Saying “we didn’t say it in chinese so it’s OK misunderstands the key point that languages are not the same”. When we say wet market it does not mean the literal Chinese translation. And that is fine and common and how language works.
If there was a Chinese term with a better literal translation that referred to the thing then you would have an argument for semantics. But there is no such term because there is no differentiator between a fresh market with live animals and a fresh market without live animals. The fact that there isn’t such a term is an indicator that there is an issue…
This, right here.
I mean, if the actual problem is that there's no (Chinese) word for it because there are no markets in China that don't sell live (and possibly diseased) animals, along with the other things...
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Saying “we didn’t say it in chinese so it’s OK misunderstands the key point that languages are not the same”. When we say wet market it does not mean the literal Chinese translation. And that is fine and common and how language works.
If there was a Chinese term with a better literal translation that referred to the thing then you would have an argument for semantics. But there is no such term because there is no differentiator between a fresh market with live animals and a fresh market without live animals. The fact that there isn’t such a term is an indicator that there is an issue…
This, right here.
I mean, if the actual problem is that there's no (Chinese) word for it because there are no markets in China that don't sell live (and possibly diseased) animals, along with the other things...
Eh, there's probably some number of markets that sell grains and veggies but don't have live critters running around. Just that there's no specific name for one that has critters and one that doesn't. Mall, farmer's market, department store are all very generic after all.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Saying “we didn’t say it in chinese so it’s OK misunderstands the key point that languages are not the same”. When we say wet market it does not mean the literal Chinese translation. And that is fine and common and how language works.
If there was a Chinese term with a better literal translation that referred to the thing then you would have an argument for semantics. But there is no such term because there is no differentiator between a fresh market with live animals and a fresh market without live animals. The fact that there isn’t such a term is an indicator that there is an issue…
This, right here.
I mean, if the actual problem is that there's no (Chinese) word for it because there are no markets in China that don't sell live (and possibly diseased) animals, along with the other things...
There are no words for it because it’s not enough of a signatory that people choose to differentiate.
In the US as an example, before those kinds of markets were banned (or just went out of favor not sure which) we called markets without live animals “Sanitary markets”. (If you’re ever at pike place this is why there is the sanitary market sign. Live animals were banned in that building )
+3
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Let’s stop doing whatever it was that caused COVID-19. I don’t care about the terms. Let’s get rid of whatever activities caused us to create a pandemic.
Saying “we didn’t say it in chinese so it’s OK misunderstands the key point that languages are not the same”. When we say wet market it does not mean the literal Chinese translation. And that is fine and common and how language works.
If there was a Chinese term with a better literal translation that referred to the thing then you would have an argument for semantics. But there is no such term because there is no differentiator between a fresh market with live animals and a fresh market without live animals. The fact that there isn’t such a term is an indicator that there is an issue…
This, right here.
I mean, if the actual problem is that there's no (Chinese) word for it because there are no markets in China that don't sell live (and possibly diseased) animals, along with the other things...
There are no markets in China that don't sell live animals? That's a rather sweeping condemnation, don't you think? Back when all this started, we talked about the fact that it was suspected to have been transferred by bats specifically because Wuhan is known to have some markets that sell bats. China is a huge country, and it's not like this could have occurred just anywhere in China.
Saying “we didn’t say it in chinese so it’s OK misunderstands the key point that languages are not the same”. When we say wet market it does not mean the literal Chinese translation. And that is fine and common and how language works.
If there was a Chinese term with a better literal translation that referred to the thing then you would have an argument for semantics. But there is no such term because there is no differentiator between a fresh market with live animals and a fresh market without live animals. The fact that there isn’t such a term is an indicator that there is an issue…
This, right here.
I mean, if the actual problem is that there's no (Chinese) word for it because there are no markets in China that don't sell live (and possibly diseased) animals, along with the other things...
There are no markets in China that don't sell live animals? That's a rather sweeping condemnation, don't you think? Back when all this started, we talked about the fact that it was suspected to have been transferred by bats specifically because Wuhan is known to have some markets that sell bats. China is a huge country, and it's not like this could have occurred just anywhere in China.
I did say "if".
(And my little hometown had a Sanitary Market, so thanks for that history lesson on the origin of the name.)
Saying “we didn’t say it in chinese so it’s OK misunderstands the key point that languages are not the same”. When we say wet market it does not mean the literal Chinese translation. And that is fine and common and how language works.
