Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[AmosArch]

Health care costs in America are undoubtedly very high. The usual explanation for all of it and universal solution you'll come across in the media is that we don't have nationwide single payer and we should adopt it immediately. But what do you think are the major reasons and what is your solution to high health care prices?

[AmosArch]

Replace first sentence with Health care costs in America are undoubtedly very high and quality seems to be relatively poor for the costs.

[Kazinski]

My solution is to go with single payer catastrophic insurance. And everyone pays out of pocket for routine care, or buys their own medigap insurance, except the poor of course, we can keep that for the indigent.

People paying cash for service would get the lowest rate a provider charges any other payor.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean something like what existed before Medicare/Medicaid (except with multiple payers) and states started dictating what health policies had to cover?

[DaivdBehar]

Lawyer Joshie Boy wants to be governor of PA. He is saying, the energy of your 100 mile road trip in your 4000 lbs. car will have to come from your house current, to end the use of gasoline. Welcome to Venezuela, geniuses in PA.

[Krayt]

Quality is insanely high. The separate issue is not everyone having it.

And high costs are a good thing because they call into existence new treatments and drugs. The fraudulent claim by some politicians is you can have your cake and eat it too -- rapid advancement, which is what saves the vast majority of lives decade over decade, with low costs.

It doesn't work that way with the fluff of video games.

It doesn't work that way with the fluff of iPhones.

It doesn't work that way with the fluff of self-driving cars.

The lie by politicians is pretending health care is some monolithic thing out there they can just violently grab and jam into your pocket.

It's like the above technology, a constantly moving and updating target.

Should we have single-payer iPhones and Androids? Video games?

Haha, that's silly! Development would ground down to next to nothing!

Then why become mass murderers by eviscerating the profit motives of medicine?

Remember the issue is getting insurance for everyone, not some corrupt politician's goal of taking over. The latter does not follow!

[Krayt]

Single payer is government saying, "Here's your Obamaphone! Everyone gets a $40 paid by the government and can only have a $40 phone, and only paid by the government.

Maybe Apple or Samsung make Herculean efforts to bring down the prices of some of their mid or low end models, but $1000 per bleeding edge retail dries up, and R&D slows to a crawl.

Single payer is also like changing Social Security: here's your monthly stipend. And that is it! All your savings and investment income you cannot use anymore. Your kids can inherit it, but you cannot spend or use it yourself.

"No it isn't like that at all!"

Yes. It is.

[Krayt]

People laugh at Behar's claims of the lawyer/politician profession being 10000 times more toxic than organized crime, but this is a mathematically trivial observation here.

By eviscerating the profit motive, technology lags further and further behind where it otherwise would be. Deaths from that swamp lives saved by full coverage by many magnitudes.

Again, the real problem is coverage. Don't smash the iPhone/video game/medical tech development juggernauts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's not exactly true Krayt.

They is always an exclusive for the powerful and connected. Even the UK has private health insurance and so does Canada.

A two-tiered system so the elites don't have to suffer like the proles.

[AmosArch]

selected reasons I perceive to be contributing to health care costs:
1. cultural norm of reactive tech heavy/expensive wonder drug heavy healthcare
2. cultural norm of extensive testing and procedure
3. cultural norm of extensive expensive EOL care
4. high bureaucracy due in part to litigious environment
5. American lifestyle
6. demographics
7. Artificial restriction on the supply of doctors
8. cultural expectation and acceptance of high costs
9. massive corruption in certain sectors of healthcare ie disability and veteran's benefits drawing away funds from important sectors which could raise the standard over time like RandD.
10. Failure of certain key sectors to be sufficiently exposed to market forces.
11. The system of employer provided/and to an extent government granted healthcare shielding people from sticker shock
12. Finally I agree partially with the traditional explanations that the US has a more lax regulatory atmosphere that can contribute to higher prices and single payer can appear to 'solve' some of these issues (though not in the way they think). But I believe the underlying reasons ultimately have little to do inherently with whether healthcare is government provided or not.

[Armchair Lawyer]

High pay for doctors and nurses, compared to other countries.

In the US, a PCP on average brings in $243,000 a year. A specialist on average brings in $346,000 per year. In France, by contrast, a doctor brings in $116,000 Euros per year. It's roughly a 1:1 ratio currently...so.

A registered nurse in the US brings in $75,000 a year in the US. A Registered nurse in France brings in 29,000 Euros a year on average

We pay our nurses and doctors a lot more than other countries. That's really the biggest reason. But people don't like to point that out.

[Absaroka]

"A Registered nurse in France brings in 29,000 Euros a year on average"

The local fast food places are paying $16 an hour, or $32K a year. Paying RN's less than that seems unwise.

[Krayt]

Come to the US, nurses. Doctors and nurses have fast track work visas, and you're here as long as you want.

Come to this shining city on the hill, and live free. Free from politicians.

For now.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

They won't come because healthcare is cheaper and better where they are.

[Ben_]

It is cheaper, in part, because doctors and nurses get paid a lot less.

Serious people don’t actually say it’s better. Mostly trolls and America-haters say stuff like that.

[Michael P]

The sum of hospital and physician/clinicals services is just over half of US healthcare spending, so I don't think that explains the discrepancy -- especially because a lot of those costs go to capitol equipment and buildings rather than labor. Drugs are the next biggest chunk.

Also, paying healthcare workers a lot does not explain why their salaries are so consistently high. The biggest underlying reasons they can demand that kind of premium are what Brett identified at 6:00 am. Healthcare consumers pay a small fraction of their initial consumption -- plus, after they hit their "out of pocket" maximum, additional consumption is normally paid entirely by a third party. Add either mode of payment to not seeing prices in advance, and they are excluded from meaningful cost-benefit analysis of treatments and alternatives.

Unless the provider is an HMO, they have minimal incentive to do much cost-benefit analysis ... and if they are an HMO, they have other adverse incentives, like dumping the most expensive patients onto other providers. That leaves the heavily regulated and legally vulnerable insurance provider or government to try to regulate what is done, but any third-party payer has a knowledge problem -- they don't know what either the patient or the provider does, so their decisions are inherently less informed.

[Moderation4ever]

Your list with is pretty complete and accurate shows that health care cost cannot be solved with a single solution. In fact, containing health care cost likely means changes at a personal level, at the provider level, and at the government level.

I think we could see big changes if on a personal level people did a few things. Try to live healthier, be more of an advocate for yourself asking questions on tests and medication, make plans for EOL that does not extend life in an unrealistic fashion.

[Martinned]

The reason is that American democracy and rule of law is for sale, so crony capitalism corrodes any attempt at securing some kind of efficient delivery of goods or services. The exception is markets where the government is not involved, but that only really applies to markets with no serious barriers to entry, information asymmetries between buyers and sellers, etc.

[Martinned]

With Matt Stoller retweets are definitely not endorsements, but it's basically this: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-red-wedding-for-rural-pharmacies

[Krayt]

You are partly correct. But the flaw is in the politician, not the company or businessman.

Politicians go into politics, seek it out, to be corrupt and make a better life for themselves, getting in the way until (something happens) and they get back out of the way.

It is in their interest to lead you to believe they are naive do-gooders, tainted by ratlike businessmen dangling green carrots

That's bass ackwards.

In any 3rd world dictatorship, or nominal democracies lousy with corruption, e.g. some of the larger are Mexico, India, Brazil, you go into government to make a better life for yourself and your family, being corrupt.

They just have to hide it better here.

[Martinned]

I didn't say anything about whose fault this is. But along your lines, it's not politicians' fault, but the fault of the voters who elect predictably corrupt politicians like Trump, and who put up with a system of democracy that facilitates corruption.

[Brett Bellmore]

Absence of a free market.

First, supply is artificially reduced, by measures such as certificate of need requirements.

Second, third party payments always mess up a market. The person actually consuming the product has no idea what it costs!

Third, health insurance is now heavily regulated in terms of exactly what must me offered. And, of course, by law some people are required to be given the insurance below cost, which automatically means other people must be charged above cost.

[Nige]

Health care isn't a market. Treating as one is where most of the problems start.

[Brett Bellmore]

Denying that a market is a market doesn't make it not one.

[Sarcastr0]

The demand signal is pretty normal, except when it becomes infinite.

You could call that a market, but it's a wonky one.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that, because of the third party payment system, the demand comes from people who are unaware of the price. That circumvents the normal operation of a market in controlling demand.

It is, trivially, a market. You have people who want something, and people who are supplying it. What else do you need for there to be a market? It's just a screwed up market due to all the regulatory interventions.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Lots of markets fit that definition.

Food, housing, water....

[Sarcastr0]

Yes; those are also abnormal markets, full of safety valves and one even is a government-managed utility.

[bernard11]

No. You don't have individuals suddenly demanding massive amounts of those things.

Nobody goes without eating for years and suddenly needs to go on a 100,000 calories/day diet for a while.

The comparison is silly.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No. You don't have individuals suddenly demanding massive amounts of those things.

Nobody goes without eating for years and suddenly needs to go on a 100,000 calories/day diet for a while.

The comparison is silly.

You reason like a 5 year-old. A given individual's demand pattern is irrelevant. What matters at the market level is demand by entire populations over time. Or are you under the impression that cardiac patients are synchronizing their heart attacks to all happen at the same time?

Also, while demand for things like food doesn't go through significant ups and downs (but steadily grows over time), supply often can.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Demand in this context is not about demanding "more" of a good or service. It's about the relative price someone is willing to pay for a set amount of the good or service.

Sarcastro mentioned demand going to "infinite". Health care doesn't go to "infinite." You don't need a million doctors...you need one (or two) doctors, very badly.

These markets are similar in that there is a standard supply demand curve...until a certain point is hit. At that point, demand becomes decoupled with supply. Let's use water an an example. Water costs ~~$1.50 per 1000 gallons, while the average family uses 3000 gallons a month. As the supply of water goes down, the price goes up, and demand drops. Increase the price 10-fold, and the demand may drop. Increase the price 100-fold, and the demand will drop further. People will water their grass less, take shorter showers, etc. By increasing the price, demand can be dropped.

However, at a certain point, people NEED water to live, and the demand doesn't drop anymore, and no increase in price will limit the demand. They will pay "whatever" to get the water they need to live. This is the "infinite demand" situation.

[Michael P]

Demand is normally described as a curve relating the quantity that consumers will purchase as a function of price. Under what conditions do you think that quantity will be (effectively) infinite?

[defaultdotxbe]

When the price is (effectively) zero.

[Voize of Reazon]

Do you inhale an infinite volume of air every day?

[Nige]

Certainly it's being treated as a market, forced into being a market, with the inevitable highly normalised nightmare dystopian outcomes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you can explain what you mean by a "market", if not a situation where some people want to buy something, and other people are selling it.

[Nige]

Yes, that is a market. That should not be health care.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Can you explain why not? Can you give a better way to provide a limited good or service to a large number of people?

[Nige]

Sure. Socialised health care.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Sure. Socialised health care.

That's still a market. The difference is who pays and how much regulation is in place.

[Nige]

Sure you can CALL it a market if you really want to, but who cares?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Sure. Socialised health care."

So...what's that mean exactly? Rationing health care? People are limited in how much health care they can get according to a set of rules?

Or can anyone get as much health care as they want, whenever they want, without any limitations?

[Nige]

No.

[Nige]

And yes.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I see... So your version of socialized health care is "anyone get as much health care as they want, whenever they want, without any limitations?"

That doesn't exist.

That doesn't exist because health care is a combination of goods and services which requires real resources to provide. And letting anyone have "as much as they want, whenever they want, without limitation" destroys the system by requiring infinite resources (or extremely excessive resources). So limitations are put in, of various types.

Let's put this in context for a minute, with a simple item. Ibuprofen. A very common drug.

Under your view of Socialized health care, I should be able to pull up to any doctor, pharmacy, or hospital, and get as much ibuprofen as I want, whenever I want, with no limitation, for free. Right? I should be able to get 100 pills at a time, no waiting, no cost required, no barriers. Or 1000 pills at a time. Or 10,000 pills at a time. Or 100,000 pills. Right?

But there are no socialized health care systems in the world that will allow that. They will put limitations into place to prevent that.

[Nige]

Of course nothing like that exists, you literally just made it up. A health care system has to deliver the health care people need. That's it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

". A health care system has to deliver the health care people need. That's it."

And who defines what that need is? I say I need 10,000 ibuprofen pills for my backache. I should be able to get them, without waiting, without cost, without barriers...if this is real socialized medicine.

Or does someone "else" decide what I need?

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you want doctors to work for free, then? Will they be OK with that?

[Nige]

No, I expect Doctors and other health care providers to be well-paid, with strong protections and employee rights. Those are the things you destroy when you want to break up a socilaised system in order to sell it off for profit, by the way.

[Michael P]

US doctors were traditionally mostly self-employed or partners in small practices. That changed for some doctors with HMOs, but the ACA is what really drove the current wave of consolidation and conglomeration. It wasn't privatizing a socialized system that put doctors under the heels of big corporations, but the converse.

[defaultdotxbe]

Doctors and nurses in the US are more well-paid than in countries with socialized healthcare. So if that's what you want seems socialism is the opposite of what you should be advocating for.

[Nige]

You can socialise and still pay them quite well.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" I expect Doctors and other health care providers to be well-paid, with strong protections and employee rights."

How do you get rid of bad doctors?

[Nige]

Regulation and oversight. Sorry, know you guys hate those things.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You just said you wanted the doctors protected from the regulators.

[Nige]

It's like two things that have to be balanced in order to be fair and protect everyone's interests.

[Martinned]

"Give me money or you die" isn't a market, that's robbery.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm curious why you think that. You pay for food, right? You'd starve to death without it, right?

You maybe think grocery stores are engaged in robbery?

[Nige]

Social safety nets are supposed to ensure that nobody is too poor to afford basic essentials like food and shelter. Health care is another basic essential.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, health care is fundamentally different from food and housing, but not in a good way. It only takes a finite amount of food to feed somebody, and setting aside the little matter of taste and presentation, keeping somebody fed is actually quite cheap. It wasn't always that way. Famines used to be a thing, and they're working really hard at the moment to bring them back.

Likewise, setting aside comfort, it's pretty cheap to keep somebody from dying of exposure. Wasn't always that way, and, again, they seem determined to bring the bad days back.

Because both of these needs are finite and cheap, it's possible to pretend that economic laws don't apply to them. Government can do some fairly stupid things without us starving or freezing to death. Not as stupid as banning fertilizer or conventional power sources, of course, which is why the bad days ARE on their way back right now, but some fairly stupid things.

Because people are mortal, every last one of us is eventually going to die regardless of anything we do, health care is different. The amount of health care a person can actually profit from varies from practically none if they're young and in good health, to for all practical purposes infinite if they're dying.

That means you've got to draw a LINE. Ration. Deny people health care they would actually benefit from. Because you could literally bankrupt the world providing everybody in a mid-sized country all the health care they might benefit from.

If you have to ration something, doing it on the basis of who is willing to pay for it is far from the worst approach, at least it matches resources to the problem.

If you're in denial about the realities, you're going to reject that. I get that. Doesn't change the realities, just means you're in denial.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you're mixing up health care with immortality.

Most do not expect immortality. That doesn't mean there isn't a threshold of avoidable deaths and other lifetime issues that we really shouldn't commoditize.

[Nige]

'Not as stupid as banning fertilizer or conventional power sources, of course,'

Be stupider to let them continue poisoning the environment and causing the planet to burn - that's taking disaster capitalism to quite the extreme.

'doing it on the basis of who is willing to pay for it is far from the worst approach'

It is literally the worst approach. Maybe rationing it by race or ethnicity would be worse, I dunno. They're all pretty bad down at that level.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That doesn't mean there isn't a threshold of avoidable deaths and other lifetime issues that we really shouldn't commoditize."

No, we absolutely should comoditize them. I mean, unless you want people to die so you can feel better about something, I suppose.

Markets work. That's the bottom line. The problems we have with our health care system all stem from people who think like you do, who are horrified at the idea of using markets for important things, and who have regulated the health care market into a miserable mess.

[Sarcastr0]

Markets work for the well-off.

That is the issue.

The current system is rife with middle class bankruptcies and lower class deaths. And it's much better than what we once had.

Does that mean that single-payer solves all of that? It does not, but it does a better job of addressing it than leaning on markets, which by design tilt towards the wealthy.

[bernard11]

If you have to ration something, doing it on the basis of who is willing to pay for it is far from the worst approach, at least it matches resources to the problem.

Prices work fine, until you start rationing life and death. If we have to choose between some minor, possibly unnecessary, treatment for a billionaire and life-saving treatment for a pauper which should we choose? The market tells us one thing. What does your conscience, or your faith, tell you?

[Nige]

Markets work for delivering profits, not health care.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If we have to choose between some minor, possibly unnecessary, treatment for a billionaire and life-saving treatment for a pauper which should we choose?

Looks who learned absolutely nothing from the Covid shutdowns of elective procedures about how much life-saving treatment for "paupers" is subsidized by the former.

There is nobody making an either/or choice between a boob-job for some trophy wife and a life-saving procedure for some homeless person, except in your imagination.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The current system is rife with middle class bankruptcies and lower class deaths. And it's much better than what we once had."

The current system isn't even close to a free market.

[Sarcastr0]

True Capitalisms has never been tried!

[bernard11]

we absolutely should comoditize them. I mean, unless you want people to die so you can feel better about something, I suppose.

No. We shouldn't. Commoditizing health care means allocating it solely on the basis of ability to pay, and assigning zero weight to the relative consequences for the patient.

You are saying that the billionaire can command resources for the most trivial matter, while the pauper dies for lack of care.

I'd say it is you who isn't bothered by people dying unnecessarily so long as your ideological quirks are satisfied.

[Martinned]

I do pay for food, but eating or not eating a specific food item will never be a matter of life and death. Hence: competition. If a specific food item is too expensive, I will go somewhere else.

[defaultdotxbe]

I do pay for healthcare, but seeing or not seeing a specific provider will never be a matter of life and death. Hence: competition. If a specific provider is too expensive, I will go somewhere else.

[Nige]

Meanwhile your appendix ruptures.

[bernard11]

"Hello, 911? I think my husband just had a heart attack. We live at 100 Elm Street. Can you get me some quotes from ambulance companies, cardiologists and hospitals, so I can get him taken care of?"

"So, doctor, you're telling me I have cancer and need to start chemo ASAP? OK. I'll check around and see what kind of deal I can get."

[Ben_]

"If we have to choose between some minor, possibly unnecessary, treatment for a billionaire and life-saving treatment for a pauper which should we choose?"

Who told you you get to choose?

Why do people like you think you have the authority to decide things about others' lives?

[Martinned]

Indeed. Everybody knows that billionaires should have the authority to decide what they get and what should be left over for others.

[bernard11]

I don't think I get to choose.

I think society gets to choose, indirectly, by establishing a health care system.

And there is no reason, absolutely none, why that has to be simply based on ability to pay, and can't take moral considerations into account.

I would think that those, like you, who like to proclaim themselves "pro-life," would understand that, but I guess the "pro-life" business only applies when it's an excuse to control other people.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Society" doesn't chose squat. The choice always gets made by some individual or small group claiming to act on behalf of "society".

[Ben_]

"Society" doesn't chose squat. The choice always gets made by some individual or small group claiming to act on behalf of "society".

And they both know that, but they won't say it because they prefer deception.

[Mr. Bumble]

You work for free?

[Sarcastr0]

Mixing up the system and the individual here, looks like.

[defaultdotxbe]

How does the system work without individuals?

[Sarcastr0]

"Give me money or you die" is about the system, not about individual doctors.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Give me money or you die" is about the system, not about individual doctors."

Well, somebody has to produce food and shelter and other necessities, or we all die.

[Sarcastr0]

And food and water and housing are not a 'money or you die' situation.

We can discuss why they are different (we do somewhat above), but the point is that the systems are not comparable.

[Mr. Bumble]

"with the inevitable highly normalised nightmare dystopian outcomes."

What exactly does that word salad mean?

[Nige]

It means going bankrupt as a result of treatment is as horrifying as it is normal.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh, now it's so much clearer.

[Nige]

You're welcome.

[David Nieporent]

Why? Going bankrupt means that one spent all of one's money. Why is it horrible to spend one's money on something as important as medical treatment? Seems to be a lot more sensible than going bankrupt because one spent all of one's money on luxury goods.

[not me]

Can we just all stop using the word "dystopian"? There is not now, nor ever has been, any need to coin that phrase. Anyone who has read Plato's Republic, More's Utopia, or pretty much any decent science fiction at all understands that the English language already has a word for that. "Utopia."

And if you don't believe me, publish a work describing your own version of Utopia and watch everybody who isn't you label it a "dystopia".

[Nige]

But I don't care if my utopia is somebody else's dystopia and vice versa - I'm signifying ny attitude, not somebody else's.

[Krayt]

Health care is a market, and you badly, desperately want it to be so!

You want it so for video games.

You want it so for iPhones and Androids.

You want it so for robo cars, and apo filters with cutsie things and a hundred other dancing bears, new or on the horizon.

You want market and profit motive for this fluff to advance it as quickly as possible.

Therefore, how much more so for lifesaving technology.

I must constantly remind people their concern is everyone having insurance, not government taking over and eviscerating the profit motive, which would be laughably disasterous for iPhones and video games.

And new lifesaving techniques, which trivially saves magnitudes more lives than issuing current tech levels as a freebie to all.

[Sarcastr0]

No.
While markets are indeed the incredible best engine for innovation, they are not the only engine.

Markets have issues with equal distribution. Not a problem with robo cars and whatnot. Absolutely a problem with lifesaving tech.

Ensuring the poor don't die of the easy stuff is a cost that outweighs the benefit of slowing the cutting edge a bit.

[Jazzizhep]

What’s the easy stuff that isn’t expensive? (See Brett’s cause of high healthcare costs)

The hard stuff eventually becomes the easy stuff through “cutting edge” innovation.

[Sarcastr0]

Off the top of my head: Prophylactic care including especially well-baby checkups; insulin; epi pens; mental healthcare; dental care; vision.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What’s the easy stuff that isn’t expensive?

Public health measures generally. Plus a personal physician for everyone, who sees each patient on a regular schedule to do a physical and supervise follow-on care. Everyone gets checked for nutrition; expectant mothers all get pre-natal care; people who need antibiotics get them. The bedrock techniques of medical science get distributed universally, at no cost to patients.

That has a real model, by the way. It is a description of the healthcare system of Costa Rica, a still-impoverished nation which has over the last several decades built that system to deliver a higher life expectancy than we get in the U.S.

What Costa Rica can do at a basic level of care, the U.S. could do at a higher level of care. Of course there is a fundamental policy question to be answered. Does a nation prefer to improve its healthcare statistics by radically equalizing basic care, or does it prefer to seek improvements by disregarding equality?

In the U.S. we achieve a somewhat-lower life expectancy. We do it by improvements to the outcomes available to those best positioned to pay for them. And we do not fall far short of Costa Rica's enviable record. Think what we could do if we adopted that nation's commitment to equality, while applying more-widely what we have already invested in higher-level medical techniques.

[Ben_]

A personal physician and regular visits is expensive in the US. You’re not paying Costa Rica salaries for a US physician. US physicians are expensive.

Are liberals incapable of understanding such things?

Do you think that physician will be willing to take a 50% pay cut (or more) to make your plan work?

Do you think voters will side against doctors and nurses when your plans call for them all to take drastic pay cuts?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ben_ — I don't think doctors and nurses will oppose single payer en masse. For decades the medical staff who provide my care have almost all favored it. They understand the implications. They hate what medical practice under the present U.S. system has become.

Maybe it would be a red-state/blue-state sort of thing, with the red state doctors accustomed to gaming the system and defrauding Medicare unhappy with the change, but with the Harvard Medical School faculty types doing their best to make it work. A lot of those are already volunteering vacation time to do clinical work in third world countries as it is. Unhappy get-rich types could retire, and get replaced with better-motivated, better-trained members of America's actual medical elite.

No doubt there would be issues, and the transition could not be completed overnight. There would be a lot of training needed for new medical professionals. But when poor third-world countries are already surpassing the U.S. on key medical milestones, it is far past time to get started.

[Ben_]

Did you ask them whether they were willing to accept a 40-60% pay cut? I don't think you did.

"They understand the implications."

Unlikely.

[bernard11]

Second, third party payments always mess up a market. The person actually consuming the product has no idea what it costs!

First, this is not necessarily true - though it is a factor in health care.

But, since you are yelling about markets, let me point out that there will always be health insurance, and most people will buy it, precisely because it is a product they want.

IOW, health insurance exists because of market forces - demand - and not due to some tyrannical government action.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, of course. The problem isn't the existence of insurance. The problem is not seeing the price up front.

For instance, I have homeowner's insurance. That didn't mean that when my roof needed fixing I didn't have any idea what it would cost, that I wouldn't shop around. I did shop around, and I knew exactly what it was going to cost.

By contrast, I needed physical therapy after I messed up my shoulder splitting a tree into firewood. I had no idea how much it was going to cost until I got the bill! If they'd told me up front, I'd have gone to a lot fewer sessions.

[bernard11]

We don't actually disagree much here, though I will say that the problem applies equally to employer-based insurance.

I needed physical therapy after I messed up my shoulder splitting a tree into firewood. I had no idea how much it was going to cost until I got the bill! If they'd told me up front, I'd have gone to a lot fewer sessions.

Why would you have gone to fewer sessions if you weren't paying the bill? And if you were, why didn't you find out ahead of time?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm paying *part of* the bill. But they don't tell you what the price will be up front.

[DaveM]

Which costs? The adjusted costs which is what insurers actually pay, or the fictional list price which is what everyone claims they are owed?

Here's a simple experiment, one you can do in the comfort of your own home: pick a medical statement, any statement, of any type of care, in-patient, out-patient, prescription drugs, whatever. Find the "Adjustments" column. That's the fictional amount that no one is going to pay.

That is NOT a "cost" of US health care. That is a made-up number used to cook the books in the open in order to A) force people into over-paying and over-using medical insurance, and B) generate ever-larger "discounts" and other forms of legal kickbacks.

It's a long, complicated, and sordid confidence game, and unfortunately every single provider, consumer, and financier in the entire medical market is forced to play it. You can read the details here:

https://www.trucostofhealthcare.org

[John F. Carr]

Pricing is divorced from reality. I know somebody who worked for a large health care provider. The company brought in huge revenue because its lawyers had gotten even routine health care classified as in-hospital care eligible for higher reimbursement rates. For me, the same annual physical costs the insurance company a few hundred dollars more if the doctor can get me to mention a health concern that leads to a minute or less conversation. The second is Obama's fault. I don't know about the first, whether it is a state or federal regulation or only industry standard contract terms.

[Ed Grinberg]

reason:
Government interference with the market. (BTW, this is also the reason for the high cost of housing and the high cost of college education.)

solution:
End government interference with the market. (Duh!)

[ducksalad]

As others have said, third party payment is the main culprit. When the person deciding is not the person paying, there is no incentive to consider price when shopping for services, and therefore no incentive for providers to compete on price.

I'm "fortunate" to live in an area with many uninsured and undocumented people who get paid and pay only in cash. A clinic here had two identical blood test stations offering the same tests. One was $40 for a basic CBC, cash. The other was $400 for a basic CBC, for those with insurance.

Incidentally, this is also precisely the reason why higher education prices have gotten out of control. The vast majority of students/parents are not paying anything close to the real cost. Or more correctly, they are paying, but through their tax bills rather than their tuition bills.

[Life of Brian]

As others have said, third party payment is the main culprit. When the person deciding is not the person paying, there is no incentive to consider price when shopping for services, and therefore no incentive for providers to compete on price.

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Insurance companies themselves put pressure on providers to compete on price -- if you want to be part of an insurance company's provider network, you negotiate reimbursement rates with that insurance company. Those that don't want to limit themselves to those negotiated rates limit their customer base to those willing to supplement/pay out of pocket (and for better or for worse, the better a provider is, the more likely they are to have a customer pool to be able to make that tradeoff).

Now, within that framework there's certainly a tug-of-war between the customers and the insurance companies, which by simple math can't both keep premiums in the range they're in and pay for every single treatment every single customer might want. The doctors further complicate the picture by (in many cases sincerely/benevolently) documenting and/or claiming services in a way more likely to get reimbursed.

A clinic here had two identical blood test stations offering the same tests. One was $40 for a basic CBC, cash. The other was $400 for a basic CBC, for those with insurance.

The clinic may write $400 on the claim form, but I'd be extremely surprised if an insurance company would pay anything close to $400 for a CBC. I just checked my plan for a point of reference, and the MOST expensive option in the area (a local hospital) would bill my insurance $23. That's actually less than it would cost me to buy my own at a walk-in testing lab like Quest Diagnostics, which charges $35 for a CBC.

[Jazzizhep]

That’s “your” insurance company that negotiated the price down. Good for them! Now what service did the insurance agree to pay more to get the reduction in blood testing?

[Life of Brian]

That’s “your” insurance company that negotiated the price down. Good for them!

I'm happy to look at anything you have to offer that some insurance companies would just outright fail to negotiate a price less than 1000% of the actual market value of ubiquitous commodity tests. Such an insurance company wouldn't be around long enough to matter.

Now what service did the insurance agree to pay more to get the reduction in blood testing?

Again, I'm happy to look at anything you might have that shows negotiated prices are a zero-sum game. Barring that, I'm happy enough that's just not how it works.

[Jazzizhep]

If I could show where the hospital charged my stepdad’s insurance company $7 for a disposable Bic shaver TEN YEARS AGO, I would. And no, that didn’t include the actual shave.

[bernard11]

Insurance companies themselves put pressure on providers to compete on price -- if you want to be part of an insurance company's provider network, you negotiate reimbursement rates with that insurance company.

And the more patients the insurer has the better rate they are going to get. This actually can have a negative effect on competition among insurers. If an insurer doesn't have a big enough base of customers in some area it can't get the best rate from local hospitals, and will be unable to keep its premiums competitive.

So you get a market dominated by a handful of large insurance companies - maybe only two or three - which is nice for their profits but not for people paying premiums.

[Life of Brian]

And the more patients the insurer has the better rate they are going to get. . . . So you get a market dominated by a handful of large insurance companies

If the market is dominated by those that have leverage to negotiate lower reimbursement rates, that seems to reinforce my point and doesn't seem like a bad thing for healthcare consumers in and of itself.

which is nice for their profits but not for people paying premiums

If you have evidence that large-group insurers are holding onto more than the 15% of premiums that legally can be allocated toward overhead and profits, I'm sure HHS would be interested in hearing about it. Regardless, that's a completely different issue than whether healthcare providers themselves can maintain supercompetitive compensation rates.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Our public spending, per capita, alone is higher than nearly all OECD countries.

The Federals also heavily regulate the private spending.

That’s why our healthcare spending is so high, the Federals control too much of it. It’s Systems Thinking 101. The single largest input into a system is the most likely cause of failure.

It blows my mind when I see people arguing the solution to high healthcare costs is to grant the Federals near total control over our healthcare system. As if there is an ounce of empirical evidence that our Federal Class can efficiently manage and distribute any resource much less one that is so crucial. In fact there is mounds and mounds of observational evidence that just opposite will occur.

The people who want nationalized universal healthcare must live in a world where their eyes remain closed.

[Nige]

'Our public spending, per capita, alone is higher than nearly all OECD countries.'

Yeah, but how much of that is funnelled into the pockets of unnecessary middlemen or wasted on the military-industrial complex?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We already have Single Payer healthcare for the poor, seniors, and the military.

Why aren't those systems running efficiently?

[jb]

Other than for the veterans, they mostly are.

Medicare and Medicaid are *much* cheaper than standard employer-based insurance and have higher satisfaction.

[Frank Drackman]

Throwing the Bullshit flag on the "Medicaid" users being "satisfied"

[Absaroka]

"Medicare and Medicaid are *much* cheaper than standard employer-based insurance"

Is that 'cheaper because the care is provided more efficiently' or 'cheaper because the mandated reimbursements are below actual cost, so medicare/aid patients are subsidized by over billing people with conventional insurance'?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Medicaid is probably great if one lives near a major teaching hospital. Here is the thing all anyone needs to know about health care in America—if Covid swept across America no leaders or public health officials intervened the Covid death rate would align with % below poverty level. So race wouldn’t matter and age wouldn’t matter and rural wouldn’t matter—the only metric that would matter would be a population’s % below poverty level. And that’s America in a nutshell.

[jb]

A bit of both probably. They're definitely more efficient administratively which reduces cost, but you definitely hear doctors and hospitals complain that private insurance subsidizes Medicare/Medicaid patients.

As I note below, basically every other country does price controls across the board so they don't have one pool of payers potentially subsidizing the other.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law's enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare's administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.

- Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies
- Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic
- Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary
- we should also count the deadweight costs of tax collection as part of Medicare's administrative

[Ben_]

Also, a low administrative cost ratio is not the purpose of health care

[jb]

Indeed. Now pay attention to the other half of the original claim.

[Ben_]

It shouldn’t surprise you. Some people think smart bureaucrats can fix anything. And history doesn’t matter because they’re so much smarter than everyone, ever.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is saying that, Ben. You just think that smart bureaucrats can fix nothing.

[Ben_]

I’d be willing to give smart bureaucrats an opportunity to fix some things. But then, when they don’t fix it after a specific period of time, shut down the bureaucracy and tell them all to get worthwhile jobs.

If they happen to fit it, great. Follow up with periodic reviews to try to continue to improve results and efficiency.

But bureaucrats shouldn’t get to decide how others live their lives.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd be willing to give the market an opportunity to fix some things. But then, when it doesn't fix it after a specific time, nationalize it and tell the fat cat CEOs to all get productive jobs.

What, does that seem a ridiculous standard and remedy? Huh.

[Ben_]

People don’t have to ask your permission to transact business in the market. We’re actually a free country.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Much to his chagrin.

[Ben_]

It will be interesting watching everyone get this completely wrong.

The main reason health care costs are high this year is because they were almost as high last year and they went up. Same thing for last year and every year.

To get them down, everyone in health care has to start taking pay cuts. To get them down a lot, those pay cuts will be dramatic. And after that, many, many other things would also have to be compromised. Hospital room size, for example. Drug availability, for another example.

And that’s why it won’t happen: doctors and nurses won’t accept massive pay cuts. Patients won’t accept big compromises.

You can look back 50-70 years and see why costs went up. But you can’t go back 50-70 years and prevent it, so that US costs are kept from growing like some other countries' costs.

[Ben_]

Put another way, 100 things happened or didn’t happen every month for the last 80-100 months. On balance, that led to higher health care costs.

It’s not one thing or one type of thing.

[jb]

First, thanks for the interesting topic. Not law related, obviously, but better than repeating the same arguments about abortion or guns.

"The usual explanation for all of it and universal solution you'll come across in the media is that we don't have nationwide single payer and we should adopt it immediately."

This isn't true; this is some weird right-wing strawman. The argument from the left is just that the US system is unusually bad; other countries manage to get universal coverage and better health outcomes for significantly less money. Different countries do this in different ways, but basically all modern economies do it better than the US.

There's lots of reading on the issue, a bunch of which doesn't just reinforce partisan priors. Here's a good start: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/05/feature-forum-costliest-health-care

I think there's a few big issues:

1) Overuse. The financial incentives in our system (both in terms of fear of litigation and how doctors get paid) encourage more treatment than is necessary.

2) Normal price discovery is basically impossible. I can't link to another article, but there's tons of coverage of people who tried to shop around for the best price for a particular medical procedure and still ended up with a bill that had no relationship to the original quote (usually due to some out of network doctor being included without the patient being able to choose/consent). Doctors themselves have no idea how much things cost so can't have a conversation with you about tradeoffs or take it into consideration in their course of treatment. List prices have nothing to do with what most people actually pay. It's a mess. To his credit, Trump tried to improve transparency here, but I don't think the situation has meaningfully changed.

2a) Maybe because price discovery will always be hard and often people can't make decisions about providers in emergencies, basically all other countries regulate prices in health care. This is true in both single-payer models as well as market-based models such as Singapore's. This is particular notable for drug prices, where the US effectively subsidizes the rest of the world's drug costs. In general, I think price controls are a bad idea but I think there's reasons why medical prices are unique and since we're literally the only outlier here we're probably doing it wrong.

3) Intermediating *everything* including routine medical care through insurance companies is very weird. It's one of several reasons why administration costs are very high, combined with the fact that partisan politics mean we can't do sensible middle ground things like creating standardized approaches and infrastructure on stuff like billing. This is another reason why normal market dynamics don't apply--consumers aren't negotiating on their own behalf and instead rely on a third party with different interests to do so. I don't think any other country has such a dominant role for insurance companies, including places like Germany and Switzerland that achieve universal coverage through insurance mandates.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and since we're literally the only outlier here we're probably doing it wrong."

Basically what's going on is that most countries only permit drugs to be priced on the basis of marginal cost of production. Which means that, once you're already producing LatestBigThingex, it's financially rational to sell it in those countries, but the only reason producing it in the first place makes any financial sense is that we DON'T do that. You need at least one substantial market in the world that allows pricing in fixed, not just variable costs, or else you can't financially justify incurring those fixed costs.

Ideally, no country would be permitted to free ride this way, and with the fixed costs distributed over a much wider market, they'd pay a little more, and we'd pay a lot less. But I don't see how we get there.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Bush gets credit for PEPFAR but on day 1 he could have asked Big Pharma to offer up HIV drugs at cost to distribute in Africa. He didn’t because his advisers told him Africans didn’t have clocks and so they wouldn’t even know when to take medication if the dictators didn’t sell it off before it got to them. Fortunately Cipla and DWB broke the patents and started distributing HIV meds successfully…and then Bush bought the HIV meds at retail price to distribute in Africa!?! He didn’t even negotiate for at cost!?!

[jb]

"Basically what's going on is that most countries only permit drugs to be priced on the basis of marginal cost of production."

This discussion is mostly about drug prices (and new treatments), but it's not correct even in those cases. The price analysis works differently in different countries, but importantly it does take into consideration the benefit to the patient so they're not willing to pay 10x the price for a drug that's only a few percent more effective but has really good marketing. There are drugs that are approved and sold in, e.g., Europe that aren't available in the US so it's trivial to demonstrate that having the US market available isn't a requirement for medical advances.

In any case, it's really dumb for the US to be subsidizing everyone else's lower drug prices just because we're too dumb to manage costs the same way they do. If we want to incent the drug companies to innovate, let's do that directly rather than letting them charge $500 for insulin.

[Absaroka]

"In any case, it's really dumb for the US to be subsidizing everyone else's lower drug prices..."

If I got one health care wish, I think I would require that all health care prices be identical for all customers - Medicare, Blue Cross, uninsured cash on the barrel head, France, or Brazil.

Among other things, it would make catastrophic-only insurance practical.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"In any case, it's really dumb for the US to be subsidizing everyone else's lower drug prices just because we're too dumb to manage costs the same way they do."

That's what the US does though. It subsidizes the drug costs, because the US wants the new drugs in the first place. If the US doesn't, it all goes to hell.

The US subsidizes other Western countries defense too. Because someone's gotta do it, otherwise it all goes to hell.

[jb]

"That's what the US does though. It subsidizes the drug costs, because the US wants the new drugs in the first place. If the US doesn't, it all goes to hell."

(completely ignoring the previous paragraph in the post you're responding to)

If you want to subsidize drug development, do it explicitly. Don't do it by allowing companies that aren't developing any new drugs to price gouge on insulin.

[Armchair Lawyer]

While a minor part of what you're talking about...improvements in insulin are important.

But if you feel they are price gouging...by all means, start up a company to provide insulin yourself. It's not exactly patented. (Yes there are patents around the new and improved delivery mechanisms, but insulin itself isn't patented).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But what do you think are the major reasons and what is your solution to high health care prices?"

The major reasons are a tax system that irrationally prefers employer-sponsored health insurance over independent.

The solution is to make all health care and health insurance tax-deductible.

[legalizeshrooms]

Econ 101 - healthcare has inelastic price elasticity of demand

[Sebastian Cremmington]

We have universal health care funded by a VAT that is controlled by state governments and the largest employers in the states.

[Ben_]

It’s not really an answer to your question, but the most interesting plan I've heard for health care is a simple one: have the government pay for all health care over 20% of your annual income.

It solves many problems:
- the rich don’t get a subsidy
- no free rides for anyone with an income
- catastrophic expense no longer bankrupts you
- you’re still paying your part so you have incentives to control costs
- a lot less government meddling "needed" because each person is on the hook for a big part of most expenses
- no more insurance locked to your job
- no more worries about losing insurance when you lose your job (20% of zero income is zero)
- no more pretending that poor people can’t get health care

You could get insurance for the 20%, but limited total financial risk would make it really cheap unless you’re a very high earner.

Funding would come partly from high earners currently getting Medicare — they’d have to cover the 20% (maybe phased in over time).

Government already pays for a huge portion of health care, so it wouldn’t be extremely expensive compared to the current setup.

[not guilty]

Rolling Stone reports that Donald Trump's legal team is preparing for Trump to be indicted, and the defense strategy is to divert blame to his legal advisers as fall guys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5S8Noctwco I suppose that became predictable when the members of "Team Crazy" were left off of what John Eastman called the pardon list.

I wonder whether Mark Meadows is not being prosecuted by DOJ for contempt of Congress because he is cooperating in the investigation of Trump's misdeeds.

[John F. Carr]

Plausible, but this is not a topic where I would take Rolling Stone seriously. Or Vanity Fair, or some other media outlets that either live to hate Trump or indulge in too much wishful thinking.

The jury may be asked to peer into Donald Trump's head. Some crimes require a guilty mind. Did he act "knowingly"? "Corruptly"? "Willfully"? By December he might have believed that he won the election.

[not guilty]

I have no doubt that a properly instructed jury is equal to the task of evaluating Donald Trump's culpable mental state. Any claim that Trump in December of 2020 and January of 2021 believed that he had won the election would likely have jurors checking the soles of their shoes.

[John F. Carr]

I think there is at least reasonable doubt that he subjectively believed he had lost. In most of the country if you chose 12 adults at random some of them would believe Trump won. In DC, probably not.

A trial that gets bogged down in proving or disproving Trump's subjective beliefs or pushing the limits of what is "obstruction" will not be good for the country. If prosecutors bring a case, I hope they find something as decisive by 2020s standards as the smoking gun tape was by 1970s standards.

[not guilty]

The January 4, 2021 entreaty to Mike Pence to contravene the Electoral Count Act is a smoking. John Eastman there acknowledged, in Trump's presence, that the proposed scheme was illegal, but told Pence, with Trump watching, to go along with the scam anyway. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/donald-trump-legal-team-doj-criminal-charges

[not guilty]

A smoking gun. I wish we had an edit feature.

[John F. Carr]

It is not a smoking gun by 2020s standards because Trump still has widespread support. If Trump goes to prison for asking Pence to throw out some electoral votes a lot of the country will not accept the verdict.

I can't promise there is or even could be a smoking gun. Remember Edwin Edwards' famous quip about a dead girl or a live boy? What's the equivalent for Trump?

[Sarcastr0]

So you're not making a legal argument, but a threat that Trump is above the law...or else.

[Nige]

In fairness, that does seem to be what's underlying the complete lack of Trump indictments so far.

[John F. Carr]

I am not making a legal argument. I am saying a prosecution based on Trump trying to convince Pence to throw out electoral votes "will not be good for the country". It will generate a lot of angry people who think Trump was not only not a crook, but had the moral high ground.

As precedent for not prosecuting, consider Ford's pardon of Nixon who was generally thought to be a crook. One could fairly argue that we need a prosecution of Trump to keep him out of office. And that is the problem, because many will see it that way even if an indictment is an honest application of standard operating procedures.

[Sarcastr0]

Not good for the country because a bunch of dumbasses may get violent.

They call that appeasement. Or hostage taking. That, in my opinion, only increases the need to prosecute. America is not cowed by such populist threats of violence.

[John F. Carr]

Or they may non-violently vote even more Trump worshippers into power including a president who promises a pardon.

[Sarcastr0]

If people vote for a criminal, that's us getting the government we deserve.

Your whole argument of 'walk careful among the dumbasses' holds zero water with me.

[Bob from Ohio]

Rome is not cowed by such populist threats of violence.

He won't cross the rubicon!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If people vote for a criminal, that's us getting the government we deserve."

Sounds like his argument is that if we avoid prosecuting Trump, we might get a government that's better than we deserve. He may be right.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob thinks if Rome had appeased Caesar, it would have worked out for them.

TiP, if we have an electorate for whom being convicted enhances the appeal of a candidate, it's done and dusted. No point in postponing; we might as well get the coming shitstorm over with.

[Bob from Ohio]

'Bob thinks if Rome had appeased Caesar, it would have worked out for them."

He was threatened with prosecution by his enemies so he made the rational choice.

So the man who might lose to Trump in 2024 prosecutes him instead. What lesson do rational political actors take from that? You hope its "don't plot". But what if its "plot better"?

[bernard11]

The trouble is that many will see the lack of an indictment or conviction as proof that Trump was right - that the election really was stolen. Then that's the excuse for violence and tampering with voting.

So given the potential for trouble either way, maybe DOJ should just do the right thing, and indict if they have a good case.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

What’s sad is Trump’s 3 biggest accomplishments are actually going to look very good in a few years—surrendering to the Taliban, appointing Powell, and Operation Warp Speed.

[Jazzizhep]

Reasonable doubt or not, Trump will be convicted in DC. Just as a Democrat will be found not guilty.

[Sarcastr0]

Why is this such an article of faith on the right? No, DC is not a haven for partisan jury nullification.

[bernard11]

It's just a fallback excuse in case Trump is convicted.

I mean, if you operate from the assumption that he can't do anything wrong, much less criminal, then what do you do if he's actually convicted?

Important to have your fallback planned.

[Ben_]

What’s the basis for that claim?

You’re a big fan of backing up your claims. Let’s hear it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ditto. Time to back up your claim Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

First, AL, quit burden shifting. Jazzizhep made a statement, I pointed out it's an article of faith, not of evidence. It's on him to come back with proof. He hasn't; because it's an article of faith.

Second, don't you think DC juries jailing Republicans and freeing Demcorats would be a story covered incessantly by the usual suspects? It's not, which means DC jury verdicts are showing up like that

I know you like to think that I don't back up what I say. But once again, that's because I mostly point out when other people don't back up what they say.

You're also profoundly ignorant about the jury selection process, and I won't take the time to educate you on that, but that's a pretty easy Google away. Or ask Noscitur or one of the other practitioners, who also thinks your full of shit.

[Ben_]

When asked for a basis for his claim that "DC is not a haven for partisan jury nullification", Sarcastr0 resorted to expletives and ad hominems.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Classic no-evidence Sarcastro!

He "always" backs up his claims. But when asked to, what's the response He "won't take the time" to and tells others to "Google away"

Never change Sarcastro, never change.

[Jazzizhep]

It just happened.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump was convicted? Jury nullification? You believing nonsense?

[ReaderY]

I enter your house, shoot you, and take your stuff.

Is it defence that I sincerely believed that the house and stuff were mine and you were trespassing on my property, hence I had a lawful right to shoot you for invading my home? Did I act “knowingly?””Corruptly?” “Willfully?”

Does it make any difference whether I just pull the idea that the house and stuff are mine out of my ass as long as I testify I sincerely believe it?

[John F. Carr]

Regarding mistake of fact regarding whose house it was the only case I recall is the widely publicized one out of Texas where a cop shot somebody. Mistake of fact was not allowed as defense in that case. As I understood the decision, if you claim the castle defense you have to be right. (Same as if you honestly thought she was 18 but oops she's underage.)

For self-defense outside of the home, quoting the Kansas decision I mentioned elsewhere in the thread: "For instance, the defendant might intentionally shoot a bystander under the mistaken belief the bystander is an aggressor. E.g., Carbo, Inc. v. Lowe, 521 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (holding liquor store clerk entitled to believe he was being attacked during a robbery attempt when unmasked innocent bystander, who entered store with masked armed robbers, vaulted over the store counter after robbers began firing; the clerk's fatal shooting of bystander was justifiable self-defense)." So mistake might be a defense but only a reasonable mistake.

The Supreme Court ruled recently that prosecutors must prove a doctor's intent when prescribing controlled substances. And there even unreasonable mistakes provide a defense.

Is Trump's case more like the home invader, the liquor store clerk, or the pill pusher?

[not guilty]

Trump did himself no favors by stiffing his lawyers on their fees, given that they can turn on him now. John Eastman apparently billed at least $270,000 that went unpaid. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/us/politics/john-eastman-trump-election-fraud.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220804&instance_id=68416&nl=the-morning&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=100411&te=1&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

As Groucho Marx cogently observed, time wounds all heels.

[John F. Carr]

Suppose Eastman sues Trump for legal fees and the judge concludes that some of the legal advice was meant to facilitate a crime. Is the contract void or at least voidable? Would it matter if the billing was hourly so particular hours could be said to be illegal?

[not guilty]

I suspect that Trump would be reluctant to put any criminality of Eastman's advice at issue, for fear of implicating himself in an unlawful scheme.

[John F. Carr]

Please, purely for entertainment value, let the lawsuit be removed to federal court and assigned to Judge Carter, who reviewed Eastman's email.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, it would be uncollectible. A contract to perform illegal services is void as against public policy. Same thing if I hire a hit man to kill someone, and then stiff him on the bill. No court would enforce that contract to collect. (Of course, said hit man has other, shall we say out-of-court, means to collect.)

[bernard11]

I missed that. Hilarious.

Was Eastman too stupid to get paid up front?

[Bored Lawyer]

As my former boss once said, all things are a bell curve.

Trump has stiffed a long line of lawyers. One would think that by now the bar got the message. Even very smart lawyers (and Eastman is a smart lawyer) can do incredibly stupid things.

If Trump came to me, I would say, you pay up front, or take a hike.

[bernard11]

IIRC he stiffed Giuliani also.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

That means he stiffed Giuliani’s ex wife.

[questioner7]

I don't see how Trump can be credibly prosecuted without the U.S. looking like a banana republic where winners jail losers. Only a clear slam-dunk case that no AG could avoid prosecuting -- like shooting someone randomly on 5th Ave -- would look non-political. A case where most reasonable people would have to agree he broke a clearly written law.

It's unfair that ordinary people get prosecuted in ambiguous cases, while Trump can't be, but how else do we avoid the winners-jailing-losers wormhole?

[not guilty]

Criminal prosecution of former presidents has not happened before, but Trump is the first president to resort to unlawful means in a corrupt attempt to hold on to office. Acceptance of election results and the peaceful and orderly transfer of power is fundamental to American governance. Trump's criminality is (fortunately) sui generis.

[Bored Lawyer]

The way out of that conundrum is to appoint a special prosecutor, someone whose politics cannot be questioned. Bill Barr springs to mind. (Heh, heh.)

[darkknight9]

Anyone else looking forward to the new Predator movie coming out Friday?

[AmosArch]

Looks like another boring 'strong womyn going against closeminded society can do things better than any man' insert into x established franchise, cookie cutter flicks

[Krayt]

It's the hot, ass-kicking chick from Legion.

Magnificent! Can't wait!

[Krayt]

Since the timeline is ancient native Americans, they even found a reason for her to be running around in skimpy leather, in these woke times!

Is nothing good enough for you?

[OtisAH]

Nobody tell ol’ Amos about the Alien, Terminator, and Resident Evil movies and their reliance on GIRLS (!) of all things. Poor li’l fella will never leave the basement (not that anyone wants him to, but still).

[VinniUSMC]

Otis, you seem to have missed the part where Amos wrote ... insert into x established franchise, cookie cutter flicks

The movies you listed were all original works that featured strong women in leading roles. And, imo, they are all great franchises overall. Amos, however, appears to be taking issue with things like making a Ghostbusters sequel/reboot/whatever just by replacing the original cast with women. One of these things is not like the other.

I'm not claiming that it is the case with Prey, necessarily. I just heard about it today, and the movie plot sounds interesting to me. Including a strong female role is not the same as rebooting Predator by replacing Arnold with Kate McKinnon and making sure to include a side story about how totally lesbian and powerful she is.

[OtisAH]

I didn’t miss shit. But I get it. Successful and strong women underscore your own inadequacies in real life and you don’t want to deal with that in your fantasy lives as well. I get it, but it’s still embarrassingly sad. Pathetic, maybe?

Meh, why choose?

[VinniUSMC]

I didn’t miss shit

Well, you're partly right about that. But it appears that you got so much shit in your eyes that you can't see to read.

Like I wrote above, the movies you listed were all original works that featured strong women in leading roles. And, imo, they are all great franchises overall.

But I get it. Successful and strong women underscore your own inadequacies in real life and you don’t want to deal with that in your fantasy lives as well. I get it, but it’s still embarrassingly sad. Pathetic, maybe?

You don't appear to get anything. The only thing sad and pathetic is your attempt to insult me for writing literally the opposite of what you accuse me of.

Moron.

[Jazzizhep]

It’s completely subjective as to the differences, but I agree with you.

I can’t explain my own mind when it comes to the difference. I suppose it’s because it feels like it’s a forced casting decision to force wokeness down my throat.

I could be wrong. I mean Native American culture was woke where women hunted alongside the men, and went to war. Right?

[VinniUSMC]

According to my Archaeology professor (an actual field archaeologist specializing in Mongolia), the evidence that hunting and warring were strictly male activities is very likely a result of the male dominated field mis-gendering burials based solely on the premise that men were warriors and hunters. It seems like an easy theory to verify with some DNA analysis, so I do wonder why there's not a lot of scholarly literature on the topic, but I don't dismiss the theory out of hand. Certainly there are prominent examples of warrior women in history, but the art portraying war in most of ancient history depicts male warriors generally. I suppose one could also dismiss that by claiming that "of course this is the case, because patriarchy!" But, that seems to be the battlecry, rather than any solid evidence.

Including a female Native American as a leading lady in Predator doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. There are plenty of reasons to believe that women in history had more trouble being taken seriously as warriors but that a great story would be one in which a strong woman did, in fact, break that barrier. I'm looking forward to seeing how this movie actually plays this out.

[Nige]

Most of the original cast of Predator got killed, remember? That was, like the whole plot of the film, all those dudes getting brutally killed. What did you expect, subsequent films to resurrect them? Predator 2 didn't even have Arnie in it.

[Nige]

Shit. sorry, spoilers!

[Kazinski]

I hope nobody was set on seeing Batgirl, audience previews were so bad they shelved the movie and have decided not to release it.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

I almost never see superhero flicks any more. I find that unless they are campy self-parodies like the first couple of Superman movies, they only have one interesting moment each: the moment when the protagonist (or one of the super-villains) first discovers that he is different (from other people, or from himself, before) and has super-powers, and suddenly grasps the implications for his life and his identity. The "Oh my god, I can climb walls!" moment. Other than that, it's all boring. And you can get plenty of that without taking on a whole big movie. Go review some episodes of the late '80s/early '90s (GHWBush-era) flick "Friday the 13th: the Series".

[Brett Bellmore]

I generally like superhero movies, but lately such movies tend to be scripted by people who actively hate the franchise, and set out to totally change it. Like the recently canned Batgirl movie: According to what I've heard, they deliberately killed off both Batman and Superman, so that they could be replaced with women. Who, of course, were also a different race from the original characters, because, why not?

Now, both Batgirl and Supergirl were OK characters, but there was no reason except warped politics to kill off the original characters.

[Nige]

Why must everything be attributed to politics? Superhero comics have always done alternative universe stories and played what if games and shuffled characters around different roles just for the sheer giddy fun of it. Capturing that on the big screen is a whole other thing, of course, but these are filthy rich corporations who treat their workers and creatives like shit so fuck 'em.

[Brett Bellmore]

I attribute it to politics because basically only politics causes you to take a profitable franchise and set out to so thoroughly fuck it up that you take a $90M investment and set fire to it after the test audience reacts so badly that you realize you don't dare even try to recoup some of the money by going direct to video.

[Nige]

'only politics'

Well, no. There could be so many other, far likelier explanations that politics would barely appear as a footnote. Boardroom politics, maybe, interpersonal politics, possibly. There are entire sagas written about how supposedly profitable fanchises and films got fucked up, and rarely do politics feature much at all.

[Sarcastr0]

I attribute it to politics because basically only politics causes you to take a profitable franchise and set out to so thoroughly fuck it up that you take a $90M investment

Brett, you don't know shit about Hollywood. Fucking up what should have been a sure thing is not like some freak rare occurrence.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's pretty rare that they fuck it up to the point where they don't even dare release it to video for fear of poisoning the franchise. But that's what happened here: They didn't just produce a bad movie, they produced one that literally made fans of the franchise who saw it angry.

Note, by "politics" I do not mean that they were trying to influence an election. I mean that they let ideology control instead of artistic choices.

You get that sort of thing because the people in charge don't actually LIKE the franchise, they don't LIKE the customers. They've got contempt for both, and see being in charge as an opportunity to screw with them.

Both Supergirl and Batgirl co-exist in a comics universe with their male counterparts. There wasn't any storytelling purpose in killing the guys off. They were killing them off to get rid of them.

[Sarcastr0]

IMBD has a list of movies that completed production and were never released. Plenty of them franchise attempts.
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls063222694/

You've jumped to a conclusion that is not at all evident.

I don't know Hollywood corporate producers. Maybe they don't like the public, that wouldn't shock me. But you have no more idea than I do, just a narrative you are, as usual, way too certain of based on scanty and equivocal evidence.

[Jazzizhep]

Yeah, there is no way to prove making Ghostbusters with an all-female cast because the director said he wouldn’t do it otherwise was ideological driven.

Nor is killing off two white guys to be replaced by female POC. They are just playing around with the mythology for kicks. No need to read anymore into it. Writers absolutely hate subtext.

[Sarcastr0]

Both Supergirl and Batgirl co-exist in a comics universe with their male counterparts.

Ahh yes, comic book death. Always amazing at getting rid of people, and never just used to build drama.
Snyder brought back a dead Superman once already, was that because he hated male superheroes?

I'm not sure you've ever seen a comic book movie, at this rate.

[bernard11]

I attribute it to politics because ...

You pretty much attribute anything to politics.

Look, they screwed up. They misjudged their audience and probably made a lousy movie. Lots of movies are flops.

Why look more deeply?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

A director is only responsible for 90 minutes of usable footage. Unlike Disney they probably didn’t want to repeat the “Concorde fallacy” by making decisions based on sunk costs.

[Jazzizhep]

I don’t think it made it to previews. I could be wrong, but FOX reported it was still in post production when it was shelved. I know they could still set up a screening while in post production, but I haven’t seen a report that audience feedback was part of the decision. May be that you have.

[Nige]

Good buzz about it, which is fairly unusual for any Predator movie but the first one, so...

[darkknight9]

In case any of you come back looking at this thread, it was fantastic!

[darkknight9]

Oh, and an actual law type question:

What triggers judicial review at SCOTUS to determine if a recently passed/enacted law is constitutional or not? They don't try to review all of them do they? That would suck.

[Kazinski]

Nothing triggers a review, 4 justices have to vote to hear the case. But the most likely reason is conflicting circuit court rulings, or really stupid ones.

[not guilty]

A constitutional challenge is initiated by the filing in U. S. District Court or an appropriate state trial level court of a complaint setting forth the grounds for a finding of unconstitutionality, filed on behalf of one or more plaintiffs adversely affected by the challenged law. An evidentiary record is developed, and the trial court rules on the merits of the lawsuit. An appeal is taken by the losing party to a U. S. Court of Appeals from the District Court, or to the appropriate state appellate court. A state court challenge must be presented to the state's court of last resort including the grounds alleged to violate the U. S. Constitution. The losing party in the appellate court files a petition for writ of certiorari in the U. S. Supreme Court. If four justices vote to grant review, the full Court addresses the appeal.

[DaveM]

Thank you.

[Martinned]

Other countries have a possibility of a pre-enactment check of bills (e.g. Ireland and France). But those don't tend to give the President a general veto over legislation, allowing him/her a referral to the Supreme Court instead.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is permitted to give advisory opinions on proposed legislation. Requests for formal advisory opinions are rare.

[Martinned]

Canada has advisory opinions as well. Historically some of their biggest constitutional cases have been advisory opinions, like the persons case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v_Canada_(AG)

[ducksalad]

The cynical view would be that we now have approximately zero US politicians who sincerely aren't sure whether something is constitutional and earnestly want guidance from judicial experts before acting.

They figure just do it and see what you can get away with.

[Martinned]

I agree. The suggestion that the President might veto a bill because he thinks it's (partly) unconstitutional even though he favours it on policy grounds - or at least doesn't disfavour it - is such ancient history that the only recent mention of it is in The West Wing.

[Jazzizhep]

^^This^^

It’s more likely the executive and/or legislative branches will simply say “we know it’s unconstitutional, but we’re going to do it anyway because it will take a while to get to the SC. Even then we will get three votes saying it is constitutional.” See eviction moratorium.

[Martinned]

In Ireland this used to happen a lot around abortion. The current President of Ireland is extremely left wing (though mellowed out in his old age), and the two before that were centre-left women, so I don't think Ireland has had an anti-abortion president since 1990. (Irish presidents serve once-renewable 7-year terms, which in practice means that they serve 14 years each.)

Until Ireland legalised abortion in 2018, Parliament used to struggle with setting up a framework that respected the constitutional ban on abortion but also the constitutional rights of citizens, such as their right of free speech and their right to travel abroad. So it was not uncommon for them to pass relatively lenient abortion legislation, send it to a pro-choice president for signature, only for the president to agonise over referring it to the Supreme Court for review.

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/pagecurrent/5A270AE31790620C802575EB003DAC2C?opendocument&l=en

[Martinned]

Forgot to mention the EU, which has a variation that's quite interesting. Under EU law the Member States and the Institutions can ask for an advisory opinion wrt international agreements that are "envisaged". The idea is that declaring the ratification of a Treaty unconstitutional after the fact is a bit awkward, because that would put the EU in breach of international law. So the ECJ will look at Treaties before they are signed and/or ratified.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected some form of Council of Revision that existed in our European governments at the time.

I also don't think the Founding Fathers ever thought the federal Supreme Court would be routinely telling local governments what to do under the guise it was their constitutional authority.

I believe the practice of issuing advisory opinions is available in at least six states but is rare if ever used.

[Martinned]

I think there are many things about today's US that would have surprised the Founding Fathers. The 13th and 14th amendments probably wouldn't have even make the top 10.

[not me]

I don't think that many of them would have been surprised by the 13th amendment. Except perhaps for the ratification process used in that case.
The 14th amendment, absolutely.

[Kazinski]

Thomas Sowell has briefly come out of retirement to write another column:

"If there is one moment that symbolized our degeneration, it was when an enraged mob gathered in front of the Supreme Court and a leader of the United States Senate shouted threats against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying "You won't know what hit you!"
You either believe in laws or you believe in mob rule. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the law or agree with the mob on some particular issue. If threats of violence against judges — and publishing where a judge's children go to school — is the way to settle issues, then there is not much point in having elections or laws.

There is also not much point in expecting to have freedom. Threats and violence were the way the Nazis came to power in Germany. Freedom is not free. If you can't be bothered to vote against storm-trooper tactics — regardless of who engages in them, or over what issue — then you can forfeit your freedom."

I couldn't agree more.

https://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell080322.php3

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

It's very silly to pretend that the violent atmosphere in politics today is primarily caused by Democrats or progressives. Especially around the abortion issue: right-to-lifers murdered eight abortion workers, and leveraged those few actual murders into an atmosphere in which every single abortion worker in USA, with zero exceptions whatsoever, worked and lived under a cloud of threat. But more generally, unless you go all the way back to the 1960s, the threat of violence and the use of actual violence in politics have been primarily from the right, with progressives engaging in a few half-hearted bits of mimicry, mostly satiric.

This is not whataboutism, by the way. This is whostarteditism and whobroughtitintothemainstreamism and whocouldhavebehaveddifferentlyinordertoavoiditbecomingaregularunsurprisingthingism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who has to pretend anything? It's like you've just memory holed the last 5 years, except for a couple days in January 2021.

[Nige]

Oh no, we remember that when it came time to stand up to state violence the 2nd amendment types all sided with the state.

[not guilty]

In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, a police officer, two people (unclear of their connection), and a clinic escort. Since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded, 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Between 1977 and 1990, 77 death threats were made, with 250 made between 1991 and 1999. Attempted murders in the U.S. included: in 1985 45% of clinics reported bomb threats, decreasing to 15% in 2000. One fifth of clinics in 2000 experienced some form of extreme activity. since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs"). The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993. The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States

None of this excuses acts or threats of violence directed against anti-abortion advocates. But don't pretend there is anything approaching moral equivalence.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what, 11 dead in 45 years? That's fewer than Antifa/BLM killed in one year of rioting.

[not guilty]

Whenever I get a tu quoque response, I know that I have struck an exposed nerve. The hit dog hollers.

Don't minimize those fatalities and have the temerity to call yourself "pro-life." The anti-abortion movement has an active domestic terrorist wing.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If all you have are events that occurred more than 20 years ago...most more than 30-40 years ago...It limits their relevance.

[not guilty]

Did you read the linked Wikipedia article?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Apologies..."most" were more than 20 years ago. I just extrapolated from your text about the quickly dropping levels.

[DaveM]

And are you equally willing to recognize the 60 MILLION children legally killed in the womb in the US over that exact same time period? Does that strike an exposed nerve anywhere?

Well, one can hope, anyway.

[not guilty]

Sixty million children killed in the womb? I doubt it.

How would a child in a woman's womb avoid suffocation?

[Frank Drackman]

Fail 10th Grade Biology Much,
There's this thing we call the "Placenta" that's an "Organ" that supplies the "Fetus" with Oxygen and Nutrients, through an Artery and 2 veins, in this thing called the "Umbilical Cord"
It's how it usually works, in your case, the cord got wrapped around your neck and cut off blood flow to your brain.

[not guilty]

Uh, if it doesn't breathe, it's not a child.

[Jazzizhep]

So your test is breathing.

You know all the arguments against your sick barbarity. I won’t make them here, but it doesn’t change how utterly sick it is.

[Michael P]

Exactly so. And leftists literally bombed Congress three times: in 1954, 1971 and 1983. More recently, there have been at least 203 attacks against Catholic churches in the US since May 2020 -- not counting other churches or non-church targets, like crisis pregnancy centers -- showing that abortion proponents work way faster than abortion opponents.

[Nige]

'17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded, 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Between 1977 and 1990, 77 death threats were made, with 250 made between 1991 and 1999. Attempted murders in the U.S. included: in 1985 45% of clinics reported bomb threats, decreasing to 15% in 2000. One fifth of clinics in 2000 experienced some form of extreme activity. since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")'

That's a sustained and targeted campaign of domestic terrorism, that is.

[bernard11]

First, Brett, very far from all the deaths that occurred during the protests were killings by "BLM/Antifa." See here.

For example:

In Louisville, local restaurateur David McAtee was killed as a Louisville Metro Police and Kentucky National Guard curfew patrol fired at him.[86] Authorities stated that the patrol returned gunfire after McAtee fired at them.[86] McAtee's gunshot occurred after the patrol appeared to fire a pepper ball into McAtee's restaurant, nearly striking his niece in the head.[86] According to McAtee's sister, the gathering was not a protest but rather a regularly scheduled social gathering at which McAtee served food from his barbecue restaurant.

Lots more like that.

Second, where there was some vandalism and violence it has been generally condemned by liberals. Biden never told the looters they were special people and he loved them.

Third, talk about memory holes. Dylann Roof, Robert Bowers, Cesar Mayoc, James Alex Fields, who have I missed?

The Jan. 6 insurrectionists, OTOh, have widespread and vigorous support on the right.

[KenveeB]

"Second, where there was some vandalism and violence it has been generally condemned by liberals."

I'm sorry, are you serious? Liberals fawned all over the protests that had vandalism and violence. Politicians talked about how they needed to give protesters "space to destroy" if that's what they felt they needed to do. They set up zones where protesters could destroy whatever they felt like and police wouldn't intervene. There were months and months of that before Jan6 ever happened.

[bernard11]

The "space to destroy" comment was made by one person - the Mayor of Baltimore - in 2015.

[Michael P]

It was put in those words one time, but put into action by plenty of others. Seattle's mayor was a good example; she suggested that CHAZ was a "summer of love" event, until they started to rack up the body count.

[rsteinmetz]

Gavin Eugene Long, Micah Xavier Johnson, James Hodgkinson

[bernard11]

You won't find me making excuses for them.

Oh. I left off Kendry - Buffalo - and Crusius - El Paso.

I didn't have to go back to 2016 for them, either.

[Michael P]

How many of those killers left behind manifestos declaring themselves essentially left-wing racists? Just one, or both?

[Kazinski]

Republican administrations and Democratic administration's hunted down abortion Dr. murderers and bombers without a qualm. So trying to use that as a whataboutism won't fly.

What Sowell is talking about is official connivance allowing and encouraging people to try to illegally intimidate against public officials, and I will include Jan. 6th in that.

Illegal acts trying to intimidate public officials, especially supreme court justices needs to stop.

[Sarcastr0]

Illegally intimidate is not at all established.

Under this new right-wing paradigm, a lot of protests would be illegal intimidation.

Which fits them well, as being oppressed by the left is their favorite story to tell themseves.

[Kazinski]

New Right Wing Paradigm.

The law was added during the Truman administration in 1950.

While I agree that its overbroad and the courts have narrowed it to not include picketing and parading in front of court houses and public buildings, they have upheld its provisions in terms of residences.

Its also important to note that in 1950 lynchings were still a thing, Emmett Till was lynched in 1955, so the ban on public picketing and parading in front of courthouses was Federal anti-lynching legislation.

And the Kavenaugh assassin attempts shows why its still needed.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to broaden the interpretation of a law you admit is textually problematic.

OK, dude.

What assassination attemptS? There was one, and current levels of security were fine.

[not guilty]

Federal anti-lynching legislation was not enacted until this year. In the twentieth century, southern senators successfully filibustered proposed legislation, arguing that it would interfere with states' rights.

[Kazinski]

That's revisionist history.

The first successful federal prosecution of a lyncher for a civil rights violation was in 1946.

Then there is:
"Title 18, U.S.C., Section 249 - Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act"

And don't forget 1948's :
"18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—"

What was Mississippi Burning about? FBI agents were investigating a Bank Robbery?

And I'd include in anti lynching legislation a ban on demonstrations and picketing in 1950, when there was still a real risk of lynchings at courthouses.

[Sarcastr0]

The real problem isn't Jan 06, it's all these shouty liberals.

Assuming this is emblematic of the rest of the article, this is just the usual nihilistic partisanship with fancy words.

[Michael P]

If they were only shouty, that would be one thing. They're also shooty and burny and clubby and knifey.

[Sarcastr0]

Not in the excerpted section, in what I thought was a significant choice. Sowell isn't concerned about violence, it's just another rhetorical tactic to him. What a tool.

[Sarcastr0]

Political violence is on the rise, which sucks, but it's a problem not a crisis.

And anyone pretending it's a one-sided is helping to make the problem worse by creating a 'we are so civilized compared to those savages' narrative that really facilitates rationalizing violence.

Stop pointing left - your side is violent and shooty as all hell. A nontrivial cohort on here are even in a 'purge the liberals by any means' mindset.

Set your own house in order.

[Life of Brian]

Merits or lack thereof aside, I'm fascinated by how (supposedly) the same person managed to submit one post at 8:55 am, then type a second, 80-word post and also submit that one at 8:55 am. Perhaps an unintended view behind the curtain?

[Michael P]

80 wpm is not super fast for typing, especially when one puts as little thought into it as S_0 does.

[Life of Brian]

Totally with you on the lack of thought. But 80 WPM (uncorrected) is ~95th percentile for professional typists according to statistics here.

Regardless, to get the same time stamp on both posts, by definition the full minute would not have been available for typing. Even 5ish seconds for page refresh after submitting the first comment plus time to stop typing and submit the second comment just in the nick of time would push you into the range of 90-100 WPM, corrected. And that's assuming zero time to realize that his prior post didn't end the stream of consciousness and decide to start another.

Not impossible, but interesting.

[Nige]

That Kavanaugh guy is tough to survive shooting, burning, clubbing and knifing.

[not guilty]

And Clarence Thomas claimed to be stout enough to survive his own lynching.

[Michael P]

It was a narrow miss -- you may remember the guy who is being prosecuted for attempted assassination. And you may remember that the left has also been harassing a restaurant that helped Kavanaugh escape an angry mob.

[Sarcastr0]

What narrow miss? Dude didn't even get out of his truck and turned himself in.

Also love that nebulous 'the left.' Do I get to include any random anti-Biden asshole as emblematic of 'the right?'

[Nige]

People protesting brought about civil rights, too, it;s almost like you have to completely ignore the substance of what is behind the protests in order to draw moral equivalences between completely different things. There was no violence at the SCOTUS demos, there may have been threats, but luckily threats are illegal, while public demonstrations are not.

[Krayt]

Publishing where the kids go to school? The president saying he won't know what hit him?

I'll go out on a limb you can reproduce the narrative of how wrong it was for Trump to call out a "Mexican" judge.

Correct answer: both are vile and wrong

Lament: Both stupid sides don't realize the danger is the tactics, not why they are done.

[Krayt]

I'll bet you try to thread the needle now, that Trumo was wrong because he was Mexican. Yet that was only part of the complaint.

The bigger deal was the president wink wink threatening a judge over a ruling.

[Nige]

I guess some people get the difference between calling out judges for what they do instead of who they are, and respect the right of people to protest. If you think Biden was making an actual physical threat as opposed to a political one, well, there's no fixing that kind of dumbness.

[Jazzizhep]

So now you recognize context?

[Nige]

Context, yeah, bullshit rarionalisations and lies from Trump supporters? Yes I also recognise those.

[Jerry B.]

Both sides apparently think that two wrongs make a right, instead of twice as many wrongs.

[Nige]

Threats of violence are always wrong and make nothing better, but a peaceful protest is not the same as a violent one, and sometimes the police turn peaceful protests violence, though not in the case of Jan 6th.

[Sarcastr0]

There may have been peaceful protests on Jan 06, just not at the Capitol, and somehow the news cycle got away from them.

[Michael P]

Mostly peaceful, though. And not even slightly fiery!

[Sarcastr0]

Mostly peaceful, though

Nope.

[Michael P]

When did CNN standards stop applying to protests?

[Sarcastr0]

What happened in the Capitol wasn't a protest, and it wasn't peaceful.
Beyond the 'hang Mike Pence' and Pelosi hunting, there is ample evidence from social media in the charging documents that it was intended as an insurrection, including some lawmaker blood.

So your attempted parallel suuucks and you should stop covering for violent assholes just because they hate liberals like you do.

[hobie]

I remember back in 2020 and 2021, mask-hating patriots here in this blog were quite fine with other gun-toting mask-hating patriots descending on the homes of doctors and school officials. I guess judges are different somehow. Or are you just a bunch of hypocrites?

[Michael P]

Federal judges are different because there's a federal law against picketing their houses, workplaces, etc. The Biden administration doesn't bother to enforce it, of course.

[hobie]

Their workplace is the Supreme Court building. You sure there's a law against picketing there?

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome fellow insomniacs.

[Commenter_XY]

The Early Birds are up now. Let the fun and games begin. 🙂

[John F. Carr]

Oh, this thread is why I woke up at 3 AM. I was wondering why that happened.

[Mr. Bumble]

Disappointed that no one ate Reason or the VC has seen fit to write about the Oberlin College/Gibson Bakery case; now almost six years old.
Phony claims of racism by Oberlin and its woke administrators in an attempt to destroy a century old family business While ignoring multiple losses in court.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Bakers can't be choosers.

[santamonica811]

rim-shot!!!

[DaveM]

But they can win multi-million dollar settlements.

Collecting those settlements, now, that's another matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

The court could always let them go in and confiscate the Dean's office furniture, and sell it on Ebay.

[Martinned]

Disappointed that no one ate Reason or the VC

That escalated quickly.

[Nige]

Is it Reason/VC or is it cake?

[Commenter_XY]

Legal Insurrection has been following the Oberlin case closely.

If I did not know better, I would say Oberlin is trying to cynically manipulate the legal system to wait out Gibson's Bakery and force them into bankruptcy.

[Brett Bellmore]

What makes you think they're not?

[Michael P]

Oberlin has already outlived two of the core plaintiffs, so that strategy is working so far.

[DaveM]

I used to think rather highly of Oberlin. Not after this, though. Another storied institution gone mad.

[defaultdotxbe]

https://reason.com/2019/06/24/oberlin-has-been-ordered-to-pay-44-million-in-a-defamation-lawsuit-the-punishment-doesnt-fit-the-crime/

From what I can tell not much has changed in the appeals since 2019, Oberlin still lost.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and they're still not paying. Too bad criminal penalties don't attach when civil court orders are ignored.

[John F. Carr]

Civil courts can give orders punishable by contempt. A judgment is not normally treated as an order punishable by contempt.

[Doug Huffman]

I recently discovered The Remnant Newspaper and TV. Sedevacantism since 1967.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Oh, one more thing on my mind: HAPPY 85th BIRTHDAY to Gundula Janowitz, the Austrian soprano who was David Bowie's favorite vocalist (until she retired), and also sang in the recorded duet featured in The Shawshank Redemption. (Fun trivia-fact: Morgan Freeman's character muses on not knowing what "those two Italian ladies were singing about," but in fact, neither was Italian: the lower one (Janowitz) was Austrian and the higher one (Edith Mathis) was Swiss. Le nozze di Figaro is not an Italian opera; it's an Austrian/German opera with an Italian libretto. The librettist, Lorenzo da Ponte, was a very well-traveled Italian of Jewish extraction (converted to Catholicism) who ended up in, of all places, NYC! In the twilight of his life he was a professor of literature at Columbia College (which had not yet morphed into Columbia University). Some musicologists credit him with having introduced USA to opera as an art form. Besides The Marriage of Figaro, he also wrote the libretto for Don Giovanni and a less-famous but equally amazing Mozart opera called Cosi fan tutte which translates roughly to "That's what they all do". Here, "they all" means women, and "that" means cheating on their husbands, fiances, or boyfriends. Like Mozart, da Ponte's main interest in life was sex.)

Anyway, here's Gundula Janowitz singing Bach, along with two other tip-top-level vocalists: the tenor Fritz Wunderlich, (who had more musicality in his 36-year life than drippy oafs like Pavarotti and digitalized frauds like Jonas Kaufmann and Vittorio Grigolo and Domingo will ever have in their collective lives), and the almost-equally great mezzo-soprano Christa Ludwig.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jz4N-jzsXk

And here is Gundula singing Schubert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZXg51KWBMc

[DaveM]

When your quality survives even a compressed YouTube video played back on tiny laptop speakers, then you know you've really got it. Thanks for this.

[SRG]

Gundula Janowitz was a force of nature. First heard her in a von Kraut recording of Beethoven's 9th. I think there was a time when "everyone" owned that recording.

BTW da Ponte was both the first Jew and the first priest to be on the Columbia faculty.

[Nige]

Luverly.

[not guilty]

Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone has been subpoenaed to testify before a D.C. grand jury investigating the events of January 6, 2021. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/08/03/pat-cipollone-subpoena-jan-6/10223201002/ Look for a widespread outbreak of assholus constrictus among Trump supporters.

The DOJ investigation appears to be on the right track.

[Michael P]

not guilty has successfully predicted 186 out of the last zero Trump indictments based on subpoenas, search warrants, and other illegally leaked information.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Supposedly, one of the released transcripts had his name as "Patsy Baloney." Beautiful!

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Alex Jones libel trial seems neglected.

EV has shown such a consuming interest in libel, it is surprising that it does not extend to what on its face seems a new phenomenon Jones brings to court. Jones not only weaponizes lies, but at the same time appears to use publishing to raise what may be sufficient money to overwhelm the judicial process, and corrupt truth even during a libel trial—turning it into a further performative attack on the notion of truth in publishing. Does an ordinary court lack sufficient power to cope with Jones, and any others who take inspiration from his methods?

A corollary issue is whether there can or should be tolerance for the notion that internet publishing is so factually corrupt that every lie must be not only tolerated, but receive actual 1A protection.

Implications for Trumpism and the big election lie—mobilized as a fund-raising tool—lurk around the edges of the Jones case.

A short distance down the road, deep fake technology looms. That promises to disorient publishing still further, shredding what little is left of the public life of the nation. What should we expect from deep fake technology, backed by anonymous producers, and used on a truth-indifferent internet to mobilize vast sums for the purpose of political disruption?

No sign yet that EV, said to be of the nation's leading 1A experts, is thinking about any of that.

[Nige]

It's a bit of a clown show, isn't it? It's pretty clear he thinks that no matter how much he pays out he'll make back again on his I'm The Victim Of Liberal Fascism Tour.

[bernard11]

How much do you think the verdict should be?

I'd go for the whole $150 million, or more.

And is there any penalty for BS bankruptcy filings?

[Moderation4ever]

I do not think it is right to take every last dollar Alex Jones has and so my recommendation to the jury would be to leave him a dollar and take the rest.

[David Bremer]

My favorite comment on this was something like, "You know, it's rather hard to get the death penalty in civil cases, but Alex Jones is really making a go of it."

[Nige]

Leave him enough to buy groceries?

[OtisAH]

No.

[Nige]

Welp, sorry Alex, he beat me down.

[John F. Carr]

Is the case in the press the one where he lost on liability as a sanction for defying case management orders? That is not very interesting from a First Amendment law point of view.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Maybe you should start your own blog.

[Kazinski]

Once EV goes to substack and starts living off of subscribers then maybe he'll start worrying about which topics people want him to blog about.

Alex Jones is a complete idiot and I think he should be held accountable for actual libel, however I do have a concern about nuclearization of libel laws to hound complete idiots and others off the airways and public spaces.

Tinpot dictators all over the world use "libel" laws to stifle any criticism because libel is a thing in western countries, I would hate to have that a thing here even against crackpots to keep them out of public spaces.

It shouldn't be a crime to be an idiot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Just to be sure. You are saying if someone wants to deny a school shooting, claim everyone involved is a crisis actor, perpetrating a hoax, and encourage a mob to attack the actual victims of the shooting, that is all okay with you?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

While I don't pretend to speak for Kazinski, it's probably a good idea that you've decided to verify your conclusion as to his intent, because I suspect that you're wildly wrong yet again.

[Kazinski]

I'd say calling a parent who lost a child in a shooting a crises actor is libel, and ordinary libel law should apply.

Not some Alex Jones libel law that produces a 9 figure judgement.

Just as I thought Nick Sandman had a good case against CNN, I think any statements Alex Jones made about specific parents at Sandyhook should be examined for knowing or reckless falsehoods according to law.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not some Alex Jones libel law that produces a 9 figure judgement.

That, I think, points toward what is new and disturbing here. Jones has been monetizing his lying. Just as Trump has been monetizing his. They appear to be raking in so much money that an ordinary 7-figure judgement does not even threaten to disrupt business as usual. That seems to be part of why Jones has been making a circus of his trial. He thinks, apparently, that he has free national advertising for his brand, and stands to make more from new donations than he will lose legally. If publishing public policy lies can be turned into a big-money business model, with legally-related expenses written off as just another cost of doing business, that has dire implications for the public life of the nation. Do you really think that is what ought to happen?

[Kazinski]

"If publishing public policy lies can be turned into a big-money business model".

Public policy lies are protected political speech so there is no way to recover damages, unless an actual person or corporation is libeled, and politicians of course have to prove actual malice. That would be very hard to do if someone is just mischaracterizing their positions.

As for the Jones trial, libel law requires a relationship between the libel and actual damages, so while I am sure they will receive some compensation, it won't be nearly what they are asking.

I see there is a verdict setting damages at 4 million, with punitive damages still to come. But Texas limits punitive damages to 2x actual damages, so the maximum award will be 12m, and of course we will have to see if the judge or appeals court reduces the award. I don't have a major problem with 12m, its a lot of money but in line with other recent awards like depot heard and Oberlin-Gibsons Bakery.

[myself]

Libel rewards tend to be based on damages. But what happens when someone decides it's more profitable to keep lying because the damages won't be sufficient?

Jones' conduct during the trial (and revelations regarding the money he's making) suggests that he will not feel deterred.

On a side note I find the accidental disclosure by his lawyer to be interesting.

As despicable as Jones is it's seems odd that the lawyer accidentally breaching of attorney / client privilege would so easily become admissible. While I little sympathy for the fact that it exposed perjury on Jones' part, I'm not sure it should reveal information unrelated to the trial that he tried to protect with the 5th amendment previously.

[David Nieporent]

As despicable as Jones is it's seems odd that the lawyer accidentally breaching of attorney / client privilege would so easily become admissible. While I little sympathy for the fact that it exposed perjury on Jones' part, I'm not sure it should reveal information unrelated to the trial that he tried to protect with the 5th amendment previously.

That's not how any of this works.

[dwb68]

final post-Bruen Maryland update: carry permit approved. Maryland is generally not calling references, spouses, or employers. Permits are taking about 35 days from submission to approval. Mine took 21 days, but I may have beat the tsunami.

[Kazinski]

Excellent job.

I'm glad Maryland is following the law, there are jurisdictions like New York and California where they want to make the process the punishment.

[Michael P]

Why has none of the MSM covered the major news that the White House press secretary has discovered a previously unknown aspect of the United States Constitution -- that when the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, "it was an unconstitutional action by them"?

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, the right can't stop taking about the Constitution in exile and the Court usurping the Constitution and tearing up the Second Amendment and the Real Constitution is not one the Court deals with these days.

I don't agree with the White House here, but you really don't have much standing to holler when your self-same talking points are turned back at you.

[Michael P]

If you're going to make a weak tu quoque argument, you really need to show equivalence rather than just asserting it.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I'm making a hypocricy argument. If I was making a tu quoque argument I wouldn't have said: 'I don't agree with the White House here.'

Understand the fallacies you invoke.

[Michael P]

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also") is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.

You better hop onto Wikipedia to straighten out their explanation of what a tu quoque argument is, old chap.

And you are dodging the substance of my critique: You haven't shown that this is a case of Republicans' "self-same talking points are turned back". That's why you didn't answer TIP below, either.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha, you missed the part of 'discredit the opponent's argument.' I explicitly endorsed that thesis.

Tu Quoque is not 'never accuse the other side of hypocrisy' you failure at literacy.

You're dumb as hell, aren't you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"the right can't stop taking about the Constitution in exile and the Court usurping the Constitution and tearing up the Second Amendment and the Real Constitution is not one the Court deals with these days."

Yeah, the right often claims that the left incorrectly interprets the Constitution (as does the left).

Any cites showing the right claiming it's unconstitutional to interpret the Constitution in a way they disagree with?

[Sarcastr0]

What do you think the Constitution in Exile is about, if not saying a bunch of rulings are unconstitutional?

What about the tiresome argument of the originalist project that living Constitutionalism is illegitimate? That is also arguing that a bunch of rulings the right doesn't like are Justices behaving unconstitutionally.

[Moderation4ever]

Will the Kansas referendum on abortion have a cooling effect on the use of referendums and state constitutional changes? The Kansas legislature did not get the results they wanted and so will state legislatures now avoid sending question to people where the results may not be what they want?

[Brett Bellmore]

It was sent to the people because that was the procedure in Kansas for amending the state constitution, and when you're fighting the state's highest court ruling on what they claim to be the state constitution, you've only got two things you can do: Impeach or amend. And amend was more likely to work.

[John F. Carr]

Lawmakers will continue to propose constitutional amendments if they think the voters will go along. Kansas Republicans made an understandable mistake. Now we can predict that voters in almost all states are unlikely to approve something they perceive as an abortion ban. Democrats will warn that turning down a third trimester abortion referendum could lead to a total ban. Republicans will have to propose a referendum on common sense abortion control instead of a total ban.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that it wasn't a referendum on an abortion ban. Literally the only thing the amendment did was clarify that the state constitution was silent on the question of abortion, it didn't ban diddly squat.

A lot of the coverage reported it as though it was actually a ban, though, and I expect a lot of voters went to vote on that basis.

[bernard11]

Literally the only thing the amendment did was clarify that the state constitution was silent on the question of abortion, it didn't ban diddly squat.

A lot of the coverage reported it as though it was actually a ban, though, and I expect a lot of voters went to vote on that basis.

This is completely disingenuous. There was going to be a ban if the amendment passed, and not of it didn't. So yeah, it was a ban.

[Kazinski]

What the voters implicitly endorsed is that the Kansas constitution protects a right to abortion.

I have to respect that question as settled, not make excuses about the wording. Its pretty clear they knew what the results of their vote would be, and they endorsed Kansas law as currently stands.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is that it wasn't a referendum on an abortion ban. Literally the only thing the amendment did was clarify that the state constitution was silent on the question of abortion, it didn't ban diddly squat.

This is like Democrats who tried to defend their vote for the second AUMF because it wasn't actually a vote for invading Iraq; it was just authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq if he wanted. Everyone laughed at that then, and everyone laughs at Brett's argument now.

When politicians want to do something and there's a vote to authorize them to do it, there is no real world distinction between that and voting to do it. Every single person in Kansas knew that the effect of voting for the referendum was that abortion would be banned in Kansas.

[SRG]

My guess is that pro-abortion groups will try to get abortion referenda on the ballot for November - which will also increase turnout in general. I don't know which states require a referendum if you get enough signatures on a petition, rather than only letting the legislature add a referendum question, but I: am damn sure that some GOP legislatures are now contemplating how to prevent pro-abortion measures from getting on the ballot, or how to prevent an adverse result from being implemented (as the Florida legislature managed wrt felon voting).

[Jimmy the Dane]

Although I am generally pro-life, I'm glad people are getting off their a**es and finally taking direct action about this issue. For too long it was just gnashing of teeth and complaining about the courts. People got lazy. Now you have to put your money where your mouth is and the left has so far (in some dubious ways perhaps) delivered. I don't think the right was expecting that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"or how to prevent an adverse result from being implemented (as the Florida legislature managed wrt felon voting)."

Don't rewrite history like that.

Amendment 4 Could Restore Voting Rights for Millions of Formerly Incarcerated People in Florida

Here's what the felon voting proposal's backers said before the election:

"With the exception of people convicted of murder or felony sex crimes, the proposed state constitutional amendment would grant voting rights for anyone who has completed “all terms of sentence including parole or probation,” according to an op-ed from attorney Reggie Garcia for the Miami Herald. “That means they would have completed house arrest, jail and prison sentences and community service; paid restitution, court costs and fees; and fulfilled any other special conditions of parole or probation,” Garcia writes."

Or,

"Susanne Manning of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition told Vox that Amendment 4 “is going to affect people who have been waiting forever. People who have done their time. People who have finished their sentence, done their probation, paid their court costs, paid their fines, paid their restitution—and have still been waiting.”"

The fact is, the state legislature faithfully implemented the terms of the proposal. What happened is that the proposal backers tried for a bit of a bait and switch, once they'd won the vote, they changed their tune on the implications for court costs, fines, and other financial parts of the sentence having to be met. I was rather disgusted at that, and I favored the ballot proposal.

You can criticize Florida for having a totally messed up system for keeping track of such costs and notifying convicts of what they owe. You can't honestly claim that the legislature didn't implement it as it had been sold to the voters.

[bernard11]

This overlooks some important points.

First, the legislature could have fixed the system, at least to the extent of saying that if the state couldn't actually give you a clear accounting the fees and whatnot were considered paid. That's what decent human beings would have done.

Second, it could have stopped the exorbitant and unreasonable system of fines and fees that burdened people trying to get going after a prison sentence.

Finally, it could have not pretended that it was just enforcing the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said, you can totally criticize them for not properly keeping track of the fines. You can even think the fines are too heavy.

What you can't do, is claim that the legislature didn't honestly implement the ballot proposal. They actually did. It's the other stuff that's messed up.

[David Nieporent]

Finally, it could have not pretended that it was just enforcing the law.

But Brett has some op/eds! Pretty telling that he's not citing the actual text of the amendment. Here's the relevant part:

any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.

Now, you could argue that this is ambiguous: are court costs and such part of a "term of sentence"? But if it's obvious that they are — if "all terms" means all terms, as the simplistic argument goes — then shouldn't it also be obvious that parole and probation are? The fact that they felt the need to explicitly include those at least calls into question whether monetary penalties are.

[John F. Carr]

In my state it is far too late for voters to propose a referendum this year.

[ducksalad]

Prediction: there will be both pro-choice and pro-life constitutional amendment attempts and the majority of both types will fail.

There's a good number of voters who aren't absolutist on the issue and don't view it as a particularly important issue. There are also voters who think the Roe compromise position was about right. Their inclination is "don't do anything and stop talking about it".

In democratic countries where abortion hasn't become a political identity issue, they typically end up at 12-18 weeks, and not a lot of talk about either the Handmaid's Tale or mass murder.

[Ben_]

Yay for people having a say in government policy that affects them.

[John F. Carr]

In other news out of Kansas, the state Supreme Court has allowed a prosecution for aggravated battery against a police officer who shot a girl while trying to shoot a dog. The right to use force in self-defense does not excuse reckless injury to an innocent bystander.

There was a brief discussion here about a case out of Texas a few weeks ago where the shooter was not charged. The Kansas Supreme Court decision summarizes the state of American law on pages 15-19.

State v. Betts, https://www.kscourts.org/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Opinions/122268_1.pdf?ext=.pdf

This was decided on a pretrial motion to dismiss because Kansas law grants immunity from prosecution in some self-defense cases.

[not guilty]

A group of Trump shills are conducting an effort to recall Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, who is investigating Donald Trump. https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-trump-allies-launch-effort-to-recall-fulton-county-da-fani-willis-224315547.html The factual basis for such a plan is unclear. I suspect that raising money is the principal motivator here.

[John F. Carr]

From the article: "That source, who is helping to raise money for the effort, said Trump and his associates at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida are “aware” of the recall campaign and that among those actively involved in the effort are David Shafer, the Georgia Republican Party chairman, and Brad Carver, a prominent GOP lawyer in the state. Both men are among the 16 so-called fake electors in Georgia who recently received target letters from Willis informing them they were facing potential indictments in her probe."

Is it illegal to raise money to get the prosecutor investigating you removed from office by a popular vote? On one hand, money is speech. On the other hand, it sure smells bad.

[not guilty]

I don't know of any authority suggesting it is illegal. Grifters gonna grift.

[OtisAH]

Well, raising money *and* obstruction of Justice.

[Ben_]

A recall election is not obstruction of justice. Obviously.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Looks like Alex Jone's goose is cooked.

The funny part of the entire thing, from following the discovery, is you can actual see his progression from edgy alternative journalist to straight up corporate media pimp machine following the cash.

He basically does what CNN does on a regular basis, but his "lies" are considered "evil" by the left so he gets it in the end. CNN publishes outright lies and all they have to do is issue a correction or it is called "freedom of the press."

[wreckinball]

Some animals are more equal.

[Voize of Reazon]

all they have to do is issue a correction

Yes, issuing a timely admission of error can make a difference. Alex Jones chose not to do that until well into his trial. Different choices, different consequences.

[Nige]

'He basically does what CNN does on a regular basis,'

He exemplifies the very worst traits of right-wing media, which includes blaming everyone else when they get caught or called to account, like this.

[Sarcastr0]

Election fraud endorser claiming Republican election fraud in Arizona.

This is the price.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The media has already told us though that election fraud is extremely rare, really never occurring, and even if it does it never effects the outcome of an election. So, obviously, there is nothing here worth looking into, right?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't find these bombastic empty of evidence accusations hold a lot of water, so I do indeed think there is nothing worth looking into.

Would you prefer a 'believe all women' but for election fraud accusations?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I would prefer for actual allegations of election fraud to be taken seriously, something which the media only does if it affects the left.

[Sarcastr0]

What counts as an actual allegation? Do you need any evidence?

What does taken seriously mean, does it require an automatic full investigation?

Now apply your rules, but to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Good luck!

[Jimmy the Dane]

Did Kavanaugh commit election fraud? I missed that one! Or are you just making up more stuff and doing your normal gaslighting?

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy, if you are going to have a standard of proof for what triggers an investigation, you don't get to pick and choose how it applies.

Be consistent.

[Michael P]

There was a nationally televised investigation into Ford's, and others', allegations against Kavanaugh. It made clear that the allegations were likely mistaken at best, and some of the other allegations were outright lies -- but Democrats still insist otherwise.

[wreckinball]

They did fully investigate the Ford allegations, You thought that was a snappy comeback?

[Sarcastr0]

No, they pencil whipped the investigation.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fbi-kavanaugh-ford-investigation/index.html

[Brett Bellmore]

What did you think they were supposed to do, go back in a time machine and have somebody trail him for 2-3 years to see if it happened? She couldn't/wouldn't say where it happened, when it happened, and nobody she claimed was present would confirm her story.

Absent some evidence beyond (deliberately?) vague allegations, what sort of 'investigation' were you expecting? Just being credulous about people volunteering other equally evidence free allegations, I suppose.

[Sarcastr0]

Your standard is, as usual, tailored to the outcome you want. Cold case investigations are not some impossibility.

The ignored any and all tips, at all. In fact, as learned yesterday the FBI ran the investigation through the White House! https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a40811337/fbi-brett-kavanaugh-tip-line/

A normal investigation might involve making any attempt to ask people questions or triage the tips and follow up on some or any of them. No such effort was made.

Meanwhile, you are all calling for an investigation of the Arizona GOP primary because one of the candidates made an accusation that is much less concrete than what Ford did under oath.

Keep to your own standards.

[wreckinball]

You believe there is no election fraud in elections that turn out the way you like,

[Sarcastr0]

This is a Republican primary; I have no dog in this fight, so your allegation of bad faith just makes you look like a jackass.

[Allutz]

Election fraud is obviously something people would do if they thought they could get away with it. The benefits of success are very high. As such, the first question to ask is, how would they get caught?

In the current system, the answer, more or less, is: They have to be incredibly incompetent and get caught on camera, or be turned in by their co-conspirators.

This is not the system I prefer. So, kinda, yes, believe all accusations until there is actually an auditable and secure system in place.

[Allutz]

These are, after all, the people we are authorizing to have a monopoly on violence.

[Sarcastr0]

We have two parties, each pretty strongly incentivized to find any cheating by the other. Both have both public and private means to investigate at their disposal. Both sides have small-ball found vote fraud, though only one seems to include largely intentional vote-fraudsters, and that's the GOP.

The right has proven that they will call everything vote fraud if it doesn't go their way. Coddling their crazy bullshit is ridiculous, and harmful to our Republic.

[Michael P]

Only the GOP? Like the California city councilman whose election was overturned because his campaign coordinated illegal voting (several others were convicted for that)? Like former Congressman "Ozzie" Myers? Like the Texas lady who was charged with over 100 felonies for helping her Democrat husband engage in large-scale absentee ballot fraud (but was allowed to plead down to just misdemeanor charges)?

There are plenty of Democrat intentional vote-fraudsters.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, dude. Municipal elections, something from the 1970s, and a charged but not yet closed case.

You do realize that the weakness if your evidence betrays you, right?

[OtisAH]

She kind of goes back and forth on it depending on what the current numbers suggest. We won’t know for certain if there’s rampant fraud to investigate until we learn whether she lost or won.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you not seeing what's going on in Maricopa county? Or what happened to the countless places that magically didn't have enough Republican ballots?

Why are we letting partisan Democrats run elections for Republicans?

[jb]

Presumably you know that in places where Republicans control local election administration, they run elections for Democrats?

I'm all for nonpartisan election administration if you want it, but this isn't a unidirectional thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's a safe assumption that if you work for a government you are most likely a Democrat.

[Moderation4ever]

Obviously, you have never worked for government. There are plenty of Republicans working for government. In fact, most of the government employees testify to the House Select Committe on January 6th were Republicans.

[jb]

LOL. Yeah, all of those secret Democrat subversives in Dawson County, GA or Crook County, WY.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Or Maricopa County, AZ, or Fulton County GA, or Milwaukee County, WI.

[jb]

I got your point the first time. You seem unable to understand that it happens the other way around, though? There's plenty of local jurisdictions run by Republicans that have Democratic primaries.

[Ben_]

People have an absolute right to claim election fraud or make any other political statement.

[jb]

And we have an absolute right to laugh at them.

[Ben_]

Leftists like to put people in prison for bad politics and then laugh at them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Delusional malcontents have the right to believe as they wish, but not any entitlement to be taken seriously or to have their nonsense treated with respect by their betters.

[bernard11]

Why do conservatives cozy up to Victor Orban?

Couldn't be that they like authoritarian racists, could it?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Might want to call up some members of "The Squad" and ask them what they think about Jewish people.....

[OtisAH]

How will that explain why “conservatives” are joyfully lining up behind Victor Orban?

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, that was an incredibly lame deflection.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Not really. It just goes to show you that rightists always are being told they need to justify their extremists and political bomb throwers when the leftist version gets a complete pass (if not the celebrity treatment).

[Sarcastr0]

Still deflecting. If you can't answer why conservatives cozy up to Victor Orban, you can choose not to post.

[Brett Bellmore]

Before I could answer why they're cozying up to him, I'd need some evidence that it's actually true.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a fair ask. I don't want to speak for bernard, but he's a speaker at CPAC this year, for one thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Interesting. I hadn't known that. Well, that lowers my opinion of CPAC, anyway.

[bernard11]

He was also honored at a CPAC event in Hungary.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Not deflecting. I'm not going to engage in an unequal playing field where there are two sets of standards. If you want those on one political side to spend time and energy defending their extremists then start by defending the long list that likes to call themselves "democrats"....

[Sarcastr0]

Huh. You think the playing field isn't level, so you want some kind policy wherein your concerns are brought up at equal weight to the issues liberals have.

Sounds like a pretty good policy to deal with this institutional advantage those perfidious leftists have here on the Conspiracy. Lets get some way to Affirmatively get your issues with the left brought up in Equal Time whenever someone posts something bad about the right.

Would that help with this unfairness you're concerned about?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Other people can engage trolling shit posts like the one above if they like. I just pointed out it is dumb to do so because intrinsically the sides are held to completely different standards. The right is constantly called on to justify their extremists while the left just gets a pass. Not only that but any time the right has an arguably extreme event, it gets amplified. The left has one and it is all the sudden justify.

How much press did Charlottesville and why did everyone from the local dog catcher on up to the President get held to the expectation they would apologize for something in which they had nothing to do. Then a few years later you have dozens of BLM riots and extremists there stoking racist hatred and it is all crickets from the left. In fact, any time someone did speak up it was to justify the violence with their usual parade of lame excuses.

[Sarcastr0]

intrinsically the sides are held to completely different standards

And thus, you want us to only look at left-wing bad acts and ignore right-wing ones.

Which is a ridiculous position to take. And yet that appears to be where you've ended up.

[wreckinball]

But you won't acknowledge the double standard. Why not?

