Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Wayward Son

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 24, 2021, 05:07:46 PM »
Also remember that masks and social distancing weren't so much to "prevent" you from getting Covid-19 as to slow down the transmission rate so that our hospitals wouldn't be overwhelmed by those in need.  Even with masking and social distancing, eventually you will probably still get the disease.

The only thing that will prevent someone from getting it is herd immunity (unless he opts for complete isolation from everyone else :) ).  And there are only two ways I know to achieve that: either enough people get the disease and gain immunity, or enough people get vaccinated and gain immunity.  Or a combination of both.

It's just that one of those two ways has a lower death rate than the other. ;)

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: June 23, 2021, 02:33:42 PM »
The Kraken may get knocked down a peg or two.

If this case goes againts Powelle et al I wonder how that will effect the libel suite.

It's hard not to get sanctioned when you file court cases based on information "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of facts," to use Sidney Powell's own words.  ;D

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 22, 2021, 12:54:45 PM »
Wayward I think you are misreading the math and overestimating the protection.  You can't say N people were vaccinated M caught it - so risk reduction is N/M.

The vast majority of M wouldn't have caught it over that time period whether vaccinated or not.  Most people vaccinated haven't caught Covid over the past year prior to vaccination - you have to use odds ratios and additional adjusting for regional and behavioral risk etc.

Yes, this was a very rough estimate.  And I am not an epidemiological expert by any means. :)

However, I do wonder how far off such back-of-the-napkin calculations could be.  Even if it were off by two or three orders of  magnitudes, they would still be very small numbers.

Of course, that doesn't mean one shouldn't be cautious.  As Bill Bryson once said about the chances of being eaten by a bear while hiking the Appalachian Trail:
Black bears rarely attack. But here’s the thing. Sometimes they do. All bears are agile, cunning and immensely strong, and they are always hungry. If they want to kill you and eat you, they can, and pretty much whenever they want. That doesn’t happen often, but--and here is the absolutely salient point--once would be enough.

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 21, 2021, 07:37:43 PM »
Oops.  :-[  Sorry, I should have read more carefully.

Here is an article that might help.  Apparently, it is very low.

A small number of Americans have been infected with the coronavirus after getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Called “breakthrough cases,” they have been making headlines recently, and they raise a question: What are your chances of getting COVID-19 if you are fully vaccinated?

The answer, studies suggest, is very low — probably just a fraction of a percentage point.

And this is just getting the virus.  Hospitalizations are lower still.

Of the total 9,245 breakthrough cases reported to the CDC as of April 26, 2021, 835 resulted in hospitalization, federal data show. That’s out of more than 95 million Americans who had been vaccinated at that point.

So that's about 0.0097 percent of being infected by the virus once you are innoculated, and 0.00088 percent chance of requiring hospitalization.

You will be susceptible until herd immunity is achieved.  But, of course, the chances of you getting it depends on how soon your area reaches herd immunity, the percentage of the unvaccinated in your area, how fast the virus is spreading, how often you meet other people, etc.

Ultimately, probably not worth worrying about. :)

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 21, 2021, 06:43:15 PM »

Is there some way to put the level of risk you are referring to here in context?  If I'm vaccinated and going about my daily business, Working in an office with a mix of individual offices and cubicles. Eating at a restaurant a few times a week,  Living with 3 other vaccinated people, What are my chances of getting sick from covid?

Here's a rough calculation:

Herd immunity to Covid-19 is somewhere between 70 and 85 percent or so.  It will continue to spread until herd immunity is reached.  So, by waiting to be exposed, you have a roughly 70 to 85 percent chance of catching it.  Let's call it 80 percent.

About 30 percent of those who catch Covid-19 show symptoms.  So, if you catch it, you would have a 70 percent chance of "getting sick."  (This ignores any long-term consequences to your lungs or other organs, about which we are not sure.)  So that's about a 59.5 percent chance.

The odds of getting serious symptoms are about 1 in 6, or 16.66 percent, assuming you are not older or with a serious condition already.  So you have a 9.91 percent chance of requiring hospitalization like Trump.

About 2 percent of those who have caught Covid-19 have died from it.  In the U.S., it was about 1.8 percent.  But it has been going down.  Let's say it's 1 percent.  So the chances of you dying from Covid-19 would be around 1/2 percent, or one in twenty.

Now these are rough estimates, that can change due to various strains, access of medical help, etc.  But I think they are in the ballpark.

Now compare that to the chances of having an adverse reaction to the vaccines.  You have about a 0.051 percent chance of having an adverse reaction: 0.046 percent change of minor reaction (headaches, fatigue, dizziness, etc.) and a 0.0047 percent chance of a severe reaction, which includes death.

