smell is much, much worse than the taste.

[Hannibal]

Fuckin’ Buckeyes

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-ohio-s...work-china.amp

[Jeff Buchanan]

AOC’s signature is The Green New Deal. And it’s total socialism. Tell me how many Congressional Ds signed on for it. Tell me whether or not an avowed Socialist finished a solid second in the D primary in 2016 and 2020. You may Pooh-Pooh AOC, but she’s a persuasive voice in her party that no D other than a blue dog will stand up to.

AOC is waaaaay closer to the center of the D party than Manchin. It’s not even debatable.

This made me think, actually. These are good questions. I do think we have different, possibly irreconcilable differences, in our view of political trends and the outcomes these might produce. Still, I remain, in your terms, "convinceable." Both yourself and Hannibal make good cases for unpalatable - at least to my conservative leanings - socialist type outcomes. I think they are in some cases extreme - Hannibal's more than yours.

To me there is a difference between legislating to produce outcomes that reduce big oil production as a means of advancing AOC's signature Green New Deal, for example, and Liney's view that big oil is the left's target for Venezuelan like nationalization. I can buy that this is a foot in the door circumstance for avowed socialists like Bernie and a potentially slippery slope to pull back from if the opposition doesn't block momentum.

But that's where I come back to the structure of the Republic and how legislation is formulated and enacted. There are powerful people, some of them politicians, like Manchin, some lobbyists from trade groups, that wield influence in preventing unwanted outcomes that wreak of Socialism (with a capital S) If you are in a Socialist Party of Berkeley, for example, you would only be referred to as a Socialist in the context of your relationship to the party and all the Marxist Leninist shit that entails. About your politics in general you would be referred to as a socialist.

You might argue this is hair splitting. It's not. When people bring up the concern that the country is drifting toward socialism, it would require a Socialist party to emerge and compete for seats, winning a majority of them to govern in accordance with Socialist Party doctrine........ and again, all the Marxist Leninist shit that entails.

I can see how you and Hannibal might see socialist principals being advanced legislatively within the D party and influential players in it like Sanders and AOC. My view is that the Republic as it stands and in consideration of the established, institutional and constitutional framework of American governance, we are long long way off from an outcome through this legislation where a Socialist Party dominates Congress, elects a Socialist Party President and through that process America ends up looking like a true socialist state like Venezuela, or less laughably, Social Democratic state following the Nordic model of governance.

[Da Geezer]

That is a lot to digest, Jeff. I don't think it takes an actual Socialist Party to win electoral seats. It could be called the Racoon Party. And don't fall for the "Nordic" argument. Those are homogeneous populations using capitalism to allocate resources but choosing to tax themselves in order to have a welfare state.

What defines a socialist in our new world order is the dichotomy drawn between the oppressed and the oppressor. That is pure Marxism. American Marxists believe in critical theory in all things, and they emphasize race every bit as much as wealth. But always there is the "oppressor". It has been years since academic socialism has been tried in the US (see New Harmony), but socialism always fails because humans are not equally talented, and the talented eventually tire of carrying the not-so-talented. Those who produce eventually tire of the non-workers and the lazy.

Marxism is merely obtaining socialism through violence. Critical race theory is a perfect example of Marxists laying the foundation for violence.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

There were several points I was making:

(1) AOC is not extreme. Now, whether or not she and her ilk are the future of the Ds is very much debatable. However, her ilk is far more likely to win out than Manchin’s ilk. Manchin is, relative to the D party, more extreme than AOC.

(2) I don’t think socialism is around the corner or necessarily even an eventual winner in the US. However, it’s far more likely to be empowered than some sort of Neo-Nazi party is even to exist in a meaningful sense — this was in response to an asinine assertion.

(3) I agree with you re Constitutional structure — as currently constituted. But, the Ds are very actively looking to pack the Supreme Court, House and Senate. That’s not made up nor is it an “extreme” position within the party. Now, I don’t think can win any of those issues, FOR NOW.

If you take anything away from this I’d hope it’s the understanding that AOC and her ilk are not the outliers in the D party. Manchin is. That works — for now.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Geezer, as to "Socialists" and Bernie sanders, my point was to characterize him or AOC as espousing socialist ideologies as opposed to forming a Socialist (or Racoon) Party, recruiting membership for the purpose of winning elections, majorities and by so doing form an American socialist state (ala. Venezuela). The former, the much less dangerous threat to the Republic than the later.

My sense was that talent and Linesman were making the case that the present D majority, heavily influenced by the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, AOC and her collaborators ilk, were for all-intent-and purpose a Socialist Party attempting, at least in Linesman's arguments, to build towards a Venezuelan like Socialist state.

I think Hanni would argue America is already a welfare state. Not in the sense of the Nordic Democratic Socialism model with a capitalistic economic system and high personal and corporate taxes to pay for the welfare state (income redistribution), but rather US government largess built out of Bernie Bros' ideologies (free shit for everyone), paid for by unsustainable monetary policies as a means of raising personal income (free or helicopter money).

Ultimately the piper is going to get paid, taxes will be raised and, as you say (Bernie Bros' free-shit socialist ideologies) always fails because humans are not equally talented, and the talented eventually tire of carrying the not-so-talented. Those who produce eventually tire of the non-workers and the lazy.

EDIT: BTW, I was unfamiliar with New Harmony, looked it up. Interesting. My Brother -in- law, a chemical engineer who worked for Dow Chemical and disavowed his relationship with them, left the mainstream society of the time ('67-'70) and built a self sustaining commune, probably not much different than New Harmony. After two years he kicked everyone out, sold the farm and went on to build a successful heavy equipment operation. The reason? He got tired of supporting the non-workers and the lazy.

[iam416]

The US is neither a true "capitalist" country or a true "socialist" country. We sit, like most countries, somewhere on the continuum. The fight is, obviously, where we ought to be on the continuum. The Left uses buzzwords like "rich" and "wealth inquality" and "fair" to push things further to, well, the left. The right uses words like "socialist" or "marxist" to try to keep things where they are or push things slightly back to the right.

In this fight, though, the lurch is left. It's probably not even much of a "lurch" as a steady tide. So, I think, one point folks more on the right would make is that you this thing is only moving in one direction so you ought to really scrutinized the folks past where it is now because that's where it's going -- (at some rate I'm sure we'd all fight about). One side is riding the tide and the other side is desperately trying to stem it.

So, it makes almost no sense, IMO, to equivocate folks on the further left with folks on the further right. The latter will, at most, pass tax cuts in amounts that are within the norm anyway. The former, well, the former is, for the time being, limited by a few Senators, but, again, those people are outliers AND there's open and concerted efforts to change governmental structure to eliminate that obstacle.

[Hannibal]

conspiracy-facemask-stonetoss-political-cartoon.png?fit=1000%2C500.png

[Jeff Buchanan]

Yes, I understand. You are burned out on COVID news. Unfortunately, it's out there in all it's mangled forms. I try to make sense of it.

The CDC says all of you that are vaccinated can throw off your masks (see Hannibal's post above). That's good science. The problem is that some states, counties, private businesses and condo associations are still mandating various mitigation measures, including masks for entry/service. How the hell can they still do this?

I did some digging this morning and found this is entirely legal and enforceable notwithstanding challenges, both legal and otherwise to those kinds of rules. In practical terms while the CDC's guidance on masking is entirely appropriate, that emergency powers are still in effect and underlie the legality of these seemingly silly rules, creates problems. The main one is that it allows for a patchwork of masking and distancing rules, among others, throughout the US.

What actually needs to happen to create more uniformity in PH guidance below the federal (CDC) level guidance is for states to end PHE declarations. Surprisingly, and despite FL's "open" reputation, that won't happen here until June 29th. Until then residents who are living in condo associations can continue to bitch, moan and shake their fists at condo associations who won't open their pools can pound sand. Its legal. If you want to confront a Costco employee who says you have to wear a mask to enter the store, he's likely to be completely within his rights to deny you entry without a mask. Don't be a dick. Just don the fucking thing. Hopefully, this will sort itself out by July 1st.

