Stuff that doesn't really fit in either "Examples of" thread....
- Thread starter Roger A. Shrubber
- Start date
Sativied
Well-Known Member
I think this would fit in the renewable energy and policies thread.
"while in major European market Germany regulatory hurdles around how to price any energy sold back into the grid mean it is a distant prospect."
Hurdles effectively meaning powerful energy companies and their lobbyists, who rather buy freshly produced cheap af energy and charge high rates than buying back the energy they sold on which they make less profits. If the governments (same issue in neighbor NL) would set it up properly people would place an excess of solar panels like they did a few years ago when the buy back rates allowed people to actually make some money and earn back the panels in just 6 years, regardless of the number of solar panels. Aside from the day vs night usage and generation difference, the same thing applies in winter. So people generated enough electricity during the summer to sell and afford buying enough to power their floorheating etc all year around.
Those government imposed tariffs are reduced every year, phased out entirely, with the supposed motivation to encourage the home battery market. Any decrease of dependence on major energy co creates a hurdle. Governments enjoying all the tax revenue on higher rates is another. Increasing the national debt or anual budget deficit is 'not done' around here. Anything that lowers energy costs for households and industry thus automatically requires budget cuts elsewhere. That really sums up politics in Germany and its economic province NL, everything in politics is an economical issue. The situation shows that imo energy, water, internet, public transportation, and healthcare should become non-profit government-owned utilities (again). Heck, they would be making profit, exporting the excess to industries and neighboring countries.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Some odd reporting from an ordinarily bland source.
Ama Tabassum, a Palestinian, won the valedictorian spot in her graduating class at USC. As a Palestinian, it is unsurprising that she expresses support for her people enduring war. So why does the paper allow this to make it to the press?
Now, Tabassum may well have repugnant personal views and her speech may stoke division on campus.
This legitimizes the imo baseless rhetoric that she is saying “antisemitic and anti-Zionist” things.
I think it is a serious fail by university leadership that, through no fault of her own, this young woman is being denied her earned privilege because she is from somewhere over which people have strong and sentiment-driven views. Shame on the cowards in administration.
It’s also a fail by the paper to shirk an opportunity to point out that the controversy is rooted in a simple and false premise: that sympathy for Palestinians is an endorsement of Hamas.
The paper is propagating this prejudiced notion while seeming to scold the university for its bad choice.
Not a good look, USC: Cancel culture comes for colleges as graduation season begins
USC administrators claimed they were concerned about the 'alarming tenor' on social media after Asna Tabassum was named valedictorian.
www.usatoday.com
Ama Tabassum, a Palestinian, won the valedictorian spot in her graduating class at USC. As a Palestinian, it is unsurprising that she expresses support for her people enduring war. So why does the paper allow this to make it to the press?
Now, Tabassum may well have repugnant personal views and her speech may stoke division on campus.
This legitimizes the imo baseless rhetoric that she is saying “antisemitic and anti-Zionist” things.
I think it is a serious fail by university leadership that, through no fault of her own, this young woman is being denied her earned privilege because she is from somewhere over which people have strong and sentiment-driven views. Shame on the cowards in administration.
It’s also a fail by the paper to shirk an opportunity to point out that the controversy is rooted in a simple and false premise: that sympathy for Palestinians is an endorsement of Hamas.
The paper is propagating this prejudiced notion while seeming to scold the university for its bad choice.
Last edited:
printer
Well-Known Member
What to know about the pivotal UN plastics negotiations
As both plastics pollution and concerns over its impacts on the environment and the human body grow, world governments, environmental groups and the plastics industry are meeting in Ottawa, Canada,…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Taliban leaders enforce brutal restrictions against women, except for their own daughters
“Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself.”
—Abu Dawud, Hadith, Islam
In Afghanistan in 2020, the landscape of women’s lives bore little resemblance to what we witness today under Taliban rule. Between 2001-2021, when Afghanistan experienced respite from Taliban rule, significant strides were made in advancing women’s rights. Girls had access to education, women entered the workforce, and the government institutionalized protections for women’s rights, including raising the marriage age to 18. Voter turnout among women soared, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs flourished, Adela Raz became Afghanistan’s first female U.N. ambassador, and women assumed roles in security, policymaking, the judiciary and all levels of government.
