Per usual, I clicked on the links of your 'just so story' and the reality isn't what the headlines suggest. It struck me as odd that you'd have us believe that a bunch of random young Texans just watched a mother and two babies drown. Possible, but improbable... it doesn't really match what we know of real National Guard units; and the idea that it was happening *while* they were preventing Border Patrol from helping? Goes from improbable to most likely confabulated for The Narrative (TM).
Basically the narrative that people were drowning in front of the Texas National guard while holding the Border Patrol at bay is false.
And, even if you want to discount the National Guard's account, there's no guaranty that the Border Patrol could have done anything other than "search the river with lights and night vision goggles"
If the Border Patrol were onmipresent where all migrants were illegally crossing, we wouldn't have illegal crossings like we have.
This is from CNN:
"The Texas Military Department Saturday said it was contacted by Border Patrol at 9 p.m. Friday about a “migrant distress situation” and searched the river with lights and night vision goggles, but “no migrants were observed.”
About 45 minutes later, Mexican authorities were seen responding to an incident on the Mexican side of the riverbank, said the Texas Military Department, which then “reported their observations back to Border Patrol, and they confirmed that the Mexican authorities required no additional assistance,” according to its statement.
“At no time did TMD security personnel along the river observe any distressed migrants, nor did TMD turn back any illegal immigrants from the US during this period,” the Texas Military Department said. “Also, at no point was TMD made aware of any bodies in the area of Shelby Park, nor was TMD made aware of any bodies being discovered on the US side of the border regarding this situation.”
And, when reading the account from *Border Patrol*, it doesn't claim that they could have saved anyone, just that they were barred from entering the area -- at which point according to TMD they did what Border Patrol would have done. In both accounts, the story says that the people drowned at 8:00 and Border Patrol was alerted at 9:00.
"Around 9 p.m. Friday, “Mexican officials advised Border Patrol of two migrants in distress on the US side of the river in the area near the Shelby Park boat ramp,” the Biden administration wrote in Monday’s Supreme Court filing. “Mexican officials also informed Border Patrol that three migrants – one woman and two children – had drowned at approximately 8:00 p.m. in the same area.”
Both the distressed migrants and drowned victims were recovered on Mexican side of the river. By the time Border patrol was aware of the drownings, the people had already drowned; most likely without anyone knowing.
If there's an actual accusation of a failure to rescue drowning victims (there isn't) then we can evaluate how that happened, and I'd expect the soldiers and chain of command that ignored drowning victims subject to inquiry on the circumstances would be court martialed.
Border Patrol has SCOTUS backing them up that they can go through any TX obstructions without being sued... so the drownings can continue per usual. According to NPR (hopefully another satisfactory source for you) approximately 1 person a day drowns crossing the Rio Grande -- with Border Patrol on the ready.
Agreed, we can only infer from what the press tells us.
My point is that this only seems like 'major concessions' to reporters who think they are major concessions. My concern is that if those are the concessions, they aren't major. Plus... the issue a Parole -- which is dividing them -- is Major.
Way at the bottom:
"The White House and the small group of senators involved in the negotiations have agreed on some provisions, like [1] creating an authority to expel migrants [1a] when border agents record a spike in illegal crossings, [2] making asylum screenings harder to pass and [3] expanding the expedited removal process. But the [4] parole policy has continued to divide them, sources said."
That's not nothing, but seriously, compare it to H.R. 2 and see what 'Major' concessions would look like.
Here's the thing... politically... if it's really a Major Concession legislation, it really would hurt Trump and give Biden a great campaign position.
But, if it's 'Major' in the Ronald Reagan/George Bush Major sort of way, I bet Trump wins.
I say, dig deep Dems and Rotary Club R's... the pain of a strong border bill is offset by the pleasure of sticking the knife in Trump's back.
I honestly haven't seen (no do I think the article writers know) what concessions have been conceded.
That said, it does seem as though R's won't sell out Trump's key issue before the election.
The negotiator in me says to use Trump as leverage to get even bigger concessions from Dems as you do the thing you want to do and slide the knife into DJT's back.
SCOTUS just said that the Feds can't be locked out of the Border area, and therefore they couldn't be sued for cutting the barrier wire. No reasons were given.
Is there another ruling I should be looking at too?
Border patrol will be free to patrol the border in between the physical barriers and the border. They are also free to patrol the area outside the physical barriers.
Meanwhile Texas employees will just go about their business maintaining the physical barriers at unauthorized crossings so as to encourage migrants to use the 50 authorized crossings for their safety and good order.
And Border control continues to manage the authorized crossings according to Federal guidelines on immigration.
It's not like Abbot is physically blocking the authorized crossings.
How soon we forget the important role John Kasich played in rallying people to stop trump.
I could imagine a hypothetical where a well respected Republican acts as lightning rod to ever increasingly deranged Trump tirades in a strategy to (remember there are three types of voters) 1) Increase turn-out of the other team, 2) convince undecideds not to vote for your team, and 3) depress the vote on your team.
I think people are calling it the Kamikaze campaign? Maybe? I vaguely recall talking about this in 2016 or was it 2020? Or maybe I'm imagining it?... either way, like Kasich, I'm not really sure that Haley has enough (national) goodwill to become a martyr rather than political roadkill.
Sure, then you can double back to 'sanctuary cities' which have as their basis non-compliance with Federal Authorities on matters of Immigration.
Turtles of non-compliance all the way down.
What liberalism really needs is an authoritarian president who's not afraid to do what's right! Crush the Marijuana Dispensaries and arrest local govt employees who ignore Federal requests on Immigration enforcement.
" Allowing state governments to openly defy federal supremacy and the federal government is a bad idea"
In this paper we demonstrate why the practice of legalizing marijuana necessitates the Federal Government take over state and local police enforcement.
No, if Schellenberger is correct, the FBI assessment was based on Human Intelligence and not statistical probabilities around furin cleavages.
It would be *new* information that wasn't public before.
But, as I note above, I haven't seen any actual connection to the FBI saying this other than 'multiple sources' -- which might be solid, but that's too anonymous for me.
Hold on here... Schellenberger's *new* news here is that the FBI acknowledged that they had HumInt on the origins -- which would indeed be significant.
But, the links are to March 2023 (which is the old news) and without paying for Schellenberger's substack, I can't find any reference to an actual FBI statement or leak.
The only thing that would move the needle is Schellenberger providing that info/leak.
And then, if I were a cub-reporter, I'd ask questions about how the FBI rather than CIA has HumInt in Wuhan before I ran with the story...
PubPeer "the online Journal club" is a 501(c)3 foundation hosting a post-publication forum for publicly raising factual questions about papers that were already peer reviewed.
However, unlike the peer review process, there's no methodology as to what studies/papers are checked. The papers in question may all be cited in other papers/studies unless/until retracted. The article suggests that $B funding may follow some of these potentially fraudulent studies. If I recall correctly, a significant portion of Alzheimer's research follows potentially fraudulent image manipulation.
It specifically requires legislation... which congress did rather a lot in the run-up to, and aftermath of the Civil War. Defining and redefining and eventually granting amnesty to people who participated in what they declared to be an insurrection.
Lincoln followed the Insurrection Act of 1807 with his initial call for the Militia; complete with the requisite call to disburse, while convening Congress to take next steps in the budding rebellion after Sumpter.
If there's a missed Irony here, it's that Cotton's piece in the NYT could be interpreted as the first step towards a path where the BLM riots are declared insurrections.
Basically it was a check on Virginia in an era when States had political meaning and salience. But yes, give the absence of any definition of inhabitant (it would have meant more in an era of land wealth than fungible money wealth) it's just a relic easily sidestepped.
