Roe v Wade
Comments
-
Our refineries aren’t even set up that way. We export crude to other countries for them to refine and import crude for domestic refineries a lot of the time. Not all oil is the same and because it’s oil that doesn’t mean a specific refinery can even process itmrussel1 said:
Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions. Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?static111 said:
You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed. I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected. There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed. That isn't isolationist at all. Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.mrussel1 said:
The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example. The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy. I have beat this drum for years. Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism. Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.static111 said:
Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem? For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation? I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility. Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.mrussel1 said:
People are stupid. They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down. That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA. But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue. Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser.OnWis97 said:
Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.Lerxst1992 said:It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.
The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court.
I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.
I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.
otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction. This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.
In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years. In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution. Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism. For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs. What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular. Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.
Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing. There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade. However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them. More of the same kicks the can down the road. Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.
we already produce close to our domestic consumption. 2020 America produced 18.4 million barrels of oil per day and consumed 18.12 million.That in no way makes us energy independentPost edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
Yeah I know, but it's set up that way because we are engaged in the global commodities market. I think he's arguing we should not be. I'm trying to understand if that's the argument, that US companies only sell to US refineries for US use. Right wingers point to 2020 (an aberration by the way, due to the pandemic) where we used the same amount as drilled and say that Trump created 'energy independence", but that's meaningless since we are in a global market.Cropduster-80 said:
Our refineries aren’t even set up that way. We export crude to other countries for them to refine and import crude for domestic refineries a lot of the time. Not all oil is the same and because it’s oil that doesn’t mean a specific refinery can even process itmrussel1 said:
Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions. Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?static111 said:
You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed. I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected. There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed. That isn't isolationist at all. Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.mrussel1 said:
The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example. The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy. I have beat this drum for years. Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism. Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.static111 said:
Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem? For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation? I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility. Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.mrussel1 said:
People are stupid. They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down. That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA. But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue. Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser.OnWis97 said:
Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.Lerxst1992 said:It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.
The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court.
I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.
I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.
otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction. This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.
In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years. In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution. Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism. For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs. What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular. Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.
Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing. There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade. However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them. More of the same kicks the can down the road. Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.
we already produce close to our domestic consumption. 2020 America produced 18.4 million barrels of oil per day and consumed 18.12 million.0 -
It’s just not possible. Energy independence is not a real thing. Even when you produce more than you use which is all I’m sayingmrussel1 said:
Yeah I know, but it's set up that way because we are engaged in the global commodities market. I think he's arguing we should not be. I'm trying to understand if that's the argument, that US companies only sell to US refineries for US use. Right wingers point to 2020 (an aberration by the way, due to the pandemic) where we used the same amount as drilled and say that Trump created 'energy independence", but that's meaningless since we are in a global market.Cropduster-80 said:
Our refineries aren’t even set up that way. We export crude to other countries for them to refine and import crude for domestic refineries a lot of the time. Not all oil is the same and because it’s oil that doesn’t mean a specific refinery can even process itmrussel1 said:
Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions. Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?static111 said:
You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed. I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected. There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed. That isn't isolationist at all. Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.mrussel1 said:
The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example. The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy. I have beat this drum for years. Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism. Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.static111 said:
Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem? For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation? I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility. Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.mrussel1 said:
People are stupid. They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down. That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA. But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue. Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser.OnWis97 said:
Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.Lerxst1992 said:It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.
The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court.
I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.
I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.
otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction. This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.
In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years. In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution. Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism. For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs. What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular. Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.
Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing. There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade. However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them. More of the same kicks the can down the road. Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.
we already produce close to our domestic consumption. 2020 America produced 18.4 million barrels of oil per day and consumed 18.12 million.
people say energy independence a lot. I just don’t think it has anything to do with how much you are producing. It’s a good political talking point, it’s not realistic at all though
if you nationalise production I guess it’s possible but not in a free market.Post edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
In that particular instance I am saying that if there is a glut of product over what meets the needs of the citizenry then the excess could go to the global market. To get really specific this would not be realistic because we lack the refinery infrastructure for a lot of our oil. So getting even more specific I would say we would either incentivize the creation of a refinery infrastructure to maximize use of our petro products, or fill whatever need we have for our domestic oil and then put the rest on the global market to trade for other forms of oil that may be more useful for us. Perhaps when it comes to petroleum this isn't possible, but petroleum isn't all commodities.mrussel1 said:
Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions. Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?static111 said:
You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed. I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected. There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed. That isn't isolationist at all. Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.mrussel1 said:
The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example. The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy. I have beat this drum for years. Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism. Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.static111 said:
Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem? For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation? I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility. Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.mrussel1 said:
People are stupid. They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down. That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA. But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue. Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser.OnWis97 said:
Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.Lerxst1992 said:It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.
The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court.
I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.
I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.
otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction. This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.
In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years. In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution. Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism. For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs. What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular. Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.
Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing. There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade. However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them. More of the same kicks the can down the road. Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.
To simplify and use a foodstuff commodity as an example. If we produce enough wheat for our domestic yearly usage we should sell that internally and then put the excess on the global market, rather than buying foodstuffs cheaply on the global market and plowing under our own crops and subsidizing producers for the destruction of consumable foodstuffs to stabilize the global market. This being a more straightforward example because there are fewer steps in getting wheat to grow and harvested and packed than there are for refining petrochemicals.Post edited by static111 onScio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
But because we don't produce more than we use, we would have to go to the global market. But then again, there would be NO global market since you can't be arguing that the US should exit it, but while everyone else stays. So now you are doing direct deals with other countries, which means tariffs and other geo-political issues. So now you're incentivized to maybe take what you need, like the Caucuses, reserves in Africa, etc. This is exactly how wars start.static111 said:
In that particular instance I am saying that if there is a glut of product over what meets the needs of the citizenry then the excess could go to the global market. To get really specific this would not be realistic because we lack the refinery infrastructure for a lot of our oil. So getting even more specific I would say we would either incentivize the creation of a refinery infrastructure to maximize use of our petro products, or fill whatever need we have for our domestic oil and then put the rest on the global market to trade for other forms of oil that may be more useful for us. Perhaps when it comes to petroleum this isn't possible, but petroleum isn't all commodities.mrussel1 said:
Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions. Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?static111 said:
You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed. I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected. There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed. That isn't isolationist at all. Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.mrussel1 said:
The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example. The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy. I have beat this drum for years. Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism. Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.static111 said:
Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem? For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation? I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility. Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.mrussel1 said:
People are stupid. They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down. That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA. But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue. Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser.OnWis97 said:
Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.Lerxst1992 said:It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.
The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court.
I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.
I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.
otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction. This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.
In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years. In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution. Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism. For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs. What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular. Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.
Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing. There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade. However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them. More of the same kicks the can down the road. Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.
To simplify and use a foodstuff commodity as an example. If we produce enough wheat for our domestic yearly usage we should sell that internally and then put the excess on the global market, rather than buying foodstuffs cheaply on the global market and plowing under our own crops and subsidizing producers for the destruction of consumable foodstuffs to stabilize the global market. This being a more straightforward example because there are fewer steps in getting wheat to grow and harvested and packed than there are for refining petrochemicals.0 -
I recognize that not every country has arable land or valuable mineral resources, but most regions have a mix. I am saying we should decentralize and find ways for countries that have the ability to produce what is necessary for them before they go monoculture for the global market. I think that shortening supply chains in this way would reduce carbon pollution and provide a more equitable trade system. That's the argument, not that the USA specifically should disengage completely from the global market because we produce crude we can't refine. I'm imagining a restructuring of the global market that hopefully would create more fair and equitable systems for citizens of all countries.mrussel1 said:
Yeah I know, but it's set up that way because we are engaged in the global commodities market. I think he's arguing we should not be. I'm trying to understand if that's the argument, that US companies only sell to US refineries for US use. Right wingers point to 2020 (an aberration by the way, due to the pandemic) where we used the same amount as drilled and say that Trump created 'energy independence", but that's meaningless since we are in a global market.Cropduster-80 said:
Our refineries aren’t even set up that way. We export crude to other countries for them to refine and import crude for domestic refineries a lot of the time. Not all oil is the same and because it’s oil that doesn’t mean a specific refinery can even process itmrussel1 said:
Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions. Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?static111 said:
You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed. I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected. There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed. That isn't isolationist at all. Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.mrussel1 said:
The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example. The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy. I have beat this drum for years. Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism. Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.static111 said:
Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem? For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation? I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility. Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.mrussel1 said:
People are stupid. They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down. That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA. But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue. Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser.OnWis97 said:
Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.Lerxst1992 said:It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.
The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court.
I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.
I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.
otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction. This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.
In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years. In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution. Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism. For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs. What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular. Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.
Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing. There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade. However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them. More of the same kicks the can down the road. Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.
we already produce close to our domestic consumption. 2020 America produced 18.4 million barrels of oil per day and consumed 18.12 million.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
That sounds like more of a case for improved fuel economy and investment in intercontinental mass transit than going to war. I see a lack of production as a way to find a solution, not as a justification for taking from others. I am assuming you are coming from a petroleum only perspective, not from a foodstuffs angle as well? We export 50% of the wheat we produce, I am hoping we don't consume more than the other 50%, that seems like a bad way of doing business. And in our country we have an over consumption problem of everything that there are many solutions to besides eating up the rest of the world's resources.mrussel1 said:
But because we don't produce more than we use, we would have to go to the global market. But then again, there would be NO global market since you can't be arguing that the US should exit it, but while everyone else stays. So now you are doing direct deals with other countries, which means tariffs and other geo-political issues. So now you're incentivized to maybe take what you need, like the Caucuses, reserves in Africa, etc. This is exactly how wars start.static111 said:
In that particular instance I am saying that if there is a glut of product over what meets the needs of the citizenry then the excess could go to the global market. To get really specific this would not be realistic because we lack the refinery infrastructure for a lot of our oil. So getting even more specific I would say we would either incentivize the creation of a refinery infrastructure to maximize use of our petro products, or fill whatever need we have for our domestic oil and then put the rest on the global market to trade for other forms of oil that may be more useful for us. Perhaps when it comes to petroleum this isn't possible, but petroleum isn't all commodities.mrussel1 said:
Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions. Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?static111 said:
You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed. I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected. There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed. That isn't isolationist at all. Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.mrussel1 said:
The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example. The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy. I have beat this drum for years. Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism. Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.static111 said:
Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem? For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation? I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility. Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.mrussel1 said:
People are stupid. They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down. That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA. But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue. Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser.OnWis97 said:
Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.Lerxst1992 said:It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.
The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court.
I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.
I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.
otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction. This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.
In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years. In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution. Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism. For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs. What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular. Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.
Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing. There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade. However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them. More of the same kicks the can down the road. Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.
To simplify and use a foodstuff commodity as an example. If we produce enough wheat for our domestic yearly usage we should sell that internally and then put the excess on the global market, rather than buying foodstuffs cheaply on the global market and plowing under our own crops and subsidizing producers for the destruction of consumable foodstuffs to stabilize the global market. This being a more straightforward example because there are fewer steps in getting wheat to grow and harvested and packed than there are for refining petrochemicals.Post edited by static111 onScio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
Post edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
I didn't know pharmacists could choose to not fill valid prescriptions. Sounds like this guy made sure she wasn't going to get the prescription filled there either way. But you know, it was divine intervention that caused the condom to break so I'm sure it was what god wanted for her. She was just too callous to accept the gift of another possible child.Cropduster-80 said:These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
It's a hopeless situation...0 -
It's a hopeless situation...0
-
Pharmacists do it a lot. At one of what use to be only two pharmacies in my hometown they won’t even fill birth control.tbergs said:
I didn't know pharmacists could choose to not fill valid prescriptions. Sounds like this guy made sure she wasn't going to get the prescription filled there either way. But you know, it was divine intervention that caused the condom to break so I'm sure it was what god wanted for her. She was just too callous to accept the gift of another possible child.Cropduster-80 said:These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
0 -
-
How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.Cropduster-80 said:These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.0 -
You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employmentmace1229 said:
How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.Cropduster-80 said:These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers
this guy refused to fill it. It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense. They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though. Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation
to me it’s two separate issues.
1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and
2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town
imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town. I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet. Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.Post edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.Cropduster-80 said:
You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employmentmace1229 said:
How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.Cropduster-80 said:These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers
this guy refused to fill it. It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense. They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though. Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation
to me it’s two separate issues.
1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and
2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town
imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town. I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet. Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.0 -
I think there is a difference between being legitimately out of something and refusing. This pharmacist is a local preacher so I don’t think there was much confusion in why she couldn’t get her medicationmace1229 said:
I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.Cropduster-80 said:
You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employmentmace1229 said:
How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.Cropduster-80 said:These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers
this guy refused to fill it. It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense. They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though. Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation
to me it’s two separate issues.