If there was a Chinese term with a better literal translation that referred to the thing then you would have an argument for semantics. But there is no such term because there is no differentiator between a fresh market with live animals and a fresh market without live animals. The fact that there isn’t such a term is an indicator that there is an issue…
This, right here.
I mean, if the actual problem is that there's no (Chinese) word for it because there are no markets in China that don't sell live (and possibly diseased) animals, along with the other things...
There are no words for it because it’s not enough of a signatory that people choose to differentiate.
In the US as an example, before those kinds of markets were banned (or just went out of favor not sure which) we called markets without live animals “Sanitary markets”. (If you’re ever at pike place this is why there is the sanitary market sign. Live animals were banned in that building )
Well, even in NYC that debate is taking place. Overall refrigeration on the 20th century, together with modern supply chains and rising incomes made wet markets fall out of favor, but on countries with large rural populations like, let's say, China, banning wet markets would cause a massive unemployment spike, and that's without adding that is how said rural populations sell food. It all depends on the strength of health inspection authorities.
Let’s stop doing whatever it was that caused COVID-19. I don’t care about the terms. Let’s get rid of whatever activities caused us to create a pandemic.
I mean your best shot is dramatically curbing human expansion so that we stop pressing into natural wilderness where bats live.
Otherwise the issue is just a ticking time bomb of “how long till someone comes into contact with a bat and a new novel coronavirus jumps species.”
+3
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Eh, I grew up 30 minutes from a metropolis and we had bats in our house many years. Bats natural wilderness is just slightly off of the town square.
So according to CNN, Ted Cruz is holding up more than 60 State Department nominations. But I can't figure out how he is doing that, despite reading through the article.
At first I wondered if it was filibuster related with like how any individual senator can place a hold on a bill, but can’t find anything to confirm that. As far as I can tell, a senator can just unilaterally place a hold on this shit.
Cruz apparently did this exact same thing for state department nominees during the Obama administration, and they still let him back in the committee
So according to CNN, Ted Cruz is holding up more than 60 State Department nominations. But I can't figure out how he is doing that, despite reading through the article.
This is what the NBC article on this says:
An individual senator can’t permanently block a nominee, but can use Senate rules to force procedural steps that are often skipped for less controversial picks. That can delay confirmation of those nominees indefinitely given the many priorities competing for valuable, limited time on the Senate floor.
A thought that crossed my mind, although I doubt it’d accomplish much more than an arms race in superficial pettiness:
Is there anything that prohibits congress critters from, say, just leaving all of their garbage in any particular senator’s office?
Perhaps, say, during the entire duration of some senator holding up senate business to spite the current administration with flimsy excuses as to why they’re holding up said business?
A thought that crossed my mind, although I doubt it’d accomplish much more than an arms race in superficial pettiness:
Is there anything that prohibits congress critters from, say, just leaving all of their garbage in any particular senator’s office?
Perhaps, say, during the entire duration of some senator holding up senate business to spite the current administration with flimsy excuses as to why they’re holding up said business?
No but this is basically make a lot of work for the contractors who clean the offices.
A thought that crossed my mind, although I doubt it’d accomplish much more than an arms race in superficial pettiness:
Is there anything that prohibits congress critters from, say, just leaving all of their garbage in any particular senator’s office?
Perhaps, say, during the entire duration of some senator holding up senate business to spite the current administration with flimsy excuses as to why they’re holding up said business?
You're assuming that this kind of thing takes a substantial amount of time, especially consecutive time.
Like how a lot of people think the filibuster is Mr Smith Goes To Washington.
A lot of this crap is just "I have an objection and request a recess to assess" type procedural shit.
A thought that crossed my mind, although I doubt it’d accomplish much more than an arms race in superficial pettiness:
Is there anything that prohibits congress critters from, say, just leaving all of their garbage in any particular senator’s office?
Perhaps, say, during the entire duration of some senator holding up senate business to spite the current administration with flimsy excuses as to why they’re holding up said business?
No but this is basically make a lot of work for the contractors who clean the offices.
Ah you see though, you don’t make *more* garbage. Just the current garbage, stored conveniently with the other garbage.
Let’s just think of Cruz’s office as a… congressional refuse storage site. One stop for the custodial staff to go to instead of having to go from office to office any longer. For the duration of his tantrum.
"Maybe most importantly, the Murphy/Lee/Sanders bill puts a stop to endless war. If our legislation passes, every war authorization must sunset after two years, forcing Congress to be accountable for any renewals."
- Chris Murphy is a Senator from Connecticut, and co-author of the bill.
Now that's something I want to see. Not only do you have to own the initial vote, you've got to keep owning it, and if that means having to explain a hard choice to your constituents, fuck you, that's your job.
It's hard to think of something more fucking annoying than Congress spending the last 15 years going "Afghanistan? Iraq? Not our problem." *shrug emoji*
Hoping war financing is also directly tied to it. If the war is so important, so necessary, you find the fucking money to pay for it (even if you just gets put on the debt), not some nebulous "the money isn't part of the budget" shit that Bush pulled.
Doesn't that run into the issue that Congress cannot bind future Congresses?
People confuse what that saying means all the time.
It doesn't means a new congress can just ignore anything a previous congress passed. It means congress can just pass a new law to supersede an older law. Or change it. Or eliminate it. Or whatever. It means you can't pass a law that says "No one can ever change this law" because congress is fully within it's authority to just pass a new law that changes that part if it wants.
Do they really need to repeal it? If they pass a new authorization that says it applies forever and is exempt from this law than that would supercede it.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Do they really need to repeal it? If they pass a new authorization that says it applies forever and is exempt from this law than that would supercede it.
I think that in function repeals it, so it's the same either way, really.
Do they really need to repeal it? If they pass a new authorization that says it applies forever and is exempt from this law than that would supercede it.
I think that in function repeals it, so it's the same either way, really.
Yeah, there's definitely several ways around it. But as Polarite mentions, once this is in place, if they do try to legislate around it, then they'll have to defend their decision to do so.
It's the reasons conservatives fought so hard to gum up Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc. Cause now they're in place, it's significantly harder politically to rip them away.
Doesn't stop them doing the rhetoric, or nibbling around the edges, but if it wasn't for the inherent electoral bias for conservatives, they wouldn't have had a chance of repealing Obamacare a couple years ago, because even if they had the numbers, the politics would have seen even more defections.
It also puts the executive, at least theoretically, in the position of having to go back and ask for a re-up if congress fails to act. They can’t just claim something like the AUMF authorizes everything retroactively
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It also puts the executive, at least theoretically, in the position of having to go back and ask for a re-up if congress fails to act. They can’t just claim something like the AUMF authorizes everything retroactively
Yup. That's why I'm fond of this bill.
Means that Congress needs to do their fucking job, but also that the Presidency has some of it's unilateral authority pulled. And if the previous Administration (and GWB's terms) has shown us anything, it's that no single man should have that kind of power assigned to them without oversight.
Doesn't that run into the issue that Congress cannot bind future Congresses?
Yes but congress has, in the past, dealt with these types of issues. It’s like the debt ceiling. Sure it technically does nothing due to the doctrine of implicit repeal (the thing we are talking about here) but the govt still shuts down rather than go over
It’s… weird. In general the way this has worked is that a new law that does not contain a sunset still sunsets and when it goes to the court the court will say. “Well we don’t know which law has precedence but this one doesn’t specifically say it overrides the last one so if we’re wrong congress is free to correct us”. Congress, of course, never corrects them.
Other than that, getting a case is difficult. Congress is the only one with standing to sue (generally) in these circumstances. So they’re unlikely to sue to stop a war if they would rather the war continue but not have to vote for it. Since they need ~50% to sue (iirc).
Low. 407 to 16 usually sails past the senate. And "Republicans prevent America Aiding its Allies in their time of need" is probably the last news any of them want.
I'd like to note that there are 12 missing votes. IIRC we don't have any vacancies in the house right now, but could be wrong. So if you don't see a particular shithead in that least, don't get your hopes up that they did the right thing without confirming because they could have easily abstained from voting or found an excuse for not being able to vote.
I'd like to note that there are 12 missing votes. IIRC we don't have any vacancies in the house right now, but could be wrong. So if you don't see a particular shithead in that least, don't get your hopes up that they did the right thing without confirming because they could have easily abstained from voting or found an excuse for not being able to vote.
Yeah, but at least they had the good sense not to put their name down opposing this. It's one thing to be absent, it's another to sign your name to "We literally would rather these people that helped our troops get murdered by the Taliban, than help them in a meaningful way."
And Gosar, Greene, Boebert and Brooks being on there is zero fucking surprise. Don't know most of the other chucklefucks (except the name Desjarlais rings a bell), but as I thought in my original post, no shocks.
