• 2 Posts
  • 364 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 20th, 2023

help-circle


  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyztoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldRock Eagle Flag
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Teaching kids to use guns doesn’t save kids’ lives. If you want to teach em to stay away from guns, that they’re deadly, they shouldn’t touch it and should tell an adult right away go ahead.

    Teaching kids to use guns in the name of gun safety is like saying you need to teach them how to drive in case they find some car keys lying around and decide to take it for a spin.


  • Already in the comment, click the links.

    https://www.safekidsinc.com/hero-program-overview

    Here’s where it goes through their curriculum per grade level including pre schoolers.

    The 'heroes" program is not teaching pre schoolers to use guns, it’s teaching them about active shooter situations.

    The other link was the one offering actual gun training (for 7 year olds and up so second graders potentially).

    My comment was that it’s sad we apparently need programs to to teach pre schoolers about how to deal with active shooting situations now.


  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyztoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldRock Eagle Flag
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    The one I linked specifically mentions shooting afterwards for kids as young as 7…

    But yes if guns are at home they should be locked (and really locked, like a trigger lock plus a safe that’s set to something besides 1111, holy crap you’d be surprised at how cavelier some people are) and totally inaccessible to kids. Teaching single digit age kids about guns is not a substitute for that, but of course I’m not saying you shouldn’t teach your kids that they shouldn’t touch guns and what they can do.

    And teaching kids about guns will not solve the serious gun problems in America. The gun problems unique to America that pretty much every other industrialized nation has figured out already. And it’s a horrible tragedy that stuff like “the heroes program” to teach preschoolers how to deal with active shooters is necessary in this country. All to please gun nuts.

    https://www.safekidsinc.com/

    Most gun nuts aren’t too interested in education anyways:

    https://www.thetrace.org/2022/01/which-states-require-firearm-safety-course-concealed-carry/





  • Sure I mean give a perfectly normal person a stimulant and they might feel like they have more energy for a bit (though to an observer they might just appear anxious, jittery and amped up even if the person themself feels great). Calling it performance enhancing for something like a debate is a huge stretch. Equally likely to hurt a speaking performance, unless someone maybe actually had true adhd or something.

    What I mean is, the narrative being pushed here is Biden is this old man with dementia who can’t string two words together, and then he takes adderral or modafinil and suddenly he’s magically cognitively normal but just for a few hours. Dementia does not work this way, you would just get a very energetic and equally confused person. It’s all a ridiculous fantasy, something for Trump supporters to hold in their heads to help with the cognitive dissonance as they watch the debate. Otherwise they’d be forced to reckon with the fact that Biden speaks like a normal human being with coherent thoughts while Trump sounds like a rambling lunatic on a barely traceable flight of ideas.

    I also don’t want this false narrative giving people ideas that force feeding their relatives with dementia stimulants would be a good idea that would improve their cognition for a while or something.











  • Presidents don’t make laws, congress does. There would have to be something in the constitution or in a law already passed that gives the executive branch the power to do that. An executive order is just an enforcement, a more specific guidance of application of already existing laws or powers. If the law the article is talking about is passed, he could issue executive orders to delineate more specific actions to help make sure it is enforced.

    If Biden just sat down in a chair one day and wrote “I declare state laws and state constitutions restricting ivf are void!” like some kind of dictator it would do literally nothing.

    Go on to the federal register and look at some executive orders. You’ll find most of them pertain to things the president directly controls, like the operations of executive department agencies. When it’s not something the president clearly controls in the constitution, it will cite the authority of which specific laws it’s basing this on.

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/03/2021-26459/the-national-space-council

    Purpose.

    The National Space Council (Council), as authorized under Title V of Public Law 100-685, advises and assists the President regarding national space policy and strategy. This order sets forth the Council’s membership, duties, and responsibilities.

    So for an example, here’s what law passed by congress this executive order is fulfilling, here are my more specific instructions about how we as the executive branch are going to fulfill that law. Clearly the authority to establish a national space council does not come from the constitution, so it’s a law passed by congress that makes this order possible.

    If congress passes a law protecting ivf and gives some power to the executive branch to enforce those protections, then maybe there would be situations where an executive order would be helpful.

    And Biden clearly supports this law, has repeatedly urged congress to pass it, and headlined the issue in his state of the union address.

    https://time.com/6898688/biden-ivf-abortion-state-of-the-union/


  • France, Germany and the ECB worry about Russian retaliation targeting European assets, and also the potential impact on financial stability and the euro’s status as a reserve currency. There’s concern that depositors from emerging economies may be encouraged to pull money out of western banks, fragmenting the global financial system.

    US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen downplayed such risks in February, arguing that “there are not alternatives to the dollar, euro, yen.” She said that if the G-7 acted together then the group would be representing half of the global economy and all of the currencies that really have the capacity at this point to serve as reserve currencies.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why-seizing-russian-assets-to-fund-ukraine-is-fraught/ar-BB1jHeKz

    I agree with you, they should just be able to tap the assets directly. Basically some European countries are worried about the effects seizing assets could have on the Euro. Most of these assets are held in Europe as euros. The loan is actually an improvement over the original proposal though. Originally France Germany, etc were pushing only for the 3 billion in interest a year on the assets to be given to Ukraine. The loan solution was pushed by other countries who wanted to give them more cash from the Russian assets as a way to give $50 billion in cash immediately, with those yearly interest payments from Russian assets being used to pay off the loan.