Thursday Open Thread

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

Comments

[Doug Huffman]

Woo hoo. first up. Usually the 500 drips of drivel drive away.

Thanks, Prof. Volokh, for the blog, a favorite daily stop.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Teacher's pet!

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Listening to NJ vs. PennEast was fun. It seems like a perfect case to really understand where SCOTUS is at, because conservatives like oil companies, business, and soverign immunity, and liberals like eminent domain and dislike all of those things. Yes, that is an overgeneralized simplification, but this case, whether a government grant of eminent domain powers to natural gas companies against a state is foreclosed by soverign immunity, breaks that easy simplification and was interesting to watch.

And, in my opinion (which is true for more and more cases I feel) is Breyer probably had the best take, with, private delegations of government power happen all the time, are all those foreclosed now?

In other news, I learned a new framework for web design for the purposes of getting a specific job, which now unfortunately is no longer available. Which sucks.

Honestly, and this might be horrible reasoning so please inject something if this is stupid (programming): After I graduate, in like 3 weeks, I'm thinking of literally spending my summer building a code base of private projects, and come fall just apply with a solid github I can use as leverage.

I dont really have other options? I guess I can go to even more higher education (masters) but ... I dislike higher education lol.

I mean, yeah academia clashes with my politics but thats fine I'll deal with that but it is also suffocating in so many ways besides that.

[ThePublius]

I highly recommend that young software engineers get involved in open source projects; find one or more that appeal to you, technologically, and contribute. Do code reviews. Fix bugs.

Many large companies are based on open source projects like linux, kubernetes, openstack, etc., etc.

You will meet people, too, and may get an internship or hired as a result.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Have you heard of our Lord and Savior, Richard Stallman? He promotes ethical software that respects the rights of the end user and helps promote the adoption of GNU/Linux.
t. /g/

[jdgalt1]

Stallman *used to* do that. Then he got #metoo-ed by liars, who bullied him into resigning from the FSF which he started. Linux has similarly been stolen from Linus Torvalds.

[jb]

This is good advice.

I wouldn't suggest going into academia if the goal is computer science. It can be helpful in getting a job, but the opportunity cost is too high. You can get hired into a more senior role with a Ph.D., for example, but it's likely you'd progress to that same role with just a couple of years of industry experience and you're leaving a lot of income on the table in the meantime as well.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

President Joe Biden recently gave a public speech where he took the morally courageous stand to announce that white supremacist terrorism is the greatest threat to the safety of the American people. What do you think is the best way to counter white terrorism and white supremacists rhetoric? Should the FBI use undercover agents to entrap wayward white youths into fictitious terrorists plots so they can have some public arrests livestreamed on CNN? Or should they claim that run of the mill criminal acts perpetrated by whites are actually racially motivated hate crimes so their funding will be increased next year?

[Moderation4ever]

Why not treat them like any other terrorist organization? Are they really any different than ISIS?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

>any different than ISIS
Are mosques to be considered as terrorist recruitment centers? Didn't the all knowing Mike Bloomberg have his police officers spy on New York City mosques to try and sniff out potential terrorist plots?

[Dr. Ed 2]

BLM is both more of a terrorist organization *and* has a higher bodycount than these purported bogeymen.

Biden's Famous But Incompetent might *create* a conflagration out of the tinderbox of p*ssed-off working-class White males but I more anticipate something like a national strike, which *is* Constitutionally protected.

Biden is preaching unity while dividing us. Scary...

[Moderation4ever]

BLM has a higher body count - reference please. The Oklahoma bombing was 168, can you top this?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

OKC was an instance of libertarian terrorism. McVeigh hated the government for Ruby Ridge and burning those Christians alive in Waco.

[De Oppresso Liber]

All those white nationalists he hung out with and obsession with the Turner Diaries was just a coincidence.

[swood1000]

McVeigh claimed that the bombing was revenge against the government for the sieges at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Are you saying that he hid the fact that his real reason was white supremacy? Why would he hide that, and how does bombing a federal building further the goals of white supremacy?

[De Oppresso Liber]

I'm saying it is clear where his sympathies lied. He certainly did not mind being in the company of hard core white supremacists and called a white supremacist novel his favorite book. I think he was smart enough to use the more broadly sympathetic cause as his stated one.

[swood1000]

Even if he did have white supremacy sympathies, that does not mean that every act he committed was motivated in part by white supremacy. He buys groceries and that is to be accounted for by white supremacy? Before you say that white supremacy motivated the bombing you have to explain how white supremacy could have motivated the bombing. If nobody can see the connection and he doesn’t announce a connection then how is that cause furthered?

[De Oppresso Liber]

I guess you think we should take the mass murderer at his word then. Okie dokie.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I guess you think we should take the mass murderer at his word then. Okie dokie.

How about the fact that the vast majority of his victims were white?

[Queen Amalthea]

That means little, imagine someone who targeted a welfare office because they think blacks abuse welfare but most of the employees there are white. That wouldn't make the targeting less about racism.

[Sarcastr0]

White supremacist's that kill a lot of white people? Yeah, that's truly an impossibility that never happens.

[swood1000]

I guess you think we should take the mass murderer at his word then. Okie dokie.

You skipped the part where you supply a reason for believing that white supremacy was involved. How were white supremacy goals furthered by bombing a federal building? At least by connecting it to Waco and Ruby Ridge he was making clear that a protest was involved. If he doesn't connect it to white supremacy then how could it affect white supremacy goals?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That means little, imagine someone who targeted a welfare office because they think blacks abuse welfare but most of the employees there are white. That wouldn’t make the targeting less about racism.

Imagining something that there's no reason to think was the case means less than little.

White supremacist’s that kill a lot of white people? Yeah, that’s truly an impossibility that never happens.

You have data that suggests that when white people kill other white people, they tend to be motivated to do so by white supremacist leanings?

[Sarcastr0]

Wuz, you didn't make a statistical statement, you made an absolute one. - "How about the fact that the vast majority of his victims were white?" is not about tendencies.

Retreating to statistics is a lame dodge.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Wuz, you didn’t make a statistical statement, you made an absolute one. – “How about the fact that the vast majority of his victims were white?” is not about tendencies.

Retreating to statistics is a lame dodge.

Give that I didn't retreat to statistics we can chalk this up as yet another pathetic attempt at a straw man by you. At least you're consistent.

And do you know what's even lamer? The "Well, he *could* have done it because he was a white supremacist, even though there's no evidence of that as a motivation, so we should assume that he did" argument. What are you...9 years old?

[FourteenFour]

So, use drones in our own country to assassinate Americans like his partner in crime started overseas with? Who needs those pesky trials.

[Ed Grinberg]

Talk about moderation...

[jdgalt1]

Yes, because they don't exist. "White supremacists" are a boogeyman made up by the liars who promote Critical Race Theory. Anyone who disagrees with CRT, including black conservatives, now gets labeled as a white supremacist.

On the bright side, everyone with a brain in their head now recognizes that the world's black race-baiters have used up their credibility forever.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: Biden is mirroring George Wallace in his racial hatred. There really is no such thing as White Supremicism -- *everyone* thinks that they are supreme to others and this is really nothing more than an expansion of Biden's antisemitism. (I see he is appointing yet another rabid antisemite, this time to the SBA.)

2: Biden seeks to criminalize thought -- and that should scare everyone. He wants to turn us into a reincarnation of the Soviet Union with this Marxist CRT stuff -- much like the Soviets did, he wishes to make everything political. And try building a bridge based on the principle of 2+2=5...

3: I truly fear for the future of the Republic.

[Queen Amalthea]

You're truly demented.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No more than you...

[Queen Amalthea]

No, you're off your rocker Ed. You say batshit crazy things regularly. Biden=George Wallace, Chauvin got treated worse than the Scotsboro boys, Civil War apocalypse around every corner, etc., etc., You're like Rush Limbaugh after a head injury and doing several lines of coke.

[bernard11]

You don't know much about George Wallace, do you?

[Queen Amalthea]

With Ed you could have stopped with your first four words.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wallace was a racist, and BLM is led by racists. What else does one need to know???

[bernard11]

A lot.

You're demented. How reaction do you get to your idiocies at family gatherings, I wonder, or are they all as stupid as you?

[Jerry B.]

Tell the administrations of Democratic led cities to stop hiring them as police?

[M L]

He also said that the Capitol riots were an attack worse than 9/11, worse than Pearl Harbor, worse than anything since the War Between the States.

Of course, the Capitol rioters killed zero people, and so this attack wasn't even the deadliest attack on the Capitol this year. That honor goes to Noah Green, a follower of Louis Farrakhan who attacked the Capitol earlier this month (!) and killed one officer.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Joe Biden doesn't realize he is the worst thing to ever happen to America....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does he realize *anything* or is he the ultimate Manchurian candidate?

And I'd love to see a tox scan of his blood circa that speech.
My guess, just a guess, is that he was as high as a kite....

[bernard11]

Bad guess.

You're demented.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I plan on getting wasted on a 5 Liter box of white wine, specifically pinot grigio, this weekend. Has anyone successfully stopped drinking permanently and what technique helped you achieve sobriety? I'd also like to stop my pornography and escort habits but we can discuss that next week. Those Slavic shiksas have me addicted and I can't help myself.

[Krayt]

I'd like to know, too, these answers, so I can do the exact opposite.

[Moderation4ever]

Interesting thing about alcohol. The older you get the less you like the hangovers. That leaves two options, never sober up or limit you intake to a couple of beers. I find the later my preferred option.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I can avoid drinking but when I start drinking, I can stop myself and need to ride the boozy wave until I crash. Usually, I just pass out asleep but the next day I pay for it with a hangover and at least one instance of vomiting.

[Moderation4ever]

You a braver person than I.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Start smoking weed. Smoke the weed before you drink any booze for the day. The weed will greatly reduce your craving for booze, and if you do still drink, it will make you ill and force you to stop before you reach next-day-vomiting hangover.

[Leaf's Chauffeur]

I too recommend replacing one harmful addiction with another one.

[De Oppresso Liber]

If someone is killing themselves with booze, I would hardly call pot "harmful" in comparison. Teetotaler stuff is nonsense that leads to failure 99% of the time anyway.

[swood1000]

The older you get the less you like the hangovers.

Actually, the hangovers are worse as you get older, due to the body's reduced capacity to metabolize alcohol.

[Jedi Master Yoda]

At age 61 I have never had a hangover. I've drunken to the point of getting nauseated but I have never woken up with a horrible headache the next day. The last time I did heavy drinking was in December 1998.
This morning I woke up at 1:00 am with a terrible headache and body aches...but that was because I got my second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The older you get the less you like the hangovers. That leaves two options, never sober up or limit you intake to a couple of beers.

If you can't handle more than "a couple of beers" without winding up with hangover I'd say that alcohol isn't for you, and would agree with the suggestion that you switch to a different substance.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"The drinkers are smoking, the smokers are drinking, and the gamblers are just having sex with everything!!!"

[Krayt]

What if the Borg got their start not through cybernetic implants that started controlling brains, but rather through social media ostracism to bring people in line with the Queen's controls? The Borg famously kill new drones where dronification does not "take" properly.

There's a meme picture of a guy in a sea of people heil Hitlering, and he sits with his arms crossed and a frown on his face. People imagine they'd be strong like him and resist. Yet statistically they almost certainly wouldn't. What if the problem is the social pressure to go along with the madness of the crowds, not why or which Queen wields this power?

Resist like that guy? My dears, you all are the ones heil Hitlering. You need to order The Emperor's New Clothes quickly.

You don't need cybernetics interior to the brain to control behaviors. Evidently.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Didn't they get a chance to kill all the borg in episode 3, and then decided not to do it?

I mean they are automatons ... is it really better to allow more people to become borg than to get rid of the ones. And yeah I know the point of the episode is that they can be freed, but ... not really? They sent him back anyway!

That always bugged me. because every future issue they encountered with them my basic attitude was like, guys, you could have dealt with this this is on you. I can't let this go.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

sorry, season 5, episode 23

[Krayt]

Trek has the honor of writers that can make things work out in the end.

As it turns out, by heroic efforts by Data. But for sheer luck, humanity would have been wiped out several times over.

Ergo decisions not to wipe then out are murderously wrong.

Of course these are the same planners who only have a 50% chance of even one major starship near Earth should someone nasty pop out of warp.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We are the only ship in the quadrant" is almost as common a statement as 'two to beam up".

Seems like poor fleet disposition.

[gormadoc]

DS9 (sometimes) and Voyager (always) takes place in a different quadrant, both of which are far away from Federation space, so it's entirely reasonable in those series. In TOS when they say something like that it's because the writers were all different people who really just wanted their own story on TV but didn't care to tie it to the larger ST universe. In-universe they chalk it up to the fact that the Enterprise is the furthest out Federation ship and is intended to go it alone.

[Bob from Ohio]

In Wrath of Khan, the Enterprise was on a training mission and still was the only ship in the quadrant.

I think the real problem was some of the writers thought quadrant meant sector or section rather than 1/4 of the galaxy.

[gormadoc]

Yeah, that's almost certainly the case in Wrath of Khan. You could argue that they had left dock very near the border (since it didn't seem to take long to get to Regula) and that Starfleet wasn't really doing much in the Beta Quadrant so they didn't have ships there (and that's why the Reliant was near the border; it was sufficiently far away for the test) but ST writers have never been very consistent.

[Bob from Ohio]

They left from Earth. Remember the scene in Kirk's apartment in San Francisco.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think the real problem was some of the writers thought quadrant meant sector or section rather than 1/4 of the galaxy.

Yep. Writers who had no understanding of the fictional canon they were writing about. In Trek lore, the Federation lies mostly in the Alpha quadrant, but also extends into the Beta quadrant until it meets up with Klingon and Romulan space (or more accurately in the case of the latter, the Neutral Zone). Add to that the fact that Earth...home to Federation Headquarters...is quite near to the boundary between the Alpha and Beta quadrants and the idea that the Federation wouldn't have quite a few ships patrolling between Earth and it's hostile neighbors at any given time is idiotic.

Yeah...I was a teenaged nerd.

[Jedi Master Yoda]

"We no longer enslave animals for food purposes." William Ryker, XO USS Enterprise.
W T F?

[Sarcastr0]

Replicators mean the cost-benefit there shifts drastically. And since one of the benefits is being smug...

[Dr. Ed 2]

We could have dealt with Hitler in the 1930s with a whole lot less loss of life (on both sides).

We didn't. Hitler assumed, correctly, that the survivors of the Great War didn't want to see their sons going off to fight another one and hence that he wouldn't get called on the stuff he was doing.

Conversely, there is the question of what did we prevent by being involved in the clusterf*ck that was Vietnam. We paid a very high price for that one, but the fact remains that Saigon fell in 1975, and just 14 year later (1989), the Berlin Wall fell....

Would that have happened if we hadn't expendured the treasure and blood in Vietnam? I don't know....

[Moderation4ever]

Are we not seeing this with Republican and the former President? How many criticized the then President on January 6th only to walk it back quickly. Senator Graham and Rep. McCarthy to name a few. The person sitting with their arms folded right now Liz Cheney. Are you going to applaud this or like many Republican criticize her?

[Krayt]

I will not understate what happened that day, but will not overstate it, either. Both are for political reasons by partisans.

[De Oppresso Liber]

We are seeing it, and it is originating from the rank and file. They really are a cult of personality in the thrall of a trust fund baby turned conman.

Look at the family drama of Rep. Kinzinger (one of the few GOP politicians I currently respect) as a perfect example. They have disowned him for opposing Trump's treason, and call that patriotism. Saddening and sickening.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/15/us/kinzinger-family-letter.html

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Trump’s treason

Grow up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd rather see a Democrat than Cheney.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is the problem with the "woke" right. Their top priorities have become party purity and grasping for power to further enforce that purity. Hence, Republicans prefer someone who disagrees with them on everything rather than someone who agrees on most things, but still has a conscience and is sufficiently independent to speak it. An apostate is worse than an infidel even.

Dr. Ed, congrats on distilling the fascistic tendencies of the current Republican party into one small sentence. it's your best contribution to this blog yet.

[I Callahan]

Except those of us on the “woke” Republican end have seen nothing we’ve asked for except during the Trump era. And what did the non-woke Republicans do? Helped the Dems sabotage his presidency, and then throw him under the bus after the election.

I’ve been told I need to vote for the “R” because he, they’re better than the Dems. And in doing so I’ve been told I need to suck it up. Newsflash: I ain’t doing that anymore. I expect Republicans to deliver for their voters just like Dems deliver for theirs, and I’m voting accordingly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I agree!

For the past 30+ years I've been told to support RINOs because while they suck, the Democrats supposedly suck more.

Well, (a) the Dems don't,and (b) I'm not forced to support the Dem.

"We suck less" isn't good enough for me anymore -- not after Trump.

[Queen Amalthea]

"What if the Borg got their start not through cybernetic implants that started controlling brains, but rather through social media ostracism to bring people in line with the Queen’s controls? "

Lol, the hysteria is hilarious.

[Sarcastr0]

I also liked this one.

What if the Decepticons but Republicans?

[Queen Amalthea]

Republicans suddenly discovering that there can be social pressure aimed at what's seen as outrageous behavior is equal parts funny/sad.

[Sarcastr0]

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2015/09/is-there-word-in-klingon-for-loneliness.html

A favorite blogger of mine.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I also plan on making some chuck roast stew this weekend in a pressure cooker. Feel free to post any tips or recipes you have used or recommend. I've got the roast, Russet potatoes, mirepoix, beef broth, and tomato paste. Plan on adding the cornstarch and frozen peas last to cook on residual head. Herbs will include a bay leaf but I don't know what else. Worcestershire sauce to up the umami. Plan on browning the chuck before pressure cooking but I don't know if any of the dark bits (forget the technical term) will develop on a non-stick bucket. I feel like I am missing a few additional ingredients ....

[apedad]

I've started to see on some cooking shows that they actually cut up large roasts into quarter sections (or so).

So you get more Maillard reaction (that technical term!), and more even temperature distribution.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

It's for a stew so I plan on cubing the chuck roast.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Forgot to ask. Should I coat the cubes in flour before browning or is that unnecessary? I plan on adding corn starch at the end so my goal is not stew liquid viscosity ("thickness") but flavor development.

[DonP]

Suggestion; season the flour if you don't marinate the meat overnight.

[mulched]

Flour not needed for browning, in my humble (but well fed) opinion.

[Commenter_XY]

You do not need the flour.

What I would recommend:
Use the saute setting to brown the meat, which I assume you are cutting into 2" chunks; 5 minutes MAX. You want brown, not cooked shoe leather.
Do not use vegetable oil; olive oil is better (IMHO).
I would dry rub the cubes/chunks with seasoning, put them into a ziploc bag and refrigerate overnight.
Vidalia onions + sage combine for an amazing taste. I was never really a fan of pearl onions. The sweet and sagey combo is good.
After you lightly saute the cubes (nothing more than 5 minutes), let it sit for 30 minutes before you pressure cook.
Thyme is a good 'utility' seasoning as well.
Go easy on the tomato paste; very acidic. It counteracts a lot of seasonings.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Makin' me hungry over here.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, it is making me hungry too, damn it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Flour before, or cornstarch after, but not both; They're both just thickeners.

I prefer the flour, because cornstarch thickened sauces break and weep when reheated after refrigeration. Flour doesn't do that. But it does take more care to avoid lumps. Adding the flour before browning helps prevent the lumps, because exposing it to fats before it cooks in water isolates the grains, they don't stick together anymore. Just like frying it in butter for a white sauce.

I'd suggest adding a packet of unflavored gelatin at the start, it will really improve the feel of the gravy.

[Life of Brian]

I plan on adding corn starch at the end so my goal is not stew liquid viscosity (“thickness”) but flavor development.

A few years back I picked up the trick of adding unflavored gelatin for viscosity/mouthfeel without the cloudiness. Worth a try sometime if you haven't.

I'm also a fan of mushrooms -- even more umami, and complements the beef nicely.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Consider carrots and pearl onions. Add black pepper, rosemary and a small amount of cumin. Also garlic, if you like garlic.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Mirepoix includes carrots and onions. As for pearl onions, do you get them in the frozen veggie section?

[Don Nico]

The caramelized brown bits will form. They do not care about the surface of your pan. My suggestion is to cook in the pressure cooker until 80% done and finish cooking with the pan uncovered.
Season with salt and pepper before sealing the cooker.
Your missing ingredients are optional: onion, garlic.

[bernard11]

Garlic and onion are not optional, IMO.

I wouldn't use a non-stick pan to brown the beef. I think it browns better in cast iron or a good stainless pan. Plus you can use a metal spatula or something to scrape it all into the deglazing liquid, which will damage a non-stick surface.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I'm with you = scraping all the brown bits as you degalze. Instant Pot is awesome for this.

[Don Nico]

Deglazing is easily done with a silicone spatula. As for browning cast iron is superior only if it is well-seasoned, super heated, and has no added oil. But that is not a pressure cooker.
Admittedly, I have no idea why a pressure cooker needs to be non-stick. As the hit temperature it reaches any fond would be loosened

[Don Nico]

Also stainless has the drawback of not being a good heat conductor - leading to hat spots unless the pan is heated to temperature for several minutes (that is also true of cast iron).

[Brett Bellmore]

I sometimes set a stainless steel pot in a large cast iron pan just to even out the heat and prevent burning.

[Don Nico]

Yes, you'd need to use a trick like that doe stainless steel.

[bernard11]

By "good" stainless I meant with an aluminum or copper layer.

Doesn't have to be the pricey All-Clad. I agree plain stainless is dubious.

[Don Nico]

my problem with them is that the metal is fairly thin. Therefore pans need careful watching as the liquid gets low.
We (and many tv chefs) use le Creuset dutch ovens for long time braising

[bernard11]

I do too, actually. And I keep the temperature s low as possible - under 300.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You could try tossing in (the contents of) a can -- always the widget can, never a bottle -- of Guinness.

Burn the beef a bit . . . for the reason burnt ends are always the proper choice.

[Don Nico]

"burnt ends are always the proper choice."
you're mixing up pressure cooking with barbeque.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The point seems readily transferable.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The point seems readily transferable.

Except that it isn't. "Burnt ends" are fatty cubes of meat (usually the point end of a beef brisket, though pork belly is sometimes used...and far less often other cuts...but in the absence of a qualifier like "pork belly burnt ends" the term by itself generally refers to brisket point cubes) that have been slow smoked, then doused in BBQ sauce and returned to the smoker for an hour or two. And despite the name, they aren't actually "burnt".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Most of the places I prefer offer burnt ends lean or “moist” (fatty), and regular (sauced) or dry (no sauce). I always take lean and dry, and leave the sauce at the counter. Properly cooked burnt ends, in my judgment, would be debased by sauce and have little fat.

I have never heard of burnt ends derived from pork belly. Sounds interesting, though.

[Don Nico]

Burnt ends should never be dry. Wuz explained the concept perfectly

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I encourage you to seek sources who need not smother theIr burnt ends in sauce.

[Don Nico]

RAk,
If burnt ends of brisket are made properly putting sauce on them is a sacrilege as well of a waste of damned good BBQ. The moisture comes from the fat that runs through the point and also that which separates the point from the flat.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"If burnt ends of brisket are made properly putting sauce on them is a sacrilege as well of a waste of damned good BBQ."

That's what I said.

