@Doctor-Phibes said in A few minutes with Levin: @Horace said in A few minutes with Levin: AKA populism. While they propagandize against the right, for being populist. AOC, for example, is a populist. Clearly, so is Donald Trump. They're both bad news as far as I'm concerned, but neither side has the monopoly on this. Populism is telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Trump certainly used it with the swamp narrative. For the left, populism is their core value. You don’t have to name names. The entirety of the left is populist. There is nothing else underlying their messaging. No system or document, like the right at least has fealty to capitalism and the constitution.

This is one of the stranger parts of this insanity.

@Jolly said in Right to Work: @taiwan_girl said in Right to Work: @Jolly @LuFins-Dad I pretty much agree. I think that unions in the US were needed way back when. Not so much now. But, my point is still there. Let a company offer two contracts - one for union people and one for non-union. If a person accepts a job, they have to declare which contact they will take; union or non-non. If they take the union contact, they have to pay union dues. If they take the non-union, then no dues. Back to my insurance example. If I want the benefit of the insurance negotiated rates with doctors, etc., then I need to pay the insurance premium. If I want my own rates, then no need to pay the premium. (I KNOW, I KNOW - apple to orange discussion, but you get my point). When you join a "group", and pay money to a "group", you are perceiving that there is a "benefit" for your payment (discount because you are member of XX club, etc.). If you dont think the benefit is worth it, dont join the club but you dont get the "benefit" either. You either have a closed shop or an open one. I don't think you can have it both ways. Is that a rule, or something companies/unions won't agree to? Let the market decide. Some company should be the first to offer this. If each side is confident in their status, then they should not be afraid to allow two contacts.

@Doctor-Phibes said in Now we know why SVB failed: Is it too late to blame Hitler? Because that guy was an asshole. Their risk management officer committed $5B to eco. Don't think Hitler did that...Although he created a lot of fertilizer.

@George-K said in The Backbone: "The service is moving from a three-bomber fleet to a two-bomber fleet, as the B-2 Sprit and B-1 Lancer will come offline in favor of the B-21." They're keeping the Buff. ETA: Amazing. What an airframe - a projected lifespan of a century. Has any other airframe met that standard? Folks still fly Piper Cubs everyday.

Not in my neck of the woods.

Couldn't be hard all of the time, could it?

Yep. They will look at modern medicine like we view Civil War battlefield docs. “They poisoned people to cure cancer!”.

@LuFins-Dad said in Oops: @mark said in Oops: Do you think humans will ever learn to not predict the future? I mean it's been proven over millennia that we are not good at doing this. Yes. In 2042. Bazinga!

[image: 1678744305747-screenshot-2023-03-13-at-4.46.00-pm.png]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Checked your bank stocks this morning?: Some of us can't afford bank stocks. All my investments are in turnip futures, and let me tell you, turnips are currently pretty much worth their weight in potatoes!

@LuFins-Dad said in Her Next Piano: It's not worth rehabbing the Kawai. At least, that's my take... I bow to your superior knowledge.

@Jolly said in Taibbi Speaks: If anybody actually watched some of those hearings last week, it was painfully obvious that the Dem members hated free speech. A hatred of rational discourse, or a hatred of ideas that might betray one’s own basic primate motivations of power and status, will always manifest as hatred of free speech. That’s why legitimately thoughtful people prize it so much.

Brilliant analogy.

[image: 1678721714650-45821fb2-2d13-4ec5-8c30-4c9164d1f778-image.png]