Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

John Eastman is asserting that about 37,000 pages of emails are privileged from disclosure to the House January 6 investigating committee. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/18/john-eastman-records-exclusion-00026159 That claim will trigger in camera review of the emails by the United States District Judge who previously opined that Eastman and Donald Trump more likely than not committed multiple federal felonies, such that Eastman's January 4-7, 2021 emails should be disclosed pursuant to the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client and work product privileges.

I suspect that Eastman has forgotten about Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes: stop digging! Eastman knows that what he and Trump did was criminal -- he invoked his privilege against self-incrimination 146 times during an interview with the House committee. I wonder when Eastman will recognize discretion as being the better part of valor and seek a cooperation agreement with the Department of Justice. Perhaps he is hoping Trump will regain the presidency and pardon him.

[Michael P]

Is that more or less than the amount of material that Hillary For America, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS now claim is privileged when they previously indicated that the relationship there was specifically for opposition research instead?

[Sarcastr0]

Who cares? It's not like one dumbass priv claim absolves another.

Though without a parallel crime-fraud finding these aren't quite the same situation anyhow.

[MoreCurious]

Whataboutism? That's all you got?

[Michael P]

John Eastman is actually a lawyer, and was actually providing legal advice. The same cannot be said of Christopher Steele.

[Moderation4ever]

As a lawyer John Eastman can provide a client with legal advice but cannot advise that client to commit a crime. As some of Eastman recommended actions were illegal, they cannot be considered privileged.

[swood1000]

Suppose the attorney advises his client that, in his opinion, a certain action does not violate the criminal statute. A court later finds that it did violate the statute. Is the attorney thereby criminally liable?

[Moderation4ever]

A good attorney would step well back from giving advice that could be seen as criminal at the time or in the future.

[swood1000]

Eastman claims that he advised Trump and Pence that in the case of competing slates of electors the “President of the Senate” has the exclusive constitutional authority to determine which “certificates” to “open” and thus which electoral votes “to be counted.” Eastman cites, among others, Professor Edward Foley, the Director of the Election Law Center at Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, who said that this interpretative argument “has a significant historical pedigree,” albeit one that has also had “vociferous detractors.” Is this the advice that was criminal?

Eastman also claims that he advised Pence not to decide the question but to send the matter back to the state legislatures for resolution. He said that Pence “was not being asked to decide the matter himself, but to pause the proceedings long enough to give the couple of states whose legislators had asked for more time to assess whether the illegal conduct by their state election officials—illegal conduct that Pence himself twice acknowledged in his statement—was sufficient to warrant revoking the existing certification and submitting a new one that accurately reflected the state’s vote, just as Hawaii had done in 1960.” Was this the advice that was criminal?

Was there any other criminal advice?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Meh, the Electoral College is asinine and the sooner someone blows it up the better. Remember Hillary received fewer Electoral College votes than she won from the states because of Faithless Electors…so Trump could have just tried to change the result via Faithless Elector.

[not guilty]

Have you read Judge David Carter's opinion finding that Eastman and Trump more likely than not committed multiple federal felonies, such that attorney-client and work product privileges do not shield disclosure of Eastman's January 4-7, 2021 emails?

The scheme was a corrupt attempt to obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding of Congress contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). The Vice-president has no lawful authority to unilaterally reject state certified slates of electors under 3 U.S.C. 15. The linchpin of the plan depended on the antecedent submission of bogus slates of electors to the National Archives from several states. That conduct violates 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1001(a)(3). The factual premise of the scam was a rank falsehood -- that Donald Trump had in fact won the presidential election. Scores of lawsuits brought on that premise had been dismissed for lack of standing or lack of evidence. The objective of the scheme was to obtain for Trump a benefit to which he was not lawfully entitled -- a second term in office. That evinces corrupt intent from topside to bottom.

[swood1000]

Please address the advice that Eastman claims he gave. Does either of those constitute criminal advice?

[not guilty]

In the context of 18 U.S.C. sections 371 and 1512(c)(2), the advice, given pursuant to a conspiracy to violate criminal laws, it does indeed constitute criminal advice, for the reasons I described. Read Judge Carter's opinion disallowing the claimed privileges.

[not guilty]

Here is a link to the Carter opinion for your convenience. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

[swood1000]

Read Judge Carter's opinion disallowing the claimed privileges.

In the view of Jonathan Turley, who says that he supports Pence’s interpretation and disagrees with Eastman’s interpretation:

More importantly, the court simply declares that Trump knew that the election was not stolen and thus “the illegality of the plan was obvious.” Putting aside the court’s assumption of what Trump secretly concluded on the election, a sizable number of Americans still do not view Biden as legitimately elected. The court is not simply saying that they are wrong in that view but, because they are wrong, legislative challenges amounted to criminal obstruction of Congress. …

However, the lack of factual foundation for the challenge (cited repeatedly by Judge Carter in the Trump challenge) did not make this a criminal or fraudulent effort.

Some attorneys believed (and still believe) that it was possible for Pence to refuse to certify. Holding such a legal view is not a crime and sharing that view with the White House is not a conspiracy. …

Yet, Carter is conclusory and dismissive on this critical point in declaring “President Trump and Dr. Eastman justified the plan with allegations of election fraud — but President Trump likely knew the justification was baseless, and therefore that the entire plan was unlawful.” Trump is still insisting that he believes the opposite. The question is why arguing that point with Pence and others amounted to a criminal act. …

That is what is so disturbing about Carter’s opinion. While I agree with many aspects of Judge Carter’s decision, there is no clear limiting principle of when a legal opinion becomes a criminal conspiracy beyond the court’s predisposition of the meaning of these facts.

Suppose the Vice President has been informed by the Pennsylvania legislature that it is prepared to recertify its electors if there is a delay of a few days. Is it a criminal act for an attorney to advise the Vice President not to “count” the Pennsylvania electors but to wait the few days requested by Pennsylvania, especially when his constitutional right to do so is supported by an argument that “has a significant historical pedigree”?

[Sarcastr0]

I'd be very surprised if this priv claim is being applied directly to Steele.

[Michael P]

Declaration of Robby Mook:

I did believe throughout the campaign that whatever work Perkins Coie performed, either through its own professionals or through any contractors it may have engaged to assist it, the work was done for the purpose of providing legal services and aid to HFA.

And Marc Elias:

As stated in the engagement letter, Fusion's role was to provide consulting services in support of the legal advice attorneys at Perkins Coie were providing to specific firm clients "related to defamation, libel and similar laws in which accuracy is an essential legal element[.]"

Fusion GPS's recent filing, opposing a motion to compel production in the John Durham investigation, reiterated Elias's declaration:

Elias retained Fusion to expressly support his legal advice ... and the retention specifically contemplated the need for such advice for potential and ongoing litigation.

They paint the basis for claiming privilege with a very broad brush.

[Sarcastr0]

That seems a pretty ordinary priv claim to me.

Maybe it's too broad, but that's well within what law firms claim.

[Michael P]

Perhaps law firms claim that. Fusion GPS is not a law firm, and they were -- based on the public record -- not retained because of the legal advice they could provide. The claims here seem to violate a duty of candor to the court.

[Sarcastr0]

Perkins Coie is pretty clearly the entity claiming this.

Yeah, I think A/C is overclaimed. I overclaimed when I did litigation (first lesson after law school on what the law is versus how the law operates).

But also think that's part of the game - it's baked into our adversarial system's incentive structure.

You are once again getting heated up about common practice of law.

[Michael P]

According to Durham, the DNC and the Clinton campaign “have asserted attorney-client privilege and/or work product protections over communications solely between” Joffe and an individual from Fusion GPS.

Pretty clearly, what?

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying agents of a law firm cannot inherit A/C priv?

[Michael P]

I am saying that Perkins Coie is not the entity claiming this privilege, that attorney-client privilege communications must include an attorney [1], and that there is no obvious reason that work-product privilege would attach here [2].

[1]- It must also be for the purpose of getting legal advice, not for sham purposes.
[2]- It doesn't attach because privileged work product must be created in connection with litigation, and opposition research does not fit that (under any good-faith interpretation).

[Sarcastr0]

Firms can claim priv on behalf of their agents.

A/C priv is NOT the same as work product.

You may call it a sham, but that's rather begging the question.

Going outcome-oriented into an area of law you don't know will give you a distorted view of what's going on. Which for some may be a feature - keeps their reality clean and full of persecution.

[Michael P]

The article I linked to literally says you were wrong about Perkins Coie asserting privilege.

I know that attorney-client privilege is not the same as the work-product privilege. That's why I addressed them as separate points. I note that you don't try to address either of them, instead criticizing an idea that I never implied.

The case I linked to as an example of "sham purposes" is when a company (allegedly) trained its employees to cc a lawyer not because they were seeking specific legal advice, but fundamentally to shield the communication from discovery. In the particular example I cited earlier, privilege was claimed over communications "solely between" Joffe and an unnamed person at Fusion GPS -- so almost certainly not A/C privileged.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't much care what bizpac review's opinion is. I've explained to you how the law works.

You're now saying some of the arguments won't fly in court because they rely on a sham.

Maybe! But that doesn't make this something extraordinary - riding that line is what they pay lawyers for. And they have an engagement letter to paper their argument.

[David Nieporent]

The case I linked to as an example of "sham purposes" is when a company (allegedly) trained its employees to cc a lawyer not because they were seeking specific legal advice, but fundamentally to shield the communication from discovery.

And that's entirely common. Whether it's legally sound — often not — is a separate issue, that's ultimately up to a judge to decide.

[Michael P]

Sigh. Gaslight0 hard at work.

If you don't like BizPacReview's summary of Durham's claim, you could read the special counsel's filing itself:

In connection with this investigation and the pending trial in this case, the DNC and HFA have asserted attorney-client privilege and/or work product protections over communications solely between a technology executive referred to in the Indictment as “Tech Executive-1” and a person from the U.S. Investigative Firm whom the Government has subpoenaed to testify at trial, despite the fact that no one from either the DNC or HFA is copied on certain of these communications. Tech Executive-1’s counsel has also claimed privilege over these communications even though Tech Executive-1 did not retain and was not retained by the U.S.Investigative Firm.

and:

For most of the responsive documents, the privilege log explains that the reason for withholding is because they contain “research prepared at the direction of [Law Firm-1] in anticipation of litigation, and for the purpose of providing legal advice.” The vast majority of the entries reflect communications with no lawyer listed as a sender, recipient, or copied party.

The special counsel's filing goes on to explain why various extensions of privilege -- the intermediary doctrine and the common interest rule -- do not apply to the communicants.

Exactly where did you explain "how the law works" such that privilege extends to communications between non-lawyer third parties regarding what the communicants acknowledge was regarding political, strategic or policy issues rather than legal advice? Is it the same place where you explained that John Eastman is just doing what lawyers always do, and not guilty is -- as usual -- sharing something that is not news and not interesting?

[Kazinski]

"Are you saying agents of a law firm cannot inherit A/C priv?"

Nope. But it certainly depends on what they were producing, and why.

I think for instance an investigator hired to investigate a alternative theory of a homicide would be protected under attorney client privilege.

I do not think hiring fusion GPS to produce opposition "research" would be protected since it there was no legitimate legal objective. I mean honestly we're they use the Steele Dossier to file a lawsuit, defend a lawsuit, or an FEC action?

Say I want to fill in a wetland on my property, can I have my attorney hire the contractor with the bulldozers so everything is AC privileged?

[Michael P]

Kazinski, they don't want to address the actual facts here. They want to preen and gaslight. They won't admit that the privilege claim for the collusion hoax communications is indefensible because the communications include unprivileged parties and are for unprivileged purposes.

[Sarcastr0]

No, DMN and I are are not arguing in bad faith. YOU keep trying to argue one thesis to prove another.

You're arguing the eventual merit should be, and pretending that defines what legitimate legal practice is. A moment's thought can tell you these are *very* different questions.

And that's beyond you and Kaz making a bunch of assumptions and evaluations of the facts based on partisan bullshit. Most people wait till the court rules on that stuff - they have a more complete record than you do. But not you! This right-wing rag is enough for your to be completely certain, and accuse anyone who isn't sure of gaslighting.

The fact that you're devolving into insults and calling us liars tells me you're beginning to figure out you're not on as firm ground as you wish.

[David Nieporent]

They won't admit that the privilege claim for the collusion hoax communications is indefensible because the communications include unprivileged parties and are for unprivileged purposes.

Why would I "admit" something I don't know to be true? If a court reviews these documents and says that they're not privileged/work product, then fine. I have no problem with that. I'm not claiming that they are privileged. I am saying only that it's routine to assert privilege, it's routine to try to involve lawyers in email conversations so one can try to assert privilege, and that the info we ourselves have is too limited for us to be confident of the answer.

[Brett Bellmore]

But Fusion GPS is more of a PR firm than law firm, aren't they? Their gig is making up scurrilous stories, and then shopping them out to the media through 'journalists' they keep close relationships with.

[Sarcastr0]

As stated in the engagement letter, Fusion's role was to provide consulting services in support of the legal advice attorneys at Perkins Coie were providing to specific firm clients.

Up to the judge to see if that flies factually. But this is normal stuff.

[bernard11]

And that excuses Eastman how?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've no interest in excusing Eastman, I just think the privilege claim is likely bogus.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Trump has the right idea—make up “opposition research” for free!!

[bernard11]

Sarcastro,

Unwise, IMO, to let Michael P threadjack with a lot of Clinton whatabouttery.

not guilty is talking about Eastman. Even if Michael P had a video of Clinton shooting Vince Foster, it wouldn't be remotely relevant.

[Kazinski]

That's a new low even for you Bernard, asserting that it doesn't matter that Hillary shot Vince Foster just because a right winger exposed the video.

[bernard11]

You got me.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As usual, you have nothing of substance to add to the actual topic, and instead wander off into your fantasy land of Whatboutisms.

[not guilty]

How is your attempt to change the subject germane to Eastman's game playing? He has significant exposure to criminal prosecution, and he is digging a deeper hole for himself and his former client.

As Louis Brandies said, sunlight is the best of disinfectants.

[Curle]

“He has significant exposure to criminal prosecution,”

You know that? How?

[not guilty]

I have explained several times, including on this thread, how Trump's and Eastman's conduct violated 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). I see no need to repeat the analysis here. Read Judge Carter's opinion finding that Trump and Eastman more likely than not committed multiple federal felonies.

[John F. Carr]

What does he have to lose by making the judge read the emails?

[loki13]

Credibility. He is an attorney, after all.

Look, if all, or even most, of the emails have colorable claims ... no problem.

But as a general rule ... if you are a real attorney, you don't demand in camera review of 37,000 documents unless you have a good-faith basis for that review.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That was my thought, as well.

I also sense John Eastman no longer views the world from a reality-based perspective; he may no longer understand that others do not wish to invest in his delusions.

Thank goodness I never endorsed John Eastman for public office. What a humiliation that would be.

[Curle]

“I also sense John Eastman no longer views the world from a reality-based perspective;”

I think we can all acknowledge your expertise in avoiding reality.

[John F. Carr]

Are there people left who could turn against him? I think of him like this decade's John "torture memo" Yoo. Yoo won over Fox News viewers and lost Wikipedia editors, and nothing will change that.

[loki13]

Again, I try to view things from the legal perspective. You can analyze the wider PR war to your heart's content.

As an attorney, I do my best not anger the judges I am in front of. For a lot of reasons. If nothing else, if I destroy my credibility on one issue, then I have nothing to fall back on when I need it on another. And most attorneys (officers of the court) have to rely on their credibility before the court at various times.

[loki13]

(As an aside, I could discuss ethics and integrity, but no one here seems to care much about that.)

[John F. Carr]

Does Eastman spend much time in litigation, outside the present case? The judge has already called him a crook.

[Kazinski]

He is an academic, that means he not required to do anything productive to earn a living.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If the conduct of John Eastman and John Yoo endears those two to Fox News viewers, thank goodness the modern American culture war is driving Fox News viewers into cultural and political irrelevance.

Torture and insurrection seem reliable indicators of intensely low-quality people.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

The real life woman from Zero Dark Thirty was in the news recently—torture works!!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Every attorney who helped Trump in anyway came under full assault from the Democrat Fascists. It's too late for his reputation among the Leftist Nazi's.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump's superpower is to find vulnerable people and corrupting them. This applies to the attorneys he has used for his post-election shenanigans. I don't believe his company's lawyers for civil actions are doing anything that would put themselves or their firms in jeopardy. When the former President does end up in court civil or legal, I am guessing he will have big money attorneys that will fight hard and play it straight. Giuliani, Powers, and Eastman are cannon fodder for the former President, not the kind of attorneys he uses when he needs serious work done.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" It's too late for his reputation among the Leftist Nazi's. "

Yes, but the available evidence indicates John Eastman can still cling to the adoration and endorsement of Prof. Eugene Volokh. It seems likely Mr. Eastman -- who voluntarily squandered his law school position and his credibility to promote and defend this nonsense -- doesn't much care about what the modern American mainstream thinks of him.

[Brett Bellmore]

How do you do in camera review of 37,000 documents? Look at a random sample? Do key word searches? At ten seconds a piece, that's a hundred hours of work!

[rsteinmetz]

Name a Special Master?

[not guilty]

What does he have to lose?

Did you read Judge Carter's opinion ruling that privilege is inapplicable to the January 4-7 emails? It was clear and cogent and summarized the basis for charging Eastman and Trump with multiple federal felonies. The instant review may well find further likely criminal activity.

[not guilty]

The linchpin of the attempt to corrupt Mike Pence was the submission to the National Archives of several bogus slates of electors. That is a crime under 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1001. I strongly suspect that the instant email review will flesh out the participation of others, the roles of which have heretofore been opaque.

As I have said, Eastman needs to seek a cooperation agreement with DOJ including testimony against Trump.

[Seamus]

Would you have brought charges under 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1001 against those in Hawaii in 1960 who sent the Administrator of General Services a set of ballots cast by electors who hadn't been certified by the governor and who at that point were, from a legal point of view, purely a self-appointed group of individuals casting bogus ballots that they hoped, as a result of subsequent actions, to be recognized as legitimate?

[bernard11]

More fucking whatabouttery.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, where did people get the idea that calling putting things in context "whatabouttery" made doing it somehow out of bounds?

[Sarcastr0]

No, dude, pointing to a different anecdote is not context, it's a distraction. Every time. Though 'What about Hawaii in 1960' is especially egregious.

Context would be something about general trends and norms, not a single other anecdote.

You're rationalizing because increasingly distractions like this are the best the right's got.

[not guilty]

Culpable mental state matters. I don't think that the submission from Hawaii in 1960 was for a corrupt purpose. There was a legitimate dispute as to which candidate won the state, which was resolved in Kennedy's favor.

[bernard11]

Trump shoots someone on 5th Ave.

Brett: Let's put this in context. What about that parking ticket Pelosi got in 2014?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Eastman needs to seek a cooperation agreement with DOJ including testimony against Trump."

Why? Trump can just pardon him in 2025.

[not guilty]

Senator Mike Lee has disclosed that he received a memo from Eastman on January 2 that claimed seven states were planning to send different slates of electors to Congress.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Eastman knows that what he and Trump did was criminal -- he invoked his privilege against self-incrimination 146 times "

Asserting 5A as proof of guilt?

I still can't believe you were once a public defender.

[not guilty]

I was never a public defender. I was in private practice.

Eastman's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege would not be admissible at a criminal trial, but an inference can properly be drawn in civil proceedings. I called attention to it as an indication that Eastman knows he is exposed and would be wise to flip on Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

My mistake, I thought you said you were when you said you retired. Still seem strange for a criminal defense lawyer.

He's trying to run out the clock until the GOP takes back the House.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Still seem strange for a criminal defense lawyer."
Why? Who would have a better understanding of why people take the 5th than an experienced criminal defense attorney?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why? Who would have a better understanding of why people take the 5th than an experienced criminal defense attorney?

So you're saying that he knows his assertion is bullshit.

[David Nieporent]

Eastman knows that what he and Trump did was criminal -- he invoked his privilege against self-incrimination 146 times during an interview with the House committee.

I have nothing but contempt for Eastman, but stop. Do not do this. Invoking one's 5th amendment rights is a sign of intelligence, not guilt.

[not guilty]

Taking the Fifth is a good indication of his awareness of his culpability. It goes to the wisdom of his seeking to extricate himself by making a deal, which is what I am suggesting.

[David Nieporent]

Taking the Fifth is a good indication of his awareness of his culpability.

No. It's not. It's just not. It's an indication that he has competent representation and — whatever else you can say about him — is at least smart enough to listen to said representation. If I were representing a person in this type of situation — I don't care if it's Mother Theresa — he's taking the 5th unless and until he gets use immunity for his testimony.

There is no upside whatsoever to him waiving his fifth amendment rights in this context.

[bernard11]

As a non-lawyer, I don't think so, ng.

I think it can be pure self-protection against (not even over-) zealous prosecutors.

I have friends who, having done nothing wrong, found themselves in a position where taking the Fifth was absolutely the only sensible thing to. It is a bulwark of liberty, IMO.

[Life of Brian]

Taking the Fifth is a good indication of his awareness of his culpability.

The more TV-lawyer-grade misconceptions like this you spew, the more comfortable I am that you've never actually practiced law.

[not guilty]

I practiced law for 28 years before retiring. Mostly criminal defense work with a focus on appellate advocacy.

[David Nieporent]

Then it's pretty shocking that you're trying to claim that taking the 5th is an indication of consciousness of guilt. (The fact that you didn't focus on trial work may partly explain it.) Would you have ever advised one of your clients — guilty or innocent — in a situation like this to talk to the government?

[not guilty]

No, I would not advise talking to the government. But compliance with a Congressional subpoena is not optional.

I recognize the wisdom of Eastman taking the Fifth under those circumstances. That doesn't mean that he is not in deep shit, for reasons I have explained on these threads on multiple occasions. I would have advised a client who found himself in similar circumstances to look out for his own interests by seeking to cooperate with the prosecution via a detailed proffer.

Eastman has value to the DOJ should he choose to flip. He is likely facing disbarment -- California disciplinary authorities have acknowledged the pendency of an investigation. He would do well to engage in charge bargaining. If he cooperates fully, a plea to one count of 18 U.S.C. 371, with a five year sentencing cap and a lower guidelines range, would make sense.

[Kazinski]

I want a lawyer like him when I tell the police: 'No, you don't have permission to search my car. No, I don't want to wait half an hour for the drug sniffing dog with the 50% success rate gets here.'

[Curle]

You left out this published statement by the judge “an effort he called “a coup in search of a legal theory.” Did you leave it out b/c what the average person imagines a coup to be is not otherwise reflected in the article and makes the judge sound like a nut?

You also left out any description of the imaginary or real advice.

[not guilty]

Judge Carter is nobody's nut. His opinion regarding the crime/fraud exception to privileges is clear and cogent and is devastating to Trump and Eastman. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

[not guilty]

Meanwhile, the investigation of Donald Trump's conduct in Fulton County, Georgia continues apace, with a special investigative grand jury to be empaneled on May 2 and will begin hearing witness testimony on June 1. https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-news/fulton-da-clarifies-timeline-for-witness-testimony-in-trump-probe/QPKS7EJWYZHDRDXYH5NOR3KXGE/

Here's hoping that Fani Willis in Atlanta will show greater fortitude than Alvin Bragg in New York and (to this point) Merrick Garland in Washington.

[Michael P]

Albert Einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

[MoreCurious]

The rest of the world: "Insanity is responding to serious, legitimate issues with trite, irrelevant quotations."

[Michael P]

guilty admits Dems are batting 0 for 2 so far. He only has hope that this time will be different. This looks like blame deflection from a county that had real election problems in 2020 (and before) and is now facing a state investigation of its flaws, potentially leading to the state taking over elections in the county.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Here's hoping"

Keep hope alive!

[Curle]

So, investigation by political actors against political opponent continues APACE!!!!

Thanks for the update.

[Krayt]

Florida senate passed a bill to remove Disney World's tax benefits because of Disney's opposition to whatever that stupid anti-lgbt law was.

Issue 1. Issue 2: "Oh, no! Republicans are learning to use our best tricks -- against us! Again. Shocked, shocked.

But it was ok to threaten to wreck section 230, costing hundreds of billions in stock losses, unless internet big iron censored harrassment, "Oh, look! Start with the harrassing tweets of our political opponents just before the election!"

Rando asteroid, come smear this worthless planer.

[AmosArch]

If Disney wants to start meddling in politics than the elected government has every right to make it at the peril of privileges they've received at the government's pleasure. We all know the Dems never lose an opportunity to make life difficult for the very rare openly conservative leaning corps for much less.

[MollyGodiva]

Punishing a company for expressing a political opinion is a constitutional violation and also a fascist move.

[David Bremer]

Looking forward to seeing the same reaction next time I see a politician talk about punishing Amazon, Walmart, Chick-Fil-A, etc.

Not saying it's right; just find it funny how the people on the left are shocked that republicans are engaging in some of the same tactics we've seen on the left for a long, long time.

[bernard11]

Talking about and doing are two different things.

Were you upset when Trump yanked that huge military contract away from Amazon because the WaPo was critical of him?

No?? What a surprise.

Besides, it's ridiculous to keep trotting out the "Oh gee, the Democrats do that all the time," line.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Besides, it's ridiculous to keep trotting out the "Oh gee, the Democrats do that all the time," line.

You hating being exposed as the slack-jawed hypocrite you are doesn't make it ridiculous.

[Life of Brian]

slack-jawed hypocrite

Please hold for Rev. Artie.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So, Wuz, what are you then?

Are you against the executive and legislature punishing private parties for taking a public stand on political issues which stand the political branches don't like? Or are you for it?

That's really the issue. Just complaining that other people are hypocrites is a lame attempt to avoid the issue.

For the record, I am against government actors using the power of government to punish speech they don't like and to reward speech they do like with tax breaks, government contracts, or other special favors.

Disney is in a special place because, ideally, they wouldn't get special treatment from the state because of all their political donations. On the other hand, punishing them now because of their speech, that's wrong. And my understanding is that the punishment is largely all show, it won't take effect for some years by which time enough palms will have been greased that the "punishment" never takes effect. So DeSantis and Disney keep the public outraged while both of them get lots of publicity and get to be a hero to important constituent groups, but actually accomplish nothing of use to the general public (in both their cases). Welcome to America 2022.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That's really the issue. Just complaining that other people are hypocrites is a lame attempt to avoid the issue.

Not when my response was to someone else's exercise in hypocrisy, which was the issue I was commenting on. Note that his comment contained nary a mention of the actual substance of the Disney issue. It was just a partisan snipe. Your response is just a lame attempt to draw attention from that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And my understanding is that the punishment is largely all show, it won't take effect for some years by which time enough palms will have been greased that the "punishment" never takes effect. So DeSantis and Disney keep the public outraged while both of them get lots of publicity and get to be a hero to important constituent groups, but actually accomplish nothing of use to the general public (in both their cases).

So you're saying that in reality nobody is being "punished" "because of their speech".

[NOVA Lawyer]

So you're saying that in reality nobody is being "punished" "because of their speech"

1. No. "largely all show" is not the same as all show.
2. The show depends on future retraction of the punishment which is a likelihood not a certainty and the likelihood increases with continued donations (i.e., while the touted punishment can be rescinded, Disney still has to pay because they said the wrong thing.)
3. Even if all that weren't true, publicly and unabashedly telling the world you are punishing a company for its speech is antithetical to American ideals to Constitutional ideals. It normalizes this form of oppression and corruption. Disney is a large player, so crocodile tears, but the biggest victims will be smaller corporations and individuals who will be chilled because they have neither the favor nor deep pockets of Disney. Fitting that this is DeSantis punishing speech critical of a law that punishes speech. It's just authoritarianism all the way down.

[Kazinski]

Perhaps, but seems to me there should be a low bar to taking away special privileges that never should have been granted in the first place.

[Nisiiko]

It's time for conservatives to reaslize that our principles must be sacrificed to defeat the left.

They have shown they can't be trusted with free speech or other freedoms.

Start making it illegal to lie about laws. Tell people "You lie and refer to the bill as 'Don't say gay,' you spend the rest of your life in prison."

Realize that it's war, and that at war, the ends justify the means.

[AtR]

Two wrongs make a right?

[Nisiiko]

When it comes to survival, you must shoot first before your enemy can.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Two wrongs make a right?

To put it in the most simple-minded terms possible....

[NOVA Lawyer]

You want us to emulate Putin. That'll work out well for us.

[Sarcastr0]

You do know this is a really dumb move, right? Now Florida has to pay for Disney's internal police and fire services and utilities.

This is not 'using liberals tactics against them' it is shooting the goose that lays golden eggs for culture war nonsense.

Rando asteroid, come smear this worthless planer.
Fuck off, doomer.

[AmosArch]

Yup, those dumb Repukes need to let the poor megacorp continue on its brainwashing campaign unmolested or they'll be sorry. Nothing boosts a conservative electoral wave like a new generation of hyperconsumerist genderqueer zealots. Listen to the ranting hippie on a random messageboard Repugs he knows whats best for you.

[AmosArch]

If this is going to be such a windfall for Disney as they gladly shift a burden off to the state like you imply why did Disney start up this arrangement in the first place?

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, if I were a Disney shareholder, I might be pissed right about now. This was an 'own goal' by the CEO (Chapak) that was completely unnecessary. Eisner never would have erred this badly.

Where will Disney go? I mean, do you really think in 2022 America they will pick up and leave FL, and build a new park elsewhere? It is 38.5K acres of land, and infrastructure. That is not going to happen. It will cost Disney, and it's shareholders substantially over time (in the form of more taxes and regulation). And that is a permanent, on-going cost.

Disney's CEO (Chapak) inserted the Company into an issue of political controversy by his choice. Politicians 'rule the roost' in the political world. Stupendously bad move by Chapak. The Board of Directors will have to address this issue, in all likelihood. The future loss of business (over political controversy) Disney will experience will not help matters.

I'll say this as well. I am concerned about politicians legislating wrt one company (or a narrow portfolio of companies in one industry) simply because of different politics. We don't want to do that, because it is ultimately, an economy-killing practice. Companies that can leave, will do so. I agree that killing the goose is a bad practice. In this instance though, I think Disney is stuck (and did it to themselves).

Personally, I think Company CEOs really ought to focus more on the business and its success, and much less on politics. To me, it is all about making money for everyone (employees, shareholders), working hard, getting shit done....and do politics on your own time outside of work. Political controversy is a damned minefield, and very few CEOs are equipped to deal with political controversy. The best move to me is to not insert yourself into political controversy (hint, hint CEO Chapak).

[AmosArch]

I remember watching an interview with Eisner where he explained his policy of adamantly refusing to get involved in the political issue du jour no matter what. He's sharper than anyone in Disney's current leadership. I miss the old ruthless apolitical moneyhungry Disney.

[AmosArch]

Oh I almost forgot...if you want to kill some time. Read up on some of the blogs about Chapek. He's widely seen as one of the most incompetent Disney leaders and is reviled among hardcore Disney fans. This is not just some political grousing.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I don't think being targeted by a populist governor is going to be the end of Disney. Nor even a long-term dent in their profits. I dunno how they'll deal with the short term issue, but the idiots here are the Florida GOP, not Disney.

Why do you think so many corporations are focusing on politics? *It sells*. American identity is becoming more political, and so are it's buying habits. Consumer-facing corporations are all getting performatively woke without actually doing anything substantive. This is not a liberal plot, it's just capitalism.

[AmosArch]

Interesting. I'd like to see your evidence that becoming SJW is so profitable for megacorps. I've seen some weak attempts at correlation. ie all the big companies are doing it so it must be good. But not much beyond that. I think the simpler answer is fear and bandwagoning. Wouldn't be the first dumb move companies have made.

[Michael P]

To borrow from Adam Smith, there is a lot of ruin in a megacorp. Netflix, Twitter and Disney seem to be quantifying that.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd say the proof is in the fact that corporations are efficient capitalists. 'fear and bandwagoning' is not efficient capitalism.

I haven't seen their studies. And individual companies do make dumb moves. But this is a pretty concerted PR push, and that looks more like seeing a profit opportunity than fear.

[Brett Bellmore]

Corporations are supposed to be efficient capitalists. Doesn't mean they always are in real life.

[Sarcastr0]

Individually, sure. But early the entire sector of consumer-facing corporations?

Yeah, that's not going to be a partisan lark.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The reality is that most people support the supposedly "SJW" positions the corporations take. So being on that side is where most consumers are. Meanwhile, the people who use terms like SJW are a minority who already think all the big players are part of a QAnon or Q adjacent conspiracy, so if they either weren't customers already or made their peace with dealing with the devil to ride a roller coaster. I haven't seen the studies, but even assuming the studies don't show it helps, does it hurt? In which case, do you want to be on the side of progress or put your chips on the US returning to the 1950s? That's why all the corporations are going in one direction (albeit, in a non-consequential, performative way, for the most part).

[David Nieporent]

The reality is that most people support the supposedly "SJW" positions the corporations take.

On some issues yes; on some issues no. And of course it depends on how those issues are framed. I think most people support parental rights, and if the Florida law is framed as a conflict between those and teacher/child interests, then Democrats are going to lose on that one.

[NOVA Lawyer]

if the Florida law is framed as a conflict between those and teacher/child interests, then Democrats are going to lose on that one.

This is exactly right. But that's a stupid framing and, obviously, Democrats shouldn't buy into it. The state is taking away local school board's (i.e., parents') right to have a say in what gets taught in their school. This isn't protecting parents' rights. It is trampling the rights of some parents (as well as teacher and students) to cater to some parents, rather than allowing government to work as so many Republicans pretend to want it to work (i.e. smaller, more local, more responsive to the people affected).

[bernard11]

Not much of a believer in the market, I guess, Amos.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why do you think so many corporations are focusing on politics? *It sells*."

Nope, as a matter of fact Netflix is currently losing their shirt over it.

They're focusing on politics because their management have been infiltrated by political operatives, who are perfectly willing to use the corporation up and throw it away to achieve political ends, because THEY won't personally suffer if it goes under.

The rare corporation that's on its way down already sometimes finds it useful to piss off most of its (fleeing) customer base, to secure the loyalty of a minority. But for most corporations it's a losing tactic.

[Sarcastr0]

How many political operatives are out there, Brett? At some point, your ridiculous, telepathically-supported conspiracies require that 90% of the population of America be committed leftists.

[Queen Amalthea]

Brett basically is a Bircher.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did you say birther?

Or Bircher?

It doesn't matter.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

“Nope, as a matter of fact Netflix is currently losing their shirt over it.”

You really need to get what you consider to be “facts” from better sources.

[Brett Bellmore]

I gather you haven't been following Netflix stock or viewership?

[Sarcastr0]

You need to do a *lot* more work to establish causation there, chief.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I attribute Netflix's trouble to the ubiquitous, "Titles related to . . ." search result. They keep trying to force their customers to watch bad movies they can get for cheap. Our family got tired of it, and canceled last month.

[Brett Bellmore]

We recently canceled, too, after noticing that it had been several months since we'd actually watched anything on Netflix. I'd only gotten it to binge watch while stuck in Covid quarantine early last year.

But, yeah, that was pretty annoying. Look, if I search for a movie and you don't have it, just tell me! Don't show me an endless list of movies that aren't what I was looking for!

[bernard11]

So, Brett, in your experience, Netflix is losing customers because its offerings are weak. That makes sense. I too get tired of wading through the crap they offer looking for something decent.

Does that maybe suggest it's not because they've been invaded by leftists, or whatever your conspiracy theory du jour is?

[Brett Bellmore]

Their offerings are "weak" in the sense that they're pouring resources into producing woke crap nobody wants to watch, instead of concentrating on widely appealing content.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm quite aware of what happened to NFLX.

I'm also quite aware that your claim it has anything to do with political issues or viewpoints is unsupported bullshit, as usual.

[Michael P]

Losing a third of their stock value in a single day -- because they, on net, drove away subscribers -- is pretty close to "losing their shirt". Since November, NFLX is down two-thirds (700.99 to the low 220s), which is solidly in "losing their shirt" range.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I see that you and Brett have the same comprehension issues.

Try again, but this time, focus on what Brett said was the reason.

[David Nieporent]

Nope, as a matter of fact Netflix is currently losing their shirt over it.

Nope. As a matter of fact nobody has dropped Netflix because of politics. Excluding their loss of subscribers in Russia for reasons unrelated to American politics, they gained subscribers last quarter.

It's true that they project that this won't continue down the road, but your claim wasn't that something would happen in the future, but that it has already happened.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Nope. As a matter of fact nobody has dropped Netflix because of politics."

I am once again reminded that, no matter how many times left-wingers shout "diversity", they have never genuinely internalized the idea that not everybody agrees with them. Or that other people act on their own beliefs, not the liberals' beliefs.

OF COURSE people have dropped Netflix because of politics. How the hell could you possibly think nobody had?

[Sarcastr0]

DMN is not a leftist, Brett.

[David Nieporent]

It's kind of amusing that you respond to my comment with a rant about liberals not understanding that not everyone agrees with them because as a conservative you can't understand that not agreeing with you doesn't mean that someone is a liberal.

Setting that irony aside, this response is a combination of you being terminally online (a concept we discussed here this week) and you being on the spectrum and thus having difficulty interpreting words other than literally.

Netflix has a couple hundred million subscribers, which means that even though they have a relatively low churn rate for a streaming service, they have had many more subscribers than that at one point or another. Yes, out of those hundreds of millions of people, there exists at least one who dropped the service because of politics. When I said "Nobody," I did not mean literally not one single person ever. I meant that such people are nothing more than statistical rounding errors.

In the real world, Netflix hasn't been losing subscribers. (Again, they did in this quarter, but solely because they cut Russia off, not because actual consumers decided the service was too woke. That you see a bunch of people on social media talking about doing something does not mean that in the real world a discernible number of people act this way.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

Only thing politics "sells" for corporation is "selling" off 1/2 their customer base.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you really think that's the decisions corporations are making?

Or, maybe, younger liberals are still flexible in their buying decisions, while older conservatives will complain but stay loyal.

That particular theory is speculation, but you're clearly wrong if you believe consumer-facing corporations are choosing to lose half their customer base.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Do you really think that's the decisions corporations are making?"

Sometimes, yes. Companies do dumb things sometimes, and don't realize the effects of what they do.

An apolitical company is a company that doesn't irritate anyone, so everyone's happy.

When companies get openly political in a partisan way, they spark backlash, boycotts, and government action. All of which affects the bottom line.

[Sarcastr0]

Apolitical is not a thing. Not choosing, or choosing silence, is making a choice.

But more importantly, we're looking at an huge swaths of industry not single companies, which doesn't really work for your error hypothesis.

Finally 'this state power being used to target companies for opposing a bill is actually the company's fault' is pretty authoritarian.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not sure "it sell" is the right answer. Large corporations look long into the future while politicians look to the next election. Corporation understand that America is becoming more diverse, and that climate change is real. They are planning for this reality. Politicians are planning for the next election.

Note that the special legislative district would end in July 2023, plenty of time for Republican to virtue signal to their base, get reelected in 2022 and then scrap the whole deal before it goes into effect.

[Sarcastr0]

I do governmental basic research policy, which has a 20-40 year timescale, so I originally wrote an objection to your corporations as long-term thinkers. But I deleted that, because what you're saying isn't on that scale.

We'll see what comes of this.
Wouldn't be the first time blind populism got out of control and resulted in some seriously negative impacts. But wouldn't be the first time cooler heads prevailed after the initial populist surge either.

[ReaderY]

I seem to recall that only a short while ago it was a Republican position, and one advocated by the judiciary’s most conservative members, that corporations are persons, and especially that corporations have free speech rights.

Was I dreaming? Or was that only for corporations whose speech reports Republican positions?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, not dreaming, perhaps not paying attention.

It's more a case of corporations being Soylent Green: They're made of people!

So, as a matter of practicality, you can't deny corporations most rights enjoyed by people without in the process denying the rights of the actual people making up the corporation.

"Corporations are people" is just a legal fiction that takes that into account, but shouldn't be taken literally.

[Krayt]

Seems to be a child of limited liability -- now the corp can be guilty of violating a law, and be fined. The owners are better protected, government gets a revenue stream, everybody wins!

The case in question, the justices went out of their way to specify it doesn't derive from some embodied company having rights.

Rather, the owners have the free speech rights, and Congress cannot demand you give them up as the price of joining a Congressionally defined group, such as a corporation. Americans take their rights with them wherever they go.

[Krayt]

"Everyone is taxed at 80%. Unless you agree to give up your free speech rights. Then it's 4%."

[bernard11]

It's more a case of corporations being Soylent Green: They're made of people!

Well, some sort of are, but publicly traded business corporations are not.

So, as a matter of practicality, you can't deny corporations most rights enjoyed by people without in the process denying the rights of the actual people making up the corporation.

Of course you can. A law denying corporations the right to make political contributions would do nothing to prevent the shareholders from making contributions as individuals. It would not prevent them from forming clubs or other non-corporate organizations to engage in political activity, via fund-raising or otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

I notice you seamlessly transition from "make political contributions" to "engage in political activity".

A great deal of political activity consists of nothing more than publishing and speaking. And, "Congress shall make no law".

If you're going to construe speech and publishing to be 'in kind' contributions, and treat them as though the money were being given directly to the candidate or party, then you run right into the fact that every newspaper in the country is a corporation, and suddenly the 1st amendment doesn't do anybody much good.

[bernard11]

What are you talking about?

My hypothetical was specifically a law prohibiting contributions. I pointed out, correctly, that such a law does not, in fact, prevent shareholders from making contributions as individuals.

The shareholders are not the corporation. Restrictions on corporations are not restrictions on the individual shareholders.

As a matter of fact, I don't think that speech and publishing should be seen as simply "in kind" contributions.

They are qualitatively different than giving cash.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are corporations sentient beings vocalizing their own opinions?

[Sarcastr0]

LOL at being so tunnel-visioned at owning the libs, you attack Citizens United.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The implication of my statement can't be what you think it is.

Corporations are not sentient beings, but just groups of people, people who shouldn't lose any rights just because they are organized as a group.

How is that an attack on Citizens United?

[Stephen Lathrop]

BCD — In a per-share voting corporation, organizing them as a group inevitably means minority shareholders (likely the numerical majority of natural persons among shareholders) lose rights.

[Bob from Ohio]

Corporations can have single owners. They can have a few owners who agree on things.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, that's exactly how Hobby Lobby won their case, if you recall.

[bernard11]

Corporations can have single owners.

Yes, they can. They can also be non-profit membership organizations or commercial businesses, large or small, public or private.

Which is why generalizing about corporations' rights makes no sense. It lumps very different things into the same box because they have the same legal form.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"They can also be non-profit membership organizations or commercial businesses, large or small, public or private"

Why would any of those things make a difference on whether or not a group of people can speak as a group?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Which is why generalizing about corporations' rights makes no sense.

Which is why nobody except you morons keep babbling about "corporations' rights". CU had nothing to do with corporations being "persons" or having rights.

[bernard11]

Oh, STFU.

Here is Brett,

"So, as a matter of practicality, you can't deny corporations most rights enjoyed by people without in the process denying the rights of the actual people making up the corporation."

Sounds to me as if he's talking about corporations rights.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why would any of those things make a difference on whether or not a group of people can speak as a group?

BravoCharlieDelta — Think it through. If a corporation is governed as a membership organization, with each person having one vote, then its governance works like the American political system works. The majority rules. Political speech the organization may choose to fund is at least plausibly linked to the speech the majority prefers.

If it is a per-share voting corporation, the politics are different. Then natural-person shareholders, maybe numbering in single digits, may vote to control political expenditures derived from investments of perhaps tens of thousands of other natural persons, who get no say. The American political system works differently, leveling political influence among citizens at every stage of wealth or poverty.

Worse, with per-share voting, there is ability to leverage on a minority basis money derived from commerce, not from donations. That money can be available in amounts disproportionate to those which can be raised by outright political donations. It gets used to pay for proportionately outsized political influence favored by the per-share voting plutocrats. That system disadvantages everyone—investors in the corporation who disagree, and also outsiders with no investments—who might wish political outcomes different than the per-share voting majority with the big-money access.

That is plutocracy. Outsiders must pay from their own pockets if they wish to compete. Insider per-share-voting plutocrats mobilize everyone's money to speak on their behalf, without having to spend a dime of their own.

[Sarcastr0]

Now apply this logical construction to the current Florida spat with Disney.

Oh, dear, this suddenly has viewpoint discrimination implications!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Then the people responsible for the discrimination should suffer the same fate as the people at the IRS did.

You know, for justice equity reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Moar whattaboutism based on a dodgy right wing conspiracy.

You really are a shallow, shallow, man.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's a right-wing conspiracy that the IRS engaged in political targeting?

They admitted it.

You're either incredibly, amazingly ignorant or lying about reality. Given that your nickname of Gaslightr0, I'm guessing it might actually be a little bit of both.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you attack Citizens United."

Hobby Lobby is closely held. It can speak with one voice on political matters. Has it been extended to publicly traded corporations with thousands of owners?

[Bob from Ohio]

Sorry, confused my cases. CU did not involve Hobby Lobby but the Obamacare case did.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I seem to recall that only a short while ago it was a Republican position, and one advocated by the judiciary’s most conservative members, that corporations are persons

Exactly how stupid does one need to be to continue mindlessly regurgitating that ignorance-based bullshit no matter how many times it's debunked?

[OtisAH]

Disney isn’t going anywhere and is not sweating this business in the slightest. There’s a reason you don’t see Disney in front of the cameras railing against DeSantis. They don’t need to. They’ll move money wherever they need to move it and will suffer little to no harm when all is said and done. This is nothing more than DeSantis Beach yelling at Disney Ocean.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Disney isn’t going anywhere"

Right, that is why DeSantis can support this.

Its a warning that the days of bending to corporate blackmail on things like "bathroom bills" in Indiana are over.

[OtisAH]

Ah, yes, the days of corporate blackmail are over now that DeSantis is punishing the Disney corporation for… what exactly? Ah, yes, for a tepid statement of support for the lgbtq community in the wake of anti-lgbtq legislation.

No more corporate blackmail for you corporations! You do what we say or else!

Man, you’re incoherent on your best days. This must not be one.

[Bob from Ohio]

A warning against meddling in non-business legislation.

[OtisAH]

If I thought it would do any good I’d recommend you read and re-read these posts until you finally understand the argument you’re making.

[shawn_dude]

Disney moved to Florida to avoid the trap it created for itself in California where it didn't purchase enough land around the initial park which created expansion issues later on. Florida has year-round good weather and locating in Florida lowers the barriers to attending for East coast residents. However, its exsiting facility near Orlando is a "sunk cost" and they are under no obligation to expand it. They could create a third park in the US if they felt this would benefit their bottom line while spreading out the risk. They are also the 800lb gorilla in the I-4 corridor area of Florida where they carry significant political clout given the number of their employees that live there.

Disney hires a lot of employees from the creative class who tend to be liberal and diverse. If Disney wants to attract the best and brightest content creators, they need to make them feel welcome and valued. Since one effect of the anti-LGBT laws in GOP-controlled states is to make the state unwelcoming for LGBT people, Disney's ability to attract and hire the best employees is diminished by politics which means they need to address those issues directly.

Disney was recently in the process of relocating some of their offices from California to Florida. Anti-LGBT laws put those job relocations at risk. If I was a Disney employee, I wouldn't want to relocate to Florida (or Texas, or similar locations.) Living in a state where one party has resurrected and pumped up the old "gay = pedophile" stereotype in order to drive their constituents to vote GOP will drive more violence towards the Florida LGBT community. That might make cost/benefit sense for Republican politicians, but for companies like Disney, it's a net negative for their employees and customers.

[Don Nico]

Look Shawn,
The CA state income tax gets to 11% very quickly. The FL rate is 0%.
Were I an LGBTQI+, I'd fly below the radar and be happy not paying a state where the governor is hell bent on building a $100B surplus on my back.

[bernard11]

Really, Don.

You'd live in a state where the governor and legislature regarded you as immoral, a likely pedophile, to save some money on taxes?

And why not WA or NV?

[JasonT20]

Florida has year-round good weather...

Sorry, lost me there. As someone that was born in Florida and has lived here for 38 out of my 50 years, it does NOT have "year-round good weather". It is fucking miserably hot for 4 months with no respite, with the month before and after that lengthy summer being unpleasant most of the time. There is a reason why retirees that can afford it are "snowbirds" that spend those months elsewhere and come down here when the weather is actually good.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Point being, you can run an outdoor amusement part in Florida year round.

In many parts of the country, you can't. Amusement parks just close in the winter.

[Don Nico]

You said it well, C-XY.

[Michael P]

Disney's special tax district also saves them tens of millions of dollars each year in exemptions that will disappear now. Emergency services and road maintenance probably cost less than that -- police aren't required to patrol inside private property (the parks and resorts themselves) or run the security checkpoints.

Oh, and Disney won't get to decide for itself whether it has satisfied state environmental laws.

[Sarcastr0]

Given the cost of infrastructure the state saves, I'm not sure how big the net gain Florida will reap here. Especially if this starts cutting into their tourism.

Florida environmental laws? Yeah, lets see DeSantis mobilize that for dumbass populist windmill tilting...

[Queen Amalthea]

Will Michael P now generalize his attacks on corporate welfare and support for environmental laws?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Only in response to comments which have nothing to do with any of those things.

[Krychek_2]

It's actually even worse than that. Disney is self governing through a special district that the legislature had created, and which it is now in the process of abolishing. That special district has $2 billion in bonds outstanding, which Orange County will now be liable for. So not only will local government now be paying for services Disney had been paying for, local government is now going to be stuck repaying $2 billion in bonds. Whatever one thinks of Disney taking a position on a political issue, the manner in which the GOP has chosen to punish it is beyond stupid.

And all that said, it strikes me as anti-American to punish a company for its speech. I'm not sure Disney should have gotten involved in this issue, but this is still America, where we value free speech.

[AmosArch]

"but this is still America, where we value free speech."

Unless it comes to not baking cakes.

[Krychek_2]

BUT WHAT ABOUT !!!!!

[Krychek_2]

And this what aboutism isn't even on point. The baker wasn't punished for publicly talking about a political issue; he was punished for not serving customers protected under anti-discrimination laws. When the state moves against him for talking politics, then you'll at least have an on-point example.

[not guilty]

The baker wasn't punished, and he never baked the damn cake.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course he was punished.

After 8 Years of Legal Battles and 2 Wins, Jack Phillips is STILL Being Sued

The Supreme court ruling in his favor in the original case might have been summed up, "Hey, dumb asses, don't tell everybody about your animus next time, just act on it!" And, as everyone knows, the process IS the punishment.

[not guilty]

The baker voluntarily engaged in an act of civil disobedience. Inherent in that choice should be a willingness to accept the consequences. And again, he never baked the cake.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The baker wasn't punished

The baker voluntarily engaged in an act of civil disobedience. Inherent in that choice should be a willingness to accept the consequences.

Did you get whiplash from that sudden about-face?

[not guilty]

Being sued for flouting anti-discrimination law is not punishment. It is, however, a predictable consequence of an act of civil disobedience.

And Mr. Phillips never baked the cake.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He served gays in his business, he didn't want to do bespoke designs for particular gay events. You people wanted to compel an artisan to create custom expressive works of art against his will. Which is unbelievably gross.

You people rewrite reality and pretend he had a "No Gays Allowed" sign on his front door like I do on my home. (I have young boys, after all).

[Sarcastr0]

That thar is a load-bearing 'bespoke designs.'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think the wedding cake bakers don't do custom designs for wedding cakes?

I

[Sarcastr0]

There's custom 'I will write this thing on one of the cakes in my catalogue' and there's bespoke 'I will incorporate this thing into the design.'

IIRC the factual record was much more on the first than the second.

[Life of Brian]

IIRC the factual record was much more on the first than the second.

You don't RC. As I've posted before, here's the literal day-after story when the plaintiffs first went screaming to the press, long before they understood the actual facts would torpedo the lawsuit and had to recalibrate.

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

@Life of Brian

Wow, that sounds just like at a Wal-Mart bakery or something!

You'll never get a response from Sarcastr0, his goal is to gaslight, deny and obfuscate not engage in an open-minded discussion where minds might get changed.

[Sarcastr0]

LoB - the frosting colors were not the issue the store had.

[Life of Brian]

the frosting colors were not the issue the store had.

Good thing that's just the tail end of what I highlighted, then. Stop being obtuse.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I missed the 'long before they understood the actual facts would torpedo the lawsuit and had to recalibrate.'

If that were the case, you'd think the Cake Shop might have brought it up.

They didn't.

So are they morons, or are you missing something?

[Life of Brian]

If that were the case, you'd think the Cake Shop might have brought it up.

They did exactly that, knucklehead. Your grasp of the record in this case is about as sound as the wise Latina's:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But I thought -­ I'm a little bit surprised by what you're saying because your briefs seem to suggest differently -- that the couple was looking at his already pre-designed cakes that he appears to sell without any customization, and they sat down with him, and he said I don't supply cakes of any kind to gay couples. So I thought this cake was about his refusal to supply a cake for any wedding ceremony.

MS. WAGGONER: Justice Sotomayor, that's not how he responded to the couple. The couple came in and they requested a custom cake for their wedding. At that point, they brought in a folder with all kinds of designs they wanted to discuss and ended up purchasing a rainbow-layered cake or -- or received a free rainbow-layered cake, which certainly is expression.

[Sarcastr0]

So what you're saying is that when I said:

"There's custom 'I will write this thing on one of the cakes in my catalogue' and there's bespoke 'I will incorporate this thing into the design.'

IIRC the factual record was much more on the first than the second."

I was right.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I guess when you get painted into a corner, try to pivot, and then get painted in to a corner again, just about the only way to save face is pound the table and say "see, I was right!"

Fortunately for the reality-based beings in the room, the thread speaks for itself.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

IIRC you're wrong once again.

Every time you IIRC you IIRC wrong.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Stop being obtuse.

You might as well tell water to stop being wet.

[Sarcastr0]

So this case seems to have passed into right-wing myth for some of you.

Never mind the court record not reflecting some of the media you cite, never mind the distinction between custom and bespoke, never mind the freaking logic of the Supreme Court ruling.

You're super sure this was an individually crafted cake, every morsel of which was super gay. And the Court just didn't see it because they're all evil gay liberals I guess.

I shouldn't be surprised by yet another excursion from reality, but I am.

[AmosArch]

btw I'm interested in seeing your references that Florida will be stuck paying billions of dollars that Disney spent and they get off scot free with absolutely no way to recover the money from them forever. CNN blog? Twitter bluecheck thread? Man if Disney could discharge debt like this why didn't they do so already? Maybe put up a Florida Stinks banner a few years ago. Are they stupid or something? Why didn't they follow your genius advice earlier?

[AmosArch]

Okay so I've read up and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much info other than a couple of generally speculative articles. Florida may get some land and some debt but its not really clear what specifically. Guess we'll have to see.

[Krychek_2]

Under Florida law, when a political subdivision ceases to exist (which Disney's special district is), its assets and liabilities are transferred to whichever local government (in this case Orange County) takes over jurisdiction. Disney doesn't owe the money to pay these bonds; its special district owes the money to pay these bonds, so there would be no basis for a lawsuit against Disney. Orange County would just be stuck. Essentially, every household in Orange County just got stuck with $2,500 in bond debt, and I can't imagine that will help Ron DeSantis in Central Florida when he comes up for re-election.

This issue was raised during yesterday's Senate debate, and Republicans from the rest of the state just don't care. Since Orange County has been trending blue, they may even see it as a bonus.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose the special district's assets would also transfer to the local governments. This could be significant depending on how Disney managed things.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, lets assume Disney's lawyers are dumbasses.

[OtisAH]

Are you suggesting the possibility that Orange County will assume ownership of Disney World?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, but possibly a lot of it's basic infrastructure such as roads.

[Krychek_2]

Which may well be a taking, for which Disney would be entitled to compensation. I'm telling you, this childish revenge was not well thought out.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"Which may well be a taking, for which Disney would be entitled to compensation."

That would not apply to assets owned by the special district which is a political/governmental entity.

[Krychek_2]

Matthew, and that depends on a number of facts not in evidence. The point, though, is that this childish revenge was not well thought out.

[Life of Brian]

I love how you start the thread with grand, confident pronouncements about how screwed Florida is going to be based on nothing but newspaper puff pieces, and then at the suggestion that Disney actually may end up with the short end of the stick you retreat behind "facts not in evidence."

[Krychek_2]

And I love how you write total fiction claiming that people said things they never said. If I were the only person you do it to, I might start to think the problem was at my end, but no, you pretty consistently do it to everyone you disagree with.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, yes, I'm quite familiar with your "show me where I said THOSE EXACT WORDS" routine. It's a really poor debate technique.

Your original post is upthread for all to read -- if you want to try to explain how I misrepresented its tone and flavor, knock yourself out.

[Sarcastr0]

Life of Brian, you have a pattern, and it's not exactly engaging on substance.

And it tends to end with you declaring your victory is not super obvious and quitting the field.

[Sarcastr0]

now super obvious.

[Life of Brian]

And it tends to end with you declaring your victory is no[w] super obvious and quitting the field.

Sarc, it's super-cute that you jumped into this thread just to say this after just having done exactly the same thing in the other thread. Projection is a hell of a drug.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Life of Brian, you have a pattern, and it's not exactly engaging on substance.

LOL!

[Krychek_2]

Life of Brian, I started out making a general comment, and the thread then evolved to a discussion about a specific application of the general comment. You’re now taking something I said about the specific application and trying to back it up to apply more generally. You either can’t keep up with a subject shift, or you’re being deliberately disingenuous. Whatever.

[Voize of Reazon]

The special district's debt would be a good reason for Florida to reorganize it rather than eliminate it entirely. The reason it gives Disney so much power is that its Board of Supervisors is elected by the district's landowners casting one vote per acre held, giving Disney an overwhelming majority of votes. Change that to a scheme that denies them control and the new district could tax Disney appropriately to pay those debts.

[Krayt]

Doomer! Yes!

Humanity has survived this long, in spite of neverending tugs by the powerful to increase their power at their whim. It is the neverending part that irritates. We need to get our political opponents somehow! How else will we keep them from taking over so they can be the kleptocrats?

[Sarcastr0]

So then ignore the parts of the political tug of war that irritate you.

It's not like this Florida-Disney fight will affect me any; if it gets boring or makes me mad, I'll stop watching.

[Krychek_2]

The other interesting wrinkle is that Disney has long been a major financial contributor to the Florida Republican Party. We'll see if that continues.

[ThePublius]

That's an exaggeration. While Disney gave some money to the GOP and its candidates in Florida, the vast majority of the money it donated to political causes went to Democrats.

"In 2021, Disney’s corporate PAC and affiliates of the company contributed over $1.8 million to federal PACs and candidates, with most of the contributions coming from individuals’ direct donations to candidates. Of that $1.8 million, just over $100,00 went to Republican candidates and PACs while $1.6 million went to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets data. "

In addition, Disney had already paused political donations due to the controversy over the Parents' Rights law.

[Krychek_2]

I would consider $100,000 a major financial contribution, even if Disney contributes more to Democrats. It's $100,000 Florida Republicans won't have this year, and probably quite a bit more than that that Florida Democrats now will.

[ThePublius]

That's kinda silly. The GOP got about 5% of what the Democrats got from Disney. Now you're saying that after this the Democrats will get proportionally more? There's not very far to go from 95% to 100%. How could it matter?

[Krychek_2]

Because the issue isn't proportion; the issue is that $100,000 buys a lot of campaign flyers and advertising. Will it matter to the bottom line? Maybe not. But I can pretty much promise you that in Florida, this year the Democrats will be running against the anti-business Republicans.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

$100,000 barely buys the kids bacon and eggs these days.

Have you not seen what the Democrats are doing to us at the grocery store?

[Bob from Ohio]

"I would consider $100,000 a major financial contribution"

Yes but these days parties and candidates raise much more from small contributions.

DiSantis's campaign has raised 100 million and at the end of 2021 had $69.3 million in cash on hand, more now.

He doesn't need Disney, and he in fact has already banked money from Disney.

[loki13]

This is just incorrect, Publius. I don't know if you're mistaken, or deliberately lying.

Disney, as Florida's largest employer, is also one of the largest contributors to state politics. Disney's contributions to the Republican Party of Florida alone in 2022 were more than 1/2 of all their donations in Florida (and this is before their donations to individual lawmakers).

Overall, Disney has donated more than 800k to DeSantis and the Republican leadership in Florida since the 2020 election, and this doesn't take into account the individual lawmakers up and down the ballot- which skews heavily GOP (because the legislature is GOP).

To think otherwise and say it is dishonest; what, you think the GOP-controlled legislature in Florida would have enacted carveouts for Disney is they had been giving to the Democrats like you are saying?

So, I would suggest looking at real sources that provide factual information overall. Good luck!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did DeSantis win by even a half a percent?

I hope Disney spends whatever it takes to flip that one. Half a percent? It might not take more than a single day of Disney's earnings to arrange for DeSantis to finally stop sucking at the public teat for a livelihood.

[ThePublius]

You always have to lead off by accusing folks of lying.

Here's a snippet of Disney contributions from OpenSecrets.com:
Cycle Total Democrats % to Dems Republicans % to Repubs
2022 $1,814,041 $1,644,335 93.61% $112,247 6.39%
2020 $20,053,450 $7,324,980 82.75% $1,526,828 17.25%

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/walt-disney-co/totals?id=d000000128

[ThePublius]

"Overall, Disney has donated more than 800k to DeSantis and the Republican leadership in Florida since the 2020 election, and this doesn't take into account the individual lawmakers up and down the ballot- which skews heavily GOP (because the legislature is GOP)."

How about a source for that number? There's no evidence to support that that I can find.

[ThePublius]

"what, you think the GOP-controlled legislature in Florida would have enacted carveouts for Disney is they had been giving to the Democrats like you are saying?"

The carve out happened over 50 years ago.

[loki13]

Okay, you clearly just don't know what you're talking about.

The carveout was to the social media bill. Remember that, Publius?

As for the actual facts, go ahead and google them. C'mon. Do it. It's covered extensively in the press.

Now, why don't you actually try to understand your source, and then re-read what I wrote. I am talking about FLORIDA. It's a state, remember?

You are trying to aggregate affiliates of Walt Disney (like Pixar) that are largely in CALIFORNIA, and have different contributions. Because ... and this might shock you, California is not FLORIDA.

If you are having trouble locating information regarding FLORIDA or are unable to google it, I would suggest looking at any number of papers in Orlando, Tampa, or other places (ever liberal places like Miami) that have covered this.

[John F. Carr]

What is Disney's property tax rate now, and what will it be if its district is abolished?

[shawn_dude]

If they haven't changed the property tax since I lived there, Florida has a state-wide tax rate so the rate shouldn't vary. Most of their property is swamp, regardless.

[Life of Brian]

Most of their property is swamp, regardless.

I'm sure they would love to argue that, but a property's assessed value is the value of the dirt plus the value of the improvements.

[Life of Brian]

According to Osceola millage rates here, Reedy Creek currently pays ~13.32% as compared to ~14.39% for broader Osceola County. The entirety of the difference is the ~1.07% millage for EMS services.

But it wouldn't surprise me if they keep them in their own taxing unit and then add a custom assessment as is the case for many cities/areas in the county, particularly if the situation with the existing bonds ends up getting squirrelly.

[bevis the lumberjack]

This is DeSantis going full bore appealing to the Trump supporters. Culture war garbage.

Disney has jumped the shark on woke bullshit - I watched a two minute commercial on Disney Jr the other day about microaggressions with my grandson. Complete indoctrination bullshit. Makes me really eager to avoid doing anything to support Disney financially at all.

But I’m a private citizen. DeSantis should not be punishing a corporation for its political opinion. And this is costly to the state of Florida. It’s not good for Floridians. It’s good for DeSantis.

Yet another politician on my “never vote for” list.

[Krychek_2]

Bevis, I am not a Republican, but I remember, pre-Trump, when the GOP did what it thought was best for the country. Even when I disagreed with them, I could still say that they were honorable people doing what they believed was in the interest of the American people. Not any more.

Trump, DeSantis, and that entire GOP wing is essentially like a virus. When you have the flu, and you are vomiting, having diarrhea, coughing and sneezing, none of that benefits you, but it does benefit the virus. The virus has essentially taken over your body for its own purposes. And that's basically what has happened with Trump and the GOP.

All we can do is hope this virus works its way through the system quickly. Because even though I'm not a Republican, I like the idea of two healthy political parties each of which is actually dedicated to doing what is best for the American people.

[defaultdotxbe]

If the Republican Party clears itself of this virus, we still won't have two healthy parties.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I understand your point about the Republicans as it seems that someone has rendered about half of them nuts.

But the progressives are still scarier. The Rs are nutty but ultimately harmless. The progs are pushing ruinous policies and there's no effective check on them because the media eats it up.

Trump and the things he engenders are truly awful, but nowhere near as big a risk to our liberty as the progs.

[Krychek_2]

At this point, I see the GOP as being a bigger structural threat to democratic institutions. Trump has succeeded in sowing so much mistrust about our basic institutions, and that's not going to go away any time soon. He's urged elected officials to cancel election results, and convinced state legislatures to take over the process when local officials won't. He's sought to punish local election officials for doing their job.

Even if I opposed single payer health care, America would survive it. I'm not sure if it will survive a long-term sustained attack on democracy itself.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I dunno. Maybe I’m just old and have enough faith in inertia. Or maybe naive. Beats me.

“Our democracy” survived Trump the first time pretty easily. Yeah it was ugly at the end and yeah he pulled out all the stops but he didn’t come that close to retaining power.

Meanwhile the Democrats, in the name of “saving our democracy” are screaming that the internet needs “content moderation”. Very very prominent Democrats, like the former president. They’re shitting on the 1A to suppress the speech of their opponents.

You know who is really good at “content moderation”? North Korea. The Soviets were great at content moderation until they weren’t, at which point in time Eastern Europe became free.

Obama is cool and slick, but he’s a greater threat to our freedom than Trump because the media will let him get away with it, unlike DJT.

[defaultdotxbe]

The GOP may be too willing to toss out democracy when it doesn't suit them, but progressivism, at its core, is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Every progressive policy is intended to take more and more choices away from people, lest they choose something that is bad for society as a whole. Sure right now it's limited to dishwashers, shower heads, and tobacco, but we already see the plans for cars, energy production, food, etc. How long before they decide that being able to vote for a Republican is bad for society?

I know, you're going to dismiss it a slippery slope, but I don't think its fallacy. This is the very root of progressive philosophy: that decisions must be made with a mind to what's best for society. Ultimately, since you can't guarantee that every individual will make the "correct" choice, you have to take the choices away from individuals, and that is fundamentally undemocratic.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't understand progressivism.

It's not some pure collectivism, any more than conservativism is pure state of nature.

[Krychek_2]

But, progressives do believe in free elections, in which every vote counts, unlike certain Republicans these days. We're not the ones who rely on anti-democratic institutions to maintain power. So if progressives pass progressive policies that the voters don't like, the remedy is that there will be another election. In that sense, progressivism is far more compatible with democracy than the GOP.

[Nisiiko]

Free elections with every vote counting doesn't work when everyone with a pulse who is 18 is allowed to vote. The founders recognized that mentally inferior people should not have any say in how the country is governed. We have lost our way.

[Krychek_2]

When you find your way, send us a post card from wherever you end up.

What you're basically saying is that only people likely to agree with you should have the vote, in which case why bother to have elections at all? Why not just pass a law that says conservatives will maintain power in perpetuity? It would certainly save a lot of money.

[Nisiiko]

Not at all. There are plenty of land owning men with above average IQs who vote for Democrats. But they at least are open to reason. Women and 85 IQ blacks are not.

[defaultdotxbe]

"We're not the ones who rely on anti-democratic institutions to maintain power."

Only because progressivism still has its veneer of legitimacy. When it becomes more and more difficult to win elections they will turn to more and more undemocratic means to maintain power, while justifying it as being for the good of everyone. The GOP will swing back to democracy eventually, but as I said democracy is fundamentally incompatible with progressivism, so once they can't win elections they will abandon it for good.

Take CA's jungle primaries for example, they have essentially eliminated the ability of anyone but a progressive democrat from appearing on the ballot in a general election, while claiming it helps conservatives by allowing them to vote for the slightly less progressive progressive.

[Sarcastr0]

Only because progressivism still has its veneer of legitimacy

Oh dear, what does that say about conservativism?

CA's jungle primary is the best chance for ideological diversity in what is effectively a single party state.

[Krychek_2]

defaultdotxbe, give us fair elections in which everyone's vote counts as much as everyone else's -- no electoral college, Senate representation proportionate by population -- and you might be surprised at how well progressives do at winning elections. Democrats have won the popular vote for president in every election since one since 1992. The only reason it's difficult for Democrats to win elections is because the system is structured so that a lot of our votes simply don't count.

[Nisiiko]

Krychek, yes, let's do that, but without all the votes of the third worlders who immigrated here since 1965.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The US is not and was never intended to be a pure democracy. Get over it.

The Electoral College should stay, and you shouldn't fuck with the Senate just because you don't like it either.

[Krychek_2]

Jason, pure democracy is probably a practical impossibility and so far as I can tell nobody's advocating for it, so that's a straw man. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to enshrine permanent minority rule in our polity.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If Disney didn't want to be punished for their political opinions, then they shouldn't have tried to punish politicians for theirs.

[Krychek_2]

That's not how the First Amendment works. Government actors are held to a different standard than private actors.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you want a big corporation to have be tax-exempt in Florida and not pay their fair share?

Can you make the argument why large multinational corporations shouldn't be paying their state and local taxes?

[Krychek_2]

I don't recall making either of those arguments, so perhaps you could refrain from imputing to me claims I didn't make.

[not guilty]

Whom is Disney trying to punish? And with what sanction?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Disney halted all donations to GOP in Florida.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's real American progress.

[not guilty]

A halt of donations is hardly punishment.

[Nisiiko]

Disney announced it would work to have the parental rights law repealed. Once Disney stepped into the political arena, it became fair game.

[OtisAH]

I don’t know whether I’m impressed or concerned you followed any of that mass of consonants and vowels?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm sure the two counties can cover those services given the $200M expected property tax windfall.

Why do liberals want big corporations not to pay their fair share of taxes?

It's so bizarre.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL if you think the left suddenly loves Disney and wants them to pay no taxes.

In reality, this is just taxation persecution and then playing innocent.

It's trollish at best.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's political equity, political justice, and righting disparate impact of political outcomes.

[Sarcastr0]

righting disparate impact of political outcomes

Ah. So fascism.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Having equality of political outcomes is how you define fascism?

[Sarcastr0]

No, what you are describing is political retribution by the state.

The fact that you jumped right to the end-goal is another tell - fascism is all about authoritarian means to a noble end.

[not guilty]

Does DeSantis remind anyone else of Richard Nixon and his enemies list?

[Krayt]

Rando asteroid, come smear this worthless planer.
Fuck off, doomer.

Too much sarcasm for a guy named Sarcastro?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm just sick of this particular 'hilarious' doomer trope.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Now Florida has to pay for Disney's internal police and fire services and utilities."

At current levels? Probably not. The county can bill Disney for government provided utilities in any event.

Does the county pay for all "internal police and fire services and utilities" at Universal's Orlando theme park?

[StellaLink_the dog]

I want to know how this clown knows that my planer is out of adjustment.

[Kazinski]

"Now Florida has to pay for Disney's internal police and fire services and utilities."

Well maybe they could make Disneyworld a Ferguson style police/court revenue zone to finance the entire rest of the state.

[Curle]

“ for culture war nonsense.”

If it’s a nonsense war then the other side can surrender and the ‘nonsense’ goes away, right? Easy-peasy.

[Sarcastr0]

What does surrender look like here? Disney should stop talking about stuff Florida doesn't want it to talk about? Think about how that might end up.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure why you think liberals would want for Disney, a company that consistently does the absolute bare minimum to be decent, to have special exemptions under the law. I'm not exactly a liberal, but Florida has my blessing to tax them up the wahzoo.

(Although Florida might want to remember that Disney has another amusement park in California, and might end up taking future expansion plans there instead.)

[Krayt]

Disney Land CA is a festering tiny dump compared to Disney World. Also, it handles the west coast, not the east.

Also, "we're gonna dump massive expansion into California" are words not heard too much lately.

[AmosArch]

The whole reason DW exists is that the area around DL is already built up and urbanized and expensive. And that was decades ago. It'd take more than a few glass beads to make a second DW in the LA area. Not sure why theyd do it if they're getting such a massive windfall like Sarky and Co are claiming.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they were going to expand, they'd be better off just building a third theme park; They don't have to do it in any place that's already developed, the fact that they do it would result in it being developed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — And the Atlanta area would be just the place to build it. Better air travel options to most of the nation. Still good weather. Probably cement GA as a blue state in the process.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not exactly where I'd pick if I were looking for cheap land near an airport. But maybe.

If they did a *domed* theme park, (Think a larger version of Great Wolf Lodge, with fewer water features.) they could nab some cheap land near Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.

[Bob from Ohio]

Disney World is 25,000 acres. Quite a dome would be needed.

Atlanta has highs in the 50s from Thanksgiving to early March. Not ideal outdoor park weather either.

Southern Alabama or Miss. or Louisiana might work. No chance of those states passing conservative bills!

[Nisiiko]

It wouldn't be usable for much of the winter. That doesn't work.

[Kazinski]

Did you ever try to build anything in California?

Even removing the special zoning it will still be 10x easier to build in Florida, at 1/3 the cost.

[Bored Lawyer]

Since you mentioned it, I was not aware until recently of the curious arrangement that Disney had, it was virtually a county unto itself, running its own municipal services. This is akin to the company towns of old, where the private company ran the town. The Supreme Court ruled that in such a situation, the company acts under color of law and is subject to liability for violating civil rights. (Marsh v. Alabama).

Did anyone ever claim that Disney World had the same status?

[not guilty]

Hillary Clinton has moved to dismiss the civil RICO action brought by Donald Trump against her and numerous other defendants. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21677353-trumpvclintonmtd042022 The motion to dismiss makes sense to me, what with the untimeliness of the filing appearing on the face of the complaint and the failure to plead any nonconclusory, plausible cause of action. The complaint conspicuously fails to plead facts showing the existence of an enterprise or that Trump is a person injured in his business or property by a pattern of racketeering activity.

I would have questioned whether the Southern District of Florida has personal jurisdiction of Mrs. Clinton, but I suppose a dismissal on that basis would not have prevented refiling in a different district.

[Moderation4ever]

I not a lawyer and I assume that a motion to dismiss is a common practice when a lawsuit is filed against you. I would think the quickest way to get this lawsuit dismissed is to say, bring it on, we like to move to discovery quickly, can we depose the former President next week?

What is the likelihood that this suit goes to discovery? Does the former President really want to be questioned by Hillary's lawyers? One could ask the same question of Hillary, would she like to be questioned by Trump's lawyers. But Hillary is a lawyer and a sharp one. She has testified for many hours before.

[not guilty]

I surmise that Williams and Connally doesn't work cheap. If they can get a dismissal with prejudice of a frivolous lawsuit at the pleading stage, that's all to the good.

[David Nieporent]

I would think the quickest way to get this lawsuit dismissed is to say, bring it on, we like to move to discovery quickly, can we depose the former President next week?

As you said, you're not a lawyer. Yes, on the show Suits, a case was filed one day and the deposition was taken the next. In real life, in a simple federal case it's six months between filing and depositions (barring a case on an emergency schedule, which this wouldn't be); in a case with eleventy-billion parties, it's a lot longer.

And no defendant would ever "like to move to discovery quickly." That's one of those things people online say. If you can get a case dismissed without discovery, you do it.

[John F. Carr]

Clinton asks the court to take judicial notice of Trump's tweets.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

While simultaneously asking a different court not to take notice of hers.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Taking different legal positions in different cases with different facts to support the interests of your client? The horror!

You do realize, even if this was all happening in one suit, pleading in the alternative and such things are legit?

The attorneys are trying to win the respective cases, not being impliedly called hypocrites by anonymous online commenters. That you apparently think otherwise says nothing good about you.

[Bored Lawyer]

In my limited experience, a civil RICO claim is a red flag for judges. It's like wearing a KICK ME sign on your behind.

[shawn_dude]

This is just red, political meat for Trump's latest grift. He's gotten good cash flows from demonizing Clinton in the past. If enough of that aging demographic didn't pass away from COVID already, he might be able to get hours of pro-Trump "fighting the good fight" content on FOX News in the run-up to the coming set of elections.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are likely right. Trump's relationship with truth and sound legal theory is, shall we say, fleeting.

My point is, civil RICO is already a sign that something is off. I was once involved in a trademark case where the other side sued 200 defendants and invoked civil RICO. Which after considerable briefing was dismissed. (The RICO claims, not the trademark claims.) That statute is a massive headache, and rarely survives motions to dismiss. It's a great way to have the judge not take you seriously.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump releases audio that appears to refute claim he walked out of interview over 2020 questions

Kids, ALWAYS make your own recording when interviewed. ALWAYS. No exceptions.

[John F. Carr]

Is there anyone here who cares about Trump walking out on an interview, or not, enough to change his opinion of Trump?

[bevis the lumberjack]

No. But it still demonstrates the point that the media refuses to cover Trump accurately. That's the issue here, not Trump's action or inaction.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bingo.

Though the larger issue is just what I said: ALWAYS make you own recording if you're interviewed. Nobody who refuses to permit that is to be trusted.

Heck, here they misrepresented what happened despite knowing he had his own copy! And I'm sure the usual suspects will end up thinking he did walk out in a huff, anyway.

[StellaLink_the dog]

" the point that the media refuses to cover Trump accurately"

Appearences are that perenial douchbag Piers Morgan and his employer, Newscorp, released a grossly innaccurate account of how the interview with DillDon was conducted and terminated. The media (Murdoch owned NYP) reported it.

Breaking News: NYP fails to cover story accurately.

[Kazinski]

No, that's not it. It demonstrates that Trump is still a big media draw and they need to exploit that for whatever eyeballs worth when they can.

The media has never covered anything accurately whether fluffing or condemning. From Durranty to Rathergate to Russiagate to whatever is next. However the fluffing isn't as big ratings draw.

Yeah and Sean Hannity is as much of a fluffer as anyone on CNN is.

[Bored Lawyer]

The persons who doctored the video seem to think so.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

Is there anyone here who is capable of changing his opinion of Trump at all?

[Bored Lawyer]

Mine did. Before Jan. 6 I viewed him as an amoral carnival barker. Now I view him as an utterly ruthless amoral carnival barker.

[Moderation4ever]

I did not vote for Trump in the 2016 election, but I accepted the election and assumed that now as President he would take the responsibilities serious. He changed my mind quite quickly.

[bernard11]

So wait, Brett. This is really interesting.

It was Murdoch's New York Post - hardly a left-wing paper - that reported the alleged angry walkout.

It was NBC that reported the facts. But here's bevis, applauided by you, claiming that this shows "the media refuses to cover Trump accurately."

Was it NBC who spread a false tale, or Murdoch, looking for ratings?

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said, my focus on this was, "If you're interviewed, have your own recording."

[David Nieporent]

Non-responsive to bernard's question.

Also, FTR, 99% of the time when people say "The media isn't covering X," they learned about X from the media.

[NOVA Lawyer]

so you agree bevis's point was BS? Because this was Piers Morgan working with Trump to get them both in the news, so Piers gets viewers and Trump gets to read his clippings again, and fume a little which, obviously, he enjoys being mad at people who he believes are insufficiently loyal.

[Sarcastr0]

Will Baude's dissenting opinions podcast is back, doing a deep dive into Critical Race Theory.

Interesting stuff!

I learned:
-CRT was a reaction to Critical Legal Studies, which is basically purely about questioning conceptions of the law. CRT's originators thought Critical Legal Studies had gotten too nihilist, and branched off to think about the law and race with some optimism about how the law could be used to address racial issues in our society.

-In legal circles, CRT was not created, nor does it act as a theory that excludes other theories - it's meant to be a perspective alongside feminist theory and law and economics and the like.

-CRT tends to distinguish between individual bigotry and systemic racism. IOW a border control agent may be supporting a racially fraught system, but that doesn't mean anything about them personally. This puts CRT to the right of a lot of leftist paradigms.

-CRT is less a dogma and more a theory/project. Questions that include assumptions, but questions nonetheless:
-How does law reproduce racial problems?
-How does the law legitimate racial hierarchies?
-How can the law be used to dismantle discriminatory systems?

-And lots more. The protest culture deep in the origin and heart of CRT, the perspective of white CRT professors, etc.

https://dissenting-opinions.simplecast.com/

[AmosArch]

CRT = yt sux

Thats pretty much all there is too it. You can get piles and piles of books about what Communism and White seperatism is supposedly is all about too but thats not what its going to be for the vast majority of people nor is it the underlying reason its being pushed.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you don't actually get your own facts. And no, the population being misinformed about something does not make that misinformation true.

[Brett Bellmore]

You also don't get to demand that people pretend that the practice agrees with the theory. Well, you can make the demands, but people will laugh at you.

As I said, CRT is the Proteus of theories: No matter how you try to object to it, it becomes something else.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not demanding anything. I'm pointing to what actual practitioners are saying.

You're pointing to your own ignorance.

Do you think Baude is a deep leftist operative?

[Queen Amalthea]

"Do you think Baude is a deep leftist operative?"

Does his conspiracy theory of the day demand it? Then, yeah.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think Baude is describing theory, which has very little to do with the practice people actually find objectionable.

You know, just like Marxists would just be unobjectionable idiots if they didn't keep trying to put things into practice, and committing mass murder?

The theory of CRT is pretty much irrelevant to this debate except as a distraction that gets deployed when people complain about the practice.

[Sarcastr0]

So to you the key is that Critical Race Theory is not actually a theory.

To most people, words mean things.

If you want to just embrace the right-wing framing of everything, you can just become a mirror version of Trotsky and no one will know what you're talking about.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, that was a bit facile. It's not just a theory, it's also a lens of inquiry and a project of study. But it is not a practice - the thing called CRT, from it's inception till today, has nothing to do with primary education.

What you call CRT is not CRT. It never was CRT. You're using a framing a right-wing activist made up. You shouldn't do that. Because, as Trotsky showed, that way lies ideological blinkers.

[Don Nico]

But as Comrade Lenin observed, Trotsky was an "Infantile leftist" and therefore dangerous to the Bolshevik state.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, they all sucked. In interesting and different ways, but all of them sucked.

Trotsky's 'It is praxis to redefine words so I am right' was amazing and stupid. Top marks, all around.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Eh, that was a bit facile.

A rare glimmer of self-awareness. Alas...far too little, far too late.

[David Nieporent]

As I said, CRT is the Proteus of theories: No matter how you try to object to it, it becomes something else.

Brett points to a tree: "That's a cow!"
Others: nope.
Brett points to a car: "That's a cow!"
Others: nope.
Brett points to a spatula: "That's a cow!"
Others: nope.
Brett throws up his hands and says, "These people are arguing in bad faith because they never agree with me when I say that something is a cow!"

[Michael P]

CRT also believes that nobody has yet implemented true Communism, huh?

[Sarcastr0]

They touch on communism in the first episode.

CRT is orthogonal to Marxism, which should be unsurprising to any except conservatives who want to lump all their villains together.

[AmosArch]

Nope, CRT/SJWism is a generalization of Marxism, where the supposed goal of economic leveling is extended to social/'gender'/racial leveling

[Sarcastr0]

In this deep dive, they don't talk about economics at all. It's all about the law.
As one might expect.

[Ed Grinberg]

Exactly.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/abolishing-america-biden-and-bettina-love/

[Michael P]

Yeah, we know: you think CRT can be redefined narrowly based on what its advocates claim it is, rather than how they behave in even slightly adjacent contexts.

From Wikipedia: "CRT draws from the work of thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci, ..." Right, no Marxism there! And while you say "CRT was a reaction to Critical Legal Studies", it was more specifically an outgrowth and evolution from it, including roots in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School of Marxism.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's not communist. I don't know what drawing from means. But the 2008 'Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Volume 1' aside, it's not an economic theory at all.

You do know in academia, a movement in reaction and a movement as an outgrowth are not contradictory concepts, right?

Your frantic scrabbling for guilt by association should tell you something - why are you working so hard here? Why can't you address the substance?

I'd also note how clearly far afield of anything being taught to children we are.

[Michael P]

It's not communism per se. It is a current communist project. And like communism, people have tried to implement it (defund the police! justice equity by letting vehicular assaultants out on low bail so they can drive through parades! close investigations into race-war ranters who go on to shoot lots of people in a subway!) -- and found that it made things worse. And like communism, its defenders claim that the failures were not that the theory failed the people, but that people failed by not properly implementing the theory. Except for BLM, who are curiously quiet on what it means that many more Black people got murdered after BLM's last few years mass agitation than before.

In the real (non-academic) world, people do not embrace hieratic language and doubletalk. In the interests of clarity and brevity, non-academics prefer to call a sympathetic evolution of an idea an outgrowth of, rather than a reaction to, the original idea.

What substance should I address? CRT, like academic Marxism, insists that the existing structure of the western world is fatally flawed by endemic power imbalances (systemic racism and liberalism, class struggles) and needs to be uprooted to be replaced with a "better" system. Both think about people primarily based on group identities (race/ethnicity/gender/class/disability but especially race, class membership) rather than behaviors. Both argue that the underlying conflict (based on race, based on class) is unavoidable and eternal, and that only constant struggle or revolution can improve things.

In turn, I note how clearly far afield of gulags and mass starvation campaigns we are. Bad ideas just might have a lot of bad aspects to talk about! But once we get into the substance, we see many of the CRT ideas are taught in classrooms in spite of your claims that they are not.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's not real CRT! Real CRT has never been tried! It's like baking a soufflé! Just because you burn the first one doesn't mean you shouldn't try a second one!

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, I provided some experts in CRT talking about what they do.

You're dancing like a McCarthyite monkey.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not communism per se. It is a current communist project
Bircher bullshit. As if you have any insight into what the latest communist projects are. This is the new 'Race Mixing is Communism.'

What substance should I address? CRT, like academic Marxism, insists that the existing structure of the western world is fatally flawed.

Explicitly no. That's critical legal studies. CRT was made as a reaction to that nihilism.

once we get into the substance, we see many of the CRT ideas are taught in classrooms in spite of your claims that they are not.
Your proof of this is just you saying it. Somehow I trust the expertise of Baude and the CRT prof she brought on more than your ass.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The CRT professor is an expert in how CRT is being applied in the primary schools?

[Sarcastr0]

In that it's not a thing that can be applied to primary schools, yeah, absolutely.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://reason.com/2021/07/06/critical-race-theory-nea-taught-in-schools/

Yikes-a-roony.

Not that contrary evidence will ever change your claims.

[David Nieporent]

Why can't you address the substance?

Because they don't know any substance! The entirety of their understanding of the concept of CRT comes from watching Tucker and reading some screeds from The Federalist. Two sources that also don't know any substance.

[Michael P]

You project like a drive-in movie theater.

[Michael P]

https://redstate.com/jeffc/2022/04/21/superintendent-proudly-declares-his-district-is-using-critical-race-theory-in-the-classroom-n553856 ... Yes, the professionals report they are teaching CRT.

Our curriculum is deeply using Critical Race Theory, especially in social studies, but you’ll find it in English Language Arts and the other disciplines. We are very intentional about creating curriculum infusing materials and embedding Critical Race Theory within our curriculum as stated by many speakers today.

[Sarcastr0]

Random school superintendent doesn't know what CRT is.

Shocking.

Again, I'm citing people who work in the field. You're citing dumbass right wingers with an axe to grind.

Your authorities aren't even authorities, they're propagandists. And you fucking love it.

[Michael P]

You think that the school superintendent boasting about incorporating CRT into the primary-school curriculum is a "dumbass right winger[] with an axe to grind"?

Wow.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I think redstate.com is that.

Wow.

[Absaroka]

They linked to alleged video of the superintendent of a big city school district (Detroit) saying exactly what they quote, in sufficient length it doesn't seem it is taken out of context.

Unless you are contending that the video is fake, I don't quite get your objection.

[Queen Amalthea]

Look, tying it to Commies makes it so much more scary!

[bevis the lumberjack]

"CRT tends to distinguish between individual bigotry and systemic racism."

Today's CRT advocates are all over individual bigotry. We are all by definition bigots BECAUSE of the system, even kindergarteners, whether we actually have any influence on the system or not. The vast majority of us do not.

[Sarcastr0]

I acknowledge there are some people like that, but the podcast makes it quite explicit that those are not *CRT* advocates you are describing.

UC Berkeley Law professor Khiara M. Bridges explicitly says that such logic renders the meaning of bigot a nullity, and is therefore a silly idea.

But yeah, I've seen the 'no ethical consumption under capitalism' leftist dunderheads. I'm sure there are racial versions of that. But it would seem to be a disservice to CRT to describe it as such.

In reality, such nihilists have no philosophy no matter what side of the aisle they happen to be claiming at the moment. It's that sort of person that goes from Bernie to Trump and back.

[Bob from Ohio]

We should believe Khiara M. Bridges ?

She is a CRT advocate. She's going to lie.

[Sarcastr0]

1) She's a professor, not an advocate.

2) Baude has taught a seminar on CRT and is right there with her.

3) I know integrity doesn't much matter to you, but it actually matters to non sociopaths; assuming all strangers you may disagree with are liars is no way to go through life.

[Bob from Ohio]

"She's a professor, not an advocate."

Good lord, you can't possibly believe those roles are incompatible.

Angela Davis is a professor.

[loki13]

I appreciate what you are doing here, Sarcastr0.

...but why bother? I mean, the people who already know, know. They know what CRT actually is.

They also know that the same guy (Christopher Rufo) is the person who chose to demonize it as a term, and now is mainstreaming QAnon with the whole "grooming" thing. And that the uninformed don't care. It's just another weapon of grievance.

But do you think anything like "facts" and "reality" will keep people from believing what they want to be true?

You're a better person that I am.

[Sarcastr0]

It was an interesting podcast. I like Baude, even if he is an originalist 😛

[loki13]

I like Baude, because he is one of the people that I find engaging and honest, even when I disagree with them.

I think it is so important to have a common baseline of, well, reality to work with. And from that point, you can appreciate that people will have completely different opinions as to how to best solve issues.

I just feel more and more that the baseline of reality is what is missing.

[bernard11]

I never heard of Bridges but your logic here stinks.

Unsurprising.

[mse326]

The problem is you are using 1 persons definition to say that's what it is. What if you asked someone to describe conservatism? liberalism? religion of choice? etc. People within a movement disagree on what the movement is. Sometimes movements get hijacked, sometimes the divisions were always there. And neither is right and neither is wrong. To say otherwise is a no true scotsman fallacy. I am sure there are some in academia who do feel the same and are committed to keeping it that way. There are also undoubtedly others that take it further. And activists that claim the mantle to the public are not bound by the former and have overwhelmingly lumped CRT with anti-racism which is not what is described here.

[Sarcastr0]

By this standard, how do we know what anything means?

If there is an objective meaning to this term, the people who study and understand the history of the term are the ones to ask.

Conversely, some right-wing asshole who later brags about lying is not someone to rely on.

[mse326]

Are you suggesting there isn't a large and vocal part of the left that is pushing CRT and anti-racism togther as one?

That may be what CRT started off as, and what some want to keep it as, but just as that branched out so has CRT either branched or expanded. The people advocating talk about it as expanding. The point is you don't get to decided what it means, really no one does. Movements and schools of thought have no objective meaning. That is why there is further debate even in movements about whether differenct policy preferences represent the movement. And why those outside looking at a movement can't just take the word of some of the adherents at the expense of other adherents.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you suggesting there isn't a large and vocal part of the left that is pushing CRT and anti-racism together as one?

If your definition of anti-racism is the 'all whites are bigots' discussion going on above, yes, you are wrong about that the left is saying.

This redefinition of CRT is a right-wing project, not a lefty one.

The point is you don't get to decided what it means, really no one does. Movements and schools of thought have no objective meaning
I very much disagree. Movements get to say what they are; their identity does not get to be projected onto them by the loudest assholes in the room. That's never been how it works.

[mse326]

Anti-racism is that if you are participating and not actively resisting you are a racist. And there are many that fuse that with CRT. That is not a right wing conspiracy.

I very much disagree. Movements get to say what they are
But when people in the movement disagree you don't get to say which is objectively true. That is the no true scotsman fallacy. Ibrahim Kendi says any and every policy that results in racial inequity is racist AND that anyone who supports racist policies through action OR INACTION is a racist person. This is the complete opposite of the sytemic vs individual dichotomy professor Bridges describes. Yet he has explicitly linked himself with with CRT. You don't get to say which is the true CRT and neither do it's adherents when there is an internal debate.

I have no doubt there are many like Professor Bridges. But there also many like Professor Kendi.

[mse326]

*Ibram Kendi.

[Sarcastr0]

So I googled on Kendi and CRT. I found this quote:

“Another misnomer about critical race theory, or even antiracism, is that it’s anti-white or racist. I don’t think people realize that that is one of the oldest and most vile white supremacist talking points.”

1) this explicitly delinks CRT and antiracism.
2) It declaims the narrative of antiracism you're talking about
3) It deconflicts white supremacy from racism.

[Bob from Ohio]

Racist says he isn't racist.

Shocking.

[mse326]

No it doesn't. Nowhere did I mention white, black, or any other race. I specifically said anti-racism says anyone who doesn't fight against racist policies is racist. That is true whether you are white, black, hispanic, whatever. The converse is also true. You are an anti-racist if you do which can also include a person of any race. His point is that any race can be racist and any race can be anti-racist. It's about what the individual does.

But anti-racism is the outgrowth from CRT. It's whole point is about what happens now that we have established racist polices. Policies that result in racial inequity are racist policies (the CRT that Professor Bridges describes). Then the anti-racist part comes, anyone who is not actively fighting against racist policies is a racist. The clear result is that someone passively participating in a racist policy is themselves racist. That is the complete opposite of Professor Bridges dichotomy. So the idea that CRT is only about systemic and individual racism is not an objective fact. It is the belief of one faction within CRT, while another subscribes to the anti-racism outgrowth that links it to individual racism.

You keep bringing up white supremacy. I never once said anything close to that. Just because others may bring that up doesn't mean I am. This is the same thing you are accusing CRT critics of. You are using your own straw man based on what some say and just arguing against that rather than the actual argument I am making.

[Sarcastr0]

You are an anti-racist if you do which can also include a person of any race.
That's a weird white supremacy talking point, if that's what he meant

No, the most obvious reading is that participants in a white supremacist system needn't be racists.

But anti-racism is the outgrowth from CRT.
That's not established.
In fact, your second paragraph defines ant-racism *in contrast to CRT* until you come in with your last 2 sentences, which now do not follow because you conflate CRT with anti-racism alluva sudden.

You keep bringing up white supremacy. No, Kendi did that. You seem to think I said some stuff I did not say.

[Michael P]

Kendi is not using the usual definition of "racist" in that quote, though. He is using his pet definition, which is "results in racially unequal outcomes". As usual, he accuses others of being "most vile" to distract from his rhetorical errors.

The criticisms of CRT and antiracism are not only that they are racist according to the usual definition, but that they oppose ideas like objective fact and standards.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, he's not using the standard definition of racist, that it applies only on an individual basis. But that's irrelevant to your thesis about CRT and anti-racism being the same.

And then you go off on yet *another* thesis about anti-racism being too postmodernist. I don't think I agree, but again, stay on target and stop throwing out other beefs you have.

You have yet to support your thesis about CRT. I'm not going to engage on these other things (some of which I probably agree with you on) until you deal with that.

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0, stop making things up. You used to be better than that.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd ask what you think I'm making up, but I'm pretty sure you didn't even read what I wrote and just wanted to call me a liar.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"the podcast makes it quite explicit that those are not *CRT* advocates you are describing."

Ideas have never been misapproriated or applied to endeavors for which they were not intended. Heck, even the names of those ideas have never been misused.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure - but that does not change what CRT is, and how it's not that.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
You speak as if there were an official canon of CRT akin to that of the Roman Catholic Church. You quote a few people as if they are venerated theologians of that religion, but there are not. Like the early Christian church, there are as many heresies as there are CRT prophets and evangelists.
The right says, "BY there fruits you will know them." You reply "Read the Good News."
This is a very boring BS session unless there is a lot of alcohol going around.

[Sarcastr0]

To learn what movement or theory or academic project is, talk to those who participate or study in it.

Do not talk to angry randos who hate that thing.

This is not a difficult linguistic concept.

[Michael P]

Yeah, just like Russia's special military operation in Ukraine! Do not trust the critics who call it "unjust war" or "genocide"! Listen to the people who participate in it and lead the movement!

... more deep thoughts from Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, so everyone who does CRT are like Russian propagandists and so you get to make up your own definition.

That's not a good faith argument. In fact, it's just you declaring your plan to never think about anything you may not like the answer to.

[Michael P]

No, that's you missing my example of why your argument is bad.

[Sarcastr0]

Another refusal to engage! If I'm misunderstanding something, you should probably lay that out. Because my logic pretty clearly does not apply to Russian propagandists in the same way it does to CRT professors.

Except at this point I'm convinced you're not making arguments, just insults using words you've heard in arguments.

Were you ever in good faith, or do you just like to fuck with people?

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Volokh, the issue of mentorship of subordinates for future leadership roles is on my mind. And I would like to pose a question to the more, ahem, seasoned VC Conspirators on how they approach mentorship of middle-aged subordinates (say in the 40-50 age range), and their grooming for leadership roles in an organization. Yes, this is a bit off the beaten track, but I bet the current questions I have are ones you've grappled with too.

For VC Conspirators who were mentors to future organizational leaders, and that mentee later became an organizational leader, can you tell me 2-3 things you did (or practiced) that you see in retrospect were critical to your mentees success?

For VC Conspirators who were mentees, and you are now in an organizational leadership role, can you tell me the 2-3 things you found most influential (i.e. had the greatest impact to you) while you were being mentored?

Definition: A leadership role for these questions is defined as a managerial or executive role with 2-3 levels of direct and indirect reports; hiring/firing responsibilities; administration; strategy. Typically, job titles in private industry I am thinking of are Senior Director, Vice President (or higher). Not sure of the legal equivalent (partner? associate partner?)

I would like to hear from both: Mentors, and Mentees.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
Here is how I practiced developing future organizational leaders.
1) Give stretch assignments for 6 month to one year periods and track their progress with agreed on metrics. Give them the resources to succeed.
2) Meet with them on a weekly or biweekly basis, discuss how they saw their progress and discuss any "bumps in the road" past or foreseen.
3) Expect that they had a plan to mentor someone (better 2 people) into their present role.
4) Gave tangible rewards (pay increases or perks) for their successes.
5 Be honest with them about their faults and limitations to overcome.

That is more than 2 or 3. But you can read my book on the topic.

[Commenter_XY]

Title of? = your book.

Seriously. I would find this kind of book very helpful right now.

[AmosArch]

When you think about it the core of modern leftism is two mutually contradictory concepts. Equality and diversity. Any meaningful diversity inherently lowers equality. True equality (at least the way the left defines it) means less meaningful diversity. Its the divine mystery of progressivism. This is not just some abstract conflict. Its at the core of the problems the left has in trying to define itself and its policies and the criticism it receives. Just look for example at the logical and political tension between the two when it comes to affirmative action and the new movement to redefine racism to depend on the race of its target and in general the Left running up against many of the policies it championed and crafted in earlier days.

[Sarcastr0]

Turns out there's plenty of reading about the goal of intersectional equity if you cared.

But you don't.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why should he care about Marxist garbage?

[Sarcastr0]

Because he thinks he's a serious person.

You don't even have that level of self respect.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Serious people read ideological rubbish from the other side?

Get real. I don't read CRT literature for the same reason I don't read any How to be a Pedophile for Dummies books you people put out.

[Sarcastr0]

Serious people don't make up the other side's conceptual conflicts without reading what the people on the other side say about it.

Amos is not a serious person, but he at least thinks he is. Hence his attempting to grapple with the concepts of the other side, even if he won't put in the work.

Your comments are not those of someone who considers themselves a serious person. At least not on the Internet.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Real, serious debate requires an open mind, taking the risk that your beliefs may be wrong and the willingness to change your beliefs.

In all my years of "arguing on the internet", never once have I seen a mind sincerely be changed.

I mean look at you, years after the fact you still argue that Masterpiece was the baker refusing to sell to a gay couple some standard cake. I know for an absolute fact you have seen evidence contrary time and time again over the years. Yet today you still argue the Big Lie.

You are not a serious person. I've stopped caring about "serious people".

[OtisAH]

Gotta admit, I thought “I am rubber, you are glue” was too high a rhetorical concept for you to employ. But you did it. Kudos!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I point out how Sarcastr0 has repeatedly ignored facts counter to his beliefs, and you think that's a juvenile playground taunt?

No offense, OtisAH, but I don't think that's a take a smart person would make.

[OtisAH]

If I thought you were acquainted with any smart people I’d recommend you ask them. And no, I don’t think it’s a good idea for you to try to chat them up at intersections, either.

[Sarcastr0]

1) I'm dealing with the SCOTUS case Masterpiece Cakeshop, not whatever random blogs you're digging up. No Big Lie here, just you being a dumbass.

2) You got wrecked on 'Federal millionaires' yesterday, and yet here you are again. Are you lying, or being a dumbass again?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You got an entire post by another commenter that supported my claim, in detail.

lmao you're a f'n liar.

"Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-111

Do you think those words support my understanding of the case, or yours? I'm literally taking the exact same view of the work as the baker has.

You, on the other hand, are claiming what he says his work entails and what everyone knows wedding cake works entails simply isn't true at all.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL They support mine, you utter moron.

Nothing about bespoke anything.

Did you forget what your thesis was?

Haha, you're really bad at this.

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0, you solidly got your ass handed to you on the facts of the case. As you often do, you just closed your eyes, put your hands over your ears, and screamed "I was right!" with no more detail.

The couple in question wanted Phillips to create a custom cake, he declined, and provided them with something off the shelf. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission then punished him on the theory that he discriminated against the couple by refusing to do business with them -- but obviously, he was happy to do business with them and even to sell them things he had already made (for whatever purpose they wished), he only declined to create a custom cake for a specific kind of event.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think Masterpiece had wedding cakes in the cooler, along with biscuits and cookies and told the gays "you can pick anything you want from this side of the shelf, but that cake right there is off limits!"

lmao you f'n idiot

[Sarcastr0]

Michael, you also lost the bubble on what my issue was, it seems.

Let us review:

'There's custom 'I will write this thing on one of the cakes in my catalogue' and there's bespoke 'I will incorporate this thing into the design.'

IIRC the factual record was much more on the first than the second.'

So....I'm pretty correct here, despite how hard you keep declaring victory.

[Michael P]

You were corrected on your faulty memory. The day-after story that Life of Brian linked earlier said that the couple wanted a bespoke "materpiece" in terms of cake color, icing colors and design. Even a short blurb, spending part of its 129 words on the fact that the couple was aggressively obnoxious after being rebuffed, was very clear on the level of customization they wanted.

[not guilty]

I wonder why the gay couple wanted to purchase a food product from someone who loathed their very existence.

[Ed Grinberg]

I don't read CRT literature for the same reason I don't read any How to be a Pedophile for Dummies books

Well put. They're equally sick. As is Marxism, from which CRT derives (regardless of the smoke Sarcastro is blowing upthread).

[Sarcastr0]

Boasting about how closed your mind is may not be the strong posting strategy you think it is.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm incredibly closed minded when it comes to things like child rape and mass murder.

Sorry man, that excludes me from ever marinating in Democrat dogma.

[Curle]

Operative word: goal.

Throwing virgins into volcanos advanced a goal.

[Sarcastr0]

What goal was that?

[Queen Amalthea]

You've just made no honest attempt to think about either, because, of course, they're you're enemy. You want to score a goal, not understand why they play that way.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Unlike you, right QA?

I know why the Left plays their games. They only care about the getting the outcomes their demented, sick, tyrannical minds desire. There are no principles to guardrail their actions, only outcomes.

A generation ago, it's what led to heinous acts that murdered hundreds of millions of people.

Today its the equally sickening ideas of equity, disparate impact, "social justice", which are nothing but dressed up rationalizations for getting the twisted authoritarian outcomes they crave.

[ReaderY]

Every political theory or program, at least any that has any practical value, requires balancing principles and objectives that are at least sometimes in conflict with each other. Claiming that the existence of this sort of conflict somehow shows the political program is worthless simply demonstrates that the claimant is head-in-the-clouds naive.

There are objections to be made to the Leftist program. But this isn’t a particularly strong one. It’s an example of a false dichotomy or paradox, a logical fallacy.

[Commenter_XY]

Is anyone besides me scratching their head on the recent DOJ decision to appeal the APA ruling from Judge Mizelle? I mean, the data on masks is all over the place. Looking back to January 2020, I'd say masks were completely ineffective at stopping (or even slowing) the spread of covid-19 (now that it is April 2022). The optics and politics of appealing the decision is....curious to me. The legalities make me chuckle just a little bit.

As for the legal aspect....I distinctly recall numerous APA challenges on policy changes over the last several years. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth then. This is yet another chapter in the on-going APA challenge saga. I predict more wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Doesn't the legal question really turn on whether the CDC had authority they claim, in the absence of a specific Congressional grant of power?

[Sarcastr0]

Even if I liked the ends, I think the challenge is worth it to address the national injunction aspect.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I am not a huge fan of nationwide injunctions, either. To me, it should be only SCOTUS doing that, and only in exceptional circumstances (like resolving circuit court splits).

[Sarcastr0]

Concur, except I think it should be the common remedy for SCOTUS.

I don't want different remedies holding for different jurisdictions once the SCOTUS has deconflicted.

[Michael P]

Another legal question is whether the CDC complied with the process requirements of the APA in this case. Courts may use that as an excuse to avoid addressing wider questions about the CDC's authority or national injunctions.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they're appealing due to the implications of the ruling for other policies, aren't they? They might be ready to abandon mask mandates over the horrible political implications going into a tough midterm, but they don't want to be hog tied going forward.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you are right. I think the DOJ could leave this were it not for the future implication if this was precedent.

[Michael P]

That's a relatively dangerous move. The current ruling is not binding precedent, so they could wait for a more favorable case to argue over the implications for other policies.

[ReaderY]

I agree with Professor Somin on this one. The definition of “sanitation” the judge used is counterintuitive. The arguments the judge made for throwing out a perfectly good alternative definition that appears in major dictionaries seems contrived. The ruling goes completely against precedent not to rule against agency regulatory jurisdiction when a plain dictionary definition of the relevant statutory terms covers the agency action in question. And that’s the case here.

As Professor Somin noted, the ruling implies that the word “sanitation” wouldn’t cover a rule against defecating on the floor. The idea thaat such a rule isn’t a “sanitation” measure seems highly counter-intuitive, to say the least.

[Jacob Grimes]

That analogy suggests that a rule against defecation on public transit depends upon this regulation, which obviously isn't the case.
The regulation would instead govern how the feces should be cleaned up.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The millionaire federal bureaucrats at the CDC are clearly the experts, look at how quickly they eradicated COVID and saved all those lives back in 2020. Their track record of success speaks for itself!

[shawn_dude]

You mean the "hoax" pandemic that would magically disappear right after the 2020 election?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I would be incredibly surprised if we don't see some new catastrophic variant right before the 2022 midterms which gives Democrats and RINO's excuses to have another unsecure election.

The "pandemic" can only be continuing to rage from one of two reasons:

1.) It's the vehicle for elitists to implement their Great Reset
2.) The people in government are completely incompetent and have failed us again.

It's one or the other.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're seeing a continuing cycle of one variant after another, with each successive variant being more infectious, and causing less severe symptoms. This is a perfectly normal trajectory for a respiratory virus, which is why there are over 200 different "common colds", several of which are corona viruses.

It happens because severe symptoms tend to cause people to isolate themselves, interfering with transmission, and the virus doesn't 'care' if you live or die, but it does 'care' if you transmit it.

Ideally, this means Covid will just evolve into another common cold. Or, alternatively, eventually pretty much everybody will have been exposed to, and gained immunity to, the entire evolutionary 'space' the virus has easy access to, and new cases will be limited to the supply of immunologically naive people entering the population.

Anyway, I find it promising that they're FINALLY starting to come out with actually updated vaccines, instead of just mindlessly demanding people take yet another shot of the old vaccine. Took long enough.

If Covid doesn't complete the evolution into a common cold, but instead stalls at influenza severity, having regularly updated vaccines will be important.

[David Nieporent]

Anyway, I find it promising that they're FINALLY starting to come out with actually updated vaccines, instead of just mindlessly demanding people take yet another shot of the old vaccine. Took long enough.

Brett is also an expert on vaccine development.

[Ben_]

Biden's handlers would re-impose the mandate right now if they could.

It will be helpful for the election if a few mayors or governors try issuing new mandates in September and October.

[Sarcastr0]

This was almost certainly a DoJ internal decision.

This all-powerful cabal you got in your head sound like micromanaging aholes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"almost certainly a DoJ internal decision"

Its an important political issue. It was a WH decision.

[OtisAH]

Considering there’s no political win for the WH here, you’re likely as wrong as usual.

[Bob from Ohio]

No political upside so DOJ decided to hurt Biden instead?

[OtisAH]

The appeal is more to defend regulatory authority in the future than it is to reinstate the mask mandate. The appeal does nothing to hurt the Biden administration. Neither does it help them beyond matters of executive and regulatory authority or the like.

[David Nieporent]

Wasn't this mandate time-limited when it was implemented? So won't any appeal simply ultimately be dismissed as moot, since the thing will expire before a ruling?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is anyone besides me scratching their head on the recent DOJ decision to appeal the APA ruling from Judge Mizelle? "

Mandate expires in May anyway. Once it does they will move to moot the appeal so the district court judgment will be vacated and of no precedential value.

[loki13]

It's an interesting question as to the appeal. Here's my armchair analysis.

Not to appeal: It only a District Court decision. It is non-binding. It is non-precedential. No matter how wrong it is, it doesn't really matter. The policy itself was going to expire in time. It's not tremendously popular; it is my understanding that this was a CDC decision, and that the Biden Administration felt that (in keeping with their prior statements) they had to "defer to the science." This gives them the out. Finally, the 11th Circuit isn't the most hospitable appellate court- draw a bad panel and you could end up with a binding, terrible decision.

To appeal: It might not be precedential, but it could end up being persuasive. And it is a terrible decision. Seriously- it's really really bad. Even if you agree with the ends, the means to get there are terrible. If I was the DOJ, I would not want this opinion to stand. It's a grabbag of terrible opinions, from the definition of sanitation, to the Notice & Comment, to the recitation of facts. I would not want any court, anywhere, ever citing this opinion for any reason.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Loki, you got me at non-precedential. I had been worrying that the worst effect of the decision would be catastrophic constraint of future public health policy during a worse emergency. No precedent? Don't appeal it.

[Nisiiko]

My armchair analysis is is that unelected bureaucrats, even if they're so-called "experts," should not have plenary police power.

[Commenter_XY]

Loki13, I personally thought the smart move was to leave things be. If you go to Court, you simply do not know what you're gonna get. When you try to force things, that is when backfires happen. I would go for the 'Not to appeal' route and then see what happens.

But hey, that is me. What do I know? 🙂

[DaveM]

I honestly don't understand how you can fault the Notice & Comment ruling. The CDC didn't make even the slightest attempt at complying with the rules. I would predict they will get their handed to them on this aspect.

As to the rest, I note only that it is hard to believe that the decision is utterly worthless AND is an existential threat to the CDC because they might lose even on appeal to the Supreme Court. Only one of those claims are likely to be true, and the other is probably just hopes and dreams (or bluster).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Those of us on the left no longer rule out, terrible results-oriented decision reinforced and ratified on appeal. Those are not, "hopes and dreams," by the way, more the opposite.

[loki13]

DaveM,

As I discussed before, the opinion is a terrible one but it will seem persuasive to someone like you who isn't familiar with the actual facts or with what the law is. For example, the completely spurious distinction between property and individual rights; that sounds great, doesn't it!!! Yee-haw!

As a matter of law, though, and in the statute, that doesn't matter. That's the type of error a 2L in admin law wouldn't make ... and I don't think the judge is dumb.

As for your question, it's pretty simple. There's a lot of things I understand. But I have seen actual appellate decisions (usually out of the 5th COA) that make absolutely no sense. The recent Title VII decision (over a blistering dissent by Judge Smith ... JUDGE SMITH) might be one the single most bizarre and lawless things I've ever read. I literally did a doubletake.

Quite honestly ... I'm losing faith in the federal courts to apply the law correctly most of the time. Not just on the "big stuff" but on basic procedural things.

[Michael P]

If the decision is so terrible, why would anyone be so concerned that it would "end up being persuasive"?

[Brett Bellmore]

Generally on account of worrying that the higher courts don't agree with them about what makes a decision "terrible".

[Don Nico]

I am pleased that the DOJ is appealing. Aside for the APA aspect, the described reasoning of sanitation as applies to this case was wrong-headed.

[Kazinski]

There is an easy fix.

Congress could pass a law that gives the CDC unambiguous power to require masks on interstate transport.

And then even assholes like me would have to concede it's legal.

But anyone who has taken two 12 hour plus plane rides in the last month, as I have, at least pretending to wear a mask almost the whole time, is probably rooting they don't.

My wife is flying home Tuesday. She has a 15 hour non stop flight ahead of her where she is supposed to be masked the whole time.

Did the CDC repeal the 8th amendment?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, if red states could get behind an 8-week universal lockdown—timed for the next low-ebb of the pandemic—maybe we as a nation could afterward enjoy a reasonable public life. One that could include even the immune compromised. Maybe even with a near-normal economy. You and your wife could put your terrible suffering behind you.

[Kazinski]

Stephen could you please stay off the crazy pills for a few days a week, especially around Thursday?

Ok, even if your theory worked, that the best time to go into a full lockdown is when the virus is lowest, are the 50 states the whole universe?

We will be back in exactly the same place when tranche of illegal aliens, Canadian fans attending a hockey playoff, or Blue Jays game in Tampa.

So no nobody is going back in full lockdown for 8 weeks over Covid again, except in China.

But I guess it must have been the Shanghai lockdown that inspired you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — No, you would not be back in the same place. You would be many virus generations better off. Able to test for outbreaks, and suppress them with local counter measures. Able to have some semblance of a normal economy. Able to police the borders to sharply reduce virus importations. Able, finally, to cap the next surge at much lower levels.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I mistakenly posited an end to insane pro-virus behavior. I do get that if anything like a concerted effort to eliminate Covid ever happened, red staters would organize immediately to undermine it.

But what the hell, I would be fine with border closures, and mandatory quarantines for arrivals. Did you notice that your virus importation scenarios assume the same kind of out-of-control Covid-policy failures abroad that your advocacy demands here? What makes you suppose Canadians, for instance, are that dumb? What makes you think virus exchange ratios at the border are anything but net-exports from the U.S. to Canada? Lock this country down for 8 weeks, and Canada would get relief because of it. Afterward, you would have less virus coming south.

Does the present economy feel normal to you? All the no-mask types (except the dead ones) long ago said hooray, it's normal. But for some reason supply chains can't get going. So because of market shortages of goods, we get Fed policy to crush the economy with stagflation. You think sky-high interest rates are going to put this economy back in tip-top shape real soon now? All righty then, let's have another virus wave!

Given this nation's record on Covid, arguing from American exceptionalism is tragi-comic stupidity. More than 10% of Americans—probably closer to 20%—are neither going back to work, nor jumping back into the consumer economy, until the virus is all but gone.

Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Lumber is prohibitive, and you can't get delivery on refrigerators. Indoor dining is out. Movie theaters are out. Art galleries are out. Sports stadiums are out. Those folks won't show up at the bowling alley, or the bar. Meat prices deliver new-minted vegetarians to the grocery stores. While you suffer so badly on airplane rides, immune-compromised folks have to guard against dying. They aren't going to get on the airplanes at all.

A lot of healthy folks have to guard against killing immune-compromised relatives. They stay home too, where they don't consume much, draining national savings all the while. They will resist as long as they can your kill-the-vulnerable Covid solution, and the economy will drag while they do.

But thanks at least for your insight. I do think you understand why a lockdown with virus at low levels provides better public health leverage than when virus surges. Too bad you and the pro-Covid Trump fans oppose public health policy on principle.

This used to be a great nation, until tens of millions of anti-patriots decided to hurt it on purpose. I do blame liberals for a lot of that. America's most ignorant have been goaded beyond endurance by liberals, and exploited without limit by conservatives. It's a damned mess, but a person like you, who can at least put two sentences together, should not be abetting it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, that sort of attempt to extinguish the pandemic could have worked very early on, before the virus spread world-wide. By the time it got out of China it was too late for that.

"A lot of healthy folks have to guard against killing immune-compromised relatives."

I've got an immune compromised niece. Do you actually imagine that wasn't a thing before Covid?

[Curle]

The optics and politics of appealing the decision is....curious to me.

Really?

Are the optics of relitigating the civil war over and over again while never once mentioning the Holodomar similarly curious to you?

Maybe I should let you in on a secret, the most important social organizational tool ever created is defamation. Some people get lots of defamation power and others not so much. This is why civil war statues are taken down. And why anti-maskers must be punished.

[Michael P]

Republicans gave President Biden an off-ramp from his disastrous war against public opinion (I believe he prefers the term "special public health operation to denazify Covid"), but Biden refused to take it gracefully.

[Nisiiko]

Biden is a fucking idiot.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Biden shits his pants.

[Michael P]

Will the Washington Post take responsibility for mistaken-identity harassment caused by their doxxing?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, because they are not responsible for the actions of others.

The behavior in question that you're so falsely concerned about, is also not the result of 'doxxing.'

[Michael P]

Jason Cavanaugh, brave (but mindless) defender of corporate irresponsibility.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

First you'd have to prove corporate irresponsibility. Then you'd have to prove I defend it.

Best of luck, kid.

[Michael P]

You said WaPo wouldn't take responsibility because they were only seminally involved in the chain of events. To borrow Sarcastr0's favorite dodge, but for the WaPo deciding to publish LOTT's name, this lady -- who does not even live in the US -- would not be getting harassed by random strangers who were stirred into abuse by the WaPo.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

WaPo is not responsible for idiots who can't verify that they're speaking to the right person.

Her name is fair game. Cry more.

Also "stirred into abuse?" LOL. Many people have articles written about them. It's typically the assholes who end up getting flack for their behavior afterwards. Maybe the problem isn't WaPo, but LOTT herself.

[Michael P]

Jason Cavanaugh, brave (but still mindless) defender of Fair Game tactics.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You really are getting exponentially more stupid by the day.

[Kazinski]

Well we all have it coming.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Imagine the following situation.

A nice young college student invites an African American onto campus to talk about how he overcame racism.

In response, a "woke" mob chases her and her friend down, in an attempt to beat them. They catch the friend and beat him up.

This is what it's come to. A new era, where those who invite African Americans onto campus who say the "wrong thing" are hunted down and beaten up.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/woke-mob-hunts-down-student-who-invited-col-allen-west-to-speak-at-u-buffalo/

Do we need to invite the national guard to protect these people again?

[Michael P]

We need to stop universities, at least temporarily, until we find out what the hell is going on. Why are there so many violent outbursts from leftists? We need to admit people to universities who don't form mobs, who don't resort to violence when they disagree with speech, who don't think the answer to supposedly-bad speech is exiling people from the public square.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Violence is part and parcel with Leftism. 100s of millions have died at the hands of Leftists. 100s of millions will die at the hands of Leftists.

There won't ever be peace until there are no more Leftists.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another delusional clinger dreaming of (and blustering about) the day when conservatives stop getting stomped by their betters in the culture war.

You get to whine about it as much as you like, but you'll continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans.

[Ed Grinberg]

There won't ever be peace until there are no more Leftists.

Never gonna happen. There'll always be misfits, people dissatisfied with their lot, wanting to blame "the system." And people who want to ride the backs of others, all the while telling them that they're their liberators.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If the liberals are the misfits, why have they been winning the culture war for a half-century, why have Democrats been voting the Republicans regularly in national elections for decades, and why are Republicans, conservatives, and faux libertarians the disaffected, desperate group?

The liberal-libertarian mainstream shapes America's course because its ideas have won at the marketplace of ideas and it is more popular than conservatism.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Just ask CNN+!!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nobody -- except deluded religious kooks and exuberantly optimistic bigots -- needs CNN+ or any other publisher for confirmation that the liberal-libertarian mainstream has been stomping conservatives for so long as any of us are alive, and is positioned to keep shaping our national progress against the preferences and efforts of right-wingers for so far as they reasonable eye can see ahead.

Even most clingers acknowledge they have been getting their asses kicked in the culture war. The dead-enders around here are fringe outliers, the type and level of losers once found cheering and predicting victory at Ron Paul rallies.

[Ed Grinberg]

We need to stop [funding] universities, at least temporarily, until we find out what the hell is going on. Why are there so many violent outbursts from leftists? We need to admit people to universities who don't form mobs, who don't resort to violence when they disagree with speech, who don't think the answer to supposedly-bad speech is exiling people from the public square.

1. As to "why," the answer is simple: university administrators & faculty encourage these (fascist) attitudes / behavior.
2. We need to stop funding universities, period. Funding universities is not a proper function of government. The remaining private universities can be as fascist as they like (hopefully, the local law enforcement authorities will address any excesses).

[Illocust]

Seems a little too pat of a story from the summary. Which is suspicious, and would require further investigation before I'd share the story.

If true, the minimum that needs to be done is that the perpetrators need to have charges filed against them, and the school needs to fully cooperate in identifying who they are. The school should also send a mass email reminding students that attacking other students is strictly forbidden and not tolerated.

[Michael P]

If it seems too pat of a story, maybe you can find coverage of what really happened from CNN or MSNBC or the NYT or Washington Post, instead of relying on Fox News or The Sun or Daily Mail?

The school is conducting a "thorough review" of the mob incident and did release a statement along the lines you suggest. But words without actual enforcement of the disciplinary policies will only encourage future bad behavior.

[shawn_dude]

Assuming all the perpetrators were students (which is a big assumption), any internal discipline would be protected information. Anyone charged by police would be public knowledge.

Disciplinary policy is usually publically posted on the unversity's website. Institutions go to great lengths to avoid violence on campus if for no other reason than it can impact enrollments.

[Longtobefree]

Worked well in Ohio

[David Nieporent]

Protect them from what? The article has a link to a video, and says, "Here's a glimpse of the mob." But it doesn't show any mob.

So all we have is the word of this girl. And given that she thought inviting a loon like Alan West to campus was worthwhile, I don't think her word is worth much.

[Queen Amalthea]

Make Way For Ducklings features a heterosexual duck couple.
Grooming?

[John F. Carr]

I read a book with a cute animal couple in it, mommy rodent and daddy rodent living in a burrow and raising their babies. They were background scenery not important to the plot. But I knew the species was one where fathers do not provide child care. To this day I am bothered by it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Normalcy and natural don't need grooming. It's just stating facts.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, up with nature!

Moar duck rape and gay penguin couples!!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How could they determine the penguins were gay without being able to ask them how they identify?

You can't take human only concepts and directly apply them to birds, how stupid is that?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

About as stupid as your transgender lion. lmao how f'n dumb are you people?

[Sarcastr0]

BCD of 10:24, you may need to deconflict with BCD of 9:35.

This is why you are unserious.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Oh noes, Gaslightr0 says I'm unserious! However will I gain your approval?

Guess what, man, I don't give a flying shit about your approval.

If you have an argument to make about my statements and how they are contradictory, make it instead of making vague implications.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's good we are clear on this, BCD.

Your betters don't want your approval, either. We don't want your stale, ugly opinions. We don't want your affection. We don't want your help.

We just want -- and will have -- your compliance.

We are magnanimous, and this is a free country, so you can whine and whimper, mutter and sputter, rail and flail about all of this damnable progress as much as you like. But you will continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans. Until replacement.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You just want my tax dollars to continue to fund your 4 day workweeks and obnoxious benefits while your entire class of people contribute zero economic or social value, only ride the backs of the rest of us.

If America was like Joe Biden, the Federal Class would be the shit in his diapers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The clingers have been leeching off their betters throughout my lifetime.

They and their communities are economically shambling and parasitic. Better communities subsidize the losers who have stuck with declining communities and dying industries against all evidence for generations.

The issue is not just economic. Bright flight has stripped the backwaters of smart, ambitious young people for generation, leaving a depleted human residue that relies on others for just about anything involving thought. Medical, technological, scientific and other useful contributions to our society are products of strong liberal-libertarian teaching and research institutions, not the fourth-tier conservative-controlled schools that produce generations of hayseeds and worthless research on fairy tales.

America's physicians, lawyers, professors, scientists, accountants, computer scientists, and other knowledge workers come from modern, successful, educated communities (although America arranges for some professionals at the lower reaches to move to can't-keep-up areas because it just wouldn't be right for modern America to have seven or eight states with no physicians or hospitals).

American culture is created in New York and California, not in Mississippi, Idaho, and West Virginia (unless one's taste leans toward the Duggars, rattlesnake-juggling revival meetings, Sister Wives, and Joe Manchin's favorite, "West Virginia Wilder").

(Fairness inclines equal time for a West Virginia tourism video.)

Most of the areas favored by people like BravoCharlieDelta are stains and drains on America and have been for many years, with little to no reasonable hope for change in sight.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If the people in government were so good at solving problems, and deserving of all the power and control over us we grant them why can't they solve any problems?

[OtisAH]

It’s almost always because of people like you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So if only people like me were more ____________, then the people in governments plans would work!

What words would you use to fill the blank that would make people like me more like people like you?

obedient
docile
servile
compliant

???

[Ben_]

If he insists, do you plan to just become what he wants so his schemes stop failing? Or will you just stay who you are and keep single-handedly thwarting his genius?

[Ben_]

Communists failed every time at everything and it was always the fault of the US CIA or some other similar scapegoat.

Ok. Let's just agree that's exactly what happened: central planners always fail and it's never their fault. Government problem-solvers in the US very often fail, and it's always because of the others like Bravo here. We're agreeing: those bureaucrats are the world's smartest and best people and their plans were the greatest thing ever and they would have succeeded wildly except for the Bravos of the world.

If you can't accomplish anything because of [whatever], even after trying it over and over and over and over ... is it possible to learn anything? You're the world's smartest and best people, and you tried your hardest many, many times over and it never seems to work out because of [whatever].

How smart is it to believe the next meddlesome scheme you hatch will work even though all the others didn't? Bravo and people who are not like you will just mess it up again, as always.

Why is it so impossible to learn to just stop meddling and let us all live our lives?

[Sarcastr0]

all the power and control over us we grant them

This is not Communism.

Your red-baiting ass jumped the gun there.

[Ed Grinberg]

Would you feel better if Ben had said "leftists"? I mean, is it any mystery which party wants Big Government (i.e., more "power & control") and which one wants limited government?
(I'm sure you figured all this out yourself; you're just gaslighting as always.)

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think we currently have a limited government?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The people in government, at all levels, control about $1 of every $2 spent through direct spending or regulatory compliance.

I'd say government controlling 50% of all economic decisions is very far from "limited government".

In fact, I'd say it's probably the cause of nearly all social and economic ills we suffer from today.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Would you feel better if Ben had said "leftists"? I mean, is it any mystery which party wants Big Government (i.e., more "power & control") "

The answer may lie in the records of the regular meetings of

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Statist Womb Management

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For ABC Immigration Policies (Authoritarian, Bigoted, Cruel)

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Torture And Endless Detention Without Trial

Conservative And Faux Libertarians For Banning Textbooks That Do Not Flatter Old-Timey Bigotry

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Abusive Policing (Especially Involving The Blacks)

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Massive Military Spending

Conservatives For Corporate Welfare

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Attacking The Wrong Country

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Government-Prescribed Prayer In Schools

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Qualified Immunity And Militarized Police

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Superstition In The Pledge Of Allegiance

Conservatives For Public Funding Of Private Religious Schools

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Government Control And Censorship Of Certain Publishers (Twitter, Facebook)

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For The Drug War

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Voter Suppression (Especially . . . Well, You Know Who)

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Government Putting The Gays In Their Place

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For "Common Good" Constitutionalism

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For Insurrection

Conservatives And Faux Libertarians For The Death Penalty

So many meetings, so little time.

Carry on, clingers.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, is it any mystery which party wants Big Government (i.e., more "power & control") and which one wants limited government?

No. The GOP and the Democrats each want Big Government, and the Libertarians want limited government.

This isn't Ronald Reagan's GOP anymore; it's Donald Trump's. They don't even pretend to pay fealty to limited government.

[Ben_]

No true scotsman would ever say anything was communism.

[Sarcastr0]

This is an irrelevancy. The OP talks about something. I quoted that thing. It's not Communism. You said it was. Because your knee jerks before your brain engages.

[Ben_]

No I didn’t

[Sarcastr0]

BCD: 'If the people in government were so good at solving problems, and deserving of all the power and control over us we grant them why can't they solve any problems?'

Otis: 'It’s almost always because of people like you.'

You: 'Communists failed every time at everything '

So yeah, you brought up communism outta nowhere. Because you're being silly today.

[Ben_]

Because everyone can see the pattern with Maduro and Castro and all the rest blaming their failures on the CIA. The point is that someone who always fails … they always fail.

Blame isn’t success. Let’s just agree with whatever reason they say they always fail so we can focus on the fact that they always fail. Always.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're bringing up communism to make some point about blame not always being legit?

That was quite a choice of analogy to make.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Communists failed every time at everything . . .

BEN_ ‚ I don't want to be caught saying anything good about communists, but: overthrew the Czar; industrialized the Soviet Union; beat the Nazis in WW II (saving probably millions of American lives in the process); infiltrated the Manhattan Project and stole American atom bomb secrets; developed thermo-nuclear capability; beat the U.S. into orbit; became a fearsome world power during the Cold War; set up puppet states around the world which supported their ideology; somehow eased themselves out of power without creating a world catastrophe.

Now those Soviet communists have been replaced by Russian capitalists. I'm guessing the capitalists' successes will prove less striking.

Also, I get that there was horrific stuff in the mix. Looks like the capitalists are fine with adding to that too.

If you want to invoke experience as your standard to evaluate policy and national accomplishment, I applaud that. It's much better than trying to do it with ideology.

[Brett Bellmore]

" I don't want to be caught saying anything good about communists, but: overthrew the Czar;"

You need to study history better. The communists did NOT overthrow the Czar. They overthrew the government set up by the people who HAD overthrown the Czar, before it could get established.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, Bolsheviks killed the Romanovs. Nobody doubts that.

This may astonish you, but I actually conversed on this subject with Alexander Kerensky, who lived in New York at the end of his life. I heard him speak, and afterwards was able to put a few questions. I found him evasive on the subject of the Romanovs. If his regime had a policy on Czarism, he was unwilling to discuss it with a young stranger.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wasn't talking about who killed the Romanovs. I was talking about who overthrew the Czar. Not at all the same thing.

The February revolution resulted in the creation of a provisional government on March 12th, a few days later the Czar abdicated. The Kerensky government was fairly liberal by Russian standards. A LOT more liberal than what followed shortly.

It wasn't until the October revolution that the Bolsheviks, who had NOT overthrown the Czar, took over. And it was the next year that the Romanovs were killed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Stop picking nits, Bellmore. In Russia, the Czar wasn't going to be securely overthrown until he and his whole family were dead. You think Kerensky's feeble government—which couldn't hold power 9 months—somehow had the staying power to outlast the Romanovs?

[Absaroka]

'...he Czar wasn't going to be securely overthrown'

Speaking of picking nits...Brett said overthrown, not your newly minted 'securely overthrown', by which you grant Brett's point.

[Ben_]

Is precise labeling the key to making meddlesome government schemes a success?

[Sarcastr0]

The objection to a government policy being meddlesome is not the same as it being communist.

I think it's key for people to make arguments relevant to the issue, and not just yell Communism.

[Ben_]

Yeah, it’s the same.

[Sarcastr0]

Meddlesome = Communist in Benspeak.

You should consider using words like other people do, lest you be thought a fool.

[Ben_]

If meddling government people put you in jail for not going along with their schemes for your life, it’s not that interesting whether they’re technically communists or technically something else.

Subtle flavor distinctions among totalitarians isn’t my thing.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're wrong, but want to argue it doesn't matter, but you do so by assuming an 'if' is true.

Weak as hell.

[Ben_]

So when I say they’re the same, I mean they’re the same for practical purposes.

You are welcome to disagree.

[John F. Carr]

I am nearly out of my Белочка ("squirrel") brand candy. It is made in Moscow. I wonder if I will ever see it again. I won't be buying it while my dollars would support the Russian war effort. I know it's a trivial amount compared to what Germany spends to prop up Putin but it still feels wrong.

[Krayt]

A Netflix executive not so long ago announced their internal numbers showed people were not down with woke stuff. Tough, he said. Full steam ahead!

They literally acknowledged this, and ignored it.

I am not saying they should or shouldn't, but that is a separate discussion from a conscious choice on their part to deviate from satisfying the customer, with any attendant losses.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Customers don't matter. ESG scores do. What Larry Fink at Blackrock wants matters. You or I or my children don't.

[bernard11]

Cite, please.

[Ben_]

The Biden Administration is increasing the use of corn ethanol in fuel this spring at the exact time it should be cut or eliminated altogether.

The Ukraine war threatens to create a world food shortage this year as Russia and Ukraine have been key suppliers of grain and of the fuel and fertilizer that farmers around the world rely on for their crops. Even before the war, food prices had already started rising due to inflation.

A humanitarian hunger crisis may be coming in the next 6-10 months and Biden is incentivizing farmers to use scarce fertilizer on crops for biofuels this planting season.

[Longtobefree]

That they think burning food for fuel is a good idea is all you need to know about the left.

(well, OK; it is also important to know they are fascists)

[Ben_]

Besides the people who directly benefit from it financially, I'm not sure who thinks it's a good idea any more.

[shawn_dude]

Don't release the enthanol to stretch our gas supplies and lower gas prices by creating more supply -- accuse Biden of increasing inflation and bankrupting Americans!

Release the enthanol to stretch gas supplies -- accuse Biden of starving people!

Sweet racket you got there!

[Ben_]

Hungry children can’t eat snarky political comments.

Too bad Greens shut down so much drilling and oil transportation.

[Sarcastr0]

Your crocodile tears about these speculative future starving children smacks of bad faith. As shawn pointed out, you yelled about production and then when Biden did something about it you yelled about that.

You don't care about this, you just want something to yell about.

[Ben_]

Hungry children can’t eat your complaints either.

Biden responded to the consequences of his destructive policies with even more destructive policies, potentially at the worst possible time.

There’s still time to avert the humanitarian crisis if any Dems want to do anything besides complain about the warnings.

[Sarcastr0]

There are not yet any hungry children.

The way you're operating under a certainty that they already exist seems at best some ghoulish wishful thinking.

[Ben_]

It’s only a risk. We could have great weather and that might make up for scarce fertilizer and crop land used for ethanol. Or the war might end tomorrow and some exports from Russia might be allowed.

Or the whole thing could be news media hype — I don’t think it is.

I hope those children have good luck, because if they need good policy decisions by Biden they aren’t getting them.

[Absaroka]

"There are not yet any hungry children."

Not having hungry children seems like one of those problems one would rather avoid than react to. Especially since crops, more or less, are harvested annually, so if you wait until they are hungry you might not be able to react immediately.

Now, I have seen forecasts that range from 'no problem' to 'big problem', bringing to mind the Yogi Berra quote about predictions. And also the one that goes 'it's not the odds, it's the stakes'.

(This is yet another of the political oddities the war has surfaced - normally I would guess people on the left would be intensely interested in the prospect of hungry children, instead of adopting a wait and see attitude. Strange times.)

[Sarcastr0]

I have no problem with the topic - it's interesting. But the way to discuss a risk issue is not 'BIDEN IS STARVING CHILDREN!!!' That's not actually a discussion. It's not that the left doesn't care about starving children, its that we see a bad-faith attack when we see it.

Yeah, talk about the underlying issue (how closely connected is incentivizing biofuel and food? I know some soil grows one and not the other) and whether that's dominated by the Russia and fertilizers issue, and look to the other benefits this policy seeks to foment. And then what ways can we mitigate this risk now?

THAT is a meaty discussion to have.

[Absaroka]

How would you prefer to phrase 'A humanitarian hunger crisis may be coming in the next 6-10 months and Biden is incentivizing farmers to use scarce fertilizer on crops for biofuels this planting season.'? To me that sounds like an accurate description of the current situation. Which part do you think is inaccurate?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure it is, it makes some factual assertions. But the tone there is fine.

Except that's not all Ben said, is it?

[Absaroka]

"I'm not sure it is, it makes some factual assertions."

Which are:
1)"A humanitarian hunger crisis may be coming in the next 6-10 months"
2)"Biden is incentivizing farmers to use scarce fertilizer on crops for biofuels this planting season"

I suppose you can quibble about #2 - AFAIK Biden just upped ethanol use, he didn't tell farmers to use fertilizer on the corn that will be used for ethanol. But that would be a pretty picky quibble.

"Except that's not all Ben said, is it?"

He also said: "The Biden Administration is increasing the use of corn ethanol in fuel this spring at the exact time it should be cut or eliminated altogether.

The Ukraine war threatens to create a world food shortage this year as Russia and Ukraine have been key suppliers of grain and of the fuel and fertilizer that farmers around the world rely on for their crops. Even before the war, food prices had already started rising due to inflation."

What part of that isn't accurate? The 'it should be cut or eliminated altogether' is a judgement call ethanol fans might debate, but the rest seems accurate enough.

In fairness, shawn_dude, not you, was the first to let slip the dogs of partisan war.

But when partisanship derails what should be a serious discussion of a potential famine, that's bad. "There are not yet any hungry children" just seems like the wrong approach to me. YMMV...

[Ben_]

So as long as Biden’s bad policy decisions are whitewashed or avoided, it’s interesting. As soon as it reflects badly on Biden the potential humanitarian crisis ceases to matter because circling the wagons is all that matters.

[defaultdotxbe]

It doesn't actually lower gas prices though, because you get lower mpg and have to fill up more often. Any cost difference per gallon is also arguably due solely to subsidies, so you're just paying for it via taxes rather than directly at the pump.

It's also more destructive to engines leading to higher maintenance costs. Most people also don't realize you can't use E15 in small engines like lawnmowers and snowblowers, so many people will damage those and need to replace them this year too.

[Sarcastr0]

Ethanol sucks, but it doesn't suck *that* bad. The subsidy structure means it'll help poorer people. And I don't know that it's more destructive on engines in any but a quite marginal sense.

[Ben_]

In normal times — when gas isn’t $4-6 per gallon — ethanol is more expensive per volume than gasoline. Normally you get to pay more for worse mileage and then pay more for food because land and resources are used for fuel crops instead of food crops.

Gas is expensive now so you may pay a few cents less for worse mileage and probably many dollars more for food.

[Don Nico]

Shawn,
Corn ethanol was always a swindle that would have gone almost nowhere had it not been for the Iowa caucuses.

[Sarcastr0]

This is absolutely true. It's so dumb. Everyone left and right hates it. Except it brings in some clutch votes in a clutch state.

The ole democracy is the worst form except for all the others.

[Kazinski]

What's amazing is when Ted Cruz won the 2016 Iowa caucuses running on a platform of ending ethanol subsidies.

I had a brief moment of hope there, which has since been estingquished.

[apedad]

Murder charge against Birmingham man dismissed in 2018 under the State Stand Your Ground Law

A murder charge against a 23-year-old Birmingham man has been dismissed under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground Law.

Samuel Bernard Smith has been charged with murder in the murder of 32-year-old Kirby Kermit Davis in Panorama East Artifacts 2018. He was arrested in early 2019.

A murder charge against a 23-year-old Birmingham man has been dismissed under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground Law.

During the Stand Your Ground hearing, Smith testified that he was at his home when he received an unexpected and unexpected random call from a childhood friend about buying marijuana. He told his friend that he had no marijuana to sell.

At the time, Smith testified, he admitted hesitating to see what marijuana he had because it was on his doorstep. According to his testimony, the judge wrote, he said he was waiting with money in the parking lot to pick up his pistol and sample and take a fourth man.

As Smith was leaving the vehicle, he testified, all four immediately branded the burglary and the driver made a statement that clearly indicates that Smith was being robbed.

At the time, Smith testified, at least two men, including the driver, took marijuana and his gun and began to go through his pockets.

After taking Smith’s property, the judge wrote that the men discussed returning Smith to his art to rob the remaining marijuana in the art. Once in the craft, three men pushed Smith down and ran down the stairs toward the waiting vehicle.

Smith snatched a firearm from someone else in his arment (sic) and said he had gone outside to make sure the attacker was gone and would not return to his art. When they got to the breezeway, the men boarded their vehicle and began firing in their direction.

https://lovebylife.com/murder-charge-against-birmingham-man-dismissed-in-2018-under-the-state-stand-your-ground-law/

Tough call on this one.

Smith was involved in illegal activtity (marijuana sales are still illegal in AL [med. exception]), but the judge ruled - at some point - that he wasn't, i.e. when he was being robbed, although the "robbery" portion seemed to have stopped and he then returned to the fight.

[Michael P]

That seems to be a heavily mangled version of https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2022/04/capital-murder-charge-against-birmingham-man-in-2018-killing-dismissed-under-states-stand-your-ground-law.html .

It clarifies that the judge decided that Smith had no duty to retreat before using deadly force to defend himself. Also, "[going] back outside to make sure the assailants were gone and not coming back to his apartment" is not "return[ing] to the fight".

[OtisAH]

JFC, what language was the original article written in?

[defaultdotxbe]

It almost seems like someone used a screen reader to read the article back into a voice-typing app

[Michael P]

English. Scammy/scummy sites will copy real news content and alter it, presumably intentionally and in hopes of not getting caught by copyright enforcement bots.

I found (what I think is) the legitimate, original version of it by searching for some key words in the text. When I compared a few passages with broken English (like "his arment" and "in the art"), the version I found had clear, proper English.

[apedad]

FACT SHEET: Privately Made Firearms (PMFs), aka “Ghost Guns,” “Buy-BuildShoot” kits, and the “Frame or Receiver” Final Rule

Q: Does this rule ban privately made firearms/ghost guns?

No, privately made firearms are not illegal. The rule does not restrict an individual’s ability to make their own firearms from parts for self-defense or other lawful purposes provided the individual is not prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms, engaged in the business of dealing or manufacturing firearms without a license, or other unlawful activity. Of course, private makers must abide by the Undetectable Firearms Act, National Firearms Act, and Gun Control Act requirements, and any applicable state and local laws that govern privately made firearms.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1493431/download

[Brett Bellmore]

The press release really downplays the significance of altering their definition of "readily converted into a fully assembled firearm".

Previously, a box of parts that you just assembled would qualify as such, but if you had to do machining on the receiver, it didn't qualify. Quite objective.

With the new definition, they look at how much machining work is necessary, and how much skill has to be brought to bear, and apply an entirely subjective test.

The initial application was, IIRC, to declare that having to drill holes would not count against a kit being a gun if the holes were center-drilled or a dimple had been put in, to guide you in where to drill.

But, potentially, they could assert that even a raw billet was "readily converted" if you had a milling machine and a program for machining a lower. Ghost Gunner 3, for instance.

The new rule is something of a time bomb, then. They hope to get it past the courts with a minimal enforcement, and then, once the courts had signed off it, they'd go after Ghost Gunner.

[Illocust]

So what's everyone's opinion on returning to the office after two years of teleworking? I know some people never left, but what do you feel about those that have been out? Is the small drop in productivity balanced out by not having to pay for office space and being able to hire people from any location?

[Jimmy the Dane]

My team is largely still remote based. The company is probably drastically downsizing its real estate footprint in the next year (timing was good, leases were up anyhow) so there is no impetus to have window dressing of employees reporting to an office. Really for 90% of workers there is no point and it is just an unnecessary waste of time and money.

Other than in person collaboration I don't miss much. I think our children will find the fact that we used to spend, on average, 2+ hours a day to commute to work a quaint relic on the past.

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, I could do 95% of my work from home, (If downloading multi-gigabyte cad files wouldn't crash the corporate VPN.) but the other 5% would be basically impossible to do without showing up in person in the factory.

And I've found the in person meetings are a lot more productive than the Zoom ones.

[John F. Carr]

One of my previous jobs was building a cloud-based CAD system so users wouldn't have to checkout and lock a file, copy it to the local drive, edit it, copy it back, and unlock it. Most of the network traffic was diffs instead of complete models. A competitor's alleged cloud based system had you put a Windows PC in a rack and VNC into it.

[Michael P]

That reminds me of a very established requirements management tool for software/system engineering. This tool supports encrypting the communications between client and server computers for security purposes. The vendor, however, says that customers cannot put a firewall between the clients and servers, because the encrypted protocol uses random port numbers for some reason. "No firewalls" violates one of the prime security rules for servers. The vendor instead recommends setting up a Citrix server next to the server and running the client from the Citrix server, then putting a firewall around that cluster.

To add insult to injury, the software licenses are applied on the client side. If different companies want to collaborate, this means they cannot use their own clients to securely talk to a common server.

On the whole, for whatever reason, this vendor acts like they want customers to switch to different tools.

[John F. Carr]

I got a job working mostly from home just before the pandemic and I still have it. The difference is I don't go into the city every few months for in person meetings. Maybe we will start meetings again this year. No firm plans.

Reminds me I should get some of that explosive reactive armor for my car, for better results next time somebody hits it while it is parked in the Alewife garage. I don't like driving into the city.

[defaultdotxbe]

My company stopped paying lip service to coming back to the office a year ago. At this point they know more than half of the employees would up and quit if they were told we need to come back to the office every day.

My wife's company is doing the same as Jimmy the Dane's, offloading real estate and converting to 99% remote operations.

[apedad]

Pennsylvania school board torpedoes After School Satan Club

An elementary school board in Pennsylvania doesn't have any sympathy for the devil.

Northern Elementary School in York, Pennsylvania, put to vote the introduction of an After School Satan Club at Tuesday night’s meeting. The club, which was proposed and pushed by a parent at the school, was initially rejected by the principal. However, the club was tabled for a probationary vote at the school board meeting Tuesday. The Satanic club was shot down with an 8-1 vote. There are currently four similar clubs operating in U.S. schools across the country, with regular attempts to expand

https://www.foxnews.com/us/pennsylvania-elementary-school-votes-against-after-school-satan-club

Can somebody explain the Constitution to the conservatives in York County, PA?

[Bob from Ohio]

Can someone explain politics to you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This seems more conservative hayseed ignorance and superstition-laced bullying than politics.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Funny that no lib has ever asked the same thing when a public university or school votes down a Christian club....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If this had involved a Christian club Volokh and Blackman would have posted about it at least six times by now.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I said "funny how no lib....."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Point stands. The misleading, partisan cherry-picking that is this white, male blog's signature element continues.

[OtisAH]

So this is where you give us a short list of some of the what I assume is many many many instances when a “public university or school votes down a Christian club.”

[Michael P]

A comment with more links is "awaiting moderation" that will probably never happen, so:

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/december/ny-school-district-finally-backs-down-stops-discriminating-against-students-christian-club-nbsp is a public school case that never made it to court.

"Business Leaders in Christ v. The University of Iowa" (2018, S.D. Iowa) had an Obama appointee who agreed the public university unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiffs.

Ratio Christi at the University of Houston–Clear Lake v. Khator (2021, S.D. Texas) ended in a settlement in the plaintiff's favor, with the public university agreeing to stop illegally discriminating against the plaintiffs.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/rejected-as-discriminatory-and-shunned-from-campuses-christian-clubs-struggle/ details similar discrimination that is endemic to an entire state's public university system.

You are correct that there are many other such instances.

[dwb68]

Inescapable conclusion: Barrett was assigned Texas from November, eventually dismissed, which means Thomas is writing NY Guns.

New York and NJ get ready for constitutional carry.

[dwb68]

The reverse: Thomas being assigned to Texas does not make sense.

[defaultdotxbe]

I doubt it will go as far as constitutional carry, but CA better get ready for shall-issue.

In the end though nothing will change, they will just require 45 hours of training, an $800 application fee, and $2000 bond before a permit can be issued.

[Kazinski]

The real news would be did Thomas assign it to himself or did Roberts give it to him?

If Roberts gave it to him there are 6 votes for Thomas to run free, otherwise he has 5 and has to come up with a sensitive places doctrine that won't lose anyone.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Man 290 comments before lunch, darn.

So what do people think about the latest news involving Trump?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The news about how utterly despicable the members of the media continue to be towards him?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah, but you never know. Liberals now have all their hopes on some grand jury in Georgia to find Trump guilty of something (even though that isn't what a grand jury does....don't tell Twatter....) And of course this investigation is bound to succeed because the other half dozen state, federal, and Congressional ones were just the start....

Or maybe the Left will realize that Trump is just a businessman and not corrupt politician. The difference is a businessman at least tries to follow the law and usually does even though occasionally they may operate in the gray (usually supported by copious amount of legal advice to assure them it isn't outright illegal), whereas the corrupt politician does color outside of the lines of the law but relies upon their influence and political savvy to dodge anything coming their way.

For example, GWB kept his business ventures largely on the up and up. The Clintons ran a thoroughly corrupt business enterprise. GWB was really a businessman. The Clintons are career politicians.

[not guilty]

Grand juries don't find guilt; they find probable cause or the absence thereof.

[David Nieporent]

Or maybe the Left will realize that Trump is just a businessman and not corrupt politician.

Let's not engage in binary thinking; he's a corrupt businessman as well as a politician.

[loki13]

I know that this is discussed upthread, but I wanted to ruminate a little about Disney. I think that most people aren't really focused on some of the more interesting nuances of what is going on with this in Florida.

To start with, Disney is NOT just the theme parks. Disney is all your content- it's ABC. ESPN. FX. Pixar. Hulu. Disney+. Fox and Disney studios. Etc. So Disney doesn't just have to appease consumers, it has to appease its employees- the content creators. And this may shock some of you who constantly complain about "Hollywood liberals," but content creators in general aren't happy with the recently-passed Florida legislation.

Next, we have the change in Disney's CEO. That has been ... contentious. The prior CEO (Iger) was widely loved. The new CEO (Chapek) is ... not. And that's an understatement. One major issue has been Chapek's handling of the talent side- one example is getting involved in a needless lawsuit with Scarlett Johansson. Another would be the way that he handled this. Chapek is widely believed to be much more CONSERVATIVE than Iger. So his repeated public missteps alienated large portions of his creative workforce. The statements over the Fla. legislation (along with the giant contributions Disney was giving to the Republicans in Florida) was the straw that broke the camel's back, which forced him to publicly retreat ... especially after the ex-CEO (Iger) came out against it.

...but those statements gave DeSantis an "in" to launch a public crusade. A wedge issue. Which is what this is really about. Next, what does this mean?
(contd.)

[dwb68]

"So Disney doesn't just have to appease consumers, it has to appease its employees- the content creators. "

No, this is the mistake woke companies are making: Companies cease to exist without customers. Period. Content creators get fired and are irrelevant without people buying their product.

Now I grant you, some content creators are arrogant enough to think otherwise, but eventually they all learn the hard way when sales plummet.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right, I was thinking the same thing. How cares how happy the content creators are if no one is consuming their content?

F Disney and F all those content creators. If they work at Disney they probably got a track record of child rape anyways. Disney loves hiring groomers and rapists.

[loki13]

I appreciate your response, but I don't think you are fully thinking this through. Or maybe you don't care to.

People like Pixar films. They like Pixar films A LOT. I'm assuming you're an old person (it's a safe assumption, here, given the tenor of your comments) but ... Pixar makes bank. Not just in the theater, but over and over and over and over and over (seriously, ask parents) at home.

And who makes those Pixar movies? Content creators. Same with just about everything. Do you like the Marvel? Do you like the Star Wars? Family Guy? Simpsons? Winnie the Pooh?

Should I keep going? Now, maybe you don't like those things. Maybe you're all like, "I hate me woke stuff and I only watch good ol' PATRIOTIC STUFF. My eyeballz reject anything but Fox News and OANN." In which case- you're not really the target market, anyway.

But for most normal people- teens, tweens, parents with kids, people not consumed with partisan politics, the international market, etc..... yeah, they want content.

And Disney is the king of content. And the people that make that content matter.

But maybe you're right. Maybe they need to cater to the old people that aren't even watching their stuff, and ignore the people that make the stuff that makes them billions.

I will respectfully disagree.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a really fascinating take - that the variable is not the content, but the content creators.

Is that a change in the entertainment biz, or just a new way to look at what's been going on since the studio system was a thing?

[loki13]

Well, it's always been the case to an extent. It's why, in Hollywood, talent can do no wrong (and traditionally, talent is always protected).

I think it's an interesting area that we are going into right now where the content creation is so important (because of competition for it, and because of the higher standards for a fair amount of it) and where the dynamics of the market favor employees in a way we haven't seen in decades.

But in a way, your question kind of answers itself- the content IS the content creators.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, but turning the means into the end is a pretty fun take. I know there have been similar eras - director auteur springs to mind.

[loki13]

Oh man. I love movies from the period.

You know, I feel like so many movies today are just aping those movies. The Joker? C'mon.

(Although, weirdly when I watched The Batman, I kept thinking ... what if Tim Burton's Batman and Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins had a love child, and that child was like, "My name is David Fincher, and I want to direct Seven.)

[Sarcastr0]

Heh. Yeah, those movies are much better at...invoking a vibe, for lack of a better term.

And given the generational remove, not surprised we see echoes/homages showing up now.

Wonder what we'll see as references to today's films a generation on.

[loki13]

Here me now and believe me later-

I watched Drive My Car (now streaming on HBO Max) to see what all the hype was about. Was it really that good?

And the answer is ... yes. It really, really is. It's a movie that sticks with you.

If you like good movies, and can take the slower pace, it is totally worth it. (Any knowledge of Chekhov and Uncle Vanya will be a plus, as well).

[Commenter_XY]

Let's see if Netflix changes the argument you make, short term = But in a way, your question kind of answers itself- the content IS the content creators.

The flaw I see...if content creation becomes commoditized, your thesis (an interesting one - had not thought of it that way) is blown.

[shawn_dude]

There is a huge competition for engaging content of a very high caliber. Any company that cannot keep their best content creators happy will lose them to Prime, Netflix, HBO, Sony, etc.

Good, emotionally engaging content, requires the sorts of people that are able to emotionally engage with the world in general and tell relatable stories. I don't see a lot of empathy coming from the sorts of people who buy into homosexual pedophile fearmongering.

[dwb68]

For example:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-facing-reality-check-subscriber-loss-stock-plummet-cut-costs-vows-to-curb-its-profligate-ways-11650547424?mod=hp_lead_pos2

Netflix loses subscribers, they cut back on spending, they focus on shows people want to watch.

"It is revamping production deals to limit its risk, and prioritizing programs with the biggest return, not the greatest reach, the people said. A key internal metric: the ratio of a program’s viewership to its budget."

The only thing that matters to Disney and Netflix is subscribers/customers, if they want to remain in business. Otherwise some other company will come along and produce things people do want to watch.

[loki13]

That's .... not a "for example."

If you follow the industry, you already knew that Netflix was infamously overpaying for content. So it's hardly surprising that given the subscriber numbers (which also fell because they cut off Russia ... remember that?), they are having to cut back on spending for content.

Unlike a lot of the entrenched players, Netflix didn't start with a library of content, so they were overpaying to try and start building their own original library knowing that the others (such as Disney and WB/HBO) were going to be ending deals to license their material.

[dwb68]

They *lost subscribers*.

Has nothing to do with overpaying for content. They content they created wasn't being watched.

My point stands. Disney needs to cater to customers to survive, regardless of what the employees or the creators want.

[loki13]

I will try one more time, in two parts.

1. Netflix lost subscribers for a number of reasons, including losing 700,000 subscribers because they pulled out of Russia. To put that in perspective, if they hadn't done that, they would have gained subscribers. There are other reasons, but your thesis is unsupported- even by that article. I suggest broadening you reading to alternate sources.

2. "Disney" does not create content. Do you know who does? Content creators. The people who work for Disney. And they are the ones who have made Disney the go-to success that they have been. So implying that the content creators (who have been wildly successful) have somehow failed to cater to the customers is incorrect. Or, in more simple terms- Disney needs to cater to the employees that have made it successful, or those employees will go to other places and help make those other places successful, because a company is made up of its employees.

Now do you understand?

[dwb68]

My only "thesis" is that companies like Disney and Netflix dont exist unless people watch their shows. They need to cater to customers #1,2, and 3. See also: "The Problem with Jon Stewart," launched in Sept 2021 on Apple TV+. less than 200k viewers. Jon Oliver's show gets 5x that.

I never said that there was not a market for woke. But its limited to about 33% of the country. Probably less.

[loki13]

So ... I don't even understand what you're talking about.

You are comparing Jon Stewart to John Oliver (with an h) to make the point that there isn't a market for "woke." ..... Have you ever watched an episode of Jonn Oliver? Okay.

Did you even remember the comment you were replying to so vociferously? Here it is-
"So Disney doesn't just have to appease consumers, it has to appease its employees- the content creators."

Notice ... JUST. You get that, right? They have to appease their employees too. Not JUST customers. Not to mention their employees create the things that their customers like?

And what is your fascination with "woke" culture? What, you mean the things that most people watch? Like the stuff Disney is making? This is so weird.... do you not think entertainment companies are putting out products that appeal to consumers? Usually young ones?

Or is it that as you have gotten older, you've realized that you're no longer in touch with what people like? Which, yeah, I get it. It's a sad realization. Remember how out of touch your parents were?

You're them, now.

[dwb68]

I know you don't understand what I am talking about, because you keep responding to an argument I didnt make.

I said:
Companies cease to exist without customers. Period. Content creators get fired and are irrelevant without people buying their product.

Now I grant you, some content creators are arrogant enough to think otherwise, but eventually they all learn the hard way when sales plummet.

You have yet to show me a counter example. I am pretty sure you are in the latter group of people who need to learn the hard way that creators need to produce what people actually want, not what they think that they should want.

[loki13]

Well, I honestly don't know what to say. I mean, you ignored the actual comment you were supposedly responding to (which acknowledged consumers). You keep going off about something "woke."

But yes, if your point is this- "A company that only sells widgets that no one buys will eventually cease to exist."

Well, okay. I will admit that you have won some sort of argument that no one would ever engage in. Good?

[dwb68]

You said: "So Disney doesn't just have to appease consumers, it has to appease its employees- the content creators."

I said: "Companies cease to exist without customers. Period. Content creators get fired and are irrelevant without people buying their product."

Disney does not need to "to appease its employees- the content creators" because they are not the people paying for content.

[loki13]

No.

Look, let me show you one more time what a weird statement you're making by turning it around.

"Companies cease to exist without employees. Period. Consumers come and go and other people will eventually buy the product, but without people to make the product, it doesn't matter."

That's both a trivially true statement as well as a stupid one not worthy of discussing. Do you get that?

Yeah. Companies can't exist without people to buy what they're selling. DUH. They also can't exist without people to make what they are selling. DUH.

There is a mildly interesting conversation discussing how fungible these various things are (employees, consumers) depending on both the nature of the employee (a line worker is not as fungible as, say, the creative team at Pixar) and the nature of the consumer (some markets and consumers are harder to replace).

But I have no idea what bizarre point you are making. As a general rule, what matters is the quality of the product and the market it is being sold to- not the "wokeness" or some political point. If you don't believe me, look at Nike stock since September 2018.

[Sarcastr0]

How about a thought experiment, dwb. What if Disney's customers still had good will, but all it's content creators left?

How do you think that'd go for Disney's bottom line?

[dwb68]

For Disney to survive, they do not "appease" their content creators, which are your words. The hire completely different content creators who deliver what customers want.

[Sarcastr0]

hire completely different content creators who deliver what customers want.

Lets do Pixar but without Pixar's experienced staff that understands the Pixar brand inside and out?

Good luck with that.

[loki13]

Chapek to Wall Street:

Great news everyone! We fired all the creatives that were complaining and that had walked out earlier.

The people at Pixar. Marvel Studios. Disney Animation.

Oh, and all those actors and directors in Hollywood that have spoken up? Well, we aren't working with them either. That's right! We don't need any of those Hollywood-types to make movies for Disney or Fox, and we certainly don't need those pinkos to make content for Disney+.

Aren't you happy? Wait, where are you all going? What's happening to the stock price?

[dwb68]

You might want to explain your analysis to CNN+.

People didn't watch, so bye. They shut it down.

Nevermind that they hired Chris Wallace away from Fox.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL at that dumbass pivot.

I guess you're taking the L.

[shawn_dude]

Catering to customers means hiring the people that can make what the customers are interested in. No creators --> No content --> No customers.

[dwb68]

Mostly correct. However a lot of creators produce when they think people should want, not what they actually want.

[loki13]

Sometimes! Some artists are Van Gogh, some are Thomas Kinkade. Nothing wrong with either.

It's a fickle thing- great creators make things that audiences didn't even know they wanted. Bad creators make things that they think audiences want, and misfire badly. Not to mention it's hard to even define what the audience is- things that play well in international markets (like action movies) will get more attention than things that are tough sell in those markets (like rom-coms). And with markets, it can be difficult as well; Star Trek is definitely a "niche" franchise, and yet pumping them out is one of the few things keeping the Paramount streaming service relevant right now- because while it's niche, it's a strong niche.

Plus there's the age thing. All other things being equal, younger demographics are intensely more valuable and more important than older ones.

All of which makes the whole "woke media" thing a bunch of crud. Creators and companies do well- and if they aren't appealing to you, you should pause and think about who they are appealing to.

[Don Nico]

If one wants a good example of the importance of the content creators and the subsequent catering to those creators, look no further than the NBA.
Sure, franchise matters to some extent, but fan want the superstar players.
QED

[loki13]

Yeah, I know! This is so silly I don't even know why I bothered engaging.

It's almost bizarre, isn't it? On the one hand, there's a group of people that have long complained about "liberal Hollywood." Almost like creatives tend to skew more liberal? And then ... they are shocked (SHOCKED!) to find out that the creative people might be ... liberal ... and want to work at more progressive places?

(The NBA, if anything, is this on steroids, where the people "making" the content have more of a direct relationship with the fans. In fact, if you talk to younger NBA fans, they are often fans of players, and not teams.)

[Sarcastr0]

To some, art is only a weapon in the culture war.

[dwb68]

Don Nico: explain that to Colin Capernick. Maybe everyone should have catered to him?

[Stephen Lathrop]

However a lot of creators produce when they think people should want, not what they actually want.

Nah, that overlooks too much. At a minimum you need 3 groups: creators; intermediaries; people.

The people are always right, but not often in direct contact with the creators. That contact bit mostly gets done by intermediaries. After disagreements, a question sometimes arises whether creators or intermediaries are right about the people. To complicate the answer, both groups understandably mix their own interests with their estimates of people's preferences.

Neither the creators' interests nor the people's preferences will matter if the intermediaries are wrong, because then the whole thing will blow up like the Hindenberg.

Netflix is an intermediary. "Oh, the humanity!"

Disney is an intermediary, too—between creators and people who consume what they create. Disney has distinguished itself by being mostly-righter than other such intermediaries, while managing creators who have been mostly better than other such creators—which puts a schmeer of ambiguity on where to bestow credit, and how much for each. Proportional shares are bound to fluctuate.

Where nutcase governors figure—not into that calculus, but somewhere around the edges of it—may presently become clearer than it is now. A nutcase-governor-evaluator question may figure in—is the nutcase governor self-motivated to maximize what the people want (does he know that?), or self-motived to maximize donations, for later expenditure to tell the people to want him.

Outcomes of a process so interactive seem unlikely to be reliably predicted.

[loki13]

Disney has been expanding some of its other operations in Florida. Notably, the relocation of employees from Burbank to Orlando to a new campus. At the time, they said it was due to Florida business-friendly climate. This, of course, was during the pandemic. And also when Disney (with massive contributions to the Florida GOP) could count on the Florida making sure that its largest employer got special perks, such as the carve-out to the highly-touted social media law.

Here's the thing, though. As Florida becomes more and more famous (or infamous) for passing stunt legislation, or legislation considered hostile to LGBTQ+, it is also considered actively hostile to a lot of people within the creative industry. Increasingly, it is a hard sell to get those people to want to move there for work. DeSantis's presidential aspirations are making it difficult for Disney. And now we have this schism. Notice that while DeSantis (and others) continue to rail, Disney doesn't have to say a thing- why would they? DeSantis's public stance against Disney is what they need at this point ... well, assuming that the usual "attention span of a gnat" happens with our body politic.

But the more interesting thing is the actual structure of what they are debating, because that is what is interesting and worrying. Getting rid of the RCID completely would have disastrous effects in a lot of way- bad effects for Disney, but disastrous effects for Orange County and the state of Florida. Let me repeat that- the effects for Disney would not actually be that bad. RCID makes life convenient for Disney. But it's not needed. Just ask yourself- if the largest employer in the state is in a county, what does it get from the county? And the answer is always, "Whatever it wants." That's not going to change.

But the RCID isn't going to go away. That's not what is happening at all.

(contd.)

[loki13]

No, the legislation doesn't get rid of the RCID. (Oh, and a few other districts as well ... but no one cares about collateral damage, do they?).

Wait, what? You weren't paying attention, were you. It isn't abolished immediately. Instead, it will be sunsetted. In a year.

Of course, they will have the ability to present a new plan to the legislature for the district, and get it approved during that time! So in a year, RCID will likely still be chugging along, maybe a little changed ....

So suddenly this becomes a little more transparent, I would think.

A. State government does something company doesn't like. This company is a major donor to one of the two political parties- the one that controls the state government.

B. Company says, "We are halting all political contributions because we don't like that."

C. State government says, "Fine. We are going after you. We are going to see if we can take away your stuff. But .... it's going to take effect in a year. In the meantime, you have to negotiate with us to see what you get."

Basically, it's a shakedown. Now, from a purely personal point of view, I completely understand why this is happening; DeSantis has national aspirations, and this is something to get people riled up about. However, for the long-term interests of the state of Florida, it seems dubious at best. Regardless of your thoughts on the Florida legislation, I certainly don't think Disney is going to be saying that Florida is business-friendly in the future.

And while I think that Disney, rightfully, plans for things past the DeSantis administration, they are more dependent on overall content and IP creation, and less dependent on theme parks moving forward. Anyway, it's an interesting issue.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's an interesting narrative, but there is one flaw, Disney is not a major donor to the FL GOP. They donate 9 to 1 to the FL Democrats.

[shawn_dude]

This is not a flaw in the argument. It doesn't matter if Disney provides no donations to the Florida GOP establishment (Trumpist) at all. They are still the largest private employer in the state supporting the largest industry in the state with a significant impact on the state's economy.

Even if Disney didn't donate (and they do donate a lot of hard cash), that is no reason for the state government to treat them as irelevant and disposable. Disney employees vote in state elections at a very minimum.

[loki13]

More importantly, it had looked like under Chapek ... Disney was trying hard to move more things from California to Florida. After all, it was "business-friendly."

Now, they face two intertwined obstacles-

First, Florida's reputation has nosedived with creatives. So that's going to a non-starter for large parts of the company.

Second, they can no longer trust the state government. Sure, they've got their flagship park operations there, but Disney is a massive worldwide corporation. Why bother putting any more eggs in the Florida basket after this?

[Bob from Ohio]

"largest private employer in the state"

62,000 out of 8.5 million. roughly 0.8 %

Those jobs are not going anywhere. Unless you think Disney will spend 50 billion to relocate somewhere, assuming they can find 25,000 acres in a year-around warm state east of the Mississippi River that isn't conservative too.

[Brett Bellmore]

False premises are always flaws. They may not be fatal flaws if the conclusion didn't actually rely on the premise, but they're always flaws.

[Ridgeway]

In your summary, neither side looks particularly good.

Disney is complaining that their politicians won't stay bought, and the Florida GOP is saying that it was not a one-time fee, but rather an annual subscription. Disney ought to be familiar with that model.

[loki13]

Not really. Mostly because Florida (the state) is the loser.

Disney isn't complaining at all. Do you see them complaining? They are adjusting.

I was just explaining the internal dynamics at Disney that led to this. Best case- it blows over. Worst case? All those projected moves to Florida don't happen.

This is sacrificing the interests of the state for DeSantis's presidential hopes. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Ridgeway]

Personally, I think DeSantis is making a mistake here. He already won. Pressing his advantage doesn't make him look strong, it makes him look vindictive.

He already has plenty of populist cred. He needs to shore up his support with more moderate voters who may lean toward GOP policy (and are put off by nuttier parts of Dem policy), but recoiled from Trump's personality.

The way to do that would have been to show magnanimity in victory. Explain that the law is not the caricature that its opponents made it out to be, and that Florida welcomes people of all types blah blah blah.

[loki13]

I wish you were right, but I don't think he is making a mistake. I think that this is a rational calculation that will likely pay off.

His goal is to win the primaries- period. And one thing that is exceedingly clear to me is that the way to win over the Trump wing of the GOP is not to be magnanimous. It's to be petty and vindictive and to show that you willing to stomp someone when they're down.

I really think that this is the darkest timeline.

[Ridgeway]

We'll see.

DeSantis is a shrewd politician, so he may have data that says this will help him.

However, I don't see anybody on the national stage with his level of popularity and name recognition among the Trump wing of the GOP (other than The Donald himself), and even lots of the very Trumpy people I interact with realize that the next candidate has to be able to win the general election.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Personally, I think DeSantis is making a mistake here."

He hasn't made many.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Personally, I think DeSantis is making a mistake here. He already won. Pressing his advantage doesn't make him look strong, it makes him look vindictive."

What has he won? Has Disney stopped trying to interfere in Florida politics? Not that I've heard.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, this was hilarious = Disney is complaining that their politicians won't stay bought, and the Florida GOP is saying that it was not a one-time fee, but rather an annual subscription. Disney ought to be familiar with that model.

Thanks for the laugh. 🙂

[Ridgeway]

I try

[M L]

I heard that inflation today is over 14% if you use the formula that was used in the 80s. Is that right?

[Sarcastr0]

I'd guess a lot of the electronics made in the 1980s are pretty expensive nowadays.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I recently checked my Marantz stereo, (Approaching 40 years old, still working great!) and it's actually a lot cheaper now on Ebay.

[Currentsitguy]

I think it depends on the equipment you are talking about. Try laying your hands on a Marantz 10b today for less than four grand.

[Brett Bellmore]

I find vacuum tubes technologically interesting, but several years of studying electrical engineering left me unimpressed with audiophiles' strange obsession with them. By every objective measure a properly designed solid state circuit will have better performance.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sur if inflation indexes include the secondary market.

[ThePublius]

I think ML was referring to the fact that BLS core inflation doesn't include food and fuel, but in the 1980's it did. If you add food and fuel back in you get something like 16% now.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

[bernard11]

The "headline" CPI includes food and fuel.

Stop with the nonsense.

[Don Nico]

Irrelevant (and even wrong). Except for British audio, consumer electronics are built to price points of consumers. British audio builds to audiophile performance points.

[Sarcastr0]

My point is that the pricing of an old basket of goods is going to get kinda wonky in the nonconsumables 40 years on.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

CNN+ is shutting down after one month. I wonder why our culture wars betters couldn't attract a paying audience for their superior cultural product?

[dwb68]

LMAO, all I could think about was how Chris Wallace left Fox for CNN+. I hope he cashed that check.

Now what lol.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I hope he cashed that check. "

The expensive "talent" like Wallace have contracts and will get paid. I would guess most will get moved to regular CNN.

Its the lower level people getting screwed, I would not think regular CNN can absorb very many.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Wallace (who is 70-something and quite wealthy) indicated he switched not because of money but instead because he was ashamed of Fox News.

He will get paid anyway, I expect.

[Currentsitguy]

I'm sure he will. Any agent worth his salt would be sure that was in the contract. As for his future I am reading most of their content is being moved over to HBO Max. I'd surmise he'll go there as well.

[Michael P]

Some wags have remarked that Wallace's departure from Fox is an excellent example of "addition by subtraction". (I saw that on Powerline Blog, but others used the phrase earlier.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If ridding Fox of its final legitimate journalist was the goal, the wags are right.

[apedad]

Maybe they can get jobs at Trump's Truth Social network.

[Bob from Ohio]

Do you think Trump spent $300 million on Truth like was spent on CNN+?

[apedad]

Dunno but he sure conned a lot of people to the tune of $1B.

PALM BEACH, Fla., Dec. 04, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. ("TMTG") and Digital World Acquisition Corp. (Nasdaq: DWAC), today announced that Digital World Acquisition Corp. ("DWAC") has entered into subscription agreements for $1 billion in committed capital to be received upon consummation of their business combination (the "PIPE") from a diverse group of institutional investors.

President Donald J. Trump, Chairman of TMTG, stated, "$1 billion sends an important message to Big Tech that censorship and political discrimination must end. America is ready for TRUTH Social, a platform that will not discriminate on the basis of political ideology. As our balance sheet expands, TMTG will be in a stronger position to fight back against the tyranny of Big Tech.

[Bob from Ohio]

So, unlike CNN, he may have made a profit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump has profited handsomely by scamming the half-educated bigots, superstitious hayseeds, gullible rubes, backwater losers, and ignorant culture war casualties who constitute his fan base.

As the can't-keep-up backwaters empty and decay, anything that takes money out of our rural, mostly southern stretches of desolation probably is a plus.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody ever denied that Trump was good at being a con man.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Or that conservatives provide a remarkably rich vein of gullible rubes to be plundered by people peddling fear, ignorance, superstition, miracle pain relief cures, commemorative gold coins, downscale life insurance, reverse mortgages, witchcraft-defeating crosses, shitty pillows, sketchy nutritional supplements, and identity protection subscriptions.

(Reverse mortgages might be legitimate products, so they probably don't deserve to be in that lineup.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of great products . . .

some culture in a box (for . . . a certain kind of guy)

and

who isn't in the market for more fiber?

[Jimmy the Dane]

There can't be much of a market for a liberal echo chamber seeing that modern corporations have done a good job in making certain it is all around us in the workplace, at school, in advertising, on television, in sports, bleeding into social media, etc. etc. I'm surprised they even thought such an idea was feasible.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What a tragedy . . . of this damned progress, education, tolerance, science, modernity, reason, inclusiveness, dominating American society at the expense of backwardness, old-timey superstition, ignorance, dogma, insularity, bigotry . . . it's a wonder the Rapture hasn't been dispatched by now to smite America mightily for its transgressions.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Women, children, minorities not hit at all...

[John F. Carr]

Thanks to the Streisand effect, I checked out "Libs of TikTok" and found this: "I (0 background in journalism/media) get more impressions within one hour of posting a single tweet than CNN+ had in their entire short existence and that’s without the $300 million in funding ????."

[loki13]

People were making fun of Quibi for being a terrible idea, and then CNN+ pushed it aside and said, "Hold my beer."

[Currentsitguy]

Seem to me right now if I had a ton of money and needed to show a loss for tax purposes I'd invest in a media streaming startup. It seems quicker and more efficient than having to travel to Vegas and blow it all on the tables.

[John F. Carr]

The traditional way to make a small fortune -- invest a large one in a newspaper -- is still available.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That's the newer model. The traditional model was to invest almost nothing, and get rich in the right growing market.

Another model, tuned to a time of transition, was to scout around for newspapers which were barely breaking even while using letterpress printing plants, buy them cheap, then switch over to less-laborious offset lithography. That was the model that built Gannett.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't (and don't) know what the business proposition was intended to be, but the NYT report on this story suggests that the 1 month lifespan of CNN+ reflects not a complete flop, but a casualty of the Discovery merger. Discovery never had any interest in this. And Zucker, who was a big fan, was pushed out a bit ago. The NYT suggests that if the Discovery merger hadn't happened, Warner would have stuck with it, at least for a while.

[Ridgeway]

It is always easier to nuke something when you had no part in (and blame for) setting it up in the first place, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that the launch was not a catastrophic failure.

It is as if when the geniuses at McKinsey did their powerpoint slide, they forgot to change the scale on the projected subscriber base from millions to thousands.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do Democrats think Biden is mentally capable and cognitively healthy and that's he's just getting fake news? Or do they think he's got some impairment issues and just ignore it because he's their leader?

[Michael P]

Good question! The Easter Bunny won't always be there to interrupt when he starts to make unauthorized comments about Afghanistan or whatever else.

[OtisAH]

I think it’s hilarious that, even given all the time in the world to reply, you still couldn’t think of a more recent and relevant global hotspot than Afghanistan.

[Michael P]

I think it's hilarious that, even given all the gaslighting and disinformation from your favored media, you did not realize I was referring to an actual event.

[OtisAH]

No you weren’t.

[Michael P]

Wow, you guys are really busy replaying the Argument Clinic sketch this week.

[loki13]

Inspired by the comments above, here are my streaming recommendations for this week!

HBO Max: Sure, you've seen The Batman. But do you want to watch an even better three hour movie? Drive My Car. Yes, it's got subtitles. Yes, it is a slow movie. But it will stay with you long after the last superhero movie rush ends.

Netflix: Better Call Saul. Some people say this is better than Breaking Bad. I'm not here for that debate; instead, I will say that somehow, it is as good. Netflix has all the seasons up to the one that is airing. Go see what all the fuss is about.

The Star Trek Network (Paramount+): There's a lot of obvious choices, but I'm going with Lower Decks this week. Sure, it's animated. But if you love Star Trek, or even casually just like it, you will be shocked to find out how good this animated series is. The background gags alone are worth the price of admission.

AppleTV: No, not Ted Lasso. Severance. It has a murderer's row of talent in the cast, and a premise that is both creepy and immediately familiar. What if your work life was completely separate from your regular life?

[Currentsitguy]

Haven't seen Lower Decks yet, but so far everything else has been a huge disappointment. As someone who goes back to the Original Series I find all the new stuff too dark and lacking in that sense of hope and wonder all the earlier series brought.

I'm holding out hope for Brave New World.

[loki13]

If you like TOS and TNG Star Trek, you'll probably like Lower Decks.

It's a (mostly) humorous take on Star Trek, riffing primarily on TNG-era stuff. If you know your Trek, it's really funny.

(I can't wait to see Anson Mount in his own series ....)

[SRG]

AppleTV+: Slow Horses - classic British grubby spy thriller, Gary Oldman superb

HBOMax: Tokyo Vice - captures the atmosphere of Tokyo very well and excellent drama based on real events: a Japanese-speaking American journalist investigates the Yakuza. (Despite the name and the platform, almost no nudity, if you're unduly vexed about such things)

[loki13]

I'll check 'em out. Both of them sound good!

[dwb68]

Here is mine: CNN+.

A network with a lot of content creators in search of viewership.

Eat your vegetables!

lmao.

[Ridgeway]

re Better Call Saul, Michael McKean is a phenomenal talent, and tremendous in the show. But for someone like me who grew up with Laverne and Shirley, it is very hard to look at him and not see Lenny.

[loki13]

Oh... yeah. I mean, he's so good in it I didn't even think about it! But dang.

[Ridgeway]

The scene where he does Karaoke with Jimmy after Jimmy gets admitted is one of the better single "film" scenes I have seen in a long time.

[Moderation4ever]

Michael McKean has done some great work in mockumentaries. Spinal Tap, Best in Show, A Mighty Wind. Certainly more talent than was required for Lenny.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The best (modern television dramatic series):

The Wire
Breaking Bad
Deadwood
Game Of Thrones
Boardwalk Empire

Worthwhile:
The Sopranos
Mad Men
Better Call Saul
The Americans

[Ridgeway]

I liked Breaking Bad, but I wouldn't rate it as high as the Sopranos or the Wire. At it best, it was as good as any of them, but it had more weaknesses. I thought Walt Jr., Hank and the Sister in Law were all weak characters (although Hank's last episode was great).

Some people like the family tension part of many episodes, but it just made me uncomfortable.

Rockford Files is still the greatest show of all time, FWIW

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Was the Rockford Files show as great as theRockford Files theme?

A song so great a great songwriter wrote a song about it.

[SRG]

Oh, if we're on original TV themes,

Danger Man ("High Wire")
The Prisoner
Dr Who (original version)
Peter Gunn
Mission Impossible
Dexter

[Ridgeway]

I take a holistic view of the Rockford Files, and celebrate the entire catalog.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I'd replace GoT in tier 1 with The Americans and replace The Americans in tier 2 with The Leftovers.

What adaptive mini-series should be out there but aren't? I'm still waiting for Stranger in a Strange Land or Candid.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Candide...

[not guilty]

Tomorrow Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene will face a hearing before an administrative law judge regarding whether she should be disqualified from running for re-election to Congress for having engaged in insurrection against the United States in regard to the events of January 6, 2021. I am skeptical of the challengers' chances, but I am glad to see her called to account under oath for her conduct.

[John F. Carr]

The burden of proof is on the challengers. They may have to offer evidence of disqualifying conduct, not protected by the speech or debate clause, before she can be ordered to testify. Unlike presidents, members of Congress are allowed to call for insurrection or treason when acting in their official capacities.

[not guilty]

There is nothing preventing the challengers from calling Rep. Greene as an adverse witness and examining her by leading questions. I will be surprised if she comports herself well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1: "... and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

They can call her as a witness, sure, but they, constitutionally, can't question her about anything she said in her official capacity.

[SRG]

But they can question her about anything she said elsewhere, even if in a quasi-official capacity, and they can also get her in a perjury trap.

On reflection, though, I hope she does remain on the ballot. It does no harm to remind US voters that the GOP tolerates racist insurrectionist extremists like her.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I am glad to see her called to account under oath for her conduct"

The process is the punishment.

Former criminal defense lawyer, jeez.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's just enjoy Marjorie Taylor Greene's most recent turn in the barrel. Under oath.

Maybe she will speak in tongues. I have heard that in some especially worthless southern stretches that actually happens.

[not guilty]

As Dean Wigmore observed, cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.

[not guilty]

Rep. Greene seems to have developed amnesia about everything she has said heretofore. That opens the door to prove up her past statements by extrinsic evidence. If and to the extent that disputed issues of fact turn on her credibility, that does not bode well for her.

[Squirrelloid]

I, for one, would like a deeper analysis of the APA aspects of the mask mandate ruling. It feels like those are the far more important aspects of the ruling, with far broader implications, than what the definition of "sanitation" is.

[Michael P]

Virginia's new(-ish) governor is a uniter, not a divider.

[Sarcastr0]

True: In Irving, TX (just outside Dallas) the school board is debating whether to fire a teacher who put rainbow stickers on her classroom door. A lawyer for the district said "(The stickers) may be endangering students." The teacher has already been suspended for the stickers.
https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1517158772753539072

[Michael P]

Guess what happens when teachers violate very specific district policies? Teachers do not have First Amendment rights in how their workplaces are decorated.

If the teacher doesn't like it, she could always do like that teacher in Loudoun County (Va.) and sue the school board, but his speech was protected because it was at a school board meeting rather than in the workplace.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If she claims her religion -- the Christian Bible in particular -- directed her to display rainbow stickers, every gape-jawed wingnut at this blog would be spasming in outrage unless she were vindicated immediately.

Which is part of why I expect all Americans eventually to embrace the claim that 'superstition made me do it.' One of the advantages of reliance on science, education, and reason rather than old-timey superstition, dogma, and ignorance is adaptability.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Science(tm)!

lmao

You seem to belittle people believing on God, while yourself believes Federal Bureaucrats and Life Politicians are some sort of omnipotent, benevolent and altruistic demi-gods. In spite of all the empirical evidence to the contrary. In fact, the pay structure for the Federal Government actually attracts the stupidest people in America. The dumber you are, the more the Federal Government will pay you with respect to the private sector.

So here we have an 30-40% of our population begging the stupidest people in the country to rule and lord over them.

Now that's a bazillion times more stupider than believing in God.

[Sarcastr0]

Just so you feel the vibes of things in #Texas right now for #trans folk, I interviewed the mother of a nonbinary adolescent this week. The kid's teacher, in front of the whole class, announced that the reason they're trans is because they've been groomed by their queer parents.
https://twitter.com/kitoconnell/status/1516583448990961675?s=21&t=5tOSEkSIfeRs7AwvwoU3pA

[M L]

I'm not sure what "groomed" is supposed to mean but this seems incorrect based on what I thought it used to mean. And regardless that seems like a wrong thing for the teacher to do.

Setting that aside, the bigger story is, I feel bad for this kid. The parents are harming them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"seems like a wrong thing for the teacher to do"

What makes you think it actually happened?

[M L]

Good point. Nothing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The kid's teacher, in front of the whole class, announced that the reason they're trans is because they've been groomed by their queer parents."

A thing that never happened.

[not guilty]

How do you claim to know whether it happened or not? Are you just making shit up to fit your world view?

[Sarcastr0]

Great stuff Texas. Really full of that Christian love.

Not the baddies of this story at all.

[loki13]

It's like the Mitchell & Webb skit.

Really.

[M L]

I can't keep up with all the "politics" stuff going on these days. For a handy shortcut though, I'm thinking whatever makes David French upset is the right direction.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, because he's a principled, thoughtful (and religiously serious) conservative instead of a MAGA type. He has this weird idea that pwning the libs is not actually the goal of government, and that one's soul is more important than getting good ratings or winning a news cycle. This makes him anathema to the Trumpkin world, because his very existence is a rebuke to their own worthless lives.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I can see that the Democrats' definition of "a principled, thoughtful conservative" would, of course be, "a conservative who supports Democrats".

But why would anybody who isn't a Democrat humor such a criterion?

[Ridgeway]

I don't think that applies to French so much.

Trump has obviously had a big effect on the conservative commentariat. Some of those who reject Trumpism have indeed become more or less indistinguishable from Democrats (Jen Rubin, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, David Frum). Others (like French, Kevin Williamson and Jonah Goldberg) have maintained their principles better, and those principles entail rejecting some of the populist ideas that Trumpism has been attempting to incorporate into the definition of "conservatism." It also entails rejecting Trump's manner and conduct, as well as the borderline cult of personality that has been formed around him.

[M L]

All those people are incredibly repulsive. I'll take Bernie Sanders over any of them.

[bernard11]

I can see that the Democrats' definition of "a principled, thoughtful conservative" would, of course be, "a conservative who supports Democrats".

No. It would have a number criteria, starting with,

"Doesn't support Trump."

[David Nieporent]

I am not a Democrat, and David French does not "support Democrats." He supports principles, and sometimes those come out on the same side as Democrats.

[Ridgeway]

Other than loathing Trump and wanting him impeached, are there any political or cultural issues on which French really lines up with the Democrats? I'll admit I haven't followed him much since he went behind a paywall.

[David Nieporent]

On policy, no. He's obviously not pro-choice or for higher taxes or the like. But he's temperamentally a classical liberal, by which I mean not as a euphemism for libertarian, but in that he believes in values like pluralism and tolerance, principles like free speech and the like.

So when — to use the now famous example — he sees a story about Drag Queen Story Hour at the library, he doesn't think, "How can we weaponize this against Democrats on Election Day?" or "The government needs to stomp this out, and so Republicans need to get in power to make that happen" but rather "I don't approve of this, but the same principles that allow this allow a religious group access to public facilities, and I do approve of that. The same government that can stomp out this when conservatives are in charge will stomp out conservatives when conservatives are not in charge."

[Michael P]

The lawless Biden Administration is ignoring court orders to continue Trump-era policies.

[David Nieporent]

Like everything disgraced ex-journalist John Solomon writes, you should assume it's wrong (usually Russian propaganda, but not in this case.) Solomon apparently doesn't understand that the MPP program is not for "illegal aliens" per se, but only for asylum seekers.

[Michael P]

You had better tell DHS that they are wrong about what MPP is.

[Kazinski]

Yeah well Solomon isn't discraced. The Hill didn't find any facts in any of Solomon's coulumns that couldn't be confirmed. In fact it turns out their major complaint was that there were too many facts:

"Solomon’s Ukraine columns represented a departure from The Hill’s standard opinion content because they attempted to blend opinion and investigative, “original reporting” material. The Hill will avoid such blending of reporting and opinion columns going forward."

While The Hill does cite concerns with Solomon working too closely with Guiliani, Parnas, and Devin Nunes, they don't cite a single fact that needs to be retracted in their final report issued in February.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL if you don't realize that 'blend opinion and investigative' is about authoritatively saying stuff that isn't true.

That propagandist is no one worth defending.

[M L]

Not a single fact needed retraction?

Wow, this guy doing 100x better than the NYT, WaPo, etc. If he's a "disgraced ex-journalist" I'm struggling to come up with what words would describe the rest.

[David Nieporent]

If you read that piece as an exoneration of Solomon rather than an indictment, you're hopeless. Get past the throat clearing, and start with the paragraph labeled "In certain columns, Solomon failed to identify important details about key Ukrainian sources, including the fact that they had been indicted or were under investigation. In other cases, the sources were his own attorneys." And it goes on from there, pointing out the many ways he was wrong and/or failed to live up to journalistic standards.

The problem wasn't that he was a Jayson Blair fraud who made up his stories in his own head; the problem was that he was laundering Russian propaganda. So, yeah, there were people saying the things he would quote people as saying. Just like one can accurately quote Russian officials now saying that there's no war in Ukraine and they're just trying to denazify the place.

[Brett Bellmore]

As though these were mutually exclusive. Illegal aliens are being taught to make asylum claims if caught.

[Sarcastr0]

Which would matter if asylum claims were not vetted.

Buy they are. It's not easy to get asylum. So stop conflating the two - it looks a lot like you want to end asylum because of your paranoia. Which would be...well, evil.

[Brett Bellmore]

Which matter because asylum claims are not instantly vetted, and if the asylum claim results in your being released until the hearing, you have time to go to ground and disappear.

[Sarcastr0]

Is that happening, though? You don't get to speculate yourself into a problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (Taken down by the Biden administration, so this is an internet archive link.)

"III. ASYLUM
15. MYTH: Most asylum claims are meritorious.
FACT: Since FY 2008, the grant rate for all asylum applications—including those that originate from applications within the United States and those originating from our borders—has never been higher than thirty-one percent (31%), and it has fallen significantly since FY 2012. The average grant rate in FY 2020 was approximately nineteen percent (19%). The overwhelming majority of asylum applications either are not pursued or are unmeritorious.
16. MYTH: Most aliens who claim a fear of persecution in expedited removal proceedings have meritorious asylum claims.
FACT: Out of every 100 credible fear claims, on average, only about 12 result in a grant of asylum by an Immigration Judge.
17. MYTH: Most aliens who claim a credible fear of persecution are asylum seekers.
FACT: On average, approximately half of aliens who make a credible fear claim and are subsequently placed in removal proceedings do not actually apply for asylum.
18. MYTH: There is wide discrepancy in asylum grant rates across all immigration courts.
FACT: The median asylum grant rate for all immigration courts and adjudication centers in FY 2020 is ten percent (10%). Seventy-five percent (75%) of immigration courts, 52 out of 69, have a grant rate of nineteen percent (19%) or lower, and ninety-four percent (94%), 65 out of 69, have a grant rate of forty percent (40%) or lower."

The contrary statistics tend to originate from the American Immigration Council, an open borders interest group that makes Ilya look like a restrictionist, and are a bit sketchy.

[Brett Bellmore]

"V. FAILURE TO APPEAR
21. MYTH: Few aliens fail to attend their immigration court proceedings
FACT: Forty-nine percent (49%) of all non-detained or MPP removal cases completed in FY 2020 resulted in an in absentia order of removal due to an alien’s failure to attend a scheduled immigration court hearing"

[Sarcastr0]

First, this tone alone is really shameful coming from a government agency. Just attacking their own policies out and out. Trump continues to suck.

Second, looks like the vetting is working well.

Third, failure to appear number is NOT the same as as the scenario of this as a huge avenue for illegal immigration.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Attacking their own policies"? I almost hesitate to ask where they do that.

[bernard11]

"V. FAILURE TO APPEAR
21. MYTH: Few aliens fail to attend their immigration court proceedings
FACT: Forty-nine percent (49%) of all non-detained or MPP removal cases completed in FY 2020 resulted in an in absentia order of removal due to an alien’s failure to attend a scheduled immigration court hearing"

How many of those who failed to appear had simply given up and gone home, or elsewhere. Your implication is that they all simply stayed in the country illegally. Some did, sure, but we are not given data as to how many.

[Absaroka]

Quote from above: "You don't get to speculate yourself into a problem."

[bernard11]

MYTH: Most asylum claims are meritorious.
FACT: Since FY 2008, the grant rate for all asylum applications—including those that originate from applications within the United States and those originating from our borders—has never been higher than thirty-one percent (31%), and it has fallen significantly since FY 2012. The average grant rate in FY 2020 was approximately nineteen percent (19%). The overwhelming majority of asylum applications either are not pursued or are unmeritorious.

I can't say this is totally convincing. It seems to equate "meritorious applications" with "applications granted."

That sounds dubious to me.

[Squirrelloid]

US v. Vaello Madero was recently decided.

The majority seems correct to me: Congress can choose to treat territories differently than states. Whether it should in any particular case is a policy decision - something that Congress can get wrong (and possibly did here), but it's Congress's place to decide the policy question, not the court.

I think Sotomayor is mistaken to focus on what individuals actually pay, when the material difference is what taxes they're potentially subject to. It's not that Puerto Ricans pay less in taxes, but that they're not subject to certain taxes at all, regardless of how much they make. (ie, there's a difference between paying nothing for a particular tax because you didn't make enough money, and not having to even evaluate whether you owe anything because you weren't subject to it in the first place).