Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

|

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: September 16, 1787

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. Report abuses.

  1. Any updates on Prof. Zywicki’s lawsuit to try to get exempted from GMU’s vaccination requirement? I see from PACER that he dismissed the complaint a couple of weeks after the post about it.

    1. You seem to have answered your own question.

      1. Well, it’s an interesting definition of “cave,” given that while they gave him the individual exemption, he also has to be tested weekly and has to remain 6′ away from everyone.

        Then again, this was prior to the change from EMUA to fully FDA-authorized, and means that there is no precedent since they dismissed the action.

        Seems like a standard litigation decision IMO.

        1. The so-called institution of higher learning may not have “caved,” but it, at a minimum, decided not to defend its position that one is incapable of naturally acquiring antibodies to the China virus.

          1. No. Quite literally, all it did was grant a medical exemption. And made him go through the same process as others who claimed exemptions but were unvaccinated- weekly testing and required distancing.

            Given the lack of precedent, it’s pretty meaningless at this point given that they could give the same exemption when a doctor writes in to say he can’t have the vaccination, with the same restrictions.

            PS- If you’d like to engage in meaningful dialogue with people about actual issues, it’s probably best to avoid terms that signal your bona fides, like “China virus.”

            1. “PS- If you’d like to engage in meaningful dialogue with people about actual issues, it’s probably best to avoid terms that signal your bona fides, like “China virus.””

              Excuse me: Kung Flu.

              1. Use the full scientific name:
                Communist Chinese Virus

                1. I am pretty sure a virus has neither a nationality nor an ideology.

                  1. It’s very pro-Republican. Seems only fair, considering the help they’ve given to it.

              2. Flu Manch?

                Winnie The Flu?

            2. No, quite literally GMU chose not to defend the lawsuit. Are you aware of a responsive pleading? Did GMU move to dismiss? Did it file an answer?

              1. No, quite literally Prof. Zywikci chose not to prosecute that lawsuit.

                Why would YOU defend a lawsuit that the Plaintiff dismissed?

                1. He dismissed the case because GMU agreed to give him the exemption rather than defend the lawsuit.

                  Why would a plaintiff prosecute a case when the defendant provides the primary relief sought?

                  1. Did you not read what I wrote? GMU mooted the case by providing him an individual medical exemption- the same that they would given to anyone who couldn’t take the vaccine.

                    In other words, he has to be tested weekly, and he has to maintain the social distancing, of all other non-vaxxed people. So his central claim was never tested or adjudicated.

                    That’s how most institutional litigation works. Shocked, I know.

                    But hey- you do you. 🙂

  2. TIL speaking of the recent hubbub over reproductive freedom, paternity tests are illegal or heavily restricted throughout much of Europe without state permission. I knew such restrictions existed in France but they are apparently are much more widespread and growing in recent years. No doubt there are efforts to export such regulations over here.

    1. Paternity tests tend to get in the way of women demanding child support from one man for a child another man sired. They’re inconvenient that way.

    2. I guess that’s why there isn’t a European version of the Maury show.

      “Hans, Du bist NICHT der Vater.
      Miguel, NO eres el padre
      Sergei, ты отец”

    3. wait, wut? Why would a paternity test be illegal?

      1. Why would a male seek a paternity test? Very likely he’s either trying to get out of paying child support, as Bellmore points out. Or he’s trying to prove his wife guilty of infidelity.

        Neither serves society’s goals of having children supported and women having sexual freedom. Things that don’t serve society’s should be banned.

        1. Oh, it’s worse than that. In Florida, if a child is conceived during a marriage, the husband is conclusively presumed to be the father and *isn’t allowed* to introduce evidence to the contrary.

          I don’t often find myself in agreement with the right wing grievance industry, but this is one issue on which they’re absolutely right.

          1. That’s not fully correct, and (like anything in the law) it is really complicated.

            For very obvious reasons, there is a presumption that child born to married parents is the child of the parents.

            However, there can be a distinction between legitimacy (legitimate child of a marriage) and paternity- so, for example, a child can be the legitimate child of a marriage, but in a divorce (called a dissolution in Florida, for … reasons) the husband can deny biological paternity and avoid support.

            In addition, there are other ways to terminate parental rights if the father learns that he is not the biological father. Again, nothing is simple, because reasons.

            1. In Florida, unless the legislature has recently changed it, unless the husband was away on military service or some such, a child conceived during a marriage is conclusively presumed to be the child of the husband. Period, full stop. Doesn’t matter if he and his wife are both white and the child is black, or vice versa. He will not be allowed to introduce evidence that he’s not the child’s father. If he has a paternity test conclusively proving that he’s not the father, tough. He’s on the hook for child support.

              1. That’s not true.

                See Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1997).

                You are confusing two issues- the statutory presumption of paternity created by marriage and the issue of, inter alia, child support and other proceedings.

                1. In Daniel, husband and wife both stipulated that he was not the father. In cases in which the wife does not so stipulate, he will most likely not be permitted to introduce contrary evidence.

                  1. Woosh. Again, don’t know what you’re talking about.

                    Daniel stands for the proposition that paternity (biological) and legitimacy are distinct.

                    But, you know, keep arguing the point. I assume you are speaking from actual experience litigating these cases, right?

                  2. According to the Florida Bar Journal:

                    Since 1997, however, there has been a difference in Florida between “legitimacy” and “paternity.” Those two concepts are “related, but nevertheless separate and distinct concepts.” As the result of Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 1997), a child can be a legitimate child of a marriage, but have no right of support from the man to whom the mother was married on the date of birth. A husband can deny paternity in a dissolution of marriage proceeding and avoid any duty of support. Although HRS v. Privette, 617 So. 2d 305, 309 (Fla. 1993) and some of its progeny have spoken of terminating the parental rights of the husband, other cases make it clear that the rights of a parent may not be terminated in any proceeding other than a termination of parental rights proceeding under Ch. 39 or Ch. 63.

                    Maybe in the absence of both parties agreeing about paternity they can first take the matter through the ordinary processes set up for that purpose. Then under Daniel v Daniel the non-biological father will be relieved of the duty to support the child.

                2. “That’s not true.

                  See Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1997).”

                  It may or may not be true, in states that are not Florida.

            2. We carve out massive exceptions in the law and the usual historical presumptions of responsibility and morality to allow women to kill and abandon children with the greatest possible convenience. The least we can do is allow a presumptive father to take a discarded straw and get a paternity test if they are on the hook for 18 years of support. Theres nothing stopping the government from limiting anything else in the name of nonexistent DNA privacy.

              A legal parental guardian relationship overrides many of the usual expectations of privacy and freedom of an independent person and nobody seems to have much problem with that unless we come to artificial exceptions like abortion and now paternity where progs scream and cry about any infringement on a child’s supposed unlimited liberty/privacy not only in the direct sense but also in the proactive sense of not picking up a discarded straw, ignoring the millions of other ways parents violate said liberty on a daily basis.

              1. Well, remember that these laws are written (a) to avoid making children of the divorce dependent on government support, and (b) to avoid slapping kids with the status of being illegitimate (which was much more of a burden in prior eras). Furthermore they are trying to avoid side deals between the parties to the divorce such that she gets the house and he gets relieved of child support.

                1. Speaking as someone who was a single parent, I can say that there was no side deal when I got custody of the kid, and the house. I certainly wasn’t in the deal a year later, wherein the kid’s mother went to court and whined “I can’t pay!” after quitting her job. I never saw another dime of child support.

          2. The statutory presumption of paternity exists in France and is held by some authorities to be the defining feature of marriage. No matter what else, if this woman bears a child then this man is treated as the father. Everything else is organized around this.

          3. ” In Florida, if a child is conceived during a marriage, the husband is conclusively presumed to be the father and *isn’t allowed* to introduce evidence to the contrary.”

            It’s not just Florida, Presuming that any kids that come out of your wife are your kids is fairly common.

        2. “getting out of paying child support….”

          Taking about 1/3 of a man’s income for upwards of 18 years for a child that he has cause to think is not his is not some sort of weaseling out of an obligation. Perhaps trying to dismiss a support action because of improper service might be “trying to get out of” but having a fundamental objection like “that is not my kid and I don’t want to pay for a kid that is not mine” is not the same.

          1. If only there were some way a person could prove that they were not the paternal unit who generated the child in question. Perhaps there could be some kind of TV show they could go on, where somebody, say, Maury Povich, could read off a card inside an envelope that would say “jackass, you ARE the father!” and then Maury would read it aloud substituting the jackasses’ actual name for where the card said “jackass”.

      2. Well, you have to remember that this is AmosArch.

        The reason why “paternity tests” are more restricted in Europe is … wait for it … because DNA tests are more restricted in Europe for privacy reasons. Not just paternity tests.

        See how that works?

        Now, a Court can always order a paternity test, even in the most restricted countries (such as France). But yes, it is different than here. And a private (and in some countries, illegal) paternity test would not have evidentiary value after legal paternity has been established.

        1. Europe isn’t a country.

          1. Really? Are you sure?

            /facepalm

            I didn’t realize that people were craving a detailed breakdown about the difference between Irish, UK, French, and Swiss law on the subject, and interplay of EU regulations.

            But hey- why don’t you enlighten us?

            1. Hey, I know that Americans tend to have problems differentiating between Europe and European countries, it’s not your fault. By the way, the EU is not Europe and it is also not a country.

              1. Is there a formal definition of what makes a country?

                Originally the United States was a loose association of states that maintained most of the features of independent countries. Things changed. The EU makes laws. They have a directly elected parliament, which means they’ve effectively already got a 17th amendment. The long term trend is set.

                On the other hand, Brexit was allowed. I’m not sure that says much, though. If the UAE let one of the AE’s go their own way I think we’d all still call the UAE a country.

              2. So, no, not going to enlighten us.

                Didn’t think so.

                1. I thought I had by telling you that “Europe” isn’t a country and that not all of Europe is in the EU. I think that knowledge will be more useful to you because I doubt you’ll need to worry about paternity tests there. But if you really want to know (you sound really upset), European countries have different rules on the matter. Paternity tests are generally fine in the UK, though courts can’t order you to take one. The opposite is true in France, where paternity tests are only allowed through the court system. Would-be consumers in France travel to nearby countries where that isn’t the case.

                  1. Shocker, if you actually read the entire post you would see that I differentiate at the end. You literally just reiterated what I wrote- about France being more restrictive, and other countries not being as much.

                    Of course, you thought you’d be clever and make a stupid point, and then (I am sure) google a little knowledge afterwards.

                    How’s that working for you? Being clever?

                    1. France is currently mad at us because we made a deal with the UK and Australia to outfit Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, so we may be headed back to “Freedom Fries” again.

        2. The reason why abortions are more restricted in Kansas is … wait for it … because killing is more restricted in Kansas for moral reasons. Not just abortions.

          See how that works? I can completely dismiss something simply because it supposedly has a broad justification too.

          1. Abortions are more restricted in Kansas because more Kansassers (Kansans? Kansaneers? whatever.) are against people having sex. That’s how that works.

  3. Seeing all the ads for ‘Latinx’ heritage month got me thinking. When it comes to culture there is little that is more insidious than the ideology called progressive ‘multiculturalism’. It is not so much a uniter of different cultures but a destroyer of them. Not just of the Christian anglosaxon culture which it criticizes but every culture it claims to embrace. Sure it might let you keep some superficial aspects such as the food and the costumes under certain restrictions but for anything of actual importance your culture is hollowed out and serves as a mask for the agenda of a parasitic ideology that doesn’t seem to have any characteristics of its own other than malignancy and a desire to consume. The real culture of minorities is pushed out in every avenue as much as WASP culture. Even the most highhanded imperialists of old at least showed a more honest and truthful face.

    1. There are cultures with non-gendered languages that are quite sexist, and cultures with it that are not.

      These are idiot hate fantasies for buffoons to fall in line behind, much the way religions of non-existent gods were used in the past.

      Beware the pharisees. They stand on street corners, praying, where the people can see them*.

      * A much superior, 2000 year old way to warn of the dangers of virtue signalling.

      And now, having pissed everyone off, I shall take my leave.

    2. Ya, ya, waaaah!
      Anglo-Saxon white culture is SO oppressed.

      1. Let them whimper. If you were destined to remain a thoroughgoing loser rejected by modern, mainstream society — right up to replacement — you might be cranky, too.

        1. The whimpering thoroughgoing losers are Ivy graduates.

          Even worse are the current Ivy matriculants who have allowed themselves to be needle-raped and confined to their dorm rooms, unable to perambulate around their quads.

      2. That’s Anglx-Saxon white culture, you sexist.

        1. You really think I’m sexy? You’re not just saying that?

    3. “Seeing all the ads for ‘Latinx’ heritage month got me thinking.”

      Liar. Fuming isn’t thinking.

  4. How far can this “aid or abet” in SB8 be stretched?

    Could one file an action under that law against the instructors of the classes which taught the workers how to manufacture the equipment which mined the ore which eventually became the apparatus which drilled for the crude oil that was refined into the diesel fuel that powered the tractor which delivered the construction materials used to build the abortion clinic? After all, if the clinic wasn’t there, no abortion would have occurred…

    1. There’s no “directly or indirectly” language in SB8, so, no, it would have to be quite direct.

      1. Medical supply companies?

        1. Maybe if you had a supply that had no other use.

          1. It’s Texas, so probably any legal argument is good enough until you hit a federal court.

    2. I’m looking forward to somebody trying to sue a church because God caused a miscarriage.

      1. Under the theory of respondeat inferior?

        1. I think “respondeat [Mother] Superior” is funnier. [tm]

          1. I was actually trying to make a legal point as well as being funny. Usually the boss is responsible for what the underlings do, that is respondeat superior. The underlings are not responsible for what the boss does.
            The church is inferior to God, that is the whole point of a church.

