atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#5970: Depends on how the state constitution reads.

But this sounds like "communist dictatorship" bullshit to me. Alabama is having a special election to elect a Senator. The GOP establishment and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) don't like the guy who won the primary on the GOP side. Now they're attempting to get rid of him using other means.

Quoth Alabama's secretary of state: If the Alabama GOP were to pull support for its nominee, and he still won the election, "our election would be declared null and void, and Governor Ivey would have to call another special election, and we'd start the process all over again."

Why would the election be declared "null and void"? Is there some provision in the state's constitution saying that any election result that's not supported by the majority party is subject to a mulligan?

The thing to bear in mind is that generally speaking, the constitution of a government is apolitical. At least in the case of most states, the state constitution doesn't enshrine or otherwise legitimize political parties; it doesn't (for example) have language in it codifying how many political parties there are and what their names are. Any constitution that tried that would end up generating a wealth of First Amendment lawsuits.

I suspect that if Judge Moore were to win the election in Alabama, and the election were to be "declared null and void", there would be a shitton of lawsuits over it, because political parties don't have any intrinsic constitutional role in government. The GOP "pulling its support" of a candidate does not have any effect on the validity of an election; the vote elects a person, not a party.

All of this, of course, does not mean that a political party can't wield power once enough individual members of it are elected to office. Generally speaking, though, using government office to overturn the results of a lawful election is a corrupt practice. The sitting governor of Alabama declaring the special election to be "null and void" would be an example of that.

* * *

So, in merry old England, where gun ownership is heavily restricted, suppressors are commonplace. Every one of those hunting rifles has a suppressor on it.

* * *

Frozen's signature song is amoral horseshit. That whole movie just gives me the heebie-jeebies. I can't explain it--though I have never liked Disney's musical cartoons--but at least part of it is the way Disney heroines have turned into omnicompetent demigods who chafe at tradition. I'm getting tired of the "girl who is better than all the boys" schtick.

No one is better than everyone at everything, but the girl who can do it all better than any boy around is becoming more and more prevalent in popular culture. It's bad storytelling.

Example: Max in Stranger Things 2. She's exactly the type of character I'm talking about, the girl who can do everything so much better than the boys, and in fact she's so smart and clever and sassy and hip she runs rings around them all!

And the character is entirely superfluous. As of ep 7 she's had absolutely no purpose being in the story. She's done nothing, contributed nothing to the plot, been nothing more than a point of contention between Token Black Kid and Kid in Cap, to see who can win her affection. (Prediction: she picks the black kid. Because reasons, you racist bigot.)

Whenever Max shows up on screen I cringe, because here we go again. So far, I have not been wrong. Every time she pops up, it's tedious and annoying, because she is tedious and annoying, Yet Another Example Of More Of The Same.

* * *

Speaking of which: GQ has named Colin "Taking a Knee Enhanced My Career!" Kaepernick as its "citizen of the year".

Kaepernick is one of those people that--when I see his picture--I say, "Holy crap, what a shithead." He looks like the kind of dork you see on Judge Judy, suing a former landlord for an unreturned security deposit and punitive damages.

Lose that stupid head of frizz, asshat. You look like a bad 1970s movie poster.

* * *

ADDENDUM:

Oh, I forgot about this--I heard this one on the news last night.

Defining "high blood pressure" down, so more people have it. The medical establishment does this periodically because a) the science is junk, and b) it sells a lot more pills.

"The science is junk"--most of the time, the studies behind these pronouncements cannot be duplicated, and in any case no one tries, because "publish or perish" demands novelty, and it's not new if you're trying to duplicate someone else's results. But of course when your results aren't tested, if no one tries to duplicate them just to check your work, you can make a lot of what are basically unfounded assertions and call it "science". It's not; it's tailor-made propaganda in disguise.

"Sells pills"--
Potentially deadly high blood pressure can be brought under control with a wide array of medications, many sold as relatively inexpensive generics. The drug classes include angiotensin receptor blockers, such as Novartis AG's Diovan, calcium channel blockers, like Pfizer Incs's Norvasc, ACE inhibitors, including Pfizer's Altace, and diuretics, such as Merck & Co Inc's Hyzaar.
How much do you want to bet that the people who did the study got grants from Big Pharma?

And if you want to keep getting those grants, your findings end up being suspiciously favorable to their business model, because no one is going to give you free money to find out that the standard for hypertension is actually too tight and can be loosened, meaning that fewer people need drugs to control it.

A business that stagnates, dies. Continued growth is essential, and when a market becomes saturated either it must be expanded, or a new market found. This redefinition of "hypertension" has just expanded the market for hypertension drugs by 30,000,000 people in the US.

This is why I don't believe it.

END ADDENDUM

* * *

Saw the last eps of Broadchurch last night. Well--the last eps of season 2, anyway; apparently there's a third season, but that's not available on Netflix. (At least, not yet.) It is available on Amazon Video. Mrs. Fungus and I have been discussing the possibility of subscribing to Amazon Prime so that we could see...uh.... Now I can't remember what it was they were going to show that we wanted to see--but I do want to check out the Ringworld series they're reportedly working on, at least.

By the time Ringworld hits the streams, Broadchurch season 3 may already be on Netflix. We'll see, I suppose.

No one really cares.

...I've been wanting to try Foyle's War but it's not on Netflix. None of the things I really want to try out are.

A couple of weeks ago I tried the cable box's YouTube app and found it of reasonable utility, and I expect I could find any number of these shows on YouTube if I really cared to, but the user interface is kind of clunky and I have other things occupying my attention.

Could be worse, I suppose.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments