ComradeKayAdams

Yup, basically. Corporate oligarchs and their political minions blame TikTok for Gen Z rejecting Zionist narratives, thereby destabilizing American politics. But the realities of the ongoing Gazan genocide are alone to be blamed for that (see: my 13-point post in the “Israel and the Slaughter in Gaza” thread, page 183). Banning TikTok will only lead to further destabilization of American politics. I’m guessing that it’s probably still defined by partisan politics, but this time outside the left vs. right paradigm and by roughly more of a populist vs. establishment one. I see that all of my people (the progressives, a.k.a. the left-wing populists) correctly voted “no” on the ban: AOC, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Greg Casar, Maxwell Frost, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Summer Lee, Jerry Nadler, Ilhan Omar, Mark Pocan, Ayanna Pressley, Delia Ramirez, etc…Rashida Tlaib didn’t vote for some reason. Trump and MAGA (a.k.a. the right-wing populists), comparably speaking, are almost but not quite as coherent on this issue. We do know that Trump also hates everything China, loves Bibi 100%, and pretty much helped trigger the procession of events leading up to October 7 when he moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Furthermore, I do question the “populism” element in right-wing populism because what these politicians purvey is a rebranded Reagan-era platform of laissez-faire economic policies, behind a veil of Christian nationalism, that solely benefit corporate oligarchs and imperialists.

What up, MUP?! I’m classic all the way! Three reasons why: 1. Our logo needs to have swords in it. We are the Buffalo SABRES, after all! 2. The birth of a white bison is a sacred sign to Native Americans, and upstate New York is the sacred land of the Haudenosaunee. 3. Blue and gold are the unofficial colors of New York state (though I’d be open to a change from royal blue to something like Columbia blue…to help distinguish us a bit from the Blues and Predators). The red and black goatheads are a fun alternate uni, however. I’m not a hater. I even like the Buffaslug because of the childhood nostalgia lol… BTW, I love the fact that you’re a complete Buffalo sports loyalist despite being a SoCal gal…and such an infectious optimist, too! When this franchise finally makes the playoffs, there will be an airport team greeting that will rival anything the Bills experienced. All the main pieces are in place right now. We just need to get Cozens and the Skinner-Thompson-Tuch line going like last year. Something like a 12-4-0 season finish is needed…tough, but not impossible.

Note for whomever is reading this discussion: France has never had elective abortion legally available beyond 4 months, nor has there ever been a time in France’s history in which abortion was not regulated in some way. I do need to clarify my use of the phrase, “acute mental distress.” I was referring to serious mental health situations in which the pregnant mother poses a physical health risk to herself…i.e., suicidal ideations. In France, a pregnant female beyond 4 months only needs to convince 1-2 certified therapists or psychologists that this is roughly the situation in which she finds herself. So if she is truly committed to a late-term abortion, then it’s not hard to legally get one. I don’t condone manipulating or lying to a health professional; I’m simply stating the reality of what a French woman can do. Conservatives in the United States would never approve of this type of exception, thus highlighting one of many reasons why current French abortion policy is considered significantly more progressive than Trump’s proposal. My Gawd, Leh-nerd…this emotional diatribe…your time of the month or something?? << Kay hands Leh-nerd a tall glass of cranberry juice to help alleviate his menstrual cramps. >> Are you calm now? Ok, let’s logically address your questions: You should reconsider your stance on the mental health exception (see: clarification above where I distinguish “acute mental distress” from mild cases of depression and anxiety). Since a pregnant female who commits suicide kills the fetus, too, wouldn’t it be better to at least rescue one instead of losing both? In some cases, these situations can’t be resolved in time with medication and talk therapy (…over new parenthood worries, partner separation, career turbulence, etc.). We don’t want to drive these vulnerable women and girls toward seeking out measures of self-harm or very risky back-alley abortions. This is certainly not the most exercised abortion exception, but it’s more common than we’d like among teenagers and women of lower socioeconomic standing. Moreover, only the medical community should be qualified to adjudicate these cases…not the legal one nor the general public. You say we already raise enough tax revenue to support new mothers as needed, but the fact of the matter is that the money doesn’t get to them. The American social safety net is paltry compared to the rest of the Western world, and the United States is the only modern industrialized country in the world without a universal health care system. So we not only force financially and emotionally unprepared mothers to give birth, but we also don’t guarantee these women the proper early motherhood resources (health care, day care, maternity leave, etc.) compared to more rational countries like, say, FRANCE. I would prefer to raise tax revenue for public maternity care with Wall Street speculation taxes, progressive federal income tax structures, military budget reductions, and a few prudent tricks here and there from Modern Monetary Theory. I admittedly haven’t been following Biden’s student loan “boondoggle” too closely, and I also don’t think this is the appropriate place to address such a nuanced topic. But before advocating for major alterations to postsecondary education policy, note that the extreme levels of student loan debt among my generation (in large part due to college educations costs far outpacing inflation-adjusted wage growth since the 1970’s) are highly suboptimal for macroeconomic growth. There. Feel any better, Mr. Grumpy?? << Kay rubs Leh-nerd’s belly, hands him one of her (unused) menstrual pads. >>