            1. “The church is inferior to God, that is the whole point of a church.”

              That depends entirely on which church you’re talking about. There have been plenty of churches established to set somebody up as the god. Most of those tend to die with the guy making the claim, but sometimes not.

        2. “Under the theory of respondeat inferior?”

          No, actually, under the theory of “the assets are here”. That’s how jurisdiction works, right?

  5. We have a constitutional process for removing a President who appears unstable. Milley or more appropriately Pelosi should be asked why it wasn’t used. If more than one Trump appointee (Milley, Haspel) were concerned before the election, there was plenty of time to impeach or use the 25th Amendment. It is true that the Senate might have blocked removal by impeachment, but the House was in the hands of the Democrats. If true, what Milley did was an outrage. You have to wonder if he discussed his actions with anyone other than Pelosi and if he telephoned any other foreign leaders.

    1. Imagine if this was done against a Democrat President. It would be 10x the story the ‘insurrection’ is now instead of a half buried subheadline. Its amazing how our perception of reality is so malleable by the media.

      1. ‘member when the navy fired a captain because he let his sailors vote on which of two ports to go to for R&R?

      2. It says something that when we had an unstable president so dangerous that his own top general was worried about him starting a nuclear war, that your immediate reaction is “but what about the Democrats”.

        1. What it says is that a good deal of the military brass have become so politicized that they’ll spout Democratic talking points as an excuse to defeat civilian control of the military.

          1. Even if true, and I don’t think it is, that is not incompatible with the fact that we had a president who was so mentally unstable that his top general worried about him starting a nuclear war, to the point of taking steps to see to it that it didn’t happen. Perhaps we could talk about that rather than your usual “but what about”.

            1. Technically, not incompatible with the claim that we had a President blah blah blah. It’s certainly possible for a Democratic talking point to be true.

              I’d like to see the evidence that this particular one was true, though. The only thing they ‘protected’ us from, so far as I can tell, is thwarting his ordered Middle East withdrawal by lying about how many troops we had in Syria.

              1. The evidence that the General believed it was enough of a possibility to worry about? What evidence is lacking for that?

                1. No evidence is lacking for that. You don’t ordinarily lie about having committed treason.

                  So, fair enough, maybe he was far enough gone that he’s actually drank the koolaid, not just served it.

                  1. If by “he” you mean General Milley rather than Trump, he was far from the only person who thought Trump was crazy and needed a babysitter.

                    1. Just remember it was Pelosi who called the Chairman of the JCS to ask for military intervention if Trump tried to seize power.
                      Yet pretty much silence.

                    2. Yes, Pelosi tried to encourage a coup d’etat she was so “afraid.”

                  2. Treason is defined by the Constitution, Brett.

                    Milley did not – even under delusional GOP thinking, commit treason.

                    1. Yes, treason is defined by the Constitution, and as I read the relevant definition, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Milley did, in fact, give aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.

                      He promised a high military leader for a strategic foe that, were he ordered to attack them, he would give advance notice before the attack. How is that not aid and comfort?

                      Or maybe you’re going to lean on China not being an “enemy”?

                      Apparently did it in front of the requisite two witnesses, even.

                    2. Promising to warn a foreign nation of an impending military attack comes pretty damned close to “giving aid and comfort”.
                      It would certainly qualify if he actually did do it, so it’s more conspiracy to commit treason than actually getting to the treason part?

                    3. “Milley did, in fact, give aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.”

                      In the sense that you’d have to be a highly-partisan idiot to think that he did, so for you, it totally happened.

                    4. “Promising to warn a foreign nation of an impending military attack comes pretty damned close to “giving aid and comfort”.
                      It would certainly qualify if he actually did do it, so it’s more conspiracy to commit treason than actually getting to the treason part?”

                      You’ve gotten as close as “conspiracy to maybe commit treason”, which is close enough, right?

                      Do you wonder why people don’t want you in charge of important things?

                  3. ” You don’t ordinarily lie about having committed treason.”

                    You keep lying about someone else committing treason.

                2. Plenty of generals believe “only they” can save their country and that the elected leaders “aren’t fit to rule”.

                  That’s how you get 90% of military dictatorships.

                  1. Ah, but the difference is this general didn’t seize power. He took steps to ensure that power wouldn’t start a nuclear war, and his “military dictatorship” lasted for all of about two weeks. You’d have a much better argument if Milley had actually placed Trump under arrest.

                    1. Ah, I see. He did not personally seize power, he just helped support his political faction against his lawful superiors.

                      That’s alright, then! Glad we cleared it up.

                    2. K_2,
                      It certainly was an act of mutiny. Once for which any military officer should be court-martialed.

                    3. Mutiny I’ll go with, but mutiny is permitted if the commander in chief is off the rails. However, as I said earlier, if you commit mutiny, you better be sure that you’re right, and that you’re successful.

                    4. “Mutiny I’ll go with, but mutiny is permitted if the commander in chief is off the rails.”

                      No…it’s not. That’s not for the armed forces to judge. They can decline to execute unlawful orders. They can resign. But “mutiny” is not permitted by law. I’m not sure where you get this crazy idea.

                      There are legal mechanisms in place to remove the president if he is “off the rails”. But mutiny is not, and has never been one of them. You’re replacing the lawfully elected President with unelected military officials.

                      Why would you ever think “Mutiny” is permitted?

                    5. Because mutiny is more than merely forcibly removing someone from power, although that does fit within the definition. Refusing to obey an order is also mutiny, although it’s a defense that the order was unlawful. If it’s later determined that the order was illegal, fine, but as I’ve already said, if you take that route you better be sure you’re right.

                      All Milley did was to tell the generals under him to not obey a potentially illegal order. That’s borderline.

                    6. “It certainly was an act of mutiny. ”

                      Maybe, if you ignore the fact that the General was not an Admiral, and nobody was on a boat. It’s the little details that can really derail a stupid argument.

                    7. In Daniel, husband and wife both stipulated that he was not the father. In cases in which the wife does not so stipulate, he will most likely not be permitted to introduce contrary evidence.

                    8. The Daniel comment belongs above, and we really need an edit function.

                      According to dictionary.com:

                      noun, plural mu·ti·nies.
                      revolt or rebellion against constituted authority, especially by sailors against their officers.
                      rebellion against any authority.

                    9. Krychek,

                      Read what Miley said. He didn’t say anything about “potentially illegal orders”. He said “Don’t follow the president’s orders unless I OK them”.

                      Do you see the problem there? At all?

                  2. Apparently some people think that “Jack D. Ripper” was doing the right thing. Clearly a case of Stage 4 TDS with SlimPIckenitis complications.

                  3. “Plenty of generals believe “only they” can save their country and that the elected leaders “aren’t fit to rule”.”

                    This was the case of one elected leader floating the trial balloon that maybe the new elected leader wasn’t really the elected leader, so maybe he’d just have to hold on in office a tiny little bit longer to get everything sorted out.

                    You may ALSO recognize this as a play out of the “how to form a military dictatorship” textbook.

              2. “It’s certainly possible for a Democratic talking point to be true.”

                Is it? That puts them ahead of you, then.

            2. Even if true, and I don’t think it is, that is not incompatible with the fact that we had a president who was so mentally unstable that his top general worried
              It tells me the General is the mentally unstable one. Seeing things that dont exist is a serious mental problem. 5 years now, and not a single event might be illustrative of mental instability.

              1. “5 years now, and not a single event might be illustrative of mental instability.”

                You’re not really in a position to lecture other people about sensing reality.

          2. “a good deal of the military brass have become so politicized that they’ll spout Democratic talking points as an excuse to defeat civilian control of the military.”

            Your working theory is that the military isn’t mostly Republicans?

            1. Yes, my working theory is that, after the Obama administration, most of the upper brass are not Republicans. The bulk of the ranks still are, though.

              1. The upper brass tend to be intelligent and well educated, so that would make sense.

                1. The upper brass are intelligent and well educated and be they Republican or Democrat they would have acted the same. What the upper brass are not is submissive to Trump.

                  1. There is a tipping point at which you no longer submit because you’re dealing with a crazy person. I once had a client whose paranoid schizophrenic mother told him that his sister was trying to kill her, and she wanted him to kill his sister. My client (who was 16 at the time) disobeyed his mother and instead went to the authorities. Was he wrong?

                    We can disagree about where that tipping point is, and whether it should have applied to Trump. But that’s a difference on the specifics of this case, and not on the general principle.

                    1. So, where’s the “went to the authorities” part of this scenario? He didn’t go to any American authorities to report that the President was nutso. He just promised to commit treason.

                    2. When Liberal democrats support treason, as opposed to supporting the legal rule of authority…

                      It’s a problem. And it’s not on the GOP side.

                      Imagine the following situation. Donald Trump wins reelection in 2024. But rather than have Trump take power, Biden and the Democrats collude with China in order to prevent the transfer of power, inviting in Chinese troops.

                    3. “He just promised to commit treason.”

                      This is only true if you don’t remember that, in the separation of powers, the President does NOT have the authority to declare war.

                    4. Nobody committed treason.

                      That’s a crime defined by the Constitution Brett. Something which you should probably be familiar with if you’re going to lob such accusations.

                    5. Armchair Lawyer, it’s not the Democrats who, having lost an election, went on a barnstorming tour of the country to tell everyone that it had been stolen and whipped their followers into a frenzy that resulted in the invasion of the Capitol. Your proposed scenario sounds far more like what Trump would do rather than what Biden would do.

                      Trump didn’t collude with China, but he sure called the Georgia Secretary of State and essentially asked him to commit election fraud on his behalf. Which makes his claims of election fraud by the Democrats a real howler.

                    6. “That’s a crime defined by the Constitution Brett. Something which you should probably be familiar with if you’re going to lob such accusations.”

                      I am quite familiar with the constitutional definition of treason, Jason. Notifying a foreign military that the President has ordered you to attack them would absolutely be treason. Arguably, even the promise qualified, unless you want to argue he was lying to them.

                    7. ” Imagine the following situation. Donald Trump wins reelection in 2024. But rather than have Trump take power, Biden and the Democrats collude with China in order to prevent the transfer of power, inviting in Chinese troops. ”

                      Some people claim I am too rough on these right-wing losers, but I submit it would be impossible to be to rough on these delusional, disaffected, downscale, antisocial misfits.

                    8. Armchair Lawyer, it’s not the Democrats who, having lost an election, went on a barnstorming tour of the country to tell everyone that it had been stolen and whipped their followers into a frenzy that resulted in the invasion of the Capitol.

                      Krycheck,

                      2016 is calling with the J20 protests. Only difference is that the Capitol was prepared then.

                    9. Just so you remember about J20…

                      “The idea … is we want to undermine Trump’s presidency from the get-go. There has been a lot of talk of peaceful transition of power as being a core element in a democracy and we want to reject that entirely and really undermine the peaceful transition”

                    10. Armchair Lawyer, no, that’s not the only difference. Protest is one thing and I’m fine with it. Forcing your way into a building to disrupt a core constitutional function is something else again. Besides which, Hillary Clinton didn’t tell her supporters that it was a stolen election and whip them up into a frenzy. She conceded within days and accepted the results.

                    11. K_2, Bret Kanavaugh might like to remind you of the 300+ people arrested for breaking into the Capitol and disrupting the core Constitutional function of advice and consent for Supreme Court appointments – a very important transfer of power in the US government.
                      Or perhaps you would prefer to recall the riots at the end of May and early June 2020, during which rioters threw firebombs at the White House attempted to climb the fences, and eventually set fire to a guardhouse in an attempt to force their way inside?

                      There have been attempts, quite recently, to do the same thing the J6 rioters did, but without anywhere close to the panty-twisting.

                      And, by the way, the Clinton campaign’s lawyers were still filing attempting to overturn some state’s results in state courts more than a month after the election in 2020, plus she still claims the election was “stolen” from her. The only difference is that she gets friendly coverage, rather than delusional claims of “insurrection”.

                    12. “Notifying a foreign military that the President has ordered you to attack them would absolutely be treason.”

                      Nobody did this, which is why you keep getting a “there was no treason, you jackass” feedback.

                  2. Stars are all about politics. Intelligence is not the prime consideration

              2. “after the Obama administration, most of the upper brass are not Republicans. The bulk of the ranks still are”

                Where are they finding these non-Republican officer candidates to promote to the top jobs, if they can’t get them from the ranks?

          3. An interesting take Brett. Wrong and partisan to the extreme, but interesting.

        2. What are you basing your obviously failed prediction that Trump would start a nuclear war on? Because ‘White Rage’ Milley, a guy so incompetent, he neglected affairs in Afghanistan (you know stuff generals are supposed to handle) in favor of obsessing over woke nonsense like some dewy freshman college instagrammer; said so?

          1. I didn’t predict that Trump would start a nuclear war, nor in hindsight do I think he actually would have. But that’s not the question. The question is what was reasonable to be concerned about at the time. Given Trump’s mental state Milley had a reasonable fear that it could happen and took steps to prevent it.

            1. I wouldn’t have predicted Trump starting a nuclear war, because that might have damaged one of his hotels and he, himself wouldn’t be assured of survival. But a regular ground war, where other peoples’ children get shot at? I bet he’d’ve been perfectly fine with one of those. He talked a good deal about getting us out of the one we were in for his entire term, and we were still in it, still gaining nothing, when he was shown the door.

            2. There is no ‘reasonable’ fear that Trump would initiate a nuclear war (anymore than any other President) unless you are an insane leftist whose mind is composed entirely of dripfed HUFFPOO clickbait. Its common policy to not defend the actions of insane people or make allowances for their desires in important state business. Especially ones whose wild delusions have been repeatedly and directly proven wrong. As I recall you guy were also swearing up and down that America would be a smoking crater within a year if Drumpf got elected.

