Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
8.12.2021 7:18 PM
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
NEXT: Justice Barrett Refuses to Block Indiana University's Student Vaccination Requirement
Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA. Naturally, his posts here (like the opinions of the other bloggers) are his own, and not endorsed by any educational institution.
Hide Comments (575)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and
on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post
them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any
comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
My primary thought is: What do I win for posting first?
An upvote in the form of = 🙂
Check out my paper “Lockdowns as Takings”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3567003
Thanks Professor….I will do that. The abstract was interesting.
My pleasure! I tried to present my arguments in a way that could appeal to both “left libertarians” and to traditional Lockeans…
Legal Insurrection has a kinda one sided but telling thread about seemingly discovery violations, or at least slow walking Brady stuff
If half of what they claim is true as one of the commenters put it
“So I guess the prosecution will be revising charges on these insurrectionists from “parading” to “parading with intent to fist bump”?”
It will be interesting to see how long the prosecution can drag it’s feet and what will happen if Deloitte Financial Advisory Services who is being paid a little over six mill to set up a data base of the discovery stuff drags it’s feet.
So far the DOJ has stated in court they have
“images of officers hugging or fist-bumping rioters, posing for photos with rioters, and moving bike racks, we are not in a position to state whether we have identified all such information” (emphasis is mine).”
Some sources are saying the trials for the 1/6 guys may not happen till after the 2022 election.
Three weeks in jail for entering an area the POLICE LET HIM INTO….
And then they tried to deny him bail, because…
“THE COURT: All right. And so — I want to be clear about the basis for the Government’s seeking pretrial detention here …. So if I’m understanding the Government’s position correctly, you think that Mr. Griffin presents a serious risk of flight because of his statements which the Government’s interpreting as basically being anarchist, not believing in the Government at all; do I have that pretty much right?
PROSECUTOR: Yes. That’s pretty much correct, yes.
THE COURT: And there is also no allegation …. that he damaged any federal property, that he injured or risked injuring another person because of his conduct on January 6th, and certainly didn’t have a weapon to do so on January 6th; is that right?
PROSECUTOR: Yes. That’s correct.”
At what point do we bring up the prosecutors and DoJ officials who make these decisions for abuse of authority and imprisoning free Americans who have done nothing wrong…except listen to the police.
Nothing in your quoted portion says the police let him into the area.
Sigh….read the linked article.
There are so many abuses of the DoJ here, I can’t list them all…
I did. Do you just accept as fact anything you read on the Internet?
Even if some police officers welcomed the rioters (which I’m not agreeing happened), that has nothing to do with the other police officers who were assaulted, threatened, beaten, and put in fear of their lives. Or the millions of dollars in property damage. Or the damage to our democratic system.
This was not a simple trespass. This was a coordinated attempt to disrupt the election certification. Stop trying to treat it as a minor frolic.
“Even if some police officers welcomed the rioters (which I’m not agreeing happened)
Take a look…
Then they imprison the very protestors the let in?
You mean the people who were part of the mob that was assaulting police officers, destroying property and trying to disrupt the certification of a democratic election?
You didn’t look at the video did you… A bunch of people peacefully entering the area the police remove the barricades from.
The people who aren’t assaulting anyone. Not destroying anything. And in the case above, didn’t even enter the Capitol building.
Check out the sworn testimony of the Capitol Police.
Your one video clip is not really generalizable. As we’ve gone over many times before. There is plenty of videos, and not testimony, and affidavits, all showing that.
Your understanding of how crappy our justice system treats people would be good, if you didn’t apply it only to your people.
Anyhow, this discussion isn’t new. You haven’t had anything new to say for at least a month.
I did watch the video. As Sarcastro points out, one single video does not cancel out all of the other videos and sworn testimony that are to the contrary.
Did you read that the DoJ hasn’t been releasing all the other videos?
““images of officers hugging or fist-bumping rioters, posing for photos with rioters, and moving bike racks, “
Right, it’s a massive conspiracy. Elvis had JFK killed, too, because of jealousy over Marilyn Monroe.
It’s not a “conspiracy” if that’s what the prosecutors themselves are saying in court filings. Seriously, look at this with a critical eye. Pretend they were Kav protestors, being arrested and jailed for weeks for being on the Capitol steps, without a trial.
“[W]e are not in a position to turn over the universe of information we possess for Defendant to review. Although we are aware that we possess some information that the defense may view as supportive of arguments that law enforcement authorized defendants (including Defendant) to enter the restricted grounds, e.g., images of officers hugging or fist-bumping rioters, posing for photos with rioters, and moving bike racks, we are not in a position to state whether we have identified all such information” (emphasis is mine).
Seriously, look at this with a critical eye.
I admire your optimism, misplaced though it might be.
In other news, the FBI still considers “DB Cooper” to be a criminal, even though the airline’s cabin crew let him walk onto the airplane.
“You mean the people who were part of the mob that was assaulting police officers, destroying property and trying to disrupt the certification of a democratic election?”
is the building still standing? Were they able to vote *that day*?
The British only had 4,500 people when they burned the Capitol on August 24, 1814 — and they had neither gasoline nor matches. Trump had 30,000 people and the worst that happened were a few broken windows.
Look at this a different way — how much damage have the BLM protests caused? Don’t you think they could actually have done some damage if they’d wanted to?!?
This was a rowdy frat party — not appropriate, but not an apocalypse either — and Pelosi needs to be asked some serious questions about where all the cops were and why the building was so woefully unprepared.
There’s a huge excluded middle between ‘didn’t burn down the Capitol’ and ‘were peaceful.’
But you supported what they did, Ed, so why are you saying they didn’t do it?
We have an 8th Amendment for an issue — we don’t execute people for jaywalking.
And we don’t call in helicopter gunships to deal with BLM protesters.
“We have an 8th Amendment for an issue — we don’t execute people for jaywalking.”
Actually, sometimes we do. And sometimes people who aren’t even jaywalking. There were some protests about that a while back. You might have heard about it.
A young woman named Breonna Taylor was executed for jaywalking, in her own apartment. She threatened police officers by having darkly-colored skin without a permit.
“This was a rowdy frat party” Ed, I’d tell you to get real, except that there is no chance of that.
Wondering just how many frat parties you have been to. Asking for a friend.
Don clearly has never had to deal with the paperwork *after* a rowdy frat party.
So much for his purported expertise in higher education….
Bot and Ed, Your questions are irrelevant. but maybe the parties were worse i the 1950s. Still I doubt that even back in ancient times 4 campus cops ever committed suicide after helping get a frat party under control.
“Still I doubt that even back in ancient times 4 campus cops ever committed suicide after helping get a frat party under control.”
Police officers tend to commit suicide when they find their orders to be morally reprehensible and — to the extent the four suicides are relevant — they indicate that the officers felt that what they did to the mostly peaceful protesters was reprehensible.
And frat parties in the 1950s were far more rowdy — I’ve heard of trains running on tracks near Amherst College being covered in purple paint (the school’s color) and the William’s College mascot being stolen and placed on a railroad flatcar on a train that went by Williams College during a certain football game.
Take the latter in today’s reality — if the officer suicides are relevant, they mean the exact opposite of what you purport they do.
So if you shoot at someone, but miss, you haven’t done anything wrong?
That the coup attempt failed does not excuse the who tried it.
The only people firing weapons were the cops…
” Trump had 30,000 people and the worst that happened were a few broken windows.”
… and some potty-training failures among the unruly children.
Unless to consider the poor potty training among the Trump faithful to be a problem.
“Look at this a different way — how much damage have the BLM protests caused?”
None. The riots after the protests, on the other hand, were quite expensive.
Sure, but what do the actions of these other people have to do with a guy who seems to be charged with trespassing and the prosecution admits never damaged property or attacked anyone else? Why is their conduct relevant to his bail?
Because AL’s implication is that the riot was really just a bunch of people touring the Capitol, and that’s just not the case.
It was mostly peaceful.
Armchair, once inside the guarded perimeter of the capitol, none of it was peaceful. It was concerted violence to block the certification of an election. Nobody went inside the capitol thinking it was a normal tourist trip. Nobody failed to notice the tear gas, or to understand its significance was that the capitol was being defended against them.
The root of your misunderstanding—assuming you are not lying deliberately—is apparently that you saw some folks who seemed so blasé that they thought their violent insurrection was legitimate, so they could tour and gawk as they made history. That is an aggravation of their offense, not an excuse for it.
“It was mostly peaceful.”
Tell that to Mike Pence, who was to be hanged if caught. Peacefully, of course. For the crime of knowing how elections work.
Because AL’s implication is that the riot was really just a bunch of people touring the Capitol
Not it wasn’t. Learn to distinguish the difference between someone else’s implication and your voices-in-your-head-based inferences.
Can someone let Wuz’s owner know he’s barking again and needs to be whacked on the head with a newspaper?
Those little yappy dogs are the worst.
Maybe. But it would be the first time that AL’s comment was actually good faith discussion and not just partisan polemics.
But it would be the first time that AL’s comment was actually good faith discussion
Perhaps…but that’s utterly irrelevant with regard to my comment.
“that’s utterly irrelevant with regard to my comment.”
Seems fair to respond to an irrelevant comment with another irrelevant comment.
K-2, You are wasting your time, trying to discuss with AL. He never admits to any flaw in his arguments or point of view. He will never thank you for granting him any small point. It is just a relentless, “Me, me, me.”
Of course, but my intended audience is not AL. It’s the people who read AL, don’t actually think through what he’s saying, and assume he’s right.
Funny statement coming from you…
I remember an argument a while ago that it was more likely than not that COVID leaked from a Chinese Lab. And you absolutely positively assured me that couldn’t possibly be the case.
I said no such thing. I said I considered it highly implausible, but that’s not the same thing as absolutely positively. If you’ve got any evidence, I’ll be glad to look at it, but try not to hijack this thread in the process.
I wasn’t responding to you Krychek…
Don Nico – so your contention is that since AL has not admitted to any flaw in his arguments or POV, his quoting of current actual court documents and posting a video of something that actually happened should be dismissed out of hand?
What kind of specious BS is that?
Either this stuff happened or it didn’t.
It is not that he has not. He never, ever on any topic. I have never seen anything approaching a good faith discussion from him. It is always the partisan polemics inspired by the Orange Clown. I was not born yesterday. but if you were and if you like to swallow his BS. Bully for you. You’re welcome to it.
Don lost a few arguments, and is now holding a grudge.
I expect that our rapid partisan polemicist objects. But I don’t care see what he says. When I see many other say that he is a spirited by open-minded debater, I may change my mind.
good luck with that.
“millions of dollars in property damage”
An impressive lie.
And I know the Capitol Architect said as much. He was lying too.
Bob, A million dollars in property damage is pretty easy to rack up these days. Wasn’t that how BLM accumulated such figures?
Got to wonder how much deferred maintenance (not to mention regular maintenance) was bundled into that figure….
I’ve seen universities do that…
Crapping on the floor needs to be cleaned up now, there’s no deferring that (OK, maybe at your house you have a different policy)
How do you know he was lying?
Did you assess the damage yourself? Or did Tucker Carlson say so?
The rule is, he doesn’t want it to be true, so it isn’t. End of debate.
The histrionics behind the capitol hill event are becoming absurd. In just six months it has developed a bombastic mythos complete with villains, super hero cops, a supposed attempt to overthrow the government, and all the other just pieces of straight up fiction.
What we seem to have had was a Mostly Peaceful Insurrection
By all accounts it was a mostly peaceful protest. Seriously, once the thousands of hours of video finally get dumped by government that is going to be the takeaway.
I don’t envy the prosecutor that is sitting on the video of a police officer nicely asking people to leave and THEY DO IT. Or the video that shows people kneeling and praying without doing much else as tear gas is lobbed into their general vicinity. Or of the generally festive nature that was most of the crowd outside of the few carefully curated video cuts of some challenging a police line.
It won’t surprise me if all these prosecutions quietly fizzle this Fall. With the midterms looking tougher and tougher for the Dems they don’t need political prisoners in the mix taking their cases to trial.
The longer any of the defendants are in solitary the longer they look like political prisoners.
Don Nico, do you suppose insurrection is not a political crime? If there are political crimes, why not expect political prisoners?
I get that the term is in bad odor, because it has so often been used in propaganda. But must prosecutors ignore the essential nature of certain crimes for that reason, because we cannot say forthrightly that offenders are on trial, first and foremost, for a political crime? Seems like down that road you get encouragement for insurrectionists, by restricting their sentences to the incidental misdemeanors they happen to commit while trying to overthrow the government.
We have actual political prisoners. They’re in Cuba.
“By all accounts it was a mostly peaceful protest. Seriously, once the thousands of hours of video finally get dumped by government that is going to be the takeaway.”
Well, that will certainly be the takeaway from the motivated “thinkers” who desperately want to reach that conclusion.
There wasn’t an insurrection at all.
In the same way that there wasn’t any collusion with Russia. There wasn’t, but not for lack of trying.
“The histrionics behind the capitol hill event are becoming absurd. ”
Becoming? That whole fiasco was absurd starting on January 6, and would have to move upward to get back to just being “absurd”.
The lesson of January 6 is that you do not want to have incompetents in charge of your government, or in charge of your effort to overthrow your government.
“[W]e are not in a position to turn over the universe of information we possess for Defendant to review. Although we are aware that we possess some information that the defense may view as supportive of arguments that law enforcement authorized defendants (including Defendant) to enter the restricted grounds, e.g., images of officers hugging or fist-bumping rioters, posing for photos with rioters, and moving bike racks, we are not in a position to state whether we have identified all such information”
Ah, so since you haven’t identified EVERY LAST SCRAP of potential Brady material, you’re just going to withhold what you know you have instead of engaging in a typical rolling production, because…. well, right.
Certainly wouldn’t want any of these super-dangerous defendants to file any problematic motions and spoil all your fun while you’re continuing to keep the dramatic music playing in the press.
The prosecutors here have to know what is going to be the inevitable conclusion. They overcharged a bunch of peaceful protesters, some of which were actually invited into the capitol which was a (successful) way to deescalate the situation. Then because the media went into a blood frenzy screaming INSURRECTION!!!!! they decided it would be a good idea to hold anyone charged as a political prisoner without bail.
Their issue is that they actually believed this farcical tale and made initial policy decisions based upon that. The problem is reality is hard to bend when the entire thing was the subject of 1000’s of hours of raw video which the prosecutors seem to have most of in their possession. And that eventually gets you into trouble.
Now they have a few dozen being held without bail and some judges not having the patience to sit back and be part of the whole ruse anymore. The cases are going to start crumbling, which I think they already have, and the DoJ will save face by getting as many plea agreements as possible, dropping major charges, and trying to just make this go away. All before it completely blows up in their face.
“DoJ will save face by getting as many plea agreements as possible” Postponing trial dates as long as possible with that charge being held without bail, some in solitary confinement is an attempt to do just that. It is a grossly authoritarian tactic trying to masquerade itself as justice and concern for full sharing of information with the incarcerated defendants. Every day of postponement, gives an ever greater appearance that these are political show trials.
It’s time to give folks their day in court.
The grandmother they made plea out for time served was going to cause the prosecution a big headache. She had been held already for the maximum sentence for the crime charged. Besides it raising the question if we really need to deny someone bail who is facing a maximum sentence of six months, it would have legally complicated the case since she had effectively served the penalty already.
It seemed like she just wanted out of jail though so was happy to walk with the misdemeanor slap on the wrist. I suspect others after sitting in solitary for half a year won’t hesitate either. But, some of those people are going to make the point and drag it out to trial. Or even democrat appointed federal judges have their tolerances and they will start pushing the DoJ to make these disappear.
She had been held already for the maximum sentence for the crime charged.
Jimmy thinks they should only do that to black people.
Jimmy, what will happen when the whole thing implodes? Can these people then ask for their plea deals to be vacated?
ask? yes. Can they be laughed at? yes, again.
Can plea deals be revisited after the whole charade implodes?
I’m not up and up on federal criminal procedure, but generally no. I guess you always have the constitutional claim of actual innocence that could be brought. Maybe also if you could show the deal was only signed because of gross misconduct and true duress a judge might vacate the plea. Generally though unless you preserve something for appeal in a plea bargain that is the end of the road.
The funny thing about claims of actual innocence after a plea of guilty is that you have to produce new evidence that wasn’t available to you at the time of your initial conviction.
which was a (successful) way to deescalate the situation
This is called an “admission contrary to interest.”
A concept that either you don’t understand or are hoping the rest of us don’t. (Step 1 in recognizing that would be attempting to articulate the “interest.”)
What was there to deescalate in this peaceful protest?
Mike Pence was free to walk the streets! Nancy Pelosi had a podium! Donald Trump lost an election! Take your pick.
The part that wasn’t mostly, natch. Next?
A concept that either you don’t understand or are hoping the rest of us don’t. (Step 1 in recognizing that would be attempting to articulate the “interest.”)
His interest is in establishing that the insurrection was peaceful. But if it was — if these were just, in Trumpkin terms, tourists — then there was nothing to “deescalate.”
The fact that Jimmy admits that cops were trying to “deescalate” is a concession that it was in fact not peaceful.
Are you tying to use facts and rational thought processes against people who think the attempted insurrection was a peaceful gathering of unarmed patriots?
This attempt is doomed to fail.
Exactly WHY are they “not in a position to turn over the universe of information” they possess?
1: This is the US Capitol, a building whose plans are not only a matter of public record but in many high school textbooks.
2: Any security plans, e.g. deployment of officers, were so badly flawed that they inherently have been replaced with new ones.
3: What authority does the prosecution have to determine what information is or isn’t helpful to the defense when it has been requested by the defense — isn’t Brady more about stuff that the defense doesn’t know about while in this case they *know* there are lots of videos.
4: As (presumably) all of this is digitally recorded, there really is no burden in providing copies of everything.
So why the hell can they justify not doing this? And why can’t defense move for dismissal due to misconduct?
I know the answer to these questions, but in a quixotic effort at generating a productive discussion:
Did you actually read the motion under discussion? Based on reading it, what do you think the respective positions of the government and the defense are with respect to disclosure of this material?
Ah, so since you haven’t identified EVERY LAST SCRAP of potential Brady material, you’re just going to withhold what you know you have instead of engaging in a typical rolling production, because…. well, right.
