I have indeed received packages for the holidays that unfortunately give away what is inside. I try to grab them before my spouse or kids see and wrap them but it doesn't always happen. Side note: I appreciate that Amazon often warns when the packaging will reveal what is inside - I keep my phone close to try to grab those packages as soon as they are delivered.
I recall being bummed because my late grandfather saw Halley's comet back in 1910 and it was a fizzle in 1986. So much for an experience across generations.
I wonder if you've noticed how often you get emails from people saying "I'm in the middle on this issue BUUUUUUT...." and then go on to espouse the conservative position. Like the email by David L. wringing his hands about how the issue of abortion has become a battle between extreme sides. I'd bet $50 he'd say the left wants abortions up to, and after, the moment of birth — which as we all know, is absolute bullshit. Call me next time someone positions themselves as the objective, chin-stroking sage in the middle who leans left.
Along those lines, it's unfathomable that journalists allow theoretically serious candidates like Nikki Haley and Liz Cheney to talk about "late-term abortions" and Democrats denying care to those "born alive after an abortion" (????). They need to cut them off right there and correct them, but even strong journalists like Jake Tapper and Abby Phillip let it pass.
I don’t really know, but it would appear to me that the later an abortion is performed, the more complications, and ergo the more expensive such a procedure would be.
The "niche within a niche" audience for the T-shirt was certainly too small to expect a significant vote, but it was a nice venue for us 6-stringers to bond. Should have left out the explanation in the poll (especially the double-don't) to keep the befuddlement of the uninitiated intact.
Yes, the explanation should not have been given away. As someone whose instrumental ability is limited to rhythm guitar playing, I enjoyed cracking the code and admired the esoterica of it.
Do you ever go anywhere by any other means than your car? Anytime I see you write about transportation issues at all it's always the position of the automobile being as cheap and convenient as possible. The skyway being expensive would be a great time to talk about the number of Amtrak trains that go to Michigan, and how the South Shore Line travels from Chicago to point in Indiana, and that the improvements in progress on that line will shave up to an hour off the current travel time to South Bend.
You could at any time argue for Bus Rapid Transit and expanded bike lanes. You could highlight how the bike lanes installed in the last decade or so have caused a major increase in people who commute by bike in the city. You could argue for a congestion charge in the central part of the city to decrease congestion, clean the air, make our streets safer, and fund transit improvements.
You claimed as one of your reasons to be against no turn on red was the supposed (non-existent) energy savings form being allowed to turn on red, but then here you talk about driving around the skyway to save a few bucks, burning more fossil fuels in the process. So much for your energy saving concerns. That is such hypocrisy. (And you are also against lowering the speed limit, which would in fact save energy as well as lives)
Seriously, do you ever ride a bike or take CTA/Metra/Pace anywhere? All you do on here is promote the most inefficient and dangerous form of transportation that exist. And one that is deeply subsidized by tax dollars (the gas tax doesn't come close to covering road cost) making driving much, much cheaper than it's real economic, environmental, and human toll.
One downside of taking rail transportation to western Michigan is the need for an auto at your destination. Another is the transport of your luggage including rec equipment etc.
It's actually pretty expensive to take my entire family on Amtrak to Michigan and then have to rent a car at our destination to get around. Plus there are no car rental places anywhere near our destination stations. Not to mention packing all the gifts for both sides of the family into luggage for the trip. I love Amtrak, don't get me wrong, but if you don't have a car waiting for you or if you are traveling with your whole fam, Amtrak isn't always the best choice. Works well for my college student traveling back and forth to Michigan (except for holiday break when there is a lot of stuff coming/going) but not always practical. For Eric, I imagine having to have an elderly parent pick you up at the train station would not be helpful. (My own elderly father is no longer able to pick us up at the train station)
The USDOT sub-site (rosap.ntl.bts.gov) states that the Right Turn On Red Laws save approximately 3,000,000 gallons of gasoline in the US each year. That is not "Non-existent"). I, too, travel not infrequently to the areas where EZ travels, and all of the replies earlier to mine regarding the need for a car on the other end also apply. (No reasonably convenient mass transit options in the Ann Arbor/Metro Detroit area. C'mon, It's in the state where the Big 3 are, for chrissake - do you think the movers and shakers in the auto industry over the years would've let the Michigan legislature appropriate funds for efficient mass transit when they can build roads/bridges/highways for car/trucks instead?)