The present reality starkly contrasts with this progress. Today, women are effectively imprisoned within their homes, marginalized from Afghan society at large. Under Taliban rule, they are prohibited from venturing outside without a male companion, compelled to veil themselves entirely, deprived of educational and occupational opportunities, barred from participating in public life and girls are being pushed into marriage as young as nine years old. Between August 2021 and January 2024, the Taliban had issued 185 edicts and public statements, 124 of which target women. Those daring to challenge these edicts face brutal repercussions, including violence, incarceration and torture at the hands of the Taliban. At the end of March 2024, the Taliban announced they would resume stoning women to death for certain offenses.
Remarkably, even as Taliban leaders zealously enforce these regressive measures, their own daughters enjoy privileges denied to Afghan women. Top Taliban officials send their own daughters to school in Qatar, Pakistan and other countries to access an education, and enjoy fundamental freedoms. They do not want their daughters subject to their own violent rule. One Taliban commander in Quetta runs such a private madrassa for daughters of members; a similar establishment exists in the Ghazni province. Others send their daughters to private schools and universities abroad, where many are taught in English and STEM skills. Meanwhile the Taliban ruthlessly suppress women advocating for their right to education and connection with the wider world, subjecting them to imprisonment, torture and public floggings.
While Taliban leaders occasionally cloak their actions in religious rhetoric, their selective application of Quranic teachings exposes their true motives. Despite Islam’s emphasis on the value of education for all, regardless of gender, the Taliban distort religious texts to justify their oppressive policies. Western perceptions often mistakenly conflate such atrocities with cultural or religious practices, inadvertently legitimizing the Taliban’s agenda. (This bias exists despite all major religious texts containing similar problematic language). The current actions of Taliban leaders themselves reveal that this is not a matter of religion or culture—it is flagrant gender apartheid, a criminal affront to humanity.
The incongruity of Taliban leaders exempting their own daughters from the draconian measures imposed on Afghan women underscores the hypocrisy inherent in their ideology. If their beliefs were genuinely rooted in culture or religion, they would have no qualms applying these principles within their own households. Their reluctance to subject their daughters to such treatment speaks volumes. So why can they terrorize our daughters? This question demands not just an answer but action—an unwavering commitment to stand against such injustice and defend the rights of Afghan women.
Earlier this month (April 2024), in New York, the global community convened to deliberate on the draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention. Amidst the discussions, several nations, including the United States, Malta, Austria, Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines, Chile, Iceland and Australia pushed for the inclusion of an offense that we are seeing unfold in Afghanistan, that has yet to be codified: gender apartheid. Gender apartheid is a system of governance, based on laws and/or policies, which imposes systematic segregation of women and men and may also systematically exclude women from public spaces and spheres.
It codifies the subordination of women, and permeates into all places, public and private. Yet to be formally codified, gender apartheid is steadily gaining recognition within the international legal framework. Leading international experts have called for the codification of Gender Apartheid under Article 2 of the Crimes Against Humanity Convention with 300+ organizations urging that this happen on an expedited timeline, before the end of 2024. Taliban leaders may have exempted the women in their lives from the harsher aspects of their rules, but recognizing this offense is an important first step holding them accountable for the flagrant violations of human rights they have imposed on the vast majority of Afghan women.
thehill.com
“Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself.”
—Abu Dawud, Hadith, Islam
In Afghanistan in 2020, the landscape of women’s lives bore little resemblance to what we witness today under Taliban rule. Between 2001-2021, when Afghanistan experienced respite from Taliban rule, significant strides were made in advancing women’s rights. Girls had access to education, women entered the workforce, and the government institutionalized protections for women’s rights, including raising the marriage age to 18. Voter turnout among women soared, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs flourished, Adela Raz became Afghanistan’s first female U.N. ambassador, and women assumed roles in security, policymaking, the judiciary and all levels of government.
The present reality starkly contrasts with this progress. Today, women are effectively imprisoned within their homes, marginalized from Afghan society at large. Under Taliban rule, they are prohibited from venturing outside without a male companion, compelled to veil themselves entirely, deprived of educational and occupational opportunities, barred from participating in public life and girls are being pushed into marriage as young as nine years old. Between August 2021 and January 2024, the Taliban had issued 185 edicts and public statements, 124 of which target women. Those daring to challenge these edicts face brutal repercussions, including violence, incarceration and torture at the hands of the Taliban. At the end of March 2024, the Taliban announced they would resume stoning women to death for certain offenses.