If you were betting on horses, which would you say is the safer bet? :)

General Comments / Re: Terrible electricity problems
« on: June 21, 2021, 12:17:18 AM »
The demand is not coming from just weather, it’s the ongoing , unprecedented, and continuous influx of those escaping blue states.

So what you're saying is that Texas electrical system is being overwhelmed with an average yearly population  increase of 1.5 percent over the last 10 years (with last year being only 1.29 percent).  Why didn't anybody plan for this increase?  It's not like it suddenly happened just last year. :)

Texas made a mistake investing in renewable energy like wind. We are relying on it to pick up the slack from thermal generation but you know what’s happening right now? Of course you don’t, CNN isn’t gonna tell you. The wind is not blowing.  It’s exactly what critics of wind power warned about, no wind, no power.

Strange.  I thought that thermal generators were supposed to pick up the slack when wind is not blowing, not the other way around.  Who's bright idea was it that wind was supposed to be available any time a thermal generator is off-line?  Sounds like really stupid planning again, just like not weatherizing the generators in case it got really cold in Texas.

And don't forget the other half: the electricity demand on June 14 of 69,943 MW broke the June record, and 11,000 MW of power generation was out of service.

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 20, 2021, 08:32:03 PM »
It doesn't make your system create antibodies and it doesn't make you immune to the virus.

You are wrong, edgematt.  You body creates antibodies to certain proteins that the virus has.  Same as it did when you got infected with the disease, although you body may have "chosen" a different protein.  (The body does not create antibodies to entire viruses, only portions of it.)

So getting the vaccine would help you immune system, in that it would probably add another protein to identify.

Check it out if you doubt me.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 19, 2021, 02:00:46 PM »
Yes.  Consider the circumstances.

A violent mob has just battered their way through a security window.  He's the only person between them and the legislators just down the hall.

He doesn't shoot the woman, because she's unarmed.  What about the next unarmed guy who goes through the window?  Does he shoot him?  What about the guy after that?  Or that guy after that? Or the guy after that?

Now this lone guy has five people to keep back from the legislators he's tasked to protect.  How is he going to stop them now?  He tries to shoot one of them, the others could easily overwhelm him, especially since more people are coming in.  And while they're beating him, others go and start beating, or worse, the legislators he was supposed to protect.

As TheDrake said, he was keeping everyone out.  She shouldn't have gone through first. :(

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 17, 2021, 06:40:08 PM »
As opposed to commending the police for shooting to death an unarmed woman who was also an honorably discharged Air Force veteran?

Actually, I am surprised that murder charges weren't brought up against every single person who was breaking the windows in that hallway.

Because that's the way it always works with law enforcement.  If a police officer kills someone while engaging with people during the commission of a crime, the person who was committing the crime is held responsible.  And no one can say that breaking windows while a crowd is threatening Senators and Representatives is not a crime.

It's not whataboutism.  They are completely different circumstances.  One is an officer beating on a woman who isn't an immediate threat.  Another is an officer defending elected officials from a riotous crowd that was a definite threat. Even the most casual observer could attest to that.

Try as you might, cherry, there is no equivalence between officers beating on a crowd to disperse them and officers trying to disperse a riotous, violent crowd who are beating on the officers.  It took a lot more guts to stand up and fight off those Trump supporters to protect our Congressmen than it did to beat up on a woman on the ground.  It is shameful that you, and those who suggested to you that they were equivalent, somehow don't see the difference.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 17, 2021, 04:39:05 PM »
Are you saying, cherry, that Democrats should be praising Cody Budworth for bashing a woman's face with his baton after he had knocked her to the ground?  That you believe that police should be commended for pushing women to the ground and then trying to break their noses, teeth and cheekbones in order to clear a crowd?  That this is the type of policing that you want to see in your town, and be subject to yourself?

Even more remarkable, are you comparing the actions of the Capitol Police, who where going hand-to-hand with rioters who were attacking them with poles and fire extinguishers and fists, but who held back and did not draw their guns, to those police who would hit a woman in the face with a club when she was down?

Wow.  Just wow.

It does illustrate one of biggest problems with policing in this country.  A vast majority of officers would never rain such punitive punishment on citizens, even when under extreme circumstances.  But they will defend those other officers who would with silence or even walking off their jobs.  Because protecting the crimes of their fellow officers is most important than protecting the people or upholding the law. :(

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 17, 2021, 10:58:21 AM »
My wife and I got our second vaccines in late April.  My wife got the Moderna vaccine, and had a miserable 102 degree fever the next day.  Fortunately she was pretty much back to normal the day after.

