Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

I'm in Turkey for a month, and while I'm enjoying myself it's I'm watching the Lira collapse. A day or two before I got here the Lira was at 10 to the dollar. When arrived it was at 12.2, a few days later 13, and now yesterday at an ATM, which takes a 5% discount 14.59, and the market rate is 15.06. So that's about 50% of the Liras value gone in about 2 weeks.

The problem as I read it is that while inflation is raging, Erdogan is keeping interest rates low and is trying to goose the economy so they can grow their way out of the inflationary spiral.

Isn't that what Biden and the Fed seem to be doing in the US? The Fed is still buying bonds, although they are "tapering". Biden is pushing BBB better as a cure for inflation, although even he must know it will do the opposite. A 9% producer price increase in a month should be a clue that were past inflation and into hyperinflation, yet they're acting like it's business as usual.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yup, Kazinski, worldwide inflation. Must be Biden.

What's your policy solution? Strangle the economy with monetary restrictions? The problem is not too much money. The problem is that Covid killed production and stifled supply chains.

Have you tried to buy a refrigerator in the last year? Checked out the price of steel? Gone to Home Depot to buy plywood? Outlandish prices on everyday goods have not happened because most Americans got too rich. The vast majority of Americans never see any of about 90% of the wealth in the nation. That is nearly as true now as it was before Biden tried to keep folks from going bankrupt after Covid blew up the economy.

My oil delivery guy told me he thought it would be a good idea for me to buy a new fuel oil tank for the basement. I did that not long ago, before Covid, in a previous home. Now the price is up 500%—for the same crappy quality fabrication I had to work hard to avoid on the last one. Price of steel he says. I checked that out. Yup, steel is outlandish, absolutely crazy high. But do the math on the weight of the tank and the steel price change accounts for about a 100% increase, not 500%.

Inflation is happening because there are sharply reduced supplies of basic commodities for sale. Some of them, like fuel oil tanks, people absolutely have to buy. But production is off, and what gets produced can't get delivered efficiently enough to discipline sellers with market competition.

Sellers have their own problems. Faced with a customer revolt over shortages and high prices, sellers trapped with fixed overhead push prices even higher, to try to make up on a few obligatory transactions as much of the business shortfall as they can.

Restricting the money supply will do zero to fix that problem. I suppose it would somewhat protect the value of the 90 – 95% of the nation's wealth which the 1% have socked away. But what do you think killing the job market and driving down wages can do to help people who already don't have savings to protect?

The solution is to get Covid effects out of the economy as fast as possible. If you want government policy to make that happen, stop opposing vaccine mandates. Then encourage more domestic production of hard goods. And enact redistributive tax policies, to get everyone in the nation into a situation where they have enough savings that they need protection against inflation, and will back policies to do it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What's your policy solution? Strangle the economy with monetary restrictions? The problem is not too much money. The problem is that Covid killed production and stifled supply chains."

Yeah, it's just coincidence that inflation is spiking as the government's borrowing spikes during an economic slowdown.

Look, you're better than this. The problem isn't too much money, it's too much money relative to the level of economic activity, the size of the economy. Price = money/goods, essentially.

I've joked with my doctor about my need to gain height to fix my BMI, that's about the level of your reasoning. "I'm gaining weight because I'm not getting much exercise these days. What's your policy solution? Eat less? Exercise more? The problem is that I'm gaining fat, address THAT!"

Yeah, austerity is no fun. Sadly, the only cure for the consequences of living beyond your means for a while, is to spend a while living well beneath them. There's no magic formula allowing you to skip the hangover after the binge. Allowing you to lose weight lying on the couch scarfing chips.

Oh, but (Hat tip to Eugene.) that's just the Gods of the Copy Book headings talking, and you're into the gods of the marketplace.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Brett you predicate your comment on a bogus notion that ordinary Americans are financially fat. That is absurd. Their contributions to economic activity consist mainly of already-involuntary spending which cannot be much curbed by austerity. Afflicting them further (for the purpose of not afflicting the rich), is a ruinous policy choice.

Covid is the cause of this inflation. Get Covid out of the economy with vaccine mandates. Then adjust policy to redistribute wealth, giving more to the 95% who are not rich. After that, consider austerity when inflation crops up. At least then the people austerity mainly targets will have a stake of their own to protect.

Until then, target the rich. They are the ones with almost all of the nation's wealth, and thus command a disproportionate share of discretionary spending. It is beyond cruel, and reckless, to target with austerity folks who have nothing but actual necessities to sacrifice.

[Brett Bellmore]

You predicate YOUR comment on the bogus notion that the huge increase in federal spending is going to ordinary Americans. The tiny fraction going to ordinary people is used to excuse the vast majority going to the well connected wealthy.

And yet, you're aware of that: "Until then, target the rich. They are the ones with almost all of the nation's wealth, and thus command a disproportionate share of discretionary spending."

Indeed. Almost all of the deficit spending goes to them, so why assume anybody talking about austerity must be pointing it at the common man?

But austerity there must be. The binge can't go on forever.

[ThePublius]

Giving more money to people will accelerate inflation, not decelerate it.

[Don Nico]

"you predicate your comment on a bogus notion that ordinary Americans are financially fat."
SL,
You just did it again grossly missquote the post to offer you shallow response.
Then your authoritarian mandate..redistribute the wealth. We know the cure to all ills is socialism

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don Nico, you are not unaware what wealth distribution in the U.S. looks like. What makes you suppose that red baiting is some kind of reply to that?

[Don Nico]

Another tactic. Name calling. I did not call you a Communist or a Comsymp. Redistribution is a socialist mantra. If you espouse it live up to it.
Moreover the gross breath of wealth distribution is NT the cause of inflation. More nonsense economics from the publisher of a neighborhood newspaper.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don Nico, I do not publish any newspaper. The newspaper I did formerly publish was not a neighborhood newspaper. Don't make a fool of yourself by writing things you merely guess about.

[Absaroka]

I gotta agree with SL here. You can read about his newspaper days here.

The newspaper says it serves various towns in Blaine County, ID. Today Blaine County's populations is over 20k. In 1970 it was something like 6k, so more than a neighborhood.

[Archibald Tuttle]

Look, you're better than this. The problem isn't too much money, it's too much money relative to the level of economic activity, the size of the economy. Price = money/goods, essentially.

...series of comments ending with...

Giving more money to people will accelerate inflation, not decelerate it.

Price elasticity is an important factor not mentioned. Electricity demand is an example. Past crises demonstrated that electric demand can only be reduced 20% by raising prices. Further price rises don't reduce demand. People are so rigid in their life styles, that they lose the ability to adapt to change.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, a large part of our energy usage is not discretionary in the short run, and maybe not in the long. The current administration has been fairly open about intending to prove otherwise.

[bernard11]

It's certainly discretionary in the long run.

People choose to buy big SUV's and pickup trucks, among other things.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not as discretionary as some people would like to think. A large part of "your" energy consumption is actually industrial energy consumption, and can't be foregone without shutting down the economy.

[Kazinski]

Well you've got a couple of misconceptions that you should reconsider:

Inflation doesn't hit most people with wealth near as hard as it hits people without assets, because for the most part the wealthy don't have their assets tied into cash. If there is 10% inflation, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk's assets are going to inflate by 10% too. Sure there are winners and losers among the rich, but as a whole their assets won't inflate away.

It's the little guy who's is asset poor and income doesn't go up automatically that's the big loser. Someone who owns a million dollar house and has his money in productive stocks will do fine.

Then you say that the problem is lack of production, which is restricting supply that's the culprit, not the money supply. But that means the money supply is way out of balance with the current level of economic activity, and needs to be brought in line with the rest of the economy. Money is like any other commodity if it's relative supply increases faster than the goods and services it can be exchanged for, then it's relative worth will decline.

Increasing the money supply only increases economic activity when there is the productive capacity to absorb the increased money supply, as you point out, that is definitely not the case now. In fact it is the exact opposite, so the proper action is to reduce the money supply and raise interest rates.

As for getting covid effects out of the economy, well the last thing you should do is fire unvaccinated workers and further impede production. Amtrak for example has figured out that firing that last 5% of unvaccinated holdouts would cause them schedule disruptions and have suspended enforcement of their vaccine mandate.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Increasing the money supply only increases economic activity when there is the productive capacity to absorb the increased money supply"

That's a necessary condition, but not sufficient. It must also be the case that the productive capacity CAN absorb the increased money supply, and will be PERMITTED to absorb it. It's perfectly possible to have excess productive capacity that isn't in use for reasons other than a shortage of money, and throwing more money at it won't put it into use.

If your shortage of production is caused by non-monetary factors, such as regulatory burdens, throwing money at it just causes inflation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I am not buying it, Kazinski. I have lived my life as an ordinary American of limited means. I have been through inflation, and I have been through austerity. In terms of impact on my life, Jimmy Carter's stagflation was a big nothing. Sure, inflation can hurt. For those on the edge of survival, austerity can be a killer.

[Absaroka]

This is a classic 'my lived experience is universal' mistake. Stagflation wasn't fun for anyone, but if you were getting pay raises, or were a business who could raise prices, you could keep your head above water. If you were a 70 year old trying to get by on a fixed income, inflation really, really, really sucked.

If a retiree's income today is 100% COLA'd, inflation is an annoyance. If, like my wife's annuity, it is capped at a 3% annual COLA, it matters a lot if inflation is 2% or 12%, especially when you consider compounding several years of double digit inflation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even if 100% COLA, it sucks, because the COLA will be off the official inflation rate, while you have to buy your groceries based on the real inflation rate, which is rather higher.

[bernard11]

you have to buy your groceries based on the real inflation rate, which is rather higher.

Actually, it's lower, but never mind.

[Don Nico]

But Bernard, it is the rate that the average voter sees. So bad for the party in power.

[bernard11]

Don,

The rate that the average voter sees, in terms of prices paid for everyday goods like gasoline and groceries, is the overall rate that is reported. Unfortunately, both food and energy prices are highly volatile, so you can get transitory spikes, in either direction, and consumers can be deceived.

That's why we measure "core inflation," which excludes those items.

I'm not sure what Brett is referring to when he talks about "real inflation." There used to be some idiot with a web site claiming that real inflation was 20%, or 30% or something. Maybe that's it.

What I was talking about is what I think the BLS calls the "chained rate," which more accurately reflects prices faced by consumers. The logic is a bit tricky.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm talking about "market basket" manipulation. The price of both beef and chicken go up 10%, say. If you kept the same market basket, the inflation rate is 10%.

But chicken is still cheaper than beef, so by reducing the proportion of beef relative to chicken in the market basket, you can reduce the inflation rate you arrive at. And justify it because people are responding to higher prices by eating cheaper foods.

Eventually you're telling people inflation isn't as bad as they think, because you're substituting dog food for chicken.

Basically, by changing the proportions of things, you can hide part of the inflation rate, even if everything is rising in price at the same rate.

They used to measure inflation using a fixed market basket, that directly reflected the changes in prices. A "cost of goods index". Around 1980 they started changing the market basket each year, based on what they thought people were buying, a "cost of living index", and the changes always reduced the reported inflation rate, because the changes in what people bought were an effort by those people to compensate for rising prices.

If you go to the trouble of calculating inflation using the 1980 market basket, you get a number that's much, much higher than the reported CPI. That's the number people actually experience. That I eat a lot less beef today, and a lot more chicken, doesn't mean that there hasn't been as much inflation, it's something inflation has forced on me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I should mention that, obviously, if wages and prices were frictionlessly rising together, inflation wouldn't drive substitution. The reason it does is that wages tend to lag prices, especially when COLA is based on the official inflation numbers. COLA tend to be stepwise at the end of the year, while inflation rises continually through the year, and the gap between those steps and the continuous curve represents lost real wages, which drive the purchasing substitution that they use to lower the official CPI, which the COLAs are based on, resulting in the COLAs falling short of actual inflation.

Is that clear enough?

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, admittedly, were we suffering from endemic deflation, the dynamic would be reversed, sticky wages would result in real wages rising, not falling, and the CPI following the same procedure would understate deflation, not inflation, tending to accentuate the real wage increase.

But for a variety of reasons, it is not in the government's interest to have deflation, even if it would in fact be good for a large part of the population.

[bernard11]

You have it wrong all sorts of ways.

The regular CPI does change its basket every few years to reflect changes in consumption patterns. Not much point in including eight track tapes. This is not, contrary to what you predictably think, a conspiracy against the public welfare but an adjustment to make it more accurate.

The chained CPI change its weights monthly, I think. But again, this is not some willful deception. Consumers do change their consumption patterns as prices change but, contrary to what you say, the argument is not, "Hey, you can eat chicken instead of beef so you're just as well off."

Rather, it is the relative prices that matter. Inflation doesn't change all prices equally, so the relative prices of beef and chicken change. Say beef is twice as expensive, and you eat some of each. Now say the price of beef goes up more than the price of chicken, so the ratio is 2.5 to 1. Consumers will now buy more chicken than before, because it has become cheaper in terms of beef. But it can go the other way as well. If the ratio drops to 1.5 to 1 chicken has become more expensive, beef cheaper, and beef consumption rises.

Notice that this can easily happen, and does, even in the absence of any inflation at all.

Again, Brett, not a vicious conspiracy, just an effort at accurate measurement.

[bernard11]

If you go to the trouble of calculating inflation using the 1980 market basket, you get a number that's much, much higher than the reported CPI.

Why would you do such a idiotic thing?

[bernard11]

But for a variety of reasons, it is not in the government's interest to have deflation, even if it would in fact be good for a large part of the population.

It would be terrible. Businesses would close, unemployment would jump, etc.

Brett, stop pontificating about economics. I know you think you're a wizard at it, possibly because you made an A in a college course or something, but your comments are just half-informed claptrap.

[Sarcastr0]

I would imagine you would get a higher price for the basket 1980s goods today, given how many of them are no longer manufactured.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why would you do such a idiotic thing?"

Because you wanted to know how prices had generally changed, not how consumption patterns had changed?

The fixed market basket was a really, really good measure of inflation. Too good.

The variable market basket is like measuring the temperatures, only instead of leaving your thermometer in a fixed location, you move it indoors in the summer and winter, because that's where the people are, avoiding the heat and the cold.

And then you'd report that temperatures hardly change at all across the seasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Your analogy to temperature would only work if the things people bought was as invariant as absolute zero.

[bernard11]

But that information would be useless.

It wouldn't include a lot of things we buy in 2021 and would include things we no longer buy. It wouldn't tell us what the cost of living is. It would just be a pointless compilation of prices.

What did you pay for internet service in 1980? What does a CRT TV cost today?

And before you talk about ground beef and what not note that the index price of food has gone from 83 in Jan, 1980 to 285 in Nov., 2021. The CPI has gone from 78 to 279 over the same period. Not much difference, is there?

Take a look at this chart. It doesn't include 1980 but let's look at the 1970-2015 change. In almost every case the increase was less than the increase in the CPI over the period. (It went from 37.9 to 234.75, an increase of 6.2X).

So just stop. You don't know what you're talking about.

By the way, do you have a mortgage? How do you think deflation would affect your ability to meet the payments?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, you haven't even contradicted me, let alone refuted. "Really, really, really, sucked," is far better than, "austerity can be a killer," which is literal truth.

By the way, I had to weather the worst of stagflation while working under a union contract with tiny annual wage increases negotiated before the inflation started. But there was a saving clause in the contract, saying that each year, on the anniversary, workers could vote whether to take the annual increase as wages or benefits, their choice. Given the raging inflation, everyone wanted wage increases, not benefits which would never vest for a lot of the workers.

So in the lunchroom, I proposed we request the vote. Everyone wanted it. I checked it out with the union local. They backed it. Next day, as I arrived for the swing shift, I was met at the plant gate by a shop steward from the day shift (not many workers, all old guys minding their benefits). He escorted me to a meeting with the Human Resources manager. The Human Resources manager put it to me plainly. We would get a benefit increase, not a wage increase. That had been settled when the contract was negotiated. To make sure I was clear before sending me on my way, he said. "At Morrison-Knudsen, we don't vote."

[Kazinski]

Well I remember the Carter stagflation years too, and I also remember mortgage interest rates of 18%.

If you can actually call mortgage interest rates of 18% a big nothing, then you are beyond delusional.

Now to be fair to Carter that inflationary spiral didn’t start on his watch it started with the Arab oil embargo in 73 under Nixon, and his failed wage price controls were worse than any of Ford or Carter’s strategies.

In fact I’ll give Carter credit for appointing Paul Volcker chairman of the federal reserve and instituting the tight monetary policies that tamed inflation until Biden and the Democrats let it off the leash.

and while I don’t blame Carter

[Ridgeway]

Also, when in our lifetimes have we ever experienced "austerity" on the part of the Federal government. Maybe from 1980-82 when Reagan and Volcker hiked interest rates through the roof to get inflation under control, but even then there was no other fiscal austerity. Fed govt spending never shrank.

[bernard11]

You weren't happy with the recession? You wanted to see a serious depression?

[Stephen Lathrop]

If you can actually call mortgage interest rates of 18% a big nothing, then you are beyond delusional.

If you do not understand that mortgage rates of 18% are a huge buyers' opportunity (for buyers who can qualify), then there is something wrong with you. High mortgage rates depress prices. Very high mortgage rates depress prices a lot. Buy then! When mortgage rates go down, refinance—which will be easy with housing prices on the way up.

If you are a seller, of course it's different. But only a minority of sellers find themselves without flexibility about when to sell.

[Don Nico]

Nice try but no cigar.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, high interest rates are a bane for some people, and a boon for others. Another way of putting that is that they're economically distorting.

