LedRush

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 happen to have some experience with seeing Judges doing their work and this guy was a joke from the get go. No attempt to be impartial at all and whining about having cameras in the court. Guess he didn't want to have everyone see how he works, not the first time he has been called out for inappropriate actions in his courtroom. The fix was in from the start, no way was he going to be charged. They used the same jury consultant that helped pick jurors in the OJ trial. Rittenhouse is being called a hero and offered jobs by idiot Representatives who are too stupid to get out of the rain. The sad thing is this just fuels the perception that vigilante actions are ok. Just like shooting someone who is running down the street because you think you have the right to do so. If Rittenhouse had been a person of color and he ran towards those officers with an assault weapon, he wouldn't be here. No wonder our country is in such a mess, hard to believe in justice when it seems to be a privilege for a certain group of people. :finbar: That’s certainly a take. Being a lawyer and not crazy, I have a bit of a different one. First off, Schroeder was a democrat appointee…I know that you might not have known that because the media virtually only reports on what party appointed a judge when they don’t like a decision AND s/he was appointed by a republican. Schroeder has a very good reputation (or at least he did before the leftists and the media defamed him as you are doing). Also, Rittenhouse was charged, even though he very clearly should not have been. Schroeder would have been well within his authority to: 1. Dismiss the case after the State rested; 2. Order a mistrial for repeated violations by the prosecutors; 3. Enter a directed verdict as no jury could reasonably find Rittenhouse guilty. He gave a ton of leeway to the prosecution for evidence that should not have been admitted like the AI enhanced video which even the software creator even said should not be used as key evidence. I have not heard any non-leftist lawyer say that Schroeder was biased or that his decisions weren’t reasonable…even the liberal ones were largely in favor of how he handled the trial. I suspect that you’ve let emotion and media lies and misreporting cloud your judgment into a determination that is supposed to be made impartially upon facts.

Imagine, if you had spent your last 16 years learning a skill rather than posting here, you’d be able to drive a car in real life, and not just pretend to captain the Enterprise. Happy anniversary!

The reaction to the Rittenhouse trial. The video evidence was enough that a trial should never have been brought, but the statements by the State’s witnesses’ made it even more clear. Still we have media and politicians making basic misstatements about both the facts of the case and the law, we have uneducated idiots bad mouthing the Judge, and we have racist ideologues pushing for more unrest.

My lord, you’re old! Congrats!

Two things: 1: the level of stupid in Principled Man’s post is off the charts; 2: I thought we were going to keep politics in SOCN.

So, in your mind that looks like a coup? Orwellian idiocy indeed. So, in your mind that looks like a coup? Orwellian idiocy indeed. Looks more like he's late for a date in a black sedan to me. You can cherry pick a picture from just about any violent event and claim it wasn't what it actually was. Kind of sad that some have fallen for it. Can you all please stop discussing the January 6th riots outside of SOCN? I thought I posted this before, maybe I didn't. MY SON WORKS IN THE CAPITOL COMPLEX. HIS OFFICE WAS EVACUATED THAT DAY. HIS ROOMMATE IS THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR FOR A MINNESOTA REPRESENTATIVE AND HAD TO FLEE DOWN A HALLWAY OUT OF HIS OFFICE THAT DAY. They are friends with many Capitol policemen, who are essentially their co workers. The lives of those policemen changed forever. At least 81 of them were assaulted. So yes, it was a big thing, yes, it was a coup attempt, yes, people were hollering "Hang Mike Pence" and meant it, and yes, Dinesh D'Souza tweets weird uninformed stuff but why do we have to talk about it here? I hear about it enough with many, many people from Pennsylvania currently being prosecuted for their crimes there that day. I would rather not hear about it outside of SOCN. Thank you in advance. If you don’t want it discussed, it’s probably best just to say that and ask Invisible Airwaves to stop bringing up his ignorant and hypocritical arguments. When you insert all sorts of emotionally charged conspiracy theory garbage in your post, you invite a response. Again, why do I have to read about it outside SOCN? Ask Invisible Airwaves.