[Sarcastr0]

1) It's off topic
2) It's deflecting from the topic
3) It's not comparable to the topic

What about you wreckinball, why do you think the right likes authoritarian racists like Orban so much?

[wreckinball]

1) No it's not it's another situation where the left is treated completely different.
2) It's a comparison in regards to the same topic.
3) It's 100% comparable

What about you Sarcastro why do you think the left likes racist as shit groups like BLM.

[Sarcastr0]

BLM isn't racist, you're just afraid of black activism.

Answer the question about Orban.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Last time I checked blaming all white people simply because of their membership in a protected class for a myriad of negative attributes is pretty racist.....

[Sarcastr0]

I hope your BLM hate-fiction is fun for you.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Calling something "fiction" might reinforce the false reality you live in but doesn't change actual reality....just so you know....

[Jimmy the Dane]

It is hardly off topic to point out engaging on an unequal playing field is dumb and a waste of time. This was aptly demonstrated when I called out similar extremist behavior that goes completely unquestioned.

The sad thing is, in the silence of the left instead of actually dealing with their extremists, is the uncomfortable truth that many of them agree with those extremist positions. Why not just tell people that you agree exactly with the wild and crazy stuff they advocate?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, it is off topic. When someone asks a question, saying 'The game is fixed' is absolutely off topic.

You really are working very hard to avoid dealing with this GOP embarrassment.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You are working really hard to deny there is a double standard and that engaging in such a preposterous debate in the first place is stupid and not productive.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to start a thread on double standards in reporting, go for it.

But here, someone asked a question about Orban and conservatives. And you can't seem to address it. It's pretty damming, at this point.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Do you go on and on about commenting about everyone's personal opinion about everything? Obviously not. This is America. The guy is allowed to have opinions just as you are. I don't have time to play "speech police" especially in response to baiting posts where any substantive response is going to be subjected to a blatant double standard anyhow.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha, you know you've won the argument when the conservative comes out with 'your criticism of my shittiness is oppressing me!'

Go live in frustration the liberal purge so so dearly want will never come.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I said your bait post has absolute no value and is not worthy of a response. You can't even keep your argument consistent.....

[Nige]

Because it's not a double standard, it's standard Republican whining when their own words and actions make them look bad.

[Jimmy the Dane]

As opposed to the standard whining liberals engage in when called out on "bad" behavior they try to justify in the frame of some -ism?

[Nige]

So they engage with the actual behaviour rather than whine about something else.

[Aunt Teefah]

That they should have freedom, dignity, and equality, just like everyone else? What do you suspect they would say about them??

[legalizeshrooms]

Maybe they would say zionism is Jewish ethnonationalism?

[Ben_]

Why do leftists seek out opportunities to attack people using oblique guilt-by-association BS?

[Estragon]

Oblique? The guy is speaking at CPAC

[Ben_]

And? That doesn’t suggest anyone is guilty of anything.

[Estragon]

Sure seems cozy

[Ben_]

Why should anyone care about what "seems cozy"?

[Estragon]

I am responding to Bernard’s comment above.

[Ben_]

Seems oblique when you can’t even expound on whatever claims you’re trying to hint at.

[Aunt Teefah]

No one said they were guilty of anything, they said conservatives like Viktor Orban. Liking Viktor Orban does not make you a criminal, but it does make you a piece of shit.

[OtisAH]

He didn’t say he knows what “oblique” means, he just uses it a lot.

[Ben_]

You can Google synonyms for it if you’re unfamiliar with the word.

[Allutz]

Why is "Great Replacement Theory" both a conspiracy theory, and more diversity in America and Europe a good thing? We will never know.

[Sarcastr0]

Why are nonwhites in America and Europe a good thing?! There can be good reasons other than a plot to replace white people.

Your coming out against diversity, for The Great Replacement, and defending Orban means you appear to be an unironic white supremacist.

Don't be that.

[Ben_]

"Why are nonwhites in America and Europe a good thing?!"

Are you saying an increase of one race is better or worse than an increase of another race?

Because we've been told that race preferences are morally wrong. You should be clear whether or not you are endorsing such race preferences. Seems like you are.

[Estragon]

Guy reffitt gets 7 years for just walking around the capitol taking pictures like a tourist! He really needed the legal eagles around here on his defense team. Jimmy— what gives? Too busy golfing??

https://www.newsweek.com/guy-reffitt-jan-6-daughter-donald-trump-life-prison-1729885?amp=1

[Jimmy the Dane]

Let's see how much you endorse the use of the DOJ for political prosecutions when President DeSantis uses it to crack down on BLM rioters and looters (you know people who actually break the law....)

For the few shining moments that the Trump DOJ stepped in to take over prosecutions of BLM looters and rioters in 2020 when the locals just stopped enforcing the law, the left really didn't like that.

I suspect sometime in 2024 the whole "find something to charge 'em with and throw the entire weight of the federal government at 'em" isn't going to be too popular with many who take a little too much glee out of seeing political persecution of tourists.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm going to endorse it fully.

The time has come to stop turning the other cheek and taking the high road.

I want every Democrat to rot in jail and to suffer.

[Estragon]

BCD have you ever threatened your kids?

[Aunt Teefah]

I doubt it's occurred to him to merely threaten. People like him just straight-up abuse their wives and kids, almost without exception.

[wreckinball]

Tangent. He's not charged with that

[Estragon]

Lol! Allow me to introduce you to count 5. Sometimes you huckleberries make it too easy.

[wreckinball]

You didn't introduce anything you douche

[Estragon]

Count 5 is obstruction and that does indeed encompass threatening his son. You’d be better at this if you read the underlying docs before responding.

[Estragon]

Would that be registered democrats or just people who voted for joe biden? I sense some logistical issues with your plans.

[Estragon]

Hey wait a second, I thought you told me there were no guns!

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1473241/download

[Jimmy the Dane]

There were no guns.

[Estragon]

That’s not what mr. Reffitt pled to!

[Estragon]

Excuse me, was found guilty of!

“Reffitt was convicted by a DC jury in March of five felonies, including transporting and carrying a firearm on Capitol grounds, interfering with Capitol Police and obstructing an official proceeding.“

[Estragon]

It’s ok to admit you’re wrong from time to time, you know.

[Estragon]

From his own sentencing memo!!

“A. What He Did Do
Guy Reffitt and Rocky Hardie did drive from Texas to Washington, D.C. Guy Reffitt brought with him an AR-15 and a .40 caliber handgun. See PSR at ¶ 20. He and Mr. Hardie attended President Trump’s speech at the Ellipse. See Trial Tr. at 1138-39. As Mr. Hardie described it in his testimony, “[t]he President said hey, you know, I’d like a million people to show up and I said, well, I think maybe I need to be counted.” Id. at 1105.
During the speech, President Trump urged those in attendance to march on the
Capitol, where he knew the electoral votes were being counted, and Mr. Reffitt did so.7 He possessed a handgun in a holster, wore a tactical helmet and bulletproof armor, and had zip ties.”

[wreckinball]

So he brought the AR15 to the protest? And can we se all the video and photo's' from that day because the holster seems empty.

Or do we just get to see the evidence the prosecution likes?

[Estragon]

He’s admitting to it in his own sentencing memo! It’s right there!!!

[wreckinball]

Because the plea bargains are always on the up and up.

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the definition of convicted sometime!

[Estragon]

This isn’t a plea bargain! Can you even read??????

[wreckinball]

Did he point the gun at anyone? So you're saying he was carrying illegally therefore 7 years for an illegal weapons charge. Wonder what would happen if it was a BLM protest same thing just carrying illegal?

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

[wreckinball]

Circumstances affect sentencing. Its the same goalpost

[Estragon]

There are 5 counts!!!! The weps charge is only one! Cmon man

[Jimmy the Dane]

All this hand wringing and still no guns actually at the event. Best you got is some guy who was bullied into a plea deal by all the weight of the federal government who drove to DC with a gun.

OK Boomer.....

[Estragon]

This is not a plea!!!!! Earth to huckleberries!

[Estragon]

You can tell Jimmy loves this talking point, it just comes out reflexively!

[Noscitur a sociis]

And can we se all the video and photo's' from that day because the holster seems empty.

His own lawyer expressly admitted that he brought the pistol with him to the Capitol, you doofus.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who cares if he had a pistol. He didn't use it, he assaulted no one and did not even enter the building.

[Estragon]

Are you saying jimmy is wrong? Trouble in huckletown!

[Bob from Ohio]

Jimmy has always said that there were no guns inside the Capitol

This guy was outside

[Noscitur a sociis]

Apparently wreckinball thinks it's important, since he's going out of his way to argue that he didn't, contrary to the verdict of the jury (I know, they live in DC so they don't count) and the guy's own lawyers.

[Estragon]

“Jimmy the Dane
August.4.2022 at 1:24 pm
Flag Comment Mute User

There were no guns.”

[not guilty]

"There were no guns."

Is that as true as everything else you have said?

[Aunt Teefah]

"President DeSantis"

Lmao anyone who thinks this is going to happen needs to get off Twitter and rejoin reality. If Trump runs, DeSantis has about as much chance of winning the primary as Romney does.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know. Between the two of them, I'd personally go for DeSantis at this point. Trump was a fairly good President, but he has some obvious flaws, and by 2024 will just be too old for the job.

[Aunt Teefah]

I don't doubt that you would. Likewise, some GOP voters would vote for Romney. But the notion that a majority would vote for anyone but Trump if he's on the ballot is absurd.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree, IF Trump runs, he'll probably get the nomination. He'll just have to get it without my vote.

[wreckinball]

You can try and shame them on the hypocrisy but they are completely immune to it.

[ducksalad]

He did some stuff worthy of incarceration but 7 years seems like too much. But then most federal sentences seem like too much, for people who choose to go to trial.

One assumes this is mainly to scare a few hundred upcoming defendants into pleading guilty.

[Estragon]

This was at the low end of the sentencing guidelines, actually! And the judge rejected the potential enhancement. Could have been worse. His son thinks it’s appropriate:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/02/politics/january-6-rioter-guy-reffitt-son-sentence-cnntv/index.html

[Bob from Ohio]

"His son thinks it’s appropriate:"

He betrayed his father.

[Sarcastr0]

I hope you don't have kids, with that kind of demand for knee-jerk loyalty.

[Bob from Ohio]

I understand loyalty is a strange thing for you to understand, being a "liberal", but ratting on a close relative is bad.

[Sarcastr0]

I understand loyalty quite a bit better than you, if you believe only blind loyalty counts.

Your understanding went away round about Nuremberg.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, the Unabomber wouldn’t be wasting his talents in prison if not for his disloyal brother, the traitor…

[Estragon]

“Some stuff worth of incarceration”

So… not just a tourist taking pictures?

[John F. Carr]

Without judging his photographic skills, I want to link the sentencing memos giving two sides' views of the case:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22088157/us-v-reffitt-gov-sentencing-memo.pdf
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/guy-reffitt-defense-sentencing-memorandum.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

"While he did not enter the Capitol on January 6"

[Estragon]

From his own sentencing memo:

“At some point, after arriving at the Capitol, he climbed the staircase on the west side and refused to retreat when ordered to do so by the police and continued to do so after being hit by “less than-lethal projectiles.” See PSR at ¶¶ 22-23.”

You are correct he did not enter the building— nor was that alleged.

[Bob from Ohio]

Then stop using him as an example of someone armed in the Capitol

[Estragon]

He was armed on the Capitol grounds, by his own admission. Remained without authorization, by his own admission. Threatened his own kids. Your kind of guy it seems.

“There were no guns”

Yeah, no.

[Bob from Ohio]

He was outside and didn't do anything but protest. Calling it the "capitol grounds" doesn't make it bad. Its just the lawn of another government office building.

[Estragon]

That’s not what he said in his sentencing memo

[bernard11]

Oh shut up, Bob.

You and other cultists have repeatedly claimed that none of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists had guns.

Not true. But you won't admit it.

[Estragon]

Britney Griner gets 9 years

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/08/04/world/brittney-griner-trial-verdict-russia

[Don Nico]

Stupid behavior gets its reward

[wreckinball]

Now you see that works when we discuss Ashley Babbitts fate but not in this case, because Reasons?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Stupid behavior being signaling that her kidnapping will make the Russians better off.

[wreckinball]

Well she did do the crime right. You're all for that right?

[Jerry B.]

She’s awful tall for a pawn.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol owned

[Ben_]

Here’s a good article explaining Why America Can’t Build:

https://palladiummag.com/2022/06/09/why-america-cant-build/

One thing mentioned is unions at the west coast ports. Why do we allow union organizations to monopolize access to vital US Infrastucture like the west coast ports?

Would anyone like to defend allowing such a monopoly? It’s obviously not in the public interest.

[Jerry B.]

Their unions contribute to Democrats. What more defense do they need?

[Ben_]

Are you sure you want to accuse Democrats of selling out the American public's interest in such an obvious way? That would be shameful.

[Frank Drackman]

So much talk about the "Burn Pits" and Veterans, did you know, the Glioblastoma that killed Bo Biden isn't considered a Burn Pit condition?? (don't blame me, blame the VA) Or that only certain cancers are considered to be caused by Agent Orange (only the most carcinogenic substance known to man)
And ask any Veteran about wait times, or even getting in for the privilege of waiting,
OTOH Active Duty "Members" can apply for "Sexual Reassignment Surgery" (nice way of saying they cut off your penis and testicles, inflict a wound and call it a Vagina, and shoot you up with Estrogen, for the women it's even worse) as soon as they get a few spare minutes in basic training (they can ask for a "Time Out")

Lets here Jon Stewart yell about that one...

Frank "sticking with the sex J-hova assigned me to"

[Don Nico]

Discuss:
Joe Biden's lame duck presidency started this week with Pelosi's trip to China.

[Frank Drackman]

You mean "President" Pelosi

[Aunt Teefah]

"trip to China"

Don endorses One China policy with respect to Taiwan. Good - Xi Jinping Thought will serve you well.

[Sarcastr0]

Now that's turning a molehill into a mountain!

[Don Nico]

Absolutely not S_0.
It is the culmination of 75% of Dem voters saying that they do NOT want him in 2024 and Pelosi deliberately embarrassing him as he did not have the balls to tell her not to go.
He is now seen around the world as pathetically weak.

[Ben_]

He looks really weak. It’s not to our advantage, or to the advantage of anyone who needs us.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Imagine if he started bowing before Vladimir Putin. How weak would that make him look?

[Don Nico]

He could not do much worse than he is doing right now, at least in the eyes of most Democrats

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what unpopularity means - we could do better does not mean he's doing the worst he could be.

I don't like Biden much either, but your superlative interpretation is not supported.

[OtisAH]

Look at you numpties trying to will a reality into existence. If it wasn’t for ol’ Weaky McWeakness there would be no unified NATO response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[Sarcastr0]

Congress thumbing their nose at the Executive, especially when it comes to diplomacy, is not new, nor is it particularly noteworthy.

It's just pettiness.

No, Biden isn't particularly popular. That's not news. And this story is going to be gone in the flash of a news cycle.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, Biden isn't particularly popular. That's not news. And this story is going to be gone in the flash of a news cycle."

Hopefully that's true. But if it is, it means that Biden's opposition to the trip made us look weak unnecessarily.

[Sarcastr0]

The idea that the perception of the US rides on petty stuff like this is laughable.

I know some State Department people who take their trivialities that seriously, but I don't buy it for a second.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The idea that the perception of the US rides on petty stuff like this is laughable."

1. Not an argument.
2. It looks like you're the only one laughing.

[Sarcastr0]

My sense that this has negligible impact has as much evidence as your opinion that Biden looks weak due to this.

[Don Nico]

The fact is that no one outside of US Dems think that he is actually seen as the leader of the free world.

[Don Nico]

Yes, they threw up over the Orange Clown but Old White Joe is not seen as much better.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"My sense that this has negligible impact has as much evidence as your opinion that Biden looks weak due to this."

Quite a step back from your previous claim.

[Sarcastr0]

Which claim do you think I've backed off from?

That this story will be gone in a news cycle?
That it's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill?
That the international perception of the US is not going to be affected by this?

[Don Nico]

S_0
I never said it rides on petty stuff Your reply is your typical sidestep.
You really must have no EU contacts that moan everyday about the lack of US leadership.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, you started this by talking about Pelosi's trip having pretty strong implications, and you applied it to Biden's entire presidency.

No new goalposts - your molehill remains a molehill, and the mountain you claim it to be remains just that.

[jb]

Interesting to see the federal charges in the Breonna Taylor case. I've actually been pretty skeptical of the attempts to blame the officers actually involved in the raid--they went in, got shot at, and returned fire. (The exception is the guy who blind fired through a side window, and indeed he was charged by the local authorities as well as now the Feds.)

But good to see that if (other) cops put together a warrant based on false information where they didn't have any basis for a no-knock warrant that there's some attempt to hold them accountable for the death that resulted.

[wreckinball]

Black victim white cops. That's it in regards to why the feds sweep in.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"they went in, got shot at, and returned fire."

If you enter someone's home in the middle of the night, you have a reasonable expectation the return fire might be lawful self-defense, so no reasonable belief that you are the target of unlawful force.

[Estragon]

DOJ sues Trump advisor Pete Navarro for violations of the Presidential Records Act.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941.1.0.pdf

Of note: “Prior to filing this suit, in an effort to avoid litigation, Department of Justice counsel contacted Mr. Navarro by email and United States mail to secure the Presidential records that Mr. Navarro had not copied to his government email account. Discussions with Mr. Navarro’s counsel to secure the return of Presidential records ultimately proved unsuccessful. Mr. Navarro has refused to return any Presidential records that he retained absent a grant of immunity for the act of returning such documents.”

Is this consciousness of guilt?

[wreckinball]

DOJ goes after Trump or Trump supporter for whatever? About as newsworthy as dogs like to lick their balls.

[wreckinball]

Or that Hunter's latest hooker/drug /gun violation escapades will be covered up

[Sarcastr0]

Also, this is a discussion of Pete Navarro. Yet another lame deflection from the usual suspects!

What coverup? It's all over the news the moment stupid sexy Hunter takes off his shirt.

[OtisAH]

So there’s literally not a single law or regulation or requirement anyone in Turnip’s circle can be held accountable for violating? In this case, “accountability” is “turn over the documents you improperly withheld.” But even that is just “Ho-hum wahhh-wahhh they’re picking on Big Baby’s buddies again for no reason except they be hatin’”?

Of course it is.

[Life of Brian]

Mr. Navarro has refused to return any Presidential records that he retained absent a grant of immunity for the act of returning such documents.

Huh? If he was asking for immunity for the act of having retained the documents, or for any activities discussed in or disclosed by the documents, that could be a red flag

But immunity for the act of returning the documents? I think my question is why that wouldn't be freely granted, UNLESS the goal is to create a catch-22 where Navarro is subject to criminal penalties whether he returns the documents or continues to retain them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Presumably the attorney's concern is that the act of producing the records could be used as evidence (and obviously pretty good evidence!) that he had the records in the first place. Obviously blanket immunity would be even more desirable for Navarro, but it may not be reasonable to expect that either.

[Life of Brian]

Presumably the attorney's concern is that the act of producing the records could be used as evidence (and obviously pretty good evidence!) that he had the records in the first place.

I don't practice criminal law much and may be missing something, but being granted immunity for the legal consequences of an act seems quite different than having to pretend the act never happened. If Navarro was actually asking to be able to turn over the documents without leaving an evidentiary trail that he had them, the complaint did an exceptionally poor job of articulating that.

[Michael P]

The difference between this and Clinton aides being investigated under the Obama administration is that the Clinton aides actually got immunity.

[OtisAH]

I mean, he insists on immunity so…

[Jerry B.]

Federal prisons make money off inmate’s prison accounts, so don’t want the money going to the victims, even if court ordered.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/04/federal-prisons-money-victims/

[bernard11]

It's disgraceful, as are the profits, especially from phone calls.

[ReaderY]

Ruan v. United States was overshadowed by nmore prominent cases that came out at the end of the Supreme Court’s term. The court held that in a prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act, the United States has to prove a defendant acted in excess of authorization intentionally, even though acting in excess of authorization is an affirmative defense 8’ tbe rather than an element of the crime.

I think I would have concurred on narrower grounds.

The defendant here was a doctors. Doctors are authorized to prescribe controlled substances and routinely do so. And when they do, they always do so intentionally. So the only thing that actually makes a doctor’s conduct criminal as distinct from routine and normal is acting in excess of authorization.

So if acting in excess of authorization were a normal affirmative defense, the government could prosecute doctors it doesn’t like whenever they prescribe a controlled substance, and force them not just to go to the expense of defending themselves, not just risk being put in jail until trial, but to prove to the jury that they didn’t act in excess of authorization. The situation is analogous to a law that always prohibits carrying a firearm, but makes being a police officer an affirmative offense. If you’re a police officer required to carry a firearm, then whenever the government doesn’t like you it could simply arrest you for carrying a firearm, and you would have to prove to the jury you were a police officer, perhaps after some months in jail.

A case where a class of people can always be prosecuted, where something they are expected to routinely do is regarded as a serious felony with all elements of the crime satisfied in the routine case and only an affirmative distinguishing routine legal conduct from criminal condict, represents a serious constitutional problem.

I would focus on that. I wouldn’t try to come up with a general roule about affirmative defenses that seem particularly element-like to the court majority get in efdect promoted to elements so the government has to prove intent. I would limit the decision to cases where a person’s socially accepted profession requires routinely doing conduct that satisfies all the actual elements of the crime, leaving an affirmative defense as the only thing not making the conduct criminal. In THAT case, and not in general, the affirmative defense gets promoted and treated as a de facto element of the crime for scienter purposes.

[Jmaie]

Brittany Grenier convicted, President Biden condemns the sentence and calls for immediate release.

What I’ve not seen in any of the discussions is how her treatment compares with others under similar circumstances. Absent her being a high profile American, would anyone else caught at the airport with banned substances (in the quantities she carried) also be arrested, etc.

[Estragon]

I can’t speak to Russian norms, but this was a minuscule amount. I also find her claim that this stuff was inadvertently packed plausible, having lived in a legalized jurisdiction for years now. “Trafficking” this amount seems absurd. YMMV.

[Bob from Ohio]

"this stuff was inadvertently packed plausible"

LOL, you are just as dumb as she is then.

[Estragon]

I’m dumb for believing her story? What’s the real story then? She intentionally smuggled 1g of cbd— which might last a week— for a months long Russian basketball season?

[OtisAH]

Yes, probably. Don’t break other countries’ laws when visiting. Especially drug laws. But Griner’s timing could not have been worse since we were a month or two into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and US support for Ukraine when she got busted. So that probably played a big factor in her case.

[Estragon]

Absolutely agreed

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The US just declared Monkey Pox (aka Schlong COVID) a public health emergency.

Why isn't anyone doing to the male homosexuals who are spreading Monkey Pox what they did to the entire world for COVID?

Why the disparate treatment? Is the degenerate sexual gratification from multiple partner, anonymous, high-risk sodomy valued more to our healthcare institutions than literally everything else? And now little boys are starting to get Monkey Pox (of course it's little boys).

Why isn't anyone doing anything but obfuscate and make excuses?

[Nige]

'Why isn't anyone doing to the male homosexuals who are spreading Monkey Pox what they did to the entire world for COVID?'

Provide them with free vaccinations, yes.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Mandate vaccinations? Lock them down?

[Nige]

Gay guys already go on man dates.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Interesting how even when you clearly can read my points, your brain won't let you process them.

It's like there's a big pink, AIDS/Pox riddled fuzz pulled over your brain when it comes to thinking skeptically about anything involving homosexuals.

[Nige]

Au contraire mein freund when you guys start on about homosexuals, I get VERY skeptical. This is also true when you guys start spouting about every other topic.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you offer a theory as to why there are no vaccine mandates or shutdowns of bookstores or bathhouses or rest stops?

[Nige]

Perhaps because a small but vocal minority demonised lockdowns, masks, vaccines and even the reality of covid, going so far as to criminalise pandemic responses, making a sustained national respnse ultimately untenable, and now assorted measures that might reduce disease transmission are simply no longer pursued because of the outcry, even though there probably wouldn't be an outcry because it's mostly gay men aggected so far. Obviously in this case, your homophobia trumps your consipiracy theorising and you want restrictions imposed on gay men not to protect them and everyone else but because you hate them.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Department of Education was elevated to a Cabinet-level position 22 years ago and has a budget of 70B+ each year.

What educational outcomes have improved since then?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male blog
has operated for

TWENTY-SEVEN (27) DAYS

without using a vile racial slur*
and has operated for

THREE (3) YEARS

without imposing new* partisan,
viewpoint-driven censorship.

* so far as we know; frequency indicates we might have missed one or two since then
** longstanding viewpoint-driven censorship remains in effect

[Ben_]

Now that bussing migrants to Washington DC has succeeded, Greg Abbot is now sending the buses to NYC.

I hope Vermont and Portland Oregon are next. Maybe also Aspen Colorado.

Every rich neighborhood in a blue state needs 10000 migrants. Ilya Somin's neighborhood needs 20000. The economic growth there will be awesome.

[Nige]

I'll just point out here that DC has featured mutlipe versions of Superman and Batman that were black. One was black and the US president AND Superman, and that was before Obama, I'm pretty sure. There's an black Batman ongoing right now.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't think it's essential to the characters. It's just how the characters were originally created, and arbitrarily changing things doesn't impress me.

[Bored Lawyer]

Did they have black people on Krypton?

[Jazzizhep]

Is it more essential they be female POC?

[DaveM]

The only justification you need to stand by while someone is being torn limb from limb is that you don't "favor" them? That's a very odd response. Just for the record, life is not a zero sum game. It is possible to find solutions to the problems of life that don't involve killing anyone.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny that in the 21st century "adult women" have no idea how babies are made and how to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

Maybe we need an organization, let's call it 'Planned Parenthood", to educate them.

[Jerry B.]

"No, because I don’t favor embryos over actual adult women."

How about viable fetuses?

[Michael P]

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=bombings%20of%20congress

(I misremembered the 1954 case -- it was "only" a shooting at the floor of the House during the 83rd Congress, by Puerto Rican nationalists, so not a bombing as such. 1971 was the Weather Underground. 1983 was a response to US intervention in Lebanon and Grenada.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Late to the party but full of shit as always.

Do you need a citation for that?

[Ed Grinberg]

re: Charlottesville
AFAIK, what happened there was:
Group A got a permit to hold a rally. Group B showed up (in greater numbers) and beat the shit out of them (with full connivance by the cops). Then came the "car attack."
So, who's guilty of "political violence" there?

[Michael P]

Probably not. Leftists don't usually have their ideas challenged, and so they grow up intellectually stunted.

[Ed Grinberg]

I know enough to vote against the people who gave us "lockdowns" (because the "experts" said so!).
I know enough to vote against the people pushing the Green New Deal (again, because "experts" say we'll all die without it!).

[Kazinski]

Just as climate zealots are experts and feel qualified to tell us what to do.

What expertise to John Kerry or Greta Thunberg have? Probably less than I do, maybe I will shut up when they do.

The avowed aim of climate science is Groupthink on climate. We should all worry about that, because it is not how science is done.

As for Covid, this headline just came out this week:
Court Documents Reveal Canada’s Travel Ban Had No Scientific Basis
"In the days leading up to the mandate, transportation officials were frantically looking for a rationale for it. They came up short."
https://www.commonsense.news/p/court-documents-reveal-canadas-travel

People should always have their bullshit detectors on when public officials attempt to use science that can't be questioned to impose public policy without proper democratic process.

[Michael P]

https://catholicvote.org/tracker-church-attacks/ is the database I was looking at, with details and link to news coverage for each.

[Michael P]

That is a spectacularly shitty ad-hominem even from you. I told you that they showed their work, so you can spot check them if you think they are lying.

Your link does not show numbers for Catholic churches specifically, so it's not directly comparable -- and even if it were, the fact that leftists have been doing this a long time just supports the original contention, that leftists have strong tendencies towards violence.

[Michael P]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem for your convenience.

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

That's exactly what you did. Even after I called it out as an ad hominem.

[Michael P]

You shouldn't copy and paste things that you don't understand.

My comment linking to the database explained why an ad hominem along those lines would not be valid.

As usual, you're in a hole, so you should stop digging.

[Michael P]

You better get on not guilty's numbers up-thread that include trespass as well as vandalism in counts of attacks.

And collecting one particular set of numbers is not "intentionally eliding" others. I told you why your other numbers are not apposite, and also not helpful to your argument.

[Michael P]

That's not what "an unconstitutional action" means.

But you knew that.

[Michael P]

It's sad how far people will debase themselves for five yuan.

The difference between "wrong decision" and "unconstitutional action" is not pedantic. Once upon a time, the MSM called whether the WH press secretary was speaking the same language as the rest of us.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Grab that pedanticism, grab it tight!"

Lol. When the other guy says something stupid, it's stupidity.

But when the other guys criticize our side for saying something stupid, it's pedanticism.

[Sarcastr0]

The male condom has a typical-use failure rate of 13%, and a perfect-use failure rate of 2%.

The pill, ring and patch have typical-use failure rates of 7%, and perfect-use failure rates of 1%.

[Michael P]

It's only pedantic if the difference between X and Y is small and arcane enough. When X is "action" and Y is "decision", and we're talking about a professional communicator, that's not a small or arcane difference.

[defaultdotxbe]

It's not like a press secretary is someone whom you expect to communicate clearly and accurately about a wide range of topics. It's just someone you expect to be a member of multiple minority groups.

[Mr. Bumble]

Be sure to pick up the Queen's latest hit, "Happiness is a Warm Slut". Also available her latest book "Obfuscation for Fun and Profit".

[Mr. Bumble]

...and abstinence has a failure rate of 0%. What's your point? That every unwanted pregnancy is the result of the failure of a birth control method?

[Sarcastr0]

Abstinence. Not on whom the burden falls. It's always back to pregnancy as a punishment for slutting around with you lot. Not everyone who is pro-life, but the ones that bring it back to the woman's fault.

Though I notice you didn't go into the typical-use failure of abstinence.

I, of course, never said anything about every unwanted pregnancy.

[OtisAH]

It usually goes something like this:

“Having a child is a blessing and the single highest calling of humanity. It’s a beautiful, transformative event that should be treasured. So suffer with it, whore. You shoulda kept your legs shut.”

[Jazzizhep]

Perfect reason for abortion!

A certain percentage of the population are too stupid to properly use birth control. It’s like doing algebra, I guess.

[Michael P]

Next up, QA insists that only pedants will laugh at AOC for saying "If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — Uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House".

(The usual phrase is "three branches of government", but those three bodies are not the three branches, and Democrats control all three of the bodies she listed.)

[VinniUSMC]

they grow up

Assumes facts not in evidence.

intellectually stunted.

In the case of some, like Queenie here, that's a gross understatement!

[Mr. Bumble]

A brainless entity is not a someone.

Careful there Queenie, you are leaving yourself open to a very late term abortion.

[defaultdotxbe]

There seems to be a disconnect on both sides. Pro-life advocates show pictures of fully developed babies and then want to ban abortion from the moment of conception, while pro-choice advocates say "its just a clump of cells" and then want to subsidize abortion right up to the moment of birth.

The general public, as with most issues, falls somewhere in the middle.

[Jerry B.]

Cite?

[bernard11]

Are you seriously putting the car attack in scare quotes? Do you think it didn't happen?

Screw you. Go join mad_kalak in the Nazi section.

[Nige]

'with full connivance by the cops'

Cops conniving with antifa? In what reality?

[Ed Grinberg]

"...a tipping point in public opinion. Barbarism can only play so well."
Twin Cities residents who lived through the George Floyd riots in the summer of 2020 got to see barbarism firsthand. Remarkably, it wasn't much of a tipping point. People still vote Democrat.
(From the mayor to the governor, every public official who could've stood up to barbarism, but chose not to, was a Democrat.)

[Jimmy the Dane]

What really happened was the rapist was an illegal immigrant who was "seeing" the mother of the girl who was raped. She crossed borders to secure an abortion not because of policy in that state, but to try to circumvent reporting laws. Trying to spin this as something other than a child abuse coverup is completely disingenuous.

[Sarcastr0]

New stories with old brands are fine, if the new stories are fun. And the oftentimes are.

Though I am aging out of that big dumb fun genre I think. Except for the Fast and the Furious franchise, which still slaps.

[Martinned]

Your definition of barbarism seems to have a curious correlation with skin colour...

[Noscitur a sociis]

The enthusiasm for the defund the police movement did, in fact, dissipate pretty quickly in Minneapolis.

[Martinned]

Which would be fine, except voting isn't just an act of self-determination, but an exercise of power over others as well. (And that's before we get to the externalities involved in combating climate change and infectuous diseases.) If you're so keen to get yourself killed, please think of a way that doesn't hurt other people too.

[Nige]

It was a pandemic, a highly airborne contagious virus, how many people has this grandstanding killed or left with lifelong disabilities?

[Sarcastr0]

a very late term abortion.

What an original insult.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At the Volokh Conspiracy, that correlation is no longer curious.

This blog's attraction of such a concentration of bigots can no longer reasonably be ascribed to happenstance or advertence. Evidence indicates this blog attracts many bigots -- racists, gay-bashers, misogynists, xenophobes, Muslim-haters -- because it desires to do so.

[defaultdotxbe]

So you see "riots" and think of people of certain skin color. I think you are telling on yourself here more than anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

American comics pretty much lost me when they started in on the fad of, "Hey, let's make this existing straight white male character into a black lesbian, just because. Not because it made plot sense in the context of the story, just because they could. I much preferred that, if they wanted to try out a new sort of character, they just create a new character, not mess with the guy who has a history.

I mean, Captain Marvel was a pretty good character in the comics, for instance. He literally started out as a commentary on racism; The Kree were typically blue, and the minority of white Kree were subject to racial prejudice, but he got a job infiltrating Earth for a planned invasion on account of being able to blend in with the natives, and ended up going native.

So, what do they do? They turn him into a human woman, and drop the whole racism theme, and an alien infiltrator coming to sympathize with the people he's infiltrating, in favor of a boring Mary Sue. Bleah.

These days I read manga, because they don't mess with the characters that way; The characters stay in character, life out their lives, age, and die, and when they want a new character, they create a new character.

[VinniUSMC]

Except for the Fast and the Furious franchise, which still slaps.

Yikes. I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a hot poker.

[Sarcastr0]

First, I stand corrected; you've clearly seen at least some of the movies lol.

I like it when they change the race and gender of the main character.
On the one hand, who cares about the specific aesthetic of skin and gender when the thing is the story and spectacle? But sometimes it can add a bit of spice since oppression and institutions are often part of the story.

Though I think you're confusing Carol Danvers' Captain Marvel with Captain Mar-Vell who is a completely different comics character.

[Nige]

'They turn him into a human woman'

Seriously, stop talking.

[Brett Bellmore]

Subsidies, yes, because they subsidize a lot of things. "Very generous exemptions past those limits"? No, not so much.

[ducksalad]

Sure, there are exceptions, and I would suggest that many voters are also OK or at least tolerant of that.

Personally I view it like a teenager having a baby. Before it happens you tell them it's an awful, harmful, and wrongful thing to do. If they do it anyway you quietly give them whatever support they need and try to make the best of it. It's a case of useful hypocrisy.

A similar case is laws against adultery. Few people actually want prosecutions, but at the same time maybe they don't want "Shout Your Adultery" social media campaigns followed by a big Celebrate the Repeal Parade. And so the laws stay on the books.

[Nige]

A Puerto Rican nationalist in 1954 is a leftist? Not impossible, or even unlikely, but a bit of stretch to atrribute it to the US left.

[OtisAH]

Yes.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Just stop. Stop using children as your political toys. Stop using their dead bodies as political props. Stop trying to use politics to cover up child abuse and rape. Just stop.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There’s no spin to saying your side wanted to make the girl carry the rapist’s child to term. It’s just facts."

Beats cutting her tits off.

[Jimmy the Dane]

How is pointing out how the corporate media operate and bilk cash out of the public taking advantage of anything other than pointing out the obvious using an example that is not obvious to many?

[defaultdotxbe]

Its also a different question than that Dem legislators and pro-choicers typically pushing.

[ducksalad]

I turn out for every constitutional amendment election, and vote against nearly all of them. Precisely because you shouldn't tinker with the constitution, even a state constitution, over minor unimportant issues.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They have nearly the same amount.

[Sarcastr0]

The lack of perspective to say CNN is basically Alex Jones...I can only hope you're pretty naive to AJ's deal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCY3uqR4onI

[Mr. Bumble]

...and how many were prosecuted?

[John F. Carr]

Turnout in Kansas was comparable to an off-year November election.

https://sos.ks.gov/elections/elections-statistics-data.html

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry about your hate of fun.

[Mr. Bumble]

Please allow us to without having to comply with illegal mandates.

[Mr. Bumble]

So when will we be required to mask genitals and anus to slow the spread of monkey pox?

[Michael P]

Yeah, we get it. You can't defend what these people actually said, so you go off about imaginary rants about imaginary worlds.

[Sarcastr0]

Of all the muckraking styles 'Politician I disagree with misspoke haw haw they're stupid' is the lamest.

It shows how little of substance you have. The left tried it with Trump some, but soon found his misspeaking was like the least of the issues.

[Kazinski]

"Of all the muckraking styles 'Politician I disagree with misspoke haw haw they're stupid' is the lamest."

Now do "I can see Russia from my House".

[Michael P]

S_0, clear communication by underlings is about the only thing Biden has left. His decrepitude has made him even worse at communicating. His administration turned "transitory" inflation into long-term stagflation. He has made the US a laughingstock on the world stage, which probably factored into Russia's decision to invade Ukraine and into China's saber-rattling over Taiwan. He has failed to get signature laws passed. His own people admit his lax border policies lead to security issues on the border -- although maybe bussing people to DC is finally helping the while country understand why Biden's border policies are so bad.

Besides, I would pick on just about any professional talker who "misspoke" by confusing the words "five" and "red", which is sadly close to what happened in these cases.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing makes someone petty and small-souled like hatred.

You already hates Biden and this drives you to insist every minor thing is super important and now you've objectively decided it forces you to hate Biden even more.

But that's the thing about this tribal nonsense - your hatred has been pegged for ages, and your attempt to pretend it's based on evidence at this late date as though you're in any way an honest broker is convincing no one except your dumb self.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one trying to deflect from the actual story. Given what you're trying to ignore, your moral condemnation comes off more like a cynical tactic than anything else.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The actual story IS a girl was raped and her mom tried to cover it up by taking her to another state. Stop being sick and trying to make it something else. Or are you OK with this type of behavior?

[not guilty]

"What really happened was the rapist was an illegal immigrant who was 'seeing' the mother of the girl who was raped. She crossed borders to secure an abortion not because of policy in that state, but to try to circumvent reporting laws."

What, pray tell, is your source of information?

[Noscitur a sociis]

She crossed borders to secure an abortion not because of policy in that state, but to try to circumvent reporting laws.

What is your basis for this claim? Particularly since Indiana also has reporting laws, and the doctor did make the required report?

[Martinned]

It's not my fault that the US system of government relies on an elected emperor with a 4-year term and a Congress who, as best as I can tell, are elected in order to spend 2 or 6 years trying to take as many bribes as possible to get re-elected, with the occasional bit of foreign policy to keep things interesting.

[Martinned]

When monkeypox mutates to become airborne.

[Nige]

You could start that any time you felt like it.

[ducksalad]

Sound like reasonable exceptions to me.

And it's understood that in some states the "mental health" part would interpreted so as to entirely swallow the rule, while in other states it would be a rare thing requiring an affidavit from a state-selected psychiatrist.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be clear, it's the "generous", not the "exceptions", I was disputing.

France's law, for example, would be considered very harsh by American pro-choice standards. Only 14 weeks? Having to get TWO doctors to agree an abortion after that is medically necessary?

Germany's law requires counseling intended to discourage the abortion, and the limit for elective abortions is 12 weeks.

England? Yeah, they're an outlier in Europe, but still nothing like NY abortion laws.

[Ben_]

Why should Jimmy have to explain the basis? Libs make claims all the time, often never explaining the basis.

[Kazinski]

Maybe it was just they found a doctor more willing to lie in Indiana than Ohio. Plus there is the added misdirection that it would be reported to authorities in a different jurisdiction than the crime occurred.

I think there are very few people that would say a 9 year old girl who is raped shouldn't be able to get an abortion.

Unfortunately there are a lot more people who think an illegal alien shouldn't be imprisoned and then deported for raping a nine year old girl so the reporting issue came to the fore.

[VinniUSMC]

I don't hate fun, I hate the Fast and Furious franchise, except the first one.

[Sarcastr0]

3,1,5,7,9,4,6,2,8.

[VinniUSMC]

By 3, do you mean Tokyo Drift? I guess now I know for sure that it's time to mute you.

/jk

[Sarcastr0]

Not a big car guy, but it turns out Star Wars But With Cars And The Force Is Drift Racing was exactly what I needed.

[Sarcastr0]

Check the baseline before you go off. Press secretaries talk a lot, and throughout the modern era there are no shortage of examples of them screwing up.

They are very talented, but also human. This is not a headline.

It's just someone you expect to be a member of multiple minority groups.
Yeah, white press secretaries never mess up. What the fuck?

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus Christ, Ben, don't be a nihilistic troll to own the libs.

Truth matters, even if you think the other side thinks it doesn't.

How can anyone ever trust you're in good faith if you think like this?

[VinniUSMC]

Forced creation? Had to? Were they written and illustrated by queer black trans women whose only option to get published was to make white dudes? You think the creators wanted to make them gay black men but couldn't?

Do you ever think about anything that you write?

[Ben_]

I like single standards

[Sarcastr0]

But your standard of who is lying is subjective as all hell. (To be fair, mine is as well)
Which means in effect you're giving anyone on your side license to lie.

Which...don't do that.

[Ben_]

Explain who you think is lying. Do you have evidence Jimmy is incorrect? Or anything that indicates he’s incorrect?

Why does the mom get the benefit of the doubt when her boyfriend impregnated her 9-year-old daughter?

[Sarcastr0]

Explain who you think is lying. Do you have evidence Jimmy is incorrect? Or anything that indicates he’s incorrect?

No, people don't get to assert whatever and get the benefit of the doubt.
Even if you want to believe. Even if you think liberals do that too much.

It's not about double standards, it's about having any kind of integrity.

[Ben_]

So you have nothing to say about whether Jimmy is correct or incorrect.

[not guilty]

It would help if Jimmy would disclose his source of information when called out. Instead, he runs away like a scalded dog.

[Ben_]

Help whom? He doesn’t seem to be having any trouble.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You can do a simple internet search and find some real journalism on the case. I don't work the internet for people or waste my time trying to drop unnecessary sources. If you really think I am lying or making up these facts, dropping a link isn't going to change your incorrect perception especially with the useful idiots around here.

[bernard11]

Here you go, Ben, and Jimmy:

An Indiana doctor who said she recently helped a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio get an abortion in her state reported the procedure to Indiana health officials within a required time frame, documents show, as the state's Republican attorney general has said authorities are investigating the Ob-Gyn for potential failure to report the abortion and child abuse.

The doctor, Caitlin Bernard, is suing IN AG Rokita - biggest asshole in Indiana - for defamation for making false statement about her reporting history.

[Ben_]

Lol. CNN.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Both have about the same amount of journalistic merit....If you can't see the similarities that is part of the problem....

[Jimmy the Dane]

Where did the baby come from? Oh the RAPE of a 10 YEAR OLD. In more sane times, that would be the rightful outrage AND the mom who tried to cover it up would be in jail (along with the illegal immigrant getting eventually deported).

Stop using a horrible incident as your political toy. It is sick and disgusting.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Except for Trump's press secretaries. They were held to every single word they ever said....

[ducksalad]

Did I say l want to legislate anything?

Just to be clear, I don't favor any new laws making abortions harder to get and would have voted no on the Kansas amendment. But it's low on my priority list, I vote L every time and the L candidates have varied from pro-choice to pro-life to waffle. Just explaining why we can't read too much into it.

[John F. Carr]

Turnout was like an off-year November election (a million or slightly less). It was higher than normal for a primary (half that much). People care more about abortion than primaries and less about abortion than presidents.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Stop focusing on the MANUFACTURED portion of the outrage or gees do you really care that 10 year old got raped by an illegal immigrant? Maybe you don't. Maybe you think it is "diversity" at work so it is good. Either way it is pretty sick.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I actually don't know if carrying the baby to term would be less traumatic then an abortion. Some psychologists (who probably risked their career by making such a statement) suggested in the long term she would have been better off carrying the child to full term. Either way a full emotional and mental recovery is going to take years and years of therapy (which if we took immigration law seriously wouldn't be an issue in the first place) and I don't assume that taking a 10 year old that got raped to another state, to cover up the fact that they were assaulted by their mom's partner, is going to help the situation at all. That is one heck of an assumption to make - that abortion is a magic pill that fixes everything EVEN THE RAPE OF A 10 YEAR OLD.

[Michael P]

Yes, every time QA accuses someone of anything, it's a confession. QA's bad faith comes through loud and clear.

[Brett Bellmore]

All three have mental health exceptions. Your own sources note that the UK one is interpreted so as to turn it into elective abortion, but mental health exceptions don't HAVE to be pretext; It's possible to have a real psychiatric problem which requires drug treatments that will cause birth defects, for instance. Unfortunately, unless there is some process for review, it's also possible to declare just not wanting to give live birth to be a mental health issue.

In France you can get an abortion for metal health reasons, but you need two doctors to agree to put their professional certifications on the line for that to happen. In the UK and much of the US, no professional consequences could attach to falsely claiming medical necessity. That's a very real difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

For "mostly", read "almost exclusively".

Who’s getting monkeypox in California? State releases first demographic breakdown

Basically, if you're not a promiscuous gay man who doesn't like using condoms, or having sex with one, you're about as likely to catch monkeypox as you are to be struck by lightning. You really have to work at catching this bug.

Now, like AIDS, there will be a few secondary infections leaking out of the gay male community into the rest of the population. But, yeah, an STD, and no "mostly" about it.

Really, if gay guys could just stop buggering each other for a couple weeks, it would go away. But that's too much to ask, so I guess they're going to try to crash the economy again, instead.

[Michael P]

What is it with you and Hispanics? First you imply there are too many Hispanic police officers in the US, now you imply that Puerto Ricans aren't Americans.

[wreckinball]

And the limit in France is 14 weeks! Where's the outrage?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've criticized mental health exceptions as they operate in the US, sure. Which is somewhat similar to the UK in that doctors can basically get away with declaring an abortion 'medically necessary' without worry about professional consequences.

France's system here is somewhat similar to the one that the Court ruled unconstitutional in Doe v Bolton, where it takes a panel of doctors to rule an abortion 'medically necessary', and professional consequences can be suffered if you do so fraudulently.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the French system is a reasonable compromise, yeah. It IS less strict than some states are going for, and it's enormously stricter than states Democrats dominate are choosing, but it's a reasonable compromise.

Seriously, pro-lifers could be quite a bit more relaxed about medical exceptions if doctors had to actually worry about professional sanctions if they declared them dishonestly. It's them being declared pretextually in order to create de facto abortion on demand that got us so down on them.

[Michael P]

In those literal terms, how does hell fight?

[Michael P]

Sounds like a leftist incitement activist. Got a real source?

[Jimmy the Dane]

CNN is arguable worse since people still regard it, at least in some circles, at being actual news instead of just scripted entertainment funded by Soros, et. al.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The preferred nomenclature is now "equity" and "gun safety". Those archaic terms you used have been put down the memory hole...

[Nige]

Not an STD, and it's spread through contact, not just through sex, and also through touching infected things. The humane response to one section of society being prone to catching a nasty disease is sympathy, but with you guys, gay men can only expect disgust and mockery.

[Nige]

If you think John Kerry and Greta Thunberg are the experts warning about climate change, as opposed to public figures calling for political action based on the message from experts, you're really not as canny as you try to let on.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yes. Most OECD countries fall within a range of 60-80% depending upon the socialized scheme. E.g. the UK

Publicly funded health care accounts for 83 per cent of total health care expenditureand reached an estimated £127.5 billion in 2013 (represented in 2015 prices, adjusted for inflation). This is a relatively high proportion compared to many other OECD member countries.

Between our direct spending, mandatory spending, and compliance we are safely in that 60-80% range on par with other OECD countries in total control, yet higher than them on a per capita basis because our government is uniquely horrible, corrupt, and inefficient.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I’m going to give you nerds virtual wedgies!

[Nige]

You're mixing me up with some other person you tried a dumb argument with.

[Michael P]

Then take it as a general question, where "you" means carbon-copy members of the VC's freshest batch of leftist trolls. Why do you think Puerto Ricans don't count as Americans?

[Nige]

Presumably a Puerto Rican nationalist rather explicitly would not see themselves as a US citizen, but then again I know surprisingly little about Puerto Rican nationalism in the 1950s.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that there are all sorts of reasons that the mother could have thought that going to Indiana would be a way to cover up the crime.

My question is was whether you (or Jimmy the Dane, or Ben_) have an actual reason to think that what could have happened did happen, and if so what it is.

[Nige]

So there's no actual evidence that this was an effort at some sort of cover-up, that they were looking for a doctor that would lie, or that the doctor lied, this is just an incredibly vile and evil spin put out by people for whom scummy behaviour has become utterly casual with no regard for the people involved. Jesus.

[bernard11]

It's clear that Dr. Bernard violated no reporting requirements. She told no lies - in contrast to Rokita.

Furthermore, the abortion would have been illegal in OH because she was more than 6 weeks pregnant.

Stop spreading bullshit, Kazinski.

[Kazinski]

When I dispute some of the science, I rely on scientists with opposing viewpoints, but I also look at the data myself to make my own mind up.

For instance NASA's GISS ground station temperature data is here:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

NASA's AMSR satellite data is here:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

The data shows that warming isn't anywhere near what the models are claiming and the headlines are screaming.

Same with sea level, NASA data shows sea level sea level is rising 3.4mm a year, which is 13.3 inches a century, and that's actually less than what the average rise is over the last 2000 years, as you will find out if you try to visit the Alexandria Library on the sea floor.

There are differing opinions on the data, but I look at the scientific data which both sides agree on, not the models, and the data doesn't look like its pointing to any sort of a crises to me.

[Kazinski]

Its bullshit?

Why did she report he was 17 instead of 27?

"On July 13, the Columbus Dispatch confirmed the story was true and that an arrest had been made in the case. According to the Dispatch, the alleged rapist is a 27-year-old illegal immigrant. On the form about the abortion filed with Indiana’s state department of health and department of child services, the section requiring an “approximate age” of the father “if age not known” lists the age of 17."

I'd say that's a reporting violation.

I got a feeling if the story didn't blow up about a 10 year old supposedly unable to get an abortion, the perp would still be walking around free. Enabled by the 2 doctors that first referred her out of state, and second misreported the facts.

[Sarcastr0]

Some psychologists suggest something that agrees with Jimmy. Never mind actual scientific results, this is all it takes for them to be the only experts worth listening to, so far as Jimmy is concerned.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well it wasn't created in 1979, it's been around a long time. In 1979 it was elevated to cabinet position, and it was my math being off because I banged that out at a red light.

If your mom was at that red light, I would've banged her out instead.

[Sarcastr0]

You're reduced to quibbling about the rate now, it seems.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think the value of a college degree is equally meaningful, more meaningful, or less meaningful than what it was in 1979?

And do you attribute that change in value to the policies of the Dept of Ed?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wow, that's definitely worth $70B a year! Especially since there is no longer a difference between girls in boys in the DoE's eyes.

[Michael P]

Asking what's a girl here would be like overdone pedantry, right?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You don't know what the public health institutions did to society to "slow the spread" or since?

What's your theory as to why there are more little boys with Monkey Pox than women? When the dominant class of people who have Monkey Pox are male homosexuals?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Are either you or Queenie a psychologist? How do you know what is in the best interests of a 10 year old ultimately who is in such a situation? You don't and when you hear an answer that takes away from your narrative you have been trained to pounce and nothing more.

I hope your handlers give you both a "good boy" and treat for the performance.

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy, you're the one making the statement and appealing to authority to back it up.

Pointing that out doesn't take an expert - anyone can notice your bad logic is bad.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Queenie - you could at least pretend to care about a 10 year old girl that was raped by an illegal immigrant. I mean, it is clear you don't beyond the fact this person is a convenient political football for the left, but you could at least pretend to be a decent human being with feelings and care about child abuse. Also, you are doing nothing for the argument that liberals are really just into grooming children. In fact, I'm sure your posts here validated a lot of people's beliefs that is the main, don't say the quiet part out loud, justification for their infatuation with sexuality and children.

[Michael P]

How does a Ph.D. in psychology repeat "every accusation is a confession" so much without realizing (a) it comes across as self-referential projection, and (b) it's no more than a dressed-up version of "I know you are but what am I"?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

From your link:

"The Department's origin goes back to 1867, "

lmao self-owned

[Nige]

The guy was already in custody when the story blew up, this is pure vindictiveness aimed at people who were unlucky enough to inadvertantly made the Republicans look cruel, stupid, dishonest and, well, vindictive.

[David Nieporent]

Why did she report he was 17 instead of 27?

She didn't.

[David Nieporent]

Your "feeling" is malicious and false.

1. The rape was reported to the police in Ohio before the story was ever reported.
2. The rape was reported to the government in Indiana before the story was ever reported.
3. Although the rape had already been reported, Ohio state GOP officials lied and claimed that it had not been.
4. Although the rape had already been reported, Indiana state GOP officials lied and claimed that it had not been.
5. The Indiana reporting form has two separate boxes. One asks for the father's age, if known. That one was left blank. The other asks for an estimate of the father's age, if not known. That one had "17" filled in. But of course the Indiana doctor is not a member of Ohio law enforcement; she had no way to know how old the father was. All she could do was put down what she was told. By the girl, by the girl's mother, who knows? Putting "17" rather than "27" was not a way to cover up a rape, because a 17 year old having sex with a 10 year old is still rape.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If there is anything Republicans and conservatives dislike more than legitimate education, it is that damned list of states ranked by educational attainment.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you explain why you attribute that to DoE policies?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The biggest thing that happened during the COVID lockdowns was that there was so many patients at the hospitals that nurses all over the world didn't have time to make silly Tik Tok videos. (hint: they did)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ask your braintenders if they will let go of control over your brain and see if you can't come up with some theories as to why a disease that spreads 98% among male homosexuals spreads more to little boys than to any other out-group.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think "elevated to a Cabinet-level position" means the same thing as "created"?

Do you not know what words mean?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Teaching 4 year olds how to butt bang and blow older guys is not "legitimate education", Rev, no matter how many Rainbow Flags you paint it in.

[Nige]

Also millions of people died of covid, but sure, tik-tok videos.

[Kazinski]

Well lets look at the timeline:

Indy Star first reported the story on July 1, that's when the blowup started.

Joe Biden used the story in his July 5th press briefing.

The girl was not even questioned until July 6th.

The arrest was made July 10th.

So, I'd have say that is false anyway you slice and dice it. 10 days after it hit national news, 5 days after Biden jumped aboard the story.

[Aunt Teefah]

If one of the symptoms is an obsessive fixation on gay sex, I think he might have it. Oh to see this guy's browser search history . . .

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nige, Queen has no idea what happened during COVID.

None.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So no theories as to why Pride Pox is spreading to little boys over little girls, or women, or normal men?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Your source: "The Department's origin goes back to 1867, ", you said "created in 1979". If something existed since 1867, could it be created in 1979?

I said "elevated to a Cabinet-level position" and language from your link: "Upgrading Education to cabinet-level status in 1979 ".

Are "elevated to" and "upgrading to" similar phrases, or dissimilar phrases?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My comment had two parts. Answer both.

[Michael P]

Credentials aren't achievements. A public school might increase graduation rates from 17% to 40% but that doesn't mean any fundamental improved.

Likewise, you can have a given salary distribution, and moving people from the "high school graduate" box to "college graduate" box can widen the gap between median salaries of those groups even if the people who moved wasted their time in college.

[Kazinski]

I'm actually a pro-choice libertarian, despite being a pro-life conservative.

While I don't think the constitution can possibly be read to protect abortion, unless of course we go to an absolutest libertarian interpretation, that includes a Lochner-esk right of contract, nationwide constitutional carry, pre-Wickard commerce clause, etc.

But pre-viability, or at least first trimester, I don't want the government making that decision anymore than I want them deciding the minimum wage.

[Kazinski]

Its always been about the rate, the current rate of global warming is well within the range of natural variation and isn't any sort of a crises, and I think the impacts so far, and for the conceivable future are more positive than negative.

But sure, CO2 is responsible for a modest amount of warming. I've never said anything different.

I'll also say none of the trillions we've spent so far or the additional trillions proposed or planned has had or will have any effect on the current warming rate. Won't stop it, and won't slow it.

[Kazinski]

I got a degree in Computer Information Systems and Quantitative Analysis, so yeah I do have at least a little expertise in analyzing data.

And anyone who knows anything about science will tell you the smarter play is seldom deferring to the majority of the experts.

In most fields a few mavericks lead the way dragging the vast majority of the experts along kicking and screaming. Although figuring out which maverick can be problematic.

But if the experts are right their models should have some skill at predicting the climate, and they don't.

[Bored Lawyer]

Deluded rantings. When I used to work in NY and take the subway, there was a bum who regularly ranted the same thing over and over. Thank God I don't do that any more.

[Nige]

Ah yes, you're right, it was when the arrest was confirmed that all the right wing lies and dismissals were exposed so they switched to attacking the doctors and the family.

Still, your 'feeling' is worthless, and backwards. If it takes publicity to motivate police to catch a rapist, it's because they, the police, don't take rape seriously.

[Nige]

I know millions of people died of covid.

[Nige]

Well, Monkeypox is highly contagious, that's why.

[Michael P]

The pedants are out in force this week!

[Michael P]

Once again, your accusation is a confession.

[Michael P]

Yet again, your accusation is a confession.

[Michael P]

Don't forget the lying about chemical sterilization and its lifelong side effects on things like bone density.

[Sarcastr0]

Get fucked with that whattaboutism deflection of this.

You're really down there with Jimmy and BCD now aren't you?

What an asshole.

[OtisAH]

Get a load of the shithead posting while at a red light. But to be fair to the shithead, maybe he was taking a break from washing windows and not driving around thinking his foolishness can’t wait till he gets to his destination?

[Michael P]

Doesn't count. Intentional elision and all that.

[OtisAH]

God damn, you can’t even use THAT correctly?

[Sarcastr0]

Are there leftwing muckrackers as well? Sure. Does that mean it's somehow less shitty when your side does it? No.

You put a so much energy into being on a hair-trigger to rage at trifles.
Being angry all the time seems an awful way to live.

[Sarcastr0]

Hypothetical double standards are the worst.

Don't rationalize your own petty attempts to jump at every mistake because you're sure the other side did it. If you're so sure the left is that petty, fucking rise above that and be better than you think they are.

This trend of choosing to be an out and proud asshole and rationalizing it with partisanship is not going to lead you anywhere happy.

[VinniUSMC]

Did they want to?

[Sarcastr0]

As has been pointed out on this blog many times, it's utter bullshit that no rioters from 2 summers ago were prosecuted. Did you already forget?

[Brett Bellmore]

In the reality where Charlottesville was forced to issue the parade permit, and wanted an excuse to cancel it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's just denial. It's spreading almost entirely by sexual transmission in this country.

The human response to somebody jumping off a cliff and breaking their legs is to splint their legs and berate them for being an idiot. If they land on somebody you splint their legs and prosecute them.

It's not like it's suddenly news to gays that this sort of conduct spreads nasty diseases. They signed up for a reckless lifestyle, which means they signed up for limited sympathy and being held responsible for any consequences to people who didn't sign up for it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you know, GIGO rules.

Corrupted Climate Stations; The Official US Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed

Approximately 96% of US surface stations violate siting standards. The average warming rate at stations that actually comply with the standards is half the rate derived from the substandard stations.

This only came out because global warming skeptics did a physical survey of the surface stations. I wonder how a survey of stations in other countries would turn out?

[Sarcastr0]

It's spreading almost entirely by sexual transmission in this country.

You got a cite for that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, like three comments above. Basically all the cases are of male gays, traceable back to mass sex parties. You essentially never get better proof than that.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, this shows your unwillingness to read counterveilling sources.

A cursory Googling will show you that NOAA has countered by noting that the factors Watts suggests are eliminated by the fact that the main data used is the delta of a regional average.

Watts himself said that his 2015 result was wrong before reversing himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

[Jimmy the Dane]

"You down with OPP?"

Sarcastro is representing the Insane Clown Posey today.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is a 2022 study, all the wikipedia references are to events at least 7-10 years ago.

[Kazinski]

It does point out a problem with all surface station temperature data, urbanization and land use changes affect ground temperature measurements, and it's impossible to get a pristine reading. Not to mention that even a few thousand stations on a globe this size is simultaneously too large to effectively manage, and too small to provide a true global temperature record, especially since it's land based on a water planet.

The best source for global temperature readings is the UAH temperature record that uses a satellite to measure temperature in the troposphere:
"Global fields of mean lower-tropospheric temperature are derived from channel-2R of the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) flown aboard the NOAA series of polar-orbiting satellites (Spencer et al. 1990). Most of the earth is sampled twice daily from each of two MSU instruments flying concurrently on different satellites. "

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm assured that somebody can perfectly well be engaged in a protest even standing right next to somebody throwing Molotov cocktails, so long as they're not throwing them themselves. Even if they're dressed the same and getting in the way of the police arresting the arsonist!

So don't tell me January 6th wasn't a protest. It was, except for a half dozen or so guys, by that standard.

[bernard11]

Thanks to Bruen that guy might be carrying a gun now.