Reason Roundup

Senate Passes Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Bill That Doesn't Prohibit Discrimination in College Admissions

Plus: Biden proposes a massive tax hike, scientists may have invented a successful malaria vaccine, and more...

|

The Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that purportedly combats anti-Asian hate on Thursday. The vote was 94–1.

The bill would create a new position within the Justice Department to review anti-Asian hate crimes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidance on preventing anti-Asian discrimination.

"There has been a dramatic increase in hate crimes and violence against Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders," the bill asserts. (It explicitly names the Atlanta spa killings as an example of this, though it's not actually clear the shooter was motivated by anti-Asian animus.)

The lone dissenter on the vote was Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo).

"As a former prosecutor, my view is it's dangerous to simply give the federal government open-ended authority to define a whole new class of federal hate crime incidents," said Hawley in a statement.

He has a point, though this bill is not particularly vast or sweeping. The stronger argument against the bill is that it does nothing to address one of the most obvious—and odious—forms of anti-Asian discrimination: college admissions.

Many elite colleges, public universities, and even selective high schools explicitly discriminate against Asian applicants in order to artificially tinker with the racial makeup of the campus population. This means that Asian students whose grades and test scores would have gained them admission had they been white, black, or Hispanic are routinely turned away. Contrary to popular belief, the biggest beneficiaries of these schemes are often white students.

Courts have generally held that race-based admissions do not violate civil rights law if they are very narrowly tailored. But Congress could explicitly require educational institutions that receive federal dollars to cease discriminating against Asian applicants. (They could even call it an antiracist initiative.)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) proposed an amendment to the bill along these lines, but it was defeated in a close vote: 48–49. Thus the version that passed the Senate aims to tackle anti-Asian hatred, but is silent on perhaps the most common and systemic form of anti-Asian bigotry in the U.S.


FREE MINDS

In Quillette, Jonathan Kay wonders whether "long COVID-19" is the new gender dysphoria:

In the case of COVID-19, much attention has been focused on conspiracy theorists and lay quacks who claim the disease is a fraud. But there is also a pseudo-scientific movement that seeks to present its adherents as sufferers of a condition they call "Long COVID."

As McMaster University psychiatrist Jeremy Devine recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, some COVID-19 patients really do experience long-term effects that linger after the infection has left their body. But he adds that "such symptoms can also be psychologically generated or caused by a physical illness unrelated to the prior infection." Moreover, he notes that a survey produced by Body Politic Covid-19 Support Group, a prominent driver of the Long COVID idea, indicates that "many of the survey respondents who attributed their symptoms to the aftermath of a COVID-19 infection likely never had the virus in the first place. Of those who self-identified as having persistent symptoms attributed to COVID and responded to the first survey, not even a quarter had tested positive for the virus. Nearly half (47.8%) never had testing and 27.5% tested negative for COVID-19. Body Politic publicized the results of a larger, second survey in December 2020. Of the 3,762 respondents, a mere 600, or 15.9%, had tested positive for the virus at any time."…

In his WSJ article, Levine reports on another interesting connection: Body Politic, which had organized the surveys as a means to promote the idea of Long COVID as a real medical phenomenon, describes itself as "a queer feminist wellness collective." The group was created in 2018, according to its website, "to create space for inclusivity, accessibility, and crucial discussions about the very real connection between wellness, politics, and personal identity." Given this, readers may not be surprised at all to learn that the group's programming "has been highly successful with a millennial and Gen Z audience, largely comprised of women and LGBTQ+ identifying folks."

More here.


FREE MARKETS

President Joe Biden wants to massively raise taxes to pay for education and child care. He has proposed a capital gains tax of 39.6 percent, which is significantly higher than the current rate of 20 percent. According to CNBC:

The capital gains tax is especially important to Wall Street since it dictates how large a chunk of an equity sale is collected by the federal government. The White House declined to comment.

The proposal would make good on Biden's campaign promise to require America's wealthiest households to contribute more as a percentage of their income. This plan would bring the capital gains tax rate and the top individual income tax rate, currently at 37%, to near parity.

The markets were not thrilled about the news:

U.S. equity markets turned sharply lower Thursday afternoon following a report that the Biden administration is mulling increasing the capital gains tax.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell over 321 points, or 0.94%, while the Nasdaq Composite and S&P 500 declined 0.92% and 0.94%, respectively.

The details will be formally unveiled next week as part of Biden's American Family Plan, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion. Biden will have to sell the bill to crucial Democratic swing voters like Sens. Joe Manchin (W. Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), and it's possible his doubling of the capital gains tax won't meet with their approval.


QUICK HITS

• Scientists made progress with a malaria vaccine.

• "After getting a COVID-19 vaccine, women are selling their breast milk online."

• The Marshall Project reports that Alaska's foster care agency has been stealing money from the kids under its purview.

• Gender reveal parties are a national menace.

• Drama within the Democratic Socialists of America:

NEXT: What Really Happened to the Class of '68?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that purportedly combats anti-Asian hate…

    That’s so last week.

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings SDW S are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    1. You mean it’s not enough to criminalize hateful motivations, but there has to be segregated hate-crimes too? This shit is bonkers!

      1. My real time work with face book I am making over $2000 a month operating low maint­enance. I continued h­earing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it.ERf All topics considered, it become all legitimate and has without a doubt changed my life. For more statistics visit below site here…..>>> Home Profit System

    2. I didn’t see anything in this bill that is going to prevent young urban black males from randomly beating elderly Asians. Which seems to be about 90% of these ‘Asian Hate’ crimes.

      1. ‘It’s their own fault for carrying all that cash and jewelry, and fucking up a perfectly good jugging by giving me lip.’ (What those “teens” actually believe.)

        1. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum,MOi but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get the best result best Of Luck for the new Initiative. Go to website……-Go to this link

    3. Didn’t FDR write that bill in 1942?

      1. Cue Antonio Banderas reaction gif.

        1. CORONA IS BIG THREAT OF THE CENTURY BUT LOCKDOWNS BEFORE CHRISTMAS REALLY HELPS BIG TECH ONLINE SALES AND LARGE CORPORATIONS LIKE WALMART WILL HAVE MASSIVE SALES! BUT VIRUS SCAM frt EXPERTS SAY SMALL BUSINESS MUST STAY CLOSED OBEY SHEEP! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE YOU MUST BE ASSIMILATED! TO OVERCOME THESE DIFFICULTIES AND MAKE FULL USE OF THIS HOSTAGE PERIOD, FOR MORE DETAIL VISIT THE GIVEN LINK … READ MORE

    4. Perhaps they need a “grievance officer”.

  2. I learned a new word today. Polycule.

    1. Yeah, I had to look that up, too. They’re sick fucks. And they seriously want to lead this country? LOL.

      1. I had to look it up as well. At work.

        1. If IT asks, you thought it was a type of plastic.

          1. Who says plastic isn’t involved?

            1. Careful. You’re just asking for a “plastic flute” rant.

          2. “If IT asks, you thought it was a type of plastic.”

            Won’t work. My specialty is composite and polymer engineering.

            1. Oh, so you must live in the “cool part of Idaho”? (Please be my friend).

              Haha.

              1. Hey buddy! You still mad at me?

              2. The reason I asked was because there’s a lot of mormons in southern Idaho. If he’s mormon than he needs to fuck off and die.

                1. Hi KARen!

                  Don’t worry, little guy. Someday you’ll find a righteous online friend who likes and hates the same things you do. Keep throwing out those signals!

