Thursday Open Thread

Please feel free to write comments on this post on whatever topic you like! (As usual, please avoid personal insults of each other, vulgarities aimed at each other or at third parties, or other things that are likely to poison the discussion.)

Comments

[apedad]

The series on textiles last week reminded me of something my Economics professor taught about the lifeline of general economic growth which goes something like this:

Small agriculture (family farms/ranches)
Large agriculture (slaughter houses, mass markets)
Small manufacturing (shops)
Large manufacturing (large scale manufacturing) (Note: Early 20th century, laws/rules start to develop about HR, Safety, child labor, etc.).
Small metal (blacksmiths)
Large metal (foundries, steel mills)
Small money (individual banks)
Large money (international money markets)
Small technology (desk top usage into closed networks)
Large technology (global networks, mass media, Cloud, IoT)

Of course there’s much overlap and for example, we still have family farms and ranches.

So what’s the next step(s)?

Perhaps:

Small transportation (individually driven vehicles not linked to other systems/modes)
Large transportation (autonomously driven vehicles all electronically linked together, including busses, trains, trucks, boats, planes, etc., for example a ship arrives, automatically unloads cargo to the appropriate truck which autonomously drives to the appropriate destination)
Small energy (individual energy producers, closed distribution systems)
Large energy (global gathering of energy, e.g. space mirror; distribution systems which monitor and direct where energy is needed)
Small Space (individual rockets)
Large Space (space elevator?)

Somewhere we have to include natural resource management, especially water.

And also perhaps:

Small government (individual countries)
Large government (global entities) Having countries and borders really isn’t a necessity anymore.

And yes, while there are great advantages, there are definitely DISADVANTAGES to each of these steps, e.g. loss of privacy, loss of local control, loss of local culture, loss of autonomy, loss of accountability, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Purchased the textiles book, it's now waiting under the Christmas tree for my son. I'm hoping to get the second crack at it, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Music! I know Orin Kerr likes the jazz. I like the lyrics.

Favorite: Simon and Garfunkle.

Some others: Eleni Mandel, Ben Folds, Cake, Pain, Thea Gilmore, Cowboy Mouth, Freezepop. Very 90's/2000's, very white.

Favorite song of the moment: Mark Eitzel: Bitterness

Most listened to: Nora Jones' Hits has been my work background since lockdown

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Bands I have really been into lately: Dinosaur Jr., Cloud Nothings, Fiona Apple (last one not a band and yes there is a pattern)

[VinniUSMC]

The HU, Wardruna, Heilung, Falling in Reverse, Apocalypse Orchestra.

I like a little bit of everything though. K-pop to death metal to screamo. Just keep that new-age country and Cardi B shit away from me, thanks.

[SykesFive]

I haven't thought about Dinosaur Jr. since the mid-90s. I'll revisit.

[Brett Bellmore]

We've been purchasing "best of" albums on CD, to feed into the hard drive in my car. (Radio is unreliable in the mountains.) But we're playing them in the house, too.

Kansas, Moody Blues, Styx, the Byrds, the Lovin' Spoonful, the Mamas and the Papas, CSN, ELO.

Hm, what am I missing in this genre? Must be something.

[apedad]

First rate list!

How about The Babys (Isn't it Time, Everytime I Think of You, etc.)?

[Sarcastr0]

Prog rock has a bunch of one-hit-wonders, so some compilations might not go astray.

I always lump Peter Gabriel into that camp as well, even though he's a bit more new wave.

[ah....Clem]

Gabriel was the leader of Genesis before he went solo (and Phil Collins took over Genesis, turning it into a pop group), who were one of the pillars of prog-rock. Never thought of him as new-wave, but it wasn't prog-rock any more.

Dave Weigel wrote the definitive book on prog-rock about a decade ago, excerpted on Slate here:
https://slate.com/culture/2012/08/history-of-prog-the-nice-emerson-lake-palmer-and-other-bands-of-the-1970s.html

[Ridgeway]

Alan Parsons Project doesn't get enough love. Their really Progressive stuff is a little out there for me, but Eye in the Sky and Don't Answer Me are two tremendous pop songs.

[Sarcastr0]

Hm, what am I missing in this genre? Must be something.

Shower thought: CCR

[Brett Bellmore]

Good suggestion!

[ah....Clem]

Steely Dan, Traffic, Rolling Stones, Tom Petty, Roxy Music, Rod Stewart.

[loki13]

"Steely Dan"

The older I get, the better Steely Dan gets.

[Leo Marvin]

Or maybe you should re-assess your misspent youth.

[loki13]

I would if I could remember it.

I've been told I had a REALLY good time.

[Ridgeway]

19, Cuervo Gold and Fine Colombian. #MeToo!

[Commenter_XY]

Absolutely loved The Royal Scam

[Ridgeway]

You can make a decent argument that CCR is the greatest American rock and roll band of all time.

[ah....Clem]

So good that John Fogerty was sued for writing songs that sounded too much like John Fogerty wrote them.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1133181.html

[Ridgeway]

To quote another pretty famous musician, "I didn't know you could copyright a note."

[santamonica811]

I have *never* met anyone who liked CCR and did not also like The Band.

[Leo Marvin]

How about this? I love The Band, hate CCR, and John Fogerty was my client! (Nothing against him personally. Just the music I can't stand.)

[Ridgeway]

To paraphrase another wise man, comparing The Band to Creedence is like saying that Bruce Springsteen is the US' Bryan Adams.

[Leo Marvin]

Pink Floyd, U2, R.E.M., Buffalo Springfield, Joni Mitchell, Jackson Browne, Doobie Brothers, Radiohead, The Police, Elvis Costello, James Taylor, 10,000 Maniacs, Joe Jackson, Bjork, The Cure, Depeche Mode, Bruce Hornsby, Nick Cave, Shawn Colvin, Blue Nile.

That's an even 20, and here's one more: 99% chance you hate them, 1% chance they turn you into a Bernie voter: The Shaggs*

(*Not that there's any logical connection between Bernie and The Shaggs. That's just how thoroughly their music may scramble your brain.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"Hm, what am I missing in this genre? Must be something."

Try The Seekers, an Australian folk/pop group from the 60s. Earlier than some of your list but so are The Byrds.

Judith Durham, their lead singer, had the best pop female voice of all time, IMHO. Crisp and clear, just beautiful.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll look into that, sounds interesting.

[grb]

Nobody here is giving Mr, Dylan any love. Didya see where he just sold his catalog for an estimated 300 million?

[Leo Marvin]

I was going to mention Dylan, but decided that, like The Beatles, The Stones, Prince and Michael Jackson, if you need reminding of him, you probably didn't like him in the first place.

[grb]

His latest album is pretty damn good....

[Ridgeway]

Neil Young (Decade) fits in that list

60s Motown would also fit in -- I am partial to the Supremes, Four Tops and the Spinners. I also like the Foundations, but I am not sure if they count as Motown.

[bernard11]

All of Motown is wonderful.

But no love here for Chuck Berry?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Brett, I'm not sure what the genre is as defined by your list. But I would add Chicago and the Doobie Brothers, who both have excellent greatest hits albums. I'd also suggest that you miss a whole lot of good stuff by sticking with greatest hits. For instance, Three Dog Night has tons of great stuff not on their greatest hits collections. Check out "Circle For a Landing" on youtube. Or more germane to this site, "Murder In My Heart For the Judge."

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure I miss a lot of good songs doing this, but you always miss some wheat when you minimize chaff. I'm trying to get a good assortment here, not comprehensively cover one band.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I can dig it. Here's another suggestion I thought of - Little Feat. I'm not familiar with any specific greatest hits collection, but they must exist. Superb 70's band. They continued well into the 2000's, but without Lowell George their quality declined greatly.

[Kazinski]

Simon and Garfunkel?

Pretentious poetry set to sappy simplistic music?

Yeah I get it a little, or at least I did in jr high school.

[Sarcastr0]

Could be nostalgia from when I was in HS, when nothing seems pretentious and everything seems novel, but I still think they're more evocative than pretentious.

Plus they're catchier than you'd think.

[ah....Clem]

"Could be nostalgia from when I was in HS, when nothing seems pretentious..."

In high school I mostly listened to prog-rock i.e. ELP, Yes, et al.

Everything seemed pretentious. Probably because it was. (c:

[Sarcastr0]

Richard Corey seems pretentious, but blew my mind when I was like 13.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, at their best, could be the perfect balance between pretense and groove. The Yes Album and Fragile are absolute classics. But they also did the unlistenable Tales From Topographic Oceans.

[Ridgeway]

Some of their stuff is pretty pretentious, but "Where've you gone, Joe DiMaggio?" is a great line.

[Kazinski]

They were huge when I was in Jr. High, but high school was when Janis, Jimi, and Jim Morrison all lived and then died, and the Bay Area music scene where I grew up was just huge, Allman Bros Live at Filmore East came out. If you wanted something more intellectual there was always Dylan, Hendrix would cover Dylan's music, but he never covered Simon and Garfunkel.

Right now I listen mostly to hard bop, Thelonious Monk, pre-60's Coltrane, Sonny Clark, Red Garland, Jimmy Smith, Art Blakely, there is a lot of stuff still out there I haven't heard.

I've heard almost everything from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's so many times it's hard to listen to anymore.

[Syd Henderson]

At the time, Joe DiMaggio was selling Mr. Coffee on television.

[Ridgeway]

You, and for that matter Joe DiMaggio, failed to understand what the line meant. That is why it is a great line.

[Brett Bellmore]

Already got them, otherwise it would be in keeping with the theme.

[ah....Clem]

Ben Webster, Charles Lloyd, Thievery Corporation, Tumbledown House, Tom Waits, Norah Jones, Gillian Welch, Gene Harris, Arvo Part, Bjork, Cowboy Junkies,

Not necessarily in that order...

[grb]

Good stuff, There's a tiny little piece by Arvo Part I love, Festina Lente.

[Hank Ferrous]

Gillian Welch, am a fan as well. Have you listened to Dori Freeman's first album? Not the same foksy style, but the emotional place, may be close.

[loki13]

I have a lot of jazz recommendations (although most of mine are 50s-70s free form, from Ornette Coleman on), but I thought I'd give out a slightly different one.

If you enjoy the rock music, a good band is Cage the Elephant.

[grb]

There are times when I'm dragging thru a late night in the office when Coltrane's My favorite Things will supercharge me with energy. I've got three different versions on the iPod.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

McCoy Tyner's solo on the studio version is one for the ages.

[grb]

If you're into jazz, here's a book : The Bear Comes home. It's about a talking saxophone-playing bear and is a sweet read.

https://www.amazon.com/Bear-Comes-Home-Novel/dp/039331863X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=9SJCIYA9LJS4&dchild=1&keywords=bear+comes+home&qid=1607660753&sprefix=bear+cpmes%2Caps%2C134&sr=8-1&tag=reasonmagazinea-20

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

With fingernails that shine like justice
And a voice that is dark like tinted glass
She is fast, thorough, and sharp as a tack
She's touring the facilities and picking up slack
I want a girl with a short skirt and a long, long jacket

[Sarcastr0]

In college we used to sing that. It's particularly good for that purpose.

I usually took the 'Hey! Ho!" part.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Birds fall from the window ledge above mine
Then they flap their wings at the last second...

[Sonicfrog]

Sarcastro.... You're a man after my own heart!!!!

I'm a musician and a lyrics guy. I consider Simon and Garfunkel to be my first teachers. Are you familiar with Neil Finn? He's on my list as one of the greats.

[Hank Ferrous]

Mostly old country, soul, blues. Give a man with 'Blind' as part of his name a guitar, and I will give him a day in court. I do listen to a fair amount of Sabbath now and again, have been known to work to Mandarin hip-hop, and have been a fan of Bad Brains since they were banned in DC.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Listened to Collins v. Munchin (On the housing administration) and a few parts were funny. I like that Breyer is showing a very defeatist sense of humor now.

For example, its on the removal power, and Breyer is just like "I agree with you, but that was in a dissent, so should I just throw in the towel?"

It seemed even the liberals were rather suspicious of the government, saying it was essentially nationalizing and the government ought to pay the shareholders.

I dont understand something about these cases through, if your problem is with the rule itself, is it really relevant whether the director implementing the rule is removal at will? It just seems like a bank handed way of trying to get rid of something without having to attack the rule itself. It seemed all 9 justices were open to an attack on the rule itself, but some weird "even though the director implementing the law was removable at will, the one currently enforcing it isnt, so get rid of the agency" ... which I guess, whatever works?

[Sarcastr0]

1. Starr, TX +55.2
2. Maverick, TX +46.3
3. Kenedy, TX +40.0
4. Jim Hogg, TX +39.0
5. Zapata, TX +38.3
6. Duval, TX +32.6
7. Brooks, TX +32.0
8. Reeves, TX +30.9
9 Webb, TX +28.3
10. Edwards, TX +26.7

This is interesting, and worth keeping an eye on. I really hope some reporter gets down to the border to suss out these 30 and 40 percent swings.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ask, and you shall receive.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/13/south-texas-voters-donald-trump/

It turns out promising to take away people's jobs while simultaneously hating on law enforcement has an effect on people... Who knew?

[ah....Clem]

Really?

So voters can change their party choice from one election to the next?

Who knew?

Should we tell Texas AG Paxton about this remarkable discovery?

[loki13]

I think we should run a statistical analysis.

What are the odds that, given people always vote exactly the same, that there could be a 50 point swing?

That's got to be MANY QUADRILLIONS to one.

The only rational explanation is that Trump tried to steal the election. It may not be proven, but I am asking questions. And since the questions are being asked, you can't say that he didn't do it. Which means that he did.

Q. E. D.

[Queen Amalthea]

These anomalies can, of course, only be explained via a grand conspiracy theory involving the Trump administration, the Koch brothers, and the executive branch/election officials of Texas. We should really have hundreds of tweets with ALL CAPS about the worst THING EVAH and dozens of lawsuits to work this out. It's the only way...

[Sarcastr0]

😀

[Kazinski]

It's is interesting and impressive, we all hoped Trump would do well with Hispanics, and it looks those are all heavily Hispanic counties.

But your math is funny. In 2016 Trump lost 79-19%. This year he still lost 52-47. The way I do math he gained ~28 not +55.

How do you do your math? Yeah, I know you are counting the difference in the margin of victory, which double counts the swing, that isn't the way math is supposed to work.

It is interesting that Mexican President Lopez Obrador still hasn't acknowledged Biden's victory, but says he could do so next week.

[ah....Clem]

Is the Texas v Pennsylvania et. al. lawsuit going anywhere?

First step would be for the SCOTUS to grant "leave" to file the complaint. Thomas seems to think it is mandatory for the court to hear any dispute between states that comes before it, possibly Alito as well. So that may be two votes to grant leave. Will they get any others?

Now that over a dozen other states have joined the suit, will that make a difference?

And if they do grant leave, will that open the door for every one of the 50 states to sue every one of the other 49 states for any law, procedure, act, etc that they don't like? For instance, Vermont suing Texas for it's energy policy, Illinois suing Indiana over it's gun purchasing laws, every other state suing Delaware over lax business oversight. The possibilities are endless.

Seems like we have a big, fat, juicy can or worms to open here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they're not suing over a law they don't like. They're suing over unlawful actions, arguably unconstitutional ones if you accept the reasoning that state legislatures are exercising plenary power in the context of rules for selecting Electors.

[arpiniant1]

They are suing over alleged illegal actions, for which they have no proof, no standing and no point

Next year Massachusetts sues Alabama et al over racist election rules

you really, really don't want to go there

not for this piece of human garbage who lost by 7 million votes

[Krychek_2]

I would like arpiniant1's comment a dozen times if we had like buttons.

[grb]

I would arpiniant1’s comment (and yours)

[VinniUSMC]

"not for this piece of human garbage who lost by 7 million votes"

So, people you don't like aren't allowed to file suit, even if they are frivolous (and seem to be being dealt with accordingly?)

[ah....Clem]

Attorneys are not allowed to file frivolous suits, and can be disciplined for doing so, regardless of the popularity or unpopularity of their client.

They're also not allowed to present evidence that they know to be false. Again regardless of the popularity or unpopularity of their client.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, doodness, here comes the chin-stroking academic perspective of R11 when someone files a lawsuit we don't wike.

Back in the real world, consider exactly how many frivolous lawsuits and outrageous lapses it took for some (well-deserved) justice to finally catch up with characters like Richard Liebowitz.

There's a big, fat subjective margin around frivolity -- intentionally so -- that favors access to the courts. And I know you know that.

[VinniUSMC]

"

Attorneys are not allowed to file frivolous suits, and can be disciplined for doing so, regardless of the popularity or unpopularity of their client.

They’re also not allowed to present evidence that they know to be false. Again regardless of the popularity or unpopularity of their client."

Well, then, if that is the case, it should be dealt with, but that would involve humoring it to suss out whether it is indeed frivolous or false instead of just dismissing it out of hand.

[ThePublius]

There is proof, there is standing, and there is a point.

1. The proof is simple: in the case of Pennsylvania, neither the act authorizing a no-excuses mail voting system nor a constitutional amendment proposed at the same time went through the process required by law. The Legislature, the plaintiffs contend, “first recognized their constitutional restraints and the need to amend the constitution in order to enact mail voting, sought to amend the constitution to lawfully allow for the legislation they intended to pass, and subsequently abandoned their efforts to comply with the constitution.”

So, there. The proof is their actions, as compared to what the law requires.

2. Standing.
"Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

3. Point. Corruption in one or more states that changes the outcome of a national election is the point.

[arpiniant1]

THese things all existed before trumpski lost the election, and should have been dealt with then
They were not a concern then or for the previous 3 elections in PA for instance
And they are just as prevalent in red states

[ThePublius]

"trumpski" - what grade are you in?

Regarding the rest, your statements are immaterial. There is harm now, to the complainants, and that's why they are bringing the suit now. Go it?

[Queen Amalthea]

"“trumpski” – what grade are you in?"

What grade is Trump in? I mean, at least he didn't put it in ALL CAPS!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

““trumpski” – what grade are you in?”

What grade is Trump in? I mean, at least he didn’t put it in ALL CAPS!

When the best defense you can manage is that he's just about as bad as the guy he's calling "human garbage"...

[jb]

Several hundred years of laches jurisprudence disagrees with you.

[bernard11]

I welcome correction, but my non-lawyer understanding of laches is that you don't get two bites at the apple.

No waiting to see if things turn out in your favor before filing suit.

(I also find the pronunciation - "latches" - sort of silly.)

[Ridgeway]

Re your #2 -- that is not what "Standing" is. That is jurisdiction. They are related but different.

[I Callahan]

Do you guys ever wonder why the distrust of lawyers exists? Here is example one: when the legal system splits hairs like this.

[OtisAH]

Yes, ignorance is one reason people distrust lawyers. The distinction between jurisdiction and standing is not hair-splitting.

[not guilty]

Where is the injury in fact to the state of Texas from the other states' conduct? Standing is essential to Article III subject matter jurisdiction. Absent standing, there is no controversy between states.

[Krayt]

Hoe is living under the wrong president, with attendant legislation they might (or might not) sign not one of the most massive harms imaginable?

Do you have to wait for a tax increase before you can complain you are harmed?

[Ridgeway]

Because you are in the same position as every other American. To have Article III standing, you need to be injured in a particularized manner different from other people.

I didn't make up these rules, but they are what they are.

[ah....Clem]

So, does six other states joining the suit weaken the case from that standpoint? Seems it would, but IANAL.

[Ridgeway]

Honestly, the analysis remains the same.

[SykesFive]

Seems like the voters who used the mail-in system created a pretty strong reliance interest.

[ah....Clem]

But they're not "real Americans", so their vote doesn't count.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't see how the parade of horribles is any worse than Massachusetts suing Exxon, and Maura Healey is...

[ah....Clem]

Exxon is a state? And therefore entitled to have cases between it and any US state fast-tracked to the US Supreme Court? Who knew?

[loki13]

Of course you don't, Dr. Ed!

But to briefly recap-
1. Massachusetts (and other states and other Plaintiffs) didn't sue Exxon, they sued the EPA.

2. It was, and is, controversial and sui generis in many ways.

3. The "meat" of the decision was about rulemaking; in other words, classic administrative law. That part wasn't controversial (the result, sure, but not the process).

4. The standing issue ... well, that was. Because it allowed for special state solicitude for standing.

Got it? That's a gross simplification, but that's the gist.

In this case, what you're looking at is one state that insists that other states aren't following their own laws. It's of a piece with the lawsuit that Nebraska and Oklahoma tried to bring against Colorado re: marijuana law. It is, possibly, the worst possible outcome for any system of federalism to have state suing other states regarding internal state laws.

Based on the reasoning of this case, were it to proceed (original jurisdiction), then there would be counterclaims by these states against states that voted for Trump and the administration of those elections; the elections (and allegations and claims) would never end. And not just elections. This really is a road no one wants to go down, which is why people don't see it going anywhere.

What is sad (and unsurprising) is that so many state AGs so it as necessary for this type of performative fealty to Trump; that is worrying.

[Kazinski]

I agree with you that the lawsuit is going nowhere, Texas is right that the executive and the courts ran roughshod over the legislature's constitutional perogative to write election law, but I can't see how they have standing, or a cognizable remedy.

Trump did lose by 7 million votes, but that still leaves 74 million supporters. I guess that means 74 million people think Joe Biden is even worse than a human piece of garbage.

[bernard11]

I guess that means 74 million people think Joe Biden is even worse than a human piece of garbage.

Except that a large percentage of that 74 million don't think Trump is a human piece of garbage, which is frightening in and of itself.

[EscherEnigma]

Nah.

It's nakedly obvious that they aren't suing over a law they don't like or unlawful actions.

They're suing over a result they don't like.

Everything else is just window dressing.

This whole thing is either (A) a coup attempt, or (B) a play for favor to get a pardon from Trump.

But actually principled action? Not even one in quadrillion chance.

[Sonicfrog]

Except those "unlawful actions" have also already been addressed in multiple lawsuits that have gone nowhere, have they not?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no: Because those lawsuits were dismissed without addressing the unlawful actions.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Any thoughts on the Sullivan - Flynn escape?

Turns out Sullivan had to dismiss the case as moot due to the pardon. But given the choice, he wouldn't have dismissed it, as the government requested, if there wasn't a parson. Judicial overreach?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/politics/read-michael-flynn-emmet-sullivan-opinion/index.html

[Aladdin's Carpet]

I think, whatever your political dispositions (left or right) or even whether you think the pardon was justified or not, it is clear Sullivan is acting extremely inappropriately.

Like a district court cannot commandeer the judicial department to prosecute someone for lying to the FBI ... lying to the FBI is not even, like who is the aggrevated party there? Its the justice department! Its illegal for the justice department to refuse to engage in abusive traps on people? Since when?

Like if the court said the justice department isn't prosecuting a murder that might be something to look into. But the case here is just so ridiculous.

And then even the court of appeals said, sending the case back down, wink wink you really should allow the government to do what it wants here, and Sullivan is now indicating that he would have refused. So I dont know.

[Queen Amalthea]

"it is clear Sullivan is acting extremely inappropriately"

I think it's more clear the administration acted extremely inappropriately.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

They both can't be acting inappropriately?

[I Callahan]

No, it's not more clear the administration acted extremely inappropriately. The only people that believe this are ones who've shut themselves completely off to the actual facts of the case.

[Queen Amalthea]

I agree, The only people that believe what you're saying are ones who’ve shut themselves completely off to the actual facts of the case.

[I Callahan]

Flynn was coerced into admitting something he thought was true, but was found to not be true later. They tried to hang him for it to get at Trump. These are the basic facts of the case, and I'd love to see any evidence that the above did not happen.

So feel free to address that.

[loki13]

Sure. Read the full opinion. It's linked to above, and goes into detail about the procedural history of the case.

[grb]

I Callahan : Flynn was coerced into admitting something he thought was true

Total baloney. Flynn had five phone conversations with the Russian ambassador on the day Obama announced sanctions and began lying about what was discussed just days later. He lied to multiple members of Trump's transition team. He lied to the Vice President. He lied to the FBI. He was fired by Trump for lying (yeah. lotta irony there). He admitted lying multiple times.

So he got off. Take a bow & crow if you want to, but don't try and rewrite history.

[Armchair Lawyer]

He lied to multiple members of Trump’s transition team.
-Not a crime
He lied to the Vice President.
-Not a crime
He lied to the FBI.
-Not a crime if it isn't material to an investigation

[StellaLink]

And as has been pointed out in comments on this blog several times, lying to the FBI was about the least of Flynn's crimes. Being permitted to plead to just that crime was a gift.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He should have done it without repeating the dumb trope that accepting a pardon is a confession of guilt.

[Queen Amalthea]

Agreed its a very dumb trope. Accepting a pardon could be as much an admission that you think your prosecution is or was illegitimate as anything else.

[rsteinmetz]

"I'm happy the President has recognized the travesty of Justice I was subjected to."

- Richard Nixon
- Rod Blagojevich
- Marc Rich
- Chelsea Manning
- Samuel Mudd
- Roger Clinton

[StellaLink]

It wasn't so much accepting the pardon that was a confession of guilt as it was the actual literal confessing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It wasn’t so much accepting the pardon that was a confession of guilt as it was the actual literal confessing."

Agreed, although in general and not necessarily with respect to Flynn's case, we should give such coerced confessions very little weight, and stop requiring them as part of guilty pleas.

[De Oppresso Liber]

A retired general who confesses not once, but twice, is hardly the victim one thinks of in coerced confessions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. Coerced confessions are how the vast majority of cases in the justice system are disposed of, and most victims don't get pardoned.

[Sarcastr0]

Mr. Trump has tended to move fast, while the courts are slow, and to operate by threat, which the courts cannot adjudicate....

Senate Republicans, in ways large and small, let him do what he wanted. They allowed acting appointees to run the federal government. They allowed him to claim a right to attack Iran without congressional approval. The impeachment process was reduced to nothing but a party-line vote. The Senate became a rubber stamp for executive overreach....

Instead, the president’s worst impulses were neutralized by three pillars of the unwritten constitution. The first is the customary separation between the president and federal criminal prosecution (even though the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch). The second is the traditional political neutrality of the military (even though the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces). The third is the personal integrity of state elections officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/opinion/trump-constitution-norms.html?smid=tw-share

For discussion. Rings true to me, but I haven't thought deeply on it yet.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's a lot to go into there, but let's start with this

"They allowed him to claim a right to attack Iran without congressional approval."

Every recent president has claimed the right to attack a foreign power without previous Congressional approval. This is not new. What IS new (and quite underappreciated) was Trump's remarkable restraint in foreign affairs and attacks. For the first time in the last 30 years at least, there have been no new wars under a President. There was, I believe, a single airstrike by the US on Iran under Trump. Compare this with Obama's 3 month long campaign of airstrikes on Libya, which he resolutely denied needing any Congressional Approval for, despite the war powers act.

So, all things considered, the NYT gets it exactly wrong with the implied criticism of Trump there

[Sarcastr0]

I don't want to get into it on the Trump stuff, my interest is the end conclusion - the one about norms over institutions. What is your take?

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, if you're arguing about "norms," the pre-existing norms were that the President could attack a county without Congressional authority.

[Sarcastr0]

the president’s worst impulses were neutralized by three pillars of the unwritten constitution

That's what I'm interested in.
Quit being fixated on Iran.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The issue is, you (or the NYT) are operating from incorrect assumptions of what went on, what are considered "norms" and what the "worse impulses" were. It makes the entire question moot.

[Queen Amalthea]

Are drone strikes distinguished here?

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

[I Callahan]

Drone strikes vs actual new wars. I think when you combine the two, Obama's performance was worse.

[Queen Amalthea]

Are dozens of airstrikes, publicly acknowledged, worse than dozens of drone strikes, hidden? Explain.

[I Callahan]

Again you're missing the whole picture. 1 war > dozens of airstrikes. So Obama had dozens of airstrikes AND wars. Trump had dozens of airstrikes.

[Bob from Ohio]

Drones do not put US pilots at risk so are better than air strikes, which are better than ground troops.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It was closer to thousands of airstrikes....

[bacchys]

Trump unlawfully bombed Syria twice.

The War Powers Act (which I don't think is a constitutional delegation of power, but that's a different discussion) empowers the President to act in the country's interest without notifying Congress ahead of time.

We didn't bomb Syria in the nation's interest. It was supposed pique over Assad gassing his own people with whom he is at war.

Trump also ramped up our Cold War with Iran.

[mydisplayname]

The paper most-read on ResearchGate this year is https://mbio.asm.org/content/11/6/e02628-20 -- and for good reason: the effect of the mumps (Jeryl Lynn (B-level)) component of Merck's MMR II vaccine seems to be significant in explaining the age effects of CoViD-19. As the Gates-funded study progresses, hopefully there will be even more convincing data.

[Don Nico]

Yet the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 indicates that the age effect is relatively weak, 20% correlation and most strongly linked to the overall integrity of a person's immune function

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Which would also seem to explain the strong correlation with vitamin D levels.

[De Oppresso Liber]

This is the most interesting thing I've read this week. Thanks.

Perhaps a silver lining of having the army lose my shot records a couple times.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Liberals who have spent decades believing that shams such as global warming and systemic racism actually exist are now astonished that other people could believe something like the current allegations of election fraud are real. Oh, the sweet sweet irony....

[Krychek_2]

Right, you know more about climate than the climate scientists. Just like Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So-called "climate" "scientists"....

[Krychek_2]

Well, maybe next time you have a major medical emergency -- your appendix bursts, or you're having a heart attack -- rather than rely on so-called "medical" "doctors" you should instead read all the literature on the internet about how doctors don't know what they're doing, and reach your own medical conclusions.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So a "climate" "scientist" is going to save my life in a medical emergency. OK....

Are blatant strawmen the best you can come up with?

The problem with "credentialism" is that some are legit and others are just a joke. Apparently you can't see the difference though.

[Krychek_2]

No, that's not the problem. Here's the problem:

No matter the subject, there are contrarians who insist that they know more than people who actually study such things for a living. You will find people who deny the earth is a globe, who deny that bacteria and viruses cause disease, who deny the existence of gravity, and who deny the validity of mathematics. And most of the time, they are crackpots who can be ignored, because their refusal to acknowledge the evidence doesn't impact on anyone else. Unlike climate change, in which if the scientists are right, the entire planet is threatened.

With respect to climate science, almost everyone who actually studies climate science for a living believes that man made climate change is real and it threatens the planet. This is not a dispute among scientists; it's a dispute between scientists and contrarians who think they know more than the scientists. And you, sir, are on the same plane as people who deny that bacteria causes disease.

So, believe whatever you like; I'm not going to change your mind. I just wish people who think like you didn't have enough political support to actually threaten the planet.

[I Callahan]

No matter the subject, there are contrarians who insist that they know more than people who actually study such things for a living.

Welcome to human nature 101! Stick around - you may learn more about people that you apparently didn't know before.

That aside - climate scientists study the effects of climate. That said, they're as good at predicting the future as Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends Network. REAL medical doctors have actually done appendectomies and angioplasties. So comparing the two is not apt, to say it nicely.

This is not a dispute among scientists; it’s a dispute between scientists and contrarians who think they know more than the scientists

I can show a number of scientists who do not follow the conventional wisdom. Real scientists. So your above statement is completely untrue.

[Queen Amalthea]

Can you supply us with a record of your scientific accomplishments? Your noted work in predicting the future?

[I Callahan]

I don't need a single scientific accomplishment to believe what I believe. When you supply us with a record of yours, and it has a direct bearing on the subject at hand, then your appeal to authority argument will have some merit.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That is exactly Krychek's point. Yes, you believe what you believe. But we'd probably be better off making policy decisions based on the best climate science, rather than what you believe. It's not really an appeal to authority, but rather a recognition of who has the better odds of being correct.

[Krychek_2]

Ah, but medical doctors do predict the future. They tell me that I will likely die if I don't have surgery for my appendix that just burst. Or that if I take these pills, my infection will likely go away faster than if I don't. Or that diet and exercise will make my blood pressure go down. Are their predictions always 100%? No, but that's the way to bet.

And their predictions are made using the same methodologies as predictions made by climate scientists (whose predictions are already starting to come true, by the way).

And as for those scientists who can cite who don't follow the conventional wisdom, I don't know which specific scientists you have in mind, but in my experience most of the scientists who disagree with climate science are in other disciplines. Which is like asking a real estate attorney to handle a capital murder case. Yeah, he's an attorney, but if he disagrees with another attorney who actually does criminal law, I'm more inclined to pay attention to the professional criminal defense attorney.

[Commenter_XY]

Climate models are about as good as Covid models were back in March.

[Krychek_2]

Back in March we had a lot less information than we do now. As new information came in, the Covid models changed.

The funny thing about climate change models is that new information tends to confirm them.

[I Callahan]

The funny thing about climate change models is that new information tends to confirm them.

What new information is that? Climate changes over millennia; we've only seen data over the last fifty years. That's like saying the Covid models in March were based on 2 seconds of data feeding into a table, and we've since added 1 more second of data over the last 9 months, and that 1 more second should be the arbiter of what we do over the next 100 years.

[I Callahan]

And that is all based on pure experience. The millions of cases where people's appendix DID burst, or that people that are overweight, smokers, and junk-food eaters are more likely to die from heart attacks than those who are not.

Climate science has NOWHERE near that kind of data. All predictions are based on models with assumptions that aren't based on experience, and as someone who's in medical data analytics for a living, I can tell you that you can feed any model any kind of information you want to get whatever result you want.

There is such a wide gulf between those two disciplines that I can't believe a sentient intelligent being doesn't see that. Night and Day.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You entire argument comes from disputing scientists, experts in their fields, with your opinion of why they're wrong.

You aren't a scientist. You aren't a doctor. You are a nobody, claiming that the somebodies are all wrong.

Since that's the best argument you can muster, I'll continue believing the scientific conclusions based on actual data, and not the shrill cries of random tinfoil-hat guy on the internet.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I just wish people who think like you didn’t have enough political support"

Sucks to lose, don't it.

What are you wiling to give the opposition in return for backing some climate stuff?

[Krychek_2]

Science is not something you negotiate over. The earth will not suddenly become flat just because it would be useful for political horse trading.

And I think the reality is that the only really effective ways to combat climate change would also completely tank the economy, and no politician is going to do that for the benefit of voters not yet born. So the earth will overheat and humans (and most other life forms) will face catastrophe, but by then our current climate change deniers will all be dead and won't care. So, the only thing to be done at this point is to hope that our evolutionary successors do a better job with the planet than we do.

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Science is not something you negotiate over."

Politics is.

If you want a political concession, you need to give the concessor [sic] something. Horse trading.

If you are not so wiling, then you must not think it important enough, your words notwithstanding.

[Krychek_2]

How about your grandchildren don't suffer through another extinction event. Is that good enough, or do you need more than that?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is that good enough, or do you need more than that?"

Just as I expected, its all words and unverifiable future scare stories.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How about your grandchildren don’t suffer through another extinction event. Is that good enough, or do you need more than that?"

Science says we're going to go through an extinction event if we don't sacrifice the economy? That doesn't sound like science, it sounds like some weird religion.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Science absolutely says we will be going through another extinction event. It doesn't really have much to say about sacrificing the economy. That part comes when people make policy decisions based on the science.

[StellaLink]

"And you, sir, are on the same plane as people who deny that bacteria causes disease. " And Sharyl Attkisson has a report on the controversy, no doubt.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Get a load of this guy. He has apparently never heard of an analogy.

[VinniUSMC]

It may have been an attempt at analogy, but it wasn't analogous at all.

[ThePublius]

I agree with Richard Feynman, arguably the greatest physicist of the 20th century (yes, greater than Einstein), that 'there's no such thing as climate science.'

"Climate scientists," (as opposed to scientists) such as Michael Moore, et.al., are nothing more than modern day 'priests,' leading a cult of followers among whom are true believers and grifters - the latter including politicians.

Consider this: the foundational theory of anthropocentric global warming is that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs the longwave radiation from the earth and emit it back into the atmosphere. The supposed increase in trapped energy leads to higher temperatures at the earth's surface.

Yet, this theory has never been validated experimentally. There is not a SINGLE repeatable experiment published that proves this theory. And, many aspects of it have been disproven, like IR "downwelling."

It's bunk, and it's being used to tax and control people.

[Queen Amalthea]

"and it’s being used to tax and control people."

Here's the key. I bet you start with this and work backwards in your evaluation of 'climate scientists' (actually numerous different fields).

I mean, do an inductive logic problem here, what is more likely, that 'ThePublius,' anonymous commenter on a libertarian website, is correct about this complex scientific issue and literally hundreds (if not thousands) of people across the world working in many different institutions (government, academe, private sector, non-profit, etc.,) with documented credentials and accomplishments in the relevant fields are wrong, and in a way that, nicely, comports with The Publius' strongly held political beliefs, or vice versa?

[M L]

Quite apart from the scientific issues regarding climate:

The most excited activists and bureaucrats have been loudly proclaiming how thrilled they are with their extremist alarmist interpretations of the climate issue, because in their mind it finally changes the game to justify what they want regardless of climate: a robust globalist socialist government.

[Queen Amalthea]

There are thousands upon thousands of 'activists' and 'bureaucrats' around the world, many of them are quite conservative. Your comments are sloppy, careless, and, of course, krazy, kooky konspiratorial. Why should anyone believe them over those of more careful, less conspiratorial, more widely shared by people with credentials and achievements? The logical conclusion would be yours are driven by ideology.

[M L]

I'm just observing numerous public statements that have been made, nothing more or less.

[I Callahan]

I bet you start with this and work backwards in your evaluation of ‘climate scientists’

This is pure projection. One thing that believers of climate change do is start with the premise that people need to be controlled, so all "science" regarding the climate is geared toward people being told where they can live, what they can drive, what they can do, etc.

[Queen Amalthea]

"One thing that believers of climate change do is start with the premise that people need to be controlled"

Wow, thanks for providing a comment which supports my view so much!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"One thing that believers of climate change do is start with the premise that people need to be controlled"

That's the disingenuous argument of a twit.

[Sarcastr0]

One thing climate change deniers start with the premise that they want to drive their trucks more than they want to have a viable planet for their kids.

What, is that an unfair characterization, and any logic or policies made pursuant to it will be wildly inaccurate and unfair?

[loki13]

"I agree with Richard Feynman, arguably the greatest physicist of the 20th century (yes, greater than Einstein), that ‘there’s no such thing as climate science.’"

I agree with Richard Feynman, one of my personal heroes, that 'Publius is a total moron who makes up quotes and then attributes them to people in service of his blinkered views."

[I Callahan]

Publius is a total moron who makes up quotes and then attributes them to people in service of his blinkered views.

You could provide a link that shows Feynman didn't say that, or you could provide a link that Publius is wrong. Instead you went for the ad-hominem, signaling to the rest of us that you don't have an argument as much as you have faith in your belief.

[loki13]

There is this MAGICAL THING. It's called the internet. You might know it, because you might be using it right now!

See, on the internet, you have the ability to do something called "search." WOAH! I KNOW! CRAZY!

One of the places that lets you search is called TEH GOOGLE. Now, I know that morons like you think that google, and other places have a reality-based bias, so you can use any dumb place you think works. Good?

So when you see a quote that doesn't look right, or that you know is wrong, here is what you do. Pay attention, because this is really, really difficult to understand!

You go to a search website.
You put a quotation mark in.
You paste the quote.
You put another quotation mark in.
You click SEARCH (or hit enter).

If you feeling frisky, you can also do a boolean search and include the name of the person alleged to have said it!

You can do all of this on your lonesome, and then you won't look like the idiot that you are.

This has been yet another in a sad series of necessary lessons. These are so common, that there is an entire website (letmegooglethat) for mouthbreathers like you.

You are welcome.

[ah....Clem]

"The difficult thing about the internet is how to determine which quotes are real and which ones are fake." -Thomas Jefferson

"I ain't no schoolboy, but I know what I like." -Benjamin Franklin

[jb]

I have repeated Loki's suggested method and determined that neither of these quotes are real. I guess it works!

[TwelveInchPianist]

The correct quote is:

“I ain’t no schoolboy, but I know what I like.” -Thomas Jefferson

[I Callahan]

There is this MAGICAL THING. It’s called the internet. You might know it, because you might be using it right now! See, on the internet, you have the ability to do something called “search.” WOAH! I KNOW! CRAZY!

Because as we know, everything on the internet must be true. You're not that guy from the commercial, are you? The French model?

You go to a search website.
You put a quotation mark in.
You paste the quote.
You put another quotation mark in.
You click SEARCH (or hit enter).

Or, YOU could do it, because you're the one who made the assertion that Publius is a moron. If you're going to flail about like a toddler, don't expect me to prove or disprove your claim. That's on you.

As for the rest of the snark, it goes to what I already said, but bears repeating: you're signaling to the rest of us that you don’t have an argument as much as you have faith in your belief. Because if you were so sure that were true, you'd be more than willing to prove your point.

If you feeling frisky, you can also do a boolean search and include the name of the person alleged to have said it!

You can do all of this on your lonesome, and then you won’t look like the idiot that you are.

This has been yet another in a sad series of necessary lessons. These are so common, that there is an entire website (letmegooglethat) for mouthbreathers like you.

You are welcome.

[loki13]

"Or, YOU could do it, because you’re the one who made the assertion that Publius is a moron. If you’re going to flail about like a toddler, don’t expect me to prove or disprove your claim. That’s on you."

So here's a magical concept for you. I know this will be difficult for you to understand, given your prior history of totally idiotic postings in general, and your desire to BECLOWN YOURSELF over and over again here, so I will type very slowly so your mouth can form the words as you read them.

I recognized the quote was bogus. I verified the quote was bogus. And then I noted the quote was bogus in my reply.

This is all something you would know if you bothered to think about it for even a second, or had wondered, "Gee, why hadn't Publius responded?"

Of course, since you know nothing, but wanted to argue, you made stuff up without looking it up and after unknowingly making yourself into an idiot, and having it explained to you, you did it again.

BRAVO! Again, if you knew anything about Richard Feynman, or bothered doing even the most routine check, you would know that you are now, verifiably, the biggest, dumbest, idiot out there, and have now doubled down after being notified of it!

Congratulations. At least Dr. Ed has a few good storied about Maine. You, on the other hand, are completely and totally useless.

[Krychek_2]

Well, Richard Feynmann died in 1988 (I just googled it), well before man made climate change was on the radar, so while I don't know to a 100% certainty that he didn't say it, I'm skeptical.

[ah....Clem]

Back in the 80s I was doing research physics on spectral absorption of tri-atomic molecules. This wasn't climate science, but close enough that we (me and the rest of the research team) heard about the global warming hypothesis. I'm not sure if anything had been published yet, but the idea was around at the time.

And most of us dismissed it at the time as just speculation. 30+ years later, it's much more than speculation, it's established fact.

So I wouldn't be surprised if Fenyman dismissed it at one time way back when. Almost all physicists did (or at least that's my recollection) . That doesn't mean that the evidence is lacking today.

[De Oppresso Liber]

It has been a theory since at least 1896. I can't find it now, but I once saw a popular science article from the turn of the 19th-20th century on CO2 driven climate change.

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm#L_M019

[TwelveInchPianist]

"so while I don’t know to a 100% certainty that he didn’t say it, I’m skeptical."

OTOH, for much of his life there really was nothing called "climate science"...

[SykesFive]

How do you prove a negative? The proponent should provide the proof.

I grew up reading Feynman and I never came across him writing "There's no such thing as climate science."

I suspect this is an interpretation (I am being generous) of Feynman's "cargo cult science" speech which forms the final chapter of Surely You're Joking and his attacks on the idea of "consensus science."

[ThePublius]

He did, indeed, say it, in a video interview; I can't find the link at the moment, it may have been a BBC interview.

[SykesFive]

You are going to need to find that quote as well as some context.

It's true that climatology/climate science is a young field and much of the relevant expertise resides in other disciplines.

One of my dad's last assignments before his retirement from NASA was overseeing the grants in a large program to determine whether cloud cover's relationship to atmospheric is direct, inverse, or what. This was in the early-mid 2000s.

You could say that in a sense they were doing "climate science" which was the expected application of the research but of course very few of the scientists involved were "climate scientists." Most of them were meteorologists or various other types of geophysicist/geoscientist.

My dad is, technically, an oceanographer because that was his Ph.D., and his dissertation concerned thermohaline convection in the ocean, the main applications of which have to do with sonar. But for about 20 years, he'd specialized professionally in designing remote sensing experiments, so he was ideal to administer a program that included numerous such experiments. Just anecdotally, a surprising number of atmosphere scientists are oceanography Ph.D.s

[Brett Bellmore]

Is this parody? It's easy enough to calculate what the temperature of the Earth would be without the greenhouse effect, and it's damn cold.

All the argument around global warming is about feedback mechanisms, because CO2 is pretty much tapped out as far as its greenhouse effect is concerned, and is only proposed to dangerously influence global temperatures by influencing the concentration of OTHER greenhouse gases, notably H2O.

[ThePublius]

"Is this parody? It’s easy enough to calculate what the temperature of the Earth would be without the greenhouse effect, and it’s damn cold."

What keeps the earth's atmosphere warm is the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, NOT the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory.

The CO2-based GHG theory is unproven bunk.

[Brett Bellmore]

I had literally never heard of the "gravito-thermal greenhouse effect", and after doing some searching, I can see why.

[ThePublius]

It's the basis of the U.S. Standard Atmospheric Model, and is the only proven model for how our atmosphere works. It's used by NASA, the Air Force, et.al., for all atmospheric modeling.

"Physicist Richard Feynman proved the Maxwell gravito-thermal greenhouse theory is correct & does not depend upon greenhouse gas concentrations."

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/physicist-richard-feynman-proved.html

[bernard11]

How do you know who is a "real" climate scientist and who isn't?

Whether they agree with you or not?

[VinniUSMC]

Climate science is as much a science as psychology and economics.

The only thing they're good at is describing things that happen after they happen.

Replication and modeling are sorely lacking.

[Jimmy the Dane]

When literally anything natural happens that is not good for the human occupants of this ball of dirt spinning through space and time, "client" "scientists" blame global warming. Hmmm....let me think for a sec. If your definition of global warming is so broad that is potentially encompasses every single flood, fire, and natural disaster then you are going to have lots of "evidence" your thing exists. Convenient much?

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm curious at your scientific credentials and accomplishments in the three fields you critique.

[Sarcastr0]

All of those are replicable. See the latest Nobel prize in economics. And the temperature is measurably increasing, as predicted.

Your latter two are more descriptive than predictive. That's still science, even if you didn't learn about their methods in middle school.

[Don Nico]

Actually morphed into the past tense under Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

This is just pure tribal worldview chest-thumping with no actual content.

Not a healthy thing to lean into.

[Jimmy the Dane]

No it is the truth. I know that is hard to swallow, but try.

[Sarcastr0]

You sound like a cultist.

[Queen Amalthea]

Global warming? I thought even most conservatives now conceded there is strong evidence for warming, not it's moved on to how much evidence there is it's human influenced.

And there's a huge difference in that in one instance most of the relevant experts say X is happening while in the other most say Y is not. So to equate belief in X and Y isn't a good analogy.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You are wrong. The consensus among actual scientists who use data to drive their analysis is that the world's climate is changing and has changed significantly over the centuries and probably since the beginning of time. Sometimes these shifts are more subtle (mini ice ages) and sometimes they are more robust. We are in the middle of one that is falling closer to the, well, middle of the curve.

[Queen Amalthea]

"actual scientists who use data to drive their analysis"

This is shorthand for 'scientists I agree with,' no?

Because the vast majority of scientists who work in the relevant fields have, at the very least, endorsed the conclusion that we are in a period of significant warming (indeed, the majority, though probably a significantly smaller number, accept the conclusion it's human driven in significant part).

[I Callahan]

This is shorthand for ‘scientists I agree with,’ no?

Do you not see the irony in this statement?

[Queen Amalthea]

Can you read beyond the first sentence (I realize OAN might not encourage such skills).

"Because the vast majority of scientists who work in the relevant fields have, at the very least, endorsed the conclusion that we are in a period of significant warming (indeed, the majority, though probably a significantly smaller number, accept the conclusion it’s human driven in significant part)."

[I Callahan]

The madness of crowds...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He who is right is a majority of one. -Thomas Jefferson [not]

[Jimmy the Dane]

No it means real scientists, period. And the consensus as you restate what I said is that we are in a period of warming which is a normal cyclical cycle in long term climate shifts.

[Queen Amalthea]

Again, can you let us know your scientific credentials/accomplishments to help us judge whether your judgement of who is and who is not a 'real scientist' is likely or a confirmation of your already expressed ideological preferences?

[EscherEnigma]

Under Obama, yeah. Conservatives in America had finally caught up to conservatives elsewhere in the world and said "yeah, global warming is happening, and it's probably our fault, but why should we do anything about it?"

Under Trump, and the resurgence of conspiracy theories at his behest, conservatives have regressed.

[jb]

So, just to clarify. You're asserting that you think all three of these claims are equally specious?

[Aladdin's Carpet]

I know FDA officials keep disavowin any political considerations in approving the vaccine, but ... I kinda wish the federal government would just say "approve this now". Like if they are being honest, I wish there was a political effort to speed up the process.

I mean, the UK approved it, Canada approved it, do you really need, when thousands of people are dying a day, to wait a few more days to be absolutely sure? What do you expect to happen? I understand the capacity to produce isnt there, but, at the very least, some people injected now is better than some people injected later. Even if you have 1000 vials currently if you inject people now you prevent that sector and inhibit transmission for those 1000 people.

Even if the FDA waiting isn't a significant bottleneck, it is something standing in the way. It ought to stop.

[Armchair Lawyer]

They've got to review the data properly. This is a remarkably expedited process on their end. They don't do rolling review like the UK.

You may criticism them, but you're talking about a vaccine you plan on injecting into hundreds of millions of Americans, using a completely new mechanism (mRNA). If literally anything is wrong....if there's a 0.1% chance of death due to the vaccine, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. And if that chance could've been caught by a proper review of the data, and it was skipped?.....

Again, it's remarkably expedited on their end. You don't want to wait a couple days, but the chance of being wrong is so drastic that you need to check it.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Perhaps, but it is not as though people are actually performing a cost benefit analysis here. The data from the clinical trial is in,, nothing is going to change it now. And people should be able to make their own choices. There are known problems, like allergies. Me, who has significant allergies, will probably elect to wait a little bit during release to see what happens with regards to that.

At the end of the day, the most accurate information for what might happen when you release to public is ... if you release it to the public. RCTs are not very accurate in the medical field (despite claims of a gold standard) because they are controlled, and the real world isn't.

And yeah, I understand they are already turning a 5 to 10 year process into a few months, but that ought to open up the process for more scrutiny. Not just during a pandemic, but ideally, we should have this long a timeline in any circumstance. The people in charge are doing the best they can but this system is broken.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"The data from the clinical trial is in,, nothing is going to change it now"

-It's got to be analyzed. You have to give the FDA SOME reasonable amount of time to go through the mountain of paperwork that was submitted.

"it is not as though people are actually performing a cost benefit analysis here"

-That actually is EXACTLY what the FDA is doing, making sure the vaccine's benefit outweighs any costs. The costs here being a potential side effect death/morbidity rate. Give them a week or 2 to do the analysis.

"At the end of the day, the most accurate information for what might happen when you release to public is … if you release it to the public"

And in fact, that is EXACTLY what is going, unprecedented openness openness. Here's a link to a Blog post that discusses it, as well as providing links to both the FDA and Pfizer briefing documents, for the meeting they are having today.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/09/the-fda-weighs-its-first-coronavirus-vaccine

The real thing is, this sort of analysis takes a while. It can't be done instantly. Give it a week or 2.

[ReaderY]

Just as the law regards it as better that ten guilty people go free rather than one innocent person be unfairly punished, the Hypocratic Proncipal of medical ethics (“First above all do no harm”) says that it is better that ten people die natural deaths than that a doctor (and the medical establishment) kill one person by mistake. The ethical principals in the two cases are similar. A natural death due to disease is a tragedy. A death inflicted by human action is an injustice. The ethical pronciples involved would rather allow multiple tragedies than risk a single injustice.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Sure. And thats stupid. Like I understand what "medical ethics" has to say about it, but its stupid. We are talking hypotheticals here. The world would be better off if we don't listen to medical ethicists in the middle of a pandemic.

And even in general it gets kinda ridiculous, like conservative concerns about using embryos in medical research is immediately dismissed as being anti-science, but all of a sudden there are rules against certain animal trials or against telling people whether or not they have a genetic illness? The ethical thing to do is lie to people? Really?

I get the need for it given how horrific certain experiments were 50 years ago, but like holding up things now over ethical concerns when thousands are dying is really dumb.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope your reasoning matures with time.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I get the need for it given how horrific certain experiments were 50 years ago, but like holding up things now over ethical concerns when thousands are dying is really dumb."

Speaking of dumb, what if the effects of the vaccine show significant harmful results a few years from now, after the vaccine has been given to hundreds of millions of people?

You need to think before you speak.

[ThePublius]

Medical ethics went the way of the dodo when they embraced the concepts of gender dysphoria and gender reassignment therapy and surgery.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's more like your view is the dodo in this situation...

[ThePublius]

So, you believe it's possible to reassign someone's gender? How about their ethnicity, or even species?

Total nonsense.

[Queen Amalthea]

Gender is a social presentation, I should have thought you'd ask if it was possible to reassign someone's sex.

To my understanding what's going on involves the former. And I don't see what the big deal is about. Do you think people who get, say, rhinoplasty or lazik are committing some kind of sin because they won't accept their God-given nose or eyesight?

[I Callahan]

Gender is a social presentation, I should have thought you’d ask if it was possible to reassign someone’s sex.

Let me be another dodo here: there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference between gender and sex. Period. (I gleaned from prior comments that you like the all-caps method of communication).

[Queen Amalthea]

First, you 'gleamed' wrong. You should try thinking instead. I was mocking the tendency of conservative Presidents and activists to write in ALL CAPS. Silly, isn't it?

Second, your argument seems to be against the dictionary.

Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

"Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. "

[Bob from Ohio]

The online dictionary people have changed quite a few definitions lately to reflect woke understandings.

"Among those who study gender and sexuality" does not make it a true definition either. Gender was created to be a more polite term than the crude word "sex" which both describes male/female and the sex act.

[I Callahan]

The same person who appeals to authority on scientific issues like global warming, says Merriam-Webster is the ultimate authority on gender and sexuality.

The jokes write themselves...

[Hank Ferrous]

Merriam-Webster is not a serious person's reference for the English language. You are, however, correct about sex versus gender. And, since you are so keen to know, what are your scientific and medical credentials?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

May non-serious people use it as a reference for the English language?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Aladdin's, you seem to favor a pragmatic approach. Fair enough.

But you ought to reflect on the pragmatic consequences if the approach you recommend runs into trouble. Depending on one or the other of two possibilities, there would likely be a notable difference affecting public acceptance of vaccination:

1. General approval for a vaccine is withheld, pending evaluation of unexpected harms, which may in fact occur. If they do occur, in trials or early limited administration, and are evaluated, health authorities figure out who is susceptible and steer those people away from vaccination. The others take the vaccine, and it works.

2. It's an emergency! We've had clinical trials. Now let's find out quick as we can what really happens—but, hey, everybody, it's safe and effective! Then the above-mentioned unexpected harms crop up, discrediting the public health advice.

After situation 1, the pragmatic result I would expect would be slightly diminished acceptance of the vaccine in question, but mostly, continued success administering it. An incidental benefit would be avoidance of harm to whatever people the vaccine is not suited for.

After situation 2, you risk a pragmatic outcome of widespread rejection of what might be a pretty good vaccine, because of unreliable assurances from public health authorities, and consequent widespread distrust of their advice. That could turn into a public health catastrophe, as millions of people rightly concluded they could trust neither the original clinical trials, nor the advice of public health authorities.

[Krychek_2]

We were discussing whether a president can pardon himself. Any thoughts on whether a future president could revoke it if he did? A pardon is basically an executive order, so intuitively I would think it can be revoked by future executive order, but I don't actually know.

[ReaderY]

No, a pardon once issued is irrevocable. The situation is analogous to double jeapardy after an acquittal. Once a person is declared legally innocent (which a pardon effectively does), he can’t be put in jeapardy again.

[Krychek_2]

I don't think that's true. I once had a client who received a presidential pardon. He also got a letter from the Justice Department that said that the pardon restored his civil rights but did not expunge his conviction. In other words, he was still a convicted felon, albeit one who is now allowed to vote.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY, I heard the opposite—that acceptance of a pardon was treated as an admission of guilt. I'm no lawyer, so maybe you are right. Or maybe it's more complicated, or nuanced.

[ah....Clem]

I doubt a future president could revoke a pardon, once it has been "delivered". GWB rescinded a pardon after signing it but before it was delivered. Grant revoked two pardons on his first day in office, and got away with it because the warden at the jail where the prisoners were being held never delivered the pardons to them. Other than those narrow exceptions, a pardon is more like being acquitted - it prevents the state from charging you again.

That said, federal courts have never ruled on whether self-pardons are legitimate, so a future administration could bring charges and argue that the self-pardon is invalid. Whether that future administration would expend the political capital to do so remains unclear.

Another thing I think a future administration could do, self-pardon or not, is challenge a pardon for not being sufficiently specific i.e. a blanket pardon such as was given to Nixon might be ruled invalid since it did not specify what particular acts or laws were violated. There's some historical precedent to support the idea that the framers intended pardons to be specific about what exactly is being pardoned, but this has never been tested in court that I know of, and may well be a stretch.

[bernard11]

I doubt it, and I don't think it should be revocable. (I'd make an exception if there was bribery involved, but I'm not sure the court would.)

Among other things, think about the implication for 5A rights if there were even a theoretical chance that the pardon could be revoked.

[ReaderY]

In the various lawsuits alleging that extending deadlines for mail-in ballots was unconstitutional, extensions were explained as due to COVID. But they are not entirely due to COVID.

An additional explanation is the Trump administration’s behavior. In several court cases around the country, federal judges have found that the Trump administration postal service had an intentional policy of deliberately slowing down the mail for the purpose of disenfranchising voters, and have enjoined a series of postal service actions and policies including treating election mail as marketing mail rather than first class mail, decommissioning sorting machines, a “leave it behind” policy requiring deliveries to leave on time regardless of whether mail they are to deliver has arrived yet, a prohibition on overtime, and more.

Equity requires clean hands. When Mr. Trump has intervened in cases, as he is seeking to do in Texas v. Pennsylvania, why haven’t states cited the Trump Administration’s postal services’ actions intended to delay the mail and argued that his hands aren’t clean? There is a good argument that the Trump administration’s willful neglect of its duty to deliver election mail on time is the cause of the remedial measures states took to address the problem of delayed mail, that are now being challenged as unconstitutional.

Why isn’t the administration being called out on its behavior? Mr. Trump is being permitted to challenge the deadline relaxations and demand equitable relief, as if they had occurred in a vacuum.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That was one of the questions which was presented to the Supreme Court on cert. Does the constitution allow for certain restriction in equity if ones due process or equal protection rights involving an election are in play (my phrasing not theirs.) I think that is an interesting one and at least by my brief review, a question courts have rarely addressed.

[Queen Amalthea]

"federal judges have found that the Trump administration postal service had an intentional policy of deliberately slowing down the mail for the purpose of disenfranchising voters"

Can you provide a citation for that?

[De Oppresso Liber]

https://time.com/5881590/trump-postal-service-election/

Of course, nobody will admit that it was purposeful, as that could be considered a federal crime. It is difficult to find any other explanation, however. The USPS mail workers union, from whom I have never heard a public statement previously, was quite vocal and direct at naming what they thought DeJoy was doing.

[ThePublius]

1. "federal judges have found that the Trump administration postal service had an intentional policy of deliberately slowing down the mail for the purpose of disenfranchising voters." That's a pretty bold claim. Can you supply a citation?

2. The Texas argument isn't about timing of the mail, it's about illegal changes to voting law in the defendant states.

[ReaderY]

For 1, There’s a Forbes article from Oct 15 with the title “DeJoy’s Postal Service Changes Have Now Been Struck Down 8 Times in Court” that includes some links to the relevant cases.

I tried posting a link but the comment with the link wasn’t accepted.

[ThePublius]

“federal judges have found that the Trump administration postal service had an intentional policy of deliberately slowing down the mail for the purpose of disenfranchising voters.”

My objection is to
"intentional policy"
and
"deliberately slowing down the mail"
and
"for the purpose of disenfranchising voters."

[De Oppresso Liber]

Dejoy's just a slow mail enthusiast. Much like our beloved Brett is a Rule of Law enthusiast.

[ReaderY]

How about this quote from Judge Bastian in Washington v. Trump in his September 20 injunction order and opinion:

“Although not necessarily apparent on the surface, at the heart of Dejoy’s and the Postal Service’s actions is voter disenfranchisement.”

Judge Bastian’s opinion says exactly the things you are quoting, and explains why, in some detail, he finds this so.

Several other judges have done the same.

[bernard11]

Wasn't postal delay one of the reasons the PA Supreme Court allowed ballots received after Election Day to be counted?

I don't know that there was an allegation that the delays were intentional, though I suspect they were, but that they were real, and acknowledged by USPS, ought to be enough.

Suppose something like a massive blizzard hits Philadelphia the Saturday before Election Day, so no USPS can't operate for a few days. Should ballots delivered late not count?

[ThePublius]

In Pennsylvania it was a combination of things, done in Sept. and Oct., by Penn legislature and courts so that ballots with non-matching signatures and no postmarks can be dropped at unsecured drop boxes until Nov. 6 and still be counted.

That's right. No postmark, non-matching signatures, and not even through the USPS.

Now, if you wanted to steal an election, here's your "means." Motive is obvious. Opportunity is denying Republican poll watchers sufficient access to monitor counting of these mail-in/drop off ballots.

[De Oppresso Liber]

And yet, still no evidence of that occurring.

Funny how republicans are suddenly interested in election security. Some of you should have told Mitch, who is letting at least election security bills languish on his desk.

Those bills contain language about further limiting and regulating foreign donations, among other measures, so you can see why Mitch is not interested in them.

[ThePublius]

There's tons of evidence it occurred. "No evidence" has become a part of the progressive Democrat narrative, along with "voter fraud is rare," and "Republicans seek to suppress the vote."

[Sarcastr0]

Tons!
It's just all getting covered up, and all the debunking is false propaganda.

Come on, man, not even the crazy lawyers are willing to go out on that limb.

[De Oppresso Liber]

^correction "at least 3 elections security bills"

[Stephen Lathrop]

What has equity really got to do with it? Isn't equity a legal doctrine, subject to litigation? Please correct me if I have that wrong, coming from me, it's not a rhetorical question.

It seems to me that the President may choose, if he wants to, to let considerations of equity guide a pardon decision. It may be that an applicant for a pardon would be wise to urge that equity requires mercy. But does any of that have anything at all to do, legally, with what a pardon is, or whether anyone gets a pardon?

I doubt it. Seems more like the ability to pardon is a Constitutional grant of power to the President, intended to serve, among other things, as a check and balance against the courts.

In the normal course of exercise of the pardon power, there is nothing to be litigated, right?

[Doug Stevens]

This is a real question I have not seen addressed:

What are we to do if bank shut down due to Covid-19 or any
future virus or disaster.

My mom is 84. No Bank of America's are open within 10
miles of her. She lives close to Tacoma, WA and there
are plenty of BoA's in her area. She doesn't know how
to use an ATM (We have tried to teach her.) I have
called BoA and have not been provided an answer. Every
month she withdraws her social security check and pays
cash for everything. I do not
know why more of their offices cannot be open as all
the local retail stores are open. There are a lot
of senior citizens that only use cash.
-
What do you think - what if the banks in one's area do
close? Do banks have a legal obligation to stay open.\?
Should not this be a question that is more openly discussed
in the media, by banks and the government.

I am watching the 2004 to 2009 Battlestar Galactica series.
What a great series!

[ReaderY]

She will need to learn to pay her bills by computer like everyone else.

Society is not going to maintain hay stations and hitching posts for her horse, goose farms for her quill pens, or coaling stations for her steam engine.

What makes this different?

[Queen Amalthea]

That's pretty callous. She's 84. I'm not saying we have to keep bank branches open for people like her, but a little sympathy for someone who was literally born generations before online banking might be warranted. This can be tough for people in that situation.

[EscherEnigma]

That’s pretty callous.

Welcome to "America and senior citizens", luv.

Seriously, banks and creditors continue to pretend they don't know how to handle a debtor's death, try to trick family members into accepting the debt, and other such things.

So yeah, the bar for "moral and ethical behavior we expect from banks" is so low, it may as well be laying on the ground. Expecting compassionate and reasonable behavior from them is not reasonable, no matter how your conscience says it should be.

[Don Nico]

"She will need to learn to pay her bills by computer like everyone else."
Don't be an ass! It's far easier said than done and it is also discriminatory against people with certain disabilities.

[Doug Stevens]

I have never understood why people like yourself spend their time
making useless,thoughless and unhelpful comments. Your the type
that tears down rather than builds up. The question was not about
my mother nor other senior citizens. These were used as examples
so your suggestions about on how seniors need to use the Internet
were totally useless and rather puerile.

The question was what are we to do if banks shut down due to Covid-19 or any
future virus or disaster. what are we to do if the Internet shuts down due to Covid-19 or any
future virus or disaster.

[loki13]

Well, when a person is 84, they tend to need more help and support. So if you wanted to ask general questions, you probably shouldn't have made it so specific! And then made a fuss about how your question wasn't about your mother and other senior citizens. To answer your questions in this post-

1. If the banks shut down due to a pandemic or other natural disaster, you're kind of screwed, right? If you've lived in a place with hurricanes or earthquakes etc., you know that you can be without banking services for days, weeks, or months. Hopefully, there is some emergency aid. You have no "constitutional right" to banking services, either in-person or in general. And if the whole banking system collapses, then you will have bigger issues.

2. If the internet shuts down due to ... a virus (heh) or disaster, we are also in a LOT of trouble, given how reliant on it we have become. I've been through a natural disaster in the not-too-distant past and it kinda sucked. You don't realize how nice little things like "power" are until you are without it for weeks at a time.

[I Callahan]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were being facetious here. So I won't comment further until you either confirm or deny that.

[apedad]

Your mother can give you power of attorney to handle her affairs (and she can make it specific as she wants, e.g. only pay cable, food, etc.).

And I 100% agree with ReaderY.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Are people surprised there are side effect to the Covid vaccine? Did people expect to get something, a vaccine without side effects, that does not exist? Apparently yes.

Are they actually surprised the media isn't talking about them? The same media that can't even get their mask stories straight or used this as a political cudgel up until the election. And people are surprised they aren't being honest with their blackout of people talking about side effects.

We rushed this through in less than a year using rather novel techniques to get there. Then we are going to deploy that to pretty much all of humanity. Who thought that was going to be a seamless process?

I won't be first in line, but when my number comes up I will probably take it.

[Don Nico]

It is surprising that while my friends in Europe immediately heard about the severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine of the two in the UK. A Report was not in the top page of either the NYT or WSJ.
Fortunately the two had an epipen and were save from probable death. As the rate of vaccination increases, how many deaths will be acceptable? Are there appropriate screening questions, adequate epipens available at vaccination sites, etc.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I read European news sources because surprisingly they still report a lot of news you never read about in any US publication. It is almost like they expect there to still be news over there.

[M L]

Interesting info on the "Crusader bias" in the vaccine trials. https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-12-09-covid-vaccine-clinical-trials-and-crusader-bias.html

[Illocust]

Well lets see. It only needs a 1 in 1000 severe adverse reaction rate to be in the running for literally worse than the disease. Especially as unlike the disease there is no herd immunity to a vaccine.

[jb]

"Well lets see. It only needs a 1 in 1000 severe adverse reaction rate to be in the running for literally worse than the disease"

That's dumb. Covid has lots of negative effects other than death, and is more deadly than 1 in 1000.

[EscherEnigma]

Are they actually surprised the media isn’t talking about them?

Seeing as I've seen articles talking about side-effects, debating the obligation doctors have to discuss possible side-effects in depth, and so-on for weeks (if not months... 2020, ya know? Everything blurs together), yeah, I'm surprised at this claim.

And people are surprised they aren’t being honest with their blackout of people talking about side effects.

And that gets to New York Governor Cuomo's long-standing claims that he wants his state folk to approve any vaccine independent of the CDC, precisely because he doesn't trust the CDC and FDA under President Trump.

Who thought that was going to be a seamless process?
May I suggest you respond to Alladin's Carpet up above? They seem to be eager to skip the normal certification steps and just start jabbing people.

For what it's worth, I too will get the vaccine once I can. But since I'm a healthy young office-worker, I suspect --in an understandable twist of irony-- I'll have months of people less able to suffer the side-effects to prove it's safety before I get a chance.

[M L]

Turns out that NY Post Hunter Biden laptop story was . . . true.
#riggedelection #propaganda #censorship #electioninterference

[arpiniant1]

and the proof is......yeah...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

What do you mean? He provided no less than four hashtags!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Even Rudy Giuliani has moved on from that one, but it appears a few inconsequential bigots are still clinging to it.

[arpiniant1]

HOw real commies view the latest trumpski alwsuit

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-dumb-statistical-argument-in-texass-election-lawsuit/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=third

[Don Nico]

A post to lighten the discussion:

It is high time to cancel the US 5-cent coin.
First, its name the ni***** is too close to the forbidden n-word slur
Second, on its face it shows T. Jefferso, an unashamed slave owner and slave f*cker.
Third, The reverse side shows an infamous slave plantation.
Fourth, it replaced a coin with the figure of an indigenous American on its face and an image of an innocent animal on its rear.

[loki13]

How about this?

We get rid of the penny, the nickel, and the quarter.

Go entirely to a decimal system, with dimes, half-dollars, and dollar coins.

Smallest denomination bill is the $5.

The only drawback? Trying to stick dollar coins in garter belts.

[Don Nico]

Very true. That will be tough.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Less than a fiver? Stay home.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Strippers will enjoy the raise.

[loki13]

Use singles, you last five times as long!

Um ... hmm. That didn't come out right.

[Ridgeway]

Couldn't you drop a Sacajewea down the coin slot, rather than the garter belt?

[rsteinmetz]

I'm wary of "listening to the scientists". In every large medical project I've been involved in some MD will pound the table, swear that if everyone doesn't obey his/her demands "Someone if going to die", usually followed by huffing out of the room.

I find scientists and engineers often place inordinate value on their own skills and contributions. They discount the contributions of others and have tunnel vision, unable to see different approaches. This tendency is greater among Public Servants who generally see them selves as under paid vs the private sector (not generally true) and sacrificing themselves on the altar of Public Service.

I have also developed the Law of the Disgruntled Bureaucrat:

"Every Disgruntled Bureaucrat has in the bottom of their desk drawer, on their laptop or in email one or more memos or reports predicting some dire consequence of some kind.

Since there is an infinite supply of Disgruntled Bureaucrats every possible catastrophe has been predicted by a Disgruntled Bureaucrat waiting for the opportunity to say "I told you this would happen"."

[Jimmy the Dane]

We used to recognize this in our educational system especially at the university level. You had "breadth" and "depth" to disciplines. If you wanted an expert you gave them depth. If you wanted someone who could move along processes and transactions you gave them breadth.

Depth studied, experimented, and came up with the product. Breadth manufactured, sold, shipped, and moved it around. That was how it was supposed to work and it largely does.

The reason why the depth side (scientists) mostly are horrible at setting policy is they are not trained to see anything outside of their narrow silo. A complete economic lockdown looks like good policy to a scientist who has the sole objective of stopping a pandemic. To someone who has training in many disciplines that looks absolutely horrible though as they can see the ramifications to society, economy, and other health aspects. Hence why science advises and public policy implements.

[bernard11]

In every large medical project I’ve been involved in some MD will pound the table, ...

MD's are not, in general, trained in research methods and the like. I wouldn't quite call them "scientists."

[Jimmy the Dane]

That really depends. Some MD's come from a more science background (many do MA programs before going to med school or come out of the "hard sciences" when getting a BS), but medical school does not generally provide that training.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jimmy, around the Boston area, if you aren't seeing an MD/PhD, or an MD/MBA, or an MD/MPH, you are probably being under-served. On my medical treatment roster, I currently have all 3 kinds.

For quite a few years, I got most of my care from a brilliant rheumatologist. One of the best docs I ever encountered. He always ran late, because patients in front of you were going to get whatever time it took, just like you were. You learned to insist on the first appointment of the day.

Seemed to me he was a superb clinician. I couldn't have been happier. Then one day, I get a note saying I have to find a new doc, because he's moving on to a different job.

Then I talk to him, and he says he got offered his dream job—as the chief of an academic organization numbering literally thousands of researchers, all working on analysis of ways to make delivery of health care more effective and more efficient. So for the first time, I Googled my doc. Turns out I had been getting day-to-day clinical care from one of the nation's leading authorities on health care policy. I never had any inkling what he was doing the other 4 days of the week (or, more likely for him, the other 6 days; when he had nothing else to do, he rummaged around in Central America and the Caribbean, trying to improve health care there).

That's an outstanding example, but there seem to be a lot of docs around Boston who take a similar approach. I have had plenty of medical care elsewhere, and it has made me feel sorry for folks who can't get the Boston standard. By the way, I don't think I have ever met a Boston-area doc who isn't in favor of single-payer. Based on that, the frequent claims I hear that single-payer would drive good docs out of the profession strike me as unlikely.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
"around the Boston area, if you aren’t seeing an MD/PhD, or an MD/MBA, or an MD/MPH, you are probably being under-served"

That is a rather insulting comment to many excellent clinicians. You don't need a PhD or MBA to have an excellent h-factor for publications or to be internationally recognized as being in the top ranks for your specialty

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don, the, "under-served," part was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Or to put it another way, so over the top I didn't expect a sensible person to take it literally.

[EscherEnigma]

[...] around the Boston area, if you aren’t seeing an MD/PhD, or an MD/MBA, or an MD/MPH, you are probably being under-served. On my medical treatment roster, I currently have all 3 kinds.

I think that says more about the wealth and credentialism of Boston then anything else, actually.

If you have some sort of weird and rare disorder that you need cutting-edge folks working on you to resolve your medical issues, then maybe you need that kind of care. But for the vast majority of people, you don't need an exceptional doctor, you need an average doctor. Which works out nicely, because by definition most doctors are going to be within a standard deviation of an average doctor, so that average doctor really needs to be suitable for most people's needs.

Or to put it another way... there are too many people who need the services of an average doctor to raise the bar such that only exceptional people can be doctors.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Qualifications after a name are not indicative of skill. I've run into some veterinarians that have diagnosed problems which have vexed normal docs (they see a lot especially things that cross over from human to animal.) A "good" doc comes in many different versions. There are also a lot of "bad" docs with lots of initials after their name.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Escher, is, "credentialism," some new way to invoke Azimov's old observation, "Democracy means my ignorance is as good as your knowledge?"

What do you mean by, "credentialism?" That you start from a premise that learned expertise is bunk, until proven otherwise? If you don't have that learned expertise yourself, how would you recognize the proof, even if it was right in front of you?

In general, my experience has been that the smarter folks are, the more readily they recognize (and defer to) others' superior expertise when they encounter it. What do you think?

[bernard11]

around the Boston area, if you aren’t seeing an MD/PhD, or an MD/MBA, or an MD/MPH, you are probably being under-served.

Well, I live in the Boston area, and my doctor is just a plain MD, and my experience, over two decades, is that he provides excellent, thoughtful, care.

So maybe you're wrong.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sorry, Bernard. I meant that tongue in cheek. If you didn't get it, I know I did it wrong.

[rsteinmetz]

They are Health Engineers, with an attitude.

[Don Nico]

That is another gross insult. I hope that the treatment you get is commensurate with your poor attitude.

[rsteinmetz]

You must be an MD. or have not works closely with many, outside a situation where they are in charge.

[Josh R]

Happy Hanukkah!

[bernard11]

Light the candles! Bring on the latkes! Bring out the brisket!

[LSchnapf]

does the argument that only legislatures and not election boards are able to change election rules remind anyone of the non-delegation doctrine? Seems like a similar argument.

[EscherEnigma]

Sure.

And it's one that may be acceptable going forward, but trying to apply retroactively is going to be a disaster.

Punishing people who acted in good faith because you changed the rules after the fact is never a good look.

[loki13]

It's beyond that. In addition to creating new rules, post hoc, that are completely different than what had been the rules in the past, it's also incorrect and ahistorical.

The First Amendment is clear, right? "Congress shall make no law ..."

So all of those First Amendment rights can only be violated by Congress or the state legislatures (assuming incorporation)? Or does it also include the executive and the judiciary?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Punishing people who acted in good faith because you changed the rules after the fact is never a good look."

The whole point here is that the rules didn't change, that people who weren't entitled to change them purported to have done so, and then proceeded to violate the unchanged rules. Unchanged because nobody who was entitled to change them had.

And are we proposing to jail the people who did this? Not last I heard.

[SykesFive]

They (you?) are proposing just to not count our votes.

I am a Pennsylvania voter. I could have voted in-person like I did before 2020, but I voted using the mail-in procedure because I believed it was valid. I mean, the General Assembly (GOP majorities in both houses) passed it and the Governor (Democrat) signed it, and everybody acted like it was a real way to vote all across the state.

Now suddenly all these people are saying the mail-in system was illegal. Not cool, man. Not cool.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? Your relying on it has no bearing on whether or not it was legal.

On the available remedies? Sure.

But not on whether or not it was legal.

[EscherEnigma]

Dude, you've been openly advocating for throwing out millions of votes and awarding the election to Trump.

Pretending innocence now ain't cute.

That said, this goes beyond the elections. A similar argument was, just this week, made in the SCOTUS. If this novel view of non-delegation doctrine takes hold something like 17 years of decisions by the Social Security Administration can get thrown out, and who knows how many other federal agencies are going to have their structure called into question.

The relief you assholes are seeking is not appropriate. Pretending it is is contemptible.

[M L]

Will Biden build on Trump’s foreign policy achievements — or destroy them? https://spectator.us/biden-build-burden-trump-foreign-policy-achievements-destroy/

Joe Biden talks a lot about restoring America’s standing in the world. But the truth is that if he now has the chance to reshape America’s relationships for a new era, it’s because Donald Trump has already done the awkward stuff. The question is: can Biden and his team swallow their collective pride and build on Trump’s legacy, or will vanity and partisanship send the American Atlas tumbling to his knees?

[OtisAH]

Trump’s legacy on the world stage is ensuring our allies will never fully trust us again because we’ll always be one election away from another Trump. Plus. the greater threat Russia poses to Europe today than four years ago, nuclear proliferation, and better-armed Mid East theocracies.

That’s a form of “success” I’m just not sure on whose behalf. Not ours, that’s for certain.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You mean our allies won't bilk us for money and take advantage of us anymore. How was it we funded NATO and the UN to the tune of 90% for so long without anyone pointing that out...????

[De Oppresso Liber]

We don't pay dues to NATO. And we fund only 20 some percent of the UN.

You are full of shit. I'm noticing a pattern there.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That isn't what the CBO says, but who needs truth and numbers and facts....

[De Oppresso Liber]

Please tell me what CBO says then.

If CBO says we are paying cash transfers to NATO, then CBO needs to make some staffing decisions.

[rsteinmetz]

No we don't pay NATO but we do station troops in Europe and provide support our allies are too cheap to provide. It made a lot of sense in the beginning when those economies were struggling but not anymore.

[SykesFive]

Never, ever did the U.S. contribution represent 90 percent of NATO's anything.

[rsteinmetz]

For a time the US represented 100% of NATO's nuclear deterrent.

[De Oppresso Liber]

For a time the US represented 100% of the world's nuclear deterrent.

[SykesFive]

That is an interesting question. Arguably, the US didn't start providing NATO with a dedicated nuclear deterrent distinct from US strategic forces until 1953-54, by which time the British were at least testing nuclear weapons.

[OtisAH]

No, I didn’t mean any of that.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So you are fine with foreign powers treating America as some sort of stooge?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Depends which one. Curly Joe DeRita would be entirely unacceptable.

[Bob from Ohio]

"greater threat Russia poses to Europe today than four years ago"

The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.

Russia is a declining power. Nothing in the last 4 years has changed that. If anything, the decline in oil prices has weakened it.

[OtisAH]

Oh yeah? The ‘80’s were four years ago were they? Thanks for weighing in.

[OtisAH]

And since Trump’s election, the guardrails against Russian misadventurism have been removed one by one. They WERE a declining power. Until Trump.

And the great thing for them is, they’ve been able to do most of it with keyboards instead of bullets and radiation poisoning (though the classics still have their uses).

[M L]

Trump made America a big energy producer, smashed oil prices --> Russia blown out. All that matters.

"Guardrails" you want to be world police in the middle east, we get it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They WERE a declining power. Until Trump."

An assertion not supported by any evidence.

Have they annexed any area like they did with the Crimea when Obama was president? Have they launched armed attacks in Europe like they did with Ukraine when Obama was president?

10 years of bombing in Syria and the Assad still does not control the whole country.

[M L]

Personally, I'm of a mind like Washington and Jefferson.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." Washington

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." Jefferson

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, America First didn't work so great the first time around either.

[Don Nico]

Otis,
His largest success has been to have the balls to confront China. You'd better hope that Biden builds on that - but with a little more grace.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Biden builds on that"

Fat chance

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax-investigtation/index.html

They even gave him a diamand to cement the engagement:

"During his divorce proceedings, attorneys for his ex-wife cited a diamond that Biden had received and suggested it was worth $80,000. Biden told the New Yorker it was worth about $10,000. "

[jb]

I know this can be kind of confusing because Hunter and Joe have the same last name, but you know they're different people, right?

[bernard11]

And how has he done that? With his idiotic tariffs?

[bernard11]

A predictably idiotic article.

[The Turtle Dove]

The rush to kill as many prisoners as possible before losing power is a bit unsavory.

Mr. D.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You mean the execution of lawful, duly conferred sentences that have been mired in bureaucratic red tape and appeals and people who do not like the public policy which then uses those convicts and the victim families (since the victims are all dead and they aren't around to abuse) as pawns in their sick little game?

[The Turtle Dove]

Yes, those are the ones.

Mr. D.

[Krayt]

From what I understand, the fast vaccine approvals aren't so much faster experimentation so much as government isn't sitting on approval steps for months, but rather treating it like novelty house builds in 24 hours, where an inspector hangs out with a sleeping bag.

Which makes me wonder how many millions have died needlessly over paperwork through the decades due to the FDA dragging ass on myriad research and development efforts "in the normal course of their business."

[Brett Bellmore]

There used to be estimates even here in Reason, based on how much slower (And no more protective!) the FDA was than other developed countries' similar agencies. It runs into the millions of man-years lost.

[Krayt]

And also we see drug company giants moving heaven and earth to develop vaccines, with an eye on the prize of billions of dollars in production contracts.

Keep this in mind some fool politician talks about "the unconscionable profits of drug companies", or taxing them more, or other business-unfriendly policies, or, murderously, limiting the prices they charge, and thus the rewards for new development.

Slap these pols. Or better yet, jail them for murdering more than Hitler or Stalin, combined.

It's easy to squeak about someone dying for lack of existing medical tech access. But this pales in comparison to the cumulative deaths as tech and cures are delayed months or years, year over year.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I think all the major drug companies that invested private capital into the vaccine development agreed to a certain percentage of "profit" off of any potential Covid vaccine. And it was pretty small taking into account all the risk was on them to actually develop an effective one.

So, whereas I don't think that this will necessarily result in the usual "unconscionable profits" claims, I'm sure there will be plenty of other opportunities to make that assertion. (And funny thing about that is church regulations used to police the amount of profits companies would make, now we just think the government ought to do that.)

[EscherEnigma]

As I understand it, several of the vaccines were actually federally funded, and a huge share of the cost of actually vaccinating folks is going to be borne by the federal government.

Even Pfizer, which didn't participate in "Warpspeed", had a sweet deal set-up months and months ago.

So, uh, yeah. This isn't a success story about the power of private industry, it's a success story of mobilizing government resources to subsidize industry.

[Don Nico]

Investing in covid vaccine research was a no-brainer for big pharma.

No matter what, large income would be at hand to those who got there early. Note that it is not just profit that was a drive, but the chance to make big infrastructure improvements, the costs of which would be quickly recouped.

[Aunt Teefah]

Wow, worse that Hitler AND Stalin? I've heard of politicians being Literally Hitler, and naturally anything that marginally reduces corporate profits is just like Stalin. But a combination of both Hitler and Stalin - that's some pretty heavy stuff. And all for the offense of proposing "business-unfriendly policies"?

Just goes to show how sick and deranged free market ideologues often are. Makes the Trump cult look sane in comparison.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So the media just discovered that several states are fed up to the point where they are seriously considering secession. And that is because they still must have at least some of their agents listen to Rush.

I'm sure that was a huge surprise to the people that have spent the last few weeks belittle those who have serious concerning about the election being rigged. I'm mean I'm sure they were laughing in the newsroom about that stuff because it is funny because they are dumb rednecks from empty states. That stuff is funny as hell. Anyway, it is funny to see these same people start to realize that hose people constitute a large percentage of the population and might just not want to be part of the USA come January 20, 2021. Who would have thought....?

[loki13]

Who would've thought that dumbasses like you, who always resort to vague threats of violence and secession when you aren't getting your way ...

Might go so far as to bellyache about taking your ball and going home ... when you don't get your way?

Yeah, color us SHOCKED.

That's your real 'murikan right there. Whines all the time, and then demands to leave when he doesn't get his way.

[David Bremer]

Having "serious concerns" doesn't mean those concerns are based upon anything serious. People may have "serious concerns" that the Earth is flat. But those people don't understand basic science.

Have "serious concerns" about the election if you'd like. But know that there is absolutely zero evidence to support those concerns. Which is why Trump and his followers have lost something like 51 different lawsuits (and counting).

[Don Nico]

David, the shape of the earth is not about science.
It is a hard cold fact.

[Brett Bellmore]

Whether you think the concerns are serious probably dictates your response to them, but it's hardly going to influence anybody else's decisions.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Anyway, it is funny to see these same people start to realize that [t]hose people constitute a large percentage of the population and might just not want to be part of the USA come January 20, 2021.

Jimmy, who would care? I'm cognizant that the "real Americans,"—recognizable because they are the only folks who use the term, "flyover country,"—suppose that Blue America couldn't do without their vital contributions. Those contributions are less vital than, "real Americans," suppose. Blue America pays for everything it gets—from food, to energy, to highway maintenance on thinly-traveled rural interstates. Most of that—the part that isn't just charity funneled home by red-state politicians—Blue America could buy less expensively abroad, and have it all conveniently delivered by ships.

If Red America ever decides it will secede, economic necessity on the Blue side won't be standing in the way. If I were a red-state politician, the last thing I would ever want to see is a sober economic analysis of the costs of keeping Red America in the union.

[loki13]

JtD and his ilk: We are the REAL MURIKANS. That's right, we love the flag. We are the REAL PATRIOTS. You libro-crats don't even like 'MURIKA, do yeah? If you don't like it, WHY DON'T YOU LEAVE????

(lose a single election)

...well, um, I guess we will leave then? HOW WILL YOU LIKE THAT, HUH?

[Jimmy the Dane]

And you helped me prove my point, thanks.

[loki13]

Sure I did, Jimmy the LookaSquirrel.

You are completely believable. Everyone believes that they are proving your point, instead of you just getting repeatedly opening your mouth in order to change feet.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Well you did it again. You have your head so far up your a** you can't see anything other then your rectum. Awesome.

[loki13]

Sure, that's it!

You are totally believable. I mean, you have a long history, here, of making calm, rational, totally normal comments that don't threaten secession or violence.

Totally.

I mean, when I think of you, I don't think, "Hey, there's that crazy guy who is always talking about secession and violence if he doesn't get his way!"

I, and everyone else, am just totally shocked by your position. We are shocked. So shocked.

*yawn*

[loki13]

(is this when you start in with you vaguely racist stuff?)

[Jimmy the Dane]

And with your endless hubris you again prove my point. Thanks a bunch.

[loki13]

You are welcome! It's so cute that you think you are anything other than Dr. Ed, but with fewer good stories.

What, are you going to darkly mutter about violent attacks on the gummint again, Jimmy? Maybe you're employ some rappers to do it?

So cute!

[Jimmy the Dane]

You must be a bitter person with all the grudges and such. Try a live and let live attitude. It will suit your stress levels better.

[loki13]

The person who constatnly advocates for violence .... accuses other people of being bitter?

You're not even an effective troll. Overly concerned with your violent and racist fantasies? Sure. Effective? Not even close.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Typical. You definitely need to get some help. Or maybe holding internet grudges and going on epic rants is your "therapy" in some way. Doesn't matter it is just sad.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Guess we might just find out who is right here...

[EscherEnigma]

When folks only have "serious concerns" when talking to the media, but pivot to "petty nuisances" when talking to judges, it's hard to take them, well, seriously.

[arpiniant1]

There no process for secession, whether you like it or not

Sure ND,SD, pay your percentage of the federal debt, buy any federal property in your borders and GTFO. See how you like borders and poverty when the checks from Mass and NY stop coming.

Texas is about the only red state that could make a viable go at it

Most of the rest are charity cases

It would be funny to see red states suddenly begging China to buy their crops

[Jimmy the Dane]

You do realize that many of these states are sitting on vast reserves of untapped natural resources, right? Also how many of those businesses in heavily regulated states are going to stick there, pay high taxes being over regulated by liberals? And also I don't think you are taking into account that the actual producers, that make real things and not just teach BS subjects at liberal schools, are probably going to leave that blue states. But, yeah, keep on telling yourself that these are just 'loser' states....Keep on thinking that...

[arpiniant1]

most of them are not

and then they would have to compete with domestic sources and pay for pipelines they no longer have access too

go peddle your confederate dreams to other bobble heads

[Bill Poser]

I'm curious about cases like the one filed by Texas, in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction because they are state vs. state. Does the Supreme Court have options other than agreeing to hear the case or refusing? For example, can it say "we're busy - this isn't important enough for us to bother with, but there is a controversy here that should be resolved" and send the case to a district court?

[arpiniant1]

I anticipate they will take it and instantly do what every other court has done, berate the plaintiffs for being morons

[Bill Poser]

Yes, I agree. My question is about the hypothetical case in which they don't want to handle the case but don't want to dismiss it or ignore it either.

[ThePublius]

On Thursday Open Thread, Loki13 wins the prize for the most insulting posts. Way to drag down the quality of the forum!