So, in your mind that looks like a coup? Orwellian idiocy indeed. So, in your mind that looks like a coup? Orwellian idiocy indeed. Looks more like he's late for a date in a black sedan to me. You can cherry pick a picture from just about any violent event and claim it wasn't what it actually was. Kind of sad that some have fallen for it. Can you all please stop discussing the January 6th riots outside of SOCN? I thought I posted this before, maybe I didn't. MY SON WORKS IN THE CAPITOL COMPLEX. HIS OFFICE WAS EVACUATED THAT DAY. HIS ROOMMATE IS THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR FOR A MINNESOTA REPRESENTATIVE AND HAD TO FLEE DOWN A HALLWAY OUT OF HIS OFFICE THAT DAY. They are friends with many Capitol policemen, who are essentially their co workers. The lives of those policemen changed forever. At least 81 of them were assaulted. So yes, it was a big thing, yes, it was a coup attempt, yes, people were hollering "Hang Mike Pence" and meant it, and yes, Dinesh D'Souza tweets weird uninformed stuff but why do we have to talk about it here? I hear about it enough with many, many people from Pennsylvania currently being prosecuted for their crimes there that day. I would rather not hear about it outside of SOCN. Thank you in advance. If you don’t want it discussed, it’s probably best just to say that and ask Invisible Airwaves to stop bringing up his ignorant and hypocritical arguments. When you insert all sorts of emotionally charged conspiracy theory garbage in your post, you invite a response.

Just remember that anything remotely “liberal” or Democrat Party is considered “not holding up to scrutiny” as you say and anything that a right wing member posts is not only righteous but obvious by default. Anyone whose viewpoint cannot be understood or empathised with is considered trolling. If you criticise Christianity (or try to place it in an historical perspective) or libertarians you can only be trolling. Be wary of the keyboard warriors that call you things that they would never say to your face but insist you are a keyboard warrior when you suggest you’d knock them out if they did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boMrTKZuvaQ I didn’t know that anyone other than Zevon recorded this song, though I knew he and Ronstadt had a close working relationship. The Zevon version is much better. I like that version better but I felt this version better exemplified the infantile whinyness of whatever it was that I was responding to. Never heard of this song before now. Zevon's voice always struck me as a "novelty song," voice, whereas Ronstadt is one of the all time greats. Put me down for Linda's. I just watched a documentary about her. Really good. Have you heard anything by him other than Werewolves of London? Lawyers, Guns, and Money is the only other one I've heard. He is a really funny and insightful story teller in his songs. He definitely has his “novelty” songs like “Excitable Boy”, “Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner” or “Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead”, but he has much more nuanced stories in Hasten Down the Wind, Mohammed’s Radio, and Carmelita. He’s really great if you don’t mind the voice...I actually like it, but I like Geddy Lee and Bob Dylan, so...

Just remember that anything remotely “liberal” or Democrat Party is considered “not holding up to scrutiny” as you say and anything that a right wing member posts is not only righteous but obvious by default. Anyone whose viewpoint cannot be understood or empathised with is considered trolling. If you criticise Christianity (or try to place it in an historical perspective) or libertarians you can only be trolling. Be wary of the keyboard warriors that call you things that they would never say to your face but insist you are a keyboard warrior when you suggest you’d knock them out if they did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boMrTKZuvaQ I didn’t know that anyone other than Zevon recorded this song, though I knew he and Ronstadt had a close working relationship. The Zevon version is much better.

Are you on a small Asian island where you could have your life ruined if you got caught doing it?

258 as of yesterday. And at least 808 with pneumonia/flu without covid. Why are schools closed again?* *Just kidding, it’s unscientific fear mongering, sometimes for political or financial benefit.

The officer who killed Babbit was cleared of wrongdoing? I wonder which Dollar Tree and Target stores will suffer for this perceived injustice?

Well, if there is a virus out there which becomes agitated that it can’t infect someone with a vaccination and then grows angry and hungry, leaves the inoculated person and hunts out kids because there isn’t anything else left, the numbers should be growing exponentially for kids.

