Give Lad credit for liking this idea. However, he seems to think arming teachers would inevitably bring about an OK corral situation.

I think a good compromise would be for several more of these safes to be scattered around the school, in the classrooms of selected and trained teachers. After all, we don’t rely on a single fire extinguisher, why rely on a single safe with a single user?

That might cut the response time to 1 minute or so.

(08-06-2022 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That might cut the response time to 1 minute or so.

Better than nothing. But it would be better for the response to occur a the entrance to the facility, via restricted access plus armed guards to enforce it.

(08-06-2022 10:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That might cut the response time to 1 minute or so.

Better than nothing. But it would be better for the response to occur a the entrance to the facility, via restricted access plus armed guards to enforce it.

How about all of the above?

Here is the standard anti-gun response from the left:

no, no, no, NO, a million times no - we need to ban guns

“We should be banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines."

"We need to make it much harder for people who are intent on doing harm and committing violence to access guns in the first place," she said. [AKA “more of the same stuff that didn’t work is the answer”]

OTOH……
Assigning student resource officers, social workers and counselors to each school, adding a panic button system to every building and having a school district safety liaison are among Madison County's other safety initiatives, according to superintendent Will Hoffman.

The Trump hunt continues

Doesn't say what they were searching for, but I think it was for documentation of a Trump communique in which he tells his puppetmaster, Putin, that after the next election he can be more flexible.

Most EVs...

...won't qualify for the tax credit.

(08-09-2022 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Most EVs...

...won't qualify for the tax credit.

Interesting

Quote:Under the $740 billion economic package, which passed the Senate over the weekend and is nearing approval in the House, the tax credits would take effect next year. For an EV buyer to qualify for the full credit, 40% of the metals used in a vehicle's battery must come from North America. By 2027, that required threshold would reach 80%.

If the metals requirement isn't met, the automaker and its buyers would be eligible for half the tax credit, $3,750.

A separate rule would require that half the batteries' value must be manufactured or assembled in the North America. If not, the rest of the tax credit would be lost. Those requirements also grow stricter each year, eventually reaching 100% in 2029. Still another rule would require that the EV itself be manufactured in North America, thereby excluding from the tax credit any vehicles made overseas...

One component of the bill would require that after 2024, no vehicle would be eligible for the tax credit if its battery components came from China. Most vehicles now have some parts sourced in China, the alliance said.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat and a leading ally of Detroit automakers, complained that Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a critical Democratic vote, had opposed any tax credits for EV purchases.

“I went round-and-round with Senator Manchin, who frankly didn’t support any credit of any kind, so this is a compromise,” Stabenow told reporters Monday. “We’ll work through it and make this as good as we can for our automakers...”

Stabenow asserted that the bill was written by people who don't understand that manufacturers can't simply flip a switch and create a North American supply chain, though they are working on it. Numerous automakers, including General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, Toyota and Hyundai-Kia, have announced plans to build EV battery plants in the United States.

(08-09-2022 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The Trump hunt continues

Doesn't say what they were searching for, but I think it was for documentation of a Trump communique in which he tells his puppetmaster, Putin, that after the next election he can be more flexible.

(08-09-2022 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Most EVs...

...won't qualify for the tax credit.

Interesting

Quote:Under the $740 billion economic package, which passed the Senate over the weekend and is nearing approval in the House, the tax credits would take effect next year. For an EV buyer to qualify for the full credit, 40% of the metals used in a vehicle's battery must come from North America. By 2027, that required threshold would reach 80%.

If the metals requirement isn't met, the automaker and its buyers would be eligible for half the tax credit, $3,750.

A separate rule would require that half the batteries' value must be manufactured or assembled in the North America. If not, the rest of the tax credit would be lost. Those requirements also grow stricter each year, eventually reaching 100% in 2029. Still another rule would require that the EV itself be manufactured in North America, thereby excluding from the tax credit any vehicles made overseas...

One component of the bill would require that after 2024, no vehicle would be eligible for the tax credit if its battery components came from China. Most vehicles now have some parts sourced in China, the alliance said.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat and a leading ally of Detroit automakers, complained that Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a critical Democratic vote, had opposed any tax credits for EV purchases.

“I went round-and-round with Senator Manchin, who frankly didn’t support any credit of any kind, so this is a compromise,” Stabenow told reporters Monday. “We’ll work through it and make this as good as we can for our automakers...”

Stabenow asserted that the bill was written by people who don't understand that manufacturers can't simply flip a switch and create a North American supply chain, though they are working on it. Numerous automakers, including General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, Toyota and Hyundai-Kia, have announced plans to build EV battery plants in the United States.

Missing from the above (not that it was intentional) was an interesting factoid that I saw in another article... where the largest supplier of Cobalt is Congo and the largest supplier of lithium is China.

We need a different chemistry

(08-09-2022 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Most EVs...

...won't qualify for the tax credit.

...never should have been any tax credits for these environmental monstrosities. They are anything but cleaner, and they threaten our nation's security and ability to defend itself. Just another inflationary money-grab by people who care nothing about the well-being of average Amercian people.

(08-09-2022 10:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The Trump hunt continues

Doesn't say what they were searching for, but I think it was for documentation of a Trump communique in which he tells his puppetmaster, Putin, that after the next election he can be more flexible.

(08-09-2022 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Most EVs...

...won't qualify for the tax credit.

Interesting

Quote:Under the $740 billion economic package, which passed the Senate over the weekend and is nearing approval in the House, the tax credits would take effect next year. For an EV buyer to qualify for the full credit, 40% of the metals used in a vehicle's battery must come from North America. By 2027, that required threshold would reach 80%.

If the metals requirement isn't met, the automaker and its buyers would be eligible for half the tax credit, $3,750.

A separate rule would require that half the batteries' value must be manufactured or assembled in the North America. If not, the rest of the tax credit would be lost. Those requirements also grow stricter each year, eventually reaching 100% in 2029. Still another rule would require that the EV itself be manufactured in North America, thereby excluding from the tax credit any vehicles made overseas...

One component of the bill would require that after 2024, no vehicle would be eligible for the tax credit if its battery components came from China. Most vehicles now have some parts sourced in China, the alliance said.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat and a leading ally of Detroit automakers, complained that Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a critical Democratic vote, had opposed any tax credits for EV purchases.

“I went round-and-round with Senator Manchin, who frankly didn’t support any credit of any kind, so this is a compromise,” Stabenow told reporters Monday. “We’ll work through it and make this as good as we can for our automakers...”

Stabenow asserted that the bill was written by people who don't understand that manufacturers can't simply flip a switch and create a North American supply chain, though they are working on it. Numerous automakers, including General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, Toyota and Hyundai-Kia, have announced plans to build EV battery plants in the United States.

Missing from the above (not that it was intentional) was an interesting factoid that I saw in another article... where the largest supplier of Cobalt is Congo and the largest supplier of lithium is China.

We need a different chemistry

That comment about Cobalt was in the article, just not quoted by me.

Quote:Production of lithium and other minerals that are used to produce EV batteries is now dominated by China. And the world's leading producer of cobalt, another component of the EV batteries, is the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Though electric vehicles are part of a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they require metallic elements known as rare earths, found in places like Myanmar, where an Associated Press investigation has found that the push for green energy has led to environmental destruction.

From the articles I've read, rare earth mining is really interesting, and the US isn't positioned that poorly to make a dent if we want to.

There is also a lot of research going into that different chemistry you mentioned. There's even a fellow WRCer of mine (a few years below) who is leading a battery materials production firm that's working on iron-based cathodes produced in the US.

(08-09-2022 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 10:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The Trump hunt continues

Doesn't say what they were searching for, but I think it was for documentation of a Trump communique in which he tells his puppetmaster, Putin, that after the next election he can be more flexible.

(08-09-2022 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Most EVs...

...won't qualify for the tax credit.

Interesting

Quote:Under the $740 billion economic package, which passed the Senate over the weekend and is nearing approval in the House, the tax credits would take effect next year. For an EV buyer to qualify for the full credit, 40% of the metals used in a vehicle's battery must come from North America. By 2027, that required threshold would reach 80%.

If the metals requirement isn't met, the automaker and its buyers would be eligible for half the tax credit, $3,750.

A separate rule would require that half the batteries' value must be manufactured or assembled in the North America. If not, the rest of the tax credit would be lost. Those requirements also grow stricter each year, eventually reaching 100% in 2029. Still another rule would require that the EV itself be manufactured in North America, thereby excluding from the tax credit any vehicles made overseas...

One component of the bill would require that after 2024, no vehicle would be eligible for the tax credit if its battery components came from China. Most vehicles now have some parts sourced in China, the alliance said.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat and a leading ally of Detroit automakers, complained that Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a critical Democratic vote, had opposed any tax credits for EV purchases.

“I went round-and-round with Senator Manchin, who frankly didn’t support any credit of any kind, so this is a compromise,” Stabenow told reporters Monday. “We’ll work through it and make this as good as we can for our automakers...”

Stabenow asserted that the bill was written by people who don't understand that manufacturers can't simply flip a switch and create a North American supply chain, though they are working on it. Numerous automakers, including General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, Toyota and Hyundai-Kia, have announced plans to build EV battery plants in the United States.

Missing from the above (not that it was intentional) was an interesting factoid that I saw in another article... where the largest supplier of Cobalt is Congo and the largest supplier of lithium is China.

We need a different chemistry

That comment about Cobalt was in the article, just not quoted by me.

Quote:Production of lithium and other minerals that are used to produce EV batteries is now dominated by China. And the world's leading producer of cobalt, another component of the EV batteries, is the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Though electric vehicles are part of a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they require metallic elements known as rare earths, found in places like Myanmar, where an Associated Press investigation has found that the push for green energy has led to environmental destruction.

From the articles I've read, rare earth mining is really interesting, and the US isn't positioned that poorly to make a dent if we want to.

There is also a lot of research going into that different chemistry you mentioned. There's even a fellow WRCer of mine (a few years below) who is leading a battery materials production firm that's working on iron-based cathodes produced in the US.

From what I understand we had a friendly relationship with African countries (primarily the DRC IIRC) who control these rare metals. We had long-term leases established which ran out during the Trump administration. China came in and took these over despite the alarm bells that were rung by various members of his administration. Trump, however, was concentrating on coal and let China come in and eat our lunch when it comes to these mines/relationships.

(08-09-2022 12:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  From what I understand we had a friendly relationship with African countries (primarily the DRC IIRC) who control these rare metals. We had long-term leases established which ran out during the Trump administration. China came in and took these over despite the alarm bells that were rung by various members of his administration. Trump, however, was concentrating on coal and let China come in and eat our lunch when it comes to these mines/relationships.

DRC is an incredibly troubled spot... and not exactly stable in any way.

China has also bought a lot of things in the US.... and continues to do so

That said, I find the above curious... based on the following.... Not saying it's wrong, just it seems to conflict with older stories....

From 2017... and feel free to look for other sources if this one is biased... it was just the first I saw...

https://theconversation.com/trump-is-rig...sons-73320

Dodd-Frank went into effect in July 2010 and immediately created a de facto boycott of mineral exports from the Congo and neighbouring countries. Companies found it easier to just stop sourcing from this region, instead of facing the high compliance costs for setting up and monitoring supply chain due diligence.

As such, the move by the Trump administration to repeal this section of the law sparked a wave of indignation and protest on social media and in the press. Global Witness called the decision:

a gift to predatory armed groups seeking to profit from Congo’s minerals as well as a gift to companies wanting to do business with the criminal and the corrupt.

So it seems to be saying precisely the opposite of what you've heard..... including the following line which is in line with yours... but blames Dodd-Frank, not Trump...

Third, the stricter regulations allowed non-Western companies to take more control over mineral exports from the region. In Bukavu, for example, two export offices trading with Chinese buyers remained active after the de facto ban.

heck, THIS article is saying 'Global Witness' is blaming Trump for wanting to get minerals from Congo, and YOUR information seems to be blaming Trump for NOT getting minerals from Congo??

(08-09-2022 12:51 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:According to reports, the FBI searched Mar-A-Lago as part of an investigation about the handling of classified documents. Will this be the action that finally stops Trump? Several progressive commentators gleefully pointed to 18 U.S.C. § 2071. It provides:

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

If Trump is convicted of violating this statute, can he be disqualified from the presidency? No. And my colleague Seth Barrett Tillman wrote about this precise issue in 2015. At the time, conservative commentators, including former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, argued that Hillary Clinton could be disqualified from the presidency due to the storage of classified materials on her private email server. Seth explained that Mukasey's argument does not work.

Under Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, Congress and the states cannot "add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I." And that reasoning, Seth concluded, would seem to apply to the qualifications for the presidency in Article II. Several courts in the Seventh Circuit, and elsewhere, reached that same conclusion.

On this blog, Mukasey later admitted that Tillman was correct, and he was wrong:

[O]n reflection . . . Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken. . . . The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.

Tonight, Charlie Savage of the New York Times recounted this history in an article on the Trump search.

Some Republicans were briefly entranced with whether the law could keep Mrs. Clinton out of the White House, including Michael Mukasey, a former attorney general in the administration of George W. Bush. So was at least one conservative think tank.

But in considering that situation, several legal scholars — including Seth B. Tillman of Maynouth University in Ireland and Eugene Volokh of the University of California, Los Angeles — noted that the Constitution sets eligibility criteria for who can be president, and argued that Supreme Court rulings suggest Congress cannot alter it. The Constitution allows Congress to disqualify people from holding office in impeachment proceedings, but grants no such power for ordinary criminal law.

Mr. Volokh later reported on his blog that Mr. Mukasey — who is also a former federal judge — wrote that "upon reflection," Mr. Mukasey had been mistaken and Mr. Tillman's analysis was "spot on." (Mrs. Clinton was never charged with any crime related to her use of the server.)

Once again, Tillman rebuts an argument that conservatives favored as a way to get Clinton, that liberals now favor as a way to get Trump. There is nothing new under the sun.

Back in 2015, Seth did not have to make the argument that the Presidency is not an "office under the United States" for purposes of Section 2071. But Seth and I did consider another statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which also disqualifies a person from "holding any office under the United States." In an article published shortly after the inauguration, we addressed what happens if the Biden administration prosecutes and convicts Trump of insurrection. That article is suddenly relevant to our present moment.

Link

Some time ago, I saw an article in National Geographic that referenced how the rare earth mining in other countries was leading to pollution of rivers and coastal ares. I wonder how easy it will be for American companies to mine here with our stricter standards.

Gustafson v State of Idaho

The Idaho state Supreme Court will allow the state’s abortion laws to take effect.

In a 3-2 decision Friday, the Idaho Supreme Court allowed the state’s total abortion ban to take effect, as well as a Texas-style “heartbeat” law that allows relatives of an unborn child to sue abortion providers for up to $20,000 — while legal challenges to both laws are ongoing. In the ruling, written by Justice Robyn Brody, the court found that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization “altered the landscape” of abortion law in the United States, thus allowing the bans to be enforced. The abortion ban will go into effect on August 25; the heartbeat bill went into effect immediately after the ruling was delivered.

In the ruling on the state’s total abortion ban, Brody said that the petitioners, Planned Parenthood and an abortion doctor, could not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits in the post-Dobbs constitutional system, or a clear right to an injunction against the law.

“Moreover, what Petitioners are asking this Court to ultimately do is to declare a right to abortion under the Idaho Constitution when—on its face—there is none,” Brody wrote, noting that before the Roe v. Wade decision declared a federal right to an abortion, it had been a criminal offense in the state of Idaho for a long time, going all the way back to its time as a federal territory, and for 26 years before its state constitution was adopted in 1890. Brody also wrote that the petitioners’ case was weakened by the fact that they were attempting to read the right to an abortion into the state constitution. “In short, given the legal history of abortion in Idaho, we cannot simply infer such a right exists absent Roe without breaking new legal ground, which should only occur after the matter is finally submitted on the merits” she wrote.

In a ruling on the “heartbeat” law within the same decision, Brody again concluded that the petitioners did not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, nor a clear right to an injunction against the law.

In the lawsuit, the petitioners argued that enforcing an abortion ban through civil penalties, while it could not be enforced by criminal liability, violated the separation of powers provisions of the Idaho state constitution. “The force of Petitioner’s separation of powers argument, however, essentially hinged on one fact—the criminal liability provision remained dormant while the civil enforcement law was allowed to take effect,” Brody wrote. “The criminal liability provision, however, is no longer dormant,” she added, citing a July ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld Georgia’s ban on abortions after a heartbeat could be detected, which then triggered the criminal liability provision in Idaho law.

“In sum, in the post-Dobbs legal landscape, Petitioners cannot establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or a ‘very clear’ right that will be irreparably injured if the preliminary stay against implementing S.B. 1309 is vacated,” Brody concluded.