Perhaps some confusion derives from the use of "dry" in this context. "Dry" is the way to order burnt ends without sauce at some counters ('Burnt ends, please. Lean. Dry. Thank you.') That use of "dry" is not intended to convey assessment of the product's condition (other than to indicate they should not be bathed in sauce).

Some places describe fatty burnt ends as "moist" (distinguished from "lean). That could compound the confusion.

It's often (1) lean or moist (fatty) and (2) dry (no sauce) or regular (sauced, often unstated) in my experience.

[Don Nico]

If you add a 12 to 16 oz of beer, then add many sliced and sauteed onions and make a carbonnade.

[David Bremer]

Since this is a thread of random thoughts and it's at least tangential to this:

The InstaPot is the most overrated home gadget ever created. It's only interesting if you like bland, watery food.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I'm using an Insignia pressure cooker from Best Buy that only cost me $30. Also, it makes excellent stews without me having to stand at the stovetop and stir.

[Ridgeway]

A low oven (300 deg F or so) is your friend for braises like this, if you have the time. You don't really need to worry about stirring (once every hour or so if you are OCD like me) and the flavors and texture develop better with the extra cooking time. Pressure cooking is an OK short-cut, but I don't find that the end product is quite as good as the slow cooked version.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Since this is a thread of random thoughts and it’s at least tangential to this:

The InstaPot is the most overrated home gadget ever created. It’s only interesting if you like bland, watery food.

That does seem random, but I wouldn't apply the word "thought" to it. First off, it's "Instant Pot", not "InstaPot". Secondly, pressure cookers are and always have been a useful culinary tool. What made the IP so popular was that by applying a little bit of electronic smarts it essentially eliminated the issues that made pressure cooker use somewhat off-putting for the home cook. Namely, the safety issue and need for baby-sitting. Some go overboard with their fondness for these gadgets and use them to cook things that don't really benefit from a pressure cooker, but many things do...and even more so when it's largely automated.

If you're ending up with "bland, watery food" after cooking with one it's not the tool that's at fault. You're just a shitty cook.

[bernard11]

If you’re ending up with “bland, watery food” after cooking with one it’s not the tool that’s at fault. You’re just a shitty cook.

"It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Has anyone practiced the Talmudic dark magic know as a backdoor Roth IRA? I'm above the cap and need to protect my shekels from Uncle Sam. I should be able to just open a traditional IRA up to the yearly limit and then convert it over every year to my pre-existing Roth IRA. I pay tax on the converted amount but future distributions are tax free. Correct?

[Sarcastr0]

You got a bunch of people to assume you were posting in good faith above, and what did it get you?

Can't you threadshit somewhere else?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

If you keep harassing me, I'll call my uncle Morty and have your credit score dropped by 200 points!

[David D 2]

It's correct. I think vanguard calls it a "roth ira conversion". Interesting thing is if you have a rollover ira, you can convert to roth little by little, pay the income tax, but 5 years later withdraw without the 10% penalty. It's casually referred to as a "ladder IRA conversion" or something like that.

[David D 2]

The other thing I would say is that you're not really protecting your money from Uncle Sam. They know all about it and can and will change the rules as they see fit.

[Commenter_XY]

If you're above the earnings limit for a Roth IRA now, then approach the 'back door' conversion with some care. The question you need to answer is whether you think your marginal rate will increase, stay the same, or decrease over time. The mechanics are simple. It is literally as easy as telling your custodian: Transfer X dollars from my 401K or IRA to my Roth. Then at tax time, you pay the tax.

My own plan is to do small annual conversions throughout retirement. I'll likely have a significantly lower marginal rate.

[grb]

R.I.P. Michael Collins

[Brian Thomas]

I know I'm pretty far to the left compared to many on this site, and police reform is something I think is long overdue and necessary, but one thing the right gets right is the terrible way police shootings or killings are reported. It's so predictable how quickly new stories will be lumped in with older similar stories, even if the details are completely different. I watched the Mario Gonzalez body cam footage yesterday, at least up to the point where they start to do CPR on him, and I knew it would get lumped in with the George Floyd case right away. But it shouldn't be. Those officers seemed to be well aware of the risks involved and looked to be doing everything they could to minimize the risks while still doing their job, and he just went unresponsive remarkably fast. It's not even close to being like the Chauvin video, with his blatant disinterest and lack of any care at all. I just wish the coverage wasn't so predictable, and I gotta admit that the right has a point in its criticism of it.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

The schvartze Goyim could have promoted police reform as something beneficial to all Americans by highlighting white victims of police abuse but they decided it was better, rhetorically and financially, to racialized the topic of police reform. So whites are still abused and even murdered by police (anyone remember that fake Houston drug raid or the guy on drugs who was suffocated to death by a cop dog pile?) but one of the BLM co-founders just spent upwards of $3 million on real estate. KA-CHING!

[Dr. Ed 2]

The two things that those who had been adults in the 1920s never spoke about was the flu pandemic and the Klu Klux Klan.

We didn't hear about the flu pandemic until the mid '90s -- after that generation was largely dead -- and we still haven't heard about what the Klan did in the 1920s. It was *big* -- something like a fifth of the population belonged to it.

Back then, the Klan was what BLM is now, and there are old B&W movies of the Klan marching on DC in (I believe) 1923. They tried to get William G. McAdoo nominated as the Dem POTUS candidate in 1924 (that convention is often called the "clanbake") but by then their influence was waning -- and it shortly imploded.

Like BLM, the Klan's leaders weren't who they purported to be, and when people came to realize this, they recoiled in horror and never -- ever -- discussed it again.

History does repeat itself....

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : We didn’t hear about the flu pandemic until the mid ’90s

What planet do you live on ?!? I don't bother with your racist gibberish equating the KKK w/ BLM, because your mental & spiritual handicaps have long been apparent to everyone here. I almost replied to your "*everyone* thinks that they are supreme to others" comment above, but decided that was pointless as well.

But to claim the 1918 Flu Pandemic (or the KKK of the time) were events hidden from history and only recently rediscovered is bizarre nonsense.

[Queen Amalthea]

" the Klan was what BLM is now"

Nutty McNuts here.

[bernard11]

Like BLM, the Klan’s leaders weren’t who they purported to be, and when people came to realize this, they recoiled in horror and never — ever — discussed it again.

WTF are you talking about?

[David Bremer]

People are terrible at letting the facts of the story dictate. Instead, they immediately group it with some narrative and then look for facts that they can use to fit it into that pre-conceived narrative.

As another example, look at the case involving Daunte Wright. That is being portrayed (at least in the Twin Cities) as another George Floyd, with a racist cop killing an unarmed black man. But if you watch the video: (a) everyone was being respectful with Daunte before he tried to run; (b) the officer arresting Daunte was himself African American, and it seems less likely the officer was racist if her partner was black; (c) the officer yelled "taser, taser taser," and the moment the officer shoots Daunte, she gasps because she realizes she had used her gun instead.

The facts couldn't be further from the case of Floyd, where a cop kneeled on the neck and slowly murdered an unarmed, then compliant man. Yet they are being treated as if comparable situations.

[De Oppresso Liber]

I think most people are in the same boat as you.

Reasonable people saw an unfortunate but necessary action in the police shooting of the black teenager armed with a knife. I saw the Mario Gonzalez video and came to the same conclusion as you, although I support drastic police reform. News article comments and twitter makes it seem like everyone is either in a BLM shirt making a shrine to a killed criminal, or a skin head calling it one less problem.

Most people realize that police are necessary and that in a country with 300mm guns, sometimes the police will have to use their own.

[M L]

The question you need to ask is why? Why is media coverage this way?

[swood1000]

With the NYT, ad revenue has decreased and digital subscriptions have increased. Unlike the advertisers, this source of revenue demands a product having a certain political perspective. In addition, the youngest reporters have imported the view, learned in college, that points of view at odds with theirs do not deserve a hearing. Furthermore, proclaiming the author’s righteousness is now an accepted part of news stories.

[Queen Amalthea]

George Soros is commanding it, duh.

[I Callahan]

How about answering the question honestly? Why DO the media report it that way?

[SimonP]

So, would Gonzalez be dead today, if the police hadn't shown up, in your view?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I suggest a federal civil rights law, requiring accurate police reports nationwide. Every forceful measure taken against an arrestee must be forthrightly described, not minimized. Injuries and fatalities must be described accurately. No more dying later in the hospital when the cops (or the medics who picked up the corpse) knew the victim was dead at the scene. Body cams must be on. Material facts shown on the footage must be reviewed and described, along with any available evidence from surveillance cameras at the scene. A senior arresting officer must sign, and also the officers' off-scene supervisor.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I don't think the police union would agree to those terms...

[Don Nico]

Steven,
I hope your read my answer to your several misunderstandings concerning LCOE.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don Nico, did you read my reply to your reply?

[Bob from Ohio]

"requiring accurate police reports"

Pretty sure those already exist at the state and local level.

[swood1000]

I suggest a federal civil rights law, requiring accurate police reports nationwide.

Reports of the death of federalism have been greatly exaggerated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biden is truly scary, and do not think this is going to end well.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

To be fair, most senior citizens with drug abusing children don't have a good ending either. Hunter is already probably stealing the White House silverware to buy the marijuana cigarettes for his dope smoking friends.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "Biden is truly scary, and do not think this is going to end well"

Pretty wishy-washy statement, Ed. We want predictions!

[Commenter_XY]

Predictions:

Taxes are going up. Prices are going up, as companies pass through the higher corporate tax rate as price increases to the consumer. Liberty will be lessened.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Is this the Libertarian Moment that Gillespie (aka Leather Man) was talking about last year?

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Predictions...."

1. Prices are far more likely to go up because of the economy roaring out of it's pandemic restrictions rather than marginal changes to the tax code. A contractor in a construction meeting yesterday said it's already difficult to find subs to do work (he didn't blame Biden). It's even possible inflation concerns are real this time, after being so wrong for decades running.

2. "As companies pass through..." I'm predicting a return to the pre-Trump corporate rate doesn't lead to a sere desolate post-apocalyptical landscape (but I always did have a non-hysterical temperament).

3. I forget; did those companies pass through savings when Trump cut their rate?

4. Liberty will be lessened, huh? Strangely enuff, I missed that supercharged surge of "liberty" coursing thru my body when Trump cut the rate in the first place (therein rewarding stockholders & CEOs who saw 97% of the benefit).

5. Conservative hysteria over minor changes to tax rates should be classified as a new mental illness at one of those psychology conferences. And it goes both ways. For instance, we have the most imbecilic economic prediction of all time: Cuts to tax rates unleash such massive economic growth that no revenue is lost. That's always wrong - always embarrassingly so - but Right-types always insist on it. OTOH, I remember a zombie-dittohead right-wing friend telling me the Clinton tax increases would destroy the economy. (Of course the proceeded the greatest economy expansion of recent history).

[Commenter_XY]

grb...Changing the rate from 21% to 28% is not 'marginal'. That is a 33% increase. And you're being very naive if you think companies will absorb the cost and not pass it along to consumers in the form of higher prices. I would make that economic and business argument regardless of who is in the White House.

[wreckinball]

Nobody absorbs a 33% for any length of time. Money/capitol will move to avoid it or if it can't be moved raise prices 33%

[Commenter_XY]

That is my point. They will not absorb it. They will pass along that cost to consumers in the form of higher prices. Econ 101.

The capital flight issue is one to be concerned about.

[Sarcastr0]

Did the recent Trump tax cut result in lower consumer prices?

Seems to me the assumption that profit margins are at all tight needs some support.

[bernard11]

Fallacious on a number of counts.

First, business pays taxes on profits, not revenue. So even if they could make it up with price increases, which they can't, it wouldn't take a 33% increase. Say a company makes 20% pre-tax and pays 21% in taxes. That's 4.2% of revenue. Raise the tax rate to 28% and they pay 5.6% of revenue. About a 1.48% price increase would do the trick.

