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

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

What do youse guys think about the latest violence between the Israelis and Palestinians? As a progressive libertarian, I denounce the unnecessary violence and mourn the loss of life on both sides. However, as a Jew, I believe that it is our sacred duty to chaperone Palestinian homes in the West Bank until Islam becomes a progressive and tolerant faith and the Palestinians fully embrace liberal, secular democracy.

[Krychek_2]

I saw a news report that Netanyahu, who has been unable to form a government, deliberately engineered it to prevent a coalition government that includes Arabs. I sure hope that's not true.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Why not? We burned down a good portion of downtown Minneapolis to get Trump out of office and it worked! Now we can build back better by end the cap on SALT deductions and raising taxes on corporations.

[Krychek_2]

I disapprove of burning down Minneapolis too, and I suspect that helped Trump rather than hurt him. And the more I look at the Middle East, the less convinced I become that we have a dog in that fight. If the Jews and the Arabs cannot live in peace, how exactly is that our problem?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

The libertarian solution, according to Ilya Somin, is to invite the entire Arab population of Israel and Palestine into the United States. Americans need to open our hearts, our borders, and our wallets to the dispossessed Muslims of the region. If a Palestinian can build a rocket that challenges the Iron Dome, why can't he work for SpaceX in Texas?

[James Pollock]

" If a Palestinian can build a rocket that challenges the Iron Dome, why can’t he work for SpaceX in Texas?"

This argument is a variant of the one that got a lot of Nazis into the USA in the 1940s and 1950s.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Is it a bad solution though? Seemed to work out pretty well for us. The Nazis got off, but hey you cant change the past and they didn't do anymore war crimes. It worked out.

Being somewhat tonge in cheek, but also somewhat serious.

Also the Palestinians aren't really guilty of anything. The ones not firing rockets anyhow.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

And we also got a man on the moon.

[bernard11]

Is it a bad solution though? Seemed to work out pretty well for us. The Nazis got off, but hey you cant change the past and they didn’t do anymore war crimes.

So we should let murderers go if they can do something useful?

And yes, the Nazi rocket scientists, including Von Braun, were murderers.

[jb]

War is pretty ugly. To what extent do the designers of the B-17 deserve the title of murderer for the firebombing of Dresden? I do think that there's some added moral culpability for complicitly propping up a regime as heinous as Nazi Germany, but all wars are full of sins on both sides.

[bernard11]

jb,

The designers of the B-17 weren't saying, "Hey, this is a great way to terrorize enemy cities and kill lots of civilians." The V-2 was intended for precisely that purpose.

Plus, there is this:

SS General Hans Kammler, who as an engineer had constructed several concentration camps, including Auschwitz, had a reputation for brutality and had originated the idea of using concentration camp prisoners as slave laborers in the rocket program. Arthur Rudolph, chief engineer of the V-2 rocket factory at Peenemünde, endorsed this idea in April 1943 when a labor shortage developed. More people died building the V-2 rockets than were killed by it as a weapon. Von Braun admitted visiting the plant at Mittelwerk on many occasions, and called conditions at the plant "repulsive", but claimed never to have personally witnessed any deaths or beatings, although it had become clear to him by 1944 that deaths had occurred. He denied ever having visited the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp itself, where 20,000 died from illness, beatings, hangings, and intolerable working conditions.

Some prisoners claim von Braun engaged in brutal treatment or approved of it. Guy Morand, a French resistance fighter who was a prisoner in Dora, testified in 1995 that after an apparent sabotage attempt, von Braun ordered a prisoner to be flogged,[44] while Robert Cazabonne, another French prisoner, claimed von Braun stood by as prisoners were hanged by chains suspended by cranes. However, these accounts may have been a case of mistaken identity. Former Buchenwald inmate Adam Cabala claims that von Braun went to the concentration camp to pick slave laborers:

... also the German scientists led by Prof. Wernher von Braun were aware of everything daily. As they went along the corridors, they saw the exhaustion of the inmates, their arduous work and their pain. Not one single time did Prof. Wernher von Braun protest against this cruelty during his frequent stays at Dora. Even the aspect of corpses did not touch him: On a small area near the ambulance shed, inmates tortured to death by slave labor and the terror of the overseers were piling up daily. But, Prof. Wernher von Braun passed them so close that he was almost touching the corpses.

Von Braun later claimed that he was aware of the treatment of prisoners, but felt helpless to change the situation.[47]

So it's much more than the V-2's.

[bernard11]

jb,

Some further information.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

>firebombs German cities
>firebombs Japanese cities
>nukes 2 Japanese cities
If the Americans lost the war, I'm sure more than a few generals would have been hanged for war crimes. Thankfully the good guys won the war and now we can place flowers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soviet Rapist in Berlin to remember their sacrifice.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

An unguided Arab bottle rocket is a lot different than a ballistic missile using inertial guidance. Also, I'm pretty sure the German rocket scientists were not ideologically aligned with the Nazis as much as they collaborated to advance their careers and fund their research. The banality of evil in so many words. Can you say the same about Hamas?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"This argument is a variant of the one that got a lot of Nazis into the USA in the 1940s and 1950s."

The Nazis had been defeated, and a lot of people had no more affection for National Socialism than a lot of us have for wokeism.

It would have been a very different thing if we had let members of the Soviet Communist Party into the country back then -- not refugees or dissidents but true Stalinists. And that's what these Palestinians are -- they'll kill us along with the Jews.

Iron Dome wasn't defeated, it was overwhelmed. Israel's mistake was in not bombing the missile sites -- albeit the mosques they were being hidden in -- first.

[Don Nico]

The problem with missile defense, especially at such short range, is that it is easily overwhelmed.
As much as I hate to agree with Ed, the only way to assure defense is to suppress the launch sites themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the problem with that is that Hamas deliberately launches from sites protected by innocent shields, such as hospitals and schools. So you can't just automatically strike back, you'll just give them photogenic innocent victims to scream about.

That makes setting up an automated strike back that wouldn't be a PR nightmare kind of difficult.

[ThePublius]

Krychek, similarly, if the Jews and Nazis couldn't live in peace in Europe, how exactly was that our problem? We didn't have a dog in that fight, either. Unless you consider humanitarianism a "dog."

[bernard11]

While I don't disagree with your point, I don't think it's accurate to claim the US entered WWII in Europe to rescue Jews.

Far from it.

[Krychek_2]

In addition to the point that bernard11 made, that rescuing Jews was not why we entered WWII, Hitler's expansionist ambitions made him impossible to ignore. A Nazi France and Great Britain would have been a huge problem.

But if you're looking for a more modern analogy, if there's anything we should have learned from 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq it's that we lack the ability to impose civilization on places that are inhospitable to it. I hate that the Taliban is about to re-take Afghanistan but the alternative is for us to stay there, and have our soldiers killed there, indefinitely. Shall we send the US Army wherever armed thugs are doing bad things? That would be a significant chunk of Africa, most of the Middle East, and most of Central America.

The Arabs and the Jews will continue to kill each other as long as there are Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. I agree with pretty much everyone else here that the Arabs are more at fault than the Israelis, but it's not 100%. We've invested enough time, treasure and American blood there. Some problems we just can't fix. Which may be the only issue I agree with Trump about.

[Brett Bellmore]

"if there’s anything we should have learned from 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq it’s that we lack the ability to impose civilization on places that are inhospitable to it."

I think it would be closer to the truth to say we lack the stomach, (And should lack it!) to do what would be necessary to impose civilization on such places. It's possible to do, but requires genocidal levels of violence.

"The Arabs and the Jews will continue to kill each other as long as there are Arabs and Jews in the Middle East."

The real problem was the oil money. The Arabs, (Never mind who invented Algebra a long time ago!) were uncivilized by modern standards, oil money just turned poor barbarians into wealthy barbarians.

Without that wealth pouring in from the rest of the world, they'd likely lapse back into impotent poverty.

[Queen Amalthea]

"The Arabs, (Never mind who invented Algebra a long time ago!) were uncivilized by modern standards"

This is the standard generalization bigots of all kinds use.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Is it bigoted to be bigoted against bigots?

[Brett Bellmore]

How is it wrong? Generalizations are fine when you're talking about groups, so long as you never forget that individuals aren't mere instances of a group.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a subjective basis. We were uncivilized by their standards.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Generalizations are fine when you’re talking about groups" if you want to have bigoted beliefs. Especially when the group is this big (half a billion) and diverse (existing in big numbers on several continents).

I mean, take Tunisia. It's got a higher GDP per capita and is rated more Free than, say, the Philippines. But to say 'the Arabic Tunisians are more civilized than Filipinos' would be a silly, bigoted statement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, bring the "all cultures are equal" crap, it's really persuasive.

[Sarcastr0]

If you're going to compare cultures, compare cultures. Don't just call one barbaric, that's nonsense.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Yeah, bring the “all cultures are equal” crap, it’s really persuasive."

So, you think it's crap to say Filipinos are not uncivilized compared to Tunisians?

[Nige]

'Yeah, bring the “all cultures are equal” crap,'

If you're going to reduce centuries of history and culture down to simpleminded equations, it's as valid as any other.

[De Oppresso Liber]

It's true.

What do you call a culture that treats women as property, boys as sexual gratification objects, and is the home of modern slavery?

[Nige]

The Catholic Church?

[Nige]

Oh, sorry, missed 'modern,' we did finally close the Magdalene Laundries.

[De Oppresso Liber]

You'll get no defense of them from me.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

This is the standard generalization bigots of all kinds use.

Funny how you skipped over Krychek_2's...

"we lack the ability to impose civilization on places that are inhospitable to it"

...comment in order to accuse someone who responded to him of being a bigot for saying essentially the same thing.

[Krychek_2]

Except I didn't say those places are inhospitable to it because of the race or national identity of the people who live there.

Afghanistan looks a lot like Europe did a thousand years ago. Europe eventually civilized; Afghanistan could too.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I didn't either.

The Arab countries in the Middle East aren't uncivilized because they're occupied by Arabs, they're uncivilized because they're occupied by uncivilized people who happen to be Arabs.

Arabs are perfectly capable of being civilized, if they are acculturated somewhere else.

[Brett Bellmore]

Krycheck, I really think finding oil in the Middle East was a tragedy. It actually stopped any progress they were making towards modernizing by giving them a cheat to reach prosperity without all the institutions it normally relies on. But it's a shallow prosperity that will vanish when the oil is gone, they're not healthy economies with all the institutional basis of prosperity. They're economies on life support, propped up by oil.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, right, kind of like being born a millionaire and never having to struggle for anything a day in your life. I don't disagree with you.

[Krychek_2]

I don't think Pakistan or Afghanistan have oil, though I may be mistaken, but that doesn't keep them from having lots of terrorists who do lots of really awful things.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, for once I agree with you, at least on a single point. We could eradicate the Taliban from Afghanistan if we were willing to do what we did in World War II -- put hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the ground (which would probably require reinstating the draft), and be willing for many thousands of them to die. But that' s not a policy that would be palatable to the American people. Nor should it be.

[De Oppresso Liber]

We wouldn't need to tolerate thousands and thousands of US deaths if we did total war to Afghanistan. We would need to tolerate thousands and thousands of Afghan deaths, though, and most would be civilians.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krychek_2, nor would mass killing culturally transform Afghanistan. Short of killing almost everyone, there would be no transformation at all. Just more-committed thirst for revenge among fewer Afghanis.

The great mistake of American foreign policy in the third world has been failure to grasp that the key to transformative nation building—if it is possible at all—is time. Lots and lots of time. Time intervals long enough to convince targeted foreigners that the new colonial regime, and its values, are perpetual, and will never be outlasted. Generations of colonial rule, basically.

Americans, characteristically, are too impatient even to consider that, so they make the same mistake over and over again, demanding dramatic change over a decade or two. It is nonsense.

Consider history. Which nations with cultures alien to western norms have ever moved significantly closer? Mainly the ones, like India, which European colonialists cared most about, and fussed over for centuries. And not one of those actually gave up and became actually western in character.

Instead, multi-generational colonial rule became a means to develop westernized cadres embedded within still-resistant traditional cultures. That degree of transformation (I do not say, "success") suggests a possibility that with two- or three-times as many generations of colonial rule, actual cultural substitution might occur. Examples from the Roman Empire come to mind.