                  Maybe he’ll even be “from the cool part of Idaho”!

                  Haha. What a doosh.

                  1. I’ll give you another weekend to cool off and see how you are on Monday.

                    Have a great weekend!

      2. So, replace advocating for the nuclear family, instead with how many of us behaved, that first year in the coed dorm. That’ll work.

        FWIW, Houston has openly-DSA, district court judges, lest you think this shit was exclusively still stuck in academic asylums like Reed, Bennington, or Oberlin. Washed in with the 2018 blue wave.

    2. It all seems very socialist to me. The leaders of a socialist activist group are also members of a socialist sex collective, and assign a party insider to investigate misdeeds of a member of the socialist sex collective.

      I wonder when democratic socialists are going to realize this is exactly how socialism actually works in the real world.

      1. Sure. In the socialist mind, a central committee has the authority to assign work and distribute reward, according to some abstract vision. Since this succeeds so well for potatoes and TVs, why not for blow jobs?

      2. Looking through the threads, apparently it wasn’t the whole council, just three members. One thing that came up was the “don’t let this distract from the good work they’re doing to advance socialism!”

        Uh, Hollywood routinely lectures us on social purity and tolerance while being well-stocked with pedophiles, drug addicts and sex pests (these groups frequently overlap). The Catholic Church has had a pervasive problem with sexual abuse by priests since time immemorial.

        Hell, the whole “look at all the good work we’re doing” practically smacks of a Catholic indulgence. Doesn’t really matter if you sin and sin and sin, as long as you do “good deeds” for the Church of the Woke.

    3. I also had to look it up. No wonder these people are miserable. I’d be willing to bet most “polycule” relationships end up abusive.

      1. They’re miserable because they live in a fantasy land of perfectly redistributed wealth that results in perfect “equity” and rainbows and shit, and can’t fucking understand why none of it works the way their university textbook said it should.

        1. Try this again
          when nothing belongs to anyone, everything is shared then why not extend that to relationships. Individuality can not exist in a socialist society.

          1. That’s why they’re miserable. It sounds lovely in a book, but they can’t understand why people are resistant to supression of their individuality, especially in a massively diverse population like the US.

            That’s why socialism always has to be enforced at the point of a gun.

            1. It sounds shitty in a book, too. Even worse in a song. If I never hear that stupid John Lennon song again, it will be too soon.

              1. Yeah, living life in peace just sounds awful.

                1. You can thank Freedom and Capitalism for that, slaver

              2. Or any other Beatles song, ever.

      2. I guess Bernie told them “Nobody needs 23 flavors of sexuality.”

      3. Why do you think these organizations attract so many mentally ill people?

    4. A polycule? That’s a group of different atoms bonded together.

      /submitted on behalf of White Knight.

      1. “NACL2”
        — Unicorn Abattoir

        You really are the last person that should keep bringing up the botched chemical formula Tulpa posted while spoofing my handle.

        1. The Devolution of White Knight
          1. The chemical formula for water is HO2.
          2. Fights the entire commentariat insisting it’s true.
          3. “Technically it’s the same”
          4. Fights the entire commentariat insisting it’s true.
          5. “It was a typo”
          6. “Tulpa did it”
          7. Invents sodium dichloride, a molecule that literally can not exist.
          8. Tries to pass it off on me.

          1. She feels no shame.

        2. You really are the last person that should keep bringing up the botched chemical formula Tulpa posted while spoofing my handle.

          For anyone curious, White Knight is misrepresenting shit as usual.

          White Knight was feeling super clever one day and decided to try and correct RabbiHarveyWeinstein as to the chemical formula of water (the good rabbi had gotten it right). Unfortunately for White Knight, he’s a fucking idiot and was wrong. The stupid fuck then doubled down.

          See: https://reason.com/2021/01/12/antique-plate-fiestaware-school-evacuation/#comment-8695663

          Unicorn Abattoir then mocked White Knight by listing several erroneous formulas for common chemicals including White Knight’s HO2 formula.

          White Knight latched on to the one for salt and has since been trying to pretend that Unicorn Abattoir’s mockery was some sort of genuine error.

          Then a few weeks ago White Knight tried to reboot and blame his fuckups on Tulpa, but still is trying to misrepresent Unicorn Abattoir’s mockery as a genuine fuckup.

          The stupid fuck forgets that in the post where he first accused Unicorn Abattoir, he acknowledged that he’d fucked up water.

          What a fucking clownshow White Knight is.

    5. Since it’s oriented around child molestation, shouldn’t it be a molecule?

      1. Pediacule?

  3. The bill would create a new position within the Justice Department to review anti-Asian hate crimes…

    American admissions panels and California school boards, you’re on notice. There’s a new sheriff in town.

    1. That is not anti-Asian hate in the government’s view, that is ensuring racial equity. They honestly do not see the contradiction. They are building a regime of laws based on racial identification in the name combating racism, it is the most bizarre thing to watch.

      1. Or it might be the attitude of elites towards pets. Pet owners certainly don’t want others abusing their animals, but are not likely to let those animals get uppity.

  4. “As a former prosecutor, my view is it’s dangerous to simply give the federal government open-ended authority to define a whole new class of federal hate crime incidents,” said Hawley in a statement.

    He has a point…

    I don’t think we’re allowed to give Josh Hawley credit for anything yet.

    1. I am stunned. I may have to change my whole perception of Josh Hawley. But there was bipartisanship on this boondoggle/advancement of the police state, so I guess I should be happy about that, right?

      1. “Stopped clock” and all that.

    2. Yet Josh Hawley wants open-ended authority to impose his vision of “equity” and “fairness” on the Cyberspace world, not to mention his vision of Mosaic Law on the rest of society. Josh Hawley doesn’t deserve credit for anything except being a Populist Authoritarian Theocrat with a Butthead haircut.

      1. Not really. He primarily wants to end government benefits for those who choose to censor. He has asked for some of these to also be treated as a public square.

        How you equate that to thought crime is beyond me.

        1. “How you equate that to thought crime is beyond me.”

          His handle exposes his bias.

        2. By his own admission, Hawley wants to “trust-bust” Big Tech, even though antitrust is vague on it’s definitions of “restraint of trade” and even though these laws can equally be evoked against non-Big Tech companies by their competitors. Also, there is no problem with Big Tech that couldn’t be solved by a “hostile takeover” buying of shares by people who want greater inclusion of viewpoints. Evoking antitrust or “public utility” arguments against Big Tech is like calling the cops on an Oxford Debate, TEDTalk, snapping session, or a rap battle.

          Also, Hawleys writings on Christianity in politics sboyld give all libertarians pause for re-thought:
          A Christian Vision for Kingdom Politics: Immanentize the Eschaton!
          by Joshua D. Hawley
          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2012/10/26/christian-vision-for-kingdom-politics/

  5. Many elite colleges, public universities, and even selective high schools explicitly discriminate against Asian applicants…

    To be fair, they did bomb Pearl Harbor. Not to mention this whole Coronavirus thing.

    1. Plus all the peeing in Cokes. #NeverForget.

      1. Okey dokey, you play jokey, I put pee pee, in your Cokey.

      2. Which makes me sigh with relief that children arenot the future after all. As George Carlin observed, children are not the future because by the time the future becomes the present, the children are grown-ups.

