The Frankish Reich

Still love my A5, 10 years into its lifespan. Now if they could figure out a way to make an EV version, I'd finally be ready to trade up.

Doral is just far enough inland that it gets zero benefit from the cooler Atlantic waters. Just steam rising from the marshes. A truly miserable place in summer.

I agree. Look, when my kids were younger, I would have appreciated a little notice, like "are you parents o.k. with some drag queens coming to your kid's school to read stories." I would've said thanks, but no thanks. To me it's a purely local control issue. Maybe in some school district in San Francisco the parents would have a different opinion. Good for them. What I am objecting to is the creation of a new political talking point: THEY ARE TRYING TO SUBJECT US TO AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUR KIDS GAY. Or trans, or whatever. That's what it is: a newly created talking point, the new attempt to create a wedge issue, the attempt to turn something that local schools and local parents ought to decide just like they always have.

This is hilarious. And very, very much the man-man equivalent of drag. OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE ALERT! EDIT: Ban pro wrestling! Here's openly gay rocker Bob Mould on the homoerotic appeal of pro wrestling. He actually worked on pro wrestling scrips for Ted Turner's WWE rival back in the 90s: Q. When you think about it, pro-wrestling is pretty gay, isn’t it? A. It’s homoerotic. And I think they know it, and they don’t want to acknowledge it too much. They’re tapping into something that is an outlet for a lot of men. Which isn’t to say all men are gay. Up until about five years ago, they catered to all sectors. They tried to get teenage kids, because they’re looking for superheroes, really impressionable, looking for good versus evil. But now, in the last five years, pro-wrestling exposed that it was choreographed, just a show. So now you’ve got Ultimate Fighting Champion, where the old wrestling fans from 18 to 55 went to that, because it’s the same thing, but it’s real. And maybe ban all that Marvel Comics stuff while we're at it. The old congressional committees that had hearings on the bad effects of comic books on our 1950s youth were on to something! From the infamous Central Park Birdwatcher of the Karen incident, who actually works for Marvel: Interviewer: One thing that happened when you were going through puberty is that you realized you were finding some of the superheroes very arousing. And let's face it, I mean, they're usually muscular. They're sometimes dressed in tights or (laughter) very revealing costumes. COOPER: Well, and quite honestly, for me, it didn't even wait until puberty (laughter) for that realization. GROSS: Right, OK. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What did that say to you? And what was your reaction to realizing that you found the male superheroes, you know, sexually attractive? COOPER: That I needed to keep it under lock and key because it was the '70s, and it was Long Island. And being gay was not a thing, at least not a thing if you wanted to live. So you know, there was no Ellen. There was no Anderson Cooper. None of that had happened yet. Stonewall had barely happened at that point. So I just had to keep it all locked up inside. And that was very difficult - very, very difficult. Why stop with drag queens! To me, a world without WWE, UFC, and Marvel is a better world anyway. Stop all those damn groomers, I say!

Not purely theoretical. Back in the Bush 43 years, Immigration raided a bunch of meat packing plants. They found thousands of illegal Mexican and Guatemalan workers. All were fired. Guess what the company did? They started recruiting in African refugee communities. All those jobs were filled by Somali (Muslim) refugees. Setting aside whether these raids were wise from a policy perspective ... you now have lines composed almost entirely of observant Muslims, all with the same religious restrictions ....

Still classic. You need to go back to it!

And which group is the leader in the clubhouse when it comes to "grooming" (if we must use that stupid word). The traditional seemingly respected authority figures like priests and ministers and coaches boy scout troop leaders? Or the drag queens and pride parade marchers? Any parent who's scared to death that his kid might be molested (or to be honest: might start understanding that he's LGBT; isn't that what this is all about?) can say "make sure you're never in a room alone with that drag queen." The authority figures? Not so easy.

