As rare as bad takes from you are, this one's at least pretty innocuous.
It's not that Cane's chicken is bad, it's that it's bland. And they don't even seem to have any sort of interesting sauce for it. The Cane's sauce seems basically identical to fry sauce (ketchup + mayo) and, well... I think tomato ketchup is disgusting. I'd rather eat the bland chicken strips dry.
I'm not against boycotts entirely. (That's Our Tod. We're both Xer white dudes from Portland,* so I can understand some confusion.) I had generally positive feelings about Chick-fil-A before the boycott against it brought to light where some of Chick-fil-A's "charitable" donations were going and what they were supporting. At that point, I stopped buying there. When Chick-fil-A diverted their corporate charity elsewhere, I resumed my occasional purchases. Admittedly this wasn't that painful because i didn't eat there very often, but I did alter my consumer behavior at little bit.
And you are right -- it appears MolsonCoors was spun off of SAB Miller about a year after SAB Miller was acquired by InBev in '15 at the behest of U.S. antitrust regulators. I therefore stand corrected as to Coors Light (and Miller Lite): these are still the same watery, rice-adjuncted, Saaz-hopped lager as Bud/Busch/Corona/Michelob et al. Light(s). But yes, that company is now different.
Nevertheless, I'm going to stand by the remainder of my rant -- it's the same damn barely-hopped barley pop and this boycott is at once silly and mean-spirited, as well as painless to the boycotter (as well as the boycotted, who may well benefit from such publicity as this generates).
Good Gods in Asgard Above, conservative middle-aged white men venting their transphobia by labeling Bud Light as "woke" and taking their business 'elsewhere' is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
1. You can get the exact same product -- a watered-down lager adjuncted with lightly-toasted rice hulls and brewed with mild Saaz hops that were present somewhere in the same area code as the brewery -- from Miller, Coors, Busch, or Michelob. I don't mean "functionally the same product," I mean these other light beers all are so close to the same recipe, one which traces back to the one used by Adolphus Busch and Eberhard Anheuser in the 1890's after they first thought to lighten the color of their product by using rice, that they are the same beer.
2. You can also get a very similar product from "international" brands (which are actually brewed in the same breweries by the same people and using functionally the same ingredients) like Corona, Asahi, Heinekin, and Stella. Seriously, the only real difference between any of these is the packaging. So, your anti-wokeness protest does not involve you actually sacrificing anything.
3. Now, if you do switch to Miller Lite, Coors Light, Busch Lite, Michelob Light, any of the Platinum or Ultra-light products, from any of these other labels, you're still buying the same beer from the same company. All of these companies are owned by a single company called Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, or "InBev" for short.
Not much of a protest if you are still buying the same product from the same company. But hey, I hope you feel better.
4(a). So you could stop buying beer altogether, I suppose, in which case congratulations, you can get your drink on with a spirit or wine or fruit ciders; you could also make the switch to craft beers. Which would represent, in my humble opinion, a substantial quality-of-life improvement because you're going to be drinking a better caliber of alcoholic beverage for those times you choose to imbibe, regardless of your politics or some other sort of cultural messaging.
4(b). Or, alternatively, you could stop drinking altogether, which is probably a pretty good decision from a health standpoint, again totally independent of your cultural messaging. So once more, you're better off than you were before so I still don't think you're making much of a sacrifice.
Seriously this may be the stupidest thing I've seen SoCons do since they tried to light their sneakers on fire and stunk up their back yards with the aroma of burning plastic and both Nike and Colin Kaepernick both made more money than they had before the controversy. Although the smash-your-Keurig-with-a-hammer business was pretty dumnb too.
Democratic representatives Justin Jones, Justin Pearson and Gloria Johnson joined demonstrators gathered at the statehouse on 30 March to demand stricter gun control laws. The three entered the House chamber during the protest and led chants from the lectern, disrupting proceedings.
The protest came just days after six people, including three children, were killed in a school shooting at Covenant School in Nashville.
During the protest, Mr Jones held a sign that read "protect kids, not guns", and also led protest chants, shouting "no action, no peace" into a megaphone.
So it's for using a megaphone at the lectern instead of some other prop? What do you want to bet some yahoo legislator in the past has brought actual weapons to use on the floor as a props in a pro-gun speech? And before you answer, remember this: it's Tennessee.
When I was married, or more recently when I had what was supposed to be an LTR, when my partner and I were separated for dinner, I'd say "Yay! I can make something she doesn't like!" and then get lazy and go get sushi and she'd come home and be all, "You got sushi without me?"
I wonder if there's a "relation back" doctrine in NY law that might apply here. If the most recent act in furtherance took place within the limitations period, then can you reach back in time to other, earlier acts in furtherance? Is that all part of committing the same crime?
