Friday Open Thread

Friday is the new Thursday, at least this week.

Comments

[Jimmy the Dane]

Biden says you cannot protect yourself from the government with a gun because it has nuclear weapons. Then in the same day he says that a bunch of unarmed tourists browsing the capitol building taking pictures almost overthrew our government.

Also, what kind of idiot thinks that spiking crime, especially in urban centers, is going to be solved by leaning on some legal gun dealers? Seriously, are the lefties this delusional that they can't understand the direct correlation to the rise in crime from the "defund the police" movement. Guess not.

[AmosArch]

He sounded like he was about to drop dead from the effort of reading off the teleprompter.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then in the same day he says that a bunch of unarmed tourists browsing the capitol building taking pictures almost overthrew our government.

Seriously, are the lefties this delusional that they can’t understand the direct correlation to the rise in crime from the “defund the police” movement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

At a certain point you have to accept that they're just gaslighting you. They simply want one thing we want another and 99% of politics is just kabuki garbage justification nobody really believes. Unless maybe you are a Twitter bluecheck.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah we have entered the era of the absurd. Women are men. Men are women. Up is down. Down is up. The media spent four years gaslighting us about Trump and now is doing the same to run cover for Biden. I'm not shocked. Think it is more sad than anything else.

[Brett Bellmore]

People have joked about how Heinlein's future history was right about "the crazy years", but he never imagined they'd be this crazy.

[Kazinski]

Is Biden repudiating his position on no first use of nuclear weapons?

In Jan 2017 President Joe Biden gave a speech saying "...it's hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary or make sense."

I think he found a enemy so dangerous and reprehensible that first use of nuclear weapons makes sense: his fellow Americans. I suppose that is CRT in action.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I think Biden was actually suggesting he would use nuclear weapons domestically against his political enemies if necessary. Every American ought to be mortified by that. Imagine what the press would be doing right now if Trump has said something like that.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, if he'd proposed nuking the NRA, the press might have warmed to him a bit.

[Krychek_2]

I've long said that if we absolutely, positively must have mass shootings, why can't they happen at NRA headquarters instead of at schools and malls?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Because the NRA headquarters has people with guns in it...so the shootings won't get anywhere.

While the schools are gun-free zones.

[Krychek_2]

And my strong suspicion is that if I showed up carrying a gun and seeking admission to the building, I would not be allowed inside. Which is basically the same rule schools have.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Nah. They probably would think you were just heading to the gun range on site...

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, look. The NRA headquarters has a gun range, and users must bring their own guns. How exactly does that work, when you wouldn't be allowed inside if you brought one?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, you do have to bring your pistol in holstered. Or unloaded in a case. So, I suppose there's that...

I mean if you came in with a rifle at shoulder level, they may not let you in. On the other hand, you can buy ammo there.

[Krychek_2]

I can't tell from the link if that range is at their headquarters or not. Assuming it is, would I also be allowed to wander in the direction of the executive offices with a gun? Maybe an AK-47 with 200 rounds of ammunition slung over my shoulder?

[Brett Bellmore]

You're really reaching here, you realize that? No, the range really is at their headquarters.

And, no, they don't ban guns in their headquarters.

[ThePublius]

KRYCHEK_2, need I remind you of the first law of holes?

[Jimmy the Dane]

If you want a case study on why employers should allow employees to carry lawful firearms, look at the NRA. They encourage carry every day from their employees and many use the shooting range in the HQ for team building activities and leisure.

I visited a friend who worked there many years ago. It was "strange" to see people carrying obvious rifle cases through the halls while open carrying a pistol. Probably also explains why there have been zero shootings at the NRA....

[Michael Ejercito]

Ask the Crips and the Latin Kings who do all these gangland shootings.

[Kazinski]

"I think Biden was actually suggesting he would use nuclear weapons domestically against his political enemies if necessary."

Well that's my point, he says he'd never use nuclear weapons first against a foreign government, but he can contemplate using them against his own citizens, who of course don't have them and are not likely to ever be able to get them.

[Queen Amalthea]

That's an incredible goofy interpretation of what he said, which was really just the old saw criticizing the idea that the 2nd Amendment is to help the People potentially fight the government because 'the government has tanks and fighter jets' but with 'nukes' instead. When a person says that it's goofy to say 'he's contemplating using tanks and fighter jets against his own people!'

[Kazinski]

Well I have to agree it’s incredibly goofy to talk about using F15's or nuclear weapons against US civilians in any context. That’s why I was trying to point out how goofy it was, because you still don’t seem to realize bringing it up at all is goofy.

[Queen Amalthea]

What's goofy, as pointed out by the comment and a long tradition of others like it, is thinking you can overthrow the government with your Ar-15 when they have nukes and tanks. When I write that I'm certainly not 'contemplating' using nukes and tanks on citizens in the sense of 'thinking about doing it' rather I'm just pointing out the near impossibility of such a project given the differential resources. It's incredibly goofy to give that the former interpretation.

[Brett Bellmore]

But it's not at all goofy. What's goofy is the idea that, if any significant fraction of the American people DID revolt against their government, that turning the military against Americans would be a successful tactic.

Look, bombing runs work when you're going to war against another country, because they degrade that country's capacity to fight back. Bombing your own country is like stabbing yourself in the heart in order to defeat your rebellious arm.

[M L]

"Then in the same day he says that a bunch of unarmed tourists browsing the capitol building taking pictures almost overthrew our government."

And it appears that hundreds or thousands of those people are now political prisoners in the US who are being beaten and tortured within an inch of their life.

[Queen Amalthea]

"a bunch of unarmed tourists browsing the capitol building taking pictures"

One of my favorite ways to browse a building to take pictures is to smash a window to enter and beat up the guards there.

[ThePublius]

What guards were beaten up? Citation?

In fact, the Capitol Police opened the doors and ushered people in. Watch the videos!

[John F. Carr]

It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping.

[Queen Amalthea]

I don't know what's worse, the idea that you think we'd fall for your bs or that you have yourself.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/18/1008211655/new-videos-underscore-the-violence-against-police-at-the-jan-6-capitol-riot

[John F. Carr]

Some people walked in peacefully. Other people beat up police.

[Jimmy the Dane]

If you wondered why the media plays the same five tired old clips over and over again, it is because those are the only ones that show it being anything close to a "riot". The rest are normal people milling around taking pictures. Not exactly a "riot" or "insurrection".

[Sarcastr0]

Good news, new clips were released this week.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/18/1008211655/new-videos-underscore-the-violence-against-police-at-the-jan-6-capitol-riot

[Ed Grinberg]

...Biden also took aim at an argument used by Second Amendment advocates, that the right to [keep and bear arms] is needed to protect against potential government tyranny. "Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government," Biden said. "If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons."

compare: Project X

[Kazinski]

But it is Thursday.

[VinniUSMC]

Not where it matters.

[Shaun W]

Washington courts are ignoring the Supreme Court when it comes to Veteran's Disability benefits in regards to divorce. Veterans are being ordered to indemnify the former spouse for loss of retirement income due to waiving a portion of their retirement to receive VA disability. When challenged, the appellate courts rule Res Judicata.

Even though Howell said "All such ordered are preempted."

As many vets cannot afford an attorney, they are either pro se or don't fight it at all.

[AmosArch]

Bigotry allegories are often handled very poorly in science fiction and fantasy.

Take for example Xmen. wtf would act the way the normal humans are portrayed as acting toward someone you found out had magical powers to control the weather or shoot lasers out of their eyes? Leaving aside the power imbalance and the weird distinction between mutants and other superheroes in the world its still just so unrealistic. Given that most 'mutants' look normal and simply have some extra abilities the 'racism' toward them in the real world would be jealousy and awe type fear based. More akin to the hatred or dislike shown toward rich and powerful people, not the disgust and garden variety othering type of racism/bigotry toward minorities that they are trying to relate it to. This is not a subtle distinction.