Well, easily if you're not DJT who as you note below probably wouldn't move to accommodate DeSantis. But then, why are we thinking DeSantis will be a running mate? Trump (perhaps correctly) sees Florida as his gift and DeSantis as the beneficiary -- not the other way round.
"Conservatives find it annoying that American journalists are so left-wing. But in practice, this generates a much more complicated partisan landscape than you might think. The conservative audience is alienated by the values of mainstream journalism and spends a lot of time consuming propaganda news that is optimized for partisan purposes. The progressive audience finds mainstream journalism congenial enough that it’s hard to compete with, and yet, mainstream journalism produces a steady stream of negativity and ultra-specific focus on the idiosyncratic problems of young urban professionals."
He's basically saying: conservatives constantly criticize liberals and Mainstream Media also constantly criticizes liberals. Woe is me, a liberal popularist espousing popular ideas liked by liberals (and some conservatives). If MSM progressives weren't myopically focused on their unpopular issues, the consensus liberal 'base' would be popular and not unpopular.
Did you mean the Bennet article? The biggest revelation in the sense of someone from the inside saying what seems to be true is, in fact, true was that the Newsroom as opposed to the Editors and Opinion Journalists had fully embraced 'narrative' journalism.
"The new newsroom ideology seems idealistic, yet it has grown from cynical roots in academia: from the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth; that there is only narrative, and that therefore whoever controls the narrative – whoever gets to tell the version of the story that the public hears – has the whip hand. What matters, in other words, is not truth and ideas in themselves, but the power to determine both in the public mind"
This is, in a nutshell, the besetting sin of all American media -- left and right. Maybe since forever; but the sea change is the full-on embrace as Narrative as power... without even a fig leaf of 'truth' or challenging narratives with skepticism. And, importantly, that's the Newsroom not the Editorial stance.
He does provide the 'old' newsroom to contrast if you'd like to check his math.
To be clear, *everyone* says this about Fox and the 'Right Wing' media... the man bites dog bit is that NYT is evolving in the same direction.
And just so we all remember what the Oct 2021 narrative was:
"Their resistance has stirred great condemnation and controversy. Many view unvaccinated workers as a potential risk to the workplace. And overwhelmingly, workers have accepted and even embraced the science showing vaccines protect not only you but those around you."
Which includes an active link to the CDC which has been updated since 2021 to NOT show that vaccines protect those around you.
So, through a quirk of the internet, the NPR validation link no longer validates the thing they are validating... but it survives with current benefit of protecting YOU.
Yeah, waaay to many mods to change your hair and stuff that you never think about after the first six-or-seven-hours you spend on the Character Creation screens. :-)
The reason why I went with a collection was to make sure dependencies and conflicts were handled. It would appear not.
I'm seeing this in 'conservative' feeds as the story comes out. Heck, Fox News ran two stories the first week of Jan.
I don't know anything about 'Dad's Church' or 'Dad's Place' -- google turns up no website, just a facebook page (which also has no links to a website). So my initial thought is that this is a Church of One... and there's no network for Dad's Church. Which would account for no-one really knowing about the oppression of the Dad's Church evangelicals. Maybe one of the Site's evangelicals could add further information on how Dad's Church fits in to the broader Evangelical network.
I suppose you think this is a 'scissors' issue where Churches don't have interest in Homeless or Migrants? Do you think it will stand up when you broaden the enquiry beyond a thing called Dad's Church?
Now, one thing I can say from speaking with friends who were CEO's of Catholic Charities and who ran Homeless and Emergency Shelters for years is that there are really a *lot* of Secular State regulations on how you have to structure your shelters. A lot of the regulations make good sense; some are tedious; and some are petty. But, for folks who want and *do* run shelters, the state requires that you do lots of things in addition to simply being willing.
For example... in a story touting Mayor Adam's outreach to Churches to help with housing, it mentions in passing:
"St. Paul and St. Andrew has served as home for several immigrants but it is not applying for the new program.
