Objectively intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Correct me if I am wrong but I think there would have to be an election for a democrat to win. Right now I'd think "military coup" would have better odds in Vegas than "Presidential election in November."

Look at history. Governments end.

Maybe if we make Trump King, limited powers, like in the UK, but he is King! He might go for that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Has Ozzy tried pangolin? https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemi...-humans/98/i13

I was at a dinner just before that became impossible where someone showed me video of Chinese consumers eating live animals while the animals were still breathing. (Some large form of what looked like a frog.)

I like meat and fish, but I try to purchase varieties that state they are derived from humanely raised animals. Even then, I still feel kind of guilty about the meat. (Not so much the fish because, well, fish are idiots. However, I will not watch live crabs or lobsters be thrown into boiling water, regardless of the fact that it's probably painless.) So I'm not suggesting the western world is comprised of angels in its treatment of animals. We are regularly inhumane to them.

But we do it for consumer reasons. Or for medical research. We never do it just because it's cruel. In fact, we have laws against that.

My friend who showed me the delightful video made sure I noticed the attire of the people eating the live animal. These were not moronic proles. More chavvy sorts. But clearly folks with some money to spend. So why spend it in such a disgusting way? Because in some circles, eating pangolin, or bats, or live anything, is a status move. It signals dominance, apex standing, etc.

These are not behaviors which can be shrugged off as "cultural." Objectively, they're never acceptable, wherever they may occur.

I do not think criticism of the mistreatment of animals, or the trafficking in rare species as a dining experience, should be considered xenophobia. (This includes the Trump children's vile executions of big cats.) These are demented acts of ghoulish people. And a country that allows the consumption of live animals as status displays by its crassest classes is complicit in allowing those citizens to remain barbaric. That country should be called out for its unhygienic and despicable practices.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the government is using the authority it has under the DPA to make suppliers sell to it instead of to others. That's fine. But this business of seizing orders before states can buy them, giving them to private companies, which then auction them to the states -- that is fundamentally corrupt. If that's happening and a Democrat wins in November, I suspect people will be going to prison for that. Maybe there are qui tam suits here for private plaintiffs, too.

I don't think one has to look up much law to conclude that's probably quite illegal. The question there is which of the available 40 or so possible charges to use.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe if we make Trump King, limited powers, like in the UK, but he is King! He might go for that.

If he's not smart enough to pivot and use Covid-19 as the basis for a resignation ("Hey, I was killing it, but then a natural disaster ruined everything! Still a winner!"), there is something seriously wrong with the man.

Who in their right mind would want that gig now? Obama had a bad gig taking the reins in 2008. This is that x 4.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't see how Biden can run for President without picking up Covid-19 and he is old enough to be at some risk.

eta: Also, this.

Biden may die of other natural causes before Covid gets him. He's looking like the guy who yells "You're all gonna die" in Poltergeist more and more each day.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Suppose that the federal government has the authority to seize medical supplies without facing a takings claim. (I think the way this works is that the law essentially gives the federal government a ROFR when the supplier sells.) Suppose that the federal government then decides to give have of those supplies to the states, and the other half to a private company which can sell them. What would make the second half of that arrangement illegal? It seems like there must be some laws that prevent the government from giving away government property at sweetheart terms. The whole arrangement sounds wildly corrupt.

See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

Kelo was about whether the government could seize the land. Here, suppose that there's no question that the government can get the respirators. The question to me is how it's legit for the government to be giving them to private parties. To put it a different way, why would private parties make money here? Only if the federal government is giving them to private parties at sub-market prices. If there were an open bidding process, that wouldn't happen, because the states would buy them directly instead of getting them from the private parties.

eta: Like suppose that after Kelo's house was seized, the City of New London sold the land in a sweetheart deal to a politically connected developer, when other developers were standing there with their checkbooks open, ready to bid.

[Icky Thump]

Like Lalo dismissing Kim and like Avon dismissing Marlo, let me dismiss this stupid election talk and cut to the chase;

where can I scram to when the shit hits the fan?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Like Lalo dismissing Kim and like Avon dismissing Marlo, let me dismiss this stupid election talk and cut to the chase;

where can I scram to when the shit hits the fan?

Last I looked Calabria had 130 cases.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Last I looked Calabria had 130 cases.