              1. I never said that America would be a smoking crater. Please don’t impute to me views I don’t hold and things I never said.

                1. Then what are you even arguing with me for? If you agree with me that its obviously ridiculous to claim that Drumpf will be trading ICBMs with Xi …because….some reason…uh…yeah I guess Milley is so dense he doesn’t even know Trump doesn’t even criticize china all that much compared to other people. But if you agree with this as your recent posts indicate than Milley is clearly in the wrong.

                  1. I’m arguing with you because you’re totally misrepresenting both my views and what actually happened.

                    I do not lock my doors at night because I expect to be burglarized. Statistically, the chance of my being burglarized, especially on any specific night, is very small. But that doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable for me to lock my door. Because if this does happen to be the night that a burglar stops by my house, I don’t want to make it easy for him.

                    Trump had openly talked about starting a nuclear war. In retrospect, that was just talk. But we couldn’t be sure at the time.

                    1. Yeah how dare Trump respond to a nuclear threat from North Korea. Warmonger Truman talked about nuking Japan and they didn’t even threaten to launch a nuke at us first. Maybe the military should have allied with the Soviet Union to oust him and any President that ever talked about a response to being nuked.

                      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                      I’m arguing with you because you’re totally misrepresenting both my views and what actually happened.
                      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                      Either you believe there was a serious possibility Drumpf would nuke China for no reason other than he lost the election in which case you are a loony or General Milley Cyrus is a traitor. Actually he’s a traitor regardless because you don’t do what he did even if the leftwing conspiracies were all true. But try to make up your mind. Its annoying to debate you when you keep trying to switch back and forth to both positions.

                    2. There’s a difference between locking your doors, and proactively going out and shooting all the bad people who might break into your house.

                    3. “Warmonger Truman talked about nuking Japan and they didn’t even threaten to launch a nuke at us first. Maybe the military should have allied with the Soviet Union”

                      You seem to have twisted the history a bit to suit your narrative.

                      Warmonger Truman talked about nuking Japan because (oh, yeah) we were at war with Japan. It wasn’t until much later that we developed the plan to use biological weaponry against them, and have our President puke on their prime minister.

                      It’s true that Japan didn’t attack us with a nuke first, but perhaps you weren’t aware that they DID strike first.

                      The military WAS allied with the Soviet Union at that time. In fact, the US and USSR were both part of “The Allies” who done won the war, after Warmonger Truman nuked Japan AGAIN.
                      Japan is still a bit touchy about being the only country ever nuked in a war.

                    4. “There’s a difference between locking your doors, and proactively going out and shooting all the bad people who might break into your house.”

                      Indeed there is, but enough about your Punisher comic collection. (Punisher: For when Batman just isn’t psychotic enough for you.)

                    5. Armchair Lawyer, so whom did Milley shoot? (Amos Arch obviously needs a valium so I’m not even responding to him at this point.)

                    6. “Armchair Lawyer, so whom did Milley shoot? ”

                      The U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

                    7. Oh, you said “shooting all the bad people.” Someone who thinks words have meaning might have concluded you meant he actually killed live human beings.

                    8. K_2, did you say you lock your doors… because you thought Milley was the one that was going to rob you? Because you are the one that raised that particular analogy, so trying to pretend that AL continuing it is somehow out of place is rather odd of you.

                    9. No, Toranth, I didn’t say anything like that. If you go back and read slowly and carefully, you’ll see it.

                    10. krychek,

                      If you’re going to make an analogy and compare “Locking the doors” to “Promising a foreign power that you’ll give them warning if the US is going to attack them”….

                      Then suddenly get literal when instead the analogy is “Going and shooting people who might break in”

                      It makes no sense.

                    11. K_2, your comment at 9/16 10:20am would only have made sense if your comment about locking doors at 9/16 8:42am was about Milley personally.

                      I have read carefully, as have others. You made the analogy, then pretended it was literal when someone else continued it, but now your pretending it was just an analogy again… do you even know what you wrote in any of the posts in this subthread?

                    12. “how dare Trump respond to a nuclear threat from North Korea.”

                      Trump responded to nuclear threats from North Korea in much the same way he did everything else… he retreated to the White House bathroom and tapped out a twit, er tweet. It seems that’s literally all he knew how to actually DO, if he couldn’t find someone else to do what he wanted and then let him try to take credit for it.

                  2. Drumpf won’t be trading ICBMs with anybody because he doesn’t have the launch capability. Actual billionaires built space businesses. Drumpf isn’t a nuclear power, either. (But Jina still is!)

                  3. @James Pollock
                    I’m going to be pedantic, but the U.S. sunk a Japanese mini-sub in American waters just prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. also had attacked Japan’s ally Germany prior to Pearl Harbor. FDR seized Japanese assets and embargo-ed Japan – not exactly the definition of neutrality. So when you say the Japanese attacked first, it’s more like a kinda sorta attacked first.

                    1. You skipped over what REALLY made the Japanese made at us. FDR stopped selling them oil.

                      I reject your interpretation of Dec. 7, 1941’s events at Pearl Harbor as continuation of an already-existing war.

              2. ” Its common policy to not defend the actions of insane people or make allowances for their desires in important state business”

                But he was PRESIDENT!
                He went literally on-the-record to announce that the US no longer wanted to participate in a deal negotiated by his predecessor to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and then replaced THAT deal with his newer, better deal… NOTHING AT ALL preventing them from building bombs.

                ” As I recall you guy were also swearing up and down that America would be a smoking crater within a year if Drumpf got elected.”

                That sounds much more like the rich fantasy life of Special Ed.

                1. This whole thread is about Drumpf going Cobra Commander and suddenly nuking China for some reason. If you are going to back away from defending that fantasy than General Milley Cyrus should obviously be prosecuted. High ranking US military generals should be expected at minimum to refrain from secretly colluding with Hostile Authoritarian Foreign Dictatorships over petty political squabbles. Especially if we’re on a scale that considers walking around a building you were let into tossing papers and taking selfies as an ‘insurrection’.

                  1. “This whole thread is about Drumpf going Cobra Commander and suddenly nuking China for some reason.”

                    You’re the only one staking out that position.

                2. He literally went on record to announce that the US was no longer going to continue pretending that his predecessor’s deal was actually keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and that we were going to try to get our allies to reimpose sanctions that might actually have that effect.

                  1. … and then proceeded to do nothing.

                    He replaced the deal that he complained had nothing in it to keep Iran from developing weapons beyond their promise not to with literally nothing to keep Iran from developing weapons. The only President to get a worse deal with post-Islamic-Revolution Iran was Reagan.

                    1. And then, yes, failed in the effort, because Iran had successfully bribed too many foreign leaders with lucrative oil contracts.

                      But this was foreign policy, a core responsibility of Presidents, and there isn’t anything illegitimate about a President refusing to continue his predecessor’s foreign policy. (Yeah, I’ll even say that of Biden: He’s making some really boneheaded moves in his effort to cancel everything Trump accomplished, but, hey, elections have consequences.)

                      It would be different if the “Iran deal” had been the “Iran treaty”, treaties actually have legal force. “Deals” are just Presidential pinky promises.

                    2. ” his effort to cancel everything Trump accomplished”

                      (null set)

                    3. “this was foreign policy, a core responsibility of Presidents, and there isn’t anything illegitimate about a President refusing to continue his predecessor’s foreign policy.”

                      Approximately nobody would care if Trump set about changing his policy of dealing with foreigners. The problem is that when America makes commitments, like anybody else, we really ought to stick to them. You’re confusing “can” and “should” again.

            3. An honorable step to prevent it would have been a very public resignation of his post.

              1. You figure a guy like that is interested in ethics pointers from clingers?

                1. No, an ethically challenged parasite is immune from wise counsel.

                  1. And also your kind.

            4. The question is what was reasonable to be concerned about at the time
              There is a chain of command for that. pro tip, it does not include calling China.

              1. Officers are expected to show initiative in addition to completing their assigned tasks.

        3. You are correct. The outrage here ignores what was happening at the time.

          1. What exactly was happening? Does it actually justify a general in the US military not obeying lawful orders from his civilian superiors, and ordering other soldiers not to obey?

            1. You skipped right from potentially ignoring possibly lawful orders to definitely ignoring lawful orders, without anything in between.

            2. Tell us again:

              Who disobeyed a lawful order?

            3. Disobeying an unlawful order is what officers are required to do. Would order the launch a preemptive nuclear strike been lawful?

              1. What law does it violate?
                Of course no unlawful order was ever hinted at.

                But more to the point, if the hypothetical is all it takes, there is no more civilian control of the Military.

                1. Hint: The civilian control of the military is built into the military. It’s not like the civilians are in a position to hold them back by force. And no, that is not what the 2A is for. By the time they’re wearing stars, military officers are well aware that the guy who’s giving them orders may be voted out and replaced by a different guy. So they aren’t loyal to the person who is President, they’re loyal to the Presidency. This is what Trump kept finding so frustrating. If he thought he could have sent Army units to seize the capital and prevent being pushed out of office, he damn well would have.

                2. “What law does it violate?”

                  I bet China has a law against murder, so murdering millions of them at once probably qualifies.

        4. “It says something that when we had an unstable president so dangerous that his own top general was worried about him starting a nuclear war, that your immediate reaction is “but what about the Democrats”

          Except that there is even less evidence that Trump was about to start a nuclear war than there is of voter fraud.

          1. less than zero?

        5. Let’s assume presidential instability. What good would secretly warning the Chinese ahead of a launch do? Give them time to launch faster and thus have more missiles…coming to the US?

          The only point would be as a deterrent to prevent such a situation, and that only works if it is known. Threats of punishment don’t deter if they are held secret until afterwards.

          1. Let’s assume Presidential instability. This might tend to put, say, the Chinese into a state of nervousness, causing them to interpret random crap as a direct threat to their country. This, in turn, might make them react to something we did that wasn’t a nuclear attack as if it was. This, then would cause us to respond to their actions.

            Now, in theory, to launch a pre-emptive strikes requires Congress authorizing a state of war. It’s not something the President can order on his own, whether or not he’s instable. On the other hand, responding to a launch of missiles at us would allow the President to order the launch of a counter-strike, whether the President is instable or not.

            So… the US, with or without an instable President, isn’t launching pre-emptive strikes without Congressional action. If Congress declares war, it isn’t treason to tell whoever we have declared war on that military action will be forthcoming. That’s the sort of thing a declaration of war implies. On the other hand, it also isn’t treason to promise to follow the Constitution. Military officers are actually sworn to do so.

            So assuring the Chinese that no pre-emptive strike is coming is not treason, unless Congress met and secretly declared war on China. Plus you get the side bonus of them being slightly less likely to interpret a Presidential temper tantrum as a sign that the US intends to attack them, and they’d better get their missiles in the air, the one thing that actually would allow Trump to nuke Chinese targets.

    2. “We have a constitutional process for removing a President who appears unstable. Milley or more appropriately Pelosi should be asked why it wasn’t used.”

      Yes, let’s ask Pelosi why President Trump wasn’t impeached.

      1. Uh… you know there are ways besides impeachment or consorting with China to remove a President right?

        1. You mean like holding an election?

        2. The Allen Dulles method?

      2. You remove the president when half the house and two-thirds of the Senate think it’s necessary, or when the cabinet and VP think it’s necessary.

        If you do it when some general thinks it’s necessary, it’s called a coup.

        1. “You remove the president when half the house and two-thirds of the Senate think it’s necessary, or when the cabinet and VP think it’s necessary.”

          Or when enough voters to total 270 electoral votes think it’s necessary.

          1. In this case, it was after he lost but before Jan 20, a what if he should go out spitefully.

            What a wonderful disasterbation scenario, but that’s the theory.

          2. The 25th Amendment is there to remove a President including during transition periods. There is no magical time period where there is no Constitutional provided way to remove a rogue President and you have to go running to a hostile foreign power like you are implying. Are you purposely trying to be obtuse? Because its just making you look ignorant.

            1. ” There is no magical time period where there is no Constitutional provided way to remove a rogue President and you have to go running to a hostile foreign power like you are implying. ”

              You’ve made this up, attributed it to me, and saying it makes me look ignorant. No, actually, it’s revealing things about you. Get your implication-meter tuned, you’re getting bad readings.

    3. What if Milley says that he was just spoofing the Chinese to put them at ease?

      1. What if Milley successfully got the US though the period in question with no attacks on America? Would that count as a “win” for the US?

  6. Does having a General in the United States conduct back-alley negotiations with a foreign power (China) and “promise to tip them off” if a US attack was coming represent Treason?

    What about a General who tells senior military officials not to listen to lawful orders from the President unless the General approves them?

    1. Under the specific circumstances, I’m not sure it’s treason, but I would say it’s the equivalent of staging a mutiny: If you try, you better be right, and you better be successful.

      1. Just so we’re clear, you think that a US General “tipping off” a foreign power when an attack was coming, is not treason? Really?

        Mutiny is acting within your own command structure. Treason is when you help out other powers…

        1. If you are insinuating J6 was a mutiny its weird that even with prosecuting the J6 protestors as priority 1 for all of the alphabet agencies and the military, they are basically charged with trespassing and disturbing a congressional hearing. I guess Afghanistan withdrawal was secondary. Such a brilliant plan, ha.

          Is mutiny a federal crime? I mean what a joke comparison

          1. Of course J6 was not a mutiny. The protesters were civilian.

            1. “Of course J6 was not a mutiny. The protesters were civilian.”

              And on land, not boats.

              1. James,
                You can have mutiny in the Army also.

                1. “You can have mutiny in the Army”

                  You can, if you get them all on a boat. Otherwise, they have a different name for it.

              2. According to dictionary.com:

                noun, plural mu·ti·nies.
                revolt or rebellion against constituted authority, especially by sailors against their officers.
                rebellion against any authority.