Hi Justice, Roughly what percentage of Palestinians would you guess feel the same way currently as you do, regarding a two-state solution with the 1967/Green Line borders? Also, what’s the current sentiment for prospects of a one-state solution? From a complete outsider’s perspective, the one-state solution just seems like the more practical one at this point. I’d also be bothered with having Israeli land situated between a non-contiguous Palestinian country of Gaza plus the West Bank (don’t even get me started with Alaska and Canada…ugh…). Thank you for the kind words, Coffeesforclosers! A few thread pages back, I presented a 13-point argument outlining why Israel is guilty of collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The responses were the usual ad hominems, whataboutisms, and strawmen. Most right-wingers didn’t even bother to respond because they know the argument, 5 full months beyond October 7, is unfortunately unassailable. As for the trolling warnings…believe me, it won’t take much more for this troll-ee to become the troll-er. I’ve been in a foul sports mood all week because I dearly miss Tre White, Poyer, and Morse…and the Sabres are being the Sabres again…(sigh). So the next wrinkly reactionary (wizened Westside, decrepit Doc, tired Tommy Callahan, etc.) to give me a single negative emoticon response is likely in serious trouble. If I may recall a quote from world-renowned Jewish pacifist, Walter Sobchak: “This is what happens when you f*#k a stranger in the a$$.” Oh you know I will, Tibsy! Kay be ROLLING down this forum with a shotgun. These right-wing Boomers ain’t seen a white-skinned leftist chica Since Greg Gutfeld last hosted one. <<< funky Tom Morello guitar sounds >>>

What?! My most recent post to you was 128 words…I just checked with an online copy/paste word counter. Too much?? What a joke. I’ve already outlined for you the stark contrasts between France’s current abortion policy and Trump’s vague abortion proposal. Do with this info what you will. FYI: the bill is historic because it made France the first country to ever have abortion a constitutionally protected right. Throughout French history, abortion has always been regulated to some extent but has become incrementally less so since the 1970’s. It has remained decriminalized in France since the 1970’s. I’m not sure you know what “decriminalization” means. “Womansplaining,” you say? C’est la vie. You entered a female reproductive rights thread with a question, be it genuine or sardonic, that intimated a close similarity between the pro-choice gold standard that is France’s abortion policy and that of Trump’s. My focus here at TBD PPP is to stop the spread of ridiculous right-wing propaganda. As I’ve repeatedly stated, the only commonality between the two is an approximately 15-week temporal limit. Trump won’t even clarify whether abortion rights are to be federally protected up through the first 4 months. He wants to ban many of the blue state laws after 4 months, for sure, but what about some of those red state laws before 4 months? A doctor’s note is needed in France because abortion after 4 months is considered a major medical procedure. That seems like a reasonable minimal request to me and one that ultimately values a woman’s health and safety. In France, I think it might even be two prior consultation notes from health professionals: doctors, therapists, surgeons, etc… In any event, I suppose you are free to interpret this standard as an “illusion of choice,” but let’s not pretend like it’s anything as onerous as mandating the involvement of law enforcement, lawyers, and judges. Also, why do you think acute mental distress is not a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy? What exactly do you know about major depressive disorder and other mental illnesses, and how pregnancy can exacerbate these conditions in women? And once the afflicted mothers are forced to give birth, do you care what happens to the mothers and babies via maternity leave, postnatal health care services, and general financial preparedness for motherhood? Are you willing to have your taxes raised a bit to help these mothers? LOL, thank you for calling me a “moronic parrot.” Spamming falsehoods won’t will them into truths, you know.

I would call those war crimes from Hamas, yes. Your “whataboutism” debate tactics annoy me. You don’t see me arguing that the Arab world should level Haifa and Tel Aviv because of the Gaza genocide. Let’s imagine this scenario: a small group of armed killers are loose in your neighborhood. They are hiding in backyards and bushes and basements…possibly digging tunnels between properties, too. The SWAT team arrives, barricades the neighborhood perimeter, hurriedly tells everyone to leave the premises, proceeds to firebomb all the houses, and ends up killing dozens of residents in the process…including your loved ones! How would you feel?? Would you accept this outcome as the necessary cost of stopping crime? Or would you not-so-politely request that the police force consider more calculated and more precise measures and protocols?

Oh Tommy, there is a certain JE NE SAIS QUOI with your posts… Think about the different components of an abortion law: 1. Temporal limits. 2. List of exceptions. 3. Processes by which exceptions are granted. 4. Any constitutional protections. 5. Federal protections up to the temporal limit (or limits, in cases of state-by-state legislation). 6. Trustworthiness of politicians promoting said law. Now think about what makes France’s current abortion situation different from Trump’s proposal, given the context of these 6 components. Also, make sure you understand what the difference between component #4 and component #5 implies. While your point about the media’s narrative framing is technically true, I also find their framing to be apt. Component #1 is basically the only commonality here between France and Trump. WOAH. Leh-nerd Skin-erd. Now there’s a name I haven’t seen posting in a long time…a long time… In France, I believe it’s 4 full months, technically, from one’s last period. So imagine this scenario: Mademoiselle Adamski casually walking down a street in Paris, listening to “Par Les Paupieres” by Alizee, with a (plant-based) croissant in hand. She’s looking particularly ELECTRIC that day with her blonde highlights and a Chartreuse-colored long-sleeve pencil dress from Les Sublimes, ruched from the waist to the upper thighs. She serendipitously bumps into some guy along the sidewalk who looks like Timothee Chalamet. He cannot resist the scrumptious sight…and I ain’t talkin’ ‘bout that croissant, Leh-nerd!! Long story short because this is a family board (think: 50 Shades of KAY…very hawt…), eight months pass by and everyone’s favorite verbose vegan has a visible baguette in the oven. But the Timothee look-alike is suddenly no longer in the picture because, well, it’s a long story… So Kay visits a therapist and cites the overwhelming mental distress. Or how the Timothee look-alike was actually some rapist who more closely resembled Gerard Depardieu. A quickly signed note or two later and…well…do you now see the contrast between France’s “pro-life” policy and what the pro-life debates are like here in America? Read my previous posts if you’re still confused. Or call on our friend, Muppy, to help explain things. Adieu, - La Kay

