Muda69

And I say it is the case. For those children over 16 and the long struggling teachers who have been complaining incessantly that they should be a the current front of the vaccine line.

Gregg Doyel chimes in: IU gambled, lost on Archie Miller. No more gambles. Get a sure thing. You know his name. https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-doyel/2021/03/15/iu-basketball-fired-archie-miller-get-star-like-brad-stevens-tony-bennett/4703674001/ (Note: Article is behind a paywall)

Greg Lansing is looking for a job. Just saying.....................

FTA: Looks like the rich IU alum's easily coughed up the $10.3 million needed to buy out Mr. Miller's contract.

He is the savior. Right?

https://mises.org/wire/mmt-fake-economics MMT is a giant house of cards that if the U.S. continues as it's policy will further bankrupt the country and impoverish mostly all of us. Is this the future we want for our children and grandchildren?

The CDC Thinks 2-Year-Olds Should Wear Masks in Schools, Even If Everyone Else Is Vaccinated https://reason.com/2021/03/15/the-cdc-thinks-2-year-olds-should-wear-masks-in-schools-even-if-everyone-else-is-vaccinated/ The total government indoctrination of the next generation of our children is nearly complete.

Oh, Now You Have to Show ID https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/oh-now-you-have-to-show-id/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second Identification to prove that people are in the right jurisdiction? Funny how this works, when a liberal government is trying to control something it actually cares about. This comes just as congressional Democrats are trying to abolish state voter-identification requirements for in-person and absentee voting and progressives are calling it racist voter suppression to ask voters to cast ballots in their own precinct. We are endlessly told that asking for ID scares people away just as surely as turning fire hoses on them. What if it turns out that this is actually just a routine way for government to verify that it is dealing with people who are entitled to what they are trying to do? The hypocrisy is delicious, if not unexpected.

Yep, and of course the phrase "close relative" is open to interpretation is it not? Let's say my elderly uncle, who I have been very close with for decades, decides he wants to give me one of his shotguns. Is that "close" enough to avoid this regulation?

Just say NO! to either of these retreads.

https://reason.com/2021/03/12/the-house-just-approved-two-background-check-bills-that-would-make-an-unfair-irrational-gun-policy-even-worse/ Yet another 2nd Amendment "solution" looking for an actual problem.

Lying about what exactly?

Ah yes, it's "free". I forgot that that the government gives out "free" things.

I'm not.

The Two-Pronged Assault on American Democracy https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/the-two-pronged-assault-on-american-democracy/ Nasty stuff, but for good reason, at least from the Democrats’ perspective: If this travesty becomes law, the Republican Party’s electoral goose is cooked. On deck for the stove: our principles. There is no certainty to this outcome, though, and the jihad is clearly at odds with the views of most Americans. Some evidence: On the heels of the 2020 elections, Scott Rasmussen surveyed 1,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania, who knew a thing or two about ballot chaos, and found these overwhelming numbers: HEP founder Jason Snead wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal that these kinds of guidelines, which are the province of state legislatures, so explains our Constitution, are exactly what H.R. 1 would blow up. Comparing Pennsylvania, where ballot-counters in Philadelphia took two weeks to count 700,000 ballots, to Florida, once the hanging-chad laughingstock of election tabulating, where all votes were counted (accurately!) on Election Night in 2020, Snead says that Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s pet bill The second prong — dicier, but still quite dangerous — is the leftist campaign to gut America’s election system, to be accomplished by eviscerating the Electoral College. It goes by the innocuous-sounding National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (and naturally has the enthusiastic support of major liberal editorialists). Though it lacks congressional approval (a requirement stipulated on that parchment kept in the National Archives), the Compact pinkie-swears that its member states agree to designate their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate earning the most votes nationwide; i.e., not necessarily to the candidate who prevailed among that state’s voters. (Asking for a friend: Why do we have states?) From the Compact: This shenanigan gets activated when enough states — representing over 270 electoral votes — become parties to the Compact. Currently, 15 states, along with the District of Columbia, accounting for a combined 196 Electoral College votes, have passed laws supporting the national popular vote (the most recent was in Colorado last November, when voters approved a Proposition 113 by a 52-to-48 percent margin). This is a new but more nefarious take on an old desire for direct election of the president. It would be our law, but for one man. In 1970, with strong bipartisan support (including that of President Nixon), the Senate (the House had given its overwhelming support the previous year) was on the cusp of voting on, and possibly for, the legislation, to be sent to the states for expected ratification. Here came the freight train. But a report by the late Michael Uhlmann, then a young aide to Senator James Buckley, derailed it. His epic and thorough defense of the Electoral College, and why its demise would deeply wound the republic, proved so influential that it persuaded some senators (key to this was Eugene McCarthy) to flip-flop. The expected amendment vote never happened. The Constitution remained as written. On Uhlmann’s death, National Review friend Chris DeMuth recounted how that defense — better known as the Uhlmann Report (in fact, it was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s “Minority Report” on the proposed amendment) — indeed saved America. (DeMuth’s essay, published in the most recent issue of National Affairs, is a must-read.) America still needs saving. The arguments made by Uhlmann in 1970 — echoed more recently in NR by colleagues such as David Harsanyi (Electoral College: A Defense), Dan McLaughlin (What the Electoral College Saves Us From), and Michael Brendan Dougherty (Our Shared Electoral College), amongst others — are evidence that the intellectual battle is far from over. And then there is the trench warfare. In the trenches, opposing the threat of NPV, is Save Our States. Actually, it has been there for over a decade, created after Maryland became the initial NPV Compact member in 2007, and has increased its efforts as the Electoral College trashers have gained more traction. It may be a David-Goliath challenge, but there are stones to be slung by SOS, such as its excellent 2020 documentary, Safeguard: An Electoral College Story, a persuasive effort to combat the NPV crusade. Here’s the trailer: Among its many resources, SOS offers a variety of handouts on NPV-related topics (such as how an NPV would turn America’s urban-rural divide into an abyss). But one handout that proves timely keys in on the Left’s two-pronged attack on American elections: An enacted NPV, combined with an H.R. 1–gutting of state control of election integrity, makes for a toxic brew: This fight may indeed be that one, rightly feared, that fits the billing — “for all the marbles.” The one whose outcome could mean the fundamental redefining of America, and an end to its 244-year experiment. By perverting elections, by diminishing the legal rights of states and local authorities to maintain control and battle fraud, by loosening voter-ID integrity and other critical confines (such as when an election can take place, and where and how, who can and can’t handle absentee ballots, and much more), what the Left will accomplish is much more sinister. It will reconfigure and redefine just what is citizenship and who are “the governed.” Oh, you will indeed be governed. But good luck in trying to give your “consent.”

