Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Testimony before the House January 6 investigating committee indicates that Donald Trump raised $250 million dollars based on claims of a stolen election through solicitation of contributions to an “Official Election Defense Fund” which in fact did not exist. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/capitol-attack-panel-trump-election-defense-fund

How is that anything other than wire fraud? Venue for a wire fraud prosecution lies in in any district in which an interstate or foreign transmission was issued or terminated. It seems to me that almost any United States Attorney can initiate prosecution (although main Justice in D.C. would likely have to approve it).

[Moderation4ever]

I think this significant because this is definite criminal behavior. While one can question if he incited the January 6th Insurrection, there is no doubt he was grifting unsuspecting people.

[Randal]

Were they really so unsuspecting? This is one case where I might buy into the it's-not-criminal-when-Trump-does-it defense. They'd had four (or 30?) years of warnings that Trump is a liar and a grifter. You've gotta know that sending money to Trump is like sending it to Jim Bakker.

[Moderation4ever]

I believe the quote is, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, ect."

[Armchair Lawyer]

I swear you wait for the post to come out with a pre-written post every thursday.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He’s paid 2 remnabi per post.

[Sarcastr0]

I've pre-written posts about Baude's podcast.

It's as good an waste of time as anything else we do here.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Is it funny or just pathetic that you can’t address the substance of the post?

Whatever you call it, it’s typical for you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh sorry, you're being serious?

This is NG's thing. Every week he posts a new outrage of the week about Trump. Sometimes more than one. And by next week the supposed outrage is gone.

He just always manages to get in the first post.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Every week he posts a new outrage of the week about Trump. "

That is scarcely a difficult endeavor.

Finding such an outrage that not one Volokh Conspirator has the courage or character to address isn't much of a feat, either.

Carry on, bitter clingers.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Given a direct challenge about your propensity to refuse to address the substance of a post (particularly about Trump), you again....refuse to address the substance of the post?

That's classic you. Pathetic, but consistent.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sorry, wasn't I clear in my response?

This supposed outrage is a nothingburger which will have vanished by next week, like most of NG's Thursday posts. We can scroll through the last few months of them if you like. But it's a nothingburger with nothing of substance.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's odd that you would classify the post as 'outrage' when there's no indication of such emotion, but not when one considers it in relation to your official stance that the facts of this case amount to 'nothing of substance.'

What is even less odd, is that others who know the law disagree with you and call this clear fraud.

[John F. Carr]

NPR is skeptical of the criminal angle: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/1105279623/jan-6-committee-trump-campaign-legal-defense-fund

Political solicitations are not held to the same standard of honesty as other solicitations.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not buying that analysis, because these weren't political solicitations — it was a legal defense fund, not a campaign — and we're not looking it from the framework of campaign finance issues. This is just ordinary fraud.

[SRG]

The Trumpistas will still defend him because the alternative would require admitting that they're wrong.

[rsteinmetz]

Auppose he's indited in New York and Georgia as has been long anticipated? If he uses the money for his defense, is it still fraud?

[John F. Carr]

The prosecutor could seize the money as proceeds of (alleged) crime, the same way it seizes bank accounts of (alleged) drug dealers to keep them from hiring lawyers.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If he uses it for his legal defense, the argument is that it can no longer be fraud.

[Martinned]

Presumably it was solicited based on the promise of being used for his defense in 2020 election-related litigation, not simply in any and all litigation that might come up in the indefinite future.

[SRG]

Makes for an amusing paradox.

[not guilty]

If Trump uses money for his defense, that doesn't breathe life retroactively into an "Official Election Defense Fund" that didn't exist when solicitations therefor were made. The offense is complete when the false representation is transmitted pursuant to an antecedent scheme or artifice.

[Bored Lawyer]

Is the fraud that (a) the election was stolen (I am dubious about that as a basis for fraud) or (b) that the "defense fund" did not exist? The latter, if true, seems to me a much stronger basis for fraud.

And also much more politically palatable. Even if you think the 2020 election was stolen, raising money for a fictitious "defense fund" is fraud simpliciter. And cheats the very people that supposedly believe that.

[David Nieporent]

Colloquially, both were fraud, but from a legal perspective I was purely talking about (b).

And what makes it stronger is not merely the narrow claim that no such fund formally existed, but in the broader sense that Trump didn't spend the money on litigation in any way, shape, or form.

[OtisAH]

They handed out about $7.2 mil to some groups. For some limited recounts, I think. But my favorite part was that they had the right to call for full recounts in 3 states (iirc, MI, PA, and ?) so long as they paid for it, which was what the money they raised was for. The total cost is estimated at about $20 mil.

That’s my favorite part because, had he spent that money on the recounts, he likely could’ve walked with $220-230 million dollars and it wouldn’t be an issue, or much of one, today. But $220-230 million is not $240-250 million so here we are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm grateful my children and grandchildren get to compete economically with Trump supporters.

That's a silver lining to the problem of 10 or 20 percent of Americans being gullible, stupid, half-educated, bigoted, superstitious losers.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, your side has been doing a bang-up job on the economy.

[Sarcastr0]

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/03/23/coletoon_-__what_the_custom-8dd224afd14579c56b449a01852e45d960addad2-s800-c85.webp

[Bored Lawyer]

Are you stupid or do you just play someone stupid on TV?

The Biden administration has done everything it can to destroy fossil fuel output. Surprise! The price of fossil fuel has gone up, tanking the economy. And they have stubbornly kept up that up even when a war broke out on the other side of the world, and restricted the flow of fossil fuel.

So, yeah, the policy of the Executive Branch has negatively affected the economy, despite your cartoonish (literally) attempt to argue otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots more it could do to destroy fossil fuels. I mean, it just opened up drilling in federal parks.

No, the connection between policies and oil prices is not clear.

The right has been saying Biden tanked the economy since before he took office. And you've believed it every time. But that doesn't make it true.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your (Bored Lawyer) understanding of cause and effect, and supply and demand, seems to be...missing.

Lots of allegations on your part, very little connecting of dots or properly formed conclusions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Yes, your side has been doing a bang-up job on the economy. "

If my family members do half as well as I have done at out-earning the half-educated rural hayseeds, they will be fine in nearly any reasonable expected circumstance.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They handed out about $7.2 mil to some groups. "

Is it fraud or did they spend money for the purpose the money was raised?

[OtisAH]

Don’t recall. There were a couple narrow targeted recounts in dem districts, so guessing it was probably that. Certainly not enough to be able to claim they sincerely thought the election was stolen.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The RNC was also soliciting funds in this, not just Trump.

Good luck trying to split that baby.

[M L]

Guess the walls are really closing in on Trump now.

[Bob from Ohio]

"How is that anything other than wire fraud? "

Keep hope alive!

[Noscitur a sociis]

(although main Justice in D.C. would likely have to approve it)

Ya think?

[Jimmy the Dane]

For those who want to save the time from scrolling through 500 comments, here is a summary.

Someone posts something about libertarianism
>libertarianism is awesome!
>>you guys need to stop being all about pot!
>>>shut up slaver
>those people are not REAL libertarians

Someone posts something making fun of the latest woke thing
> Insert Sarcastro gaslighting
>> Someone calls out Sarcastro gaslighting
>> Sarc doubles down
>>> "Own the libs" type comment here
> AK posts something about "betters" and "replacements"
> More "own the libs" type comments
>> Tepid responses to "own the libs" comments

Guns are awesome!
>No they aren't!
>>Yeah too, they are cool!
>>>How many kids must die for your cool gun then?
>>Hey what about the Second Amendment....?
>>>Activist conservative court got it wrong!
>>>No one needs a gun, except the police, but they are all racist....so maybe no one needs a gun after all
>>Screw you slaver!

Time is the most valuable commodity in life and I just saved you at least a few hours. Go outside and take a walk. The internet rage generating machine will still be here when you get back.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And don't forget that no matter how much evidence presented or argument made, not a single mind was ever changed.

[StellaLink_the dog]

" not a single mind was ever changed."

Among the uneducable.

[DaivdBehar]

I do not read the Thursday Open Thread.

[Kazinski]

Guns aren't awesome.

Guns, like knives are tools. Tools imply work. Work isn't awesome, but its definitely necessary.

[Harvey Mosley]

I don't know. I have a couple of knives that are pretty awesome and they are still tools. I have a shotgun my dad left me that is awesome. My Dan Wesson 1911 Commander is a tool but wow! what a tool. And one of these days I'm going to own a Colt Python. All of those guns are both tools and awesome.

[Sarcastr0]

Love to have a fan, but you need to look up what gaslight means.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They call you Gaslightro around here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And the Volokh Conspiracy calls itself libertarian . . .

[OtisAH]

Yes, by people who have no idea how to use the term.

[Michael P]

By people who recognize a pattern. For example, S_0 claiming something is "screwy" with price-gouging gas companies because ... gasoline has risen slightly less in price (percent change) than crude oil, and then running away rather than clarifying what is "screwy".

[Sarcastr0]

I hardly think taking an hour or so in the morning before responding counts as 'running away.'

In fact, I don't think I have a pattern of not backing up my statements, except when I think proof is being demanded in bad faith. Perhaps you could share some examples where you think I failed to engage when evidence was asked for?

[OtisAH]

“By people who have no idea how to use the term.”

[Armchair Lawyer]

An excellent example of Sarcastro gaslighting...

[Sarcastr0]

What does gaslighting mean to you?

[OtisAH]

A word whose meaning is whatever AL ascribes to it.

[Sarcastr0]

Most of what I do here is not actually based on facts. I have the most fun pointing at the fallacies and unsupported statements a lot around here use. Which doesn't really require any real factual evidence.

But boy do they hate it when their unrealized assumptions are questioned!

[VinniUSMC]

Most of what I do here is not actually based on facts.

Truth.

I have the most fun [using] fallacies and unsupported statements a lot around here. Which doesn't really require any real factual evidence.

FIFY

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure I post fallacies sometimes - none of us are free from sins against logic.

I look forwards to your pointing them out, rather than just throwing lame gimmicky insults.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

LOL!

[Krayt]

manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.
"in the first episode, Karen Valentine is being gaslighted by her husband"

I...remember that episode. It wasn't called that at the time, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

That does not seem to be AL's definition.

[Armchair Lawyer]

More gaslighting...

"You don't say what you think. You're saying what I define you as saying"

[Sarcastr0]

Walk me through it, what do you mean, and how does it apply to me?

You seem curiously unwilling to explain.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Please see "responses Sarcastro made to AL, 2022 to 2015" for examples

[rsteinmetz]

I'm pretty sure the term comes from the 1944 film Gaslight which was a remake of an earlier movie of the same name based on an earlier play by the same name.

The movie started Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten, May Whitty and Angela Lansbury, Ingred Bergman won an Oscar, but Angela Landsbury stole the show I think she was 17 in her first movie.

[Krychek_2]

You know, I hate to agree with Jimmy but this one time he has a point. Everyone says the same things over and over. The comments are entirely predictable.

I’m trying to wean myself away from commenting here just because of the time drain it is. I get involved in three or four threads, suddenly I’ve been here an hour without getting any actual work done.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just as predictable as the posts . . .

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well played.

[Estragon]

You forgot “J6 was just grannies taking selfies”

[Jimmy the Dane]

"tourists taking pictures who left voluntarily when asked"

[Estragon]

Interesting!

This lady got sentenced yesterday:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.227167/gov.uscourts.dcd.227167.68.0.pdf

What did she plead to? Why, Jimmy! Can you believe it? She needed you as her attorney!!!

“Gold pleaded guilty in March to entering and remaining in a restricted building, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison.”

“

I have more from just this week if you’d like to continue this charade. Or, I can beat you over the head with this stuff indefinitely if you prefer!

[Jimmy the Dane]

So they trumped up a charge on her for being in a building? Your point?

People facing the full weight of the federal government, sitting charged for more than a year now, just want to move on with their lives. No big surprise here. Punch someone enough and eventually they will cry 'uncle'.

[Estragon]

So she was actually innocent but caved in the face of 1 year in jail and less than 10k in fines? Where are all the brave patriots willing to fight to make America great again?!

I suppose this statement was coerced as well?

“Gold, a former emergency room physician, said she deeply regrets entering the Capitol during the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, and didn’t intend to get involved in an event that was “so destructive to our nation.”

“It’s the opposite of who I am,” she told Cooper.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna33938

[Estragon]

Or how about these two huckleberries, found guilty this week of four felonies after a bench trial by a trump appointee:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna33938

Strange that they didn’t mention they were permitted to enter and left when asked at their trial………

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope jail or prison is brutal for every one of these un-American, deplorable losers.

May they lose their jobs, their homes (one of the Idaho bigots was tossed out of the house by his mother this week -- but what was he doing living in her basement at 27 in the first place), their savings, and their friends.

[not guilty]

Nicholas Roske was indicted yesterday in U. S. District Court in Maryland, charged with attempting to kill a Justice of the United States. https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/press-release/file/1513296/download I am glad to see the Department of Justice acting expeditiously in this matter.

[Commenter_XY]

From what I have read, Roske needs psychological help. I don't say that to be cruel, but out of compassion. This man needs psychological help. Listen to his 911 call.

Prosecution can (and must) come later. Roske isn't going anywhere.

What I want to know is who 'turned him on'. People like that (psychologically disturbed) are not generally self-starters. Someone started him; that is someone who the DOJ should be talking to. I am rather surprised we haven't seen emails and text messages already. Surprisingly few leaks out of DC on this case.

[Sarcastr0]

People like that (psychologically disturbed) are not generally self-starters.

I'm not sure this is true, if only because psychopathologies with violent tendencies are a wildly varied bunch.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, the overwhelming percentage of psychologically disturbed patients are non-violent. They are afraid to interact with society at large because they do not know how to do that, and that 'not knowing how to interact' generally makes them fearful, not violent.

I would maintain however, that Roske is a signal, not noise (from a prior post). Time will answer the question (a trial that examines all of his electronic communications certainly will) of who (or what) turned him on.

First though: Roske needs psychological help, stat.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I am aware that most people with mental issues are non-violent, just miserable in one way or another.

But the types of pathologies (I'm using terms my dad used so they may be outdated) that tend more towards violence - Delusions of persecution, compulsion-based hallucinations, grandiosity, and antisocial personality disorder - are still wildly varied.

Anyhow, mostly furiously agreeing with you. I wish we had a push to bring a lot of mental stuff up to the level of our physical health infrastructure - mental hygiene, mental check-ups, destigmatizing mental issues, etc. etc.
I'm sure the parallel is not as neat as it appears, but it seems to work on first order.

[Voize of Reazon]

Keep in mind the selection process that is at work here.

If there are 10,000 seriously psychologically disturbed people in the population, and 1 in 1000 are violent, those are the 10 who will make the national news.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The DOJ is never going to talk to itself.

[John F. Carr]

This doesn't smell like the usual "FBI saves America from the FBI" fake plot. I think it's a legit crazy guy, but not crazy enough to get off by reason of insanity, who was set off by the aggregated volume of liberal rage and not by any one person saying "Nicholas, you won't be able to have an abortion unless you blow away one of the conservative justices as soon as possible."

[OtisAH]

He called police or 911 on himself. It was one of the very first details we learned about the matter.

As for the “surprising” lack of leaks, there aren’t suppose to be leaks. Or very many pressers, either. You are forgiven for thinking otherwise since the legacy of The Hunt for Bill’s Dick, Buttery emails, Durham, etcetera ad vomitum, has convinced folks that the DOJ is an open fire hose of information for ongoing investigations. It’s not suppose to be.

[John F. Carr]

They are going to take his "hard-knuckled tactical gloves", and if the defendant loses the gloves they are going to fine him the value of the gloves. They call it forfeiture, but the ability to substitute unrelated property makes it a fine in reality.

[AmosArch]

Where do you see cryptocurrency in 5, 10, and 20 years?

[Stephen Lathrop]

We know about specie. We know about full faith and credit fiat money. We have no long-term experience with a press-agentry-based currency system. Any guess is as good as another. For what it's worth, the nation is unlikely to run short of press agentry.

[Kazinski]

Crypto currency will be in a crypt in 5 years.

Like I said about stocks that don't pay a dividend back right before the dotcom crash, if it doesn't have an intrinsic value then it s just like a Pokemon card, its only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.

But stocks that don't pay a dividend can and will eventually, if they are making money. Crypto can't. Now there is some worth based on privacy, security (hah! Maybe someday), but not enough to support its value without guaranteed covertability, and being able to overcome outright hostility of taxing and law enforcement authorities.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree. You can park your cryptocurrency next to your pet rock.

[Commenter_XY]

Kazinski...The blockchain and digital currency will have profound impacts on humanity, on par with the harnessing of electric power. Don't delude yourself. The scary part is the lack of understanding what blockchain is, or what digital currency actually is , or is not. We are literally at the start (first 10 years) of a new phenomenon that will extend for centuries, if not millennia.

I don't think the wisest move is to discount it. I understand your philosophical outlook (and share it in many ways) on intrinsic value. What digital currency represents is the purest form of an exchange of value for value, based on trust (digital ledger), using an agreed upon set of rules (blockchain).

I will tell you....it is a strange world. I can scarcely believe it myself sometimes, and I am GenX. Remember Dungeons and Dragons? Who knew? 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I don't think the wisest move is to discount it. "

The market has recently discounted Bitcoin by about 70 percent . . . and some other cryptocurrencies by more.

Couldn't happen to a better bunch of chuckleheads.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, I am going to be totally straight with you. Truly. No sarcasm or negativity at all.

This is the start of digital currencies. It is literally within the first 10 years. Now is the time to involve yourself, if you can. The approach is I advocate buying for the long-term (30-40 years out), and not speculation. I am buying for my future grandchildren, not me, when I start buying into digital currencies. Note, I advocate an exceptionally low percentage of your total current portfolio; a max of 2%. Yes Arthur, 2% of a current portfolio today, for a long horizon of at least 30+ years.

I will buy whatever basket of currencies comprise 75% of the total digital currency market value. Today, that is Bitcoin and Etherium. Example: For a portfolio of 500,000 I am saying put 10,000 in digital currencies; that is it, no more than that. And just let it sit there...for decades. Digital currencies are down sharply in value YTD 2022, this looks like a good time to start buying to me - if you can.

Digital currencies are not lottery tickets. I was not kidding about how big the impact will be (blockchain, digital currencies) to humanity. It is not an exaggeration. It is a paradigm shift in how the concept of value is viewed, in a value for value exchange. The concept of digital currencies is not going away because the architecture it relies upon (blockchain) is not going away. It (the 1% to 2% invested) does represent a calculated risk. Digital currencies could all go bust, and lose 100% of their value. It does happen today - digital currencies losing 100% of their value - so there is a real risk.

Arthur: Investing early in the strongest digital currencies for the long haul is what I am doing. And I am minimizing overall portfolio risk as I do that. A permanent 2% portfolio loss won't cripple overall portfolio survival for a conservatively invested portfolio.

This is the only scenario I can think of where I am willing to acquire digital currencies as an investment. To me, keys to success are: keeping acquisition and management cost as close to zero as possible, don't let digital currency purchase cost basis ever be more than 2% of your total portfolio cost basis, let it sit for decades. Very boring, Arthur. I know.

[bernard11]

Crypto currency will be in a crypt in 5 years.

I agree.

Its only real use seems to be helping people commit crimes.

Plus, why the hell should anyone trust these algorithms anyway?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I thought it has been explicit from the very beginning that its primary use is to facilitate crime. The problem is that it doesn't just facilitate morally defensible crimes, it also facilitates bad crimes, like extortion. Which is one of the reasons I was never enthusiastic about it. The other reason being that the implementations sucked.

The government proposals for official digital currencies, OTOH, seem even worse, mostly designed around allowing the government to do detailed real time tracking of all financial interactions using them.

I do, though, slightly regret not getting in to digital currencies right at the beginning, obviously I would have jumped ship before the crash, right?

[Sarcastr0]

The problem is that it doesn't just facilitate morally defensible crimes

Don't pretend to be chaotic good, Brett. You're lawful neutral if I ever saw one.

[VinniUSMC]

Lawful neutral is the best, Mr Chaotic Neutral.

[Sarcastr0]

NG here, bucko.

[bernard11]

I do, though, slightly regret not getting in to digital currencies right at the beginning,

Me too, though it goes at the bottom of a long list of similar regrets. Remember when Apple was going into the toilet?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not fair to blame yourself. How was anyone to know? It’s difficult to invest money when there’s really no basis for estimating a value. Prices of these things are 100% market sentiment.

[Kazinski]

Which is why governments from China to the US are cracking down or putting restrictions on Crypto. Because it facilitates criminal transactions, and tax dodging, and maybe even worse competes with sovereign currency.

They are going to regulate it to death, if they make owning cryptocurrency as onerous as having a foreign bank account then very few people are going to want to own it. They can basically outlaw it just by making it to complicated to own it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

In the same area as beanie babies.

[SimonP]

It'll be something we've all collectively moved on from, while you'll be pretending you didn't get soaked.

[Kazinski]

Last month when the inflation figures came out Biden syncofants were telling us that it was the light at the end of the tunnel, even though it was readily apparent that the light was a just the locomotive of even higher inflation bearing down on us.

As some of us pointed out, the supposed easing in April inflation, was just an anomaly due to a temporary easing in energy prices, even though it was apparent by the second week in May the energy price drop was fleeting.

I'm not going to say I told you so, because everyone already knew, just some didn't want to admit it.

But here is the rest of it, now we are in a recession, and a bear market, and mortgage rates have spiked above 6%. Biden Economics have fully and completely failed, and there is no hiding from it now.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Keep it up. Not gonna stick (not so much, anyway; Trump folks will believe anything, and back it with a $250 million donation).

Problem is, pretty much everyone can see this is a price-gougers' inflation, not the classic kind which can be efficiently controlled by monetary policy. The Fed is empowered to use the wrong tools recklessly, and appears determined to do it. The wrong tools can work, of course, inefficiently, but not until they have utterly wrecked the economy, because that stops everything.

All the Boomers on the brink of retirement can get ready to take a big percentage hit on their pathetic no-pension home-value nest eggs. I expect to lose only 20%–30%, if I am lucky. Nothing this inflation could do to me would hurt as much.

It is far from obvious that the little guy will get any net benefit at all, compared to just letting the supply chains clear on their own, and the inflation run its course. Either way, it's a lot of pain for little or no gain—or for unnecessary loss.

But thank God, we can count on Fed policy to head off and actually reverse movement toward higher net wages for ordinary workers. And once again tamp down job-seeker mobility. That was getting bad. For the first time in nearly 50 years, a trend toward quitting a bad job for something better was beginning to threaten actual across-the-board improvement in the ordinary persons' economy. Good to see that stopped in its tracks. It was pitiful to listen to millionaire "small," businessmen complaining that to staff their fast food restaurant chains they had to raise wages 8%, and prices by 25% to make up for it. Thankfully, that agony will soon be a thing of the past.

Far better would be policy to address massively supply chain issues, which send the signals that encourage corporate price gougers to synchronize predations. Keep an eye on upcoming eye-popping profit reports.

It has been instructive to watch that process at work. It is a process—step-by-step. First come press releases, predicting, for instance, a mustard shortage. An uncritical press snaps those up for breathless publication. Everyone goes, "Huh, a mustard shortage? Who knew?" All the big standard mustard brands disappear in unison, while unwanted remnants from small suppliers get spread thin and wide to fill the shelving void. Then, just a few weeks later, big mustard is back! Same products as before, overflowing the shelves. Problem solved. Prices up 28%.

But fixing stuff like that would require legislation. We know that can never be passed, so long as Republicans think they can reap partisan political gain out of national economic disaster—as you are trying to do now.

Meantime, keep pressing that right-wing overreach on every front. Get the Fed, the Supreme Court, the anti-democratic Senate, the state governments, and the lobbyists all on the same page, and really keep going for it. Good times like these can't last forever. Get it while you still can.

[David Nieporent]

There is no such thing as "price gouger's inflation," except perhaps in the "mind" of Elizabeth Warren.

[Sarcastr0]

There is something screwy going on with the cost of gasoline versus the cost of oil, but with Ukraine throwing global energy markets into a tizzy who knows why that is. Could be inflation!

[Michael P]

Oil is up about 68% over the last year: https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?type=wti&op=1

Gas is up 61% over the last year: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W

What do you think is "screwy"?

[Sarcastr0]

The delta between the actual price of gasoline and the projected price has averaged around zero since 1991—which it has to if your regression is done correctly—and it's also been zero since 2000. Since 2018 it's averaged a few cents above zero.¹

But then it took off when the Ukraine war started and is now 61¢ above its projected price. Keep in mind that the projected price already takes into account the rise in the price of oil. The 61¢ delta is over and above that.
https://jabberwocking.com/whats-going-on-with-the-price-of-gasoline/

[Brett Bellmore]

"But then it took off when the Ukraine war started and is now 61¢ above its projected price."

I won't say you're better than that sort of bullshit, but you should try to be. The price of gasoline took off back at the beginning of 2021.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry if that post was a bit confusing - the 'it' here is *not* the price of gasoline, it is the delta between the price of gasoline and it's projected price.

The price did start going up well before the conflict in Ukraine, but that was due to oil-based price pressure, and thus did not much affect this delta since oil price is included in the projected price.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, I see.

I think the screwy thing is fairly explicable. Biden's crack down on fossil fuels isn't limited to pumping them out of the ground. (This is just one example.) He's been going after the refineries, too. And the pipelines that get the oil to the refineries, and the gas away from them.

His attack on the whole fossil fuel industrial ecology has been pretty comprehensive.

[Sarcastr0]

Well spotted, I think - Drum does trace it to the refineries as well:

In spring 2021, refineries sold gasoline for 59¢ more than their crude oil cost. In spring of this year, EIA projects that the difference is $1.13.

That's an increase of 54¢. A few days ago I calculated that the price of gasoline was 61¢ higher than it "should" be based on its historical relationship to the price of oil. Those two numbers are suspiciously close, no?

Though once again the short timeline of this increase makes your regulatory hypothesis not quite fit. Could be right, but then why did the cost increase hit all at once?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, keep in mind I'm not a petrochemical market analyst, I just have decent google fu.

I think it hit when the industry realized that Biden wasn't going to back down on the regulatory assault just because gas prices were going to murder his party in the midterms. That he really was out to kill off the fossil fuel industry, no matter the political or economic cost.

They now know that investing in production is a wildly risky thing to do. So the disconnect between supply and demand is just going to keep growing.

The only thing that's going to fix this is something decisive that demonstrates to the industry that they can safely make long term investments. I don't know what could accomplish that, though, in an environment where the foes of fossil fuels only have to be in power for a moment to make an investment worthless.

I mean, just canceling the Keystone pipeline took $1.3B in energy investment in Alberta, and tossed it in the dumpster. Who invests in production in an environment where that can happen at any time?

[Sarcastr0]

Seems a bit precipitous to price that in all at once, but not implausible.

But as to the idea that the gas industry is terminally spooked and this is going to continue forever, not sure I buy it. Political risk is something there are classes on these days, they have experts to can price that stuff in for governments vastly more volatile than the US. Maybe this is a readjustment, but if it's a repeatable problem, that's the industry's failure.

[Brett Bellmore]

Forever? No.

Until there's some reason to think the safe time horizon for investment is more than until the next election? Yeah, absolutely. And what could provide such a reason?

Modern industrial society requires a high trust environment to function. Once you've destroyed that, recreating it is NOT going to be easy.

Canceling Keystone broke that high trust environment, I think, and the continued regulatory assault even after things started to look bad politically demonstrated that sane political calculations were no longer driving the assault.

[Sarcastr0]

Safe? That's not how risk analysis works. Nothing is safe, the only question is how to manage the risk.

In general, if your argument could have been made in the Obama admin except for the actual result you're blaming on the admin wasn't there yet, you need to sig deeper.

[Michael P]

That's not even close to the hall of fame at https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations .

[Sarcastr0]

? I didn't even posit a cause so I don't know what the heck you're on about.

[Michael P]

No, you don't know what the heck you are on about. You died that as a defender or justification of your "screwy" hypothesis, meaning m so you endorsed the flawed assumptions behind that regression model -- most notably that exogenous factors like butane limits (summer vs winter blends) and ethanol blending mandates have no independent effect on retail gasoline prices. Those exogenous factors not only have independent effects, they have changed over time, especially since late in the Obama administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Screwy is not a causal hypothesis.

What are you getting at, anyhow? Are you saying that the assumptions behind the model that the Energy Information Administration uses are wrong, and have been right since 1991 just due to coincidence?

Assuming that's what you mean (you're not being very clear, even as you're being pretty high-handed) you seem to be reveling in throwing out jargon, but I'm not particularly impressed.

You posit two potential causes for the disparity:
-seasonal changes in butane proportions
-ethanol requirements
You say they've changed recently. But the change I'm pointing out is 1) large, and 2) happened only this year.

So I'm not buying your argument, without more. And next time, please say what you mean more clearly. Having to parse your attempt to bigdog me with jargon is reminding me too much of my real job.

[Michael P]

What EIA model are you referring to? You posted a link to some random blogger's univariate regression.

Gasoline prices are driven by a number of distillate inputs -- crude oil supplies some of those, but they're not equal in prices, and regulatory requirements about them change over time. For example, butane is used as a cheap filler, but the fraction that can be used is lower in summer. But the rules for how much can be used, and when, have changed in the past few years. Same for ethanol blends. Both the regulatory changes and the changes in relative prices of those inputs will invalidate the simple regression model that you linked to.

On top of that, the model is built using a test-on-training error: It's designed to zero out a particular error over a period of time, and the blogger claims that the fact that it does so validates the model. (The fact that it doesn't zero out that error over every subset of that time is not, in fact, a sign that something has changed in the real world -- it could, and probably does, reflect shortcomings in the model.)

[Sarcastr0]

It's a regression of numbers from the Energy Information Administration.

You can't posit a conflating cause to debunk something where no cause is hypothesized!

You can say this is the cause behind the correlation. But if you are, you are taking issue with the baseline numbers, not the projection. And 1) why wouldn't that be part of the projection? And 2) you have a timeline problem, as I noted.

[Michael P]

Wow. You call a random blogger's regression (based on EIA numbers) an EIA model and demand that *I* say what I mean more clearly.

This is why we call you Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

Ad hominem the blogger all you want - I'm not appealing to his authority. If you have an issue with his methods, lay it out.

As it is, you're stuck appealing to your own authority, and being a real dick about it.

[Michael P]

I laid out the fundamental problems with the methods. You are just ignoring them because you don't know enough to stop yourself from endorsing some random dude's statistical incompetence.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Who gives a shit about projected prices?

Are you disputing the EIA numbers that I posted and agreeing with Biden that the refiners are screwing us?

The price started going up because of Biden's climate change panic. And continued through the Ukraine war. Natural gas showed the same pattern. Did the Ukraine war affect the domestic NG market?

Quit making excuses for Biden and his people. The problem isn't going to be fixed until those clowns successfully recognize the source of the problem, but doing so would completely violate their world view. Don't hold your breath.

[bevis the lumberjack]

And now they're hesitant to take risk because the administration in power is openly hostile to the industry. They want the industry to disappear. If you were an oil exec would you add debt and increase risk knowing that if you successfully increase supply and reduce prices some that you're just going to get your balls cut off once you've fixed it? I was an oil exec until six years ago and I wouldn't. Hunker down and wait for the environment to change.

[Sarcastr0]

I refer you to my original comment: There is something screwy going on with the cost of gasoline versus the cost of oil, but with Ukraine throwing global energy markets into a tizzy who knows why that is. Could be inflation!

So no, I don't know what the cause is. You're really angry at Biden, but you seem as certain as the admin about what's going on, just on the other side.

[Michael P]

Ah, you were JAQ'ing off in the middle of the thread.

[Sarcastr0]

No. I made a statement, asshole.

[Michael P]

You made a statement that implied that the price-gouging explanation was plausible. And you based that on incompetent statistics.

[Sarcastr0]

If you got that from my comment, that's on you. If I thought there was gouging, I would have said so.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I posted the fucking numbers. Crude and gasoline are both up roughly proportionally. Refinery throughput is up a little and margins are down a little. Where's the screwy part?

[Sarcastr0]

Gas is up out of proportion to oil - it's not a direct proportion, hence the projection.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Did the Ukraine war affect the domestic NG market?

Why wouldn't it?

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, may I offer an alternative? To me, it is a supply and demand thing. When government policy artificially restricts supply (e.g. economic sanctions against Russia; slow-walking or denying new drilling permits; or onerous regulations on building new refinery capacity, as examples), and does nothing to address demand....what do you think will happen? Yes, prices will rise. And they are.

Would you concede that government policies (regardless of sponsoring political party) that restrict supply exacerbate inflation?

[Moderation4ever]

Government policy does affect oil prices but so does the market. During the pandemic travel dropped gas demand and prices inturn went lower. Oil companies were selling the cheapest oil and were not making investments that were needed when demand grows. Oil company have plenty of leases and could have done exploration when oil was less expensive, but that does not make sense when prices are low.

What we are facing now is oil companies catching up on exploration and infrastructure and government policy wanting to sanction Russia.

[Commenter_XY]

Completely agree = Government policy does affect oil prices but so does the market.

We have severe distortion in the market, no question about it. I maintain that government policy (cited above) exacerbates, rather than ameliorates the distortion; and is contributing to inflation.

Do you agree?

[Moderation4ever]

I agree that government policy does affect the market, but it is not the sole influencer. So, the question really is how could the government policy be changed to reduce prices.

Government cannot change the fact that as pandemic wanes the demand grows. I would not want government to tell oil companies they have to explore even though the market is down. There are leases out there not being used so I don't understand why government must lease out more land.

The government that could most influence the market is the Russian government if they left Ukraine. But they don't seem to want to do that.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course I concede that. How much is up in the air, and whether that cost is worth whatever benefit the government is seeking is also a question.

But I also concede that looking at the CPI, it does look like energy inflation is a strong driver of inflation right now (putting something of the lie to those caterwauling about the stimulus package).

[bevis the lumberjack]

I posted the refining numbers from the EIA below. There is absolutely nothing screwy going on with the cost of gasoline versus the price of oil.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what I posted about.

Can you explain this novel and large projection disparity? Something is making the cost of gas higher than expected, even taking into account the cost of oil.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What's making the cost of gasoline higher than expected is the inability of the person doing the expecting to accurately predict the future. How hard is that?

You say you base your thoughts on facts but you're twisting yourself in a knot trying to ignore the facts I posted.

And my opinion of Biden doesn't affect the numbers I posted. Those numbers are generated by people that work for him. Even when it is clearly demonstrated that an assertion he is making is incorrect you can't simply say "why, yes it is wrong". Why?

[Sarcastr0]

If the projection has worked well for 2 decades, and is suddenly off, I think it's worth looking into more than just ranting about Biden.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m not ranting. I posted actual data. You’re ignoring that data. Crude and gasoline are up by roughly the same proportion in the same time period. What is it beyond that that you want to look into? Why some prediction of the future was incorrect?

Make it simple. Biden and his spokesperson explicitly said yesterday that the refiners are holding back product and making obscene margins. Look at the EIA data and tell us, is Biden’s assertion accurate? Yes or no.

[Kazinski]

It's the fact that there have been 7 refineries closed in the US since 2018.

We can get back to the energy environment we had in 2016-2020, which was not the result of any action by Trump, but rather just the inaction of not being actively hostile to fossil fuels.

But the Biden Administration is actively hostile to fossil fuels and have poisoned the environment.

For instance to get Keystone built now would probably take government guarantees, because nobody is going to put their own money up to build a pipeline when the rug can get pulled out from under them and cost billions just by an executive order.

Building a new refinery or restarting a closed one could be just as fraught with risk.

Our current energy crises was engineered by government intentionally.

[OtisAH]

Crude has been dancing around $120 per barrel ($115 today) for a few weeks now. The last time it was $120 was about 2014 or 2015 and the price at the tank was in the $3-3.50/gal range with higher priced areas nearing or going over $4.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, I want you to keep posting your economic and legal theories. They're helpful for me to understand your thinking, and I must say they are unique. 🙂

Here in the People's Republic of NJ, we have an unfunded pension obligation that is....spectacularly large. The People's Republic now spends north of 10% of the budget on inflation-protected pension payments. That is unsustainable, long-term. It is just mathematics. Pensioners will take a haircut. Nobody is happy about it, albeit for different reasons.

For a conservatively invested retiree (50/50) in their first decade of retirement (this is very important - first 10 years), I would simply say: do not take an inflation adjustment for 2022....IF you can. If inflation remains elevated in 2023, do not take an inflation adjustment.....IF you can. Small reductions in portfolio withdrawals upfront (first 10 years) compound to huge savings later, and enhance the odds of portfolio survival. The larger point is: Don't panic. Stay the course. We have seen past historical periods of elevated inflation and lower returns; we survived.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY — Help me out with this one. I am not trained as an economist, so naive questions occur to me. If supply and demand is all that goes on to affect oil or gas prices, what would happen if there were a law about buying petroleum product futures?: If you buy a contract, you take delivery. After that, you can consume the stuff, or sell it wholesale to retailers. Would that cut some of the demand out of the market, maybe put a damper on Wall Street guys parking spare money after they decide to get out of bonds for a while?

I get that over a fairly long term, supply-and-demand market clearance has to play out. I question whether time frames useful to intermediaries are a good match for the time frames reality imposes on retail customers. After all, hedging against that kind of contingency is part of why futures markets exist. Which is a tactic useful for a big airline, but not so much for road-kill retail heating oil customers.

Also, I have seen too many stories about oil futures investors who got caught in a price downturn, and decided to ride it out by buying old oil tankers to store the stuff in, until the price goes back up. Can't help thinking of that as excess demand for which I pay a price. They hold that oil off the market, reducing supply. The existence of it in storage becomes a factor to plan production around, maybe making producers just slightly cautious, cutting supply some more. Meanwhile, winter comes (intermediaries are not surprised) and I have to fill my heating oil tank, at whatever price.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, the best thing Congress and policymakers could do is to step aside, refrain from additional regulation, and let the market sort out dislocations and capital misallocation. That sorting out process takes some time. It is not an overnight thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you think of a single Democrat policy that might have contributed to the increases?

Anything?

[Krayt]

You understand Carter had the benefit of shiny new economic Nobel prize winners who "proved" inflation wasn't bad for the common man as long as his wages kept going up.

Maybe you have no problem losing 30% of your nest egg, but I am not happy. And I as sure as holy hell am not happy because ingratiating politicians poured extra trillions of cash into the economy long after covid restrictions were easing as economic problems.

For the age old spend spend spend reasons. Iatrogenic problems, as usual.

[Krayt]

When inflation predictions went out about the time of the final $6 trillion, reduced somewhat, that "don't do this, it will cause inflation, already at risk of sliding down the birth canal from the previous two years, and it then happens right on predicted schedule, we need to run these pandering frauda out of town.

For that matter, maybe a Behar type solution would be justified: seize all their wealth. To deter. As massive as their corruption-derived gold piles are, it still won't make a dent. But...to deter.

[Sarcastr0]

Behar is never justified.

[bernard11]

Stephen,

Sorry, but the "price-gouging" argument is bullshit.

I haven't been following the mustard crisis, but a quick google tells me the mustard seed harvest in France was about half of normal, and has been bad for a few years.

That is a much simpler and more sensible and Occam-compliant explanation than a sudden massive conspiracy among mustard companies.

[David Nieporent]

I think the mustard thing was just supposed to be a hypo. But you'll note that he has now shifted from "price gouging" to antitrust violations as his explanation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

bernard11 — I am very naive about economics. But one thing that occurs to me is that if a production factor which accounts for a small percentage of total price goes up notably, that may still not justify a big increase in final product price. A quick Google search of my own turned up a chart that put 2020 share of global mustard seed exports by France at half-a-percent of global supply. You think some fluctuation within that fraction really moves the price needle world-wide?

Maybe more to the point, when I see fast food places compensate for a big 18% wage increase with a 40% price increase, I remain mindful that however large a production factor those wages were, they weren't the whole burger, so only something less than an 18% price increase is justified to offset the higher wages.

To my eye, the miracle of it is how the various retailers so neatly synchronize their price hikes. I think press agentry to help manage customer expectations is a thing. I am mindful that industry trade groups do a lot of publicity. There is nothing, "sudden," about that. Whether it facilitates, "conspiracy," as Adam Smith might have understood the term, is another question.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Problem is, pretty much everyone can see this is a price-gougers' inflation

What were you just saying about political partisans who will believe anything?

[ReaderY]

I think it’s legitimate to argue that the Fed super priming the pump combined with heavy government spending has an effect on inflation. But of course, supply squeezes and dislocations due to Covid and the war in Ukraine also have an effect.

[apedad]

Wow!

Who could have thought that recessions follow periods of inflation?!?

THAT's never happened before. . . .

[Krayt]

Carter also had idiot talking heads to defend over inflation, including two Nobel economics winners who said it was fine.

Then Reagan, with an economics degree, came along, wrenched fhe economy, got inflation under control ("Stay the course..."), and went on to win 49 of 50 states.

"This is supply issuez causing inflation, not a pouring of more money onto the economy then ever in human history." and "it is greed!", these memes are lies for true believers.

I guarantee you the planners behind the scenes for the Democrats know the real situation, and are desperately trying to avoid it, trying to duplicate the solution.

[bernard11]

Reagan, with an economics degree, came along, wrenched fhe economy, got inflation under control ("Stay the course..."), and went on to win 49 of 50 states.

Some of that is true. Per Wikipedia he "was an indifferent student, majored in economics and sociology and graduated with a C average."

I'm going to say I doubt his undergraduate education had much to do with his policies.

But mostly, let's recall that it was Paul Volcker, a Carter appointee, who "wrenched fhe economy, got inflation under control." In fact, Volcker began raising rates soon after his appointment in mid-1979, and they peaked a few months after Reagan was inaugurated.

To give Reagan, not Volcker, credit is hero-worship, not history.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If there is anything a Republican likes, it is an illusory entity to worship.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It wasn't Reagan that wrenched the economy, it was Paul Volcker taking fed funds up to the teens. He broke the inflation of the 70s for good, but it took breaking the economy to do it.

[SimonP]

Look at the breakdown. Most of the surge is coming from oil/gas products. How has Biden goosed those?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Seriously? It’s the primary initial component of his energy policy. Lower hydrocarbon supply = less hydrocarbon usage = less carbon release. Mission accomplished, Brownie!!!

[SimonP]

And what has he done, specifically, to accomplish any of that? Shut down a couple of pipeline approvals?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, and drilling approvals, and refinery approvals.

Look, people don't invest in long term productive capacity, or even keeping existing capacity functional, if they face a significant risk of some asshole winning an election and rendering their investment worthless after they've already spent the money. You don't need to shut down EVERY pipeline, EVERY well, EVERY refinery, to shut them all down.

You just have to arbitrarily shut down enough of them that the people with the capital say, "Screw this, I'm putting my money into something else!"

That sort of unpredictable regulatory risk is destroying the West's economy now. People who might invest in something productive are scared shitless that some moron will start raving about a Nobel Prize winning economist not being in charge anymore, and turn their investment into a smoking hole in the ground.

In this environment, the safest investment is politicians. Amazing how that works out, when the politicians created this environment.

[SimonP]

None of those approvals would have any effect on prices for years. To blame them for gas prices we're seeing today - gas prices that we can see are up around the globe - is absurd.

We don't have gas now because we weren't exploring a few years ago, and we weren't exploring then because gas prices were low. Take that, combine it with a post-pandemic surge of economic activity, plus OPEC dragging its feet on production and the war in Ukraine, and you get a global gas price crisis. Biden didn't do it, and there's not much he can do to change it right this minute.

That sort of unpredictable regulatory risk...

Brett - I don't think you know the first thing about what kind of regulatory risk companies are seeing (or not seeing) right now. Trump's unilateral moves on trade and penchant for cronyism did a lot more to create market uncertainty than anything Biden is now doing. If anything the big source of uncertainty right now is coming from the courts, as they're rolling back more and more rules and legislation as unconstitutional or otherwise not authorized by statute.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"None of those approvals would have any effect on prices for years."

Because future supply doesn't affect current prices?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Jawboned the industry into laying low. Normally in response to a price spike like this there would be a breathless frenzy of activity that would eventually overwhelm the market with supply and destroy prices. Look at East Texas in the ‘30s or the Arab embargoes of the 70s or the late lamented shale boom of the early 2010s.

It’s not happening this time though. In those other situations the federal government hadn’t stated a goal of making the industry extinct within a decade. No sense in taking long term risk when there is an elevated chance that there is no long term.

[Sarcastr0]

That stated goal sure seems like bullshit, given Biden just opened up drilling on federal lands.

You're usually such an hones broker, but on these energy policy things you buy into all sorts of narratives with a certainty that should raise red flags with you.

[bevis the lumberjack]

An administration official was on CNN yesterday and said that the goal is zero hydrocarbon usage in 5 - 10 years. I know your objective is to excuse all of these people’s excesses, but that’s what the woman said.

And you declined to answer my simple yes or no question above. In light of the EIA data, is the assertion that Biden made yesterday true or not? Yes or no.

[bevis the lumberjack]

And as for your last point, it’s laughable. I am a retired degreed engineer in an earth science field with 35 years in the e&p business, the last 30 in senior positions. My left pinkie understands energy better than you or this board will ever do.

To attribute what I’m saying to “narratives” shows just how unsophisticated YOU are to how things in the energy field work. Besides which, seeing someone say something on television isn’t a narrative, it’s an observation.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not my objective, and you know that. We disagree, we don't generally talk about each other's sekret agendas.

You only get like this about oil.

And you still have provided no cite about this goal of killing the oil industry. I tried Googling for CNN or Biden policies and found nothing.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re the one that said I was engaging in narrative. I don’t need narrative when it comes to energy.

And you still avoided the question. With refining capacity at 93%+ and higher than last year, are the refiners slow playing generation of volumes or not? Yes or no.

BTW Biden’s idiot press secretary just said “we don’t want more oil produced, we just want them to process the oil that’s out there”. Where the fuck is out there? Does anyone know? That’s today. And I got caught up in the narrative again of watching it come from her own lips.

This is a total clown show.

[Sarcastr0]

You're not doing anything secret, you're doing something human. You're so certain of something, you say it as conventional wisdom.

I'm not going to parse whatever that was. No idea what it means;
I don't know if it's lacking context or if the press secretary sucks today. But I certainly don't understand it enough to get as mad as you are about it.

[Sarcastr0]

I can't find this third quote you posted about either. Drop a guy a link, please!

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don't care if you believe it or not. I saw it and that's all I need. Frankly, Biden could shoot your grandmother right in front of you and you'd equivocate about it.

My certainty comes from 35 years of experience and riding the ups and downs of a very volatile industry. And to back up my assertion I posted the damn numbers, which after five requests you have still declined to respond to. Is Biden right or wrong about the refiners? What should they be doing more of?

[Sarcastr0]

It's not that I don't believe you - it's that I want to engage with what you're seeing to see what I see.

If you don't care to engage, that says something about where you are on this issue. And it is, to my eyes, different from how you are on other issues.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“You don’t care to engage”

I posted actual data that you just refuse to compare to Biden’s statements. And his written letter. But, sure, I’m not engaging. Posting facts is Unengaging 101.

[bevis the lumberjack]

And perhaps I’m different on energy because 35 years of high end experience allows me to see how vapid this administration and its policies are. And how shallow the general conversation is around energy.

I think that’s natural. Not quite the same thing but there was a time when I was younger when I was in the inner circle of three people that were constantly discussed in the public realm. In different areas at different times and none of them know the others. It was amazing how far from reality the public reporting/discussion was. A real eye opener.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill period"

"Joe Biden: (20:07)
Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one."

"Bernie Sanders: (21:11)
You talk about… I’m talking about stopping fracking, as soon as we possibly can. I’m talking about telling the fossil fuel industry that they are going to stop destroying this planet. No ifs, buts and maybes about it. I’m talking about speaking-

Joe Biden: (21:27)
So am I."

Biden has repeatedly stated his intention to destroy the fossil fuel industry. And he started acting on that on day one.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden’s deeds of late belly that quote.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, no they don’t. The lease sales he’s been allowing are pursuant to a law passed by Congress. Biden can’t disregard that law and do nothing. What he is doing instead is everything he can do to minimize the acreage leased.

Look, the guy chose to encourage more production from guys like Maduro than incentivize the industry to ramp up domestically. As if they don’t understand that Madurai’s oil (and his operations) generates a much larger carbon footprint than here in the states. Not to mention he’s a totalitarian shitlord that Biden wants to enrich. Maybe Madurai hired Hunter or sent him some blow or something.

The body language from this administration to the petroleum industry is very very clear. Not a point in your favor that you can’t acknowledge that whether you agree with it or not.

[not guilty]

It is unlikely to persuade any Trump cult members, but Brookings Institution has published a comprehensive analysis of Donald Trump's criminal culpability, written by Norman Eisen, Donald Ayer, Joshua Perry, Noah Bookbinder and E. Danya Perry. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Trump-on-Trial.pdf It is 104 pages, chock full of well-documented information.

[Kazinski]

I can't defend Trump's conduct after the 2020 election, and I'm not enthusiastic about him running in 2024. But I haven't seen anything that I think is criminal in his behavior.

And I think Hillary and her supporters (including the FBI) conduct after the 2016 election was just as egregious and dangerous to our democracy, and likely led to Trump's 2020 denial and paranoia. But also was likely not criminal as the Sussmann verdict showed us.

I hope the rule of law is robust enough to withstand all these attempts to undermine it, whether its cockimanie theories about the 12th amendment, or gunned up special prosecutions of a sitting President with no legal predicate.

We all should learn a lesson from these last two elections and their aftermath.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Both sides do it! Hillary and Trump! Absolutely comparable! In fact, Hillary caused Trump!

Pray God that this nation's rule of law is robust enough to withstand . . . Hillary Clinton.

[Michael P]

Hillary Clinton led to Trump, but lying media were the bigger factor in his 2020 behavior. And so far, the rule of law has not been strong enough to sanction Federal Class members who lie to the federal government or who shoot unarmed, unthreatening protesters. But it's strong enough to punish border agents for something the President merely imagined they did!

[Estragon]

Wait, which unarmed protestors? You mean Ms. Babbit?

[Moderation4ever]

If you can't defend Trump then don't. Don't try whataboutisms.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Maybe you should learn how to read. The "I can't defend Trump's conduct after the 2020 election" part was with regard to "But I haven't seen anything that I think is criminal in his behavior."

[Bored Lawyer]

I would be very happy if both Trump and Hillary Clinton were sentenced to several years in prison. The reality is that neither will ever see the inside of a prison, mores the pity.

But if you don't understand that double standards are corrosive to respect of the rule of law, then you need an education.

[Moderation4ever]

What double standard? Hillary Clinton has been investigated up and down, back and forth. There is never a charge or anything found. Plenty of rumors but never anything like evidence.

[OtisAH]

You just don’t see as many “I’m not defending Big Baby but…” posts lately. That’ll probably pick up over the course of the remaining committee hearings but still. Sometimes I really miss the classics, y’know?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Don't forget, Trump = BAD MAN!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Norman Eisen wrote the book on Color Revolutions like the one in Ukraine and that is still playing out here.

He deserves the most severe justice a nation can deliver.

[John F. Carr]

It's the same old stuff. I don't buy that asking Pence to throw out electoral votes is obstruction or fraud any more than asking a judge to buy your bogus interpretation of the law is obstruction or fraud. If you can tie Trump to a plan to submit fraudulent slates of electors, now we're talking.

[not guilty]

The submission of bogus slates of electors was the linchpin of Eastman's scheme. Trump's importuning Pence to unilaterally reject valid electoral slates from multiple states was plainly an attempt to influence the Electoral Count -- an official proceeding of Congress -- and it was part and parcel of the corrupt endeavor.

Read Judge David Carter's opinion and order of March 28 and tell me what he got wrong.

[not guilty]

Here's a link for your convenience. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0_4.pdf

Granted, Carter was dealing there with a preponderance of evidence standard regarding Trump's and Eastman's criminality, but that is a more stringent standard than probable cause. Put twelve men and women in a jury box, and let's sort out whether the conduct was criminal.

[John F. Carr]

I read the decision when it came out and I was not convinced. What he got wrong was turning a request that Pence et al. do his official duty in a particular way into a crime. I consider it no more legally wrong than asking a judge to make a legally erroneous ruling. Judge Carter did not find that Eastman or Trump had conspired to submit bogus electors. That I would consider worth prison time.

We had a high profile fraud case around here involving a patronage hiring scheme. It got past a grand jury, a judge, and a petit jury with a guilty verdict. The First Circuit overturned the convictions because as "wrong" as the conduct was, it did not satisfy the letter of the fraud statute. The Eastman papers strike me the same way.

[Bob from Ohio]

Norman Eisen!!! LOL

Dude is never right. He's convicted Trump 1000 times already.

[not guilty]

Uh, have you read the Brookings Institution analysis? Or are you just blowing smoke?

[Bob from Ohio]

If Eisen wrote any part of it, its crap.

No, not reading it. Keep hope alive though!

[Sarcastr0]

If all you have is ad hominem, you could just not comment and save yourself from looking like a hack.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It makes sense to do a little screening before settling in with a 104 page treatise, and I agree with Bob from Ohio that the information provided thus far counsels against investing the time.

[Sarcastr0]

No argument on the screening out by author.

But if you're doing that, no need to proudly post you didn't do the reading, but disagree anyway.

[Bob from Ohio]

"ad hominem"

You use that term a lot. Maybe learn when its a "fallacy" and when it is not.

"Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise," wikipedia

Not guilty is saying read this because Eisen is an expert, so my counter argument that Eisen lacks any expertise or credibility is not a fallacy, as you imply, but completely valid.

Eisen is a hack. Saying so is fact, not an insult.

[not guilty]

I haven't said that Eisen is an expert. I don't have an opinion on whether he is or isn't. But the analysis by the five authors is cogent, comprehensive and persuasive.

You seem to be scared witless of informing yourself. Show me where I am wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

6 years now of these Resistance!!! articles proving, with geometric logic, that Trump committed a crime. No indictments yet though, let alone convictions.

Its like reading articles on necromancy or alchemy. Sound great, but is nonsense.

I read your Toobining, isn't that enough abuse?

[Sarcastr0]

He didn't appeal to authority, though. He just said it was good analysis.
You were countering that by attacking the author.

[Tom Morrow]

LOL. Donald Trump is such a criminal that he has yet to be indicted for any criminal activity, not even jaywalking, despite multiple investigations lasting years and costing taxpayers millions. I remember when people like you were telling us that Trump would be indicted and charged with crimes as soon as he left office. So wrong. I guess you shouldn't believe the leftist propaganda you rapaciously consume.

[not guilty]

I haven't made any prediction as to when an indictment would be found. I have urged that it should be pursued sooner, rather than later, in light of overwhelming evidence. That will require Merrick Garland to grow a spine -- an event I have likewise made no prediction about.

The investigation in Fulton County, Georgia seems to be proceeding more quickly.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well, yeah, I mean Trump just reeks of competence and superior intelligence. That’s how he can do so many crimes and never get caught. He uses his obvious brilliance.

[apedad]

Oregon romance writer Nancy Crampton Brophy sentenced to life in prison for husband’s murder

Nancy Crampton Brophy, the romance writer found guilty last month of fatally shooting of her husband, was sentenced Monday to life in prison.

Court exhibits and testimony showed Crampton Brophy owned the same make and model of gun used to kill her husband, was seen on surveillance camera footage driving to and from the culinary institute at the same time her husband was shot and sought to collect some $815,000 in life insurance following his death.

Police never found the gun that killed her husband. Prosecutors alleged Crampton Brophy swapped out the barrel of the gun used in the shooting and then discarded the barrel to foil forensic analysis.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/06/oregon-romance-writer-nancy-crampton-brophy-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-husbands-murder.html

While I know in my gut that she murdered her husband, I’m not sure I would have found her guilty as a juror.

There’s simply nothing - absolutely no physical evidence - tying her to the specific act.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, if you're a fan of easy culinary creations that don't require massive effort, you might like this recipe for chicken shawarma. I had never made chicken shawarma before, but was shocked at how easy it was. Wife gave me a thumbs-up on it. It is also ultra low carb (depending on whether you use pita pockets and do the tahini sauce).

You've passed along some great recipes. Time to return the favor. Bon appetit.

https://www.themediterraneandish.com/chicken-shawarma-recipe/

[apedad]

Got it all (even the chicken thighs [frozen]).

Will try this weekend.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, one thing. Marinating overnight is the key to this recipe.

[John F. Carr]

Nathan Carman is charged with murdering his mother by sinking their boat at sea. There are no witnesses but the other evidence makes a strong case. Susan Zalkind wrote for Vice, "Nathan Carman is either a criminal mastermind, or the victim of a series of unfortunate, fatal events."

[Brett Bellmore]

I think writing an instruction manual on how to kill your husband didn't help her case, either, even if the judge didn't think it was admissible.

[Estragon]

Didn’t OJ end up writing a book “if I did it”?

What happened to that, I can’t remember

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but she wrote it before killing him.

[Estragon]

Oh I know! Crazy case. I believe in other contexts prosecutors have sought to use things like rap lyrics written beforehand as evidence

[Ridgeway]

IIRC the aspiring rapper in question did not phrase it so much as "If I did it" as "How I did it."

[Estragon]

I think there were several cases where the admissibility of this kind of thing came up. Defense bar, at least in my state, doesn’t like it for obvious reasons

[Ridgeway]

I actually tend to agree. Writing about murder or violence in general does not make one more likely to be a murderer in a given case. However, being dumb enough to insert crime details known only to the murderer and police into your artistry is quite rightly distinguishable from the general rule.

[Commenter_XY]

A question for the law professors and lawyers. Is it legal to prosecute energy companies for 'excessive' profits? I am not talking about enacting a windfall profits tax; there is a bill in the House right now to enact it. I mean prosecution.

(NB: let the Reader interpret excessive because I don't know a law that defines excessive)

It is only a matter of time...so what is actual case law here? Are energy company C-suite execs and their boards of directors fair game for prosecution, legally, for 'excessive' profits?

[apedad]

SEC. 2. UNCONSCIONABLE PRICING OF CONSUMER FUELS DURING EMERGENCIES.

(a) Unconscionable Pricing.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any person to sell a consumer fuel, at wholesale or retail, in an area and during a period of an energy emergency covered by a proclamation issued under paragraph (2) at a price that—

(A) is unconscionably excessive; and

(B) indicates the seller is exploiting the circumstances related to an energy emergency to increase prices unreasonably.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7688/text

The bill doesn't define what "unconscionably excessive" is.

This is just a 'hey-we-did-something' bill and won't have any affect on gas prices.

I like the "free market" people who all of a sudden scream WE NEED GOVT INTERVENTION when the situation affects their own wallets.

[Michael P]

Which "free market" people are those? This particular bill had one-party support in the House, with four Dems defecting to oppose it.

[Commenter_XY]

Thx for that link. Are you aware of any actual case law where C-suite execs (or Boards) were prosecuted personally?

[apedad]

North Carolina’s plan to ban free EV charging is an environmental disgrace

While the US federal government is moving towards standardizing fast-charging infrastructure and installing the first national network of chargers on highways, North Carolina might be going in the opposite direction.

NC Representative Keith Kidwell, together with his colleagues, Reps. Ben Moss of Richmond County, Mark Brody of Union County, and George Cleveland of Onslow County, last week filed House Bill 1049 — one of the country’s most anti-EV bills to date.

Titled “Equitable Free Vehicle Fuel Stations,” the proposal wants to remove free charging stations in North Carolina and ban EV charging on government property. That’s unless free gas and diesel fuel stations have “equitable” availability.

First off, the bill wants businesses (restaurants etc.) with free charging stations to print at the bottom of every receipt how much of the customer’s bill goes towards subsidizing charging — whether the customers make use of the service or not.

https://thenextweb.com/news/north-carolina-ban-free-ev-charging-is-environmental-disgrace

Good ol’ North Carolina; kicking and scream as they’re forcefully dragged into the 21st century.

Restaurants can offer free wi-fi but HOLY SHIT NOT FREE CHARGING STATIONS.

Again, these are the “free market” people.

[Brett Bellmore]

There is no such thing as "free" EV charging. EV charging has a non-negligible cost, so SOMEBODY is paying for it. Possibly quite a bit, depending on how the cost of the charging station amortizes.

Mind, the same is true of the bathrooms and lighting in restaurants, and the government doesn't mandate that they break those costs out as separate line items. So I'm not going to argue that the regulation isn't somewhat absurd.

Not remotely as absurd as calling mandatory transparency "an environmental disgrace", though.

You might as well just say that your favorite cause needs people to remain ignorant about how much it costs. Because that's the message you just delivered. And I'm guessing you didn't even notice you were telling us all that.

[Sarcastr0]

Government subsidizes things all the time. Taking away a subsidy not for a policy reason but because of spite at renewables?

That's dumb.

[Brett Bellmore]

Setting aside the issue of whether they can issue this order, which I think is something of a given. Why is "Our state does not encourage the use of electric vehicles by subsidizing them" not a policy reason?

Might be a policy reason you don't like, but it's absolutely a policy reason.

[Sarcastr0]

The rationale for the choice was in the OP. It was hostility to renewables as being unfairly advantaged as compared to oil. Fairness?? That’s not a rationale, it’s just spite.

[OtisAH]

“Spite” is a legitimate policy to Brett. You know this, man.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Fairness is a reasonable concept. If you want to be really honest about it, "Free" EV stations act as a subsidy to the rich, at the expense of the poor, and are a pretty regressive concept.

Let's be clear. Rich people can afford to buy EVs. Poor people often can't. It's not just the relative cost difference (which is quite sizable). It's also the fact that people often need setups to charge their EVs at home...and poor people often don't have the nice garages that rich people have, for the charging stations. Poor people aren't going to run an extension cord down the street to where their EV is parked on the side. Rich people use their garage and have their nice Tesla parked inside charging.

So, on top of that, poor people are paying for the gas to fill up their cars, and then they're getting taxed on top of that, to pay for the upkeep on the roads (with the gas tax). Meanwhile rich people with their EVs not only aren't paying any gas taxes to keep up the roads, they ALSO get free electricity to charge their car which is paid for by the taxes....presumably the same gas taxes they aren't paying.

It's a pretty regressive setup.

[Michael P]

The Federal Class loves policies that are regressive with respect to income. They disproportionately benefit from such policies.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus Christ. So they love socialism, but also subsidizing the rich. Those Feds get ya coming and going!

[VinniUSMC]

Since when has the ruling class ever considered themselves part of the hoi polloi? Of course they enrich themselves, even as they try to force others into whatever version of "The Right Way" they perceive, while claiming to be all about the little people.

Been asleep for the last... several thousand years?

[Sarcastr0]

So, which is it?
- Democrats favor policies which subsidize the rich, and thus themselves, and actually aren't socialists
- Democrats favor policies which hurt the rich, because they are Marxist ideologues

You can't have both.

[VinniUSMC]

You can't have both.

That's a nice false dichotomy you've got there. Keep trying.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's hard to understand about it, Sarcastr0?

In practice, Marxist ideologues are con men, and Marxism is the con. You don't invest in your own Ponzi scheme!

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, your redbaiting about how we're this close from government takeover of the economy to redistribute wealth from the rich to buy votes etc. etc. is very much at odds with your 'Marxists are con men' thesis.

The money is either flowing from the rich or to them. Not both.

What this looks like to me is as though Dems are all villains in all cases. That demonization beyond logic is pretty insane.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastro, it's been ten years now since the government effectively nationalized the health insurance industry, dictating to them what product they would sell to who at what price. So let's not pretend that sort of thing is off the table.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, and we've been a fascist hellscape ever since. Your drama is not aligned with reality.

But beyond that, was that regressive with respect to income, to line the pockets of Dems? Because it sure seems to have raised the number of people affordably covered by insurance by millions.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was definitely beneficial to the people who got subsidized insurance. A lot of people ended up with worse, more expensive insurance, to pay for that benefit.

[Sarcastr0]

A lot of people ended up with worse, more expensive insurance, to pay for that benefit.

'A lot of people' is the conventional wisdom on the right. But I've not seen any actual evidence of that since like 2012.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not seen any actual evidence of that since like 2012"

You haven't looked. Ask any small business owner who has a health plan. You'll see evidence.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, the ACA appears to have at least marginally increased the rate at which health insurance premiums went up. Family premiums up 55% since 2010, deductibles up 111%. And I can personally testify that my current coverage is substantially worse than the policy that I did NOT get to keep, back in 2010.

You are, of course, free to think the ACA somehow gave better than market rates to some people, without necessitating worse than market rates for other people. I don't get the impression you really have basic economic principles internalized.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a fun, if dense, link.

But I don't see where it discusses that health care inflation went up post-ACA compared to pre? I may have missed it - it is dense.

And even if that were true, I don't see the causal connection made, though I'd agree that it would be pretty suggestive.

But once again you've changed your thesis from "A lot of people ended up with worse, more expensive insurance" to a (still unsupported that I could see) "the ACA appears to have at least marginally increased the rate at which health insurance premiums went up" and personal testimony.

Your original point was hard to support so you're descoping, and still not managing to make it.

And all to try and support the thesis that it's not contradictory at all that Dems both take from the rich and give to the rich.

[OtisAH]

What do subsidies to oil companies who are enjoying record profits act as?

[David Nieporent]

"Free" EV stations act as a subsidy to the rich, at the expense of the poor, and are a pretty regressive concept.

Let's be clear. Rich people can afford to buy EVs. Poor people often can't. It's not just the relative cost difference (which is quite sizable). It's also the fact that people often need setups to charge their EVs at home...and poor people often don't have the nice garages that rich people have, for the charging stations. Poor people aren't going to run an extension cord down the street to where their EV is parked on the side. Rich people use their garage and have their nice Tesla parked inside charging.

So, poorer people have a harder time charging cars at home… and you conclude that providing more places to charge cars, at no cost to them, is bad for them?

[VinniUSMC]

They're gonna charge the EVs that they can't afford to buy?

[Brett Bellmore]

Poorer people don't have electric cars in the first place. They're a wealthy person's luxury. What part of that didn't you understand?

[David Nieporent]

The part of how you don't get that subsidizing electric vehicles makes it easier for less wealthy people to afford them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Great, the subsidy would allow 2% of the population to own them, maybe, instead of 1%. That's fantastic!

[Sarcastr0]

That's over 3 million people, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and 300 million paying for it.

[Sarcastr0]

Paying how much, Brett? And how is that distributed.

It's pretty clear you're carping about fractions. Because it's not actually about the price, it's about the spite.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you know, one hand out to the wealthy at the expense of everybody else, then another, and then another, eventually you're talking big bucks.

But at present, yeah, I mostly object to the principle of the thing.

[Aemon McGarret]

Poorer people didn't have telephones or televisions early on either. Or cars for that matter. It would be an interesting betting pool to date & place the first anti-gasoline vehicle legislation to be passed at the state level. Gas powered automobiles will keep being available to enthusiasts. But with LOTS of regulations. It is moving very fast in that direction. Don't stand in the way.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh....

Electric cars, like private jets, are a luxury for the rich. Both have high upfront costs, such that only the well off can afford them. Both require their own special housing, whether it be garages with special electric charging stations or hangars, that once again the poor really don't have.

Now I suppose you could have a government program that gives away free aviation fuel, you just need to swing on by with your private jet to get some. Just like you can have a government program that gives away free electricity, so long as you swing on by with your expensive new electric car.

But to argue that it's anything but a subsidy for the rich and well off is rather misleading. You need the big expensive item to utilize the "benefit" in the first place.

[Sarcastr0]

Fairness is a reasonable concept only if there is an associated cost.
Said cost is marginal.

So this is a 'people being helped that aren't me is bad' crabs in a bucket mentality.

Though your class war rhetoric is cute.

[Brett Bellmore]

And there IS an associated cost. Charging stations are neither free to install, nor to keep running.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying the cost of keeping them running is more than marginal?

[Brett Bellmore]

The cost of keeping them running is "marginal" by economic definition. What it's not is trivial.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure about that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, a decent car charging station costs several grand, and may require upgrading electrical service at the site. Then there's $8-10 worth of electricity per car charge. A charging car can suck down more juice than an arc welder, for hours at a time.

Assuming the charging station is amortized over a couple years, and serves maybe a five hundred cars a year? Each charging represents maybe $4 share of the cost of the charger, and maybe $8 of electricity, a total of $12 for a "free" charge.

That's no breath mint, Sarcastro. We're talking serious bucks here.

[StellaLink_the dog]

adjective: marginal
of secondary or minor importance; not central.
"it seems likely to make only a marginal difference"

[Sarcastr0]

You switched from maintaining the stations (i.e. not removing them) to putting in new ones.

I like your back-of-the-envelope gumption, but no new goalposts.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Assuming the charging station is amortized over a couple years, and serves maybe a five hundred cars a year? Each charging represents maybe $4 share of the cost of the charger, and maybe $8 of electricity, a total of $12 for a "free" charge."

Your numbers are way off. We're talking about complimentary charging at a restaurant.

Consider a Nissan Leaf. According to the internet, so it must be true, charging one of these from 10% to 80% takes about 40kW for 45 minutes or 30kWh. Apparently, that's about as fast as you can charge one and as long at that rate (40kw for 45 minutes) I just checked my Entergy bill and electricity costs me about $.13/kWh. At that price, you're looking at less than $4 and that's at 40kW. Apparently, a Tesla will take a charge at about 15kW. So, if a restaurant offers "free" complimentary charging for one hour, one of these vehicles will absorb less than $2 of electricity. Even if there is significant conversion efficiency loss, it's still way less than your $8 - $10. And, if you're giving "free" charges in order to lure in customers, what's the likelihood that you're going to offer even 15kW chargers?

Then there is the problem with your 500 car/year estimate. That's less than 1.4 cars/day. And, where does your $2000/charger per year come from?

As for your future, it would probably be to your advantage to continue your career as the world's leading expert on constitutional law. Your prospects as an accountant look dim.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You switched from maintaining the stations (i.e. not removing them) to putting in new ones."

Sigh. Tell me you don't understand economics, without telling me you don't understand economics. Brett is absolutely correct.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"adjective: marginal
of secondary or minor importance; not central."

Context, it's a thing. When you're talking about costs in this context, marginal means incremental.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You switched from maintaining the stations (i.e. not removing them) to putting in new ones."

Hint, the "unit" of production in this context is charging a vehicle, not adding a station.

[Sarcastr0]

TiP, you don't need to act like an ass. Especially when you're wrong.

Brett amortized the cost of putting in a new station over the cost per charge, so yeah he's talking about putting up a new station.

The bill people are complaining about is removing existing stations. That is where the cost-benefit unsupportable. But Brett prefers to argue on different ground.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"TiP, you don't need to act like an ass. Especially when you're wrong."

Doubling down on your ignorance with name-calling? Typical Sarcastro.

[StellaLink_the dog]

12" says:
"Context, it's a thing. When you're talking about costs in this context, marginal means incremental."

Yes, context is important. S'0's reference to a cost being marginal was obviously* to a cost making a small contribution to total costs associated with a service rather than being a marginal cost in the sense of economics/accounting.

*Obvious to anyone who is not being willfully obtuse.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still not in breath mint territory, Stella. More "Get a free appetizer if you have an EV" territory.

Now, I called the law in regards to restaurants silly. *I* view economic liberty as being important enough that *I* don't think legislatures should be enacting laws of this sort. Are you that keen on economic liberty?

But in regards to government facilities? Yeah, we're talking big enough bucks that the legislature is entitled to an opinion.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes, context is important. S'0's reference to a cost being marginal was obviously* to a cost making a small contribution to total costs associated with a service rather than being a marginal cost in the sense of economics/accounting."

Yes, because his comment would have been incoherent otherwise. But it's tough to have a conversation with people who run around saying things like, "are you saying that the incremental costs aren't marginal?" and then being an ass to people who disagree with him.

[Sarcastr0]

I like the word marginal.

Sorry it made you mad, TiP.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I like the word marginal."

Then you should learn what it means.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you want to be really honest about it...

You're talking to Sarcastr0. He's never wanted to be honest about anything...ever.

[ThePublius]

There's a compelling case to be made that EVs are immoral. And, that per mile driven over the lifetime of the vehicle or battery pack, cause more CO2 than IC cars.

https://www.cfact.org/2022/06/07/is-it-ethical-to-purchase-a-lithium-battery-powered-ev/

So, as a matter of policy, perhaps NC is doing the right thing.

[StellaLink_the dog]

I know it's possible for typically bad sources to produce sound arguments, but jeez, a shill for the Heartland Institute whose salient claim to fame as advocacy of tobacco use?

[ThePublius]

Can refute any of the assertions and arguments he makes? Facts wrong?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Can refute any of the assertions and arguments he makes? Facts wrong?"

His description of the clean energy oil well is pretty dimwitted. It's as if he's never seen an oil well being drilled or a pipeline being layed or the trucks running back and forth every day hauling away 9 barrels of salt water for every barrel of oil produced. He doesn't mention any of the environmental costs of fracturing or acidizing or salt water disposal. No mention of the costs of tanker spills or pipeline leaks or offshore platform blowouts or refinery explosions.

I agree with his observations that EVs are not without environmental (and other societal) costs. That being said, the linked article is obviously not a fair examination of comparative costs -- it is an advocacy and propaganda piece.

[StellaLink_the dog]

This is pretty funny. I just looked up the book this dude touts:
'The 2022 Pulitzer Prize nominated book that I coauthored with Todd Royal, “Clean Energy Exploitations – Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy,” '

It appears to be self-published.

So, how does a self-published book get a Pulitzer nomination? Seems a bit easier than even getting a Nobel nomination. Just complete an application and send in a copy of the work with a $50 application fee and you're nominated. Yeah, this guy should be treated with all the respect he deserves.

[bernard11]

Um, Brett.

"Transparency." This is nonsense.

Yes, the charging costs something, as do the bathrooms,etc., not to mention the condiments, napkins, and so on.

Yet nobody in their right mind has ever insisted that restaurant break all that down on their menus. Because, everyone knows those things cost money, and the costs are reflected in the menu prices.

If the menu prices are too high, customers will stay away. That's how markets work.

Further, one of the nice things about markets, which you apparently don't understand, is that prices contain information - they present it in an efficient form. You don't have to know how much of the price of a cheeseburger goes for the meat, the cheese, the bun, to wash the plate, etc. You just have to know the price.

Do you really have to defend every RW idiocy?

[Brett Bellmore]

I said the regulation is absurd. But it's absurd transparency, and the objection here seems not to be to the absurdity, but instead to the transparency.

[Ben_]

Environmentalists don’t like heresy or blasphemy regarding their sacred notions Brett. Zealots consider it an "environmental disgrace" and that makes sense from the perspective of zealotry.

[FivebySixThree]

I swear, Republicans just think of new ways to lose elections. Apparently they would much prefer China lead the way in renewable energy and EVs.

A bit of hyperbole I admit but they are damn close to becoming a meme at this point.

my lovely state charges in excess of $200 for EV tags to be "fair"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wasn't it Democrats wanting to tax people by the mile because of EVs not paying gas taxes?

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think this is the case. In Wisconsin Republicans upped the registration fee on hybrid vehicles to address lost revenue.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There was a pilot plan for taxing by the mile in Bidens infrastructure bill.

[Moderation4ever]

I would support such a plan as it is a user fee. Right now, too many roads are being repaired or build with borrowed money. The alternative is to raise the gas tax, but no one in a hurry to do that either.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would only support such a plan if it involved getting rid of the gas taxes that supposedly are already paying for that. Otherwise ICE cars will face double taxation for the roads.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree, one tax or the other, mileage or gas, not both but at least one.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps you should reflect on what percentage of the electorate owns electric vehicles, before you declare this a political loser? I believe it's a rounding error away from "basically nobody", 1%.

[Moderation4ever]

You are correct about the fleet being less than 1%. But that percentage is on the rise and do you want to be standing in the way of rising trend?

[Brett Bellmore]

If you want to say that policies hostile to electric vehicles could be a loser in 2035, I'd say that's plausible. Not a given, but plausible. If you want to say that they're a loser in 2022, I'd say you've got a tough case to make.

This is, as Armchair Lawyer says, a subsidy to the wealthy, and arguing that opposing a subsidy to the wealthy is stupid politics is a bit of a stretch.

[John F. Carr]

If we want full disclosure I would rather have car dealers required to include the mandatory dealer fees ("documentation fee") in the advertised price. I don't care whether my restaurant bill includes a non-negotiable line item for EV charging.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"mandatory dealer fees"
Among several ways that car dealers have to hide costs and trick buyers. One of the worst, in my opinion, is hiding from consumers how much they have to pay for no interest/low interest car loans.

[apedad]

State Police preparing troopers for what they can and can't ask with new gun law

Indiana State Police reviews current law, which defines a "proper person" eligible for a handgun license as someone who:

1. Does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement within five years of applying
2. Does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one year
3. Does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm
4. Is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun.
5. Does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined by state law
6. Does not have documented evidence, which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct
7. Does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application
8. Does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun
9. Does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five years of the person's application
10. Does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is younger than 23 years of age
11. Has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority
12. Has not been the subject of a 90 day commitment as a result of proceeding under IC 12-26-6 or regular commitment under IC 12-26-7
13. Has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty but mentally ill or incompetent to stand trial.
14. Is not currently designated as dangerous by a court.

As of July 1, someone is considered a "prohibited person" if they are:

1. A person who has been convicted of a state or federal offense punishable a year or more in prison
2. A person who has been convicted of domestic violence, domestic battery or criminal stalking and firearms rights have not been restored
3. A person under an order of protection
4. A fugitive from justice
5. A person under felony Indictment
6. A person who has been adjudicated dangerous
7. A person who has been adjudicated a mental defective
8. A person who has been committed to a mental institution
9. A person dishonorably discharged from military service or the National Guard
10. A person who renounces the person's United States citizenship in the manner described in 8 U.S.C. 1481
11. A person who is younger than 18, unless authorized under IC 35-47-10
12. A person who is younger than 23 and has an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act described by IC 35-47-4-5, unless authorized under IC 35-47-10
13. An Alien

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investigates/state-police-preparing-troopers-for-what-they-can-and-cant-ask-with-new-gun-law-indiana-concealed-constitutional-carry-license/531-b97d2853-e711-4cc6-bf10-5a91e05234f7

This seems like a good approach – right up to #13.

It doesn’t say illegal alien.

There are millions of legal aliens living in the US; does this mean they can’t legally carry in Indiana?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not going to argue that 13 is good policy, but it's almost certainly constitutional policy.

[Michael P]

It's arguably preempted by federal law that only prohibits gun purchases by/transfers to aliens who were not lawfully admitted under an immigrant visa. I'm not sure how far that Dormant Commerce Clause argument would go, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think that's a particularly sound constitutional argument, though it's possible the Supreme court might decide legal resident aliens are part of the People. They haven't yet, though.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It's arguably preempted by federal law that only prohibits gun purchases by/transfers to aliens who were not lawfully admitted under an immigrant visa.

How would that argument go, exactly?

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume it's some sort of dormant commerce clause argument.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Not going to argue that 13 is good policy, but it's almost certainly constitutional policy."

Not according to at least one federal court decision based on equal protection and the 2d Amendment. Is there any precedent to the contrary?

[apedad]

Florida abortion ban violates Jews' religious freedom, lawsuit says

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-abortion-ban-violates-jews-religious-freedom-lawsuit-says-2022-06-14/

Oh boy!

One religion says BOOO and one religion says YAAAAY on abortion.

This’ll be fun to watch.

[Michael P]

Didn't the VC commentariat discuss this theory a few weeks ago? I thought the takeaway was that traditional Jewish law in theory allows abortion to protect the mother's health (even mental health) but does not mandate it, whereas RFRA-type acts only privilege religious mandates, not religious permissions.

[apedad]

"Traditional Jew law" doesn't matter.

The SC ruled it's only an individual's interpretation - which does NOT have to follow the established, 'traditional" rule.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, but again, the state law allows abortion for life or serious health issues, which is, I think, as far as you could possibly expect to push a religious accommodation.

[not guilty]

Current law requires an exception to preserve maternal life or health, but I surmise that may not be the case once Dobbs is decided and the legislature acts in response.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can surmise all the crazy things you want. Won't make them happen.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Damn, you broke the irony meter.

[Michael P]

Yes, but the religious belief needs to be "sincerely held", which means more than just asserted for the purposes of a lawsuit. The rule is part of religious tradition is one way to support the claim of sincere holding.

[SRG]

Jewish law mandates it if the mother's life is at risk.

[Bob from Ohio]

No US law bans such abortions.

[not guilty]

Not yet.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not ever.

[Brett Bellmore]

It will be fun to watch it be laughed out of court, anyway. They should probably have handed this one off to the Church of Satan, they'd have a better case.

"Jewish law requires abortion in some cases." Yeah, I believe that's the case, in the sense that it requires basically ANY life saving procedure, and in a tiny fraction of abortions, it's a life saving procedure. And abortion is legal in Florida in those cases.

So, even accepting their supposed reasoning, they lose, they already have their accommodation.

But I say "supposed" reasoning, because, as I've observed before, abortion advocates can't really mean what they're saying, because they never apply these principles beyond abortion.

Stop and think about what the argument here implies for other laws. Are laws permitting you to use unapproved drugs for life saving purposes mandated by the 1st amendment? That would seem to be the import of this argument, but do they go there? I'm sure you could think of other examples.

At least the Church of Satan could argue human sacrifice as a religious tenant.

[Sarcastr0]

Agreed, but it will also make for some awkward precedents for future, more Christian-related religious exception cases.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett...to respond to one point, just providing a clarification. Not jumping into the abortion argument.

Halakha is clear: The mother's physical life must be saved, even at the expense of the unborn child, if she is in mortal danger (a life or death circumstance). I am emphatically not including psychological, emotional, spiritual health as none of those are referenced (I know more lenient interpretations exist, I go by the text...how VC of me). The halakha is: physical life of the mother. That's it.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's about my understanding. With "mortal danger" not really being a binary, a really high chance of dying short of certainty would be enough, right?

But, again, state law already accommodates that.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, in theory = With "mortal danger" not really being a binary, a really high chance of dying short of certainty would be enough, right?

I have to emphasize mortal danger aspect, Brett. Really, it matters. It literally means life or death. There are rare and unfortunate circumstances where this is possible...untreated preeclampsia and the mother presents at the ER in labor and is dying on the table, as an example...where halakha would mandate the mother must be saved at the expense of the unborn child. It is dire.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and again, that sort of 'abortion' is legal in all 50 states. So you've already got your accommodation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Jews apparently still love their child sacrificing.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck off with this shit.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://en.meming.world/images/en/1/1d/Creating_Bugs_Bunny%27s_%22No%22.jpg

[Brett Bellmore]

It is shit, but he's not the guy dishing it out, the people filing the lawsuit are.

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord Brett.
Then fuck you to if you think that the lawsuit is about Jews loving child sacrifice.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that if you don't want people thinking you're putting blood in the matzo balls, or whatever the screwed up theory is, you probably don't want to demand a religious right to make withdrawals from blood banks. That's what I'm saying.

The lawsuit is doing more to advance the anti-Semitic stereotype than BCD ever could.

[bernard11]

Shut up, Brett.

You are badly out of line here.

[Sarcastr0]

You're above this.

Don't let your opposition to abortion justify antisemitism.

[OtisAH]

He clearly isn’t above it.

Otoh, how impressed are we by the Conspiracy’s commitment to “free speech”…?

[Brett Bellmore]

This isn't antisemitism, you idiot, it's suggesting that Jews might not want to make things easy for anti-Semites.

[OtisAH]

Literally the worst.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Jews don't need to walk lightly lest they be thought to be doing a blood libel by antisemites.

Fuck you once again.

[bernard11]

Just another version of "Anything my side does wrong is the fault of the other side," pretty standard stuff for Brett.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[OtisAH]

Disgusting assholes like BCD (nom du jour) are basic disgusting assholes. But you twist yourself in unimaginable ways to defend them. Or at least put a positive sheen on the disgusting assholish things the other disgusting assholes post. So congrats. You are the Worst Person on the VC.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why are Jews, as a class, immune from any sort of criticism?

[Sarcastr0]

No, you don't get to exclude the middle between 'any criticism' and 'blood libel'.

There's a reason people react to what you said. It's dangerous.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Blood libel is dangerous, but not against Whites!

You sound like a Jew lol

[StellaLink_the dog]

One need not be a Jew to find blatant antisemitism repulsive.

What sort of person is it who celebrates such repulsive behavior as a joke?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

One who doesn't take kindly to hypocrisy.

[Commenter_XY]

Yo...really? BCD, it is 2022. Just want to point out that the 'Jews want to sacrifice children' blood libel came and went about 500 years ago.

See my comments to Brett above on halakha.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Like fanny packs and parachute pants, I'm bringing back the trend!

[Aemon McGarret]

Setting out to be as deliberately offensive as possible isn't "a trend". And spreading hate isn't just fashion. 8 billion overcrowded primates in a deteriorating environment with powerful weapons don't need people playing with gasoline & matches.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Someone how or another the Jews have an absolute immunity card and they are supposedly untouchable.

Someone needs to criticize them for their actions.

[bernard11]

Just want to point out that the 'Jews want to sacrifice children' blood libel came and went about 500 years ago.

Well, not quite. It started in the Twelfth Century. Google William of Norwich. Not sure when it more or less faded, but there was one famous case in Russia in 1911.

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

[Estragon]

Prof. Bernstein, how do you feel about the following you have cultivated here over the years?

[John F. Carr]

Do they have a plaintiff who is pregnant over 15 weeks and "needs" an abortion?

[apedad]

When Can the Government Forcibly Medicate a Defendant?

The question before the court was complex—and, attorneys said, never before litigated. The circumstances in question were not those of the crime itself, but the defendant’s competency and willingness to take antipsychotic medications ahead of the trial. At issue: How many doses was it OK to skip before the government had to step in?

In the more recent case of Johnathan Mitchell, whose willingness to take medication fluctuated between 20 and 90 percent, the courts ultimately granted the government’s motion for involuntary medication.

“If Mitchell does not voluntarily comply with his medication regimen, the Bureau of Prisons is authorized and directed to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication as deemed appropriate by Mitchell’s treating psychiatrist … until and while Mitchell stands trial,” the district court ordered. Mitchell’s rate of medication compliance, the court added, “shall not be allowed to fall below 76% per month.” (This number was based on an estimate for how many doses he would have to miss to render the medicine ineffective, given his previous experience.)

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the decision, and in 2021, Mitchell petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case.

The Supreme Court denied his petition. His trial is currently scheduled to begin in August.

https://slate.com/technology/2022/06/forcibly-medicate-defendant-mental-illness-supreme-court-sell.html

This is a long read but I don’t recall seeing this issue address at the VC.

I’m definitely not comfortable with the govt involuntarily administering medication.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, does the military do that? = involuntary administration of meds?

[apedad]

No. We have a volunteer military and they signed up for it.

[Ridgeway]

What about vaccines?

[ducksalad]

Not on board with physically holding someone down and delivering the medication.

However, in extreme cases (repeat serious incidents over a period of years, each proven in a court) I could see making release conditional on accepting medication.

[CocoN8]

Yesterday was the 2nd anniversary of Bostock. I've always thought that, while it was an unquestioned victory for the L,G, and B, it was something of a Pyrrhic victory for the T. I've never seen that angle discussed though, so I'm wondering if I'm off base in my assessment.

The Bostock majority reasoned that an employer could not treat a man who dated a man any differently than a woman who dated a man. The only differences between the two man-daters would be their sex, and that's a big no-no in Title VII.

But apply that reasoning to transgender protections, and it contradicts the ubiquitous transgender motto: "a trans woman is a woman." An employer cannot treat a man who presents as a woman any differently than they treat a woman who presents as a woman.

In other words, a trans woman can only claim Bostock's Title VII protections if she argues that she is being treated differently than the biological men her employer employs, that a trans woman is not in fact a woman. If she were a woman, then Bostock's reasoning could not be used to apply Title VII protections to her.

In Bostock, transgender individuals won Title VII protections, but at the cost of acknowledging the reality and materiality of biological sex. Maybe a philosophical defeat is less onerous than a legal one, but it has left me wondering for the last two years.

I am not a lawyer, just some schmoe who likes to read legal blogs. Am I off base in my reasoning here?

[Josh R]

There was no defeat for the general proposition that a trans woman is a woman. From Bostock (my emphasis):

because nothing in our approach to these cases turns on the outcome of the parties’ debate (my note: on the meaning of "sex" in the statute, not the general argument about whether a trans woman is a woman), and because the employees concede the point for argument’s sake, we proceed on the assumption that “sex” signified what the employers suggest, referring only to biological distinctions between male and female.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Another pregnancy center firebombed by pro-"choice" extremists.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/pro-abortion-terrorists-firebomb-oregon-pregnancy-center/

That makes four arson attacks on pregnancy centers in recent months.

I hate to tell you all...this is the definition of domestic terrorism, and is worse than anything currently done on the "right". Where is the FBI and Department of Justice on these cases? Where are the investigations? Why is this being ignored?

These terrorists need to be brought to justice, and their supporters as well...

[Illocust]

Have the culprits been arrested? 4 in a row sounds like a individual or a group traveling around. The again, wouldn't be apprised if different people come each crime.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I haven't heard of any arrests.

[Michael P]

There is no logical consistency here.

[Michael P]

Arrgh. I didn't hit the submit button, I hit the backspace button.

Those firebombings are a small subset of all the related attacks: https://thedailyhatch.org/2022/06/13/churches-pro-life-organizations-attacked-41-times-in-past-6-weeks/

[Sarcastr0]

That's counting vandalism as an attack. Which, fair enough, but then I want to see a baseline that includes all political vandalism.

[apedad]

You're right, it is domestic terrorism and the people who are involved need to receive the full punishment.

No sarc.

[not guilty]

If there is an organized group responsible for the firebombings, then a federal RICO investigation may be warranted. Arson punishable as a felony under state law can be a predicate act.

Arson, bombings, vandalism and targeted assassination have historically been the tactics of anti-abortion extremists. Supporters of abortion rights should not adopt them.

[Aemon McGarret]

We are getting to, or are already to the point that the actual issues Like abortion & guns are vanishing in the conflict between legitimate influence & use of power, & political terrorism & violence. Legitimate use of power seems to be on the ropes. The disintegration of the government is in full swing. When the SC releases it's decision in Dobbs in the middle of this very hot summer it is going to be very volatile. If the Justice Department moves on charging & arresting Donald Trump, add more heat & violence. Have another high profile police shooting of a black person or an assassination of a politician, and it can get VERY wild. Way too many people for the systems we have. And almost zero goodwill nor respect for our institutions.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The Biden excuse making on energy has reached the point of absurdity. The "Putin's price hike" crap was dismissed by the public as the bullshit that it is, so they've moved on now to scapegoating the refiners. Nasty letters and press conference jawboning about obscene margins and withheld supply.

Well, those numbers are public and are published every week by the EIA. Here's the comparison of the week ending 6/10/22 to the week ending week ending 6/11/21:

Capacity Utilization 93.4% vs 89.9%. Utilization is higher.
Crude input to refineries 16.3 mmbbl vs 15.8 mmbbl. Higher
Gasoline production 9.9 mmbl vs 9.7 mmbl. Higher
Crude in storage (ex SPR) 419 mmbl vs 467 mmbl. Lower

So they're holding less crude in storage and processing more crude with higher utilization to make more gasoline. That's the opposite of withholding supply.

And margins - crude oil a year ago was $71.00/bbl, in the same week this year it's $120.73/bbl. Up 70%. Retail gasoline cost $3.07 to $3.74/gallon, depending on grade. Now it's $5.01 to $5.76/gallon. So gas is up 54% to 63%. Their product has increase less than their feedstock. This isn't price gouging or obscene margins, it's the opposite. Lathrop, your price gougers suck at actually gouging.

So once again, the thing that is happening in reality is 180 degrees opposed to what this administration is saying.

President "I won't make excuses like the guy that's president now" is nothing but bullshit and excuses. His energy policy is a disaster slowly unfolding, bases on panic and political virtue signalling with no coherent plan. This spike is a perfectly predictable consequence of his policies. IT'S WHAT THEY WANTED! Why are they pointing fingers instead of claiming victory?

And don't give me the Putin bullshit, unless you can explain how Putin could cause prices in a basically domestic market like natural gas to increase as much as world crude has. What an evil genius he is!!! Biden wanted less domestic supply, and he got his wish. Should have been more careful what he wished for. But don't expect Mr. Accountability to actually take any.

[Ridgeway]

I don't think it makes sense to compare percentage increases in crude vs gas. The argument is that if everything else stayed the same, increases in crude price should increase gas prices dollar for dollar, not by a percentage.

However, everything else did not stay the same. Transportation and labor have both gone through the roof, and those are both significant cost components or refining and distribution. Moreover, running at 93% capacity is probably causing some huge OT charges at the refiners.

I am sure there are other cost increases I have not thought of.

[Stephen Lathrop]

bevis — Unless the feedstock price was the entire cost of doing business, it would be absurd to expect a retail price increase percent to match a feedstock price increase percent. I do not know the price factor contributions for oil refining. It would not surprise me to discover that feedstock was the largest, and maybe greater than the rest combined. My guess at other notable cost contributors would be energy costs of refining, transportation costs for finished product, and for some feedstock, maintenance costs, plus relatively small amounts for production labor. Would not be surprised to discover high insurance cost. The point is there will be more to it than just the feedstock price.

I do not care that much whether the parties doing the price gouging are producers, refiners, wholesalers, or retailers. I note that the OPEC hammerlock on oil production boosts prices, and has never been controversial among domestic producers, who benefit proportionately.

I am not even that concerned about gasoline prices. If OPEC wants to accelerate its own obsolescence while decreasing CO2 emissions with a high-price policy, why should an environmentalist object?

I am more concerned about gouging in other industries, who get to claim in a general way that fuel prices made them do it, or wage increases—and then push retail prices far higher than fuel increases or wage increases justify. The evidence pro or con will be found in profit reports. I expect the record profits corporate executives have been predicting to prove out.

I think the biggest contributors to present inflation are Covid-induced: pent-up demand induced by postponed purchases and interrupted production; plus lagging maintenance schedules; plus supply chain issues.

Interest-rate induced recession strikes me as an especially inefficient, stupid and excessively damaging way to bring most of those problems under control. Not all inflation episodes are alike. It is a shame that for too many policy makers, only one counter-measure ever comes to mind.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Does anyone else find it abso-smurfly delicious that St. Fauci had come down with a case of the Covid sniffles?

[DaveM]

Not really. The C bug is very annoying and uncomfortable, and can be dangerous. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Anyone who has been paying attention already knows that the vaccines, masks, and lockdowns don't keep you from being infected. Fortunately, your immune system is set up to deal exactly with this situation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I had Covid, it sucked for a couple of days. (Not the worst respiratory infection I've had, but it was up there.) Much as I dislike Fauci, I wouldn't wish it on him. I just want him to go away, not get sick.

[SRG]

Not enough noise here about Andrus v Texas, wherein the Texas CCA told the Supreme Court to fuck off, and the craven 6 responded (by implication), "how shall we fuck off?"

Sotomayor's dissent

I don't think I can recall another instance of this - but I'm NAL.

[bernard11]

No noise at all.

Just ignoring RW lunacy at the Supreme Court.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The Supreme Court remanded the case for the state court to assess Strickland prejudice, and the state court found none. What's the problem, exactly? (Besides the fact that three Supreme Court justices are willing to contort themselves to try to spare an inhuman monster from the the fate he deserves.)

[SRG]

The Texas CCA overruled the SC's findings. The crimes of the defendant are irrelevant to this point.

And what do you think "remand consistent with..." means? It's the boilerplate instruction to a lower court to comply with the SC decision.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Andrus I remanded for the lower court to address the prejudice prong. If they thought there was only one permissible way to rule on that question, they should have said so. They didn't.

[John F. Carr]

A bill in the Massachusetts legislature would prohibit extradition for abortion-related crimes, refuse to recognize out of state judgments related to abortion, abolish lex locus delicti for abortion-related cases in Massachusetts courts, bar professional discipline based on out of state criminal convictions for abortion-related crimes and malpractice, and otherwise seek to withdraw Massachusetts from the United States as long as states like Texas remain.

Formally, it is an approved amendment to the FY 2023 budget which is a "must pass" bill. The governor could veto the abortion section without vetoing the whole bill. https://malegislature.gov/Budget/FY2023/SenateDebate/Amendments/388

[Brett Bellmore]

So they'd offer refuge to the next Kermit Gosnell?

[SimonP]

I am looking forward to Josh's sure-to-be-forthcoming post about the apparent line of communication between internal discussions at the Supreme Court and Trump's crack insurrection legal team. Makes the "Ginni did it" theory for the leaked Roe opinion so much more plausible. What is the status of that leak investigation, anyway? Wonder why they haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet...

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure I see the connection between the first and the other.

But more, do you have a quick rundown of this? Is it more than just Eastman saying he has insider info?

[Estragon]

WaPO has an exclusive yesterday reporting extensive email contact between the two of them discussing overturning the election before J6. I hope we see some of them today!

[SimonP]

I'll ask Ginni if she could forward me the emails.

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports:

A lawyer advising President Donald J. Trump claimed in an email after Election Day 2020 to have insight into a “heated fight” among the Supreme Court justices over whether to hear arguments about the president’s efforts to overturn his defeat at the polls, two people briefed on the email said.

The lawyer, John Eastman, made the statement in a Dec. 24, 2020, exchange with a Wisconsin lawyer and Trump campaign officials over whether to file legal papers that they hoped might prompt four justices to agree to hear an election case from Wisconsin.

“So the odds are not based on the legal merits but an assessment of the justices’ spines, and I understand that there is a heated fight underway,” Mr. Eastman wrote, according to the people briefed on the contents of the email. Referring to the process by which at least four justices are needed to take up a case, he added, “For those willing to do their duty, we should help them by giving them a Wisconsin cert petition to add into the mix.”

Is Chief Justice Roberts going to order an investigation into how Eastman (a former Clarence Thomas clerk) claims to know about the internal workings of SCOTUS?

[Bob from Ohio]

“And I said, ‘Who are the two?’ And he said, ‘Well, I think maybe Clarence Thomas.’ And I said, ‘Really? Clarence Thomas?’ And so we went through a few Thomas opinions and, finally, he acknowledged, ‘yeah, all right, it would be 9-0.’”

Real strong evidence of special knowledge. "I think, maybe"!

[Estragon]

Release the emails!

[Moderation4ever]

Ginni Thomas is beginning to be today's Martha Mitchel. Hoping that Ginni ended up better than Martha.

[not guilty]

Here is the link. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/us/trump-emails-eastman-chesebro-jan-6.html

[bernard11]

Right.

Can hardly wait for the outrage about leaks to start.

[not guilty]

The House January 6 investigating committee is preparing to interview Mrs. Thomas. Should be interesting. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/16/jan-6-panel-leaders-prepare-to-call-ginni-thomas-00040208

[Bob from Ohio]

You do get hard about harassing family members of justices, don't you?

[Sarcastr0]

She got herself pretty involved all on her own, Bob,

[Ben_]

There’s a really good article in the Atlantic about How San Francisco Became a Failed City.

I especially like this quote:

"There is a sense that, on everything from housing to schools, San Francisco has lost the plot—that progressive leaders here have been LARPing left-wing values instead of working to create a livable city."

It’s a brilliant way to describe the behavior pattern: tell a story, decide to believe it, when it doesn’t end up coming true then make up a new story and believe the new one again. And again, and again, over and over.

The article depicts how that works out when it goes on for a long time without any hints of adult attitudes. But now people who never wanted to lead are leading and San Francisco may have turned a corner of sorts.

[Ben_]

Maybe something wrong with that link. Story is here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/how-san-francisco-became-failed-city/661199/

[apedad]

At least San Francisco is trying new ideas and policies, and aren't stuck in the 19th century like some places in Tennessippi.

[apedad]

And good, if something doesn't work, let's try something else.

[Ben_]

I hope people read the article and then compare it to your comment.

And then compare the big San Francisco problems with the big Tennessee problems. And then compare the San Francisco resources with the Tennessee resources. And think about how well each is doing with what they have to work with.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Hey, let's try building a bridge out of taffy. My theory says it would work!"
"Why? Concrete works, and your theory sucks!"
"At least I'm willing to try new things!"
"Oh, look, the headline reads, "Ten dead in taffy bridge collapse." Can we go back to concrete now?"
"No, I'm trying toffee this time, it's more rigid!"
"Are you genuinely insane?"
"No, you're so 19th century with your "concrete this", and "concrete that". You need to be open to new things!"
"Oh, look, the headline reads, "Family of five crushed by toffee bridge failure." That's new!"
"Nineteenth century!"

[Ben_]

Gummy bear material won’t be so brittle. Negativity like yours won’t get the new gummy bridge built.

[Sarcastr0]

That's pretty silly to call SF a failed city. Yeah, they do silly stuff, but it's a pretty successful city by most metrics.

[Ben_]

Content free post from Sarcastr0, as we’ve all come to expect.

It’s a long and descriptive article. Sarcastr0 complains about the precise wording of the title. Like Catcher in the Rye? How can there be a catcher unless there’s also a pitcher in the rye? What a bunch of nonsense!

[SimonP]

It's a long and whingey op-ed from an SF expat trying to justify abandoning the city. If you live in a big city, you're familiar with the genre.

There are definitely issues that need to be addressed, in SF and probably every other major American city. But I'm not going to trust a suburbanite's perspective on those questions.

[Ben_]

^ "But I'm not going to trust [the other] …"

What does "trust" have to do with "perspective" anyway? Since when does someone's "perspective" require "trust"? Are all the people quoted in the article made up? Which parts of the article are you claiming might be fictional?

The article doesn’t say "and here’s all the answers:". Doing what grownups might do seems to be one of the implied remedies though.

[Estragon]

Gotta love the self awareness from this lady in the article:

“Berlinn has five children, and is also raising Sylvester’s daughter. Since she posted that comment, she’s become an activist, calling on the city to crack down on drug sales, put dealers in jail, and arrest her son so he’s forced to become sober in jail, which she sees as the only way to save his life.”

LITERALLY THE NEXT PARAGRAPH

“She said he was a heroin addict. He’d get sober after stints in jail, but it wouldn’t last.”

[Ben_]

She probably isn’t willing to give up and declare his death a forgone conclusion without at least trying.

Glad people are reading the article though.

[Estragon]

“Throw my son in jail even though I know it doesn’t work” is an… interesting… take

[Ben_]

It’s versus abandoning him to die on the street, which is what is happening now. It’s not really so strange for a mom to look for alternatives to that.

[Estragon]

Yes, Ben, I could have guessed lock em up Is your solution to everything, as it is for this lady and many people.

[Ben_]

I have expressed zero opinions relating to that.

[Ben_]

Why do you think this is about me anyway?

Do you think she should be okay with her son dying on the street? You should find her and argue with her. Tell her your ideas on the subject.

Do you have any answers you think might help?

[Sarcastr0]

Ben once again trying to turn anecdotes he agrees with into the only true reality.

[Ben_]

No, they are just anecdotes.

Agreement isn’t a concept relating to anecdotes. Nor did anyone say anything about anything about "the only true reality".

[Sarcastr0]

You have a general thesis about SF. You, and the linked story, support it with anecdotes.

But anecdotes don't support generalized takes like that. We think they do, but they don't.

[Ben_]

Generally I think SF has troubles. They are not simple or easily solved.

But there are some individual decisions and notions on very specific issues that seem clearly wrong. Focusing on school names and woke orthodox zeal when students aren’t learning is wrongheaded: even SF voters decided those school board members needed to be recalled.

In "general", it’s complicated. In specific cases — anecdotal cases — it’s less complicated sometimes.

So no, that is not a "general thesis".

[Sarcastr0]

But look how unsexy your new thesis is: 'SF made some bad decisions in some narrow examples.'

This is why you do the clickbait 'SF is a dying city' and try and generalize based on those specific bad decisions into a larger hotter take.

This is a temptation for all of us.

[Ben_]

It’s a really good article. People in other places should read it and endeavor to avoid so extremely many bad decisions. And to recognize the difference in attitudes between people who will let society slowly fall into decay and people who might avoid that.

[Sarcastr0]

Human interest stories can sure make for good articles - I'm not saying that.

I'm saying avoid the temptations to write general checks your evocative anecdote can't cash.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You can spend days debating San Francisco crime statistics and their meaning, and many people do. It has relatively low rates of violent crime, and when compared with similarly sized cities, one of the lowest rates of homicide. But what the city has become notorious for are crimes like shoplifting and car break-ins, and there the data show that the reputation is earned. Burglaries are up more than 40 percent since 2019. Car break-ins have declined lately, but San Francisco still suffers more car break-ins—and far more property theft overall—per capita than cities like Atlanta and Los Angeles.

The head of CVS Health’s organized-crime division has called San Francisco “one of the epicenters of organized retail crime.” Thefts in San Francisco’s Walgreens are four times the national average. Stores are reducing hours or shutting down. Seven Walgreens closed between last November and February, and some point to theft as the reason. The city is doing strikingly little about it. About 70 percent of shoplifting cases in San Francisco ended in an arrest in 2011. In 2021, only 15 percent did.

Admittedly, you would have to actually read the article to know that's in there.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But I'm not going to trust a suburbanite's perspective on those questions.

A lifelong San Franciscan whose family has lived there since the nineteenth century, who moved to Los Angeles a year ago with her wife?

[Ben_]

One thing that’s worth noting is how they agree various people should be treated. For example, The In Crowd takes pains to establish themselves:
- "My name’s Mari, … I’m an openly queer parent of color that uses they/them pronouns."
- "He is a gay father of a mixed-race family"
- "As a mixed-race person myself…"

And it’s very important to them to take care "to use language that centers people’s humanity—you don’t say 'a homeless person'; you say 'someone experiencing homelessness'".

And to worry about criminals:

"[Chesa Boudin] has suggested that many drug dealers in San Francisco are themselves vulnerable and in need of protection. 'A significant percentage of people selling drugs in San Francisco—perhaps as many as half—are here from Honduras,' he said in a 2020 virtual town hall. 'We need to be mindful about the impact our interventions have … Some of these young men have been trafficked here under pain of death. Some of them have had family members in Honduras who have been or will be harmed if they don’t continue to pay off the traffickers.'

But, like always, there's the other — those people who are not deemed worthy of such considerations toward their basic humanity: "developers", "white people", "tech bros", "Silicon Valley interlopers", and (of course) "Republicans".

It’s one thing to extend human understanding to criminals, but tolerating people only goes as far as fashion dictates. Being virtuous is entirely about congratulating yourself and about status-seeking among peers. Don’t be fooled into thinking tolerance is for everyone.

[apedad]

Councilman warns on radio show he’ll ‘put down’ Alabama cop after his DUI charge

A former city councilman has been sentenced after warning during his morning radio show that he would “put down” an Alabama police officer, federal prosecutors said.

The livestreamed threat came months after the officer had arrested the then-elected Evergreen city councilman, Luther James Upton, 74, on a driving under the influence (DUI) charge in 2020, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Alabama.

“I dare him to stop me again. ‘Cuz when he pulls me over, I’m going to put him down,” Upton is accused of telling listeners during his radio show called The Power Pig on 101.1 FM WPPG in May 2021, according to prosecutors and a superseding indictment.

When Upton pleaded guilty in February, he “admitted that he meant to convey a true threat to injure the victim officer,” prosecutors said in the news release.

As part of his probation, Upton is forbidden from drinking alcohol as well as driving a car until his probation officer deems it appropriate for him to drive, according to a district court’s judgment.

Among other terms, Upton must also take occasional drug tests for potential drug abuse detection, and he has to participate in substance abuse and mental health treatment, according to the judgment.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article262458837.html

So where is Upton on the Red Flag meter?

I say folks on mental health treatment should be required to give up their weapons during the treatment period – with a provision they automatically receive their weapons upon successful completion of their treatment.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My problem with that is the field of mental health isn't objective, it's highly subjective, easily corrupted, and obviously partisan.

I'd rather the risk of having a few crazies with guns than give the Federals are legal tool to implement their civilian disarmament dreams.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd rather the risk of having a few crazies with guns

Oh, that's not risk at that point. Don't play utilitarian - that's 'I'd rather assure a bunch of dead kids...'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You have too much faith in your premise.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He's a convicted felon now, so I'd say we're a little bit past the "Red Flag" stage...

[Estragon]

After friend and godfather of the blog Dr. Eastman gets dragged today, will we finally get a comment from our proprietor??

“And I said to him: are you out of you f-ing mind? I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on: orderly transition. I said I don’t want to hear any other f-ing words coming out of your mouth no matter what, other than orderly transition. Repeat those words to me… Eventually he said ‘orderly transition,’ and I said ‘Good, John… now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life: Get a great f-ing criminal defense lawyer, you’re going to need it.’ And then I hung up on him.”

[not guilty]

Eastman's culpability is up to his eyeballs. He would do well to seek a cooperation agreement with the DOJ. Maybe a plea to one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371, where the sentencing range is capped at five years (and the time likely to be imposed is significantly less, especially if he provides substantial cooperation).

[Bob from Ohio]

I pity your former clients.

[not guilty]

I was not known for representing cooperators, but that is sometimes objectively the best choice. John Eastman doesn't strike me as one who will do well in prison, however much he deserves it.

[not guilty]

The January 6 committee hearings today have included an email from John Eastman wherein he asked to be included on the pardon list.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" After friend and godfather of the blog Dr. Eastman gets dragged today, will we finally get a comment from our proprietor?? "

Are you still awaiting the comments concerning disgraced former federal judge Kozinski, too?

The settled approach at this white, male, faux libertarian, right-wing blog is to nip ceaselessly and repetitively at the ankles and heels of mainstream institutions and people while studiously disregarding the wrongdoing of conservatives -- even, or especially, conservatives who are close to the Conspirators.

That, and to claim to be champions of free expression while imposing repeated, hypocritical, partisan, viewpoint-driven censorship on those who dislike right-wing politics.

The insurrection-examining committee reportedly has decided to bring Ginni Thomas in for questioning. Time for Profs. Blackman and Tillman to issue a long-winded declaration that this would be unlawful, and for a couple of the other Conspirators to "just ask the question" about whether summoning the wife of a justice as a fact witness is appropriate.

Carry on, clingers.

[Estragon]

The studious avoidance of anything having to do with these hearings is, well, I’m not sure what. Shocking? Hardly. Disappointing? Yes, but also no. Mystifying? Not really. Typical? That fits!

Finest conservative legal blog on the internet!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That this thing -- the Blackman and Volokh Old-Timey, Bigot-Friendly Legal Blog -- is the best right-wing legal academia can muster should be a great comfort to decent Americans.

[dwb68]

Day 1: Biden shuts down pipelines and cancels oil leases.
Day 2: Biden signs the most inflationary spending package since Jimmy Carter

Day 3: Biden blames corporations and Putin for the results of Day1, 2 policy errors, hopes low information voters won't notice inflation was rising during the summer.

Incidentally, not all the spending has hit the economy yet. We are not close to peak interest rates.

They need to be about 9% right now to tame inflation.

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't you say inflation was structural and all due to the infrastructure bill a couple of months ago?

Now you've got a new line of attack, and I guess your old certainty has given way to the new hotness.

[Ben_]

Inflation isn’t about what random people on the internet said.

[Sarcastr0]

Tell that to dwb68.

[dwb68]

Actually I said that all the federal spending would cause inflation last year, when Larry summe's did.

This isn't a "line of attack." Inflation and high gas prices are a fact and Biden caused both.

Like all good socialists, Biden seeks to blame other people for his problems

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Other people caused and the only solution is more Socialism!

It's the neatest trick I have ever seen. Drmocrat policies never fail because they were simply bad ideas, they only fail because they were underfunded or not Democrat enough..

[Sarcastr0]

You sure do use it as a line of attack. You posit causal policies, and then declare those polices are bad because they cause inflation.

And not just momentary inflation, like some talked about - you said this was long-term structural inflation.

And then you just changed the policy you were condemning to the next one.

Neat trick. If you don't care much about consistency.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You''re gonna need evidence to back up those assertions Sarcy boy.

[Sarcastr0]

Assertions about what dwb said? Let’s hear him deny it first,

[dwb68]

Please link to a post where I used the words you describe. I post here frequently, if you are correct it should be easy.

Or... go back on mute, which is where you were prior to today.

[Sarcastr0]

Posts about the infrastructure bill causing inflation:

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/15/thursday-open-thread-45/?comments=true#comment-8996151
Even the normally woke CEOs are crying about the inflation.

The 4.x trillion reconciliation package will be the best thing for Republicans since Jimmy Carter

[dwb68]

You realize that is exactly the same thing I said today, right? "Day 2: Biden signs the most inflationary spending package since Jimmy Carter"
Inflation is too much money chasing too many goods, congress spent too much.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice way to ignore 'Day 1: Biden shuts down pipelines and cancels oil leases.'

Which is a new thing you're pretending was always there.

[Sarcastr0]

The most informed argument, which no one here made, is not "inflation does not exist" its that the Fed will raise rates sooner than expected, causing a recession, to tamp it out. Bond yields could also be low because they expect the Fed to be aggressive.

If that does happen, the 4.x trillion spending will look even dumber. Then people will blame a run-up in prices, deficits, and the recession on Biden, just in time for 2024.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/15/thursday-open-thread-45/?comments=true#comment-8997655

[dwb68]

True - it would have been smart of them to raise rates sooner, but they didn't, now they are behind the curve.

[Sarcastr0]

My issue is not whatever your issue with the Fed is, it's your issues with fiscal policy and federal regulation, and how you like pick whatever you're mad at today, and pretend that's the obvious main cause.

I always thought you were overly certain, and now I see you're not even consistent about what you're certain of.

[Sarcastr0]

Then on top of that, the govt is going to try to spend 4.5 trillion, 1.5 of which is on "infrastructure" and all that money is chasing goods that wont exist.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/12/thursday-open-thread-48/?comments=true#comment-9043381

[dwb68]

So far... I am consistent lol.

[Sarcastr0]

So far, it looks a lot like your current objections regarding energy regulation have become essentialized, and your previous objections about the infrastructure bill have gone by the wayside.

No, you are not consistent. You pick a main inflationary cause and carp on it. And then fully switch to a new one, and act like you've always thought that was the cause.

Maybe you can do that kind of we were always at war with Eastasia doublethink to yourself, but you wrote it down and then denied it happened.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird, not much of a mention of energy policy back then.

[dwb68]

idk what to say. government spending + money printing = inflation. This had been the case forever. MV=PY has basically been a known law of monetary economics for hundreds of years (look up the history of inflation in the colonies in late 1700s). it's econ 101.

The federal government spent a lot of money it didn't have, and the federal reserve financed it. it will be "long term" until the federal government reduces spending and federal reserve raises rates sufficiently.

idk what you *think* I said. I don't use terms typically like "structural" because it begs the question what structure is flawed. I guarantee, go back to March 2021, I said the same thing. too much money was spent.

[Aunt Teefah]

Anyone else think its weird that a Supreme Court Justice used to be a member of a pedophile sex cult?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/06/people-of-praise-accused-child-abuse-amy-coney-barrett

[Moderation4ever]

A number of the Justices are Catholic, and I don't hold them responsible for the Churches sex abuse. Some may have been Scouts maybe even Scout leaders. I think it best to just address real accusations. At some point we can all be associated with bad behaviors if only because we are all human and some humans do bad things.

[Aunt Teefah]

Sure, but most Catholics don't live communally with the priests while they're molesting the kids. Nor do they live "in full life submission to [said priest], under full obedience to him and he exercised this authority over most areas of my life." If they did, maybe we should hold it against them??

[not guilty]

It's a pity that that wasn't ventilated at then-Judge Bear It's confirmation hearing.

[Aemon McGarret]

Three of the justices are very publicly & very devout & conservative Catholics. The Catholic Church along with the conservative protestant churches, is very explicitly misogynistic & homophobic and very active in pushing that agenda politicly. I don't hold those justices responsible for that. But I do have a problem with that "traditional" understanding being forced on the country. Alito's leaked draft is proudly ignorant of the idea of women having equal rights before the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Alito's leaked draft is proudly ignorant of the idea of women having equal rights before the law."

Can you cite the lines that demonstrate this?

[Aemon McGarret]

I would point to the place where he pats himself on the back for having no consideration for the history of the last 50 years & women's changing roles in our society. And for being unconcerned & unmoved by any social repercussions that his decision might cause. Standard conservative legal lines I know. But also looking straight through the assertion that a woman has rights to her body & her pregnancy as if it was nonexistent. The historical references to the famously misogynistic English jurist (whose name escapes me right now) is just salt to piss off the progressives. He, Thomas & Comey- Barrett believe in the inferiority of women as ordained by God. Assuming their statements about their conservative Catholicism are accurate. The men don't own the women & children in this country anymore. And the community doesn't own a woman's pregnancy or have a vote. It isn't 1790 anymore. Or even 1960.

[John F. Carr]

Around 15 years ago California said judges were not allowed to be involved in the Boy Scouts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Aren't all the justices straight though? Except for Kagan, that is.

[not guilty]

I can recall some early suspicion about Roberts. Nothing seems to have come of it.

[apedad]

Federal judge blows up Florida’s law limiting contributions for ballot initiatives

A federal judge has rejected an attempt by Florida lawmakers to limit contributions to political committees supporting ballot initiatives, saying it violates the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor (Trump appointee), issued an 18-page ruling Wednesday that included a permanent injunction against the $3,000 contribution limit, which passed in 2021 and was revised this year. The limit was part of long-running efforts by Republican leaders to make it harder to pass ballot initiatives to amend the state Constitution.

Voters during the past two decades have used the initiative process to make a series of high-profile changes, such as legalizing medical marijuana and increasing the minimum wage.

But Republican lawmakers have taken a series of steps to clamp down on the initiative process, arguing that many of the issues should be decided by the Legislature, rather than by amending the Constitution.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article262574837.html

Ah yes, Republican politicians working for constituen . . . themselves.

[apedad]

John Hinckley Jr. Speaks Out as He's Freed After Trying to Assassinate President Ronald Reagan

U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman confirmed earlier this month that the order for Hinckley's full release would take effect on June 15, the Associated Press reported. The judge first announced the decision in September 2021 on the condition that he would continue to display good behaviors in the community in Virginia, where he had been living with his family in recent years under several dozen restrictions.

"He's been scrutinized. He's passed every test. He's no longer a danger to himself or others," Friedman explained at the hearing, despite Hinckley's absence from the court, per the AP. "I am confident that Mr. Hinckley will do well in the years remaining to him."

Prosecutor Kacie Weston previously said in court that the government believes the case "has demonstrated the success that can come from a wraparound mental health system."

https://people.com/crime/john-hinckley-jr-freed-after-trying-to-assassinate-ronald-reagan/

So, we're good with the rehabilitation aspect of imprisonment on this one?

[Estragon]

Is he truly free if he’s getting cancelled??

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/arts/music/john-hinckley-brooklyn-concert-canceled.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, movement
conservative blog has operated for

22 DAYS

without using a vile racial slur
and has operated for

TWO (2) YEARS

without imposing partisan,
viewpoint-driven censorship

CONGRATULATIONS ! ? !

[TwelveInchPianist]

And you use racial slurs to find that out.

You also have spent the last 10 years whining that EV wouldn't let you use anti-gay slurs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not once, you bigoted hayseed.

Do bigots like you like the taste of the soles of your betters' shoes? Is that what motivates you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy uses a vile racial slur (yes, that one) roughly every three weeks. Since February 10, 2021, the Volokh Conspiracy has published a vile racial slur on at least twenty-three (23) different dates.

That is not the number of uses -- on some days, the vile racial slur was used repeatedly. That is the number of distinct days during which this white, male, right-wing blog published a vile racial slur.

Does any Volokh Conspirator wish to address this point? Defend it, deny it, applaud it, apologize for it . . . maybe even just acknowledge it and express a bit of discomfort?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Cry more you big baby

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are precisely the type of bigot that the Volokh Conspiracy seeks as an audience.

Congratulations to you and to the culture war casualties who operate this blog for finding each other.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey did you hear that the first Mexican-born congressman is a Republican woman who flipped a D+16 district?

Some culture victors you dumbasses are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which two Volokh Conspiracy fans -- white, male, conservative, very fine people, just like the Conspirators -- are Donald Eugene Corsi and Howard Oral Hughes? Does anyone know their screen names here?

[not me]

Is one of them Artie Lee Wayne Jim Bob Kirkland?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Be careful. Prof. Volokh seems a bit touchy with respect to the subject of poor old Artie Lee.

[M L]

EXCLUSIVE: Family of Bill Clinton advisor who admitted Jeffrey Epstein into White House seven times has blocked release of files detailing the death scene after he was found hanging from a tree with a shotgun blast at a ranch 30 miles from his home
Top Clinton advisor Mark Middleton died by suicide at the age of 59 on May 7, the Perry County Sheriff's Office in Arkansas confirmed
Middleton was President Bill Clinton's special advisor who admitted Jeffrey Epstein to the White House seven of the at least 17 times the pedophile visited
The married father-of-two, who lived in Little Rock, Arkansas, shot himself at the Heifer Ranch in Perryville, 30 miles away from his home
DailyMail.com can now reveal Middleton's father Larry and his widow Rhea are fighting to keep photos and 'other illustrative content' of his death sealed
The two filed for an injunction arguing that blocking the release of the footage would halt a proliferation of 'unsubstantiated conspiracy theories'
The lawsuit claims the family 'has been harassed by outlandish, hurtful, unsupported and offensive online articles' regarding Middleton and his death
Perry County Sheriff Scott Montgomery said Middleton was discovered hanging from a tree with a shotgun blast to his chest
After the petition was filed, Montgomery denied DailyMail.com's FOIA request for any of his paperwork on the case

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10882101/Family-late-Clinton-advisor-Mark-Middleton-block-release-files-relating-suicide.html

[bernard11]

The two filed for an injunction arguing that blocking the release of the footage would halt a proliferation of 'unsubstantiated conspiracy theories'

Seems like pretty strong claim to me. I mean, you're already pushing some sort of conspiracy theory, and I'm sure Alex Jones will be on it soon.

[M L]

I agree that this is fodder for conspiracy theories. However, I would think photos and "other content" (videos?) would provide evidence against the conspiracy theories rather than evidence in support.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I can say pretty much unequivocally that you are mistaken.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not if they happen to be true...

[M L]

Fannie Mae’s New Racial Bias

The government-sponsored housing giant embraces race-based subsidies.

It was probably inevitable that the Biden Administration would enlist housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to advance its woke agenda, and now it has. Last week the government-sponsored enterprises released plans to promote housing “equity” that are chock-full of race-based subsidies.

Fannie and Freddie have been under federal conservatorship since Treasury rescued them during the housing meltdown with a $190 billion taxpayer bailout. ...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-fhfa-housing-finance-agency-racial-favoritism-equity-biden-bubble-market-redlining-mortgage-lending-11655059365

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They are also required doctors to draft and implement an "anti-racist" strategy.

These are truly evil people.

[M L]

The Fed Isn't Fighting Inflation, It's Fueling It
MIKE WHITNEY • JUNE 13, 2022

Yes, the Fed raised rates by 50 basis points in May and, yes, the Fed is trying to sound as “hawkish” as possible. But these things are designed to dupe the public not to reduce inflation...

So, how much would the Fed have to hike rates if it really wanted to do its job? Check out this clip from an article at the Chicago Booth Review:

“The usual wisdom says that to reduce inflation, the Fed must raise the nominal interest rate by more than the inflation rate. In that way, the real interest rate rises, cooling the economy.

At a minimum, then, according to the usual wisdom, the interest rate should be above 8.5 percent. Now. The Taylor rule says the interest rate should be 2 percent (the Fed’s inflation target), plus 1.5 times how much inflation exceeds 2 percent, plus the long-term real rate. That means an interest rate of around 12 percent. Yet the Fed sits, and contemplates at most a percent or two by the end of the year.” (“Why Hasn’t the Fed Done More to Fight Inflation” Chicago Booth Review)

So if the Fed was serious about fighting inflation, they would have raised rates to roughly 12%. Instead, they have decided to use their allies in the media to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes....

The New York Fed– which has its own trading desk– released its annual report that includes one eye-popping paragraph “that took our breath away,” says Wall Street on Parade editor Pam Martens. Here’s more from Marten’s article:

“It reveals that the New York Fed’s trading operation … currently owns 38 percent of all outstanding U.S. Treasury Securities with 10 to 30 years remaining until maturity….

There are multiple reasons that this detail takes our breath away. First of all, the U.S. Treasury market is massive – at $22.6 trillion as of year-end 2021. That any one entity controls a big chunk of the market is deeply concerning.""

[Sarcastr0]

An opinion piece by....The Unz Review? I always know if I dig into the ones when you fail to link the source it's gonna be gold.

Jesus, ML, I hope you don't start ranting about Holocaust denial next.

[M L]

Do you have any comment on the substance of the article? I don't read that site but I received this article, which seems to make some interesting points that don't get covered elsewhere that I've seem. And the article doesn't contain any outlandish things like whatever topics you would like to change to.

I didn't fail to link the source, actually. I tried to post the link and discovered that the domain appears to be blacklisted by Reason.com. I'm now aware of two domains that the Reason.com commenting system will not allow links to. If you try to post links to those domains, your comment will simply disappear. That is kind of interesting to know! Presumably there are plenty of other entries on the list of blocked domains. Anyway, that's why I added the name and date so you could find it easily.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's the other one?

[M L]

It's the website of the Abbeville Institute.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That's quite the reading list you've put together for yourself!

[M L]

Not on my reading list at all. But Abbeville has definitely had a few good articles!

[SRG]

I await the Abbeville Institute's article on how inflation can be cured by reinstating slavery.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm, I'm of the opinion you can find a bit of gold in almost any source, but the ratio of ore to gold at those sites seems a bit high for my taste.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The Unz Review is a notorious haven for anti-Semitic nuttery. I'm not interested in its perspective, and I don't begrudge anyone who decides not to engage it substantively.

[M L]

Fair enough. The two interesting points were cited from Chicago Booth Review and Wall Street on Parade, so maybe it would be better to just use that. Any thoughts on the points made by those publications?

[Sarcastr0]

It's an opinion piece with some takes on monetary policy that are pretty heterodox. I don't agree with it.

But I'm more interested in what this says about your bedfellows.

[M L]

I know you're more interested in ad hominem and the association fallacy. Of course you are. To humor you, I of course noticed that the site while it has highly varied content, includes white supremacists and other generally wacky stuff that I don't agree with. There have been maybe 3 or 4 times over the years I've come across something interesting that happened to be at this site.

[M L]

Can you explain why you don't agree with this? Is it just because you are a federal employee and therefore in favor of maximal federal spending?

"A third of a percent is a lot less than 8.5 percent. The usual wisdom says that to reduce inflation, the Fed must raise the nominal interest rate by more than the inflation rate.....The Taylor rule says the interest rate should be 2 percent (the Fed’s inflation target), plus 1.5 times how much inflation exceeds 2 percent, plus the long-term real rate. That means an interest rate of around 12 percent."

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/why-hasnt-fed-done-more-fight-inflation

[David Nieporent]

You'll notice how the Booth piece is a technical article that looks at inflation and the Fed's response, analyzes it at a macroeconomic level, discusses some views on what the Fed should do and how it might be misreading things, and acknowledges that there's some model for the current situation where the Fed could be correct.

And then you'll notice how the Unz piece briefly quotes the Booth article, but then twists it in service of its claim that the Fed is trying "to dupe the public not to reduce inflation," doesn't want to do its job, and is "us[ing] their allies in the media to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes...."

The Unz piece, by a guy whose bio is difficult to locate (Mike Whitney), but who is apparently an expert on economics, microbiology, military affairs, foreign policy… well, you name it. (You'll be shocked to learn that he's pro-Putin and anti-vax. Pro-Assad. (And less sarcastically, you may be shocked to learn he's pro-Kim Jong Un. I didn't see that coming.))

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think "The fed interest rate has to be higher than the inflation rate to reduce inflation" is particularly heterodox. It's about as basic as the difference between throwing less gasoline on a fire, and breaking out a fire extinguisher.

[M L]

Exactly. It's actually pretty homodox. *rimshot

[MonitorsMost]

John Eastman deserves something that would get Reason subpoenaed by Preet Bahara. Trump is what he always was, a narcissistic jackass who was always going to listen to whomever told him what he wanted to hear. The January 6th rioters were an embarrassment and a visually disturbing event, but they never posed a serious constitutional crisis. But Eastman and his crazy ass plan/legal theory or whatever you want to call it brought this country to a brink of what would have been a serious problem.

[Estragon]

It’s truly beyond belief…

“[Eastman] said absolutely. Al Gore didn’t have a basis to do it 2000. Kamala Harris shouldn’t be able to do it in 2024 but I think you should do it today”

https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1537498986193506305

Also, asking to be on the pardon list?!? LOLOLLLL they call that consciousness of guilt son!!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1537517765078052865

[Estragon]

Of all the truly deluded quotes to come out of this mess (e.g. “the Biden crime family will be floating in prison barges off GITMO”), this particular chestnut from Eastman really stands out:

“I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works.”

The idea that HE would be deciding who is on the pardon list as opposed to Trump is pure comedy gold. It’s not as if trump had been screwing over flunkies and throwing subordinates under the bus his entire business career! The level of self delusion here is truly mind boggling. Clarence better watch out- because Eastman and ginni are perfect for each other

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federals control more of our society today than ever before. Yet we are suffering at a minimum:

1.) Inflation
2.) Mental health epidemic
3.) Obesity epidemic
4.) Opioid epidemic
5.) Covid pandemic
6.) Supply chain crisis
7.) Bear Market
8.) Rampant inequality
9.) Rising crime
10.) System-wide racial injustice (allegedly)
11.) Faith in Institutions crisis

Is this because the Federals control so much, in spite of the Federals controlling so much, or is it that the Federals have nothing to do with these?

[Brett Bellmore]

The answer differs from one to the next.
1) Inflation. Could hardly be anybody's fault but the feds, they control the currency.
2) Mental health epidemic. Hard to say, they may be contributing, but I don't see any reason to see their role as central.
3) Obesity epidemic. Food pyramid, need I say more?
4) Don't really have an opinion here.
5) Covid pandemic. It's a disease, I don't think they created it. Maybe funded its creation?
6) Supply chain crisis. It's world wide! I think we've uncovered a common flaw in the way business schools teach how to maximize profits?
7) Bear market. Didn't the supply chain crisis cause this? The feds might be exacerbating it, though, with crazy regulations.
8) Rampant inequality. Under a system of progressive taxation, the government takes in more revenue, with less work, the worse income inequality gets. Terrible incentive, I think they respond to it.
9) Rising crime. Mostly a state responsibility, no?
10) System wide racial injustice. A fantasy.
11) Faith in institutions. Surely that needs to be earned. Maybe they're not earning it.

[Ben_]

They directly caused #1, #7.

By taking so much from society and giving so little back for so long, they have indirectly caused or greatly contributed to #2, #3, #4, #6, #8, and #9.

People noticed, which led to #11.

Imperfect racial "justice" is a human societal trait. It’s not the Feds' fault. They’re not substantially more "guilty" on #10 than any other person on Earth.

For #5 Covid, they’re to blame for lying about it and for the extremely bad public health response in most of the country. I have no facts to suggest they either created the virus or didn’t create the virus.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is anyone at all surprised that the Democrat DOJ is going after political opponents?

[Estragon]

You sure you want to keep flogging this topic after your somewhat startling admission a few months back?