Um…ok….well, collective punishment is an official war crime. The total number of Hamas combatants was estimated at about 30,000 last year. The rest of the 2+ million affected Gazans had nothing to do with October 7 and were simply living their lives before Israel initiated the genocide. An overwhelming majority of Gazans never even voted for Hamas back in 2006. And even if they do support Hamas, that’s kind of like saying every American who supported the Bush Jr. administration during the second Iraq War and the Afghanistan War deserved death at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists. Yes, endless war is profitable for the American military-industrial complex. AIPAC campaign donations help, too. Interminable warfare also helps keep Netanyahu and his far-right sociopathic friends in power. I do believe Israel has some sort of end goal, however: full Palestinian land seizure and the hope that the international community takes in the displaced Palestinian population. The bottom line is that Status Quo Joe has plenty of leverage to immediately end this genocide that he chooses not to exercise. Reagan successfully pressured Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War. H.W. Bush played hardball with West Bank settlers in 1991. Biden should be taking a similarly active and aggressive role in negotiations that include demands for a permanent ceasefire, hostage releases, financial remediation, immediate humanitarian relief, and outlines for a two-state (or preferably one-state) solution. Otherwise, all our military aid to Israel should be promptly withheld. One would think that the specter of losing to Trump in November would be ample motivation to BLEEPING do something here!! We’re seeing multiple dead canaries in this Gazan crisis coal mine: the “Uncommitted” primary votes in Michigan (and elsewhere tonight on Super Tuesday??), nationwide poll shifts reflecting a great moral awakening for the plight of Palestinians, and consecutive months with sagging poll numbers behind Trump. This is why I’m beginning to theorize that the DNC and the center-left corporate oligarchs will push to elevate someone like Gretchen Whitmer at the August convention. She is salable as a tabula rasa for the Gaza crisis, checks the female/age/swing state/governorship boxes, is strong on the flagship issue of abortion, and still has progressive oratorical pivoting potential. Regarding my foreign policy cynicism: I rarely mention the good aspects of American foreign policy because too much back-patting distracts from elucidating all the grave problems with American imperialism. That’s just how Commie Kay rolls. I think economic restraints will ultimately prevail in ways that institutions of international law cannot. Israel is rapidly devolving to “pariah state” status. BDS movements are picking up global momentum. Israel’s economy has already shrunk by 20%. Local businesses are suffering from both Israeli conscription and the loss of Gazan migrant workers. The Netanyahu regime is provoking an expensive multi-front war with Hezbollah, Egypt, and other Arab nations. Even the United States may eventually resort to pulling back the purse strings, at the behest of progressive Democrats and all other Americans with a functioning moral compass.

Here ya go, Tibs! The United Nations’ definition of genocide: “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” The definition of ethnic cleansing: “The systematic and forced removal of an ethnic, religious, or racial group from a given area, with the intent of making that area ethnically homogeneous.” The definition of collective punishment: “A punishment imposed on a group for acts allegedly perpetrated by a member of that group.” Other than clause #5 in the genocide criteria, I could argue that Israel is guilty of all of the above. The ICJ has already called the genocide accusation “plausible.” Here is my own list of reasons why I would advance the charge from “plausible” to “probable” (please feel free to edit or add): 1. A completely unacceptable civilian casualty ratio, by historical war standards, of 9.9:1 (this is a 90.8% civilian casualty percentage…34,570 civilian deaths to 3,496 combatant deaths…source: Euro-Med HRM, Feb 23). 2. Woefully inadequate actions taken to prevent famine in Gaza. 3. Two million displaced Gazans, with no apparent plans provided or promises given for returning to their homes. 4. Numerous instances of documented and suspected war crimes, such as the most recent IDF convoy slaughter in northern Gaza. 5. Incendiary and dehumanizing rhetoric from far-right government leaders that indicate genocidal intent. 6. Official Israeli government rejection of any future talks for two-state or one-state solutions. 7. Hostage rescue not appearing to be a high priority, as many Israeli citizen protestors have argued and as the appearance of indiscriminate bombing in Jabalia, Gaza City, and Khan Younis suggests. 8. No articulation of what a “victory” over Hamas would look like, along with a distinct lack of awareness in how their October 7 retribution will multiply manyfold a new generation of Hamas-like terrorists. 9. Evidence of cultural erasure with hundreds of mosques, schools, cemeteries, and heritage sites destroyed. 10. Innumerable attempts to obfuscate and conceal war crimes via bureaucratic lying (UNRWA worker allegations, etc.), preventions of media access inside Gaza, and false propaganda campaigns (Anat Schwartz, etc.)…not to mention attacks on 173 press headquarters and the deaths of 130+ journalists. 11. Guilt by historical context: Zionism’s ideological roots in settler colonialism and the ensuing ethnostate practices of apartheid, violent acts of ethnic cleansing such as the 1948 Nakba, repeatedly broken promises during negotiations with Palestinians, and land seizures like after the 1967 Six-Day War or like the illegal West Bank settlements which are intended to break up Palestinian land contiguity. 12. Guilt by association: Israel existing as a critical Middle Eastern proxy state for an imperialistic sugar daddy, the American Empire…and we Americans are responsible for a litany of our own international ethics violations (disastrous regime-change wars, organized coups, drone strikes, and general labor/resource exploitation throughout the Middle East and the Americas…dating back to the Monroe Doctrine, really). 13. An imminent Rafah invasion that will likely only strengthen the charges against Israel. Note that some of the aforementioned reasons are obviously not crimes, but they are meant to establish INTENT, which is apparently a very critical component of ICJ genocide charges.