Yeah, to that point, I have taken Amtrak to Ann Arbor many times and it's slower -- sometimes dreadfully so -- than driving, door-to-door and forces me to follow their schedule. I do often take the el downtown when I go and did regularly when I commuted to work at the Tribune Tower and Prudential Building.
Amtrak to Ann Arbor is playing Russian roulette with your time. Cassie prefers the bus, which is usually on time, cleaner, and way faster, even though it leaves the highway many times on the way.
The population of Detroit was about 1.5 million in 1973 and is about 620,000 now. The population of the metro area has been stagnant. The buses and street cars are modern, efficient, expensive (low fare, high subsidy), and little used.
I lived in Detroit during law school in the early 90s and took advantage of public transportation (remember the People Mover?) Buses were horrid though - never, ever on time. I hope it's much better now. No public transportation will take you from Detroit to Ann Arbor :-(
I used to travel to Detroit regularly and looked into Amtrak. There are only five trains per day. They take between 5.5 and 9 hours. None arrive in the morning, so I would have to leave the day before. I still needed a car at the other end. Driving takes about 4 hours. I drove.
We also traveled regularly to Edwardsburg MI. The South Shore had a decent schedule to South Bend airport and is very reasonably priced. Still needed a car at the other end to complete the trip. The train takes 3.5 to 4 hours plus another 1.5 hour at each end. The drive took two hours. This was still my wife's preference because she hated driving on either highway, and she had me to drive her to/from the train station at Randolph and Michigan. I always drove.
"The Texas Supreme Court had no other choice but to overturn the trial court's order."
No, they could have confirmed the trial courts decision and done the right thing.
'Nowhere in the decision <strong>do I </strong> see anything that indicates that plaintiff is any more in danger herself because of medical complications of the pregnancy than is any other woman who is pregnant and about to deliver."
Your medical degree is from where? They don't call it "died in childbirth" because it happened one time. Every, Every, Every pregnancy comes with a certain amount of risk. We don't teach that in this country, along with proper sex education, because many whyte guys with power are uncomfortable with this information.
"But it's not good to tell them to simply flout any law they disagree with."
like Slavery or not letting women vote or own property or even a god damn credit card. whas a thing until very recently. When the process fails to correct an injustice, you have to take alternative action.
The Texas Supreme Court also had an opportunity to declare the law unconstitutional. But they decided to duck that issue and hid behind their explanation that allowing an abortion violated the law as written.
And the trial judge’s medical degree came from..where?
I see that you’re one of these guys who thinks that laws should be ignored or circumvented whenever you (or anyone) think that they fail to meet a moral imperative, and effect an injustice. You mean like deploying an angry mob to the Capitol to overturn an election that you think you won?
So we gonna compare Apples to Chainsaws now? Does anyone want to defend Slavery? I mean according to Ron DeSantis, it taught some valuable skills. amirite! Women not being able to vote or own property (except in some extreme one-off conditions) is cool, right.
Moral imperatives are subjective but if a law is unjust then what is the argument for upholding it? Because it doesn't impact you? It's the status quo? We have a antiquitated method for changing it, providing those in power agree with the marginalized.
Steven K, you have the luxury (aka privilege) of being able to state your position because it likely doesn't affect you. Maybe your wife or daughter or other relative was able to get an abortion without any issues or never needed one. But it is so disingenuous to sit back and say "well, that is the law, we cannot do anything about it."
And I know you're gonna say "well there is a process". but the process takes time. and ones need for an abortion has very little time to work with.
Sidenote: I've already earned back my money for being a paid subscriber and getting to comment on the Picayune Sentinel.
I recently was diagnosed with prostate cancer. It was very concerning, reviewing treatment options and dealing with my condition.
Having someone tell me you need to review the laws concerning cancer treatment, and your doctor ( and you) should retain a lawyer to insure your treatment meets legal requirements would probably overwhelm me.
