Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Politics & Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Democratic items in stimulus bill that have little or nothing to do with coronavirus relief (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=892434)

Velocity 03-23-2020 11:21 PM

Democratic items in stimulus bill that have little or nothing to do with coronavirus relief
 
Some of the items in the Democratic House bill for coronavirus relief are not related to the pandemic or economic stimulus at all. Examples of such include:

Quote:

Requires states to mail all eligible citizens an absentee ballot and forbids states from requesting identification or requiring witnesses/notarization for absentee ballots (only signatures may be used).


Forbids states from outlawing "ballot harvesting," or the practice of political parties or individuals collecting completed ballots from voters and transporting them to ballot drop off locations.

And some other things besides.

The practice of ballot harvesting has absolutely nothing to do with the coronavirus, ditto for anything about absentee balloting. This is an attempt to use the urgency of pandemic relief to pass legislation that might have had a hard time passing otherwise. If Democrats want to keep ballot harvesting alive, or forbid ID for absentee balloting, then propose it in a separate legislative session, but this is an attempt to pass riders on the back of the situation urgency of the moment.

zoid 03-23-2020 11:26 PM

It absolutely has to do with coronavirus relief - it's an effort to make sure honest elections are held while still safeguarding the public as much as possible.

Lobohan 03-23-2020 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22206833)
Some of the items in the Democratic House bill for coronavirus relief are not related to the pandemic or economic stimulus at all. Examples of such include:




And some other things besides.

The practice of ballot harvesting has absolutely nothing to do with the coronavirus, ditto for anything about absentee balloting. This is an attempt to use the urgency of pandemic relief to pass legislation that might have had a hard time passing otherwise. If Democrats want to keep ballot harvesting alive, or forbid ID for absentee balloting, then propose it in a separate legislative session, but this is an attempt to pass riders on the back of the situation urgency of the moment.

People stand in long lines to vote, especially in GOP-controlled areas. The reason it's important for a pandemic relief bill should be super obvious.

RTFirefly 03-23-2020 11:57 PM

Making sure people can cast their votes in ways other than going to the polls in a time of pandemic without having to jump through major hoops to do so, has everything to do with the pandemic.

The real crime is that the GOP made this a partisan issue, instead of both sides agreeing this was an obvious necessity and passing it by acclamation. They have no shame; they'll even use a pandemic as a tool to rig the game in their favor. GOP delenda est.

RitterSport 03-24-2020 06:35 AM

Velocity, in my opinion, you have a terrible record of responding to people who respond in good faith to your OPs. Do you agree or not agree that ensuring a fair election in a time when there's a pandemic raging is important? Do you agree or not agree that absentee ballots is a way to accomplish this?

Some states still do not allow no-excuse absentee voting. So, if you're not living elsewhere or otherwise unable to make it to the polls, you have to vote in person. Is this wise, if COVID-19 is still working its way through communities?

iiandyiiii 03-24-2020 06:46 AM

Making sure people can vote in a way that reduces the risk of expanding the pandemic is absolutely relevant and necessary for a coronavirus response and relief bill.

JRDelirious 03-24-2020 07:09 AM

Y'know, OP, you could have done the bits about carbon offsets for the airlines, or mandatory diversity in the boards of companies getting aid, or even the minimum wage for work involved in the effort. Why go for an example after making it easier to vote without showing up at a crowded polling place, lowering risks?

(And by now ALL bills being presented, right and left, are becoming more bailout "stimulus" bills designed to save an ever growing list of individuals, organizations, businesses and economic sectors from being clobbered by the economic downturn. )

asahi 03-24-2020 07:10 AM

I would have to agree with Velocity that the optics are not the best, but there is a real threat to the integrity of elections.

I wouldn't hold up the stimulus for too long if I were Pelosi and Schumer. They can always propose *more* stimulus, and there's little doubt that more will be needed. Get the money flowing now, propose more later on with a few more strings attached. People need helicopters full of cash.

BobLibDem 03-24-2020 07:25 AM

Seeing how this may be the last bill that McConnell allows a vote on this year, might as well make the best of it. The question shouldn't be "why did Democrats add this to the virus relief bill?", it should be "why wouldn't Republicans allow it to be passed as a standalone bill?"

Republican behavior has been, as always, shameful. Sure, set up a slush fund of $400 billion to be doled out to corporations at the administration's discretion. What could possibly go wrong?

furt 03-24-2020 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22206833)
Some of the items in the Democratic House bill for coronavirus relief are not related to the pandemic or economic stimulus at all. Examples of such include:.

You picked a poor example to focus on.

Even more obviously egregious ones would have been

- Diversity quotas on corporate boards
- Post Office bailout
- Airplane fuel efficiency targets
- Newspaper retirement plans

etc.

Chronos 03-24-2020 07:44 AM

In some cases, it might not be about letting people vote fairly or safely. In some cases, it might be about being able to vote at all. In Ohio, for instance, the governor (or maybe one of the governor's political appointees; it's unclear which order was binding) canceled the election in response to the virus. That absolutely makes mail-in balloting necessary. And mail-in balloting, in turn, makes it necessary to prohibit "ballot harvesting".

John DiFool 03-24-2020 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 22207218)
Republican behavior has been, as always, shameful. Sure, set up a slush fund of $400 billion to be doled out to corporations at the administration's discretion. What could possibly go wrong?

Funny {strange, but also w/ a little touch of ha-ha} how the OP didn't bother to even mention that, at all, in the midst of his little screed about nonessential aspects of the bill.

divemaster 03-24-2020 08:47 AM

To answer the OP, Trump is accusing Pelosi of holding up the bill b/c she is demanding funding for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Velocity 03-24-2020 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furt (Post 22207236)
You picked a poor example to focus on.

Even more obviously egregious ones would have been

- Diversity quotas on corporate boards
- Post Office bailout
- Airplane fuel efficiency targets
- Newspaper retirement plans

etc.

Sure, I could have copy+pasted more from the link, but wanted to keep the OP concise. Diversity quotas have little to do with economic relief and are more of an attempt to remake the business world in the image that House D's want.

The overall point of the OP wasn't so much absentee voting or diversity but rather that House D's are trying to use virus urgency as a way of propelling things that might not have been able to pass on their own otherwise.

furt 03-24-2020 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22207448)
The overall point of the OP wasn't so much absentee voting or diversity but rather that House D's are trying to use virus urgency as a way of propelling things that might not have been able to pass on their own otherwise.

Oh I understand, and I agree completely. I'm just saying, the sdmb being what it is, people are going to look to nitpick as a way of defending the indefensible. The best way to try and forestall that is to make the entire pattern clear and ask them to defend all of it.

QuickSilver 03-24-2020 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22207448)
Sure, I could have copy+pasted more from the link, but wanted to keep the OP concise. Diversity quotas have little to do with economic relief and are more of an attempt to remake the business world in the image that House D's want.

The overall point of the OP wasn't so much absentee voting or diversity but rather that House D's are trying to use virus urgency as a way of propelling things that might not have been able to pass on their own otherwise.

It seems to me that you object to the laws themselves, rather than the manner in which they are being bundled. Or are you new to politics and find yourself shocked, SHOCKED!, to find political horse trading going on in this establishment?

Jas09 03-24-2020 09:47 AM

Y'all know that "diversity quotas" is not a thing, right? As in, there is no such requirement in the bill. All it says is that if you take government money you have to provide data about the diversity of your board. No requirements, no mandates, just transparency. It seems fair that the providers of voter-backed money would get information about the people that are taking (and spending) that money.

As to performing arts money, God forbid taxpayer money go towards allowing cultural institutions survive a complete shutdown of their operations. Much better we send all that money to Boeing. Because $35M out of almost $2T is just crazy liberal social engineering.

The other stuff probably won't make it in, although I would note that the auto bailouts in 2008/09 included increased fuel efficiency. The idea being that companies using public funding have to support the public good, not just corporate profits. But obviously that was a different political environment.

The Post Office's days are numbered, but I wonder if Congress will have the guts to actually amend the Constitution or just pretend like the requirement to have a Postal Service doesn't exist.

BobLibDem 03-24-2020 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22207448)
Sure, I could have copy+pasted more from the link, but wanted to keep the OP concise. Diversity quotas have little to do with economic relief and are more of an attempt to remake the business world in the image that House D's want.

The overall point of the OP wasn't so much absentee voting or diversity but rather that House D's are trying to use virus urgency as a way of propelling things that might not have been able to pass on their own otherwise.

Under Moscow Mitch, NOTHING is done in the Senate except confirm right wing judges. Some of what Democrats are padding into the bill have been on Mitch's desk for more than a year and would have passed had he deigned to bring them up to a vote.

RitterSport 03-24-2020 10:46 AM

OP, do you now agree that the voting measures, at least, are in fact related to the current pandemic?

Chronos 03-24-2020 10:53 AM

So, if the OP posts specifics, we'll just find reasons why each and every specific items he mentioned makes sense in the bill. That's proof that there's no reason why they should be in the bill!

Kearsen1 03-24-2020 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoid (Post 22206840)
It absolutely has to do with coronavirus relief - it's an effort to make sure honest elections are held while still safeguarding the public as much as possible.

And THE shining example that nothing is too high nor too far when it comes to politicking a crisis.

And as such, can and will be staunchly defended by people willing to excuse anyone as long as it comes from their "SIDE"

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-24-2020 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furt (Post 22207236)
You picked a poor example to focus on.

Even more obviously egregious ones would have been

- Diversity quotas on corporate boards
- Post Office bailout
- Airplane fuel efficiency targets
- Newspaper retirement plans

etc.

Okay. Choose one or two of the things you think are most egregious, post links to nonpartisan news sources, and let's talk. No Gish Gallops.

Steve MB 03-24-2020 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22206833)
Some of the items in the Democratic House bill for coronavirus relief are not related to the pandemic or economic stimulus at all. Examples of such include:

Requires states to mail all eligible citizens an absentee ballot and forbids states from requesting identification or requiring witnesses/notarization for absentee ballots (only signatures may be used).

Please look up and tell us what color the sky is on the planet where facilitating vote-by-mail has no relationship to curtailing the spread of contagion.

Shodan 03-24-2020 11:50 AM

That's the problem with these kinds of discussions on the SDMB. Packing the bill with all kinds of liberal wish list items is just horse-trading when done by Democrats, but politicizing the crisis when done by the GOP. Because the SDMB would like to see limits on CEO pay whether COVID-19 is a thing or not - if they can get it thru now, great, if not, they can scream about how the GOP is playing politics with people's LIVES!!!!! $400 billion for corporations is horrible, keeping the Kennedy art center open is a laudable commitment to fighting unemployment.

IOKIADDI.

Regards,
Shodan

Velocity 03-24-2020 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22207792)
That's the problem with these kinds of discussions on the SDMB. Packing the bill with all kinds of liberal wish list items is just horse-trading when done by Democrats, but politicizing the crisis when done by the GOP. Because the SDMB would like to see limits on CEO pay whether COVID-19 is a thing or not - if they can get it thru now, great, if not, they can scream about how the GOP is playing politics with people's LIVES!!!!! $400 billion for corporations is horrible, keeping the Kennedy art center open is a laudable commitment to fighting unemployment.

IOKIADDI.

Regards,
Shodan

I have no problem with limits on CEO pay - it's relevant since the relief money ought to go to low-level employees, not high-ranking executives; spreads the relief better around that way.

But the parts about airlines limiting carbon emissions isn't going to help the economy, if anything, it'll hamper it.

QuickSilver 03-24-2020 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22207792)
That's the problem with these kinds of discussions on the SDMB. Packing the bill with all kinds of liberal wish list items is just horse-trading when done by Democrats, but politicizing the crisis when done by the GOP. Because the SDMB would like to see limits on CEO pay whether COVID-19 is a thing or not - if they can get it thru now, great, if not, they can scream about how the GOP is playing politics with people's LIVES!!!!! $400 billion for corporations is horrible, keeping the Kennedy art center open is a laudable commitment to fighting unemployment.

IOKIADDI.

Regards,
Shodan

You're right if we accept the view of, 'All these things being equal'. But they're not. So you're wrong.

borschevsky 03-24-2020 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22207822)
But the parts about airlines limiting carbon emissions isn't going to help the economy, if anything, it'll hamper it.

So post about that, and people will discuss it. You started with the voting stuff, so people pointed out how it's obviously relevant. Don't put "and some other things besides" and then say the real bad stuff is what you meant by the "besides" in the OP.

Jas09 03-24-2020 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22207792)
$400 billion for corporations is horrible, keeping the Kennedy art center open is a laudable commitment to fighting unemployment

Are you serious? $400 billion dollars is not equivalent to $35 million dollars.

$400 billion dollars to unnamed companies for unnamed purposes overseen by nobody except the Secretary of the Treasury is not equivalent to $35 million for a specific foundation for a specific purpose.

The only things I find remotely questionable about the House Democrats bill (which is, obviously, not even real legislation since there is literally no way they could even vote on it) is the climate stuff. Which is a laudable goal but clearly a non-starter with this administration.

It's pretty clear that the whole point of releasing the bill was (a) keep the left happy that their causes were being pursued (and would continue to be pursued after the 2020 elections) and (b) encourage/force the Senate GOP to add tighter oversight and restrictions on the corporate loan guarantees (restrictions like not using them for stock buybacks and dividends, which were supposed to be in the bill but got removed based on what I'm reading).

Executive pay limits were in the initial GOP bill, so casting it as a Democratic addition is misleading as hell (cite: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/coro...at-425000.html)

D'Anconia 03-24-2020 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve MB (Post 22207719)
Please look up and tell us what color the sky is on the planet where facilitating vote-by-mail has no relationship to curtailing the spread of contagion.

