Muda69

According to gonzo apparently so. lol, your ignorance of libertarianism knows no bounds.

https://mises.org/wire/welfare-payments-and-foreign-policy-fears-are-only-things-holding-america-together And the U.S regime is definitely bankrupt. Thanks Boomers.

I wasn't aware that Mr. Rokita was a member of the Libertarian political party.

I agree with your basic sentiment about Mr. Rokita. I have never voted for the man, have you?

So being critical of an educational theory based on "feelings" makes one a fundamentalist Christian. Got it. Better that than an avowed socialist. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/compulsory-education-social-control

Ahh, SEL. Government's attempt to mandate what students should think and feel. https://nancyebailey.com/2018/03/19/social-emotional-learning-the-dark-side/ https://www.theadvocates.org/2019/03/social-emotional-learning-is-bad-news-for-educators-and-families/ https://pioneerinstitute.org/featured/new-study-finds-multiple-problems-with-push-for-social-emotional-learning-in-k-12-education/ https://www.frc.org/events/programming-our-children-the-social-engineering-agenda-of-social-emotional-learning https://www.theepochtimes.com/trading-academics-for-far-left-social-emotional-learning_3466722.html https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/emotional-learning-will-be-the-downfall-of-society

A Black Market in COVID-19 Vaccination Cards Was Inevitable https://reason.com/2021/08/11/a-black-market-in-covid-19-vaccination-cards-was-inevitable/

Links to new articles please.

Wonder what job he'll get in the Biden administration............... Also did he just get himself off the hook for mass murder?

ACLU (California) on the Bill Restricting Speech Outside Vaccination Sites https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/09/aclu-california-on-the-bill-restricting-speech-outside-vaccination-sites/ I opined that this would be clearly unconstitutional, for two reasons: [1.] The First Amendment protects speech on public sidewalks, including offering leaflets, displaying signs, or conveying oral messages to people who haven't "consen[ted]" (whether because they haven't thought about the matter, or even if they affirmatively don't want to see the sign or hear the message). In Hill v. Colorado (2000), the Court did uphold a restriction on "'knowingly approach[ing]' within eight feet of another person [near a medical facility], without that person's consent, 'for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person.'" But the majority stressed that this stemmed from 8 feet being such a short distance: Thirty feet, on the other hand, is very far from a "normal conversation distance"; and in McCullen v. Coakley (2014), the Court struck down a 35-foot buffer zone outside a clinic in part because [2.] On top of that, Hill stressed that the 8-foot no-approach zone was content-neutral (even though it mostly affected anti-abortion protests, given that it was limited to speech outside medical facilities). The California bill is expressly limited to speech "in connection with any vaccination services"—someone approaching people to hand out leaflets in connection with a labor dispute wouldn't be covered by the law, while someone approaching people to hand out leaflets in connection with vaccination would be. Such subject-matter restrictions are unconstitutional, see, e.g., Carey v. Brown (1981) (holding that a residential picketing ban that applied only to nonlabor picketing was unconstitutionally content-based); Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) (holding that a sign ordinance that treated political signs, ideological signs, and signs giving directions to certain events differently was unconstitutionally content-based). Now here's the development: Rachel Bluth (California Health Online) wrote about this on Friday, and she quoted, among others, Kevin Baker of ACLU California Action (a collaborative project of the ACLU California affiliates): I e-mailed Baker to verify his position (and alluding to my contrary position) and got this reply: I have to say that I don't see how the ACLU's view can be correct, for the two reasons I describe (that it's much broader than the 8-foot bubble upheld in Hill, and that it's content-based); but I thought I'd note the ACLU's perspective. The ACLU has gone off the rails. Again.

Oregon governor signs bill suspending math, reading proficiency requirements for HS graduates: https://www.foxnews.com/us/oregon-governor-signs-bill-suspending-math-reading-proficiency-requirements-for-hs-graduates Government education: A huge race to the bottom. Thank goodness for private education and school choice.

The Culture War In Four Minutes https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gonzo-transgender-the-culture-war-in-four-minutes/

For the children, of course: https://reason.com/2021/08/06/apple-will-start-checking-your-messages-for-dick-picks/ EFF notes that "mission creep" is already taking place. The tech used to scan child pornographic images is being used to create a database of what is defined as "terrorist" content so that it can be blocked from being published online. EFF notes that social media platforms have been, intentionally or not, flagging and removing critical content that has misclassified any sort of documentation of violence as "terrorism." If the American government attempted to implement scanning systems like this, it would most certainly be understood as an unconstitutional warrantless search. It would violate the Fourth Amendment for the U.S. to scan all our images as we share them to make sure, in advance, they aren't pornographic. Apple, of course, is a private company and so we do not have the same protections with the data we provide to them. We also know that countries across the world, including the United States, England, and Australia, have been constantly flogging this fear of child pornography as an excuse to try to pressure companies like Apple to compromise our privacy in ways that would probably be ruled illegal if the government itself did it. Apple seems to have blinked here, and it's unfortunate. This is most certainly a "camel's nose under the tent" moment. What Apple's doing now is designed to appear unobjectionable. But it's creating a framework for serious abuse of surveillance tools down the road. Yes it surely is. But I guess if you don't have anything incriminating on your Apple device you have nothing to fear, right?