    2. Flagged for Asian hate.

      1. Don’t you mean fragged for Asian hate?

        1. girl with one leg? Eileen

          asian girl with one leg? Irene

    3. Colleges make up for it by hiring professors with CCP ties

      1. And Foreign students of Asian ancestry. Somehow, that 2-3X tuition check for being foreign, makes the applicant far more competitive scholastically. Go figure.

        Explicitly discriminating against American applicants with Asian ancestry, OTOH, is perfectly fine…

        1. What if you identify as an Asian immigrant even if you’ve lived here all of your life?

    4. That was the Germans.

      1. Germans? Oh, forget it, you’re rolling…

  6. Courts have generally held that race-based admissions do not violate civil rights law if they are very narrowly tailored.

    Narrowly tailored against Asians?

    1. What does “equal treatment under law” mean again?

      1. White Patriarchal Oppression.

      2. It’s like Eastwood said in “Grand Torino,” “I thought you slopes were supposed to be smart.” They do too well academically, so get no consideration.

        1. I can’t get no consideration
          ‘Cause I ry and I ry and I ry and I ry

          1. That’s totally lacist.

    2. They do tend to be slim.

      1. When they first get here.

        The American diet wins in the—much larger afterwards—end.

  7. But there is also a pseudo-scientific movement that seeks to present its adherents as sufferers of a condition they call “Long COVID.”

    Come on. This was my one opportunity for admission into a victim class and you’re going to take it away from me?

    1. You can always start your own movement. You don’t need any actual scientific credentials or education. You just need to be able to toss a fantastic word salad.

    2. I was hoping to get dissability for it

    3. Just claim that you’re trans.

      Don’t actually change anything about yourself, just claim it. After all, it’s not like the ruling orthodoxy allows anyone to question it.

    4. Ah, so now we know that fist is a 1%er. No wonder Xe has so much time for this place.

  8. The proposal would make good on Biden’s campaign promise to require America’s wealthiest households to contribute more as a percentage of their income.

    Only the wealthy have investments.

    1. Why do they have to raise taxes if they can just print money?

      1. Because the people that make the ink and paper will not accept a check from them anymore.

        1. Bitcoin in advance, nothing else – – – – – – – –

    2. And now you have your victim claim. That didn’t take long.

  9. Biden will have to sell the bill to crucial Democratic swing voters like Sens. Joe Manchin (W. Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.)…

    Thank goodness for purple state Democrats.

  10. The bill would create a new position within the Justice Department to review anti-Asian hate crimes related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    That position had jolly well be filled by an *Asian*!

    It also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidance on preventing anti-Asian discrimination.

    “Terms such as [the g-word] and gestures such as that eye-pulling thing will not be tolerated.”

    1. [the g-word]

      Gymkata? It is indeed offensive.

      1. I thought that high bar placed just so, led to a perfectly cromulent action scene.

        Though how much cocaine were the studio heads on when they green-lit that piece of shit? And what did they end up rejecting? How much of a blow must that have been to a fledgling screenwriter?

        “Yeah, they were going to cast it, but they decided to do Gymkata instead.”

        Gymkhana, OTOH, isn’t offensive. Just boring if you’re not into horseback riding. I do like the videos Ken Block have done with the concept though.

        1. Gymkhana is offensive, if you’re a tire. Ken Block shreds/melts rubber by the ton.

          I’ll miss Hoonicorn and Hoonitruck, but Ken branching back out into other makers after the end of the Ford contract is a good thing, hopefully.

  11. Scientists made progress with a malaria vaccine.

    READ THE ROOM, SCIENTISTS.

    1. They know it will be mandatory soon.

    2. This vaccine is a top priority. The world’s supply of hydroxychloroquine has been tainted.

  12. “After getting a COVID-19 vaccine, women are selling their breast milk online.”

    The COVID is incidental.

    1. And not just Cambodian women, either.

  13. Gender reveal parties are a national menace.

    They should be illegal because they nudge the child into a chosen gender.

    1. Only allowed to use gray smoke bombs.

    2. Or maybe detonating 80 lbs of explosives in a neighborhood to celebrate anything is a bad idea.

      1. Depends on the neighborhood, I guess, but in my mind, that’s usually a great idea. Just not in California in fire season.

        1. What about 8000 lbs in, say, SFC or NYC? Or DC?

          1. You think small.

      2. Same thing happened at a gender reveal party in Beirut.

        1. Everyone was stunned by the news. Really knocked their socks off…

      3. Yet another transphobe marginalizing gender issues.

  14. The capital gains tax is especially important to Wall Street since it dictates how large a chunk of an equity sale is collected by the federal government.

    Not as important to Wall Street as it is to those hedge funds based in the Cayman Islands – they’re all busy adding another story to their office buildings.

  15. Gender reveal parties are a national menace.

    That’s what the judge told me every time I was caught revealing my gender at parties.

    1. “Great conversation piece at naughty parties…”

      1. It’s a short conversation, however.

    2. “Be attractive. Don’t be unattractive.”

  16. Drama within the Democratic Socialists of America…

    Yeah they wish they were the Libertarian Party.

    1. Finally, Libertarians have become the cool kids compared to something else.

  17. Of those who self-identified as having persistent symptoms attributed to COVID and responded to the first survey, not even a quarter had tested positive for the virus.

    Ah, but did they self-identify as having been infected?

    1. there are people who have done that. claimed to be infected but never tested. its attention seeking for some and others think they can get a pass on the vaccine with it. people are stupid

      1. One of my neighbors claimed that he had Covid based on a phone call he had with his doc at the VA. Quit his job and immediately filed for unemployment. Got rejected based on no test, among other things. He’s super pissed about it.

        1. Maybe your new neighbor will be brighter.

  18. The Marshall Project reports that Alaska’s foster care agency has been stealing money from the kids under its purview.

    They should look at what’s going on in places like St. Louis – they’re actively selling kids into the system there.

  19. A quick word on capital gains taxation. If you want to help companies and spur economic growth, raising capital gains taxes is not the way to do it. It is decidedly stupid.

    You do not want excessive capital ‘flight’ (i.e. stock sales out the ass) while you are trying to raise capital to recover the business. We need the wealthy to stay invested for the next year or two.

    1. But low capital gains taxes are not FAIR!.

      This is not about raising revenue. This is not about good economic policy. This is about the perception that corporations are being adequately punished for existing. It does not even matter how much they will actually pay under this law.

      1. ^This, they already have all money they can ever print.

      2. Moreover, it’s another regulatory hurdle for smaller corporations and companies.

        Google, Microsoft, Exxon: all are intimately aware of the intricacies of US tax law. From the IRS staff permanently embedded within them, if nowhere else. It is a pain for those companies to comply with something like a 50 percent hike in the capital gains tax rate, but they’ll figure it out.

        For smaller companies, OTOH, this sort of thing can be lethal. In any event, it retards their competitive ability. Which is one of the reasons behind these laws.

    2. It is decidedly stupid.
      The motto of the SleepyJoe regime.

      1. It is just insanity to me. We are literally coming out of the worst public health crisis in a century. Economic activity is down. Way down.

        Why the hell would any rational policymaker want to inhibit businesses from raising capital? I truly do not see.

        1. When you intend to collectivize the workforce, you are going to need to nationalize a few businesses.

          1. “Workforce,” Chuck?

            I’m not sure this group wants Americans to go and work, any longer.