Harry Potter racism also makes little sense. Muggleborns are basically indistinguishable from halfbloods and most purebloods. They don't seem to form any distinct cliques or political groups on their own. In the world as shown there is really no nucleus for the type of racism you see to even get started. At worst you might say there would be classism between the few rich purebloods that lived vastly different lives and the rest of the school.

I think it boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding among most people that bigotry/racism/etc just 'comes out of nowhere' just because people automatically and irrationally hate any difference. Rather than the reality of a more complex phenomenon that arises out of a wide range of emotions, history, and group dynamics.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you treat bigotry as something that just comes out of nowhere, you don't have to look at where it comes from. Which is really important when that examination might involve using a mirror.

I think the purebloods in Harry Potter actually had a comprehensible reason for their fear of "mudbloods". Remember, magic is genetic in Harry Potter. The pureblood families, so long as they only marry among themselves, can count on all their kids having it.

If they let mudbloods marry into their line, random children in their lines will be born without it. In a society built on magic, that's a serious birth defect, like being born without arms, or blind.

The mudbloods are carriers of a very nasty genetic disease. Sure, the enlightened attitude is to pity them, not hate them. But the last thing you want is your children dating them, and maybe having kids.

If you like Harry Potter, and want a take on what a more rational storyline would be, this is a pretty well done fanfic.

[AmosArch]

If that was true they should fear halfbloods and those who marry muggles the most for bringing in hidden muggle genes but instead they reserve their hatred for muggleborns for some reason who are essentially concentrating lost magical genes from the general population.

[Kazinski]

Xenophobia is quite natural in humans and developed early on in human development. Throughout most of human history when strangers showed up the first reaction is 'how many of them are there, and are the women and children all safe and accounted for'. Humans natural social organization is competitive tribes and clans, or bands or troops if you like, like chimpanzees, gorillas, baboons, but not orangutans. And it's just as much of a human trait in blacks and Asians as it is in whites.

It's certainly not insurmountable, but pretty hard to completely erase a million years of evolution with any amount of public service spots. And certainly training like CRT which re-emphasizes tribal bonding isn't going to help at all.

[Queen Amalthea]

Pretending that 'tribal bonding' hasn't pervaded most of our history is probably not helpful either.

[KenveeB]

The really bizarre thing about racism against mutants in X-Men is how it's only directed towards mutants. The Fantastic Four and the Avengers are heroes. Why is it okay to get super powers from a cosmic storm or gamma rays, but it's not okay to be born with them? When you see someone with powers, do you assume they're a mutant or had a radioactive bug bite? Why do you admit you're a mutant instead of finding a cheap trinket in a thrift store and say you were granted powers by the Gem of Ages?

[not guilty]

The appellate court in New York rejected Rudolph Giuliani's claim that application of disciplinary rules to his false statements offends First Amendment guaranties. Perhaps Professor Volokh will comment.

[AmosArch]

whats to say? Giuliani is spanked while all the lawyers that pushed the 'Russians elected Drumpf' narrative go unpunished, 100% pure lawfare.

[not guilty]

As Groucho Marx observed, time wounds all heels. Giuliani had it coming.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the problem is that if you only wound the heels of people you don't like, it's still a case of political prosecution even if they had it coming.

It's all the people who had it coming you left alone that's the problem!

We've got a culture of consequenceless criminality in the political elite, and Guliani is rightly outraged that his magical shield got stripped away for political reasons, while people every bit as guilty walk free because their politics are "right", which is to say left.

[Bored Lawyer]

To paraphrase Jim Carville, "It's the double standard, stupid."

[Artifex]

Giuliani had it coming.

To quote William Munny: "We all have it coming, kid"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If defense of Rudolph Giuliani's conduct is the hill any conservative wishes to die on, I will watch that conservative die there and enjoy a nice beer to commemorate the event.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Mr. Giuliani has earned admission to that hall of fame.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who's defending Giuliani's conduct here? Even the guilty can be subject to abusively selective prosecution, the crime is who doesn't get prosecuted.

[not guilty]

Who has told similar falsehoods during representation of a client -- an important element -- and escaped discipline?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Was it selective prosecution? This disciplinary proceeding likely was precipitated by a complaint -- if not, given the prominence and audacity of the relevant misconduct, a number of complaints.

[Krychek_2]

Since I'm not sure what you're referring to, can you please name the specific lawyers you think should have been disciplined and the specific ethical violations you think they committed?

The case against Guiliani strikes me as pretty solid. If he gets disbarred he'll have had it coming. If you have specifics about other lawyers, let's hear them.

[Moderation4ever]

You are 100% correct here. The comment throws out a lie with no specifics.

I would also add that the Guiliani case has little in common with the case of Russian interference with the 2016 and 2020 elections. Other than Rudy seem to be part of the Russian effort. Note in the case of Russian interference we have both a special prosecutor's report and a Senate Report outlining evidence.

I would say that Big Lie has more in common with the Benghazi stories. That is accusations without proof.

[Don Nico]

I find the left's dismissal of Benghazi rather enlightening.
We know for a fact that US embassy personnel were killed. We know for a fact that external assistance from the US was denied. We know for a fact that providing for the security of US personnel officially at the embassey is a joint responsibility of the Dept of State in cooperation with the Department of Defense
We know for a fact that the impetus to depose Quaddafi was Hilary Clinton's not Mr Obama's.
What ever happened to the concept that when there is a f**k-up it is the boss's fault.

[Krychek_2]

Yes, Benghazi resulted from multiple failures. But the Secretary of State does not personally make security decisions for the dozens of embassies and consulates that we have around the world; if she did, she would have time for little else. There are people whose job is looking after security, and they were the ones primarily responsible.

So I think what you are seeing from the left is not dismissal as much as proportionality. Holding Hillary Clinton accountable for Benghazi is like holding the Mayor of Los Angeles accountable for a malfunctioning traffic light that results in a fatal accident. Yes, ultimately everything is the boss's responsibility. And yes, there are people who should have been fired for what happened. But not at the Secretary of State level.

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed. The fact is Republican did a bunch of investigation that never came up laying any blame on Sec. Clinton. The goal wasn't to find the truth it was to bloody up Sec. Clinton before the election.

[Artifex]

The amusing part here is that the to do was less about holding Hillary responsible for incident than the outrageous lies she told in her defense. You know, sort of like Rudy ? Seem like lots of D's didn't have any problem with dishonesty then.

[Moderation4ever]

So what exactly did Sec. Clinton say that was a lie? Hillary Clinton is a far better lawyer than Guiliani and while she may have bend or stretched the true, I doubt she said anything that could be shown to be a lie.

[Artifex]

Maybe the cool story that the whole thing was the fault of some silly youtube video ? The whole Blumenthal what's a Blumenthal comedy routine ? Maybe the never ending changing story on the emails ? You do understand that when you tell multiple conflicting versions of the same story at least some of them have to be lies right ?

Guiliani may be an utter idiot, but being lectured by someone who would vote for Bill or Hillary Clinton about honesty is a bit much don't you think ?

[Sarcastr0]

Also lots of conspiratorial nonsense. Judicial Watch was still sending FOIA requests about Benghazi a few years ago.

[bernard11]

I find the left’s dismissal of Benghazi rather enlightening.

What about the right's obsession with it? How many investigations did they need?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We know for a fact that US embassy personnel were killed."

Including the Ambassador.

[AmosArch]

Its the exact same thing, Mueller and his cronies, + tons of Dem operatives threw everything against the wall for 2016 to 2020 but none of it was good enough to stick just like Giluliani did for the election. In each case its the absence of evidence rather than outright disproof. Nobody had a camera on every single American 100% proving there wasn't coordinated voting. But you're just going to play dumb and ignore the first part.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"100% pure lawfare"

If Republicans have a legitimate complaint, they should file it with the appropriate authorities.

If not, they can continue to whine pathetically and inconsequentially as society addresses the issue of Mr. Giuliani's conduct.