Supreme Court to hear case that could end 40 years of race-based affirmative action in university admissions

Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear one of two cases on Oct. 31 that could dismantle the 40-year precedent of race-based affirmative action in university admissions, with universities now urging the court to preserve the decision despite some expert opinion to the contrary.

Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College is one of two cases to come before the Supreme Court urging it to eliminate race as an admissions factor and, as a result, overturn the precedent case, Grutter v. Bollinger. The case also seeks to answer whether Harvard College violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through its alleged discrimination against Asian American students, stemming from the initial lawsuit.

"It's very clear to me that Harvard University was engaging in blatant discrimination. And what they were doing was they did not like the fact that Asian Americans — if they were simply admitted based on their credentials, qualifications — would have such a huge percentage of the student body," Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital.

SFFA is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the precedent case, Grutter v. Bollinger, and eliminate race-based affirmative action in admissions entirely. The 2003 case sought to answer whether racial preferences in student admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

However, no matter which side of the aisle constitutional law experts stand, both sides agree the likelihood of the court overturning the precedent case is high.

"I think Grutter was wrongly decided. And, you know, membership of the court has changed significantly since the case was decided. And I think this new court has no sympathy for using race in any way," John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at UC Berkeley, told Fox News Digital.
The Supreme Court released its October/November calendar on Aug. 3, announcing that both Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina will be heard on Oct. 31.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she will recuse herself from the Harvard case given her completing her term on the Harvard Board of Overseers in spring 2022.

Quote:Mark Meuser for U.S. Senate@MarkMeuser
US Senate candidate, CA

Breaking News:

Today a CA Appeals court overturned over $300k in sanctions issued against Calvery Chapel San Jose for not shutting down during COVID.

The government could not shut them down because of 1st Amendment, so a judge could not sanction for refusing to obey the order.

11:31 PM · Aug 15, 2022

Quote:Kick Em All Out@tebohn1962

*HUGE* victory for Pastor Mike McClure & Calvary Chapel San Jose. CA appeals court confirms the “public health” orders forcing churches to close are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, period.

Contempt charges and sanctions fully reversed. Court ordered the opinion published. THIS IS SO HUGE!

1:09 PM · Aug 16, 2022

Quote:People v. Calvary Chapel San Jose

In H048708, People v. Calvary Chapel San Jose ̧ the December 17, 2020 order requiring payment of monetary sanctions is reversed. The parties shall bear their own appellate costs.

In H048734, Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Superior Court, the December 17, 2020 order of contempt is annulled in its entirety. The parties shall bear their own appellate costs.

In H048947, McClure v. Superior Court, the February 16, 2021 order of contempt is annulled in its entirety. The parties shall bear their own appellate costs.

Why are we receiving a waterfall of state law based cases in the Supreme Court thread?

Not to mention state appeals cases.

Heck, start throwing down even scads more Federal district cases and state trial court cases if that blows your hair back so earnestly.

I have a good one going in small claims court against the cable provider if you really want to sink your teeth into the ongoing legal landscape.....

https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare_hos...ed885.html

Louisiana Will be Abortion-Free as All Three Abortion Businesses Close Down

wait a minute...why on earth are these clinics leaving the state? It has been documented over and over for the last 60+ years and touted repeatedly by abortion advocates from Planned "Parenthood" on down the list that these clinics only do abortions as a very last resort, sideline and that over 93% of their "services" are providing other health-care like pap-smears, pre-natal care, and advice for women? Could it be that this has been a Big Lie all along and that in fact these abortion mills do almost nothing except profit off encouraging and killing baby after baby and littrle else, while dumping women out the back door until they can get pregnant and return for another round, and then sell the body parts on the open market for huge markups? I'd expect these clinics and all their personnel to be doing great business helping women by staying where they are...but they are leaving? Doesn't make sense unless they've been lying to women all along. But Progs would never lie...right Joe*, Bill, Obissmal?

"temporary"



"I did not...these allegations are false..."



"oh wait, indeed I DID have an affair...these allegations are TRUE..."



"You can keep your doctor...nothing will change...ha, ha psyche!



Nans..."we have to pass the bill so you can, uh, FIND OUT WHAT IS IN IT..."