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.)

NEXT: How old will President Biden's judicial nominees be?

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

  1. Any thoughts on the legality of the "vaccine passports" that are being proposed? I'm interested in three areas:
    * Privacy and security considerations - HIPAA, and the ability to require medical information for access or employment.
    * Rights of the inaccessible - what about people who cannot get vaccinated, for lack of product, medical or religious considerations.
    * Vaccine coercion - to what extent can the state demand vaccination with emergency use authorization. What constitutes coercion?

    1. I'm somewhat concerned about the sheer irrationality of it. There's substantial evidence that a considerable portion of the population are already immune to Covid without being vaccinated, either due to prior exposure to other coronaviruses, or from actually having had Covid 19 and gotten over it. But do any of us get the passport? No.

      But aside from the irrational details, it looks to me like the start of "social credit score" type regulation in the US. You won't be technically forced to do this, or refrain from that, but if you don't toe the line 'voluntarily', more and more of ordinary life will be shut off from you. You can see it happening in terms of the denial of banking services, being canceled from social media, hosting services dropping their contracts... All nominally "private", like air travel, but effectively they're rolling out social credit scores in the US.

      1. Yes, although at what point would a credible "under color of law" claim arise?

        It is kinda scary, though -- worse that a year under medical martial law, we are only now starting to ask questions...

      2. "There’s substantial evidence that a considerable portion of the population are already immune to Covid without being vaccinated"
        Brett where in the world do you get your bogus claims about covid immunity? So many Americans are immune that almost 550 have died of COVID-19 and nearly 30 million have been reported to have had the disease.
        You now think that you're immune for life. Good luck with that.
        In working with trained virologists, I have never heard a claim anywhere close to that. In fact I have never heard one claim that the vaccines will be effective for much more than one year (although they might be).

        1. Well, duh: I get them from reading articles in medical journals. (The ones I link to occasionally.) Where did you think I got them?

          Though if WebMD is more your speed.

        2. Or maybe you'd be interested in this.

          Note that a considerably lower percentage of the population have cross reactive antibodies than have cross reactive T cell response. Likely because antibody levels do drop over time, but T cell memory is still retained. Testing for T cell response is considerably more difficult than testing for antibodies, so the common tests won't pick it up.

          "Abstract

          Many unknowns exist about human immune responses to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. SARS-CoV-2–reactive CD4+ T cells have been reported in unexposed individuals, suggesting preexisting cross-reactive T cell memory in 20 to 50% of people. However, the source of those T cells has been speculative. Using human blood samples derived before the SARS-CoV-2 virus was discovered in 2019, we mapped 142 T cell epitopes across the SARS-CoV-2 genome to facilitate precise interrogation of the SARS-CoV-2–specific CD4+ T cell repertoire. We demonstrate a range of preexisting memory CD4+ T cells that are cross-reactive with comparable affinity to SARS-CoV-2 and the common cold coronaviruses human coronavirus (HCoV)-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-HKU1. Thus, variegated T cell memory to coronaviruses that cause the common cold may underlie at least some of the extensive heterogeneity observed in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease."

          1. Do you know what suggesting means?

            I just today saw a study about transmissibility. Almost as though your (and my) grade-school understanding of our immune system is a bit simplistic.

    2. Vaccinations should be universally mandated and universally covered by a single payer healthcare system. All other industrialized nations are so why can't America? As for vaccine passports, I think a biomarker of the vaccine type and date should be stamped on the arm of every American to ensure compliance and expedite check-ins for international flights.

      1. My lord Weinstein ... I wouldn't want to live in your country!

      2. Sure Weinstein, and we all get a number tattooed along with a symbol of religious or non-religious preference.
        How did that system work out last time?

      3. You keep popping up like a bad case of acne. By now, everyone knows about your despicable, evil, and hateful remark in support of the Soviets who raped women and children in Berlin at the end of World War II. Isn't it time for you to move on to some site where your offensive ideas are more welcome?

      4. Guys, he's just shitposting to get a rise out of you.

        Be smarter than this.

    3. Don't we already have this to a small degree? To go to college in the 1990s, I needed to show that I had been vaccinated. I got the records from my high school, since I needed to show them that I had been vaccinated.

      I'm not saying I'm in favor of a "Covid passport." I'm saying that mandatory vaccinations to go somewhere isn't anything new. And we've managed to deal with all those issues in those situations.

      1. The real problem is dealing with people who have good reasons for not being vaccinated, and separating them from people who only THINK they have good reasons for not being vaccinated.

        1. My good reason for not being vaccinated now that I've had Covid is that, that way, somebody else can get the shot. You have some objection to that?

          I might reason differently if the vaccine were not in limited supply.

          1. My good reason for not being vaccinated now that I’ve had Covid is that, that way, somebody else can get the shot. You have some objection to that?

            Yes.

            If we ever get around to a serious "COVID Passport", it won't be until after the vaccine(s) are freely available. So by the time your decision to forgo the vaccine is relevant, this excuse is not.

    4. Today's Boston Globe (front page story, but this on the jump to pg. 10) states that a lot of Massachusetts colleges are consulting with attornies regarding the legality of requiring students to be vaccinated before they can return in the fall. (See column 4, 2nd open paragraph.)

      1. Under what legal theory would it not be legal for a university to require vaccination of students?

        1. The current crop of COVID vaccines are available under emergency use authorization. I would think that, at least, you would need to legally demonstrate an emergency in order to force vaccinations.

          There there's also the AMA code of ethics and the Nuremberg code.

        2. Lots of active duty military are declining the shots. There is a law that no active duty military can be forced to get the shot until the FDA has given a real OK; not the emergency OK currently in effect.

  2. Nothing has convinced me more of the uselessness of online teaching than trying online tutoring myself.

    I almost feel guilty about accepting money in many cases, like I do my absolute best but it is difficult for things to get across.

    Although I'm guessing some of it is the quality of people I teach ... it takes zero effort to join a zoom call, quite a bit to travel to someone's house. Someone who is willing to put in that effort probably is more willing to learn.

    But still, online education is not helping anyone (at least at the pre college level) and what they are doing with schools here in NJ is downright criminal.

    1. "Nothing has convinced me more of the uselessness of online teaching than trying online tutoring myself. "

      People who want to learn will learn, despite obstacles to learning.

      1. "People who want to learn will learn, despite obstacles to learning." - true, but then they don't need a tutor.

        1. Nobody NEEDs a tutor.

          1. Sorry James, but but poor results in many business that have no programs in knowledge transfer show that you're wrong.

      2. How can we ensure racial equity if unequal learning rates that favor white academic success are maintained?

        1. Rabbi: You keep popping up like a bad case of acne. By now, everyone knows about your despicable, evil, and hateful remark in support of the Soviets who raped women and children in Berlin at the end of World War II. Isn’t it time for you to move on to some site where your offensive ideas are more welcome?

      3. No James -- read some Educational research about pedagogy some time...

        And Zoom Skool *is* downright criminal...

        1. Love your assumption that I haven't, Mr. example-that-people-who-can't-learn-won't-shut-up-about-it.

  3. Do y'all really like the partisan fighting so much? Maybe everyone here should calm down a little? Speak more politely? Stop refighting the same fights every week?

      1. No you didn't

    1. "Do y’all really like the partisan fighting so much?"

      Partisans gotta party. It's not like they could just stop whenever they wanted to.

      1. Partisans gotta party. It’s not like they could just stop whenever they wanted to.

        LOL! "they"

        1. In this case YOU are one of THEY. Keep laughing.

          1. You appear to have missed the point.

            1. It's the only thing he's good at.

      2. It's what they do. It's all they do. And they absolutely, positively will not stop until everyone is dead.

    2. I hope you were this non-partisan, calm, and polite during the Trump administration.

      1. Would you be calm during a second Shoah? The fascist Drumpf and his cretinous followers needed to be stopped by any means necessary. NEVER AGAIN!

        1. Rabbi: You keep popping up like a bad case of acne. By now, everyone knows about your despicable, evil, and hateful remark in support of the Soviets who raped women and children in Berlin at the end of World War II. Isn’t it time for you to move on to some site where your offensive ideas are more welcome?

  4. While it appears likely SCOTUS will uphold Arizona's voting restrictions (out-of-precinct and third-party collection) against a Voting Rights Act Section 2 challenge, the basis for doing so may impact whether other restrictions (e.g., doing away with no-excuse mail-in voting and cutting back on early voting periods) will survive. These restrictions strike me as voter suppression that Section 2 does not (or at the very least, the law should be changed to not) permit.

    1. "voter suppression"

      So, once a certain open voting period is established, the legislature loses power to amend it ever?

      1. Bob, do you object every time someone calls you out for vote suppression?

        1. "do you object every time someone calls you out for vote suppression?"

          Of course. Either I'm doing it and I want to get away with it, or I'm not doing it. Both are reasons one might object to being called out.

          1. Wah! I got accused of vote suppression just because I was suppressing votes. NO FAIR!!!

      2. Perhaps Section 2 should be interpreted such that repealing a regulation that results in a disparate impact on a racial classification requires the state to overcome a significant burden to justify.

        1. Disparate impact reasoning is never applied consistently.

          So, let's say that rolling back early voting has disparate impact against blacks. This implies that rolling it forward had disparate impact against whites! And whites are every bit as entitled to equal protection as blacks.

