…can I pick and choose who among us dies? If so, then… maybe. 
If no, then… no.
3 Likes
Yeah… Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that.
4 Likes
Unfortunate indeed.
2 Likes
I mean, in a practical sense that’d still be pretty ghoulish. Think about what would actually go into that. Would you individually look at each person? Would you flinch away from it, and wipe out entire demographics? It’d be pretty horrific even then. I can’t really deny how it could help us out as a society, but still… Disturbing. Or maybe I just put too much thought into it.
3 Likes
Very likely. 
1 Like
It’s not possible. Period.
That would leave the realm of politics and land firmly in philosophy territory. There may be a point to be made for a utilitarian approach, going by life expectancy and probable ‘worth’ for society, but even that would lead to absolutely inhuman results.
Or to something like the discussion in Dr. Strangelove on who should be saved from the nuclear strike.
So, while I admit that just about everyone may have a few candidates who wouldn’t be missed, it’s not possible unless one is either mad or a computer.
4 Likes
Well, yes. I do somehow doubt any of us have a kill button lying around. Honestly I was mostly poking fun at my own tendency to think disturbing things.
4 Likes
1 Like
I admit I used to “joke” (no really, it was a joke. I swear) about keeping a “cull list” at work. Anyone I came across that I considered a waste of flesh and oxygen, “yep, another one for the cull list”. I tend not to think like that anymore though. Aren’t I enlightened?
Speaking of the list though…
I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but I guess this was the catalyst
3 Likes
I honestly don’t know what people are going to think of this era. Will it be viewed with an air of disbelief, absurdity, surrealism, bitterness? Most of the time I’m numb to it, but then comes things like Trump’s recent task force conference. He used a supposed briefing for a national crisis to run a campaign advertisement, had a breakdown on live television, and declared his authority ‘total’.
Even now I can’t really manage a sense of disbelief, just a sort of acknowledgement that it was worse than usual and a vague admittance of ridiculousness.
4 Likes
Don’t worry, though I think we may have scared Mickity 
And even some conservative media picked that up:
That would assume that things get better afterward, which I’d call an optimistic outcome. But I guess the reign of King Donald won’t be regarded as an age of reason. I just hope it will just be a short era.
Meanwhile, let’s look at some other countries:
“We have a lot of problems, and we don’t have much to brag about, nor reason to, and we certainly can’t relax,” Mr. Putin told senior officials in a televised videoconference that he conducted from his residence outside Moscow. “We are not past the peak of the epidemic, not even in Moscow.”
This change of tone gives the impression that it’s going to get really dire in Russia.
Edit:
Found the campaign advertisement, starting at 14:00.
And that’s why no one needs the daily advertising conference. The White House staff is now obviously charged with making campaign clips. But well, those are tax dollars put to visible use 
4 Likes
1 Like
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/america-returning-1781-120026206.html
Posting this article because it is mind-numbingly stupid. 1781?! The States are functioning as they are expected to under the Constitution. The States have very broad powers that the Feds do not have. This isn’t a return to the Articles of Confederation, it’s a recognition that the 10th Amendment means what it ■■■■■■■ says.
Jaysus.
The individual States get to decide when to end the lock down - not Donny. Sure, he can advise them all he wants, and he can reopen air travel and the borders, but if Rhode Island wants to deny cars with New York license plates entry into their state, they can do that. If the West Coast thinks that the worst is behind them, they can reopen - if New York thinks they are still in a giant pile of ■■■■, they can stay closed. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
5 Likes
I mean, we all know he’s not a great fan of the US Constitution. I think he’s Jonesing for Putin-style powers.
5 Likes
None of them are, and it makes me ■■■■■■■ insane. Congress will invoke the Commerce Clause to micromanage every state-to-state interaction they possibly can, or even when the activity stays within a single state (such as manufacturing machine guns or growing weed).
The thing about American politicians is that they will ALL say they love the Constitution, and then in the next breath they will describe their preferred policy that is very clearly unconstitutional. Then, when called on it, they will ask, “Are you serious?! Are you serious?!!!”
Then again, when questions of constitutionality arise and make their way to the SCOTUS, it’s not like these issues are decided 8-1 or 9-0. They’re often 5-4 decisions, which is… MIND BOGGLING. Personally, I blame all that ‘living Constitution’ crapola. It’s not alive, and it means what it says. It’s written down, we just need to read it from time to time.
Ok, ok… -deep breath-
This pandemic ■■■■ is starting to get on my nerves, boys. Oh yes - MAH NERVES.
3 Likes
I mean, given all the ■■■■ ups before that split in jurisprudence I somehow doubt that Scalia solved it with his originalist philosophy. You aren’t wrong otherwise though Mike. Actually that was one thing I was pleased about in that ScotUS decision on the ACA. I didn’t like the general conclusion (since, you know it left an even bigger mess by removing the mandatory part), but the attack against the broad use of the commerce clause was a good thing in my view.
2 Likes
Oh, you’d like a nonsensical rant? Ok!
Of course, everyone having health insurance is a Good Thing. Full stipity stop.
However, the idea that the feds can mandate that everyone is required to purchase said insurance is, to this libertarian brain, a ■■■■■■■ insane expansion of federal power that is very clearly unconstitutional. As is using the presidential pen and paper to legislate in order to adjust immigration rules and ban bump stocks. But, then again, some of our nation’s finest legal minds disagree. So, what do I know in comparison? Not much it would seem. I do, however, know how to read. Seems pretty clear the intent was to limit the power of the fed.
Take for example, Prohibition. Back then, to exercise that sort of federal power required that the Constitution be amended to give the feds that power. Of course Prohibition was bad policy, but at least we realized that such a federal policy required adjustment of one of our founding documents.
Today? Today is so very different. Today we just create new executive agencies like the DEA - no amendment needed. But what’s changed? Nothing has changed, other than our willingness to ignore the Constitution when convenient, and to otherwise bastardize parts of it and bend it to our will. Why? Because amending it is hard (purposefully so), and it’s so much easier to say, “Meh, commerce clause, bitches!”
But… I’m a crank.
1 Like
Yeah see, I agree with you, I just still didn’t like the result. The ACA was a mess before that, and is now even more of one. Like I said though, the attack on the commerce clause was probably the best result of that thing. The commerce clause has been so thoroughly abused that it doesn’t even meaningfully resemble its text in execution.
1 Like
Absolutely. And why has it been abused? Because it’s a way for Congress to expand federal power. You and I quite often rightfully bemoan the rise of the imperial presidency. I think we’ve been a little amiss in not also savaging the imperial senate.
Galactic? Galactic Senate? Sounds cooler, doesn’t it?
1 Like