Did you actually read the whole motion? Because if that’s your takeaway of what the government was asking for, it doesn’t seem like you read the whole motion.
Why should Ed read? He knows it all already
The shameful secret he hides away is that Special Ed can’t read. They just kept passing him year after year to try to get rid of him, and he wouldn’t leave.
I’m curious to understand what folks like ragebot, Armchair Lawyer and Jimmy the Dane thought about issues like bail reform or prosecutorial abuses prior to January 6th, and similarly how they’ll think about it as soon as these folks’ cases have been resolved.
Overcharging, holding people in jail who aren’t much of a threat, and prosecutorial malfeasance w/r/t discovery have been significant problems in the legal system for a long time. But somehow now that some white dudes who have political opinions that match their own are exposed to these problems, now it’s the sort of thing that urgently needs reform. It will be nice if this addresses true skepticism about these problems in the system, but mostly it feels like something that isn’t even acknowledged as an issue outside of these handful of cases.
I’ve mentioned this before.
The Bail Reform Act was a good step. In this particular case, it’s not being applied properly. Because of the politics.
Moreover, it’s pretty clear that this is a politically motivated persecution. Which is a problem. Similar protests by leftists were let off with a slap on the wrist, or less. Protestors literally doing the same thing during the Kavinaugh protests (being on the steps of the capitol) were let off with far more minor violations. As opposed to being thrown in jail for 3 weeks without bail.
What’s interesting is how little the left seems to care about these abuses. How little the left seems to care about cops shooting and killing an unarmed protester.
“Which is a problem. Similar protests by leftists were let off with a slap on the wrist, or less. Protestors literally doing the same thing during the Kavinaugh protests (being on the steps of the capitol) were let off with far more minor violations. As opposed to being thrown in jail for 3 weeks without bail.”
Sorry, but your attempt at equivalence here undermines the argument. If the protests were similar, surely you can point to the cops testifying that they feared for their lives, or the equivalent amount of property damage, or to when the Kavanaugh hearings actually had to be stopped and the hearing room evacuated. It’s ridiculous to try and pretend that January 6th was just some typical run-of-the-mill protest, and attempts to do so make it hard to take the rest of the argument seriously.
You mean the one that was trying to illegally force her way into the U.S. Capitol and was warned by the armed officers there to protect members of Congress to stop her actions or she would be shot? That one? Or did you have another rioter in mind?
When you ignore the context in which things happened, it’s obvious that you’re not interested in actual comparisons but are just engaging in political hackery.
David, You don’t make a convince case for why deadly force was needed? Try better next time
Um, this one isn’t hard.
You had an enraged mob going after protected targets. The defenders put up a barricade to keep the mob out, to defend the people they were obligated to protect. The mob was trying to breach the barricade, and she was at the head of the mob at that point. The shooter was the last line of defense. He had his gun out, pointed, and she kept coming. His choice at that point was to (a) fire; (b) retreat into the room he was guarding where the people he was protecting were located and hope she didn’t follow; (c) do nothing and let her and the rest of the mob go past him; or (d) let her seize his gun and then go past him, at the head of said mob.
Only one of those would not have been a dereliction of duty.
When there are officers behind her — and in his field of fire???
And if the officer was in the right, why not name him and release the IA report? That’s what bothers me, if you can’t publicly justify what you did, you have a problem….
Ed, You did not answer my original question. Please notice that David N. did make a plausible case. Try to learn from others.
“Try to learn from others.”
Some people learn from their mistakes. This is called being “intelligent”. Some people learn from mistakes that other people make. This is called being “wise” Some people cannot learn from mistakes, whether their own or someone else’s. This is called being “Conservative”.
And if the officer was in the right, why not name him and release the IA report? That’s what bothers me, if you can’t publicly justify what you did, you have a problem
I agree that the information should be released. That doesn’t mean I agree with you that they “can’t” justify what they did; they don’t legally have to release it, so they’re not. But they should.
They should release all of that information along with Trump’s tax returns.
You know, the same people who are demanding that the name be released howl loudly when anyone suggests that the names of political donors or the like should be released, because they would be doxed, threatened, etc.
But the officer doesn’t get the same consideration, despite the fact that with the martyrdom the lunatic right has conferred on Babbitt he is sure to have all kinds of crap to put up with.
You know, the same people who are demanding that the name be released howl loudly when anyone suggests that the names of political donors or the like should be released, because they would be doxed, threatened, etc. But the officer doesn’t get the same consideration,
But the officer doesn’t get the same consideration,
The officer is an agent of the state, not a private citizen.
The point is that being threatened by a disordered mob is potentially dangerous, whether you are an agent of the state or not.
If you watch the vid there were two LEOs with what looks like M4s in the low ready position standing in front of the doors with windows who got out of the way and someone then broke the window(s) at which time Babbitt stuck her head and shoulders through the window and was shot.
I have to wonder what your analysis is of the two LEOs with long guns getting out of the way. Certainly they did not seem to have the same assessment of the danger the shooter did. Not to mention they had far more deadly weapons with probably two or three times the ammo available before switching to a different magazine.
In fact a lot of what I have seen seems to indicate what little command and control the LEOs were under was to engage in more of a delaying action than anything else. As DOJ has admitted there are vids showing LEOs and some of those there having friendly interaction. It is all too easy to paint things with a broad brush. In the case mentioned in my OP it seems clear the defendant was not violent in any way and never entered the building. While there is not agreement on if he was in a restricted area or if the LEOs removed barriers to make it a de facto non restricted area this is a matter of fact for a jury to decide.
But the bottom line is the DOJ is still slowing walking the release of Brady stuff they admit will help the defense.
Sticking your head and shoulders through a broken window when you are part o the mob that broke the window to gain entry doesn’t qualify as having “entered the building,” or intending to do so forcibly.
She didn’t fully enter because she got shot too soon to do so. The phrase “Stand your ground” comes to mind.
Don Nico, as a thought experiment, change the context. The building is the White House. The president and vice-president are inside. A mob has gained entry (how could that happen, without massive bloodshed in the process?), and the mob is pressing a secret service perimeter which is the last line of defense for the president and vice-president. Do you suppose for a second that every person in view of the secret service would not have been mowed down, probably long before they got to that last line of defense? Do you know of anyone who would not think that was legitimate, or that failure to do it would have been dereliction? Would you yourself be demanding a convincing case for use of deadly force?
Now please tell me what distinguishes the White House example—other than the less lethal response at the capitol—from the events which led to the death of Ashli Babbitt.
“Similar protests by leftists were let off with a slap on the wrist, or less.”
Surely. Remember the leftists storming the Capitol after the election of 2000 was stolen from them?
I’ve always been skeptical of overcharging and regularly tell people to read Silverglate’s Three Felonies A Day. The federal government has used the tactic way too much for way too long.
Bail I think needed a good series of reforms, but we are going to regret doing away with cash bail systems. (I would anticipate part of the “return to law and order” agenda will be to reinstitute these to some extent.) The problem with bail at least in most state systems was that judges got lazy. How many jurisdictions just had a list of pre-approved bail numbers and if you wanted to request something else it was effectively a bail appeal (which many represented by public defenders just never bothered to do)? That is not how the system was designed to work nor how should it work. I support cash bail as long as the bail amounts are set after notice and hearing taking into account the economic situation of the person charged.
I’m curious to understand what folks like ragebot, Armchair Lawyer and Jimmy the Dane thought about issues like bail reform or prosecutorial abuses prior to January 6th
Your 2nd paragraph makes you out to be a liar in that it makes it clear that you’ve already made a baseless assumption about what their thoughts are/were prior to this, and are in no way “curious to understand” anything.
Can someone let Wuz’s owner know that he’s barking again and needs to be whacked on the head with a newspaper?
jb, Let me help you. It’s human nature not yo pay attention until it’s your ox that is being gored. You’d make more of a point if you avoided the race card, “some white dudes.” The next phrase “political opinions that match their own are exposed to these problems” would have sufficed.
It’s widely reported that the officer who killed Ashley Babbit is Black.
That could become problematic if true…
“That could become problematic if true…” and interesting to Mr Ed to boot
Some people react poorly to thoughts of armed black people, that’s why.
Your question is mostly off topic related to my post which was about Brady violations/delays and why the DOJ thought it was necessary to pay a left leaning accounting firm more than six million dollars to do work better left to DOJ employees.
I do have problems with prosecutors stacking on lesser and included charges and wanting stiff requirements for bail or no bail at all, and this is not a new issue. But I don’t really see how the question relates to my OP. The guy in question was not over charged as far as I can tell unless there is a claim that he should have been charged with what is basically DC trespassing instead of federal trespassing. I agree the DOJ’s position on bail was off the wall but given DOJ’s admission they had evidence/vids of the guy that might refuted their charges that is a much bigger issue to me.
I specifically mentioned prosecutorial misconduct re: discovery, so seems pretty on topic? (And FWIW, the reason I mentioned other things is because I was aggregating a response to you and the other commenters I mentioned, not because all of it was on point to your initial message. Seemed better than posting the same response several times.)
You FAILED to address why DOJ is paying millions of dollars literally to a left leaning company to do their job of producing Brady stuff, something that will delay discovery even more.
Not sure what you mean by “They’re not.”
This link confirms DOJ “signed a contract with Deloitte Financial Advisory Services to create a database intended to allow defense lawyers to find evidence related to their clients and search for videos by location on the Capitol grounds”.
It goes on to say
“But the process of setting up the database has not been smooth or quick. Judge McFadden ribbed the leader of the discovery team, Emily A. Miller, on Monday in court.
“I don’t envy you your job,” he added.
She responded, “No one does.””
Could you please explain your comment.
ragebot, unless you know that the contract was awarded non-competitively, you have no complaint. If you have evidence of a preferential, sole source procurement, let’s have it right here.
Yeah, I try not to engage too much with weird conspiracy theories.
Is there a similarly capable accounting firm that would pass your ideological test? I get the feeling you’d probably lump most white collar businesses into the “left leaning” bucket.
Congratulations on mouthing the current approved nonsensical narrative ‘lots of folks are held for half a year without bail, it’s common.’ The issue, lots of folks are not held for the same incident for this long, with what is pretty clearly a violation of civil liberties. But, bonus points for the baseless accusation of racism and sexism -it seems like you could have worked harder and got homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia in there as well. With a demonstration like this, it isn’t tremendously difficult to explain why progressive are so disliked.
That information suggests some police officers should be investigated, suspended, likely fired, and probably prosecuted.
It seems unlikely to much to help any of those who attacked and/or entered the Capitol.
‘After the security guards were beaten for a while, some of them gave us the keys and the codes’ isn’t a strong defense to much of anything, at least not outside the fever dreams of unhinged partisans.
‘One of the security guards hated the company so much he just opened the door for us and told us where the diamonds were hidden’ is a similarly weak attempt.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Maybe I did not make the point clearly enough but why on God’s green earth is Deloitte Financial Advisory Services (who historically has left wing leanings) getting paid North of six million dollars to create a data base of the vids. Who in the DOJ approved this and why did DOJ feel it was necessary to farm this out.
Delays by DOJ are one thing but now Deloitte Financial Advisory Services can also delay and the DOJ can ask judges for more time. Seems like a scam to me.
I have no idea, cuz DOJ won’t say, just how much potential Brady stuff they have or even how much they gave to Deloitte Financial Advisory Services . But if it is really so much that it requires six million to sort it out I could see these cases drag on till Trump’s great grand children are running for office.
Thing is as others have noted all of this stuff is digital vids and there is no reason all of it can’t be put on however many thumb drives it takes and given to defense lawyers to sort out for themselves. You can buy a lot of thumb drives for six million dollars. Did I mention Deloitte Financial Advisory Services is being paid six million dollars.
“why on God’s green earth is Deloitte Financial Advisory Services … getting paid North of six million dollars to create a data base of the vids. ” That my friend is called the patronage system, which incidentally I support for both parties
I’m more thinking they are building a database for the left to exploit.
Wow, you have a fertile imagination Ed. And I know what the fertilizer is.
“I’m more thinking they are building a database for the left to exploit.”
More like you’re less thinking. But besides that… did your fevered imagination come up with a reason why the leftists, who, in your theory, already have all the data, would need to exploit a database?
Deloitte Financial Advisory Services (who historically has left wing leanings)
What the hell does that even mean? How does a subsidiary of one of the big accounting firms that handles forensic accounting and financial consulting “historically” have any leanings? Do they perform abortions in the cafeteria? Lobby for increased funding for teachers’ unions?
getting paid North of six million dollars to create a data base of the vids. Who in the DOJ approved this and why did DOJ feel it was necessary to farm this out.
Because it’s a massive amount of data. Do you think this is just a couple of TikTok videos? Quoting from a recent court decision on the matter, the database that they want Deloitte to manage includes:
“more than 14,000 hours” of surveillance footage from the Capitol grounds; “[m]ore than 2,000 hours of body worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies”; “[o]ver 300,000 tips” from members of the public, “including approximately 237,000 digital media tips”; “[o]ver 2,000 digital devices”; “[l]ocation history data” and “[c]ell tower data” for thousands of electronic devices present “inside the Capitol building” on January 6; “[i]nformation” obtained “from the searches of hundreds of accounts maintained with electronic communications service providers and/or remote computing services [sic] providers”; “over one million Parler posts, replies, and related data, collected by” the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) “from publicly accessible locations on the Internet”; an additional “over one million Parler videos and images (approximately 40 terabytes of data) scraped by an Internet user who voluntarily provided the material to the FBI”; “[s]ubscriber information and two weeks of toll records for hundreds of phone numbers . . . associated with a Google account identified from . . . [a] geofence search warrant”; and “[o]ver 240,000 [FBI] investigative memoranda and attachments.”
It’s a lot David and they bill upwards of $800 – $1000 per hour. Was the award to Deloitte a competitive procurement? If not, there could have been a wee dram of patronage thrown in.
Not the foggiest idea.
All that stuff is something DOJ was suppose to have looked at before filing charges to make sure they did not wind up with their dick caught in their zipper. Something that seems to be the case with Couy Griffin.
Because it’s a massive amount of data.
So produce that massive amount of data and let defendants sort it out — just like any other case.
No, here they’re imposing a supposed organizational scheme on the data (you might go so far as to say creating discovery post-dispute) that nobody asked for and will be an evergreen excuse for why they’re just not ready.
I know you’ve done enough litigation to understand all this full well. Why you’re choosing to pretend otherwise and play apologist for this poorly-choreographed kangaroo proceeding is beyond me.
So produce that massive amount of data and let defendants sort it out — just like any other case.
That may be how civil cases work, but is not even a little bit how criminal procedure does.
Unless your argument is just “prosecutors routinely get away with shirking their discovery obligations,” you might want to consider actually saying something substantive.
My argument is that you have a weak grasp of the minimal discovery obligations that prosecutors have in federal criminal cases.
It’s telling that you keep peppering the thread with say-nothing rejoinders rather than explaining how and why I’m wrong in this particular instance.
Or, you could examine your current position, and see if maybe YOU can figure out what’s wrong about. After all, it is yours, isn’t it?
The author of that article appears to have misunderstood the filing that he’s writing about. (He also doesn’t seem to understand the distinction between “knowingly” and “willfully” for purposes of federal criminal law, which tends to suggest he’s not exactly the most sophisticated analyst of this sort of thing.)
So how about that Cyber Symposium? lol
On the same day his (and Rudy and Powell’s) motion to dismiss against Dominion got knocked down.
Several Volokh Conspirators have shared Federalist Society stages with Jeffrey Bossert Clark. Did they recognize what a piece of shit he is, or does spending enough time in the Federalist-Heritage-Bradley-Republican-Koch-Olin atmosphere wreck a conservative’s sense of smell? Do any of the Conspirators have enough courage to comment on Clark’s letter and other conduct? Thanks in advance to any Conspirator who doesn’t duck this one.
When Clark’s attempt to subvert the election was first reported, the usual suspects here (Bob-types, Brent-types & Jimmy-types) all hollered “fake news”. Now there is sworn testimony from multiple witnesses and Clark’s letter has been produced.
In an attempt for promotion, Clark approached Trump over the head of his superiors with an idea: He would send a letter to Georgia claiming there was a Justice Department investigation underway into election irregularities, even though no such inquiry existed. Using this lie as justification, he would demand the state stop certification of their vote.
The letter recommends the Georgia legislature “convene in special session so that its legislators are in a position to take additional testimony, receive new evidence, and deliberate on the matter”. It then suggested an alternative slate of electors (for Trump) might be accepted on 06Jan if backed by the legislature’s demand. Since Gov. Kemp was defending Georgia’s election count, Clark said the legislature could simply call itself into session and override him.
Of course Trump was interested in this scheme; he’d already pursued many similar efforts in his pursuit of a coup. It took the threat of mass resignation at the top of the DOJ to dissuade him.
“When Clark’s attempt to subvert the election was first reported, the usual suspects here (Bob-types, Brent-types & Jimmy-types) all hollered “fake news”.”
1. “Bob-types” do not exist, I am one of a kind.
2. Your comment is “fake news”. My only response was I never heard of this guy and didn’t care because an Acting Asst. AG was not a real threat to anything, let alone successfully “subverting” the election.
The letter, if sent, would have made no difference. No “coup” has ever consisted of a letter.
Bob from Ohio : “Bob-types” do not exist, I am one of a kind.
OK; I’ll grant ya that.
Also : Attempting to stop a election certification by fraud to reverse the voter’s choice falls well within the definition of “coup”. Even the one-and-only Bob-type has to admit that.
I grew up in downscale Rust Belt. Plenty of Bob-types were there. Still there, I suspect (those who have not been replaced already).
coup [ko͞o] NOUN a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.
You’re getting a bit desperate here, Bob. Merriam-Webster also defines the word as: “a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics” and there is a long lineage of usage where the word “coup” is used in a broader sense than you describe.
If it helps you confront your idol’s misdeeds, I’ll add the word “bloodless” in front of coup….
He’s never been my “idol”, just a politician whose policies I mostly like and the current tribal leader.
“exercise of force”
A letter, even from DOJ, is not “force”.
“here the word “coup” is used in a broader sense than you describe. ”
Yes, figuratively but you are using it literally.
“He’s never been my “idol”, just a politician whose policies I mostly like and the current tribal leader.”
