Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[darkknight9]

In preparation for lots of gov complaining, I offer the following verse regarding government:

"If there's a new way
I'll be the first in line.
It better work this time"

[Randal]

Ode to Gaslighting

Only cult members
Fear for their own sanity
When confronting facts.

[Randal]

Trumpgate

To be indicted
Or not to be indicted?
Indict then pardon.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In the surveillance video, which was obtained by CNN, Cathy Latham, a former GOP chairwoman of Coffee County who is under criminal investigation for posing as a fake elector in 2020, escorts a team of pro-Trump operatives to the county's elections office on January 7, 2021, the same day a voting system there is known to have been breached.

The two men seen in the video with Latham, Scott Hall and Paul Maggio, have acknowledged that they successfully gained access to a voting machine in Coffee County at the behest of Trump lawyer Sidney Powell.

The CNN story goes on to detail that the Coffee County voting machine attack was the tip of a multi-state conspiracy to breach voting machines across the nation. According to participant Hall, heard on a recording:

"The same people that went up to Michigan, OK, and did all that forensic stuff on the computers. And they sent their team down to Coffee County, Georgia, and they scanned all the equipment, imaged all the hard drives, and scanned every single ballot," Hall says in the recording.

Other reports have mentioned similar attacks in Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. Possibly, the security breaches were intended to help develop evidence for Sidney Powell's haywire theory that Dominion Voting Systems machines were rigged against Trump. Nothing in the story alleges that ballots in any of the states were changed on account of the illegal breaches of security.

Obviously, the facts raise notable questions, including about the intersection of the Dominion Voting Systems scandal, and the fake electors scheme, and connection to Trump via Powell.

Another question I would like answered: Dominion Voting Systems machines will once gain be employed in many states in the upcoming mid-term elections, and in other elections going forward. According to participant Hall, Trump operatives who are also pro-Trump election deniers stole a complete copy of the operating system for those machines. What, if anything, has been done to assure that Dominion's machines remain secure for future use everywhere, including for use under supervision by pro-Trump election deniers?

[Kleppe]

I'm thinking about how Dems spent 5 years calling Trump a fascist, Russian agent, and Literally Hitler, but then balk at the suggestion that any of them -- anywhere in the country -- would cheat to keep him out of the White House. "Well sure he's a national security threat and the worst president in American history, but we wouldn't BREAK the RULES to stop him!"

Cheating has happened in every single American election. But pointing this out is now is apparently equivalent to destroying democracy.

[Nige]

I'm thinking how Trump and his supporters claim the 2020 election was stolen using some sort of massive voter fraud, but audits and investigations proved nothing and anytime actual voter fraud is proven it invariably turns out to be Republicans., but saying all this this is bad for democracy is outrageous.

[Sigivald]

"anytime actual voter fraud is proven it invariably turns out to be Republicans"

Any time you hear about it on the media you consume, you mean?

I do not suggest local-level Rs never cheat (they do, sometimes), just that ... unless you're consuming non-D media, you're never going to hear about the fraud that Ds commit (and I'm not necessarily suggesting they do so more than Rs, though they might - simply because they control more urban areas where the value is greater and it's easier).

I've noticed this watching the memery and what news gets shared online, and from whenever I glance at partisan media - everyone only hears about their side being Good and the other side being Evil.

This is not because one side is good and the other is evil.

[Krayt]

Charles Foster Kane's wife, on some social faux pas: "Really, Charles! People will think..."

Drunk Charles: "...what I tell them to think."

From a movie in 1941, about 1900, of long-established newspaper behaviors.

[Reallynotbob]

No, but let's beware false equivalence also. I think we would all stipulate that Democrats in Chicago have a storied history of election cheating. But that's not a basis to say "therefore both sides are equivalent" in the 2020 or upcoming 2022 elections. Or even that there was (or will be) significant fraud.

It's a fact that William Barr said no significant election fraud occurred in 2020. That's not a product of what news one consumes.

[Don Nico]

There is no content to the claim, both sides equal.
I have known about various ways of cheating by both parties since I was a boy. The only comment that makes much sense is that cheating should be punished every time it can be proved to occur.
All the rest is partisab blah-blah.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So the audits were a stupid waste of time and used illegitimate methodologies but now they prove the elections were not subjected to fraud? OK.....

[Nige]

The audits were going to prove the fraud until they didn't so obviously the audits were bad. Ok....

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're a joke. Yes, they went in with the intention of proving fraud and adopted flawed methodologies to help them achieve that goal, but even rigging the game, they couldn't show what they expressly set out to prove. That's pretty strong evidence there is no there there. Even by cheating, they couldn't get to the numbers they want. (And note, one of the flaws was just counting people as dead or double voting if a voter shared the same first and last name of another voter or a dead person. Of course, lots of people share the first and last name of lots of other people. And, so, predictably, a lot of votes the Arizona audit flagged as being those of dead people were cast by people who could be interviewed. So, yeah, flawed, but even with those cheats the numbers didn't work.)

[Reallynotbob]

"Cheating has happened" is not the same thing as "cheating sufficient to change the result."

But you know that already.

[myself]

Make the suggestion of cheating sure.

But at some point between making the suggestion and demanding to overturn the election you need to come up with the slightest bit of evidence that cheating actually happened.

Simply insisting over and over that cheating happened does not count.

[Nelson]

It worked for anti-abortionists about life beginning at conception, so why wouldn't they try it?

If they aren't concerned about whether what they say is true or not, it's not like being proved wrong will be a deterrent. They know they're lying, they just don't care.

[AmosArch]

Drumpf voters are supposedly cheating in the elections so the obvious solution is to refuse to implement any voter security measures.

[Nige]

Which proposed Republican security measures cover this specific proven Republican style of fraud, as opposed to all the claimed styles of fraud Republicans are mad about but almost never happen?

[Sigivald]

The Proven R Style Of Fraud?

Can you explicate that for us, maybe with some links, as to what fraud it specifically is?

[Randal]

See also the county comissioners in New Mexico who refused to certify the vote (one of whom was later removed due to being a Jan 6 insurrectionist).

Individual voter fraud has never mattered and never will. The only effect fighting it will have is to marginally suppress legitimate votes.

The fraud that's going to matter is when Republicans in positions of power decide not to honor the vote of the people for whatever deranged reason their cult leader supplies.

[Krayt]

Statewise? Sure. Unless the state wants to disobey the orders of its voters and vote for the national winner if it differs.

Liie everything else, it will come back to bite them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And who has paid the price in the Republican party for participating in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election? Only those who stood up and told the cult the truth. The sad fact is that the incentives in the Republican party aren't what you posit. Hopefully, independents will punish Republicans for their anti-democracy shenanigans. But we'll have to see. It's hardly a foregone conclusion.

[Nige]

Lots of election workers and officials have been subjected to harassment and death threats, too. They also paid the price.

[Nige]

The fake electors, the fake candidates, breaching voting machines, all those proven Republican styles.

[David Nieporent]

Drumpf voters are supposedly cheating in the elections so the obvious solution is to refuse to implement any voter security measures.

Because the cheating is trivial. If you catch a guy voting his dead wife's ballot, or voting in both NY and Florida — sure, prosecute him. We want to deter that. But don't go crazy about how the election is being stolen, because it isn't. Only fraud on a broad scale can realistically affect outcomes. (At least of national races; if it's the vote for school board in Bumfucksville, MT, maybe 3 votes are likely to be decisive.)

[Reallynotbob]

This is correct. "Voter fraud" is largely a red herring to distract from voter suppression and ungodly gerrymandering.

[Michael P]

Old and busted: "There is no vote fraud." "There is no in-person vote fraud." "In-person vote fraud doesn't happen often enough to affect results."

Current claim: A corrupt registrar of elections doesn't affect results enough to change the outcome of a general election all by themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/09/07/prince-william-election-registrar-indicted/

[SRG]

I doubt anyone who mattered ever denied voter fraud. The consistent line was always, there's not enough to make a difference. And lo! It is true

[Reallynotbob]

What did she do, exactly?

[NOVA Lawyer]

According to the news:

The investigation did not involve the handling of ballots, and White’s “conduct did not impact the outcome of any election contest,” Olsen said in a prepared statement.

Or another news story:

[Chairman of the elections Board Robin] Williams told the Prince William Times that White’s departure had nothing to do with the handling of recent elections or the processing of ballots or votes.

Plus, she's been indicted. That's how it is supposed to work when you discover corruption of any sort. Pointing to the system working doesn't support your narrative that undiscovered fraud has changed some election.

[Brett Bellmore]

Serious question: What makes this an "attack"?

[DaveM]

"In the surveillance video, which was obtained by CNN, Cathy Latham, a former GOP chairwoman of Coffee County who is under criminal investigation for posing as a fake elector in 2020, escorts a team of pro-Trump operatives to the county's elections office on January 7, 2021, the same day a voting system there is known to have been breached."

I have no idea what this story is actually about, I'm just here to comment on the creative writing aspects. I hear that CNN is trying to reclaim its former reputation as a news organization, but if this is a recent example of their "reporting", it's clear they have a lot of work still ahead of them.

The very first rule of rhetoric I learned was that if you cannot state your opponent's argument to their satisfaction, then you do not understand it, and therefore you cannot possibly counter it.

There's a corollary in political news reporting. If you use politically charged terms to relate the facts of an event, then you will be seen as being partisan and your reporting will be ignored (by both sides, surprisingly).

[Martinned]

I don't know the facts of this case, but am I to surmise that the words you bolded are terms that you consider "politically charged"? Because that would be quite something, particularly for a term like "under criminal investigation".

[DaveM]

Oh, it goes beyond the words, of course. What was the purpose of relating that someone was "under investigation" in this brief paragraph? Were they under investigation for the events described in the paragraph? No. It was for something that happened two years ago. And what was the outcome of that "investigation"? Were they found guilty? Innocent? We aren't told. Why not?

And thus it becomes obvious that the intent of mentioning this has nothing to do with the actual events. It's framing. Partisan framing.

[Martinned]

You don't think it's relevant to note that someone is under investigation for breaking the election laws in a story about election laws?

And if you want to double check whether that investigation is already concluded, contrary to what the article suggests, I'm sure Google can help you. It's not like the US has privacy or criminal procedure laws that would prevent that.

[DaveM]

No, because:

1. It was for something unrelated to the subject of the report.
2. People can be "investigated" for anything, what matters are convictions
3. We are not told the result of the investigation
4. We are not told the whole story (where is her side?)

It is clever that the reporter picks on something in the same topic area -- being an elector -- which makes you think there's a nexus here. But there isn't. I'm not anything like an attorney, but even I can see that this is an attempt at guilt by association.

Also, I am unaware of anyone who was tried for being a "fake" elector, which makes the whole thing even more of a creative writing exercise.

We do need to keep our eyes open. People are trying desperately to fool us.

[Martinned]

Google and Wikipedia are your friends: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

[Nige]

Isn't 'her side of the story' that she had nothing to do with the breach? And yet there she is, and there are indications that she has form. All relevant.

[David Nieporent]

1. It was for something unrelated to the subject of the report.

No, it was for something directly related to the subject of the report: the attempt by Trump and his acolytes to subvert the 2020 election.

2. People can be "investigated" for anything, what matters are convictions

It is an interesting theory of journalism that reporters should not report on accusations but only criminal convictions. And by "interesting" I mean "blatantly wrong." (Of course, the reporter needs to make clear that the subject hasn't been convicted if (s)he hasn't, but the words "under investigation" definitionally convey that.)

3. We are not told the result of the investigation

As I mentioned a moment ago, the words "under investigation" convey the fact that there isn't a "result."

4. We are not told the whole story (where is her side?)

"Latham did not respond to CNN’s request for comment." Maybe you shouldn't read a few sentences from an article posted by a Volokh commentator (or anyone else) and assume that this represents the entire article?

Also, I am unaware of anyone who was tried for being a "fake" elector,

I really feel like you're failing to grasp the concept of "under investigation." If she had been tried, then she would no longer be under investigation.

I'm not anything like an attorney, but even I can see that this is an attempt at guilt by association.

That's not what that phrase means.

[David Nieporent]

What was the purpose of relating that someone was "under investigation" in this brief paragraph?

Because it's relevant context?

Were they under investigation for the events described in the paragraph? No. It was for something that happened two years ago.

Something closely related in both time and motive. (These events are from exactly the same time period! Weeks apart!) If there were a report that surveillance video suggested that a teacher was abusing a student, don't you think a news article about it would note that the teacher was also under criminal investigation for abusing a different student three weeks earlier?

And what was the outcome of that "investigation"? Were they found guilty? Innocent? We aren't told. Why not?

Well, setting aside that trials, not investigations, find people guilty or innocent, we're told that she is under investigation, not that she was. The natural inference is that there isn't an outcome yet.

[Nige]

This is reporting not debate, the only issue is whether those facts you highlighted are right or wrong or relevant.

[DaveM]

Never discount the power of creative writing.

"She opened the door and walked in the room."

"Investigated two years ago for petty theft, she opened the door, paused and slunk inside. Gliding across the floor she silently crept into the room."

[Nige]

'Then she did the voter fraud and the breaching of the voting systems.'

[Randal]

Dave, I'm sorry to say that you're stupid. The relevance of being a fake 2020 Trump elector to a story about that person facilitating a breech of a voting machine in that very election by Trump's people and then lying about it couldn't be more plain. If it's difficult for you to grok, maybe try simpler reading comprehension tasks like ingredients labels and Trump tweets I mean "socials."

[David Nieporent]

There's a corollary in political news reporting. If you use politically charged terms to relate the facts of an event, then you will be seen as being partisan and your reporting will be ignored (by both sides, surprisingly).

I don't understand your point. You think "surveillance video" is a "politically charged" term, rather than a neutral term used in ordinary conversation?

In fact, I'm not clear how you think any of the terms you boldfaced are "politically charged." If you think some of them are false, then say so. Otherwise, please explain. How would a disinterested observer rephrase those sentences?

[Sigivald]

"Operative" is a wonderful word, and it's telling that you focus on "surveillance video" (which, well, is leading in that it implies something underhanded was going on - which is a conclusion not actually determined as of yet - people associate surveillance video with criminal activity, after all, almost axiomatically).

"So-and-so entered the building with Trump supporters" and "So-and-so was caught on surveillance entering with Trump Operatives" are not the same statement in connotation, and I sincerely hope you'd be able to notice that if Fox was using this language at a Democrat?

Semiotics is important, as is semantic analysis. And once you can read leading language applied to Your Side, the next step is to apply the same analysis against interest when it targets the Other. Do that, and you have some hope of not being blindly manipulated by the language choices of your media.

Refuse, well, and you get what you get.

But then, the implicit [in the reporting, if not your post] idea that partisans have no place in an election place is odd - the point of observers and such is that partisans from every side should be there, so they can all keep each other under a watchful eye.

And "a breach occurred there" is neatly placed to ensure someone not parsing closely assumes she must be responsible because look at the suspicious surveillance and operatives - problem being that the type of "breach" is not specified. Was it an internet breach. perhaps? We don't know from the reporting!

[Randal]

The point of mentioning the surveillance video is that's the new twist to the story, which has been percolating for a year and a half. It just came out, proving a pack of lies for what they are.

All the other things you complain are either ambiguities that are answered elsewhere in this and previous stories or are cases of the reporter doing exactly what you guys are suggesting: trying to avoid overstating the case, such as by saying "a breech occurred there" rather than e.g. "resulting in a breech" or whatever. Sheesh.

How would you communicate the new release of surveillance video without using the term "surveillance video?" I feel like that's the everyday term. It gets used even outside nefarious contexts such as "the confused bear was recorded on nearby surveillance video." But anyway, this is an objectively nefarious context, being part of a criminal investigation.

What this sorry thread proves is what CNN already should've known: objective reporting won't satisfy the right. According to the rules of the cult, the media is the enemy and can't be trusted unless it's parroting the cult leader's talking points verbatim.

[bernard11]

"surveillance video" (which, well, is leading in that it implies something underhanded was going on - which is a conclusion not actually determined as of yet - people associate surveillance video with criminal activity, after all, almost axiomatically).

No it doesn't. It merely describes some of the evidence. Most places have surveillance cameras these days, and they produce a record of what's going on. I've probably been seen on surveillance video hundreds or thousands of times - when I go into a bank, or pay a cashier in a store, or just walk around a store, or who knows when else. Doesn't mean I'm doing anything wrong.

"Bernard was seen on a surveillance video getting cash from an ATM."

True whether I was just getting cash for everyday purposes from my account or whether I am accused of delivering a cash bribe.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
The word surveillance does shade the meaning of video or CCTV video, either of which would have been sufficient. But due to unconscious bias, you don't see that.

[David Nieporent]

"Video" by itself would not have been sufficient, no. What video? Did someone use their cell phone to capture the video? Was someone filming a documentary in the building? No, it was surveillance video. That's the entire point of the story.

I suppose they could've said "security footage" rather than "surveillance video," but that would have had the same connotation. (An accurate one, mind you. All of the above is premised on the weird idea that unbiased coverage means that one not portray people negatively even when the facts are negative.)

[bernard11]

Don,

When I think of surveillance video I think of the extremely widespread use of cameras in stores, banks, all sorts of places. These cameras don't pick out someone - "that Nico guy looks suspicious. Record him." - they record everything that happens.

The point is that "surveillance" describes what the camera is for - to watch the area. I don't get the sinister implication of the phrase.

[Don Nico]

That is due to your unconscious biases.

[Kazinski]

And White Privilege too.

[Don Nico]

🙂

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Could you come down from your saddle and repeat yourself for the plebs, Your Majesty?

[Don Nico]

Your very example,
"Bernard was seen on a surveillance video getting cash from an ATM."
has quite a different ring to it than
"Bernard is seen in the CCTV video covering the ATM."

[Randal]

You changed the meaning there for some reason. I assume that was for no particular reason, but it is telling. Different terms are not always so easy to swap between.

But anyway, I don't think journalists are choosing to use "surveillance" vs. "CCTV" because of the connotations. Show me a journalist who uses one term for Democrats and another for Republicans and then maybe you'll have a point. "Surveillance" is clearly stylistically preferable to "CCTV."

[David Welker]

I don’t even know what the acronym CCTV stands for. I could Google it, that isn’t the point.

Using acronyms that many readers will not know is not better journalism.

[Don Nico]

David,
You clearly do not watch British police dramas.
For the uniformed CCTV is common parlance for closed circuit television.
I have no ambition to be a journalist. For that consult Stephen Lathrop.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is an American news story. So, although I am quite familiar with the term CCTV because I watch British news and shows and read widely, that's hardly true of all Americans and probably not most of them. If 20% of your audience doesn't know the term CCTV but does understand "surveillance video", any competent journalist will use the latter term.

It is used so frequently, that it doesn't have the negative connotation you attribute to it. Just google "surveillance video cat" and you'll get stories about a cat fending off coyotes, allegedly saving a boy, and other heroics. These journalists trying to make hero cats look bad by pointing out their actions were captured on "surveillance video." Shameful.

You should know, this whole thread demonstrates you aren't terribly bright, know little about writing, less about journalism, and don't know when to stop digging.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not convinced of the premise — that CCTV is an obscure British term. I think the vast vast majority of Americans would know what it was. (Note that David Welker does not claim not to know what it is; he claims not to know what the initialism stands for.) But I am also not convinced that it's a meaningful distinction.

[Don Nico]

NOVA,
The problem with surveillance is its connotations in a given story. As you might see from Wikipedia CCTV is hardly a strange word in the US even it you don't seem to be aware of it.

There is a big difference in connotation between
"Please let me see the surveillance tapes of the store for the past three days"
and
The movements of the suspect are clearly recorded in our surveillance videos."
I expect that difference was a part of the original grip about politically loaded reporting

[NOVA Lawyer]

Don Nico,

...even it you don't seem to be aware of it.

You're just a troll. Or you can't read.

Me. in the message to which you're replying: I am quite familiar with the term CCTV

Moron.

[NOVA Lawyer]

There is a big difference in connotation between
"Please let me see the surveillance tapes of the store for the past three days"
and
The movements of the suspect are clearly recorded in our surveillance videos."
I expect that difference was a part of the original grip about politically loaded reporting

The difference between the two is in one you added a "suspect." That's the only negative connotation.

I cited above the fact that it is regularly reported that cats and children and other innocent parties as well as acts of kindness or heroism are regularly recorded on surveillance video and reported as caught on surveillance video. What you don't grasp is that the being recorded on surveillance video is not, in itself, a negative connotation to the vast majority of Americans who regularly watch funny and other things which were caught on "surveillance video."

The original point was stupid. You're just doubling down on more stupid.

[Don Nico]

NOVA,
Since you so rapidly resorted to childish name-calling I gather that you are the troll and moron. Grow up.

[Don Nico]

NOVA,
One more thing. In the US these objects are sold as security cameras. Surveillance also has the connotation of following or tracking the suspect.
You're not as clever lawyer as you think.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Don Nico,

Says "Grow up", but incapable of admitting his jab at me not knowing something I said I knew was stupid.

Grow a pair and admit when you made a mistake.

[David Nieporent]

Don,

Don't know why you can't just admit you made up this "connotation" thing. "Surveillance camera" is a neutral term, no different than security camera. If you think otherwise, that's something in your head.

[Don Nico]

I was going reply to David, but you made every point that I would have. The choice of phrases and words does and was meant to shade the content of the reporting.

[David Nieporent]

"So-and-so entered the building with Trump supporters" and "So-and-so was caught on surveillance entering with Trump Operatives" are not the same statement in connotation, and I sincerely hope you'd be able to notice that if Fox was using this language at a Democrat?

I don't understand how this is responsive, given that the phrase "caught on surveillance" is your phrase, not CNN's. CNN said that surveillance video "shows" her escorting the two people in, which seems pretty neutral to me.

You understand that the entire hook of this particular news story is that the video has been uncovered, right? Latham had denied that the people were there, and now a video shows her bringing them into the building.

But then, the implicit [in the reporting, if not your post] idea that partisans have no place in an election place is odd - the point of observers and such is that partisans from every side should be there, so they can all keep each other under a watchful eye.

Um, no. No. And no. This was not an "election place." There were no "observers." There was nothing to observe. It was not a polling place, or a place where ballots were being tabulated. These were offices. People can't wander in there any more than they can wander into a judge's chambers. (And of course no partisans from any other side were keeping these people under a watchful eye, because their visit was undisclosed.)

Also, your argument is based on the odd idea that any media coverage of a story must recap months of coverage of that topic. The stuff about the brach is already established. The machines were physically accessed and confidential data was copied from them. (Latham took the fifth amendment when asked about her role in this.)

[John F. Carr]

If Trump's people have the OS, then independent security researchers should have it too. Companies have a habit of putting back doors into products, like connect to port 5050 and use the password HillaryIs45 and you're in. Often the back doors were not ordered by managment but left in by lazy developers who forgot to remove them before shipping.

There was a dispute in some places, mostly won by the government, over the use of computerized breath test machines in DUI cases. Who knows what the computer really does? Show us the source code. Who cares what it does, we need the convictions.

[Brett Bellmore]

It certainly sounds like the concern is that they got information that ought to have been publicly available anyway.

[Nige]

Lots of hackers claimed to believe that information wants be free. They may have been right, but they went to jail anyway.

[bernard11]

"Ought to have" according to who?

Cranking your rationalization rate way past 11 here.

[Brett Bellmore]

According to me.

Electronic voting machines are a stupid, stupid idea, and there's too much secrecy around them that just compounds the stupidity.

[Davy C]

If your machine can't handle having its workings published, it's not secure and shouldn't be used for voting. Security through obscurity isn't real security.

We shouldn't be using electronic voting machines at all, really.

[Life of Brian]

If Trump's people have the OS, then independent security researchers should have it too."

Security researcher Alex Halderman submitted an extensive report in a long-running Georgia civil election security case (docket here) on security vulnerabilities he found in Dominion voting machines.

The original report was filed under seal, but there's unsurprisingly been a good deal of argument it should be made public and several parties tried to intervene in the case to get access to it.

The docket shows a lot of back-and-forth with CISA and Dominion over proposed redactions -- CISA apparently signed off and Dominion submitted its last proposed redactions about a month ago, after which the judge denied the intervenors' motions as moot. So I'd expect a redacted copy to appear soon.

[bernard11]

Did he find the Italian connection?

[Life of Brian]

Uh oh -- actual concrete information from a well-respected security researcher about ready to hit the public airwaves. Better try to get in front of it with snarky caricatures!

[David Nieporent]

Your sarcasm is misplaced. Halderman is a legitimate cybersecurity guy, and he has laughed at the 2020 conspiracy theories. (The lawsuit to which Life of Brian refers is not about the 2020 election.) Halderman is identifying hypothetical vulnerabilities, not asserting that these vulnerabilities were exploited.

[Life of Brian]

I take your use of "hypothetical" to just mean he's not saying there's any evidence the vulnerabilities he found were actually used in a Georgia election. That's correct as far as I know. But just to be clear, he is saying the vulnerabilities are real and exploitable.

He spent about 3 months with an actual Dominion system, and is prepared to demonstrate in court a real exploit he developed and explain how it could be installed remotely (or, apparently, from a voting booth!) and used to silently and undetectably alter vote counts. He submitted an unsealed rebuttal declaration to the state's experts (copy here that outlines some of his findings. From page 3:

4. In my report—a 25,000-word document that is the product of twelve weeks of intensive testing of the Dominion equipment provided by Fulton County—I find that Georgia’s BMDs contains multiple severe security flaws. Attackers could exploit these flaws to install malicious software, either with temporary physical access (such as that of voters in the polling place) or remotely from election management systems. I explain in detail how such malware, once installed, could alter voters’ votes while subverting all the procedural protections practiced by the State, including acceptance testing, hash validation, logic and accuracy testing, external firmware validation, and risk-limiting audits (RLAs). Finally, I describe working proof-of-concept malware that I am prepared to demonstrate in court.

5. My report concludes, inter alia, that Georgia’s BMDs are not sufficiently secured against technical compromise to withstand vote-altering attacks by bad actors who are likely to target future elections in the state; that the BMDs’ vulnerabilities compromise the auditability of Georgia’s paper ballots; that the BMDs can be compromised to the same extent as or more easily than the DREs they replaced; and that using these vulnerable BMDs for all in-person voters, as Georgia does, greatly magnifies the level of security risk compared to using hand-marked paper ballots and providing BMDs to voters who need or request them.

[Sigivald]

The problem with "have the OS", is that it's difficult to prove that the OS in the device is the OS [or just software, since the operating system is the least interesting part] represented by the code.

(With TPM hardware on commodity machines, and a trusted, watched-over source compiling it from verified source, for install, you can be fairly confident that what's running is what's intended - especially if you can have the compilation system itself audited.

But certainty, especially without any of those steps? No. I'm a professional software developer, and I am incapable of trusting that at that level, because there are far too many ways to rig something.

[But I'm also not too worried, because most of those are clunky and fragile and also way more work than other ways to nudge an election, if you're so inclined.

The majority of hinky shit around voting machines has been "nobody bothered to calibrate the touchscreen", not even anything intentional. I've worked with end-users and hardware and it's like 50 times more likely than "someone deliberately miscalibrated it to sometimes hit the wrong candidate and hope the voter never noticed".)

[OtisAH]

FTR, there is no “Dominion Voting Systems scandal.” It is a “coordinated breach of voting systems scandal.”

[Brett Bellmore]

But what do we mean by "breach"?

On the one hand, write access during an election would be very bad indeed.

On the other hand, read access before and after an election not only isn't very bad, it should be mandated.

The only way this particular 'breach' could have any negative effects is if the cyber security of the voting systems was comically bad. Which, honestly, I'd be willing to believe; Just the fact that they're using electronic voting is proof they don't care enough about security!

But it's the comic lack of cyber security that's the real problem, which this 'breach' just brings to light. And that's what they're horrified by: Not the lack of security, but rather, people noticing it.

[OtisAH]

I dunno, Brett, what do we mean by “what do we mean by ‘breach’”? Do we mean to play word games in that way we enjoy so very much that it might be a pathological condition? Perhaps!

They illegally accessed voting systems they had no authority to access, Brett. And they did so in a coordinated fashion across multiple jurisdictions.

Also “comic lack of cybersecurity” is a funny way to phrase “were given illegal access to voting systems by officials acting illegally.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I get that they were given access to voting systems, and arguably illegally. My question is, why exactly is this a bad thing, setting aside for a moment the law? (Which, fine, should be enforced, but that shouldn't short circuit any inquiry as to whether it SHOULD be the law.)

SHOULD the contents of those hard drives have been kept secret? Why? What would be the problem if they were posted, read only of course, publicly, for anybody who wanted to look at?

No information on them should have violated ballot secrecy, after all. And we actually WANT more eyes on the software.

I'd argue that, ideally, everything they could have seen on those drives should,

1) Already be securely backed up.
and,
2) Already be publicly available.

So, I don't see the actual downside of this "breach". If anything, they've illegally obtained the transparency that should already have been legally guaranteed.

[Nige]

It's a bad thing because they claim to believe the 2020 election was fixed and there's no reason to suppose they wouldn't use their access to manufacture evidence to prove that, if possible, or to take steps to make sure they win the next election, if possible.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the drives were already backed up, and publicly available, falsifying their contents would be pointless. So it's still coming down to the fact that stuff is being kept secret that shouldn't be.

[Nige]

No, it's coming down to people illegally trying to access stuff to prove their Big Lie.

[Reallynotbob]

Not pointless at all. Creating two conflicting versions of the data would stoke the conspiracies and doubt.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, please. There is zero transparency. They are partisans, who did this in secret. No one else was supposed to find out about it.

The only folks who should ever have access to voting machines are the people charged with supervising them, testing them, and using them. Any voting machine which has been in the private custody of election partisans should be junked permanently. Which, by the way, is apparently Georgia's policy.

In this instance, a multi-member team of computer experts hired by a Trump operative got private custody for an interval long enough to permit making a complete copy of every byte in the machine. And they never went public. That is criminal conduct, and it ought to be.

[Brett Bellmore]

They should all be junked permanently. Anybody who understands computer security will tell you that using general purpose computing machines to tally votes is insane.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You don't understand the situation at all, so I fail to see how you can speak for 'anyone who understands computer security.'

[Sigivald]

"Word games" is an interesting way to ignore "write vs read" as if they're the same thing.

[not guilty]

As part of her irregular, result oriented opinion, Judge Aileen Cannon issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the Government from further review and use of any of the materials seized from Donald Trump's residence on August 8, 2022, for criminal investigative purposes pending resolution of a special master’s review process as determined by the Court. Is there any published opinion wherein an appellate court has affirmed an Article III judge enjoining a federal criminal investigation prior to an indictment havingn issued? I am unaware of any such decision.

It is well established that a curt of equity should not enjoin a criminal prosecution. At footnote 21, Judge Cannon casually mentions Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–44 (1971), but the balance of the opinion ignores the principles of equity discussed in Younger. (That decision is founded upon principles of comity and equity. Comity is not a consideration in the Trump matter.)

It is a "basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act, and particularly should not act to restrain a criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief." 401 U.S. at 43-44. "Certain types of injury, in particular, the cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of having to defend against a single criminal prosecution, could not, by themselves, be considered 'irreparable' in the special legal sense of that term. Instead, the threat to the plaintiff's federally protected rights must be one that cannot be eliminated by his defense against a single criminal prosecution." Id., at 45.

"No citizen or member of the community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts. The imminence of such a prosecution, even though alleged to be unauthorized, and, hence, unlawful, is not, alone, ground for relief in equity which exerts its extraordinary powers only to prevent irreparable injury to the plaintiff who seeks its aid." Id., at 45, quoting Beal v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Corp., 312 U. S. 45, 312 U. S. 49.

It is by no means certain that the DOJ's continued investigation of Trump's unusual handling of governmental documents will result in indictment and prosecution. If it does, Trump has an adequate remedy at law -- the full panoply of procedural safeguards, constitutional and statutory, available to criminal defendants.

[MoreCurious]

Great points and a great question. And it's kind of fascinating that none of the usual gang has jumped in to challenge anything you wrote.

[ah....Clem]

Yes, the silence has been deafening.

A related question for those who are more familiar with these things than I am. Cannon formally refused to accept the amicus brief from prominent Republicans (a former Deputy Attorney General, several ex-US Attorneys and two former governors ). Is this materially different from simply ignoring it?

My understanding is that normally a judge would address every argument made by both parties in their ruling. And I'd expect that the same would apply to amicus briefs, but is there some rule that would *require* the judge to address the amicus brief material if accepted, and that to get away with ignoring it the judge would have to formally reject it rather than just placing it in the circular file?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Materially? No.

Does it make Judge Cannon look like a bitch for refusing to even allow it? Yes.

Amici briefs are entirely optional, and do not require the Judge in question to read them, or respond to them. A Judge might allow them to be submitted when s/he has no intention of reading them, but a fellow Judge might have interest.

In this case, she had no interest in hearing any point of view other than the movant's, which is why she both announced her intention to lean towards appointing a Special Master before the DOJ had even had a chance to be heard, and why she refused to allow the amicus brief.

Her mind was made up from the beginning.

[SimonP]

I think it's a sad sign of the decline of this blog that the only commentary we've seen on Cannon's decision has been a single (very interesting) post by Samuel, while Orin - presumably the resident expert on these matters - has been wholly silent here. Instead we get pet causes of conservative judicial activists, Ilya spitballing on ways to challenge Biden's popular student loan debt relief, a bit of fascist conspiracy-mongering from Eugene, and a bunch of self-promotion. You'd almost think that Cannon's decision was wholly unremarkable, if the only legal experts you read were the Conspirators.

[ah....Clem]

Orin may be silent here, but he's been fairly vocal about it on twitter. I'd assume that he's mostly given up on this blog - were I in his position I wouldn't want to be posting alongside professors from third-tier law schools who mainly re-purpose culture war nonsense from Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN.

Kerr's thread on the latest DOJ filing
https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1568032202361044992

[ah....Clem]

And his take on the ruling itself:

https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1566858604644143104

[ah....Clem]

Cannon enjoining a criminal investigation seems to be unprecedented, and flies in the face of established jurisprudence.

But, as we're now in the Calvinball era of federal litigation, all bets are off that it, or any of the other *novel* approaches to the law she included in her ruling, will be overturned on appeal.

The 11th circuit is packed with Trump appointees, Clarence Thomas is assigned to "ride' that circuit, and if it gets to the Supreme court who knows what Alito and his cohorts will do.

Cannon's ruling was roundly criticized by just about every legal scholar/pundit/professor who commented on it. Yet, the DOJ has the unenviable task of deciding to appeal and taking the chance that this truly nonsensical set of mis-applications of legal principles is accepted as binding precedent going forward.

As a University of Michigan grad, I'm truly ashamed that the UofM law school graduated such a poor excuse for an attorney.

[Don Nico]

Clem,
Didn't they teach you "it is not what you know but who you know?"

[ah....Clem]

I thought it was "A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge."

[Don Nico]

That also, Clem.

[Krayt]

As part of her irregular, result oriented opinion

Technically, this sentence is redundant introducing any judicial decision discussion.

I propose a symbol, similar to the sarc, the sarcasm mark, to make this standardized. The hac.

Use:

Person 1: @hac the recent Roe v. Wade decision overturned abortion rights.

Person 2: True, but @hac the 1970s decision overturned many state laws against it.

[Kazinski]

Here is the obvious: the order doesn't enjoin any criminal prosecution. Can you point to anything in the order that specifically enjoins a prosecution?

The order merely says that using the materials has to wait until the special master reviews them.

[bernard11]

Here is the obvious: it dramatically slows and makes more difficult the investigation which might lead to a prosecution.

[Kazinski]

But that's not what he said is it?

He said it enjoined a criminal investigation, It didn't, and the products of the search are preserved.

If he wanted to say it could make it harder for the FBI to proceed I'd agree, but the FBI is claiming that mere possession of the documents seized was criminal, it shouldn't need to examine the documents line by line to proceed.

[not guilty]

I said that the judge issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the Government from further review and use of any of the materials seized from Donald Trump's residence on August 8, 2022, for criminal investigative purposes pending resolution of a special master’s review process as determined by the Court. That is taken from the specific language of pages 23-24 of the judge's order.

[Kazinski]

So what’s this supposed to mean then:
“It is well established that a curt of equity should not enjoin a criminal prosecution.”

It’s certainly not well established that courts can’t impede investigations to preserve the rights of someone who hasn’t even been charged yet. They can quash subpoenas, order seized items returned, release defendants without bail.

And order a special master to review evidence.

[Kazinski]

There is one category of document that might have been seized given the broad brush of the warrant that no specific privilege exists for, but might be the most troubling: 2024 campaign plans and documents.

If Trump is charged there is the exclusionary rule if the court decides the warrant was overbroad or there was no probable cause, and of course if attorney client privileged documents were seized and compromised there can be sanctions like dismissing the charges with precedence.

But campaign plans and documents once compromised can't be made secret again and the damage is done. And having an administration seize an opponents campaign plans is very troubling, especially if we recall that's what Watergate was all about.

[not guilty]

"[O]f course if attorney client privileged documents were seized and compromised there can be sanctions like dismissing the charges with precedence." (I surmise that you meant dismissing with prejudice.)

You got any authority for that proposition? The warrant contemplated a privilege review team.

[Kazinski]

Yeah spell check got me.

Sure there are a lot of precedents for dismissing a case because of prosecutors violating AC privilege here’s one: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-supreme-court/1573607.html

[Life of Brian]

I note that yesterday the government filed a motion to stay the injunction so criminal investigation efforts could continue, but only as to the ~100 documents with classification markings. Also notable is that the government doesn't want the special master to have access to those documents, though the only reasons it offers presume the documents are actually classified and do not merely bear classification markings.

The motion also previews a filing the government will make today about the special master, stating that filing "will confirm that it plans to make available to Plaintiff copies of all unclassified documents recovered during the search—both personal records and government records".

Clearly they don't care about any of the other documents.

Clearly none of the other documents are useful or even relevant to their prosecution efforts.

Clearly they don't care about Trump continuing to have copies (to the extent the ones in the boxes were not already copies!) of the nonclassified documents, even the ones alleged to be governmental records.

Clearly this exercise was 100% about documents with classification markings from the get-go, as telegraphed by the affidavit.

Clearly they want to spirit away the documents with classification markings, proceed with prosecution under a vague, ominous promise of their classification status, contents, and import, and not allow anyone (even a special master with appropriate security clearances) to put that to the test.

It's amazing how every few days brings greater clarity and focus to the actual state of play, as opposed to the initial media-leaked scattershot efforts to whip up public opinion, uncritically adopted by many here.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You apparently are not aware that using "clearly" tends to weaken rather than strengthen your rhetorical point.

And none of what you claim is clear is clear. Being primarily interested in the classified documents is not the same as not caring at all about other documents or finding them entirely irrelevant and without use in the investigation.

Even if that were true, none of it supports your bizarre conclusion that they want to prevent anyone from "put[ting] to the test" whether the documents claimed to be classified are actually classified. That's not how any successful prosecution will work.

[not guilty]

FWIW, Trump's pleadings include no averment that Trump had declassified anything taken pursuant to the search warrant. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.1.0_15.pdf

[David Nieporent]

What NOVA lawyer said. Apparently Life of Brian does not realize that they have appealed the entire decision. But only the classified ones have the level of urgency such that a stay is necessary. Because — as they explained — it is impossible to do the damage assessment relating to the classified material entirely independent of the criminal investigation.

[Life of Brian]

Apparently Life of Brian does not realize that they have appealed the entire decision.

Apparently David Nieporent doesn't know the difference between filing a notice of appeal and actually appealing. But who's keeping score?

[Life of Brian]

Being primarily interested in the classified documents is not the same as not caring at all about other documents or finding them entirely irrelevant and without use in the investigation.

I do hope you're not just shooting from the hip without having actually read the motion. It explicitly argues: "The government will also suffer irreparable harm if it cannot review and use the classified materials as part of its criminal investigation" and: "The public has an interest in the fair and expeditious administration of the criminal laws." No such argument for the rest of the materials. They're [sorry, Charlie] clearly not necessary to the prosecution effort.

Even if that were true, none of it supports your bizarre conclusion that they want to prevent anyone from "put[ting] to the test" whether the documents claimed to be classified are actually classified.

Again, I suggest you read what the government explicitly argued: "Finally, the Court’s order would irreparably harm the government and the public by unnecessarily requiring the government to share highly classified materials with a special master." If not such an arms-length, impartial third party, exactly who do you feel the DOJ would allow to actually review the content of the documents in dispute?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Life of Brian,

No such argument for the rest of the materials.

Again, making an argument that it is necessary to be able to review some documents expeditiously is not the same as saying other documents are irrelevant. You're not good at logic or lawyering.

If not such an arms-length, impartial third party, exactly who do you feel the DOJ would allow to actually review the content of the documents in dispute?

As the Egan case cited after that "Finally" statement indicates, the reasons for not expanding the universe of people who see highly classified documents beyond those absolutely necessary are "too obvious to call for enlarged discussion". Opposing expanding the universe of people who have seen the highly classified materials at this point, when it is unnecessary, does not mean that no impartial party would in the future. Again, you aren't good at logic or lawyering.

The government argues that it isn't necessary for a special master to review the classified materials as there is no question such materials belong to the government and not to Trump. Therefore, there is no benefit and only potential damage to expanding the universe of people who have seen the highly classified materials. It's not a difficult argument to comprehend. It doesn't lead to your still bizarre conclusion. But, you persist.

It's not a good look for you.

[not guilty]

The application for the partial stay pending appeal does not limit the issues that can be raised on appeal from the temporary injunction. I suspect that DOJ is focusing on the subset of documents to which Donald Trump has no arguable ownership or possessory interest rather than taking a more scattershot approach.

[not guilty]

The Department of Justice has moved in the trial court for a partial stay of the September 5 order pending appeal. The government seeks a stay to the extent the order (1) enjoins the further review and use for criminal investigative purposes of records bearing classification markings that were recovered pursuant to a court-authorized search warrant and (2) requires the government to disclose those classified records to a special master for review. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.69.0_2.pdf

This motion for partial stay does not limit the issues that the government could raise on appeal. That being the case, I think the government's focus on classified materials for purposes of the stay is prudent. The motion states that the classified records include just over 100 documents. These are not materials as to which Donald Trump can claim any ownership or possessory interest, and whatever may be the disposition of other seized items, the classified records cannot be returned to Trump.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A related question to the one above. Should the FBI be investigating whether Trump operatives have tried to compromise voting equipment other than Dominion's?

[Kleppe]

Please at least wait until the election has actually occurred to begin denying the result, democracy destroyer.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Did you complain about Trump suggesting in summer of 2020 that the only way he could lose was through fraud?

Nope, because you’re a hypocritical piece of trash.

[Kleppe]

Seethe.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Thank you for proving my point.

[Nige]

Wait until after the election to address efforts to sabotage it?

[Don Nico]

Nige,
Unless you can specify a criminal act with sufficient probable cause, that is what is and should be done.
We've not yet entered the age of "Minority Report."

[Nige]

Obviously assuming there is some sort of probable cause, naturally.

[Randal]

Wow Don is that silly. The question was whether the FBI should investigate the suspicious voting machine tampering that Republicans have been doing. Nige asked whether the situation should be addressed.

Of course the situation should be investigated and addressed! That's how you get to probable cause. The FBI doesn't just sit around in their offices waiting for a probable cause to descend from heaven. They investigate! It's in the name.

[Mr. Bumble]

Should the FBI/DOJ seek out and arrest 74 million Americans who voted for Trump in 2020?

[David Nieporent]

Of course not; most of them are not guilty by reason of insanity.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The way to address Trump voters continues to be replacement, not litigation.

[Krayt]

Still enjoying stirring up a "false narrative" to enrage people, when at least one such person went on a murder spree, eh?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republicans tend to be old. They die off in the natural course and are replaced by younger, less backward, less bigoted, less rural, more diverse Americans. In our population by birth and immigration, in our electorate upon 18th birthdays.

No plot. No conspiracy. No project. Just the natural course as cranky old conservatives die off -- taking their stale and ugly thinking to the grave --and better ideas and people prevail at the marketplace of ideas.

[DaveM]

"A related question to the one above. Should the FBI be investigating whether Trump operatives have tried to compromise voting equipment other than Dominion's?"

I see that you have taken the government's view of this matter, and adopted their partisan framing of events rather than a neutral one. That's too bad.

Power corrupts, and no one should have any doubts by now that the FBI's political investigations have been utterly compromised. By allying yourself to them, you're only going to be dirtied by association as the truth leaks out and hits the fan.

[Randal]

And what, pray tell, would be your neutral framing?

Let me guess...

Should the Fraudulent Bureau of Investigation be investigating whether Trump patriots have tried to repair voting equipment by rigging them to only count votes for candidates other than Democrats?

[Kazinski]

So what does everyone think about Liz Truss as the new UK prime minister?

She certainly says some positive things about free markets, and end the ban on fracking, and she will probably won't keep her head in the sand about the feasibility of net zero/zero nukes.

But it looks like the first thing she is going to do is put a cap on the wholesale price of gas, which I'm not at all sure will work. I don't know how much of the UK's gas supplies are fixed contract, but about 44% is domestic the other supplies are via pipeline from Norway, tanker from Qatar, and a cross channel pipeline plugged into Europe. The UK produces a lot more gas than most of Europe, but their storage capacity is relatively paltry.

If they have widespread gas shortages pricing is the best way to reduce usage, although they could put in tiered consumer pricing based on what it would take a typical home warm enough based on degree days.

In Canada it would be a lot easier to manage a crippling gas shortage, the government would send out estimates of what utility bills will be based on weather forecasts and current energy prices along with the hotline for priority assisted suicide scheduling.

[John F. Carr]

Truss' positions evolve. We won't know for a while what she really wants, much less what she will do.

Fuel price caps are no doubt going to be popular, but with price cas the choice is subsidies or rations.

She recently said she was open to the idea of lifting motorway speed limits, causing freak outs among the usual suspects. The 70 mph speed limit imposed in the 1960s was originally supposed to be a temporary measure.

[Martinned]

The warmth of Thatcher
The intellectual heft of IDS
The trustworthiness of Michael Howard
The effortless gravitas of William Hague
The everyman charm of David Cameron
The policy details of Boris Johnson
And the charisma of Theresa May

[Kazinski]

Well as long as you didn't say:

The tolerance of Jeremy Corbin.

or

The competence of Joe Biden.

[Martinned]

I don't know about tolerance, but I sure wouldn't accuse Truss of being as competent as Biden.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Biden’s administration is the most incompetent in my memory, and I remember back to JFK. Well, the last day of JFK’s presidency anyway.

I suspect she’s at least as competent as Biden. That’s a very, very low bar.

[Mr. Bumble]

Using Biden and competent is an oxymoron.

[Martinned]

You should spend less time watching Fox News.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never watch it.
Impossible to believe that you honestly believe Biden to have any competence except as a life long liar.

[Martinned]

I think Biden is above-average, at least in my lifetime. (Which doesn't go back as far as yours, admittedly.) The only Republican that I would rank above him in my lifetime, in terms of competence, is Bush sr.

[Mr. Bumble]

I guess Europeans have a different definition of "competence".

[Martinned]

No question

[Kazinski]

Well I guess going from 1.7% inflation to 8.5% inflation is a stunning display of competence, if that's what he was trying to do.

But I will give you that he probably was trying to raise gas prices from 2.501 to at least the current 3.975, and while emptying the US strategic petroleum reserve we've spent half a century filling.

Then there was also Afghanistan.

[Martinned]

You forgot to mention that Denzel got passed over for an Oscar again.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kazinski, if you wanted to pick worse examples, it would be harder to find things that don't reflect on Biden's competence than inflation and gas prices. At least not a year and change into his administration.

The entire world, basically, is having an inflation problem and gas prices are reflective of the global market. EU inflation was 9.1% as of August. US inflation peaked (so far, knock on wood) at 9.1% in June. But I suppose that's either (a) coincidence or (b) Biden's fault?

Don't be a partisan hack. There is plenty to criticize Biden for, but blaming him for the totality of inflation or gas prices is stupid. If you have a particularly incompetent decision he made that contributed to it, maybe state that.

And please say spending. Because I've got a lot to say about that and the prior administration.

[bernard11]

Amazing how none of the Trump cultists around here ever watch Fox. I guess they're too busy with OAN, or reading the Federalist, or getting "information" from some even sleazier source.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t know if this is directed at me, but I don’t watch Fox. It’s a simple fact. I’m sorry if that is inconvenient for your ad hominem arguments.

And I’ve made it pretty clear what I’ve always thought about Trump, so it’s pretty hard to say I’m a Trumpist. Except in the simplest of minds where simply disliking Biden equates somehow to supporting trump.

Most rational people recognize thst they both suck. Thus their popularity numbers.

[Kazinski]

I don't have a TV. So I can't watch even Gutfeld, the number 1 late night comedy show.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ooh, such a creative witty comeback.

I've never watched a minute of Fox News in my life. You'll have to try again with a better ad hominem. Your brain is so broken by politics that all you can do is come up with lame Fox News bullshit.

[Martinned]

I didn't want to go so far as to accuse you of getting your news from OANN. I guess I was wrong...

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don't even know what OANN is.

Your smug sense of superiority is only matched by the degree of abject stupidity you demonstrate when you say stuff like this. Idiocy and arrogance are a really unappealing combination.

Because no thoughtful person of good faith could ever disagree with your opinion. Right?

[Martinned]

Sure they could. The problem isn't that a thoughtful person of good faith couldn't disagree with me, but that they couldn't agree with you.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You're intentionally trying to piss me off and it worked.

Fuck off and goodbye.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought you were talking about wankers.

[Kazinski]

Oh come on, I hope you aren’t trying to say that there are any media outlets that aren’t hopelessly lost in their own spin cycle, whether Fox, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, ABC.au. Maybe NHK is far enough outside the Western Political spin cycle and disinformation net to trust.

The only hope is to get a wildly varying diet of sources, and of course you should be suspicious when one source is reporting a story that no one else is reporting, is it bullshit?Or are the sources trying to bury it, like in the Hunter Biden laptop story the NYPost reported.

[Martinned]

What do you think I'm doing here? Do you think I argue with the conservative American echo chamber for fun?

[Sarcastr0]

That's because you don't like his energy policy.

He's gotten a lot of stuff done recently.

And coming from the administrative agency side, he is *worlds* more competent than Trump whose administration gave orders but no guidance, leaving us to puzzle it out and then they'd say it was wrong and leave it at that.
Lots of not getting stuff he wanted to get done done. And some of it was good stuff - streamlining Covid vaxx acquisition and the like!

[bevis the lumberjack]

His energy policy is a coat hanger abortion.

He butchered the Afghan withdrawal (fine policy, appallingly bad execution) and of course you'll never accept that his last stimulus when the economy was already recovering anyway triggered (along with his energy policy) inflation like we hadn't seen since the '70s.

And now because of the inflation we're pretty much in the beginning of the Biden Recession as the fed is pretty much going to have to break the economy to wring the inflation out.

[Nige]

Not sure we should take economic insights from people who repeatedly trashed the economy and left it for Democrats to fix.

[Martinned]

Hang on, you're blaming Biden personally for the same inflation that everyone is experiencing? This inflation?

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, I think Biden is making mistakes that are making things worse in the US, but mostly what we're looking at is that Western leaders in general have adopted destructive policies. The whole West has collectively lost its mind in some important ways, such as energy policy.

[Martinned]

They were supposed to just let Putin attack Ukraine? Or is there something else you object to?

[Sarcastr0]

Claiming to be the last sane person in a world of insaniacs...That's not the sign of sanity.

[Nige]

Really? I think they're all struggling with the consequences of ignoring numerous warnings about climate change and energy dependency on authoritarian regimes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Remember the words of the chosen one"

Never underestimate the ability of Biden to fuck things up.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Biden single-handedly fucked up energy and caused prices to soar. Global commodity and all.

And to add insult to injury he did to to pursue the same policy that completely fucked up Germany and the rest of Europe.

I mean, you’re talking about a guy who had to cheat to finish last in his law school class. Dude is dumber than a box of rocks.

[ah....Clem]

And now we've just slipped into pure BDS territory.

I grew up in Delaware and remember 1972 when *everybody* I knew (including me) was Republican and Nixon carried the state by ten points yet somehow this young Democrat managed to win a senate seat.

I've observed Joe in the 50 years since then. I can't say he would be my first choice, or even in the top 100 for president, but he's basically a decent guy who grew up in the same blue collar neighborhood as me (ok, three miles north), understands what it's like to actually work for a living, and who has made many compromises and deals and mistakes along the way. A lot of which I disagree with (Senator MasterCard, anyone?)

What he's saying lately about the very real threat to democracy we face is spot on. And if you believe in American democracy, you should pay attention and act accordingly, regardless of whether you agree with his policy decisions.

[Bob from Ohio]

"understands what it's like to actually work for a living"

He's been an elected official since 1971.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I understand energy better than the rest of this board put together, and what I said about him and energy is true whether he’s your Delaware homeboy or not.

I’d be more convinced of the sincerity of his “democracy in danger” schtick if he weren’t working so hard to shut down the speech of his opponents.

Oh, and if his party wasn’t spending money to spread the MAGA message that they supposedly consider to be so dangerous.

[bernard11]

Biden single-handedly fucked up energy and caused prices to soar. Global commodity and all.

This is nonsense.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well, hell, bernard if you say so I guess I’ll just ignore my education and 35 years of energy experience and listen to you. Because your argument is so very persuasive.

[bernard11]

Bevis,

I take it all that education and experience didn't include a discussion of global markets.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Hang on, you're blaming Biden personally for the same inflation that everyone is experiencing?"

You think the increase in the supply of Euros caused the same inflation as the increase in the supply of Dollars?

[Kazinski]

But it’s not the same inflation, Biden doubled gas prices before Putin invaded Ukraine.

The US is pretty much energy independent, especially with natural gas, and we can’t really export enough Natural gas to hugely effect domestic prices here or prices in Europe.

[jb]

Serious question: are there some concrete examples of administrative incompetence that you'd point to in Biden's administration?

It's very hard to take seriously the idea that any administration could be less competent than Trump's. Completely independent of whether his ideas were good or not, they consistently rolled out changes in ways that didn't take into account required processes or procedures, and he struggled to recruit and retain competent senior staff. Personally I'm glad that they were incompetent because it meant a lot of his bad ideas couldn't be rolled out successfully, but if I liked his agenda I'd probably be pretty annoyed at how bad they were at trying to implement it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Trump wasn’t great I agree.

But I named a couple. The Afghan pull out was a good policy but horribly executed.

Between his unnecessary final stimulus and his appalling awful energy policy he’s basically given us stagflation, which sucks but here we are. Yes Trump would have done that stimulus too and tried late in his term, but he didn’t and Biden did so he wears it.

Fortunately Manchin and Sinema saved us from the BBB which he had to have because if they didn’t we’d be headed toward Zimbabwe territory.

His campaign to get social media companies to shut out speech he doesn’t like is unconstitutional and pathetic.

And some of his nominees are so extreme as to be frightening. Remember Truth Minister Whackjob? His Comptroller nominee that believed that private banks should be closed in favor of one big government bank? His fed nominee who believed that the fed should work to deny capital to politically unpopular industries?

His ridiculous attempt to ignore the law to extend the eviction moratorium.

[Sarcastr0]

Those that I know who lived through stagflation say this is *nothing* like that.

And you seem to be keeping counterfactuals in your head re: the latest stimulus that is not clear. Our economy is doing a lot better than Europe's on the recovery; I presume you point the cause elsewhere but I don't see how you can be so sure.

Zimbabwe territory
I don't know where you get your info, but you should probably dial down the drama.

His campaign to get social media companies to shut out speech he doesn’t like
Weird how the VC was pissed at social media itself for doing that until Biden took office, at which point he was the puppet master.

His Comptroller nominee that believed that private banks should be closed in favor of one big government bank?
That was one paper, she had no behavior in keeping with that belief, and it was a damn shame she was spiked due to right-wing smears; she seemed quite smart.

Eviction moratoriums started September 1, 2020. I'll let you do the math.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That was one paper"

You f**k one goat ...

[Life of Brian]

Those that I know who lived through stagflation say this is *nothing* like that.

Generously, at this point we're about a year and a half into the inflation piece of the puzzle, and about 6 months into the GDP piece. Rosily comparing that to a prior cycle that went on for over a decade seems... premature.

[Sarcastr0]

Interesting choices of where to set those dates.

But the fact is, this is not the same economy as the 1970s. The misery level is nowhere near.

You're trying to pretend it's the same, but it's not.

[Life of Brian]

I'm pretending nothing, my dear feigned poor reader. I'm saying there's no valid basis to make such a comparison until we know we're down the other side of the curve rather than going into years of basically sideways motion. And I'm very comfortable that even you are not silly enough to say we can know that at this point.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Life of Brian,

Then you should take it up with the person who first made the stagflation comparison. But that would require speaking truth to a fellow traveler and you're too partisan for that.

If it's too soon to say this isn't stagflation, it definitely is too soon to say it is.

(And most signs point to this being fundamentally different than the stagflation of the 70's.)

[Kazinski]

I lived through stagflation, and its too early to tell. The thing about Stagflation was it went on for ever, it started in the Nixon administration, on through the Ford and Carter administrations and ended in the Reagan Admin.

That's what is so terrifying about the current unnecessary inflation, once it starts its hard to stop and quite painful while its going, and stopping it.

[jb]

Other than the Afghanistan thing, it seems like all of your points are ideological rather than about competence. There's a big difference between "President X wants to do things I don't agree with" and "President X is incompetent".

[bevis the lumberjack]

“One paper”.

I mean, Trump only said something about going up to the Capitol to fight that one time, so no holding him to it, right? It was only the once.

[Sarcastr0]

Not the same, and you know it. Academic wankery is not the same as what Trump actively attempted to do to our democracy.

When asked, she explicitly said that she wasn't in favor of centralizing finances as that paper hypothetically contemplated.

So the narrative is that she was lying about it, and a sekret fascist or something. Which, yeah, is just bullshitting to get a scalp. Congrats.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I give no shits about her scalp. I even avoided calling her a communist because she can’t help where she grew up.

But she’s too extreme to be near power. As was the fed nominee who thought the fed should play favorites. And I note that even you don’t try to defend the Almost Truth Minister.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Jb - depends. Do you think the energy price thing was intentional? The policy obviously was, but was the price effect expected or was it a surprise. If the latter, it was incompetence.

And the speech thing is intentional. I thought Trump should have been impeached for the 1/6 stuff, and what Biden is doing on his opponents speech is every bit as impeachable as anything Trump did. Intentionally denying speech rights to people is awful.

And the nominees - it’s a sign of incompetence that he keeps nominating people who are so extreme that both sides encourage them to withdraw.

And pushing for the BBB after inflation was already flaring is an obvious sign that he and his people don’t understand pretty fundamental stuff.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a sign of a 50-50 Senate and a Democratic Party that isn't as ideologically lockstep or cowed by their leadership as the GOP.

[jb]

The reason energy prices are high are predominantly Putin, not Biden. I do think the last round of stimulus was probably too much and should have been better targeted, but the current levels of inflation are also significantly impacted by supply chain woes that Biden has been about neutral on (as compared to Trump who made them significantly worse).

Would be interesting to do an analysis of Biden nominees that had to be withdrawn in the face of pushback from his own party vs Trump (who had a bigger Senate majority than Biden). My gut is Trump had a lot more problematic nominees by this measure, but I haven't seen any numbers one way or the other.

[Ben_]

They understand about inflation and the BBB (at least sort-of). They just want the loot under their control before the GOP shows up.

They don’t really care about inflation because it doesn’t hurt them personally. It hurts some Americans, but they don’t really like Americans much.

[bernard11]

His fed nominee who believed that the fed should work to deny capital to politically unpopular industries?

The attacks on Raskin were scurrilous, or worse. She is no extremist. Her previous appointment to the board was widely supported, including by the banking industry. She was an excellent nominee. The Republican opposition was dishonest and disgraceful.

[bevis the lumberjack]

She wrote in 2020 that the fed should treat the energy industry differently than any other - shut them off from capital - because of climate change. She’s an environmental extremist. When you have an opinion so far outside of normal, that’s the definition of extremist.

Where’s the dishonesty? She wrote what she wrote. You gonna put her in the position and see what happens? No way.

[bernard11]

She wrote in 2020 that the fed should treat the energy industry differently than any other - shut them off from capital - because of climate change. She’s an environmental extremist. When you have an opinion so far outside of normal, that’s the definition of extremist.

She said nothing of the sort. Se didn't suggest cutting fossil fuel companies off from credit. You are, once again, buying dishonest RW spin. She objected to the Fed including fossil fuel companies in the Main Street Lending Program, in large part because buying their debt would be a lousy investment.

Yeah. She wrote what she wrote, but you either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I'm sure you see some difference between what you said and what I said, but look at the big picture. She was willing to discriminate against an entire major industry because of her climate extremism. Put her in power and then who is next, bernard? Think she's just going to stop at one. She thinks she's doing God's work, so nobody is safe.

[bernard11]

I do see a difference - a gigantic one.

She did not say that the fossil fuel industry should be cut off from capital. The Fed couldn't do that anyway.

So your reading of her column is just wrong.

And her argument about the MSLP was simply that fossil fuel companies were poor investments.

Again, I don't think you really understand what she was saying.

[Don Nico]

That is a remarkably low bar. Biden has demonstrated little if any competence and as for Blinken, he has shown little given his touted level of experience.
Garland excepted, the rest are political hacks.

[Martinned]

In Canada it would be a lot easier to manage a crippling gas shortage, the government would send out estimates of what utility bills will be based on weather forecasts and current energy prices along with the hotline for priority assisted suicide scheduling.

Wait, you're telling me that Canada's approach to "managing" gas shortages is to tell people what their bills will be and then hope they don't kill themselves?

[Kazinski]

No, tell them what their gas bills are and hope they DO kill themselves.

Not killing themselves won't do anything to solve the problem, if they kill themselves it frees up resources.

https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867

But probably old hat in the Netherlands.

[Martinned]

The Netherlands has enough gas reserves in onshore wells alone to supply all of Europe for three years. So when push comes to shove we can always tell the people in the earthquake zone that they're out of luck.

[Mr. Bumble]

...are you counting cow farts as part of the reserve?

[Martinned]

No, but maybe we should. That and our politicians' hot air.

[Martinned]

She certainly says some positive things about free markets, and end the ban on fracking,

Specifically, she said (on TV on Sunday, and again just now in Parliament) that: "fracking will get oil flowing in six months”, which goes to illustrate my point below about competence.

(She used to be DEFRA minister, so presumably she's dealt with the issue of fracking professionally before. So only being in office for two days is hardly an excuse.)

[Kazinski]

The sooner you start, the sooner you'll have gas. If you never start you will never have any.

Reminds me of the Hillbillies lament: he can't fix his roof when its raining, but when its not raining it don't ever leak noways.

[Martinned]

Sure, but I'd still rather have someone making the decisions who actually knows what TF they're talking about. Also, at least occasionally the Johnson government had some pretty decent climate change policies. That was about the only decent thing he did in his entire time in office. I'd prefer it if that didn't all get ditched as soon as he's gone.

[Nige]

Johnson's loathesome, but there was also the vaccine rollout - about the only thing they got right about the pandemic ,and then they used it as an excuse to lift lockdown early - and supporting Ukraine, even if he was tediously triumphalist abut both. I expect Truss will be in Kyiv before long.

[Martinned]

Truss's first foreign call was to Kyiv.

And, in case people haven't seen, Zelensky's first foreign call when Ukraine was invaded was to Macron: https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1567518365761011712

[Nige]

Yeah, he knew he wouldn't survive without international support, and he went all out and got it.

[Martinned]

Sure, but the interesting think is *where* he went to get it. Not in Germany, not in the US, but in France first. I wouldn't go so far as to declare Macron the new Leader of the Free World (now that Merkel has stepped down), but it's sure him more than anyone else.

[Nige]

I suppose he wanted some channel to Putin kept open in the outside chance he could be talked down or reasoned with?

[Martinned]

That's what we can see in the video. (And note that Macron got a lot of criticism for doing exactly that in the following weeks.)

[John F. Carr]

I can't imagine calling Macron a world leader. You might as well say that of Erdogan, who is trying to be friends with both sides. I will admit that Macron is more of a regional leader than Le Pen would have been.

[Martinned]

Myopia is a powerful drug.

[Bob from Ohio]

(now that Merkel has stepped down)

LOL Former Commie youth apparatchik who is responsible for the Europe immigration crisis and the Europe energy crisis. No to mention undercutting NATO at every opportunity and gutting the German military.

Worst German leader since Doenitz.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a...very right nationalist view of things.

undercutting NATO at every opportunity
That's Trump, chief.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump was just trying to get Germany and other to live up to their agreement about 2% spending in his ham handed way.

But now I recall that Merkel [and Macron] vetoed Ukraine joining NATO back in 2008. So, she's also largely responsible for the current war.

Its like she was a Soviet mole.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, discrediting US support for NATO while having long phone calls with Putin was just a very clever bunch of reverse psychology!

now I recall that Merkel [and Macron] vetoed Ukraine joining NATO back in 2008. So, she's also largely responsible for the current war.
Personally, I blame the Zaporozhian Cossacks.

[Bob from Ohio]

"long phone calls with Putin"

Not talking about Macron.

[Nige]

She wasn't the only one but they certainly were way, way too deferential and cautious about thwarting or defying Putin no matter what he did, emboldening and enabling him. There's a lesson there.

[Martinned]

Yes, the lesson is that foreign policy is easier from behind your keyboard on the other side of the ocean.

[Nige]

That's always true, though.

[Don Nico]

Bob,
Merkel was a genuine leader, to who people listened, much better than the present crop of so-called leaders of NATO countries

[Sarcastr0]

present crop of so-called leaders of NATO countries

This sounds like Russian propaganda, once again...where do you read this stuff?

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Now who is red-baiting?
You clearly must live an work in an American Democrat bubble to call that view Russian propaganda. I dare say that you know extremely little about the view of Russian intellectuals on the matter.
My colleagues in Europe have extremely similar opinions to mine about their national leaders.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Merkel was a genuine leader, to who people listened"

People listen to fools all the time, she was a fool.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not calling you a commie, or saying anything about your ideology, I'm saying your posts have a certain flavor these days. A flavor I see in some of my family who love RT.

NATO sucks, Europe sucks, the war in Ukraine is the US and NATO's fault, not Russia's...

[bernard11]

Trump was just trying to get Germany and other to live up to their agreement about 2% spending in his ham handed way.

So it's OK because he's just an idiot who doesn't know WTF he's doing? Is that it, Bob?

[Don Nico]

S_0,
What is RT? The flavor of my posts is my professional work environment and not being captivated by the American press.

