9% of the ACA Marketplace (~700,000 people) will lose health insurance this year if the CSR funding negligence continues much longer.
https://www.axios.com/molina-will-exit-exchanges-if-aca-payments-arent-made-2381795012.html
Bearing in mind that I voted third party and don’t regret that decision…
I think the “flip-flop” criticism comes pretty much exclusively from: A) people who supported the original position and don’t like the new position, and B) people trying to goad the people in Group A. As such, “letting him evolve” doesn’t appeal to the politics of Group A, or the motives of Group B.
And then there’s the people in Group C, who see the “evolution” from Muslim Ban Campaign Promise Trump to Muslim Ban 1.0 Trump to Muslim Ban 2.0 Trump to be so insignificant that it doesn’t qualify as evolution, so the whole flip-flopper argument sounds like a joke. The fact that he seems to change positions on issues that he clearly doesn’t care about at all doesn’t indicate any sort of change in his core politics.
But in answer to the question, I would give him a chance if he did evolve–something like if he fired all of the white supremacists currently working for him (Bannon, Gorka, Miller, Anton, etc). I’d take that as a meaningful change in direction, even if he kept Confederate fetishists like Sessions around–although I’d prefer if his ilk left as well.
I think a big issue is that some people are so stupid that they think it’s a good idea to protest in the middle of a highway, and especially those who don’t get out of the way when a car isn’t slowing down.
If a car doesn’t slow down when there’s a person in the road, you don’t have to look further than that for the problem. Maybe the person is blind and lost. Maybe they’re trying to escape a rabid porcupine. Maybe they’re sleepwalking. And maybe they’re stupid. But you slow down, even for stupid people.
This is about protesters who illegally abstruct the highways, and subsequently get hit by cars because they’re being idiots. The drivers are not at fault if they hit a person who shouldn’t be out on the road like that.
There have also been cases of people ramming cars into protesters. This law means anyone who gets hit in that situation has to prove the driver intended to hit them, rather than the driver having to prove the protester was unavoidable. The switch in burden is significant.
Now, I don’t think people should hit protesters on the road, but it’s the fault of the protester that they’re out there on the road illegally.
Right of way isn’t a death penalty affair. You drive, you avoid obstacles.
I hope they catch holy hell for that.
Check the date on the article. There was a small media dustup about a month ago, and nothing.
Meanwhile in North Carolina, HB330 just passed the House, which protects you from civil suits if you run over protesters with your car. Veto expected, but how the crap can a majority of any collection of human beings vote for this?
I put the date in the post for a reason. I wasn’t trying to hide anything.
Was responding to SilverWook.
I hope they catch holy hell for that.
Check the date on the article. There was a small media dustup about a month ago, and nothing.
Meanwhile in North Carolina, HB330 just passed the House, which protects you from civil suits if you run over protesters with your car. Veto expected, but how the crap can a majority of any collection of human beings vote for this?
Ouch:
http://movieweb.com/star-wars-classic-trilogy-disney-wont-alter-restore/
It was always a longshot that Lucasfilm would either turn Mike’s restoration into an official release or do their own. But Mike’s restoration still exists. Someday down the road, it may be the source for a good-quality release by an outfit specializing in public domain stuff, like Laserlight. We’ll never see it, our kids will never see it, it’s unlikely our grandkids will ever see it either–but the restoration still exists for that day.
Unless I’m misunderstanding I think he’s just spoofing a huseni post?
I don’t know who that is
Suffice to say, is one of the users we cannot hear!
Someone out there was engaged in an anonymous, passive-aggressive protest that really amounted to strategic littering on a New York street. The residents subverted the protest and brought their community together around it. It’s still littering though, I guess, but at least it’s pretty now and community-approved: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/love-cross-nyc_us_58ff5447e4b0b6f6014ac24e?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).
http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/
Wow, I guess we’re closer to naming a military base after the guy than I thought.
Also, from an art history POV, the Confederate statues are mostly just mass-produced statues of the same guys over and over with different plaques underneath. They could probably destroy close to 700 statues and still have the complete set available for museums.
you think they are mass-produced?
At least a large portion are. Most were made all at once in a rush of Confederate fervor (basically when Reconstruction ended and the former Confederates wanted to signal to everyone who was in charge of their states again and not to get any ideas about things like retaining voting rights–they were intended to intimidate the nonwhite population, not to be the anachronistic larger-than-life participation trophies they are today). It’s cheaper to make one cast for multiple statues than one cast per statue. As long as you have enough different statues that there aren’t duplicates within one city, nobody will know the difference. At most, the local newspaper may run stories about how a statue had a “twin” in the town down the highway, just for local color.
I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).
http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/
Wow, I guess we’re closer to naming a military base after the guy than I thought.
Also, from an art history POV, the Confederate statues are mostly just mass-produced statues of the same guys over and over with different plaques underneath. They could probably destroy close to 700 statues and still have the complete set available for museums.
Back to the subject of suspiciouscoffee actually reaching out and needing help…
I don’t know how much my advice is worth to you. I’m a straight old white guy, married with kids and a mortgage. And I’m atheist too. So as far a shared life experiences go, maybe not so much. But I know quite a good number of gay folk, and I’ve witnessed at least one complete nightmare trainwreck of a coming-out scenario, so maybe I have something to offer.