Rev. Lea Matthews, their associate pastor, said the church’s old building can’t meet the program’s requirements to have sprinklers, a centralized alarm system, showers and space for 19 beds.
“A great many of the ideas that birthed that program came out of our group, namely, out of this congregation even — and we wouldn't qualify. So many others are having that same experience,” she said.
More than 200 houses of worship have applied for the program. But only two have been approved so far.
Gale Brewer, a city council member that represents parts of Manhattan, including the Upper West Side, said the problem is that the Fire Department is imposing standards that are tougher than for permanent shelters.
“The Fire Department — with all due respect — is putting too many roadblocks,” she said.
Mayor Adams’ administration and the Fire Department both declined to be interviewed for this story. "
Speaking of Bards, I decided to try BG3 again and hit a new record of neither rage quitting nor boredom quitting.
Made possible by a giant all-in-one Collection Mod mediated by Vortex. Fixed all the QoL and bad Dev decisions for the base game/characters.
However, having made it to Act 3 for the first time, I hit Level 12 and now the game crashes only when I try to level up my bard... disabled all the 'Bard' mods, but that doesn't fix it. Disabled a bunch of 'level' type mods. Nope. Now I'm stumped on which of the 160 mods might be breaking the game. Oh well, a new reason to quit BG3.
Best QoL fixes that will make JB cringe:
INVENTORY -- carry as much shit as you want, thank you very much...Now, I showed great restraint and only increased carrying capacity 50x ... there were bigger options. Please clap.
Party Size -- 4? No game ever limited your group to 4. With a bigger group, having a Bard leader is PERFECT
Leveling -- faster and more of them.
Spells -- Please fix and add 5e
Feats -- please fix and add ones that benefit all the other classes.
Better secondary Loot -- Rings, Cloaks, 'n stuff
Paladin Auras -- greater than sneeze range? Yes please... but restrained myself to 'reasonable' range. Please clap x2.
Other Races -- meh, didn't use them
Other Classes -- meh, didn't use them
Other sub-classes -- meh, tempted by a couple, but didn't use them.
Ultimately Bard with 20 Char, Persuasion and Intimidation, plus only Utility/Control Spells and 16 Dex for Finesse/Bow? Pretty much just walk in to any situation and wing-it. Well, plus the maxxed Evocation Wizard, kinda need that.
There are multiple layers to that... let's just bracket 'healthcare workers' and *not* count those mandates. Let's also exempt the US Military which does invasive and marginally necessary things to it's members all the time.
-Over 20 states required all State Employees.
-Dozens of municipalities required non-healthcare employees.
-Municipalities required proof of vaccination for entry into Restaurants/Bars, gyms and entertainment venues.
Example, Key to NYC pass:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nyc-becomes-first-major-u-s-city-mandate-vaccination-proof-n1275807
Executive order 14043 mandated all Executive Agency employees (and contractors 14042)
The Covid Action Plan (Sept2021) required all corporations greater than 100 employees to require vaccinations or continuous testing plus masking for all employees vis OSHA regulations by Jan 4, 2022.
This one was eventually struck down by SCOTUS as overreach in Jan2022. And, as far as I can tell, the last Fed Vax Mandate wasn't lifted until May2023.
And that's not including all of the 'soft' we're just following CDC guideline 'mandates' among private institutions and businesses.
Are we thinking that Vaccine Mandates were not serious public policy debates in late 2021 and flowing into 2022?
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/22/2024”
It doesn't confirm any such thing; at this point you're just a fountain of disinformation.
Starting a movement to liberate New Dealer Chip!
"
Per usual, I clicked on the links of your 'just so story' and the reality isn't what the headlines suggest. It struck me as odd that you'd have us believe that a bunch of random young Texans just watched a mother and two babies drown. Possible, but improbable... it doesn't really match what we know of real National Guard units; and the idea that it was happening *while* they were preventing Border Patrol from helping? Goes from improbable to most likely confabulated for The Narrative (TM).
Basically the narrative that people were drowning in front of the Texas National guard while holding the Border Patrol at bay is false.
And, even if you want to discount the National Guard's account, there's no guaranty that the Border Patrol could have done anything other than "search the river with lights and night vision goggles"
If the Border Patrol were onmipresent where all migrants were illegally crossing, we wouldn't have illegal crossings like we have.
This is from CNN:
"The Texas Military Department Saturday said it was contacted by Border Patrol at 9 p.m. Friday about a “migrant distress situation” and searched the river with lights and night vision goggles, but “no migrants were observed.”
About 45 minutes later, Mexican authorities were seen responding to an incident on the Mexican side of the riverbank, said the Texas Military Department, which then “reported their observations back to Border Patrol, and they confirmed that the Mexican authorities required no additional assistance,” according to its statement.
“At no time did TMD security personnel along the river observe any distressed migrants, nor did TMD turn back any illegal immigrants from the US during this period,” the Texas Military Department said. “Also, at no point was TMD made aware of any bodies in the area of Shelby Park, nor was TMD made aware of any bodies being discovered on the US side of the border regarding this situation.”
And, when reading the account from *Border Patrol*, it doesn't claim that they could have saved anyone, just that they were barred from entering the area -- at which point according to TMD they did what Border Patrol would have done. In both accounts, the story says that the people drowned at 8:00 and Border Patrol was alerted at 9:00.
"Around 9 p.m. Friday, “Mexican officials advised Border Patrol of two migrants in distress on the US side of the river in the area near the Shelby Park boat ramp,” the Biden administration wrote in Monday’s Supreme Court filing. “Mexican officials also informed Border Patrol that three migrants – one woman and two children – had drowned at approximately 8:00 p.m. in the same area.”
Both the distressed migrants and drowned victims were recovered on Mexican side of the river. By the time Border patrol was aware of the drownings, the people had already drowned; most likely without anyone knowing.
If there's an actual accusation of a failure to rescue drowning victims (there isn't) then we can evaluate how that happened, and I'd expect the soldiers and chain of command that ignored drowning victims subject to inquiry on the circumstances would be court martialed.
Border Patrol has SCOTUS backing them up that they can go through any TX obstructions without being sued... so the drownings can continue per usual. According to NPR (hopefully another satisfactory source for you) approximately 1 person a day drowns crossing the Rio Grande -- with Border Patrol on the ready.
On “A Pitiful Display in New Hampshire”
Agreed, we can only infer from what the press tells us.
My point is that this only seems like 'major concessions' to reporters who think they are major concessions. My concern is that if those are the concessions, they aren't major. Plus... the issue a Parole -- which is dividing them -- is Major.
"
Thanks to both.
Still mostly a positioning doc for the public.
Way at the bottom:
"The White House and the small group of senators involved in the negotiations have agreed on some provisions, like [1] creating an authority to expel migrants [1a] when border agents record a spike in illegal crossings, [2] making asylum screenings harder to pass and [3] expanding the expedited removal process. But the [4] parole policy has continued to divide them, sources said."
That's not nothing, but seriously, compare it to H.R. 2 and see what 'Major' concessions would look like.
Here's the thing... politically... if it's really a Major Concession legislation, it really would hurt Trump and give Biden a great campaign position.
But, if it's 'Major' in the Ronald Reagan/George Bush Major sort of way, I bet Trump wins.
I say, dig deep Dems and Rotary Club R's... the pain of a strong border bill is offset by the pleasure of sticking the knife in Trump's back.
"
What concessions?
I honestly haven't seen (no do I think the article writers know) what concessions have been conceded.
That said, it does seem as though R's won't sell out Trump's key issue before the election.
The negotiator in me says to use Trump as leverage to get even bigger concessions from Dems as you do the thing you want to do and slide the knife into DJT's back.
"
SCOTUS just said that the Feds can't be locked out of the Border area, and therefore they couldn't be sued for cutting the barrier wire. No reasons were given.
Is there another ruling I should be looking at too?
"
Sure, there's your compromise then!
Border patrol will be free to patrol the border in between the physical barriers and the border. They are also free to patrol the area outside the physical barriers.
Meanwhile Texas employees will just go about their business maintaining the physical barriers at unauthorized crossings so as to encourage migrants to use the 50 authorized crossings for their safety and good order.
And Border control continues to manage the authorized crossings according to Federal guidelines on immigration.
It's not like Abbot is physically blocking the authorized crossings.
On “Nikki Haley’s Chance”
How soon we forget the important role John Kasich played in rallying people to stop trump.
I could imagine a hypothetical where a well respected Republican acts as lightning rod to ever increasingly deranged Trump tirades in a strategy to (remember there are three types of voters) 1) Increase turn-out of the other team, 2) convince undecideds not to vote for your team, and 3) depress the vote on your team.
I think people are calling it the Kamikaze campaign? Maybe? I vaguely recall talking about this in 2016 or was it 2020? Or maybe I'm imagining it?... either way, like Kasich, I'm not really sure that Haley has enough (national) goodwill to become a martyr rather than political roadkill.
On “A Pitiful Display in New Hampshire”
Sure, then you can double back to 'sanctuary cities' which have as their basis non-compliance with Federal Authorities on matters of Immigration.
Turtles of non-compliance all the way down.
What liberalism really needs is an authoritarian president who's not afraid to do what's right! Crush the Marijuana Dispensaries and arrest local govt employees who ignore Federal requests on Immigration enforcement.
"
" Allowing state governments to openly defy federal supremacy and the federal government is a bad idea"
In this paper we demonstrate why the practice of legalizing marijuana necessitates the Federal Government take over state and local police enforcement.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/22/2024”
No, if Schellenberger is correct, the FBI assessment was based on Human Intelligence and not statistical probabilities around furin cleavages.
It would be *new* information that wasn't public before.
But, as I note above, I haven't seen any actual connection to the FBI saying this other than 'multiple sources' -- which might be solid, but that's too anonymous for me.
"
Hold on here... Schellenberger's *new* news here is that the FBI acknowledged that they had HumInt on the origins -- which would indeed be significant.
But, the links are to March 2023 (which is the old news) and without paying for Schellenberger's substack, I can't find any reference to an actual FBI statement or leak.
The only thing that would move the needle is Schellenberger providing that info/leak.
And then, if I were a cub-reporter, I'd ask questions about how the FBI rather than CIA has HumInt in Wuhan before I ran with the story...
"
+1
PubPeer "the online Journal club" is a 501(c)3 foundation hosting a post-publication forum for publicly raising factual questions about papers that were already peer reviewed.
However, unlike the peer review process, there's no methodology as to what studies/papers are checked. The papers in question may all be cited in other papers/studies unless/until retracted. The article suggests that $B funding may follow some of these potentially fraudulent studies. If I recall correctly, a significant portion of Alzheimer's research follows potentially fraudulent image manipulation.
https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease
On “DeSantis Drops Out”
It specifically requires legislation... which congress did rather a lot in the run-up to, and aftermath of the Civil War. Defining and redefining and eventually granting amnesty to people who participated in what they declared to be an insurrection.
Lincoln followed the Insurrection Act of 1807 with his initial call for the Militia; complete with the requisite call to disburse, while convening Congress to take next steps in the budding rebellion after Sumpter.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/civil_war/LincolnExtraordinarySession_Transcript.htm
If there's a missed Irony here, it's that Cotton's piece in the NYT could be interpreted as the first step towards a path where the BLM riots are declared insurrections.
"
Basically it was a check on Virginia in an era when States had political meaning and salience. But yes, give the absence of any definition of inhabitant (it would have meant more in an era of land wealth than fungible money wealth) it's just a relic easily sidestepped.
Well, easily if you're not DJT who as you note below probably wouldn't move to accommodate DeSantis. But then, why are we thinking DeSantis will be a running mate? Trump (perhaps correctly) sees Florida as his gift and DeSantis as the beneficiary -- not the other way round.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/22/2024”
Pasted:
"Conservatives find it annoying that American journalists are so left-wing. But in practice, this generates a much more complicated partisan landscape than you might think. The conservative audience is alienated by the values of mainstream journalism and spends a lot of time consuming propaganda news that is optimized for partisan purposes. The progressive audience finds mainstream journalism congenial enough that it’s hard to compete with, and yet, mainstream journalism produces a steady stream of negativity and ultra-specific focus on the idiosyncratic problems of young urban professionals."
He's basically saying: conservatives constantly criticize liberals and Mainstream Media also constantly criticizes liberals. Woe is me, a liberal popularist espousing popular ideas liked by liberals (and some conservatives). If MSM progressives weren't myopically focused on their unpopular issues, the consensus liberal 'base' would be popular and not unpopular.
That's the point of the article.
"
Did you mean the Bennet article? The biggest revelation in the sense of someone from the inside saying what seems to be true is, in fact, true was that the Newsroom as opposed to the Editors and Opinion Journalists had fully embraced 'narrative' journalism.
"The new newsroom ideology seems idealistic, yet it has grown from cynical roots in academia: from the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth; that there is only narrative, and that therefore whoever controls the narrative – whoever gets to tell the version of the story that the public hears – has the whip hand. What matters, in other words, is not truth and ideas in themselves, but the power to determine both in the public mind"
This is, in a nutshell, the besetting sin of all American media -- left and right. Maybe since forever; but the sea change is the full-on embrace as Narrative as power... without even a fig leaf of 'truth' or challenging narratives with skepticism. And, importantly, that's the Newsroom not the Editorial stance.
He does provide the 'old' newsroom to contrast if you'd like to check his math.
To be clear, *everyone* says this about Fox and the 'Right Wing' media... the man bites dog bit is that NYT is evolving in the same direction.
On “Vaccines Are A Billion Miracles”
NPR: Thousands of workers are opting to get fired, rather than take the vaccine
And just so we all remember what the Oct 2021 narrative was:
"Their resistance has stirred great condemnation and controversy. Many view unvaccinated workers as a potential risk to the workplace. And overwhelmingly, workers have accepted and even embraced the science showing vaccines protect not only you but those around you."
Which includes an active link to the CDC which has been updated since 2021 to NOT show that vaccines protect those around you.
So, through a quirk of the internet, the NPR validation link no longer validates the thing they are validating... but it survives with current benefit of protecting YOU.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits.html
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: A Steeplechase in D&D”
Sure, emerald is A-Ok... kelly green yuck.
"
Yeah, waaay to many mods to change your hair and stuff that you never think about after the first six-or-seven-hours you spend on the Character Creation screens. :-)
The reason why I went with a collection was to make sure dependencies and conflicts were handled. It would appear not.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/15/2024 (belated)”
I'm seeing this in 'conservative' feeds as the story comes out. Heck, Fox News ran two stories the first week of Jan.
I don't know anything about 'Dad's Church' or 'Dad's Place' -- google turns up no website, just a facebook page (which also has no links to a website). So my initial thought is that this is a Church of One... and there's no network for Dad's Church. Which would account for no-one really knowing about the oppression of the Dad's Church evangelicals. Maybe one of the Site's evangelicals could add further information on how Dad's Church fits in to the broader Evangelical network.
I suppose you think this is a 'scissors' issue where Churches don't have interest in Homeless or Migrants? Do you think it will stand up when you broaden the enquiry beyond a thing called Dad's Church?
Now, one thing I can say from speaking with friends who were CEO's of Catholic Charities and who ran Homeless and Emergency Shelters for years is that there are really a *lot* of Secular State regulations on how you have to structure your shelters. A lot of the regulations make good sense; some are tedious; and some are petty. But, for folks who want and *do* run shelters, the state requires that you do lots of things in addition to simply being willing.