I got the Pfizer vaccine and had a little soreness in the arm that day.  But the next day my other arm was a bit sore, too.  :)

Did I mention that my wife hates me sometimes?  ;D

General Comments / Re: New trans laws
« on: June 16, 2021, 12:54:46 PM »
DJ, I am very sad to hear that you feel that you deserve to die.  I doubt you deserve it anymore than anyone else--and far less than some I could name who inexplicably are still around. :)  So if only to act as a counterweight to those people, I'd like you to stick around.  I, for one, would miss you.  :-[

Just remember the immortal words of William Goldman, words which I used with my son until he is ready to smack me:  "Life is pain.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell something."

Somehow that always makes me smile. :)

General Comments / Re: Terrible electricity problems
« on: June 16, 2021, 12:43:05 PM »
Texas could look to California, to see how we handled a (man-made) shortage of electricity a number of years ago.

But, then we are on the grid, and could buy electricity from other states (at highly inflated prices), so I guess that's not an option. :(

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 14, 2021, 04:15:18 PM »
Yes, it is instructive to look back at those "violent anarchists."

How many of the tens of thousands of BLM protesters actually threw rocks and hard objects at the police?

How many of them shot fireworks at police?

How many were arrested for trespassing because they walked on the lawn in front of a Federal building with no fence?  (Ans. at least one :) ).

Now how many were called "violent anarchists" because they trespassed?  Because they painted graffiti?  Because they did not immediately comply with orders from police officers?

Isn't this why some Republicans say that the Black Lives Matter movement is violent?

Now, how many of them threw fire extinguishers at police officers?  How many hit them with poles and shields?  How many of them struck them with fists and feet?

How many police officers were knocked down and surrounded by rioters?

How many of those rioters crawled through those broken windows and wandered the halls of the buildings?  How many of them were chanting that they wanted to hang government officials in those buildings?

How many broke into offices and looted them?  How many of them took over government chambers while they were being used?

And how many of them attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., the seat and perhaps heart of our Federal government?

Some Republicans call these people "tourists" and refuse to acknowledge that it was an insurrection to violently stop the government from performing its duties.  They won't even call them "violent."  ::)

Yes, it is very instructive to compare the two, and see how some Republicans are a bunch of lying hypocrites who don't care how violent their supporters are, just as long as they continue to vote for them and don't primary they out of office.  And how Republicans still will support them.  >:(

General Comments / Re: New trans laws
« on: June 09, 2021, 06:45:04 PM »
As I stated before, in this case the woman's own natural testosterone levels were in the level of a man's, without any doping.  She proved this to the committee.  But the committee still banned her, because they were so high.

So if a woman's testosterone levels can be as high as a man, what does "baseline" mean?  The average?  The normal?  If biology is so simple as being either XX or XY, how can there be exceptions?  Is it "mostly XX" and "mostly XY?"  If you have all these people who are in neither category, or in both, how can you consider that "simple?"  Or do those people simply not count?

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: June 09, 2021, 06:39:11 PM »
Many professional software experts did attest that the voting machines did move Trump votes into the Biden totals. Makes total sense.

Really??  Which voting machines?  Who manufactured those machines?

Let's name names.  ;D

General Comments / Re: New trans laws
« on: June 09, 2021, 05:04:59 PM »
Did you know there was a woman who was banned from participating in women's sports because her testosterone levels were too high, as high as a man's?  And yet she had XY chromosomes.

Biology is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. :)

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: June 09, 2021, 05:01:57 PM »
Lambert, there is a lot of misinformation out there about the election.  Could you cite your sources for your statements?  I suspect that much of it may be of dubious quality, and you may be misinformed about the facts.

And, of course, if we are misinformed, we would certainly like to know that, too. :)

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: June 08, 2021, 02:33:36 PM »
But you have to admit, Ferning, that the original argument that "the conspiracy is so perfect that there is no credible proof right now that it happened, although we know it did" holds even less water, and is flexible enough to be used to prove anything from election fraud to Obama being born in Kenya to Donald Trump being a reptilian alien from the 10th planet of our solar system (the 9th planet also being covered-up). :)

The argument, such as it is, appears to be that certain types of scenarios will have an identical appearance despite two potential histories. This is not particularly controversial as far as I'm concerned. It's quite evident that not all observations can lead to a back-trace of history; that does not discount that multiple histories are potentially possible. An example that actually sees considerable play in the real world is that of the existence of God. If you on the one hand take a universe with no God, and on the other hand one where God does not materially interfere like a wizard, or if He does it's in invisible ways, the two are going to be appear isomorphic if you look out the window and do a general inspection. It does not mean that the lack of being able to tell the difference at a glance means you have derived some kind of information about which situation you're in. It actually means that if you're being rational you have to be agnostic until you receive more on the subject. Now in terms of campaign fraud I suppose this might mean accepting that it could be true while also knowing it could be impossible to find out. The issue here seems to be largely about money - how much is it worth to construct a system from whole cloth that would avoid this potential issue, especially considering it may not even be happening?

The issue is not so much about money, but the fact that, given the premise, any statement can be "proven" true.  Which therefore means that it proves nothing.

