Muda69

https://medium.com/@jonathanusa/everything-you-know-about-the-civil-war-is-wrong-9e94f0118269 Money and power.

https://deadspin.com/last-chance-u-coach-who-told-german-player-im-your-new-1832876183 Let he who hasn’t declared himself a new Hitler cast the first stone. This show and the morons it features just keep on giving.......................

I was thinking they need to hire someone to wipe down the touchscreens with a disinfectant after every transaction...............................

The Frankfort McDonald's has had the touchscreen ordering for almost a years now. Earlier this month I was down in Nashville, Indiana. Their McDonald's also has the touchscreens.

In somewhat related news: Michigan May Stop Police From Seizing Property Without Getting a Conviction First: http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/26/michigan-may-stop-police-from-seizing-pr Welcome news. I hope this legislation passes.

But, but what about REEFER MADNESS!?!?!?! Won't legions of crazed, drugged seeking millennials raid Indiana hemp fields in the dead of night, in search of the demon weed?

That's a joke, right?

https://mises.org/wire/draft-should-be-abolished-everyone-—-not-just-women We’re likely to hear a lot about how “fairness” and egalitarianism requires an expansion of the Selective Service System. But those claims are all distractions from the central issue here, which is the state’s power over the citizen. After all, if women want to go help terrorist groups in Syria (which is what the US is doing there), they are free to volunteer. Whether or not women can be directly involved in blowing up revelers at Afghani weddings is a completely separate issue from conscription and the Selective Service. Besides, if fairness is a concern, there’s an easy way to achieve fairness on this issue: abolish the Selective Service for everybody. It’s as easy as that. It wouldn’t even cost a dime of taxpayer money. Simply shred the records, fire everyone who works for Selective Service, and lease out the office space to organizations that do something useful. Then, we won’t have to hear anything about “discrimination” or the alleged sexism implicit in a policy that outrageously neglects to force women to work for the government against their will. Some who want to expand Selective Service for egalitarian reasons are claiming that it’s all just symbolic anyway, because the draft “will never happen.” “The US hasn’t had the draft since the early 1970s,” one columnist loftily intoned as if that were evidence that the draft could never return. Wow, the 1970s? Did they even have electric lights back then? Moreover, it’s a mistake to think that the draft could never return because people would overwhelmingly oppose people being forced into combat. Even if that is the case, there is no reason at all why conscription could not be used to draft people for non-combat positions. After all, only a very small portion of the military ever sees combat. The vast majority of soldiers are involved in logistics, transportation, and desk jobs such as computer programming. According to one report sponsored by the Naval Postgraduate School, "only 17% [of active-duty military personnel] are identified as performing combat specialties."1 Long gone are the days of pouring fresh conscripts into fox holes with little more than a rifle and a shovel. Only a small portion of military deaths occur in combat. Most deaths in the military are due to accidents. Additionally, there is no reason that Selective Service could not be modified to be used to draft people for so-called “national service” positions in which conscripts would perform non-combat bureaucratic and manual-labor jobs. Austria and Switzerland (which have conscription) allow this option for those morally opposed to combat. And historically — such as during World War II — “service” was imposed on conscientious objectors who were forced to work on farms or perform other types of manual labor in special camps. So no, the draft is not “hypothetical,” “symbolic,” or something that “will never happen.” Numerous countries in Latin America, Europe, and Asia still employ conscription, and it is hardly some kind of never-used relic from the distant past. Alas, much of the opposition to the expansion of Selective Service has taken the form of National Review’s opposition which is based on the idea that conscripting women is some kind of special unique evil, quite unlike conscripting men. Military service is one thing, the editors write, but forcing women into it is “barbarism,” they admit. They’re half right. It is barbarism to force women to fight wars for the state. But the same is also true of conscription for men. Agreed. Conscription is anathema to the concept of a free state. It needs to be abolished.

I guess "The Boss" has a realistic and workable plan to pay for a complete remodeling of the American Economy, aka 'The Green New Deal'?. Only going to cost $90 Trillion dollars. Study: Green New Deal Could Cost More Than $90 Trillion Whether its supporters care is another question.: http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/25/study-green-new-deal-could-cost-more-tha This estimate is not an outlier. As Reason's Ron Bailey has noted, a similar plan outlined in 2015 would have cost roughly $7 trillion, while a previous version of that proposal might have cost up to $13 trillion. For comparison, the electric industry pulled in roughly $390 billion in revenue in 2017, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Around 59 percent of that was accounted for by "generation" costs. Assuming that $230 billion rose to the aforementioned $387 billion, then subtracting $70.5 billion in annual "avoided fuel costs" from the net difference, total electricity costs would go up by 22 percent for consumers, the AAF says. Residential customers, who paid an average of $111.67 per month in 2017, would pay an average of about $300 more per year for electricity. This does not include the trillions it would cost to achieve a completely clean power grid in the first place. The Green New Deal also proposes "overhauling transportation systems...to eliminate pollution and 19 greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible." The AAF's estimate of the cost for this proposal assumes that high-speed trains would replace air travel. While this is not specifically noted in the Green New Deal itself, an overview of the resolution that was apparently published by mistake did include the goal of "build[ing] out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary." Doing so would cost between $1.3 trillion and $2.7 trillion, the AAF estimates. The lower figure can be reached by multiplying the 2018 proposed capital cost per mile of California's since-toned-down high-speed rail system ($129.8 million) by 8,263 miles, which is the difference between the number of miles covered by transit rail and by airports in the U.S., as of 2013. Then add on another $166.9 billion for the trains themselves, which in California would have cost about $71.2 million. The higher figure, meanwhile, "assumes replacing all [19,453] air route miles without using existing track," the report says. (There are other reasons why replacing air travel with high-speed rail doesn't make sense, which I outlined here.) The Green New Deal's jobs guarantee would also cost a considerable amount. The AAF based its estimates here on a 2018 report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which found that reaching full employment would involve putting roughly 10.7 million unemployed or underemployed people to work. Assuming the average annual cost per job (including an average wage of $32,500) would be $56,000, this would cost a total of $543 billion. The AFF updated some of those numbers with 2019 data, and found that a federal jobs guarantee would cost $547 billion in 2019, and $6.762 trillion from 2020 to 2019. Both of those numbers would rise if, with a guaranteed job waiting for them, many of those who aren't currently looking for work decide to join the labor force. Of course, there are also plenty of workers who earn less than $32,500 per year (or $625 each week) who would naturally want to switch jobs in order to make more. Including them "would increase the cost to $3.8 trillion in 2019, $44.6 trillion between 2020 and 2029," the AAF says. The report also estimates that providing universal health care "will cost roughly $36 trillion between 2020 and 2029." The AAF simply built off a 2016 estimate of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I–Vt.) Medicare for All Plan, which the Center for Health and Economy said would cost $34.67 trillion over 10 years. It's likely an accurate projection, roughly in line with a July 2018 Mercatus Center report, which said Medicare for All would cost the federal government more than $32 trillion over 10 years. Whether those in favor of the plan care about the cost is another question. Asked on CNN yesterday about the Green New Deal's massive price tag, particularly for Medicare for All, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) suggested that "it's not about a cost." The fifth aspect of the Green New Deal that AFF addresses is its guarantee of "affordable, safe, and adequate housing." Simply housing the homeless could cost under $12 billion, AFF estimates, citing Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data. But the Green New Deal also calls for "upgrading all existing buildings in the 19 United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification." This could cost trillions, as AFF explains: Finally, the AAF calculated how much it would cost to ensure that all Americans have food security. Since 2011, the federal government's Healthy Food Financing Initiative has secured about $245 million in taxpayer money. Assuming, based off data from a Pennsylvania food access initiative, that it would cost $75 to improve food access for the 23.5 million people who needed it as of 2009, the AAF said such a program would cost $1.76 billion. Since taxpayers have already put in $245 million, we're left with a remainder of roughly $1.5 billion. "This increased access to fresh food, in conjunction with the income guarantees provided elsewhere in the GND, should meet the plan's goal of food security for all Americans," the AAF says. ....

http://reason.com/archives/2019/02/26/minimum-wage-boosts-are-greatfor-robots Developing and maintaining robotics, more than ever, is a growth industry that young people should be encouraged to get involved with.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/environment/2019/02/26/bill-grow-hemp-clears-senate-hurdle-gov-holcombs-support/2977697002/ Good news for all involved. Hemp should have never been labeled a controlled substance to begin with.

Stop Counting Women: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/opinion/sunday/women-directors-quotas.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/25/697599611/with-no-host-directing-traffic-green-book-drives-away-with-best-picture And Spike Lee is a a sore loser.

Update: https://www.umnews.org/en/news/gc2019-daily-feb-24 I'm not clear on how all this voting works and what is binding and what is not, but it appears pretty close. If it remains like this a schism is very likely.

I believe actions speak louder than words. So you believe all Christian churches who say they follow the Bible are hate groups? That would include all Catholic churches, all churches in the various protestant denominations (SBC, UMC, etc.) and non-denominational protestant churches.

Wishes to say or actually says it? Those are two different things.

Possibly, although how would you define the word "advocate"? If one parishioner of said church wrote "death to gays" on his/her personal blog? If the term "death to gays" in published on the church's website? If "death to gays" is a common theme in the weekly sermon given by the church's pastor? If multiple parishioners go out in the general public distributing literature that says "death to gays"? Is spouting "we advocate death to gays" without killing or physically harming homosexuals enough to be labeled as a "hate group"?

Is the use of profanity by coaches and players currently an issue in Indian High School Football?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/23/media/alabama-newspaper-klan/index.html

Yes, lets just forget about this unfortunate incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

Thank you Bob. I thought what is boiled down to, at least in most states, is that if the crime you falsely reported is a felony crime then you can be charged with felony false reporting. If the falsely reported crime is a misdemeanor then you can be charged with misdemeanor false reporting.

In a way yes. If it serves to expose the SPLC's agenda of wrongfully labeling organizations as 'hate groups' in order to stay relevant and keep the donations flowing. Do I advocate that anyone should join a fundamentalist Christian group? No, but to each his own.

I don't understand your rage, Gonzo. Are you saying that maybe because some white people did not get charged with felony false reporting that Mr. Smollett should be given a pass, because he happens to be black?