Thursday Open Thread


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

NEXT: Florida Supreme Court Rejects Race/Sex/Etc. Quotas in Continuing Legal Education Programs

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

  1. Anyone else following the excellent coverage of the Chauvin trial on Legal Insurrection? Seems to me Chauvin is not guilty, but I’m afraid he will be found guilty for social and political reasons.

    1. I’m glad I’m not one of those jurors. The media deliberately published their names, if he’s not convicted they’re all at serious risks.

      Like, their families should move out of town during the trial levels of risk.

      The only bright side for Chauvin is that he’s virtually certain to get the verdict overturned, and a new trial.

      1. “he’s virtually certain to get the verdict overturned”

        How’s that?

        1. On account of the jurors’ names having been published, and it obviously being personally dangerous for them to do anything but convict. It’s impossible for him to get a fair trial locally at this point.

          1. “While their faces and names are being closely guarded by the court, the anonymous jury is comprised of a group of mostly college-educated individuals from varied racial and professional backgrounds.”


            1. Brett’s next post:

              1. He didn’t say their names were released, he said…
              2. His post is still correct because their friends and family know who they are, and they’ve probably told everyone.
              3. Jumps to a separate topic.
              4. Continues to discuss the consequences of their names being released.

              Place your bets.

              1. Yeah, we’ll see if they remain anonymous. Particularly since a considerable amount of information about the jurors has already been released.

                Juror #2, a white male in his 20-30’s, a chemist engaged to a physical therapist. Are you really going to say that somebody couldn’t track this dude down? How many 20-30 year old male chemists engaged to physical therapists do you suppose there ARE locally, anyway?

                They gave way too much identifying information out for most of these jurors to remain anonymous. Those reports were an invitation to dox.

                1. A good hacker could probably hack into the court’s records and find out who the jurors are, though I would hope precautions have been taken. And yeah, the jurors friends and family most likely know. But for appeal purposes, that’s not the same thing as the court releasing the names.

                  If the names are published pre-verdict, the judge would probably declare a mistrial and we get to start this whole circus over again. If post-verdict, then it would be irrelevant to an appeal because it wouldn’t have affected the verdict. So I doubt it will be an issue.

                  1. So, names released before the verdict, mistrial.

                    Virtual certainty of names being released post verdict, supposedly doesn’t influence the jurors, so it’s all good.

                    Yeah, the law is an ass.

                    But back to my original comment: Thank God I’m not one of those jurors.

                    1. I don’t think it’s a “virtual certainty” that the names will be released; that’s just speculation at this point. But frankly that cuts both ways. If I’m a juror, I don’t want anti-police rioters burning down my house, but neither do I want to spend the rest of my life being harassed by Chauvin’s friends on the police force if I vote to convict. And don’t think that isn’t equally likely.

                      So, if I were a juror, I guess I’d just have to go with the evidence. Hopefully the people actually on the jury will see it the same way.

                    2. I’d go with the evidence, too, but I’d be making inquiries as to whether the witness protection program was available, and arrange for my family to be vacationing out of state on the day the verdict was announced.

                      Yes, I think it’s virtually certain the names will become public, and probably before the trial concludes. The public accounts give too specific of information about some of the jurors. You could scrape public records and identify several of them, I’m sure.

                      And, yes, I don’t think that’s equally likely.

                    3. Lots of jurys have let off cops that killed black persons in high profile cases lately, do you have any evidence of them and their families being harmed?

                    4. “harassed by Chauvin’s friends on the police force if I vote to convict. And don’t think that isn’t equally likely.”

                      Has it ever happened? You have actual cases where police officers routinely harass jurors? For the rest of their lives?

                    5. Bob, I’m not aware of any cases in which jurors have been harassed by either BLM protestors or police officers. But why should Brett be the only one to engage in evidence-free speculation? My point is that neither one is likely. If there is a low but non zero likelihood of either, then each is equally likely.

                2. You wrote earlier that the “media deliberately published their names”. You’re not even going to acknowledge that what you wrote wasn’t actually true?

                  1. (Oh, oops, and now I scrolled down slightly farther and see you did. My bad!)

              2. But, I will give you this: I was mistaken about the media having published their names. My bad.

                1. Brett is typical of so many conservatives here. They assert a premise with so much confidence that they build an outrage conclusion on it and then you find out the premise is false, but what they never learn from this *is to be more careful in the future about that.*

                  That’s for losers.

                  1. He apologized for his mistake. People make mistakes. Good people apologize for them.

                    1. Even better people *learn* from them. I know that’s probably foreign territory for you.

                    2. “Even better people *learn* from them. I know that’s probably foreign territory for you.”

                      One great thing about QA is that he’s always learning.

                    3. There’s few wrong assertions that won’t get a vigorous defense from 12″

                    4. And then there are people like QA…

                  2. “Brett is typical of so many conservatives here. They assert a premise with so much confidence…”

                    I don’t find that the propensity to do this falls down a general left-right split. I find that in general, people who agree with me do this much less often than people who don’t.

                    1. Just on this thread he’s made at least two demonstrably unsupportable assertions as the basis of an outrage conclusion about the nefarious left. I mean, take a freaking minute and check your premises before building a jenga pile of outrage on them.

                  3. Remember the clear proof that Biden’s Q & A with a reporter was done before a green screen? How many rushed to the outrage and hyperbole? And how many conceded later that, oh, guess not? Better yet, learned not to be so quick on the trigger?

                    1. Brett was one of them.

                    2. I was also one of the first to retract it when I saw good evidence it wasn’t true, if you recall.

                    3. It’s laudable for you to admit your wrong but, again why not try to be more careful in the future instead?

                    4. “why not try to be more careful in the future instead?”

                      Precisely. If you do that shit all the time then, no, admitting error doesn’t count for much. No one gets points for quickest and most hyperbolic take.

                    5. LOL. You should only be making factual assertions when you have proof that they ARE true.

                      Instead, you decide to make ‘factual’ assertions without proof, and only ‘retract’ your claims when proof is presented that you were never right to begin with.

                    6. “Remember the clear proof that Biden’s Q & A with a reporter was done before a green screen?”

                      The Biden Q & A effect was clearly an effect of a zoom lens. Such effects has caused people to make strange claims before.

                      For example, such effects caused people to claim that Trump invaded Hillary’s personal space during one of the 2016 debates.

                      But in that case, the “conspiracy theorists” were the candidate herself and many of the MSM.

                    7. Truly the claim that Trump got too close to Hillary at a debate and that the President and the mainstream media colluded to do a fake green screen interview are totes equivalent in their paranoid jumping to conclusions.

                    8. “Truly the claim that Trump got too close to Hillary at a debate and that the President and the mainstream media colluded to do a fake green screen interview are totes equivalent in their paranoid jumping to conclusions.”

                      Well, I think the second is more plausible. YMMV. But in any event, they’re both BS. But only one was pushed by the candidate herself and the establishment media.

                    9. That’s some paranoid thinking. All the Washington press corps just decided they would go along with a total and elaborate hoax with the President and his staff.

                    10. Well, they went along with Hillary’s false claim that Trump kept invading her personal space.

              3. ” His post is still correct because their friends and family know who they are, and they’ve probably told everyone.”

                That reason is typical of Brett’s warped concept of truth as confirmed by the Orange Clown

            2. Not yet, they haven’t. But I rate the chances of getting through the trial without their being identified at somewhere between slim and none.

              1. I’ve consulted the judges and they’ve unanimously decided that “No, they haven’t, but they totally will, probably” counts as #2 “His post is still correct…” Paying 2-1.

              2. Why couldn’t the pressure come from the cop’s buddies?

                Oh that’s right, you think everyone on your side is driving by snow-white intentions.

                What a joke.

                1. What’s a snow white intention?

      2. I think the manslaughter charge is the most likely, the two murder charges are unlikely because there is sufficient reasonable doubt about the cause of death due to the drugs in his system, his health, and Chauvin’s intent.

        But the manslaughter charge can be found based on deliberate indifference, and I think the jury could legitimately find in that charge without the courts second guessing them.

        1. Kazinski,
          The retired medical examiner from Md may have lowered the chances of a murder 2 conviction, but manslaughter is almost a slam dunk.

          1. Interesting to see today that the prosecutor’s office (which has, so far, done an excellent job, IMO) really screwed up. The ME apparently DID test for carbon monoxide in Floyd’s blood, but this was not released to the defense in time. So, the defense does get to put up this totally incorrect (but made in good faith) theory that the car’s exhaust could have contributed. The truth will have to remain hidden from the jury. A good decision, legally. But it’s always a shame when important factual details are deliberately kept from jurors.

      3. There is no bright side for Chauvin. He’s caught on camera committing murder. He’s now being used by the Blue Lives Matter brigade, against his better interests. Obviously he should have plead guilty, but he’s been persuaded to fight in the kind of obnoxious way that gets people maximum sentences.

        There are simply no defences to blocking someone’s breathing for 9 minutes. It’s murder. It doesn’t matter about underlying conditions, it doesn’t matter if that person might well have died anyway in that time, it’s murder.

        Take an extreme example: If you walk into a hospice, look around for someone just about to breathe their last, and shoot them in the head, it’s still murder.

        Chauvin might as well have put his hands around Floyd’s neck and kept squeezing. It’s that blatant. He knelt on someone’s _neck_. Not for seconds, but for minutes. As everyone in his chain of command has confirmed, he was specifically trained to recognise the danger of his actions.

        If there were any doubt about the kneeling Chauvin and his cow-orkers would still be facing criminal charges for ignoring the bit where their arrestee _wasn’t breathing_.

        But there isn’t. It’s a simple case of murder caught on camera.

    2. I’ve read some of those, and also some of these. Much of the time the two gentlemen watch the same testimony and draw very different conclusions from it.

      1. Thanks.

        I just looked over some of McCarthy’s articles in NR, and they seem quite sensationalist in nature, unlike Branca’s commentary on LI.

        1. Well, when one guy summarizes a day of testimony as ‘the prosecution scored big today’ while the other guy says ‘the defense scored big today’, the jury will eventually tell us who was telling the truth.

          Branca has made some interesting points, e.g. I have seen some media articles that seem to summarize a prosecution witness’ testimony from the direct, while ignoring the cross, which doesn’t seem like the best practice for reporting on a trial. But, to my ear, he seems to view things generally from a rather pro-defense POV. I’m not sure the jury is looking through the same lens. Time will tell.

      1. Different expert witnesses.

    3. I mean, that is literally the only website I’ve seen that says the defense was solid.

      Everyone other website, including the conservative ones I frequent, said it was terrible. Of course, most of those websites came out in favor of George Floyd … most people did. I thought this was uncontroversial.

      1. I’ll also add that, being in Minneapolis (and currently overlooking the courthouse where this is taking place), I’ve heard quite a bit of commentary on the trial. That includes interviews one of the best-known defense attorneys in town about the case. He is of the opinion that the prosecution is doing an excellent job and that the defense’s key expert was just fine. Everyone seems to think the use-of-force expert was a complete disaster and ended up helping the prosecution.

    4. ThePublius, I have been following the Legal Insurrection coverage closely, but I came out differently. Chauvin is guilty. In fact, he is guilty as hell. He might not be guilty of intentional murder, but he is certainly guilty of manslaughter, IMO. He showed utter indifference to George Floyd’s life, and this cannot be tolerated in any way from law enforcement in a civil society.

      To me, the complete, deliberate and utter indifference to Floyd’s life dictates that he gets the needle. I cheerfully admit that I have a very harsh view, and that I have an extreme minority view in meting out punishment for this act.

      1. Based on what? Which of Chauvin’s actions DIRECTLY contributed to the death of George Floyd? Because if Floyd had not ingested the drugs he had (the ACTUAL direct cause of death), Floyd would be alive today, assuming Chauvin took the exact same actions.

        1. That isn’t the point. If I didn’t head down that dark alley at night I wouldn’t have been mugged. Great. Doesnt mean mugging me isnt a crime (hypothetical).

          Maybe he would be alive if he hadn’t injested the drug. But that isn’t the relevant question. The relevant question is did Chauvin kill him, which, I mean we both saw the same video right?

          1. I’m not sure that’s a valid comparison. It’s not that Floyd did a crime or not, it’s that his own actions are a more direct cause of his own death than anything Chauvin did. People often survice walking down an alley. They don’t often survive drug overdoses of that level.

            I’m assuming we watched the same video. I say he DIDN’T kill him. Hypothetical, if Chauvin performed the same actions on anyone else who didn’t ingest the amount of drugs that Floyd did, would that person be alive?

            1. I seem to recall something about eggshell people, if normal police procedures kill them because they are fragile, it’s not the police’s fault. This came up in a trial of two cops in my own city a few decades back. Iirc they were convicted.

              1. And the case was similar but murkier. Cop gets into car, fights with guy on drugs, who dies. No cams.

            2. “Hypothetical, if Chauvin performed the same actions on anyone else who didn’t ingest the amount of drugs that Floyd did, would that person be alive?”

              what does that have to do with murder? if you would have shot someone else in the head, but they would have survived for whatever reason…. you think this is a defense to murder? that’s absurd and so devoid of any basis in the law

          2. Not a good analogy, since a mugging is definitionally a wrongful act, so the mugger is always 100% responsible for the consequences.

            There’s a serious question of whether Floyd would still be alive today even if he hadn’t encountered the police; He could easily have died in that car, given his condition.

            The video establishes that Chauvin was present when he died, and may even have accelerated the process a little. I think he could likely be faulted for not administering Narcan, if they had it.

            But he’s been over-charged, IMO.

            1. Brett,

              I’m sorry but I want to be clear here… your take on the video is that it clearly shows the Floyd would have died regardless of what Chauvin did?

        2. Is it disputed that the police took no action even after noticing that there was no pulse?

          Suppose that, when they noticed Floyd didn’t have a pulse, they did something, anything – CPR, getting on the radio to speed up the ambulance, whatever. That would be a lot more defensible than just doing nothing.

          The defense has raised some reasons – that the crowd was hostile, that you have to uncuff people to do CPR, that when passed out people wake up they can be combative, etc, etc. But my sense is that lack of a pulse overrides those considerations. If you try to do CPR but the crowd attacks you, OK, that’s on the crowd then. If you do CPR and the guy wakes up and starts winning the renewed fight badly enough that you have to shoot him, OK, that’s on him. But just ignoring a lack of pulse in the circumstances here seems pretty hard to justify, to me.

          1. ETA: I saw a discussion where an officer said the following: “As I’ve mentioned, I’ve been in this situation. I had a fight with a guy who was bigger than me, hyped up on drugs, and uncontrollable. He broke my hand in the fight and I was in a cast for 8 weeks afterward. Not I broke my hand punching him, he broke my hand by forcing my thumb down against my forearm. It was a very serious fight with two of us on him. He died after the fight.

            I was, of course, investigated and sued. You know what I was charged with? Nothing. You know what I and my city paid out? Nothing. You know why? Because I had a *personal* recorder, well before we were issued body cameras, that proved I made him lay on his side and held him on his side as best I could while injured until medics got there. The sheriff’s dept, however, paid out. They put him on his stomach while cuffed and he died of excited delirium/positional asphyxiation.

            Once someone is reasonably controlled and in your custody, it’s your duty to attempt to care for them. Even if they are assholes. Even if they tried to kill you. Even if they are overdosing. Social media outrage has nothing to do with it. Doing the job legally and ethically does.”

          2. It cannot be justified = …just ignoring a lack of pulse in the circumstances here seems pretty hard to justify…

            This is the complete indifference I wrote of that is absolutely intolerable coming from law enforcement in a civil society.

          3. Is it disputed that the police took no action even after noticing that there was no pulse?

            The first time he was checked for a pulse was in the ambulance by the EMT.

            1. I’m referring to sources like this article:

              “Officer J. Alexander Keung eventually checked Floyd’s pulse at officer Thomas Lane’s behest, according to the court record. It was Lane’s fourth day on the job.

              Keung checked and said, “I can’t find one,” according to the court record.

              Chauvin responded, “Huh?”

              Keung clarified that he couldn’t find Floyd’s pulse.

              Chauvin squeezed Floyd’s fingers and got no response.

              Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd’s neck area for 2½ minutes.”

              Is this inaccurate?

        3. if Floyd had not ingested the drugs he had (the ACTUAL direct cause of death), Floyd would be alive today, assuming Chauvin took the exact same actions.

          So if police behavior kills someone who is in poor health as a result of, say, bad diet, lack of exercise, drinking too much, etc., while a healthier person would have survived, the cop is innocent?

          I don’t think so.

          1. Both cops and covid are innocent when they kill people in poor health.

      2. Yes, Chauvin should get the needle because a free and civilized society should not tolerate LEOs who, while acting under the color of law, manifest a depraved indifference to the life of another, even socially dysfunctional punks like Floyd.

        The same standard should apply to the Capitol police officer who murdered Ashli Babbitt.

        1. Silly and unrealistic on both counts. First, you haven’t defined what “depraved indifference” is in this case. Second, the idea that we will have a single standard for all is looking for unicorns in utopia.

          1. Chauvin’s 9 minute cowardly act of keeping his knee on the neck of Floyd is, per se, a manifestation of a depraved indifference to Floyd’s life.

            1. The smirking when other officers, an EMT, and civilians asked or begged him to stop the abuse could be perceived as evidence of depraved indifference.

              1. Yet none of them dialed 911 requesting the shift supervisor, as I would have.

                “Please send someone, one of your officers is murdering a man.”

                1. I’ve dialled the emergency line to report fake police before. Couldn’t be real ones, behaving like that.

                  I can well understand why anyone of a darker shade of skin wouldn’t do that in the USA. They’d be charged with wasting police time, at best.

              2. You mean like the Nick Sandmann smirk? You can read facial expressions like a book, and see into someone’s heart?

                1. He was also adding an audible, mocking, ‘uh huh . . . uh huh.’

                  I am no expert on facial expressions, but I recognize blatant, violent abuse of authority — criminal wrongdoing — when I see it. I blame my libertarianism and education.

                  Old-fashioned, conservative racists tend to have a blind spot in this context. The liberal-libertarian mainstream will handle it.

            2. It’s clear you’ve simply adopted the mainstream media and BLM narrative and not looked into the details of what actually happened.

            3. It would only be a “depraved indifference to Floyd’s life” if Chauvin had been aware that Floyd was dying and ignored it. Bystanders told him that Floyd wasn’t moving but no one had taken his pulse. It has been established that he wasn’t asphyxiating him.

              1. Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes, for which I would give him five years even if Floyd had walked home. It was both brutal and unnecessary. Have someone put a knee on your neck for nine minutes and let us know how it went.

                1. “Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes,”

                  Incorrect. According to the prosecution’s own witnesses it was the “neck area”. Or the upper back, in the area in between the shoulder blades.

                  Will you admit, there’s a difference between having a knee on someone’s neck and on their upper back?

                  1. No:


                    But even if it had been Floyd’s back the entire time, I’d give him five years for that too. That kind of brutality is just unnecessary. Floyd wasn’t resisting and there was no reason to keep torturing him.

                    1. So, you’re telling me there is no difference between kneeling on someone’s neck versus someone’s upper back?

                    2. Did you read the link I posted?

                    3. You didn’t really answer the question.

                      “So, you’re telling me there is no difference between kneeling on someone’s neck versus someone’s upper back?”

                    4. (Oh, and paywall blocked articles are bad way to make a point….)

                    5. Here’s the text of the article:

                      In the widely viewed bystander video of George Floyd’s arrest, it seemed plain that Derek Chauvin had positioned his left knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck.

                      But Mr. Chauvin’s defense has repeatedly suggested, and tried to get witnesses to agree, that his knee was actually on Mr. Floyd’s shoulder.

                      The most obvious reason for this is that the medical examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, attributed Mr. Floyd’s death in part to neck compression.

                      But several experts said it did not matter: The knee could be lethal in either position, neck or shoulder.

                      “In my opinion, does it make a difference?” asked Dr. Alon Steinberg, a cardiologist who has published a review of the scientific literature on prone restraint deaths. “No.”

                      Dr. Steinberg said that multiple factors, including the restriction of breathing and of blood flow, contributed to death during prone restraint.

                      Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who has written extensively about the case, said, “Even in the absence of pressing on the neck, you’re putting strain on the cardiovascular system, especially if somebody is fighting or struggling against the restraint.”

                      The prosecution on Thursday appeared to be pursuing a similar argument. The first witness was Dr. Martin Tobin, a pulmonologist who specializes in the mechanics and physics of breathing.

                      He said that Mr. Floyd had died from a “low level of oxygen” that led to brain damage and an arrhythmia that “caused his heart to stop.” Dr. Tobin said terms such as hypoxia or the prosecution’s preferred word, asphyxia, are “really other words for a phenomenon that is a low level of oxygen.”

                      Mr. Floyd’s breathing was restricted, Dr. Tobin explained, by the way the officers pushed in his cuffed hands, squeezing his rib cage against the hard pavement, and by Mr. Chauvin’s placement of his left knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck and right knee on his back.

                      Mr. Chauvin’s left knee was on Mr. Floyd’s neck “more than 90 percent of the time,” Dr. Tobin said, and his right knee was on Mr. Floyd’s back at least 57 percent of the time. Dr. Tobin said that for the rest of the time, the available video did not provide a good view of the location of Mr. Chauvin’s right knee.

                    6. So the answer to your question is: There’s no difference that would have changed the outcome in this case.

                    7. Sorry, I was reading the other testimony….From the Prosecution’s witness…

                      “It was at this point that Nelson showed Mercil a series of photographs captured from the body worn camera of Officer Lane, and showing Chauvin’s knee on Floyd from the angle down Floyd’s proned body.

                      Photo 1: Where’s Chauvin’s leg in this image? On Floyd’s neck? Or on his shoulder blades and back. Mercil: Shoulder blades and back.

                      And in photo 2? Same. Photo 3? Same. Photo 4? Same.

                      This, of course, fundamentally undercuts the prosecution’s narrative of guilt that it was Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck that killed Floyd.

                      Are there circumstances like those already discussed where would be appropriate to maintain presence of leg across shoulder blades and back in order to ensure control of the suspect? Yes, there are, Mercil answered. For as long as 10 minutes? It’s possible.”


                      So, you have a 140 pound police officer controlling a 200+ pound suspect by placing his knee on their upper back.

                      Is that unreasonable, in your opinion?

                    8. For nine minutes, after he’s stopped resisting and is begging for his life? Yes, that is absolutely unreasonable.

                      You try taking a knee to your neck, your shoulder, or both, for nine minutes and then report back.

                    9. So, what should the smaller, lighter police officer do instead to subdue the suspect?

                      Tase them? Punch them in the face? Hit them with a nightstick? Shoot them in the leg? Let them go and rampage through the crowd of civilians nearby?

                      Please give me some options here. If a suspect is resisting arrest, what is the method least likely to cause harm that still subdues the suspect.

                      Keep in mind, the prosecution’s own witness said in some situations, application of pressure to the upper back, for as long as 10 minutes, was entirely appropriate.

                    10. In “some” situations is not this situation.

                      Here’s the thing: Even if I were to concede — which I don’t — that the knee to the neck may have been appropriate at the very beginning, Floyd was no longer resisting. Far from it. He was begging for his life. The pain needs to end when the resistance ends. There was no purpose to be served, other than sadistic bullying, to keep the knee there for that amount of time. Why do you think it *was* necessary to continue for nine minutes?

                      And if Chauvin is convicted, it will be because the jury has eyes.

                    11. 1. Once again. Knee to the back. The fact you keep needing to use the word “neck” shows that you know there is a significant difference.

                      2. Floyd actively resisted. He initially resisted being handcuffed. Once handcuffed, he temporarily complied. He then actively resisted being put in the squad car. Despite multiple officers attempting to put Floyd in the squad car for 5 minutes, they were unable to. Again, despite initial compliance, then Floyd proceeded to actively resist arrest for more than 5 minutes, despite being handcuffed.

                      3. At this point, Floyd was put on the ground. In order to enforce compliance. He had already resisted compliance twice. Again, you have a lighter police officer working against a much heavier man. How would you enforce compliance in this case? In this case, the procedure which the prosecution’s own witness says can be used, is to place the knee on the suspect back, in order to control them.

                      If Floyd had been let up after 2 minutes, or 3 minutes, would he have complied? Or would have have actively resisted arrest again? Having resisted arrest already, after briefly complying? What would YOU do in this situation. Do you let Floyd up? And if he begins to resist arrest again, and you can’t get him in the squad car, what do you do?

                    12. Don’t know why you keep harping on knee vs back when the article I linked to has experts saying it wouldn’t have made a difference.

                      If you’re going to do something inherently dangerous, like put a knee to someone’s neck (or back, if it makes you happy), it should pretty much be strict liability. Chauvin had control over how long that knee would be there, Floyd did not, so it’s all on Chauvin if something goes wrong. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that shutting off someone’s wind, or putting pressure on his ability to breathe, can be lethal.

                      It’s hard for me to imagine anyone continuing to resist after experiencing a knee to the neck — oh, sorry, back — but if he was let up and resisted again, then he could be kneed again if it were still necessary. That’s far less likely to result in serious injury or death than just doing it for nine minutes.

                      And the most telling thing is that Chauvin’s own department is throwing him under the bus. This is not a case in which the thin blue line is holding; it’s fully breached.

                    13. 1. If it “doesn’t make a difference” then use back consistently. Because that’s accurate.

                      2. It’s not clear that putting a knee on someone’s back IS inherently dangerous in a normal situation. Especially considering the officer’s training. Again, the prosecution’s own witnesses said this is something that was APPROPRIATE to do for up to 10 minutes. I’ll quote it again for you.

                      “Are there circumstances like those already discussed where would be appropriate to maintain presence of leg across shoulder blades and back in order to ensure control of the suspect? Yes, there are, Mercil answered. For as long as 10 minutes? It’s possible.”

                      I’m going to repeat this. The prosecution’s own witnesses said the action taken (using a knee on a suspect’s back) could be appropriate….for up to 10 minutes.

                      Now you say “you can’t imagine…”. But who are you going to trust? The expert opinion from the prosecution’s own witnesses? Or your own non-expert opinion.

                    14. You’re insisting on back because it doesn’t sound as bad as neck. But even if it was on the back for part of the time, it was on the neck for most of the time.

                      And the issue isn’t if there are some other circumstances under which it might have been appropriate. The issue is if it was appropriate in this circumstance. It was not. We have a dead body to prove it.

                    15. I’m insisting on back because that is accurate. You keep asserting “it makes no difference”. And if so, then use back.

                      “The issue is if it was appropriate in this circumstance. It was not. We have a dead body to prove it.”

                      That argues that Chauvin could possibly know that his actions would result in death.
                      In other circumstances, it would be appropriate. That’s expert testimony….from the prosecution. For up to 10 minutes. That implies that in other situations it would not cause death.

                      What was fundamentally different about this situation, compared to other situations, that would give Chauvin definitive reason to believe it would cause death here, but not other situations, where it would be appropriate?

                    16. No you are insisting on back because you’re dissembling. Most of the time it was on his neck. And when I say it made no difference I mean it meant no difference to the result. We’d have a dead body regardless.

                      And that we have a dead body is prima facie evidence that it was inappropriate. If you are a sadistic asshole who keeps your knee on someone’s NECK when he is pleading that he can’t breathe you deserve anything bad that happens to you as a result. Why are you sticking up for a sadistic asshole?

                    17. 1. You’re using post hoc reasoning on tactics that would be entirely reasonable if there wasn’t a death involved.

                      2. You don’t have any evidence for what is fundamentally different about this situation versus any of the dozens or hundreds of previous encounters that used these tactics, that were completely acceptable, according to the police’s own training, except “this” time, unfortunately someone died. Which is a tragedy.

                      3. But WHY did someone die this time, when in all the previous cases, there wasn’t a death. In all the previous training, which was acceptable, there wasn’t a death? And can Chauvin have possibly known, ahead of time, that the restraint technique would cause death this time?

                      That’s the issue.

                      I see a tragedy that Floyd died. I don’t see a reason to make a second tragedy.

                      What was fundamentally different about this situation, compared to other situations, that would give Chauvin definitive reason to believe it would cause death here, but not other situations, where it would be appropriate?

            4. The standard isn’t “depraved indifference” which I think is a more difficult standard to meet. Here’s the Minnesota law for 2nd degree manslaughter:
              “(1) by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;”

              I think the jury could find that, which carries a 10 year sentence. I don’t think they could find, or have a court uphold it, that Chauvin intentionally was the proximate cause Floyd’s death, which the other 2 charges would require.

            5. “Cowardly”. Loaded with emotion. Keep it up, Mike, you’ll be a girl sooner or later.

        2. Ashli Babbitt deserved to die.

          Don’t pretend otherwise.

          1. I prefer ‘she had no one to blame — to any degree — other than herself . . . and her fellow insurrectionists.’

            Ignorance and bigotry have consequences. In this case, predictable and appropriate consequences.

          2. No, Jason. Human beings don’t deserve to die. Dehumanising people who disagree with you is precisely what led to the attack on the Capitol.

          3. “Ashli Babbitt deserved to die.

            Don’t pretend otherwise.”

            You’re a real piece of shit.

            Babbitt put herself into the position where her being shot was likely justified, therefore she deserved to die. Using your own logic then, nearly every police killing in the past decade was to a person who deserved it. Of course, you’ll do plenty of mental gymnastics to avoid this end.

            I can’t believe Artie is almost the sane one in this.

            1. “Using your own logic then, nearly every police killing in the past decade was to a person who deserved it.”

              In order for your comment to be accurate, nearly every police killing in the past decade would have to involve someone whose shooting was ‘likely justified.’ A standard which ‘nearly every police killing’ clearly doesn’t meet.

              Unsurprisingly, a former Marine isn’t the definitive source on logical conclusions.

          4. Ashli Babbitt deserved to die.

            No. She didn’t.

            1. Absent her behavior on Jan 6th, probably not. Based on her actions at the time and crossing a defensive barricade with guns and lethal force indicated as a consequence of doing so, while engaging in an insurrection and threatening the safety of Congress and the VP?

              She got precisely what was deserved.

      3. As opposed to the 21-year-vet who confused a florescent plastic TASER for a Glock?

        At what point should the brass be on trial?

      4. Commenter_XY, that is a ridiculous rant. Guilty of what, and why? He’s not being charged with “utter indifference to George Floyd’s life.” Get the needle? Rally?

        If anyone displayed an “utter indifference to George Floyd’s life,” it was George Floyd! He had a coronoary artery that was 90% blocked, and enlarged heart, and had ingested fentanyl and meth, then fought with the police. Chauvin restrains him and Floyd croaks, and you say it was manslaughter. He was holding him to:
        – protect himself and his colleagues;
        – hold him until EMTs arrived.

        Duh! It’s amazing Floyd didn’t croak while still on his feet. (BTW, did you know he was saying “I can’t breath” long before Chauvin subdued him?)

        1. George Floyd was a bad man, ThePublius. No dispute there. The world is probably a better place without him. I’ve no doubt had this not happened, he would have been killed by OD or some street fight.

          But George Floyd is not on trial; Chauvin is.

          1. Of course. What I’m saying is that Chauvin could have been holding Floyd’s hand, patting him on the head, and singing “Soft Kitty” and Floyd would likely have died anyway.

            What was Chauvin doing for 9+ minutes and why was he doing it?

            1. he was restraining Floyd, who had just been fighting with the other police, so he could be arrested;
            2. he was holding him until the EMTs arrived so he could be treated.

            Was he kneeling on Floyd’s neck? No.
            Did he obstruct Floyd’s airway? No.
            Was there any bruising on Floyd’s neck, back, or shoulders? No.

            Incidentally, Chauvin weighs but 140 lb. at 5”9″. Floyd was 6’6″ and 225.

            1. That video does not lie; Chauvin killed Floyd. The jury will sort it out, ThePublius.

              1. So, your opinion is that a 140 pound person kneeling on a 225 person’s back will kill them. Is that correct?

              2. You know, don’t you, that there are multiple videos, from different angles? His knee was not on Floyd’s neck, it turns out.

                1. Here is what I know, ThePublius. Nearly all the evidence has been presented. The case goes to the jury next Monday or Tuesday. The jury will sort this out and deliver their verdict. You already know my thoughts about Chauvin, so no need to rehash it.

                  The prosecution dumping ‘new’ evidence on literally a daily basis at 5pm each day onto the defense for a week ought to be sanctioned. That crossed the line. There is gamesmanship, and then there is something else. What the prosecutors did here was something else. According to Legal Insurrection, there was very nearly a mistrial declared today. Why? More questionable antics from the prosecution, related to a witness being recalled to give more testimony.

                  Are there mitigating circumstances here? Perhaps.

            2. “What I’m saying is that Chauvin could have been holding Floyd’s hand, patting him on the head, and singing “Soft Kitty” and Floyd would likely have died anyway.”

              Does this blog generate stupid, delusional bigots . . . or merely attract them?

              1. It’s not bigoted to disagree with you Art. Stop being such a deranged coward and answer the point directly.

            3. “Of course. What I’m saying is that Chauvin could have been holding Floyd’s hand, patting him on the head, and singing “Soft Kitty” and Floyd would likely have died anyway.”

              This is embarrassingly dishonest

    5. ThePublius, how do you figure? Assume nothing happened, until Floyd under the influence of drugs, toppled over unconscious in front of Chauvin. Whereupon Chauvin handcuffed him, proned him, and put his knee on Floyd’s body (neck or otherwise). And Chauvin knelt like that until Floyd died. Not guilty of anything?

      1. This is a take. But you need evidence of what you just typed (well, in a normal situation, anyway, which this one isn’t). Where is the evidence that “Floyd, under the influence of drugs, toppled over unconscious in front of Chauvin”? And then followed up with “Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s body until Floyd died”? These are two acts that the video don’t even show.

        1. I Callahan, what I just gave you was an account of the defense hypothesis in other words—that it was the effect of drugs which killed Floyd. What that reframing tries to make clearer is how Chauvin’s conduct was a reckless contribution to Floyd’s death anyway. It is not uncommon for police to encounter people in medical extremity. It is bizarre and criminal for police to assault those people instead of attempting to help them. If the defense hypothesis is that Floyd was in medical extremity, Chauvin’s duty was to help him out of trouble, not to do him harm as he struggled.

          Of course the fact of the case is that Chauvin had no way to know anything about Floyd’s medical condition. That is another route to understanding why the defense hypothesis is nonsensical. How can Chauvin’s conduct be excused by facts he did not know, and had no right to assume, when those facts would not have justified his conduct if he did know them?

      2. Stephen,
        Don’t worry.
        Chauvin is going down for Murder 2. The decision will be upheld on appeal.
        There is no point in arguing with those who cannot hear.

        1. Well, that’s fascinating, Don Nico, since he hasn’t been charged with murder 2. It will surely make the headlines.

        2. All it’s going to take is a juror coming forward 18-24 months from now saying that the only reason why she voted to convict was that she feared for the safety of her son, then attending the local high school.

          1. That’s not going to happen, and even if it did it would almost certainly not be a basis to disturb the conviction.

      3. That’s a ridiculous hypothetical. Why don’t you ask “what if Floyd tried to run and Chauvin held him until the EMTs could arrive, to treat him?” Then what?

        1. Don’t fight the hypothetical Publius. It makes you look at a loss for an answer.

      4. That of course would be a different situation from what happened. But it’s nonsensical

        Why would a cop take a person who literally had “done nothing” then topped down unconscious, and decide to handcuff them, drop them them on their front, and kneel on their back? The person clearly isn’t (and never was) resisting. It would be wrong. And nonsensical. You wouldn’t need to kneel on someone who was unconscious.

        But if the person WAS resisting, and strongly so, prior to these events, it changes everything.

        1. You wouldn’t need to kneel on someone who was unconscious.

          Yet that is exactly what Chauvin did.

          1. No…..

            Unconscious people don’t talk. You know that, right?

            1. He was kneeling on a dead body for several minutes…

    6. I don’t think the prosecution has done that great of a job. That said, they only need to do their job well enough to prove guilt on at least one count beyond a reasonable doubt. That I think they accomplished at leas tin the mind of a reasonable juror if the trial had concluded right after they rested. Absent a good defense case that leaves a lot of doubt in the minds of the jury that Chauvin’s action had nothing to do with the death of Floyd then I suspect some kind of conviction.

      It doesn’t really matter any which way, Chauvin is a dead man walking. If he is acquitted there is going to be a price on his head. If he goes to jail, same thing. It is just a matter of time….

      1. “It doesn’t really matter any which way, Chauvin is a dead man walking. If he is acquitted there is going to be a price on his head.”

        Lots of cops have shot black persons in recent high profile cases. Which of them have been killed?

        1. No, lots of cops have not. You’re more likely to be shot if you’re white than black.

          1. That’s utter nonsense. You’re far more likely to be killed by police in a routine encounter if you’re darker of skin. Give police guns and they shoot people, so white people also get killed. But it’s attracted global notice that the USA has a massive problem with the disproportionate number of shootings.

      2. What this case will do is establish absolute liability for a death in custody, and that may not be a bad thing.

    7. This is significant: ” exposure to carbon monoxide from the exhaust of squad car 320.”

      If that’s Chauvin’s cruiser, then there is the very real possibility of him being the victim of chronic CO poisoning and unless they did a blood gas analysis *that day* on him, there is no way to prove that he wasn’t.

      “Confusion” and “altered mental state” are known symptoms, per the CDC and everyone else.

      1. Are you offering that as a defense of Chauvin? That he forcibly restrained Floyd in the exhaust gas, while Floyd was complaining he couldn’t breathe? I hope you meant it the other way, that it was an aggravation of the offense.

        1. No, that Chauvin, who had been breathing that CO for *days*, had a diminished mental capacity because of the elevated CO level in his (Chauvin’s) blood.

          Remember that CO is colorless, odorless, & tasteless….

          1. Chauvin was in the habit of laying behind his squad car?

      2. Wait, Chauvin’s squad car was putting exhaust into the passenger compartment?

        Or, Chauvin had Floyd on the ground with his head by the exhaust?

        One of these seems more likely than the other. And makes your strange “Chauvin was breathing CO for days” hypo just weird.

  2. Cannot the family of Ashli Babbitt learn the name of the Capitol Police officer who shot her, to pursue a civil action?

    1. Sorry, but she was the wrong color and party for that.

    2. Maybe on accounta the consistent death threats coming from knuckleheads.

      It’s really a lovely cycle – threaten violence, requiring restrictions for safety, claim persecution/martyrdom, radicalizing to rationalize additional threats of violence.

      I hope it’s being investigated, but the right is working hard to make sure any investigation can’t happen in the open. Which I suspect you’re in to, as the martyr has fulfilled her purpose.

        1. That does not mean the cop cannot be sued for wrongful death.

          1. No, but it means the investigation is over.

          2. Wait, I need to know her politics before I decide if her family suing are looking for justice denied or are evil money grubbers looking for blood money.

          3. Qualified immunity means exactly that actually.

      1. Why are you going off accusing me of something when I just asked the question? Oh, I guess you know everyone’s motive, you know what’s in everyone’s heart and mind, and you are the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. I forgot.

        Shooter of Daunte Wright immediately identified. Why is this different?

        1. Yeah, sure, very good faith question there.

          Not buying it, chief. That was not curiosity, it was right-wing rabble-rousing around a tragedy.

          Which you underline in your last line in this post.

        2. “Yeah, sure, very good faith question there.”

          Huh? It’s a perfectly legitimate question.

          1. No, it is empty outrage fuel.

            Exhibit 1 is ML waving the same bloody shirt below.

            1. They’re not bloody shirts, Sarcastro. They’re human beings.

              1. Not to you she isn’t.

                Your selective outrage condemns you,

      2. “I hope it’s being investigated, but the right is working hard to make sure any investigation can’t happen in the open. Which I suspect you’re in to, as the martyr has fulfilled her purpose.”

        Wha? People protest death by excessive force all the time. George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ashli Bobbitt, etc. Why is only one of these a martyr who has fulfilled her purpose, making an investigation impossible, etc?

        As someone who believes all three deaths were unjustified, I’ve seen zero evidence of justification in the Bobbitt shooting, but they’ve already cleared the officer.

        1. Unjustified is not the same as making a martyr out of them.

          Floyd had a tape that…paints law enforcement in a pretty callous light to say the least.
          Breonna Taylor was a complete innocent, and law enforcement tried hard to get away with shooting her.

          Babbitt was a tragedy, and the use of force may well have been unjustified. But also she was doing an insurrection.

          1. Again, can you come up with criteria for “making a martyr out of them” that applies to Ashli Babbitt but not George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and dozens of other people? Because it’s a rhetorical term that can broadly apply to victims of excessive force.

            And in several instances, the Ashley Babbitt shooting response is being used, quite reasonably, to make the outrage at black victims appear disingenuous. There is a way to prevent that.

            1. I literally did in the comment you are replying to.

              1. I don’t think you did. You just did the same crap that everybody who wants to justify excessive force in a particular case does.

                1. I’m not justifying the us

                2. I am not justifying the use of force though? I’m talking about why different people become martyrs for causes.

                  Babbit is martyr for an insurrection. Tragic, not justified, whatever. Your outrage is bullshit; it’s selective, and shows up here only to deflect from the shame of Jan 6.

                  She was a person, and you devalue the tragedy of her death for the cause of your partisan bullshit.

                  1. “She was a person, and you devalue the tragedy of her death for the cause of your partisan bullshit.”

                    Fuck you. I ask the same questions on every thread that involves use of force, and usually come out against it. You don’t want focus on this particular shooting because it doesn’t suit your political ends.

                    That makes you a dishonest partisan asshole.

                    1. Really? You ask the name of the cop?


                    2. You don’t want to focus on this particular death because it’s just a token to be used in games of whataboutism. You’re certainly not taking her death and siding with BLM in solidarity against violent killings by LEOs.

          2. “paints law enforcement in a pretty callous light”

            No, it paints one former officer in a pretty callous light.

            1. There was a group of them. And this aligns with the existing narrative about LE.

          3. How many murals around the country have George Floyd, vs. Ashli Babbitt? Floyd had multiple funerals, visited by the most powerful people in the country, during a pandemic where all other funerals were illegal.

            You couldn’t POSSIBLY be this tone deaf.

            1. The answer:
              Floyd is a symbol about police use of force against minorities. What is Babbit a symbol of?

              Mostly an attempt to get angry enough to feel maybe January 6 isn’t the right taking a crap on the republic.

              It doesn’t seem to be working.

    3. If they filed a wrongful death suit, would they not learn the name of the officer as a part of discovery?

      1. Can you sue the federal government for wrongful death when a federal employee shoots and kills someone while on duty? My brief research into the Federal Tort Claims Act only brings up wrongful death claims brought by employees as a result of workplace conditions. I would think allowing such wrongful death claims to be brought by the families of people shot by guards protecting federal property would expose multiple agencies and the military to a ton of liability they don’t need and can avoid. I suspect the FTCA doesn’t allow such claims against the government, and therefore a wrongful death suit would be dismissed before discovery could even begin.

        1. The principles undergirding the DOI and the BOR are more important than the sovereignty of the federal government and therefore the tired doctrine of the king can do no wrong must be obliterated forever.

          1. Interesting that its only blue states that are kneecapping sovereign immunity.

            1. “kneecapping sovereign immunity.”

              With a pool noodle.

              1. Better than what Red states are doing in that regard, which is just full on cop worship.

        2. Brian wouldn’t 42 usc 1983 apply>

          1. Section 1983 claims generally aren’t applicable to federal officials, only state actors. The comparable federal procedure is to bring a Bivens claim, which, as this blog points out often, is pretty damn hard to do successfully.

            1. A federal official is a STATE actor, as in “the state.”
              L’état, c’est moi -or- ‘I am the state’ and that includes the feds.

              1. 42 U.S.C. §  1983 literally only creates a cause of action against state, territorial, or DC officials.

    4. Publix’s, how could she win a civil action? She was trying to invade a chamber of congress at the head of a violent mob. The officer who shot her was there to defend congress. He did his duty. He deserved public commendation.

      Had it been the Secret Service on that detail, instead of the pre-hobbled Capitol Police, dozens of insurrectionists would have been killed. Think otherwise? Imagine that same mob banging down a fence at the White House, and rushing the building.

      1. I’m personally putting it down as suicide by cop, myself. I’d certainly have expected to be shot if I’d done anything that stupid.

      2. Then why aren’t “protesters” who set fire to a government building in Portland with people inside shot? Why isn’t that labeled an insurrection? Seems like a double standard to me.

        Did the Capitol police deploy less than lethal weapons? Rubber bullets? Tear gas? No. The escalation of force went from zero to deadly.

        I’m not saying what Babbitt,, did was right, I’m saying that the police response was inappropriate, ill-planned (they were told in advance), ill advised, and I think her family has a case.

        1. Oh, there’s absolutely a double standard in play; By normal rules of engagement, last year’s riots would have justified an enormously more violent police response. Had local governments not approved of the people committing the riots.

          The Capitol police IG has released a report on the events, and it seems that orders had been issued to the Capitol police from higher ups to go easy, despite the police having specific intelligence that violence was planned.

          Since the Capitol police report to Congress, NOT the administration, you can’t lay that on Trump, either. Apparently somebody thought armed riot police would be bad optics.

          1. By normal rules of engagement, last year’s riots would have justified an enormously more violent police response.

            You do realize that police force is not punishment for the act being committed. We have this thing called due process that prohibits police from being judge, juror, and executioner all at once.

            Instead, use of reasonable force is permitted in certain situation. So comparing someone leading a violent insurrectionist mob trying to attack members of Congress is different than someone committing arson at a federal building (particularly if the fires don’t present an immediate threat to the safety of others).

            1. Yes, I fully realize that police force isn’t punishment for the act being committed.

              But, forget “arson at“, this was “arson of“, and the building was occupied at the time.

              When you block the exits of a building, and make a serious attempt to set it on fire while people are inside, that’s attempted murder, and the police are justified in deploying a hell of a lot of force to terminate an attempt at mass murder.

              Not to punish it, to stop the attempt, and apprehend the perpetrators.

              1. See how your second post contradicts the first? In the first one, you suggest that the severity of the crime determines the force that can be used. In the second, you admit that it’s the need to stop/apprehend someone that determines the force.

                Also, it’s not like these fires were immediate threats to people. They were in buildings with sprinkler systems, at times when they were largely (if not entirely) empty, and did little actual damage. For example, in one story, it explains that “Due to the fire, the building sustained damage in the form of peeling paint, soot deposition, burned plywood that was affixed to the window, and burn damage to the awning above,” according to the ATF’s affidavit.

          2. “Oh, there’s absolutely a double standard in play; By normal rules of engagement, last year’s riots would have justified an enormously more violent police response”

            Get a grip, Brett. If people are rioting as a protest against the inability of the police in that area to do their most basic jobs without screwing them up, you can’t send in the police to sort it out the way you can if they’re rioting about, e.g. a new piece of legislation. That would be like trying to put out a sodium fire with water.

        2. Whether or not you agree with it (and I’m not sure I do), city officials decided that it was better to allow the mob to get it out of their system than to inflict the massive casualties that would have been necessary to control the rioting, since the damage was almost entirely property damage rather than human life.

          Now, whether you agree with that calculus or not, and as I’ve said I’m not sure I do, that’s not a double standard when the threat is to institutions themselves.

          1. Except if it were a right-wing mob burning things up, I’m not sure the same philosophy would have been used. I’m QUITE sure the police would have cracked down on such a mob in a totally different fashion as they did the BLM/Antifa types.

            1. Well, the closest thing we have to a precedent — and it’s not a perfect precedent but it’s probably the best we’ve got — was when the feds (under Obama) showed up to arrest the Bundys, only to be greeted by the Bundy’s militia supporters. So rather than risk massive casualties, the feds withdrew, allowed the Bundys to win the day, and then arrested them later under less volatile conditions.

              It’s not completely unreasonable to limit casualties, even if it means that those challenging law and order temporarily win. Whether they are BLM or the Bundys.

              1. Not a good parallel at all, since the Bundies weren’t rioting, as such.

                They were occupying a park building left vacant during the off season.

                And they weren’t setting fire to anything, let alone occupied buildings. The worst vandalism they got up to was disabling some security cameras.

                Rather different from what the actual rioters were doing.

                1. Safes were found to have been broken into, with money, cameras, and computers stolen by the militants. They were also found to have badly damaged tribal artifacts…During the occupation, the militants illegally dug a new road using a government-owned excavator, expanded a parking lot, dug trenches, destroyed part of a USFWS-owned fence, and removed security cameras.[117][241] Some of the refuge’s pipes broke, after which the militants, officials said, defecated “everywhere.”[239] Investigators found “significant amounts of human feces” at “two large trenches and an improvised road on or adjacent to grounds containing sensitive artifacts” of the Burns Paiute Tribe.[

                  Do you ever get tired or embarrassed at being so wrong so much?

                  1. You’re asking a birther about embarrassment or concern with respect to being wrong?

                    1. If I were consistently mis and uninformed by the media outlets I relied on I would stop giving them my time/business.

                    2. Not if you had some of Brett Bellmore’s attributes.

                  2. Hadn’t heard about that, but you still haven’t reached “Made a serious effort to set an occupied building on fire after blocking the exits” territory.

                    1. You need to listen to different outlets then and be more wary of stating what you think is true.

                    2. So, you’re going with “Vandalism is the same as attempted mass murder by arson”?

                      You do realize that Antifa and BLM now have an established pattern of trying to burn people alive in buildings, right? And not just federal or police buildings.

                    3. I’m going that what you said about the Bundy occupation was incorrect, likely because you were mis or uninformed by your media of choice and/or your biases.

                    4. mis or uninformed by your media of choice and/or your biases.

                      This, from the person who did a lazy cut-and-paste from that bastion of accuracy and objectivity Wikipedia?


                    5. Dearest Brian,

                      If you’re going to make the mistake of simply attacking a source, you have to actually prove the source isn’t accurate.

                      275 sources on that page. I eagerly await the detailed analysis of your rebuttal.

                    6. Um, no, actually I don’t, given that the points at issue were (1) QA complaining about blind reliance on sources tweaking one’s particular confirmation bias; followed by (2) QA presenting not any particular one of the references you mention, but simply the characterizations of those sources by random Wikipedia editors, as a source of truth.

                      I used the word “lazy cut-and-paste” quite intentionally. Your cutesy rejoinder, equally so. Belly up to the bar if you have a claim to make.

                    7. Wikipedia is actually fairly to pretty accurate as many studies find, but, besides, I tend to scroll down to see the sources for the notes of the claims I select. But nice try at deflection.

                    8. fairly to pretty accurate as many studies find

                      Wow. Setting aside whatever the difference is supposed to be between “fairly accurate” and “pretty accurate” and what a study of Wikipedia in general can say about the accuracy of any particular socially-charged article, the funniest part is that you think “fairly to pretty accurate” is enough to justify your haughty reliance on it here.

      3. “The officer who shot her was there to defend congress. He did his duty.”

        Huh? Where’s the evidence that deadly force was justified? If she was committing a crime, the cop should have arrested her and put her on trial.

        1. “Where’s the evidence that deadly force was justified?”

          Exactly so. The officer went from zero force to deadly force. It wasn’t even as if he was in imminent danger, he was on the other side of a barricaded door that wasn’t breached. From a position of cover he aimed and fired, through the (broken) glass of the door.

          (I just re-watched the video).

        2. TwelveInch, the evidence is the criminal mob she was attempting to lead through the breach. It’s on tape.

          Turns out the Capitol Police aren’t docents. Who knew? I’ll grant you that it would be better to make it clearer to everyone that they are a protective force for congress, just like the secret service is a protective force for the president.

          If the Secret Service had been defending the Capitol, no one would have got inside. The doorways and window areas outside would have been littered with corpses.

          1. If you watched the tape [sic] (tape?) you would see that just before the shooting, the Capitol Police on Babbitt’s side of the door step aside and allow Babbitt and others to approach the door. Babbit is not leading, she’s at least one row back, behind those banging on the doors, when she is “sniped” by the Capitol cop inside the doors.

            1. She’s the only one who climbed through a barricaded doorway and a broken window.

              That’s leading.

              She deserved to die. The officers were already in position with their guns drawn and she decided to test the theory of “I’m white – I won’t be shot for doing this.”

              She lost.

              1. Cavanaugh, you are a stark raving loon. If she deserved to die, so did Floyd, Breonna Taylor and all of the others. Or, you could be a human instead of a robotic left-wing automaton, and say NO ONE deserves to die unless other lives were unquestionably in danger,

                What a POS.

                1. So your response is just a bunch of fallacies?

                  Try again.

                  (I’m also not ‘left-wing’ anything, but it’s easier to pretend otherwise since you don’t like what I said.)

          2. “TwelveInch, the evidence is the criminal mob she was attempting to lead through the breach. It’s on tape.”

            You haven’t come close to the actual standard for justifying deadly force. Your response is just the same crap I can get on right-wing talk radio whenever the cops shoot a black guy.

            If she was doing something wrong, they should have arrested her.

            1. TwelveInch, you are mistaken to suppose some run-of-the-mill self-protection standard is all that applies here. Although the usual defensive standard for use of a firearm would be enough.

              The mob behind Babbitt did have people armed with deadly weapons, they were seeking congressional leaders with avowed intent to kill them, and they had been chanting that publicly. The mob had already inflicted grievous bodily harm on multiple police officers. One officer would die of his injuries. The mob was breaking down every physical barrier in its path. All that taken together more than justified shooting to stop them. It justified far more shooting than actually happened.

              But leave that aside. It applies only to a defense on the basis of the limited standard you suppose protects a claim by Babbitt’s family—the ordinary standard for defense with a firearm. There is more at work than that.

              The standard for use of deadly force is less constrained in certain high-sensitivity security situations, where absolute exclusion will be held to be a legally defensible government power. I think you must know that. You can’t really suppose that mobs breaking down the perimeter fences around nuclear missile silos, or storming submarine bases would not be met with deadly force, even if they were apparently unarmed. Nobody, armed or not, gets to climb the wall into a federal prison without risking being shot. A mob which broke down the fence around the White House and advanced on the building would be shot down immediately.

              No court would say any of that was unjustified, or even controversial. That would be exactly what nearly everyone in the nation would expect, and what a vast majority would demand. The standard is clear enough.

              At the Capitol, application of that standard was too long delayed. No rioters should have been permitted to break and enter the building with impunity. Ill-advised constraint had been imposed on police. Defense of the Capitol and Congress are no less important than defense of the White House, military installations, or federal prisons. All of those venues, and some others, ought to be defended by a policy of absolute armed exclusion, including use of deadly force. Everyone already knows that policy applies in the other instances I mentioned. The rioters should have expected it to be applied alike to them. There is evidence that some of them did know. They messaged each other to bring guns, and come ready for war.

              You say deadly force against that was unjustified? That is crazy.

      4. “The officer who shot her was there to defend congress.”

        He still has to use reasonable force in defense of himself or others. Nobody else fired their weapon. She was unarmed.

        Not that I think her estate could win. But being in the Capitol is not a hunting license for the officer.

        1. Engaging in an insurrection and rioting inside the Capitol building, while crossing a defensive barrier where use of deadly force was clearly indicated on the other side.

          Yep, she dead. Deservedly so.

          1. Likewise counterfeiter, career criminal and home invader George Floyd I guess.

            1. Why conflate the two? It’s weird, as if they were exactly the same circumstances, when they were wildly different. This is just daft. Are there really no unjustly obscure unjust shooting incidents involving police and white people for you to get actually mad about?

        2. Bob, same standard for a mob breaking down the perimeter fence around the White House, and rushing the doors there? No deadly force? No one yet in sufficient danger?

          1. Yes, same standard. Next dumb question please.

            1. Perhaps I was unclear, or maybe you are Vinni. Or maybe Bob has mixed us both up. Are you saying an agitated mob should be able with impunity to break down the perimeter fence at the White House, rush the building, break windows and doors, and enter the building without encountering gunfire to stop them? Do I understand you? If so, I am surprised, because you have never before seemed that foolish to me.

    5. Those cops are the “good guys” in the eyes of the libs, so they are just fine. Also wrong race for so no political points to be gained.

  3. Someone please explain to me how the new Georgia voting law is bad; limits access to the polls, suppresses votes, and so on.

    (Is there a good, objective summary of the law available anywhere?)

      1. It’s funny, but if you read those changes, and the state was, say, New Hampshire instead of Georgia, you’d think them perfectly reasonable.

        1. I very much disagree. I think you can only think those changes are reasonable if you already think voting should be more restricted and harder to do.

          1. It leaves voting easier in Georgia than many other states, you realize that, right? A lot easier.

            It doesn’t so much make voting harder, actually, as much as it prohibits non-uniformity. Everybody has to play by the same rules.

            1. Person who has made his disdain for democracy known here several times think the law is just fine re voting.

              That kind of says it.

              1. If read it, not just biased accounts of what was in it. Have you?

                1. Yes. It clearly is an attempt to make voting harder in Georgia. Your only argument is ‘well it’s harder in other places.’ But then again you’ve made your dislike of democracy known here lots of times so *of course* you’ve no problem with the law and are non-plussed with those who do.

                  1. So, you’re going with the ratchet principle? Not having early voting, peachy. Reducing it slightly, heinous crime.

                    1. I’m going with making it more difficult to vote is bad and I don’t expect people who don’t care much for democracy to get that.

                    2. ‘Convenience’ should take a back seat to making sure each voter and each ballot is valid. I also see no reason to believe the public will benefit by ensuring every low information voter can cancel out people that are willing to make a small effort to vote.

                    3. ” I also see no reason to believe the public will benefit by ensuring every low information voter can cancel out people that are willing to make a small effort to vote.”

                      As I said, the fact that people who don’t value democracy much defend this bill says a lot.

                    4. I also see no reason to believe the public will benefit by ensuring every low information voter can cancel out people that are willing to make a small effort to vote.

                      KCar — Your remark puts the government in the seat of the sovereign. Follow through on that and all your rights become unenforceable. You would empower government to overrule the very sovereign which decreed rights to protect you from government. You are standing the principle of American constitutionalism on its head.

                      The sovereign (in an election, personified by the voter) is the boss. The government is the servant. The sovereign limits the government. The government does not limit the sovereign. The government is not even empowered to tell the sovereign whether sovereign pleasure is wise, let alone to tell the sovereign that sovereign pleasure cannot be exercised.

              2. Now now. Both sides disdain democracy when it gets in their way, and run off to the courts.

            2. Everybody has to play by the same rules. It just so happens that the rules don’t inconvenience one group of people but does disproportionately inconvenience another.

              “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread.”

            3. In what ways does it make voting easier?

          2. I think you can only think those changes are reasonable if you already think voting should be more restricted and harder to do.

            People can go onto the online request portal 11 weeks before the election and request an absentee ballot, which must be returned two Fridays before the election. How restricted and hard to do is this?

            1. I don’t think that would be so easy for certain populations (the elderly and other people who are often not familiar with navigating the web).

                1. Did you really just link to a website to make that argument?

                  1. Always handy to switch to an ad hominem when other avenues are lacking.

                    1. That isn’t an ad hominem fallacy. Try again, without your circular reasoning.

                  2. Did you really just link to a website to make that argument?

                    Well, hmm, Queenie — this is, after all, an online discussion board. Shall we mail you a copy? We’ll need your address.

            2. So it used to be 180 days and required to be in the Friday before the election, not 2 Fridays before. They shrunk the window from about 175 days to just 65 days. Why was the change necessary?

              And if you’re a worker who doesn’t know their work schedule 2 weeks in advance, you might not know if you’ll be able to vote in person. If you come in on Monday and find out you’re working on election day the following week, you’re shit out of luck because you already missed the deadline to have your absentee ballot in. I’m sure there are lots of other situations people where this change could make a huge difference. Not everyone works a 9-5 M-F job where they can vote after work or take a few hours off and go wait in line to vote.

              1. So it used to be 180 days and required to be in the Friday before the election, not 2 Fridays before. They shrunk the window from about 175 days to just 65 days. Why was the change necessary?

                I don’t know. Maybe they thought that the closer to election day the ballot is cast the more informed it is. But the issue is whether a switch from 175 to 65 days makes voting more difficult in any significant way.

                And if you’re a worker who doesn’t know their work schedule 2 weeks in advance, you might not know if you’ll be able to vote in person.

                People with work schedule irregularities or difficulties can simply request an absentee ballot, thereby circumventing any confusion.

                1. No one is saying it’s impossible to vote under the new law, just that it makes it just hard enough to discourage or exclude enough people to change the outcome. It specifically targets the areas where Democrats had the most success with a blatantly obvious goal of trying to handcuff their ability to repeat it. It’s like a form of disparate impact discrimination, except it’s obviously intentionally targeted towards Democratic voters as they were more likely to vote by absentee ballots and the major restrictions were to absentee ballot voting. It also specifically targeted Fulton county, so they weren’t exactly subtle about targeting Democrats.

                  Republicans saw that they lost because of absentee ballots and turnout in its most populous county. So they put new restrictions on absentee ballots and where you can go to vote in the most populous county. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck… It obviously doesn’t make it impossible to vote at all, but the only “problem” it’s fixing is the problem that the Democrats won last time.

                  1. So are you saying that someone who would have cast an absentee ballot between 175 and 65 days before the election is faced with an undue impediment by having to wait until 65 days before the election? Also, why isn’t it reasonable, in the interest of making sure that all mailed-in ballots are available to be counted on election day, to require that they be mailed no later than 11 days before election day? Is wanting to have all ballots available on election day clearly a sham goal? The rules are simple. Just mail your ballot by the deadline. Why is that a racist requirement? Explain how anybody is “handcuffed” by this.

                  2. 180 Days is pretty unreasonable from my POV. Its basically half the year. A lot can happen in half the year. Your candidate could die, or rape a person, or have a stroke, or any huge number of things. Its practically no different than just voting today for the 2022 election.

                    Anyone voting more than a month before the election is doing the rest of us a disservice.

                    1. The 180 days to 78 days change is not to vote, but to request a ballot. It seems reasonable to know that you plan to vote in an election 180 days out. Actually voting has been cut from 49 days to 29 days before an election.

                    2. Wow, so they basically changed voting to basically exactly the number that came to my mind as reasonable (without me knowing thats what they had done)? Pretty cool.

              2. “required to be in the Friday before the election, not 2 Fridays before. […] Why was the change necessary?”

                I can’t think of any recent fuss about the deadlines for the receipt of absentee ballots…

            3. swood100 — with regard to the calendar—and the development of political dialogue toward the conclusion of an election—it becomes a requirement that absentee voters cast their ballots with less information than they could have, and with less information than others do have.

              1. it becomes a requirement that absentee voters cast their ballots with less information than they could have, and with less information than others do have

                You realize the population you’re envisioning having all this time to consume bleeding-edge political information close to election day is the same population others claim don’t have any time to vote in person close to election day, right?

              2. it becomes a requirement that absentee voters cast their ballots with less information than they could have, and with less information than others do have

                Would the same also go for a requirement to mail the ballot the Friday before the election? Is it only fair if ballots must be postmarked by election day?

                And what is your point? Are you saying that the additional week introduces Jim Crow into the equation? Are you saying that reasonable minds could not differ that the detriment of voting with a week less information than they could have is greater than the benefit of making sure that all ballots are available to be counted on election day?

    1. I think the objections actually stem from two provisions:

      1) Enforced uniformity of election rules. The new law seriously prohibits local elections officials from doing anything different from the standard across the state.

      2) Any donations to local elections officials have to be sent to the state to be distributed state-wide, rather than being spent locally.

      The Democrats’ success in Georgia last year primarily was due to leveraging the pandemic as an excuse for local deviations from the state-wide election laws.

      And, especially, they had donors contribute directly to elections offices in precincts that were very heavily Democratic. This wasn’t legally regarded as a “campaign donation”, so it wasn’t subject to reporting requirements or donation limits. But it allowed for very well funded get out the vote drives that were guaranteed to virtually only increase the Democratic vote.

      The requirement that any such donations end up being spent uniformly across the state would prevent them from duplicating that tactic in 2022.

      1. they had donors contribute directly to elections offices in precincts that were very heavily Democratic.

        So? What’s wrong with that? What is the complaint?

        You seem to think making it easier for voters to vote is something nefarious. Or maybe it’s only making it easier for Democratic voters to vote that you object to.

        And no crap about all the fraud in GA please.

        1. bernard,
          To me it has the appearance of impropriety, although it was legal.
          If we look at federal practices, government projects may not be augmented with private funds. However, anyone is welcome to send a check to the US Treasury ith an accompanying cover letter.
          I see this as a similar consideration

          1. Don,

            It doesn’t necessarily look improper to me. Maybe it’s analogous to a PTA raising money to help one school. Obviously also, Republicans were free to help out in areas that favored them.

            Besides, we, or at least I, have no idea what funding for election administration was available, or how it matched the requirements in specific areas. Given that the partisan division in GA has a strong geographic pattern, there is a lot of room for mischief here.

            As for the rest, the law clearly makes voting harder than it was in 2020, when by all (sane) accounts the election in GA ran smoothly, with no fraud to amount to anything. So why the change? Got a guess?

      2. The Democrats success in the Georgia Senate run off elections was in my opinion directly attributable to Trumps unhinged charges of fraud.

        In the primary Republicans go more votes than Democrats.
        There were actually fewer votes cast in the run off than in the primary. In normal elections such a run off would have many fewer voters and the drop of would be greater for Democrats.

        Trump energized the Democrats and discouraged the Republicans.

        1. “The Democrats success in the Georgia Senate run off elections was in my opinion directly attributable to Trumps unhinged charges of fraud.”

          That is doubtless true and part of Trump’s efforts to render the Republication a permanently minority party. He is doing a good job with the assistance of cracked pots.

        2. I think this is accurate.

    2. It’s less that, but more giving the power to reject the vote to the political legislature, and not the more insulated state administrative apparatus.

      1. Legislatures get pissy when the laws they enact are violated by the rest of the government, even if the courts say it was OK. So they’ve armed themselves to do something about those violations even if the Secretary of State happens to be complicit in them.

        Could you identify the exact legislative language you find offensive?

      2. It aims to stop administrative “sue and settle” collusion, to change voting regs without necessary legislative action.

        What is “political legislature?”

        What is “insulated state administrative apparatus?”

        Ha, ha, ha. Are you saying the admin in not political? Have you been living under a rock? There have been multiple court victories recently affirming that the authority to change election regulations rests with the legislature, not the “state administrative apparatus.”

        1. Legislatures are political bodies. Executive appointees are more insulated.

          I fully expect George to reject the vote if a Dem wins statewide. Which is bullshit.

          1. “I fully expect George to reject the vote if a Dem wins statewide. ”


            1. I fully expect you to say it was election fraud, and you agree with the Georgia legislature.

        2. Back when BHO was president I actually heard a guy say that Congress was interfering with the government.

          1. The games played with nominations sure were Congress screwing with the regular operation of our republic.

        3. ThePublius — Legislative authority to change election regulations cannot be plenary. It needs to be limited to choices which maximize, convenience, and protect the power of voters to act at pleasure to cast ballots. Accuracy of voting results should be enforced post-hoc, after presentation of evidence.

          You cannot allow governments to set themselves up as rivals to the sovereign voters during elections, or position governments to create obstacles voters must overcome. Voters are in charge of elections. Governments are not. Government’s role is limited to organizing elections, and does not include empowerment to adopt measures which could substantively hamper voters as they exercise their constitutive power at pleasure.

  4. The best product review websites were all created for the same reason — to save you time from researching products online.
    You may also check it below

  5. Last week, I wrote about Yom Ha’Shoah, making the point that not having Israel as a safe haven comes at a great cost. Six million were senselessly slaughtered.

    Yesterday was Yom Ha’Zikaron (Memorial Day). To date, Israel has lost ~24K soldiers in wars since 1948. That is the price we Jews now pay to have Israel as a safe haven.

    Today is Yom Ha’Atzamut (Independence Day). I give thanks to God that there is Israel, and that we live. Am Chai Yisrael!

    1. “To date, Israel has lost ~24K soldiers in wars since 1948. ”

      Yeah, people get all kinds of pissy when you occupy their land for your safe haven.

      1. What say you anent the strict border control for me (the Jewish state), but not for thee (the USA), asseverated by the ADL’s J. Greenblatt?

        Of course, merely asking the question is raycist, and worse, anti-Semitic.

      2. Al arab jarab.

        1. Racism, yeah that’s usually behind it.

          1. Indeed, more than 2,000 years of anti-Jewish racism

            1. There’s certainly that, but the only racist thing said in this discussion was directed at Arabs.

              1. Nonsense, you started things off by making an antisemitic comment.

            2. I tend to take Israel’s side more than many on the left, but the source of the conflict is a lot more than simply hatred of Jews.

              1. That is true, Sarcastr0 = the source of the conflict is a lot more than simply hatred of Jews.

                We probably differ greatly on what the ultimate solution should be. FTR, I favor a plan where Israel would pay palestinians to voluntarily emigrate to a country of their choice. Palestinians who then choose to stay will do so under Israeli sovereignty and law.

                1. Honestly, I got nothing where it comes to solutions. Lots of choices both sides are making I think are counterproductive (though as I said I think Israel is more right, I also think they are far from being in the right or handling things well).

                  1. Their politics are even more of a mess than ours. That is pretty incredible, considering where we are at the moment.

      3. “their land ”

        Egypt and other Arab countries launched attacks. How was it “their” land?

        1. How does launching attacks=you lose your land? You might want to read John Locke on why that doesn’t work.

          1. Egypt last ruled Palestine in 1517.

            So by what right did they have to try to invade in 1947? It was not “their” land.

  6. PUZZLE:
    Greg, while at a party, noticed Sara (whom he didn’t know) sitting by herself, looking sad.
    Greg: Why so glum?
    Sara (sighs): This will sound silly. I’m just in my twenties and am often still mistaken for a teenager, so I’ve always thought of myself as young, but..
    (Sara’s musing was interrupted by a group of particularly jubilant partygoers, whose frivolity, Greg noticed, seemed only to darken her mood. When they’d moved on, Sara continued): ..but since I just realized that I’ve lived in five decades – well, I don’t *feel* young anymore.

    Five decades? Greg, initially curious about Sara’s mood, was now more concerned about her grasp on reality. Then, in a flash, he realized how everything she’d said could be true. What (beyond the fact that Sara *did* in fact look like a teenager) did Greg see?

    1. A ghost? Except, actually fhat doesn’t really work. Idk

    2. An organ transplant from somebody older?
      If you were born right at the end of one decade, and the party was right at the start of another, that could get you down to 30 years and some days, but I don’t see how to get into the 20’s without overlapping decades.

    3. if your 29, and she was born in 2009, then the party is in year 2038, and so she has lived in 4 decades. I dont see how you get the fifth.

      1. Thinking about it, if you were born just before midnight, December 31st, at the end of one decade, you might just barely make it into your 5th decade by flying East a few hours before you turned 30, because you’d come into that 5th decade in a different time zone.

        1. That seems awfully convoluted, but that works so I’ll say thats probably a decent enough answer

          1. Seems too convoluted to me, to be the answer Arch1 is looking for. I’m stumped.

            1. It’s also not how we determine age. Sure a timer started the moment she was born would still show 29 years, 364 days, and some hours, but even if you are in a different time zone once the clock passes midnight its your birthday and you are considered a year older

              I was thinking maybe it was a New Year’s party and the clock passed midnight while she was musing, meaning she was 29 (and lived in 4 decades) when she started talking, and was 30 (and lived in 5 decades) when she continued, but that wouldn’t work either because it would require her to be born Jan 1st right after the start of a decade so she would only be ticking over from 3 to 4 decades (unless you mix and match how you define “decade” how some for some people its the 0-9 years, and others its the 1-0 years)

              1. Correct (your protestations notwithstanding:-))!

                Greg already knew that the group who’d interrupted Sara’s musing was celebrating the stroke of midnight on the last New Year’s Eve of the decade. His flash of insight was to realize that if Sara had been born just before midnight 30 years earlier, she would in fact still have been 29 years old just before being interrupted, and by the time she spoke again, she would in fact have lived a few seconds into her fifth decade. (The sudden realization of which, for someone often mistaken for a teenager, might indeed be a bit jarring????).

                1. Maybe you could also get somewhere with the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church never adopted the Gregorian calendar, which means that their December 25 happens in early January for everyone else. Or something involving England’s switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, which resulted in the year 1751 having only 282 days. Then in 1752 September 3 through 13 were deleted. See

                2. If her birthday is Dec 31, I would question the validity of her still describing herself as “in her 20s” on her 30th birthday

                  Consider it my formal protest 🙂

                  1. Considered and approved, I think you busted the puzzle Kevin (esp. on a legal blog, as the legal definition is definitely as you describe). I now give the puzzle only a C+, for (misplaced) ambition. And as the author I’m likely biased upwards:-). Back to drawing board..

            2. The only point I could see about including the jubilant partygoers is that it must be New Year’s Eve clicking over to the new year. So I think something like your answer is probably right.

        2. I appreciate the creativity and was therefore going to call this one correct, but I then realized that while it’s debatable whether one should ignore time zones when counting decades, one should at least have a consistent time zone policy wrt age-reckoning *and* decade-counting.

          Which (barring the circumstances of the intended solution, see below) AFAICT leaves Sara mistaken concerning either her age or her decade count, regardless which consistent time zone policy is used. But a very nice try.

          1. see below –> see above

    4. She lied about her age. Women lie all the time about that stuff. Greg probably saw a teenager who was lying.

    5. Her birthday is on February 29th and Greg saw her license?

    6. I mean, special relativity makes this easy with a fast enough spacecraft, no?

      1. Indeed it does. Given that it also makes an n- decade solution ez for any larger n, your solution renders the puzzle rather lame, but that’s not its fault – it meets the requirements. Congrats!

  7. Random question, but I thought it was a good idea to learn Angular over React. Was that a good idea?

    Although getting deeper into it … web development is so strange in terms of the conventions it uses. Like scope in Javascript is all messed up so the framework literally adds data to different components to preserve some scoping rules and the event loop makes no sense, and random conventions are broken.

    Unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise, I’m gonna go with, whoever came up with this made a bunch of stupid decisions and due to path dependence we all live with it. I have no other explanation.

    1. I was doing web development back in the 90s when LiveScript was first added to Netscape Navigator – shortly thereafter it was renamed javascript. At the time the developers in our shop joked that it seemed to have been written by a couple of nineteen year olds who stayed up all night jacked up on diet Mountain Dew. Anyway, it seemed to be thrown together without much forethought and was basically a kludge.

      It was an awful mess at the time, and still is.

      1. That was pretty much my ubderstanding. Sun needed a scripting internet language suddenly so they could get in on the ground floor, so rummaged through the junk drawer.

  8. Tbh I really do need to get off websites like these … as a lowercase c conservative I have certainly felt that I am being pushed into a more extreme posture and I suppose that is true of a lot of people on here. I dont really want to contribute to that, in my mind. detrimental societal effect.

  9. Back in the Green Mountains of Madness – The Rutland, Vermont City School System had an incident of racist Zoom bombing, so they are matching MAC addresses to students, and then to the IP addresses of private homes to track down the miscreants. But they don’t want to talk about it. Youtube transcript below from the 4/13/2021 meeting video at
    “Were able to
    track ip addresses and so we got a list
    of all of the students in
    all of the impacted classes and we were
    able to make some connections between
    um there’s a public ip address which is
    the internet source that you’re using
    and there’s a private i p address which
    is the device that you’re using it on
    so we were able to find some correlation
    between classes which let us know that
    it was
    you know there was one student that was
    impacting several different classes on
    different houses
    and from there we’ve spent a lot of time
    trying to
    uh determine who owns that that local ip
    at this point we haven’t had any success
    but we are continuing to monitor
    students as they sign in so that we can
    try to
    narrow down our search based on based on
    ip addresses
    we don’t want to tell you a whole lot
    because we are still in the throes of of
    that investigation so um obviously this
    is public meeting so
    um and how was it addressed with the
    kids that were harmed…”

    1. Wanna bet that it was a burner phone?

    2. Great Lovecraft ref.

      1. Why thank you

  10. I posted the following on another Volokh Conspiracy discussion thread, but received only a snarky response. A second try.

    In July 2020, Somerville, MA passed an ordinance allowing multi-member domestic partnerships. There was a discussion of such on this blog (

    Has there been any talk of strategy in poly legal circles of using this as a wedge to challenge the two-person legal construction of civil marriage?

    Whistling Willie

    1. Willie,
      I don’t know of any. One might have looked in to fundamentalist LDS circles, but I suspect that they try to keep a low profile.
      You might look at “How U.S. Family Law Might Deal with Spousal Relationships of
      Three (or More) People” By Edward Stein of the Cardozo Faculty of Law

      1. I am fine with it. The interesting battle will be to see if the left supports it, or throws in with conservatives as strange bedfellows, under the argument one man more than one woman is patriarchical domination of women.

        Given how they abandoned aka cancelled 1960s feminists attacking middle eastern societies and those still defending women’s sports because women have difficuty competing with genetically male bodies, I am predicting the former.

        “Your usefulnese to us getting elected has ended. What have you done for us lately?”

  11. Seeing the First Amendment has been cancelled by the extreme left, it is becoming high time to get the press under control. The frenzy they created on Sunday with starting race riots in the middle of an already contentious political show trial is just downright unethical, immoral, and dangerous. It is probably high time to just force closure of all mainstream media outlets, liquidate them, and then figure out the best plan of action after that is complete.

    1. “It is probably high time to just force closure of all mainstream media outlets, liquidate them”

      How the Right defends free speech, lol.

      These guys are like parrots. They can say things but don’t ever think they mean them. They literally don’t understand the values they espouse when they think it’s politically convenient to do so.

      1. There is no such thing as free speech anymore. The left has cancelled it. I said that above but you didn’t read it.

        1. You certainly appear free to spout your psychobabble here.

        2. You’re being hysterically hyperbolic. Free speech is fine, the only thing going on is some people don’t want to associate with people who say asshole things. This is the same as forever. The only thing that is different is that your Orange Leader got chastised for being a boorish buffoon on a social media site.

          1. “Free speech is fine…” then you go on to demonstrate precisely why it is not. Do you shift personalities that fluidly throughout the day usually?

            1. Being chastised for being a boorish bufoon is no blow to free speech, Walter Sobchak.

              1. You do such a good job proving my points I just don’t have to try anymore. Thanks!

                1. “Oh please, dear? For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.”

                  1. Are you supposed to be the waitress and me Walter?

                    1. I’m neither, but boy you are Walter.

                    2. You come across like the waitress….

                    3. One wonders, is Jimmy so dense that he doesn’t get that the waitress is the sensible person and Sobchak is a nut as that film is directed or does he think it’s some great 3rd grade style insult to say ‘your the girl character?’

                      Don’t ever be afraid to bet on the first I’d say…

                    4. If you actually were a scholar of the visual arts you would understand the character of Walter is extremely complex whereas the waitress not so much…

                    5. Good lord. Walter is literally a fool in the movie (the literary device of the fool). He’s based on an actual person that the Coen brothers knew and thought was good for a laugh.

                    6. “Walter, I love you, but sooner or later, you’re going to have to realize the fact that you’re a god damn moron.”

                  2. As I said you are clearly not a scholar of any form of visual art. Your understanding of a complex character if flat and dull. You don’t even understand the section of dialogue you use to support what is your clear lack of actual understanding. Sad.

                    1. Look, Polonius is a complex character and you’re supposed to feel for him and his family when Hamlet kills him, but he’s also most certainly a fool and his words are meant to be taken as such. If you find yourself talking like Walter you’re being foolish.

          2. There’s a meme b&w picture of a guy in a crowd of people heil hitlering, apparently refusing to do so. How brave he is! I’m just like him!

            Is he brave in spite of being afraid of government reprisal? Of is he brave in spite of being afraid of reprisal by the madness of crowds, and the problem in The Emperor’s New clothes, all without any official reprisal?

            Don’t worry! The charismatic demagoguery is for good this time!

    2. I agree.
      Let the left enjoy the consequences of it’s actions.

    3. “Seeing as I have a distorted partisan view of the other side, I say we do a fascism.”

      Vintage Jimmy.

      1. Fascism is what we have right now – just the left wing version of it.

  12. Do the whiny right wing crybabies think book and magazine publishers should be treated as common carriers? How about websites like VC? I feel like Volokh is censoring me because he doesn’t give me a regular column. This is truly the end of the Republic and Liberty.

    1. Hello RAK….

      But, you don’t seem to be censored. So..

      1. That woosh over your head is the point.

        1. We are approaching the two-year anniversary of Prof. Volokh’s most recent imposition of partisan, viewpoint-driven censorship.

          And it has been about a week since this White, male, conservative blog published a vile racial slur — gratuitously, as has become customary.

          1. How boring is your life that you have anniversary dates for when things (supposedly) happened in the comment section of a blog?

            1. ” when things (supposedly) happened ”

              How do you type with your tongue so firmly affixed to Prof. Volokh’s scrotum.

              He appreciates your sycophantic service, of course.

        2. But if you’re talking about censorship…

          Twitter “censored” someone for posting that BLM’s founder bought a house.

          1. Turley doesn’t seem to say what the story was that was in the deleted tweet. Considering he points to other tweets not deleted critical of the purchase it would seem important to know that bit before declaring outrage.

            1. I know, you can’t actually look for more information….

              Here’s another story with a link within it.


              1. OK. Why do you think Twitter deleted it given that, as Turley documents, they allowed other Tweets as critical if not more to stay up?

                Also, I don’t know if it’s accurate to refer to her as a ‘founder’ of BLM (which is more of a movement than an organization from what I understand), she seems to be the person who first used that phrase on Twitter or whatever.

                1. Why do you think?

                  Perhaps it was political. Can’t be criticizing certain people….

                  1. But as I said Turley pointed to the fact that other people’s critical posts were not affected at all.

                    1. Of course, they were critical of different people…. Hmmm…

                    2. No, they were, like the deleted poster, critical of the BLM ‘co-founder.’ Don’t you read your own sources?

          2. Right-wingers complaining about censorship . . . at a conservative blog that engages in repeated, partisan, viewpoint-driven censorship . . . always a treat.

            Lack of self-awareness seems a persistent problem for conservatives.

    2. You want to hear something hilarious?

      Yesterday there was an political ad on TV here in Virginia about a Republican (might have been Pete Snyder, I wasn’t paying attention to the name), and how he will fight the big media giants who censor right wing voices.

      He will fight for our First Amendment rights.

      He was ON FUCKING TV complaining that his First Amendment rights were being shut off.


      1. You literally can’t make up things as ridiculous as what the right wing crybabies are saying these days.

      2. You do know it costs lots of money to run those commercial right?

        1. Pete Snyder has no trouble speaking, none. This is a perfect example of the crybaby Right these days.

          1. Translation: People with money who give it to people who like money have no trouble speaking…

            1. Translation: I want – no DEMAND – that others allow me to use their platforms freely.

              As what the hell does that have to do with 1A anyway?

              1. If the left were talking like those crybabies the usual suspects here would be saying they were trying to ‘nationalize’ the social media industry.

                1. If the Left was getting censored by Big Tech we wouldn’t hear the end about how “corporations” should not be running our democracy. Please don’t try to pretend that would not be happening….

                  1. You’re so obtuse that you don’t know that the Left constantly complains that very thing and has been for a long time!

                    1. Seems they are pretty quiet these days about those evil corporations….

                    2. Actually, they aren’t, you just are mis and uninformed of the fact by the media choices you make. That’s what makes your whining so very funny to those who are better informed.

                    3. I read CNN every day. Citizens United used to be a common theme. Nothing on that anymore. In fact many of their pieces defend private industry now or celebrate corporations that do the bidding of the left wing.

                    4. Despite what your Orange Leader has told you CNN is not ‘the Left.’ If you read actual Left wing outlets you’d know they are constantly bitching about how the media treats them unfairly and how government should do all kinds of things to fix that.

                    5. A CNN technical director seemed quite happy to announce it was a mouthpiece of the left…

                    6. “A CNN technical director ”

                      Lol, you’re really terrible at building good arguments, aren’t you?

                    7. Here is a mirror. Suggest you look into it before talking next time.

                    8. Speculating about what the other side would do is just a way to turn our own worldview into evidence your worldview is right.

                      In other words, it proves nothing, except to the already converted.

                      It’s one of Jimmy’s favorite ‘arguments.’ lately.

            2. Yes, it is true that no one on the right seems smart enough to be able to create their own platforms so as opposed to actually figuring out how to do so, might as well just force someone else to let you use theirs, right?

          2. Neither the right not the left is covering itself in glory over free speech. There are plenty of examples on the left, like AOC wanting to rein in the media, lefties wanting to reinstate the fairness doctrine, etc.

            1. Exactly. The Left has long complained that ‘real’ leftists voices are shut out by the ‘corporate’ media.

              Everyone would like a bigger platform, that doesn’t mean anyone owes it to you.

            2. You’re comparing the far left with nearly the entirety of the conservative political apparatus at this point. There’s a huge difference between where the sides are on this one.

              1. I see it as a few on the right vs. nearly the entire left. Didn’t the Democrats just hold hearings on Social Media’s role in “extremism and disinformation?

                1. The GOP’s last Presidential candidate regularly and often called for more regulation of social and mainstream media.

                  1. A few, as I said.

                    1. He’s the Party’s standard bearer.

      3. You know there are laws regarding advertisements and TV from political organizations, right?

        That’s why he was able to make that ad. Those laws don’t exist with the “new media” of the online tech world.

        1. And you’re what, in favor of those laws? You want the online world to be under, what, FCC licenses?

          1. Common Carrier laws would be appropriate, in my opinion, for the largest online social media organizations.

            1. So presumably not Twitter, since it’s a tiny percent the size of the big ones?

              1. Twitter has a market value of over a Billion US dollars. So, I’d say it qualifies as the “largest” ones”.

                Let’s call it anyone with a market value over $100 Million. Fair?

                1. So if Kodak puts up a thing on their website to show off your favorite pictures, they’re a common carrier now?

                  1. Sure, if you like. They’re not exactly a social media organization, but if they put up a free service that allows the general population to post their pictures to a common server and allow other people to look at them as desired, then yes, they should fall under common carrier laws.

                    They shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people because some people are “favored” and some aren’t.

                    1. Although, I’ll give you a better metric may be a social media organization / network with more than 100 million active monthly users. That would hit my “large status” as well.

                    2. Okay, can they make a “no porn” rule?

                      Let’s say Disney creates a message board to discuss experiences at their theme parks. Can they have a “no swears” rule?

                      If you violate the rules several times, can they kick you off?

                    3. Common carriers can have rules. They do need to enforce them evenhandedly however.

                      For example, Disney World is actually a common carrier. (Yes, amusement parks can be classified as common carriers). And you can be banned from Disney World for actions.

                      What they can’t do however, is enforce the bans in an uneven manner. For example, Selfie Sticks are banned at Disney World. If you try to hold onto it, they’ll kick you out. But it Disney banned selfie sticks…but only/selectively enforced that rule against African Americans or Republicans…that would violate the common carrier status.

                    4. Okay, so rules like “no hate speech” or “no Covid misinformation” should be fine, right? Because those are the actual policies you’re griping about, not “no Republicans”. The notion that the policies are unevenly enforced across the political spectrum is just a bunch of grievance-laden anecdotes.

                      FWIW, the thing about Disney World being a common carrier is dumb and a sign you’ve just been buying into dumb right wing media memes. There was a court case where there was an argument about whether they were a common carrier or not with regards to tort liability into a transportation case (which Disney won by arguing that they were *not* a common carriers); it ha=d nothing to do with the free speech issues we’re talking about here. Disney can and will kick you out for engaging in political speech on their property, and this wouldn’t affect their argument around liability on their monorail one way or the other.

                    5. Not when they are unequally applied via arbitrary and capricious methods. And that’s really what’s going on. The arbitrary capricious nature of the supposed “rules” which are being enforced in a discriminatory manner. They aren’t ” grievance-laden anecdotes” unless you consider clear and consistent discrimination to be that. And perhaps you do.

                      As for Disney, the real issue is amusement park rides are treated as common carriers.


                    6. Sure, if you like. They’re not exactly a social media organization, but if they put up a free service that allows the general population to post their pictures to a common server and allow other people to look at them as desired, then yes, they should fall under common carrier laws.

                      I tried to explain how this common carrier stuff could go wrong on a previous thread, and now you have illustrated the point. What you propose with that is a policy to outlaw an online publication dedicated to photography, with a business model to attract an audience of photographers committed to high-quality images. You would do that to monetize a curated audience, by selling ads to upscale camera equipment vendors. Mandatory common carrier status precludes that option.

                      Worse, the precedent for online publishing—forced into common carrier status—would inevitably expand by legal analogy to similarly restrict photography publications of all sorts, whether online or otherwise.

                      It is unwise to invite government regulation of publishing, whether online, broadcast, or on paper. The best hope for protection of a free press is government policy to encourage diversity and profusion of private publishers of all types, empowered to do as they please with regard to private editing.

                    7. “As for Disney, the real issue is amusement park rides are treated as common carriers.”

                      That’s a matter of state law, and in Florida amusement parks are not common carriers so the claim about Disneyworld is incorrect. But your article makes my exact point: although the words “common carrier” can be applied to amusement parks, it’s purely in reference to safety standards and their liability for injury torts, not who they’re obliged to let into the park under what circumstances.

                    8. “That’s a matter of state law, and in Florida amusement parks are not common carriers so the claim about Disneyworld is incorrect. ”


                      Here’s more about common carrier law for you to read up on.


                    9. “Here’s more about common carrier law for you to read up on.”

                      Yeah, I recommend reading that. It makes it abundantly clear that the types of “common carrier” regulations around transportation providers like amusement parks have nothing to do with the types of “common carrier” regulations around communications services.

                2. So Fox News’ website?

                  1. “Over”

  13. Anyone who reads Marvel of DC comics can’t but notice that they have embraced ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ pushing more writers of color on more projects about characters of color. This is certainly not due to the incredible success of projects like Black Panther with an increasingly diverse customer base but the result of a literal coup by progressive radicals who have taken over and sent all dissenters to Siberia with their Twitter accounts canceled.

    1. Probably was due to all the “equity” going around these days.

      1. Poe’s law strikes again…

        1. The writers probably just moved around those wooden boxes like in that one comic strip demonstrating “equity” so all the writers had an equal outcome. I wish the left would have told us this whole “equality” thing was really just that easy. We could have been done with it all by 1972.

          1. Here’s the thing, what you deride as ‘equity’ is just a recognition of a lucrative and diverse customer base, whether it’s comics, movies, social media platforms or universities. Companies favor things that make them money. Your base increasingly doesn’t, and there is no ‘coup’ regarding that process.

            1. So you are telling me DC and Marvel just figured out that black people will buy comics about black people…?

              1. It’s somewhat recent that they started to focus on that lucrative revenue stream, yes.

                DC and Marvel printed comics for decades before having ones that focused on black heroes and even then for a long time they were depicted in not very appealing ways. They now know this was a mistake. This is happening all over the place and there is no ‘coup’ or ‘take over’ by diversity forces of what not element to it, just smart business sense.

                1. Some companies stumble across unexpected revenue streams all the time. I once did some consulting for a company that through market research found out their product was being used in a country that only half the Board new existed (this was right after the end of the Cold War) and for a purpose that it was not even remotely thought it could be used for, but there is was in the research. The company went on to make mad money ramping up sales in the area.

                  1. I think they figured out how to write for black people (and women, and girls) only in the past 15 years or so.

                    1. We all know there is a secret black language that is required for them to be interested in any written work….(man when you put what Sarcastro wrote above that way it sounds really racist….)

                    2. No secret language, but having themselves fairly and positively represented in the stories and characters is quite important. It’s a bit funny this is such a mystery to you.

                    3. How do you explain the popularity of rap music then?

                    4. Rap is good, you are just racist,

                    5. I’m not the one saying blacks need some form of special writing to be interested in written works. Also you weaseled out of the original question.

            2. Here’s the thing, what you deride as ‘equity’ is just a recognition of a lucrative and diverse customer base

              Nothing wrong with riling up racial division in the quest for a profit.

              1. “the color of money is green”

              2. I understand that more diversity and positive portrayals of under-represented minorities riles up racial division among some in the majority, but I don’t think that’s on the comic publishers.

                1. No, what riles people up is the notion of “equity,” which is a demand that the government should, without the necessity of evidence or data, assume that all inequalities in final societal outcomes are the result of racism or some other nefarious cause, and take steps to equalize the outcomes. Given that 93% of the federal prison inmates are male, institutional sexism is clearly at work.

    2. I stopped reading Marvel and DC back in the 90’s. These days it’s just manga.

      But some of the stuff I’ve been hearing of coming out of Marvel is pretty nuts.

      1. This is kind of the point, you’re not their customer base. More and more institutions are courting a different customer base but conservatives see it as a forced coup by nefarious diversity forces and something vague must be done about it…

        1. Yes, I know I’m not their customer base. I was just this guy who was spending a fair amount of money each month buying their product, that’s something different from a “customer”.

          I personally think Marvel made a mistake “rebooting” their characters, instead of just creating new ones. That’s a sign of creative insecurity, a reluctance to take chances on new concepts.

          You reboot a franchise when you’re too chicken to create a new one.

          1. I meant if you haven’t bought from them in three decades you’re not their customer base. It’s like the people who hadn’t drank a Coke in years complaining when New Coke came out.

            1. In this case, it’s more like the guy who stopped drinking Coke because they switched to New Coke, and lied when they said they were bringing the original back.

              I quit reading Marvel comics because they were starting to do crazy things with the characters even then.

          2. “that’s something different from a “customer”
            In my management class I teach students that you are a customer, maybe one with a bit of an addiction, but a customer nonetheless

    3. QA,
      The explanation is that greed knows no boundaries in whom to exploit. Cigarette companies sold to all.

    4. “incredible success of projects like Black Panther”

      The movie did very well. Like most of the movies. No evidence that any comic book has “incredible success”.

      Comic book sales are flat, no growth in years. The yellow on this graph is traditional comics.

      1. Black Panther is thought of by some people to be based upon a real African kingdom that used to exist….just saying….

        1. Yup, and Kwanza is thought by some people to be based on a real African holiday. Some people believe really stupid stuff.

      2. The movie was actually the highest grossing ‘non-group’ MCU movie.

        1. Ok, does not make the comics an “incredible success”.

          Movies are mass market, comics are niche.

  14. I will say this about the Chauvin trial, Minnesota’s ‘spark of life’ doctrine is….very odd.

    1. Whatever it is, cops should understand it.

  15. Just finished The Intuitionist by Colson Whitehead, good alternative history book.

  16. Has everyone heard what happened last June to Agadmator, the host of a great chess channel on YouTube? He was in the middle of an interview with GM Hikaru Nakamura, when YouTube suddenly blocked access to his channel. Apparently their talk of white vs. black and white attacking or threatening black etc. triggered Google’s AI algorithm for hate speech. The ban was lifted 24 hrs. later with no explanation given, but a subsequent paper by a couple researchers from Carnegie-Mellon confirmed that’s what happened.

    1. I saw the video when he came back on and was somewhat shaken (and I thought he was off-line for several days).

      All’s I’ll say is where still in the infancy of how to use/manage/maybe govern internet platforms.

      Mistakes have and will be made.

      Luckily this one was corrected quickly.

      1. And you don’t ask the question about the underlying censorship?

        1. No because I chalk it up to poor/imprecise coding in this specific instant.

          And also because YouTube can allow/disallow whateva they want.

          Not everything is a conspiracy.

          Although I understand why you have to keep pushing conspiracies since ALL of your predictions have proven wrong.

          1. Personally, I find the push to perfect real-time algorithmic censorship kind of scary. At first it looked like the new media were going to dramatically advance human freedom. “The internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it!” was the slogan.

            Doesn’t look like that anymore.

            1. Perhaps it’s proof that unfettered human freedom isn’t always necessarily a good thing. Depressing thought.

            2. Brett — interesting how we went from a peer-to-peer model to a centralized hub & spoke model — one even more centralized than the old media ever dreamed of being.

              1. Hub and spoke was easier to monetize. Especially using the current, “Offer the service for free, and profit from violating the users’ privacy.” model.

                Just like all these “smart” systems you can buy, that are perfectly capable of being self contained, but are deliberately designed so that some of the functionality is on a remote server, in order that after buying them, you can be forced to keep paying to avoid their stopping working.

          2. And also because YouTube can allow/disallow whateva they want.

            YouTube can do whatever it wants, but in a context of politicians threatening to kick a few hundred billion off their stock valuations by repealing section 230, or deciding they are “too big” or a “monopoly”, and need to be broken up, no, it is not exercising free speech.

    2. Here’s something from CMU:

      1) It does not make the claim that the researchers “confirmed that’s what happened”, they just showed that classifiers could inadvertently trigger on this sort of language.
      2) Unlike the suggestion in your message, they do not assert that this sort of trigger would happen only in the case of white attacking black, but that using both colors in the same context as attacking could cause that type of error, so black attacking white could cause the same problem.

      With algorithmic detection, this sort of thing is bound to happen. Heck, even humans with low context on the underlying material will make mistakes like this.

      1. 1) I seem to remember when I read the actual paper that they had confirmed the reason for this particular incident. But I could be wrong.
        2) I really wasn’t trying to suggest that it was only white attacking black, but I can see how you took it that way. My etc. was doing a little too much work in my mind as I typed.

      2. “Heck, even humans with low context on the underlying material will make mistakes like this.”
        We see than in comments to this blog all the time.

    3. And a heads up, the Candidates Tournament will resume this Monday April 19 in Yekaterinburg after an interruption of over a year due to covid. We will finally determine who will challenge Magnus Carlsen, who is in fairly poor form lately.

  17. Somehow, I’ve managed to miss all the news reports on V.P Harris’ efforts to deal with the positively not-a-crisis at the Mexican border. Can anyone provide a link to a news story about her successes, preferably in a trustworthy source like the Times or the Post?

    1. As AOC said these are just children. Definitely not children being exploited to try to get paying adults smuggled across the border. Nothing wrong with abusing children as long as they are the “right” political props.

      Let me just literally drop these kids over this wall here and when the border patrol rushes to their aid run the others across the border…..

    2. I hope you lifted with your legs and not your back with all that straining.

      1. How I lift is not the issue….

        1. That response was to Jerry.

      2. So the Queen has no cites about V.P. Harris’ fine work at the border?

        1. The Queen could care less about that, the Queen is simply laughing at your transparence-ness here.

          1. Hey, I found a story about Harris and the border in the Post. Of course, it’s just a reprint of an AP story, and she’s in Central America instead of at the border, but I’m sure she’s doing something important.


            1. Probably complaining about her substandard housing in DC some more…

            2. Find out the difference between a problem and a symptom, and then get back with us.

              The problem is not the border – it’s the underlying migration in Central and South America.

              Fix the problem and you fix the symptom.

              1. Okay. So what has V.P. Harris done about migration from Central and South America? Has she come to any conclusions yet? Who is she talking to there? Does she even have a plan?

                Basically crickets from the news media since she was appointed to handle the situation.

                1. Harris is a Democrat so she will undoubtedly conclude that migration is America’s fault. Democrats always blame the US for anything international.

                  No one should say they’re anti-American for always taking sides against America and complaining about America though. Never say that.

    3. No. No one can.

      Pretending to care about the border is no longer a useful propaganda tactic for them. Now they’re happy to ignore suffering and carnage at the border.

      1. You’re the one pretending to care about the border.

        It’s getting plenty of coverage, all over the media, including from the left.

        1. So post links that answer Jerry B’s question if any such links exist

          1. It’s your thesis I have an issue with.

            You’re the one claiming no one on the left cares about the border now. And yet, that evil liberal media sure seems to be covering it, and the left-wing media sure seems bent out of shape about how slowly the issue is being handled.

              1. Of the media covering the border crisis?

                Google it, you tool. This isn’t debate club; playing an idiot wins you no points.

                1. Still no links.

                  Leftists love to vaguely refer to something so their dishonesty can’t be clearly shown.

                  1. “No claims about comprehensiveness were made. “

              2. Here’s a link.

                ABC News:
                “White House press secretary slips up, calls border migrant surge a ‘crisis'”

          2. Jerry asked for media stories about Harris’ successes in dealing with the border crisis which is different than stories about there being a border crisis (which are plentiful in the supposed ‘liberal mainstream media’).

  18. Do people here prefer reading collections of short stories or novel length books? I’ve got to the point where I don’t care much for short stories, there’s not enough time for me to care about the characters or story much. That happened with anyone else?

    1. Depends on the author. Some of my favorite authors hardly ever did anything but short stories. But with reoccurring characters, so it’s like dropping in for a short while with an old friend.

      Ever read anything by Manly Wade Wellman? A lot of his short stories deal with the supernatural, based on Appalachian folk myths. Especially the John the Balladeer stories.

      1. Although not great literature, I like the work of Lovecraft as his stories almost always had a nexus to Providence, RI

        1. I do enjoy Lovecraft. The guy had terrible luck with movie adaptations, though. Only decent one I ever recall seeing was The Color Out of Space. Not the horrible Nickolas Cage remake, the earlier German film. Fantastic bit of cinema.

          I’d love to see a good movie adaptation of At The Mountains of Madness. Hopefully del Toro’s version does get filmed.

        2. You got me there Don, I do love Lovecraft stories.

    2. I have a hard time reading and enjoying any short stories that aren’t SF. Perhaps it’s just because I’ve been reading and studying SF stories for so long, and never really read short fiction in other genres. And in fact in SF, many if not most writers can write effective short stories but fall flat with novels, in my opinion. One classic example for me is A. E. van Vogt. His short stories have a weird pacing and energy that make them very enjoyable. But his novels are unreadably bad, to me. He just couldn’t sustain it over the course of a novel.

      1. AWD,
        I suggest that you try a collection of stories by Isaac Bashevis Singer.
        Just think of his dybbuk as a SF entity.

        1. Is that the ‘entity’ in the prologue of the Coen Bros “A Serious Man”?

        2. I have read a few of his stories, they were excellent! Good suggestion, I think I’ll buy a collection.

        3. Yeah, I myself find it rather easy to move from sci-fi to ‘fantasy.’

    3. “Do people here prefer reading collections of short stories or novel length books?”


    4. I prefer short stories. My favorites are by Singer and Borges, (and of course my own stories).

    5. “not enough time for me to care about the characters ”
      collections of stories with repeated characters can overcome that limitation to some extent.

      1. I agree with you (and Brett made a similar point). One reason why I guess I like Lovecraft’s stories is he had a ‘shared universe’ thing going on.

    6. Short stories; I like my plots *tight* if you can swing it.

      Conservation of Shadows by Yoon Ha Lee.

      I’d also recommend a novela I just read in my sci-fi fantasy book club: To Be Taught, If Fortunate by Becky Chambers.

      Not realistic, but does what it comes here to do really well. No spoilers, but the club found the ending controversial.

      1. I will check that novella out, I like novellas quite a bit.

  19. Wow, I had no idea this was a thing: “West Virginia is the latest place to offer a relocation incentive to remote workers: $10,000, parceled out in monthly grants, for your first year in Morgantown, with a $2,000 bonus to settle in for a second year.”

    1. West Virginia gets knocked around a lot by people who have never been there. Parts of it are ‘hicks from the sticks’ but Morgantown is probably about as cosmopolitan as any mid-West city gets. The weather is as nice as it gets in that area of the country and the geography is beautiful. If I was in a position to up and move, I might consider it. Always loved it when business trips would take me to satellite offices there.

      1. I love West Virginia, beautiful state, and, yes, Morgantown is fun (I rather like Charleston better though).

        But I do think it’s strange to pay people to relocate there (or anywhere, the article mentions Vermont has a similar program).

      2. You would like West Virginia, Jimmy the Dane. Very White. Exceptionally poorly educated. Plenty of people who see street pills, bigotry, tobacco, faith healers, sketchy disability claims, cheap sixers, televangelists, scratch-offs, backwater religious schooling, guns, fast food, more bigotry, and Donald J. Trump as solutions to their largely self-inflicted problems.

        1. Nothing says calling out “bigotry” with a heavy serving of bigotry.

          1. But the Rev’s bigotry is good bigotry. Just ask him.

        2. Why do you even bother, Art? You’re just like a little kid with a magnifying glass treating normies like they’re ants. Get help.

          1. Who are the “normies” in the world as you see it?

    2. That’s a reason for me to move back. I grew up near Charleston with a lot of relatives around. They’ve pretty much all moved away or passed away.

  20. What rights are covered by the 9th Amendment, and why?

    1. Anyone? Bueller?

  21. Who killed Ashli Babbit? Do we know yet?

    1. She was White and not a Democrat, so it doesn’t matter.

    2. A Capitol police officer. We’ve known this since Jan. 6.

      1. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

        Are you really that stupid, or are you trying to make some sarcastic point?

        1. It’s more than ML’s weak attempt at rabble-rousing deserves.

    3. Funny how only certain people are targeted for “doxxing”….

    4. Government officials can kill an American and never have their names known by the public.

      Totalitarians and other unprincipled leftists are fine with this.

  22. And speaking of news media lying and propaganda, here’s a comparison of the coverage of Trump and Biden policy on the Afghan war.

    Policy is the same. News media coverage is night and day different. They are the most dishonest people in the world, right there with North Korean state media and the worst of historical Soviet Union official media.

    1. I’m having a hard time understanding how cherry picking random headlines to support his premise is any different than what he’s accusing the media of doing (specifically, selectively including the bits that make your point for you).

      It’s totally possible the coverage is biased, but finding a headline that is critical of Trump’s policy and one that’s supportive of Biden’s doesn’t make that case. For example, here’s a piece on CNN arguing against Biden’s policy which he could have included just as easily as the one saying the NATO guy opposed Trump:

      1. It’s a comparison of the coverage. Do your own comparison if you don’t like his.

        Feel free to link to favorable CNN, et al, coverage about Trump’s policy from last year.

        1. I just did one. CNN said it was bad when Trump did it and then bad again when Biden did it.

          And here’s some coverage on CNN saying it was good when Trump did it:

          If you’re going to cherry pick headlines you can make whatever point you want about coverage because large news organizations are going to report a variety of viewpoints on controversial topics. If you want to understand bias, you need to look at coverage systematically (which some studies try to do), but this is just an exercise in reinforcing whatever priors you already have.

          1. It’s called an example. Examples are not a comprehensive study. No claims about comprehensiveness were made.

            There aren’t a lot of recent examples of Trump and Biden having almost the exact same policy to allow for a direct comparison of media coverage of the policy. This is one.

            If you would like to offer a more comprehensive study of news on this policy instead of complaining that I didn’t post one, then do it.

            1. Yep, and the examples I posted show the opposite. So we’re left to look at our cherry-picked examples and confirm our own biases. What a fun but useless exercise!

              1. Your approval is not required, nor was it requested.

    2. Stating a policy slated for after an election is easy. Stating one you yourself will need to implement, and own the consequences of, is a much riskier act.

      1. The propaganda leaders applaud your attempts to help them lie.

        1. If you think what I said isn’t true, maybe explain how rather than just wanking.

          1. Stating a policy is always easy. Anyone can do it any time.

            For Democrats it’s especially easy because the news media will run propaganda stories to help them hype it and run more propaganda stories to distract people when the policy is never implemented or when it’s implemented and goes wrong. And they cover problems with “Republicans seize/pounce on [whatever]” stories.

            When did Obama ever face “consequences”?

            1. Ok, so that was pretty crazy.

              But had little to do with my post about implementing being riskier than just saying.

              1. Nothing was implemented

                1. Haha you’re an idiot.

                  Things were set up before the announcement, and are happening right now to make this happen.

                  Biden has set it up so he pays a price if he goes back now. That takes balls. And that’s why he gets good coverage.

                  Versus Trumps hot air.

                  1. Name calling. Leftists can’t stop themselves from uncivil behavior.

                    1. Ben, you call people names on here *all the time*.

                      I can only presume your rampant hypocrisy is a deflection because you got nothing.

                    2. Also whataboutism

    3. Yeah maybe Google a bit before posting the rageaholic takes of as truth.

      1. See above where CNN director calls CNN’s coverage “propaganda”.

        1. Wait a minute, I thought CNN was full of liars who can’t be trusted.

      2. Sarcastr0, read this. There are many examples of supposedly reputable media outlets saying the opposite for Biden as they said for Trump on this topic:

        1. More twitchy anecdotes? Zounds!

          1. Ad hominem. Twitchy just collects tweets into a bigger context. It’s a useful way to link to a set of tweets.

            What’s wrong with you anyway? You seem to have a personal interest in helping news media liars lie. Why?

            1. People like Ben really use a community college level understanding of how logic works. Those intro classes teach common fallacies but rarely get to Inductive Logic so they’re literally ignorant of it and how it works, hence here him thinking ‘ad hominem’ is some kind of ‘checkmate’ to Sarc’s skepticism about a source’s reliability.

              1. The Queen of ad hominems and personal attacks has personal attacks to offer. No surprise.

                1. See? He literally doesn’t know what I was talking about.

                  They don’t teach inductive logic at the community college so he doesn’t know what that is.

                  1. Why would anyone care to think about anything you might talk about?

                    You and the Rev are toxic and have no apparent redeeming qualities.

                    I don’t spend time pondering what Jeffery Dahmer might be saying either.

                    1. It’s not too late to look up some things on inductive logic so you won’t say such silly things.

            2. It’s not context, it’s confirmation bias. It is not ad hom to note that anecdotes can be curated to prove anything.

        2. That’s the same thing Ben_ already linked.

  23. Reddit is currently getting lambasted because one of the site level moderators responded to a complaint about “hate speech” against white men by saying they are not covered under that policy because it only applies to vulnerable classes of people. So far they seem unapologetic about it which I am glad to see. That is actually what a large number of the diversity perversity crowd thinks so glad they are making those beliefs public/standing by them.

    1. A Reddit moderator does not respond to offenses if the victim is a White male. The Volokh Conspiracy responds to offenses solely if the victim is a White male. The universe is balanced, to some degree.

      1. So, stop visiting from a computer with a webcam, and they won’t know which you are.

  24. Closed — or CoViD-restricted — courtrooms deny judges, jurors, and parties of the sounds of the masses: not even via most tele-Court media can judges, jurors, and parties hear the gasps and/or laughter of the citizens assembled as part of due process.

    How can a judge make it through the day without hearing a courtroom laugh out loud at the stupidity of a defendant’s argument?!

    Just sayn’.

    1. But we would not have got lawyer cat if the courtroom were open….

  25. Breaking news
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has nixed a proposal to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, telling reporters Thursday that she won’t advance legislation some Democrats unveiled this week.

    1. It is not time yet. Be patient, grasshopper.

    2. I am getting tired of having to block the rev multiple times. Why can’t VC have a universal block of bozos.

      1. Blocking is for snowflakes, scroll past if you don’t want to read him.

      2. Open wider, ragebot.

        May the better ideas (continue to) win . . . which, of course, is easy for me to say.

    3. Wow, I thought this was some of the most significant news of the day. Nancy dissing court packing probably means it is dead for at least this session of congress. I have to wonder how much blowback there will be from the peeps who have been pushing it.

  26. Fauci is a dick. The CDC is pitiful.

    Pausing the J&J vaccine for an obscure, extremely low probability reaction, not even proven to be vaccine related, is irresponsible.

    1. I think I agree with ThePublius for once. It really makes no sense, and I have yet to hear anyone give an even remotely convincing explanation of why it does.

      1. I agree. Was it 7 million vaccinated people and 6 cases? Would you find 6 cases in any random sampling of 7 million people? I know there are people here who know a lot about this stuff, how about an explanation?

    2. Yeah, that’s an ‘overabundance’ of caution move.

    3. The resentment toward his betters is strong in Publius.

      It must be depressing to be so disaffected.

  27. New Hampshire mask mandate lifted by Gov. Sununu.

    When will this silliness end nationwide? I’m guessing it will be YEARS, perhaps never, before mask rules and vaccination proof are no longer required.

    1. First try reading
      “A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19”
      PNAS 2021 Vol. 118 No. 17 e2018995118

      1. Don Nico, for every study you can find saying masks are effective, there is an equally authoritative study saying they are not. As an engineer I can tell you that there is a vast variation in the effectiveness among masks, and in the handling of them, masking practice, so to speak, and what’s going on in society now is simply theater.

        1. Don Nico, for every study you can find saying masks are effective, there is an equally authoritative study saying they are not.

          Perhaps if you’re not an expert.
          1) Don is much closer to an expert than you or I are.
          2) This is why we have public science experts to deconflict such things.

          And they all say Don’s right, and you’re wrong.

    2. When you catch yourself becoming outraged based in your own speculation about the future…you should probably pull up.

      1. Only Dems are allowed to make up stories and believe them, Publius.

        1. Unsourced whattaboutism is extra lame.

    3. “This thing happened that is totally contrary to my outraged speculation, but I’m going to be outraged anyway!”

      1. I honestly don’t get that. What happened that’s contrary to my speculation??? Just because some conservative governors have dropped the mask mandate doesn’t mean that Fauci and the CDC have.

        1. The only data point you are presenting is a state dropping a mask requirement. so I’m not sure how it supports speculation that masking is going to go on for years and years. But feel free to be outraged about something that there’s no evidence to support actually happening, I guess.

  28. An excellent historical biography about a fascinating and mostly forgotten figure. The Limits of Dissent by Frank L. Klement, about C. L. Vallandigham. A really good book about one of the most interesting figures of the Civil War era. If you think fake news and partisan, lying media is bad now, wait until you read about Vallandigham’s run for Ohio governor in 1863! From Canada, because he had been unconstitutionally tried by a military tribunal, and banished to the Confederacy. At the behest of Lincoln himself. He took a blockade runner out of Wilmington NC for Halifax NS, and eventually wound up in Windsor, Ontario, which was as close as he could get to his native Ohio.

    1. Sounds interesting.

    2. Interesting character. His legal defense of that guy in the bar fight was one even Behar would approve of.

  29. Here’s some good news, Atlanta school’s name changed from after filthy traitor terrorist Beford Forrest to Hank Aaron.

  30. I don’t really have a good handle on liability issues but it seems like Christopher Worrell, the Proud Boys fanboy has tested positive for COVID-19 while in a DC jail. A quotation from the link:

    “Christopher Worrell is particularly vulnerable to Covid, his lawyer Allen Orenberg said, because he’s also in the midst of treating non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and has a compromised immune system.”

    Can a top tier liability lawyer weigh in on this issue. Seems like there has been something of a change of heart by the courts about detaining some of those arrested on 6 Jan 2021 given how heavy handed the DC jail has been.

    1. “(Judge) Howell questioned Worrell’s assertions that he had been unable to access his cancer medication while in jail, attributing it instead to his doctor’s actions, and she noted that Worrell joined the Capitol mob maskless and without apparent concern for his health. Health concerns aside, Howell said, Worrell’s alleged attack on police with a chemical spray, as well as his other conduct on Jan. 6, justify his continued detention. She also ordered him detained in part because of an apparent threat he made to a witness while FBI agents were taking him into custody.”

      I like the judge’s observation about, “joined the Capitol mob maskless and without apparent concern for his health.”

      1. So by going maskless, you waive your right to virus protection forever, and can’t reclaim it? Yikes! Seems like it would be more reasonable to help Worrell practice his social distancing, by putting him in solitary.

  31. Eugene: I was excited to see that you’d participated in today’s “We the People” podcast regarding thomas/knight.

    But the audio quality of your connection during the podcast is exceedingly poor, unlike that of the host and the other guest, which have excellent audio.

    Maybe ask the blackman kid for some tips about improving your audio going forward.

  32. Prof. Cassell’s attempt to expand the scope of the CVRA yet again suffers a setback, as the en banc 11th circuit rejected his petition on behalf of one of Epstein’s victims.

  33. Check out this long form hit piece on Mormons enforcing their community norms. Funny how extreme woke folk and institutions are never held to the same public standards as religious people….

    1. You seem to prefer superstition-laced nonsense, silly extremism, and backwardness to reason, science, the reality-based mainstream, progress, and modernity, Jimmy.

      To what do you ascribe this?

      Childhood indoctrination? Backwater schooling? Lousy parents? Just a general anti-social, disaffected orientation?

      I hope you get help.

      1. You really aren’t going to like the future…..

        1. I figure your and his crystal balls are both more about each of you than the future.

    1. ACLU turned into the police. They were always leftists and now leftists are starting to embrace totalitarianism and the ACLU is going along with it.

Please to post comments