Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Krayt]

AKA Friday because Friday I have off because AKA Good Friday, where real Americans celebrate ancient Jews killing one of their own, or maybe it was ancient Romans, anyway he was also God so the infinite sacrifice satisfied his own infinite rage at humanity and, so they say, give money to the power class and you will now come back to life after you die at some indefinite point in the future, and thus we are going over my bro's on Sunday for turkey and maybe ham but ham is yucky to me except in thin small pieces on pizza.

[santamonica811]

Dude, don't bogart that spliff.

[Martinned]

Out of curiosity, do Americans also have Monday off? (I.e. Easter Monday)

[Krychek_2]

No.

[John F. Carr]

This year parts of Massachusetts have a four day weekend. On Good Friday schools and city halls may close or close early. Monday is Patriots' Day, coincidentally the day after Easter in 2022.

[Brett Bellmore]

Some do, some don't. I don't, just tomorrow.

I mean, Easter is on Sunday, after all.

[OtisAH]

I’ve never even heard of getting Good Friday off.

[Martinned]

So odd, for what is arguably the most Christian country on earth.

[defaultdotxbe]

I've only ever had it off for one company I worked for, a small business owned by a very devout christian

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not universal but plenty of people get off. Or get off at noon.

[ducksalad]

Arguably. For someone who argues as a profession.

[Martinned]

Agreeing a measure of religiosity is admittedly difficult. But something like church attendance seems like a plausible candidate. And the US is easily number 1 among developed countries by that metric, although admittedly there are developing countries where the number is higher still. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-among-people-of-all-ages/

[Noscitur a sociis]

Wouldn't something like, say, "has a government-run Christian church as the state-sanctioned religion" be at least as "plausible" for these purposes?

[James Pollock]

The thing is, Christians don't even agree on a calendar. Because the Pope changed the calendar, and some Christians go along with the Pope, and some Christians absolutely cannot go along with the Pope, and God has yet to stop the Earth turning as a sign that maybe these guys should work it out.

[Don Nico]

James,
You seem to specialize in stupid comments. The entire secular world uses that pope's calendar with occasional minute adjustments.

[James Pollock]

You seem to have specialized in missing the point of what you label as "stupid comments".
To assist you. here is the point you missed: "Christians" are not a monolithic bloc of people who all believe the same thing(s). Offered as evidence, the fact that they don't even agree on what day it is.
To this point, you note that people who are not Christians have sided with one of the groups of Christians over the other.

To which the proper response is "who cares?"

[Michael P]

Most Christian country on Earth? My colleagues in Spain and Australia all have Good Friday off. Australia also takes next Monday off. Spain took this entire week off. Both of those countries take many more Christian holy days off; here, Christian holy days off have been replaced with other religions' holy days (Eid al-Fitr, Diwali, etc.).

[James Pollock]

"So odd, for what is arguably the most Christian country on earth."

Sounds like somebody has never heard of Vatican City.

[CocoN8]

I used to work for a small Indian tribe in Arizona, and not only did we have Good Friday as a paid holiday, we also got the Feast Day of St. Francis of Assisi and the Feast Day of St. Francisco Xavier as well. Good times.

[Smith_FT_MI]

While it was not compulsory, in the 50s (and perhaps later) it was common for many businesses to close for Good Friday. With the later tsunami of Secularism this obviously changed.
I personally cease all business activity and refuse appointments (including court appearances) from Noon to 3:00 PM on Good Friday.

[KenveeB]

I've always gotten it off. It depends on what area you're in, what type of job, etc.

[not guilty]

Dustin Thompson, the third January 6 defendant to be tried by a jury, testified that he was "following presidential orders" when he went into the Capitol. His lawyer during opening statement essentially admitted the defendant's participation, but claimed that Trump "ordered" the attack.

I wonder about the wisdom of this strategy. Acting at Trump's direction is no defense -- Trump had no authority to authorize the riot. I suspect this is an appeal to jury nullification.

[AmosArch]

So you spend half of your time fantasizing about a fat orange man who hurt you and the other half fantasizing about talking to kindergartners about sex? Wow, the leftists here generally aren't too bright but you usually expect the truly sick puppies elsewhere.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In AmosArch’s telling, the bright ones among us are those who tend to be

the poorly educated (in particular, those who attended South Texas College Of Law Houston and similarly low-ranked schools);

those gullible enough to believe fairy tale are true (adult-onset superstition);

those who reside in cultural deserts and economically inadequate communities (rural America);

those who have stuck with declining industries and dying communities against all evidence; and

those who reject modernity and cling to illusory “good old days” featuring intolerance, religious restrictions, less science, and more ignorance.

No wonder the American culture war is such a rout.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You, and your federal class brethren cannot have sexual access to my children.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the new wingnut crusade? The return of QANon brand PizzaPong -- now repackaged with even more adenochrome!!?

Maybe movement conservatives have become incompatible with modern mainstream America (legitimate academia in particular).

[Sarcastr0]

Wow. Did Q send you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No. But the Volokh Conspiracy attracted him.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Son of Sam defense: The dog told me to!

Clearly NOT an appeal to jury nulification, because you wouldn't expect a DC jury to be rendered more sympathetic by such a claim.

Maybe they're signaling to the prosecution that he'd be useful to them in going after Trump, so please make a deal?

[not guilty]

I suspect that defense counsel is trying to suggest that because the mastermind is not being held to account, the jury should not punish an underling who was merely doing what he was told. That may be the best he can muster.

A jury has the right to engage in nullification. The trial court can't inform them of that, and it is improper conduct for counsel to expressly argue for nullification, but it sometimes works.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would say that it's perfectly proper conduct for counsel to expressly argue for nullification, but that judges would say otherwise, so doing it would be a bad career move.

But a DC jury would be the wrong jury to try that before.

Unless the defendant has some actual evidence that Trump communicated to him a desire that he commit crimes, more of an insanity defense, I'd say.

[not guilty]

An insanity defense?? That doesn't entail what you seem to think it does.

This is a law blog, not a stream of consciousness blog. It is bad form to make up shit as you go along.

[Life of Brian]

This is a law blog, not a stream of consciousness blog. It is bad form to make up shit as you go along.

Fantastic. Very much looking forward to the cessation of your stream of cut-and-paste bullshit news headlines that you so desperately want to be true you don't engage in the first shred of critical thinking before littering the blog with them.

[James Pollock]

". Very much looking forward to the cessation of your stream of cut-and-paste bullshit news headlines that you so desperately want to be true you don't engage in the first shred of critical thinking"

Are you accusing him of being Republican?

[not guilty]

Mr. Thompson attempted to subpoena Trump, Giuliani and others in Trump's inner circle as defense witnesses at trial. Judge Walton ruled that their testimony would be inadmissible, but permitted the defense to show what inducements to act that he was aware of (the speeches on the Ellipse).

If the defense were angling for a deal, those discussions would have taken place prior to trial. I doubt that the accused had anything from personal knowledge implicating Trump to offer.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, sure it could be an appeal to nullification. You only need to convince one, not the whole jury. If your guy is guilty, guilty, guilty, how else are you going to get him off? New York City has more Trump voters than both Dakotas combined. A defense lawyer could have sized up one or two jurors as likely D.C. pro-Trump outliers.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe they're signaling to the prosecution that he'd be useful to them in going after Trump, so please make a deal?

No. Stop being insane.

Brett. Just stop. When someone says or does X, 99.9999999999% of the time it's because they believe X. Or, to flip it around, 0.00000000001% of the time it's 11th dimensional chess in which they think exactly the opposite but are doing it to trick people with reverse psychology.

And stop with the stupid "DC jury" thing. You know nothing about juries, DC, or DC juries.

[Armchair Lawyer]

David,

The political orientation of the vast majority of DC is well known. That is the jury pool in DC. If you have a case with political implications, then that's going to play a role. Ignoring that is ignoring reality.

It's the same logic as having a black guy defend himself before an all white jury.

[Sarcastr0]

Most Democrats, and most Republicans, are not so partisan brain-poisoned they can't be objective.

There's a reason Batson has not been extended to political party.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Obama's Muslim Ban - totes legal and good
Trump does exact same thing - totes racist and illegal

Sincerely,

The Democrats

[Sarcastr0]

Trump does exact same thing

See, there's your problem. You say stuff that isn't true.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

See, there's your problem. You say stuff that isn't true.

I see you finally found your mirror.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What's the difference between the two policies?

Obama was a Democrat?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump explicitly targeted Muslims. Obama's admin provided particularized country-by-country reasoning.

Also note the actor. Trump's policy was top-down. Obama's was bottom-up.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's a lie. Trump did not explicitly target Muslims.

Why do you make shit up?

[David Nieporent]

That's a lie. Trump did not explicitly target Muslims.

“a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”

[James Pollock]

" Trump did not explicitly target Muslims.

Why do you make shit up?"

He said he wanted a Muslim ban. He tried to implement a Muslim ban. The Deepstate pointed out that a religious test for entry to the United States was blatantly unconstitutional. So, after a couple of tries, he put in the closest thing to a "Muslim ban" he could get past the judges.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Most Democrats, and most Republicans, are not so partisan brain-poisoned they can't be objective."

Once again, Sarcastro makes an unsupported statement, which once again, turns out to be wrong, because he's "too lazy" to look up the real truth.

The truth is, political affiliation is MORE pronounced as a means for bias than race is in America today. It's accepted to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation. And in the single most extreme "state" in America, Washington DC, where Trump got less than 6% of the vote, the jury is likewise going to be extreme. Having a Trump supporter in a jury trial in DC is like having a black man before a jury of KKK members. It's not going to be fair.

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/08/31/political-party-identities-stronger-race-religion/

The only "Fair" trial would be to remove it from DC to a neutral location, like Columbus, OH.

[Sarcastr0]

Your paper does not address the issue at had.

You are the one that says Democrats can't render an unbiased verdict on a jury.

The idea that people can provide objective jury service in politically tinged cases even if they join a political party is a baseline assumption in allowing a jury trial in such cases. If you're going to challenge that assumption, I recommend you bring evidence. Relevant evidence.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I have provided evidence that there is inherent bias via political affiliation.

You have provided nothing to support your assertion there there isn't. Once again, you have provided zero evidence. Your assertions cannot be believed.

[not guilty]

The article you link says nothing pertaining to jury service. Nada.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"I have provided evidence that there is inherent bias via political affiliation."

But since you ask for Jury service, and I provide evidence and links, here's a nice paper for you, in regards to political affiliation and results in cases.

https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/17/3/834/4981454

[Sarcastr0]

...Do you read the things you post?

The results reveal a number of systematic biases: convictions for young defendants and those with distinctly Arabic names increase substantially when they are randomly assigned jurors from the far-right (nationalist) Swedish Democrat party, whereas convictions in cases with a female victim increase markedly when they are assigned jurors from the far-left (feminist) Vänster party.

[not guilty]

From Armchair Lawyer's linked article:

[T]his paper uses a novel data set of criminal cases tried in Gothenburg, Sweden to make three broad contributions to the empirical literature on jury decision-making. By way of background, serious criminal cases in Sweden are decided by a professional judge in collaboration with three lay jurors (termed nämndemän), who are drawn (essentially) randomly from a pool of eligible nämndemän in the district.

I see no need to read further. Do you have anything from the United States?

[Armchair Lawyer]

NG,

There's plenty from the US as well. Just google. I gave you a nice journal article, well referenced, in a more neutral context...once you apparently can't be bothered to actually read. Unless you somehow think political bias in juries is specific to Sweden and can't possibly translate to the US.

As for Sarcastro.....

If you can't understand the context of political bias affecting juries and how they decide cases from quote I gave you.........You're the one who said "Juries can be objective". Clearly, from the facts, there's bias. Again, you've made unsupported arguments, been proven directly wrong, and will likely resort to your usual name calling.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that using voir dire to purge a jury of blacks gets you in trouble, but using it to purge a jury of Republicans is, eh, whatever.

In any political case, a prosecutor in DC can pretty much guarantee a straight 100% Democrat jury, if that's what they want.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, I don't know how many juries you've voir dired -- I've probably got about forty -- but I can't imagine any circumstance in which asking a juror's political views would be considered proper, or any judge that would allow it. If a lawyer thinks Republicans, or Democrats, are bad for his case, he's just going to have to work with hunches and intuitions; that's not a question he's going to be permitted to ask.

[OtisAH]

“My point remains valid!”
-Brett Bellmore

[OtisAH]

v v v v See? v v v v

[Brett Bellmore]

Why the hell would you need to ask? DC has closed primaries, so you have to register your party to vote in them. And the list is a public record.

Ergo, any prosecutor who wants to know which members of the jury pool are Republicans or Democrats can know, without asking them.

[Krychek_2]

Well, by the same token, you don't need to ask someone's race; most of the time you can tell by looking.

The same principle would apply here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that you'd actually get in trouble for purging the jury of blacks. Which is what I said: That a prosecutor who wanted to could purge from the jury the one or two random Republicans who might have gotten picked, and assure an all Democrat jury, without any trouble or risk. So long as he didn't come out and publicly say he was doing it.

[Krychek_2]

You can do that with black jurors too, so long as you have some reasonable explanation that's not related to race.

[not guilty]

The ostensible reason for a strike need not be reasonable. An unreasonable basis, if race neutral, will suffice.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(including D.C. and Puerto Rico; total 52)

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
Washington D.C. 16

COLLEGE DEGREE
Washington D.C. 1

GRADUATE DEGREE
Washington D.C. 1

For fun, let's check the two states Brett Bellmore reports he has chosen for residence (or jury duty):

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
Idaho 19
South Carolina 37

COLLEGE DEGREE
Idaho 40
South Carolina 36

GRADUATE DEGREE
Idaho 41
South Carolina 32

can answer many questions about America and Americans.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This chart can answer many questions about America and Americans.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Do they not teach armchair voir dire at armchair law school?

[Moderation4ever]

This is an interesting approach to defense. It should be noted that Mr. Thompson has already pleaded guilty to a couple of lesser charge regarding the day and is using this for the serious charges.

The fact that the judges denied request to subpoena the former President and Mr. Giuliani suggest he not buying the defense. Question is will, the jury buy it and what happens then? If successful I would suspect this defense would be used more in coming trials.

An also interesting question is, would one or more acquittals on these charges serve as a defacto implication of the former President's guilt. A case where the person never goes to trial but is seen as guilty by the public.

[ThePublius]

It is interesting, but quite weird.

First, it's a nonsensical defense on its face, since Trump didn't order anyone to enter into the Capitol building, no less riot and damage it. He encouraged them to march up to the Capitol building and that was it. And, he implored them to be peaceful. So, no order, no defense.

Perhaps he knows he's going to be convicted regardless of what he argues, and is making this argument to force an indirect statement by the judge that Trump didn't order anyone into the Capitol.

[not guilty]

How does that "force" the judge to do or say anything? The judge ruled pre-trial that a public authority defense is insupportable. If the defense posits Trump's conduct as a mitigating factor for sentencing (an unwise move, IMO), the judge can rule on that without opining that Trump did or did not order anyone into the Capitol.

Federal district judges typically are not fools, and it is imprudent to try to "force" them into uncomfortable positions.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, Trump encouraged them to fight like hell to stop the election from being stolen, but he one time out of his tens of thousands of words on the subject used the word "peaceful," so that counts as "imploring."

[James Pollock]

Trump encouraged dthem to fight like hell to steal the election. Had it worked, it would have worked.

[John F. Carr]

He faces some charges where intent is disputable. The prosecution must show he acted "corruptly" and/or "without authority." If the Secret Service says the Capitol is closed and the President says go in, I think that's a possible defense to the "entering in a restricted building" charge.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"First, it's a nonsensical defense on its face, since Trump didn't order anyone to enter into the Capitol building, no less riot and damage it" -- Clinger 1

"If the Secret Service says the Capitol is closed and the President says go in, I think that's a possible defense to the "entering in a restricted building" charge." -- Clinger 2

Flail away . . .

[not guilty]

Judge Walton held a pre-trial hearing on whether Trump and others could be subpoenaed. The defense put forth a public authority defense, which requires a showing that the public official in question had authority to authorize what would otherwise be an unlawful act. Trump had no authority to order an attack on the Capitol, so that defense is unavailable and cannot be argued.

The judge ruled that the encouragement that the accused was aware of could be offered as bearing on his state of mind. Blaming the insurrection on Trump, though, won't fly. As I have observed, the notion that Trump is going unpunished while others are being charged is possibly what defense counsel is hoping to hang his hat on.

[James Pollock]

"I believed and trusted Donald Trump!" sounds like the opening to an incapacity defense.

[Ben_]

Defendant thinks he can manipulate obsessed deranged people into taking his side by telling them what they want to hear.

It will probably partly work. Telling people what they want to hear is like a superpower. Works best on people who have already abandoned rationality.

[not guilty]

Mr. Thompson's strategy proved unavailing. He has been found guilty of all six counts, and he was taken immediately into custody.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Lock him up!!!

(Cue the clingers wailing about how unfair it is that this guy will likely get a rougher sentence because he declined to plead guilty. No free swings.)

[not guilty]

The judge was reportedly critical of the accused's testimony. He might have been better off pleading guilty with no agreement, getting sentencing credit for acceptance of responsibility.

[not guilty]

A question for supporters of Florida's law prohibiting classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in grades K-3. Are you overlooking that heterosexuality is an orientation, and being cisgendered is a gender identity? How is a teacher to address students' family lives at all?

Will someone in Key West sue the local school district for "grooming" schoolchildren for cisgendered heteronormativity?

[AmosArch]

Theres nothing in the bill forbidding teachers from doing something reasonable like asking a student how their homelife is going regardless of their family structure. If there is show us. I like how you liars always set up false dichotomies. 'Either we teach kindergartners about men cornholing each other or we forbid them from intervening to prevent the abuse of a child who happens to have gay parents because they are not allowed to talk about their family'

[not guilty]

Florida House Bill 1557 prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are sexual orientations. Being cisgendered and being transgendered are both gender identities. HB 1557 sweeps all such discussion within its prohibited ambit.

There is a proverb about being careful what one asks for.

[AmosArch]

The current cisgender-transgender hetero-homo paradigm is leftoid cope to hide the truth and feel better about themselves. Reality is theres the default and theres other orientations and increasingly delusions. Saying you have to teach transgenderism because you supposedly teach heterosexuality is sort of like saying you have to teach motorcycle wheelies to everyone because you teach basic steering in driving classes. And even this is moot since teachers have no business talking about sex hetero/homo/'cis'/or trans to little kids anyway.

[AmosArch]

I just realized I'm trying to explain to a supposed adult why teachers shouldn't be talking about sex with kindergartners. What a world! lol

[apedad]

Boy, you sure do bring up sex with kindergartners a lot.

Maybe you should talk to somebody about that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Boy, you sure do bring up sex with kindergartners a lot.

Maybe you should talk to somebody about that.

He didn't bring it up. He responded to someone else who brought it up.

You sure do say a lot of stupid things. Maybe you should talk to someone about that.

[James Pollock]

"You sure do say a lot of stupid things. Maybe you should talk to someone about that."

Advice from Mr. Pot to Mr. Kettle.

[AmosArch]

and you actually support it. You should keep the weirdo card you're trying to hand out.

[James Pollock]

Freedom of speech is a thing. You're on the "it is forbidden to say these things" side of it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArch, yeah, it is peculiar. It is an almost-crackpot subject. You are debating him. And you are losing. Maybe that should tell you the law is not such a great idea.

[AmosArch]

How am I losing? You support pervert teachers telling little kids about their sex instead of I dunno actually teaching relevant subjects?

Have I died and gone to bizarro world or something? When did this sh*t of strangers talking to little kids about sex and trannies sh^t become mainstream and ordinary?

[James Pollock]

"Have I died and gone to bizarro world or something?"

Only if you're actually IN Florida.

[Krychek_2]

Amos, I think the point you're not getting is that sex and gender permeate everything, and it's silly to single out gays. If you have pictures of your kids at work, you are advertising that you and your wife have vaginal sex (or at least did enough times to procreate). Any time you mention your wife in conversation, you are announcing that you are heterosexual. If you are meeting someone at a party for the first time and they ask you to tell them about yourself, the first thing out of your mouth is going to be, "I'm married and have X number of children."

You don't think about it in those terms because your sexuality happens to be the majority sexuality. It's the same reason whites don't think about race. But if you do think about it, it becomes clear that it's pretty difficult to get through the day without having a conversation in which your sexuality is part of it.

So why should gays be any different?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So why should gays be any different?

Sweet tiny infant eight-pound, six-ounce baby Jesus, all swaddled in golden fleece diapers, with his baby Jesus powers (wearing a tuxedo t-shirt with giant eagle wings,
singing lead for Lynyrd Skynyrd); at least, that's how some ostensible adults claim to see it.

[ducksalad]

Have you considered that "sex and gender permeate everything" is maybe your own worldview that many people don't share.

"If you have pictures of your kids at work,"

Most people don't see a picture of a spouse or a child and instantly start thinking someone had sex. And by most people, I don't mean heterosexuals. It would be immensely bigoted to say people of any sexual orientation are that obsessive. (And BTW the Florida law does not ban LGBTs from having a picture of their spouse and family. Regardless of whether the law is good idea, it doesn't do half of what opponents claim.)

If you are meeting someone at a party for the first time and they ask you to tell them about yourself, the first thing out of your mouth is going to be, "I'm married and have X number of children."

Perhaps you go to strange parties. I'd hear that maybe one times out of ten, mainly from people who don't have anything else to talk about. I think what you really mean is that you hear it occasionally but find it bothersome.

But if you do think about it, it becomes clear that it's pretty difficult to get through the day without having a conversation in which your sexuality is part of it.

Mentioning "my husband" or "my wife" in passing does not constitute having a conversation about sex. Not under the Florida law, and not under anybody reasonable person's definition.

What's amusing here is that you are implicitly endorsing the obsolete, regressive idea that marriage is a government license to have sex, and that saying you are married is an advertisement of sexual activity.

Get the memo, Krychek. Marriage is about visitation rights, joint tax returns, default rules on inheritance and property, etc. You haven't needed it as a sex license from the courthouse since the early 1960s. Jeebus.

And finally, your statement is bigoted against asexual or otherwise celibate couples. I think you ought to apologize.

[Krychek_2]

ducksalad, my point is that nobody thinks about it when heterosexuals do it. It's only when gays do it that it becomes an issue.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArch, did you see what Krychek_2 just did to ducksalad. That's how you're losing.

[AmosArch]

what exactly are you talking about that 'heterosexuals' are doing? Opponents can't attack the actual statements of the bill so they resort to inventing wild theories about side effects the bill will supposedly have with zero evidence or logical correlation to the actual text. We should do this for every bill and proposal and nothing would ever get done.

[Krychek_2]

No. From the top:

People say and do a wide range of things that makes inferences about their sexuality. The mere fact of having children tells me that you and your wife have vaginal intercourse. But nobody thinks about it in that context, because it's heterosexual. It's only when gays say or do things that relate to sexuality that anybody notices.

If a man kisses his wife goodbye at the train station, nobody notices. If a man kisses his husband goodbye at the train station, everybody notices.

[Josh R]

The current cisgender-transgender hetero-homo paradigm is leftoid cope to hide the truth and feel better about themselves.

You lost the battle of sexual orientation. A sea change occurred in the past 20+ years and a clear majority of Americans accept being gay as a normal variant. What these laws are doing is focusing attention on the battle of gender identity. While the majority likely believe you do as of now, there is hope another sea change is on the way.

[not guilty]

As the southern racists knew well generations ago, it is important for losers to have a disfavored class of people to look down on. The hate-mongering underlying bashing of the transgendered became stronger when it became less acceptable to stigmatize gays and lesbians.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These stale bigots are being painted into smaller and smaller, more desolate corners of America -- literally and figuratively -- by their betters.

A bit of whining and whimpering should be expected.

[AmosArch]

Sorry scientific/logical reality doesn't change no matter what the political landscape is .

[Josh R]

That's true. But, you don't have science or logic on your side.

[James Pollock]

Like that matters.

[Michael P]

So, your argument is that asking a child "do you parent(s) treat you well?" is "instruction" of heteronormativity and/or cisgender normativity? Please elaborate on what you think your clever argument is.

[Michael P]

I guess the argument makes sense if the speaker assumes the parents' genders... Committing the offense of hetero-cis-normativity in the first place.

[James Pollock]

The fundamental problem is that some people prefer to go through their lives pretending that neither gay people nor transgender people exist, and prefer to raise their children on the fantasy that gay people and transgender people don't exist. They get angry when it turns out that gay people and transgender people actually do exist, and when their children find out that gay people and transgender people exist.

[susancol]

I must say that I am *certain* that there was no discussion whatsoever in my kindergarten class (or actually until 6th grade, when they introduced (VERY) basic "Sexual Education", which was pretty much limited to the clinical description of boys' and girls' respective body parts).

Why do people now believe that these topics need to be discussed before kids learn how to share crayons?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why do people now believe that these topics need to be discussed before kids learn how to share crayons?"

Like learning languages, you have to recruit early.

They want to push gay and "transexual" on them.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, is it also pushing heterosexuality on them if the teacher says or does something that conforms to traditional gender roles? Or is it only pushing (or recruitment) when gays do it?

[not guilty]

Bob, that is a canard. But I suspect you know that.

[James Pollock]

Bob, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are people in this world who are not entirely like "Bob". It would have been better for you to have learned this earlier in life, but you've already been crippled into believing that anyone who is in any way different from you is hostile to you. It's not hostility, it's mostly pity.

[David Nieporent]

Theres nothing in the bill forbidding teachers from doing something reasonable like asking a student how their homelife is going regardless of their family structure.

The bill bans "instruction" on "sexual orientation or gender identity" for K-3, and requires "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" instruction thereafter. Those words have no clear meaning, and are enforced not by principals or school boards, but by private individuals bringing lawsuits. Such lawsuits, of course, have a one-way fee-shifting mechanism built in, meaning that if the parent prevails he or she gets an attorneys' fees award, but if the parent's claim is absurd, he or she suffers no penalty whatsoever.

If the student says, "My dads took me to the zoo last weekend," and another kid says, "How can he have two dads?", how does the teacher respond without risking any one of 20 other kids' parents not suing the school district, claiming that the teacher's response was "instruction" on "sexual orientation"?

[Don Nico]

The teacher says "it bees like that" or better take it up with your classmate after school.

[Michael P]

The teacher responds by saying "ask your classmate or your parents, and in this classroom we value being kind to each other".

[Sarcastr0]

Insisting a teacher must evade and cannot answer a question with the simple truth is really not worrying at all.

Just normal stuff here.

[Michael P]

Exactly as normal as if the kid asks whether there's a God, sure. Or whether the current president is good. It's not exactly novel to say that government employees can't say certain things while on the job.

[James Pollock]

". It's not exactly novel to say that government employees can't say certain things while on the job.
"

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."

[TwelveInchPianist]

If teachers want to be able to teach about this sort of thing, they should convince the electorate that they are capable of doing so in a reasonable manner.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't hide behind 'it's legal so it's okay.'

This is a stupid and overbroad policy, legal or not.

As to legality, you're ignoring the whole vagueness chilling effect issue.

I mean, by your logic we could have teachers forbidden from teaching evolution and it'd be totally fine - a proper exercise of political control over our education system.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you asked me if the bill was badly drafted, I'd say yes. But it's addressing a real problem.

[Sarcastr0]

What is your evidence this is a real problem?

[OtisAH]

He said so. And he gets his info from other people who say so.

[Brett Bellmore]

For instance.

Or the increasing push for "Drag Queen story hours".

[Sarcastr0]

Thank goodness Florida passed this bill to solve this Massachusetts anecdote!

[shawn_dude]

You don't need to be gay or trans to be a drag queen (or king).

Dame Edna, for example, is played by a heterosexual. There's also plenty of examples of drag queens in American film where the actor and the character are both heterosexual. See: Tootsie and Mrs Doubtfire.

Drag is an art form, not an identity. Homosexual men are more common, sure, but that's what being confident in your own sexuality buys you.

[David Nieporent]

For instance.

Or the increasing push for "Drag Queen story hours".

He asked where the evidence was that it was a real problem. Not evidence that it once happened somewhere in the United States. (And there is, of course, no "push" for "Drag Queen story hours," which are of course also not a "real problem" either.)

[Life of Brian]

Not evidence that it once happened somewhere in the United States."

"Oh, that one just happened once somewhere. Well, and that other one too. And that one, and that one.... Just a bunch of isolated incidents, folks!"

To me, this was the crystal-clear signal that the (ahem) kid gloves had come off.

[James Pollock]

""Oh, that one just happened once somewhere. Well, and that other one too. And that one, and that one.... Just a bunch of isolated incidents, folks!""

You're getting a lot of mileage from the one case cited.

[James Pollock]

"If you asked me if the bill was badly drafted, I'd say yes. But it's addressing a real problem."

The real problem is that some parents want to teach bullshit to their children.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Don't hide behind 'it's legal so it's okay.'

This is a stupid and overbroad policy, legal or not."

I'm not. I'm saying that given the way teachers are teaching about sex to children, it's a good policy. If teachers want more latitude, they need to earn the confidence of parents.

[Sarcastr0]

Given the way teachers are teaching about sex to children

Unsupported nonsense.

[Ben_]

Lots of examples support it. You just don’t care

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's plenty of stuff like this around.

Many people don't want their kindergarteners told that if they don't conform to gender norms, they're not really the gender that they are and they might need hormones or surgery.

[James Pollock]

"Many people don't want their kindergarteners told that if they don't conform to gender norms, they're not really the gender that they are and they might need hormones or surgery."

Many people don't want their kids told that there's anybody, anywhere who isn't just like them. 60 years ago, the concern was about divorced parents. The overheated fear was that once kids found out that some kids had parents who were no longer together, there's be chaos in the streets, and cats and dogs living together, the whole nine yards.
This type of fear was so huge once that TV shows were censored for any hint of divorce. Whatever happened to the first Mrs. Brady?

[James Pollock]

"Lots of examples support it. You just don’t care"

Your list of examples is empty. You forgot to write any examples down.

[Josh R]

TwelveInch:

If teachers want to be able to teach about this sort of thing, they should convince the electorate that they are capable of doing so in a reasonable manner.

Brett:

If you asked me if the bill was badly drafted, I'd say yes. But it's addressing a real problem

What's being taught in an unreasonable manner? What's the real problem?

[TwelveInchPianist]

At least as far as I'm concerned, the problem is that teachers are pushing a highly controversial (and incorrect) view of sex and gender as the only acceptable viewpoint. And this cult-like view is likely to lead to the unnecessary mutilation of children.

Other people might have different issues.

You are certainly free to disagree, but if teachers want more latitude, it's up to them to prove they can be trusted with it.

[Josh R]

Why not make that the law (which would allow them to discuss all viewpoints on gender identity) instead of vague "instruction" that includes sexual orientation and is enforced by private-party litigation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why not make that the law (which would allow them to discuss all viewpoints on gender identity)"

I don't trust them to discuss all viewpoints fairly.

[Josh R]

A properly-worded law would require them to do so under penalty of being fired (public school) or a fine against the school (private school).

[James Pollock]

"I don't trust them to discuss all viewpoints fairly."

By which you mean they might suggest that viewpoints that aren't yours might be correct and peachy-keen fine.

[shawn_dude]

This is a one-way argument, though. It implies that the only thing teachers should be trusted with teaching is heteronormativity and strict (but false and problematic) gender roles. The law seems neutral on its face but even you clearly understand this is meant to prevent teaching about the existence of other types of people that Florida's legislative majority don't approve of.

Kids can learn about the spouses of famous heterosexuals like George Washington's wife Martha, but not about Alan Turing, even though his ordeals are a significant part of his story. You can lear about Dr Martin Luther King Jr and his wife and children but not Bayard Rustin, who marched alongside Dr King and later stepped back from the civil rights movement at King's request lest his sexual orientation create distractions in the media.

How are we to teach history if we have to omit important facts regarding only some important people because those facts are illegal for children to know? What does it say about modern Florida that learning about Martha Washington isn't teaching about sex but learning about Chasten Glezman is considered sex education?

The bottom line of this bill, and the authors and governor are being very up front about it, is that this is an age old slur about gay men being pedophiles--only we've gussied that up and called it "groomers" Qanon style.

[James Pollock]

"At least as far as I'm concerned, the problem is that teachers are pushing a highly controversial (and incorrect) view of sex and gender as the only acceptable viewpoint."

"Gay people exist" is controversial, but how is it incorrect?

[TwelveInchPianist]

A better solution would be school choice, where parents are free to send children to schools that they trust, but public schools have been fighting that tooth and nail.

[Sarcastr0]

And here we have it. It's about hostility to public schools. And any narrative will do to get there.

What exactly is this highly controversial view of sex and gender? The existence of transgender as a thing? Because beyond that being shades of Scopes, this law is massively over-inclusive if that's the issue.

I mean, it's pretty clearly coming after homosexuality as well.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And here we have it. It's about hostility to public schools. And any narrative will do to get there."

Huh? I have no problem with public schools, as long as they teach the stuff that I want them to teach, and don't teach the stuff I don't want them to teach.

But it's hard to get people to agree on that, which is why I think school choice is a better solution.

[not guilty]

Parents are always free to send their children to schools that they trust. Too many, though, are unwilling to pay the freight to do so, and seek to commandeer public schools to teach only their narrow viewpoint.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol imagine the electorate commandeering the public schools! Oh the horror.

Parents are already paying the freight to support the public schools. Parents who want their kindergarteners exposed to these bizarre viewpoints are free to send their children to private school, and teachers who want to teach kindergarteners about sex are free to teach at private schools.

[Bob from Ohio]

"unwilling"

Or maybe they can't afford to pay both taxes and tuition.

[David Nieporent]

If I were you, I'd suggest going with "This is a stupid solution to a non-existent problem" rather than "Fuck parents; they shouldn't have any say in what schools teach their kids."

Because you're going to have an uphill climb with that latter argument both normatively — most parents think that they should, in fact, have a say in what schools teach their kids — and legally — in a democracy, they actually do have a say in what public schools teach their kids.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I think DMN has hit on part of why this is something the Republicans have found traction with (and thus gone crazygonuts culture war on) - the marketplace high-handedness is a pretty damaging approach.

The GOP can get away with that - that's their brand - but liberalism is more about the balance of equities, not just throwing it to the market.

[James Pollock]

"If I were you, I'd suggest going with 'This is a stupid solution to a non-existent problem' rather than 'Fuck parents; they shouldn't have any say in what schools teach their kids.'"

Why not have both?

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInch — so if a teacher makes a misstep answering a question about God, it's time for loss of license, and private civil action initiated by anyone, with a state-specified one-way damages ratchet rigged against the teacher?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Seems unnecessary. Teachers don't have a problem inappropriately instructing children about religion. Of course, if you disagree, you are free to advocate for such a law.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Insisting a teacher must evade and cannot answer a question with the simple truth is really not worrying at all.

You are being purposefully obtuse. "Because Timmy's dads are homosexuals," is a far more complex answer than "not everyone has a dad and a mom." Yet the latter is every bit as much a truth.

And where the former invites, "What is a homosexual?" which must be followed by a definition that is incomprehensible without delving into the topics of either love or sex, neither of which is appropriate for a classroom, the latter invites, "Really?" which can simply be responded to with, "Yes, as Timmy just explained."

People would be just as pissed if advocates were insisting grade school children be taught Calculus. Until they have the prerequisite knowledge, it is incomprehensible to them.

[Sarcastr0]

This law would seem to cover "not everyone has a dad and a mom" as an answer that leaves the school legally exposed.

[Ben_]

No. But even if it did, since when is it out of bounds for people to be "legally exposed"?

There are seeming ambiguities in sexual harassment law and other laws. Did I miss where you were worried about leaving people "legally exposed" due to every other possibly ambiguous law or claim?

Are teachers above and beyond everyone else in society that they must never be allowed to be "legally exposed"?

[Don Nico]

C'mon, S_0. You cannot be serious.
The number of one parent families is large and they are common.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a fine defense, but since it's up to the parents to decide when to sue...

[not guilty]

The problem is that Florida's HB 1557 provides no realistic guideposts, and school districts are likely to avoid topics entirely to avoid being sued.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The problem is that Florida's HB 1557 provides no realistic guideposts, and school districts are likely to avoid topics entirely to avoid being sued."

Sort of like what people do at most workplaces?

[Ben_]

"The problem is that Florida's HB 1557 provides no realistic guideposts, and school districts are likely to avoid topics entirely to avoid being sued."

Mission accomplished then.

[not guilty]

Careful -- you're saying the quiet part out loud.

[Ben_]

Teachers shouldn’t have to put thought into what they say to young kids?

Yes or no: is it legitimate for governments to have requirements for lessons (or other teacher speech toward students) in public schools?

[James Pollock]

"Yes or no: is it legitimate for governments to have requirements for lessons (or other teacher speech toward students) in public schools?"

Yes, (sometimes) and no (sometimes).

[Herb Spencer]

"Value" as a verb? The Newspeak is strong in that one.

[David Bremer]

This is the right answer. It’s that it uses fuzzy language and then is to be enforced by people with political axes to grind, little to no no grasp on the legal process, and the ability to impose serious costs on the teachers, schools, and taxpayers.

If you think prosecutorial discretion leads to unfair enforcement, try giving this power to a bunch of backwater, homophobic parents.

[Life of Brian]

If you think prosecutorial discretion leads to unfair enforcement, try giving this power to a bunch of backwater, homophobic parents.

"Abuse of power is only for the beautiful people!" Oy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do you have a better way to ensure that teachers are not instructing children in a harmful manner? ISTM that there are three options:

1. Convince parents that teachers can be trusted to talk to children about sex.

2. Laws like this.

3. Something better, like school choice.

[Sarcastr0]

Victim blaming based on populist red-meat. The teachers are not to blame for the GOP propaganda machine spinning up in a new angle.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody's blaming the children, Sarcastro. This is strictly perpetrator blaming.

[Sarcastr0]

Not a lot of examples of children being victims here.

But saying 'it's up to parents to disabuse the public of the accusations we've made' is quite the closed system.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who's saying it's up to parents? It's up to teachers.

It's up the government to prove it can be trusted.

It's not up to the people to prove that the government can't be trusted.

[shawn_dude]

It's not up to teachers. Teachers are the targets here. It's up to the framers of the laws to provide the data that the boogyman is real and teachers are running rampant with teaching sex to third graders.

But has become the norm with the GOP of late, there's a baseless accusation immediately followed by legal solution. "People don't trust the elections!" followed by "We will make it harder for some people to vote." Or "Teachers are pedophiles" followed by the "Don't Say Gay" laws. I'm waiting for the first state to put forward a law making it illegal for LGBT people to even be teachers in the state. (Although the currents laws seem likely to discourage gay teachers.)

[bernard11]

The bill .... requires "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" instruction [after grade 3]. Those words have no clear meaning, and are enforced not by principals or school boards, but by private individuals bringing lawsuits. Such lawsuits, of course, have a one-way fee-shifting mechanism built in, meaning that if the parent prevails he or she gets an attorneys' fees award, but if the parent's claim is absurd, he or she suffers no penalty whatsoever.

Right. This is the part that the law's supporters and defenders don't want you to look at. It's really outrageous.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The teacher should respond as "You can't have two Dad's because two males can't produce children."

And the LGBTQP crowd needs to stop appropriating normal culture.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The teacher should respond as "You can't have two Dad's because two males can't produce children.""

LOL They don't want THAT said.

All the "free speech on sex for government workers" crowd would change their tune.

[Sarcastr0]

Ahh yes, the contrary to fact hypothetical.

The Dems haven't passed a law like this only because they didn't think of it! We better censor now before they get up to speed!!

This is how a partisan can rationalize anything - by accusing the other side of doing the same thing, in some parallel dimension.

[Bob from Ohio]

I didn't say libs would pass a law, just change their free speech shtick.

[Sarcastr0]

It's still proof by contrary to fact speculation.

[Bob from Ohio]

A "homophobic" comment like that by a teacher anywhere would set the world aflame.

[Sarcastr0]

'If my speculation isn't proof, why do I keep saying it is?'

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The Dems haven't passed a law like this only because they didn't think of it! We better censor now before they get up to speed!!"

Huh? You don't think teachers are required to used pronouns that the gender theorists tell them to use, to teach that definitions of words like boy and girl are defined based on gender identity, etc? In California that's actually the law, but these things are largely enforced by other means.

Don't claim for a second that the Dems are giving teacher latitude with respect to gender-related teaching.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't California.

[Jmaie]

Guessing the Florida republicans would like to keep it that way...

[James Pollock]

Maybe we can give Florida back to Spain.

[SimonP]

That would be impermissible instruction on sex, prior to the fourth grade, and it would have to be carefully-crafted to be "age appropriate," thereafter.

[bevis the lumberjack]

These are small children. You don’t need a long explanation, you don’t need to excuse it or condemn it, you simply say “Johnny has two parents just like all of us do” and leave it at that.

Y’all are excoriating the laws (mostly justifiably) and ignoring that the contribution being made by zealots on the other side who insist on trying to indoctrinate tiny children in progressive sex/gender and racial ideas. Those people are forcing the issue.

[Stephen Lathrop]

bevis, whenever you try it, expect the people you try to force out of the polity to force the issue.

[shawn_dude]

A small fraction of people are forcing the issue or are conservative fear-mongers picking this up as an opportunity to pass new anti-gay laws? Do gender pronouns require suing teachers for mentioning famous people and their same-sex spouses? What do preferred pronouns have to do with mentioning LGBT persons on the context of their history?

Nutcases rushing into pizza parlors with rifles looking for Democratic cannibalistic child sex rings are a far bigger problem than having a teenager ask to have their teacher call them by a preferred name or pronoun.

[defaultdotxbe]

Or maybe, just maybe, the pundits are wrong about what the law actually prohibits

[shawn_dude]

This isn't our first time down this road. See: state sodomy laws and the ways they were used in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Anita Bryant isn't dead yet, apparently.

[not guilty]

For the first ten years of my married life, my wife and I committed a felony each time we engaged in oral sex (crime against nature, repealed in 1989). What business was that of the state?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"How is a teacher to address students' family lives at all?"

By asking them about their family. They don't need to know the sexual relationships of the parents in order to ask how their family and parents are doing.

[Sarcastr0]

The language allows other interpretations. And thus if any parent in the class disagrees with your take, welcome to legal exposure!

We solved this overly vague chilling effect stuff in like the 1950s.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The law is no less clear than the restrictions on sexual dialog in the workplace, and you guys love that stuff!

And hostile workplace law is actually government control of private speech.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Once again, Sarcastro is wrong, because he can't be bothered to look up the relevant law.

It's only "instruction" which is illegal. Not an aside comment.

The most rational comparison to make is the teaching of religion in schools. If a 2nd grader goes up to her teacher and asks "Is Jesus real"....the teacher will divert, as is expected. It's entirely reasonable to ask teachers to avoid the topic of "gender orientation and sexuality" like they do for religion, up to 3rd grade. They do it all the time anyway. They don't need to be teaching 2nd graders about "trans-people" any more than they need to be teaching them about Jesus.

[Sarcastr0]

It's only "instruction" which is illegal. Not an aside comment.
Your line drawing is arbitrary. And it's not up to you - it's up to the parents in the school. Which is part of the problem.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Once again, you're incorrect. Unsurprisingly. Because you are "too lazy" to look up the law.

Ultimately, it's up to a judge and jury, if a parent decides to sue.

[not guilty]

Yes, and therein lies a significant problem. Laws that fail to provide guidance to those in charge of enforcement can be void for vagueness.

The gay bashers, though, regard that as a feature, not a bug.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's a long history of this in regards to religion in the classroom. That doesn't mean that teachers can teach about Jesus because the law is "too vague".

Same rules apply.

[James Pollock]

Public school teachers can teach about historical Jesus.

[shawn_dude]

"Mommy and Daddy" = sexual relationship?
"Daddy and Poppa" = sexual relationship?
Or do you advocate for teaching children to use gender-neutral references for their parents so we can avoid knowing about their sexual relationship?

When did knowing a couple's gender mix automatically equate to sex education?

[Armchair Lawyer]

You assume there's a sexual relationship. That's an error.

[Sarcastr0]

Mommy and daddy don't imply sex?

This is the knots you tie yourself in to maintain your willful blindness about this law's operation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Mommy and daddy don't imply sex?"

No. Sometimes Mommy and Daddy have children the same way Daddy and Daddy do. I'm shocked that you didn't know that.

[David Nieporent]

I'm shocked that you don't know the meaning of the word "imply."

[Don Nico]

"Mommy and daddy don't imply sex?"
Actually not. Where have you been the past 50 years

[Sarcastr0]

As DMN noted, imply does not mean require.

[James Pollock]

"You assume there's a sexual relationship. That's an error."

Didn't your parents ever have "the discussion" with you? Do you really not know where babies come from?

[John F. Carr]

I do not recall any conversation with teachers or administrators at my schools that was related to the sex lives or sexual orientation of my parents. We didn't have sex ed as such. Biology class taught about sexual reproduction. We saw a video of a woman giving birth. There was nothing in the video about conception and for all we knew it was a virgin birth of the next Messiah. (If so, Messiahs are disgusting.)

So go ahead, if it makes you happy string up all the teachers that teach "straight is great" right next to the ones that teach fisting and the like.

[bernard11]

Who is teaching fisting and the like?

Give me a break.

You know, this whole descent of the Republican Party into accusations of pedophilia, "grooming," etc. is some of the vilest politics I've seen in my life. It's a new low.

I do not understand how anyone, no matter how strong their conservative views on normal political questions, can associate themselves with this crap.

[John F. Carr]

That was Massachusetts about 20 years ago.

[bernard11]

What was Massachusetts?

[John F. Carr]

"Fistgate" was in Massachusetts.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird this law is in Florida, and happening today.

[Kazinski]

Well Janet Reno had the Florida day care child molestation hysteria franchise back in the day, so it wasn't just Massachusetts. In fact according to PBS, Janet was a leader in the field:
"The so-called "Miami Method," developed in the 1980s by the office of Dade County State Attorney Janet Reno, became a national model for vigilantly pursuing day care sexual abuse cases. Reno set up a special children's unit inside the state attorney's office staffed with "child experts" who specialized in cases of child sexual abuse. The "Miami Method" utililized videotaped interviews with children and expert testimony assuring jurors that the children should be believed."

But let's be clear, the bill doesn't say anything about 'gay' in it, just says sexual topics can't be talked about in class at a young age.

[Sarcastr0]

To be clear, the law pretty trivially has the effect of chilling the use of that word.

1980s? Next let’s go satanic panic.

The straw grasping to find any evidence of an issue relevant to this law is incredible.

[Kazinski]

Satanic Panic?

You aren't going there are you?

EV just posted a case where vicious slander of a satanic church was condoned and enabled by the courts.

There are still people out there actively trying to suppress Satan worship.

Don't act like it isn't a legitimate concern.

[James Pollock]

"Satanic Panic?

You aren't going there are you?"

Don't forget all the people who wanted to censor music recordings because it was all dirty. When they got started, they had to invent dirty songs, like the Kingsmen version of "Louie, Louie".

[not guilty]

Republicans like DeSantis (a Harvard trained lawyer who knows better) are in thrall to the QAnon crazies.

[Kazinski]

Bernard, for once I agree with you about the topic. Just a few years ago when I could still hold down a job, and worked in an office setting. I was persecuted and hounded out just for trying to be a resource and an ally for coworkers. I had some supervisory duties, and I thought it was important that I was available to talk to the people in the office about any topic that could be on their mind. I never of course said anything explicit, but saying 'anal sex' isn't explicit, or explaining the slang definition of Santoram, or being open about being in an open relationship, or that I'd be attending an 'open' party over the weekend if anyone didn't have anything to do. Or keeping a jar of condoms on my desk, nothing explicit about that either. And keep in mind these were all adults in the office, no kids involved. There shouldn't be anything wrong with just talking about things like that.

But HR started getting complaints about me, people calling me a creep behind my back, declining one on one meeting requests for reviews and the like, and finally making formal complaints.

Then HR finally told me talking about any sexual subject in the workplace was off limits (regardless of age of the audience), and I'd be disciplined or fired, just for trying to bean ally and resource for some of my younger coworkers.

Can you believe it?

[James Pollock]

"Can you believe it?"

Not so much, no.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You know, this whole descent of the Republican Party into accusations of pedophilia, "grooming," etc. is some of the vilest politics I've seen in my life. It's a new low."

Nobody is suggesting that teachers are participating in over grooming. But if they're not anti-grooming, then they are participating in systemic grooming.

[shawn_dude]

"If you aren't with us, you're against us." ...and apparently responsible for the rampant pedophilia problem in the state of Florida that has been governed by a GOP majority for decades.

Just don't ask for any evidence of the rampant pedophilia problems in Florida K-12. Apparently, it was documented on watermarked paper filled with bamboo fibers bought but a dead Venezuelan dictator.

[TwelveInchPianist]

*overt grooming

[Kazinski]

Right. Because "over grooming" can't be a thing can it?

At least not untill you are in a locked trunk with ball gag in your mouth.

Maybe that could be considered over grooming.

[Josh R]

But if they're not anti-grooming, then they are participating in systemic grooming

What teachers aren't anti-grooming?

[TwelveInchPianist]

The same ones that aren't anti-racist.

[Josh R]

How about a real answer this time with examples and citations?

[TwelveInchPianist]

To support a satirical comment directed at left-wing racial tropes?

[Josh R]

How about a genuine answer instead of satirical evasion?

[James Pollock]

If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem begins to look like a nail. When the only tool you have to answer criticism of your chosen political ideology is evasion, evasion begins to look like a proper response to criticism.

[shawn_dude]

It's not "new." It is low.

[David Nieporent]

We didn't have sex ed as such.

Are you talking about in elementary school? Or ever?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"cisgendered" is a made up term to otherize and slur normal people.

Normal people didn't "choose" to be normal nor do normal people "identify" as normal, and they weren't "assigned normal at birth".

[Brett Bellmore]

This whole "assigned" terminology is intended to imply that it's arbitrary, rather than just observing and noting biological reality.

[Josh R]

Or perhaps, "assigned" is used to stress that it is controversial whether "male" and "female" ought to refer to biomarkers or identity.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Controversial", trivially, means nothing more than that somebody somewhere disagrees. EVERYTHING is "controversial" in a trivial sense.

So the moment somebody takes it into their head to adopt some crazy position, the whole topic becomes "controversial".

Is the Earth round? That's, literally, controversial. Does that mean we can't call flat Earthers crazy?

[Josh R]

I use "controversial" to mean there are legitimate arguments on both sides (there aren't legitimate arguments for the earth being flat).

[Bob from Ohio]

"legitimate arguments on both sides"

Not true. "identity" [thinking you can change your sex/gender[ is like the flat earth theory.

[Josh R]

How is it flat-earth (demonstrably false) to argue some can (and some cannot) change their gender identity.

[Kazinski]

I hope it isn't really controversial that a Y chromosome based genome not only provides a significant muscle and skeletal mass advantage over a double XX genome, but also confers significant disadvantages like higher rates of mental retardation, mental illness, and early death from a raft of causes.

That is soon to be criminalized science denial to say that is controversial.

[Josh R]

Your observation is not relevant to the question whether "male" and "female" ought to refer to biomarkers or identity.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Or perhaps, "assigned" is used to stress that it is controversial whether "male" and "female" ought to refer to biomarkers or identity."

Ought has nothing to do with it. If it's used to refer to biomarkers, then pretending that it's used to refer to something else is like pretending that the earth is flat.

Sex is never assigned. It is a fact that is observed before birth and throughout life.

What a doctor does at birth has little to do with anything. If a doctor holds up a girl and says, "it's a boy" or writes "boy" on her birth certificate, that doesn't make her transgender in any meaningful sense.

[Josh R]

If it's ("male" and "female") used to refer to biomarkers, then pretending that it's used to refer to something else is like pretending that the earth is flat.

You are begging the question what "male" and "female" ought to refer to.

Sex is never assigned. It is a fact that is observed before birth and throughout life.

Fair enough. However, most people interpret "sex is male/female" to end the discussion and "male/female" refers to sex, not gender identity. Thus, "sex assigned at birth" is a somewhat sloppy, but necessary (*) way to stress that the person was assigned "male or "female" even though they might not be (if "male" and "female" refer to gender identity).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, I'm pretty confident that gay people are encompassed in biological reality.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This whole "assigned" terminology is intended to imply that it's arbitrary, rather than just observing and noting biological reality."

The way it's explained to kindergarteners is that a doctor looks at your body when you are born and tries to guess if you're a boy or a girl.

[James Pollock]

"This whole "assigned" terminology is intended to imply that it's arbitrary, rather than just observing and noting biological reality."

Is that your opinion as a neo-natal surgeon regularly involved in assigning gender at birth, or just a wild, uninformed Brett-ism?

[OtisAH]

All terms are made-up.

[Herb Spencer]

Whenever asked to disclose my sexuality, as occurs with annoying frequency, I always respond "Cisalpine." That filters out the ignorant and serves as a welcome to any number of cicisbei.

[not guilty]

Cisgendered is not a slur. It is a useful descriptor for the vast majority of the population. No animus or obloquy attaches.

[James Pollock]

You're assuming that everyone understands the language and uses it correctly. that assumption should not be made.

[Longtobefree]

At the risk of introducing facts into a Reason comment thread, here is the actual full test of the bill:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

[Longtobefree]

And using the Reason edit workaround - test = text
(but it looks like test will work)

[Smith_FT_MI]

Is this an appropriate part of the curriculum at any grade level, much less for those of such a tender age?
I recall when Sex Education was instituted during the early 60s at the 10th grade level. Even at such an age many felt uncomfortable, and wonder whether time from core curriculum should have been diverted to it.
To the extent it as all appropriate, it is only so for much later grade echelons. Students are likely to be exposed at pre-secondary grades to the exhibition or discernment of a variety of sexual orientations as a matter of course anyway, and it would seem adequate if their education thereon is of an informal nature.

[James Pollock]

The point of sex education is to make sure that students have accurate information to use when they are considering what sexual behavior is right for them. In order to achieve this result, you have to have the education before any of them are deciding to have sex.
Parents have the child's whole life to prepare them to make decisions. there's no shortage of evidence that relying on parents for sexual education produces teenage girls who wind up pregnant. Religious-based instruction on the topic also fails to produce 100% abstinent teenage girls.
Back in the 1970's and 1980's, they tried to create abstinence in teenagers by using sex-ed curricula that focused on STDs. HIV came along and fed right into the campaign, but young people still wanted to have sex and only some of them were talking to their parents about it first.

[shawn_dude]

Disclaimer: I'm not a supporter. I'm gay and a former Florida resident.

Sodomy/"Crimes against Nature" laws were common across the country in my lifetime. Many states still have them (Nevada, for example.) In Nevada's case, as I was also a resident of that state, the law applied to activities without regard for the genders of the participants. Nevertheless, the law was primarily used as a cudgel against LGBT citizens and empowered the police to raid gay bars and violate civil rights with impunity.

The point being, these laws are passed for a purpose and everyone knows the purpose even if the law is written to appear neutral or is vague like the Floriday "Don't Say Gay" law. The people this law was written for know exactly what this law is meant to say (beyond "elect Desantis.")

Also, a correction: the Florida law is K-12. It has two sections, one that applies specifically to K-3, followed by an "or" and a bunch of vague stuff that applies to 4-12.

On its face, it's an attack on free speech.

[Don Nico]

"On its face, it's an attack on free speech."
You might as well say that a forbidding a teacher's praying in class before sie eats her lunch is an attack on free speech.

[Kazinski]

Exactly, there are an enormous amount of topics that anyone on a soapbox on a street corner can explore without any sanctions whatsoever that are not appropriate or without consequences in a classroom environment.

Imagine if you will the second grade teacher who wants to show images of aborted babies with her class and encourages her students to go home and discuss the topic with their parents.

That may be protected by free speech, but I will suggest maybe she should be fired.

[James Pollock]

"You might as well say that a forbidding a teacher's praying in class before sie eats her lunch is an attack on free speech."

It is. Duh.

[Ben_]

Teachers are paid employees. Their speech is part of their job.

Do police officers have free speech when making an arrest? Does a court reporter have free speech to write down whatever she wants?

[Ben_]

Why don’t they mind their own business instead of intruding into their students’ family lives? Why can’t they be expected to stay on task?

When did teachers become immune to others' expectations?

[PeteRR]

How you can you run a country where the banks and post office are closed for four days straight? FFS. I'm talking about Spain in my case.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's a more relaxed way of life.

[PeteRR]

Unless you need to talk to somebody at a bank, then the relaxed part goes out the window.

[Martinned]

Good point. My best guess is that it's been at least 3-4 years since I've set foot in either a bank or a post office. In civilised countries you rarely need to deal with these people in person.

[Ben_]

How many people would care if the post office were only open 3 or 4 days a week every week?

[James Pollock]

Anybody waiting for something important in the mail.

[Kazinski]

They celebrate the Khmer New year and Songkram there too?

Same shits happening in Cambodia and Thailand. Jesus Christ, what's wrong with people?

[Ben_]

Yes, literally in this case.

[Stephen Lathrop]

As more motorists seemed to be firing guns last year, the Dallas Police Department began tracking road rage shootings for the first time. The results were alarming: 45 people wounded, 11 killed . . . .
In Austin last year, the police recorded 160 episodes of drivers pointing or firing a gun; this year, there have been 15 road rage shootings, with three people struck.

That from the NYT two days ago. I want to check in with pro-gun advocates, to see if they can imagine any way the law could be used to protect road rage shooters and their victims before the crime happens.

My suggestion would be a law to target failure to yield right of way while in possession of a firearm. Mandatory 2-year suspension (no bargaining) of 2A rights upon conviction. Lifetime loss of 2A rights upon a second conviction. Also lifetime loss of 2A rights for hit-and-run while armed.

The thought is that road rage is a crime of passion which not only victimizes innocents, but also makes murderers out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Giving those inclined toward instability a recognizable stake in sensible behavior at the moment things start to unravel seems like it would protect everyone.

Even folks with guns who have impeccable self-control with regard to managing their guns may drive with less self-constraint—and end up victimized by some other gun-wielding driver with a road rage problem. Simply encouraging gun-carrying drivers always to yield the right of way would do a lot to protect everyone. What do you say?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A gun absolutist blog might not be the best forum for a worthwhile discussion of this issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I want to check in with pro-gun advocates, to see if they can imagine any way the law could be used to protect road rage shooters and their victims before the crime happens."

It's illegal already. Why would greater protection be required?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I explained that already. It is a crime of passion, preceded by a lesser crime—typically failure to yield right of way. The passion goes awry during the initial crime. As with all crimes of passion, you have to stop it before the irrationality takes over.

[dwb68]

The law cannot stop crimes of passion. You have to have police right there the second the passion happens. And also have a department of pre-crime to predict who is liable to be passionate and get out of control.

Of these 160 episodes how many people were caught? How many with a prior conviction for assault (I'd guess a lot)?

[Stephen Lathrop]

dwb68, why do you need a "department of pre-crime," to stop someone a cop sees failing to yield right of way? Then if it turns out that guy has a gun with him, it is gone for two years, along with all his other guns.

I do not think you would need many cops, or many such arrests (well publicized), to encourage all legal gun owners—including the uncontrollably passionate ones—to start yielding the right of way all the time. I expect that would knock road rage shootings down to a tiny fraction of those reported above.

Do you really think otherwise? If so, can you explain?

[Brett Bellmore]

And, we arrive at the goal: Making any traffic law violation into a felony if you happen to have a gun.

No, simply no.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Where did I say, "felony?"

[Brett Bellmore]

"My suggestion would be a law to target failure to yield right of way while in possession of a firearm. Mandatory 2-year suspension (no bargaining) of 2A rights upon conviction. Lifetime loss of 2A rights upon a second conviction. Also lifetime loss of 2A rights for hit-and-run while armed. "

You don't lose civil rights over misdemeanors.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore: Law-abiding gun owners have to abide by the law? "No, simply no."

Where did I say, "felony?" Where did I say, ". . . any traffic law?"

What is wrong with yielding right of way? You already know it is potentially deadly to violate. You think you can't learn to do it right every time? I know you can. If you are not doing it, why should anyone trust you with a gun?

[dwb68]

For a second I took your insanely dumb idea seriously. My mistake. Just another dumb gun prohibitionist idea in an ocean of really dumb ideas.

[Stephen Lathrop]

dwb68, about limiting road rage shootings, I asked you these questions:

"Do you really think otherwise? If so, can you explain?"

Can you answer? If you can't, maybe bystanders will conclude, "Well it's pretty obvious, but it's too hard for dumb people like dwb68."

[defaultdotxbe]

Your proposed law seems to backward, as its typically the person without a gun that fails to yield, then the person with the gun decides to punish them for that transgression.

[KenveeB]

The lesser crime happens immediately before the greater. There's no real chance for police to step in and intervene before the greater crime occurs, which is what you need for it to be a realistic deterrent.

[Stephen Lathrop]

KenveeB, nope, I'm relying on deterrence, not police intervention. All I think it will take to make it work is for some schmuck with a gun in his car to run a stoplight, get pulled over after no other incident, and lose gun rights for 2 years for failure to yield right of way while armed. Publicize a few arrests like that and one of two things will happen. Either everyone carrying a gun in the car will start to yield right of way all the time, or some of them may decide they don't want to bet their gun right on their own unreliability, and leave the gun behind. Either result is fine with me. Either result would sharply cut road rage murders.

Try not to fight the hypothetical. Tell me about you personally. Do you carry a gun in your car? If you do, would you change your own driving behavior to prevent losing the right to keep carrying it? Or would you just blow the whole thing off, and say, "Screw it, I want to cut that guy off, whether they take my gun or not?"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, my previous reply is the more gun-tolerant of two. The less gun-tolerant reply I can give you is this:

"Gun nuts," is a term I normally try to avoid. But gun nuts are a thing; sometimes that issue has to be confronted forthrightly.

One defining characteristic of a gun nut is a personal priority to value gun possession for the gun nut ahead of life or safety for anyone else. For what it is worth, the, "illegal already," response is at least gun-nut-adjacent. It attempts to bypass the entire notion of gun control laws, by insisting they will not work to constrain folks with guns, and hence cannot limit gun crimes.

I suggest that may indeed be true for laws which outlaw shooting people (which is to say, other people, whom a gun nut cares little about). But in the case of gun nuts (whose self-interest with regard to gun possession is a defining focus), it may be less true for laws which might affect personal gun possession.

I think finding ways to use law to invoke self-protective action on behalf of personal gun possession is thus a two-fold way to get some gun nuts to obey the law—both the law of gun possession, and also whatever other laws society decides should not be broken while armed. What else can you think, about people who otherwise show themselves indifferent to, for instance, mass murder of school children?

I expect you to endorse that, because I know you are one-hundred-percent behind the notion that law-abiding gun owners should not be targeted by the law, or even slightly inconvenienced. And of course you also insist that law-abiding gun owners almost never commit gun crimes (but tacitly, except in the tens-of-thousands of annual instances where they do).

I want to get on that bandwagon of yours, but steer it in a different direction—away from acceptance that customary legal disregard by gun owners—law-abiding or otherwise—comes with an unavoidable price in others' lives. I think if the nation can fashion laws which gun owners care about, which would also reduce shootings, it might help save at least numerous lives.

The trick seems to be to get gun nuts' attention. Their attention seems to be focused narrowly—on personal access to guns. Thus, that becomes the practical place to put the legal focus. Want to keep your gun? Don't have it with you while you break other laws.

Come to think of it, that is a well-precedented approach to criminal law. Let's make better use of it.

[Michael P]

You try to avoid the term "gun nuts" because you are one.

[not guilty]

Those who need to purchase manhood at a gun store can't be counted on to discuss their popguns rationally.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, in a consumer society, it seems inevitable that self-identified consumers will look for retail solutions for every shortfall in personal performance.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Nearly half of all new U.S. gun buyers since the start of 2019 were women, according to new data, a tremendous shift in the historically male-dominated market.

Preliminary results from the 2021 National Firearms Survey obtained by The Wall Street Journal found that an estimated 3.5 million women in the U.S. became gun owners between January 2019 and April 2021. In that same period, 4 million men became gun owners. "

Are they buying "manhood" too?

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Want to keep your gun? Don't have it with you while you break other laws.

Road rage incidents are a nearly perfect example of how guns act to equalize disparate force available to opponents. If a well-muscled 250 lb rager follows you and jumps out when you stop to assault you, he may be punished by the law, but you will suffer immense pain and a potentially long recovery period if he doesn't kill you. Having a gun with you in that situation puts you on equal footing with the strongest man.

An equal ability to harm each other de-escalates the situation far better than harsh punishments. Maybe we should mandate all drivers go armed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nothing harsh about taking guns away from someone who demonstrates deliberate, potentially deadly disregard for an acknowledged duty to protect others. Why would anyone want a person like that to have guns?

[Jmaie]

Filing to yield a right of way = demonstrating deliberate, potentially deadly disregard for an acknowledged duty to protect others?

[Jmaie]

Failing, dammit...

[Absaroka]

Why would you want them to have a car?

You are one of those soft-on-failure-to-yield types. People who fail to yield should never be able to drive again.

[shawn_dude]

It's illegal already. Why would greater protection be required?
I dunno... additional laws seem to be required without evidence for other, similar issues like voter fraud and child grooming by teachers.

[James Pollock]

"It's illegal already. Why would greater protection be required?"

Being illegal doesn't make it impossible.

In a perfect world, adult human beings would be able to control themselves well enough that the portion of them that choose to go about armed would be refraining from engaging in road rage shootings. When they can't control themselves, they become the proverbial "bad guy with a gun" that we allegedly need all those "good guys with a gun" to protect us from.

[Michael P]

Subsidized dash cams, with footage admissible in traffic court.

[John F. Carr]

What does "no bargaining" mean? Are you telling the prosecutor that every case must go to trial? That is unconstitutional in my state. Does the law say a defendant charged with "failure to yield while armed" may not be convicted of "failure to yield" as a lesser included offense? In my state (and some others) there are special crimes that may not be dismissed without the prosecutor stating reasons on the record. That causes weak cases to be more likely to go to trial. The defendant asks for a bench trial and is more likely than not acquitted.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What does "no bargaining" mean?

Not sure what it would mean in practice in this context. What I hope it would mean is no more miraculous statistics, like ones which show almost no one in Texas who has a concealed carry license ever loses it because of domestic violence. (But check me on that, last time I looked was maybe 5 years ago). I took that to mean that prosecutors in Texas had found out they could get easy plea deals by agreeing not to invoke gun license cancellations. How would you account for it?

[John F. Carr]

There are such plea bargains, but they don't work the way defendants hope. In this situation federal law looks to the facts underlying a conviction rather than the statute of conviction.

A recent case out of the First Circuit demonstrates. A Maine man was accused of domestic assault. He took a plea bargain to simple assault because he thought that allowed him to keep his guns. Under federal law the fact that his wife was the victim was still enough to disqualify him from having a gun. He was convicted of a federal charge of gun possession by a person with a domestic violence conviction. The appeals court gave him a new trial because he may not have had the required intent to violate the law, having taken a plea bargain under the mistaken impression that he could keep his guns. The dissent would have upheld the conviction because he knew that he had been convicted of assaulting his wife.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1903P-01A.pdf

[James Pollock]

This is only relevant if you have USA's pursuing federal charges.

[Absaroka]

"How would you account for it?"

Some people have personalities that cause them look ahead and try to manage their affairs so as to avoid bad outcomes. They have decent credit scores, keep first aid kits, change their smoke alarm batteries, keep their spare tire inflated, leave for work on time so they don't have to speed in school zones and so on.

Other people don't look ahead like that. They charge things they don't need, run out of gas, forget to pay bills, skip their colonoscopy, etc, etc.

So it doesn't surprise me that people who are willing to jump through the hoops to get a permit so they can defend themselves against a low probability/high consequence event are also prudent enough to avoid committing crimes. Avoiding felonies isn't all that high of a bar for reasonably prudent people.

When the facts don't comport with your narrative, consider changing your narrative rather than the facts.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure what it would mean in practice in this context.

Shocker.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, what shocks you about a forthright statement that I am unable to predict a future which is subject to happenstance, and actions by others?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing shocks me about the fact that you made a proposal that you didn't understand. (It has nothing to do with "predictions.") I was being ironic.

[Absaroka]

"My suggestion would be a law to target failure to yield right of way ..."

I think you identify a serious problem, but your solution is a weak half measure. What if the incipient road rager doesn't have a gun at the time? He might buy one later, or have access to some other 3000 pound instrumentality of assault. If I may make a modest proposal to put reasonable teeth in your proposal, any person who fails to yield should be taken directly from the scene and incarcerated without bail for a minimum period of two years. Anything less is scandalously letting car nuts foist the hazards of their chosen compensatory mechanism on the rest of us.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I always expect the most irrational pro-gun outcries to come in response to more-rational proposals to accommodate guns, but with limitations. If you claim to support law abiding gun ownership, stop objecting to insistence that gun carriers abide by the law. You really think it's that hard to yield the right of way? Making folks do that would launch kamikaze car attacks?

[Absaroka]

No, not at all. I agree that failure to yield is a scourge on the land. I don't object *at all* to making gun carriers, and everyone else for that matter, abide by the law. I don't see why you want half the population to get a free ride for dangerous behavior.

You do realize, right, that shootings are likely a small fraction of road rage deaths:

"...over 30 drivers who had their judgment clouded by road rage, went ahead and murdered their fellow drivers.

This number does not account for car accident fatalities, caused by road rage behavior, since classing road rage as a direct accident cause is difficult, and it’s usually not reported as such by local law enforcement. Anecdotal reports seem to indicate that thousands of accidents are caused by road rage yearly, leading to several hundred fatalities."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, put your linked info in updated context by reading the NYT article about road rage in Texas and elsewhere.

[Absaroka]

You failed to link to your article. The snippet you quoted said 11 people were killed in road rage shootings last year. What does it say about non-shooting road rage deaths?

Ah, found a copy. No mention of non-shooting road rage deaths, so not very illuminating in that regard.

And so far this year (in Austin, vs Dallas), 'three struck', but unknown number killed? And also "(Two others were stabbed in altercations stemming from road rage.)". Where's the knife control?

How about this - people that do bad things, with guns, cars, knives, baseball bats, tire irons, broken bottles or their bare hands ought to be penalized for their bad behavior. Violent people shouldn't get bail, and should get lengthy sentences, especially for repeated violent behavior. Too complicated?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, how many people died in Dallas in one year?

You again prove yourself a reliable fount of terrible analogies offered as subject changes. Do you ever try to be forthright?

[Absaroka]

Help me out here. I can't parse anything coherent from your comments.

I gave you a source saying that most road rage deaths are from the resulting accidents, not shootings. You said I should look at an NYT article so I could understand the context - but that article only talks about road rage shootings, not road rage deaths from the resulting crashes. It doesn't have any of that context.

Can you try to make a straightforward statement of your thesis?

[James Pollock]

" If I may make a modest proposal to put reasonable teeth in your proposal, any person who fails to yield should be taken directly from the scene and incarcerated without bail for a minimum period of two years."

Seize the car as an instrumentality of the crime of road rage.

[OtisAH]

Road-rage shootings are a small price to pay for freedom.

[Ed Grinberg]

I'm pretty sure you're being facetious.
How's this for a reasonable measure that'll save countless lives:
(from a 2015 news article)
"Appearing before nearly 400 people in Aspen on Feb. 5, [Michael Bloomberg] argued that in order to save lives, police should seize guns from male minorities between ages 15 and 25."
Are you onboard? Why not? Isn't denying people equal protection of laws a small price to pay to save countless lives? (Now I'm being facetious.)

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure that your underlying assumption — that road rage incidents are committed by otherwise law-abiding people who just snap in the heat of passion — has any merit. I suspect you'll find that most people who get violent over being cut off in traffic are people who get violent lots of other times.

But even setting that aside… no. That's just insane. First, "failure to yield right of way," like almost all traffic offenses, is subjective. Cops can target who they want. (And what if both drivers have firearms with them? Do they just both stop in the middle of the road?)

Second, how on earth would that be enforced? Do you think cops search white people's cars when giving out traffic tickets?

[Smith_FT_MI]

Just a brief comment without going through all the later posts to determine which might make the same point.
Suspension or loss of "2A rights" is a bit too broad. If focused on suspension or loss of Concealed Carry rights, in those jurisdictions which might not provide for those sanctions, this could be sustainable.
In many jurisdictions, such as here in Michigan, one can only possess a firearm in the interior of a vehicle if they have a Concealed Pistol License. Obviously the type of road rage shooting incidents to which you refer involve a person with immediate access to the firearm.
Here a suspension or loss of the CPL rights would clearly be the result of such a situation. Encouraging similar sanctions in States not now providing for them is appropriate for consideration.
For "Constitutional Carry" States where a CPL might not be required for possession of a firearm within the vehicle would complicate the question. I suppose it would be possible to tailor a statute that limits the right in those States to carry a firearm within a vehicle upon conviction for such an offense.
Suspension or loss of "2A rights" possibly for Open Carry and certainly for home defense, though, is a bridge too far.

[SimonP]

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people are killed every year in traffic crashes.

I'm not less concerned about road rage shootings, but the problem seems microscopic relative to the number of deaths and injuries we already tolerate on our streets, as a matter of course.

[Kazinski]

That maybe a reasonable solution, but maybe it's not comprehensive enough. You need to add, with the same penalty of course:

Failure to yield right of way to someone in a vehicle who is in possession of a firearm.

Seems a clear constitutional principle you can't be singled out for extra punishment just for exercising your constitutional rights, so this should cure that defect, and of course help reduce confrontations as well.

I will keep my dashboard video on, and of course attest I was armed when someone cut me off to make sure they face the enhanced penalty.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fine. Do that. Makes it work better.

But stop with the, "punishment," talk. Obeying legitimate laws which apply to everyone is not punishment.

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators, the religious holidays and familial traditions are very much on my mind this morning. Is there a special Easter/Pesach tradition you got from your family, that you carry on today? For instance, do/did you have a favorite holiday dish that was handed down to you?

For me, my fave Pesach food is charoset, making it's appearance at Korech (“on matzah and bitter herbs you shall eat it”) - the Hillel sandwich. It is not just the food, it is the meaning behind it that makes charoset my personal favorite. There are a lot of charoset variations. I sometimes make my own. For those who participate in the Seder, is there a particular dish you enjoy? [personal note to other Seder preparers....I have never really mastered the art of making good tzimmes].

To my fellow Tribe Members: Chag Semeach Pesach! 🙂

To our Christian VC Conspirators: Today is Maundy Thursday. My hope for all of you is that you have a meaningful Easter holiday.

[bernard11]

personal note to other Seder preparers....I have never really mastered the art of making good tzimmes

IMO there is no such thing as good tzimmes.

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, I understand. It is an acquired taste. Still though, it takes some skill to prepare. It is deceptively difficult.

Chag Semeach Pesach, bernard11. Not looking forward to eight days of matzah...it gets old after two days. 🙂

Got any ideas on what to put on top of matzah for Chol Moed?

[SRG]

I recommend mixing grated cheese - good cheese - into the beaten egg when making matzo brei. It is transformational.

[Commenter_XY]

Oooooooh.....I am gonna try that: matzo brei.

[SRG]

"Why do you read Volokh?"

"For the recipes"

[apedad]

This is the cast-iron skillet pizza recipe I use.

https://www.jennycancook.com/recipes/easy-pan-pizza/?msclkid=2e1c64c1bc1d11ecb9a0de1330aac4fe

I double the dough and make two.

You can also use this dough recipe to make pizza-dough biscuits.

[Ridgeway]

Matzo Brei is the Colcannon of the Jewish diet.

We have two and only two things in the pantry. What can we make?

[bernard11]

It is an acquired taste.

And one I never acquired, despite having many opportunities while growing up. My parents liked it.

[David Nieporent]

I like eight days of matzah. I don't keep strictly kosher during the rest of the year, but for eight days it forces me to actually think about and live by the rules. (It reminds me why I couldn't do it all year, but for a week, it's a nice change of pace.

[Commenter_XY]

David, Chag Semeach Pesach! I totally get the 'force to think through the rules' bit. It is the same for me.

[apedad]

A half a century ago, my Polish, Catholic great-aunt would put hay under the tablecloth and added coins that us kids could dig for after Easter dinner.

That was neat for us kids but the glassware, plates, bowls, and serving trays were always kinda wobbly lying on top of the hay.

Not a tradition anymore in my family (as far as I know).

[Brett Bellmore]

Mom would always make an Easter cake using a special mold, with shredded coconut on the frosting. Didn't continue that tradition, 'cause I'm not all that fond of cake.

One year my parents paid a farmer to raise a lamb for them, and we even visited and got to pet the lamb. Then had it for dinner on Easter. My sister, Mary, was not amused.

[Commenter_XY]

Ha, ha, ha, ha = lamb story. That was funny, Brett. Your sister Mary get over it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Eventually, yeah.

[Herb Spencer]

I'm sorry, but obliged, to note that Easter is not the favorite holiday for many Christian kids, particularly Roman Catholics. First, the communal guilt trip called Lent imparts a pall over most activity during that period. Holy Thursday brings the first, purple shrouded sign of relief, and also contributes to the belief that weekends begin on Thursday, as is right and just. But then, the whiplash of Good Friday descends, which in my family meant no talking in the afternoon and, at 3:00 p.m., lying down, face down, facing east and praying the Act of Contrition, Apostles' Creed, and Lord's Prayer; not for the BVM this day! Holy Saturday begins with the blessing of food, which augurs well, especially when hot cross buns make their appearance, along with coloring Easter eggs, though there's always some dismal relative who insists on using onion skins to impose their dusky drab to what might have been a child's creative use of wax and vibrant colors.
Easter Sunday finally breaks the curse, when the family Easter egg hunt reminds us all of where we never bothered to clean, in search for the precious $1 egg. But - don't forget this is Easter! - soon it's time to dress up and head to church to satisfy one's Easter Duty, which brings further restlessness and squabbling that not even the most tempting of turkeys or honeyed hams can dispel. In fact, the only truly enjoyable thing about Easter is the bounty of egg salad which is the tasty by-product of all those broken colored eggs.

[Kazinski]

Well, it's not just Jewish holidays, April 13th is the Khmer New Year. Yesterday my wife, who is currently in Phnom Penh, informed me that "The Tiger Angel is coming down soon." I guess they've incorporated the Chinese zodiac into the Theravada Buddhist New Year and it's the year of the tiger.

[Commenter_XY]

Interesting to read of the Chinese cultural influence in Vietnam, Kazinski. It was only 43 years ago that China and Vietnam fought a border war. The world has changed.

[Kazinski]

Well of course the Chinese cultural influence goes back thousands of years. And the Chinese cultural influence in the last 40 years is microscopic to the Chinese pre-French colonial influence.

It was the French that made the Vietnamese use their enhanced Roman alphabet, and abandon the classic Chinese characters they had been using for thousands of years. That, and French colonial administration in general likely slowed cultural cross pollination markedly.

[apedad]

Chuck Grassley Says He Won’t Vote to Repeal Affordable Care Act

“So I’m wondering: If you and the Republicans get back in power, is that again going to come up to be repealed?” the Waukee audience member asked Grassley. “And, if you do, what is the Republican plan to provide affordable health care to my children?”

“It’s not repealing the Affordable Care Act, if that’s your question,” Grassley said.

“So are you saying that you would not?” she asked.

“Yes, I’m saying I would not—we’re not going to repeal the Affordable Care Act,” Grassley said. He then clarified that he couldn’t speak for other Senate Republicans.

https://iowastartingline.com/2022/04/12/chuck-grassley-says-he-wont-vote-to-repeal-affordable-care-act/

Good to see people who really are affected by ACA are speaking up - and their politicians are listening to them and not to a bunch of goats bleating 'pinko-commie.'

Heck, even Sen. Manchin thinks ACA is a good idea:

https://www.wvnstv.com/news/west-virginia-news/senator-manchin-urges-west-virginians-to-apply-for-health-insurance-before-aca-open-enrollment-ends/?msclkid=6079dc18bbdf11ec8a07af2ba1cb1670

[bernard11]

Of course the Republicans aren't going to repeal Obamacare.

They would rather blame every single problem in the health care system on it. If they repeal it, the new problems are on their head.

[Brett Bellmore]

The ACA is an entitlement program, and entitlement programs, infamously, are politically impossible to terminate once they get going, on account of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Even if their net effect is bad, the identifiable beneficiaries will fight like hell to retain them.

So the ACA had to be killed at its inception, or it was going to be immortal.

The only way to get rid of it at this point is with some NEW system that explicitly preserves the benefits for the few people who did benefit, people with pre-existing conditions who got subsidized insurance. Hard for Republicans to craft such a program, since we don't think any such program should exist at the federal level to begin with.

While there are plenty of reforms that make sense at the federal level from a conservative standpoint, it's going to be tough getting federal office holders to act on them.

[bernard11]

Benefits are not that concentrated.

Lots of people are going to run into the "pre-existing condition" problem at some point in their lives.

Remember, the insurers used to consider a stomach ache you had three months a pre-existing condition.

[bernard11]

Three months ago.

[shawn_dude]

Pre-existing conditions like long-term COVID, espeically for conservatives who believed the pandemic was a political scandal and that vaccines would magnetize their balls.

[Kazinski]

It's really not necessary to repeal it, just provide alternatives.

I just signed my wife up for a short term health insurance plan at 1/3 the cost, but all the benefits of the Obamacare plan. We were overseas at the time so we missed the renewal period, but we are much happier with this plan.

[Michael P]

How old are Chuck Grassley's children? Do they really need an extension of (taxpayer-subsidized) coverage from a parent until they are 26?

[Ben_]

People get mad when you mess with their health care. That's why everyone was so mad when Dems decided to meddle with everyone's health care.

Ten years later, it would be meddling with people's health care to put the pre-Obamacare system back in place. And you think you're making a good point by saying Republicans don't want to meddle?

The next time someone wants to force new health care arrangements on people, it will be Democrats doing it. Democrats are the party of forcing things on people.

If Republicans do anything that changes anything, it will be to allow more choices and/or to tell people getting subsidies that they have to shoulder a little more of the burden themselves -- like a work requirement for able-bodied individuals when unemployment is below 4% or something.

[James Pollock]

"If Republicans do anything that changes anything, it will be to allow more choices and/or to tell people getting subsidies that they have to shoulder a little more of the burden themselves -- like a work requirement for able-bodied individuals when unemployment is below 4% or something."

It'll be to tell sick people to go off and die already, and quit costing taxpayers money.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Where are Joe Biden's real tax returns?

We all heard a lot of whining about Trump's tax returns, and how he didn't release them. But what about Joe Biden's tax returns? Joe Biden's REAL tax returns.

What do I mean by this? Sure, Joe released his tax returns. He shows millions of dollars of income from an S-corp in 2017 and 2018, and S-corp owned by Joe. Where did that money come from though? Well, we don't know that, because the S-Corp hides all the income. If you're going to hide your income sources by funneling it through an S-corp, then releasing your "tax returns" becomes a fraud.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/06/legal-experts-call-for-biden-to-release-corporate-tax-returns/

[Commenter_XY]

That train left the station = not turning over tax documents with their supporting documentation

It will all come out, eventually.

[Armchair Lawyer]

After all the whining. complaining, and lawsuits.... Liberals are pretty silent on this.

[Commenter_XY]

They can be quiet as synagogue mice....it will all come out, AL. You can no more stop the steady drip, drip, drip of information now coming out, than stopping the sunrise.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I believe Pres. Biden should release his tax information.

I believe Republicans, conservatives, and clingers should have the self-awareness and character to shut up about it.

[Sarcastr0]

If you're going to hide your income sources by funneling it through an S-corp, then releasing your "tax returns" becomes a fraud

No, that's not fraud.

And this is birther-level nonsense.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. It's not legally a fraud, but if what's above is true, then the claim that Biden released his tax returns is BS.

[Sarcastr0]

Is there a secret tax return for S-Corps? No - this is actually what a tax return would and should say.

This is like the long form birth certificate bullshit - creating new goalposts forever.

[Life of Brian]

Is there a secret tax return for S-Corps?

No, actually Form 1120-S is notoriously well-known.

If you don't know the most basic information about a subject, p'haps you shouldn't haughtily post about it?

[Sarcastr0]

Cute. I actually learned about S-Corps in law school, but thanks for your assumption. But thanks for taking a clearly rhetorical question seriously like an idiot.

[Life of Brian]

Nice try, but the rest of your post clearly said you don't think he owes any further info. So if you really understood there were undisclosed corporate forms, your post was nonsense at best. But why would that surprise me?

[Sarcastr0]

Is there a secret tax return for S-Corps? No

See how I answered the question? That is a sign I know the answer to the question.

Jackass.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, stop. The most charitable interpretation of your post is that asking for corporate tax returns is just asking for the same info as is already on the personal return. Otherwise the long-form birth certificate/moving goalposts bit had no purpose. And if that's what you meant, I remain confident that you've never dealt with Form 1120-S in your life.

Flap your lips to the contrary all you want, but the more efficient solution would be for you to stop posting poorly-considered reflexive bullshit in the first place.

[James Pollock]

"Flap your lips to the contrary all you want, but the more efficient solution would be for you to stop posting poorly-considered reflexive bullshit in the first place.
"

You could go first, to show good faith.

[Absaroka]

Well, wait a sec. We want to know about politician's finances for a reason - so we can ask if their decisions are for the good of their country or the good of their bank account. Given human nature, it's a reasonable inquiry.

And if I see a personal tax return with line items like:

'$10K consulting fee from Peabody Coal'
'$10K consulting fee from Mom's Demand'
'$10K profit from peanut farm'

etc, etc, I can then decide what might be motivating a politician's decisions about energy, gun, or agricultural policy. But if the only entry is '$10K from S-corp', then isn't it pretty natural to want to know where the S -corp is getting its money? If it is Jimmy Carter's farm, we can guess, but otherwise I kinda want to know if the corp's income was consulting fees from Russian/Saudi/Botswanan oligarchs, or what. If Biden's (or Obama's or Trump's) corporate income was all book royalties/hotel profits/whatever, great. If not, I kind of want to know where it came from.

You may have noticed than there are some DC pols who seem to be pretty amazing investors. Your private-citizen finances are none of my business, but when you sit on the Armed Services Committee, how much Raytheon you own is my business.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, but just because there is no reporting from an S-Corp doesn't mean there is some kind of fraud. In fact, I'd wager it's been pretty common in past tax returns from politicians.

This looks a lot like goalpost shifting.

If you want more financial disclosures, say that. Don't say the tax return is fake because it had an S-Corp in it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"And if I see a personal tax return with line items like:

'$10K consulting fee from Peabody Coal'
'$10K consulting fee from Mom's Demand'
'$10K profit from peanut farm'"

Those things are not on tax returns.

[David Nieporent]

But if the only entry is '$10K from S-corp', then isn't it pretty natural to want to know where the S -corp is getting its money?

Why do you think that information would be found on the corporation's tax return?

[Absaroka]

Bob, David: fair enough. My long ago recollection II haven't done consulting work for years) was that each client (that paid more than, today, $600, which was of course all of them because $600 doesn't buy much consulting) generated a 1099 and I listed those sources of income on schedule something-or-other. But a quick look at the current forms (1040 and schedules, haven't done any corp taxes) looks like you just sum them all and report the total. Shame on me for trusting memory.

That said - I still want a good look at the finances of people holding high office.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Is there a secret tax return for S-Corps? No - this is actually what a tax return would and should say."

If you're going to claim that you released your tax returns, you should release them for entities you control as well.

[David Nieporent]

If you're going to claim that you released your tax returns, you should release them for entities you control as well.

It isn't a terrible argument to suggest that such returns should be released. It is a terrible argument (not saying you made it, but our fake lawyer above did) to pretend that there's some norm of doing so and that the failure to do something that was neither legally required nor established practice is somehow corrupt.

[OtisAH]

What if it’s true that your father gave you his TiP account two years ago as a high school graduation gift?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh indeed,

You can always count on Sarcastro to pick the least applicable definition of a word, then argue against that as a strawman. It's part of his patented dishonesty.

[James Pollock]

You can always count on Sarcastr0's critics to spend an entire comment posting whining about nothing.

[OtisAH]

Big Baby never released his taxes.

[Ben_]

And it kept deranged people talking about it -- boring everyone by complaining for the 1000th time -- instead of an issue voters cared about.

[James Pollock]

Were you talking about it, or did you mean OTHER deranged people?

[bernard11]

This is absurd.

Why do I even follow your ridiculous links?

First, the numbers make no sense. The story starts by saying the Bidens made $13 million in 2017-19. Then it says,

income from two so-called S corporations — CelticCapri Corp. and Giacoppa Corp. — comprised the vast majority of Joe and Jill Biden’s $16.7 million in earnings, respectively, between 2017 and 2019.

So which is it?

And then it gives the game away,

The only explanation to date for the corporate profits has come from a 2020 USA Today “fact check” report that said more than $15.6 million of the couple’s revenue came from speaking fees and book deals, the Federalist said.

Inevitably, the Post quotes the joke Jonathan Turley and a couple of GOP lawyers as "legal experts." And the whole thing originated with The Federalist, a dishonest rag.

By the way, A.L. and others shouting crap about the Bidens, what do you think of former First Son-in-Law Kushner scoring a $2B (with a "B") investment in his new private equity firm from Saudi Arabia, despite the kingdom's investment advisers saying it was a lousy investment. Apparently, the murderer Mohammed Bin Salman overrode the committee's recommendation. Wonder why?

I don't suppose you'll be yapping about that, will you?

[Absaroka]

"So which is it?"

If you click through, the Post misquotes itself - the underlying article seems to say the $13M is for 2017/18:

"Banks said the report shows Biden improperly used “S corporations” to avoid paying Medicare tax on speaking fees and book sales in 2017 and 2018.

...while the linked article seems to say the $16.7M is 2017/18/19:

"...income from two so-called S corporations — CelticCapri Corp. and Giacoppa Corp. — comprised the vast majority of Joe and Jill Biden’s $16.7 million in earnings, respectively, between 2017 and 2019."

Biden and first lady Jill Biden routed more than $13 million through S corporations and counted less than $800,000 of it as salary eligible for the Medicare tax ..."

so $3.7M in 2019 would cover the discrepancy.

Just to muddy the water further, 'earnings' and 'income' may not be the same thing, tax-wise - gross vs. net, etc.

Business taxes are, in fairness, not the simple formulaic thing that taxes are for we lowly W-2/1099 types - even a rigorously honest CPA is making judgement calls.

All that said, I think that having your financial life put under a microscope ought to be a prerequisite for seeking high office, whether you are named Trump or Biden.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Absaroka handles it well.

Although accurately quoting both items would help people decipher your mistake in your reading comprehension.

1. "For President Biden to release corporate tax returns that account for more than $13 million in income that he and First Lady Jill Biden reported to the IRS between 2017 and 2019, "

2. "how income from two so-called S corporations — CelticCapri Corp. and Giacoppa Corp. — comprised the vast majority of Joe and Jill Biden’s $16.7 million in earnings, respectively, between 2017 and 2019."

The logical explanation there is that the Bidens reported $16.7 million in earnings, of which $13 million was funneled through their S-Corp, while the remaining $3.7 million was reported as more standard wages and income.

This isn't hard if you actually read what is written.

[Sarcastr0]

Absaroka handles it well.

Note his thesis: "I think that having your financial life put under a microscope ought to be a prerequisite for seeking high office, whether you are named Trump or Biden."

Note your thesis: "Where are Joe Biden's real tax returns?"

This is why he's cool and you suck.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You got me there. Your argument comes down to name calling and saying people suck. How could I ever top that?

[Sarcastr0]

Actually, I laid out an argument whose conclusion is that he's cool and you suck.

But you pretended the conclusion was the argument.

More of why you suck.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Name calling... it's all you have left.

[James Pollock]

while all you have left is sucking.

[shawn_dude]

Maybe you could ask Putin to release them. I bet he's extra motivated this year.

[not guilty]

The Washington Post reports that the Department of Justice is refusing a request from the House Oversight Committee for a detailed inventory of the contents of 15 boxes of documents that Donald Trump unlawfully removed to Mar-a-Lago, suggesting that that could compromise an ongoing investigation.

I hope that means that DOJ is investigating Trump for a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 2071(b). The penalty for violating that statute includes disqualification from holding any office under the United States. I doubt, though, that that provision can constitutionally be applied to the office of President, in light of U. S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps Trump can plead guilty to a misdemeanor, just like Sandy Berger was permitted to.

[bernard11]

Yeah. Because these are totally comparable.

This chapter MXII of "Trump can do no wrong," by Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no, they're not comparable: They had Berger dead to rights, stealing documents from the National Archives, and it was absolutely a matter of him stealing them, and knowing he was stealing them, no question at all. He was guilty as hell, and no question about it.

Whereas here, there's merely the possibility that something wrong was done, depending on what was in the boxes.

[bernard11]

Brett,

The documents he took contained classified materials. If that had been a Democrat you'd be screaming "Lock her up!!"

[Bob from Ohio]

I can't believe you were a career defense attorney.

[not guilty]

I was a yellow dog Democrat long before I became a criminal defense attorney.

I represented some clients who were as vile as Donald Trump, but they operated on a much smaller scale. Trump deserves to be indicted, tried, convicted and denied bail pending appeal.

[Michael P]

Did Anne Applebaum ever come up with a good reason that she thinks Hunter Biden's laptop is irrelevant even though she published a rather lengthy essay decrying it just 18 months ago?

[apedad]

Just watched the cell phone footage of the death of Patrick Lyoya.

That cop is going to jail for life.

[Martinned]

I haven't seen it, but I'd take that bet.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That cop is going to jail for life.

Doubtful. Did you actually watch all of it, or just the CNN-narrated version?

[Brett Bellmore]

Watching this, no, I doubt it. Looks like the perp took the taser off the cop, and tried using it on him.

[David Nieporent]

It looks like no such thing. Here's the actual shooting. The guy was on the ground. The cop was on top of him, on his back. And then he shot him, in the back of the head.

[Michael P]

Has Michael Sussman's defense fallen apart? How high did the conspiracy to materially mislead the FBI go? How useful were the useful idiots in the legacy media in furthering that hoax?

[Commenter_XY]

Sussman will breakdown and squeal if there is an absolute certainty of jail time. The weak ones always do. Durham knows this and has built his case accordingly.

This will go on for some time. And others will be on the docket, soon enough.

[Estragon]

Soon enough? He’s been on the case for three years already! Sussman will never spend a day in jail over this and neither will anyone else. Read the filings and not op-Ed pieces, Durham is a joke.

[Commenter_XY]

One thing I am personally glad for....the notable lack of leaks. I don't like Special Counsel's offices leaking. We have had that before. I do not want to see a resumption of that.

[David Nieporent]

"materially." LOL.

[dwb68]

Maybe someone has some insight into Supreme Court mysticism.

There are two ways a case gets "relisted" or rescheduled from one conference to another.

For example in Dobbs: You see on the docket a few examples "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of ..." then "rescheduled" repeatedly.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1392.html

Then starting in 2020, you no longer see "rescheduled" .. just relists.

Aposhian v Garland for example, has been "rescheduled" multiple times: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-159.html

The cases where "rescheduled" appears on the docket like this is rare. Some of them appear top end up as granted (cant provide too many links in a comment without triggering span filters, but you can search the docket). Some of them end up denied without comment (see docket no No. 21-357). Some of them denied with a comment (see No. 21-459 where Thomas respected denial ).

Does anyone know what the difference is between an ordinary relist on the docket, and "rescheduled"?

[David Nieporent]

This article discusses the difference, although not in any great detail.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-adds-layer-of-due-diligence-relists-explained

[Michael P]

Republicans were right about the inflationary effects of Biden's stimulus packages.

In related news, Psaki keeps trying to shift blame to Putin. What do we call it when the government and major media corporations are so cozy that there's a revolving door between them for apparatchiks?

Also, the national BLM organization apparently stands for "Buying Large Mansions" more than "Black Lives Matter". Why do people who feel "triggered" by charity transparency rules take leadership positions in charities?

[SRG]

So I guess inflation is only a problem in the US? Oh wait...

[Don Nico]

No, EU countries have had their own "stimulus" packages

[ThePublius]

Inflation in the U.S. is about double that in Europe.

[bernard11]

Inflation in the U.S. is about double that in Europe.

No. It isn't.

Do you not even try to be accurate? Do you just make shit up, or are you parroting Carlson or some other RW screamer without checking?

I mean, all you had to do was type "eurozone inflation" into Google and you would have known the number - 7.5% as of March. Lower than the US, but not by much, especially when you account for the problems of cross-currency comparison, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's possible that being right next to a war zone, and embargoing fuel from one of the combatants, has driven up prices in Europe to the point where they, FINALLY, had inflation comparable to the US in March.

We were well above Eurozone inflation before March, though.

[Life of Brian]

When you're throwing bombs about "making shit up," it's generally helpful to avoid paywalled sources.

Two public ones (here and here) show the US is running about 50% higher than the EU. That's current run rates -- cumulative 2021 figures are in similar ranges.

So if your argument is that's not quite "about double," that's a fine point to make. But trying to argue they're basically the same is just ridiculous.

[ThePublius]

bernard11, you insulting dolt! There, I answered you in kind.

Take a look at this headline:

"European inflation soars to record 7.5% on fuel, food costs."

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article260010145.html

Did you know our official inflation indices in U.S., like the CPI, exclude food and fuel? And if they didn't our inflation would now be about 16%.

Last time I checked 15 was double 7.5.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So I guess inflation is only a problem in the US? Oh wait..."

I can't be responsible for the dead hooker in my basement, officer, because the guy down the street also has a dead hooker in his basement.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's just conspicuously worse in the US. Because a lot of countries did stupid, but we went and doubled down on stupid.

[James Pollock]

"we went and doubled down on stupid."

No, we fired him in 2020.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Our inflation is materially worse than the rest of the world.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

We have a booming economy, with low unemployment, robust growth, and favorable forecasts.

As always, Republicans just can't stand all of this damned progress.

Over time, of course, what Republicans think and prefer becomes irrelevant in America. Thank goodness.

[bernard11]

See my response to Publius.

Eurozone inflation is about 1% lower than ours. I'll make it easy.

Consumer prices in the eurozone rose by a record 7.5 per cent in March from a year ago, piling pressure on the European Central Bank to tighten its ultra-loose monetary policy faster than planned.

The biggest factors driving up eurozone inflation were higher energy and food prices, which have surged since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine hit supplies of oil, gas and other commodities.

[Absaroka]

"which have surged since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine"

I don't think that works: timeline.

(that said, that graph sort of elides that 2 of the 3 stimuli checks came out on Trump's watch, so it's not just a Biden thing. Spending like drunken sailors is about the only thing both parties agree on)

[Life of Brian]

Yes, it's now clear (as Brett pointed out above) that you're trying to cash in on a sudden extreme change in European inflation due to the Russia-Ukraine situation.

What remains unclear is why you think that's a cogent rejoinder to OP's point that runaway US stimulus spending has caused disproportionate levels of inflation over here.

[bernard11]

You don't think the war affects our prices?

Guess what. Fuel is sold in world markets and so to some degree is food.

[Life of Brian]

Absaroka posted a graph of inflation over time above. The war is a little tiny blip compared to the mountain of inflation that was already in place beforehand.

Apparently you've swallowed the administration's ridiculous attempt at a distraction hook, line, and sinker. Congratulations.

[ThePublius]

And, bernard11, you make my point. If the U.S. CPI included food and fuel it would be about 16% right now.

[bernard11]

You're still full of shit. The CPI includes food and fuel.

You are thinking of "core CPI," which excludes them. It was up only a bit less than the full CPI.

[shawn_dude]

There's the cost of fuel and the impact on prices from increases in the cost of fuel.

[Kazinski]

Inflation is much lower in other countries.

Currently among the 7 largest OECD countries the US inflation rate is 7.87, the next closest is UK at 5.5, that is significantly lower.

[Sarcastr0]

Glad you have the causality figured out. It's stumped economists, but they don't have your genius.

So tell us, why is similar inflation happening in other countries as well?

[Michael P]

Don Nico and ThePublius pre-answered your question, above.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, maybe, worldwide supplies are part of this worldwide phenomenon.

Nah, you've got your narrative and it lets you yell at Biden so it's become a certainty.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Why is ours so much worse? Can we not just admit that that last stimulus was very damaging? Can we not just admit that Biden’s climate change plan to inflate hydrocarbon prices has done so at a very bad time? Why can’t we just deal in facts anymore?

And to make it worse, Biden really really wants to dump another $3 trillion in gas in the fucking fire, insisting stupidly that it’ll somehow be deflationary.

Biden was warned about this by people like Summers and McConnell and he ignored it. He should wear it instead of trying to excuse it away.

[Brett Bellmore]

The moment he bragged that Nobel winning economist Milton Friedman wasn't running the show anymore was the moment we should have become very afraid.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know why ours is worse. Could be lots of reasons. Our higher imports from China. Our higher per capita consumption. Was our stimulus higher than the EU's normalized for population? No one has bothered to work that out.

One thing I've learned talking to academic economists these past few years, anyone who thinks they have the economy down to cause-effect is not dealing in facts. That stimulus spending helps goose the economy is about the only rock-solid thing we know. And even then, we're not clear on the costs.

From your list of concerns, you have a really supply-side view of the economy. But that's hardly the only moving part here.

[shawn_dude]

The cost came with benefits. The question is whether those benefits were worth it and whether the austerity alternatives would have brought us to a better place. Meanwhile, COVID repercussions changed some of the realities these decisions were made on and further complicated the landscape. Supply chain issues, which include the shuttering of the main Chinese manufacturing cities and the impact of fuel prices, are directly contributing as well.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Which economists has it stumped?

[Sarcastr0]

The question of which of the many correlative factors is the determinative one in driving inflation?

All of them with integrity.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The question of which of the many correlative factors is the determinative one in driving inflation?"

MV=PT. M is driving inflation. M is what we control through public policy.

"All of them with integrity."

Lol. Capitulating so soon?

[Sarcastr0]

We have a pretty good theoretical understanding of the various factors that drive inflation.

But in any given actual real-world instance, there's always a lot of potential stuff going on. And this isn't just like physics->engineering since expectations based on the other factors are a factor themselves.

Is stimulus inflationary? Probably! Is it what's driving inflation now? Hard to say. Could it drive inflation long-term? Consensus seems to be not by itself. But consensus of economics has been wrong before.

What is clear is that this certainty by these recent economics understanders is brought about by partisanship, not by science.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We have a pretty good theoretical understanding of the various factors that drive inflation. But in any given actual real-world instance, there's always a lot of potential stuff going on."

The one we control is the money supply. It's nonsense to say, gee, we don't know if it was the increase in the money supply or the decrease in the supply of real goods that caused inflation. They both contribute, but we've been turning the wheel in the wrong direction.

"What is clear is that this certainty by these recent economics understanders is brought about by partisanship, not by science."

Why is that clear? It was both parties that pushed the stimuli.

[Sarcastr0]

The one we control is the money supply

1) Not the only control.
2) What we control is immaterial to the question of what's driving inflation that you seem so certain of. Smacks of 'we should do something and this is something.' Bad science; bad policy.

The certainty is the clue that this is not driven by the science, but by politics. Don't you say something similar about climate change?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's the main control. If you want to avoid inflation, don't print too much money.

This isn't even controversial. This is just economics denialism on your part.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The one we control is the money supply.

Thus, problems with the money supply must be the cause of inflation.

Same principle as looking under the street light for the keys you dropped in the dark alley.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Prices are a function of the other parameters. If you increase the money supply, then the other values will change.

If you increase the money supply and prices go up, then you created inflation.

If you increase the money supply and prices stay the same but production goes up, then congratulations, you stimulated the economy.

[bernard11]

What's happening to V and T, TiP? and what's happening to the liquidity/speculative demand for money?

Just asking.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What's happening to V and T, TiP?"

T quite predictably dropped during the pandemic. Which is why you shouldn't send M through the ceiling.

[bernard11]

It did?

So that would drive prices up, wouldn't it?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, supply constraints will drive prices up. Which is why you don't want to stimulate demand by increasing the money supply. This is fairly basic.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TiP, don't want to go all right wing on you, but why doesn't an increase in demand stimulate supply?

Or, to think of it another way, if you posit an imbalance with demand outstripping supply, what make you suppose on principle that a roundabout means to crush demand with higher interest rates is a more efficient way to solve the problem than stimulating supply?

[Life of Brian]

Glad you have the causality figured out. It's stumped economists, but they don't have your genius.

The only economists that are "stumped" by the idea that dramatic increases in money supply lead to dramatic increases in prices are those determined to know nothing.

Just provide a cogent answer to my oft-repeated question: why not just cut to the chase and give everyone a billion dollars, SO WE CAN ALL BE RICH?!??

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, but your *bam! so simple* shows you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't either, but I know enough to know I don't know what I'm talking about. You have some work to do to get to that point.

[Life of Brian]

I know enough to know I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's curious indeed that just about the only things you profess not to clearly understand are the ones that are in reality the easiest to understand.

Write $1B checks, to each and every citizen. Today. The only way you can possibly not see what that leads to is if you now identify as an ostrich.

[Brett Bellmore]

The basic problem with economists and inflation is that an awful lot of economists are employed directly or indirectly by government, and one thing economics teaches is paying attention to what pays.

Governments don't want to be told that it's a really bad idea to print lots of money.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett discovers. Ore bad faith hiding the truth he knows to be true.

Grants are outcome blind, not that you’d know.

[ragebot]

"Grants are outcome blind".

You win the internet joke of the day.

There are literally dozens of examples of grants studying global warming (from back before it self identified as climate change) given by the government proving global warming while grants by energy companies proved just the opposite.

As an budding solar astronomer I was a fanboy of Willie Soon who before global warming raised it's ugly head was recognized as the best solar scientist alive. He always claimed that big yellow ball in the sky was what controlled the temperature on earth and dissed greenhouse gasses as not significant. But once governments started funding global warming research (I know it now self identifies as climate change) he got bashed.

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

[bernard11]

Ah. Brett knows better than all those people who spend their lives studying economics.

Amazing. More law than lawyers. More climate science than climate scientists. More economics than economists.

What else?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro irl

[Bob from Ohio]

I doubt he is as pretty.

[Ben_]

Why is it necessary to make up a narrative about [some authority] being stumped? It’s ok to just disagree without contending that your disagreement aligns with some experts — which it almost certainly does because any opinion aligns with at least some experts.

[Absaroka]

If anyone is interested in Eastern European history, a prof from Tenn has a fantastic series of vids up.

I've been binge watching them like some netflix series. He's a good speaker, to the point of being entertaining as well as informative. I have learned a lot, not only about eras I wasn't familiar with, but also eras I was familiar with (WWII) and even eras I lived through (the wall coming down, etc).

Some trivia teasers from the recent eras (you'll have to google, out of links):

-the Bulgarian Communist Party headquarters at Buzludzha looks like something Hollywood would dream up for a 007 movie
-Albania went on a bunker binge ... there are several per square mile. See the wiki article titled 'Bunkers in Albania'
-remember the stories of lone Japanese soldiers coming out of the jungle into the 1970's? They weren't the last WWII holdouts. The last Baltic partisan was found 4 years after the last Japanese holdout (he didn't surrender, when caught he jumped into a river to escape and presumably drowned). There was large scale partisan activity in the Baltics for a decade after 1945.

And on and on; the whole series has been fascinating to me. Of course, that just might be me 🙂

[wreckinball]

What a joke

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2022/04/13/feds-apologize-to-violent-blm-and-antifa-rioters-for-not-being-nicer-to-them-as-they-set-fires-in-front-of-white-house-n1589582

What should remain evident is the double standard system of justice meted out against the leftists who have caused billions of dollars in damage, killed people, and injured cops in their hundreds of riots versus the right-leaning people at one riot at the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021.

[apedad]

How does it feel to be on the losing side?

[wreckinball]

Dumb reply ape. But you're an ape so??

[Brett Bellmore]

Sucks, but you'll get to answer that question yourself in a couple of years.

[apedad]

Thanks for the heads-up when you guys will start shooting people.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brett Bellmore predicts that clingers will reverse -- not just diminish, not just stop, but reverse -- the tide of the American culture war . . . and soon!

Brett Bellmore is bad at "a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vet6AHmq3_s">thinking.

(The customer in stripes wrote this one. She was Aretha's little sister.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Not Ashli Babbitt. Not anymore.

Not a bunch of gape-jawed insurrectionists, either. At least, not until the warden releases them.

Carry on, clingers.

[David Welker]

Congratulations. Celebrating the pre-mature death of a 36-year old woman makes you happy. Perhaps it turns you on to take jabs at people who have empathy for other human beings.

You are truly a sick and demented person. Whether you are trolling or not. That your troll personality goes around saying things like this makes you gross.

My hypothesis is that you are a conservative troll posing as an over-the-top woke liberal in order to make liberals look bad. Because no one can actually be this stupid.

Your schtick is lame. You keep on repeating the same things over and over. Which means that if you are a conservative troll, you are an unintelligent one. You desperately need new material and yet seem consistently unable to produce any.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"My hypothesis is that you are a conservative troll posing as an over-the-top woke liberal in order to make liberals look bad. Because no one can actually be this stupid."

Don't even. We're not taking him.

Sorry dude, but he's making liberals look bad for real. And he really is this stupid.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog's fans rail incessantly (and mostly inaccurately) about the insurrection and insurrectionists.

I respond in kind.

I am not happy that Ashli Babbitt is dead. I believe she punched her own ticket -- top to bottom -- with the conduct of a deluded, un-American, belligerent, criminal jerk. People who venerate her and attempt to turn the lawful, proper process of imposing accountability on insurrectionists into a partisan weapon are, in my judgment, disgusting. Calling that "empathy" is inappropriate and foolish, in my judgment.

[wreckinball]

And the "dude you suck" award winner pretty much everyday is you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At the Volokh Conspiracy, sure . . . but in modern America 'tis the fans and operators of this white, male, right-wing blog who are the misfits and losers. Similarly, guys like me constitute the mainstream and are the victors in the reality-based world, while the bigoted, bitter clingers are the 'dude you suck' award winners.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, that column is a joke.

By the same woman who brought you "Derek Chauvin did nothing wrong and if he did kill the guy which of course he didn't because the guy overdosed then it was all the public's fault for being upset that he killed the guy."

[Moderation4ever]

In Wisconsin we have an interesting problem developing. Conservatives are insisting that voting laws must now be observed to the letter of the law. This means that spouse cannot turn in the couples' absentee ballots. If I walk to out to my mailbox put my ballot and my wife ballot in the mailbox for pickup, I have broken the law. If a parent takes their child to the city clerk's office and hands the child the ballot to put into the box, they have broken the law. A quadriplegic may not be able to vote because they cannot put the ballot in the mailbox, nor can their aid.

The VC and Reason often rail against absurdity of taking the letter of the law too far and that is happen with absentee ballots in Wisconsin. Republican have tossed common sense out the window in a show of fidelity to the former President.

[wreckinball]

Imagine that, following the law? Absentee ballots have strict rules since the ballot is not as secure as in person ballots. As it should be.

[SRG]

There is no problem with absentee ballots as we know. Hence al these laws are malign solutions in search of a problem

[wreckinball]

There is no problem? It's like mailing out liquor and saying only those who are of legal age will drink. How would you know?
In any event trying to secure the absentee ballot system is a good thing. Thus the law.

You are willfully ignorant of you think just mailing out ballots is more secure than in person voting.

[SRG]

I didn't say it was more secure, I said it was not a problem. Not a single legitimate investigation has thrown up any instance of the kind of wide-scale voter fraud. - or indeed, even small-scale - that would make mail-in balloting something that needs to be very much more controlled.

"Secure" is a description of process not consequence.

[wreckinball]

Well you're wrong. See you sat legitimate = Democrat's investigating themselves, I say that's illegitimate.

But next time when the IRS requests an audit I'll ask the courts to block it and then investigate my tax return myself. And you know it all looks good. Best tax return ever,

[bernard11]

Not true, wreckinball.

There have been investigations by Republicans as well, who were quite motivated to find something.

They didn't.

[SRG]

I can't tell whether wreckinball is ignorant or lying.

Perhaps he thinks that any Republican investigation that finds nothing was conducted by RINOs and hence is really a Democratic investigation.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

wreckinball is delusional, disaffected, desperate, poorly informed . . . and a reflexive liar. In the real world -- distinct from the clingerverse in general and this strange right-wing blog in particular -- he is a laughingstock and an ignorant loser.

[Ben_]

And others that did

[David Nieporent]

They did find a bunch of Republicans who illegally voted in 2020. Have they found a Democrat yet?

[Sarcastr0]

For those that live in the real world of implementation, the best way to kill a law or reg is hidebound formalism.

But screw that, we got red meat to churn out!

[wreckinball]

You mean have strict traceability requirements on absentee ballots, yes? Its a good thing

[Sarcastr0]

It's a solution without a problem. And if Moderation4ever is right, it's being badly implemented.

[wreckinball]

No its a problem. But why do you complain?

[Sarcastr0]

Ahh yes, there's rampant fraud, which you and I both know, but I'm lying to you about it.

The right has been straining to find fraud for years and years, and the only stuff that has turned up is GOP elected officials.

[wreckinball]

There has been fraud for years and years. I'm from Chicago and dead people really do vote. Its not a myth.

But the security measures to prevent fraud have been weakened. Since voting is anonymous your effort has to be making sure that only eligible live citizens vote.

The most secure means is for paper ballots, in person voting and representatives from all parties welcome to observe.

Absentee ballots should be only because you physically cannot be present to vote in person .

All of the above was violated during the last election so the fraud level went up.

You're only OK with it because your guy won in 2020. Just like an Astro's fan is Ok with their World Series win.

Regarding 2016 election using the old more secure rules I'm sure you were screaming about Russian collusion along with the pink v-hatters. Do you have the pink hat?

[Sarcastr0]

Chicago back in the day is not really probative about the modern era. This ain't LBJ buying votes.

All of the above was violated during the last election so the fraud level went up.
This is mixing up risk with actuality. Which is a pretty fundamental fail.

You're only OK with it because your guy won in 2020
Thanks for the telepathy, and I can't be sure of the counterfactual, but I'm pretty sure this isn't true. First, I don't believe there was fraud in 2020. Second, I'm worried about the suppressive effect of so-called voter integrity as a broader issue well beyond 2020.

I'm sure you were screaming about Russian collusion along with the pink v-hatters. Do you have the pink hat?
Russian collusion is an issue separate from voter integrity. And no, I'm not one of the nutters who thinks the Russians hacked the voting machines.

[Don Nico]

"not really probative about the modern era"
Wow, are you off base about what the "modern" era means. Did you mean the 21st century. Then,maybe you could be right; I don't know.
But if you are measuring through the times of Daley (my hero) and Son and even beyond. Election manipulation was a real and important political tool.

[Absaroka]

Washington state has had mail only voting for many years. I'm not sure they have physical polling places any more; I sure haven't been to one for decades.

If you want to make the case that vote by mail is inherently insecure, you should find some fraud from WA. There is a little, but it is in man-bites-dog numbers. The typical case is hubby is on his deathbed, and wee wifey marks his ballot 'the way he would have wanted', not 'party operative caught with 1000 ballots'.

Given the empirical evidence, people saying vote-by-mail must lead to widespread fraud are akin to people saying 'if we allow CCW there will be blood in the streets!!!'. It's a nice theory, but theories that conflict with the evidence aren't valid. Heh, WA has had shall issue CCW since the early 1960's, and so now hearing 'vote-by-mail means fraud!!!' reminds me of hearing 'CCW means blood in the streets' as shall issue became the norm across the country - it's deja vu all over again.

(As an aside, apart from the convenience, mail in voting makes it a lot easier to research the minor candidates, for dog catcher or whatever. The better half and I set down with ballots and laptops and look them up, instead of showing up in the booth and wondering how to vote for the water commissioner position #4.)

[Sarcastr0]

Appreciate you, Absaroka. Because we disagree politically, when you agree with me it means quite a bit.

[Brett Bellmore]

The biggest issue in Wisconsin with the election law violations wasn't fraud, though there was the potential for that. It was equal protection, essentially: You had de facto different election laws in different parts of the state, because most areas were still obeying the state laws, while others, mostly Democrat dominated, were violating them.

Combine that with the donations directly to elections offices being used to finance GOTV drives only in Democratic areas, without the normal campaign finance rules being applied, and you had differential turnout.

[Sarcastr0]

Equal protection does not mean all local election laws are the same.

[bernard11]

Gee Brett. If only there were rich Republicans who would donate to GOTV efforts in Republican areas the playing field would be level.

Fuck off. That complaint is idiotic.

[David Nieporent]

Utah, Colorado, and Oregon also have had all-mail voting for years. Without problems. (Other states have implemented it in 2020 — Hawaii — or 2022 — California, Nevada, and Vermont.)

[David Nieporent]

while others, mostly Democrat dominated, were violating them.

Didn't happen.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Republicans are far down the road, committed to a battle to contest for the nation's sovereignty, to put actual Russian-style oligarchs in power, and to get the sovereign People out. Democratic Party leaders do not even seem to realize that fight is underway. There is plenty of rising anxiety among the rank-and-file, though.

[wreckinball]

They are? Loosen the tin foil hat a little and give me an example of what R proposal would put oligarchs in power?

D leaders are encouraging the DOJ/FBI to apply justice differently depending on the viewpoint of the protest/riot. That sounds very Putin like?

[John F. Carr]

The law says a ballot may be mailed "by the elector". You could argue that means the elector and only the elector must drop the ballot in the mailbox, but I could argue that the elector can use an agent. Have the courts construed this phrase?

[Brett Bellmore]

" The envelope shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots."

What it clearly does NOT permit is either ballot harvesting, or drop boxes. And that it didn't was clear when some elections officials decided to allow both in 2020.

[bernard11]

It's really terrible that people are allowed to vote at all.

Who knows who might get elected. Right, Brett.

These anti-voting laws are nothing but the GOP trying to entrench itself.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're being so absurd here I don't know why I bother replying.

The normal mode of voting is to show up at the polling place on election day, demonstrate your identity, and then vote. That's the voting you have a right to.

Absentee voting isn't a right, it's a convenience. It doesn't have to be allowed AT ALL.

And it has severe problems from a voting security stand point, in terms of chain of custody, and ballot privacy. There are good reasons to strictly limit it to just cases of genuine necessity.

[Josh R]

Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Colorado and Utah had all main-in voting prior to COVID-19. Do they have severe security issues?

I propose a compromise. Require Voter ID while pro-actively issuing IDs to eligible citizens and no-excuse mail-in voting.

[Michael P]

How do you check voter ID with mail-in voting? I mean, unless you assume that nobody has Photoshop or similar software.

[Absaroka]

You don't. Or rather, I don't remember - maybe we showed ID 30 years ago? Or maybe it's done at the DMV when you do driver's license? We had to do some kind of process when we arrived in state, but since they went to all-mail decades ago, we just get a ballot in the mail, fill it out and send it back. We've moved once. I don't remember if the registrar just got the address change from DMV or if we had to do something.

To answer the question "how do you, say, stop a crooked postman from filling out hundreds of ballots", I think the answer is you send them out, and if people don't call up and say "where is my ballot", you assume it made it to the intended voter.

Some of them surely disappear in ordinary mail theft and so on. I expect they are just replaced. And even though lots or people probably don't send them back for any given election, if a thief was trying to do interception or counterfeiting on a large scale he wouldn't have a way to know which people are skipping this election, so you would have duplicates show up.

My sense is that it just isn't a problem. I'm certainly open to evidence to the contrary, but it would have to be actual evidence, not just a theoretical 'someone could...'.

[Josh R]

The state took your true photo when you got your ID. They will be matching your ID photo in your mail-in ballot to that true photo.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As a resident of Colorado, I'll take that question.

No, we do not.

Brett's statement "The normal mode of voting is to show up at the polling place on election day, demonstrate your identity, and then vote. That's the voting you have a right to." is naturally bullshit.

It's what he wants to be true, so he states it as a fact despite it being his opinion.

[bernard11]

The normal mode of voting is to show up at the polling place on election day, demonstrate your identity, and then vote. That's the voting you have a right to.

No. That's not the fucking "normal mode of voting," your opinion notwithstanding. Other methods are widely and successfully used. Of course you like it because it makes it harder for city-dwellers to vote, which is your entire objective. Then you can make them stand in line to vote, make it illegal for anybody to hand out snacks or water to those waiting, etc.

Absentee voting works fine, mail-in works fine, dropboxes work fine, despite all the fantasies about massive fraud. It's utter bullshit, Brett. Complete fucking nonsense.

Yeah, absentee voting is a convenience - one that makes it much easier to vote - which is why you and the rest of the right hate it.

Stop making up stories.

[Bob from Ohio]

Most people vote on election day in person.

So, despite your anger, it is the "normal' way to vote

[bernard11]

OK, Bob. It's "normal" in that it's common, even though I'm not sure your claim is true.

But saying "That's the voting you have a right to." is bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nope, it literally IS the "voting" we have a right to. There's no constitutional anti-retrogression principle, the government offering a convenience does not bind it to forever continue offering it.

The right to vote is still the right to vote as originally understood: In person, on election day, with EVERYTHING else being constitutionally optional.

[David Nieporent]

The right to vote is still the right to vote as originally understood: In person, on election day, with EVERYTHING else being constitutionally optional.

So you're arguing that a whole bunch of states are violating the constitution by not having people voting in person on election day, and only having mail in voting?

Can you please cite which provision of the constitution you're relying on for that?

[Don Nico]

"No. That's not the fucking "normal mode of voting," your opinion notwithstanding"
Bernard,
It is the usual way of voting around the world, and also in large cities, ones bigger than American cities.

[DaveM]

Instead of saying the "normal mode" of voting is to vote in person, just say "the most secure and private mode" of voting is to vote in person. That is a statement that can be proven to be true.

To the states with mail-in voting by default, you have my sympathy. If I lived in such a state, I would be filing a lawsuit every election. The US Mail is NOT a guaranteed delivery service. The delivery error rate of first class US mail is in the high-single-digits, which is at least three orders of magnitude (that's 1,000 TIMES) greater than the error rate of in-person voting of scanned paper ballots.

You want your ballot to be counted? You want it to be YOUR ballot and yours alone?

Vote in person. Every. Time.

[Moderation4ever]

Drop boxes yes, but when was ballot harvesting really allowed? Do you consider one person in a household delivering all eligible members' ballots to be harvesting? If mom and dad are in a nursing home is it acceptable for their child to deliver their ballots? I like to see a good legal definition of harvesting. I agree that large scale collection and delivery by an independent person is not good. But I think "ballot harvesting" is an over-used term for what really happens.

[Brett Bellmore]

The "guidance" it was conducted under.

"A family member or another person may also return the ballot on behalf of the voter."

So, yes, they did permit ballot harvesting, in violation of state law.

[David Nieporent]

As always, Brett pretends he can do legal analysis, but is actually incompetent at legal analysis. No, it clearly does not "clearly … NOT permit … drop boxes."

Do you think that when it says "delivered in person, to the municipal clerk" it means that the person must physically place the ballot into someone's hand? That if the voter walks in to the clerk's office to deliver his ballot and one of the employees says, "Oh, leave it on the counter and we'll take care of it," that the law has been violated because he didn't "deliver it in person to the clerk," but put it down on the counter? (If so, do you think that when Amazon leaves a package on your doorstep, it hasn't delivered the package to you because your doorstep and you aren't the same?) If you think that, you disagree with the Republicans currently suing in Wisconsin, because they themselves concede that dropping it into a receptacle is fine. They just argue that the receptacle must be at the clerk's office, despite the fact that nothing in the applicable statute says that.

[wreckinball]

Don't see the word agent? Seems like a pretty important clarification to miss.

[John F. Carr]

From a school "equity assessment" survey asking parents whether a Massachusetts high school is pushing all the woke happy buttons, rate on a scale of 1 to 4:

"I know [school name] families that come from cultural backgrounds."

Some people have no culture, I guess.

Also on a scale of 1 to 4, "I know [school name] families who have a different sex, gender identity and/or sexual orientation than I do." If a male is filling this out and all the other school families have a mommy, does that get a 4 for different sex?

[Krayt]

And those who fail will have concerned officials mandate re-education camps? Force minimum hours of interaction with chosen diverse mandated friends, like volunteer hours?

[Ben_]

Tell us you don't really value academics without saying you don't really value academics.

[SRG]

Why can ignorance of the law not be an excuse? At the time when the idea that ignorance of the law was no defence became itself part of the law, there were significantly fewer laws to be aware of. By now, it is utterly impossible for anyone to know all the laws they might break. It seems almost unconstitutional to charge someone for committing a crime that almost no-one, and certainly not the defendant, would have known was a crime.

Perhaps we can admit of two categories, laws which everyone can be expected to know - mostly involving obvious crimes like murder. theft, etc. and laws which only someone in a specific field should be expected to know.

[John F. Carr]

One simple division for federal law is
1. Legislative acts are binding on publication.
2. Executive acts are binding on actual or constructive knowledge.

It's not the best rule but it is is simple and does not indulge the fiction that every person spends 500% of his time reading the Federal Register.

[David Nieporent]

Why is publishing something in the Federal Register any different than publishing it in… wherever you contend that legislative acts are being published? Nobody reads either one.

[John F. Carr]

Statutes are much smaller than regulations because Congress is a bottleneck. Federal agencies can work in parallel.

My suggestion is not a full solution to people being held responsible for knowing everything. It is a simple bright line rule that would reduce the risk of surprise prosecutions.

[Martinned]

Why can ignorance of the law not be an excuse?

Because then you'd give people an incentive to stay ignorant of the law, when you want to give them an incentive to educate themselves about their legal obligations and rights.

[John F. Carr]

We already have legal doctrines that punish culpable ignorance. A Massachusetts man was convicted of violating a restraining order despite not having actual knowledge of its terms. He knew police were trying to serve an order and he also knew from prior experience what the typical terms of a restraining order were. He was on inquiry notice, same as when you don't click through to read the contract on a web store. We also have willful blindness, which can lead to the so-called "ostrich instruction".

[Martinned]

Sure, but why would you want to have arguments about what ignorance of the law is or isn't culpable, when you can just save yourself the headache and take a blanket approach?

[John F. Carr]

That is an appealing argument to a lawmaker or Supreme Court judge who will not be prosecuted for ignorance of the law.

[SRG]

"Because then you'd give people an incentive to stay ignorant of the law"

That's why I provided a solution which addressed that point. If you're in a particular field it would be incumbent on you to know the laws pertaining to that field. But if you were not in that field, and fell foul of the laws, you should be able to plead ignorance.

I note that in other contexts, ignorance is a defence - that after all is the whole basis for QI, though in civil not criminal case.

[Stephen Lathrop]

SRG, I wish your standard had been available to invoke against Michael Sackett, the professional excavator who deliberately ignored the law. He filled an unambiguous wetland he owned, ostensibly to build his own dream house—so development interests could make a sympathetic-looking case to undermine wetlands development restrictions.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, my god, are you still on your mentally ill idea that you could use google earth to not only figure out whether a property is properly classified as a wetland, but to also read the mind of the property owner?

That's a dumber conspiracy theory than the typical Brett Bellmore one.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, nowhere near as dumb as supposing a whole bunch of development interests backed the guy unless they had a plan for him to do something which was either illegal or disallowed under present law and policy. How would those would-be developers get anything they want from the case if all he was going to do was what the law and policy already permitted? And of course it is hardly mind reading to suppose an experienced professional excavator will know a thing or two about regulations governing . . . excavation.

As for analyzing geological features by using overhead images (and images made right at the scene, by the way, as I said in the post you reference), that has been a gold standard for teaching geology for many decades. One classic in the field is entitled, "Geology Illustrated." Get a copy, it will wake you up to information and methods of analysis you do not understand.

And of course you ignored that I told you I have first-hand experience walking around in that neck of the woods, and thus understand from first-hand observation what certain visible patterns in images represent. In the arid west, it is seldom visually ambiguous where the edge of a wetland is located.

I do not claim any ability to use those techniques and experiences to understand any other particular case. In this case, the evidence was unambiguous.

[Absaroka]

"In the arid west, it is seldom visually ambiguous where the edge of a wetland is located. "

That's nice, but the property in question is hardly in the 'arid west' - it gets 2 to 3 feet of annual precipitation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Two feet is arid from where I sit. And in this case, whatever you call it, the edge of the wetland is so obvious even Nieporent could see it.

But who cares? Don't quibble. Take a look at it, using Google. It is part of an extensive (100 acres or more), utterly unambiguous, permanent wetland—which drains via a short course through a mapped and named stream into navigable Priest Lake.

Or look up the photos the EPA took on site, in 2007 and 2008, showing Sackett's fill not-quite-complete, on top of standing water which shows at the edges.

There is no substantive basis under present law—even as interpreted by Scalia—to call the Sackett fill site anything but a permanent wetland. The sole purpose of the suit has been to furnish an opportunity for a right-wing Supreme Court to make new, pro-developer law.

I'm guessing you already know that.

[Absaroka]

"Two feet is arid from where I sit."

It's almost into Seattle rainfall levels. Your personal dictionary may call that arid, but in the dictionaries the rest of us use, arid is defined as either 'less than 10 inches' or the functional equivalent of 'too dry for extensive tree growth'. And the forests in that part of Idaho are like the ones on Puget Sound - old growth cedar, dense ferns, etc, and you need a machete to go off trail. You are just bizarrely wrong about this.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, put the dead red herring away.

Look at the wetland. Use the satellite view. Are the edges clear to you or not? If you proposed to enter that treeless expanse, which would you choose, a machete, or high rubber boots? Do you suppose a geologist would look at that same view and conclude that wetland was geologically a part of Priest Lake, but recently dammed across its inlet end by filled road embankments? That is what I think. What do you think keeps that expanse of approximately 50 acres so remarkably free of trees, when all around it you see dense upland forests?

Switch to the Google map view. Can you see that it shows the wetland draining via a short course in a named creek into Priest Lake? Look back at the satellite view. Can you see the stream delta at the shoreline of the lake, indicating water flow with sediment precipitating out?

In short, do you see any basis at all to suppose that is not a permanent wetland, feeding a stream, which carries water into navigable Priest Lake?

What do you think you are quibbling about? Why do you do it?

[Absaroka]

I understand you are very, very, very confident in your conclusion.

However, I have observed your posts for years here. Because of that, the fact that you have high confidence about something doesn't give me high confidence in the same - many of your conclusions you have no doubt of are arrant nonsense.

Part of the reason for that is you don't account for what you don't know - and thinking the Priest Lake region is arid is a classic example.

Personally, I wouldn't begin to decide if something is or is not a wetland from aerial photos - in spite of, or perhaps because of - taking photogrammetry in college. Your amateur photo interpretation isn't remotely convincing.

You are so often convinced you have deep expertise that you in fact lack.

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent, nowhere near as dumb as supposing a whole bunch of development interests backed the guy

Where does this made up fact come from?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, first, the whole quote:

Nieporent, nowhere near as dumb as supposing a whole bunch of development interests backed the guy unless they had a plan for him to do something which was either illegal or disallowed under present law and policy. How would those would-be developers get anything they want from the case if all he was going to do was what the law and policy already permitted? And of course it is hardly mind reading to suppose an experienced professional excavator will know a thing or two about regulations governing . . . excavation.

As to who the backers are, you're the lawyer, you look it up. I don't want to risk your legal quibbles.

I took the names on the case as Sackett backers. When PLF lists the Sackett case on its own web site, and say they back him, that is good enough for me. That and Sackett thanking them for all the help.

And by the way, look at the damned site—or is it a dammed site? It's online. One way to find it is to Google, "Old Schneider Road." Zoom out, switch to satellite view. Sackett's fill is at the south end of that big green crater-looking thing with no trees on it, surrounded by woods on three sides, with houses probably built on Sackett-style fill at the south end, between the wetland and Priest Lake. Then switch back to map view, to get a clearer idea of the creek that drains the wetland into navigable Priest Lake, now that it is dammed by fill from direct access it probably had previously (that question is one I cannot answer without a visit; based on what I can see, I would offer two-to-one on former direct drainage).

Also, be sure to find the EPA's on-site photos of the fill, dated from 2007 and 2008. By now there is sure to be dry-land vegetation growing on top of the fill, but those show what it looked like when he did it.

[Don Nico]

If one is speaking about the laws in the DMV drivers' booklet, then sure. If you're speaking about the entire US Code, it is a stretch beyond the elastic limits.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're talking about the distinction between "malum in see", (Wrong in itself) and "malum prohibitum", (Wrong because prohibited.)

The law used to distinguish on this basis, and ignorance of the law was no excuse applied only to the latter, because you didn't NEED to know murder was illegal to know you shouldn't do it.

But it's a very annoying distinction (for the government!) once most laws have no connection with morality or natural law, so it's largely been abandoned, in place of some sort of affirmative obligation to know the law.

[Herb Spencer]

Good riddance! Many of us believe that ALL violations of the law are malum in se,* whether "known" or not.
_____
*How do you get italics here?

[Michael P]

How much of the Democratic leadership is effectively senile but everyone is pretending otherwise? At what point do we admit that the emperor has no clothes/brains?

[ThePublius]

Biden and Feinstein are obviously in their dotage. Feinstein "on her most difficult days, (she) does not seem to fully recognize even longtime colleagues.”

They are there because they are puppets, first by their staffs, who are puppets of the Chinese and other outside money interests.

[Sarcastr0]

Obviously.

puppets of the Chinese

Neo-Bircherism.

[wreckinball]

Neo-realism in regards to the "big guy".

[David Nieporent]

You guys tried that argument in favor of the actually mentally incompetent Trump before the debate, and Biden ran circles around him.

[Sarcastr0]

Feinstein being not compos mentis seems legit.

Generalizing based on that, but only for the Dems? That's just partisan nonsense.

[Michael P]

Then give some examples of Republicans showing similar signs.

[Martinned]

In the case of most Republicans it's impossible to tell the difference.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not how this works, Michael. I *don't* think Republicans are senile. But I also don't think the Dems beyond Feinstein are.

Because the existence of a correlation between senility and party affiliation is fucking nuts.

[Michael P]

Feinstein. Biden. Who else?

[Sarcastr0]

Biden is wishful thinking. Asking who else is the usual 'it'd be irresponsible not to speculate' conspiratorial style of politics.

[Michael P]

Biden recently began a speech by saying "My name is Jon", among his other misstatements, fictional claims, and Kinsley gaffes that are almost immediately walked back by his staff. The wishful thinking is that he still holds a candle to his stuttering, plagiarizing past self.

[Sarcastr0]

Look at all these anecdotes!! Lets also declare George W. Bush in 2000 senile!

Don't diagnose people over the teevee. And generally beware of proof via anecdote - confirmation bias is a helluva drug.

[Krayt]

Wait, remote diagnosis is irresponsible and evil?

Which year or decade is this? Who are we undercutting so I can decide if it is bad or good?

[Sarcastr0]

I can't tell through your layers of irony, but if you look back I dinged people who were diagnosing Trump with this or that over the TV as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's a reasonable question to ask of the older members of both parties, but Feinstein and Biden are conspicuous in that both have visible episodes of confusion, and Biden has been refusing demands he take a cognitive function test.

Perhaps they could agree that everybody in the federal government above the age of 70 would undergo yearly tests. It wouldn't be a bad idea.

[bernard11]

Amazing how many "demands" you make of Democratic politicians.

"Some people are saying."

[Brett Bellmore]

Miss that "everybody"?

[bernard11]

I didn't miss anything. I saw "demands" next to Biden, and a suggestion for others. Who is making those "demands" anyway? Out-of-work birthers?

I hear he won't release his high school transcript either.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden has done a bunch of long term press conferences, and rocked the debates.

Feinstein seem legit, but Biden seems like a right-wing meme.

[Bored Lawyer]

You really do not understand what it means to lose cognitive function, do you?
I was once before a senior judge in NY. One day, she was sharp as a tack. Another day, she could not remember what was going on in the case. That Biden has good days does not mean he doe not have cognitive decline. There have been many embarassing moments, including at press conferences.
He is clearly not reliable. It's fine for someone's grandfather, not fine for someone who can cause a world war with one misstep.

[Sarcastr0]

I know enough not to diagnose over the television, especially when it comes to individuals I'm already predisposed to dislike.

I mean, read your comment here. It's hand-waiving about what could be the case. And yet each time he's actually tested, he comes off fine.

[Bored Lawyer]

When has he been tested and by whom?

[Sarcastr0]

Nice burden shifting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nice pretending he hasn't refused to be tested.

[Sarcastr0]

Not how the burden works, Brett. You don't get to demand something and then the demand is on the President.

If you look back, you'll see I didn't think Trump could be diagnosed over the TV either.

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0, you literally claimed "each time he's actually tested, he comes off fine". Brett merely asked you to specify what you meant.

Maybe you meant the examples you gave earlier, like the debates. But then consistency dictates we should include all the times he's said really dumb things or garbled words (trunalimunumaprzure!) in similarly informal situations, in which case what you said isn't true.

[Michael P]

(Correction: BL asked that, Brett came in later. Phone screens are too small.)

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, by tested I meant press conferences, debates, and the like.

And no, merely getting tongue tied is not a sign of cognitive decline. Especially given how Biden grew up with a stutter.

The right keeps saying the debate will show it, he's avoiding press conferences because he's a pudding head. And then he does it (record long press conference in fact) and y'all say 'yes, well, nevertheless.'

You want to believe. That's all you got.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Especially given how Biden grew up with a stutter. "

You'll believe anything.

Please point to any evidence of this from before 2016. Guy has been in political office for 50 years. It must have come out.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

“You’ll believe anything”

Speaking of gullible . . .do you acknowledge that evolution — and not the superstition of Genesis — explains the development of life on Earth? Are you gullible enough to believe Christ genuinely rose from the dead, or do you admit it is just a work of fiction that some people find it convenient, comforting, or profitable to depict as true?

Put your level of gullibility on the record, if you have the character to state your position.

[David Nieporent]

Please point to any evidence of this from before 2016. Guy has been in political office for 50 years. It must have come out.

Here's a 2006 article which mentions it, you pathetic ass.

[Michael P]

Biden's mental problems are not limited to stutter-like things. He's started question sessions with things like "I'm going to get in trouble for this..." and "I was told to start with...", indicating that the US president is not really in charge. He added that unscripted bit about not tolerating Putin in power any longer, which had to be walked back. He told members of the 82nd Airborne what they were going to see in Ukraine, which had to be walked back. Last year, it was a threat to veto his own infrastructure bill, and changing his mind about Putin being a "killer" to a "worthy adversary" (before this year's declaration of allowing a "minor incursion", which was followed by that call for regime change), and defending Taiwan against Chinese invasion.

[Sarcastr0]

He's started question sessions with things like "I'm going to get in trouble for this..." and "I was told to start with...", indicating that the US president is not really in charge.

Haha, you're deep into some nonsense if that's the conclusion you draw.

[Michael P]

See, the stutter caused him to try to shake hands with thin air: https://mobile.twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/1514691339639791629

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0 gave up even trying to argue, and just posts ipse dixit disagreements instead. Sad!

[Bored Lawyer]

Newsweek, that right-wing rag, reports that he did NOT take one:

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-unlike-trump-didnt-take-cognitive-test-annual-exam-sanjay-gupta-says-1651558

And they were quoting that well-known right-wing network, CNN.

So I have met my prima facie case, counselor.

[bernard11]

Yeah. I remember how demanding that test Trump took was.

And what would be the point? Brett just told us that a person in decline might be fine one day and not so good another. So one test is pointless, like claiming the coin is weighted because it came up heads.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, Bernard, that was somebody else. Though some causes of cognitive decline act that way, such as circulatory issues.

Cognitive tests aren't meant to determine your IQ, they're meant to probe for mental issues that are characteristic of decline. I doubt a press conference qualifies as a cognitive test, especially if you get to call an end to it if you get in trouble.

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear, the current iteration of Newsweek, which has no connection to the old one from the weekly newsmagazine era, is a right wing rag. That doesn't mean its reporting here is wrong — just that your sarcasm is misplaced.

[wreckinball]

You also have to be careful not to just use age as a test. My 97 year old aunt died completely cognitive. My mom passed at 73 after a battle with dementia since she was 63.

I was present for the cognitive test and its amazing at least in the early stages how much the person with dementia can fake it pretty well. But the test definitely weeds that out

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump. He literally cannot complete a thought or string a sentence together, and when pressed about a topic he sounds like Bart Simpson ("In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts") on his best days.

MTG, who thinks the Nazi police were the gazpacho and that there's a Jewish space laser.

[wreckinball]

I think there are fossils on the R side too. But McConnell seems OK cognitively and McCarthy is not that senior. So R leadership is not senile. Some other members may be.

[bernard11]

McConnell seems OK cognitively and McCarthy is not that senior

The problem is not senility but stupidity. (Not McConnell, I concede).

[wreckinball]

That's what elections are for

[Martinned]

Elections in many parts of the US (and the rest of the world) involve stupid people electing stupid people, and evil people electing evil people. So as a mechanism for weeding out stupidity it leaves much to be desired.

[Don Nico]

I'm afraid that you've got that right.

[Sarcastr0]

That's what elections are for

By that logic, the same thing holds for senility.

The disconnect is that if you're criticizing for capacity, you can also criticize for other qualifications, like policy. If you're going to look purely at constitutional qualifications, then neither can be discussed.

[wreckinball]

No you just don't get pretty much anything do you? Someone can be an idiot like Biden is and if his constituency elects him that's it. There is no recourse.

Because partisans will declare anybody they don't like as mentally incompetent. Yes folks will vote in people you don't like, the horror!

If you are mentally impaired like Biden is now and still an idiot which is a very dangerous combination you need to be gone.

It is a very touchy subject but the cognitive test I think is pretty good. Joe should take it. A normal person will definitely pass but if you fail you really shouldn't be driving much less be in office.

C'mon man he'll pass with flying colors right?

[Sarcastr0]

If you are an ends-justifies-the-means zealot like McConnel is now this is a very dangerous combination you need to be gone.

Your logic continues to prove too much.

[wreckinball]

You can't really put a coherent thought together. Maybe try the cognitive test

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers like wreckinball are angry because they can’t ascribe their bigotry and superstitiousness to cognitive decline. It’s lack of character all the way with right-wing bigots.

Ignorance explains most right-wing positions on issues, but the bigotry derives from character deficiency.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is people who confuse having a different ideology with being stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

This, I agree with.

[bernard11]

Depends on the ideology, I'd say.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

QAnon kooks are stupid.

Stolen election kooks are stupid.

Birthers are stupid.

These points should not be controversial among educated, reasoning, competent adults.

Autistic misfits and disaffected, half-educated clingers may see it differently.

[SRG]

I suppose the R leadership is or is not senile depending on whether you regard Trump as part of R leadership.

[Michael P]

Why is Fox News in such a tizzy about birthing people who have sex with other women? (I believe they are called WSW in the public health community, although MSM raise more public-health concerns.)

[John F. Carr]

Never heard of WSW. I recall a 30 year old paper which labeled as "lesbians" all women in a study who had not had sex with a man in the past year. As noted, MSM are a significant public health hazard and could have been banned by the CDC in the 1980s based on its 2021 interpretation of its enabling act.

[wreckinball]

Birthing people are women and only women. Hope that clears it up

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why is Fox News in such a tizzy about birthing people who have sex with other women?"

Incarcerated women getting pregnant from other incarcerated people?

How about because incarcerated women are incapable of raising a child?

Not to mention that incarcerated women have a questionable capacity to consent.

[Michael P]

The fact that the First Family kept a dangerous dog and lied about its attacks encapsulates Biden's colossal ethical problems in a nutshell, just like his relatives taking money from foreign oligarchs and covering that up.

[Sarcastr0]

I thought anonymous sources could not be trusted?

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Do elitist mustard next.

[wreckinball]

Rewove head from sand, there have been multiple reports of dog bites

[Michael P]

Anonymous sources? The redactions were made by the Biden administration in their FOIA responses.

You used to make coherent arguments in your attempts to spin. Maybe you should join Biden and Feinstein and Pelosi in taking mental acuity tests!

[Sarcastr0]

I have no problem with anonymous sources.

But here the NY Post is blatantly speculating it's way into it's conclusion, and citing anonymous sources with clear axes to grind.

Dramatic reading, not very probative.

[Michael P]

When did the Biden administration previously admit that Major bit people eight days in a row? Or repeatedly attacked the same Secret Service agents? Or reveal that the USSS upper echelons tried to pressure an injured agent to use "approved language" to whitewash the event, or else they wouldn't get reimbursed?

It's hilarious that you accuse others of partisan nonsense when you emit so much bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

What is the burden here? All dog bites, whether nips or bloody, are a public issue?

This is not a scandal, it's just muckraking. And you do love the muck.

[Krayt]

We hate muckraking!

Wait, who are we applying it to? I need to know before I decide if muckraking is a cheap, dirty tactic or a responsible exposure of moral failings of a leader.

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome 'both sides are biased.'

You into this dog bite coverup scandal?

[Michael P]

Dog bites happen.

When they happen every day for a week, and the owner pretends that only one of those happened? That's a problem.

No wonder your advise everyone of posting partisan nonsense and projection. You think we are all like you.

[Absaroka]

May all our political scandals be that minor.

[Cal Cetín]

This is a Major issue.

[apedad]

Why is this a Majo . . . AH!

I get it. 🙂

[Absaroka]

Well played!

[Cal Cetín]

Maybe this problem could go away if a Ukrainian company could hire Major as a guard dog. Of course, that would be a risky job, nowadays, maybe they could guard a company facility in Monaco.

[Bob from Ohio]

Major was sent to a farm upstate where he can run around and play.

[Bored Lawyer]

So a group at the University of Buffalo (a public institution) invited Allen West to speak. The protestor shut it down, and acted so badly, the police had to escort him out, and one of the organizers feared for her life and had to hide in the bathroom.

Purcell [the student] said she heard the angry crown screaming, 'go get her, go get her, go capture her, the girl in the red dress.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10707747/Moment-woke-mob-hunts-female-student-invited-black-Republican-speak.html

A significant group of college students now act like fascists. Left-wing fascists.

The University put out some pablum statement that means little.

Questions:
(1) It is apparent that civic education has serious failures. What can be done about it?
(2) What punishment should be meted out to the students? (Putting aside criminal sanctions, which might apply to a few.) How about a one-year suspension?
(3) If nothing changes, then why should the taxpayer continue to fund such incubators of anti-democratic thought?

[Da5id]

The lack of significant consequences to the anti-free-speech mob will send the intended message. Namely that conservatives should keep their mouths shut and heads down at colleges. Alas. Protesting against his speech (without stopping it from happening) is fine, that is just more speech. Stopping people interested in hearing his speech (or Q&A) is clearly not OK at a public school. Menacing the organizer isn't OK anywhere.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, the lack of consequences is the root of the problem. The administration here just made some noise about the University community that means little on the ground.

[wreckinball]

I became aware of the "evil" Proud Boys by their security team that was protecting the Patriot Prayer speakers in Portland. They were highly effective at beating the crap out of the ANTIFAs.

That is the only solution. Free speech by force. But now in our warped world its Proud Boys = bad BLM = good. Absurd. And all of the timid conservatives back down.

BLM is a violent racist group. They totally suck and are now using their donations to buy mansions. I have zero problem expressing that opinion face to face with people.

The timid conservatives just nod their head but do nothing. We need to defend free speech and it will mean cracking a few heads.

[Sarcastr0]

They were highly effective at beating the crap out of the ANTIFAs.

I hear the same thing from left-wing chuckleheads re: Antifa beating the crap our of the Proud Boys.

In reality, they're both stupid outlets for violent teenagers to vent their impulses in an unproductive way.

[wreckinball]

Nope again. You seem to be batting 1000. You see defending free speech is not stupid. Trying to violently stop free speech is.

[Ed Grinberg]

If nothing changes, then why should the taxpayer continue to fund such incubators of anti-democratic thought?

Running (or subsidizing) colleges is not a proper function of government. So, taxpayer funding should be eliminated regardless of how fascist colleges become.

[apedad]

Education is actually in the NYS Constitution:

https://www.nysenate.gov/sites/default/files/ckeditor/Oct-21/ny_state_constitution_2021.pdf

[Ed Grinberg]

It's a good thing those things can be amended!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good luck with attempting to persuade most Americans to accept your anti-government crankery, especially with respect to your disdain for legitimate education, you bigoted, worthless wingnut.

[Cal Cetín]

Cal Cetín
April.14.2022 at 11:04 am
Flag Comment Mute User
To return to a subject discussed during the German prosecution of people using the letter Z, the International Coveanant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20(1), says "Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law."

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

The U. S. gutted this provision when it ratified the Covenant, subordinating 20(1) to the First Amendment.

Other countries (like Germany) did not attach any reservations to this particular clause, so they have to apply it as written.

So for Germany and those other countries, what obligations did they assume? Must they ban even the advocacy of *defensive* war, or should this provision be construed as applying to aggressive wars only?

What about rebellion against "legitimate" governments? Must rebels against tyranny be prevented from advertising their cause in other countries?

Could this clause be used against Americans who support America's foreign policy? Of course America won't prosecute them. but do other countries have to?

So...are the Germans simply conforming to their treaty obligations by being "Not-Zs"?

[Cal Cetín]

(Copied from another thread where I had posted this by mistake)

[Martinned]

If only there was a Treaty Body who could publish authoritative General Comments setting out how the articles are to be interpreted...

Key bit:

Article 20 of the Covenant states that any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. In the opinion of the Committee, these required prohibitions are fully compatible with the right of freedom of expression as contained in article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities. The prohibition under paragraph 1 extends to all forms of propaganda threatening or resulting in an act of aggression or breach of the peace contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, while paragraph 2 is directed against any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether such propaganda or advocacy has aims which are internal or external to the State concerned. The provisions of article 20, paragraph 1, do not prohibit advocacy of the sovereign right of self defence or the right of peoples to self determination and independence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

[Cal Cetín]

Well, that's certainly interesting, thank you.

[Cal Cetín]

Though since it's the Volokh Conspiracy comment section, the terms of service required you to phrase it as a sarcastic barb.

[loki13]

Last night, I was thinking about what the real fallout of the Ginni Thomas emails would be. I don't think it will have any effect on judicial ethics on the Supreme Court (ha!). Instead, I realized it revealed something I had been questioning for a while.

Yeah, it's serious. The whole nutter, QAnon, crazy thing? It's real. Not just performative.

Maybe that seems obvious. But here's the thing- if you aren't regularly exposed to the crazy, it becomes really hard to tell the difference between something that is purely performative and something that is, well, real. At what point does "owning the libs" end, and "I really believe leftists are evil and Trump is coming back to send all those pedophiles to Guantanamo" begin?

I say this because, over the last few years, I'm sure many (most) of us have seen people we know succumb to the madness. It's ... sad, and weird. Whether it's a friend, or a family member ... you just see them go off the rails into crazyland. Heck, I had a client recently that went against legal advice because (and I wish I was making this up) they knew the whole economy was going to collapse on some specific date last year because of some QAnon conspiracy nonsense and therefore had to do something very disadvantageous. Which cost them six figures. Guess what? It didn't happen, but that didn't matter .... for reasons, or something, they were convinced they still did the right thing. Reality couldn't test their theory, only fail it.

(cont'd)

[John F. Carr]

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness"

[loki13]

LOL! You know, when I talk to people in person I usually have a pretty moderate point of view. No matter how bad things are looking, I remind them- hey, it's been a lot worse. After all, in the 60s we had a country dealing with a war, with massive racial unrest due to the perpetuation of racial segregation, with fairly frequent assassinations, and with a host of other problems ... and we made it through.

....and yet, this feels unsettling in ways that I'm trying to articulate. The mainstreaming of crazy has occurred before (after all, today's "grooming" is just yesterday's Satanic Panic, recycled and with a fresh coat of paint) but this definitely feels different and worrying.

[bernard11]

The trouble is, these panics now come up more often.

There si a major industry generating them.

[loki13]

That said, and despite the mounting evidence to the contrary, I think a lot of people (such as me) still had this assumption that the crazies were just, you know, regular people. Missing something in their lives. Maybe shooting stuff around on facebook, or ... getting ignored by me on the VC. Yeah, you had people like Sidney Powell, I guess. But c'mon. The mainstream GOP politicians ... they didn't believe this stuff. They were just pandering, because they had to, right?

And then I saw the Ginni Thomas emails. She's not just the wife of a Supreme Court justice, she's a major power-broker in the GOP establishment. This wasn't posturing for the base. These were the type of rants that a crazy uncle would send you.

The more I think about it, the more crazy it becomes. Putting this into context .... 2017 was when the crazy Pizzagate shooter occurred, and there was a general consensus that he was crazy. BECAUSE HE WAS.

Now, we have GOP politicians taking time to push bizarre pedophilia "signals" to their constituents during a Supreme Court confirmation, and the GOP (and their allies) are trying to mainstream the concept of "grooming" by saying that their opponents (Democrats) are all about child molestation. .... Okay then. It's crazy. And yet, apparently there is a good deal of buy-in, by some of the most powerful people, to the crazy.

(contd.)

[David Nieporent]

And then I saw the Ginni Thomas emails. She's not just the wife of a Supreme Court justice, she's a major power-broker in the GOP establishment. This wasn't posturing for the base. These were the type of rants that a crazy uncle would send you.

Yes.And let's not forget John Eastman. He's not a long time kook like Sidney Powell or L Lin Wood or an incompetent nobody like Jenna Ellis. He was at one time a relatively mainstream figure in the conservative legal establishment. Maybe a bit hard line conservative, but the kind of person who professorizes at a law school and publishes law review articles. And yet he appears to be sincerely all-in on his overthrow-the-government legal advocacy. He gave a ranting speech on 1/6 itself. He's not Rudy, a washed up has been political hack telling Trump what Trump wanted to hear so that he could get paid. He just can't tell the difference between fiction and reality.

[loki13]

Can't disagree there.

What it comes down to, I guess, is that it is somewhat horrifying to think that people are indulging in performative nonsense because they think it will get them votes, or "likes," or money, or whatever. Because, you know, it's crazy!

It's downright terrifying when you start to realize that no, these people really believe it.

[not guilty]

John Eastman has significant exposure under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) for his importuning Mike Pence to unilaterally disregard certified slates of electors. Perhaps it is time for him to do some charge bargaining with a cooperation agreement (maybe a single count under 18 U.S.C. 371?).

[loki13]

There's obviously a reason for this- for the crazy. Well, I think there are a lot of reasons- increased polarization, negative partisanship, destruction of community bonds, self-sorting, and even a boost from the isolating effects of COVID. But I also think it's inarguable that social media and personalized algorithms (such as those utilized by youtube and google) are necessarily a part of it.

Simply put, for various reasons, many people are now living in completely different worlds. I see the words written by Ginni Thomas, and I cannot fathom them, in the same way that I cannot fathom the email my uncle forwarded me, or I cannot fathom some of the rants of the more .... colorful people here. It's just crazy talk. It's removed from reality and conspiracy mongering to such an extent that I can't even begin to find common ground or even common facts to start the process of having a good-faith argument as to what the actual policy disagreements might be.

Which isn't good. Yeah, politicians perform, and Supreme Court conformation hearings have always been kabuki theater and speechifying. But ... my goodness, Ted Cruz is a Harvard-educated attorney. What was that? At what point does the performance for the crazies (and, ahem, checking his twitter mentions) no longer become a performance, but who you are?

I'm going to close with this. I read an excellent book recently by Patricia Lockwood (No One Is Talking About This). It has some of the most amazing, and sharp, writing that I can remember. But one quote is, I think, appropriate, and reminds me of the Popehat quote about.... goats-

In contrast with her generation, which had spent most of its time online learning to code so that it could add crude butterfly animations to the backgrounds of its weblogs, the generation immediately following had spent most of its time online making incredibly bigoted jokes in order to laugh at the idiots who were stupid enough to think they meant it. Except after a while they did mean it, and then somehow at the end of it they were Nazis. Was this always how it happened?

[Cal Cetín]

You have the advantage of me in that you've read Mrs. Thomas' emails. In a truly patriarchal society, her husband would have told her to stop doing whatever stupid thing she was doing, and that would have been the end of it.

Are Demopublicans sane? I hardly think so. But it's silly to say that all the silliness is attributable to Tweedledum and not to Tweedledee.

When I get relatives recommending articles to me about how moderate Democrats are like the Mafia, or how a bunch of young pro-lifers persecuted an innocent Native American, etc., etc.; when I'm told that it's every man's right to have babies if he wants to; that it's the Russians are trying trick us into believing bad things about President Biden's family, that a woman (or man for that matter) killing the child in his/her womb is a constitutional right, etc. etc., then I wonder how Tweedledee has the nerve to say that all the craziness comes from Tweedledum.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I mean, you've got crazies on both sides. People who think Trump actually was colluding with Russia, thought that Mueller was going to bring him down, thought that he was going up on felony charges in NY, that he was going to have to be dragged out of the White House by the Secret Service, that he's been cheating on his taxes for years without the IRS noticing, that he's not really a billionaire.

It's easier to dismiss the crazies when you don't have major media outlets telling you they're sane.

What was that conjugation? Something about my crazies being eccentric, yours being dangerous?

The other problem is, it becomes easier for people to believe conspiracy theories, when they see real things dismissed as conspiracy theories.

You know, like Hunter's laptop?

[loki13]

Well, I could retort that you immediately went to, "But what about the other side!" but I'm not really interested in that. Because, yes, there will be some amount of crazy on both sides.

This is more about the mainstreaming of that crazy. As I mentioned above, this recent (and seriously, it's very recent ... go ahead and look it up) mainstreaming of the QAnon BS as "grooming" isn't that novel- you can go back to the Satanic Panic (moral panics) and see it. The difference is, of course, that it wasn't particularly partisan- it was old fashioned people makin' stuff up and getting swept away.

And in my years of practice (and even before) I never saw "mainstream" people making giant decisions on this. I didn't see people costing themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars because they believed this nonsense. I didn't see the tendrils of the crazy spread like it has. And it just keeps getting reinforced.

Even here- I didn't expect you to see it, Brett, even though a few years ago I challenged you to keep track of what you said and see what actually happened (guessing you didn't do that).

Anyway, my faith is starting to lessen; I used to think that you really couldn't fool most of the people, most of the time. Now? Well, if people keep seeing what they want to see ... why not?

After all, YOU can't fool most of the people, most of the time. But people? They can fool themselves, all of the time.

[wreckinball]

Wow so our concern is QAnon but you're not cray everyone else is?

[loki13]

I appreciate your substantive comment and attempt to engage.

Sorry, that was sarcastic. But really, are you asking a question because you sincerely want to know something? Or did you think that that I would be impressed by your statement?

Or was this a rhetorical question (well, to you, at least) to demonstrate some sort of "in-group" credibility? Yeah, probably that.

But, let's assume for just a second this was an actual attempt to communicate. So, is QAnon my "concern." Not exactly! I suggest re-reading what I wrote; it's more that QAnon is a specific manifestation of a concern I have.

Do I think that I am not "cray" (not sure if you had a typo there or you were trying to be cool, as in "cray cray") but everyone else is? Well, interesting question!

The facile answer would be that if everyone else is crazy, and I am not, then by definition I am crazy. Not a new concept- heck, I think they had a Twilight Zone episode touching on that ("Eye of the Beholder" IIRC).

The longer answer is that, to use the example of QAnon, a lot of things are demonstrably false. For example, if there is a prediction that says that something will happen on a certain day, and it doesn't happen, then that is provably false. To continue to believe in the sourcing of something that continues to make provably false statements would seem to fit some definition of crazy.

