gehringer_2

Gas was under $5 in Alaska today!

What is not overplayed is that the referent of the term “arms” is completely different and it’s some kind of idiotic stupidity to argue it isn’t. No founder would have any conception of what he given a right to if he walked into a 21st cent gun shop. There is no parallel here to conceptual rights like search. In the 2a a particular thing was an arm and those things have passed from the scene.

I once heard Breyer say ( loosely paraphrasing) that when things made no sense constitutionally, that the court had two choices, leave the republic to the vagueries of the amendment process, or step up to the plate and do something reasonable for the benefit of the nation. We need a lot more of that approach and a lot less of idiots like Thomas and Alito who would drive us over a cliff on a fool’s errand trying to parse the 18th Century into the 21st. He’s going to be missed.

Let’s be precise; Everywhere within the jurisdiction of the conservative misreading of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. Our condition is not some random accident, it is the direct result of deliberate American conservative movement objectives.

Away from home and just following on the cartoon on and off, but Hill seemed to generate a lot of popUps. That generally means a live fastball, is that what he featured?

🎰

1st order Loonspuddery. This is what US political religiosity has descended to?

The bloom is off Fetter’s brilliance, the Tigers have broken Skubal.

The injuries are one thing, but nothing has come more unexpectedly disappointing than the complete suckitude of Grossman’s and Schoop’ bats. Schoop at least provides value at 2b, OF defense as good a Grossman’s is a dime a dozen. He’s a total millstone on the roster.

Can you pick sticks to buy and hold for long term gains that will beat the general market? I think so, but probably not by enough to get too excited about. Can you beat the market as day-trading technical investor? I wouldn’t try it, but SB’s take would more interesting.

He is closing on balls on the ground faster I think-prolly better confidence he’s not going to overrun something and no doubt an above avg arm for an OF. Is he doing any better not breaking the wrong way on flyballs- IDK, maybe. More surprising to me he is pulling his OPS up.

Getting 2021 Baddoo back sure would be a nice boost

the other big shift with Whittaker was that when he came up he didn't pull the ball much, if at all, his favorite XBH was down the 3rd base llne. As he got stronger he started catching up and going to the pull side and that was where his power was.

I hope they were able to get it insured.

How the Hell good is Riley Greene going to be?

team needs a lot more Riley Greene and a lot less of everything else.

so bad

NVRMD. I came back to the broadcast in the middle and thought they were saying Keller got hit in the face after Tork got hit by the pitch.....got it now...

missed it, where did he get hit?

🤷‍♂️

One factor is that there is presumption in law that when statutes enumerate things, that list is limiting. Now there are lots of different laws that give EPA mandates, and some give the agency more leeway than others for sure, that's why they thought they had a chance to get this through, but the problem with CO2 is that you don't even have the mandate for the objective. So for instance with SO2 the objective is stated - acid rain. EPA has lot of individual mandates - around tailpipe emissions, specific industries like steel, surface water pollution etc, but Congress has never given them one for climate change/CO2. And if you think about it, once you regulate CO2 you have a ton of major policy choices implicit in that - How much? How fast? You are going to be making choices that put some industries out of business and boost others, you may favor certain regions of the country over others. Do you want the EPA administrator to have the power to tell you to scrap your gas furnace by next year or that CAFE standards get doubled in 3? Those are policy decisions that need to be made at the political level and then those mandates passed to EPA for implementation/enforcement.

just to complete the thought on this: There is a truly desperate need to re-balance representation in the country so that the government can actually represent the will of the democratic majority on so many of these isssues. I don't know how we do that - some ideas that would help have been kicked around on these fora, but I don't think the answer is to toss adherence to rule of law to get what we want. I think we will be lost if we stop trying to fix the former and settle for the latter. Of course, there is a good chance we may to too far out of balance already to ever find our way back.

Yup - one of the commentators at OSINT made the good point it's much easier to destroy a handful of static ammunition dumps than find and destroy hundreds of mobile artillery pieces but gives you the same outcome. And it takes advantage of apparent Russian limitations in training manpower and logistics that prevent them from distributing their resources more diffusely.

when you set up a regulatory agency, you don't just say - "go do what you feel like." The enabling legislation defines the parameters of the agency's mission. It may possibly not be conventional wisdom, but EPA's mandate is not "Just go clean stuff up". It has been given specific mandates to do specific things in specific pieces of legislation. These mandates are often added to by Congress as new needs arise - that is the process. But Congress has never given EPA any mandate around global warming or CO2 as a pollutant in any other sense, so as bad as it it, the truth is that the Court was pretty much legally correct (IMV). In the US a regulatory agency has to have a legislative mandate that it can at least argue covers what it is doing. When the Dems couldn't get a global warming bill through they tried to argue that you could shoehorn it into EPAs existing mandates on very general grounds, but it was a stretch from the start and I'm not surprised a court, let alone this court, sided against it. And in truth, the very fact that the issue has been brought before Congress and failed probably made the court's ruling even more inevitable because the mandate has been more or less explicitly denied by Congress. What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander, you either want a system that follows the law or you don't. Just because short cutting the legislative process absolutely seems needed here, doesn't mean it's legally supportable doctrine. Heck, if we can't eventually make the US legislative process respond to climate change, we are doomed anyway.

This is where I don’t see how the next shoe drops. It seems you have to start new conferences to jettison your deadwood but acPAC12/B10 merger is going in the opposite direction.