[bernard11]

How are they distorting, if they are market rates?

And why aren't low rates, which also benefit some people and hurt others, also distorting?

[Michael P]

Let them eat cake, and let them buy their house with cash.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you are beyond delusional."

Why are you debating economics with him? Its another subject [like law] he knows zero about.

If stagflation was so good, why did Carter get steamrolled?

His bio should be entitled: Beyond Delusional: The Stephen Lathrop Story

[ThePublius]

It's easy to say that covid is the cause of the inflation, but that's not really so. It was the trigger that allowed it to happen; but it was largely the government policies implemented in response to the pandemic that caused it. And, in many cases, in my opinion, these policies were an over-reaction, or entirely unnecessary or imprudent.

Why is there a shortage of truck drivers?

Why have fuel prices risen so much, so quickly?

Why are the California ports so clogged?

Why is there generally a shortage of workers?

[Queen Amalthea]

As pointed out above these economic conditions are happening across the world, it's hard to blame Biden for that.

[Brett Bellmore]

That doesn't follow, if what's happening is that a lot of governments happen to be making the same mistakes at the same time, they're all individually responsible.

[Queen Amalthea]

Sure Brett, the Communist Chinese, British Tory, Trumpist Brazilian, etc., governments all over the world could be making the exact same mistakes....

[Brett Bellmore]

They actually can be, you know, if they agree on something that's mistaken.

[Queen Amalthea]

That's a mighty big coincidence (or maybe it's a coordinated, New World Order kind of thing, amirite?).

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, it's hardly a big coincidence if world leaders around the world agree on a mistake that happens to be favorable to world leaders.

[Sarcastr0]

Covid is not favorable to world leaders.

[Queen Amalthea]

How is it favorable? Few leaders would choose inflation. This is just more conspiracy stuff.

[VinniUSMC]

It's hardly a conspiracy to point out that most world leaders lost their collective minds about covid, and are still enjoying their time in the authoritarian sun.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a conspiracy theory, just freaking nuts.

If everyone is a tyrant, no one is.

[Brett Bellmore]

That IS nuts. How are "world leaders" everybody?

[VinniUSMC]

It's not a conspiracy theory, just freaking nuts.

If everyone is a tyrant, no one is.

Sarcastr0 thinks "most world leaders" means everyone. And tyranny is totally okay if world leaders all agree. Damn Sarcast0, you're on a roll, or a downward spiral rather.

[Sarcastr0]

If you can't see that everyone refers to the set of world leaders, you need to go back to context 101.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If you can't see that everyone refers to the set of world leaders, you need to go back to context 101."

That's just stupid, even for Sarcastr0 values of stupid.

Look, it's perfectly possible and meaningful for "world leaders" to all be tyrannical, because they're tyrannizing everybody else, and almost everybody is NOT a world leader.

The only way it would have made the remotest bit of sense to say "if everyone is a tyrant, nobody is", is if "everyone" literally DOES mean everyone.

[Sarcastr0]

Look, it's perfectly possible and meaningful for "world leaders" to all be tyrannical, because they're tyrannizing everybody else

As I was saying originally, this is nuts.

If all leaders acrossaccross the world are tyrannical, none of them are.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm saying you're wrong, that makes no sense, the measure of whether you're tyrannical is what you do, not whether others are doing it, too.

[VinniUSMC]

As I was saying originally, this is nuts.

If all leaders acrossaccross(sic) the world are tyrannical, none of them are.

Doubling down on the stupid. Interesting tactic.

As Brett put it, "the measure of whether you're tyrannical is what you do, not whether others are doing it, too."

[Brett Bellmore]

The general dynamic here is that the people who end up ruling are people who want to rule. You don't go after a job issuing orders if you dislike issuing orders, after all.

As a result, people in government tend, almost universally, to be control freaks. There's always and everywhere a heavy thumb on the scale when deciding whether to centrally control things, or just let people do as they like, because the people running the scale didn't go into that line of work to leave people alone.

So you almost always get more government than would be economically optimal, and any crisis gets viewed as an excuse to pile on even more orders. The crisis as opportunity mentality.

Governments in most places reacted to Covid by shifting in an authoritarian direction, and ramping up the central planning. Australia has literal concentration camps now!

But a good deal of the economic problems right now are just due to the economy being super fragile on account of the mindless pursuit of efficiency at the cost of resiliency, and almost any disturbance would have triggered our current supply chain problems.

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats on making tyrannical a useless term by declaring everyone in power is a tyrant. Based, of course, on speculating about each of their hidden characters.

Not much better is your argument that tyranny is in the action. You are just eliding the line drawing. Which you need to do, because the line you drew includes everyone in the set, which makes it not a useful line.

You are not arguing logic or facts, you are arguing ideology. And an ideology as knee-jerk, sophomoric and simplistic as 'All Cops Are Bad.'

Saves on brain power, but at the expense of useful engagement with the real world.

[Brett Bellmore]

On the contrary, you're the one rendering it useless, by denying that anything the majority of governments decide to do can be tyrannical.

You've denied the term any objective meaning.

If the USSR had won the cold war, and most of the world's government fallen to communism, complete with secret police and gulags, would that not be tyrannical, just on account of being common?

[bernard11]

But a good deal of the economic problems right now are just due to the economy being super fragile on account of the mindless pursuit of efficiency at the cost of resiliency, and almost any disturbance would have triggered our current supply chain problems.

So let's be clear. Your claim is that those decisions, made by private companies acting in the market, were "mindless," and inevitably led to problems.

Sounds like quite the case for regulation, though I myself wouldn't advocate interference in supply chain decisions in general.

[Sarcastr0]

You aren't arguing that a one-world USSR government is tyranny, you are arguing *every single country in the world* is ruled by a tyrant.

There is nothing wrong with an absolute definition of at what point a leader is a tyrant. However if your line is drawn such that it includes all current world leaders, your line is incorrect to the point of not being useful.

[ThePublius]

I didn't say Biden, and I didn't even say the United States.

[Queen Amalthea]

You were referring to the lack of truck drivers in Sinapore and the port of California in France?

[ThePublius]

So, what's your beef, anyway? Do you have a position on anything, anything to offer, other than pissing on others' posts? Are you getting paid by the reply or something?

[Queen Amalthea]

My beef should be clear, it's wacky to ascribe to US policy things happening in economies all over the globe. Then for you to reply that you're not even talking about the US when in your immediately preceding post you clearly were, well, what's your beef, anyway? Clearly just partisan straining.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"My beef should be clear, it's wacky to ascribe to US policy things happening in economies all over the globe."

Are these things happening uniformly across the globe? As others have said, if some countries are making similar mistakes, they're going to have similar problems.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Inflation is worse in the US than elsewhere. And in any event, you don't think the dollar effects other currencies.

[Queen Amalthea]

Inflation is worse in Brazil and Turkey, for example, it's low in Japan and China, for example. I'm sure that's because Turkey, Brazil and the US are all doing the same Wrong Things and Japan and China are of course not doing any of these Wrong Things.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I'm sure that's because Turkey, Brazil and the US are all doing the same Wrong Things and Japan and China are of course not doing any of these Wrong Things."

If by wrong things you mean things that cause inflation, then sure.

"Biden can't be responsible for the US inflation because Brazil and Turkey have inflation too..." is a terrible argument.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Don't see why it isn't fair to blame Brandon for everything. We just had to endure Trump getting blamed for literally everything for four long years. Have fun when it is your turn!

[Queen Amalthea]

Always the principled guy that Dane.

[VinniUSMC]

Coming from Team Blue's cheerleader, that looks like a compliment.

Principals, not principles, for Queenie.

[Kazinski]

I can give Biden a pass for economic conditions beyond his control, like for instance the 70's oil shock inflation was not Carter's fault. And large parts of his response are still paying big dividends to the economy: trucking, airline, and telecommunications deregulation, not to mention legalization of home brewing.

But where Biden, the Fed, and Yellen should have heaps of blame piled on is in continuing an expansionary fiscal and monetary policy when the economy obviously does not have the capacity to absorb the stimulus.

There is just no excuse for it, because the results are well known, even if Milton Friedman is dead and can't personally remind them.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I can give Biden a pass for economic conditions beyond his control, like for instance the 70's oil shock inflation was not Carter's fault. And large parts of his response are still paying big dividends to the economy: trucking, airline, and telecommunications deregulation, not to mention legalization of home brewing."

I'm assuming that "his" in "his response" is still talking about Carter? Because I can't off hand think of anything Biden is doing that you'd expect to pay big dividends to the economy.

[Jmaie]

Port congestion goes will beyond California, ships coming into Seattle sit ide for three+ weeks waiting for a birth. Savannah and other east coast ports are also affected, although to a lesser extent.

The entire infrastructure was near capacity before Covid, now every facet is past the breaking point. Warehouses can't unload containers and deliver goods fast enough, due to inefficiencies partly caused by labor shortage. So the containers sit too long in the ports which means that the terminals unloading those ships have no space and can only work at 25-30% of normal. Trucking companies aren't able to return empty containers fast enough, which ties up chassis hampering moving full containers our of the port. And so on.

It's why the administration's attempt to add extra night/weekend shifts at the port didn't help. That is only one link in the chain and all need addressed together.

[Sarcastr0]

This is my understanding as well - our just-in-time supply-chain is amazing for efficiency; crap for resilience.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In general, "efficiency," is a double edged sword. It almost always means operating too close to the breaking point. You want the most efficient use of fuel to go really, really fast? Get an Indy 500 car. Are you willing to give up maximal efficiency for more reliability? Buy a family SUV.

[Sarcastr0]

This is why I remain skeptical of commercial space flight.

[VinniUSMC]

Ok?

[Brett Bellmore]

Speaking as both a long time fanatic about space exploration, and a manufacturing engineer...

There are basically two ways to get reliability: Large margins, and consistent quality. They can be traded off; If your margins are large, you can have a great deal of variability in the part, and it will still be reliable. Think a common red brick: The dimensions and density are fairly variable, but the brick has a lot of excess strength, and the mortar takes up the variability in dimensions, so you're good.

Alternatively, if your margins are small, (These are, by the way, the sort of parts I specialize in.) you must squeeze out as much variability as possible, so that you will reliably not exceed that small available margin. A heavily loaded part with tight dimensional constraints can be reliable to parts per billion failure levels, if you keep very tight dimensional control, and maybe 100% inspect for random failures like inclusions in the steel.

Either way, you're maintaining the part "in control", meaning that the distribution of the measured properties is such that the odds of a part having properties that are unacceptable is extremely small. PPB in the automotive industry.

Chemical rocketry is a difficult proposition, because the energy in chemical bonds is kind of puny compared to what's needed to get into orbit. If Earth were even 10% heavier, chemical rocketry would be basically hopeless. If Earth had the mass of Mars, you could build single stage to orbit rockets in your backyard, like a project car.

The result is that rocketry components must necessarily have very tight margins, because they can't afford any excess weight.

But that doesn't mean they're infeasible, it just means that your SPC must be very, very good.

Part of SPC, of course, is having production quantities large enough that you can do the statistics, and catch the uncommon failure modes.

Musk's genius here is that with a reusable rocket, you're getting past 'infant mortality', and if a rocket survives one launch, it will probably survive many. The other is that if you launch a lot of rockets, you can get a handle on why the occasional failures are happening.

What he's doing is to move rocketry from one off prototypes where extraordinary efforts must be made to avoid failure, to a mass production scenario where established statistical process control techniques can be used to get a handle on failure modes.

And that's what will make commercial rocketry a success: Launching often enough that you can actually mass produce rockets and zero in on what keeps them from working.

[Sarcastr0]

See, I'm not an engineer, I'm a physicist/policy wonk.

What I'm worried about is incentives. Business are incentivized to accept as much risk as their requirements allow. Government is not.

And the thing about Space is that the risk burden is remarkably large. And so are the uncertainties, at least with tech for the foreseeable future.
That's a difficult combo for business to navigate successfully given their incentive not to overengineer beyond what they believe is needed.

Government, on the other hand, has no issue with overengineering.

[VinniUSMC]

In general, "efficiency," is a double edged sword. It almost always means operating too close to the breaking point. You want the most efficient use of fuel to go really, really fast? Get an Indy 500 car. Are you willing to give up maximal efficiency for more reliability? Buy a family SUV.

Dude, what? The most efficient use of fuel to go really, really fast is Indy? 2-4 mpg at 220 to 240 mph... Bugatti can do 2 mpg at 255 mph (roughly, according to Bugatti). How about F1? 6mpg! Slightly lower top speed, but faster lap times.

Why do you continue to post garbage about things you seem to know nothing about? Engineering, yet another thing to add to the list of things that SL knows nothing about.

[Don Nico]

Especially when China pulls the "blue flu" tacticwith its merchant fleet

[Sarcastr0]

I've seen suggestions, but I don't think that's proven enough to state as fact.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's commonplace in the automotive industry for everybody but the bean counters to derisively refer to "just to late" inventory systems.

Your remark is right on target: They finally wrung out the last bit of inefficient margin left in the system, and it promptly crashed. The only lasting way to fix it is to put the margin back in, but nobody wants to do that and get their lunch eaten by somebody who didn't.

[bernard11]

Those damn markets again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The problem is not too much money. The problem is that Covid killed production and stifled supply chains."

Sigh. If you increase demand through stimulus and decrease production, you're going to get inflation. This isn't even hard.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInch, maybe not hard. But if you are stuck with clueless anti-inflation ideology, picking the right anti-inflation remedy can be impossible. Hint: the right remedy will solve the problem which caused the inflation.

If decreased production is the problem, crippling the economy with high interest rates can't work until gigantic collateral damage lays ruin to the economy. You should have just noticed you needed measures to encourage increased production.

[VinniUSMC]

If decreased production is the problem, crippling the economy with high interest rates can't work until gigantic collateral damage lays ruin to the economy. You should have just noticed you needed measures to encourage increased production.

Started out right, and then went so wrong.

WHY do we have decreased production? Authoritarian covid dictates, stay at home orders, vaccine mandates... How do you fix that without lifting the authoritarian veil? Hint: throwing money at it is not the answer. There's still NOTHING TO BUY.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
There you go again. Misstating a post to provide your BS response. The collapse of the Turkish Lira has nothing to do with worldwide inflation. But Kaz asks if there are not parallels to the government's policy attempting to fix the problem.
BTW, COVID did not in itself blow up the economy. The attempt of governments to "crush the virus" did that.
And then comes your "solution." Get COVID out of the economy as soon as possible. Duh!
Go ahead shut that barn door now that the horse is gone. Which you elaborate by making unsupported assumptions based on your Nobel prize winning work in macroeconomics.

[Commenter_XY]

You know you're wasting your time, right Don Nico?

[Don Nico]

Yes, I do C_XY. But SL is so self-righteous in his comments that I fail to resist.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But Kaz asks if there are not parallels to the government's policy attempting to fix the problem.

No wonder I couldn't respond right. Not even you could understand it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yup, Kazinski, worldwide inflation. Must be Biden.

That's not even remotely close to what he said, you slobbering dolt.

[John F. Carr]

Biden's goal is to get enough money to people within the next 10 months to keep Democrats in charge after the 2022 election.

[Don Nico]

John,
That's more like it.

[Kazinski]

John, there's not enough money to do that in the universe, even if he sent out a expedition to rope a platinum asteroid and bring it back to earth. Although that's not a bad idea, at least I wouldn't lie awake at nights anymore wondering if that sound was the wind or someone sawing off my catalytic converter.

[bernard11]

The fed is in fact tapering, and is talking about an increase in the fed funds rate.

BBB is not much of a factor. First, a lot of it is actually covered by taxes. Second, despite the screaming about trillions it's important to remember that the spending is over a ten-year period, so $1.75 trillion translates to $175 billion.

[Kazinski]

"1.75 trillion translates to $175 billion."

No it doesn't. Because the spending is front loaded then "expires", and the taxes don't expire.

So if you were honest about it, then you'd admit the cost for next year would be 1/10 of the CBO fully extended estimate of 2.75 Trillion.

For instance in the bill Child Tax Credit is only extended one year and costs $185 billion, but for the full 10 years the cost is $1.60 trillion.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know if I agree with bernard. I also don't know that I agree with you.

Inflation is not something economists have cracked as predictive in the real world.

Maybe the cause is the demand spike, maybe it's supply. Maybe it's government spending. Maybe it's purely expectations.

We don't know. Anyone who says they do is selling you something. Especially if it blames something they are already hostile to.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0, can you think of anything predictive which economists have cracked in the real world? Anything non-trivial, I mean.

[loki13]

SL-

That's a strange thing to say. It's similar to saying, "What good are meteorologists when they can't tell me what the weather will be like on September 18, 2024?"

To put it more simply- there's a lot that economists can explain. Unfortunately, the world (and economies) are full of complex systems, which is why you have classical economics (with the reliance of homo economicus and perfect knowledge) and you have most things in econ use the well-worn phrase, "ceteris paribus," which is a way of saying, "Eh, things are complex, so let's assume nothing else changes."

Anyway, economists have "cracked" a lot of things, but as people do not act with the certainty of celestial bodies, making predictions is notoriously fraught.

[Absaroka]

Book rec: 'The Fortune Sellers: The Big Business of Buying and Selling Predictions' by Sherden.

The book takes a look at the accuracy of predictions in various fields: weather, economics, wall street types, and some of the Erlich type environmental predictions, etc.

He makes a compelling that the confident predictions in those fields are no better than the naive prediction (e.g., 'tomorrow's weather will be the same as today'). I highly recommend it.