As for Bob, he would not know a competent leader at any level of government

[Nige]

She'll have a tough job undoing the appalling damage inflicted on the UK over the last twelve years by the government she was a part of.

[AmosArch]

A followup to Eugene's post on Cloudflare's antideplatforming 'bravery'

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/01/cloudflare-says-its-online-security-services-wont-be-canceled-based-on-a-sites-ideology/

Cloudflare has apparently caved and deplatformed the site in question, kiwifarms. By itself its not exactly an unusual move in this day and age. But this follows a pattern where Cloudflare goes out of its way to come out with a seemingly strong statement how they won't deplatform a site, then goes back on it within a matter of days and to top it off grovel pathetically before the mob. Before doing the same to 8chan and the daily stormer.

The campaign to deplatform kiwifarms was led by an admitted child groomer and drug dealer who was discussed on the site (who because he happens to identify as transgender is supposed to be beyond criticism I guess) and consisted of constant cyberattacks and threats against anyone daring to associate with the site, provide, services and perhaps even those associated with the offline life of the owner. The apparent trigger/excuse to Cloudflare wussing out was someone in the movement compromising an account on the site and using it to post a false flag threat.

Cloudflare is one of the few providers in the world of many critical infrastructure services dominating some of their markets to the tune of 80-90%. Attempts have also been made to get kiwifarms kicked off their IP allocation service of which there are only 5 on earth. So this precedent is something to think about for people who think they can make a fresh start after crossing the powers that be.

*kiwifarms for those unfamiliar and contrary to what you will hear in most other places (as I can attest being a frequent lurker) is basically nothing more than a celebrity gossip site for disliked internet figures of any stripe. The vast majority of content is simply discussion although admittedly a few (without the blessing of the site) occasionally go further into TMZ like tactics but pretty much TMZ, and 'mainstream' celeb gossip sites and even places like Twitter are far worse overall. KF just targets the 'wrong' people. Like 8chan its reputation comes almost entirely from its opponents rather than reality. For the daily stormer I'm not as familiar with the drama surrounding it other than the site owner calling Cloudflare's justification for dropping them after pledging not to a lie. And given Cloudflare's history I'm inclined to believe him.

[apedad]

Well at least you'll have Truth Social to ensure the TRUTH gets told.

Oh, wait a minute....

Trump SPAC deal at risk as merger deadline approaches

The fate of the planned merger between former President Donald Trump’s media company and the shell company aiming to take it public – and give it an infusion of cash – has grown murkier as a crucial deadline approaches.

Digital World Acquisition Corp. has a Thursday deadline to merge with Trump Media and Technology Group, the owner of Truth Social. DWAC, a special purpose acquisition company, has spent the past week scrambling to drum up enough shareholder votes to extend the deadline for the deal. The companies have failed to complete the merger, and federal investigations surrounding the deal and Trump have piled up.

But Trump, in a Truth Social post on Saturday, indicated that the issue is being resolved and that he doesn’t need DWAC or the infusion of cash from the deal to keep the platform going.

(But here comes the Hero to save the day!)

“Google is coming along nicely (I think?). SEC trying to hurt company doing financing (SPAC),” the former president wrote to his 4 million Truth Social followers on Saturday. “Who knows? In any event, I don’t need financing, ‘I’m really rich!’ Private company anyone???”

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/07/trump-spac-deal-at-risk-as-merger-deadline-approaches.html

[John F. Carr]

Reports say their history has been removed from the Internet Archive. They never existed. Stop talking about imaginary organizations.

[Nige]

'by an admitted child groomer and drug dealer'

This is a lie. Not only was she 'discussed' on the site, she was harassed, doxxed, SWATted, tracked across the Atlantic, stalked, and sent a bomb threat.

'is basically nothing more than a celebrity gossip site for disliked internet figures of any stripe.'

This is also a lie. The site was literally a byword for harassment, doxxing, SWATting and threats, mostly aimed at trans people. It was an absolute fucking horrorshow that worked *unbelievably* hard to make innocent people's lives utter hell.

[AmosArch]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
by an admitted child groomer and drug dealer'

This is a lie. Not only was she 'discussed' on the site, she was harassed, doxxed, SWATted, tracked across the Atlantic, stalked, and sent a bomb threat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You are the liar. He openly admitted and theres proof that he was involved with places where underage people were sent collars and hormones without parental or medical consent.

https://ibb.co/MMp4zpB
https://ibb.co/pyfPXpH

Of course later he wised up and started deleting and denying it. But theres a trove of evidence and free discussion about it on kf which is part of the reason he's going so hard to remove it to the point of even trying to flush the copies on Internet Archive.

As for the harassment there is far more evidence of his movement harassing and engaging in outright illegal activity against their opponents than the other way around which you pretty much only have his word. But even if its true KF isn't responsible in the same way MSNBC isn't responsible for some crazy going after Trump just because they read an article on him.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mostly aimed at trans people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

thank you for proving yourself wrong and ignorant. The vast majority of people KF discusses aren't trans. Arguably they talk and criticize more insane rightwing people than transgenders. Next time actually bother to learn what you are talking about from primary sources rather than listening to a Young Turks or CNN podcast

[Nige]

That's nobody's idea of 'drug dealing,' let alone grooming.

There are appalliing quantities of testimony out there by victims of kiwifarms. It's not a news site, it's a hate site dedicated to ruining people's lives.

The majority of people targeted by kiwifarms are trans, their supoortive friends, families and advocates.

[AmosArch]

That's nobody's idea of 'drug dealing,' let alone grooming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes sending drugs to and sexting minors is no big deal. You heard it here first.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are appalliing quantities of testimony out there by victims of kiwifarms. It's not a news site, it's a hate site dedicated to ruining people's lives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

theres also an appalling quantity of testimony of how the election was stolen and covered up but I'm assuming you don't care.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The majority of people targeted by kiwifarms are trans, their supoortive friends, families and advocates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For anyone who happens to come across this and is actually curious and not arguing in bad faith. Here is a link to the site through Tor. Don't take Nige's or mine, or MSNBC's word for it for it look at the site yourself (in the rare times it is up since it is constantly being attacked to preserve the false narrative) and it will be immediately obvious that this is not a site focusing on 'transgenders'.

http://uquusqsaaad66cvub4473csdu4uu7ahxou3zqc35fpw5d4ificedzyqd.onion/

[Nige]

Accusing targets of all sorts of things is what kiwifarms does, of course.

Unlike the election fraud, these victims are usually able to provide proof. I assume you don't care.

Lol I'm not following a kiwifarms link are you joking? Is that even the same site? What, are they trying to be on their best behaviour? They literally couldn't hold off on intensifying the death threats when they came under the scrutiny that shut them down. The owner was wailing about it and telling them to tone it down and they still couldn't control themselves.

[Sarcastr0]

You're defending people who do horrible, non speech things in real-life, Amos.

Harassment that's directly lead to 3 suicides (which they cheer when it's reported).

Automated death threats that stalk people when they move, hacking uber accounts and the like. Even out of country.

Casual doxxing. SWATing. And it's not just at trans people. MTG was also targeted. Because more than partisan, these people are just awful to everyone.

This is not a free speech thing, Amos, this is a fuck those guys how do they evade legal consequences this long thing.

[Life of Brian]

This is not a free speech thing, this is a fuck those guys how do they evade legal consequences this long thing

Methinks she doth protest too much. If there's much reality behind your set of breathless one-liners, we have a robust criminal law system designed to deal with exactly such issues. Heck, you should see what they're trying to do to the guy who had some pieces of paper in a box.

And if it's really even close to true, why in the world would you not want to give them the rope to keep on piling up evidence, and why in the world would you not want that evidence to be archived rather than disappeared?

[Sarcastr0]

we have a robust criminal law system designed to deal with exactly such issues

Awesome argument. 'How can they get away with crimes, we have laws against crimes! And police!'

It's pretty rare for people to go to jail for SWATing and coordinated harassment, up to and including driving people to suicide.
We're not really up on social media-mediated criminality. Pretending otherwise is laughable. But that's what you're here for!

why in the world would you not want to give them the rope to keep on piling up evidence
Off the back of the suffering of others? You are such an insincere jackass.

[Life of Brian]

Interesting table pounding exercise. Under what circumstances do you feel private actors should NOT take the law into their own hands if the criminal justice system isn't reacting as they think it should?

[Nige]

It's not 'taking the law into its own hands.' The sheer number of death threats kiwifarms was flinging out became unsupportable, even for Cloudfare.

[Nige]

'we have a robust criminal law system designed to deal with exactly such issues.'

Do 'we?'

'why in the world would you not want to give them the rope to keep on piling up evidence,'

Because those are real people they're trying to kill?

[AmosArch]

You're defending people who do horrible, non speech things in real-life, Amos.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are you talking about KF or the people against it? Can't tell.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Harassment that's directly lead to 3 suicides (which they cheer when it's reported).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The closest thing to a suicide linked to KF is a Twitter claim of the supposed friend of someone (Byuu) who supposedly killed themselves in Japan (who even if it was true KF the site did not call on anyone to harass and has no more responsibility than the tons of suicides 'caused' by Twitter and other 'mainstream' sites every year)

but of course there is shockingly no evidence of it ever happening (the name of the person does not match any known suicides in the timeframe) and was probably yet another attempt to get the site deplatformed yet was taken and reported as fact by many 'authoritative' outlets. Thanks for letting me tell people here another example of how trustworthy these guys are.

[Sarcastr0]

Friends of indie game developer Chloe Sagal, who took her own life in June 2018, told Oregon Live that she had been subject to harassment by Kiwi Farms users after it was revealed in 2013 that a crowdfunding campaign Sagal claimed was for metal poisoning was actually for sexual reassignment surgery.

The death of Julie Terryberry, who took her own life in 2o16, has been linked to Kiwi Farms by news outlets like Vice and Gizmodo. According to Vice, Terryberry was targeted by Kiwi Farms users prior to taking her own life due to her polyamory and appearance.

On June 27, a software developer posted a Twitter thread accusing Kiwi Farms of "making the harassment orders of magnitude worse. It's escalated from attacking me for being autistic to attacking and doxing my friends, and trying to suicide bait another, just to get a reaction from me."

Like, if you go there, this is their *open goal*. They have threads posting the suicide notes and cheering. You can still find the threads in a Google search, even if you can't click on them anymore.

I had heard of this independently, but the Wikipedia article alone is full of more examples than that. And the Christchurch shooting, of course.

So no, your take is wrong. And you should figure out how you got it so wrong, and who is defending these awful people to you. And why.

[AmosArch]

Friends of indie game developer Chloe Sagal, who took her own life in June 2018
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A guy says another guy was involved with another guy a some point in their life? Wow thats as good as a murder confession!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Terryberry was targeted by Kiwi Farms users prior to taking her own life due to her polyamory and appearance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Practically every person who is discussed in KF at any significant length is there because they are a prolific scam artist or criminal to some extent. I can't think of a single person (discussed more than in passing) there just because of their appearance or sexual habits.

And again KF does not sic people on anyone. KF does not cheer suicides trans or otherwise. A minority of rogue users might cheer deaths like people on Twitter celebrating a conservatives death but the overall the sentiment of the forum is against that sort of thing, even more than certain leftwing groups. You're free to provide evidence otherwise.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On June 27, a software developer posted a Twitter thread accusing Kiwi Farms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes like I said there is zero actual evidence that this happened let alone that KF bears any reasonable burden of responsibility. And this was the claim that appears to have gained the most traction so let that sink in.

[Nige]

'is there because they are a prolific scam artist or criminal to some extent.'

Or that's what they say about anyone they target, at any rate.

[Ben_]

Sarcastr0 views the feelings of the special people as sacred. Everything else in the world has zero value in comparison.

If one of the special people is name-called the way Dems routinely name-call other Americans, these guys consider it an unbelievably serious crime. But only when the subject of it is special. When it’s you being name-called, they'll name-call you some more for noticing it and tell you to go fuck yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty sure I made it clear I wasn't talking about name-calling, including providing examples.

But you are more blind to all out of narrative info than most.

[Ben_]

No one asked you how you wanted to spin things to pretend things about yourself.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArch, seems like your view is that KF (which I never even heard of before this thread, but which I take to be a publisher) is not to be blamed, or held responsible for items it published. If so, you are merely repeating commonplace advocacy among internet fans, supported in principle by Section 230, that only authors are to be held responsible. Publishers are to be exempt with regard to their authors' mistakes and offenses.

Can I ask what you think has happened? It seems to me, reading these comments as my only source, that some other internet institutions, out of concern for the content of KF publications, have withdrawn support, or collaboration, or something. If that did happen, why is that not anyone's privilege. What would make you think anyone has an obligation to help KF in any way to publish content, or re-publish content, the others think should not be published?

Or is there more to it than that. Has someone taken some kind of substantive action against KF, a lawsuit or something, that I don't know about? Do you think KF is being deprived of Section 230 protection? If so, how?

Please help me out if you can.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which will happen first:
California will run out of water.
California will run out of electricity.

[AmosArch]

I like how theres not a peep in the media about the root causes of this issue like the neglect of the grid and basic infrastructure in favor of virtue signaling on more glamorous issues and green delusions. Its just a problem thats there and the fault of the people. Whereas if a Republican had been in charge there would be nonstop hammering over what he did to supposedly cause it.

[Martinned]

When does the media ever report about the root causes of anything?

[Mr. Bumble]

"When does the media ever report about the root causes of anything?"

Everyday. The root cause of California's problems (along with almost everything else) is climate change.

[Nige]

They don't report it often enough.

[Mr. Bumble]

After reporting on anything Trump, that's all they "report".

[Nige]

No, they gloss over it plenty when they want to, or avoid examining the implications.

[Don Nico]

Yes, that is Gavin's excuse despite having an $80B surplus on hand.

[Nige]

Neglect of infrastructure and climate change are not divergent causes. It amounts to ignoring the warnings that have been coming for decades.

[Kazinski]

Its not too surprising, California is naturally susceptible to drought, California has only really been settled for 200 years and here is a list of recorded droughts:
1841, 1864, 1924, 1928–1935, 1947–1950, 1959–1960, 1976–1977, 1986–1992, 2006–2010, 2011–2017, 2018 and 2020-2021. All of them caused by climate change of course.

Then at the same time the population has been growing logarithmicaly until recent years.

As for electricity, California is dependent on out of state power for a third of its power supplies, and 25% of their total power comes from intermittent sources like wind and solar.

[Brett Bellmore]

They'd have been substantially better off if their population had been growing logarithmicly. Perhaps you meant exponentially?

[John F. Carr]

The latest panic is over floods. The drought of the 1850s ended with a great flood in 1861-1862. Similar floods used to happen every 100-200 years. Thanks to climate whatever they could happen every 100 years.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atmospheric-rivers-california-megaflood-lessons-from-forgotten-catastrophe/

[OtisAH]

California has been inhabited for at least 13,000 years. And the Spaniards landed in San Diego in the mid-16th century.

[Kazinski]

I said settled, not inhabited.

The first settlement in California was 1769, the first in Northern California at Monterey in 1770, Alta California was established as a Spanish Province until 1804.

[Don Nico]

Kazinski,
Do you really think that facts will stop the blah-blah from ideologues?
Just wait until CA drives up the fraction of BEVs without a matching increase in baseload power sources.

[Kazinski]

No of course not, but Newsome did decide to keep California's only remains nuke online longer, past its planned closure date in 2025.

[Don Nico]

Gott sei dank!

[Ben_]

Newsom is not as dumb as your average California Dem.

He also came out in favor of the Orange County desalination plant before the Coastal Commission voted against it.

Don’t underestimate Newsom just because other California Democrats are children who got bigger but never became grownups.

[Ben_]

Solar is pretty reliable in California.

It’s one reason so many environmentalists buy into the idea that solar works well. They either live in California or hear stories about it. They think people can get solar panels and charge their Tesla and drive for free just like a (rich) guy in Los Angeles can.

You try to explain winter and rain and clouds and sunset before 5PM in places like Wisconsin and they just don’t understand.

They think they can say things like "transition away from fossil fuels" and that means electricity somehow gets magically created.

[Brett Bellmore]

By the standards of most states, they've already run out of both, as both are being severely rationed already.

[apedad]

Justice Department Secures Relief Against American Airlines for Air Force Reserve Veteran

The Justice Department announced today that it had resolved a claim that American Airlines (American) violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by underfunding the 401(k) retirement account of Thomas P. Harwood III, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force Reserve, after he returned to work from various military obligations. Mr. Harwood is a Major General (O-8) (Ret.) who joined the U.S. Air Force in 1981, served in the U.S. Air Force Reserve from 1991 until his retirement in 2016, and has worked for American Airlines as a commercial pilot since 1992.

Following the conclusion of Maj. Gen. Harwood’s military service obligations in 2016, including one that had begun in 2013, American both underfunded the make-up contributions it owed to his 401(k) account upon his return and deposited them well after the 90-day limit provided by federal regulations. Under the terms of the settlement, American has agreed to compensate Harwood $15,671 in monetary damages and provide USERRA training to all employees in its 401(k) department.

Congress enacted USERRA to encourage non-career service in the military by reducing employment disadvantages; to minimize the disruption to the lives of persons performing military service, their employers, and others, by providing for the prompt reemployment of such persons upon the completion of their service; and to prohibit discrimination and retaliation against servicemembers if they pursue a claim under USERRA.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-relief-against-american-airlines-air-force-reserve-veteran

You'd think AA would know better.

Also what do our Libertarians think about this law?

This seems to put two national interests in conflict: business friendly vs. ensuring folks who join the military aren't penalized.

On the second point (joining the military), I realize that's a personal decision; at the same time it is to support/defend our country.

[AmosArch]

There is this widespread perception that joining the modern military is a sacrifice. IMO for many people its a wise career move. This ain't the Civil War. You get tons and tons of perks on top of the training not to mention street cred. And its all paid for and since the modern military is overwhelmingly support. You almost certainly won't be in much more danger than many civilian jobs if you don't choose a mos like Infantry.

Sure if you have a fellowship at Google or an NFL offer in the wings maybe its a suboptimal choice financially but for the great mass of people who aren't otherwise doing anything but drifting into the next available job it can be a massive boost. And thats not even counting the massively lucrative fraud opportunities you can and some do easily take advantage like disability claims that will set you for life and are bulletproof from reform.

[apedad]

As a 20-year retiree, I AGREE with your position.

Joining the military can be a huge opportunity for folks with lesser options to gain skills, get an education, travel, promotions, etc.

That's BS on the fraud stuff though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, aside from the risk of ending up in a combat zone, (And averaged across the entire military, that's still lower than the risk of a number of civilian jobs.) military service comes with some sweet perks. Honestly, I wish I'd stuck it out in AFROTC, in college.

[Nige]

Y'know they should offer ALL OF THAT to everyone, but without the whole being in the military thing.

[David Bremer]

It'd also be nice if companies would pay me their usual salary and benefits. But I've come to accept that since, you know, I don't work there.

[Nige]

Just seems a shame to have to sell your soul to the military-industrial complex to get decent benefits.

[Don Nico]

"tell your soul to the military-industrial complex"
How typical of you

[Nige]

Hate that military-indusrtrial complex, I do.

[Michael P]

If the government wants reservists to have full 401(k) contributions during periods they're not working the job associated with those contributions, the government should make those contributions itself. Otherwise it should think carefully about which reservists it activates for long-term duty.

Some employers would still do what the law currently demands. My employer goes beyond that -- it will make up the difference in pay while an employee is on active duty, although some (senior) employees forgo that.

[Michael P]

Old and busted talking point: "The cost of insulin is too damn high!"
Current talking point: "Cheaper insulin kills!"
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/09/diabetes-medication-insulin-cost/671333/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Old and busted talking point: Michael P is honest.

https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/insulin-out-of-pocket-costs-in-medicare-part-d/

Who am I kidding? Nobody ever claimed you were honest.

[Michael P]

You don't have to argue with me, you have to argue with the doctor writing in The Atlantic.

[Krayt]

In states that allow it <--- note the phrase, Walmart sells otc insulin vials for $25. It may be even lower with a prescription.

It requires needles. Pens are handy, but that there is some high cost to get angry over ("Oh no! $35 just for the co-pay!", really?) is BS.

As with so many otber products, Walmart is the savior.

Pens' patents have run out, at least the first generation. I suspect that may be coming, too.

[apedad]

FFS, did you even read your link?!?

"This is where addressing the cost of insulin—and only insulin—becomes problematic. Doctors are forced daily to decide between the best medication for our (Type 2 diabetic) patients and the medication that our patients can afford.

If the cost of insulin is capped on its own, insulin will be more likely to jump in front of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in treatment plans. That will mean more disease, more disability, and more death from diabetes."

[Michael P]

Do you think these drugs appear by magic, and want to expropriate them from the hoarders and kulaks?

[Nige]

Big Pharma, whch was trying its level best to murder everyone with their vaccines, are now kulaks? Now THAT'S a new talking point.

[Michael P]

They have treatments for that antivax mindset of yours, you know. They don't even involve "the jab", just a willingness to look at facts without flinching.

Besides, the fundamental argument in the essay -- that cheaper insulin could kill patients -- doesn't depend on why insulin is cheaper.

[Nige]

Yes, it's that JUST insulin is cheaper.

[Brett Bellmore]

A failure to distinguish between "Will kill patients", and "Will save fewer patients than the counterfactual would"; Cheaper insulin saves lives, it doesn't cost them. Cheaper other treatments might save more lives than just cheaper insulin, but that doesn't make lowering the cost of insulin deadly.

[Nige]

I agree.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, the question becomes, why lower insulin costs, and not lower SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists costs?

Could it be that insulin is an old generic drug everybody knows how to churn out by the ton, the cost of development is long since paid back, and it's just cheap to make? So there wasn't any good economic reason for it to be expensive?

While SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are relatively new drugs, the cost of development still to be recouped, the cost of manufacture still high, so basic economics says they SHOULD be expensive yet?

[Nige]

Sure you could make that argument, but the brunt falls on the patient in a for-profit health service.

[Brett Bellmore]

The brunt of not allowing companies to recoup the costs of development fall on the generations to come who won't get the new drugs. Because those costs exist whether or not you permit them to be recouped, and if you don't permit recouping them, they won't be incurred in the first place, and the development won't happen.

Medicine started out dirt cheap, because it's really cheap to tell somebody, "Sorry, you're going to die, because there's nothing we can do for you."

Medicine kept getting more expensive, as we learned to do more things to solve medical problems, but still didn't have enough understanding to prevent the problems. Because doing the stuff is expensive.

