Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

StatsPlease

Subscribe to StatsPlease's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

Just looking at the statute itself and the definitions of its key language/words using a single dictionary from the era it was written is ridiculous on its face. Laws are not written nor enforced so that its statutory language adheres to strict dictionary definitions, they're written to promote and implement effective policy objectives.

#45 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-04-20 09:04 AM | Reply

It's actually worse - according to a post on ArsTechnica on this topic on Monday, that particular version of Funk & Wagnalls basically hadn't been changed since 1894 - so it likely wasn't even representative of the definition at the time of the writing of the law.

It also completely ignored the list of other things that were cited as powers the CDC had that could be used to color the "and other means as necessary" language.

This was clearly an ideologically driven decision with no basis in law or actual logic.

People should be able to do what they want. The FDA allowed J&J to put asbestos in baby powder. Remind me again why you trust them ...

#10 | Posted by lfthndthrds

We'll set aside the fact the studies under discussion are not from either J&J or the FDA. You do know that what you've said here is highly misleading, right?

J&J didn't "put" asbestos in baby powder, and the FDA certainly didn't "let" them. The asbestos was in the baby powder because it is commonly found in the same deposits where the talc is mined. J&J failed to properly filter it out and then hid test results that showed there were some amounts in some samples. Not to say that any amount is OK, but this wasn't a deliberate insertion of a mineral, nor was it such a large amount or even in every sample of their baby powder that it would be likely found in a small random sampling.

Don't take my word for it: from an MSNBC article based on Reuters reporting in 2018:

In 1976, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was weighing limits on asbestos in cosmetic talc products, J&J assured the regulator that no asbestos was "detected in any sample" of talc produced between December 1972 and October 1973. It didn't tell the agency that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc " in one case at levels reported as "rather high."

Most internal J&J asbestos test reports Reuters reviewed do not find asbestos. However, while J&J's testing methods improved over time, they have always had limitations that allow trace contaminants to go undetected " and only a tiny fraction of the company's talc is tested.


The FDA is simply not funded or staffed well enough to even attempt to test every product all the time to find these kinds of contaminants. Perhaps we should up their budget and staff, and allow more regulation of business? That sounds like what most of the "leftist" on this board want to me. So who's the "you" in your scenario?

#24, you are arguing here that marriage is not a right for all, but a privilege afforded only to those in relationships/unions that fit a "traditional" template.

#25 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-03-24 02:19 PM | Reply

No, he's arguing that the legal position that supports gay marriage and interracial marriage is not the same legal position to support polygamy, as an example.

There were no legal arguments that would have allowed for banning gay marriage that would not have also been applicable to interracial marriage. There are many legal arguments that can disallow polygamous marriage that would not apply to either gay marriage or polygamous marriage.

It is clear marriage isn't a universal right - for example, there are minimum ages for the parties involved. More broadly, there are limitations on marriage based on the ability of the parties involved to consent.

Whether polygamous marriage should be restricted or not is a separate argument to whether the structure of a marriage contract can support such an arrangement. The laws and privileges built around the marriage contract are dependent upon it being two consenting parties entering into a contract. None of these structures break with gay marriage or interracial marriage. Therefore, restricting gay marriage or interracial marriage is only based on discrimination based on sexual orientation or race, violating equal protection. This is not true for polygamous marriage, or marriage where one or more of the parties cannot or does not legally consent. As Danforth noted, an entirely new legal construct would have to be created to accommodate such a contract.

For example, if there are multiple spouses, who gets to authorize medical care when one spouse is unable to? How are marital assets divided when one spouse is divorced, but not the others? What is the legal relationship between each of the spouses - if a man were to have 2 wives for example, are the wives also joined to each other? Who gets to determine who stays in the legal relationship? If the two wives both divorce the man, are they still joined in a marriage? None of this can simply be divined from existing statute and case law for the marriage contract.

Simply put, there are dozens of legal arguments that can be made against allowing polygamous marriage that would not impact gay, straight, or interracial marriage in any way. It isn't a simple matter of discriminating based on the characteristics of the parties involved. It would be an entirely separate case.

They picked DST because the statistics show people shop more when it is lighter later in the evening. Simple.

Also, I rather like having that extra light after work earlier in the year. I'd rather it be colder in the mornings when I'm at work than have wasted daylight in the summer because the sun is coming up too early. As an example, sunrise in Chicago in mid-June is 5 AM, with it starting to get light around 4:30 or earlier, even with Daylight Saving time. Same for Boston, or any other city on the Eastern edge of the time zone at at about 41 degree N latitude. It gets worse further North - like Maine, or places in the mid-West. Take Minneapolis. I would much rather have the sun setting at 9:00 PM in the summer rather than rising at 4:30. In these locations, it's going to be dark when you go to work through the winter anyway. At least it will still be light until after 5 PM even in January.

In the end though, I'd be happier to standardize on Standard time than keeping the change twice a year.

Hell farmers go by suntime not clock time so it makes better sense to go back to standard time all year long. This Daylight saving time is just ridiculous to the max.

#10 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-03-15 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

If they're going by suntime already, what difference does clock time then make? And why should farmers, who don't go by clock time, determine how things are done for those for whom clock time actually matters? If the area where they live really cares about being open for the farmers, then can easily adjust business hours to accommodate suntime.

Herschel Walker's question is dumb. Not because the thought is stupid, but because it would literally take a few seconds to google up the answer. The theory easily explains this so-called contradiction. If you don't know the answer, it's because you have either a very simplistic or simply wrong understanding of what the theory says.

Darwin was PART right on evolution but he was ALL right on the name "THEORY Of Evolution.

#40 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-03-16 02:55 PM | Reply

This statement alone proves you don't understand basic science, no less the theory of evolution. The word "theory" in science does not hold the same meaning as in common language. That you don't (or pretend not to) understand this is quite telling.

We could also discuss the fact that Darwin's theories, which were foundational to much of modern evolutionary theory, are not current. The theory has been greatly refined since the 1850s.

What exactly can "the scientists" prove about where we came from?

#45 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-03-16 03:29 PM | Reply

Another indicator you don't understand science, and especially the science behind the theory of evolution. We'll set aside the use of the word "proof", and just note that there are enormous amounts of support for the theory of evolution within microbiology and genetic data. They couldn't see DNA when the theories were proposed, but many predictions were made about what would have to be true. Once we could examine DNA directly, most of those predictions were proven true, some were falsified, and more refined predictions were made, which were also supported by experiment and observation. The reason evolution is so well accepted is not because of "dogma", but because there is so much evidentiary support.

That you don't realize just how much support there is for this theory proves you haven't really looked at the evidence, or at least haven't understood it.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable