derf82 @ derf82 @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

1,011

Joined

2 yr. ago

Litter wasn’t the problem. It was producing a persistent single use product that has to go somewhere. A landfill is only mildly better than on the side of the road.

Glass bottles, which are far more reusable and recyclable, would be better, not worse.

The famous ad with the Native American crying about litter? It was literally funded by the single use plastic industry to shift the blame from them producing trash to people not throwing things away. Also, the guy was Italian.

Nationalization means the government takes full control of an industry, not merely sets standards on their purchase.

And buyers are able to have any reason they want for their purchase decisions, including optics. It’s still the invisible hand. And besides, I think it’s more than optics to want American tax dollars to go to Americans.

Capitalism doesn’t mean “always buy the cheapest.” It means anyone can sell at any price and quality, and the people choose. And, in my experience, Chinese made goods are often of lower quality, made with poor environmental standards, and produced with questionable labor practices (including outright slave labor).

Considering this only covers US Government purchased flags, this IS the invisible hand of the market. It’s a consumer choosing where they want to purchase products.

And it is t nationalizing the industry. They still will be privately produced. And individual Americans can still by Chinese flags.

Senator Brown is a great senator and literally the only statewide Democrat we have other than a few state Supreme Court justices (who will be out soon now that Republicans added party affiliation to the court ballot). He will be far better for America than Bernie Moreno.

They didn’t rule it unconstitutional, they ruled it incompatible with the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act. So the law could change it.

Granted, they could later try to rule it unconstitutional, but it would kill Looper Bright.

I don’t know that he has refused, but he definitely allowed Russia to play him like a fiddle in having him publish the DNC hack (and let’s not forget, it was a hack, not a leak) while holding on to RNC hacked data.

I have questions on if Trump wins in 2016 without Assange, and that’s enough to make me hate him.

I still remember how, as people on the ground in Michigan were seeing it coming and begging for more GOTV volunteers, her campaign flatly refused, instead sending volunteers to Iowa thinking she could win a red state and dunk on Trump. After all, the info on the ground couldn’t be better than their New York polling.

She thought she could just with by being not Trump (which, sure, should have been enough), but decided to not provide anything to vote for, rather than just voting against Trump.

She wins, we still have Roe and a bevy of other positive SCOTUS decisions from a 5-4 liberal court (maybe even 6-3). But she and Ginsburg screwed us over.

This case isn’t about a fed, it’s a local official.

There are other rules governing most federal employees. This is only one specific federal criminal law.

People are way overreacting to this. This decision was 100% about a federal statute. Unaffected are the MANY, MANY state and local laws preventing state and local government employees from taking gifts.

Edit: for y’all downvoters, even the linked article states

In any event, the decision in *Snyder *is narrow. It does not rule that Congress could not ban gratuities. It simply rules that this particular statute only reaches bribes.

Yet another thing that tens of millions of people across the country would instantly lose their job for

Would they? Vendors in the private sector are constantly handing out goodies to clients. Sports tickets, food, gift baskets and more. Hell, I’ve seen vendors pay for vacations in the private sector.

Also, as the case states, these things are largely illegal to varying degrees at the state level for state and local employees. This decision just said the Feds can’t pile on with additional charges.

Or, better yet, do we need to embrace the idea that infinite growth isn’t possible, and adopt economic systems that do not rely on it?

Always someone else’s fault.

I paid attention. I just don’t agree and in your reasoning poor.

We can save more infants, so that means no more meat. That is some non sequitor.

So you want us to somehow magically have the greenhouse gas emissions of an Indian, but think we can just have a high standard of living by having Soviet-style housing blocks (famous for being bleak and depressing)? That does not seem grounded in reality.

Edit: and meat is one of the few things I can eat. Not giving that up. Humans have eaten meat since before civilization. It’s a clear sign that overpopulation is a major issue that something that humans have done for eons is suddenly a problem.

Have you seen how people in the slums of India live? No one wants that life. It is not unreasonable to want a fair standard of living.

Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population

It’s amazing how many people I talk to about overpopulation simply that we get 50% of the land (or more!) and the rest of all other animals get to fight over the rest.

Those places are also inhospitable to most life, period. Just because the TD habitable to humans doesn’t make it ours, either.