Lady Gaga delivers the most absurd, awe-inspiring show of her career

Pink

Well, This Is Disappointing

Quote: As calculated by Gizmodo, construction and launch of the USS Enterprise in real life would run a staggering $478,947,711,160.

Quote:Of course, much of the technology required to build the Enterprise doesn't exist. Whether it's the warp engines, the plasma coils, the photon torpedoes, phasers, or transporters, there's no way to know for certain just how expensive they would be. The price could run into the trillions, assuming such technology is even invented. It's entirely possible that humanity will never have the money or tech to build anything like the Enterprise.

Boru

New bish

(October 3, 2025 at 6:55 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: New bish

Kind of like appointing a new captain while ship is in the process of sinking.

Boru

Yes the CofE will likely cease to exist in the next 10 years, though perhaps the most telling item is the speed with which a group formed to demand someone else... who isn't a woman...

Link

Five takeaways from Pam Bondi's tense, partisan Senate hearing

Quote:5. Republicans look back in anger

If Democrats were focused on what they view as the unprecedented weaponisation of the justice department under Trump, most of the Republican senators were more interested in fighting battles from the Biden presidency – or earlier.

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley spent much of the hearings interjecting on how Democrats had, in his view, stonewalled investigations into the Biden family's business dealings.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham condemned the FBI's Russia investigation following the 2016 presidential election. Ted Cruz of Texas focused on protests outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices in the wake of their 2021 decision overturning abortion rights.

Eric Schmidt of Missouri filled out a veritable bingo card of right-wing complaints directed at the justice department.

Bondi, for her part, wholeheartedly agreed with the Republican chorus.

When the five-hour hearing finally concluded, the event had the feeling of a partisan house of mirrors, with each side accusing the other of political weaponisation and partisan prosecutions.

"The Department of Justice is supposed to be the nation's guardian of fairness and the rule of law," Senator Alex Padilla said during his questioning. "When the public trust breaks down, then justice itself is at risk."

It is the kind of comment that both Republicans and Democrats on the committee could agree with – before casting the other side as the source of the nation's ills.

Journalists turn in press passes as Pentagon clamps down on access in ‘unprecedented’ move

Quote:Tony Bertuca, chief Pentagon editor for Inside Defense, which produces subscription newsletters for the industry, said the new policy is part of a pattern.

“The government has been discouraging inquiry at the Pentagon for months now: practically zero press briefings and gaggles, and lots of one-way communication with the public through social media,” he said.

The credentialing change will make it even more difficult to question officials at “an agency that makes life-and-death decisions and spends hundreds of billions of dollars in public money every year.”

However, Bertuca said Wednesday, as he headed to the building to hand in his badge, “the defense beat is all about following the money. With a $1 trillion budget? They can’t hide. And I’m not going to stop doing my job.”

Democrats Have One Brutal Path to Survival if the Supreme Court Kills the Voting Rights Act

Quote:The impact of this decision would be devastating for Democrats in the South: Many left-leaning congressional districts in this region were drawn solely to comply with the VRA; once the law is dismantled, red states could eliminate these districts to create more safe GOP seats. Gov. Ron DeSantis, for instance, has already suggested that Florida will undertake “mid-decade redistricting” if the Supreme Court kneecaps the VRA and speculated that several other states will too. The new maps would ruthlessly dilute the votes of racial minorities to give white Republican voters control over more seats.

But there is a flip side: Red states aren’t the only ones with majority-minority districts; blue states have long drawn them as well, out of good-faith compliance with the VRA. Democratic legislatures typically create these districts to ensure that racial minorities have a fair shot at electing candidates of their choice. That approach prevents lawmakers from drawing more “efficient” gerrymanders—that is, maps that distribute voters in ways that maximally increase Democrats’ electoral advantage. For decades, the Democratic Party has accepted this trade-off: stronger representation for racial minorities, and a more diverse congressional delegation, at the cost of fewer House seats overall.

Without an operative VRA, though, blue states would have no obligation to maintain these majority-minority districts. In fact, they might have to redraw them: If Callais comes out as expected, these districts may now constitute an unlawful racial gerrymander, and voters could sue to invalidate them in court. Either way, by choice or by necessity, Democratic legislatures could then “unpack” their majority-minority districts. That means re-sorting racial minorities into whiter districts to more efficiently convert Democratic votes into House seats. The resulting maps would largely deny these populations the opportunity to elect their preferred representatives, since they would lack a majority in most (if not all) districts. This could seriously diminish minority representation in Congress. But these maps would also more effectively dilute Republican votes, ensuring that Democrats win more seats on balance.

(October 17, 2025 at 10:21 am)Angrboda Wrote: Democrats Have One Brutal Path to Survival if the Supreme Court Kills the Voting Rights Act

Quote:The impact of this decision would be devastating for Democrats in the South: Many left-leaning congressional districts in this region were drawn solely to comply with the VRA; once the law is dismantled, red states could eliminate these districts to create more safe GOP seats. Gov. Ron DeSantis, for instance, has already suggested that Florida will undertake “mid-decade redistricting” if the Supreme Court kneecaps the VRA and speculated that several other states will too. The new maps would ruthlessly dilute the votes of racial minorities to give white Republican voters control over more seats.

But there is a flip side: Red states aren’t the only ones with majority-minority districts; blue states have long drawn them as well, out of good-faith compliance with the VRA. Democratic legislatures typically create these districts to ensure that racial minorities have a fair shot at electing candidates of their choice. That approach prevents lawmakers from drawing more “efficient” gerrymanders—that is, maps that distribute voters in ways that maximally increase Democrats’ electoral advantage. For decades, the Democratic Party has accepted this trade-off: stronger representation for racial minorities, and a more diverse congressional delegation, at the cost of fewer House seats overall.

Without an operative VRA, though, blue states would have no obligation to maintain these majority-minority districts. In fact, they might have to redraw them: If Callais comes out as expected, these districts may now constitute an unlawful racial gerrymander, and voters could sue to invalidate them in court. Either way, by choice or by necessity, Democratic legislatures could then “unpack” their majority-minority districts. That means re-sorting racial minorities into whiter districts to more efficiently convert Democratic votes into House seats. The resulting maps would largely deny these populations the opportunity to elect their preferred representatives, since they would lack a majority in most (if not all) districts. This could seriously diminish minority representation in Congress. But these maps would also more effectively dilute Republican votes, ensuring that Democrats win more seats on balance.

As a US voter, would you accept that trade off - few minority Congresspersons for a (potential) Democratic majority?

Boru

(October 17, 2025 at 1:49 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 17, 2025 at 10:21 am)Angrboda Wrote: Democrats Have One Brutal Path to Survival if the Supreme Court Kills the Voting Rights Act

As a US voter, would you accept that trade off - few minority Congresspersons for a (potential) Democratic majority?

Boru

There's an awful lot of talk this past year that Democrats need to adopt the same dirty tactics that have been successful for Republicans. Effectively this amounts to ceding the high ground. It's a bit of a lose-lose situation. If you adopt their tactics, you become no better than them and lose what actually made progressive political ideals worthwhile, the notion of transforming the world into a better place. On the other hand, if you don't, you are at a systematic disadvantage against those who choose to game the system, cheat, and otherwise engage in bad-faith politics. I don't know what the solution is. I suspect it probably doesn't matter because as a society, we seem to be doing little more than spinning our wheels, alternately electing progressive and regressive leaders as a consequence of the general reactionary behavior of the generally poorly informed masses.