But sometimes you learn something that actually solves a problem, like Polio vaccine, instead of buildings full of iron lungs, and the cost drops a bit.

The very best policy, though, it may be painful in the middle term, is the policy that lets us learn as fast as possible to transition from expensively treating problems, to cheaply preventing them. So that, some day, medicine will be cheap, because you won't get sick in the first place.

To that end, I don't want cost controls that slow the accumulation of knowledge in order to lower costs right now, at the expense of prolonging the expensive phase we're going through.

[bernard11]

basic economics says they SHOULD be expensive yet?

Well, it doesn't quite say that.

What it says is that if you have a monopoly you will charge above marginal cost, and produce less than the optimal quantities from a social point of view.

Of course, we grant temporary monopolies to encourage innovation, which is not a bad idea, even though the pharma companies sometimes abuse the process. There is a case that a system of large cash prizes for innovations of some types might work better.

Anyway, it seems that the argument in the article is that making insulin cheaper will lead insurers to be less willing to approve the newer drugs. Probably true, and it illustrates one little-noted flaw in the private insurance/Medicare system.

According to the article, The most maddening part is that despite their substantial up-front expense, these medications are quite cost-effective in the long run because they prevent pricey complications down the road.

I'm not sure what backs this up, but it's not implausible. if it's true, why wouldn't insurers pay for it? Because they don't reap the later cost savings. It's no good making a great investment if someone else is going to capture the returns. And in this case it will often be another insurer, or Medicare, that gets the savings.

[Ben_]

They’re really worried that some scientists might make a profit by saving lives and helping people.

Or that someone whose life is saved by a breakthrough treatment (like the Hep C cure, for example). might have a financial burden for a couple years afterwards instead of being dead.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
I was going to make a snide remark about Nige.
But he is correct that mRNA vaccines have been very much a mixed blessing. They had a good effectiveness against the wuhan strain, but the effectiveness against later strain has decrease markedly.
They have also had some terrible side-effects in a minority of recipients. Yet the "science followers" in the press and the CDC simply ignore those or call that suffering them liars.
I know about these from personal experience as well as reported in my own peer-reviewed medical publications

[Brett Bellmore]

The problems with the mRNA vaccines mostly revolved around the fact that we threw away the greatest advantage of them: That they are very easy to update. It's practically like rolling out a new version of a software package. We literally had an mRNA vaccine against the original strain of Covid within days of it being sequenced.

That, and that in a misguided attempt to get to sterilizing immunity, they made the original vaccine too focused on the spike protein.

But once we had pushed a version through the approval process, on an accelerated basis, the medical bureaucrats dug in their heels, and it never got updated, until very recently. We could have been updating it on the fly all along, correcting mistakes, and tracking the dominant strain. But we weren't permitted to. Instead, they just kept doubling down on an increasingly obsolete vaccine.

My own tentative conclusion is that the biggest problem with the mRNA vaccine has been due to improper injection procedure: The failure to confirm that one is not in a blood vessel before injecting by attempting aspiration. The CDC now discourages aspiration for vaccine injections, I believe this was a terrible mistake. The localized irritation a vaccine is expected to produce at the injection site gets distributed through your circulatory system if you inject into a vein. An awful lot of the side effects that have been seen make sense if that's what's going on.

[Nige]

'Yet the "science followers" in the press and the CDC simply ignore those or call that suffering them liars.'

If the tsunami of bullshit and disinformation and hysteria drowns out the voices of genuine sufferers, you know whose fault that is?

[Don Nico]

"you know whose fault that is?"
I sure do. i blame the dug in bureaucrats and their media lackeys.
Do the the ideologue whiners contribute? You they sure do.
A plague on both their houses.

[Nige]

Well the former were trying to deal with a global pandemic, and maybe they weren't always up to the task and could have communicated better or clearly or more honestly. The latter were pretty muc on the side of the pandemic. I reject any equivalence.

[Don Nico]

" pretty muc on the side of the pandemic"
That is nonsense rhetoric and you know it. Your "on the side of" ranges from having legitimate reservations to detecting lies from public officials to not be gullible to being a fool.

You said equivalence; that is another of your false choices.

When the WHO lied for China for a month, when Fauci funded research in a Chinese bioweapons lab that was illegal in the US, I smell a criminal offence in the NIH and pandering to China in the UN.

There is not equivalence but the are many shades of dull grey in this story.

[Ben_]

People in responsible positions don’t get to shirk responsibility by whining about comments on the internet.

[Nige]

Whiners on the internet don't get to blame people in responsible positions for their deliberate lies.

[Ben_]

If people in responsible positions can’t handle it, they’re unfit and should resign in disgrace or be fired immediately.

When Dems say "lies" it's just their word for a statement that didn’t emotionally satisfy them.

[Nige]

It's not the people in positions of responsibility, it's everyone else trying to make asessments about the situation as accurately as possible who have to wade through acres of stupid lying evil bullshit.

[Don Nico]

Why not? Where did you get that.
Besides, you do it all the time.

[Martinned]

Best healthcare system in the world, indeed...

[Michael P]

A certain mindset assumes that if government distorts behavior in a problematic way, more government distortions are the proper fix. As an adherent if that mindset out it, "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato".

[Martinned]

And another mindset is to assume that, when something is shit, it must be an unfixable law of the universe that it must be shit. A myopic perspective that reasons from a position of ignorance about the situation anywhere else in the world will do that.

Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate

[Michael P]

Have you been taking lessons from QA on making straw men?

[Sarcastr0]

The market of insulin is fucked, Michael. Huge profit-taking.

But that doesn't mean we need to remain in that fucked market.

Your idealogue nature doesn't let you see that there are times the market fails, and in those times the government can help.

[Krayt]

Vials are $25 at Walmart, if your state allows it.

They are profiting on more handy pens and newer versions of insulin.

Which wouldn't exist under a command and control system.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not state law you're talking about, it's insurance requirements.

You know, the market.

a command and control system
??

[Don Nico]

C'mon, S-0. you know perfectly well that the US gov't bans the use or sale of pharmaceuticals that are approved for use in other countries. That's command and control. With the IRA, Medicare price-fixing will be another modality.
I did not say I oppose that, only that I recognize what it is.

[Don Nico]

WHo knows about best?
But the most expensive? Yes.

[ragebot]

Reality check time.

There is no dispute that diabetes is best treated with exercise and modified diet. In fact poor diet and lack of exercise is the reason many peeps develop diabetes. In fact for a lot of medical issues what is indicated is not drugs but other approaches.

Read it and weep snowflakes who are pissing and moaning about the cost of drugs.

https://www.medicinenet.com/why_is_diabetes_increasing_in_the_united_stat/article.htm#:~:text=As%20per%20the%20American%20Diabetes%20Association%2C%20the%20number,be%20attributed%20to%20various%20factors%20that%20include%3A%20Obesity

[John F. Carr]

I have a bunch of panicked or outraged emails in my spam folder from Republican sources. We need money or say goodbye to Trump's legacy. We need money to sue the government over our FOIA requests to expose corrupt use of the DoJ. And so on.

My cell phone gets text spam from Democratic robots, who have calmed down after getting a bit crazy earlier in the year when right wing fortunes were rising.

My landline got a voice call from a human Libertarian.

[Michael P]

For me, it's the other way around -- I get panicked fund-raising emails from Dems, texts from Rs, and messages on my answering machine from some (previously recorded) guy who wants to sell me a pillow.

[ducksalad]

John F. Carr - Same exact experience. I ignore the Republican spam since they tend to become intemperate if you disagree with them. I respond to Democratic spam and tell them I disagree with their policies and please stop contacting me. The Libertarians usually score a donation.

[Michael P]

What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas: https://news3lv.com/news/local/search-warrants-served-killing-las-vegas-reporter-jeff-german-lvmpd-metro-police-southern-nevada-review-journal-rob-telles-public-administrator-clark-county

In related news, speed kills. Or maybe it was some combination of speed (vehicular), speed (methamphetamines), cocaine, cannabis and alcohol: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/speeding-woman-on-cocaine-kills-drunk-driver-high-on-meth-in-north-las-vegas-police-say/ar-AA11z5EP

[Bob from Ohio]

When will Dem politicians stop murdering journalists?

[not guilty]

Which politicians and which journalists?

[Bob from Ohio]

Read the Vegas link

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/07/politics/michigan-gop-poll-worker-training-invs/index.html

The evening before Michigan's state primary, Wayne County GOP leaders held a Zoom training session for poll workers and partisan observers -- warning them about "bad stuff happening" during the election and encouraging them to ignore local election rules barring cell phones and pens from polling places and vote-counting centers.
"None of the constraints that they're putting on this are legal," former state senator Patrick Colbeck told trainees on the August 1 call.
As far as cell phones, "I would say maybe just hide it or something, and maybe hide a small pad and a small pen or something like that because you need to take accurate notes," Cheryl Costantino, the GOP county chairwoman and host of the call, told participants.

Some participants raised concerns about being tossed out if they broke the rules. "That's why you got to do it secretly," Costantino replied.

While volunteer partisan observers have always been trained by political parties and non-profit groups in Michigan, the Wayne County GOP had also invited poll workers -- people hired and paid by the local clerk's office. They are in charge of running the election, and their responsibilities can include checking voter IDs, counting ballots, and even securing voting equipment at the end of the day. Poll workers are required to engage in non-partisan training overseen by the local clerk and are only identified as Republicans for the purposes of making sure there is equal representation of both major parties working the election, according to the Michigan Bureau of Elections.

During the Wayne County training call, obtained by CNN, the presumption that Democrats cheat -- thus justifying Republican rule-breaking -- permeated the discussion. It offers a snapshot of one of the ways Trump-backing, MAGA-minded conspiracy theorists are intervening in the election process across the country, sometimes encouraging poll workers or volunteer observers to violate election rules in hopes of finding evidence that Democrats might be doing the same.
It's an approach election experts fear could spur chaos and conflict in November's mid-term elections and in 2024.

Like its counterparts in fellow battleground states Arizona and Pennsylvania, Michigan's Republican Party has conspiracy believers pushing for influence over the election process at all levels, from candidates for statewide office down to poll workers and observers. As CNN has previously reported, that's partly due to a strategy by Trump allies of ceaselessly recruiting conspiracy-minded MAGA volunteers for rank-and-file party positions.

Earlier this year, unsuccessful GOP gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelley called on Michigan poll workers to unplug election equipment "if you see something you don't like happening." In June, Kelley was charged with trespassing and other crimes in connection with the January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The GOP has "made a concerted effort to put election deniers in positions where they can gum up the works, afterward, if they don't win," said Jeff Timmer, former executive director of the Michigan Republican Party.

The training sessions are providing a thinly veiled, read-between-the-lines instructions that essentially show "people how to break the law without expressly telling them to break the law, in most cases," said Timmer, an advisor to the Lincoln Project, a political action committee founded in 2019 by Republicans and former Republicans opposed to Trump.

Both Costantino and Colbeck, the trainers on the Wayne County call, have actively promoted 2020 election conspiracies that amount to make-believe.

Colbeck called on the trainees to try to prove his repeatedly debunked theory about vote machines and tabulators being connected to the internet by checking screens whenever possible for connectivity symbols.
Towards the end of the Zoom call, Costantino told the trainees, "So you are all, really, undercover agents. Congratulations. That's undercover training

[Michael P]

The trainers are presumably worried because lots of places are breaking the law with shoddy record-keeping: https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/07/to-restore-americans-faith-in-elections-fix-sloppy-record-keeping/

[Brett Bellmore]

""None of the constraints that they're putting on this are legal," former state senator Patrick Colbeck told trainees on the August 1 call."

Have you considered the possibility that he's actually right about that?

[Martinned]

Given the absence of any Kraken suits, I'm gonna go with "no".

[Nige]

Have you considered that this attitude will be used to justify just about anything?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm saying it's an empirical question, not one you can answer a priori. He could be right, he could be wrong, I don't know.

It's not as though local governments illegally restricting election observers is something that never happens.

[Nige]

It's not being treated as an empirical question. It's being treated as gospel, along with Democrats cheating and that the 2020 election was fraud.

Proper election observer training would be to identify, record and report rule-brealing by officials, not to encourage and encble rule-breaking by the observers.

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP has "made a concerted effort to put election deniers in positions where they can gum up the works, afterward, if they don't win," said Jeff Timmer, former executive director of the Michigan Republican Party.

If a poll worker sees something they don't like, just unplug election equipment!

Brett, this has nothing to do with the law. You're trying to hid behind your usual formalism 'maybe it's not literally illegal.' No. This is not a legal/illegal question. This is people on the right aiming for chaos on election day.

You should be joining me in hoping they don't succeed, not defending them.

[Bob from Ohio]

If Jeff Timmer says something, it must be 100% true!

[Sarcastr0]

Except you are an example of the problem, Brett. Your definition of legal has become whether you like it or not.

People on this blog have walked you through the legal reasoning again and again, and it all bounces off. Because what you think the law ought to be, well, that's what the law really is to you.

And then you use your certainty your take is the only correct one to rationalize what is quite clearly an attempt to add *explicitly partisan chaos* to the upcoming vote.

Because Dems Bad justifies the means.

[Nige]

Not a threat to democracy. People love to poice behaviour on the left, cautioning that it feeds certain attitudes on the right, but here we see the complete lack of any proof of Democratic cheating does nothig to curtail their belief that Deocrats are cheating massively, all the time, and just drives them to further extremes.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, elections going forward will likely be a real mess; a symptom of our country killing itself.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Commenter.

First, our country isn't killing itself; stop going on line all that much if you think that's true.

Second, these are people with agency. It's not a symptom, it's people being bad.

Throwing up your hands and just saying it's all over is not a good or correct path to go down.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let these disaffected dumbasses do as they wish, Sarcastr0. Better Americans have been shaping our national progress against the preferences and efforts of those losers for more than a half-century. This seems destined to continue, as does the paltry whining about it. I expect some of the delusion and desperation to subside, but not the disaffectedness or the whimpering.

There is no problem associated with conservative culture war losers that replacement will not solve, in my judgment.

Just enjoy -- and, if you can, contribute to -- the continuing progress. (If you want to mock and criticize the clingers from time to time, I will understand.)

[Commenter_XY]

Time will tell Sarcastr0 = ...elections going forward will likely be a real mess...

I leave you with this food for thought:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” - Alexander Fraser Tytler

Is America afflicted with apathy? Are the objective indicators of apathy present and increasing in America...societal disengagement, political tribalism, declining electoral voting participation, declining volunteerism (see Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam)? You tell me.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is declining in America?

Bigotry, and respect for bigots? Good!

Religion, especially old-timey, organized religion? Great!

Rural backwaters? No problem!

Unearned privilege? Faster, please!

Tolerance of drunken driving, wife-beating, child abuse, and the like? Even faster, please!

Tolerance of polluters, fraudsters, tax evaders? Thank goodness!

(I don't much about Tytler. I know I do not much care about his pointers. I encountered him years ago and, when it appeared his authorship of that "cycle" observation is disputed by historians, concluded he wasn't worth more of my time. Well, that and the points that was a monarchist who inherited his life.)

[Nige]

What a load of bollocks.

[Sarcastr0]

You appear to be choosing 'death is close and inevitable' nihilism. Make no mistake - it is a choice, and you should not make it.

And that quote is probably apocryphal, not that that matters.

The next few elections will indeed probably be chaotic, but it'll be due to bad actors not some broad inevitable historical force around democracy due to our dissipated society.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
"And that quote is probably apocryphal...".
Shame on you. Did you even check? It was pretty easy to do so, revealing several sites with the quote.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you check?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler,_Lord_Woodhouselee#Debatable_attribution

[Don Nico]

Yup

[Drewski]

I checked; he's right. Almost certainly a fake quote. It's amazing that you'd double down on something so trivial to verify. Try to have a little self-respect by not deliberately making yourself look stupid.

Not that it even matters substantially: Tytler was kind of a crank so it's not like the attribution lends it any special authority. In other words, even if he said it, who cares that a guy who spent his life obsessively criticizing democracy also said democracy is a sham? I can dredge up an infinite number of real quotes for and against democracy from various people.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I appear to have accurately diagnosed what we are seeing in front of our eyes, using a quote (perhaps apocryphal, but it fits) = the slow killing of our country

Apathy will certainly do that. Many measures of social engagement have been in decline for some time (decades). How close that death is, is really anyone's guess. What is a century in the life of a nation? I don't see the quote as nihilistic.

[Sarcastr0]

I appear to have accurately diagnosed what we are seeing in front of our eyes.

No. I see bad people being bad; you see some broad trend where the death of our nation is inevitable.

Even if you think it may not be soon, dwelling on (what you believe to be) the certain death of our nation will fuck you up. Nothing is inevitable, especially when it comes to human behavior. We're not talking psychohistory here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I see America improving. Maybe that is because my preferences are prevailing.

[OtisAH]

The responsibility of poll watchers is to observe election processes. This is a good thing. MAGA groups are training poll workers to find all the fraud they know exists on a vote-by-vote basis if necessary (generally focusing on black and brown voters). This is a very bad thing and is certain to throw precincts into chaos this November and especially in 2024.

To the ether: There is no widespread voter fraud. The incredibly rare vote fraud we have seen is from white, elderly transplants trying to vote in multiple precincts or for their spouses (deceased or living), and an occasional former White House Chief of Staff.

[ReaderY]

If you want elections to be thrown out and offices filled by other means, then encouraging people to violate election laws is as important to the goal as taking the legal position that if election laws are violated in any detail, the election must be thrown out and the offices filled by other means.

They are two of a piece.

[Sarcastr0]

That's the concerted effort that I'm picking up.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nutpicking, Sarcasto?

You usually don't like that. Oh well

[Sarcastr0]

Nutpicking? This is Michigan's Republican Party.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Wayne County GOP", not Michigan's.

[Sarcastr0]

I take it you didn't read to the end of the article.

Though dismissing Wayne county as a bunch of nuts is a strategy, I suppose. What does it say about the Michigan GOP that they seem cool with this bunch of nuts?

[Bob from Ohio]

Where does it say that the state party did anything? Some unsupported comments about the state party but the training was purely local, done by two people.

Nutpicking is correct, but duly noted that it doesn't apply when you do it.

[Sarcastr0]

It's county leadership, Bob. It's not a rando on twitter.

And the story goes into state leadership, a past GOP primary candidate, and a past Michigan GOP chair. It also extends to 2 other states.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, county leadership. United States has 3,006 counties plus 64 parishes in Louisiana.

A failed primary candidate, you neglected to mention. Rejected by GOP voters. Came in 4th place.

The ex-chair is part of an anti-GOP group now, the "Lincoln Project". Hardly an unbiased source.

[Sarcastr0]

Your goalposts are wrong. A county going full election nihilism is a big deal.

And the MI GOP generally seems into it as well, though not with as many spicy anecdotes.

But all you want to do is pretend the problem isn't happening until it is manifest and then you just go back to your 'victory by any means is what matters' shit.

Ad hominem, too. Just shameless.

[Bob from Ohio]

Learn what "Ad hominem" means for God's sake. You misuse it routinely.

Pointing out bias is not ad hominem. He has a bias on the particular topic being discussed, so his association is properly pointed out.

Saying the"Lincoln Project" was founded by a predator of teenage boys [while true] would be an example of an ad hominem regarding Jeff Timmer.

[OtisAH]

You gave them a new word last week, S, and now they will use it at every opportunity. “Nutpicking” is the new “gaslighting.”

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in a blog full of first amendment experts, I'm still waiting for a post about the exciting Texas judgment saying that employers have a RFRA right to exclude coverage for HPV vaccinations and PrEP from the insurance packages they provide to their employees.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.330381/gov.uscourts.txnd.330381.92.0.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

As long as you can still buy them out of pocket, what's the issue?

[Martinned]

That it's special treatment for whatever religious belief some nutcase claims to hold? And homophobic and misogynistic to boot?

[Kazinski]

I guess those are crimes in the Netherlands.

Here its perfectly legal to homophobic, misogynistic, and theophobic to boot.

[Martinned]

As it should be, but it shouldn't be a reason to get an exemption from generally applicable laws.

[Michael P]

When we want to know about criminal European nutcases, I guess we know who we should look to.

[ducksalad]

The thing is, the RFRA itself is a generally applicable law.

[Martinned]

But not a get out of jail free card.

[Bob from Ohio]

"theophobic"

Funny, when I saw Martinned's post I wondered about a word to describe a bigoted irrational hatred of religious believers.

Not sure "theophobic" works. Do people know the meaning of the root of "theo"?

Internet suggest "religiophobia" but I don't think that rolls of the tongue enough.

Godphobe?

[Martinned]

To take a page out of the Trumpist book: Beware, there's only so long that you can give (allegedly) religious people exemptions from any and all laws they object to before you end up with a society in trouble.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2021-02-01/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israel-must-deal-with-its-ultra-orthodox-insurrection-right-now/0000017f-db6b-df9c-a17f-ff7b50f40000

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, Godphobe. Quoting an opinion piece from a far left paper by another Godphobe. Effective!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You stick with that old-timey superstition, gullibility, backwardness, and bigotry, Bob from Ohio -- it suits you.

The American mainstream will marginalize and disrespect your ugly and obsolete thinking, but that probably will make you happy. Being disaffected seems to suit you, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even supposing that were true, so what?

I get paid in "money", it's fungible. What do you get paid in, special purpose vouchers that can only be spent on specific items, such that if you don't get the voucher for tooth paste, you can't buy any?

Suppose that the government decided that pork was especially healthy, and mandated that a portion of your pay be in the form of coupons that could only be spent to buy pork? I suppose that would qualify as a "generally applicable law", does that mean that Muslim employers would have no legitimate complaint with the law?

We'd all be far better off if all these "benefits" were abolished, and we just got paid in money, that we could spend on whatever we felt like. We should work towards that, and render issues like this moot.

[Nige]

And socialise health care, obviously.

[Martinned]

O, I'm with you on employer-provided health insurance. It's a terrible idea and needs to go asap. The problem is the transition. (And the political will.)

But until such time as that is sorted, I don't think employers should get to make up religious beliefs to get out of stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems like a strange candidate for just making up beliefs to get out of, in the sense that, absent actual beliefs, why would they WANT to get out of the insurance covering those specific vaccinations?

[Martinned]

Because they have secular prejudice against gays and women?

