And it's not just that tariffs are a moronic economic policy in ways that should be pristinely obvious to houseflies and cheap plastic forks, it's that at some point after I place this order, I'm going to get Official Mail as Homeland Security go about collecting their $0.12.
Spending, by the time we're done, probably something like $50 in postage, bank fees, and general overhead to get it, which makes it, let's see, revenue-negative for the government by a factor of approximately 416.
(i.e., exactly what the _de minimis_ exemption was to avoid)
Thanks all to hell for protecting us from approximately a thimbleful of foreign aluminum. You absolute scurfwads.
Just life
I am not any sort of medico, but having experienced basically identical symptoms in the past, it sounds very much like a severe depressive episode.
(I apologize if this falls into the unwelcome and unasked-for advice category, but having spent much of my life dealing with those, it'd feel awfully remiss of me not to try and shorten any possible sufferers' path to the Eleven Secret Drugs and Supplements.)
“Crem!”, swore Conan. “I’ve cut my muddy swath!”
So, here I am facing some stock with my Cubiko (later to be used as the case for a yarn counter I'm working on), I start the program, and an extremely stunned sawdust-covered housefly comes flapping out of the mechanism and drops to my desk.
I am no expert in housefly expressions, but I'm pretty sure that was "What in the name of Housefly Jaysus just happened!?"
This morning's moment of hilarity.
Also, note to self: dust shoe, not bug shoe.
Is this not the universal position among cats?
When someone talks about their enthusiasm for political assassinations, it should be legal to say "well, I don't approve of them myself, but since you do...", pull out a gun, and stick it in their earhole.
Not to fire it, of course; we're not animals.
But watching the real-time opinion reversal would be a joy and a grand amusement.
@aphyr (That is, the necessary accountability and impossibility of challenging a conviction is the first argument; the second argument is basically the same but focuses on how this protects actual perpetrators by making all witnesses who might come forward equally guilty as the perpetrators; the third is that it means that there is no need to 'frame' someone for the crime, a police officer can simply carry offending material with them when they break in to your house and that makes you guilty)
@aphyr The first classic argument against strict liability laws for possession or viewing is that they make enforcement completely unaccountable, as possession or viewing of evidence is a crime, and even pointing at the thing or giving a complete enough set of directions to find the thing might be a crime, so the only people who can accuse people of the crime without being found criminally liable are those who laws mysteriously never seem to be applied against (eg the Met Police in the UK).
"And someone tell that guy that a collection of false beards and a willingness to incite punch-ups among his followers does NOT make him three distinct gods!"
Science fiction writer. Entrepreneur. Speaker to minerals. Consensualist. Illeist (pronouns: none). Pony and kanmusu stan. Can call spirits from the vasty deep!