Please look up and tell us what color the sky is on the planet where funding performing arts HAS a relationship with curtailing the spread of contagion.

QuickSilver 03-24-2020 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22207822)
I have no problem with limits on CEO pay - it's relevant since the relief money ought to go to low-level employees, not high-ranking executives; spreads the relief better around that way.

But the parts about airlines limiting carbon emissions isn't going to help the economy, if anything, it'll hamper it.

Isn't that the same argument that was used by the automobile industry when asked to comply with new CAFE standards? Correct me if I'm wrong, but lower carbon emissions requirements were part of the 2009 auto industry bailout package and they accepted it and appear to have done quite well.

Lobohan 03-24-2020 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D'Anconia (Post 22207886)
Please look up and tell us what color the sky is on the planet where funding performing arts HAS a relationship with curtailing the spread of contagion.

The arts disproportionately suffer from quarantine conditions because the arts support themselves by people viewing them.

They deserve a bail-out as much as the other industries.

Do you disagree?

QuickSilver 03-24-2020 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D'Anconia (Post 22207886)
Please look up and tell us what color the sky is on the planet where funding performing arts HAS a relationship with curtailing the spread of contagion.

It's a "Coronavirus Stimulus Package" bill. Primarily it is meant to support the economic impact of the pandemic on those most economically affected. Travel, leisure, arts are among the industries most heavily hit. Having realized this, I assume you don't have continued objections to museum and theater staff, for example, receiving financial aid.

DrDeth 03-24-2020 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22206833)
Some of the items in the Democratic House bill for coronavirus relief are not related to the pandemic or economic stimulus at all. Examples of such include:




And some other things besides.
....

Requires states to mail all eligible citizens an absentee ballot and forbids states from requesting identification or requiring witnesses/notarization for absentee ballots (only signatures may be used).

Yes, this does have a relation to the spread of the disease, since you dont have to go to a voting center and help spread Covid to vote.

And if you need to get a witness or notary, that's one more person you are in contact with.

However, https://www.businessinsider.com/coro...workers-2020-3
And, of course, in Senate Republicans' bill, big corporations get a huge tax cut. They would pay far less tax on their foreign entities. Making them bring cash home from abroad was one of the selling points of the 2017 GOP tax law. Corporate lobbyists have been working against it ever since. Now, in the middle of a crisis, they got it.

What does that have to do with virus relief?

Shodan 03-24-2020 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 22207824)
You're right if we accept the view of, 'All these things being equal'. But they're not. So you're wrong.

You're missing my point, which is that in the eyes of the SDMB these things are not equal.

Pushing for all kinds of things that have little or nothing to do with fighting COVID-19 is perfectly fine. Except when the other side does it, and then it is playing politics with lives and horrible and so on. But when the Democrats do it, it's OK, because they are good things and should be passed no matter if the coronavirus is spreading or not.

You are correct - the SDMB does not accept the view that politicking is equally bad when Democrats do it as when Republicans do it. But that's the point. You can't say "don't play politics with people's lives" and then play politics with people's lives.

Actually, you can on the SDMB, but in a morally consistent world, you couldn't.

Regards,
Shodan

QuickSilver 03-24-2020 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22207953)
You're missing my point, which is that in the eyes of the SDMB these things are not equal.

Pushing for all kinds of things that have little or nothing to do with fighting COVID-19 is perfectly fine. Except when the other side does it, and then it is playing politics with lives and horrible and so on. But when the Democrats do it, it's OK, because they are good things and should be passed no matter if the coronavirus is spreading or not.

You are correct - the SDMB does not accept the view that politicking is equally bad when Democrats do it as when Republicans do it. But that's the point. You can't say "don't play politics with people's lives" and then play politics with people's lives.

Actually, you can on the SDMB, but in a morally consistent world, you couldn't.

Regards,
Shodan

In your morally consistent point of view, which specific Democratic provisions in this bill do you view as having little or nothing to do with prevention of COVID-19?

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-24-2020 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 22208027)
In your morally consistent point of view, which specific Democratic provisions in this bill do you view as having little or nothing to do with prevention of COVID-19?

Were I him, I would refuse to tell you, because if I did, you might disagree with me, which just goes to show that I'm right. Also usual suspects.

QuickSilver 03-24-2020 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 22208068)
Were I him, I would refuse to tell you, because if I did, you might disagree with me, which just goes to show that I'm right. Also usual suspects.

I'm feeling uncharacteristically agreeable, so my request stands.