IMO at this point, these examples, among dozens of others, are just stupid, anti-science and unnecessary outcomes. Lift PHE declarations at the state level, even better if at the federal level, and the underlying legal authority that perpetuates fear monkey bull-shit goes away. I'm hoping Chairman Joe does this sooner, than later.

Here's the latest "dire consequences" meme being foisted on us: Vaccine hesitancy is going to prevent a return to normal activity in the US. Actually, if you're trying to get people to get vaccinated, this isn't bad messaging. OTH, it's bull-shit. We lose sight of the 98%/2% realty here of the SARS2 pandemic. I had a conversation this weekend with house guests we hosted. Smart 39 yo school teacher who has not yet gotten vaccinated. The basis of her choice is that she wants to see if the vaccine works (she acknowledges it does) and to determine what kind of side effects the vaccine causes (TBD).

I told her that her position was entirely reasonable and reminded her that the risk of COVID killing you is extremely low (something less than 2%). Even the risk of getting sick form SARS2 among unvaccinated people in her age group is something less than 3%. I added that even if she does get infected and potentially become an asymptomatic transmitter of the infection (Walensky's and Faucis' stated "big worry"),, that's really not a big deal. Why is that she asked? I responded, those at risk of catching COVID are unvaccinated people under 40 who, like her have little risk of serious illness. We're very near 60% of high risk Americans being fully vaccinated and protected. It's unlikely she'll cause the death or serious illness of a person like her 80 yo father in this age group. She liked that.

Vaccine hesitancy is actually a minor problem being made out to be a big one. In countries/states/regions that have followed the science and put an emphasis on vaccinating the over 65 cohort with a focus on those with underlying health conditions and the over 70s, the disease burden risk is tiny. Again, lacking context, headlines and the stories that follow are misleading and often flat out wrong.

[Da Geezer]

Talent said: "... One side is riding the tide and the other side is desperately trying to stem it.

So, it makes almost no sense, IMO, to equivocate folks on the further left with folks on the further right. The latter will, at most, pass tax cuts in amounts that are within the norm anyway. The former, well, the former is, for the time being, limited by a few Senators, but, again, those people are outliers AND there's open and concerted efforts to change governmental structure to eliminate that obstacle.

So true.

Reagan said we were only one generation away from socialism.
John Adams said that the greatest threat to democracy was when a majority found out they could take the money of the minority.
Jefferson said that all government tended toward tyranny.

The Founders intentionally set up a government system that made it almost impossible to move any legislation quickly, (a constitutional republic, if you can keep it). Minority rights everywhere were protected, even when large majorities of the public favored a particular legislative outcome.

As you say, what is unique in American history is today's willingness of one political party to entirely change the entire system. Judicial Review by the SC has historically been a "tempering" element in our system. Is anyone here under the illusion that the Dems would not add four justices to the court if they had a 52-48 majority in the Senate? An apolitical military? Have you seen the number of career military people who are being driven out of the military because they speak against critical race theory? A neutral bureaucracy? Not any more.

The eagerness to change the whole system is unprecedented in American history. My opinion is that this all started when the constitution was amended to allow direct election of US Senators. The Senate was intended to be a cooling dish for hot-button issues. Now it is a "little house of Representatives" with its only conservative feature being the filibuster (which the Dems would dearly love to change).

The other "left-pushing" element is the ubiquity of public-sector unions. Even FDR thought public-sector unionism went too far toward socialism. If there is another Republican president, her/his first order of business should be banning tenure in all its forms. No public employee should be able to thwart the Executive Branch's policies without there being a potential loss of job involved. I believe that a fourth-grade teacher would not present critical race theory at all if that teacher thought she could come under fire from parents and lose her job. . Another needed reform is to pay bureaucrats the national median pay for a similar job. Paying double or nearly double is only a testament to the stranglehold the public sector unions have on our government. Remember, 1/3 of the delegates to the Dem National Convention in 2016 and 2020 were "educators". Failing urban schools exist solely for the benefit of overpaid educators who populate them.