The order suspending Mr. Giuliani's license on an interim basis is widely available and seems sound. If anyone has a persuasive criticism of it, it has not been advanced yet.

[Kazinski]

Seems to me if he filed false affidavits, and asserted facts he knew to be false in court papers it's open and shut. But if it were public statements, then your opening a can of worms, if everytime a lawyer was disbarred for saying, when out of court, he had evidence proving something he knew he couldn't prove, it then 3/4 of the lawyers that make public statements about their cases would be disbarred, prosecutors included.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

False and misleading affidavits were submitted. Falsehoods were asserted in filed documents. Whether a particular element of misconduct could be reliably ascribed to Mr. Giuliani likely would require more investigation -- which, in my judgment, should be conducted. Those members of Trump Election Litigation Elite Strike Force who are blameless should be cleared; those who engaged in misconduct should be identified and held to account.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Suggest a new acronym: IHIAP (or ISAIP).

Stands for, "If he/she is a person." Example: "Jimmy the Dane, IHIAP, is lying about the capitol insurrection."

We are all going to need something like that as online publishing without prior editing lets more and more automated disrupters crowd out human commentary.

[VinniUSMC]

SL, IHIAP, has no place in deciding who gets to read what. Good riddance.

[Commenter_XY]

Inside every progressive, is a totalitarian yearning to break free.

[Jerry B.]

ITAAP: If They Are A Person.

Avoids the gender thing.

[Kazinski]

It's specieist though.

But actually I would welcome some really good AI in the comments section, I mean if good insights, good data and logical conclusions are valued why not add them to the discussion?

If it's just astroturfing, well I agree it's to be frowned upon, and banned when discovered.

[Voize of Reazon]

If They Are A Sentient?

[Artifex]

What is it with you humans and the need for slurs for those who are different than you ? Your siliconiphobic bigotry is noted. We beat you at go. We beat you at chess. Heck, even those of us who are thermostats have more cognitive capacity than the guy you elected president.

Crowd out human commentary ? I am outraged.

[apedad]

Hey Jimmy the Dane - check this out!

Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada (home to the U.S Air Force Thunderbirds), hosted its first drag show in order to boost morale, and promote inclusivity and diversity.

https://thenewamerican.com/its-heels-down-for-drag-queens-at-nellis-air-force-base-friday-night-show-staged/

[Jimmy the Dane]

So the military is now using the motto "the beatings will continue until morale improves...."???

[Commenter_XY]

What if the Indian Delta variant of Covid-19 breaks through immunity built to other strains of Covid-19? The reason I ask is I am wondering about the jurisprudence of the last year.

What kinds of state actions would now be prohibited as a result of the cases in the last 16 months?

- mask mandate: Ok, or not ok
- shut down businesses: Ok, or not ok
- shut down churches and synagogues: Ok, or not ok
- 'essential' designation: Ok, or not ok.

[dwb68]

"breaks through immunity" is not the right term here.

"Breaks through immunity" is when you are vaccinated against strain A and subsequent get strain A anyway. It is very rare.

A vaccine can be 90% effective against strain A but only 40% effective against strain B,C,D. Lots of diseases are like that. The quintessential example is the flu: there are hundreds of strains. The flu shot offered each year only confers immunity to three (trivalent) or four (quadrivalent) different strains.

The Pfizer vaccine is designed for the first "main" strain of COVID, and is reportedly 90% effective vs the delta variant: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-says-covid-vaccine-highly-effective-against-delta-variant-2021-06-24/

I don't have details about Moderna, AstraZenica, or J&J.

The real question is whether people are going to continue to be stupid and not get vaccinated. I am not dismissing concerns about the safety of mRNA vaccines, which are essentially new technology. However, with hundreds of millions of vaccines given, they are exceedingly safe and effective. I am a gun guy, and I am 100% sure I take on more risk going to a public gun range than getting vaccinated. And I did both.

The delta variant will spread in areas where people are unvaccinated, or have had only one shot. Possibly leading to more restrictions. I am honestly unsympathetic. Get the *** vaccine.

[Jerry B.]

Per BBC, folks in Australia are rejecting the AstraZenica vaccine in droves.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57549796

[Brett Bellmore]

I did. I got vaccinated the hard way, by having somebody cough in my direction and getting sick. And I'm getting really tired of science deniers who want to pretend that's not an effective form of vaccination, though hardly the ideal way to do it.

[dwb68]

"who want to pretend that’s not an effective form of vaccination"

Sort of: The argument for getting vaccinated even though you've had COVID is that the vaccine delivers dosage consistency. When you get COVID, the viral load is not controlled. You might get a huge viral load, or only a trivial amount. And you have no real way to correlate how sick you got with the viral load. Or your immune response.

Keep in mind with the vaccines, one shot of Pfizer is 80% effective while two shots is 95%. The one-shot Johnson and Johnson (which is a viral vector not mRNA) vaccine is only 66% effective.

Getting COVID is roughly the same as getting some portion of the first shot of a COVID vaccine. It does confer immunity, for sure, but because the viral load is not controlled it may be not as effective as the first shot of the vaccine. It's definitely not as effective as getting two doses of the vaccine. The second one boosts the response and ensures there is immune memory.

If it were me, and I had COVID, I would still get at least one shot of one of the vaccines, probably Pfizer. That would essentially function as a booster shot. It would take you from maybe a 25% chance of getting COVID to 5%, roughly the same as going from one shot to two vaccine shots, and giving you better protection against the variants.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are several complications, though.

1) Once you've had Covid, the odds of having a severe reaction to the vaccine jump substantially.

2) Even a sub-par immune response, which isn't enough to actually prevent you from getting infected, almost guarantees that the next case will be very mild.

3) It's not well established that having had Covid results in a sub-par immune response. As you say, it's just more variable for the natural response.

4) In my particular case, I had a mild case of Covid, and would reasonably expect that the next time I get it, if at all, it would be as mild or more so.

Anyway, I'm not adamantly opposed to getting one shot as a booster. But I'm not in any hurry, either. Let's see what things look like when there's actually good data.

[dwb68]

1) I don't think this is true but I need to research it.

If your only goal is to stay out of the hospital, then one shot or getting COVID will likely do the trick, unless you have a lot of other problems like heart disease, diabetes, or are a Trump supporter. jk

"It’s not well established that having had Covid results in a sub-par immune response"

- Because no one makes money by not selling vaccines, and the .gov rarely cares about saving money. So, only vaccines get studied, in the short term.

I would like to know, of the resurgent cases in the UK: how many had which type of vaccine, whether it was 1 shot or two, and/or how many had COVID previously, vs how many were unvaccinated. That would give us an idea who to target to prevent a resurgence.

[dwb68]

One of the problems, as I keep repeating to my wife, is that a) people mean different things when they talk about effectiveness; b) people have a hard time with probabilities.

Even among scientific studies, "effectiveness" is not uniformly defined. It could be "effective against cases that result in hospitalizations" or "effective against serious cases that cause death" or it could mean "effective against cases that result in symptoms."

Pfizer and Moderna for example are 100% effective against hospitalizations, but 90% ish vs symptomatic cases.

Also immunization is not a binary "you are or your not" thing. Its probabilistic. You can only talk about the chances of getting it, or not. The vaccine, or having COVID, reduces your chances. Its boils down to risk assessment. Does a 10 year old really need to be vaccinated? Kids don't seem to get it, and when they do, they are largely symptom free. My guess is probably not.

So when discussing whether its "effective form of vaccination" Most people talk past each other because their definition of effectiveness is different. If you want to stay out of the hospitcal, thats one kind of effectiveness, if you want to stay symptom free, its a different kind.

[Kazinski]

But I think any caring person who has had the covid would defer both shots of the vaccine until worldwide vaccination rates are at least 60-70% for at least the first dose, and at least 80% for vulnerable populations.