Well that is not a problem (yet), but I can barely estimate what these pregnant women with difficult pregnancies are going through. I guess if you really want to hurt a person with a difficult medical condition, you throw in a potential lawsuit to maximize their distress.
Wow, the hate from these red state republicans seem to have no boundaries.
I'm very sorry to hear of your prostate cancer Peter. I lost my father to that wretched disease. I am lifting you in prayer for God's healing touch and that your physicians will guide you toward very effective treatment. Hang in there!
I'm most interested in seeing how the Supreme Ct. decides on the ban of the FDA approved abortion pill Mifepristone. It's bad enough the courts feel they can override a doctor's diagnose and treatment plan, now the far right is going after the FDA's approval of access, possibly to any medication they disapprove of. If the Court decides on a total ban, it would be enfoced nationwide, even in states where abortion is legal. Which drugs related to women's reproductive care are next?
I have found it best to have ZERO expectation that the Supreme Ct. will do anything in the best interests of women and their healthcare. That way anything less than a total ban feels like a bit of a win. With all that is coming out about Justice Thomas needing "to get a raise or he might resign" that body has some very serious ethics issues to deal with. Again, expect the worst.
Yeah, but no. That's an inflated number that takes into account insurance, licensing, depreciation and all the other long-term costs of owning a car that's used for business. That's why I reached out to that company who makes the calculation for the IRS to hammer out what it ACTUALLY costs to drive five extra miles. This page https://triplogmileage.com/guide-category/irs-mileage-rate-explained/ is pretty informative, and it says that the reimbursement rate is now $0.22 per mile for trips that are for medical purposes, $0.18 per mile for moving, and $0.14 per mile driven in the service of charitable organizations.
Insurance and certainly depreciation depend on miles driven. For my Jeep, I calculate gas at 15 cents, tires at 1-2 cents, and cost of the car ($40,000 over 160,000 miles) at 25 cents per mile. Your consultant has some crazy numbers.
You would have the car anyway. It would depreciate over time anyway. You would be paying insurance, licenses and other costs anyway. The marginal cost of that 5 miles is nowhere near 65 cents a mile.
The depreciation is a function of miles AND time. I just plugged in my mileage (140000) vs 40k miles at TrueCar and the difference is $11500 just because of 100,000 extra miles. That is 11.5 cents per mile solely due to miles. The gas and tires are solely per mile. So, not counting maintenance, which is largely per mile, I’m still at 28 cents per mile.
It isn't the scenery for me but the far fewer semi's and the much lower risk of hitting a massive traffic jam due to accident or time of day. I always continue from the Skyway on the Indiana toll road to the South Bend area, vs I80. I also preferred taking Congress, LSD and Stoney Island to taking the Ryan, when using the Skyway.
“ Those favoring abortion rights recognize that no compromise with the other side will ever hold. Give them a 20-week limit and they’ll start agitating for 15, then 12, then 6. Then they’ll push for an absolute ban. So why even start playing that game?”
Again, you articulate exactly what 2A advocates believe about all efforts to infringe their rights.
Because current 2A law rests on a wholly misguided interpretation of the text, and required Scalia to effectively ignore the whole "well-regulated" militia clause of the 2A. (It was widely criticized by legal scholars at the time.) The NRA and other even more extreme (I know, difficult to conceive, but true) gun-rights groups have leveraged the Heller decision to twist the meaning of the 2A so far beyond the what the Founders could have possible intended, as to make it a joke. (And, please note, that this opinion is coming from a person who has owned firearms for more than 45 years, a took an NRA-sponsored firearms safety class from my local police department when I bought my .22 rifle as a teenager. 45 years ago the NRA was interested primarily in firearm safety, not in promoting the annual sales of firearm manufacturers.)
You can take that up with SCOTUS, just like pro-life folks had to deal with Roe v Wade. The 2A absolutists certainly have more constitutional text supporting them than the abortion-rights absolutists. If you think it’s weak, what can you make of the constitutional right to abortion?
To all of the commenters here that are complaining about Amazon’s gift-spoiler packaging, there is an easy solution: buy your Christmas presents at Target or Meijer or JC Penney or Kohl’s. You have the whole rest of the year and all of the thousands of other retail transactions you undertake in which you can continue to feed Jeff’s Leviathan. Getting in your car and driving to a store once in awhile, though not a completely risk free endeavor, is not likely to kill you.