My advice: There’s no universally correct way to be gay. Maybe you get giddy and enjoy dancing with girls. That’s not really unheard of. Maybe you’re not a big beefy physical sports guy. That’s pretty common. But you know what? It’s also not unusual for big beefy physical sports guys to be gay too, so don’t heterofetishize that lifestyle too much. A lot of coming to terms with being gay is better described as coming to terms with being yourself. Because if you’ve got these preconceived ideas of what comes along with being gay (“but I don’t like interior design!”), you’re just going to ride the roller coaster of maybe-I-am-maybe-I’m-not a little longer. Maybe you’re gay, maybe you’re bi, maybe there’s no label for what you are. Does the label help? If not, don’t focus on that. Focus on what you think might make you happy and fulfilled. You have a better sense of that than you think.
Community is important. For a lot of people, coming out means saying goodbye to a lot of previously available folks. Church, family, friends. That’s the killer. Without a community of accepting friends, coming out is much, much harder. Find that community–and you won’t know for sure until you come out, but they’ll support you–I’m sure you have a good sense of safe spaces by now, and you should trust them. That’s kinda what we are here–the worst we can do is throw odious words at you anonymously–we’re relatively safe. But in-person safe people are needed too. Start with a new church if church is important to you. Even if you don’t buy their lefty-loosey Bible interpretations–you’re not in it for the dogma, you need the community. You’ll even have some shocking support from some quarter you’d written off. It happens. Once you’re out, the trouble doesn’t end–not by a long shot–but the anxiety, the dread, it all washes away. Slowly, but it does. You know the “It Gets Better” campaign? They’re not wrong.
It’s not a black and white situation.
I know it’s not what you meant, but I’m requoting this bit because I can’t pass up irony.
the north started the war
April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.
Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.
I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.
Actually I called the post-Civil War mob of cop-killers and vigilantes who got a statue honoring them terrorists. The Confederacy was what I called a white supremacist uprising (who only later turned into terrorists in the form of the Klan and the losers behind this statue).
Fair enough.
The whole point of the Ft. Sumter reference was that the Confederates started shooting at the Union long before the Union ever decided to take back the South. The North likely would have attacked the South first, if they’d had that opportunity–but the Confederates simply beat them to the punch. The Confederacy unambiguously attacked first, at Ft. Sumter.
No doubt, but even though that means they literally “started the war,” in the broader sense I think it’s fair to say the Union was responsible for the conflict. In regards to Ft. Sumter, this wasn’t the South trying to take control of northern territory. It was in SC and if the Union didn’t want a fight there, they would have left it.
It was federal property. Even granting the fairly tall order that secession was legal in the first place, South Carolina would still only have the authority over its own territory. They attacked a part of the Union that was completely surrounded by Confederate territory, but it was still Union territory. There is a difference between initiating a war and failing to surrender to an attacker.
the north started the war
April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.
Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.
I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.
Actually I called the post-Civil War mob of cop-killers and vigilantes who got a statue honoring them terrorists. The Confederacy was what I called a white supremacist uprising (who only later turned into terrorists in the form of the Klan and the losers behind this statue).
The whole point of the Ft. Sumter reference was that the Confederates started shooting at the Union long before the Union ever decided to take back the South. The North likely would have attacked the South first, if they’d had that opportunity–but the Confederates simply beat them to the punch. The Confederacy unambiguously attacked first, at Ft. Sumter.
You can argue that the Civil War statues shouldn’t be removed, but the statue honoring a white supremacist uprising definitely had to go.
Civil War, white supremacist uprising. You say tomato…
huh?
You say tomato, I say tomahto–it’s an old song. It means that there is no significant difference between those words.
I’m not so sure you can say there is no significant difference between a white supremacist uprising and the Civil War. I think the Civil War was bit more complicated than that.
It took a lot longer to put down than most other white supremacist uprisings, certainly. Other than that, I’m not really seeing it. Certainly if those cop killers honored by the statue in question had the military capacity of the Confederacy, I’m sure they’d have had delusions of statehood as well.
I’d try to argue this with you, but I don’t think you are going to listen.
Have it your way.
http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html
I never said the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. It definitely was about slavery, but I don’t think that it was the only thing the war was about. Certainly not everyone fighting for the south was doing it to preserve slavery. Some were doing so, because they had two options 1: fight against the union, or 2: fight again their own state, against their own cities/towns. I heard it said that is why Lee was fighting for the south, he could fight against the country or fight against his home state of Virginia, he chose to fight against the country.
In that sense, not all Germans in the Nazi army were fighting for white supremacy, only to avoid fighting their own country. Ergo, the Nazi army was not a white supremacist army?
Listen, I know lots of people’s ancestors fought for the Confederacy. My ancestors fought for the Confederacy. Don’t stop tearing the statues down because of fears for injuring my delicate southern heritage. I’m hardly having a sad that my great-great-great grandwhatever is no longer being honored for being a racist ass. If you’re doing an opinion poll of what white people with Confederate heritage think about the statues, here’s a data point to include–me: good riddance.
the north started the war
April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.
You can argue that the Civil War statues shouldn’t be removed, but the statue honoring a white supremacist uprising definitely had to go.
Civil War, white supremacist uprising. You say tomato…
huh?
You say tomato, I say tomahto–it’s an old song. It means that there is no significant difference between those words.
I’m not so sure you can say there is no significant difference between a white supremacist uprising and the Civil War. I think the Civil War was bit more complicated than that.
It took a lot longer to put down than most other white supremacist uprisings, certainly. Other than that, I’m not really seeing it. Certainly if those cop killers honored by the statue in question had the military capacity of the Confederacy, I’m sure they’d have had delusions of statehood as well.
I’d try to argue this with you, but I don’t think you are going to listen.
Have it your way.
http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html
You can argue that the Civil War statues shouldn’t be removed, but the statue honoring a white supremacist uprising definitely had to go.
Civil War, white supremacist uprising. You say tomato…
huh?
You say tomato, I say tomahto–it’s an old song. It means that there is no significant difference between those words.
I’m not so sure you can say there is no significant difference between a white supremacist uprising and the Civil War. I think the Civil War was bit more complicated than that.
It took a lot longer to put down than most other white supremacist uprisings, certainly. Other than that, I’m not really seeing it. Certainly if those cop killers honored by the statue in question had the military capacity of the Confederacy, I’m sure they’d have had delusions of statehood as well.
You can argue that the Civil War statues shouldn’t be removed, but the statue honoring a white supremacist uprising definitely had to go.
Civil War, white supremacist uprising. You say tomato…
huh?
You say tomato, I say tomahto–it’s an old song. It means that there is no significant difference between those words.
In the coming days, the city will also remove three statues of Confederate Gens. Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard and Confederate President Jefferson Davis, now that legal challenges have been overcome.
Are we trying to pretend the Civil War never happened? Robert E. Lee is probably the least offensive prominent Confederate figure. He’s nowhere near as bad as George Wallace, who actually ran for President on a white supremacy platform… in 1968. I don’t feel like these removals are really thought through.
Kids manage to learn all about the Revolutionary War without having statues of or military bases named after Benedict Arnold. I’m sure nobody will forget about the Civil War without statues to this particular batch of traitors.
You can argue that the Civil War statues shouldn’t be removed, but the statue honoring a white supremacist uprising definitely had to go.
Civil War, white supremacist uprising. You say tomato…
Odd that a statue honoring terrorists should have to be taken down under cover of night by workers wearing bulletproof vests, but I guess that’s post-racial America for you.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/04/24/us/ap-us-confederate-statues-new-orleans.html
There likely will not be an official release of the Star Wars trilogy on home video until the copyrights expire and we get a good public domain release.
But who here has time to wait for the end of western civilization?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_film :
Due to the U.S. Copyright Term Extension Act, no more films will automatically enter public domain in the United States until January 1, 2019, when the copyright will expire on films released in 1923 (and in 2020 films from 1924, and so on).
Isn’t Disney the king of keeping IP’s private though? Mickey Mouse…
I wasn’t disputing at all that this would happen fairly close to when the sun explodes, just that this is how long we’ll have to wait, regardless of how long the wait is.
I doubt any such thing was signed anyway
Hard to say, but regardless of that, I think the studios in general give quite a lot of deference to a film’s director (on the issue of home video releases, that is). Star Wars is hardly the only film where some shitty director’s cut is given priority over the theatrical cut. And while Lucas only directed one of the films, I think Disney will still defer to him on the whole trilogy out of some sort of misguided sense of professional respect, even if they’re not legally obligated to. I expect that will continue even after death (see the Narnia reordering fiasco, where publishers interpreted a letter where CS Lewis humors an enthusiastic fan as justification for still effing up the whole series 50 years after the man is no longer capable of being offended by their publishing choices).
There likely will not be an official release of the Star Wars trilogy on home video until the copyrights expire and we get a good public domain release.
And this is why we have fan preservations.
I doubt any such thing was signed anyway
Hard to say, but regardless of that, I think the studios in general give quite a lot of deference to a film’s director (on the issue of home video releases, that is). Star Wars is hardly the only film where some shitty director’s cut is given priority over the theatrical cut. And while Lucas only directed one of the films, I think Disney will still defer to him on the whole trilogy out of some sort of misguided sense of professional respect, even if they’re not legally obligated to. I expect that will continue even after death (see the Narnia reordering fiasco, where publishers interpreted a letter where CS Lewis humors an enthusiastic fan as justification for still effing up the whole series 50 years after the man is no longer capable of being offended by their publishing choices).
There likely will not be an official release of the Star Wars trilogy on home video until the copyrights expire and we get a good public domain release.
The 100 day standard isn’t very fair. Ambitious goals require time. For example, at the current rate, it doesn’t seem very likely that Trump will play more golf that Obama did in his entire 8-year term for another few months.
Gotta admire the effort though.
It is super-mighty. Er, I mean yuuge. Sorry, I get those two mixed up sometimes.
