LedRush

Roe undermined our institutions by ignoring the law and process to come to a desired conclusion. Overruling it, like Plessy and Dred Scott, starts on the path to reclaiming credibility. This is demonstrably false. Roe used BC authorities in its ahistorical attack on the Constitution. Actually reading and following the text of the document you are interpreting seems kinda important to me. But I guess it can be annoying when you only want a theocratic dictatorship to codify any rules you want regardless of the law. The unborn humans who will no longer be killed in some states, of course. Did you really not know that?

This is the really crazy thing. The US is in a small group of countries which allowed abortion until birth (with Vietnam, North Korea, and China). Striking down Roe and Casey doesn’t change that…it merely allows some states to choose to take a different approach which will put them more in line with the rest of the democracies in the world.

I’m sure this will be huge in China!

This statement. The ignorance and racism are just off the charts.

I agree, but I’d let the “break the influence of the NRA” bullet stand.

The Democrats? I don’t think it’s fair to lay this at their feet just because they support killing children, advocate for violence against political opponents, and stoke racist and identitarian hatred.

There are a few problems with this statement. First off, it is not a right to kill your child. Second, women make up half of the population, and about half of them are pro-life, so even if we were in bizarro world and killing your child was a right, only 25% of the population would be potentially effected. Also, recognizing that there is obviously not a right to kill unborn children in the Constitution won’t affect potential pro-abortionists in many states as many will allow it to remain legal to kill a fully formed human life even as it is being born, despite the opposition of about 90% of all Americans.

I think that many regularly use the facepalm and pissed off threads to drop in political attacks that are affirmed by echoes rather than try and make a supportable point in SOCN.

This is true, but of the people attacking Thomas, not Thomas’ responses to those attacks.

The shooter claimed to be a former communist who now described himself as a left-wing authoritarian (which is redundant), and a green nationalist.

The person who first posited this criticism (not you, I assume) is either extremely ignorant of the law or misrepresenting the argument for maximum frothing effect. Roe and Casey found that abortion was a fundamental unenumerated right by virtue of the 14th and 5th A’s due process clauses (i.e., substantive due process). This argument itself is of dubious legal quality, but even it is obviously not applicable for abortions. This is, partially, because in order to be a “fundamental right” the right has to be deeply rooted in American history and traditions, including in common law. The majority in Roe argued that it was, similarly doing a deep dive that went back not only to English common law, but to Hippocrates, Aristotle, and St. Augustine. To overrule the law, Alito must confront this reasoning from Roe. Alito’s opinion points out the obvious: the right to an abortion is not only not deeply rooted in American history or traditions, laws to outlaw abortion were. He brought up that example as one of many, many examples of how his argument is obviously right.

http://youtu.be/avToblb8HkY

Even with all the problems that Lorraine was going through, she would still reach out to me to ask me about my father’s health and to let me know she was praying for him. I can’t say I knew her well, even for an internet friend, but she was obviously a caring and loving woman, and I can’t help but feeling that we’ve all lost something which made our world a little brighter.

He didn’t berate anyone. He told kids why he thought they shouldn’t wear them and then told them they could do what they wanted. You should stop believing headlines from news organizations which have made a living out of lying (hint, it’s all of them). His actual quote was, "You do not have to wear those masks. I mean, please take them off," DeSantis was heard saying. "Honestly, it's not doing anything, and we've gotta stop with this COVID theater." "So if you want to wear it, fine, but this is ridiculous," he continued, sighing into the microphones. Exactly. As I said, he didn’t berate anyone and told kids why he thought they shouldn’t wear them and then told them they could do what they wanted.

He didn’t berate anyone. He told kids why he thought they shouldn’t wear them and then told them they could do what they wanted. You should stop believing headlines from news organizations which have made a living out of lying (hint, it’s all of them).

