Blue Mass Group

That was attitude for sure (0 Replies)

But it also certainly captures the tone of this particular topic, even among those that generally agree.

Ultimately, the goal is to rejigger infrastructure so that there are more protected bike lanes, no? Not just bike lanes, but protected ones, perhaps by putting another curb a few feet out from the existing curb, so that parked cars act as the protective buffer.

But to do this, your elected officials must necessarily: (i) take away road-space from the motorized vehicles in order to reallocate it to the pedalled varierty; and (ii) spend the dough on the infrastructure changes. And those elected officials need to sell this to a voting public that is primarily composed of people who do not bike, but do remember that one time last year when they were driving and a bicyclist did something unexpected– was on the wrong side of the road, popped out of a one way street the wrong way, ran a stop or red light, whatever– that scared the living bejeebus out of the driver who was more than aware that if anything happens, the cyclist is dead and it is the car driver’s fault. That makes for hostility later, rational or not.

There may be reasons that it is better for bikes to do rolling stops– though it seems to me like the primary reason is that undoing and redoing toe clips is a pain in the $^%^%. But it seems to me that even if this is the case, the primary goal would be to get your elected officials to tools they need to sell the infrastructure changes. Penalizing cyclists that exempt themselves from traffic rules seems like one of these tools.

I don't see a meaningful distinction (1 Reply)

between “copyright infringement” in this context and “stealing.” That is why it is called “piracy.”

The man was a thief, who stole. Whether he was overzealously charged for these criminal offenses may be a legitimate question, but the general sense here that “copyright infringement” is something less than larceny is absurd.

Court documents (0 Replies)

The federal courts get ten cents a page, each time documents are accessed.

I don’t know if the money goes to the courts or to a private vendor.

At least the argument can be made that the court documents were a public record, rather than private property like the JSTOR data was.

old timers (0 Replies)

are wise veterans who are a decade or two past their sell-by date

Perhaps there is something to this (0 Replies)

Republican critique of pure reason

No, I had this issue once as well (0 Replies)

and I use Chrome.

david had to help me out.

Just so (1 Reply)

The money behind the NRA is manufacturers. The AR-15 is a huge seller, because it is extremely customizable, and depending on how it is configured, can look like something that is actually used in hunting, or more like something used by the guys in Seal Team Six.

The manufacturing interests get the members fired up (and, oh by the way to buy more AR-15s) by convincing them that the gun-control lobby is “coming to take your guns.” This effort has been greatly aided during the last 40 years by the left*, which has held the position, rather explicitly, that “we want to take your guns.”

In this context, “reasonable” restrictions– licensing, in particular– is easily characterized as an interim step toward outright confiscation. Members therefore buy what the NRA is selling (and the manufacturers as well, of course). I therefore do not think that any new policy that has political staying-power AND has any chance of actually accomplishing anything can come from anywhere but the center/right, with the help of the center/left. Unfortunately, our present political circumstances have marginalized the center to the point where it does not command sufficient power to acheive anything. I am therefore pessimistic that there willl be any meaningful and effective legislation from the federal government in the near future.

* I say “left” rather than “liberal” because this is the position held by the left wing, but I do not think gun control tends to fit very nicely, ideologically, into the liberal-conservative spectrum.

Yes, but (1 Reply)

I think that is true, if the law is changed post-special.

They changed the law in 2004 because an empty seat was preferable to our Democratic legislature than a seat filled by the appointment of then-goevernor Romney.

They changed the law in 2009 because the Democratic legislature wanted to get a Senator in to vote on Obamacare.

Each change was for nakedly partisan purposes, and each made for the shortest of short-term reasons, and each without regard for long-term consequences.

I think it is a non-issue, so long as it doesn’t get raked over again for nakedly partisan reasons, which would redound (as the last change did) decidedly to the benefit of Sen. Brown.

Had we let them go under (1 Reply)

2009 would have been far, far worse, and the low point would have lasted much, much longer.

I don’t get the damage theory. You took our shares when they were worth $0.00 and, by injecting capital into the company, caused them to be worth more than zero.

That’s like suing someone for renovating your house for free.

I derive perverse pleasure (2 Replies)

from flagging those things that political-party-supporters here can say with a straight face.

Brown mentions this, it is stupid and bad faith. Next month, once the gears get going, some other Democrat may notice that the presumptive nominee may not have lived much in the Commonwealth since the Ford Administration, and then it will be a Legitimate Question.

I therefore file this issue along with “judicial activism” and the Senate filibuster under “Positions Will Reverse As And When Expedient.”