        2. We do not have rational policymakers. We have policy largely determined by emotional appeal.

        3. But hey, at least we don’t have to worry about mean tweets any longer.

  20. “Thus the version that passed the Senate aims to tackle anti-Asian hatred, but is silent on perhaps the most common and systemic form of anti-Asian bigotry in the U.S.”

    Are you surprised?

    “Social justice” has nothing to do with reality and logic. It is all about gaining power. If the tactics to achieve power include contradictory actions, so be it. Racial groups and labels are simply tools.

  21. Fair trial? Non tampered jury?


    Lou Raguse
    @LouRaguse
    I just had a fascinating sit-down interview with one of the alternate jurors in the Derek Chauvin trial.

    Lisa Christensen was the juror who lived in Brooklyn Center. One night she could hardly make it home after testimony ended because of protesters blocking intersections.

    This was shocking to me, but Christensen told me she and the other jurors didn’t even share their real names and occupations with each other. Just called each other by juror number. Got along but mostly made small talk. Concerned about saying “too much.”

    Daniel Horowitz
    @RMConservative
    One juror: “I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.”

    1. It will be overturned.

      1. I have doubts, DLAM. Appellate judges are just as susceptible to this sort of pressure. See, for example, SCOTUS punting on everyone of those 2020 election cases.

        Running out of boxes, here.

    2. Part of the reason why we have a jury of peers decide on guilt, and not some elite expert, is so that sentences can reflect, broadly, the will of society at large. That is why jury nullification is a thing. Even if a defendant is absolutely guilty of some crime, a jury might yet decide to acquit if they believe the law itself is unjust or the punishment is undue. There is no such thing as a jury verdict that is free of contamination from the opinions that exist within larger society.

      It is also quite rich to see the crowd that is generally in favor of populism and promoting the virtues of the mob over the opinions of elites, now complain in this case when they think the mob gets its way and are demanding that elites, in the form of appellate judges, overrule the will of the mob.

      1. You have some fucking retarded takes this morning.

        The reason we don’t allow jury tampering is to get to a fair outcome. The reason we move trials in places of riots is to avoid tainting a jury for an outcome.

        You dont seem to give a shit. Sadly I’m not shocked as you’re a die hard leftist and this is the outcome you preferred. Youre 2 sentences away from by any means necessary.

        1. There is a difference between “jury tampering”, and jury results that reflect, broadly, the will of society at large. Once again I point to the concept of jury nullification.

          1. Which has nothing to do with my comment idiot.

            My God man. Stop digging. The issue is jury being afraid and altering their decisions based on that fear, not evidence.

            Again you dont care because it is the result you wanted.

            1. From their foundation, socialists have always been willing to sacrifice individual justice to achieve societal justice. Personally, I think an impartial jury could have reached the same conclusion that this jury did. The progressives, socialists and Marxists were not willing to leave it up to them alone.

              The Jacobins are back, baby. Their slogan is Make Terror Great Again.

          2. Yes, Im sure you can see no problem with the will of Depression-era Scottsboro AL society, or French anti-semite society in the 1890s or in Atlanta 20 years later. Those Scottsboro Boys, Dreyfuss, and Frank all got Justice!

      2. No, bonehead. We don’t have a “jury of your peers” to reflect the will of society at large. The will of society doesn’t decide criminal guilt, the law does, because the will of society is capricious and sometimes stupid. That’s one of the reasons we have a constitution and a body of laws- to protect unsympathetic defendants from the mob and ensure their due process rights are upheld.

        Additionally, nowhere in the constitution does it say “jury of your peers.” What it actually says is:

        ” impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law…”

        The point of the whole 6th amendment is to ensure that criminal defendants can’t be railroaded in kangaroo courts, by emotional mobs crying about the will of the people.

        1. We don’t have a “jury of your peers” to reflect the will of society at large.

          IN PART, yes we do. Again I point to jury nullification.

          Are you going to argue against the concept of jury nullification now?

          because the will of society is capricious and sometimes stupid.

          Yes it is sometimes. So the will of the mob should not run amok and unchecked. The jury should apply the law as they understand it. But the jury are also not mere robots reading from a law textbook. ONE reason – not the only reason, but ONE reason – why there is a jury deciding on guilt, and not some elite expert, is so the law can be applied in a way that is BROADLY congruent with society’s understanding of the law.

          1. Just stop.

          2. Lol. Have you had a head injury lately, Jeff?

            1. Jeff’s posts always make me think of kyle’s nasally cousin Kyle on South Park.

              Is it cold in here?

              1. Sounding nasally is a common symptom of obesity so this checks out.

      3. “…so that sentences can reflect, broadly, the will of society at large.”

        What an absolutely, Soviet thing for you to write. Everytime I think you’ve reached rock-bottom in your quest to be the biggest contemptible, collectivist piece of shit posting here, you prove me wrong. I’d tell you to read Solzhenitsyn, and see yourself in the quotes from the NKVD and Party leaders, but you’re simply too stupid to understand it if you did.

        1. “The History of our Sewage Disposal System” part.

          1. Yeah. Sobering reading. I love the “social prophylaxis” line the apparatchik uses to excuse all of the arrests and exiles.

            Plus the cattiness Solzhenitsyn uses to highlight the intelligentsia’s ranting and wailing about how uniquely heinous it was, when it was their turn in 1937 to be purged. Even though it was exactly the same behavior by the Organs in previous and subsequent purges.

            ‘But 1936 and ’37! Oh, a veritable Volga of tears, the people’s grief.’

      4. This is one of the dumbest takes you’ve ever made, Jeffy. Jury intimidation is just like jury nullification!

      5. Lynchings in the Jim-Crow era deep south tended to reflect the will of the societies in which they occurred.

  22. After months if dating audit of Maricopa County for the election of 2020, democrats file lawsuit to once again kill the audit of Maricopa County as it is about to start.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/504253081/2021-04-22-Adp-v-Fann-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgment-00545433xc217c

    1. Jesus….What the hell does Team D in AZ not want people to see?

    2. You mean, the “audit” that is being run by a non-accredited right-wing firm, affiliated with Linn Wood, run by a guy retweeting election conspiracy and “Stop the Steal” nonsense, and will be live-streamed by OANN for “transparency” purposes?

      This is not an audit, this is a fishing expedition.

      Your team doesn’t want a real audit, it never did.

      1. Jeff. I’ll say this slowly. Youre an idiot.

        They chose an audit firm that has experience. They chose one that will make everything public.

        You seem to want to hid it.

        Youre an idiot.

        1. There are many audit firms that have experience. They JUST SO HAPPENED to choose the one that is run by a guy tweeting election conspiracy crap, and also a guy who went to one of Lin Wood’s fundraisers.

          https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/22/arizona-republicans-begin-audit-2020-election-ballots

          Imagine if an election “audit” firm was run by a guy tweeting BLM propaganda and went to fundraisers hosted by Stacey Abrams. Would you believe that this audit firm was on the up-and-up? No? Okay then.

          Again if you want an audit, go find a firm that is actually neutral and professional, not one run by right-wing cranks and which hobnob with right-wing nutbars.

          1. Again. Everything will be released publicly you retarded shit.

            All youre doing is being anti government transparency.

            Instead of having the democrats helps with the audit they have fought at every step. What type of nefarious shit are you actually claiming an audit can do? It is about examining the government.

            Youre a Democrat. It becomes more and more obvious each and every post. Youre anti government transparency if it hurts your team. Amazing.