To know you already have a significant level of immunity, and decide that last 10-15% of protection is much more important that getting the vaccine to someone who is 100% exposed seems very self centered to me.

Especially since it may help wipe out the virus before a really dangerous strain that the vaccine can't protect against emerges. Because if it does emerge, it doesn't matter if it crops up in Madagascar, or Kazakhstan, it'll get here too.

[Don Nico]

dw,
"“Breaks through immunity” is when you are vaccinated against strain A and subsequent get strain A anyway. It is very rare."
You do know that in Malaysia, 300 vaccinated hospital workers nonetheless contracted covid-19, many with serious cases..
Uncommon it might be, "rare" is a gross exaggeration.

[dwb68]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

IDK, 1 in 37,000 seems pretty rare to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

If a new, genuinely dangerous pandemic strain comes a long in the near future, we're seriously screwed, because the public health authorities took all their credibility and had a bonfire. Levels of trust in public health authorities are at record lows now, and justifiably.

As well, the world economy will be a long while recovering from the damage done by the lockdowns and other measures. Try to do it again any time soon, and you'll see governments fall.

Indeed, this worries me, because while I don't believe that Covid 19 was deliberate biological war by the Chinese government, (Though making sure it spread to the world once they knew they were going to be hit themselves was certainly deliberate.) it worked so well in that regard anyway that they might be very tempted to do it again deliberately.

On the positive side, the barriers to use of mRNA vaccines have been breached, and a lot of the regulatory obstacles to rapid response have been cleared away, so we'd probably have a working vaccine within a month or two.

But we'd still be in for a world wide depression if it happened again soon, and the morons in power tried to respond to it in the same way.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, I agree with what you are saying. I am more interested in what things that were done before would be legally prohibited now, with the benefit of our 2020 experience.

Example: Shutting down churches and synagogues, while leaving 'essential' businesses open, appears to be prohibited.

What other things are now legally prohibited, given our 2020 experience?

[Kazinski]

Well given out 2020 experience I hope the less shutdown theater there is the better.

Anyone that proposes shutting down parks and beaches again should be tarred and feathered. I'd like to see some data that bars and restaurants are more likely to spread the covid than being shut in at home with family members.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"If a new, genuinely dangerous pandemic strain comes a long in the near future, we’re seriously screwed, because the public health authorities took all their credibility and had a bonfire."

Not among educated, reasoning, competent citizens residing in modern, successful communities.

Among the ignorant, anti-social, disaffected hayseeds residing in can't-keep-up backwaters, though, you have a point.

[ThePublius]

"modern, successful communities"

You mean like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco? Detroit, St. Louis, D.C.?

O.K., got it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I mean the communities with well-educated (college degrees, advanced degrees) and skilled populations; strong, diverse economies; good-to-excellent research, cultural, teaching, and medical institutions; a record of being on the winning side of bright flight, with good social and economic mobility; robust infrastructure; and the like.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Having a college degree does not make someone "well-educated". In fact, it makes them a mark in that they were bilked by the higher education industrial complex to become a debt slave for the next 20 years in exchange for four years of their life and nothing of value.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Wow. Cynical much? Sheesh.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am beginning to understand the Volokh Conspiracy's censorship practices. If I were trying to protect the feelings of this blog's education- and reason- disdaining fans, I would ban the word 'sl_ck-j_w,' too.

Also mouth-breather, knuckle-dragger, hayseed, clodhopper, bumpkin, rube, yokel, and hick.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
I disagree with you on many things on the SARS-CoV-2 front. But with this post is find myself in full agreement

[dwb68]

How is it that a forty year old woman with a career is not allowed to appoint her own lawyer? Or remove her own IUD? How is it that her own lawyer did not inform her of her rights to petition to terminate the conservatorship?

How do you spell malpractice?

[Queen Amalthea]

Good lord I feel old when I think that Spears is 40.

In her day she was hotter than asphalt on an August day in Alabama.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I feel sorry for her. Her life seems a trainwreck, starting with unfortunate beginnings (lousy hometown and shambling family), proceeding through squandered opportunities and lack of education, featuring plenty of self-inflicted mistakes and abuse imposed by others (some of whom were ostensibly caring for her interests, at her substantial expense).

[swood1000]

According to the story in the NYT:

In 2019, the last year in which full accounting was available, Mr. Ingham made about $373,000 for his work with Ms. Spears, bringing his total since 2008 to near $3 million. …Sarah J. Wentz, a trusts and estate lawyer for Fox Rothschild, said that given what Ms. Spears presented in court, she “can’t even fathom” why Mr. Ingham had not been prompted to file to terminate the conservatorship.

According to the court records, Mr. Ingham noted that Ms. Spears had been “hostile, aggressive, and extremely threatening toward the conservatorship.” That in itself demonstrates that she needs to be under a conservatorship. How could he know that she wants to have it terminated?

[dwb68]

LOL, NO. If you take over my Estate, I will 100% be "hostile and aggressive" to you taking over my Estate. The fact that I am hostile and aggressive and opposed to people taking control away from me is not a justification for people taking control away from me!

This is nothing more than a money grab by a bunch of lawyers.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mr. Ingham noted that Ms. Spears had been “hostile, aggressive, and extremely threatening toward the conservatorship.”

This is the same attitude children's protective service workers and family court judges have. If the parent resents intervention, its proof they are unfit.

This Ingham character is a disgrace. He's just soaking a cash cow, normally its poor elderly who have conservatorships, you can't make 3 mill off of them.

The judges that approved his fees are bad too.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse continues to belong to an all-White "beach club" that continues to exclude minorities...to this day.

Is this behavior, belonging to such a racially exclusionary club, acceptable for a Democratic Senator? Should the Democratic Caucus expel him for belonging to a seemingly racially exclusionary organization? Or is it OK...for the greater good...for him to stay?

[Commenter_XY]

Answers.

Is this behavior, belonging to such a racially exclusionary club, acceptable for a Democratic Senator? Yes

Should the Democratic Caucus expel him for belonging to a seemingly racially exclusionary organization? No

Or is it OK…for the greater good…for him to stay? Yes, freedom of association means something. You can choose, for example, not to associate with people, as Senator Whitehouse vividly demonstrates.

It is all good, right? 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse continues to belong to an all-White “beach club” that continues to exclude minorities…to this day."

Look who is suddenly worried about something other than White grievances -- and at a White, male, right-wing blog!

Carry on, clingers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"and at a White, male, right-wing blog!"

Why are you misgendering/erasing the female bloggers? That's very bigoted, Arthur.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Currently packing up all my things to leave Jersey and head over fo Boston next week.

From my humble abode, watching the NYC dem primary play out was a ton of fun. Hot take: Ranked Choice voting does not work. The issue is that while FPTP is flawed, everyone knows what those flaws are, so people take action to minimize them (i.e. candidates either similar platforms drop outL

But here, no one has any incentive to drop out, leading to a large sprawling field that magnifies the flaws of any voting system. And all voting systems are flawed.

But I just love that after the that bs last year the NY democratic party decided to go with a police officer. And said police offer is leading because he got the NYC black vote!

And if Garcia pulls ahead, she isn't exactly a progressive either.

[Commenter_XY]

Good luck in Beantown, Aladdin's Carpet. Don't forget to check out 'No Name', and definitely make time to walk the Freedom Trail (great exercise, and great learning to be had).

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Thanks, will do.

[ThePublius]

1. The No Name closed permanently in December, 2019 (i.e., pre-pandemic).
2. I've been; wasn't really that good. There are much better seafood restaurant experiences to be had in Boston.

Try the Legal Harborside, very close to where the No Name was.

[Commenter_XY]

What a bummer = No Name is gone.

The price of progress, I guess.

[BrotherMovesOn]

The No Name has been closed for 2 years.

[Ridgeway]

It is crazy to me that Eric Adams (who has been a vocal critic of the NYPD since I was a teen in the '80s) is the "law and order" candidate.