From Schweppe's thread: "We need to give GOP politicians a winning message on life NOW. If we don’t, they will abandon us and embrace 'no federal role.'"
For five decards you argued "no federal role,"
With Nixon, Reagan, Trump, and Dole,
But you don't want to deal with the Dobbs mess, now do ya?
You sent your Senators out to D.C.
To confirm Neil, and Brett, and Amy,
This isn't their problem anymore, hallelujah!
Hallelujah, hallelujah. hallelujah, hallelu-oo-oo-oo-jah.
Here are the DSM-V's criteria for gender dysphoria, one set for adults and adolescents, and another for children. Criterion "B" in both seems to me to be the part that is how one would distinguish between "legitimately trans identifying transwoman into womens’ spaces but would still filter out predatory men attempting to gain access in bad faith." If living as one's natal sex rather than one's aspirational sex causes profound mental and emotional distress, well, that's what characterizes gender dysphoria and yes, this is an actual trans person.
More specifically, this is an actual trans person driven to suffer profound mental and emotional distress. So to me, the ball really needs to get moved to: is there some point, short of manifestations of profound mental distress, at which we can accept that a person who says they are transsexual is saying so in good faith? Maybe not drive them to the point that they get diagnosed with a condition found in DSM-V?
Did Justice Kelly say that himself? Wisconsin judges are governed by a Code of Judicial Conduct that requires all judicial officers, including Justice Kelly, to do the following:
SCR 60.02 A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. This chapter applies to every aspect of judicial behavior except purely legal decisions.
SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities. ... (2) A judge may not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.
SCR 60.04 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently. ... (d) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity
SCR 60.05 A judge shall so conduct the judge's extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
(1) Extra-judicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do none of the following:
(a) Cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge.
(b) Demean the judicial office.
(c) Interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
SCR 60.06 A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.
... (3) Campaign Conduct and Rhetoric.
(a) In General. While holding the office of judge or while a candidate for judicial office or a judge-elect, every judge, candidate for judicial office, or judge-elect should maintain, in campaign conduct, the dignity appropriate to judicial office and the integrity and independence of the judiciary. A judge, candidate for judicial office, or judge-elect should not manifest bias or prejudice inappropriate to the judicial office. Every judge, candidate for judicial office, or judge-elect should always bear in mind the need for scrupulous adherence to the rules of fair play while engaged in a campaign for judicial office.
I'll let y'all decide if Dan Kelly is crosswise with any of those rules.
If you called them that, Chip, you'd be practically forcing them to vote for Trump. It'd be your fault, you see -- they surely wouldn't have done it otherwise.
It's going to come down to a question of intent. All the other elements are right there. How do you prove intent? Three main ways:
1. You elicit an admission of intent if the defendant is so foolish as to take the stand.
2. You elicit third-party testimony of a past expression of intent.
3. You infer intent from the facts and circumstances surrounding the questioned act and the kinds of results one would reasonably expect from the questioned act being successful.
The defense will be "I wanted to hide the affair from my wife," and the rebuttal to that would be "You're Donald f[ish]ing Trump. Your wife knew you were having extramarital affairs. In no small part because she was one of your mistresses before you married her."
Michael Cohen can testify (and has testified already, thanks to the crime/fraud exception to attorney-client privilege) as to what his understanding of his client's intent -- and he would have sculpted his actions as an attorney to conform to that intent.
I for one would not want to advance the theory that Donald Trump was trying to hide his proclivity of extramarital sexual affairs from his third wife, whose relationship with him began when she knew good and well he was still married to his second wife. And this is... Donald Trump we're talking about. Even before he was in politics in a what-turned-out-to-be-credible way, he engaged in all sorts of splashy, tabloid-headline-gathering extramarital affairs.
This would be the grownup equivalent of walking in the door, seeing melted chocolate smeared all over your toddler's face and clothing, and the child volunteering "I didn't eat the brownies!" Melania knew very well what kind of man she married.
See above re: Glenn Greenwald, Matt Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. If you ask them, they would say they are still liberal and probably do still hold to most of the beliefs they held in their early 20's.
(Well, I'm a little bit iffy about Greenwald on this score, TBQH.)
On “Do the Right Thing (Public Officials Behaving Badly)”
As rare as bad takes from you are, this one's at least pretty innocuous.
It's not that Cane's chicken is bad, it's that it's bland. And they don't even seem to have any sort of interesting sauce for it. The Cane's sauce seems basically identical to fry sauce (ketchup + mayo) and, well... I think tomato ketchup is disgusting. I'd rather eat the bland chicken strips dry.