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.” This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering. “I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color. :facepalm: Really? I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt. My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)? What science are you reading? I can give you some sources. A good friend is a Phd biochemist working at the NIH on Covid work. Yes, the virus is definitely out there looking for hosts.If a number of adults are not good hosts due to vaccination and/or exposure the numbers may well increase in children, no one knows. I would love to see the scientific papers which determine that covid is the first sentient virus discovered by humans, but let’s just chalk that up to overly loose language and move past it (though it does seem odd that people are continuing to use that loose and inaccurate language about a virus). Infection is a function of exposure to the virus. With more adults already having had the virus or gotten vaccinated, children’s exposure to the virus decreases. That’s the whole point of herd immunity occurring at a number less than 100%. This is really, really basic stuff, and it’s disheartening to see that people don’t understand it. When did the virus become sentient? I'm not understanding that part of what you wrote. It's a virus, it's not sentient. Thanks. Being a living organism seeking a host doesn't mean it is sentient. And yes, I understand herd immunity. I haven't seen the exact percentage when that occurs for Covid? Because it keeps having variations, and some, like the South African variant, seem to persist even in people with vaccinations, so the number will be difficult to determine. I hope we can get there, though. Until then, the virus is going to be a problem. :( :( You said “Yes, the virus is definitely out there looking for hosts.If a number of adults are not good hosts due to vaccination and/or exposure the numbers may well increase in children, no one knows.” I said “Infection is a function of exposure to the virus. With more adults already having had the virus or gotten vaccinated, children’s exposure to the virus decreases.” My reference to herd immunity was to cement the point regarding decreased exposure as immunity numbers increase in direct contradiction to your earlier argument, and Rhyta’s.

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.” This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering. “I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color. :facepalm: Really? I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt. My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)? What science are you reading? I can give you some sources. A good friend is a Phd biochemist working at the NIH on Covid work. Yes, the virus is definitely out there looking for hosts.If a number of adults are not good hosts due to vaccination and/or exposure the numbers may well increase in children, no one knows. I would love to see the scientific papers which determine that covid is the first sentient virus discovered by humans, but let’s just chalk that up to overly loose language and move past it (though it does seem odd that people are continuing to use that loose and inaccurate language about a virus). Infection is a function of exposure to the virus. With more adults already having had the virus or gotten vaccinated, children’s exposure to the virus decreases. That’s the whole point of herd immunity occurring at a number less than 100%. This is really, really basic stuff, and it’s disheartening to see that people don’t understand it.

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.” This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering. “I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color. :facepalm: Really? I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt. My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)? As you are being deliberately ignorant, it is not my theory, the quotes I listed earlier in the thread are from medical people, I didn't link to the articles but they are out there if one cared to check. You just want to make fun of me and act superior, have a party :16ton: So when you are quoting other people in your argument against my position, you don’t actually believe what you are quoting? Why quote it then? The position is unscientific and absurd on its face. It goes against everything we’ve learned since the inception of germ-based theory over 100 years ago. And you still don’t acknowledge the incontrovertible facts that covid doesn’t infect children as much as adults, doesn’t affect children as negatively as adults, and isn’t nearly as dangerous to children as the ordinary flu.

At the beginning of last summer is was something like 6 people under the age of 6, and maybe about 100 under the age of 18. If that rate held, it should be something like 500, though I suspect we got better at dealing with it since the early days. Also, there were 2-5 times as many deaths due to flu and pneumonia (I’m not sure why they grouped those 2 together) than covid. I'll wait to get a few more guesses till I post the number (and the link). I just looked it up. Don’t worry folks, I got it wrong by a significant amount. Guess away! Some of the numbers in there really surprised me, and I’ve tried to keep up with this stuff.

At the beginning of last summer is was something like 6 people under the age of 6, and maybe about 100 under the age of 18. If that rate held, it should be something like 500, though I suspect we got better at dealing with it since the early days. Also, there were 2-5 times as many deaths due to flu and pneumonia (I’m not sure why they grouped those 2 together) than covid.

I just wanted to say that ILSnowdog sucks. And happy belated.

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.” This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering. “I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color. :facepalm: Really? I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt. My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)?

