So they say, but they also just said the president had immunity for official acts. If Biden did this while at the same time urging Congress to pass judicial ethics laws, who could stop him? Hell, expand it to the federal court system and tell the committee to move fast and prioritize the most unethical judges in key positions and either the Republicans have to play ball with Democrats on passing judicial reform through law or the remaining sane judges reverse a few key decisions to unfuck our current judicial quandary.

I’m no legal expert, but could he possibly form a judicial ethics committee to investigate supreme court justices. On any evidence of violating ethics, he could sign an arrest warrent to remove them from the court.

The only reason I make the bed every morning is because we have dogs that like to lay on it when we aren’t home and there is nothing worse when you are crawling in bed at night and finding dirt or sand all in it.

I’ve wondered the same thing. Maybe a the Enquirer did a catch and kill payoff to the neighbors when it happened?

You can use Bitwarden to store passkeys. Not sure if the self hosted solution has support for it yet though.

I don’t think you actually do want an nuanced discussion, but here you go.

Let’s start by acknowledging that everyone has different morals which makes basing rules of law on morals a difficult proposal. But let’s say that rules for a fair and just society usually come down to that one’s rights ends where someone else’s begins. Maybe you disagree with this, but I’d say it is a pretty basic standard to make things fair.

So in the abortion debate, the opinion of whether or not the unborn have any rights in society. Some people will say no, that until you are a living breathing human, you are not a part of society and its rules. To theses people, the abortion debate ends there. The unborn have no rights so abortion is justified.

Some people believe that the unborn have just as many rights as anyone else, so then my proposed scenerio starts to come into play. If we can force women to give up bodily autonomy in favor another life, then why not enact similar rules to save others in society as well.

Now, you might say, “hold on a minute, I think that the unborn actually has more rights because they are among the most vulnerable in society and can’t live unless they have some rights over the mother’s body.” Well, in that case then my scenario does seem pretty silly, and to some extent that makes sense, as there are plenty of laws that center around the welfare of children, but none that force specific people to give up bodily autonomy in the same way that forced pregnancy does. I would also expect people in this camp to support laws to support children in need by providing food, housing, and other support they need. So in my opinion, if you support abortion bans but don’t support laws that help take of children in need, then you are a hypocrite, especially since social support comes in the form that doesn’t force any individual to not have control over their own body. Now a lot of GOP politicians seem to fall in this category, so my scenario is aimed directly at them.

Okay, so say you support the rights of the unborn as well as favor societal structures to also help children in need. This at least I can understand, but I would still say that abortion bans are misguided because they usually end up disproportionately affecting people without a lot of means in the first place and do nothing to address the reasons that women actually get abortions. I would say that if you can start by addressing those things with things like free and easy access to birth control, financial compensation, and fostering environments that teach consent so woman can feel safe turning down sex that can lead to pregnancy. But to try none of those and jump straight to punishing women seems like supporting cruelty in the face of better options.

I look forward to your nuanced response.

Its a probing question to find out where the moral line is. It is a ridiculous proposal for sure, but it is basically the same ask as forcing a woman to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

Looks like your real enemy are all these strawmen that you keep building your arguments around.

You dismiss my views on bodily autonomy by saying that we who support that stance also support mandatory vaccines when you are the only one advocating for that here. BTW, I don’t support mandatory vaccines, but I do support getting vaccines and think by supporting better education among the general population, vaccine rates would stay in the range for heard immunity to kick in for those that can’t or just don’t want them for whatever reason.

In my view supporting abortion ban is the extreme position here. One that has caused a lot of very real hurt and pain. Way more pain than someone making comments that unborn babies are parasites. I’m sorry that made you uncomfortable, but swinging your support behind the crowd that has caused women to suffer in response seems like a weird reaction to me.

And when I bring up putting your support behind less extreme policies that would actually do more to address the reasons women seek abortions you go off on me about fighting political extremes? What a fucking laugh.

You didn’t “go one further” than me, it sounds like we both are advocating for free and easy access to contraception. Either way I’m glad you support that at least.

You say that most pro life people aren’t extremists, but the ones that write the abortion ban laws seem to lean into the extremes, so by supporting them you are supporting those extreme positions. And even when the laws still have exceptions, those with means can go get an abortion elsewhere for whatever reason they want. So the laws primarily effect those who probably didn’t have the means to get other types of birth control as well. And in some cases people who actually want to have babies but need to suffer because these laws can prevent care because of government intervention between health care providers and patients.

You say yourself that there are other methods of reducing abortion, so why advocate for the one that seems less effective and promotes cruelty?

So do you support abortion in cases of rape where the woman didn’t choose to have sex?

Not that it matters of course. As we see the reality of anti abortion laws generally push for few or no exceptions, so rape victims have to continue enduring trauma for something they have now control in.

If you asked me how to really reduce abortions, then I would suggest comprehensive sex education, along with free and easy access to contraception to everyone, as well fostering environments that respect consent so women can feel safe saying no. Again, after all of that I’d still draw my line that gives women over the rights to their bodies. But to support outlawing abortion before any of those things just seems like supporting cruelty in the face of more effective options.

But it is about bodily autonomy. You are advocating to force people to use their bodies against their will. And most people who support these policies don’t ever have to worry about it happening to them.

You are right that the real world needs exceptions or compromises. I’ll just never understand that why we need to compromise on the rights of the “unborn” vs enacting policies that would do a lot of good for those that are living and suffering instead that doesn’t force people into losing choices over their own bodies.

Question for you. When there are shortages on organ donor lists that will cause people to die, should the government be able to compel heathy individuals to donate organs they don’t need? What about for blood shortages?

I have a Lucky Line 71101 keyring that I got 5+ years ago. It flexes to unlock, which makes it very easy to add or remove things to it. Despite it being easy to unlock, it has never come undone without me intentionally doing so. And it still looks and acts the way it did when it was new.

I think there will always be ways to make anonymous calls regardless of regulations, especially since telephone systems are on the internet, so are vulnerable to hacking and exploits. But if police can be held responsible for the death and injury they cause, then maybe they will stop going in guns blazing and remove the incentive for swatting in the first place.

Its crazy to me that people think its the telephone companies that need more regulations here and not the police. SWAT teams shouldn’t be going in guns blazing on anonymous calls and any injury or death should be solely their responsibility. By all means try to prosecute the people calling in the first case for misuse of emergency services, if you can identify them, but we all know who pulled the fucking trigger. Police can’t both get to decide that they get to selectively enforce the law and then take no responsibility when the injure or kill innocent people.

You keep your files safe by having backups. Multiple copies. Set up the backups to gets copied to another server or other system your regular user doesn’t have access to. Ideally, you follow the 3-2-1 backup standard if the files are important. That is 3 copies, on 2 different media, and 1 offsite. There are many ways of accomplishing that and its up to you to figure out what works best.

I use a Honeywell Z-Wave thermostat with Home Assistant. All local and I not only do I have schedules based on time of day, but it also adjusts the temperature based on if people are home or not.