            2. “Of course J6 was not a mutiny. The protesters were civilian.”

              There were apparently Capitol police who were smiling and posing for pictures with the insurrectionists. (Yeah, I know, cops are civilians, too But they tend to divide the world into two types… cops and ‘”civilians”, so maybe this needs more thought.)

          2. “Is mutiny a federal crime?”

            In the Navy? of course it is. In the merchant service, maybe. probably depends on where, exactly, it happens.

            1. A crime against the Unifrom Code of Military Justice

              1. UCMJ is federal law, so yeah, just what I said.

        2. ” Treason is when you help out other powers…

          More specifically, treason is when you help out other powers that are currently at war with the United States. We haven’t declared war since 1941, which puts any military officer currently serving on firmer ground than you are imagining.

          1. Funny thing is, that’s not the constitutional definition of treason, which doesn’t actually say we have to be at war with an enemy for them to BE an enemy.

            1. China is a rival, but not an enemy.

              1. The CCP would disagree with you.

                1. Which is THEIR problem.

            2. “Funny thing is, that’s not the constitutional definition of treason”

              On the technicality that there isn’t a Constitutional definition of “treason”., this is true.

          2. Adam Gadahn, indicted for treason, 2006.

            1. Convicted when?

        3. The general wasn’t “helping other powers,” you bigoted wingnut. He was doing his job in difficult circumstances. You don’t like it? Vote for Trump and stop bothering your betters.

          1. We await your citation of the US military policy that instructs our military leaders to call foreign countries and tell them our plans in advance. “Doing his job”, indeed. But for whom is the question.

            1. The highest duty of military officers is to protect the United States from attack by foreign powers. We were not attacked by China, ergo, that particular line of inquiry works out in the general’s favor.

              1. Yeah, who needs to follow that pesky chain of command anyways? That Code of Military Justice is just a nuisance, you know? More like “guidelines” than actual standards. So if the ends justify the means in your personal opinion, then heck yeah, call those foreign powers. /sarc

                Sorry, friend, not buying it. Not buying it for even a second. We don’t get to make up the rules as we go along to just suit ourselves when we’re in positions of public trust and power.

                1. “Sorry, friend, not buying it.”

                  Who cares?

              2. Which is it?
                Trump was crazy and the General was forced to make the call.

                Nothing at all was happening?

                I see no useful purpose for US generals to be phoning the general of other nations. We have a State Dept for a reason. Even pushing the envelope, the call would be made by the Secretary of Defense. A civilian Administration official. Not a General.
                Communications with other Nations should be carried out by the State Dept.
                Just like Pelosi’s crazed phone call. That should be placed to the SecDef.

                1. The fact is, the situation was resolved successfully, which is what we want our military officers to do when placed in challenging situations.

          2. Are you going to enjoy your Chinese overlords RAK?

            1. According to the classic SF title “Armageddon 2419 A.D.”, the Americans win in the end, pushing the Chinese out of North America. Led by Col. Wilma Deering, the American partisan forces will have anti-gravity belts. So quit asking where your flying cars are, they actually promised that you’d have antigravity belts in the future.

              1. To be honest, they ripped off flying belts from the old comic Buck Rogers.

                Oh, wait. n/m

                1. ” they ripped off flying belts from the old comic Buck Rogers.”

                  Other way ’round, as you seem to have noticed.

                  The protagonist of “Armageddon 2419 A.D” is Buck Rogers, which is the reason anybody remembers the book at all.

              2. According to RAK, Col. Wilma Deering is one of those “backwards rejects” who will be bowing to her “betters”.

                1. According to the author of the novel, Col. Deering is one of those people who won’t be bowing to anybody. She’s also 16 years old.

        4. “Just so we’re clear, you think that a US General “tipping off” a foreign power when an attack was coming”

          Didn’t happen.
          Things that didn’t happen aren’t treason.

    2. Even if we had Hannibal Lector as President there are prescribed methods to handle it out in the open. Going behind everyone’s back to a hostile foreign power would absolutely be considered treason/an attempted coup d’tat (a real one) and be a huge international story that would probably make Watergate look like the announcement of a local elementary school graduation if a Democrat had been in office. Its truly fascinating…

      1. It’s over, you missed it. That’s why it’s not Watergate.

    3. “Does having a General in the United States conduct back-alley negotiations with a foreign power (China) and “promise to tip them off” if a US attack was coming represent Treason?”

      If so, do we then move on to whether such negotiations are proper when conducted by a guy who is running for President but hasn’t wom the election. Does it make a difference if he goes on to win the election? How about if negotiations continue after the election, but before the inauguration?

      1. “If so, do we then move on to whether such negotiations are proper when conducted by a guy who is running for President but hasn’t won the election.”

        Would such a person realistically have foreknowledge of the attack? If so, how? If that person was using their current government position to “tip off” a foreign power, about an imminent attack, then yes, it would be treason.

        1. “Would such a person realistically have foreknowledge of the attack? ”

          It was in all the newspapers and was a topic of discussion throughout the nation.

          So, you’ve just convicted Ronald W. Reagan of treason. So we have to change the name of the airport?

          1. Sigh.

            You ever get tired of tedious bits? Clearly I meant “non-public” foreknowledge of such an attack.

            1. “You ever get tired of tedious bits?”

              Yes, but you keep coming back.

              1. So, that’s a no then…

                1. One of the tedious bits is you reading where I said “yes” and coming away pretending I said “no”.

      2. “If so, do we then move on to whether such negotiations are proper when conducted by a guy who is running for President but hasn’t wom the election.”

        Long established precedent says, yes, they are. Remember, the Logan act has NEVER been prosecuted, the very few times prosecutions were even initiated they were dropped before a trial. It’s widely understood to be wildly unconstitutional.

        Every Presidential campaign that looks to have any hope of winning initiates talks with foreign powers prior to taking office, prior even to the election.

        1. But the important fact here is, there’s a critical difference between an incoming/current politician, and an current general in the US armed forces.

          Generals don’t “make foreign policy”. When they do, it starts to be a problem.

          1. Candidates for public office also do not make foreign policy.

        2. “Every Presidential campaign that looks to have any hope of winning initiates talks with foreign powers prior to taking office, prior even to the election.”

          Technically, the Revolutionaries weren’t yet recognized as the government of Iran.

      3. If you are talking about private citizens negotiating with foreign nations, I would forward your question to John Heinz Kerry. He is the person with the most gravitas.

    4. Yes of course it does. Milley could have went through the 25A process which would have involved contacting the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President. He didn’t. He discussed our military operations with the Chinese.

      Let me fix it for the brain dead liberals on here. Suppose Milley had been insubordinate under Bidens command and lets say refused tov acre Bagram Air Force base because he didn’t agree with it. It was a dumb idea by the way. And he discussed this with foreign powers lie the Chinese.

      He would already have been fired, under court martial and under investigation by the DOJ.

      But we are a tin pot dictatorship at the moment so the regime protects this guy.

      1. “He would already have been fired, under court martial and under investigation by the DOJ.”

        Which, I guess, is why Trump fired him.

      2. “He discussed our military operations with the Chinese.”

        No, he did not.

        1. Yes, he did. Or is nuclear stance not a military operation?

          1. To answer your question: No.

            I’m curious if you read what he actually said, since you’re clearly conflating his calls with China with his discussions with Pelosi.

            Don’t get your information from Trump and presume that it’s in any way connected to the truth.

          2. “is nuclear stance not a military operation?”

            It is not. A decision to use nuclear force in a pre-emptive way would come from the civilian authorities (Congress) and our current intention of not making pre-emptive strikes is not secret.

    5. Remember, you are relying on Bob Woodward to be telling the truth while trying to hype book sales.
      Just a heads up – – – – – –

      1. That’s a good point, however the not-denial-denials coming from the Pentagon have been… enlightening at what they don’t say.

    6. It’s looking like Milley’s contact with his Chinese opposite number was part of an effort coordinated by Secretary of Defense Esper to prevent the Chinese from misinterpreting our domestic politics.

      1. We need a tik tok on this. I have heard reporting there were two calls. The first was without the knowledge of SecDef. I’m still at a loss of why the General would make the call. The SecDef is the chain of command for the general, He having the civilian control over the General.

        1. So, if the SecDef told him “under no circumstances should you ever talk to any Chinese military officers”, then you have a breach in the chain of command. If there wasn’t such an order in place, then the general may talk to anybody he wants to. Even when he’s talking to someone who is an American, he may not discuss classified information. This is also true of conversations with foreigners. are you suggesting he transmitted classified information to someone not authorized to know that information? Trump is a loon. I suspect the Chinese may already be aware of this, and it is not classified anyway. it is also not classified that we are not at war with China, so telling them this is also not really a problem.

    7. Are you asking if hypothetical treason is treason? No.

      Did anyone actually tip off the Chinese of a pending attack? No.

      Did anyone actually not follow a legal order? No.

      Telling the Chinese that he would tip them off was a way of talking them down. If Trump actually had ordered a nuclear strike on China, and Milley actually did alert the Chinese, that would potentially qualify as treason (assuming some things like the legality of the strike etc. etc.) But… still probably for the best. Or are you going to defend the specific policy of sore loser Presidents nuking China for the sake of their own egos?

      Similarly, Milley never instructed anyone to ignore a legal order. He just asked them to call him before carrying out an “irregular” one. Presumably to ensure that the safeguards that are in place — such as determining the legality of the order or invoking the 25th amendment — have an opportunity to get applied before the world ends. That hardly counts as “inserting himself into the chain of command.” He never gave nor quashed any orders, nor required orders to go through him.

      So, unless you think Trump should have nuked China, there’s no way to look at what actually happened as treason.

      1. Sorry, not buying this even for a second. The chain of command exists for the very good reason that persons in positions of power need to be held accountable. If you receive an “irregular” order the proper response isn’t to make up your own equally irregular order. Milley isn’t even IN the operational chain. For him to suggest that people check with him, first, is what’s irregular about all this.

        TDS is a sickness of the mind, and its first victim is your sense of right and wrong. You are so convinced in Teh Evil that you will do anything and you throw standards to the wind.

        1. “Sorry, not buying this even for a second.”

          Where did you see it for sale?

          “TDS is a sickness of the mind, and its first victim is your sense of right and wrong. You are so convinced in Teh Evil that you will do anything and you throw standards to the wind.”

          It is. However, it comes in two flavors, and you appear to have one, the Trump-can-do-no-wrong kind. Get checked for that, and seek appropriate treatment.

          1. Seriously, who’s deranged here, the people saying “let’s try not to nuke China if at all possible” or the people running around the Capitol with antlers and zip ties?

            TDS no longer means what you think it means Dave.

        2. Getting the Chinese to believe (incorrectly) that Milley would warn them of any attack could actually be very useful. E.g.,

          “The Americans are at DEFCON 1!”
          “Has Milley called?”
          “No.”
          “This can’t be real. He promised he would warn us before any American attack. Stand down.”
          “Incoming missiles!”
          “Curse you, Milley!”

        3. This is you:

          Trump gave me an order to nuke China for no reason other than he lost an election. Well, he’s President so I guess I’ll just do it. After all, the voters will hold him accountable.

          That’s retarded, and it’s why the doomsday clock is so close to midnight. At least phone the CJCS first. There are lots of reasons it might be an illegal order, and it’s worth checking. And there’s nothing wrong with the CJCS encouraging people to do that. (It wasn’t an order, the CJCS can’t even give orders by your own logic.)

  7. Don’t know who said this but it’s true:

    If there’s one thing this year has taught us, it’s that Americans are staggeringly selfish. Not just like your meat-and-potatoes “don’t want to share” selfish. Total apocalyptic “I will let you die rather than inconvenience myself” selfish.

    1. Support for abortion hadn’t already told you that?

      1. Where are you seeing people support abortion? (as opposed to supporting the premise that the government is NOT the proper place for deciding whether or not one is to take place?)

        Hint: It’s a lot like YOUR opinion on the ability of anyone to obtain a firearm. Should the government be deciding who can get one? Or is it an individual decision?

      2. They call themselves pro choice but actually they are pro death. They of course wouldn’t like that label. Choosing life is not controversial at all.

        1. So, you favor putting the government in charge of making decisions for citizens.

          It’s not, after all, controversial in any way.

          1. If only a child growing in the womb had a legal guardian who could represent their best interest.

            1. If only it could survive on it’s own without leeching off someone else.

    2. Tell me about it. They’re are even people defending a high level US military generally conspiring with a hostile Communist dictatorship.

      1. This like Mr. Elder’s evidence of election fraud? That he had even before they started counting votes?

        1. In this case he publicly confessed, and there are, reportedly, a couple of witnesses who’d be glad to confirm the confession in court.

          But it was treason against a Republican administration, so Biden has apparently declared it no biggy.

          1. Still not treason.

            But Biden has other problems to deal with, and insubordination of an officer to a President who is not him is down the list. Biden is also not taking a position on Douglas MacArthur.

    3. I’ve been something along those lines for more than a year. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that we’re not the great country of bootstrapped individualists that the right likes to think of us as. Nope, we’re a bunch of spoiled, impetuous, selfish children who can’t be told no on anything. And we elect people who will placate those feelings.

      We demand a government (and programs) that is bigger than what we are willing to pay for it. We refuse to endure inconveniences, regardless of what it means for society in general. And we latch onto stories, personalities, and social-media posts not because they are right, but because they are what we want to hear.

      The only saving grace is that, as time goes on, it appears this isn’t entirely unique to Americans. At least not all aspects of it. So we may be able to hold our place for a little while longer.

      1. Thank you for actually responding to the quotation rather than doing a thread hijack.

  8. So was “Dr.” Ed finally carted off to the booby hatch? I find myself jonesing for his confident predictions about civil war, economic collapse, war with Russia, and things that Joe Sixpack is almost ready to snap over.

    1. Special Ed appears to have had a violent collision with reality. It’s possible, though unlikely, that he has wised up.

      1. Either that, or you’ve noticed another case where a social media site is suppressing the Conservative voice(s)

    2. I fear that Hillary may have finally compromised him to a permanent end. He simply knew too much.

      1. Accepting your wild theory that Special Ed actually knew anything, much less “too much”, for the sake of argument, then:

        Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy.

    3. …civil war…

      So, how’s that blue-ribbon court-packing commission coming along?

      …economic collapse…

      Um, have you checked the rate of inflation recently?

      …war with Russia…

      The Afghanistan debacle is sure to deter any and all of our foreign foes! We’re safe for the foreseeable future!

      …things that Joe Sixpack is almost ready to snap over…

      Anyone up for another year of (or maybe indefinite!) “health emergency” lockdowns?

      1. Swell. Special Ed 2.0 is here.

      2. What’s your opinion about Maine politics?

    4. Yea, I was wondering about that also.
      Mr Ed was taken off to the glue factory

      1. He disappeared the same day that nut with the supposed truck bomb was arrested in DC.

        1. Really? Someone made a joke at the time asking which regular that was and I suggested “Dr” Ed.

    1. I’m interested in the technical side of this: Was it like Parler, where the platform’s IT security provider deliberately opened a window for the hack?

      1. Why would a domain registrar outsource security?

        1. Because you can only become competent at so many things, so fast.

          1. Zero things too much for you, then?

            1. No, if you need a metal stamping tool designed, I’m your guy, over 40 years experience in the field.

              For anything else I’m at best a dilettante. Well, no, I’m also pretty good at chicken noodle soup.

              1. “if you need a metal stamping tool designed”

                I do not.

      2. That is not what happened with Parler.

        Yes, Cloudflare stopped providing them services. No, that has nothing to do with the way the data was actually extracted.

        1. Oh, my memory failed me–it was Twilio who dropped them, not Cloudflare. If you understand what Twilio does, it’s even more obvious how this didn’t have anything to do with the hack.

          1. He conceded upthread that he isn’t (and cannot become) competent in IT security, so “obvious” isn’t applicable to him.

      3. ” Was it like Parler, where the platform’s IT security provider deliberately opened a window for the hack?”

        Your IT security provider is you.

  9. Searching for someone to vote for in the Virginia Gubernatorial election, I came upon https://www.princessblanding.com/ the “Liberation” Party candidate. Sort’a like Libertarian, I wondered?

    Not unless you consider someone to the Left of AOC libertarian.

    1. Liberation from law & order. That ought to work out well…

      1. Most of those shows were cancelled years ago. There’s only one left.

  10. “Not unless you consider someone to the Left of AOC libertarian.”

    It’s almost like being “left of AOC”” and “libertarian” are measuring totally different things.

    The thing about libertarians is that no two of them agree about anything, specifically including what it means to be “libertarian”.

    1. Another thing about “libertarians” is none of them would actually want to live in the world they envision.

    2. I doubt there are few true Libertarians. Most who claim the libertarian label are concerned with their own freedoms even if that stops other’s freedom. What we can do is find common ground on some freedoms. I am sure that AOC would support some libertarian ideas and oppose other. Question is can you build on agreed upon ideas?

      1. Well, hope springs eternal as they say, but this sounds like a stretch.

        1. It does take two people willing to compromise to ever be able to reach compromise.

          1. Kill only *half* the kulaks?

            1. Thou shalt not.

      2. What we can do is find common ground on some freedoms.

        How about we start by honoring the plain language of the Constitution and its amendments?

        1. Sure, so long as we’re agreeing on the plain language, and not your interpretation of the plain language.

      3. This is what has been the biggest disappointment about people who think they support personal liberty. They support their version of personal liberty and want everyone else to be forced to acknowledge and submit to it.

        Freedom of religion means you get to choose yours, and so does everyone else.
        Freedom of speech means you get to express your opinions, and so does everyone else.
        Freedom of assembly means that you get to organize protests for your issues, and so does everyone else.
        Freedom of the press means that your beliefs can be reported on, and so can everyone else’s.
        Equal protection under the law means you are protected regardless of your status, beliefs, or profile, and so is everyone else.

        People who won’t accept that other people have the right to believe differently than them don’t support liberty (or freedom, or the Constitution, or whatever your preferred virtue-signal is). Abortion? Personal choice. Homophobia? Personal choice. White nationalism? Personal choice. No one can force you to stop believing what you want to, as long you aren’t harming another person.

        It’s when you want to force those beliefs on others that problems arise. You are part of the tiny minority who believes life begins at conception? Don’t have an abortion. You believe that homosexuality is wrong/evil/unnatural? Don’t have homosexual relationships. You believe that whites are superior to other races? Or that men are superior to women? Or that heterosexual parents are better than homosexual parents? Great. You do you.

        But everyone else has the same rights. If you want to force someone to live by your beliefs, you had better have damned good proof that their belief lacks foundation and yours doesn’t.

        Libertarianism supports the lightest touch by government on the populace. Which means you have to accept that others will believe differently than you. They will worship differently than you. They will look different than you. They will think different things are important than you. And that is not only acceptable, it is a good thing. Different ideas and different interests and different issue profiles and different attitudes are good.

        Different is good. No one is 100% right. No one is 100% wrong. It is only by embracing “different” that we can increase our batting average. Only by assessing (and acknowledging) the success or failure of different approaches can we create a more perfect union.

        Fix the mistakes of the past. Try to do better as we move forward. And accept that we will never be perfect. We will continue to make mistakes.

        “More perfect”, not “perfect”. One is possible. One is not.

      4. “I doubt there are few true Libertarians.”

        There are quite a few libertarians. It’s an adjective, not an identity.

  11. For a few weeks the VC site has been functioning unreliably. It seems like maybe ad feeds interrupt attempts to type, and then never give control back. I lose everything I have typed each time it happens. Any others experiencing this?

    1. Once in a while, yes. But never on my desktop, only on my IPad. I think maybe it’s a timeout issue with the browser, rather than a site problem.

      1. I think you are right. But the reason site has very intrusive and disruptive ads, and it is quite annoying. I almost always get messages on my desktop that the site is using up memory and slowing down the computer.

        1. Switched from Firefox to Brave. You lose some functionality on sites with lots of gadgets, but in return the browser virtually never hangs, crashes, or sucks down CPU time.

        2. uBlock Origin quiets it down splendidly for me.

          1. Excellent, I’ll give that a try.

      2. Same here Brett. Never on my laptop.

    2. Perhaps the VC is targeting just you. I haven’t noticed anything.

      Seriously though, could be a browser issue. If you haven’t already try resetting and/or scanning for PUPs.

    3. “I lose everything I have typed each time”
      SL,
      That is divine intervention.

      1. Nope. I have a workaround. Against divine intervention I couldn’t do that.

      2. Then the god or gods in charge are after me as well (chrome/iPhone 10)

  12. U.S. Corporation Sentenced for Importing Illegally-Sourced Wood from the Amazon

    “Global Plywood and Lumber Trading LLC (Global Plywood) pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to violating the Lacey Act. The corporation admitted that it failed to exercise due care when it imported illegally-sourced timber from the Peruvian Amazon into the United States. The court sentenced Global Plywood to pay $200,000 in restitution to the Ministry of Environment of Peru and a $5,000 fine.”

    I don’t get how a corporation can plead guilty since it was actually people who took illegal actions.

    I understand and agree with Citizens United since a corporation is simply a group of people and they can agree to make whatever statements they want (including providing funds).

    But in this case, individuals took criminal actions – not the corporation and it’s the individuals who should be held accountable.

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-corporation-sentenced-importing-illegally-sourced-wood-amazon

    1. Well, I’d agree. Since a corporation has no soul, I don’t see how it can form criminal intent. The natural persons who did the crimes should pay the penalty (if they’re actually guilty – I don’t know the details of the plea deal).

      I’m all about personhood for human beings! Artificial persons – personhood only to the degree it’s conferred on them by law. And I don’t see how an artificial person without brain or soul can be treated as a criminal defendant.

      1. Well, I sympathize with the view, but this IS kind of the sort of thing corporations are actually formed for, so that the individual people won’t be on the hook for the finances of the corporation.

        Can’t put a corporation in jail, but fines? They can certainly pay those.

        1. This makes perfect sense w/r/t civil liability, but for crimes it doesn’t really make sense for the corporation to be able to act as a shield for the people who actually did the illegal thing.

          1. The practical difference between civil and criminal liability in this regard escapes me, where the only penalty is financial.

            Besides, the structure of corporations admits the possibility that the person who actually did the illegal thing is different from the person who intended that the illegal thing be done. While both sides of the illegality can be attributed to the corporation.

            1. If it doesn’t make much practical difference, why not call it civil or even administrative, not criminal?

              Calling it criminal seems to me to impute too much personhood to the corporation, an artificial entity. If it’s not an important practical concession, it’s still philosophically inappropriate.

              1. Big money got a heavy hand
                Big money take control
                Big money got a mean streak
                Big money got no soul

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQgu0MpnKq8

            2. Criminal cases can be brought by the State or the government. Civil liability requires a showing of damages or some other harm. The government could not bring a civil case on this violation. (I doubt there is even a civil cause of action.)

              1. Well, there are theoretically ways to revoke a corporation’s charter, but since so many corporations are chartered in the President’s home state, which benefits from all the chartering, maybe that’s just a hypothetical terror for them.

                1. Corporate death penalty comes off as extreme to most people.

          2. “but for crimes it doesn’t really make sense for the corporation to be able to act as a shield for the people who actually did the illegal thing.”

            It doesn’t. Not even for civil torts. So long as the individual was personally involved.

        2. This is not quite right.

          The idea is that the corporate form, among other benefits, shields passive investors from liability beyond the amount of their investment.

          That’s a pretty good idea, since it lets investors put in money knowing that they can’t lose more than the amount invested.

          But the corporate form ought not shield management from personal responsibility for misconduct.

          1. See my comment. It doesn’t. For those officers actually involved in the wrongdoing.

  13. “I don’t get how a corporation can plead guilty since it was actually people who took illegal actions.”

    Pretty sure avoiding liability is one of the main reasons to incorporate, if not the entire reason.

    1. Different liability, Otis.

  14. A question for the abortion “moderates” who deplore “both extremes” – do you think the prolife “extreme” is more dangerous than the abortion-rights “extreme”? If you think the abortion-rights “extreme” poses any danger – say, by endorsing abortion at a stage of fetal development which you regard as constituting personhood – what remedy do you propose? Laws against such abortions? Overruling of Roe v. Wade?

    1. “do you think the prolife ‘extreme’ is more dangerous than the abortion-rights ‘extreme’?”

      Well, yeah, they are. They think firebombing buildings and shooting people is how to get what they want, (or at least, they do a poor job of distancing themselves from the individuals in their midst who hold these views.)
      Conversely, my right to obtain an abortion involves approximately 0 other persons, barring substantial religious miracle.

      ” If you think the abortion-rights ‘extreme’ poses any danger – say, by endorsing abortion at a stage of fetal development which you regard as constituting personhood”

      endorsing abortion at a stage of fetal development which I regard as constituting personhood harms exactly nobody.
      The problem is that you’re still focused on the wrong question. Being a person doesn’t change anything… what you want to change is when the rights of that person exceed the rights of another person. Everybody driving a car is a person over the age of 16, and most are adult human beings, but my right to walk in the crosswalk still exceeds their rights to drive on it.

      1. “a poor job of distancing themselves from the individuals in their midst who hold these views”

        Now distance yourself from Gosnell.

        1. You say that as if you expect it to be difficult.

          But, no. Just… no.

          YOU distance YOURSELF from Gosnell. You have as much to do with him as I do.

          1. Shocker. Either you cannot or will not distance yourself from Gosnell. Two peas in a pod, you guys are.

      2. Conversely, my right to obtain an abortion involves approximately 0 other persons

        O other legally recognized persons would be more accurate. There is another human organism involved.

        1. No, dipwad. I said 0 other persons, because I meant 0 other persons.
          I lack a uterus, therefore, there is no possibility that I will discover an unwelcome guest in my uterus.

    2. I think the anti-abortion extreme is more dangerous, in that the measures they support would would make over half the population into second-class citizens. Needless to say, this lesser citizenship wouldn’t effect the vast majority of people advocating such measures.

      1. What class of human being are you when your life can be terminated on a whim? Third, fourth, fifth, sixth?

        1. Since you hit the reply button, I’m assuming you somehow think that reply has anything to do with my comment, which was about citizenship.

          1. Birthright citizenship is conferred at (surprise!) birth. Before citizenship has been conferred, you aren’t any kind of citizen.

    3. The moderate believes that abortions should be safe legal and rare. That means not addressing abortion through laws making it illegal but rather addressing why women have abortions. How many of the state legislator in Texas actually spent any time considering why abortion happen. They don’t even believe that rape and incest happen. The prolife extremist that looks at a young victim of rape and says they should not have access to abortion is worse, no doubt about that.

      1. Do you believe in killing rapists? Or simply the unborn offspring of rapists?

        1. From the prolife perspective – how can it be unconstitutional to execute rapists but a good thing to kill the rapist’s innocent child? When does a “product of rape” get the right to life? In the cradle? Or not even then?

          And from the political perspective – if prolifers actually endorsed a rape exception, they wouldn’t get credit for it – they’d simply be accused (and with good reason) of using abortion laws not to protect life but to punish voluntary sexuality.

          And from the practical perspective – a rape exception would encourage false reporting, like the original “Roe” in Roe v. Wade (Norma McCorvey) who said she was raped by Mexicans when it was actually from consensual sex.