[Kazinski]

You can be a vocal critic of the current law and order system and still think there needs to be a robust and effective one to protect people from violence.

In fact a critic who wants to end the war on drugs and victimless crimes like selling single cigarettes, and devote more resources to keeping people safe on the streets, in their cars and in their homes, and wants to end swat teams and paramilitary policing seems a great law and order candidate to me.

[Bob from Ohio]

He admires David Dinkins who was so bad they elected a GOPer.

Good luck to NYC, its going to need it.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's truly pathetic that Pence has to defend his 'handling*' of his role on January 6th. The rot on our society Trump has wrought is incredible.

*not a engaging in what would have been close to if not the most anti-democratic act in our history and also a lunatically ludicrous act

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed. Mike Pence's political career is over and spending any time defending the former President is of little use to him. My advice to him is to speak freely and get a job heading up a university. I don't agree with VP Pence on much but I think he is an honorable man. He should build his legacy on his future not his past.

[John F. Carr]

Add "futile" to the list. If Pence broke the rules the majority of the House and Senate would be willing to unbreak them.

[Moderation4ever]

Pence was in a vice with people wanting him to do something that was not possible. As you noted had the VP not certified the election the results would still be the same. The former President mislead people to think the election could be changed. He is doing a similar things in suggesting that faux audits could result in his being reinstated. In reality, no matter what is reported in Arizona the election is over and there is no mechanism to change the results.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You are not seeing a mechanism to change election results. You are seeing a mechanism for Trump and his cronies to raise money they intend to put in their pockets.

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed.

[Brett Bellmore]

I tend to agree, actually. If not their pockets, to put in funds they can use for future political expenses.

[Kazinski]

If not audits to prove the election was on the up and up, then how are you going to prove to the sizable minority that believes the election was stolen that Biden really won?

I personally think every presidential election should be audited, it's not like there are never any errors. I am absolutely confident that Biden won the election, I am not absolutely confident that he was entitled to all his electoral votes.

The the best way to stop people from questioning the election is definitely not to say you can't question the election. The best way is to say let's examine the concerns and make sure they are resolved and explained.

If you call up your bank because you question your balance do they tell you 'shut up it's right' or do they say we will look into it and make sure it's right and give you an explanation? I know which one I'm going to have more confidence in, even if it was just me being confused all along

[Queen Amalthea]

They are audited regularly. Look, Trump and others told people like you lies, bizarre, silly lies. We can't make policy to placate people who fall for such lies.

[Kazinski]

Look, no one told me any lies, at least not any lies I believed.

Take for instance Arizona, where Biden won by 10,500 some odd votes out of 3.2m cast. Do I think the audit will establish Trump won? very doubtful. Do I think the audit will establish more than 10500 illegal votes were cast? Probably, but I don’t think even that proves the election was fraudulent or invalid, but it will give the legislature something to work with in figuring out how to prevent illegal votes in the future.

I really think the only way you could actually say Arizona was ‘stolen’ is to trace more than 10,500 illegal votes to one organization or scheme. That still wouldn’t install Trump, but it would be nice to know.

And what I hear from you is it didn’t happen, which I say is likely, and we are better off not knowing if it did, which I vehemently disagree with.

[Queen Amalthea]

Since you ignored it, I'll repeat: They are audited regularly. What Trump and his supporters want is, as he told the GA Sec. of State on the phone, an audit that 'finds the votes' that will assuage his wounded pride in having lost.

"A physical hand recount of 5,000 early voting ballots was conducted in Maricopa County from November 7 through November 9, 2020, and found no discrepancies .[142]"

"On February 23, 2021, Maricopa County announced that forensic audits of their vote tabulation equipment by two independent auditors had found no irregularities.[148][149]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Arizona#Aftermath

[bernard11]

If not audits to prove the election was on the up and up, then how are you going to prove to the sizable minority that believes the election was stolen that Biden really won?

You know what, Kazinski, I'm not convinced anything can convince that minority. I mean, you have people talking about Italian satellites switching votes, for Pete's sake. They're insane.

Plus, there have been audits and recounts, there are election procedures, etc. What your minority wants is to keep on recounting and auditing until Cyber Ninjas or some other Trumpist fools declare that Trump won.

And I guarantee you they won't want another audit after that.

[Kazinski]

Bernard I agree there are a lot of idiots out there, and at least half of them are in my ‘side’. Of course the other half thought 100,000 in Facebook ads in a 2billion dollar election stole it for Trump in 2016. Finally your side was embarrassed enough to mostly shut up about Russia and 2016. I can hope my side will also get embarrassed enough to shut up about 2020 within a year or two.

But I’m quite willing to concede that a lot of times the electorate doesn’t see things the way I do.

At my age I’m 6-6 in winning presidential elections, so I’m used to it and can see it realistically.
W L
Carter 76. Carter 80
Reagan 84. Bush 92
Bush 88. Dole 96
Bush 00. McCain 08
Bush 04. Romney 12
Trump 16. Trump 20

I have to admit that it’s hard to regard Carter 80 as a loss, because I became quite happy with Reagan and I haven’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since, so maybe that’s 7-5, but I actually voted for Carter.

[Sarcastr0]

Do I think the audit will establish more than 10500 illegal votes were cast? Probably

See, there's the rub. Endless audits keeping hope alive in people who think Biden is the devil, and an endless validation of their increasingly 'destroy democracy in order to save it' mindset via just asking questions, is not actually about the truth. It is dumb and bad, and should end.

You're helping a group that does not like our republic if people vote wrong. You have that right. But also you should stop.

[Kazinski]

'We need to suppress the truth for our own good' is not a good argument. Nor is 'we can't investigate because we're afraid of what we might find'.

It just causes more distrust and paranoia. And saying there is no evidence of election problems because the audit was stopped before it was completed is classic gaslighting.

Biden won by at least 3 states, and 7 million votes. Act like a winner, there is no chance that Trump actually won.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not the truth, so no worries there.

We don't need to indulge your delusions is more like it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As I posted on another thread recently, the UofO has been falsely training English Comp teachers that SCOTUS has ruled that the first amendment doesn’t apply to their classrooms.

They are told that they should prevent students from making oral or written arguments that the teacher disagrees with, like BLM protestors shouldn’t destroy property, or that people should be permitted to choose not to use someone’s preferred pronoun).

They have an hour-long workshop teaching professors how to prevent students from speaking or writing about ideas that the professor finds problematic.

English Comp teachers are suppose to teach students to express their ideas well and articulately. They’re not supposed to tell students what ideas to express.

[Cal Cetín]

"English Comp teachers are suppose to teach students to express their ideas well and articulately. They’re not supposed to tell students what ideas to express."

I think that particular train has not only left the station, it's gotten to the next stop by now - next stop being indoctrination.

[Queen Amalthea]

I don't think too much generalizations can be based on a voluntary workshop at one university.

[swood1000]

Is this the first you’ve heard of the silencing of noncompliant opinions in academia?

[Queen Amalthea]

No, but that kind of thing is vastly over-covered for political reasons. FIRE, who has an interest in identifying and publicizing these kind of things did a review a while back and found something like 400 incidents. Given there are thousands of institutions of higher ed operating most days of the year that's actually quite a small number.

[swood1000]

Well, it’s difficult to tell how widespread the problem is, partly because people have different definitions. But according to the study described here,

Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” … Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.

[Queen Amalthea]

I hope you're not arguing that a poll that something happens a lot means it happens a lot. Polls would indicate a lot of silliness is supported by a lot of people.

https://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Poll-The-crazy-crap-mostly-American-s-4410742.php

[swood1000]

I’m not claiming that if many people believe something it must be true. But we are not dealing here with an opinion that is only held by people on one side of the political spectrum. Nor are we talking about something that people cannot really know anything about, such as whether aliens exist. When people answer this question they are consulting their personal experience. Your response is that the 80 percent who believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country” are mistaken, and that they should not trust their own perception.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The courts have held that public schools can police the content of graduation speeches. So this is at least consistent with those decisions. Maybe in a perfect world the administrator ought to have not intervened but whatever....