Of note, it's a bit dated - 1998. He explicitly hedges his prediction (heh!) about weather forecasting, noting that meteorologists were just spooling up large scale computer models, and those had the potential to make accurate forecasts a few days out, and that has proved to be the case. But I don't thing similar improvements have arrived in the other fields.

Economists have lots of interesting insights, but it isn't a predictive science yet.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Loki, I don't think it's a strange thing to say. I don't even think it's an uncommon thing to say. If you give it some thought, you will probably notice that a reply which critiques the very notion of prediction is closer to repeating my point than otherwise.

[Commenter_XY]

The model you use to predict inflation is only as good as the inputs. And I agree Sarcastr0; nobody can do it reliably. The models don't account for all the exogenous variables to influence inflation, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

Part of the reason that the models can't be accurate is that what you're predicting is a result of actions undertaken by people who know what your models say will happen. There's a kind of feedback that disrupts things.

But, of course, there's also the knowledge problem, you don't actually HAVE the information needed to make good predictions, even if you knew how to make them.

Finally, the economists are working for people who don't necessarily want to be told that what they want to do would be a bad idea. And they are kind of in a profession that specializes in knowing which side your bread is buttered on....

[bernard11]

So if you were honest about it, then you'd admit the cost for next year would be 1/10 of the CBO fully extended estimate of 2.75 Trillion.

Why are you accusing me of lying, rather than just not being on top of the CBO extended estimate?

[Sarcastr0]

This is a single, and twitter, source, so I don't know how good it is. But I'm not finding much other commentary about the Fifth Circuit decision on 'Remain in Mexico', which seems pretty wild:

-A law from 1996 requires a Trump policy not implemented until 2019.
-The 5th Circuit rewrote the District Court order in a footnote to make it much more sweeping than was briefed by any party or amicus, and held the DOJ had forfeited any argument that this was beyond the scope of the case...

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1470592593650196481

[benji]

DHS claims the power to implement a massive policy reversal - affecting billions of dollars and countless people - simply by typing out a new Word document and posting it on the internet.

Is this not what the court also did?

[Kazinski]

Maybe you should dig deeper, it looks like the decision mostly relies on the APA "arbitrary and capricious standard".

I found this at juris.org:

"The appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs’ assertion, as well as the district court’s finding, that the Biden administration’s cancellation of MPP violated the Administrative Procedure Act as well as 8 U.S.C. § 1225, an immigration statute that governs the removal of noncitizens filing claims for asylum and permits the return of asylum-seekers to contiguous nations pending proceedings.

Furthermore, the court disagreed with the administration’s claim that the dispute had been rendered moot through the Department of Homeland Security’s issuance of additional memoranda on October 29 that clarified the decision to terminate MPP. The court found that mootness only occurs once a controversy between parties is dead and gone, and that “the controversy between these parties is very much not dead and gone.” Furthermore, the court was unsatisfied with the government’s claim that issuing a new memo cured problems with the old memo, stating that it risked “supplant[ing] the rule of law with the rule of say-so.”

Under this ruling, the federal government must resume MPP proceedings in Mexico. It is unclear if the Biden administration will pursue further litigation to end MPP. The US Supreme Court denied the administration’s request stay of the district court’s order in August, finding it likely that the MPP cancellation was arbitrary and capricious."

I can't speak to most of it but the assertion that the controversy is moot does seem to be ridiculous on its face. They're still trying to terminate MPP, so obviously a controversy still exists and injury to the plaintiff's is still ongoing.

[Sarcastr0]

I was absolutely lazy and did not bother to read the case.

But if it is true that the issue remedied is not the action that was briefed, or the holding of the District Court that seems extraordinary.

And if 8 U.S.C. § 1225 is now interpreted differently than it had been for 23 years, that also seems like some judicial policymaking.

[Kazinski]

Section C certainly seems to allow remain in place until an asylum hearing. It doesn't require it, but if that was the policy, then the APA would certainly require the proper procedure to change the policy:

"(C)Treatment of aliens arriving from contiguous territory
In the case of an alien described in subparagraph (A) who is arriving on land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."

As to whether it's been interpreted differently in the past, it doesn't seem the 5th circuit felt itself bound by that interpretation, so it was either by a district court judge or another circuit (anyone want to bet on the 9th?).

[Bob from Ohio]

"judicial policymaking"

Welcome to our world of the last 60 years.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck off with that nihilism. You don't get to ignore the bad shit your side is doing because you see bad shit everywhere.

You're generally not that unprincipled.

[Bob from Ohio]

I want to reduce the power of all judges. Its unhealthy for our politics and bad for the country.

But while we have our current rotten system, I want my side to play the same game. So, I will indeed ignore policy making that favors me.

[Sarcastr0]

Oops, I thought you were Brett.

You are that unprincipled; my apologies for accidentally briefly raising my expectations of you!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You're generally not that unprincipled.

You saying that is like Josef Mengele chiding someone for their lack of humanity.

[Queen Amalthea]

Godwining is fun!

[m4019597]

Ever stay up so late, you might as well just not sleep because you’ll miss your usual time for a bowel movement?

[Sarcastr0]

Damn, your fiber game must be on point.

[Voize of Reazon]

Is that another way of asking "Does your life revolve around your bowels"?

[m4019597]

Yes!

[Kazinski]

Well I remember having an interview with my new supervisor when I became a Substitute Rural Carrier at the Post Office back in the ‘70s. It was a sweet gig, just part time but at >3x the minimum wage back then.

But I remember clearly my Supervisor, Bucky was his nickname, telling me: “You have a lot of elderly people out on your route, and studies have determined that the two most important things in the daily lives of senior citizens is getting the mail, and taking a shit, and they aren’t going to call me and complain if they are constipated.”

[John F. Carr]

Where I used to live I started getting mail later after old people who lived in a different part of the route demanded their mail earlier in the day. If one end of the route has 9-5 professionals and the other end has retirees hoping this will be the year their grandkids learn to write letters, might as well give the old folks their daily disappointment earlier.

[rsteinmetz]

Older people getting mail is a double edged sword. I recall when my father passed away my mother, living alone, began getting massive amounts of mail, most of it attempting to steal from her. I eventually had all her mail forwarded to me and I ended up with several boxes of her mail.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Straws in the wind:

– Liz Cheney has several times framed public comments in terms of criminal conduct by Trump, before and during the January 6 event.

— The Mark Meadows contempt citation looks more and more like Kabuki theater. To me it suggests the committee may be accommodating a cooperating witness, who wants more cover before he goes public. Maybe there is already a deal for immunity. Whatever it shows, the committee displays little sign that it feels time pressure. That could mean they are out of their minds. It could also mean they already have so much evidence which implicates Trump in criminal conduct that they feel they can take their time, make sure every bit of evidence gets spot-lighted along the way, and then deliver a knock-out punch in the run-up to the election. If so, I question the wisdom of doing it that way, but it would at least be wiser than the alternative explanation, which is pointless foot-dragging and feckless delay.

– Of course revelations of hypocrisy by Fox News commenters do not amount to much, except as proof of their willingness to dupe the Trump base. Similar revelations about members of the House (and maybe the Senate) would be another matter. I wonder if the committee is withholding the best for leverage now, and public use later.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The entire January 6th committee is Kabuki Theater

[Queen Amalthea]

I wouldn't say that. We've already found out a great deal of interesting things that didn't seem known before, such as the communications between Fox personalities and other conservatives with the WH on the day, the involvement of so many members of the 'Freedom Caucus,' etc.

But I'm not surprised you'd find it to be Kabuki theater. Most conservatives have at best grudging disdain for democracy and so they really don't/can't why anyone would be upset about what these coupsters tried to pull off.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Uh huh... "We found out" Notice how the texts, provided under subpoena, are suddenly "leaked" (but only certain ones). Theater...for you the gullible public.

It's theater. Meant to entertain you. Not meant for serious legislative purpose. And what do those texts show? Fox "personalities" attempting to get the President or his staff to issue a message telling the protestors to disperse. Not exactly supporting an "insurrection"...is it?

Anyway, enjoy your Theater....

[Queen Amalthea]

" attempting to get the President or his staff to issue a message telling the protestors to disperse"

What a soft pedal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What a soft pedal."

Sounds like an accurate description of what happened.

[David Nieporent]

Uh huh... "We found out" Notice how the texts, provided under subpoena, are suddenly "leaked" (but only certain ones). Theater...for you the gullible public.

Um, what are you talking about? They weren't leaked, or even "leaked." They were read out by Liz Cheney.

Fox "personalities" attempting to get the President or his staff to issue a message telling the protestors to disperse. Not exactly supporting an "insurrection"...is it?

It exactly is. And then they went on TV a few hours later and claimed that it had nothing to do with Trump.

[Kazinski]

What bullshit.

Conservatives want to be ruled by the people’s will under constitutional constraints.

Progressives want to be ruled by a self selected elite with no more than lip service to the constitution.

[grb]

Kazinski : Conservatives want to be ruled by the people’s will under constitutional constraints.

Uh huh. I guess that's why they hate voters & pass voter-harassment bills at every chance....

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, coming after an investigation of Jan 06 by arguing that Conservatives have a monopoly on virtue is a really bad look.

It makes it look like for you owning the libs justifies the means, up to and including a coup.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Dude, coming after an investigation of Jan 06 by arguing that Conservatives have a monopoly on virtue is a really bad look."

Jan 6th wasn't good, but the left tends to gloss over its own sins, including an "autonomous zone" that lasted several weeks where cops couldn't access to enforce the law or investigate crimes including murder.

[Sarcastr0]

Whattaboutism is also a bad look.

CHOP was dumb as hell, but Jan 06 was tragedy as well as farce.

And based on the current GOP rhetoric about 2020, Jan 06 is not over.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whattaboutism is also a bad look."

Then maybe you should stop resorting to it every time somebody puts something in context. The only real "whataboutism" in the internet is people who yell that whenever somebody tries to bring up an inconvenient fact.

[bernard11]

What fucking context?

Are you arguing that whatever happened during the summer somehow justified the Jan. 6 insurrection, and earlier attempts by Trumpist to overturn the election? That's utter bullshit. One thing doesn't justify the other

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not arguing that a year of left-wing riots and billions in property damage justified selfies in the Capitol building.

I'm arguing that 12"pianist is right that Democrats are a galactic mass black hole calling the pot black.

In isolation, as you'd prefer it be evaluated, the riot at the Capitol building looks bad.

In the context of everything that's been going on for the last couple of years it was spitting into a hurricane.

Yeah, you shouldn't spit, but stop pretending the hurricane isn't there.

[Sarcastr0]

Looks a lot more to me Brett like you want to change the subject from Jan 06 to Dems are Bad.

I get that's your happy place, but it's pretty obvious what you're doing.

'the riot at the Capitol building looks bad.' Looks bad? Stop defending this bullshit, dude. Did you see what I did about CHOP? You can't even do that.

2024 is going to test our Republic, and you're going to be on the wrong side.

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, you can't get three minutes into a discussion about democracy without most conservatives going straight to 'two wolves and a sheep,' 'a republic not a democracy,' etc.

And then there's of course anti-democratic policies conservatives currently push. The most popular conservative leader, Trump, wanted the VP to toss out the votes under the EC and have state legislatures name the winner.

[Aemon McGarret]

Life is so simple. And absolutely everyone falls into nice, neat labels. And all of their thoughts & motivations can be expressed in one liners.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The vote-suppressing Republicans at election court make an assertion about conservatives wanting to be ruled by popular will profoundly stupid.

Why are you so dumb?

[ThePublius]

If the Dems really did have knock-out, irrefutable evidence, they wouldn't bother faking evidence, as Schiff was just caught doing.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/15/confirmed-january-6-committee-admits-it-doctored-republican-text-message-in-adam-schiff-presentation/

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, but that's from a source on the official "Neener, neener, I can't hear you!" list, so it doesn't count.

[Sarcastr0]

I usually click through Breitbart links to see exactly how they lied (and they always lie).

In this case, I just need to see the title from the link.

They cut off a quote or had some ellipses and Breitbart is saying that's doctoring it. Not taking it out of context, that's not dramatic enough for right-wing appetites these days.

And I also know they don't explain what the new context changes, just yells about how important integrity is.

They suck, Brett.

[ThePublius]

That's B.S., you obviously haven't read the article.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, yes, that's what I said.

What did I get wrong?

[ThePublius]

Read the article. It's short and easy, and quite clear.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro: "I wrong".

Whoops. Just some selective editing there.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is *not what happened* just what Breitbart wanted you to think happened.

Way to prove my point about their deception, AL.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No, that's actually not as bad.

What happened was a third party forwarded a long document, as well as a summary. That summary referenced something Alexander Hamilton proposed in 3 distinct paragraphs, referencing Hamilton. Jordan forwarded the summary along.

And Shifty decided to cut a fragment of one of the sentences out, and attribute it to Jordan, while changing the punctuation to make the fragment a complete sentence.

[Sarcastr0]

Tell me, what is the additional context to 'January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence?'

Jordan just forwarded the summary along
Hahaha.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Perhaps you could educate yourself and read the entire paper. You claim to be about to "shit out" 200 page papers in a day, remember. Shouldn't take you that long to actually read one

[Sarcastr0]

Tell me, what is the additional context.

You can't seem to tell my what additional context is added.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What did I get wrong?"

Looks like the cut off a quote and added a period, not an ellipsis.

[Sarcastr0]

I did say 'cut off a quote or...'

But yeah, it was even less of a thing than I assumed.

[loki13]

Do they suck, or do the people who keep linking to them them and defending them?

After all, when it really comes down to it, do you blame Lucy, or Charlie Brown?

Brett and Publius are Charlie Brown ... but they conveniently forget they are lied to ... all ... the ... time... Useful fools, and all that.

[Kazinski]

It would be less egregious if Schiff didn’t have a history of doing this sort of thing.

He presented a totally fabricated statement from Trump at the Ukrainian impeachment hearing, that he later claimed was ‘parody’. Now I ask you in what possible context is a false statement labeled ‘parody’ appropriate in an impeachment hearing? Any prosecutor caught doing that during a trial would have his case dismissed with prejudice.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, he was doing a voice. It was parody.

The real history is the right wing media making ridiculous outrage headlines based on their reader never doing their own research.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Dude, he was doing a voice. It was parody"

It was lying his ass off for PR reasons

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the Trump impression was to make it more believable.

You're an idiot, and doing it on purpose.

[Aemon McGarret]

Yes, let's forget about what the impeachment was actually about. And ALL of the evidence of what happened & how damaging it was to American interests & position in the world; and focus on Adam Schiff's presentation style. All of this is about the editing of a comment. And the battle cry that "Libs All Lie."
The narrative that what happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, & the Lie that the election was stolen that started before the election, are patriotic, is just more, ongoing gaslighting.

[Brett Bellmore]

He was also telling everybody that the intelligence guys were testifying in the secret sessions that Trump was in tight with the Russians, and when the transcripts came out, it turned out they were telling him that they had bupkis on Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mad Magazine used to have a feature on the back page where you'd fold the page to elide part of the drawing and/or text, and completely change the meaning. Context actually is important, even if some people react to it like a vampire does to sunlight.

[loki13]

Sure, but people will always say something lacked context. Otherwise, every conversation is like the one in Airplane, "Well, let's see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And ..."

The point is, if you use ellipses, you are INDICATING that you are truncating something. You are not "doctoring" it. You are not "faking evidence."

And if you want to say something lacks context, then the correct thing to do is to say it lacks context, and the PROVIDE THE CONTEXT.

But that's not good for lathering up the rubes like you and Publius. Hey, did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

[Sarcastr0]

I clicked through. Not even an ellipses:

“In the graphic, the period at the end of that sentence was added inadvertently,” the spokesman admitted. “The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error.”

This is not doctoring.
Brett and ThePublius should be ashamed to cosign that rot.

[loki13]

But they're not. It's just like everything with them. They spew forth so many lies (so ... very .... many ...) and when people call them out, they variously reply, "Oh, you're just debunking!" or some variation of, "Look, a squirrel."

The best was the election "claims," when there was just a ton of lies, repeated constantly. And then you'd point them out, and it would just be, "Okay, well what about this other lie? Look, if there's so many lies, then there has to be a truth somewhere, right?"

Ugh, whatever. They want to believe, and they are getting fed what they want to hear. In the age of the internet, when you can actually check and verify things, you can't blame the liars- just the dupes who keep forwarding the same nonsense.

[ThePublius]

That's just not true.

"The United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack admitted Wednesday that it had doctored a text message cited by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in his push Monday to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt."

"One message, which Schiff attributed to a Republican lawmaker, was doctored to read: “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”

But the original message came from former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, who had drafted and summarized legal arguments that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) forwarded to Meadows. And Schiff left out the full exchange, which read (emphasis added):

On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.

‘No legislative act,’ wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, ‘contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.’ The court in Hubbard v. Lowe reinforced this truth: ‘That an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposition no longer open to discussion.’ 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916).

Following this rationale, an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enacted statute, is no elector at all.

Schiff omitted the portions in bold, above, which referred to a legal basis for rejecting electors. As Davis reported:

In his statement and on-screen graphic, Schiff erased the final two paragraphs and the final clause of the first paragraph of the text message before inserting punctuation that was never there, all without disclosing what he was doing. The graphic displayed by Schiff, which was doctored to look like an exact screenshot, was similarly doctored, as it contained content that was never in the original message and eliminated content that was."

[loki13]

Wow.

You really have drank the Kool-Aid. You are an embarrassment to rational discourse. The worst thing is, you don't even understand why.

Can't you just forward this on Facebook, like the rest of the useful idiots of your age?

[Sarcastr0]

Um, so you just showed that is exactly what happened.

The rationale is 'if we declare a thing is unconstitutional, we can just ignore it'.

Including that doesn't help things, chief.

Breitbart wants you to think that, but there's a reason they didn't connect those dots. Because they don't connect.

They made you feel angry, which was their goal. Because whoops there went any kind of critical thinking.

[Kazinski]

I have to admit there is one big problem with that assertion, the fact that Pence himself could declare it unconstitutional.

But having said that, I think it’s undisputed Congress itself does have that power to state: “ an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enacted statute, is no elector at all.”

[Sarcastr0]

I think that's disputable - this is arguably a ministerial function.

But the big deal is that it doesn't add any new context to to 'Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.'

[Life of Brian]

this is arguably a ministerial function.

Funny thing -- every time I recall where folks around here tried to point out that certifying the electoral panel is merely a ministerial function, and thus readily could have been accomplished in a multitude of ways, places, times, and manners given the technological underpinnings of the 21st century in general and 2020 in particular, the "THIS IS AN ASSAULT ON THE PILLARS OF MUH DEMOCRUSSY" crowd shouted that right down.

I'm glad to see you're getting your wits about you despite your posturing to the contrary.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This just in!

Sarcastro says "Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all"

Based on this evidence, he should be locked up for supporting an illegal coup!

There's nothing wrong there. Just some editing...right?

[Sarcastr0]

LoB, I don't think ministerial means flexible. 'Oh this thing that conveys legitimacy? We're doing it differently this time.'

That's just ammo for the dumbass powerpoint plot.

I also don't think a doomed coup attempt isn't a coup attempt.

[Krayt]

Ehhhhh, hiding a part bolstering your sentence by referring to founding fathers and their arguments, accurate or not, is kind of slimy as well.

"We want the outrage, and that would dampen it, so maybe hide it for that reason."

What is the argument? Not enough screen space? That the sentences after what they presented were irrelevant? Transparently that is not the case.

Again, I make no comment on the applicability of it, but I can not see any honest reason to not provide the context.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for coming the closest to actually explaining what the added context is, Krayt.

Totemic invocation of a Founder in defense of your plan to subvert democracy doesn't add anything vital, IMO.

[Kazinski]

Congress doesn't have any ministerial functions. Anything they can vote on they can vote for or against. And that includes objecting to and invalidating electors.

[David Nieporent]

Congress doesn't have any ministerial functions. Anything they can vote on they can vote for or against. And that includes objecting to and invalidating electors.

I mean, if you just want to make shit up, fine. But that's not what the constitution says. Except in the case of an election without a majority, Congress's role is limited to counting. Not voting.

[bernard11]

On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.

This is "doctoring?" You're fucking ridiculous. Breitbart is imbecilic crap swallowed by gullible fools like you and Brett.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yes. It's doctoring. Because

1) It alters the sentence
2) It doesn't attribute the source of the material properly
3) It's taken out the context of the rest of the material.

[Sarcastr0]

How. Does. The. Context. Change. The. Quote.

Everyone tellingly dodges to generalities. You added a tautology and a falsehood before you did that, so...conrajulations.

[Krayt]

Bre8tbart and others got tagged, rightly, for leaving out context. What's good for the goose and all that.

[bernard11]

It's in no way "out of context," you gullible Trumpist fool.

[David Nieporent]

It's worse than that. Not only does the rest not add relevant context, but it's just a complete fabrication. Alexander Hamilton never said anything like what they pretend he said.

[Life of Brian]

The point is, if you use ellipses, you are INDICATING that you are truncating something. You are not "doctoring" it. You are not "faking evidence."

Well, then it's a good thing that's not what happened here.

What happened here, as is clear in 5 seconds from anyone who actually cares enough to read the source material before opining on the subject, is that they cut off a sentence in the middle, and "accidentally" put a period at the end of that cut-off sentence.

That's a situation where they quite clearly SHOULD have used an ellipsis to signal they omitted material. But not only did they not do so, they MADE UP punctuation that was not there, which quite conveniently happened to signal exactly the opposite: that there was no further information in the sentence.

Your typical vile spew is bad enough, but that it's based on complete ignorance of the issue at hand is particularly rich.

[Sarcastr0]

they cut off a sentence in the middle, and "accidentally" put a period at the end of that cut-off sentence

How exactly did the later language change the quote?

they MADE UP punctuation
Oh my God you utter tool.

[Brett Bellmore]

And after making up the period, they created a fake screen shot to make it look like they hadn't done any editing. Don't forget that part, because it's the part that demonstrates that they knew they were faking things.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you see the graphic? A floating unbranded text box?

That was used for all the messages, so far as I've seen. (I did not review all the testimony).

No one would think they were all screenshots.

[Life of Brian]

How exactly did the later language change the quote?

As is typical, that's 180 degrees the wrong question. If the later language didn't change the quote in some way they found inconvenient, they wouldn't have chopped it at all, much less tried to clean up after themselves the way they did.

[Sarcastr0]

Brevity in presentations is not some conspiracy. But maybe there is more to this. Explain, then. How was it inconvenient?

[Life of Brian]

Brevity in presentations

There was literally nothing else on the slide. There was plenty of room to do the right thing (more below). You're better than this.

Explain, then. How was it inconvenient?

You can keep trying to flip the burden, but only they can explain exactly why it was inconvenient enough to airbrush like that. Here's what we can say, and what in the non-trolling side of your brain I know you understand:

1. Ingenuous people who really feel like a portion of a sentence stands on its own quote the entire sentence (and often, surrounding sentences) and then highlight the part they believe is relevant, so it's clear to everyone that the context really doesn't alter the part they've focused on.

2. Disingenuous people crop-quote, in the hope that even if that's evident, most people won't look up the context and will just roll with the quoted language in a vacuum.

3. REALLY disingenuous people crop-quote, and then further doctor the crop-quote to make it look like it isn't one at all.

They chose door 3, so hopefully we'll now be treated to an explanation about how the context didn't really matter.

Oh, nope -- I guess we won't. According to the article, they didn't apologize for chopping the rest of the sentence (or even really acknowledge it). They just apologized for adding the period -- saying after they got caught that they really meant to choose door 2.

[Sarcastr0]

No, the burden is not on me, it's on those positing that there is context lacking.

Your continued refusal to explain the actual disingenuous effect as you pound on the table harder and harder about generalities shows you have nothing.

[Life of Brian]

I never said the burden was on you. I clearly said multiple times it's on those who chose to airbrush the original content.

I refuse to believe you're actually that lacking in basic reading comprehension.

[bernard11]

they wouldn't have chopped it at all, much less tried to clean up after themselves the way they did.

Oh fuck off. People chop quotes for brevity all the time. I can't believe adults buy the idiocy Breitbart is putting out.

[Life of Brian]

Oh fuck off. People chop quotes for brevity all the time.

Your blustering invective aside, this isn't random "people" talking about the weather. This is a legal proceeding, and one that has the potential to significantly alter the future of our country.

As the practitioners here (and indeed Adam Schiff himself) are well aware, pulling this kind of crap with a judge can easily get you sanctioned or even thrown out of court altogether. It's deceptive, disingenuous, and shows your case can't stand up on the merits.

[Sarcastr0]

FFS, LoB. Stop dodging and weaving.

What is the added context?!

[VinniUSMC]

Stop dodging and weaving.

Only Sarcastr0 is allowed to dodge and weave around here!

[Sarcastr0]

What is the added context?

[Queen Amalthea]

He's not going to answer because for many conservatives context is strange, what matters are a rule was being broken, a rule of citation for God's sake! Add to that the usual conspiratorial mindset and viola.

[Kazinski]

If they didn't do anything wrong, why did they apologize and say it was inadvertent?

They know it was wrong and affects they're credibility.

We had this same discussion a few weeks ago about Kerik, the Jan. 6. panel first asserted he was at planning meeting for the Jan. 6 invasion in DC on Jan. 5th. When it was reported that Kerik said he wasn't there and toll records supported his claim then you, and others said the denial was meaningless.

But the committee admitted they were wrong in a letter to Kerik's lawyers.

You keep doubling down on everything the committee does even when they admit error.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a strawman - no one said they did anything wrong. Accuracy in reporting is important both formally and functionally.

The thesis is that the Breitbart characterization of doctoring the message is way overblown.

[Blackstone]

If you think guidance from Hamilton is persuasive, then you should include it. But if you don't believe it to be either persuasive or relevant, then it is proper to omit it in good faith, so long as the edit is acknowleged. Error by Schiff. Of course, publicly supporting the coup attempt by contending that Alexander Hamilton would have approved disenfranchising millions of citizens is at best pathetic and at worst criminal. I ask those of you bellowing about Schiff's error, do you also believe that these voters could have legitimately been disenfranchised? If not, then you are just blowing smoke. If so, you are joining the plot.

[David Nieporent]

There was no further information in the sentence.

If I was being investigated for my role in a conspiracy, and it came out that I had told John Hinckley, "You should shoot the president — just like Jodie Foster wants you to do," and you reported this as "David Nieporent told John Hinckley, 'You should shoot the president,'" you have not omitted "information."

In fact, in this hypothetical, I have said — just as you reported — that Hinckley should shoot the president. Including my fake claim about Jodie Foster — like Jordan's fake claim about Alexander Hamilton — adds nothing relevant to the discussion of my involvement.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sure, but people will always say something lacked context."

That's one of your favorite tricks when you're called out for spouting BS.

[Sarcastr0]

Then prove loki and me wrong - what does the supposed vital context change?

[grb]

TwelveInchPianist : "....you're called out for spouting BS...."

So call him on it already. Sarcastr0's questions are simple:

(1) Did any of the changes affect the meaning of the quote?
(2) If yes, how?

If your hysteria (and Brett's or LOB's above) isn't mere posturing, you should be able to produce devastating answers. Yet I look up&down this thread and see no answers at all, devastating or not. It's beginning to look like posturing after all.....

[ThePublius]

Congress should have waited for the courts to rule on executive privilege claims before indicting Meaadows.

"Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz criticized House Democrats on Wednesday for voting to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress before courts had ruled on his privilege claims."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/15/dershowitz-rips-democrats-for-holding-mark-meadows-in-contempt-before-courts-rule-on-executive-privilege/

[John F. Carr]

The law was badly designed. It should have authorized Congress to go to a judge the same way a prosecutor can go to a judge to compel testimony. (Add an exception for current members of the executive branch if you like, to avoid disturbing balance of powers.) Then the target is guaranteed an initial impartial hearing without needing to risk prison by claiming a right.

[Brett Bellmore]

But was it the opinion of members of Congress that it should have done that?

[Sarcastr0]

There is no right being claimed.

[John F. Carr]

In the earlier case executive privilege was claimed. The witness should be able to have a judicial ruling on that claim before being indicted.

[Sarcastr0]

Why? That's not how indictments work for other assertions of defense.

[IPLawyer]

Alan "I wasn't molesting that child, someone made a call from my house's landline at that exact time" Dershowitz!

[loki13]

Or, as I heard in Law School-

Alan 'I will throw my research assistants under the bus when I get caught plagiarizing' Dershowitz.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Liz Cheney has several times framed public comments in terms of criminal conduct by Trump, before and during the January 6 event."

And, indeed, she wouldn't have been on that committee if she were inclined to do anything else, she was the Democrats' pick for the committee, not the Republicans', remember; The Democrats didn't let the Republicans pick their own committee members.

The thing is, she's mis-stating the law as she so frames it, and I expect knowingly, because people have GOT to be pointing it out to her.

"Mr. Meadows' testimony will bear on a key question in front of this Committee: Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress's official proceeding to count electoral votes?" Cheney said. "Mr. Meadows' testimony will inform our legislative judgments on those issues."

The law, of course, requires action.

[Sarcastr0]

remember; The Democrats didn't let the Republicans pick their own committee members.

Democrats didn't let Republicans pick people who insisted the election was fraudulent, so the Republicans refused to offer any candidates.

If you need to be deceitful in how you characterize events, you aren't dealing with the truth.

[Brett Bellmore]

They didn't let the Republicans pick their own committee members. It doesn't really matter what excuse they used.

They picked the members based on the conclusion they'd arrive at, and that it's a conclusion you agree with doesn't alter that.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's not how it works. It's a quite reasonable requirement to not include zealots who don't care about the truth.

[Brett Bellmore]

In a legislative context, it is not "quite reasonable" for the majority party to dictate which members of the minority party will be the minority party's committee members. The parties get to pick their own members.

[Sarcastr0]

Keeping liars off the investigatory committee is both good policy and following the required protocol.

'It's all legal' is something you defended many times as all you need in politics. But back then you were defending Trump.

But bottom line - if the GOP is going to go in for a big lie, the Dems don't need to go along with them in the blind name of minority rights.
Same would hold for any Dems that were insisting rioting in the name of racial justice is legal or something like that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Keeping liars off the investigatory committee is both good policy and following the required protocol."

Then why is Schiff on it?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, we all know you're a tool who believes whatever Breitbart feeds you. You don't need to keep telling everyone.

[Blackstone]

The parties get to pick their own members, huh? Not this time. Go pound sand. Majority has its privileges.

[Life of Brian]

It's a quite reasonable requirement to not include zealots who don't care about the truth.

Given that the committee's on-paper purpose is to determine what the truth really is, I'm afraid you just said the quiet part out loud.

[Sarcastr0]

The election wasn't stolen is a fair baseline.

Just because you're crazy doesn't mean you need to be indulged.

[Life of Brian]

The election wasn't stolen is a fair baseline.

Ok, big boy. Please list for us: (1) the names of everyone the Republicans proposed for the committee; and (2) quotes from each and every one of them that the election was stolen.

I'll wait.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you already forget what happened here?

The GOP withdrew their entire slate when Pelosi rejected Jim Jordan and Jim Banks.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to see what each said about Jan 06 and/or the committee's legitimacy.

[Life of Brian]

Did you already forget what happened here?

Not in the least -- I simply asked you to support your vacuous party-line nonsense with actual facts that it's clear enough do not exist. And sure enough:

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to see what each said about Jan 06 and/or the committee's legitimacy.

Q.E.D. LOL

[Sarcastr0]

Your 'OK big boy...I'll wait' snotty question shows you didn't even understand the background facts, and asked for nonresponsive info.

And if you want to die on the hill that Jim Jordon and Jim Banks were gonna be good faith actors in that committee, that's your perogative.

[Life of Brian]

and asked for nonresponsive info.

For someone who claims to have practiced law in the past, it's weird that you would so badly misuse the word "nonresponsive." You made a [bullshit] claim; I asked you for information to support it. That's about as responsive as it gets.

I think the word you're looking for is "nonexistent."

[Sarcastr0]

What is the claim I made

[Life of Brian]

Wow, you're really trying to fan the embers on this one.

You blustered; I called you out; you folded. Your sad efforts to try to keep the music playing to save face are... sad.

[Sarcastr0]

What is the claim I made?

[David Nieporent]

It's not that they're zealots who don't care about the truth that disqualified them.¹ It's that they are likely to be subjects of the committee's investigation, and as such would have had a conflict.

¹Remember that Brett is misrepresenting as usual. McCarthy proposed a bunch of names; Pelosi accepted all but two. Then the GOP had a pretend tantrum and said, "If you won't take all of our names, then none of them will serve on the committee."

[bernard11]

It wasn't an excuse, Brett. It was clear that giant assholes like Jim Jordan fully intended to disrupt the proceedings.

And why would you want someone on an investigating committee who claims not to have been aware of things going on all around him in the locker room, and that every one else knew about? Not really very perceptive, I'd say.

Do you really not see how scummy those guys are?

[Life of Brian]

It was clear that [belligerent pejorative omitted - ed.] Jim Jordan fully intended to disrupt the proceedings.

Clear if you read "disrupt" as "inconveniently depart from the pre-planned choreography." Under any shred of pretense of this committee being committed to the pursuit of truth no matter what that might turn out to be, no.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Imagine being such a cuckold that you'd defend Jim Jordan as someone who is in any way, shape, or form, as someone who is interested in truth.

His purpose in being named to that committee was to wave papers around and scream about how Trump actually won the election, and to spread other lies.

Much like your purpose here.

[VinniUSMC]

Democrats didn't let Republicans pick people who insisted the election was fraudulent, so the Republicans refused to offer any candidates.

Democrats didn't let Republicans pick people who disagree with them. Committee agrees that their agreement is instructive. Sarcastr0 agrees that their agreement to agree on that which they agree must make it "Truth" because he follows "Science!" or something.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not a disagreement. This is you don't get your own facts.

It's really easy to see how truth-free bomb throwers are something that should be excluded from any investigatory body.

[VinniUSMC]

It's really easy to see how truth-free bomb throwers are something that should be excluded from any investigatory body.

You're right, disband the January 6 committee immediately.

[Sarcastr0]

Tell me, do you think the election was stolen from Trump?

[VinniUSMC]

Tell me, do you think the election was stolen from Trump?

No, but that doesn't imply that I have to agree that January 6th was an "insurrection". And, if the committee is worried about finding the truth then it should survive having people who disagree.

"Sorry, only my team is allowed" doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Sarcastr0]

People who disagree about the legitimacy of the election and the committee don't get to be on the committee.

That's not a difference of opinion, it's a difference of fidelity to the truth.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Democrats had an 8-5 majority on the committee, as it was voted on. They'd win every vote. They didn't need to pick the Republican members, too, to get what they wanted out of it.

