Image of the day

Captured by
Bruce Karbal

WR 134

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: David Cotterell

June 10, 2025 02:23 PM Forum: Politics

RFK Jr.Removes All Current Members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee

Posted By David Cotterell

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman
“The firing of the ACIP represents one of the darkest days in modern public health,” Dr. Mike Osterholm, the Vaccine Integrity Project founder said. “Mr. Kennedy has no interest in science or saving lives. We have entered into a dangerous time for the health of the country.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/health/rfk-cdc-vaccine-advisers-removed

Er, ah, that worm hole in Kennedy's head must be getting bigger...
It is getting very close to the tipping point for health safety for occasional visitors like me.  Right now I have 4 trips to the USA planned for the rest of the year. Adirondack Astronomy Retreat with David Levy in July, a family trip to a cottage off the Maine coast near Bah Hahbah in August, a weekend in Vermont in September and the Okie Tex Star Party in late September.  I shall keep an eye on the medical news to determine if I should cancel any or all of these trips.  2026 might be an all-Canadian year for me if the shit hits the fan.  
it really is beyond belief that one guy can just toss all disease prevention science since Pasteur out in the trash.  
Dave

June 11, 2025 12:48 PM Forum: Politics

"Who'll Stand with us?" - The Dropkick Murphys' anthem for the ordinary person...

Posted By David Cotterell

6'6", 215 pounds here.  BMI 24.8.  The high end of normal, apparently.  The weight chart has ideal weights for my height and age from 170 to 205 which is bollocks..   I can't imagine how utterly skinny someone my height would look at 180 or 190...  

Also, anybody seen my thread recently?  

Dave

June 11, 2025 06:20 PM Forum: Politics

"Who'll Stand with us?" - The Dropkick Murphys' anthem for the ordinary person...

Posted By David Cotterell

Originally Posted by James Lacey


 Your small-fry status is not a flex, and it's not surprising that you also have small-man syndrome.
Everything in proportion, right, Rich?

Dave

June 22, 2025 01:47 AM Forum: Politics

It's Always "In ABOUT TWO WEEKS"

Posted By David Cotterell

Originally Posted by James Brown
"President Donald Trump has given himself a two-week deadline to decide whether or not the U.S. will attack Iran, but CNN points out that he’s given that exact same deadline many times before."

This is a repetitive tactic of Trump and one that has proven to be just another series of falsehoods:

Sheesh...

You would prefer that we start the bombing now?  Arguably Trump giving Iran a couple of weeks to commence some real negotiations is a good move.  We will see how it turns out.
Ruh-roh....

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/6/22/live-us-joins-israels-attacks-on-iran-bombs-three-nuclear-sites

. No Congressional approval either...

My US travel plans this summer are in limbo now until we see what shakes out from this..

Dave

June 22, 2025 03:23 AM Forum: Politics

It's Always "In ABOUT TWO WEEKS"

Posted By David Cotterell

Originally Posted by Richard Davis



He doesn't need it.  HE IS the Commander in Chief, and he is the HEAD of the US Military whether you like it or not.

FUCK IRAN and fuck their ayatollahs.  smile
You are referring to the "War Powers Resolution", I assume.

"...the president’s commander-in-chief powers are limited to “hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,” and can be exercised “only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

#1 condition is not in place, Iran did not declare war on the USA. nor were there any imminent circumstances with Iran except for Trump's threats.

#2 condition is not in place -  he does not have this authorization no AUMF from congress

#3 condition is not in place -  there has been no attack on the USA by Iran, no national emergency.

Dave

June 25, 2025 04:51 PM Forum: Politics

It's Always "In ABOUT TWO WEEKS"

Posted By David Cotterell

Originally Posted by Richard Davis



I agree wholeheartedly with you and I'm hoping you'll refrain in the future from calling me an asshole as you have before, as well as hoping you'll refrain from calling me a sociopath as you have done at least 50X (perhaps) more, as well as you calling me a misogynist over 2 dozen times now.  

I agree that it would be nice if you refrained from your continuous namecalling of me, as well as your pal there who recently called me some very vile names.

I understand that you and he continue to be as hypocritical as hypocritical gets, but you might want to exercise some restrain, and pass that suggestion on to your RINO friend there in Denver there as well.

Thanks for your cooperation in this matter.  smile
Hey, you forgot ‘homophobe’ .