Presumably the oil companies weren’t tapping those wells before the huge spike in prices and were greedy prior to 14 months ago, no? For some perspective: Rising crude oil prices and increased gasoline demand contributed to the average U.S. retail price for regular grade gasoline increasing to $3.01 per gallon (gal) in 2021, the highest average nominal price since 2014. The average price for retail gasoline increased by more than $1.00/gal between the start and the end of 2021. One major contributor to the high retail gasoline prices was high crude oil prices. Crude oil prices in 2021 increased throughout most of the year, and the average crude oil price for 2021 was the highest price since 2018. Other factors contributing to higher retail gasoline prices in 2021 include higher demand for gasoline, reduced U.S. refinery capacity, and low gasoline inventories https://www.eia.gov/...il.php?id=50758 After everyone sat home and did less driving our inventories were low. Demand returned but things couldn't start up immediately as someone else quoted here. It always makes me wonder why Americans are so quick to complain and blame the government when the industry reacts to the current situations. There was also a cyber attack at Colonial Pipeline which reduced capacity even more. Let's face it, we are spoiled and expect to have what we want when we want it and cheap too. After coming out of a pandemic with things shut down, it was unrealistic to expect things to remain as they were before. Well, that was sure a fast 180! So now it’s not due to untapped oil wells and corporate greed, but higher demand and and lower supply. Of course that is true from a basic economics standpoint. But when the government artificially reduces demand and incentivizes a reduction of supply, and then later lifts the policies artificially reducing demand, this is all to be expected, no? Certainly virtually every economist I saw had been predicting a “v” shaped recovery since the economy was kicked in the nuts 2 years ago. Yet, for some reason, the government did its best to disincentivize oil production. Of course there are many factors and nuance here, but the government can only control what it can control, and what it controlled it screwed up about as much as it could.

I wonder if the people who follow the "let the market decide" paradigm complain about prices? Why wouldn’t they? The increased prices are largely a result of government interventions and actions. When the government distorts the market, it’s not much use to say the problem is because of the market.

Presumably the oil companies weren’t tapping those wells before the huge spike in prices and were greedy prior to 14 months ago, no?

Lots of people think Old Joe did that but lots of people don't understand how the economy works too. Or gas prices for that matter. No president, left or right, controls them. Dubya, Obama, Trump, Biden...doesn't matter. We're not pretending that energy policy doesn't have a massive impact on supply, are we? It probably does to some extent but has that changed in the last 36 hours to cause gasoline prices to literally go up 45 cents or more in some places? You’re adding that 45 cents to gas prices that are already significantly higher since changing administrations and energy policies. Also saying you’re doing everything to bring down the price of gas doesn’t necessarily mean you’re doing everything. Yep. Intentionally rolling back domestic production and creating a reliance on importing energy from bad actors will (and has) steadily raise fuel prices over time in the best of conditions and, as we see in the immediate situation, create a potential for catastrophic spikes due to weather events, international skirmishes, etc. Seems foolish to me. Couple that with announcing that you will no longer purchase from Russia (rightfully, IMHO, but also way too late) and it’s safe to say prices will continue to increase in the short term.

No Jar of Flies…no thank you! Fun Fact: Don’t Follow was the first song I learned to play on the guitar.

It’s a great album for a greatest hits swing through the synth era with a little more balls than the original releases. I really like this album, though I haven’t listened to it all the way through for some time.

I won’t deny there is a lot of assholery in Clapton’s life, but you might want to examine whether he actually stole Harrison’s wife. From Wikipedia: In March 1970, a month before the Beatles' break-up, Boyd moved with Harrison to Friar Park, a Victorianneo-Gothic mansion in Henley-on-Thames.[92] By this point, Harrison's devotion to Indian spirituality, particularly the Hare Krishna movement, had begun to divide the couple.[78][93] They were also unsuccessful in starting a family, and Harrison would not consider adoption.[94][nb 8] Boyd resumed her modelling career in May 1971, in defiance of Harrison's spiritual convictions.[96][97] In 1973, she had an affair with Facesguitarist Ronnie Wood[98] while Harrison romanced Wood's wife Krissie.[99] Boyd said her decision to leave Harrison, in July 1974, was based largely on his repeated infidelities, culminating in his affair with [Ringo] Starr's wife Maureen, which Boyd called "the final straw". No question that George bears plenty of the blame for the dissolution of his marriage himself, as is usually true. But, without checking the sources, that certainly reads like it came from Boyd or people sympathetic to her. Clapton didn't break up their marriage, but Clapton definitely made his feelings for her known for a long time before their marriage ended (George once famously asked Patti at a party if she was coming home or going home with Clapton), and in the end, he did end up marrying her. Speaking for myself, if I were single, I would NEVER date a good friend's ex-wife. Great music. Indeed. FTFY