(And yes, like all humans, I have a little craziness myself. But I try to keep it to things like rooting for sports teams.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Anyone who credits QAnon to any degree is a stupid, uninformed, worthless, useless drain and stain on our society, with no redeeming attribute. The only thing such a person can do to contribute to America would be to be replaced.

You can’t reason with superstition, bigotry, or belligerent ignorance. It is pointless to try, perhaps even counterproductive. It is immoral to appease these losers. The sole sensible course is to disparage, mock, and defeat them.

[David Nieporent]

The problem with your whataboutism is that there was good reason to think that Trump actually was colluding with Russia, insofar as Trump actually was colluding with Russia. In a much less formal and organized way than some feared/suspected, but it absolutely happened. As the nonpartisan Mueller investigation found, as the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found.

Oh, and he's not really a billionaire. Remember when he sued Timothy O'Brien for publishing a book that said as much, and lost? Because O'Brien had reviewed Trump's books, and had relied on them, in his reporting.

[Ben_]

Did you consider taking a step back and thinking about your own role? What’s Ginny Thomas to you? How do you think your opinion about her opinion is so noteworthy — even noteworthy to yourself?

People don’t have to clear their opinions with you. Or with anyone.

If you want more of a "togetherness" culture where extreme thoughts are less common, then you’re going to have to seek out what causes alienation and oppose it. You’re just talking about the symptoms.

And why should Ginny trust people in public life after the Clarance Thomas hearings? Why shouldn’t she automatically assume everything bad she hears about her family’s enemies is true (or at least plausible)?

[loki13]

"Did you consider taking a step back and thinking about your own role? What’s Ginny Thomas to you? How do you think your opinion about her opinion is so noteworthy — even noteworthy to yourself?"

As I explained, the reason it is noteworthy is because I had sincerely believed that the vast majority of the GOP "elite" truly didn't believe any of this; with the exception of some (like, perhaps, Marjorie Taylor Greene) it was just performative. This revealed that, for people that truly are "plugged in" (and she is incredibly plugged in to the GOP power structure within DC) it isn't performative- it's real.

All that said, some time ago you had agreed to not respond to me. Given that lack of courtesy, I will say goodbye and add you to the ignore list which I require to make this website even remotely readable.

Take care of yourself. Really.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ben’s defense of Ginni Thomas’ delusional, deranged statements indicates he has nothing worthwhile to offer modern American society. These disaffected clingers are worthless.

[wreckinball]

You can't fathom anything that you disagree with. And you can't debate it either.

[loki13]

That's not even close to true! There are a lot of things that I can fathom that I disagree with, and that I debate. And a lot that I'm uncertain of.

Easy examples include most economics issues; most of my background comes from the Friedman school, so I tend to ... well, the more Law & Economics, Chicago-style approach when it comes to economics matters; but I can also understand that there are times when that approach might not be effective.

Or, for that matter, the age-old debate between descriptive and normative issues when it comes to the law.

But you are correct; I have a great understanding of why people can come to different opinions based on the same set of facts (after all, people are different, and with different preferences!). I do have trouble fathoming discussions with people when I don't understand how their facts can map on to the real world. But that's me. YMMV.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Loki, two points:

1. Yes to the social media problem. Taking private editing out of the publishing loop (Section 230) has been catastrophic. Put that together with algorithms to curate a tailored feed to each person, and you get a method perfectly designed to put habitual skepticism to sleep.

Do you remember habitual skepticism—the faculty which used to be called, "sales resistance?" Almost everyone still has that, but it works less efficiently when folks suppose personal discovery—when they suppose that they dug the truth out by their own efforts. Internet searches feel to a lot of folks like what they think research must be. Even those who understand in the abstract that they get a steady diet of red herrings from robots, tend to discount that insight while enjoying specific rewards during a particular chase.

In an information universe where the salesman is invisible, unsuspected, and largely unimaginable, that feeling disarms sales resistance. Thus, ability is in critically short supply among social media consumers to police their own cognitive boundaries against invasions being engineered out of sight by (literal) robots.

So that's the first factor.

2. The other problem is an inbuilt flaw in democratic theory. A democracy under stress can lose its all-important centralizing tendency. To do that, polarize away substance from consideration, and instead make politics all about beating the other guy. A committed political interest indifferent to democratic institutions can rely on that as a method of conquest. It can use sufficient resources to define its opponents as a worse alternative than any substantive possibility the political process can deliver.

If competing interests do that mutually, they can dig a hole democracy may not know how to climb out of. In a case like that, the more energy you put into politics, the deeper the hole gets.

That is today's problem in a nutshell—No. 1 and No. 2 combined, working together, and mutually reinforced by political interests with malign intent.

If there is to be a solution, it will come either out of the blue, almost unexpectedly, or in one of two foreseeable ways. The first foreseeable way is much better than the other, but neither looks promising.

The first way is to put aside customary political agendas, and stop wasting time and energy by pursuit of alternatives today's politics have already discounted to zero. Instead, make restoration of democratic political institutions to vigor and effect the only object of political effort. Try to unify today's polarized factions around that goal, and somehow (how?) teach them to put aside other political objectives until that one gets done.

Just to say that is to understand the daunting scope of the task. It scarcely seems possible. Entrenched political grandees on all sides would have to be shoved aside. Politically corrupt practices of such long standing that they look accustomed would have to be rethought. No organizational framework to accomplish such actions comes to mind. Thus, the default impulse becomes to stay the course, change little, and hope for the best.

Which sets the stage for the other foreseeable method, the less promising one. That is to recognize that today's polarization has a particular classical form. It is a contest for sovereignty. By gradual steps, would-be oligarchs have entered into a contest with the American people for the sovereignty of the nation. Patient, persistent application of oligarchical money and effort have paved the way. Technological happenstance added to deliberately inflamed polarization has advanced the nation toward a potential moment of crisis. Thus, two historical factors favor would-be oligarchs—as does their success at remaining largely faceless, behind corporate proxies.

Worse, contests for sovereignty always put familiar politics aside, and devolve toward tests of pure power. To the extent that money is power, that gives would-be oligarchs an edge. To the extent that organization is power, that too favors would-be oligarchs. To the extent that during a crisis powerless people tend to seek safety by submission to more powerful people, that too favors would-be oligarchs.

It is not a promising picture for democracy's future. Power advantages enjoyed by the American people are only their overwhelming numbers, and a democratic tradition, remembered by a minority of them, that previously proved effective.

The one glimmer of optimism I can identify is the unlooked-for alternative—that American politics is overdue for a generational watershed. The mess described above is largely the work of the baby boom generation, although its inception dates back at least to the Powell Memo.

Electoral replacement of baby boomers by millennials cannot come soon enough. It is urgently needed, but still not really in sight. Perhaps a realistic hope could be that a political catastrophe for progressive politics in 2022 would sufficiently prod progressive tendencies among millennials to get them organized and participating by 2024. An electoral solution would be so much better than the gloomy alternatives above. If it happens, history will at first record it almost as a deus ex machina, but later slide toward a complacent opinion that it was inevitable. I would like to live to see that.

[loki13]

Those are some good and interesting points, Stephen. I think that the thing that concerns me most is that if you get to talk to most people, and get away from whatever the topic du rage is today, you find that most Americans, by and large, are generous people that want the best for the country and feel stymied by our institutions.

And yet ... it also seems that "both sides," for the most part, can't truly see the dangerous waters and instead blame the other side for all of the problems. It's such a common refrain-

"Sure, my guys suck ... but the OTHER GUYS? Oh, they are EVIL."

I think that there will be a reckoning and a change, and I think that the younger generations (as you note) will be the ones to make it happen ... but I think it's going to take one heckuva crisis. And I'm not looking forward to that.

(The social media and algorithms ... I don't know. It's so dangerous because it's so insidious, and as you correctly note, people have no idea that they are being manipulated.)

[M L]

This twitter account has hundreds of examples of why some communities may wish to exercise their right to control the education they are massively overpaying for their children to receive.

“Diversity is my favorite thing to teach” says non-binary preschool teacher who also makes 4 year olds pick a pronoun pin every day to wear

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1514017485367873540

“If your parents don’t accept you for who you are, f*** them. I’m your parents now” - Oklahoma middle school teacher

This teacher was let go last week after complaints of grooming and this tiktok + others containing questionable content were brought to the principal’s attention.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1513603622461870083

[M L]

WaPo 2015: Teachers are grooming and sexually abusing children in public schools.

WaPo 2022: This is now a QAnon conspiracy theory.

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1513927338903293952

Students in an @mcpasd school were treated to a drag queen performance by a “drag teacher” during school hours. Imagine if they focused on teaching math, science, and history instead of drag. This is sickening.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1513932643494084609

[M L]

Kindergarten teacher brags about using the game ‘playing with pronouns’ so 4 year old students can practice using they/them which “sparks conversations”

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1513730337796288512

“I’m a man but when I was a baby the doctors told my parents I was a girl”

“I talk to my students about what it means to be trans all the time”

These are 6 year old kids.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1513372137809059844

[M L]

Trans non-binary elementary teacher says 3 year olds are old enough to learn about gender identity, sexual orientation, and pronouns. These are the people teaching your kids.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1513046467333689344

New Jersey teacher goes through examples of the new sex-ed lesson plans for 1st grade. First graders are being taught about gender identity and that it’s okay to identify with the opposite gender.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1513222681767735297

[M L]

Kindergarten teacher in California is excited to read books to 6 yr olds about nonbinary kids crossdressing and using the opposite bathroom in school

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1512560102745665536

This polyamorous genderfluid witch is a preschool teacher in Florida. She’s so proud of herself that she discusses her gender and sexuality with 4 year olds

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1512208604421496832

[M L]

New Jersey’s new sex curriculum points elementary students to watch videos from Amaze. This is one of their videos. They are telling 9 year olds to watch porn. Groomers.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1512290024745668609

Drag king preschool teacher says she won’t follow the laws of the Parental Rights in Education bill

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1511013923084021769

[M L]

???? A school nurse was suspended for revealing that the school was secretly giving kids puberty blockers and helping kids transition behind their parents’ backs

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1509727410031276041

There's probably thousands not hundreds....I'm done scrolling. I saw the same on this account months ago and they just keep going.

[apedad]

Now do priests. . . .

[Ben_]

Priests do not work for taxpayers. Interaction with priests is voluntary.

[Cal Cetín]

If priests and bishops can abuse your kids, it's only fair that teachers be able to as well!

(/sarc)

[M L]

Right!

If you're a pedo predator, teaching kids would seem like a natural choice career choice. Coaching also.

[Brett Bellmore]

The priests weren't actually worse than any other profession, you know, and that was decades ago. It just got publicity, instead of the media hushing it up.

It's actually a bigger problem in the teaching profession. But that didn't make for a good media crusade.

[Cal Cetín]

It's worse for priests because they themselves are supposed to consider such actions sacrilegious as well as being wrong secularly.

The "but priests!" reply doesn't really work, because

(a) many of the critics of teacher misbehavior are non-Catholic

(b) many who "defend teachers" (i. e., oppose efforts to keep them in check) are Catholic (Biden, Pelosi, etc.)

(c) we really wouldn't want to follow the example of the priests in dealing with teachers, because that would mean covering up the behavior for years until brave men and women blow the whistle at great risk to themselves. Is that what you want?

[not guilty]

So you are minimizing the evil of the offending priests' conduct? That is moral idiocy.

What about the complicity of the institutional Catholic church, for which it has paid out billions of dollars in damages? As the metaphor goes, a fish rots from the head.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Not only do you get your "information" from obviously-biased sources which make no effort whatsoever to mitigate their personal opinions, but you spend quite a lot of time thinking about small children and sexuality.

Are you by chance friends with Matt Gaetz? Just wondering.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"but you spend quite a lot of time thinking about small children and sexuality."

He's auditioning to join the Democrat elite.

[David Nieporent]

I beg you to stop using the word "groom" when you don't have the foggiest clue what it means.

[Michael P]

A deconstruction of "Donald Trump" as a composite character drawn from four underlying people: https://mobile.twitter.com/ByzCat/status/1500257031952879616

[Shamie Ervin iv]

In honor of the Ukraine, I recommend to you lovely Anna Federova at the piano performing in Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1, Sunday the 14th of October 2018, in The Royal Concertgebouw Amsterdam.. Anna was born in Kiev.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNfpMRSCFPE&t=16s&ab_channel=AVROTROSKlassiek

[BravoCharlieDelta]

15.9% of Generation Z identify as LGBT
9.1% of Millennials identify as LGBT
3.8% of Generation X identify as LGBT
2.0% of Baby Boomers identify as LGBT
1.3% of Traditionalists identify as LGBT

Being "born that way" doesn't explain that.
Grooming does.

You people are demented and sick. Only evil people target other people's children.

[Sarcastr0]

Or maybe the definition of what counts as LGBT has changed.

Naw, lets go with the 1970s gay panic rewarmed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think the definitions of "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", or "transgender" have incrementally changed over the generations and that's what accounts for the rise in identification?

I know you're not serious, you never really are.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And clearly there should be another gay panic. We spend over $30B a year on AIDS, which is more than cancer and NASA combined but AIDS is primarily a gay disease.

That's cause for panic. What a gd waste that is. If these selfish gays would just wear a condom, we could spend that $30B on things of importance to all of society not just a incredibly selfish 1%.

[wreckinball]

It hasn't

[Ben_]

There are benefits to being one of the special people.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty much. It's a fad.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Any adult that seems overly concerned about the genitals of children ought to be questioned. The gender benders have more than an interest, BTW, it is an obsession, not only with the sexuality of children but making sure they don't obtain the sexual characteristics of an adult. Normal people think that is strange, because it is really odd.

[Moderation4ever]

I think that "grooming" is the current word to put down "acceptance". The fact is that Traditionalist and BB (including myself) lived in a time when being gay meant being ostracized at best, possibly killed.

What we are trying to teach young people is acceptance of others. There is a push right now to put gays back in the closet. To go back to the good old days. Back when the odd kid in school was available to be picked on and bullied. When you did not have a new neighbor and their same sex spouse. People want to start young and to stop kids from be accepting.

[Jimmy the Dane]

g-d you are dumb. Do you actually believe the crap you type?

"Go back to good old days..."

Back in those days no one cared. If two guys moved into your neighborhood, they were two guys who lived together. Sure you might tell kids they were "brothers" but that was good enough for a 9 year old. If you worked with a gay guy, no one really knew, but you could figure it out because they were single and had no kids. Again, no one cared.

99.9% of the people gave absolutely no two shits about homosexuals. What they did care about was the extreme leftwing agenda that was being pushed as "gay rights" and associated causes. But, no one cared about anyone who expressed the identity of a homosexual.

[Moderation4ever]

"But, no one cared about anyone who expressed the identity of a homosexual."

Tell that to Mathew Shepard.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You do know what actually happened to Matthew Shepard, don't you? Yes it was a horrendous murder (as most murders are), but it had little to do with homosexuality and more to do with crystal meth and drug crazed addicts. But, that doesn't pass "hate" crimes laws or get leftists all enraged, so why not just make up some fiction and use a casket to forward your public policy? That is the way of the left and it is disgusting.

[David Nieporent]

Back in those days no one cared.

Sure. And blacks and whites used to live harmoniously in the south until outside agitators came around to stir up trouble. (Don't get me started on that communist rabble rouser MLK.)

99.9% of the people gave absolutely no two shits about homosexuals.

As long as they stayed in the closet, you mean.

[loki13]

I can't see the comment you're replying to (thankfully, it looks like!), but ...

I'm not sure how anyone, with even a modicum of awareness, could try and assert that "back in the day" no one cared about race or sexual orientation. I mean ... woah. Even ignoring things like Stonewall and the Civil Rights Movement, if you so much as drew a breath "back in the day," you know this isn't true.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You have cherry picked ONE incident to prove your point so I don't think I need to point out the logical fallacy there.

Then you throw in the Civil Rights Movement for some reason that had little to do with homosexuality or rights associated with that status. But why not include a red herring as well!

[Jimmy the Dane]

"Sure. And blacks and whites used to live harmoniously in the south until outside agitators came around to stir up trouble. (Don't get me started on that communist rabble rouser MLK.)"

We were talking about homosexuals not black people. But why not lump them all together for whatever reason or just throw out a red herring.

But, I'll partially bite. How do you explain just about every metric from African Americans got appreciably worse after the Civil Rights Movement? Hmmm.....

"As long as they stayed in the closet, you mean."

No. There was little to no reason for most to parade around about their sexuality. It was something they identified with and no one really cared. There is a difference between existing and living your life and jamming that lifestyle down everyone's throat.

[Absaroka]

" and no one really cared."

I'll speak to one decade, from perhaps 1975 to 1985 (things improved pretty rapidly after that). My gay friends in that era were deeply afraid of being outed. They viewed it as career ending at a minimum, and I think they were right. Note that some of this time was in the DC area, which wasn't, ahem, exactly a bastion of prudery.

It was still routine for police to raid gay bars and just haul everyone there off to jail.

Now, it's also true that a lot of straights didn't care a whit. I think that's why the pendulum swung fairly fast. But there was absolutely enough people who cared that being outed was a big deal.

I've probably shared this anecdote before, but it's on point: when I was in college, on any given day 98.732% of students were wearing jeans - it might as well have been a required uniform. One day campus was plastered with (lavender!) posters announcing that some day a month hence was National Denim Day, where you should wear denim to show support for not discriminating against gays. In one of the many times I have misread popular sentiment I thought 'Pffft, what morons, that will be universally ignored' and I forgot all about it. Well, come the day, I put on jeans as usual and went to class. It was one of those weird things where you know something is awry but can't put your finger on it ... and then it dawned. No one was wearing denim but me and maybe 3 other people. Even my gay friends had dug deep in the closet (heh) to find something not denim. I asked one of them why she wasn't wearing denim, and her answer was "Are you kidding???".

Somehow, that many people, straight or gay, going out of their way to not be viewed as someone who objected to discrimination seems to disagree with your thesis that 'no one cared'.

[Cal Cetín]

I've heard about these manipulative exercises.

"Either change the way you customarily dress, or we'll consider you as supporters of our cause!"

[Absaroka]

Indeed, it was brilliant PR. The straights were grumbling 'why should I have to skip denim today just so I can fit in'. A very neat way to highlight gays having to try not attract notice.

[Cal Cetín]

"It was still routine for police to raid gay bars and just haul everyone there off to jail."

I agree we should be hesitant about approving laws which allow the police to monitor the vices of affluent people. Such laws pave the way for corruption.

We've even seen the police (and prosecutors) to shake down less-than-fully-affluent people in the name of the War on Drugs - regardless of guilt or innocence.

Acknowledging these abuses, and preventing them, is pragmatism, not endorsement of particular "lifestyles."

I would guess that if 1985 was the transition point after which people began to stop persecuting gays was because of AIDS - rather than an anti-gay backlash, the American compassion for sick people came to the fore. Even more than leaving gay people alone, the public supported research into the disease with a view to helping the afflicted.

Now we're facing different issues. Instead of picking on people for their gay "lifestyles," the government has done a 180 and now demands affirmation of these lifestyles, or else face the threat of being driven out of business. All the talk of tolerance has gone, allowing for the inference that such talk was purely tactical and meant "tolerance for *my* side only."

[Absaroka]

"I agree we should be hesitant about approving laws which allow the police to monitor the vices of affluent people."

Dunno that going to a gay bar is more of a vice than going to a straight bar.

"I would guess that if 1985 was the transition point after which people began to stop persecuting gays was because of AIDS..."

FWIW, not my sense. ISTM that the sea change was when gay people started to come out. Lotsa straights that thought they didn't know any gays found out that someone they knew was. They found out that by gum, coworker Fred was gay, but seemed like a regular fellow otherwise, and so what the heck, just treat him like anyone else.

"All the talk of tolerance has gone"

I kind of agree there ... I can't get behind the mandatory cake baking etc.

[David Nieporent]

It was called "Gay Jeans Day" when I was in college. Late 1980s/early 1990s. But I don't recall it being a big deal one way or the other.

[Absaroka]

Interesting...as in people ignored it, or people weren't scared someone would think they supported gay rights? Or that jeans were out of fashion?

I was in the workforce in 1990, and at least in my little corner of it being gay just wasn't an issue anymore. To me, the pendulum swung pretty fast through the 1980's.

[David Nieporent]

As in, people wore them or didn't wear them, and, yeah, it wasn't a big deal. I don't remember anyone afraid to wear them because someone might get the wrong idea about them. (I do remember some people acting annoyed that people were politicizing clothing, but that's it.) To be sure, I was on a liberal northeastern campus. (Liberal by national standards of the time, not by current progressive standards.)

[Cal Cetín]

The way to stop kids from being bullies is to expel the bullies.

Not just the anti-gay bullies, but any student who is not only careless about his own education but wants to interfere with the educational environment for other kids. Or for teachers, if it comes to that.

There you go, a policy into which schools can throw their energy, without having to adopt a re-education program for the children of wrongthinkers.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Or just enforce a 3 foot social distancing rule. A teacher friend of mine has said the last two years have been the lowest in terms of bullying incidents she has seen in her long career. It is really hard to bully someone if you can't touch them or even get close to them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being born that way better not explain it, or else we're at the beginning of a human mass extinction.

[not guilty]

The social stigma of acknowledging LGBT identity has lessened over time.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The media is really carrying the water of the left on the gun issue lately. I know they are expecting a rather favorable decision to the Second Amendment any opinion release now so time to start the preemptive "there will be blood in the streets" theme of articles. They did this back in the 1990's too when conceal carry was first coming around so it is just back to the through for more of the same feed.

I'm sure the woke reporters in the NYT are having a heck of a time trying to spin the latest shooting in NYC though. If you have noticed most articles have been about "high capacity" magazines instead of the fact that shooter was a crazy racist.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he was Nation of Islam, so they've got both the race AND religion issues to dissuade them from objective coverage.

[John F. Carr]

Two recent mass shootings in states with strict gun laws.

[Jimmy the Dane]

But in leftist logic the problem is not THEIR strict gun laws, but YOUR Second Amendment rights actually recognized by other states. It is because of those "lax" gun laws that all these nasty killing machines end up in their well run, regulated state.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Never mind that blarney. Share more of your wisdom regarding On the Origin of Species!

[Jimmy the Dane]

The Jerk Store just called for you. They needed some professional advice apparently.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Of course they called.
"You're their best customer!"

[Herb Spencer]

How about some discussion of this intriguing article by Daniel Huff, from the April 10, 2022 editioN of the WSJ?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bad-precedent-high-court-nomination-appointee-retirement-successor-confirmation-battle-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-11649614292?st=wrqc05inlelb7ca&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Thanks for congratulating Judge Jeff Sutton of the CA6 for his excellent concurrence in the nationwide injunction case.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A break from this blog's customary flow of right-wing delusion (QAnon, stolen election, virus-flouting nonsense) and white male grievance:

The Washington Post reports that the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet sank today. The ship -- named after Russia's capital, bearing the admiral's flag -- was aided toward its just destiny by a Ukrainian missile.

Russians, as is customary, appear to be lying about what occurred. What a shambling country and people.