Remarkably, even as Taliban leaders zealously enforce these regressive measures, their own daughters enjoy privileges denied to Afghan women. Top Taliban officials send their own daughters to school in Qatar, Pakistan and other countries to access an education, and enjoy fundamental freedoms. They do not want their daughters subject to their own violent rule. One Taliban commander in Quetta runs such a private madrassa for daughters of members; a similar establishment exists in the Ghazni province. Others send their daughters to private schools and universities abroad, where many are taught in English and STEM skills. Meanwhile the Taliban ruthlessly suppress women advocating for their right to education and connection with the wider world, subjecting them to imprisonment, torture and public floggings.
While Taliban leaders occasionally cloak their actions in religious rhetoric, their selective application of Quranic teachings exposes their true motives. Despite Islam’s emphasis on the value of education for all, regardless of gender, the Taliban distort religious texts to justify their oppressive policies. Western perceptions often mistakenly conflate such atrocities with cultural or religious practices, inadvertently legitimizing the Taliban’s agenda. (This bias exists despite all major religious texts containing similar problematic language). The current actions of Taliban leaders themselves reveal that this is not a matter of religion or culture—it is flagrant gender apartheid, a criminal affront to humanity.
The incongruity of Taliban leaders exempting their own daughters from the draconian measures imposed on Afghan women underscores the hypocrisy inherent in their ideology. If their beliefs were genuinely rooted in culture or religion, they would have no qualms applying these principles within their own households. Their reluctance to subject their daughters to such treatment speaks volumes. So why can they terrorize our daughters? This question demands not just an answer but action—an unwavering commitment to stand against such injustice and defend the rights of Afghan women.
Earlier this month (April 2024), in New York, the global community convened to deliberate on the draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention. Amidst the discussions, several nations, including the United States, Malta, Austria, Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines, Chile, Iceland and Australia pushed for the inclusion of an offense that we are seeing unfold in Afghanistan, that has yet to be codified: gender apartheid. Gender apartheid is a system of governance, based on laws and/or policies, which imposes systematic segregation of women and men and may also systematically exclude women from public spaces and spheres.
It codifies the subordination of women, and permeates into all places, public and private. Yet to be formally codified, gender apartheid is steadily gaining recognition within the international legal framework. Leading international experts have called for the codification of Gender Apartheid under Article 2 of the Crimes Against Humanity Convention with 300+ organizations urging that this happen on an expedited timeline, before the end of 2024. Taliban leaders may have exempted the women in their lives from the harsher aspects of their rules, but recognizing this offense is an important first step holding them accountable for the flagrant violations of human rights they have imposed on the vast majority of Afghan women.
Taliban leaders enforce brutal restrictions against women, except for their own daughters
Taliban leaders may have exempted the women in their lives from the harsher aspects of their rules, but recognizing this offense is an important first step holding them accountable for the flagrant…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Fetterman, Warren lead Democrats in urging DEA to ‘swiftly’ take marijuana off Schedule I
A coalition of Democrats called on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to quickly remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), signaling impatience over the agency’s ongoing review of cannabis’s designation.
The lawmakers were led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and John Fetterman (Pa.) and Reps. Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) in a letter addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram.
“We are now nearing eight months since the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III — and 18 months since President Biden directed HHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to begin the process of reviewing marijuana’s scheduling. It is time for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to act,” they said.
The DEA is currently conducting a review of marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance, the category designated for drugs with no accepted medical use and a high risk of abuse. The Department of Health and Human Services last year recommended that it be rescheduled to Schedule III. In their letter, Democrats reitated their call for marijuana to be descheduled entirely.
“While we understand that the DEA may be navigating internal disagreement on this matter, it is critical that the agency swiftly correct marijuana’s misguided placement in Schedule I,” they wrote. “We trust that the DEA is working as quickly as possible toward a decision on how marijuana is scheduled, as Vice President Kamala Harris recently reassured stakeholders.”
“We are also hopeful that the DEA will not make the unprecedented choice to disagree with HHS’s medical finding that a drug does not belong in Schedule I,” they added.
