Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Steve Bannon is standing trial for two counts of contempt of Congress before twelve jurors and two alternates, with the trial court having precluded the red herrings that Bannon was trying to rely upon. Presumably, each of the jurors honored his/her jury summons and appeared in court when directed.

IOW, Bannon is toast.

[Kleppe]

Contempt of Congress should either be prosecuted 100% of the time it is referred to DOJ, or it should not be a crime. As it stands right now "Contempt of Congress" is really nothing more than "Contempt of Democrats".

[Michael Ejercito]

What about Eric Holder?

[Kleppe]

Was Eric Holder prosecuted?

[Michael Ejercito]

I would have to look that up.

[Kleppe]

He was not.

[Bwaaah]

No need to look it up now. It is sufficient that you've already issued it as a statement of fact.

[Frank Drackman]

Holder Beez Black

[Michael P]

Also not prosecuted after Congress made a referral (for contempt of Congress) to the DOJ: Lois Lerner of IRS targeting infamy.

[DaivdBehar]

The entire DOJ are Democrat advocates. All should be fired Inauguration Day, 2025, by Trump.

[DaivdBehar]

Fire the entire FBI. Replace them with real police.

[DaivdBehar]

.How they roll.

https://www.westernjournal.com/video-violence-hits-disney-world-two-families-engage-brawl-reported-line-dispute/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=WJBreaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=western-journal&ats_es=731571b3134386edfd354e86a103b590

[NOVA Lawyer]

Lois Lerner did testify before Congress, but she invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned by Republicans. There is disagreement as to whether by making an opening statement, she waived her Fifth Amendment right not to answer Republican lawmakers' questions. Bannon did not show up, at all and he claimed a privilege that everyone, including Trump, agrees he had no right to invoke (i.e., executive privilege which Trump's people said they never asserted with respect to the Bannon subpoena).

While it is not entirely unreasonable for you to have wanted Lois Lerner to be prosecuted, her case is not at all similar to Bannon's. DOJ probably declined to prosecute because being present and pleading the Fifth Amendment is not the same thing as just ignoring a subpoena and, so, is probably pretty hard to get a conviction, including because the better argument is probably that she didn't waive her Fifth Amendment rights.

So, try again with your whataboutisms and false equivalencies.

[John F. Carr]

Requiring a witness to assert privilege in a criminal trial is a poor way to decide whether the privilege exists. There is a real risk that somebody with a good faith belief in privilege could still be convicted.

A judge should decide before criminal charges are brought. Say, Congress brings a case in District Court to compel attendance or testimony. Does the committee have a legitimate reason? Does hairdresser-customer privilege really exist? The judge decides. If not, there is an enforceable order to testify. Further refusal means sitting in jaill for the rest of the session of Congress, under civil contempt. The only time the executive branch has to make a choice is if the witness is cited for criminal contempt.

[Bored Lawyer]

But that would be a rational, logical way to proceed that would protect both side's rights. This is politics.

[not guilty]

Bannon had the option of moving to quash the Congressional subpoena, based on a claim of privilege or any other grounds he may have asserted. He elected not to do that, preferring to stiff the committee.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This.

Bannon isn't the victim here. He just ignored a subpoena. You can't do that. That's why he's been convicted.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Contempt of Congress." A crime that is exceedingly rare to actually be prosecuted on, and for criminal charges to be filed and convicted.

In this case, on a psuedo-party line vote, upheld by one party, with a committee that is basically one party, an advisor from the other party is held on criminal contempt charges and may face jail time? Is there any real precedence for this type of abuse of power? Where just members of one party are actually subject to the laws? And the other party isn't?

Recently, AOC and other Democrats were recently arrested for breaking the law, which has a penalty of jail time. Will they face prosecution and jail time for their clear criminal behavior? Or will the prosecutor just dismiss the charges, or not even bother to file them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Recently, AOC and other Democrats were recently arrested for breaking the law,"

Staged photo op. They faked being handcuffed and were led to a shady area where they took pictures with the cops who "arrested" them. They were never not free to leave.

[David Nieporent]

In this case, on a psuedo-party line vote, upheld by one party, with a committee that is basically one party, an advisor from the other party is held on criminal contempt charges and may face jail time?

He will face jail time only if an impartial jury decides that he knowingly and willfully violated the law.

It's like you think Bannon had no agency in this, that a bipartisan ("psuedo" means "not") Congress simply pointed at a random Trump associate and said, "Send this guy to jail because we don't like him."

He was subpoenaed. He chose not to comply. As 'not guilty' and others have mentioned, every one of the members of the jury received an order to appear, and did so.

[DaivdBehar]

This forum is really boring. You make Eugene's post seem dynamic and interesting, even though they are all the same.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"impartial jury"

Let's say you had a black man up on criminal charges before a jury. Let's also say, the jury entire consisted of white jurors. Then, let's say that 70% of those jurors said during questioning that they wouldn't ever consider dating a black man or woman. In addition, let's further say that 40% of those jurors wouldn't ever consider even being friends with a black man, or supporting a black-owned business.

Would you say that's an impartial jury for the black guy on trial?

[not guilty]

How is that germane to this discussion? Do you claim that the Bannon jury is anything other than impartial? If so, on what facts do you base that? From what I've read, the trial judge readily excused prospective jurors for cause during voir dire.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So...would such a jury be "impartial" in your opinion?

[Sarcastr0]

Your claim, your burden.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Your question has no parallel to the facts of this case. Or if it does, you have declined to describe how. As far as I know, jurors weren't asked if they would like to date or be friends with Steve Bannon. I assume you aren't asserting they were. So what questions did they answer that you think revealed improper bias?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Let's put it like this....

If there's a black guy up on charges. And a bunch of white jurors are up there. And they say "Of course I could be impartial, I just could never be friends with a black man".....I might think there's some potential bias.

Likewise, if there's a Trump supporter up on charges. And a bunch of liberals are in the jury. And they say "of course I could be impartial, I could just never be friends with a Trump supporter".....I might think there's some potential bias.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair, fair as far as it goes. Did any juror ever say that in the Bannon void dire? And, assuming they didn't, you might catch a clue from the fact that his attorneys didn't ask that question.

[Ridgeway]

Why are you dying on this hill? There is no question of Bannon's guilt of the charged offense. So impartiality is essentially irrelevant.

Arguments about selective prosecution might at least have some merit, but they have nothing to do with the jury.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair will die on any hill he thinks protects a Republican.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If the Jury felt it wasn't a crime, they wouldn't convict him.

It's like selectively pulling over someone for Jaywalking, who just happens to be black, while dozens of white people continue to Jaywalk. A rational jury wouldn't consider it to be a crime. A racist jury on the other hand....

There are similar questions regarding contempt of Congress. This is what, the first criminal contempt of congress trial in more than 50 years?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"There are similar questions regarding contempt of Congress. This is what, the first criminal contempt of congress trial in more than 50 years?"

Armchair, you are full of BS.

First, you are wrong on the facts. There has been a criminal contempt of Congress conviction within less then 50 years.

Second, convictions are rare because people found in contempt either: (a) have a plausible privilege claim or, more commonly, (b) comply with the subpoena after being found in contempt of Congress and prior to criminal proceedings.

So the Bannon case is actually the exception that proves the rule, rather than an exception that proves selective enforcement. But keep trying if your only motive is to carry water for Trump apologists.

[Armchair Lawyer]

2) "bipartisan"
Getting less than 10% of a caucus isn't really "bipartisan"

3) "He was subpoenaed. He chose not to comply."
How many other cases of people being subpoenaed by Congress and choosing not to initially comply, but contesting it, have resulted in a criminal prosecution in the last 50 years?

It's like the jaywalking proverb. Bunches of white people jaywalk across a street. Nothing happens. Occasionally a cop shows up saying "you shouldn't do that".
Then a black guy jaywalks. Sirens come on. The black guy is arrested for jaywalking, then prosecuted, then convicted, then thrown in jail.

The black guy says "What, why not all those other people?". The answer: "Prosecutorial Discretion".

4) "Every one of the members of the jury received an order to appear, and did so"
Rather leaves out all the other potential jury members who received a summons, but begged out of it for various reasons.... That's a bad analogy.

[Sarcastr0]

Getting less than 10% of a caucus isn't really "bipartisan"

Yes, it literally is.

Some thing this Committee is taking things more seriously than usual, what with the Capitol being breached and all.

Others see persecution everywhere.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It "literally" is...but having a couple token members doesn't really make something bipartisan in the whole spirit of the idea.

[Sarcastr0]

The spirit of the matter?

Dude, you're talking about Congress. Calling a bill bipartisan due to a single member of the opposing party has been going on since the early 1900s.

[Sarcastr0]

Consider whether prosecuting Congresspeople for protesting may not have the effect you seek.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So Congresspeople aren't held the same laws the rest of us are.

Neither are Federals or elite Democrats.

So what.

[Sarcastr0]

...You think every protester who breaks the law is arrested?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Clearly, it depends on what they're protesting.

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

"Congresspeople aren't held the same laws the rest of us are"

Turns out you admit they are.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I think putting 17 Democratic Congress-people behind bars for 90 days would have exactly the effect I want.

[Sarcastr0]

That's because you're a dumbass.

[Armchair Lawyer]

A winning argument there. Insult people as stupid, rather than discuss....

Here the effect.

1. It would demonstrate that the laws of the country are equally applied, regardless of power or party. And that our leaders are subject to the same, if not a higher standard.

2. It would give these Democrats a taste of the punishment that they've seen fit to inflict on others who have protested....a few months in the DC jail.

3. It should encourage them not to break the law again.

4. Bonus measure...17 Democrats not voting in Congress potentially because they are in jail, would temporarily give the GOP a majority in the house. May or may not occur.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think civil disobedience is worried about punishment? That's the whole point!
You're all spite and revenge.

It would become a public cause with headlines you would not like. Law enforcement has learned a lot on how to handle protests so they don't get what they want since the 1960s. You want to relearn the lesson Governor Wallace did.

Because, once again, you're being a dumbass with more bitterness than sense.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So you support Steve Bannon's civil disobedience then?

[Reallynotbob]

When you say "abuse of power" did you mean "apply the laws as written?"

Usually this crowd is pretty big on enforcing existing laws. Shrug.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Or will the prosecutor just dismiss the charges, or not even bother to file them."

The question answers itself. Funny how the Capitol police didn't frighten Cortez this time.

The tv crew caught last month in the sacred Capitol is not being prosecuted for being in a restricted area. Shocking I know.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He's toast because he's a Trump supporter and the trial is held in DC.

Nothing else matters to the outcome, only those two facts.

[David Nieporent]

Well, the fact that he received a subpoena and defied it are kind of relevant important facts. I mean, I know you're stupid and can't think beyond talking points, but it's not like there's some doubt as to Bannon's guilt.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What happened to Eric Holder?
https://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/holder-contempt/index.html

[Mr. Bumble]

...and from David, crickets.

[OtisAH]

He was found in contempt by a vote of 255-67. DOJ declined to prosecute because the president actually invoked Executive Privilege. Did the president actually invoke EP for Bannon? Before you get started, no, he never invoked EP for Bannon and much to most of the info and testimony Bannon was subpoenaed for would not have been covered anyway.

Now that I’ve helped you understand the vast differences in the two matters, you never again have to waste your time bringing up Eric Holder when the discussion is about Steve Bannon. No thanks necessary.

[Bob from Ohio]

"invoked Executive Privilege"

Maybe a court could have determined in a criminal contempt proceeding if "Executive Privilege" was applicable? Or if Holder was just willfully disobeying a subpoena?

Nah. Best not do anything to your boss.

[OtisAH]

Eric Holder was the Attorney General of the United States when he was called to testify about matters covered as AG. There wasn’t much need to determine whether the EP actually invoked applied. Steve Bannon was a fat guy with eczema and a radio program. There was no need to take his claims of EP, for which there was no evidence, seriously.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Now do Hillary Clinton and her cabal with the Benghazi subpoenas.

What ever happened to them with all their ignoring and evidence destruction?

[David Nieporent]

Hillary Clinton testified multiple times during the multiple Benghazi hearings, and produced thousands of documents.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Except for that pesky Congressional Subpoena for all the e-mails she kept on her private server.

Which were conveniently deleted AFTER the subpoena

[Sarcastr0]

Trey Gowdy: I 'lack the authority' to subpoena Hillary Clinton's server

The chairman of the House committee investigating the Benghazi terrorist attacks said Wednesday that his panel lacks the authority to subpoena Hillary Clinton’s private server.
...
“For my committee, which has a more limited jurisdiction, we, No. 1, lack the authority under House rules to subpoena the server,” Gowdy said in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/trey-gowdy-hillary-clinton-2016-benghazi-email-server-subpoena-117026

[David Nieporent]

Except for that pesky Congressional Subpoena for all the e-mails she kept on her private server.

Shocker: Armchair Lawyer continues to practice armchair law rather than actual law. There was no subpoena "for all the e-mails she kept on her private server." That's not how subpoenas work. They don't say "produce everything you've got so we can rummage through it." They ask you to produce relevant documents.

Specifically, the subpoena to Hillary asked for all the Libya related emails on her server for 2011 and 2012. You can see an archived copy of it here, with page 3 identifying the documents being requested:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200222025311/https://archives-benghazi-republicans-oversight.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf
​
​
If you receive a grand jury subpoena for all the records you have relating to your Armchair Law Firm, you are required to turn over all the records you have relating to your Armchair Law Firm. You are not required to turn over documents relating to the Four Seasons Total Landscaping business you also run. You are not required to preserve documents relating to the Four Seasons Total Landscaping business you also run. You have done nothing wrong by deleting the latter.

Nobody has presented any evidence that the 30,000 emails she deleted were about Libya rather than about — as she said — personal matters. Now, you may object that there's no way to know what those deleted emails were about, so maybe she's lying. Maybe. But that's nevertheless how the system works. When you're asked to turn over X you do not need to retain or turn over Y.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So David....

If you're going to be a condescending jerk, and overinterpret a short statement....at least be right about it. Like how you were SO SURE that Pfizer still manufactured Advil. To the point where you posted a picture of the bottle...that was years old. And ended up with egg on your face.

Once again...you're wrong. When you say...

"Nobody has presented any evidence that the 30,000 emails she deleted were about Libya rather than about ..." And the FBI reveals evidence that some of the e-mails deleted WERE INDEED ABOUT LIBYA...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-fbi-clinton-emails-20160830-story.html

Well, there's nothing worse than a condescending jerk who is also wrong.
So, now you'll squirm and worm around. But fact are facts.

So...next time...be kinder. This is your Armchair Lawyer.

[David Nieporent]

Um, no. The problem withg google is that ignorant people who use it think they know what they're talking about, but don't.

“Using broad search terms, we have identified approximately 30 documents potentially responsive to a Benghazi-related request,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. “At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive, or whether they are duplicates of materials already provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton in December 2014.”

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/293837-fbi-recovers-30-clinton-emails-involving-benghazi-attack/

Whoops! Maybe you should've done a bit more research before posting your comment!

[David Nieporent]

Now, was there any followup to that? Why, yes, there was:

Only one email from the batch of 14,900 new documents the FBI found from Hillary Clinton’s private server directly references the Benghazi attacks – and that was a letter of praise from an ambassador, the State Department said Wednesday.

The State Department is reviewing the large trove of documents recovered from Clinton’s server and last week said that as many as 30 exchanges could be related to Benghazi. But the department told a federal court Wednesday that all but one had been previously released.

The newly published exchange is an innocuous note from former U.S. ambassador to Brazil Tom Shannon, praising then-Secretary of State Clinton on her performance at a 2013 Senate hearing on the Benghazi attacks.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/benghazi-emails-hillary-clinton/index.html

So, out of 14,000 deleted emails, they found one about Benghazi. Sure, a sane person wouldn't accuse someone of destroying evidence because a single email — a completely innocuous and non substantive one — was accidentally deleted.

But, maybe you think even one is a tragedy. Hey, wait a minute! Think back to when I explained to you what the subpoena actually requested: "Specifically, the subpoena to Hillary asked for all the Libya related emails on her server for 2011 and 2012."

See those years? 2011 and 2012.

Now, you will agree that an email about what Hillary Clinton did in 2013 obviously could not have been sent in 2011 or 2012, right?

So, um, that one, nonsubstantive email was… not responsive to the subpoena.

It's easy to be condescending when one is talking to a stupid person who doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't do his homework.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL those are *awful* new goalposts.

You suck at this.

[David Nieporent]

In fact, I think that there has never been a prosecution for contempt of congress of an executive branch official who invoked executive privilege as a defense to a subpoena. Whether one thinks there should be or not, Holder wasn't given special treatment in that regard. Bannon, of course, just said "I don't wanna."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think there was an Air Mail Scandal back in the 1930's, where someone in the Executive was prosecuted. Maybe it wasn't for Contempt of Congress, but I thought it was. I'm not able to check right now.

[David Nieporent]

That's the McCracken prosecution mentioned above. McCracken claimed attorney-client privilege, but not executive privilege.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Oh okay, thank you. I couldn't remember the details. And as I began to look up the details, my wife called me to remove a cottonmouth from the outside shower.

[SRG]

Don't you know the Trump exemption? Trump is by definition innocent of anything and hence everyone under him, by the invented doctrine of Privilege by Proxy (coming to a Federalist article near you soon), is also innocent of anything. Yes, Bannon refused to be subpoenaed, as BCD well knows, but that's just a fact, and so irrelevant to his definitional innocence.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If there was a history of Congressional subpoena's not being ignored, you'd have a point.

[SRG]

There's a history of lots of wrongdoing by the executive being ignored. But that doesn't establish a precedent.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What's more of a precedent:

A history of near universal non-enforcement of Congressional subpoenas

-or-

For the first time throwing the book at a political opponent to enforce a Congressional subpoena

Which do you believe is the norm?

[SRG]

I know what is the norm, but as violating norms was common enough under Trump, what's your issue?

Of course any time there begins to be enforcement of anything it seems unfair - but that's life.

And perhaps consideration should be given for the rationale for the issuance. I think that an investigation into the 1/6 insurrection is of exceptional importance.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What's the norm for Congressional subpoenas?

And perhaps consideration should be given for the rationale for the issuance. I think that an investigation into the 1/6 insurrection is of exceptional importance.

So important that they aren't investigating the people in charge of security!

[Randal]

The norm for congressional subpoenas is to obey them.

[DaivdBehar]

David. You support Democrat lawfare. The turn of the Democrats will come.

[DaivdBehar]

David. You commit 3 federal felonies a day if you have any job. This prosecution is pretextual. The prosecutor and the scumbag judge need to be fired.

[DaivdBehar]

This is just Democrat lawfare. Inauguration Day, Jan., 2025, Trump should fire all federal prosecutors. They are all worthless, ineffective scumbag lawfare warriors. Many should be prosecuted for misuse of their offices for political attacks, rather than for criminal law enforcement.

[DaivdBehar]

Video is out. Cop husband of teacher trying to save wife after her desperste texts was held back and disarmed by the lawyer pusdified police. It is time to crush this vile toxic profession. It stinks.

[DaivdBehar]

NYC has the monkey. Now it has the polio. Shut it down. I need another boost in my Florida real estate.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, may I ask two questions?

How many times has anyone ever been prosecuted criminally for contempt of Congress (at any time in our history)?

How many people have been incarcerated after being found guilty of contempt of Congress?

[Commenter_XY]

Took a quick look...William McCracken and Rita Lavelle are the two that I found (criminally prosecuted). Are there any others?

[David Nieporent]

The Hollywood 10.

[Commenter_XY]

So a dozen (just 12) people in ~165 years criminally prosecuted
for contempt of Congress (meaning, since current contempt of Congress law was passed in 1857).

That....is not very many people.

[OtisAH]

Which is relevant to what? Most contempt cases get pushed almost as far as possible before the target relents and the information is given over. And that usually happens much sooner than five days before the contempt trial is set to begin. And Bannon still hasn’t turned over the info demanded by the subpoena.

[Sarcastr0]

So what, Commenter? This is a discretionary, facts-based choice.

Sometimes it's called for. If you don't think this is one of those times, you need to engage with the facts, not just say 'it's rare, so it should never be done!'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I love your "discretionary enforcement" schtick.

It allows you to pretend that Rule of Man is actually Rule of Law (but with Discretion!)

[Sarcastr0]

Discretion is within rule of law, it is not rule of man.

[NOVA Lawyer]

First, it hasn't been established that there were 12 over the course of 165 years.

Second, how many people have just ignored a Congressional subpoena? (Hint, the vast majority of people found in contempt of Congress then produced documents before criminal proceedings were initiated or shortly after they were).

Third, how many of those were private citizens who didn't raise any plausible privilege?

Answer those questions and you'll understand why prosecutions are rare and why it is actually important that Bannon be punished in order to ensure the continued rarity of instances where people simply ignore a subpoena without any legal basis and thumb their nose at Congress's finding of contempt.

You believe in the rule of law or you don't. Bannon doesn't. We probably can't teach him, but we can teach other people.

[Michael P]

"Another MacCracken client, L. H. Brittin of Northwest Airways, secured permission from MacCracken’s law partner to remove approximately half a dozen letters Brittin considered personal."

If half a dozen letters were worth conviction for contempt of Congress, what would 30,000 emails be worth?

[not guilty]

I don't know who has been prosecuted or incarcerated. The statutory range is thirty days minimum and one year maximum confinement. Consecutive sentencing is available.

[Michael P]

Yes, we have seen that it's impossible to have a fair trial relating to political issues in DC.

[m40195971]

Exhibit 1 for why DC should never have statehood and all housing removed. No one should live in DC, no representative, no mayor, nothing: therefore no juries possible there.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What are some of the aspects of the trial thst you seeas unfair?

[Michael P]

The decision to prosecute. The prosecution's partisan bias. The jury pool.

We saw it in Michael Sussman's trial, and I expect to see it here.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The decision to prosecute.

What does that have to do with the trial being in DC?

The prosecution's partisan bias.

How has that manifested in this case, in your view?

The jury pool

What about this trial would be different with a different jury pool?

[Michael P]

What are some of the aspects of the trial thst you seeas unfair?

What does that have to do with the trial being in DC?

Well, those goalposts weren't going to move themselves....

[OtisAH]

Don’t blame the guy for trying to get specifics supporting your dumbass claims. Maybe he just hasn’t read your posts before?

[Noscitur a sociis]

You may recall that this discussion began with you saying that "we have seen that it's impossible to have a fair trial relating to political issues in DC."

If the only unfair things about the trial that you can see have no connection to its being in DC, that seems like a strange observation to make!

[Michael P]

The prosecution is unfair because of political bias. The intention of separating the finder of fact from the prosecution is to protect against that kind of bias, but the jury pool is unfair because it's DC (and I already said how we've seen that in recent practice). Because both parts are unfair, the whole trial tends to be unfair, contrary to the intended error-correction behavior.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Don't forget all those defenses the judge refused to Bannon.

[Sarcastr0]

What defenses? Because it's pretty easy law that Bannon can't invoke on Trump's behalf.

[not guilty]

"Don't forget all those defenses the judge refused to Bannon."

What particular defense(s) do you claim should have been allowed? The issues are: (1) whether Bannon had been summoned as a witness to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before a Congressional committee, (2) whether Bannon defaulted, and (3) whether such a default was willful. What evidence, probative of any of these issues, was Bannon precluded from offering? Please be specific.

[Sarcastr0]

Political bias that *you have been unable to show evidence for*

[Michael P]

The fact that you ignore the evidence doesn't show that the evidence is absent.

How many people have seen a jury trial because of their violent anti-Trump protests in DC? How many were convicted?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P,

This presumably rhetorical question isn't evidence:

"How many people have seen a jury trial because of their violent anti-Trump protests in DC? How many were convicted?"

The fact that you don't seem to get that it isn't evidence is evidence that you don't know what you're talking about and are just parroting a phrase you've heard or come up with on your own about it being impossible to get a fair trial in DC.

And to answer your question: Plenty. (With the caveat, I don't know how many demanded a jury trial, but lots were arrested and convicted.)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/us/dc-police-arrests-blm-capitol-insurrection-invs/index.html

Find a talking point that isn't a blatant lie, perhaps.

[shawn_dude]

"because it's DC"

Why DC? Is that because the population tends to be liberal? If so, how do you balance that against politically motivated trials in conservative states like Kentucky or Oklahoma? Can a liberal defendant get a fair trial in a conservative state?

Or is it because the population tends to be more clued in to political issues given the nature of the district? And if that's the case, I'm sure there are similarities that arise in other states with specific industries that dominate employment.

Remember the armed anti-government morons that overran the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon? They got off largely because of the local opinions on federal land ownership in Western states--a political position. Was that not a fair trial?

What about DC is so unique that it, unlike every other state and territory in the Union, is incapable of a fair trial?

[Michael P]

Can it with the whataboutism, to borrow a Sarcastr0ism.

[shawn_dude]

That's a sloppy dodge. There's no whataboutism there. There's no attempt at exposing hypocrisy there. It's a question:

What about DC is so unique that it, unlike every other state and territory in the Union, is incapable of a fair trial?

[Michael P]

You think "If so, how do you balance that against politically motivated trials in conservative states like Kentucky or Oklahoma?" is something other than whataboutism?

You haven't shown that any such thing exists. Even if they did, those states are not 90+% Republican -- DC is so overwhelmingly Democratic that it's feasible to remove any conservatives from a jury pool during voir dire.

[not guilty]

"What about DC is so unique that it, unlike every other state and territory in the Union, is incapable of a fair trial?"

Ipse dixit now.
Ipse dixit tomorrow.
Ipse dixit forever!!

[OtisAH]

It’s a variant on a game the gop has been playing since at least 1994. The base game is “any dem electoral win is a fraud.” It expanded to include congressional investigations. To wit:

1. Dems cannot be investigated by Dems because they’ll let their buddies off the hook. Only GOP’ers can investigate Dems.

2. Republicans cannot be investigated by Dems because Dems are politically motivated partisan hacks. So only GOP’ers can investigate republicans.

And now we have that but for criminal trials.

[shawn_dude]

So, a jury of your peers now means "a jury made up of people who agree with you?"

Seriously. That's what you've got? Dems cannot be trusted to be fair?

This is just a rehash of the conservative victim complex.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bannon is toast"

Congrats. A misdemeanor!

One month in jail for Bannon will really show Drumpf!

[OtisAH]

No, no, no, Bob. Too soon. You wait until after he’s been sentenced before you cross your arms tightly on your chest, lower your chin, and grumble “Meh, doesn’t matter anyway.”

[Bob from Ohio]

Even if he gets the max [he won't], it won't matter anyway.

He's been out of an appointed staff position for 5 years now. He only matters to Resistance!!!! dweebs.

[Sarcastr0]

Man, Bob is working hard to assure everyone he's not mad. He's laughing, actually.

[Bob from Ohio]

Two comments is "working hard"?

He'll serve his brief time, raise money off of it and get pardoned in 2025. Great victory for your side! Historic really, it will turn this November's tide!

[OtisAH]

For those who might be confused, Bob is typically a big proponent of law and order.

[Bob from Ohio]

Prosecute him, send him to jail, shoot him, whatever you want. Nobody cares but Resistance dweebs like you.

Everyone should have contempt for Congress at all times.

[Jimmy the Dane]

i'm old enough to remember when the left wasn't so cool with political prisoners of any type....

[not guilty]

Who is a political prisoner here, and what facts support your assertion of that status?

The House committee referred four men for prosecution, and only two have been charged so far. That suggests DOJ is not running amok and charging willy nilly.

[Kazinski]

I guess I should be prosecuted too, I freely admit my contempt of Congress.

But it's obviously only a prosecutable crime when the DOJ is the same party as the majority in the House. The Obama administration showed how seriously they took it by allowing any administration figures to thumb their nose at congressional subpoenas with no consequences.

But now the DOJ is using it for political persecution. But they have little to worry about having it turned back around at them, they have the DC jury as a failsafe.

[shawn_dude]

I know, right? It's almost like Hillary Clinton never spent 11 hours in a congressional hearing during the Obama administration and instead just thumbed her nose at Congress.

[Kleppe]

Anyone want to guess how big the Republican margin of victory will be in the midterms? Dems in Congress are historically unpopular, the Biden administration doesn't have a pulse (or a clue), and the polls have not reacted to favorably for Dems following Dobbs. My humble prediction? It will be a blowout, and Joe Biden's presidency -- which never seemed to begin -- will be officially over.

[Brett Bellmore]

Joe Biden's Presidency will be officially over on January 20th, 2025, barring medical emergency or the 25th amendment. Maybe you meant unofficially over?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm not sure Biden has ever really been president.

[Bwaaah]

I think he meant to say literally over.

[Frank Drackman]

Not so fast, Somnolent Joe just said he has Cancer

[Brett Bellmore]

False alarm.

[Kazinski]

But he does have covid.

[Frank Drackman]

Should have worn a mask, got vaccinated

[dwb68]

Dems spent a lot of money propping up ultra conservative candidates in primaries.

... who now may win due to to Dem's historic unpopularits.

LMAO.

I am sticking to Biden is Jimmy Carter 2.0. Dems will be locked out for at least 8 years, probably 12 like the 80s.

[Sarcastr0]

To me the headline is that Republicans are voting for lunatics these days.

Don't deny that Republicans have any agency here. And don't seem to care about voting for people explicitly coming out against democracy, if it means Republicans will sometimes lose national elections.

[Brett Bellmore]

Republicans have always been voting for candidates Democrats thought were lunatics, and visa versa. Don't even try to pretend you don't have some elected nutjobs on your side of the aisle.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, this is not subjective. Wanting to overturn the 2020 election is objectively insane.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and the left has a long history of declaring its political opponents to be insane, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe yes, maybe no. But your comment has nothing to do with whether these candidates who are running on overturning the 2020 election are objectively insane.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, how many of them have been diagnosed after psychiatric examinations? The "objectively insane" must be a subset of that, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Fine - I was being imprecise. Objectively not fit to vote for.

[defaultdotxbe]

Good thing no one wanted to overturn the 2016 election.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, all those Dems who ran for office to overturn the 2016 election and then won their primary was a pretty scary time!

[TwelveInchPianist]

" Don't even try to pretend you don't have some elected nutjobs on your side of the aisle."

Biden is claiming that the oil companies gave him skin cancer.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's claiming he currently has cancer!

[Frank Drackman]

cancer, dementia what is the difference!!!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Shouldn't the headline be that "liberal" Democrats are spending millions on boosting the prospects of these supposed "nutjobs" in the GOP primaries?

[Sarcastr0]

Democrats' mischief-making bouncing back on them can also be a story.

But one should not ignore that Republican voters are into electing nutjobs now.

2 stories can both be stories.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, sure. But your filter doesn’t allow you to notice that a lot of popular Democrats are nutjobs. AOC is batshit crazy, for example, and she’s a progressive star. Most of the progressives are no more tethered to reality than people like MTG.

[Sarcastr0]

I like AOC.

You are whattabouting pretty hard I’m service of the GOP primary electorate going gaga for candidates who don’t like our republican form of government.

[bevis the lumberjack]

To a neutral AOC is every bit as nutty as MTG. They’re the fucking double mint twins, both dumber than a post.

Her bullshit on ectopic pregnancies a couple of weeks ago was textbook misinformation. And she’s avoiding doing something to actually help women relative to dangerous pregnancies by doing performance theater demonstrations complete with fake handcuffs.

She’s appalling.

[Nige]

'She drives people like you nutty' is not the same thing as her being nutty at all. Quite the opposite, as a rule.

[Michael P]

She's nutty. She also makes people like Sarcastr0 act nutty in their rushes to defend her. The two are closely related.

[Nige]

To you she's nutty, your increasingly hysterical and abusive claims about her nuttiness reinforces everyone else's view of your own.

[Sarcastr0]

"I like AOC."

Truly, the nuttiest of comments.

[Michael P]

No, S_0, you make ridiculously uninformed assertions -- like you did below -- in a stupid attempt to distract from how nutty she is. And you claim that criticizing AOC is somehow an example of defending Jan 6th rioters.

She makes you act nutty.

[Sarcastr0]

You're making an argument that you really don't like her, not that she's actually crazy. Even accepting that she's lied about abortion (debatable in my book), that does not show she is crazy.

You also brought her up as an out of the blue whattaboutism.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You say the other team votes for crazies. Your team votes for crazies too. Bring that up and your response is "whatabouttism", which lame AF.

AOC: "You can't tell me they knew about ectopic pregnancies in the 18th century"
Medical literature: "Ectopic pregnancy was discovered by the Arabic physician Abulcasis who died on 1013 AD"
Sarcastro: It's debatable that she lied (or was wrong).

LOL. She's a nutjob.

[Sarcastr0]

Your team votes for crazies too is textbook whattaboutism.

What you are describing looks like she is mistaken, not crazy.

(BTW I checked, and this is actually pretty interesting:
https://www.ogmagazine.org.au/15/1-15/bold-suggestion-history-treating-ectopic-pregnancy/)

[Frank Drackman]

She's not a nice ass, and some DSL's

[Michael P]

Which coalitions has AOC built? Anything except the Squad? (To be explicit about something that should be obvious, the Democratic caucus doesn't count.)

[Aemon McGarret]

You were talking about filters. If you truly think that AOC & MTG are both just female political crazies, you should look to cleaning or changing your filters. AOC is way more liberal than me. Liz Cheney is way more conservative than me. I like & respect both of them. Declaring them crazy because they are from "the other side" is just typical stupid. AOC came to do the job. MTG came to trash the place. The issue is the very obvious campaign to trash the process. get out of binary mode. If you can.

[bevis the lumberjack]

AOC is not doing any job.

She could be introducing a bill that would mandate medical treatment, including abortion, for pregnant women that are endangered by their pregnancy, including but not limited to ectopic pregnancies. A properly written bill would fly through congress because nobody but the true fringe wants to run on letting people die.

Instead she's spreading incorrect bullshit on ectopic pregnancies on social media and participating in bullshit protests that aren't going to accomplish a damn thing. 3+ years in congress and her accomplishments are bupkiss.

[Sarcastr0]

bevis, you don't understand how Congress works.

She could, on her own, without leadership push, introduce a bill. It would go nowhere.

And also you absolutely do not understand the GOP these days, if you think they are not fine with killing such a bill.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sarcastro with the "my team pure, other team evil" schtick again.

I don't have a team, but I can tell you that AOC's bullshit does not make want to go anywhere near a democrat in the voting booth (and yes, I voted for at least 1 democrat the last time I voted). She's awful. Just like MTG and the election deniers don't make me eager to support a republican. My local rep is a republican and I'm watching him closely to insure that he doesn't stumble off into MAGAland.

And if she can't propose it, which she can, she should be agitating for it. She's certainly not shy about shooting off her mouth. But she's not because she has no substance. She's all theater. Exactly, precisely like MTG. And I don't mean to only pick on women, there are plenty of male congressmen that are the same.

And if the Democratic leadership won't allow a bill that does that they really prefer political theater to helping sick pregnant women. It would fly through the house and I'm certain that there are more than 10 republican senators that don't want to run their next election on "I want to let women with ectopic pregnancies suffer and die". A lot more than 10.

You're putting everyone into your political boxes again.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think Dems are pure, by a long shot.

I get AOC really gets you emotional; other politicians do that for me.

But she's a serious politician who likes policies you don't like. That's just factually not the same as the more pure populism and negative partisanship MTG does. They may make you feel the same kind of disgust, but they're pretty distinguishable.

I don't see why you think you have the political equities figured. I would prefer if there were a bill to rally around. But I'm as sure the Senate would filibuster as you are that the GOP would crumble. Maybe you're right, maybe I am. But neither of us should be certain of how these wedge issues will play in this day and age.

[Michael P]

If you think AOC doesn't enjoy pure populism and negative partisanship, why did she make those false claims about ectopic pregnancies? Why did she push for sending people more and bigger checks to help them cope with Democratic COVID-19 policies? Why did she dismiss criticism as people just being frustrated in a desire to date her?

Why do you let her make you act so nutty?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think AOC is *only* a partisan populist. She spends a lot of time doing the work of a lawmaker and coalition builder.

MTG does not do policy, or lawmaking, she only does partisan populism.

Why did she push for sending people more and bigger checks to help them cope with Democratic COVID-19 policies?
This is policymaking.

[NOVA Lawyer]

What did AOC say about ectopic pregnancies that was "textbook misinformation"?

I googled AOC and ectopic pregnancies and the first story is a batshit crazy bill introduced into the Ohio House of Representatives by Republicans that purports to require, on pain of criminal liability, physicians to "reimplant" embryos from an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus.

You're losing the batshit crazy contest.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yeah, about that.....

If you literally spend millions of dollars to get someone to win an election, turning around and saying "this person is crazy, they so stupid, vote for my guy instead!" is......super hypocritical and duplicitous.

[Michael P]

To me the headline is that Democrats have been voting in Republican primaries to try to ensure those supposed lunatics win.

It's not news that you ignore the agency of those Democrats.

[Sarcastr0]

I've seen ads taken out in primaries - I'm not sure about this voting thing.

Are you just reading headlines and making assumptions? Because while Democrats have been voting in open GOP primaries, I believe it is the opposite of the direction you think:
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-donald-trump-georgia-campaign-2016-congress-df4fa72d2d4a1e4d9344d61c0a3d4b9e

[Michael P]

Dims in Texas are crossover voting for the most extreme Republicans: https://www.tpr.org/government-politics/2022-02-28/some-democrats-are-voting-in-the-texas-gop-primaries-will-it-make-a-difference

Liz Cheney has also been begging for Democrats to vote for her, in an effort to nominate the least electable, most lunatic Republican in that race.

[Sarcastr0]

That's like 3 guys.
By contrast, the article I linked to has actual exit polling.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P,

The fact that you call Liz Cheney the least electable, most lunatic Republican in the Wyoming race says all that needs to be said about your credibility and reasoning ability.

[Don Nico]

"the headline is that Republicans are voting for lunatics these days."
No argument. But seeing the number of Dem MoCs arrested a few days ago, I'd say that the Dems have been electing their lunatic fringe for quite a while.

[Sarcastr0]

Congresspeople being arrested for protesting has been common for ages.

Not really a sign of lunacy.

[Don Nico]

Look at the list of crazies

[Sarcastr0]

So question begging it is!

[Michael P]

https://www.govtrack.us/misconduct

The most recent arrests listed there: Squad member Jamaal Bowman, who voted against the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act because it didn't include enough giveaways. Al Green, representing the farthest-left district in Texas. Sheila "I am a queen, and I demand to be treated like a queen" Jackson Lee. Hank Johnson, most notable for his concern that Guam would capsize (yes, the island). Joyce Beatty, who talked about a Black man shooting up a salon by saying "three people in a Korean-owned hair salon in Dallas were gunned [sic] by yet another White supremacy replacement theorist". Pramila Jayapal, who claimed the Supreme Court did not have the authority to overrule Roe v. Wade. Repeat offenders Luis Gutiérrez (who retired in a very Chicago political arrangement after his first 2017 arrest) and Judy Chu (also arrested this time).

Yeah, they're crazies.

[Sarcastr0]

Oppo research is not going to prove anyone is crazy.

What you are showing is how much you want to call all the politicians you don't like crazy.
That's not an impulse with a very good history.

[Don Nico]

Look at the list.

[Sarcastr0]

I did. I am satisfied that nearly none of that is crazy. You've joined the crowd of confusing wrong with crazy.

It also includes mere charges which...is an easily gamed system.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Dems will be locked out for at least 8 years, probably 12 like the 80s. "

There just aren't enough uneducated racists, superstitious gay-haters, downscale xenophobes, obsolete misogynists, and disaffected clingers left in America to get where you want to go.

Trump needed a three-cushion trick shot at the Electoral College to win. As America improves Republicans have become barely competitive in national elections.

There are plenty of ignorant bigots in the desolate communities in which conservatives are concentrating, and plenty of them at the Volokh Conspiracy, though, which may incline some Federalist Society fans to misperceive the American pulse. Conservatives are mostly old, white, disaffected, religious culture war losers -- not the people who will shape the course of modern America.

[Frank Drackman]

Tell it Jerry!

[defaultdotxbe]

Dems always play the long game, so they seen this as a win-win.

Either they manage to get an unelectable candidate nominated, and they lose, or they win and further tarnish the Republicans' reputation among moderates, causing the pendulum to swing farther left next time.

Unfortunately for Democrats they do an equally good job of tarnishing their own reputation among moderates when they are in office, making the pendulum swing more and more wildly.

After a century of presidents being practically assured of 2 terms, I think we may now enter into an era of the opposite, with a 2nd term becoming a virtually impossible task for an incumbent president. That is, until one party of the other decides to return to the center, or they drift so far away a 3rd party can capture the middle.

[Sarcastr0]

Dems always play the long game

LOL.

[FivebySixThree]

It would have been larger if not for Republican state legislatures wasting no time to try and restrict abortion further if not ban it. The Supreme Court gave the party sufficient rope to hang themselves and they are wasting no time looking for tall trees.

Throw in the banter from some well know Republican politicians how gay marriage was a bad ruling and you can just see how much effort they are putting into losing.

There is a very good chance they lose the governor's seat in Georgia and even Texas is dicey now; they certainly will not win back a Georgia Senate seat.

For a party which espouses freedom they damn well love using the power of the state to prevent people from exercising it.

[dwb68]

LMAO no.

Democrats have gone so far to the extreme on abortion, its only a voting issue for far left old white boomers. The have made so many issues imminent apocalyptic catastrophes, no one listens to them anymore.

Clinton's party of "safe, legal, and rare" and fiscal responsibility does not exist.

The one actual catastrophe Dem's have no answer to, government-spending-fueled inflation, is the one people will vote on.

[Nige]

The party of ending all abortion everywhere even for saving lives and rape victims, and of private-profit-driven inflation, are trying to tell you the other side are extremists and laissez-faire capitalists.

[Brett Bellmore]

There is no party of ending all abortion everywhere, any more than there's a party of aborting all babies at the moment of birth. Find a paper bag and breath into it for a bit, and calm down.

[Nige]

Ohhhh yes there is. It's the Republicans, gaslighter.

[Sarcastr0]

It's in party planks, it's in campaign speeches.

You can keep denying it, but at some point you're going to have to deal with the fact that your party has a lot of insane zealots for whom actual lives matter less than righteous victory.

[David Nieporent]

There is no party of ending all abortion everywhere,

The Idaho GOP just put it into their platform. They even voted down a life-of-the-mother exception.

That's not a law (yet), but it's a statement of party preferences.

[Michael P]

How is voting against amending an existing platform "just put it into their platform"? https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/idaho-gop-rejects-abortion-exception-save-mothers-life-87030953

Killing another adult is typically murder, but we make exceptions to that rule. If you want to see what kind of laws they are likely to pass, you could look all the way back to 2020, where Idaho Republicans ... codified exceptions to an abortion ban for rape, incest, and saving someone else's life.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So, Michael P, you admit Brett was wrong because, in fact, Republicans are the party (at least in Idaho) of banning all abortions everywhere with no exception for the health of the mother?

Odd that you are more concerned with the pedantic point about whether they've only recently put that in their party platform or that it's been there for years. The important fact in this thread, is that it is there and they voted to keep it that way.

[Michael Ejercito]

The other side supports puberty blockers for kids because of their mere feelings.

[Nige]

Your side loves to mock children and their feelings.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You figure young people -- especially educated, successful young people -- are going to sign on to the Republicans' Committee For Statist Womb Management and conservatives' Committee for Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

Been to a Catholic Church lately? (The ones that haven't been closed or consolidated into part-time hospice care, of course). The average age in the pews is dead.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, Jerry, you've frightened many boys from going to a Catholic Church

[Bob from Ohio]

"very good chance they lose the governor's seat in Georgia and even Texas is dicey now"

Did you bring enough of that drug for everyone?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If they successfully stir up a Mid-term Variant of COVID and do all the mail-in ballot shenanigans, then the Democrats won't lose a single seat but actually gain in the House and Senate.

[Brett Bellmore]

They have a significant chance of gaining in the Senate honestly; Republicans have 21 seats up for reelection, and Democrats only 14. And McConnell just a month ago went out of his way to demoralize a lot of Republican voters.

[Mr. Bumble]

When it comes to the Turtle, what else is new?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

McConnell will do the same thing he did to the TEA Party and that's align with the Democrats and turn the full brunt of the Federal State against regular Americans.

[John F. Carr]

Let's see how the economy looks in a few months. I'm betting it looks bad. More importantly, feels bad. Biden's folks can adjust figures for one report if they want it to look good on election day. Not an attack on Biden here. Any president could do it. The Reagan administration claimed unemployment dropped one month when the only change was to how the reported percentage was calculated. (If we're counting in geologic eras, this was around Biden's first presidential campaign.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"Anyone want to guess how big the Republican margin of victory will be in the midterms?"

Every Democrat in a seat that was Biden +6 in 2020 or lower is losing in the House. Anywhere from a 30 to 45 set pick up.

GOP picks up 2-4 senate seats.

[jb]

I'm actually pretty surprised by how close the generic ballot is given Biden's unpopularity. Combined with Republicans nominating a bunch of crappy candidates, it seems like there's still a reasonable chance the Dems hold onto the Senate. The House will almost certainly flip Republican, but it's honestly not even very significant given that Congress can't pass anything that doesn't have quite strong bipartisan support anyway.

[shawn_dude]

Yup.
Which is why they're getting ready for the next set of "Hillary Emails" and "Benghazi" hearings. They're already bragging about having written the scripts and prioritized the order. 2-4 years of eye-rollingly stupid investigations that will be quickly forgotten.

Who remembers that Trump loved to use his insecure iPhone for a lot of his communications? You know... pretty much the same thing as Clinton's email scandal? Anyone? Not a single Republican cared. Makes it hard for me to care about whatever faux scandal they invent next.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://groups.google.com/g/Sci.Med.Cardiology/c/E-6aYm-_4R8/m/6h4koKjeAQAJ

Ibram X. Kendi recently told his podcast listeners that the United
States is still a "slave holding republic," likening the "freedom to
enslave" to those Americans today wanting to end COVID-19 restrictions.

"When the right started pushing for the right and the freedom to open
back up, I ended up writing this piece in the Atlantic that basically
argued that we're still in a slaveholders' republic," the Boston
University professor said on a July 28 episode titled "Prison & Police
Abolition: Finding True Safety."

He continued, "And what I argued is that the slaveholder, the
individual, wanted the freedom to enslave there's no difference between
that and the individual saying 'I should have the freedom to infect
people. I should have the freedom to kill and exploit and harass and
terrorize."

I wonder where Kendi would get the idea that living a normal life infects people.

[Kleppe]

Kendi himself is a carrier of another deadly infectious agent, a mind-virus.

[Doug Huffman]

The deadly mind-virus is transmitted through telescreens.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you advocating for thoughtcrime, Kleppe?

[Brett Bellmore]

Thoughtdisease, I read him to mean. And he's right.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you generally due with a disease, Brett?

[Nige]

Wear a brainmask?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, nothing legally enforceable, but then, I'm not branch Covidian.

[Sarcastr0]

Saying someone's thoughts are a virus doesn't bespeak a mentality of free thought, Brett.

This is not something you need to defend.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You can criticize someone's thinking without bespeaking censorship, Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure can, but when you call it something we generally work to destroy that is a tell.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

LOL! The mental gymnastics you go through to come up with your bullshit would have had Nadia Comăneci in awe.

[Michael P]

Whereas accusing politicians of being lunatics, while looking one who pretended to be handcuffed for show,does bespeak a mentality of free thought?

Remove that plank from your eye, brother!

[Sarcastr0]

1. They were arrested. And per AOC: "Putting your hands behind your back is a best practice while detained, handcuffed or not, to avoid escalating charges like resisting arrest."

2. Even if it were staged, that's not crazy, it's showmanship. On the other hand, running on the platform of overturning the 2020 election is indeed crazy.

You should ask why your defending overturning the will of the people.

[Michael P]

Point to where I defended that.

We would ask why you are lying about your political opponents, but you've made that clear time and time again. Democrats have a nasty habit of doing that. It's a shame that you contribute to gaslighting the public.

[Sarcastr0]

Point to where I defended that.
Your whattaboutism of AOC is in service of defending GOP voters selecting 2020 truthers.

lying about your political opponents
Dude, I'm responding to stuff you're saying; quit the histrionics.

[Bob from Ohio]

"per AOC: "Putting your hands behind your back is a best practice while detained, handcuffed or not, to avoid escalating charges like resisting arrest."

Delusional. The other woman the cop was escorting had both arms fully down.

Per a liberal [but not crazy] NYC defense attorney:

"Scott Greenfield @ScottGreenfield
For the benefit of any foolish enough not to realize this is utter bullshit, don't do this. The last thing cops want is for you to hide your hands and put them near your waist where guns tend to be carried.
3:16 PM · Jul 20, 2022"

[Sarcastr0]

Not everyone follows best practice when being detained, Bob.

I have no idea what's right and what's wrong. But the point is no one is delusional. And as I said above, 'Even if it were staged, that's not crazy, it's showmanship.'

[bevis the lumberjack]

Showmanship for what purpose? She's a lawmaker, not an entertainer.

Her show provided exactly zero benefit for any woman. But it got her on the TV, so there's that.

She's embarrassing your party and you can't lap it up fast enough.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I have no idea what's right and what's wrong."

Yet you defend her anyway. Always the White Knight.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't need to know what the right answer is to know made up outrage when I see it.

I defend her against Michael P calling her crazy.

But later on, I also noted that no one has established even the more plausible charge that she was was performing. People are just sure she is, because yelling about AOC needs no reason.

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0, it's okay to admit that you gullibly fell for her lie about what is best practice when being arrested.

She was not handcuffed then: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/video-of-aoc-pretending-to-be-handcuffed-viewed-over-2-million-times/ar-AAZKUh8. This isn't hard to discover, and your failure to check facts reflects poorly on you.

It's also not okay to project your frustration about being fooled on people who disagree with you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no one has established"

Other than an admission by her, how does one do this to your satisfaction?

She suddenly raised an arm to do the old black power salute. The cop should have considered this a sudden move and took action. Yet he didn't.

When cops stop someone, don't they yell "show your hands"?

I quoted a long time criminal defense attorney that her argument was BS. You just shrugged.

Your defense is just knee jerk White Knighting.

[Nige]

The Party of weirdo politcians and their entire families posing with hideous armories of deadly weapons is whining about what may be a minor bit of political showboating during an actual arrest? The degree to which you have to exaggerate for your equivalences to gain even minimal traction is hilarious.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You eradicate disease, Sarcastr0.

[Nige]

Well he does his best, I'm sure, but there's only the one of him.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What do you generally due with a disease, Brett?"

Stop paying the carrier thousands of dollars to spread it?

[Sarcastr0]

Not while money is speech.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Money's not speech.

And it's largely public institutions that are paying him to spread the disease.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you believe those institutions are not being viewpoint neutral in who they fund?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Why would they be?

[Sarcastr0]

Dude is obviously overdramatic and has slavery on the brain, but the whole *thing* about an airborne virus is that living a normal life infects people.

[Nige]

Is it possible to be overdramatic about the raging anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-community, anti-public-health ideology that adopts the most extreme, obstructive and harmful positions purely because they're the opposite of their political opponents?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Trump * -1 = Democrat

[Nige]

They're even into ever more complex forms of numerology.

[Sarcastr0]

Not every bad thing is slavery.

[Nige]

Oh, I dunno, there's probably a socio-historical examination of the power dynamics at work in a portion of the population exercising power through the wholesale rejection of common actions for the public good that can trace its influence back to the lingering efforts of the slave-owning regions to retain their sense of dominance, but maybe that would be a form of thought crime? CRT?

[Sarcastr0]

I actually think there is something to that argument you just wrote down, but it's still not an argument that being a dick about wearing masks is *the same as* slavery.

[Nige]

Yeah on that level it's a bit of a non sequitor.

[Ed Grinberg]

the wholesale rejection of common actions for the public good

To use a saying popular among Reason.com commenters:
Fuck off, slaver!

[Nige]

I refer you to my comment of 7.49.

[Nige]

sigh. 7.39.

[Sarcastr0]

Love to see Reason on the same level as this guy.

[bernard11]

Popular among ignorant jackasses, anyway.

[Michael Ejercito]

Public health is a scam and a fraud.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2020/06/08/oh-no-its-monday-ethics-review-6-8-2020-a-yoos-rationalization-orgy/

However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators' ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives. Protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must be supported.

