themeatbridge

I don’t think you’re wrong, but that’s a different problem, one we aren’t solving with pesticides. People are starving now, and poor people have drastically limited options when it comes to food. Our current subsidy structure encourages corn syrup and soy protein in almost everything we eat.

I wouldn’t oppose a managed transition away from using pesticides over a reasonable amount of time, one that allows farmers to adapt to new strategies and new pricing structures. But catastrophe is upon us. Ecological indicators are all in the red, and we’re experiencing the effects of climate disasters at an unyielding pace. Fires, floods, and famines are coming to a neighborhood near you, and drastic action is required immediately to even hope to slow it down. There’s no avoiding it.

I’m picturing a person panicking and swatting the whole tank off the toilet, breaking the water line and spraying water everywhere.

Turning off the water will stop the tank from refilling. Closing the flapper stops the water in the tank from going into the bowl.

I would imagine most people aren’t fast enough on the draw to think about doing this first step.

If the toilet is actively flushing, water will continue to drain from the tank to the bowl. Closing the flapper stops any additional water from going into the bowl.

Personally, I prefer to make sure the tank only fills enough to fill the bowl, so as long as you don’t double flush, you don’t need to panic and throw the lid off the tank.

Top of the tank, as in the lid, so you can close the flapper and prevent the bowl from overflowing.

I’m not advocating for letting anyone die, nor am I suggesting forced veganism. My suggestion would let some people make less profit. Those people are willing to let a lot of people die to increase their profits. The climate crisis has killed people, and will kill far more than expensive corn would.

Our current population levels are going to experience a steep decline because people already cannot afford basic needs like food and rent and so they are not having children. Pesticides are not the only defense against total crop collapse due to blight. In fact, we’re doing more damage to pollinators than pests as a result of overuse of pesticides. Entire food chains rely on the birds and bugs industrial farming is eliminating, and the water runoff is poisoning the fish that keep our streams and rivers clean.

To be clear, RFK is completely wrong in his reasoning, and I don’t believe in doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. We should ban pesticides because pesticide use is a net bad for humans. Pesticides increase profits at the expense of ecosystems, and that in turn impacts humanity.

Sure, but it could be one of the best things for the environment. If crops are suddenly more expensive because of pests, then meat becomes more expensive to produce, then more land is left to re-wild because farming is not as lucrative.

We already grow more than enough food to feed everyone. If we’re worried about people being able to afford food, then let’s subsidize that instead of ethanol and corn syrup.

Slams! Duh duduh duh duduh let boys be boys

You can still elect representatives, you just remove money from the equation. Candidates are given a public forum to share ideas, provide their credentials, and debate issues. Voters use a STAR voting system to vote for all the candidates they like. Special interest groups are free to speak and advertise all they want, but they cannot promote or attack a specific candidate.

It’s more or less how local primaries work, just on a larger scale.

Parties are just a power transfer from voters to oligarchs. Coalition governments are just as easy to manipulate as two-party systems. Politicians shouldn’t be permitted a short-hand explanation of what they stand for. They should be required to make a full throated defense of their positions on the record. Parties provide political cover to do unpopular things while pretending to not be in a position to stop it.

Here’s the thing. No.

We don’t really have two parties. We have oligarchs in control of both parties, and both parties work together to make sure no more parties can exist. They do this by making it seem like the right and the left are opposed to each other, but really both work together to keep you down.

We can’t fix this with parties. What we need to do is abolish parties. Prevent rich people from consolidating power. Give no small group of power-hungry bastards the ability to control everything. This means a drastic overhaul, and the people in power are not going to give it up willingly. They won’t fight fair, they won’t accept the results of an election unless it goes their way, and they won’t give you an opportunity to win.

If? Feels like we’re already there. It can, and will, get worse, but we’re already sending American children to death camps and putting dissenting politicians in prison.

I mean, if we’re being pedantic, geek was a term for a specific circus performer who would eat gross things and hammer nails into their faces. Anything to gross out the audience. The term expanded to mean “weirdo” over time, and became associated with the term “nerd.” It has further evolved with the popularity of the phrase “geek out” to mean someone with strong enthusiasm for a specific topic. That’s the most recent popular definition of the word.

Either way, any legitimate “geek” would already know that they shouldn’t expect Alexa to respect their data privacy.

“I have to tell you directly and personally that I regret voting for you for secretary of state,” said Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen,

You literally didn’t have to do that. You knew exactly who he is and exactly what he was going to do. You could have voted against him.

But I guess your regret is some small comfort.

This is a terrible headline but the article is on point. Biden’s hubris contributed to Trump’s victory, and the Democrats are unwilling or unable to look in the mirror and admit they did something wrong. It’s a repeating pattern of self destruction that has been since Carter.

Calling Alexa users “geeks” is like calling McDonald’s diners “foodies.” Like, it might be true, but all current evidence to the contrary. Like if you wrote an article “Foodies are upset that McDonald’s is adding HFCS to their barbeque sauce.”

Gold would make a terrible dome.

I’m indifferent to whether or not Disney can revive Star Wars (or Marvel for that matter). I’ve enjoyed the nostalgia and the excitement of it all, and the disappointment of watching a crappy movie (or four) doesn’t outweight the fun of Star Wars for me. We’ve seen all the things we could have imagined when we were kids and full of imagination. Heroes fought villains. Characters matured and died. Villages were destroyed, universes saved.

The thrill of seeing those stories come to life is gone.

So the question remains, is there any point to Star Wars anymore? Are there stories worth telling beyond skweeyoosh fwoom fwoom kszzrt? Or is every new story a retread of the original? The sequels strongly suggested the latter, but Andor proves that it’s still all about the writing. Good writing cab cover a lot of deficiencies. Andor would be a good show even if it wasn’t connected to Star Wars, because it is made by people who want it to be good and know how to make it good.

But it is a Star Wars property, and it does add to the universe. It does make me want more shows like it, more Star Wars. As long as it’s good.

Just to expand on the concept, Andor was a quality show that demonstrated the IP still has life. It is compelling and well-made, bringing viewers to Star Wars at a time when most enthusiasts are tired of terrible movies.

There are many parallels between Star Wars and the MCU.

Words have meaning. Terrorists are terrorists even after they take power. You’re not wrong, though.