            1. I’m in favor of a REAL audit, Jesse. One that is run by neutral professional auditors. Team Red COULD have chosen to do that, but they didn’t.

              Again, let’s go back to 2018 for a moment. Stacey Abrams loses a close race in Georgia. If Democrats in Georgia then decided that the election should be “audited”, and they chose a firm that was not accredited to inspect election machines, and was run by a guy who tweeted BLM propaganda and attended fundraisers hosted by Stacey Abrams, would you say “hey, that sounds like a good idea! More government transparency is better! Come on Republicans in Georgia, you should get behind this effort to inspect what *really* happened!” Or, would you say “this sure smells like not a real audit, but a cynical attempt to put a fig leaf of objectivity in furtherance of a partisan narrative to help their team”? We all know what the answer is Jesse. You’re a Team Red tribal member and you cannot stand having it pointed out, so you accuse everyone else who doesn’t see through your Team Red tricks as some type of partisan Democrat. You are ridiculous Jesse.

              1. Youre literally committing an ad hominid attack on the report before the audit has even started you retarded fuck.

                Why do you have invested in this?

                Youre not a libertarian. Stop lying to yourself.

                Youre an admitted globalist. Yohre admitted anti republican.ypu barely care about expansion of the welfare state. You are apparent anti government transparency.

                Youre a leftist.

                1. Can’t answer my question, can you?

                  You know full well what your response would be if the roles were reversed.

                  That is your only tactic on these boards. Push right-wing narratives, and when that doesn’t work, fling insults.

                2. jeffy doesn’t intend to be honest in this discussion.

                  Otherwise, it might occur to him that no other firms will touch it for fear of being cancelled. Auditing firms are required to be neutral. It is literally the job of auditors to be impartial and transparent.

                  There is no upside for performing this audit. If they find nothing, they get accused of conspiracy, if they find something they get accused of conspiracy. The only guy willing to risk his firm is one who has already predicted an outcome. Either he gets proven to be right, or he gets proven to be honest.

                3. “Ad hominid”

                  Maybe Ken can give you a refresher on what an ad hominem attack is. What it ain’t evaluating the qualifications of a contracting firm.

                  1. Impugning the audit before it is even performed based on the character of a partner at the firm without providing any evidence whatsoever that the firm is unqualified or that additional certification other than the state requirement for all CPAs is required to perform such an audit?

                    That is a textbook ad hominem fallacy.

                    1. Dee is too dumb to even bother explaining these things to.

                    2. That’s a real huge stretch of ad hominem.

                      And if it doesn’t concern you or JesseAz that they chose an audit firm associated with Lin Wood, you are far gone in drinking the right-wing Kool-Aid.

                    3. To help out, R Mac just supplied an example of a real ad hominem attack. 🙂

                    4. Wrong again bird. I was just insulting your intelligence for its own sake. I wasn’t making any other argument.

                      And what you did was a perfect example of ad hominem.

                    5. That’s a real huge stretch of ad hominem.

                      And if it doesn’t concern you or JesseAz that they chose an audit firm associated with Lin Wood

                      First, jeffy’s “go find a firm that is actually neutral and professional, not one run by right-wing cranks and which hobnob with right-wing nutbars” is not a stretch from, “marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.” It is exactly that.

                      Second, audits are by definition unbiased, so a claim that an audit is biased requires more than innuendo. It is impossible to provide proof of anything for an audit that has not happened. Ipso facto – you are a douchebag.

                      Which, by the way, is not an ad hominem attack. I provided a complete rebuttal of your argument separately and drew the conclusion you are a douchebag based on the fact that you refuse to argue honestly in your defense of someone else not arguing honestly.

                    6. It is also fallacious that you are assuming my comment comes from a defense of a person I wasn’t not previously aware even existed. Who the fuck is Lin Wood that I should know him?

                      I jumped in because I know a logical fallacy when I see one and both you and jeffy need to be called out constantly until you learn to stop spouting bullshit. You are impugning not just whatever firm is being discussed, you are impugning my entire profession. Auditors are professionals specifically trained to assess controls and compliance to controls. Audits have standards set by a national and an international board.

                      Words have meaning, asshole.

                    7. Damn Dee that was brutal.

                    8. Today’s rehetorical curbstomping of White Knight’s stupidity courtesy of Chuck P.

                      Brutal.

                  2. Chuck P: “Second, audits are by definition unbiased”

                    That is such a ridiculously naive thing to say. Audits are unbiased, if performed with integrity and … lack of initial bias.

                    1. Chuck P. is posting about political topics here every day and has no idea who Lin Wood is. That’s a head scratcher.

                    2. That is such a ridiculously naive thing to say.

                      Holy ad hominem on a cracker! Do you ever write anything that isn’t fallacious? try rebutting my argument, you little bitch. You can’t, so you won’t.

                    3. That’s a head scratcher.

                      Can’t argue worth a shit, so you invite questions about my integrity, you fallacious twat? THAT is an ad hominem attack.

                      Again, you being a fallacious twat is not such an attack as it is an insult based on your behavior, not a counter to your arguments.

                      Go ahead and cite an article I have perused that spoke of Lin Woods to show why that is a questionable assertion. For that matter, a single comment about him in a thread I have participated in.

                      I will wait here.

                    4. “Go ahead and cite an article I have perused that spoke of Lin Woods to show why that is a questionable assertion. For that matter, a single comment about him in a thread I have participated in.”

                      You have got to be kidding. Have you followed any of the post-election news? Have you refrained from taking about how the election was fraudulently stolen from Trump?

                      I’ll try to find about 50 examples. Will have to do that to later.

                    5. Lin Wood is not mentioned in the article White Knight linked.
                      Another fail by the poorly hidden leftist

                    6. “For that matter, a single comment about him in a thread I have participated in.”

                      Chuck should be embarrassed to have no idea who Lin Wood is. He certainly cannot claim he is knowledgeable about what transpired in Trump’s attempt to discredit the election results. Next is he going to say he has no idea who Sidney Powell is, who Giuliani is?

                    7. Chuck should be embarrassed to have no idea who Lin Wood is. He certainly cannot claim he is knowledgeable about what transpired in Trump’s attempt to discredit the election results.

                      Embarrassed? I am proud not to have dived in that cesspool of crazy. Surprise! I don’t get my talking points from the left or the right. It is not partisanship, but fuzzy logic that draws my criticism. I keep showing you, but you don’t learn. Funny how liars never believe anyone else.

                      By way of rebuttal, you linked to comments on an article that didn’t mention Lin Wood. The only mention of Lin Wood was in a comment by you, you mentioned only his name with no reference to who is or what he does, and I did not participate in that entire thread other than to flag KAR, whose posts I don’t read.

                      That is a complete fail. A little effort would be appreciated.

        2. This is not about performing a professional audit.
          This is a fishing expedition designed to find small nuggets of irregularities that will be blown up into MASSIVE FRAUD conspiracies in order to undermine the election and justify further voter restrictions. Arizona Republicans are looking for a rationale for their voter restriction initiatives that have a fig leaf of neutrality. That is what this is.

          1. “…This is a fishing expedition designed to find small nuggets of irregularities that will be blown up into MASSIVE FRAUD conspiracies in order to undermine the election…”

            Hmmm.
            Reminds me of an ‘investigation’ regarding the last POTUS, lasting, oh, three years or so, and resulting in Tony screaming bloody murder over some parking tickets and a late library book return, right Jeff?
            Oh, yeah, I remember you getting upset about that, right?

            1. Last 3 years? NY AG is still going.

              Ask Jeff about trumps tax returns and he will defend subpoenas for them. But government transparency? Not if it hurts democrats.

          2. You’ve already stated how much against government transparency if it hurts democrats. We understand.

            1. Yup and here we go with the Team Red narrative pushing. “If you aren’t in favor of Team Red’s transparent desire to use an ‘audit’ in the service of MASSIVE FRAUD narrative, then you’re a Democrat!”

              1. It isnt bullshit. You just argued an ad hominid attack about an allowed audit, from a court ruling, to elucidate election issues.

                You argue everyone who points out your leftist tendencies as a shill for team red.

                Yourr a fucking joke. A really fat one too.

                1. Fucking auto correct. Ad hominem

                  1. I dunno, he does seem to be in full feces flinging monkey mode.

                    1. Like an ape, he may read philosophy, but he just doesn’t understand it.

                  2. add hominy. mmm grits.

                  3. Losing your cool, JesseAz? Maybe slow down and stop typing in frothing fury.

                2. Since you cannot argue against my points on the merits, your only option remaining to you then, evidently, is to accuse everyone else of bad faith.

                  Maybe Team Red should be treated like the political operatives that they truly are.

              2. “……. voter restriction initiatives…..”
                ^
                Team blue narrative pushing.

      2. If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.

        1. Baloney. If you are going to have an audit, it should be done by a competent, unbiased auditor.

          1. Again, there is no such thing as a biased auditor. Words have meaning.

      3. Even so, why try to stop it? More scrutiny is good, seems to me. If there was any funny business, wouldn’t you want to know? We never will know if no one looks.

        1. Sure, let’s take a look. But with a *professional audit*. Not one that is run by hacks and clowns designed to obtain a pre-ordained result.

          1. Lol. You’ve never said to take a look. You’ve cried like a lefty in fear each and every time. You always have an excuse as to why transparency is bad for this election.

            Youre fooling nobody but yourself.

            1. No, Jesse, you are transparently pushing the right-wing narrative, that if a person doesn’t support what Team Red is up to, then they are on “the other team”.

              Why aren’t YOU in favor of a *real* audit? You must know that by Team Red’s choices, deciding to go with an “audit” firm that is unaccredited and run by a guy associating with right-wing clowns, that it is going to taint the results of whatever they do come up with. If Cyber Ninjas does actually find something that is worthwhile, who will believe them besides other Republicans, who ALREADY support the “stolen election” nonsense anyway? Whatever final report they come up with will be painted as a right-wing hit job, because that is exactly what it looks like.

              1. So are you officially stating a position that peer review is fraudulent if the person performing the review has a previously held opinion on the subject? That seems to be what you are saying.

                1. Yes he is. His spin otherwise should be entertaining.

                2. Which he didn’t even bother with. Hmm.

                3. Haha. So much for climate science.

                  97% indeed!

        2. That is where I come out = More scrutiny is good, seems to me. If there was any funny business, wouldn’t you want to know? We never will know if no one looks.

          Let’s see what they find and then critique. I meran, the election is over. We all get that. But do the audit and get definitive answers so we don’t continue to have this doubt that tears away at the fabric of our Republic.

          1. I would absolutely be in favor of a REAL audit. One that is run by professional neutral auditors. Not one that is run by right-wing clowns on a fishing expedition in the service of a narrative. Agreed?

            1. right-wing clowns on a fishing expedition in the service of a narrative

              Sticking with the ad hominem fallacy then? Argue about the auditor, not the audit.

              1. And too dumb to realize it.

            2. So, if they find nothing, they will fabricate something because they are right wing?

              Haha. Talk about jury nullification!

              1. Yup. They will latch onto some insignificant discrepancy, which can often be found in election postmortems — then try to make a huge issue out of it. This has already happened several times since the 2020 election.

                1. That hasn’t done much good so far, so what’s the harm in one more look? Another fearsome “insurrection”?

                  Haha.

                  1. Misinformation shenanigans has split the Republican Party, and effectively given the Biden/Harris administration free reign to spend money.

    3. Of delaying an audit*

  23. President Joe Biden wants to massively raise taxes to pay for education and child care.

    Well, let’s see. Examining the truth table of spending and taxes, we could either have:

    1. Low taxes and low spending
    2. Low taxes and high spending
    3. High taxes and low spending
    4. High taxes and high spending

    Option 1 is of course the ideal. But option 1 does not seem to be on the table, at least as far as the spending side.

    That leaves the other three options. Right now we have Option 2. It is nice to have low taxes, because we keep more of our own money and we get to spend it on our own priorities. But TANSTAAFL, and so the bill for the high spending will eventually come due. Who pays the bill? Future generations, when their taxes are raised to pay for the debt that we are incurring now; as well as, the entire rest of the world, implicitly, as we have the reserve currency and we can print more money with fewer negative repercussions as a result.

    So which is better? To have a government that spends a lot of money, that we don’t have to pay for ourselves, and we get to stick other people with the bill (either voluntarily or involuntarily), or to have a government that spends a lot of money, but one that we ourselves actually pay for, and don’t foist the cost of said government off to someone else?

    Taxation is a type of theft. Borrowing money, and forcing someone else to repay the loan, is also a type of theft. Which theft is worse?

    1. The spending continues to rise. Not much changes. Time to stop.

      1. I agree that reducing spending is the best option. My question really is about which of the remaining three options is least bad.

        1. Number 2 – lower taxes are always and everywhere good.

          1. Option 2 represents a type of theft, however. It is just theft of “other people”.

            1. Sevo is right…low taxes is the least worst option. It is the least amount of theft.

              1. It is the least amount of theft *in the present day*. In the future, however, continuing to borrow and spend represents more theft in the aggregate, because the bill will have to be repaid *with interest*.

                If Alice steals $100 from Bob, then Alice has certainly committed an act of theft against Bob. But if Alice forces Bob to sign a note that he must repay a loan borrowed in his name to the tune of $150, but that he doesn’t have to repay it until 20 years in the future, then that is also a type of theft, just theft that isn’t occurring in the present day.

                1. You should look up the term “hypothetical”.

                  1. Jeff is one of those pro tax libertarians.

                    1. And anti-government transparency libertarians.

                2. I get your point, but your analogy doesn’t include the opportunity costs associated with stealing $100 from Bob. If Bob could have made $50 return on investment of his $100 in 20 years then you’re talking about a distinction without a difference.

              2. Federal, state, and local taxes take over a third of the average American’s income. That is NOT “low”.

            2. I’ll admit you’ve posted some seriously retarded ‘thoughts’ in the past, but this might be your personal best!

              1. I’m still going with above, where he equates jury nullification with jury intimidation by a mob.

                1. And vicariously defended Jim Crow white juries convicting innocent black men based on the will of the community.

        2. Spending always increases as revenue goes up.

          How are you this fucking stupid? Stop believing in a benevolent government.

        3. GFY. You cant be honest with yourself, much less anyone else here

    2. All spending is a form of taxation. TANSTAAFL dictates this. At a high level there is very little difference in options 2 and 4. The issue is the high spending. Take my money now, take my money later, or devalue my money… in the long run there is very little difference.

      I’d prefer a tax/spend system that is both balanced AND equally distributed. There’s no chance of ever getting popular support for lower spending unless the above two conditions are met.

    3. We will never have taxes high enough to cover the levels of spending being thrown about now. Until the pols realize there is an real upper limit on what the government can spend, option 2 is the only real possibility.

      1. If we taxed like Europe we could, but that would result in an absolutely massive and unprecedented middle class tax hike, in other words, political suicide. Leftists don’t realize how much less progressive taxes are in Europe, especially once you factor in the VATs.

        1. And what do they have to show for it? Dinky apartments, tiny cars, lots of regulations, waiting lists.

          1. And I fear covid insanity is killing off the remaining things that still made Europe a cool place to visit.

            1. The prostitutes? Or the nude beaches?

        2. I’m not sure even those tax rates would cut it.

          M1 again, from the Fed. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM1NS

          Jesus, just look at it. We aren’t taxing enough in a dozen lifetimes to equal the increased government spending that such an increase in the money supply allowed.

    4. Borrowing money, and forcing someone else to repay the loan, is also a type of theft.

      This is where jeffy parts way with reason and goes full lefty.

      No one can contract on behalf of another person without their explicit permission. It is fundamental in common law. There is no such form of theft, because such a contract is unenforceable. Just like the left thinks they can just print money, the left thinks that future generations are somehow on the hook for this borrowing. They are wrong.

      “That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

      I can’t think of a more destructive form of government than one that would expect future generations to pay for benefits of this generation. The game will only go on as long as governed continue to assent. Eventually, the People will stand up and say “Get the hell out of my way!” The fortunes of the promise making political looters and kleptocrats will be reduced to paper and electrons and the value of production will be reset.

      The lefties might read Atlas Shrugged, but they never quite understand it.

  24. Editor’s Note: We got word that all members of the executive committee of @DSACincy are stepping down after defending a sexual abuser who they’re in a polycule with. And the grievance officer assigned to the case was also in the polycule. We’re not kidding.

    I’m coming around to the idea that our American way of life is not worth defending anymore.

    1. Veterans found that out when their collegues were dying on wait lists, imagine their chagrin?

    2. Here is a freebie for a new motto:

      Democratic Socialists of America: Getting fucked. Together.

    3. Disagree. Our culture and way of life have never been more worth defending than now. We just haven’t been doing it, and allowing shit like the above quoted material to flourish.

      Those people are not exemplars of our way of life. They’re examples of what happens when we stopped insisting defending our culture. And they’re examples of the sort of decadent rejection of reason, that cultures show when they’re nearing the end of their run. As I think we are.

  25. Notably, the Food and Drug Administration recommends against feeding a baby breast milk acquired directly from an individual or via the Internet, although it remains unregulated.

    “Got your, um, ‘breast milk’ right here!”

    1. Thats why I insist on getting it straight from the tap myself

  26. “President Joe Biden wants to massively raise taxes to pay for education and child care. He has proposed a capital gains tax of 39.6 percent, which is significantly higher than the current rate of 20 percent.”

    Meh. Why not make the capital gains tax 100%? As soon as the Watermelon Party outlaws capital, there will be no gains to tax.

  27. “After getting a COVID-19 vaccine, women are selling their breast milk online.”

    How much for DYI milking? Asking for a friend.

  28. “…The Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that purportedly combats anti-Asian hate on Thursday. The vote was 94–1…”

    The bill was named the “Aren’t We Wonderful People!” bill.

  29. Now we know where JFree works:

    “The Pandemic Will Be More Deadly This Year”
    […]
    “Covid-19 is going to kill more people in 2021 than it did last year. If you want to see why, look at what’s happening in India…”
    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-04-19/india-s-surging-case-count-will-make-the-pandemic-more-deadly-this-year

    1. Surging cases in Japan. Huge spike . 3rd wave.
      You know, the mask wearing society we were supposed to emulate.

  30. Here’s the money quote from Biden’s Climate Summit.

    “No one is being asked for a sacrifice. This is an opportunity.”

    —-John Kerry

    United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate

    He’s absolutely right in the context of what he’s saying! What he was talking about is what developing countries are being asked to do. They’re not being asked to make sacrifices. They’re being offered our future paychecks, and more than enough to compensate.

    Here’s the context:

    “Biden administration officials have sought to emphasize potential benefits that could result from reducing emissions and shifting toward low-carbon energy sources, a bid to counter concerns by many countries about the costs of reshaping their economies.”

    —-WSJ

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-summits-final-day-to-focus-on-technology-innovation-11619170200

    They’re not talking about the benefits of avoiding severe weather events or anything like that.

    Brazil wants a $1 billion down payment to start stopping deforestation, but that’s just a drop in the bucket. India has specifically demanded that the we pay developing nations $100 billion a year to do things like not build more coal plants–something that was promised in 2009.

    Progressivism is all about using the coercive power of government to force us to make sacrifices for what they see as the common good–and they don’t mean the common good of the taxpayers. They don’t even mean the common good of Americans. Why aren’t you willing to sacrifice your standard of living for the benefit of people in other countries? Is it because you’re racist?

    If the reason you don’t want to sacrifice your consumer discretionary income out of your future paychecks is because you care more about yourself and your family than you do about others, now’s the time to stand up and be heard. There is nothing wrong with caring about yourself and your family’s standard of living.

    1. This is what the Indian delegation is talking about:

      “The 2009 pledge to mobilize US$100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance to developing nations was not specific on what types of funding could count. Indeterminacy and questionable claims make it impossible to know if developed nations have delivered; as 2020 passes, opportunity exists to address these failures in a new pledge.”

      —-Nature

      “Rebooting a failed promise of climate finance”

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-00990-2

      1. Who made that pledge?

        1. “One part of the agreement pledges US$30 billion to the developing world over the next three years, rising to US$100 billion per year by 2020, to help poor countries adapt to climate change.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

          That was one of Obama’s victories. Of course, just like the Paris climate treaty that followed, it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.

          The point India is making is that they want this to be the starting point of an agreement. Like I keep saying, China and India have more in the way of coal plants currently under construction than the United States could possibly decommission. If we close every coal plant in the country, there will be more CO2 going into the atmosphere than there was before we shuttered our plants–within a few years.

          And note, India isn’t saying that they’ll cancel all their coal plants under construction and shutter the rest if the United States starts sending the developing world $100 billion a year so that the people of the developing world can adapt to climate change. Modi is saying that before he’ll even consider making another deal to cancel coal plants under construction, we need to start sending them $100 billion a year–like Obama promised to do in 2009.

          1. But if we don’t do this, then some chick is going to have to move from Hilton Head Island to Asheville, in the mountains, and that would be a huge tragedy.

            1. As libertarian capitalists, we really are always trying to get people to understand what they’re giving up in the future, and, as real as it is, it’s also hard to conceptualize.

              Squandering our future paychecks through direct spending or inflation is not giving up nothing–and that’s not even considering all the opportunities you’ll never even know you missed because a potential employer was paying more in taxes or because consumers had less discretionary income than they would have had otherwise.

              If they make you pay more to heat your house in the winter than it would have cost you before, whether that’s the difference between being able to afford a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood, not being able to afford to fly to grandma’s house for Thanksgiving, or just missing one more time you could take your daughter out for ice cream, you’re being forced to sacrifice something that is important to you–even if it’s something you haven’t experienced yet.

              TANSTAAFL

              1. The nice thing about global warming is that it will reduce the impacts on home heating costs.

          2. Piling onto Ken’s post: China produced more electricity than the United States did in 2018, just counting their use of Coal-fired power plants. They had other means, of course, but that’s how many coal plants that have.

            And they ain’t shutting them down.

            1. If you slide the year to 2021 at the following link, it’ll show you how much coal all of us have in operation and how much is under construction.

              https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

              We can’t decommission enough coal plants to make up for all the coal that China and India currently have under construction.

              1. Nice link, thanks.

                I wonder how the increased prevalence of IC engines and transport in those two countries, adds to the CO2 load? Not that I care if CO2 levels rise.

                (Within reason. 20,000 PPM CO2 would suck.)

    2. Fuckers.
      It’s money, not the climate.

      1. And what is Biden getting for our money? As I linked yesterday, both China and India have more coal plants under construction than we could possibly close. If China isn’t on board, with anything more than vague promises, we’re giving India our money for nothing. The only thing worse than using our money to hike the cost of energy in our economy is squandering that money without any benefit.

        Biden is just doing it to give himself some kind of legacy, and he’s doing it with our money.

        1. Biden is doing it to handicap the United States. Full stop.

          It is a literally treasonous act.

          1. Full stop with the full stop nonsense, please

            1. Ok.

              It beats random capitalizing or bolding.

    3. “India has specifically demanded that the we pay developing nations $100 billion a year to do things like not build more coal plants–something that was promised in 2009.”

      “Nice atmosphere you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.”

      1. Like I keep saying, even if India did agree to cancel all their coal plant construction, it wouldn’t mean a thing unless China did the same. The primary motivation seems to be that Biden wants to build a legacy as the great American environmentalist revolutionary for posterity. Emperor Xi will be happy to agree to whatever agreement Biden wants for that end–so long as it doesn’t get in the way of their industrial plans. He’ll be happy to sell us all the components necessary to deploy solar and wind energy systems., too.

        Because that doesn’t get in the way of him rolling own coal plants all over China and the developing world to give his economy and his people access to cheap energy.

        1. If we can just get China to agree to halt construction of coal-fired plants and limit their CO2 emissions in other ways everything will work out. China is well known for honoring their international agreements.

          1. Yeah, when’s the last time anybody made Emperor Xi do something or abide by some agreement?

  31. https://twitter.com/DrewHolden360/status/1385354583904509952?s=19

    Thread

    This one is a little different than usual, but I wanted to break down the news cycle around the police shooting of Ma’Khia Bryant.

    It might be the worst I’ve ever seen.

    1. Just let the kids stab it out.

  32. https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1385563651600523264?s=19

    I am delighted that the UN has elected Iran to this commission on women’s rights and gender equality.

    With virtually ZERO prosecutions for domestic violence or misogynistic hate crime, Iran is a feminist paradise. [Link]

    1. Titania McGrath is *amazing*. Perfection of dry sarcastic mockery.

      1. Like, what OBL manages on a really good day, but all the time.

    2. ya that chick is funny.

  33. https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1385443005654577153?s=19

    Just spent way too much time reading through corporate, academic, and politician Statements on the Chauvin verdict and it’s actually disturbing how identically-worded they all are. Like just robotic repetition of the exact same phrases. (Compiled for Substack post tomorrow

      1. Journolist was a total aberration, right?

  34. R.I.P. Digital Underground’s Shock G, aka Humpty Hump.

    Gone to that great Burger King Bathroom in the sky.

    1. Damnit, I was hoping to get a collaboration with him for my rapper alter ego, 6pack.

    2. Talk about something that couldn’t have happened in today’s social media age. It took me 10-15 years after listening to them, to learn that Shock and Humpty were the same guy.

      Of course it was the same old song: it was the same guys singing it. (The guest appearance by ‘Pac just makes that video. Not surprising at all that he blew up shortly afterwards.)

    3. no! doowuchyalike

      1. Just grab them in the biscuits.

        1. I guess he’s just a freak.

        2. Didn’t Trump get in a lot of trouble for saying that?

      2. Now if you wear corrective shoes and you got big bunions, toenails look and smell like onions don’t doowuchyalike, go see a foot dr tonight.

    4. Why couldn’t it have been Ton Loc?

      1. Funky Cold Medina has anti aging properties

  35. What’s up suckas! It’s Friday, you know what that means? I’m about to be shitfaced drunk by noon!

    1. Amateur. I was drunk by 0800!

      1. 0800? I guess you were getting drunk in an “orderly and efficient military manner.”

        1. I prefer to call it “getting completely wasted in an orderly and efficient military manner”. I measured the shots out to the microliter and took them on an absolutely rigid 5 minute interval.

  36. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1385622685124861953?s=19

    American child TV channel has started to introduce kids to systematic “environmental racism” in the US.

    “@Nickelodeon
    learn the meaning of environmental racism #NickNews [video]“

    1. would it be more or less an honor if the slime was black?

  37. Let’s just say that democrats appear to hate asians except when they can use them as props.

    1. FDR gave them new houses during WW2. Not all Dems treat Asians poorly.

  38. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1385587040276856832?s=19

    The responses here are really quite . . . . something.

    “@CNN
    Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina will deliver the GOP response following President Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress next Wednesday”

    1. The most delicious thimg on the internet, including allrecipes.com

      WaPo ‘Fact Checker’ gets fact-checked.

      Cliffs: Ahead of his giving the Official Republican Response to Biden’s address, Kessler takes aim at Sen. Tim Scott and his “Cotton Fields to Congress in 2 Generations” biography. Glenn, the son of a Proctor and Gamble VP, suggests Sen. Scott is a lying hack who comes from privilege, because his grandfather may have dropped out of 4th grade instead of 3rd grade (isn’t dropping out of 4th grade ‘3rd grade education’? Anyhoo…) and was able to scribble his own name legibly on a land deed.

      So someone does some research into Glenn’s Dutch family, who were in the oil and steel business. And by that I mean his great-grandfather founded Royal Dutch Shell, and leadership passed to his sons. During WWII. they were Nazi Collaborators, using slave labor for the war effort. Someone posts a picture of Glenn’s grandfather, and his response is, “nun-unh, that’s my Great Uncle”. He says his grandfather didn’t collaborate with his great-uncle, and cites a Wikipedia article, edited by Glenn Kessler, as his source.

      The ratio and replies are epic.

    2. Tim Scott obviously suffers from internalized racism and the “model minority” myth. He thinks that by being white adjacent, the GOP will accept and respect him. He doesn’t realize that the republicans are using him as a token, and that’s the only reason our whitw supremacist society has allowed him to accomplish anything as a black man. That’s why he doesn’t act, speak, or think the way good black people should act, think, and speak.

  39. >>President Joe Biden wants to massively raise taxes to pay for

    unions. are you blind or dishonest?

  40. I don’t know that it’s a particular improvement when rightwingers use Asian students as props in their white supremacist agenda.

    1. Wanting Asians to be treated fairly is now “White Supremacism”

    2. Fuck off with that racist shit.

    3. white supremacist agenda

      Is there another commenter here who’s whiter than Tony?

      1. White Knight. Whiter than when hydrogen peroxide (HO22) gets spilled on something dyed.

  41. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined. Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ……… h­o­m­e­j­o­b­1­.c­o­m

  42. What are they going to do when arrests and prosecutions end up being “disproportionately” of black Americans?

  43. Alternate headline

    “Senate to lengthen sentencing for black vagrants for attacks on Asians, who account for most attacks on Asians”

Please to post comments