I want to be encouraged by the "more and more responsible reporting about the clear threat that a re-elected President Donald Trump would pose to democracy and rule of law" but I worry that reporting is not getting to the right audience. Sorry to sound elitist but I doubt those who get their political information from Fox News are also reading The Atlantic and New York Times. Our country has mastered targeted marketing, even more so since the onset of social media, so who is figuring out where to reach those folks apparently still in the middle of the red/blue divide and therefore persuadable to back off from supporting Trump? Is there data that The Lincoln Project is being effective? Anyone else? I'm looking for signs to be hopeful but feel that the greatest investigative reporting uncovering more and more compelling information is pointless if it doesn't reach the right ears.
There are different kinds of threats to democracy. Some are self-inflicted. I just finished reading the story on University of Chicago students claiming that their sit in arrests and the refusal of the board to divest from Israel are repression and denial if their right to free specch. A sit in is trepassing, whether or not it is violent. No one denied the rights of the students to express their views. The board does not automatically to agree with their views on Israel. I see that as repression by the students. If they don't like the poitical views of the people that run the University of Chicago, then attend school elsewhere.
Only scanned this am but all of those Tweet are freaking LOL And Zorn-meant to write last week that I'm appreciative of your and your writings and comments on Trump and the abortion issues. Not exactly holiday fare but we need to eat that stuff right now and get out the fucking votes before it's too late. Ho ho ho!
Amazon offers generic boxing for gifts. At checkout, they ask if this is a gift and if you want it in a unmarked box.
I have indeed received packages for the holidays that unfortunately give away what is inside. I try to grab them before my spouse or kids see and wrap them but it doesn't always happen. Side note: I appreciate that Amazon often warns when the packaging will reveal what is inside - I keep my phone close to try to grab those packages as soon as they are delivered.
There is also the option of having packages delivered to an Amazon locker.
I recall being bummed because my late grandfather saw Halley's comet back in 1910 and it was a fizzle in 1986. So much for an experience across generations.
They just dont do comets like they did on the old days.
I wonder if you've noticed how often you get emails from people saying "I'm in the middle on this issue BUUUUUUT...." and then go on to espouse the conservative position. Like the email by David L. wringing his hands about how the issue of abortion has become a battle between extreme sides. I'd bet $50 he'd say the left wants abortions up to, and after, the moment of birth — which as we all know, is absolute bullshit. Call me next time someone positions themselves as the objective, chin-stroking sage in the middle who leans left.
Along those lines, it's unfathomable that journalists allow theoretically serious candidates like Nikki Haley and Liz Cheney to talk about "late-term abortions" and Democrats denying care to those "born alive after an abortion" (????). They need to cut them off right there and correct them, but even strong journalists like Jake Tapper and Abby Phillip let it pass.
Abortions aren't free. Many of the post 20 week abortions occur because the woman must save up for them.
Thank you for your reply to the strict constructionist.
I don’t really know, but it would appear to me that the later an abortion is performed, the more complications, and ergo the more expensive such a procedure would be.
I think you described another Catch-22 for low-income women.
The "niche within a niche" audience for the T-shirt was certainly too small to expect a significant vote, but it was a nice venue for us 6-stringers to bond. Should have left out the explanation in the poll (especially the double-don't) to keep the befuddlement of the uninitiated intact.
Yes, the explanation should not have been given away. As someone whose instrumental ability is limited to rhythm guitar playing, I enjoyed cracking the code and admired the esoterica of it.
Do you ever go anywhere by any other means than your car? Anytime I see you write about transportation issues at all it's always the position of the automobile being as cheap and convenient as possible. The skyway being expensive would be a great time to talk about the number of Amtrak trains that go to Michigan, and how the South Shore Line travels from Chicago to point in Indiana, and that the improvements in progress on that line will shave up to an hour off the current travel time to South Bend.
You could at any time argue for Bus Rapid Transit and expanded bike lanes. You could highlight how the bike lanes installed in the last decade or so have caused a major increase in people who commute by bike in the city. You could argue for a congestion charge in the central part of the city to decrease congestion, clean the air, make our streets safer, and fund transit improvements.