Comparing after-tax profits:

(1-.056) X 1.0148 = .958 = 1-.042

2. Who says businesses can arbitrarily raise prices? If they could why haven't they already done so? Kindness? You hear this all the time when companies are fined, for example. "They'll just raise their prices." It's nonsense.

3. To repeat grb's question, did they lower prices when taxes were cut?

Prices may well rise a bit in the near future, though the Fed has lots of room to operate. But if they do it will be because the economy is in a boom, not because we put corporate taxes half-way back to what they were four years ago.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Again, were prices suddenly cut when tax rates lowered? No, we got an increase in stock market returns instead. Likewise, tax increases will most likely result in decreased returns at the stock market rather than near term price increases. Inflation is an ever looming and larger threat now, but that is a different mechanism of action.

[Commenter_XY]

Spoken like a man who has never, ever run a business = Likewise, tax increases will most likely result in decreased returns at the stock market rather than near term price increases.

[Don Nico]

Amen!

[De Oppresso Liber]

I have been a business owner for 7 years. I did not cut prices when the last tax cut happened, and so will not need to and will not be raising prices if there is an increase.

[bernard11]

I've run several businesses, XY, some of them - not all - quite successful. I agree with De Oppresso. My customers weren't suddenly delighted to pay higher prices if my taxes went up.

[Commenter_XY]

Indeed, they will not be. But would you have a choice? You're going to eat a 33% increase in taxes, bernard11? That 1M in taxes becomes 1.33M in taxes....and you're not going to raise prices? C'mon. Would shareholders agree to lower their dividends to 'take one for the team'? I think not. Will hiring increase in the face of dramatically increased business taxes? Probably not. And more to the point, it will be a slow employment growth recovery just like his old boss presided over.

We both know businesses are not purely altruistic enterprises. They exist to make money. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, I want a lot of that, happening quickly. The bottom line is that a 33% increase in taxes will be passed through to consumers. From a policy perspective, I also have to question the implementation timing; we are after all, coming out of the worst pandemic in a century. I just don't see the next 18 months as a good timeframe to do anything to hinder economic growth and employment. Taxes hinder growth.

[bernard11]

Please look at my arithmetic comments.

[grb]

By the same logic you might have predicted Amazing Stupendous Spectacular results when Trump cut the rate. But of course you did, (or rather zombie doppelgängers sharing your religious faith did). Instead we got the same economic expansion rates the first three years of Trump as the last three years of Obama. Slightly smaller in job growth, slightly higher in GDP growth. Look at a graph line on economic growth and there isn't the slightest tick from one president to the next : It's a straight unbroken & single ascending line.

In short, we got crickets. Arguably, dumping a few trillion in debt on the economy & so handsomely rewarding CEOs & stockholders might have extended the Obama recovery slightly, but that's pretty small beer.

So explain why your equally extreme predictions will be right this time.

[Don Nico]

Because companies never absorb a 33% increase in a major cost element. At minimum they average over changes in all cost drivers (such as materials that also will see an increase in costs) and act accordingly

[bernard11]

Right. You can't assume that unit sales will be constant if you raise your prices.

And even if they are, the 33% is a bright red herring. It only takes a small price increase to bring you back to even. If you have a 20% pre-tax profit margin your taxes go from 4.2% of your sales to 5.6%. If the margin is 10% they go from 2.1% of sales to 2.8%. So roughly a .7% price increase gets you even.

[Commenter_XY]

But you're depending on volume, a lot of it to keep that increase from hitting margin like that. Are most businesses mass production? No, they are not.

But I am glad to see you and I agree that cost will get passed to consumers.

[jb]

"Prices are going up, as companies pass through the higher corporate tax rate as price increases to the consumer."

This argument is so dumb. If they can raise their prices when their taxes go up, why don't they just do it now?

[Don Nico]

jb,
"This argument is so dumb. "
Do you own a business or are you a CFO?

They don't do it now because of market forces. But if everyone raises prices because of a government stimulated increase in costs of doing business, then that market brake is removed.

[jb]

...or someone decides to keep their prices lower and outsells all their competitors, making it up on volume. The tax only affects profits so it's not like it creates negative margins per unit. If the tax were on inputs, you'd maybe have a point, but a tax on profits doesn't move the supply and demand curve at all.

FWIW, I'm not a CFO but if you read about what CFOs have to say about Biden's proposed increase in taxes it's that it will harm their ability to invest or make it more attractive to be domiciled in other countries, not that they're going to have to raise their prices to keep their profits exactly the same as they were before.

[Mr. Hook]

Given your track record for predictions, I think this is going to end stupendously well!

[Sarcastr0]

LOL at Ed getting the doomscrolling brainworms not in 2016, but in 2021.

[swood1000]

Biden is truly scary, and do not think this is going to end well.

Do the think that Manchin believes that he'll get re-elected whether he votes with Biden or not?

[Sarcastr0]

Isn't Manchin super old?

[swood1000]

Depends on your perspective. He'll be 74 in August. Runs for re-election in 2024. Probably good for at least one more go-around.

[Bob from Ohio]

5 years younger than Biden.

He is not, however, getting reelected no matter how he votes. He only won 49.57%-46.26% in 2018, in a presidential year he is losing.

[swood1000]

He is not, however, getting reelected no matter how he votes.

He can remove any doubt by joining the hard-core left. But what would be his incentive for doing that?

[BrianL.]

Regarding DC statehood: the Republicans say this is a power grab by the Democrats, and in this case, they are right. You can get representation for DC without making it a state. Cede all of the land for proposed state back to Maryland, as Alexandria was ceded back to Virginia in 1846. Make that area a representative district for Maryland and temporarily increase the number of the Representatives in the House by 1, until the next census (which you'd have to do anyway if you made it a state). Now DC has representation, can vote for Maryland Senators and for the President. After the next census, the extra Representative goes away, and the new area is include in Maryland's redistricting. I think the Republicans would get on board for this, if the alternative was DC statehood. In fact, if the Republicans were smart, they would propose this. If the Democrats came out against it, it would show that it was about a power grab and not about representation for DC.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Ok, now do Puerto Rican statehood.

[BrianL.]

I don't have an answer for that. Although I'm not convinced a majority there want it to be a state.

[swood1000]

They would have to start paying federal income tax, which would necessitate a reduction in Puerto Rico tax rates. What's the benefit for them?

[ducksalad]

I don't think Puerto Rico would be a deep blue state. They've got their own parties that don't exactly map to Republican and Democrat, and power changes hands fairly frequently.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your concern may be valid, but the admission of Douglass Commonwealth and the Pacific Island would ensure that the structural amplification of Republican votes would not be intensified by new states.

[Ed Grinberg]

I don’t think Puerto Rico would be a deep blue state.

Wanna bet?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with giving DC back to Maryland is what becomes of all the DC employees?

At the very least, you'd have to establish it as a city.

[BrianL.]

Doesn't DC already have a city council and a mayor?

[Don Nico]

The City: Just the federal district at the very center.
Kansas and Missouri figured out the city thing long ago. No mystery in how to do it
NYC has no problem with the many employees who live in NJ and CT

[Bob from Ohio]

"Just the federal district at the very center"

As I said below, it won't work due to the Twenty-third Amendment

If you reduce the federal district to just the White House, Capitol and other federal buildings, the President and family has 3 electoral votes.

[Don Nico]

Brian,
Your suggestion is the obvious one, but the D's will get no auto-advantage. Therefore they oppose it.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue is that neither DC nor MD want that.

This is related to why I favor keeping the Electoral College and/or the Senate - states (and districts) do develop distinct identities, and giving that some attention at some level of the republic is a good idea.

[bernard11]

But how much attention do you want to give?

Even if you want to give some, and I don't, really, then what we give now is just overboard. Do really think that if he just had "Dakota" instead of ND and SD, that the republic would be worse off?

You could fix the EC by enlarging the House, or by getting rid of the winner-take-all rules in the states, which is pretty stupid. Just allocate the EV's in proportion to the vote in each state. Small states would still be a little overweighted, but not ridiculously so.

[Sarcastr0]

We can talk about line drawing all day; I'm not going to take to the streets to save the EC.
But I think a purely populist vote for both political branches would be missing something.

[ah....Clem]

Yes, something would be missing: some citizens' votes wouldn't count for more than others.

Is that really a desirable thing to perpetuate?

It's fine by me if, say, Wyoming voters want to run Wyoming as they see fit, it's another thing entirely to over-represent the few people who live there at the federal level while under-representing the rest of us.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Minority rule is the current worst problem for future stability in the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Our republic isn't purely about giving all citizens equal voting weight, from the Founding.
Though I will allow that both the Senate and the Presidency making the state level of abstraction the salient one does seem a bit much.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Wyoming"

Its never Vermont, always a GOP state.

Its like the objections are just partisan BS.

[Sarcastr0]

Wyoming is the least populated US state, cool your persecution fetish a bit.

[loki13]

Well, there's that and there's also the fact that there was this whole recent controversy kicked off by Senator Tom Cotton (notably, not a Democrat) comparing WYOMING's "well-rounded working class state" to DC.

Because, you know, he was just making a point about how urban DC is. You know, urban.

Anyway, that's why a lot of people happen to remember it in this context, but yes, it should be Wyoming and Vermont as comparators (which is what I use).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Look at the bright side. The bigots figure they must cloak their racism with euphemisms — “urban,” “traditional values,” “conservative values,” “heartland,” “colorblind,” “family values — today because of the whipping the clingers have taken in the culture war at the hands of their betters for five or six decades.

That is American progress, and now the American way.

[KCar]

Why dont we just split this too large republic into 5 seperate countries and everyone is better off and happier. East, South, Central and West and MidWest.

[Sarcastr0]

The Union is stronger and better together, despite what you lost causers wish to believe.

[Kevin Smith]

Sometimes the best solution isn't the most popular one. There are plenty of cities and regions in other states that would love to be their own independent state, but that doesn't mean it should happen

[Sarcastr0]

Since this is something we're doing for the benefit of DC residents, it's kinda screwed up to do it in a way they don't want. And which the state of MD also doesn't want.

As I said, DC has a pretty distinct character.

[Don Nico]

So what? Or give all of the non-Federal district to Virginia. It is the logical solution and make far more sense than making a single city a state.

[Sarcastr0]

Same problem with VA as MD, of course. Plus it's even original VA land.

[loki13]

That is not an accurate portrayal of the situation.

The idea of taxation without representation; that people would be deprived of the ability to self-govern, is such anathema that we revolted and formed our own country- it's part of our foundational identity. Yet, we have continued to deprive the residents of DC of their right to self-determination- and when I say "we," I mean the GOP. Saying that they lack the population is not accurate- as I am sure you are aware, there has never been a move to fold states like Wyoming or Vermont into other states.

Why is that, do you think? What makes DC different that Wyoming, or Vermont? I don't think I have to spell that out for you.

I would point out that the issue of DC statehood has been percolating for some time; now that it is close to reality ... it is somehow the Democrats' fault that they do not find some new and bizarre method of denying it in order to make the GOP (who could have dealt with this themselves) feel better? That makes sense how? Of course, no one has bothered to examine the feasibility of this proposal, have they? Would DC want this? Would Maryland accede to this?

Or is this just another, "Well, the GOP refused to do anything about this, ever, and now that something is finally being done, it is completely the Democrats' fault for not kowtowing to the GOP's sensibilities."

I tend to agree that compromise is the best way to go; but there is no evidence that this "proposal" has even been seriously considered, and it just boggles the mind that finally giving American citizens the right to self-determination over the decades-long objection of the GOP is something that you think the Democrats should feel the need to apologize for.

[Sarcastr0]

There are legit equitable reasons why DC should get statehood.

The reasons why not are all purely partisan.

[Krayt]

And if any legit reasons are the real reasons for the push, let me know.

[Sarcastr0]

The real reasons? Telepathy again?

Talk to DC residents. They want the vote for pretty nonpartisan reasons.

[I Callahan]

By default, NOBODY wants the vote for on-partisan reasons.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0...By all means, please name them = There are legit equitable reasons why DC should get statehood

[Sarcastr0]

Loki did a fine job, I thought.

[Bob from Ohio]

"reasons why not are all purely partisan"

Twenty-third Amendment says hi!

If you reduce the federal district to just the White House, Capitol and other federal buildings, the President and family has 3 electoral votes.

[Kevin Smith]

Technically Congress has 3 votes, as the 23rd amendment says the electors are to be appointed in a manner set forth by Congress

I believe the DC statehood bill simply states those votes will no longer be counted

[loki13]

That's correct.

I assume Bob knows that, and doesn't care. But it's not worth pointing out to him, because (again) he doesn't care.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I believe the DC statehood bill simply states those votes will no longer be counted"

Statute overrides Constitution? Interesting.

And Congress is still bound by the rest of the Constitution in using its power to "manner set forth by Congress". Its not without limits.

[Kevin Smith]

Also, the first family doesn't vote as residents of DC, they vote as residents of whatever home state they were elected from (the Trumps voted in NY, the Obamas in IL, and the Bidens will vote in DE)

[Bob from Ohio]

"first family doesn’t vote as residents of DC"

There was no benefit so they did not. Now there will be.

"home state they were elected from (the Trumps voted in NY"

Switched to Florida. No reason they could not have switched to DC.

[Kevin Smith]

Still a moot point as the proposed legislation declines to appoint any electors for the new federal district

[Bob from Ohio]

You cannot moot a constitutional provision by a law.

I'd submit the courts will say they have to provide some mechanism for appointment so long as there is a federal district.

Won't know until they stop whining and pass it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Democrats had 2/3 majorities in the 1930s, dominated House and Senate from 1954 to 1994 including multiple presidents, unified control with Obama and 60 senators in 2009.

They had plenty of time and opportunity to make DC a state. Didn't care until they realized it was two sure senate seats.

So spare me its all the GOP's fault.

Pass the bill if you can and stop whining about it!

[loki13]

I would point out the flaws in your argument, but I won't bother, because I have to assume:

1. You aren't that stupid, and you're being a tool, in which case I shouldn't bother.

2. You are that stupid, in which case I shouldn't bother (and besides, it's kind of mean).

Based on past evidence, I'd have to say it's 50/50.

[Bob from Ohio]

Wah Wah Wah

Such a whiny little b****.

[loki13]

See? It would be mean.

It's okay, Bob, we aren't laughing at you. We are just laughing at the Big Clown that happens to stand behind you whenever you get behind a keyboard.

[Bob from Ohio]

As I've said before, there are just as many people here who agree with my comments as people who agree with yours.

You were gone for a while. So peaceful. Only Kirkland to post nonsense.

[loki13]

Aw, you're funny. It was peaceful? ORLY?

I'm not stupid enough to believe you- did it every occur to you that the reason I didn't post was because of the toxicity? Which means that I saw the threads, and I know you're lying?

Not that I'd need to do that! You're kinda like the funhouse mirror Reagan- Never trust, don't need to verify.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"As I’ve said before, there are just as many people here who agree with my comments as people who agree with yours."

Your comments are much more popular here than are any comments by members of the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

This blog attracts clingers.

Your comments are less popular, however, and increasingly so, in the broader context of America -- especially in the modern, educated, reasoning, successful communities.

Whining, vanquished, disaffected right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[bernard11]

True enough, Don, but the Republicans are not exactly pure of heart here either.

They're claiming that people in Wyoming are "real Americans," more or less, while DC residents aren't.

[I Callahan]

Cite? No Republican has ever said this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Tom Cotton fits that bill. A drawling, racist dope.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No, thanks. We will admit the Douglass Commonwealth to the Union. But thank you for the suggestion.
-- America's betters.

P.S. Puerto Rico.

P.P.S. Pacific Islands.

[BrianL.]

I only mentioned this idea because I saw something today saying that the only way the Democrats will be able to get DC statehood is by abolishing the filibuster. I was trying to think of a way to get representation for DC that would get Republicans on board. I don't have a problem with DC statehood if that's what the people there want.

I also don't have a problem with statehood for Puerto Rico if that's what they want.

A bigger problem, IMO, is that people born in the US Territory of American Samoa are not US citizens. This should be fixed first.

[loki13]

"A bigger problem, IMO, is that people born in the US Territory of American Samoa are not US citizens. This should be fixed first."

Don't even get me started on that.

Personally, as a matter of politics, I am totally indifferent as to whether or not Puerto Rico becomes a state. But as a matter of principle, I think that we need to require a decision. Puerto Rico must be a state, or it must be independent. Period.

Same with other "territories." If you're part of the U.S., then you're part of the U.S. You are a state, with citizens.

If you're not, you're independent. No more of this pseudo-colonialist B.S.

[bernard11]

Agree completely with Loki.

[ah....Clem]

I tend to agree, but there is the matter of the people who actually live in those places. Do they want independence? Or statehood? Or are they satisfied with the status-quo? Change is hard for most people, and I don't know that it's really my place to dictate to the residents of Guam or the US Virgin Islands how to organize their affairs.

That said, if any territory wants statehood or independence that should happen.

[loki13]

" I don’t know that it’s really my place to dictate to the residents of Guam or the US Virgin Islands how to organize their affairs."

That's kind of the thing, though. Right now, it is your place (all of our places) to dictate to them how to organize their affairs.

There's the old saying that a gilded cage is still a cage. Our country should not be complicit in these sorts of arrangements any longer.

While American Samoa might be the worst example of it, we need to make it explicit that if you are a territory, you are either going to become a state, or you're going to be cut loose.

We should no longer be in the business of depriving people of political participation, and having "territories" unless they are on the path to full statehood and participation in the political process. And if they do not wish to be states, then they can negotiate their own deals with us as sovereign countries.

By making this explicit and clear, and by setting deadlines and a framework to make this happen, we can get out of the last vestiges of this pseudo-Colonialism that still remains.

[Krayt]

Americanish

[Commenter_XY]

Why must they be either one or the other?

Did PR not choose for themselves what status they currently have in a plebescite....on multiple occasions? They voted for it. Why do you presume to know better than they do?

[Don Nico]

"Puerto Rico must be a state, or it must be independent. Period."

Who are you to say?
The decision belongs to the Puerto Ricans

[loki13]

Actually, no.

That's a fine dodge to try to ensure that nothing happens. Look at the past- "Oh, that didn't have enough votes." Or, "Sure they voted for it, but there isn't the will in Washington to make it happen." Or, "Maybe it was a binding referendum, but does it really count as a percentage of the population?"

It's the inane and partisan weasel-prattle of people like you that allows the untenable status quo to continue. Again, I don't care if they choose independence or statehood; it's not about Ds or Rs (which is overstated, anyway- just like the Democrats were the ones that opposed Hawaii joining, because things always change).

This isn't just about Puerto Rico- it's about us, as a country. We provided a clean path for the "territories" that we had to become states. Now ... we don't. We shouldn't be depriving people of governance, ever. Provide a path to statehood, or cut them loose.

[Don Nico]

As I said before, who are you to say what the people of Puerto Rico want.

[loki13]

The same as you- I am part of the unelected overlord of Puerto Rico. I am their King George III (as are you).

I do not want to be complicit in it, and I don't want to be part of making excuses for the system any more.

You, on the other hand, will continue to use weasel words and partisan prattle because you don't actually care about the underlying issues or principles- I am quite positive that until recently, you have never bothered to look into this history in depth, discuss these issues with Puerto Rican nationalists (or those who favor statehood), understand the federal taxation issue, are aware of how Congress regularly kneecaps Puerto Rico with generally-applicable laws - or even the history of development (vis-a-vis the pharma industry) and failures (due to repatriation of profits and expiration of tax breaks) that have been continued to cause problems.

But sure, why don't you lecture everyone on how our colonialism and paternalism that we have been practicing for years is actually the right way to do things! Because you are all smart and stuff, as opposed to just making an argument because it serves your benighted partisan interests, and pretending you give a rat's ass about the people of Puerto Rico.

[Commenter_XY]

What are you talking about? = We provided a clean path for the “territories” that we had to become states. Now … we don’t. We shouldn’t be depriving people of governance, ever. Provide a path to statehood, or cut them loose.

The people of PR made an affirmative choice to keep the status they have. Congress has given them multiple opportunities to vote on statehood and they specifically rejected it. Why is that a problem?

[Kevin Smith]

Because at this point we have a 40 year man still living with his parents because he prefers that arrangement to moving out on his own, or getting a job and contributing to the household

[Don Nico]

Blah-blah
We offered a choice, the islanders made theirs.

[loki13]

blah-blah

Can you be more insulting? You don't really know anything about this, do you? You understand that you continue to make the argument that they made their choice- and we should respect it?

Well, they VOTED FOR STATEHOOD. You know that, right?

In 2020. In 2017 (partly boycotted). In 2012. In 1998 (admittedly, in second behing none of the above).

Here's the thing- they keep voting. They keep voting despite the fact that people like you, and the Representatives you vote for, tell them that their vote doesn't matter. Despite the fact that people like you, and the Representative you vote for, explicitly tell them that regardless of what they vote, they will not be a state.

And then, when it looks like it might be a possibility, people like you have the unmitigated audacity to step in and say ... I wish I was making this up ... THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO RESPECT THEIR WISHES.

It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.

(By the way, the the multiple plebiscites and referenda tend to have issues, primarily because they never have stakes- because the people are told that it doesn't matter. But there is something distinctly distasteful about someone arguing against their right to self-determination by saying that those people who advocate for it AREN'T PROPERLY RESPECTING THEIR WISHES, when you obviously don't know the first thing about this.)

[Commenter_XY]

Precisely my reaction, Don Nico. I'm like...we gave them multiple times, multiple choice options and said: Pick any option you like. So PR did pick the option they liked. I'm good with their choice.

[Brett Bellmore]

They keep voting in rigged referenda that the Statehood party runs.

The 2017 vote was boycotted, for good reason, by everybody but the Statehood party, they got 97% of a 23% turnout. Whoop dee doo. Of course you win if you're the only one voting.

In 2020, the ballot language said statehood vs status quo, but the statutory language said statehood vs independence. Here in the states that would have gotten the referendum struck down, but Puerto Rico is a bit corrupt... Enough status quo voters found out about it, (As intended!) that statehood narrowly won, because the one thing Puerto Ricans agree about is that they don't want independence.

If they just ran a honest 3 way choice, statehood/independence/status quo, I expect status quo would win. So does the Statehood party, which is why they avoid doing that.

P. del S. 1467

Page 40-41:

"En caso de la Estadidad “No” resultar la alternativa mayoritaria, deberá comenzar de inmediato un proceso de transición para el reconocimiento de la soberanía de Puerto Rico separada de Estados Unidos de América con un “Tratado de Independencia en Libre Asociación” o con la “Independencia Total”, según se
describe en el Artículo 4.4, Inciso (b) de esta Ley."

"immediately begin a transition process for the recognition of the sovereignty of Puerto Rico separated from the United States of America with a "Treaty of Independence in Free Association ”or with“ Total Independence ”, as described in Article 4.4, Subsection (b) of this Law"

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll add that I personally think we should grant all our territories independence, and then they can petition to become states once they've demonstrated the capacity to function without our support.

But I don't pretend I'm advocating that because it's what THEY want.

[Moderation4ever]

As I have suggested before why not merge Wyoming and Washington DC. This would eliminate creating a new state and balance levels of representation with population.

[ah....Clem]

Excellent idea. It would provide an example of how to take gerrymandering to the next level. (c:

[Don Nico]

A fascinating idea.

[rsteinmetz]

You don't need to wait. If done promptly redistricting can be included this time around.

[Queen Amalthea]

"In fact, if the Republicans were smart, they would propose this."

Makes you wonder why they aren't.

[loki13]

In fairness, the GOP has proposed retrocession to Maryland a few times.

The reason you aren't aware of it is because it's never been a serious proposal- they haven't bothered getting any support from either DC or Maryland. In fact, they haven't even been able to get support from the GOP wing within Maryland for it. So, because it's overwhelmingly opposed by the people of DC AND by the people of Maryland, it's never been anything more than a stunt, trotted out occasionally.

If it were a serious attempt, they would attempt (at the very least) to drum up a little support in Maryland. At least make the attempt.

[swood1000]

Cede all of the land for proposed state back to Maryland

Why not pass a constitutional amendment allowing DC residents to vote as if they were residents of Maryland for certain purposes? Perhaps Maryland could receive some tax revenue from them. They are probably receiving more benefits from the federal government than they would as a new Maryland county.

[loki13]

How would any of that fix the fundamental problem of self-governance?

This isn't just about voting "for certain purposes." It's about being able to make the same choices as other US Citizens. We are, fundamentally, a union of states (a federal system), and placing them under the thumb of Congress deprives them of the same right to make good (and bad) decisions that the rest of us have.

I never used to think about this issue until I got to know a law professor who was Puerto Rican, and we ended up discussing this (and other issues, mainly the Insular Cases) at great length. Since then, I have not been able to understand how we can continue to maintain this- whether it's DC, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, or whatever.

It shouldn't be partisan; I could care less is Texas wants to "sub-divide" and make an equal number of Senators. Or if we cut some territories loose. But American land should be governed by American Citizens, in accord with rights of self-determination. Anything else is a betrayal of the most singular principle upon which our nation was founded.

[swood1000]

How would any of that fix the fundamental problem of self-governance?

Don’t they already exercise self-governance, except that it is subject to control by Congress instead of by the legislature and governor of Maryland? Do they think that their home rule authority would be increased if they were a part of Maryland? Didn’t they vote to legalize marijuana? What power do they want in that regard that they don’t already have? And they can already vote for President. All they lack is a vote for members of Congress. If they were treated as residents of Maryland for that purpose then what would be the self-governance problem?

[loki13]

"Don’t they already exercise self-governance, except that it is subject to control by Congress instead of by the legislature and governor of Maryland?"

Read what you just wrote, think about it, then read it again. Then read I wrote. Then think.

Still with me?

Okay- so imagine that you lived somewhere. Vermont. Alabama. Whatever. Now, your "state government" doesn't have actual ruling powers. It doesn't really get to control anything. Any budget, any law, any thing done is subject to veto, override, and oversight by Congress.

Is that self-governance? If you live in Alabama, do you think it would be right for the right honorable Senators from Massachusetts (for example) to determine your laws?

But wait! See, you don't even get a say, because unlike the rest of the country, you don't even have the fig leaf of actual representation in Congress.

So not only do you have a toothless local government, with only those powers that the feds given them (for now), but you also have no say in the federal legislature.

But sure! Other than that, it would be great.

As for "let's just treat them as residents of Maryland ..." well, other than the small and inconvenient fact that neither DC nor Maryland wants this ... how does this help with DC's self-governance? At all? Or are you just trying to propose some sort of fig-leaf that doesn't address the problem?

Look, if this is partisan issue for you, just own it. That's fine. But at least when people start from a position of honesty, you come up with real solution. Because the "problem" that needs to be solved isn't a partisan one- it's a self-governance one. If your objection is a partisan objection, then come up with a partisan effin' solution. Make the Texas Panhandle its own state or something. Again, don't care.

[swood1000]

But wait! See, you don’t even get a say, because unlike the rest of the country, you don’t even have the fig leaf of actual representation in Congress.

Under the scheme I mentioned they would vote for Maryland's members of Congress. Was that not clear? Then the question is what incentive will induce Maryland to agree to this. Perhaps some additional tax revenue without any additional expenditure requirements.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Why not pass a constitutional amendment allowing DC residents to vote as if they were residents of Maryland for certain purposes? "

Because we are going to admit a state consisting of most of what today constitutes the District of Columbia.

Republicans had their chances to address this issue. They declined. I doubt Democrats will be in the market for pointers as they address it.

[swood1000]

Because we are going to admit a state consisting of most of what today constitutes the District of Columbia.

Do you really think it's going to happen? Manchin and Sinema are going to change their minds and vote to end the filibuster, and every other Democrat will be on board?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am confident it will happen. Whether it occurs six months from now, or six years, seems less predictable. Why would or should Democrats refrain from admitting D.C.? It is the just course. It would benefit Democrats. It would be relatively easy, requiring relatively small Democratic margins in the House and Senate.

After D.C. Puerto Rico will be an easier climb. Then, the Pacific Islands.

[swood1000]

When we get into the area of major structural changes made purely for partisan advantage, such as packing the Supreme Court or adding new states (which heretofore has always been done in a balanced way), we will have entered into very unstable times. The Constitution allows existing states to be divided into multiple states with “the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” So, you make Wyoming angry enough and it will agree to be divided into six new states and all that’s needed is a Republican Congress and President. By that time it will be clear to everybody that nothing is involved except partisan advantage. It doesn’t sound to me like we should be going down that road.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Would you consider elimination of the filibuster a 'major structural change for partisan advantage?'

Was elimination of the filibuster for certain votes (judicial nominations) a 'major structural change for partisan advantage.'

Was division of the Dakota Territory into two sparsely populated, downscale states before admission to statehood a 'major structural change for partisan advantage?'

Was enlarging (or diminishing the size of) the Supreme Court a 'major structural change for partisan advantage?'

[swood1000]

Would you consider elimination of the filibuster a ‘major structural change for partisan advantage?’

I would not call the elimination of the filibuster a major structural change. It’s what’s done after that that counts.

Was elimination of the filibuster for certain votes (judicial nominations) a ‘major structural change for partisan advantage.’

No. The types of structures I was referring to were the number of U.S. states and the size of the Supreme Court. But remember that the Democrats did this first, for nominees below the Supreme Court, and this was followed, tit for tat, by the Republicans doing the same thing when they were in a position to do so. This kind of response can be expected. You seem to believe that true structural changes for purely partisan advantage could only work to the benefit of the progressives, that if engaged in with regularity would not affect the fundamental stability of the U.S. government, and that the American people would be on board with this.

Was division of the Dakota Territory into two sparsely populated, downscale states before admission to statehood a ‘major structural change for partisan advantage?’

I don’t know, but it can’t be denied that political balance has always been an important consideration when states have been admitted.

Was enlarging (or diminishing the size of) the Supreme Court a ‘major structural change for partisan advantage?’

In the early years it was connected to the number of federal circuit court districts because supreme court justices had more circuit responsibilities than they do now. The number was reduced to seven in 1866 to keep Andrew Johnson from nominating any justices. That certainly was for partisan advantage but it was changed to the current number in 1869 and suggestions to modify that number during the Roosevelt administration for partisan purposes were not well received. People don’t want to go down that road.

[Jimmy the Dane]

OK now we do Texas becomes 4 different states and Northern CA why not make it another state......See how this goes....?

[swood1000]

Texas was granted that authority when it joined the union but California was not.

[Jimmy the Dane]

And when you are to the point where you are just making up things to poorly disguise your naked power grabs it doesn't really matter....

[swood1000]

Are you saying that Texas was not granted that authority?

[Sarcastr0]

It's certainly not the slam-dunk you take it for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_divisionism

[swood1000]

I didn't mean to imply that it was as slam-dunk. Just that Texas has a status in this regard different from that of California.

[jdgalt1]

True as far as it goes, but you missed one effect. Once the capital district is shrunk to just the Capitol, White House,, congressional offices, and the Mall -- the 23rd Amendment continues to operate, thus creating a pocket borough with 3 electoral votes in which no one but the President's family lives.

[Josh R]

There are only two SCOTUS cases remaining from the November sitting: Fulton and the ACA case. Four justices have yet to author an opinion from that sitting: Roberts, Breyer, Alito and Kagan.

After Tandon announced the "most-favored" doctrine for religious exercise, I expected the Court to clarify the contours of that doctrine in Fulton. That would likely require Alito to write that opinion. If I am correct, the ACA case is in the hands of someone who would not only not strike down the entire ACA, but also not just strike down guaranteed issue and community ratings and plausibly uphold what remains of the mandate (or perhaps deny standing to avoid the merits completely).

[bernard11]

You mean the court will act sensibly on the ACA case? I hope so.

Still, I'm sure someone will find other ridiculous ways to attack the law.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This conservative blog
has operated for
THREE (3) WEEKS
without using a vile
racial slur and for
TWO (2) YEARS
without imposing partisan,
viewpoint-driven censorship.

CONGRATULATIONS!

(I hate to mention this, for fear conservatives will reflexively disdain progress -- but this may be progress!)

[VinniUSMC]

The Rev. Artie Kirkland

This White, male, broken
record has operated for
ZERO (0) DAYS
without gratuitous publication
of meaningless copypasta and for
ZERO (0) DAYS
without engaging in partisan,
viewpoint-driven stupidity
(that we are aware of, at least).

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

You chitlin-eating moon crickets holler louder than feminists with aligned menstrual cycles.

[grb]

It's hard to find any worth in a RabbiHarveyWeinstein shit-post, so you have to take what you can find. In my case, this:

I've eaten chitterlings only once, and that was (implausibly) in a Fort Dix mess hall during Basic training. They were having a food heritage day & I like to be adventurous, so I tried it.

The moral of this story is never eat chitterlings prepared in an army mess hall. I have no idea what they're supposed to taste like, but what I tried tasted exactly as you'd expect, given their point of origin (hog-wise).

[Life of Brian]

I have no idea what they’re supposed to taste like, but what I tried tasted exactly as you’d expect, given their point of origin (hog-wise).

I've never encountered any that tasted (or smelled) any different -- including in some overseas scenarios where they were served with pride as a gourmet dish. Not my cup of tea, but then neither are organ meats, stinky cheeses, etc.

[grb]

Life of Brian : Not my cup of tea, but then neither are organ meats, stinky cheeses, etc.

I love liver, but the root of that rests in another mess hall. I worked in the cafeteria in college, usually on the serving line. So I shoveled hundreds of ladles of glop onto plates - and then ate when my shift was done. By then I wanted to eat whatever everyone else hadn't, and that included liver.

Plus there's Joyce & Ulysses as a recommendation : (from memory) "Leopold Bloom ate with relish the inner organs of beasts and fowls" Never tried kidneys or sweetmeats....

[grb]

Continuation (not from memory) : He liked thick giblet soup, nutty gizzards, a stuffed roast heart, liverslices fried with crustcrumbs, fried hencods' roes. But most of all, he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kidneys are kind of crunchy, even after cooked, and have a hint of urine to them unless cleaned well, but are OK in a chilli. Sweetmeats are basically just liver in a different shape, so far as taste and texture go. I've had intestines, cleaned well, and deep fried until crisp, with vinegar; OK, but I wouldn't go out of my way for them.

[Voize of Reazon]

If you don't want your kidneys crunchy then get the ones without stones.

[M L]

In 1979, Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education.

Since then, the US has gone from 1st to 18th in the world in education, even much lower in math and science.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Correlation does not equal causation. Now think of the children and increase spending on education!

[M L]

Correlation can be evidence of causation, especially in this case.

"Now think of the children and increase spending on education!" I wish it was funny. How can we ever get people to stop being so stupid and falling for communist propaganda?