But then I wouldn't have expected any less from a reptilian alien.  ;D

And while the Manhattan Project was well concealed at the time, it eventually was uncovered, and it was a much simpler operation to keep undercover, since it occurred in a small location with a limited number of people who were involved.

The totality of the project actually included huge amounts of people. But what would be true would be to say that very few of them knew the full significance of what they were doing. And the same would presumably be true of a voter fraud situation, if it did exist.

Except a lot of them, if not all, knew they were doing something secret, and quite a few of them probably guessed something about what it was, especially when reports came out about what was really happening.  And practically all of them knew they had to keep quiet because there was a war going on.  Basically, the people involved were told they were doing something that had to do with national security and agreed to keep quiet.

It would be a very different situation for massive voter fraud.  People would have to ignorant of what they were doing or that it would be considered illegal (highly unlikely if they were competent at their jobs or reasonable intelligent), or agreed to keep quiet about it, even though there is no national security issue with what they were doing, it is actually illegal and could cause they harm if they did not report it, and there are widespread "reports" of it happening.  In other words, rather than being patriots and help defend their country, every single one of them would know they were hurting their country (or believe it was best for the country, in spite of being illegal), or just be stupid.

When you have the entirety of the U.S. laws and government, and the will of the people, behind you, it is possible to keep a grand secret like the Manhattan Project (mostly) secret.  When the laws and the U.S. government are against you, along with at least half the population, it is nearly impossible to keep everyone to that level of secrecy.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: June 08, 2021, 01:22:25 PM »
So let me get it straight, Democrats are both evil geniuses and idiots who can't do anything right? You saw, right? Those are the guys who fired up a smokescreen so complete that they've stolen a nationwide election?

I don't really have any skin in the game on this issue, but I don't think this type of argument holds water. The whole "how can government maintain a conspiracy when they are incompetent" argument can be used to 'refute' any sort of cover-up or covert actions, but doesn't address that the government isn't a single person with a single 'character'. No doubt some sorts of assemblages of officials can't do anything right, whereas others types of sub-specialists can do pinpoint precision work with zero trace. And even large-scale projects such as the Manhattan Project are capable of being kept undercover even while involving many high-ranking officials. So it's not that it can't be done, it's just that it depends on what sort of operation we're talking about and what the stakes are.

But you have to admit, Ferning, that the original argument that "the conspiracy is so perfect that there is no credible proof right now that it happened, although we know it did" holds even less water, and is flexible enough to be used to prove anything from election fraud to Obama being born in Kenya to Donald Trump being a reptilian alien from the 10th planet of our solar system (the 9th planet also being covered-up). :)

And while the Manhattan Project was well concealed at the time, it eventually was uncovered, and it was a much simpler operation to keep undercover, since it occurred in a small location with a limited number of people who were involved.  A massive election fraud as the Republicans are saying would occur across the nation and involve dozens, if not hundreds, of unvetted local officials (from various political parties) along with hundreds of security personnel to prevent bystanders from accidently witnessing the fraud.  Can you cite a similar scaled conspiracy in the past that was successful at the time?  And who ran it?

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 07, 2021, 04:16:18 PM »
I would be most interested in seeing those who were not just not Trump supporters, but who were actual Trump opponents, who were arrested and charged in the Jan. 6 insurrection.  After all, that's what a false flag person really is, as I've heard there were participating.

Let's see their names and the proof that they were opponents.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: June 07, 2021, 04:08:34 PM »
It is so predictable that the Democrat apologists refer to "the Big Lie" whenever they excuse their voting irregularities and corruption.

No, we call it "the Big Lie" because it is a big, obvious lie.  This election was scrutinized more than any recent election, and no major irregularities or corruption were found.  No more than usual, which means that, if you believe this election was uncertain, you must believe just about every election was uncertain (and certainly the previous one :) ).

If you disagree with that assessment, prove it.  Preferably in a court of law. :)

Many have tried in the courts and couldn't.  Many were laughed out of court by the judges, even Republican judges, who wouldn't even let the ridiculous assertions go to trial.  One lawyer even stated that she did not expect anyone to believe her assertions were true.  ;D

And while normally we would let people believe as they will, January 6 proved that to be too dangerous in this political climate.  Because some people actually believe the Big Lie, and are willing to attack the police in order to try to enforce their beliefs on all of us.  That can not be tolerated.  This nation is too valuable to allow it to be ruined by a Big Lie.

So get used to being reminded that it is a Big Lie, that Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for propagating it, and that we will not tolerate liars trying to run, and ruin, our country.  >:(

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: June 06, 2021, 02:30:22 PM »
Here's some disturbing statistics.

Almost half of the members of the Latter Day Saints believe "the big lie" that election fraud made Biden the President, and almost a quarter of them subscribe to the QAnon conspiracy theory.

