NightSG

Yeah, I am less concerned about the virus and more concerned about the widespread panic and societies reaction in terms of food.  Our grocery stores are mostly empty.

Save the trees.  Don't bother with the hose from the sink.  You can get this from Amazon with free 2-day delivery with Prime.  

Or you can do what hikers do:

I bet it wouldn't stand up in court. So all you have to do is pony up $200,000 in attorney fees to show the state what's up.

In Soviet America, we are free to do exactly as we are told.

The best we can do as humans, is try to find that elusive line between individual rights and societal protection.   COVID is forcing us to think about that line in places we don't need to usually draw it.
So far, my work has been ahead of every government suggestion/mandate so far.  We started refusing access to symptomatic people, or people returning from China, weeks before the govt.  We did social distancing and density reduction a few days before press releases and news briefings put a name to those terms.   Yesterday we voluntarily closed for two weeks.
No matter what the right or wrong of it is, here's how it plays out with real humans:
- Initially, just about everybody goes along with the govt advice/mandates.  The @Vorts of the world are largely ignored.
- If we can keep our creature comforts, lights/heat/food/internet/phone/Netflix, we'll keep giving up more upon request.
- A week of bare shelves and rich white women fighting in the parking lot over toilet paper is laughed off by a society of plenty entertained by the novelty of a little hardship.
- The novelty wears off fast.  Make our internet crap out, or make gas hard to find, or empty store shelves - you've got one week, maybe two of hardship, before everyone becomes Vort, and the Vorts start putting on their V-for-Vendetta masks.
Right now, we're in the "holy crap this is going to be expensive and might usher in a short-term recession" phase.  If we can chill out and stop emptying store shelves, we can not reach that last part.  We can do 2-6 weeks of sheltering in place, as long as the Netflix stays up.

Government officials have just as much authority as the governed allow them to have. 
 
/inciting rebellion 

Yes, I'm familiar with the basic idea of a state of emergency. But when you utterly prohibit all meetings of groups of people, even private groups meeting for religious or educational purposes, because people are afraid of getting a nasty cold—that's not a state of emergency. That's martial law. Is Inslee actually going to jail those attending schools or churches who defy his irrational ban?

Washington State leadership asked that there be no gatherings greater than 250, so my church met today (we're 120-150 on a typical Sunday). However, the pastor encouraged anyone sick to stay home and anyone uncertain to stay home. We did have plenty of seats so he reminded us to try to keep six-feet distance. We modified prayers for the sick by stretching our hands towards those asking for prayer, rather than actually laying hands on them. Further, pastor said that if the government requests us to discontinue public meetings we will do so online. He'll preach from his home if it comes to that. We are fairly certain that a good number of our people were watching online.

I have been obedient to this policy, but I'm nowhere near convinced that it is right, nor that it was the direct result of revelation.

He was killed in his meeting house.  Your misplaced underhanded insults don't stand up to the facts of this thread.

Yep, we're gonna have to disagree on the matter.  Appeasing the Ayatollahs is NEVER a move in the right direction.  Not for the Iranians and not for the US.  That's not just a lose situation, it's a lose-lose situation.
Obama bowing to the Ayatollahs even after they humiliate US captives on the international stage is not a "better" relationship.  It's like an abused wife saying her relationship with her husband got better because she got the beer fast enough to avoid getting whipped.

I'm with you.  "First impeached president to win re-election" will matter too, as it will be an unmistakable signal to democrats that America is sick of their crap and won't put up with it any more.  But yeah, 10 years down the road nobody will care, it'll just be "vote Dem, we've only had one president impeached!"

My understanding is that "impeachment" means the formal political leveling of charges against the President by the House. This happens when articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate. Until that time, no such formal leveling of charges has taken place. The Senate need not vote or even act at all on those articles, but until it receives them, there has been no impeachment.
I invite corrections by those who might know better.

