smltwnrckr

Yes, and we disagree on how the state should define those terms and their powers to intervene. I think we could have skipped the back and forth and just ended up there I suppose.

Every single amendment in the bill of rights has resulted in deaths. So any of the freedoms you cherish deeply increase the risk of harm or death for other people. You can say this about any right. I mean, helmet laws decrease my liability as a driver because if I hit you with a helmet on, you are less likely to cause me financial and psychological damage by dying. So if we're all connected, then we should all be forcing each other to do things in order to limit our own personal risk. You not wearing a helmet puts me at risk in a very real, very material way. I actually do have a problem with a number of drunk driving laws... and their more troubling legacy, which is all laws related to using your phone while driving.

The right is to not have your life taken by another. The definition of "Knowingly" and "recklessly" are defined by the state, as are the terms wherein the state is allowed to define when, where and how it intervenes. The state has no rights.

And Rich Lowry is anything but a hardcore never-Trumper. He is tepid on the guy, but goes out and defends him to the NPR crowd all the time.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the two questions. But at a certain point, we have to be able to answer those questions ourselves. Is that point now? Maybe not. But when is it going to be that point? And while they may have good intentions - not let people get sick or die - public health officials err on the side every time with every issue by trying hard to not let us make these decisions on our own. But making these decisions ourselves is literally what it means to live in a country where the state's power to protect us is limited because those limits are the only thing that protects us from the state. Every right or liberty we have makes us less safe and requires us to navigate a riskier world. That's why emergency powers are specifically designed to curtail our civil liberties - and rightfully so. The state will always err on the side of imposing order and exercising power even if it's for altruistic reasons, and that's why it's so important for the state to relinquish its current role as the entity that answers those two questions for us. And we will answer it collectively and individually... but many on here may not like the answer. I may not like the answer. I'm grumpy about this stuff, as we all know. But at the end of the day I'm a reasonable guy. I'm willing to say that my instincts are not the most valuable in a large-scale crisis situation where a command/control power system is required to instill order and stabilize things on a large scale. I'm grumpy about it, but I'll do my best to play along as nice as I can and help maintain order. If they needed to treat the entire country like we have 3 DUI's, a B&E, half a GTA and an ankle bracelet to set up a situation where our systems and institutions are better suited to handle this disease without total societal collapse, OK. I'm listening. But at the end of the day, we are either willing to do the stuff that epidemiologists say we should do to keep the disease from spreading or not. At some point, we must be treated like autonomous human beings and be allowed to make that decision both on our own and as a society and be willing to live with the consequences. IMO, that's the definition of a free country. And it's why I'm honestly curious why some people are drawing a line here... like, what is going to be the breaking point where people are no longer willing to let the government make this decision for them? I dunno what it will be.

That's not a right.

I changed my mind.

Yeah, what he said... No I take that back. +++++ you and every editor who tried to hold me back! I'd have won 8 pulitzers if it weren't for editors!

Most, but not all of us. Some were screaming about all this at the beginning because we were afraid of the long-term ramifications of the save-every-life-at-all-costs attitude that everyone seemed to incorporate immediately. Some of us were saying this may instead require a sober look at exactly who this disease is affecting most seriously and how it's affecting them and very publicly and realistically ask what we are willing to do to minimize the impact without fundamentally transforming the country... to weigh the risks and tradeoffs necessary to reduce those risks with a stark realism understanding that 0 deaths is an unacceptable number, as much as 2.5 million deaths may be. My understanding at the beginning was this whole thing was to flatten the curve, not eliminate the threat -- go under house arrest enforced by police for a stretch to prepare the health infrastructure so that we can come up with a better approach to deal with outbreaks until there is a full vaccine or herd immunity - probably 2 years from now. This offers the reset button that will spread out the impact over time, and also make the more targeted approach that everyone says is too late at this point more viable when the next wave comes in the fall or winter. If we're now being told that things have changed, and these sorts of measures are what we need to leave our homes across the country then, well, I'm not surprised at all. I knew this would happen. But I'm still going to be pissed off, and I'm glad to see others are too. But you bring up a fair point and really only a small handful of people have been gnashing our teeth at this stuff from the beginning. Many, I believe, for partisan reasons... so I wonder if they'll get on board with this one. So I am genuinely curious to those who are horrified by this but annoyed at the libertarian-leaning folks who have been yelling about the civil rights violations from day one... What it is it about this particular civil liberties violation that is too far for you, as opposed to house arrests or forced closure of most commerce or the state deciding what is essential commerce or closure of places of worship or suspension of right to assemble or any of that? Is it because it would be a federal program? Is it the scope of it? Is it because it's coming from the Trump admin? Is it because it's tracing people, not reacting to something people have already done? This is an honest question... I'm not trying to shame or troll anyone. Because I was willing to accept that I was out of the norm to be bristling at the restrictions from day 1, even though it doesn't make me bristle less. So I want to know, genuinely, what it is that makes this the line to draw in the sand?