Of course, this is about the same percentages of all Republicans. 

But you would think they would be smarter than regular Republicans. :(

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 04, 2021, 07:00:44 PM »
Well, so far the people who have been identified and are being prosecuted are all Trump supporters, from what I've heard.  It will be interesting to see how many of the most violent attackers are not eventually caught and charged.  So I don't think we need to wait until everyone is caught before we can conclude that Trump supporters were actively involved in the violence.

And while arrests and prosecutions can identify and punish the guilty, such investigations cannot go into exactly why those who tried to stop the working of Congress did so.  How much were they influenced by others, especially government officials?  Who may have helped them before the incident?  Who may have incited them?  These and other issues, necessary to understand to help prevent any future incidents, are beyond the purview of the justice system, but not of a Congressional investigation.


Y'know - that can be answered in two ways. Those who have a distinct POV, tend to search out only the bits and pieces of stats and data that fit their preconceived notions, and then rub everyone's' noses in what they report.

I think that applies to just about everyone one this board. :D

Another way to look at it, is how well pure facts are reported by whatever source we look at. Even in well-thought-of venues, there are activist trying to disinform. Look at the DOJ. Can you take statements by someone like Comey as gospel, when he neglected to mention parts of laws that negate his headline statements? For instance, going back to Hillary and her Email scandal, the law specifically states that intention is irrelevant, but in his "attack" on her actions, he said what she did was illegal, but unintentional, so we should ignore it. See what I mean? What comes out of a source can be shaded to fit a preconceived outcome. Raw data is hard to find. Everything is filtered.

A lot of it comes down to credible sources, and facts vs. opinions.  If the Bloomberg author had simply stated that immigration was higher among the lower economic rungs, based on his own authority or on some dubious authority, it would have been fine to dismiss the claim as unproven.  But he cited the source that used the U.S. Census data to create the charts.  Neither of them were Bloomberg.  So how can he dismiss the information just because a Bloomberg opinionist cited it?  ;)

Now, if he had a good objection to the source that used the Census data, Crunch might have had a point.  If he could have articulated why he thought the data was erroneous, he would have had a better point.  But just objecting to it because it was cited by Bloomberg is a silly argument on the face of it.

Also, it was not an opinion that the author was citing, but conclusions reached from data.  This is also different from an opinion, especially a legal opinion, such as your example of the Hillary ruling.  While data can sometimes be misinterpreted, it is hard to imagine how one could misinterpret something as simple as categorizing income levels of those immigrating to and from a state.  It would have been better to show us why he thought the data was inaccurate rather than having us rely on his authority.

In general, everything is slippery. We look at the person making the statements based on what they claim to be "hard facts" more often that anything else. Trump was accosted nonstop as a liar - but his facts and data have been borne out far more than those who called him a liar. Wuhan was probably the source of Covid-19. He was lambasted for it - yet now we have Fauci's own Emails confirming EcoHealth Alliance working on gain-of-function going to China, only after it was outlawed in the USA - and China's military said creating a pandemic to use against their competitors was in their playbook. The military statement was made in 2014. EccoHealth went to the Soros/Gates owned Wuhan virology lab in 2014. Yeah, the facts are there - but how you put them together makes all the difference.

Again, you use a bad example in Trump, who is a liar, having lied from the beginning of his Presidency (bragging how he had the biggest turnout for his inauguration--a patently untrue statement for anyone able to look at the pictures) to the very end (where he insisted, and continues to insist, that he actually won the election, even though it was the cleanest and most scrutinized election in recent history, if not all of American history) and many times in between.  Just consider how he paid $130,000 to a person he said he didn't know, or all the times he contradicted himself, usually when it seemed most advantageous to him.  Believing him not to be a liar is an opinion.

While facts can be interpreted and sometimes twisted to suit one's POV and biases, some facts are so simple and straightforward that we should all agree on them, regardless of who uses them or where we first come across them.  And we need to keep those clearly apart from conclusions and opinions.  Once we start throwing out facts because they are inconvenient to our positions, then we are no longer dealing with reality and cannot function in the real world anymore.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 04, 2021, 01:27:26 PM »
As someone pointed out, if Republicans are so utterly sure that much of the destruction at the 1/6 insurrection was done by Antifa, why did they block a bipartisan Congressional investigation where they could prove it to the entire nation? ;)

Answer: because they know it is just another lie that they could never prove in a setting where you have to lay out your proof and have it scrutinized by everyone.  Just like they were never able to prove that the election results were false in any court of law. :)

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: June 01, 2021, 06:43:19 PM »
You can listen to Flynn's (original) words here.

And for anyone that believes a Bloomberg opinion piece, I’d like to sell you some beachfront property in Arizona.