The only point of excluding the Republicans selected members was to totally rig it to the point where no embarrassing questions would be asked, or points raised.

[Sarcastr0]

Quite the switch of thesis from 'illegal' to 'partisan'. No one is arguing the second, Brett.

Stick to your guns, or withdraw.

[VinniUSMC]

People who disagree about the legitimacy of the election and the committee don't get to be on the committee.

Yeah, you keep saying that.

"Agree with me, and join my committee of people who agree with me, to come to the preordained conclusion that everybody agrees with me!" Sarcastr0 logic 101.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's not agree with me, it's agree that the committee they are going to sit on is legitimate.

That's not some ideological policing, it's a pretty fundamental requirement if you want real contributions.

[David Nieporent]

Why do Brett and Vinni keep lying? Pelosi was allowing three Republicans named by McCarthy. She wasn't insisting only on people who agreed with her.

[Brett Bellmore]

Next you'll be telling us that the Democrats can pick the Republican's House and Senate leadership.

[Sarcastr0]

Only if you both ignore the procedures in how both are picked, and assume investigations are the same as lawmaking.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they ignored the procedures the House had voted for, didn't they? Voted for 8/5, went with 8/1, voted for the Republicans to pick 5 members, (That's what "in consultation" normally means!) then picked the 1 Republican for them.

[Sarcastr0]

No, they didn't ignore the procedures. Consultation does not mean pick. Stop rewriting the law to make your argument true.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Brett, would a demonstrable plan for later inaction qualify as action?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the law specifies action, you can't violate it by refraining from doing something somebody thinks you should have done.

They're trying to transform Trump not instantly leaping into action to stop the protest into his being guilty of insurrection. But that's not how it works, legally.

[Voize of Reazon]

Maybe they're trying to determine whether the country is sufficiently protected or the law needs to change. It's almost as though the investigation has a legislative purpose.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, we lack laws dealing with riots.

There is no legislative purpose.

[Michael P]

If you think the country needs a law saying that the President should be criminally liable for waiting three hours before telling rioters to go home, you probably have been saying that since Obama would have violated such a law. (And for just as long, others have probably been telling you about this one weird amendment that guarantees freedom of speech.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Brett, you did not answer my question. I will put it another way:

1. With violence you are able to foresee in the offing;

2. Because would-be violent people have made you privy to their plans;

3. If you create a plan to assist them, which is a plan to withhold orders to law enforcement or the national guard to intervene;

4. Is that plan an action by you or not?

[Brett Bellmore]

I did answer your question. You don't have to like the answer for it to be an answer.

3. The President is not in charge of defense of the Capitol. Congress is. Go complain to Pelosi.

[David Nieporent]

Another bad faith Trumpkin claim. Pelosi is not in charge of the defense of the Capitol.

[David Nieporent]

Brett is once again Dunning-Krugering. (Citing an unspecified "the law" rather than an actual law is usually a good indicator of that.)

[Kazinski]

There couldn't have been a demonstrable plan for inaction because the National Guard was offered both to Capitol police, and DC Mayor Bowser on Jan. 3. The Capitol police after consulting with congressional leadership declined assistance. Mayor Bowser accepted some units to provide security in the DC metro system, these units were deployed later on Jan. 6th at the Capitol because they were the nearest available.

"Sunday, January 3, 2021
• DoD confirms with U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) that there is no request for DoD support.
• A/SD meets with select Cabinet Members to discuss DoD support to law enforcement agencies and potential requirements for DoD support.
• A/SD and CJCS meet with the President. President concurs in activation of the DCNG to support law enforcement.

Monday, January 4, 2021
• USCP confirms there is no requirement for DoD support in a phone call with SECARMY.
• The A/SD, in consultation with CJCS, SECARMY, and DoD General Counsel (GC), reviews the Department’s plan to be prepared to provide support to civil authorities, if asked, and approves activation of 340 members of the DCNG to support Mayor Bowser’s request.

And here is the sequence of events regarding DCNG deployment on Jan. 6, you can point out anything that smacks of a conspiracy or deliberate inaction during that less than 2 hour timeframe:

1305: A/SD receives open source reports of demonstrator movements to U.S. Capitol.
1326: USCP orders evacuation of Capitol complex.
1334: SECARMY phone call with Mayor Bowser in which Mayor Bowser communicates request for unspecified number of additional forces.
1349: Commanding General, DCNG, Walker phone call with USCP Chief Sund. Chief Sund communicates request for immediate assistance.
1422: SECARMY phone call with D.C. Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Dr. Rodriguez, and MPD leadership to discuss the current situation and to request additional DCNG support.
1430: A/SD, CJCS, and SECARMY meet to discuss USCP and Mayor Bowser’s requests.
1500: A/SD determines all available forces of the DCNG are required to reinforce MPD and USCP positions to support efforts to reestablish security of the Capitol complex.
1500: SECARMY directs DCNG to prepare available Guardsmen to move from the armory to the Capitol complex, while seeking formal approval from A/SD for deployment. DCNG prepares to move 150 personnel to support USCP, pending A/SD’s approval.
1504: A/SD, with advice from CJCS, DoD GC, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB), SECARMY, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, provides verbal approval of the full activation of DCNG (1100 total) in support of the MPD. Immediately upon A/SD approval, Secretary McCarthy directs DCNG to initiate movement and full mobilization.
In response, DCNG redeployed all soldiers from positions at Metro stations and all available non-support and non-C2 personnel to support MPD. DCNG begins full mobilization.

[Sarcastr0]

Is this the national guard that was on standby to protect Trump people?

But while the DC and Capitol Police did not do great in the prep don't pretend Trump did a damn thing. Those 340 members were traffic control, not security.

*Pence* is the one who authorized the Guard to mobilize on the 6th because Trump didn't wanna.

Trump did find the time to tweet "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

[Kazinski]

The DOD asked repeatedly both the Capitol and DC if they needed DCNG support.

Bowser said yes, and assigned their mission. The Capitol Police said no, so it took almost two hours to get them support when DOD saw the news reports started issuing orders and coordinating with Capitol Hill authorities.

Don't be so purposely dense, this is the official timeline from the DOD about what support they offered, what was asked for, what was accepted, and what was deployed.

And it doesn't support a narrative of deliberate indifference, or pretending the National Guard couldn't be deployed until Trump personally gave the OK. He already concurred (notice not "approved" which indicates they didn't need his approval before making the decision but he could have reversed it) use of the DCNG.

And notice the DOD timeline says army officials started to act as soon as it looked like things were getting out of hand, but ordering 300 isn't quite like ordering a pizza, it took two hours to coordinate not 30 minutes.

There is no mention of Pence needing to approve, or asking Pence, or Trump to re-approve what he gave the green light for on the 3rd.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be arguing against a strawman of someone arguing Trump sabotaged the national guard mobilization days before.

Trump was absolutely an impediment to quick deployment of the Guard on Jan 6 itself. He was far from the only impediment, and he was eventually overcome, but he sure didn't cover himself in glory.

And there were ways to expedite deployment; none were used by either Trump or the Army leadership.

[David Nieporent]

this is the official timeline from the DOD about what support they offered, what was asked for, what was accepted, and what was deployed.

"We shouldn't investigate what happened because someone put out an official timeline."

And it doesn't support a narrative of deliberate indifference,

It absolutely does. The problem wasn't that the order was given but that it took a couple of hours to implement it. The problem is that the order wasn't given, exactly as the timeline above shows. You know, like when everyone in the capitol was begging for help, and it wasn't forthcoming. Larry Hogan was ready to give the order to send the MDNG to assist. But he wasn't allowed to do so.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/10/larry-hogan-pentagon-took-hours-ok-national-guard-capitol-riot/6618084002/

There is no mention of Pence needing to approve, or asking Pence, or Trump to re-approve what he gave the green light for on the 3rd.

Oh, well if they didn't mention it, then I guess there's no need to investigate!

[Moderation4ever]

What I find interesting is Liz Cheney full speed assault on Trump. While the men quiver, she is taking the lead. A short-term loss for her but a long-term gain for her. History tells us that when autocrats leave, they are purged. This will happen to Trump sooner rather than later, and Liz Cheney will have little stink on her from Trump's time. Other will not be able to say the same.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's more a case of "Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb", actually: Her political career is over, so until the end of her current term she doesn't have to pretend to care what the people who elected her think anymore.

The most dangerous elected official is always the one who is never going to be running for reelection again.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : The most dangerous elected official is always the one who is never going to be running for reelection again.

Often the most truthful too - which (of course) is your problem with Ms Cheney.

[Brett Bellmore]

They can be the most truthful, the most dishonest, the best, the worst. The point is that, once they know they're not running again, they don't have to care what the voters think anymore. And the voters lose the only lever they have over the actions of their elected representatives.

Sure, that sounds good, if you don't like what those voters want, and would prefer that democracy stop functioning in their case.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore: "Sure, that sounds good, if you don't like what those voters want...."

Really? It's my belief any politician that mindlessly follows exactly what 50.1% of his constituents want is a very poor leader indeed. Every politician I ever voted-for engaged in massive amounts of cringe-worthy pandering on the campaign trail and (hopefully lesser amounts) in office. The same is true for pols I voted against - just in larger quantities.

That Bill Clinton segued from from tax cuts to debt reduction in his first days in office because he "discovered" the deficit was a more serious problem than he thought was a sign of seriousness to me. Remember, his opponent had pandered with much larger promises of tax cuts & had probably already exhausted his political courage on the topic.

As for Ms Cheney, I've read interviews with her constituents. A few try to claim she's acting out of self-interest but that's clearly hopeless; most concede she follows her ethical convictions. None defend Trump; they simply refuse to look at the right-or-wrong of his actions. (you should be familiar with that!) So their only complaint against Cheney is a pure tribal snit. Why shouldn't we applaud her ignoring that?

[Brett Bellmore]

What you're looking at is at the intersection of tribal snits and conviction: The GOP has multiple tribes with different convictions.

She is genuinely and morally offended that Trump sought the votes of a different sub-tribe from hers, and then, worse, attempted to deliver on his promises to them.

She would have been OK with him seeking their votes, and then stiffing them; It's what she routinely did, after all, and it's what her sub-tribe thinks is the appropriate response to the other sub-tribe.

Her career is over now, because she became sufficiently offended by the tribe who were electing her that she could no longer continue pretending to be a fellow member, and outed herself.

Yeah, that's an act of conviction, and admirable in a sense. But it's ALSO a tribal snit. It's both at once.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "She is genuinely and morally offended that Trump sought the votes of a different sub-tribe from hers, and then, worse, attempted to deliver on his promises to them"

Your bullshit is rarely so weak. Just because you don't give a damn Trump tried to steal an election doesn't mean everyone else is as ethically-challenged. When are you going to stop claiming all Trump does is justified because his followers feel perpetually insulted? It's phony logic, it's condescending, and it's grown into the one-size-fits-all comeback that "proves" anything drifting thru your mind.

Your gibberish doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Sorry, Brett, but Cheney was receiving exactly the same votes as Trump before she grew disgusted with his actions. Your attempt to carve up the Wyoming vote with non-existent distinctions is based on what exactly?

Also: What evidence do you have that Cheney "stiffed" her voters? We can get into it if you're a glutton for punishment, but I guarantee Trump lied to the Wyoming voters a hell of a lot more that she did. What you probably mean is Trump was more entertaining to those voters by owning the libs and treating everyone & everything with smirking contempt.

Look: If supporting Trump causes all the gears in your head to freeze-up and turns your thoughts to mush, then maybe you picked the wrong cult to join. Just think about it.....

[David Nieporent]

She is genuinely and morally offended that Trump sought the votes of a different sub-tribe from hers, and then, worse, attempted to deliver on his promises to them.

The issue here is that trust-me-I-used-to-be-a-libertarian-even-though-I-have-exactly-zero-libertarian-principles likes Nazis. But he's too gutless to say that he likes Nazis. So he invents these fake "sub-tribe" claims to make it sound like a high-minded thing he's doing rejecting Liz Cheney, instead of what he's actually doing which is defending nazis.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you wrong on her political career. Short term loss long term gain. When the infatuation with Trump is over, she will the only one with clean hands. That will be worth something.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That will be worth something."

Nah, like Michael told Fredo, "never take sides against the family".

A symbolic vote to impeach is one thing, perhaps survivable, accepting a post from Nance Pelosi is something else, that is fatal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, her vote to impeach pissed off her voters, her accepting that appointment from Pelosi pissed off her caucus, and pissing off both at the same time is political suicide, even if you could survive one or the other.

She didn't just burn her bridges, she nuked them from orbit.

[grb]

Yep. Real ethical convictions can be a serious burden.

(It's lucky Trump supporters have none)

[Brett Bellmore]

They can be. The question here is, can a democracy function properly if representatives have different ethical convictions from the electorate?

Maybe she's doing what she thinks is the principled thing, I wouldn't rule that out. But, in a democracy, if your idea of the principled thing to do is sufficiently different from the electorate's, you end up out of work. And properly so!

[grb]

Brett : " ... if your idea of the principled thing to do is sufficiently different from the electorate's, you end up out of work. And properly so!"

We're talking about two separate things :

First, was Trump's attempt over a year to use U.S. foreign policy favor for personal gain. It was an effort that began long before the infamous phone call, and included the incident where Bolton rushed out of a meeting saying he "wouldn't be part of any drug deal". That was after the Ukrainians were told they could buy a presidential summit between the country's leaders if Zelensky would commit in writing to a Biden investigation.

Second, was Trump's attempt to steal a presidential election he lost. It included pressuring state officials not to certify their results, insisting Justice Department officials claim fraud investigations were underway when they didn't even exist, asking state officials to launch fraud investigation absent any evidentiary cause, pressing the Georgia Secretary of State to deliver a specified number of new votes beyond his certified returns, demanding the Vice President block election certification by non-constitutional means, dozens of junk lawsuits wholly without the slightest grounds, and two months of virulent ranting agitprop lies, which led to the riots that Trump promoted and cheered (as a TV spectator/fan).

So Brett doesn't "rule out" that Cheney acts with principle. That's so, so very generous, but I can't respond in kind. Because it's one hundred percent certain that Brett doesn't act with principle.

He abandoned that kinda thing when he joined the cult.

[Harvey Mosley]

Well it is the only way to be sure.

[grb]

A Ripley Reference is always welcome!

[Kazinski]

Not in Wyoming.

Sure give her credit for standing up for what she believes in, but lets face it, she was elected because Wyoming has a lot of residual affection for her daddy, first they transferred it to her, but Trump has stole their heart away.

Trump may eventually lose their affection too, but I doubt she will regain it.

[David Nieporent]

I'm quite certain you're wrong on this. There's no long term for her in electoral politics. The "only" thing it's worth is her soul,¹ not her career. ("Only" is in scare quotes because of course the former is a bit more important than the latter.)

¹Or conscience, if that fits one's worldview better.

[Jerry B.]

"...the committee displays little sign that it feels time pressure..."

The only pressure they feel is to keep the "insurrection" in the news until the 2022 mid-terms.

[grb]

Jerry B : The only pressure they feel is to keep the "insurrection" in the news until the 2022 mid-terms.

I don't think you're following closely. The committee is investigating all of Trump's efforts to sabotage the presidential election, not just the riot he watched & cheered (like a football fan watching his team on television)

[Bob from Ohio]

"committee is investigating all of Trump's efforts to sabotage"

"Well, I'd like to see ol Donny Trump wiggle his way out of THIS jam!

*Trump wiggle his way out of the jam easily*

Ah, Well. Nevertheless,"

@BronzeHammer October 1, 2016

[grb]

Yet Trump couldn't get reelected for all his wiggling and lost the popular vote by a large margin. And if - God between us & evil - he runs again, he'll lose by an even bigger margin. (This, provided he's not already in jail for his criminal business practices).

Your problem, Bob, is this: You believe each successive example of Trump's sleaziness, corruption, imbecility, criminality, bungling clumsiness, grotesque selfishness, or narcissistic personality disorder doesn't count if he's still standing when it's over. In Bob-World, there's always a clean slate after. As a cultist, you willingly embrace amnesia following each new embarrassment. You somehow believe others do too.

Normal people aren't like that, Bob. Each new example of Trump's unfitness as politician, president or human being is just added to the pile. And we're talking Trump here, so by now that pile is a towering mountain of damning evidence.

[Bob from Ohio]

"lost the popular vote by a large margin"

True, because the economy cratered because of covid, not "Trump's unfitness ". Still lost by only 45,000 votes in 3 states.

Its fundamentals that beat him, like all elections.

He's not on the ballot anyways, it will be about the people's views on Democratic party performance.

[Bob from Ohio]

"then deliver a knock-out punch in the run-up to the election"

"Well, I'd like to see ol Donny Trump wiggle his way out of THIS jam!

*Trump wiggles his way out of the jam easily*

Ah, Well. Nevertheless,"

@BronzeHammer October 1, 2016

[PeteRR]

Had cataracts surgery on Tuesday. Right eye first. Left eye, this coming Tuesday. My distance vision is amazing now with the good eye. You don't realize what your missing even with corrective lenses.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hope you got the good lenses, it makes a huge difference.

I was at a financial low point when I got my cataract surgery, as the cataracts were a side effect of chemotherapy, and the deductible had cleaned me out. Had to go with the bargain basement lenses the insurance would fully cover. They work, but they're not ideal.

Even so, it's marvelous not having to wear glasses anymore; I'd been 20/450 before, and worn glasses since elementary school.

[ragebot]

No doubt. The change for me was amazing. Done by Doctors at Shands Hospital and they were first rate.