Along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the Democratic senators who signed the letter were Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), and Cory Booker (N.J.).
House Democrats who added their names to the letter were Reps. Robert Garcia (Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Dina Titus (Nev.), Val Hoyle (Ore.), Becca Balint (Vt.), Jim McGovern (Mass.) and Katie Porter (Calif.) in addition to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.).
The DEA and the attorney general’s office did not immediately respond when reached for comment.
A coalition of Democrats called on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to quickly remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), signaling impatience over the agency’s ongoing review of cannabis’s designation.
The lawmakers were led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and John Fetterman (Pa.) and Reps. Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) in a letter addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram.
“We are now nearing eight months since the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III — and 18 months since President Biden directed HHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to begin the process of reviewing marijuana’s scheduling. It is time for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to act,” they said.
The DEA is currently conducting a review of marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance, the category designated for drugs with no accepted medical use and a high risk of abuse. The Department of Health and Human Services last year recommended that it be rescheduled to Schedule III. In their letter, Democrats reitated their call for marijuana to be descheduled entirely.
“While we understand that the DEA may be navigating internal disagreement on this matter, it is critical that the agency swiftly correct marijuana’s misguided placement in Schedule I,” they wrote. “We trust that the DEA is working as quickly as possible toward a decision on how marijuana is scheduled, as Vice President Kamala Harris recently reassured stakeholders.”
“We are also hopeful that the DEA will not make the unprecedented choice to disagree with HHS’s medical finding that a drug does not belong in Schedule I,” they added.
Along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the Democratic senators who signed the letter were Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), and Cory Booker (N.J.).
House Democrats who added their names to the letter were Reps. Robert Garcia (Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Dina Titus (Nev.), Val Hoyle (Ore.), Becca Balint (Vt.), Jim McGovern (Mass.) and Katie Porter (Calif.) in addition to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.).
The DEA and the attorney general’s office did not immediately respond when reached for comment.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
gonna have to ask my library to find a copy.
What country with nukes do you think is the most likely to use them?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Use them first? Absolutely no idea. However we will soon have ten nations with a nuclear arsenal, so we are not hurting for choice.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Your turn. Who; why?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Interesting syntax aside, we are talking about the future. Let’s agree that special circumstances governed the use of the first two bombs, circumstances never to be repeated.
So, in today’s geopolitical terrain: who; why?
Your first post here guarantees that you have an opinion about this. Let’s hear your reasoning behind it.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Imo Putin’s noisy nuclear saber-rattling is a bluff. He may be a psychopath, but he is the coldly rational variety.
I’m more worried about Iran (an authoritarian state) and Israel (close to being one) getting it on.
However Iran is Russia’s ally, and Israel is ours. Should either of those two players actually use a nuclear weapon, I predict (okay; really hope) that US and Russia will be the adults in the metaphorical room and pull together real quick on this one issue and come up with a coordinated policy to deal with the naughty children.
The Ukrainian situation remains very fluid. Now that Congress is no longer in the way, I expect Western incl. US weapons to grant Ukraine a stay of execution. But that’s for another thread.
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
An interesting coalition is forming:
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she will force a vote to oust Speaker Mike Johnson next week
Democrats have pledged to vote to kill Greene's motion to vacate and save the GOP speaker's job after he pushed through a $95 billion package with aid for Ukraine.
Something like a hundred Republicans voted with all Democrats to support a House bill Mike Johnson sponsored to fund Ukraine's war effort. Afterward, Democrats said they would stand with Mike Johnson and any Republicans who will vote with them to defeat MAGA extremism in the form of MGT's threat to unseat Johnson from the speaker position in the House.
If this coalition can hold together, maybe the 118th Congress will actually be able to do the work of this nation that people sent them to Washington to do. If the coalition holds together -- a big if -- it will shatter Trump and his extremist MAGA movement's hold on this country. MAGA cannot defeat a coalition of less extreme Republicans and Democrats with Biden as president.
Enter now the replies lecturing us about how Mike Johnson is a dominionist and we can't trust him. That's still true but this break with Trump -- if that is what he's doing and that is a big IF -- this could end Trump's and MAGA's threat to US democracy.
