wolfriverjoe

Oh yeah. We've got hawks & bald eagles in the area. Not too many 'ground based' predators (no foxes or coyotes, very few free roaming dogs). I think there's five of them. I don't expect all 5 to make it. If every bunny that was ever born survived to produce offspring (and all those offspring survived & reproduced), we'd be buried in bunnies pretty quickly. They're getting bigger & have left the 'hole' nest. They sort of stay together, and are hiding under the vines & weeds in the corner that I left alone. They bounce around in that area a bit, and I've seen them out in the open garden area a couple times. I got a few pics, but I can't load directly onto this computer. I'll post them in a couple days.

Do you mean stuff like Project Exile? In the late 90s, Virginia, mainly Richmond started a program where people who used a gun in a crime faced enhanced punishment. One big change was that the 'gun charges' weren't plea bargained down. When it became clear that this was going to be followed through, gun crimes dropped. How about punishing 'straw purchasers'? Those are the people who can legally buy guns and do so for people who cannot. One recent prominent one is the guy who bought the rifle for the underage Kyle Rittenhouse, who then used it to kill 2 people in Kenosha. The straw purchaser has been charged and is facing significant time. One thing that should happen but rarely does is prosecuting people who can't buy firearms but try to. A false statement on the 4473 application to purchase a gun from a FFL dealer is a crime. It says so right on the form. The folks who are in favor of background checks always love to proclaim how many ineligible people were denied their purchase, but never seem to care that virtually none of them are prosecuted. I know a few are unaware that they shouldn't have a gun, but that's a pretty small number. You want to 'get tough on illegal gun purchasers'? Get tough on those who try to get a gun.

Well, I would think his point is that the demonizing of military style semi auto rifles is not accurate. Many of the comments made during the enactment of the AWB back in 94 were pretty off the wall. The functional difference between an AR type rifle and a Ruger Mini-14 is virtually nonexistent. Yet one was banned by the AWB and one was not. I think the 'Swiss Army Knife' comment comes from the versatility and modularity of it. You can swap around parts and make an AR just about anything. From a long distance sniper rifle (within the capabilities of the cartridge) to a 'close quarters' carbine. Calibers from a 22 Long Rifle up to a 450 Bushmaster. If you read the 2nd A that the 'right of the people' means the actual people (same as in 8 of the other 9 amendments), and that 'militia' means the 'whole of the citizenry', as was the meaning when the 2nd was written, then the ruling makes sense. If you tack on the SC ruling in the Miller case, then the idea that the 2nd A gives the ordinary citizen the right to 'keep & bear' weapons appropriate to the 'milita', then the ruling makes even more sense. I won't deny we have a huge problem with gun violence in this country. I have no clue how to address it. Taking away over 300 million guns from the citizenry simply won't happen. I also won't pretend that the 'taking away the guns is a precursor to taking away our freedom'. The UK, Australia & New Zealand have all enacted very strict gun controls in the past few decades and haven't seen any real loss of 'freedom'. Kinda funny that the US has come closer to an autocracy/dictatorship in the past 5 years than in the past 245, all supported by the 'gun rights equal freedom' crowd.

Well, on the 'wildlife in the backyard' topic... I have bunnies. I hadn't touched my garden until last weekend. It had grown a pretty good crop of weeds & grass (maybe 12"-18"). I thought about just running the tiller through it all, but doing that does more to 'transplant' the weeds than tear them out (and wraps them around everything under the tiller too). So I started yanking them out by hand. Maybe 5 handfuls in, I found a nest of baby bunnies. Really young, maybe 3" long and eyes still not open. Yay. I've had friends deal with this and have read a few articles on it, so I'm not completely ignorant. And I don't hate them. I know people who consider them nuisance pests and will kill the babies and destroy the nests. I'll kill some things (rats, mice & chipmunks), but I don't have an issue with bunnies. I know moving the nest would likely doom the babies. So I yanked the weeds from everywhere but the corner where the nest is. I was hoping that mom bunny would see the nest is exposed and move them. Next morning, she had put a bunch of fur over them to hide and insulate them. So I ran the tiller through the garden, but left the corner with the nest untouched. Again, hoping mom would move them. Nope. She covered the nest with uprooted weeds, sticks & stems and a couple coffee filters (I put my grounds & filters in the compost pile and there are always filters have buried). I put tomatoes, peppers & cukes in this year. I don't have anything the bunnies would likely eat. I've had broccoli, kale & brussels sprouts in years past, and had to fence it to keep the bunnies from eating it. I startled mom early one morning, she ran to the edge of the yard & stopped. I went back inside and looked out a window to see her moving slowly through the garden, browsing on weeds. Yes, mom bunny is helping weed the garden. They're getting bigger and the eyes are open. They twitch and move away whenever I get close. If I've got to put up with them, I get to look close. I mentioned to a neighbor that I've got tomatoes in the middle, cukes in one corner, peppers in one corner and baby bunnies in another corner. His comment: "Sounds like the makings of a pretty good stew."