[Kazinski]

I had lasik surgery about 5 years back and I'm very happy with it. I had fantastic vision in my youth at 12-20, but as I got older I was needing 3 pairs of glasses, reading, computer, and distance.

I told my Dr. to prioritize distance, because I don't mind reading glasses that much. Now I can do without the reading glasses if I have to, and have very crisp focus on everything else.

By the way the price and innovation of lasik is a great libertarian talking point on why health insurance and the health marketplace should be deregulated.

[Brett Bellmore]

No kidding. I couldn't get lasik, because the degree of correction, (20-450, again) would have rendered my cornea dangerously thin.

Now, a combination of INTACS (Rings implanted around your cornea that stretch it flat.) and lasik would have safely done the job, but at the time INTACS was outrageously expensive, due to regulation of medical devices. I gather they've come down a bit since.

The irony of that is that INTACS are easily reversed, and lasik isn't. But hugely more people get lasik because surgery is less regulated than implanted devices.

[AtR]

Under what conditions can we legally conclude that the COVID vaccines are not sufficiently effective to warrant a mandate?

Are any mandates directed by unaccountable health officials valid in the fight against COVID? Would it be legal to mandate liposuction for all obese employees nationwide, since obesity has been linked to increased COVID severity and, presumably, disease transmission? This hypothesis would be no less valid than that under which unvaccinated people are excluded from public spaces for fear of increased transmission.

Is there a scientific line ... anywhere ... that, when crossed, would make the decisions of public health officials legally unenforceable?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think so, unless the policy was so crazy it failed 'rational basis' review. Which, unless the judge really dislikes the policy, requires you to be chewing the furniture mad, not just irrational.

Generally, the courts determine whether a policy is within the government's power, and leave the wisdom of it to the elected branches.

[Don Nico]

My opinion mirrors Brett's

[Queen Amalthea]

How are they unaccountable? The answer to the executive, right?

"obesity has been linked to increased COVID severity and, presumably, disease transmission"

What's that presumption based on?

[AtR]

This is the same presumption that is used to force vaccination ... that increased COVID severity produces increased viral load (even though this is not necessarily true) and that increased viral load produces with increased transmission.

Of course, none of these seem true, given the current science, but they form the theory under which it makes sense to segregate the unvaccinated from the community.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a policy question, not a scientific question.

Individuals can conclude whatever they want, legally.

They do gotta follow the law, unless they want to do civil disobedience and pay the consequences.

[AtR]

But surely there is a rational limit to what can be required wholesale?

Can an employer require all (of any gender, to preclude gender discrimination) employees to undergo breast enlargement surgery to help with business? Cut off a limb to play a Captain Hook role in a movie? Have sexual relations with animals?

[Sarcastr0]

A private employer? Those limits are set by state statute. The Constitution does not touch private action.

[AtR]

I'm confused ... I thought we were talking about a wide-spread government mandate (ala OSHA).

[Sarcastr0]

Your hypo said 'an employer.'

You're wondering if OSHA can require everyone to get breast implants?

Because the check there (assuming procedures were followed in the rulemaking) is arbitrary and capricious/abuse of discretion/outside of enabling statute. It's a high bar, but it is a bar none of your protocols exceed.

But of course the one legally making that conclusion is a federal court, not 'we.'

[Ben_]

You still seem to think the policy is based on science and that facts matter. Whenever things don’t support lockdowns or mandates or some other way to make life worse for Americans, the public health authorities just move the goalposts.

The answers to your questions are: no, they’ll just keep moving goalposts and making up stories about the next variant. When policy fails, they’ll just blame people who are not like them and claim that the failures mean they need even more totalitarian power — just like leftists have always done.

[Queen Amalthea]

"You still seem to think the policy is based on science and that facts matter. "

The policy tends to be made on the advice of most scientific experts in the relevant fields, not amateur super-partisan Ben.

Projection is a hell of a drug.

[ThePublius]

Regarding the supply chain crisis, and in particular, the clogged ports in California, I have heard that one of the causes is that regulations for trucks servicing ports in CA are so strict that the supply of trucks that meet the requirements is too small; and that as a result, containers are transferred to other trucks outside the port regulatory area so that compliant trucks can return to port, and that this transferring of containers is introducing delay and congestion.

Is that so? I haven't been able to find a source of this online.

Thanks

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what a trucker of my acquaintance tells me: That most of the trucks in America are illegal in California.

[John F. Carr]

California can't ban out of state trucks. One of the Midwest states got smacked down a few decades ago for requiring different mudflaps from the rest of the country. Interfered with interstate commerce. There has also been litigation about regulation of double or triple trailers differently from other states.

What I gather from the phrase "regulations for trucks servicing ports in CA" is the trucks can drive through the state just fine, and pick up and drop off loads in other places, but if they want to do business inside the port they have to made of recycled tofu or union-approved or something like that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, they can't bar through travel by the trucks, but the traffic they can ban is the important part for the supply chain.

[bernard11]

That doesn't pass the smell test.

Why would that suddenly be a problem, as opposed to having been one for years?

[VinniUSMC]

Nothing different about the circumstances today? Nothing at all?

I guess it's hard to pass the smell test with your head that far up your rectum. If Artie were to attempt shoving things down your throat, where would he have to go to start?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would a cliff turn into an avalanche today, rather than years ago?

You can explain the avalanche on the basis of the heavy rain today, or on the basis of the slope being above the angle of repose. The one explains why now, the other explains why.

But if you want to avoid avalanches, "It rained heavily" is not much help. "Avoid creating piles of stuff above the angle of repose" will help.

[John F. Carr]

After a little bit of web reading this seems to be the problem:

To serve the port of Los Angeles a truck must have "an approved POLA concession agreement". This part is a small barrier to entry to the market; you can't just decide to take on a load because there's time, money, and paperwork involved. It has to be part of your long term business plan. To be approved a truck must meet CARB emissions rules, which means it must be a new truck or have a new engine. If the truck is registered in California it has to meet CARB rules anyway. So the port is discriminating against interstate commerce. It might be legal anyway because (1) California has special permission to enact non-uniform vehicle emissions rules, and (2) the rule is likely part of an EPA-approved Clean Air Act compliance plan. Can the EPA authorize discrimination against out of state trucks? I don't know.

There seems to be a viral Facebook post on this subject which some alleged fact checkers have rated "false" because it overstates the effect of California's rules. One of the fact-checkers quotes a non-denial denial: These rules don't affect trucks coming to the port because 96% of trucks coming to the port comply with the rules.

[Queen Amalthea]

So DeSantis' Stop Woke act seeks to crack down on 'critical race theory' in schools and government agencies but also...private businesses? That seems a bit problematic on libertarian grounds.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree that the application of anti-discrimination laws to private businesses is problematic from a libertarian, (Or even constitutional!) standpoint, but it's still well established.

[Sarcastr0]

This is speech, not discrimination.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ha. Ha.

[Queen Amalthea]

Some speech can be found to be discriminatory in that it can be said to create a hostile work environment. How much of what gets labeled 'critical race theory' counts is a big question. Another would be, don't libertarians criticize hostile work place speech based precedents?

[John F. Carr]

If government rules prohibiting people from saying certain bad words at work go away, the legal need for controversial training on how to avoid saying bad words goes away too.

[Queen Amalthea]

The legal need, perhaps, but companies often have a reputational need (among other things). Still though, that's not a rationale for banning the training.

[Sarcastr0]

government rules prohibiting people from saying certain bad words at work.

Not a thing.

[ThePublius]

Discrimination laws apply to private businesses - duh!

[Queen Amalthea]

And libertarians are cool with that? Duh indeed.

[ThePublius]

So you think I should be able to hang out a sign that says "No Blacks Need Apply?"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Regardless of whether you should be able to, I know you would love to.

The bigotry is one reason you are hopeless and doomed, with the other clingers, in the culture war.

[VinniUSMC]

What libertarians are you referring to?

No, most libertarians are not cool with it, duh. Also, not cool with libturds like you thinking that the rules can only be applied in one direction. What's good for the goose...

[Queen Amalthea]

"What's good for the goose..."

This is how they live with no principles.

[Michael P]

I read somewhere that projection is a hell of a drug.

But which projector was broadcasting that?

[Ed Grinberg]

I suppose you prefer the sort of "libertarians" who scream bloody murder whenever a Republican does something, but have nothing to say about Democrats.

[Queen Amalthea]

Every accusation is indeed a confession.

[AtR]

I agree ... and I think it's problematic for government agencies as well.

He could, however, replace any appointees who promote views he opposes ... that is a normal politics at play.

[Kazinski]

Well if libertarians were running things they'd fix it and having an overall libertarian regulatory scheme would have enough pluses that the negatives would be overwhelmed.

But in today's workplace regulatory scheme telling employers that they can't segregate employee training based on race, creed, national origin, sex or age is perfectly appropriate. Telling employers that you can't create a hostile working environment by telling one race they have more or specific negative traits than other races is certainly appropriate.

That proposition seems pretty unremarkable.

[Enrique]

How about property rights in outer space? See:
https://priorprobability.com/2021/12/14/the-tragedy-of-the-outer-space-commons-2/

and

https://priorprobability.com/2021/12/13/the-allocation-of-launch-licenses/

[Sarcastr0]

The current regulatory regime of LEO has been a bonanza for tech development. We don't need to reform it (yet), we just need better space trash detection/collection tech.

I prefer the EU's licensing regime to the FCC/FAA's more permissive certification plan. But if the US is gonna roll like that, might as well use an auction.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Publishing five recycled posts from Prof. Doriane Coleman during the second half of December suggests the White, male Volokh Conspiracy is desperate to increase the number of posts contributed by females.

A natural fit has developed: Michelle M. Odinet.

Judge Odinet appears to have been born (as much as any woman could be; I suspect Prof. Coleman would approve) to be a Volokh Conspirator. She is a judge. She is a Republican. And she repeatedly uses a vile racial slur.

You're welcome.

(Perhaps Judge Odinet's introductory work at the Volokh Conspiracy could address the science of how cold medicine causes strident racism among otherwise colorblind conservatives.)

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court has again decided to determine whether a state may evade or effectively overturn prior Supreme Court decisions by authorizing private suits. In this case, California doesn't like arbitration clauses but the Supreme Court loves them.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/12/justices-will-take-up-cases-on-arbitration-locomotives-and-congress-war-powers/

I wonder how many of the Democratic majority in Washington really want to do something about arbitration.

[ReaderY]

Without naming any names, may I suggest that the Conspiracy adopt a rule limiting posts to perhaps two per Conspirator per day, spaced a minimum number of hours apart (say 3 or 6)? And may I also suggest waiting a minimum number of hours after a major decision before posting about it?

This blog is not supposed to be a substitute for a law journal with its careful deliberative scholarship and thorough fact-checking.

But it shouldn’t be a Twitter alternative either. There are plenty of those.

[ducksalad]

RY, some of us are junkies and need a fix of fresh material, regardless of quality, every couple hours. Some of us are facing remarkably unpleasant tasks at work and have a compelling need for distraction on short notice.

The other Conspirators, not the one you're not naming, have day jobs at serious universities and can't keep up with our demand.

[loki13]

I mean ... as much as I like the idea (two post per day maximum, maybe one post if the school you teach at isn't ranked in the top 100) ... just imagine the 5,674 post magnum opus that it would create about de-platforming. I don't think there are enough tubez on the internet to handle that type of extreme keyboard commando'ing.

[VinniUSMC]

just imagine...

If you imagine any harder, you might have an aneurysm.

[VinniUSMC]

No, Artie, I cannot, and will not, read whatever tripe you've posted. You may continue to deep-throat things as long as you want, but I don't intend to watch.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" maybe one post if the school you teach at isn't ranked in the top 100 "

Whose ranking? A mainstream ranking? A Federalist Society ranking?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't think South Texas College of Law is going to make the cut by any measure, except perhaps "unsuccessful attempts to steal another law school's name".

[Longtobefree]

So common sense social media control?

[Krayt]

The goal of web sites from here to twitter to 4chan to CNN.com is to shove advertising in your face. The more posts, the better.

And the more outrageous the replies, the more likely you are to start slapping yourself on the face like Curley, shouting "woo woo woo woo woo" and push out a response to, you know, correct those other idiots...yielding more views by you and another half penny for the web site.

[Kazinski]

Did you realize this is a libertarian blog when you started hanging out here?

[Bored Lawyer]

I came across this interview with Dr. Scott Atlas:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/12/13/scott-atlas-exposes-how-anthony-fauci-undermined-trump-and-misled-americans-on-covid?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=tds-fb
Absolutely devastating to the handling of the COVID crisis. While the whole thing should be read, here is the worst part:

I wrote this in my book, “A Plague Upon Our House,” because the American people need to know the level of incompetence, the lack of rigor, the lack of critical thinking. I was stunned at what I saw. We had bureaucrats in charge of the policy and that policy was the restrictions in lockdown. And it failed. It failed by the data to stop the spread of the infection. It failed to protect the elderly and stop them from dying. And it destroyed millions and millions of families, including the children who were sacrificed, and I’m talking about particularly low income families.

This was an egregious immoral application of public health, because when you’re a public health leader, you are not supposed to say I’m going to stop this one infection at all costs, without regard for all of public health. These people, the advice that was done was directed solely at stopping these cases.
It failed, by the way. But it also inflicted massive harm because you have to remember, we shut down a lot of medical care. It wasn’t just cosmetic surgery or something like that, that was shut down. We had 650,000 people with cancer on chemotherapy. Half of them skipped their chemo just during the spring of 2020 out of fear. We had 85% of living organ transplants did not get done compared to the previous year. We had two thirds of cancer screenings did not get done. These people still have cancer.

They’re going to come back with widespread, what’s called metastatic disease. A lot of them are going to die. We had massive increases in drug abuse, in spousal abuse, in child abuse. 300,000 cases of child abuse were not detected during the spring of 2020, because, why, schools were closed and schools are the number one agency where child abuse occurs. So this was a massive harm and the harm, again, all the losses, we are almost on the verge of destroying a younger generation, by the way, we have a massive rise in anxiety disorder, in depressive disorder.
One out of four college students in 2020 in the United States thought of killing himself. We had tripling of medical visits to doctors by teenagers for self-harm in the United States compared to the previous year. What does that mean? That means these are kids putting out cigarettes on their skin, slashing their wrists out of the isolation. It’s the lockdowns that did this. It’s the isolation. It’s not the virus. The isolation was caused by the grossly wrong public health advice. And this is going to take decades to solve.

These observations dovetail with something that has been bothering me. Any public policy is going to have costs – both in money and in collateral effects. If you don’t understand that, then you are engaged in magical thinking. Yet many of the advocates of the lockdowns seemed to have engaged in precisely that – they were only willing to weigh the supposed benefits, but not the costs.
And determining whether the costs are worth it is not “science” but a matter of policy, as to which a doctorate in medicine does not qualify you to opine any more than anyone else.
I repeat a hypothetical I raised here once. Suppose you could eliminate COVID completely, but at a cost of 50% unemployment, with all its attendant collateral harms. Is that worthwhile? Whatever your answer, a degree in epidemiology does not answer it.
Many mocked Fauci for saying, “I represent science.” Apart from the sheer hubris of that, it also contains a false planted axiom. Science can inform public policy decisions, but it cannot make them. That many think it can is very dangerous.

[Bored Lawyer]

And here is another item for thought:

There’s a denial effect about vaccine mandates. And why do I say that? Because there is very good protection in people who have recovered from the infection. That’s natural immunity. It would’ve been a shock, if that didn’t occur. This goes back centuries, by the way. But it certainly goes back decades in the medical literature. And it’s proven with this specific virus that people who recover from the infection have very good protection.

In fact, the protection in people who’ve recovered from the infection is superior to the protection of vaccinated people who have never had the infection. That’s factually true, that’s inarguable. And to not acknowledge that is almost inexplicable, really, except if you’re just motivated to just be blind to the truth, or to hide the truth from the American people.

Now, other countries, by the way, don’t hide the truth. In Europe, most countries recognize people who have recovered from COVID as having protected status, meaning immune protection. They can enter, for instance, in most countries, restaurants just like people who’ve been vaccinated.

We are the only country that I know that is just completely behaving like a flat earth country. The American public health leaders are the flat-earthers of today. They’re denying basic immunology that you learn in medical school in first year. It’s not esoteric. It’s actually well proven and documented even with this virus, the people who have had the infection have very good protection once they recover, that’s factually true.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's herd immunity guy who attempted to replace Fauci has opinions about how Dems are bad on Covid.

Same guy said talked about rising up against state restrictions.

Methinks this is not really food for thought at all, but rather a partisan polemic!

[Bored Lawyer]

Argument ad hominem. Always a sign of intellectual incompetence.

[loki13]

Since you're a lawyer, you're not stupid enough to say that.

Let's say you have a witness. And the witness has a long track record of lying. Maybe even a few perjury convictions. Do you believe what the witness is going to say? Why or why not?

If your next door neighbor, Bob, is a known F---wit, and he's telling you what your best options are for cardiac surgery, do you take Bob's advice? Why or why not?

You know the answers- because we use heuristics. Because part of our evaluation of information is the credibility of the source.

This is why we teach children the story about the little boy who cried wolf, and not the story of the dumba-- internet commenter who keeps saying, "DERP AD HOMINEM INFORMAL FALLACY DERP!!!!"

If you want people to believe you, start by being believable. Also? If your reply is always "ad hominem," maybe consider what sources YOU are using.

[Bored Lawyer]

So far, I have not seen any substantive response to what he writes.

And does Atlas have a "long track record of lying." I don't think so. You may not agree with all his views, but there is no evidence he is a liar.

Now how about you respond to his point about natural v. vaccine immunity. Acc. to him, the rest of the world, including Europe, recognizes natural immunity for those who have had COVID. I know from personal experience that Israel does (using antibody tests). The U.S. is an outlier in that natural immunity is treated as a nothing.

Now either Atlas is lying about that, or the U.S. health authorities know something the rest of the world doesn't, or there is something rotten in Washington. Please explain which you think is correct.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Scott Atlas is a discredited hack and clingerverse conspiracy favorite.

His appointment as a professor at South Texas College of Medicine Houston seems certain.

[Bored Lawyer]

Another Pavlovian reaction. At least that's science. Even if you play the part of the salivating canine.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The fifth word in Dr. Scott Atlas' obituary will be either "discredited" or "disgraced."

Other than that . . . great comment, clinger!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's primarily a question of bureaucratic convenience: They're set up to have centralized vaccination records, but the Covid test records are somewhat disorganized. So, it's easy for them to know if you've been vaccinated, and hard for them to know if you've had Covid.

Their convenience trumps the truth, and they don't particularly care that people who've already had Covid are likely to have worse side effects from the vaccine. (For the same reason the 2nd shot has worse than the 1st.)

The other factor is what Biden blurted out back in September: They're losing patience with Americans not jumping when we're told to.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you don't like complying with your betters' preferences, don't be such a disaffected, defeated, downscale loser.

[loki13]

"Now how about you respond to his point about natural v. vaccine immunity. Acc. to him, the rest of the world, including Europe, recognizes natural immunity for those who have had COVID. I know from personal experience that Israel does (using antibody tests). The U.S. is an outlier in that natural immunity is treated as a nothing."

Europe is not a monolith, but IIRC from doing some research for travelling, does provide for a EU Covid Passport upon a showing of recovery- this cannot be done through antibody tests, but only through a test like the RT-PCR test.

That said, things change, and rapidly. It's my understanding that the EU-wide implementation does not affect the ability of member states to have their own entry requirements and rules, and what is true today or yesterday may not be true tomorrow (esp. given novel issues, such as omicron).

[Don Nico]

He is not lying about that. EU countries accept evidence of recovery from COVID-19 a sufficient to obtain a pass sanitaire.

[Sarcastr0]

Since it's an opinion piece, it's not ad hominem to look at the judgement of the poster.

[loki13]

To be clear- this is the same Dr. Scott Atlas who (1) was never an infectious disease specialist, (2) was referred to as the "MRI guy" because that was his specialty, and (3) resigned after three months because of ... "controversies".

And now, he's hawking a book? Because he's a completely trustworthy figure? Who knows what he's talking about?

Okay, then.

(As a side note, I agree with what you wrote at the end, wholeheartedly. But given the various uncertainties we have had with Coronovirus, some of which continue, we did reasonably well. I also think it's pretty pretty pretty important to remember that Atlas was involved during the time period prior to the vaccines being available; that certainly changed the calculus vis-a-vis deaths and serious complications, as well as slowing down the spread).

[Bored Lawyer]

"reasonably well" compared to what? Had we taken a different tactic, would the end result, on balance, have been better or worse?

What bothers me most is that the metric of how "well" we have done considers only how many lives were saved, but not the collateral costs. That is at the heart of his criticism, which is valid regardless of what specialty Dr. Atlas had.

[loki13]

Well, Scott Atlas just want to sell books. And he doesn't have very much credibility. So I don't think his points are very good- it's easy to look back at something and say, "It coulda woulda shoulda been different," but the one thing we know is that when he was in a position to effectuate change, he was a disaster because he lacks any necessary background.

As for the rest, it's a rather banal point- cost benefit analysis. Sure, I agree with that. But-

1. I haven't actually seen it done; just people motioning toward other costs (of course there would be!) without taking into account benefits- or costs of other courses of action.

2. As I wrote, it's easy to look back at things and say "Yeah, it coulda woulda shoulda been different!" Great- someone do an actual analysis (not a partisan book) for the next pandemic. But everyone can call the right play on Monday. That doesn't get you off the couch and coaching, bud.

[Don Nico]

Loki,
Some work has been published in peer-reviewed journals:
"Health Outcomes and Costs of Community Mitigation Strategies for an Influenza Pandemic in the United States
D. J. Perlroth, R J. Glass, V. J. Davey, D. Cannon, A. M. Garber, & D. K. Owens
and
"COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink," Ari R. Joffe, Frontiers in Public Health | http://www.frontiersin.org

[loki13]

And I think those will be helpful moving forward. But to use the conclusion of the first paper (about influenza, but, well, you know)-
"Multilayered mitigation strategies that include adult and child social distancing, use of antivirals, and school closure are cost-effective for a moderate to severe pandemic. Choice of strategy should be driven by the severity of the pandemic, as defined by the case fatality rate and infectivity."

Yes. The public health measures taken should reflect the severity of a pandemic. The severity is fatality and transmissibility.

Okay ... 🙂

[David Nieporent]

1. I haven't actually seen it done; just people motioning toward other costs (of course there would be!) without taking into account benefits- or costs of other courses of action.

He's not even taking into account costs of this course of action! He's just handwaving about what the costs could be!

Suicides have been significantly lower since the pandemic began. Does he tell you that? No, he dances around that with context-free claims about people thinking about suicide.

[M L]

The negligence and defiant incompetence of all this has been staggering. The cowardice and stupidity of bureaucrats infuriating. And the useful idiots keep defending it by attacking people like Scott Atlas. But moreover, destroying a generation is a profit opportunity or even an end in itself for the malicious.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the people whose opinions you agree with are the only legitimate experts.

destroying a generation is a profit opportunity
You sound like a communist here talking about late stage capitalism.

[Bored Lawyer]

That can be said of both sides. How about we evaluate their arguments on the merits, and not worry about whose "side" they are on?
Oh, wait, that would actually take thought and hard work. And the concusion might be, there is some truth to both sides, and the policy we should adopt in the next pandemic might be more complicated than "Trump is our Saviour" or "Trump is the Devil."

[Sarcastr0]

It is an opinion piece - a polemic. It didn't give you food for thought, it just gave you warm fuzzies for agreeing with you.

Tell me, what specific points do you think were worth discussing?

[Bored Lawyer]

I delineated them. Go read what I posted.
On a very high level, (1) cost-benefit analysis, and (2) whether natural immunity should be given any credence. You might add (3) whether alternate strategies (such as in Florida) were just as effective in mitigating Covid related deaths and infection. (He makes a good point that you need to adjust the data for age. Florida has many more elderly than other states, so that skews the data.)

[Sarcastr0]

Cost-benefit analysis - an opinion. And an unsupported one other than table pounding about the costs I could see.

There is no scientific consensus on the relative benefit of natural immunity vs. vaccine. Policy opinions differ from country to country, but anyone claiming a slam dunk is trying to sell you something.

And it's too early to evaluate alternate strategies, other than as a matter of opinion.

In other words, there is no substance to engage with there.

[loki13]

" whether alternate strategies (such as in Florida) were just as effective in mitigating Covid related deaths and infection. (He makes a good point that you need to adjust the data for age. Florida has many more elderly than other states, so that skews the data.)"

I think there are interesting issues related to Florida. But that's the simplicity of his analysis- he only looks for things in his favor. Adjust for age to make Florida look better? Okay, then. But there are other factors that differentiate Florida from other places- including mass transit, population density, certain health factors, and so on. You'd have to control for quite a lot, not just age (and FWIW, Florida isn't the oldest state in the union- even though it has a lot of old retirees, it has a lot of young people there too, meaning that states like West Virginia are older- IIRC Maine is the oldest state on average).

But with that in mind, I think at some point people will need to pay attention to how the results differed from state-to-state. And while I don't think things were as rosy in Florida as some proponents were claiming, I do think it might be instructive that Florida ended up much better than many people feared.

But that requires the type of sober analysis that I'm not seeing from this op-ed.

[David Nieporent]

And while I don't think things were as rosy in Florida as some proponents were claiming, I do think it might be instructive that Florida ended up much better than many people feared.

The thing is, Florida did much better in the first wave than people feared. But it ended up catching down to the worst states because it has done so badly in more recent waves.

[dwb68]

Looks like comments are turned off on Coleman's post on biological sense. Makes sense, people have lost all critical thinking skills when it comes to identity politics.

Biology matters.

I think that the thinking here in women's sports is that is that biological sex does not matter in other areas (say learning science), ergo people are afraid to make a distinction in areas where biology does matter (to avoid a bad precedent "Well we still have women's swimming why not a chess club..."). Testosterone certainly does have a differential effect on the brain, just not the kind that changes the ability to learn differential equations or write Python.

Also, please dont tell me that this is an argument against women in the military. War is no longer hand to hand combat. Technology compensates for biology. Women are smaller and actually better suited for small confined spaces like a tank and fighter cockpit.

[Fort Worth Lawyer]

Agree. Joe Rogan should have her on his podcast. He has had a number of experts in this area on.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am grateful my children will get to compete economically with the type of people who disdain Harvard and Yale while looking to Joe Rogan's comedy broadcasts for expertise.

Carry on, clingers.

[Sarcastr0]

I like the start of her post, but by the end her comparison of testosterone level to height doesn't have sufficient support.

It's also a bit of nutpicking to argue against the position that testosterone doesn't matters at all in performance. I'd prefer if she argued against policies, not against ideology.

[loki13]

This is what I wrote before I realized that the comments were closed-

I am reminded of a story I once heard about the Clinton administration. There was a presentation regarding how much better it would be if there was a federal program to encourage clean needles - needle exchanges, etc. (you know, for drug users). The rationale and numbers behind it were impeccable- it would save money and save lives. But it was shot down because, as Bill said, the politics sucked.

I agree that there are real and meaningful differences in the athletic performance between those with high T levels (generally born 'male') and those with lower T levels (generally born female). The question is- accepting this, what do you do with it?

To begin with, I think many Americans have seen the beneficial effects of Title IX and the growth of women's sports. It's also important to have avenues for that competition at the highest level- whether it's the Olympics, or professional leagues.

On the other hand, I also think many (not all, as you can tell from the comments) believe that transgender kids and young adults should also be allowed to play sports and to participate. And I wouldn't want to remove that option from them.

As such, I think that it is reasonable for the highest levels of sport to have some sort of guidelines regarding T levels, and that these aren't necessary at lower levels. What constitutes the lower levels? What about, for example, collegiate sports?

I'm not sure- I think it's a conversation worth having. Unfortunately, these types of discussions tend to get derailed quickly by the "bathroom police."

[Josh R]

In defense of Coleman, she distinguished between competitive and recreational environments in her first post.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I agree that there are real and meaningful differences in the athletic performance between those with high T levels (generally born 'male') and those with lower T levels (generally born female). "

Where "generally" means "almost exclusively, aside from relatively rare medical conditions.

"As such, I think that it is reasonable for the highest levels of sport to have some sort of guidelines regarding T levels, and that these aren't necessary at lower levels."

I think this actually gets it backwards: A man competing in the highest levels of women's sports will, for most sports, dominate only if they're well above average to begin with. Competing in the lower levels, they don't even need to be very much above average.

[loki13]

"I think this actually gets it backwards: A man competing in the highest levels of women's sports will, for most sports, dominate only if they're well above average to begin with. Competing in the lower levels, they don't even need to be very much above average."

No, not at all. You completely miss the point (not a surprise). And I'm going to avoid your use of loaded and leading terms (shocked, I know).

The issue is fairly simple- at the very highest and most competitive level for women's sports, there are serious issues related to having high-T competitors. Simply put, without some limiting principle, the advantages that would accrue could eventually cause those sports to be dominated by high-T competitors; this is the issue alluded to related to the medal stand for the 800m. As a society, we have recognized that it is beneficial to segregate men and women in most athletic endeavors, especially as you get more competitive and older.

On the other hand, at lower levels, it just doesn't matter as much. A much more serious issue is the level of opprobrium and discrimination faced by people due to their peers (middle school and high school can be rough, even if you do fit in) and, well, by people like you, Brett.

Yeah, you make life worse for people. Congratulations?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Simply put, without some limiting principle, the advantages that would accrue could eventually cause those sports to be dominated by high-T competitors;"

Rather like men's sports, only at a much lower testosterone level, then? And the tall will dominate basketball, too, I expect.

[loki13]

Eventually, it could (I use the term advisedly) lead to the crowding out of a good portion of what constitute women's athletics at the highest level.

I don't think anyone wants that. There has been some pretty good work by Joanna Harper (herself a transgender woman and runner as well as an advisor to various sporting bodies) showing how some of these distinctions truly matter, and other don't.

Issues involving intersex athletes, such as Castor Semenya, are even more tragic and fraught.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be clear, when you refer to "high T competitors", are you referring to guys calling themselves women? Or XX chromosome people who just have naturally high T levels? Because there are a lot of people in this debate who actively attempt to obscure this point.

Basically all sports where testosterone makes a difference are already dominated at the higher levels by people with high T levels, male and female. Just like basketball is dominated by tall people.

But as the OP points out, men are categorically different from women who just happen to have unusually high testosterone levels for a woman.

[Ben_]

So you could counter with they have no such explicitly written policy or that’s only the policy in one individual place, so it doesn’t signify anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Screw you and your assumption of bad faith.

I think there is more utility here in arguing for/against hypothetical policies compared to real ideologues.
Do you disagree?

[VinniUSMC]

Screw you and your assumption of bad faith.

lol, did you you see yourself in a mirror?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know what bad faith means?
Even where a bunch of people defended a really deceitful Breitbart article, I didn't say they were lying, just that they were taken in by Breitbart because they wanted to believe.

Ben decided the metric I chose was so I could dismiss it later based on empty speculation.

Can you find a place where I do that?

[Ben_]

I recognize behavior patterns. People continue to behave according to their pattern and only usually change as a result of some significant event.

Christmas time is a good time to rethink whether you want to continue running interference for grifters and people who want Americans' lives to be worse.

[Sarcastr0]

You have a picture in your head of me untrue, and born from spite.

As for invoking Jesus as being on the side of conservatives, well, that says more about your pridefulness than it does about Jesus. You don't get to speak for Him.

[ThePublius]

"War is no longer hand to hand combat. Technology compensates for biology. Women are smaller and actually better suited for small confined spaces like a tank and fighter cockpit."

That's baloney. There is still a lot of combat requiring a physical presence, physical strength, and, in my opinion, lots of testosterone.

Also, women get periods which alters moods; women get pregnant, which will ultimately disqualify them for combat roles. Etc., etc.

Question: should a woman who becomes pregnant while on a combat assignment be charged with desertion? After all, it's a ticket home, unavailable to men.

[dwb68]

That's right, men are never moody, lol.

Women are overall much more natural at precision shooting. The lack of testosterone makes them calmer, more focused, and relaxed. Men have a hard time controlling their breathing.

[Absaroka]

"Women are overall much more natural at precision shooting."

???
Can you share more of your evidence for this? I ask because I ran co-ed shooting matches for years, and haven't seen any evidence that one sex or the other has an innate advantage.

I thought maybe I was out of touch, so I looked up Olympic shooting records. I didn't do a deep analysis, but it doesn't look like the women's records are generally much better than the men's.

[dwb68]

I got the booster yesterday. I meant to be hyperbolic, but clearly the little machines they implanted changed my words.

[Absaroka]

Ah! You gotta be careful. There's a rumor going around that Trump's vaccine was secretly designed by Big Pharma to make you more likely to vote republican, to stop new corporate taxes. We'll see in the midterms.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Men have a hard time controlling their breathing."

Yeah, but women are given to hysterics. They've even got an organ devoted to it.

Seriously?

[dwb68]

I can make anything I want up about gender stereotypes on the internet. No evidence needed!

[ThePublius]

That's B.S. I have been engaged in competitive shooting since I was 12, and continue into retirement age. I happen to know a couple of Olympians, both male and female. I give the edge to the men. I don't think there would be any female Olympic gold medalists if there weren't separate competitions for men and women.

[Krayt]

The pilot in Aliens was a chick because they ripped off Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein.

Robert Heinlein used female pilots because they were theorized as being better fighter (not transport) pilots because they were smaller, and the smaller the animal, the more G forces it could sustain.

This should give an advantage with tighter turns at higher speeds for women. 10% is not negligible.

Anyway, nothing came of it due to sexism, and now it's approaching irrelevance with better and longer range missiles and drones.

[John F. Carr]

I didn't see a clear indication that comments were closed, only a missing comment box, and I spent several minutes trying to figure out if the software update I installed last night had broken the web page. There are a bunch of errors and warnings in the browser console. They seem to be unrelated.

[dwb68]

Comments work here but not there. Looks like there were closed.

[rsteinmetz]

I tried for quite a while to post a comment there, but failed. I notice that comments were closed would be nice.

[Alan Vanneman]

I have a post up at my blog, "Literature R Us", to wit:

Passive-aggressive hypocrisy hath made its masterpiece: The Volokh Conspiracy’s conspiracy against the rule of law

Discuss!

http://www.avanneman.com/passive-aggressive-hypocrisy-hath-made-its-masterpiece-the-volokh-conspiracys-conspiracy-against-the-rule-of-law/

[loki13]

"Much, though not all, of my skepticism is due to the fact that, in one post, whose link I sadly neglected to save, Prof. Volokh says that it was Prof. Blackman who convinced him of the constitutionality of these laws, because, by my book, if Prof. Blackman said it, it’s jive—well, 73% of the time."

1. Are you sure that's true? I mean ... oh boy. If EV has been getting his First Amendment pointers from JB it would explain a lot over the last two years. None of it good. Wow.

2. 73% is overly generous.

[loki13]

Okay, serious analysis?

1. I don't think that refereeing to EV as "Gene," even in a polemic, is very persuasive. It assumes familiarity (or disdain).

2. I am uncomfortable with what I can only describe as a continual return to the religion/ethnicity of the VC. It feels ... icky. And the dual loyalty is really not a very pleasant accusation for very good reason.

3. Okay, building on 2. I started the essay (and made the first comment) thinking you had some great points, but ... uh ... yeah. That really went in a direction I was not suspecting, and did not enjoy.

[ducksalad]

I thought if Loki13 was commenting it might be worth looking at. Loki13 misled me.

[loki13]

Sorry- I made the first comment after reading a little bit.

... and then ... well .... yeah.

[ducksalad]

It's all right, man. It was an accident.

[Jacob Grimes]

This case is a good illustration of how willing courts and ethics boards are to punish lawyer speech. It's pretty outrageous, and I'm surprised it didn't make it onto this blog given the authors' work on related proposed ABA rules.

https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/2021/28037.html

Basically, the guy wrote crude facebook posts outside of work, none of which were directed to or implicated anyone or anything related to a legal proceeding or the profession. The court focused on two, one about how women shouldn't have tattoos, and the other calling George Floyd a shitstain whose life didn't matter. A bunch of people complained to the ethics board for the South Carolina Appellate Court, which is apparently separate from the normal state disciplinary board, and the board held that he violated a rule that lawyers should "maintain the dignity of the legal system."
He threw himself at the mercy of the court, didn't cite the First Amendment as a defense, and the state supreme court was all too eager to wave their collective fingers at him and suspend him for several months, as well as undergo mental health examinations!

It's a short opinion, so you should read it for yourself, but in my opinion, the court's reasoning is absurd and I wonder if it would have turned out differently had he fought it.

[loki13]

"Importantly, however, Respondent does not raise a First Amendment issue. His attorney wrote the Court after oral argument stating, 'We do not think it is necessary for the Court to address First Amendment issues.'"

Game. Set. Match.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yeah, bad lawyering did him in. The Court should have considered the First Amendment issue anyway. This was not a normal proceeding -- it was a disciplinary hearing. In that context, the Court should be extra vigilant not to overstep its bounds. Particularly where Constitutional rights are at play.

[loki13]

Well, there's that. But also this was an agreement. The attorney admitted to the misconduct and accepted a suspension of up to six months along with the collateral issues (related to anger management). So the punishment was going to happen, it's just a question of degree.

Since he was already suspended, and the suspension was retroactive, it appears that the effect is that he is no longer suspended.

(I don't know about S. Car. specifically, but this is a surprisingly harsh result given the facts IMO. This makes me think that there may have been some other issues that the attorney wanted to sweep under the rug by entering into the agreement.)

[Jacob Grimes]

That he had other undisclosed issues is an interesting possibility.

I found this case referenced in the briefs in Greenberg v. Haggerty, which EV wrote about here: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/08/lawyer-speech-code-blocked-on-first-amendment-grounds/

One of the PA disciplinary board officials specifically said in an affidavit that he disagreed with this case and that PA wouldn't enforce the disputed Rule 8.4(g) that way (the Greenberg case is ongoing because the PA Supreme Court adopted a revised version of the rule after the old version was struck down).

[Bored Lawyer]

"This makes me think that there may have been some other issues that the attorney wanted to sweep under the rug by entering into the agreement."

Yes, that's possible. Although that, too, would disturb me for a disciplinary committee to do. If the guy say, stole from his client, I would be disheartened to think they would let him cop to posting rude things on Facebook.

BUt we will never know.

[loki13]

No, we won't. But I usually think about this in terms like this-

If someone is falling on their sword before the Bar, then there is usually a reason for it. And if the punishment given is at the higher level (although still the equivalent of ending his suspension), there's a reason for that, too.

My suspicion is it isn't stealing client money or a trust account (those always get you nailed), it's more along the lines of ... maybe an underlying issue causing the anger management? But what do I know.

All I know is that they took the deal. And there's usually a reason for that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The identified evidence should never warrant a suspension. Jerks have rights, too.

It is difficult to dismiss the prospect that this man hit some submerged obstacles along the way to what seems a suspension-by-consent.

[apedad]

Yeah, suspension is too harsh here.

Prolly one of the times where the-process-is-the-punishment would have been enough, and just having the hearing and letting him off with the diversity training would have sufficed.

Not that it would do this creep any good.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Too harsh for the recounted circumstances.

There might be more to this story, though. Which, if true, should have been published.

[Brett Bellmore]

He probably should have just falsified documents to try to frame a President. Apparently that's a minor offense.

DC Bar Restores Convicted FBI Russiagate Forger While He’s Still Serving Probation

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know the standards for what counts as minor to the DC Bar.

I do know (as do you) that the falsification was material, but would not have changed any of the outcomes of the investigation, nor the decision to move forward with the investigation.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Fact pattern: A woman is in what she calls an abusive relationship and reacts to that by consuming copious amounts of alcohol on a day by day basis.

Typical Reaction: People are horrified that a woman would have to resort of alcoholism to deal with domestic abuse.

Fact pattern: A man is in what he calls is an abusive relationship and reacts by regularly consuming alcohol.

Typical Reaction: How dare he blame his wife for HIS problem!

Welcome to: Ben Affleck discovers modern sexism

[loki13]

I am fascinated by the XMasPartyGate scandal out of the UK.

It's so refreshing after the past five years to see a good old fashioned political scandal. Involving relatively small stakes, and the bumbling incompetence of people covering up something stupid.

[jimc5499]

I have a question. It may sound simple until you think about it.

How old do you have to be to have your Rights, that are defined in the Constitution?

[ThePublius]

That's the central question in the abortion debate, in my opinion. My view is that it's approximately negative 7 months.

[ducksalad]

Are you counting 14th amendment equal protection, with age as a protected class, as one the rights?

[David Bremer]

Maybe I've spent too much time doomscrolling today, but I'm coming around to the view that the Omicron variant is going to take us straight back to lockdowns.

Only only need to look at places like South Africa, the U.K., Denmark, which are seeing huge spikes in the number of cases - often eclipsing last year's case spikes. Which state has the highest growth rate right now? Connecticut, where the Omicron variant is spreading despite having the 3rd highest vaccination rate in the country.

Even if you think this variant isn't as bad (and it's too early to know that for certain), the sheer numbers are insane. And even mild cases can cause long-term, maybe irreversible effects. At this rate, I'm wondering whether our kids will still be in school come March.

[loki13]

The thing is, from what I've seen we know the following-

1. It's ripping through the population like a hot knife through butter. This includes people that are vaccinated and people that have previously had COVID. What's worse is that there is a sizeable contingent of Americans that have gotten a single shot, or their second dose some time ago ... and haven't bothered with a booster (which appears to make a noticeable difference for Omicron).

2. On the other hand, everything we've seen to date, including the preliminary data out of South Africa, indicates that Omicron is not as severe. But that's a maybe, because there's still some confounding effects given the small sample sizes so far AFAIK- mostly because vaccination and v+booster notably reduces severity, but it may also just generally be less severe.

3. On the third hand, it is spreading so fast and so wide that the numbers might just start overwhelming our resources.

It's like groundhog day (the movie).

[Stephen Lathrop]

1. The ignition source now (amount of virus in circulation) is many multiples stronger than what it was in early March 2020, when the first wave got going.

2. On the other hand, the fuel supply (Covid-naive population) is notably smaller.

3. The timing is worse now, with a longer interval until indoor ventilation gets its seasonal improvement next spring.

4. If schools are going to close, it could well happen before March.

5. Political resistance to school closings will be widespread, stubborn, and maybe even foolish. Which probably means few blanket closings, but instead a policy to try to close and reopen schools individually, as they get case spikes.

6. If school closings and reopenings become both commonplace and chaotic, the strain on school staff and bus drivers could become overwhelming. Hard-to-schedule extra burdens on parents will damage the economy.

7. Expect strong political resistance to further economic relief targeted at bolstering the economy. Republicans especially will see a chance to inflict economic damage prior to the mid-terms as a gift from heaven, and an opportunity for pay-back on what happened to Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

At some point we're going to have to distinguish between a virus spreading, and an emergency.

And, at this point, it's the 'economic relief' that's doing most of the economic damage.

[Sarcastr0]

And yet you supported Trump's emergency declaration to build the Wall.

I agree with you we need a way to not just leave thus up to the President, but this is a mighty convenient time to see the light.

[Brett Bellmore]

The National Emergency Act clearly authorized what Trump did. I've said that the National Emergency Act is a bad law, and should be changed, but he was following it.

I would also say that a massive spike in illegal immigration actually does constitute an "emergency", or at least is not unreasonably described as such. And border fortifications such as walls are plausibly military in nature.

Sarcastro, "emergencies" are things that are "emergent", inherently. The same event that can reasonably be called an "emergency" when it first happens, if it continues eventually has to stop being called an emergency.

If Covid isn't going away, we need to stop treating it as emergency, and revert to responses that are actually sustainable, and tolerable in the long run. I think we're at that point now. We need to reclaim our rights, stop shutting things down, and call an end to emergency powers, and just learn to live with Covid. It's simply not deadly enough that we can't do that, it isn't the black death or super Ebola, it's not even clear that Omicron is even worse than your average influenza in terms of symptoms.

Now, that doesn't mean ignoring it. We really need to end a lot of the bureaucratic obstacles to medical advance that are slowing vaccine development. If things are remotely bad enough to justify the measures we've seen, surely they're bad enough to justify THAT, reform the FDA so that it stops being such a drag on medical progress. If it's not bad enough for bureaucratic reform, then it's not remotely bad enough for vaccine mandates.

[Sarcastr0]

Your logic on immigration applies just as well to this virus. It's a background thing. There was no extraordinary spike. Unlike this virgin soil pandemic that has yet to become endemic.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've shown you the graph before. There absolutely was an extraordinary spike.

Mind, it would be even higher today, but that's a graph of apprehensions, and when Biden took office he changed ICE policies, they're extremely limited in their authority to arrest illegal immigrants now.

[Brett Bellmore]

The existence of the spike was denied in the media at the time, that's probably what you're remembering, but it was denied by media accounts that were using obsolete data.

[Sarcastr0]

Extraordinary since 2014 is not extraordinary.

Also, pretty clearly not a timeline where a wall will help.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Brett, the distinction between a pandemic emergency and ordinary illness is easy to draw. The pandemic emergency causes large numbers of people to drastically forego normal activity, on their own. For instance, if school bus drivers are quitting en masse, that's a hint. If overall restaurant business takes a plunge, same thing, or if the movie theaters are showing to a room full of empty seats. Social symptoms like that will tend to happen if there is a disease which starts killing people by the hundreds in your local community. When you see that, you have an emergency. When it is happening that way, it is time for governors to assess whether emergency orders have a reasonable chance of ameliorating illness, death, and economic damage long term.

And by the way, if you do see that, but you can find some other place where there isn't yet much disease, or where folks seem to be ignoring similar disease levels, that does not necessarily mean there is no emergency where they are. Contagion is a thing, and it needs its own evaluation.

[Bored Lawyer]

A new opinion came out in a religious photographer refuses to do same-sex marriages . https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/CarpenterRuling.pdf
On the one hand, the case acknowledged that the photographer was being forced to express ideas in violation of her First Amendment rights. OTOH, it held that the State of NY has a compelling interest in ending discrimination to forcing her to do so. So the COurt sided with the state.
This will not doubt be appealed.

[Bob from Ohio]

Remember when opponents said that clergy would eventually be forced to perform gay marriages. No, impossible, they said. Yet it begins.

Religious belief is religious belief, if her 1A rights can't protect her, why should it protect a Pastor Carpenter?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does it bother you that a reasoning employer can be compelled to hire or retain a superstitious employee?

[Bored Lawyer]

But an employer is not compelled to affirm his employee's beliefs, which is that the photographer is being required to do.

Do you really want to be able not to hire someone merely because you believe they are "superstitious?" Did not know you were that much of a bigot.

[not guilty]

Bob from Ohio, that is a red herring. Nothing in this opinion suggests that clergy can be compelled to officiate at a same sex wedding. The District Court opined, in rejecting the Plaintiff´s claim that the statutes were not neutral or not generally applicable:

The only relevant exemption Plaintiff identifies is New York Domestic Relations Law § 10-b, which exempts religious entities and benevolent orders from being required to provide
services for “the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 316. . . .

[not guilty]

Do you claim that the District Court erred in its analysis?

I have some concerns with a dismissal at the pleading stage. I agree that strict scrutiny applies to the First Amendment claim and that New York has a compelling interest in ensuring that individuals,
without regard to sexual orientation, have equal access to publicly available goods and services. I wonder, however, whether the parties should have an opportunity for discovery and development of an evidentiary record as to whether means less restrictive of the plaintiff´s free expression rights would suffice.

[Sarcastr0]

Purdue Pharma no longer shielded from liability in opioids cases:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/16/health/purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement.html

[F.D. Wolf]

In Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction for contempt of Congress, holding that the House Committee on Un-American Activities had failed to follow its own rules. After Yellin was subpoenaed by the committee, he requested that he be allowed to testify in closed session, rather than in public. This request was denied. Rule IV of the Committee allowed for testimony in closed session based upon national security concerns or of negative publicity to the witness. The Court held the Committee, by failing to consider those factors, broke its own rule, necessitating reversal of Yellin's contempt conviction.

That supposed rule violation seems very minor compared to the violations of the January 6 Committee. The authorizing resolution for that committee, voted on and approved by the House, provides that the committee shall have 13 members, 5 of whom appointed after consultation with the Minority Leader. The committee has 9 members, not 13, and all of its members were appointed by Nancy Pelosi without consultation with the Minority Leader. In sum, what is supposed to be an 8-5 committee is, in fact, a 9-0 committee. There is no minority, so, of course, there will be no questions from the minority, as are also anticipated by the authorizing resolution.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't HUAC. And besides, I thought you guys loved HUAC.

Consultation, by it's text, does not require any specific seating. And given that the Minority Leader refused to cooperate, it's hard to see a violation.

[Brett Bellmore]

The minority leader did cooperate. "Cooperating" in this context means providing a list of minority members, NOT providing a list of Republicans that Democrats would have picked. If the committee were supposed to have all members the majority liked, no minority members would be necessary.

They violated the House resolution. And, why is the committee so small? Pelosi couldn't find 5 Republicans who would agree to her agenda for the committee.

[Sarcastr0]

You're reading a whole scenario into the text that is not there. The text says consultation, and consultation occurred.

There is no legislative history indicating this meant a quota of minority members.

When McConnell withdrew the names and the Dems populated the committee as they saw fit, neither side called that illegal at the time, just partisan.

What you are doing is exactly the kind of rationalizing that you caricature living constitutionalists to do, except in this case it's real, and with a statute, and with language that has no ambiguity!

[Sarcastr0]

Plus, picking actual Jan 6 conspirator Jim Jordan does not count as cooperating.

[apedad]

Let's see, the resolution sez: (a) Appointment Of Members.—The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.

So Pelosi did the consultation (and consultation does not mean acquiesce), and then made the appointments so no problem there.

So now there's a problem of not have the full five minority members - and I agree that's not meeting the resolution requirements.

I did a quick google search of what the House should do when a resolution requirements are not being met but couldn't find anything, so am not sure what the official remedy is (there could be an official remedy - just saying I couldn't quickly find it).

OK, minority party, whatcha gonna do?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/503/text

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that consultation normally DOES mean acquiescence. The very point of having minority members is defeated if the majority picks them!

[apedad]

". . .consultation normally DOES NOT mean acquiescence."

FTFY

[Sarcastr0]

Except that consultation normally DOES mean acquiescence.

No it doesn't. Where did you pull that out of, Brett?

[David Nieporent]

No, Brett. No living constitutionalism for you. Consult does not mean acquiesce, ever. Two different words. I assure you that these are experienced legislators, who know how to say “five of whom shall be appointed by the minority“ when they want to.

[David Nieporent]

There was no violation. It doesn’t say that all 13 people must serve. It says that 13 must be appointed. Pelosi did that. Three of McCarthy’s choices plus two additional ones.

[apedad]

Oh, and Pelosi did accept three other Reps for the committee who McCarthy chose, but McCarthy pulled them when she didn't rejected Jordan and Banks.

So not sure how that factors into things.

[Michael P]

No, this is HUDC. That's why it only has 9 of the mandated 13 members. Your argument about "consultation" is like saying that because the Constitution says the President shall appoint people "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate", the Senate is obliged to consent.

[Sarcastr0]

...Do you want to try that analogy again?

[David Nieporent]

Um, even though “consult” and “consent” have a lot of the same letters, they are totally different words. (Not that your analogy would make sense anyway.)

[David Nieporent]

Thanks for parroting the laughable Eastman suit.

But no. The Yellin rules were designed for the protection of the witness. So it’s somewhat reasonable that a witness would have standing to complain about them not being followed. That’s nothing remotely like this. A witness has no legal interest in the makeup of the committee.

Also, like Eastman, you don’t understand what the word “consultation” means. Pelosi did consult. Moreover, you’re just lying; there are two Republicans on the committee.

[Jimmy the Dane]

There is a lot of hand waving going on about vaccine effectiveness and at least some publicly visible side effects that might be linked to the vaccine. It is making a lot of people wonder if we just all got hoodwinked over the last year from a massive propaganda campaign....