Users here often attack posts when headline writers use certain verbiage to gain clicks. I just assume that the user in question has nothing useful to add to the conversation at hand since they can’t do anything more than whine about a particular word in the headline and ignore them.

This made me curious so I searched out an article about it . It’s an interesting read and includes a couple videos of the critters using the wheel.

And buying it up with non-existent money thanks to all the AI circular financing going on.

Sadly, this guy seems to just keep getting away with all his stupid shit. Maybe this time he’ll get more that a pittance of a fine and probation, but it’s clear that he is some powerful person’s useful idiot and he’ll just get another slap on the wrist.

So I wouldn’t really blame the sub worker here

It was the sub worker who noticed the problem, she didn’t cause it. She also had to push the lead kitchen worker to even look into it.

According to the lawsuit, a substitute kitchen worker, Chloe Larson, first noticed the chemical was being used as seasoning and had to push the lead kitchen worker to investigate. The lawsuit alleges that Larson was only interviewed after she contacted police about her concerns.

Throw him on the pile, 1,525 and counting…

Republican Sexual Predators, Abusers and Enablers Pt. 61

And with AI they hope to continue or even accelerate that trend.

No, we got dems like this on on the ballot by people not voting in the primaries. If people would get off their asses and participate and vote in the primaries, we could have good candidates. Since it’s too late to change that, though, the only choice now is to vote for the lesser evil. Anything else means letting the greater evil win by default.

Now is not the time for a moral stand. Now is the time to be pragmatic. Don’t vote for what is effectively a Nazi just because the other candidate isn’t perfect.

Price said the state’s policy not to monitor workers is meant to allow farmers to decide whether to contact the health department, rather than “forcing it on them.” “If we started seeing people actively dying from this, obviously that would change how we respond to this,” she said.

We feel that the most reasonable course of action is to wait for the horse to escape before we have a fact finding meeting, probably followed by a public comment period, before we decide whether or not to close the barn door. After all, we don’t want to annoy the farmers.

We are so fucked.

I didn’t say it couldn’t be fixed by legal means. Saying I don’t know a solution to the problem doesn’t mean that I believe there isn’t a legal solution. It just means I Don’t Know. Is that clearer?

You are putting words in my mouth. I never suggested there was a “second solution” that I was advocating for. I specifically said I agreed with the other poster that the power of the pardon was too broad but the Constitution cannot be changed in the current political climate. How does that equate to me advocating violence?

Where did I suggest violence would work? I agreed that I felt the power of the pardon was too broad and said that I don’t see a viable solution. That doesn’t equal burn everything down.

You are in error. Nixon was pardoned by Ford for any and all crimes he may have committed in office. Carter issued a blanket pardon for all Vietnam draft dodgers whether charged or not. There is nothing in the constitution or court rulings that blocks a preemptive pardon.

The only rule, from an 1866 SCOTUS ruling is that the pardon must come after the crime, whether there have been charges or not.

“The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”

Edit to add: Trump’s pardon of the Jan-6ers included a preemptive pardon for all those that had not been charged yet.

the US is still ranked THIRD safest in the world for food

I find that very hard to believe. The food safety in the USA is a joke. The FDA has laughable standards for what is allowed in our food compared to the European Union.

The chemical azodicarbonamide (ADA) is banned in food in Europe because it breaks down when heated into semicarbazide, which causes toxicity in animal studies and urethane, a potential human carcinogen. This chemical is used in bread in America to generate those nice, uniform little bubbles in baked bread. Note, baked. American bread is filled with a chemical shown to be toxic in animals and a potential human carcinogen. Why?

The case of ADA is not an isolated incident but rather a symptom of a broader difference in food safety philosophy between the US and EU. This fundamental difference extends far beyond a single additive and is deeply rooted in each region’s regulatory framework.

In the US, the FDA’s approach is rooted in a 1958 legislation that introduced the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) status for food additives.

Originally intended for common ingredients like vinegar or salt—which are also used as additivies—GRAS now allows manufacturers to bypass the FDA’s rigorous approval process for many additives. They can assemble their own expert panel to assess safety and send the results to FDA. Important note: sending this is completely voluntary.

The US allows corporations to regulate themselves, declare an additive safe, and put it in our food without going through any approval process. Since no one has proved these chemicals harmful to people, the FDA accepts the manufacturers opinion that it is safe to use.