Get out the popcorn, boys and girls. This is going to be something to watch.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she will force a vote to oust Speaker Mike Johnson next week
Democrats have pledged to vote to kill Greene's motion to vacate and save the GOP speaker's job after he pushed through a $95 billion package with aid for Ukraine.
Something like a hundred Republicans voted with all Democrats to support a House bill Mike Johnson sponsored to fund Ukraine's war effort. Afterward, Democrats said they would stand with Mike Johnson and any Republicans who will vote with them to defeat MAGA extremism in the form of MGT's threat to unseat Johnson from the speaker position in the House.
If this coalition can hold together, maybe the 118th Congress will actually be able to do the work of this nation that people sent them to Washington to do. If the coalition holds together -- a big if -- it will shatter Trump and his extremist MAGA movement's hold on this country. MAGA cannot defeat a coalition of less extreme Republicans and Democrats with Biden as president.
Enter now the replies lecturing us about how Mike Johnson is a dominionist and we can't trust him. That's still true but this break with Trump -- if that is what he's doing and that is a big IF -- this could end Trump's and MAGA's threat to US democracy.
Get out the popcorn, boys and girls. This is going to be something to watch.
Last edited:
Sativied
Well-Known Member
I remain flabbergasted a speaker has so much power, directly and indirectly. Yes the argument for not trusting him is clear, though I do get the impression he, even his predecessor, doesn't want to be just a puppet but actually fill the position of speaker. But what's the argument for supporting him, saving his ass? Can't be because he 'pushed through' the package, cause he obstructed and delayed it. Is it a fear for a potentially worse speaker?
Given the 118th will end in 7 months, would the GOP causing another speaker drama and selection not potentially be good for the 119th?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I think the club Democrats used w/regard to getting not just one but three important spending measures approved for a vote on the floor of the House was just what you say. If Johnson did nothing, no funding would have been approved for either Ukraine or Israel and Taiwan. This was not acceptable to his or other Republican constituents, I think. Passing the bill meant dealing with Rep Greene (Ga)'s threat to unseat the speaker. There was another way to get the bills to the floor for a vote but that one would have taken even longer, so not a good option for anybody. So, Democrats agreed to vote to keep Johnson in his post as speaker if he let the bills get to the floor for a vote.
Senate passes $95B foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan: What's next?
The Senate on Tuesday passed a package to deliver $95 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan
I don't know what else Johnson has in mind. He made some sort of deal at Mar a Lago with Trump and nobody is talking about it including the orange motor mouth himself.
Yesterday, House Republicans passed some bills that are extreme and won't make it into law because they will die in the Senate. They were for show but for who, I don't know: So maybe there isn't a movement to form a coalition with Democrats and the House is still mired in a standoff.
The House GOP Just Passed A Slew Of ‘Extreme’ Bills
The bills will give GOP industry allies something to tout heading into the 2024 elections.
House GOP Passes Bills That Attack Environmental Protections, Benefit Oil And Mining Companies
So the answer to your question is I don't know what's going on right now.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Thought-experiment time.
Let’s say that Scotus actually does rule in favor of broad Presidential immunity.
Let’s then imagine the sitting President using this now-affirmed immunity to fire Scotus and require that the bench be repopulated in the usual way: the Executive nominates candidate justices and Senate confirms some of them.
I have not studied law, so have no idea if the above holds any water. If so, it strongly suggests that Scotus will reject broad immunity out of simple self-interest, which recent disclosures of justices’ behaviors prove is abundantly present.
Let’s say that Scotus actually does rule in favor of broad Presidential immunity.
Let’s then imagine the sitting President using this now-affirmed immunity to fire Scotus and require that the bench be repopulated in the usual way: the Executive nominates candidate justices and Senate confirms some of them.
I have not studied law, so have no idea if the above holds any water. If so, it strongly suggests that Scotus will reject broad immunity out of simple self-interest, which recent disclosures of justices’ behaviors prove is abundantly present.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You are right.
Trump's claims for immunity and rule of law based upon our constitution are not compatible ideas. I think Scotus is not addressing the case brought before it and is spinning this into a classroom exercise. I think some people on that court have ulterior motives for doing so. But I don't think they will give Trump or any president the broad-sweeping and absolute immunity that his lawyers maintain the President needs to have.
Last edited: