billeisele

Folks in the emergency response business are learning that electric cars must be handled with care. They typically operate at 350-400 V. There's enough juice to kill ya. There are safety systems designed to disconnect the batteries in a crash but that doesn't always work. Then there is the problem of thermal runaway if the batteries are damaged. That gets exciting real quick. I'm sure they will get it right but in the meantime, don't touch a wrecked electric car until it's been checked for safety. Another interesting fact is that an electric vehicle the same size as a gas vehicle, weighs about 1,000 lbs more. A head on collision is a bad thing if you are in the gas vehicle. What fun.

Joe has some wiggling to do to get out of the Hunter foreign business dealings issue. Information in the laptop that became known prior to the election has finally been released. Even Nadler is getting out of the way of this problem. In 2020 Joe flat out stated, he had never been involved in any of Hunters' business dealings. Well, now there is documented evidence that he was directly involved in more than one. I guess a lying politician is not a new thing. What is somewhat new is the tech industry and others that said there was nothing to the laptop, it was Russian disinformation.

I'm still wondering about using the "ask a biologist" line with the game warden if I mistakenly shoot a deer of the wrong sex. Don't suspect it will work. It's been said before, politics is a messy business and there are bad actors on both sides of the fence. It's not good that quality people get caught up in political messes. IMO that applies to the current nominee and at least the last four nominees. It's interesting to note that prior to 2005 most were confirmed with wide support from both sides. In 2005 it started to shift. The vote margins got tighter, some nominees were withdrawn, Garland was cheated, and the last 3 barely got in. Since that time a total of 10 were hotly contested (one denied a chance) and now Jackson is #11. Prior to 2005 the recent most contentious votes were under HW Bush in 1991 when Thomas was barely confirmed 52-48, and under Reagan in 1987 when Bork was rejected 42-58. After that you have to go back to 1970 and 1969 when Nixon had two nominees rejected. The total are: 120 C-confirmed and served, 7 D-declined to serve, 10 N-no action, 12 R-rejected, 12 W-withdrawn, and 3 P-postponed. Garland was an N (victim of politics) in 2016. The next most recent N was Harlan in Nov 1954. Don't know the history but suspect a procedural issue because he was elected 2 months later in Jan 1955 with only 11 dissenting votes. The next was Butler in 1922 but the same thing occurred, he was N then C. That occurred again in 1881 with Matthews. One has to go back to 1866 to find an N that was never confirmed. There wasn't another vote until 1869 so something was occurring in that time period. This is the link to the full article. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present) The Constitution requires the president to submit nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent. Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, presidents have submitted 165 nominations for the Court, including those for chief justice. Of this total, 127 were confirmed (7 declined to serve). This chart lists nominations officially submitted to the Senate. Nominee To Replace Nominated* Vote** Result & Date*** President Biden, Joseph R., Jr. Jackson, Ketanji Brown Breyer Feb 28, 2022 President Trump, Donald Barrett, Amy Coney Ginsburg Sep 29, 2020 52-48 No. 224 C Oct 26, 2020 Kavanaugh, Brett Kennedy Jul 10, 2018 50-48 No. 223 C Oct 6, 2018 Gorsuch, Neil M. Scalia Feb 1, 2017 54-45 No. 111 C Apr 7, 2017 President Obama, Barack Garland, Merrick B. Scalia Mar 16, 2016 N Kagan, Elena Stevens May 10, 2010 63-37 No. 229 C Aug 5, 2010 Sotomayor, Sonia Souter Jun 1, 2009 68-31 No. 262 C Aug 6, 2009 President Bush, George W. Alito, Samuel A., Jr. O'Connor Nov 10, 2005 58-42 No. 2 C Jan 31, 2006 Miers, Harriet O'Connor Oct 7, 2005 W Oct 28, 2005 Roberts, John G., Jr.1 Rehnquist Sep 6, 2005 78-22 No. 245 C Sep 29, 2005 Roberts, John G., Jr. O'Connor Jul 29, 2005 W Sep 6, 2005 President Clinton, Bill Breyer, Stephen G. Blackmun May 17, 1994 87-9 No. 242 C Jul 29, 1994 Ginsburg, Ruth Bader White Jun 22, 1993 96-3 No. 232 C Aug 3, 1993

You know - da fence. That thing on our southern border. It was supposed to be HUGEEE.

This thread is great, luv the comedy and prodding. Defence?? That was defunded a year ago. Probably no need to talk about who or why NATO started paying more into the pot for defense. Just open up so I can get back to Whistler. I've spent enough money there to fund at least one tank.

Joe - I know it would probably kill ya to admit that Trump did say that, and that he was right. Among the long list of stupid things he did and said, this was not one of them. In an interview yesterday, I think it was Boris Johnson, that said something like, "he was hard to like but on this issue he was right."

Uhhh...no. But I get the reference. :)

The people that have a challenging job are those that listen to Biden's comments and then have to create another, believable, description of what he said. Their description of Biden's latest foolish statement is not going to fly. When Biden goes off script it's not good. Many or most will agree with what Biden said but there are some things that the President just shouldn't say due to the risk of an escalation in violence. “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” was interpreted in to “The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change"

lol The key word being "indictments." If only all politicians were pursued as vehemently as others.

Joe - thought I covered that in my post 119 by saying, "this may be the only one." It's the only one I'm aware of and highly suspect that if there were others they would have been brought out. You and I know that plenty of digging was done into her history. Thus, no pattern, and this one item shouldn't be deemed sufficient to disqualify her. My language was, "that's concerning." Wendy stated it was a 2-1 vote by the appeals court. I didn't check that, just read the written opinion. The opinion was unusually strong in stating why the ruling was overturned.

Jerry - I've not done a party tally of politicians on Stupid Street, let's just agree that there are too many. I'd hope you would admit that Nancy is part of the parade. Regardless of what a law says, it is a law, and it should be followed. As for bad laws the citizenry should fight to have them changed. A quick check shows M15 being voted on in 1908. Things change over time and many of the old laws should be examined.

Not sure what you are referring to. For me, this isn't about politics. It's about judges following the law. If a judge didn't follow the law and made a ruling against a Democrat, Democrat ideal, or whatever - that is a concern. If they did follow the law and the ruling was against a certain political party then fine. Judges are supposed to be impartial.

Always a good read first thing in the morning. Luv the entertaining language - "freakin' cultist nutter" and "crunchy pickle." I thought pickles were supposed to be a little crunchy.?. IMO What McConnel did was legal but wrong. It only served to increase the animosity between political parties. Both parties have idiots. On Jackson. Are you concerned about her willingness (at least in one case, and this may be the only one) to ignore the law and rule in a way that she believes is correct? That's what occurred in the Make the Road NY vs. McElween (sp?), case on expedited removal. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals firmly struck down her ruling. They wrote, "There could hardly be a more definitive expression of Congressional intent ...." The issue being discussed is activism from the bench. I want judges to follow the law. In this case she choose to ignore the law. That's concerning.

I've listened to 6 hours of the hearings. Smart, polished, with experience. She knows she will be confirmed thus no stress, all she has to do is not make a big mistake. Some of her answers are concerning. Remember that ACO was blasted over concerns about how she would vote on Obamacare issues. When an issue arose she upheld Obamacare. We'll see how Jackson performs on the court. Roll on, there are bigger concerns.

Dang Joe do you always have to rant, make personal attacks and presume things about people that just aren't true? Why not just discuss the topic? Just trying to have a discussion. Looking at the 2019 CDC chart data there are many states with a high # of gun deaths that also have stricter laws. Using IL and CA as examples with 1,367 and 2,945 deaths, respectively. Just in those two states that's 4,312 (42%) of the nationwide homicides from a firearm. The conclusion that the problem exists primarily in states with lax laws isn't correct. Yes, there are plenty of deaths in lax law states, TX had 3,683, but they are not the only places. Bottom line is there are too many gun deaths, period. Within those that study this stuff, one topic that comes up is: What happens in areas where the criminals know that there is a high risk of injury vs. an area where there is a low risk of injury. And no, I don't have the citation. Crime is higher in low risk areas, areas where there is low - to no risk of the victim fighting back. That leads to these serious questions. If carry laws are abolished does criminal activity increase? Does the suspected presence of an armed citizenry reduce crime? We know that the thugs will continue to carry illegally. You mentioned serious training and consequences for misuse. I agree that the bar to obtain and retain a CWP is much too low. I've already stated that. There should be much more training required, the qualifications should be much tougher and there should be recertification requirements. Yes, there should be consequences for misuse. One can qualify with a .22 shooting at a paper target of a full-size person in calm daylight, then carry a .45 at night, that's crazy. My past posts on the AR were simply to point out that an AR looking firearm is no more, or less, lethal than any other semi-auto rifle with a large capacity magazine. There are millions of them out there that don't look like an AR. Some type of firearm education would be good in school. IMO violent TV, movies and video games desensitize kids to how lethal guns are, and what a real punch in the face does to someone. Real life isn't like TV where XX punches later the guy is still fighting, or ZZ shots later he is still alive. Your "quit pretending" sentence assumes that I believe nothing can be done. U R totally wrong. Something can be done. I've asked serious question on that and adjusted my opinions based on things I'd not considered. I do hate the fact that there are so many toy guns that look real. I saw a news report this week about some Tommy Gun looking plastic gun that shoots water droplets. They were reporting on how dangerous they were, can put your eye out and break the skin. How about outlawing anything that looks like a gun for kids? Or require them to made from orange materials. It makes it impossible for law enforcement to not shoot anyone holding a fake gun. I can hear the outrage now, "It was my innocent child, he/she was just playing and they shot him. Shot him xx times." I just don't think that only focusing on the gun will solve it. There needs to be other societal, parental, cultural changes. If I didn't care I wouldn't ask the questions.

For sure. There will be plenty of those, and biologists that have worked with bears. There will certainly be some that try and stretch their experience with creative writing. Great job for the right person. We have a guy here in Columbia. SC that is the "River Keeper." Part of his job is to monitor water quality, catch issues with sewer overflows and other non-permitted discharges. He spends many days kayaking the rivers. No telling how many are waiting for that job to come open.

Yes, you are correct. At present the gun flow is southward, and it's a big problem. We get drugs, human trafficking victims, illegals, and foreign criminals, and the cartels and others get guns and whatever else. Nothing that a wall might start to manage but .... The concern is that if guns became restricted in the US then the flow would be from Mexico. No exact proof of that except that just about anything restricted in the US eventually gets addressed by folks outside the US. No reason to think that gun smuggling would not become another revenue stream.

Back in February we were discussing methods to safely visit bear country. The topic of wearing a bell was brought up by Ms Wendy. Obviously it's a good idea. This is an interesting job opportunity. The ad says that one, "may also need to carry a firearm for protection" but says nothing about a bell. One could buy a bell and write it off their taxes. It then says, "Applicants must be a US citizen and possess "significant grizzly bear handling experience." Just exactly how does one get that experience? I'd luv to read the applications to enjoy the creative writing on that requirement. https://www.businessinsider.com/dream-job-paid-103000-grizzly-bear-conflict-manager-montana-2022-3?utm_campaign=mb&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=morning_brew

Jerry - I'm with you. There was a time when I'd wake up and not know what day it was. Then a wise person told me that every day is Saturday except Sunday. No more confusion.

Good morning Joe. The folks in the car obviously weren't paying any attention to the kid. Be it their face in a phone or something else. The point is lack of parental control. Just read/watched an interesting video about the likelihood of one recovering an item lost in Japan. Moral upbringing, culture and the "societal eye." Something seems to be missing in America. Yes, to many easily available guns and too many irresponsible owners. Now that we have these ~400 millions guns in private possession ..... What do you propose that would allow a law abiding citizen access to a firearm but eliminate access to others? Or are you proposing eliminating access to all? How do you propose collecting the millions of guns illegally owned and those possessed by criminals? While you're solving all this. How do you propose we stop the flow of guns across the southern border?

I get it and agree with you. I suspect that neither of us live in areas where there is a big concern about being shot while driving. I try to avoid areas where the risk is greater but that's not always possible. At night, gas stations, ATMs and alcohol establishments have higher risk. There are certain places in the city that I just avoid. It's interesting to review the various data sources. The CDC source shows gun death rates per 100,000. In general, the SE has the highest rates. Montana and Wyoming are in that category even though the deaths in absolute numbers are fairly low. While states like IL and MD have low rates the absolute numbers are quite high. Can one say - that states with cities with residential instability, economic deprivation, homelessness, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. are a major gun death zones? Of note, is that the US is not in the top ten in gun deaths per 100K but second in suicide rate. (world population review info) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm The 2019 FBI stats provide a deeper dive into the numbers. These numbers don't include suicide. One thing interesting to note is : Total Murders = 13,900, Guns = 10,300. That means 3,600 (26%) with knives, and other weapons. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls The PEW Research data includes suicide and states that for 2020 there were 45,222 gun deaths. 54% suicide and 43% murder, and 3% (1,546) other - unintentional, law enforcement or undetermined. None of this is good.

OK. So what do you propose that would allow a law abiding citizen access to a firearm but eliminate access to others? Or are you proposing eliminating access to all? How do you propose collecting the millions of guns illegally owned and possessed by criminals? While you're solving all this. How do you propose we stop the flow of guns across the southern border?

If you're talking about people leaving guns in cars, and the guns being stolen - yes, that is a problem. Our local sheriff, national sheriff of the year in 2021, has publicly stated that a primary reason there are so many car breakins is people looking for guns. Apparently, a large number of folks leave their cars unlocked and guns inside. I've seen the videos. Most of them were younger folks pulling door handles. The sheriff has repeatedly asked folks to remove their guns when they leave the car, especially at night. But yet it continues. I'm all for some type of "encouragement" that would at least make people think about it. The problem is that if it includes a fine or anything punitive people just won't report it.

Hey Jerry - I understand. I agree with you, in many, possibly most, cases it wouldn't be an issue. You and I don't live in areas where this would be a concern. Others do. In the case being referenced, they were in a car. One would think that in that environment, immediate access would be needed. The article doesn't provide sufficient info to understand what occurred, other than the shooting.

John - yep, big difference between those countries, it's not news Until there is an absolutely effective method to disarm the thugs that ignore all laws then the lawful will not be open to disarming. IMO Just look at the microcosm of Chicago. Has anything been effective at disarming the thugs?