Newsom better continue to show us all he is a man of action by making the right decisions on reasonable return to a functioning economic and social life in the coming weeks/months. He should be more vocal about the local jurisdictions setting up snitch lines and demanding you proove you are justified in being outside if a cop sees you. I fear he will hold the most extreme orders longer than they need to be held because the business sectors in CA he is in most contact with are sectors that can rely on technology to get by. Hut we'll see. He owned some hospitality businesses himself, so hopefully he understands how much every day of house arrests chokes off hospitality, agriculture and other industries.

I am an analog man, but I like timex quite a bit. The watch I basically wear on my runs and when I'm doing work around the house is a timex I got on clearence for like $20. I love the thing.

I'm the same, in terms of the gift as entry - kind of a mix between you and @modestobulldog experiences. I got a pretty nice Fossil (nice is a relative term here) many years ago for my high school graduation and only wore it occasionally. When I was a reporter, I found that when I was working if I was wearing it I would check the watch regularly out of habit and it was often distracting for people I was interviewing them... like I was in a hurry to go somewhere. So I just didn't wear it much. Then, after I left journalism I was substitute teaching like 4 years ago or so and many of the schools where I worked didn't have a working clock in the room and I needed to know what time it was all day. Didn't want to take my phone out, as the kids aren't allowed to have their phones out either so I started wearing my watch regularly. Bought a few more very cheap watches (like $30 or less, at Target, that sort of thing) to have a few choices. Got used to always having a watch on, and kept wearing one in grad school. Bought a few other affordable ones since then when I came across something on sale at bargain department stores like Ross or TJ Maxx (where you can actually find pretty good deals on watches). Don't leave the house without one on now, and like you said earlier, there aren't a ton of accessory options for guys. The wife got me last Christmas a Timex Marlin automatic, which is my first mechanical watch and I just love the thing... love the style, love the movement, love the way it feels. I'm looking for something along the same lines but a little more casual looking. Then I'm going to start squirreling away money to get something at the next level up.

That Tissot is really sharp looking. I'm going to add it to my list of ones to consider. Right now, I'm leaning towards mechanical but only because I'm enamored by the movement. It's kind of silly, but I have one other mechanical and I just love the idea of wearing a self-powered machine on my wrist. I know, it's dumb. But at the end of the day, I just want reliable, durable and simple/stylish. Interestingly enough - there is a local antique store that has a soviet union mechanical. I believe they're selling it for around $50, maybe give or take a few bucks. I was looking for something else there maybe a month ago, and it caught my eye. I almost asked the guy to take it out of the case. That's good to know that it may be worth another look. If it's even still there.

I've seen these. I really like their style. I'm into minimalist syles, but I have also seen them getting mixed reviews. Do you have one? If so, what is your experience with them? My main concern would be durability, as I understand this is a relatively new company.

That's a drag... I've wondered to what extent non-smart watches are generally better or worse now with the technological revolution. On one hand, smart watches and phones seem to be the thing. You literally don't need a watch anymore like you used to. On the other hand, people often become more interested in analog things now that everything is digital. For instance, a couple years back I learned that young people LOVE cassette tapes. I am always sad to see a local business go. I wonder if it was particular to something at that store, or if watch shops are harder to come by in general these days. We have a local watch repair place where I go to get my batteries replaced. Just some old guy in a tiny office space surrounded by little tools. I like that those places still exist.