You claimed as one of your reasons to be against no turn on red was the supposed (non-existent) energy savings form being allowed to turn on red, but then here you talk about driving around the skyway to save a few bucks, burning more fossil fuels in the process. So much for your energy saving concerns. That is such hypocrisy. (And you are also against lowering the speed limit, which would in fact save energy as well as lives)
Seriously, do you ever ride a bike or take CTA/Metra/Pace anywhere? All you do on here is promote the most inefficient and dangerous form of transportation that exist. And one that is deeply subsidized by tax dollars (the gas tax doesn't come close to covering road cost) making driving much, much cheaper than it's real economic, environmental, and human toll.
One downside of taking rail transportation to western Michigan is the need for an auto at your destination. Another is the transport of your luggage including rec equipment etc.
It's actually pretty expensive to take my entire family on Amtrak to Michigan and then have to rent a car at our destination to get around. Plus there are no car rental places anywhere near our destination stations. Not to mention packing all the gifts for both sides of the family into luggage for the trip. I love Amtrak, don't get me wrong, but if you don't have a car waiting for you or if you are traveling with your whole fam, Amtrak isn't always the best choice. Works well for my college student traveling back and forth to Michigan (except for holiday break when there is a lot of stuff coming/going) but not always practical. For Eric, I imagine having to have an elderly parent pick you up at the train station would not be helpful. (My own elderly father is no longer able to pick us up at the train station)
The USDOT sub-site (rosap.ntl.bts.gov) states that the Right Turn On Red Laws save approximately 3,000,000 gallons of gasoline in the US each year. That is not "Non-existent"). I, too, travel not infrequently to the areas where EZ travels, and all of the replies earlier to mine regarding the need for a car on the other end also apply. (No reasonably convenient mass transit options in the Ann Arbor/Metro Detroit area. C'mon, It's in the state where the Big 3 are, for chrissake - do you think the movers and shakers in the auto industry over the years would've let the Michigan legislature appropriate funds for efficient mass transit when they can build roads/bridges/highways for car/trucks instead?)
Yeah, to that point, I have taken Amtrak to Ann Arbor many times and it's slower -- sometimes dreadfully so -- than driving, door-to-door and forces me to follow their schedule. I do often take the el downtown when I go and did regularly when I commuted to work at the Tribune Tower and Prudential Building.
I have had predominantly good experiences with the Green Line and Blue Line. I always use them when it is a reasonable walk on the other end.
Amtrak to Ann Arbor is playing Russian roulette with your time. Cassie prefers the bus, which is usually on time, cleaner, and way faster, even though it leaves the highway many times on the way.
The population of Detroit was about 1.5 million in 1973 and is about 620,000 now. The population of the metro area has been stagnant. The buses and street cars are modern, efficient, expensive (low fare, high subsidy), and little used.
I lived in Detroit during law school in the early 90s and took advantage of public transportation (remember the People Mover?) Buses were horrid though - never, ever on time. I hope it's much better now. No public transportation will take you from Detroit to Ann Arbor :-(
When you consider it is out of over 135 billion gallons the U.S. burs every year, it's a rounding error.
That's 1,200 tons of CO2 kept out of the atmosphere per year.
Yes, right turn on red is the solution to global warming. Oh brother...
Every little bit helps . . . .
No, it really doesn't. Making driving more convenient makes things worse.
I used to travel to Detroit regularly and looked into Amtrak. There are only five trains per day. They take between 5.5 and 9 hours. None arrive in the morning, so I would have to leave the day before. I still needed a car at the other end. Driving takes about 4 hours. I drove.
We also traveled regularly to Edwardsburg MI. The South Shore had a decent schedule to South Bend airport and is very reasonably priced. Still needed a car at the other end to complete the trip. The train takes 3.5 to 4 hours plus another 1.5 hour at each end. The drive took two hours. This was still my wife's preference because she hated driving on either highway, and she had me to drive her to/from the train station at Randolph and Michigan. I always drove.
"The Texas Supreme Court had no other choice but to overturn the trial court's order."