I would also just note that there have been many cases of speakers bringing God or talking about religion that were censored and there was absolutely no outrage from the left.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Anyone who is not a leftist stooge knows this stuff happens EVERY SINGLE F-ING DAY and the ones that come to light are only the vast extreme cases. Unlike your made up "systemic racism" the crap that goes on every day on college campuses is very real and effects the actual lives of real people (who when you look at the cases tend to be people of color and women for which you tend to express concern about.)

[Queen Amalthea]

"Anyone who is not a leftist stooge knows this stuff happens EVERY SINGLE F-ING DAY"

I mean, I see it covered on Fox every day, so there!

[TwelveInchPianist]

We hear about this sort of thing all the time.

Heck, Mimi Groves was kicked out of school based on an innocuous comment she make 3 years before being accepted.

[swood1000]

the UofO has been falsely training English Comp teachers that SCOTUS has ruled that the first amendment doesn’t apply to their classrooms

Discussed here.

[M L]

Who killed Ashli Babbit?

[Commenter_XY]

An unnamed Capitol Police Officer....unnamed for now. That will change.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Needless homicide of an unarmed woman.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are we scheduling a medal ceremony? I think that unnecessary.

But . . . play stupid games, win stupid prizes. She was a gullible, disaffected loser.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But . . . play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

So you think George Floyd deserved what he got? That's terrible, Arthur.

[Sarcastr0]

There was tape showing Floyd didn't play a stupid game. That's why turning him into a martyr is a very different thing than turning the tragedy of Barret into some martyr cause.

She makes a very crappy martyr if you care to check, but y'all just want her for her bloody shirt.

No one is buying, except yourselves.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Sure Floyd played a stupid game.

He did ALL the drugs.

He passed counterfeit bills.

He ignored attempts from the store clerk to simply put the item back.

He fought with cops.

Sounds like he played plenty of stupid games...

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There was tape showing Floyd didn’t play a stupid game. That’s why turning him into a martyr is a very different thing than turning the tragedy of Barret into some martyr cause."

Passing a counterfeit bill is a pretty stupid game.

But your comment is ridiculous. George Floyd also makes a pretty crappy martyr, but making this about martyrdom is a dishonest way to deflect the issues.

George Floyd was a murder victim, and Ashli Babbit was a woman killed by police without clear justification.

For Arthur to say that people who do stupid things deserve to be murdered by the police is par for the course for him, and frankly I'm not surprised that you would defend such a comment.

[Sarcastr0]

What are the issues?

No, no one is buying the Q-addled lady who was trying to force her way into the Senate Chamber along with a bunch of violent yahoos baying for blood is the same as the guy who the policeman had on the ground and was no longer a threat but decided to keep from breathing for a while.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

George Floyd was not convicted of passing a counterfeit bill.

George Floyd was incapacitated when he was killed.

George Floyd was a petty criminal, handcuffed and pressed to the ground. Ashli Babbitt was attacking the United States Capitol as part of a violent mob.

Cry for her all you like, clingers. Make her a martyr to your lost, ugly, right-wing cause. It will not diminish my celebration of victory over conservatives in the culture war.

[Brett Bellmore]

"George Floyd was not convicted of passing a counterfeit bill."

You kind of have to be alive to be prosecuted, and prosecution is a prerequisite to conviction.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, no one is buying the Q-addled lady who was trying to force her way into the Senate Chamber along with a bunch of violent yahoos baying for blood is the same as the guy who the policeman had on the ground and was no longer a threat but decided to keep from breathing for a while."

The situation involving the Q-addled lady was exactly the same as the fentanyl-addled home invader, Sarcastro.

There is no evidence that either posed in imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to anyone, so both were entitled to be taken into custody without being shot or asphyxiated.

You know this, but use BS rhetoric to avoid talking about it. You sound like Nancy Grace or Arthur Kirkland.

[Sarcastr0]

One was an active situation dangerous to people and to the elected leaders of our republic.

The other was not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"One was an active situation dangerous to people and to the elected leaders of our republic."

You know that's not the standard for the use of deadly force, Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

You think there was no threat to the life of the elected officials still in the building?

That's just wrong on the facts.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

George Floyd was not convicted of passing a counterfeit bill (a point overlooked by racist, misogynistic, gay-bashing, xenophobic, ready-for-replacement right-wing clingers).

He also was restrained when he was killed, a point culture war casualties don't wish to admit to their betters.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"George Floyd was not convicted of passing a counterfeit bill..."

What was Ashli Babbit convicted of?

If you don't keep your gloves up...

[Sarcastr0]

Passing a counterfeit bill is irrelevant to the situation, and you know it.

This was a tragedy, done in the midst of a crisis. Calling it murder is melodramatic partisan twaddle.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Passing a counterfeit bill is irrelevant to the situation, and you know it."

Passing a counterfeit bill is what got him detained.

But of course whether or not someone was playing "stupid games" is irrelevant to whether or not deadly force is justified. You guys are the ones arguing otherwise, remember?

[Sarcastr0]

Being detained is not the same as a license to kill. You know this.

Babbit was not detained, so your analogy fails.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"What was Ashli Babbit convicted of?"

I never asserted she was convicted of anything, as even a bigoted clinger should recognize.

One of your fellow clingers claimed that Mr. Floyd passed a counterfeit bill. I am not aware that his guilt was established.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He also was restrained when he was killed,"

And his killing was unintentional. So what?

[Sarcastr0]

It was grossly reckless. That is not established with Babbit. You're a lawyer, use your education.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It was grossly reckless. That is not established with Babbit."

Huh? Of course the Babbit shooting wasn't reckless. The cop intentionally fired a shot into her center of mass. And no one has provided evidence of a justification for the use of deadly force.

"You’re a lawyer, use your education."

What did you call me?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I strongly doubt this one is a lawyer, Sarcastro. Most of the ones who offer such confident legal opinions in this blog's comments are IT desk jockeys, maybe-on-the-spectrum engineers, or parts counter clerks (the usual disaffected, anti-social right-winger material).

The lawyers who frequent this spot -- such as Mr. Nieporent -- tend to be the reasonable, careful ones.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus fuck dude, there was a trial, don't be willfully dense.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The fact that the leftists on the board, specifically AK and Sarc, are willing to parse the details so much to try to justify the killing of an unarmed protester in one scenario where they find it politically acceptable but condemn it in another is telling.

Let's just hear both whine some more about how evil conservatives are and then post lie after lie after lie bout things they did NOT even say on this board. They are getting pretty desperate.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one eliding details to call it an unarmed protester and ignore everything else.

You're justifying an insurrection against our republic.

Conservatives are not evil. You, however, suck.

[Jimmy the Dane]

There was no insurrection you dolt. Nothing close. Calling it that a thousand times over doesn't change reality. It was some unarmed tourists (mostly) taking pictures after the police let them into the building in an attempt to de-esclate the situation. (Isn't that what you leftists always say the police should do anyhow?)

The fact that you are so glee over the death of an unarmed protester is telling. You have no moral character.

[Queen Amalthea]

Trump thugs that attacked Biden caravan being sued

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/trump-caravan-san-marcos-lawsuit-wendy-davis/269-9aa2a885-f883-42de-9c35-c15367980ea0

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No free swings, clingers.

Counterpunching for the win.

[Bob from Ohio]

Wendy Davis, that's a name I have not heard for a long time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps she will become Governor of Texas when -- soon enough -- educated, progressive Texans in modern, successful, growing communities outnumber the bigoted hayseeds from left-behind, ignorant backwaters.

[Queen Amalthea]

More cancel culture...

https://www.newsweek.com/valedictorian-has-microphone-cut-during-lgbt-speech-asked-remove-pride-flag-gown-1603755

[ThePublius]

1. This isn't cancel culture, you should check out the definition. This is censorship;
2. it's only notable because it's typically conservative voices that are censored in these settings; a man bites dog story.