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.” This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering. “I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

In what can only be described as delicious irony, the legislature of the state of Idaho is shutting down at least until April 6th because of a Covid outbreak. https://apnews.com/a...4f884e752317d8c Irony so sweet, it’s giving me a toothache! Meanwhile, blue state death rates continue to give others heartache. https://www.statista...es-us-by-state/ I dunno, of the top 17 which is 1/3 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, I believe 9 are red states. 8 of the 10 states/territories with the lowest rates of death are also blue states. "Tell your statistics to shut up". Joe Schulz to Jim Bouton, 1969 I don't give a rat's ass about what a state's stupid "color" is. I care about dysfunctional, irresponsible parents passing their dysfunction onto their children and putting their health at risk, all because of their juvenile partisan agendas. I agree with this completely. All the available evidence shows that for young children, the risk of Covid is significantly lower than the risk of the normal flu (in the range of 1-3 times less dangerous depending on the age). Yet you have parents who are teaching their kids hysterical fear in the face of what, to the kids, is essentially a non-factor. Parents, and society as a whole, have a responsibility to protect children physically and emotionally. What we’ve seen is that partisan stupidity, anti-science beliefs, and irrational fear have caused many to sacrifice children’s psychological, intellectual, and physical development by closing schools, wrapping their kids up like they’re in a The Stand, and some even physically distancing themselves from their own kids if the kids have had exposure to the virus. What some have decided to do is just a form of child abuse. That isn’t to say the children don’t need to take any precautions: when I came back to the states to visit my parents for Christmas the kids masked up and socially distanced. Even though young children are significantly less likely to either contract or to pass on the virus than teens or adults, we planned to stay with my elderly parents and there was no need to put them at additional risk (the virus is significantly more dangerous than the flu for their age group). But there is a big difference between teaching kids to take some precautions in certain circumstances where they could increase the risk to others and the insanity which has gripped many in the US for the last year. Things are improving with so many getting vaccinated but the trope that children are not at risk is now being revised. With the influx of the new strains, ones that are much more contagious, children are now at a greater risk of contracting the virus. The U.K. variant is spreading in Minnesota, 750 cases reported in the last two weeks. Nothing is guaranteed with these mutations. Being cautious is being smart. In what can only be described as delicious irony, the legislature of the state of Idaho is shutting down at least until April 6th because of a Covid outbreak. https://apnews.com/a...4f884e752317d8c Irony so sweet, it’s giving me a toothache! Meanwhile, blue state death rates continue to give others heartache. https://www.statista...es-us-by-state/ I dunno, of the top 17 which is 1/3 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, I believe 9 are red states. 8 of the 10 states/territories with the lowest rates of death are also blue states. "Tell your statistics to shut up". Joe Schulz to Jim Bouton, 1969 I don't give a rat's ass about what a state's stupid "color" is. I care about dysfunctional, irresponsible parents passing their dysfunction onto their children and putting their health at risk, all because of their juvenile partisan agendas. I agree with this completely. All the available evidence shows that for young children, the risk of Covid is significantly lower than the risk of the normal flu (in the range of 1-3 times less dangerous depending on the age). Yet you have parents who are teaching their kids hysterical fear in the face of what, to the kids, is essentially a non-factor. Parents, and society as a whole, have a responsibility to protect children physically and emotionally. What we’ve seen is that partisan stupidity, anti-science beliefs, and irrational fear have caused many to sacrifice children’s psychological, intellectual, and physical development by closing schools, wrapping their kids up like they’re in a The Stand, and some even physically distancing themselves from their own kids if the kids have had exposure to the virus. What some have decided to do is just a form of child abuse. That isn’t to say the children don’t need to take any precautions: when I came back to the states to visit my parents for Christmas the kids masked up and socially distanced. Even though young children are significantly less likely to either contract or to pass on the virus than teens or adults, we planned to stay with my elderly parents and there was no need to put them at additional risk (the virus is significantly more dangerous than the flu for their age group). But there is a big difference between teaching kids to take some precautions in certain circumstances where they could increase the risk to others and the insanity which has gripped many in the US for the last year. Things are improving with so many getting vaccinated but the trope that children are not at risk is now being revised. With the influx of the new strains, ones that are much more contagious, children are now at a greater risk of contracting the virus. The U.K. variant is spreading in Minnesota, 750 cases reported in the last two weeks. Nothing is guaranteed with these mutations. Being cautious is being smart. I’ve never heard the trope that children are not at risk. What I’ve read is the scientific evidence that they are less likely to contract the disease than adults, less likely to pass on the disease than adults, less likely to have bad outcomes from the disease than adults, and that the disease is less dangerous for them than the flu. Even with the new variants, all this seems still to be true with the available evidence. Of course, you should be cautious when the danger is warranted (i.e., the kids may come in contact with high risk people). But many Americans aren’t merely being cautious, they are putting their kids’ mental and physical health at risk based on unscientific fear mongering. It isn't unscientific fear mongering. Here's a few recent headlines Massachusetts data shows nearly 7,000 COVID cases in children, teens in past 2 weeks ..cases of the contagious respiratory disease is reported as increasing in younger adults and children in many states as the country as a whole eases restrictions put in place to help stop transmission of the virus behind the pandemic that has killed more than 559,000 Americans. While children are out and about, playing sports and going to school after having being indoors for nearly a year, more and more are getting exposed to COVID-19 and getting sick enough to be hospitalized. While adults are getting vaccinated, there are no protections for children... Michigan Covid Hospitalizations number at 3K.. are younger than 60..that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children. Wisconsin With 1,046 new cases reported on Thursday, the first time since Feb. 11 that the daily count topped 1,000, the seven-day average for new infections has risen to 733. The daily average on March 23 was 387. “There are still a lot of vulnerable people at high risk,” Westergaard said. Adding to the risk, he said, are children who this week have the highest numbers of infection as in-person school resumes and extra-curricular activities activities ramp up. There is no doubt that children are being severely impacted by the disruption in their schooling. But rushing to get them all back in school as if everything is fine is setting up those children for exposure to the more highly contagious variants. We do so at our peril. It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact. You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

