atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#7132: I need to be more specific.

So, I should always be careful to explain what I need to the people at the parts store, because while what I need may look like a relay, it is in fact a flasher, regardless of what I call it.

Didn't make it to the parts store; went grocery shopping instead. Had a list, deviated from it, came home with nearly a hundred bucks' worth of food. (We'll eat it, anyway, so what's the harm?) The hard part is knowing that the deviations really didn't amount to all that much out of the total but for one part: the meat. Chicken and hamburger, probably about $25 worth, because I keep hearing rumbles about meat processing plants being shut down. I've decided that--for the time being--I'll buy a little extra meat when I go to the store, and toss what I know I won't use right away into the freezer downstairs.

* * *

NYT does not want to investigate Joe Biden. NYT wants the Democrat party to investigate Joe Biden.

The NYT says they cannot do a proper job of investigating the sexual assault charges against Joe Biden.
Interesting admission-- the New York Times is conceding they are less reliable and less capable and less unbiased than an actual political coordination committee.
The thing that I am curious of, though, is that the NYT should be champing at the bit to do this. By saying it's got to be done they should do it, because they might actually make themselves look somewhat nonpartisan.

Flat-out refusing to do this necessary job, leaving it to the Democrats themselves--it's like the NYT is saying, "Look, if we investigate this, we're going to find stuff we don't want to find, and we're going to have to talk about at least some of it. We really don't want to do that, because it's going to make our guys look bad." It's a bald-faced straight-up admission that the New York Times is nothing more than a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. I don't know who thought saying this was a good idea, but the reason the right-wing sites are making so much hay from this stems from the fact that it is a tacit admission that they're not journalists and they're not interested in the truth, and they especially do not want to "afflict the comfortable" since "the comfortable" are all Democrats.

So, let's look at what's going on here.

The party of "believe all women!" has just decided that they are not going to believe all women, at least not those who make accusations against Democrats.
I believe you, Tara Reade.
You have people who remember you told them about this decades ago.
We know he is "handsy."
You're not asking for $.
You've obviously struggled mightily with this.
I still have to fight Trump, so I will still support Joe.
But I believe you. And I'm sorry
"I believe you were sexually assaulted, but I don't give a shit, because Trump, and whatever trauma you suffered at Biden's hands is insignificant to me."

I'm used to Democrat politicians not having a shred of decency, honor, or courage. I'm used to them being hypocritical weasels who value power so much that they'll abandon every last single virtue in the book to gain it.

What I am not used to is seeing them being so nakedly honest about it.

Do you Democrat voters understand, at last, what you vote for? It's plain that Bill Clinton didn't make it obvious enough to you, with the "bimbo eruptions" and the systematic attacks on every last woman that accused him of sexual misconduct, that the Democrats don't give one wet shit about women as long as they get their votes. But this is what you're supporting: believe women who level uncorroborated allegations against Republicans, but never never ever believe women who make accusations backed with substantiating evidence if they're talking about Democrats.

Okay? They don't care about women. THEY DO NOT CARE.

THEY. DO. NOT. CARE.

* * *

This is as it should be. Short form: womens' soccer team unexpectedly does really well and wins something. Their contract stipulates that they get paid some amount regardless of how well they do. But they had the option, at signing, to select a contract that paid them less up front but paid more if they won a lot. The former is safer, but since they won they want to retroactively change to the latter, which would pay them more.

...claiming that they want to be paid the same as the men are.

Anyway, the judge said no, you agreed to the safe pay schedule, and it's not fair to the team owners for you to retroactively change things to suit yourself, so you must stick to the contract you signed, bitches.

And they are cloaking it in "equal pay" clothing, as if they had no part in selecting which pay schedule to use. Which is disingenuous at best.
In dismissing the women's claim that they are paid less for the same work, Klausner pointed to differences in the structure of the men's and women's contracts -- contracts to which they agreed in collective bargaining.

"The WNT [Women's National Team] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT [Men's National Team] and ... the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," Klausner wrote. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."

The judge said the women's contract guarantees players will be paid regardless of whether they play. The men are paid if they are called into camp to play and then participate in a match.
To do otherwise, to give these women what they want, is to acknowledge that women are incapable of entering into contractual agreements and then abiding by the terms of them...much like children.

That is not an argument I would feel comfortable making. You?

* * *

Were I in charge of Amazon, I would move my corporate headquarters out of Seattle as soon as I possibly could, and I would cite this socialist shitbag as the main reason why.

* * *

I compared the cost of SLS flights to Falcon 9 flights which was kind of an apples/oranges comparison. The SLS-versus-Falcon Heavy is a lot more fair a comparison--and for the price of one SLS flight you can buy nearly forty Falcon Heavy launches.

Falcon Heavy is what--seventy tons to low Earth orbit. SLS can do 100 tons...for forty times the price.

So if someone has $3.5 billion to spend on lofting stuff to orbit, which is the better deal, again? 2800 tons, or 100? Asking for a friend.

I suppose if you have a payload which absolutely cannot be split into two smaller pieces and clicked together in orbit--it absolutely must go up as a single load--then you might spend FORTY TIMES AS MUCH to boost the thing...but I'd have to say you're a frigging lunatic. I'm positive that whatever extra cash you spent on rebuilding your payload for on-orbit assembly is going to be more than offset, many times over, by what you save on launch fees.

Besides: Starship is coming, and that thing uses a big booster that sure as hell won't cost any $3.5 billion per flight.

It's like I said: Boeing is in the rocket ship business, and it's trying to compete with companies which are in the flights to orbit business.

Okay? Oceanic Airlines is selling flights to California. Boeing is selling airplanes. Which do you buy for your trip to Disneyland? Do you buy a $100 million airplane, or a $1,000 plane ticket?

* * *

Now, this is neat: Shuttle Atlantis, on its last flight, left an American flag on ISS which was to be returned to Earth by the first American flight to ISS after the shuttle was retired.</a>

PRIVATELY-OWNED REUSABLE SPACECRAFT. Just keep saying that to yourself. I do; I have to--I'm not quite sure I believe it.

* * *

Dinner tonight is leftover chili. But it's going to be good. And I have ginzo bread now!
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