Dave

June 25, 2025 04:51 PM Forum: Politics

It's Always "In ABOUT TWO WEEKS"

Posted By David Cotterell

Originally Posted by Richard Davis



I agree wholeheartedly with you and I'm hoping you'll refrain in the future from calling me an asshole as you have before, as well as hoping you'll refrain from calling me a sociopath as you have done at least 50X (perhaps) more, as well as you calling me a misogynist over 2 dozen times now.  

I agree that it would be nice if you refrained from your continuous namecalling of me, as well as your pal there who recently called me some very vile names.

I understand that you and he continue to be as hypocritical as hypocritical gets, but you might want to exercise some restrain, and pass that suggestion on to your RINO friend there in Denver there as well.

Thanks for your cooperation in this matter.  smile
Hey, you forgot ‘homophobe’ .

Dave

June 27, 2025 09:47 PM Forum: Politics

Big Day at the Supreme Court

Posted By David Cotterell

Originally Posted by James Brown
This one seems like a no-brainer, but the Court reinstated the right of the parents of young children to opt out of book readings involving LBGTQ+ issues.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-backs-parents-seeking-opt-kids-lgbtq-books-elementary-sc-rcna208040

Another win for religious rights.  This will infuriate that social-left activists for sure.
The school boards I worked for from the mid seventies to my retirement in 2006 always had a policy that a list of reading materials was sent to every parent in September...  Any parent could insist that their child could opt out of reading a particular book and be given an alternate book to study.  This mostly affected English classes. 

If any guest speaker was to be presenting at the school, be it to one class or to an assembly of the entire school, the name and a brief bio and thumbnail of the presentation is sent home.  Again, parental objections were always honoured. 

And I, as a typical lefty, agree with this very common sense policy and am not at all infuriated.  

Couple of somewhat related stories:

In my 30 year career I only ever had one parent remove their child from my class - they objected to my incorporating evolutionary principles in trying to explain how organisms co-evolve with their environment in a very slow fashion so when organisms, especially vegetation, are confronted with certain sudden climate changes, they cannot adapt quickly enough and they die and their contribution to the food chain is lost and there is a cascading effect on many other organisms.  The parents objected to my assuming evolutionary timelines as a given (as opposed to young-Earth creationism). They actually requested that I teach the class the basic principles of Creationism as an 'alternative' which I flatly refused to do and my principal backed me up 100%. I fully supported their sudden decision to home school an 18-year old in the last semester before her graduation.     

Another odd moment occurred with my girls' basketball team. The games were normally on weekday afternoons, 2-5pm approx, and most parents couldn't come to the games.  We got into a tournament on a Saturday once and many parents came out.  One mother came to see her daughter  play for the very first time that day.  We didn't even get through the warm-up when this mom came on the court and dragged her daughter away with much very loud arguing and some tears.  I and the Athletic Director both rushed over to see what was the matter.  The mom was furious that we would haver daughter "dress like that in public" to which I replied, "Dressed like what, exactly?" And she said, "Pants.  My daughter does not wear pants - it is against our religion etc. She must wear a skirt or a dress only."  Mom didn't like the shorts that were part of our uniform....  
 
Now this girl was my starting centre and I really wanted her to play - the A.D. asked mom, "if she wears a skirt can she play?" to which she said, "yes, of course".  The A.D. sprinted to the equipment room and came back with a girl's Field Hockey skirt - kind of a little kilt which didn't come that close to the knee - a mini skirt, basically.  My player wore the skirt/kilt with the alarming result that the entire gym saw her white underpants frequently during the game.  But mom was just happy that it wasn't pants.   We won the tournament, too!

My point being, parents can be very weird but they should always have the last say about their kids.  

Dave

July 2, 2025 02:01 PM Forum: Politics

Filibuster. No filibuster. Help me understand..

Posted By David Cotterell

The big bill just passed the senate 51-50 with Vance casting the tie-breaker.  But why do other votes in the Senate get held up because of the 'filibuster' requirement of 60 votes....  Is it that certain kinds of bills require only a simple majority while others need the 60?  If so, which kinds require what?

Dave

July 2, 2025 05:53 PM Forum: Politics

Filibuster. No filibuster. Help me understand..

Posted By David Cotterell

Originally Posted by James Brown

You heard about this tangently during the debate, when a reporter says that’s some proposed amendment was not permitted by the Senate parliamentarian. In that case, the proposed amendment would’ve moved the bill out of the strict reconciliation process, and therefore would’ve made the whole bill filibuster-able.
Thanks, James.  The Wiki article explains it well...

This old Canuck got a kick out of the bolded position being part of US congressional procedure...

Dave