I have a feeling that those people have no idea how much their lives are going to change, and not for the better. Someone (Ryoder?) posted somewhere (not sure where) that there has been a plea deal for one of the insurrectionists. One who simply entered the capitol. And while facing significant time, he only got a 'couple years'. Some may think that's just a 'slap on the wrist', but the utter destruction of one's life by 'going away' for even a year is incredible (and not widely understood). Have a house? Who's going to make the mortgage payment? Any of your stuff still in it when the bank takes it gets tossed. Not a house but an apartment? Who's going to pay the rent? Again, any stuff gets tossed. How about a storage unit? Same thing. Have a car? Who's going to make the payment? Paid off? Where are you going to park it for a year or two? What kind of shape will it be in if it doesn't move in that time? Lots of people have a spouse, but can the spouse survive financially alone? Will the spouse even hang around? Got a job? You won't. And for a 'recently released convicted felon' finding a new job can be... Challenging. I know people who have done a 'few years'. They come out of prison with what they come out with. The clothes on their back, and a box of stuff. That's about it. I know that this isn't true for everyone. But the level of planning and thinking that went into this insurrection attempt give me reason to think that these guys aren't into long-term contingency plans. They may be 'preppers' but I doubt they're 'prepared' to go to prison.

Close but not quite. Bigun used the 'Sept 2001' start date. I said it had been happening long before that. As an example, the 1997 "North Hollywood Shootout" (search that term if you are interested) was a turning point in the way cops were armed. Two well armed and well armored (wearing body armor) robbers hit a Bank of America, got into a shootout with the cops and were far better equipped than the cops that showed up. The shotguns & pistols the cops had were woefully inadequate for the situation. One of the multiple ways the cops fought back was to go to a nearby gun store and 'borrow' several rifles. After that, almost every cop car had a rifle on board. They'd always carried shotguns, and many (most?) rural cops had some sort of rifle handy. Those were often 'hunting type' rifles. Out west, with large expanses of open country, a scoped bolt action was not uncommon. Other places, smaller 'handy-type' rifles were more common. Lever action rifles (think 'cowboy movie' type) or even old WW2 M1 Carbines were widely chosen. After the BoA shootout, just about every cop ended up with an AR type, or other military style rifle. Some (not all) were real 'assault rifles' (that means 'select fire', capable of full auto, classed by the BATF as 'machine guns'). The department in my small town (about 11k people) put an semi auto AR in each cop car (4 total). The next town over (same size) got really nice (expensive) H&K rifles. Select fire. Both departments used the shooting range I'm part of for their training, so I got to see the gear and chat with them a bit.

Nicely put. There's a wide enough variety of experiences and backgrounds on here that the opinions have some weight behind them. Even if I don't agree with them, if they are thought through and presented intelligently, I'll read and consider them.

Hi Jerry, While the terms are no longer used, the term 'octoroon' meant someone who was 7/8 white and 1/8 black. The Supreme Court case of Plessy v Ferguson was the one where SC ruled that Jim Crow 'separate but equal' laws were ok. Plessy was ONE EIGHTH black. Yet he was subject to the laws that restricted black people. It was in 'To Kill A Mockingbird' that one of the kids made the statement: “That's what I thought,” said Jem, “but around here once you have a drop of Negro blood, that makes you all black.” ― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird.

So why did they have the gallows outside? There's a not very nice part of me that wishes those "tourists" had managed to get their hands on Pence. And it sure is funny how many "Back The Blue" Trumpettes don't seem to care about the attacks on the cops. OTOH, the FBI & Justice Department sure do care. Lots and lots of those 'tourists' are going to do time. Some are going to do a long time. There's no parole or 'good behavior' time in the Federal system.

^This. Along with "In God We Trust" on the currency. It was a response to the "godless commies" that McCarthy saw under every bed.

Ummmmm... No. Posts #5 & #6 address this. "Chaplain" is not an exclusive occupation of Christians.

You didn't actually read the story, did you? The job ad was for 'chaplain'. The application included the statement affirming Christian beliefs & practices It doesn't matter if 'all religions are the same' or not, although the Abrahamic faiths have more in common with each other than most adherents are willing to admit. The 1st A is pretty clear on this. Supreme Court rulings have made it even clearer. For a government entity to show favor of any religion over another is not acceptable. Your 'mechanic' analogy is so far off base, so irrelevant, that it's hilarious. Not terribly surprising, but funny none the less. And, as noted above, if the application included a requirement for the applicants to sign a statement affirming allegiance to Islam, the entire Christian/Alt Right universe would lose their minds. Do you remember when a mosque (actually a cultural center) was planned in NYC near the World Trade Center site? Do you remember the outrage? The lies? The hatred & bigotry? The lawsuits?

I do believe the 'here' he was referring to is 'up nort dere' in Canada. Not 'on here' on Dizzie dot.

Thanks. I didn't know how many had been administered in those countries. So the death rate from the vaccine is even closer to zero (no clue how many have had serious side effects in those places).

They still have it. They just choose not to use it anywhere near as much as before. The 'blocking' feature that came with the new format is part of the reason. If you don't like a troll, and are unable to resist feeding them, block them. They won't go completely away. If someone quotes them, their idiotic posts will show up as the quoted section. But it's a big help.