Eek! The political tribalism in this thread is truly astounding. But at least the stans for Javier Milei and the stans for Thomas Friedman are united in an acknowledgment that the American middle class is in bad shape and that resuscitating it is good for the overall economy. The questions people should be asking themselves about the middle class: 1. What does the macroeconomic data say about the beginning of its demise in America? 2. What factors, policies, and specific legislation are believed to have contributed to its demise? 3. What factors, policies, and specific legislation can be expected to lead to its recovery? 4. What does GDP growth have to say about its health as well as the health of the other economic classes? 5. How are various inflation metrics correlated with its health and also with the health of the other economic classes? My advice: seek out books or economics research paper reviews for answers to these questions…not social media posts or message board forums for perpetually underachieving pro football teams (<< Kay Adams cry emoji >>).

Oh, I very much doubt we disagree on the “dark” nature of man…though I’ll spare you a boring theoretical rant on Hobbes versus Rousseau! Any disagreement seems to be coming down to a fundamental difference in prioritization. With my public policy support of abortion up to birth, I’m choosing to prioritize the well-being of one group (pregnant women qualifying for a reasonable exception) at the unfortunate expense of not fully protecting another (fetuses that may be terminated for what we may perceive to be disreputable reasons). You can prioritize the latter instead of the former, but remember that the abortion statistics tell us that the latter group happens to be WAY smaller in number than the former. Moreover, I’ve always been personally uncomfortable telling any woman that she MUST endure the challenging experiences of pregnancy and childbirth, no matter the circumstances, when I, myself, have yet to even experience it. Nevertheless…I’m open to compromise. I could accept Trump’s 16-week limit if his list of exceptions was expanded beyond his proffered 3 and if exception-granting powers were shifted from lawyers and judges to doctors and therapists. Bear in mind that this is my own opinion and is not necessarily representative of typical progressives. I’m a centrist on many issues (crime, immigration, guns, political correctness), open to centrist solutions on others (macroeconomics, foreign policy), and am really only an intransigent pinko commie on a couple (health care, environmentalism). Final thought…since I feel like I inadequately explained myself with “dualities” and what not…let’s try a “proof by contradiction,” of sorts. Let’s apply the sentience standard commonly used in the animal rights community. So legally protected life now begins at the point in which pain can be experienced. For human fetuses, this would be some point between 12 and 24 weeks (i.e., the second trimester). Scientists (and philosophers) still debate the specific point at which this becomes a reality, but let’s say it is clearly delineated for the sake of argument. If this is the case, then what legal right do we have to allow ANY abortion exception (including rape) other than the life of the mother? We allow life termination for self-defense, but not for inconvenience! A similar logical fallacy arises in animal rights discussions. If one accepts the sentience standard, then one MUST outlaw free range farming and recreational hunting in addition to the usual: factory farm living conditions, animal entertainment exploitation, and any method of execution deemed torturous. Did this clarify?? So my argument condensed in one sentence: the concept of “legal dualities” is an unavoidable feature accompanying any action of defining and protecting life in a civil society.

Yes, I’m quite familiar with the EU’s abortion policy. It’s far from optimal for many women, especially the ones geographically stuck in Eastern Europe. You’re not defending the existence of every red state abortion law, are you? You don’t see anything unconstitutional with any of them? Is that the debate path you want to take? The COVID lockdown was (ostensibly) about PUBLIC health. Your refusal to get vaccinated affects everyone else’s health in indoor places. The right to PRIVACY is very much still an inalienable right. How do our abortion decisions affect your personal life? Re-read my court-packing threat. That’s the constitutional crisis we’re facing if 5 or 6 unelected individuals keep pushing their retrograde superstitious nonsense on an entire country of ~340 million. Overturning a federal abortion law that had passed through Congress would be catastrophic for the country’s stability and not just for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts knows this. If your entire argument reduces to Supreme Court fatalism, then you don’t have much of an argument.

No, your Tenth Amendment argument deflection is the strawman. Trump is peddling a 16-week, 3-exception proposal at the federal level. Biden is promising to sign any federal codification of Roe v. Wade/PP v. Casey if re-elected. Judy Chu’s Women’s Health Protection Act (H.R. 12, 2023) passed through the House and was only a handful of votes shy in the Senate. So addressing abortion at the federal level is very much part of the public discourse. The Ninth Amendment argument is what’s pertinent. Many of the red state abortion laws and law proposals we’ve seen since Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) are blatant violations of a woman’s inalienable rights (privacy, life, liberty, pursuits of happiness, etc.). Unless someone here would like to try and defend the merits of 6-week abortion limits, banned contraception, criminalization of abortion, interstate travel restrictions for abortion, etc…?? The right-wing forum silence is deafening… A word to the conservative wise: get abortion figured out at the federal level ASAP, since you guys keep underperforming in elections and are going to lose every public policy you hold dear within a generation’s time. Consider compromise and understand that progressives will have to pack the court if this Christian nationalist version of the Lochner Era persists.

