In a speech that included quotes from the Bible, the TV show Reacher, and the lyrics of 90’s rapper Vanilla Ice, Republican state Rep. Ernie Yarbrough introduced an amendment to the bill to add that “immunity will not be provided to a person who intentionally causes the death of an unborn child.”
LMFAO Please tell me he used “ice ice baby” in a speech about frozen embryos 🤣
So essentially they didn’t address one of the biggest issues, what to do with the remaining embryos. Seems pretty on brand for conservative legislation.
From what I gathered the legislation was simple enough with just being two paragraphs long (imagine a world where there’s not 50 pages of bullshit and 2 ear marks to vote on) that it reads that they’re able to do whatever they want without getting in trouble for it. Keep em or toss em.
Just to clear up, he’s still fine to sell them; he just can’t trademark the phrase or stop other people from selling the exact same thing. The whole thing about RBG was that she also had a bunch of merch sold about her but none of it was entitled to trademark protection either while she was alive.
I think it stems from his argument being not about what the law says, but about if the law is constitutional.
Very often things that involve political figures are much more likely to get a very generous interpretation of the first amendment, which is why you get stuff like “elected officials can’t always block people on social media even with their personal accounts”.
They claimed that preventing him from trademarking the slogan limited his ability to monetize it, and that made it a limitation on his freedom of speech, specifically regarding a politician. Therefore the government should need to provide explicit, compelling reason for the law as applied to politicians. Recently, trademark rules were shot down over first amendment grounds when the supreme Court found that rules saying you can’t trademark insulting or vulgar things amounted to the government prohibiting speech in a way it’s not allowed to.
With this ruling, they found that the rule in question is viewpoint neutral and therefore isn’t the government disfavoring an idea or viewpoint. It’s unbiased since it’s based on (hopefully) objective facts about if people are alive or not, unlike “is FUCT a vulgar word” or “is it disparaging to name a band The Slants”?
Hidalgo, who is against countries bringing their own units, stressed earlier this year that Paris organizers would not change course.
“I think we have to trust science on two counts,” she said. “The first is what scientists are telling us about the fact that we are on the brink of a precipice. And secondly, we have to trust the scientists when they help us to construct buildings in a sober way that allows us to make do without air conditioning.”
France has the highest percentage of nuclear power of any power grid in the world and its electricity is generated emitting a very low level of carbon dioxide.
According to this, France emits about a seventh the carbon dioxide per unit of power generated as the US does. We can use seven times as much electricity in Paris as back in the US and still have about the same carbon dioxide emissions.
Life has a carbon impact. Forcing this burden disproportionately on athletes while spectators (not to mention corrupt IOC officials) enjoy hotels with AC is ridiculous.
Or as I like to put it: He could be in bed with a live boy, a dead girl, a half-eaten puppy, a half-eaten kitten, and then take a massive diarrhoea dump in the middle of the bed on live TV, and his supporters would still support him.
Dump: sharks, battery electrocution, so many dead birds, flushing toilets 15 times, MIT person woman man camera very big a-brain, bing bing bong bing loads diaper loudly
Trumpanzees: Hooray golden god, piss in our mouths!
That’s not unexpected, since Clinton and his DLC, the modus operandi has been to court the right wing vote, and as they do, the entire party shifts to the right to accommodate them.
Politicians accommodating what voters want? What do they think this is, a democracy?
They wouldn’t have to shift so far right if the far left wasn’t too busy being angry that the politicians are doing what the voters want to go out and vote themselves.
See one party is doing it’s best to run a country with a Conservative government. I disagree but at least it’s respectable.
The other is doing it’s best to bring about a free market theocracy.
The Democrats assume the other guys are operating in good faith, and so happily follow along as everyone moves to the right.
We ask for healthcare and we give the biggest gift to the insurance companies in a century. We ask for student debt reform and we get a few handouts while millions of kids every year continue to sign up for predatory student loans. We ask that our children at least be safe in school, and crickets…
I’m not saying this is one guy’s fault, this is the result of a trend that’s been going on for decades. But the Democrats are attempting to curry votes from a group that will never support them and leaving the passionate base behind. And after January 6th I’m just left wondering why the fuck they’re negotiating with terrorists?
If nothing is getting done until you have a majority at least for the love of God, swing for the bleachers. Get people excited again.
They’re intentionally misrepresenting what RCV is and how it works, playing on their base’s fear of voter fraud (which itself is code for Hispanic people voting.)
In short, none of this is meant to say that a person can’t express more granular support in an election, so long as it doesn’t give certain citizens greater influence than others. A ranked ballot is still “one vote” per race, in IRV at least, so my vote doesn’t mean any more than yours.
And we really don’t have one person, one vote, and this is a fix for that. Most political seats in the US are not competitive because one party dominates, so some people’s votes (in swing districts) matter much more than others. RCV allows previously non-competitive one-party races to become competitive, so we can actually have everyone’s votes matter more equally.
I’ve used one once by accident (booked through a different website) and it was just someone’s spare room, which I found pleasant. Then they charged me for a beer that evening and breakfast the following morning, which I found bizarre. I mean it makes sense but it felt odd.
Was it like “Hey do you want a beer?” Or like… How does that even work? I’ve never interacted with any of the Hosts at an AirBnB - they never seem to be home, and they clearly go out of the way to avoid me.
They sent me a menu when they confirmed the booking and asked me if I wanted anything when I was there. They’d bought in soy milk I think it was because I’d asked if they had a vegan option, which was nice enough of them. I suppose these must’ve been the exception rather than the rule then.
They’re great for group gatherings, not so much for individuals traveling. So when my family gets together (there’s 20+ of us), Airbnb is way better (cheaper, large private gathering space, etc). If it’s just us (wife and kids), and hotel room is plenty.
Thanks for your comment. I usually travel alone and was like “why would anyone subject themselves to AirBNB.” I appreciate the context and perspective.
Not surprising, this Court is signalling to bigots everywhere that it’s basically open season. Misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, they’re saying, “We’re not going to stop you when it comes to us, do as you please.”
Transparency for themselves would do as much good as the one they dream of having from the government. But no, instead they go on a witch hunt. I hope the guild does not let that go gently
npr.org
Top