[Nige]

Getting murdered by overfunded poorly trained racist police is also a public health issue.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He’s not over dramatic. The word your looking for is “wrong ”. Or if you prefer a phrase use “full of shit”. You’re defending maybe the most overt racist going these days. Is there no one on your side you’ll criticize?

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever dude. I was explaining he was wrong and how. Cool your jets,

[bevis the lumberjack]

You typed the "he was wrong" thing an hour after my post.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry if 'Dude is obviously overdramatic and has slavery on the brain' does not strongly enough imply I disagree with that opinion.

[apedad]

Texas mom rips grand jury for declining charges against 9-year-old daughter's killer in post-robbery shootout

A grand jury in Harris County declined to bring charges against the suspect, 41-year-old Tony Earls, in the deadly shooting of 9-year-old Arlene Alvarez on Tuesday, prompting outrage from the girl’s family at a press conference after the decision was announced. The district attorney’s office is now turning its focus to the yet-to-be arrested robbery suspect who authorities say targeted Earls and his wife at a nearby ATM.

Earls chased down the suspect and said he believed he heard gunshots and was under fire before he opened fire toward the suspect, instead striking a pick-up truck driving by at the same time, prosecutors said. The 9-year-old girl was in the back seat and was shot in the head while wearing headphones. She died from her injuries later at a hospital.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-mom-rips-grand-jury-declining-charges-nine-year-old-daughters-killer-post-robbery-shootout

Is another one of those “good guy responsible” gun owners?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The grand jury's decision regarding this defendant seems like it's legally correct, notwithstanding the tragic situation.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

[apedad]

His actions caused the death of an innocent person.

Isn't that at least involuntary manslaughter or something along those lines (IANAL)?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not necessarily. Technically the crime would fall to the criminal who assaulted Ells.

[apedad]

You mean "felony murder?"

But Earls wasn't part of the initial (alleged) crime.

So yes, if two people rob a store and one of the shoots someone, then the second person can be charged with felony murder because they actively took part in the initial crime.

But again, Earls wasn't part of the initial crime and he started a new chain of events.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, reading the description, here's what I see.

"Dunn said the way the night unfolded was an "unfortunate series of events." He said claims by the Alvarez family that the shooting happened during a drug deal gone wrong are completely unfounded.

Dunn gave a recap of what they said happened that night.

He said Earls and Hines were together when they pulled up to the ATM to get money for food. He said the robber approached their car with a gun drawn and pointed it at Hines' head while asking for money.

Dunn said Earls and Hines complied and gave the robber what they had, including the keys to the car. As he was walking away, according to Dunn, the robber threw the keys on the ground.

Dunn said Earls got out of the car to retrieve the keys, and that's when the robber pulled a gun and fired one shot at him. Dunn said his client returned fire, and as he was doing so, a vehicle was driving by slowly. Earls thought the vehicle was part of a group that had just robbed them and got back into his car, according to his attorney.

Dunn said his client got back into the car, and at that point, the vehicle he had noticed began to back up slowly. That's when he said Earls got back out of his car and fired two shots at the vehicle, striking Arlene."

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds to me like Earls ought to have been charged.

[bernard11]

Me too.

[jb]

So even according to Earls's own story, he saw a car, just assumed that it was related to the robbery, and intentionally fired at it? Hard to see how that's not at least manslaughter (which Texas defines as recklessly causing a death).

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Do you suppose that the law requires exoneration for crime victim A, if he ineffectually and irresponsibly kills bystander B, while claiming his intended target was someone else—the uninjured and unapprehended perpetrator P?

The story reminds me of a pawn shop robbery tale from long ago Boise, Idaho. Pawn shop owner is robbed at gunpoint, and pistol whipped as the perpetrator escapes into the alley. Recovering quickly, the owner takes the loaded shotgun he keep behind the counter, and pursues down the alley to the lane behind the store. There he confronts a car coming right at him, and blasts out the windshield with the shotgun, luckily missing the 80-year-old woman driving the car. No charges, of course. All's well that ends well.

Just two more stories for the gun prevalence archive.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m in Houston. That guy was reckless AF. I guess what he did wasn’t murder, but it wasn’t nothing either. There’s a crime of negligence there somewhere.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He fired into a vehicle that wasn't involved and he had no reason to believe was involved. That's panic, not self defense.

[shawn_dude]

But he's a "good guy with a gun." Right?

[dwb68]

Surveillance video is here. https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/reward-offered-for-robbery-suspect-in-arlene-alvarez-death/285-2a568e20-6c4c-4c92-890c-db739493fcf4

At the moment the robbery suspect is pointing his gun, he is standing in front of the car.

Would I take the shot? No. Is it tragic? Yes. But its not a homicide. Nor is it involuntary manslaughter.

The robbery suspect is the one that should be charged with felony murder. It is his actions that led to the death.

The grand jury's decision is correct.

[David Nieporent]

There are two possibilities:

1) He was shooting at the robber and missed, and hit the girl. That's manslaughter.

2) He was shooting at the car because he decided that it was somehow connected with the robber. That's murder.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And one certainty: Prof. Blackman, a pathetic coward, will give this one the "Volokh on Kozinski" treatment.

Carry on, clingers.

[Bob from Ohio]

The grand jury disagreed.

[dwb68]

no and no. He was being shot at.

[David Nieporent]

So?

[Michael P]

If he was exercising justified self-defense, then the person shooting at him is the one who is criminally responsible for the death of the bystander, and the grand jury was legally correct.

[David Nieporent]

No, it doesn't work that way. That one is justified in defending oneself does not entitle one to behave recklessly. And just because the criminal might be guilty of felony murder does not exonerate him from also being guilty.

[M L]

That an innocent bystander was hit does not necessarily mean the shooter engaging in self defense was reckless.

[David Nieporent]

Well, sure, it doesn't necessarily mean it. It is possible to behave cautiously and yet through a combination of unfortunate circumstances accidentally hit an unintended target. He sure didn't look like he was behaving cautiously.

[M L]

Above you claimed this person is unequivocally guilty of a crime. Are you backing down from that? The question of fact was decided by the grand jury. You watched a short news clip.

[dwb68]

Again incorrect. As noted above this is exactly how it works: "If he was exercising justified self-defense, then the person shooting at him is the one who is criminally responsible for the death of the bystander, and the grand jury was legally correct."

[David Nieporent]

Simply repeating a fallacious legal analysis does not make it a valid one.

[M L]

Typically justified self-defense means that the defender acted reasonably and used proportional and no more than necessary force. I'm skeptical that if you assume a justified use of force based on self defense, this always in every jurisdiction leaves open the possibility that the same action could be reckless manslaughter. Do you have a cite for this?

Based on some quick googling, it looks like that is not the case in Pennsylvania or Virginia.

Commonwealth vs. Fowlin, 551 Pa. 414, 420 – 421 710 A.2d 1130, 1133-1134 (1998)

Virginia jury instruction:

33.910 Transferred Intent–Self-Defense

If you believe that the defendant was acting in self-defense as to the actions of (name of person defended against) at the time he [killed; wounded] (name of victim) accidentally, then you shall find him not guilty.

[dwb68]

The grand jury returned no bill. The surveillance camera is pretty clear, the robber brandished a gun.

The only reason that the district attorney has not charged the robber with felony murder is that they did not catch him.

[David Nieporent]

Virginia jury instruction:

33.910 Transferred Intent–Self-Defense

If you believe that the defendant was acting in self-defense as to the actions of (name of person defended against) at the time he [killed; wounded] (name of victim) accidentally, then you shall find him not guilty.

Do you see the term "accidentally" in there? I'm not talking accidental. I'm talking reckless.

This happened in Texas. Here's actual Texas law, not an inapplicable Virginia jury instruction:

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.

Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

[dwb68]

The debate was held in the grand jury room and you lost.

[M L]

Thank you for looking up the applicable law. Did you know it or did you have to look it up? Anyway, as I suspected, it depends on the jurisdiction. And in some jurisdictions, if one is justified in defending oneself, then they were not acting recklessly, even as to a third party.

"He was shooting at the robber and missed, and hit the girl. That's manslaughter."

And yet the news article says this individual was charged with aggravated assault, not manslaughter. And the grand jury did not find the requisite criminal intent.

Regardless, it seems you are saying only if it was reckless then could it be manslaughter. But I should think you would have to review the grand jury materials to be so confident in saying whether it was reckless or not.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not admitted in Texas, so no, I didn't know that statute off the top of my head; I had to look it up. But I knew the outline of the issue; the problem is that you're conflating the question of whether it's reasonable to use force in self-defense with the question of how one uses that force. But those are analytically different.

Here's NJ's similar law, where I do practice and hence I was aware:

c. When the actor is justified under sections 2C:3-3 to 2C:3-8 in using force upon or toward the person of another but he recklessly or negligently injures or creates a risk of injury to innocent persons, the justification afforded by those sections is unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness or negligence towards innocent persons.

(Note that NJ allows prosecution for mere negligence towards an innocent third party, while Texas requires recklessness.)

To be fair, from a quick review, there are apparently a few states that might follow the transferred intent rule you proffer: that if you're acting in justified self-defense, too bad for people around you. But that is decidedly the minority view, and I'm not even clear that even those states would extend that to recklessness; the caselaw in those states all talk about "accidentally" injuring a bystander, rather than recklessly doing so. (It's possible — the cases are somewhat ambiguous — that they do the same analysis you did, rolling the recklessness of how one exercises force into the reasonableness of whether to use force inquiry. But that's not the norm, and it's not logically right.)

[shawn_dude]

So... if I'm a #GoodGuyWithAGun (tm) and I have no training in using my semi-automatic pistol and I return fire and kill a bunch of bystanders, I have zero legal liability for those deaths? I can just pop off 10 rounds like some TV crime drama and feel confident that even if I miss my target entirely, all the damage I do will accrue to that person legally?

Really?! That doesn't pass the sniff test.

[M L]

No. To be justified self-defense, you must have used force that was reasonable, proportional and no more than necessary.

[Michael P]

That's because you don't understand what qualifies as justifiable self-defense. Look it up for whatever state(s) you care about -- it varies by jurisdiction.

A typical basic firearm training course will cover such topics.

[shawn_dude]

Why would I take a basic firearms course? It's not required. There's fierce resistance to requiring registration, background checks, red flag laws, and safety courses by the 2nd Amendment crowd. And as a red-blooded GoodGuy(tm), I'm returning fire so equal force, right? So it's reasonable and proportional. And 10 rounds is necessary because I couldn't hit a barn door from 5 paces at noon with the sun behind my back*. Some of those rounds might have hit expensive equipment, people, shop windows... pretty much anything. But I'm sincere in my goals and trying to hit the target as best I can because I'm a GoodGuy(tm).

*This is hypothetical. My actual skill is somewhat better, as a veteran, I've had training. But the new concealed carry rights don't require training so it shouldn't be assumed.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Really?! That doesn't pass the sniff test.

That's what happens when your head is lodged so far up your own ass.

[Michael P]

You don't have to take a basic firearms course to learn what constitutes justifiable self-defense, but it's one good source for that information.

It's too bad that your training was so heavy on jumping to conclusions and so short on sanity checking yourself.

[shawn_dude]

There are lots of places one could learn a whole bunch of stuff about handling weapons safely. If only there was some way to ensure people learned some of that... something you might do regularly, maybe even carry proof of it in your wallet. If only we had some system for that kind of thing...

Oh well. Concealed carry without training, for any adult in any mental capacity, is a Constitutional right. So if we cannot ensure GoodGuys(tm) are able to handle these weapons we've let them carry nearly anywhere they want, maybe we can at least hold them responsible for any damage they cause?

[John F. Carr]

If he thought he was being shot at, I can understand shooting back. Texas allows people to chase down criminals in cases where most states do not. If I were robbed in Massachusetts I could use deadly force only to stop the crime as it happened. Deadly force in pursuit or arrest is restricted to law enforcement.

Maybe he didn't really think he was being shot at. You need a cooperating witness to say there were no gunshots before his.

I haven't seen a drawing of the scene to decide how reckless his shot was. Remember the officer in California who shot a girl through a wall? He was less culpable than one who shoots into a crowd hoping to hit an individual.

[dwb68]

Look at the surveillance video.

[EscherEnigma]

Ah, it's the "cop defense". "I was scared, so I'm not responsible for anyone that I killed."

[shawn_dude]

If #GoodGuysWithAGun are liable for any harm, death, or damage they cause, it would violate the Second Amendment...somehow. Right?!

[apedad]

What’s the difference between Ukrainians and Republicans?

Ukrainians defend their “Capitol.”

[Commenter_XY]

apedad....do you eat quinoa? Do you have a pressure cooker (Instant Pot)?

If so, I found the absolute BEST way to make quinoa. When I say foolproof, I mean. You cannot F this up, unless you try. I was not a big quinoa consumer, but I cut out rice, and needed a substitute. Quinoa is it.

https://www.pressurecookrecipes.com/instant-pot-quinoa/

If you have not really tried quinoa, try this. Absolutely toast the quinoa....a true must. Enjoy.

[apedad]

Sorry, not a quinoa kinda guy and don't have a pressure cooker either.

I do a lot of cooking with cast iron skillets.

[Frank Drackman]

in a kitchen with lead paint apparently

[bernard11]

If you are looking for enjoyable grains try bulgur wheat.

You don't need an instant pot. Just saute it a bit in a pan, then let it simmer in hot liquid - I use chicken stock but water is OK - for about 15 minutes or so, until tender. Nice nutty flavor and you can throw whatever you want - onions, garlic, mushrooms, etc. in.

On the food front, I have recently started to bake bread and am still very much a novice. Any tips or book recommendations? I'm particularly interested in getting a good caraway rye, because this is hard to find, and I love it.

[Brett Bellmore]

You might want to get a proofing box. One of the keys to baking a good loaf is consistent rising conditions. I usually raise mine in the oven, but the problem with that is that most oven "warm" settings are hot enough to kill yeast. I have to set it to warm for just a few minutes, then turn it off and rely on the oven light to maintain the temperature long enough. It's kind of tricky.

In a pinch, a cooler with jug of hot water will do the trick.

[susancol]

For even (and not too hot) oven rising of your bread dough, I boil a kettle of water and then put it in the oven for 10-15 minutes. That warms up the oven and the kettle (or otherwise empty bread pan or pot) can usually be put on a different shelf so it's not a big temperature gradient.

[Jmaie]

From Ukrainians vs. Republicans to grains seems quite the non-sequitur, but anyways...

Hurrying bread is understandable but cool-to-cold proofing definitely improves the final result. I typically make sourdough and it's two full days start to finish.

Read an article on improving over spring, tried it and it worked. Normally the process is to preheat the oven and dutch oven, add the dough, cover for 20 minutes to trap steam, remove the cover for browning. New idea, once the dough is in the oven, turn the oven off until you're ready to uncover. Restart the oven and complete the bake. Idea is (I think) that the hot oven sets the crust but lower initial temp keeps the yeast alive longer. Not sure if that's why, but the results were noticable.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Agree on the rye. Very hard to find good rye.

In general for bread baking, try dividing the flour and yeast recipe in two. One part takes the minority of the flour, and a still-smaller fraction of yeast. Mix those with water, and let that ferment in the refrigerator overnight. The next day add the pre-fermented part back into the balance of ingredients to complete the recipe as usual.

For more specific instructions and quantities, Google, "Making a poolish."

[Commenter_XY]

Hey bernard11, if you find a great recipe for homemade rye bread, please please please share that link. I have never had success with rye bread.

[Ben_]

Did they figure out how to make a good beer out of quinoa yet?

[Commenter_XY]

Well, I don't know, TBH. Quinoa is a seed, not grain. I like quinoa because of the texture, high protein content, and lower carb content. I had never really had it since I was in South America some 25 years ago. On a lark, I tried the organic Costco Kirkland brand. I was hooked.

I try to keep carbs lower as a dietary choice.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Quinoa is a seed, not grain.

While factually true, I suspect your wording might prove confusing for some. Grains are also seeds. The difference is that they're the seeds of grasses, and quinoa is the seed from a plant that is not a grass.

[Commenter_XY]

I stand clarified. 🙂

[apedad]

States Where the Most Guns are Stolen

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/07/14/states-where-the-most-guns-are-stolen/2/

Quelle surprise.

The states where the most guns are stolen PER CAPITA are mouth breather states.

And the states that have the most violent crime?

Yup, those same mouth breather states.

You know what; go ahead and kill yourselves (COVID rates are highest in mouth breather states too).

Mouth breather logic: We make poor policy choices and get bad results but lets blame liberals, media, immigrants, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

Filling in for the Rev.?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why do you guys get so cranky whenever someone points out that downscale, uneducated, bigoted, parasitic Republican states are downscale, uneducated, parasitic, and bigoted?

[Frank Drackman]

same reason you get cranky when we bring up your rape convictions

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh has censored me for, among other precipitates,

(1) using terms such as "sl_ck-j_w" (still banned) to described conservatives

and

(2) making fun of conservatives (the banishment with prejudice of Artie Ray),

claiming he did so to enforce civility standards.

Let us observe how Prof. Volokh conducts himself with respect to an ideological ally who falsely and repeatedly accuses me of being convicted of a disgusting felony.

Does the proprietor genuinely wish to operate this blog in a manner that prevents me from using the term "sl_ck-j_w" while enabling his fellow conservatives to (1) accuse liberals of rape convictions and (2) Call for liberals to be placed face-down in landfills, sent to Zyklon showers, raped, shot in the face as they answer doorknocks, gassed, etc.?

The evidence so far indicates the answer to that question, for the proprietor of this blog, is yes.

[Life of Brian]

using terms such as "sl_ck-j_w" (still banned)

Slack-jaw
Slack-jaw
Slack-jaw
Wow, lookie -- still here.

You're simply delusional, Artie.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

As I indicated, and the record establishes, Prof. Volokh has censored that term when used by a non-conservative to describe conservatives.

You are a conservative. You are not using that term to describe conservatives. In that context, the record indicates you likely are safe. He might censor you to avoid the blatant hypocrisy, but I sense he will not.

[Life of Brian]

And I'm supposed to be the superstitious one? L to the OL, my fine feathered friend.

[MoreCurious]

Uneducated, illiterate, cruel, inarticulate, delusional bullies like Frank unnerve most people, presumably even Professor Volokh.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not expect to learn that this chucklehead's repetitive accusations that I am a convicted rapist will bother, let alone unnerve, Prof. Volokh.

[Noscitur a sociis]

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 10,325 firearms were either lost or stolen from licensed dealers and gunmakers in 2021. Notably, these figures do not include the estimated 380,000 firearms stolen from private citizens, as federal law does not require individuals to report stolen guns.

Other than the part where you didn't understand what the article claimed to have found, great comment!

[Mr. Bumble]

" Notably, these figures do not include the estimated 380,000 firearms stolen from private citizens, as federal law does not require individuals to report stolen guns. "

So where does the estimate come from? I would think a legal gun owner would report a stole weapon to protect themselves if it were to be used in a crime.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Mouth breather”. You come off on this message board as a mouth breather. I guess it takes one to know one.

Goodbye.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Would you be happier if he used "sl_ck-j_w?"

He could not use that term.

Prof. Volokh has expressly banned the use of that term to describe conservatives at his blog. Because he is what right-wingers consider a free speech champion, which includes partisan, hypocritical, viewpoint-driven censorship.

[Frank Drackman]

So Jerry, how's Penn State's D-fense looking this year.??
Umm, OK, I get that they're all goodlooking guys and everything, I mean Football ability??

Frank

[Ben_]

Don’t tell Bernard11 leftists say stuff like that.

[Ed Grinberg]

mouth breather states

What a liberal, progressive, tolerant, and inclusive sentiment!
(And then you wonder why we think you're all full of shit...)

[apedad]

"Screw you and your tone policing." - BravoCharlieDelta, July.21.2022 at 7:26 am

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, if you want to say "African American States" just say it, "Mouth Breather" is a medical term and you'll confuse those with (medical) ed-jew-ma-cations. We get it, Afro-Amuricans murder/steal/rob more than other ethnic groups, it's in their nature.

[StellaLink_the dog]

According to one of your fellow travelers, white males commit "much" less crime because they are lacking in virility, have short penises, and perform too well on standardized tests.

[Kazinski]

You are just cherry picking stats.

The "state" with by far the most gun murders per capita (2020) is Washington DC, 16.5 twice as high as the next state "mouth breathing" Louisiana at 7.7. Maryland and Delaware and Michigan are all in the top 10.

Of course its also inconvenient to observe that by far the most likely people to be victims of gun violence are young black males, and its young black males that are killing them. The jurisdictions with the most gun violence have the largest city in their state with a heavily Black population, such as Wilmington Delaware (58% Black), or New Orleans (57%), and can't be correlated with how strict the gun laws are or mouth breather coefficient. And not coincidentally the states with the lowest gun murder rates are the states with the lowest Black urban populations like Hawaii, SD, ND, Idaho, Vermont and Maine.

Its tragic, but trying to blame gun violence on other factors isn't going to help solve the problem.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It looks like the mouth-breather here is you, given that you weren't bright enough to read all the way to the end (which is no doubt a consequence of being stupid enough to rely on click-bait articles...that make you click through a bunch of pages in order to maximize your ad exposure...for your information). Had you done so you would have found the "Methodology" section, stating...

"Only firearms stolen or lost by certain Federal Firearms Licensees – such as gun stores, gun manufacturers, and gun importers – were considered. Firearms stolen from private citizens and not connected to a commercial operation were not considered."

So, the title is click-bait bullshit...and you're were more than stupid enough to fall for it.

[Life of Brian]

Indeed. P.T. Barnum was a genius.

[Mr. Bumble]

On the climate crisis front take a look at this article and especially the meme.
https://www.bookwormroom.com/2022/07/20/lets-talk-about-the-weather-and-the-lies-they-tell-us/

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, link an opinion piece by a blog with the subtitle 'Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.'

Definitely going to be big think pieces and not outrage-bait there! "The ice caps on Mars have been shrinking in sync with ice caps on earth." "without fossil fuel, nothing separates us from the pre-modern era."

It's becoming impossible to deny that the climate is changing, so the takes from the right are going to only get stupider going forwards.

[Nige]

'"The ice caps on Mars have been shrinking in sync with ice caps on earth."'

I see the conservative intellectual decline somehow, against all odds, continues.

[Kazinski]

The takes from the left are so profoundly unscientific they make it difficult to have a rational debate. Nobody denies that the climate is changing, but there also isn't much debate that it is almost always changing.

The current temperature is lower than its been over 90% of the last 10,000 years (according that to Greenland GISP2 ice core data).

Sea level is always changing too, Haque and Hoyanagi, 2021 show Bangladesh sea levels 80cm higher than present during Medieval Warm Period:

"This study illustrates the influences of sea-level on the depositional process during the last 1000 years of the southwestern delta, Bangladesh. … During the 850–1300 AD, RSL [relative sea level] was reached up to +80 cm higher than the present level where tidal-influenced bioturbated light yellow to gray mud deposited in the upper delta plain area. RSL was dropped up to −110 cm during 1300–1850 AD."

We are currently in an ice age one of 5 ice ages in the geologic record:
"Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth's history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present)."

But probably the most gobsmackingly unscientific part of the whole debate is the fact when the global temperature record first started being compiled in the last half of the 19th century temperatures were already rising. According to NASA 1850 was the last deep cold period of the Little ice Age (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age), yet that's the benchmark we are using for the ideal temperature because that's when the global temperature starts. Its just nuts to start measuring global temperatures on a 4.5 billion year old planet, in a cold period, during an interglacial, of a longer 2.6 million year ice age, which is 250 million years after the previous ice age, which lasted 100 million years, and then say: THAT was the absolutely perfect global temperature, and any change will be catastrophic.

[Nige]

'Nobody denies that the climate is changing,'

Loads of people deny the climate is changing. Fossil fuel companies paid millions for decades to make sure they did.

'in the last half of the 19th century'

Which coincides with the industrial revolution, funnily enough.

'Its just nuts to start measuring global temperatures'

It's just nuts to ignore the rather well-understood-by-now concept of the greenhouse effect, but here you are.

[bernard11]

Kazinski,

The trouble with all the "millions of years" arguments is that we are not actually concerned with temperatures millions of years ago.

What we are concerned about is the effect of rising temperature on human civilization as it exists today. It doesn't matter if we are in some sort of cool period by geological standards. Our civilization developed during that period. If we are unnaturally heating things up, that's a problem. There were not hundreds of millions (billions?) of people living in coastal areas 100 million years ago.

[Kazinski]

Well if you are claiming that when our civilization developed is the optimum then you would have to compare our current temperatures to the Roman Warming period, or the Medieval Warming period which were just as warm if not warmer than our current temps.

But you're moving the goalposts, I thought the rationale for declaring a climate emergency is that the planet is burning. Total ecological collapse.

I mean really, a civilization far less technologically sophisticated than our own survived successive warming and cooling periods from the Roman Warming, the dark ages, Medieval Warming, Little Ice Age to our modern warming period and the biggest impact is higher crop yields that can support larger populations.

[Mr. Bumble]

"It's becoming impossible to deny that the climate is changing..."

Which "climate" is that because by definition the Earth does not have a climate?

[Nige]

Earth does, by defiition, have a climate, a vast and complex planet-wide system of meterological patterns.

[Mr. Bumble]

You saying so, does not make it so.

climate
klī′mĭt
noun

[1] The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.[2] A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions.[3] A prevailing condition or set of attitudes in human affairs.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
More at Wordnik

[Nige]

The definition scales up, but I see the conservative tendency to argue real-world phenomena at the level of a third-grader trying to fill out an essay word-count is becoming ever more entrenched.

[Commenter_XY]

It sure in hell is hot here in the People's Republic of NJ....gonna be a hot weekend (100+ Sat & Sun). Already 85, and it ain't even 9am yet....with oppressive humidity.

[santamonica811]

Over 120 here in Death Valley today. I had planned on bringing my digital kitchen laser thermometer, to see what the actual temp (ie, reflected off the pavement) was, but totally forgot. But I'm guessing it's about 140, give or take a few degrees.

Tomorrow it's supposed to be several degrees hotter. Only people I've seen here, in 6 hours, are one other American photographer and 6 Germans (who are famous for seeking out Death Valley in the middle of summers).

[Commenter_XY]

Damn...that is hot as hell. But it is a dry heat, right? 🙂

[santamonica811]

XY,
It was a dry heat. I'm much happier in 110+ temps with dry heat than when I'm in southeast Asia, when there's 90+ temps and super-high humidity. Where you're completely soaked with sweat after 45 seconds outside. I'm a happy camper today, in the good ole dry-heat USA 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, the humidity here in the People's Republic of NJ is positively oppressive. You walk outside, and you say, "Ugh"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The argument is over the cause and a solution if one was needed.