I agree. In the thread about the affirmative action case, someone quoted Justice Thomas: there is no such thing as a policy that favors one race that doesn't disfavor some other race or races. The same thing applies here. The employer in the religious freedom case argued that favoring one set of workers (Christians who honor Sunday as a day of rest) necessarily means that some other workers (those that don't) have to work on what is traditionally a non-work day. A day that is also a day off for their families from work/school. The Supreme Court said "too bad, so sad." The law says you can make that religious Christian work on Sunday if giving him the day off causes a severe burden on the employer, but not on other employees. That's kind of what Justice Thomas was getting at - it's a law/policy that makes us feel good ("honor each individual's religious beliefs" - who could argue with that?) but we shouldn't pretend that it doesn't cost someone else. I will note that the religion case is based on a federal statute, not directly on the constitution, so that's different. And Congress can rewrite a statute. They won't. But they should. The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of protecting the religious and against the interests of the nonreligious.

Look, I don't disagree with how the Court handled this case under the law. But you do make a good point: the Supreme Court here decided that negative impacts on other workers don't matter. So let's say I work on an assembly line. To operate properly you need 5 employees on duty at all times. The company has 10 employees; 5 of them are Orthodox Jews (this is an interesting assembly line ...). The Orthodox Jews cannot work on Saturdays. We bid, based on seniority, on work schedules. Everyone wants Saturday off. Guess what? If I'm one of the non-Jewish employees, I guess I'm working every Saturday. So ... correct under the law, but maybe the law is a little too protective of religious rights?

Just because YOU live in a van down by the river ...

A discussion of Jordan Poyer's aborted golf tournament may make us ordinary people think about many things (maybe even "abortion"), but it takes a special kind of obsessive to always steer the conversation to sex. Now who exactly is the sex obsessive here? And couldn't children be reading this forum and perusing his "special collection" of Folsom St photos?

I mean, you are John from Riverside, not John from Santa Cruz ... (Hey, I get it, and appreciate the insights)

Two different points there, pal: - should the prosecution have leaked it, and what was the purpose of leaking it? Sure, that should be a discussion. And it no doubt will lead to defense motions. - is it a smoking gun? No real debate there. It seals up Trump's initial (layman's) defense (which is why you need a good lawyer, and you need to keep your mouth shut about specifics of a criminal investigation in which you are the target) defense: the everything he had declassified any previously-classified documents he took out of the White House. Just completely eviscerated that argument. That leaves the defense with a weaker argument: "sure, he thought some documents remained classified after the fact, but not these documents charged in the indictment." (buy why?) Or even: "he thought the documents were still classified, but he was wrong - they were necessarily deemed declassified by his decision, while still President, to take them into his personal care and custody." They can and may make those arguments, but any lawyer would prefer the "blanket declassification" theory that their can't-keep-his-mouth-shut defendant initially floated.

I am finding it hard to find the words to explain just how stupid this line of "reasoning" is. So let me try an example: - I am indicted for Conspiracy to Traffic Cocaine based on an agreement with a known trafficker to buy "100 kilos of white vitamin powder.: - There is an old recording of me and that same trafficker from 2010, outside the statute of limitations, in which I say I want to buy "100 kilos of coke" and the trafficker says, "let's just call it white vitamin powder from now on to be safe." I say o.k, agreed. Everyone would say that 2010 recording is the smoking gun the prosecutor needs. Everyone.

I'm pretty sure the discussion would be more spirited if the event went forward ... ... and on the larger issue: I am no Trump fan, and while I'm just not into boycotts of any kind, all things being equal I'd probably avoid staying/playing at a Trump-branded property since I'd rather not enrich him even by a fraction of a cent. But I wouldn't be bothered if Poyer had decided to go forward with the tournament at Doral. By the way: I've been to Doral in the summer. Brutal. Just brutal. I think I'd rather be invited to the Buffalo Winter Solstice Golf Tournament.