In what can only be described as delicious irony, the legislature of the state of Idaho is shutting down at least until April 6th because of a Covid outbreak. https://apnews.com/a...4f884e752317d8c Irony so sweet, it’s giving me a toothache! Meanwhile, blue state death rates continue to give others heartache. https://www.statista...es-us-by-state/ I dunno, of the top 17 which is 1/3 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, I believe 9 are red states. 8 of the 10 states/territories with the lowest rates of death are also blue states. "Tell your statistics to shut up". Joe Schulz to Jim Bouton, 1969 I don't give a rat's ass about what a state's stupid "color" is. I care about dysfunctional, irresponsible parents passing their dysfunction onto their children and putting their health at risk, all because of their juvenile partisan agendas. I agree with this completely. All the available evidence shows that for young children, the risk of Covid is significantly lower than the risk of the normal flu (in the range of 1-3 times less dangerous depending on the age). Yet you have parents who are teaching their kids hysterical fear in the face of what, to the kids, is essentially a non-factor. Parents, and society as a whole, have a responsibility to protect children physically and emotionally. What we’ve seen is that partisan stupidity, anti-science beliefs, and irrational fear have caused many to sacrifice children’s psychological, intellectual, and physical development by closing schools, wrapping their kids up like they’re in a The Stand, and some even physically distancing themselves from their own kids if the kids have had exposure to the virus. What some have decided to do is just a form of child abuse. That isn’t to say the children don’t need to take any precautions: when I came back to the states to visit my parents for Christmas the kids masked up and socially distanced. Even though young children are significantly less likely to either contract or to pass on the virus than teens or adults, we planned to stay with my elderly parents and there was no need to put them at additional risk (the virus is significantly more dangerous than the flu for their age group). But there is a big difference between teaching kids to take some precautions in certain circumstances where they could increase the risk to others and the insanity which has gripped many in the US for the last year. Things are improving with so many getting vaccinated but the trope that children are not at risk is now being revised. With the influx of the new strains, ones that are much more contagious, children are now at a greater risk of contracting the virus. The U.K. variant is spreading in Minnesota, 750 cases reported in the last two weeks. Nothing is guaranteed with these mutations. Being cautious is being smart. In what can only be described as delicious irony, the legislature of the state of Idaho is shutting down at least until April 6th because of a Covid outbreak. https://apnews.com/a...4f884e752317d8c Irony so sweet, it’s giving me a toothache! Meanwhile, blue state death rates continue to give others heartache. https://www.statista...es-us-by-state/ I dunno, of the top 17 which is 1/3 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, I believe 9 are red states. 8 of the 10 states/territories with the lowest rates of death are also blue states. "Tell your statistics to shut up". Joe Schulz to Jim Bouton, 1969 I don't give a rat's ass about what a state's stupid "color" is. I care about dysfunctional, irresponsible parents passing their dysfunction onto their children and putting their health at risk, all because of their juvenile partisan agendas. I agree with this completely. All the available evidence shows that for young children, the risk of Covid is significantly lower than the risk of the normal flu (in the range of 1-3 times less dangerous depending on the age). Yet you have parents who are teaching their kids hysterical fear in the face of what, to the kids, is essentially a non-factor. Parents, and society as a whole, have a responsibility to protect children physically and emotionally. What we’ve seen is that partisan stupidity, anti-science beliefs, and irrational fear have caused many to sacrifice children’s psychological, intellectual, and physical development by closing schools, wrapping their kids up like they’re in a The Stand, and some even physically distancing themselves from their own kids if the kids have had exposure to the virus. What some have decided to do is just a form of child abuse. That isn’t to say the children don’t need to take any precautions: when I came back to the states to visit my parents for Christmas the kids masked up and socially distanced. Even though young children are significantly less likely to either contract or to pass on the virus than teens or adults, we planned to stay with my elderly parents and there was no need to put them at additional risk (the virus is significantly more dangerous than the flu for their age group). But there is a big difference between teaching kids to take some precautions in certain circumstances where they could increase the risk to others and the insanity which has gripped many in the US for the last year. Things are improving with so many getting vaccinated but the trope that children are not at risk is now being revised. With the influx of the new strains, ones that are much more contagious, children are now at a greater risk of contracting the virus. The U.K. variant is spreading in Minnesota, 750 cases reported in the last two weeks. Nothing is guaranteed with these mutations. Being cautious is being smart. I’ve never heard the trope that children are not at risk. What I’ve read is the scientific evidence that they are less likely to contract the disease than adults, less likely to pass on the disease than adults, less likely to have bad outcomes from the disease than adults, and that the disease is less dangerous for them than the flu. Even with the new variants, all this seems still to be true with the available evidence. Of course, you should be cautious when the danger is warranted (i.e., the kids may come in contact with high risk people). But many Americans aren’t merely being cautious, they are putting their kids’ mental and physical health at risk based on unscientific fear mongering.