The same goes for masks. The number of people who have legitimate reasons to not wear a mask is miniscule. The 'one lunged' folks can still get perfectly adequate amounts of oxygen through a mask. Masks are hot and uncomfortable. I hate wearing them myself. But I'm not stupid and stubborn enough to make up idiotic reasons to not wear one. As far as the vaccine goes, there have been hundreds of millions of doses administered. The number of serious reactions has been next to nothing (statistically close enough to zero not to matter). Yet the fools and morons keep coming up with excuses why people shouldn't get vaccinated.

They don't think it will happen to them. They don't care about other people. This attitude isn't exclusive to the pandmic.

Or those who think everyone should be forced to stand during the national anthem.

Wel, ya gotta remember that some people consider the 'freedom of religion' part of the 1st A to mean that they are free to shove their religion down everyone's throats, including ignoring and suppresing other religions. Many of those people also view 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of assembly' the same way.

Sorry, I'm going to keep it drifting just a bit longer. Bill asked me a specific question. I meant to reply right away, but got distracted and forgot about it. There's a huge difference between a 'difference of opinion' and calling out lies, hatred and bigotry. Just like 'alternative facts' are not facts, the 'alternative opinions' you list are dangerous, false, bigoted and/or hateful. They should be called out as such. Those folks have a right to say what they want. They don't have a right to be free from the consequences. Lindell, Fox News and Hawley are all promoting a very dangerous lie that threatens our democracy. It culminated in the insurrection attempt on Jan 6th. That was the first (beer?) time in our country's history that the transfer of power wasn't peaceful. Harrison & Rowling are promoting racism & bigotry. They are being called out for that. Carano is pretending that criticism of her political position is equivalent to the one of the largest mass murders in history. Please. The 'Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln" stuff is complaining that history as currently taught is not complete or accurate and the truth is uncomfortable. I've recently learned that Jefferson did a lot of research into Small Pox and the creation of a vaccine for it. Jefferson used slaves as test subjects. While something that was acceptable at the time, it's pretty abhorrent today. Should that information be suppressed? The "Goya controversy" is pretty funny. Trump violated a host of ethics rules when he promoted them. He may have committed a criminal act in doing so. Rather than admit this and apologize, the Goya company ran with it. I'm fine with holding them accountable for that. Bill - sorry it took so long to answer your question. I made several generalizations in my post. They were just that. Generally, but not always true. Certainly not in every place or situation. As others have noted, 'red states' tend to be more resistant to change. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Making radical changes too quickly, because something is 'fashionable' is a bad idea. However, holding onto old ways because they are comfortable or 'the way we've always done it' is equally bad. As far as red states go, look at who and where 'old school thinking' is being enforced. What states are trying to restrict voting? What states are enacting laws that restrict trans rights? What states are trying to restrict free speech by enacting legislation that punishes protesters (aimed particularly at BLM)? I'm of the opinion that a healthy opposition party is vital. It keeps the party in power in check. But (and it's an important 'but') that requires the dedication to the country that the current Rs clearly don't have. They're more interested in holding power than in allowing the citizens free access to the voting booth. They're more interested in 'stopping the liberal agenda' than in what's best for the country. McConnell himself said he was going to oppose whatever Obama wanted, even if it harmed the country. I haven't seen him say the exact same thing about Biden, but his action certainly imply that his position hasn't changed.

Bingo. Funding things that actually help the community is going to... Help the community. That's so obvious, it shouldn't require explanation. Unfortunately, so many people see 'defund the police' as 'cut their funding so that they can't do their jobs'. Included in those people is Florida gov DeSantis. I don't fully agree with the assertion that policing has completely changed since the terrorist attacks in 2001. Those attacks did cause a lot of diversion from 'community policing' projects to 'the War On Terrorism', but the militarization of the cops started long before that. The idea that a strong show of force is the best way to combat crime has long been the 'go-to' strategy for far too many cops & politicians for far too long.

Great. Do these jails have a Rabbi, an Iman and a Bhikkhu? Given the way this country disproportionately incarcerates minorities, it would probably be better to have an Iman in the jail instead of a chaplain. And, as the lawsuit claims, requiring a government employee to be of a certain faith is a pretty clear violation of the 1st A. The defendants in the suit don't seem to be disputing that part. Just the part that their job application inappropriately insisted that applicants be Christian.

Actually it does. People with more fat have better heat retention. The 'lean & fit' types that are into this sort of event are much more susceptible to it.

Because he can't.

No. It's because the 'red states' tend to be more resistant to change. Part of being 'conservative' is the idea that stuff is great the way it is and change is unnecessary. That's why 'red states' are not addressing climate change, incentivizing renewable power, enacting rules that protect the environment, that sort of thing (there's a much longer list, but I won't go there now). Look at Brent's attitude. Very typical of the 'red state' mentality. Given how many people have a similar attitude, it's impossible to take the politics out of it. Throw in how many people are invested (financially, emotionally, lots of ways) in the current fossil fuel status quo, and how many politicians those people own. On a 'level playing field', EVs would be a decent option, with the viability increasing over time. However, the subsidies given the fossil fuel industry (both direct and indirect) tip the scales a long, long way towards them.