I won’t deny there is a lot of assholery in Clapton’s life, but you might want to examine whether he actually stole Harrison’s wife. From Wikipedia: In March 1970, a month before the Beatles' break-up, Boyd moved with Harrison to Friar Park, a Victorianneo-Gothic mansion in Henley-on-Thames.[92] By this point, Harrison's devotion to Indian spirituality, particularly the Hare Krishna movement, had begun to divide the couple.[78][93] They were also unsuccessful in starting a family, and Harrison would not consider adoption.[94][nb 8] Boyd resumed her modelling career in May 1971, in defiance of Harrison's spiritual convictions.[96][97] In 1973, she had an affair with Facesguitarist Ronnie Wood[98] while Harrison romanced Wood's wife Krissie.[99] Boyd said her decision to leave Harrison, in July 1974, was based largely on his repeated infidelities, culminating in his affair with [Ringo] Starr's wife Maureen, which Boyd called "the final straw". No question that George bears plenty of the blame for the dissolution of his marriage himself, as is usually true. But, without checking the sources, that certainly reads like it came from Boyd or people sympathetic to her. Clapton didn't break up their marriage, but Clapton definitely made his feelings for her known for a long time before their marriage ended (George once famously asked Patti at a party if she was coming home or going home with Clapton), and in the end, he did end up marrying her. Speaking for myself, if I were single, I would NEVER date a good friend's ex-wife. Excuse me, but I don’t want to live in a world where Derek and the Dominos and Wonderful Tonight don’t exist. I think it’s a bit more fair to say that all these people were cheating scumbags, like a majority of the people in their line of work. Rush might be the exception that proves the rule, but even Alex was a bit of an asshole in his youth, as that documentary he was in confirms.

I won’t deny there is a lot of assholery in Clapton’s life, but you might want to examine whether he actually stole Harrison’s wife. From Wikipedia: In March 1970, a month before the Beatles' break-up, Boyd moved with Harrison to Friar Park, a Victorian neo-Gothic mansion in Henley-on-Thames.[92] By this point, Harrison's devotion to Indian spirituality, particularly the Hare Krishna movement, had begun to divide the couple.[78][93] They were also unsuccessful in starting a family, and Harrison would not consider adoption.[94][nb 8] Boyd resumed her modelling career in May 1971, in defiance of Harrison's spiritual convictions.[96][97] In 1973, she had an affair with Facesguitarist Ronnie Wood[98] while Harrison romanced Wood's wife Krissie.[99] Boyd said her decision to leave Harrison, in July 1974, was based largely on his repeated infidelities, culminating in his affair with [Ringo] Starr's wife Maureen, which Boyd called "the final straw".

The issue isn't really about whether the artist gets paid for the show that was recorded. The issue is payment for the commercial use of a song he or she or they wrote. Billy Squier is one of the most financially successful recording artists ever, not because of record sales or concert receipts, but because one of his songs was so widely used in sampling by rap artists. If you watch the excellent Go-Gos documentary, Jane Wiedlin talks about how important it was that their relatively inexperienced manager knew enough to hold onto their publishing rights to We Got the Beat. Don't get me wrong, I love bootlegs myself, but I can see why artists don't. I'm not a guitarist myself, and I don't get the Clapton love, but EVH worshipped him (even though Clapton was a jerk to Eddie). I always just assume that there's something about his playing that I just don't see. He married George's ex-wife, which was a scumbag move IMO. As far as his politics may go, there are a lot of artists I love whose opinions on politics I don't share. I never let that influence my feelings about their music. But in the cases of both Billy Squire and the Go-Go's those are recordings they made themselves that got sampled and used in commercials. Not bootlegs someone took of the artists at a live show. I don't think it's really comparable. Sure you may have written the song, but someone's going to play it for someone else who hasn't heard it at some point, and that person's not going to go and buy tickets to see your show or their own copy if you slap a lawsuit on them. I understand music copyright law is tricky though, but it also just seems way simpler to let the bootleggers be. They aren't causing any real harm. Not like Spotify is. Of course it's the same, just not on the same scale as Spotify or Apple Music. But the concept is exactly the same. The woman is selling Clapton's songs, which is what the buyer is paying for, without receiving licensing permission from him. If I write a song, and copyright it, you can't use it for any commercial purpose unless you get my permission. If the bootleggers want to share the music, that's one thing. If they want to sell it, that's another. Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean. I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right." Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs. Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt. As Goose pointed out, Clapton’s lawyers did this and the woman decided that she would ignore the legal demands to desist and she wanted to go to court so that she could sell an illegal bootleg and earn about $10. She could have ended this at any time without any consequence to her, but she wanted a fight and got one. I don't think that overrides the point that Clapton and his legal team could have decided it wasn't worth the trouble, and instead decided to call the woman's bluff. It's a jerk move no matter who motivated the lawsuit. Reading more it seems that Clapton's reps have executed dozens if not 100s of these suits over the years. German law, for various reasons, is such that it is favorable to artists to do so. Not sure why this is getting so much press. It’s getting press as now that Clapton has taken an anti-vax mandate and an anti-lockdown stance, the left wants to make him out to be as big a monster as possible. For a similar example, see Elon Musk and Warren.