Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

I don't think the dad bought it for the kid but he did just purchase it on Black Friday. Clearly, it wasn't safeguarded. Careless parents need to be held accountable for this shit too.

[Hannibal]

Dr. Oz announces as a Republican for the PA Senate race.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Supreme Court hears arguments at 10AM in what will probably be the most consequential abortion case in 30 years. I would be surprised if they overturned Roe completely but would be even more surprised if they didn't whittle it down further.

They still have not issued a decision or order in the Texas case that they heard a full month ago now. From what I've read orders/decisions in expedited cases average around a 3 week turnaround, so they're taking longer than normal

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don't think the dad bought it for the kid but he did just purchase it on Black Friday. Clearly, it wasn't safeguarded. Careless parents need to be held accountable for this shit too.

My bad, I thought I read that he had bought it for him.

Dr. Oz announces as a Republican for the PA Senate race

That fruitcake currently lives in Jersey just across the Hudson from NYC. He used his in-laws address in the Philly burbs to register in PA last year. The sort of thing some people would squawk about being voter fraud

https://www.businessinsider.com/dr-o...lvania-2021-11

[iam416]

It's such an unprincipled opinion that it's hard to deal with. And I don't even necessarily mean that there is nothing in the Constitution concerning that issue. What I mean is that the decisions are fundamentally policy based in that they go into rights based on trimesters. This is exactly the type of balancing that legislatures do. They hold headings. They bring in interested parties. They decide what their constituents want. The Supreme Court sort of did all this.

So, what you have is a sort of compromise right that is constrained by policy concerns. Now, their are 3 people on the Court who definitely won't whittle anything. There are probably 2-4 people who would throw the issue back to the States. And their are 2-4 that may be inclined to whittle. However, how do you get a majority opinion on that? Do the 2 that think Roe is definitively wrong opt to sign on to a "whittling" opinion? I doubt it.

It's going to be a clusterfuck. And I'll say this, again, I would firmly vote for any reasonably circumscribed right to choice. That's an easy question for me on lots of grounds. However, I also think Roe is a terribly reasoned decision that essentially politicized the Court (perhaps other decisions contributed, but this was the obvious tipping point).

I tend to think you're looking at a garbled multiple opinion case that will either hold the status or whittle slightly.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Forget if anyone mentioned it, but the Republican side of the PA senate race is wide open because the front runner and Trump-backed candidate, Sean Parnell, quit. He went through an ugly divorce with allegations that he beat his wife and daughter. Lost custody of his kids and dropped out within hours.

[Jeff Buchanan]

What I mean is that the decisions are fundamentally policy based ......

In the context of Roe v. Wade, this is really important to understand and it is why I think Talent calls this an "unprincipled opinion."

As a matter of policy, experts in the field of biology, you know, science not religiosity, don't agree on when a fetus passes from non-living tissue to become a viable human being. A month or so ago, I read a very detailed paper on this question (I don't have the link) but it illuminated the science of fetal development for me that I'd never considered in the context of the abortion rights debate. The conclusion was that scientists don't agree on the answer to the question. Nevertheless, policy at the state level on abortion gets made in this uncertain circumstance.

That begs the question, how does SCOTUS consider and rule on the case that's coming before them? I think Talent correctly describes the muddled outcome.

[Dr. Strangelove]

This is much more trivial stuff, so skip reading if you DGAF, but it's interesting from a historical perspective to get some truth on how this all played out and from Mark Meadows himself. Trump tested positive for covid and was showing signs of being sick at least 3 days earlier than previously acknowledged. For his part this morning, Trump hasn't attacked Meadows directly but says anyone who says he had covid before the debate is FAKE NEWS.

Sept 26 - The Amy Coney Barrett super-spreader event at the White House. Immediately afterwards, Trump tests positive for covid for the first time (per Meadows). He takes another test later that day that comes up negative. Goes to a MAGA rally that night. Meadows says he looked tired but otherwise ok. I don't know if Trump had subsequent positive or negative tests between now and Oct. 2

Sept 27 - Trump hosts Gold Star families at the White House. After he recovered, he would blame them for giving him covid despite knowing he had already tested positive the day before.

Sept 28 - Has a press conference in the Rose Garden to brag about everything he's done to beat covid. A large number of people in attendance, including press, get sick with covid in the coming days.

Sept 29 - The first Trump/Biden debate. Despite both candidates being required to submit a negative covid test within 72 hour of the debate, Trump doesn't do so. Chris Wallace says later that they relied on the honor system to enforce this. Meadows says Trump looked slightly better on debate day but was moving around more slowly than normal.

Oct 1 - Trump hosts a fundraiser at his Bedminster golf club in the evening. Attendees later say Trump was visibly sick and much more sluggish than normal.

Oct 2 - White House announces Trump has covid and claims his first positive test was just that day. Trump gets flown to the hospital, a pretty good sign he's sicker than everyone's admitting and further along in the disease than is being acknowledged.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...k-meadows-book

[Kapture1]

Yeah, no. I don't care.

[CGVT]

This is much more trivial stuff, so skip reading if you DGAF, but it's interesting from a historical perspective to get some truth on how this all played out and from Mark Meadows himself. Trump tested positive for covid and was showing signs of being sick at least 3 days earlier than previously acknowledged. For his part this morning, Trump hasn't attacked Meadows directly but says anyone who says he had covid before the debate is FAKE NEWS.

Sept 26 - The Amy Coney Barrett super-spreader event at the White House. Immediately afterwards, Trump tests positive for covid for the first time (per Meadows). He takes another test later that day that comes up negative. Goes to a MAGA rally that night. Meadows says he looked tired but otherwise ok. I don't know if Trump had subsequent positive or negative tests between now and Oct. 2

Sept 27 - Trump hosts Gold Star families at the White House. After he recovered, he would blame them for giving him covid despite knowing he had already tested positive the day before.