No, they could have confirmed the trial courts decision and done the right thing.
'Nowhere in the decision <strong>do I </strong> see anything that indicates that plaintiff is any more in danger herself because of medical complications of the pregnancy than is any other woman who is pregnant and about to deliver."
Your medical degree is from where? They don't call it "died in childbirth" because it happened one time. Every, Every, Every pregnancy comes with a certain amount of risk. We don't teach that in this country, along with proper sex education, because many whyte guys with power are uncomfortable with this information.
"But it's not good to tell them to simply flout any law they disagree with."
like Slavery or not letting women vote or own property or even a god damn credit card. whas a thing until very recently. When the process fails to correct an injustice, you have to take alternative action.
The Texas Supreme Court also had an opportunity to declare the law unconstitutional. But they decided to duck that issue and hid behind their explanation that allowing an abortion violated the law as written.
And the trial judge’s medical degree came from..where?
I see that you’re one of these guys who thinks that laws should be ignored or circumvented whenever you (or anyone) think that they fail to meet a moral imperative, and effect an injustice. You mean like deploying an angry mob to the Capitol to overturn an election that you think you won?
That sort of thing?
So we gonna compare Apples to Chainsaws now? Does anyone want to defend Slavery? I mean according to Ron DeSantis, it taught some valuable skills. amirite! Women not being able to vote or own property (except in some extreme one-off conditions) is cool, right.
Moral imperatives are subjective but if a law is unjust then what is the argument for upholding it? Because it doesn't impact you? It's the status quo? We have a antiquitated method for changing it, providing those in power agree with the marginalized.
Steven K, you have the luxury (aka privilege) of being able to state your position because it likely doesn't affect you. Maybe your wife or daughter or other relative was able to get an abortion without any issues or never needed one. But it is so disingenuous to sit back and say "well, that is the law, we cannot do anything about it."
And I know you're gonna say "well there is a process". but the process takes time. and ones need for an abortion has very little time to work with.
Sidenote: I've already earned back my money for being a paid subscriber and getting to comment on the Picayune Sentinel.
I recently was diagnosed with prostate cancer. It was very concerning, reviewing treatment options and dealing with my condition.
Having someone tell me you need to review the laws concerning cancer treatment, and your doctor ( and you) should retain a lawyer to insure your treatment meets legal requirements would probably overwhelm me.
Well that is not a problem (yet), but I can barely estimate what these pregnant women with difficult pregnancies are going through. I guess if you really want to hurt a person with a difficult medical condition, you throw in a potential lawsuit to maximize their distress.
Wow, the hate from these red state republicans seem to have no boundaries.
Added to which is the slippery slope of accusing women who miscarry of having an abortion. See today's Tribune article; it's happening now.
I'm very sorry to hear of your prostate cancer Peter. I lost my father to that wretched disease. I am lifting you in prayer for God's healing touch and that your physicians will guide you toward very effective treatment. Hang in there!
Thanks.
I'm most interested in seeing how the Supreme Ct. decides on the ban of the FDA approved abortion pill Mifepristone. It's bad enough the courts feel they can override a doctor's diagnose and treatment plan, now the far right is going after the FDA's approval of access, possibly to any medication they disapprove of. If the Court decides on a total ban, it would be enfoced nationwide, even in states where abortion is legal. Which drugs related to women's reproductive care are next?
I have found it best to have ZERO expectation that the Supreme Ct. will do anything in the best interests of women and their healthcare. That way anything less than a total ban feels like a bit of a win. With all that is coming out about Justice Thomas needing "to get a raise or he might resign" that body has some very serious ethics issues to deal with. Again, expect the worst.
The standard reimbursement for driving is $0.65, not 20 cents. So the skyway saves $3.25 per toll.
Yeah, but no. That's an inflated number that takes into account insurance, licensing, depreciation and all the other long-term costs of owning a car that's used for business. That's why I reached out to that company who makes the calculation for the IRS to hammer out what it ACTUALLY costs to drive five extra miles. This page https://triplogmileage.com/guide-category/irs-mileage-rate-explained/ is pretty informative, and it says that the reimbursement rate is now $0.22 per mile for trips that are for medical purposes, $0.18 per mile for moving, and $0.14 per mile driven in the service of charitable organizations.