Shodan 03-24-2020 02:43 PM

How does increased paperwork about diversity prevent the spread of coronavirus?

Regards,
Shodan

UltraVires 03-24-2020 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22208164)
How does increased paperwork about diversity prevent the spread of coronavirus?

Regards,
Shodan

Because we need the best people fighting the virus. If companies are discriminating based upon race, we don't have the best people to fight the virus. Requiring more companies to be diverse means that we have the best people in place to better fight the virus. ;)

QuickSilver 03-24-2020 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22208164)
How does increased paperwork about diversity prevent the spread of coronavirus?

Regards,
Shodan

Not in any way that I can see. Strike it. See? Agreeable.

We're good with funding including the Kennedy Center for the Arts tho, right?

RTFirefly 03-24-2020 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22207792)
That's the problem with these kinds of discussions on the SDMB. Packing the bill with all kinds of liberal wish list items is just horse-trading when done by Democrats, but politicizing the crisis when done by the GOP. Because the SDMB would like to see limits on CEO pay whether COVID-19 is a thing or not - if they can get it thru now, great, if not, they can scream about how the GOP is playing politics with people's LIVES!!!!! $400 billion for corporations is horrible, keeping the Kennedy art center open is a laudable commitment to fighting unemployment.

TL;DR: !!!!!1!!!11!!!!eleven!!!

RTFirefly 03-24-2020 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22207953)
You're missing my point, which is that in the eyes of the SDMB these things are not equal.

Pushing for all kinds of things that have little or nothing to do with fighting COVID-19 is perfectly fine. Except when the other side does it, and then it is playing politics with lives and horrible and so on. But when the Democrats do it, it's OK, because they are good things and should be passed no matter if the coronavirus is spreading or not.

Look, why don't you start a thread with examples of this behavior you say is rampant here.

DrDeth 03-24-2020 03:42 PM

It's true, the Dems are putting stuff into the relief bill, and so are the GOPers.

And they are both wrong. We need to pass the damn thing.

BUT the Dems are putting stuff in that will help us all, while the GOP is putting stuff in to help themselves.

So I give the Dems a bit of a pass, but yeah, they need to concede some stuff to get this passed also.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-24-2020 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22208164)
How does increased paperwork about diversity prevent the spread of coronavirus?

Regards,
Shodan

The distinct lack of links is telling here. If you actually provided a link to details(and I've just read three different right-wing articles trying in vain to find details), your case might turn out to be a house of cards. But as long as you leave it vague, there's your chance to claim victory because we don't all immediately proclaim your wisdom.

tl;dr: cite?

octopus 03-24-2020 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22206833)
Some of the items in the Democratic House bill for coronavirus relief are not related to the pandemic or economic stimulus at all. Examples of such include:




And some other things besides.

The practice of ballot harvesting has absolutely nothing to do with the coronavirus, ditto for anything about absentee balloting. This is an attempt to use the urgency of pandemic relief to pass legislation that might have had a hard time passing otherwise. If Democrats want to keep ballot harvesting alive, or forbid ID for absentee balloting, then propose it in a separate legislative session, but this is an attempt to pass riders on the back of the situation urgency of the moment.

What's the democratic concept in play here? Never let a crisis go to waste?

QuickSilver 03-24-2020 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 22208345)
What's the democratic concept in play here? Never let a crisis go to waste?

Machiavelli can hardly be accused of being a democrat.

RitterSport 03-24-2020 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 22208345)
What's the democratic concept in play here? Never let a crisis go to waste?

Definitely! That's why they put in a $500 billion slush fund for the president to spend as he and Mnuchin sees fit. Those Dems! Never letting a crisis go to waste.

I'm apparently on the OP's ignore list, so maybe someone else can ask him what (s)he thinks about whether the voting provisions are related to the pandemic.

Mister Rik 03-24-2020 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 22207822)
But the parts about airlines limiting carbon emissions isn't going to help the economy, if anything, it'll hamper it.

What I heard (I got the list from a video) was "carbon offsets". Every time I've ever seen or heard that term used it meant, effectively, "taxes" - "Pollute as you will, but pay the government for the privilege".

D'Anconia 03-24-2020 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobohan (Post 22207900)
The arts disproportionately suffer from quarantine conditions because the arts support themselves by people viewing them.

They deserve a bail-out as much as the other industries.

Do you disagree?

No, I'm asking how said bailout "stops the spread of contagion"?

iiandyiiii 03-24-2020 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D'Anconia (Post 22208711)
No, I'm asking how said bailout "stops the spread of contagion"?

It means businesses and individuals will be less desperate and thus less likely to unwisely go back to work or otherwise stop social distancing, increasing the spread of the disease.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.