Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[dwb68]

How everyone flamed me months ago for claiming the left has embraced the fringe theory of MMT (https://www.axios.com/male-economists-are-freaking-out-over-a-nyt-profile-512af8ae-e55f-44c9-9ccc-1f763a91cd7f.html)... then the NYT writes a puff piece on Stephanie Kelton about MMT. Of course all the criticisms of MMT are rooted in gender. Obviously. Nothing to do with the fact that is a fringe pseudoscience. I just don't have enough estrogen in my blood to know why inflation is good.

Also, no knock warrants are back in the news. Sadly the pro police conservatives on the Supreme Court won't restrict the practice to bone fide exigent circumstances.

[bernard11]

So because the NYT writes a "puff piece" about Kelton, that means "the left" has adopted MMT?

From the NYT article:

“M.M.T. was already pretty marginal,” said Jason Furman, a Harvard economist, noting that, in his view, most policymakers and prominent academics ignored it already. Even if policy in the pandemic effectively embraced the idea that you do not have to pay for your spending, that idea, he said, was also Keynesian.

And the M.M.T crowd, while dismissing the Fed’s role, has not come up with a clear and obviously workable idea for how to stem inflation, he argued, adding, “If you were open-minded, this would discredit it still further.”

Here is a good discussion of the reaction of economists to MMT.

Some excerpts:

This article aroused the anger of just about every macroeconomist on Twitter, and with good reason — it demonstrates very little understanding of the issues at play or the state of the policy debate, and it rhetorically elevates a fringe ideology to a position of importance and centrality that it neither occupies nor deserves.

When Drumetz Françoise and Pfister Christian of the Banque de France read Kelton’s book and tried to comprehend the essence of MMT, they concluded:

Overall, it appears that MMT is based on an outdated approach to economics and that the meaning of MMT is a more that of a political manifesto than of a genuine economic theory…As Hartley (2020) notes, MMT “is not a falsifiable scientific theory: it is rather a political and moral statement by those who believe in the righteousness – and affordability – of unlimited government spending to achieve progressive ends”.
...

Finally,

In other words, there was no conceivable state of the Universe in which MMT people would not have taken a victory lap. They always take victory laps, all day long, rain or shine. When you have an unfalsifiable meme complex instead of a concrete and falsifiable theory, it’s easy to claim that your ideas cannot fail, they can only be failed.

Oh. And Krugman is no fan either.

I consider MMT the cryptocurrency of macroeconomics: It sounds edgy and forward-looking, but when you press its devotees on what exactly is its point, what it can do that you can’t do better using more conventional approaches, the response is a lot of bombast but no clear answer.

So maybe slow down on claiming "the left" has gone ga-ga over MMT.

[dwb68]

In the third paragraph it calls her "the star architect of a movement that is on something of a victory lap. "

Progressives latched onto MMT because it promised them a "free" way to fund all that social spending without facing the inflationary consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

...How important do you think the NYT is to the progressive movement?

[Queen Amalthea]

I always think this is funny. So many conservatives have been fed this line about the NYT as 'Democrat media.' Like most urban, professional institutions the Times does 'lean left.' But they are also like the ref at the kid's soccer game and his kid is playing and so he goes out of his way to call things on 'both sides' to show he's living up to his professional standards (that's a feature, not a but in general).

Anyone who actually talks to or reads actual progressives much knows they *despise* the Times.

[M L]

Some on the far left hate the NYT like some on the far right hate Fox News. No difference.

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm glad to know most of the folks here are 'far-right.'

[Kazinski]

That's funny, moving the goalposts like that.

Because everyone one knows the NYT is not the house wing of AOC, Primilla Jaypal and Bernie Sanders, because their revolution doesn't need any rationalization by academia to sell to their supporters.

The NYT is the house organ for Schumer, Biden, and Pelosi to give them a fig leaf to go along.

[Sarcastr0]

The NYT is the house organ for Schumer, Biden, and Pelosi to give them a fig leaf to go along.

Your support for this is...?

You want to look at what a house organ looks like, look at FOX. Coordination and advice via meetings and e-mails with the admin. Appearances in the campaign.

It's not easy to hide.

[Queen Amalthea]

"The NYT is the house organ for Schumer, Biden, and Pelosi to give them a fig leaf to go along."

Mantras and talking points don't need evidence, they just need repeating.

[Roman Moroni]

I'm sure the far left thinks the NYT is too mainstream. But if the center/left media embraces a far left idea, doesn't that make it even more successful than if some fringy commie rag thinks it's a good idea?

I'm not saying that's what's happening with MMT. Just exploring your comment in general to see what you mean.

[bernard11]

And Smith's article pretty much refutes all that. I guess you couldn't be bothered to read it because it might upset your preconceived notions.

What a NYT reporter writes is not the definitive statement of the views of liberal economists.

[dwb68]

The left is no longer taking heed of the warnings of "liberal economists" like Summers. Summers has been warning about inflation for a while now. Obama's proposal to cut the corporate tax (2015?) now looks like a downright Republican idea compared to the leftist politicians promoting the BBB today, who have all embraced this deficits-can-do-no-wrong theory of MMT**. Thankfully there is one Democrat (Manchin) who stood up for reality.

Noah Smith's criticism on MMT is spot on. Unfortunately, its Crazy Bernie's and AOC's Democratic party now. Not the one of JFK.

**please don't give me the bullshit its paid for.

[dwb68]

In fact, I even cited Summer's concerns over inflation last spring. Instead, the Democrats went on to pour a lot of gasoline on the fire. Speaking of infrastructure, when are the potholes outside my window getting fixed? Or didn't the infrastructure package actually fund infrastructure. Wait for it, the projects weren't shovel ready or something.

[Sarcastr0]

Noah Smith's criticism on MMT is spot on. Unfortunately, its Crazy Bernie's and AOC's Democratic party now. Not the one of JFK.
Maybe you're right (though I think you're super wrong), but an NYT article is not very good evidence for that thesis.

Speaking of infrastructure, when are the potholes outside my window getting fixed? Or didn't the infrastructure package actually fund infrastructure.
WTF is this sophistry? This bill didn't solve all related problems, which means it solved no related problems? You're not this dumb.

[David Nieporent]

You're not this dumb.

Is a statement like that ever actually true?

[Kazinski]

Larry Summers has pretty much the same concerns as dwb68, so claiming he is misreading the article won't really fly:
"“I am sorry to see the @nytimes taking MMT seriously as an intellectual movement. It is the equivalent of publicizing fad diets, quack cancer cures or creationist theories,” Summers tweeted."

And of course Summers concerns aren't really about MMT, it's about misagony:

Male economists are freaking out over a NYT profile

[Sarcastr0]

Criticizing the NYT is fine.

dwb68 goes quite a bit beyond this, and claims this means 'the left has embraced' MMT.

That's the ridiculous part.

[Kazinski]

Well what would you call BBB other than straight out MMT?

You aren't as dishonest as Biden or Psaki calling it "fully paid for", are you?

[bernard11]

I wouldn't call it MMT. That's ridiculous.

First of all, a policy proposal and an economic theory are two different things.

Second, just because something involves deficit spending (and much of BBB was to be paid for) doesn't make it a herald of the triumph of MMT.

Neither you nor dwb know what you are talking about.

[Sarcastr0]

...You think all spending is MMT now?

Do you know what MMT is, and what it calls for?

[Kazinski]

Sarcastro, you know a lot about the subjects you know about.

You don't know jack about economics.

And asking stupid questions like: "Do you know what MMT is, and what it calls for?", makes you look like an idiot.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I disagree with you on economics. Don't just call me ignorant. I had my MMT phase in grad school, even.

You took a spending bill and declared it was based on MMT principles. That's not what MMT is. It is, however, cloaking partisan policy interests with economics.

[bernard11]

What do you call the defense budget, if not MMT?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Necessary for National Defense and worldwide stability

Here's a fun chart though, which has Defense spending in the US (inflation adjusted) compared with education (also inflation adjusted). Remember, for much of this time, defense was completely "paid" for.

https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/edgraph.html

Starting from 1950, US defense spending has averaged approximately $500 billion (Constant 2021 us dollars). It's gone up and down in that timeframe, and is approximately $700 billion now. A modest increase over the time period, given population and gdp gains.

Meanwhile education spending has skyrocketed from approximately $100 billion in 1950 to $1.5 Trillion today

[Sarcastr0]

I have a hard time believing the F-35 is necessary for anything.

[BillyG]

The F-18 (A-D models) were reaching end of life and needing to be retired. You can only fly an airplane for so long before you risk mid-air breakup. What's your alternative? Decommission them without replacement?

[Sarcastr0]

1) Switch to modernization and end of life extension like the A10 program

2) Use F-22s instead.

3) Buy a fighter suited to a single purpose, not a boondogle that is not yet airworthy and tries to be multifunction while being expensive and bad at everything.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not yet airworthy "

What are you blabbering about? The F-35 has been operational for multiple years with multiple countries. Even flown multiple combat missions for us, Brits and especially the Israelis.

What exactly was you alleged Pentagon work? Washing floors? Or working in the gift shop?

[Armchair Lawyer]

1) You can't "modernize" an airframe that's been flying that long.

2) The F-22 would've cost more to restart the production. Blame Obama for that.

3). Now you're an expert on military aircraft too? Wow.

[Sarcastr0]

The F-35 hasn't met the testing standards the AF requires to enter full production.
A lot of that is software issues.

The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) approved entering formal IOT&E on December 3, 2018. DOT&E notes that the F-35 enters IOT&E with 873 unresolved deficiencies, 13 of which are classified as “Category 1 ‘must-fix’ items that affect safety or combat capability.”
The program’s high concurrency means there may be substantial costs to incorporate the lessons of testing: “IOT&E, which provides the most credible means to predict combat performance, likely will not be completed until … over 600 aircraft will already have
been built.”

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

AL -

1) look up the A10. Or the B-52 - last one produced in 1962 and still flying today.

2) The F-22 would've cost more to restart the production than *developing and producing the F-35?* Maybe you'd have some diminishing manufacturing source issues, but not to that extent.

3) Thinking theF-35 is a boondoggle is not exactly a hot take, AL.

[Frank Drackman]

Have nearly 200 hrs in FA-18D's (OK, as a Flight Doc, I could enter Waypoints, call for take off clearance like a Mo-Fo) BUNO 164886 was my first flight (still flying last I checked) They're 30 years younger than the B-52's Sleepy's sending to Poland.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1) The A-10 and B-52 are subsonic aircraft. Supersonic aircraft are in a different class, and have different stresses that reduce the effective time they can be flown.

2) You're arguing about decisions that were made under Obama and Gates more than 10 years ago. Restarting the F-22 production NOW would cost far more than continuing with the F-35 production. Don't get me wrong, in many ways the F-22 is a superior aircraft to the F-35.

But if you're arguing about costs now, as they stand, they're just not comparable. On a per unit cost, the F-22 is approximately 50% more expensive than the F-35. That's before you factor in the costs to restart production for the F-22...which are amazingly high, because of "decisions" made by Obama and Gates to essentially get rid of all the production line facilities and equipment for the F-22.

3) The F-35 is not "bad at everything". It is, with the notable exception of the F-22, the pre-eminent fighter aircraft out there. There's a reason that it is being purchased by everyone where there's a competition. Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, & more. In government competitions, the other competitors always seem to lose...

[Sarcastr0]

If you want to get that granular about EOL, I've got bad news for you about seawater and stealth coating.

I'm talking about the F-35 program *from it's inception* as a waste of money that has not made the US more secure. A good clue of that is how I talk about the development costs of the F-35.

It is, with the notable exception of the F-22, the pre-eminent fighter aircraft out there
That's damning with faint praise considering all the functions the F-35 was sold as solving.
When is the last time we've had an air-to-air fight? I know the AF claims the current F-22 numbers are insufficient to meet their fleet needs, but last I checked we had nearly 200 of them.

And FMS is not a great sign of high quality, considering all the foreign affairs involved.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1) It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about. But let's talk about the F-35 program from its beginning then.

You claim it "has not made the US more secure". Which is an entire load of crap. You want to argue that other decisions could've been better in hindsight? Sure. But "not made the US more secure"? That's crap. The fact is, the US needed a new fighter jet, because the previous generation of F-16s, F-15s, and F-14/F-18s were hitting the end of their service. These jets were developed in the 1960s and 1970s, entering service in the 1970s. Fifty years ago.

If for no other reason than having a fighter jet to replace the ones that were being retired, the F-35 program has made the US more secure.

2) This may surprise you, but the US needs a LOT of fighter jets. That's because the US is big, with responsibilities on multiple coasts, in multiple areas of the world, and also needs a reserve. The US depends on air superiority to win conflicts. And not having it....well, we've seen what happens to America's enemies when they don't have air superiority. 186 F-22s is not enough. Not even close Not for all the responsibilities. Not when only 125 are combat coded. And they aren't carrier capable. But Obama shut down that program, due to his lack of foresight...a major flaw.

The US plans to buy over 2,000 F-35s, because yes, we need that many fighter jets. And all the old fighter jets are hitting the end of their service life.

[Sarcastr0]

The fact is, the US needed a new fighter jet, because the previous generation of F-16s, F-15s, and F-14/F-18s were hitting the end of their service. These jets were developed in the 1960s and 1970s, entering service in the 1970s. Fifty years ago.
We're still making F-15 and F-16s. Did we need a Next Gen fighter? Maybe. But was the F-35 the answer? In hindsight, certainly not.

As to your arguments that we need 5th gen air superiority all over the world, that's pretty laughable. We have basically one technological peer to deal with.

The US plans to by as many F-35s as they can because they were burnt when Congress cancelled the F-22, and it's made the DoD adopt a pretty unrealistically robust fleet strategy.

It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
Says the guy arguing the F-35 is a good use of DoD money.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"As to your arguments that we need 5th gen air superiority all over the world, that's pretty laughable."

You're telling me you DON'T want air superiority? That's a good way to lose a war. A new 4th generation F-15EX costs $87.7 million in per unit costs. A 5th generation F-35A costs $78 million

So you think we should be a LESS advanced jet at a HIGHER per unit cost to replace our worldwide fighter fleet?!?

It's a good thing you aren't in charge.....buying less advanced jets for more money....

[Roman Moroni]

What are you talking about? The F-35 is like 13 better than the F-22.

[bernard11]

So, spending you approve of.

I don't think MMT makes the distinction.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Spending "necessary" to avoid MUCH MORE spending in the future. And Spending that was covered by taxes for the most part, so not MMT.

[Sarcastr0]

Spending "necessary" to avoid MUCH MORE spending in the future

I could say the same about BBB. Or the ACA. Or any program I favor.

Spending that was covered by taxes for the most part, so not MMT.
Also could apply to literally any program. Money is fungible.

[bernard11]

And Spending that was covered by taxes for the most part, so not MMT.

Huh? How do you decide what was "covered by taxes" and what wasn't?

And where is your analysis of how much future spending the defense budget saves. You're not grasping at straws, you're grasping at air.

Besides, the whole point is insane. The US, and most other countries, have been running deficits for decades, but suddenly now you've identified the villain - MMT. Because the NYT ran an aticle that most economists, left, right, and center, think was silly.

Fucking absurd. Just another RW bogeyman, like CRT or whatever is next.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Huh? How do you decide what was "covered by taxes" and what wasn't"

Because I look at the annual budgets. Keep in mind, in constant US dollars, since 1950, the budget had been largely balanced until 1975 (Deficit to GDP ratio under 3%, average about 1-2%). That's for the entire budget. And remember, US defense spending remained fairly constant during this time. And then remained fairly constant afterwards.

What shot up? The "other" stuff, like Education, social spending, and more.

It's like this. Imagine having a 80 year lease on a property. For the first 30 years, you have a consistent payment on that mortgage, and you make it without a problem. Then suddenly, you decide you ALSO need to splurge on college. Suddenly, you're not covering costs, and need to borrow to cover the splurging...

Are you going to argue it's the lease you're suddenly borrowing money for?

[Sarcastr0]

This is shockingly ignorant.

Declaring the DoD is safe because last year we could pay for it, so this year those trillions are also not a budget issue is a fundamental misunderstanding of how budgets and money work.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Classic Sarcastro....

Completely change the argument made, and argue against that instead....

[bernard11]

That's an odd interpretation of his remarks.

[Kazinski]

Well speaking of the consequences of MMT, how's that inflation report that's out today look?

Oh:

U.S. inflation rate climbs to 7.5% after another sharp increase in consumer prices

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of potential reasons for inflation. The Biden Admin's decret adoption of MMT principles is not one of them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The reason for inflation is that there is too much currency relative to the amount of stuff to buy.

There are lots of potential reasons for that state of affairs, but the Trump and Biden admin's jacking up the money supply is indisputably one of them.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yup.

[bernard11]

Worth reading on inflation.

Note especially the discussion of the bond market and the link to Mark Zandi.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Overall, it appears that MMT is based on an outdated approach to economics and that the meaning of MMT is a more that of a political manifesto than of a genuine economic theory…As Hartley (2020) notes, MMT “is not a falsifiable scientific theory: it is rather a political and moral statement..."

Sounds a lot like CRT.

AOC has adopted MMT, and she speaks for a large part of the left.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

MMT could work if crafting of policy was done in secret and the MMT economists held themselves out as orthodox Keynesians. But the first MMT policy would have to be to pay reparations to descendants of American slaves because only making sure most Americans have savings would prevent inflation. So you want to prevent inflation—give people something to lose.

[Ben_]

When Democrats hear the story of The Emperor's New Clothes, is it a story about a Science-denying child who needs to be taught to listen to experts and stop messing things up for the elites? Is early childhood education in Critical Clothes Theory the answer?

[Jimmy the Dane]

No you have to put the kid in a mask and tell them to eat lunch outside in the freezing cold.

[Brett Bellmore]

I always said that, in the real world, that kid would have been dragged off into an alley, beaten with a rubber hose, and the Emperor would have continued parading around in the buff.

Naked Emperors do not, in the real world, embarrass easily, they know damned well they're naked, and are enjoying being able force people to say they're dressed.

[bernard11]

Naked Emperors do not, in the real world, embarrass easily, they know damned well they're naked, and are enjoying being able force people to say they're dressed.

An excellent description of Donald Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

Aside from an utter and complete lack of rubber hoses, yeah. Has there been a day in the last five years when you didn't claim he was naked, metaphorically?

[bernard11]

Was there a day he wasn't? You, Brett, and your fellows, are not the kid telling the truth, but the crowd admiring your emperor's lovely new outfit.

The part I was referring to was making people spread his known lies, to prove their loyalty. As for, rubber hoses, well maybe fire extinguishers and spears will do.

[Brett Bellmore]

And yet, nobody has hauled you into an alley, and beat you with a rubber hose. You get to yell, "Naked, naked!" to your heart's content, nobody is forcing anybody to say the opposite.

Sure, there are chickenshit politicians out there humoring their stupider constituents, (Never saw that before Trump, right?) but on your side you've got people being deplatformed if they dissent from the party line.

I tend to think that I'd rather politicians were afraid to cross their constituents, even if it sometimes results in them humoring idiocy. Not so fond of dissent being censored.

[bernard11]

Brett,

With a few exceptions the Republican Party has gone off the deep end to back up Trump's lies.

By the way, it now appears that Trump broke a variety of laws having to do with his records, including hauling classified materials to Mar-a-Lago. No complaints from the "lock her up" crowd, I guess.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Breaking news! President handles confidential information away from the White House!

[bernard11]

He shipped the materials there and left them there, you jackass.

[David Nieporent]

Um, despite what MTG may have told you, Trump is not the president.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah yes, Trump mysteriously broke into the White House after he left office to smuggle out confidential information... The Nieporent conspiracy of Trump.

Rather than the SENSICAL concept that Trump moved the documents to Mar Lago when he was President, and handled them there...when he was President...

[David Nieporent]

Armchair lawyers may not realize that real lawyers have to use facts rather than made up things. The defense offered by Trump aides was that they were in a rush to pack up the White House in January 2021 and didn't have time to go through the boxes. Not that he was using them there while he was president.

But of course whether he took them there when he was president or not, he hasn't been president since 1/20/21. It is now 2/11/22. That's more than a year in which he wasn't president in which he illegally retained both presidential records and classified documents.

[not guilty]

The National Archives and Records Administration has asked the Justice Department to examine Donald Trump’s handling of White House records. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/09/trump-archives-justice-department/ The Presidential Records Act includes no penalty provisions, but perhaps 18 U.S.C. 2071 is worth looking into:

(a)Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep hope alive!

All these crimes and no prosecutions.

[not guilty]

Merrick Garland needs to show some spine.

[Ben_]

Misinformation is dangerous, so the child should probably be punished and his parents investigated.

Regardless of the trivial detail of the clothes, it's critically important to the organization of society that authorities are never questioned. Everyone has a responsibility to go along with what experts decide. So the child is clearly the story's villain.

I hope I'm getting this right.

[Kevin Smith]

In the real world the emperor would have imprisoned the tailor for suggesting that he (the emperor) was was not worthy of his station, and then had someone make him some real clothes

[David Bremer]

Well, if hundreds or thousands of professional clothes examiners, who spent years studying whether clothes existed, how those clothes were formed and could be managed, and the best ways to determine if someone was in fact wearing clothes, used equipment that would look for objective facts to tell you about the presence of clothes, and those same experiments were then repeated by other professional clothes examiners said they existed, and the kid had for years looked for every excuse to claim the Emperor and his court were not just making wrong choices, but were evil people subversive to the country's goals, then came up with some backward reasoning as to why the clothes really weren't clothes, but were something else.....well, then maybe the kid would need to be taught something about the difference between political opinion and objective facts.

Honestly, if you would have told me that, all these years later, the most difficult subject for people to understand taught in second-grade homeroom, I would not have picked "understanding the difference between fact and opinion."

[Krayt]

You can see the value of diversity, can't you? It's not a reskin of affirmative action.

Fwiw I just wish people would be honest about it. I don't even suggest there is something wrong. It's just the whole Emperor's New Clothes aspect is a lesson in rhetoric.

[Sarcastr0]

Public shaming and ostracism are free speech and association, which I'd wager you support, at least for certain viewpoints.

The ENC is an extreme example. Once you depart from the fable, line drawing gets hard.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Public shaming and ostracism are free speech and association, which I'd wager you support, at least for certain viewpoints."

People are entitled to shame and ostracize dissenting views if they wish, but it's almost always been shown a dramatically inferior way to seek the truth than to engage with facts and reason.

[Sarcastr0]

This is high-minded, but not how humans work. The marketplace of ideas is a marketplace, not a riot.

When someone comes in denying China is engaging in genocide, I don't tend to decide it's time to come reason together with them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"When someone comes in denying China is engaging in genocide, I don't tend to decide it's time to come reason together with them."

Sure. My uncle feels the same way about people who deny that Jesus is the son of God.

It's as easy to ostracize bad ideas as it is to ostracize good ideas. But it's harder to defend bad ideas.

[Sarcastr0]

There are objective limits.

And no, it turns out not to be harder to defend bad ideas. Plenty of populist examples of that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And no, it turns out not to be harder to defend bad ideas..."

You seem to have a pretty tough time.

You're going to have to tell Kirkland to stop saying you're on the side of reason.

[Sarcastr0]

So just with the insults, then.

We don't live in your postmodernist nonjudgmental best ideas win out utopia.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So just with the insults, then."

What insults? You just said it's not harder to defend bad ideas. That's literally anti-reason.

[Sarcastr0]

Reason does not require having faith that rationality will win out in the populace in the end.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Must be tough to be so much more reasonable than the populace.

[Sarcastr0]

I read the story as an exhortation to think for yourself.
I'd wager many on here see it as a call to reject expertise.

Problem is, everyone thinks they're the child.
I'd counsel some humility on that front - humans are very good at fooling themselves, and you are all too human.

[Ben_]

I hadn't considered that thought process: every story everyone ever told is actually about ME. Hmm. I will have to re-examine the story that way.

[Ben_]

If I were anyone in a story like that, I’d be the guy who makes or sells real clothes. I’d suggest they might not be as fashionable as the Emperor’s, but definitely warmer.

I'd be wondering if everyone would eventually come to their senses and if it would happen before or after the child was burned at the stake.

The guys who make real clothes wouldn't have kind thoughts for the experts who told us all our wares were inferior to the Emperor’s weavers, and that we were incompetent for not seeing it.

[Sarcastr0]

You arrogate to yourself some special insight and independence. Consider maybe you're not special like that.

I'd like to think I'm the child, and I sometimes I probably am. But I'm also aware I'm the populace a lot, without realizing it.

For a darker example, if we were aryan-looking Germans in the 1930s, history shows how few would be free thinkers.

[Ben_]

That doesn’t seem to stop you from habitually siding with people who prefer force over inquiry.

[Sarcastr0]

Here is how we are different.

I like using institutional expertise to make government policies, via regularized and public procedures. I have opinions, but I prefer process to getting my point of view in.

You don't bother with expertise, and have your own points of view arrived at through bathing in right-wing anger. You are quite happy to instantiate your point of view through government force (e.g. abortion), throwing out those you disagree with, vigilantism, insurrection, secession, and who knows what else.
I haven't seen a means not on the table for you to get your way, really.

So you have me wrong. But you are describing yourself pretty well.

[Ben_]

That’s a lot of made up positions I have never taken.

[Sarcastr0]

Really?

You think Jan 06 was no big deal and actually an important protest.
You thought Rittenhouse was cool and good.
You think disenfranchising Democrats is good because of how evil they are.
You think ignoring gun laws is worthy.
You've expressed sympathy for the Confederacy.

[Ben_]

— Jan 6 — a protest. Protests can be unfortunate. Response to it is much, much worse than the event itself. You guys love phony drama.
— Rittenhouse: a case of self defense, just like many others. Don’t attack people if you don’t want them to defend themselves.
— Oooo "disenfranchise". Vote or don’t. It’s not up to me or anyone else to help or obstruct it.
— Gun laws: we have a constitution. It has an amendment process if you want it changed.
— no I did not express sympathy for the Confederacy. No clue what you think you're referring to. Dems like making up stories like this about people to cover for their own issues.

Your (false) second list doesn’t match your (even more false) first list.

[Sarcastr0]

You just support things that happen to be violence and nullification in service of your side.

But luckily you have an excuse for all of them as justified.

Because that's not how use of force is always rationalized!

[Ben_]

"You just support things that happen to be violence and nullification in service of your side."

Only "support", "violence", "nullification", and "your side" are made up in that sentence.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Sarc makes up stuff as part of his usual argumentation. It is because he just isn't very good at it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I read the story as an exhortation to think for yourself.
I'd wager many on here see it as a call to reject expertise."

Thinking for yourself often calls for deciding when to accept purported expertise, and when to reject it.

"I'd counsel some humility on that front..."

Humility's a good thing to have, but if you find yourself frequently harping on other's lack of humility, it's a good time to look inward.

Empathy is the same way.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's illustrative that conservatives like Ben would look to a children's fable as a guide through life.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers love their fairy tales.

I ascribe that to childish gullibility -- and disaffectedness with respect to the reality-based world.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's illustrative that conservatives like Ben would look to a children's fable as a guide through life."

Sounds like somebody doesn't understand the folktale genre. It's entertainment, nothing more, right Queen?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, why read fiction/literature at all, right?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not even a fable, it lacks anthropomorphized animals for instance.

Its a folktale as you say, along with fables, just about the the oldest literary genre.

[Commenter_XY]

Remembrance, Professor Volokh. That is what is on my mind.

Today I observe the yahrzeit of a cousin of mine who died many years ago. He died as a young man, by his own hand. Today I shall call my Aunt (as I do every year), listen to her reminisce, and learn timeless wisdom from one of the last remaining elders in my family. It has now been 33 years since his death. When I say Mourners Kaddish at mincha services this afternoon, I will formally remember my cousin.

Question for the VC Conspirators: What are some life lessons you learned from people who were not your parents?

VC Conspirators as you think about that question, I leave you with this poem.

They grow not old
As we that are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them,
Nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun,
And in the morning,
We will remember them.

[MoreCurious]

It's not really a life lesson, I know, but a long time ago I clerked for a justice on the highest court of my state (who also happened to be one of the few true gentlemen I've ever met). When my mother died, I remember him telling me that there will never be a day when I don't think of her. He was right, and that was many years ago.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
A close friend, who died almost a year ago, took me aside in the early 80's to give me some thoughtful advice.
"Be nice to people. It will serve you much better."
I had frequently criticized him before that. But I took his message to heart. He was correct. That made a big difference in my career and my life.

[Commenter_XY]

A good lesson, Don Nico. May his memory be as a blessing to you.

[Jimmy the Dane]

How about them Canadian truckers?

[Commenter_XY]

I have newfound admiration for freedom-loving Canadians. And newfound contempt for others.

[bernard11]

You have contempt for vaccinated Canadians?

Care to explain why?

[OtisAH]

“They think they’re so smart. But they’re not!”

[Bored Lawyer]

Why do you think "others" refers to the vaccinated? How about the feckless PM of Canada?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why do you think "others" refers to the vaccinated?

Because straw men are all that cognitively-challenged dishonest commenters like him have.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And unironically, all you have to offer are ad hominem complaints about the perceived logical fallacies of others.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And unironically, all you have to offer are ad hominem complaints about the perceived logical fallacies of others.

And unironically, all you have to offer are ad hominem complaints about the perceived logical fallacies of others.

Demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between a statement that someone has a propensity for straw man arguments and an ad hominem argument doesn't make the point you think it does.

[Kazinski]

I've got no contempt for vaccinated Canadians or Americans. And I'd guess at least 75% of the truckers demonstrating are themselves vaccinated.

I got a lot of contempt for politicians who want to make everyone else's decisions for them and think they have the self bestowed authority to do so.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Politicians aren't elected to make decisions?

Do you need a remedial refresher in Civics?

[Kazinski]

Politicians are elected to run the government, not my life.

They can tell civil servants what to do, they can't tell me what I have to do, other than forbidding me a narrow range of conduct described by criminal statutes.

So no, they are not elected to make my decisions for me. You may need a minder, I don't.

[Martinned]

That's an opinion, I guess. Not a correct opinion, mind, but certainly an opinion.

[Michael P]

So you are saying that the "correct opinion" is that martinned inarguably needs a minder. Got it.

[Martinned]

No, the correct opinion is that Martinned (and Kazinski) has a minder whether he likes it or not. That's the thing about sovereign governments. They don't need permission from individual citizens to make binding laws.

[Josh R]

I don't admire exercises in freedom that harm others. They should be arrested for traffic violations.

[Ben_]

Should people like these truckers ever be allowed to make any decisions about their lives? Don't they know how great government experts are?

What flavor of evil bewitches people who hesitate to blindly accept experts? Or who don't immediately and eagerly obey authority?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Should people like these truckers ever be allowed to make any decisions about their lives? "

They may soon have the opportunity to decide how to proceed with their lives in a world that no longer needs truck drivers.

The level of judgment they exhibit indicates handouts may be their only hope. Then these disaffected, can't-keep-up misfits can sit at home and really rail about "the elites" -- as a full-time job (sort of).

[Bored Lawyer]

"They may soon have the opportunity to decide how to proceed with their lives in a world that no longer needs truck drivers."

I see foolish fantasies remain a staple of left-wing thinking.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where I live, it is rare to spend more than an hour or so without seeing a "self-driving" vehicle on a city street. In the neighborhood in which the autonomous vehicle developers are concentrated, that hour becomes five minutes.

I work in an industry that is actively preparing for implementation of autonomous vehicles and has concluded that technology will eliminate most but not all truck-driving jobs. Even with respect to vehicles that will still have a person onboard, that person will be focused on other responsibilities -- sales, administration, and the like -- as the vehicle travels and be viewed merely as an emergency operator with respect to driving.

Some sources -- such as Goldman Sachs -- expect attrition among truck drivers approaching 10 percent annually, beginning in the next few years.

But that's just "elite" opinion, Bored Lawyer -- by all means, send your children to truck-driving school!

[David Nieporent]

Self-driving vehicles have been 5 years away for the last 20 years.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So you should send your children to truck-driving school.

[shawn_dude]

Where I live, we don't measure self-driving vehicles in years, we measure them in feet. I see one on the road near me at least once per day.

[Randal]

Assholism

[Doug Huffman]

Assoholics Anonymous gathering anyone? Hillary blessed me as DEPLORABLE, and I believe that includes assoholism. Hi all, I am an assoholic!

[Randal]

Exactly! Assholes and proud of it. The freedom to be an asshole is their most cherished right. That's what so many have fought and died for: all these assholes.

[Ben_]

If you don’t have the freedom to choose to go against people who would name-call you, you don’t have any freedom at all.

[Randal]

Yes, when the choice is asshole or good neighbor, some people choose asshole. And then double down when their neighbors call them on it.

You could choose not to be an asshole, and then you wouldn't get called one.

[Ben_]

Or the neighbor could choose not to pick fights.

[Randal]

You obviously don't understand what it is to be a neighbor.

[Ben_]

It doesn’t mean I get to control the lives of everyone around me. Who told you that you had the privilege to do that?

It also doesn’t mean I get to start fights about my precious notions and pretend that everyone else is an asshole for not bowing to my preferences about how they should live their lives.

[Randal]

Exactly.

Mom: "Could you please keep the music down? I'm trying to sleep."

Ben: "You don't control me!" (Cranks music.)

Asshole.

[Ben_]

Your neighbor's masks don’t disturb your sleep.

By changing the subject you’re telling everyone you can't support what you were originally talking about.

[Randal]

My neighbors' masks and vaccines (or lack thereof) disturb my health!

Asshole and thick.

[Ben_]

No, your neighbor's masks or vaccines don't have an effect on your health. You just want to bully them and are making up (outlandish, not even close to convincing) stories to pretend it's your business.

And what's the track record for bullying everyone about ridiculous Covid rituals? It didn't work.

[Randal]

That's like claiming your music doesn't really have an effect on your mom's sleep cuz she's just trying to bully you cuz she's just a mean ol' mom! And anyway she always ends up falling asleep eventually so obviously the music doesn't really bother her and it's all a lie to keep you down!

Paranoid
Delusional
Thick
Asshole.

[Ben_]

You keep changing the subject because you can’t support what you are saying.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, he's not changing the subject, he's making an analogy.

And it's not hard to follow.

[Ben_]

Viruses don't make noise and aren't analogous to noise.

Also, he wants to pick fights with his neighbors who aren't even infected. So to even start making it analogous, he'd be fighting with his neighbors who are quiet but might someday, somehow, in his imagination make some noise.

[Randal]

Bzzzt. If you had a dog that, if it barked, would likely set off all the other neighborhood dogs barking, then I would ask you to please keep it inside at night even if it wasn't barking, as a preventative measure against the spread of dog barks.

[Ben_]

You'd demand that people with no dog have kennels in their house in case they get a dog, in case it might bark, in case someone else in the neighborhood has a dog, in case there might somehow be noise.

And I'd say I don’t have a dog. And you'd be furious and name-call me for not having a kennel for a dog I don’t have.

[Randal]

You seem bad at analogies. Not that I'm surprised.

In this analogy, if you don't have a dog, you're dead. If you were dead, I wouldn't ask you to get vaccinated.

[Ben_]

That shows you’re just one of the Covidians who heard misinformation from CNN or NPR and went insane.

Covid risk is lower than driving a car unless you already have several different very serious health problems. Sorry the news media liars sent you off the deep end.

It’s sad that there are so many people like you, living in constant fear of the bogeyman, screaming at everyone else for not engaging in rituals to ward off the bogeyman.

[Randal]

And we're back to asshole. Back to, my mean mom doesn't really need quiet to sleep even though she says she does.

For one thing, some of your neighbors have comorbidities.

For another, even when the risk is low, your neighbors still don't want to get covid. You're telling them to just deal with the barking dogs, it's not so bad.

It's amazing to me that you think you're the one being bullied in this situation, when your attitude is "just shut up and get covid."

[Ben_]

People at extreme risk from Covid can wear N95 masks to protect themselves. There's zero need to burden everyone else in the world.

And we've seen that the strategy of screaming at everyone doesn't work. You seem to be unable to learn from events, because that's still your plan. Should people with multiple comorbidities rely on this awesome plan of yours? They'll be safe from Covid if they do that, right?

"You're telling them to just deal with the barking dogs..."

I'm telling them I don't have dogs. Talk to a psychiatrist if that's not a good enough answer.

Wear an N95 mask yourself. It will protect you from the bogeyman. Everyone in the world isn't obligated to panic and rearrange their lives around your feelings. Especially because you clearly won't do anything to accommodate us.

[Randal]

I'm not screaming at you. I'm saying you've chosen to be an asshole. As I said originally, you're free to be an asshole and let your dogs bark all night (an analogy you still don't understand by the way) and keep your poor mom up and tell your neighbors to fuck off and invest in earplugs. You do you.

[Ben_]

The guy with the plan that doesn't work calls everyone an asshole. We all learned that it doesn't work and adjusted. It's only you who can't learn.

[Randal]

You could be right (you're not), but it doesn't really matter to the asshole determination. You're not going along with the neighborhood's plan, and not for any real reason other than to be defiant and make a stink. That's what makes you an asshole.

[Ben_]

Why doesn’t the neighbor have to go along with my plan?

[Randal]

Because you didn't get elected.

[Ben_]

Neither did Fauci nor anyone working at the CDC nor anyone working in public health.

I guess this means you think that the people in Florida who disagree with DeSantis are assholes? Or the school officials and everyone trying to counteract Glenn Youngkin in Virginia — all assholes?

[Randal]

I'm a little surprised to see how desperate you are for my approval. Why do you care so much what I think?

It's a sad-funny place that today's right wing has decided to go. It's all about "owning the libs," i.e. trying to piss us off for it's own sake. But then you get all butt-hurt when we call you assholes for it, as if "freedom" means you get to be sociopaths and still be socially accepted. You can be a sociopathic asshole, but then don't expect other people to want to be around you.

[Sarcastr0]

If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.

You must feel like a proctologist every day.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I like how the very same people who are calling these truckers insurrections and assholes were supporting BLM's riots and murders and autonomous zones.

[Ben_]

The lesson: violence is rewarded.

[Randal]

I'm not calling them assholes because of their tactics. I'm calling them assholes because of their cause. I have no problem with their tactics (minus arson).

[Kazinski]

Well that's what freedom of thought is all about.

If you don't like it go out and counter demonstrate.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that civil disobedience should come with consequences when it violates the law. But, the law needs to be fairly applied, the government can't pick and choose approved and unapproved causes.

[SimonP]

They're providing an important model for future BLM protests, since we can now be assured that shutting down critical infrastructure for weeks at a time is an acceptable way to draw attention to your cause.

[loki13]

No, see- when people shut down crucial infrastructure, and harass lawabiding citizens, and wave Nazi flags, and shutdown roads, that's cool and freedom-loving because REASONS. You know, vaccines are bad.

On the other hand, when people protest systemic racism in the United States, we need to pass laws to allow you to run them over, because WE AIN'T RACIST. You understand? And if you say that, we will ban books and run you over until you agree.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"people shut down crucial infrastructure, and harass lawabiding citizens,"

The lack of self awareness here is spectacular. Sounds exactly like what we were told we all needed to tolerate in 2020 because of....reasons.....

And oh if you found yourself in the middle of a crowd of people....err rioters....in your automobile and they were jumping on top of it threatening to pull you out and beat you and you decided it was better to just drive off then take your licks, you are a racist becauese of.... BLM.....durgh.....REASONS......

[loki13]

Hey, it's Jimmy! You know, the guy who, after the election, went straight into the deep-end of conspiracy theories, and Trump didn't lose the election, and "there was nothing to see on January 6, just a bunch of tourists milling about." Straight on nutter.

Good times! This is why we have ignore. 🙂

[Jimmy the Dane]

After the election I said there were lots of questions, and there still are a lot of questions. You don't answer what were a lot of irregularities with "those never happened, shut up!"

Also, January 6th was mostly peaceful tourists who milled around a public building and left when asked. I know a political witch hunt can't exactly issue a report about that says that and the left needs more to justify holding political prisoners without bail, so I'm sure we will just hear about how some guy did something white supremacist once and was there that day.

[Queen Amalthea]

No, you repeated a bunch of crazy, off the wall often much refuted even here Trumpisms about the election. Stop trying to gaslight, people remember.

[Jimmy the Dane]

No I said there were a lot of irregularities that deserved to be properly vetted and investigated. Instead we were just supposed to believe it was all mumbo-jumbo "conspiracy theory" from literally hour 1 once it looked like Biden was going to squeak out AZ. If you care about the actual rule of law and representative democracy then you ought to really care about the sanctity of elections. That isn't just something you say "oh my guy won so shut up people!" which is what was being done by all the media outlets.

[Queen Amalthea]

No, you repeated the 'Greatest Hits' of Trump nuttery (the mail man story, the vans story, the Michigan stripper's story, etc., etc.,). Stop gaslighting.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I never repeated any of those. Quit making stuff up.

[Randal]

Hahaha "mostly peaceful tourists" you sound just like the people you despise the most.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"After the election I said there were lots of questions, and there still are a lot of questions."

Q: What has made Jimmy the Dane such a bigoted misfit?

Q: Why is Jimmy the Dane so gullible and delusional?

Q: Why is Jimmy the Dane so disaffected and antisocial?

Q: Does it bother Jimmy the Dane to know that America will continue to progress directly against his right-wing wishes?

Q: Does Jimmy the Dane recognize that his next contribution to modern America -- like that of most clingers -- will occur when he is replaced?

Q: Why do the Volokh Conspirators operate a blog that attracts so many Jimmy the Danes?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Does the answer involve something about clingers shoving something down a throat and betters lecturing clingers about their station in life?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't know the answers concerning Jimmy the Dane's deplorable condition. Could be poor character. Could be an unfortunate draw of parents and/or hometown. Could be bad judgment. Could be inadequate education. Like a mixture of a number of problems.

[not guilty]

"January 6th was mostly peaceful tourists who milled around a public building and left when asked."

Is that as true as everything else you have said?

[David Nieporent]

After the election I said there were lots of questions, and there still are a lot of questions.

True. Like "How stupid is Jimmy the Dane?" and "How gullible is Jimmy the Dane?" and "How dishonest is Jimmy the Dane?"

[SimonP]

The lack of self awareness here is spectacular. Sounds exactly like what we were told we all needed to tolerate in 2020 because of....reasons.....

I don't recall anyone tolerating comparable actions by BLM protesters. Here in NYC, that hotbed of socialist enthusiasm, we barely "tolerated" the protests at all, and clamped down into a lengthy curfew - longer than the last time we imposed a curfew in response to race riots. One of those real deprivations of liberty y'all keep yammering on about.

The only real comparison to the truck convoy I can think of was that one time a bunch of hippies camped in a park to protest wealth inequality, several years ago. Which, y'know, was kind of a nuisance, but it didn't shut down the city.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don't recall anyone tolerating comparable actions by BLM protesters.

LOL!

[SimonP]

I mean, who could have known that the fundamental problem with blocking highways, during the BLM protests, was that the protesters made the mistake of doing it with their bodies, rather than with their vehicles? All they need to do, the next time around, is get a few dozen cars together, and they could shut down almost every major arterial street in a municipality. The police would evidently be powerless to do anything about that.

[Brett Bellmore]

I tend to think the pulling people out of their vehicles to attack them, and setting fire to stuff, was a factor, too.

[SimonP]

Yes, Brett, I'm sure we're all familiar with your position that the only BLM protests that happened anywhere involved violence directed at innocent bystanders and storefronts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, we're all familiar, at least, with your misrepresentations.

[SimonP]

Well, it seems to me that one of us is talking about a truck convoy that is actually blocking critical transportation infrastructure, while the other is trying to characterize a whole summer of protests by referring to acts of violence that sometimes occurred in their context. While credulously asserting, without any evidence whatsoever, that an apparent attempt at arson by the truck convoyers was a "false flag operation."

Misrepresentation is all you do.

[LawTalkingGuy]

setting fire to stuff

Like those guys who tried to burn down a 100 unit apartment complex in Ottawa?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if they really did that, come down on them like a ton of bricks.

If it turns out to have been a false flag conducted so that they could pretend the truckers were violent, better prosecute the perps and find out who arranged it, too.

Because, you know, the truckers had precisely zero reason to have done it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Because, you know, the truckers had precisely zero reason to have done it."

Actually they apparently got in a verbal altercation with apartment people because the truckers wouldn't STFU.

And in any event... the same could be said for BLM people.

[bernard11]

Brett's old reliable - "false flag," "Reichstag fire."

Bellmore's last refuge.

[OtisAH]

My all-time favorite thing about alleged conservatives:

They’ll talk and talk about watering Liberty Trees and being ready to die for freedom and threatening “REVENGE” any time they feel slighted and cos-playing civil war and boasting about how swift their victories will be against Pajama Boy Nation.

Within seconds of one or more of them acting on the rhetoric they all reach for their phones and type “Liberals did it! False flag, false flag!”

[Sarcastr0]

The Revolution will be Denounced as a False Flag.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's look at the bright side -- Brett Bellmore spends less time on birtherism these days (at least, so far as we can tell).

[John F. Carr]

Remember Arthur Dent. He made the mistake of trying to block progress with his body.

[Commenter_XY]

Or Tank Man, from 1989.

[Roman Moroni]

It wasn't a mistake. It actually worked. It was only after he got up that his house... and the Earth got destroyed.

[BillyG]

and wave Nazi flags
Strange. The only ones I've seen at the truckers waving Nazi flags were obvious plants. Full facemask preventing anyone from identifying them. Immediately told to GTFO by the trucker group.

[loki13]

Bless your cotton socks.

[OtisAH]

Do you also see any of the Good and Honest Totally Not-Nazis running those Obvious Plants off so they’re not falsely accused?

[loki13]

You miss the point of people like BillyG and Brett Bellmore.

Obviously, they're lying. Look, anyone with a shred of intelligence (ahem) knows that as the size of a group grows up, especially the size of a group already motivated to protest ... you're going to attract some nutcases. So the normal approach (again, ahem) would be to acknowledge the obvious and state, "Well, they are a tiny minority, blah blah blah."

But they can't. Not even that. They can't even acknowledge what is right in front of them. Nope, it's always "false flag" this and "Reichstag fire" that and "plants" and "crisis actors." Because they are full-on nutters at this point.

They can't accept simple explanations. It's always BS conspiracy stuff.

[BillyG]

Tell you what. I'll believe its a nutter if you can get them to sit for an interview without a mask on.

In the mean time, you've got groups like the Lincoln Project admitting to sending people to pose as white supremacists at Republican events. Is it a conspiracy theory if the groups doing it admit it publicly?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/virginia-governor-tiki-torches_n_617d33b9e4b0657357495b20

[loki13]

Oh, snap! Yes, a planned and ACKNOWLEDGED protest ... is exactly the same. Literally, the group stated that they were responsible, and that this is what they were doing. And they weren't mixing in ...

But yes, you are brilliant. So brilliant. A public and acknowledged stunt that did not involve deception or "mixing in" is EXACTLY like this.

Did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

[BillyG]

You aren't making the point you think you're making.

[loki13]

What? That you're a nutter? Yeah, I did. But that's obvious already.

Look- everyone who isn't already wanting to be convinced by your stupidity already knows the deal. You make up some BS, and when you're called on it, you try to change the subject to something you googled or heard about, and when you're called on it, you retreat and claim victory with some BS airy "you don't even know."

It's both transparent and pathetic, and it's why people don't really engage with you.

But hey- go sell crazy somewhere else. Where they are willing to buy it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Oh, snap! Yes, a planned and ACKNOWLEDGED protest..."

Lol. They acknowledged it as soon as they got caught...

[BillyG]

You mean like this?

https://twitter.com/MurcielAgusta/status/1489724008711004161

[bernard11]

"Obvious plants."

Laughable.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"On the other hand, when people protest systemic racism in the United States, we need to pass laws to allow you to run them over, because WE AIN'T RACIST. You understand? "

Loki is correct. We should be allowed to run over people blocking traffic whether they're protesting systemic racism or vaccine mandates.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"and wave Nazi flags"

Sure. A few bad apples burning down buildings are just bad apples at an otherwise peaceful protest, but a few bad apples waving Nazi flags invalidates the rest of the protest. Got it.

[John F. Carr]

That kind of protest is routine in France, and has recently been reported in Lebanon. For whatever reason in America denial of access is normally only on a small scale. Protesters chain themselves to something or refuse to leave the University President's office.

[Kazinski]

Well better shutting down critical infrastructure than burning it down.

I'm not a big fan of occupations, or disruptive demonstrations.

But I'll contrast the attention,reception and official response given the Canadian Truckers with Antifa in Portland and Seattle, BLM almost everywhere, Occupy Wall street, Climate change sit ins in the UK, the climate change train blockades in Canada, and train derailment attempts in Washington.

And I'll even throw in the DOJ asking for a reduced sentence for an arsonist who's firebomb murdered someone, because they were rioting in a good cause.

I'm not going to get my panties all in a twist over a peaceful demonstration over a legitimate grievance after what I've seen the past few years.

[Ben_]

One thing is for sure: there’s no need to ever treat any issue or concern seriously. Just look at this thread.

Are the truckers people? Do they have a concern? Doesn’t matter because "Nazi flags".

Are BLM protesters people? Do they have a concern? Doesn’t matter because "arson".

Are the Jan 6 protesters people? Do they have a concern? Doesn’t matter because "Trump".

Do anyone's concerns matter? No, because we have magic words to defend. No need to think of any of these as people or act humanely. No need for government to address their concerns or even listen to what those concerns are. More time for government self-dealing and grifting, I guess.

[bernard11]

What is their concern?

That they have to be vaccinated to re-enter Canada?

Too fucking bad.

[Ben_]

^ Case in point. No humanity evident here.

"Too fucking bad" is what everyone should respond to whatever your concerns are from this day forward.

[bernard11]

Actually, I'm quite sure there are plenty of knowledgeable people, including the truckers' physicians, who could, and maybe have, responded to their concerns about the vaccine.

If they don't want to hear those responses, and rely on some crackpot instead, that's on them.

[David Nieporent]

So you're saying that anyone's complaint, no matter how stupid, should be treated equally seriously?

[Ben_]

Does government exist to serve all the people? Or only the elites?

[Voize of Reazon]

Unvaccinated Canadians could re-enter Canada but would have to quarantine. The US though won't let them in to begin with, so the situation doesn't come up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How about them Canadian truckers?"

Well, they're either minions of evil trying to destroy all that is good, or mostly peaceful protestors creating a festival-like atmosphere.

What are they protesting?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Local clown Josh Hammer tweeted out that he thinks West Virginia v Barnette was wrongly decided. The funniest part? Someone pointed out that he’s a plaintiff in a suit, which he proudly defends as vindicating the first amendment, challenging mandatory bar association fees in Texas by applying the Court’s recent holding in Janus. Janus of course is a compelled speech case, something that Barnette was pivotal in developing. Indeed Alito references Barnette approvingly in his opinion including the full “constellation” quote. Hammer further beclowned himself by pretending that it’s an oversimplification. It’s really not, though. If Barnette is wrong then a lot of compelled speech doctrine is wrong too.

[Commenter_XY]

LTG....Was Janus wrongly decided? If so, why?

[Sarcastr0]

Compelled Subsidies and the First Amendment
Comment by Eugene Volokh & William Baude

Requiring someone to pay money is not requiring them to believe, to speak, or to associate, even if the money is
spent for political purposes. By itself, it does not implicate the First
Amendment, and does not require the government to try to use less restrictive alternatives.

The parallels is to government taxing, which often routinely goes to subsidize political speech. (e.g. universities).

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/171-204_Online.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

Hey...thx for that. I'll be reading that later today for sure.

[Kazinski]

I didn't find EV convincing on that point.

I also didn't find his opinion that baker's have to bake that cake convincing either.

[Sarcastr0]

What's the functional difference between the government taxing someone and spending that money and the government having people pay that money directly?

[LawTalkingGuy]

What Sarc said. Also this:

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/27/the-limited-effects-of-the-supreme-court/

Assuming Janus is wholly correct, you can get to similar results through other methods.

One thing I will add is that the correctness of Janus may not be possible to assess right now. I actually want to reserve judgment until I see how the courts address the "free rider" problem and whether a duty of fair representation is constitutional (unions appear split on whether this is a good thing as a policy matter it appears). But if the state can force a duty of fair representation (potentially a form of compelled speech) but forbid agency fees to support that by making a private organization bear the expense of a free rider, then Janus would make no sense conceptually and would appear to simply be a carveout for anti-union interests.

[loki13]

The DFR is the killer. Unions can get shut down (through onerous lawsuits) if they do a bad job representing the non-members.

I am sympathetic to those who don't want their union fees going to lobbying or expressly political activity- and we already had that carve out. But forcing unions to both represent non-members and allowing them to free-ride is ... not a long-term workable solution.

Which is precisely the point.

[LawTalkingGuy]

See that's what I thought, and I have a good friend who has worked for unions and done labor law who says DFR sucks. But then I saw that a union was challenging it in a limited scope, and other unions like AFSCME and the Teachers opposed eliminating DFR.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/union-challenges-duty-to-represent-free-riders-at-7th-circuit

Seventh Circuit ultimately dismissed on standing grounds.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/19-3413/19-3413-2021-03-08.html

[Commenter_XY]

Hey LTG...I really appreciate your (and loki13's and Sarcastr0's) responses. I learn all kinds of legal stuff coming here, and honestly, I find it fascinating (the legal stuff, that is).

[Commenter_XY]

LTG, I read the 7th circuit opinion. Interesting. How does a union go about demonstrating particularized injury by representing non-members? The Court pointed out this was a valid question, and not resolved (yet).

As a lawyer, what do you look for to demonstrate particularized injury?

[David Nieporent]

How does a union go about demonstrating particularized injury by representing non-members?

By being forced to represent them, and incurring costs in so doing. In the 7th circuit case, the first step hadn't happened yet — a non-member hadn't demanded representation yet.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But forcing unions to both represent non-members and allowing them to free-ride is ... not a long-term workable solution."

Then maybe the unions shouldn't have lobbied for that law? Because they did, you know.

[OtisAH]

No they did not. In situations where a union is compelled to represent a free rider they’ve fought for the right to require the free rider to pay for the representation.

[Brett Bellmore]

They lobbied to be "forced" to represent every employee. Then used that as an excuse to force every employee to join the union, or at least pay dues even if they didn't.

But being 'forced' to represent everybody was something they wanted. It wasn't actually forced on them, they wanted a monopoly on employee representation at any given worksite or employer. Didn't want to have to fight off competing unions, or deal with employees who could blow them off.

[loki13]

Brett- I know you fancy yourself an expert on everything (from Maus to unions) but you really don't know what you're talking about. Either the history or the law.

There are, in fact, credible arguments regarding collective bargaining and other issues. But pulling stuff out of your posterior in order to argue just make the conversations dumb.

[apedad]

U.S. carbon pipeline proposals trigger backlash over potential land seizures

“U.S. eminent domain law allows private companies to take over property if their project is deemed in the public interest and landowners are compensated. It has been used often to ensure energy companies can complete projects, like pipelines and transmission lines, that move oil, gas and power to consumers.

But the law has not yet been applied to carbon pipelines, which are primarily regulated and sited by states, rather than the federal government, according to the Department of Energy (DOE), and few of which have been constructed to date.

Iowa would get the bulk of pipeline miles - more than 1,600 miles, or 48%, of Summit and Navigator’s pipelines. The state’s utility regulator, the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB), will ultimately decide whether to permit the projects and grant them the right to use eminent domain.

Many landowners along the route have refused to sign easements with Summit, citing concerns about farmland productivity and land values after the pipeline is installed. . . .”

Lots of issues here, e.g. eminent domain, environmental, state/fed jurisdiction, etc., so hopefully we see some blogging here at the VC.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-carbon-pipeline-proposals-trigger-backlash-over-potential-land-seizures-2022-02-07/

[Commenter_XY]

Conceptually apedad, how are the issues involved with a carbon pipeline different than issues building a state highway?

[Krayt]

I'll bet few issues with native Americans or graveyards or the like, because "our side" is profiting from them.

[Bob from Ohio]

A carbon "capture" pipeline.

Take air and mix with water, pump into ground.

Nice scam.

[Sarcastr0]

Compelled Subsidies and the First Amendment
Comment by Eugene Volokh & William Baude

Requiring someone to pay money is not requiring them to believe, to speak, or to associate, even if the money is
spent for political purposes. By itself, it does not implicate the First
Amendment, and does not require the government to try to use less restrictive alternatives.

The parallels is to government taxing, which often routinely goes to subsidize political speech. (e.g. universities).

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/171-204_Online.pdf

[OtisAH]

Whatever was on my mind is gone now…

https://reason.com/2022/02/10/ohio-mayor-warns-that-ice-fishing-will-lead-to-prostitution/

[LawTalkingGuy]

He's also the dude who tried to get the county prosecutor to bring felony child porn charges against the school board because there was an elective high school class (that was able to count as college credit and had a disclaimer that it would address mature themes) that used writing prompt book that included some sexual themes. It was just 642 one or two lines prompts for writing. No pictures. It's also not clear that the teachers using the book ever even assigned the sexual themes for a writing assignment.

Mayor earned a rare public rebuke from the prosecutor for that one.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh and, while not the Mayor (who was on the right side of this one actually), Hudson is also the town where someone at the Memorial Day event cut a Lieutenant Colonel's mic when he talked about how newly freed black people after the Civil War were instrumental in the creation of Memorial Day.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's a story that is becoming familiar . . . backwater residents (Ohio, here) vote for a wingnut, with predictable results.

Against the relevant (Republican) background -- Jewish space lasers, violent insurrection, birtherism, MyPillow election theory -- does this Shubert guy even make the list?

(Did anyone see that coming at 1:15?)

[Frank Drackman]

don't you have anything better to do? (Klinger?)
and it's probably a Truck Driver who delivers your(or your wife/husbands) Viagra/Cialis/Tamsulosin/Finasteride...

Tell me you're not on one of them (I'm guessing 2(Klinger Insurance doesn't pay for duplicate meds)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sometimes I wonder what this country is country is coming to.

Yesterday my neighbor made a cold tomato and cucumber soup, and he got interrogated by some secret police force about whether or not he used too much cilantro.

Tomorrow they're sending him to some sort of labor camp in Hungary.

[Sarcastr0]

To the Gazpacho Police, every case is a cold case.

[Seriously though, would it be too cynical to think this may have been on purpose, it's a standard tactic to go viral.]

[Sarcastr0]

Just so I don't commit joke plagiarism: https://twitter.com/AdamBlickstein/status/1491534992685649921?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Hanlon's Razor

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Maybe similar to Obama's "Stray Voltage" communications tactic.

[David Nieporent]

She's not that smart.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla

Cipolla wrote his "Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" kind of tongue-in-cheek, but I've found it to be a useful framework for thinking about seeming stupidity in politics and life.

[Commenter_XY]

These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:

Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

Not too shabby. Had not read a concise summary like this. I am not certain about #5, though.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The book itself isn't much longer or more detailed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

Not at the poker table.

[VinniUSMC]

I take it you've never played for real money against someone with virtually unlimited cash flow. Stupid people with too much money at a poker table will call with terrible odds, because it doesn't hurt them to lose.

[VinniUSMC]

And it only takes 1 lucky win on their part to drain other players of the pocket change they've brought to the "big boys" table.

[Roman Moroni]

That is exactly who you want to play against at all times, every day, forever. As long as you are playing table stakes in a range where you can take an occasional bad beat and still keep playing.

If you can get the other person to consistently make plays where their payoffs are inferior to their odds, you are essentially like the house in Las Vegas.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Just wish the left got as many chuckles out of Biden's almost daily gaffs....

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The last thing anyone wants is President Biden holding a gaff. That would be nothing to laugh about.

[John F. Carr]

You got me thinking in a couple years it will be the 30th anniversary of the tragically unsolved death of Nicole Brown Simpson. Time flies. Maybe by June, 2024 a golf course will turn up the real killer. Maybe not.

The chain of thought was, the first time I remember hearing the word "gazpacho" was in the song by the same name by Marillion. "The stains on her Versace scarf... were they really just gazpacho?" The song was at least in part about O.J. Simpson.

[Jimmy the Dane]

We live in a world where SUV's run over parade goers, so why not a golf course being a murderer?

[OtisAH]

No, Marge is not playing any 13-level Chutes and Ladders here. Of course, she wants attention, has nothing else to do in DC except pursue it, and most often chooses “playing a fool” to get it. But she would’ve drawn attention just from the video itself. And it would’ve focused roughly around the totality of her raving gibberish. Now it’s just “look at the dummy being a dummy again.”

[Frank Drackman]

Almost as stupid as Sleepy's blaming "Afro-Amuricans" reluctance to get Covid Vaccines on the "Tuskegee Airmen" (I think he meant "Tuskegee Experiment")

[Queen Amalthea]

This wins the internet for the day.

[Bob from Ohio]

"labor camp in Hungary"

or a camp in Hungry?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I think it's called a goulash.

[David Bremer]

1.) The Olympics are largely sports for people who don't really watch sports. That's why we get hour upon hour of figure skating, cliche human-interest stories between every event, and a bunch of events that are subjectively judged instead of objectively scored.

It's like once very four years, Grey's Anatomy suddenly had an NFL cross-over event, where the actor who performed the worst at the combine was the one who died.

2.) Given the last two years, we shouldn't tell people to shun the phrase "avoid it like the plague" because it's a cliche. We should stop using it because the analogy doesn't work. You know there were plenty of plague victims who thought it was just a bad flu or that we really just needed to get to plague heard immunity.

[gormadoc]

Even with treatment 10% of people infected with bubonic plague die. Without it most die. The comparison is very bad.

[Krayt]

I loved living near the border with Canada as I could watch the CBC whenever the US channel turned to "Up close and personal" stories instead of, you know, actual sports.

Like MTV figuring out reality shows had higher ratings than music, NBC knows stories have better ratings than sports.

The error is the mechanism that allows this odd result to form in the first place.

[Queen Amalthea]

I think the Olympics has quite a few problems for tv broadcasters.

1. It's often held somewhere in the world such that the results are long known before it can be broadcast in any meaningful time spot.

2. The sports are so 'long tail,' often archaic

3. They are spread through several networks and it's difficult to find when what's on, as a result people often click in and see a sport they think is quite boring and then just turn it off

Don't worry though, if global warming continues I guess we'll give up on the Winter Olympics and just have the more popular Summer games.

[David Bremer]

With (1), people generally have DVRs and can avoid results if they want. I often watch games several hours late without issue. Besides, if you pick the on-demand options, they will often only show parts of games, rather than entire games.

With (3), NBC could fix that if it wanted, and it largely has for sports like hockey. The way it handles coverage is likely an effect of the way people watch the other events, rather than the cause of it.

[Queen Amalthea]

Does 1 show up on ratings?

[Kevin Smith]

I believe so, since your DVR still has to tune to the channel to record it

[Noscitur a sociis]

Don't worry though, if global warming continues I guess we'll give up on the Winter Olympics and just have the more popular Summer games.

Or just continue building the artificial ski slope next to chemical plant or whatever.

[bernard11]

I'm not a fan of the Olympics at all.

Just doesn't interest me, partly for the reasons David gives.

Another is that even the objectively scored events aren't that interesting. Say they have one of those ski things where they time each entrant and the fastest time wins.

I can't really tell if someone is doing great except by watching the clock as they go. That doesn't compare, for me, to an actual race of some kind, where you can see who's leading, gaining, etc.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrats in the DHS have declared that not trusting the Democrat Federal institutions of you could be a domestic terrorist.

When do you think these tyrannical Federal Democrats will get justice?

[Queen Amalthea]

"the Democrat Federal institutions of you "

You have Democrat Federal institutions?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federal government is filled with a super majority of Democrat partisans.

It's a simple fact.

[Queen Amalthea]

The Federal government is filled with a super majority of Democrat partisans...of you?

[OtisAH]

I don’t think you know the meaning of any single word you typed there.

[Sarcastr0]

Here's the nut graph on what I think you're talking about without your spin:

While the conditions underlying the heightened threat landscape have not significantly changed over the last year, the convergence of the following factors has increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment: (1) the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions; (2) continued calls for violence directed at U.S. critical infrastructure; soft targets and mass gatherings; faith-based institutions, such as churches, synagogues, and mosques; institutions of higher education; racial and religious minorities; government facilities and personnel, including law enforcement and the military; the media; and perceived ideological opponents; and (3) calls by foreign terrorist organizations for attacks on the United States based on recent events.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Threat environment:
"(1) the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions; "

If you don't trust the Democrat Federal Class and express it, you are a threat.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think that's the most obvious reading of that statement.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We saw it's application with the FBI's helicopters flying over school board meetings.

Who cares how you read it. We see how it's being applied.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think that's how it's being applied either. Especially since it came out 3 days ago.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right, and they just discovered this "new threat" 3 days ago.

Good one Gaslightr0.

[Michael P]

You only have to read the ludicrous "fact checks" about crack pipes for equity to understand that "mal-, dis- and misinformation (MDM)" is really used to mean "inconvenient truths pointed out by conservatives".

[Sarcastr0]

Do you have any evidence for any of this?

[Michael P]

Do you have a reading disability?

[Sarcastr0]

Seems to me like you got nothin' but bare assertions.

[Michael P]

Where is DaivdBehar to denounce opaque lawyer weasel wording when there is such a brilliant example of it?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, resentful, powerless, delusional, gullible, whining right-wingers may be my favorite culture war casualties.

Thank you for your continuing compliance with the preferences of your betters, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

second time you've said "Klingers" I'm keeping track, don't you have a life?

[Queen Amalthea]

Uh oh, I guess all those conservatives laser focused on the importance of the issue of information management are going to be all over this flap about Trump's practices demanding answers!

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/politics/national-archives-justice-department-investigation-trump-white-house-documents/index.html

[David Nieporent]

Look, it could've been an innocent mistake; he probably just hadn't heard about the email 'scandal' and so didn't realize that it was an issue.

[Moderation4ever]

I was amused by the story of the ex-President flushing documents down the toilet. I am wondering if the National Archive should have used a no-knock warrant?

[John F. Carr]

One of my favorite parts of the political theater that was the Iran-Contra hearings was Oliver North's line: "I think I shredded most of that. Did I get them all?"

I'm not saying he was right or wrong, just that it was a made-for-TV spectacle and he delivered entertainment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I'm not saying he was right or wrong "

Of course not. Clingers are unable to recognize right or wrong even in the context of Oliver North.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He should've just done with Obama did.

https://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/21/susan-rice-unmasking-documents-sealed-obama-presidential-library-5-years

Weird how the Democrats at the National Archives treat these two presidents so differently.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Remember when the Clinton goon attempted to smuggle out classified documents that put him in a bad light by shoving them down his pants? Yeah some special moments there....

[Sarcastr0]

That is quite the guilt by association there considering it happened in 2003.
You didn't mention Sandy Berger's name at all!

Do the Clinton Death List next.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Would love to have an extremely campy Hillary Clinton kills everyone movie/miniseries loosely based on Richard III.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The list is actually called The Clinton Body Count and if you can read that and not be the least bit concerned then well.....

[LawTalkingGuy]

...you have normal cognitive abilities and aren't consumed by paranoia and conspiratorial thinking that makes it hard to function in human society?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yes people with normal cognitive abilities can read a list of something that has occurred several hundred times with similar facts and think that maybe, just maybe, those are not all coincidences....

[LawTalkingGuy]

Nah. You're just putting patterns in where they don't exist. It's kind of a trait of conspiratorial thinking.

[Randal]

Like, the trait.

You might also become a compulsive gambler. Be careful.

[Sarcastr0]

You're just putting patterns in where they don't exist.

apophenia.

[Frank Drackman]

so have your Pussy "January 6th Committee" Indict him! maybe Impeach him? (for the Third Time) Shit or STFU!!!!!!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm not sure how you missed the mute list, but thankfully that's an aspect of your idiocy I can address.

There's always a bigger fish, Frank. Remember that when you're out in public.

[Queen Amalthea]

I don't recall EV addressing the 'ban Toni Morrison because of our snowflake's discomfort in reading it' nor the Maus ban, but I don't read it everyday. If he has could someone cite to it? If he hasn't, thoughts about why? Seems up there with an English school putting a trigger warning on 1984 but YMMV.

[John F. Carr]

The Maus "ban" was a choice to use a different book in class. It is still legal to dislike Nazi furries.

[Queen Amalthea]

All school bans can be described as a choice to use a different book in a class.

[John F. Carr]

Are they keeping Maus out of the school library?

[David Nieporent]

No, they can't. Well, I mean, yes, all school bans would include that feature. But simply choosing to use a different book is not the same as banning it. Every class can only study a tiny tiny fraction of the universe of books; it would not be accurate to say that all the ones not chosen are "banned." As far as I can tell, it wasn't even taken out of the school library.

That doesn't mean I think it was a good decision, but we ought to reserve the word "banned" for something more substantive.

[Queen Amalthea]

I guess it depends on why to some extent. If they said 'this book has better pedagogical value' for whatever reason (time constraints, more understandable, etc.,), but if they were going to go with a book and then the Board said 'no, not that one, it's got cussing and naked mice in it' I think that's different.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose if Maus were the only book you had available to study the Holocaust, it's better than nothing. And maybe it's more accessible for students who really aren't interested in history to begin with.

But if you're going to actually teach the history of the Holocaust, you're better off teaching the actual Holocaust, not a fictionalized version of it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"But if you're going to actually teach the history of the Holocaust, you're better off teaching the actual Holocaust, not a fictionalized version of it."

Maus comes from Art Speigelman's recorded interviews with his dad about life during the Holocaust and in Auschwitz. It's nonfiction represented in graphic form.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that Art Speigelman's dad was a mouse, and the Nazis were cats. How did that ever slip my mind?

It was fictionalized. Not entirely, but if you're teaching about people being horrible to people, I think you don't want to substitute non-sapient animals for the people, and perhaps especially you don't want to make the bad guys common household pets, and their victims common household vermin.

Might impede the degree to which the students empathize with the victims.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that Art Speigelman's dad was a mouse, and the Nazis were cats. How did that ever slip my mind?"

Are you stupid or do you not know what a visual metaphor is?

"It was fictionalized."

No it absolutely was not. Art and Vladek's experiences were real and just represented in graphic form. We studied it in my Holocaust class in college...those experiences are real and happened we discussed why Speigelman decided to represent them that way.

To quote Spiegleman: ""I shudder to think how David Duke ... would respond to seeing a carefully researched work based closely on my father's memories of life in Hitler's Europe and in the death camps classified as fiction."

Do you really want to be on the side of the Holocaust deniers here?

"I think you don't want to substitute non-sapient animals for the people, and perhaps especially you don't want to make the bad guys common household pets, and their victims common household vermin."

Brett goysplains the Holocaust to the son of a survivor. Christ, what an asshole.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said it was fictionalized, which is to say, not 100% accurate. And since we seem to agree that Vladek wasn't a mouse, and that Hitler wasn't a cat, how is that in dispute?

Is it wrong for me to want students to see emancipated humans when studying the Holocaust, instead of mice? To see man's inhumanity to man, rather than cats' inhumanity to mice?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Doubling down on goysplaining the Holocaust.

Christ what an asshole.

[David Nieporent]

But if you're going to actually teach the history of the Holocaust, you're better off teaching the actual Holocaust, not a fictionalized version of it.

You know this was an English class, not a history class, right?

[LawTalkingGuy]

He's also absolutely fucking wrong about what Maus is.

Bears repeating: “I shudder to think how David Duke … would respond to seeing a carefully researched work based closely on my father’s memories of life in Hitler’s Europe and in the death camps classified as fiction.”

[Queen Amalthea]

The Law of Brett is an incredibly strong inverse relationship between how much he actually knows about a subject and how confident he is about what he knows about it in an argument.

[David Nieporent]

+1,000.

[David Nieporent]

He's also absolutely fucking wrong about what Maus is.

Oh, I know. But the point is that he also misunderstands what it was being used for.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know that if this were about teaching English, this whole "goysplains the Holocaust" crap would never have come up, right? You want to use "It's the Holocaust!" when it's useful to you, and "It's just English!" when it's not.

Well, if it's just English, Maus has about as much significance as anything Alan Moore wrote. Miracleman was a pretty nifty story, too.

[loki13]

Brett's next great point-

It's TOTALLY COOL to get rid of Animal Farm. After all, it's just stupid animals.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? If you had a better substitute for Animal Farm, yeah, it would be totally cool to use it instead of Animal Farm.

You're vacilating between two justifications for Maus.

1) It's about the Holocaust!
2) It's just a work of literature.

Well, if it's about the Holocaust, why use an even mildly fictionalized version, with animals, when you've can show students that this happened in real life with people?

And if it's just a work of literature, why shouldn't the school prefer something more literary than a comic book?

[OtisAH]

It’s both, Brett, you boob. Similar to how Uncle Tom’s Cabin is literature about the slavery, The Jungle is literature about shitty working conditions, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is literature about shitty conditions in mental hospitals.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Holy shit you are an asshole. Double Dog Dare you to go say all this to Art Speigelman’s face.

[David Nieporent]

You're right that Brett is a boob, and that it's both, but I don't think that those are good examples. Those are novels; they purport to depict true circumstances, but not true events. Maus, like Elie Wiesel's Night, is a memoir.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What school boards and activists say about certain books is typically more alarming to me than some of the ultimate policy choices. The discussion is either extremely stupid (as was the case with Maus) or extremely "quiet part out loud" (pretty much any Moms for Liberty discussion about books by or focused upon PoC) and often both.

So while it might not be a "ban" per se, the way these officials and activists discuss books and topics doesn't bode well for the future.

[SimonP]

He hasn't.

He hasn't even bothered to explain why it's not a First Amendment violation to ban books and viewpoints from school curricula or teachers' mouths, which would at least serve as a useful refresher (if true) for those of us who tossed our casebooks years ago but are concerned by the trend.

To say nothing of the broader "academic freedom" issues that he's still very keen to talk about, when neither the First Amendment nor federal statutes provide any legal cover for complaining about the firing of racists or sexists in higher education.

[David Nieporent]

I think the obvious reason why it's not a First Amendment violation to ban books and viewpoints from school curricula or teachers' mouths is the government speech doctrine (in the first instance) and Garcetti (in the second). Yes, I know that SCOTUS reserved for another day the issue of Garcetti's application to schools, but while it might be different in a university context, I don't think it would be in a grade school context.

There's Supreme Court caselaw on school libraries — Island Trees School District v. Pico — but it's not helpful since it didn't actually resolve the 1A question.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I think the obvious reason why it's not a First Amendment violation to ban books and viewpoints from school curricula or teachers' mouths is the government speech doctrine..."

Yup. I think we'll eventually find that academic freedom is fundamentally incompatible with government-run educational institutions and if we want universally available education with something resembling free inquiry, we'll have to rely on government-subsidized private institutions, with something like a voucher system.

[Queen Amalthea]

Most people have to settle for public or heavily subsidized speech, under your view they'd face nothing but orthodoxy.

[Queen Amalthea]

I meant public or heavily subsidized education, my bad there

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. But there's a big difference between publicly run schools, and privately run schools funded by vouchers.

I mean, Medicare for all for education. You guys like Medicare for all, right?

[loki13]

The VC conspirators are, overall, much more worried about "cancel culture" than they are worried about actual state action to suppress speech.

You can draw your own conclusions from this.

(As for EV, he has certainly become ... well, let's say that I think that he's been influenced by events over the last few years. I still think he is better than most, but there's been a noticeable change.)

[Queen Amalthea]

"let's say that I think that he's been influenced by events over the last few years"

I've really noticed that as well.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

EV believes you should compel creative expression from artists and craftsmen in service of homosexual dignity.

Next year he will be supporting the "hate speech is violence" trope and rationalizing criminal prosecutions for speech that hurts the feelings of the mentally ill and deranged.

[Sarcastr0]

He believes you can. I have not seem him opine on should.

[loki13]

Don't engage with the trolls. It's not worth it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm sorry for hurting your feelings by having a different opinion than you.

[loki13]

You don't hurt my feelings. I just feel a little dumber for having to read your message. I don't recall ever seeing you post a single thing that contributed to a conversation. Not once.

Luckily, that is quickly cured! 🙂

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm sure you'll find your safe space filled only with people who share your opinions.

[David Nieporent]

I don't even think he believes you can, at least with respect to artists.

[Sarcastr0]

Triple right DMN,
-that's what EV says
-that's what the state of the law is
-that what the state of the law should be

The question becomes where you draw that line.

[SimonP]

Same here. I think he has a lot more affinity with Josh than he's let on publicly, here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I think he has a lot more affinity with Josh than he's let on publicly . . ."

These ankle-biting clingers need to stick together . . . and even that is not going to work very well for them.

We should exhibit some mercy.

[Jimmy the Dane]

(Yes I know it is not actually "state action" but....) You mean like the press secretary for the United States of America using her government bully pulpit to call for more censorship?

[Josh R]

What's struck me is Eugene's focus on pseudonymity.

[SimonP]

I don't think that's new. I think that's a longstanding subject he's been interested in.

[David Bremer]

He is (or was) in the process of writing an article on the subject. I also tend to talk about issues that come up at work than those issues that don't. Especially if I don't have any more to add on those subjects than is written elsewhere.

[Sarcastr0]

That's just academia. You pick an area and just absolutely wreck it with paper after paper.

Helps if you have that geek's skill of getting legit enthused about something the more you dive into it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I actually think that stuff is really interesting because it has some practical relevance. Although I strongly disagree as a normative matter with courts saying "purely legal" issues warrant pseudonymity for certain parties and EVs seeming endorsement of that position.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I don't recall EV addressing the 'ban Toni Morrison because of our snowflake's discomfort in reading it' nor the Maus ban, but I don't read it everyday. If he has could someone cite to it? If he hasn't, thoughts about why? "

Prof. Volokh is highly selective with respect to his ostensible outrage, his ostensible support of freedom of expression, his ostensible opposition to censorship, and the like.

Which is precisely what one would expect of a polemical, unprincipled partisan -- and a disaffected, right-wing culture war loser.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Now! how about something really Daring like "Huckleberry Finn"???

[Kazinski]

He did cover the Oklahoma school library bill that allowed a single parents protest to remove materials from the school library. That's close enough.

And there is a big difference between a university deciding a political classic is triggering to 'adults', and parents wanting to decide what their minor children are exposed to.

[John F. Carr]

The Washington Post has an article about how even Democrats are starting to listen to public opinion on COVID restrictions. The Virginia election last year taught them an air of knowing what's best for other people's children might not play well at the ballot box. A high school near me is dropping from three mask mandates to one. (Dropped: State mandate to wear masks in schools and town mandate to wear masks indoors. Kept: Federal mandate to wear masks on buses.) Up in Canada provinces are relaxing restrictions but Trudeau would rather oppose truckers' demands out of principle than lose face.

[Randal]

Why would Democrats want to keep enforcing mask mandates once they're no longer helpful?

[John F. Carr]

Because to a politician doing something is better than doing nothing.

[Randal]

Relaxing a mandate counts as doing something. Democrats don't like wearing masks either, I know that must come as a shock.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, you mean how Georgia Governor (In her own mind) Stacy Abrahams exposed all those Kindergarten students to whatever Bacteria/Viri are inhabiting her upper airways?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because they did in the first place, and it's hard to admit a mistake?

[Randal]

Why would relaxing mask mandates when rates are going down imply that it was a mistake to have them when rates were going up?

[Brett Bellmore]

It wouldn't. But the fact that rates are going down doesn't imply that it wasn't a mistake to mandate them in the first place, either.

If the masks don't work, the rates have nothing to do with whether the mandates were a good idea.

[Sarcastr0]

doesn't imply that it wasn't a mistake

Dude.

[Randal]

They work duh. You have to be sort of intentionally suppressing your own intelligence to be able to think they don't.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

They work duh. You have to be sort of intentionally suppressing your own intelligence to be able to think they don't.

Anyone who makes blanket claims like "masks work" without a definition of "work" or differentiating between effective masks (like N95s) and the ridiculously porous ones that the overwhelming vast majority of the public wears...and the way they wear them...when they do wear a "mask" doesn't have enough intelligence to bother suppressing.

[Randal]

It seems like you agree that they work.

Obviously, wearing it around your neck doesn't work. I don't think it's necessary to make that kind of caveat when pointing out that masks work in general. That's why we have them.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It seems like you agree that they work.

If that's what you think I said then you're functionally illiterate.

Obviously, wearing it around your neck doesn't work. I don't think it's necessary to make that kind of caveat when pointing out that masks work in general. That's why we have them.

Yep, you clearly didn't understand a word of what I said.

[Randal]

"effective masks (like N95s)"

"Effective" seems like a pretty good synonym for "works."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"effective masks (like N95s)"

"Effective" seems like a pretty good synonym for "works."

Try reading the whole post for context rather than just a word or two and you stand a chance of not looking like the complete idiot that you just made yourself out to be.

[Randal]

The rest of the post was just name-calling.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The rest of the post was just name-calling.

Confirmed, you're functionally illiterate and/or a liar. The rest of the post that you ignored, save for the reference to N95s, which are NOT being worn by the public at large (which was the point):

"Anyone who makes blanket claims like "masks work" without a definition of "work" or differentiating between effective masks (like N95s) and the ridiculously porous ones that the overwhelming vast majority of the public wears...and the way they wear them...when they do wear a "mask"

[Randal]

Perhaps you're right, because I'm failing to see much of a point in there. It's not even a sentence now.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm failing to see much of a point in there.

Your blindness does not mean that light doesn't exist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It seems like you agree that they work."

Sounds like he's saying that some work (n95) and most don't (cloth, surgical).

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Sounds like he's saying that some work (n95) and most don't (cloth, surgical).

Apparently that point was too cryptic for him.

[Randal]

It's just sort of a pointless point to make is all. Wearing a thong on your face probably isn't very effective. So? I don't see what relevance that has to the topic under discussion, unless you're saying masks don't work at all, which you aren't.

I'm totally fine clarifying "masks work" to "masks work to some extent." I certainly didn't mean to imply that anything anyone cares to call a mask will cure all cases of covid within a five mile radius, if that's what you thought I meant by "masks work."

[Kazinski]

Well that's the problem, they don't work, and the CDC has said as much, the masks most people wear are ineffective. Properly fitted KN95 masks are effective.

And they are especially ineffective for school children, because they don't need them in the first place,and they can not and do not wear a properly fitted mask all day.

[Martinned]

If only there was some option between "effective" and "ineffective"...

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why would relaxing mask mandates when rates are going down imply that it was a mistake to have them when rates were going up?

Because infection rates are still more than an order of magnitude higher than they were at several points last year. So why drop the mandates when those rates are so high compared to times when they were much lower?

[Randal]

See below. Short answer: what matters is whether rates are going up or down, not the point-in-time value of the rate. The very best time for masks is right at the beginning, when rates are still low.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

See below. Short answer: what matters is whether rates are going up or down, not the point-in-time value of the rate. The very best time for masks is right at the beginning, when rates are still low.

In what direction do you suppose those rates were going before they hit those previous lows?

[Randal]

Did you not notice when the mandates went away last year? Then they came back when rates started to rise again with delta and omicron.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Did you not notice when the mandates went away last year?

In primarily red states? Yes. Deep blue states? No.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/health/covid-19-school-masks/index.html

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thank you for that, Randal. The world is awash in folks claiming public health expertise, while going around claiming the time for masks is only when cases are out of control.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Thank you for that, Randal. The world is awash in folks claiming public health expertise, while going around claiming the time for masks is only when cases are out of control.

I didn't see anyone claim that (other than perhaps the voices in your head).

And you blathering about others claiming expertise in areas where they're clearly fundamentally ignorant couldn't be more hypocritical.

[Don Nico]

Because it you actually plot the Oxford stringency index against fatality rates, number of new cases or reproduction number, there is no clear correlation whatsoever

[Frank Drackman]

Because they (See Newsome, Gavin, Pelosi, Nancy) weren't wearing them even when the rates were going up if they had a big fund raiser at the French Laundromat or needed a Haircut

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They were helpful last year but not now?

What changed?

[Randal]

Do you guys really still not know how masks work? Ohmygod.

So, masks help prevent the spread of a virus like covid. It's important to prevent the spread of a virus since contagions spread exponentially up to saturation. Masks help bring that exponent down.

But once rates are coming down, that means the exponent has dropped below 1 and the virus is no longer growing exponentially. So there's no need for the masks anymore (assuming the exponent stays below 1 without them).

Rates have been falling sharply for a couple weeks now. Voila, masks did their job and now they're over... unless rates start going up again.

Get it?

[Ben_]

Do you guys really still not know how [knocking on wood to prevent misfortune] work? Ohmygod.

So, [knocking on wood] help prevent the spread of a virus like covid. It's important to prevent the spread of a virus since contagions spread exponentially up to saturation. Masks help bring that exponent down.

—-

Very convincing.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's amazing how this has been politicized by folks like Ben. I mean, for every one here's entire life if you went in to get surgery you'd see medical professionals...wearing masks. Seems they were just doing the equivalent of knocking on wood the entire time! Thank goodness disease and medical experts like Ben came along to set all this straight!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Rates have been falling sharply for a couple weeks now. Voila, masks did their job and now

As we all know, there certainly weren't any other factors that likely played a significant role in that sudden decline, like...oh, I don't know...a spate of Arctic weather that kept a great many people stuck at home rather than going out in public? Infection saturation?

The idea that mask-wearing, which is not significantly different in much (perhaps even most) of the country now than it was before Omicron arrived is what brought the virus down in only 2 weeks is beyond idiotic.

[Randal]

I agree that would've been idiotic if I'd said it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I agree that would've been idiotic if I'd said it.

What you said:

Rates have been falling sharply for a couple weeks now. Voila, masks did their job

Voila...you're an idiot.

[Randal]

Yep, they did their job. Not the whole job. Their job.

[Randal]

In case it helps your comprehension, I defined their job up above: "help prevent the spread of a virus like covid."

Once rates are coming down, they're done helping prevent the spread of a virus like covid.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Again...you're a liar. Your comment was a statement that falling infection rates demonstrated that masks "did their job".

[Randal]

Do you not understand the word "help?"

[Life of Brian]

So once all the dancing is done, we're left with "they did whatever they did."

Really heavy stuff.

[Randal]

No, we're left with this: the stated reason for the mask mandates applies when rates are going up and doesn't apply when rates are coming down (assuming they continue to fall even without the mandate).

That's true independent of the impact of the masks. In other words yeah, they did whatever they did and now they're done. Whatever they did or didn't do, the justification for the mandate ended when the rate started to plummet.

[Life of Brian]

No, we're left with this . . . In other words yeah, they did whatever they did

So... no, in a yes sort of way?

Whatever they did or didn't do, the justification for the mandate ended when the rate started to plummet.

I'd personally replace "justification" with "fig leaf," but whatever.

Regardless, you know and I know that historic mandates have typically stayed in place all the way down the long, fat tail of the curve and then some. This time around is WAAAY different, and that's no small part of the reason the politically-driven bent of this sudden change of heart is so painfully evident.

[Randal]

I do not know that. I wasn't wearing a mask (in public, indoors) all through last summer. It was only delta and omicron that brought back masks around here. I got the sense that's how it generally went across the country, since nowhere's bluer than this.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Do you not understand the word "help?"

As in something you should certainly seek? Yes. I also understand that it did not appear in the claim you made and that I quoted, nor would it make sense if it did, since your implication was that it was substantially responsible for the decline of infections.

[Don Nico]

Nice fairy tale.
But completely contrary to any substantial set of data except that the Omicron surge has has a duration of 4 to 6 weeks in every country regardless of vaccination program or of non-pharmaceutical interventions

[Sarcastr0]

I agree, though 1) I don't think that was clear when Omicron first started kicking (albeit a likely prediction), and 2) he's right pre-Omicron, and didn't limit is comment that I can see to recent weeks.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
He is not correct pre-Omicron.
The temporal dynamics of variant surges including length of waves of infection varies all over the map and is not correlated in any obvious way with non-pharmaceutical interventions and with a wide variation in background public health conditions.
The interplay of vaccination, masking, social distancing requirements etc. is at best poorly modeled. No clear function model was found by a colleagues who used a tested AI search algorithm found even a rough description that could apply over a very wide range of countries in all regions.
True enough some countries did better than others

[Sarcastr0]

The interplay of vaccination, masking, social distancing requirements etc. is at best poorly modeled.

OK, yeah, that's fair. Anyone who is sure masks work is as wrong as someone who is sure they don't. And that includes Randal as well as Ben and BCD.

Doesn't mean mask requirements not a legit policy, given the risk-benefit. Doesn't mean it is the only legit policy either. Glad that's not a call I need to try and make.

[Randal]

Masks obviously work.

What's not clear is the practical effectiveness of the mandates / masking behavior on covid infection rates in various contexts. I've been waiting for someone to make the distinction but I guess I have to do it. That's where the interesting conversation is. For example: Would the guidelines have been more effective if more people had followed them? Seems like yeah, to some extent, but it's hard to say by how much.

But the actual masks, they work. There's no question about that.

[Don Nico]

Randal,
"Masks obviously work."
For what and to what extent. Your simple statement ducks those questions.
But yes, they can "work" for some purposes if used in specified ways.
The quantitative extent to which they have reduced Ro, # cases, and the CFR if very far from clear.

[Ben_]

They were never helpful: https://www.cato.org/commentary/ambiguous-science-masks

Masks are not effective enough for there to be any definitive answer whether they accomplish anything. They may actually be a very tiny bit effective but if they are, it’s such a small effect that it hasn’t been proven to exist at all.

[SimonP]

There were some very compelling case studies that suggested that they can be useful in very specific kinds of situations - hair salons, buses, apartments, that sort of thing.

Restaurants, shops, outdoors - much less so. Many of the studies cited in favor of masks jumble a lot of factors together and don't really prove the point.

[Ben_]

They might not be totally useless in all cases. But effectiveness is low enough so it’s very hard to prove they matter.

Starting fights to force people to mask up is even less proven.

[Don Nico]

"Many of the studies cited in favor of masks jumble a lot of factors together and don't really prove the point."
I think that is correct; however, I cannot claim to have looked at all the studies claimed to be relevant. It was the case in a study that I recently peer-reviewed.

[Ben_]

Also, since when do Democrats care that their laws don’t accomplish anything?

https://reason.com/2021/11/17/to-fight-climate-change-los-angeles-bans-restaurants-from-giving-out-unsolicited-ketchup-packets/

[Queen Amalthea]

OK, here it is: Rams 27 Bengals 10. Burrows gets Titans-game level of sacks.

[loki13]

I think the Rams are going to win.

Every bit of football knowledge that I have screams that the Rams are going to win.

But ... I don't know. I'm not going to pick against Joe Destiny and the Bengals.

So I'm staying neutral.

[Commenter_XY]

Rams at home....not more than a TD.

Rams seemingly have an edge (hometown crowd). It really depends on which Bengals offensive line and pass defense shows up to play. The home teams got crushed during the playoffs, so maybe the 'home field advantage' is not much of an advantage.

[loki13]

"Rams seemingly have an edge (hometown crowd)."

Not exactly.

If it wasn't for the Chargers, the Rams would have the least favorable hometown crowd edge of any team. They are one of the few teams that has had to go to a silent count ... at home.

In addition, the Super Bowl isn't like other games. Because of the high price of the tickets and the set-asides, it has a LOT of neutral fans and bigwigs. It's never that involved.

I could be wrong, but I would not be surprised if the noise/crowd is either neutral, or may even favor the Bengals a little (depending on how many of their fans scrape together the cash to make this long, long, long desired trip to see them).

[Kazinski]

The Rams don't have a home team advantage. They never have.

I grew up a 49er fan, and when I lived in Santa Barbara I used to go down to Anaheim once a year and watch them play the Rams.

I always felt perfectly at home.

[Josh R]

I grew up in Cincinnati., so I am too biased to make a prediction. I still can't believe they beat KC.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R....That was a truly incredible game = Bengals over Chiefs.

[OtisAH]

Over/under is 48 1/2 (I see one at 50 1/2, but 8 others say 48 1/2). Take the over.

And I can see maybe the halftime score being 27-10 (more comfy with 24-10’ish) but think the final will be tight and in the low 30’s each.

I’m going with Team Stafford but wouldn’t put money on that.

[Randal]

Ilya Shapiro's Freudian slip distracted us all from the wrongness of his argument.

A Supreme Court nomination isn't a prize awarded to the best lawyer in the country. We have actual prizes and awards for that. Biden could give Sri Srinivasan the Medal of Freedom or something. You get an award because you deserve it.

But if Biden were asking himself "let's see, who most deserves to be on the Supreme Court?" he'd be getting it backwards and doing the country a huge disservice. The right question to ask is, "looking at the makeup of the current Court and the needs of the Country, what are the gaps that need to be filled? What qualities would be most valuable in a nominee to fill that spot?" A nomination should be about what the Court needs, not what the nominee deserves.

Biden decided that what the Court needs is a black woman. That's a debatable but legitimate answer.

(By the way, Harvard admissions work the same way. No one "deserves" to go to Harvard.)

[Queen Amalthea]

The thing is, at some level conservatives realize the importance of 'representation.' If you were organizing an academic panel or journalistic roundtable or pundit debate on a topic that matters to conservatives and there were no conservative involved then they'd tell you straight up that you should try to include one *even if* their 'on paper' credentials might be eclipsed by yet another potential liberal prospect. It would be a better, more legitimate panel.

[Jimmy the Dane]

If the left was concerned about representation on the court Biden would be looking at appointing an Asian or Indian. But, he doesn't care about that, he just wanted to score political points with a demographic that supports his party about 95% of the time.

African Americans already have parity representation on the court. They are about 13% of the population and what is 1 person on a 9 member bench? About 11%. Asians and Indians have 0% currently.

[David Welker]

Representation based on race is problematic. You don't have to be the same race as someone to represent them. And you can be the same race and not represent them.

The idea that representation comes from race is only skin-deep. It is extremely superficial and shallow thinking.

A lot of black people think that Justice Thomas makes good decisions. A lot of black people do not. Whether Thomas makes good decisions for the country isn't about the color of his skin.

[Queen Amalthea]

"You don't have to be the same race as someone to represent them."

You might forgive blacks and women for looking at our long history where people of a different/race represented them and thinking otherwise.

[David Welker]

The times change. And people need to change with it rather than living solely in the past.

e.g.

For most of human history, democracy has been non-existent.

Now we have democracy. Which is far superior to any other form of government.

If one were evaluating the viability of democracy based on the how long previous systems were in place compared to the short amount of time democracy has been around, they would come to the wrong conclusion.

Wrong and superficial thinking in the past doesn't really support wrong and superficial thinking in the present.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with what you're saying, but I think talking about representation is itself problematic; we are talking about a court, not a legislature.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" A lot of black people think that Justice Thomas makes good decisions. A lot of black people do not. "

Where "a lot of black people" can be five percent or ninety-five percent.

You're not very good at this, Mr. Welker.

[David Welker]

5 percent of the black population is "a lot of black people." And so is 95 percent of the black population.

I think you must be confusing the phrase "a lot" with "a majority."

[Frank Drackman]

who's the last "Black People" you talked to "Rev" Kirtland? and I don't mean your Pimp. (Hey Now!)

[OtisAH]

Yes, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts are as capable of representing minority populations as anyone. You see it in all their decisions, too. Whoever says differently, we’re fighting!

[David Nieporent]

If you are having a discussion of ideas, then diversity of ideas is important. That in no way suggests that diversity of skin color is.

[Sarcastr0]

Generally, I agree. Two issues with taking that to the bank though.

1) representation is about more than just 'optimize idea diversity.' It's also about the kind of example being set about who gets power.

2) Specifically with respect to the law, I think race and ideas align.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Assuming for the moment that a best lawyer and best judge in the country actually exist, I bet whoever they are they are not on the radar of any national politician or the public at large. Probably some state school graduate lawyer in a mid-sized city who consistently gets better than average results for their clients or keeps them out of trouble while remaining unimpeachable ethically.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I used to enjoy reading Shapiro's posts at Cato at Liberty. Although I often disagreed with him, it was always well-written and thoughtful. Given that, the stupidity of that tweet was all the more stunning. Were I Georgetown Law, I wouldn't want someone who could tweet something that stupid teaching my students law.

[David Welker]

Even assuming that the tweet was "stupid" your assumption that "smart" people don't do "stupid" things is empirically invalid.

You said his posts were well-written and thoughtful. But he said at least one thing you didn't like so that means they weren't well-written and thoughtful anymore? I think you have an unrealistic model in your mind of how people actually work.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Even assuming that the tweet was "stupid" your assumption that "smart" people don't do "stupid" things is empirically invalid."

I deliberately avoided that assumption, by writing that the tweet was stupid, not Prof. Shapiro.

You said his posts were well-written and thoughtful. But he said at least one thing you didn't like so that means they weren't well-written and thoughtful anymore? I think you have an unrealistic model in your mind of how people actually work.

What did I write that would make you conclude I've changed my mind about his posts on the Cato blog? I don't see how anything in your reply is relevant to anything I wrote.

[David Welker]

You are technically correct. But I think you can do a better (more charitable) job of interpretation.

Let me try again.

If a "stupid" comment is enough to disqualify a candidate from teaching law students, a qualified candidate does not exist. That you would radically change your view of someone based on a "stupid" comment and that you found it "stunning" that someone who writes thoughtful things can make such a comment shows that you had unrealistic expectations regarding human beings.

Basically, your model of humanity is at least a little bit flawed.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yeah, perhaps you are right. A tweet is a public comment, and I would hope that someone like Prof. Shapiro would give a little more thought to his public comments. But sometimes people don't. Or maybe he did give a lot of thought to his comment, and he's right and I'm wrong. I'd be interested to read something he writes elaborating on his position.

[Kazinski]

That's not how academic freedom works.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What makes you think that Shapiro was arguing about the most "deserving" candidate? He claimed that Judge Srinivasan was "objectively best", was a "solid prog[ressive] & v[ery] smart" and that he had the "identity politics benefit of being [the] first Asian (Indian) American." It seems to me that he was doing exactly what you suggested, and concluding that he possesses the best combination of qualities that would be useful for the court (from Biden's perspective).

[Randal]

Where did he talk about the needs of the country or the court?

He didn't, which means he was doing the analysis backwards.

I submit that "objectively best candidate," when considered in a vacuum divorced from the actual needs of the institution being entered into, is just another way of saying "most deserving." It's the same line of attack that's getting made against Harvard.

[Queen Amalthea]

You never know the future, but it sure looks like one thing Biden is going to deservedly be tagged with is a Carter-esque Presidency of poor political management. What was he thinking coming in on a slim victory and slim Senate majority promising the moon? Did his people even talk to Manchin or Sinema? Passing something smaller would have been much better than a big promise and then nothing (I'll admit I'm perhaps a bit biased because I thought what he promised was a bloated mess, but even regardless).

[loki13]

Well, it's an interesting question. A long time ago I was in a class that was taught by someone who was plugged-in to the politics of that time. His point (which I think was entirely correct) was that the primary failure of Carter's presidency was self-inflicted in terms of Washington; he was an outsider who was used to state governance, and back then Congress was much more aggressive in asserting its interests.

In short, he kept getting screwed because he didn't understand the need to get his own party in Congress on board. And many times ... deliberately alienating them.

Which is a little different than Biden. He spent a lot of time in the Senate. He was also aware of the dynamics from working under Obama. He knows better. I think that there are particular issues he has been facing (especially w.r.t Sinema ... I mean, woah).

All that said, he has been (IMO) spectacularly ineffective. Not terrible, but ineffective. Then again, I am increasingly of the opinion that increased partisanship and polarization makes our particular system of government unworkable - there's a reason it doesn't work elsewhere.

[Sarcastr0]

I took an entire policy analysis class that used Carter as a case study for doing stuff wrong.

Alienating his own party. Not understanding the importance of optics. Trying to spend political capitol on too many things at once.

Biden and Obama and Trump were all ineffective. But I'm not sure anyone could be effective in the current climate. Though I wouldn't mind going back in time to unleash LBJ and see what he could pull off.
Are Presidents immune from prosecution for public exposure?

Agree with you re: our system being ineffective. Impressive it lasted this long, really.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The system is not "ineffective". It is doing what it was designed to do and that is why it continues to perpetuate to this day.

[Sarcastr0]

Then why are you so angry all the time?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Who said I am angry? I just call 'em like I see 'em.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't actually seem one to believe our system is effective, our our country is great.

But you've also never been one to be consistency.

[Krychek_2]

No, it continues to perpetuate to this day because the rules for changing it are part of the problem. Liberals and conservatives alike dislike the Constitution -- albeit different parts of it -- but neither side has the votes to make any real changes to it. If you make it next to impossible to change something, it's going to perpetuate for a very long time.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, it continues to perpetuate to this day because the rules for changing it are part of the problem. Liberals and conservatives alike dislike the Constitution -- albeit different parts of it -- but neither side has the votes to make any real changes to it. If you make it next to impossible to change something, it's going to perpetuate for a very long time.

Relative stability of a national constitution is a feature, not a bug. It's shouldn't change with whims of the day and the weather the way statutory law often does. And describing such changes, which have occurred on average once every ~13 years since its ratification as "next to impossible" is idiotic in the extreme.

[Krychek_2]

Wuz, a word of advice: Every time you show up here to insult me, you get your head handed to you when I explain why you misread something or were otherwise mistaken. Since you've already poisoned the well with an insult, you then can't walk back what you said without losing face, which is why you then respond with further insults. So perhaps in the future you might want to adopt a more gracious tone since it then gives you the ability to backpeddle once you've been proven wrong.

On the substance, when I say next to impossible, I'm talking about 2022, not 1865 or 1920 or 1965. And in 2022, I very much doubt that much of anything could clear 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

I agree that amending the Constitution should require more than a simple majority, but you don't want bad ideas to be cast in stone either. And our Constitution has a number of bad ideas that are cast in stone, even though you and I might disagree as to what they are.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Every time you show up here to insult me, you get your head handed to you

LOL! You're like the idiot spitting teeth and laying in a pool of his own blood on the bar room floor asking the guy beating his face in, "Have you had enough yet?"

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

On the substance, when I say next to impossible, I'm talking about 2022, not 1865 or 1920 or 1965.

Or 1992...

In any event, you're a liar and/or an idiot who is too stupid to scroll back and read what you actually said...

No, it continues to perpetuate to this day because the rules for changing it are part of the problem.

Those rules have been in place for centuries.

[Krychek_2]

Like I said, more insults because that's all you got. You've lost on the merits so you're now trying to save face. Noted.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Like I said, more insults because that's all you got.

Nonsense. I've got the fact that you're a lying sack of shit, and you're not even good at it, both of which you insist on demonstrating ad nauseum...as you just did here, again.

[Krychek_2]

Wuz, YOU may think that you're winning these arguments, but that's not the thing you're wrong about.

[Krychek_2]

Sorry, typo. Should have said that’s not the ONLY thing you’re wrong about.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

YOU may think that you're winning these arguments

It's cute...and a pathetic sort of way...that you think this has anything to do with "winning" arguments. One cannot win an argument with a pathological liar and a fool like you, nor would I even try. I'm just dispensing the rope that you so eagerly and predictably use on yourself every time.

[Krychek_2]

Wuz, if you encounter an asshole in the morning, he's an asshole. If all you encounter all day is assholes, you're the asshole. Since it seems the only people you encounter here are assholes, maybe you should ask if it's you or if it's them.

[Kazinski]

I don't dislike any part of the constitution (thank God the 18th amendment is inoperative).

What parts of the constitution do you think conservatives dislike?

Now they may disagree with somethings the courts have claimed the constitution has said, like Roe as an example, or Wickard as another, but our beef isn't with the constitution.

[Martinned]

What parts of the constitution do you think conservatives dislike?

The establishment clause, the 4th amendment, the due process clause, the cruel & unusual punishments clause, the 9th amendment, the equal protection clause, need I go on?

[Kazinski]

You really don't understand the modern conservative movement if you could possibly think they don't wish rigorously enforcing 9th amendment wasn't a huge focus of the federal courts.

In fact you say above that you think it's the politicians job to order people around, mask and vaccine mandates and lockdowns. The ninth amendment would allow none of that, at least from the feds.

[Sarcastr0]

Just not the right to privacy, or marriage.

In fact, though you invoked it about pandemic restrictions, you didn't really explain what unwritten right you were invoking. Indeed, I've never heard the right argue for *any* rights under the 9A. Bork wanted to read it out of the Constitution, in fact!

I agree the government should not be the first thought on how to deal with antisocial actions, but that doesn't mean it's not the government's job to police behavior.

[Brett Bellmore]

I happen to think the 16th and 17th amendments were bad mistakes. And the 18th, too. That's three bad amendments in a row!

In fact, the Constitution is far from perfect; The Articles made the central government too weak, but the Constitution overshot the sweet spot, and had in it the seeds of its own destruction, and if we were writing a new one today, we'd be well advised to fix those problems.

[Martinned]

That's fair enough. I think a sensible new Constitution for the US would be much more federalist than practice today, given the geographic rifts between (simplifying) red states and blue states. But I also think that such a reform would cause riots, because voters wouldn't accept a Federal government that refused to fix a problem because it was a state responsibility.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Constitution we have already is much more federalist than practice today; As the old bon mot goes, "The Constitution has it's problems, but it's better than what we have now."

The real problem of the Constitution isn't the degree of federalism it dictates, it's that the selection of federal judges at the federal level allowed a straightforward way to defeat the Constitution: Just appoint judges who wouldn't enforce it!

This couldn't immediately be put into effect, because while states started electing Senators almost immediately, they retained the legal power to simply appoint them if they preferred; This lingering threat constrained the Senators in terms of how much they could get away with ignoring the interests of the states.

With the passage of the 17th amendment, this threat was lifted, and it wasn't long after that the federal courts started the process of mooting all real limits on the power of the federal government.

If you really wanted to have a new Constitution, and avoid this process proceeding again, (Only much faster, as it's already proven to work.) you'd have to alter the selection of judiciary so that they'd be confirmed at the state level. Or else create a Constitutional court composed of state level officers.

While there are other issues with the Constitution, (Such as routing the Constitutional Convention process through Congress.) I think this was the most pressing flaw.

[OtisAH]

LBJ would have no more success in this climate than anyone else. Although the image of “LBJ, Uber-Marxist Radical Leftist from the Extremely Extreme Left of Communist Lefty Extremists” is kind of amusing to picture.

[Krychek_2]

Here's the real problem with "this climate": Public opinion as to the proper role of the federal government has radically shifted since 1789. People want social security. People want health care. People don't want the states to be able to ban abortion. The whole concept of what the federal government should be and should do bears very little relationship to what James Madison envisioned. People like big government whether they recognize it or not.

If we had a normal polity, our national policy would have evolved with the times and after two or three elections we would have the government that people want. That's what has happened in other Western democracies. And, if the people then decide they want something different, you have another election and the new folks can change it back.

But we don't have a normal polity. We have a polity under which a small and shrinking number of obstructionists are able to prevent that kind of natural evolution. They may not be able to get the policies that they like passed at this point, but they can keep the majority from getting its. And, after about forty years of this, things have finally reached the breaking point. Our climate is toxic and will be for a very long time. Violence and civil war aren't off the table.

The Constitution isn't the solution; it's the problem. Unless, of course, you like toxicity.

[ducksalad]

Wow, pretty good manifesto. To summarize your beliefs:

1. Those who oppose you on social security or health care aren't even people.
2. People who disagree with you on the size of government are suffering from false consciousness.
3. The Constitution is "the problem" and you view violence and civil war as options to solve it.

[Krychek_2]

I don't see that I said any of that, but feel free to make up whatever other stuff you like.

[ducksalad]

Then what did you mean by this:
"Violence and civil war aren't off the table. The Constitution isn't the solution; it's the problem..."

Do you think those are valid methods to deal with a Constitution you don't like? Or were you playing good cop to some theoretical bad cop who would use those methods if their frustration isn't resolved?

[Krychek_2]

I was stating a fact, not saying I like it. Acknowledging the reality that we might end up having another civil war before it’s over doesn’t mean I approve of it. There are a great many realities I don’t approve of.

[Don Nico]

" That's what has happened in other Western democracies. "
Really?
Where in the world have you been looking. Italy is led by a guy who never stood for election anywhere. Germany is more confused than ever and Putin knows that. Macron was a novice who is far out of his depth. And as for Boris, the less said the better.

The toxicity started with Roe v Wade and has grown from there stating to accelerate rapidly after the appointment of Thomas to SCOTUS. There was a small chance to turn things around. But John McCain blew the opportunity even thought his chances were not high. He should have chosen Joe Lieberman as a running mate. That would have changed the atmosphere.
The Orange Clown blew the lid off any movement back toward civility and effective governance.

You're just wrong about the Constitution being the problem. It is the political class and a rabid public that is the problem.

[Krychek_2]

The political class isn’t helping, but anti democratic institutions make it harder to fix. Does it occur to you there would have been no orange clown, and hence no January 6, without the electoral college?

Your own example of Roe v Wade is the perfect illustration. There is majority support for abortion rights, not up until the moment of birth, but at least through the first trimester. But our polity allows a minority of fetus worshippers to be on the verge of imposing their will on everyone. And if they succeed in overturning Roe, that will be tossing a lit match into the gas can.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
Your "democracy does not have talismanic value for me. I prefer the US system as it is. To see your comments, I would like that you would applaud passing all legislation by plebiscite and would eliminate SCOTUS in favor of trial before the assembly of the plebs (the House). In your magic world the Senate is abolished.

All that is too complicated for a simple amendment to our constitution. So you should begin a grassroots campaign for a new Constitutional Convention. Go for it rather than wasting time commenting here.

I don't see that other Western countries have a notably better or freer society than our. Go through the countries of Western Europe and then have a look at China, Russia, etc.

Your phrase "fetus worshippers" is actually despicable and common in tone to the rants of other horribles you excuse genocide by declaring their targets to be less than human. Having said that you nicely sidestepped the role of Roe v. Wade in polarizing the electorate. Yet even that took time as partisans on both sides adopted scorched earth politics.

Why don't we allot representation to how much food an area produces rather than how many mouths eat that food? You don't like my new "religious" principle? Why not?

We have a system that aimed from the beginning at compromises. You don't like that when they disagree with you. Actually I don't like it when the choices disagree with my preferences. The differences that I accept those choices as the price of a system founded on the compromises in interests. You don't seem to.

[Krychek_2]

I have never advocated pure democracy, which I don't think would be possible anyway. Just that the political minority should not have a veto over everything. The majority has rights too.

And the issue isn't even better or freer. The issue is more efficiently run. I don't see that other Western democracies that are more democratic than we are that much less free than we are, and to the extent that they are, that can be handled with a strong Bill of Rights that places some subjects beyond popular control. You don't need to give Montana the ability to cancel New York in the Senate to preserve freedom. And not having an electoral college means the orange clown would have been unelectable pretty much everywhere else in the Western world.

Roe v. Wade did not polarize the majority of Americans who agree with its bottom line that a flat ban on abortions is unconstitutional. It polarized the minority that thinks it should make the choice for everyone else. And post-Roe, we reached an accommodation in which abortion would be legal but the government wouldn't pay for it -- the Hyde Amendment -- that nobody was completely happy with, but which worked as a compromise. It was really only when your side began demanding we go back to a flat ban that the polarization started.

[Don Nico]

"Roe v. Wade did not polarize the majority of Americans who agree with its bottom line that a flat ban on abortions is unconstitutional."
Your refusal to see the polarizing effect of R v.W blinds you to a crucial component of polarization in Congress.
And then you presume what "my side" is with no evidence at all except for your political prejudices and proceed to gross assumption. In fact you missed completely the next crucial event in the polarization growth which was the borking of Robert Bork.

[Krychek_2]

You've commented on abortion enough here that I have a pretty good idea what your side is, though feel free to clarify what your side is should you feel it appropriate.

And the issue with Bork is that his views were radical and extremist. When Reagan finally got around to nominating someone with mainstream views (which does not mean I always agreed with him), he was quickly and overwhelmingly confirmed.

[Don Nico]

K_2
I have said very little if anything about abortion here. I dare you to dig up some appropriate quotes to substantiate your claim.

As for Mr Bork, indeed he had made many enemies as solicitor general. But his nomination helped build the poison in the system.

But back to R v W , one doesn't see see any other issue that has become a litmus test in SCOTUS nominations. Oh it is masked as endless questioning about stare decisis, as if both left and right don't have other "established law" that they are dying to have overturned.

Finally back to your democracy issue, once challenged you step back mumbling able impracticality. You have three choices if you really dislike the US Constitution system, work tirelessly to change the constitution via amendment or Convention or don't pay attention to politics, or chose to live in a system that you prefer.
Just whining here about the existence of the US Senate does nothing. I doubt it even makes you feel better

[bernard11]

You are ignoring the role Gingrich played.

And while the Constitution is not the problem it is a part of it.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
Whatever the foundational documents they become entangled in the problem when politicians like Newt play politics by ultimatum. Harry Reid was another cut from the same cloth.

[Sarcastr0]

At this point, maybe LBJ hauling out his hog would be worth a try.

[Jimmy the Dane]

What is handicapping Biden is that he has no real ideas or plans. Basically his entire plan was to spend more money on niche progressive ideas that sound good to the people who tell you to spend taxpayer money on things. That is how you get "crackpipes for equity" happening. If Biden had any original ideas, anything that would move the football, anything that would inspire leadership, he might actually be able to get somewhere (thank God he hasn't). But so far we are 13 months into the same old, same old and spend more money.

[Sarcastr0]

Basically his entire plan was to spend more money on niche progressive ideas that sound good to the people who tell you to spend taxpayer money on things.

Do you think the child tax credit is niche? Infrastructure spending?

You really prefer to go with what you wish is true about the opposition and not the facts.

As for the crack pipes, that turns out to have been nonsense - they appear in similar state packaged, but were not in the federal one.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Classic Sarcastro hand waving....

The bill had almost no infrastructure and was a pork barrel leftist wet dream list. Even the "fact checkers" didn't try to make the case that the purpose of the plan was to fix roads and bridges.

Child tax credit was just de facto welfare, and, yes, most people are not interested in seeing their taxes converted to more welfare under the guise that it is supposed to be for children. Most people raise their own kids and pay for them without expecting the government to give them a check.

[Sarcastr0]

Turns out pork barrel spending is generally infrastructure.

YOU may not like the child tax credit, but arguing it's a niche leftist issue is laughable.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Wealth redistribution has always been a niche left wing goal.

Also calling paying for Big Brother to track the miles in my car so I can pay more in taxes or putting up more cameras to de facto tax motorists is not really "infrastructure" in the sense most people think of construction crews widening roads, fixing old highways, or building new bridges.

[Sarcastr0]

Wealth redistribution has always been a niche left wing goal.

Social Security? Medicare? The ACA?

You're definition of niche seems like 'things Jimmy doesn't like.'

And your second paragraph is just weird gripes you have about stuff including speed cameras, which are not really a federal thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Social security and Medicare at least pretend to be paying back to people what they paid in. The ACA is a redistribution program pretending to be insurance regulation, but is also a left-wing program.

[Sarcastr0]

No one thinks Social Security and Medicare pay out what you put in - not even you.

So your distinction is without a difference.

But the main point is Jimmy's pretending things are niche that are not.

[Jmaie]

"No one thinks Social Security...pay out what you put in"

Nancy Pelosi does (or did). I remember seeing her say that a ROI of one point something percent made SSI a great investment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"but were not in the federal one."

What federal one? The program allowed nonprofits to apply for funds to distribute harm reduction materials including safe-smoking kits, but I haven't seen any evidence, other than Psaki's self-serving assertion, that there are any federal kits.

[David Nieporent]

As for the crack pipes, that turns out to have been nonsense - they appear in similar state packaged, but were not in the federal one.

Not sure what you're referring to here; there was no "federal one."

The federal thing is a grant program to states and local governments as well as relevant not-for-profits, to be used for harm reduction. The grant announcement lists all sorts of things the money can be used for. Most of them are bureaucratic nonsense (creating strategic action plans, developing sustainability plans, developing policies and procedures, to implement evidence-based practices, assembling harm reduction advisory councils, etc.), but also purchasing equipment and supplies (testing kits, Naloxone, condoms, hepatitis vaccinations, and things like syringes and smoking kits, to the extent allowed by state/local law.)

https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/grants/pdf/fy22-harm-reduction-nofo.pdf

But I guess "Biden is giving money to local governments which they can use for lots of things which could but probably won't include smoking kits — and nobody knows exactly what "smoking kits" are" — doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

[Queen Amalthea]

Good grief Jimmy. You don't think that has more to do with, I dunno, the fact that spending doesn't have to go by the filibuster like other bills would?

[Brett Bellmore]

What was he thinking picking somebody like Kamala Harris for VP, when at his advanced age and medical history, there's a significant chance she'd have to actually do the job? Does anybody think she's suited to the job? Did anybody think that during the primaries?

I think you need to consider the possibility that he's just not doing a lot of thinking about these things.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I chalk up the selection of Kamala to the diversity true believers in the party. Those people really do think we will enter the Age of Aquarius when events like America getting a black woman President happens. Anyone who has any political savvy is going to know that the chances of a black woman winning the Presidential election is still probably a generation away, so if you are a true believer then why not just back door it (or insert the chance with a pretty darn high probability that the backdoor is going to be thrown open because of Biden's advanced age).

So yes they were thinking and that was their reasoning. Black woman as President = 1000 years of utopia, therefore make it happen no matter what.

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy's take on what progressives are would be more fun if he was at all consistent about it. A JtD Democratic Cinematic Universe, if you will.

Comedy gold.

[loki13]

I think he believe in the Democratic Cinematic Multiverse. You know, there are an infinite number of conflicting and crazy worlds, and they all share the one common trait of the DEMS BEIN' EVIL COMMIE LIBTARDS.

[OtisAH]

Except on Earth-3 where UltraDem is a really sweet guy.

[loki13]

UltraDem- you know he's the opposite of the EvilDems because he has a goatee!

[Jimmy the Dane]

You forgot Social Marxist.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You mock to deflect, but it is easy to see you don't say I am wrong....

[Sarcastr0]

I mock because you make hilarious stuff up about what the people you disagree with you think.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So all those people who preach identity politics, intersectionality, and critical race really don't believe what they are saying? They just say that stuff because it sounds good but don't really believe that in order to be an anti-racist society we need to put people of color into positions of power? And that maybe they used this mindset when picking the VP?

Huh. I mean if these people are disingenuous blowhards that don't believe the wares they sell are wort anything then I guess you are right.

[Randal]

How can you be wrong about the plot points within your own cinematic multiverse?

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is the beauty of a "multiverse" in that every derivation of anything that could have ever happened exists in an alternative reality. So somewhere out there is a copy of me that decided to work from home today instead of going into the office.

[Randal]

Uh oh, that might be me. Scary!

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you know why Veeps are chosen. It seems to have worked - Biden got elected.

This is a dumb line of attack, because it would apply to every President's Veep selection since 1804.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There were at least two VPs who became President and that the President would have never wanted this person to become President ever but selected them for political expediency:

John Tyler
Andrew Johnson

[not guilty]

Not to mention Lyndon Johnson.

[Brett Bellmore]

George Bush, too: He was a ticket balancing choice on the part of Reagan. And because Reagan had too much personal loyalty to ditch him after he didn't need him for that anymore, George ended up with a term as President, and set out to undo much of what Reagan had accomplished.

Ideally a VP should be a drop in replacement for a President, not radically different from the President. The President's 'third term', as Bush promised to be, and made sure not to be.

[David Nieporent]

Narrator: Bush did not in fact "set out to undo much of what Reagan had accomplished."

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, perhaps he didn't undo anything that you valued.

As an example, Reagan had reined in the BATF, and stopped just short of abolishing the agency. Bush took the choke collar off, and told them, 'sic 'em!'.

And the result was Ruby Ridge, on Bush's watch, and Waco, which was started during Bush's term and perpetrated by people Bush should have fired instead of promoting, and only came to a head while Clinton was in office. (Reno might have made it worse, but it was Bush people who set it in motion.)

Reagan cut taxes. Bush swore, "No new taxes!" and broke his pledge right away.

Indeed, the reason Bush the elder was a one term President was that he so completely alienated Republican voters by reversing Reagan policies!

[Bob from Ohio]

"It seems to have worked - Biden got elected."

His tiger repelling rock also worked, no tiger ate him.

VPs don't matter, never have, never will.

[Sarcastr0]

Electorally?

Lots and lots of Presidential candidates would disagree with that take.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I think Bob from Ohio might have John Nance Garner in mind = VPs don't matter, never have, never will.

I don't think candidate VPs matter all that much when a typical voter pulls the lever for a POTUS candidate. They matter on the downside when they make a mistake....but upside? Not seeing that one. History really does not bear that out = VP making or breaking a POTUS candidate.

[Sarcastr0]

Veeps post-election don't matter, that is true. That is indeed why they are such convenient electoral bargaining chips.

My thesis is not making or breaking, it's that Presidents base their decision on perceived electoral benefit.
IOW, Brett's criticism of Biden is pining for a reality that has never existed.

[loki13]

Weirdly, I think you're both right on this one.

Arguably, VPs don't matter. Not never- Kennedy/Johnson won Texas, barely, and LBJ helped (as one example). But VPs basically don't matter.

On the other hand, candidates think that they matter a great deal. With the exception of Dick Cheney, I can't think of a single VP pick who wasn't chosen for some perceived quality that would help in terms of votes. And Cheney picked himself. 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I think VPs become important in terms of downside risk, generally. I mean, let's be real for a second. Did Spiro Agnew bring anything to the ticket? No, but he had a hell of a downside (and a wonderful quote about the nattering nabobs of negativism, LOL). Did Alben Barkley bring anything to the table for Truman? Uh, no.

The jury is out wrt VP Harris. I am very mindful of something her husband said, "It is always hard to be the first". That is true.

[loki13]

I love that quote. Good alliteration is underappreciated.

[Josh R]

I think William Safire wrote it for Agnew.

[loki13]

That makes sense, given my opinion of the relative wordsmithing of Agnew of Safire.

[Don Nico]

That is correct. Safire was the author of the quote

[David Nieporent]

Spiro Agnew was a representative (at the time he was picked) of the moderate wing of the GOP, to balance out the more hard-line Nixon.

[Bob from Ohio]

JFK still wins even without Texas.

If he had LBJ as majority leader, he would have been more effective.

[Sarcastr0]

Absolutely agree. LBJ got a rude awakening when he became Veep on that front.

But JFK didn't know he didn't need Texas beforehand.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Lots and lots of Presidential candidates would disagree with that take."

They'd be wrong. People vote for president.

Harris was such a good candidate she dropped out in Iowa before the caucus.

[Sarcastr0]

Lets look at Brett's original thesis - "What was he thinking picking somebody like Kamala Harris for VP, when at his advanced age and medical history, there's a significant chance she'd have to actually do the job? Does anybody think she's suited to the job? Did anybody think that during the primaries?"

My point is that right or wrong, we know what Biden was thinking; and it wasn't at all extraordinary. Brett is grasping for straws.

[OtisAH]

Nah, Brett will have an answer why any one or all of those other Veep picks prove his thinking one way or the other.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, you know why Veeps are chosen. It seems to have worked - Biden got elected. "

Well, you've got me there, I don't know how he'd have carried California otherwise.

[Don Nico]

"It seems to have worked - Biden got elected. "
S_O,
A challenge for you.
Explain in detail which states, which Biden won, would have gone to Trump except for Harris on the ticket.

[Sarcastr0]

Retrospective analysis of a prospective decision is bad analysis. You know this; I've seen you make that point about Covid policies.

[Don Nico]

In other words, you cannot think of any states after the fact. Neither can I.
But I cannot think of any states which plausibly would have been considered more favorable to Biden before the fact. She was a poor choice and certainly not capable to take on the job if Biden is unable to continue.
Before you ask, yes, I think she is better than Bernie Sanders.

[Queen Amalthea]

This is just your partisanship, Harris has fairly common VP qualifications.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, she was over 35 and had a pulse. Aside from that her stated qualifications where that she was 'black', and a woman.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Big City DA, Biggest State AG, U.S. Senator. Those were there too dude.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, without her Biden would have lost California

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. Lol. That would not have happened. Brett is seeming to insinuate she's just "any black woman over 35" and not, you know, a successful politician.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, she's a politician whose run for the Presidential nomination totally tanked in her own home state, which home state Biden had zero chance of failing to carry. She contributed nothing to the campaign except satisfying a demand for racial discrimination.

[Sarcastr0]

She contributed nothing to the campaign except satisfying a demand for racial discrimination.

Brett's political analysis has figured out Biden's thinking once again!

[Don Nico]

Rather than a snark, try refuting Brett's comment.
Harris did tank in CA and had to drop out early.
Really really added nothing except to satisfy Clyburn.
Given the Orange Clown's campaign of political suicide, many choices other than Harris would have produced the same final result.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's comment is 'well, it wasn't to carry California. Therefore it musta been just about race.'

Since that is not the only two possible choices, he's saying a lot more about how he sees Harris than anything else.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden literally told everybody it was about race. And sex.

I don't need to infer it, when he came right out and SAID it.

[Sarcastr0]

You're arguing it was *only* about those things.

Well, argue would be generous. More asserting.

[Michael P]

Biden gave his criteria for the nomination. They were all about race and sex.

One might assume he also cares about ideology, but that would just be an assumption.

I would say "You're not this dumb", S_0, but I'm a big believer in sticking to the evidence in hand.

[Sarcastr0]

Adding in the 'only' is a bigger assumption than realizing not every black woman judge will do.

My narrative is this is basically the normal process. Yours is a clumsy attempt to play the race card.

[Michael P]

You were the one who added the "only".

What a narrative!

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, she was over 35 and had a pulse. Aside from that her stated qualifications where that she was 'black', and a woman.

Is what I was responding to.

Maybe read better.

[David Nieporent]

Brett's analysis is that she brought nothing to the ticket except all the people that choosing her appealed to.

[Don Nico]

David,
All those people were going to vote for Biden in any event.

[BillyG]

I think whoever made the choice for Biden thought Harris would actually be a good VP and able to take over the Presidency in Jan 2023. In all honesty, I don't think anyone realized she'd be this bad. In reality, it turned out she's incapable and terrible as a VP (and would be worse as President). Now, Dems can't replace Harris and they can't replace Biden without replacing Harris first. Dems are stuck with an obvious Alzheimer's patient and no way to replace.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"with an obvious Alzheimer's patient"

Last time the right pushed this line it kind of blew up in their faces. They pushed it so hard to the point where online right-wingers thought he was going to be catatonic and drooling in a wheelchair. Instead of lowering expectations for their guy they lowered expectations for their opponent, which is...stupid. Eventually the Trump people had to push back on this because they knew the truth: Biden was old but still with it and capable of smoking Trump in a debate and with the voters.

I suppose with Biden's age its worth it to try again....but to concern troll you: I wouldn't push this one so hard given what happened last time.

[bernard11]

Tell me, Brett.

Do you think Harris is less able to do the job than, say, Sarah Palin?

If you do then you live in a strange universe.

[Jmaie]

Debating the relative merits of Harris or Palin is rather like arguing between giant douche or turd sandwich.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
That is a ridiculous challenge. Why not say Harris or Gillibrand or Klobuchar?

Harris may have failed the CA bar exam the first time, but Palin is just plain stupid

[David Welker]

You are correct. The Dems should have scaled back their ambitions to something that both Manchin and Sinema would support.

The smaller your majority, the less ambitious partisan priorities will have to be.

The good news is that there is room for plenty of progress that both parties agree on.

Reconciliation can still be used, but it will have to be used more carefully.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The good news is that the role of conservatism in modern America seems destined to continue to diminish, and that the liberal-libertarian mainstream will will continue to shape our national progress along the established trajectory of reason, tolerance, education, science, modernity, inclusiveness, and the like. In particular, that progress will develop the preferences of those who favor backwardness, superstition, bigotry, insularity, ignorance, etc.

[Frank Drackman]

so who delivers your Viagra/Cialis/Finasterid/Tamsulosin Amazon? UPS, USPS(hope you don't need it soon) no way its the VA, you don't strike me as a "Klinger"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What science has changed that is leading all these Blue states to suddenly, and in near unison, to drop COVID restrictions like masking children?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I'm sure the "fact checkers" will be telling us in about the next 6-12 hours...

[Randal]

Uh... falling covid rates maybe? They're down 75% from just a few weeks ago.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Uh... falling covid rates maybe? They're down 75% from just a few weeks ago.

And yet those rates are ~3,300% what they were in late June of last year, and nearly 1,000% what they were in late November.

[Randal]

The direction is what matters, not the magnitude.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The direction is what matters, not the magnitude.

What direction were they going before they hit those previous lows? Think hard now....

[Randal]

You mean when we dropped the mandates before bringing them back when the rates started to go back up?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Who is this "we" who dropped "the mandates" back in June and November, and is doing so again now?

[Don Nico]

That direction has far more to do with the dynamics of OMicron than anything US public health authorities have put in play.
The Omicron trajectory has been mirrored in most countries on the face of the earth

[Frank Drackman]

Oh Great, so cut out all of the Bullshit, including the Bullshit Vaccines

[Bob from Ohio]

Political science.

Biden is below Trump at the same point, under 40%.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden has been down in the polls for a while.

Your causal assumption doesn't have a credible timeline.

[Bob from Ohio]

He keeps going down while the election gets closer.

New low average this week. Dem pivot on masks.

[Sarcastr0]

So now it's unfalsifiable anytime Biden isn't doing well.

[Don Nico]

What do you mean with that comeback (seriously)?

[David Welker]

The decline of omicron.

The idea that blue states WANT there to be restrictions is false. Very few people enjoy the hassle of wearing masks.

[Frank Drackman]

especially Georgia Governor (In her own Mind) Stacy Abrahams, wants everyone to see the gap in her front teeth

[BillyG]

The Poli-Science kind.

[Bob from Ohio]

I sure wish inflation would pack its bags and transit as promised.

Alas.

[Commenter_XY]

Same here. I am waiting for the ephemeral part of transitory myself.

In the meantime, I am looking at asset class returns from 1965 - 1982 to get a sense of what assets did well in a higher inflation environment.

I can remember news stories of how people tried to beat inflation back in the early 1970's. One tip, if you have a freezer and a little storage space, do your shopping for the entire year in one shot (save perishables). Saving 5% on an annual food bill is nothing to sneeze at.

[David Welker]

Your freezer idea assumes you can't invest that money and get a higher rate of return. It also assumes that the opportunity cost of buying a large freezer and the storage space is best used for this particular investment.

[Commenter_XY]

You're right, I did not consider the alternative of investing the money. You could invest and hope to get a higher return.

My point was only about absolute expense reduction by avoiding price inflation entirely. It is one way to attenuate it = mega-shopping trip to purchase one year of supplies. The news story I vaguely recall was a family of 6 who had a 'train' of shopping carts going through the supermarket to buy supplies. At the time, I think they spent something like $1,400 for the year. It made a lasting impression on me (this was probably ~45 years ago).

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Your freezer idea assumes you can't invest that money and get a higher rate of return.

Which would be a good point if his 5% estimate for the rate of inflation on food wasn't far too low, as that would be easy to beat, at least in the long run. Beef prices are up something like 20%-24% (depending on your source) over last year, and pork costs about 14% more on average...though that only makes the strategy a good one to have followed a year ago, with no guarantee that it will continue to be (though I don't think it's a bad bet). Meat overall, including poultry, fish and eggs is up about 12%. Lucky for us we have chickens, and are up to our eyeballs in fresh eggs. I'm not raising any meat birds yet, but that's liable to change soon. I could raise a small number of cattle too, but that's a lot of expense end more work than I want to do at my age, so my plan is to start a herd of goats instead.

It also assumes that the opportunity cost of buying a large freezer and the storage space is best used for this particular investment.

Well, if you have space available that you're not planning to do anything else with then that's not a problem. And if you opt for an upright freezer the floor space requirements are pretty small. But this is all pretty easy for me to say because I already have 2 upright freezers (in addition to the refrigerator-freezer in the kitchen) that I bought well before appliance prices went crazy along with everything else, and more than enough space to keep them in.

[loki13]

Inflation tried to pack its bags and transit, but the supply chain is broken so it was unable to depart.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The supply chain is broken? I guess we'd better stimulate demand then! What could go wrong?

[Commenter_XY]

It tried to leave by way of Canada...but blocked from leaving 🙂

[loki13]

Ha!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Because who knew that the supply chain was screwed up after only a little more than a year and a half into the pandemic?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd say, "a year and a half into the response to the pandemic".

Objectively, Covid didn't kill enough people, and particularly enough non-retired people, to disrupt anybody's supply chains. All the disruption came from the response to it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Fair enough.

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit, get Pete Boot-Edge-Edge off his Maternity leave and driving his Supply Chain Truck

[reinkefj]

Bearing in mind what happened to the “Liberty Dollar” do you have any thoughts about “Gold Back Bucks” https://goldback.com/

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why am I surprised that so many people don't know how to ice-fish properly?

[M L]

According to the CDC, the omicron variant took over the entire United States in about a month. Nearly all infections were Delta, then suddenly 99.5% omicron.

So with all of the masking and other nonsense, the virus reached every corner of this land in a month. Why do we pretend that it's possible to stop this?

[Brett Bellmore]

If you're to believe the numbers the local health authorities are publishing around here, very nearly everyone got it. And you wouldn't even have noticed in terms of disruption of local life.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If I wanted to take a shot at answering your question, I would try to estimate how many cases of omicron there were, and compare that to the population. If nearly everyone got a case of omicron, then your rhetorical question deserves at least some serious consideration. If there remains a sizable fraction which avoided omicron, then a premise that omicron is too infectious to stop raises a question about what protected those who did not get it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Presumably immunity due to prior vaccination/infection/nutrition/good genetics, and dumb luck.

[Don Nico]

Considering that neither vaccination nor booster binges in nations slowed the infection, your third choice, dumb luck is the most likely common answer

[Don Nico]

In my case I stayed home and worked from my office there

[Stephen Lathrop]

So lockdowns are the way to go?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Don't forget Biden's racist travel bans too, which, according to the The Science&tm; was supposed to Stop The Spread&tm;

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Reading my New in Chess magazine (2021 #7, I'm a little behind), and to my delight there was our esteemed leader, Prof. Eugene Volokh, commenting on the lawsuit Nona Gaprindashvili filed against Netflix concerning her mention in the show 'The Queen's Gambit.' In the final episode of the series, a commentator says that Gaprindashvili, at that time (1968) the women's world champion, "never faced men." Turns out that isn't true, and what's more she was upset that she was referred to as being Russian when she is actually a native Georgian.

Prof. Volokh gave a couple factors that would make her libel suit difficult to win. The biggest question in my mind is why didn't the writers of the show just make up a name, rather than use an actual person? The men Harmon was facing in that tournament in USSR were all made up. Also, before the suit was filed, Gaprindashvili apparently asked Netflix to apologize and acknowledge the error. Netflix ignored her.

[M L]

I finally got the 'vid recently. I almost didn't notice it. I had a sore throat for about two hours. I'm unvaccinated because I never saw a real urgent need to be vaccinated for COVID, and because the psychotic hysteria and authoritarianism turned me off. Meanwhile I know a bunch of young healthy athletic people who are vaccinated and got very sick. Keep in mind anecdotes are not data.

[Don Nico]

Keep in mind that "psychosis" is an actual medical condition and its sufferers do not reserve your ridicule.

[not guilty]

One of the January 6 defendants is attempting to subpoena Donald Trump as a defense witness. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21197731/2-4-22-dustin-thompson-brief-for-donald-trump-testimony.pdf

As much as I would like to see Trump examined under oath, I am skeptical that he would be of value to the defendant. Trump was not empowered to direct the mob to storm the Capitol, and acting as a Trump stooge is not a defense.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I've remarked before, it doesn't matter if some idiots thought Trump wanted them to violently invade the Capitol, unless maybe you think the dog should have been indicted in the Son of Sam murders.

[not guilty]

I wonder if this defendant is trying to set up a nullification defense. The masterminds of a nefarious plot are not being held to account, while the foot soldiers are being put to trial.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I wonder how many political prisoners are rotting in Democrat jails over the Kavanaugh Insurrection?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I wonder how many peoples lives were saved by wearing a mask for the 20 seconds you entered a restaurant then taking it off and eating and talking for an hour, then wearing the mask again for 20 seconds while you exited?

Any mask-hole care to guess?

[ducksalad]

I'm not a mask-hole but could offer a pseudo-quantitative wild ass guess.

Let's guess 100% compliance with ordinary non-N95 masking in public with no exceptions would have made a 10% difference in the number of deaths. Probably an overestimate but I'm trying to get you a non-zero result here. Furthermore let's guess that effectiveness scales down from that 10% roughly in proportion to the percentage of time worn.

Assume that the people who were out and about spent an average of 4 hours a day which is about 100000 seconds per week. If they eat out twice a week that's 80 seconds (4 one way trips) between the table and the door, so it made a 0.08% difference in their overall mask wearing time.

But - the rule was not in effect everywhere so we'll knock that down to 0.04% of total American mask wearing time. And it was only in effect for about half the time of the pandemic so we'll knock it down further to 0.02%.

0.02% x 10% x 900,000 deaths = 18 deaths. Of course I could be off by a factor of 100 either way.

If you subscribe to the "if only one life is saved...." rule you'll be satisfied.

[not guilty]

The trial of those accused of conspiring to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer begins on March 8.

Is the Republican National Committee going to weigh in on whether that plot was legitimate political discourse?

[M L]

FBI foils FBI plot.

[BillyG]

12 people in the truck. 8 of them working for the FBI.

[Sarcastr0]

The FBI absolutely does entrapment nonsense.

This does not look like that. They did not need a push - they came up with their dumbass plans and bought explosives all on their own.

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

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm glad you admit they do entrapment nonsense. You won't really know until the trial with discovery is over, because OF COURSE the FBI is denying entrapment right now. The Wikipedia article certainly recounts elements of entrapment.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I was around when the FBI picked up a Muslim a day for terrorism.

Actually, the FBI probably won't lie so blatantly about a case where there will be discovery.
Even if they suck, they're pros.

[Michael P]

Pros who get fired for beating their wife after visiting a swingers' club, are pulled as a witness following accusations of perjury in another case, and are pulled as a witness because of unsurprised moonlighting, sure.

And those three are just (formerly) on this case -- we haven't even started on cases like Kevin Clinesmith who thought their work wouldn't get checked. Too bad the DOJ IG did check their work, and found that the FBI consistently failed to live up to their own professional standards (Woods procedures).

So maybe call them semi-pros: They do get paid for what they do.

[Sarcastr0]

Individual agents are not the FBI.

The desperation on the right to cover for violent yahoos...

[Michael P]

Your abstraction of "the FBI" does not sign affidavits, run investigations, or testify in court.

The desperation on the left to cover up for corrupt gazpacho police....

[Sarcastr0]

Institutions are not an abstraction - unlike individuals, they have procedures and internal controls. They sometimes do crazy stuff, but they're generally going to act more rationally than a single person.

You are making the argument 'here are some dumbasses who work for the FBI. Therefore, the FBI will act like a dumbass.'

Maybe the FBI will act like a dumbass, but you've provided no relevant evidence of that.

Again, the thesis you're defending is that the FBI is lying about what happened in Michigan so they can go to trial and be found out to be lying about what happened in Michigan. It makes no sense.

[Michael P]

The only way you get to me "providing no relevant evidence" is by ignoring that the very agents in this case engaged in official (and unofficial) misconduct. And also ignoring that the DOJ IG found that the FBI regularly failed to meet its own standards for integrity. And forgetting all about COINTELPRO and the like. The FBI has continued similar operations more recently: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/13/fbi-informant-anna-eric-mcdavid-eco-terrorism

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying the FBI has integrity, I'm saying it's not going to make a dumbass move like Brett's 'entrapment but they materially lied about it' story.

[apedad]

Now do:

Bad cops
Bad priests
Bad politicians
Bad dog catches
Bad farmers
Bad pilots
Bad.......

[Michael P]

Nobody here is saying that we should trust cops or priests or politicians because they're professionals and would not "lie so blatantly" in some situation.

S_0, however, argued we should trust FBI agents because they are incorruptible paragons of professionalism.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I'm arguing the FBI has an incentive not to do something where they can't get away with it.

[Michael P]

That's a nice argument in theory, but history shows the FBI generally can get away with things like this. Especially when the DOJ overcharges to compel the defendant to take a plea deal that includes never challenging misconduct by the investigators.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And regardless of the evidence or verdict, you'll be here informing everyone about how it was really a false-flag operation by left-wing plants.

Just like you do with everything else.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

March 8th is just like Jan 6th.

An FBI plot.

[Frank Drackman]

can we agree that kidnapping the Governor would be more torture than a Michigan State Prison?

[not guilty]

Governor Ron DeSantis refused to answer a reporter's question as to whether Mike Pence could have overturned the presidential election result on January 6.

DeSantis is a Harvard trained lawyer. He is presumably capable of parsing a statute such as 3 U.S.C. 15. Donald Trump has him cowed to the point that he refuses to tell the truth in response to a straightforward question.

[LawTalkingGuy]

John Eastman got his JD at the University of Chicago. Jeffrey Clark is a Harvard grad and got his law degree from Georgetown. Rudy got a JD from NYU. Sidney Powell went to UNC, which is a pretty great school too. They came up with this nonsense.

[loki13]

I think you know what the answer is, unfortunately.

It's about the primaries. It's about being elected. Look at the crazies here in this thread (or any other VC thread). Whether it's because they truly believe the QAnon stuff, or whether it's because they just want to own the Libs, the math is pretty simple- there is a massive downside, and no upside, to staying out of it for DeSantis.

Not exactly a profile in courage, but it's certainly understandable.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He also might just be that dumb. I mean he's clearly a coward for refusing to answer. But as the last few years have demonstrated, having a law degree and going to great schools does not prevent one from being as dumb as a box of rocks (with apologies to both boxes and rocks for the insult). He might actually be dumb enough to either believe Pence could throw out electoral votes or dumb enough to actually not know the answer to this question.

[not guilty]

Or it may be that DeSantis, like Garry Trudeau said of George H. W. Bush, put his manhood in a blind trust.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you've got something backwards here: Refusing to express an opinion on the matter WAS "staying out of it". You're not asking him to stay out, you're asking that he take your side.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There aren't "sides" to this question though. There is a correct answer and a lie made up by some cranks as part of a stupid coup attempt.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I'm aware that the left is heavily into this, "You're either with us to the max, or you're the enemy, there are no neutrals." thinking.

Screw that. Refusing to express an opinion on it IS staying out of it, and you're just demanding that he join your side or be counted an enemy. But, why should he bother joining your side? His being counted an enemy by you is over-determined already, he gains precisely nothing by humoring you.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But, why should he bother joining your side?

Dignity? Sanity? Self-respect? Respect for reality?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Dignity? Sanity? Self-respect? Respect for reality?"

You figure that makes an impression on a bigoted, autistic, antisocial, right-wing, serial conspiracy theorist?

I am skeptical.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would any Republican think dignity or self respect requires joining the Democrats? You should expect them to think it requires you to join them!

Are you stupid enough to think that everybody who says they disagree with you privately agrees, and is just being contrary?

[Sarcastr0]

Because it's about sticking with the facts, not choosing partisan sides.

Telling you can't see that.

[Don Nico]

Here i have to agree with S_O.
DeSantis should have the cojones to answer the question.

[Brett Bellmore]

That would have been nice, yes, but his not having them was perfectly understandable in a politician who doesn't want to retire. Politics does not select for people willing to tell their voting base they're being stupid.

Democrats also have their topics where their office holders have say stupid stuff or just be silent, if they want to keep their offices.

[David Nieporent]

Why would any Republican think dignity or self respect requires joining the Democrats?

There is no "joining the Democrats." There's telling the truth or not.

The only two choices are (a) he knows the truth but refuses to say it — which would reflect lack of dignity and self-respect; or (b) he's too dumb to know the truth.

Are you stupid enough to think that everybody who says they disagree with you

DeSantis didn't say that! That's the whole point!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are you stupid enough to think that everybody who says they disagree with you privately agrees, and is just being contrary?

No, I think there are plenty of stupid people are sincere in their stupid beliefs.

I do not, however, think DeSantis is one of them—not least of all because if he were, he wouldn't be hesitating to say so!

[not guilty]

It's not so onerous in this case to choose between objective truth and abject falsity. Pence is right, Trump is wrong, and DeSantis is indifferent as to the distinction.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Brett, are you being serious here? Do YOU think the vice-president has the constitutional authority to set aside electoral college votes? It doesn't really seem like a partisan question.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brett Bellmore's -- though generally quite confident about unqualified opinions, is not sure about this one, much as he was 'only asking questions' with respect to former Pres. Obama's birth certificate and 'just saying there are to sides to this' about Jan. 6.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Good lord. You are very consistent in believing that there are actually objectively correct answers to constitutional questions. But suddenly on the “question” of “can the Vice President unilaterally throw out electoral votes and in effect select the next president,” you suddenly think there are sides and opinions on the matter. Unfuckingbelievable.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said nothing of the sort. I think it's pretty clear that Pence couldn't, and I'm not impressed that he didn't want to say so.

That doesn't change the fact that refusing to answer the question one way or the other is staying out of it, not taking sides.

[LawTalkingGuy]

THERE ARE NO SIDES.

[Brett Bellmore]

You keep setting up sides, then denying there are sides. It's absurd, can you not notice yourself doing it?

"There aren't "sides" to this question though. There is [a correct answer] and [a lie made up by some cranks as part of a stupid coup attempt]."

There's your sides, right there. Agreeing with you, and being a stupid monster, basically.

He's saying, 'Leave me out of this.', and you're saying, 'Right, I'm putting you down as a stupid monster, because you're not agreeing with me.'

"No separate peace." "You're with me or against me." "You're part of the solution or part of the problem." All of those, like your formulations, are statements that there are only two sides.

Yours, and the enemy's.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you're the one setting up sides. You know what's true and what's not. But you're willing to forgive being craven because...it would be embarrassing?

Come on.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have a poor opinion of politicians, and nobody makes it to a position like Governor of a large state if they're not "craven" in the sense of avoiding picking fights with their own base. So I'm not terribly impressed, but not terribly shocked. Democrats are equally craven, just on different topics.

In this political context, refusing to take sides is, essentially, as survivable as it gets for a Republican politician. And, since his job doesn't have any relevance to this fight, I'll excuse it. If he ran for President, I'd demand that he stake out a position. As a state Governor, he doesn't have to, because his opinion doesn't matter.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're so far gone Brett, that you see a "side" in whether or not the law states something in plain language.

In this case, it's the Constitution, and it's unambiguous. Yet you're so god-damned partisan that you can't even admit those facts.

You're hopeless.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're so far gone you can't even see that I'm not disagreeing with you about the law, here. I'm disagreeing about whether refusing to commit to a side in the argument is taking a side in the argument.

I'm disagreeing with your determination that everybody has to ally with you, or be counted your enemy.

[Sarcastr0]

When one side is truth, and the other is lies, and you choose not to choose, you're one of those "cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

There's a pretty common trope about angels who refuse to pick a side in Lucifer's rebellion. They never come out as good.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, now it's not enough to claim there are only two sides, and if they're not with you, they're against you. Now you're claiming a divine right to cast down anybody who doesn't join the fight on your side?

Look, I do think Pence's role was purely ministerial, that he had no discretion to exercise. But, you know what? Positions as poorly grounded as Trump's contrary view prevail all the time in constitutional jurisprudence. Most of the modern leviathan state rests on grounds that are no less shaky!

So now you're going to criminalize throwing shit against the wall and seeing if it sticks?

[Sarcastr0]

No one is against anyone. Just a coward who can't commit to telling the truth everyone knows.

You're seeing sides where there are none. And, tellingly, you're taking the side of silently condoning Trump's lies.

No one is talking about criminality here, either. Another odd slip there.

[Sarcastr0]

Declaring sides, not taking. But I think my meaning was clear.

[Brett Bellmore]

See: There is no silence, only "silently condoning".

You simply can't permit anybody to opt out, they have to publicly agree with you, or be counted the enemy. You refuse to permit any middle ground.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No one is talking about criminality here, either. Another odd slip there."

Sure, they are. They're trying to make out Trump's pressuring Pence to act on his dubious theory as a criminal act, hadn't you noticed? It comes up in threads here all the time, with literal citations of lines of federal code.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one with the enemy talk, everyone else is talking about a particular action being craven and cynical.

[Sarcastr0]

'They're' not part of this comment thread. Weird time to bring 'them' in, in fact.

Says a lot about why you're taking such a tendentious position, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

"When one side is truth, and the other is lies, and you choose not to choose,"

Where the craven and cynical act is refusing to chose your side in the fight, when he doesn't have to be part of the fight in the first place.

And where dubious legal theories become lies, and more plausible legal theories become truth, and don't you all the time attack me for saying that it's dishonest to read the Constitution in some way? But if it's a way you don't like, it's obviously a lie, with your reading being the truth.

And, yet, all DeSantis is doing here is refusing to pick sides, NOT asserting that one side or the other is right, and you're pissed.

You're inconsistent here. Again, I say: Much of current constitutional jurisprudence is just as dubious as Trump's take on EC certifications. Or more so!

Trump's reading is wrong, I think, but it's in the "could actually prevail" domain of wrong, not the "so batshit crazy it could never end up prevailing" domain.

That latter domain is pretty tiny in a world where Wickard is 'good' law, and you don't get jury trials in all criminal cases or civil cases where $25 is at stake.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not a fight. It's wild you think answering a question truthfully is some kind of partisan struggle.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's wild you think answering a question truthfully is some kind of partisan struggle."

It's wild that you think answering a question the way one party prefers it be answered is "answering a question truthfully", rather than demanding that they take that party's side in a political struggle.

Again, the Pence not having the authority argument is the better argument, but it's hardly so clear cut by modern constitutional jurisprudence standards as to make it "the truth". You routinely defend constitutional positions that are more clearly lies, like the 6th amendment not requiring a right to trial by jury in ALL criminal prosecutions. Not a terribly ambiguous word, "all", but you'll defend THAT.

Trump's take on the EC certification isn't nearly that clear cut wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

It's wild that you think answering a question the way one party prefers it be answered is "answering a question truthfully"

You're backsliding. You admitted there was a true answer to the question, and now you seem to be saying that it's all opinion.

Pence not having the authority argument is the better argument, but it's hardly so clear cut by modern constitutional jurisprudence standards as to make it "the truth".

Brett Bellmore, you may want to talk to Brett Bellmore of last night: I think it's pretty clear that Pence couldn't, and I'm not impressed that he didn't want to say so.

This really has tied you up in knots.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not backsliding. As you're well aware, I think lots of current constitutional jurisprudence is wrong. Some of it's just wrong, but there are arguments, some of it's "My God, do you not understand how language works?" wrong.

So, is Pence being able to refuse to certify the winner "All criminal prosecutions doesn't mean all", or "Never mind that it says $20" wrong, or is it "The power to regulate interstate commerce allows regulation of purely intrastate commerce" wrong?

The latter, I think. Purely ministerial roles get perverted into decision making roles all the time in modern America. Trump's argument is not the sort of batshit crazy that is inadmissible in modern constitutional jurisprudence.

[not guilty]

"Trump's take on the EC certification isn't nearly that clear cut wrong."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Brett?

[Frank Drackman]

Apparently Governor Desantis has read Article II section 1 of the Constitution, and you haven't, here's what you should have learned in 10th Grade..

The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted.

[not guilty]

Nothing in Article II Section 1 authorizes the Vice-president to unilaterally reject states' certified slates of electors. There is no inconsistency between the constitutional provision and the more specific procedures specified in 3 U.S.C 15:

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

The exclusive method of objecting to a proffered slate of electors is by a writing explaining the basis of the objection, signed by at least one Senator and at least one House member. There is no role for the Vice-president in resolving objections, which is the province of the respective houses of Congress, acting concurrently.

The familiar maxim of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, holds that the express mention of one thing in a statute is the exclusion of all other things. This is not a close, or even debatable, question.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Democrat DOJ if you're black and you murder someone during a BLM Insurrection:

"Mr. Lee was terribly misguided, and his actions had tragic, unthinkable consequences. But he appears to have believed that he was, in Dr. King’s eloquent words, engaging in ‘the language of the unheard.’"

Meanwhile, white Granny GoGo is rotting in a Democrat political prison being violated of her Constitutional rights because she's not black nor a Democrat.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dude got only 10 years for setting fire which killed someone.

Meanwhile, guy wearing horns gets more than a third of that for sitting in Nancy's chair.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Democrats are generally bad people.
Democrats with power are downright evil monsters. History supports this statement too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Shame on you, then, for letting guys like me so thoroughly kick the asses of guys like you in the culture war, gain control of our society's important institutions, shape our national progress, and determine what your children learn in school.

At least you get to whine about it as much as you like, and the Volokh Conspiracy provides a fine forum for your whimpering!

[Frank Drackman]

Fixed it for you,

Shame on you, then, for letting guys like me so thoroughly LICK the asses of guys like you in the culture war, gain control of our society's important institutions, shape our national progress, and determine what your children learn in school.

At least you get to whine about it as much as you like, and the Volokh Conspiracy provides a fine forum for your whimpering!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So long as you continue to toe the line, Frank, you are welcome to continue with your illiterate whimpering.

Your betters will continue to draw that line for you. You will continue to comply.

[David Nieporent]

I can think of few things less pleasant than the idea of licking Kirkland's ass. But I guess I shouldn't kink-shame you.

[M L]

Sick.

[not guilty]

In light of United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), how does being confined in jail (not prison) while awaiting trial violate constitutional rights, and what does race or party affiliation have to do with it? A small fraction of the January 6 defendants have been denied bail, and those determinations include a factual finding of risk of flight and/or threat to public safety, after an adversarial hearing.

[Michael P]

Remember the guy who drove through the Christmas parade just days after he was allowed to bail out after driving over his girlfriend?

Just another poster child for how accurately Democrats can assess bail risks of people accused of crimes, just like hundreds of Antifa serial rioters (although most of them did not go on to murder people).

[not guilty]

How is that germane to my comment about the January 6 defendants?

[Brett Bellmore]

How is it not? He's pointing out that the people making these determinations of "risk of flight and/or threat to public safety" are lousy at it, and mostly seem to care about the politics of the offender, not their risk profile.

[Michael P]

They also care about immigration status, but maybe that's used as a proxy for politics.

It's insane that an arrest warrant can be used as proof of identity for boarding a TSA-regulated flight.

[not guilty]

The question is whether the pretrial detention of some January 6 defendants violates constitutional rights. I regard Salerno as a bad decision, but it is prevailing law.

[Don Nico]

ng,
You do not that some were held in solitary confinement, hardly fits your prison vs. jail distinction.

[Don Nico]

My typo..
You do know that...

[loki13]

I'm wondering if everyone else is as happy to finally see the pushback on NFTs and Web 3.0 BS.

For a long time ... too long ... there had been uncritical acceptance. Now that it's trying to go mainstream, we are seeing people really digging into it and explaining why this is a bad idea.

Too little too late, or just in time?

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrbDWq64BNg&t=8s

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g

For those with time on their hands.

It really explains the psychology of why such a dumb thing has acceptance by a small cohort even as everyone else is mocking it.

[Brett Bellmore]

According to my son, middle schoolers are making jokes about how stupid NFT's are. That's how stupid they are.

[Ben_]

Thread of victims of Covidians and government:

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/02/10/never-ever-just-let-it-go-jesse-kellys-thread-of-people-sharing-awful-things-our-own-govt-did-to-us-in-the-name-of-covid-is-heartbreakinga/

[Sarcastr0]

So there's where you get all your dumbass ideas from.

[Ben_]

^ Not a humane response to the people who have suffered.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't trust anything randos on twitchy say, that is all.

[F.D. Wolf]

Who else is in favor of a daily "open thread", or at least one more frequent than weekly?

I find (occasional) gems and suspect the co-bloggers here do to.

[not guilty]

Sounds good to me.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez, so many comments, and how many times has the (Very Wrong) Reverand Kirtland referenced "Klingers" (I always liked Klinger, Toledo Mudhens Fan, just trying to get by in a bad situation)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"the (Very Wrong) Reverand Kirtland"

Is that my name in clingerverse?

[Frank Drackman]

40 minutes? did you have to "Rub one Out"?? do I need to explain to you like a small child what that means, "Klinger"

[not guilty]

Sidney Powell's (rejected) Court of Appeals brief from the District Court's award of sanctions illustrates Samuel Johnson's maxim about self-representation and having a fool for a client. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21199215-powell-brief-2022-02-07

[not guilty]

Ronna McDaniel of the Republican National Committee has claimed that the inclusion in a resolution to censure Rep. Liz Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger of the phrase "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse" was intended to refer to people who put themselves on false slates of electors. https://www.yahoo.com/news/rnc-officials-legitimate-political-discourse-132142308.html Putting aside that the language of the censure resolution does not say that, I wonder that Ms. McDaniel thinks that it mitigates the egregiousness.

The submission of bogus slates of electors to the National Archiives was fraudulent and criminal. Ms. McDaniel's comment brings to mind the late Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes: stop digging.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty standard example of the dreck that passes for reporting these days. Lots of paraphrases and assertions about what people said, and a deplorable lack of actual in context quotes.

They make it easy to find out what the reporter wants you to believe somebody said, and hard to find out what words actually came out of their mouth. The longest quote is actually quoting the words of a reporter at the NYT, not one of the principals.

I'd like to know what McDaniel actually had to say, not what a reporter wants me to believe she meant.

[Sarcastr0]

WHEREAS, Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, therefore,
be it RESOLVED, That the Republican National Committee hereby formally censures Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and shall immediately cease any and all support of them as members of the Republican Party for their behavior which has been destructive to the institution of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party and our republic, and is inconsistent with the position of the Conference.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, yeah, and then you get to the claims that the "ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse" refers to people who committed criminal acts, not the non-criminal people the committee has been going after with subpoenas.

And that's where you get all sorts of paraphrases, and naked assertions of what somebody meant, in place of quotes.

[Sarcastr0]

Once again, not criminal is not the same as legitimate.

Jan 06 was many things; legitimate political discourse was not one of them.

People not quoting the stilted language of the censor resolution is not a conspiracy to hide the truth, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Once again, not criminal is not the same as legitimate."

When it comes to speech, it actually is.

"People not quoting the stilted language of the censor resolution is not a conspiracy to hide the truth, either."

They're not quoting the remarks by people like Daniels whose statements they're telling you about, and that's what I'm complaining about. The censure resolution is moderately easy to find, her actual statement concerning the meaning of "legitimate discourse"? Haven't been able to find THAT yet, just media paraphrases.

I am sick to death of media paraphrases at this point. They're basically never accurate, and I've had to conclude not being accurate is the POINT of paraphrasing instead of quoting.

[Sarcastr0]

Jan 06 was not just speech, don't be foolish.

I don't understand what information you want - you want the quotes about the phrase that appears in the censor resolution?

As to incorrect paraphrases, I find no big problems. Political language is not especially nuanced these days.
Politicians claim they've been taken out of context way more than they actually are, when you check; it's become a joke.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Jan 06 was not just speech, don't be foolish."

Plenty of speech happened on January 6th, and when somebody writes the word "discourse", what the heck do you think they mean if not speech?

"I don't understand what information you want - you want the quotes about the phrase that appears in the censor resolution?"

Yes, if the article is about what Daniels said in explaining it, don't tell me what Daniels meant when talking about it, tell me what she SAID. So I don't have to trust your take on what she meant.

Because I DON'T trust reporters' takes on what people meant, if seen them prove to be dishonest way too many times.

[loki13]

C'mon Brett.

You seem to believe a lot of really outrageous and untrue stuff when it tells you what you want to here. Pretty remarkable, really.

But you are quite the skeptic (FALSE FLAG!) when you see something that disagree with your curated existence? Okay.

[Sarcastr0]

The Jan 06 committee is not investigating the speech parts.

What I think they mean is they're trying to provide cover for a pretty screwed up stuff a bunch of people tried to do, with the encouragement of the head of the GOP.

I guess to me the resolution is the part I think is screwed up - I'm not tracking her talking about it too much.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The Jan 06 committee is not investigating the speech parts."

Really? And your basis for saying this is, what? Trusting that a committee picked entirely by Democrats wouldn't do anything abusive towards Republicans?

[Sarcastr0]

That's unfalsifiable nonsense, then.

'We can say the Dems are attacking anything we want, if we assume that in the future they will lie about it. But we won't say they're lying, we'll just yell about the innocents of the people we speculate they will attack!'

[loki13]

In fairness, I don't blame Brett for going to unfalsifiable nonsense.

Because his falsifiable nonsense is regularly ... falsified. 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

It's eminently falsifiable; If the committee finishes up its work without investigating the speech parts, you'll be right. If it doesn't, I'll be right.

You just want to be declared right in advance.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, do you think subpoenas can only be served on criminals? Or that they ought to be served only on criminals? Given evidence that a crime was committed—of which there is plenty—subpoenas ought to be served on anyone with useful information, if they refuse to cooperate voluntarily.

[Brett Bellmore]

Legally speaking? If you're conducting a criminal investigation, sure, you can subpoena witnesses.

That doesn't mean a Congressional committee can't be harassing people by subpoenaing them. It isn't just defendants who can experience the process as the punishment, you know.

If a Congressional committee decided to subpoena me for a couple days testimony, would they be obligated to pay my airfare and hotel room, and compensate me for lost wages? (Genuinely curious.) That stuff may be trivial to people in their income brackets, but it's ruinously expensive for a lot of people.

When the Democrats decided they weren't going to let the Republicans pick their own members for the committee, they voided any reason the Republicans had to treat it as a legitimate exercise. They can treat it as the purely political exercise the Democrats decided to make it.

[Sarcastr0]

When the Democrats decided they weren't going to let the Republicans pick their own members for the committee, they voided any reason the Republicans had to treat it as a legitimate exercise.

Jim Jordan was not a legitimate member for that committee - he's a target of the investigation. The Republicans were never going to take the committee seriously. And I hope they pay the price for being sops to Trump's antidemocratic tantrums.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, for the umpteenth time, the purpose of the minority members of a committee isn't to be the people the majority want on the committee, it's to be the people the MINORITY wants on the committee. That the majority doesn't like them means precisely nothing!

So, who did the majority pick to 'represent' the minority on the committee? Notorious NeverTrumpers who are in conflict with their own party, who aside from the R after their names might as well have been two more Democrats, as far as their political motivations are concerned.

[loki13]

Again, just because you either don't fully understand the history, or choose to keep falsifying it, doesn't make your repeated assertions accurate.

I'm going to point out something that should be obvious. This little aside started with an article about the censure. You complain (without looking anything up) because of your usual complaints - oh, it's not using the exact quotes. But then there's the actual words of the resolution. Oh, but no one is using the words to explain the resolution, just ... the actual resolution.

And now you're attacking the commission. And, of course, defending the "legitimate political discourse" (a lot of which happened, as you keep saying, on Jan. 6).

Which leads any reasonable observer to conclude that you're basically Jimmy the Dane, except instead of staking out the unreasonable position, you're just going to argue with everything.

Perhaps you think that this is correct, or accurate. As the steady drip drip drip of revelations has come out (some damning, some not so much) you do not seem particularly interested in a holistic view. More, I would note that you had a habit of regularly disseminating false election stories, and when called upon it, would kind of shrug and say something equivalent to, "But there are so many more!" without acknowledging that a lot of of BS doesn't equal a true story.

At some point, you might want to re-visit the sources you trust, and see if they've been steering you right. Because from an outside perspective ... well, if you want to be lied to, you're an easy mark.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"unreasonable position" = anything Loki does not agree with.

Also, it is hard to have a partisan witch hunt committee if you have members who might not be completely on board with your plan. That was sort of the whole point when the Dems decided to keep off any effective Republican minority members.

[not guilty]

House Resolution 503 required consultation by the Speaker with the Minority Leader prior to appointing committee members. That consultation was had here. United States Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California has opined that the committee is validly constituted. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017e-941c-d65f-a77e-ffbd82470000

[David Nieporent]

They did let the Republicans pick their own members for the committee. They just vetoed two of the five choices for conflicts of interest.

[Brett Bellmore]

You've got a pretty stilted notion of what "letting somebody pick" means. They can pick, but they won't get what they pick?

And then pretending the committee has minority members, when the majority picked all the members.

[loki13]

Again, this is Brett-land BS.

As we see, two members of the selections were vetoed because they were involved in the actions that were being investigated. Instead of choosing almost ANYONE ELSE, the GOP made a strategic decision to take their ball and go home, thinking that it would make the committee toothless.

They chose poorly. (And this is without even getting into the whole issue that they had previously chosen to not agree to a completely bi-partisan commission).

Look, you can lie to yourself, but maybe stop lying to everyone else. At least, not to actual smart people.

[Brett Bellmore]

The bottom line is, I don't think the majority are entitled to pick the minority members of a committee. No matter how much they dislike who the minority picked.

Do you know of previous occasions where the majority decided they wouldn't let the minority have their picks? And then even proceeded to pick the minority members for them?

[loki13]

Again, Brett, you keep ignoring what is actually going on in order to keep banging the same drum. Here's what you want to say, but lack the cojones to do so-
"Despite the Constitution not having any partisan references or requirements, and despite nothing in the internal house rules requiring it, I, Brett Bellmore, think that the minority party in the House can simply make any committee go away by refusing to agree to it."

See, when the lie is exposed, it's not as good, is it?

Let's recap what happened, again-
The Democrats wanted a broad-based and bi-partisan commission to address the issue. That was shot down for partisan reasons in the Senate (that was early 2021).

Then, they tried to get it going in the House. In an amazing and cynical attempt, the GOP named 2 people that would be targets of the Commission. The Democrats - AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE RULES - vetoed those two. Then, instead of appointing two people ... almost anyone else (there are a few people in the House, you know), the GOP decided to take their ball and go home. Assuming that doing so would mean that the Committee would either not happen, or would be perceived as politicized.

Again, you had two craven political calculations that were made- first by McConnell, and then by McCarthy. And it might have worked ...

Except the trouble is, there's a lot of "there," there. So we are seeing, at least in the Senate, people in the GOP change their tune a little as the drip drip drip of revelations come out.

But the whole point of the earlier exercises was to con people like you, Brett. You ... you're the mark.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Do you know of previous occasions where the majority decided they wouldn't let the minority have their picks? And then even proceeded to pick the minority members for them?"

[loki13]

Let's make it easy for you, Brett.

What rule was broken? Be specific! We will wait.

If no rule was broken, what exactly is your claim? You know the history, right? I mean it was just laid out again. Are you saying that people that are going to be under the purview of the investigation are required to be on the Committee?

Or are you saying that no standing or special committee can be created in the House without the approval of a minority of members (again, this is the HOUSE)?

A failed political stunt is just that. And only you don't seem to know that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Once again,

"Do you know of previous occasions where the majority decided they wouldn't let the minority have their picks? And then even proceeded to pick the minority members for them?"

[loki13]

Aw, you can't identify the rule because there isn't one!

I will go back to what I said before. At some point, you might want to actually do a little research on standing on select committees, and the history, and the House rules. Maybe try and figure out why different committees have different compositions, and why that's totally allowed, and why everything is pretty much at the suffrage of what the majority of the House wants (and why there is usually still some agreement). Heck, you can even look at the 1946 Act or the post-'70 reforms if you're curious (but you're not).

Otherwise, you keep beclowning yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, yet again:

"Do you know of previous occasions where the majority decided they wouldn't let the minority have their picks? And then even proceeded to pick the minority members for them?"

You're trying to treat the majority party deciding who the minority members of a committee will be as though it were normal. It's not.

[loki13]

"You're trying to treat the majority party deciding who the minority members of a committee will be as though it were normal. It's not."

And you don't understand what you're talking about! It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. But because you are incapable of introspection of learning, it's not worth it. I'll make a separate post for people that haven't had the brain rot set it.

[David Nieporent]

The bottom line is, I don't think the majority are entitled to pick the minority members of a committee.

Factually and legally, you are wrong.

[David Nieporent]

And then even proceeded to pick the minority members for them?"

The Democrats did not pick minority members for them. They took any Republicans willing to serve. (I should say that Pelosi did originally pick Cheney, but she picked her as an 'extra' Republican, on the top of the five that she was supposed to consult with McCarthy about.)

[not guilty]

Do you have any authority for your position, Brett? See https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017e-941c-d65f-a77e-ffbd82470000

[not guilty]

Falsely claiming to have been selected as a State elector and sending that claim to the National Archives is a criminal act. 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(3). So is conspiring to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede the Congressional certification of the electoral vote. 18 U.S.C. 1512(k).

[David Nieporent]

Brett: "The media should just be stenographers for Republicans."

[Bob from Ohio]

An RNC resolution!!!!!!!!!

What percentage of Americans know what RNC stands for or who Ronna McDaniel is?

Over under is 3% IMO

This is a perfect example of Beltway story.

As is the House committee. Beltway media & Twitter Dem activists only.

Keep hope alive!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Inflation and the Business Press

Ever notice how inflation coverage seems to have fallen into the hands of pro-inflation cheerleaders? Here is a selection of headlines, all taken just from yesterday's NYT:

Inflation probably climbed at fastest pace in four decades in January.

Inflation in Europe is expected to peak early this year.

Who Benefits from Higher Prices?

Rapid Inflation Stokes Unease From Wall Street to Washington.

How 12 Financially Insecure Americans Are Experiencing the Inflation Spike

Arguably that is a one-day coverage lineup well calculated to stoke consumer panic. Which may explain why when I went to the supermarket yesterday I found the pasta shelves stripped bare, and thin pickings in the canned goods sections. Whatever keeps well on basement shelves suddenly looks like a wise investment.

The NYT is only doing what journalists—mostly business journalists—have been doing all across the nation—uncritically making the most of the inflation story. Which is good news for all the nation's manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers who want to raise prices as fast as possible. Good for bankers too, who can look for interest rate hikes roughly in proportion to price-raising opportunism and consequent consumer panic. The higher and faster prices go up, the better it is for the nation's structural inflation lobby—protected as it is by insistently-touted compensatory interest rate hikes.

The NYT is naive to let its economic coverage turn into a one-sided tool for solving the expectations-management problems of would-be price gougers. Imagine instead a series of headlines spotlighting the gouging.

There is no shortage available. CEOs across the nation have been positively gloating about the success of their recent price hike avalanche. They have been foaming with optimism about prospects for more to come soon:

Chipotle plans to hike menu prices again, citing inflation (CBS News)

Kellogg Joins Chipotle, Starbucks In Planning Price Hikes This Year Due To Inflation (Forbes)

Big Companies Keep Bragging to Investors About Price Hikes (Business Insider)

Unilever, owner of Ben & Jerry's and Dove soap, sees 'substantial' price hikes (New York Post)

When you dig into stories like those, what you find are not really pro-consumer narratives, or even economic adjustment stories, although there is a bit of that. What is mostly happening are stories published in response to press releases from CEOs trying to pump their bonuses. The stories are replete with delighted claims of record profits, and promises of yet-bigger increases ahead.

That is a process to put a quick end to celebrations about worker wage increases. Those are about to morph into real-wage declines on a massive scale—ironically as a result of what amounts to pre-emptive retaliation by management.

There are few if any structural or regulatory barriers left in America with power to discipline episodes of coordinated price gouging. Companies have grown too large. Too little competition is left. In sector after sector, free markets now struggle to discipline prices. It has become too easy to coordinate a price-increase blitz. To get it going, all it really takes is to create an expectation that one will be coming. Prominent among those price-increase expectation raisers will always be any report of wage increases.

With a dynamic like that in full swing, expect every upward blip in wages to be countered immediately by a larger general price increase. It amounts to a process to punish any effort to increase real wages by inflicting a larger decline in purchasing power—until internal contradictions knock the system to pieces, as they inevitably must.

Maybe what is left of the American press would be wise to cut back on inflation fear mongering. It is past time to give more prominence instead to easily-proved stories of gleeful price gouging.

[David Nieporent]

You manage to absurdly call this both "pro-inflation cheerleading" and "inflation fear mongering" in the same post.

Also, there's no such thing as "price gouging."

[Brett Bellmore]

At least he didn't call anybody "hoarders and wreckers".

[loki13]

Well, there are state statutes that address "price gouging" in terms of natural disasters. Whether those are good or not is a different conversation.

But raising prices because people are willing to pay more isn't price gouging; it's Econ. 101.

(In other words, I'm making a pedantic point but I'm agreeing with you. 🙂 )

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, the notion that there is no such thing as price gouging is tantamount to an assertion that economic systems need do only wealth creation, and are free to ignore distribution. That has long been a dominant view among economists, including liberals and labor economists. They want to give distribution responsibility to politicians—which is a terrible idea. Nothing is more destructive of political comity than using policy to say specifically who gets what.

Form time-to-time, fans of liberal economics need to look around and see how it's going. You and Loki are backing a system which has been doing a terrible job for decades. Try not to be oblivious.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The silver lining to the current political clouds is basically this is 1977 all over again. And we all know have happened in 1980. That is coming and when it does the left has no one to blame but themselves and their failed policies.

[Don Nico]

SL,
You "fellow newspapermen and women" are just plying their trade. What's the issue?
"inflation fear mongering"
Is that what you think it is? or is it the best that they can do without calling out China from pulling on the supply choke chain?
And far being from the GOP to criticize the best of the news cycles to pump their election chances in November

[Jimmy the Dane]

If Republicans were leading something like the Jan 6 witch hunt we wouldn't hear the end of "McCarthy" and "HUAC" and "free speech" drumbeats coming from the media and the left. But, of course, since the rules are completely different for each side, instead we now have a government funded committee turning a legitimate form of dissent into an ongoing political ad for the DNC.

[Bob from Ohio]

Jimmy, nobody cares about the committee. So don't sweat it.

[loki13]

Regarding the January 6 Committee. I think it's helpful to understand the history of this in general, and rules regarding committees and the House, and the specific attempt at failed leverage that led to this composition.

To start with, there was a good-faith attempt to have a bi-partisan committee established in the Senate in the spring of 2021. This failed because of McConnell, and because the Senate rules are very different than the House. Basically, it's very very very hard to get things done in the Senate without at least some buy-in from the minority.

So it went to the House. This is where it gets very interesting (I am going to simplify here because this isn't that complicated, but I have better things to do). As a general rule, in the House the majority rules. Completely. They do what they want.

But wait, you say. What about all those times I've seen minority members of the House on some Committee or other making jerks of themselves? Well, they're doing that, basically, at the sufferance of the majority. There are good reasons for the rule of the majority- mostly starting in 1882-83 and becoming formalized with the 51st Congress through the use of the Rules Committee. To quote the then-Speaker, "The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch[.]"

However, the minority party is usually offered some small amount of input and power in the House- both for reasons of political legitimacy, and because the tables will eventually turn. Depending on the nature of the Committee, the majority party will have a majority, a supermajority, or sometimes even agree to 50/50 representation (the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, for example, is 50/50 and broadly non-partisan).

Now, there is no requirement that the Majority accept the Minority's choices for members on a committee, but this is usually done as a matter of course because it doesn't really matter. Sure, the grandstanding might be annoying, but whatever. Meanwhile, the minority will accept the crumbs because they want to have input into the process- and be able to keep the leadership up-to-date with what's going on. So even when the minority party disagrees completely with the purpose of the majority's committee, they will agree to be on it in order to coach witnesses, grandstand, "spy" for the leadership, try and issue their own subpoenas, and, of course, issue their own minority report at the end.

That's why, for example, the Democrats put people on the Benghazi select committee even while complaining that it was completely illegitimate in changing the focus.

(Will continue in next post) ...

[loki13]

So what happened with the Jan. 6 select committee? A tragic miscalculation regarding leverage by the House GOP.

Effectively, after McConnell torpedoed the bi-partisan Senate version, the House (majority rules, remember) took up the mantle. Now, McCarthy could have proposed almost anyone. Here is who he proposed (in case your forgot)-
Jim Banks, Jim Jordan, Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong, Troy Nehls.

Remember- House Rules gives the majority (Pelosi) approval of all the names. And McCarthy chose three names that were as provocative as could be (Banks, Jordan, and Nehls voted against Biden's victory after the riots). And the other two aren't exactly total moderates.

McCarthy took a calculated risk. He wanted the committee to fail. Pelosi, however, only vetoed two of the names for COI reasons- Jordan and Banks; she was willing to have Nehls, who voted against Biden's victory, on the committee, and GAVE MCCARTHY THE ABILITY TO NAME TWO OTHERS. So she ACCEPTED THREE OF THE FIVE (including one who was demonstrably going to be an "issue"), and allowed him to pick two others who were not subjects of the committee.

That's when McCarthy made the very interesting decision to pull all of his selections and boycott the committee. Why? Well, it was a power play. He was obviously hoping that Pelosi wouldn't have the Committee at that point. Or that it would be ineffectual.

He gambled incorrectly. As we have seen, the Committee has been effective at prying information out, slowly ... but still. And we are left with people not attacking the findings (even the Senate has started to come around) but instead parroting tired old points about how the Committee itself is somehow invalid- which it isn't.

McCarthy gambled, and he lost.

[loki13]

Which further means that the GOP isn't getting an "in" on what the Committee is investigating, and won't get author a minority report, and doesn't get to grandstand.

In effect, it was a tragic and unforced error ... well, if you support GOP obstructionism. If you support basic common decency and civic virtues ... it's pretty good. Heck, maybe this was McCarthy's long game? 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

And, yet again, can you point to any, ANY case, where the majority didn't let the minority have its chosen members, and instead picked the 'minority' members for them? Because I notice you keep ignoring this question.

If you can't, the other interpretation is that the Republicans were refusing to legitimate a serious erosion of the normal right of the minority party to pick its own members.

Now, I agree with you that the majority has this power, as a matter of raw majoritarian power. The majority has a hell of a lot of powers that they could use against the minority, that they don't in practice use, perhaps because they fear payback the next time they're in the minority themselves.

What I see here is the majority either forgetting that they'll someday be the minority again, or strangely expecting/planning that to never, ever happen, and thinking that they're not only entitled to win, but to win entirely on their own terms, without even having to tolerate the minority sniping at them and raising inconvenient points.

[loki13]

You are completely missing the point, Brett. Here's what you need to ask-

Has the minority ever refused to take its crumbs? Well, have they?

Because that's what happened. This isn't the majority steamrolling the GOP. It's the GOP overplaying its hand. Which is pretty obvious now.

It is remarkable that you keep beclowning yourself. Notice that you can't even come to any substantive arguments- instead, your argument is simply, "In the future, when a Democratic President tries to overthrow the election, and the House GOP tries to investigate, you better watch out if the Democrats try to boycott the committee!"

Okay, then!

*As for your stupid question- yes, it has been the case that the majority leader, over many decades, has informed the minority leader that they should pick someone else. Never before has it resulted in a giant hissy fit and someone taking their ball home ... BECAUSE AGAIN, the minority has no power.

[Brett Bellmore]

""In the future, when a Democratic President tries to overthrow the election, and the House GOP tries to investigate, you better watch out if the Democrats try to boycott the committee!""

Yeah, payback is going to be a bitch, and the decline of legislative comity is going to continue to accelerate, because the Democrats had a hissy fit and decided they were entitled to tell the Republicans who their members would be.

And soon enough you may be telling me, "The majority has always had the power to refuse to seat elected members of the minority, and they've exercised it before, too. So stop complaining!" Because they do have that power, so what's the problem if they decide to exercise it?

[loki13]

"Yeah, payback is going to be a bitch, and the decline of legislative comity is going to continue to accelerate, because the Democrats had a hissy fit and decided they were entitled to tell the Republicans who their members would be"

You're really this stupid?*

The resolution allowed Pelosi to appoint the members. She did. McCarthy refused to nominate anyone, and withdrew the people that Pelosi agreed to.

You ignore history, you ignore the prior times the GOP did this without any Democrats, and you ignore the actual rules. Is there anything so obvious you can't ignore it?**

*That was rhetorical.

**Also rhetorical.

[Randal]

Brett, your argument is dumb, but I'm'a help you make it, without even throwing in the phrase "Overton Window," as tempting as it may be.

Loki's point is that the majority holds all the cards, and only gives the minority whatever "crumbs" it thinks will serve its own purposes. Loki identifies those purposes as "political legitimacy" and "because the tables will eventually turn." Each of those is something you could use in your argument against him.

You could say that the Jan 6 committee lost its political legitimacy by rejecting Jordan and Banks. There's certainly some truth to that. Personally I think Loki has the better argument: McCarthy lost more than Pelosi did. But it's at least arguable.

You have been making the "tables will turn" argument, but you haven't figured out the key piece. After having his members rejected, McCarthy decided to boycott the committee. Why would a Democratic minority leader make the same mistake? Like Loki said, the minority has its members rejected all the time. It was McCarthy's subsequent tantrum that got us where we are. Is your point that somehow the Republicans are going to force that mistake on the part of future Democrats? How's that going to work?

One possibility you could run with (again, I think this is all BS, I'm just trying to help you out) would be to claim that Speaker McCarthy, rather than vetoing members of committees outright, would merely threaten to do so in the future, pending the "good behavior" of the minority members. Making the Democrats to operate under a cloud of "probation" might not be a tolerable for them, forcing a boycott.

Well Brett, that's the best I've got for you. Good luck!

[loki13]

So, let's see what happens when Brett is confronted with how stupid his position is-

From the dawn of the Republic, through the 1800s, through the 1900s, Brett's question wasn't an issue. It was common for, inter alia, Tip O'Neill to let the other side know that some choices were just not acceptable for certain committees.

But Brett wouldn't need to go back that far. Brett already knows that the 2005 Select Committee on Katrina was formed without a single Democratic member of the House.

But that's where Brett thinks he is clever- oh, but the GOP simply STEAMROLLED the Democrats, which is totally cool, they didn't PICK the GOP Members. The House majority determines exactly what they want the composition to be.

Does he even listen to himself? HA! Of course not. He don't need no history, or rules, just the invioable word of the cuckoo sources he uses, until he's proved wrong, and then on to the next windmill.

[Jimmy the Dane]

This is a lot of words to say that you can't understand the concept of changing generally understood rules like what happened in 2020 and then expecting the other side to not also play by those new rules.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
This back and forth over the same point is tiring. Loki has operationally answered your question. McCarthy gambled and lost.
So, put away the crying towel and take your beating like a man (to use a sexist phrase).

[ThePublius]

This would have been an interesting thread if it wasn't for Loki's personal attacks on Brett. It really exposes Loki's insecurity in his argument.

The initial post reads like a fractured fairy tale, TBH. No mention of Pelosi selecting the minority reps, who are never-Trumpers Cheney and Kinzinger?

No mention of all of the subpoenas of people and people's information that have nothing to do with the January 6th event, even people who weren't there?

Wow.

[Sarcastr0]

You have zero engagement here, just name-calling using psychobabble.

Well, you have on hint of an argument. Which uninvolved people's information are you thinking about?

[ThePublius]

"You have zero engagement here, just name-calling using psychobabble."

What are you talking about? And don't you detect the irony on your statement?

[loki13]

"The initial post reads like a fractured fairy tale, TBH. No mention of Pelosi selecting the minority reps, who are never-Trumpers Cheney and Kinzinger?"

To recap- Cheney was appointed prior to the GOP Boycott. Kinzinger was selected after the boycott (when, you know, the GOP was boycotting).

Contrast this with the 2005 Select Committee on Katrina- the Democrats attempted to leverage a boycott of the Committee for political purposes (there, the creation of a bi-partisan, 9/11 style commission). The GOP refused and soldiered on. In the end, the GOP acquired 5 Democrats to assist, and had Mealncon (D-La.) sign off on document requests, although he was listed as a Member who participated at the invitation of the Select Committee, and not a Member of the Committee.

Again, though, Brett's points are stupid, and I don't mind saying it.

[ThePublius]

"To recap- Cheney was appointed prior to the GOP Boycott. Kinzinger was selected after the boycott (when, you know, the GOP was boycotting)."

I never said anything about the timing of these appointments.

[loki13]

So ... what was your point then? Pelosi appoint all of them. Period.

Are you just trying to Brett this up with pointless asides? Okay, then.

[Bob from Ohio]

"2005 Select Committee on Katrina"

And what did it decide?

And who cared?

People's views on Bush and Katrina were fixed before the committee did anything, same with Trump and the current committee.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" that have nothing to do with the January 6th event, even people who weren't there "

It appears the level of education needed to understand that a person could be relevant to an investigation despite not being present at the precipitating event has eluded The Publius.

I suppose it is possible a conservative blog could attract a better audience, just as it might be possible for conservatives to operate universities that are not deplorable, fourth-tier hayseed farms.

There is, however, no evidence to support such conclusions, at least not yet.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm sure you were just as outraged when Ken Starr abandoned Whitewater for stained blue dresses. Sometimes investigations take unexpected turns. Let's wait and see what the committee reports. Although I understand your partisan interest in delegitimizing the investigation before it releases any findings.

[loki13]

The funny thing (but not "Ha ha" funny) is that what we are seeing was the desired goal of McCarthy in a way (to make the Committee seem illegitimate and partisan), but it's completely backfired.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but just imagine if McCarthy had taken up Pelosi on her offer and just given up two other names. If he had, then-
1. He could have had his people "expand" the scope of the investigation into the stupid stuff ("What about antifa?" "What about the Capitol Police and the Democratic leadership???").
2. He would have been kept abreast of what the Committee was doing and discovering, and able to leak it out and counter it instead of being caught flat-footed constantly.
3. He could have strung this out until the midterms, easily.

In terms of savvy politics, this was a miscalculation of epic proportions. But what's bad for savvy politics is good for the health of the body politic.

[Bob from Ohio]

Loki, the problem with your theory is hardly anyone cares about the committee's "discoveries".

You do, Beltway media types, Dem activists. Regular people care about inflation and covid restrictions and other real world problems, not partisan House committees.

Its not the Watergate committee, Ben Thompson isn't Sam Ervin. Liz Cheney isn't Howard Baker.

McCarthy is a terrible leader but it just doesn't matter politically.

Keep hope alive though.

[loki13]

No worries, Bob.

If no one cares, then don't worry about it. Just keep telling your fellow travelers to stop their BS, and we're all good.

Y'all leave the facts and history and how procedure works to the adults, and your friends can stop with the lies, and no one has to worry. Win win!

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't, I told Jimmy today to stop worrying.

[loki13]

Fair enough.

FWIW, I think the end result will be more than nothing, but less than much.

...if you follow me. 😉

[not guilty]

Investigation of the events of January 6 necessarily includes investigation of how the attempt to obstruct, influence or impede the Congressional electoral vote certification came about. It is not limited to those who were on the Capitol premises on 1/6.

[Jmaie]

Not familiar with Nick Schifrin work, here's a twitter quote:

"The US expects the invasion to begin next week, six US and Western officials tell me, as Secretary of State Antony @SecBlinken said last night."

https://twitter.com/nickschifrin/status/1492203845631496193

We've been hearing of an "imminent" invasion for months, nice to see a specific time frame quoted.

[loki13]

There's been an increasing amount of chatter that the invasion will occur next week, or, at a minimum, before the end of the Olympics.

I still remain hopeful that a peaceful resolution is achieved ... but I am increasingly doubtful that will happen. I don't think most people realize just how destabilizing and terrible a full-scale invasion of Ukraine will be ... for everyone. Ugh.

[Jmaie]

Personally I don't see Russia invading, there's no real upside. And anecdotes =/= data but my European friends don't see Russia as a threat to them either.

But if they were to invade, I'm interested what you see as being particularly destabilizing for those outside the area? Geo-politically it seems a small issue unless we decided to make it bigger. Which we might do to save face, but it's not like we have vital national interests there - Biden has already ruled out sending troops (and rightly so, thank Gahd).

[Don Nico]

A Russian invasion really put Germany in a box. Thanks to Mr. Biden's statement that th Russia-Germany gas pipeline is the price of an invasion.( Yes I know it was made during the German PM's visit).
But does that really screw up EU (and especially German) energy supply and mean more burning of Polish soft coal? Well... yes.
Will that statement stick? Not so easily, if Russia invades while it is still winter.

[Jmaie]

That seems a reason for us to want Russia to invade, rather than a reason for them to do so. Probably Russia would rather just sell gas to the Germans. But if Nord Stream 2 were to be killed completely, that would just retain the status quo.

I shouldn't have been, but I was taken back by Biden's statement that any Russian incursion would mean the death to NS2. From whence does the US have the authority to intervene in a financial arrangement between Russia and Germany? The word "hubris" comes to mind. If I were a German I'd be thinking the US could just sod off.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I realize that I'm in after the deadline, but I'd still like to know when "sale" and "sell" swapped places with regard to being nouns and verbs. Lately I'm constantly seeing examples of statements like, "I'd like to sale my car" and "My car is for sell". I'm not a grammar Nazi, and I generally don't let common misuses of language bug me, and this one is no exception. I'm just mystified by what seems to me to be a rather sudden surge in their [mis]use in this way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh, never seen that. Perhaps it's to circumvent text matching efforts to suppress commerce on social media sites?

OTOH, my wife will occasionally make mistakes of that nature, on account of English not being her first language; Might it be something like that going on?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Lately I'm constantly seeing examples of statements like, "I'd like to sale my car" and "My car is for sell". "

Spend less time at right-wing websites and the situation should resolve favorably.

[Don Nico]

If "defence" can become a verb, why not "sale."
Did you mean "my boat is for sail?"