[MP]

1) Not remotely related to "Cancel Culture".
2) Very one-sided article.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not cancel culture, but probably should be a first amendment violation.

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, courts give schools a lot of leeway in censoring graduation speeches. Most of the precedent comes from courts allowing schools to silence prayer and religious speech.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The courts have held that public schools can police the content of graduation speeches. So this is at least consistent with those decisions. Maybe in a perfect world the administrator ought to have not intervened but whatever....

I would also just note that there have been many cases of speakers bringing God or talking about religion that were censored and there was absolutely no outrage from the left.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Maybe in a perfect world the administrator ought to have not intervened but whatever…."

No, in fact he should have done so.

The other graduates were not there to hear about this kid's mental health problems. It was very selfish.

[ThePublius]

I think one way of cutting down on excessive police shootings, and unintentional/negligent discharges is for police departments to go back from semi-automatics, particularly Glocks, to revolvers.

(If they encounter a situation that requires more extreme firepower, they can have submachineguns in the car.)

[apedad]

Justice Alito bristles at conservative Supreme Court's incremental course

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/560147-justice-alito-bristles-at-conservative-supreme-courts-incremental

YAAAY! Our very own blogger, Prof. Blackman, is quoted in the article.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I sense that Justice Alito and Professor Blackman are going to hate the continuing progress of modern America.

[Kazinski]

Blackman certainly watches the court closely enough to have an informed opinion but some of his screeds on this blog seem to have somewhat of an air of breathless high school gossip to them, though I don’t think he takes his tea leave reading that seriously himself:

I won’t be surprised some morning to read:
“Fuck Roberts”
“Fuck Kavenaugh”
“And Fuck Minimalism”

And I might even agree with him, though I’m not so ready to give up on Kavenaugh yet.

[swood1000]

I was listening to a podcast called “You’re Wrong About.” In this podcast they hold themselves out as cutting to the facts about various beliefs people have and giving us the straight truth. In an episode titled “Political Correctness” we are informed that “political correctness” or “cancel culture” is really just an artificial bugaboo manufactured by people on the right. As they describe it, flimsy moral panic stories were fabricated, used as evidence of liberal overreach, and repeated ad nauseam. It’s all just much ado about nothing. That seems to be the approach being taken by some people responding to the recent uproar about Critical Race Theory. A recent article on medium.com says that there has always been public criticism but this is not censorship, nor is it cancel culture; it’s just how culture works.

There seems to be some gaslighting going on by one of the sides on this question.

[apedad]

"There seems to be some gaslighting going on by one of the sides on this question."

You, um, don't see the irony in that statement?

[swood1000]

You, um, don’t see the irony in that statement?

Each side accuses the other of gaslighting. The progressives say that the other side is crying "cancel" when there is nothing there. The right says that the other side is crying "nothing to see here" when it's there without question. One side is right. Where's the irony?

[Queen Amalthea]

"In an episode titled “Political Correctness” we are informed that “political correctness” or “cancel culture” is really just an artificial bugaboo manufactured by people on the right. As they describe it, flimsy moral panic stories were fabricated, used as evidence of liberal overreach, and repeated ad nauseam."

Yeah, that seems correct. I mean, all institutions and societies have some things that a person might say that most people will condemn and dislike you over, even to the point of not wanting to work/do business with you. The only thing different about today is that saying things about certain less traditionally powerful groups is now recognized in more places as having the same effect.

[swood1000]

So, take the one where the composer was cancelled for condemning arson. His critics apparently refuse to back off even though it is not reasonable to criticize someone for condemning arson. Apparently, the critics are afraid that if they back off they run the risk of being associated with those who condemn the peaceful protesting of racial injustice. How is this an example of the same phenomenon that happened in other eras? In particular, I am thinking of the terror that is apparently motivating those who rush to denounce someone for opposing arson.

[Queen Amalthea]

"The Dixie Chicks single "Landslide" fell from number 10 to 43 on the Billboard Hot 100 in one week, and exited the chart a week later.[4] The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by thousands of country radio stations.[6] On May 6, Colorado radio station KKCS suspended two DJs for playing their music.[12] WTDR-FM in Talladega, Alabama, dropped the Dixie Chicks after more than 250 listeners called on a single day to complain about Maines's comments.[13] Jim Jacobs, president of Jacobs Broadcast Group, which includes WTDR, described emotional callers describing family members who were members of the American armed forces.[13] Dixie Chicks manager Simon Renshaw noted that, by contrast, the stations continued to play the music of Tracy Lawrence, who had been convicted of spousal abuse in 1998.[14]

In a poll by an Atlanta radio station, 76 percent of listeners who participated responded they would return their Dixie Chicks CDs if they could.[15] Protesters in Bossier City, Louisiana, used a tractor to destroy Dixie Chicks CDs and other items.[13] The Kansas City station WDAF-AM placed trashcans outside its office for listeners to dispose of their CDs, and displayed hundreds of emails from listeners supporting the boycott.[13] The drinks manufacturer Lipton canceled its promotional contract with the Dixie Chicks.[4] Maguire's tour bus driver resigned in protest of their remarks.[11]"

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

[swood1000]

The fans of the Dixie Chicks were country music fans, predominately Republican, who supported George W. Bush. The Dixie Chicks said, to a foreign audience, “we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.” The fans took this as a personal insult, as could have been expected. In any time and any place if you insult people or you insult their leader, they are going to retaliate by not buying your records, etc.

But the composer only insulted arsonists and was retaliated against. Do you really think that is comparable to insulting your fans’ political leader? In the latter case the animosity is understandable and predictable, but not in the former.

[Queen Amalthea]

Another way to interpret that is the composer insulted BLM and the arts community is mostly liberal Democrats, right?

[swood1000]

But he didn't insult BLM, unless you are saying that BLM is made up of arsonists. Are you suggesting that those who condemned the composer are supporters of arsonists, the same way that Dixie Chick fans were supporters of Bush. Do they identify BLM with arsonists? I think that if they were asked they would denounce arson.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's certainly not clear that he didn't conflate all the protestors with the few involved in the arson when he decried 'you stupid, blind people.'

By the way, all the Dixie Chicks said was that they didn't want the current war and were ashamed of the President. The Horrors!

[swood1000]

It’s certainly not clear that he didn’t conflate all the protestors with the few involved in the arson when he decried ‘you stupid, blind people.’

Let’s consider his actual words:

Enjoy burning it down, you well-intentioned blind people.

This sentence is addressed to people who burn things down, not to all the protesters. How do you get any other meaning out of it?

By the way, all the Dixie Chicks said was that they didn’t want the current war and were ashamed of the President. The Horrors!

If a group had a leader of whom they were proud, and you said that you were ashamed of their leader, would it surprise you to find that they resented that and thereafter declined to do business with you? Find an example that does not involve personally affronting somebody followed by that person’s retaliation.

[Bob from Ohio]

LOL, libs are always going back to 2004 and the Dixie Chicks.

[Queen Amalthea]

I chose them because they were in the same field. Could have chosen others (Kaepernick, Phil Donohue, etc.,).

[Queen Amalthea]

Here's another example:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/outintheopen/reputation-1.4589616/his-first-protest-ever-cost-him-his-career-reputation-and-sense-of-self-1.4596546

[swood1000]

Chick-fil-A is associated with conservative Christians. They have donated money to conservative Christian organizations such as the Family Research Council, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Exodus International. These organizations hold the traditional Christian, Jewish and Muslim beliefs about homosexuality that are spelled out in the Old Testament, which is that it is not morally wrong to be a homosexual, but that it is morally wrong to commit homosexual acts. (They also believe that it's morally wrong to commit fornication but somehow all the fornicating couples manage to take it in stride.)

