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

[AmosArch]

Well, looks like COVID is on the way out.
Wonder how long till Biden is credited for somehow reversing it all in the space of a few weeks.

[Sarcastr0]

Sometimes good things don't require a tacked on partisan jibe.

[David Bremer]

Unfortunately, nobody has been able to stop themselves from doing it anyway since about 2004.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I learned it by watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart!

[OtisAH]

Odd how somebody or something is always making you guys act like asses. Especially considering what amazing free-thinkers you often claim to be.

[EscherEnigma]

Why do you model your behavior off a comedy show?

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Malice of party and faction? I learned about it by reading Herodotus, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dante Alighieri, Machiavelli, Jonathan Swift, Robert Burns, Charles Dickens, and Emile Zola.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

The plagues visited upon Egypt relented once Pharaoh released the Jewish people from bondage. God is obviously sending us a signal by reducing COVID infections and deaths that President Biden has been ordained to lead us!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn't the Pharaoh drown in the Red Sea?

Or am I confusing the book with the movie???

[Bob from Ohio]

Yul Brenner did not die in the Ten Commandants.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Thank god! We wouldn't have gotten his performances in The Magnificent Seven or Westworld. Or even better, as a cross dressing singer in The Magic Christian.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The flip side of COVID being on it's way out will be the second guessing that we saw after Vietnam -- the Democrat Governors are going to get pounded in the 2022 elections, with Newsom and Cuomo likely not even lasting that long. (There's talk of blasting the Cuomo name off the new Tappen Zee Bridge...)

Post-Watergate, post-Vietnam, there was a lot of reform-minded "never again" legislation including the War Powers Act. Much of our current bar ethics stuff came out of (or was significantly reformed) in the post-Watergate era.

My guess is that there will be similar reforms (and limits) on the powers of medical authorities. Remember that _West Virginia v. Barnette_ was decided in 1944, when the war had essentially been won, and reversed the 1940 case of _Minersville School District v. Gobitis_ -- decided when the oncoming war was clearly visible and it wasn't certain that we'd actually win it...

Fear empowers tyranny, and our fear empowered true tyranny. If someone had told me a year ago -- March 4 2020 -- that I couldn't hop into my car and nonchalantly drive up to Maine, I'd call that person paranoid -- and yet, that's now reality. And there will be a backlash...

Some good hopefully will come from this -- the mental health laws, which currently permit a total revocation of all civil rights, need to be reviewed in terms of due process protections and this well may cause that to happen. After all, jurors and jurists who have been quarantined without any evidence that they are sick -- and without any due process protections in that regard -- are likely to have sympathy for persons incarcerated for purported mental illnesses under the same situations....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This White, male, conservative
blog has operated for
SIX (6) DAYS
without gratuitous use of
a vile racial slur and for
679 DAYS
without imposing partisan,
viewpoint-driven censorship.

[Moderation4ever]

Last night the House Democrats passed the "For the People" bill that will directly confront legislation being developed in Republican lead state legislatures. All this will likely end up in the courts which seem to be reluctant to get involved with the politics of voting. In the end much of this will likely come down on individuals. Voting will be more complicated and people will have to muddle through. Hopefully this will get people motivated and not discouraged.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't go so far as to say every last item in that omnibus bill is bad. Though a lot of it, like mandating that ballot harvesting be legal, is pretty awful, and the bill is clearly intended to be partisan entrenchment legislation.

And most of it, though not all, is likely constitutional. (I suspect the unconstitutional bits are meant to provide an excuse for Court packing.)

But this doubles down on the Democratic strategy of passing extremely controversial laws that seek to massively change the status quo in a likely irreversible manner, based on party line votes with a tiny majority. In this case, an actual tie in the Senate, with the VP to break ties, assuming it passes the Senate. (I doubt the filibuster will survive the attempt to pass it.)

THIS is why our politics have become so toxic: The expanding power of government, and the tendency to do extreme things on the basis of narrow and transitory majorities, have raised the stakes of elections too high for them to remain civil.

Every treasured liberty is one election gone wrong away from extinction. Under those circumstances, nobody can view losing an election as just a momentary setback of no great consequence.

Civility in politics requires that informal limits be respected, that you don't do big and/or irreversible things without big majorities. That's out the window now, every election is for all the marbles.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, partisanship is all the fault of the Dems, and they are the radical ones.

Also, liberty requires we massively shrink our government.
I will ignore which side the handful of posters here are on who want to kill the other side for being evil.

All the Dems.

Amazing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I will ignore which side the handful of posters here are on who want to kill the other side for being evil."

Why not? You ignored the "Nazi-puncher" on the other recent thread.

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't see 'em.

Though trying to equate 'punch Nazis' with 'gas liberal judges' is hilarious and telling.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Though trying to equate ‘punch Nazis’ with ‘gas liberal judges’ is hilarious and telling."

Why? it's both violent political hyperbole.

Of course, given the level of political street violence nowadays, the "Nazi punching" is probably less hyperbolic. And it is a relatively popular meme on the left, unlike gassing judges. In fact, it was based on a couple of actual incidents.

Any comment on the tenured URI prof that thinks it is morally unobjectionable to kill Trump supporters?

[Sarcastr0]

You're equating liberal judges on one side to Nazis on the other. And punching to murder.

Things can be different levels of bad. Your convenient complete lack of perspective is not doing you any favors.

And your attempt to shift the discussion about commenters to talking about Antifa is no less transparent.

If you're right, you shouldn't need to lean so hard onto fallacies.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You’re equating liberal judges on one side to Nazis on the other. And punching to murder."

I'm equating rhetoric to rhetoric. You don't think people are talking about going back in time and punching members of the German national socialist party, right? They're talking about punching people they disagree with.

And sure I'm comparing hyperbole about murder to quasi-hyperbole about punching. So what?

[Nige]

Whether you punch them or not, if you don't disagree with Nazis what the hell is wrong with you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Whether you punch them or not, if you don’t disagree with Nazis what the hell is wrong with you?"

"Nazis" in current parlance, usually just means, "people I disagree with". So of course you disagree with them, otherwise you wouldn't call them Nazis.

[Nige]

But this is nonsense. I disagree with you, but I haven't called you a Nazi or evinced a desire to punch you. Same with every other conservative commenter here. Actual modern Nazis exist. They go on marches and everything.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But this is nonsense. I disagree with you, but I haven’t called you a Nazi or evinced a desire to punch you."

Sometimes people call people they disagree with Nazis. That doesn't mean that every time people disagree with each other they call each other Nazis. Basic logic, my man.

[Nige]

Yeah, well, if it's namecalling you're worried about, there's a ship that's sailed and sunk.

[Sarcastr0]

Calling for deaths versus calling for punches are gradations of bad in rhetoric.
Your argument that all rhetoric is equally bad is just as dumb.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Your argument that all rhetoric is equally bad is just as dumb."

Another strawman. Your argument that rhetoric should be judged solely by the severity of the rhetorical sanction is about as dumb as it gets.

[Nige]

Judging rhetoric by the actual content of the rhetoric is dumb, huh? Quite the hill to die on. Rhetorically.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Judging rhetoric by the actual content of the rhetoric is dumb, huh? Quite the hill to die on. Rhetorically."

Who are you criticizing? Judging by the content of the rhetoric is not dumb. Sarcastro's claim that rhetoric should be judged solely by the severity of the rhetorical action is dumb.

[Nige]

They're the same thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You’re equating liberal judges on one side to Nazis on the other."

And if the 'Nazis' were actually Nazis, that would be improper.

[Nige]

There's always Camp Auschwitz guy.

[bernard11]

Fair number of Nazis running around, Brett.

That they haven't been able to act on their beliefs doesn't mean they don't hold them.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Fair number of Nazis running around, Brett.

But they're rarely the target of the use of that epithet these days, and it is overwhelmingly being used as hyperbolic rhetoric to anyone who disagrees with "progressive" positions, as you well know. As usual, you and Sarcastr0 are incapable of resisting the urge to argue dishonestly. Witness the insane nonsense over the design of the CPAC stage.

[bernard11]

Both Sarcastro and I have said that the business about the stage design was nonsense.

Not to trouble you with facts or anything.

[Nige]

Is there a conservative here complaining about hyperbolic rhetoric? And not getting immediately getting punched in the head by shame?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Fair number of Nazis running around"

Define "fair"? A few thousand in a country of 330 million.

There are more Marxists than Nazis in the US by far.

[Nige]

So what the hell are you whining about? Bloody hell one comment about Nazi punching in a comment section infested with 'wipe out the liberals' guy and 'inferior races have lower IQs' guy and that repulsive weinstein guy and you're high on your horse about one comment about punching Nazis that derives from that one time a Nazi got punched. You're all as insecure and delicate and volatile as a balloon in a porcupine pit.

[Sarcastr0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

This is the one people think about when they talk about punching Nazis.

Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978) is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist who is known for his activism on behalf of the alt-right movement in 2016 and 2017. Spencer calls for the reconstitution of the European Union into a white racial empire, which he believes will replace the diverse European ethnic identities with one homogeneous "white identity".
There are cites if you want to check into the veracity.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

This is the one people think about when they talk about punching Nazis.

No, it isn't.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is the one people think about when they talk about punching Nazis."

That's the one that generated the meme. It's certainly not limited to him.

[Nige]

He helped popularise the whole Nazi-punching thing, and you're all still mad that a Nazi got punched.

[De Oppresso Liber]

You might be a Nazi if...

you feel targeted every time someone uses the word "Nazi".

[Brian Thomas]

Wasn't I hearing on this forum not too long ago that the Capitol rioters were no big deal and not an "armed insurrection" because all they could do was punch and hit congressmen and police officers? So punching is no big deal when it's done by a mob of Trump supporters against police and members of Congress, but when it's done against "Nazis" then it's political violence on par with executions evocative of genocide?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So punching is no big deal when it’s done by a mob of Trump supporters against police and members of Congress, but when it’s done against “Nazis” then it’s political violence on par with executions evocative of genocide?"

Lol. No, it's a crime that should be prosecuted no matter who does it. The punching at the Capitol was "no big deal" because the punchers were rapidly dealt with and prosecuted, and the election was rapidly certified.

The problem is that many people are saying the it's desirable to punch people they disagree with.

[Nige]

They say it's desireable to punch Nazis, not over arguments about which Avenger is the best, though hey, sometimes tempers rise and things get out of control.

[Brian Thomas]

Oh, so punching Nazis is also not a big deal, since most Nazi punchers also get rapidly dealt with and prosecuted. There aren't many examples of Nazi punching I could find, but the bike lock guy was prosecuted and the guy who punched Jason Kessler was too. Richard Spencer's puncher got away as far as I can tell, but I'm sure more than one Capitol rioter is going to slip through the cracks as well so it all evens out.

And I'm sure you have even more of a problem with people saying it's desirable to hang people they disagree with then. Like, say, if a group of people called for the hanging of the vice president because he wouldn't refuse to certify the results of a presidential election. That seems like a bigger problem than saying it's desirable to punch people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Oh, so punching Nazis is also not a big deal, since most Nazi punchers also get rapidly dealt with and prosecuted."

It depends on the context and what you're trying to say is a "big deal." The low-grade political violence at the Capitol was much less of a big deal than the political violence we saw on a much larger scale throughout the summer.

[De Oppresso Liber]

So you say. Without any sort of qualitative or quantitative argument to support.

[Brian Thomas]

I'm just trying to get a sense of the hierarchy and how badly Nazi-punching reflects on the actions of "the left" or whoever you want to attribute it to. But if the violence seen in the Capitol riot was no more than "low-grade political violence," then I'm guessing the random punching of a handful of Nazis is a few notches below that then.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Wasn’t I hearing on this forum not too long ago that the Capitol rioters were no big deal

No.

and not an “armed insurrection”

Because they weren't an armed insurrection. That's not the same as being "no big deal".

[Ben_]

Dems just ignore anything that doesn’t satisfy their emotions and make up a story to replace what actually happened. And they decide to believe the story even though they know they just made it up.

[bernard11]

You mean like claiming antifa was behind the Capitol riot, or that Trump actually won in a landlside?

Oh. Come to think of it, that was Republicans, not Democrats.

[Ben_]

Actually exactly like that.

I seem to remember you were pushing the Hunter's laptop story is Russian disinformation lie.

Did you apologize for that yet?

[De Oppresso Liber]

This level of projection is too pure. You gotta cut it, or the qultists are gonna overdose.

[Ben_]

^ has nothing to say, uses the "projection" talking-point.

It’s the grownup version of "I know you are but what am I?" that we all know is stupid and content-free.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Nothing wrong with punching Nazis. In my opinion, the Soviets were also right to rape all those Nazi-supporting German women and girls when they conquered Berlin.

[MoreCurious]

That was an evil, demented, hateful thing to write. My aunt was one of those women, and the only thing she ever did wrong was being a teenager trying to grow up in Berlin in the 1940s.

[VinniUSMC]

"That was an evil, demented, hateful thing to write."

This describes everything Rabbi writes, because that's the character he plays.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

True, which I wouldn't object to if his comments were at least witty.

[EscherEnigma]

Assuming you're talking about me...

That's hilarious. Every day I post on this website, I get various gradations of "die in a fire". But after a long, fruitless exchange, I throw in my hat with "punch a Nazi", and *that's* what you have a problem with?

That'd be funny, if it weren't so sad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But after a long, fruitless exchange, I throw in my hat with “punch a Nazi”

Well, you kinda screwed up Sarcastro's rant about violent rhetoric on the right.

[De Oppresso Liber]

I don't know if you got to see the treatment I was receiving when I bothered to comment at Reason. Exact same. Daily death threats. I one day explain what a 25mm auto cannon on a bradley fighting vehicle is gonna do to all the cosplay-triots and their walmart ar15's. Immediate accusations of being a violence loving commie. Hilarious.

[Sarcastr0]

To make this a bit more constructive, Dems certainly have their flaws and radicals, but the mainstream Dem thesis remains incremental change from the status quo. This is the way Obama and Biden are. And why AOC keeps yelling at them.

It's the right that wants radical change claiming continual crises. While Trump still owns the GOP it's going to be a hard case to make that the party of Biden is the extreme one.

There is a generational shift coming to Dem leadership, and it won't be small. Hard to see where it will end up, though - loud does not mean influential.
But it's not here yet. Pretending the Dems are radical now seems to be spending all your credibility on a pretty short-term strategy.

[Commenter_XY]

The question is....does HR 1 represent incremental change?

Yes or No?

[Sarcastr0]

That's an interesting choice of example, Commenter. What do you find so radical?

Because I do find the changes in the voting laws in George and the like to represent a pretty radically partisan viewpoint about who gets a say in our elections.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mandating ballot harvesting, which is illegal or severely restricted in most states, for instance.

Adding several new states.

Prohibiting requiring proof of citizenship or secure ID to vote.

[Sarcastr0]

Making it easier for people to vote is not some massive change.

[Nige]

Presumably the change will come from the voting, which is what they're worried about.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe. I'll take Brett at his word that he's making an argument directly about the radicalism of HR1 being an example of how Dems are bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

My thesis here is that, if you want civility in politics, you don't do big things, particularly irreversible big things, based on party line votes when you have small majorities.

If you want to be able to do big things, prove there's a consensus they need to be done.

When the legislature is close to 50-50, nothing particularly momentous should happen unless the parties agree on it.

[Sarcastr0]

You have not established HR1 is a big thing, Brett. It makes you angry, but that's a pretty crap metric.

Also, with the current state of Congress, your ask about party line votes is conveniently paralyzing for the government.

[bernard11]

if you want civility in politics, you don’t do big things, particularly irreversible big things, based on party line votes when you have small majorities.

Oh fuck that.

Barrett was confirmed by a 52-48 vote.

You also don't stop everything, with filibusters and whatnot, when you don't have a majority at all, and when your side represents 40 million or so fewer people than the other.

Civility is a two-way street, Brett. The GOP attitude, and yours, seems to be that Democrats are uncivil, or overly partisan, or something, whenever they try to do anything the GOP doesn't like, but they can do what they want. Civility.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"When the legislature is close to 50-50, nothing particularly momentous should happen unless the parties agree on it."

How many Supreme Court justices have been confirmed with 51 or 52 votes recently? How many circuit court judges? How many young, unqualified, ideologically strident district court judges?

Get the votes to stop your betters from continuing to improve America, clingers, or stop whining. Or, keep whining . . . but you will comply with the preferences of the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"You have not established HR1 is a big thing, Brett. It makes you angry, but that’s a pretty crap metric."

The US constitution assigns most of running the elections process to the states, including determining the rules for the elections.

If the Democrats want the federal government to take over running those elections, that ought to be done as a constitutional amendment.

[Josh R]

The US constitution assigns most of running the elections process to the states, including determining the rules for the elections.

Article One gives Congress the power to "alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." Additionally, the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments give Congress the power to enforce their terms, which HR 1 is arguably doing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Oh fuck that.

Barrett was confirmed by a 52-48 vote."

Funny, there used to be a rule that required a broader consensus to confirm judges.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : My thesis here is that, if you want civility in politics, you don’t do big things,

Mike Pence recently recently wrote an opinion piece that falls in line with the Right's party line on voting. In one paragraph he said the Democrat's new voting rights bill was hurtful, bad and would inflame partisan divisions. Quote :

"After a year in which our nation has endured a global pandemic, economic hardship, and a contentious election, now is not the time to further inflame passion and division. It is time for our nation’s leaders to help America heal"

But the very next sentence calls for the states to pass massive new voter suppression measures. Apparently a paragraph break was all Pence needed to forget his whole "healing" shtick. It's just the way their minds work; the hypocrisy is hard-wired in.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

When you have to go back 10 posts to hit the reply button because you've reached the thread depth limit, it might be time to move on.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You have not established HR1 is a big thing"

Such gaslighting.

It bans voter ID, it requires instant and automatic registration, requires lots of early voting, requires states to permit ballot harvesting, mandates "independent" commissions for redistricting. That is just the greatest hits.

Its a complete federal takeover of elections. Its also the #1 Dem priority, hence it being the first bill.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Which part is radical? Letting people vote? Preventing states from putting up artificial and unnecessary barriers to voting?

The Arizona GOP just admitted, explicitly, that the reason they want new voting regulations is to make it harder for people to vote because when people can vote more easily, it benefits democrats.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/03/02/arizona-gop-lawyer-admits-real-reason-wants-election-reform/6895380002/

That's...not an American argument. As in, that does not mesh with our founding documents or any of the values that I have associated with Americanism. It is explicitly and solely anti-democratic.

You guys can't keep citing the constitution and the founders while simultaneously arguing in favor of authoritarian oligarch rule.

Of course you all love Putin, MBS, Pinochet, etc. You guys are proto fascists. You're not smart, educated, or self aware enough to realize it, but you are and it is apparent to everyone outside of your cult.

Maybe try developing a party platform other than "Support Conman in charge of personality cult". The entire and only GOP agenda item for the next two years, as far as anyone can tell (since no platform), is voter suppression. That's it.

What the fuck do you traitors bring to the table?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Making it easier for people to vote is not some massive change."

Sigh. There can be massive changes that make it easier to vote. Better reasoning please.

[Sarcastr0]

It's currently pretty easy to vote. This makes it easier. That's a marginal change.

It also prevents people from making it less easier to vote. That's hardly a change at all.

[bernard11]

What such changes would you support?

Mail-in ballots?

A guarantee of enough polling places that there are no long waits? (I don't think that's in the bill, though it should be.)

Easy registration?

Extended early voting?

Extended hours for early voting?

I await your suggestions. Spare us the sighs.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd support a requirement for secure ID to vote, with such ID having to be available free.

I would massively change absentee balloting; Have it only available for cause, and have mobile polling teams so that absentee ballots have exactly the security that in person ballots have.

I'd make election day a national holiday.

I'd restore criminals to ALL their rights when their sentences are over, not just the right to vote.

[grb]

All the voting measures in the bill are established law in many states. All mail voting? Five states. Counting absentee ballots arriving after Election Day? Twenty-one states. Ballot curing? Eighteen states.

It was a fascinating to watch Trump's supporters cast around for something to excuse their idol's loss and discover horror (horror!) in the most blasé voting practices. This is even more true of commonplace voting events. Every election in modern history has had some litigation and resulting small adjustments to procedures. But Trump loses an election and suddenly this becomes a constitutional holocaust. Hypocrisy. Hysteria. Historical ignorance. It's just more of DJT's many blessing bequeathed to the nation.

This post-election there was a frenzied attempt to discover fraud, yet the same handful of cases was all that was found. After last election, Republicans had a Presidential Commission to search out fraud. It failed miserably. For decades the GOP has wailed about fraud - while never producing the slightest evidence it exists. They control the government in over half the states, but voting fraud examples are still tallied on fingers & toes.

Does any commentator here really believe the Right's "fraud" shtick is sincere?

[Don Nico]

Depends on how that is done.
For example, the objection to IDs is a dog whistle rather than a substantive objection

[California Dreamer]

Most European countries require voters to present ID. On the other hand, most European countries have free national identity cards that everyone must possess, so ID isn't the problem it is in the US. And in Europe everyone with that card is automatically registered to vote, so you don't have all the registration issues that we have. I'm not wild about national identity cards, but I'd be willing to put up with them if it would end all the squabbling we have about voting requirements.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Will the new Democrats adopt a platform of progressive racial discrimination to promote social and economic racial equity?

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, you suck. You are rarely sincere and aren't trying to make any points, just working to stir up partisan shit.

And these days we have more than enough of that as it is.

I'm sure you're amusing yourself, but at the expense of every thread you decide to squat on.

Even when I had a gimmick, I still tried to add to the conversation.

[Nige]

The sheer joylesness of either thinking this stuff for real or pretending in every comment to think this stuff is grim.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You are rarely sincere

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!

[Nige]

Fake laugh.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Will the new Democrats adopt a platform of progressive racial discrimination to promote social and economic racial equity?"

Will they? Haven't they already? Is there even any dispute about this?

[Nige]

This might be grimmer, actually.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Biden's promised to appoint people of color to certain positions, there are lots of openly discriminatory public benefits, etc.

I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed.

[Nige]

Pretty sure it's infinitesmal compared to the good ship Actual Racial Discrimination as practised in the US for most of its existence and to which the measures you mention are intended as a corrective.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't know about infinitesimal, I'll grant that the open racism and discrimination practiced by the Dems is not nearly as bad as what's historically been practiced in the US.

But that doesn't change the original point that the Dems have adopt[ed] a platform of progressive racial discrimination to promote social and economic racial equity.

[Ben_]

Thanks for admitting it. Biden intentionally discriminates based on race and Dems know and support it.

[Sarcastr0]

Unless, TiP, you think that the perspective being from a certain race can be a value add in a country with a legacy like ours that we are trying to address.

[Nige]

Well, for a start it's not racism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Well, for a start it’s not racism."

Semantics? There a common definitions of the word which include this stuff.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Unless, TiP, you think that the perspective being from a certain race can be a value..."

What if you think it can be less valuable?

[Nige]

Playing semantics is exactly what you're doing, yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but the mainstream Dem thesis remains incremental change from the status quo."

Does HR 1 look incremental to you? Seriously?

[Sarcastr0]

Show your work, Brett.

[Ben_]

"Show your work"

Like Dems never do.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"It’s the right that wants radical change claiming continual crises."

The amount of self-awareness from Sarcastro has been decreasing with every week. The left has built its politics machinery on the "outrage of the (time period)" and we just got done with a BLM rioting all summer long based upon a manufactured controversy. Then had an "insurrection" based off of all smoke and mirrors. And the whole "trans rights" movement is just to keep the useful idiots busy.

[Nige]

The right is currently mad because of a child's toy.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The left is currently mad because people question those who want to mutilate a child's genitals.

[Nige]

But the right have always been utterly horrible about LGBTQ rights, so that's nothing new.

[Brett Bellmore]

Name the controversial bill Republicans have passed by a party line vote with a narrow majority. I'll wait.

[Krychek_2]

Budget busting tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Sarcastr0]

FUUUU, I feel foolish for missing that one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Budget busting tax cuts for the wealthy."

There were some tax increases for the wealthy. And the Dems are working overtime to repeal those.

[Brian Thomas]

Well this is a new talking point I haven't heard yet. I'm afraid to ask for more explanation of how the 2017 tax cuts were actually a tax increase for the wealthy. Not sure if I've had enough coffee yet to even watch the mental gymnastics I'd be witnessing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The cap on SALT deductions were a tax increase for the wealthy. And the Dems have been fighting tooth and nail to repeal it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Limiting the SALT deductions was a pretty dramatic tax increase for the wealthy. Let's demonstrate

California's top tax rate is 12.3%. The ability to deduct these taxes was pretty sharply limited (to a max of $10,000). Meanwhile the Trump "tax cuts" dropped the top tax rate from 39% to 37%.

Let's take a person making $10,000,000 a year in California just so we don't have to really worry about the marginal tax rates (for the sake of argument, they'll fall into rounding errors).

Previously, they would pay 12.3% in California state tax, or 1.23 Million. That they would deduct from their taxes. They would then pay 39% of that in taxes, or $3.42 million in federal taxes.

Now, they can't deduct those state taxes. But they pay the lower rate of 37% on 10,000,000. Or $3.7 Million in Federal taxes.

So, even though the top tax rate dropped, because of the SALT limitation, they pay MORE under the 2017 tax cut plan.

[jb]

It's true that the Republicans did manage to slightly increase taxes on some rich people in a handful of blue states. Pretty counterproductively, I might add, since that's basically the proximate event in areas like Orange County and the Jersey suburbs flipping blue.

This does not change the fact that overall the TCJA was very skewed towards rich people, both in terms of total dollars, but even if you just want to look at the relative change in after-tax income. From https://taxfoundation.org/the-distributional-impact-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-over-the-next-decade/ :

"In the first year of the TCJA (2018), after-tax income for taxpayers in all income groups will increase, on average, by 2.3 percent (Table 3). Taxpayers in the bottom quintile (0% to 20%)[3] will see a 0.8 percent increase in after-tax income. Taxpayers in the middle three income quintiles will see an increase in after-tax income between 1.5 and 1.6 percent. This represents an increase in after-tax income of $589 for taxpayers in the middle quintile (40% to 60%). The income group that will see the largest increase in after-tax income in 2018 is the top 1 percent, at 3.8 percent."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This does not change the fact that overall the TCJA was very skewed towards rich people, "

And which part have the Dems been fighting tooth and nail to overturn?

[jb]

"And which part have the Dems been fighting tooth and nail to overturn?"

The part that was very intentionally created as an F-U to blue states.

I agree that as with most popular tax deductions that the SALT deduction is regressive and tends to favor rich people, and most more progressive thinkers agree it should remain limited, but the SALT limitation is much smaller magnitude overall than the other changes to the tax code, so it's completely disingenuous to pretend that this one change is somehow representative of the parties' overall views on taxation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Typically income tax cuts are always going to be somewhat skewed in this way. One of the issues is, the lower quintiles simply don't pay that much in income tax. There's nothing to "cut". And people (especially in the blue states) typically don't have a good appreciation for what the limits are for the lower quintiles. But a bigger problem is in your mis-analysis of the tax cut...specifically the corporate tax part.

The problem with your 3.8% number is that a large chunk of that (almost 50%) is attributable to the cut in the corporate income tax. But that's only a short term gain, that eventually perpetuates through the economy (and not due to the corporate income tax getting smaller). And you can actually see that, because as the effective income tax cut for the "rich" gets smaller over time, it gets bigger for the middle class. Again, ignoring the fact that a major part of this is a corporate income tax cut (which is important for many reasons) is misleading.

Meanwhile, it makes sense not to allow state taxes to be excessively deductable, as it encourages waste. Many of the "Blue" states have the highest disparities in income between the rich and poor, and this just helped perpetuate that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"so it’s completely disingenuous to pretend that this one change is somehow representative of the parties’ overall views on taxation."

I'm not pretending that. I'm claiming that the Dems eagerness to restore the SALT caps indicates that their overall views on taxation are disingenuous.

[Don Nico]

While strongly limiting SALT deductions did raise taxes for more affluent Americans. the effective elimination of the Alternative Minimum tax gave most of those increases back to those with high state income and property taxes.

Simply eliminating the SALT limits will be a large benefit to more affluent Americans

[Ben_]

"Well this is a new talking point I haven’t heard yet."

You are very uninformed then. You must get all your news from partisan sources.

[Brian Thomas]

Recommend me new ones then please.

[Sarcastr0]

Keeping your thesis narrowly on bills is a tendentious framing.

Judges.
Performative partisan unimplementable EOs.
Calling in the troops on protesters.
The vast majority of the GOP signing onto a false story about a rigged election.
The GOP minimizing the attempted insurrection to overturn said election.

Y'all got QAnon elected to Congress.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Performative partisan unimplementable EOs."
Biden's signed a bunch. We'll see.

"Calling in the troops on protesters."
They were calling in troops on the rioters. And have you seen the Capitol lately?

"The vast majority of the GOP signing onto a false story about a rigged election."
Dem claims that "Russia hacked the election." 2/3's of Dems thought that Russia altered vote totals.

"The GOP minimizing the attempted insurrection to overturn said election."
The Dems minimizing all the other "fiery but mostly peaceful" riots over the summer, including a weeks long "autonomous zone".

Not to mention the me-too movement, based largely on the claim that false accusations have been shown to be extremely rare. This is just as false as any election fraud or pizza-gate conspiracy theory, but it's a mainstream Dem belief.

[Nige]

'This is just as false as any election fraud or pizza-gate conspiracy theory,'

People have gone to actual jail over Russiagate and Me Too accusations. US intelligence agencies have issued reports on Russia hacking US elecion systems. The only pizzagater jailing was a believer turning up at a pizza parlour with a gun. But sure, equivalent.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"‘This is just as false as any election fraud or pizza-gate conspiracy theory,’"

lol. I said that the belief that false accusations are rare is just as unsupported as pizzagate or Trump's election fraud claim.

Which is correct.

[Nige]

For a start the actual basis of Me Too was that many, many accusations had been repressed or prevented or not made at all due to power inequalities and regressive attitudes. For a second, the proposition that false rape accusations are rare can be subjected to definition, study and analyisis and therefore can be established in a factual sense. The propositions behind pizzagate and Trump's election fraud claims are entirely divorced from any actual reality and literally cannot be quantified or falsified or related to any factual finding or concrete evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

TiP insisting we prove a negative, or else MeToo is the same as pizzagate.

You're failing logic all up and down this thread.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"TiP insisting we prove a negative, or else MeToo is the same as pizzagate"

You're failing basic reading comprehension in addition to logic.

I'm not insisting you prove anything. I'm saying that metoo was founded on the claim that false accusations have been proved to be rare. This claim is just as false as pizzagate.

[Sarcastr0]

I said that the belief that false accusations are rare is just as unsupported as pizzagate

Evidence pizzagate is crazy and wrong is easy to find.

Evidence false accusations are actually common is not easy to find. And so you try and shift the burden.

But evidence false accusations are not actually common is proving a negative.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Evidence false accusations are actually common is not easy to find. And so you try and shift the burden."

Sigh. No. No one is claiming that they are common. But the "believe woman" claim is founded on the claim that false accusations are rare, and that it has been proven that false accusations are rare. But this is just as false as Pizzagate. In fact, we have no idea how rare they are.

[Sarcastr0]

It is not a conspiracy theory that false accusations of rape are really rare.

It is a conspiracy theory that Democrats are all baby eating Satanists using pizza-based code to communicate.

Your thesis is that until we provide statistical support for the former, it is the same as the latter.

Again, lack of perspective is not a very good argument.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It is not a conspiracy theory that false accusations of rape are really rare."

So what. It is false to say that they have been proven to be rare.

"Your thesis is that until we provide statistical support for the former, it is the same as the latter."

No. My thesis is that one of the claims underlying metoo is just as false as the claim underlying pizzagate. The fact that you have to keep changing my thesis should be a clue to you that your position is incorrect.

[Nige]

The question is, why are you fighting so hard to draw an equivalence between real rape cases and a completely fabricated child abuse conspiracy that was designed to ratfuck the Democratic Party?

[De Oppresso Liber]

The same reason he happens to get really worked up at the word "nazi", even thought he totally does not share any sympathies with them. Totally.

[bernard11]

He thinks some of them are very fine people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The question is, why are you fighting so hard to draw an equivalence between real rape cases and a completely fabricated child abuse conspiracy that was designed to ratfuck the Democratic Party?"

Huh? We have no idea which rape cases are real. We have very complicated processes to even attempt to determine which rape cases are real, and metoo was an attempt to undermine that.

The point is that both sides propagate absolute bullshit. But pizzagate is propagated by fringe nutjobs, and metoo was a mainstream leftwing movement.

No no equivalence whatsoever. Metoo was way worse than pizzagate.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He thinks some of them are very fine people."

bernard11, I am quite certain that some of the people that you would call Nazis are very fine people.

[Nige]

Real rape cases that involve charges and going to court, what the hell did you think i meant?

'metoo was an attempt to undermine that.'
'The point is that both sides propagate absolute bullshit.'

If anyone on my side ever stoops to propogating somthing as nakedly evil and malicious as you do in the first statement I will personally burn them down.

'No no equivalence whatsoever. Metoo was way worse than pizzagate.'

In the sense that Metoo involved actual rape, assault and harassment allegations made by real people against other real people, as opposed to utterly fake and outlandish pedophilia and cannibalism allegations made against real people, yes it was worse since no actual children were directly harmed. But I suppose I can see how you would think that was worse in some other way.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Democrats are all baby eating Satanists"

Where's the lie?

1 million aborted babies a year says its a true statement.

[Nige]

One million women with freedom over there own bodies have nothing to do with pizzagate, so that's the lie.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If anyone on my side ever stoops to propogating somthing as nakedly evil and malicious as you do in the first statement I will personally burn them down."

Great argument.

"In the sense that Metoo involved actual rape, assault and harassment allegations made by real people against other real people"

We have a justice system, due process, and the presumption of innocence to deal with those claims. Metoo was based on the claim that we should believe women by default, because it had been proven that they rarely make false accusations. This is flat wrong.

[bernard11]

I am quite certain that some of the people that you would call Nazis are very fine people.

You are utterly mistaken.

[Nige]

'Metoo was based on the claim that we should believe women by default,'

Metoo was based on the idea that rape, assault and harassment allegations should be taken seriously because of long-standing systemic and cultural maltreatment of women who experienced those things.

[Bob from Ohio]

"tendentious framing"

That's your speciality.

Answer the HR 1 question.. Radical? yes or no?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think making it easier for people to vote is radical.

Do you have particular parts of the law that you would like to point to?

[bernard11]

Not radical.

[Nige]

Slightly hampered by the Republican Party being generally disinterested in governing, as opposed to ruling, but absolutely infatuated with party-line blocking the other Party from governing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"absolutely infatuated with party-line blocking the other Party from governing"

Were you asleep during 2017-219? Dems in the Senate blocked everything they could.

[Nige]

I'm sorry i couldn't see them blocking stuff behind the humongous pile of bills gathering dust on Mitch McConnell's desk.

[Bob from Ohio]

In 2017-2019, the GOP held both houses.

[Nige]

And they were still blaming the the Democratic Party for them not doing stuff, like a health care plan and building the wall.

[bernard11]

Barrett confirmation.

Kavanaugh confirmation.

Plus, they don't to pass bills. What they do instead is block bills with non-majority procedural tactics.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What they do instead is block bills with non-majority procedural tactics."

Unlike the Dems in the Senate in 2017-2019.

[Krychek_2]

OK, but this is not an apples to apples comparison. In general, Democratic policies are more likely to have majority support than Republican policies. A majority of Americans wants single payer health care, immigration reform, and taxes on the rich, and it's because of anti-democratic institutions that the majority can't get what it wants. So why should anyone pretend that a Senate in which Wyoming cancels California is reflective of the public will?

When Democrats, even in the minority, block GOP programs, they are doing what the majority of Americans want them to do. The same is not true when the GOP blocks what Democrats are trying to do.

[Bob from Ohio]

LOL

My side good, your side bad.

You favor DC statehood. Why should DC cancel Texas?

[Krychek_2]

Actually, I'm on the fence about DC statehood. I'd probably vote for it if I were in Congress, but not with enthusiasm. And it's not my side good/your side bad, it's my side represents democracy. And finally, DC should not cancel Texas because Senate representation should be by population.

Now, to answer the question you actually asked: If you rank the states by population, it takes the bottom 18 to add up to California, and most of those 18 are conservative states with not much population. There are a few exceptions -- Delaware, Vermont, Hawaii -- but two-senators-per-state overwhelmingly favors Republicans, and it's not even close. If that weren't the case, your side wouldn't be trying so hard to maintain it, and the electoral college.

So let's make a deal. Senate representation by population. That way, Vermont does not cancel Texas and Wyoming does not cancel California.

In the meantime, I'm fine with Senate democrats doing what majorities of the population want, whether they're in the majority in the Senate or not.

[Krayt]

I'm fine with statehood for DC or Puerto Rico.

I am not fine with Dems in favor because they get more senators.

I am not fine with Repubs opposed because the Dems get more senators.

I would never have the affrontery to tell Puerto Ricans to want statehood so my party gets two senators, but they now have to pay income taxes.

"Just tell 'em it's one of the responsibilities for enjoying full citizenship!", said the lying weasel politician out for raw, unfettered power.

[Bob from Ohio]

In the last Congress, the GOP and Dems each had 50% of the Senators from both the 10 smallest population states and the 10 largest.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, that's a disingenuous number. The ten smallest population states together don't add up to the single largest population state.

And even if making senate representation proportionate by population made zero practical difference -- for that matter, even if it bottom line harmed my party -- I would still support it. I don't like the idea of a Wyoming voter having 36 times the voting power of a California voter, nor do I believe in second-class democracy based on where someone lives.

[Josh R]

Republicans currently hold the small-state advantage in the Senate.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Republicans currently hold the small-state advantage in the Senate."

They compare 25 smallest states to 15 largest to make their point.

Cherry picking, 538 is the Sarcasto of political sites.

[bernard11]

In the last Congress, the GOP and Dems each had 50% of the Senators from both the 10 smallest population states and the 10 largest.

Who cares? This is BS.

The fact is that the Senate Democrats represent about 41 million more Americans than the Republicans.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The fact is that the Senate Democrats represent about 41 million more Americans than the Republicans."

Speaking of BS.

How many people live in California?

You are asserting some deep, deep unfairness that exists only because California has 2 Dems rather than 1 in the senate.

[bernard11]

Oh right. Californians shouldn't get representation? Are you truly that stupid? Forty million people shouldn't count, because they happen to live in CA.

That's one of the dumbest fucking things I've read in quite a while.

Oh, and if you take CA out of the picture entirely you find that Democrats still represent about 2 million more people than Republicans.

[Bob from Ohio]

So so mad.

Nobody says that California shouldn't get representation. Just that the % of population is just so much BS.

Again, its one senator that makes it 41 million or 45 or whatever BS number is claimed.

You just want to run roughshod over people you hate. Tough, amend the Constitution if you can.

[Don Nico]

" because Senate representation should be by population."
In which case there is no point to having two chambers of the Congress.

[Krychek_2]

No, I don't want to run roughshod over people I hate. I just don't think that the vote of someone in one state should count 36 times as much as the vote of a person in a different state. And that sounds a lot more like running roughshod.

[Josh R]

Just that the % of population is just so much BS

That's a matter of opinion. As a matter fact, it is true that Republicans currently enjoy the small-state Senate advantage.

[bernard11]

So so mad.

Nobody says that California shouldn’t get representation. Just that the % of population is just so much BS.

Again, its one senator that makes it 41 million or 45 or whatever BS number is claimed.

You give me plenty to be mad about.

And you're argument is still idiotic. Do you think CA should get even less representation? I guess you do.

You just want to run roughshod over people you hate.

WTF are you talking about? Nothing you say makes any sense. You just want your minority views to prevail because acreage, or something.

[De Oppresso Liber]

No, Bob. There was an entire and complete argument there where Krycheck stated very clearly why the two things are different. Try reading again, and don't try to stop your lips moving with the text this time. It seems to fuck up your comprehension.

[Josh R]

The second table in the article supports my conclusion and does not cherry pick.

[VinniUSMC]

"OK, but this is not an apples to apples comparison. In general, Democratic policies are more likely to have majority support than Republican policies. A majority of Americans wants single payer health care, immigration reform, and taxes on the rich, and it’s because of anti-democratic institutions that the majority can’t get what it wants. So why should anyone pretend that a Senate in which Wyoming cancels California is reflective of the public will?"

Even assuming any of this is true, so what?

There are 2 houses of Congress. One of them, the House of Representatives is apportioned based on population, to represent the people. The other one, the Senate, represents the State (which is theoretically representative of the people in that state).

The whole point of the way our government is setup is to prevent the majority view from steamrolling a minority view.

[Krychek_2]

That may be the theory; in practice it comes close to giving the minority a veto over anything the majority wants. Which is also a steamroll. Why should the minority be able to steamroll the majority?

[bernard11]

WTF does that matter? Brett asked a question, and I answered it. He's the one claiming his side is pure and innocent and the Dems are rascals.

[Ben_]

As usual Sarcastr0 has nothing in particular to say and makes up stuff others didn’t say to point fingers.

No one said anything was all anyone’s fault.

Try to be less dishonest sometimes.

[bernard11]

I suspect the unconstitutional bits are meant to provide an excuse for Court packing.

Of course you do.

[Sarcastr0]

This is another partisan asymmetry.

The secret plots speculated by the left are lame, and pushed back on. Like the sekret Nazi glyph at the CPAC stage. Plenty on the left saying that was dumb as hell, and damaging to the overall message.

On the right, best you can hope for is it gets ignored. No one is going to push back on these continual liberal plots Brett keeps deciding are likely.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I wonder where people get the idea the the left is "plotting" to pack the court?

[Sarcastr0]

Case and point.

That's not what Brett is saying. He's saying this particular effort is a trojan horse for court packing.

That's a conspiracy theory based on nothing.

And you are trying to move the goal posts to defend it.

This culture of 'my side is never crazy' is part of why the right is so screwed up right now.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That’s a conspiracy theory based on nothing."

I thought it was speculation based on the expressed desire that many Dems have to pack the court, combined with the Dems passing unconstitutional legislation. You think it's out of bounds to think that if the court overturns popular legislation some Dems will use that as ammo to promote court packing?

"And you are trying to move the goal posts to defend it."

Again, what goalposts?

"This culture of ‘my side is never crazy’ is part of why the right is so screwed up right now."

Huh? I've seen parts of the right criticizing other parts of the right quit a bit lately.

[Sarcastr0]

'Dems want the thing.'
'I'll bet this other thing is actually in bad faith, and is really a roundabout way for the Dems to get the thing.'

It's a conspiracy theory based on nothing.

You replaced Brett's 'this action is actually in service of a sekret agenda to get this thing' goalpost with 'Dems want this thing.'

The right does not seem to criticize the right for being crazy, more for not being crazy enough.
Unless you want to argue Romney is on the right.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You replaced Brett’s ‘this action is actually in service of a sekret agenda to get this thing’ goalpost with ‘Dems want this thing.’"

Brett didn't say that. Is it unreasonable to speculate that Dems who support court packing might view the court overturning popular legislation as an opportunity to promote their agenda, and therefor be less adverse to passing legislation that might be declared unconstitutional?

It reminds me of comedian Ron White saying he saw an article in a women's magazine called, "His secret pleasure zone."

It ain't a secret, Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

'Thing A is something some Dems support' does not support speculation 'Action B is secretly a plot to bring about Thing A.'

Yeah, it's unreasonable.

[bernard11]

Is it unreasonable to speculate that Dems who support court packing might view the court overturning popular legislation as an opportunity to promote their agenda, and therefor be less adverse to passing legislation that might be declared unconstitutional?

Yes, it's unreasonable. But even if it were reasonable, that's not what Brett said. I quote:

I suspect the unconstitutional bits are meant to provide an excuse for Court packing.

IOW, he said the allegedly unconstitutional provisions were deliberately inserted for that purpose. Insane.

[TwelveInchPianist]

‘Thing A is something some Dems support’ does not support speculation ‘Action B is secretly a plot to bring about Thing A.’

If Action B has the potential to bring about Action A, then it's certainly fair game to speculate that people who want Action A also want Action B to bring about Action A.

The fact that you have to keep throwing secret plots into the mix should give you a clue that your position is unsupportable.

[bernard11]

Nah, TIP.

You're wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Not Brett's thesis. He was talking about enlarging the court.

2. Same logic: Bush invaded Iraq to help the defense industry.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"IOW, he said the allegedly unconstitutional provisions were deliberately inserted for that purpose. Insane."

OK, how about a slightly more charitable interpretation. Some stuff in the bill is connotationally questionable. Supporters of court packing figure, well, if the gets overturned, that'll give us some ammo to argue for court-packing.

[bernard11]

Some stuff in the bill is connotationally questionable. Supporters of court packing figure, well, if the gets overturned, that’ll give us some ammo to argue for court-packing.

Some might think that, though that's plainly not what Brett meant, or suspected. And of course unless you are a mind-reader you really don't know. Just casting asparagus, as a friend of mine used to say.

From the Democratic POV there's no shortage of ammo for court-packing.

[Krayt]

In science, it's bad form to question the arguer rather than addressing the science paper.

In politics, it is presumptive until proven wrong what the politician wants to do has little to do with the professed reason, and rather is driven by secret motives.

[Nige]

Wait, is packing the court bad now? Now there's a ship that's been sailing merrily away for the last four years.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm saying I suspect it is.

The parts relating to restrictions on campaign related speech seem to be Court bait in particular. Limiting how much of their own money a candidate can spend campaigning? That's got a snowball's chance in hell of surviving review.

[Sarcastr0]

Suspecting hidden partisan agendas in all actions by those you disagree with is your thing, I know.

But it's still unreasonable.

I don't see anything about limiting self-financing, where do you see that?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Suspecting hidden partisan agendas in all actions by those you disagree with is your thing, I know."

How about assuming partisan agendas, hidden or otherwise, in all actions by political partisans?

[bernard11]

The parts relating to restrictions on campaign related speech

One piece of that is a call for an Amendment to overturn Citizens United. I don't think the Supreme Court can overturn such an Amendment.

[ragebot]

Reality check time.

Amending the US Constitution is a tall order that has literally no chance of happening on contentious issues including overturning Citizens United.

[bernard11]

Amending the US Constitution is a tall order that has literally no chance of happening on contentious issues including overturning Citizens United.

Sure. But that doesn't refute what I said.

The proposal is to amend the Constitution. Such a proposal can't, by definition, be intended to create a Court case because:

a: The Court can't rule on a proposal.
b: If the amendment were to pass, it would be Constitutional by definition.

And I'll add, as I have before, that there's nothing "radical" about proposing an Amendment. It's the appropriate course of action when something you want to do is unconstitutional. Plus, given how popular an Amendment needs to be to get adopted no such Amendment could possibly be characterized as "radical" in the sense of being outside mainstream political thinking.

[Brett Bellmore]

Among the proposals is one to amend the Constitution.

Among the other proposals are ones that would require amending the Constitution to be constitutional.

[bernard11]

I’m saying I suspect it is.

Ah. The famous Bellmore Waffle.

"I never said...." BS. Besides, why do you suspect that? What is your basis? You're just throwing out accusations while leaving yourself an "I never said" fig leaf, as usual.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He may have learned that from the birther experience.

At some point (similar to the point some QAnon kooks may experience today or tomorrow), he switched to 'I'm not a birther, I'm just birther-curious'

[Moderation4ever]

"Ballot Harvesting" is a provocative phrase used primarily by Republicans, but one that is poorly defined. Events like Madison WI's Democracy in the Park have been called ballot harvesting but were far from anything illegal or unethical. City clerk employees were available on a pleasant fall day in local city parks to receive absentee ballots. I participated as did many of my neighbors. Everything was done as was required the rules governing Wisconsin voting.

If you have a problem with how some ballots are collected, then define the problem but refrain from questionable terms like ballot harvesting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even a few years ago ballot harvesting was nearly universally deplored. I've been pretty amazed at how fast it's made the transition from "just asking for abuse" to "denying it is a form of vote suppression".

[Sarcastr0]

Even a few years ago ballot harvesting was nearly universally deplored

Show your work.

[CommentMonkey]

The 2005 report of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, jointly chaired by Jimmy Carter and Jim Baker, expressly recommended the following (report p. 47):

"State and local jurisdictions should prohibit a person from handling absentee ballots other than the voter, an acknowledged family member, the U.S. Postal Service or other legitimate shipper, or election officials" and "[a]ll states should consider passing legislation that attempts to minimize the fraud that has resulted from 'payment by the piece' to anyone in exchange for their efforts in voter registration, absentee ballot, or signature collection."

The fraud risk associated with ballot harvesting used to be widely acknowledged across the political spectrum. What has changed is the current trend of trying to racialize everything for political advantage, manifested here by the intellectually dishonest claim that basic anti-fraud measures are "voter suppression."

[Sarcastr0]

"Should consider" in a commission report != universally deplored.

[Ridgeway]

On the other hand, "should prohibit" > "should consider", and, since that is the phrase used in connecton with ballot harvesting activities, it is considerable closer to "universally deplored."

[Krayt]

This is a very weak response.

[Sarcastr0]

Take it up with Brett's comment setting the bar so low.

[Don Nico]

C'mon. You asked for evidence and you got it. Your response does not signal arguing in good faith.

[Sarcastr0]

I asked for evidence of Brett's outrageous claim.

This isn't that.

[Don Nico]

The commission report was based on evidence gathered. That the view was overwhelming is not surprising and that the practice is not considered legal in most countries is evidence that the idea has broad international acceptance.
Not exactly what you asked Brett for, but also not so different

[bernard11]

the bill is clearly intended to be partisan entrenchment legislation.

Let's parse this.

The bill is intended to make it easier for people to vote. That's only "partisan entrenchment" if you think that blatantly suppressing opposition party votes is a legitimate political tactic. Apparently, Republicans do think so, as they admitted at SCOTUS yesterday.

The GOP has largely become an anti-democratic party that simply wants to exclude large numbers of citizens from the voting rolls.

IOW, what this is is pro-democratic legislation. (Oh, and no crap about vote fraud, please.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Its intended to get more votes for Democrats.

Claimed intent is not conclusive.

[Josh R]

I don't doubt if the roles were reversed, Republicans would support HR 1 and Democrats would oppose it. Thus indeed, the intent on both sides is likely partisan. However, it also remains the case that a non-partisan observer would support the bulk of HR 1 on the basis of making it easier for people to vote.

[Bob from Ohio]

"non-partisan observer "

Unicorns don't exist.

[De Oppresso Liber]

They do, like the international observers to our last elections who unanimously declared the election fair.

[Sarcastr0]

What people say their motives are is at least probative.

What Bob says their real but secret motives are is much less conclusive.

I'm not even sure this will help Dems, based on the trends in the 2020 election. Democracy is unpredictable.

[Bob from Ohio]

What does the GOP say its motives are when it advocates forID for voting?

Do you find that "probative" or just a cover story?

[Sarcastr0]

I'd take them at their word. I don't think most of the people here are lying when they say they're worried about fraud. It's a good thing to be worried about, I just differ from most of you on the right as to the established level of risk there. So it's a policy debate with a moral component regarding the inherent good of voting.

But when you drill down a bit to specific state legislatures, things don't look so sincere.
They claim there's fraud, but then fail to establish it in their showy investigations.
Or except don't provide a reason for ballot restrictions like in Georgia,
Or argue in court partisan reasons behind ballot restrictions are okay.
Or get caught saying they're restricting the ballot for partisan or even racial reasons.
Or talking about 'Real Americans' votes being the ones that matter.
Or invalidating an election that didn't go their way.

The GOP is not doing a good job in maintaining the patina of good faith when it comes to maintaining democracy.
Though I'll admit their secretaries of state did a good job telling Trump to get stuffed. The GOP contains multitudes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They claim there’s fraud, but then fail to establish it in their showy investigations."

They don't have to establish it. The folks conducting the elections have to establish that the elections are legitimate.

[Sarcastr0]

Prove a negative again.

Never been the case, not the case here.

'Change my mind or else you're wrong' is silly.

On many things, reasonable people can differ. Biden being legitimately elected is not one of them. People who think otherwise are to be managed, not indulged.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Prove a negative again."

Yeah, you know, like prove someone isn't lying about who they are by checking their driver's license. It's not that hard. You're making an argument from ignorance, Sarcastro.

"People who [disagree with me] are to be managed, not indulged."

Spoken like a true bureaucrat.

[bernard11]

The folks conducting the elections have to establish that the elections are legitimate.

That's crazy.

The folks conducting the election have procedures, checks, whatnot, to support the legitimacy of the election. They don't just make up the numbers.

You disagree, prove it. Show they are wrong. Otherwise you are setting an impossible task. To whose satisfaction do the officials have to prove it? Yours? Donald Trump's?

Fuck that. It makes no sense.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The folks conducting the election have procedures, checks, whatnot, to support the legitimacy of the election."

So... are you agreeing that the folks conducting the elections have to establish that the elections are legitimate, or not? Your comment is unclear.

"To whose satisfaction do the officials have to prove it? Yours? Donald Trump’s?"

Well, if they want me to think the election is legitimate, they have to prove it to my satisfaction. If they want Donald Trump to think the election is legitimate, they have to prove it to his satisfaction.

What do they have to do to make you think the election is legitimate, Bernard?

[Nige]

When you're the party that loses out when more people vote.

[Don Nico]

Historically such moves were driven by big city Dem machines. Election tampering was not only practiced by both parties but also acknowledged by both. Perhaps the last 50 years have seen election honesty rise precipitously, but there is no reason to institute procedures that are tempting to those who would win at all costs.

[Don Nico]

Obviously it is pro-Democratic legislation otherwise it would not be t
the first legislative action of the House. Any other interpretation is naive.

[bernard11]

Civility in politics requires that informal limits be respected

You realize how fucking stupid that sounds coming from a right-winger?

[bernard11]

the bill is clearly intended to be partisan entrenchment legislation.

What do you think the various state-level bills to restrict voting are?

Is there a difference between bills that make it easier to vote and bills that make it harder?

[Brett Bellmore]

For the most part, those bills are just restoring the status quo ante after executive and judicial branch usurpations of the power to set elections rules.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Not true

[Sarcastr0]

You think Baker v. Carr was wrongly decided?

Because if you want to return to Jim Crow, just say so.

[Bob from Ohio]

Baker v. Carr has nothing to do with Jim Crow.

Yelling Racist! is all you know when it comes to arguments

[Sarcastr0]

Get rid of one person one vote, and it's not hard to see what happens to minority districts in the South.

[Bob from Ohio]

Voting Rights Act says hi!

[Sarcastr0]

?
You think there is only one way to disenfranchise minorities?

[Don Nico]

"bills that make it harder" also make making election tampering easier. You don't get one without the other.

[Don Nico]

"Is there a difference between bills that make it easier to vote and bills that make it harder?"
The very formulation of the question in this way is reflects a partisan rhetorical device.
"makes it easier to vote" makes it easier to harvest votes over a prolonged period.
"Makes it harder" =makes voting a more closely controlled and monitored process= "suppresses voting"

That the entire bill, that WaPdescribes as "mark[s] a huge expansion of voting rights, and an expansive overhaul of campaign finance and redistricting laws" was clearly understood by every member of the House as seeking to enact and entrench partisan advantage.

Commenters should not be trying to play naive.

[M L]

Right. These united states were supposed to be a system of local self-governments where you could go and talk with the people making these decisions for your community.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Civility in politics requires that informal limits be respected, that you don’t do big and/or irreversible things without big majorities. That’s out the window now, every election is for all the marbles."

What the left forgets is that the radical right can do the same thing.
Ban abortion outright by defining a fetus as a "person" via the empowering authority of the 14th Amendment, use it's power over the judiciary to exterminate the 4th and 5th Amendments, and probably do a whole lot of other stuff.

[Nige]

The left will never forget that the right will literally say any old thing and do whatever the hell they can get away with.

[Don Nico]

Nige, your statement is so easy to translate to the other side.

The right will never forget that the left will literally say any old thing and do whatever the hell they can get away with.

[Don Nico]

In fact, I adopt the neutral version
"Partisans will never forget that the other party will literally say any old thing and do whatever the hell they can get away with."

[Nige]

It's so easy, so obvious, so meaningless, why do you bother? The only purpose is to remove all meaningful and substantive differences to acheive an utterly useless and fake neutrality, and how does such an equalising benefit anyone, unless it's the side for whom saying anything and doing whatever they can get away with has become their chief political characteristic?

[dwb68]

Courts everywhere should adopt virtual hearings, even after the pandemic.

[Jimmy the Dane]

We definitely need more cat lawyer and surgeon defendant.

[Bored Lawyer]

You can combine them. A veterinarian doing surgery on a cat while appearing in court. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

My guess is that a lot of judges would be in trouble if everything they said was on YouTube...

[santamonica811]

How about a cat lawyer, who is representing a sturgeon defendant? (With a fish defendant; there's gotta be a "scales of justice" pun in here somewhere.)

[ThePublius]

Should gambling be generally legalized in the U.S.?

It's legal in the U.K., and has replaced tobacco as a lead sponsor of sporting events. Snooker is a big deal in the U.K., as the purses are big (multi-millions, in some cases), and the top players become wealthy celebrities; there's huge fan interest, record TV viewing audience, and so on. By comparison, pool in the U.S. is virtually dead, and the only "big deal" tournaments are overseas.

There's a lot of gray area on the legality of online betting in the U.S., and it varies by state.

True, some people become addicted, and that's unfortunate. But gambling will occur regardless of whether it's legal, and legalizing it, in my opinion, will bring it out into the open, perhaps reduce organized crime revenue (or maybe not!), and allow regulation and taxation (maybe not all that good, either).

You can buy pot in many places now, why not place a bet?

[bernard11]

Sports gambling is well on the way to being legal here.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I consider gambling a vice that ensnares simple minded, working class whites who vote against their economic interests and hold bigoted views so I have no objection to its expansion.

[Don Nico]

Harvey it also ensnares "simple minded, working class" people of color.

[David Bremer]

A great deal of gambling is already legal here; it's usually just restricted by games and to certain spots. We won't see it "legalized" (i.e., freely expanded) because the incumbents have too much money to lose if it were expanded.

I'm in Minnesota. We have a lottery, available at every convenience and grocery store. There's two card rooms, two casinos, and two horse racing tracks within 30 minutes of downtown Minneapolis. There are 3-4 other casinos, all associated with Native American tribes, within a 90 minute drive, plenty more outstate.

But when some proposed permitting sports wagering, the tribes fought it. Same with a proposed downtown casino. And the tribes are extremely powerful. So every proposal is DOA--at least unless you cut them on the action.

We can expand gambling; we just need to end the rent-seeking first.

[Don Nico]

You have that right David.

[Commenter_XY]

What is the legality of apprehending illegal aliens at the border who are Covid positive, and releasing them into the country, without putting them into quarantine? Who is legally responsible (and liable) if one of these illegal aliens infects an American citizen and they later die of complications from Covid?

The practice of releasing covid positive illegal aliens into the country might be legal, but it is stupid AF.

[Brett Bellmore]

The practice of releasing them into the country is stupid, regardless of whether they're covid positive. And I think it's not technically legal, either, it's just in the range of illegality the courts tend to let the executive branch get away with under the fig leaf of discretion.

But the priority here is to maximize the number of illegal aliens, regardless of risk to US citizens. They just can't come out and say it.

[bernard11]

But the priority here is to maximize the number of illegal aliens, regardless of risk to US citizens. They just can’t come out and say it.

Again. The anti-Bellmore conspiracy. The secret plots. The mind-reading.

[Bored Lawyer]

You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories that there is a blatant inconsistency between (a) insisting on continued severe social distancing restrictions, and labelling any loosening of them as "Neanderthal;" and (b) allowing illegal immigrants to enter the country with little regard to their COVID19 status.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I don't know about the exact legality of "catch and release" for non-endangered Latinx species but I am glad that President Biden has closed Trump's concentration camps previously used to house thousands of innocent Latinx children

[Don Nico]

"Latinx " is a bogus word of the woke.

[Commenter_XY]

Is anyone else watching the bond markets?

I am watching the 10-yr note yield rise, despite the extraordinary efforts of the government to force long-term and intermediate-term (i.e. 10 year notes) yields down to just above zero. Government bond auctions absolutely stink for US Taxpayers, because there are fewer buyers of US debt; as a result, to entice buyers of US debt, bond yields have to rise. That has some implications for the proportion of the federal budget allocated to pay interest on the national debt.

Question: Would it be possible for the US to call bonds, and reissue them at a lower interest rate? In essence, to refinance our national debt to a lower overall interest level.

[bernard11]

Would it be possible for the US to call bonds, and reissue them at a lower interest rate? In essence, to refinance our national debt to a lower overall interest level.

It is not possible to call them because they don't generally have call provisions.

It is of course possible for the government to buy them in the open market and reissue, but that's not going to accomplish anything, because the price they would pay would, as a matter of market logic, wipe out the benefit of reissuing at a lower interest rate.

I'm not sure what "extraordinary efforts of the government to force long-term and intermediate-term (i.e. 10 year notes) yields down," you have in mind.

[Commenter_XY]

Um bernard11....I am pretty sure that any US treasury issued debt has call provisions. Way back when, POTUS Clinton did exactly that; the Treasury called a boatload of bonds. That was one means used at the time to get an operating surplus.

In response to covid-19, on 3/15/20 the Fed lowered overnight funds rates to a range of 0.0% to 0.25%. In the last 3-4 months, yields have been rising, despite the market operations of the Treasury department to keep yields in the lower bounds.

My question is whether calling bonds, and re-issuing at todays lower interest rate is a viable strategy to lower interest payments on the national debt.

[bernard11]

I am pretty sure that any US treasury issued debt has call provisions.

I don't think so.

For certain bonds issued before 1985, the U.S. Treasury reserved the right to stop paying interest before the bonds matured. When the Treasury "called" a bond, the bond stopped paying interest on the date of the call, before the maturity date.

The final bond call occurred in 2009. No more bonds are eligible to be called.

Also, if there were any outstanding the Treasury surely would have called them by now because it would be blindingly obvious that it was a good idea. I have a 30-year Treasury, for example, that matures in about six years, and carries a coupon rate of 5 or 6%. If they could have called it at par or close they would have done so years ago.

Yes, the Fed has held short term rates down, because why wouldn't they? But I'm not sure that qualifies as an "extraordinary effort" to hold longer-term yields down.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

https://www.salon.com/2021/03/04/welcome-to-the-age-of-social-murder-the-elites-will-try-to-mollify-us-but-do-nothing-to-stop-it/
Another excellent anti-natalist and pro-environment article by Chris Hedges. What are your thoughts about Chris' article and Extinction Rebellion?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Seems like the imagery in some Dr. Suess books would be a great opportunity to teach kids that norms and sensibilities change over time.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I disagree. Any book that displays harmful racial stereotypes or uses vulgar racial slurs (e.g. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn) should be formally retired in a mass book burning ceremony. We won't let this Republican filth sully our noble democracy!

[TwelveInchPianist]

" Any book that displays harmful racial stereotypes or uses vulgar racial slurs (e.g. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn)"

Or Amanda Marcotte's "It's a Jungle Out There?"

[OtisAH]

I think we should focus on teaching that to the adults who struggle with the concept first.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, it's up to the estate how they want to curate the Suess legacy. They don't seem to have been pressured, so this seems a 'change is scary!' nontraversy to me.

Richard Scary updated some of their books, and no one cared.
https://www.upworthy.com/8-changes-that-were-made-to-a-classic-richard-scarry-book-to-keep-up-with-the-times-progress

I also am not worried kids will miss that what's acceptable changes with the times

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Been there, done that. Reformed Jews have already ret-conned Leviticus from the Torah to sync with their contemporary social views.

[Krychek_2]

And I would ask why they bother. Deuteronomy 23:13 requires people to carry digging implements so they can bury their excrement. No need to ret-con anything; simply point out that that was then and this is now, and praise Jesus we're more technologically advanced now than they were then.

It strikes me that much of Leviticus fits under the same heading.

[Brett Bellmore]

In light of the fact that the copy right clause, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." explicitly states the goal is to promote publishing, how about a change to copy right law placing any work the copyright holder decides not to publish anymore into the public domain?

Copyright ceases to promote it's goal the moment the holder decides to cease publication.

[OtisAH]

“Use it or lose it,” says Brett.

Brett’s faithfulness to “liberty” is quite slippery, to say the least. Despite the fact copyright preserves my “exclusive right” of my writings and discoveries, if I in my right to decide how or whether to market and produce my writings and discoveries, Brett believes he should get dibs.

[OtisAH]

“... if I in my right to decide how or whether to market and produce my writings and discoveries *decide not to do either*”

[Life of Brian]

I'll take a cite on how "promoting the sciences and useful arts" was somehow intended to encompass suppressing material that people wanted and were happy to pay for, rather than providing a period of exclusivity to allow the creator to sufficiently profit from the work.

[Sarcastr0]

It's almost as though artistic control may be another incentive for artists in addition to fat sacks of cash money.

[Life of Brian]

It's almost as though you understand little to nothing about the evolution of copyright law in this country. Pro tip: the ever-increasing copyright term extensions (i.e., withholding from the public domain) absolutely were sold under the premise of assuring "fat sacks of cash money" for the creator's heirs.

If you have the least shred of evidence that the intention was to allow creators to effectively perpetually suppress works from the public domain simply for the sheer perverse joy of doing do, belly up to the bar. I'm not holding my breath.

[Sarcastr0]

...You don't think creative control was a factor in making copyright policy?

[Life of Brian]

Ah, here come the squishy feel-good, say-nothing terms. As you well know, the question here is not "creative control" in and of itself, but to what end.

There are these quaint little things (as of today, still published!) called legislative histories that could help provide some support for your position to the extent there is any. As I said, belly up.

[Sarcastr0]

To what end?

To whatever end the copyright holder wants. That's how property works.

To cut through your pedantry - are you arguing that copyright was created *only* to incentivize creativity via flowing money to the copyright holder?

[Life of Brian]

My argument is crystal-clear in the above thread. Feel free to address it if you like. I'm done troll-feeding for today.

[OtisAH]

First of all, you don’t know what titles are affected and you’ve never heard of or read any of them. Second, the trust who controls the Seuss estate pulled them from print by their own decision, which they have the right to do because they control how Seuss’s legacy is portrayed. Had they not announced the decision, you’d have never even known it was made.

[Life of Brian]

First of all, you don’t know what titles are affected and you’ve never heard of or read any of them.

I actually grew up on Dr. Seuss, bucko, just like the vast majority of Americans. If you didn't, that may help explain some things.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, and you read none of the six books that will no longer be printed.

[Life of Brian]

Laughably incorrect. You're just determined to keep digging that hole, aren't you?

[bernard11]

You're seriously saying that if I decide not to publish something it goes into the public domain?

Really? I'm obligated to make my work available to the public?

Wow. The stupidity is thick around here today.

[Don Nico]

The copyright has a finite term (life of creator plus 70 years). After that the work is in the public domain. So the Suess work is still protected until 2061.

[Brett Bellmore]

IP is government created property, Otis. What the government giveth, the government can take away.

And IP rights enforced by government have a purpose.

[Nige]

Yeah. Writers gotta eat.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah. Writers gotta eat.

Yup. And exactly how much eating do you think is enabled by copyrighting a work and then withholding it from the public?

[Nige]

That's up to the writer.

[Life of Brian]

Forget quantity -- explain the money flow to me. Can't wait.

[Nige]

What do you mean? If a writer chooses to keep a work out of print, that's their choice to make.

[Don Nico]

Brian,
Money flow is not a consideration. Period.

[Life of Brian]

Money flow is not a consideration. Period.

Barter, then? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how withdrawing creative works from the market helps the creators eat.

[Don Nico]

Brian,
I don't need revenue from that book to eat. The writing was for my amusement and to share with friends. I distribute that work to whom and as often as I wish. Got it?
With respect to my published literature, I expect that it is not copied or distributed even after my publisher stops printing copies. My work, my choice.
The principle is very simple.

[Nige]

And I'm telling you that as a source of income and therefore provender for the writer, it's their choice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yeah. Writers gotta eat."

Dr. Suess is not eating much these days.

Long, long copyrights are relatively new and pushed by Disney and other big corps.

They ain't worried about writers.

[Nige]

True enough. But the right eyeing the copyright issue because they want to reprint the racist and anti-semitic Dr Seuss stuff is creepy as fuck.

[Life of Brian]

Actually, what's creepy as fuck is how we got to a point where a man who wrote literally dozens of books instilling the purist of traditional liberal values in young children -- kindness, tolerance, inclusiveness, and environmental consciousness -- is now being branded as "racist and anti-semetic" and subjected to the cancel mob.

At that point, there just ain't much footing left at the top of the slope.

[Nige]

Out of all his works he had about six that were problematic, which was reasonably well known and discussed by people who took an interest. He was never 'canceled' for it. You guys really don't know what that word means at all, but you've invented a big bad scary meaning for it, and now six books which aged badlyand reflect poorly on his image aren't being published by the people who published them and look after his image, oooooh scary.

[Life of Brian]

Out of all his works he had about six that were problematic

Um, yeah. That's the first six that were thrown over the back of the sled to try to avoid being airbrushed completely out of the picture. It's naive of you to think that's the end of the road.

which was reasonably well known and discussed by people who took an interest

Less euphemistically known as academic fart sniffers and huckster race baiters. The books have been in heavy circulation for nearly 70 years, and it was only very recently that self-proclaimed enlightened beings who were running out of things to be offended over finally figured out how to hear the dog whistles.

[Nige]

Things age badly and go out of public circulation. That's the churn. More stuff has gone out of circulation and been forgotten that didn't deserve it than these six books.

'and it was only very recently'

Where were the calls for these books to be 'cancelled?' Where was the woke mob waving pitchforks at the gates of Dr Seuss? This decision came out of nowhere and is more a branding issue than anything else. You're a ball of rage with nowhere to go.

[Life of Brian]

Where were the calls for these books to be ‘cancelled?’

There wasn't. The call was to airbrush Seuss out of the picture altogether. That's why the estate self-censored (for one of the books, for a second time!) in an effort to placate the mob.

You need to cut the ill-informed smugness and educate yourself.

[Nige]

Where were the passionate calls for airbrushing? When did the woke mob wielding airbrushes besiege the Suess Estate? Are you sure they didn't self-censor to stop people talking about them, acknowledging their existence, fitting them into a complete picture of Dr Suess and his work? Acknowledging stuff like that was always what 'being woke' really means. Hiding stuff like that away from people's attention, sweeping it under the rug, trying to pretend it never happened? That's the opposite.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigots gonna bigot.

Better people going to defeat the bigots in our culture war.

That's the American way.

[Don Nico]

"Bigots gonna bigot." And RAK has not intention of slowing down his bigotry

[Don Nico]

I suppose calling a person a "Japanese" is racist, but call a person from italy, an italian, or from germany "a german" is not.

But getting to a more important question is "Blue Willow" design for ceramics racist?

[Nige]

It's funny how a Jewish person can be a Jew, but knows full well when someone calling them 'Jew' is anti-semitic.

[BadLib]

As well, the Constitution is no problem as "limited Times" allows limitations by other than fixed spans of time but also by time based triggers.

For example, a "limited time" could be "until seventy years after the death of the creator of the original work".

Additional conditions such as "but in no case shall copyright protections extend beyond five years after newly created copies of the original work were no longer readily available for retail sale continuously for two or more years".

[bernard11]

So you think a sort of eminent domain ought to apply to creative work?

Suppose the Seuss people printed up ten copies of the books and offered them for sale for ten million dollars each. Then what?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, eminent domain actually takes property away. Eminent domain as applied to copyright would end up with the government being the copyright holder, but when works go public domain, NOBODY is a copyright holder in them.

I think the real problem here is that "limited time" isn't being respected, due largely to Disney lobbying. These are works which would have long since gone public domain if their copyrights hadn't been extended past what they were when they were originated.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett: Dems are the radical ones.

Shortly thereafter Brett: lets fundamentally ownership rights due to copyright because I'm mad at Dr. Seuss's estate getting rid of some old timey racist stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

I flatly deny that it IS racist stuff. It's stereotypical stuff. What do you expect in a children's cartoon book? Photographic realism?

It's kind of like that PCR test, actually: If you turn up the sensitivity enough, you can find racism in ANYTHING. That doesn't mean it makes any sense to turn the sensitivity up that high.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a subjective test, and the choice is up to the estate.

[jb]

Probably worth thinking about, especially after a long time/the death of the author.

This would have the benefit of cleaning up the mess with orphan works.

[Sarcastr0]

Just shorten the time.

I don't like tying it to the death of the author - too random.

[jb]

Copyright terms are already tied to the death of the author, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Right. The whole Disney thing.

Well I guess there you have my reform idea - uncouple that.

[OtisAH]

My favorite part about this particular nonsense is none of these jokers had ever heard of most, if any, of the six affected titles. Second favorite are the folks who’ll comment on “cancel culture” shortly before or after calling for a boycott of this that or the other.

[David Bremer]

They also made an update to To Think I Saw it on Mulberry Street. They replaced "Chinaman" with "Chinese man" and nobody cared.

I don't think people would have cared had they adjusted the drawings at issue. It probably would have slid through, much like the example above. When they pulled it completely, and did so on the heels of a school district telling teachers to go away from the books, people get upset.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure. I don't see why they chose to completely stop publishing - seems overinclusive of the purported problem.

But it's their choice.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I love the left's new justification for censorship - "well that was the choice of a private entity so nothing to see here...." completely ignoring they are the one stoking the fans of hatred which have produced the social climate that is creating such acts of censorship...

[bernard11]

I thought you liked the market, Jimmy.

Guess you don't understand how it works. Not surprising.

[Life of Brian]

I thought you liked the market, Jimmy.

Interesting hot take. The rest of us are having a discussion about an entity exploiting a governmental monopoly to prevent consumers who want a good and are happy to pay for it from obtaining it at any price.

[Nige]

Overall, I think you're all reacting very poorly to a cultural shift you really can't handle, don't like and feel threatened by. It happens.

[Nige]

You talk about the fans of hatred, but I don't think those particular books had any kind of fan base.

[bernard11]

The left's new justification for censorship? I decide not to publish something I own and I'm a censor. Sounds like a pretty bizarre definition of censorship.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
I am censoring a collection of 25 short stories I have wirtten. However, for the right price, I'd cease my censorship.

[Don Nico]

Jimmy it is the exclusive choice of the owners in the US free market.

[Nige]

Interesting that the right are coming round to the idea that powerful and wealthy multinational capitalistic corporations exert a degree of control that is opaque, unaccountable and seemingly arbitray, and that the effects of this is negative and antithetical to freedom. Weird that they blame 'the left' for this.

[OtisAH]

Six titles, S. “Mulberry” is the only one some folks might’ve read or heard of. All other Seuss titles, particularly the popular ones, are still in print.

[David Bremer]

I don't think anybody is saying it's not their choice. The objection is that the decisions are being made either by woke board members or for fear of the woke mob turning on Seuss generally. Neither one feels right.

Frankly, when I mentioned this to my wife, she immediately knew the passage from On Mulberry Street at issue. (She also guessed about another page from Oh the Thinks you can Think, which I've also thought was a bit odd). Point is - I think people would have an easier time if the reasoning was better explained. Of course doing so likely would rile up the woke mob.

[Sarcastr0]

It might have been politic to go into more detail about their reasoning.
But that's not the objection of the right. The right has seized on it as the latest bloody shirt to waive. Property rights and actual motives bedamned.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Culture matters and the left has created this hostile, hate filled culture directly through their unacceptable, anti-American actions. Time to start owning it lefties.

[Nige]

Spinning specks of sand to big shiny pearls of outrage and grievance there Jimmy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigots sure seem cranky these days.

Which is great, because it means the liberal-libertarian alliance is still putting the bigots in their ever-smaller place.

[OtisAH]

Yes, plenty of people are saying it wasn’t their choice, which is why they’re all screeching about “cancel culture” being to blame. That this is some result of pressure to pull the books is exactly what this nonsense is about.

[Life of Brian]

Eh, it’s up to the estate how they want to curate the Suess legacy.

Ponder whether when the blade comes crashing down, Sarc's last words will be "nothing to see here, move alo---"

[Nige]

From a literary estate protecting the image of its beloved creator by setting aside some of his works which have aged poorly to the guillotine in one easy step, apparently?

[Life of Brian]

Of course there are some intermediate steps, all of which are cast as perfectly innocuous in and of themselves. Someone wrote a poem about it a while back -- can't quite remember the details.

[Nige]

Yeah, a few intermediate steps, I'd say so.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, that escalated quickly.

[Life of Brian]

For once we agree -- it is indeed escalating quickly.

[Sarcastr0]

What timeline you tracking for when Dr. Suess' estate exercising its property rights in an annoying way turns into me getting decapitated by the libs?

[OtisAH]

Oh, man, if we could post gifs, this post would be hilarious.

[Nige]

You're assuming it's the libs doing the guillotining? They're not the ones in a weird volatile rage over six obscure children's books from a more popular oeuvre being taken of the publication lists. Assuing they were still ON the publication lists.

[De Oppresso Liber]

You're forgetting about MR. Potato head. How many more must we lose to the mob>?!!!111!!

[Nige]

The right must have forgiven potatoes after cancelling French Fries in the run-up to Iraq.

[Don Nico]

By the way, "French Fries" is cultural theft. They are are "Flemish Fries."

[Nige]

They're chips you weirdos.

[VinniUSMC]

Why does Dr. Suess' estate have any claim to copyright of his works at all?

They didn't build that.

[Don Nico]

Because he bequeathed his IP to his estate

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/immigration-winners-and-losers
Is Michael Lind another one of those terrible Trump supporting, white nationalists?

[ragebot]

Interesting article that makes the argument that WOKE is a religion and firing someone for not being WOKE can incur liability.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/save-america-s-workers-from-the-church-of-wokeness-opinion/ar-BB1eepEZ?ocid=msedgdhp

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I was arguing with a racist Jew about the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests last summer. He claimed that the BLM crowd was a violent mob and businesses often displayed signs saying "Minority owned" to try and prevent looting or destruction. He said that this was historically no different than Russians displaying Christian icons in their homes and shops to ward off members of a pogrom. His (racist imo) assertion was that BLM was a new religion with anti-whitness being its main tennant of faith. Is there any historical proof that Russians used icons to clearly identify themselves as not Jewish and prevent pogrom associated damage? If so, how is that in any way related to the peaceful, anti-racist BLM movement?

[ragebot]

I am not well versed in Russian history so have no idea if there is any historical proof of what Russians did or did not do.

I tend to ignore straw man questions but would point out the well shared meme of the famous CNN pix of 'mostly peaceful protests' with buildings burning in the background. To the business owners who suffered millions of dollars in damages due to looting and arson I doubt they considered the protests 'the peaceful, anti-racist BLM movement'.

In any case how is your post related in any way to my OP. There were several cases sited in the link supporting the claim that WOKE meets the legal definition of a religion and that firing someone for not adhering to WOKE dogma can result in liability. One case in particular said white supremacy was a religion. It is not easy to argue that anti white dogma is not a religion given that case.

Did you even read the link?

[Ed Grinberg]

I don't think any courts will see it this way, but this does nicely capture the quasi-religious nature of "woke" SJWs. (Their hatred of conservatives is certainly reminiscent of religious hatred; think: Inquisition vs. the Jews, Muslims vs. "the infidels," etc.)

[Nige]

Love turning the thumb-racks on anyone who openlyt supports lowering taxes.

[Don Nico]

Start turning the racks on Pelosi et al who want to restore full SALT deductions

[Nige]

Okay!

[ragebot]

For as long as I can remember US courts have claimed freedom of religion has also meant freedom from religion.

There were three cases cited in the link where courts found what to me were more philosophical than religious belief to be religion. The points were made that it was not necessary to believe in a god to be a religion and that there had to be a somewhat complex structure to the beliefs kinda like having a bundle of property rights there needed to be a bundle of beliefs. Blurbs from the link:

"Often forgotten is that Title VII protects not only religious employees from being fired for their beliefs, but equally protects nonreligious employees from being fired for refusing to endorse an employer-mandated religion. "What matters in this context is not so much what [the employee's] own religious beliefs were," the Seventh Circuit federal court of appeals said in the 1997 Venters v. City of Delphi. What matters is whether the employee was "fired because he did not share or follow his employer's religious beliefs.""

"The Supreme Court's definition of religion used to require a belief in God, but the Court abandoned that position 60 years ago in Torcaso v. Watkins. Today, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—which administers Title VII—employs a much more expansive definition: "A belief is 'religious' for Title VII purposes if it is...a 'sincere and meaningful' belief that 'occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by...God.'" "Religious beliefs include . . . non-theistic 'moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.'"

Most secular beliefs don't qualify because they are only, as the Third Circuit explained in 2017 in Fallon v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center, an "isolated moral teaching"—like objections to the flu vaccine—rather than a "comprehensive system of beliefs about fundamental or ultimate matters," including ones that give adherents a sense of purpose or a moral code.

"Employing these definitions—which fit wokeness to a tee—courts have repeatedly found non-theistic belief systems to be religious. For example, in Peterson v. Wilmur Communications, the court held that "Creativity," a non-theistic worldview that adheres to white supremacy as its main axiom, counted as a religion. According to the court, Creativity teaches that its adherents should "live their lives according to the principle that what is good for white people is the ultimate good and what is bad for white people is the ultimate sin." If Creativity, professing white supremacy, is a religion, then wokeness, professing the opposite, must be too."

This is a key for me. Courts have found that if there is a question about a belief system being a religion it should err on the side of being a religion.

"Creativity and Onionhead aren't legal one-offs. The Supreme Court has called even Secular Humanism a religion for legal purposes. "If there is any doubt about whether a particular set of beliefs constitutes a religion," stated a federal district judge in United States v. Meyers, "the Court will err on the side of freedom and find that the beliefs are a religion." If Secular Humanism is a religion, surely wokeism is too."

Sorry for the long post basically quoting what is in the link but it seems to be clear so far none of the posters actually read the post and don't realize there is lots of case law on what is a religion and courts have afforded protection to those who don't go along with a particular religion.

[dwshelf]

Texas thinks the problem was with that commission. They haven't seen California's experience.

The problem in Texas was that they focused on economic efficiency, which yielded quite low electricity rates but with a weakness now well understood.

The "obvious" solution is to fire the dolts which allowed the weakness, get it shored up, and, ......., at least a doubling of electricity rates. Just in time for summer air conditioning season.

Stand by for wails about $2000 electric bills in Texas.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Every major "right wing" organization has sent out a press release that NOTHING is planned for today with explicit warnings to stay away from DC. But, the media is pumping out articles that actually seem to be hoping something happens. What do you think the chances are they inflated and conflate something to make it appear as though there was some sort of "coup" attempt today?

[De Oppresso Liber]

Extremely low. Care to make this interesting?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The secret plots speculated by the left are lame, and pushed back on. Like the sekret Nazi glyph at the CPAC stage. Plenty on the left saying that was dumb as hell, and damaging to the overall message.

Glad you brought that up Sarcast0. Can you clarify for me whether you want the rune stuff dismissed as false and ridiculous, or whether you want it dismissed as true, but some kind of tactical mistake in the narrative? Or maybe something else?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Oops, Sarcastr0

[Sarcastr0]

It's textbook partisan apophenia, and I am pleased it is being largely dismissed as such.

[OtisAH]

I suspect it’s a standard plausible deniability situation that has been used fairly frequently by white nationalists/supremacists. Like using the “okay” sign to convey white power. The people who know understand the signal, but anyone who suspects is waved off as hysterical.

[Bob from Ohio]

"people who know understand the signal"

I await Sarcasto and Bernard tsk tsking this conspiracy theory.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, look Bob, we both did.

Principles: how do they work?

[Bob from Ohio]

After I pointed it out. So brave of you!

[Sarcastr0]

Not Bernard.

And you think I did it to dunk on you? You really are bad at understanding normal people.

[Sarcastr0]

This is much more esoteric than the OK sign; it looks like a pretty normal stage setup.

Unlike awkward OK signs showing up in weird places thrown up by smirking white guys.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Unlike awkward OK signs showing up in weird places thrown up by smirking white guys."

Or Mexican Jewish women.

[bernard11]

It's a ridiculous kerfuffle.

There is no reason I know of to think it was taken from Nazi insignia. I will say the CPAC organizers seem to be fairly careless, so maybe someone slipped it by, but it's silly to claim that without clear evidence - which is lacking.

[OtisAH]

Hence “plausible deniability.” What strains credulity far more is that a party and event that caters to racists and supremacists accidentally designed a stage that resembles a symbol in use by those groups. But, nobody is ever going to come out and say “Duh, of course that’s what it was” so there’s really little to discuss.

[ThePublius]

You're a despicable person. If you looked into this even a little, rather than running with the "Republicans and conservatives are all white supremacists" conspiracy narrative, your would have learned that the stage design was done by a company called the Design Foundry, who have done similar work for MSNBC, the Biden Cancer initiative, et.al., and is a democrat/progressive owned company.

"According to the terms of the contract signed with Design Foundry, and shared with the Forward, the ACU approved the design but had no rights to change the design or dismantle the stage. “The designs, renderings, drawings, specifications, materials and other documents used or created as part of the proposal are owned by Design Foundry,” the contract reads. Design Foundry has worked with CPAC for several years and has provided services to MSNBC and major corporations – including Google, Citibank and Target.

Ian Walters, director of communications for the ACU and CPAC, told the Forward on Tuesday that the design firm “provided several options for us to choose from and what we ended up with was the most workable of the options they submitted.”"

https://forward.com/fast-forward/465136/design-firm-takes-responsibility-for-cpac-stage-controversy/

[OtisAH]

I will accept no designation of being a “despicable person” from you or any of the other absolutely decrepit assholes who post in these comments dozens of times daily due to the extreme lack of credibility.

Also, you wasted a lot of time writing out whatever else it was you wrote.

[Ben_]

^ doesn’t care about reality

Fantasy-bound people who believe the world's dumbest conspiracy theories think you are bad, Publius.

[ThePublius]

I apologize. I shouldn't have said that, insulted you. I still disagree with you vehemently, so the balance of what I said stands.

[Sarcastr0]

What strains credulity far more

Don't appeal to incredulity; it's a convenient way for bias to slip in.

There are many symbols out there. This could absolutely be a coincidence.
Swastikas showed up randomly all the time before Nazis ruined it and now people affirmatively stay away.

Other counterveilling evidence:
CPAC are not Nazis they're just number 1 with Nazis.
CPAC is not subtle and cannot keep quiet about a damn thing they do to own the libs.

Is it possible? Sure, maybe some dude specifying the design to the contractor was into secretly including arcane Nazi semiotics, and did so only in this one instance. But on balance it's pretty unlikely.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Points on the other side:

1. The symbol in question is not an approximation. It is a near-exact copy of a symbol used by an SS division, and by other Nazi military formations as well. That Nazi symbol is a more complex and graphically subtle version of the simpler form that same rune displayed in other white supremacist contexts since then. As someone who for years designed typographic and symbolic characters for major corporate brands and logos, I know the exacting effort it takes to create such precisely-proportioned resemblance on purpose—every angle, every distance, every stroke weight, all the alignments, near-alignments, short-falls, diagonals, and every instance of balance or contrast between positive and negative space gets study. The notion it just happened by accident can scarcely be credible.

2. In any monochromatic plan view of the stage—such as a blueprint, for instance—the resemblance between the stage shape and the Nazi symbol would have leapt off the page, with the rune symbol by far the most striking and focal design element in sight. No one familiar with the symbol's commonplace usage by white supremacists could have seen such a blueprint and missed the comparison. No one unfamiliar with that usage could have seen such a striking symbolic expression without understanding it was meant to express something, and wondering what.

3. Nobody supposes the planners of CPAC do not include people who at least rub shoulders with white supremacists. Can anyone reasonably suppose white supremacists were not present and sharing in the planning for CPAC? That seems less likely than asserting there are no white supremacists among Republicans in Congress.

4. White supremacists displayed banners showing the Odal Rune (not quite the same design, the simpler one mentioned above, but an unmistakable identity nevertheless) at the infamous Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

5. The New York Times in 2016 ran a story which surveyed growing white supremacist presence in American politics. One piece of the story mentioned a white supremacist group which gave up the swastika, and changed over to the rune symbol instead. As described in that story, the reason the group's leader gave was a perceived opportunity to better mix into mainstream conservative organizations, and a need to avoid bad swastika PR to make it easier.

6. Managers of the Hyatt Hotel chain, which hosted CPAC, issued a statement to distance themselves from association with the stage design. Without quite attributing the symbol to their guests, they called it, "abhorrent." Striking behavior for hoteliers.

So, with all that, should mainstream journalists have taken notice? Well, of course they did notice. And decided to keep quiet.

I can see the case, up to that point, for saying such an appalling assertion demands proof beyond doubt. I can see an editor whose reporter came to him with such unwelcome news saying, "Even powerful circumstantial evidence is not enough for a story like that one. You have to nail it down with a confession, or we can't run it."

I could allow that editorial response as professional journalistic caution of an admittedly extreme sort. Were it me, the first thing I would have said to that reporter would have been, "Get back and get more." And that would have been me being cautious.

7. But willingness to ignore something so plainly evident—and suppose it could be just fruit of multiple coincidences which happened to align—cannot reasonably ignore the fact that CPAC itself did not respond as if the resemblance was inadvertent. That kind of response would have taken advantage of the opportunity—before Trump himself was to speak—to fill in the negative spaces in the stage design. A night's worth of carpentry could have turned it into a plain rectangle or square—and an opportunity to confess an innocent mistake, followed by responsible judgment to make the change. Proof of good will and innocence, in fact.

CPAC did not do that. At that point, they own it. And at that point it should have become a major story.

It is far more likely than not that white supremacists owned it all along, snickering about it. My concern is whether major news organizations stayed away right to the end, and still now, because they feared the kind of adversaries they would be taking on.

[Ben_]

1. It's 2 squares with a corner missing. Rorschach test fail.
2. Squares.
3. Everyone unlike you must be proclaimed evil.
4. You see squares everywhere photoshopped into old pictures. Everyone else is insane and evil except you.
5. You believe stories about bogeymen.
6. Hotel managers are cowed by bullies. You thought hotel managers were heroic?
7. Failure to respond in [whatever way] is proof of guilt!

You’re like a shallow, less intelligent version of Cotton Mather.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ben_, I don't blame you, because the camera angle used in the best photograph, together with scattered color distractions, makes the design harder to see than it would be in a monochromatic plan view. You have misdescribed what is there. You need another, more careful look. It is not possible to make that design out of two squares, no matter how arranged or truncated. For a better illustration of the shape of the stage, google, wildhunt.org. That site used a green outline over the photograph, showing the stage edges, to simplify seeing the shape. It leaves no doubt.

White supremacists must be proclaimed evil. If you think otherwise, you would be wise to keep it to yourself.

Are you so paranoid a conspiracy theorist? Do you really believe that somehow, multiple books published decades ago, at different times, and by more than one publisher, featuring Nazi combat units, which all show that same mark as a principal cover design, were all somehow photoshopped? That is not a great place to be while you mock someone else for believing in bogeymen.

As for hoteliers, I do expect them to accommodate. So when one of them publicly associates the word, "abhorrent," with a lucrative and powerful client, I have to take that as a response against customary behavior, against financial interest, and even against self-interest in protecting against political policy risk. It is extraordinary behavior, and should not be dismissed. My guess is that after the controversy erupted, the manager did get a look at the plan for the stage, and responded to what he saw.

[Ben_]

"Satan must be rebuked!", screamed the preacher. "His signs are everywhere around you. Wherever you see two squares, that's Satan's calling card! Look at these ancient texts. What do you see? Squares!!! Tell everyone you know about the squares!!"

Why are you afraid of squares?

Seriously, let's pretend you’re right and the squares actually mean what you think. So? You think the squares are part of some mystical ceremony to bring some long-dead bogeyman back to life? What magical power do you think squares have that makes them worth consideration?

So far they've only managed to make some leftists act like fools. But there's always a very high probability that self-involved zealots will act foolish.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ben_ , the context tends to focus on history and hindsight. At some point in the 1930s, the Krupp company in Germany started casting swastikas into the metal work on commonly-sold products, like home-heating boilers. At the time, a lot of folks would have understood that had something to do with burgeoning Nazi ideology. I doubt many would have called it especially disturbing—nowhere near as disturbing as it looks in historical hindsight.

What we learned later was that the German corporate sector's decision to back Nazis was a tipping point, arming Hitler politically to maneuver around other institutional actors who had complicated his rise to power.

Now we see white supremacists in this nation striving to arm themselves politically to enter the policy mainstream. It matters a lot whether the Republican Party has begun to acquiesce. Choice of a white supremacist symbol at CPAC would suggest that it had.

Stop trying to change the subject by raving about squares. The shape in question has nothing to do with squares.

[Ben_]

So no answer on what if you were actually right? what power do squares have?. Just a story about a story about another story about something from long ago.

[Nige]

It was probaly more fun that listening to the speakers on the stage, because eesh.

[De Oppresso Liber]

"Freeeee Dummbbbbbbbb~1111!!!!1"

[ragebot]

Back in the late 1970s I was in school and driving to my part time job in the computing center's help desk listening to the radio. The announcer said that today everyone who supports gay rights should wear blue jeans.

As a college student working at the help desk the required uniform was blue jeans and a tshirt; which of course I was wearing along with everyone else at the help desk. I would guess at least 80% of the students (and some profs as well) were also wearing blue jeans but I doubt all of them supported gay rights.

Every time I see some one mention secret dog whistles being used to communicate some message I get amused and remember the famous Freud comment 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar'.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's important to understand that "dog whistles" aren't a genuine effort to identify actual coded messages the other side is exchanging.

Rather, by assigning obnoxious "secret" meanings to common words and phrases the opposing side is likely to use, you can create a sort of linguistic mine field that keeps your own people contained: If they're listening to somebody on the other side, and it's starting to make a bit of sense, along comes the "dog whistle", it blows up, and your guy is outraged and stops listening. And never mind that the guy he was listening to meant nothing out of the ordinary by the word, the conversation has been successfully disrupted.

"Dog whistles" are a technique the left uses to keep people on the left from actually listening and understanding what people on the right might say. That's all they are.

[Nige]

According to TiP what the right are trying to say is the n-word.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Tell us how you really feel CNN. Top "headline" currently on the site:

GOP Sen. Ron Johnson is planning days of stunts that threaten to turn debate over the package into a made-for-conservative-cable-TV farce

I don't think anyone would care as long as they didn't bill their coverage as "news" and used the more appropriate label of "entertainment".

[bernard11]

How is the headline inaccurate?

Johnson is a fool.

[Krychek_2]

And to think the voters of Wisconsin traded in intelligent, competent, thoughtful Russ Feingold for him.

[Ben_]

Democrat party’s victims:

“Baltimore student passes 3 classes in 4 years, ranks near top half of class with 0.13 GPA”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mynbc15.com/amp/news/nation-world/baltimore-student-passes-3-classes-in-four-years-ranks-near-top-half-of-class-with-013-g

If you support the current system of government schools as it is, you are responsible for this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Republicans want others to buy the 'we're not race-targeting vote suppressors . . . we're just genuinely concerned about election integrity,' they should start with ditching the bigots and bigotry from the mainstream of their electoral coalition.

Until then, better Americans should consider Republicans to be operating in racist bad faith and just impose strenuous anti-suppression measures whenever and wherever possible.

[Ben_]

Biden Administration puts kids in cages:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4378699001

No big deal to Democrats though because they never cared about any of this. It was always just play acting for a show, to trick you, like every other single thing they say and do.

[De Oppresso Liber]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy

Read up.

You seem to still not understand what people were mad about, even though you've had ample time and opportunity to understand.

Bonus reading: The DHS memo explicitly stating the zero tolerance policy was for punishment ("determent") instead of safety or legal requirements, as Trump and his band of disgusting traitors claimed.

[Ben_]

Orange Man Bad

[Nige]

Soooo bad.

[M L]

De Oppresso

I doubt you understand what you are talking about. Open borders zealots in our government used a consent decree to mandate family separation if illegal border crossers were to be detained. They set it up intentionally to be a legal choice between de facto open borders and family separation, knowing family separation would be a useful grievance down the road to agitate for continued quasi-open borders.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If you say so.

[Ben_]

Also, you understand you just made the point that kids in cages is totally cool unless the motive is yucky, right? The real problem, according to you, is sins against progressive religious orthodoxy.

Biden’s kids in cages actions are blessed because progressives have power.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Of course it was all play acting, because what the Democrats had to do to demonstrate "kids in cages" was 1) get cages and 2) put someone's kids in the cages in front of the media. Of course, no one asked if sticking a kid in a cage in front of cameras was going to be traumatic for the actual kid being placed in the cage. Child abuse is fine as long as you are making a liberal talking point.

And, no one talked about the reason why kids were separated from adults in the first place. It was that random adults were grabbing random kids so that the adults got preferential treatment at the border. But apparently Dems, not caring about child abuse, really don't mind the fact that kids are being kidnapped and used as props at the border.

[Sarcastr0]

You think the kids in cages were a hoax by the Dems?

[Nige]

'And, no one talked about the reason why kids were separated from adults in the first place'

Sadistic cruelty.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Because not doing something about strangers abducting kids and using them to take advantage of a system is being cruel to who again?

[Nige]

Using that as a pretext was pretty vile, too.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I forgot protecting kids from predatory adults (who seem to populate the DNC) is a vile pretext...

[Nige]

When your base is enervated by a conspiracy theory that political and cultural enemies are all Satanic pedophile cannibals but they approve of the way Trump treated children at the border, yup, the pretext is text.

[Brett Bellmore]

You should probably look up "enervated". Just saying.

[Nige]

Huh. You're right. What word was I thinking of? Mind you, it's probably accurate in the long term.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps "energized"? People confuse them remarkably often.

[Ben_]

Meanwhile, Biden is doing the same to even more kids but it’s fine with Democrats. "Sadistic cruelty" is a new Democrat-endorsed policy.

[Nige]

If it was really 'the same' you'd be applauding it.

[Ben_]

Tell Biden's caged kids about how Democrat cages are great. Suffering kids love partisan rationalizations.

[Nige]

You should tell them how much better off they'd be if Trump was still in charge. They could probably do with a laugh.

[Ben_]

They probably wouldn’t have been trafficked across the border, for one. So they wouldn’t be in Biden cages.

Biden's Democrat policy changes incentivize trafficking children across the border.

[Nige]

Assuming they were trafficked.

[Nige]

'Trafficked' in some sense other than 'crossed the border,' obviously.

[M L]

Where are the widespread histrionic meltdowns? Nowhere to be found. But it shouldn't be surprising.

Set aside the trickster media outlets and politicians who are just lying. Why aren't the liberal suburban moms flooding Facebook with their overwrought tears and outrage? It's because it is all softheaded irrational appeals to emotion from the start, a reflection of a weak, feminized society. So one shouldn't expect any consistency or logic. These folks would use a paste made of ground-up fetuses and Syrians and border kids to paint their black lives matter murals.

[Sarcastr0]

Certainly not a faulty analogy.

No, it is the public who are wrong.

These folks would use a paste made of ground-up fetuses and Syrians and border kids to paint their black lives matter murals.
You got issues.

[M L]

Your claim is that putting kids in cages is not analogous to putting kids in cages?

[Ben_]

The kids totally love their Democrat cages! You know they’re all smiles and "thank you"s because Democrat cages are progressive-religion approved.

Either that or all the emotion about kids in cages was totally phony. Because the same people who were crying then are turning a blind eye now and trying to draw partisan distinctions that are 100% meaningless to a kid Biden has locked in a cage.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/04/thursday-open-thread-28/#comment-8792146

[Ben_]

Send that link to the kids Biden has caged up. They crave rationalizations more than anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Your appeal to emotionalism might not seem so fake if someone didn't know you.

You don't care about the kids. Pretending you do to own the libs is pretty sad.

[Ben_]

Democrats don't care about migrant kids and never did. But I haven't spent the last four years lying about it and putting on screaming melodramatic propaganda shows in an attempt to lie to the maximum number of Americans.

Kids would be better off without Democrats' policies that encourage people to buy or abduct them and traffic them illegally across an international border. But then you rich Democrats might have to pay higher wages or do your own house cleaning and lawn maintenance.

[Nige]

They probably apreciate shelter and food and medical treatment and the chance of being placed with members of their own family in the US and not lost in the system or shuffled off to some Christian adoption agency or dropped off alone in the middle of nowhere.

[Nige]

Where's your loud and vocal support and resounding applause for Biden carrying on the beloved policies of the Greatest President Since Lincoln?

[M L]

Good point. I applaud Biden to the extent that he upholds the law and enforces the border.

As for the dilemma created by the Flores settlement, I thought it was fixed under Trump so that you can detain families TOGETHER, so the "separating families" issue is now distinct from the separate issue of "zero tolerance" or "catch and release" (to use the political catch phrases). That "law" was the only thing linking the two previously.

I understand Biden has ended the "wait in mexico" agreements that the Trump administration effected through negotiation with many countries, and ended wall construction. That's not so good. On the other hand, maybe Biden will uphold the law, and won't make good on his plans for amnesty of 20-30 million illegal aliens, executive legislations giving amnesty like DACA, and an open unenforced border.

[bernard11]

Did the Trump Administration deliberately delay in sending the National Guard to the Capitol?

Why was Trump operative/Defense Secretary Miller so slow to act?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Does it matter? All that this does is distract from the climate the left fomented that ended up with a million people in DC demanding their voice being heard. Let's talk about the base causes here which is left wing censorship and media bias.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Jimmy, how does it feel to be such a clueless rube?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I feel like the response "I know you are what am I" is aptly appropriate here...

[De Oppresso Liber]

You would, due to your rube status.

You could go ahead and lay how, exactly, democrats caused people to show up for the president's rally which ended in an insurrection.

Because I can paint a very clear, concise, and inarguable series of events that starts with Trump claiming the election is going to be fraudulent and installing a hopelessly conflicted loyalist at the head of the post office months before voting began, and ends with Ashley Babbit lying in a blood-soaked 'Trump' flag.

[Sarcastr0]

You're trying to wrap yourself in Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

But since you don't seem to understand the moral precepts behind it enough for your argument to be much more than angry air.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I understand that perhaps we should pay attention when a million people petition their government.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Insurrectionists take over the Georgia Capitol with the expressed mission of shutting down a legislative vote. Did the national media cover it? Heck no. Why would they. These were left wingers "practicing democracy" of course.

You used to have to read between the lines to get media bias. Now they just serve it in steaming heaps for everyone to see.

[bernard11]

You mean this?

No flagpole attacks. No calls for hanging anyone. No breaking of windows, forcible entry, etc.

You're demented.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah just a standard sit-in like what happened on Jan at the capitol hill event. Everything else you try to cite is simply hype.

[jb]

No one even seems to be INSIDE the Georgia Capitol. But yeah, totally same same.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Oh yeah forgot that to point out a liberal double standard you had to have an actual 100% factually similar circumstances. Forgot about that goal post moving tactic.

[Sarcastr0]

Your argument is now that civil disobedience and violence are the same thing.

That is not an a tactic that has aged well.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That was the argument the left made all summer long when assaulting cops and destroying federal property was all the rage...

[Nige]

Indeed. There was the civil disobedience and protests, there was the violence and unrest that swirled around it, and there was the violence of the police, which helped escalate the violence and unrest.

[Nige]

Big excluded middle between 100% similarity and this which is, what, 10%? If you're generous?

[jb]

There are twelve person protests outside the US Capitol building that get the exact same amount of coverage as this Georgia thing, so if you want equivalent treatment by the media for similar events you've got it already.

[M L]

Who killed Ashli Babbit?

[De Oppresso Liber]

Trump

[Jimmy the Dane]

Definitely not a cop who should enjoy anonymity because publicizing his name might ruin his life....

[Sarcastr0]

A pretty telling martyr to choose to raise up.

[Bob from Ohio]

Why? She deserved to die because she was in the Capitol?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She deserved to be shot based on her documented, deplorable conduct in the service of ignorance, bigotry, and backwardness.

Carry on, clingers . . . but, as Ashli would remind you, only so far and so long as your betters permit.

You get to whimper about it as much as you like, Bob, but you will toe that line established by your betters. One way or another. In any event, I am content.

[M L]

Which deplorable conduct are you referring to precisely?

Are you of the mind that deplorable conduct generally warrants execution? At least so long as it's in service of ignorance, bigotry, and backwardness?

[Bob from Ohio]

"deplorable conduct generally warrants execution"

Only when he hates the dead person.

George Floyd was a multi convicted felon, who beat a woman in a home invasion. To be consistent, Kirkland should support his killing.

[M L]

I'm just asking who was the shooter?

[Sarcastr0]

Tragedy, sure.

But this is trying to make a martyr.
This is a bloody shirt.

And martyrs always have causes. Raise up Ashli Babbit like this, you need to grapple with the associated cause.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah ruining cops lives is only for liberal media when the person who dies is black and there is political hay to make.

[M L]

All I want to know is who shot and killed the unarmed protester?

[Bob from Ohio]

So, any comment on your ally Kirkland saying "She deserved to be shot"?

[Ben_]

The left doesn’t tolerate that kind of talk when they can satisfy their emotional needs by objecting to it.

Other times they tolerate it and endorse it and purposely enable it, and much worse.

Making a show for you doesn’t do it for them. I wouldn’t expect one. Such a shot would just be pro-forma anyway.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Such a shot would just be pro-forma anyway."

Of course. There is not a dimes worth of difference between them, one is just cruder.

[Ben_]

Should have read "such a show".

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it sucks. Out of the norm, even for him.

Happy now?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yeah, it sucks. Out of the norm, even for him."

It's not out of the norm from him.

About on the same level as suggesting liberal judges should be gassed, no?

[Nige]

My God you crave for some illusory scrap of moral high ground more than a junkie craves a fix.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Now apologize for making light of all the violence, censorship, and bigotry perpetuated by the Left that forced a million Americans to head to DC to have their voices heard.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, you don't get to bitch about Marjorie Taylor Green and Richard Spenser while ignoring Kirkland (who is a Democratic politician), who says things that are just as bad as anyone on the right is accused of saying.

[Nige]

'that are just as bad as anyone on the right is accused of saying.'

Haha, he's awful, but no.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A large, out-of-control mob was using battering rams to invade the Capitol and interfere with Constitutional process. The mob was using weapons and causing injuries. An armed police officer warned the violent mob to stop, showing a weapon, as it tried to break windows and doors to gain entry. She attempting to climb through a broken window and was shot just as she was about to reach the interior.

The shooting seems unobjectionable. What is the argument that she did not deserve to be shot?

[Ben_]

Only Dems get to create martyrs like George Floyd. Anyone else who does it is sinister!

[Bob from Ohio]

"EBay said it is working to prevent the resale on its platform of six Dr. Seuss books that will no longer be published because they contain offensive imagery" Wall Street Journal

The slippery slope does not exist.

I look forward to all the newly minted property rights advocates defending people who cannot effectively sell their own property.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The argument that one can't sell books effectively without EBay is silly.

Open a store, "Bob From Ohio's Bigoty Books For Conservative Bigots." Sell all the misogynistic, racist, gay-bashing, immigrant-hating, White nationalist, White supremacist, conservative books you wish.

If you burrow deep enough into Can't-Keep-Up, Ohio, you might turn a nice profit.

Maybe even write a few books, about how forcing EBay and Amazon to carry bigoted books is -- if properly viewed, from an originalist perspective -- consistent with a free market and limited government, and about how all of the Republicans censuring their representatives for questioning Trump are exempt from the cancel culture outrage currently lathering the clingers.

Carry on, clinger. So far as your betters permit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Finally coming around to Tipper Gore's point if view, Arthur?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No.

I am convinced that you are a worthless bigot, though.

[jb]

You guys on the right are pretty helpless--some website won't let you do something and it's as if you can't discover any possible alternative way to do that same thing. I guess it's not that surprising now that everyone under the age of 65 with a college degree has abandoned the ship, but you'd think that people who supposedly believe in the American ingenuity and all that would realize that not only are there other ways to sell stuff online, but people managed to sell books for hundreds of years before eBay even existed.

[Ben_]

Obama loves Dr. Seuss:

https://notthebee.com/article/heres-obama-celebrating-dr-seuss-a-few-years-back-so-i-guess-hes-cancelled-now

So I guess Obama is a terrible person. Or a completely ignorant, unenlightened rube and innocent victim who needs protection from himself. Either way, Obama's judgement is very bad and retrograde and should not be trusted. So sayeth today's Progressive religious leaders.

[A. Friend]

I can't wait for the woke crowd to discover that there is a certain novel by Joseph Conrad about a ship named the Narcissus.

[Nige]

I can't wait for the right to regain some shred of intellectual honesty and credibility and stop having big kayfabe fights with straw men, and losing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"EBay said it is working to prevent the resale on its platform of six Dr. Seuss books that will no longer be published because they contain offensive imagery"

I guess they don't consider Mein Kampf offensive.

[Nige]

Y'know, if you're complaining to the left or the woke mob about opaque decisions taken by enormously wealthy capitalistic corporations, you're complaints are not being heard by anyone who had anything to do with those decisions.

[Brett Bellmore]

Stop expecting it to make sense, not making sense is almost the whole point.

They're establishing their power to issue arbitrary edicts and be obeyed, they're breaking down the population's tendency to evaluate commands before complying with them. That REQUIRES that the commands be arbitrary and senseless!

Might as well expect O'Brien to hold up five fingers, before insisting that Winston see... five fingers. The whole POINT was that Winston had to see what wasn't there, if O'Brien demanded it!

The whole point of canceling Dr. Seuss for being racist is that he wasn't racist. Succeeding at doing it proves that innocence isn't a defense.

[Nige]

E-Bay are? The Suess trust are? When did D Suess get 'canceled?' What does that mean? How does it work? Why are you so nonsensically fake outraged and baffled because your nonsensical fake outrage and bafflement are nonsensical?

[grb]

More hysterical posturing from Brett. I was introduced to this topic by the eminently sensible Kevin Drum. His points :

1. The handful of images in question are ugly & unacceptable

2. They could easily be deleted or replaced so this small part of the Seuss opus can remain.

End of story. He also noted in a subsequent post that many people on the Right (like Fox News) are making spittle-spraying rants from this topic while neglecting to show the ugly images in question.

Big surprise there, huh? They know even their own audience can't deal with the disconnect between the facts & their snowflake victimhood whining.

https://jabberwocking.com/seuss-estate-discontinues-six-books-thanks-to-racist-imagery/

[Nige]

The slippery slope of multinational capitlaistic corporations and the decisions they make and how they affect everyone and the lack of transparency and accountability or even consistency? Refreshing to hear such concerns, we've been making them since the feckin eighties.

[M L]

The only reason to ban voter ID is to make voter fraud easier.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The only type of voter fraud addressed by voter ID is voter impersonation, and if you knew anything about how voting works, you would understand that voter impersonation is very difficult and risky for the very tiny reward of a single illicit vote.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do Republicans, conservatives, bigots, and clingers ever get tired of getting their asses kicked by Marc Elias?

Why don't good conservatives with law licenses -- such as the Conspirators -- ever pitch in to try to make it competitive with Elias?

[Jimmy the Dane]

The media gaslighting campaign continues with the anticipated results. March 4th came and went and nothing happened. Gees who would have guessed....? Not the media that plastered doomscrolling articles all over the web this morning. And any follow ups tonight talking about how nothing happened - of course not. They will just move on to the next gaslighting operation and the liberal will drink the kool-aid.

[Ben_]

Extremely dumb made-up story proven false by reality. What will Dems and news media do? Make up a new story of course.

Some of us will remember the old story and remember how it was false. Democrats will intentionally forget and believe the new story they just made up. Being a Democrat means you get to live inside stories and reality has no power over your thoughts or your understanding of the world.

[Ben_]

New made-up story is that the bogeyman will storm the capitol on the 15th or the 20th of March:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9321899/Capitol-Police-reveal-intelligence-showing-plot-breach-Capitol-March-4.html

Democrats should all hide in bunkers until April 1. That’s the traditional day to celebrate people who will believe any stupid dramatic story.

[Nige]

They didn't even have the decency to gin something up into a coup attempt, the dogs.

[bernard11]

As M4e says, define your terms. Oh, and show us the fraud.

These claims are tiresome, dishonest, BS.

[Ben_]

"Ballot Harvesting is illegal in many states and in Europe for a reason, it promotes fraud."

We have an official political party of fraud and news media dedicated to perpetuating and increasing fraud.

[Krychek_2]

You really don't know much about how science works, do you?

[Nige]

All those people really died or contracted chronic long-term health problems from fatal testing.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you think is really going on and going to be revealed?

[Bob from Ohio]

"define"

Delivery of ballots to a non related 3rd party for re-transmission to the elections office.

[Josh R]

A majority of states permit ballots to be returned by a non-related third party.

[Brett Bellmore]

KDHE quietly reduced cycle threshold on COVID tests

Long story short, the more amplification cycles you do on the polymerase reaction, the more sensitive it gets to what's there, but also, the higher the false positive rate gets.

[Sarcastr0]

Interesting! I mean that sincerely.

But that's well below the initial comment's ask. M_k's COVID house of cards collapses, what does he think will be revealed?

[De Oppresso Liber]

And yet, 60 some court room embarrassments on the matter.

You'd think a few of you would have some semblance of self awareness and would shut the fuck up by now.

[Don Nico]

That is also an "occasion of sin."

[Don Nico]

Your response is almost meaningless, as the negative correlation of tests per capita with covid deaths per capita is only ~25% on a worldwide basis.

[Brett Bellmore]

That the rate of infection wasn't nearly as high as reported, because of a high level of false positives, I would assume.

False positives in the sense that, at a high number of cycles, you're not demonstrating that somebody has the infection, just that they're sharing the same planet with people who do.

Of course, if you switch the test so that the false positive rate drops, you create the impression that things have abruptly improved. Convenient that they're only doing this after Trump is out of the way, considering that the problem was well known in scientific circles all along.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't driven by Trump, you gimbus.

Besides, deaths is the metric most folks are tracking; rate is useful for policymakers.