Who has ranked American food 3rd safest and how did they come to that conclusion. This is an extraordinary claim and I can find no evidence to support it by searching. The closest I can find is this study which is from 2012, more than 14 years ago and long before Trump gutted American food safety agencies. There is no chance in hell this information applies now.

No, it isn’t. A 1915 SCOTUS ruling stated that "“carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.” But that reasoning, according to this analysis is flawed.

The Court’s reasoning is circular. The Court states that a pardon, unlike a grant of legislative immunity, “carries an imputation of guilt,” and, this is advanced as the reason for allowing the pardonee to refuse the immunity tendered by the pardon. A pardon, however, carries an imputation of guilt only if the validity of the pardon depends upon its acceptance by the pardonee. If the requirerent of acceptance is removed, the imputation of guilt vanishes. It becomes circular, therefore, to use the imputation of guilt argument as a justification for the requirement of acceptance.

Indeed, a recent appeals court ruling supports this analyses and states “not every acceptance of a pardon constitutes a confession of guilt.” Presidents can pardon people they believe to be innocent. And one does not need to accept a pardon for it to take effect. If a pardoned person does nothing, then they still receive immunity from prosecution conferred by the pardon without confessing to any crime. Pardons can even be granted posthumously. Obviously a dead person cannot confess to a crime when they are pardoned.

Edit to fix quote.

The president’s power to grant clemency is almost completely unlimited.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

So he can’t pardon someone who has been impeached and he can only pardon crimes against the United States, meaning federal crimes. That’s the only limit in the Constitution to his power. The only thing he can’t do according to the Constitution is pardon people who have been impeached and state crimes.

Preempive pardons have been granted in the past. Gerald Ford issued Nixon a “full, free and absolute pardon” for any crimes Nixon might have committed during his presidency. There is no requirement that the crimes pardoned be defined in the pardon. The only rule, per SCOTUS ruling in 1866, is that the crimes be committed prior to the pardon.

“The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”

Trump has also talked about issuing himself a preemtive pardon and people have argued about whether or not the president can do that. I’m pretty sure I know how this SCOTUS would rule on that if and when it comes up.

I agree with you but changing the president’s ability to pardon crimes, an absurdly broad power, would require an amendment to the Constitution. I’m afraid that do so is a political impossibility right now. There are frankly too many criminals in office at all levels of government that would do everything they can to impede any such attempt. Trump has already pardoned his followers who betrayed the Constitution and committed treason on Jan-6 and I’ve heard only a peep or two about trying to limit the president’s power of clemency.

This is absolutely true, but i would challenge the assertion about making people throw away good meds being bad for business.

The law passed in 1979 requiring manufacturers to provide an expiration date of when they could guarantee a drug was still safe and fully effective did not require that the manufacturers do any long term tests, to establish accurate dates though. Many companies slapped a one year date on the labels and called it a day.

They could guarantee a year with then current testing protocols and if people had to toss their perfectly good meds and buy more, then that would just be good for company profits.

The US military keeps huge stockpiles of medicines on hand. Faced with throwing away millions of dollars of meds every year they commissioned a study.

With a large and expensive stockpile of drugs, the military faced tossing out and replacing its drugs every few years. What they found from the study is 90% of more than 100 drugs, both prescription and over-the-counter, were perfectly good to use even 15 years after the expiration date.

Pharmaceutical companies were happy to tellpeople throw away medicines years before they needed to.

No, in the novel it’s the neanderthals who are dying off. Arthur is trying to teach them scrabble to help them compete with the Golgafrinchams. Not sure how that was supposed to help the neanderthals, but good on him for trying to do something. Anyway, Ford points out that it’s too late to help them. By coming to Earth at all, they screwed up the program. There was no way Earth would have given the right answer even if it wasn’t destroyed by the Vogons when it was.

Earth was supposed to be the greatest supercomputer ever, but some of it’s critical components were ripped out and replaced with middle-managers and telephone sanitizers. Ford supposes that that’s why the answer and question don’t match. Others have suggested that Arthur actually pulled the right question with the scrabble tiles and the mismatch between the two actually shows there is a fundamental flaw in the universe. The reason everything is so screwy is that the universe, at the most fundamental level, just doesn’t make sense.

Actually, the reason the question is wrong is that in later books…