buddha

i assume this is directed at me. i wasnt attacking you, i was commenting on stern. sorry if it came across that way.

one correction to the above: bronvich changed section 2, not shelby county.

a couple things: 1) citing mark joseph stern on the supreme court is like citing triple7 about the tigers. does he know some of the facts and the basics? yes. is he occasionally insightful? as much as a broken clock is right twice a day. is he hyperbolic, over the top, and seeking attention for himself rather than offering any useful information? yup. 2) roberts didnt really take the liberals' position, he took a centrist position. like usual. 3) this ruling doesnt gut the voting right act. it doesnt say anything about the voting rights act. here is the deal, the alabama legislature passed a map that would have had one majority black voter district whereas the old map had two. instead, the new map puts some black voters in other districts. the district court (with two trump nominees who obviously forgot their marching orders) sided with the naacp and said this is a violation of section ii and they had to redraw the map. the legislature asked them to stay their ruling (which would have left the old map intact) while they appealed to the supremes. the district court said no. it said you have plenty if time to redraw the map now get busy. if you dont redraw it with a good map, we'll appoint an outside agency to draw one for you. the supreme court got the appeal and said yes, we will hear this and we will stay the district court's decision until we can rule. this means the ruling is stayed until the supremes can hear the appeal in the fall which, for all intents and purposes, means this new map is in effect for the next election. kagan says thats bs and the ruling should go into effect now and the supremes can hear the state's appeal while the state operates under the old map (or the redrawn map ordered by the court). kavanaugh says thats not fair to the state because it is planning the elections with the new map and that the supremes are not supposed to get involved in state elections so close to election time (technically kinda true). roberts says the case needs to be heard to clarify section two of the vra (which was changed in shelby county by roberts) and that the old maps should be in effect until the supremes can make that clarification. 4) i think kavanaugh is wrong and kagan/roberts are both kind of right. 5) democracy isnt dying. nor is it dead. life will go on in heavily gerrymandered states like illinois and alabama and pennsylvania and maryland and north carolina... 6) despite #5, i think gerrymandering is stupid and should be ended. post haste.

you're getting rid of your mask mandates at the end of the month, arent you?

i dont know. it would be helpful to know to determine whether this is outside the norm.

chicago icus are at 80% capacity and 14% of those beds are taken up by covid patients.

counter point

every team that hires a black head coach gets an extra first round pick. every team that hires a white head coach is stripped of all their draft picks and is required to write a letter of apology to the naacp.

if the lions want willia they'll need to take him at 2. or trade down to 4 or something. i dont think he'll be there in the 30s and i dont think either he or pickett gets past carolina at 6 or washington at 11.

if you want willis or pickett, you'll have to take them in the top 10. too many needy qb teams. carolina at 6. washington at 9. pittsburgh. new orleans. potentially houston and philly. minnesota. atlanta. lots of qbs are going in round one.

not to mention what were paying in cap space to get rid of sekou and collect a bunch of meaningless low second rounders from brooklyn. the only good thing weaver has done is convince gores to tank.

if the lions want willis, pickett, corral or howell, they will have to take them at #2 or trade up to the 10-15 range. at least 3 of those guys are going in round one. maybe all four.

two time failure head coach gets another job? mcs is going to be so pissed.

players dont even attend bowl games anymore because they dont want to get hurt, why would they play in an all star game against professionals? the whole thing is dumb. its a violent sport with a high risk of injury and these players make millions of dollars. why risk it for an "all star game"? they play the game because people watch it (which is amazing to me why anyone would watch that stupid game but people do). nobody wants to play in it and it shows by just how ridiculous it is.

the pro bowl is a dumb idea and nothing they can do will make it interesting.

keith law:

not to mention that masks dont seem to stop omicron either. are the very very marginal differences youre talking about enough to warrant a vax mandate to enter a place of business? i dont think so, but my risk tolerance (and denmark's) is higher than yours. the goal from the beginning was to not oberwhelm the hospitals. they are not overwhelmed in most areas, eve with omicron. to me that says we can start to open things up and end things like mask mandates in schools and vax mandates to enter businesses. its not warranted anymore. but your risk tolerance may be less than mine. which i dont think is a right/wrong answer.

michigan should make mcs happy by hiring eric bienemy.

i dont think that's true with omicron. it was with delta and alpha but not with omicron. which makes sense considering thw vaccines were made to counter alpha and delta. what the vaccines do is increase the chances that you will only see mild symptoms. and with omicron being milder in general, that's doubly helpful. but it doesnt stop or slow omicron. you can pass omicron whether youre vaxxed or not. denmark is fully open now even though they have a very high number of cases and a very high vax rate. why? cause the hospitals arent in danger and the symptoms of omicron are usually milder. they opened up despite having a high case count. this is not an anti-vax position. its what the data is telling us.

but i'm not saying "why do i have to be inconvenienced with mandates" i'm saying that the stated reasoning behind the mandates is wrong. to latch onto g2's post about the cdc, the messaging through this whole process has been horrible and oftentimes wrong. which opens the door to people to question the whole messaging process. some of that comes from the need for immediacy of knowledge, but some of it is from political pressure. the cdc has come out of this whole thing looking very poorly.

i agree. but it doesnt stop the spread of omicron. the point of keeping people out of restaurants and bars unless they were vaccinated was to slow the spread. but it doesnt slow the spread, which undercuts the purpose. in fact, the stated purpose has now changed from slowing the spread to incentivizing people to get vaccinated. which, ok, but the original reasoning was - again - flawed.

so maybe they didnt want a guy who was out fucking kids moms to be head coach? that sounds like something the moral police would be in favor of? no?

you said "i dont think i mentioned you" but you specifically quoted my post and then called me out specifically and insulted me. lol. this is nuts.

but the vaccines dont stop the spread of omicron. you can be vaxxed and still spread it. so why have vaccine mandates to get into a reataurant if the vaccine does not stop the spread of the virus? you can still spread it if youre vaccinated.

if you come out with a quote like that about your bosses, you better be squeaky clean. because michigan's pr machine isnt going to take something like that lying down.