Sept 28 - Has a press conference in the Rose Garden to brag about everything he's done to beat covid. A large number of people in attendance, including press, get sick with covid in the coming days.

Sept 29 - The first Trump/Biden debate. Despite both candidates being required to submit a negative covid test within 72 hour of the debate, Trump doesn't do so. Chris Wallace says later that they relied on the honor system to enforce this. Meadows says Trump looked slightly better on debate day but was moving around more slowly than normal.

Oct 1 - Trump hosts a fundraiser at his Bedminster golf club in the evening. Attendees later say Trump was visibly sick and much more sluggish than normal.

Oct 2 - White House announces Trump has covid and claims his first positive test was just that day. Trump gets flown to the hospital, a pretty good sign he's sicker than everyone's admitting and further along in the disease than is being acknowledged.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...k-meadows-book

Wait! What?! Trump is a lying piece of shit that doesn't care about anything but himself? Who knew?

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's such an unprincipled opinion that it's hard to deal with. And I don't even necessarily mean that there is nothing in the Constitution concerning that issue. What I mean is that the decisions are fundamentally policy based in that they go into rights based on trimesters. This is exactly the type of balancing that legislatures do. They hold headings. They bring in interested parties. They decide what their constituents want. The Supreme Court sort of did all this.

So, what you have is a sort of compromise right that is constrained by policy concerns. Now, their are 3 people on the Court who definitely won't whittle anything. There are probably 2-4 people who would throw the issue back to the States. And their are 2-4 that may be inclined to whittle. However, how do you get a majority opinion on that? Do the 2 that think Roe is definitively wrong opt to sign on to a "whittling" opinion? I doubt it.

It's going to be a clusterfuck. And I'll say this, again, I would firmly vote for any reasonably circumscribed right to choice. That's an easy question for me on lots of grounds. However, I also think Roe is a terribly reasoned decision that essentially politicized the Court (perhaps other decisions contributed, but this was the obvious tipping point).

I tend to think you're looking at a garbled multiple opinion case that will either hold the status or whittle slightly.

Oral arguments can be misleading but I don't know now. Kav and ACB seemed to be pretty on board with tossing Roe out completely and not a mere whittling. And if so, Roberts is irrelevant.

[lineygoblue]

Roberts will vote with the liberals

[Dr. Strangelove]

Roberts will vote with the liberals

No he won't. He will vote to uphold the law but do so in a way that that minimizes the impact the ruling will have on Roe. I'm not sure how many of the remaining 5 conservatives will follow him.

The liberals will declare the Mississippi law unconstitutional.

[iam416]

If the Court does overturn Roe, that, I think might lessen the Ds obliteration in 2022. Because now the abortion issue will actually be in the hands of elected officials. It's one thing to be pro-life or pro-choice when you're really constrained with what laws you can pass. It's another thing when you can pass anything. And I think in swing districts and with swing voters -- suburban folks -- a modestly circumscribed right to choose (15-20 weeks) is the majority view. And I think it will matter a lot to "white women."

So, conservatives have essentially wanted the issue decided by the correct decision-maker for decades now. And, I tend to agree with that position at least as a matter of legal reasoning. But, I'm not sure they're going to like the results.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Omicron ..... look, the people becoming infected with it who are vaccinated are experiencing mild symptoms. People who've been boosted - the standard of care for most age cohorts now - aren't getting it all.

I can't help but thinking if we were looking for people with routine colds (coronavirus infection) or Influenza, I would think we'd be seeing numbers of new infections similar to those being discovered tracking Omicron.

No where in the history of epidemiology has the common cold been tracked and analyzed to the extent the SARS2, Omicron variant is being tracked. Influenza outbreaks have been tracked and, my take is that if that kind of information being derived from this level of intense tracking of local outbreaks, it would look a lot like Omicron - yep, I had a cough/runny nose and felt like shit, I went to my doc and tested positive for the flu. I'll be back to work in a few days after taking Tylenol and my fever is gone for 24h.

It's an understandable freaking out by governments and PH agencies (to varying degrees and I'll get to that) given what happened with the first version of SARS2 and the C-19 disease it produced. Piles of body bags outside hospitals in Italy left a lasting impression.

Here's the thing. We're not as totally unprepared to deal with infectious viruses that have the potential - emphasis on potential because we really don't know yet - to wreak the havoc that SARS2 heaped on an unprepared world.

To my point - "in varying degree." Japan flat out closed its boarders unnecessarily. While restricting mobility works to stop the spread of a viral pathogen, if it causes the sniffles, WTF. This is an extreme over-reaction with very high social and economic costs. Until we know more about Omicron's ability to cause infections, serious ones, in large enough numbers to stress health care systems, the best approach is to accelerate vaccinations and boosters and do plenty of testing. Some countries, and the US is among them, are requiring all airline passengers arriving in the US to have a negative COVID test (Rapid AG tests will be accepted for now) within 24h of entry. That's just 24h sooner (was 48h) and is a moderate move with little cost and identifiable benefits.

So far, sensible approaches have predominated. Lockdowns aren't happening on a wide scale and if they are happening, its for a short period and much less restrictive than 2 years ago. What's driving more restrictive measures in Europe and surrounds is a resurgence of Delta. Nothing to do with Omicron at all so far. However, the press continues to blow the situation up way more than it deserves and is reflective of the facts on the ground. "The sky is falling" narrative predominates and that does everything to stifle the ongoing economic recovery and social engagement over the holidays. The news is largely misleading and in some cases factually incorrect. Tune it out.