Thursday Open Thread

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

Comments

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's increasingly apparent that Biden's new border policies have become an utter disaster, with far more "children in cages" than ever existed under Trump.

What's it going to take for Biden to reverse himself, to a logical policy?

[Krayt]

Nothing. This is normal, we are returning to normal. Now that Trump is gone, we need no longer follow the rule "all is subordinate to that cause", and political infighting can resume. No need to cover for Cuomo anymore. No need to run sob stories of thugs upset their terrorist leader was killed. No need to go down to the cages and have your crying picture taken as you look through.

This is normal. Before the election was the bizarro world.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's normal to have hundreds to thousands of kids in cages?

[Brett Bellmore]

Obama had kids in cages, too, and the media didn't make a fuss about it. But this IS a lot more kids, and crowded together in the middle of a pandemic.

Perhaps just setting up the priors for a humanitarian release?

Or maybe it's just incompetence, they were in denial about their policy causing a huge surge in illegal immigration?

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's WAY more. The facilities are at 700% capacity. The kids are literally on top of one another.

[Nige]

Obama's border policies came in for a lot of criticism but you lot wouldn't have noticed because you lot were too busy screaming that he had opened the border to let everybody in as part of his plan to genocide the white race.

[Don Nico]

Nige,
That was long ago in a galaxy far away. Why don't you comment on current policy and conditions?

[Ben_]

Because finger-pointing matters to them and humanity and policy mostly don’t.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Or because Brett brought it up.

[gormadoc]

0/10 stars, terrible Behar parody.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Obama’s border policies came in for a lot of criticism

Yes, I remember the cries of "Concentration camps!" and staged photo ops where Democrat members of congress openly wept in anguish while peering through a chain link fence at a parking lot and Obama being called a Nazi by the left and...

Oh, that's right...none of that happened.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem is your question about what is a logical policy? The fact is that this is not a quick fix problem. The former President did not have a solution he merely covered up a problem that evidently grew worse.
A logical policy is to ramp up facilities in the border area to handle the influx. Move to quickly adjudicate cases. Work to improve conditions in countries from which the undocumented people are coming. Reform immigration now so that people that are not a problem (Dreamers for example) can be moved off the docket so attention can be directed at more significant problems.
A general rule of thumb is that problem takes as long to correct as it does to make. So with four years of neglect it will likely take the same time to get things stabilized again.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"The former President did not have a solution he merely covered up a problem that evidently grew worse."

Actually, from everything out there, the former President DID have a solution, that worked, surprisingly well, in reducing the number of illegal border crossings.

Biden blew up the entire policy.

[Nige]

It worked remarkably well if you were ok with splitting up families, children disappearing into the system and a federal agency riddled with corruption and incompetence exercising incredible and sweeping powers. Also, it was driven by an appeal to nativist xenophobia, so it didn't have to work as a policy, it only had to hurt a bunch of poor and vulnerable people as much as possible to rouse up the bloodlust.

[Illocust]

The first safe country agreements we had under Trump reduced the border crisis to a trickle. It was only when Biden reversed them that everything went to hell again.

[Nige]

Well, sure, treating people like animals will do that.

[Brett Bellmore]

It isn't treating people like animals to say that you can't enter until you've demonstrated a valid asylum claim, since you're already in a safe country. In theory, already being in a safe country should ALWAYS mean failing to demonstrate a valid asylum claim, under the principle of first refuge.

Your house burns down, you walk down the street to the Motel 8, you're a refugee. You pass up the Motel 8 and keep walking to the Doubletree? You're just a guy looking for a cheap hotel room.

[Nige]

You're right, it's more that the Border Patrol and ICE act like animals given too much unaccountable power over vulnerable people.

Asylum seekers are not required to claim asylum at the first 'safe' country they reach.

Amazing that you think a guy whose house has burned down worrying about how long his remaining funds will hold out is doing something that invalidates the fact that his house burned down. Daft.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And if the manager of the Doubletree shoots you as the trespasser you are, you got what you deserved.

[Nige]

You deserved to get murdered because your house burned down? No, wait, that DOES seem to be the philosophy of modern conservatism.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Since my car is broken, I can steal yours???

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. " with splitting up families"
-Families stayed together in Mexico until their court hearing

[Nige]

Trump's policy was the enforced seperation of families caught crossing the US Mexico Border, deporting the parents without the children. They don't even know how many children were seperated and they made no efforts to reunite them. I don't know what you're referring to.

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to be missing the point that these were people entering the country with minors, that doesn't mean they were families.

There's quite a market in kids at the border, now that they know having one with your group gets you special treatment.

[Nige]

Trump had a zero tolerance policy - all families were seperated, absolutely no effort to distinguish real families from supposed traffickers. Cteated quite a market for kids for Betsy DeVos, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

The courts imposed a zero tolerance for locking kids up with parents, so they had to either be separated or released.

At least the conditions the kids were kept under were better under Trump.

[Nige]

This is absolute balderdash. It was a stone cold policy decision, they even ran a pilot programme. Conditions were appalling. Are you distancing yourself from Trump's border policies?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm distancing myself from your description of them, anyway.

If conditions were appalling under Trump, what do you call them under Biden? Super-hyper appalling?

[De Oppresso Liber]

That was not a court decision, Brett. That was a policy created by the Trump DHS, explicitly for the purpose of "deterrence", though the public excuse offered by the Trump admin for the purposeful orphaning of children was "safety". Too bad for Trump and his sycophants that everyone hated their boss and leaked constantly.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/18/family-separations-border-dhs-memo-1115968

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not my fault if you were unaware of the court decision. It wasn't on some secret docket.

In Flores v. Reno, the practice of detaining unaccompanied minors until they could be released to relatives or foster parents was upheld by the Supreme court, but the Clinton administration entered into a settlement, anyway, requiring them to be released within 20 days.

Then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit 'interpreted' that settlement to apply to accompanied minors, too.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

The result is that if you detain an illegal immigrant family, after 20 days the children must be released. To foster parents, if you don't also release their parents. IOW, the only way to not separate families, legally, became to release the whole family.

This created a strong incentive for any group to have a few kids along, and claim to be a family. And coyotes responded to this incentive by providing, essentially, rent-a-kids.

The Trump policy was to keep the adults detained. They'd rather have kept the families together in detention, but the court wouldn't permit THAT.

By separating them, as the court demanded, the incentive to bring along a rent-a-kid was largely eliminated, so you had far fewer minors being brought across the border, because they didn't actually get you anything.

Biden, of course, restored the incentive.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Brett, I understand what you are referring to now. When you say "zero tolerance" in that context it generally refers to the DHS policy.

I found what you are referring to, in reference to the current policy and children as exploits. This gives me pause.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-smuggling-children-in/a-family-business-how-and-why-smugglers-are-bringing-more-children-to-the-u-s-border-idUSKBN2BF2QB

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If conditions were appalling under Trump, what do you call them under Biden? Super-hyper appalling?

Trump's fault, of course.

[Don Nico]

" if you were ok with splitting up families"
The 2021 children's crusade has also split up many families, likely has many kids lost, etc. Why hasn't the BHA allowed in person press coverage?
As they say, "what's good for the orange Clown is good for Joe Bidet."

[Moderation4ever]

The fact that we have people coming over in increased number now tells you that the former Presidents policies really did nothing. They did not address the problem they simple put off the problem for another day. Like so many of the former administration's policies.

[Nige]

The problem might not be the people crossing the border. The problem might be the conditions that cause them to cross the border.

[Brett Bellmore]

People crossing the border is our problem.

Why they want to cross our border is their problem.

[Nige]

If their crossing the border is your problem, their reasons for doing so are also your problem, or you're not very bright.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nope, not if you're able to stop them from crossing, which we demonstrably are when somebody who actually wants to is in charge.

[Nige]

When someone is willing to treat them inhumanely and brutally, and others are willing to sheer them on.

[Krayt]

The reasons people want in are obvious! This is the great, shining city on the hill. Come here and live free from dictatorship and massive corruption!

But that's not why the Democrats want immigrants hand over fist. They want to expand their voters. And that's why (Trump) Republicans are opposed, because it's easier than making inroads to hispanic communities to gain votes. Crime and covid are lies.

So both sides are utilitarian, power hungry pigs.

By the way, both sides were in favor of immigrants large scale, because Social Security, mathematically a Ponzi scheme, needs new investors to shore it up and take the political heat off for another generation.

This is also a piggy utilitarian reason.

So, to sum up: politicians are power hungry lying pigs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

FREE MONEY is why they are crossing the border.

That and to sell drugs.

[Nige]

They're mostly migrant labour who work hard in often poor conditions at constant risk of detainment and deportation. You might not sympathise, because you need a despised, dehumanised, disposable underclass, but don't deny their work ethic.

[Brett Bellmore]

I worked along side braceros when I was a teen, doing farm labor. That's one thing I'd never do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

BULLSHYTE!

These "children" are MS-13 and the rest, seeking to expand the Mexican drug cartel into America.

[Don Nico]

Ed,
There you go again.
Completely imaginary claims to advance the rhetoric of the Orange Clown.

[Armchair Lawyer]

When you change the policies, and then you get a change in the number of people coming....it's the policy change that's responsible.

The former president's policies WORKED.

[Nige]

They worked because they were inhumane and brutal. I dunno, if the land of liberty can't make something work without being inhumane and brutal about it, maybe it needs to rethink its self-identity.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Because they had the migrants stay in Mexico until their asylum court hearing?

Because they offered to ship the asylum grantees to a country most like their native country?

[Nige]

That was nasty and illegal, too. Old enough to remember being told it was only illegal immigrants Republicans objected to, but Trump hammered asylum seekers too. Real brave heroes, you guys.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"That was nasty and illegal, too. "

Link? It's "illegal" to settle people who need asylum in the country with the culture most like their own?

[Nige]

Trump prevented them from seeking asylum at the border, which should be a legal right for asylum seekers.

[Armchair Lawyer]

They were perfectly able to seek asylum at the border. Tens of thousands did. And they had their cases hear, and some were granted asylum and let in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you think it should be, but the actual legal right to asylum ends once you leave your first nation of refuge. When you go from danger to safety, you're a refugee. When you go from safety to prosperity?

You're just a migrant at that point.

[De Oppresso Liber]

I don't have a problem with "stay in Mexico". A lot of the immigrants claiming asylum were doing so because it is their best chance at getting through the bureaucratic process of obtaining residence in the US, not because asylum best described their reason for immigrating or condition.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Old enough to remember being told it was only illegal immigrants Republicans objected to, but Trump hammered asylum seekers too."

What did you expect once they trained illegal aliens to claim asylum if they were caught?

Just because somebody recites some magic words about requiring asylum doesn't mean they qualify for it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nige, MACHINE GUNS are inhumane and brutal -- and thanks to people like you, increasingly necessary.

[Nige]

I thought they were just dumb objects, which means it's people itching to use them that are inhumane and brutal. And you can threaten and posture on the internet all you want, and no-one need ever know or care if you really have a gun or not, so I don't know about 'necessary.'

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you have any idea how many other countries would deal with this problem with their army and .50 cal machine guns?

Hint -- the same countries that would call out the snow plows to clear the BLM off their highways....

[NOVA Lawyer]

So I am guessing North Korea, China, Russia, Iran....good company.

Are you a fascist or is your point that we definitely shouldn't deal with this problem using the army and .50 cal machine guns?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"The former president’s policies WORKED."

Are you sure? Did we keep out all of the darker-skinned threats to downscale White culture? Did we realize the desired level of immigration from Norway?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Your racism is showing again Rev.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"worked, surprisingly well"

Just ask conservatives . . . or the children separated from their parents by well-meaning conservatives who couldn't be bothered to consider the issue of reuniting those children with their parents.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland, do parents share DNA with their children?
Hence when the DNA test comes back saying "no match"...

[shawn_dude]

Because adoption isn't a thing, apparently.

[NToJ]

"Actually, from everything out there, the former President DID have a solution, that worked, surprisingly well, in reducing the number of illegal border crossings."

LOL it did, did it? I guess we just didn't have a President in 2019.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure it's his policies that are to blame.

I also notice you don't specify what a logical policy is.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's absolutely Biden's policies to blame.

One of the critical aspects was ending the Migrant Protection Protocols. These logically had those non-Mexicans seeking asylum in the US wait in Mexico, until their court hearing. Then, if they had a valid asylum case, they would be granted asylum in the US. (Technically, they should seek asylum in Mexico, as the first foreign country they entered, but that's a different story). Biden cancelled this policy.

Instead, now the illegal immigrants who are caught are simply released in the US until their court hearing...which they may show up to...or not. Which is exactly what the illegal immigrants wanted in the first place. Is it any surprise the new rush over the border? If they're caught, they're just released within the US, to travel wherever they want, for as long as they want. Until their court hearing. Which they can skip.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Trump actually cut off the vast majority of asylum cases with a bunch of procrustrian requirements.

If you actually cared about humanitarian issues at the border, you would not support Trump.

Also, you are once again conflating illegals and asylum seekers, which rather reveals your real position on this issue.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No, Trump actually cut off the vast majority of asylum cases with a bunch of procrustrian requirements?

Link? Tens of thousands of asylum cases were heard under MPP.

Biden's policies are causing a humanitarian disaster at the border unlike any other. Women and children are dying.

[Don Nico]

Sa0,
We should forget about the Orange Clown. We should abhor the fact that the BHA refuses a rational discussion of the topic informed by extensive press coverage.
We should be talking about what is to be done.

In the end we are going to need those migrants to pay the huge social burden compounded by the $35T (maybe by 2024) of debt payments. That is why Germany welcomed a million Arab refugees in the last few years.

[Ben_]

No one will be paying those.

[Don Nico]

Then your kids and grandkids are screwed big time.

[Ben_]

It will be a big problem, for sure. So was the 2008-2009 economic crisis. But that got solved.

[Don Nico]

Your response is irrelevant.
That problem was solved by going much deeper into debt.
The debt service payment is twice as large now and by the time BHA get through with it the debt payment will be much greater than $0.5 T per year

[Ben_]

Like I said, it will be a huge problem, for sure. I don’t think you know exactly how it will turn out any more than anyone else.

My guess is that the Federal Reserve buys all the bonds and burns them. And everyone learns not to lend money to governments ever again.

Other people can guess other things. Seems unlikely that voters will allow 50% of their paychecks to be taxed to pay debt service. Or even 20%.

[Ben_]

"If you actually cared about humanitarian issues at the border..."

Dems create a humanitarian disaster and still want to point fingers at the non-disasterous policy they replaced. Because dramatic storytelling is what you guys need to satisfy your personal vanity, and you can just omit the parts of the story that aren't emotionally satisfying.

Actual suffering caused by Democrat policies? Change the subject, point fingers, tell a story.

[Sarcastr0]

You did not see, to care until now. I do not believe you care now.

[Ben_]

No one believes anyone. Congrats on the society you created.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You did not see, to care until now. I do not believe you care now.

You project like a long-range ICBM.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The best policy is to say that they will NEVER NEVER NEVER get citizenship or one penny of Uncle Sucker's money and hire Mexican jail administrators to run the detainment facilities. Then offer them a free flight home...

[Don Nico]

Ed,
Do you think that such spewing of ill-will makes you look intelligent, thoughtful, wise?
No, it makes you look foolish and mindless

[bernard11]

it makes you look foolish and mindless

Dr. Ed got on that train long ago. And he's riding in the liar's car.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Not sure it’s his policies that are to blame.

Right. I'm sure it has something to do with the relative positions of Mercury and Jupiter, or...something.

[rsteinmetz]

It seems obvious to me that Trump's policies deterred many people from attempting to cross the border.

Once Biden was in the signaling was "come on over" and people began crossing the border again expecting to be allowed to stay one way or another.

Apparently many parents are allowing or even encouraging their children to cross the border without them. Those children are being farmed out often to relatives already here and end up staying with a cousin uncle.

Many people are claiming asylum when most of the won't qualify but it does delay deportation.

It's not like there is no information being disseminated to potential illegal immigrants on how to game the system, whether by word of mouth, activists or coyotes.

The immigrants are not operating in a vacuum there is a lot of signaling going on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Much as an alcoholic has to "hit bottom", I think that Biden's trifecta of the border, the economy, and leftist insanity will combine to give us a MAGA Congress in next fall's election, and then give Trump a third victory in 2024, if he actually wants it. (And he may not, he does look tired...)

Remember the 1994 election? And Clinton wasn't half as bad as Barrack O'Biden -- nor have most of his disasters become apparent yet.

Nixon, Ford, & Carter got blamed for Lyndon Johnson's largess -- except that this time the inflation is coming quicker. Both stock and housing prices are way above actual value, and if both markets crash at the same time, things will get really interesting.

[Don Nico]

Ed,
"way above actual value,"

Will you explain to us how you determined that?
Or is it just a feeling that we are again in a real estate bubble?

[Ben_]

"What’s it going to take for Biden to reverse himself, to a logical policy?"

An election year and bad poll numbers. Or a way for swamp-dwellers to cash in on a logical policy. That's all they care about.

[Queen Amalthea]

Ben's othering people again. Don't worry though, in a minute he'll be castigating the Left for othering people.

[Ben_]

That is false. But anyone could have guessed that without reading it by seeing who posted it.

[Queen Amalthea]

Just go read Ben's recent comments on the gun control threads, the election 'fraud' threads, etc., etc.. He wails and gnashes his teeth that the Left is expressing overgeneralized denunciations of various groups as amounting to bigotry. Then he goes on the same threads, and here different ones and engages in...expressing overgeneralized denunciations of various groups.

He really doesn't even know when he does it, often doing it in the same paragraph or sentence... A person's brain on Trump is a hell of a thing.

[Ben_]

Biden isn’t a group

[Queen Amalthea]

You're just being woke when you refer to him as 'they' then I guess, lol.

[shawn_dude]

"This is your brain. This is your brain on Trump."

1) Thank you for the image. That made me chuckle.
2) I've aged myself by remembering this anti-drug ad.

[Ben_]

The queen of personal attacks and ad hominems complains about negative implications of a statement.

[NToJ]

Probably a few months.

[Queen Amalthea]

So, what do people here take away from Tucker Carlson's interview with Gaetz (one of the 'weirdest' ones of his career by his own admission)?

[Brett Bellmore]

Haven't seen it, (I don't watch TV.) but I'll be interested to see if Gaetz can prove the existence of those recordings he's talking about. Gaetz' father is backing him up on that. Not definitive proof, could just be family loyalty, but it is more than just suggestive.

I don't see any reason we should credit McGee's denials any more than we do Gaetz' denials. Let's see what evidence there is. Gaetz seems to have at least some.

In some ways this reminds me of the Moore controversy, where he was framed for underaged relations just before an election, complete with forged school yearbook inscriptions. It fell apart after the election, but by then it had worked.

Mind, it's possible to be extorted over evidence of a real, not fabricated, crime.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, compare this to the case of AJ Baker, son of MA Governor Charlie Baker -- https://www.foxnews.com/travel/son-of-massachusetts-governor-accused-of-groping-woman-on-jetblue-flight

Nearly 3 years ago, he was accused of groping a woman on a Jet Blue flight from DC to BOS with the FBI and USA refusing to comment on the case, as DOJ policy is that they don't do so unless/until there is an indictment.

So why are they commenting (at all) on these allegations?

[NToJ]

The last article I read (which is from yesterday) said the DOJ and FBI were not commenting.

[SimonP]

Brett, one would think by now that you've been burned by going out on the limb of GOP propaganda so many times that you would know better before taking Gaetz's bait on this one.

"Extortion scheme!" you cry, as more evidence comes out on Gaetz's... proclivities... and the Levinson family protests being dragged into this whole sordid affair. Give it a flippin' news cycle, for once, before leaping into the fray.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently you're not reading what I'm writing. "I don’t see any reason we should credit McGee’s denials any more than we do Gaetz’ denials. Let’s see what evidence there is."

[Sarcastr0]

Even his stories doesn't meet the elements of extortion. "Here's a dodgy scheme that could help you from your currently inevitable doom we did not cause" is not a set-up.

[SimonP]

I read what you wrote.

As I said, you're jumping on the red herring extortion scheme that Gaetz threw out there in order to deflect attention from the evidence him that seems to keep piling up. The fact that you're focused on McGee just shows that you're primed and ready for the DOJ "deep state" politically-motivated investigation conspiracy theory. Again, you're just gobbling it up, an eager little foot soldier, waiting for the rug to be pulled out from you yet again when the facts come out.

You're pretty much an early adopter of every fascist-wing GOP talking point from the past four years. And you update your software every time they push a new way to version.

[Moderation4ever]

We know that Tucker and his wife don't mind having dinner with men and their underage girl friends. I would be pretty creeped out where I sitting a table with a 30 year old man and his 17 year old date.

[Brett Bellmore]

My wife is 21 years younger than me, (Granted, we met when she was 25.) so I tend not to get upset with "spring fall" relationships. We've been happily married 15 years this October. (She often jokes, "If only I'd met you when you were younger! Oh, wait, that would have been awkward...")

Keep in mind, this is just allegations at this point. They may fall apart as they did with Roy Moore, all of whose proven dates were with women above the age of consent.

[Queen Amalthea]

We're not talking Spring/Fall, we're talking underage.

And I wouldn't say things 'fell apart' re Moore because 'all of [his] proven dates were with women above the age of consent.' A lot of the charges, from many different women, were about non-dating actions that, if true, were uber-creepy in and of themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I know, we're talking about underage. I'm pointing out it's not proven, it's alleged.

And, yes, it fell apart. Lots of "charges", but don't you care if the charges were proven?

[Queen Amalthea]

I think it's very odd when a bunch of women tell a similar story and the stories have a fair amount of corroboration, yes. You've certainly run off more than half cocked on many a conspiracy conclusion based on far, far less reliable ground.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When they have a LOT of corroboration -- they're rehearsed.

Ask any police detective why there are few random facts about a crime or crime scene that they always withhold from the public...

[Queen Amalthea]

Or they're talking about something that happened. That tends to cause corroboration as well.

[Don Nico]

"When they have a LOT of corroboration — they’re rehearsed."
OR they are true.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, sure, it means one or the other. Then you ask if they've got any evidence.

[Queen Amalthea]

Testimony is a kind of evidence, and the more eye-witnesses or such makes for a stronger case.

[Brett Bellmore]

And now we're marching back into "believe all women!" territory.

[Queen Amalthea]

You don't have to believe all testimony to recognize that testimony is a kind of evidence.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's nothing the least bit odd about it, when it's a coordinated political hit. The attack on Roy Moore fell apart when it turned out the yearbook entry was falsified. None of the allegations of criminality were ever proven.

Allegations of squick? I've been told by people waving around rainbow colored flags that squick is just an indication that you're insufficiently enlightened.

[Queen Amalthea]

I know you're prone to conspiracy thinking, but ask yourself this: if Moore was the victim of such a 'coordinated political hit,' why him? I mean, there are lots of conservatives that liberals hate, why wasn't this used on, say, Steve King or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh?

It seems much more likely that Moore had a reputation for dating young women, and either it unfairly got grafted onto underage women or he dabbled in this (I mean, the kind of proof you're asking for to verify a lot of these claims is just not going to exist, is it? You go off far more halfcocked on less all the time).

[Don Nico]

QA,
His problem may be that he is less than halfcocked

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Evidentiary pointers from birthers are always delightful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it's not illegal to have dinner with someone who's underage -- it's sleeping with them that is. And in many states, the age of consent is 16, not 18.

(Question: Would the Mann Act apply if you flew your 17 year old girlfriend to a state with a 16 year consent law and had sex with her there?)

Anyway, it's not illegal to be around them as long as you don't touch them, and I'm thinking that some of the Letitia Express stuff will fall apart on those grounds.

[Queen Amalthea]

If Gaetz was just taking underage dates to dinner let him by all means come forward with that 'exoneration.'

[Brett Bellmore]

"Would the Mann Act apply if you flew your 17 year old girlfriend to a state with a 16 year consent law and had sex with her there?"

Yes, it would.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why?

How is this different from taking a 20-year-old across the Canadian border so she can drink in a bar?

[Brett Bellmore]

In theory you could get nailed for that, too. In practice, it's only applied to things of a sexual nature.

[Don Nico]

Ed,
That is likely a white slavery charge when you returned home.

[rsteinmetz]

The age of consent in DC is 16, so 17 is not underage there but still very creepy.

I had a middle aged friend who lost his mind and married a teen age stripper. It didn't turn out well for either of them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The age of consent in DC is 16, so 17 is not underage there but still very creepy. "

A lot of people consider LGBT to be "creepy" as well.
Personally, I don't find guys cute but respect the fact that others might.

Likewise, I can't imagine having an adult conversation with a sophomoric 17-year old, but then I also can't see paying to watch a football game.

Gaetz's wife is (or will be) a dozen years younger than he. https://nypost.com/2020/12/31/florida-rep-matt-gaetz-is-engaged-to-ginger-luckey/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That assumes a statutory rape charge doesn't scuttle the wedding.

[Moderation4ever]

The age of consent and age differences are really very relative things. I have no problem with a 17 years being age of consent to avoid labeling 18 or 19 year old people as statutory rapist. That said a 30 year old with a 17 year old is creepy. The same with age differences. We can accept a 50 year old married to or dating a 37 year old.
So it remains to be seen if Gaetz is guilty of a crime. It is pretty obvious that he is creepy fellow. It is also obvious Tucker Carlson has poor tastes in dinner guests.

[Commenter_XY]

Some time ago, I wrote about my beloved, trusty KitchenAid Stand Mixer. I recently looked into air fryers, and I landed on the GoWise 8-qt air fryer as my 'entry' air fryer. Let me just say, after one month....I regret not getting an air fryer years ago.

A couple of hints about air frying. First, the shape and location of the basket is a huge deal. Do yourself a favor and get the bucket type air fryer. It is 'oh so easy' to pull, shake, and most important; to clean! That ease of cleaning really, really matters. Second, do yourself a favor, splurge a little, and get the cut and fitted parchment paper for the air fryer, and use it! Talk about no fuss, no muss. Makes life very easy. Third, invest in a sprayer bottle for your olive and/or avocado oil. For anything over 400 degrees, which is a lot, just use avocado oil.

Ok, so what have I done? Well, I of course had to do KFC flavored chicken tenders, using flavorless protein power (Isopure, from walmart) as the base. OMG! So crisp you could hear the 'snap', but tender AF on the inside. You can find a lot of different mimic-ed chicken tender recipes (popeyes, bojangles - the best one IMO, etc). No, I have not made fries (I shy away from potatos).

Next, dehydration. Ok, this was useful. The time consuming part is getting the slices the right size, and arranging the slices correctly on the wire trays. The length of time (usually 18-24 hours) is somewhat onerous, especially if you're the impatient type (life my DW).

Some things to be careful about. This beast uses a LOT of electricity, we're talking 1500-1600 watts, which is akin to a microwave. You absolutely must keep the unit a minimum of 8 inches from the wall, or you are going to be really unhappy with the heat marks. Also, you absolutely must have a silicon hot pad or think wooden cutting board underneath the unit. Otherwise, your beautiful quartzite countertops that you spent a fortune on will get f'ed up (I followed directions and that did not happen to me).

If you do not have an air fryer, I think you should get one. They're relatively small, versatile, and can quick cook food through. I went with GoWise as my entry into air frying, but I am eyes the Phillips air fryer line as something to possibly 'graduate' to.

[Queen Amalthea]

Agreed about the bucket type air fryer. We use ours quite a lot, made some great Korean Chicken Wings the other day with it.

Also got an Instant Pot for Xmas and really enjoying it, made a great risotto with it somewhat recently.

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds tasty, I'll have to try it out. The 'complaint' (if you want to call it that) I have about making wings is not the mess, but the low quantity of wings. You can literally gobble them up in three minutes, and then you get to wait another 15 minutes for another batch.

[Queen Amalthea]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/recipes/air-fryer-korean-style-chicken-wings/17710/

Your complaint is totally valid here though, didn't make much. Luckily I ate these when the kids were off doing stuff!

[Ridgeway]

Wings are easy to cook in the oven -- and you get plenty.

Just dust them with corn starch and salt, and bake at 500 deg for 40 minutes or so. It takes longer than you would have thought.

All the fat in the wings will react with the corn starch and crisp up the skin nicely.

We also make "Poor Man's Boneless Wings" a lot -- cook up a bunch of frozen pre-breaded chicken tenders in the oven per the directions on the packaging, and then toss in homemade wing sauce. Not super classy, but very tasty.

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, at 500 degrees, they crisp up nicely without the cornstarch. I used to do them up that way regularly, just a bit of salt and pepper, back before the wings craze began, when they sold them absurdly cheap as trash meat for stock making. Yum!

[Brett Bellmore]

We got an early air fryer, and were not impressed. Perhaps it was underpowered, though. The result was more like using a tiny convection oven, than actual frying.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett....ditch the 'early' version and get the 'big boy' version. Don't cheap out. GoWise was a good balance between price, and inexperience (meaning, I will pay top dollar after I learn how to use the appliance, so I get a mid-priced version to learn).

[Brett Bellmore]

If I were in the market for a new appliance at this point, I'd probably go for a sou vide cooker, not an air cooker.

As long as we're talking appliances, I've been amazingly happy with my Ronco "Showtime" rotisserie. It actually is a pretty good appliance! Though I'm thinking of doing the aftermarket mod that adds the ability to turn down the temperature a little, so I can cook things slower.

[Kevin Smith]

Sous vide is a fun appliance, but it takes practice to do steaks well. I like doing the reverse sear (sous vide first, then sear) but you need to make sure you have a SUPER hot pan so you can get the crust you want in 5-10 seconds, otherwise it just cooks all the way through since its already warmed

Sous vide egg bites are another nice thing, but I haven't fully figured out the consistency yet. I use 4oz mason jars for them

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why you'll find butane torches in kitchens: Quick sear marks without the risk of overcooking.

[Life of Brian]

but you need to make sure you have a SUPER hot pan so you can get the crust you want in 5-10 seconds, otherwise it just cooks all the way through since its already warmed

You might try setting the sous vide to a slightly lower temperature to give yourself a bit more headroom on the browning.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Sous vide is a fun appliance, but it takes practice to do steaks well.

I've been cooking SV for several years now, and steaks are actually what I recommend as a first cook for people who are wanting to try it out because they're so easy to get excellent results. Yes, you need a ripping hot heat source for the sear, but that doesn't require practice. It just requires knowing what you need and using it. Granted, there is a lot of experimentation and tweaking you can do in order to dial things in just right for your own personal preferences, but even a basic one-size-fits-all approach will generally produce results far superior to a regular high-heat cooking method.

[bernard11]

I have the Joule sous vide, which is fine, but it's totally dependent on the connection with your phone. I didn't think that would be a problem, but I find it annoying. If I were doing it over I think I would buy the Anova, which I believe can be operated on its own as well as with the phone.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've got the homebrew version, with an Inkbird controller hooked up to a crock pot.

[Jerry B.]

I made a sous vide device a few years ago, before home versions were available, following instructions from Make magazine. It used the immersion heaters you use to warm up a cup of coffee, and an aquarium water pump for circulation. We use it all the time. The reverse sear method works great if you sear in a rocket hot cast iron pan. I consider it better than searing with a propane or MAPP torch.

[Kevin Smith]

I wonder if that's been my problem. We have some Emeril Lagasse branded thing (not sure who actually makes it) but I'm fairly unimpressed. I already have a convention oven and this seems to do the same while being inconveniently shaped

On a related note, the mother in law got us an Instant Pot a few years ago and I absolutely love that thing, although my wife has yet to come around on it (she still likes her slow cooker)

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I wrote a post on Instant Pot awhile back.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I've seen a lot of home cooks turning their noses up at IPs (and the other brands of smart pressure cookers) as gimmicks for people who can't cook. That's a sure sign of someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Pressure cookers have been a useful culinary tool for decades. The only difference is that these modern gizmos add smarts to them and make them safer to use. They do also make some things a lot easier (and with excellent results), like dried beans (no need to soak before cooking), risotto (no standing at a pan constantly stirring), etc.

[Commenter_XY]

I am a HUGE fan of Instant Pot. I have a larger Fagor pressure cooker, too. It totally expanded my abilities to do more complex recipes in less time. There are a few basic appliances that I would call 'must have', and a pressure cooker is one. The KA mixer is another (I have many of the attachments and use them). They are both extremely versatile.

The air fryer will take some time for me to work out how to integrate into my cooking/baking/creating routine. It is supposed to be highly versatile, but we'll see.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I hunt, and last year I dedicated a morning to stalking squirrels, with some success. 10 minutes of cook time and another 10 minutes of natural release in the IP (along with some Italian herbs and a cup of chicken stock) turned 3 mature, tough tree rats into tender, delicious morsels.

I use it to make my own yogurt too.

[De Oppresso Liber]

The air fryer really upped the snack game around here. I too was once a doubter. No longer.

[jb]

Counterpoint: David Chang's rant on air fryers

https://www.instagram.com/p/CAHItHvjxvT/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[Dr. Ed 2]

"This beast uses a LOT of electricity, we’re talking 1500-1600 watts, which is akin to a microwave"

Watts/120=Amps
Watts/100=Safe Amp Load (for continuous use)

1600 watts is 13.4 amps, which is more than you want to have as a continuous load on a 15 amp circuit. Newer homes will (should) have multiple 20 amp (segregated - i.e. only outlet on circuit) outlets in the kitchen -- older homes may only have a 15 amp outlet that also has other stuff on it.

Tip: If you have a GFI (which you should), trip it (push "test") and see what else goes out, if anything.

CAVEAT: If incandescent lights in your house get *brighter* when you use this (or any heavy-load item), your house is not properly grounded. Stop and get an electrician (or the local utility) to fix this.

The issue is that you have 240 volt service, so when you draw a 120 volt load that isn't balanced by one on the other side, it has to go to ground. And if your house and the utility company's transformer aren't properly grounded, what instead happens is that it increases the voltage on the other side of the panel.

This can -- and does -- cause fires.

[Kevin Smith]

"Tip: If you have a GFI (which you should), trip it (push “test”) and see what else goes out, if anything."

This isn't a definitive test, if the GFCI is at the end of the circuit then nothing else will go off, even though other outlets might be sharing the circuit

[Don Nico]

These are good tips.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
Here's a question about your beloved. Is it the professional line 1 kW model or the 350 W model? And how many times do you make bread with very stiff doughs?

[Commenter_XY]

Not following your questions, Don Nico.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh! The KitchenAid Mixer! It is the Artisan model, 350W.

[Kevin Smith]

I have a 600w model and it does pizza and cookie doughs nicely

[Don Nico]

Kevin, Than it my impression. If you do bread, especially with enriched doughs that require 20 or more minutes of kneading you what the more powerful motor. Unfortunately those mixers are much larger.

[Kevin Smith]

I've never tried an enriched bread dough, my friend uses it for fondant after her 350w burned out though so it might be able to handle it

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, that I do in stages (extended bread kneading). I'd never let anything go 20 minutes straight. You need a commercial mixer for that. I mean, KA sells them, so they can be had.

[Moderation4ever]

I actually have a counter top oven with an air fry setting and I love it. I was so impressed that my new full size oven range includes a convection oven setting.

[Life of Brian]

Also, you absolutely must have a silicon hot pad or think wooden cutting board underneath the unit. Otherwise, your beautiful quartzite countertops that you spent a fortune on will get f’ed up (I followed directions and that did not happen to me).

Alternately, spend a bit more on a model that's properly engineered. We started with a bargain-basement model (and there are a lot of them these days), and ended up shipping it back and getting a Philips that was about $150 more but is solidly built, has zero heat leakage, and also didn't make the food taste like burnt plastic....

[Bored Lawyer]

The Second Circuit came out with a very important fair use opinion in The Andy Warhol Foundation For The Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (2021). Opinion here: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0ec9fb6f-2414-4874-ac0f-092a1ba5302c/4/doc/19-2420_complete_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0ec9fb6f-2414-4874-ac0f-092a1ba5302c/4/hilite/

Briefly, the Second Circuit reversed a summary judgment finding of fair use concerning Andy Warhol's famous "Prince Series" of prints, which were based on a photographs taken by a photograph when Prince's career was still in its infancy. It distinguished, not very convincingly, its prior fair use holdings.

Fair use is now a complete muddle, and in most cases, it is very difficult to predict what a court will do. Here, one federal judge thought that one side deserved summary judgment on fair use; the appellate court thought the other side deserved summary judgment.

I recognize fair use is a very important defense in copyright cases, but I wonder if there can be a different, and more predictable, regime that advances the same public policies.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bored Lawyer, the opinion you link to is a very good one. It cogently puts aside many confusingly reasoned mistakes in copyright interpretation. Those have been accumulating for a long time around the notions of transformative use, and derivative work.

But the opinion is long and multi-faceted. At least with regard to photography—which that case was about—I suggest a simpler standard might do better. It would be based on one fact and one question.

The fact: — Photography is in principle easy to do, inexpensive, and readily available to almost everyone.

The question: — Given the ease and ubiquity of photography, what is it about a particular copyrighted image which caused the "transformative," user to choose that photograph, instead of making one like it for himself?

In many cases, the only reasonable answer to that question will be that the particular photograph contained some unique expressive element which was either not reproducible, or which would have cost prohibitive time and effort to get by other means. Both that unique expressive element, and the cost necessary to create it, are important parts of the value copyright was intended to protect. In either case, that unattainable expressive quality contributes a significant part of the value which copyright was intended to protect.

Photography in general is easy, and inconsequential photographs are almost trivially easy to duplicate. For instance, a fixed security camera taking repeated night-time images of an empty office will deliver a lot of near-duplicates. But reproducing a notable photograph from scratch is almost impossibly difficult—far harder, for instance, than it is for an expert forger to copy an oil painting. That is why so many people want to steal notable photographs. Copyright law should tell such would-be thieves to go back and get the images from the security camera, and use them instead—or negotiate a royalty with the photographer whose creative expression has proved so indispensable.

[bernard11]

In many cases, the only reasonable answer to that question will be that the particular photograph contained some unique expressive element which was either not reproducible, or which would have cost prohibitive time and effort to get by other means.

But this is not true of documentary photography - photojournalism or the like. Try reproducing this.

And it's not clear to me that this photograph, for example, is an example of "creative expression," since literally all Capa did was point the camera and press the shutter, without even looking.

That doesn't mean it's not entitled to copyright protection, or shouldn't be. He worked to create the image, putting his life in serious danger, but protection may need to be based on something other than personal creativity.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernard, documentary photography, industrial photography, photojournalism, fashion photography, travel photography, stock photography, celebrity photography, stage photography, street photography, astronomical photography, sports photography, wedding photography, scientific photography, architectural photography, war photography, portrait photography, design studio photography, fine art photography—all of them, and doubtless other kinds, all derive value from unique expressive elements put into them on purpose by use of photographic skills.

The skills are various. Not all of them relate directly to operation of the camera. Yousuf Karsh made a famous portrait of Winston Churchill without looking through the camera—at least not looking at Churchill. Knowing he would have but limited time with Churchill, Karsh set up his lighting and camera in advance. As soon as Churchill was seated in the spot Karsh had prepared for him, Karsh, without asking permission, snatched the cigar from Churchill's mouth, and triggered his shutter with a cable release. That bit of impertinent photographic technique rewarded Karsh with the iconic image of belligerent determination by which the world has known Churchill ever since.

The Capa image you link is one of the most famous photos ever because it is both unique and overwhelmingly expressive. As was the skill of the man who made the image. None of that necessarily requires looking through a viewfinder either—not every time anyway.

As sometimes happens among photographers, Capa had a gift for summarizing a visual method. He said once, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." That famous image illustrates the maxim—the famously effective and famously dangerous maxim—which eventually cost Capa his life. I am trying to say it should be utterly clear that Capa's image was a result not only of creative expression, but of superlative dedication to creative expression as an ideal.

That said, my remark was intended to encompass fully those many different kinds of skilled photography, and does not presume to raise any of them above others. It does distinguish skilled image making from automated processes, however beautiful or useful their results might sometimes be.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From a CNN news, not opinion article:

"Though the two executive orders signed by Noem do not explicitly mention transgender athletes, they ​reference the supposed harms of the participation of "males" in women's athletics -- an echo of the transphobic claim, cited in other similar legislative initiatives, that transgender women are not women. The orders also reference "biological sex," a disputed term that refers to the sex as listed on students' original birth certificates."

The article was stealth edited to remove the claim that there are no "consensus criteria" for assigning sex at birth".

I wonder which is the bigger whopper, that "biological sex [is a] disputed term," or that "biological sex...refers to the sex as listed on students' original birth certificates."

[Dr. Ed 2]

"From a CNN news, not opinion article"

Is there a difference?

Personally, I love the idea of the Lesbians and Transexuals going into a mutually destructive spiral...

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Is there a difference?"

No, I think that CNN has clearly abandoned the distinction between news and opinion.

[Josh R]

The executive orders say, "biological sex, as reflected on their birth certificate."

[Gasman]

But since states are now switching the biologic sex listed on birth certificates based not on biology, but on hopes/wishes/fantasy, the birth certificate is no longer a reliable source of information as to whether nature tried to make that individual male or female.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Except that some states (e.g. Massachusetts) are re-issuing birth certificates in the preferred name and sex.

Personally, I think that this is Orwellian...

[Josh R]

I think you missed my point.

Twelve Inch claimed that the statement "biological sex…refers to the sex as listed on students’ original birth certificates" is a whopper. And yet, that "whopper" comes from the text of the college athletics executive order ("biological sex, as reflected on their birth certificate issued at the time of birth"). So, it isn't a whopper at all.

Additionally, the K-12 executive order allows "their birth certificate or affidavit [per] SDCL 13-27-3.1," the latter which permits an "affidavit in lieu of birth certificate as issued by the Department of Health in such cases where the original birth certificate is deemed unattainable." Again, the whopper is not a whopper.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Again, the whopper is not a whopper."

Sigh, yes, the whopper is a whopper. Unless CNN is claiming that there is a dispute over whether or not biological sex is listed on one's birth certificate, which clearly isn't what they meant.

[jb]

Sorry, but I literally have no idea what point you are trying to make. You seem to be capturing some nuance that readers less sensitized to the issue are totally missing.

[Queen Amalthea]

'You people keep disputing that there is dispute over whether biological sex is simply male and female, why can't you see there is no dispute!'

[shawn_dude]

When the birth certificate says "M [ ] F [ ]" it has created a problem for a small percentage of people who are born neither male nor female. As this has been pointed out endlessly in the VC's various threads on the matter and adequately studied and documented by scientists in various related fields going back before penicillin, the "whopper" is that people still believe that sex is binary.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The "Whopper" is that there is some dispute over the concept of biological sex.

[Josh R]

You said there were two whoppers: 1) “biological sex [is a] disputed term,” and 2) “biological sex…refers to the sex as listed on students’ original birth certificates.” I merely commented that Noem agrees with the latter, so in her view it's not a whopper.

[jb]

Wow, CNN caught red-handed re-using the exact language of Noem's order!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The executive orders say, “biological sex, as reflected on their birth certificate.”"

One allows that a birth certificate, the other allows a birth certificate or an affidavit. But "biological sex" doesn't refer to either, it refers to sex determined by biological factors. Something the article appears to deny the existence of.

[jb]

It says there's a dispute on the matter, it's not taking sides in the dispute. There's other parts of the paragraph that do take sides, e.g., the use of the word "transphobic", but saying it is disputed is just acknowledging that there is in fact a dispute.

[Queen Amalthea]

Certainly the hours of argument on this have proven there is obviously no dispute.

[jb]

But what's that got to do with the language about birth certificates. I honestly don't understand how what CNN wrote is controversial in any way on this point.

[jb]

(argh, this got weirdly posted in the wrong place--sigh)

[Queen Amalthea]

Why is saying 'biological sex [is a] disputed term?' I mean, it would be easily true if it said 'gender' is a disputed term but, given cases like intersex individuals even that construction seems to not obviously be a 'whopper.'

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why is saying ‘biological sex [is a] disputed term?’ I mean, it would be easily true if it said ‘gender’ is a disputed term..."

I don't think 'gender' is a disputed term so much as that 'gender identity' is a disputed concept.

Of course, if you believe that biological sex is a disputed concept in the same sense that gender identity is, then I guess the claim isn't a whopper at all.

If course, claiming that "biological sex" is under dispute while claiming that the idea that biological males have an unfair advantage over women is "an echo of the transphobic claim, cited in other similar legislative initiatives, that transgender women are not women." is straight news is its own kind of crazy.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Of course, if you believe that biological sex is a disputed concept in the same sense that gender identity is, then I guess the claim isn’t a whopper at all. "

I explicitly said they were not to the same extent, but that that doesn't make the former not disputed. Funny how you elided that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I explicitly said they were not to the same extent, but that that doesn’t make the former not disputed. Funny how you elided that."

No you didn't. And I said, "In the same sense," not "to the same extent.

So you agree that the existence of the concept of biological sex is disputed in some sort of mainstream way worthy of mention in a straight news article, without applying the label to the concept of gender identity or transphobia?

Other commenters have claimed that that's just a fringe view on the left.

And what about the claim that biological sex refers to the sex as listed on a birth certificate? That's not what biological sex refers to.

[Queen Amalthea]

"I mean, it would be easily true if it said ‘gender’ is a disputed term but, given cases like intersex individuals even that construction seems to not obviously be a ‘whopper.’"

This is what I said. Now, perhaps Lt. Commander Data would feel that a fair reading of what I wrote was a statement about the different *extent* of how disputed both are instead of the same *sense* and this is some critical difference, but I think most humans would see that I was saying something like 'sure there's a difference between saying gender is disputed [much more accepted] and sex is disputed [less so!], *but* given public controversy over things like intersex folks in a variety of situations it doesn't seem unfair or obviously wrong to say that *sex* is disputed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"but I think most humans would see that I was saying something like ‘sure there’s a difference between saying gender is disputed [much more accepted] and sex is disputed [less so!],"

OK, but if you want to say something explicitly, say it explicitly.

"*but* given public controversy over things like intersex folks in a variety of situations it doesn’t seem unfair or obviously wrong to say that *sex* is disputed."

OK, the fact that there are a small percentage of outliers that are difficult to classify means that the entire classification is disputed? Yes, I think that that's obviously wrong, just like it would be obviously wrong to say that it's disputed that humans are a bipedal species.

[Queen Amalthea]

If you said 'biological sex in humans exists in two discrete categories, male and female' I, you'd be actually wrong. Can't be more disputed than that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, in the sense you'd actually be wrong if you declared humans to be bipedal. Not otherwise.

[Queen Amalthea]

You mean wrong in actual sense? Because there are intersex persons who are not neatly male or female. It can at least be described as 'disputed' when it is, as you concede, in a very real sense flat incorrect.

When you have to backpeddle into 'well, in a sense' to defend declaring something an obvious *Whopper* of a lie, well...

[TwelveInchPianist]

You guys just hate science and facts, don't you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

When you have to claim that humans aren't bipedal in order to make your claim, your claim is probably wrong.

[Queen Amalthea]

The existence of intersex persons is a science fact, and an inconvenient one for your claim that the idea that human biological sex is only male and female is undisputed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"existence of intersex persons is a science fact,"

So is the existence of people born without two legs or without two arms. Yet it is undisputed that humans have two legs and two arms.

Birth defects do not define what is undisputed about human biology.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Yet it is undisputed that humans have two legs and two arms."

Those born without are not humans? And, I know you're a pro-lifer, it's good to know you don't think early embryos are humans.

Again, though, consider the very high bar 12" has set for you guys. It's not to show that humans are only either biologically male and female, it is to show that this is obviously not disputed, such that if a journalist writes that it is it is an obvious *Whopper* of a *lie.* The very fact that several people have been arguing in a rational way (pointing to actual scientifically factual evidence) otherwise kind of does your side in...This is obviously something that is, as an empirical matter, *disputed*

[Dr. Ed 2]

given cases like intersex individuals

And since conjoined twins do exist as well, can we all have multiple names and multiple social security numbers?

[Queen Amalthea]

Conjoined twins are treated as separate individuals, though I guess folks like you could yell they're just one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Conjoined twins are treated as separate individuals..."

Yup, just like intersex people are treated as male or female, or undetermined. But I guess folks like you could yell that individuality is a disputed term.

[Queen Amalthea]

I agree trans persons shouldn't be able to claim multiple genders simultaneously, which is what is analogous.

[shawn_dude]

A quick search shows that South Dakota's birth certificate only allows for male or female. No "undetermined" box is available.

1) for a lawyer: if the hospital marks either box for an intersex child, have they opened themselves up to a lawsuit for lying on an official form? Is it a crime?

2) for the folks defending Noem's executive order: if a child is "undetermined" on their birth certificate (presumably from a more enlightened state that realizes some children are intersex), can they still play sports in school?

3) for the lawyers again: what does it say about this law that it only applies to women's sports? Isn't that prohibited sex discrimination?

4) one assumes a trans boy could play on the boys team and take steroids as part of his medical regimen. That might have implications for a few sports, most notably wrestling--given that competitions are divided into weight classes.

Why focus only on the female athletics? fear-mongering?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Biological sex does not equal gender.

[David Bremer]

It's amazing to me that we haven't seen a company do a good job of bringing the costs of home buying and selling.

When you're buying, there's no real incentive to compete for price, since the buyer sets what is paid to your agent. And while you could go without an agent, the seller's agent will try to serve a dual role or will discourage offers from buyers without an agent. Meanwhile, on the selling side, you don't see agents compete on price. Or the competition is so low that it doesn't make any discernable difference. Plus, there tend to be time constraints that discourage you from shopping around.

Mortgages can be just as bad. You can find a broker and compare mortgage products, but you have no easy way to compare what specific offices will charge for closing costs and associated fees.

It seems that with this much margin built into the transaction, you'd see a lot of savvy companies competing to reduce the transaction costs. Particularly since so much home searching can now be down through websites that have access to the MLS.

[Armchair Lawyer]

https://www.redfin.com/

[David Bremer]

Yes, there's Redfin, and there are a couple other services as well. But I'm surprised there aren't more or other creative ways of doing this.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But, if Redfin doesn't suit your needs, we'll explain further.

Typically, the seller's fees you're talking about are ~6% of purchase price. Every house is different. Every neighborhood is different. There's a limited supply of buyers. A limited supply of sellers. And "holding onto inventory" is cost prohibitive much of the time.

A seller's agent acts as a "advertisement" for your property, in a way. Not just a single advertisement, but marketing and sales as well. Can a seller's agent consistently get a 7% boost in your market price, compared to not having a seller? Perhaps. If they can, then it's worth it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There has also been a moratorium on foreclosures and the coming wave of Biden-induced inflation will mean higher mortgage interest rates at the same time that the deluge of foreclosures hits the market. At the same time that the Baby Boomers are downsizing.

I can see a *lot* of properties going onto the market and hence competition to sell them.

[De Oppresso Liber]

I think the baby boomers have mostly downsized already, no? Their kids left a decade ago, most likely.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm thinking going from house to assisted care facility, as well as selling off the vacation home(s).
And while their kids are gone, a lot of the Boomers I know still live in the same homes they did with their kids.

it's when they die that their homes go onto the market.

[De Oppresso Liber]

I see. I am watching the real estate markets very carefully. I have benefited from outsized asset appreciation for once, or have the possibility to. After being on the losing side of '08 and generally born into a generation with fewer enrichment opportunities, redfin has become my farmer's almanac.

[David Bremer]

See, this is the problem - it's always ~6%. In a more competitive industry, with better information for sellers, you'd have a range of choices, each charging slightly different amounts and competing with each other on price/services offered.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Like I mentioned, you have Redfin, which charges less. There are several other options.

In terms of a "default" sales agent, it did default to ~6%. This is because it is very difficult for the consumer (the house seller) to differentiate between the capabilities of the real estate agent a priori. To the best of their knowledge, they are all providing the same service to the same ability.

[bernard11]

See, this is the problem – it’s always ~6%. In a more competitive industry, with better information for sellers, you’d have a range of choices, each charging slightly different amounts and competing with each other on price/services offered.

Not necessarily. This could just be an equilibrium price. It's sort of hard to really specify the services the realtor offers the seller - it's really more a question of how effective the realtor is as a salesperson in general.

[David Bremer]

That would make sense if the cost to the realtor increased in proportion to home price. Selling a home at $1,000,000 isn't any more work than selling a home at $250,000. You're using the same forms, doing the same negotiations, completing the same closings, etc. So even if you think 6% is an equilibrium around the median price, it opens for opportunities to different cost structures at different prices.

The problem is compounded because the buyers' agent generally always gets ~2.7%. Offer less than that and you're less likely to get traffic driven to your home (a conflict of interest for buyers' agents). So when you negotiate with a sellers' agent, there's less space in which to negotiate (especially since, for median homes, we're talking about $5,000-$10,000).

My antitrust professor, who was moving at the time I was in his class, pointed out that realtors were a bigger cartel than in the various cases we discussed.

[IamtheBruce]

Ever since being unable to get listed a condo I was trying to sell without an agent in 2008 (couldn't even get it in the classifieds because of an agreement they had with MLS), I have wondered how the entire residential real estate sales paradigm hasn't been demolished by way of an antitrust lawsuit. And I agree with your point. Why can't I choose what aount of service I want from an agent (either buying or selling) and pay a fee/commission commensurate with it? These days in Southern California, to sell my home about all I would need is a one day open house and an agent to sit in it. I could have one of my kids take the photos and write a barely legible description and still sell for over asking or at least prompt a bidding war. As a buyer, I find the houses (usually on Redfin as A.L. noted) and just need an agent to set up an appointment to go see them, and then to fill in the blanks on the .pdf form. I've always specified conditions and edited the language suggested by my agent when writing the counter offer, so I'd happily use an agent who offered a la carte RE services rather than full commission for no work, cartel-protected standard "fees."

[EscherEnigma]

That's because buying/selling a home isn't a common thing for most people. Even if you move every couple of years and buy/sell everytime you do, that's not having to engage with this stuff more then a few times a decade.

And when you interface with a system so rarely? You're a lot more willing to suffer inefficiencies, largely because you don't know the system well enough to know better.

The kind of buyer/seller that would be more interested in a "better way" just isn't common.

[David Spaulding]

Each year, Palm Sunday seems a bit less joyful and Holy Thursday a bit more ominous. I see more and more of myself in those who cheered Christ on Sunday and bayed for his blood on Friday and in those who professes a love on Thursday that could never be broken and ran in mortal fear on Friday. When I'm done this brief, I'm done for the Triduum and I surely need this time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have been saying for some time that we are on the cusp of another Great Awakening.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the college of Cardinals replaces Francis with another Marxist, we're on the cusp of another great schism.

[Queen Amalthea]

Heaven forbid your religion challenge your ideology.

[bernard11]

Brett is the classic convert - more Catholic than the Pope.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, it is not hard to be more Catholic than this Pope. Would have been very difficult indeed for John Paul II.

Francis himself is expecting a schism, and has said so. He should expect it, he's leading it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

G. Gordon Liddy showed that even the lowest among us can inspire something beautiful.

(Can you spot the Rock and Roll Hall of Famer who could never hold a steady gig with a band but chaired a congressional advisory board on missile defense, appeared in a Blues Brothers movie, and is a member of a NASA advisory committee on space exploration?)

[Jimmy the Dane]

Liddy was an American patriot. We need more men like him in this day and age.

[Queen Amalthea]

Liddy was an American felon. FTFY

You know when people like Jimmy were all upset about the impeachment, insisting that Trump had done no wrong either time? Well, yeah, you see here they didn't see anything wrong with Watergate either. The means justify the ends with these people.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I just said he was a patriot. You like to read into statements.

[Queen Amalthea]

He was a felon and his felony was in trying to subvert a free and fair election. Yeah, he's your kind of patriot!

[Jimmy the Dane]

It was a smash and grab political job designed to get some dirt. Nothing more. No one subverted anything. Quit trying to make it sound like something bigger than it was.

But that does raise the question on your "kind" of patriot. The deep stater who manufactures a completely fake russian dossier on Trump. The illegal warrants. Antifa who assault and commit acts of violence. BLM rioters who burn down buildings and loot. Liddy compared to these guys is a walk in the park.

[Queen Amalthea]

He committed a crime in the furtherance of an effort to discredit his boss' major political opponent.

Again, I can see why you're fine with that though.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So the DNC does it all the time using their operatives. And where is your outrage over that? I don't hear you screaming about the fake russian dossier....

[Queen Amalthea]

So, your defense of your proven, convicted felon is 'the other side does the same thing all the time?'

Who saw that coming from principled Jimmy the Dane?

Also, I didn't refer to whoever you're equating him with as an American patriot.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Liddy got caught and served his time. Hate the game, not the player.

[Queen Amalthea]

You're still supporting that type of game.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Liddy was an American felon.

So was George Floyd. What's your point?

[ThePublius]

Do tell!

(Thanks for the link, great music.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you liked that one, check this.

Fine fretwork, from a first-rate player, but not necessarily the best Steely Dan guitar solo. Jay Graydon probably decorated that cake.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I would nominate Denny Dias' work in "Your Gold Teeth II." But my favorite from all instruments is Phil Woods in "Dr. Wu."

[BrotherMovesOn]

The Skunk rules.

[Dr. Ed 2]

One of the good things that I think will come out of the George Floyd matter is some sort of protocol and means for citizens to report police abuse as it is happening. What I find chilling is the firefighter/EMT who wanted to help but was prevented from doing so.

Exactly how hard is it to radio your dispatch and ask them to verify that Jane Doe, DOB 01-02-03 is a firefighter in your own city? Or ask her for ID.

And most cops I know would have administered Narcan if they thought someone was overdosing. Why these ones didn't is beyond me.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Most of her testimony came off, at least to me, as post-hoc virtue signaling....

If I was defense counsel I would have objected to her wearing her uniform while on the stand. It gives the impression that she was there is an official capacity, not just a bystander.

[IamtheBruce]

"Why these ones didn’t is beyond me."

Because when it comes to hiring police, you typically get a candidate pool (in terms of qualifications/judgment/education/experience) that you pay for.

[Absaroka]

"And most cops I know would have administered Narcan..."

Did the officers on the scene have Narcan? I haven't followed the trial closely, but the little I have seen said they didn't have Narcan.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other side of the George Floyd matter is how is threatening to burn down the city if you don't get the verdict you want any different from when the Klan used to do the same thing?

I'm reminded of the matter of the Scottsboro Boys....

[apedad]

How is this different than your threats to kill people if you don't get your way?

[Bored Lawyer]

So we can all agree that all are wrong?

[TwelveInchPianist]

wrt to the controversy in racial equity in standardized testing, as with everything else, it's getting harder and harder to tell woke from racist.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's a difference?

[Brett Bellmore]

Racism sometimes sleeps. Woke does not.

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis

Your average racist is more like the robber baron; He might not like you, but he doesn't feel morally obligated to go after you, like the woke do.

[Queen Amalthea]

You're not seriously this ignorant of history and degree, are you? The woke are not hanging people by lamposts or raping their slaves.

Racism is easily the number one driving force behind staining America and its principles, wokeness, to the extent it is a problem even, has *miles* to go to start to rival it.

[Brett Bellmore]

" The woke are not hanging people by lamposts or raping their slaves."

Neither were the robber barons. The term postdates racism.

"Racism is easily the number one driving force behind staining America and its principles, wokeness, to the extent it is a problem even, has *miles* to go to start to rival it."

We've had this discussion before. The left have redefined 'racism' to the point where you get called a "racist" for refusing to agree to racially discriminate. So, by non-tendentious definitions of racism, the 'woke' are often racist.

Now, if you want to say that racism many decades ago was that? Sure.

"Is"? Dream on. The less of it there is in American, the louder the complaints get.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Neither were the robber barons. "

You're moving the goalposts, you said "Racism sometimes sleeps. Woke does not."

"Now, if you want to say that racism many decades ago was that? Sure."

You're the kind of guy who, after a downpour, says 'it's over now, let's chuck this umbrella in the trash!

Think of racism as a long term stage 4 cancer to America which, thankfully, is largely in recent remission, while wokeness is a bump you just noticed on your body. The latter has done relatively little damage and it may, or may not, prove to be serious. It's quite natural for people to be still very focused on the mild cough they get more than the bump.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Woke is just the new racism.

Hating on white people is cool. Trashing white people is trendy. Blaming everything on white people is seen as edgy. Discriminating against white people is justified. I'm pretty sure it the woke crowd could get away with it they would put white people in chains and make them slaves.

[grb]

Jimmy the Dane : Hating on white people is cool

Awhh..... You poor little snowflake thing, you. It must be hard to be so butthurt victimized all the time! I can't begin to imagine you anxiety & apprehension - huddled in a corner, clutching your security blanket, sucking your thumb.

Which is strange, given I've been a white male for plus-sixty years. I used to think maybe one day I'd feel that crippling oppression professional-victims like Jimmy feel, either because I'm white, or male, or straight.

But, nah. It just ain't there, and I have far better things to do than to look for it. I guess if I tried really hard (scrunched up my shoulders, closed my eyes, gritted my teeth) maybe I'd feel a twinge of all this oppression directed against me, but why bother?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Guess a congrats is in order.....???

[grb]

Go cold-turkey off your fantasy victimhood, and I'll return congratulations in kind.

[Queen Amalthea]

"it the woke crowd could get away with it they would put white people in chains and make them slaves."

Projection is a hell of a drug.

[Bob from Ohio]

"racism as a long term stage 4 cancer to America which, thankfully, is largely in recent remission"

It was in remission, now its re-emerged thru supposed "liberals" hating on whites, especially white males.

Anti-Asian and Anti-Jew violence is 90% done by blacks, yet "white supremecy" gets blamed. That's racism.

[Cal Cetín]

"Racism is easily the number one driving force behind staining America and its principles, wokeness, to the extent it is a problem even, has *miles* to go to start to rival it."

Wokeness is a subcategory of racism.

It's *part* of the stain of American racism, not some hair-of-the-dog remedy for it.

Insofar as wokeness encourages anti-asian discrimination, it's fully in line with previous anti-asian "stain[s on] America and its principles." Even anti-white racism, while fairly new in this country (at least to the extent we're seeing) has global precedents, none of them in any way encouraging.

The woke need to be impelled to face their own roots. They're part of the same old problem.

[Queen Amalthea]

No, wokeness is an attempt to remedy racism. Now, maybe it's bad and like arsenic, but it's an attempted remedy.

[Cal Cetín]

What exactly is discrimination against whites and asians, if not racism?

[apedad]

Ladies and Gentlemen!

I present to you, the American Idiot: https://www.cbs42.com/news/national/some-capitol-riot-suspects-apologize-as-consequences-sink-in/

[grb]

In a way it's understandable. Their hero is a buffoonish troll who treated the nation's highest & most-honored position as a joke. Four years running, Trump wiped his lard behind on the office of presidency - and had a rollicking good time doing so. All his supporters split their sides laughing at every instance of brat-child behavior. It was all so funny!

So why wouldn't they think invading the Capitol was just more of the same?

[Absaroka]

I'm generally pity the mentally ill:

"Another neighbor, who asked not to be named, said he often sees Chansley dancing on the roof of his mother’s home – describing it as ‘bizarre’."

(and lots more...)

I am blessed with, more or less, decent mental health. Not everyone is so lucky. Going after people who have obvious mental health issues seems kind of like making fun of people in wheelchairs.

[Absaroka]

$%$%^^&**( s/I'm/I/

[Jimmy the Dane]

More awesome "journalism" by the drive by media on the Georgia voting law. Every article just denounces it for.....reasons....without actually saying what the law does. And if you wan to sincerely know what the law does it takes some creative internet searching to find an article about that subject that is as least fair and comprehensive.

Also anyone else notice the lack of videos in the current Asian hate crime hysteria? They seemed to disappear when it became clear most assaults were by African American men. Now these articles just refer to a generic "attacker" which is pretty darn convenient.

[Josh R]

CNN provided a fair summary of the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty fair for a MSM report, yeah. More prone to link to attacks on it than defenses, but by the standards of CNN, pretty fair.

[grb]

Well, a country-wide jihad against voters by a frenzied right-wing determined to legislate against "election fraud" that doesn't exist is worth a little awesome journalism, don'tya think?

It's rather brazen & shameless of you, Jimmy, to whine the media isn't being honest. Compared to non-stop Right-wing lying behind all these voter suppression bills, the media is a paragon of truth. You're the one defending the dishonest side here.

As for the Georgia bill, you can look at sleaziness like this :

"The law says that each county can't have more than one drop box per early voting site or per 100,000 active registered voters, whichever number is smaller. This provision will dramatically reduce the number of drop boxes available in some large counties"

Or you can look at grotesque pettiness like the infamous water provisions, but the most troubling parts of the bill by far are those sections designed to make easier for the GOP-controlled legislature to steal future elections.

So the Georgia Secretary of State refused to "find 11780 votes" when ordered to by Trump? The bill "fixes" that by taking away his power, putting election control under a person hand-picked by the legislation. But what about local election control, beyond the reach of the Georgia legislature's safe Republican majorities? The bill "fixes" that by allowing the legislature to strip away all local election control whenever they need to massage the vote count for their guy.

Want a definition of hypocrisy? That's people like Jimmy the Dane applauding gross corruption like that as being for "vote security". It's a perfect example of the Orwellian Lie. Black is white. Up is down.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Dems apparently get mad when you stop them from stealing future elections....

[SimonP]

More awesome “journalism” by the drive by media on the Georgia voting law. Every article just denounces it for…..reasons….without actually saying what the law does.

I've noticed this, too. A lot of emphasis on handing out drinking water, much less on the rank politicization of just counting votes. How is the system improved by giving the Georgia legislature more direct control over whether vote counts are certified? Are vote counts really matters of political opinion? Are they trying to trigger a constitutional crisis?

In my view, the coverage has actually been pretty light on the law. If its pure evil were made clearer, people might object to it more forcefully.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're reacting to the phenomenon last year of the judiciary and executive making ad hoc changes to election laws the legislature originated. They're trying to head off it happening again in the next election.

[Sarcastr0]

What they did, and the issue you suppose is the motivation, don't seem connected.

[Cal Cetín]

I hesitate to throw this particular piece of chum into the waters here, but anyway...

This article and the articles linked therein are a debate, on originalist terms, on whether it's unconstitutional to legalize abortion, or whether the constitution leaves the matter to the states.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/03/unborn-persons-why-equal-protection-slept-102-years

[Queen Amalthea]

The 14th Amendment expressly uses the term 'persons born' so it's kind of hard to think it applies to the unborn.

[Cal Cetín]

It's hard to think it would apply to corporations, either, by that logic. Or to naturalized citizens.

Of course, it says persons born in the US are U. S. citizens, not that their personhood begins when their citizenship begins.

[Cal Cetín]

Not to mentions citizens or subjects of other countries, and stateless persons.

[Cal Cetín]

"born or naturalized," is the term. So an alien, prior to naturalization, isn't a person?

[Queen Amalthea]

They wouldn't be citizens, and an unborn citizen wouldn't be a person, under the language. I guess you could naturalize the unborn...

I agree that corporations shouldn't have been included, though everyone realized that was a legal fiction.

[Cal Cetín]

No, an unborn person is not a citizen.

But persons have rights under the 14A apart from citizenship - specifically, the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"No human is illegal!!!!!" (except the unborn....)

[Queen Amalthea]

In terms of originalism do you think the writers and ratifiers didn't know what an unborn baby was? If they had meant it to protect the unborn they knew how to write 'unborn persons' instead of 'persons born.'

[Jimmy the Dane]

They would have never thought it would be legal to murder an unborn baby so the thought probably never crossed their mind...

[jb]

Bzzt

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/

"During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening."

[grb]

"When the United States first became independent, most states applied English common law to abortion. This meant it was not permitted after quickening, or the start of fetal movements, usually felt 15–20 weeks after conception.

Abortion has existed in America since European colonization. The earliest settlers would often encourage abortions before the "quickening" stage in the pregnancy. There were many reasons given for this, including not having resources to bear children"

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

Of course all that was before the anti-abortion movement became the consumer-choice piety for people who want the easiest "righteousness" you can pick off the menu. With cherubic proto-babies vs wanton harlots, the consumer gets full value without even breaking a sweat!

No wonder the anti-choice groups have tried to expand their market offering into more & more types of contraceptives....

[Bob from Ohio]

Wikipedia on controversial issues is totally unreliable.

Since nothing is more controversial than abortion, congrats, you probably just quoted the single most unreliable thing on wikipedia.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Except jb posted a scholarly article at nih.gov, which says pretty much the same thing. It can certainly be risky to rely on Wikipedia, especially on controversial topics, but that doesn't mean it was wrong. Interesting that jb posted first and you only responded to grb. Meaning, you have no response to the fact posted by jb and grb, you only wanted to try to discredit it by challenging the source that, as it turns out, reported an actual fact. Abortion was legal in some colonies, at least so long as performed prior to quickening.

[grb]

No, Bob, you're the single most unreliable thing on the internet, because you don't give the slightest shit whether anything you say is truth or lie.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If they had meant it to protect the unborn they knew how to write ‘unborn persons’ instead of ‘persons born.’"

You are again citing a term [‘persons born’] from part of 14A only.

Equal protection and due process apply to "persons", no "born" mentioned.

If the14A writers wanted equal protection to apply only to ‘persons born’, they knew how to do it. Yet, they didn't.

[Bob from Ohio]

‘persons born’

In the citizenship and Priviliges and Immunities clauses only, not in the equal protection clause.

Equal protection applies to any "person within its jurisdiction".

[Queen Amalthea]

And persons in the Amendment are referred to as 'born,' never 'unborn'

[Jimmy the Dane]

Jimmy hopes in a time machine back to the 1800's.

Me: Hey 14th Amendment drafter, sometime around 1972 the Supreme Court will rule that women have a constitutional right to kill an unborn child.

Drafter Dude: What?!?!?!?

Me: Yeah it involves some tortured logic....but we have this thing called the internet, long story, and someone commented on it that you specified "born" in your draft of the 14th Amendment because you only intended it to cover living breathing humans, not unborn ones...

Drafter Dude: Do you mean was it my intention to not cover the unborn?????

Me: Yeah that is what this chick on the internet is saying, I said she was crazy, but you know....

Drafter Dude: Of course we think this would also cover unborn children. What kind of world is the future where you butcher babies like that?

Me: Oh, that really isn't the worst of it...but hey got to run....thanks for the info.

[EscherEnigma]

Cute.

And George Washington would have lashed me for sodomy.

There's a reason originalism doens't have much sway beyond white straight men.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Not your form of kink I guess???

[jb]

This is dumb. Abortions were still legal under many circumstances in the 1860s, and the abortion rate per live birth was more than ten times higher than it is today.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Way to just make random shit up...

[jb]

Way to be a dumbass.

https://archive.org/details/oppositionintimi00doan/page/n57/mode/2up

"Throughout the 1850s and 1860s, abortion services were readily available in New York, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Louisville, Cleveland, Chicago and Indianapolis (Olasky 1988). Some estimates put the induced abortion rate at one induced abortion per four live births during this time period (Tribe 1992)."

Compare to the 2017 abortion rate of 13.5 per 1000 live births, and it's actually 18 times higher.

[Bob from Ohio]

we understand now, Olasky and Tribe [Larry?] made up stuff, not you.

[jb]

Wow, you're really going to double-down on this? I link directly to a source where someone has done actual research and has a bibliography, and your response is not to provide any contrary evidence, just to stick your fingers in your ears and say, basically, "fake news"?

Have fun in whatever confirmation bias Facebook groups you're reading lately, I guess.

[Life of Brian]

I link directly to a source where someone has done actual research and has a bibliography

The actual language from your quote is "some estimates."

That's "found at least one person who handwaved in a direction I agree with." Really bloody compelling.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Reminds me of the "research" that supposedly found that colonists didn't own firearms. Then when it was debunked all the archival "research" was destroyed in a flood or fire. Libs just make shit up and then expect us to believe it. Yeah, not working.

[jb]

"The actual language from your quote is “some estimates.”"

Yes, feel free to go look at the cited source material or even (gasp) produce some contrary evidence that says something different.

Let's say that the estimate was wildly off--maybe by 18x, so the abortion rate was about the same in the 1860s as it is now. Even in that scenario, Jimmy's weird time travel exercise is extremely stupid because the framer's of the 14th amendment would understand perfectly well that abortion is a thing that is commonly performed and in fact legal in many cases.

[Life of Brian]

or even (gasp) produce some contrary evidence that says something different.

No need. "Some estimates" already conceded there's plenty of contrary evidence.

Learn to critically think. Nobody else is going to do it for you.

[jb]

"No need. “Some estimates” already conceded there’s plenty of contrary evidence."

LOL.

1) Even if you assume that "some estimates" means "we found other estimates but ignored them" versus "these are the estimates we found", there's no reason to believe the excluded estimates aren't higher instead of lower.
2) It doesn't even matter. You just ignored that the estimate could be overstating the actual number by 1800% and Jimmy would still be a dumbass.

[Life of Brian]

Even if you assume that “some estimates” means “we found other estimates but ignored them” versus “these are the estimates we found”, there’s no reason to believe the excluded estimates aren’t higher instead of lower.

Of course there's reason to believe that. Not sure if you've ever noticed, but generally people who are citing research to support a proposition tend to cite the research most favorable to their proposition rather than just randomly drawing cites out of a hat.

Here, your article is trying to make the point that the abortion rate in the 1860s was high (astoundingly enough, the very reason you appealed to it). If there was other quality evidence out there that was more favorable, they would have cited that. And if there was some reason why they thought they couldn't or didn't want to, they'd say more favorable evidence was out there to make their selected evidence look even more reasonable.

Learn. To. Critically. Think. It's never too late.

[jb]

"Of course there’s reason to believe that. Not sure if you’ve ever noticed, but generally people who are citing research to support a proposition tend to cite the research most favorable to their proposition rather than just randomly drawing cites out of a hat."

It's not an advocacy piece. It's a history of abortion. It's not trying to prove that abortion was common or uncommon, or anything else, just give us some information so we don't have to be idiots acting like because we don't like abortion that it must have been impossible or illegal in the past. Just like if you read some text that said "historians estimate that 20-30K people built the pyramids" that would be to help us appreciate that it was a lot of people, despite the fact that Herodotus said it was 100K.

And once again, it can be wildly off and Jimmy is still a dumbass, since he's basically saying the pyramids were built by one guy with an excavator.

[grb]

Life of Brian : Learn. To. Critically. Think. It’s never too late.

Why don't you try yourself? Jimmy the Dane claimed someone from the era of the Framers would be shocked to discover abortion is legal today. jb pointed out that comment is untrue & ignorant : Abortion was both legal and common during the period.

So now you nip at jb's heels like an infuriated little dog - and only over whether the abortion rate then was 18X higher than today - or 7X higher, or .8X higher. Learn to think critically, Life of Brian, and you'd quickly see the exact rate is extraneous to jb's two main points : (1) Abortion was both legal and common during the Revolutionary Period. (2) Jimmy the Dane doesn't have a clue.

The fascinating to see how this well-known fact about abortion and American history has thrown multiple commentators here into a tizzy. Jimmy, Bob, & Brian are clearly fighting a rearguard action as they retreat from a fact they neither knew or anticipated. I'm tempted to really blow their minds with a synopsis of the Catholic Church's many different positions on abortion over history.

[Life of Brian]

Let your gaze drift upward to your original post. The point we addressed (and that you then dug in on) was the entirety of your comment.

Now that you're in a corner, it's time for the predictable retreat to "oh, it doesn't matter if my poorly thought-out but haughtily argued claim was correct or not." In stereo, even!

I'm sure it's hard, but someday you might try just not saying stupid shit in the first place.

[grb]

Jimmy hops into a time machine.......

Jimmy : We have abortions in the twenty-first century
Drafter-dude : Abortions are common here.
Jimmy : They're legal in twenty-first century
Drafter-dude : Abortions are legal here.
Jimmy:........
Drafter-dude : Don't they teach history in the twenty-first century?
Jimmy: Well, yes - but my political side prefers ignorance.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Jimmy hopes in a time machine back to the 1800’s."

Freudian slip indeed. I bet Jimmy often hopes he were back in the 1800s.

[Bob from Ohio]

"persons in the Amendment are referred to as ‘born,’ never ‘unborn’"

The equal protection clause does not use either term.

Its just "persons". Applying the Bostock standard of textualism, "persons" obviously means unborn as well as born.

[Cal Cetín]

"born or naturalized in the United States" is the term, in guaranteeing *citizenship* rights.

Just as there are aliens who haven't been naturalized yet, there are humans who haven't been born yet.

The alien is nevertheless still a "person" - so how can this clause be read to "unperson" anyone?

[Kevin Smith]

ts not referring to a state of being born as opposed to unborn, its defining a circumstance of birth, either born in the United States or not born in the United States. Its completely inapplicable to anyone unborn, one way or the other

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

When it comes to abortion and the constitution, I found Jack Balkin's paper from a few years ago to be highly persuasive.

[M L]

The penalty for violating social distancing guidelines is now being trampled to death by horses.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LE_GENERAL_FR/status/1377722216113184771

[mydisplayname]

A pre-publication of NIH/Pitt serostudy is available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33532807/ . In my geopolitical area having a population of 8536K, there were 622K diagnosed CoViD cases and an estimated 5352K undiagnosed cases: 70% of the population of the area was naturally immunized before any vaccine was ever produced.

[M L]

Wow.

That many more infections would also mean a much lower infection fatality rate, maybe lower than flu.

[jb]

"In my geopolitical area having a population of 8536K, there were 622K diagnosed CoViD cases and an estimated 5352K undiagnosed cases: 70% of the population of the area was naturally immunized before any vaccine was ever produced."

Is there some chart with this data that I'm not seeing, or is this some math you did yourself? If the latter, please show your work as I'm struggling to understand how you'd get there based on the data actually presented.

[M L]

Vaccination Passports: The Cornerstone of a Totalitarian State

Ushering China’s Social Credit System into America.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/vaccination-passports-cornerstone-totalitarian-matthew-vadum/