Now, I've been trying to get somebody... ANYBODY... to explain to me Romney's "conscience" and I still haven't gotten anybody to talk to me without opening with "You're a racist...", well, you know the drill.
Maybe you can give me something because you have that morality issue with Trump.
Now, the way I see it - if Romney is kinda like you and he really just can't deal with a President that odious - then wouldn't his entire interview with Chris Wallace be a lie?  And how about his duty as a Representative of the State of Utah?  That doesn't go into the equation of his "conscience"?  We already know Constitutionality is not a factor in his "conscience".  
It really ticked me off when he decides to drag his Mormon faith into this thing.  He went through 2 Presidential campaigns trying to avoid having to mention his religion until it became a sticking point in the general election but now he has no problem pointing it out when it wasn't necessary.  You won't believe how many times I had to field questions from friends like - "Is it true that missionaries are recruited by the CIA to be an operative for the deep state because they just blindly follow what they're told?  Is that why Romney is doing this because he is blindly following what he's told?"...

Harvard Law is overrated.

I respect what Romney’s decision cost him; but the reasoning he gave for his vote is logically faulty and reflects a degree of blindness that almost seems willful at this time.  (You don’t see any innocent reason, Senator, why a US President might ask Ukraine to investigate corrupt activities by a previous US Vice President?  Really?)  I expect better from a Harvard Law School grad; though I suppose using the phrase “reasonable doubt” in the context of an impeachment proceeding is kind of a red flag.

Romney is a liberal, he does not like Trump, what courage and surprise is there in voting against him?  None.

I called this long time ago.
You can admire his courage if you want.  The fact remains - Romney pre-judged this case.  That is, he threw the Constitution out to the window with the Democrats and judge Trump Guilty before proven Innocent.

I liked him when he was brought in to restore honor to the corruption-scandal-ridden SLC olympics.
I was ok with him as Gov of Massachusets, because that gig basically forces you to reach far across the aisle to get anything done.
I voted for him in 2012 against Obama, because he is who the Republicans ran against Obama.
Then his track record started confusing me.  I forget, did he take his stance against Trump first, or did he start out supporting him and then switch.  Did I watch that youtube video of him praising Trump before or after I watched that other video of him bashing Trump?
Then this:

Politics mean you work with people with which you disagree.
Now his sole republican vote in the Senate against removing Trump.  I've lost any sense of a coherent narrative from Romney, and pretty much anything he says or does doesn't surprise me.  Whatever he says his principles are, I take with a grain of salt.
I lost any "yay, a Mormon gaining national attention in federal politics" for him a lot of years ago.
 

My objection has nothing to do with "romantic involvement" and everything to do with the trend that man and woman are interchangeable in sports... cue in the image of trans-female sprinters standing on all 3 podiums of the women's track state championships.
Movie Quote from Blades of Glory:  "To win, we have to do what nobody else in the competition can do.  What do we have that nobody else have?".... "2 dongs." 
And that's how the "Iron Lotus" made it to competition.
So sure.  That's just a funny movie.  As everything else in satire, proven daily by the Babylon Bee - satire has a way of becoming real life.

I'm glad @The Folk Prophet weighed in since I thought of him immediately when I saw the OP (I also thought of him when Cats came out, I can't count the number of times he's seen it).
I agree with others that I wish BYU had taken a stand and not hosted.
My thoughts on this are larger than BYU. Ballroom dance as sport and art comes out of longstanding tradition and culture. The Tribune makes it clear that the professed purpose of this change is to allow gays to compete in a way comfortable to them, but inadvertently makes an argument for the core purpose. Ballroom dance has rigid gender roles and (as TFP mentioned) this will destroy them. TFP called out the costuming question, but additionally we have the issue of who leads. If I watch a couple perform, I know immediately who will hold his hand up and who will twirl. This change allows for more artistic creativity where a couple can transition the lead during a move, coming out with the other partner leading. The sort of changes this opens up can be creative, it can be artistic, but it is not traditional ballroom dancing. Summoning my inner Len Goodman, it's "too much razzmatazz for my taste."