          1. “When does a ‘product of rape’ get the right to life? In the cradle? Or not even then?”

            This is still not the right question. Approximately nobody says they have no “right to life”. The argument is whether that right to life has priority over anyone else’s rights. Plus, you still have the problem that pre-viability, having a right to life doesn’t mean anything if you can’t survive.

            “And from the political perspective – if prolifers actually endorsed a rape exception, they wouldn’t get credit for it – they’d simply be accused (and with good reason) of using abortion laws not to protect life but to punish voluntary sexuality.”

            This is accurate. Because the accusation would be true. THAT IS a major driver of pushing abortion laws.
            The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies… which is kind of the point of Planned Parenthood… it’s right there in the name.

    4. I think a way to rephrase your question is: which is worse, a world in which abortion is prohibited under all circumstances and basically treated as murder (i.e., a woman who has an abortion could be sent to prison for life or executed) OR a world in which abortion is allowed under all circumstances, including one minute before birth?

      To me the former is pretty obviously worse, mostly because in practice late term abortions are extremely rare and no one actually endorses the idea of nine month abortions (and I don’t think doctors would perform them except in roughly the same scenarios where they’re allowed today), whereas prohibition on abortion is incredibly ineffective at reducing the number of abortions but greatly increases risk to mothers, and there is actually a small but meaningful set of people who support the “no abortions ever and it should be murder” position.

      1. Until this moment I didn’t realize that I was myself a moderate.

        But since I follow the lead of mainstream, results-getting prolife organizations, I don’t fit your extreme of executing women who have abortions, which I suppose makes me one of the moderates.

        As with the mainstream, effective prolife organizations, I want to focus on the abortionists, so long as they’re the ones furnishing that particular “service.”

        As the technology of killing advances, more women will be able to abort without the aid of an abortionist. Then treat them as you’d treat those women you read about who discard their newborns in trash cans. I am not aware of a situation where such unfortunate women were executed or given life sentences, but maybe you can find one. In any case, I’m sure that you’d agree that *some* punishment was warranted in a post-birth-abortion scenario.

        1. As the technology of killing advances, more women will be able to abort without the aid of an abortionist. Then treat them as you’d treat those women you read about who discard their newborns in trash cans.

          That is a really dark scenario. First, it is perfectly legal to abandon a newborn if it is done properly. Second, let’s instead imagine a future where the technology of the artificial womb advances and a child can be transferred as an alternative to termination.

          1. “it is perfectly legal to abandon a newborn if it is done properly”

            In a trash can?

            “let’s instead imagine a future where the technology of the artificial womb advances and a child can be transferred as an alternative to termination”

            First, all pregnancies get terminated in some way or other. Another euphemism, like “other persons” or “domestic institutions.”

            Second, I’m all for invoking artificial wombs if the development of same removes even the vestige of a shadow of an excuse for abortion.

            1. In a trash can?

              Sorry, I was assuming the reader would make the obvious inference that ‘in a trash can’ does not equate to ‘done properly’. I went for a nonspecific wording as I am not knowledgeable regarding different rules in different jurisdictions. My point being that there is no excuse for dumping a newborn in a trash can when it is acceptable to leave it with a responsible party at a hospital or fire station.

              As an aside, the leaving of newborns at hospitals dates back at least as far as the Napoleonic era in France. The response was so great to the edict that they installed revolving platforms at some hospitals because children were being left outside to protect anonymity. At a time when 50% of children died before the age of 5, there were not many questions asked when a pregnancy ended and the mother did not come home with a newborn.

              Prior to the 20th century, my understanding is that common law did not recognize a child as a person until it was fully emerged from the womb. Abortion was not punishable up to full delivery.

              1. “Prior to the 20th century, my understanding is that common law did not recognize a child as a person until it was fully emerged from the womb. Abortion was not punishable up to full delivery.”

                Blackstone said: “LIFE is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual ; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.”

                https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

                Under the science of the day, they didn’t know whether it was alive before moving in the womb.

                1. Though I misunderstood your comment about the availability of alternatives to mothers tempted to kill their newborns. Yes, I agree there are alternatives.

                  But you know what else there are usually alternatives to? Abortion.

                  This article is ten years old, and appeared in the prolife propaganda rag The Atlantic*, but it’s still interesting:

                  “I find it far-fetched that women are having abortions because no one is willing to help them give the baby up for adoption–there are lots of people and agencies that will not only help them, but pay a substantial portion of their expenses until they deliver.”

                  https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/abortion-adoption-supply-and-demand/68818/

                  *That was a joke, the Atlantic is not prolife by any stretch.

                  1. Not to dredge up an obvious and often-used observation, but unless something has changed there is already a surplus of unwanted children all over the country. But, sure. These new unwanted babies would be different.

                    1. Births aren’t even at a replacement rate in this country, but there’s “a surplus of unwanted children”?

                    2. Gee, Cal, it’s almost like some people don’t want children, even as “replacements”.

                  2. “Though I misunderstood your comment about the availability of alternatives to mothers tempted to kill their newborns. Yes, I agree there are alternatives.

                    But you know what else there are usually alternatives to? Abortion.”

                    Except, in your advocacy, there are no alternatives. Alternatives require choosing between them, and you don’t want to authorized choice.

            2. So the state will be responsible for the fetus? Because the mother will terminate parental rights as soon as that bundle of undifferentiated cells clears her body. And you know the “pro-life” folks won’t be anywhere to be found.

              1. You keep making these generalizations about whole groups after your blatant blunder whitewashing the abortion-fanciers and say they’re above deceit.

                1. This generalizations about whole groups is readily observable. There are already abandoned infants, and the right-to-life groups aren’t at the front of the line offering to provide food, clothing, or shelter to them. So pointing out that the right-to-life faction isn’t going to come rushing to feed, clothe, and/or house the unwanted fetuses of the world isn’t deceitful. Let’s just check. How many abandoned babies live in your household, Cal?

        2. Well, if your question was not intended to evaluate the the far extremes of each position, and instead we can rephrase the question as: which extreme is more harmful, (1) people that want to ban all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, or (2) people who support abortion on demand up until the point of viability, then I think it’s quite obvious that #1 is more harmful.

          Abortions are less frequent than before they were banned, and women were much more likely to die from complications from illegal abortions before legalization. So the policy of banning them is counterproductive and results in needless deaths, in addition to infringing on women’s liberty. I don’t know why anyone would think that was a good policy.

          “As the technology of killing advances, more women will be able to abort without the aid of an abortionist”

          FWIW, the abortion rate has declined in almost every single year since the introduction of medication abortions, so despite the fact that women don’t need the help of a doctor, they haven’t chosen to do so more frequently.

          1. It’s too bad that mothers who tried to kill their unborn children ended up killing themselves too. I don’t endorse such a result.

            Incidentally, I hope you didn’t buy the inflated statistics on maternal deaths put out by the abortion-fanciers. The Washington Post fact-checker gave such a statement four pinocchios out of a possible four. The link to the WAPO doesn’t work for me, but the prolifers are happy to quote from it:

            “Even given the fuzzy nature of the data and estimates, there is no evidence that in the years immediately preceding the Supreme Court’s decision, thousands of women died every year in the United States from illegal abortions.

            “… advocates hurt their cause when they use figures that do not withstand scrutiny. These numbers were debunked in 1969 — 50 years ago — by a statistician celebrated by Planned Parenthood. There’s no reason to use them today.”

            https://lifenewsstage.wpengine.com/2019/05/29/washington-post-planned-parenthood-ceo-leana-wens-lied-about-women-dying-from-illegal-abortions/

          2. “people that want to ban all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother”

            I regard such people as misguided, because rapists (including statutory rapists) can’t be killed in the U. S. because of the 8th Amendment (so says the Supreme Court), but from the prolife perspective (i. e., the true perspective), it makes no sense to spare the criminal but kill his innocent child.

            And when does a child conceived in rape gain the right to life? Can it be strangled in the crib as a “product of rape”?

            1. “And when does a child conceived in rape gain the right to life?”

              At conception, same as the others. But that right isn’t always the highest priority when measured against other people’s rights. As has been pointed out to you multiple times.

        3. There’s no such thing as “post-birth abortion”. After the first breath, I don’t know of anyone who thinks the baby (the real meaning, not the anti-abortion distortion) isn’t a living individual with individual rights.

          Before that first breath is a different matter, of course.

          1. What’s magical about the first breath? That sounds suspiciously religious to me.

            If there’s a moral debate about the status of a newborn, then based on your approach, the government’s response should be to back off and let the woman decide whether to kill the newborn. In consultation with her doctor, naturally.

            1. What isn’t significant about the first breath?

              1. I thought you might have some insight since you brought up the subject.

                1. After the first breath pretty much everyone would say there is an independent organism possessing individual rights. That makes it significant, as it is the first point at which virtual unanimity is achieved. I’d call that significant.

                  1. You can’t help yourself, can you? You keep appealing to (alleged) public opinion as if it were your standard.

                    1. It is how government works (in this country, at least).

                      You can only govern against public opinion for a little under 4 years.

            2. Straw man often? My personal logic surrounds brain activity and the possibility of independent existence. Before a fetus has the capability of surviving, it isn’t a person.

              By the way, my position is closer to the average American than “personhood begins with conception”. You are the outlier, not me.

              1. But Singer’s position is closer to that of the average Roman from the glory days of their empire.

                Or you could stop measuring human rights based on what a majority decides.

                1. I haven’t. Not once. But I have called out your baseless assumption that you are right.

                  You keep saying you are right and just because most people disagree that doesn’t change the fact that you are right.

                  You aren’t more wise and good and decent and moral than anyone else. Saying that you are doesn’t make it so.

                  It isn’t about popularity. It is about a logical, convincing moral argument that other equally moral people (aka your fellow Americans) find convincing. And the anti-abortion position doesn’t have that.

                  The only way that you can claim that you and your fellow believers are unquestionably right is if the rest of us are incapable of moral reasoning.

                  I’m sorry, anti-abortionists just aren’t that special. You’re just like everybody else. No better, no worse.

                  1. You keep appealing to an (alleged) consensus.

                    What do you do in those cases where you think a majority is against you? (If that ever happens)? Do you use any arguments at all?

                  2. “It isn’t about popularity. It is about a logical, convincing moral argument that other equally moral people (aka your fellow Americans) find convincing. And the anti-abortion position doesn’t have that.”

                    I acknowledge that I’m parrying your bad arguments at present rather than giving detailed explanations of the prolife position – because of course I would presume you’ve studied that position already. And meanwhile, the bad arguments and tired talking points keep coming and if I didn’t respond to them you’d say I wasn’t answering your questions.

                    But thank you for a couple of concessions.

                    My position is in fact “the anti-abortion position,” just as you said. Consider all the effort expended on your side to say “we’re anti-abortion, too!” So it’s a valuable admission that you just stepped on your own side’s argument.

                    Also you admitted I’m no worse than anyone else. So you acknowledge you lied when you compared me to the terrorist Eric Rudolph, who certainly *is* worse than other Americans.

                    1. I didn’t compare you to Eric Rudolph. I used him as an example if an anti-abortion extremist. I think you are wrong, but you have the freedom to be wrong. I don’t think you are a terrorist. But your original post asked who is more dangerous and he is a great example of the anti-abortion side being more dangerous.

                    2. I haven’t compared you to Kermit Gosnell either, though I think he counts for your “side” if we’re playing it that way.

                      And there are plenty of terrorists who are pro-abortion, like the good folks I’ve cited, and some of them got professorships (maybe they can discuss the right to life with Professor Singer, though so far as I know he hasn’t personally sullied his hands with terrorism).

                    3. “I haven’t compared you to Kermit Gosnell either, though I think he counts for your “side” if we’re playing it that way.”

                      Here’s how to know who speaks for a “side”.

                      If the person claims to be speaking for the side, and the people of that side publicly acknowledge that person as a spokesman, then there’s no doubt that that’s a person who can speak for that “side”.

                      If a person says they’re speaking for the side, and the people of that side say nothing about how that guy isn’t speaking for us, you have a pretty good case that that guy is speaking for the “side”.

                      If a person says they’re speaking for the side, and the people of a different side start to act like that guy speaks for the side, then everybody else gets to laugh directly in the fact of anybody who has decided who speaks for the other side. The term for that is “straw man argumentation” and it’s recognizably of very poor quality.

                      Are you sure you want to stick with your position of being allowed to decide who speaks for everyone who doesn’t agree with you?

                2. “Singer’s position is closer to that of the average Roman from the glory days of their empire.”

                  Say, whatever happen to those average Romans from the glory days of the empire?
                  Oh, you say their empire fell once the Christians got to Rome?

              2. I’m trying to find the straw man. You said –

                “There’s no such thing as “post-birth abortion”. After the first breath, I don’t know of anyone who thinks the baby (the real meaning, not the anti-abortion distortion) isn’t a living individual with individual rights.

                “Before that first breath is a different matter, of course.”

                Again, what’s magical about the first breath? Why is it “a different matter” after the first breath?

                1. I’ll copy from above:

                  After the first breath pretty much everyone would say there is an independent organism possessing individual rights. That makes it significant, as it is the first point at which virtual unanimity is achieved. I’d call that significant.

                  1. “pretty much everyone”

                    Except for an ethics professor at Princeton University, of course. But other than that, yes, there’s a solid consensus against infanticide.

          2. “What’s magical about the first breath? That sounds suspiciously religious to me.”

            If you don’t take any breath, your argument for being alive is substantially diminished.

            It’s like you’ve never heard of stillbirth.

            1. If you don’t take any breath, your argument for being alive is substantially diminished.

              So we can have a legitimate abortion after birth but prior to first breath?

              1. If you say so, and you did just say so.

        4. “Until this moment I didn’t realize that I was myself a moderate.”

