Recent Comments

1. 4 months ago on Non Sequitur

   I expect you to ignore this comment as you seem to write off anything that contradicts your worldview as “fake news”. This, however, is for anyone reading this conversation who is unclear on the facts. Sea levels are rising. A species of rodent has been declared extinct due to the rising tides inundating the island they were endemic to. Google the Bramble Cay melomys, once found in Bramble Cay (surprise!) near Queensland, Australia. This island is now so frequently underwater that the melomys which once was able to live there has been “washed away”.

2. 8 months ago on Non Sequitur

   Yes, good customer service / design would have those placed at the bottom of the stairs.

3. 9 months ago on Non Sequitur

   Summer time impacts those closer to the poles more than those who live near the tropics. The local time of sunrise and sunset doesn’t vary as much near the equator, no matter the season days are around 12 hours long. I can understand why AZ and TX may not see the value. But DST does mean that daylight isn’t wasted on sleep. Sure, there are those outliers who get up at 3am every day, but DST or not, you’re still going to be getting up in the dark. For all the cries about the impact on the body and sleep – it’s one hour twice a year! Surely everyone can get used to the change within a week – that’s 50 weeks where sleep should not be impacted. And coming into winter, we get a lovely extra hour in bed :-)

4. 11 months ago on Non Sequitur

   As a non-American, can I ask Trump supporters how only an additional 3.5 years = “old guy”?

5. over 1 year ago on Monty

   Yes, stopped to put on a face shield, but didn’t worry about changing his pants or footwear. Must have been worried about spitting cobras…

6. over 1 year ago on Non Sequitur

   No @gorbag. What democrats believe is that you can’t trust mega rich capitalists and corporations to have the best interest of the general population at heart; if you do not regulate those with most of the money (and most of the power), they will screw over individuals, communities and the planet in order to make themselves richer. Democrats do not want to discourage productivity, they want to discourage unfettered profiteering where the costs are borne by we the people. Democrats believe that not everyone has equal access to opportunities, and also that some people encounter bad luck – these people need the support of government and the lucky so that they do not suffer needlessly or become an even bigger burden on society.

   Middle and lower income republican voters believe that a miracle could make them billionaires one day too, and if that ever happens they don’t want to share their wealth with others. They don’t want laws in place that result in some of what they earn going towards infrastructure that everyone benefits from, particularly if they will not benefit directly (e.g. supporting schools when they themselves are childless). Meanwhile, the people they are voting for work to ensure that no lower or middle income earner ever gets to share the riches of the wealthy, including their voters.

7. over 1 year ago on Non Sequitur

   I’ve got an article too – Children and unintentional firearm death https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-015-0057-0.A society that encourages every 77 year old to have a gun at hand ready to fire, is a society that not only sees more unintentional firearm deaths, but one where more home invaders have a gun at hand ready to fire – and I’m figuring they usually have the jump on a sleeping 77 year old.

8. over 1 year ago on Non Sequitur

   What gets me in my view of these discussions as a foreigner (to the U.S.), is that an amendment to the constitution is looked on as a set in stone divine right that should never be questioned or, ahem, amended. Whatever your interpretation of what was intended by the original writers of the amendment, I believe that is an irrelevant question. The question should be “given the technological advancement of our society, for the common good should we revisit the access that is provided to some consumer items involved in some ongoing issues in our community”? How can the U.S. reduce the number of murders able to be perpetuated by individuals, protecting individual citizens collectively without compromising community citizens individually? If restricting access to particular guns may reduce a large number of needless deaths, why should those particular guns be available for unrestricted purchase – what is their purpose? What “right” is valued more – the “right” to access whatever weaponry one feels like paying for, or the “right” for a child to be able to attend school without worry about being shot by a stranger? Any sane society should value the latter more.

9. over 1 year ago on Non Sequitur

   Semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, Texas First Baptist Church massacre and the 2017 Las Vegas strip massacre (over 400 people directly wounded, 60 dead in that last one alone). Small number of crimes, but pretty significant. Any hunter that needs an AR-15 should really go work on their targeting skills, as they must be pretty pathetic. Don’t dissemble or divert the conversation – whether handguns are used more often or not is irrelevant. There is no justifiable reason for an AR-15 to be in the hands of civilians.

10. over 1 year ago on Non Sequitur

    Yes – assuming that just because they are bears that they intend to EAT Pierre is purely judging by appearances. That’s ursidist!