[Ben_]

"How can we ever get people to stop being so stupid and falling for communist propaganda?"

Dems would have to start wanting America to succeed.

If you don’t want America to succeed, then what difference does it make whether US kids get a bad education? After all, there’s plenty of other people’s money to split up going through the motions, and businesses don’t care because they can import educated workers.

[rsteinmetz]

The problem with increasing spending on education is that you will still have the same bad employees making more money.

[Ben_]

Obviously the solution is more bureaucratic paperwork and more micromanagement from smart people in Washington.

And much, much more money, which will be mostly used to employ smart people in Washington.

If you don’t support throwing money at problems regardless of the outcome it’s only because you hate children and science.

[Queen Amalthea]

Yes, we need to go back to letting states like Tennessee decide that evolution is illegal.

[Ben_]

Dems want to keep American kids from getting a good education and (in this case) use hatred of people in Tennessee as their justification.

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you know why there's such a big federal role in education? Because when the Soviets beat us to space with Sputnik we looked around and we had states like Tennessee doing their kids an incredible disservice and the Feds stepped in to make sure they stopped requiring kids be taught that Earth was 6000 years old.

[Ben_]

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-12-03/us-students-show-no-improvement-in-math-reading-science-on-international-exam

And yet the US still ranks 30th in math and 11th in science and you use your hatred of people in Tennessee as a justification for continuing to make life worse for Americans.

[Queen Amalthea]

Someone doesn't hate Tennesseans because they don't want their kids to be miseducated, quite the contrary.

[Ben_]

Says the person who has only complaints to offer about the people of Tennessee.

[Queen Amalthea]

I have a complaint about kids in Tennessee being miseducated. You're the one that seems fine with them being so. Interesting.

[Ben_]

Muslims: wear a hijab.

Dems: Everyone is entitled to their own culture. Diversity is our strength!

People of Tennessee: we also have our own culture.

Dem bigots: We must stamp out this culture. These people in Tennessee aren’t like us and need to be forced to conform! No differences will be tolerated! What else can we do to punish people who are not like us?

[Sarcastr0]

Love you you elided what Tennessee culture so you don't have a failed analogy between wearing something and teaching bad science to your kids.

[Ben_]

Dem intolerance of and bigotry towards American culture isn’t about one topic.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you arguing that outlawing the teaching of evolution is American culture?!

[Ben_]

I Google the definition of culture for you:

"the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group"

[Sarcastr0]

What, specifically, are some examples of this 'American culture' that the left hates so much?

[Queen Amalthea]

He loves the children of Tennessee enough to teach them the Earth is 6,000 year old.

[KCar]

Christianity and capitalism for starters.

[Ben_]

Some Americans have a culture that involves hunting and shooting, and Dems hate that.

The automobile is prominent in American culture. Leftist environmentalists consider cars sinful and trucks especially sinful.

Some Americans have particular religious views or traditions or holidays that Dems are bigoted against.

Lately leftists have taken to hatred of "cultural appropriation", which is the embrace of distinct cultural foods, dress, and/or traditions. As a country with a relatively short history, America has borrowed from other cultures more than most other countries. Leftists somehow found an excuse to hate that. (Why does anyone listen to such stupid whining? I don’t know.)

Leftists have spent the past few years tearing down monuments after burning flags the decades before that. Flags and monuments represent parts of culture.

Dems and leftists are always quick to complain about Florida, or Texas, or Tennessee, among others. Those are American states.

Leftists always have a slur ready to be deployed against Americans: "redneck", "hillbilly", "Bible thumper", etc. Just yesterday Dem bigots had racist slur "Uncle Tim" trending on Twitter.

Their behavior is pretty consistent: always complain about America and Americans, denounce, cancel, blame, point fingers, name-call. Always at America or Americans.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Why does anyone listen to such stupid whining? "

He really is this lacking in self awareness, folks.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben, were you trying to give me such low-hanging fruit? Your argument proves so much it can apply to the other side really easily!
====================
Some Americans have a culture that involves yoga and lattes, and Reps hate that.

The bicycle is prominent in American culture. Rightist consider bikes insufferable and bike lanes oppression.

Some Americans have particular religious views or traditions or holidays that Reps are bigoted against.

[You want to argue that cultural appropriation is something we need to accept if we love America, uh, good luck]

Rightists have spent the past few years defending monuments glorifying racists and flying flags from racist losers of yesteryear. Having modern inclusive virtues and not old racist ones is an American value.

Reps and rightists are always quick to complain about New York, or California, or every big city, among others. Those are American states and municipalities.

Leftists always have a slur ready to be deployed against nonwhite Americans and/or women, but unlike the ones you cited they're not really worth writing down. I won't do a search on twitter, but there's not shortage of examples.

Their behavior is pretty consistent: always complain about modern America and Americans, denounce, cancel, blame, point fingers, name-call. Always at America or Americans.

[Ben_]

It’s real Dem bigotry versus making up stories about what someone might think.

Quote the prominent Republicans wanting to criminalize yoga and lattes. There are none.

Quote the Republicans denouncing bicycles as evil. You can’t.

—-

Your whole reply is whataboutism.

You really like to help out and cover for bad actors and bad behavior. Why? Why not be in favor of good behavior instead?

Dem hatred of America and bigotry toward Americans isn't somehow magically rendered OK because you can find a few Republicans complaining about New York. Why are you trying to make hatred and bigotry ok?

I will acknowledge that Republicans at their worst are as bad as Democrat politicians and leftist activists on a regular day. Why can’t we demand that both act better? Instead you seem to want to justify evil and make bad actors comfortable to continue.

[Sarcastr0]

No, dude, you cited a bunch of stuff your side AND YOU do as well, and now you're owned.

No new goal posts, your hatred made you really, really stupid, and you posted a dumb thing, and there you are.

I'd say some might learn from the shame of such a bad post, but you seem to hate being challenged enough to learn and are too permanently angry online to be ashamed.

[Ben_]

That’s your justification for covering for and helping out bigotry and hatred, huh? Just some dumb, false whataboutism and posturing.

No, I’m not the least bit ashamed of being against bigotry. Nor am I ashamed of wanting Americans to prosper and succeed. It's too bad you won't join me in either of those.

[VinniUSMC]

"He loves the children of Tennessee enough to teach them the Earth is 6,000 year old."

What, exactly, is lost by allowing that to be taught?

I'm not saying it should be taught, but teaching the Young Earth crap in Tennessee was not the reason why the Russians beat us to space. And, we ended up beating them to the moon. All before the Department of Education. So, what does Tennessee teaching Young Earth Creationism have to do with, well, anything?

It looks like maybe Ben is right, and you just hate the people of Tennessee.

[Ben_]

VinniUSMC: it’s only brought up for bigotry.

Think about the last 20 times someone brought up evolution in conversation around you. How many were to point fingers and sneer at the other?

I will guess the answer is all 20.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm fine with Tennessee.

Y'all are raging at hypothetical Dems for hating the GOP.

YOU are hating on a bunch of Americans, and therefore by your dumb argument, you hate American culture.

The hypocrisy of living your life by partisan rage.

[Ben_]

Sarcastr0 shows he obeys no principles and is essentially trolling.

[Queen Amalthea]

He's barely self aware, asking him to produce an apt analogy is quite the stretch. He doesn't get that its the kids in Tennessee who were being punished by their state government mandating that they be miseducated.

[Ben_]

We are doing people a favor by looking down on them and stamping out their culture.

Your jackboots are the good jackboots and people should be thanking you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"People of Tennessee: we also have our own culture."

Ignorance, bigotry, backwardness . . . anything else you have in mind?

[I Callahan]

And Ben’s point is proven. You’re so arrogant you admit it out loud.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Check Tennessee on the “states by educational attainment” ranking. Check the average quality of Tennessee schools. Check the history of racism and superstition-laced ignorance and backwardness in Tennessee.

Tennessee has been a stain and drain on our society since its traitors, bigots, and losers were granted undeserved leniency in the wake of the Civil War.

[M L]

CNN's New "Reporter," Natasha Bertrand, is a Deranged Conspiracy Theorist and Scandal-Plagued CIA Propagandist

In the U.S. corporate media, the surest way to advance is to loyally spread lies and deceit from the U.S. security state. Bertrand is just the latest example.

The most important axiom for understanding how the U.S. corporate media functions is that there is never accountability for those who serve as propagandists for the U.S. security state. The opposite is true: the more aggressively and recklessly you spread CIA narratives or pro-war manipulation, the more rewarded you will be in that world.

The classic case is Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote one of the most deceitful and destructive articles of his generation: a lengthy New Yorker article in May, 2002 — right as the propagandistic groundwork for the invasion of Iraq was being laid — that claimed Saddam Hussein had formed an alliance with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. . . .

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-bertrand

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Greenwood is just another Trump apologist looking to make a quick buck. The American intelligence community has all but proven Trump-Russia collision and that is all I need to know. Why would you not trust the word of an honorable man like John Brennan?

[jdgalt1]

Because we've seen the expression on Brennan's face when someone speaks truth.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Pardon the months old article but is Abigail Shapiro part of the modest femininity to alt-right pipeline?
https://www.jewishboston.com/read/classically-abby-and-the-allure-of-hate-clicks/

[Ed Grinberg]

Classically Abby serves as a trojan horse for conservative ideals dressed up as modesty and celebration of femininity...

Female modesty and celebration of femininity are conservative ideals. The author is a blithering idiot.

[M L]

"Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste."

[Sarcastr0]

Jefferson lost that argument, to the benefit of our republic.

[Krayt]

Sounds like he was spot on in his fears.

To say nothing of another issue, fears of giant states arrogantly dictating to small states, as if they were extensions of the big states' territory.

[M L]

Sarcastro actually thinks Jefferson lost this argument.

He actually thinks that the framers of the constitution figured the country was not too large to have all of its affairs directed by a single government. That they set up a system where all affairs would be directed by a single government.

Imagine being this ignorant.

[Sarcastr0]

The set up a federated system where some affairs were directed centrally, and some were not.

They didn't draw their lines with respect to human rights quite right, and that was corrected.

You continue to be a one of the low-key craziest people on here, and want a state of affairs that is not only a bad idea but actively nonviable.

Why not tell the folks at home what you want in terms of federal spending, and the administrative state, and the judicial power? Don't hide behind Jefferson, lets get your (abridged) manifesto!

[M L]

"some were not"

Right. . . so I was right and you were wrong.

I'm a Jeffersonian. Libertarian-leaning, but not anarcho-capitalist or even fully libertarian. I favor localized self-government. Basically, I see it as the "Live and let live" theory of government.

History is one long story of variations on a theme of imperialism and conquest, empires rising and falling. A central authority amasses power continually, in degree and geographic territory, until it fails. Always driven by greed and lust for power, which is part of human nature. This newer idea on the scene is self-government, decentralization, neighborly respect, and minding your own business.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Whiskey Rebellion (more accurate, its demise) illustrates Hamilton's resounding victory over Jefferson.

[Queen Amalthea]

The problem with this I think is that historically the federal government has often intervened to increase freedom that state governments was impeding. Think civil rights or incorporation (constitutional).

[Ed Grinberg]

[H]istorically the federal government has often intervened to increase freedom that state governments was impeding. Think civil rights...

Lester Maddox would disagree...
(His freedom to operate his restaurant as he saw fit was significantly diminished as a result of federal "civil rights" intervention.)

[Queen Amalthea]

Won't someone think of the bigots?

[Ben_]

There’s a whole subthread about you and your bigotry. You should stop it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Stubborn right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Open wider, Ben_.

[grb]

OK, ML. You sit here and behave with your U.S. History coloring book, and later we might bring you a new set of crayons. Meanwhile, downthread the adults are talking actual history, and the battle between Jefferson & Hamilton/Washington over whether the young country would become a modern state with a modern economy.