          Once you pass the decision of whether or not someone should get an abortion to the government, you lose the ability to complain when they decide the population is too high and everybody gets an abortion, whether they wanted one or not.

          Surely THAT is the worst case scenario.

    5. I think that the anti-abortion extreme is more dangerous than the pro-choice extreme because of the intractibility of their raison d’etra. The belief that you have a divine purpose and therefore your actions are justified is a terrifying and dangerous thing. It also means that there can be no accommodation or compromise.

      The pro-choice extreme does not encompass the same level of zealotry. Probably because rather than trying to force others to adopt their life choices, they are advocating for people to be able to choose for themselves. And while many, if not most, are religious, they don’t see their faith as being relevant to the issue.

      I also look at how far into the grey areas of truth a side is willing to go to assess how “dangerous” they might be.

      The anti-abortion side definitely traffics in more truth-adjacent and truth-free positions (abortions cause sterility, abortions cause depression, abortion causes cancer, abortion requires surgery, women don’t understand what they are doing, women need unnecessary medical procedures (ultrasounds) to have an abortion, women need a “cooldown” period or a consultation or to have the “real” issues explained to them, or some other paternalistic, government-mandated misinformation campaign). Never mind “crisis pregnancy centers” that will do or say anything to keep a woman from having an abortion by lying and misleading the women who come to them thinking it is an abortion clinic.

      The pro-choice side doesn’t use such deceptiveness and lies. Most of them don’t even engage in the “personhood” issue because it is irrelevant to the pro-choice position. They aren’t saying when personhood begins because they don’t have a shared belief. They are saying that the only person whose opinion matters as to when a fetus becomes a person is the woman, with the advice of their doctor. Some believe life begins at conception. Great. No one will force them to get an abortion. Some believe that it starts with the first breath. Great. Most believe it happens somewhere betwixt and between. Great. That is the “choice” part of pro-choice. They assume people aren’t stupid or evil and can make rational moral decisions for themselves. Even the most extreme.

      1. “The pro-choice side doesn’t use such deceptiveness and lies.”

        The head of Planned Parenthood earned four Pinocchios from the Washington Post fact-checkers. See my link above.

        So I can’t really trust your generalizations about either side, except that you exaggerate the sins of the one and whitewash the behavior of the other.

        “Some believe life begins at conception. Great. No one will force them to get an abortion. Some believe that it starts with the first breath. Great. Most believe it happens somewhere betwixt and between. Great.”

        Some believe that the right to life doesn’t even exist for those already born.

        “Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organisers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that “A professor of morals … who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns … is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level.” Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind, criticised Singer’s appointment to the Princeton faculty in a banquet speech at the organisation’s national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer’s support for euthanising disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion,_euthanasia,_and_infanticide

        So there’s an honest disagreement between Peter Singer on one hand and Wiesenthal and Maurer. The government shouldn’t try to resolve this disagreement, but should let the mother, in consultation with her doctor, decide whether to kill her newborn baby.

        Right?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion,_euthanasia,_and_infanticide

        1. “Some believe that the right to life doesn’t even exist for those already born.”

          Find me a sizable group that advocates this position.

          “[Peter] Singer wishes “to see American jurisprudence, and the national abortion debate, take up the question of which capacities a human being needs to have in order for it to be wrong to kill it” as well as “when, in the development of the early human being, these capacities are present.”

          How crazy, that he suggests that the issue be decided rationally. He even suggests that the average American is capable of moral reasoning. What a radical!

          He says this knowing that his *personal* moral beliefs wouldn’t prevail. Also notice he isn’t trying to force the vast majority of Americans, who aren’t convinced of his position, to live by his personal views. To be fair, the “personhood at conception” position garners less than 15% support and Singer’s position gets even less.

          Eric Rudolph, a bombmaker for Christian terrorist group the Army of God, didn’t just advocate for bombing abortion clinics. He did it, as well as bombing the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. He remains unrepentant to this day, justifying the deaths he caused as “a moral duty”

          Which one is dangerous and which isn’t?

          1. “Also notice he isn’t trying to force the vast majority of Americans, who aren’t convinced of his position, to live by his personal views.”

            Interesting shift in definitions. Now you acknowledge that *allowing* the killing of infants would constitute forcing his beliefs on the public. That’s exactly what prolifers say about permitting abortion.

            Your definitions shift a dizzying 180 degrees to accommodate your conclusions.

            And you seem to suggest that the only reason not to kill infants is that most americans haven’t been convinced that it’s OK. Wouldn’t you agree, though, that killing infants would be wrong even if was more popular, as in the old Roman empire?

            “While there was some disapproval of child-exposure, it was widely accepted as unavoidable. Some, especially Stoics, disagreed, as did contemporary Judaism, insisting that all infants, or at least all viable and legitimate infants, should be kept alive.”

            What basis would the Stoics and Jews have for *imposing* their minority perspective on the whole Roman public?

            https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-studies/article/abs/childexposure-in-the-roman-empire/3410A0618E4B37F1CF1EE52B11DC89F4

            “Eric Rudolph,” etc.

            Kermit Gosnell, etc.

            Your extremists not only kill preborn people, but postborn people as well, to a greater extent than Eric Rudolph. At least Gosnell was consistent.

            1. “Now you acknowledge that *allowing* the killing of infants would constitute forcing his beliefs on the public.”

              No, I’m pointing out that anti-abortionists want to force their minority views on everyone else and the pro-choice side (even the fringe positions like Peter Singer’s) doesn’t.

              “Your definitions shift a dizzying 180 degrees to accommodate your conclusions.”

              My definitions have never changed. I’m not sure why you believe they have.

              “And you seem to suggest that the only reason not to kill infants is that most americans haven’t been convinced that it’s OK.”

              I absolutely did not suggest that. Never once.

              You keep trying to make some sort of moral equivalence between ancient times and our time.

              The problem is that your premise is that your position is the default, that it is correct, and that it is the obligation of those who disagree with you to prove you wrong.

              That’s not how it works. You have to make the case for your position. And the mystical “that fertilized egg will maybe, possibly, one day become a living, breathing human being so you have to treat it like that right now” position has been roundly rejected by thinking people throughout America. It’s not that they don’t understand. It’s that they find it to be unbelievable.

              Viability, on the other hand, is seen by most Americans as a reasonable line for the not-person/person divide. And that is a reality that no amount of self-righteousness or moral smugness can change.

              Most people find your beliefs irrational. If you want to have them, have at it. If you want others to be coerced into having them, piss off.

              And if you think that blowing up real, living, breathing people because they work somewhere you disapprove of, your morals are inferior to almost everyone.

              1. So much straw-manning.

                “And if you think that blowing up real, living, breathing people” etc.

                I’m not Eric Rudolph, and I’m not sure how you thought I was – you brought him up, and I parried with Gosnell. What do you think about *him,* by the way?

                You appeal to the views of “most Americans” without suggesting why the majority is right (assuming the polling is exactly as you say, that is).

                If they’re right, they’re right regardless of whether they’re a majority or not. So if you’re not invoking majority rule to justify your position, why do you keep mentioning the supposed majority status of your views? Is this some kind of weird “motte and bailey” thing?

                1. And I notice that you declared, “The pro-choice side doesn’t use such deceptiveness and lies” – yet not only do your friends at Planned Parenthood earn four Pinocchios from the Washington Post fact-checkers, but you’ve added some misleading remarks of your own, conflating me with Eric Rudolph.

                  So, yes, the prochoice side is happy to use deception to get what it wants.

                  1. You’re really going to have to stop invoking (alleged) majority opinion to justify your beliefs, if you don’t want to be accused of making human rights depend on the whim of the majority. You can at least see, I suppose, how your constant appeals to (supposed) majority sentiment or consensus can look a whole lot like putting human rights up for a vote?

                    Why not argue on the merits and – if you are truly above such legal positivism – stop appealing to the (purported) huge majorities against the right to life?

                    1. “You’re really going to have to stop invoking (alleged) majority opinion to justify your beliefs, if you don’t want to be accused of making human rights depend on the whim of the majority.”

                      You have exactly those rights that other people are prepared to extend to you, and no others.

                2. The question was whether extreme anti-abortionists were more dangerous than extreme pro-choicers.

                  On one side you have Eric Rudolph (or pick any other Christian terrorist who blew up or shot innocent people), which is the extreme of the anti-abortion movement.

                  I have yet to hear about a pro-choice bomber or pro-choice assassins killing people.

                  Anti-abortion zealots are clearly more dangerous than pro-choice zealots.

                  Regarding your complaint that I keep mentioning the overwhelming number of people who reject your reasoning, follow the logic:
                  1) People are capable of moral reasoning.
                  2) Presented with the anti-abortion position and the pro-choice position, most Americans have come to the conclusion that the abortion is morally acceptable.
                  3) The only way the anti-abortjon position could be more moral than the pro-choice position is if only anti-abortionists are capable of moral reasoning.
                  4) Anti-abortionists aren’t different than anyone else in regards to their moral reasoning.
                  5) the anti-abortion position is not more moral than the pro-choice position.

                  Now do you understand? You aren’t special, moral-reaoning-wise.

                  1. Let me know when Eric Rudolph gets appointed to distinguished professorships like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, or when he gets a fawning review in Kirkus Reviews like Susan Rosenberg.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rosenberg#Writing

                    (I wonder if they were prolife, too? But then, you’d have mentioned them if they were, wouldn’t you?)

                    Remember that link I gave to the study of Roman infant exposure? Let’s see if I can replicate your logic to show why the Stoics and Jews were wrong to (mostly) oppose that practice:

                    1) People are capable of moral reasoning.
                    2) Presented with the anti-exposure position and the pro-exposure position, most Romans have come to the conclusion that exposure is morally acceptable.
                    3) The only way the Stoics and Jewish position could be more moral than the pro-exposure position is if only anti-exposurists are capable of moral reasoning.
                    4) Anti-exposurists aren’t different than anyone else in regards to their moral reasoning.
                    5) the anti-exposure position is not more moral than the pro-exposure position.

                    Impeccable logic!

                    1. “Impeccable logic!”

                      Your skills at performing logic are entirely peccable.

        2. And yes, the mother should have the right to have her own moral beliefs. And shouldn’t be coerced into following a moral position that less than 15% of Americans accept.

          1. Wouldn’t fathers in the Roman empire have the right to their own moral beliefs about infant exposure?

            Presumably you oppose infant exposure on the merits, not because it’s unpopular with modern Americans – though for some reason you keep invoking public consensus and majorities.

            And I know you don’t think public opinion in ancient times is relevant.

            But maybe you can try this experiment: frame an argument to persuade ancient Romans *not* to do infant exposure. Bear in mind that they weren’t familiar with (alleged) American polling data from centuries in the future, nor would they have been impressed that a consensus among future foreigners was against them. What kind of argument on the merits would you make against infant exposure, given that you don’t (contrary to appearance) rely on public opinion as the measure of human rights?

            1. I oppose infant exposure because I oppose killing humans and a live-born infant is a human. Unless you know of a movement denying personhood to a live birth?

              If not, you are just engaging in the normal sophistry that anti-abortionists traffic in all the time.

              1. “Unless you know of a movement denying personhood to a live birth?”

                Well, there’s Peter Singer and the people who appointed him. To a professorship. A professorship of *ethics.*

                It is sophistry to say “well, that isn’t a movement, so it doesn’t count!”

                It is also sophistry to say he denies the right to life to infants but acknowledges their personhood.

                So, try again.

                1. And Singer wasn’t appointed a professor of ethics at some random cow college, but at Princeton University, which as the Rev. would tell you, is one of our foremost mainstream liberal-libertarian institutions. And the alma mater of many of our Founding Fathers, I could add. The young people passing through its gates are, in many cases, our future elites.

                  Aren’t you excited about this non-existent movement for infanticide?

                  1. “Aren’t you excited about this non-existent movement for infanticide?”

                    Not as much as you are excited about this non-existent movement for infanticide, that’s for sure.

            2. The bottom line is that you are not more moral than the average American. You do not have more insight or moral reasoning than the average American. The average American is not unaware of the moral argument anti-abortionists make.

              They just, by and large, find them unconvincing.

              And that’s the hurdle you can’t overcome. Because your argument is not convincing. It doesn’t convince most people. Since I was born in 1970, it has never convinced most people. Because, morally, it is an unconvincing case.

              But sure, avoid the fact that public opinion is based on people’s moral beliefs and pretend that it is some sort of popularity contest voted on by credulous rubes who don’t understand morality like you do. That is totally convincing.

              1. Uh, yes, public opinion *is* a popularity contest.

                The Romans thought infant exposure was OK, in the face of criticism saying it (generally) wasn’t.

                The 19th century Southern whites – a majority in the region – thought enslaving black people was OK, despite the contrary arguments of the abolitionists (who were none too popular in the North either, except of course among black people).

                Did the Stoics and Jews possess superior morality re infant exposure? Did the abolitionists re slavery? Not when measured against majority opinion.

                Again, there’s no need for me to rehearse the prolife arguments because presumably (if you are to be believed) you’ve already familiarized yourself with those arguments and have intelligently rejected them.

                1. No, public opinion is a measure of what people believe.

                  My position, as much as you keep trying to make it something else, is that people should have the right to make their own moral choices. Yes, there are things that are beyond the pale (murder and rape are two prime examples). And you are right that where that line gets drawn has a cultural element to it.

                  That still doesn’t mean you are right and I am wrong.

                  Bottom line is that I believe that people are capable of making moral decisions. And I believe that they choose the moral over the immoral. Your average person doesn’t say, “I’m going to choose evil today.”.

                  People are aware of the anti-abortion position. There has been literally billions of dollars spent getting the message out.