Oh, and I looked up why I knew the name, Desjarlis is the asshole who ran on anti-abortion, got his mistress (a patient of his, and one of two patients he fucked and four other hospital staff/contractors) pregnant, told her to get an abortion, and had his wife have two abortions. A true "family values" Congressman, who has been re-elected 5 times, by steadily increasing margins (+30 in 2020).
+11
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
Now before any alt-right war crime apologists jump in and say 'it's not a war crime because the US govt doesn't view 90% innocent civilians being murdered as a war crime' why don't you save that argument for h8chan. It's the same type of crap you hear from police brutality apologists (yes, nine civilians were murdered by cops, but they also killed one bad guy!). It's fucking disgusting. There should be a post-war Nuremburg trial, and yes, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all need to be put up on the stand for KNOWINGLY signing off on these strikes with appalling civilian death rates.
You want to know why the US has been losing in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's because we've been murdering innocent people over there for two decades. Then knowingly covering it up and prosecuting anyone who reveals the truth. Nazi scum tactics never work.
"Not intended target" and "innocent civilian" isn't a Venn diagram with complete overlap. Nor is every air strike a war crime, no matter how loud and obnoxious you get about calling it one. Remember your Nuremburg trial example came after a war that involved saturation bombing of cities, which was "fine".
Incredibly stupid and counter productive, yes. Badly targeted and often immoral, yep. War crime, not so much.
Posts
This, right here.
I mean, if the actual problem is that there's no (Chinese) word for it because there are no markets in China that don't sell live (and possibly diseased) animals, along with the other things...
Eh, there's probably some number of markets that sell grains and veggies but don't have live critters running around. Just that there's no specific name for one that has critters and one that doesn't. Mall, farmer's market, department store are all very generic after all.
There are no words for it because it’s not enough of a signatory that people choose to differentiate.
In the US as an example, before those kinds of markets were banned (or just went out of favor not sure which) we called markets without live animals “Sanitary markets”. (If you’re ever at pike place this is why there is the sanitary market sign. Live animals were banned in that building )
There are no markets in China that don't sell live animals? That's a rather sweeping condemnation, don't you think? Back when all this started, we talked about the fact that it was suspected to have been transferred by bats specifically because Wuhan is known to have some markets that sell bats. China is a huge country, and it's not like this could have occurred just anywhere in China.
I did say "if".
(And my little hometown had a Sanitary Market, so thanks for that history lesson on the origin of the name.)
Well, even in NYC that debate is taking place. Overall refrigeration on the 20th century, together with modern supply chains and rising incomes made wet markets fall out of favor, but on countries with large rural populations like, let's say, China, banning wet markets would cause a massive unemployment spike, and that's without adding that is how said rural populations sell food. It all depends on the strength of health inspection authorities.
I mean your best shot is dramatically curbing human expansion so that we stop pressing into natural wilderness where bats live.
Otherwise the issue is just a ticking time bomb of “how long till someone comes into contact with a bat and a new novel coronavirus jumps species.”
It's probably fine if you don't eat them or French kiss them.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
America's pursuing new sanctions against Russia, over Navalny's poisoning.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Cruz apparently did this exact same thing for state department nominees during the Obama administration, and they still let him back in the committee
This is what the NBC article on this says: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/ted-cruz-holding-all-state-department-nominees-over-russian-pipeline-n1273009
Which matches my expectations for how this stuff usually happens.
As always, the US Senate is a terrible institution that should be ended.
Is there anything that prohibits congress critters from, say, just leaving all of their garbage in any particular senator’s office?
Perhaps, say, during the entire duration of some senator holding up senate business to spite the current administration with flimsy excuses as to why they’re holding up said business?
No but this is basically make a lot of work for the contractors who clean the offices.
You're assuming that this kind of thing takes a substantial amount of time, especially consecutive time.
Like how a lot of people think the filibuster is Mr Smith Goes To Washington.
A lot of this crap is just "I have an objection and request a recess to assess" type procedural shit.
But if Ted Cruz wants to be a garbage person, well, perhaps it’s only fitting he find his workspace cluttered up with literal garbage.
Ah you see though, you don’t make *more* garbage. Just the current garbage, stored conveniently with the other garbage.
Let’s just think of Cruz’s office as a… congressional refuse storage site. One stop for the custodial staff to go to instead of having to go from office to office any longer. For the duration of his tantrum.
"Maybe most importantly, the Murphy/Lee/Sanders bill puts a stop to endless war. If our legislation passes, every war authorization must sunset after two years, forcing Congress to be accountable for any renewals."
