Not sure why Biden should respect the 'precedent' of a nine justice Court if those same nine justices won't respect their own precedents.
Stare decisis for thee but not for me won't cut it.
You'll remember that few weeks back, Joe Rogan challenged vaccine researcher Peter Hotez to debate RFK on his podcast.
When Hotez rightfully refused (I mean, what is the point of debating a pigeon), Elon Musk couldn't resist piling on -- accusing Hotez of being "scared" of debate. Cue the hooting across the bird site. (The whole thing reminded me of that scene with the apes at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I digress).
Anyhoo, the whole Rogan-Hotez-Musk episode, aside from being a low point in U.S. social-scientific discourse, raises all sorts of questions about how deeply one engages kookiness.
I tend to fall into the "laugh and ignore" camp because scientific truth can never be settled by who yells the loudest, and ... again, pigeons ... but there is a lot of room for nuance in determining the best way to combat misinformation. Particularly among populations in a position to be hurt by it. (anti-VAX nonsense and the elderly being a prime example).
I am also surprised the MDF didn’t chip. That stuff seems to fall apart every time I use it. What sort of paint did you use?
That is pretty cool! I also miss the feel of the old chiclet keyboards.
How securely does it stay attached? Would be cool to add a hinge mechanism so it could fold over and protect the screen.
Nice. Is that PETG or PLA?
I am really interested in seeing this evidence of malfeasance! I wonder why it hasn’t been brought to light? Sort of reminiscent of the evidence of 2020 election fraud, don’t you think? Maybe Hillary has all of the files in the basement of a pizza parlor somewhere. Better look into that.
Anyhoo, if solid evidence is there, then of course it can be brought before a grand jury and then presented in court subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence. No innuendo and hearsay, but direct documentary proof and witness testimony on the stand under penalty of perjury. Sort of like what is happening with Trump now in Florida, if you think about it.
And of course, if that happens, those of us who supported President Biden in the last election will reserve judgment and wait for the wheels of justice to turn. And if it turns out that laws have been broken, we will want to see justice done. Sort of like what is happening to Trump now in Florida.
Yep, it is almost as if there is a process for this stuff!
It is a bit of a Frankenstein's Monster. I bought a Benchmill 6000 CNC training mill, stripped out and sold the little Seig mill [that was in it] and shoehorned a Sieg 2.7 with some major modifications. I'm at that dangerous 80% done phase, but so far it works well, notably using the software that came with the original training mill.
The Build Thread, including more pics of the base construction, is here.
In a strange parallel to the current Russian political situation, can one at least hope that Meta drives a stake through the heart of the bird site before this effort implodes?
Probably not, I guess. If the Lizard King actually gets to the point that he poses a real threat, it is probably because he has eaten us first.
We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability.
Heed my blue check mark.
Miter saws are easy to align … except for that last hair, aren’t they? Anyway, you left off the critical “step back, have a beer, and pat yourself on the back” step.
The problem with these discussions is that we seldomly use common definitions, which creates more heat than light. There was a strain of late 20th Century American conservatism that was rooted in fiscal restraint, loosely regulated free markets, and a privileged place for the nuclear family, civic duty, and the church as the glue holding (small) communities together. I'd vehemently disagree with most of these as policy anchors, but none of them are beyond civil discussion per se.
But here's the problem: this late 20th-Century old school conservative thinking has been thoroughly hollowed out and co-opted to the point it is now completely meaningless. (The last administration was neither fiscally restrained, family oriented, nor in any way tied to any recognizable New Testament 'love thy neighbor' teaching. Yet, modern 'conservatives' can't get enough).
Into these conceptual containers has been smuggled a toxic strain of (white) (Christian) (popular) nationalism ... some may use the 'F' word ... that is fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-science, intolerant, and is now emerging as violent - not just to vulnerable groups, which is a show stopper in itself - but to the whole damn country and democratic process. You don't debate people like that. You crush them at the ballot box (or at Gettysburg or the beaches of Normandy if it comes to it).
So (pardon the TED talk), I think if someone wants to show up and debate whether we should be running budget deficits in excess of 3% of GDP, or whether we are regulating nuclear power too tightly, or whether industry X should be privatized/nationalized, they are probably good (at least by me - I can't speak for others). But there is an understandable level of suspicion around the whole 'conservative' discourse, and if someone tries to smuggle ethno-nationalism, economic Darwinism, or bigotry toward vulnerable groups into the discussion under the guise of 'traditional family values' and 'fiscal restraint' ... they are going to have a tough time.