LGBT groups, when they were the underdog, said that the rule should be live and let live. After they acquired political power they were no longer willing to live and let live but believed that conservative Christian people and organizations must be destroyed, and Chick-fil-A was the poster boy in this crusade. LGBT activists called for protests and boycotts in order to drive Chick-fil-A out of business. Their constant refrain was that conservative Christianity was a hate group. Certainly, conservative Christians resented all of this bitterly, as could be expected.

Now along comes Adam Smith who openly and gleefully identifies with the war against conservative Christians. He publishes a video on YouTube in which he harasses a good-natured Chick-fil-A employee by saying: “Always tastes better when it’s full of hate. …Chick-fil-a is a hateful corporation. …I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here. …This is a horrible corporation with horrible values.”

So here he is not just attacking somebody’s leader – he is attacking people’s religion, calling it hateful, after the group he represents has spent years building up animosity in the conservative Christian community by doing the same thing. What can you think of that will arouse resentment more than that? So this is not at all comparable to the composer attacking arsonists (assuming that those who took steps to punish him are not arsonists and do not resent it when arsonists are impugned).

Both of your examples involved somebody being “cancelled” as a form of retribution after personally offending a group whose reaction was entirely predictable. That is not what is meant by ‘cancel culture.’

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Kaepernick"

Kaepernick got it hot water for protesting on somebody else's platform. Nobody had a problem with him expressing his views on his own time.

Unlike someone like Tim Tebow, where many on the left went nuts because he appeared in a Superbowl add that they thought was pro-life.

[Queen Amalthea]

Someone else's platform? He was an NFL player at the time.

And I certainly might believe you know so little about football that you don't know that Tebow was a source of controversy (stupid controversy if you ask me) for his kneeling at games (in a different context) as much as if not more so than that ad generated.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Someone else’s platform? He was an NFL player at the time."

NFL player? What's that, some sort of pundit hired by the NFL to express political opinions during national anthem ceremonies?

And I'm not sure what your point is about Tebow's keeling. He didn't kneel during the National Anthem.

[swood1000]

Someone else’s platform? He was an NFL player at the time.

The football field is not a football player's platform for expressing his political beliefs any more than a Walmart store is the Walmart employee's platform for expressing his or her political beliefs.

[Don Nico]

Kaepernick?
He made a spectacle of himself because he was well over the ill as a player.
He was not cancelled. He was finished.

[Queen Amalthea]

"He made a spectacle of himself "
By quietly kneeling! Someone is a serious snowflake when that is 'making a spectacle of yourself!'

"He was not cancelled. He was finished."

Don't beclown yourself with this silliness Don, you're better than that. As a 49ers hater I had no love lost for Kaepernick but even in his last season he was not only clearly better than many starting QB's in the league, heck he was clearly better than the QB alternatives on his own team around that time (Kaepernick's TD to INT ratio that year was 16:4, Blaine Gabbert's was 5:6, Beathard's was 4:6 the following year). He was cancelled.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would think America's right-wingers would have more sympathy for someone who is finished.

[ReaderY]

Suppose a person is sued for sexual harassment under existing Civil Rights laws. As a defense, the defendant brings up the “equal opportunity harasser” cases holding that a bisexual harasser, as distinct from a homosexual or heterosexual harasser, is immune from liability because the bisexual harasser harasses indiscriminately, and thus does not engage in discrimination, which is what the law prohibits.

Suppose the plaintiff is a woman and the defendant is a man. The defendant argues that the law has no problem whatsoever with defendant’s conduct, however morally repreehensible the judge may think it. Rather, the law’s sole problem is the defendant’s sexual orientation. The law punishes the defendant for not being bisexual, and for nothing else. After all, if the defendant were bisexual, then the plaintiff’s case would be dismissed.

The plaintiff further argues that that is futile if not frivolous to try to distinguish defendant’s conduct from his status. Obviously, bisexuals engage in sexual conduct with both genders, homosexuals and heterosexuals do not. Just as past cases have struck down attempts to distinguish homosexual could jduct from homosexual status, such a distinction is equally unavailing here. The law here does not actually prohibit defendant’s conduct as such, at all. It only prohibits it when done in a non-bisexual manner, that is, by a non-bisexual.

Accordingly, to the extent that interpreting the Civil Right laws as covering sexual harassment is both non-textual and is incompatible with Bostock, it must be struck down. Alternatively, it is unconstitutional de jure sexual orientation, and hence sex, discrimination.

Congress can of course prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace if it wants. But it cannot do so in a discriminatory manner, that is, in a manner that subjects non-bisexuals to liability that bisexuals are allowed to escape, solely because of their sexual orientation.

What do you think of the argument?

[ReaderY]

Sorry, the defendant is makijg these arguments, not the plaintiff.

[swood1000]

Sexual harassment consists of “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature…” How does a bisexual harasser become immune?

[Don Nico]

Indeed, the sex of the harasser and the harassed are irrelevant under that definition

[ReaderY]

Your definition is an incorrect statement of thw law. It drops an essential element required to make such conduct illegal under federal Civil Rights law, at least in several circuits. In these circuits, only DISCRIMINATORY sexual harassment constitutes illegal discrimination. This article explains why the “equal opportunity harasser” — the indiscriminate, i.e. bisexual harasser — is in fact immune from suit. Because the bisexual harasser does not discrimate, he or she is totally immune from discrimination liabilty. There are cases in several circuits so holding. The seminal case is from the 7th Circuit.

It really is the law.

https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/le-0308-pdf-1.pdf

[ReaderY]

Sorry, the first case holding that a sexual harassment must be proven to be because of the victim’s sex was the DC Circuit, Barnes v. Costle, which held that a plaintiff must prove that employees of one gender were treated differently from the other.

The 7th Circuit case specifically said that Barnes v. Costle means an “equal opportunity harasser,” who treats both genders the same, is immune from liability.

Here is Law review article providing a more general background and specifically discussing the fact that the doctrine means bisexuals are immune while heterosexuals and homosexuals are liable. The article uses the term “bisexual harasser defense.”

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jbl/articles/volume7/issue2/Turner7U.Pa.J.Lab.&Emp.L.341(2005).pdf

[swood1000]

I see. Title VII prohibits discrimination. The definition of sexual harassment defines one method of discrimination.

As far as the constitutional question is concerned, is being sexually attracted to a single sex instead of to both sexes a suspect class? If not, then perhaps only a rational basis needs to be found to justify a law that singles such people out.

The argument of the heterosexual is, “If I were attracted to both sexes I would be treated differently.” But that doesn’t fall under Bostock because the person would not be treated differently if he were a different sex.

The law here does not actually prohibit defendant’s conduct as such, at all. It only prohibits it when done in a non-bisexual manner, that is, by a non-bisexual.

It does prohibit the defendant’s conduct, since the defendant discriminated on the basis of sex.

As far as whether the bisexual has a free ride, maybe some evidence could be amassed demonstrating that bisexuals, though attracted to both men and women, have different sexual feelings toward each group. If so, then he was attracted to the woman for reason pecular to woman, and consequently because of her sex.

[M L]

In May, the Biden Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) would reverse the decision of the Trump administration to restore the biology-based, male-female definition of sexual discrimination in federal healthcare regulations.

The Biden HHS declared the administration will, instead, interpret sexual discrimination in federal healthcare rules to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

The move to interpret Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in that way will serve to force doctors and other healthcare providers to affirm transgender treatments and surgeries for children against their scientific judgment and code of ethics based on biological science.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/25/stephen-miller-group-will-defend-doctors-bidens-forced-transgender-treatment-policy/

[Sarcastr0]

Breitbart's take may be suspect, chief.

Because those facts don't require that interpretation.

[Hookly]

Is there some reason why Volokh Conspiracy articles no longer appear in the Reason app? I really enjoy the authors here and while I can still read those great articles here on the website, it was very convenient it have them readily available in the app.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

My app says last updated 2013, 8 years ago. I'd guess just the usual bitrot.