- Chris Murphy is a Senator from Connecticut, and co-author of the bill.
Now that's something I want to see. Not only do you have to own the initial vote, you've got to keep owning it, and if that means having to explain a hard choice to your constituents, fuck you, that's your job.
It's hard to think of something more fucking annoying than Congress spending the last 15 years going "Afghanistan? Iraq? Not our problem." *shrug emoji*
Hoping war financing is also directly tied to it. If the war is so important, so necessary, you find the fucking money to pay for it (even if you just gets put on the debt), not some nebulous "the money isn't part of the budget" shit that Bush pulled.
No. Because you can change the law but setting limits on them just means it is there till its not.
People confuse what that saying means all the time.
It doesn't means a new congress can just ignore anything a previous congress passed. It means congress can just pass a new law to supersede an older law. Or change it. Or eliminate it. Or whatever. It means you can't pass a law that says "No one can ever change this law" because congress is fully within it's authority to just pass a new law that changes that part if it wants.
But they still have to pass that new law.
A future congress can repeal it, but if they don't it remains in effect. And then you nail them to the wall on repealing it.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I think that in function repeals it, so it's the same either way, really.
Yeah, there's definitely several ways around it. But as Polarite mentions, once this is in place, if they do try to legislate around it, then they'll have to defend their decision to do so.
It's the reasons conservatives fought so hard to gum up Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc. Cause now they're in place, it's significantly harder politically to rip them away.
Doesn't stop them doing the rhetoric, or nibbling around the edges, but if it wasn't for the inherent electoral bias for conservatives, they wouldn't have had a chance of repealing Obamacare a couple years ago, because even if they had the numbers, the politics would have seen even more defections.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yup. That's why I'm fond of this bill.
Means that Congress needs to do their fucking job, but also that the Presidency has some of it's unilateral authority pulled. And if the previous Administration (and GWB's terms) has shown us anything, it's that no single man should have that kind of power assigned to them without oversight.
Yes but congress has, in the past, dealt with these types of issues. It’s like the debt ceiling. Sure it technically does nothing due to the doctrine of implicit repeal (the thing we are talking about here) but the govt still shuts down rather than go over
It’s… weird. In general the way this has worked is that a new law that does not contain a sunset still sunsets and when it goes to the court the court will say. “Well we don’t know which law has precedence but this one doesn’t specifically say it overrides the last one so if we’re wrong congress is free to correct us”. Congress, of course, never corrects them.
Other than that, getting a case is difficult. Congress is the only one with standing to sue (generally) in these circumstances. So they’re unlikely to sue to stop a war if they would rather the war continue but not have to vote for it. Since they need ~50% to sue (iirc).
"House Votes to Evacuate More Afghan Allies as US War Ends"
Vote passed 407-16.
No idea which craven knuckledragging assholes enumerate that 16, but I bet there'll be few, if any, surprises.
Odds on filibuster?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Yeah, but at least they had the good sense not to put their name down opposing this. It's one thing to be absent, it's another to sign your name to "We literally would rather these people that helped our troops get murdered by the Taliban, than help them in a meaningful way."
And Gosar, Greene, Boebert and Brooks being on there is zero fucking surprise. Don't know most of the other chucklefucks (except the name Desjarlais rings a bell), but as I thought in my original post, no shocks.
Oh, and I looked up why I knew the name, Desjarlis is the asshole who ran on anti-abortion, got his mistress (a patient of his, and one of two patients he fucked and four other hospital staff/contractors) pregnant, told her to get an abortion, and had his wife have two abortions. A true "family values" Congressman, who has been re-elected 5 times, by steadily increasing margins (+30 in 2020).
Now before any alt-right war crime apologists jump in and say 'it's not a war crime because the US govt doesn't view 90% innocent civilians being murdered as a war crime' why don't you save that argument for h8chan. It's the same type of crap you hear from police brutality apologists (yes, nine civilians were murdered by cops, but they also killed one bad guy!). It's fucking disgusting. There should be a post-war Nuremburg trial, and yes, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all need to be put up on the stand for KNOWINGLY signing off on these strikes with appalling civilian death rates.
You want to know why the US has been losing in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's because we've been murdering innocent people over there for two decades. Then knowingly covering it up and prosecuting anyone who reveals the truth. Nazi scum tactics never work.
Not the intented target does not necessarily mean civilian.
Incredibly stupid and counter productive, yes. Badly targeted and often immoral, yep. War crime, not so much.