Earth's climate has always changed. Not many people argue that the Earth's climate has never changed and isn't changing.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird coincidence all the people who looked at C02 and said the global climate would get hotter, and then it did.

I guess they were right about what would happen, but wrong about the cause, and this is just one of those changes without a cause.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol you think these Warmmongers have a track record of successfully predicting the future?

lol oh my lands. You live in a different reality.

What's even funnier is that you genuinely believe that a system with millions and millions of inputs can be modeled with such precision that they can predict one variable change with incredible precision decades and decades into the future.

But somehow, this specific system with millions and millions of inputs is the only thing human beings can predict the future of.

[Nige]

They predicted the planet would heat up as a result of CO2 emissions, creating ever more chaotic and unpredictable weather systems, and it has. So there's that.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you assume the premise, then sure!

[Nige]

Stop doing that, then!

[Sarcastr0]

They said it'd get warmer. The right said no, and some even said it could get colder.
They were right; y'all were wrong. Maybe they were right for the wrong reasons, but you need to put in some work on that and increasingly the right seems to prefer just yelling Communism or Inflation about it.

you genuinely believe that a system with millions and millions of inputs can be modeled with such precision that they can predict one variable change with incredible precision decades and decades into the future.
Congrats on disproving thermodynamics.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Man there's alot of working getting done in your first few sentences.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Maybe. The planet warmed and cooled long before us awful humans and our carbon footprints existed.

Nothing wrong with hedging your bets by reducing carbon emissions as much as you reasonably can.

Plenty wrong with doing it the stupid German/Biden panic way.

Like I told Nige the wacko - you're getting what you wanted. No complaining about the pain it's caused.

[Sarcastr0]

A lot of why the planet warmed and cooled had to do with what was happening in the atmosphere.
Now people who look at what is happening in the atmosphere say they think they know what the problem is.

You're arguing 'maybe not' and then 'what they suggest is really hard, and any politicians who agree with them are bad and wrong.'

It's not a very coherent argument.

[bevis the lumberjack]

"They think they know what the problem is"

Well if they think they know, let's fuck everything up in a politically induced panic to fix something that some people believe might be the problem.

Oh yeah, that's the coherent side.

There are smart climate scientists without an ax to grind that don't agree with the alarmists. You never get to hear them because your wonderful media won't allow it. Have to go find them, but that's hard. Better to just accept the orthodoxy because it's your team.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The one thing we know for sure is that giving the people in government, and global bureaucrats trillions of dollars and microscopic control over nearly everything in our lives will solve climate change.

Historically speaking, we know that always works.

[Nige]

Historically speaking, we have given the control to obscenely wealthy fossil fuel companies and their pet politicians and paid scientists and lying publicity campaigns against the interests of pretty much everyone else on the planet, and here we are.

[Michael Ejercito]

Would we be better off if the whole planet was freezing cold all year long?

[Sarcastr0]

Those are the only 2 choices, I guess!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I guess the solution will be to give those same politicians even more wealth and more control, and this time they'll get it right!

[Nige]

Well the solution definitely isn't to leave the fossil fuel guys in charge!

[Sarcastr0]

Now we're talking. If you admit there is a problem, and your issue is one of policy with respect to solutions, then we can actually have a dialogue.

I do like the idea of a carbon tax - aligns externalities, incentivizes innovation. But also I also think a carbon tax at the full level of estimated environmental cost is nuts.

And that tax should go to R&D for geoengineering and resiliency studies.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I've always been this way. Anybody contesting that we're in a warming phase is in denial.

The issue is what is contributing (it's almost certainly more than one thing) and what we should do.

What we've been doing has been fine. The problem is that politics has intruded and now we're into ridiculous "zero carbon by 2050" bs.

We'll never be zero carbon. Probably not anyway - never is a word God invented to keep us humble. The optimal solution involves natural gas, nuclear, and renewables in some mix. The problem now is Biden and the democrats are dismissing the first two, which happen to be the inputs that are generally reliable. That's terminally stupid and we've got a case study in Germany that demonstrates that it is. But nobody cares because politics.

[Nige]

We're not in a 'warming phase.' Going by those phases, we should, in fact be in a 'cooling phase.'

The problem now is fossil fuel companies and their shills, and thier friends in emissions-heavy agricultural sectors, are working to oppose, delay or sabotage every single action that might help with the problem. That's not terminally stupid, that's terminally evil.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is actually making policy based on zero carbon, it's all compromises.

Wanting less natural gas is not the same as wanting none.

Agree on nuclear.

Biden is to my left on this, but I am in no way certain enough of my policy proposals to call his 'terminally stupid.'

[Michael P]

Nige, we are still in an ice age. The Earth is cooler now than its average -- it is relatively uncommon for either pole to have an ice cap. We are also cooler than the other recent interglacial periods: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

[Nige]

Yes, we had he panet at a lovely temperate climate and we decided to roast it.

[bernard11]

The optimal solution involves natural gas, nuclear, and renewables in some mix.

Let's start with a carbon tax and see what happens.

[jb]

I think a refundable carbon tax is maybe a reasonable compromise. There will be natural incentives for R&D as carbon gets more expensive.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Geoengineering. Any downsides possible there?

[Nige]

Many, many downsides, but also potential benefits. It's like planting trees - sounds great unless you put up endless monocrop plantations of alien species that turn into biodiversity dead zones that get ripped out every ten years, resulting in a net release of carbon and massive habitat destruction. Geoengineering could be great right up until some idiot tech billionaire fills the planet with mustrard gas or something.

[Nige]

Yes, now that the pain caused by massive fuel consumption is even more undeniable it's tiime to shift the blame onto the people who warned you about it all along.

[Michael Ejercito]

Would we be better off if the whole planet was freezing cold all year long?

[Nige]

Is that an option?

[SRG]

Oh, sometimes they claim that "it's natural" as though "natural" were a cause, rather than a class of causes.

[Don Nico]

Of course, the mean global temperature would rise as the CO2 forcing increases. The scientific argument is "about how much."

[Sarcastr0]

The debate isn't scientific, it's driven by fools like Bob and the 'Mars is warming' blog.

[Don Nico]

Yes, there is that stupid debate, but there is a also real scientific debate between the Manns and Lindzens of the world.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Michael Mann, lol good grief

[Kazinski]

But it was getting hotter before CO2 started rising.

The BBC on Ice Fairs on the Thames:
"between 1309 and 1814, the Thames froze at least 23 times and on five of these occasions -1683-4, 1716, 1739-40, 1789 and 1814 - the ice was thick enough to hold a fair."

The only time the Thames has frozen over in the last 200 years is 1963 when it used to freeze over average of about once every 20 years. Clear evidence a warming climate before CO2 started rising.

That's some great scientific method, Scientist sees temperatures rising for at least the last 200 years, then sees CO2 rising for the last 80 or so years and predicts the temperature will keep rising because CO2 is going up.

Is that how science is done? No need to answer that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"becoming impossible to deny that the climate is changing"

Oh my, its hot in summer.

Around here, the last 100 degree day [multiple days] was in 1988 and the hottest summer in Ohio history was 1934. Its been mild the last several summers, less than 6 scattered 90 days this summer and humidity has been below normal.

Above normal temperatures one year in part of the world is not proof that the "climate is changing", except to hysterics.

[Frank Drackman]

Especially trying to compare the last 50 years to entire 5,000 year history of Earth

[Kazinski]

Hate to break it to you Frank, but the geologic history of the earth is longer than 5000 years.

Even Bishop Usher thought it was at least 6000.

[Nige]

I miss the days when conservatives at least pretended to have intellectual honesty and you could turn to them for solutions to problems instead of blathering and denial.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wondering if there will be any obstruction or accessory charges for the Uvalde cops who interfered with the cop who tried to go in and save his wife's life.

[Mr. Bumble]

I suspect one or two people will be made scapegoats and then this will disappear from the news.

[John F. Carr]

Was that outrageous enough to trigger the state-created danger doctrine? The government is not liable for failure to prevent harm by third parties. The government is liable for making the situation worse.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Nah, there won't be.

Side note - turns out the cop that was widely excoriated for being on his phone was that guy. Communicating with his dying wife. Another lesson in jumping on the social media train without real information.

[Brett Bellmore]

His being on the phone was understandable under the circumstances, given that he was otherwise just standing there doing nothing while children were being murdered.

It's that latter part that's the real outrage, you understand. In theory he should have been too busy saving some lives to have been using his phone.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He was trying to save lives, including that of his dying wife who he was communicating with on his phone. I imagine she was describing the situation to him. He was trying to save lives to the point that they took his gun away and escorted him out.

You might try directing your outrage at a different target. Someone that deserves it. This guy is a victim.

[David Nieporent]

I'm pretty sure that it was reported that he was checking to see if she had tried to contact him, not that he was communicating with her at the time.

Though I'm not really sure why "Too cowardly to save his own wife" is a better look than "Too cowardly to save children."

But what also attracted attention was the Punisher lock screen on his phone. It's the mindset that reflects.

[Nige]

If his wife was dying what the hell was he doing there, standing impotently at the sidelines of a massacre? There were nearly four hundred other LEOs on site, standing around impotently, he could have been spared.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Disappointing that some blue-state officials are bemoaning the influx of immigrants to their states instead of reminding people the immigrants are our strength.

[Mr. Bumble]

I understand DavidBehar is planning on dropping off a group in Ilya Somin's neighborhood.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy crap Democrats are not a monolith! Whatta own!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They aren't opposed to the hordes of illegals invading our border, they're only opposed to them feeling an impact from it.

Pay attention.

[Sarcastr0]

Mixing up national policy and local politics, I see.

Pay attention.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think that's how things should work, that you should support national policies that only affect other people?

lol wtf I mean I get it, this sort of hypocrisy is part and parcel with being an evil Democrat, but come on don't say it out loud.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't assume that local politicians have a specific position on national policies they don't need to weigh in on.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think national immigration policy affects any districts governed by local politicians?

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ Mixing up national policy and local politics, I see.”

Lol. “As a national matter, I support immigration to the US. But as mayor of NY, I don’t want the immigrants to live here.”

[dwb68]

Maryland is shall issue update: handgun permits are currently being issued in 30 days. We will see whether that lasts, there is a huge backlog. The bottleneck will now be training. Classes are booked through October, although you can get on a wait list for Sept.

I expect to have mine early August.

[apedad]

Buttigieg spars with Republicans over electric vehicle prices

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) told Buttigieg that drivers in his district are “paying about 80% more for gasoline” than they were before President Joe Biden’s inauguration, when fuel prices stood at just $2.39 per gallon, according to AAA.

“I think it's fair to say that even you have implied that [consumers] should buy an electric vehicle and absolve themselves” of that cost, Perry told Buttigieg. “Just looking at Kelley Blue Book, the price of an EV is about $55,000,” he added.

Buttigieg responded: “First of all, I want to be clear, nobody I know, certainly not me, thinks that all, or even most Americans, can easily afford electric vehicles.”

“That said, I'm struck by this $55,000 number that keeps going around,” Buttigieg said.

“I knew this might come up, so I just pulled a few of the latest prices: A Chevy Bolt, so an American-made, 2022 EV, is $26,595,” he told Perry.

“If you want a pickup truck, like a Chevy Silverado EV or Ford F-150 Lightning, the starting prices of those are $39,930 [and] $39,974, respectively," he said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/buttigieg-spars-over-electric-vehicle-prices

Just like there are very few vehicle models still manufactured with manual shifting, in about 20 years, there will be very few vehicles made with gas engines – maybe they’ll even go away since refineries and gas stations won’t be able to maintain their heavy-capital infrastructure with such a diminished demand.

And why are people actively fighting this?!?

North Carolina Republicans Push Bill Forcing Towns To Destroy Electric Car Chargers

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/07/14/north-carolina-republicans-push-bill-forcing-towns-to-destroy-electric-car-chargers/

[Mr. Bumble]

According to Car and Driver the starting price is $41,769.
Add $10,000 for extended range. Top of the line, about $93,000.

https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/f-150-lightning

[Don Nico]

If you can afford to wait to get your Ford 150, go for it.

[Michael P]

"The more pain we are all experiencing from the high price of gas, the more benefit there is for those who can access electric vehicle[s]," Buttigieg said.

"If they cannot afford bread, let them eat cake", he should have continued.

[John F. Carr]

Are those vehicles currently available at the starting price? Supply chain disruption may have changed the rules. Desirable brands used to offer practically unavailable low end configurations so they could advertise "buy a Jaguar starting at $30,000" while the dealer did not stock anything with a sticker price under $35,000.

[jb]

This is true for basically all cars right now, though, no? It's extremely hard to find affordable cars of any stripe, electric or no.

[Michael P]

https://www.truecar.com/best-cars-trucks/cars/cheapest/ lists a bunch of gasoline-powered cars under $23,000 "starting market average", with relatively small gaps between MSRP and market average (and Chevy seems to be trying to unload Malibus...). So that dynamic doesn't seem to be a significant driver for gasoline cars.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, I am going to vent a little.

I wonder if DC politicians actually understand their constituents; Mayor Butthead's comments are a perfect illustration of the degree of disconnection between the governed, and those who govern. It really pisses me off...and it is not just Mayor Butthead, either. It is truly a bipartisan thing = extreme disconnection. You think Ralph Norman (R-SC) has a clue about how his constituents actually live in their daily lives?

Median US income is ~70K. The purchase of an EV will require 40%-50% of nominal (not after-tax) annual income. That is simply not fiscally possible for a median wage earner. They're trapped.

We are grinding lower middle class Americans and the poor into dust, with very unwise policy and regulatory choices at the federal level. I have never seen so many homeless and destitute begging on street corners in middle class suburbia than now. I actually want to cry when I see beggars (Mothers with kids) at a local Home Depot parking lot. This is not a unique circumstance. I see it more and more.

This disconnection is dangerous and the fallout very unpredictable.

[David Nieporent]

Median US income is ~70K. The purchase of an EV will require 40%-50% of nominal (not after-tax) annual income. That is simply not fiscally possible for a median wage earner.

I'm not sure why you're making that comparison. My wife and I put down cash last time we bought new cars, but I don't think (especially based on the dealer's reaction!) that this is the standard approach. I'm pretty sure most people finance their car purchases, and spread out the payments over 4 or 5 years.

[Commenter_XY]

David....Here is the math. A median wage earner with ~70K nominal is roughly 6K monthly pretax (I used 6K for ease of calcs). Now take out 20% for taxes, deductions; you have 4800 after-tax.

Average expenses monthly for a median wage earner is ~5,100. The median wage earner is already operating at a deficit, before contemplating a car purchase. They simply don't have the cash, David.

Do you see the problem now? They are trapped. So when DC politicos extol the virtues of EVs, they completely ignore (or worse yet, are unaware of) the reality of middle and lower income Americans.

[David Nieporent]

I mean,

1) People do in fact buy cars all the time, so I think you've got a flaw in your calculations somewhere.

2) If the median wage earner is operating at a $300 deficit each and every month, I think you'd be seeing a lot more evictions and bankruptcy filings, so… again, I think you've got a flaw somewhere.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Can you even get cars now? Aren't EV cars subject to the same chip shortage as other cars?

The other day I was in the lot of the Mercedes dealership that serves the northern half of Houston. 2-3 million people. Their new car inventory across all their models was seven cars. Seven.

Telling people to "hey, just buy and EV" is glib as glib can be. And that's not even bringing up the problem that if everyone took their advice the power generation capacity and the infrastructure doesn't exist to service the additional load.

[bernard11]

Here is an interesting take from Ford's CEO.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Interesting take, but it doesn't anything about now. The hardship is occurring today, and at the rate things are going probably for the next several years.

Pete B. telling people to do something that will alleviate the issue 5 years out is dodging the problem and insulting the people bearing the hardship. Because the only nearer term solution is against his party's philosophy. That makes him a glib ass. It is actually pretty close to "let them eat cake".

[Brett Bellmore]

"1) People do in fact buy cars all the time, so I think you've got a flaw in your calculations somewhere."

Most people buy used cars, not new. New cars have become expensive enough to be regarded as a luxury good.

Thankfully, modern cars are well enough built that your typical used car has more miles left on it than a new car built in the 70's would have. Which, come to think of it, may have something to do with my modern cars have become expensive enough to become luxury goods.

[Don Nico]

David,
Maybe you can use a vehicle with at 230 mile range, but many working class Americans cannot. Moreover the range declines a few % with every passing year. In CA many of those are driving cars older than 10 years and are driving more than 2 hours per day to get to a job. That is the same group that cannot afford to have rooftop solar and fast charging at home. Gas will have to be around for a while.

[Michael P]

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/how-much-should-you-spend-on-a-car gives a few heuristics on the most that a household should spend on a car: 10-15% of monthly take-home income on a loan payment; 22% including fuel, insurance and maintenance; or half of annual salary -- but they say the half-of-salary number is probably 10-20% too high.

And that last bit agrees with Commenter_XY.

[jb]

Seems like you're ignoring the very first thing he said?

“First of all, I want to be clear, nobody I know, certainly not me, thinks that all, or even most Americans, can easily afford electric vehicles."

[shawn_dude]

A great number of conservative constituents are convinced that unions are evil, taxing the rich is evil, and government support programs are evil. GOP politicians pass laws to weaken unions, reduce taxes on the mega-wealthy, and cut social care programs like school lunches. Seems to me like the GOP is giving its voters what they're asking for even if it's not what they need and is resulting in a constant thinning of the middle class.

It could be worse, though. They could also demand an end to corporate welfare which would pull billions of dollars out of the fossil fuel industry and result in even higher gas prices. If someone could convince Tucker Carlson that he should yowl about fossil fuel subsidies, those dollars would disappear overnight.

[Brett Bellmore]

My experiences with unions have led me to believe that unions are a valuable deterrent, but nobody (except the union officers) wins if you actually have to resort to one. Kind of like nuclear weapons in that regard.

Sadly, just as nobody would be deterred by the threat of nuclear weapons if they hadn't been used at least once, some poor souls have to suffer under their heel for the rest of us to plausibly threaten unionizing.

[Nige]

Currently one of the most profitable crimes in the US is wage theft. Billions every year, barely any of it ever scraped back and then only after onerous effort. Maybe all those poor souls have to keep suffering to keep Brett safe from unions.

[shawn_dude]

When unions were more common, the middle class was larger and healthier. They could afford houses, cars, college for the kids, and a few toys for weekends at the lake or sand dunes. We've lost that, along with thousands of solid jobs. Unions are a pain (I deal with them regularly), but they ensure employees get regular raises and have decent medical benefits and leave policies.

You'd think organizing a union in a warehouse where management tracks time so tightly that people are forced to pee in water bottles would bring about unions everywhere. But companies are adept and squashing unions and the government has largely given up its will to enforce the weakened laws that still exist. Low wages are great for American billionaires but terrible for Americans in general.

[Bob from Ohio]

"in about 20 years, there will be very few vehicles made with gas engines"

LOL 90% will still be gas. 22,000 of those Chevy Bolts were sold in 2021, 143,062 of the 25th highest gas vehicles was sold. That's not changing in 20 years.

Unless we build a lot of new power plants, there will not be nearly enough electric capacity to charge all those vehicles you imagine.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and that's not count those EVs that burst into flames.

[apedad]

The auto manufacturers have to make a huge capital decision whether to keep making gas powered vehicles or ecars; they can't / won't have parallel assembly lines.

Same with maintenance facilities; they're not going to stock pistons and radiators, and whatever ecars need.

Guess which one they'll go with?

(Hint: It's the one of the future.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Maybe in 100 years, not 20.

[Don Nico]

"they can't / won't have parallel assembly lines"
That is not Toyota's position.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Same with maintenance facilities; they're not going to stock pistons and radiators, and whatever ecars need."

Typically contracts to manufacture auto components involve a long term requirement to produce repair parts, as long as 20 years out after production for new cars has ceased. It's actually normal for a manufacturer to get an order for 5,000 of a part they last manufactured a decade ago, and be contractually obligated to fulfill it.

[Kazinski]

They need to build new factories to build EV's, there is no need to scrap the old ICE factories. And no need to retool them either, I have a 1997 Toyota Tacoma, I'd buy another one just like it if I could, I don't need all the extra crap on the new ones.

[shawn_dude]

Vehicles made isn't the same as vehicles still on the road. A number of countries and US states have passed laws limiting fossil fuel car sales by 2035. So new car sales will almost certainly trend towards electric over the next decade. 90% of all new vehicles sold in 20 years will most certainly not be fossil fuel.

New power plants will be needed, certainly, but home solar with storage will also pick up a great deal of the slack.

[Kazinski]

They can pass all the laws they want, the industry can't build enough EV's to fill new car demand, and the grid won't be able to power them.

Voters will soon realize its easier to get new politicians than it is an entire new economy. That transition is already starting to happen in the Netherlands, Sri Lanka, UK, and Germany.

[Nige]

Weird how everyone keeps complaining that politicians never change anything but act for vested interests to keep things the same then when politicians threaten to change things you go squeeing back to the guys who ever change things but keep things the same for the vested interests that are causing the problems that require change, and who have made sure we didn't start changing years ago when the problems were well known to be coming down the track.

[shawn_dude]

Meanwhile, in reality, Ford just announced battery supply chain agreements that will allow it to start building 600K BEV's per year starting in 2023 with that volume growing every year after.

I bet voters were equally upset about losing the horse-and-buggy economy.

[Frank Drackman]

Can't wait to see Sleepy/Cancerous Joe's Windmill powered 747...

[Kazinski]

They plain old don't have the mining capacity to replace internal combustion engines with EV's, from Mining.com:

"Based on an EV market share of less than 32% in 2030, forecast metal requirements are roughly 4.1m tonnes of additional copper (18% of 2016 supply). The move away from gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles would need 56% more nickel production or 1.1m tonnes compared to 2016 and 314,000 tonnes of cobalt, a fourfold increase from 2016 supply."

The copper is probably doable, nickel unlikely, and Cobalt is almost certainly impossible, unless of course the supply of child miners also increases fourfold (just kidding, it really will be impossible).

[Nige]

Don't suppose there's anything to be said for massive investment in public transport, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure? Maybe spare a trillion off whatever failed fighter jet the military industrial complex are snorfing on?

[apedad]

'It's the murder of our country!' Mike Lindell says 'billion' will watch his election fraud 'summit'

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell promised this week that at least a billion people would watch his upcoming summit on election fraud.

Lindell first announced last month that he would hold "The Moment of Truth Summit" on Aug. 20-21 in Springfield, Missouri.

https://www.rawstory.com/mike-lindell-truth-summit/

Sure Mikey. Sure.

[Krayt]

Meanwhile another billionaire who was the president, could have launched real investigations if he had real evidence, but instead whined, almost if he had none.

[Michael Ejercito]

Lack of real evidence did not stop Congress and the Justice Deoartmemt from investigating how the Russians "stole" the 2016 election.

[Nige]

This would be more convincing if you guys hadn't shown a distinct lack of conprehension as to what constitutes evidence.

[Ben_]

Take that, pillow villain !!!!

You’ve made the world safe for people who are afraid of pillow salesmen! Kudos!

[Doug Huffman]

The median has moved on from the Greenwood Park Mall shooting and hero Elisjsha Dicken. He is white, young, male, apparently un-marked.

Move along now. Nothing to see here. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and THE TRUTH.

[Doug Huffman]

Darn spiel checker, but it may be cleverer than I.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it may be cleverer than I."

A tree stump is so I guess a spell checker also would be.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Increasingly, it's clear that Democrats have abandoned the working class, almost entirely.

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-have-forgotten-working-class-it-will-cost-them-november-opinion-1719880

There was a recent conversation about paying workers more here, workers in the middle class, if you needed to find more good people to hire. To my surprise, multiple liberals essentially argued against it. That it wasn't feasible or reasonable for one reason or another to actually pay people more if you needed to hire more.

[John F. Carr]

Bill Maher had a segment about Democrats abandoning the mainstream for the fringe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdJvEGokuAk

[shawn_dude]

This fringe is progressive and massively in favor of strengthening union rules, minimum wage, raising taxes on the wealthy, and increased spending on social safety net programs that benefit the working class. Remember the whole $15 minimum wage thing?

Abandoning the working class for the left-wing "fringe" which is gung-ho on programs primarily aimed at helping working class Americans is a strange accusation to make.

[Kazinski]

Republicans are all for paying workers more, just not artificially.

Workers get paid more when productivity goes up, that benefits everyone. Just passing a law saying workers get paid more gets marginal workers laid off, costs business owners profits, and costs consumers higher prices, which is also known as inflation.

Real household income went up much faster under Trump than Obama, and a large part of that was increasd productivity, not passing a law that doesn't create any real wealth.

[bernard11]

And what exactly did Trump have to do with any of that?

Anyway, this sort of thing doesn't tell us much.

Real household income rose about 1.4% a year during Trump's term, and about 2.5% a year in Obama's second term.

Obama's first term showed a 1.7% decline, but of course he was dealing with the recession Bush (-1.1% over eight years) left behind. He could possibly have done better by getting a larger stimulus, if Republicans had let him, but that's pretty doubtful.

Cherry-picked? Yeah. Somewhat, but it's as valid as claiming that Trump (or Obama) was somehow in his office turning dials and adjusting levers to control the economy.

[Kazinski]

The corporate tax cut, Bernard.

Lowering the tax rate from 35% to 21% was responsible for a lot of the productivity growth, and make no mistake increasing productivity is the only way to have sustainable real wage growth. It's readily apparent where the productivity curve changed in the Trump administration:

https://www.statista.com/chart/20756/us-productivity-hits-nine-year-high/

[bernard11]

The corporate tax cut mostly went to stock buybacks.

It did not stimulate corporate investment, which is one way to increase productivity.

[Kazinski]

Look at the productivity growth chart and tell me it didn't up tick during the Trump administration.

I'm not a fan of stock buybacks, I prefer dividend payouts, but when companies do stock buybacks the cash goes to investors, that mostly reinvest.

[Sarcastr0]

Workers get paid more when productivity goes up,

This is not at all proven to be how it actually works.

Minimum wage laws being passed in a state has generally not been correlated with a loss of employment.

I'm not denying the causal tendency, but macroeconomics is complicated and oftentimes that pressure is offset by other stuff going on, or sticky labor numbers, or what-have-you.

[Ben_]

I can’t believe you’re trying to pretend that higher productivity doesn’t lead to higher pay….

[Kazinski]

That's the one thing virtually all economists agree on, from Marxists to monetarists, that higher productivity leads to higher standards of living.

However Sarcastro knows better, and thinks it's unproven that raising output per unit of work leads to higher consumption.

[Nige]

'Workers get paid more when productivity goes up'

Hahaha Jesus Christ no they fucking don't.

[Ben_]

None of that stuff actually helps the working class. Maybe a tiny bit at the margins, but mostly no.

Meanwhile the fringe also supports policies that are very obviously making life worse for the working class. Like everything the climate change religion supports.

Turns out that working people don’t value theories when they’re struggling.

[jb]

LOL. Remind me of the Republican politicians talking about paying workers more? There's vastly more support for worker-friendly policies from Democrats than Republicans. Having one Republican candidate assert otherwise isn't actually very interesting.

[bernard11]

multiple liberals essentially argued against it. That it wasn't feasible or reasonable for one reason or another to actually pay people more if you needed to hire more.

Oh bullshit. If you're too stupid to understand something at least be sensible enough not to misrepresent the point.

[apedad]

Presidential Clemency Recipients

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-recipients

There's also lists of Clemency Denials on the left side.

[Don Nico]

Incidentally 740 grams of crack is more than 1.5 pounds. Sounds different in English units

[Frank Drackman]

Or Hunter Biden's regular "party pack" order

[Sarcastr0]

"The Left are objectively evil. What they do and want to do to children is universally repugnant.

Satan is real and the Democrats are his subhuman minions."

" Your side favors castration and double mastectomies of healthy children. That's evil."

there's not enough people who support wiping the leftist vermin off the earth yet. Until you have a critical mass, you're just a terrorist.

Hey BravoCharlieDelta, TwelveInchPianist, and Nisiiko, could we not?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Screw you and your tone policing.

Democrats are vile filth.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Screw you and your tone policing."

Especially since Sarcastro's "tone" often leaves much to be desired, even in this very thread.

[Nige]

He somehow manages to refrain from calling anyone vile filth, subhuman or vermin, so I think your efforts at equivalence are ridiculously strained.

[Sarcastr0]

When I call you evil and say your killing would make the world a better place call me,

It’s not tone at some point, it’s endorsing violence.

Protected speech but also bad shit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have to say that on occasion the left does rise to the level of objective evil. Keep in mind she's making these statements at a time pro-abortion groups are committing terrorist attacks on pregnancy centers.

[David Nieporent]

Literally the only time Brett didn't think an attack was a false flag.

[Ed Grinberg]

You think it's conservatives firebombing pregnancy centers?!

[David Nieporent]

No; I just found it amusing that this was the first time, ever, that Brett took a story at face value. I wasn't commenting on the underlying story.

[Sarcastr0]

I, also, don't like pregnancy crisis centers. They exist largely to deceive.

Your connecting a politician saying thing is bad with a really small violent lefty group is...quite a stretch.

Next time Rubio comes out against immigration, do I get to connect him to white supremacists?

[Nige]

Are theose the sorts of pregnancy crisis centres that attracted pregnant women through false advertising and then effectively imprisoned them? Shut them down.

[Michael Ejercito]

Can you prove one such center exists?

[EscherEnigma]

Treat others as you would have them treat you.

Which is to say, pro-lifers have spent decades insisting it's not fair to hold what pro-life terrorists do to abortion doctors and Planned Parenthood clinics. So I will treat you as you have treated me: by not giving a damn.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Can we not mutilate children? I hope so. But your side seems to think it's very important.

[Nige]

You don't have to do anything except get your noses out of other people's medical and health treatments and stop stanic-panicking them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you're against conversion therapy bans, then?

[Nige]

Entirely pro conversion therapy bans because conversion therapy is abusive, dangerous quack bullshit.

[Michael P]

If not for double standards, you wouldn't appear to have any standards.

[Nige]

If you think supporting therapies and treatments that work and benefit people while opposing treatments that are horrible and useless and harmful is a double standard then you have no standards are all and don't even understand what standards are for.

[Michael P]

We get it, you're convinced that you know which "medical and health treatments" are actually "abusive, dangerous quack bullshit", and that people who disagree with you don't.

[Nige]

Other way around. Some people who disagree with me enthusiastically support abusive and dangerous quack bullshit and rabidly oppose beneficial medical and health treatements, or at least try to pretend that they are somehow equivalent. That's on them.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How do they know that puberty blockers and gender-confused affirmation are beneficial and healthy?

[Nige]

Because the vast majority of people who have undergone those treatments say so.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think there's a statistically significant amount of adults who had puberty blockers and gender affirmation as children? And these long term studies of outcomes have been conducted?

How is that possible when this phenomenon is so recent?

[Nige]

If the vast majority of the people who have undergone or are undergoing these treatments report them as beneficial, that's as statistcially significant as it gets.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey a bunch of people say this unregulated nutritional supplement to clear up your skin made them unable to stop shitting themselves!

Well, who is the government to question the unregulated experts who made this product??

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Because the vast majority of people who have undergone those treatments say so."

Lol. How could you possibly know what the vast majority of people who undergo these treatments say?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The people in government are so good at regulating experts! Just look around at how healthy we are, how happy we are, and how great our environment is!

PRAISE GOVERNMENT! ALL HAIL THE FEDERALS, BLESSED BE WASHINGTON D.C.

Forever and ever, In Fauci's name, Amen.

[Sarcastr0]

We are absolutely healthier than ever before, and with a cleaner environment than we have had in the past 50 years.

[Michael P]

We are absolutely healthier than ever before, and with a cleaner environment than we have had in the past 50 years.

You write as if we haven't just come out of the world's largest pandemic in a century, with another pandemic breaking out -- with those experts refusing to call it a pandemic because otherwise they might look bad -- and as if life expectancies have not just dropped across the globe.

[Sarcastr0]

The timeline of a few years when asking about longer cycle things like health and the environment seems mischosen.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you hear that guys, we're the healthiest we've ever been!

Even though 6 in 10 adults have a chronic disease, 4 of which have two or more!

We have less cancer and obesity then ever before!

ALL HAIL THE FEDERALS!

[Nige]

'How could you possibly know what the vast majority of people who undergo these treatments say?'

You listen to what they say as if they're actual human beings, not treat them as deviant freaks out to seduce the innocent.

[bernard11]

Gee. It's almost as if we didn't have any information from people who have been subjected to those treatments, and no opinions about them from actual trained mental health professionals.

I know. Psychiatrists are quacks and RW loons like Michael P know better.

[Michael Ejercito]

Blocking puberty due to a child's feels is quackery and bullshit.

[Nige]

Contempt for children trying to express what's going on with them is such a horrible slippery slope.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Now do vaccinations.

[Nige]

Vaccinations have saved million of lives, yay vaccinations.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why don't you stay out of people's medical records and health treatments?

[Nige]

I always have.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

... except for vaccines.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And conversion therapy.

[Nige]

Vaccines save lives, conversion therapy traumtses children.

[Sarcastr0]

Can you prove anything like what you claim?

And no, random opinion pieces are not proving

[Ben_]

Mutilating children is pretty monstrous.

It’s pretty amazing that so many people seem to be happy for it to occur.

[Michael Ejercito]

Ans only one side supports this.

[Nige]

It's amazing that the vast majority of people who undergo the treatment are glad they did, but you know better.

[shawn_dude]

Huh. Okay, but where's the complaint from the Right when a child is born with aspects of both sexes and the parents have a surgeon remove one. Based on your comment here, can I assume you'd restrict parents from making that choice and leave the child as a walking example of how sex isn't binary?

Oh, and circumcision. Also mutilation. Ban that?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Do what I did. Except for TwelveInch, who I've never seen take that ridiculous tone, I don't see posts from people like that.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah...I get morbidly curious, but you're probably right.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's important that you have a safe-space and are protected from opinions different than yours.

Good for you.

[Ben_]

Dems are totally cool with that sort of talk when it’s directed at Trump.

Now you don’t like it.

[Ed Grinberg]

You don't get it:
It OK to use eliminationist rhetoric against Bad People!

[Ben_]

I actually do get it.

[Sarcastr0]

Whattaboutism based on ipse dixit.

Not an argument; proves nothing. But like a reflex for you.

[Ben_]

^ Don’t expect anyone to take you any more seriously than this.

[Sarcastr0]

So your argument is bad, but only out of spite for me.

Awesome.

[Ben_]

What argument is bad?

Why should Dems expect to be treated better than they and their comrades treat Trump? When Dems ask, should Dems not expect to hear "where were you …?" questions?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that argument - 'Democrats ::waves hands wildly:: are bad. So my side being bad is good, actually.'

I'm not talking about groups generally, I'm talking about three posters in this thread. Are there at least three shitty leftists out there who should also cut it out? I'm sure.
But they are not here. Quit pretending they are.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yeah Sarcastr0, we should all just turn the other cheek so we can have the moral high-ground (as perceived by the Left) as they destroy our nation, our families, and our children!

[Ben_]

I prefer a single standard

[Sarcastr0]

Whattaboutism is not about a single standard, and you know it.

If anyone comes by saying Conservatives are evil and satanic and should all be eliminated, I'll condemn them as well!

[Nige]

Congratulations, you always find the pretext for taking the moral low ground you were going to take anyway.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why won't the government shutdown homosexual sodomy for two weeks to slow the spread of Monkey Pox?

They shutdown the entire world for two weeks for COVID.

[John F. Carr]

At least mandate gay men wear condoms. No condom, one year in jail for violating a public health order. If the government can order me to wear a mask on my face when a non-household member is present in my house it can order me to wear a mask on the other end.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It just blows my mind how utterly selfish and degenerate this whole gay thing is.

Look at how much society gets hurt because we've somehow elevated the sexual pleasure of homosexual men above all else. The most important thing in the world, we're supposed to believe, is the dignity and sexual gratification of mentally ill homosexuals.

It's disgusting and vile. Billions of dollars wasted each year, countless thousands of hours of scientific effort wasted each year, millions, if not billions of dollars of cost foisted into people's insurance plans for gay party drugs like PrEP.

It's unfathomable.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Not to mention the destruction of society saving institutions and the grooming and predation on the children of normal people.

The Homosexual Agenda and it's enablers are genuinely evil people.

[Sarcastr0]

Heterosexual sex is never selfish or degenerate, and CERTAINLY not for sexual gratification!

And money spent researching a cure for AIDS is not wasted.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You could virtually eradicate AIDS if homosexuals would wear a condom.

The $30B a year in federal tax dollars can be erased with a $0.25 condom.

But, somehow the pleasure from bareback homosexual sex is worth $30B a year in federal taxes, billions in insurance dollars paid by non-homosexuals, and thousands and thousands of research hours that could be spent in other areas.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Superstitious, authoritarian, poorly educated bigots are among my favorite Republicans, Federalist Societeers, conservatives, Volokh Conspiracy contributors, Volokh Conspiracy fans, and culture war casualties.

[Michael Ejercito]

So you deny condoms work?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not.

[Frank Drackman]

Your dad's definitely didn't

[Nige]

Republicans want to outlaw condoms, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, that's some 1980s wrongness.

Check out Africa sometime.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigotry has become the animating force at the Volokh Conspiracy and in the Republican-Federalist-Heritage circles. From race-targeting voter suppression to resurgent and disgusting gay-bashing, and prudish authoritarianism with respect to women (contraception, abortion) to overtly white-centric authoritarianism with respect to immigration.

Carry on, clingers. Do your damnedest. Then, the reckoning.

[Frank Drackman]

Um,, OK, watevah Jerry,
but how are Penn States Nose Guards looking this year?
Umm, no, I don't mean who has the biggest (redacted) more like foe-foe times, BP's, Vertical Jumps.....

Frank "Why are you so interested in the guy with 12 inches??"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So you do believe bareback high-risk homosexual sex is worth the disease cost, the tax burden, the opportunity cost of scientific effort, and the additional insurance burden on normal families?

And you believe it is because it's CURRENT_YEAR?

[Sarcastr0]

I believe research on how to manage and cure AIDS helps people well beyond gay people.

I don't really think too much about regulating sex, gay or no.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think AIDS should be a bigger priority for society than Cancer?

Do you believe a natural heterosexual family should bear the burden of the cost of gay party drugs in their insurance premium?

Do you believe a behavior that is putting society at risk for a Monkey Pox pandemic should be regulated?

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord, you are silly. And obsessed with buttsex.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Pick one of the questions and answer it.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think AIDS should be a bigger priority for society than Cancer?

I don't have the worldwide death stats to answer that question.

Do you believe a natural heterosexual family should bear the burden of the cost of gay party drugs in their insurance premium?
Something tells me what you think is a gay party drug is not actually that.

Do you believe a behavior that is putting society at risk for a Monkey Pox pandemic should be regulated?
You mean like sitting near one another? You a big social distancing fan?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I don't have the worldwide death stats to answer that question.

Cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide with over 10,000,000 deaths. AIDS related deaths are 680,000.

The fact that you don't have enough peripheral knowledge to even reason that cancer is a bigger threat worldwide than AIDS is quite shocking. Even for a Federal.

Something tells me what you think is a gay party drug is not actually that.

PrEP runs $1000/mo and is required coverage for everyone, gay or not. PrEP enables homosexuals to have high-risk unprotected sodomy with lower risk of AIDS. A drug that is designed to enable bareback high-risk sex as opposed to wearing a condom is safely in the "Gay Party Drug" bucket.

You mean like sitting near one another? You a big social distancing fan?

If sitting near one another spreads Monkey Pox, why are male homosexuals the ones primarily infected? Do homosexuals sit next to each differently than normal people?

[Sarcastr0]

AIDS treatment isn't a party drug, you dehumanizing bigot.

In general, you seem to think primarily is the same as exclusively.

Using disease to attack gay people is just awful. You got issues. Probably related to how often you talk about gay sex.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and if Americans thought that you could cure an STD by going out and raping a virgin, or used unprotected anal sex as a birth control technique, we'd probably have a big heterosexual AIDS problem here, too.

As it is, the only reason we have one is promiscuous male homosexuals who get off on risky sex.

[Sarcastr0]

Here's the thing, Brett - AIDS research benefits all humans, not just Americans.

Africans are also humans, believe it or not.

[Nige]

Americans believed AIDS wasn't even real for a while, and then later believed it was an exclusively gay disease and were happy to let gay men die by the thousand, which mirrors the various strange beliefs many of them had and still have about covid and vaccines.

[Krayt]

Aren't condoms and other birth control on the no-constitutional-right chopping block, after gay marriage, then gay sex, but before restoring anti-miscegenation?

I think that's the attack order on rights, after the abortion change.

[jb]

Can you point to the people who are in jail for a year for not wearing a mask? Or even just a single person arrested or cited for not wearing a mask in their own home.

[Ben_]

Because the special people must always be catered to.

Public health authorities would come up with a monkeypox plan if they could figure out how to negatively impact everyone's life to fight monkeypox. Has to be everyone though, it can’t just be the people whose conduct puts them at risk.

[Ed Grinberg]

And BLM protests actually reduce spread of COVID, don't you know!

[Ben_]

Every decision is primarily influenced by social pressure (a. k. a. bullying) on the decision-makers.

The public is not served.

[Sarcastr0]

Covid didn't seem to go up as the result of the Floyd protests; something the anti-vaxxers trumpeted as proof Covid was overblown.

So were the decision makers bullied into a correct decision then?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Didn't "seem" to go up.

In a lot of places they didn't look real hard. Here in Houston in the local media they reported an increase related to Floyd demonstrations and the Floyd funeral, but that never made the national media of course.

It defies logic to assert that the virus changed its highly communicable nature just for the Floyd protests. Obviously it didn't.

And the problem with public health officials during that time was the bias in their advice. Protests against lockdowns? Baaaaaad. Taking your family to the beach? Bad, bad, bad. Floyd protests? Great!! No problem!!

I wonder why people of a certain political side wouldn't listen to public health officials regarding vaccines......

[Ben_]

That's a nice story about Covid cases not going up.

Either lockdowns were "correct" or relaxing lockdowns for protests was "correct". They are opposite policies. No decision-maker who supported both gets any credit for ever being "correct". They showed us that they are just jerks jerking everyone around arbitrarily based on their whims.

[shawn_dude]

Or, you know, they just weighed the risks versus the unknowns and made their best medical decision based on the information available at the time.

No, no,... you're right... it's all a bad faith conspiracy. /s

[Ben_]

Are you saying they did a study and have data to support suspending lockdowns for Floyd protests? Why would you tell such a lie?

They changed their minds whimsically and then changed them back. Whims are not a conspiracy. Why would you tell such a lie about whims being a conspiracy?

[shawn_dude]

You need better straw in your strawman. It's more than a little ragged and near transparent.

[Ben_]

So was there a study? Or were they deciding whimsically?

(No, there was no study. They were just jerking everyone around based on their whims.)

[Sarcastr0]

Covid spikes are hard to hide statewide. And if the spike was small enough to go unnoticed when aggregated across the state, it was quite small.

Not scientific, and who knows the causality, but it's why I started attending outdoor events without much concern in 2021.

[Brett Bellmore]

They literally avoided finding out.

NYC COVID-19 Contact Tracers Not Asking About George Floyd Protest Participation, Despite Fears of New Virus Wave

Can't find what you make a point of not looking for.

[Sarcastr0]

But - and this is important - no such wave actually manifested.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So the Federals were wrong about the lockdowns then.

Got it. But they're right about every other issue.

[Nige]

Or BLM protesters took steps to reduce spread like wearing masks and social distancing.

[Brett Bellmore]

No wave big enough to persuade people who didn't want to admit a connection manifested.

Yeah, waves actually manifested.

[Michael P]

Wrong. Public health officials were prohibited from checking whether such waves manifested. https://news.yahoo.com/blasio-tells-covid-contract-tracers-134316096.html

[apedad]

BCD again focusing on homosexuality.

You go bro!

[Aunt Teefah]

BCD go one day without posting about gay sex challenge (impossible).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's like asking the Volokh Conspiracy to get through a month without publishing a vile racial slur.

[Frank Drackman]

Or you to go 20 minutes without typing "Klinger"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9167431/

"The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. "

lol stupid sheep

[Query]

Can someone do a post on tests for life of mother abortion exceptions? I keep reading about doctors being uncertain where the "line" exists. This is not a completely new problem though. Even New York bans abortions past 25 weeks *except for when the mother risks life or major injury* so there must exist case law around this? What about in comparison to other countries in Europe with bans before 20 weeks?

[John F. Carr]

The law may be obsolete due to advances in hospital care. Between 20 and 25 weeks survival of a premature baby rises from impossible to probable. A doctor would probably deliver a 26 week baby rather than kill it to save the mother. A friend had an emergency delivery, I think around 30 weeks, due to life-threatening complications.

[Brett Bellmore]

"A doctor would probably deliver a 26 week baby rather than kill it to save the mother."

A doctor would. An abortionist, OTOH? Not so much.

[bevis the lumberjack]

This stuff is so complicated and each situation is individual. Sometimes the mother has moved to a point physically that she couldn't survive labor. Or anesthesia for a c-section. Or there's higher risk anyway. There has to be doctor judgement involved.

The right is being awful on this. Can't let a single doctor get away with anything. It's the war on drugs and pain management all over again. And the platform of the Idaho Republican Party is abhorent.

Not a good look for Team Red.

[Ben_]

Are you complaining about anything that actually happened to someone? Or are you complaining about characters in stories?

[Sarcastr0]

the war on drugs and pain management all over again.

This is a pretty good nonpartisan analogy.

[John F. Carr]

I don't think your average abortion specialist can do a 25+ week abortion, especially on somebody sick enough to need one.

[EscherEnigma]

Not after pro-lifers killed Dr. Tiller, no.

[Bob from Ohio]

One guy, not "pro-lifers".

[EscherEnigma]

Call me when I'm not being blamed for hurricanes in Florida, and I'll care.

[shawn_dude]

Further, the newer laws have newer language, some of which is written vaguely in a manner people are interpreting to mean "imminent danger" versus "likely." In one recently published instance, a woman with a dying fetus could not be induced until the fetus' heartbeat stopped and the mother was at serious risk of immediate harm. The doctor knew it was going to happen but had to sit there and wait for it before providing treatment.

Legislators writing vague laws designed to create uncertainty about the enforcement of the law is a feature and not a bug. Women going through agony and being harmed as a result is also a feature as it creates an incentive for women to adhere to conservative moral and religious principles--which is the real goal here.

[apedad]

"Israel Extracting Sperm From Dead Soldiers And Using It To Create Children"

A bizarre trend is taking hold in Israel: the families of fallen soldiers are having their deceased loved ones' sperm harvested, with the hope of that one day the extracted sperm will be used to father a child.

Some countries have outlawed similar procedures, while US regulation varies between states. But as Bloomberg reports, most US frameworks for similar procedures are reserved for widows, not usually the dead men's parents. In Israel, by contrast, it's the parents of these young men that are fighting for their right to have grandchildren, which has some folks raising their eyebrows.

"It is in a child's best interests to be born to living parents and not in a state of planned orphanhood," Gil Siegal, head of the Center for Medical Law, Bioethics, and Health Policy at Israel's Ono Academic College, told Bloomberg. "My heart goes out to bereaved parents, but the discourse around fertility and birth must start with mother-father-child, not grandmother-grandfather-child."

"When you retrieve sperm from a dead man, you are trying to restore something lost under tragic circumstances," he continued. "It's like erecting a living monument."

Bloomberg reports that like related US laws, Hauser's bill takes the dead men's wishes into consideration — all new male military recruits have to stipulate what they'd like to have happen with their sperm in the event that they die in service.

https://futurism.com/neoscope/israel-extracting-sperm-dead-soldiers

Hmmmm...

A child will be knowingly born without the biological father.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Does Biden have it in his power to strike a blow against high gas prices with little more than a trial balloon? What would happen if some Biden insiders started mumbling in public about an emergency executive action under consideration: After some not-distant date all owners of fossil fuel futures contracts will be required to take delivery of whatever fossil fuel commodity they notionally own. Futures contract holders who do not wish to take delivery will have a grace period to sell out to product wholesalers or commodity-using companies before that date.

Discuss?

[PeteRR]

So the solution is to cripple another part of the free market?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The "free market" which has been raking in billions upon billions of dollars in record profits while corporation-induced inflation continues to gut checkbooks?

[Krayt]

We were doing fine before government fumble fingers got into it.

Those who caused the problem in capitalism, because of non-capitalist interventions, now blame capitalism.

Government: "Doctor, I know your patient is open. Please insert this burlap baggie of cow flop."

Surgeon: "I wouldn't do that."

Government: "DO THAT!"

[Patient later dies of infection.]

Politicians: God damned capitalism!

[Krayt]

Those prices are capitalism trying to repair itself from you spewing trillions in cash all over the place, in spite of being warned this would happen.

You were warned at the time.

You were warned at the time.

We are people of science. We love theories that make predictions, that then come true!

[bevis the lumberjack]

He could strike a blow against high gas prices by freeing up the industry to generate supply, but his admin is too deep in the climate panic to do that. Other than that, no.

Great news though, prices have been dropping lately because the market is waking up and remembering what the fed had to do to break inflation last time it was this high. A nasty recession is being priced into everything. I guess you could credit Biden for solving gas prices, because I’m sure none of y’all on the left will blame him if it happens.

[Don Nico]

SL,
That would be a very stupid decision to interfere with the commodity markets. It would certainly be choosing who gains and who loses money

[Stephen Lathrop]

If what you say is true, Nico, then not acting is also a choice about who gains and who loses. My loyalty is to my own interest. I speculate that a different arrangement of the market might save me money. To find out, I would be willing to try an experiment, at the risk of losing money instead. Where do you see stupidity coming into it?

[Don Nico]

" not acting is also a choice about who gains and who loses"
No, that is wrong,
You do not understand how commodity markets work. Zero sum games are just that.

[bernard11]

This seems pointless, not to mention that there is not nearly enough fossil fuel on Earth for all contract holders to take delivery.

[Stephen Lathrop]

bernard11, taking your comment as accurate, do you want to hazard a conjecture on what implications that fact might have for prices, including those paid by those who must receive deliveries?

For instance, owning bulk petroleum has downsides. It costs money to store. It costs money to insure. It costs money to transport. I presume costs like that get reckoned into the price of the commodity, and tend to reduce its value, thus reducing its price. I wonder if the ability to own the commodity purely notionally (which is what you seem to suggest), without overhead expenses, is part of the appeal of futures markets. Could that allow futures traders to bid prices higher than actual wholesalers or bulk users could afford (because they would have to take on expenses the contract-holders avoid)? What if imaginary petroleum you can own without overhead is more valuable than the real thing, but the market is using that higher value to price real and imaginary petroleum alike?

More generally, if as you say there is more invested in futures than there is product to deliver, that might point to tension between creation of imaginary product, and the size of the total pool of money available to pay for it. If that money pool available to bid for imaginary product grows bigger than the imaginary supply, does the price of the commodity go up for everyone, including those who must take delivery of the real thing?

If inflation gets defined as too much money bidding for goods in short supply, how does it not become inflationary to add Wall Street speculation money to the bidding side, without increasing the real supply?

Let's find out the answers to questions like those, by requiring fossil fuel futures buyers to align their interests with those of consumers, by taking delivery. I do not pretend to be able to predict the results of such a complicated experiment, but I want a look at what it might disclose. Seems like as long as you leave trading for real product, and delivery to real wholesalers and bulk users in place, you could do the experiment without risk of unpleasant surprises.

I think it is unlikely that we would discover that without futures trading the price of fossil fuels would go higher. If that did happen, just shut the experiment down.

[bernard11]

Stephen,

I wonder if the ability to own the commodity purely notionally (which is what you seem to suggest), without overhead expenses, is part of the appeal of futures markets.

I think you should inform yourself as to how futures prices work. They in fact reflect all those costs.

Let's say I want some quantity of oil on September 30. So I can buy it now and store it, or enter into futures contract. As a matter of arbitrage the costs of those two options are going to be same. The futures price should reflect the spot price, the interest on the money tied up in the stored commodity, plus storage and insurance costs.

It's not a cheaper way to buy the oil.

In addition, of course, there is a great deal of speculation, and hedging, in these markets by those who have no interest in taking taking delivery.

And there is no tension between the notional quantities of the commodities and the availability of money to pay for it. These contracts are settled in cash. If I enter into a contract to buy oil at $80/bbl on Oct. 31, and the price on that day is $90, I collect $10/bbl from my counterparty - actually from the clearinghouse - and the counterparty coughs up $10.

I'd also add that if such a rule were in place there would quickly be no futures market.

So I'm having a very hard time understanding your point.

[Stephen Lathrop]

To help you understand, please try to address the part about increasing the supply of money in the market—beyond the amount of money available from those positioned to take delivery. Do you suppose that creates an exception to the usual rules of supply and demand?

[Don Nico]

SL,
Bernard has explained very clearly. You have created a boogyman out of you lack of understanding of the futures markets.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, do you have an answer to the question about supply and demand? Given a roughly constant supply of available oil, and an existing market comprising customers equipped to take delivery, presumably those customers collectively will bid the price of oil to some market-clearing level consistent with the level of demand from an economy looking to use oil. Or do you disagree with that?

If you do not disagree, then what does the law of supply and demand teach us to expect after adding still more customers, with all the wealth of Wall Street at their disposal? Why would we not expect infusion of massive additional wealth into the bidding process to increase prices beyond a previous level established on the basis of more limited bidding power?

Put very simply, if there were a button that could be pushed to end tomorrow any bidding for oil futures by customers who would not take physical delivery, do you think the cost of oil would go up, go down, or remain unchanged?

[Don Nico]

Your question betrays a lack of understanding of the function and mechanisms of the futures market.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, "betrays," is the wrong word. "Confesses," is more like it. I take my willingness to confess lack of understanding of something so complicated as a badge of honor. There are others quite sure they do understand who I wonder about. When you ask them questions, instead of providing answers, they assert the questions are ignorant.

[Don Nico]

Your hypothesis is ignorant of the basic mechanisms and functions of the futures market. There is no point in answering an irrelevant question.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I'd also add that if such a rule were in place there would quickly be no futures market.

Bernard, on what basis do you conclude that customers who take delivery—both those who use the commodity in large quantities, and those who plan to physically resell the commodity—cannot support a futures market?

[bernard11]

Bernard, on what basis do you conclude that customers who take delivery—both those who use the commodity in large quantities, and those who plan to physically resell the commodity—cannot support a futures market?

You need market makers, intermediaries - speculators, if you will.

Both buyers and sellers will want to hedge against price fluctuations. But to presume that there will be a perfect, or near-perfect, or even reasonable match is unjustified.

A buyer who hedges may plan on taking delivery in October, a seller may want to deliver in November. The amount of hedging they want to do will vary, as will their price targets. And if there is a match for some quantities and dates how do they find each other?

There simply will not be enough participants to make the market viable. Enter the speculator, who is willing to enter into a contract without being either a buyer or a seller. The speculator may sell the buyer an October contract, and buy a November contract from the seller, with the intention of closing the position out at some point.

Of course the speculator hopes to make a profit - he is essentially an insurer, earning a premium for providing price insurance.

The system you propose has the same problems as a barter system for the exchange of goods and services. The speculator serves a function not totally unlike that of money. (Please, no one nitpick this analogy. It's not perfect by any means, just illustrative.)

As for the "money" issue, its important to understand that the notional amounts of contracts are just that - notional. They don't represent actual money needed at any point. Suppose you are playing some sort of game for a stake of $1/point. When it ends you have won by score of 100 to 80, and collect $20 from you opponent. You wouldn't say that there was $180 involved here. The notional amounts are really just the same thing as the points in your game - a way of determining the final net payoff.

[Jmaie]

" I presume costs like that get reckoned into the price of the commodity, and tend to reduce its value, thus reducing its price.'

Such costs affect the profit but not the price...

[Stephen Lathrop]

That would be an occurrence so remarkable that it seems scarcely possible. Hasn't it long been customary to price more-profitable assets higher than the others?

[Jmaie]

The price of oil is set by the market, not what the owner wants to get for it.

Like apartment rents being set by the market, which doesn't care how much any particular owner paid for the property.

[ReaderY]

There is a more fundamental issue here which might deserve discussin. Derivative markets were a way for both producers and consumers to cushion themselves from the impact of price fluctuations and the activities of speculators. But speculators have taken over the relevant products and markets in a spectular way, using them for their benwfit and not for the original beneficiaries.

Should these markets be more closely regulated to limit speculation?

Limiting the ability of speculators to close contracts without taking delivery, and requiring all contracts to result in physical delivery at expiration, might be one way to achieve that. The possibility one might not be able to get out in time would create additional risk tending to limit commodity speculators’ activity, which might reduce their influence on the market and increase the influence of the people who actually produce and consume the commodities.

[bernard11]

speculators have taken over the relevant products and markets in a spectular way, using them for their benwfit and not for the original beneficiaries.

It's not clear to me what you are describing here, or what the harm you propose to mitigate is. There are some regulations in place, such as position limits, which prevent one individual from building a position so large it threatens market functioning, and margin requirements.

[PeteRR]

It seems like the policies and prescriptions to combat climate change are finally hitting the lives of the average person worldwide. And they don't like it.

The one that stuns me most is electricity generation. You can argue to an environmentalist until you are blue in the face that renewables can not be baseload power now or for the foreseeable future and they just look back at you as if you have antennas growing out of your head. Moar windmills!

[Nige]

Just to note that neither gas prices or shortages nor electricity prices or shortages have been caused by climate change policies. Meanwhile, the consequences of failing to transition away from fossil fuels are heatwaves, wildfires and floods, all across the globe which have been hitting people's lives for a few years now.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes nige. Yes they have. High energy prices didn’t just spring up from nowhere. This has happened everywhere that green transitions have been moved on two fast.

And you ignore the prosperity that a century of available cheap energy ushered in.

But that’s fine. You want change and you’re getting it. Good and hard.

[Nige]

Of course they don't. They spring up because fossil fuel companies raise prices to rake in profits.

Everyone's getting it good and hard as a consequence of fossil fuels.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Your understanding of energy is kindergarden level. Fossil fuel companies are price takers, not price setters.

But your zealotry won't allow any reality to intrude. You're getting what you asked for. Quit whining.

[Nige]

No, we're getting what fossil fuel compaines asked for - massive profits for them, untold human suffering for everyone else.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hilarious. Up above you complain about conservatives "argue real world phenomena at the level of a third grader" and yet everything you post about energy is insipid boilerplate environmental zealot garbage. You are exactly like those that you hate.

[Nige]

Fossil fuel companies raking in massive profits while the catastrophic effects of fossil fuel emissions are felt around the world are both real world phenomena.

[Don Nico]

And Germany due to the governments stupidty in hoping that more windmills will save it. When the policy has made German electric power policy ever worse.

[Nige]

Germany is an example of a country warned of its vulnerabilities and for some daft reason ignoring them until it was too late and fumbling the process of transition. You'd think other countries would learn from that.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, you would have hoped so. But the new German government seems committed to the very sam energy policies as the old.
Meanwhile the Greens are opposing an LNG terminal in Kiel and advocate burning coal instead (and soft coal at that.)

[Nige]

Isn't it amazing how much power the fossil fuel indiutry has to control people's choices, even when it's fossil fuels that are destroying the planet?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Just to note that neither gas prices or shortages nor electricity prices or shortages have been caused by climate change policies."

Sheesh. What's your basis for saying that? That subsidies for 'renewables' and the war on fossil fuels somehow aren't 'climate change policies'?

[Nige]

Subsidies for renewables have nothing to do with price rises or shortages. Might be more apposite to asks why there are rises and shortages despite massive subsidies TO fossil fuels and equally massive profits.

[Michael P]

Did you ever take Economics 101? Supply and demand curves are shifted by subsidies, resulting in corresponding changes in the market-clearing prices.

The US has just about the world's lowest subsidies for fossil fuels: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies#/media/File%3AFossil-fuel-subsidies-gdp.svg -- something like $20B/year. That's small compared to other industries, considering corresponding shares of GDP. For example, Biden proposed almost that much just on some electric vehicle subsidies ($174B over a decade).

[Nige]

I know enough about economics to know the difference between actual massive subisidies that have been spent on an industry that makes huge private profits have more of an effect than proposed subisidies that don't yet exist. Also, 'small compared to' and 'almost that much,' hah, nice one. Also, we should factor in the massive costs involved in climate change disasters as parts of fossil fuel subsidies.

[Michael P]

That's your factual ignorance talking. Obama and Biden have issued plenty of "green" energy subsidies in the past. Also, profits are not evil, despite your fervent belief that they are. Nor are fossil fuel profits that high: https://seekingalpha.com/article/269679-oil-industry-profit-margin-ranks-fairly-low-there-are-bigger-fish

[Nige]

Green subsidies are dribbles cmpared to fossil subsidies and profits are evil when maintaining them destroys the planet and kills millions every year.

[Michael P]

Wrong and wrong. See the first chart at https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-renewables-fossil-fuels/ . Or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States . There's a ton of data about the relative subsidies over time, and renewables have had a large advantage since the early Obama administration.

And profits are not related to your hyperbole about the environment.

[ducksalad]

Someone spends equal effort denouncing profit and the (supposed) end of civilization due to climate change, it's reasonable to assume it's really just obsession with profit.

[Nige]

'Large advantage' yeah, a drop in the ocean compared to the Manhattan Project x a million we need to transition away from fossil fuels.

Of course profits are related - we wouldn't be destroying the planet at the rate we were if it weren't making obscene profits for someone. And it is.

[Michael P]

One infers that cancelling pipelines and illegally refusing to sell leases don't count as policies because reasons.

[Nige]

One infers that because none of those cancellations and leases have had any effect on current supply.

[Michael P]

Asserting something doesn't make it true. Future expectations absolutely affect current prices.

[Nige]

Claiming the prices are effected by future supply based on things that won't actually effect supply all that much is defnitely a case of assertions not making something true.

[Michael P]

That's your economic ignorance talking.

[David Nieporent]

Brett, how do you think subsidizing renewables would raise gas prices?

[Don Nico]

Again look to the German example in which the very high peak production from windmills on windy days drives the spot prices of baseline power negative, forcing Germany to pay Switzerland to take the power to pump water uphill. The Russian Gas embargo will make that situation even worse.

[bernard11]

So wait, Don. Help me understand this.

Baseline power is normally sold to German consumers at some price.

Now we have some windy weather, so the windmills provide tons of power, and the baseline power is not needed, and is sent to Switzerland, presumably because Germany has no way to store it.

Do I have it so far?

Now, why does Germany actually have to pay Switzerland for this, as opposed to getting paid, possibly not much?

How does this process raise gas prices? Whatever else happens, it looks like demand is lowered, not raised. I suppose the the base units can't be turned off, but surely their fuel consumption can be lowered.

[Don Nico]

The German law is that the renewable energy must be used before any other energy source is used. When the total energy production exceeds German consumption, the spot price for energy becomes negative. So any one who could use that energy could take it.
Why Switzerland, because when the total German production is less than the demand, Germany can buy the stored energy from Switzerland.

Does this policy raise petrol and diesel prices? Not directly. But as these source can be used for other uses than vehicles, there will be some effect but I have not seen a direct analysis.

Thank you for asking

[bernard11]

I don't get how a spot price can go negative in the absence of disposal costs. Can't they just dump it in the ground rather than pay? It sounds like Germany is effectively paying Switzerland to store the excess.

So that's a cost, I guess, but it still seems like it might come out cheaper, if the overall fuel cost plus storage cost is less than without the windmills.

I'd like to see a detailed analysis of these costs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Dumping it in the ground isn't free when you're talking many megawatts, you know.

[Don Nico]

Whether you get it or not, it happens frequently in Germany. You cannot dump electrical power into the ground as you say. And besides the total renewable plus base-load often goes below the average daily consumption. So Germany has to buy electrical power at high spot prices.

[Don Nico]

I don't know if you can get this:
But check for example Agorameter, Agora Energiewende (2019) for data from the week of 23 October 2017. The wholesale spot price went as low as -80 EuroMWhr.
This phenomenon gets worse as the % of energy from renewables gets larger without offsetting massive energy storage capacity in country.

[bernard11]

Whether you get it or not, it happens frequently in Germany.

Don,

Please. What I said was I didn't get how it could be negative in the absence of disposal costs.

Now I learn, from you and Brett - thank you - that there are in fact disposal costs, so of course it can go negative by the amount of those costs.

[Don Nico]

The "disposal costs" are derived from the fact that the baseline generators cannot rapidly throttle back or boost the output level without incurring significant operating costs and risks. Hence the price goes negative because there is overcapacity that cannot be adjusted rapidly.
If you wish the monetized disposal cost is the amount that Germany must pay someone else to accept the power.If Germany had sufficient internal storage , it would transfer that energy to storage. Then your disposal cost is the amortization of the capital cost of the stores plus maintenance and operating costs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Subsidies of 'renewable' energy causes shortages whenever the energy fails to arrive when needed. Subsidies are hardly the only component of the war on fossil fuels, though. Canceling the Keystone pipeline, for instance, causes higher prices.

[Sarcastr0]

How do subsidies cause that? Isn't the primary mission of a utility to avoid shortages, subsidies or no?

[Don Nico]

"to avoid shortages"
They cannot do that if government policies preclude it

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what subsidies do, though.

[Don Nico]

That is what German energy policies plus subsidies have done, raising the % of electricity from renewables without match in-country energy storage capacity

[Mr. Bumble]

Since you are posting here you are obviously using power from some source. Mind sharing where your electricity comes from?

[PeteRR]

Just one example of how wrong you are: Texas is currently experiencing power shortages. Why? Because 30% of the electricity generated is from wind. And no shit the wind doesn't blow as much in the summer and/or at night.

[Nige]

That is not why Texas is experiencing power shortages. Texas is experiencing power shortages because the Texas power grid is a piece of shit, but a highly profitable one.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it's a piece of shit because it depends on windmills.

[Nige]

It does not depend on windmills. If it was depending on wind and solar power it'd be doing fine, assuming the fossil fuel guys weren't still fucking up the grid.

[Sarcastr0]

In Feb it was wind and coal and natural gas. Abbot lied that it was just wind.

You heard it's just wind this time?

[bevis the lumberjack]

It's not natural gas in the summer. No cause exists for interruptions.

In the winter ng wells can sometimes freeze up when it gets cold enough. That winter it got cold enough.

But it ain't cold now, so natural gas is flowing full out. The brownouts are renewable related.

[Nige]

They're still trying to blame renewables for their shitty, but profitable, grid.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You're an idiot.

[Nige]

You wish.

[Mr. Bumble]

Useful Idiot and infantile at that.

[Sarcastr0]

Texas' choice to isolate their grid is dumb, performative, and irresponsible.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Texas choice to isolate their grid IS actually dumb, harmful, and totally performative. Most of us, even the conservatives, don't give a shit about that stuff. We just want the AC to run.

I lost power during the great freeze for only 24 hours so I was relatively lucky. I can attest that that 24 hours was miserable.......

[Brett Bellmore]

I won't argue that Texas doesn't do some stupid stuff with their electrical grid, such as not paying suppliers for being reliable. But being isolated from the continental grid has served them well several times when large parts of the continent went black. They may take their own grid down with stupid mistakes, but at least nobody else takes it down for them.

[Michael P]

Texas isolates their electric grid so that they don't have to follow arbitrary dictates from FERC. It's not "totally performative".

The wife of one of my coworkers works at FERC, and she is appalled by how much empire-building happens there and how much capricious behavior is directed at Texas over this.

[Nige]

Yeah to avoid regulation so they can charge through the roof for power that keeps cutting out leaving people to freeze or roast - sometimes to death - and no-one is accountable.

[Mr. Bumble]

So where does your power come from?

[Nige]

Grayskull.

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically, because wind arrives largely at random, using a lot of wind power requires that you have a lot of conventional "dispatchable" power, conventional plants that can go on and off on short notice. So adoption of wind power in Texas has driven an increasing reliance on NG, which is highly dispachable.

This also increases costs, because you need an idled NG KW of production for every 'renewable' KW of capacity. Which, perversely, gets costed into the NG plants, not the 'renewable' plants.

In a cold related emergency this is problematic because heating demand competes with the NG turbines for the limited supply.

Absent the forced reliance on 'renewable' energy, (Which is only 'cheaper' due to subsidies.) you could have spent the money on making the conventional plants more resilient.

Mind, I'm not sure the money WOULD have been so spent. There are a lot of problems with getting politically run utilities to spend money on reliability. But being forced to use sources that randomly vanish doesn't help.

[Sarcastr0]

So this is based on you personally logicalling it out.

In service of the idea that Texas' environmental policies are too liberal, and this liberalism is to blame for their struggles lately.

Huh.

[Don Nico]

No S_0, Brett's comment is based on the hard facts. If one does not have massive rapidly dispatchable power then one could have massive energy storage infrastructure. But that does not exist in Texas

[Brett Bellmore]

Either way, the cost of 'renewable' energy is hugely greater than the cost of the actual power delivered, because you have to account for the costs incurred in coping with it's unreliable delivery. At very low levels of market penetration, this wasn't obvious. At the levels of penetration seen in Texas, it becomes conspicuous.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know the industry, but the underlying assumption to this take is that subsidies made Texas choose a non-resilient model for their energy generation.

Assuming that's right regarding wind, that doesn't seem to be an issue with renewables, but with how Texas (Texas!) deployed them.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, market subsidies to develop products is a time-tested and efficient way to bring costs down and make things accessible to consumers.

It also is basically responsible for all Elon Musk's success, so it's not always a winner 😛

[bernard11]

you need an idled NG KW of production for every 'renewable' KW of capacity.

That doesn't sound right to me, if you have a well-interconnected grid. In the normal course of events there is going to be idle capacity around.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the normal course of events the wind can stop blowing over really, really large areas at the same time. The larger the area, the less often this happens, but "continent wide" isn't large enough to reduce it to zero.

In the mean time large scale grid interconnects have also enabled blackouts to propagate over wide areas distant from the problem that triggered them, so it's not like long distance interconnects are all good.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
You're correct that the interconnectedness of the grid does mitigate Brett's paradigm somewhat, but not completely when the % of renewable power is very high.
There needs to be dispatchable power available either from sources that are either quickly spun up or via purchases fro neighboring grids. In a standalone system, Brett would be correct.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don Nico, "mitigates" just means "reduces", here. You could go continent wide, and you'd still have wildly varying amounts of power coming in from wind, even if it was always windy somewhere. Wind is somewhat correlated even on a continental scale.

What are you going to do, over-build wind to the point where that "somewhere" is enough to power the whole country? No, you're going to have enough conventional power to supply all the power, and then let it sit idle most of the time. Even if your grid scans a continent.

Outside some really unusual places, wind power only looks economical because it has free backup from conventional sources.

[Don Nico]

"What are you going to do, over-build wind"
Of course, not, transmissions losses and other distribution costs make that unrealistic.
But Germany does not need as many NG fired plants as ythey would if Switzerland did not store overproduction in Germany and if France did not sell Germany nuclear power.

BTW i got the meaning "reduces"

[Stephen Lathrop]

PeteRR, what happens with wind in Texas does not rule what wind does elsewhere. In New England, along the coast, wind blows especially strong in summer. Nor does it die down at night during the winter. Boston is the windiest major city in the U.S.

Different geographies and climates produce different wind patterns. Western Texas offers a notably large wind resource. If that still seems problematic, develop wind power in Wyoming, and plug Texas into that. Wyoming has geographic basins from which wind has excavated soil, gravel, and rock by the cubic mile, blown it into the air, and transported it to Africa.

[Illocust]

Texas is on the plains dumb ass (no mountains to block and slow wind down like the coasts both have) . We're the poster child for having lots of wind all the time. If we can't make wind power work, it's a problem with the power source not the location.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Dumb ass? You think mountains block and slow winds down? Take a look at wind data from Mount Washington, NH, which has a peak elevation comparable to vast areas of Wyoming. Both meteorologists and geologists insist that the high altitude plateau in Wyoming empowers winds, which accounts for the disproportionate effect which wind has had on that state's geology.

I suggest that having wind available from Texas, plus from Wyoming, would make more wind available than just from Texas, and you call me dumb ass?

[Don Nico]

What a silly discussion regarding Texas, Wyoming and Mt Washington.
One needs alternate generators plus energy storage plus dispatchable generation when the availability factor is ~30%.

[Michael Ejercito]

Woyld you rather have the whole planet freezing cold all year long?

[Ben_]

You’re arguing for life to be good for people.

The environmentalist wants life to be worse to punish people for sins against the Earth.

[Nige]

He's arguing for ignoring all the increasingly catastrophic consequences of making parts of life good for some people in some places using fossi fuels, for certain values of good. People are already being punished all over the world for fossil fuel extraction and consumption, and have been for some time.

[Ben_]

^ Fossil fuel sins.

Thanks for being an example.

[Nige]

An example of the truth.

[Ben_]

You should ask the congregation for an "Amen!" after such declarations.

[Nige]

Not a fossil fuel fanatic, I'll leave that to you.

[shawn_dude]

I don't think you understand what "baseload power" is. There is a growing recognition among the folks that design electrical grids that baseload power is not a requirement for a power grid with today's technology.

Baseload power is about the rate at which different energy technologies can ramp up or down in response to demand at any given moment coupled with runtime and maintenance costs. IOW: A nuclear or coal plant is very expensive to run but costs can be minimized and profits maximized if they run at a constant rate. That's great for big, centralized, complicated, expensive power generators.

Whereas, grid scale battery backup can kick in at a fraction of a second to ramp up or ramp down grid power day or night. Over a large enough geographic area with a diversity of generation methods, sufficient power should be available 24/7 to meet demand. The cost of increasing renewable capacity is dramatically lower than nuclear plants and a fraction of the time.

So where miss the mark is in assuming the old power paradigm driven by large, complex, expensive plants must remain fixed despite dramatic improvements in technology. That's probably why people look at you the way you do.

And yes, "Moar Windmills!" I agree. And solar. And geothermal. And maybe even tidal.

Oh, and more battery tech like the new iron-flow battery!

[Ben_]

Here’s an article quoting a schoolteacher.

https://wesleyyang.substack.com/p/yes-things-are-really-as-bad-as-youve

He goes into detail about the diversity measures and how they don’t serve the students. Example:

"When we moved to discuss the gap in enrollment between Black and white students, a senior teacher said that trying to register more children of color for AP classes is inherently racist and that putting greater value on AP classes at all is an expression of white supremacy."

The teacher clams to be a leftist. It’s anonymous, so judge for yourself.

[Ben_]

On the other hand, it probably won't matter for education disparities. Here's a very long piece citing a multitude of studies about trying to close education achievement gaps:

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/education-doesnt-work-20

The gist is that anything that helps underachievers learn helps everyone else learn too, so underachievers can never catch up. We can teach everyone more and end up with a more prosperous society, but we can't close achievement gaps and end up with an equal society.

It's hard to prove a negative, but decades of research by thousands of researchers produces a strong indication.

[Ben_]

Mask mandates are coming back before the election:

https://reason.com/2022/07/19/big-city-public-schools-facing-a-massive-hemorhagging-of-students-are-reimposing-mask-mandates/

Dems have had a historic advantage with education voters, but education voters now support the two parties evenly and the GOP has momentum.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The right-wing bigots at a white, male blog that loves to use vile racial slurs will enjoy this one!

[Frank Drackman]

So Jerry, how's Penn States Tight Ends looking this year???
Umm, I mean the football position, not umm, never mind

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

The hero Elisjsha Dicken hit the moving bad guy with 8 of 10 shots from 120 feet, roughly the distance from the backstop to second base in an MLB park. Dude rocks!

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe he should offer training to the police.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A similarly situated citizen shot and killed a little girl recently.

Clingers have far less to say about that one.

Because they are just lousy people.

Nothing the culture war and replacement won't solve, though.

[Currentsitguy]

We have all the guns and you don't. We're not going anywhere.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You have been complying with the preferences of your betters every day of your deplorable life. That is one consequence of getting stomped by better people and better ideas in the culture war.

Your compliance will continue as our nation continues to improve against your wishes and efforts. Thank you for your compliance, clinger.

[shawn_dude]

This may come as a shock to you. My apologies.

Liberals own guns too. We just don't view them as an extension of our penis and feel the need to whip them out everywhere and in front of anyone.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez Jerry, bitter much?

[John F. Carr]

I might be able to hit the broad side of a barn at 120 feet.

[Commenter_XY]

That was some really remarkable shooting.

[shawn_dude]

That's actually, in a way, a bad thing.

Someone whipped out a gun and fired back with 10 bullets, of which 8 hit the attacker. That means 2 missed and hit something else. (Thankfully, in this case, not someone else.)

And that's remarkable. That means the general expectation would be most people would miss with more bullets which would then hit unintended targets and cause unintended harm.

[Frank Drackman]

So Somnolent Joe has the Vid',
dumb ass probably wasn't wearing a mask, and did he really get the shot or just a "Tuskegee Experiment" Sugar Pill????
And the day after he announced his Cancer Diagnosis, you know, that highly fatal "Delaware Cancer" his whole family's been afflicted with..
but hey, he's married to a "Doctor"

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federals raided a retired couple the other day who never entered the Capitol with three different agencies, a helicopter, an MRAP, and hit them with flash bangs and refused to show warrants until later.

They tore through the house for five hours and left with no arrests made.

In your opinion, is that what a good & just regime does, or is that what an evil & tyrannical regime does?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And over 100 agents.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe hold till you get a better source than Epoch Times article based entirely on unverified statements from this couple.

Nothing to lose by waiting a bit except maybe some embarrassment.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What makes you say "Epoch Times" and why do you dismiss direct testimony?

Are they lying until some Federal says they aren't?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Testimony? Who was under oath?

There is little to dismiss because you refrained from identifying a source with respect to your assertions.

What did the warrant indicate?

[Sarcastr0]

Single source stories are always problematic.

And yeah, some sources are worse than others.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I didn't read it on Epoch Times so there goes that stupid line of argument, and surely you don't think the abuser's word should be taken as Truth.

What ever happened to Hashtag MeToo?

[Brett Bellmore]

You mostly rely on single source stories. The AP is a "single source".

The problem here is that a large part of the media share ideology and values, and so if one outlet decides a story isn't worth reporting on, most of them will decide the same thing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Calling the AP a "single source," is taking anti-media ideology pretty far beyond reason and evidence.

[Michael P]

Has Donnie Hyatt (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9896791/Georgia-couple-linked-far-right-militia-leader-claim-FBI-raided-home.html) been charged, or are you going to claim that it's too early to tell whether that raid was justified?

https://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/news/fbi-raids-retired-san-marcos-couples-home if you want another report of the more recent raid, including an attempt to get a comment from the FBI. The FBI declined to respond, perhaps because they know the raid was intended to terrorize.

Why do you let jackboots make you act so nutty?

[Sarcastr0]

Even the Daily Mail has this as only 'claimed.'

Maybe it is a story. But you can afford to wait a tick to make sure.

[Michael P]

The Daily Mail was covering an entirely different heavily armed raid. I picked that one because it should have given enough time for something to come out that explains the justification for the raid. That raid was reported as fact by plenty of your favored media, such as https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-seizes-devices-clothes-of-militia-linked-couple-who-were-in-dc-on-jan-6/ar-AANqCw8

[BravoCharlieDelta]

His tongue is squarely on their boot, that's why.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, big law enforcement fan here.

Saying 'hold till we get more facts' is not exactly a pro-cop stance.

[Michael P]

No, but "ignore multiple reports of terroristic raids until we get dobermans confirmation of the sordid details" is, and that's what you are calling for.

[Michael P]

*government confirmation. I hate autocorrect.

[Estragon]

Hard to determine on these limited facts. What did the warrant say?

[Ben_]

What could it have said to justify 100 agents raiding the home of a retired man and woman?

[Estragon]

Not sure. What did it say?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Agents later produced a search warrant saying Kennemer was suspected of “assaulting, resisting or impeding” officers and “entering restricted buildings or grounds.”

Definitely need tanks, helicopters, and drones for that.

[Estragon]

Do you have a link to the actual warrant?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If no warrant accompanied those law enforcement personnel, this sounds like an outrageous event.

If a warrant existed, and authorized search and seizure, it sounds like shabby whining from a couple of misfits.

[Frank Drackman]

oh it exist(ed) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/264894-sandusky-grand-jury-presentment

[Estragon]

I mean 100 does seem like a lot, until you think about uvalde (~375 LEOs)!

[M L]

No surprise. Tyranny abounds.

They arrested the leading opposition candidate for governor of Michigan . . . for being present on Jan 6 and not even entering the capitol!

[Estragon]

Looks like entering a restricted area is only one of the four charges.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How many people were arrested for the Kavanaugh Insurrection?

[Estragon]

I’m not sure. Hundreds.

[Michael P]

Really? I thought the states recognized that their laws on such protests were unconstitutional, and that the Attorney General of the United States has declined to prosecute any of those protesters.

[Estragon]

He asked about “arrested”

[Michael P]

Sure, but who's doing the arresting if no one intends to prosecute? Are you talking about the 2018 protests over his confirmation hearings (where people were arrested but apparently never charged) or this year's protests at his house?

[not guilty]

About 300 protesters were arrested during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/kavanaugh-protests-us-capitol/index.html

[M L]

Were any of them held without bail, put in solitary confinement, beaten within an inch of their life or to the point of losing an eye by prison guards, had their homes raided by federal agents, arrested later after the fact rather than during the event, or charged with similar crimes?

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

Also a lot of that is made up.

[apedad]

Stupid commie media.

How come they don't cover Hunter Biden's criminal activity?!?!?!

Federal investigation of Hunter Biden reaches critical juncture, sources say

Washington (CNN)The federal investigation into Hunter Biden's business activities is nearing a critical juncture as investigators weigh possible charges and prosecutors confront Justice Department guidelines to generally avoid bringing politically sensitive cases close to an election, according to people briefed on the matter.

While no final decision has been made on whether to bring charges against President Joe Biden's son, sources say the probe has intensified in recent months along with discussions among Delaware-based prosecutors, investigators running the probe and officials at Justice Department headquarters.

David Weiss, the US Attorney in Delaware, is leading the probe, which dates back to as early as 2018.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-critical-juncture/index.html

[Bob from Ohio]

Wow, a single article on a web site. Flooding the zone!

Tell us how many tv segments and at what times and for how long?

[shawn_dude]

It's getting air time. I saw an article in the Guardian (a British newspaper) this morning. So it's there.

But, and just let me spitball here... maybe it's because we didn't elect Hunter Biden to office and he isn't part of the administration. So his actions are independent of his parents and the administration.

[Estragon]

President Biden tests positive for COVID. I wish him a speedy recovery!

[Bob from Ohio]

How will it affect the cancer he said he has?

[Frank Drackman]

Honest mistake, "Dr" Jill Biden diagnosed him

[ThePublius]

PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS:

● Shot: Joe Biden: I’m going to ‘shut down the virus’, not the US.

—The Grauniad, October 20th, 2020.

● Chaser: President Biden Tests Positive for Covid-19.

—National Review, today.

● Hangover: Watch: Joe Biden Says He Has Cancer (Updated).

—Paula Bolyard, PJ Media.com, yesterday.

FLASHBACK: Biden: ‘This continues to be a pandemic of the unvaccinated.’

—The Irish Times, January 5th.

For the post with links, go to:
https://instapundit.com/

[shawn_dude]

A casual glance at the rate of hospitalization and death from COVID shows that it is still very much a pandemic of the unvaccinated. The vaccinated, especially the boostered, are a very tiny percentage of the folks ending up in the hospital and the morgue.

[Aunt Teefah]

Going out like Stan Chera.

[Da5id]

Something everyone probably agrees on. Even if not on human decency standards, I don't see a huge "we need president Harris" constituency on any side of the spectrum.

[M L]

400 comments already? Get back to work people!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative
blog has operated for

THIRTEEN (13) DAYS

without using a vile racial
slur* and has operated for

THREE (3) YEARS

without imposing (new**)
hypocritical, partisan,
viewpoint-driven censorship.

* so far as we know; the vile racial slurs are so frequent it would be easy to miss some of them
** continuing censorship remains in effect

[Frank Drackman]

Reverend Arthur/Jerry Sandusky has gone
10 YEARS, 1 MONTH, 12 DAYS

without buggering any young men,

*as far as we know, https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
isn't really on the "Cutting Edge" of prison rape prevention, you know, being located smack dab in the middle of Bitter/Klinger Country...

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How is that "civility standard" you claimed to be enforcing when repeatedly censoring your political adversaries coming along, Prof. Volokh?

Your silence speaks as loudly as your hypocrisy.

[M L]

Can anyone make the case that these people weren't intentionally lying?

Murderin' Ted Kennedy:

"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI):

"Contrary to the opinions of some of the misinformed, this legislation does not open the floodgates." (Congressional Record, Sept. 20, 1965, p. 24480.)

Lyndon Johnson:

"This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives."

"Proponents repeatedly denied that the law would lead to a huge and sustained increase in the number of newcomers and become a vehicle for globalizing immigration." https://cis.org/Report/Legacy-1965-Immigration-Act

"Sen. Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act allowed the Democrats to start winning elections the same way they win recounts: by enlarging the pool of voters.

Liberals couldn’t convince Americans to agree with them, but they happened to notice that the people of most other countries in the world already agreed with them. So Kennedy’s immigration act brought in millions of poverty-stricken foreigners to live off the American taxpayer and bloc-vote for the Democrats. . . .

When the Republican Congress passed welfare reform in 1996, one of the provisions prohibited immigrants from going on welfare for the first five years they were here — a mere five years! It turned out to be the single biggest savings of the entire welfare bill.

The New York Times immediately denounced the provision, demanding that at “the very least,” immigrants get food stamps if they become “disabled” after arriving — i.e., the biggest scam in the welfare apparatus — and also that they be eligible for health care under Medicaid." https://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/06/17/coulter-ted-kennedys-immigration-act-detrimental-us/28896193/

[M L]

"What is the point of bringing in immigrants whom we have to help? Oh, I remember now! The rich need cheap labor, and the Democrats need welfare-dependent voters.

One year before Clinton’s re-election in 1996, the Immigration and Naturalization Service began running a “pro-Democrat voter mill” — as the agency itself complained — by processing 1 million citizenship applications before Election Day. It was, The Washington Post said, among “the most damning indictments ever leveled at the immigration service: that it has cheapened U.S. citizenship.”

Thousands of criminals were made citizens to ensure Clinton’s re-election. If felony records were ignored, it goes without saying that there was zero effort at enforcing other basic citizenship requirements, such as having good moral character, five years’ U.S. residency or an understanding of American civics..."

[Sarcastr0]

Foreigners can't vote. The current rate of immigration is not a flood.

Sorry these nonwhites coming in trouble you. I find them pretty great to work with, myself.

[M L]

It's a flood and has been for almost 60 years now. The 1965 Act turned out to be one of the most consequential pieces legislation that has ever been passed by Congress, drastically changing population levels and impacting just about everything about the country. Were you going to make the case that the people above were not intentionally lying, or no?

As you well know, the interest of the American people in immigration policy is race-blind. The question of whether to blow up the country with mass immigration and leave the borders unenforced is a question that impacts Americans of every race. In fact, minorities are disproportionately impacted by policies that harm the working class.

You should feel free to make the case that mass migration, open borders and hundreds of thousands of unenforced criminal entries per month, with the resulting skyrocketing cost of living and asset prices, depression of wages, incredible boon to Democrat party electoral politics and other effects, is good policy. You don't need to hide behind knowingly false slanderous accusations of racism. Like Joe Biden said in order to achieve your aims you need an "constant, unrelenting stream of immigration. Non-stop. Non-stop."

[Sarcastr0]

You think it's a flood, but you have...issues with immigrants that go well beyond any utilitarian argument.

Americans and immigration is not exactly a race-free area. But all I see is how much your interests seem to be concerned about which demographics vote for Dems.

And, of course, you're spouting Great Replacement, which is actually a white supremecist conspiracy theory.

You're also a neo-Confederate, so claiming to be race-blind is...a bit rich.

[M L]

Americans of all races deserve to have an American immigration policy that puts ordinary Americans first -- rather than putting Wall Street and multinational corps first.

Maybe I went too hard on the Democrats. This isn't a Democrat problem. It's an establishment uniparty problem, there isn't a lick of difference between the parties in actual effect, and Republicans are even worse in some ways. But carry on with your knowingly false and flimsy accusations of racism and various empty buzzwords.

[Sarcastr0]

ordinary Americans

Bruh.

[M L]

Yes, the working class, and the middle class. Familiar with it? No, of course not.

I imagine you know zero farmers, farmhands, construction workers, factory workers, mechanics, truck drivers, or any number of other categories of ordinary Americans. And your mind is in the gutter, utterly diseased with unhealthy preoccupations and projections.

Great song and lyrics linked above, by the way.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And, of course, you're spouting Great Replacement, which is actually a white supremecist conspiracy theory.

Uh. There's plenty of hard irrefutable evidence. It only became a "white supremecist(sic) conspiracy theory" when people started pointing out all that evidence and connecting the dots.

[Nige]

Not so much a 'pro Democrat voting mill' as the natural consequence of the Republicans deciding that xenophobia is one of their main platforms.

[Moderation4ever]

Most people are outraged that police at the Uvelde Elementary School did nothing for an hour while an armed man was in the school killing people. Should those people be equally outraged that the former President did nothing for three hours to stop the attack on our capital? I would say yes, both are examples of people in power doing nothing when action was needed.

[Frank Drackman]

You call it an "Attack" (Yes, Ashley Babbitt attacked Michael Bird's bullets with her body) I call it "Redressing Grievances" it's in the Constitution

[ReaderY]

You may call it “bank robbery.” But what if Willie Sutton had been smart enough to call it “redressing economic grievances.”?

Why did Willie Sutton use banks as to redress his economic grievances?

Because that’s where the economic redress is.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Not Ashli Babbitt. Not anymore.

Carry on, clingers.

(Well, not you, Ashli.)

[Frank Drackman]

Funnier with "Mary Joe Kopeckney"
because you can say the "Knock Knock" in that idiot Ted Kennedy Accent (why doesn't anyone talk like that anymore?) and answer "Who's there?" like you're underwater...
Of course Ted Kennedy's not around anymore either, Obviously got the Brain Cancer from his service in ummm, New Jersey

Frank

[Jimmy the Dane]

The ONE police shooting liberals all seem to like! And, hey, it is also funny!

And people like AK wonder why he never gets invited to parties anymore...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't like it, but Ashli Babbitt punched her own ticket, top to bottom.

That her fellow criminals were treated far more leniently doesn't change her circumstance. She was a violent, delusional, disaffected, un-American dumbass.

[bernard11]

Not funny, Arthur.

Whatever we think of the events of the day and the behavior of various people, mocking Babbitt's death is uncalled for.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I've lost my taste for political correctness and euphemisms. Ashli Babbitt is entirely responsible for the consequences of her antisocial, un-American, violent, dumbass conduct.

[Frank Drackman]

et tu, Jerry???https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/264894-sandusky-grand-jury-presentment

[bernard11]

Whatever.

I obviously have no sympathy for her "cause," and consider her behavior despicable. Whether she is entirely or just primarily responsible - Trump gets some blame here - is irrelevant.

If someone gets drunk and drives into tree that's their fault, true, but it' still not a good look to mock them.

[Michael P]

Do you really think that a few hours if delay for an administrative function is morally equivalent to 19 kids and 2 teachers being shot to death? Or that a president who offered troops for security, but was rebuffed, has moral responsibility for the security of the US Capitol?

Or do you just pretend you do for partisan reasons?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Whereas you're a dipshit trying to pretend that a President doing NOTHING while the Capitol was under assault isn't worthy of criticism.

When you have some fucking morals to speak of, then and only then are you allowed to comment on morality.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, this is going to come as a shock to you, but the President isn't in charge of Capitol security. Congress is. So, yeah, go yell at Pelosi.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Birther Brett, always good for the dumbest right-wing perspective available.

[Frank Drackman]

Good One, Jerry

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nothing you mistakenly believe is relevant surprises me anymore, Brett.

He does command the National Guard. He did NOTHING.

Don't deflect from that fucking fact. He. Did. Nothing. He even said that Mike Pence deserved to be hung.

[Brett Bellmore]

And if he'd sent in the National Guard despite Congress rejecting its help, you'd have gone totally gonzo.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That's a nice unfalsifiable theory you have, completely unsupported by any facts.

In actuality, I believe that more of the rioters should've been shot dead inside the Capitol. I am disappointed in the restraint that was shown towards people who were trying to violently overthrow a Presidential election based entirely on lies, stupidity and Trump's ego.

If dozens of them had been shot dead after violently trespassing, I doubt we'd ever have to worry about a repeat incident again. Square that with your bullshit about how I'd have gone 'gonzo' if the National Guard was actually sent in to quell the insurrection as they SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

Now, are you actually going to address the facts of the situation, or just continue to deflect from his dereliction of duty?

[bernard11]

You know, this is going to come as a shock to you, but the President isn't in charge of Capitol security. Congress is. So, yeah, go yell at Pelosi.

This one goes in the Bellmore Hall of Incredible Stupidity.

You really think it just fucking fine for Trump to do nothing, to issue no statement, no orders, nothing. To call Senators, Giuliani, etc., but say nothing about the insurrectionists. And then to talk about how much he loved them.

That's beyond cultism. You really are deranged. Trump-besotted.

[Nige]

Give the guy a break, he was waiting to see if it'd actually work.

[David Nieporent]

Or that a president who offered troops for security, but was rebuffed,

"I'll take 'Things that didn't happen' for $1,000, Alex."

[Michael P]

https://dailyangle.com/articles/memo-confirms-trump-pentagon-offered-guard-troops-before-jan-6

Welcome to the reality-based community.

[David Nieporent]

Um, no. (A "reality-based community" would not claim that the Senate sergeant-at-arms reports to Nancy Pelosi. Nor would it claim that the Senate sergeant-at-arms reports to the Senate minority leader.) Here's what actually happened, if you would read either (a) original sources, or (b) at least non-far-right alternative-facts sources:

On January 2, some midlevel person at the Pentagon asked the Capitol Police whether they're going to request NG support. The Capitol Police reply on January 3 (based on their info at the time) that they weren't planning to do that.

On January 4 they got a new threat assessment, and reconsidered. They asked DC NG whether they could assist if necessary, and DC NG told them they could send 125 troops if requested.

That's it.

Notice the name not in the narrative? (Hint: the president's.) Notice the thing not in the narrative? (A rebuff of an offer of troops.)

So, no, there was no "president who offered troops for security, but was rebuffed,"

The actual report: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf

What's weird about your attempt to give credit to Trump for something that didn't happen is that it's well established that during the actual attack, Trump refused to allow the NG to assist for hours, despite begging and pleading from fellow GOPers.

[Michael P]

By that pretzel logic, Pelosi didn't approve support for defending the Capitol. Despite prodding from the Trump administration.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you don't have any comment about having been shown to be a liar.

Again.

?

[Michael P]

Yawn. You have nothing except empty personal accusations. Grow up.

We have direct testimony that Trump made the offer: https://www.independentsentinel.com/shocking-truth-of-help-trump-offered-but-was-not-accepted-on-1-6/

In contrast, the "evidence" otherwise is conjecture built entirely on a partisan reading of other facts. Even fact checks like Politifact's are carefully constructed to only deny a very specific claim about who rejected Trump's offer of troops.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Get back to me when he's under Oath, in a court of law, and doesn't directly contradict the official report.

Until then, it isn't "testimony," and you've again been proven to issue lies and claim they are instead facts.

An easy way to stop the accusations is to start telling the truth, and getting your 'facts' from reputable sources.

Don't want to be called a liar?
Stop lying.

Given your history, I suspect that I'll just have to keep pointing out to everyone that you cannot be counted upon to tell the truth.

[Michael P]

How surprising. The bloodthirsty jackboot wannabe who wants summary executions of his political opponents doesn't know what testimony is and uses a double standard for what evidence he will look at. Sad.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your illiteracy in using words outside of their commonly understood meaning is one of your many problems, none of which have anything to do with me.

"Testimony" is a word we use to reference sworn statements under Oath, typically in a court of law. Only those seeking to deliberately mislead (i.e. LIE) try to claim a television interview is "testimony," particularly when it directly contradicts the actual evidence already shoved in your face.

As for the 'summary execution' remark: get fucked. I know what you're talking about, and it's just another example of you being unable to discern, and thus regurgitate, the truth.

You offer nothing but lies, and ignore primary evidence which directly refutes your bullshit opinion pieces and propaganda you instead choose to believe.

You choose to believe lies, and you choose to perpetuate them. That makes you a piece of shit - someone undeserving of serious discussion or respect.

[Michael P]

Try projecting less, you lying fan of summary execution.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testimony

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you can link to a dictionary, but you're too fucking stupid to read it?

"Your illiteracy in using words outside of their commonly understood meaning is one of your many problems, none of which have anything to do with me."

Definition of testimony
1a: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
b: firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE

What happens when we check the link to "EVIDENCE?"

b: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

You continue to do nothing but lie, poorly. You can't even get your 'summary execution' insult correct. I'd tell you go to look up the meaning of that phrase, but as we've determined: you're too stupid to be helped.

Is there anything you actually have specific skills in doing, or are you just all-around worthless?

[David Nieporent]

Mark Meadows speaking on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” is not "testimony," "direct" or otherwise.

And once again we get some weird right wing website rather than an actual news source. (One tell is this line: "The House Speaker is ultimately responsible for the security in Congress," which is, of course, false.)

[Michael P]

Ah. So you think Meadows was lying, and that the DOD asked about National Guard support out of the blue.

Yes, there's a tell here. It's that your refuse to address the facts.

[David Nieporent]

The facts are that a politician's appearance on a television program is not "testimony." It's blather. The facts are that Meadows has actually refused to give testimony, despite being under subpoena.

The facts are that Trump refused to authorize the National Guard to act when there actually was an attack. Eventually, Mike Pence did it without the president's involvement.

The facts are that you have zero to back up your fake claim that Trump offered any troops. Where is the document showing him authorizing 10,000, or 20,000, or whatever number he makes up on a given day, NG troops to protect the capitol? The DOD IG certainly didn't find any such evidence. (Now, the J6 committee did receive an email from Meadows' document production in which he said — before 1/6 — that the NG would be available to "protect pro-Trump people." Nothing about protecting the Capitol.)

The facts are that the president is the CinC of the military, and Nancy Pelosi is not, and that Nancy Pelosi cannot refuse, or reject, or rebuff, an order by Trump to mobilize NG troops. (Ditto for the D.C. mayor, who Trumpkins have also tried to blame.)

The facts are that you're a dishonest hack.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The facts are that Trump refused to authorize the National Guard to act when there actually was an attack. Eventually, Mike Pence did it without the president's involvement.

So Mike Pence instituted a coup, and you're okay with it because?

[Michael P]

The DOD IG? You mean this report, which found that the DOD made sure the DC National Guard was available and promptly mobilized on January 5th and 6th?

GEN Milley told us that at the end of the meeting, the President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or Soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event. Gen Milley told us that Mr. Miller responded, “We’ve got a
plan and we’ve got it covered.”

That also found the House Sergeant at Arms refused to allow a request for DCNG troops to support the Capitol, and that Mayor Bowser wanted a very limited number of them, unarmed, and well away from the Capitol?

And you claim that was not them rebuffing offers of assistance. Typical.

[Ben_]

Is killing kids the same as walking around taking photos?

[Moderation4ever]

Is attacking police officers, breaking into offices, stealing, and threatening to kill VP Pence, the same as walking around taking photos?

[Bob from Ohio]

What was stolen?

[Estragon]

Several members said electronics were stolen.

This article quotes a us attorney saying things were stolen as well:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/capitol-hill-riots-doj-456178

[Bob from Ohio]

So, nothing then.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Seems to be fine if you are outside of US Supreme Court Justices houses.....Why not in an actual public building?

[Ben_]

How different are they?

Going into offices is pretty similar to walking around.

"Threatening" someone not present with impotent "threats" is quite similar to other rude behavior.

None of these are anything like killing anyone.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Showing up with a gun and the expressed intent to assassinate a Justice seems like a clear threat to me.

[Sarcastr0]

Shame he got away.

Oh, he didn't and you are just kinda ignoring that part?

Huh.

[Frank Drackman]

wait till some "Bernie Bro" shoots Kagan (could be mistaken for Kavenaugh at night)

[Bob from Ohio]

"did nothing for three hours to stop the attack"

What should he have done? Ordered the 3d Infantry in?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Also, the media is focused on the extremely small number of people that were bad actors. Most were peaceful protesters, if not just straight up tourists. You know, people with something called First Amendment rights, which includes the right to protest the "results" of an election. Are you suggesting the government should have taken actions that would have denied those who were properly protesting their rights?

[Sarcastr0]

The media isn't talking about all the randos on Jan 06, who didn't break into the Capitol, they are talking about the *actual bad actors* who did crimes.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You realize of the about a million people there it was the "randos" who were the ones being persecuted by the DOJ. Most were peaceful and orderly. Doubly so if you were to hold them to the same behavioral standards of a BLM "protest".

[Sarcastr0]

A million people are being prosecuted?

Big if true.

[Moderation4ever]

Clearly his staff and family thought there were things he could have done and that might be a place to start.

[Bob from Ohio]

"his staff and family"

Fail sons and cultists are good now!

[Nige]

Oh now they're not the most qualified people with great genes?

[shawn_dude]

"Staff and family" ... or just "staff" since Trump practices nepotism and his immediate family members were also part of the administration. His paid advisors, which included his daughter and son-in-law, believed he could have done something.

[M L]

Remember in 2020 when there were widespread attacks on federal courthouses, private businesses, police departments, D.C. locations near the White House including a historic church, a federal immigration facility, etc. The BLM/Antifa riots killed many people. The deaths and injuries and economic damage makes J6 look like a picnic in the park.

And yet what happened when Trump acted to stop these things? Of course, the loony lefties which include all of the mainstream media shrieked that it was fascism, lied about it being "peaceful protests", made up lies about one particular incident being for a photo op, etc.

[bernard11]

made up lies about one particular incident being for a photo op, etc.

Not a lie. It was for a photo op.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Several internal investigations found it was not for a photo op....

[Sarcastr0]

Want to link them? Because it's on camera, being a photo-op and all...

[Jimmy the Dane]

How lazy are you that you can't do a simple internet search. I know it is a routine leftist arguing tactic to try to delegitimize the opposition by saying "give me das' linksss!" But serious. You do not sound like a dumb man who can't operate an internet search engine. Anyway, there are countless articles about it. Here is one even from the corporate media you so love.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/09/lafayette-park-not-cleared-donald-trump-photo-opp-report-says/7622478002/

[David Nieporent]

You know that that article doesn't say it wasn't for a photo op, right?That article says that the government says it wasn't for a photo op.

[M L]

Deranged leftists say it was for a photo op, despite all of the evidence and clear explanations of the security need, the attempts to burn down the church, etc.

Why do they think that someone needs to affirmatively disprove their laughable claim of being able to read the minds of Trump and several others? I.e. to prove a negative about someone's mental state?

[David Nieporent]

"All the evidence" except the stuff you ignore. The Park Police claim that they had already planned to clear the park to install fencing before they knew about the photo op. (That's what this report says.) Problem is, Barr had shown up earlier in the day and told them that he wanted the park cleared for the president. And problem is, the Secret Service attacked the protesters in the park before the Park Police began their efforts. (Because this report was from the IG of Interior, it only looked at the Park Police and not any other agency.)

[M L]

What are you blabbing about?

[Sarcastr0]

Facts, ML.

Your refusal to engage with them is par for the course with you these days.

[M L]

Right, so where is the evidence for your mind-reading claims again?

[Michael P]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-barr-ordered-protesters-cleared-park-trump-visit/story?id=71026258

Attorney General William Barr personally ordered the expansion of the security perimeter around Lafayette Park Monday just before President Donald Trump's visit to St. John's Episcopal Church, a senior DOJ official and senior White House official confirmed to ABC News.

The officials said that the decision to expand the perimeter was made either late Sunday night or early Monday morning based on vandalism that had been carried out against buildings in the area over the weekend.

So... Barr told them to finally do what they already decided to do? And you think that's proof of our being a photo op?

Note that https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/barr-says-he-didn-t-give-tactical-order-clear-protesters-n1226376 gives a timeline that is even more favorable to Trump and Barr.

But, hey, you've got a conspiracy theory, even if your evidence is shitty.

[David Nieporent]

To be more precise, one government agency out of the numerous ones involved in the park clearing claimed that it wasn't for a photo op.

(It should be noted that these are the same agencies that denied they used tear gas, causing Mollie Hemingway to triumphantly report that the media was lying, except that tear gas was used and it was the agencies that were lying.)

[Jimmy the Dane]

So you see proof, but that isn't good enough because of "blah blah blah...." Nice hand waving.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure you know what proof is.

A statement that has been rebutted is not really good at proving stuff.

I sure you hope you're not a lawyer!

[Michael P]

It's amazing how quickly you people pivot between "government is trustworthy and should not be questioned" and "government is lying until we have indisputable proof otherwise".

[Sarcastr0]

Almost as though the government isn't a single thing.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Almost as though you are nothing but a clown bullshit artist...(and not a very good one at that...)

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not just a photo op. A really bad one. Trump wearing his Tough Guy Trump face holding a bible in the oddest way possible. Not sure what the message was.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Not only that but the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland continued NIGHTLY for almost 100 days straight. The protesters had the intention of BURNING IT DOWN and probably would have done so unless the police first stopped them.

Early on in, the local police said they wouldn't protect federal assets so Trump sent in federal law enforcement. (The media liked to call these guys "federal troops" because it sounds more ominous). Then came the daily claims of "police brutality" because "come on man all we want to do is like protest and burn down your shit man!" and antifa was mad the cops stopped them from doing it.

Also, during these riots and attacks shooting fireworks at police was routine. There were many reports that urine and feces were dumped on the police defending the building along with much other unsavory activity.

Then you have democrats who actually were calling for rioting in various forms and the media amplified that. Those democrats did nothing when the riots actually happened resulting in arson and looting.

The left is basically the new police state and seems to be fine using all the apparatus of government to suppress dissent. Expect this to become the norm and it will probably only get worse if they succeed with the federal gun grabs.

[Sarcastr0]

The protesters had the intention of BURNING IT DOWN

Love the load bearing 'intention.' If he could have put it in smaller type he would have.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Seriously. You do know that there were reports of local officials suggesting that federal law enforcement just allow protesters to do that very same action - BURN DOWN A FEDERAL COURTHOUSE - because defending it was becoming riskier. It was an alternative that the DOJ rejected (not surprisingly).

Given the opportunity, the raving mad leftists would have burned it to the ground. Yes, that I strongly believe.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh zounds, a local official. It is reported.

Yes, in a different reality the libs have hunted down and killed all the conservative Justices, burned down all the courthouses, and false flagged like 5 Jan 06.

But in reality, all you can do is speculate. Because the only thing that lets you deflect from actual manifest GOP actions is speculative leftist consequences.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You should change your handle to Strawman.

[Sarcastr0]

'Given the opportunity' is, in fact, speculation.

So not much of a strawman, except you really do post like you don't have much of a brain sometimes.

[Michael P]

No, "given the opportunity" is a statement of plain fact based on what those protesters repeatedly claimed they wanted to do, and repeatedly tried to do.

[Sarcastr0]

You thinking it real hard does not make it true.

[Michael P]

You denying it real hard does not make it false.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/23/report-portland-rioters-barricaded-federal-agents-in-courthouse-tried-to-burn-it-down/
https://news.yahoo.com/rioters-set-fire-federal-courthouse-162333860.html

[Sarcastr0]

This, of course, says nothing about 'Given the opportunity, the raving mad leftists would have burned it to the ground.'

[Michael P]

The raving mad leftists repeatedly did try to burn it down, including once the very day they had a greater opportunity to do so. But you are handwaving at some distinction without explaining what you think they would have done if they had a greater opportunity to burn it down.

This is why we call you Gaslight0.

[Nige]

Wow, Trump rerally lost control of things, didn't he?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not comparable.

It's a helluva lot easier to stop one guy than it is to stop a riot.

[David Nieporent]

Depends whether you try or not.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Neither tried for a while. Once they did try it took a minute to stop the one. Took a lot longer to stop the riot. Pretty obvious it’s a completely different problem.

[shawn_dude]

Probably easier to stop a riot if the people rioting believe they're doing it on your orders.

[ReaderY]

The outcome of the 11th Circuit’s decision in Sistersong v. Governor was straightforward. Dobbs made the result inevitable. Georgia’s abortion law, post-Dobbs, was straightforwardly constitutional. And Dobbs had extinguished the First Amendment analogue of the overbreath doctrine for abortion cases whereby courts had become accustomed to striking down laws on facial challenges if they might result in prohibitting a substantial number of constitutionally protected abortions. Since after Dobbs there are no longer any constitutionally protected abortions, overbreadth no longer has any role in abortion cases, and the standard for facial challenges is now the usual, more stringent Solarno standard, whereby a statute is facially valud if it has any constitutional application.

Well and good. I think the problem with the opinion was the tone. The judges didn’t have to call the plaintiffs “abortionists.” They didn’t have to opine that previous overbreadth doctrine twisted the constitution. They could let the plaintiffs know that after Dobbs, not only will they lose their case but they no longer be regarded as special and cared for and courts especially solicitious of their needs, without an impression that from here on federal courts will look at them, not as respectable civil rights vanguards regarded as social peers, but more or less as potential criminals to be talked to as such. They could have explained how totally Dobbs had taken the ground out from under the plaintiffs’ feet legally in a more neutral, matter-of-fact tone, taking care to avoid any appearance of adding side opinions that might pile insult onto injury, and without using a tone that suggests an opinion about what they thought of them socially. And it would have done just as well.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Superstitious, roundly bigoted, destined-for-replacement, drawling, conservative southern judges are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Those clingers can't get stomped (figuratively) into cultural irrelevance by their betters fast enough.

[Frank Drackman]

You sure have a pre-occupation with Violence, "Arthur"/Jerry, guess it comes from being at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

Glad you aren't up for Parole until 2043
I'd be 'bitter' too,

Frank

[Michael P]

One ironic year ago today:

But again, one last thing. I — we don’t talk enough to you about this, I don’t think. One last thing that’s really important is: We’re not in a position where we think that any virus — including the Delta virus, which is much more transmissible and more deadly in terms of non — unvaccinated people — the vi- — the various shots that people are getting now cover that. They’re — you’re okay. You’re not going to — you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.

Emphasis added.

[shawn_dude]

And significant numbers of people didn't listen, got various versions of COVID, and witlessly participated in giving birth to ever more contagious versions that predictably learned how to evade the vaccine. And now those witless participants are trying to claim an "I told you so!" while over a million of their fellow citizens are dead and still dying.

Florida's daily average death rate: 76. Highest in the country.
California's daily average death rate: 38. Second highest in the country with larger, denser cities and a larger population.
Difference? One of the two states took the virus seriously and the citizens masked up and got vaccines. Guess which one?

[Michael P]

Daniel Lemire, a computer science professor in Canada, has an interesting blog post today about scientific research and productivity: https://lemire.me/blog/2022/07/21/negative-incentives-in-academic-research/

(Usually he writes about software performance optimizations, especially SIMD-related, and other computer science topics. But today's post rings true more broadly.)

[M L]

Congratulations to the Pentagon, the US Security State, the weapons manufacturers and all their lobbyists who used to work on Capitol Hill for getting the House to increase Biden's $803b military spending request for 2022 by $37b: to a total of $843b.

As US military spending approaches $1 trillion annually, it's worth noting: this amount is more than 3 times more than the next higher spender, and more than the next 14 countries combined.

It's also 13 times larger than the annual spending of Russia, the grave threat to the US.

One of the worst and most destructive DC-media myths is that the two parties can't agree on anything any more, have nothing in common, are constantly fighting, etc. etc.

The opposite is true: on the biggest issues, the establishment wings of both parties are in full agreement.

The US has been on an insane orgy of military spending since 9/11 at least. This big, bad war machine couldn't even defeat the Taliban after 20 years.

That's because the real purpose isn't to win wars or security. It's this, as explained by Assange:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1547752702511263745

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is there anything more embarrassing than the US military?

[Frank Drackman]

Your Penis

[StellaLink_the dog]

Hey Mengele, are you claiming to be a mohel who botched a bit of cosmetic surgery? Or, are you otherwise experienced?

[bernard11]

803 + 37 = 840.

You get an F in arithmetic, among other subjects.

[M L]

The tweet is from Glenn Greenwald. Care to comment on its substance? Agree or no?

[Sarcastr0]

Our trouble with the military industrial complex is real. And bipartisan, though the Dems have an increasing number of skeptics these days.

Though a lot of countries, Israel especially, are pretty big fans.

[Nige]

Greenwald suddenly cares about obscene military spending because some of it is going to support Ukraine. But it is undeniably an obscenity.

[bernard11]

The comment is from you.

Do I think we spend more on defense than is wise? I suspect we do.

But I don't think what Assange says in the clip makes much sense.

[M L]

I meant my comment is just a copy and paste of Greenwald's twitter thread.

What doesn't make sense about what Assange said that Greenwald agrees with?

[Nige]

'suspect?' The budget is in the trillions and they couldn't even install a finctioning democracy in a country over ten years. What the actual good are they besides priotecting oil interests abroad and handing over gobs of cash to the worst people on the planet?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Here is your semi-regular reminder that a left wing activist showed up to a US Supreme Court Justice's house armed with the intention of assassinating him for the expressed purpose of changing a decision of the court.

I hear Congress will be opening up an investigation into that and other violence taking place to which the Justices have been subjected to next week. Also, the DOJ has 300+ indictments waiting and an entire special unit set up to prosecute those who are breaking the law. No stone will go unturned.

Oh wait, *checks notes* that was apparently confused by the copy editor as being the same as the tourists on January 6th. My bad.

[Estragon]

“Tourists”

You left out grannies!

Jimmy are you based in Michigan?? This guy needs your help pronto!

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1511816/download

[bevis the lumberjack]

For those doing the OMG Crazy Climate Events We're Gonna Die Because of climate change, there's an article on main Reason which in part quotes one of the reasonable climate scientists I referred to above. You know, actual information. Here's the money part:

"But are hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and droughts in the U.S. getting worse? University of Colorado climate change policy researcher Roger Pielke, Jr. notes that the number of landfalling hurricanes hitting the continental United States has been falling since 1900. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report observes that the annual average number of tornadoes in the U.S. has remained constant since the 1970s, although their location appears to be shifting from the Great Plains toward the mid-South. The president is right that wildfires have burned larger areas in recent years, although longer-term data show the area burnt by wildfires in the first half of the 20th century was similar to today's extent. With respect to droughts, the Southwestern U.S. is experiencing its worst drought in 12 centuries. However, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that since 1900 "the overall trend has been toward wetter conditions" nationally.

What about the $145 billion in weather damages last year? Pielke notes that figure is about the average to be expected given the increase in infrastructure and housing exposed to weather events. He adds that the overall trend in global weather losses as percent of global GDP has been falling since 1990."

We're like the old guy carried out to the plague wagon in Holy Grail - we're not dead yet. In fact, our death is not terribly imminent.

[Ben_]

Same thing every summer.

[bernard11]

JFTR, Roger Pielke is not a climate scientist.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No, but he is a clinger.

[Frank Drackman]

Preach it jerry!https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/264894-sandusky-grand-jury-presentment

[Bob from Ohio]

"Roger Pielke is not a climate scientist."

So? One need not be a "climate scientist" to be able to count hurricanes or read government reports.

Is he right or wrong? That's the question, not his credentials.

[Brett Bellmore]

Doesn't really matter: NOAA agrees.

Global Warming and Hurricanes

After getting past the obligatory scary predictions, they get into the weeds on the actual EVIDENCE. Their summation?

"We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.

...

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.

...

The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to our Atlantic hurricane projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricane activity at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature."

[Nige]

There are reams in there about how greenhouse gases are affecting intensity and speed of development and severity of impact, which I guess is why you're selecting the data about the frequency. But you admit to ignoring what you don't want to hear right there in your comment.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Meh. Ok, fine. He’s a technical expert on energy, climate, and the environment. You dispute his information and his conclusion or do you just want to argue his CV?

[bernard11]

I'm just pointing out that describing him as a "climate scientist" is inaccurate. Whether he is a "technical expert" or not I don't know. I know he writes a lot about the subject.

As to his report and conclusions I have no opinion since I haven't read the study. I might, if you tell me where to find it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

There’s a link to every assertion made in those paragraphs over in the article on Reason from which I pulled it. Some of them are sources other than Pielke.

More broadly he’s got a blog. As long as you’re looking you might as well take a look at Judith Curry as well. She is a climate scientist - was head of the program at Georgia Tech until she got tired of being hassled for being outside the consensus and quit. There are others.

The point is not to say that we’re not in a warming period. We are. The point today is that it is not now and may never become an emergency. Arguably the alarmists are as harmful as the deniers.

[bernard11]

Bevis,

The article is not in the current issue, AFAICT.

How about a link. I'm not going to search through their archive.

[bernard11]

Digging a bit deeper, the whole hurricane/extreme weather events business seems to be a major interest of his though, AFAICT he does not regard himself as a climate change skeptic.

I'd still like to see his analysis.

[shawn_dude]

Well, his CV lends weight to his opinions for those of us that don't know him personally or professionally. His ability to do math and his ability to understand the underlying meaning of the data are not the same thing.

From his CV:
Education
Ph.D. 1994 University of Colorado, Political Science
MA. 1992 University of Colorado, Public Policy
BA. 1990 University of Colorado, Mathematics

Math, policy, and polysci. So he's basically a mathematician who has zero education in any sort of earth science. If a lawyer was looking for a climate scientist as an expert witness in a trial, would this be the guy they'd hire? (nope. nope. and nope.) He's a policy wonk and not a physical scientist.

[Nige]

'although longer-term data show the area burnt by wildfires in the first half of the 20th century was similar to today's extent.'

Almost as of there were vastly more old-growth forests for which fires were part of a natural cycle of regeneration around in the first half of the 20th century compared to now.

Also number of hurricanes elides severity and extent. Unless... oh, more housing and infrastructure is being exposed to weather events therefore weather events are not getting worse! Helluva take.

[shawn_dude]

"With respect to droughts, the Southwestern U.S. is experiencing its worst drought in 12 centuries. However, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that since 1900 "the overall trend has been toward wetter conditions" nationally."

It's statements like this that make me lose all trust in someone who's speaking about climate change. "It can't be real because rain!"

Climate change = changing weather patterns = dry areas getting dryer or even wetter in extreme ways. Think: fires, flooding, extreme heat waves or even extreme cold waves that freeze natural gas pipes in Texas.

Oh, and that guy in the plague wagon in the Holy Grail? You know, the one tossed on top of a bunch of dead bodies as people dropped dead all around? Yeah, that guy wasn't dead yet but they didn't call it the "black death" for nothing. Imagine saying that everything was just fine as bodies pile up around you. Totally not imminent. Except for the nearly 800 people that died last week in Spain and Portugal due to the heat wave. But hey! Dog in burning room says everything is fine!

[bernard11]

So the House passed a Right to Contraception law.

Eight Republicans voted for it, 195 against.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Dumb law designed to keep the Useful Idiots engaged in their manufactured outrage. No one wants to ban "contraception" and even if Griswold did disappear nothing is going to change.

If the left was really concerned about "equity" what we would see is massive funding into a reliable and effective pharmaceutical option for men that is reversible. If that was out on the market I could almost guarantee you the abortion would plummet (legal or illegal) by 90+%.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not a good look for Team Red.

There’s hardly anyone to vote for anymore once you eliminate all the extremists.

[not guilty]

The bill to codify a federal right to contraception access passed the House but is expected to fail in the Senate due to Republican opposition. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/house-contraception.html

I have long been puzzled by those who oppose abortion rights and also want the government to restrict access to contraceptives -- the proper use of which minimizes the need for abortions. Why is the determination of who bears or begets offspring a legitimate governmental concern?

[M L]

I have long been puzzled by those who posit imaginary things as a reason to have the government do symbolic political acts or things that exceed their constitutional authority.

Which states want to restrict access to contraceptives currently? Or is this one of those clever wordings to hide the fact that it's actually referring to another dumbass government funding program?

[shawn_dude]

There should be consequences for immoral women being all slutty, right?! Women enjoying their lives and their relationships is a threat to people who preach a morally restrictive life as the only acceptable life. If there aren't consequences, including illness, prison, and death, morally strict people might realize there are better alternatives and turn into devil-worshiping hussies.

Remember the good old days when women were drowned or burned if they didn't toe the line? Well, we've brought those days back with a modern twist!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why are the Democrats in people's bedrooms?

[Nige]

Helping them keep the Republicans out.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Many of them tried the bullshit excuse that they don't think SCOTUS is going to do anything about it.

That's what a coward says when they actually hope SCOTUS rules the other way, and they don't want to pass a law which might interfere with that outcome.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Republicans are the Party of Freedom, right? What a load of crap. Both parties are so damn scared of their extremes.

[M L]

Where was Congress delegated the authority to regulate access to contraceptives?

Or are you saying in order to support freedom you must support unconstitutional government overreach?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Allowing something is not government overreach. It’s the opposite.

[M L]

If Congress has the authority to regulate the legality of contraceptives, then they have the authority to ban them, or to stop a state from banning them.

If Congress does not have the authority to regulate the legality of contraceptives, then doing is is government overreach.

[shawn_dude]

That's just a trick.
It's like saying "send abortion back to the states!" when you already know step 2 is for congress to ban it nationwide.

Government has the authority to govern interstate commerce and the availability of contraceptives via mail. It also has the authority to govern medicare/medicaid offerings and set standards for ACA insurance plans.

[Aunt Teefah]

What? How could this be? After Dobbs was handed down, all the right wing commenters on this site guaranteed that no Republicans supported contraceptives being banned. And that none wanted to ban abortion when the mother's life was in danger, either. And yet, these things keep happening . . . weird.

[M L]

If you don't support the federal government usurping state governments, that's the same as banning contraceptives!

[Aunt Teefah]

How is it usurping state governments? Do states have the prerogative to ban contraception? Anyway, anyone of average intelligence can tell that these ridiculous appeals to federalism are transparently phony.

[M L]

I agree that most people or at least most politicians are fair weather federalists.

"Do states have the prerogative to ban contraception?"

They have the power to do anything they want unless it is expressly forbidden by the Constitution, or by an act of Congress pursuant to a specifically delegated power.

[shawn_dude]

Easy peasy:
FDA: Contraceptives like the pill are available OTC
Congress: interstate contraceptive sales may not be blocked
USPS: mail subscriptions of FDA approved drugs may not be blocked

There. Done.

(btw: "The Pill" is the primary form of contraception for women. It is also considered an abortifacient by pro-lifers and likely to be banned because it can, occasionally, prevent implantation.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The States have the prerogative to do anything that's not protected by or listed in the Constitution, you nitwit.

[Frank Drackman]

Nancy Klobuchair could be the "Poster Girl" for Contraception
or add Pramila Slapajap-apal and could be the "Contraception Twins" Jeez, seen better looking faces on Iodine bottles....

[EscherEnigma]

Remember Mr. "Wants to Pray on the 50 Yard Line while Surrounded by Students in a Very Public Display"?

Since the SCOTUS said the school has to allow that, here's what they should have done: "We acknowledge that the post-game 50-yard line is now a public forum and that religious displays made there are not government speech. In recognition of this new forum, we open it to all. Following each game, we will have 30-second slots for anyone to pray at the 50-yard line, order to be determined by lottery. We hope Mr. Never-Read-Matthew-6:5 enters the lottery and enjoys his time in public prayer, alongside all other members of the community. Depending on community interest, we may feel the need to reduce the time-slot so as to allow more members a shot at this public forum."

[shawn_dude]

The Satanic Temple would be first in line.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

As Fox News' Jesse Waters lays out, Birx admitted in her new book that she and Dr. Anthony Fauci were essentially shooting from the hip when it came to national directives such as "two weeks to stop the spread," and social distancing requirements.

These two Federals ruined countless people's lives and will never be held accountable the rest of the Federals.

That's because the Federals are evil monsters.

[Michael P]

The guy who killed all those people in Uvalde was recognized by just about everyone as a problem -- but our society has rejected "if you see something, say something" as biased against certain groups. https://abcnews.go.com/US/uvalde-shooter-exhibited-warning-sign-expert/story?id=87064502

[David Nieporent]

They ruined nobody's lives. Now, Trumpkins and their opposition to testing, masking, social distancing, and vaccination… well, they killed a whole lot of people.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'll take what are 4 things that don't work for $1000, Alex.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another insurrection hearing, and the Volokh Conspiracy joins Fox News on the mute, pathetic, partisan sidelines.

Prof. Blackman is wallowing in right-wing bigotry, railing about contraception, the gays, and modernity.

Prof. Volokh is tossing plenty of diversionary chaff, letting cowardly and conspicuous silence do his talking about the conduct of John Eastman and other election-subverting, un-American assholes with whom he sympathizes.

#TrumpGotYourTongue?

Maybe those tongues are still affixed to Trump’s private parts.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your bigoted, stale views could carry anyone in modern, liberal-libertarian mainstream America, that is.

[Frank Drackman]

Whatever Jerry, Speaking of Stale, when Joe Pa wanted "Cream" in his Coffee did you give him some of "Jerry's Special Sauce"??

[Jmaie]

I have neither the time nor patience to listen to the January 6th hearings, but while on my way to pick up dinner the radio was tuned to NPR and I didn't change the station. Roughly 30 minutes in all, faulting Trump's failure to tell his supporters to stand down, condemn the violence, etc. One speaker of military background used the phrase "dereliction of duty." All convinced his conduct was shameful, and no disagreement from me.

So, who can tell me the legislative purpose for this line of discussion? Serious question, no snark. These hearings are decried by Trump supporters as a show trial intended only to sully his name and to prevent a run in 2024. Are they wrong? Is there legislation that would prevent any future president from being a giant douche?

[Josh R]

I hear you. However, the show trial is needed because the public needs to be made aware of what happened. And, there is enough of an argument that legislation could dissuade a future douche (e.g., Electoral Act reform) and the investigation is salient for criminal prosecutions (call your lawyer, Rudy and pray he is better than you are) to justify the show trial.

[Michael P]

A show trial isn't about informing the public. It's about propaganda and demonstrating power.

[Josh R]

Show trials as propaganda might be a connotation. But the denotation is an attempt to influence rather than to seek justice without regard to whether the information is misleading. In this case, the information is spot-on accurate.

[Michael P]

Stanning for show trials is a bad look. Especially when you claim lies are "spot-on accurate".

[ReaderY]

As Lincoln said, calling the truth a lie doesn’t make it so.

I understand you believe that if you simply believe something strongly enough and repeat it fervently enough, if your leader repeats it wnough, it becomes so. But Lincoln stood for the proposition that the truth isn’t simply a creation of people’s monds, but lies outside.

[bernard11]

Not a "show trial," because it's not a trial.

[Josh R]

Pedantically correct, but Jmaie's (not invalid) point is the committee's purpose is to sway public opinion rather than to advocate for corrective legislation, which makes it similar to a show trial.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I expect this committee and the hearings to generate a legislative package designed to address a number of the problems identified by events and by the committee.

[shawn_dude]

If you don't sway opinion, advocating for corrective legislation may be a pointless exercise. With over half the GOP house still claiming the election was stolen and the insurrection was just a bunch of unarmed tourists, people need to hear the facts if corrective legislation has any chance of passing the Senate.

[bernard11]

Run, Josh, Run.

Hilarious.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Some feral Democrat tried to attack Rep. Zeldin tonight with a knife.

[Michael P]

Yup. https://pix11.com/news/witnesses-gov-candidate-lee-zeldin-attacked-at-perinton-campaign-stop/

This is what comes of Democrat efforts to normalize political violence.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're not going to mention the country's top "Republican" sitting in front of a TV for over three hours and refusing to do anything about the political violence his lies caused, and instead telling others that his violent supporters cared more about a 'stolen election' than they did?

What's the going rate for you to spread partisan bullshit? I presume there's a hefty discount because of your reputation as a liar?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One witness described the attacker as delusional. That suggests a Republican rather than a Democrat. Is there any evidence Mr. Jakubonis, the accused attacker, is a Democrat?

I have heard -- barely gossip -- that the guy was a former Zeldin supporter who turned against Zeldin and was wearing some Trump swag when he was arrested.

Also, it was not a knife.

Other than that, though, great comment!

[Michael P]

The country famous for dental-health outcomes and its National Health System is now looking at rationing dental care given how many citizens have been driven to "DIY" dental procedures: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/19/dental-check-ups-could-extended-every-two-years-free-appointments/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Researchers evaluated two school districts in Fargo, North Dakota, in which one had a mask mandate and the other did not during the 2021–2022 academic year.

“We observed no significant difference between student case rates while the districts had differing masking policies nor while they had the same mask policies,” they noted, adding that the “impact of school-based mask mandates on COVID-19 transmission in children is not fully established” amid mandates nationwide.

A number of other studies have found no link between mask mandates and a drop in COVID-19 cases.

That won't stop the mask-holes though. They demand bootlicking compliance to the State.

[Ben_]

"That won't stop the mask-holes though. They demand bootlicking compliance to the State."

It’s actually not that. And that kind of talk makes the audience turn against you.

The mask enforcers are just dumb superstitious people who think they’re smart scientists because their other dumb friends (and the liars on CNN) encourage them. Masks rules in schools are the same as knocking wood or throwing salt for luck, except the mask enforcers are all Karens.

I suspect you will get further pointing out that they’re mostly dumb, middle-aged white cat ladies who intend to make everyone's life worse. If you’re personally mean enough to them, maybe you can make them cry and go home and reconsider a life of bullying everyone.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The ruling comes after US District Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee, rejected several defenses - including that Trump had claimed executive privilege over his former adviser's testimony and documents - and limited Bannon's team to the issue of whether he understood the deadlines for responding to lawmakers.

District courts are as illegitimate as SCOTUS.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The trial was quick because Bannon basically was denied any type of defense argument or strategy. That is sad. But, now the DC prisons get one more political prisoners in their gulag and the left brings us one step closer to civil war.

[David Nieporent]

Like every criminal defendant, he was denied defenses that had no factual basis and did not constitute legal defenses to the charge. If you're charged with contempt for defying a subpoena to testify, you can argue (a) there was no subpoena; (b) you didn't have notice of the subpoena; (c) you tried to comply but you were in a car accident and so couldn't testify.

You can't argue, "I didn't wanna." You can't argue, "I was justified because [something that isn't true and doesn't constitute justification.]"