Yes, unequivocally: the prevention of a cluster of cells from developing into a child, when intentionally done against a mother’s consent by another human, should be considered murder. This is my personal answer for what I believe to be true, in principle, as well as what I think should be true legally. But once again…intent can often be hard to prove in a court of law, so I would expect most successful charges to end up less punitive than murder charges…especially when the mother isn’t visibly pregnant. You seem to be looking for a “2+2=4” type of answer on this general topic, Buffarukus, but all that I can offer you is a “wave-particle duality of light” type of answer. Let me try explaining myself this way… 1. A scientific perspective: Human life begins at conception. 2. A philosophical perspective: Human life begins at the first sign of brain activity (~8 weeks into pregnancy). 3. An ideal legal perspective: Human life begins whenever the mother says it does, up to the point of birth. 4. A practical/social contract perspective: Human life begins somewhere in the second trimester, with certain agreed-upon exceptions (essentially the Roe v. Wade standard…but preferably the general European standard of up to 15 weeks or with approvals from medical professionals). 5. A private/personal perspective: Life begins at the nebulous gestational limit where I could no longer live with myself for having had the abortion. I believe all the aforementioned to be true, just like I believe light is both a fundamental particle and a wave. How you analytically treat light depends on the particular circumstances in which you make observations of the light. Similarly, how we approach the definition of human life depends on our frame of reference, with each frame of reference valid in its own domain of inquiry. Let’s try working with another analogy: veganism. I believe it is unethical to treat sentient life like food, unless it’s done out of genuine necessity. Does that mean I think meat consumption should be made illegal? NO!! It is my job, as a vegan activist, to persuade you to willingly choose not to eat meat using whatever perspective (animal rights, environmentalism, healthy diet, etc.) I feel is compelling. I fully understand that eating animal meat is inherently different than, say, cannibalism. I feel the same way about abortion. I can persuade other women to reconsider it: maybe I could tell them about their adoption options, mention examples of successful adults who were almost aborted, or even show them graphic images of aborted fetuses. It is NOT my right, however, to use the legal system to physically force nine months of pregnancy and childbirth on another woman…especially when I don’t know her physical, emotional, financial, career, or family circumstances. The question of life is inherently less clear for a fetus than, say, a crawling toddler. I’m sorry if my responses aren’t helpful. If you’re still uncomfortable with dualities, then try considering this more pragmatic point of view: women important to you in your personal life, encountering situations in which they might resort to seeking out dangerous “back-alley abortions.” How do these thought experiments affect your public policy stances? Because as you probably know by now, we women can be extraordinarily willful…

Ok, there’s a lot here, but I’ll try to address it all (WARNING: likely gonna be super long)… Intent in criminal cases: It’s probably not a good use of our time to analyze every esoteric criminal scenario involving a pregnant woman. Let’s leave that up to prosecutors and defenders to prove or disprove intent. Suffice to say, I think the concept of a fetus potentially having “living person” status in criminal court cases is perfectly valid because, among many other examples, it serves as a deterrent for angry fathers physically assaulting pregnant mothers in order to avoid fatherhood. Father’s rights: While I do empathize greatly with all potential fathers who want to become a parent when the potential mother does not, those who must biologically take on the entire physical burden of pregnancy should also have the entire benefit of choice. I would advise all men to avoid these situations as best as they can by improving communication with their partners and also by elevating their character standards during the partner selection process. Abortion debate: For what it’s worth, I am privately much more on the pro-life spectrum, yet fully in support of legal abortion up to birth as a PUBLIC POLICY. Make sure you understand my distinction. I’m also very much open to second-trimester compromises if the exception-granting process is well-articulated in the abortion legislation. My full reasoning, in a hopefully easy-to-read outline form… 1. The rape exception: No victim of rape, at any point of the pregnancy, should ever be forced against her will to give birth to the rapist’s baby. Arguing otherwise is sociopathic and reveals a gross ignorance of what rape trauma fully entails. And for the sake of logical consistency, the obvious corollary to this belief is that a fetus therefore inherently falls into a category of “maybe not quite a person” because we would never otherwise allow a person to determine the life or death of another if it’s not a situation of self-defense (capital punishment debate notwithstanding). 2. Exception-granting dilemmas: I trust the medical professional community to evaluate abortion exceptions way more than I do the legal system. This is effectively the policy standard of many European countries, where an official note from a doctor or a therapist is sufficient qualification. By circumventing the often arduous and broken American legal system, legally unrestricted abortion access essentially expedites quality service of what is a major medical procedure and prioritizes the mother’s health. And it’s easy to imagine how legal requirements might lead to situations ranging from prohibitive to life-threatening. Abortion doctors will want to avoid risks of criminal prosecution and bankrupting-inducing legal challenges due to their own diagnoses (physical health of the mother, ectopic pregnancies, fetal abnormalities, fetal viability, miscarriages, dilation/curettage procedures, dilation/evacuation procedures, etc.). In cases of rape and i n c e s t, sometimes women and girls must also deal with intimidation from partners or family members, public shaming, prosecutorial red tape, and lengthy trials (in addition to all the emotional trauma) if the legal system gets involved. While it’s highly preferable that these victims charge their culprits with a crime, they also shouldn’t be forced to do so. 3. Other valid exceptions: There are numerous ones outside Trump’s big 3 (rape, i n c e s t, life of mother) that politicians commonly omit from political conversations or haphazardly address in legislation language. Lengthy abortion waiting lists, circumstances of insufficient contraceptive access, cryptic pregnancies from irregular periods or amenorrhea, and mental health crises of the mother are among the ones that I feel demand equally serious consideration. 4. Statistical reality: ~90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester, ~96% are performed by Trump’s proposed deadline of 16 weeks, and virtually all of the remaining ~4% of cases qualify for any of the exceptions I’ve already mentioned above. So it’s blatant pro-life propaganda whenever someone claims the existence of an American scourge of “YOLO…whatevs!” jezebels whimsically having late-term abortions. 5. Political mendacity: Conservatives insisted that five decades of judicial precedent wouldn’t be overturned, but then Roe v. Wade was overturned and celebrated. They’ve argued that abortion should be a decision left up to the states, and now they’re pushing a federal ban. Trump reneges on his public statements that female abortion seekers should face “some form of criminal punishment,” but then he glad-hands with far-right donors and creepy Christian nationalists like Mike Johnson. Since Trump is not legally bound to his speciously “centrist” legislation proposal on the campaign trail, Democrats and independents should not trust him to handle this topic in good faith. 6. Moral prioritization hierarchies: I don’t see conservatives too concerned about, say, “welfare babies” or school shooting victims or Gazan children or any fetus, for that matter, immediately after birth. At a very primitive and subconscious level, the pro-life movement is about the control of female sexual autonomy and not about any principled respect for innocent life. People of my ilk, meanwhile, prioritize mothers and the autonomously living.