Why yes Dante. One bridge is worth trillions of taxpayers dollars. And since this a federal interstate bridge then it should fall under the responsibility of the federal government to fix, where the vast majority of other roads, bridges, etc. should be the responsibility of the states.

Highways and Bridges Are Not Crumbling https://reason.com/2021/08/05/highways-and-bridges-are-not-crumbling/ Bingo. This 'infrastructure' bill is yet another super-sized serving of pork to the states, and reelection fodder for the uni-party politicians who support it.

These "proof of vaccination" mandates are a very slippery slope. Make no mistake about it. The "proof of vaccination" mandate doesn't merely threaten another shutdown, it threatens to implement a Chinese-style social credit system. The precedent they are aiming at is this: if your name isn't in the master database of the vaxxed, you won't be allowed to transact in any kind of brick-and-mortar business or enter any access-controlled venue. Once the people are trained to go along with such a system, the requirements will expand. It will all be done in the name of public health of course. Maybe you'll have to show proof that your drug and alcohol test is clean. Maybe you'll have to show proof that you've received your anti-racism training. Maybe you'll need proof that you don't have any mental health issues related to "extremist" political tendencies or websites that spread "misinformation" (like reason.com). Perhaps you won't even know what your official status is as it is updated, since you'll only see an incomprehensible QR code on your smartphone--but the internet-connected scanner will be able to figure it out and inform some obedient moron whether you pass or not. Then you'll realize that you are an unperson but won't quite know why, just like all the people who have been purged from social media lately.

I agree with primarily these statements in the article:

How long before the world of NIL comes to a high school near you? After all if a good chunk of paying fans are coming to Center Grove games to watch young Mr. Curry and young Mr. Jackson perform gridiron miracles shouldn't they see a percentage of the spoils?

You can't diss young Mr. Ewers wanting to maximize his earning potential while he can. Sounds like a good little capitalist to me.

New York City Adopts Vaccine Passports https://reason.com/2021/08/03/new-york-city-adopts-vaccine-passports/ Well, I won't be visiting New York City anytime soon. And yes, I am fully vaccinated. Have been since late May.

Federal Court In Texas Goes Woke https://www.theamericanconservative.com/state-of-the-union/federal-court-in-texas-goes-woke/ As of publication, the post is still up on the official website of the Court. You can access it here. We’ve reached the point in the woke religion where it’s no longer enough for our civil institutions to promote diversity. Doing so is now explicitly defined as the essential function of a U.S. District Court. The second sentence of the notice is nearly as remarkable. One would hope that a “community’s belief” [presumably in the efficacy of the justice system, although the belief’s object is conspicuously left undefined] would be heightened by justice dispensed with perfect impartiality. In other words, a Court that dispenses justice without regard to the racial, ethnic, and gender “diversity” of the community is the only Court worthy of trust. Our country’s history is littered with foreboding examples of a justice system that dispensed justice with far too much regard for the racial and ethnic make-up of defendants. Why is the woke Left seeking to return to a similar system? One genuinely fears where this could lead. Lady Justice, a common symbol on courthouses throughout America and the broader West, has been depicted wearing a blindfold since at least the 16thcentury. Think about that: so central is the idea of impartiality to a functioning judicial system that a blindfold has become ingrained in the system’s marquee symbol. But now, not only is impartiality apparently obsolete, it’s antithetical to the very function of the court. After all, Lady Justice would be hard-pressed to “create diversity” blindfolded. It’s worth noting, too, that this isn’t the historically progressive 9thCircuit Court in San Francisco. This is a District Court in Waco, the heart of Texas, and home of Baptist Baylor University. Indeed, McLennan County, of which Waco is the county seat, voted for Trump 60-37% in 2020. It hasn’t gone for a Democrat in a presidential election since 1976. Notices like this from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas are a reminder that for all the many, “conservative” judges appointed in the Trump administration, our woke ruling class persists unabated. Our country’s elite institutions, the gatekeepers to power in every sector of our society, demand complete obedience to the woke agenda. And they enforce it unceasingly. In this light, perhaps it’s not surprising that the MAGA rioters from January 2021 and the BLM rioters from June 2020 have met very different fates in our legal system. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s hierarchy. No matter which president appoints the judges, the justice system moves forward, seeking to fulfill its “essential function” of “creating and maintaining diversity.” It's distressing to see this occurring in our federal justice system.

IIRC the IHSAA enacted a football mercy rule in 2019: https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/sports/high-school/2019/05/01/ihsaa-adopts-mercy-rule-for-football-contests/46498821/ The last "Let's run up the score" spreadsheet I can find on my home desktop and laptop PC's is from 2016, the earliest from 2011. So much guess of doing it for 4-6 years was correct. You are batting .000 so far today FB16. Better quit while you are behind the count.

I've never claimed or wanted to be anything of the kind. It's individuals like you who apply such labels to other individuals who espouse strong opinions, especially opinions you disagree with.