https://spectator.org/systemic-racism-people-of-color/ Wise words.

More federal PRO act nonsense: https://reason.com/2021/03/11/californians-rejected-a-harsh-law-that-destroyed-freelance-jobs-congress-is-trying-to-make-it-federal-law/ So, to summarize, employers forcing workers to sit through meetings to discourage union organizing is bad and must be blocked by federal law. But forcing workers to pay dues to labor unions against their will is good and should be encouraged by federal law, even if state laws must be subverted to do so.

Farmers react to billions in COVID-19 relief bill for Black farmers: 'Where did common sense go?': https://www.foxnews.com/politics/farmers-covid-debt-relief-bill-black-billion

Stop Trying To Create a Zero-Risk Society https://reason.com/2021/03/11/stop-trying-to-create-a-zero-risk-society-covid-19/ Those who view freedom and personal responsibility as sacrosanct principles realize that "a zero-risk society" is anathema to those two principles. And it is our children and grandchildren who will bear the brunt of a 300 percent debt-to-gdp future. Is that what we as Americans want to saddle them with?

Supposedly.

8 and 10-Year-Old Escorted Home by Firefighters After Neighbors Report Unsupervised Kids https://reason.com/2021/03/10/firefighters-unsupervised-kids-escorted-home-free-range-daniel-hansen/ Here! Here! I hope all these bill pass their respective state legislatures. Under the current environment my parents would have spent numerous stints in prison for the amount of times I was allowed to be out and about "unsupervised".

Biden Prepares to Strip College Students of Due-Process Rights https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/biden-prepares-to-strip-college-students-of-due-process-rights/

History. Mixing the legislative and judicial branches like that is not a good idea, IMHO. And again, the federal government should have no business deciding how a state decides what geographical areas its representatives represent. Without geographical districts who exactly would a member of the house of representatives represent? A call comes in from a state citizen and then a wheel is spun to decide what representative's office takes the call?

Biden Justice Department Sides Against Free Speech Advocates in Big First Amendment Case https://reason.com/2021/03/08/biden-justice-department-sides-against-free-speech-advocates-in-big-first-amendment-case/#comments As one of the comments to this story posits: "The basic premise of the Biden administration is that students in government schools have no freedom to speak in any way that reflects poorly on government schools, which is really just a necessary precursor for it to argue in the future that nobody has the right to criticize the government at all. Authoritarian incrementalism. Nobody that has been paying attention should be surprised by any of these positions." I'm not surprised at all.

So the IU student section chants that during a game vs. Eastern Michigan? And what exactly is the connection of "Hoosier Daddy" to Purdue University? I just don't find "Hoosier Daddy" the kind of pejorative that "IU Sucks" is.