I’m not a legal expert, but I assume intent is everything. If intent can be proven in a court of law, then case resolution is typically a fast formality. If you can prove the assailant intended to terminate the fetus and that the mother intended to carry the fetus to birth, then I believe that crime is considered unequivocally murder. And if you’re asking me whether I personally agree with that logic, then my answer is “yes.” Now if you’re asking me whether I believe a mother’s intent to give birth is the only factor that should bestow a fetus “life” status, in the legal (i.e., not scientific or philosophical) sense of the word, then my answer is also “yes.” Stated another way, I do support legal abortion theoretically up to birth. You explicitly said you’re not looking for a debate, so I won’t go any further. I’ve defended my abortion stance a few times before in this forum, however, and will do it again if anyone wants me to do so? It’s an important topic and one that is unfortunately very poorly debated here.

They are 4-16-4 following a win (1-9-1 at home, 3-7-3 away) and 20-10 following a loss (11-6 at home, 9-4 away). This consistent inconsistency, to me, is further evidence of a coaching staff and a veteran leadership core (namely: Okposo and Girgensons) that need to be replaced this offseason. However…I’m not nearly as depressed as most Sabres fans are regarding the future. Levi, UPL, Dahlin, Power, Thompson, Cozens, Mitts, Quinn, Peterka, Tuch, and Benson are still a promising young core. Samuelsson, Jokiharju, Ryan Johnson, Krebs, and Greenway are still intriguing complementary pieces. Savoie, Kulich, Ostlund, Rosen, Wahlberg, Poltapov, Strbak, and Novikov are still quality prospects. I just named…24 people! So yeah…I refuse to wallow in misery. 13 straight seasons without playoffs is horrible, but it can end at 13 with the right head coach and a few gritty vets who know how much hard work it takes to succeed in the NHL.

Your data precision demands are nonsensical. We do lose temporal resolution and eventually all sense of WEATHER as we continue looking back in time, but we still have enough detail of the global CLIMATE to see all its pertinent trends. What happens is that many different sources of climate evidence (ice core air bubbles, tree rings, oceanic/terrestrial sediments, coral reefs, sea sponges, glacial isotope ratios, isotope ratios in flora/fauna/microorganism fossils, etc.) obtained from many different locations on the earth converge and overlap to tell approximately the same climate story. This data congruence is what gives climatologists their confidence. New data continues coming in and continues refining the records, but so far the holistic climate paradigm has yet to be even remotely perturbed…let alone overturned. I still can’t tell from your posts if you properly understand the difference between weather and climate?? Think back to that scatterplot of temperature (vertical axis, in degrees Celsius) versus time (horizontal axis, in years). Each dot represents an annual global mean surface temperature (simply constructed like this: take one location, average its temperature over every day and night of every season in a year, do the same for many other evenly distributed locations across the earth, and then find the average of all these averages). Think of this dot as a global WEATHER average for each year. So the dot-to-dot connecting lines represent the changing WEATHER, while the scatterplot’s nonlinear regression line fit is the changing CLIMATE. The maxes and mins of the weather oscillations can be severe and can be completely natural in origin (solar activity variation, wildfires, volcanoes, ocean current variation, etc.). We mostly care about the trajectory of the nonlinear regression line (representing earth’s input/output energy balance), which changes comparatively slower. Some of the pre-Industrial Revolution sources of climate evidence that I listed above can also provide seasonal weather data, but aside from interesting max/min results, it’s each of their climate regression lines we care most about because these are modeling the trapped energy from the sun. And as they say: if all these regression lines fit, you must not quit (climate science)!! While we’re thinking graphically…think about another important scatterplot: carbon dioxide (vertical axis, in ppm…parts-per-million) versus time (horizontal axis, in years). Thanks to all those ice core air bubbles, we have really good data that goes back 750k+ years. We see nothing above 300 ppm in the entirety of the previous 750k years, ~280 ppm in 1750, then a crossing of 350 ppm in the late 1980’s, and a crossing of 420 ppm last year. So that’s a very sudden and steep incline in this plot to match the sudden and steep incline of the regression line in the aforementioned temperature plot. When you overlay these data plots that can go back hundreds of thousands of years, you see temperature lagging slightly behind carbon dioxide emission in an apparent correlated relationship. Based on our knowledge of greenhouse gases (known since the mid-1800’s), it makes sense that this relationship is causal and behaviorally representative of a positive climate feedback loop. But if you have any different explanation of the most recent spikes in these plots, please let us know! L Ron, Tibsy, and I met in a dark smoke-filled room and decided to relax the standard of a peer-reviewed scientific research paper. Just give us ONE idea of what’s happening in these plots that is not an anthropogenic explanation. If you don’t have a persuasive theory of your own, then don’t blame us if we choose to stick with the scientific consensus.