Wanna give up crayons? Here's a suggestion :

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/empire-of-liberty-gordon-s-wood/1103373853

Gotta warn ya tho: It's pretty long and has a lot of big words in't

[M L]

Obviously, I'm a Jefferson fan. You all, on the other hand, are the nationalists. (Yeah.) The constitution was, of course, something of a compromise.

You nationalists passed the Sedition Act in 1798 to prosecute people for speech criticizing the government. In 1800, Jefferson walloped the nationalists so badly their then-party ceased to exist.

But today? I'll take some Hamilton all day long.

"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States." (emphasis in original)

"…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

"…the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority…"

[grb]

Sigh. You're missing the point. We're not picking which team to root for here. In the earliest period of the United States there was a marked difference between how Jefferson's Democrats and Hamilton/Washington's Federalists saw the country developing. Jefferson envisioned a utopia of yeomen farmers, all self-sufficient and independent. Manufacturing and commerce were instruments of corruption and greed; Jefferson blamed financial institutions for his own self-indulgent debt.

Meanwhile Hamilton & Washington were creating the structure of a modern state, with a national bank, public credit, consolidated state debt, and economic policies to encourage American commerce and manufacturing. But every step they took was met with furious opposition from Jefferson, always using the incendiary rhetoric that the Federalists sought a new monarchy.

Of the two positions Jefferson was wrong - completely, totally, utterly. His vision could never have sustained a functioning government or viable state; it was all moonshine hogwash. But he fought tooth & claw to stop Hamilton & Washington taking the responsible measures his utopian idealism didn't permit.

But as I say below, by the time Jefferson became president Federalist rule had become stale and prone to corruption. Jefferson was able to do good towards his ideals - but within the framework of a state he had opposed every step of the way.

Plus (from my own profession) he was a truly great architect.

[M L]

Missing the point? What point! You didn't have a point, silly. Don't pretend you did. All you had was a childish ad hominem about crayons, with a link to a history book thrown in. I graciously responded as if it were otherwise. Now, I'll read the rest of your comment here, which looks to be an improvement.

[grb]

Given you badly misunderstood Sarcastr0's argument and then sneered "Imagine being this ignorant" as a result of that mistake, I don't take your complaints of "ad hominem" very seriously.

[M L]

So, as per my original post, I'm interested here in the basic structure of our government as initially reflected in the constitution, and the thinking behind that. This is something where Jefferson and Hamilton are largely in agreement from today's perspective.

[Queen Amalthea]

"To say nothing of another issue, fears of giant states arrogantly dictating to small states"

Majority rules, how awful!

[Jimmy the Dane]

Ask black people down South how majority rules is working out for them?

[Sarcastr0]

States aren't people.

[Queen Amalthea]

To Jimmy they're more important.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Shame on both of you. Black Lives Matter!

[Sarcastr0]

You countered an argument about states with one about people. This was pointed out to you, and you've retreated to...whatever this is an attempt at.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You are dehumanizing the black experience obviously. Majority rule is a product of white supremacy. You should know that.

[M L]

No, he won the argument in his time.

In the quote above, Jefferson is explaining the basis for the constitution and the system of government it created. Here's a separate later example of the same thing:

"The extent of our country was so great, and its former division into distinct States so established, that we thought it better to confederate as to foreign affairs only. Every State retained its self-government in domestic matters, as better qualified to direct them to the good and satisfaction of their citizens, than a general government so distant from its remoter citizens and so little familiar with the local peculiarities of the different parts."

[Sarcastr0]

No, Jefferson did not carry the day. Not in Washington's admin, not even in Jefferson's.

What policies are you even talking about?

[M L]

I'm talking about the structure of the constitution - enumerated powers, the 10th amendment, and so on. Thought that was obvious.

[Sarcastr0]

Jefferson didn't draft any of that. And none of that is at it's core anti-Federalist.

[Brett Bellmore]

The terminology is kind of funky, because the "Federalists" are the ones who wanted a strong central government, and the "anti-Federalists" are the ones who wanted a genuine federation, instead.

All of what ML lists are "federalist" in the sense of being what you'd do to set up a federation, and thus "anti-Federalist" in the sense of what the factions were called.

[Sarcastr0]

No, ML is not being that tautological. He wants no administrative state, and Federal spending to be reduced to 1850s levels.

That kind of crazy doesn't fit with any ideology, past or future. Though pre-Presidency Jefferson might have come on board.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's funny, I can see his actual words just a few inches above yours on my screen, and I wonder what you were reading.

Because I don't see him saying that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Jefferson lost that argument"

Hamilton -- the winner.

$10 > $.05

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Jefferson lost that argument, to the benefit of our republic"

Jefferson spent the earliest days of the new republic preaching the country should be a coalition of gentleman farmers and savagely fighting Hamilton's efforts to make a modern economy, with expanded manufacturing & commerce. Per TJ, everything outside his limited perspective was a deep-state plot to impose royalty on the new state, a belief he pushed with ruthless intensity. He was pretty much wrong about everything.

That said, you'd expect his presidency to be a crank's calamity. But by the time he took office the Federalists were already calcified & (often) corrupt, proving the value of two parties. Plus Jefferson showed unexpected flexibility with the responsibility of office - at least in his first term.

[Sarcastr0]

Yep. Plus his blind love affair with France.

His Presidency was absolutely extremely solid at least his first term. Though he also left his second term and refused to run again because his pettiness had caught up with him, and he'd alienated everyone at last.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He did well when he had the good sense to listen to Albert Gallatin. We should all listen to immigrants more.

[grb]

That sent me to Wikipedia, where I found a most interesting life. "America's Swiss Founding Father", "the father of American ethnology", and the last surviving senator from the 18th century!

[Queen Amalthea]

"Jefferson spent the earliest days of the new republic preaching the country should be a coalition of gentleman farmers "

When he wasn't banging his slaves or ordering child slaves to be whipped for not making nails fast enough.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/04/28/ann-arbor-jewish-community-in-lawsuit-to-shut-down-weekly-antisemitic-protests-outside-synagogue/

Suppose for a moment you were arguing this case before the 6th circuit. Now Snyder v Phelps says 'tough luck, you have to live with it'.

You're all lawyers and law professors....So what is the argument you would use to get around Snyder?

Professor Volokh, Professor Blackman, Professor Somin, Professor Adler...What say ye?

[tkamenick]

Selective prosecution as equal protection violation seems a possible route, if the facts are there. Maybe the city denies similar protests permits, prosecutes other protestors for violations they ignore from these protestors.

[Josh R]

The plaintiffs lost in district court because the judge held they did not have standing to sue. So perhaps they might prevail in what they asked for: reversal that establishes standing and remand for consideration on the merits.

However on the merits, the plaintiffs argue the Constitution requires (or perhaps a statute?) the city to establish time and place restrictions to prevent emotional distress. I'm having a hard time understanding that argument. Finally, only if they prevail on this argument, will Snyder come into play as to whether the (yet-to-exist) time and place restrictions pass constitutional muster as reasonable content-neutral regulations.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ted Cruz, explaining his whorish nature in today's Wall Street Journal:

"Corporations that flagrantly misrepresent efforts to protect our elections need to be called out, singled out and cut off,” [Ted} Cruz wrote. “In my nine years in the Senate, I’ve received $2.6 million in contributions from corporate political-action committees. Starting today, I no longer accept money from any corporate PAC. I urge my GOP colleagues at all levels to do the same. When the time comes that you need help with a tax break or a regulatory change, I hope the Democrats take your calls, because we may not,” Cruz said. “Starting today, we won’t take your money either.”

Ted Cruz -- the guy who responded to Donald Trump calling Heidi Cruz a hideously ugly pig (repeatedly, publicly) by tonguing Trump's scrotum (figuratively) for several years.

I have no use for Cruz or the lowlifes who support (let alone endorse) him, but I feel sorry for Ted Cruz's daughters, who must be severely confused with respect to how Daddy should act when someone attacks Mommy.

[Krychek_2]

One wonders how Heidi feels about it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps Prof. Volokh could inquire?

[Queen Amalthea]

"Ted Cruz — the guy who responded to Donald Trump calling Heidi Cruz a hideously ugly pig (repeatedly, publicly) by tonguing Trump’s scrotum (figuratively) for several years."

Indeed, after that I don't consider him to be even half a man.

[grb]

I feel let down. Nowhere here do I see anything from ML, Dr. Ed or Bob from Ohio on the Biden plot to outlaw meat and force everyone to drink "plant-based beer". In the old days, Trump would have actively promoted this nonsense & his followers would therefore all need to support it as well.

I bet they feel a burden lifted from their shoulders because they no longer have to do that.

[Sarcastr0]

My thinking was the hoax about how the fact-checkers shut down because Biden just made honest mistakes would show up.

But I've noticed an atomization of the nonsense of the day since Rush passed...

[wreckinball]

Joe is so honest?

Holy crap

[grb]

No politician is honest, Mr. Biden included.

But there's a difference between normal political fudging and grotesque psychotic lying as compulsive mental illness.

As you recall, Mr. Trump fell into that latter category.

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm sure Ed would say the plot to make everyone read Harris's book is going to start Civil War 2.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Cutting back on methane emissions from cattle sources is very important. It will allow Americans like AOC to emit more hot gasses from her THICC Latina brapper.

[Jimmy the Dane]

It might be better for the environment if just cancel AOC. That will significantly reduce the amount of toxic waste coming out of DC.

[M L]

I remember hearing AOC had something about meat in the looney communist Green New Deal. Aside from that not sure what you're talking about.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Anyone else relishing the fact that Biden just lost Congress in 2022?

[jb]

Just gonna leave this here for you:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-most-viewers-approve-of-bidens-speech/

[Jimmy the Dane]

And I'll do the same, "Lowest ever viewer rates......."

[grb]

It's kind of funny. In four separate places I saw conservative commentary sneering that Biden's speech would be boring and unexciting. Even after Trump left his own party covered in slime, they just can't lose the mindset that politics & governance is about cartoon entertainment for their viewer consumption. Today's Right follows the news for puppet-theater yee-haws & yuks. They look for reality-TV stars to take the place of their leaders. If a politician isn't providing enough theatrical bang, he's probably a rino or cuck. If a news outlet soils their entertainment with an inconvenient fact (or election projection), they react with the furious rage of a frustrated consumer. Trump was able to brag about his ratings even while making a fool of himself in the daily Covid pressers. That's the way the Right's mind operates these days.

They'll grow out of this phase eventually, but it will probably require a few more Trump-style humiliations to re-order their priorities to a more adult direction.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The only thing humiliating during Trump was what the media acted because of.....reasons.....over his four years in office.

[David Bremer]

I second this comment. Ratings has nothing to do with popularity. In fact, I’d love a politician who was so effective that he or she could carry out plans and let results speak for themselves. And I’d certainly like that than a train wreck politician who I had to watch because his plans were an utter train wreck and I would feel obligated to explain to people why his nonsense was shouldn’t be followed.

So maybe Biden’s low ratings are because his popularity is so high. People say, “well, we’re seeing wide spread vaccines, Covid rates are declining, the economy is getting better, and there are better safety nets in place. I trust this President and don’t need to see his speech. I trust we’re going in a better direction.”

[wreckinball]

"CBS Poll"

HaHaHaHaHa breath HaHaHaHa

[David Bremer]

I’ve noticed this bit from republicans that whenever people posts things on the internet that they disagree with or don’t like to hear, they simply use the laughing button or respond like this.

What evidence do you have wreckinball that CBS’s poll is inaccurate?

[Ben_]

Present your evidence that night follows day.

[swood1000]

Party identification of those CBS polled: 54% Democrat, 18% Republican, 25% Independent. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-most-viewers-approve-of-bidens-speech/

[Sarcastr0]

....Do you know how polls work? That doesn't matter.