Absolutely. He is the leader of the tribe of incompetents. Which is why he got fired from his last job.
“coup [ko͞o] NOUN a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.”
See, e.g., Jan 6, 2021 See also, incompetence, ineptitude, failure
You’ve never lived through a real coup.
Not a successful one, anyway.
The letter, if sent, would have made no difference. No “coup” has ever consisted of a letter.
Had DOJ adopted Clark’s position—which it seems the President was trying awfully hard to get them to do—that would, at a minimum, have been seriously destabilizing and a big problem.
Fortunately, it’s an effort that was thwarted by the patriotism and sense of duty of the other federalist society members in DOJ leadership, none of whom are likely to ever receive a fraction of the recognition they deserve.
“at a minimum, have been seriously destabilizing and a big problem.”
Ok, assume that, it still would have made no difference on the Georgia elector votes, the assembly would not have acted.
Even in the highly, highly unlike event that Georgia would have changed, the final result would not have, Biden would still be overseeing Saigon 2: Electric Bugout right now.
Even with Georgia, Trump still loses. He needed two other states.
As Clark frankly explained in his cover email, his draft letter was just and exemplar not specifically aimed at Georgia: rather, his plan was that DOJ should send similar letters to the “Governor, Speaker, and President pro temp of each relevant state”.
And given the extent to which nominally serious politically actors have gleefully debased themselves with entertaining this sort of nonsense, it’s far from obvious to me that DOJ casting its lot with the kraken side of things wouldn’t have provoked enough effort to change electoral vote allocations to cause a constitutional crisis.
Of course, that didn’t happen – thanks to the efforts of courageous public servants, including and especially Federalist Society members Jeff Rosen and Bill Barr, neither of whose service will ever receive the recognition it deserves.
Rosen is probably no longer welcome at Federalist Society or Republican Party events. To his great credit.
On his way out the door and into retirement, Bill Barr did not fabricate claims of fraud, but truthfully said that the DOJ hadn’t found any. Claiming that this constitutes “courage” deserving of “recognition” is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
It’s infinitely better than not doing so, and it may have made a very big difference, but it’s literally the least he could have done without actively committing sedition. You might as well praise a school bus driver for not deliberately driving a vehicle filled with his charges off a cliff.
“1. ‘Bob-types’ do not exist, I am one of a kind.”
That’s too damn many.
The silence is deafening.
Just another paltry day at The Volokh Conspiracy.
Back in those heady early years while nerd/geek culture was bubbling at the surface but before it became hip and mainstream I was a nerd and fascinated by all sorts of nerd things like technology, computers, comic books etc but I was also fascinated by the sociological aspect of nerd culture. I became kind of an evangelist.
Across multiple instances through the years of observing others and talking about and trying to recruit people to these hobbies in multiple contexts and ages both informal and formal; girls showed markedly little to zero interest compared to boys. And it was not for lack of trying. I saw many from family to acquaintances try extremely hard but futilely to get them revved up about such things. Personal attitudes ranged from mostly complete disinterest to sometimes outright scorn and ridicule for such things and the people doing it. Nerd stuff and tech was almost exclusively boy thing by choice from all sides. I’m sure there were a few nerd girls around even at this time but I didn’t personally run into any until once the big transition was well underway and geek culture was suddenly cool.
Now of course this is no great revelation and this divide continues even to this day although greatly reduced or masked in certain areas. I just find it very funny and ironic that some of the women that rolled their eyes at me about computers years ago are probably feeding their daughters the official dogma today that women were persecuted and systematically driven from science and geek culture by evil men and otherwise would have been churning out circuit boards and batman comics at a =>50% rate today if not for the jealousy of the patriarchy.
It’s not persecution, it’s just gendered nonsense that is pervasive, and was more pervasive.
As I came up in physics in the early 2000s, I talked to women in the field, and so many of them had someone try and revector them to some other field. Or homemaking.
Do you think women are wired to not like technology?
1. Whatever it is its not primarily from men and I don’t think its necessarily ‘nonsense’/a bad thing. I don’t remember God/Marx coming down from heaven one day and saying different groups had to have the exact same interests.
2. I would say more an affinity for different things and different ways of thinking aren’t as boxed in and narrowly esoteric as what men tend more toward, and hence lead more to different arenas.
3. I should mention this is about the transition of geek/computer culture, not the transition of the workplace which was quite a bit before my time. But I’m pretty sure the same story and subsequent historical revisionism took place there to some degree as well.
It’s a bad idea for a society to slot people into a given set of fields preemptively. Such expectations can have quite the subtle influence. And that kind of limiting is a recipe for leaving untapped talent on the table, and for people to not like their job.
It’s not just gender, of course. My best fried in HS had parents who insisted they become a doctor. They’re not unhappy, but some potential was lost.
“Such expectations can have quite the subtle influence.”
Aren’t you a little concerned that you might have rendered the hypothesis unfalsifiable?
If I were making a scientific statement, sure.
But I’m arguing social policy.
Lets put it this way: we don’t have the neuroscience to disentangle what is nature and what is nurture. As such, lets not make assumptions about what is nature that may result in constraining expectations we don’t need.
As such, lets not make assumptions…
You mean, like…
“it’s just gendered nonsense that is pervasive, and was more pervasive”
How is that an assumption? That’s history.
The assumption is that your assessment of what happened and why it happened (an assertion that it was nurture vs nature) is a correct one. This isn’t that difficult.
Lets say it’s largely nature, but we give people options. No loss.
Lets say it’s largely nurture, but we give people options. We gain a better, happier talent pool.
No assumptions needed!
And yet you made one anyway, then presumed to lecture someone else about not making assumptions.
What do you think is my assumption? The two things you’ve highlighted are 1) My observation that gendered nonsense is pervasive, and 2) My argument that you don’t need an assumption to think gendered nonsense should be avoided?
Neither are assumptions.
Look, here’s the problem: Suppose society ISN’T slotting people into roles? Suppose that women and men are neurologically different? (Spoiler: They are.) Suppose this naturally causes women and men to gravitate to different roles?
Suppose you’d be making public policy into a Procrustian bed, because you’re making it based on a false hypothesis that you can’t ever admit is false, because the failure to find evidence just causes you to think the ‘slotting’ is really subtle.
Then there is no harm in freedom to choose if you’re not going to choose.
And the science will eventually be there to disentangle the effect of social expectation from neurological tendency.
What do you think is my assumption?
Clearly explained two comments ago. Learn how to read for comprehension.
“Learn how to read for comprehension.”
You didn’t read what I wrote. Preemptively sorting is exactly what I’m against. Its wrong to preemptively sort people in ‘traditional’ gender roles but its also wrong to preemptively sort them into woke gender roles too. I want to give people an actual choice. The powers that be don’t with their bemoaning of unleveled stats for the sake of unleveled stats.
What is a woke gender role?
It’s whatever we’re against, today.
If a field is naturally going to sort itself to be, say, 90% men and 10% women, you aren’t going do anyone any favors by trying force it to be 50/50 (or does it do any good to try to make it 100/0)
I saw the same thing with women in tech as you did in physics, except those trying to revector the women were in fact other women trying to bring the tech women to their own field. They would say things like “its a boys club” and “you won’t be respected” but these just create self-fulfilling prophesies. By causing women to change fields it increased the percentage of men, and increased the perception of women as washouts
I also have male friends who went into nursing and experienced the same thing as women in tech, except they got it from both men and women (mostly outside of nursing)
It’s actually worse for men in education….
I doubt it, but tell us your evidence, Ed.
Well, pick any school system at random and look at the high school faculty in the 1961 yearbook and the faculty of the same high school today — and ask yourself why there are so many fewer male faces…
Women have way more opportunities than they did in 1961, and hence one would presume that there would be *fewer* women in teaching than 60 years ago when it was one of the few professions open to a woman with a college education.
So what would be your explanation for almost all the teachers now being female?
Men found better paying jobs.
There are definitely more female teachers than male. Are you really arguing otherwise?
No, he’s not arguing that.
No one said that. Ed implied that men who teach sub-university are ostracized and belittled. He has presented no evidence whatsoever, and neither have you. I could equally have noted that as compared with 10 years ago, well more than half the internists in my HMO are women. Does that men that men are now belittled for becoming MDs. I doubt it.
“It’s actually worse for men in education….”
LIke you’d have any valid experience to offer in this field (or any other, coincidentally.)
Indeed, Kevin – gendered expectations are policed by both genders, and apply to both genders.
Policed by the lesser elements of both genders; overcome by the better elements of both genders.
I can think of a number of professions that have moved from heavily male toward majority female students – medicine(52%), law(54%) and architecture (49%). In each of them the profession is still predominately male but the students in training are predominately female.
True, but does that mean that men are belittled for becoming lawyers? No, but David Behar is an exception. Still he also criticizes female lawyers.
“I can think of a number of professions that have moved from heavily male toward majority female students – medicine(52%), law(54%) and architecture (49%).”
But not, apparently, mathematics.
“Do you think women are wired to not like technology?”
Some wiring is nature, some is nurture. I believe that a good deal of the nurture that creates the dis-affinity for girls and tech/science comes from women. Consider for example what Girl Scouts tells us about how an organization of women, by women and for girls operates(and in distinction to the counterpart organization BoyScouts): -girls are grouped by grade, not interacting with other ages and abilities -advancement is social, not by set criteria for rank -no girl leads, instructs, or directs another girl, whereas boys are expected to lead a patrol by age 12 or so, and run a troop by age 15 -no competitive events, and definitely no activities that go ‘boom’ (shotgun, rifle, etc.) -minimal outdoors and physically active events
In short, if girls say ‘ewwww’ at the thought of STEM, it is likely because the women in their lives have programmed them to think that way.
Cooking is a STEM activity….
Only if you don’t clean your veggies properly
“Cooking is a STEM activity….”
“Stem activity” doesn’t mean something that you can’t do, Special Ed.
” I believe that a good deal of the nurture that creates the dis-affinity for girls and tech/science comes from women. Consider for example what Girl Scouts tells us about how an organization of women, by women and for girls operates”
They also outperform the boys in lego robotics competitions. Teams of Girl Scouts consistently go home from the tournaments with trophies.
“Back in those heady early years while nerd/geek culture was bubbling at the surface but before it became hip and mainstream I was a nerd and fascinated by all sorts of nerd things like technology, computers, comic books etc but I was also fascinated by the sociological aspect of nerd culture. I became kind of an evangelist.”
Sure you did. Meanwhile, when I went to work for a subcontractor to Nintendo back when they absolutely owned the American videogame market, the boss was of the feminine persuasion. A couple of years later, I went to work at Intel, for an engineer of similar orientation. In both cases, the women had been working in the field for long enough to rise to positions of power. In neither case was it a “diversity hire”, either, they were skilled, talented professionals.
Originalism Deep Dive ep 4/6: Applications.
1. Recap of arguments for originalism, and where stands this positive turn 1) this is just how you read anything. 2) originalism has a strong relationship with supermajority consensus building, less with elites and judges. 3) [The positive turn] originalism is how we’ve done law for most of the Republic, so it deserves a privileged place in our current legal thinking. It was just called the law for a very long time until the early 20th Century when this other doctrine of living constitutionalism was formed.
This third point has an implication – if originalism requires a radical departure from what we’re currently doing, then the burden of proof is different than if originalism means do what we are doing already, mostly.
Is this originalism that allows precedent a watered down version? It’s a theory in good standing, but not converting in droves. Though most originalist academics don’t seem to take a stand on the boundaries of what’s originalism and what’s not.
Originalism as rediscovered, and living constitutionalism as not descriptive but prescriptive is somewhat controversial. Baude claims originalism as the simple statement that the law should be based on evidence and historical facts…a methodological view, but not one with any outcomes in particular.
But in reality, originalism is pretty instrumental in practice. Though so, too are a lot of ethical theories, and that doesn’t invalidate them.
Originalism assumes an infallibility of a certain generation, but that generation isn’t originalists, who get it wrong all the time! That’s a bit tangled.
But in reality, originalism is pretty instrumental in practice.
Can you say more about that? I don’t understand what that tells me.
To be clear – this is from a podcast from Will Baude: https://www.podparadise.com/Podcast/1562902209/Listen/1625068800/0
I do not endorse these positions – I am not an originalist. I just thought they were a new and interesting take on this methodology and wanted to learn by ‘teaching,’ if you will.
Previous Thursday open threads cover parts 1-3.
By instrumental. Baud means outcome-oriented. Baud admits that originalism was invented in the 1980s with an outcome in mind – attacking the Warren Courts’ jurisprudence. But he still thinks that despite a bad motive, it hit on a good idea.
Bad motive is my take, Baude only called it instrumental.
Adopt a philosophy and tout it as important because it supports a pre-decided position?
Invented in the 1980s, you say?
LOL, new application, not new idea. Ask the Anglican Church ’bout that.
Opposing embezzlement (Which is the closest analogy to how originalists view living constitutionalists.) can be motivated by instrumental concerns, and still righteous.
We’re trying to have an intellectual conversation, and your moral preening short circuits that. Questions of righteous/not righteous are not going to be answered here, nor anywhere.
Baude is not a hack partisan, and embezzlement is not how Baude sees non-originalists. Nor is that required to excuse instrumentalism as the initial impulse – as he said, many moral systems start like that and are legit, so why not a jurisprudential one.
We’re trying to have an intellectual conversation
You and…Lathrop? Now THAT’s funny, I don’t care who you are.
Better get a towel or two ready. Something washed up on the floor, it it looks like it came from the men’s room.
Sarc has no morals — you are confusing him.
Brett is the epitome of the partisan. Anything is ok if his side did it, and anyone who isn’t his side is acting in bad faith, by definition. Faint praise time: At least he’s consistent in this.
2. Originalism and the Administrative State: The Commerce Clause. There is a 50-50 split among originalists on how to interpret the evidence, but all think the current paradigm has gone too far. Some hold federal power must be completely interstate, the rest are mostly OK with the current broad power, and only things like self-consumption where the regulation doesn’t have a mainly commercial aim are beyond the reach of federal regulation. This isn’t just pot, it’s also guns. [I don’t think you need to be originalist to take issue with either of these as pretextual uses of the commerce clause]
Originalism and federal lockdown regulations during a pandemic: Not many on the left even were arguing for nationalizing pandemic restrictions. Doesn’t this show you don’t need originalism to see limits on federal power? Maybe hard to say while Congress was in GOP hands.
Originalism and the ACA: The broader originalist view of the commerce clause is fine with this. But it got political and there was an arguably originalist hook (plus a doctrinal hook based on some dicta about economic activity). See part 6 for a larger discussions of the partisan aspect of originalism!
3. Originalism and the Administrative State: Nondelegation Are enabling statutes that direct only as far as ‘in the public interest’ too broad a delegation of legislative power to the executive? The consensus is that the current delegation doctrine is too broad. Though there is some increasingly convincing historical scholarship seeking to show this is wrong, and broad delegation at the founding was common. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3696860 and others, looking at the post office and the Department of War and the like. But see Congress specifying which towns are on which post roads.
Note that this originalist application would be a radical change, which would seem to make it not fit into the positive turn. And a lot of the arguments rely on philosophers of the Founding like Locke, and less on actual historical practice. Which could be OK to understand what the legislative power meant, except allowing such indirect evidence opens up a wide swath of sources and can prove almost any outcome you want. And yet there are Thomas and Gorsuch arguing for that radical change. Baude sees this as lots of wrong steps perhaps, but with the longer-term momentum towards knowledge. [That seems really optimistic to me given how instrumental originalism seems to keep being]
Baude sees some evidence that there may be an originalist nondeligation doctrine focused only on impingements on life, liberty, and property. So SEC is a problem, Social Security Administration is not. [Though his evidence is purely phenomenological – there were broad delegations, but none in this particular set. But no one saying that they’re affirmatively avoiding that set, so that evidence seems pretty weak as put forth in the podcast at least]
Sarcastr0, more generally, where is there any originalist case that what the founders actually accomplished in Congress set any limit on what the Constitution was intended to authorize?
“Are enabling statutes that direct only as far as ‘in the public interest’ too broad a delegation of legislative power to the executive?”
There’s an assumption there, that delegating anything to the bureaucracy is a delegation to the Executive rather than an attempt to build a 4th branch of government. That’s why Congress kept trying to create agencies with leadership the President couldn’t arbitrarily replace.
4. Originalism and The Treaty power Treaties have almost never been how actual international agreements have been attained – it’s all executive agreements. For pretty fundamental practical reasons in this modern age. Does originalism require that stop doing things the way we have been and hamstring our foreign policy until we amend the Constitution? Well, this could just be a *constitutional assumption* – the Founders assumed they were giving the President a break by skipping the House, but didn’t require treaties as the only method.
– the Founders assumed they were giving the President a break by skipping the House, but didn’t require treaties as the only method.
Is that an example of you doing originalism? Care to discuss whether there might be alternative theories for why that happened, and lay out a case from the historical record for each one?
5. Originalism and 1980s Conservativism The right in the 80s wanted more states’ rights (and less civil rights), and smaller government. And presto, a doctrine formed tailor made for those outcomes. Except now here we are 40 years later and still doing the research, and finding the doctrine doesn’t actually align with 1980s conservativism. Except lots still insist it does. Is that something that happens to a healthy doctrine? Well, if people now are trying to patch it up and do good scholarship to make it something robust and more than a political tool, who cares about its origins? [This feels a bit like the Andromeda Strain, where the virus ended up evolving into something much more viable, but also much more boring]
6. Originalism and Guns/Rights generally Quick review of Heller: 2008 5-4 decision overturned precedent to find an individual right to bear arms, resting on originalist grounds. And ignoring the militia portion of the clause, and scholarship about early intent regarding militia is equivocal. But at the time there was near consensus of originalist scholarship. Not complete, but near. And then later the right is extended to the states. The extent remains unclear, since both statutes at issue were basically total bans. At the Founding there are some rules limiting guns based on fire risks. And England at the time banned Catholics from having arms. But come the 1800s, lots of gun control. Before and after the Civil War. Was this a radical change? We don’t yet know – all we know is that there is *some* limit on state laws on guns.
The constitutional theory and political movement are not actually the same, despite what some in the political movement may say. A right in the text of the Constitution creates a political focal point, among other things. Though Madison made some arguments indicating the focal point was *all* he thoughts rights were. Indeed, at the Founding rights were more of a balancing test.