John, this is what I've always wondered about the UC system (and I've lived in California before). - The UC system is superb. Really, still the best state university system in the country. - It has multiple campuses. For historical and geographical reasons, some (Berkeley, UCLA) are in ridiculously high demand. Others (particularly Merced nowadays) much lower demand. - But admissions is still handled on a campus-by-campus basis. Wouldn't the racial/ethnic composition look different if we considered the UC system as a whole, rather than the campus-by-campus focus?

Somehow I thought "courageous" would mean we play on with the sponsors and participants we still have. "Courageously retreats."

Thanks. But I've gotta admit: I'm confused. So Poyer is a Trumpie because he was playing in a Doral charity tournament? Not a Trumpie because he opted out? I need the exec summary first. EDIT: OK, Warren Buffet allowed me to read the BN without a paywall. So here's what I see: "Jordan Poyer says he won't be silenced, courageously cancels golf tournament at Trump Resort lest he have to explain why he chose to play there" Profiles in Courage, 2023 edition.

Somewhere south of Virginia: I tried to ignore you, but I just can't do it! Let me post something, please! Not my reasoned opinion (I don't do that, or don't have one). I know: I'll post something from the other side with one of those "ooh, look, I think I can misconstrue this so that I get to call someone racist!! And no, I won't look to see what the other side is saying - that would require me to stop "ignoring" the NYT feed. I know, I'll piggy back on Jordan Peterson or his bastard child, some guy named James Lindsay!! That'll make me look smart ... right, mom, I look smart, don't I? I'm ignoring all the wrong people and following all the right people just like a lost puppy.

I'll focus not on law, but on the more sociological aspects. Affirmative action as we understand it came from a bygone age - an age in which "minority" and "black" basically meant the same thing. 1. The United States is a different place now. To the extent anyone was harmed by affirmative action policies in the 1970s, it was white applicants. Now the record is clear that the greatest harm falls on another minority, Asian American students. This led to a contradiction that couldn't be resolved within the old fashioned affirmative action context. It was doomed by demographic change. 2. The nature of the black and hispanic populations is also different. Many admission slots that count for "black" or "hispanic" students go to kids of very recent immigrants from Africa or South America. These were not the descendants of enslaved black people; in fact, they may be kids of Nigerian physicians who immigrated to the United States, or kids of an Argentinian CEO who were born and raised here. I have a lawyer friend. His father is an Irish/Polish American. His mother is a first-generation hispanic (from Mexico) American. His daughter is hispanic by any definition, born of a 1/2 hispanic father and a non-hispanic white mother. She has an "Anglo" Irish name, certainly doesn't reject her 1/4 hispanic ancestry, but really has no connection to the kinds of children of southwestern American hispanics who have historically faced discrimination, including New Mexicans who were on that land long before any Anglo people arrived. I'm sure she checked the "hispanic" box on her college applications, and that it was perfectly fair for her to do so. But she really doesn't increase "diversity" at all at any college she goes to - she's a blond haired kid with an Irish name from an upper middle class professional family. Again, a contradiction that was bound to result an a policy change. So that blunt remedial weapon of affirmative action is dead. Let's hope that universities and companies try to rethink what merit really means and to devise admission/hiring programs that work for the America of the 2020s and beyond. Thanks ... always good to hear from someone who actually has first-hand knowledge.

https://www.scotusblog.com/

Haha. And that's my point! We are ridiculously wealthy by their standards.

Probably needs it's own topic. Coming in 3, 2, 1 ...

Temptation. The family's 3 cars are now 11, 10, and 5 years old ...

Yeah, i do want one. But see... delayed gratification. Some day, when (I hope) college costs are a thing of the past... https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2023/06/24/casa-bonita-employee-pay-tips-reopening 30 bucks an hour but no tips at the new Casa Bonita (the guys from South Park bought this closed Colorado institution where Cartman crashed a birthday party). And the servers who signed up are pissed! They thought they'd be making more on average with tips. Jobs, jobs, everywhere ...