[Brett Bellmore]

Doesn't really matter to me why they don't want to cover those particular vaccines, so long as they're available. I think that the idea that government should be dictating the fine details of employee compensation plans is nuts.

[Ed Grinberg]

I think that the idea that government should be dictating the fine details of employee compensation plans is nuts.

I'd eliminate any and all government interference in the employer / employee relationship. You feel you aren't being treated fairly? Find another job!

[Nige]

Gotta crush those workers under the heel of capitalism, really grind them down.

[Brett Bellmore]

At least the heel of capitalism isn't worn by somebody with an army and the power to use it on you.

[Nige]

Crushed is crushed.

[SRG]

And having affordable healthcare not tied to a particular employer makes that finding another job much easier - and fwiw also encourages small-business entrepreneurship.

[Aunt Teefah]

> Says "I'd eliminate any and all government interference in the employer / employee relationship."

> Immediately calls 911 when his employees get together and start expropriating his business from him.

[Both Sides]

That's falsely assuming there isn't an at least implicit threat of government coercion to enforce "employment at will" legal rules. Now, I'm guessing you prefer employment at will rules to the (more common, in industrialized democracies) "just cause discharge" rules, and that's fine. But either way, it's a legal rule that the government will enforce if necessary.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That's falsely assuming there isn't an at least implicit threat of government coercion to enforce "employment at will" legal rules."

You mean enforcement of laws against trespass, so that the company can stop the fired employee from coming to work anyway? Enforcement of laws against theft, so the company can stop the fired employee from collecting their paycheck at gunpoint? That sort of implicit threat?

[Michael P]

Congress gave unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats a blank check for ordering employers to provide "free" stuff to employees. martinned wants our courts to rubber-stamp that blank check.

[Nige]

God forbid employees should get the health care they need from their health insurance.

[Brett Bellmore]

I get the healthcare I need from my doctor and pharmacist. The insurance is just a mechanism for paying for it, and a lousy mechanism for much of it.

[Nige]

'Via' their health insurance, then.

[David Nieporent]

I will take "Terrible analogies by someone pretending not to understand what insurance is" for $1,000, Alex.

I agree that employer-provided health insurance is a poorly designed kludge of a system. But it's the system we have, and money and specific items covered by health insurance are not interchangeable. (I mean, yes, obviously they are at a certain level. But the employer here isn't offering to provide the cash value of this coverage instead of the coverage, for obvious reasons.)

[Kazinski]

Insurance is actually a system for managing relatively unpredictable events, not everyday expenses, if we kept catastrophic insurance and went back to a pay for service model we'd be much better off.

The medical pricing model is terribly off because the people who use the service have no idea or concern what it costs.

[Sarcastr0]

Insurance is actually a system for managing relatively unpredictable events, not everyday expenses

Says who? Maybe the business has changed since it was invented for sailing ships in the 1600s. The very fact that there is a term 'catastrophic insurance' implies insurance is about more than catastrophes.

The medical pricing model is terribly off because the people who use the service have no idea or concern what it costs.
Or maybe something to do with what drives demand for a pretty large subset of medical services...

This is not a good place for markets. A more efficient system would kill a lot of people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Alternatively, insurance can be a means to time shift the ability to pay, so that when costly, but predictable, adverse events occur, money from pre-payments is available. Note also, even on the time shift model, the question which adverse events, and how costly, will always be answered variably on a case-by-case basis.

So no, predictability is not a sufficient reason to preclude risks from insurance coverage.

[Don Nico]

"We'd all be far better off if all these "benefits" were abolished, and we just got paid in money"
That would be taxed a a person's marginal rate as is would be over and above the base.

[Nige]

It's pretty evil to insert yourself into someone else's health care like that.

[Michael P]

Take it up with Congress. They should have told the executive branch and these boards to not be evil.

[Nige]

Have employers just tried not being evil?

[Ed Grinberg]

It's pretty evil to make A (in this case, the employer) pay for B's (in this case, the employee) health-care.

[Nige]

If they're offering health insurance to their employees, offer it. Stay out of the actual health care their employye requires.

[OtisAH]

Y’know how you can tell Brett has great employer-provided health insurance that he contributes little or nothing to?

He’s very big on other people taking responsibility for themselves and sucking up their own medical expenses.

[Ed Grinberg]

I don't owe you shit (including covering your medical expenses). Neither does your employer.
(And don't start citing laws to me; that's not what I'm talking about.)

[Nige]

But your insurance does.

[OtisAH]

Oh, please, if you have a pot to piss in its a family heirloom that generations of pawn shop owners have rejected.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I don't owe you shit (including covering your medical expenses). Neither does your employer. (And don't start citing laws to me; that's not what I'm talking about.) "

Does an employer owe accommodation to an employee who decides to start engaging in superstition-rooted bigotry against customers?

What about an employee who doesn't want to work on Sunday (because of claimed religious belief)?

What about an employee who refuses to be vaccinated (because of religion-based stupidity)?

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, I have much worse health insurance than I used to prior to Obamacare, and I pay through the nose for it.

[bernard11]

How much would you pay if it were individually underwritten?

[SRG]

Companies have no religious beliefs, so they have no legitimate argument that being compelled to provide healthcare runs counter to their beliefs. Their owners or shareholders, yes, but there is a legal distinction between the company and its owners.

That distinction, between natural and fictitious persons, has been elided by dishonest people like Scalia - who IIRC invented the "closely held" idea out of whole cloth, and even if he didn't invent it, it's utterly unjustified. Either a company is a separate legal entity or it isn't. You can't pick and choose as it suits you.

[Martinned]

That seems to me like a sensible compromise position.

[ducksalad]

Is it possible for companies to have any of the following beliefs?

- A belief in ESG or DEI?
- A belief in serving only kosher food?
- A belief in reducing fossil fuel use, when that is not the most profitable choice?
- An opinion on public laws or public school curriculum?

One assumes not, since companies are not people and do not have beliefs. Does it follow that the state of Florida can prohibit companies from taking any action to further these (no-existent) beliefs?

[SRG]

A company does not "believe" in ESG or DEI. A company's management may conclude that these are long term effective financial strategies that are in the best interests of the shareholders. If the shareholders don't agree, they can vote management out or sell the stock.

A company's management may think that serving only kosher food suits its customers or employees, again, to the benefit of shareholders.

A company's management may think that reducing fossil fuel use is long term profitable - they may also take into account the possibility of lawsuits. It's even possible that the company's management does not itself accept AGW but concludes that the adverse effect on its brand is such that it's worth while economically to switch.

In the last case, the company has no opinion. Management and shareholders do.

Florida has no business telling companies in such cases what it can or cannot do. And meanwhile a business cannot claim a religious exemption for a religion it does not have. I am not aware of any religion that accepts companies as members - there may be, of course.

BTW if a state has a choice between two pension managers, one of which proudly trumpets its ESG credentials, and the other makes a point of acting anti-ESG, and the former has better historical performance for an extended period of time, better control and risk management systems and more experienced staff, than the latter, while the latter has run into regulatory issues in times past, is the state entitled to choose the latter manager simply because they are anti-ESG?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Florida has no business telling companies in such cases what it can or cannot do."

California is telling businesses what kind of cars they will be permitted to make or sell in California after 2035. Whats the difference?

States limit businesses in all sorts of ways.

[SRG]

California is in effect regulating the direct use of the commons.

The examples ducksalad gave were not about the commons - except for the AGW example where the effect of regulation or environmental impact tax may compel the company to reduce its use of fossil fuel.

[ducksalad]

OK, I see your position that the RFRA only protects beliefs and only individuals can have beliefs.

"A company's management may think that serving only kosher food suits its customers or employees, again, to the benefit of shareholders."

Agreed, just like another company may think that it's "niche strategy" is attracting otherwise talented people who hate gays so much they refuse to work for a company that covers PrEP prescriptions.

I fully understand that the government has currently decided to go after the anti-PrEP company, but not the kosher deli. That's the law, I know that. My question is, other than what majority opinion thinks is "icky", is there some constitutional distinction between the cases?

(Note: Pulling a Lathrop and using longer words in place of "icky" is not, IMO, a constitutional argument.)

Suppose some future government is under pressure from vegans to pass a law that every restaurant must have some vegan options on the menu. After some vigorous debate, the following "compromise" is passed:

Any business that offers prepared food to the general public, must offer all the following options: vegan, beef, chicken, fish, and pork.

What's your opinion: good policy, bad policy but constitutional, or unconstitutional? Would you respond to owners of kosher delis that a deli cannot have religious beliefs?

[Josh R]

I'm pretty sure the argument "companies have no religious beliefs," at least as applied to closely-held companies is precluded by Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Additionally, that decision strongly suggests the accommodation afforded to religious organizations must be afforded in this case as well.

[SRG]

Yes. I don't know whether Scalia at his most theocratic invented "closely held" as a spurious rationalisation to arrive at the result he wanted, or whether there was precedent, but in either case it's simply bullshit. It is beyond well-established that a company is a separate person from its shareholders - and that it has free speech rights. You can't hold to that and then claim that the religious conscience of its shareholders nonetheless rules because there aren't that many of them.

[Josh R]

A closely-held corporation was not invented by Scalia or any other justice (Alito wrote the opinion). It's an accepted term for a corporation that does not publicly trade shares. In such a corporation, it can often be crystal clear that the majority of shareholders hold a religious belief (the family owners in Hobby Lobby held all the shares).

I found the hypothetical of a kosher deli that incorporates, but all the shares are owned by the family, to be persuasive that they can have a religious objection to being required to sell pork products. It's worth noting Justices Breyer and Kagan did not join the dissent on whether a closely-held corporation can exercise religion (they took no position, agreeing with the dissent on other grounds) and Breyer went out of his way to to say the deli can in oral arguments.

[SRG]

I know Scalia did not invent "closely held" as a legal description. The issue is whether he invented the idea that a closely held corporation is not a person when it's convenient for the shareholders.

[Commenter_XY]

My understanding of the legal rationale used in order to effectuate student loan cancellations (or is abrogating contracts a more proper term?) is the declaration of a national emergency because of Covid-19. It is now 2.5+ years later. I guess my questions are:

What are the objective indicators that the 'pandemic is over' and how can they be objectively verified?

How will an appellate court or SCOTUS view the legal rationale being used. Will they agree, disagree, toss?

I've read a number of VC posts that touch on the issue. They have been informative. The part that I keep stumbling on is...when is an emergency over, for legal definition purposes? From a legal perspective, how is that actually defined?

[Mr. Bumble]

When ever Dr. Fraudci says so.

[Sarcastr0]

It'll be a fruitless search for objective indicators. Don't ask what, ask who and when.

When does the judiciary get to countermand the other 2 branches and call them on their factual finding being bullshit?

It's an open question. I think we are past the point when the judiciary can inquire into their findings. That's part of why I'm not optimistic about the case holding up in court.

But that's also why I don't think it's an open and shut clearly illegal thing Biden is doing, because the roles of our branches of government are very much not yet clear.

[Commenter_XY]

Indeed...so 'who' Sarcastr0? Nige suggests WHO.

But doesn't the entire legal rationale rest on the assumption there is an actual emergency? If there is no emergency due to covid-19, I would think the legal rationale is just gone.

That is why I am trying to eventually get to: What is the legal definition for when an emergency is over? Or is this completely unsettled law? That is fine if it is not settled law, but maybe we should settle it.

[Sarcastr0]

WHO isn't part of our government. It's not them who decide, though they may be the authority cited.

doesn't the entire legal rationale rest on the assumption there is an actual emergency
I think it should, but as of right now that is not clear. Actual emergency would be a legal finding that the political branches should be overruled. That hasn't happened yet.

There is no legal definition because you're asking the wrong question - first, when does the legal definition start to matter? *That* is the question we are really grappling with.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
"It'll be a fruitless search for objective indicators. Don't ask what, ask who and when."
How can you make such a statement so far from your own competence?
The is plenty of hard data complied by competent groups such as Oxford OWID. From the primary data one can see the degree (highly country dependent) of viral mortality in the Omican era vs the delta dominated era.
In many countries the fatality rate is a third of what it was last year, but in the US the rate in 2022 is still 0.5%, larger that H1N1 influenza.
What has changed more is public tolerance in the US and EU toward stringent control measures that were used in the past. In fact one can see NO correlation between fatality rates or hospitalization rates and the stringency of governmental response.
I also disagree that a judge is not able to view and think about such data in an uncritical manner.
Behar may be correct that some lawyers are stupid, but many are intelligent enough to make competent decisions.

[Nige]

I expect it'll be the WHO who (heh) declare it over, but I dont know what criteria they'll use. Maybe it'll stop being a pandemic when it becomes endemic, which does not mean 'no longer taking measures' against covid' just they they measures have become regularised?

[Don Nico]

It really is not that simple. The course of SARS-CoV-2 has played out very differently in different regions and in different countries.
Whot WHO may call a global pandemic does not actually determine whether an epidemic in a country is or is not an emergency.

[Nige]

Yeah, I expect by the time the WHO declares it over it'll have already burned out in most countries some time before, (hopefully) so never mind.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure what the source of this chart is (though the source of the data is shown at the bottom). But it shows that the US life expectancy has fallen below China's. Now that is almost certainly not true, because China is almost certainly fiddling with its Covid stats more than is reflected in this chart. But the question is: what are the odds that the true numbers would still show China > US, and how embarrassed should Americans be that this is even a question?

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1567548350035070976

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you need to keep in mind that the US, unlike many countries, includes early infant mortality in life expectancy calculations. That really drags our "life expectancy" down, though it doesn't fully account for the difference.

That said, yeah, China is lying on it's death statistics. Why anybody takes numbers issued by totalitarian states seriously has always puzzled me. Of course the numbers out of China are lies. Gross lies, even.

Part 1: Beijing Is Intentionally Underreporting China’s Covid Death Rate

Their Covid numbers are a total work of fiction, why should we even care how they compare to our own?

[ragebot]

"I think you need to keep in mind that the US, unlike many countries, includes early infant mortality in life expectancy calculations. That really drags our "life expectancy" down, though it doesn't fully account for the difference."

RANT ALERT

Lots of health statistics are very different from country. While the early infant mortality rate in the US affects life expectancy in the EU if a "live birth" (whatever that is) dies in the first week of life it is considered still born for statistical purposes. Not to mention things like drug turf wars and even more conventional wars (which the US seems to not call wars but still sends young kids to fight and die in) also drag down the US life expectancy. Another factor is auto accidents in the US (also affected by the lenient US approach to drunk driving, in the EU if you are convicted of drunk driving you lose your drivers license as in it is lost for good unlike in the US where often it is returned in six months or less) kill way more peeps per hundred thousand than in the EU; again dragging down us life expectancy.

[bernard11]

I'd question China's reported numbers as well, but the differences in classification across country have nothing to do with the fact that US life expectancy is has fallen over the past two years.

Maybe Covid is, or was, worse than a bad cold after all.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd also note that the life expectancy projection assumes that the peak pandemic death rates would continue indefinitely; That is to say, such calculations ask "What would life expectancy be if somebody lived their entire life under today's conditions?"

So calculated, life expectancy should always be expected to drop when calculated during a bad epidemic.

[Bob from Ohio]

" fiddling"

LOL Bold face lying is more like it.

All their stats are lies.

"how embarrassed should Americans be "

Why do you come here? You hate us so why don't you comment on Dutch legal blogs instead.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why do you comment concerning modern America -- which you despise because of its reason, inclusiveness, education, progress, science, and modernity -- Bob from Ohio?

Why don't you comment in the "good old days" for which you pine (other than because they are illusory)?

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Why is this even a serious question. First, you admit that the actual rate for China is likely not knowable. So why ask a blatantly plitical question.

But now look a a country whose statistics we do trust, Japan.
Japan's life expectancy is certainly considerably higher that that of the US. Should Americans be embarrassed?
Absolutely not. Diets, lifestyles and underlying genetics are different in the two countries.
Would my moving to Japan make a difference for me? Obviously not

[Brett Bellmore]

But should we trust their statistics in that regard?

More than 230,000 Japanese centenarians 'missing'

Anyway, America is a country of excellent health care which can't quite make up for atrocious habits.

[Martinned]

Habits like being too poor to afford decent (preventative) healthcare?

[Martinned]

Just because the actual rate for China isn't knowable, doesn't mean we can't take a view based on a plausible margin for error. (E.g. +/- a few years.)

As for Japan, like the US it's a developed country. Conditions in China are still miles behind even the US, in many places. Even adjusting for purchasing power its GDP per capita is a fraction of what it is in the US. Never mind its healthcare budget. So if all the money the US spends on healtcare buys it outcomes that are within the margin for error of China's, what does that tell you about US healthcare?

[Don Nico]

Martin, of course you may make an estimate +5% -20%. But doing so would not justify or satisfy your original question.

[John F. Carr]

In April a woman was arrested for protesting outside of the Boston mayor's house. This week a judge threw out the charges. The city had designated the offense a "civil" infraction so defendants would not have the right to a lawyer or a fair trial. But police can't arrest for civil infractions. Case dismissed. The constitutionality of the ordinance, which in effect requires protests against the mayor to be held when the mayor is not home, has not been decided.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/09/05/protests-outside-michelle-wus-home-boston-judge-rules-protester-was-wrongfully-arrested-drops-charges/

[Martinned]

Here's a nice one that might amuse some of you, since I'm (obviously) procrastinating.

Original story in German: https://verfassungsblog.de/wo-ein-klager-da-kein-richter/

Bullet points summary:
- April 2018: The cabinet of Bavaria decides that all public buildings should have a cross on the wall in a clearly visible place, to reflect the history and culture of Bavaria.
- Much outrage understandably ensues. (But there was an election coming up, and Bavaria isn't that different from the American south, just richer.)
- 27 May 2020: Bavarian administrative court finds that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue about this.
- 1 June 2022 (judgment published on Tuesday): The Bavarian administrative supreme court upholds the judgment below. It concludes that putting up crosses violated the state's obligation to be neutral with respect to religions, but that the plaintiffs do not have standing.

This seems right to me, but I'm at least - let's say "amused" - that the court made such clear statements about the merits.

Die vom Beklagten veranlasste Anbringung von gut sichtbaren Kreuzen im Eingangsbereich eines jeden Dienstgebäudes verstößt gegen diese Pflicht zur weltanschaulichreligiösen Neutralität. (...) Die Symbole anderer Religions- und Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften werden nicht in gleicher Weise ausgestellt. Hierin liegt eine
sachlich nicht begründete Bevorzugung des christlichen Symbols im Sinne der vorgenannten verfassungsgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung.

[John F. Carr]

Not even Bruce Selya would put a word like "Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften" in a judicial opinion.

[nonluddite]

"Bavaria isn't that different from the American south, just richer".

According to Wikipedia, GDP per capita for Bavaria (the #3/16 German state) is $57k, which, if it was a state in the US, would make it about as rich as North Carolina or Georgia (#30 and #25). The whole South isn't Mississippi, you know. European GDP per capita are generally MUCH less than US States: richest German state, Hamburg, at $68k would be #9 (behind South Dakota) and the Netherlands are even worse with "rich" North Holland at $62k (#19, behind Wyoming).

Plus, if you factor in the cost of living, even Mississippi may be not that far behind!

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I looked, even with that factored in, Bavaria is significantly wealthier than Mississippi.

OTOH, once you look at disposable income, you find Mississippi is much wealthier than any of the German states, on account of the fact that their taxes are so high that the government is taking away all the difference in income and then some.

[Michael P]

Given what this guy was accused of, unless he forfeited tens of million in bail, he should have been incarcerated rather than on house arrest: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2022/09/06/fat-leonard-facing-sentencing-in-bribery-scandal-is-on-the-lam/

And maybe days of moving vans in front of his house should have been a red flag for local law enforcement.

[John F. Carr]

I gather from recent reporting that the government didn't want to be on the hook for his medical care. Somebody should have noticed the trucks. He was paying the bills for security. Did the security team not want to narc on their employer?

I remember a guy posting online about the curious calls he got from the local prosecutor's office asking if he was feeling better after the traffic accident. The reply was he's going to charge you when you recover.

[Bob from Ohio]

"local law enforcement"

He was a federal criminal. Does local law enforcement monitor such people?

[Michael P]

For "local" read "whomever was supposed to monitor his house arrest". I presume there is someone in the general area who is responsible for that.

[Bob from Ohio]

US Marshal service I believe. NCIS arrested him, maybe Gibbs retirement has screwed them up.

[Michael P]

Nine months in prison, and two years of probation afterwards, because this guy "gesticulated at the officers and at one point briefly pinched the sleeve of one officer": https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-defendant-turned-ex-called-moron-gets-nine-months-prison-rcna46501

Some equal protection of the laws, compared to people who tried to burn down federal courthouses or blow up federal officers who had all charges dismissed for multiple nights of rioting.

[Ed Grinberg]

Who-whom-ism

[Nige]

A black woman was jailed for four years in Alabama after a BLM demo because she made 'comments' to the police.

[John F. Carr]

He pleaded guilty to obstruction, not assault. He got a below guidelines sentence on the obstruction charge. While the plea agreement did not say so, I think he should have been given a minor role reduction.

[bernard11]

Read your link. He did more than that.

[Michael P]

I guess we can be glad that then-mayor John Fetterman didn't take Joe Biden's advice about warning shots with his shotgun: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/oz-backers-launch-ads-attacking-fetterman-pulling-gun-black-jogger-201-rcna46479

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Look at that spin, "the ad could be used to suppress black voters".

Unreal. These people are enemies to democracy.

[Michael P]

It's a "Republicans pounce!" story, of course.

[John F. Carr]

Putin was said to have looked displeased with his military chief when they were together during exercises in the Far East recently. That was before Ukrainian forces advanced 50 km into Russian-held territory in the past two days in the east of the country. (Unconfirmed claim by Ukrainian sources; the confirmed gain is less.) The months-long threat of a counteroffensive towards Kherson in the south caused Russia to move forces out of the relatively unimportant area between Kharkov and Sloviansk in the east. Ukraine attacked that weak spot. For the first time since April Russia is consistently suffering a net loss of territory day after day.

[ReaderY]

I wanted to focus on the Appointments Clause ruling by Judge O’Conner in the latest ACA case.

Would scientific advisory boards that have mechanisms to ensure independence be a violation of the Appointments Clause under this ruling? Does the constitution require that scientific advice that has legal consequences be given only by political appointees?

The religions in the opinion have gotten a lot of attention. I want to focus on the Appointments Clause ruling.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrats at the Census Bureau have interfered in the next 10 years of elections and disenfranchised millions of red state voters by putting their thumbs on the scales and over counting a bunch of blue states.