‘Tis true. Bills Mafia’s best and drunkest were sacrifices to The Pit. But it was a far, far better thing that they did than we have ever done. It was a far, far better rest that they went to than we have ever known. ‘Twas surely a baffling decree of the Pro Football Gods of Buffalo, opaque as they sometimes appear to us mortals, as it left behind only the teetotalers and AA members and designated drivers and other assorted behavioral degenerates. Perhaps this was how Highmark tailgating was supposed to end, not with an inebriated bang but rather a sober whisper? Perhaps not. The Pit, that which paints a rather exquisitely vaginal visage on the Orchard Park landscape, shall soon give birth to a new generation of outdoor pro football in Western New York. And those cad-like Pro Football Gods of Buffalo, with their own whispering winds off the curiously Billdo-shaped Lake Erie, whisper more than sweet nothings and desultory Lombardi promises into the ears of ruddy throngs of despondent Bills Mafia soldatos. “Curses thee! Our drunken dreams shall be never more,” quoth the soldatos toward the sky after yet another embarrassing home playoff loss. Oh, but witness those deified Lake Erie winds traverse the lips of The Pit, filling its internal contours, and then engorging the air with debris…our fatherly fertilizers of hope, with a dirty dusty harbinger of what is to come! Hope for new drunkards, of new drinking experiences, in new parking lots??? Yes, indeed, I dare say! New opportunities to vomit all over one’s jersey. To saturate one’s own Zubaz pants with one’s own urine. To verbally chastise an opposing fan. To then physically assault that same fan. To indiscreetly perform a special service between two parked cars for a rather unexceptional Kiko Alonso jersey. And as a late morning pre-kickoff coup de grace, to then collapse headfirst into a burning folding table. Same batsh!t decadence. Different batsh!t parking lot, at least. <<< Narrator: a tipsy ComradeKayAdams gently lays down her glass of not quite Merlot on the coffee table. She sighs and then PASSES THE F%*K OUT on this boring Sunday afternoon. Her outstretched arm slowly graces a small nearby collection of classic literature books, plus a grocery store romance novel embarrassingly purchased on a whim, all of which are partly concealed with Mel Kiper scouting report printouts. Seven more months until football season… >>>

<< Patrick Stewart facepalm meme >> Ugh…this sub-forum…I swear… Your Mark Kaufman article made NO SUCH CLAIM regarding the planet’s entire climate history! The domain of inquiry was only restricted to the most recent 150 years since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The coldest recorded years are clustered around the beginning of the time domain, while the hottest recorded years are clustered around the end of the time domain. If the planet wasn’t systematically warming, we might expect a more even and random distribution. Your Daily Mail article (LOL…) is 12 years old. I see how conveniently omitting data from the most recent decade helps further your flimsy narrative. When we seek out the facts for ourselves, as you insisted, we find that global annual mean surface temperatures have risen 0.63 degrees Celsius between 1880 and 1997, another 0.19 degrees Celsius between 1997 and 2012, and then a whopping 0.52 degrees Celsius between 2012 and last year. So things seem “relatively” more stable between 1997 and 2012 when you zoom into the scatterplot of temperature versus time, but then you can see the obvious positive correlation and a steep imaginary regression line when you zoom out between 1880 and last year. Statistical thermodynamic variation can explain the localized scatterplot bumps, but so far only an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases is scientifically able to explain the underlying regression line pattern that we see. What’s so amusing, L Ron, is that there ARE peer-reviewed scientific research papers challenging anthropogenic climate change! Right-wing denialists are simply too lazy to seek them out in the more obscure science journals. The papers tend to be poorly cited, however, and most have already been debunked. Occasionally you’ll still see a tired conspiracy claim (urban heat islands, underwater volcanoes, etc.) that was derived from one of these papers and which makes a recycled return to various right-wing arenas of dastardly, dullardly, denialist discourse (such as this sub-forum!). Another amusing observation to me is the manner in which climate conspiracists believe actual science is performed. It’s practically impossible for blatantly poor/falsified science to persist in an international science community for multiple decades. You can have slowed scientific progress from groupthink, of course, but not nearly to the extent that the conspiracists postulate. What also greatly complicates the right-wing climate conspiracy is the fact that the global community of civil engineers and naval military personnel, among many other occupations, depend heavily on accurate climate data and climate forecasting to do their jobs. I also want to address climate modeling because I’m seeing a lot of misinformed opinions on them here. Since I’m running out of time this morning, I’ll have to be super brief: 1. Climate modeling validity: computational science has become ubiquitous throughout all STEM fields (and other fields too). It’s just another tool, like statistics or math or any type of scientific diagnostic equipment. Any subject that deals with physics and differential equations and things like feedback control systems (i.e., like climatology) is probably going to make heavy use of this tool. Science experimentalists and science theorists alike use computer modeling. Probably the most famous example of computer modeling success: particle physics phenomenologists using it to help predict and discover new fundamental particles in accelerators. 2. Climate model accuracy: Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS is a great first read on this issue, certainly better than any random pro football message board political sub-forum user. 3. Difference between weather modeling and climate modeling: this is actually a very good question raised from the skeptical crowd! It’s nearly possible to explain properly without multiple paragraphs, but I can say that one big reason why climate modeling has better potential for accuracy than weather modeling is due to the differences in objectives. The former must only worry about thermodynamic state averages, while the latter demands a comparatively high degree of temporally dependent thermodynamic precision despite the inherently chaotic nature of statistical mechanics and fluid mechanics. Another big reason is the large discrepancy between the number of restraining boundary conditions/initial value conditions available for application to each respective model’s governing set of equations. There are also major differences in the input variables, the characterizing physics equations, data sizes, etc… Ugh…is this paragraph making sense to anyone?? Meh…eff it. Hit “submit,” Kay, aaaaand...she’s out.