More than the operation of a right, the contours of a right is difficult – does it incorporate English practice, or is it purposefully in contrast to English practice? The Heller approach is to look at practice at the Founding, and that’s the contours of the right. So possession by bad people, in dangerous places, certain especially fearsome weapons are all exceptions. Also how we found exceptions to free speech.
But 1) this doesn’t treat rights as they were in the Founding, and 2) not doing something at the Founding doesn’t mean they thought they were limited, but just that they didn’t decide to. If you like originalism only to constrain government, then these are both fine to you. But if you are of the positive turn, this isn’t very originalist at all – you need actual evidence of the legal principles.
And the 9th…there is text that the Founders didn’t want to privilege the rights they randomly thought important in the 1700s.
There is a vast middle between we overturn everything that doesn’t hew to the thinking of the 1700s, and just putting ourselves into the unconstrained wisdom of the Supreme Court. Baude holds that Originalism has some space in that middle, depending on how you weigh past work to determine precedent and doctrine versus the text and intent of the language of the Constitution.
Please, Sarcastr0, before you take this any farther, tell me what have I missed? Is there some place in your deep dive where you discuss the problem that almost no one in the legal community knows the first thing about what happened in the founding era, nor anything at all about how to do sound historical research, or historical reasoning? How do you address the objection that until there are remedies for those defects in expertise, originalism is destined to be no more than a competition among purpose-built fictions about the past, with the person judging the competition doing so on the basis of little more than personal preference about the legal outcome.
“…someplace in your deep dive…” should have been, “…someplace in your deep dive analysis…”
Baude’s argument for originalism is ‘should.’ It doesn’t need to address ‘can,’ though there are some legit originalist historical surveys. History and the law are not so far apart as you argue.
Of course, I am unconvinced by the ‘should’ still, but that’s a different line of discussion.
Also, note how modest these applications end up being, compared to the usual right-wing judicial demands. Originalism versus politics is the 7th segment of the Deep Dive.
(1) You may be persuading me to invest time in Prof. Baude’s handiwork. Perhaps there could be something to the Volokh Conspiracy that isn’t a flaming shitstorm of polemics in the service of ugly, obsolete thinking?
(2) How long before Prof. Baude follows Prof. Kerr’s path away from the Volokh Conspiracy?
The thing about originalism as an actual approach to doing anything is that its most visible proponents have been quite willing to dispatch with it if originalism would produce to them undesired results. If even the people who say they believe in it don’t really believe in it, why would anyone else?
I have a question. Anyone here who agrees that because the internet is so open, and so rife with misinformation, no reasonable person would view without skepticism any false statement about another person—and thus it would be better to do away completely with self-censorship imposed by libel law on internet commenters?
No. “Misinformation” isn’t necessarily libel. And simply because a law is broken by people doesn’t mean it should be entirely discarded.
To give an example, millions of Americans are guilty of tax evasion. Under your theory, we should get rid of tax evasion laws.
Talk about miss information, “millions of Americans are guilty of tax evasion”. Got proof of that or are you just pulling it out of the air.
Every so often we get a good objective glimpse behind the curtain, like this one:
A funny thing happened in 1987 when, for the first time, the Internal Revenue Service required taxpayers to list the Social Security numbers for children age 5 and over they were claiming as dependents. What happened is that about 7 million children simply vanished–at least from tax returns.
Now your turn: how about some proof that US taxpayers as a whole have become more honest since then?
Talk about miss information
If you want to talk about her you should at least have the courtesy to capitalize her name and honorific.
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all. He seems to be saying since libel requires the recipient of a message to have reason to believe the message is true, and no one should have reason to believe anything on the internet is true, libel laws should prima facie not apply to the internet
I disagree with him on the second premise, but he is certainly not saying get rid of the law because people break it
“no one should have reason to believe anything on the internet is true,”
That’s a nutty statement. Think of all the stuff we get from the internet and assume is true. Bank Statements, News, Stock reports, weather reports…
And people might sensibly believe three of those.
Brett, I dunno. On my bank statement, one whole account, with thousands of dollars in it, just vanished one day. Turned out that I had left it inactive for too long to suit the bank (less than a year), so without notifying me in any way, they took it offline, and disappeared it. Their plan, they said (not at first, mind you), was to wait a while, and then turn it over to the state’s missing money account. But when I first asked about what had happened to my account, what they said at first was, in effect, “What are you talking about? We have no record.” It took a full day of increasingly frantic telephone detective work, and multiple escalations to get to someone who finally told me what had happened.
Kevin Smith, you read me accurately, except that I did not actually endorse personally the idea that libel laws should not apply to the internet. I merely asked readers here whether they agreed with that notion. I do not.
The internet isn’t one thing, any more than paper and ink are one thing. There are sites on the internet that are taken seriously, and those that are not, just as is so for paper and ink publications.
I believe quite the opposite. What you call “self-censorship”, I would call due diligence. We should have a responsibility to consider our words before we use them, though this seems to be a dying idea. Our media has become so utterly irresponsible and seem to lie with impunity, that the only thing that will return a sense of responsibility to them is a few million-dollar judgments. Before New York Times v. Sullivan, the general rule was “publish at peril”. I believe we should return to that. Should comments sections disappear as a result, or even entire social media outlets, society will be the better for it.
No. The fact that misinformation exists in large quantities does not imply that it is evenly distributed. If source A cultivates and builds a reputation for accurate information, relying on source A to be accurate is not unreasonable. Conversely, if source B cultivates and builds a reputation for providing misinformation, relying on source B to be accurate is highly unreasonable. The current problem with the Internet as an information source is not misinformation, but rather disinformation.
LIbel exists for those cases when spreading false information about somebody causes them demonstrable harm. If you pull the liability, the harm doesn’t magically disappear with it.
Someone emailed the following to me. I don’t know where it originated or who wrote it, but I thought some here would find it amusing so I’m passing it on:
The $100 Bill
It’s a slow day in a little East Texas town. The sun is beating down, and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit. On this particular day a rich tourist from back east is driving through town.
He stops at the motel and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
As soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.
The guy at the Farmer’s Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her “services” on credit.
The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.
The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, picks up the $100 bill, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything.
However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is conducting business today.
Ahh yes, the mystery of the velocity of money.
That is always been how money works. The only difference between now and 1859 is that in 1859 you had to dig the $100 out of the ground when you found money in a seam or in the river.
Keep in mind taking the $100 off the table is theft. And if the government steals (taxes) you like the hotel owner, and passes it around, you never get it back! lol.
Also, in reality, when people receive helicopter money like this, they typically spend most of it, not retire debt. So the owner would buy some more steaks, the butcher would buy more pigs…
And in that case, if there was not enough services or goods, too much money chasing too few goods would result in… inflation.
Speaking of inflation…
The Biden White House increasingly views rising gasoline prices as a source of potential political peril — and is now asking some of the world’s biggest oil producers to pump more oil.
Why it matters: This trend, combined with a fragile economic recovery threatened by the Delta variant of the coronavirus, and inflation beginning to bite consumers, could threaten the administration’s ambitious congressional agenda for late summer and early fall.
Pump more oil, just not in America, that will surely be a winning 2022 argument. lmao.
The Biden Inflation Tax, Made Clear in One Chart
Yes, this story doesn’t change a bit if rather than a $100 bill, the guy leaves a bar of gold on the desk.
“And in that case, if there was not enough services or goods, too much money chasing too few goods would result in… inflation.”
How partisan do you have to be to think that “nobody had any money” is “too much money”???
Here’s the thing about pumping oil out of the ground… if you keep doing that, eventually there isn’t any oil left in the ground, or what is there is too expensive or difficult to retrieve it. It so happens that there is oil under lots of different places in the world, sometimes just a little bit, and sometimes quite a bit. Drill more American oil puts us that much closer to not having any more American oil. Much better to pump all the oil out from other countries, and leave ours in the ground, so that the endpoint is that there’s no more oil anywhere but under OUR ground. The alternative is pump US dry, and then go begging to other places to sell us the oil they still have in THEIR ground. Wonder if us not having any of our own will make the price of THEIR oil go up or down? As a bonus, the sooner we retrieve all the oil from the Middle East, the sooner we can get back to not caring who’s killing who to gain possession of the sand on top of the oil, and us not having to keep a carrier group or two in the area to protect the shipping of all that oil to us. So, no, I don’t agree with “drill more American oil” as a short-term plan. “Don’t use so much oil” is a better plan, even if it means you have to drive a sedan instead of an SUV back and forth to work.
In general, personal finances are a bad parallels to national fiscal policy.
But yes, personal debt is funny like that. Creates liquidity, but eventually can stifle it.
Good on ya, hooker!
It’s not the libertarians keeping you down. It’s strange bedfellows of religious conservatives and modern (not 1960s) feminists.
You’re behind the times on modern feminism and sex work.
Your side does like to use NewSpeak.
You seem to like to do the same thing, except you like the old stigmatizing term for reasons.
Connotation matters. You know it, I know it.
Using long time established language is not NewsSpeak, anyway you look at it.
Its not the”term” that is “stigmatizing”, its the “work”. Its immoral and sleazy and I decline to let it be normalized.
Its immoral and sleazy and I decline to let it be normalized.
You’re making a choice of wording to push a connotation you like; I’m doing the same thing.
Bob, seriously? If “long time established language” were used, your Gentile acquaintances would still be calling you by anti-Semitic slurs. There are arguments for and against the use of specific language to describe something, but “long time established” is not one of them. I’d like to think that we’re better than we used to be.
And by the way, no little girl (or for that matter, little boy) ever said, “When I grow up I want to be a sex worker.” If they do grow up to become sex workers, it’s because something went wrong in their lives big time. Perhaps without knowing their stories you could exercise a bit more compassion.
Prostitute is not a slur.
“If they do grow up to become sex workers, it’s because something went wrong in their lives big time. ‘
That is not what “activists” pushing “sex worker” think at all. They think it is no different than working at 7/11 or being a lawyer.
And in theory they may be right, but I’m talking about the real world.
“I’d like to think that we’re better than we used to be.”
Some people are, some people want to be. Bob won’t tolerate it.
“Its not the”term” that is “stigmatizing”, its the “work”. Its immoral and sleazy and I decline to let it be normalized.”
Oh, it’s terribly horrible that they can give it away, because reasons. It’s also terrible if they have entrepreneurial spirit, and find a market and serve it, because apparently Bob isn’t as Republican as he likes to pretend.
This is humorous coming from the-one-whose-knee-jerks. You often ignore connotation, intent, context entirely in favor of presumption that fits whatever narrative works best.
Probably I do. I’m always open for correction.
Do you have anything in particular in mind?
If that were true you would have abandoned your strawman habit years ago.
Defining the use of old, long-established terms as “NewSpeak” is one of the better cases of division-by-zero I’ve seen in a while.
Good thing that’s not what I said.
You’re like the junkie caught with a pocket full of heroin claiming, “These aren’t my pants”.
Bob: our side does like to use NewSpeak.
You: You seem to like to do the same thing (“the same thing” being “use NewSpeak”…which means intentionally altering language use in an attempt to influence/control thought). except you like the old stigmatizing term for reasons (using already long-established language)
So you’re trying to assert that using old, already established and understood language is “the same thing” as intentionally altering language for political/social engineering purposes. Even you aren’t this stupid.
The same thing being choosing one’s words based on their connotation.
Except what he said you’re doing is not “the same things” as what he’s doing…and you know it, you dishonest hack.
No, it is the same thing. How is it different? How does the age of a term change anything?
So now we’re back to the “Is Sarcastr0 really as stupid as he’s making himself look?” game.
He looks smarter than you do, but then, you set that bar pretty low.
If only everyone could be 1% as clever as you imagine yourself to be.
There is an old movie with a similar story. I can not remember the name but a sequence happen where by a series of debts are settled and the money returned like it never left.
The difference between this and the government is that each individual has a balanced book. They each owe someone 100 dollars, and are owed 100 dollars by someone else.
If they had all gotten in a room together they could have worked it out without the need to inject outside currency. The motel owner could have told the prostitute instead of paying me my 100 dollars, just go pay off my debt to the butcher, the butcher would say don’t bother with that just go pay off my debt to the pig farmer, etc, etc. It would eventually get bac round to the hooker simply paying herself when she gets money and everything would be square again.
The concept is the same as when a business sells their accounts receivable to another firm. In the town each person is basically selling their receivable to the next person down the line is lieu of paying a debt
Where the government is different is there is no one holds any fixed debt to the government, at least not nearly equal to the debts the government owes. The government doesn’t have an accounts receivable they can sell to cover the debt
“The difference between this and the government is that each individual has a balanced book. They each owe someone 100 dollars, and are owed 100 dollars by someone else.”
You’re supplying this detail. It’s not in the original.
While it does seem that is the government’s operational philosophy, the hotel keep is out $100.
the hotel keep is out $100
No he isn’t. Quite the opposite, in fact. In this story the $100 was a refundable deposit pending acceptance of a suitable room. No room was found to be suitable, and the deposit was refunded…so the hotel keep was not entitled to it. On the other hand, he surreptitiously used it to erase $100 of personal debt, so he in fact profited by that amount.
Wuz, see, you *can* disagree with someone without being insulting and abusive.
Now if you can just manage to comment without being a baselessly condescending, dishonest asshole with the IQ of a potato.
Of course we had several transaction take place in an impossibly short time, hence what looks paradoxical. ‘Money can move fast but cannot exceed the speed of light.
What does that have to do with the erroneous assertion that “the hotel keep is out $100”?
Ah, you’re projecting again. And someone still needs to tell your owner that you’re barking again.
His placing of it into a secure, non-interest-generating escrow account was a little weak, shall we say
“No he isn’t.”
Yes, he is. He started the cycle with $0 by spending $100 that wasn’t his. He finished it by losing the $100 that he had actually earned. 0 – 100 = -100
No, you misunderstand the facts. He hadn’t earned anything. It was a deposit, not a payment.
He started the cycle with -$100. He finished it with $0.
It seems we have something of an inflation issue. With inflation at 4.3, 5.0, 5.4, and 5.4% (annualized) for April, May, June, and July of 2021.
Is it wise for the government to borrow and spend another 3.5 trillion under these circumstances for new priorities? Or will this accelerate the problem, and lead to real wages declining further for hundreds of millions of Americans?
The government should not borrow and spend; it should raise taxes on the top 1%. Both parties spend like drunken sailors; the difference is that Democrats raise revenue to pay for it, whereas Republicans just throw it on a credit card.
“the difference is that Democrats raise revenue to pay for it, ”
Evidence not present for this statement in the last 25years
Democrats raise revenue to the extent they aren’t stymied in that effort by the Republicans.
You mean like with the SALT cap removal they are planning?
Just for reference, Democrats are trying deperately to remove the SALT cap. There was a a 218-206 vote in the House to repeal it…only 5 GOP-ers voted for it.
It would’ve resulted in the following tax cut..
The average tax cut for middle-income taxpayers would be roughly $10. The cut for the top 1% of earners would be $30,000.
Democrats sharply cut taxes in 2009…when they controlled the government. And again in 2013, although the government was divided then.
This idea that they raise revenue to cover for their spending is not exactly true.
Your ability to find counter-examples does not change the general rule, which is that Democrats are more willing to raise taxes (or at least not cut them) than Republicans are.
Moving goal posts…
“the difference is that Democrats raise revenue to pay for it”
“Democrats are more willing to raise taxes (or at least not cut them) than Republicans are.”
Something may be generally true even if it’s not true in every case. July is generally warmer than December, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, even though December will have an occasional 70s day and July will have an occasional 50s day.
You haven’t provided an example of your thesis, though. Republicans are much more willing to cut spending (or at least not raise it) than Democrats are.
I really can’t improve on grb’s comment below, so I will copy and paste it:
“Indeed, your side (that which you typically align) has a much, much worse record on debt than mine. To take it one step further, over the past few decades Democrats have a record of cleaning-up the fiscal irresponsibility of their Republican predecessors: Clinton brought debt to heel after Reagan-Bush, then W destroyed every bit of progress made. Obama faced plus-trillion dollar deficits on his first day of office and then cut the yearly deficit down year-by-year over his two terms. It then took Trump just two years to bring trillion dollar deficits back.”
LOL. Yes, look at all of those spending cuts when the Republicans completely controlled the governments during the first two years of the Trump administration.
Besides, the argument isn’t that Democrats cut spending. It’s that they raise taxes when they raise spending to keep the budget more in balance, versus just cutting taxes without cutting spending, which mostly just creates more deficits.
I really can’t improve on grb’s comment
When you admit that you’re unable to do any better than someone else’s ignorance-based bullshit it’s time to reconsider whether or not you should continue trying to correct others. The claim that “Clinton brought debt to heel” when Republicans controlled Congress for 75% of his presidency should be cause for embarrassment, as is the claim that Reagan/Bush did the opposite when Democrats controlled Congress for most of their presidencies.
All that happened during the Clinton administration is that we had the dot com bubble while the two parties were at each other’s throats, and couldn’t immediately agree on how to spend the loot. Market bubbles are not something you can schedule.
Either party in power would have spent the money, and then some. They’d have agreed on how to spend it anyway in normal times.
Neither party has a scrap of fiscal discipline left, or even is really bothering to pretend they do anymore.
Moving goal posts again.
My link shows neither side is right about any given party and the national debt, you yutz.
Exactly. The initial statement was.
My response was “Evidence not present for this statement in the last 25years”
Showing “neither side is right” moves the goalposts.
And you assumed I posted that link to contradict you.
Maybe I didn’t do that.
Thank you for showing a glimpse of the actual ground truth
Overall, Republicans are expected to add to deficits most of the time. My interpretation is that Republicans are keen to cut taxes, but they aren’t as successful at cutting spending. There are a few situations when Democrats are expected to increase deficits more than Republicans though. The red bars show that there was officially a recession in part of that year. Overall, the red bars tend to be lower than the blue bars, because Democrats tend to respond more aggressively to poor economic conditions by increasing deficits. This effect is heavily influenced by Obama’s counter-cyclical policies, and in general, that year tends to be an outlier in the analysis because of the severity of the recession. Removing that year from the analysis doesn’t affect the overall conclusion that Republicans add more overall to deficits (in fact the point estimate increases), it just reduces the interaction effect.