In what can only be described as delicious irony, the legislature of the state of Idaho is shutting down at least until April 6th because of a Covid outbreak. https://apnews.com/a...4f884e752317d8c Irony so sweet, it’s giving me a toothache! Meanwhile, blue state death rates continue to give others heartache. https://www.statista...es-us-by-state/ I dunno, of the top 17 which is 1/3 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, I believe 9 are red states. 8 of the 10 states/territories with the lowest rates of death are also blue states. "Tell your statistics to shut up". Joe Schulz to Jim Bouton, 1969 I don't give a rat's ass about what a state's stupid "color" is. I care about dysfunctional, irresponsible parents passing their dysfunction onto their children and putting their health at risk, all because of their juvenile partisan agendas. I agree with this completely. All the available evidence shows that for young children, the risk of Covid is significantly lower than the risk of the normal flu (in the range of 1-3 times less dangerous depending on the age). Yet you have parents who are teaching their kids hysterical fear in the face of what, to the kids, is essentially a non-factor. Parents, and society as a whole, have a responsibility to protect children physically and emotionally. What we’ve seen is that partisan stupidity, anti-science beliefs, and irrational fear have caused many to sacrifice children’s psychological, intellectual, and physical development by closing schools, wrapping their kids up like they’re in a The Stand, and some even physically distancing themselves from their own kids if the kids have had exposure to the virus. What some have decided to do is just a form of child abuse. That isn’t to say the children don’t need to take any precautions: when I came back to the states to visit my parents for Christmas the kids masked up and socially distanced. Even though young children are significantly less likely to either contract or to pass on the virus than teens or adults, we planned to stay with my elderly parents and there was no need to put them at additional risk (the virus is significantly more dangerous than the flu for their age group). But there is a big difference between teaching kids to take some precautions in certain circumstances where they could increase the risk to others and the insanity which has gripped many in the US for the last year.