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

[Commenter_XY]

Lately, I have been experimenting with my trusty KitchenAid mixer, and attachments. I mean, when you are confined at home during a pandemic, there is not much to do, right? My favorite attachments, to date.

The 4-piece grater/slicer is a winner. Uniform shredding, slicing and dicing. I never thought that mattered much, but it does. That uniformity makes a big difference. I occasionally make cauliflower rice, and I plowed through seven heads of cauliflower in under 45 minutes (including cutting time).

The 7-piece peeler and spiralizer is another winner. Whoa! I never tried zucchini spaghetti before, but now I make one hell of a good zucchini spaghetti with homemade basil pesto.

Ok, for sheer decadence, the ice cream churn cannot be beat. I will never buy store ice cream again. The only limit here is your imagination. I have been experimenting a lot with stevia flavored ice cream. All I will say is that I make a seriously good egg nog and brandy ice cream. 🙂

Next on my list is the vegetable sheet cutter. I have been trying to find good recipes for sheet zucchini, squash and eggplant. The results are mixed. The sheets are a thing of beauty.

The fruit and vegetable strainer is a champ. Last summer, when it was 90+ degrees, it was all about cold soups. Oh man, did the strainer come through. If you're into making your own tomato sauce, this strainer is an absolute MUST HAVE. Let's face it, removing tomato seeds is a royal pain in the ass. The strainer does the work...sigh.

The very next items on my acquisition list are the stainless steel meat grinder (the BBQ Pit Boys highly recommend grinding beef chuck yourself for the best burgers), the vegetable grinder, the citrus juicer.

My questions to VC conspirators.
Has anyone used the pasta roller attachments?
Any good recipes for 'sheet' vegetables?
Does anyone use the sifter attachment (I bake some good breads)?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I think you will use the pasta roller for one month and then go back to the store bought stuff.

[Commenter_XY]

The amount of folding and refolding....is that what you mean? I noticed that, and that is why I have held off buying the pasta rollers.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Plus you have to let the dough rest for a while, maybe 15 minutes? You also have to commit to getting the technique correct or you will just end up with pasta shreds instead of long strands. It seems like a daily commitment of 30+ minutes just to make the pasta. Ok if your day job is being a stay at home Italian waifu.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, that pasta roller is at the end of the line for me. I am not a big pasta type anyway.

[bernard11]

I don't have one of these, but I did buy a pasta machine during the Great Homemade Pasta Fad about 30-40 years ago.

I think I used it three times.

[Don Nico]

I bought a hand crank past machine 40 years ago. I use it twice a week. For noodles of any width. It cannot be beat. Like everything else it take a bit (not much) time to get used to.

[Don Nico]

Harvey,
You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Once you have pasta fresca you will not buy inferior fettucine or spaghetti, or nasty, heavy lasgna noodles.

Pasta fresca is not a replacement for dried pasta from hard wheat flour.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

What is the best kitchen appliance and why is it the electric pressure cooker?

[apedad]

I fell in love with cast iron skillet cooking last year and can make everything/anything now.

Desserts, main dishes, Dutch Babies, breakasts (frittatas), smoked baked beans, Alton Brown's seared steak (last Sunday's dinner), etc.

[bernard11]

How do you clean the damn things? Have you used one of those chain mail things?

[Commenter_XY]

Great patience, bernard11 = How do you clean the damn things?

[Brett Bellmore]

You get them nice and hot, and run water into them while brushing them. It blasts the crud off.

That's assuming you don't have really severe carbonized crud, like when my 12 year old decides to fry ham in honey instead of butter.

[apedad]

Yes I have the chain pad thing but normally just do what Brett sez, put the pan on the stove til it gets real hot, then run it under hot water. May have to scrub 1-2 spots but once you get your skillet seasoned (use it a lot helps), then it's not a problem.

But then you have to dry it - and I just wipe off the excess water then place it back on the stove with 1-2 drops of canola oil (usually the residue heat is enough), and after the water dries up, I wipe the entire skillet (handle, bottom, sides) with the little amount of oil.

[LadyTheo]

We pour coarse kosher salt in and scrub it with a Scott's abrasive cloth. Then I rinse it briefly. Dry well, then wipe with canola oil.

Give it time. It will develop almost a non-stick surface.

[Commenter_XY]

Small appliances
Best appliance (hands down): KitchenAid stand mixer
Runner up: Instant Pot Duo (get the big one, I use it a lot)

Large Appliance: Middle class budget!
Best appliance: GE Profile double range (slide in 30" electric oven). The convenience of the upper oven chamber cannot be overstated.
Runner up: LG side-by-side, door-in-door refrigerator with ice maker, and filtered H2O.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Good thing you've got that dihydrogen monoxide filter. I don't know why the government keeps putting that crap in our water.

[David Welker]

Of all the drugs, dihydrogen monoxide is the worst drug.

I am addicted.

[David Nieporent]

Runner up: LG side-by-side, door-in-door refrigerator with ice maker, and filtered H2O.

We got this one about 6 or 7 months ago, and are very happy with it. Except for the weird decision to make it impossible to put magnets on the front.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, be careful when you change the water filter, David. Have a pot or something underneath when you take out the filter. And not a small one, either. Trust me on this one.....I learned the cold, wet way. 🙂

[MK Ultra]

Topless sandwich maker.

[loki13]

On the topic of cooking -

We had gas for along time. Always thought it was the best.

Moved recently and got an induction. Came with the house.

You know what? It’s ... not bad. Not bad at all. A bit of a learning curve, but when I first moved I was positive I was going to replace it with gas, now I’m pretty happy.

(Electric still sucks)

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I kind of miss the gas range too. I always felt you could more finely adjust the temperature with gas. But the range I bought actually does pretty good with temperature control.

[Brett Bellmore]

We've got a glass top stove, would never have bought one, but it came with the house. I'm not happy with it.

Even using my thick bottom pans, the only area of the pan that actually reaches temperature is the area directly under the "burner", unlike the way gas flames heat the entire bottom. You try cooking an omelette, and the edges are still raw! And it really does not have the output to get my pressure canner up to temperature in a reasonable amount of time.

It does a decent job with my smaller pans that actually fit the 'burner', I'll admit that. And the oven has a decent upper range suitable for pizza. I suppose if you were cooking for one or two, instead of a family, it would be adequate.

I think I'll be dropping by the local Asian grocery to pick up one of the serious gas burners they have there to use outdoors when canning. And when this stove ages out, its being replaced with gas.

[Commenter_XY]

Fortunately for me, GE solved that issue with uneven heating (glasstop). The GE Profile I got uses the whole burner area, so the raw egg at the edge is not a problem. The downside: You cannot, cannot, CANNOT use a cast iron skillet on the glasstop.

Another PITA is cleaning the glasstop. I have gone through gallons (Ok, I exaggerate somewhat) of Cerama Bryte. If you do not do that (cerama bryte), the glasstop will start to look shitty.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not being able to use cast iron would be a complete deal breaker for me. I've got pans that date back to the Civil war, and are still in good shape. The only "non-stick" pan I've got is my crepe pan.

Mine's a GE "Spectra", and overall am not impressed. For instance, the enamel on the control panel has dissolved away over the oven vent, it's obviously some kind of paint, not actual porcelain enamel. And the touch controls are wearing out.

Every time we're at the home center we drool over those gas stoves with the big center burner for grilling. Some day...

[Ridgeway]

Why can't you used cast iron? I thought induction was supposed to work with all ferrous metals.

[loki13]

Because Commenter_XY is using an electric glasstop.

Induction does work with cast iron.

(Protip- if you have a classic cast iron skillet, it may be a little rough on the bottom; you may need to use a baking mat underneath it if you want to avoid damaging the surface of the range).

[Commenter_XY]

loki13 nailed it. The cast iron skillet scratches glasstop surfaces.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ironically the older ones, that have been used on gas stoves, tend to have enough carbon on the bottom to keep that from happening, in my experience.

[rsteinmetz]

I use a cast iron skillet on my glass top range all the time. So far it's doing fine.

Try clean the top with a baking soda paste, cover it with a dish towel then pour vinegar on it and let it sit for a while.

[Bob from Ohio]

"induction" is still a gas oven, with a fan for more even heat distribution

[Brett Bellmore]

You're thinking "convection"; Induction stoves have 'burners' that are essentially transformers, that induce a current in the bottom of the pan.

They're very picky about the sort of pan you use, I understand.

[loki13]

Brett is right.

Induction RANGES use electromagnetic fields to directly heat the cookware.

It's one of the three main ways to cook:
Gas
Induction
Electric

Yes, technically induction is electric (from its power source), except that "electric" heats up a burner using electric power and then transfers that heat to the cookware.

(The only disadvantage of induction is it only works with certain cookware- sorry, copper isn't one of them)

After using all three, gas is amazing, but induction.... that is some precision as well. 🙂

[Bob from Ohio]

Mea culpa.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I disagree -- gas replaced wood/coal in homes drafty enough for combustion byproducts not to be an issue. In the "tight" home of today, in the winter when all the windows are shut, the unvented gas stove can do some nasty things to indoor air quality.

Electric may suck in terms of on/off ability, but at least you can breathe...

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll see if that proves true; Our house is most of 50 years old, with windows dating to the 1970's, but we're replacing them shortly.

Still, I'd rather run the exhaust hood while using the stove, than use an electric, any day.

[Krayt]

You have an air blower filter above gas stoves for the smoke to not set off fire alarms. Otherwise they are not vented to the outside. The amount of CO2 they put out is not dangerous in a house.

[Brett Bellmore]

My stove exhaust hood actually exhausts.

[bernard11]

So does mine. And I have a fairly potent fan - 700 cfm I think. Powerful enough that I can cook steak in a hot skillet (yes, cast iron) with a lot of smoke and keep it away from the smoke alarm.

This is especially important when you live in a small condo building, but I heartily recommend it regardless.

[Brett Bellmore]

In our family the smoke alarm is affectionately nicknamed, "the oven timer".

[LadyTheo]

Right? I just took mine off the wall.

[Kazinski]

Not likely, natural gas is almost entirely methane which is CH4, when it burns you are getting four molecules of water for every molecule of CO2. So if you are cooking for a long time you are mostly just increasing your humidity.

[LadyTheo]

I need to replace a gas stovetop that sucks. Looking at induction. Problem is no hood.

Wish I could wait until I have the funds to redo kitchen, but I despise this stove. It is a slide-in.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The pasta roller doesn't buy you much over rolling your own pasts.

The attachments that come with it are great, the dough hook is great for kneading, the whisk is great for whipping cream or beating egg whites.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah those attachments (dough hook, whisk) get a workout every week. I've looked into getting the mixing scraper as well.

[Ridgeway]

The whisk is also the secret to making good mashed potatoes.

[Commenter_XY]

How do you make them 'not starchy'? I have been working on that one for a long time, without success.

[Brett Bellmore]

Avoid waxy potato varieties, start with your cut up potatoes in cold water, mash while dry, and don't over-work them. You're better off with an occasional little lump, than uniform glue.

[bernard11]

Try rinsing the cut up potatoes until the water runs clear.

Doing this with russets produces fabulous home-made potato chips and fries, but double fry the fries.

[Commenter_XY]

I'll try both! Thanks to Brett and bernard11.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have the *plastic* meat grinder. I'm not all that impressed with it. It's OK if you're feeding chunks of meat through for a first pass, but if you're doing something like sausage that requires more than one pass, it sucks.

It's the feed tube, it is tapered. That's OK if you're feeding large chunks, but once the meat is in smaller pieces, it just squishes up around the plunger, which only fits tightly near the bottom.

It may be that the metal version lacks this problem, but you'd want to look at one in person to be sure.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah Brett, I noticed that one. That is why I am going with the stainless steel meat grinder. It is sturdier and more durable. When you grind chuck, it is pretty tough. I personally cannot wait to get that attachment, because some of the recipes I have seen with the BBQ Pit Boys are the bomb; but require a lot of grinding.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Loki, not so long ago I noted the perils of betting against Tom Brady. You wisely cautioned me, pointing to substantive arguments, which I had to admit looked pretty convincing. What say you now?

I should mention that midway through the 3rd quarter of the 2017 Super Bowl, I turned to my son and said, "Brady's got them right where he wants them." But with the score against the Patriots 28-3, I thought I was making a joke.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Double post. How did I do that?

[gormadoc]

"I plowed through seven heads of cauliflower in under 45 minutes" sounds like you ate them all in that time. Is... that what happened?

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, LOL, LOL...no gormadoc. I typically put the portions into big ziploc bags and freeze them. When I make cauliflower rice, I do the following.

Get out the ziploc bag, let it sit out for an hour to begin to thaw.
Get a pasta strainer, line it with cheese cloth.
Let it sit and drain for an hour.
Liberally sprinkle salt on top, mix to gently incorporate; drain for 30 more minutes. Then sqeeze the shit out of the cheese cloth. You want all the water out.

After that, bust out my handy skillet, a couple of tablespoons of olive oil, medium high heat for 5 minutes, and dump it in. Use a metal spatula to loosen the 'rice' that sticks. Fry it up for about 7 minutes, and you're good to go. It is pretty versatile.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, for what it may be worth, last Christmas time I was working up the traditional cookie recipe, which called for sifted cake flour. I had neither sifter nor cake flour. I dumped all-purpose flour into a little nut grinder I have, and gave it a spin. Superb results. Much better than just using unsifted all-purpose flour, which I also tried. One notable (and maybe consequential) effect was a difference in the weight of flour for the same measurement.

[Commenter_XY]

I'll have to root around the basement and see if I have a nut grinder somewhere.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's the problem with measuring flour by volume, when the recipes should measure it by weight. Sifting flour makes a lot less difference if it's a weight based recipe.

[santamonica811]

The "LA Times" has now finally decided to give the needed weights in its recipes. They'll also give (approximate, of course) volume measurements, aimed at the beginning cook. In one of the cooking classes I took in France years ago, we made 3 versions of a chocolate cake and 3 of a sponge cake, adding only 2 and 5 Tbl of flour, and keeping everything else the same. A *HUGE* difference.

When I returned to America after that Europe excursion; my first purchase was a digital cooking scale. Best investment I've ever made re baking.

[LadyTheo]

I occasionally use my strainer. Pour the flour in and shake it. Works well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Speaking of spiralizers, I have a manual one. I find that spiralized zucchini makes for some fantastic egg foo young, in place of bean sprouts. Only you've got to dry fry it first, to dry it out a bit. Too much liquid otherwise.

[Jerry B.]

I use a hand cranked pasta machine once or twice a week. 100 grams of “00” flour per large egg with a little olive oil and salt, mix and knead for a few minutes, then make a lump and wrap in Saran to rest while you do the other prep of sauce, veg, etc., and put the water on to boil. Roll a chunk of the dough through the widest setting on the machine, doubling it over, then set it thinner. I go 1, 3, 5, 7. Then use the cutter or a knife to cut the width you want.

If you mess up, you’ve lost a buck’s worth of ingredients and a little time, but if I can do it, anyone can.

[dwb68]

I would not go for the Kitchenaid meat grinder. I used it for a while. I have it, it now sits unused for a long time. Its does not handle tough meat very well, and its a real PITA (it does not always stay together when grinding).

If you plan on doing your own sausages or otherwise a lot of grinding, get a real meat grinder.

[dwb68]

as a rule, my experience is that an appliance like the Kitchenaid mixer does one or two things well, and the rest does only mediocre. I also have a real pasta maker and juicer for that reason. I mainly use the mixer for mixing (clearly) and dough. The attachments, meh.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait....what? Do you mean the cutting wheel pops out?

[dwb68]

the top plate tends to come off.

[IamtheBruce]

Don't neglect the basic paddle that comes with the mixer. Cook chicken breasts in an instapot (or even - gasp - in the microwave) and then use the paddle to shred them, and the chicken is great for BBQ sandwiches, or adding to soups, etc.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I have done that, Iamthebruce. Works like a charm.

[loki13]

Today is day 4 of the Buccaneers dynasty.

Devin Smith is all-galaxy.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Go Tom Brady!
Make Football Great Again!

[Commenter_XY]

I am old enough to remember when they became an expansion team, and they were the TB Yuckaneers. And fans wore paper bags on their heads when they attended games. 🙂

One of the most hilarious things I remember is John McKay pacing the sidelines, watching a truly atrocious play, and having priceless reactions. I mean, side-splitting laughter at his reactions and quotes.

[loki13]

The famous quote-

Reporter- “what do you think of your team’s execution?”

McKay- “I’m in favor of it.”

They should go back to the creamsicles.

[Krychek_2]

I used to do death penalty appellate work. An inattentive paralegal once sent the following letter to a client on death row:

Dear Client on death row:

Please find enclosed the following documents for your execution.

[loki13]

Ouch.

And yet oh so funny.

[rsteinmetz]

I think the paper bags were invented by New Orleans sportscaster Bernard "Buddy" Diliberto in the bad old days of the Aints (also coined by Buddy). By the way Tampa Bay's first win was against the Saints after going 0-26 in regular season games.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Loki, not so long ago I noted the perils of betting against Tom Brady. You wisely cautioned me, pointing to substantive arguments, which I had to admit looked pretty convincing. What say you now?

I should mention that midway through the 3rd quarter of the 2017 Super Bowl, I turned to my son and said, "Brady's got them right where he wants them." But with the score against the Patriots 28-3, I thought I was making a joke.

[loki13]

I think that with defense, Jameis Winston could have won.

....um, okay. Maybe not Jameis.

It's a difficult thing. The Buc's Defense was the primary reason they won the SB. That said, every single person talked about the difference Brady made. Not even with the play ... but with the change in culture. I think that this gets overlooked. It's not always about the talent. Sometimes you need someone who instills a culture of winning.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Loki, I agree that the Bucs defense was sensational. I have no opinion on whether Brady helped with that nor not, except to note that if you give Tom Brady his pick of NFL teams, it isn't surprising he lands on one with a good defense.

I have been watching Brady since the game in 2001 where Bledsoe got injured, and Brady went in for the first time. I think folks have consistently underestimated the value of some of Brady's less-conspicuous talents. For instance, over time, Brady got coached by Belichick to the point where Brady may be able to out-coach Belichick. And Brady gets to do it in real time, where it matters most, with audibles.

I also suspect that if you could work up some kind of mathematical function to measure passing accuracy in relation to release quickness, you might discover Brady still leads all comers on quick-release accuracy. And it may not be close. Which leads back to coaching ability, and what Brady does to train receivers to run precise routes and arrive right where expected at just the right instant. Quite a few receivers can't learn that; Brady sheds those, and moves on, to find the ones who can do it the best. Over the years, that has resulted in the creation of some receiving super-stars whose talents had gone mostly unsuspected by others. End zone shots from behind the play show astonishing split-second completions from Brady that I don't think I see from anyone else.

I suggest one reason Brady is still successful at age 43 is that he has learned to play a different game than others play, which maximizes different talents than others use. A lot of that is almost invisible, except in the results. I expect Brady to keep going for a few years more, barring injury. The Bucs may get really dominant.

[Ridgeway]

You are wrong about a lot of things, but I think this analysis is spot on. 😉

[loki13]

I think that people will look back and simply not understand how Brady happened.

Even now ... Tom Brady has played in 19% of all Super Bowls. ALL SUPER BOWLS.

More importantly, since he entered in the league, he has appeared in the Super Bowl 50% of the time.

That's crazy.

[bernard11]

Yogi Berra appeared in the World Series 14 times in his 18-year career - 78% of the time. He was on the winning team 10 times.

Those 14 appearances represented, through the end of his career, 23% of all World Series.

[loki13]

Yeah, but that was baseball, and a different time. You don't have to point out Yogi Berra- just say, "The Yankees, before full integration."

The NFL, in the 32 team era, with salary caps ... yeah, it's insane.

[bernard11]

Bill Russell was in the thoroughly integrated NBA finals twelve out of thirteen years, and won eleven.

[loki13]

And Bill Russell is far too often forgotten when it comes to the greatest NBA Players of all time; arguably the greatest Champion, and certainly should always be mentioned in the same breath as Michael, Kareem, and LeBron.

But when he played, there were 10 teams. The talent pool was smaller (much smaller). I say this not to denigrate an incredible athlete, champion, and person.

But to put Brady's number's in perspective. In NFL terms, you don't want to say never. But I would be shocked if we someone approach those numbers. And these aren't numbers from 50 years ago- we are watching them today.

It can be hard to appreciate seeing history when it's being made.

[Ridgeway]

It is interesting trying to come up with sports stats that are somewhat analogous to Brady's superbowl numbers, in terms of being unlikely ever to be matched.

I'd suggest Nolan Ryan's career strikeout total as one example.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ridgeway, Nolan Ryan was a pitcher unlike any other. He could be astonishing to watch. He had a long and successful career. But I don't think any aspect of his performance, including his strikeout record, is comparable to any of Brady's important records.

Problem was, Ryan was a good pitcher when it came to wins, but not a truly dominant one. A big part of that was that Ryan blotted high strikeout totals with similarly high walks numbers. And throwing walks is kind of a discount way to run up strikeouts.

A somewhat inapplicable (but nevertheless revealing) comparison is to Pedro Martinez. Martinez also put up very high strikeout totals, although his best annual total was not up to Ryan's best. But Martinez's ratio of strikeouts to walks was otherworldly. Ryan's best year for SO/W was 3.14; his career average was 2.04. Martinez, career SO/W was 4.15, more than twice as good as Ryan's. In the year 2000 season, Martinez struck out 284, while walking only 32, a SO/W ratio of 8.88. That followed a 1999 season with 313 strikeouts and only 37 walks.

Arguably, in his very best years, Martinez was a more dominant competitor even than Brady at his best. Ryan was never anything like that. And of course Martinez is not comparable to either Brady or Ryan in terms of career length, another very important category.

I mention these points to suggest that, great as they were, Ryan's strikeout accomplishments, after taking walks into consideration, were neither comparable to the best ever seen, nor as helpful for winning games as those of Martinez. There were other pitchers who excelled Ryan in that way as well, and some had longer careers than Martinez. Greg Maddux, for instance, with a 23-year career, and who boasted a lifetime SO/W of 3.37—better than Ryan's best single-year ever.

If Ryan's standout statistical accomplishment isn't really even the best in his own sport, how does he stand in comparison to Brady?

[ragebot]

Not a player but a coach but Bowden's Seminoles finished as an AP top-5 team for 14 consecutive seasons, setting a record that doubled the closest program.

[David Nieporent]

I think folks have consistently underestimated the value of some of Brady’s less-conspicuous talents.

Yes, like the willingness to take less than maximum market salary, giving his teams more cap room to build a roster around him.

(Note: I am not saying this mockingly or sarcastically. I think it's underappreciated by the general public that while he was always well paid (duh) he didn't hold out for the salary commensurate with being GOAT.)

[loki13]

I mean, when your wife is worth half a billion, it's not like you're hurting for cash.

Of course, it makes sense that he doesn't want to retire. Imagine having to go home to Gisele every day!

[Don Nico]

Yes, I wish I could imagine that

[ragebot]

As a die hard FSU fanboy I always thought Winston was the second most talented QB (Marino was first) I ever saw. In his first game at FSU every pass he threw was caught, even if a couple of times they were caught out of bounds. Fisher said what impressed him most about Winston was he still had notebooks from when he was in the ninth grade detailing football plays and theory. The kid was amazing, with the kid being the key term. I am reminded of a story about the JV basketball team I played on. The most talented player on the team got cut for issues with the coach and the general feeling was the kid was the coolest guy in the ninth grade; but he never got any cooler.

So was the 2013 FSU team that won the natty. It set some scoring records that are even more impressive given that in several games Winston/starters were on the bench in most of the second half. Not to mention every starter on both sides of the ball wound up playing on Sundays.

Winston had a quick release and top tier accuracy. But often his WRs were not the best route runners. I think his arm was more of a cannon than Brady's arm and equal or better in quick release and accuracy. But his biggest problem was Fisher was not really the best coach for him.

I will be interested in seeing how he does in NO, or somewhere else.

[gormadoc]

I haven't paid attention to football at all these last two years (I care more about college and, well, we weren't playing) so seeing that the Buccaneers won with Tom Brady as MVP was very strange.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Help children and young adults with autism @
http://www.autists.net

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Is there some truth to the Q-Anon conspiracy theory and if so, how does the secret cabal of government officials, tech companies, and social media giants suppress its spread? I read a comment on Reason that Q-Anon was just an elaborate troll of the American Establishment to see how they would respond. Obviously some rubes actually took the bait and ended up at the Capitol or a pizza parlor but they're no different than the people who follow social media trends or MLM scams.

[Queen Amalthea]

No, you're a nut.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

And you're a fruit!

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm not 'asking questions' about QAnon. You're a nut.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I can question a social phenomenon without endorsing it. As a progressive libertarian and a Jew, I believe in open and honest discourse.

[Krychek_2]

I may regret having asked this, but what the hell is a progressive libertarian?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I believe in maximizing human freedom unless Mike Bloomberg or an Ivy League professor knows better.

[tkamenick]

So if you don't ask questions about something.... you just believe everything you're told about it?

To the original question, there's some truth to the idea of it being trolling. This is largely the next version of Pepe the Frog or the OK symbol being dog whistles for white supremacy. People having a laugh at convincing other people something is true and some amount of people actually believing its true.

Of the people who when asked say they believe Pizzagate is true, how many actually believe it and how many are laughing themselves silly convincing idiots that people actually believe this stuff?

[bernard11]

Here is what a survey conducted by AEI says.

The QAnon conspiracy theory includes a constellation of connected claims, but one core element is that Trump has been fighting a global ring of child traffickers with links to the political left.[5] The public widely rejects this belief. Only 15 percent of Americans believe that “Donald Trump has been secretly fighting a group of child sex traffickers that include prominent Democrats and Hollywood elites.” However, only 42 percent of Americans reject this conspiracy as being inaccurate, while 41 percent report being uncertain about it.

There are considerable partisan differences in beliefs about the accuracy of this claim. Nearly three in 10 Republicans say the claim that Trump was fighting a global child sex trafficking ring is mostly (17 percent) or completely (12 percent) accurate. Roughly as many Republicans (30 percent) reject this claim as inaccurate, while 43 percent report being uncertain about it. Very few Democrats (7 percent) and independents (12 percent) believe this claim is accurate.

These percentages are astonishing. People are nuts.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

My favorite chapter in the Q-Anon conspiracy theory is the part where JFK, Jr. is living in Antarctica with Superman and Adolf Hitler where he works on checking his list of Satanic pedophiles in the Democrat party who will be executed on the "Day of the Rake".

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

People have been fired or banned for flashing the OK hand gesture because Twitter goes nuts and claims it as a "white supremacy" incident. Why does the Establishment keep falling for the bait? Or do they know they are being trolled and overreact on purpose to demonstrate their power because sacrilege of the Cathedral is a punishable moral crime?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's the latter.

It's kind of like a social version of 'legal realism'; The left is in charge of what things mean, so if you fool them into thinking something innocent is a symbol of evil, that by itself makes it true.

[loki13]

"Is there some truth to the Q-Anon conspiracy theory and if so, how does the secret cabal of government officials, tech companies, and social media giants suppress its spread?"

To take this seriously ...

An essential problem with the ever-morphing QAnon conspiracy theory is that if you're not down the rabbit hole, it's absurd. Not just a little absurd. Absolutely whack-a-doodle. Flat earth level.

But that's also the danger. Because it is so absolutely crazy (pizza child sex rings! blood sacrifice! Trump is actually competent!) that, assuming you are sane, you can't really grapple with it. Like the flat earth theories. Seriously, what do you do? There's only so far that mockery gets you, or reason, or anything else. Because it's utterly insane. And it's remarkably easy for people that aren't crazy to dismiss; after all, what moron would actually believe stuff like this? Again, I compare it to flat earthers- you know they are out there, but ... I mean, science?

I mentioned in an open thread a while ago that I couldn't even grasp the whole thing until someone had me watch the youtube documentary In Search of a Flat Earth, and then, well then I got it. It's not rational. It's not something that can be reasoned with. It's not going to be "mocked" away. And yes, as saw in the Capitol Riot (and other sporadic issues, like the pizzagate gunman), it can have real-life ramifications.

But this does tie back to "Big Tech," and more specifically, Facebook (the mother ship and others, like Instagram) and Google (Youtube). Radicalization isn't just something that we talk about when discussing how terrorists are cultivated in other countries; we need to examine how radicalization happens in general. The essential problem is that these companies get their profit from you (if you aren't paying for something, you are the product). And that requires that their algorithms be tweaked to further "engagement," which is what gives you the "rabbit hole" effect. People think that they are discovering this information on their own, instead they are being funneled to this. It's radicalization and acceptance without even being aware of it.

And the thing is- the companies know it. They can tweak it so that people are "less engaged" and less prone to this radicalization. But they don't (and people would scream censorship). And, of course, it's almost impossible to cover. Unlike traditional media, there is no single thing to point out. Any give person's "feed" or "page" or youtube suggestions is going to look different, at different points of time.

I don't think there are easy answers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Because it is so absolutely crazy (pizza child sex rings! blood sacrifice!"

I haven't followed much QAnon, but is this much different than the similar batshit theories that gripped much of the mainstream justice system many years ago and led to many innocent people being sent to jail?

[loki13]

Again, is there some reason you find it necessary to reply to my comment? Trolling? Masochism? A strong desire that I ask you how that name is working for you?

It's a big comment thread, and an even bigger internet. Have at it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Just sayin- if you're looking at bizarre conspiracy theories, the 80's day care moral panic is as good a place to look as the flat earthers.

It was just as nuts, but it went mainstream and resulted in many questionable prosecutions.

[loki13]

I will repeat- you are one of three people that I have specifically said, over and over, that I will not engage in substantive conversations. I do you the courtesy of never engaging with you, yet you find it necessary to respond to my comments- probably because you're the type of person that I feel it necessary to point this out to.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you've just provided him with adequate reason to engage with you, if you haven't figured that out.

You actually think that, if YOU say you're not going to respond to somebody, they're not allowed to comment on anything you say? That's remarkably arrogant.

[loki13]

I'm fine with that, Brett. I don't respond to him, and if he decides to try and engage with my comments, then he gets the same responses.

I'm not going to stop. But hey, if you want to call me arrogant because I told someone that I don't want to engage with them substantively, so they are welcome to respond ANYWHERE except in a reply directly to my comment ...

Then it can be four. Sound good?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the part where you tell them they can't reply to your comments is pretty arrogant.

And, "I don’t respond to him, and if he decides to try and engage with my comments, then he gets the same responses."

What happened to not responding? You do that by not responding, in case you overlooked that.

[loki13]

Four it is, Birther Boy.

I guess you are now in the position of never being sure if I am insulting you because I despise you, or insulting you because I told you what would happen. Maybe if you were there when it happened??!!!!???!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh no! Brett's on the list too?

Don't worry, Brett. It doesn't take up much of your time.

[loki13]

Aw, look at misogynist and known racist 12" consoling birther boy.

It's adorable, for people that troll.

[Life of Brian]

But hey, if you want to call me arrogant because I told someone that I don’t want to engage with them substantively, so they are welcome to respond ANYWHERE except in a reply directly to my comment …

Brett put it a bit more politely than I would have, but sign me up, bully boy.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Satanic meetings in Kindergarten, repressed memories of sex abuse, pro-suicide messages in records played backwards, one shot of marijuana causing psychosis, masturbation causing hairy palms and permanent blindness. I could go on but let me say thank YHVH that Tipper Gore is too old to use the Internet competently.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with dismissing pedophile sex rings out of hand, is that they're a real thing occasionally. Rotherham, for instance.

So you really do have to refute such charges when they appear, not dismiss them. Any particular allegation is probably false, but you can't categorically say all such allegations are.

Pizzagate would have been easily proven nonsense. A particular pizza parlor identified, supposedly going on in the basement. How hard was it to visit the parlor and demonstrate that there wasn't a basement?

Dismissal being mistaken for refutation is a general problem that keeps conspiracy theories alive. Remember the "black helicopters" conspiracy theory? Special forces would contract with cities to use abandon buildings for urban combat training. Naturally the cities didn't want curious people flocking in, so they kept it secret, and when people would see dark helicopters fly over at night without running lights, and call it in, they'd get blown off.

Of course they'd get suspicious at that point. You're being told by the government that you didn't see what you damned well know you did see?

Being a bit more open about it ended the conspiracy theories.

[NToJ]

It's no different than all the other scares, from witches to satanic rituals. They all have real consequences. Thankfully the real consequences diminish over time as we learn from each previous scare. There will be more in the future.

[loki13]

See, I agree that mass hysteria (and conspiracy theories, and radicalization) are very, very old. Whether it is "witches" throughout the Medieval ages (and much later) or the "Satanic panic" of the 80s and early 90s, or the constant blood libel and "protocols of Zion" etc. that are part and parcel of anti-Semitism through the ages ...

I do think that social media, and the way that algorithms are used to increase engagement, is an accelerant on this. For all the complaints about "gatekeeping," it did serve to keep some of the looniest elements of society in check, on both the left and the right.

In other words, I don't think that the idea of mass delusion or "scares" is different, but I do think that the nature of engagement and social media (and the internet) is worth discussing.

[NToJ]

I worry about the consequences of technology too. But then you fall into the trap of being one of the people promoting a scare. Is D&D socially useful because people enjoy playing it? Or does it increase misery because it causes satanism?

I am also not certain that social media on the whole is an accelerant on whatever phenomenon we are describing. Scares predate social media. We assume that it is an accelerant, but that's partially because social media allows us to see what other people think in a way that was impossible a generation ago. Ideas spread quickly in the past, too. The problem is they spread and stuck, because there was no additional engagement.

I agree it is worth discussing. I just don't see the problem as clearly as others seem to. I'm half-convinced that the problem with social media isn't that it spreads crazy, but that it reveals it.

One quick comment on Q Anon and the internet. I engaged on twitter once with a guy who was obviously a Q Anon lunatic. I felt bad for saying mean things to him and DMed him and apologized. He wrote a long, rambling, insane response that revealed the pits of his despair, that he was just a hurt, isolated human being, and of course ended with him saying that Regan and Obama were in cahoots to molest kids, and that he discovered this in an amazing community he was in. I obviously ignored it. That hurt, isolated, probably nuts person could have been born before social media. If that happened he would live his entire life as a miserable social outcast. Right now he's living his life as a miserable social outcast, but social media presents at least the possibility that this person won't live in perpetual misery every second of his life, because he's found like-minded crazy people to commiserate with about an imaginary movement greater than themselves. This guy is never going to hurt anybody but himself. Is my perception of safety and social cohesion so much more important that we should even consider robbing this person of the ability to connect with other humans? I don't think so but am willing to be talked out of it.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

If you want to see Hell, browse /r9k/

[loki13]

So I will give you two counterpoints.

My spouse's best friend has a daughter. Friendly, intelligent, outgoing. But she got sucked into the QAnon nonsense. And the change over the last two years has been insane. Terrifying.

Same with the husband of a woman at work. A little more understandable (?) in the sense that he was unemployed, and spending time on the internet ... but he got sucked into it.

What you are missing, and I have seen, isn't just the weird people that would have been sucked into it anyway. It's the people that have become enmeshed into it. And it's not quite like other "hoaxes" or "crazes" of the past, either.

When people discuss social media, it's not about the speed or dissemination of the idea, instead it's the personalization; the issue that people are being fed a distorted image of what is out there, and it seems to them that not only is this the actuality, but that they sought it out.

Anyway, that's in my main post, so I'd just refer back to that.

[NToJ]

I think the sort of people who can get on social media and get sucked into Q Anon, and enmeshed in it, are the sort of people who in yesteryear would get sucked into satanic scares or whatever. They would join cults. There are lot of cultists in the world.

The personalization is what makes it so attractive to people. They want that personalized connection with others, and social media gives it to them. I feel genuinely bad for your spouse's best friend's daughter. But for whatever reason, that person was not getting what she needed from her real life friends, and turned to online friends who could offer her something real life couldn't. Engagement with a threat bigger than anything they lived with, a place in a hierarchy fighting this great evil, and like-minded others. How is that any different than if she started going to church and grew apart from her friends who weren't members of the church?

[loki13]

"I think the sort of people who can get on social media and get sucked into Q Anon, and enmeshed in it, are the sort of people who in yesteryear would get sucked into satanic scares or whatever. They would join cults. There are lot of cultists in the world."

30% of the GOP believes that "Trump was fighting a global child sex trafficking ring."

Only 42% of Americans reject the claim completely as being inaccurate.

I mean, at a certain point, it's not a cult. It's a religion.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

How much abuse of the term "sex trafficking" has been used by police to crackdown or entrap patrons of massage parlors? The question itself is very vague and has no reference to Q-Anon. You could easily say that Trump was cutting down on sex trafficking by enforcing stricter border control.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure, and two thirds of Democrats believe that Russia tampered with vote tallies in 2016.

People believe all sorts of wrong things.

[loki13]

Things people don't believe:

That 12"Misogynist will get a reply.

[NToJ]

A fair point of concern. I'm not entirely sure what the meaningful distinction is (today) between cults and religions, besides widespread acceptance. Ghosts and angels are as real as the former President's fight against global child sex trafficking. But most people believe in ghosts and angels. They're entitled to be wrong, and I think people who are wrong have to be able to get together to discuss ideas, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Even if that is true (and the numbers are in the right ballpark - ~6% of the total American population), the changes I see are

1) Nonlocality thanks to the Internet
2) Big tent - now all the 6% are radicalizing in roughly the same direction.
3) Explicitly partisan (at least so far)

It is not clear to me these changes will prove material wrt QAnon's long term effect on larger society, but it'd not clear to me they won't.
You're already seeing the non-QAnon right start to call Dems pedophiles whenever they think they can get away with it.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Must be those international Russian agents trying to perform a psyop on America's ignorant rubes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You’re already seeing the non-QAnon right start to call Dems pedophiles whenever they think they can get away with it."

Kinda like Kirkland and the Republicans? You're nutpicking, Sarcastro.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Loki, I don't think there are easy answers either, because repealing Section 230 would be wrenching, not easy. But it is at least a big part of the answer, maybe all that is needed. And nothing else is really in sight, as you seem to concede.

Reinstating joint liability will do far more than re-establish private editing power to control libel before it happens. That same private editing power, once remobilized, will stand as a bulwark against every kind of pure craziness.

Editors with an interest in competing on the basis of content quality know that crazy is not the audience demographic most advertisers seek. The perverse genius of big-tech-publishing is that it mobilizes audiences so large, and crowds out so much competition for ad sales, that audience demographics don't matter. Under Section 230, to get to the audience they want advertisers put up perforce with subsidizing crazy.

So if you repeal Section 230, most editors (not all, of course) will be motivated against publishing too much pure crazy. That's what a solution requires—an army of privately motivated eyeballs motivated to suppress libel and to compete on the basis of content quality.

Everything else in sight depends on actual government censorship, and mostly won't work anyway. Look at these threads.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, Jeffery Epstein *did* exist, as did "Orgy Island", so others doing likewise isn't impossible.

An interesting take on the larger issue: https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/09/time-magazine-gushingly-profiles-the-successful-conspiracy-to-rig-the-2020-election/

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

No human is illegal.
No love is illegal.
Age is just a number.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then there's Rotherham, of course, which went on for nearly two decades. Denis Hastert; you think nobody knew while he was in office? Pedophile rings in high places aren't categorically impossible, sadly.

Such allegations shouldn't be taken as true, or just dismissed out of hand, they should be investigated as with any allegation of crime.

Pizzagate was stupid, but not because it was impossible. Because you could prove it was impossible just by pointing out the joint didn't HAVE a basement to hide anything in. And yet, who bothered actually debunking it, instead of just dismissing it without bothering?

[grb]

Has anyone ever tried to buy a specific edition of a book out of print? Used book sellers on the internet gleefully refuse to match the right cover image to what they're selling. One of the largest shows multiple editions available for sale, but the picture accompanying each option is a random crapshoot. You have to know the ISBN number, but how can you confirm that without the object in hand? There has to be a trick I'm missing.....

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I steal all my books off Library Genesis because I have a tablet and physical books are heavy when you change apartments.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I just went to bookfinder dot com, entered Churchill as an author, and picked 'A History of the English Speaking Peoples' as a test. The used book listings include an ISBN, a publication date, or both.

I also see an isbnsearch dot org, but that seems a little more tedious to use. It seems to have pictures of the covers, but I don't know how accurate they are. There is an isbnfind dot org as well, and maybe others (I searched 'isbn search')

[Brett Bellmore]

I've had the same problem myself; I was looking for a double edition of an old SF series, the one that had both the original novel and sequel. That's what the book seller displayed the cover for. But they sent me just the sequel, with a different cover.

I will say that, after I complained, they admitted the mistake, and sent me a copy of the first novel, too. So I assume it was incompetence, not fraud.

[EscherEnigma]

When I worked at an academic library, one of my recurring but infrequent duties was billing patrons who damaged or kept books. To do so, I had to price the book (or rather, the price of a replacement) of course.

I can't remember the sites I used (I had a few, since no site has all books, and to the degree possible I had to check that I was quoting a fair price and not an outlier) but there was several that were specific to academics and book collectors, and they were much more stringent on listing things like ISBN, edition, condition, and so-on.

So one avenue you can explore is talking to your local academic library and find out what they use when they need to check the price of replacement.

[AmosArch]

I watched Sorkin's 'Steve Jobs' and I'm a little bit confused at the people who say its the best of the major Jobs biopics. Maybe the most pretentious and experimental.

The setting is unconventional, completely taking place right before key Apple announcements, making you think its going to be about the company side of his life but for some reason it revolves instead around his relationship with his teenybopper daughter and Woz to some extent. Theres nothing wrong with exploring that side of things but due to the weird setup they have to contrive various reasons why the same out of place characters are wandering around the stage right before every key moment in Apple history and why they want to hash out drama at that particular moment. So maybe there was some deeper meaning to the convention structure but it didn't seem to come through clearly.

Oddly like Kutcher's earlier version, this one also chooses to ignore the legendary rivalry with Gates in exchange for a fictional bromance between Jobs and Sculley of all people. Making up something that is a lot more boring than reality. Like all of the major Jobs biopics it also almost completely ignores the ipod/iphone era which is kind of like cutting out the part of the Odyssey where they arrive back home. I dunno what it is with Jobs films and strange decisions like this.

On the positive side the actor even though he looks nothing like Jobs at least sounded a bit like him and acted better than Kutcher. Really though outdated as it is Pirates of SV is still the best version major rendition of the Microsoft/Apple Saga IMO.

O

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

If Steve Jobs was such a visionary, why did he use fruit enemas to treat his cancer instead of modern medicine? Checkmate iToddlers!

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Vote: Why was Gina Carano fired?
(A) Transphobia
(B) Insulting the memory of the Shoah by attempting to compare it with contemporary events
(C) other

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't know, but as this columnist points out, companies are not obliged to give bigots a platform.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

>The Guardian
Why not link to a respected news website, like Buzzfeed?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Don't worry, that columnist is no longer with the Guardian.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Good point. We need to address anti-Semitism from the right AND the radical left. Questioning Jewish actions IS anti-Semitic and needs to be stopped. I'm just glad Biden has hired a number of Jews for Cabinet positions and he plans on keeping the pressure on Iran, a member of the Axis of Evil. Little disappointed about the Houthis no longer being considered a terrorist group. Just look at their damn flag!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Vote: Why was Gina Carano fired?"

I haven't looked closely at what got her fired, but I've never bought the "comparing X to Y is dumb" arguments.

There may or may not be a useful comparison to be made, but if you make a comparison it doesn't imply that the folks you're comparing are equivalent beyond the comparison.

[tkamenick]

Yeah, I've noticed a significant uptick of people clamoring about false equivalencies and thinking they've won some major debate point by jumping up and down shouting "those two things aren't exactly the same! GOTCHA!" when the person they are responded to never claimed they were the same. It's really obnoxious.

[NToJ]

Depends on if we are talking about the first order cause (what motivated the firing) versus the second order cause (what motivated the thing that motivated the firing). She was fired because the employer thought they would be better off without her. I think they thought that because they anticipated that many of their customers would react negatively to knowing what she has said online, and knowing she was employed by the employers.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

She made a Nazi / Holocaust analogy, a dumb one at that too. I'm sure none of her liberal counterparts have ever made such a statement on Twitter. And if they did, I guess the Disney fan base wouldn't be alarmed by their use of foolish language.

[David Nieporent]

It was dumb, but that ought not to be a firing offense. She was not trying to argue that the Holocaust was no big deal, which really would be offensive.

[Ed Grinberg]

I think "LM" got it right. They fired her because she hit the nail on the head.

[RJC]

Mainly out of curiosity: I could imagine VC readers enjoying a lecture on Arrow's Theorem, so here is one.

https://youtu.be/MSwV4KcrGtw

[VinniUSMC]

Jinjer

[Queen Amalthea]

Wandavision theories?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I don't know anything about that other than my girl, Kat Dennings, and her Khazar milkers are on that show.

[Sarcastr0]

What's left? They've more or less explained everything, seems to me.

I'm just in it for the sitcom parodies. And the performances. They're both knocking it out of the park and having a ball doing so.

[OtisAH]

Wandavision is a retelling of Wanda’s descent into madness from the comic books that begins in it’s earliest stages with the title “Vision and the Scarlet Witch” and the birth of her children, develops in the Avengers storyline “Disassembled,” and culminates in the “House of M[agneto]” storyline from X-Men.

I don’t expect Avengers to be killed in this one, although someone might be. We might see cameos of newer Avengers though, especially with “Falcon and the Winter Soldier” on the way. And she’s not a mutant in the MCU (or in the comics any more, I think) so “No more mutants” — the famous three words that wiped out the X-gene in something like 90% of all mutants on earth — is not in play either (plus the MCU hasn’t really established mutants yet).

So my guess is things move along the line they’re on. Prepare yourselves for a good gobsmacking wrt the kids. And we probably see Wanda really lose it.

If they are heading towards closer adherence to Disassembled and House of M the next phase of the movies will be nuts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Looked it up, that is one bizarre series. Sounds like she actually starts out insane, rather than descending into madness.

I suppose that's an occupational hazard of having a reality altering power.

[DonP]

For your ice cream maker ... Try getting some peaches, slightly over ripe and soft to the touch. They make the most incredible ice cream. A touch of Cinnamon makes them really sing.

[Commenter_XY]

I'll give that one a shot, DonP. Peaches are some months away, but it is now on my list. 😉

[Stephen Lathrop]

After seeing the overwhelming strength of the Senate case, I worry that going forward with it may have been bad judgment. The problem is what happens if a case this powerful fails to convict. The risk is that an acquittal for Trump after such convincing evidence could write the impeachment power right out of the Constitution.

Every subsequent president on trial in the Senate would be able to say with accuracy, "The case against Trump was much stronger, and Trump was acquitted." The standard this case might create could set a bar too high to get over, ever. American constitutionalism, with its strong presidential system, cannot work without presidential accountability.

Perhaps the Ds should hear the R rebuttals, and then announce a pause for investigations and interviews of witnesses. During that pause, they could explore whether McConnell is inclined to try to deliver 17 votes for conviction. If not, it might be wiser to put an end to the impeachment, saying forthrightly that the managers fear the implications of acquittal after such strong evidence.

Then urge the Justice Department to open a case against Trump in federal court in DC, not for insurrection, but for treason, for making war against the United States. If that case happens, move the evidence and testimony from the Senate to the courthouse. There would be a better chance to win in front of a criminal jury than the nation will get from R Senators. Precedential consequences of losing a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt verdict in court would be less damaging than the impending failure to convict in the Senate.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

If only the Senate had more morally upstanding Republicans, like that racist, bigoted war-mongerer John McCain.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The problem is what happens if a case this powerful fails to convict."

See, there's your problem right there: Thinking a case that only persuades those who already disliked the defendant is a "powerful" case.

The reality is that if you moved this case to an actual criminal court, acquittal would be virtually certain, because nothing he's seriously alleged to have done meets the requirements of any actual crime.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you mean "seriously alleged to have done," after you imaginatively strip out the serious allegations? Did you watch the Senate presentation yesterday? They not only made allegations, they documented them. You know, with evidence. Missed that part, did you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Fine, prove me wrong: Indict him, rather than impeaching.

[bernard11]

I don't think gross dereliction of duty is actually a crime for which Trump can be indicted, though it seems to me to be impeachable.

And no one can doubt that he was derelict in his duty.

Brett,
The problem with your formulation, which you endlessly repeat, is that you think voting for impeachment or conviction, or indeed criticizing him, is irrefutable evidence that the person doing so was biased against him to begin with, so your claim is circular.

"You only voted that way because you hate Trump."

"What makes you think I hate Trump?"

"You voted to impeach."

Doesn't make much sense, any more than it makes sense to think Trump cultists can be convinced by any evidence at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've pointed out before that you can find polls going all the way back to early 2017, showing a majority of Democrats wanting Trump impeached. Even before they could identify a charge! Democrats literally began discussing impeaching Trump before the election.

And we know this extended at least somewhat into the Republican party, because of the NeverTrump phenomenon. Again, before you could identify any reason to impeach. Almost any Republican would have had the hatred of Democrats at that point, but Trump, being an insurgent rather than an establishment candidate, was hated by the GOP establishment, too.

It's really hard to make the case that you want to impeach a President because of X, when it can be demonstrated you wanted to impeach him before X.

[David Nieporent]

Democrats literally began discussing impeaching Trump before the election.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't get less dishonest.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't know about before the election, but here's a video of Maxine waters talking about impeaching him on Feb 3, 2017, right after the inauguration.

[Brett Bellmore]

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?

NY Daily News editorial, 3/2/2016: "Impeach Trump; It's not too early to start."

University of Utah News, 9/20/2016: "U researcher: Trump University lawsuits present potential impeachment case"

2/10/2017: Rep. Nadler (D) introduces resolution calling for an impeachment inquiry.

Washington Post, 2/24/2017:"Impeach Trump? Most Democrats already say ‘yes.’"

Need I go on?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Brett, the fact that people early on saw things Trump had done and concluded they showed an impeachable character in no way discredits evidence Trump since presented to the world. Your recitation just show that appearance of political prescience is like palmistry—more likely based on mundane observation than occult talents. A lot of folks thought Trump was impeachable; it turned out to be true.

Your argument paraphrased might actually come out, "A lot of folks thought you had to be a sucker to believe Trump, but it can't be true because I believed him."

[Brett Bellmore]

I stated that Democrats were discussing impeaching Trump even before he was elected, and that a majority of Democrats favored impeaching him as soon as he'd taken office.

You and I might disagree about the implications of this, but I've clearly proven that it's true. It would be nice of you to admit that.

My take on this is that Democrats have wanted to impeach him from the start, only the excuse for doing so has changed over time. It doesn't take a strong argument for impeachment to persuade people who already favor impeachment.

[David Nieporent]

Need I go on?

I beg you not to, because you haven't actually read anything you're citing.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The case against Trump is laughable. There is nothing there. It is so bad they had to resort to engaging a media company to make what was essentially a trailer for a movie.

There was no "insurrection".

There was no "coup".

There was a lot of activism and a collective voice against censorship and oppression. That is something that should be celebrated and maybe we should listen to the one million people who are demanding to be heard.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, Jimmy. A media company making a movie trailer uses actors. What you saw, if you even watched, which I doubt, was a documentary.

Also? "Hang Mike Pence," who is in charge of actually transferring power at that very moment, is a pretty good indicator of an attempted coup.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, Michael Moore makes "documentaries". Doesn't keep him from fabricating things by deceptive camera cuts. Documentaries are quite capable of being dishonest, like, cutting back and forth between things happening at different times, to create the impression they happened at the same time or in a different order.

"Also? “Hang Mike Pence,” who is in charge of actually transferring power at that very moment, is a pretty good indicator of an attempted coup."

Albeit no indication at all that Trump was a party to it.

[bernard11]

Albeit no indication at all that Trump was a party to it.

As I said, nothing will convince you.

You really don't think the crowd was incited by Trump's accusations against Pence? That's laughable.

[BadLib]

If a speaker tells a crowd that "We must fight for our civil rights" are they guilty of inciting a riot if a few hundred idiots in the crowd who don't understand that "fight" has a broader than using physical violence proceed to attack police and burn businesses?

In context there was no rational reason to believe that the audience would attack the Capitol Building -- any more than a speaker telling a crowd "We must Fight for Fifteen" would reasonably anticipate that the crowd would go nuts and burn every nearby fast food place that paid less than $15/hour to the least qualified employee.

There was NO modern history of civilians breaching the capitol en masse and D.C. is the frequent site of boisterous protest which don't end in significant violence. Any rational person would have listened to Trump's speech and taken it as a call to march to the Capitol and chant and make noise to make their displeasure known - not to break into the Capitol, vandalize it, and threaten lawmakers.

If he had made the same speech during an ongoing riot where those in the crowd had been attempting to destroy government property for more than three days that could be quite a different situation - but that was not the case here.

Trump was not guilty of inciting a riot in the criminal sense. But, of course, impeachment is a political activity. In this case, since conviction is extremely unlikely, it's just political theater. If they could, Democrats would like to convict Trump and keep him from ever holding office again which would make this effort political strategy rather than just theater.

We will see if the current administration believes that Trump's actions rose to "inciting a riot" et al in the criminal sense. If so, they will prosecute him (just as they are rightfully prosecuting the idiots who broke into the Capitol) and then a jury will get to decide if Trump is actually guilty of such crimes. If they fail to prosecute, that will make it crystal clear that this is just political theater as surely a responsible administration would not decline to prosecute someone for such a serious crime just because that person had once been President of the United States.

What I'm perplexed by is that Democrats felt it was very important to abide by the "will of the voters" (as they saw it) in the Bush/Gore controversy but they are now calling for disenfranchising any voter who wants to vote for Trump in 2024. Are they that fearful they can't put a candidate forward that could easily beat Trump should he run and instead feel that it's important to disqualify him?

FWIW, I've never voted for Trump and I think he's an ineffectual idiot although I support some of his core stated goals - notably reducing illegal immigration and enforcing existing immigration laws.

[Brett Bellmore]

"D.C. is the frequent site of boisterous protest which don’t end in significant violence."

Fires Near White House—AFL-CIO Offices Ablaze—As Riots Continue In D.C.

It's not so much that protests in DC never end in major violence. It's that nobody expected a right wing protest to end up that way. If that had been a BLM protest on the 6th, the Capitol building would have been at Defcon 4, complete with the DC national guard being activated, as was done for the above riots. The left knows it's own are violent, finding out the right could be violent, too, was a shock, one they still haven't gotten over.

"Are they that fearful they can’t put a candidate forward that could easily beat Trump should he run and instead feel that it’s important to disqualify him?"

Well, after 4 years he wouldn't be running against a cypher hiding in the basement. He'd be running against the President responsible for 4 years of whatever they expect Biden to be responsible for. Perhaps they don't actually expect the Biden administration to be all that popular?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Brett, it's telling that you mention time lines and camera cuts as part of your criticism of the evidence. That shows you didn't watch. If you had, you would have seen the laborious effort that went to show camera shots, note times, look at tweets and other electronic interactions, and prove contemporaneous interactions between Trump and the Capitol assailants. For me, that was the most unexpected, and most impressive part of the case. It's what moved me to make my comment about the strength of the case.

[Brett Bellmore]

You got any contemporary interactions that involve Trump telling them to riot? Because I don't doubt that some of the people who rioted had read his tweets, but unless his tweets told them to riot, that means nothing.

[grb]

The impeachment managers should have witnesses testify on Trump's reaction to the rioting. Yes, there's a clear line of DJT actions from Election Day to 06January aimed at sabotaging a U.S. election. The riots were were only the last measure of a two-month campaign.

But Trump deadenders still pretend it's only one speech and unintended consequences. Fine : Show Trump's glee at the mayhem he caused. Show him refusing to take calls from congressmen trapped inside the building. Show aides begging him to call for the riot's end, and Trump mulishly refusing. That may have the visceral impact needed to affect coward GOP Senators.

Yesterday was a good start, showing Trump knew Pence was still inside a building overrun by rioters when he tweeted a vicious attack against the Vice President. The Secret Service hadn't yet secured Pence while a rioter read Trump's tweet thru a megaphone. More testimony like that might grow some backbone on the Republican side.

[Bob from Ohio]

Pence? Woman hating homophobe Mike Pence? Trump enabling Mike Pence?

Its cute you care about him now.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Mike Pence doesn't hate women. He's just afraid of them and their smelly vaginas.

[Krychek_2]

It's possible to despise Pence's views while at the same time recognizing that murdering the vice president as he's in the midst of presiding over a transfer of power is not a good thing.

[Bob from Ohio]

grb doesn't care about Pence being murdered, its just a club to hit Trump with. Same with most of the libs shedding their crocodile tears over him.

He was never in danger. No rioter got near him. The Secret Service could have handled any who did, like the woman that was shot.

[grb]

Three Points :

(1) For the record, I'm very much opposed to Pence being murdered. My ethics are less elastic than Bob's

(2) As a fact, a group of rioters barely missed the Vice President. You know that well-aired scene of a policeman retreating up the stair with a group of rioters following him? Pence had just been hustled off in the opposite direction.

(3) As a wonder : I'm actually watching Bob say it was hunky-dory for Trump to endanger the Vice President because (a) The Secret Service would have probably been able to shoot their way out of any situation, and (b) The person who made Bob confront this inconvenient fact (me) isn't a political supporter of Pence.

You just have to ask : Wouldn't you like to be free of Trump, Bob? Imagine never having to defend his lies again, or make such contemptable arguments to excuse his sleazy actions.

[Bob from Ohio]

#1 I don't believe you for a minute
#2 He wasn't "barely missed"
#3 Trump never put him in danger

You're the one who needs to be free from Trump, he's in your head.

[grb]

(1). It probably comforts you to think I share your shriveled soul. Sorry, I don't.

(2) Less than a minute separated Pence and the rioters. Close enough for you?

(3) As noted above, the mob responded immediately to Trump's tweet. Rioters began screaming the Vice President was a “traitor”, “bitch”, and yelling “Mike Pence, we’re coming for you too, you fucking traitor!”.

Soon they were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!” All this was a direct response to Trump's message. Do you really find that irrelevant?

(As for DJT, let me assure you I have to expend much, much less energy finding him contemptible than you do coming up with ways to excuse his actions. I'm not the one here with the Sisyphean task, Bob - you are)

[Krychek_2]

"He was never in danger. No rioter got near him. The Secret Service could have handled any who did, like the woman that was shot."

So what? Seriously, so fucking what? Bob, do you actually listen to the crap that comes out of your mouth?

[Bob from Ohio]

He was never in danger. Its not crap, its fact.

[Krychek_2]

Assuming you're right, so what?

Suppose I plan to kill your children but I'm stopped half a block from your house. Do you think I should not be prosecuted because your children were never in danger?

[Bob from Ohio]

There was no "plan" to kill him.

[Krychek_2]

Right, the people chanting "hang Mike Pence" just hit on that particular chant by sheer coincidence.

[Life of Brian]

The game of lazy meme whack-a-mole continues. Will YOU be the one to finally explain why and how this group had more of an "assassination plan" than the group that beheaded a Trump mannequin in a guillotine right outside the White House while Trump was there giving a speech?

[Krychek_2]

Did the people who beheaded the Trump mannequin storm the White House?

[Life of Brian]

Did the people with the gallows?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Very few things which come out of your mouth are fact. This is not one of them either.

When rioters are roaming the building in which you are currently present, and they are looking to find you and hang you, you are absolutely in danger. That is irrefutable.

Watch the trial and STFU for a while. Maybe a few facts will actually get through to you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"irrefutable"

Yet you failed to refute me. Weird.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Perhaps you should attend one of Ed's remedial English classes:

"When rioters are roaming the building in which you are currently present, and they are looking to find you and hang you, you are absolutely in danger."

Neither your lack of basic English comprehension, nor your astounding ability to be consistently wrong are my problems to solve.

I pity the person upon whose shoulders that responsibility falls.

[Krychek_2]

I'm also doubtful that the secret service could have shot their way out of it had the need arisen. Pence had what, maybe a dozen secret service agents, against several hundred rioters, some of whom were heavily armed?

[Bob from Ohio]

"some of whom were heavily armed"

No they weren't.

Show me a gun charge brought so far alleging a gun IN the Capitol. A couple of people face charges for guns or explosive materials found in their cars.

What was a person with a gun in his car going to do: "Mike, stay where you are, I gotta go to my car to get a gun so I can kill you."

This hyperbole about the riot is ludicrous and just gaslighting really.

[Krychek_2]

Don't know about charges but I saw interviews with rioters who told the press that they were heavily armed. I suppose they could all have been lying, but I'm inclined to believe them.

And even if none of them were armed, the mere fact that there were several hundred of them would have been a challenge for the Secret Service. At bare minimum there would have been a significant body count. Your attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation is so disingenuous I'm not sure even you buy it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I saw interviews with rioters who told the press that they were heavily armed"

Best you can do?

[Krychek_2]

Do you have reason to disbelieve them?

[Krychek_2]

And here's the thing: Even if you think they were just talking big and weren't really armed, the Secret Service can't afford to assume that you're right. When several hundred people storm the capitol, many of them chanting "hang Mike Pence" and several of them telling the media they're heavily armed, the Secret Service has to assume the worst. Thank God they did evacuate Pence before the rioters got there, otherwise a lot of people probably would have been killed.

That a lot of people didn't get killed is looking more and more like dumb luck.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you have reason to disbelieve them?"

I don't believe there are any such interviews.

No one saw a gun on a rioter. No one has been charged for having a gun IN the Capitol. No rioter used a gun.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you have reason to disbelieve them?"

Yeah! Are you suggesting that the rioting insurrections might be less than credible?

[Krychek_2]

So when I saw those interviews I was hallucinating?

[Jimmy the Dane]

So what if some activists were demanding accountability? Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

[Bored Lawyer]

"demanding accountability" -- now that's a good Orwellian phrase if I ever heard one.

[Bob from Ohio]

"case this powerful "

Yes, they managed to prove there was a riot that day.

Powerful.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That level of insight is how a full-grown man winds up searching real estate titles in Knuckle-Drag, Ohio for a living.

[Bob from Ohio]

Title searches are nothing to be ashamed of doing. Though technically, I mostly review searches done by our examiners and then close transactions.

Without a title insurance policy, no one would have loaned you money for your shack where your spawn can wallow in the filth from your bigoted mouth.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Great point!

[Sarcastr0]

They also showed that many, many of those rioters thought they were there to do an insurrection on behalf of Trump.

[Jimmy the Dane]

No they didn't. Stop it with the lies already. If anything has come out it is that there was no plan for anything. Many people were on video saying that there was no plan.

There was no "insurrection" and nothing close to it. That word is just your dog whistle for unacceptable people expressing their first amendment rights. Stop using it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not quite true. Apparently a small minority of the participants had a plan, which the FBI was aware of but failed to stop. Most were just swept along in events.

[bernard11]

Just swept along. Not responsible. Just tourists there looking at the paintings.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Just tourists there looking at the paintings."

Most of the people just milled around, taking selfies. They even stayed in the rope lines.

[Sarcastr0]

That has been established to have bee far from true. By prosecutors, journalists, and now Congress.

Maybe don't take a couple of photos and pretend they are the whole story.

Except you have said you're willing to lie if it gets you what you want, so you're probably just doing that now as well.

[Bob from Ohio]

"established"

No it has not. No trials, no hearings in Congress, just edited videos and self-serving prosecutor statements.

"you’re willing to lie if it gets you what you want"

Funny coming from Gaslighto.

[Jimmy the Dane]

And of course the house managers who are trying to IMPEACH a past president didn't include facts that were not convenient to their stupid, inane argument.

One thing they didn't mention is when word came out that there was a curfew most of the party left voluntarily except for a few. And those were people who stuck around to pick up trash outside. Yeah, that was really one heck of an "insurrection"....

[Sarcastr0]

When it was clear there were no members there, and the count had stopped, they left.

Saying it was voluntarily abiding by the curfew which shows how nonviolent they are is just blowing smoke.

Of course, you seem to think maybe a bit of political violence is okay, so this is the old right-wing two-step.
"It didn't happen, even if it happening would have been good.'

[Bob from Ohio]

"When it was clear there were no members there, and the count had stopped, they left. "

Yet you call it an Insurrection or coup.

They held the Capitol and just left. Most went home or to their hotels. Just like the Beer Hall Putsch!

[Jimmy the Dane]

Sarcastro is unhappy that the activists did not get some "just deserts" in helpings of police brutality (because that stuff is funny when a Trump supporter gets it....) and ended up leaving before that could happen.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"When it was clear there were no members there, and the count had stopped, they left."

Allowing the count to start again and declare Biden the winner.

Worst coup ever!

[Sarcastr0]

Failed insurrections are still insurrections, Bob and TiP.
Also, maybe don't invoke the Beer Hall Putsch as a triumph for your side.

Jimmy, you know I'm against political violence, but you're trolling.

[Sarcastr0]

Watch the Dems video presentation on Impeachment. Yesterday and the day before. They are not long.

If you can handle having your carefully constructed reality challenged.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are a liar, Jimmy. They absolutely did show video of rioters claiming precisely that they were acting on behalf of Trump.

Want to know why you aren't respected, and why you're considered to be one of the biggest idiots around here?

Because you're a lying kook.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I did watch the movie trailer and it was funny. And nothing there in in that Hollywood type production suggested Trump did anything but give a speech to a passionate crowd.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and that's called incitement.

[Jimmy the Dane]

No it is called excitement.

What happened on January 6th was democracy in action. Maybe when a million people speak in such a robust manner we ought to listen to them.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

America recently decided that you people aren't worth listening to.

Sedition and attempted insurrection merely reinforces the fact that we chose correctly.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"America..." do you mean Big Tech and liberal media? Because those are the guys who decided censorship was awesome and nothing could backfire from it...

[BadLib]

So, promoters of the "Fight for Fifteen" are also responsible for all criminal acts of those who interpret the word "Fight" in that context to mean "physical violence"?

At no point did Trump call for physical violence or get close to it.

Given that in modern times the Capitol Building has not been breached en masse by mobs and there had been no significant violence related to the election results up until that time, it is very difficult to imagine how a rational person would jump from what Trump said since the election up until the Capitol riot to "We must attack Capitol" rather than interpreting it as "We should do what protesters fighting for civil rights or BLM etc routinely do in Washington - speak our mind loudly and get the attention of lawmakers and the media".

This isn't even like a speaker in Portland telling a crowd "We must fight for Black Lives Matter" in the vicinity of a Federal Court building that had been being attacked nightly for over a week. At least in that case one could conceive that, based on recent history, the use of the word "fight" in that context meant "engage in violence" even if that was not what the speaker meant or intended.

[Sarcastr0]

At no point did Trump call for physical violence or get close to it.

Weird so many of the insurrectionists disagreed with you.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Weird that they are also all charged with federal crimes that could mean hefty prison sentences....right?

[BadLib]

Compared to the number of BLM protesters whose leaders don't call for violence but are also are loose cannons and "incited" to violence by calls to protest, this was a tiny number.

Did Trump "read the crowd" right and realize how stupid they were? Perhaps not. However he didn't call on them to be violent and his rhetoric was similar to that many promoting protest of many types on "both" sides use.

And, once the Feds put handcuffs on a suspect, the suspect is often looking for anyone to blame for their actions in hopes of coming off as a "victim" rather than a "perpetrator".

[David Nieporent]

So, promoters of the “Fight for Fifteen” are also responsible for all criminal acts of those who interpret the word “Fight” in that context to mean “physical violence”?

Depends. Did those promoters spend two months riling them up by yelling that there was a crime and their rights were being stolen, and then summoning them together as an angry mob and yelling that they had to do something right away or they'd lose forever?

[Don Nico]

Stephan,
The possibility of any credible case for treason by "waging war" is very poor; conviction is even less probable. Unfortunately the Senate trial also make a trail by an impartial jury almost impossible.
In addition, the optics of having Leahy as a witness, presiding officer and voting member are poor Harris should have presided as she has no vote in this matter.
My take away is the the Democrats wer afraid of an acquital in a prosecution and trial by jury. Hence, they chose a stacked process.
The most they can do is embarrass the Orange Clown. BUT he does not even know this word or what it means.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm unsure why anybody should be embarrassed to be subject to a political prosecution because his foes know he'd be acquitted in any regular legal trial. Outraged? Sure. But, embarrassed?

Why? It is embarrassing to know your foes are unprincipled? "Gosh, how embarrassing, I wish I had principled foes who'd do the right thing, my bad!"

[ragebot]

As has endlessly been noted if there was really "overwhelming strength of the Senate case" there should also be overwhelming strength of a criminal case. Problem for the dems is there is no criminal case because it would fall flat on it's face.

What bothers me most about your post is the implication that Trump's was the strongest case for impeachment of a prez.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. There is no dispute he lied under oath and obstructed justice as later civil cases showed. The case against Clinton was much stronger in terms of proof that he did what he was charged with. As an aside I do understand why Clinton got off; lots of peeps lie about extra marital sex and lots of peeps think it is justified.

I suspect you fundamentally misunderstand impeachment in general and more importantly impeachment of a prez. The reason 67 votes are required to convict is the founding fathers thought there was a need for broad support to convict. While Clinton did lie under oath and obstruct justice there was not the broad support needed to convict.

On the other hand I suspect there is more support to convict Trump even if there is less proof that he did what he is charge with, certainly not enough support to convict in a criminal trial. But the bottom line is that there are not 67 votes to convict him.

[David Bremer]

I'm getting really annoyed with the vaccine rollout/allocation. In particular, I'm getting annoyed with the limit to those over a certain age (generally 75). At current pace, that should be done, oh, I dunno, around the time that crew will need another round of shots.

Yes, I know that is the group most at risk of death. But it's also the group that has the least need to be in public or exposed to others (since they are retired). Even those in nursing homes can be protected by inoculating the workers instead. And, not to be crass, but many people that age have limited life spans already.

My grandfather is about 90, meaning he'd be eligible. He also has a failing heart, making him particularly susceptible. Even though I'm sure he could get the vaccine (and that is selfishly good for my family), is that really where we as a society should be allocating a dose? I mean, even without the pandemic, there's not much sand left in the hourglass. Wouldn't we rather see that dose go to someone much younger, but who may have some controllable co-morbidity.

I'm not sure where the balance point is, but just inoculating everyone over a given age doesn't seem to be maximizing the value of what doses we have.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

With the US debt at nearly 28 trillion dollars, I think the socially responsible thing to do is to take the elderly into the woods when they become a financial burden and abandon them. Or we can have some sort of federal euthanasia lottery (e.g. Carousel) for anyone over 65.

[David Bremer]

My coworker used to joke about doing something like that. That joke became less funny as he and the other senior people at the firm got older. Then the pandemic hit. He doesn't bring it out any more.

[grb]

RabbiHarveyWeinstein : "... federal euthanasia lottery ... (etc)"

If that's necessary for another tax cut aimed at top 1%, sure!

(watching Republicans govern you learn to have priorities)

[Don Nico]

Let's shoot you first, Harvey, and Bremer next.

[Commenter_XY]

David, if you want to reduce mortality, then the medical science (clinical data) is crystal clear, and undeniable. Elderly over 65 with comorbid conditions are at the front of the line, before all others (including HCPs and first responders under 65). Anything else is really not medical science based, IMO.

It is the failure to follow the medical science that makes me have complete and utter contempt for the politicians making these arbitrary decisions on who gets the vaccine and when. Phailing Phil Murphy, governor of NJ, is a perfect example. His utter incompetence is truly something to behold. He is a poster child for what not to do.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Why do you believe in the perseverance of racial inequality? Old white people have to die, along with some old Black people, so a younger, more racially diverse America can prosper. Do you even read The New York Times?

[Don Nico]

"Do you even read The New York Times?"
All the more reason to disregard what you write.

[David Bremer]

I don't necessarily want to reduce mortality, I want to reduce overall harm in whatever form it takes.

If I had to choose between keeping a 90-year-old from dying and a 40-year-old from having a stroke or suffering long-term health effects, I side on the 40-year-old. If I had to choose between allowing a group of 75-year-olds to get together for their weekly coffee or inoculating teachers and reopening the schools, I'll choose the schools.

Yes, if you focus exclusively on death, then inoculating the elderly is the most sensible. But if you think about the other effects of the pandemic, both health and social, then I'm not sure it is. But it doesn't seem that analysis is being done.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Weighing the costs of lockdowns in life years instead of human lives was insensitive to the elderly. Distributing vaccines to the elderly is now insensitive to racial equity. Haven't you been keeping up with The New York Times?

[Don Nico]

There is no racial distinct disposition to severe covid-19. There is a racial imbalance on demographics in jobs in which the employees is in considerable conact with others.

[ragebot]

Well before COVID-19 was a gleam in the Chi Com's eyes non whites (except Asians) in the US suffered from health issues at a significantly higher rate than whites. This was not because of being employed in specific sectors but because of obesity and related problems for starters; things like drug use and over representation in being incarcerated. If a population cohort suffers from more health issues in general it is not a big jump to think they will suffer more from COVID-19.

[Commenter_XY]

The problem with 'harm' is the arbitrary nature of what harm is. That is why I much prefer medical/clinical data. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

[David Bremer]

Selecting death as the only form of harm to consider is arbitrary. It's just an easier arbitrary line to define.

[Commenter_XY]

Well David, there is nothing arbitrary about death. I did not say death was the only harm. I said that if you want to reduce mortality, which I think is the medical goal here, then vaccination of the elderly must be prioritized.

[David Bremer]

You just said you prefer medical/clinical data, not that you were worried only about mortality.

I agree that if death count is your only concern, then yes, you'd inoculate the elderly. My point is that if you worry only about death numbers, you ignore other harms. And while it may seem crass, not all deaths are the same. It's a greater cost to society if a 25 year old dies than a 95 year old does. It's also a greater cost if a 25 year old has a stroke or permanent scarring to his or her lungs than the 95 dying a year or two earlier than they otherwise would.

[Commenter_XY]

Again....your standard is arbitrary. Who are you (or I) to decide which is the greater harm? Who are you (or I) to decide whose life is worth more? Do you see the problem here?

No. Stay with the medical science.

[Don Nico]

David,
It may very well be that old people may die more frequently but they may also have serious consequences that imply many years of expensive treatment. The public has never been showed such data,

[BadLib]

At a minimum the standard should be to maximize Quality Adjusted Life Years even if one choose to ignore that the societal impact of the death of one single (and responsible) parent of two toddlers who will then be orphaned is surely greater than the impact of a 90 year old dying six months earlier than they would have otherwise.

[ragebot]

You just made up the term Quality Adjusted Life Years.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's worse is the areas where they're obsessing over "equity" and sticking to the plan, and actually sanctioning medical professionals who use vaccine for walk-ins instead of throwing it out for lack of somebody 'qualified' to give it to.

It's not an exercise in epidemiology, it's just bureaucrats power tripping.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Are you publicly questioning the scientific bona fide of the all-knowing Governor Cuomo and his aide-de-camp, Fredo Cuomo?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I do. And I question the bona fides of Phailing Phil Murphy and that harpy who is the health commissioner in the People's Republic of NJ. They killed people with their utter incompetence and bad policies.

[Brett Bellmore]

DOCTOR FIRED AND CRIMINALLY CHARGED FOR NOT THROWING USABLE VACCINES OUT

"The officials maintained that he had violated protocol and should have returned the remaining doses to the office or thrown them away, the doctor recalled. He also said that one of the officials startled him by questioning the lack of “equity” among those he had vaccinated.

“Are you suggesting that there were too many Indian names in that group?” Dr. Gokal said he asked.

Exactly, he said he was told."

...

"Days later, a criminal court judge, Franklin Bynum, dismissed the case for lack of probable cause.

“In the number of words usually taken to describe an allegation of retail shoplifting, the State attempts, for the first time, to criminalize a doctor’s documented administration of vaccine doses during a public health emergency,” he wrote. “The Court emphatically rejects this attempted imposition of the criminal law on the professional decisions of a physician.”"

Still fired, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Approximately as stupid, of course, is pretending that the vaccine magically goes from 100% efficacy to 0% efficacy at the end of the time period.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

By all means Brett, share with us your expertise regarding vaccines, efficacy, and safety guidelines.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, you think six hours after the bottle is opened the contents evaporate, or catch fire, but five hours and 59 minutes after it's opened, everything's peachy? Did you learn chemistry off a chewing gum label?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Please do elaborate: Who made the claim that the efficacy goes from 100 to 0% at the six-hour moment? Last I checked, those are your words.

So please prove them to be accurate. Surely this isn't just more hyperbolic bullshit on your part?

[Don Nico]

Rather than spewing your usual insults why don't you Google the data about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. It is there for you to read.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Was anyone talking to you? No.

Brett alluded that the reason the vaccine expires after six hours because of the idea that it goes from 100% to 0%. While he is making fun of that rationale, that is what he is attributing as the reason for the six-hour mark.

If he'd like to admit that the vaccine is not 'expired' after six hours because of that specific argument, then I'd be happy to see him retract his strawman and admit that he doesn't actually know why the doses are considered to be expired after six hours.

Thank you for your clever contribution to a discussion you clearly weren't paying enough attention to before opining.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, what I'm saying is that no disaster would have happened if he'd injected the last dose at 6 hours and 15 minutes.

As a practical matter, bureaucracies don't deal well with complex, continuous systems. They can't say, "Well, you have six hours if you leave it open on a shelf at room temperature, but 8 if you cap it to keep air out, and 10 if you also put it back in the fridge, and you can add 50% to the time limit here if you proportionately increase the dose with the passage of time to compensate for degradation, because the efficacy is a linear function of time, not step."

They say, "Use it for the first 6 hours after opening, then throw it out", with no nuance. They don't punish doing the wrong thing, they punish doing the "we didn't tell you to do that" thing.

In this case, of course, the doctor actually did as he'd been told, after confirming what he'd been told, and they set out to punish him anyway.

[Don Nico]

Jason, you truly speak and act like an asshole.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Oh no, Don. You're so mean; whatever will I do with myself?

Maybe you should get a better grasp of the arguments before speaking next time. Had you bothered to do so, your input might have been relevant to Brett's strawman and my response, and therefore would probably have been received more to your liking.

*shrug*

Brett, regardless of how you try to explain it now, you setup a strawman that the impetus for the 6hr-toss-it was that the vaccine goes from 100% to 0% efficacy. Those were your words.

We both know that isn't actually the rationale for throwing it out after 6 hours, so perhaps you shouldn't have said what you did, as it was never the reality of the situation.

[Bored Lawyer]

Now that you mention it, the whole vaccine rollout is an utter disaster. Not enough were ordered, and little was done in the way of planning to vaccinate the population.

This is a perfect example of what a windbag Trump is. He gets credit for fastracking the development and approval. He gets an F for the follow through.

As I told my wife, it's like someone who buys a new car, and brags about what a great, high power engine it has. He just forgot to order the wheels! So he can sit in his driveway and make VROOM VROOM noises, but the car is not moving anywhere.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's simple enough: He wasn't a dictator, and he did understand federalism, so he got the vaccine to the states, and left it up to them to get it into arms.

[bernard11]

Trump Can Do No Wrong.

Trump cannot fail. He can only be failed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently you think Only Trump Can Do Wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

Not what bernard said.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, what he said was that I think Trump can do no wrong, when I pointed out that Trump got the vaccine to the states, and it was the states' job to get it into arms.

Some of the states did it, some screwed up. How did the states that didn't screw up manage that, if it was Trump causing the screw ups?

[Sarcastr0]

Federal coordination of a national response is a responsibility of the Federal government.

Trump didn't just not do that, his admin actively hindered that. First with masks, then with vaccines.

The US is no worse off than other countries with not actively nefarious leadership, and California is having a helluva time despite their perhaps overly enthusiastic policies. So I won't claim there are deaths attributable to the Trump COVID crapshow. However, we will be reopening later than we should have, and that economic damage is absolutely on him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, bullshit. The economic damage was a consequence of locking down economies for months on end, and that was a state policy the federal government didn't mandate, and not every state decided to tank their economy.

And the states that decided not to tank their economies didn't do materially worse than the states that did; Lockdowns appear to have been a not particularly effective exercise in public health theater.

The federal government may have a coordination role, but that's not the same as dictating in detail how to do things. Some states just screwed up big time, that's all. It's not Trump's fault for failing to send in the National Guard when NY ordered nursing homes to accept Covid patients, for instance.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say *all* economic damage, I said the damage due to opening later than we could have due to the nonfeasance handling of the vaccine rollout.

A coordinating role is neccessary but not sufficient. The Feds failed this neccessary task. You can argue counterfactuals all day, but there is absolutely blame on them.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, how is the federal government supposed to coordinate things, when it's deliberately being kept in the dark?

Cuomo aide admits they hid nursing home data so feds wouldn’t find out

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Cuomo sucks. But you know that's immaterial info for what we're discussing. And yet you still try it out.

Have more fidelity to the truth, not your tribe.
You know, like I did noting Trump's crappy shutdown and masking messaging and policies probably didn't change death numbers more than marginally.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it's actually immaterial from my perspective, because Trump's responsibility ended when he got the vaccine to the states, and he did that just fine. It's not his fault Cuomo was a murdering incompetent, that's on the voters of NY.

Now, from YOUR perspective, it should matter, because you think Trump was responsible for what was going on in the state, and the state was illegally keeping him in the dark.

But you want to have it both ways: Trump responsible, but not entitled to data or compliance.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump’s responsibility ended when he got the vaccine to the states

That flies in the face of every federal disaster response since Truman. Except Katrina. And Puerto Rico.

How is the information you highlighted important for vaccine coordination? Difficulty: though you've implied differently above, coordination is not comandeering and direct control.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
Look at Gov. Newson who set Tier one at over 65 in defiance of the CDC guidance of over 75. The State then bragged that 6 million more Californians would be covered earlier. BUT CA got no additional vaccines. That is not exactly the fault of the Orange Clown.

[Bored Lawyer]

You do not have to be a dictator, and can respect federalism, and still execute an effective public program. It's been done many times.

Just drop the BS excuses. Trump is simply incapable of fully executing anything, and is too much of a jerk to get a competent crew to help him do it.

[dwb68]

Obama's lurch to the left gace us Trump. Biden's lurch even farther left will give us something worse.

Dems are going to pass a ridiculous massive 1.9T giveaway with money the govt does not have, along partisan lines. Then they will get 100% blamed for all the unintended consequences. I don't understand why they fall for this trap every time.

[dwb68]

Obama was the greatest thing that happened to the republican party (https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/under-obama-democrats-suffer-largest-loss-in-power-since-eisenhower/)

Biden / Harris will be even better.

That's why the Republicans are not trying so hard to slow down Biden. Leftist OMB head who posted disgusting things on Twitter? Confirmed!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you think this Republican resurgence could be enough to make clingers competitive in the culture war? Or will right-wingers continue to watch better Americans shape our national progress against the efforts and wishes of clingers?

Carry on, clingers . . . and open wider.

[dwb68]

Gotta love the intolerant judgemental left, who thinks that diversity of ideas is a bad thing, lol.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yet you follow a right-wing blog whose embrace of diversity of ideas includes plenty of viewpoint-driven censorship.

[dwb68]

And yet i also pause to read your comments. If "clingers" is the best argument you can come up with, Republicans everywhere are thankful to have such feckless opposition.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My argument is that reason, tolerance, modernity, science, freedom, inclusiveness, openness, education, and progress are better than backwardness, superstition, bigotry, unearned privilege, ignorance, dogma, authoritarianism, insularity, and pining for good old days that never existed.

(You read my comments, which are self-censored to comply with Prof. Volokh' s stated civility standards, at least as they have been expressly applied to me.

You do not read Artie Ray's comments. Artie Ray was banned.)

[Jimmy the Dane]

If you are a woman Biden cares about your rights but just not if he sexually assaults you or if your daughter wants to play in sports with a peer set that provides fair competition. And oh Biden is all about jobs, just as long as you don't work on that nasty pipeline.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Malia Obama can work my nasty pipeline any day of the week, except during the Sabbath.

[David Bremer]

Stay classy, Reason commentariat.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What level of class, precisely, do you expect from anti-social racists, anti-government cranks, obsolete misogynists, half-educated White nationalists, gay-bashing culture war casualties, superstitious rubes, disaffected culture war casualties, and Cruz-class Republicans?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Don't forget the Kahanists either!
Rabin deserved those bullets for attempting peace my negotiating with Arab terrorists who don't recognize the legitimate borders of Israel.

[David Bremer]

A good number of the commenters on here also commented when this blog was on its own website, then at WaPo. I seem to recall you trotting out your tired schtick back then too (if I'm right, congratulations at convincing nobody in 10+ years of trying). When the site moved here, the quality of the comments took a decided turn for the worse.

What I'd like to see is the same level of class that used to exist, including from people you've attached those labels to for no reason other than having a different political view than you.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

George Carlin, Sarah Silverman, and Amy Schumer have all proved with their stellar careers that crassness is class in the ever transgressive, American "culture".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's all good. There is a rumor Gina Carano is dating Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland.

[Don Nico]

Yadda, yadda, yadda

[dwb68]

Biden is all about jobs, as long as they are not American jobs. Jobs for the rest of the world, yes! Same as it ever was.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

>lurch to the left
Bails out the irresponsible banks
Enhances domestic spying programs
Ignores CIA torture programs
Additional military intervention in Mid East
Obama is a moderate neo-liberal politician. He was perfect for the Washington Establishment and Wall Street.

[bernard11]

So everything Trump did wrong was the Democrats' fault? Is that right?

Convenient.

[sumac]

The following is a good example of why the news media is mistrusted. Of course it helps to know what really happened.

On 1/23/21 two Tacoma Police officers responded to a crowd of about 100 people who were watching street racing. Once the officers arrived they were surrounded by the crowd and one of the officers who was worried about his safety drove out of the crowd and in so doing drove over at least one person.

The following are some the headlines posted by the news media:
Tacoma officer who drove police car through crowd at street...
Protesters march in Tacoma, in response to officer driving over...
Video shows Tacoma Police car running into pedestrians…
Tacoma police car plows through crowd of pedestrians gathered at..

The second police officer that was surrounded by the crowd is a friend of mine. Not only was he surrounded but while in the car they broke all the window, destroyed his vehicle and were yelling "kill the cop." Some of the people had guns. Since the incident he has lost 10 lbs.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Huh....I thought it was a mostly peaceful protest????

[David Bremer]

Because the media doesn't just adopt your friend's version of the events?

Look, I don't doubt the sincerity of your friend. I have no reason to. But I'm also sure that the witnesses tell a different story. The video probably tells something in between. Also, some of those headlines are factually accurate and neutral: The officer did drive a car through a crowd, the officer did drive over someone, and the video does show him running into pedestrians.

The only loaded word I see is "plowed." When I read the story, it mentions early on that the car was surrounded. When I watched the video linked in the story, it looks like the car may have been able to back up and I didn't hear anyone chanting to kill the cops.

I'm sorry if you think we should have had another story being soft on officers or using passive voice to describe what happened ("a person was struck by vehicle in officer-involved incident"). But I don't think seems all that egregious.

[sumac]

As for the media not adopting my friend's version. The media needs to provide balance and not just report what appears to have happened. As for the headlines - They are all loaded due to the fact that anybody reading them immediatly assumes the cop who ran over the person was the problem. It if a differernt interpetation could be made all the poeple that came to Tacoma afterward and destroyed property would have not. In the video you can see the officer trying to back up but he could not. You cannot see my friends vehicle nor hear everybody chanting but only a few. I watched numerous news cast on this and all emphasized that the officer ran over someone but only a small mention was made that the officer was surrounded by people. You cannot see what was going on prior to the video nor see that people were baning on his vehicle. How it came across is that the officer intentionally did this. Sure there are two sides to a story but let us hear the other side before the news media shares a story that could get people angry.

[sumac]

And lastly: As for the truth being half way between: My friend said all his windows in his vehicle were broken and his car highly damaged while he was in it. I suppose you think that only half of this is true and that rather than losing 10lbs he only lost 5lbs and only half his vehicle was damaged and half the windows were broken and that he is only half as disturbed by this event as you state.

[BadLib]

When the incident was reported I stepped through part of the video frame by frame (as I just did again) and it looked like not ALL of the windows were broken - albeit it's hard to tell for sure. There are a couple of frames where, if all the windows were broken, one seemingly should see right through the SUV side windows to what is behind and it should be "bright" - just as it looks before/after the SUV passes in front of the background but it isn't.

My feeling though was that if at least one window had been broken, beginning to drive through the crowd would have been justified. However, the speed at which the driver initially accelerated seemed potentially unnecessary as it was sudden and really didn't give people time to get out of the way once they realized the SUV was going to be moving forward and be out of there within three seconds. Also, of course, I didn't know what the "protesters" were saying or doing nor what, if anything, the officers were communicating to the crowd through their PA or using their horn to warn that they were about to drive forward.

Hopefully dash and body cam footage (and perhaps other unreleased security or bystander video) along with analysis of the damage to the SUV will help clarify what happened.

Hopefully, regardless if the officers were in the wrong, those who interfered with the police (and esp. those who threatened the police or damaged the SUV) will be identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Vote: Who is the most powerful, secret cabal?
(A) Stone Masons
(B) Illuminati
(C) Clinton & Pizza pedophiles
(D) Learned Elders of Zion
(E) Bogdanovs
(F) other

[gormadoc]

Volokh Conspiracy

[Bored Lawyer]

All the same thing, just different flavors. Like Baskin Robbins.

[loki13]

There is this great interview with the inventor of SawStop (basically, it stops a tablesaw and other saws as soon as it hits human flesh, preventing injury). But what I keyed in on was how he wasn't able to license it despite years of effort:

"The fundamental question came down to economics. Almost a societal economic structure question. The CPSC says table saws result in about $4B in damage annually. The market for table saws is about $200-400M. This is a product that does almost 10x in damage as the market size. There's a disconnect—these costs are borne by individuals, the medical system, workers comp—and not paid by the power tools company. Because of that, there’s not that much incentive to improve the safety of these tools. Societally if there was an opportunity to spend $5 to save $10, we’d want to do that. But in this chain there's a break in people that can make those changes and people that are affected, so it’s not done."

I'm throwing this out there because this is a fairly interesting problem in economics in different forms, whether you look at it from a Pigouvian or Coasean model- essentially, companies have no incentive to make a dangerous product safer, as it is not cost-effective for them to do so, yet they can create serious external costs by not doing so.

I don't really have much to add to this; some people would say that everything is working as intended (the creation of an upstart company that can sell its products and 'differentiate' on safety). Others would say that the problem is that there isn't a free market to begin with (because they always do). Still others would say that the problem is that the tort system is not working as intended because of the worker's compensation system, thus under-deterring.

Just thought it was an interesting thing to look at.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Wouldn't you open yourself to a lawsuit if you claimed that a table saw could immediately stop if flesh came in contact with the blade and some malfunction prevented this safety feature from activating so the guy loses his finger? Better (financially and legally) to just say "Buyer Beware the product may main you" and be done with it?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

*maim
Damnit!

[loki13]

Well, it can get complicated. And I haven't had to deal with this area of torts in a while.

Disclaimers can only get you so far. At some point, if you continue to sell something knowing that there is a safer alternative, you're going to end up being in trouble for design defect (reasonable alternative design).

The problem as it appears is that there was a disconnect between the incentives to get the companies to even explore the option; obviously, most tablesaws, etc. are within the work context- and that is worker's comp. So there will be no tort liability for the manufacturer. And if there wasn't a safe alternative (because of cost, and it hadn't been put on the market), then disclaimers should work; I'm sure someone with more tort experience would probably be able to go through this.

The point being is that these costs were externalized, and there was no incentives for companies to do anything about it, even if they knew there was a safer alternative.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Loki, is SawStop not even on the market? I saw a filmed demo years ago, and it was astounding. Thought it would obviously become required equipment. Seemed like the principle of operation could have been generalized to a lot of other dangerous equipment too. Is it just languishing?

[loki13]

It's on the market. The amazing thing is that they tried to license it to the major manufacturers for years with no luck.

[Voize of Reazon]

Bosch has a saw the Reaxx that uses similar technology but since 2017 is not imported into the U.S. because of SawStop's patents, so rather than accepting the SawStop guy's allegation that manufacturers have no incentive to make their products safer maybe they just don't have enough incentive to pay him what he was holding out for.
The patents are expiring around now (I think one did last year and one next year) so maybe this will change.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

There are safer alternatives to cigarettes on the market but the FDA and Mike Bloomberg are going to put a stop to those products ASAP.

[bernard11]

So there will be no tort liability for the manufacturer.

OK, but there will still be higher workers comp costs for the employer, not to mention all the other problems associated with having an employee sustain a serious injury.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or course, there seems to be a third number missing: The annual benefit from owning table saws. This, too, plays into the economics.

The issue here is that sawstop equipped saws are EXPENSIVE. Like, I can get into a low end table saw for a bit over $100. The cheapest Sawstop equipped table saw is over $1000.

It's a nice saw, if money were no issue I'd buy it in an instant. But money IS an issue.

It's a no-brainer for any professional application. For the casual hobbyist it can make having a table saw unaffordable, and mean forgoing any benefits from table saw ownership.

So, from an economic standpoint, it's not at all clear that the market isn't functioning exactly as it should, with individual consumers making rational risk benefit analysis.

[loki13]

Oh wait. Is Birther Brett expecting a substantive response?

Naw. That would be arrogant of me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Whereas what you did was just stupid, instead.

[loki13]

Sure thing Birther Brett!

I mean, am I stupid to never respond substantively to you?

Or is that arrogant? I JUST DON'T KNOW, just like you will never know where Obama was born.

[VinniUSMC]

"I JUST DON’T KNOW"

Quit while you're ahead.

You're just coming across as unhinged.

[loki13]

Like I care about your opinion?

Your concern trolling deeply affects me. Deeply! Really! I mean, when I think of people whose opinions matter to me, you are right up there.

You know, with Dr. Ed. 🙂

[VinniUSMC]

Oh no, whatever will I do? Does that mean I've made "the list"?! **"Celebrate good times, come on"**

When I think of people whose opinions matter to me, you are right up there. You know, with Dr. Ed. And Artie. And Hihn.

Should we expect your posts to be littered with bold accents next?

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe he's got some things going on in his life right now; I don't recall him being this nuts in the past.

[bernard11]

Does SawStop drive the cost up $900, or is it just that it is only put on fairly expensive saws, probably because those buyers are less price-sensitive?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd guess half and half. Seriously, if it was dirty cheap, they'd just go ahead and license it, right?

The replacement cartridges run $80-100 each, then there's the triggering electronics. So I'd venture to say that it would probably double the cost of a low end table saw.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If we had a more flexible health insurance market, we could have insurance companies figure out how to pay manufactures to make safer devices. But given the lack of an effective consumer health insurance market due to employer provided insurance, I'm not sure that that will happen.

[loki13]

If only people had less juvenile nicknames.

Maybe they'd get a response.

I'm not sure that will happen.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

>less juvenile nicknames
Doesn't Loki trick some blind guy into killing Baldr and starting the world on the path to Ragnarok?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup, Thor's blind brother.

[NToJ]

Count me in the camp who thinks this is working as it should. The costs of saw-related injuries are borne primarily by people who use saws. Because they are the ones who cause saw-related injuries. I suppose we could regulate it to reduce the number of injuries from 30K a year to 0, but that will have its own costs, which necessarily will be borne... primarily by people who use saws (this time whenever they buy the saw, as opposed to when they suffer an unlikely injury).

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Don't screw around in shop class!

[loki13]

Interesting take! Not saying that I disagree, but:

1. Isn't this kind of assuming homo economicus? In other words, most people don't have perfect knowledge. I doubt that anyone who purchases a table saw (or uses it) thinks, "Yeah, I'm the guy losing a limb." And yet, there is a staggering rate of injuries. Truly staggering. Is it possible that people aren't estimating their own costs correctly?

2. Are the costs being borne "primarily" by people who use the saws? Those thousands of amputations a year are expenses that are being compensated primarily through worker's comp and emergency room care- both of which are hardly bastions of "individual responsibility."

Again, this might be working as intended, but I don't think it's working as intended because people are correctly pricing out the cost of injuries and internalizing it.

[NToJ]

1. I think the assumption of homo economicus is deeply flawed. That's especially true where manufacturers hide the dangers of their products. So, before we all knew better, cigarettes. Table saws don't strike me as in the same ballpark. We use them to cause damage to things that are harder than human skin (or bone, depending on the saw). If I'm in the market for a saw, it's because I want to cut stuff. I don't know whether I agree with "staggering rate of injuries" but I agree with you that many people are foolish and underestimate the costs of their own behavior, often. But I'm in the camp that thinks it is permissible for humans to suffer the consequences of their own actions, too.

2. Re: worker's comp and emergency rooms. In my jurisdiction worker's comp is not mandatory. If worker's comp is paying for the injury, it is paid for by the employer. That is, the person or entity who supplied the saw, instructed the employee on its use, and directed the employee to start sawing. I'm not weeping for this person. The cost of buying safer saws either does or does not exceed the cost of worker's compensation insurance. And emergency rooms are not the victims of saw injuries, and do not suffer a "cost" related to it. Emergency rooms are in the misery business. The victims are their customers.

[loki13]

1. Again, while the danger of a table saw is hardly hidden, I think that the interesting thing is that an incredibly effective safety measure would not be licensed; that would seem to show at least some economic inefficiency in what was going on.

2. The primary issue with worker's compensation is that the bargain reached is that it deliberately undercompensates injuries, especially injuries like amputations, in exchange for efficiency. Moreover, it directs people out of the tort system, which feeds into (1). It's interesting your jurisdiction does not have that, but given that this is only four states in the country (and two of them are N. Dakota and Wyoming) it's not like this is a sizeable market.

[NToJ]

1. Possibly. Or it might speak to how economically inefficient the safety measure is.

2. The concept of under or overcompensation assumes (1) we know the right amount of compensation and (2) under or overcompensating relative to somethin else. I'm not confident enough in (1). For (2), worker's compensation and private loss insurance compensate injured parties far more than tort. And that's before factoring in the costs that tort regime imposes on third-parties, which are also much larger per dollar than private insurance or social loss programs. The primary benefit of a no-fault regime is that you don't have to pay the lawyers 40% of whatever you recover after paying the experts you had to pay to prove fault. The emphasis on "efficiency" is to the benefit of the injured person. The empirical evidence that I've seen (admittedly dated) suggests that social insurance programs are slightly more efficient than private loss insurance, and massively more efficient than tort regimes.

I am not advocating for abandonment of tort; there are obvious risks with allowing parties to externalize the costs of their negligence to insurers or whomever. Maybe it increases overall costs because it encourages risky behavior. But that's a complicated empirical question and I'll follow the data wherever it goes.

FYI the jurisdiction I am in that does not mandate worker's compensation is Texas, a non-trivial chunk of the United States.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Frost
Out, Out—
Robert Frost

The buzz saw snarled and rattled in the yard
And made dust and dropped stove-length sticks of wood,
Sweet-scented stuff when the breeze drew across it.
And from there those that lifted eyes could count
Five mountain ranges one behind the other
Under the sunset far into Vermont.
And the saw snarled and rattled, snarled and rattled,
As it ran light, or had to bear a load.
And nothing happened: day was all but done.
Call it a day, I wish they might have said
To please the boy by giving him the half hour
That a boy counts so much when saved from work.
His sister stood beside him in her apron
To tell them ‘Supper.’ At the word, the saw,
As if to prove saws knew what supper meant,
Leaped out at the boy’s hand, or seemed to leap—
He must have given the hand. However it was,
Neither refused the meeting. But the hand!
The boy’s first outcry was a rueful laugh,
As he swung toward them holding up the hand
Half in appeal, but half as if to keep
The life from spilling. Then the boy saw all—
Since he was old enough to know, big boy
Doing a man’s work, though a child at heart—
He saw all spoiled. ‘Don’t let him cut my hand off—
The doctor, when he comes. Don’t let him, sister!’
So. But the hand was gone already.
The doctor put him in the dark of ether.
He lay and puffed his lips out with his breath.
And then—the watcher at his pulse took fright.
No one believed. They listened at his heart.
Little—less—nothing!—and that ended it.
No more to build on there. And they, since they
Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs.

[bernard11]

Count me in the camp who thinks this is working as it should.

Not quite, unless I misunderstand. Can a buyer pay extra to get a saw equipped with SawStop? If not, there is a clear deadweight loss.

[NToJ]

Based on my understanding of what SawStop does, it would not be efficient to pay extra to buy a saw and then install SawStop on it. SawStop is a type of saw with the safety mechanism built into the table saw itself. It has to, I would think. Table saws are flying at high speeds, and you have to stop them in milliseconds to prevent injury. When I've seen demonstrations, the block that stops the blade is moving at very high speeds, and destroys the blade. It would be hard (and inefficient) to add that type of technology to an existing table saw.

I think it is great technology and look forward to a world in which there are no amputations. Note there are a lot of reasons why it took Steve Gass time to get the product licensed, not all of which had to do with an evil market content on lopping off fingers. By his own accounts he had a deal with Ryobi to license it but which fell apart due to protracted negotiations and his refusal to agree to indemnify Ryobi in the event of a malfunction. So Gass, thoughtfully, decided to manufacture the blades himself, rather than license the technology out to some table saw manufacturer who would require things like indemnity. One day we may see more competition in this important field, although in the meantime it has been held up by patent litigation (from SawStop) as recently as 2016.

[bernard11]

How much would it cost the manufacturers to install SawStop?

At some price the increased sales would surely make it worthwhile.

[NToJ]

I think you can get one for around $1400. I think that's going to be a smaller, portable table saw.

[Ridgeway]

$1400 (plus shipping) will get you a jobsite SawStop. A comparable Bosch or Dewalt will be $600, and a Ryobi can be as low as $169.

At the higher end, a 5 hp SawStop cabinet saw, will run you about $4,600, while a Unisaw will be about $2,850, and a Grizzly will be $1,725.

You can see there is a big premium for the SS technology, although the fit and finish on the SS saws is reputed to be excellent (I haven't fondled one myself).

One other big issue is that most table saw injuries are not from contact with the blade, but rather from kickback -- which can cause very serious and even fatal injuries. The SS technology does not (and is not intended to) prevent kickback.

[Brett Bellmore]

Blade injury is something people using table saws are usually on the lookout for, because it's such an obvious threat. Kickback kind of catches you by surprise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yet all chain saws come with some sort of chain brake now -- a sprung bar which, when pushed forward, causes a metal band to go around the drum driving the chain -- stopping it instantly. This is pretty much how they also stop lawnmowers, except that disk is around the engine's flywheel.

I know the latter was required by the government, but I believe that chain brakes were introduced competitively by various manufacturers.

[Brett Bellmore]

The pricey part of SawStop is detection, and triggering fast enough that there isn't time to significantly injure you. It electrically isolates the blade, and then looks for changes in the capacitance of the blade that occur if it touches anything conductive. That means you can't cut anything that's more than slightly conductive. If there's any doubt, the saw can non-destructively test your material to see if it would trigger, while the blade isn't moving.

This requires some significant design changes to the saw, in addition to the detection system and brake.

Chain saw brakes are pretty cheap, because the detection is just a bar being deflected. But the other side of that is that a chain saw brake won't do diddly if you accidentally hit yourself with the chain, it's just meant to trigger if the saw kicks back.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, there's a reason OSHA is a government agency and not a trade association. Companies kind of hate safety, because the expected value of adding safety features is almost always negative, whether we're talking about hand rails on catwalks or safety stops on saw blades.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Escher, I have worked in inherently dangerous shops (heavy steel fabrication) with union contracts—which of course called for rigorous safety rules. Still, enforcement was up to management, and especially foremen. In each of several shops they were zealous enforcers. I don't think the companies minded safety at all, so long as it was imposed uniformly, on them along with their competitors.

It is non-unionized competition which drives safety out of shop work. That is where you get the race to the bottom. Of course, that has implications for offshoring jobs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not the unity we were hoping for. (Democrats and Republicans agree: We're headed for a civil war.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would have predicted that the only thing preventing Rasmussen from being Mr. Bellmore's favorite pollster would be John Zogby.

[Sarcastr0]

You blame Biden for this? You've been talking about a civil war, or at least massive anti-immigrant violent for years now.

Also, haha, no we're not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where did I say anything about Biden?

[Sarcastr0]

Who else is talking about unity?

[NToJ]

Queen Latifah! That song slaps.

[Brett Bellmore]

Zogby, obviously.

[Dr. Ed 2]

AEI disagrees.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I think it is fair to blame the Left for the state of our public discourse. They spent the last five years whipping everyone into a frenzy over Trump, pumping everyone full of lies, and declaring everything to be "racist" or "fascist". And these are the same people who are wondering why we are in the place where we are at today. Actions matter. And the Left really ought to engage in some introspection (I know...they won't...) about their role in all of this.

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy, don't throw stones when your discourse is some of the worse on here.

[Jimmy the Dane]

What are you talking about Sarc? I'm not the one who is constantly gaslighting people and making up things they say. (Hint - the person who does consistently is YOU). I'm a voice of reason, one of the many, here.

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, I'm not a liar, Jimmy. And your continuing to say that doesn't make it so.

Asking if people mean the implications of their arguments invites them to refine or correct their remarks. But it also sure seems they said sure seems to make some of you more trollish commenters uncomfortable.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Sure it does. You lie all the time. It is your main trolling activity.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Try to buy a gun or ammo recently? If you needed any indicators....

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah....bullets are expensive. When I go to the range, the bullets are two bucks a pop. It makes for a pretty expensive day at the range.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I was just shopping: .45 LC is $3 a round, if you can find it. That's ridiculous.

I've got plenty of ammo stored away, but the local range insists you buy it in house.

[ragebot]

Just as an aside check out the Tallahassee Rifle and Pistol Club. Truth be told I am shocked that for $US180 I get yearly membership (reduced to $US100 if you show up on work days to maintain the range). Has a trap range, a 100, 200, and 300 yard rifle range, a 25, 50, and 100 yard range, a silhouette range, a 8, 10, 25 yard pistol range, and a cowboy action range, bathroom with AC in the Florida summer, and a card activated gate for entrance.

https://trpc.net/

But no ammo or anything else sold at the ranges and I can't seem to be able to get up at 6:00AM to stand in line at The Academy till it opens at 9:00AM to find over priced ammo. In 2019 I was showing up for the weekly matches and probably putting a couple of thousand rounds down range. Now I am limiting myself to a fifty round box a month.

[Brett Bellmore]

My wife is interested in us getting matching CCW permits, so I figure we need to start putting in range time. But I'm obviously not doing it with my .45 revolver.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

NOVA Lawyer and rilldrive earned prizes in the fantasy election contest. They should respond to this message to arrange delivery of the prizes.

If I don't hear from them soon, I may donate the prizes in the Volokh Conspiracy's name. Planned Parenthood, the Brady Campaign, and the Democratic Party seem natural recipients of such donations, although I would consider other suggestions.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

How about the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, NAMbLA, SPLC, and the ACLU? We need to support young trans-persons with gender confirmation surgeries before those ignorant rubes convince them not to transition.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You have persuaded me to add American Constitution Society to the list. Thank you!

I still hope the winners get their prizes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm no fan of Springstein, nor like his politics, but this raises questions, if true:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/14016718/bruce-springsteen-dwi-arrest-shot-tequila-front-of-cops/

.02 ain't drunk...

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Isn't he one of those law and order Democrats? The Boss needs to learn that the only real Boss in New Jersey is a government officer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The only reason Bruce Springsteen is not governor of New Jersey is that he has refrained from running.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I read the actual police reports because I was curious. The allegation is that that he pounded back two shots of alcohol in quick succession so his BAC had yet spiked when the reading was taken.

In NJ (like many states) you can be charged with DUI without being over the limit if certain signs of impairment are present. That is what happened here and it will get sorted out in court (which is where it should be handled, not in the court of public opinion).

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what stopped them, in as much as they had him in custody, from waiting 5-10 minutes, and testing him again? Fear that his blood alcohol level wouldn't quite reach the legal limit?

[ragebot]

Still doing research on this. From what I understand he was popped by the feds on federal property so NJ LEOs and NJ laws are not relevant. The charge was not just DWI but also reckless driving (don't recall the exact wording but you get the idea). I know after Irma hit I was out with a friend making raw quadcompter footage of the beach damage and a federal LEO came up in his SUV and said we had to get off the beach since we were in an SUV and they are not allowed on the beach. Kinda nice guy but he did say leave slowly and don't damage the sand dunes since he would have to charge us if we did that.

There are tons of federal regs in federal parks that can be very harsh. There is a beach in the Florida Everglades at Middle Cape that is seven miles of sugar sand and every time I have stopped there I have never seen a foot print or any other sigh of human life. On the other hand Shark Creek is a well established hurricane hole. Problem is personal water craft (what some peeps call jet skis) are prohibited in all federal parks and the feds have kicked boats out of the hurricane hole when a hurricane was headed in that direction for having a PWC on the back of their boat. In the Dry Tortugas fire arms are prohibited, along with spear guns and metal detectors, and boats have been confiscated for having a metal detector.

It is not clear to me if this happened in a federal park or a federal national wildlife reserve and the rules are not the same in both; I have seen claims of both by different peeps.

Bottom line is their jurisdiction, their rules.

[EVdV]

Legal question as I am watching the senate trial. On Jan. 6th, Acting Defense Secretary Miller ordered deployment of the National Guard. From his memo, we know the President was not involved.

This was undeniable a good, necessary, decision that arguably saved the republic. However, was this a constitutional act? Can the Defense Secretary make this decision without the approval from the President?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"arguably saved the republic"

Saved the republic? From the clingers?

The clingers never have a chance. Never had a chance. They are disaffected, impotent, irrelevant losers, with no chance to win. The only reason a single person who stormed the Capitol is alive today is that better Americans exhibited mercy toward those misfits.

[Jimmy the Dane]

AK finally makes a good point. There was no objective or subjective reason to believe that the activist events on Jan 6th were a "coup" or "insurrection" as there is no way a bunch of knuckle dragging Trumpist losers could have thought up of any way to actually go about overthrowing a government let alone doing so.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would expect to find that many of the insurrectionists -- the Q kooks, for example, and the militia cosplayers -- genuinely believed they would win. They figured Trump would invoke the military or martial law. Or perhaps that the Lord God of the Bible would preside along Pennsylvania Avenue astride a great steed with purple robes and a fancy hat, directing Hebrew Space Lasers to smite the Democrats and race-mixers. Or perhaps that their patriotic stand would precipitate the Great Right-Wing Uprising, a new civil war that would rout the liberals and their reason, progress, science, inclusiveness, education, and modernity.

Many Trump followers have plenty of aggressively silly -- and ugly -- beliefs.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I love how black radicals like those who think they are descended from inhabitants of Atlantis and all civilization began on an island in the Caribbean never seem to get any press even though they are prominently featured at BLM riots....?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jimmy, I disagree. I think Trump and some of his more-committed followers hoped they could intimidate Pence sufficiently that he would announce a rejection of swing-state electoral ballots, on some spurious grounds. They then planned to get the question back to R-controlled state legislatures, to decide the election in Trump's favor. What might happen after that was left too uncertain to plan for.

From where I sit, it looks like civil war might have been among the possibilities. Maybe Trump and his guys would have welcomed that.

Do you think any of that is far-fetched? I think it's the menu they had in mind. History is chock-a-block with would-be insurrectionists who expected without much evidence that they could strike a spark and touch off massive popular uprising. How else can you make sense of this one?

[Bruce W]

Impeachment manager Delegate Stacey Plaskett from the US Virgin Islands is a former Republican. She worked for the Republicans in the US House and was then a high-ranking Justice Department lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. She switched parties in 2008. She unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2012 and was elected in 2014. She was born in Brooklyn. Her father was a cop and her mother a court clerk. They were both from Saint Croix in the US Virgin Islands. A non-profit recruited her to go to boarding school at Choate, where she became class president and was a varsity athlete. She went to college at Georgetown and then went to law school at night at American University while working full-time at the American Medical Association. A remarkable person and a remarkable career.

[loki13]

"It is interesting trying to come up with sports stats that are somewhat analogous to Brady’s superbowl numbers, in terms of being unlikely ever to be matched.

I’d suggest Nolan Ryan’s career strikeout total as one example."

Great idea from Ridgway!

Let's see. I'll do one from each sport:

1. Golf.
Golden Bear's Majors: 18. The Tiger flameout shows you just how impressive it is.

2. Hockey.
Gretzky's 50 Goals in 39 Games.

3. Basketball.
100 points. Wilt. I mean, c'mon. I could go with his averaging over 50pts and 25rbs a game for a season (!!!!!), but 100. So nice.

4. Baseball.
Roger Clemens, 7 Cy Youngs.
Careers just aren't what they used to be. The next most-winningest active pitchers are Kershaw and Scherzer (with 3 apiece).

5. Football.
Interceptions- 14, by Night Trane Lane.
And thrown, 42, by George Blanda.
The game has changed, and there just aren't as many picks to get anymore. Unless you're Jameis Winston.

6. Futbol.
Brazil has qualified for every World Cup. Every one. Since 1930.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brady can match Bill Russell with just four more Super Bowl rings.

Bill Russell has been a civil rights leader while Tom Brady is a Trump-hugging cheater, but if Brady gets his 11th ring he will nonetheless deserve to be mentioned with Russell.

Until then, his claims to be 'the greatest' resemble those of his friend Trump.

[loki13]

As I wrote above, Bill Russell is a great athlete, a great competitor, a great leader, and, most importantly, a great man. He should be mentioned when people talk about Michael, Lebron, Kareem, and the other all-time greats (and unlike Michael, he was a great man as well).

But it's incredibly difficult to compare across eras, and the 10-team NBA, and that time, is different that the modern salary-cap 32-team NFL.

I don't have to agree with Brady's political views (which I don't think extend much beyond "tax cuts" not that this excuses him in my estimation) to admire what he has done as an athlete; arguably, his blinkered and narrow view of life, which extends to not eating strawberries, is part and parcel of his success. There are few great athletes that we can point to and say, "He was the greatest, AND he was well-rounded."

[Paladin_44]

"“He was the greatest, AND he was well-rounded.”
Bill Bradley, perhaps?

[NToJ]

For baseball, I feel like Cal Ripkin's record cannot be touched. Too much that can happen to prevent it. Third place is less than half the record. Whit Merrifield is the longest current streak at 247.

[NToJ]

Sammy Baugh should be up here, somewhere. His 51.4 yards per punt is still live and probably can't be beaten due to changes in the game. Leading the league in punt yards (2295), yards per punt (45.9), interceptions (11), pass completion % (55.6) in 1943 is also preposterous and is never going to happen again.

[Ridgeway]

Golf -- agree

Hockey -- Gretzky's stats are almost inconceivable. Look at his total goals and assists. He leads both careerwise by big margins in absolute terms, but when you look at points per game, you shake your head. Gretzky averaged 1.92 ppg (!!!!) for his career. Jaromir Jagr (second-most points in history), averaged 1.11 ppg.

Basketball -- with the way they shoot threes these days, I could see someone putting up 100. I wouldn't bet on it, but it is not insane.

Baseball -- 7 CYAs is a tough target. Ryan's 7 no hitters is another one, as well as DiMaggio's streak (which is a perennially popular example). I would have told you that George Sisler's record for hits in a season was unbreakable, but then Ichi went ahead and broke it handily. Side note: Ichi and Vlad Guerrero may be the two most underrated players of the past 50 years.

Football - football doesn't really work well for comparative individual stats for a host of reasons.

Futbol -- soccer blows.

[Don Nico]

Loki,
Why did you disregard older baseball? (Yeah, i know the dead ball).
But Ty Cobb's record for hits, hit lifetime batting average, seasons over .400. Cy Young's 512 wins, most complete games pitched. The endurance records go on.

[Ridgeway]

Mr. Picky would like to point out that Pete Rose broke Ty Cobb's record for career hits a while back.

[MoreCurious]

It's hard to disagree that Jack and Tiger are the best golfers ever. In fact, as I look at the list of current players, it's hard to imagine anyone coming anywhere close to the those two masters. Jack was unique because he was unique. Tiger, it seems to me, was unique because he was among the first to recognize the importance of fitness in mastering the game; it took a while for his contemporaries to catch on. Now, most players are fitness fanatics, and that serves to level the playing field and keep any one player from dominating.

[arch1]

I don't see how one can compete with DiMaggio's hitting streak or Wilt's 50.2 ppg *season* average in their respective sports.

Looking beyond the world of sport to all competitive endeavors, a strong case can be made for Marion Tinsley, the best human checkers player ever.

From 1950 to his 1995 death, Tinsley lost only 7 games (not matches; games). He was world champion 1955-58, but as no one could give him a game he withdrew from championship play until 1975, when he regained and held the world championship until 1991, when he again retired from championship play, this time in order to play the computer program Chinook, which the Federation had refused to sanction officially as Chinook was not human.

Tinsley won the match, in which (per Wikipedia) “Chinook, playing with white pieces, made a mistake on the tenth move. Tinsley remarked, ‘You're going to regret that.’ Chinook resigned after move 36, only 26 moves later. The lead programmer Jonathan Schaeffer looked back into the database and discovered that Tinsley picked the only strategy that could have defeated Chinook from that point and Tinsley was able to see the win 64 moves into the future.”

Tinsley played a second match with an improved Chinook in 1994, drawing all six games before withdrawing due to the pancreatic cancer which killed him 7 months later. Chinook was later improved to the point where, in 2007, it solved checkers (became a mathematically perfect player); but even Chinook never beat Tinsley in a match.

[NToJ]

Chinook beat Tinsley twice.

[NToJ]

I see now. Matches are not games. Sorry.

[arch1]

..and back to sports, at the team level there was the 1980s(?) midwestern college swim team (help please) which per Sports Illustrated, based on personal-best event times, would have beaten not just any other college team, and not just *all* other college teams combined, but the *entire rest of the world combined*, in a standard college swim meet.

[Paladin_44]

Indiana

[arch1]

Thanks Pal that tickles a few neurons.

[ragebot]

Lets not forget the All Blacks. From wiki

New Zealand has a 77 per-cent winning record in test-match rugby, and is the only international men's side to have secured more wins than losses against every opponent. Since their international debut in 1903, New Zealand teams have played test matches against 19 nations, of which 11 have never won a game against the All Blacks. The team has also played against three multinational all-star teams, losing only eight of 45 matches. Since the introduction of the World Rugby Rankings in 2003, New Zealand has held the number-one ranking longer than all other teams combined.[2] They jointly hold the record for the most consecutive test match wins for a tier-one ranked nation, along with England.