                  They have rejected it. And that rejection has been consistent and unflagging. The only way you can argue that people are wrong is if you think that they are less capable of moral reasoning than you are. Or, I guess, that most Americans are intentionally immoral or intentionally make an immoral choice in abortion. But there is zero evidence of that.

                  The only reasonable explanation is that moral people have used their moral reasoning and decided that abortion is moral.

                  Dismissing people’s opinions as something as frivolous as “popularity” is insulting to them or arrogant of you. Or both.

                  1. Who’s invoking popularity here? I’m saying it’s not an index of what’s right, you keep bringing it up.

                    “Your average person doesn’t say, “I’m going to choose evil today.”.”

                    Maybe not, but have you consulted the history of the human race?

                    1. I’m saying people make moral choices that are the basis of their opinions. Those opinions are aggregated in a public opinion survey. Those opinions are as valid as yours. And they reject your moral reasoning. Distract all you want with Peter Singer and Romans and whatever side logic you want.

                      Your core moral argument has been rejected by Americans who have assessed it and found it wanting.

                      Your fervent belief doesn’t change the fact that moral people reject your moral conclusion.

                    2. “Distract all you want with Peter Singer and Romans and whatever side logic you want.”

                      No, I am exploring serious vulnerabilities in your argument. Sincerely believing it’s a distraction doesn’t make it so.

                      You suggested that there’s close to unanimity against infanticide, so I think it’s relevant that one of our top universities appointed Peter Singer as an ethics professor, who is instructing the leaders of tomorrow.

                      Your appeal to the authority of contemporary public opinion – which is the appeal you were making – can be countered by looking at public opinion being wrong in other eras. And only those guilty of the most severe “presentism” could then be so confident that majorities in our own country and era can’t be wrong.

                    3. “Who’s invoking popularity here? I’m saying it’s not an index of what’s right, you keep bringing it up.”

                      It’s an index of what most people think to be right. Not necessarily corrrelated to what is actually right, but a good first approximation.

                2. “Again, there’s no need for me to rehearse the prolife arguments because presumably (if you are to be believed) you’ve already familiarized yourself with those arguments and have intelligently rejected them”

                  Funny that you bring this up in this way.

                  My opinion is this: You don’t want an abortion? Fine with me, don’t get one then? But you want to decide for someone else? Not so fast, there, bub. I believe that a woman consulting with a competent medical professional is better suited to making that kind of decision than is a legislator consulting with a lobbyist. No matter how good the lobbyist is at lobbying.

                  1. Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave!

                    1. Why do you keep bringing up slavery? This is one of the classic bad faith arguments. One time the majority opinion was wrong. If you can’t deny that, you have to accept that I am right and allow me to force you to live by my beliefs.

                      Lazy, dishonest, unconvincing, and flawed logic. If your position doesn’t convince people, it’s because your argument is weak. And the fact that one time the majority moral position was wrong does exactly nothing to bolster your case.
                      Someone was wrong once. In every subject on every topic, that is true. Why do you think it helps your position to point out the obvious?

                    2. “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave!”

                      I don’t. Did you have a point you’d like to bring up, or was that your concession of defeat?

        3. “The government shouldn’t try to resolve this disagreement, but should let the mother, in consultation with her doctor, decide whether to kill her newborn baby.”

          You are the only one making such a claim. Does this bother you? It should.

      2. “The anti-abortion side definitely traffics in more truth-adjacent and truth-free positions”

        They also like to set up “hotlines” for women considering abortion whose purpose isn’t to provide information or resources, but merely to stall or delay them long enough that they can’t get an abortion.

        Hint; If you have to lie about what you’re doing in order to do it, you probably aren’t on the “good” side.

        1. This from the side whose lies were exposed in the Washington Post itself.

          If you need to invoke bogus statistics which were *discredited in 1969,* maybe you aren’t really in a position to lecture others.

          1. “This from the side whose lies were exposed in the Washington Post itself.”

            the nonpartisan “side” is against you, too? That’s another hint that maybe you haven’t chosen the “good” side.

            “If you need to invoke bogus statistics which were *discredited in 1969,* maybe you aren’t really in a position to lecture others.”

            Mind pointing to where I invoked statistics? Or even talked about anything that happened prior to 1969?

  15. Remember the wackjobs who say Biden wants to give away jobs to immigrants over Americans?

    Then why is the Justice Department investigating a company for giving away jobs to immigrants over Americans?

    Justice Department Settles With Nationwide Soccer Instruction Company To Resolve Finding of Citizenship Status Discrimination

    Based on its independent investigation, the (Justice) department concluded that in Spring 2019, Challenger’s Baltimore office (1) failed to consider U.S. worker applicants for full-time soccer instructor positions because staff assumed that U.S. workers, based on their citizenship status, would not be interested in the positions; and (2) expected to fill the positions with workers on seasonal employment visas known as H-2B visas. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), employers cannot generally discriminate based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin at any stage of the hiring process. In addition, the Department of Labor requires employers seeking permission to hire H-2B workers to first hire all qualified and available U.S. workers who apply by the relevant deadline.

    “A company cannot decide to ignore applications from U.S. workers because of stereotypes about their willingness to do certain types of work, or a desire to reserve work opportunities for temporary visa holders,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Excluding U.S. workers from consideration for jobs because of their citizenship or immigration status is unfair and illegal.”

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-nationwide-soccer-instruction-company-resolve-finding-citizenship

    1. I guess this might be why I can’t get hired as part-time, seasonal, soccer coach. And I thought it was not really caring about soccer coaching.

    2. Good for the Biden administration, you might almost say they are putting America first.

  16. Boy, this Alex Murdaugh story is relentless!

    His son and wife were murdered (the son was under investigation for a DUI).
    He’s now suspect of stealing over $1M from his law firm.
    Last week he said he was shot in the head while on the side of road because of a broken car.
    And now, it comes out he had hired someone to shoot him!

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/alex-murdaughs-attorney-speaks-out-on-shooting-allegations

    1. imagine being near where it happened, so it’s in the local TV news.

    2. This just in!

      BLUFFTON, S.C. — A new twist came to light Wednesday in the complex and deadly saga surrounding prominent South Carolina lawyer Alex Murdaugh after the family of his former housekeeper, who died in 2018 at his home, sued the attorney.

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/09/15/alex-murdaugh-south-carolina-attorney-housekeeper-gloria-satterfield-case/8357461002/

    3. ” (the son was under investigation for a DUI). ”

      It was a boat-with-drunk-at-wheel-hits-bridge incident, with a fatality, as I recall.

  17. This whole John Pierce fiasco almost makes me feel sorry for the January 6 defendants he is representing. I suppose the lesson is that when you need criminal legal representation, don’t go with the lawyer who wants to use your case for a political cause. Or maybe just hire one who has actual criminal law experience.

    1. “Or maybe just hire one who has actual criminal law experience.”

      Yeah, that’s the real takeaway. Or should be.

      The most important skill for a good attorney is to know what they don’t know. At a certain point, if you do litigation, your transaction skilled are pretty minimal (and vice versa). To quote an attorney I know who does transactions- “I don’t even know where the courthouse is.”

      Same with civil/criminal. Totally different beasts. You can transition at some point, but don’t dabble.

    2. And if you’re looking to replace your lawyer, maybe get one that didn’t join the bar just last year and is now claiming (the convicted felon’s) signature on the plea deal was forged.

      “It’s unclear, though, what bearing the (forged signature) allegation has on the (convict’s) guilt, since he entered the plea in an open court hearing and acknowledged his guilt for the alleged offenses, and (the Judge) ran through many of the provisions of the deal with him.”

      (The Judge) expressed skepticism about the claim and noted it could even put (the convict) at legal risk, since he said under oath that he had reviewed and accepted the plea deal.”

      Ooops!

      https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/15/jan-6-rioter-plea-deal-forgery-511912

      1. Wow. That politico article was painful to read.

      2. I hadn’t seen that. I think Hodgkins’ first lawyer (Patrick Leduc) provided him with good representation. The government dropped four of the five counts in the indictment. The plea agreement states that the sentencing guidelines for the remaining count call for a sentence of 17 months, or 14 months if the defendant demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility, but Leduc convinced the Court to sentence Hodgkins to only 8 months.

        My guess is that after the case was concluded and Leduc was no longer around to advise Hodgkins, folks on social media convinced Hodgkins that he shouldn’t have pleaded guilty. If his effort to overturn his plea deal on the ground of ineffective representation by counsel is successful, he may learn first hand what it is actually like to be represented by ineffective counsel.

    3. It sounds like the January 6 defendants lack proper legal representation. That would be a big problem if they’re actually innocent or overcharged, but since they’re all dangerous terrorists, I guess it’s just as well they have nobody competent to protect them from the prosecutorial beatdown they fully deserve.

      Still, it might be good, simply for PR purposes, if they got good attorneys, otherwise skeptical paranoid people might think they’re not getting a fair shake from the system.

      1. Though I’m surprised that these sophisticated, experienced terrorists with their deep pockets weren’t able to find the best lawyers in the country to help them beat the rap.

        1. All the best lawyers in the country are busy fighting sanctions motions because they claimed that the elections was stolen, and forgot that, unlike receptive social media, courts like to see actual evidence to support the claims made.

      2. Though I’m surprised that these sophisticated, experienced terrorists with their deep pockets weren’t able to find the best lawyers in the country to help them beat the rap.

        1. Even a public defender provided by the state has criminal law experience. As for the rest, I’m having trouble making out your point through all the sarcasm, if indeed you have a point to make.

          1. “Even a public defender provided by the state has criminal law experience.”

            Most of that experience consists of advising you to take the plea deal.

  18. Made this frittata last night.

    Easy and delish.

    I didn’t have prosciutto and used pancetta instead and will prolly add a diced leek next time.

    https://www.foodandwine.com/recipes/potato-frittata-prosciutto-and-gruyere

    1. Apedad,
      I think you did well by substituting pancetta for prosciutto in the dish. Pancetta is meant to be cooked while prosciutto easily gets an off taste when cooked. That is why it is put on pizza after the pizza emerges from the oven.
      If you are going to cook prosciutto then cook it until crisp and put it over the dish at the end. As for the gruyere, it is a good choice by Italian fontina from the Val d’Aosta would give a more authentic taste. And yes, the leek would be a good addition.

  19. So I am almost finished with the second season of Counterpart. It stars J.K. Simmons (or, as my partner calls him, J.K. Rowling … ahem) and originally was on Starz, but is now free-to-stream if you have Amazon Prime.

    Good show- it was really under the radar. Shame it didn’t make it past the second season. 🙁

    1. This was an excellent show. Like you I was disappointed that it did not make it past season 2. Simmons was super in the show.

      1. So good. It just wasn’t a good fit for Starz, I’m guessing. I will be sad when I finish it tonight.

        It’s hard to make a good Cold War thriller without the Cold War.

        1. Excellent show, stood out for several reasons.

          – I was very impressed with Simmons’ ability to let the audience know which versions of Howard he was, merely by body stance and before a word had been spoken.

          Intricate multiple story lines often get muddled, in this show there were no dropped lines or logical failures.

          1. Good points- JK is so amazing, I don’t even think about how great his performance was in that show. But it was, because the differences in his two characters was both slight, and profound.

            1. If this sort of thing floats your boat, go back and find Fringe. Slog though season 1 to get to season 2. Stop as soon as you start to lose interest after that, because this is a show with a peak and a long, slow decline that will leave you disappointed that they couldn’t get near the peak again.

              It’s got an actual mad scientist in it, and Spock is the surprise guest star (spoiler, sort of)

  20. Anyone remember when the military used to be concerned about things that the military is supposed to do instead of worrying about critical race theory, exploring “white rage”, and making sure our enemies know battle plans before they are enacted?

    1. counterpoint: Anyone have any actual military experience? Because that guy ^^^ obviously does not.

  21. I’m not sure how broad the definition of “open” is, but I’m gonna do this and take the blows if I deserve them.

    If you appreciate a deep, resonant voice, enjoy a metal edge to your covers, and are old enough to remember Simon and Garfunkel, this should tickle your happy place.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ngL8GXN6AvE

  22. S&G are my favorite band.

    1. Try Garfunkel and Oates.

    1. “HHS will determine the amount of product each state and territory receives on a weekly basis,” an HHS spokesman told the Washington Post. “State and territorial health departments will subsequently identify sites that will receive product and how much.”

      Nothing about withholding it from red states.

      1. “HHS will determine the amount of product each state and territory receives on a weekly basis,”

        Why should the federal government control how much medicine the people in a given state are allowed to have? And why would the amount they decide on be less than whatever amount those people want to use?

        I guess it’s of course because covid is politicized, medicine is politicized, and above all else the vaccine nazis are desperate to establish permanent centralized control over bodily and medical autonomy.

        1. Step 1: Complain that something is politicized
          Step 2: Politicize it some more
          Step 3: Profit!

  23. NYC Health Dept to require vax certification to enter the GA Hall. On the bright side, no contracts for nuclear submarines to be precipitously taken over by the MTA. Yet.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/15/un-general-assembly-covid-vaccine-russia-new-york

    Impeding access to the hall is a very big thing. cf. US v. PLO, HQ Agreement of 1947, etc. Basically the biggest affront to the international community since… yesterday.

    Mr. D.

    1. That’s an interesting new wrinkle.

      They can’t even arrest diplomats for private crimes, but they can interfere with official diplomatic meetings?

  24. I’d be interested to see Eugene comment on this bill

    1. To clarify, it has a companion in the Senate now, filed by Cory Booker.

  25. I stringly recommend this feature article published by BMJ, the British Medical Journal; “Vaccinating people who have had covid-19: why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?”
    BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2101 (Published 13 September 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n2101

    https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101.short?rss=1&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bmj%2Frecent+%28Latest+from+BMJ%29

    1. I stringly don’t care.

Please to post comments