Insurance and certainly depreciation depend on miles driven. For my Jeep, I calculate gas at 15 cents, tires at 1-2 cents, and cost of the car ($40,000 over 160,000 miles) at 25 cents per mile. Your consultant has some crazy numbers.
You would have the car anyway. It would depreciate over time anyway. You would be paying insurance, licenses and other costs anyway. The marginal cost of that 5 miles is nowhere near 65 cents a mile.
The depreciation is a function of miles AND time. I just plugged in my mileage (140000) vs 40k miles at TrueCar and the difference is $11500 just because of 100,000 extra miles. That is 11.5 cents per mile solely due to miles. The gas and tires are solely per mile. So, not counting maintenance, which is largely per mile, I’m still at 28 cents per mile.
It isn't the scenery for me but the far fewer semi's and the much lower risk of hitting a massive traffic jam due to accident or time of day. I always continue from the Skyway on the Indiana toll road to the South Bend area, vs I80. I also preferred taking Congress, LSD and Stoney Island to taking the Ryan, when using the Skyway.
“ Those favoring abortion rights recognize that no compromise with the other side will ever hold. Give them a 20-week limit and they’ll start agitating for 15, then 12, then 6. Then they’ll push for an absolute ban. So why even start playing that game?”
Again, you articulate exactly what 2A advocates believe about all efforts to infringe their rights.
Because current 2A law rests on a wholly misguided interpretation of the text, and required Scalia to effectively ignore the whole "well-regulated" militia clause of the 2A. (It was widely criticized by legal scholars at the time.) The NRA and other even more extreme (I know, difficult to conceive, but true) gun-rights groups have leveraged the Heller decision to twist the meaning of the 2A so far beyond the what the Founders could have possible intended, as to make it a joke. (And, please note, that this opinion is coming from a person who has owned firearms for more than 45 years, a took an NRA-sponsored firearms safety class from my local police department when I bought my .22 rifle as a teenager. 45 years ago the NRA was interested primarily in firearm safety, not in promoting the annual sales of firearm manufacturers.)
You can take that up with SCOTUS, just like pro-life folks had to deal with Roe v Wade. The 2A absolutists certainly have more constitutional text supporting them than the abortion-rights absolutists. If you think it’s weak, what can you make of the constitutional right to abortion?
To all of the commenters here that are complaining about Amazon’s gift-spoiler packaging, there is an easy solution: buy your Christmas presents at Target or Meijer or JC Penney or Kohl’s. You have the whole rest of the year and all of the thousands of other retail transactions you undertake in which you can continue to feed Jeff’s Leviathan. Getting in your car and driving to a store once in awhile, though not a completely risk free endeavor, is not likely to kill you.
I want to be encouraged by the "more and more responsible reporting about the clear threat that a re-elected President Donald Trump would pose to democracy and rule of law" but I worry that reporting is not getting to the right audience. Sorry to sound elitist but I doubt those who get their political information from Fox News are also reading The Atlantic and New York Times. Our country has mastered targeted marketing, even more so since the onset of social media, so who is figuring out where to reach those folks apparently still in the middle of the red/blue divide and therefore persuadable to back off from supporting Trump? Is there data that The Lincoln Project is being effective? Anyone else? I'm looking for signs to be hopeful but feel that the greatest investigative reporting uncovering more and more compelling information is pointless if it doesn't reach the right ears.
There are different kinds of threats to democracy. Some are self-inflicted. I just finished reading the story on University of Chicago students claiming that their sit in arrests and the refusal of the board to divest from Israel are repression and denial if their right to free specch. A sit in is trepassing, whether or not it is violent. No one denied the rights of the students to express their views. The board does not automatically to agree with their views on Israel. I see that as repression by the students. If they don't like the poitical views of the people that run the University of Chicago, then attend school elsewhere.
Only scanned this am but all of those Tweet are freaking LOL And Zorn-meant to write last week that I'm appreciative of your and your writings and comments on Trump and the abortion issues. Not exactly holiday fare but we need to eat that stuff right now and get out the fucking votes before it's too late. Ho ho ho!