"
I'm not against boycotts entirely. (That's Our Tod. We're both Xer white dudes from Portland,* so I can understand some confusion.) I had generally positive feelings about Chick-fil-A before the boycott against it brought to light where some of Chick-fil-A's "charitable" donations were going and what they were supporting. At that point, I stopped buying there. When Chick-fil-A diverted their corporate charity elsewhere, I resumed my occasional purchases. Admittedly this wasn't that painful because i didn't eat there very often, but I did alter my consumer behavior at little bit.
And you are right -- it appears MolsonCoors was spun off of SAB Miller about a year after SAB Miller was acquired by InBev in '15 at the behest of U.S. antitrust regulators. I therefore stand corrected as to Coors Light (and Miller Lite): these are still the same watery, rice-adjuncted, Saaz-hopped lager as Bud/Busch/Corona/Michelob et al. Light(s). But yes, that company is now different.
Nevertheless, I'm going to stand by the remainder of my rant -- it's the same damn barely-hopped barley pop and this boycott is at once silly and mean-spirited, as well as painless to the boycotter (as well as the boycotted, who may well benefit from such publicity as this generates).
* Tod's Xer credentials are are iffier than mine.
"
Well, let's be fair. "Please stop going out of your way to be nice to trans people."
"
Good Gods in Asgard Above, conservative middle-aged white men venting their transphobia by labeling Bud Light as "woke" and taking their business 'elsewhere' is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
1. You can get the exact same product -- a watered-down lager adjuncted with lightly-toasted rice hulls and brewed with mild Saaz hops that were present somewhere in the same area code as the brewery -- from Miller, Coors, Busch, or Michelob. I don't mean "functionally the same product," I mean these other light beers all are so close to the same recipe, one which traces back to the one used by Adolphus Busch and Eberhard Anheuser in the 1890's after they first thought to lighten the color of their product by using rice, that they are the same beer.
2. You can also get a very similar product from "international" brands (which are actually brewed in the same breweries by the same people and using functionally the same ingredients) like Corona, Asahi, Heinekin, and Stella. Seriously, the only real difference between any of these is the packaging. So, your anti-wokeness protest does not involve you actually sacrificing anything.
3. Now, if you do switch to Miller Lite, Coors Light, Busch Lite, Michelob Light, any of the Platinum or Ultra-light products, from any of these other labels, you're still buying the same beer from the same company. All of these companies are owned by a single company called Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, or "InBev" for short.
Not much of a protest if you are still buying the same product from the same company. But hey, I hope you feel better.
4(a). So you could stop buying beer altogether, I suppose, in which case congratulations, you can get your drink on with a spirit or wine or fruit ciders; you could also make the switch to craft beers. Which would represent, in my humble opinion, a substantial quality-of-life improvement because you're going to be drinking a better caliber of alcoholic beverage for those times you choose to imbibe, regardless of your politics or some other sort of cultural messaging.
4(b). Or, alternatively, you could stop drinking altogether, which is probably a pretty good decision from a health standpoint, again totally independent of your cultural messaging. So once more, you're better off than you were before so I still don't think you're making much of a sacrifice.
Seriously this may be the stupidest thing I've seen SoCons do since they tried to light their sneakers on fire and stunk up their back yards with the aroma of burning plastic and both Nike and Colin Kaepernick both made more money than they had before the controversy. Although the smash-your-Keurig-with-a-hammer business was pretty dumnb too.
"
ACB made $425,000 in book royalties (!) which, to be clear, does not look improper. Just rather a lot of money is all.
"
Thomas goes out feet first.
On “Experimenting with Miracle Berry Tablets”
Oh man I'm totally going to do this
On “Trouble In Tennessee As House GOP Expels Two Democrat Representatives”
Clearest description yet from the Beeb, with a good picture:
So it's for using a megaphone at the lectern instead of some other prop? What do you want to bet some yahoo legislator in the past has brought actual weapons to use on the floor as a props in a pro-gun speech? And before you answer, remember this: it's Tennessee.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Preparation for Batchin’ It”
When I was married, or more recently when I had what was supposed to be an LTR, when my partner and I were separated for dinner, I'd say "Yay! I can make something she doesn't like!" and then get lazy and go get sushi and she'd come home and be all, "You got sushi without me?"
N.b., I am waiting for sushi as I write.
On “TSN Open Mic for the week of 4/3/2023”
Twitterlord replaces bluebird with Shiba Inu, but continues to periodically flounder.
"
Everyone cares a lot about federalism until it becomes inconvenient for their side, S 118: Ep. 4.
On “Tell Me Lies, Tell Me Sweet Little Manufacturing Lies”
Jeez, Andrew, next thing we know you'll be telling West Virginians that coal mining is a dying industry.
On “The Trump Indictment Explained”
I wonder if there's a "relation back" doctrine in NY law that might apply here. If the most recent act in furtherance took place within the limitations period, then can you reach back in time to other, earlier acts in furtherance? Is that all part of committing the same crime?