For example... in a story touting Mayor Adam's outreach to Churches to help with housing, it mentions in passing:
"St. Paul and St. Andrew has served as home for several immigrants but it is not applying for the new program.
Rev. Lea Matthews, their associate pastor, said the church’s old building can’t meet the program’s requirements to have sprinklers, a centralized alarm system, showers and space for 19 beds.
“A great many of the ideas that birthed that program came out of our group, namely, out of this congregation even — and we wouldn't qualify. So many others are having that same experience,” she said.
More than 200 houses of worship have applied for the program. But only two have been approved so far.
Gale Brewer, a city council member that represents parts of Manhattan, including the Upper West Side, said the problem is that the Fire Department is imposing standards that are tougher than for permanent shelters.
“The Fire Department — with all due respect — is putting too many roadblocks,” she said.
Mayor Adams’ administration and the Fire Department both declined to be interviewed for this story. "
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: A Steeplechase in D&D”
Speaking of Bards, I decided to try BG3 again and hit a new record of neither rage quitting nor boredom quitting.
Made possible by a giant all-in-one Collection Mod mediated by Vortex. Fixed all the QoL and bad Dev decisions for the base game/characters.
However, having made it to Act 3 for the first time, I hit Level 12 and now the game crashes only when I try to level up my bard... disabled all the 'Bard' mods, but that doesn't fix it. Disabled a bunch of 'level' type mods. Nope. Now I'm stumped on which of the 160 mods might be breaking the game. Oh well, a new reason to quit BG3.
Best QoL fixes that will make JB cringe:
INVENTORY -- carry as much shit as you want, thank you very much...Now, I showed great restraint and only increased carrying capacity 50x ... there were bigger options. Please clap.
Party Size -- 4? No game ever limited your group to 4. With a bigger group, having a Bard leader is PERFECT
Leveling -- faster and more of them.
Spells -- Please fix and add 5e
Feats -- please fix and add ones that benefit all the other classes.
Better secondary Loot -- Rings, Cloaks, 'n stuff
Paladin Auras -- greater than sneeze range? Yes please... but restrained myself to 'reasonable' range. Please clap x2.
Other Races -- meh, didn't use them
Other Classes -- meh, didn't use them
Other sub-classes -- meh, tempted by a couple, but didn't use them.
Ultimately Bard with 20 Char, Persuasion and Intimidation, plus only Utility/Control Spells and 16 Dex for Finesse/Bow? Pretty much just walk in to any situation and wing-it. Well, plus the maxxed Evocation Wizard, kinda need that.
On “Vaccines Are A Billion Miracles”
There are multiple layers to that... let's just bracket 'healthcare workers' and *not* count those mandates. Let's also exempt the US Military which does invasive and marginally necessary things to it's members all the time.
-Over 20 states required all State Employees.
-Dozens of municipalities required non-healthcare employees.
-Municipalities required proof of vaccination for entry into Restaurants/Bars, gyms and entertainment venues.
Example, Key to NYC pass:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nyc-becomes-first-major-u-s-city-mandate-vaccination-proof-n1275807
Executive order 14043 mandated all Executive Agency employees (and contractors 14042)
The Covid Action Plan (Sept2021) required all corporations greater than 100 employees to require vaccinations or continuous testing plus masking for all employees vis OSHA regulations by Jan 4, 2022.
This one was eventually struck down by SCOTUS as overreach in Jan2022. And, as far as I can tell, the last Fed Vax Mandate wasn't lifted until May2023.
And that's not including all of the 'soft' we're just following CDC guideline 'mandates' among private institutions and businesses.
Are we thinking that Vaccine Mandates were not serious public policy debates in late 2021 and flowing into 2022?
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/15/2024 (belated)”
I'm curious to see whether or how many of the liberal justices also use their hand wavey living constitution jurisprudence to set up fascism.
"
Prepare for disappointment.