See also the effect of a Democratic Congress.
But see the effect of united Congress.
So theft by inflation or theft by taxation?
Whew! Just so long as politicians can continue the graft one way or another. I shall sleep well tonight, not worrying of their fortunes.
I find that to be an incredibly cynical and shallow proposal. There are many wealthy people who have figured out how to have zero income, and still live lavish lifestyles. You wouldn’t be taxing them at all with such a proposal. The 1%, if taxed more heavily, will pursue tax shelters and (legal) schemes to shield income. There aren’t now enough 1%ers to fund anything like what Democrats are crafting, even at a 100% tax rate.
The only true and just solution is for government to do much less, on much less money.
Indeed. I’ve described this previously, but many of the super wealthiest live on “borrowed” money.
What happens is, they’ve got a lot of stock in a company that has gone up in value. Then they borrow against the stock to fund their lifestyle…instead of selling the stock. This way, they don’t have to pay capital gains taxes. They then sell some of their stock that has gone down in value to pay off the loans.
Effectively they have “zero” income, while their actual wealth increases dramatically as the stock prices and other assets they have increase in price.
Income tax is not the only available tax; wealth taxes are available as well. A one-time wealth tax of 5% on all individuals and corporations with a value of $1 billion or more would do wonders for paying for the infrastructure bill.
Once upon a time the wealthy paid their fair share. In those days we went to the moon, build an interstate highway system, and had a public school system that was the envy of most of the rest of the world. And we did it without massive deficits. It’s no accident that the deficits started to balloon about the same time Reagan started telling people they could have government without having to pay for it.
5% on corporations….really?
And the hundreds of millions of Americans who own stock in those corporations? That’s a “wealth tax” on them and their IRAs.
So, what you’re really saying is you’re prepared to strip 5% out of every America’s income retirement account. Is that right?
Re your final paragraph, is that one of your usual bad faith questions in which it doesn’t matter what I say, you’ll respond with “Oh, so you admit . . .”?
Here’s the bottom line problem: Most of our tax system is based on taxes that disproportionately affect the poor and middle class. Also, a significant chunk of wealth held by the rich is held in places where it’s not doing the economy any real good. So we need to start from square one and build a tax system designed to have most of the burden borne by those most able to do so, and to encourage them to hold their wealth in ways that it keeps flowing through the economy. If we did that, you’d find a lot of problems go away. The rich wouldn’t like it.
“your usual bad faith questions…”
No Krychek. That’s designed an out for you. That’s designed for you to say “No, I didn’t mean that” or “You’re right, a 5% tax on corporation is poorly considered, I think it’s a bad idea” or “Let me refine my idea further”. It’s an opportunity for you to really think about what you’re proposing and the flaws that may be present.
The other option is for you to double down and say “Yes, that’s a good idea.” “Yes, I think we should strip money from people’s IRAs.” “Yes, my idea is a good one, and these flaws can be disregarded.”
I don’t particularly think the other option is a good one. It tends to lead to extremist, poorly thought out ideas. But many seem to prefer it.
I’ll address your issues about tax burden separately.
Except that’s not the way it’s worked in actual practice. No matter what I’ve said, you’ve immediately come back with “Oh so you admit” something that is usually as far removed from what I actually said as imaginable.
However, on the assumption that you can behave better today than you did yesterday, I will answer your question: No. I would insert language that the 5% must come from corporate assets and profits and may not be passed along to individual accounts. Unless an individual account were itself part of a great than $1 billion holding, in which case it would be independently subject to the wealth tax apart from the brokerage.
“No. I would insert language that the 5% must come from corporate assets and profits and may not be passed along to individual accounts. ”
Do you understand how corporations and stock actually work? This is a serious question. The assets and profit ARE the stock. If you strip 5% of their assets, you’re stripping 5% of the value of the company away. Which means you’re stripping 5% of the stock price away.
For many corporations, it’s actually a bit worse than that. If you’ve got massive cash stockpiles, it may not be as big an issue. But many companies don’t. So, they’ll need to sell off assets…pieces of their business…or take on additional debt in order to stay afloat. Which will strip more off the stock price.
Yes, and some multi-billionaire with a $500 million art collection may need to sell some of it off, or take on debt, to pay the wealth tax too, but so what? A former client of mine once had to sell some stock to pay past due child support. It happens. And again, my proposal only impacts people and entities with a worth of more than $1 billion; the super rich have the means to figure it all out.
The bottom line continues to be that government should be funded by those most able to bear the cost, not those least able to. Every year Warren Buffett releases information on what percentage he paid in taxes. It’s shameful.
You are aware that Warren Buffett could arrange his affairs to pay more taxes, right? And he is also able to donate as much money as he wishes to help fund the federal government, right?
Michael, and the relevance of that to what we’re discussing is what?
You keep conflating individuals with corporations
The two aren’t the same.
Take a corporation like, oh, Dominoes (Pizza). It’s a publically traded corporation on the S&P500, with 14,400 employees. It’s top owners are all investment funds/mutual funds, who package it into Mutual funds or ETFs which are then bought by individual investors or companies as typically retirement investments and IRAs. Dominoes issues a (small) dividend every year, so people’s retirement investments grow. Market Cap about $25 Billion, with about 0.5 Billion in net income.
Now strip 5% of it’s value. Depending how you do the calculations, you ask it to cough up $1.25 billion. In Cash. That’s a massive hit to the corporation. The stock tanks. People get laid off, as Dominoes tries to come up with the money. And Dominoes tries to borrow…but every other major corporation is trying to borrow at the same time.
Krychek, you claim it’s shameful that Buffett pays so little tax. He seems to agree with you. But that’s a problem that he can trivially remedy. Because of his wealth, pointing out out is a red herring.
Michael, if Warren Buffett decided to donate every penny he has to the IRS, it would not fix the problems of all the other billionaires who aren’t being adequately taxed. He’s only one small part of the problem.
AL, part of the issue is that, as with Ebeneezer Scrooge, a great many back payments are being included in my proposed 5%. The real problem is that they should not have spent the last 40 years not being adequately taxed in the first place, in which case our bottom line would look a whole lot better than it does.
Keeping in mind that making a one-time payment is more difficult than paying as you go — there’s a reason your employer withholds income tax from your paycheck — I might be persuaded to let them pay it off over time, or to make some other arrangement. But the basic principle — our economy is in the shape that it’s in because the rich don’t pay their fair share — is a sound one.
I’m also open to other alternatives than a one-time payment of 5%. But I think your real issue is that you don’t want the rich to pay, so you’ll quibble with anything I propose.
Krychek, you can do the math as well as I can. Buffett only needs one of his super-rich friends for their combined net worth to be more than 5% of the total net worth of the top 400 Americans — a third might be needed to reach 5% of all American billionaires. More than two of them have also complained about supposedly unfair taxation, but they don’t do anything about it.
Part of that is that so much of their wealth is tied up in firms’ equity, but that just highlights that it is unreasonable to try to tax that wealth. As others have said, government cannot reasonably liquidate that equity. Trying to do so will probably destroy more wealth than it redistributes. But that’s the real objective, isn’t it?
No, the objective is not to destroy wealth. A certain amount of redistribution actually creates wealth as with, i.e., enabling people to get college educations they otherwise couldn’t have afforded, reducing elder poverty with social security and Medicare, and providing necessary infrastructure. It’s actually more of an investment.
Michael, if Warren Buffett decided to donate every penny he has to the IRS, it would not fix the problems of all the other billionaires who aren’t being adequately taxed.
The contributions I choose to make to various charities do not eliminate the problems that those charities exist to help with, and and if I completely stopped donating to them those organizations would never notice the difference in the grand scheme of things. Is that a good rationalization for not making those donations even while I publicly virtue signal my concern about those problems?
K_2, “must come from corporate assets and profits ” No matter how you slice it, a wealth tax is a means of nationalizing the means of production and/or driving down the valuation of holdings of the those means in the hands of private individuals causing an economic crash. It’s a bad idea. You want to raise money? Then EU has the answer: Value Added Tax. Also throw in Carbon Tax at the point of production. However, the Capitol Crones don’t have the cojones for that.
VAT and Carbon taxes are spectacularly BAD ideas.
I don’t like VAT at all. However, Carbon taxes at the source make good economic sense, far more sense than government fatwas about what kind of cars will be sold and what kind of energy is best for cooking food.
“on taxes that disproportionately affect” by your definition of disproportionate. But that did not stop the Sacramento Sophists from adding 50 cents to the CA gas tax.
No; most of our tax system falls on the rich. We have a very progressive system already. What we need to do is stop thinking of private wealth as a public resource and stop using the tax code to encourage people to behave in certain ways.
Single land value tax FTW.
No tax is ever “one time”
You can tax people’s 401k if you also tax pension funds.
You do realize most stocks/bonds are held as retirement savings, right?
Aren’t you just making the argument for a wealth tax?
I do agree that proponents of “tax the rich” need to rethink their strategy, since it’s become clear with some recent revelations about how the truly rich actually manage their money that they’re mostly avoiding paying taxes. Based on experiences in Europe, a wealth tax also seems like its unlikely to be effective, which is why consumption taxes usually enter into the equation rather than just relying on income taxes.
A slightly more progressive income tax + a thoughtfully implemented VAT + a reasonable inheritance tax probably provides a reasonably fair taxation regime and should be able to produce enough income for a fairly ambitious government agenda.
jb, The problem with the VAT is that the same damned 20% is applied each time the product moves up the value chain. It becomes a powerful unchecked cause of inflation. and as it is applied on almost all items except bare bare essentials, it also seems highly regressive. Although as the better to do like fancier toys higher on the value chain, it may not be as regressive as it seems at first
the same damned 20% is applied each time
Don, the VAT calculation is: Remit what you collect for (non-exempt) products, less what you paid for supplies that went into them. If the difference is negative you get a refund from the government. Typically this means when a business buys raw materials for $10 and sells their finished product for $20, they pay VAT on the difference.
What you told me is that the tax is on the “value added” And the government collects on each sale up the value chain until you the consumer pay VAT on a lot more than the small difference between the wholesale and retail price.
Right, and the net effect is the 20% is applied once on the final purchase price, not over and over again. In that respect it behaves the same as a sales tax, it is just harder avoid by setting up phony businesses. Why do you think collecting it incrementally is a problem?
Whenever I see wealth taxes I shake my head. They may sound great, but there are so many implementation problems.
First, how do you accurate appraise someone’s net worth? In my practice, we often represent business owners as they break up their company. It’s common to have one side say the company is worth $X and the other side say it is 5 x $X. You can also find lots of tax cases involving estates where there is all sorts of litigation over the value of companies.
Second, say you tax Bezos, et al. some percent of their net worth. Well, since it’s pretty much all in stock (rather than a Scrooge McDuck bin), you need them to sell shares or give them in kind. But the market isn’t looking to buy 5% of Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft this week. So that means that the price must go down (maybe cajoling some who may buy a new car and generate sales tax to buy stocks instead), and you probably end up selling off a bunch of those companies to foreign investors. It seems like a great way to depress consumer spending and the value of large companies, while selling off to foreigners.
Seems a weird point to pick on, since I acknowledged the experience with wealth taxes isn’t good.
David, You have just explained why the only way to pay 5% of the wealth is for the “victim” to surrender 5% of his stake in the company to the government. Anything else will crash the valuation of the company.
Certainly Lizzie and Bernie never envisioned there wealth tax as a one time deal. So every year the government amasses a larger fraction of the corporate control. It is sort of slow motion, nationalization.
Raising taxes on the 1% is a red herring. You need to raise taxes on a lot more people that than to cover the way democrats want to spend money
Than either party wants to spend money. Just look at the last four years.
We have an electorate that demands (and gets) a government larger than what it is willing to pay for.
Very true. Republicans want to spend 3 dollars for every 1 they take in, Democrats want to spend 5. In the long run it doesn’t matter who wins
Yes, because you and I, and especially our grandchildren, lose.
K_2, There is not enough money to take. When the government spends at the rate the the Old White Joe and his Capitol Cronies are, the only way to pay for it is 1) send the bill to the next generation 2) raise taxes on any family making more than $50K (or maybe $75K). The middle class has to see rising taxes 3) “tax” everyone via inflation.
Don Nico….the federal government will do all three.
Damn it! You’re right again.
4) Tax everyone via miles drive .
Once buying votes with borrowed money is permitted, a democracy is doomed. Takes a lot of borrowing to bankrupt a large and prosperous nation, but we’re in the end game now.
For the record Brent : Does this adage also applies to the Right? For approaching fifty years they’ve been buying votes with promises of massive tax cuts – always to be financed by supply-side elfin pixie dust & moonbeams woven from the farts of purple unicorns.
Indeed, your side (that which you typically align) has a much, much worse record on debt than mine. To take it one step further, over the past few decades Democrats have a record of cleaning-up the fiscal irresponsibility of their Republican predecessors: Clinton brought debt to heel after Reagan-Bush, then W destroyed every bit of progress made. Obama faced plus-trillion dollar deficits on his first day of office and then cut the yearly deficit down year-by-year over his two terms. It then took Trump just two years to bring trillion dollar deficits back.
What’s unique about Biden is he’s acting like a Republican. Not in his priorities of course, but in his total unconcern about federal debt. Nothing could be more Right-like than that.
Massive federal debt is the very core principle of today’s Right.
Clinton relied on an asset bubble to lead to unsustainably balanced books. Democrats in Congress created the next asset bubble, which burst, at which point they demanded the trillions in deficits that you blame on Bush. Obama and Democrats refused to pass actual budget bills for years because they wanted to keep those trillion-dollar deficits, until Republicans took Congress and forced the issue.
Michael, your theory might be plausible if sometimes Democrats left us better than they found us and sometimes Republicans did. Then you might be argue to claim it was pure luck for the Democrats.
But that’s not what we find. The economy was in great shape (or at least better than it was) when Clinton and Obama left office. GOP presidents left things in a shambles. The only real exception to that was Jimmy Carter, who wasn’t able to clean up the mess Nixon and Ford left him, and which was exacerbated by Reagan and Bush.
In fact, there is suspicion on my side of the aisle that Republicans do it on purpose so that Democrats’ time and resources will be taken up cleaning up GOP messes rather than pushing forward with their own agendas.
Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton both left office with balanced budgets; you have to go back all the way to Eisenhower to find a Republican who did.
The trend is just too clear.
Now do control of Congress.
Well, the Congressional Republicans have been in the majority for the biggest deficit increases in our nation’s history.
Like now? Or like those brief periods at the end of Clinton’s and Obama’s presidencies where you attribute the effects of tax and budget bills to the President who signed them rather than to the Congress that wrote them?
That’s a rather odd claim, considering that Dems controlled congress for most of the Reagan/Bush admins (which you decry), while Reps had control for most of Clinton’s (which you praise).
So…which is it?
The biggest deficit increases came during Trump.
Try again K_2, the largest deficit increase was in 2009 under Obama, the second third and fourth largest increases were in 2010 – 2012, again under Obama. Now if you want to call 2020 a normal year, the by far the largest increase was in 2020 under the Orange Clown. And 2021 is going to be a complete bloodbath under Biden I really don’t find the bickering over who ran up the largest debts very revealing. Just give the website and let people look for themselves. Taking my own advise, I offer a government website.https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/deficit/trends/
The confidence you have in your ignorance is astounding.
I don’t know if they do it on purpose or if it’s just a “happy accident,” but the media-abetted garment-rending by the gop when they’re out of power over the deficit absolutely harms efforts of democratic admins to pursue their agendas.
Michael P : “Clinton relied on an asset bubble… (etc)”
Please review your history with the ideological blinders off. Sure, Clinton benefited from a roaring economy – but Reagan’s was almost as good even as he drowned the country in red ink. The difference is found in two things: The deficit reduction packages of Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Indeed, the elder Bush might warrant more credit if (a) he didn’t need to be dragged to the altar kicking & screaming to pass the bill, (b) he didn’t immediately renounce the bill seconds after it passed, and (c) he didn’t campaign on more massive tax cuts while seeking reelection. Still, credit where credit is due.
Also, how’s the weather on your planet? I assume you live on some distance world where W’s two massive tax cuts, new drug benefit and expansion of spending had nothing to do with the debt that ensued. Wanna get real, guy?
As for your “Obama and Democrats refused to pass actual budget bills” gibberish, you do realize that’s nonsense, right? First of all, the Dems didn’t control Congress for much of Obama’s presidency. Second, piecemeal budgeting is a bipartisan phenomena. Third, policy is policy whether thru piecemeal budgeting or the more comprehensive version.
Three sentences in your comment and two were basically meaningless. That’s not a good look, Michael P….
grab, ignoring simple recent history is what is not a good look: https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/23/politics/senate-budget-bill/index.html
So what, Michael P?
You ignore several things :
1. GOP-led Congress’ have also governed by piecemeal budgets
2. The deficit improvement under Obama occurred steadily both before and after the event you trumpet by link.
3. And …. (wait for it) …. that’s because it’s completely irrelevant to yearly deficits whether budget choices are made in a dozen sub-budgets or one comprehensive budget. Decisions have to be made in either case. The deficit is the deficit in either case. Whichever one of your handlers told you otherwise treated you like a chump.
But that’s not the most embarrassing of your mistakes. For that we have to go to the twofer where you (1) blame the Democrats for the housing bubble, and then (2) blame the housing bubble for W’s massive deficits.
If you want, we can debate the first allegation but you’ll lose that argument too. That’s what happens when you don’t have a leg to stand on. But the more hilarious mistake is to blame Bush’s debt on the Bubble – since W was racking up massive deficits for years before said calamity occurred at the very end of his presidency.
These events didn’t happen that long ago; I shouldn’t have to school you on this.
Were you born yesterday? The distinguishing characteristic of the Reid stall was not passing separate budget bills, but avoiding bringing any budget bills at all to floor votes. They funded the government by “continuing resolution” instead.
Budgets under Obama recovered from huge stimulus spending, instituted by the Democratic Congress in response to the Great Recession. That recession was triggered by the Democrat-demanded asset bubble I mentioned earlier. The budget hole shrinking wasn’t due to any virtue of Obama; in fact, Obamacare and other bills he signed caused many of the increases in out-year spending that you blame Trump for.