So, if I understand you correctly, Crunch, what you're saying is that if U.S. Census Bureau data is quoted in Bloomberg, only a fool would believe it, but if it quoted by a Conservative, it's truth you can put money on?  ???

You'll need to explain that to me--and to everyone else on this board. ;D

And for anyone who believes that people are leaving California because of high taxes, the demographics doesn't support it.  People with higher incomes (over $138,000/yr) are actually moving into California. :)

Actually, Crunch severely underestimates how many people left California.

According to this U.C. study, about 267,000 people left California in 2020.  This was off-set, of course, by about 128,000 who decided to move into California that year, too.

Which brings up the question, if there is a mass exodus from the state, why are people moving in? :)

Of course, Crunch glosses over the reasons why people are leaving, one of the most obvious being the price of housing.  And what is the main reason for prices to go up?  Lack of supply, of course.  In this case, because so many people want to live in California.  If they didn't, because they were all moving out, there would be more housing available.

And growth in California is becoming more difficult, mainly because of lack of water.  Down here in San Diego, you can walk along the riverbed of the San Diego river up in the El Monte valley, because of the big dam that stops the flow at the head of the valley.  A reservoir that was only half-full (if that) a few years ago, after our eight-year drought.  It's all well and good to talk about building more housing in the suburbs and outlying areas, but where will you get the water for that housing? ;)

And the bottom line is that losing 182,000 people in a state with 43,000,000 people isn't that big of a percentage.  If we continue at that rate, California will be empty by the year 2257.  We can only hope that real estate prices will go down before that. :)

That's a pretty slow exodus for such a "badly run" state, wouldn't you say? ;)

General Comments / Re: Cancelled
« on: May 12, 2021, 06:15:51 PM »
Republicans standing up for their convictions yet again.  ;D

General Comments / Re: Cancelled
« on: May 12, 2021, 06:06:19 PM »
Did anyone hear Liz's last speech on the House floor while she was still part of House leadership?

"We must speak the truth. Our election was not stolen. And America has not failed," Cheney said.
"Every one of us who has sworn the oath must act to prevent the unraveling of our democracy. This is not about policy. This is not about partisanship. This is about our duty as Americans. Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar," Cheney said. "I will not sit back and watch in silence while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former President's crusade to undermine our democracy."

Just think of all those Republican representatives in swing districts that will have to explain their vote next election. :)

General Comments / Re: Cancelled
« on: May 12, 2021, 03:30:54 PM »
No matter how many times you split it, it still shows that Trump is a hair up our nation's b*tt.  :D

California's badly-run government does it again.

During the midst of a pandemic that has shut down most of the nation, California expects $75.7 billion surplus this year.

Fortunately, most states aren't like liberal California.

BTW, how's your state's budget looking this year? :)

General Comments / Re: Cancelled
« on: May 11, 2021, 01:56:04 PM »
You know we're not talking about porn. That's quite the red herring. We're talking about political speech.

So the only free speech covered by the Constitution is political speech?  :o

General Comments / Re: Cancelled
« on: May 11, 2021, 10:28:16 AM »
And now the latest victim of cancel culture is, of course, Bob Baffert, whose horse Medina Spirit won the Kentucky Derby but failed his drug test (just like 29 of his other horses, including five in the past year alone).

“It did not happen, that’s the really seriously troubling part of it,” Baffert told Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino on Fox News Monday morning. “I’m hiring investigators, but sometimes you never find out.”

“These horses don’t live in a bubble,” Baffert added, alluding to the potential of Medina Spirit being tampered with. “People are touching them. You went from the derby, after the derby everybody is up there touching them. There are so many ways they horses could get contaminated.” ...

Each time it happens, Baffert and his lawyers point the blame elsewhere and the sport welcomes him back with open arms. But Churchill Downs moved swiftly on Sunday, banning Baffert and separating themselves from the disgraced trainer, despite him being one of the few names that transcends the sport.

“I know with Churchill Downs came out with that statement, that was pretty harsh,” Baffert said. “And I think they had to just – with all the noise going on, we live in a different world now. This America is different and it was like a cancel culture kind of thing so they are reviewing it.”

I suppose it is an example of "cancel culture" because, after all, the horse is brown.  ;D

General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: May 10, 2021, 06:28:55 PM »
So what you're saying, cherry, with this "encourage people to obey the police," is that we should encourage the police to kill anyone who does not immediately obey their instructions, even those who are incapable of doing so?  Even those who are physically incapable (deaf) or mentally incapable (insane, temporarily or chronically).  That all they have to do is feel that someone is threatened (whether the threatened person feels threatened or not), and they have the right to kill a person then and there.  They become the judge, jury and executioner.

Sounds just the policy that any fascist government would encourage. ;)

General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: April 23, 2021, 06:52:46 PM »
It proves the police are not getting the benefit of the doubt anymore.  Perhaps rightly so.