          In reality, because racial groups are never identically situated, you would generally expect pretty much ANY policy to exhibit some degree of 'disparate impact', barring application of an explicit racial quota to negate the disparity. Disparate impact is frequently a product, not of racial discrimination, but of its lack.

          The whole idea is intended to force the adoption of comprehensive racial quotas.

          1. 'So, let’s say that rolling back early voting has disparate impact against blacks. This implies that rolling it forward had disparate impact against whites!'

            Classic white privelege. If whites are the ones stopping them from voting, of course it had a disparate effect on whites - their racist voter supression and the power derived from that racist voter suppression is threatened. How unfair!

            1. More whites utilize early voting than blacks.

              1. As Sarcastro says below, actually it's not a zero-sum game.

            2. See, not even the pretense of applying the reasoning in a non-discriminatory manner.

              1. Gotta say, this sums up a whole lot of white greivance,

                1. Stop being a racist, Nige

                  1. Stop thinking that's racism DWB.

          2. If the regulation had a "disparate impact" on whites by eliminating a gap between voting rates, I don't see an equal protection issue.

            1. Because Blacks are too "lazy & shiftless" to vote on time?

              That's called "racism."

          3. Brett, you should have thought this through. Voting rights are not analyzed as a zero-sum game.

            More access to the polls would let more blacks and more whites vote. That happens to effect blacks more.

            That does not hurt whites. Democracy is not a zero-sum game.

            1. No, my point remains: Racial groups are not similarly situated, this means that racially impartial policies virtually always exhibit some degree of 'disparate impact'. You basically have to deliberately implement a racial quota system to avoid that.

              This means that 'disparate impact' is a fatally flawed as a test for racial discrimination, sometimes it results from NOT racially discriminating. At best, at very best, it can be a basis for looking closer.

              But that said, 'disparate impact' never concerns anyone unless it's unfavorable towards preferred groups, so even flawed as it is, it is never applied impartially.

              The moment you start talking about disparate impact, you lose me. It means you have no actual evidence of racial discrimination, or you'd be talking about that, instead.

              1. Now you're claiming that statistical evidence doesn't count.

                1. No, he's claiming statistical variation is not evidence of disparate impact.

                  Flip a coin 10 times. Odds are, you won't actually get 5 heads and 5 tails, you'll get a mix (4 heads - 6 tails, 6 heads - 4 tails, 7 heads - 3 tails) etc.

                  Simply because you get 4 heads - 6 tails isn't evidence for disparate impact or bias.

                  1. No, I'm not claiming statistical variation isn't evidence of disparate impact; The sort of variation you're talking about is limited to small populations.

                    I'm claiming that disparate impact, by itself, is not evidence of discrimination. Rather, disparate impact is largely unavoidable WITHOUT actual discrimination, in the presence of differently situated groups.

                    1. Apologies. Statistical differences between different groups is nearly unavoidable.

                      One of my favorite statistics is the way that various pay gaps exist between ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations. Much is made about the fact that on average African Americans make less than Caucasians, and that this is evidence of racism, systemic bias, and whatnot. But often, what is missed is that Asians make more on average than whites. Is that evidence of systemic bias?

                      This can be expanded further down to ethnic groups. Nigerian Americans make more on average than "American Americans". Is that bias? Or the fact that Gay women make, on average, 9% more than straight women. Systemic bias?

                      Watching the logical convolutions that need to be run are amusing...

                    2. "Much is made about the fact that on average African Americans make less than Caucasians, and that this is evidence of racism, systemic bias, and whatnot."

                      No, it's evidence of differences in pay between black and white people. The evidence of discrimination is from things like this.

                      "But often, what is missed is that Asians make more on average than whites. Is that evidence of systemic bias?"

                      Who is missing this? And if it is missed, how did you find it? Anyway, mere evidence of differences is not conclusive proof of discrimination. You have to prove the discrimination, eliminate confounding factors, and so on. I assume it is not your position that since there is at least one racial minority that makes more than white people, that discrimination by white people against non-white people is disproven?

                      "Nigerian Americans make more on average than “American Americans”. Is that bias?"

                      Can you think of any reasons why self-identifying Nigerian Americans (a group overwhelmingly comprised of recent immigrants from Nigeria) make more on average than Americans generally?

                      "Or the fact that Gay women make, on average, 9% more than straight women. Systemic bias?"

                      Can you think of any reasons why this would be the case besides systematic bias against straight women? Have you considered that the lesbian premium may be some evidence of discrimination against women?

                    3. See, I told you there would be crazy logic.

                      "Can you think of any reasons why this would be the case besides systematic bias against straight women? Have you considered that the lesbian premium may be some evidence of discrimination against women?"

                      APPARENTLY if there is a difference in pay rates between two subgroups of people, it should be considered that the reason is discrimination against that group of people overall.

                      Did you know that black men get paid less then white men? Have you considered that it's because men are discriminated against?

                      I know...it's crazy logic.

              2. Section 2, as amended in 1982, intentionally only requires a disparate impact. Why not prohibit repealing no-excuse mail-in voting if it affects one race more than another regardless of its intent?

                1. Disparate impact in terms of opportunity to vote. Not in terms of proclivity. Since the changes here don't deny anybody an opportunity to vote, they just change how you do it, they don't violate Section 2.

                  1. Indeed, opportunity is what the justices struggled with during oral arguments. Kagan's hypothetical (which is real in Georgia) of eliminating early Sunday voting persuaded me your interpretation of opportunity is wrong.

              3. Ridiculous.

                There is zero negative impact on whites from expanding early voting.

                1. That's not Brett's argument though. Brett is arguing that voting features enacted to make it easier for legally qualified voters to exercise their rights benefit minority voters more than whites and is therefore a detriment to white voters. Making it hard to vote isn't discriminatory because the imposed difficulties affect everyone, white or other than white. But making it easier for people to vote discriminates against white people because minority people are more likely to benefit. Count me gobsmacked.

                  1. It's the disparity in impact that's supposedly illegal, right?

                    You wouldn't make it harder for anybody to vote if you doubled the number of polling places in white neighborhoods only, but it would never pass scrutiny for an instant. Discrimination doesn't have to be negative to be discrimination.

                    The point is, if disparity running one way is discrimination, disparity running the other way has to be discrimination.

                    1. Firstly, your hypothetical facially discriminates on the basis of race and thus is illegal due to disparate treatment. But let's say instead you double the number of poll workers only at country clubs (which is somewhat close to Kagan's hypothetical in oral arguments from Brnovich) which results in a disparate impact on black voters. The state should then be forced to justify why they are doing this. I don't think they can meet this burden.

                      Similarly, the state needs to justify why they offered no-excuse mail-in voting when it resulted in a disparate impact against whites. Reducing the gap in voting rates between whites and blacks while not reducing white voting rates (they go up by less) easily meets that burden.

                  2. No, it makes it more likely that less motivated voters will vote. Now as to why the less motivated voters are Black -- that's a political science question, not an equal opportunity one.

                    1. You are very wrong about that. If, as you claim, "less motivated voters are Black," that is very much an equal opportunity question. Or a question of social justice or national pride or, from your perspective, a question of encouraging the right kind of people to participate and discouraging the wrong kind of people.

              4. The moment you start talking about disparate impact, you lose me. It means you have no actual evidence of racial discrimination, or you’d be talking about that, instead.

                The thing is, these days ypou're not likely to Geta quote or an email saying, "This will help us block the Black vote."

                So what you're saying is "disparate impact for me, but not for thee."

                Legislators can use the impact to pass laws aimed at suppressing Black voting, but this challenging the law can't use it to show discrimination.

                Hardly reasonable.

          4. So, let’s say that rolling back early voting has disparate impact against blacks. This implies that rolling it forward had disparate impact against whites!

            No it doesn't. That's absurd. No. Actually, it's insane.

            Rolling forward early voting doesn't affect whites' ability to vote.

            Yes, it means that those unaffected by the change lose a bit of influence, because more people vote, but it doesn't at all affect their ability to vote.

            1. "it doesn’t at all affect their ability to vote."

              Nor does it affect a black person's ability to vote.

              1. Has anyone bothered to ask?

            2. The roll back doesn't affect blacks' ability to vote, either. I though we were talking 'disparate impact', which only requires that the change impact different groups to different extents.

              1. The roll back doesn’t affect blacks’ ability to vote, either..

                But the empirical evidence is that it does. Why else are the racist MF's passing the damn laws?

                If you decide not to allow early voting on Sunday when, as it turns out, lots of Blacks find it easy to get to the polls, you are affecting their ability to vote in the practical sense.

                1. Why else are the racist MF’s passing the damn laws?

                  I hereby crown you "King of Circular Arguments".

                2. Yes, it adversely affects the ability of the dead to vote.

                  Remember "vote early and often for Curley...."

                  1. It adversely affects the ability of some perfectly legal voters to vote. If the polls used to close at 9 and now they close at 8 some voters are going to find it more difficult to vote, because of work schedules or other obligations.

                    That should be obvious. Similarly with early voting on Sunday.

                    There's no reason not to keep the voting rules used in 2020, or even expand them. We had a perfectly legitimate section under those rules.

                    Yeah. Trump lost. No steal, no fraud, despite what his gullible fool cultists think. Too fucking bad.

          5. "So, let’s say that rolling back early voting has disparate impact against blacks. This implies that rolling it forward had disparate impact against whites! "

            No, you might wish it implied this (and very strongly), but that doesn't make it so.

            Consider. Eliminating voting entirely has no effect whatsoever on people who weren't going to go vote anyway. This doesn't imply that having twice as many ways to vote produces a disparate impact on people who DO go to the polls.

        2. Josh, let me implicitly state what you are implying: "Black voters are too lazy and shiftless to be able to vote on election day."

          Do you have any idea how incredibly racist that statement (and the attitudes behind it) are?!? No, they are not lazy; no, they are not shiftless -- and while folk like long-distance truck drivers (of *all* races, incidentally) have a legitimate case for an absentee ballot, if the polls are open for 14 hours (e.g. 7AM to 9 PM), you're not disenfranchising anyone who actually wants to vote.

          1. No. That's not what he's saying.

          2. "Josh, let me implicitly state what you are implying"

            The fact that you inferred something tells us nothing about what was intended to be implied. AND you used the word "implicitly" here where you meant "explicitly".

            "Do you have any idea how incredibly racist that statement (and the attitudes behind it) are?!?"

            Indeed. You are quite the racist.

      3. It is "voter suppression" if it stops Dems from stuffing ballot boxes. That is wha the VRA is designed to protect. Other then Dems wanting to continue their routine election fraud there is no reason why things like having ID to vote ought to not be required by simple common sense.

        1. It's voter suppression if it prevents people entitled to vote from voting. It's Republican policy if it prevents mostly Democrats from voting. Lying about election fraud isn't even a pretext any more, it's an open 'fuck you.'

          1. None of the Arizona laws "prevents" a single vote.

            1. If they didn't reduce the number of votes cast, they woulnd't be doing it.

              1. No one is stopped from showing up on election day or on the remaining early vote days.

                1. It's technically correct that if they changed the rule to say all voting must be in person between the hours of 2 AM and 4 AM Christmas morning, that technically that would not be suppression since anyone willing to haul out of bed and show up at the polls in the middle of the night on Christmas morning would be able to do so. But that's not really the point.

                  My question is this: What exactly is the objection to making it easier for people to vote than harder for people to vote?

                  1. Nice strawman.

                    1. Nice non-answer to Krychek's question.

                    2. My question is this: What exactly is the objection to making it easier for people to vote than harder for people to vote?

                    3. Nice non-answer to Krychek’s question.

                      Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

                    4. Wuz, you really shouldn’t go out of your way to keep reminding us of your inability to follow simple straightforward arguments. If you think it through I’m sure it will come to you why those questions aren’t the same.

                    5. "What exactly is the objection to making it easier for people to vote than harder for people to vote?"

                      People too lazy or uninterested to get to the polls on election day should not vote.

                      Limited excuse [over 75/80, in hospital, out of state, severe disabilities] absentee votes received on or before election day is sufficient to take care of those with legitimate reasons they cannot make it on election day.

                      This was the standard until very, very recently and should be again.

                    6. @Bob:

                      Yuch. Count me in the group that wants to make it easier for people to vote. Oregon is a role model.

                      I think once upon a time, there was bipartisan support for n0-excuse mail-in voting. But once the effects were shown, Republicans changed their mind, but not because of Bob's reason that voting should not be for the lazy (of course, Democrats would change their minds too if the roles were reversed).

                    7. Bob, there have been years when my work schedule made it a major pain in the butt to get to the polls on Election Day. It’s not always lazy or lack of interest.

                    8. simple straightforward arguments

                      "Simple"? No. "Simple-minded"? Yes.

                    9. Wuz, like I said, you shouldn’t repeatedly expose your inability to grasp straightforward arguments. Everyone else on the thread but you had no difficulty understanding my argument and why the question I posed was legitimate. Including Bob who completely disagrees with me. If you really aren’t smart enough to follow the conversation have the good sense not to broadcast it.

                    10. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

                      Got a divorce to resolve that particular logical defect (on your part). (* thought I'd better spell that out for you, to avoid or at least possibly reduce your continuing confusion *)

                      Republicans gain from making it harder for people to vote if those people who are inconvenienced are people who might not reliably vote Republican. Coincidentally, they pursue such policies whenever given the opportunity to do so.

                      I tend not to vote Republican. But I DO show up reliably at the polls.

                    11. Krychek,

                      When I want to get money out of the bank, I need to show an ID and/or put in a card with a pin number.

                      Why shouldn't I just be able to go up to the counter, without any ID or pin, and take the money that is mine? That would make it easier to get my money from the bank.

                      Is there any reason that requiring ID and/or pin cards to remove money from the bank is a good idea?

                    12. Armchair Lawyer, the problem is not with ID per se, the problem is with the abuse of ID to suppress minority votes. There have been states in which the legislature researched what type of identification minorities were more likely to carry, and then made those types of identification unacceptable for voting. In minority precincts, people have been denied the ability to vote if the ID and the voter record differed in any way whatsoever -- i.e., if one said Jim and the other said James, or if one had a middle initial and the other didn't, or if one showed the address as being 100 E. Main Street and the other showed the address as being E. 100 Main Street.

                      If I go to the bank to cash a check, you are right that they're going to require ID. But they're not going to be pedantic assholes about it. If a reasonable person would look at that ID and conclude it's me, they'll cash the check. Because the bank, unlike Republican election officials, isn't trying to keep people from transacting business.

                    13. Krycheck,

                      So, you're OK with a bank discriminating against minorities by demanding ID in order to cash a check or take money out of an account?

                      That's essentially what you're saying.

                    14. Armchair Lawyer, it's a complete mystery to me how you can read what I wrote -- the problem isn't ID, but the abuse of ID by election officials -- and conclude that I said that it's discriminatory for banks to require ID. At least honestly engage with what I actually said.

                    15. Got a divorce to resolve that particular logical defect (on your part). (* thought I’d better spell that out for you, to avoid or at least possibly reduce your continuing confusion *)

                      That's some incoherent babbling even by your usual low standards.

                    16. Everyone else on the thread but you had no difficulty understanding my argument and why the question I posed was legitimate. Including Bob

                      You interpreted his "Nice strawman" response to be an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the question?

                      And you have the nerve to insult others' intelligence.

                    17. Krycheck,

                      Because your response is to ban the use of voter ID, because of some supposed abuse by "republican" officials.

                      Listen, it's pretty simple. Either requiring the use of ID to either vote or pull money out of a bank is discrimination against minorities...or it's not. It's the same for both.

                      You can't say that requiring ID to vote discriminates against minorities while simultaenously saying requiring ID to pull money out of a bank doesn't discriminate against minorities. It's not logical. It's the same requirement.

                      Now, if selected officials are somehow abusing the voter ID law, and not accepting valid voter IDs, then you go after them. But it's not a reason to get rid of the law as a whole because the "law" discriminates.

                  2. Krychek,
                    Your crafting of the question assumes the only correct answer.

                    Think about making a complicated measurement if any physical quantity. It would be easier if I made 10% of the measurements a 3 months ago, and other 20 % 2.5 months ago, 30% 2 months ago, etc.
                    Would that be an accurate determination free from systematic errors or free from unmeasured externalities? No, it would not be.

                    Now let me tell you that the measurement is the political will of the American people. Why does that change your point of view.

                    1. The problem with your analogy is that the Republicans prefer to not take or ignore the measurements of the political will of the American people, if (as in the case of last November) it isn't going to go their way.
                      If you want to agree with me, just type anything, or even nothing at all, but if you want to disagree with me, post a comment that says "I DISAGREE" on any date prior to 3/11/21.

                2. Any number of things might - which is why it's always handy to have more.

          2. It is actual voter suppression to provide for a system where illegal ballots can be easily cast therefore diluting legit ballots. This is the official policy of Dems. Please name another system where we do not have a comprehensive system of internal controls to insure the accuracy and legitimacy of the system itself?

            1. Stop lying about illegal votes.

            2. "It is actual voter suppression to provide for a system where illegal ballots can be easily cast therefore diluting legit ballots. This is the official policy of Dems. "

              It's actual idiocy to make false claims about what the official policy is of any group that does not contain you as a member.

          3. Nige : Lying about election fraud isn’t even a pretext any more

            It's gotten to be like Anti-Choice legislation. Every season there's a new group of tenuously-justified laws from the anti-abortion racket. Perhaps they'll be a new regulation saying clinics must have polka-dot wallpaper - you know, for women's health reasons. Legislators barely pretend their "reasoning" is more than an empty pretense.

            Of course there is a difference. I'm deeply cynical about the anti-abortion movement, seeing it as the most consumer-friendly piety available on the market - giving the most bang righteously-wise for the least sacrifice or difficulty, moral choice-wise. After all, it doesn't get any easier than a piety involving wanton harlots vs cherubic proto-babies. But even I admit there's a ethical question involved.

            But the GOP's voter suppression obsession is a total fraud. Pretense isn't even an option.

            1. "But the GOP’s voter suppression obsession is a total fraud. Pretense isn’t even an option."

              It's entirely coincidental that the GOP's efforts to suppress votes tends to land squarely on constituencies that don't reliably vote Republican.

        2. Here's how it works, Jimmy. You provide evidence ballot box stuffing is happening, then we talk about changing the law. Problem first, then solution.

          Your side losing is not proof of cheating

          Voter ID is fine - if we provide a nationwide free ID. Which the right very much opposes. Funny, that.

          1. "Here’s how it works, Jimmy. You provide evidence ballot box stuffing is happening, then we talk about changing the law. Problem first, then solution."

            What if the problem is that we don't know if ballot box stuffing is happening?

            1. Ending no excuse mail-in voting because it may result in stuffing, even though we have no evidence, ought not satisfy the state's burden.

              1. "Ending no excuse mail-in voting because it may result in stuffing, even though we have no evidence, ought not satisfy the state’s burden."

                Evidence that it could happen, or evidence that it has happened in the past? Does section 2 give fraudsters one free stuff?

                1. I think evidence that it is likely to happen in large numbers should be required.

            2. We know there's no evidence of it happening.

              1. Ah, but A.L. is sure, just certain, it's happening, because Trump said so.

                Evidence enough for him and whether cultists.

              2. "We know there’s no evidence of it happening."

                No evidence means maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. We might like to know that it didn't happen.

                1. No evidence means it didn't happen. Evidence would mean it did. The posited existence of Schrodinger's Fraud that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist is an entirely theoretical exercise outside the remit of running actual elections.

                  1. "No evidence means it didn’t happen. Evidence would mean it did. "

                    Don't you know that what you've said is illogical?

                    1. You can't keep failing to produce evidence and then keep claiming it *could* be happening and still produce no evidence without sooner or later being told to get on your bike.

                    2. But, it's possible that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Someone should give a name to this sort of argument.

                    3. "But, it’s possible that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit."

                      The teapot claim only works if you can't detect the teapot. That's not like requiring ID's for voters.

                  2. "No evidence means it didn’t happen."

                    No evidence means you didn't see it happen.

                    1. Defnintely didn't see any evidence that it happened, that's for sure.

                    2. No evidence, in this case, means that no one saw it happen, even though lots and lots of people were looking for it. It means that the Trumpists couldn't, after the fact, present any evidence of it happening. It means that Rudy almost fell over himself telling the court that he wasn't alleging voter fraud. It means that Republican officials, Trump voters, didn't see any fraud.

                      So just STFU with all that crap. It's toxic, destructive, dishonest.

                    3. No evidence means you didn’t see it happen.

                      Except for people who have sworn allegiance to the Constitution. For them, no evidence—after adequate review to look for it—puts them under a duty to stop asserting there was fraud. An election result is a sovereign decree. Someone under oath of allegiance to the sovereign contradicts that decree at his peril. Or at least, that is how it ought to be. A sovereign which fails to punish conduct of that sort does so at its own peril, while putting the nation at risk.

                    4. "No evidence, in this case, means that no one saw it happen, even though lots and lots of people were looking for it..."

                      That's evidence that it didn't happen, which certain folks are incorrectly saying it is unnecessary to provide unless there is evidence that it happened. Checking ID's would provide more evidence that it didn't happen.

                  3. No evidence means it didn’t happen.

                    Uhm....no....it doesn't.

                    1. Someone famous has suggested that that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you are advocating that action which punishes many people should be taken because of a feared penalty, the greatest proof of which is that it's not logically impossible, you need to have your head, such as it is, examined, at least.

                    2. Someone famous has suggested that that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

                      That a claim should not be accepted without evidence is very different from pronouncing a claim to be positively false (ie, what was claimed to have happened did not happen). Why the difference between these two concept is so difficult for some people to grasp, I do not know.

                      We have no evidence that you like to fondle barnyard animals...but that doesn't mean that you don't like to fondle barnyard animals. It just means that a claim that you like to fondle barnyard animals should not be accepted without evidence to support it.

                    3. If you are advocating that action which punishes many people

                      I didn't advocate anything. You need to learn how to read.

                    4. "I didn’t advocate anything. You need to learn how to read."

                      And, I did not suggest that you did. Learn to read, indeed.

                    5. "Someone famous has suggested that that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

                      Yup. And we sure wouldn't want the results of elections dismissed without evidence, would we?

                    6. "Yup. And we sure wouldn’t want the results of elections dismissed without evidence, would we?"

                      No, we would not. And, exactly who has it been, in the days since November 3, 2020, who has been trying to get the results of elections dismissed without evidence? Not me, I can tell you.

                    7. "No, we would not. And, exactly who has it been, in the days since November 3, 2020, who has been trying to get the results of elections dismissed without evidence? Not me, I can tell you."

                      Sure. And if there's no evidence of fraud, you can dismiss those claims.

                      But it works both ways. If you want to claim that elections are legit, you need evidence. You can't just say the election is legit because there's no evidence of fraud. You have to provide evidence that there wasn't fraud.

                    8. 'No evidence means it didn’t happen.'
                      'Uhm….no….it doesn’t.'

                      Then show evidence it did happen or GTFO.

                    9. 'And if there’s no evidence of fraud, you can dismiss those claims.'

                      Since the lack of evidence and the dismissal of claims has had no effect we can conclude that they actually don't care whether the claims are true or not and evidence is irrelevant to them, so endless demands to provide evidence that will never be heeded are bad-faith time-wasting gaslighting bullshit.

                    10. But it works both ways. If you want to claim that elections are legit, you need evidence. You can’t just say the election is legit because there’s no evidence of fraud. You have to provide evidence that there wasn’t fraud.

                      Your argument that two different unsupported claims are of the same probability is ridiculous.

                      'The car moved because someone stepped on the accelerator' is not the same as 'the car moved because the Democrats are evil.'

                      No, it doesn't. The assumption that things are functioning normally is the default. You need to back up your extraordinary claims of a stolen election.

                    11. And, I did not suggest that you did. Learn to read, indeed.

                      Then...

                      If you are advocating that action which punishes many people should be taken because of a feared penalty, the greatest proof of which is that it’s not logically impossible, you need to have your head, such as it is, examined, at least.

                      ...makes even less sense than the rest of your idiotic rambling.

                  4. " Schrodinger’s Fraud "

                    brilliant.

                2. You want evidence, find some.

                  Don't pretend it exists to push a solution without a problem.

                  1. "Don’t pretend it exists to push a solution without a problem."

                    It's not a problem if we don't know whether or not it's happening?

                    1. It’s not a problem if we don’t know whether or not it’s happening?

                      In this case it's a huge problem, for you. I think you know that. Absent anonymity, would you persist? You would get a reputation as a crazy person.

                      Even you do not deny there is evidence of a fair election. The witnessed vote counts, and guarded re-counts, for instance. Those proven vote totals are massive, redundant evidence. Yet you say, again and again, that isn't sufficient evidence. As if something other than votes counted and recounted could be better evidence. Courts full of judges appointed by the losing party in this election have said it is sufficient evidence, and far more than sufficient.

                      You disagree. You persist. Nothing satisfies you. Everyone can see that either you are crazy, or you act in accord with some motivation about which you refuse to be forthright. Whatever that motivation may be, it has led you far from reason, in public. Except for anonymity, a sane person would not do that.

                  2. You want evidence, find some.

                    There's plenty out there. Just look for these fingerprints:

                    "Oh... nobody OFFICIAL reported that!"

                    "Oh... that's not enough to change anything!"

                    "Oh... Experts Say election fraud is rare, so that can't be right!"

              3. Look, the left seems deathly afraid that the voting systems can be hacked. The longer the systems are open, the higher the probability that they are susceptible to hacking.
                Yet there is no evidence that hacking has ever changed a vote total.

            3. "What if the problem is that we don’t know if ballot box stuffing is happening?"

              That's only a problem if you have evidence that says it is.
              You start with evidence. And when you ain't got any, and want to pretend that you do, it's ok to laugh at you for poor reasoning skill.

              1. "That’s only a problem if you have evidence that says it is."

                It's not a problem if I don't have evidence either way?

          2. Let me tell you how it actually works Sarcastro...

            We are a Nation of Laws (if you don't believe me just search that and Pelosi for lots of examples of her saying this).

            In a Nation of Laws people are expected to follow the law.

            The laws should not be overly onerous especially when they regulate something that is a "right" but even then people are still expected to know, understand, and follow those laws if they want to participate in one of these regulated systems.

            For instance, if you want to drive you get a license and register your car. Forgetting to register your car for one day is still a violation of the law and if you are caught then you should fully expect to have to pay the fine for non-compliance.

            Same goes for voting. We have laws that set up requirements that people have to follow to vote. And people should be expected to follow those laws and the people who don't have to suffer the consequence. (Here that would be not voting or casting a provisional ballot). And the people who do follow the law should be expect the people who do not follow the law to not be able to participate in the system. And that also provides an incentive to follow the law.

            And because voting selects are leaders and is really a cornerstone of democracy, we ought to have a system of robust internal controls to make certain that system maintains its legitimacy. One common sense control that we have in all different kinds of places in society is proving ones identity. It is pretty basic. And it is quite normal and logical for people to question a system that does not provide for such basic controls, which is why it is important we have them.

            So you see how it works now?

            1. Section 2 is the law and it restricts what states can do. I hope you think we should follow Section 2 (or any other law Congress passes to further restrict what states can do).

            2. And so closing the polls early, or eliminating Sundy voting are security measures? You're a fucking joke, parroting that crap.

            3. "Same goes for voting. We have laws that set up requirements that people have to follow to vote. "

              And we have people trying to write the laws so that only people who vote their way will have votes that count. y'see, that's a problem.

          3. The point behind an internal control in any system is to prevent fraud, not serve as a corrective action after the fact. You are literally putting the cart before the horse...

            1. The judiciary is part of that internal control system.

              And even if you were correct, a lack of internal control is not proof of wrongdoing, just bad practice.

          4. In California, at a minimum, you must provide government ID and pay a government mandated fee of $1 to buy ammunition (in some cases you may have to pay a fee of $19 and wait up to ten days for a background check to complete).

            Buying ammunition is clearly a central component of exercising one's Second Amendment rights.

            If it's constitutional to not only provide ID but to also pay a fee to exercise a enumerated constitutional right, surely there should be no objection to requiring ID to vote anywhere in the country. If that ID costs money, well that's far less of a burden than having to pay to get ID and pay each time you exercise your right.

            1. Except that poll taxes are expressly forbidden by Constitutional text.

            2. Can't shoot up a school with a single vote.

        3. Among other things, JtD, Democrats are no more likely to stuff the ballot boxes than Republicans. In fact, the only such attempt in recent years was tried by Republicans in NC.

          So STFU about "routine election fraud" by Democrats. It's a figment f your imagination.

          Your hero Trump lost, fair and square. Live with it.

        4. Good point Jimmy -- ballot box stuffing was one of the things that the VRA was intended to stop. It's just now that a different group is stuffing the boxes -- although they still are Democrats....

    2. Because Black voters in the 1950s needed a 3-month window in which to vote....

      NO, the issue was that they couldn't vote on election DAY (singular) and that's what the VRA was intended to address.

      1. Section 2 was amended in 1982 to cover the results of a regulation after SCOTUS held it only applied to intentional discrimination.

  5. I came across a New York Times statement on Tucker Carlson:

    "In a now familiar move, Tucker Carlson opened his show last night by attacking a journalist. It was a calculated and cruel tactic, which he often deploys to unleash a wave of harassment and vitriol at his intended target. Taylor Lorenz is a talented New York Times journalist doing timely and essential reporting. Journalists should be able to do their jobs without facing harassment."

    I don't watch Tucker Carlson much. I have no idea what the criticism was or whether or not it was valid, and I still don't after reading the statement.

    Why to people refer to criticism as "attacking"? Is the NYTimes saying that people shouldn't criticize journalists?

    And why isn't their statement equally an attack on a journalist?

    1. I think journalists deserve criticism and they generally don't take it very well but they are quick to dish it out.

      1. I guess you don't believe in the freedom of the press. What other parts of the First Amendment do you rubes want to do away with?

        1. I know you're a parody account but it's worth noting that freedom of the press has nothing to do with journalists. Everyone has the same press freedoms as everyone else

        2. No one was suggesting that government should restrict the NYT or Carlson from criticizing other journalists. Hence, there is no First Amendment issue here at all.

          The comments you were replying to were merely questioning the apparent hypocrisy of the NYT in this instance.

        3. I believe in freedom of speech and that you don't a press card to exercise it, nor does a press card immunize you from criticism.

        4. “In my opinion, the Soviets were also right to rape all those Nazi-supporting German women and girls when they conquered Berlin.” (Rabbi Harvey Weinstein, March 4, 2021, 8:44 a.m.)

    2. You are forgetting that there are two rulebooks - one for liberals, and one for conservatives. You just have to look at the right handbook to see why.

      1. Next you are going to tell me that "cancel culture" is ruining America. Sorry but progressives and libertarians have a right to criticize and condemn ignorant and bigoted views from GOP rubes clinging to their guns and their faith in the bastard of Nazareth, Yeshua.

        1. “In my opinion, the Soviets were also right to rape all those Nazi-supporting German women and girls when they conquered Berlin.” (Rabbi Harvey Weinstein, March 4, 2021, 8:44 a.m.)

      2. Jimmy, they are NOT "liberals" -- they are way too intolerant for that.

        They are LEFTISTS....

        1. Could you take a moment out for some self-reflection, and may be beg or borrow a clue? Or maybe some self-awareness?

    3. 'Why to people refer to criticism as “attacking”'

      The writer of the article characterised it as an attack. They were familiar with what was said. You characterised it as criticism. You are not familiar with what was said. You can't question whether it was mischaracterised without knowing what was said. Or you can, it's just dishonest.

      1. "The writer of the article characterized it as an attack. They were familiar with what was said. You characterized it as criticism."

        You think Carlson can "attack" someone on his show other than by criticism? As I said, if it turns out he attacked her with a baseball bat or something, then the Times statement makes complete sense. But I doubt that's the case.

          1. That's all you got?

            1. Thata's all that comment merits.

            2. You object to accurate reporting.

          2. Perhaps you could show me how he can attack her on his show without criticizing her?

            1. Don't you mean criticise without attacking? That would be talking abut the things she has actually said and done and explaining why he thinks those are wrong without directly attacking her as a person. Weird that anyone would need that explained.

              1. "That would be talking abut the things she has actually said and done and explaining why he thinks those are wrong without directly attacking her as a person. Weird that anyone would need that explained."

                You're saying that these are self-evidently distinct? I guess I do need that explained.

        1. Lorenz’s tweet read: “For international women’s day please consider supporting women enduring online harassment. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the harassment and smear campaign I’ve had to endure over the past year has destroyed my life. No one should have to go through this.”

          Carlson called Lorenz, an internet culture reporter who formerly worked at the Hill, “privileged” and dismissed her experiences as “not real harassment”.

          He's saying maybe you and Carlson should check into what she's experience before you decide to minimize and defend it.

          Maybe she's exaggerating. But it's pretty knee-jerk to decide she is without looking into it.

          1. This quote appears to come from a Guardian article that I have neither read nor criticized.

            As I said, I have no interest in the spat between Lorenz and Carlson.

            I'm asking why the Times would "attack" Carlson for "attack[ing]" without addressing the substance of the attack. Is the Times saying that people shouldn't criticize its journalists? That criticizing its journalists is harassment? Because it sure sounds like they are.

            1. I'm asking you the same question. It only 'sounds like they are' if you commit to ignorance. Even then it's specious.

              1. "It only ‘sounds like they are’ if you commit to ignorance."

                I'm not commiting to ignorance, I was happy to read the Times' statement. But what's their argument?

          2. "destroyed my life."

            "Maybe she’s exaggerating." You think? Swiss private school educated NYT reporter's life was "destroyed"?

            1. If you don't understand what she means by 'destroyed' how can you claim to be skeptical? People don't usually make a claim like that unless it's true, even if it's in a personal, subjective sense.

              1. "personal, subjective sense"

                Her life was not "destroyed" in any sense.

                1. Oh? Please go into detail.

                  I must say, it's always weird to see the the vicious attacks or instant dismissals provoked against women when they say they were subjected to harassment.

                  1. Lost job? Been demoted? Got evicted? Went to prison? Got cancer or other serious illness? Lost a loved one? Got physically assaulted?

                    These are examples of "destroyed" lives.

                    1. Not an exhaustive list, though.

                    2. "Not an exhaustive list, though."

                    3. Oh wow, lol that went sideways on me, let's try this again.

                      "Not an exhaustive list, though."

                      So far all you've argued is 'you might not be right' and then elicited that they provide unequivocal proof that they are right.

                      Why don't you provide some kind of hard evidence that they are wrong other than 'did you look into it?' If the answer is 'Yes.' then it should satisfy your request. But in kind requiring that they provide evidence of their 'Yes.' goes beyond the pale of what you're doing.

                      Logical fallacy and all.

                      So I ask you, what evidence to YOU have that her life was destroyed beyond just her 'personal, subjective sense'?

                    4. Prove what wrong? That one's life can be destroyed without actually losing one's job? What idiot needs that proved for them? If Tucker Carlson presented evidence to refute, nobody's mentioned it here yet. Bob hasn't provided any evidence at all, just argument from skepticism. This all looks like typical knee-jerk misogyny because a woman dared complain about harassment. Happens all the time.

          3. Carson is a person who had a media-fed mob attempt to breach his home and caused fairly significant property damage. I think I'll defer to his judgement on "not real harassment" unless the people attacking him clear quite a high bar of credibility and evidence.

            1. "Carson is a person who had a media-fed mob attempt to breach his home and caused fairly significant property damage."

              So your assessment is that anybody who ever had something bad happen to them gets to say whatever the hell they want, and have it accepted without question?

          4. "He’s saying maybe you and Carlson should check into what she’s experience before you decide to minimize and defend it."

            Why should anyone care what she has experienced? Does she care what the people she reports on experience as a result of her reporting? Show evidence that she cares about this.

            No double standards. No benefit of the doubt until we see her exhibit it towards others.

            1. 'Why should anyone care what she has experienced?'

              Tucker Carlson ran a whole segent on it, haven't you heard?

              'No double standards.'

              Fucking hell, twisting everything into knots to find a 'double-standard' rationale is what constitutes journalism on the right now.

              1. They're not big on factual reporting, because the facts so rarely agree with them.

              2. Comparison is called "twisting everything into knots" by people who compare unfavorably.

  6. "Why to people refer to criticism as 'attacking'?"

    You start off by admitting that you don't know anything about the specific criticism/attack, and then proceed to assume it's one and not the other in your conclusion.

    1. "You start off by admitting that you don’t know anything about the specific criticism/attack, and then proceed to assume it’s one and not the other in your conclusion."

      I'm assuming he didn't come after her with a baseball bat or something, sure.

      I'm not particularly interesting in a spat between Tucker Carlson and Taylor Lorenz.

      I'm just wondering why NYT would put out a statement like this without addressing the substance of the "attack". It could be that Tucker Carlson is completely full of shit, but I'd never know it from the statement.

      How does the Times think that reading this statement will help anybody?

      1. You don't know if there was any substance to the attack, you don't know what it was at all.

        1. "You don’t know if there was any substance to the attack, you don’t know what it was at all."

          Exactly. And I still don't after reading the statement. That's the point. For all anybody reading the statement knows, the attack could have been a completely valid criticism.

          1. The article seems to be implying that people shouldn't criticize journalists.

            1. You retain a blessed state of ignorance while still making oddly definitive comments.

              1. Sigh. The Times criticized Tucker Carlson for "attacking" a journalist in a context where "attack" is likely a synonym for "criticize".

                It didn't provide any context or say what was wrong with this particular "attack".

                So it sure sounds like the Times is saying that people should criticize journalists, or at least its journalists.

                Am I missing something?

                1. 'Likely.'

                  You said it was a statement, not a story or a report.

                  It sounds like they're defending one of their journalists who is being attacked. Good for them.

                  Yup.

                  1. "It sounds like they’re defending one of their journalists who is being attacked."

                    It does sound like that. But it's not much of a defense unless they address the substance of the attack, is it?

                    It sounds like you're acknowledging that what they're saying is, "Don't criticize (or 'attack') our journalists." Why is that good?

                    1. Standing by your journalists when they're attacked is good. It's Tucker Carlson, why are you asking after 'substance?' What you're doing is incredibly asinine.

                    2. "Standing by your journalists when they’re attacked is good."

                      Not if it appears that you are simply objecting to your journalists being criticized.

                    3. You keep saying that as if it's true, but it's entirely your invention.

                    4. "You keep saying that as if it’s true, but it’s entirely your invention."

                      What was the Times' statement saying, if not that?

                    5. It said exactly what it said. What you're saying, it didn't say.

                2. "Am I missing something?"

                  Couldn't possibly happen.

      2. He was doing a segment on "Powerful people claiming to be powerless", and she was one of the examples, on the basis of her claim to have had her life destroyed by online harassment, while still being employed at a high paying job.

        1. And? Does he address how a person can be affected by persistant, targeted online harassment and how much damage can be inflictred short of losing one's job? That's what a good journalist would do, for a start.

          1. That’s what a good journalist would do, for a start.

            Yeah, but this is Tucker Carlson we're talking about, so...

        2. "He was doing a segment on “Powerful people claiming to be powerless”, and she was one of the examples, on the basis of her claim to have had her life destroyed by online harassment, while still being employed at a high paying job."

          Huh. Not seeing what's wrong with saying that, although it may or may not be correct.

          I wonder what the Times' objection was?

          1. Well, on the bare face of it, it's stupid, obviously, but I suppose it would depend on what he actually said about her.

            1. You're just trolling, quite well I might add since you've got 12Piano going and for some time now.

              But none the less, trolling. You've offered nothing to actually answer with any real context other than to belittle and criticize the questions.

              I'd be upset if I weren't so impressed at how little you've offered in your trolling and still gotten responses from 12.

              1. 12P read that statement and went looking for a fight on the specious grounds that it implied journalists should not be criticised while ostentatiously refusing to check the context. It's utterly, laughably ridiculous.

                1. I didn't need to check the context because the NYT statement didn't make an argument or a substantive claim.

                  All it said was that Tucker Carlson attacked a journalist on his show. OK, so what? They were attacking a journalist in their statement as well.

                  1. 'In defending your journalist you yourselves are attacking the journalist that attacked her, checkmate.' Galaxy brain stuff there.

                    1. "‘In defending your journalist you yourselves are attacking the journalist that attacked her, checkmate."

                      Sigh. If the entire substances of the defense is, "You attacked her. You shouldn't have attacked her." Then yeah, it's "checkmate." I'm not sure why you're having a tough time with this.

                    2. You haven't established that they've done anything wrong.

      3. "I’m not particularly interesting in a spat between Tucker Carlson and Taylor Lorenz. "

        Nah, you reflexively spring to the defense when you feel one of "your guys" is getting criticized.
        You don't actually care if the criticism is fairly deserved, or not. That takes too much effort on your part.

        1. I'm not "springing to the defense" of anybody.

          The NYT claimed that Tucker "attacked a journalist". As I said, the NYT attacked a journalist in their statement as well.

          Journalists can handle criticism.

          1. Since Carlson is (what passes on the right for) a journalist, he can handle criticism, too. You've created an equivalence so dumb it cancels itself out.

            1. "Since Carlson is (what passes on the right for) a journalist, he can handle criticism, too. You’ve created an equivalence so dumb it cancels itself out."

              Of course he can. I'm not criticizing the Times for attacking Carlson, I'm criticism them for, among other things, being inconsistent. If it's bad for Carlson to "attack" a journalist, why is it OK for them?

              Of course, I'm also criticizing them for suggesting that it's bad to "attack" a journalist in the sense of criticizing them.

              1. How is it inconsistent to defend one of their journalists?

                It rather depends on the attack, doesn't it?

          2. As I said, the NYT attacked a journalist in their statement as well.

            Who? Not Carlson.

            Fox News (successfully) defended Carlson from a defamation suit by saying claiming no reasonable person would believe he's reporting facts. September of last year.

            So yeah, not a journalist.

            1. "Fox News (successfully) defended Carlson from a defamation suit by saying claiming no reasonable person would believe he’s reporting facts. September of last year."

              Sounds like you have been listening to news sources like NPR or CNN.

              Fox claimed, and the court found, the his show is an opinion show that uses hypothetical examples, hyperbolic rhetoric, and other devices while discussing the news.

              Specifically, it found that Carlson's use of "extortion" in a particular context was meant in the general sense and was not a reference to the particular crime of extortion.

              You really should find more reliable news sources.

              1. Huh. Now you suddenly embrace flexibility in language and the importance of context, but not when it comes to 'attack?'

              2. Sounds like you've been listening to non-news sources like Tucker Carlson, who's such a notorious liar that you literally can't sue him for defamation because it's just so well known he doesn't tell the truth.

                And on top of that, you were idiotic enough to not realize that.

    2. Emotion sells newspapers and website clicks. Would you rather read an article titled, "Ben Shapiro disagrees with Biden policy" or "Ben Shapiro anally rapes Biden policy with FACTS and LOGIC!"?

      1. Isn't that a Breitbart headline?

        1. I wouldn't know. I tend to avoid browsing white supremacists websites.

          1. Indeed. Why would a desert play in a sandbox?

  7. I am incensed by the Republicans in our country defending a racist British monarchy and their actions against an oppressed woman of color! For the GOP to grovel at the feet of English royals, the same people we violently overthrew to free our country, makes me nauseous. The racist and sexist articles in the British tabloids made a multi-racial American nearly kill herself! I'm so glad that Oprah and Tyler Perry were able to comfort and protect Meghan Markle in their humble, pastoral estates. This is just another instance of white supremacy rearing its ugly head in the West. I was so upset with the way the royals treated Meghan that I decided to fight the power and threw some hot coffee on this homeless white bum. I'm sure I ruined his day and made him check his white, cis, heteronormative privileges!

    1. Did the princess find a pea of racism under her bed?

        1. I like those.

            1. I figured I was safe either way.

    2. You are no more incensed than the readers of this blog who find it despicable that on March 4, 2021 at 8:44 a.m. you wrote: "In my opinion, the Soviets were also right to rape all those Nazi-supporting German women and girls when they conquered Berlin." After that hateful, evil, demented statement, how many people do you think give a damn about anything you write?

  8. The capitol hill event show trials start next month. Those should be fun to watch. Give the news a lot of juicy stuff about "white supremacists" just in time to start pushing gun control. I mean, it is almost like there is a puppet master running this show....

    1. We have video of bombs being planted by you MAGAts the day before the riots. These events were pre-planned and coordinated and we need to root out this extremism in our society without regard to your "civil liberties". Civil liberties don't belong to domestic terrorists! 6 January 2021 will be a day of infamy in the minds of all patriotic Americans who reject hatred, ignorance, bigotry, and GOP talking points (sorry about the redundancy).

      1. I realize you're a satire account, but it's worth pointing out that the bombs were obvious props. Planted the night before with extremely jury rigged 1 hour mechanical timers, neither went off. Likely neither was even capable of going off.

        1. I thought the phrase was "Jerry rigged", not "Jury rigged" and referencing German military ingenuity?

          1. Jury rigged vs jerry rigged.

            Jury rigged is a nautical term, as the 'rigged' betrays. It means expediently put together from what's at hand.

            Reviewing the linked article, I must concede that "jerry built" is a better fit, as it actually does mean shoddy.

            These bombs were actually well built to be instantly recognized as 'bombs', just not to be functional. I think they were intended as props.

            1. The FBI should consult with Ahmed the Clock Building Genius who solders CPUs together and fights racial bigotry in the STEM fields.

              1. You don't need Ahmed the Clock Building Genius. I'm telling you, my 12 year old son could build a better bomb on his first try. This thing had a couple of alligator clips on the edge of a 1 hour kitchen timer, and a paper clip hot melt glued to the dial. Even the police expressed doubts about their functionality before rushing to destroy the bombs.

                Isn't it standard to use burner phones as remote detonators these days? What kind of mad bomber uses a 1 hour kitchen timer, and alligator clips?

                It think it was meant as a theatrical prop.

                1. All righty, then. Nothing wrong with laying on fake-bomb distractions to facilitate your insurrectionary attack. Probably constitutionally protected speech.

          2. No, "It's a 15th century term that comes from the Middle English jory, as known (back then, anyway) in the phrase "jory sail," meaning "improvised sail.""

        2. Brett, call me cynical, but there is video of the perps placing the bombs. I find it quite interesting that they haven't been identified/arrested yet.

          The FBI is identifying *businessmen* who were in DC that day for business meetings ELSEWHERE which shows their abilities and efforts. But they can't identify who placed these props?

          (And if I am not mistaken, fake bombs are illegal as well -- they ought to be...)

          1. Well, sure, placing fake bombs in public places ought to be illegal. It merely evidences different intent.

            It looks to me like whoever planted the bomb didn't want explosions or injuries. They wanted the publicity of bombs having been planted, they wanted the government to be acting as though bombs had been planted.

            This is a different motive than somebody planting bombs in order to have them go off. It's bombing theater, not bombing.

            Theatrical bombs are more Reichstag fire than insurrection, is what I'm saying.

        3. " Planted the night before with extremely jury rigged 1 hour mechanical timers"

          Everybody knows there's not reason to worry about obviously-improvisational explosive devices. I mean, they didn't stop the American military from operating in the jungles of Vietnam, or the roadways of the fertile crescent in the Middle East. Never hurt anyone. Anyone who claims otherwise is an obvious crisis actor.

          1. James, my point, as I keep explicitly saying, is that the 'bombs' appear to me to have been props, not actually intended to explode.

            The habit the police have of intentionally destroying this sort of evidence, rather than preserve it, makes it hard to say if they were just props.

      2. Did you really just write in praise of those who reject "hatred, ignorance, and bigotry?" what about your own hateful, ignorant, and bigoted comment in support of the raping of women and children by Soviets in Berlin at the end of World War II? I don't know if you're a troll or not, but you sound an awful lot like a gutless hypocrite to me.

      3. "Civil liberties don’t belong to domestic terrorists!"

        Doesn't Dick Cheney get a nickel's worth of royalties every time someone claims that terrorists aren't people?

    2. Wow, sounds serious. You should get outta hear, then.

    3. You know, Jimmy, if (quite senile) Biden is removed, *President* Harris can't break ties in the Senate anymore, and tie votes fail. Including the vote to approve her replacement.

      The far more relevant trial will be in Minneapolis where potential jurors are more afraid of the mob than upholding justice. That's going to get ugly because jurors are being summonsed by county (i.e. including the White suburbs) and if the officer was following -- correctly following -- the MPD's training manuals -- how do you convict him of *anything*?

      It's like CPR training -- if I do it "by the book", then I'm protected under "good Samaritan" laws. Ribs break during CPR and if one punctures the Aorta or spinal column, it's tragic but not criminal. So too here -- if "the book" says "do X, Y, & Z" and a cop does, my issue is with the people who wrote the book...

      And Ann Coulter's column is already addressing this issue, see:
      https://anncoulter.com/2021/03/10/rule-by-left-wing-lunatics/

      1. "You know, Jimmy, if (quite senile) Biden is removed"

        Not a problem if (not even vaguely senile) Biden isn't.

  9. Nige : Lying about election fraud isn’t even a pretext any more

    It's gotten to be like Anti-Choice legislation. Every season there's a new group of tenuously-justified laws from the anti-abortion racket. Perhaps they'll be a new regulation saying clinics must have polka-dot wallpaper - you know, for women's health reasons. Legislators barely pretend their law's "purpose" is more than empty rhetoric.

    Of course there is a difference. I'm deeply cynical about the anti-abortion movement, seeing it as the most consumer-friendly piety available on the open market - giving the most bang righteously-wise for the least sacrifice or difficulty, moral choice-wise. After all, it doesn't get any easier than a piety involving wanton harlots vs cherubic proto-babies. But even I admit there's a ethical question involved.

    Not so with the GOP's voter suppression mania. It's a complete fraud; pretense isn't even an option. After the last election there was a frantic effort to find fraud that couldn't be counted on fingers and toes. It totally failed. After 2016, Trump announced a panel to find election fraud. It totally failed. Many of the states announcing voter suppression measures have had GOP-led governments for decades. How much fraud have they produced? None.

    Conservatives are whining H.R. 1 takes power from the states. Well, if harassing voters wasn't a Right-wing sport at the state-level, H.R. 1 wouldn't be necessary.

    1. I couldn't agree more. GOP attempts to restrict a woman's right to suck out her unborn baby with onerous, arbitrary regulations are an obvious infringement of civil liberties. Meanwhile, Democrats use science to back up their legislative and executive actions. God bless Mayor De Blasio for having the great intellectual abilities to interpret Doctor Fauci's research and understand that churches and synagogues have a greater COVID transmission rate than bars or restaurants. De Blasio's intellect and leadership have saved the life's of countless New Yorkers.

      1. What I found fascinating was the Anti-choice effort to extend their marketing reach to contraceptives. It took an effort, since often the science behind a contraceptive choice didn't even meet the Religious Right's own definitions of abortion or when life began. Someone might think they'd welcome a study that proved millions of unicelled souls named "Biff" & "Jane" were not being horribly murdered. But instead they reacted exactly the opposite. The more "victims" the merrier seemed their motto.

        1. You're exactly right that banning abortion is only the first step, and access to birth control would be right behind it.

          That said, there's no surer sign that someone has a bad argument than the need to insert inflammatory straw men into the discussion, like describing abortion as "suck[ing] out her unborn baby."

          1. Don't get your panties in a bind. As a Rabbi, I believe that live begins after circumcision. I also support the rights of children who identify as trans-men to cut their breasts off and trans-women to cut their testicles off and shove their inverted penis back inside their body to make a pseudo-vagina fuck hole.

            1. Weinstein,
              It is easier to dig a hole than to build a pole.

          2. " like describing abortion as “suck[ing] out her unborn baby.”

            A vacuum abortion *isn't* that?!?

            What, exactly, do you call inserting a tube into her body and using a vacuum pump to suck out the baby? How would you prefer to describe it -- the differential in air pressures between her uterus and the tube inserted into it?

            1. It’s not a baby, for openers.

              1. You must not be superstitious, half-educated, broadly intolerant, and pining for illusory good old days.

        2. Interesting that you call it "anti-choice." Is that the preferred leftist-progressive term now? Why not "pro-abortion?" Oh, yea, that sounds bad, doesn't it. 'Cause it's not about baby killing, it's about women's health care, right?

          1. Because being pro-abortion would mean wanting as many women as possible to have abortions. You're not neutral on the bottom line; you actively want as many abortions as possible.

            Pro-choice, on the other hand, doesn't care whether women have abortions or not, so long as it's their choice. Hence, pro-choice rather than pro-abortion.

            I know it's a subtle distinction but if you think about it long enough I'm sure it will come to you.

            1. I guess we should just have a free market for abortions. It is not like the government is going to pay for women to have abortions so would "free market" be more appropriate than "pro-choice"?

        3. " often the science behind a contraceptive choice didn’t even meet the Religious Right’s own definitions of abortion or when life began."

          Their definition of when life begins ("life begins at conception") is clearly and obviously wrong. Conception occurs when the (living) sperm cell enters the (living) egg cell. So, obviously, life began prior to conception.

      2. "In my opinion, the Soviets were also right to rape all those Nazi-supporting German women and girls when they conquered Berlin." (Rabbi Harvey Weinstein, March 4, 2021, 8:44 a.m.)

        1. You seem to be quoting with approval. Is that an endorsement?

          1. No. As the nephew of one of those girls -- 15 years old at the time of Germany's surrender -- I keep hoping he'll apologize or at least try to defend himself. Although it's hard to imagine what he could possible say to defend that hateful, demented, evil position.

      3. “In my opinion, the Soviets were also right to rape all those Nazi-supporting German women and girls when they conquered Berlin.” (Rabbi Harvey Weinstein, March 4, 2021, 8:44 a.m.)

    2. (Weird. I started my reply in a comment string above. There was some kind of electronic hiccup midway & the first half was posted in place even as I typed on. Hadn't seen that happen before)

    3. Hint: Don't use "anti choice" unless you want us to use "anti life."

      And you folk get *so* upset when we do that...

      1. Hint: Don't call Dr. Ed an idiot. He already knows, and it makes him sad when he realizes how obvious it is.

    4. The Dems confessed the whole thing in TIME and you still don't accept it? There's a new term for people like you. Blue Anon.

      1. The delusional cling to their delusions.

  10. When the Federal government sends money to state governments, as in the covid relief bill state bailouts, isn't that subverting the will of state citizens? Isn't that taxation without representation?

    I think it's wrong and should be stopped.

    1. Repeal the 16th amendment? (Because that's literally the whole point: to allow taxes from one state to pay for stuff in another one.)

      1. Also the Constitution. One of the reasons the Articles of Confederation failed was States' resistance to paying for other states' debt.

      2. The 16th did not entitle Congress to spend our money on things not listed in their enumerated powers. Indeed the 9th Amendment still forbids it. But whenever SCOTUS looks like it might remember, Congress revives threats to pack the court.

        1. Seems weird to say that Congress can only spend money on things listed in the enumerated powers when one of the enumerated powers is literally the power to spend money in support of the general welfare of the nation.

          1. That's a limitation, not a power.

            "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

            The point of "common" defense and "general" welfare goes right along with the uniformity requirement: It was a prohibition on the federal government being partial to particular states and regions.

            1. That's quite a read.

              'General' does not mean 'impartial.'

            2. The point of “common” defense and “general” welfare goes right along with the uniformity requirement: It was a prohibition on the federal government being partial to particular states and regions.

              WTF?

              That makes no sense. The Bellmore Constitution strikes again.

        2. "The 16th did not entitle Congress to spend our money on things not listed in their enumerated powers. Indeed the 9th Amendment still forbids it."

          This is an odd interpretation of the word "amendment".

  11. Georgetown Law School negotiations adjunct professor Sandra Sellers was fired for racism on a recorded Zoom call. See https://twitter.com/hahmad1996/status/1369786323293310985?s=20

    “You know what? I hate to say this,” Ms. Sellers said on the video. “I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Blacks — happens almost every semester. And it’s like, ‘Oh, come on.’ You know? You get some really good ones. But there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy.”

    As she spoke, Mr. Batson murmured, “Mm-hmm,” but did not challenge her remarks.

    Googling the story, half the people are incensed that she was fired, the other half incensed that she even worked there.

    1. So law schools use “diversity” to make sure various ethnic groups are represented in their schools...but once they are in the schools administrators stop tracking ethnic groups to see how they fare at the schools?? So if a student’s ethnicity is important with respect to admissions...shouldn’t the student’s ethnicity remain important until they graduate??

      So Dick Cheney was an affirmative action admission to Yale because Yale wanted geographic diversity. But Cheney couldn’t hack it at Yale. So Yale should have been tracking the geographic diversity students to see if many were getting homesick or weren’t being included in social activities because they did attend the right prep schools.

    2. If you can instantly tell which students are there only because of affirmative action, then somethings wrong.

      1. Meaning to say, who says she was saying anything racist maybe she was trying to help underprivileged minorities.

        1. So if a professor says “I love how diverse our school is!”...does that mean their grading isn’t colorblind??

          1. Maybe yes, maybe no. You have heard of unconscious bias or even disguised bias.

            1. I would assume every professor has a grading system in which they don’t know whose work they are grading.

              1. You could assume that if you really wanted to, but nobody has to pretend your assumption reflects reality. Sometimes there's an attempt to implement blind grading, and sometimes there's not even an attempt.

    3. "I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Black"

      And what the "woke" leftists fail to fathom is that (a) she probably was a lot fairer to these Black students than they would be, and (b) she (unlike they) was genuinely concerned about them not doing well.

      Genuinely concerned about them not doing well -- that's what "angst" is. Her mistake clearly was "walking the walk" on the social justice stuff...

  12. I'm listening to Ann Coulter discussing her column -- see: https://anncoulter.com/2021/03/10/rule-by-left-wing-lunatics/

    Are we heading into outright race wars? And is that what it will take to end this foolishness?

    1. A troubling Thomas Sowell column from a decade ago.
      https://thenewamerican.com/a-censored-race-war/

    2. "Are we heading into outright race wars?"

      Are we wishing for that?

      1. Well, sometimes the only alternative to war is surrender to aggression, but I'm personally hoping for a third solution.

        1. The Third Position, if you will?

          1. "I like it, but my wife says it hurts her knees."

  13. If Joe BiteMe ever had a scintilla of intention of bringing this country together, his speech tonight totally destroyed that.

    Trump ACTED -- he banned flights from China and then Europe.

    And his numbers are wildly inflated -- including George Floyd whom I don't think any of us believe died of Covid yet is counted as one of the deaths.

    And as to all the people who lost their jobs and careers, it's the fascist shutdowns that caused that....

    And where the **** does he think the vaccines came from -- some alternative Democratic alternative dimension of reality? And he doesn't mention that you can't buy a million doses of a vaccine that otherwise wouldn't have existed.

    I'm hoping that there still are enough intellectually-honest Democratics to realize just how much this schmuck is lying to them -- but why was there no Republican response to this diatribe? The concept of the opposing party being given equal time for a response dates back to the Dems demanding it with Reagan. Or was it Nixon?

    And BiteMe intends to use regulations to force people to get vaccinated. That's likely to raise federalism issues.

    God help us all...

    1. You want intellectual honesty while using BiteMe and schmuk.

      Fix yourself first.

      1. He wants to define "intellectually honest" as meaning "people who buy into my particular delusions regarding the nature of reality."

        He's absolutely not interested in any other kind of "intellectual honesty".

    2. "I’m hoping that there still are enough intellectually-honest Democratics to realize just how much this schmuck is lying to them"

      I bet they outnumber the intellectually-honest Republicans who realized just how much their schmuck lied to them.

  14. I'm seeing Evanston, IL about to be the first city to pay out tax money to blacks as "reparations."

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/chicago-suburb-set-give-black-residents-reparations-address-wealth-and-opportunity-gaps

    An obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause and I hope somebody sues to stop it.

    1. Nope, the group “descendants of American slaves” is no more a racial group than the group Trump threw money at—“retired West Virginia coal miners”. Furthermore, in 2021 paying reparations would simply be an optimal “helicopter drop” with the goal of increasing aggregate demand...so Milton Friedman would endorse paying reparations in 2021.

      1. North Carolina threw money at the "Sons of Confederate Veterans" to make a statue (known as "Silent Sam") disappear from the UNC-Chapel Hill campus.

    2. Why not pay even person over 5 years old who identifies as black $3K AND at the same time end all federal funding of organizations who give ethnically based preferences of any kind. One might want to be clear that preferences for those who have been in military or civilian corps may still received preferences.
      Maybe it costs $50 to $100B. But it ends lots of divisive actions by business, universities, state and local governments, etc.

      1. One could be a bit more restrictive and require that persons receiving reparations prove that they were born in the US.

        1. Reparations would only be divisive if conservatives that understand macroeconomics pretend not to understand the concept of a “helicopter drop”. Trump threw $10 billion at white retired coal miners and he doesn’t necessarily understand the concept of a “helicopter drop”...but he does have common sense. So Trump stated the obvious—you throw money at retired coal miners and they will simply spend the dollars in their depressed communities. So the real beneficiaries of paying reparations in 2021 would be productive Americans because that’s who will end up with the dollars.

          Here is the group that receives reparations—any American ages 30-50 with a Black citizen ancestor in 1960 gets a lump sum of $40k, those outside that cohort get $10k and an extra $200/month in SS or two years of community college while living at home and 2 years everything paid for at a regional state university (every college could get access to that money by making up the difference).

          1. Please tell me more about the camel's nose in the tent.

            1. Because we pay reparations to descendants of American slaves every other year!?! Or in the alternative—we’ve never paid reparations even when it’s made perfect sense for decades pursuant Keynesian orthodoxy...so we will never pay them again. 2021 is a special year if you haven’t been paying attention—Milton Friedman would support reparations based on low aggregate demand...but God forbid you support a macroeconomic tool that might actually benefit African-Americans in addition to helping all Americans!?! Remember when you supported the Rube Goldberg contraption Opportunity Zones in order to help African Americans...and you ended up helping the Kushner family?? Oops. 😉

          2. " Trump threw $10 billion at white retired coal miners and he doesn’t necessarily understand the concept of a “helicopter drop”…but he does have common sense."

            Evidence to support this claim????

            1. Everyone knows Trump advocated and signed Manchin’s UMWA $10 billion bailout.

  15. President Trump has attempted to stop the Republican National Committee from using his name in fund raising and has been rebuked by the RNC. Now Trump is a business man whose business had focused on branding and the use of his name. The use of which usually incurs a payment to Trump. But as a public figure he has lost some control of that name and both the RNC and the Democrats are now entitled to use his name for fund raising. I see no legal recourse for him here, so long as the parties using his name do not issue a falsehood. Candidates can say they supported Trump or that they opposed him and ask for money on the basis of the claim. I see no way for him to stop this use.

  16. One Year After the Tragic Notre Dame Fire, the Cause of the Devastating Blaze Remains Shrouded in Mystery

    Investigators still don't have access to the area where the fire began.

    https://news.artnet.com/art-world/notre-dame-spire-reconstruction-1894147

    And yet for some reason they were able to rule out terrorism or other intentional acts the minute the fire started . . . . ???

  17. Kind of surprised. It's been over a day since Amazon was questioned by congress about them removing that one trash-fire book, and no comment here about the freedom to force bookstores to carry specific books that they don't want to carry.

    Very odd.

Please to post comments