But in the modern world, the will to manage colonialism always ran out before transition of any alien culture was ever accomplished. That is why the notion of, "nation-building," as a basis for foreign policy has always been folly.

By the way, I intend these remarks merely to point to lessons suggested by experience, not at all as an endorsement of a yet-more-comprehensive colonialism. My own taste in foreign policy would be built around some combination of prioritized American interests, plus respect for the allure of, "strange foreign lands."

[Nige]

Remember that time the US, upon losing a war, embarked on a huge bombing campaign that killed a million? The outcome was North Korea. So not only has the US shown the capacity to tolerate the mass slaughter of civilians, it does so in the full knowledge that it makes the world less safe in the long run.

[Don Nico]

Cynical, yes. But... it worked.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I lost the thread. What worked?

[Aladdin's Carpet]

I would really reconsider the news sources you frequent. That is a bs conspiracy theory.

It is true Netanyahu has been unable to form a government. It is also true war was declared. But I think, from the events, Gantz, who is part of the government as defense minister but far from a Netanyahu ally, is carrying the war out.

Also Netanyahu cannot order Hamas to attack Isreal how would that work.

But yeah again that is a conspiracy theory. Revise the news sites you frequent accordingly.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

I am far from a Netanyahu defender and I dont claim he isn't above exploiting the war, but yeah if you look at the events that actually occured:

Planned demolition of a home
Mass protests out of nowhere. How would Netanyahu know this particular demolition would set it off? It happens all the time (not that I agree with the demolition policy)
Protests become violent
Police push back
Hamas, which up till now has been silent, randomly launches 100 missiles at Tel Aviv over the protests.
War.

It isnt really possible for Netanyahu to set that off.

Also bear in mind on of his options to form a government is to ally with a bunch of conservative Arabs, and he hasn't really had much luck convincing his collation to go along with it. Now he can't do that anymore, so he is out of options there. That doesn't help him.

[Krychek_2]

I said I hoped it wasn't true and based on the information you provided, it doesn't sound like it is.

[rsteinmetz]

An Israeli theory I heard on NPR is that Hamas started it because the Palestinian Authority canceled the elections where Hamas was expected to do well.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

That's also certainly a probable cause. Why the elections were perceived to be a good idea in the first place I have no idea.

Imo, the disorder is generally because covid and the lockdowns left a ton of dry tinder everywhere, and any number of reasons are sufficient to have lit the spark.

[Aunt Teefah]

Love the consistency of how this is "certainly a probable cause", but Netanyahu acting for political gain is a "bs conspiracy theory".

Also, Palestinians have been locked down - and much worse - way before covid started.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Again, show me where Netanyahu is "acting" in the first place.

You do realize everything he does has to be signed off by his defense minister, who is openly seeking to replace him in the next government correct? Gantz doesn't want Netanyahu to form the next government ... and he is mainly the guy running the war!

The argument makes no sense. And it is a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying Netanyahu doesn't act for political gain. Of course he does.

I am saying there is zero possibility he started this war to get elected. Namely because this war completely destroyed that possibility! His only path to government was to convince his right wing collation to accept a conservative Arab party in the government.

There is a snows chance in hell that happens now.

[Commenter_XY]

The trigger was a legal case in Jerusalem. A bunch of generational squatters lost their court case and are being evicted. Netanyahu had zippo to do with the current hostilities. Also, nobody mentioned that Ramadan was a significant factor in the violence.

[De Oppresso Liber]

These Snickers ads are getting spicy!

[Queen Amalthea]

"A bunch of generational squatters "

Another take:

"Overall, there is a pattern of Israeli courts permitting the evictions of Palestinians from their homes based on Jewish claims of ownership prior to Israel’s creation. In the Sheikh Jarrah case, the evictions are based on the claim that the residents have not paid rent to the owner of the properties, now an Israeli nongovernmental organization called Nahalat Shimon. Sheikh Jarrah is an area that Jews refer to as Shimon Hatzadik; it was a predominantly, but not exclusively, Jewish neighborhood before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which led to Israel’s establishment and the division of Jerusalem. The properties in question are located in the sector of the city that was under Jordanian control before the 1948 war."

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-evictions-jerusalem-led-israeli-palestinian-violence

[Aunt Teefah]

"generational squatters"

The government violating people's property rights is good now actually, so say conservatives. So long as the government in question is Israel.

[Bob from Ohio]

"pattern of Israeli courts permitting the evictions of Palestinians from their homes based on Jewish claims of ownership prior to Israel’s creation"

Are the claims valid or not?

East Jerusalem was called the "Jewish Quarter" before 1947 and Jews were drive out by Jordan. Rewarding Arabs by letting them live in Jewish homes is wrong, no?

[Bob from Ohio]

"The government violating people’s property rights is good now "

Upholding valid ownership is not "violating" rights, it is upholding rights.

[Aunt Teefah]

"East Jerusalem was called the “Jewish Quarter” before 1947 and Jews were drive out by Jordan. Rewarding Arabs by letting them live in Jewish homes is wrong, no?"

So you agree that people driven out of their homes generations earlier should have the right to return? Cool.

[Queen Amalthea]

Didn't evictions have something to do with it (at least too)?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Also bear in mind that a lot of conservative Arab states are quietly (and now not-so-quietly) allying with Israel. All fear radical Islam.

[Don Nico]

AC,
Good points.
So the result of this "war" is a fifth election. maybe even while Hamas is launching missiles at Tel Aviv. To whose benefit is that?

[James Pollock]

"Also Netanyahu cannot order Hamas to attack Isreal how would that work. "

Hamas attacks Israel because Israel exists. No ordering necessary.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Thank you for pointing this out! There are too many anti-Israel trolls in the comments section. When the mastermind of the King David Hotel bombing, which killed Jews, British nationals, and Arabs alike, goes on to become a leader of the early Palestinian "state", it is just another example of how the Palestinian "state" is really just another rogue, terrorist operation.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Clever. Normally your trolling is pretty stupid, but ... clever.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Hamas attacks Israel because Israel exists"

I ask again: Exactly what part of "Kill the Jews" do American Jews not understand?

[Queen Amalthea]

The only conclusion is that American Jews must love Hitler, right Ed?

[VinniUSMC]

Wow, look at that logic. A better conclusion is that you're just not very bright.

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, poor Vinni.

[grb]

Krychek_2 : "I saw a news report that Netanyahu, who has been unable to form a government, deliberately engineered"

Without question Netanyahu is using the violence to aid his political ends. He's been pretty ruthless that way throughout his long public career. But when it comes to the Israelis & Palestinians you can pretty much rely on both sides being blind, short-sighted and tragically stupid.

In this case, the Palestinian Authority just postponed May 22 parliamentary elections and (apparently) a July presidential vote as well. There hasn't been a Palestinian election in fifteen years; they've been repeatedly canceled. So Hamas - who looked to gain in the election - also has a motive for expanding the violence.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I saw a news report that Netanyahu, who has been unable to form a government, deliberately engineered it"

How would a "news" report have this information?

[Sarcastr0]

It's an opinion piece:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/05/04/netanyahu-is-desperate-unhinged-totally-uninterested-governing/

[Bob from Ohio]

Tell that to Krychek, he called it "news".

[Queen Amalthea]

"mourn the loss of life on both sides."

I like how this is part of the parody.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As a Puritan, I have to ask exactly what part of "Kill the Jews" do American Jews not understand? I support defending Israel for the reasons that England and France ought to have defended Poland in 1939 -- these people are almost as eager to kill me as well.

"Im ba l'hargekha, hashkem l'hargo" --
Brachot 58a, 62b, citing Exodus 22.2

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Elon Musk understood the meaning of "kill the Boer" pretty well and became an American citizen. I think he made the right decision. Also, Grimes is kind of cute in my opinion.

[Queen Amalthea]

" these people"

The fav phrase of bigots everywhere and always.

[Ed Grinberg]

Are you defending Hitler & Co.? Or are you denying that the people shooting rockets are Israel would be just as happy to shoot rockets at the U.S.?

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm defending Hitler of course, duh!

[I Callahan]

Once again, emotion over substance.

[Queen Amalthea]

Mocking a dumb question (an embarrassing false dilemma, among other things) is I guess emotional, but certainly no less so than asking it.

[grb]

Queen Amalthea : I’m defending Hitler of course, duh!

Duh indeed! But speaking of Hitler, I'm currently in WWII reading mode, and was just following the early rise of the Nazi party. There was one thing that caused me to wonder : How in the world could German citizens have been stupid, blind or gullible enough to believe in the Dolchstoßlegende, or "stab in the back" myth?

After all, this was a well-educated citizenry and the historical facts were recent and obvious. Did they want to be lied to? Was it self-indulgence? Or maybe a childish aversion to the simple truth? Were they really unaware how corrosive that lie was ?!? You look back in history and are amazed how a people can corrupt themselves.

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm not well versed in that, but I think ugly sentiments like anti-Semitism (or any bigotry) and uber-nationalism are always prone to these kind of logical problems/scapegoating. I mean, what else are you going to do, engage in introspection? Perish the thought for many.

[Libertymike]

Please, tell us about your recent forays into introspection.

[Queen Amalthea]

Sure thing. For one, as a white person I've thought a bit lately about how I might have been privileged. I've also been questioning most meat eating for a while.

[Libertymike]

Have you given questioned your consumption of grains, nuts, plants, and seeds?

[Queen Amalthea]

Nope.

[I Callahan]

This is such a silly cop out. Who do you think he’s talking about, and is the statement not true?

[Queen Amalthea]

There's a real bad tendency for many Americans to generalize 'Hamas' to mean 'Palestinians.' Hamas didn't even get a majority of the votes when they won that one election in Gaza.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Queen Amalthea, make sure you never look at Islamic world polling if you want to keep your current set of beliefs. The population is not more liberal than the politics of the region would suggest. The opposite.

In fact, Muslims here in the west should be looked at with some suspicion. 1/4 British Muslims responded to Pew polling saying that they felt the 7/7 attacks in London were justified. 36% of British Muslims also said that apostates should be executed.
Consistently, about 1/3 of the Muslim world is supportive of the 9/11 attacks, except in Palestine where that figure is 65%.

You might like Muslims, but in general they don't like us or our values. And I say that as someone who has personally assisted and made sworn states to get Iraqi Arab and Kurd and Afghan Pashto interpreters permanent status in the US.

And I hate using this as a source, but Gallup has moved a lot of controversial data behind a paywall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Gallup_polls

[De Oppresso Liber]

*statements
*Pashtun

edit button when?

[Sarcastr0]

We have a name for negative generalizations based on statistics, or belonging to certain groups: bigotry.

There's a reason religion is a protected class.

[I Callahan]

Sarcastro proves himself to be as simple minded as QA here. Pointing out statistics about groups, especially when that group’s views are a majority, is not bigotry. That’s a chickenshit cop out.

All stereotypes are based on real experiences and data, despite the usual progressive knee-jerk response to hearing about them. We can argue all day about how to tackle those bad numbers, but the numbers are still bad.

[Queen Amalthea]

"All stereotypes are based on real experiences and data"

That's laughable. So the stereotype that Jews are rootless, national-less, cosmopolitans with Bolshevikism and degeneracy in their blood is 'based on real experiences and data?'

[De Oppresso Liber]

Data is bigoted?

I never said each and every person of the muslim faith holds these views. I was quite specific what proportion holds these views. And when I made generalizations, I labeled them as such. See "...in general..." in the above comment.

I thought you had greater intellectual courage.

[Queen Amalthea]

Imagine if people used the 'data driven' fact that men are far, far more violent than women the way they use the less conclusive 'data' about, say, Muslims....

[De Oppresso Liber]

First of all, watabout.

Second, they do use that data. Prisons are made extra large to house all the violent men and the justice system gives them longer sentences for violent crimes than women convicted of similar crimes.

[bernard11]

As a Puritan, I have to ask exactly what part of “Kill the Jews” do American Jews not understand?

As an American Jew, I have to tell you (again) that we understand it perfectly well, and don't need jackasses like you to tell us what is in our interest.

Trust me. I know exactly what it means.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Trust me. I know exactly what it means."

I don't believe you do -- it means "Kill Christians" as well.

Are you aware of the plight of the Coptic Christians in Egypt?

[bernard11]

1. I don't care what you believe. You are badly mistaken.

2. Given that a fair amount of Jews have been killed by Christians over the millennia, while many Christians raised no great objections, I don't think you are correct.

3. Yes.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

We need to go back to the good old days of Temple Judaism when Bar Kokhba cleansed Israel of Roman and Christian alike.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I forgot to add that my grandfather, who was a commissar in the early Soviet Union, had the same philosophy regarding property rights. When a filthy Goy kulak used his fields to grow sugar beets for profit instead of wheat for the people, my grandfather would have the kulak's land expropriated for the benefit of the people of the Soviet Union. Kulak and Palestinian property "rights" should not stand in the way of social justice and progress!

[Ed Grinberg]

"...the nature of antisemitism: No matter the grievance or the identity of the aggrieved, Jews are held responsible." (source)

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

It is just a little banter, Eddy, but thank you for engaging me. Let me ask you a question: Is it anti-whiteness to blame white people for every deficiency in the black community? Do Jews have a responsibility to call out people who foment bigotry against white people in the world? Ibram X Kendi makes it sound like there is a global white conspiracy on the level of the Learned Elders of Zion to keep the black man down but I see now one telling him to stop it.

[Ed Grinberg]

If you have a problem with Ibram Kendi's (arguably quite racist) writings, but somehow find a way to blame the Jews, well . . . just see what I quoted above.

[ah....Clem]

I wanted to say this yesterday in the 1A Michigan thread, but it got too many layers deep and I thought my comment would be buried.

Re: Baltimore District Attorney Marilyn Mosby's attempt to get the FCC to investigate a local TV station v. the Michigan legislature's bill to require licensing of "fact checkers".

The obvious difference here is the Mosby is an obscure figure who has not and will not be able to marshall the entirety of the national Democratic leadership to back her likely unconstitutional quest. By contrast, the Michigan legislature's bill is pure Trumpism, as they fall all over themselves trying to prove that their fealty to Trump outweighs any loyalty to upholding the constitution and what used to be referred to as "conservative values"

IOW, on one hand we have a minor player engaging in ass-hattery with apparently little support, and on the other we have a person who has hijacked an entire political party and is using them to upend or undermine the first amendment when someone says something he doesn't like.

Both sides are wrong, but one is far far more dangerous. This is probably the high water mark for Mosby's notoriety, and her calls for investigation will likely go nowhere. The Michigan bill will probably pass the legislature to be vetoed by by governor, but expect similar attacks on the 1A in other states.

[bernard11]

Right.

It's standard deflection. You can always find some obscure figure on the other side doing something wrong. It's no defense.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Tell me more about Alex Jones...

[Libertymike]

Rumor has it that he is a closet admirer of the Irgun.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

So you are saying he is Based and Red-pilled?

[Libertymike]

Well, the late Menachem Bagel might say that.

[Libertymike]

The late GREAT Menachem Bagel.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Mosby's letter was a direct attempt to silence her critics. The Michigan thing was a viewpoint neutral, easily evadable bill that applied to a narrow set of people.

They are both wildly bad, but anyone can find ways to say that one is worse. Right now, no side is covering themselves in free speech glory.

[Queen Amalthea]

The MI GOP bill was also a direct attempt to silence their critics (the guy who wrote it had a previous history of attacking 'fact checkers') they just tried to dress it up as neutral. It was as neutral as the law in Lukumi.

But I don't want to get in a 'whose worse' debate, a pox on both their houses. If you're a pol trying to tell me how to live my life the press is going to be mean to you sometimes, put on big person pants and deal with it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The MI GOP bill was also a direct attempt to silence their critics"

Meh. He could have just called himself a guy attempting to supply a better interpretation of the evidence. But he still has a right to call himself a fact-checker.

"But I don’t want to get in a ‘whose worse’ debate, a pox on both their houses."

Agreed, that was my point.

[ah....Clem]

If you think the Michigan bill is "viewpoint neutral" you should probably refrain from replying to any emails from Nigerian princes.

HTH. HAND.

[rsteinmetz]

I think that Mosby has higher asperations and this is part of of it. The Michigan Legislature has yet to act on that bill and likely won't.

State legislators propose dumb ass bills all the time to get some publicity but they seldom go anywhere.

[Queen Amalthea]

I doubt Mosby's actions helped her aspirations.

And I'm not sure a MI state proposed bill goes anywhere less than a local attorney asking for a FCC investigation btw.

But, again, a pox on both their houses.

[rsteinmetz]

I'm not up on Baltimore politics but it could help her to win a congressional seat in a heavily black district.

[Queen Amalthea]

Because, what, blacks think highly of negative media coverage?

[rsteinmetz]

Because voters often respond supportively to charges of politicians they identify with being treated unfairly.

[Queen Amalthea]

I don't think asking for a tv reporter to be investigated plays that way in black or white voter communities.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't see anything wrong with the Michigan bill --- we already require CPAs and Notary Publics to be licensed (note that the word "Public" is in both titles).

If we are going to have a profession of *Public* Fact Checkers, the state has every bit the same right to require they be licensed, and to regulate them as well.

After all, anyone can provide a financial accounting (we all annually do so to the IRS) and anyone can testify that he/she/it saw another sign a document. (A lot of medical forms are "witnessed" but not "notarized."

Another example -- *anyone* can teach, but in order to award degrees, you have to be given permission by your state. (Or in the case of Dartmouth, the King of England.) That's not a free speech issue...

[Queen Amalthea]

"I don’t see anything wrong with the Michigan bill "

Yeah, and colorblind people don't see what's wrong with clashing color schemes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nor do the Hawaiians.

[bernard11]

If we are going to have a profession of *Public* Fact Checkers, the state has every bit the same right to require they be licensed, and to regulate them as well.

No. It doesn't.

Fact checking is not a "profession" in the sense of law or medicine or accounting, where the professional provides services that require training and expertise that go beyond the ordinary knowledge of even a well-educated layman.

[Queen Amalthea]

Yes, 'fact checkers' are just journalists who dare to draw a conclusion from what they report.

The interests are also different. Get a bad CPA and the clients lose everything, get a bad 'fact checker' and...you just read something wrong in a newspaper about something that is not going to directly materially impact you much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Fact checking is not a “profession” in the sense of law or medicine or accounting"

How many years of college does it require to learn how to notarize a signature?

The issue is that we are making these quasi-public officials and hence the state has the right to regulate them.

[Queen Amalthea]

Notaries are doing a functionary job, as usual your powers of analogy are in the negative.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mosby is an obscure figure "

She is a prosecutor in a major city with subpoena power.

The dude in Michigan is a back bencher.

Prosecutors are more dangerous. Don't you agree?

You should be honest, Michigan is worse because its a member the other team.

[Queen Amalthea]

State legislators > local prosecutors, yeah. The former make the laws the latter enforce.

[Bob from Ohio]

No one legislator can do anything. Prosecutors can ruin you by investigations if they desire.

[Queen Amalthea]

How many Congresscritters go from that to US Attorneys vs. vice versa?

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Anyone catch the story where Darkside, a ransomeware group, apparently supplied the software that owned the Eastern gas pipeline, AND THEN put out a public press release promptly apologizing, and saying it will now vet the criminal suppliers in the future to be more "apolitical"?

Idk man your a horrible human being either way if you take down the infrastructure via a cyberattack, whether or not for political reasons.

I swear to God the world keeps making less and less sense.

Also the Hertz investors ... ended up being right? Sigh.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

With an economy ready to roar after defeating COVID-19, I'm ready to board the Biden Bus and fully support the most popular president in my lifetime!

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Biden Bus is going off the cliff!

Can you say "inflation"???

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

If you bring enough cute elementary school girls to the Oval Office, you are guaranteed inflation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't know why we let these ransomware attacks happen. I've yet to hear of someone being seriously punished for paying a ransom, and no idea to what extent it's a crime to do so.

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you think we should punish victims that pay the ransom?

I get the incentives stuff, but "Sorry we failed in our social contract to protect you, but if you try to help yourself we'll come down on you to" seems pretty tough to me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you think we should punish victims that pay the ransom?"

Yes.

" “Sorry we failed in our social contract to protect you, but if you try to help yourself we’ll come down on you to” seems pretty tough to me."

So does, "Let's fail in our social contract to protect the next guy too."

[Queen Amalthea]

That's some pretty utilitarian stuff there Ozymandias ;). I can't go full Bentham myself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, I guess that's why we let this stuff happen.

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm not willing to put people we've failed in a more helpless position because maybe this kind of thing would be less incentivized in the future. It's their life and money and we've already failed them, to turn around and ask them to sacrifice further for us, it's chutzpah at the least.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"because maybe this kind of thing would be less incentivized in the future."

Keep in mind that the only reason that the ransomer has to honor his end of the deal is so that the next guy will pay the ransom. So the connection between paying the ransom and harming the next guy is alot more direct than you pretend.

[Queen Amalthea]

Sure, in the abstract under a rational choice analysis that's a reasonable conclusion. The problem is 1. rational choice analysis that works perfectly on paper doesn't always do so empirically and 2. I'm hestitant to take away a victim's rights in the name of 'society' especially when 'society' has failed them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’m hesitant to take away a victim’s rights in the name of ‘society’ especially when ‘society’ has failed them."

You don't strike me as the kind of guy who is hesitant to regulate transactions with negative externalities. Does this sudden laissez-faire impulse extend to transactions that don't involve straight-up crimes?

[Queen Amalthea]

"You don’t strike me as the kind of guy who is hesitant to regulate transactions with negative externalities. "

I've struck you wrong then, I guess. And, again, these victims are especially sympathetic figures imo.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And, again, these victims are especially sympathetic figures imo."

What's unsympathetic about the next victims?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"So the connection between paying the ransom and harming the next guy is alot more direct than you pretend."

Remember that the rationale for prosecuting kiddie porn is to prevent future kiddie porn from being made.

[Queen Amalthea]

And a guy in possession of kiddie porn isn't as sympathetic to me as the victim of an attack. YMMV of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd be a lot more comfortable about paying the ransoms if we put enormously more effort into tracking down the people demanding them, and very publicly utterly obliterating them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A drone strike in Russian territory would be considered an act of war, and that could be problematic.

And while Russia may not be directly involved in this, they ARE benefiting -- while the tankers of European gasoline that are being shipped over here may not have come from Russian crude, it at least indirectly creates a market for Russian crude and hence helps Putin's economy.

[Brett Bellmore]

We do too many drone strikes where a more up close and personal approach is warranted.

[jb]

Yes, this seems to be the obvious part that's missing. The one thing that Baker gets right in his weekly cyber diatribes here is that we're woefully underinvested in cyber defense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't know why we tolerate them in the first place.

Under International Law, while Russia has jurisdiction over these criminals, we do too. We can request extradition (e.g. Julian Assange), or we could do what Israel did back in 1960 -- kidnap Aldolph Eichmann in Argentina and trying him in Israel.

A century ago we went into Mexico after Pancho Villa...

The other option is to simply ban all internet traffic from Russia.

[Leaf's Chauffeur]

They're scared. Something this big could be construed as an act of terrorism/war (idk legally but politically.) They're trying to make sure no one drops a drone on their head, which someone totally should do btw.
And Hertz is an awesome company, glad to see they're gonna make it. Best car rental customer service out there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think Darkside bit off more than they realized -- what people don't realize is that pipelines don't use pigs anymore, they've always sent different products through the same pipeline but instead of a pig to separate them, they now have computer controls so good that they don't need the pigs.

But you have to be able to trust your software because if you send a 50%/50% mix of home heating oil and gasoline out to the market, you'll have homes literally blowing up in multiple states and millions of gallons of product that you have to somehow dispose of. Likewise put something other than kerosene in jet fuel and you'll have LOTS of planes suddenly falling from the sky.

My guess -- just a guess -- is what Darkside did was steal the fungible financial data (i.e. who had put what into the pipeline and hence what they were owed, by whom, when it came out the other end). Remember that the pipeline doesn't own the product that is being put through it -- the oil companies do -- and as the product is considered "fungible", they also aren't getting their own product back at the other end, just product similar in quality and quantity.

My guess -- just a guess -- is that what Darkside didn't realize was access to this software included access to the automated valves and hence the ability to sabotage the command and control systems that segregate the various products -- and keep millions of gallons of them from simply being dumped (or overflowing) onto the ground. (Put 1,000,000 gallons into a 500,000 gallon tank and what happens next?)

[Brett Bellmore]

The coverage I've seen has been a little unclear about whether the hackers actually got control of the hardware, or the pipeline company shut everything down because they weren't sure they hadn't, and the consequences of assuming they hadn't if they had were pretty horrific.

But this is another example of how we've gone too far in the direction of convenience/efficiency when balancing convenience and security/reliability. You could make the relevant systems basically unhackable, but it would be harder to wring out that last increment of efficiency.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" But this is another example of how we’ve gone too far in the direction of convenience/efficiency when balancing convenience and security/reliability. You could make the relevant systems basically unhackable, but it would be harder to wring out that last increment of efficiency."

Remember this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnhv4cF4Gb8

We have centralized too much stuff -- and a central point is a vulnerability. It may be easier for AT&T to have all of its switching equipment in just one Nashville building, but in an earlier era AT&T would never have done that because of the consequences.

[Commenter_XY]

I think we can anticipate a shakeup in the Colonial Pipeline executive team. Whoever was running IT is gone. Hope they're doing their resume.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/antisemitic-attacks-nyc-armin-rosen
More terrible news! Anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise again as COVID-19 restrictions ease. Like the recent attacks on Asians, I'm sure that the attacker was a person of color who was motivated by internalized white supremacy. I never underestimate the inherent depravity of white pet or their penchant for physical violence against ethnic minorities. We need stronger hate crime laws in this country and an educational system that teaches white students about their privilege and belligerent history.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

*inherent depravity of white people

[Krayt]

I, for one, would like to get more in touch with my inner depravity. Sounds like fun!

[Leaf's Chauffeur]

I'm loving those threads where it's just chains of muted comments. So peaceful.
Don't worry @Rabbi Harvey, I would never mute you--you're my voice of social consciousness.

[Queen Amalthea]

Snowflake.

[Leaf's Chauffeur]

Too funny that I unmuted you to see what you had to say to my comment.
I am not offended by an intelligent, cogent presentation of viewpoints I disagree with; I just don't want to have to bother myself reading the insanity some people here spew. Without muting I would see them, they would hit my brain, and I'd unintentionally spend at least a couple seconds thinking."WTF?!" That no longer happens. I'm lovin it.

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm not a fan of the crazier stuff either, but 1. sometimes it's good to know about the crazy out there and 2. it's just too easy to scroll down.

My comment wasn't just a joke, the people that get called snowflakes here have similar reasons and tactics as those who want to mute or have people kicked off.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Those "snowflakes" are fighting against hate speech and unconscious bigotry. The ADL has clearly stated that these minor forms of intolerance are stepping stones on the way to genocide. If we don't stop bigotry before it becomes a problem by policing thoughts and non-violent actions, we will degrade as a society until a second Shoah becomes inevitable.

[Queen Amalthea]

Yawn

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Thanks, buddy. What kind of asshole would put a mute button on a libertarian comment board? If you can't handle a comment, just close your eyes and walk away you pussy ass bitch!

[Leaf's Chauffeur]

Mmmm. Preach it to me rabbi.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is not a libertarian comment board.

It is a comment board operated by and for conservatives prancing about in unconvincing libertarian drag.

Or, as they describe it, "often libertarian" drag.

Or "libertarianish" drag.

[VinniUSMC]

And, speaking of bigots who add nothing at all to the conversation, ever.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Getting crushed by your betters in the American culture war seems to have made you -- and most of the right-wingers at his blog -- quite cranky. Disaffected, too.

I am content.

May the better ideas continue to win.

[VinniUSMC]

"I am content."

If you were content, you wouldn't be here constantly spouting bigoted nonsense and telling us how content you are.

"-- quite cranky."

Nice projection.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is more progress to forge, but I am quite pleased by America's progress during my lifetime and by the prospects for continuing improvement.

I also have been able to forge an interesting, enjoyable, and successful life from a bad foundation. I have been very fortunate during the pandemic, in many ways.

Please try not to confuse scorn toward clingers and general discontent. I enjoy mocking right-wing culture war casualties.

[5.56]

You are an obvious tryhard. Your desperation is embarrassingly obvious from how hard you're trying to cultivate your meaningless internet persona. You are the epitome of a clinger.

[Bob from Ohio]

"And, speaking of bigots who add nothing at all to the conversation, ever."

Just mute him, I did, its refreshing.

[M L]

Estimate the probability that Joe Biden in would receive 16 million more votes than Obama, or 24% more votes, without significant fraud or cheating of some sort.

[Queen Amalthea]

The Big Lie Will Never Die is going to be up there with The South Will Rise Again!

[M L]

And your estimation of probability is?

[Queen Amalthea]

What's your estimation that Trump would get over 13 million more than Romney?

[I Callahan]

Pretty high. Romney always was, and is, an asshole.

[Queen Amalthea]

On the mountain of ass-holery whatever ridge is Romney Trump would be a peak.

[I Callahan]

Nope. Trump is mother Teresa compared to Romney or Biden.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Trump is mother Teresa"

This is derangement syndrome.

[M L]

Let's see.

Romney is a Wall Street corporate raider guy who got rich vaporizing or offshoring thousands of jobs and sending companies into bankruptcy. Merits of that aside, it's not something that plays in Peoria. He looks like he stepped off of a J Crew catalogue yacht cruising Nantucket Sound. He's a Mormon with "binders full of women" and the charisma of a toad. He's a corporatist neocon warhawk who writes off the bottom 47 percent of the country in income as a lost cause.

Now Trump, is a decades-long pop culture icon. There are more rap songs written glorifying Trump, than there are companies that Romney has bought and sold. Trump has received more awards from Al Sharpton and Oprah Winfrey than Romney has grandfathered grandkids. Trump owns a Tiffany store that is worth more than Romney. He championed the popular position on everything (which I often disagreed with) and stood up to the corrupt establishment without apology.

So the surprising thing is that Romney was even that close to Trump.

[Queen Amalthea]

So your argument is basically 'because Trump is way more awesomer?' LOL!

Look, Trump is an incredible polarizer. His popularity with one side is in large part a function of how much he pisses the other side off. So any explanation relying on his unique pluses to explain why so many more voted for him will, unless they're partisanly skewed of course, have to admit equally explains why so many would vote *against* him.

Also, voting was made easier for millions and millions and population increased, among other things.

[M L]

Two very fair points, of course. Although, there is a reason that just voting *against* a candidate is universally considered a bad inviable strategy. The contingent of rabidly anti-Trump folks is very loud but not that large.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Although, there is a reason that just voting *against* a candidate is universally considered a bad inviable strategy."

Goal post move.

"The contingent of rabidly anti-Trump folks is very loud but not that large."

How did Nixon win, I don't know anyone that voted for him!

[jb]

Yes, worth noting that if we roll back to 2008 instead of 2012, Biden only got slightly more of the Voting Eligible Population to vote for him than Obama did (Obama was 32.6% vs. 34% for Biden). The talk about massive increases in votes vs. Obama relies on looking at a low turnout election and ignoring overall population changes.

[Josh R]

You didn't answer the question (What’s your [quantitative] estimation that Trump would get over 13 million more than Romney?). We want a numerical answer. Please show your work.

[Queen Amalthea]

He never knew what he was talking about, especially in that complex of a way. It was another example of the pathetic 'I found my guy awesome, so it's clearly unpossible he lost!'

[M L]

The question was unclear, but assuming you add ", without fraud or cheating of some sort," my answer is 3.2 standard deviations greater than the probability in the prior question.

[Josh R]

You didn't show your work.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"He championed the popular position on everything "

Yet his approval ratings have been pathetic -- and his successor, who called him a clown, is very popular.

Do you live in a town with any college graduates?

[Krayt]

He looks like he stepped off of a J Crew catalogue yacht cruising Nantucket Sound.

Just like Bush 1 and 2, in spite of the Texas accent in the latter.

[Stephen Lathrop]

M L, it did happen, but not the way you think.

Biden got a huge surge because folks were voting against fraud and cheating from Trump. Simple as that. Absent Trump, no way Biden even gets the nomination. With Trump, Biden wins by historic totals.

[David Nieporent]

100%.

[Queen Amalthea]

Btw-Trump got 13 million more votes than Romney FWTW

[Sarcastr0]

You can't estimate that probability, of course. There is no baseline.

You're appealing to incredulity - pretending your feelings author reality.

[Josh R]

You can't do that calculation without first calculating the probability that the total vote would increase from 129 million to 158 million.

[I Callahan]

Which already stinks to high heaven in its own right.

[Queen Amalthea]

Voting was made easier and millions more voted, yeah, who'da thunk it?

The conspiratorial mind at work, folks.

[Sarcastr0]

Which already stinks to high heaven in its own right.

No support. Just your gut.

You need to do better than that.

[Life of Brian]

No support. Just your gut.

You need to do better than that.

And thus the demise of critical thinking was quickly followed by that of the sanity check. God help us.

[Sarcastr0]

Critical thinking requires more than you gut, chucklehead.

But you don't do critical thinking. You never bring sources, just selective skepticism.

[Life of Brian]

And had you been capable of the slightest shred of critical thinking, you would have realized that the parallel was between "just your gut" and "sanity check." But here we are.

[I Callahan]

No, actually I don’t have to do better. Logic explains that when you flood pre-printed ballots through the mail by the thousands, there is going to be a lot of justified suspicion as to whether the election is up and up. That’s explanation enough.

[Queen Amalthea]

" Logic explains that when you flood pre-printed ballots through the mail by the thousands, there is going to be a lot of justified suspicion as to whether the election is up and up."

Nope, on two fronts (the results and the greater turn out, which is largely what is being debated here).

You don't know much about logic, eh?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I Callahn, Logic? There's your problem, right there. Logic is as often an enemy of critical thinking as otherwise. Reliance on logic invites rationalism—numbered among the least critical modes of thought. You want a guide to critical thinking? Answer one question: "How do I know that?" If your answer is, "Logic tells me," start over with the question.

[M L]

Good point.

What about the probability that 19 out of 20 bellwether counties in the US that have reliably predicted presidential election results for 50-70 years would see a drastic reversal in 2020 (which then caused wikipedia editors to remove all of the interesting charts and data that illustrated this conspicuous event) ?

[Queen Amalthea]

If you wanted to know the answer to this instead of just flinging some old Dear Leader propaganda on the wall you could have googled it.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-did-all-the-bellwether-counties-go/

[Moderation4ever]

How would one go about setting up a probability estimate here? Voting is not a random process like rolling dice. People are actively making a choice and so probability doesn't really fit into the process. One could say that you work with the people who voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012, but remember some of them choose the former President in 2016 and some switched back to President Biden in 2020.

Overall I don't think you could make probability estimate here.

[bernard11]

Estimate the probability that Joe Biden in would receive 16 million more votes than Obama

Pretty high. Your turn.

24% more votes,

24% more than what?

[grb]

M L : Estimate the probability that Joe Biden in would receive 16 million more votes than Obama, or 24% more votes, without significant fraud or cheating of some sort.

Tin-foil-hat thinking depends on taking things just so far and no farther. Poor ML might have followed up his thought experiment by asking how these sixteen millions votes were created without leaving a trace. He might have noted the failure of vote fraud fanatics to ever produce evidence. After all, we've been hearing this hysterical bullshit for twenty or thirty years at least, yet actual cases of fraud are always tallied on fingers and toes.

His sixteen millions votes must have required an evil central planning entity like Specter. How does it maintain perfect secrecy? With a moat full of crocodiles or piranha? If ML tried to "estimate the probability" his conspiracy gibberish could possibly exist he'd soon join the rest of us back on Planet Earth.

[Krayt]

It's not very likely, of course. Perhaps Trump shouldn't have alienated people who might have supported him, or did but parted ways, with vicious rhetoric.

It's sickening to watch Trump radio defenders ragging on Cindy McCain, facetiously wondring why she doesn't get it, when Trump said that beyond ignorant thing about John.

[grb]

Hell, you want sickening ?!? That would be Ted Cruz in unctuous toady mode - kissing Trump's keister with loving devotion - even after DJT was crudely offensive about Ted's wife. (and his father too, for that matter)

[jb]

Pretty close to 100% since it seems like that's actually what happened, with Trump getting a ton of votes too despite having a -10 net approval rating.

[M L]

Really the best response yet, "it seems like that's what actually happened." I agree, although "seems" leaves plenty of room for nontrivial doubt. The "net approval rating" is not credible though.

This is assuming you don't characterize the sudden, massive transformation of our voting systems and all the ballot harvesting as "cheating."

[Queen Amalthea]

I like how there was a " sudden, massive transformation of our voting systems" but the proof of more votes is at the same time highly suspicious to ML.

Conspiracy craziness 101.

[Dan Lo Pan 2]

Hmm, a story where law and guns intersect, the Conspiracy's favorite topics, yet no blogging about the decision to disallow the bankruptcy filing of the NRA.

[ah....Clem]

What's there to say that the judge didn't already put in the ruling?

"The N.R.A. is using this bankruptcy case to address a regulatory enforcement problem, not a financial one.”

[M L]

Aside from the BK filing, which sounds like it was questionable, what's going on here? Just more lawfare from the totalitarian left to destroy and silence opposition?

"a New York state lawsuit that accuses it of financial abuses and aims to put it out of business."

Let me guess. The plaintiffs are not 2A supporters concerned that funds were misused rather than employed to advance the right to bear arms most effectively.

[Sarcastr0]

They were embezzling from their contributors.

[Sarcastr0]

Attorney General James lays out dozens of examples where the four individual defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary duty to the NRA and used millions upon millions from NRA reserves for personal use, including trips for them and their families to the Bahamas, private jets, expensive meals, and other private travel.

I mean, come on.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup. I have no sympathy for LaPierre and his crew, they managed to capture control over a large and important membership organization, stripped out all real elements of membership control, and then ran it into the ground financially for their own enrichment.

That's not why NY is attacking them, of course, but it made it easy for NY to attack them.

Right now I'm debating whether I want to switch to the 2nd Amendment Foundation, or Gun Owners of America.

[Sarcastr0]

So NY has grounds to attack them, and indeed grounds to focus on them, but you're telepathy tells you this was nevertheless done in bad faith.

That's all about you, not them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pffft. Like they were quiet about intending to destroy the NRA. Remember when they threatened to retaliate against NY headquartered banks and insurance companies that did business with the NRA?

[Bob from Ohio]

"telepathy tells you this was nevertheless done in bad faith"

She openly campaigned against the NRA as a candidate.

No telepathy needed.

If the officers stole money, they should be subjects of investigation and lawsuits, not the organization itself.

She seeks the NRA's dissolution because they are a political enemy.

[Sarcastr0]

If the officers stole money, they should be subjects of investigation and lawsuits, not the organization itself.

Not if there is a pattern.

[BadLib]

Nonsense.

Should the UAW be dissolved because it was being run by crooks - presumably something very few of the members knew about (although, being the UAW, any rational person would have wondered)? Should Rite-Aid have been dissolved because Martin Grass and other executives were cooking the books and went to prison? Should HealthSouth have been dissolved because Richard Scrushly was cooking the books? Should Tyco have been dissolved because Dennis Kozlowski's convictions of stealing from the company? How about Computer Associates because of Sanjay Kumar's fraud?

Of course not. Convict the crooks and maybe appoint an independent monitor to watch over the organization for a while to protect the members'/shareholders'/employees' interests if the cancer is deeper than it seemed.

LaPierre was an ineffectual head of the NRA and I always thought he was slimy -- and I long ago dropped my membership partially for that reason. One of the missions of the NRA and the affiliated NRA-ILA is to protect gun owners' rights and there is no reason that the organization can't continue to do that, and more, under new leadership.

[Sarcastr0]

Your attempted analogies underscore how screwed up the NRA is in comparison.

The failure to perform fiduciary duties was not like an anecdote, it was a long and pervasive practice across multiple slates of leadership well above anything you noted here.

[Bob from Ohio]

By your logic, we should dissolve the Ilinois governor office because of the "long and pervasive practice across multiple" governors of them going to prison.

[Sarcastr0]

If you need to reach to the clearly nonanalogous governorship, you're not doing too well in your argument for a double standard.

[bernard11]

I'm not sure what the bad/good faith distinction is here. No doubt James is delighted to be able to attack the NRA. At the same time, her grounds seem to be pretty solid. It's not a tenuous case.

[BadLib]

The case for putting LaPierre (and probably others) behind bars looks plausible.

However, LaPierre is just an employee elected by the members who were almost entirely unaware of his excesses so there's no reason to dissolve one of the largest membership organizations in the country over his actions. Presumably LaPierre et al would be required to reimburse, to the extent he has assets, members for the money of theirs that he misspent.

Instead, James seems to be concentrating on dissolving the NRA, not on convicting the evil doers at the top, protecting the members and extract reimbursement from those evil doers to compensate members their loss, or to protect the public from a corrupt organization. The mission of the NRA is not the problem (unlike, say, that of the mafia or a underground weapons runner where the purpose of the entity is inherently criminal).

James is clearly motivated by her objections to the political stance of the NRA and its members, not by anything else.

[Bob from Ohio]

"James is clearly motivated by her objections to the political stance of the NRA and its members, not by anything else."

They know it, they just hate the NRA too.

[santamonica811]

ML,
What exactly are you whining about? The evidence so far indicates that some in the NRA leadership engaged in ongoing, widespread, and massive fraud...all to enrich themselves. Public servants are going after the NRA for this, and IT IS THE NRA that tried to evade and avoid and duck responsibility by bitch-hiding within bankruptcy protection.
And you're complaining about the court refusing to allow this charade?!?? What, are you in favor of graft and corruption? Do you hate the 2nd Amendment so much that you'd like to see these corrupt assholes continue to loot the resources of the NRA? You see ending corruption as a leftist plot?!?!?!!!!!?????

What a weird response by you (if I am understanding the gravamen of your post...maybe I'm missing something).

[M L]

I'm not disagreeing with the BK ruling. The prosecution is selective and politically motivated.

[Sarcastr0]

As alleged, the behavior of the NRA looks pretty extraordinary. Do you have any support for your contention?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, they as much as admitted they were out to destroy the NRA.

They could legally pursue kicking out the current, corrupt leadership, and returning control of the NRA to the members, you know. That's what they'd do in the case of any charitable organization whose existence didn't offend them.

But, no, they set out to destroy the organization, not return it to the membership.

[jb]

Even if they're out to destroy the NRA, that doesn't make the prosecution selective unless you have examples of left-leaning organizations with similar examples of corruption that are being given a pass.

[Sarcastr0]

As usual you take a partsian bent, and assume a complete lack of professionalism.

Real people rarely work like that. I'm pretty sure *you* don't work like that. So why do you assume liberals do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I wouldn't threaten retaliation against any bank or insurance company that dared to do business with an organization I disliked. NY did that, and quite openly.

So I don't have to pretend they operate on the same standards I do.

[Sarcastr0]

You think this is Cuomo-directed now?

That's just a conspiracy theory.

[Queen Amalthea]

Brett's certainly a conspiracy thinker and Bob's just an amoral partisan, but I actually think its not far fetched that the NY AG going after the NRA is politically motivated (much like if AL AG went after Planned Parenthood).

[David Nieporent]

Brett’s certainly a conspiracy thinker and Bob’s just an amoral partisan, but I actually think its not far fetched that the NY AG going after the NRA is politically motivated (much like if AL AG went after Planned Parenthood).

Indeed, several Republican states did try going after Planned Parenthood over the James O'Keefe videos. Also, ACORN, for the same reason.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They could legally pursue kicking out the current, corrupt leadership"

Of course. Gaslito is just being his usual self.

[Sarcastr0]

You, as usual, can't handle someone pointing out your narrative is full of it, and resort to just calling other people liars without support.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not a"narrative", James campaigned on attacking the NRA. This is just her method.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a really interesting story legally, actually, because the facts are so slam-dunk.

The judge found bad faith, because the facts screamed bad faith.
The guy who filed the thing said he did so in bad faith, and the NRA organization released advertising boasting about their plans to file in bad faith. And the NRA's debts do not exceed it's assets.

[Moderation4ever]

Wondering why this case did not come up in Volokh, maybe you have the right point. The case was just straight forward and the decision uncontroversial.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is a gun nut blog. Most gun nuts don't want to acknowledge the NRA's misconduct, are bothered by accountability in this context, and struggle to identify a defense for the NRA. The result is silence.

[Queen Amalthea]

Boy, Jupiter's Legacy is a let-down...May 9th can't come fast enough...

[OtisAH]

How so? I almost watched an episode last night but after the trailer I thought I might be distracted by bad old people-makeup and wigs. Then I wasn’t in the mood.

[Queen Amalthea]

I've been watching it, on episode 6, but it just doesn't have much 'umph' to it for me. I don't find it bad, just not good, and, yes, the bad old people make up stuff isn't helping.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some series worth watching:
Deadwood
The Wire
Breaking Bad
Boardwalk Empire
Mad Men
Game of Thrones
Better Call Saul
The Americans
The Simpsons
Playing For Change

Next tier:
Barry
Sopranos
Arrested Development
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Trailer Park Boys
House of Cards

Old school:
All in the Family
Married With Children
The Twilight Zone
Hill Street Blues
Saturday Night Live
Star Trek
MASH
Cheers
In Living Color
Mary Tyler Moore
Dick Van Dyke
Happy Days
The Odd Couple
Columbo

[Queen Amalthea]

Barry next tier? Blasphemy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Premature validation is a rookie mistake.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Nick Kroll's cartoon series "Big Mouth" is the funniest thing ever put on TV.

[OtisAH]

Ah, I get it. I’m almost there with The Boys. Another episode or two and I’m done unless it picks up.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trailer Park Boys is not a first-rate show, but it reminds me of the people and town of my childhood.

[Ed Grinberg]

from a Wall Street Journal op-ed re: H.R.1 (For the People Act):
“[T]he bill would strip 93 of 94 local federal district courts, and 11 of the 12 regional appellate courts that review their decisions, of their power to hear First Amendment challenges to Congress’s regulation of political speech. All such claims—by Alaskans, Floridians or anyone in between—would be confined to the District of Columbia. Appeals would be heard only in the D.C. Circuit…”

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Sounds like democracy manifest.

[ah....Clem]

I don't doubt that the WSJ editorial page made that claim.

Is there any evidence that it's true?

[Noscitur a sociis]

It's not like the text of the bill is classified or anything, you're allowed to read it for yourself and check if you doubt the claim. But if that's too much work:

SEC. 4122. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS RELATED TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS.
(a) In General.—Title IV of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 406 the following new section:

“SEC. 407. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

“(a) In General.—Notwithstanding section 373(f), if any action is brought for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge, whether facially or as-applied, the constitutionality or lawfulness of any provision of this Act or of chapter 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or is brought to with respect to any action of the Commission under chapter 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the following rules shall apply:

“(1) The action shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and an appeal from the decision of the district court may be taken to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1/text

[santamonica811]

Ed,
From this bit; it sounds like what you originally said was untruthful...although apparently truthful specifically in re to injunctive or declaratory relief requests.

[Life of Brian]

it sounds like what you originally said was untruthful…although apparently truthful specifically in re to injunctive or declaratory relief requests.

The 1A practitioners might weigh in on this, but I'd be a bit surprised if the vast majority of constitutional challenges to limits on political speech wouldn't tick one or both of those boxes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What other form do you envision a first amendment challenge taking?

[santamonica811]

A trial. On the merits. (I do acknowledge that I'd probably be first running to court for injunctive relief in many cases like this.) My earlier post was to point out that the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed was false, in the sense that claiming that most courts would be stripped of their power to hear these cases is simply untruthful. Being limited to hearing only certain types of cases does NOT equal 'stripped of power' in any reasonable sense.
The WSJ is a class act. There is no way the op-ed's falsity would have slipped by an editor if it had been in a regular article. I'm fine with the paper allowing false or misleading things in its op-eds...they are polemics, after all, and not real journalism, and I therefore judge them by different standards.

But it's certainly worthwhile to point out inaccurate and untruthful things when they occur, yes?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That doesn't make any sense. Whether or not there is a trial doesn't have anything to do with the kind of relief being sought.

But it’s certainly worthwhile to point out inaccurate and untruthful things when they occur, yes?

Sure, but it doesn't seem very worthwhile (to say the least) to claim that accurate claims are untruthful. So I ask again, what are the kinds of First Amendment challenges you're envisioning that you think aren't covered by this venue provision?

[Life of Brian]

Being limited to hearing only certain types of cases does NOT equal ‘stripped of power’ in any reasonable sense.

Well, I guess we can split hairs on what "stripped" means, but being limited to hearing only types of cases that people generally don't file means courts are generally not able to adjudicate the cases that people actually do file.

[ah....Clem]

This seems to pertain to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, not "First Amendment challenges to Congress’s regulation of political speech"

Am I missing something?

[Brett Bellmore]

Note the heading: "JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS RELATED TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS"

Directly telling people what they can and can't say or publish would be too obviously unconstitutional, so they attempt to regulate what people can spend money to say and publish. So their censorship looks like tax laws.

[Life of Brian]

Am I missing something?

Yes, one fairly important word: "the constitutionality or lawfulness of any provision of this Act or of chapter 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 . . ."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is it Constitutional? Article III says "in the district..."

[Noscitur a sociis]

In a development that should surprise no one, Article III does not, in fact, say "in the district". Indeed, it does not contain the word "district" at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think he confused lawsuits and criminal trials. Article III does indeed mandate that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

It doesn't specifically say that of lawsuits.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, I agree that Article III does say a lot of stuff other than the part Dr. Ed claimed it says.

[Ed Grinberg]

Compare the following two approaches to "hate speech":
(FWIW: I find the first one misguided, even dangerous. I agree with the second one.)

A few months ago, the American Jewish Committee asked Congress to "designat[e]...white supremacist groups as terrorist organizations, which will mandate social media companies to remove their content and severely limit white supremacists’ ability to recruit online." (source)

"[O]nly in defending the right to speak freely do we defend the disempowered. Jews know what it means to be silenced and must become the bulwark against a culture of censoriousness and censorship. Jews must defend the right to say the most distasteful, abhorrent, and even antisemitic things — while at the same time making the most persuasive arguments against those views." (source)

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I'm sorry but the ADL has clearly stated that tolerance for hate speech, passive bigotry, and unconscious bias are mere stepping stones on the path to genocide. If we don't police the smallest infraction against inclusion and diversity, including unspoken thoughts, we are guaranteeing a second Shoah will occur. Can you accept that as a Jew?

[Leaf's Chauffeur]

That second article was very interesting. I disagree with the attitude, but interesting.

[Krayt]

The benefit of the First Amendment isn't in value in anything idiotic someone might say. It's in denying potential dictators their best tool, censorship.

By allowing the argument shift to considering outlawing certain speech as not valuable, you've already played into their hands.

Why do this? Why open that gate and take anotber half-step towarss dictatorship?

Speech isn't justified (to whom?) by its value. This has to do with removing an abused power from government entirely.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I doubt the government will ever make serious inroads with regard to censorship. I think the greater threat comes from the private market. Sure, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter can ban whomever they want to and for whatever reason. Amazon and Target can refuse to carry any book they find displeasing. But all these prohibitions slow down critical discussions and lead to groupthink. How many children and young adults have already been permanently mutilated because anything other than affirmative support for gender confused children is considered bigoted "conversion therapy"? I think we'll eventually return to sanity but a lot of people are going to be hurt before that happens because everyone is afraid of standing up the LGBTQIA activists.

[Dr. Ed 2]

While UMass Amherst's legal exposure is limited to $300k by the State Tort Claims Act (3 x $100K), UMass is going to lose bigly in the court of public opinion in the class action suit now reportedly filed by the three pretty blonde honors students. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/university-of-massachusetts-parents-lawyer-up-over-suspension-of-freshmen-caught-maskless/ar-BB1gAusz

Three things inevitably will come out of this == (a) public knowledge of just how truly fascist that purgatorial cesspool has become, (b) how truly hypocritical the institution has become, and (c) no sane student would ever chose to attend it.

For those who have missed the story -- which has gone international -- three freshmen girls with 4.0 GPAs posed for a selfie in the courtyard of an apartment complex located nearly two *miles* north of campus, without masks, and for that they were expelled. Conversely, the university organized a victory celebration parade for its hockey team and said nothing about all the students (and players) not wearing masks.

It gets better: The university president and a different student posed for a picture without a mask.

There's a lot more that will come out in discovery, like how the university colluded with local town governments for them to order local (off campus) businesses to breach the contracts they had with UM students a lot of the other truly questionable things they did.

[KCar]

This makes me so angry. President should be fired if this is the standard. Zero tolerance for these admin clowns.

[Ben_]

It’s a really clear example of the true objective of people who make rules. Their objective is punishment and to gain from selectively withholding punishment.

I don’t know how many people will actually side against the bullying in this case. Too many people have been taught to revel in victimizing others.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's the management approach that UMass adopted about 15 years ago -- *everything* is prohibited, except when when we tell you it isn't, and even then, that's only for certain persons.

The conduct system is run by a woman (Patricia Cardoso-Erase) who comes out of the Social Justice field and is a big champion of the "isms" -- i.e. racism, sexism, classism, heteroxexism, lookism, etc...

So these girls are inherently guilty because they are not only White but blonde; they are upper-middle class, two coming from the outer suburbs of Boston, another from New Jersey; pretty; and (presumably) heterosexual.

Worse, they were celebrating an Irish holiday -- St. Patrick's Day.

I do hope they have a good lawyer because there is so much dirt that he/she/it could use if only intrepid enough to ask the right questions....

[Cal Cetín]

I tried this a few weeks ago without success:

What specific rights do you think are referred to or protected by the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

[Queen Amalthea]

If they were referring to a list of specific rights I don't think those phrases would have been used...I think there was just a sense that there were some rights not enumerated and they didn't want to cut off that possibility but no consensus on what exactly they were. My two cents.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

The bill of rights. Also, and I understand this is unorthodox, I've always understood it as a specific waiver of soveirgn immunity in court.

I.e., your rights, whatever they are (perhaps defined by congress!), you recieve the ability to vindicate said rights through that clause. Congress defines the private right, it is allowed to waive state immunity for that right though the clause.

Or perhaps the process due process clause. Anyway yeah.

[MP]

None. All. That's the point. No enumeration required.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What specific rights do you think are referred to or protected by the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?"

9th: don't know.

Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

1. The right to enter every other State whenever you please, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as you please, to go where you please at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless you commit some violation of law.

2. The full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon citizens might speak, and to hold public meetings upon political affairs.

3. The right to keep and carry arms wherever you go.

Maybe there's more.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, I guess the rest of the bill of rights too.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

So "In the Heights" is coming out in a month.

I ... don't know how to feel about it. The trailer looks amazing. And yet ... the director is probably my least favorite director ever.

Like he had a series of god awful movies and then he produced "Crazy Rich Asians" which was ... ok? Like imo it wasn't great.

The only selling point was that it represented Asian people. Fine. The representations were stereotypical and kinda dumb, but fine.

Idk, I'm Asian American and I was at a party filled with other Asian Americans, and someone suggested we watch it, and everyone just looked at each other with, you all disliked the movie right?, and yeah we didn't watch it.

My issue is that literally all of these movies, the big sick, crazy rich Asians, Blinded by the light, and so on are all super derivative and all literally about the exact same parent child conflict. Yeah it does resonate ... but no individuality, no interesting exploration of it, no actual sympathy with the parents point of view, the family always reconciles because hey, this is a feel good movie, we can't have any weight to the decision, the child gets everything they want ...

The genre is geared towards one particular type of Asian American with zero depth or exploration. Crazy Rich Asians was literally just a very derivative version of a very derivative genre.

Any, long winded way of saying, I might not see the movie.

[Queen Amalthea]

I haven't seen Hamilton (it's veeery long imo), so not too tempted to see this. I do like many of Manuel's individual songs though.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like you should wait for the access to open up, and then hate-watch it with some wine and maybe some like-minded friends.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/jamaal-bowman-liel-leibovitz
I don't care what Jamaal Bowman thinks about Israel or the Jewish people. I will just remember Theodore Herzl's 14 words: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for Jewish children." Why have so many BIPOCs internalized anti-Semitism, a white supremacists tenet?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because it isn't a white supremicist tenant.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Please don't whitesplain your ignorance away...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at Quebec -- the Quebecois (French) have been "the" minority for decades and have enjoyed the benefits of it. Immigration has changed that, and suddenly they are not the only minority anymore.

They don't like that...

My point is that Black antisemitism isn't coming from where you think it is.... Remember too the influence of Islam...

[rsteinmetz]

I declare the new muting feature a success.

As an experiment I muted a few people either because they added nothing to the conversation or were spammers.

One of the people I muted seems to have stopped posting or if they changed to another alias they have changed their tactics.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

The poster above me can't handle the banter.

[santamonica811]

"banter" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

I have banned a total of one person. Pretty much every single post of his was a screed against lawyers. It's not that his point was moronic...duh. It's that it added absolutely nothing to the conversation ever. It's like that person had a macro and hit it over and over in every thread. Bor. Ring. Hence the ban.

Frankly, Rabbi; if I were to ban another person, it would probably be you. Not that I disagree with your points. It's that they are all pretty much trolling. Some people can absolutely see them as "banter" and feel like they add to the quality of the VC experience. Not me...I find trolling boring.

(There are tons of posters here that I'm never in agreement with, but I'd never ban them...I learn from what they write. At the least; I learn what the other side is saying.)

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Can you give me some tips, Coach? I sometimes post articles with a trollish comment to "bait the hook" but maybe this is counterproductive since people don't engage with the article's subject. Thoughts?

[jb]

+1

I've muted two people: the same one as you and one who never bothers to post anything except for antisemitic nonsense.

[rsteinmetz]

I didn't mute you.

Banter is fine, even humorous side trips or the projection of motives on to people no one has anyway to devine, but repetitive useless comments that don't add anything to the discussion and seem to be designed to insult or provoke negative comments are tiresome and useless. I'm better off not reading them.

The mute feature may well cause some of the more obnoxious posters to moderate their shenanigans. So far I've noticed that most of the muted comments don't have many responses and many of the responses they do have are negative.

As I mentioned above at least one person seems to have taken their crazy eleswhere.

Is this bantery enough?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

>Is this bantery enough?
You could have used some racial epithets or questioned my Talmudic credentials.

[rsteinmetz]

I don't think I've ever used a racial or ethnic slur, although I'm not sure what with the constantly changing standards of acceptable language. As for your Talmudic credentials, I don't even know what that means.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That was his banter-y way of saying you could question whether or not he is an actual rabbi.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

I've muted two, both basically for trolling with completely unrelated and highly annoying nonsense. One was more left, the other right, so I've tried to be fairly neutral about it.

I like the way muting is designed, if you do block someone for purely political reasons ... you also miss out on what they say, and lessen the experience for yourself, because people engage with them.

It seems designed to target pure annoying trolls, which is, in my view, the best way a libertarian outlet can approach content moderation.

[rsteinmetz]

The design seems very libertarian, allowing the users to control the level of whatever they are willing to put up with.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

If we don't have a universal standard for decency, how will we prevent groupthink and purity spirals leading to extremism? Our betters at Reason magazine should determine what constitutes legitimate thought and what is just trolling. If you don't like it, fund your own online libertarian magazine.

[rsteinmetz]

I prefer to make my own decisions.

[Commenter_XY]

rsteinmetz....I think it is too early to declare success, but I will say there is definite improvement. For myself, only obvious spambots have gotten muted. Although I am sorely tempted to mute the antisemites, I deliberately do not. Those bastards, I want to keep in sight.

The qualitative improvement I see is more focusing of the conversation on blog post contents (fewer tangents), and a willingness to constructively engage. Example: I appreciated a few of the lawyers taking a stab at arguing for that MI law (I asked them to make the case). It helped me understand better the 'Steelmanning' concept that Professor Baude blogged about.
That 'steelmanning' concept has a lot of practical applications (outside of law); notably, on 'how' to think. To be frank, teaching your successor(s) how to conceptually frame problems is really one of the toughest management and mentoring challenges there is.

[Queen Amalthea]

How many of the conservative and conservative leaning posters here have contacted their Reps and urged their conservative friends to do the same to get the GOP to concede to qualified immunity reform, or are they into qualified immunity?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I've gotten both COVID-19 vaccines! I've got more than qualified immunity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Won't happen until the left demands criminal prosecution of all BLM rioters and some effective means of dealing with freeway blocking.

(As to the latter, some states are legalizing running over pedestrians...)

[Queen Amalthea]

That's a stupid tradeoff, but to be expected.

[Moderation4ever]

Check todays Wisconsin State Journal one of the summer rioters plead guilty to arson charges. You seem to be mislead that those rioting are not being charged. But with summer rioter to the January 6th insurrectionist prosecutor will issue charge in their time and not on some schedule.

[ThePublius]

I don't understand how Biden can waive patent protections for vaccines. Does this just mean he's exercising prosecutorial discretion, and won't prosecute those who violate patent protections, or does it mean he's waiving away the law? What's the legal theory or basis for this?

[Leaf's Chauffeur]

International patents=Treaty, not constitution=he's got alot of wiggle room.

[rsteinmetz]

There's a lot I don't know about the details, but

It's possible that manufacturers taking the federal money agreed to patent releases as part of the deal.

It's possible that US courts won't enforce the patent waivers.

It's possible certain unscrupulous parties will attempt to dominate the technology using other people research.

[grb]

ThePublius : I don’t understand how Biden can waive patent protections for vaccines.

As often the case with politicians (even those you like), it's less than meets the eye. Kevin Drum explained it thus :

"I'm not so sure. As near as I can tell, this is something of a meaningless gesture. Many of the patents involved in manufacturing the vaccines don't belong to Pfizer/Moderna/etc. in the first place. They're licensed from various other sources. Nor are patents really the biggest stumbling block for poor countries that want quicker access to vaccines. It's manufacturing know-how and shortage of raw materials. And anyway, these countries already have legal remedies available that allow them to force pharmaceutical companies to license generic versions of their drugs at low cost"

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not meaningless in the long term. In the short term, sure, not just for the reasons you list, but because all the companies involved had already announced that they weren't going to enforce the patents.

But in the long term, it signals to people who might come up with a patentable medical product, that the government might without warning take their rights away. It provides a powerful incentive to either go the proprietary route, or just invest in something else.

[Dr. Ed 2]

BUT how much of the knowledge that is actually patented came from the taxpayer, e.g. NIH, etc.?

[Voize of Reazon]

It isn't crystal clear to me what Biden is contemplating, but as far as I have been able to piece it together the situation appears to be this:
Last fall South Africa and India submitted a proposal to the World Trade Organization that its General Council should by resolution suspend some members' obligations under the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, more or less) Agreement.

[Voize of Reazon]

The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum protections that member states must provide for intellectual property, with other member states having recourse to WTO dispute mechanisms if they fail to do so. The waiver would exempt COVID-19 technologies for an undetermined time from the protections mandated under several sections. Such a waiver wouldn't directly affect domestic law in any member country, but it would suspend the ability of one country to pursue a WTO enforcement action against another in respect to the waived subject matter.

[Voize of Reazon]

The TRIPS Agreement doesn't have a provision granting the Council this waiver authority, but it is subject to the Agreement Establishing the WTO that provides in Article IX

3. In exceptional circumstances, the Ministerial Conference may decide to waive an obligation imposed on a Member by this Agreement or any of the Multilateral Trade Agreements, provided that any such decision shall be taken by three fourths(4) of the Members unless otherwise provided for in this paragraph.

So a TRIPS waiver does seem possible, though as I said earlier it would have no direct effect on US domestic patent enforcement.

[Voize of Reazon]

It's possible that Biden would stop there and support the WTO waiver but take no domestic action. I think it is unlikely though as it would invite charges of hypocrisy, so the question becomes what domestic action could he be thinking of? Not "prosecutorial discretion" since patent infringement is a civil matter, but the federal government does have some authority under the Bayh-Dole Act (codified 35 U.S.C. chapter 18) to grant licenses to inventions made with federal funding. Pfizer notably didn't take federal money because of this attached string, but many of the other COVID-19 development efforts did so this could be a pretty effective tool. The government can also control the licensing of inventions relevant to atomic energy or national defense, but none of that seems relevant here, so any action beyond Bayh-Dole will probably require new legislation.

[VinniUSMC]

Any fans of Suits? (I know, I'm late to the game.) I just started watching it this past week. It's almost like watching Mad Men again.

[Sarcastr0]

It's hilarious and silly, and I did enjoy it as a guilty pleasure.

Though kinda ran out of interesting modalities within the first few seasons, as was common for those USA shows.

[VinniUSMC]

"Though kinda ran out of interesting modalities within the first few seasons, as was common for those USA shows."

Yeah, I've been noticing that. It really started to hit hard in the 3rd season. I've been hoping it would expand a bit. Either way, I can't quit in the middle of a show, unless it's just really bad.

[Sarcastr0]

Huh, I'm the opposite. I usually drop away from a show over time, unless it's really good.

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm the same way. If I don't drop a show after the first episode I'm usually going to stick out a season or two at least.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

I love that show. So much.

It's not realistic, but imo realism is completely overrated in shows and movies anyhow.

Its absurd, and that is fine because the execution of the absurdity is ... not perfect but good enough. Its really funny.

Also the character interactions are wonderful.

[Queen Amalthea]

"but imo realism is completely overrated in shows and movies anyhow. "

That's an interesting question, especially for me in the realm of sci-fi. Do I want an Assimov-type 'here's the likely science behind this' or a PKD 'he flicked the switch on the Whirlihizer and it happened?'

[Sarcastr0]

The character interactions are wonderful.
I always love a show that turns me around on a character like I did with Lois.

[M L]

'His mental and physical condition cannot be ignored': More than 120 retired generals and admirals sign open letter questioning Biden's mental health and backing election fraud claims

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572723/More-120-retired-generals-admirals-wrote-Biden-suggesting-wasnt-legitimately-elected.html

[Sarcastr0]

How many retired general officers do you think there are?

This is an appeal to authority, and a crappy one at that.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Doctors Fauci says....

[Queen Amalthea]

This is a common internet error. The appeal to authority doesn't work that way. As a matter of deductive logic it simply means that an argument can't be shown to be 'right' because an authority endorses it. As a matter of inductive logic it's perfectly logical to rely on expertise, but not if it's an expertise irrelevant to the issue at hand. Fauci is an expert in the matter of disease spread, generals are not in mental health.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Sure thing. And CNN's Andrew Cuomo has the mental fortitude and critical free press security credentials to read Hillary Clinton's leaked emails. The proles will just have to wait to receive the divine truth as it is interpreted by corporate media outlets.

[grb]

M L : "More than 120 retired generals and admirals.... (etc)"

It was kind of a bummer to read about this at first - since these clowns are lending credence to a propaganda lie - but I brightened up considerably after digging into the detail.

You see, being addled right-wing freaks, they couldn't stay on-message & whore-out their credibility to the election fraud lie alone. That would have been most effective, but they didn't have the self-discipline. Instead, there wasn't a single conservative canard they didn't hit.

Illegals destroying our way of life? Check.
Socialism & Marxism? Check
Assault on our constitutional rights in a dictatorial manner? Check.
Whining about the press? Check
Sneers re Biden's fitness? Check

Iranian nuclear deal, keystone pipeline, and executive orders? Check, check, check. About the latter, they plaintively say, "many reversing the previous administration's effective policies". Oh the horror!

And if you ever had the slightest doubt, yes, they managed to squeeze "critical race theory" into this spittle spraying rant. One of the most endearing things about cranks is they inevitably discredit themselves. They just can't help it. Apparently a crank is a crank, even way up the chain of command.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

With retired admirals and generals of that caliber, it's no wonder America has not won a war in 75 years, settling instead for a series of vague draws with ragtag irregulars from various continents despite the staggering resource advantage provided by American taxpayers, researchers, and workers.

[Moderation4ever]

I took a look at the letter and really not sure what it says. The signers kind of walked up to President Biden health and to the election without really making an accusations. This of course is a smart move legally. The "we never said anything, we just asked questions" kind of letter.

So if these generals want to make accusations they should do so and support their accusations. If not this letter is a waste of tree stock.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bleah. I've got no use for the whole "open letter" genre. This is no exception.

How many of them see Biden in person often enough to have any basis for an opinion as to his mental and physical health? None, I'd wager.

Are they a representative sample of retired generals and admirals? I doubt it.

The whole genre stinks on ice, I've never seen an "open letter" that was worth the paper it was written on.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I am not saying that Trump is a Slavic urophile but I am saying that I heard legitimate rumors on CNN and MSNBC.

[David Nieporent]

The whole genre stinks on ice, I’ve never seen an “open letter” that was worth the paper it was written on.

That's silly. Try this: open letters that agree with me are invaluable. Open letters that disagree with me are worthless.

[Krayt]

Those are two separate issues, which makes me suspicious to bring them both up.

So I will lump them in with every extant politician and journalist and news organization.

Dialetic method: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Little did you know you were learning Core Evil manipulation in college.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember when all the retired US Attorneys went after Trump?

[Moderation4ever]

Yea and I think they actually presented a case and not a bunch as half assed statements.

[Ben_]

No. Shallow people complained about Trump every day. None of their complaints were at all memorable.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Should I point out that when anyone in the military, regardless of rank or veteran status, questioned Trump it was always front page news with the full assumption of authority to make any political point....

[Jimmy the Dane]

Oh and there is this fun hit piece on Trump and the military I almost forgot about....

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/11/military-officers-trump/598360/

[rsteinmetz]

What qualifies a retired General Officers to opine on someone's mental and physical condition?

[Ben_]

Same thing that qualifies anyone and everyone. We are all free to have opinions and state them on any subject here in the US.

[Queen Amalthea]

What movie remakes are better than the original? Mine is Solaris.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Dredd is better than Judge Dredd imo

[Queen Amalthea]

Agreed, good example.

[Libertymike]

1. Father of the Bride

2. Miracle on 34th Street

3. Rocky II (well, the white guy won)

4. El Dorado (Rio Bravo)

5. Shaft

[Bob from Ohio]

Miracle on 34th Street?

Was there an earlier version than 1947? Because the 1994 remake was cute but not in any way superior.

[Syd Henderson]

"Down and Out in Beverly Hills" was a lot better than the French movie it's based on. I think the live-action remake of "the Jungle Book" was better, too. I suspect the same is true of "Pete's Dragon," but I haven't seen the original.

Also, the classic 1941 version of "The Maltese Falcon" is the third version of it.

[Queen Amalthea]

"the classic 1941 version of “The Maltese Falcon” is the third version of it."

Fun fact, thanks!

[rsteinmetz]

Pretty much most of Alfred Hickock's black and white movies were are at some level versions of the Maltese Falcon.

[Bob from Ohio]

90% of private eye movies are versions of the Maltese Falcon.

[Josh R]

The Man Who Knew Too Much.

[grb]

By the same director no less!

[ThePublius]

The Italian Job - by a long shot.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Oceans 11. Watch the original (if you can find it anywhere). It is pretty boring.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's a terribly boring movie, that's a good one too.

[Cal Cetín]

Ben Hur, done that.

[rsteinmetz]

Which version?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I liked the Coen Bros. remake of The Ladykillers more than the Alec Guinness original, but I know that's a minority opinion. Also, I loved Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans, which followed the plot of an old film version, rather than Fenimore Cooper's novel.

[Syd Henderson]

It's sad that dire wolves were apparently not wolves, but another canid line that evolved to look like wolves. But at least they were dire.

[Queen Amalthea]

Every year more of my students use 'lead' to mean past tense. Is 'led' not taught anymore?

[ah....Clem]

While there is plenty of controversy about the "living constitution", virtually every linguist recognizes that English is a "living language".

Yes, led is the preferred past tense of lead, but for how long?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've noticed that the irregular past tense words are tending to fall out of favor, especially the ones ending in "t".

Dreamt, learnt, smelt, burnt, lept. You hardly see them anymore.

[Cal Cetín]

You know who else associated "lead" with the past tense?

[ah....Clem]

Proposition: Liz Cheney should just lie and say she won yesterday's vote.

Agree or disagree?

[Cal Cetín]

Because anyone who believes Trump's impeachment is fundamentally wrong is thereby supporting each and every election conspiracy theory Trump espoused? Brilliant logic!

[Queen Amalthea]

I don't think you got the joke.

[Cal Cetín]

Oh, I got the "joke." Trump disputed the election result, Cheney should dispute the election result.

I'll even add a laugh track.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY3GvhAhzo4

[Queen Amalthea]

Then what was all that impeachment stuff about? Just still sticking in your craw ;)?

[Cal Cetín]

The Republican Party won't become a legitimate party by imitating the Democrats and doing what they want.

I'm not sure it matters, since both parties see the country at the edge of an abyss and want it to take a giant step forward. The good news is that if I don't pay attention, I can at least put off worrying about it.

[Queen Amalthea]

They don't have to do what the Democrats are doing or want, they just have to not be a personality cult. That should worry anyone.

[Cal Cetín]

Supposing the Republicans - for fear of being called a personality cult - had agreed with the impeachment, had driven Trump from public life and prohibited him from holding any federal job from President to the local postmaster.

In such a case, I'd trust those crapweasels less than I do now, which is saying something.

[Queen Amalthea]

Nice try, but Cheney is not being canceled because of her impeachment vote, but for later not towing the Trump line.

She has an 82% Heritage score.

She's been punished simply for criticizing Dear Leader.

[Cal Cetín]

"Nice try"

Nice try at what? What exactly do you think I was trying to do?

If you claim I wasn't fully aware of the true scope of Liz Cheney's heroic resistance to Trump, fair enough, I suppose, from your point of view.

If you're insinuating something other than that, please be so kind as to go fuck yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

She wasn't ejected from leadership for either. She was ejected from leadership for taking proprietary internal data from the party, and handing it to hostile media outlets, in an effort to force the party to do her will.

That totally blew any trust the Republican caucus had for her.

After the vote she told reporters that she would do absolutely anything it takes to keep Trump from getting anywhere near the Oval office again. Republicans don't think that should be their leadership's highest priority.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

A neo-con, warmonger was kicked out for the wrong reasons. Boo hoo!

[Josh R]

Fun facts from this week: Josh Hawley has the most famous fist in the Senate ... if you don't count Lindsey Graham.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I thought Lindsay was more famous for fisting than actual fists.

[ThePublius]

Is the ammunition and reloading supplies shortage easing?

This is the worst I have ever seen. It's worse, in my unscientific and potentially foggy recall than the Sandy Hook induced shortage.

I think this one started as a result of people thinking Biden would win.

You can't get ammunition, primers, and powder. Projectiles are easier to get.

When will things return to "normal?" Never? Will prices go back down?

[Leaf's Chauffeur]

I recall hearing something about covid induced supply chain issues, plus covid panic buying, plus biden, plus the difficulty of importing ammo to make up for it. Sounded like a perfect storm. But eventually, when the supply chains catch up and the people who panic-hoarded arent buying for a long time, the supply should hopefully catch up. Just like toilet paper did eventually.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Problem is you can NEVER have too much ammo....Toilet paper sure there is an upper limit to that....

[jb]

Yeah, supply chains all over are messed up right now. Unfortunately as Brett notes below it's hard to adapt to demand surges because they're probably not durable so it's hard to be confident you'll be able to pay off your investment.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's regulatory uncertainty. The market continues to expand, but the manufacturers are very reluctant to make capital investments in additional production capacity.

In time, one of two things will happen: Either the pro-gun side wins, or the anti-gun side wins.

In the first case, people relax, notice they've got a decade long supply of ammo in their closet, and stop buying new ammo for years.

In the second case, people stop buying ammo because the government won't let them buy it.

When either of these events happens, (And one of them is likely to.) any manufacturer who has gone into hock to buy more equipment is going to lose their shirt.

So, instead, they hire people they can fire in that event, and run the equipment they've got flat out 3 shifts. And that isn't enough to keep up with expanding demand.

The problem is particularly dire with primers, because they're a specialty item, a difficult industry to get into. Lot of regulatory issues dealing with primary explosives, a lot of proprietary tech you have to learn the hard way, (With explosives!) all on top of that regulatory risk.

Guns are easy, it's just machining, and almost all of the equipment is generic machine tools.

Cases are easy, it's standard deep draw stamping, (My own profession.) again standard equipment.

Bullets, ditto, and easy to make at home.

Propellant, a bit of trouble, but at least it's secondary explosives, much less risk.

But the primers? Very much a bottle neck.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Part of the ammo shortage has to do with the lead remediation rules that came out of EPA a few years ago. I (think) that these were partially suspended under Trump, but the effect was felt in the industry as they tried to adapt.

Liberals have always waged a silent war against ammunition for private firearm owners. It was a weak spot for awhile. They could hide regulations that were normally glossed over by the NRA and industry disguised as environmental protections to achieve their policy goals. And were pretty successful at it too as the CPR has doubled in the last ten years largely due to these regulations.

The crunch is going to continue for a few reasons. First off people are going to stockpile for the next "thing" to happen. If you thought 2008 stockpiling was bad wait for the coming surge. People with less than enough ammo to fuel a small army during an insurgency campaign are going to sap up a large chunk of the supply continuously for years. Also, liberals are now ramping up their war on ammo and it is likely that a few states may regulate out steel cased ammo. That will crunch the supply will also increase the CPR drastically.

And then you get into whacky ideas like microstamping rounds which are not really designed to promote any type of public safety but make ammo effectively unaffordable by the masses.

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you think there's any middle ground or maybe ground to be given on the issue of environmental concerns regarding ammunition? I hate to pay more for ammo, but at the same time I like wild animals and such. If people are using the latter just to get at the former, well, f*ck them of course, but if there's a legit concern I'm willing to listen.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The answer is I don't know, but I do know I can't trust liberals to be honest with me even if they do say it is to protect bunnies and birds. If the left wants to start pushing honest policy then they need to start with being honest. Stop it with the constant lying about their objectives just to fink people into supporting a means to get their agenda item achieved.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your approach seems unlikely to persuade more people to embrace conservative positions. And if you don't attract more people to the conservative electoral coalition the conservatives will continue to lose the culture war and elections. Intensifying the ardor of conservatives is not going to accomplish anything -- it will just make the dwindling population of right-wingers even more disaffected, angry, and inconsequential.

Carry on, clingers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Heavy metals are nasty, and I think there actually IS a strong basis for environmental concerns about lead contamination, which is why I don't really object to efforts to push steel or bismuth shot, or require good ventilation at ranges. In fact, I put this forward as an example of legitimate gun related regulation.

I'd note that they could get rid of the lead entirely if they'd alter the laws regulating armor piercing ammo to permit solid copper slugs.

It gets a little iffy when they get into regulation of lead based primers; The alternatives to lead based primers are not very good yet, and the amount of primer is so tiny, it's not a major source of lead contamination outside of indoor ranges without good ventilation.

[2Plus2Equals?]

I have a question on a different subject. This is my first post here as a prospective law school student after finding these comments to be very effective at getting to the best argument for and against a particular issue.

A while back, August of 2019 I believe, five senators filed an amici brief in support of a New York City gun law. The brief closed with the following quote:

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”

I don't wish to get into a debate over gun policy, court size, or this particular litigation.

Instead, I would love to hear from people on the very narrow issue of the propriety of members of the political branches (art.'s I & II) advocating for a particular outcome of a pending case.

I realize these Senators had standing to file a brief, and that President Obama, as the head of the Executive, had a constitutional duty to have the opinion about merits of NFIB v. Sebelius.

What I want to know is, as lawyers who care about the institution, how do you feel about such comments?

Thx (PS- I love this blog and am learning so much. Randy Barnett's 2016 book directed me here. Hope it's ok I'm not a lawyer or law student...yet...)

[Queen Amalthea]

Can I ask you this: how is that different than, say, the many conservative politicians who for years complained about 'the imperial judiciary' and talked openly about ways to counter its power (such as restricting jurisdiction)?

[2Plus2Equals?]

It isn't. You make a good point. The examples I cited implied something I didn't mean to imply and do not believe: that advocacy by elected officials on pending cases only exists on the left.
I chose NFBI v. Sebelius for the specific reason that a legal rationale was offered in the commentary. I freely admit that conservatives also comment on cases regularly. I chose the NYC gun case because the comment was filed in a Brief. Those examples had particulars that seemed somewhat important to me...
So- you're right, aside from the particulars, it is not different...and yes- I admit I contradict myself by having also asked for answers not about the merits of the particular cases. Just want to know if a) you like this practice of quasi-lobbying and, b) why or why not
Thanks

[Queen Amalthea]

A principled and elegant answer, I commend you.

My answer is this:

The other branches are co-equal and are equally charged with fealty to the Constitution. That makes me think they can weigh in. That can be done professionally or boorishly.

On the other hand, things like 'threat's such as what you cite, Maxine Waters comments, etc., are, at the least, boorish and un-professional, and at worst, more concerning.

[2Plus2Equals?]

I appreciate that.

"On the other hand, things like ‘threat’s such as what you cite, Maxine Waters comments, etc., are, at the least, boorish and un-professional, and at worst, more concerning."

I suppose it is the more boorish comments that have caught my attention- including (to be fair) the quote (unmistakably) by Trump that you included in your second reply. They are, first, intemperate at a time where the body politic increasingly views judges as "robed politicians."
However, when they take on the form where they may be interpreted by citizens or judges as improper persuasion, or as you said "threats," then there seems to be something troubling if they emanate from coordinate branches that posses the appointment/ advice/consent powers.
Essentially, the issue seems relevant now, as we embark upon a new Presidential administration, considering the procedural methods employed in senatorial advice/consent on Trump nominees. Regardless of whether forced cloture was well-intentioned, it was a rather extreme departure from the status-quo. As a person who leans libertarian/center right- I will be deeply disappointed if Republican Senators respond in-kind and exhaust procedural measures to frustrate Biden's judicial nominations. I simply think this is a bad practice that needs to stop. Since Trump was divisive (and therefore I reserve the possibility that the legislative tactics were "well-intentioned"), hopefully it can stop now that we have a new President.

Thanks again

[Queen Amalthea]

"I would love to hear from people on the very narrow issue of the propriety of members of the political branches (art.’s I & II) advocating for a particular outcome of a pending case. "

Here's another recent example, this time from a President:

"If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!”

[Cal Cetín]

"the very narrow issue"

I'm not a lawyer, but I've read a lot about the Supreme Court, if that helps.

On your narrow issue, elected officials should be criticizing bad court decisions more, not less, and they should be up front about how they want courts to rule.

If I go on to discuss which bad judicial outcomes elected officials should oppose, I'd go beyond the "very narrow issue," wouldn't I?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I agree with you, but I think he was asking about the propriety of spouting off about pending cases, not really about criticizing opinions after they've been decided.

[Cal Cetín]

Same principle in both situations - the public ought to know elected representatives' positions, and elected officials aren't exempt from that responsibility just because the matter is litigated as a constitutional-law case.

From the standpoint of transparence, it's far better to advocate or comment ona particular judicial outcome rather than pass the buck and "defer to the courts."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My recollection of the brief is that it wasn't so much in support of the law, but an argument that the case should be mooted because the law had been repealed. Thus I suppose it was simply a plea for the Supreme Court to stay in its lane, rather than just advocating for a particular outcome. So my opinion is that it was proper, although they probably should have been a little more judicious in their language.

[Ben_]

CDC finally decided vaccinations protect against Covid today. No more masks, no distancing, no voodoo rituals to enter buildings, no more pretending magical variants are going to get us, no more superstition or virtue signaling or FUD.

Branch Covidians hardest hit. You can still wear two masks and point fingers at other people if you want.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you are fully vaccinated, Ben, you may be correct about something.

Congratulations!

[Ben_]

The Biden Administration continues to discriminate based on skin color.

Vitolo v. Guzman was filed in Tennessee challenging an SBA policy that sends business owners with the wrong skin color to the back of the line.

This follows Faust v. Vilsack. It seems the Biden Administration is determined to discriminate based on race since we're seeing it in two different cabinet departments now.