What should happen to the Federals who caused this harm and what is the remedy?

[ReaderY]

Drink some coffee. Take a laxative. Your bowels will relax and the feeling of being full will pass.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Eat shit, bootlicker.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/may/30/census-favored-blue-states-after-all/

[apedad]

From your link:

"To be clear, we are not now — nor were we a year ago — suggesting some kind of grand conspiracy at the Census Bureau."

Yeah, so no thumbs on the scales....

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Serious question:

Why do you think the authors not suggesting anything means the Democrats at the Census are innocent of any malfeasance?

[Nige]

When did absence of evidence ever stop you from accusing the Democrats of any mealfeasance?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We have Democrats picking up several House seats and electoral counts that they do not deserve.

Which disenfranchises and illegitimately shifts the balance of power and federal funds for a decade.

But of course you don’t care because fascists generally only look at the outcome.

[Sarcastr0]

No, we don't have that. You didn't establish that. You've suggested something, decided it must be true, and now you're angry about it.

[Nige]

Now you're ACCUSING Democrats of winning elections! Fascism!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you people really ignorant of the news about the Census “errors” that over counted 5 blue states by nearly 5% and under counted severa red states like FL and TX?

Wtf

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My bad thinking you ppl knew shit like current events and stuff like that

[Sarcastr0]

You mean the overcounts that the Census told you they did? Because that's who releases overcount data.

Not a very well thought out conspiracy, BCD!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So you do know about the over counts and the impact on the House, electoral votes, and federal funding?

Why did you act like that wasn’t an established fact earlier?

[Sarcastr0]

Because that's not some intentional oversight, it's an expected result of the dumbass requirement it be a complete count, and not rely on sampling.

Because, as I'm sure you haven't bothered to understand, that's how they find the discrepancies - they do a survey and extrapolate. Which is more accurate than a complete count because you can exhaustively focus on a smaller area.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you say it's an expected result when errors of that magnitude are a first in it's history?

[Sarcastr0]

What challenges happened this cycle that may have made things harder than usual, BCD?

Plus, the statistical discrepancy has been generally growing, so the fact that it's bigger than last cycle is not shocking.

It's a good argument to allow sampling rather than a full count. That's all.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Plus, the statistical discrepancy has been generally growing, so the fact that it's bigger than last cycle is not shocking.

Prove this. Also demonstrate how this trend justifies a jump from a sub 1% error rate to a > 5% error rate.

[Randal]

Yeah right, fucko! Prove this: "The Democrats at the Census Bureau have interfered"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I like how you ignorants always try to nitpick some of the lowest hanging fruit.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/mike-causey-federal-report/2017/04/are-feds-democrats-or-republicans-follow-the-money-trail/

Most Federals are Democrats. It's an easy inference to make that most Federals who work at the Census are also Democrats.

It's also not outlandish to think a first-of-its-kind error that shifts political power to favor Democrats carried out by an agency most likely filled with Democrats at a time when Democrats are saying our entire Democracy is under attack by Republicans and whose actions have zero risk of being held accountable for would intentionally do so.

How many statistical miracles do you have to witness before you start think something smells funny?

[Randal]

So the standard isn't proof, it's "not outlandish." Well, it's not outlandish to think that since the statistical discrepancy has been generally growing, the fact that it's bigger than last cycle is not shocking.

It's easy to state a bunch of random thoughts that are "not outlandish." It is outlandish to state a bunch of random thoughts and then require your audience to prove them wrong for you. Prove them yourself!

[Brett Bellmore]

What's not well thought out about it? They only fessed up after it was too late to matter, you notice.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a confession, it's process improvement. They've done that every cycle for decades.
Suddenly it's a plot?

No, suddenly you've decided it's a plot, because you see them *everywhere*.

I've gotten drinks with census people. They have some politics sure, but they are mavens for accuracy and dorky statistical minutia, as you might imagine. That's their priority.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This is the first time they've had errors of this magnitude.

Why are you such a constant gasligthing bootlicker?

[Sarcastr0]

I was trying to figure out your source.

Was it Heritage? Because if so, that article was *trash.* They compared the 2000 total federal error with the error in specific states in 2020, to show it's extra large.

IOW, they lied to you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The source is the Census themselves.

Is bootlicking some sort of reflexive habit for you? You don’t know any facts yet you leap to lick boots as if they were made of sugar and your some fat ass food addict.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure the source comparing the whole US error rate to specific states was not the Census itself.

And if you went to the Census discussion you would have seen their explanation, which you seem ignorant of.

Quit lying.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm sure the source comparing the whole US error rate to specific states was not the Census itself.

Huh? You don't even know what you're talking about, why are you arguing?

The error rates were never compared to the US error to a specific state's rate.

The error rate was to the census rate in particular states compared to an after the fact sampling in those same states which revealed the excessive overcounting of 5 Blue States and the excessive undercounting of several Red States.

Why do you keep defending the Federals on a topic you clearly do not know anything about? But you just keep making up defense after defense after defense.

[Randal]

You don't understand Sarcastr0's comment. But that's not what I want to make fun of you about. It's that you think he's gaslighting you. Which means you think he's intentionally threatening your sanity. Which means your sanity hangs on whether you're right about this alleged census conspiracy, and that you have so little confidence in it that you think he could succeed. Which means you've got the mindset of a cult member.

If you had confidence in your position, you'd have an understanding of why Sarcastr0's challenges were wrong and just call him stupid. You wouldn't feel like he was gaslighting you.

Similarly, if your sanity didn't depend on being right, you'd just say oh that's an interesting perspective Sarcastr0 and go on with your day. You wouldn't feel like he was gaslighting you.

In a debate, when one person is confident and/or dispassionate, and the other person is insecure but passionate, guess which one is always wrong?

[Martinned]

This might amuse some people here: Video of Steve Bannon surrendering himself at the Manhattan DA's office.

https://twitter.com/Italiano_Laura/status/1567863409969954816

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It only amuses the sick fascists who really enjoy political prosecution and a two-tiered justice system.

[apedad]

Tell us BCD, what amuses you?

Twisting the heads off kittens?

Shooting fellow US citizens who don't share your politics?

Here's some things that might be fun for you:

Build a Lego-style fort with all your ammo cans.
Wear tin-foil hats to keep the evil DemoRATS' thoughts out of your head.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Things that amuse me:

Elderly White Urban Democrats getting bricked, murdered or mugged by Diverses.

Democrats in Democrat cities not having water because of corrupt Democrats running their cities.

Democrats in Democrat states suffering because their Democrat power grid can’t handle any variance.

And generally seeing Democrats suffer consequences of voting Democrat.

[Nige]

It's very Shakespearean racism. 'Diverses alarums.'

[Bob from Ohio]

You got Bannon! Congrats.

NY citizens used to be protected against "duel sovereign" prosecutions but in the quest to get Trump they changed that. But Steve Bannon got indicted so who care about those other people.

[Martinned]

I have no idea what Bannon is in trouble for this time, but if you're suggesting that the double jeopardy clause ought to protect people from being prosecuted by both the Feds and one or more states for the same crime, I'm with you 100%. But there was something about originalism or something...

[Mr. Bumble]

You were fine until the last sentence. Originalism has nothing to do with this. If in fact the restrictions and protections of the Constitution apply to the states, this should be double jeopardy.

[Martinned]

Gamble v. United States, Alito, J writing for a 7-2 majority, slip op at 3-4:

As originally understood, then, an “offence” is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign. So where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws, and two “offences.” See Grady, 495 U. S., at 529 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“If the same conduct violates two (or more) laws, then each offense may be separately prosecuted”); Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13, 17 (1852) (“The constitutional provision is not, that no person shall be subject, for the same act, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; but for the same offence, the same violation of law, no person’s life or limb shall be twice put in jeopardy” (emphasis added)).

(My bolding.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Text doesn't support this, "offence" does mean an illegal "act".

[Martinned]

I didn't say I agreed with the argument, but it's what seven justices of the Supreme Court said.

[Mr. Bumble]

I should have said originalism "should" have nothing to do with this (not withstanding court decisions) since when passed the Constitution was considered to only apply to the federal government.

[Sarcastr0]

That would seem to cut against double jeopardy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Clearly the Constitution wasn't understood, when passed, to only apply to the federal government. Take a quick look at Article 1, section 10.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think Bumble meant to write that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. The double jeopardy clause comes from the fifth amendment, as we all know.

[Nige]

Yay! Yet another Trump crook!

Didn't Manafort avoid further prosecution due to double jeopardy? Maybe there's an actual reason Bannon didn't get away with it instead of 'woe is me our poor crooks and fraudsters and traitors are being prersecuted unfairly!'

[Bob from Ohio]

"Didn't Manafort avoid further prosecution due to double jeopardy? "

Yes, since the law was changed after federal jeopardy had attached, the courts said he could not be tried in state court.

Nobody cars about a washed up dude like Bannon but the NY law was a good one, thrown out for no good reason.

[Bob from Ohio]

cares not "cars" in last paragraph

[Nige]

So the difference between Manafort and Bannon is, supposedly, nobody cares about Bannon, therefore they are, supposedly, singling him out like this? Yeah, that makes sense.

[Bob from Ohio]

NY authorities care, regular people don't.

They are going after Bannon because of his Trump connection. Not sure how a rational person can deny that.

[Nige]

Is 'regular people caring' supposed to be a deciding factor in prosecuting fraudsters?

[bernard11]

The million bucks or so he stole doesn't matter, per Bob, because he's a Trump associate and therefore, like Trump, he should be considered immune from all laws.

Cult logic.

[David Nieporent]

Bannon was pardoned before jeopardy attached, so the change in NY law was unnecessary to get him.

[Nige]

Amazing. There's always an actual reason that completely undercuts Bob's assertions.

[Bob from Ohio]

The law was changed because of Trump, that is undeniable. It was a good law, other states should copy it.

[Nige]

Was it? But you're so wrong about so many things! Not sure I can believe you.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its true whether you believe or not.

[Nige]

By conincidence.

[Ben_]

A man endures a struggle session:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/a-struggle-session.jpg

[Ed Grinberg]

They look very "woke."

[John F. Carr]

Bannon is not important enough for me to watch a perp walk.

The indictment is here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22277007/steve-bannon-and-we-build-the-wall-final-indictment.pdf

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative
blog has operated for

TWENTY-NINE (29) DAYS

without using a vile racial
slur* and has operated for

THREE (3) YEARS

without imposing (new**) hypocritical,
viewpoint-driven, partisan censorship.

* so far as we are aware; we might have missed one or two

** certain elements of longstanding censorship continue in effect

[Mr. Bumble]

The Rev. Arthur L. "Costco" has spoken.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Costco is a great company.

I encourage everyone who can afford and use a membership to join. I encourage those who can't afford or use it along (cost, quantities) to pool resources with others to arrange membership and shopping.

I encourage anyone who does not live near a Costco to try to move to a civilized community.

[Currentsitguy]

I can only add I encourage anyone who joins to spend the extra and get an Executive Membership. If you do any significant shopping there the rebate you get more than pays for the membership fee.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you break even?

[Currentsitguy]

Well the rebate can end up covering the membership fee. There's no rebate with the regular membership though it is cheaper.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good point. And not just the executive membership -- get the credit card, too!

[SRG]

Their protein bars (made by Power Bar, I think) are very good value. It's worth paying for the membership just to receive a couple of boxes a month.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why not just buy Power bars?

[SRG]

Power Bar no longer make the equivalent bar under their own name, the recipe is slightly different (Power Bars are sweeter and have more calories - indeed, are slightly outside my general purchase rule for protein bars, which is no more than 100Cal per 10g protein) and price - Costco's is about 25% cheaper.

[M L]

Ironically, now that MMT has been implemented, no one wants to talk about it anymore.

How the Modern Monetary Theory Experiment Lost (Badly) to Basic Economics

https://fee.org/articles/how-modern-monetary-theory-experiment-lost-badly-to-basic-economics/

[Martinned]

MMT has been implemented

WTF are you talking about? MMT is a way of talking about macroeconomics. It's not a policy that can be implemented.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the sign of MMT being implemented:

Attempting to stop the spread of Covid, state and federal governments coordinated to shut down nearly every business in the United States. Then, following the model of MMT, the federal government decided to spend, and spend, and spend, to combat the shutdown it had just imposed.

That author though.

Kellen McGovern Jones:
-Trump Gives Joe Rogan A Bit Of Advice On How To Deal With 'Radical Left Maniacs'
-Billionaire Slams Whoopi Goldberg, Warns Of Anti-Semitism
-To Defeat Critical Race Theory, Here's What We Must Do ("Few remember today that education in America began with Christianity. .."
-Dear God, Why Is Church So GIRLY?
-A Future Without Fear: Will a Trump Administration lawsuit eradicate HIV and AIDs?

Another winner from ML!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Attacking the messenger is what imbeciles do.

[Sarcastr0]

Good thing I first talked about the content, then, eh?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What about the second half of your comment? The part only an imbecile would write?

Did you write that?

[Sarcastr0]

Attacking the messenger implies I didn't engage with the message.

But I did.

In addition to being wrong, ML is bad. He's cultivated a media diet of bigots and trolls. I enjoy and find utility in pointing that out.

Thanks for the tone policing, BCD, but alas you've failed again!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm not telling you that you should behave differently, I'm just telling you only morons do what you did.

You keep doing you.

[M L]

Sarcastro,

FEE is a good site with a lot of good articles, written at a level intended for comprehension by the average person. This level of explanation is appropriate for many, and maybe too high level for some such as yourself, as demonstrated by your inability to form any coherent substantive response in your own words, as per usual regardless of topic. If you'd like something more academic or whatever, you'll have to prove yourself capable of understanding and discussing the topic first.

[Sarcastr0]

Queen's dead. Or very close to it.

The mattering levels are expected to be low.
But the drama levels will be very high in some quarters.

[Nige]

Possibly pre-emptive condolences to her family, but I hope the monarchy goes with her.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would not end the monarchy immediately.

I would give the royals 48 hours or so to disclaim the titles and benefits (including assets) associated with the monarchy before imposing adult supervision to whatever extent necessary.

I might be tempted to reduce that to one hour with respect to the Saudis and perhaps a few others.

[Mr. Bumble]

Possibly pre-emptive?

You are such an ass.

[Nige]

What if she gets better? Then I'd feel silly.

[Michael D]

"As an exercise, and without claiming that my arguments are decisive, I'll contend that constitutional monarchy can better preserve people's freedom and opportunities than democracy as it has turned out in practice."

"Constitutional monarchy cannot solve all problems of government; nothing can. But it can help. Besides lesser arguments, two main ones recommend it. First, its very existence is a reminder that democracy is not the sort of thing of which more is necessarily better; it can help promote balanced thinking."

"Second, by contributing continuity, diluting democracy while supporting a healthy element of it, and furthering the separation of government powers, monarchy can help protect personal liberty."

Yeager, L. B. (2011). Is the market a test of truth and beauty?: Essays in political economy. Chapter 21, "A Libertarian Case for Monarchy", pp 37-42. Ludwig von Mises Institute.

[Sarcastr0]

History may have provided a few cases against monarchy, both for libertarians and also for other reasons.

[Bob from Ohio]

History has provided a few cases against every type of government.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, you a monarchist Bob?

I'm also not sure leaning into my understatement says a lot.

[SRG]

I'm a republican in principle, but it seems that the north-west European constitutional monarchies work well for people in general. I can't say I missed the monarchy when I moved to the US - not even close - but every so often I was reminded of how ugly it can be when the head of state is some elected politician.

[Sarcastr0]

north-west European constitutional monarchies work well

Can't argue, except that for all of them the monarchy part seems increasingly not an important part of their government.

I used to think that a ceremonial head of state was a good lighting rod for the national need for drama. I no longer think drama is a conserved quantity, so I'm not there anymore.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you a monarchist Bob?"

A figure above partisan politics to serve as head of state in a parlimentary system beats having the government of the day elect one of its party loyalists as president for 4 or 6 years. It provides stability.

[Sarcastr0]

Monarchies provide stability?

That's a pretty ahistorical take.

[Bob from Ohio]

I am talking about modern "constitutional" monarchies in a parlimentary system. Head of state above politics exercising few powers, a symbol. You might even say a parental figure to the nation in a way.

Perhaps I should have said continuity. Prime ministers come and go but the monarch remains over time, though of course not usually for 70 years.

[Sarcastr0]

I like parliamentary systems, but I don't buy the need for a national symbol. The US is a fine counterexample; we've had a very good civic nationalism without a monarch.

I'm not such a republican it keeps me up at night - in fact, I rather liked the English monarchy when I was younger. But nowadays it seems a pretty unneeded expense. And a miserable job.
And is a similar tradition-for-its-own-sake expense worldwide.

[Bob from Ohio]

"very good civic nationalism without a monarch"

We have an elected term limited monarch with real power.

Ceremonial presidents still live in palaces and have staff and other costs as well.

In the particular example of the UK, the US interest in the royal family is worth billions in tourist dollars.

Geopolitically, this interest helps tie the UK closely to the leading power, helps it punch above its weight internationally. How much is that worth to the UK? The UK without the monarchy would be treated by the US like Italy.

You need not agree of course.

[Nige]

The Queen vetoed or exempted herself from quite a few little laws to her own personal benefit.

[shawn_dude]

It's good to be a Queen.

[Martinned]

The Queen has been on the throne for about 30% of US history. When she passes, UK public life will come to an immediate halt, because it will be the end of an era.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the start of a new on with Camilla's tampon as king.

[Martinned]

Since we were talking about the marvels of the First Amendment the other day, just to note: You do realise that you're publishing that statement in the UK too, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

Should I be expecting a visit from New Scotland Yard?

[Martinned]

Doubtful. They're not that competent.

[Mr. Bumble]

I am curious as to how long you think the monarchy will survive with Charles as King?

[Bob from Ohio]

Why ask him, he's not even British.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well he's certainly closer to it than you are.

[Bob from Ohio]

You see his other comments, right? He doesn't know much of anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey Bob, piss off. When I think I need your advice I'll ask for it.

[Martinned]

The monarchy isn't going anywhere.

If you're seriously trying to get a sense of numbers, think of how many people supported Jeremy Corbyn (as opposed to the Labour party generally). Of the genuine Corbynistas, maybe half are republican. Outside of the far-left, nobody is. So by my count that gets you to about 10% of the population, about the same percentage that support Britain becoming the 51st state of the US.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can understand support for the monarchy, but wonder how much support there will be for the new monarch. He is such a douche.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, that is the question. The late queen managed with grace and sympathy for her position being thrust on the throne at 25 when her father died young. We will see what happens when Charles takes over.

[Martinned]

You know that Prince Charles, is now King right, not Prince Andrew? I know of no one who has a problem with the new King. I wouldn't say that he is anywhere near as popular as his mother, but most people probably think of him as a bit odd, a bit incapable of understanding the normal lives of ordinary people, not very warm. All of those are shortcomings for a head of state, but they fall well short of serious character flaws.

On top of that many of the things that gave the then Prince of Wales a reputation for being a bit odd were things that he warned about decades before anyone else started paying attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/prince-charles-climate-environment/2021/11/01/0f238ab2-39b4-11ec-9662-399cfa75efee_story.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned:

Funny how his warnings and predictions still ring hollow. Talk about out of touch.

[Nige]

Every prophet in his house.

[Martinned]

P.S. It appears that the new King is not supersticious, because he is taking the regnal name of Charles III.

(I seemed to recall that he'd said he would be George VII to avoid the association with the Stuart kings, one of which got his head chopped off. Must be misremembering.)

[Mr. Bumble]

...and here I thought he'd pick Tampon I.

[SRG]

The monarchy in Britain will last for a long time - the queen built up a huge goodwill credit and it's hard to imagine that Charles III can dissipate it all. But I wouldn't be surprised to see Australia become a republic very soon - supposedly the only reason they hadn't up until now was not wanting to upset the queen (even Aussies can be sentimental) and that enough Aussies liked and respected her as queen. There's no reason to suppose they'll extend that like and respect to Chaz.

[Martinned]

The first question is some of the other Commonwealth countries where Queen Elizabeth was the head of state, like Jamaica. I understand that in some of them the law basically just says that Queen Elizabeth, specifically, is the head of state, meaning that they have to change it to bring King Charles in.

In the bigger countries where Queen Elizabeth was head of state, on the other hand, the transfer is automatic, and the debate about ending the monarchy pretty much goes on as before. (They won't really notice any real difference, since day-to-day they have a Governor-General appointed by their government, so King Charles's specific suitability, character, etc., won't become a politically relevant factor until he makes a state visit.)

[Martinned]

Still procrastinating, so I looked up the constitution of Jamaica: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Jamaica_2015.pdf?lang=en

I think that the issue is that, throughout, it speaks of "Her Majesty" and "Queen", and that apparently there is no legal rule that requires that such a reference in the female must extend to the male when it is logical to do so. So they have to amend the constitution to turn 38 instances of "Her Majesty" and 5 instances of "Queen", into "His Majesty" and "King", respectively.

[SRG]

BTW Charles becomes Head of the Commonwealth, though not by right as the Queen's heir, but because it was agreed a while ago that he would be her sueccessor.

[Brett Bellmore]

I feel a bit sorry for her family, as I would for anybody who was losing a loved one, but you can't even say she's dying prematurely.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like you're spreading mis-information.

[Nige]

She's dead.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well she wasn't when he posted and you offered your pre-emptive condolences.

[Sarcastr0]

Suck it, I'm a prophet.

[Bob from Ohio]

You could try being respectful instead of an a** once in awhile.

[Sarcastr0]

Tone policing from Bob from Ohio?! That's pretty rich.

There are those who I respect and would listen to on that front. You're not one of them.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its fine dude, I don't respect you either.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird you care about my tone, then.

[Bob from Ohio]

Weird then that you constantly police my tone.

[Sarcastr0]

? I actually think your tone is fine - well better than most on here.

It's your utter open and proud lack of principles I find abhorrent.

[Nige]

She was pretty 'close to it,' though.

[John F. Carr]

The Queen is dead. Long live the King. Or not, but switching from a constitutional monarchy to another form of government takes some planning. Somebody should be in charge of recognizing the official government. A ceremonial president, maybe. And how do you choose him?

[Bob from Ohio]

"A ceremonial president, maybe."

Faceless, often elderly, politicians as president are worse than a modern limited monarch. King Juan Carlos stopped the 1981 Spanish coup, would some semi-retired politician [perhaps from the same party as the government] have been able to rally the nation as well?