Hilarious. Apparently you are so economically illiterate and completely STUPID about basic government functioning that you think : (a) Not a single decision on funding amounts was made in the early Obama years, and (b) that had some effect you you can’t put into coherent words, but are convinced was very, very important. Do some research and get back to me when you have half a brain.
And there was no “Democrat-demanded asset bubble” and you’ll look like a fool trying to describe it.
And Obamacare was fully funded – something verified by the CBO both before it’s passage and after it went in effect. Again, you can try and find a reputable source to say otherwise but you’ll only embarrass yourself further.
And Trump’s massive deficit increases – which reversed the yearly decrease under Obama – are somehow Obama’s fault. It’s just a coincidence Trump massively cut taxes and increased spending right ?!?
grb, I guess that the growth of the deficit in 2016 doesn’t count in your eyes. Moreover the 2017 budget and its larger deficit were most ballistic by the time the Orange Clown was sworn in. Try telling the whole truth next time. It is more convincing to independent voters.
It’s probably a worthless endeavor to look for a brain in your skull, Michael P, but I’m an optimist at heart. Therefore I’m going to try and help your mental processes – making the assumption you have some to begin with. Below is a link to an account of the 2010 Pentagon budget process, recounting Obama’s budget proposals and they way they were adapted or altered by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and amended by the Senate Appropriations Committee. If you wanna up your IQ even further you can try your own research, picking any area of the budget and going back to find the same procedures. Lord alone knows how you pictured the government being funded in your mind.
grb, just tell people to look athttps://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/deficit/trends/ and form their own opinions free from partisan bullshite.
None of the blah-blah from either side is convincing.
W’s deficits are directly traceable to the war in Iraq. The housing bubble was due to a predominantly Democratic mantra and myth that everyone could own a home followed by massive support of an untenable position by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Did Republicans participate in that charade? Yup. And they share the blame
And his tax cuts that were installed because the budget surplus he inherited was “evidence that taxes were too high.”
” Does this adage also applies to the Right?” It applies regardless of political creed.
Since when has the (lack of) wisdom stopped the government from spending money until stagflation is apparent?
This inflation hawkery is pretty transparent.
Inflation in July remained high at 5.4%, largely due to huge increases in the cost of gasoline and used cars. However, the increase from the previous month was much lower than in June:
The inflation rate for food remained pretty reasonable at 2.6%. Whatever people may say, a trip to the supermarket just isn’t a lot more expensive than it was a year ago.
“Whatever people say”…
Don’t tell Tyson foods that.
Anecdotes don’t beat statistics.
Ancedotes predict the future…
And yep…food inflation is starting to spike again too! Up to 3.4% in July. And that’s after a lot of food inflation last year, averaging 3.5 to 4% for all of the end of 2020.
I think the general premise of economists is this inflation is temporary – but they are not 100% certain that’s the case (even beyond the typical nervousness of economists re inflation). As an architect I’ve seen massive shortages of building materials these past few months that all only now shaking out.
Here’s my conclusion : Optimism is justified, pessimism is acceptable – but if you’re counting on inflation for the midterms ya may very well have bought a pig in a poke
“this inflation is temporary”
The new prices will remain though.
Yeah, deflation is bad.
Not always = deflation is bad
Bob, not new higher housing prices. When interest rates go up, housing prices will go down.
Sl, Maybe. But more likely stagnate for a few to several years
Anecdotes predict nothing but the desired narrative of the person pushing them.
Your 3.4% is not for July, that’s the 12 month index *ending* in July.
Of course it’s the 12 month index rate. That’s how it’s typically reported. Your link used the same type of reporting.
If you’re going to be pedantic about it, at least apply it to yourself first.
Most people spend their money on housing and transportation (the two combined is more than 50% of the average budget).
People keep moving the goalposts and redefining how long transitory is. Home price inflation is with us well into 2022.
In 2022 people will still be crying transitory.
Anyway, it does not matter how short/long inflation is. If its eating up wage gains, people are still poorer, and feel it.
But we know the cause of the home price inflation, and it’s not monetary. That’s how we know it’s transitory.
Of course its monetary. If interest rates were 7%, there would be a lot less demand for housing. lol.
Just wait until that 4.5 trillion hits the economy and people start spending it.
I dont think “monetary” means what you think it means.
So it is transitory.
But you don’t like government spending.
There is that word, “transitory”. How long is that, exactly. One year? Two years? Three years?
I dont think it means what you think it means.
It means it’s not structural. It does not mean a hard-and-fast time limit.
You are clearly knowledgeable enough of the area to know arbitrary lines are not how it actually works – don’t play the fool.
We have always been in a transitory war with Eastasia.
Well thats the problem, once inflation has gone on long enough, expectations rise and then it is structural. Consumer expectations of inflation over the next two years are already on the rise. Companies are able to push through price hikes without much resistance.
4.5 trillion of government money chasing goods and services that don’t exist in this environment is almost certainly adding gasoline to the pile.
Well thats the problem, once inflation has gone on long enough, expectations rise and then it is structural.
Fine, but you haven’t established that at all, just identified a new cause *that hasn’t manifested yet*.
You don’t like government spending, so you’re going for an outcome-oriented inflation hawk stance. The rates are not extraordinary, and there are plenty of examples of the effects of government spending increases not being inflationary.
Once again, as I said 2 weeks ago – the very fact that you’re super sure what’s going to happen shows why you don’t actually know what you’re talking about.
Our banker told us that it is because “they’re not making any more land.” That would be pretty structural. It is also because of pressure that drive more people and more of the economy into urban centers. That is also structural.
Neither of those are new, and neither of those are driving the current inflation rate increase in that sector.
I’d have to see hard data to believe that increased urbanization is not driving increases in rents for the past four years
First thing is I’d look at the differing rates. Urbanization is happening slower than the current jump in housing prices.
With little to campaign on at this time, some are looking to inflation. Inflation is a complex issue and what we are seeing is a short term effect from the economy coming back. The issue is what will inflation settle into and how will that affect the economy. Inflation with grow can be accommodated, inflation without growth is a problem. The question is what is the final direction we will head into in the future.
At this point, you cant even build a house until next year. Existing home inventory on the market is down substantially. Most homes go on the market in the spring, so its pretty much a done deal that core inflation (a lot of which is driven by owners equivalent rent) is going to see another bump next year. Same for cars. Here we are in August, and chip makers and car manufacturers are still backed up.
Then on top of that, the govt is going to try to spend 4.5 trillion, 1.5 of which is on “infrastructure” and all that money is chasing goods that wont exist.
When inflation is high, wages don’t keep up. We have not had such a period in a long time. Its not complex. People simply think that the rules of supply and demand no longer apply.
” trip to the supermarket just isn’t a lot more expensive than it was a year ago.” As long as you walk or are rich enough to drive a Tesla powered by the solar cells that you had installed on your roof.
“a trip to the supermarket just isn’t a lot more expensive than it was a year ago”
Said the unmarried childless person.
Not only are prices up across the board but package size continues to be decreased. “Sales” are on far fewer products.
I was quoting Kevin Drum, who is married and was quoting actual real-life statistics, not your personal experience.
There is a thing called “quotation marks” to show a quote. Maybe you ought to learn to use.
Government inflation number is merely an estimate based on surveys, its not a real “statistic”, its a bunch of “personal experiences”.
Carefully chosen to be a statistically significant sample.
FFS Bob, you know how statistics work.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
The murder rate is a solid statistic because almost all dead bodies are reported, the number of building permits issued during X period in Y city can be quantified by counting.
Any thing based on a survey, no matter how “carefully chosen” is not really a statistic, its an estimate.
There is uncertainty in all data. That doesn’t mean you ignore it.
Not responsive to the argument. If your data is a statistically meaningful sample of poorly defined crap, guess what, no matter how many rubes you try to impress with your nifty math, it is still poorly defined crap.
In the real world, you need to demonstrate that your proxy is a good representation of what you claim to be measuring. You political types always skip that part. Assuming your conclusions is so much easier.
Bob appears to be attacking statistical science generally – Any thing based on a survey, no matter how “carefully chosen” is not really a statistic, its an estimate.
How is a survey different than a sample? Because all of statistical science involves sampling.
Separately, arguing that the methods we have to measure inflation are not measuring inflation requires a lot more support than you or Bob have provided.
Closer to $5 trillion…
“Is it wise for the government to borrow and spend another 3.5 trillion under these circumstances for new priorities?”
Do you understand how investment works? Have you ever heard of the term “leverage” in this context?
If you’re into hiking, I recommend the North rim, Bryce Canyon, and Zion. It’s gorgeous. Still here for a couple days.
To bad the wife gets altitude sickness, we’ve had to stick to the easy hikes.
Did you do the hike down The Narrows in Zion? That’s the one where you rent chest-high waders & a big walking stick and spend half your time wading thru water. I took several tumbles when we did it, and that water was cold!
There’s also spectacular hike in Zion called Angles Landing that climbs up a razor-thin ridge line. I really wanted to do that as well, but was suddenly sick as a dog & unable.
Did the Narrows today. Wasn’t more than knee deep. Would have liked to try Angels Landing, but nobody else was up for it.
I remember sections that were deeper but that could be my memory playing tricks on me. The water was definitely running pretty fast though. I assume you also did the Navajo Loop at Bryce. That last climb is pretty brutal – no problem with my memory there.
Me and the Ex liked all this stuff so much we went out there two years in a row. Saw Mesa Verde, Grand Canyon, Antelope Canyon. The last one is a famous slot canyon, reproduced in a zillion photos. Our only regret there was we took the ride out to Antelope too earlier. I think it’s best near midday, when the sun really lights up all the sinuous curves at the bottom of the canyon.
Water levels in the Narrows varies radically depending on the weather. Mid shin while we were there, but a storm came through after we left. Wouldn’t have wanted to hike it after that.
My fave was Inspiration point.
North Rim is so different than the rest of the Grand Canyon. Took my camper van there and was shocked at how worth while it was.
I presume there’s a whole lot less people?
Not just less peeps but a lot more wildlife. As I drove up to there were forests and big meadows one of which had at least a hundred mule deer feeding. A much different vibe as well. One reason for less peeps is the much longer drive on narrow two lane roads up somewhat steep inclines. I have seen some folks complain about high prices and less than average food at the lodges. Since I was basically camping in my Sprinter van and had a place to sleep and plenty of food it was a non issue for me.
At one lookout a ranger told me about I could see the San Francisco mountains some 80 miles away; at least according to the ranger that is what I saw. I was so impressed I even bought a Tshirt.
Don’t miss the Coral Pink Sand Dunes while you’re in the area.
“To bad the wife gets altitude sickness, we’ve had to stick to the easy hikes.”
A much long time ago, I went to AF technical school at Lowry AFB, in Colorado. Funny thing. They keep the air there in short supply. We went from daily PT of 1.5 miles at the end of BMT at Lackland AFB, near San Antonio, to barely being able to make 1 lap in Colorado, because there’s no air to breathe. Anyways, one of the guys in my training group kept getting nosebleeds from the altitude. So he’d get sent over to the clinic on base for treatment of nosebleed, which consisted of shoving cotton up his nose until the blood stopped coming out. The reason I know this is because it’s against the rules to send a bleeding person walking over to the clinic by himself, because he might fall in a ditch and bleed to death. So, every time he gets a nosebleed during class, he has to go walk across the base to the clinic (missing important training) and someone who isn’t bleeding has to go along (also missing important training). On the plus side, they kept a bunch of EMTs and nurses at the clinic and a substantial number of them were of the female persuasion. So even though I didn’t volunteer for the trip even once, I kept going without complaining about it. The other thing memorable about Lowry was that was not located in a remote area. Out the main gate was literally Denver, and out the back gate was Aurora, a suburb of Denver. Also the horizon was right where it was supposed to be in three directions: Look north, east, or south, and there it was flat, flat, flat. But look out to the west and the horizon is NOT where its supposed to be… it’s way up there.
Me: monopolies are bad
Also me: But Google spends a fuck ton on basic scientific research (quantum computing), money that if the government tried to spend would come and go with the whims of changing administrations.
Basic research priorities are actually refreshingly nonpolitical. Especially ones with national security implications like quantum computing.
Though I remain a bit skeptical of how long it’ll take to reduce this to practice. Quantum computing has been only 20 years away for at least 20 years.
No. Just ask NASA. Or Tory Bruno. Not only does funding come and go with politics, companies like ULA plan for it. Space exploration is just one example. Quantum computing and materials science is another example. Have you ever seen the IT systems at government agencies? It’s laughable. They cant even get unemployment checks out on time.
Commercial research is great, of course. But it’s really applied these days. The era of Bell Labs is over, and I don’t think it’s coming back. Not saying Google shouldn’t keep going, but lets not leave the field to them and assume the market will handle.
Space projects are special, and also pretty applied. Quantum computing and materials science priorities haven’t changed across the 3 administrations I’ve served under – what are you tracking? I do have a somewhat myopic view, despite my best efforts.
I do know IT systems at government agencies are real bad. This is also true of many law firms. Infrastructure modernization is not very sexy when setting budget priorities. Not sure what that has to do with continuity of basic research policy across administrations.
“The era of Bell Labs is over, and I don’t think it’s coming back.”
No, I know people doing quantum research at Google. I also know people doing basic biochemistry at another company. Basic research is not sexy so it does not get a lot of press, but it is done.
Also, private companies do not necessarily do basic research directly at their labs. That’s one model. They other model is to fund it at universities. By funding it at universities, they also get a steady stream of graduate students to recruit.
It happens, but it’s budget in industry is dwarfed by applications.
Because following your curiosity has no ROI.
Governmental research grants to universities for basic research outstrip industry by a factor of about 10. Though the government’s professional development goals include creating good PIs to give grants to in the future.
I spent some time chasing that Bell Labs dragon – there’s lot of academic interest. But in my opinion, I don’t think industry wants that model anymore.
“Because following your curiosity has no ROI.”
Again, not true. Finance has progressed enormously in the last several decades, to the point that “Real Options” can be valued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_options_valuation
Modern corporate finance CFOs are far more sophisticated than you think. They know how to invest in projects with a 1 in 10,000 probability of success.
I would argue that once you use metrics to optimize your research portfolio for ROI, you’re doing applied research. That is only my take on the issue, many smart organizations like DARPA agree with you.
Though again, look at the spending numbers in the NSF survey (though I don’t know how they draw the basic-applied line). You will see 1) most basic research is federal spending, and 2) the proportion of federal S&T spending spent on basic research is much higher than industry spending.
Bell Labs and it’s kind died, not because it was outcompeted by federal funding, but because there was more profits to be made in lower risk, shorter-term projects. Perhaps that situation was created by the government allowing industry to eat it’s basic research seed-corn by funding basic research itself (not sure if can ever know the counterfactual), but we’re not getting out of that now with China nipping at our basic research heels.
To be clear – my thesis is that industry cannot be counted on as part of a robust basic research enterprise right now, and I don’t think we can get there from here.
However, transitioning basic research is vital, and commercialization as a transition rout is one of the best methods, if you can swing it. Programs that could use some love in that arena: iCorp, STTR, and probably other stuff I’m not tracking.
Even DARPA is restricted to 6.1 and 6.2 research.
Right, but I hate DARPA’s definition of 6.1!
They’re applied but shy to admit it. Which is fine – Congress seems cool with that. But I’m not :-<
S_0, You are correct. DARPA does not fund string theory!
I also hate string theory – too many degrees of freedom to be real physics, I tells ya!
Give me CBR, quasars, and particle colliders any day!
I am following the aberrant muon anomalous magnetic moment with great interest.
Just one example for a large industrial research budget: Schlumberger has an internal research budget in excess of $600M per year in the science and technology related to well logging. It may be more narrow that the Bell Lab model, but it is a large sum. The research budgets at Google and in Big Pharma are also very large.
Research does not mean basic though.
True, but Schlumberger does a lot on research on detectors, data processing, modes of radiation reactions with matter. Not string theory or neutrino physics but pretty basic. I remember my colleagues in the physics dept at Yale. They kicked the condensed matter folks out of the department because they consider that to be applied science.
“I do know IT systems at government agencies are real bad. This is also true of many law firms. Infrastructure modernization is not very sexy when setting budget priorities.”
It’s pretty bad at most places, not just gov’t and law firms. The NSA seems to have all they need, but everybody else is nursing along old and inefficient, insecure IT systems.
S_0, Quantum computing is not the analog of fusion. The past 20 years have seen robust quantum cryptography employed and quantum computing at the 100 qubit level. There is now a large investment by a semiconductor foundry in a optical circuit based approach to fabricate a quantum computer on the million cubit scale. Can QC over come the challenge of error correction? that remains to be seen Fusion has never gotten that far along
Maybe. Basic research is always high risk, and tries to sell itself as not that. But industry getting involved makes me optimistic – they’re smarter at that stuff than I am. Note how none of them have touched fusion power yet!
Yes, they are wiser than that. BTW, the deal was between Global Foundries and PsiQuantum and was announced in the WSJ about 2 weeks ago.
The challenge is that the org that pays for the research isn’t necessarily the one that reaps the benefit(s). Which is fine if the gov’t is paying, and the research ends up being an unanticipated subsidy for the business that first gets a marketable product to market. If business A funds research that winds up benefitting business B, business A won’t score that as a win, even if A is able to garner most of the results of their funding of research.
“Fusion has never gotten that far along”
Unless 1952 happened, at which point we had the H-bomb, and interest in fusion tapered off.
Agreed, the research is a potential positive; alphabet’s sociopolitical monoculture is an issue in terms of GIGO and selection/confirmation bias.
“alphabet’s sociopolitical monoculture is an issue”
That’s the sort of problem you get when your monoculture is built by hiring engineers from all over the world.
Quantum computing has much hype and (currently) few applications. It has high potential for a few known problems. Don’t get over-hyped on it (but don’t dismiss it either).
Also, Google does tons of stuff but ultimately they are an advertising company. Most of everything else they do gets cancelled or goes into unproductive science-project mode waiting for some other company to actually build something useful on the science-project framework Google started.
” It has high potential for a few known problems. ” which just happen to be central to most cybersecurity methods. In other words there is at least one killer app. If you broaden the relevant research to include cypercryptography then you have an application that has been running in the commercial world for at least 15 years.