On “TSN Open Mic for the week of 4/3/2023”
From Schweppe's thread: "We need to give GOP politicians a winning message on life NOW. If we don’t, they will abandon us and embrace 'no federal role.'"
For five decards you argued "no federal role,"
With Nixon, Reagan, Trump, and Dole,
But you don't want to deal with the Dobbs mess, now do ya?
You sent your Senators out to D.C.
To confirm Neil, and Brett, and Amy,
This isn't their problem anymore, hallelujah!
Hallelujah, hallelujah. hallelujah, hallelu-oo-oo-oo-jah.
"
Here are the DSM-V's criteria for gender dysphoria, one set for adults and adolescents, and another for children. Criterion "B" in both seems to me to be the part that is how one would distinguish between "legitimately trans identifying transwoman into womens’ spaces but would still filter out predatory men attempting to gain access in bad faith." If living as one's natal sex rather than one's aspirational sex causes profound mental and emotional distress, well, that's what characterizes gender dysphoria and yes, this is an actual trans person.
More specifically, this is an actual trans person driven to suffer profound mental and emotional distress. So to me, the ball really needs to get moved to: is there some point, short of manifestations of profound mental distress, at which we can accept that a person who says they are transsexual is saying so in good faith? Maybe not drive them to the point that they get diagnosed with a condition found in DSM-V?
"
Oh man. I think I shall dedicate this month's game-and-potluck night to him.
"
My mistake -- I thought he was still sitting on SCOWI.
Nevertheless, the remarks Saul reposts are not exactly scintillating exemplars of good judicial demeanor.
"
Did Justice Kelly say that himself? Wisconsin judges are governed by a Code of Judicial Conduct that requires all judicial officers, including Justice Kelly, to do the following:
SCR 60.02 A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. This chapter applies to every aspect of judicial behavior except purely legal decisions.
SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities. ... (2) A judge may not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.
SCR 60.04 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently. ... (d) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity
SCR 60.05 A judge shall so conduct the judge's extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
(1) Extra-judicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do none of the following:
(a) Cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge.
(b) Demean the judicial office.
(c) Interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
SCR 60.06 A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.
... (3) Campaign Conduct and Rhetoric.
(a) In General. While holding the office of judge or while a candidate for judicial office or a judge-elect, every judge, candidate for judicial office, or judge-elect should maintain, in campaign conduct, the dignity appropriate to judicial office and the integrity and independence of the judiciary. A judge, candidate for judicial office, or judge-elect should not manifest bias or prejudice inappropriate to the judicial office. Every judge, candidate for judicial office, or judge-elect should always bear in mind the need for scrupulous adherence to the rules of fair play while engaged in a campaign for judicial office.
I'll let y'all decide if Dan Kelly is crosswise with any of those rules.
"
Well, we all know that NC Republicans would never stoop to freaky gerrymandering.
On “The Trump Indictment: Read It For Yourself”
If you called them that, Chip, you'd be practically forcing them to vote for Trump. It'd be your fault, you see -- they surely wouldn't have done it otherwise.
"
It's going to come down to a question of intent. All the other elements are right there. How do you prove intent? Three main ways:
1. You elicit an admission of intent if the defendant is so foolish as to take the stand.
2. You elicit third-party testimony of a past expression of intent.
3. You infer intent from the facts and circumstances surrounding the questioned act and the kinds of results one would reasonably expect from the questioned act being successful.
The defense will be "I wanted to hide the affair from my wife," and the rebuttal to that would be "You're Donald f[ish]ing Trump. Your wife knew you were having extramarital affairs. In no small part because she was one of your mistresses before you married her."
"
Michael Cohen can testify (and has testified already, thanks to the crime/fraud exception to attorney-client privilege) as to what his understanding of his client's intent -- and he would have sculpted his actions as an attorney to conform to that intent.
I for one would not want to advance the theory that Donald Trump was trying to hide his proclivity of extramarital sexual affairs from his third wife, whose relationship with him began when she knew good and well he was still married to his second wife. And this is... Donald Trump we're talking about. Even before he was in politics in a what-turned-out-to-be-credible way, he engaged in all sorts of splashy, tabloid-headline-gathering extramarital affairs.
This would be the grownup equivalent of walking in the door, seeing melted chocolate smeared all over your toddler's face and clothing, and the child volunteering "I didn't eat the brownies!" Melania knew very well what kind of man she married.
On “TSN Open Mic for the week of 4/3/2023”
YMMV. This is a variant on, or subgenre of, the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope?
"
I got it.
"
See above re: Glenn Greenwald, Matt Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. If you ask them, they would say they are still liberal and probably do still hold to most of the beliefs they held in their early 20's.
(Well, I'm a little bit iffy about Greenwald on this score, TBQH.)