I personally think BYU should have stood more strongly by it's older morality.  If it's enough for the Church to leave scouts (and true or false, for the appearance that members are talking about the including of homosexuality in Scouting, regardless that the Church always allowed it in their troops to begin with, especially by signing every young man into the troop...homosexual or not) then why is it not enough for BYU?
In some instances it would be better to stand by your morals than change according to the world...then again, so much in the church recently has been seeming to try to placate the world rather than stick by the morals presented to us long ago...so...this is more of the same.
However...in this I am also a hypocrite in my statement.
BYU has long been against men dancing with another male partner until this change.
I learned how to Ballroom dance from dancing with other male dancers.  Women just could not teach me how to lead well enough, and someone telling you what to do is not as effective or was not as effective for me as learning it from someone SHOWING me directly how to do so.  Thus, I learned how to really lead and dance from dancing with a male partner who was leading and I learning from that.  I then danced with female partners as I then was fairly able to lead and dance, but to learn I learned best from having another male teach me how to do it.
Such a thing I believe would not be allowed at BYU (or was not in the past) from my understanding.  It was not even allowed in dance classes. 

Logging in for just a minute to weigh in on this because it's so personal to me and because I don't know who else to vent to.
First, @Vort lifts are illegal in all but one or two competitions. So that's really a non issue. Regardless....agreed. Stupid.......etc...
So most of you probably don't know this because I haven't mentioned it but I was a ballroom dancer all through highschool and college and have competed in the highest amateur level dance competitions at BYU and other places many, many times.
BYU has always held different standards than other competitions, and even the Pros competing for the national championships at BYU have been required to abide by BYU's standards to compete. The primary way this has been seen is in the dress. Ballroom Dance outfits can be very immodest. BYU ballroom competitions do not require the same level of dress that they would on campus, obviously, but they do have standards. The woman's dress, for example, must come down to mid thigh (including slits in the back, etc.). The shoulder straps for the women must be at least an inch thick. The man cannot wear a see-through top. Stuff like that. Additionally there are rules against lewd dance moves that will get you disqualified. Once again, this is still subjective, and what's considered appropriate on the dance floor in competition might be inappropriate in other places. But straight-up grinding and the like or butt grabs or such would get one disqualified for certain. But full body contact is required in certain dances ("Standard" dances such as waltz, foxtrot, etc.). Dips and sexually provocative movement is common in the Latin style. All ballroom dancing is a "sexual" style of dance in that it is created for the sexes to do with one another in roles -- the female and the male. The interplay between the sexes is a part of ballroom. Sex (not the act, but the "gender" difference) is core to it. Even in same-sex dancing, one of the partners must take the role of the female, and one of the male. The dances work that way. Both people cannot lead. Both people cannot move forward at the same time. Both people cannot dip each other simultaneously. Etc.
So now we have a serious double standard. A woman who wears a spaghetti shoulder strap gets disqualified because BYU maintains a strict moral code despite the world's views, and yet two guys can wrap their arms around each other, dip and sway, gyrate their hips in synchronicity, place their hand anywhere on each other but "there", and dance cheek to cheek and crotch to crotch with nary a word said? Are you freaking kidding me?!
I am absolutely SHOCKED by this decision. What happened to standing for truth and right no matter the consequence? Really? So you can't host the professional national championship anymore? Boo-hoo! Do you stand for God and His truths no matter the consequence or do you cave for the world because of the world?!
A friend suggested that maybe BYU was contractually obligated to host until a certain time, and thereby contractually obligated to comply. The article didn't sound like that was the case to me. They might be obligated to follow the rules if they host, but required to continue hosting?? And if they don't, or don't follow the rules, and they get sued, and lose millions...are we really not willing to stand for what's right at any cost? I cannot believe it! I'm honestly stunned.
Alright...that's my two cents. I'm out of here again. I probably shouldn't have posted, in that Third Hour is still allowing juvenile progressively offensive articles published on their site, and I'm not going to stick around posting while that's the case. But I do read the threads often. However, this one has been on my mind for the few days since the news broke and really bugging me, so I needed to vent a bit. But I'm done now.
Someone should start a thread (unless I missed it) on the banning of gay conversion therapy in Utah too. Less offensive than this, imo, but the way it's being reported and handled, still....maybe worth a discussion.
I will note that I'm going to post one other update in a few days or so with some news. But otherwise, don't expect me to actively reply.
 
Edit: One other point I forgot to mention:
What about cross-dressing? If two men are dancing together does one of them get to wear a dress? Does that dress have to also come to the man's mid thigh, etc? Can BYU discriminate against men dancing in the women's role in women's clothing, or is that something they're caving on too?

Yea, what's next, still reading comics and playing Dungeons and Dragons?