Beyond crypto, also modeling chemical processes. Quantum computing would absolutely be a game changer.
But we’re well off from reducing to practice as of yet. And basic research does not have a timeline one can predict.
“Quantum computing has much hype and (currently) few applications. It has high potential for a few known problems. Don’t get over-hyped on it (but don’t dismiss it either).”
Microcomputers had few applications in 1978, but a lot of people have made a lot of money making and supporting microcomputers since then.
“Most of everything else they do gets cancelled or goes into unproductive science-project mode waiting for some other company to actually build something useful on the science-project framework Google started.”
Which is cool. Have you ever heard of Google Cloud Platform? Because it sounds a lot like you haven’t.
Not too long ago, the National Women’s Soccer League agreed to give up their Ninth Circuit appeal to nix a 15-year-old soccer prodigy’s professional contract, as long as the Oregon federal district court judge assigned to the case vacated a number of opinions that took issue with the league’s age restrictions. The district judge seemed agreeable to doing this but viewed herself as without jurisdiction to do so since the case was at the court of appeals. I haven’t seem anyone comment on the propriety of this, as a procedural matter or otherwise (e.g., are there any First Amendment concerns for the court).
“Not too long ago, the National Women’s Soccer League agreed to give up their Ninth Circuit appeal to nix a 15-year-old soccer prodigy’s professional contract”
Why? contracts with minors aren’t real contracts to begin with.
Why? contracts with minors aren’t real contracts to begin with.
Sigh. That’s, of course, not correct. You should probably stop trying to make legal assertions based on things you think you remember from law school.
Contracts with minors are “real contracts.” They are, under some circumstances, voidable by the minors in question. But since the minor here — Olivia Moultrie — wasn’t trying to void the contract, that’s irrelevant.
Unlikely to hear more about it since the parties have settled.
Last weekend returning from a trip, my wife and I were rerouted because of an accident on the road ahead of us. I later found out that a car was headed north in the southbound lanes of a divided freeway, a head on collision occurred and three people died. The driver heading north in the wrong lane was 87 years old man.
While ideally people should make a personal decision to stop driving, I wonder at what point the government needs to step in and say you not long have the necessary physical and mental skills to drive a car? Most of us are tested and granted a license at 16. We are never tested, except eyesight, again.
I’m a dork, so I don’t want to make policies until we see statistics.
And yep, there seems to be an issue. (Note the front page frustratingly doesn’t give useful numbers (i.e. rates), but you can click through to the cites)
Start by demanding statistics about how many states renew licenses blindly for people old enough to retire. Sometimes they do require periodic re-testing of driving skill, or allow children or other interested parties to challenge a license renewal.
And, of course, some very old people can drive very well, which is why they have low insurance costs.
In Illinois drivers over 70 have to take the road test every time they renew their license (every 4 years) At age 80 you have to renew (and test) every 2 years. At age 87 its every year
Can’t say this often about IL, but they have the right idea here
So-called “Ghost Riders” are a problem often exacerbated by poor ramp design and the lack of proper signage. What inevitably happens is someone mistakes the exit ramp for the onramp and hence winds up on the wrong side.
OUI, age, unfamiliarity with the road and poor visibility all often exacerbate this as well.
A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I were returning from a trip when we decided to get off the Interstate and antique shop. As we got near the top of the ramp, a Ram 2500 towing a trailer with a backhoe on it turned down the ramp in the wrong direction. fortunately the ramp was wide. The driver was probably in his mid to late 20s. Maybe he should stop driving.
When I’m elected, there’ll be no proposal to cap the age at which a person can drive. But annual driving tests will be required for anyone 65 (maybe 70) and older. Pass and you keep driving. The matter can’t be left to families, as I learned. So, prove you’re capable of driving every year.
Anyone else notice how the media-manufactured “epidemic of left-wing antisemitism” abruptly just . . ended, right about the same time as Israel’s latest bombing campaign against the Palestinians wrapped up? Kinda weird, huh?
More like kinda incorrect.
Are you suggesting that foreign funding for anti-Semitic attacks was broken by that bombing campaign? Or that the people conducting the anti-Semitic terrorism realized they couldn’t achieve their goals through violence against civilians?
I’m suggesting that over 98% of what (certain sectors of) the media label “left wing antisemitism” is not antisemitism at all, it is mere opposition to Israel and its mistreatment of Palestinians. And naturally, this opposition is heightened during times when Israel is publicly and visibly waging war against the Palestinians. If this “epidemic” were real, and really borne out of a hatred for Jews, why is it so closely correlated with the actions of Israel?
It’s the news cycles. It affects all sides.
So your argument is that attacks on random Jews aren’t really anti-Semitic if they target those Jews because of feelings about what Israel does?
The usual definition of a hate crime is that it’s a crime that is motivated by some perceived (whether “true” or not) identity of the victim. When the victim is chosen based on (perceived) Judaism, we call it an anti-Semitic act. You seem to be proposing that we change the definition of anti-Semitism. Can you elaborate on why we should do that?
It’s very likely true that anti-semites are against anything Israel does, starting with existing at all. The inverse is not true, not everybody who objects to anything Israel does is anti-semite. When you choose to label anyone who objects to something Israel did as an anti-semite, it blunts the term as applied to the people who really are anti-semite.
Movie Review – The Forever Purge (I watched it so you don’t have to….)
When the “Purge” franchise was first introduced I liked it as a campy kind of horror film. It was entertaining and the premise provided for at least a modicum of philosophical thought. Then over the years and many sequels it transformed into a bloated woke monster which itself could be the subject of a movie in the same genre.
I was not going to watch this recent version of The Purge, having abandoned the franchise a few movies ago when the writers revealed their true political colors, but somehow it popped into a video streaming service I use free of charge and I had an unencumbered evening. So, off to the microwave I went to make some popcorn.
First off, even if you went into watching this movie with low expectations it will surprise you that it is possible to release a movie that delivers far below those already low expectations. I didn’t think that would happen here, but the writers of Purge Forever surprised me.
I’ll hold back spoiler alerts and just give the backdrop. The New Founding Fathers have managed to retake the government and reinstitute the Purge. The plot is quite upfront that the purpose of this public policy isn’t to promote peace and tranquility the other 364 nights a year, but really to get minorities and immigrants. And apparently there are enough Americans who are “pro-purge” to get the government that supported it back in power.
That is pretty much the entire theme of the movie. Everything and everyone is racist. The villains are all white people and heroes are all minorities (many of which are illegal immigrants). In between the gunfire and shootings there are hacked up lines of dialogue that sounds more like lines pulled from an AOC speech than any original thought. Oh, and about 1/4 of the actual dialogue, especially between those who are migrants, is in Spanish (with no subtitles) so many viewers are left wondering what is going on after watching formative scenes take place with no actual explanation from the script.
The only redeeming quality I found from the movie was that some of the dialogue with just a few minor tweaks could have come right out of the BLM playbook. In fact, the entire activities of the “Forever Purgers” reminded me of what happened last summer. That is calls for “reclaiming society” and using extra-legal violence to do so. There is even a scene where the main characters attempt to evade capture in a tractor trailer that is besieged. I doubt the writers had this intention, but made me think back to the LA riots and recent BLM violence where truckers were ripped from the same trucks during those spats of violence. Ironic is not the right word, but I think you get what I am saying here.
There was also the standard stuff. Hollywood doesn’t know how an actual firearm works. The characters seem to have endless ammo and never need to reload. AR-15 platforms are shown as fully automatic. For being just a bunch of ranchers and skilled laborers they execute maneuvers with special operation team type precision. And the list goes on and on. This is prevalent in most movies, don’t get me wrong, but over the top here.
This trudges along for about an hour and a half if you can bear watching it for the full length. The main plot of the movie is the characters try to make a mad dash for the Mexican border which is only going to be open for 6 hours to accept refugees from the US before closing indefinitely. (Apparently it is just fine that Mexico has a border and can police it and again, another one of those ironies I’m not sure the writers even knew they put in there.) But, this unfolds so slowly though and with such little development you can probably skip ahead 10-15 minutes at several points and lose nothing from the plot.
I would not advise you to skip this movie per se, just put it really far down on your viewing priority list. There are some tidbits in there and if you can see behind the obvious political woke script, it is actually a grand example of left wing hypocrisy. Other than that though there is very little redeeming quality left in this movie.
Three Points :
1. JtD put in a lotta effort on this and I applaud him. Still, the Purge movies have never appeared worthy of interest to me. Finding out they are geared to my (supposed) “woke sensibilities” ain’t gonna change that.
2. Today’s Right just doesn’t do aesthetics. A few years back the National Review tried their hand at a Greatest Movies list and the result was packed with choices-by-politics and political dredge. Hell, I even think Red Dawn made the cut (Wolverines!). Somehow the Right’s hive mind is so constipated by political dogma that nothing escapes unfiltered.
3. But what about Armond White, you say, the National Review’s current prime reviewer? I apologize to Jimmy (a much better film reviewer than White) because here this is the actual subject of my rant :
For all his aesthetic flouncing, Armond White is a total sham. This isn’t restricted to his trollish contrarianism; White is a fraud top-to-bottom. His reviews first start with whether the film triggers one of his hatreds, and White hates actors, directors, themes, other critics, all of Hollywood – even whole film genres. Then we move on to some pretentious comparison to a film he finds acceptable, and you’re lucky to hear much of anything else about the film under review after that. What is mentioned is often comically unfactual, because White just doesn’t care. I think he has such contempt for the film industry that his slapdash incompetence is a big F.U. His reviews are an incoherent world-salad glut that any sixth-grade English teacher would fail in a heartbeat. Their only glue is airy “social trends”, but the connection between them & the film in question is always supposed, not established.
This is harsh, but Armond White is as bad at film criticism as Trump was the presidency. Both are huckster frauds with contempt for their chosen audience. Both aren’t just bad at what they do, but stomach-churning awful. And both have a slavish cult-following in the Right. Go figure.
The problem with “right wing” movie reviews, is that I think I can count on one hand the number of mainstream movies that were written to have a “right wing message. If your only tool is a hammer, is what tends to happen with those reviews.
Now there is a sub-genre of movie that ends up becoming a political message for the right. I chalk this up to zeitgeist and public perception mostly. The “Death Wish” series was supposed to be a cry to minimize vigilante violence. Instead the main character ended up being likable and even looked justified. The “Dirty Harry” movies were about the same. “When the system ties the hands of decent cops, what do you expect…” was largely the takeaway many had from those.
I would put Forever Purge into this potential category. The Purgers, if one were to flip the political script, act a heck of a lot like BLM rioters. And the talking points, again twisting around the subject matter, sounds like critical race theory. It would not take that astute of a viewer to draw these parallels either though. This movie might be destined to become a niche “cult classic” because of this.
Jimmy the Dane : “The “Death Wish” series was supposed to be a cry to minimize vigilante violence”
Good God Almighty! Can you actually believe that ?!? The lone hero seeking vengeance against evildoers is one of the oldest tropes in the book. The Death Wish movies did exactly what they were designed to do.
Here’s a hint, Jimmy : Don’t go to the movies as a snowflake looking for any excuse to be triggered and you’ll have a much better time. True story: Many years ago I used to do a long beach weekend with some old friends – all of whom are ditto zombie undead hard-right conservatives. We always did a movie and one year I suggested the newly released The Right Stuff.
They were horrified; their handlers had convinced them the flick was some secret plot to elect John Glenn as president (never mind he’s treated as something of an amiable putz in the movie). Fast forward 35 years and Right-wing world is put into the same tizzy over The First Man, and for equally erroneous & moronic reasons. At some point you guys have to stop being so easy to manipulate.
My buddies used to rant&rant about this “liberal” hollywood star or that. I’d just laugh. At one point I ask them if they thought I cared the slightest about Charlton Heston’s politics. (He made a damn good Mexican in Touch of Evil).
RE: Death Wish.
If you read the interviews with the director and star characters at the time of filming they state outright that was the intention of the series. The script writers even took care to make sure that the “bad guys” were a diverse group and not all minorities or other stereotypes. Problem was the results bordered of the absurd like in Death Wish 3 where you end up with a multicultural gang in 1980’s New York led by a white guy who is supposed to look like a white supremacist. So, yes I believe that was the original intent, just poorly executed.
I’m not sure where you got the idea I watch movies to try to get offended. My intent in watching most is to look at the social messages being conveyed. Even bad movies are usually scripted well and with lots of thought. (This used to be true with television as well, but not so much these days). I think the Purge Forever falls into the “interesting” category.
Sorry. I’m not trying to be cryptic; the above was an accidental post. Your mistake, JtD, is confusing novel and film. Yes, the former was against vigilantism, with the main character shooting random teenagers by book’s end just because he didn’t like the way they looked. You don’t find that in the film, do you? Our conflicted and deeply-shamed architect of the novel is gleefully planning still more killing in the film. These weren’t changes made by a director who specialized in the struggle of conscience iof a conflicted hero; Michael Winner was known for hard violent brutal movies.
His film just before Death Wish was the Stone Killers. It’s plot? A Mafia don seeks to avenge the killings of other Mafia dons years earlier, using teams of Vietnam vets to kill the current syndicate heads. It starred Charles Bronson.
I’m not confusing the two, just going off what I have read as far as director interviews and even summaries of the stars at the time. It has been awhile since I have watched the whole franchise, but it did later turn into more of a grindhouse style violence thriller later on. The first installment was probably the most true to the theme that a vigilante may seem justified at first, but taking the law into your own hands makes you a distorted individual who eventually becomes a mentally deranged person that society cannot tolerate.
Even by the third Death Wish you can see that the main character is only tolerated by law enforcement as an “ends achieves the means” kind of justification, one that needs to be hidden away from the public limelight to boot.
Don’t get me wrong it is an action flick with lots of violence. That is the main appeal and it provides much of that especially for the era. But, the overall theme is still omnipresent in the nuances of writing, interactions, and just plain old casting.
But that gets me back to my main point. When movies like that hit the public, perception is sometimes much different than intent. The public looks at the main character and says “yeah if I lived in a shitty neighborhood run by a gang I would be totally justified in doing all that stuff” and treats him more like a hero instead of conflicted villain. And that is the source of most movies viewed as “right wing” in that they were not intended to be such but ended up with that kind of reputation. Hence why lists of “right wing” movies are usually poorly constructed and grasping at straws.
Dude, I gotta get a citation on this “movie intent” business, because I’m convinced your mind is playing tricks on you. The Death Wish I know made zero attempts at ethical ambiguity. Very, very much the opposite.
On the other hand, its main character was an architect. I’m seldom pleased with the way my profession is portrayed on film, so I’ve decided to take what I can get.
It’s an issue of intent of the drafters versus original public meaning.
It is subjective to some extent so your take is going to be different than mine. I’m not going to engage in a length essay style analysis of the Death Wish series here, but there are plenty of examples in the plot of how the movie tries to portray the main character as conflicted and his results undesired by the public. One prime example, which I alluded to above, was the absurd application in casting for the third installment. The director went to great pains to make sure the “bad guys” were a multicultural representation and led by a white guy who was styled much like a white supremacist neo-nazi of the day and age. This fact was not lost on my reviewers from the day either, just look on Rotten Tomatoes.
That was largely my point though that when these are deployed into the public, perception is different then the original objective intent. That happens with a lot of things in life, including movies. And my thesis statement is that there are extremely few “right wing movies” or movies that were written to have such a political takeaway. Almost all “right wing movies” end up being so because of how the public later on perceives them or latches on to an aspect of the movie (ignoring other parts of it that communicate a contrary message in doing so.)
That, and the Fountainhead, and the Brady Bunch.
There is about a two percent chance on any given day that Armond White could write a better movie review than Roger Ebert.
The figure is that high because Mr. Ebert has been dead for years.
Ebert via ouija board could write a better review than White
The other big problem with Armond White is that his prose tends to be incomprehensible. I don’t particularly care for Kyle Smith as a reviewer, but at least I can understand the words he is writing.
I always thought Mark Steyn was an excellent critic. He seems to have gone off the deep end in general, but his New Criterion reviews used to be top drawer.
” Hollywood doesn’t know how an actual firearm works.”
They do. which is why you don’t read many stories about how many people were killed making movies with guns in them. Knowing how something really works is not the same as showing it. For example, most of the time, car crashes do not cause explosions. Except in the movies.
“AR-15 platforms are shown as fully automatic.” And you’re claiming they can’t be? Maybe you’re the one who doesn’t know how guns work. Just because they don’t come that way from the factory (well, they do, it’s just then when they come from the factory that way, they’re marked as M-16s and not AR-anythings.
If Congress grants immunity for all the illegal aliens, which is being snuck into the Largess Bill, can the next Congress repeal that?
Why or why not?
You’re talking to Ed. I see no evidence anything like that is in the infrastructure bill.
Also he uses a nickname for the bill from Ace of Spades HQ. Because of course he reads that place.
I forgot about Ace of Spades. Still the simpleton’s cesspool of bigotry, ignorance, backwardness, and ostensible adults who still like to play with guns?
Depends on what kind of “immunity”.
1. If it’s merely some kind of deferment, then yes, the next Congress could simply undo it. 2. If it’s a fast track to permanent resident status, then it will be harder. One could argue (and I’d agree) that a law specifically undoing their PR status is effectively creating a new additional punishment for a crime that already occurred, and thus ex post facto and unconstitutional. 3. If it’s a flat repeal of the statute that makes unauthorized entry a crime and legalizing the status of those here, then Congress could reinstate the law going forward but won’t be able to do much about those already here.
Regardless of what you want, don’t get your hopes up: people who want to loosen immigration restrictions always get disappointed when Democrats/liberals are in charge, and people who want to tighten restrictions always get disappointed when Republicans/conservatives are in charge.
Also, as much as it might pain you to be reminded: if they are given immunity then they will no longer be illegal. Hell, if they are given documents they won’t even be undocumented.
Which means opponents will have to drop the pretense that they only care about following the law, and be more direct about what they want and why.
Congress won’t grant immunity in any meaningful way. The status of illegal aliens is far more useful to Democrats as a problem than any solution ever could be. Have you noticed how since they took control of the House and could actually pass it, Democrats have not even introduced a new version of the DREAM Act? They need people afraid the next president may again try to reverse DACA
The status of illegal aliens is far more useful to Democrats as a problem than any solution ever could be.