Of course, we are also talking about Ohio State University students, who have a history of protesting. ;)

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: April 23, 2021, 11:34:23 AM »
And the Trump team (NRCC) is STILL trying to rip off the suckers.

Electoral talks about an article detailing the scam.  It starts with a text message:

Friend request expiring in 10 minutes.  Trump needs to know if you're joining his new social media site...  We won't ask again...

When you click on the attached link, you get:

President Trump is planning on launching his own social media site very soon!
Will you be the first to join?
5X Matching Activated so you can show your support for Pres. Trump and House Conservatives. ...
O Yes: I stand with Trump
O No: I prefer Fake News

Then there is the fund raising check box:

We need to know we haven't lost you to
the Radical Left. If you UNCHECK this box,
we will have to tell Trump you're a
DEFECTOR & sided with the Dems. CHECK
this box and we can win back the House
and get Trump to run in 2024.

Make this a monthly recurring donation.

The recurring donation line is in a slightly smaller font, of course. :)

However, I do reemphasize that Trump is the last hope for those who believe the election was stolen.  He is the only one who is still saying that fraud made him lose.  If you truly believe that our system of Democracy was undermined in this last election, it is your patriotic duty to give Trump as much money as you can, preferably every month.  After all, Trump is a highly successful billionaire (just ask him) who loves this country, perhaps the only one who does anymore.  If you don't give him your money, how can he possibly save this country from the Democrats?


General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: April 22, 2021, 05:53:58 PM »
A recreation shouldn't be too difficult. Is it possible to be in the position those two were in and the knee not have any affect on breathing or circulation? Conceivably, you could be in that position and the knee is just barely touching or you could also lean in and compress.

You know what, cherry? That doesn't matter.

Because when George said he couldn't breath, the first thing he should have done is take pressure off Floyd's neck.  When he said he still couldn't breath, he should have pulled off and checked that he wasn't choking.  If anyone was to do the test you suggest, that is how they would react, because they wouldn't want to kill the person they were testing. (At least, you'd hope that is you were the one who was the test subject. :) )

It just shows again his disregard for George's life.

General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: April 21, 2021, 01:57:47 PM »
I think someone compared that defense to the guy who killed both his parents and then begged mercy from the court because he was an orphan. :)

General Comments / Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: March 31, 2021, 07:11:27 PM »
We cannot intentionally kill innocent children. There is nothing "la-la land" about this view. It is the only view that comports with the moral reality, and it's the only view which prevents us from devaluing human life.

There was a heart-breaking story on NPR I heard about a couple who wanted their child but had to have an abortion.

When they went in for an ultrasound exam, they discovered that there was no abiotic fluid around the fetus.

The doctor told explained the implications.  Most likely, the child would be spontaneously aborted before full term.  If the child made it to full term, he would only survive a few days, perhaps a few weeks at most, suffering the entire time.  There was also a significant risk that the mother could die in the process.

They asked if it were at all possible that their child could be normal.  "If it happened, you would be the first," the doctor told them.

So they decided they had to have an abortion, for everyone's sake.  They had to do it right away, though, because they lived in a state where abortions were outlawed after 8 weeks, and the mother was almost at that point.

Abortions are necessary sometimes.  To force a mother, at considerable risk to herself, to birth a child who would only know pain and suffering for a short while until he died is monstrous, the product of sick minds who think that their moral imperatives are more important than the pain and suffering of real people.  It's all well and good to say we should never kill innocent children.  But reality doesn't give a damn about that.  Reality sometimes give people a bad hand, only giving the choice between pain and death.  To force someone to suffer needlessly because of some moral code shows that the person with that moral code is completely morally bankrupt and shouldn't be listened to at all.

Human life is precious, but reality--or God, if you will--sometimes doesn't give a flying f**k about it.  Sometimes life does things to people that no moral person would ever allow.  And anyone who actually cares about human life and values it will realize that sometimes it is necessary to end it to end the suffering.

Abortions are sometimes necessary.  Learn to live with it.

General Comments / Re: Border crisis
« on: March 30, 2021, 06:51:03 PM »
And the answer was:  If we continue to do things for the people who come to the border, then people will continue to come to our border, and we will continue to have a crisis.

What makes you believe that not doing things for people who come to the border will end the crisis? ;)

It's not the perks they get when they first come to this country that is bringing people here; it is the opportunities they will have if they make it into the country.

Those opportunities will continue to exist whether we treat them like human beings at the border or not.  So they will continue to come, regardless.

General Comments / Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: March 30, 2021, 06:47:18 PM »
Are you already in favor of increased parental leave after birth, for example?

I would ask, increased from what?  Is there a national standard for parental leave?