With all due respect, Sherpa, you still didn’t answer my questions. I’ll post them again here: 1. Once Hamas is sufficiently “defeated,” does Israel plan on helping the Palestinians rebuild their homes and return to their normal daily lives in Gaza? And if Israel doesn’t cooperate in doing so, would you consider that a grievous problem? 2. What are Israel’s short-term and long-term plans for ensuring that the humanitarian needs (food, water, shelter, health care, etc.) of Gazans are met, particularly as they are confined in Rafah? I’m making a strong claim that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza, but I’m also trying to give you every opportunity to refute such a claim. I already explained why I chose my words in a previous post. I do agree with you, however, on the importance of language precision. That is why I’m amending my “carpet bombing” phrase to a more Bidenesque “over-the-top bombing” phrase. International humanitarian organizations agree with me on the accuracy of this characterization. The IDF doesn’t, of course, but they’re not exactly impartial here. Surely you are aware of the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism?? And while we’re playing around with labels…can I call anyone not empathetic to the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Gazans a sociopath and an Islamophobe?

Oh, no offense taken. I’m not a military expert. But can you address the rest of my post? You seem to be dodging my concerns of ethnic cleansing and genocide. You come across as someone disturbingly comfortable with the official war crime of collective punishment. Or perhaps I’m being unfair with that accusation?? This is your opportunity to clarify your stance on the Gazan plight. Would you be more comfortable with the phrase, “over-the-top bombing,” Pokey-balls??

If you look at current bombed building maps of Gaza, you’ll see that Jabalia and Gaza City and Khan Yunis are completely saturated with red (when each tiny red dot depicts a bombed building). Rafah is already rapidly getting to that same saturation state. From a current bird’s-eye view, the cumulative damage resembles carpet bombing and not the consequences of tactical warfare. The displaced Gazan residents have nothing to return to…which begs the question: what is the plan for them once this conflict is resolved? Is Israel going to rebuild their homes?? Or will they have to live somewhere else? Similarly, as the assault on Rafah advances and UNWRA suspensions persist, what is to be done regarding the short-term and long-term food/water/clothing/shelter/health care needs of Gazans? About 2 million Palestinians live in Gaza. I’m not familiar with any argument where the Gazan population of Palestinians isn’t large enough to qualify as “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide.” I’m using the same definitions of these words as the United Nations.

But again…what does it mean to “eliminate Hamas,” exactly? Is there a list of top names whom the IDF needs to assassinate? A percentage of members from some official Hamas roster that need to be killed? And are these IDF tactics on the urban Gaza battlefield anything close to optimal?? Both the number (30,500+) and the percentage (~87%) of civilian casualties are ridiculously high (source: Euro-Med HRM, February 3 report). Many of the hostages have even perished due to the carpet bombing. And what is this lengthy siege on Gaza doing for future Hamas recruitment?? Or for the long-term security of Israeli citizens abroad, for that matter? Or for Israel’s diplomatic standing in the world? Or for their economic vitality? So it’s clearly in the best interest of Israel to bring this conflict to a swift conclusion. However, it’s also difficult to bring a mission to a conclusion if the mission objectives aren’t clearly defined! Then again…maybe the mission objectives were clear all along? Maybe the intent was land seizure and eventual Israeli citizen settlement of Gaza, with the hope that the concerned international community would take in all the Palestinian refugees? None of you here, after all, challenged me on my accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Please stop with these ridiculous insinuations of anti-Semitism. They are never get-out-of-jail-free cards for ethnic cleansing and genocide. The purpose of protesting is to effect change. What good does protesting Putin do? Do you think he cares what the outside world thinks? The United States and Israel are democracies that, in theory at least, are responsive to their respective citizenry (in practice, admittedly, the U.S. functions as a corporate oligarchy while Israel is a satellite state of American imperialism that helps it maintain Middle Eastern hegemony).

THANK YOU. I’ve requested the same from them throughout the past few years: ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific research paper, published since the late 1980’s, that does either of the following: 1. Contradicts the observed planetary warming phenomena. 2. Explains the observed planetary warming phenomena with any primary mechanism other than the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm. Their collective response? Crickets. But the offer still stands! I will look up the paper, read it over a weekend, and then get back to PPP to carefully explain why their paper of persuasion is total garbage (if the paper’s focus is on climate system computational models, then I’ll likely need at least an additional weekend to get access to and delve into some of the weeds of the code). Regarding allegedly poor timeline predictions: keep in mind that anthropogenic climate change denialists like to misattribute reckless claims to climate scientists, when those claims actually came from celebrities or politicians. When climate scientists speak in terms of predictive ranges with a possible minimum and a possible maximum, denialists will commonly grab the most sensationalistic limit and call it a firm prediction without any scientific context. When it comes to climate computational models that attempt to predict the future, this “scientific context” typically comes in the form of inherent uncertainty from factors like cloud cover or worldwide legislative measures that reduce various air pollutants. The climate models favored by NASA GISS, unfortunately, have been very accurate since the 1990’s. Scanning the last few pages of this thread…ugh…it’s more of the usual right-wing lunacy that keeps popping up…not understanding the difference between weather and climate, not understanding why warmer climates equate to greater weather variation, equating an established science of well over half a century with the real-time scientific predictions of an emerging pandemic…even the anthropogenic nature of the Holocene epoch extinction is apparently a liberal conspiracy…WTF…our country’s middle school science program is failing us!! Irv!! It used to say “Moderator” for your profile location. Did they take away your PPP moderating powers??!! Effing COMMUNISTS.