Just like “systemic racism”.
Have you noticed how since they took control of the House and could actually pass it, Democrats have not even introduced a new version of the DREAM Act?
Yes; it’s not that they don’t have the votes; it’s a conspiracy.
They introduced it 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2017, did they have the votes then? Democrats often introduce legislation for purely symbolic reasons, and even more often to use Nay votes as campaign material against their opponents in the elections
I think the problem is they are worried not that it doesn’t have the votes, but rather that it does, and they’ll lose it as a campaign issue
If you want to see it from the other side, look at repeal and replace. Republicans passed bills several time knowing President Obama would veto it, but when Trump was elected suddenly it all stopped. They need the ACA as a boogeyman as much as Democrats need deportation
No, they did not. Not all Dems agree on everything, especially wedge issues like immigration.
I see this from the left about abortion as well. Heck, I saw that about the ACA until the Dems actually passed it. And then I saw it about the repeal of the ACA.
Symbolic votes are one thing, but that kind of 3-D chess is nonsense. Politicians are are craven, but they are not cunning. Certainly not collectively.
And — contrary to your claim — it was introduced in 2021 also. Where the hell do these conspiracy theory talking points come from? Tucker Carlson? Molly Hemingway?
There aren’t 60 votes for it so it seems to not be a question about reality.
If the talk is of passing it in the reconciliation bill they’d only need 51 votes
Wouldn’t pass the Byrd test as required for reconciliation.
The answer to your question, Special Ed, is that if something doesn’t happen, then no, it can’t be undone.
I’m interested in the various voter laws that have been passed and how they compare to other states rules. Is anyone aware of any report from a reputable source that attempts to compile this information?
Ballotpedia has a lot of very detailed information by state and (mostly) sticks to facts rather than advocacy or analysis.
Perhaps you’re wondering whether some of the new “restrictions” in red states are actually less severe than what’s in been in place for decades in some blue states with no complaints. Or conversely whether the new “gutting of ballot security” by blue states are actually policies that can be found in some red states, again without much history of complaints. The answer is yes, you’ll find a lot of that and quickly.
Thanks. I looked at it briefly, I’d prefer a more straight up comparison but it looks like a lot of info is there.
If I get bored I may try to assemble a spreadsheet.
I don’t know the specific laws you’re looking at, but a good site for high-level comparisons of various state laws is ncsl.org (that’s the National Conference of State Legislatures.)
For example, here’s their compilation of voter ID laws:https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx
They don’t just cover elections; you can find a compilation of laws related to, e.g., policy body camera policies if you want.
A poll came out last week showing the recall of Gavin Newsom ahead by 11%-points in the recall. Prior polls had the recall behind by 2-3 %-points. What was really strange though was the prior two polls had Larry Elder leading amongst the alternatives with just over 20% and everyone else at most 10%. But, the new poll had Democrat Kevin Paffrath (who?) ahead with 27% (the other polls had him barely registering at all), with the rest of the field once again at most 10%.
One correction: Elder is over 20% in the new poll.
The shift in the recall question wasn’t as dramatic as you’re making it out to be. “Yes” was trailing 2-3 points behind “No” and “undecided” and now its 2 points ahead of No+Undecided. Considering that Covid restrictions started coming back and that is the main reason people are citing as why they want to recall him, this isn’t surprising
Larry Elder slipping isn’t too surprising either. With it becoming more and more clear Newsom may lose Democrats have had to shift their strategy from “Vote No” to “At least replace him with someone we like”
The shift in the recall question wasn’t as dramatic as you’re making it out to be.
What did he say that made it out to be “dramatic”?
“showing the recall of Gavin Newsom ahead by 11%-points in the recall. Prior polls had the recall behind by 2-3 %-points”
That would imply a 13-14 point shift, when the shift was actually only 4-5 points. This is the because the first number (11%) is only comparing Yes vs No, and leaving out Undecided, while the second (2-3%) is comparing Yes to No+Undecided
I thought this was fairly clear from comment, but perhaps you only read the first sentence before posting yours
“I thought this was fairly clear from comment, but perhaps you only read the first sentence before posting yours”
Based on the poster in question, that isn’t entirely unlikely.
Polls are no longer reliable. Ask “her”.
Polling isn’t what it used to be.
Woman opens fire and kills man, injures two others after smashing into parked car.
And they say that men are violent and women are victims…
Which “they” is it who says that, Special Ed?
The Biden Inflation tax
Keep flailing, clingers. Your ineptitude frees some time for summer enjoyment among those of us who are stomping you in the culture war.
Uh Oh… Hunter Biden’s in more trouble.
This one says he lost another laptop. This time to Russian Drug Dealers…
Yeah, it’s totally legit that a large Ukrainian corp paid this guy boat-loads of money (“a gazillion dollars”, apparently) to be on its board.
At least Joe waited until old age to start the incoherent rambling.
Is that the excuse you plan to use
They got their pipeline.
The founding fathers were famously opposed to standing armies. This wisdom was steeped in not only experience, but a learned view of all of history.
Does anyone even accept this wisdom today? Does anyone agree?
James Madison said, “The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
George Mason: “No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence [sic], — yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed, — what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!”
Hamilton: “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
St George Tucker: “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
Today, even some radical leftists like WaPo’s Radley Balko have echoed a similar concern when likening today’s police forces to an army. “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”
The many American communists who run rampant today are likely to embrace the tyrannical power of the state, of course, as are authoritarians of all stripes including on the right, so long as the boot is stomping on the face of those they want to stomp, or least not their own.
But time seems to prove the founders right. First we had radical increases in government power to fight “terrorism” after 9/11. The government then worked to create Muslim terrorist plots that they could then foil. Now they are turning their attention to “domestic terrorism.” In recent years we haven’t heard so much about Muslim terrorist plots, perhaps because Muslims changed their minds or because the FBI shifted their focus away from creating those scenarios. Currently it seems heinous domestic bigots and white supremacists (actual or alleged) are being persecuted for their atrocious thoughtcrimes.
But the founding fathers were only interested in defending the USA, not in “nation building”. They also thought it was a good idea that if the government called out the militia, the militia could say “no”.
They also thought it was a good idea that if the government called out the militia, the militia could say “no”.
Um, no. You seem to be confusing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.
No, we seem to have read the contemporaneous essays promoting the 2nd amendment.
You don’t seem to have read the actual constitution, which provides that Congress has the power to pass laws “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” And nothing in the second amendment alters that power in any way.
The founding fathers were famously opposed to standing armies.
M L, some were. Some weren’t. Washington was mostly opposed to militia, even thought militias were dangerous to the nation—but he was a big fan of a standing army. Hamilton, whom you quoted from a bit of his persiflage in the Federalist Papers needs to be read with more care. See that part right at the end, which is about standing armies:
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
Had he been forthright, Hamilton would have mentioned that he thought a standing army should exist. Hamilton ended up pestering John Adams to put him at the head of a standing army. Even designed uniforms for it. In the Federalist, Hamilton was just trying to put to sleep southern resistance to ratifying the Constitution. He understood why slave states were so enthusiastic about militias.
I think that the health nazis are a bigger threat.
Seems to me that the romantic notions of yeomen and citizen militias were pretty squarely refuted the first time the nascent Republic was called upon to seriously defend itself from another nation’s standing army. (Similarly, even though the constitution recognized the necessity of a professional navy, the reluctance to invest i and properly develop one was a substantial handicap in the country’s first couple of decades.)
And subsequent technological developments only make the futility of amateur soldiering more stark. That’s not to say that deviated partisans and guerrillas can’t frustrate a professional fighting force, sometimes even to the point of making its leaders decide to abandon the fight. But it is difficult to see that the U.S. could have maintained its independence for 250 years without a professional army.
Times have certainly changed. Yet the more things change, the more they stay the same. The “security” apparatus is and will continue to be turned inward.
Rather than all or nothing, perhaps it is a matter of degrees. We have an “intelligence community” that collects all digital information that exists, they spy on politicians and members of Congress, ex-lovers, and you if they want to, and there’s little to no democratic control.
“The founding fathers were famously opposed to standing armies. This wisdom was steeped in not only experience, but a learned view of all of history.
Does anyone even accept this wisdom today? Does anyone agree?”
Ask just about any R, and they’ll tell you that the D’s all hate the military, even the D’s who served while they (the individual R who was asked the question) did not.
Taking a tv plot seriously — police detective becomes a lawyer and his partner is representing a perp who murdered his wife by driving a car into a tree (back when cars only had driver’s side airbags).
Detective qua lawyer helps his former department evaluate the wreck, tells them that the driver’s report of the accident doesn’t add up, causes department to investigate it as a homicide.
Above and beyond the bar issues — does the exclusionary rule apply to attorney misconduct? I’m thinking “fruit of the poisonous tree” here with the entire prosecution coming out of what the attorney gave the cops.
Or, taken further, a defense lawyer outright tells the cops everything his client has done.
No, the exclusionary rule applies when the cops ignore your Constitutional rights. Having a deeply unethical lawyer isn’t a violation, nor is having one who can’t give you their full attention becuase they have another 82 cases they’re working on.
Seems like a good case for asking for a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel, though, for all the good that’d do.
Anyone know when to expects Friedrich’s New Improved ™ order on the CDC moratorium?
The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations.
1. Is this statement racist?
2. Do you know who said it?
Question: do you think the American left crumbles if it’s luminaries are flawed, but still did great things?
That’s your side, buddy.
Please enumerate the “great things” that the author of that statement did.
Che? Not my hero or anything, but presumably you were directing your stuff at the left.
I’d put him in the category of Sherman (also a racist BTW). He was a badass (as well as a merciless killer), and a big proponent of literacy and land reform.
You can’t argue he wasn’t a true idealist, unlike Stalin and Castro. Of course, true idealists are sometimes the most dangerous of all.
You called him a “luminary” who “did great things.” None of which you can name. Sound like hero worship to me.
Apart from being a racist, he was a totalitarian monster who murdered his political opponents, and women and children. Anyone who wears his picture with pride should be treated with utter contempt. And there are many in the “American left” who do so.
Sound like hero worship to me.
I called him a luminary of the left. Sounds like a reach to me.
1. yes, it is
2. who cares?
How happy ARE you that the Taliban won in Afghanistan and is overrunning the country.
It would have been the same if we got out 15 years ago. It would have been the same if we stayed another 20 years.
Props to Biden for pulling out now and taking the political hit. No props to Obama, or Trump, or Bush for that matter.
That’s a pretty good summary.
“How happy ARE you that the Taliban won in Afghanistan”
Against Russia? Does this mean that we don’t have to boycott another Olympics?
In the alternate universe where Trump is still President and people are demanding a vaccine passport, who is willing to bet good money the endless headlines we would see would be about the “new segregation” and how vaccine passports disproportionately affect people of color because their vaccinations rates are low.
Not a peep from the MSM about the fact that proof of vaccine is going to start prohibiting about 80% of black people from public accommodations in many urban areas….
You do love using your hypothetical double standards to prove how oppressed the right is in the real world.
I love pointing out sheer and utter hypocrisy. Like: -DEFUND THE POLICE!!!!! Except for these capitol hill guys they need medals and more funding. -THOSE WERE PEACEFUL PROTESTS!!!!! Except the whole occupied area, endless arsons, and other violence, but those don’t count. -BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!! Except when it comes to the vaccine mandate which will disproportionately exclude them from many public spaces. Sucks to be them!
1. is thinking Dems and Leftists are the same. 2. is not understanding the difference between protests and riots 3. is mixing up disparate impact and police violence.
Yet all three are positions taken by the left….
And you have to split hairs instead of owning it. That is telling…
-yes defund the capitol hill police too -they were mostly peaceful yes, except when the police got out of hand and started assaulting people -black lives do matter, which is why they should get vaccinated.
Bloomberg just had a misleading headline “Black, Hispanic Americans Getting Vaccinated Faster Than White People.” I think it may have just been a TV/video/YouTube piece.
They found a week or day or whatever where the rate of vaccination could be misleadingly used for whatever it is they are trying to narrate. Rather comical.
Jared Kushner would be selling vaccine passports to Trump supporters and donors and denying them to blue states and Trump would be giving a speech saying that could you believe it they were vaccinating your actual passports now and that’s why illegal immigrants were full of disease because they have no passports to vaccinate.
“Not a peep from the MSM about the fact that proof of vaccine is going to start prohibiting about 80% of black people from public accommodations in many urban areas….”
Not a peep from the media that some random RWNJ on the Internet has a vivid imagination? Shocker.
Cue the wailing and knashing of teeth.
The Supreme Court on Thursday left intact Indiana University’s requirement that students be vaccinated against COVID-19 before attending classes this fall.
The ruling was issued unilaterally by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who handles emergency matters from Indiana, and came in response to a request earlier this month from eight Indiana students to block the requirement.
I read the appellate brief and didn’t think there was much of an argument there. Doesn’t surprise me their emergency petition was denied without even being referred to the full court.
There really wasn’t.
Attack of the shadow docket!
The Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked part of an eviction moratorium put in place by New York amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Now about that CDC order…
Well, really all they blocked was one part of it that said landlords can’t contest an undocumented/unsubstantiated declaration of hardship in court.
There are probably cases here and there where the landlord has evidence that the tenant is buying new cars or eating at five star restaurants. But most of the time this injunction isn’t going to change anything, the tenant will win anyway with any evidence of hardship or even if it’s he said/she said.
Evicting people during a pandemic might be something that CAN be done, but it probably isn’t something that SHOULD be done.
Strangely enough, the federal judiciary, nominated and confirmed by branches of the federal government, is much, much more inclined to strike down state laws than federal.
Who could have seen that coming?
I’ve done the reading and I still don’t understand the modern conservative/Republican position that Big Government, which opposes them natch, would run Big Tech in their favor. Repealing Section 230 doesn’t mean you’d be able to post on Facebook or Twitter unmoderated. Neither would nationalizing the companies. If the companies really are in thrall of the Left why would putting them further in the hands of the state result in pro-conservative outcomes?
It really makes it seem like revenge for perceived wrongs (especially against the former POTUS) more than anything resembling a salient policy proposal. Maybe I’m missing something though!
Revenge for wrongs.
But also, Florida and other states have bills to fine these companies for their behavior (if that behavior should continue). Not sure how that is “Big Government [running] Big Tech”. The laws exist. You can read them. There’s no need to pretend these laws are some ethereal bogeyman.
You can make up a story about how that somehow turns into “Big Government [running] Big Tech”, but you might want to actually tell that story before asking people to comment on it.
Let me try rephrasing my point to account for your one on Florida, why should conservatives automatically assume that just because it’s a Republican Governor pushing it that it’ll be administered fairly in a pro-conservative manner? More laws and more regulations on private actors are inherently Big Government no? And Big Government is inherently hostile to conservatives no?
I just don’t see the reason to assume that this government action will be pro-conservative. And I certainly don’t see why the federal government taking any actions in these manners against Facebook/Twitter/etc. should be cheered by conservatives simply because it’s targeting one of their perceived enemies. The federal government is currently in the hands of the “hard Left” according to these same conservatives, yet they presume it will not operate in a way that’s hostile to conservatives.
We are well aware that pseudo conservatives and republicans in name only have used our good will to their advantage. That said I would take them over the insane democrat left who have decided that Stalin is Jesus and his advocate on Earth is some chick from the Bronx whose granny is still in Puerto Rico without food and water despite her granddaughter living in up here.
Today’s Friday the 13th of August.
Shouldn’t you be preparing for Trump’s inauguration later today?
In this culture war, there’s always time to take a break on a victory lamp and mock the losers.
“Shouldn’t you be preparing for Trump’s inauguration later today?”
I voted for Mr. Trump the office of “unemployed loser” and it’s been entertaining to watch him get inaugurated over and over to this position.
This is the old game that [some action] should be called [scary label] and that action is therefore bad because [scary label] actions are presumptively bad.
It’s not really an argument. Call it Small Government. Then it’s totally fine. Problem solved. Hooray!
” Call it Small Government. Then it’s totally fine. Problem solved. Hooray!”
This is another of those “defund the police” folks. In several southern Oregon counties, they followed this approach so far as to have the state contemplating taking over the Sheriff’s office to provide services that various state laws assign to the county sheriffs. They also went so far to the “we don’t want to pay taxes, so shut it all down” that the libraries were closed. Who needs socialized literacy? If you want to read a book, buy it yourself… and if you can’t afford to buy a book, write one yourself. Coincidentally, these “we want low taxes, and don’t need any services” folks also demand that the federal government provide them with free water via the Klamath river.
Republicans kind of got used to the idea that businesses, especially big ones, were automatically on their side of everything. So it stings them a bit to run into a big business that find that Republican policies are not in their favor. Remember the rejoicing they indulged in when Citizens United came down and established the fact that businesses could be politically active? Never thought that one would come back and bit your tender, delicate little tushies, did you? If they want to censor you because you’re tedious and wrong, that’d be fine. The fact is, they censor you, (to the extent that they do) because you’re bad for business.
As for Florida’s big plans to “fix” Big Tech… how’d that turn out? Did Facebook crumble and cave in? Did Twitter beg you come back?
I use to think that the Volokh Conspiracy was a “libertarian” or liberty oriented website. I no longer think that. The authors seem to fall solidly in line with authoritarian politicians and talks little about liberty or freedom or civil rights or the individual. They have become collectivists seeking concentration of all power in a single polity. Whether you call it socialism, feudalism, a monarchy, or a dictatorship, it’s all the same, to remove individual liberty from people and concentrate all power in a single organ.
When they say they’re “pro liberty”, what they mean is that everyone should be free to do what the Conservatives want them to do, with no other options. Stake out a centrist position, and all of a sudden you’re a socialist fascist communist. Yes, all three at the same time. They wish it were 1852 again, except that nasty Mr. Lincoln is no longer electable as a Republican.
JP, fun fact: As early as the 1850s slavery defenders denounced abolitionists as would-be communists. It goes back just about as far as it can go back. The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848.
Fine, but what they do nowadays goes beyond calling people commies, They call them communist fascist socialists. All three, together, at the same time.
Please log in to post comments
12.9.2022 4:00 AM
12.8.2022 4:39 PM
12.8.2022 4:20 PM
12.8.2022 4:05 PM
12.8.2022 3:41 PM