But I have no objections to parental leave in general, nor for support of all parents regardless of working status.  Parenting is hard but necessary work.  It is only reasonable to support it.

General Comments / Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: March 30, 2021, 04:40:45 PM »
One thing I would expect is a huge increase in funding for preventing spontaneous abortions, especially early ones where the fertilized egg does not attach to the womb.  This one problem alone accounts for the death of millions babies each year, dwarfing any loss from medical abortions.  I still wonder why this is not a major concern for the pro-life movement.

I would also expect support for young children to increase dramatically, too.  If the mother is just the carrier of a unborn human being, with no choice in the matter, then how can we then further burden her with being solely responsible for caring and feeding the baby when she is born?

One would also expect any rape or incest exceptions to be eliminated for abortions, since the baby had no say in the matter.

Of course, there would still be abortion because of medical necessity.  Anyone who believes otherwise is living in la-la land.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: March 23, 2021, 02:20:54 PM »
And how is it that she could present a statement to the courts that she could not reasonably believe was factual at the time?

Is she saying that, until a court rules something is true or false, anything can be presented, even statements that no reasonable person would believe is true?

So someone could say that Trump is factually a spy for Russia, on TV and in print, all over the nation, but until a court ruled one way or another, it would not liable because no reasonable person could believe it was true given the evidence backing the claim (which would be none at this point)??

An interesting legal theory.  One that no reasonable person would buy.  ;D

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: March 22, 2021, 08:22:34 PM »
Good luck with her defense, too, now that Stark County in Ohio has decided not to buy Dominion machines because of pressure from residents who think they are corrupt and because of fears of the company's long-term viability.

That is an actual loss of income that Dominion can point to that is the direct result of defamatory statements that Powell and others have made.

Their up sh*t's creek without a paddle.  ;D

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
« on: March 18, 2021, 06:36:17 PM »
Not about personal responsibility, just purl=] the dead Tea Party and Republicanism in general.[/url]

The era of small government is over.

And it’s been over for a while now.

That’s the undeniable conclusion after House Republicans — in a secret-ballot vote on Wednesday — reversed their ban on earmarks for projects in spending bills that end up benefitting their congressional districts, NBC’s Alex Moe reports. ...

That all represents an ideological sea change in American politics, and it speaks to how Trump and Trump-ism were never about spending, the size of government and deficits. ...

Some important caveats to this House GOP reversal on earmarks, per NBC’s Moe: Members have to publicly disclose their requests; they have to justify why they’re an appropriate use of taxpayer funding; and they have to prove that they or their immediate family don’t have a financial interest in the spending.

But there’s also an irony to this reversal: The GOP’s most prominent earmark slayer was John McCain, who made ending earmarks a central issue in his 2008 campaign for president.

Yet McCain eventually became a pariah in his own party during the Trump Era.

And as McCain went out of favor in the GOP, so too did the party’s resistance to earmarks.

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?
« on: March 17, 2021, 05:47:21 PM »
He wasn't standing with the public, either. :)

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?
« on: March 17, 2021, 10:36:39 AM »
Texas Public Utility Commission chairman Arthur D’Andrea was forced to resign after a tape of him reassuring investors that they would not lose their windfall profits became public.

During that call, which was hosted by Bank of America Securities and closed to the public and news media, D’Andrea took pains to ease investors’ concerns that electricity trades, transacted at the highest prices the market allows, might be reversed, potentially costing trading firms and publicly traded generating companies millions of dollars.

“I apologize for the uncertainty,” D’Andrea said, promising to put “the weight of the commission” behind efforts to keep billions of dollars from being returned to utilities that were forced—thanks to decisions by the PUC—to buy power at sky-high prices, even after the worst of the blackout had passed. ...

At one point, during a discussion about whether natural gas, which also saw huge price spikes during the crisis, would be “repriced,” D’Andrea said no, adding that most legislators understand that gas is priced by global markets and is out of their purview. “But I’ll let you know if I hear anything crazy on it,” D’Andrea said.

Isn't it amazing how the global price of natural gas responds so quickly to a regional crisis. ;)

Much of D’Andrea’s discussion focused on the issue of repricing some of the most expensive electricity trades during the crisis. Wholesale power prices rose 10,000 percent during the third week of February, hitting the state-imposed maximum of $9,000 per megawatt-hour and staying at those levels for days.

The PUC mandated that the $9,000 prices stay in effect for 32 hours after the market had returned to normal, a move that has angered many municipal utilities and retail electricity providers. Those providers are now struggling with huge bills that they say are unjustified and could push them into bankruptcy, while potentially eventually driving up bills for millions of residential and commercial consumers in Texas. The independent market monitor for ERCOT, the grid operator overseen by the PUC, has called the prices artificially inflated and recommended that billions be returned to purchasers.

It's pretty clear who the Texas PUC is looking out for. ;D

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38