1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and
2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town
imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town. I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet. Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.
we have to do something as people will just find more and more ways to stop serving customers they disagree with. I never understand why people sort of put up with it when it deals with reproductive issues. You can make a religious argument for a lot of other things too. Why even open that door?Pharmacists aren’t doctors, they are just dispensing pills. They are basically chemists and not even qualified to make medical judgments. In a lot of ways it’s like that county clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses . Doing your job doesn’t mean you need to be supportive of their position. It’s people inserting themselves into a situation that has nothing to do with themPost edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
mace1229 said:
I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.Cropduster-80 said:
You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employmentmace1229 said:
How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.Cropduster-80 said:These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers
this guy refused to fill it. It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense. They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though. Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation
to me it’s two separate issues.
1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and
2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town
imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town. I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet. Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.what part of this specific case was about out of stock medication?answer. none.that cocksucker REFUSED.Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work.Post edited by mickeyrat on_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
I’m totally going to get a job at a liquor store and then claim a religious reason I can’t sell alcohol. Or, more realistically, can you imagine having a cart full of groceries being wrung up and the cashier saying “I am jewish and I can’t sell you this ham. You can take this to one of the other registers?”Cropduster-80 said:
I think there is a difference between being legitimately out of something and refusing. This pharmacist is a local preacher so I don’t think there was much confusion in why she couldn’t get her medicationmace1229 said:
I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.Cropduster-80 said:
You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employmentmace1229 said:
How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.Cropduster-80 said:These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers
this guy refused to fill it. It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense. They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though. Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation
to me it’s two separate issues.
1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and
2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town
imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town. I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet. Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.
we have to do something as people will just find more and more ways to stop serving customers they disagree with. I never understand why people sort of put up with it when it deals with reproductive issues. You can make a religious argument for a lot of other things too. Why even open that door?Pharmacists aren’t doctors, they are just dispensing pills. They are basically chemists and not even qualified to make medical judgments. In a lot of ways it’s like that county clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses . Doing your job doesn’t mean you need to be supportive of their position. It’s people inserting themselves into a situation that has nothing to do with them
It’s really amazing that anyone can just not do part of their job and not get fired. If you don’t feel you can distribute birth control then don’t work at the freaking pharmacy. Do people ever get fired for this? And would there be religious-right outrage?Post edited by OnWis97 on1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
It’s going to take a Christian scientist becoming a pharmacist to prove the point. They don’t believe in medication at all, prayer heals you.OnWis97 said:
I’m totally going to get a job at a liquor store and then claim a religious reason I can’t sell alcohol. Or, more realistically, can you imagine having a cart full of groceries being wrung up and the cashier saying “I am jewish and I can’t sell you this ham. You can take this to one of the other registers?”Cropduster-80 said:
I think there is a difference between being legitimately out of something and refusing. This pharmacist is a local preacher so I don’t think there was much confusion in why she couldn’t get her medicationmace1229 said:
I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.Cropduster-80 said:
You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employmentmace1229 said:
How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.Cropduster-80 said:These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers
this guy refused to fill it. It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense. They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though. Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation
to me it’s two separate issues.
1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and
2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town
imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town. I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet. Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.
we have to do something as people will just find more and more ways to stop serving customers they disagree with. I never understand why people sort of put up with it when it deals with reproductive issues. You can make a religious argument for a lot of other things too. Why even open that door?Pharmacists aren’t doctors, they are just dispensing pills. They are basically chemists and not even qualified to make medical judgments. In a lot of ways it’s like that county clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses . Doing your job doesn’t mean you need to be supportive of their position. It’s people inserting themselves into a situation that has nothing to do with them
It’s really amazing that anyone can just not do part of their job and not get fired. If you don’t feel you can distribute birth control then don’t work at the freaking pharmacy. Do people ever get fired for this? And would there be religious-right outrage?
when they get handed a prescription for anything and they hand you a prayer card in return and people start dying maybe people will get the point.
fundamentally it’s no different. It’s a religious exemption based your beliefs. You can’t define religion as the line people are free not to cross, because there is no line thenPost edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
Correct. And my comment wasn’t about this specific case. It was about the logistical problems with creating a law about requiring a business to fulfill a prescription.mickeyrat said:mace1229 said:
I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.Cropduster-80 said:
You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employmentmace1229 said:
How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.Cropduster-80 said:These religious nuts have way too much control
A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.
“Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.
Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.
Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.
She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.
Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies
so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers
this guy refused to fill it. It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense. They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though. Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation
to me it’s two separate issues.
1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and
2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town
imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town. I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet. Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.what part of this specific case was about out of stock medication?answer. none.that cocksucker REFUSED.Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help