wild_turkey

Are we considering that Fort Worth?

Okay, so just to address both of those points and your objections to each: 1. You seem to be of the belief that banning assault weapons would not help because there are already too many in circulation. The counterpoint is that both the Uvalde shooter and the Louisville bank shooter bought a brand new AR-15 within days of their respective massacres. That’s 19 dead children, 2 dead teachers, and 6 dead bank employees. And that’s just the easy memorable shootings from the past year. If the purchase of new assault weapons were not permitted, both of those shooters would still be able to buy a gun, but presumably they would choose something that has a lower capacity and is less effective for committing mass murder. Maybe in that scenario, we end up with different death totals from those two events. Maybe it’s only 17 dead children, 2 dead teachers, and 5 dead bank employees. Thats 3 murder victims still alive today. That’s a win. Is there some part of that you would dispute? 2. You also seem to believe that it is politically impossible to ban assault weapons. There have been many times in the history of our country that people thought something was politically out of reach. The right to vote, gay marriage, buy weed - the list is endless. It’s only impossible if people believe it’s impossible and everyone gives up. Your subsequent posts took a little bit of the opposite stance regarding changing things with our votes (which this is the politics board and I’m not sure how else it would change), so maybe I’m not clear your true thoughts on this part. Look, I’m not suggesting an assault weapons ban would fix everything, nor is it the only change I want to see implemented. It just appears to be low hanging fruit and an obvious thing to target as part of gun control legislation. And I’m bewildered why someone who claims to be a reasonable responsible gun owner would cling so hard to the right to buy an AR-15 other than to justify your own personal ownership of one, because otherwise you might feel a tad bit hypocritical. Like maybe you don’t want to admit to yourself that your toy (which you claim is for “reference” purposes) is also the preferred weapon of mass murder for many of these shootings, and your right to buy that toy also allowed Salvador Ramos and Connor Sturgeon and [insert yet to be named mass shooter in May 2023] to buy their murder weapons.

Why do you keep saying this (assault weapons ban) is out of reach? Is it your belief that there are already too many assault weapons in circulation, so banning them now would not make a difference? In other words, the battle has been lost and we should just give up? Or are you simply saying it is highly unlikely to occur for political reasons? Legit questions, looking for a straightforward answer. Spare me the talking in circles and blaming political parties and deflections. I just want an honest answer why assault weapons cannot be banned. From where I stand, it seems that banning assault weapons is both physically and politically possible. Other first world countries exist where people are unable to legally purchase these weapons, and those countries seem to do just fine without them. It also seems that at least some of these mass shootings are committed with a recently purchased AR-15, and if they were not available to purchase, those shooters would have to choose a different weapon that is presumably less efficient for committing mass murder. Even if their next best choice is only 5% less effective, when you add up the number of victims in mass shootings, many of them children, that translates into saving human lives. (at the small expense of some men no longer being able to purchase their preferred toy) I'm really struggling to see the downside of banning assault weapons, and I'm struggling to understand your position that it's not possible. I say this as someone who grew up in a rural Texas town where guns are commonplace. I personally own 2 pistols that I never use and are locked away. I have friends that own AR-15s and some of them beat their chests over them as if they have a Super Bowl ring, and there was a point in my life when I probably thought that was cool and just a fun way to shoot stupid shit in the country, but my mind changed on that a long time ago when these stupid pointless weapons keep getting used for mass murder. It angers me to no end and it is the sole reason I will turn out to vote, even if that means voting for someone who I disagree with many other political points on.

I listened to the audiobook of this and didn’t particularly like it, which I think is partly due to the interview format and constantly hearing people state their name before speaking 2 lines and then moving onto the next character. The story felt like the Hallmark version of Almost Famous. Most of the main characters had a happy ending, but there were drug references and f-words sprinkled throughout in an attempt to make it sound dark and edgy. Rock and roll music is full of real life stories that involve actual tragedy, so this kinda flirted with tragedy but never let anyone suffer any serious consequences, and the story felt a little too clean and polished as a result. Most of you seem to like the series. Is it still worth a watch if I didn’t love the audiobook?

Can someone help me understand the legal mechanics of all of this? Mifepristone was approved by the FDA in 2000 and now we have a conservative federal judge from Texas essentially saying it shouldn’t have been approved and issuing a ruling that would revoke that approval starting on April 14. Presumably the reason is that he reviewed the approval process and determined (in his expert medical opinion as a judge) that it isn’t safe and the risks are too high. Is that part correct? Is there a place to read the specifics that went into this decision? So if this goes into effect in 7 days, the drug would lose its approval nationwide which would make it no longer attainable for anyone in this country. Except that meanwhile, a different federal judge in Washington state has issued a ruling that would block the FDA from pulling the drug. I’m unclear on this part because that ruling is based on a lawsuit from a coalition of 17 states, so would that only apply to continued mifepristone use in those states, or would it in theory be a nationwide ruling to allow continued use in all states? And since these rulings are directly contradictory, that puts the FDA in a jam because honoring either ruling requires violating the other. Which if both rulings stand, that seems to be headed for the SCOTUS to make a decision, correct? And we kinda know how that will go. Is there any prior example of a judge overruling the FDA regarding approval of a medication? Putting the specific topic of abortion aside, why on earth would a judge have the authority to make decisions that supersede the one agency our country has trusted to regulate public health and access to medical care? The FDA is an organization of thousands of doctors and medical experts and the judge has no medical background whatsoever.

It was my 3rd time seeing them and they are excellent each time. They play great music and they seem to genuinely have a ton of fun being on stage.

Nice, I’ll be there too.