Thought about this. They will sell you a house for a euro where my people are from.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

people need to start saying Biden, not "a dem.." And that fuck needs to concede. People will die because there is a primary in Wisconsin today.

There's a Supreme Court election too, and it's the reason the WI GOP wouldn't let it be postponed, so as much as I'm for piling on Bernie, he's not the direct cause here.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Kelo was about whether the government could seize the land. Here, suppose that there's no question that the government can get the respirators. The question to me is how it's legit for the government to be giving them to private parties. To put it a different way, why would private parties make money here? Only if the federal government is giving them to private parties at sub-market prices. If there were an open bidding process, that wouldn't happen, because the states would buy them directly instead of getting them from the private parties.

eta: Like suppose that after Kelo's house was seized, the City of New London sold the land in a sweetheart deal to a politically connected developer, when other developers were standing there with their checkbooks open, ready to bid.

Isn't Less saying that giving it to a private company to resell is not a public purpose (ala Kelo) and thus the initial taking was unconstitutional?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Zeke Emmanuel, retired with University and Health Care System pension, has argued we need to lock down for 18 months. Not a misprint: https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/...al-81719365650

Putting aside the arrogance of this self-annointed (nice to have a brother in high places) brahmin's pronouncement that we "must" do what he says (we certainly will not be doing anything like it), he notes in a worst case scenario that we would have 2 million dead.

I don't know where he got 2 million from, but if we assume he's correct, that's .006 of the population.

For sake of this post, I'll assume that number is one based on what would occur if we went back to work on May 1, 2020.

The cost of not restarting the economy at least to some extent by May 1, 2020 will be many multiples of those 2 million lives, spread over many years. The economy will not immediately bounce back. It will take 1 - 2 months before people start behaving in a semblance of what was normal before the lockdowns.

Allowing the young low risk population (under 50 w/o co-morbidities) to start working on May 1 should allow some herd immunity to emerge w/o crushing the medical systems. (This date may vary for cities, where density risks overwhelming the systems. They may have to stay locked down a bit longer.)

Then allowing older workers without co-morbidities, say 50 - 65, to work after the third week of May would repeat the above process for that slice of the population.

After another three weeks, release the 65 and up w/o co-morbidities set to work.

And then finally, in late June, release the rest.

Throughout this, however, to ensure against overwhelming the health care system, direct all workers who can work from home to do so. And continue use of masks and enhanced attention to hygiene (hand washing), and refrain from mass gatherings as much as possible.

In other words, release people to work in waves, the most robust first, with three week intervals in between.

And get people like Emmanuel, making preposterous arguments for what is effectively "Nation Suicide," off the airwaves.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Zeke Emmanuel, retired with University and Health Care System pension, has argued we need to lock down for 18 months. Not a misprint: https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/...al-81719365650

Putting aside the arrogance of this self-annointed (nice to have a brother in high places) brahmin's pronouncement that we "must" do what he says (we certainly will not be doing anything like it), he notes in a worst case scenario that we would have 2 million dead.

I don't know where he got 2 million from, but if we assume he's correct, that's .006 of the population.

For sake of this post, I'll assume that number is one based on what would occur if we went back to work on May 1, 2020.

The cost of not restarting the economy at least to some extent by May 1, 2020 will be many multiples of those 2 million lives, spread over many years. The economy will not immediately bounce back. It will take 1 - 2 months before people start behaving in a semblance of what was normal before the lockdowns.

Allowing the young low risk population (under 50 w/o co-morbidities) to start working on May 1 should allow some herd immunity to emerge w/o crushing the medical systems. (This date may vary for cities, where density risks overwhelming the systems. They may have to stay locked down a bit longer.)

Then allowing older workers without co-morbidities, say 50 - 65, to work after the third week of May would repeat the above process for that slice of the population.

After another three weeks, release the 65 and up w/o co-morbidities set to work.

And then finally, in late June, release the rest.

Throughout this, however, to ensure against overwhelming the health care system, direct all workers who can work from home to do so. And continue use of masks and enhanced attention to hygiene (hand washing), and refrain from mass gatherings as much as possible.

In other words, release people to work in waves, the most robust first, with three week intervals in between.

And get people like Emmanuel, making preposterous arguments for what is effectively "Nation Suicide," off the airwaves.

In 18 months I'd be going to work like

[Hank Chinaski]

Sometimes I get sad that Fringey and I didn't end up together, then I see a news story and realize it was probably for the best.