You guys got me curious so I googled it and found a detailed report that agrees with you. https://texasriverbum.com/index.php/2014/09/17/hike-and-hassled-to-the-narrows/ No thanks.

I think our society has made it too easy to forget about these events. People think about it for a couple of days, but then the next news event hits and we move on to something else. I’d like to see some sort of campaign to keep this in the forefront of peoples’ minds. Maybe put up billboards on major commutes that just keep a running tally of dead children in 2023 as a result of school shootings, with some line about “Your child’s school could be next.” That may be perceived as callous, but I think the message needs to be visible at all times so that people will be thinking about this when they vote.

I am so sick and tired of this bullshit. It feels pretty helpless because the GOP will fight to prevent gun regulation at all costs, and a large percentage of our country will vote R purely on principle, or because of some other topic like abortion or taxes, regardless of how they feel about actual guns. My guess is that only a very small minority of Republican voters actually care about being able to buy an AR-15, but that isn’t a main issue for most voters, and it all comes as a GOP package deal. There is no number of dead children that will change their minds.

Disgusting.

I don’t ever see it talked about here, but Tavern has become pretty nice since the remodel. We really like their brunch.

This is my favorite team and March Madness since 2003. And we aren’t done yet.

There was a fight between a man and a woman inside their home in the middle of the night. It ended with the cops being called, the woman had injuries, the man did not have injuries. The man is significantly larger than the woman. Unless she was coming at him with a deadly weapon and he was fighting for his life, there is no way to excuse the man’s actions. He engaged her and injured her when another option would’ve been to simply walk out of the house and disengage. She broke his glasses. Boohoo. That is not an excuse for him to injure a woman. You say that she is an abusive drunk but he is not. Where is the evidence for that? All I see is hearsay and you repeating rumors about New York. There is overwhelmingly more circumstantial evidence to suggest that Chris Beard is abusive. She probably does have a drinking problem. They probably both do. I don’t remember hearing about a toxicology report but I think it’s fairly likely, given the timing of the fight, that alcohol was involved and that clouded his judgement. It only has to happen one time and he will forever carry that label. No one is excusing Joe Mixon because it only happened once and the woman he assaulted was verbally harassing him.

The job should definitely be his, and most likely behind the scenes he knows that, but let’s focus on the next 3 games and then announce it during the championship post game.

Hahaha fuck Bama. And Miller.

Let’s go SDSU!

I don’t either, but I also don’t want to see him suddenly figure out March Madness late in his career at another school. He choked at Texas and he can choke at Tennessee.

Assuming Barnes wins.

Going to South Beach in a few weeks. We’ll see what happens but I’m prepared to spend more time at the pool if it’s an issue. Going to St. Barth in June. It’s been an on and off issue for years, but the nice thing about a small island is that different beaches face different directions and they never all get hit at the same time. If the first beach you pick has sargasso, hop back in the car and drive 10 minutes to a different beach. Here’s a link from NOAA to monitor conditions: https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/sargassum_inundation_report/#

Citi card you have to wait 48 months between bonuses. Barclays card is a little bit less clear but I think the same 48 months is a loose guideline. I get the Citi card in my name for a year, then get the Barclay card in my name for a year, then the Citi card in my wife’s name for a year, then the Barclay card in her name, then back to the Citi card in my name. That 4 year cycle keeps it to where we pay only 1 AF per year, get a signup mileage bonus each year, and maintain the other card benefits at all times. I’m also in DFW and fly AA frequently for personal travel, but I never travel for work so I don’t get status or any extra miles beyond just churning the cards.

Anyone watched Extrapolations? Eight interconnected stories told over 33 years explore how our planet's changing climate will affect family, work, faith—and survival. Huge cast - Marion Cotillard, Meryl Streep, Matthew Rhys, Kit Harrington, Edward Norton, Sienna Miller, Tobey Maguire, Diane Lane, David Schwimner, Heather Graham, Forest Whitaker Pretty lackluster reviews. Can’t tell if that’s automatically a result of the climate change theme, or if it’s truly just a mediocre series. I watched the first 3 episodes and thought they were decent but not great. I’ll keep watching because I find climate change fascinating and I’m curious to see how they portray the future in the later episodes.

Planted some stuff in our raised beds this past weekend: The far bed has tomatoes - cherry, Roma, and San Marzano. The cherry tomatoes last year were insane so I’m hoping for a similar year. I don’t think we’ve ever had much luck with San Marzanos but I wanted to try again anyways. The closer bed has a mix of other things - peppers, strawberries, and cabbage. Would like to get some Thai chilies but the garden centers I normally use haven’t had any. I have automatic irrigation lines buried about 3” down. Last year they were on the surface and sprayed everywhere, which worked but seemed inefficient. We’ll see how burying them does. We have a compost bin going for a little over a year now. I mixed some of it into the soil but it didn’t look entirely mature due to me not turning it enough. Not sure if that even matters. I’m a novice at this stuff but it’s still nice to do and we learn as we go.

Heading to South Beach for a long weekend next month. Just the wife and myself, staying at SLS. Any recs for places to eat and drink? Will probably head down to Nikki Beach for a brunch or lunch because we generally like the Nikki Beach scene. What else? Is the pool party at SLS any good or just a bro-fest? Other pool parties or daytime hangout spots we should consider? Paging ChiTownDoc.

Everyone thought Shaka was a good hire and he was a huge bust. Everyone agreed Chris Beard was a home run hire and he apparently chokes women. We have a guy that led us to the Sweet Sixteen for the first time since the iPhone 1 was new and George Bush was in office, and we’re thinking about not keeping him because we think we’re entitled to a better coach? History does not agree with the idea that we can hire a guaranteed winner.