[shawn_dude]

What *actual* function did the Queen actually provide to the UK government outside of using her position to exempt herself and her family from some of the laws they found inconvenient? Aside from the very significant quantity of tax money they collected?

The official government in a democracy is supposed to be recognized by its citizens, not the tail end of a long line of inbred autocrats. Elizabeth can be lauded for her significant efforts at diminishing the Crown's role in running the country and excoriated for the way she used her authority to enrich herself and her family. There's no governmental need for the British monarchy. Spin them off from the government and let them pay taxes on their castles and turn their drafty childhood homes into B&Bs like the rest of the peerage.

Biggest impact if the monarchy went private? The tabloids would have to find someone else to leach off of.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

All federal facilities are flying the flag at half staff for the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. It seems like a slap in the face to our Revolutionary War dead to lower the flag for an English monarch.

[loki13]

I haven't commented in a while, mostly because of the signal to noise ratio.

That said, I would hope someone starts paying attention to the damage that the so-called "Trump judges" are doing. The desire to get a bunch of young and ideological jurists with more vim and vigor than, you know ... experience and common sense ... is starting to have a deleterious effect on the federal judiciary (and, we get more ideologically charged state picks as well, the state judiciaries).

I used to be relatively unmoved - after all, the jobs of most federal judges (ESPECIALLY in the district court) wasn't all fun & games & political cases; it was a lot of criminal cases, and boring ol' civil litigation.

But these judges ... a lot of them are terrible. The decisions they are making in the cases you don't hear about? Terrible. There is increasingly little certainty in practice- even now, the idea that there was a decision like Sambrano v. United Airlines is beyond bizarre.

I've often said that I'd rather courts be wrong, but consistent in how they are wrong, than be inconsistent. As a practitioner, it's increasingly difficult to advise clients on issues that should be simple, especially when you get some of the recent judges appointed. It's not even that you know that they'll be wrong in a consistent manner- you have literally no idea if they're going to be following normal bedrock legal procedure.

It would be nice if there would be some general acknowledgment of this here. Not just the isolated pearl clutching of "Oh, that Aileen Cannon seems to not understand the issues, or equity, very well." But more of a, "Sure, we want to put in some young ideological warriors for life, but could we have at least made sure that they got the 'boring areas' of the law correct? You know, because 99.9% of cases aren't about overturning Roe v. Wade? And these judges, when they get bored, or going to screw with people in all the areas of the law ... and being a federal judge is mostly a boring job, with a lot of boring cases and boring litigants."

[Commenter_XY]

I hear you, re: signal to noise.

May I ask a question...Is there any objectively verifiable data that classifies and categorizes article 3 court judicial decisions by appointing POTUS? That might actually be pretty interesting. There would be quantitative and qualitative assessments to do that, no (to produce that data)?

[Martinned]

Related question: Is there any analysis of judicial nominations depending on whether the President's party also controls the majority of the senate? That is, has anyone tried to show that presidents nominate more centrist/moderate judges if the senate is controlled by the other party? And, if so, has that changed over time?

Seems like the kind of thing you'd study with the same dataset, so I thought I'd throw it in...

[Commenter_XY]

Good add.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Early in my career, one would look at overmatched local judges and say 'well, at least the state judges are better' or, when observing the inadequacies of state judges, be comforted by 'at least the federal judges tend to be competent.'

No more. Trump and the Federalist Society have ensured that America will be afflicted by shitty federal judges for decades. That's one of the enduring middle fingers lesser citizens have flashed at their betters lately.

I wonder whether Trump-nominated judges will become even more disaffected and contrarian as an improving modern American society continues to reject their stale, ugly conservative thinking.

[Bored Lawyer]

I have been practicing for over 25 years, and have been before judges appointed by presidents of both parties, including Trump. There is quite a range, from the incompetent, to the mediocre, to the good to the brilliant. I have not seen a corrolary between who appointed them and competence. I was before a Trump-appointee, in a "boring" commercial case, and she was excellent, sharp as a tack, disposed of the legal issue quickley and efficiently. And I have been before an Obama appointee who was awful, had no understanding of the law at issue, and wasted a lot of time.

So your complaint is unproven. Are there awful judges out there? Sure. Are the Trump appointees on average more awful? Has not been proven to my satisfcation.

[Bored Lawyer]

correlation, not corrolary

I once again curse the lack of an edit function hear.

[bernard11]

Was "hear" intentional?

If so, congratulations.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One President taught Con Law (the most prestigious law school course) at the most prestigious law school in his home state. The other believes that as President he could order judges to "sign bills" and we can be sure has never read the Constitution, not even the comic strip version.

One can assume that one President has actually looked at the qualifications of the judges he appoints, and understands what makes a judge qualified or unqualified, and the other has not.

[Brett Bellmore]

The President who taught Con Law studied the Constitution the way pest exterminators study entomology. He'd come right out and state that he constitutionally lacked the power to do something, and then proceed to do it anyway. He may have understood the Constitution, but he didn't much care for it.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett.
Obama would rescope what he wanted to do to fall within the realm of potential executive action. Same purpose, but not as effective or long-lasting as his initial plan. Each time.

You know, a nuanced an intentional version of same thing you defend Trump for doing - 'hey, it's not expressly illegal, so you can't complain.'

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he would literally come out and say he couldn't constitutionally do things, like DACA, and then do them anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

He rescoped DACA from his original plan to one that fit within executive power.

Did you forget the many discussions we had on this?

[shawn_dude]

Could you re-phrase them in the form of a conspiracy theory?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ha ha! Beautiful.

[Bob from Ohio]

Do you really think Obama looked deeply at the qualifications of every district court judge? Conducted personal interviews?

Trump's judges mainly had the same credentials [elite law schools, federal clerkships] as Obama's.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Federal clerkships may lose their luster, as conservative judges award those positions for embrace of minority ideology rather than on traditional qualifications. That system has become a taxpayer-funded affirmative action program for strident conservatives.

[Bored Lawyer]

None of which tests your thesis against reality. As I have stated here before, I am an empiricist. In my empircal experience, the Trump nominees are, on average, not better or worse than those of other presidents. I grant that I have been before only a limited pool of judges, but that is more than your empty speculation.

Trump let lawyers who are eminently qualified review and recommend, so the different you posit is not dispositive.

And Obama clearly had an ideological bent to his nominations. I doubt he was capable of, nor cared, how well his nominess would handle commercial, intellectual property or other such cases.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have been involved in judicial selections for a number of years. The Trump nominees were . . . different. Different than Democratic nominees. Different than Bush nominees (I .

Different and not better, except perhaps from the perspective of disaffected, strident right-wingers.

[Commenter_XY]

Really? You have been involved in judicial selections for a number of years? In what capacity, Arthur?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Assisting with evaluation of candidates seeking nominations or endorsements.

Also, sometimes assisting judicial candidates and sometimes opposing judicial candidates.

[Commenter_XY]

I really would like to read more of your unvarnished appraisals, devoid of the rhetoric. Seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

As I have stated here before, I am an empiricist. In my empirical experience

Self-generated ratings are not empirical.

You're not an empiricist, you're just another a guy with opinions. Dressing them up with a word you don't understand won't change that.

[Bored Lawyer]

You've earned muting. Sayonara.

[bernard11]

Trump let lawyers who are eminently qualified review and recommend, so the different you posit is not dispositive.

But what were these "eminently qualified" lawyers looking for? That's the issue, isn't it?

Sure, they may have come up with some good ones - blind hogs and whatnot - but the question is what they weighted and what they didn't.

[shawn_dude]

Trump's number one criteria appears to be obedience.

[Ben_]

What should Europe do?

A. Just give Putin anything he wants to get the gas turned back on
B. Abandon Green policies and burn as much fossil fuel as it takes to keep from freezing and keep factories operating. And resolve to keep doing it in the future.
C. Shut down industrial production so there's enough energy to stay warm, knowing that a significant amount of that production will never come back online.
D. Let Europeans freeze to death.
E. Declare war on Russia and invade.
F. Something else.

[Martinned]

A combination of B, C, and D.

Reserves are actually better than previously reported, so it seems like we'll be OK. For example: https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/09/netherlands-hits-target-of-filling-gas-reserves-to-80/

[Ben_]

Should Greens change their policy positions to cause (or empower, or enable, or whatever word you prefer) less death (D) and destruction (C) ?

[ducksalad]

Even total reversal won't get them out of their short-term problem (this coming winter) because it takes time to switch to nuclear or return to coal.

Some (C) and (D) is going to happen, and in the planning for 23-24 the Greens are going to find themselves somewhat less popular. Although as Martinned said there's some exaggeration, doomsday talk almost always is exaggerated.

[Ben_]

That doesn't really answer the question of what's the right policy for Greens to advocate. If they change to a policy prioritizing Europeans to sacrifice less instead of more, how is their policy position distinct from any other?

[Nige]

The right policies for Greens are to keep advocating for Green energy, since it's fossil fuel policies that got Europe into this mess.

[Ben_]

Blame doesn't create energy.

"keep advocating for Green energy"

Does it matter whether green energy policies can realistically produce the needed energy to prevent death and destruction?

And you didn't mention conservation or other sacrifices. Are you also saying that conservation and sacrifice by Europeans should no longer be advocated by Greens?

[Nige]

Continuing with the policies that created this situation isn;t going to do anything but prolong the situation.

It matters because they have to be made to do that, and we've knpw that they would have to be made to do that for decades and largely ignored it.

Conservation is absolutely necessary, but will be most effective on a national scale. The first sacrifice should be rich people's excessive use of energy for their favourote luxuries.

[Ben_]

The existing policy is Greens intended to shut down nuclear plants without enough non-Russian gas.

And Greens pushed to switch from burning European coal to Russian gas.

And Greens pushed to operate cars using electricity from Russian gas instead of non-Russian petroleum.

Now the nuclear shutdown is partly postponed. I haven’t seen anything about bringing old coal plants back online or using diesel generators or encouraging Europeans to wait a couple years before switching to electric cars.

[Nige]

The nuclear plants weren't shut down by Greens. Everything you describe is happening because warnings about fossil fuel dependency were ignored, and noy just the climate change ones.

[Ben_]

Europe and the US have plenty of coal. They could have continued burning coal then Putin would have no leverage.

The only other reasonable power generation in Northern European winter is nuclear. Little sun for solar. Everything else is a novelty.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The nuclear plants weren't shut down by Greens."

Give us all a break, I doubt even you believe the Greens weren't the driving force behind that.

[Nige]

Nobody wants to extract and burn coal, except Trump and a few lingering coal industry survivors. It'd be like huffing chlorine gas to cure the flu.

Believe all you want, Greens on the whole don't like nukes, but they like fossil fuels even less and are concerned with careful transition, shutting down the nukes while increasing dependence on Putin had everyone scratching their heads.

[Ben_]

Greens would rather Europeans freeze to death than see coal get burned to save their lives.

[Nige]

More people would die from the air pollution from burning coal than from the cold - it's a solution worse than the problem it's supposed to fix. Millions die every year from air pollution as it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Continuing with the policies that created this situation isn't going to do anything but prolong the situation. "

I agree, but it is the Green policies that created this situation.

[Nige]

It wasn't Green policies that failed to transition away from fossil fuels and kept Germany dependant on Putin's gas.

[Ben_]

"Transition away from fossil fuels" to power generation that does not exist.

They can do that transition this winter by just turning off everything and freezing to death.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, they do seem to have succeeded in transtioning away from fossil fuels, but it's been similar to jumping out of an airplane and deciding to transition away from using a parachute: Throwing away the parachute doesn't magically give you wings.

They committed to abandoning the fossil fuels before actually creating an alternative that worked, on the premise that lack of fossil fuels would create that alternative.

It didn't, it just created shortages.

[Nige]

We have to abandon fossil fuels, if the alternatives aren't ready, it's not because Greens and scentists and literally everyone paying attention wasn't yelling about the necessity of getting them ready. Those shortages can all be laid at the feet of everyone who decided to prioritise fossil fuel profits.

[Ben_]

He thinks "yelling about the necessity" should have magically created electrical power generation.

[Nige]

No, listening to the people yelling might have helped.

[Ben_]

Neither yelling nor listening generates electricity.

[Nige]

Duh.

[Ben_]

"The first sacrifice should be rich people's excessive use of energy for their favourote luxuries."

Environmentalism is rich peoples' favorite luxury.

Another luxury rich people like is allowing huge numbers of migrants to live in the country.

But Europe isn’t really very rich:

https://fee.org/articles/most-of-europe-is-a-lot-poorer-than-most-of-the-united-states/amp

"MMost European countries (including Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium) if they joined the US, would rank among the poorest one-third of US states on a per-capita GDP basis, and the UK, France, Japan and New Zealand would all rank among America’s very poorest states, below No. 47 West Virginia, and not too far above No. 50 Mississippi. Countries like Italy, S. Korea, Spain, Portugal and Greece would each rank below Mississippi as the poorest states in the country."

[Brett Bellmore]

Their heavy-handed governments kept their growth rate well below that in the US for decades, at least until our own government got to be as bad. That had a pretty big cumulative effect.

[Martinned]

Environmentalism is rich peoples' favorite luxury.

And yet it isn't rich people who suffer most from climate change.

[Nige]

Unless the rich people got rich from frossil fuel profits or other extracitve industries, i don;t care about their environmentalist hobbies, I care about environmental policies.

Get used to it. Population movment is going to increase drastically the worse the climate crisis gets. That's one reason the more xenophobic types should consider getting behind fixing it.

[Ben_]

It isn't rich people who suffer most from anything, ever.

Environmental policy is hardest on poor people. Pollution is hardest on poor people. Winter cold is hardest on poor people. Summer heat, hardest on poor people. Policing crime is hardest on poor people. Not policing crime is hardest on poor people.

Everything is worse for poor people.

Repeating platitudes makes shallow people feel good about themselves, but It provides no practical benefit to anyone.

[Nige]

Pollution is hardest on poor people but fixing pollution would also be hard on them, somehow! Which is to say, our society is designed in such a way that the people responsible for environmental destruction are enabled to put the burden for ending environmental destruction on the poor as much as possible. Something should be done about that.

[Ben_]

You should change it by wishing. That's your solution to non-fossil fuel electric generation.

Or you could do the thing that caused poor people to do better than rich people in that society where that happened. When did that ever happen? (Spoiler: it doesn't. It may seem like it very rarely for a very short time, but it doesn't last.)

[Nige]

'Or you could do the thing that caused poor people to do better than rich people in that society where that happened'

The French Revolution? Bit extreme.

[Ben_]

And even the most extreme thing anyone ever did produces only very temporary changes until things revert back to the natural order. Because poor and rich aren't happenstance in aggregate.

Pretending otherwise is a waste of time at best and massively destructive at worst.

[Nige]

Yeah, there won't be any sort of order or nature left if we don't get off fossil fuels and do somehting about saving the environment.

[Kazinski]

Well I have to agree with you there, Europe's policies of making fossil fuels as widely and as cheaply available as possible got people used to being warm and well fed in the winter. Now that they are used to it they don't want to go back.

But it's not really necessary, I spent January and February of this year in a completely unheated dwelling, no heating of any kind not even a wood stove so it can be done.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or they could follow KJP's advice and get their gas from Nordstrom.

[Martinned]

Wait, they were supposed to buy their gas at a US department store?

[Mr. Bumble]

That's what she said.

[ducksalad]

An unpleasant but survivable mix of B through D.

B can't be implemented fully because a lot of natural gas applications can't be quickly replaced with other fossil fuels.
C can't be implemented fully because a lot of industry is stuff like food processing and transporting food.
D is a bit of an exaggeration, after all people lived in Northern Europe before there was natural gas or electricity. Except for the far north or a few weeks of cold snap it's more about discomfort than mass death.

[Brett Bellmore]

Unfortunately, I think some of D is a precondition to solving the problem, which is 'Green' policies. Things have to get bad enough that the people of Europe stop letting the Greens run things.

The Greens would likely prefer A, and at some point are going to try to get it.

[Nige]

The problem isn't Green policies, the problem is fossil fuel policies.

The Greens would not 'prefer A.'

[Mr. Bumble]

Whatever it is their against it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Greens would prefer D to B. But if the population won't permit D, they'll prefer A to B.

[Nige]

Nope.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's my prediction, based on the fact that the Green movement in Europe (And not just in Europe!) has been funded by Russia, and they weren't getting that money for nothing.

The Greens are actually Watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the inside. In the end they'll do what's in Russia's best interest, not Europe's.

[Martinned]

Yes, transitioning away from fossil fuels is a secret plot to help Putin! You got it all figured out!

[Nige]

These days Putin much prefers to fund right-wing/religious/anti-woke types. And, of course, generously contributes bots and disinfo campaigns to help Republicans get elected.

[Nige]

What'll actually happen is a big effort to increase natural gas storage capacity, which could well be online by next spring. I doubt there's any going back to letting Putin control energy supplies.

[ducksalad]

Where will the natural gas come from? Middle East and North America, mostly. If they expect us to increase North American production and get it to them, that means more leases of public land for gas production, more pipelines, more fracking, and more LNG port facilities. And if that is to happen in a scale of months/years rather than decades/lifetimes, there would need be less opportunity for opponents to inflict lengthy procedural delays.

Since that's not likely to happen, Europe will effectively switch their dependence on Russia to dependence on various Middle Eastern governments. At some point in the future, those ME governments will use their power the same way as Putin.

[Nige]

Maybe, if they develop goldfish memories. Which isn't out of the question.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like voter fraud, if you don't look for it you won't find it. There has been now real exploration for recoverable gas in most of Europe. On the other hand Israel has discovered and is producing natural gas from offshore gas fields and is producing enough to supply their own needs and also export it.

[Ben_]

One such source is the EastMed pipeline.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EastMed_pipeline

But the Biden Administration withdrew support for it in January 2022 "citing environmental concerns over impacts at odds with the administration's move away from fossil fuels."

Biden has not reversed course on this, despite the Europe's obvious need for (non-fanciful) alternative energy sources that aren’t Russian controlled.

[shawn_dude]

This is an immediate problem that will not be fixed by spending years building out new fossil fuel infrastructure. If you're committed to spending 3+ years getting new wells and pipelines built, you could just as easily build out solar, wind, and geothermal and avoid investing in something without a future.

Saudi Arabia already uses its energy supplies to influence foreign governments. There are repeated examples of that across much of the past 70 years in this country. OPEC ring any bells?

[Jimmy the Dane]

You have to put yourself in the shoes of an internationalist environmentalist that not only believes all of this stuff, but is not going to be the one that suffers under any policy decisions. From their perspective:

C - that is a great solution. Less carbon emission and the world can make due with less production. It might be hard to get used to increased scarcity at first but it is all for the greater good.

D - humans use too much HVAC and it consumes way too much energy. Really a household can be about 90 degrees in the summer without any ill health benefits other than some discomfort and as low as 60 degrees and all you have to do is put on a sweater. Once people get used to the "new normal" and "grand reset" of expectations, no one will complain, but yeah transitions are hard.

E - maybe, maybe not. Wars produce a lot of waste, but there are too many people. If it gives the central planners control over a large percentage of the world's raw energy production then the ends justify the means. Just don't expect them to turn back on the gas if Russia folds.

F - the something else is going to be continuing the push for depopulation in the West. Remember these folks think there are too many people and heritage Europeans are bad anyway. It might take another two generations, but curtail reproduction numbers and eventually time will solve this problem. Oh yeah, third world immigrants, once you are have been used for cheap labor expect the same policies to be coming your way.....

[Nige]

You don't know what environmentalists think.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Unfortunately I do. If you actually listen to them at their word when they talk about things like "overproduction" and "overpopulation" taking them seriously, which most of them are, then yeah above is exactly what they would like to do. These people are no longer the crazy guy at the public meeting who once heard a guy invented a perpetual motion machine that would make free energy or had an engine that would run on water vapor stolen by the car companies. These people are now in charge of most ABC's, NGA's and major corps. If that doesn't scare you then nothing will.

[Nige]

No, they're not. Billionaires do scare me. Most of them are smart enough to realise the wreck of the planet they've made generating their wealth, but they're more interested in doomsday bunkers and Mars colonies than fixing it.

[jb]

The obvious one is for Germany to turn its nuclear power plants on, which it seems like they're at least holding open the option on.

Although it will be painful, presumably the market will allocate the remaining natural gas supply reasonably efficiently to prevent the worst of either C or D, and some amount of B will happen as well. On the plus side, this should pretty rapidly get the European economy significantly less dependent on Russian natural gas.

[Brett Bellmore]

The ones they shut down, they bombed the cooling towers, to make restarting them really slow and expensive. It was a deliberate move to make going back impossible even if something like this proved shutting them down had been a mistake.

[shawn_dude]

I think the larger issue here is electrification. Natural gas and electricity are not interchangeable for heating without a massive turnover in installed household appliances. In the timescales necessary to install millions of heat pumps in Europe, you could also install many thousand solar panels and wind turbines.

[shawn_dude]

Interesting set of options. That you didn't think to include items like "walk back plans to shut down existing nuclear capacity" or "ramp up green policies in combination with seeking new sources of fossil fuels in the short term" is telling.

The problem Europe has with burning fossil fuels is that the majority of them were coming from Russia or are intertwined with Russia such that local replacements are scarce. The US is only happy to ship fuel to Europe, of course, and some of these countries have access to coal and some crude. By the time new wells could become productive, cheaper sources of energy, like wind and solar, could be constructed.

[Michael D]

Tons of comments about the 2020 election, election denialism and ultimately Trump. 2020 seems to be a culmination of decades, or more, of outrage over election outcomes. The commentary reflects what this article articulates:

Democracy is war by other means. Superficially, it is waged with ballots instead of bullets. At the end of the day, those ballots become bullets. Elections load real guns and aim them at real people. If you disobey the commandments handed down by elected officials, beefy men with shaved heads and Ray-Ban sunglasses will come to take you away. If you resist them, hot lead will fly. Elections are scrambles for control over the service weapons that propel those rounds. In such contests, every faction is trying to point the gun barrels at someone else.

One faction democratically seizes power and influences policy. Members of vanquished factions are shot, caged, or looted at a higher rate. Some of this loot becomes the spoils of war for the victorious: government checks and freebies of various kinds. But then a coalition of aggrieved factions wins the next election, and the tables turn. The expropriators are expropriated until power changes hands again. All take turns as victims and victimizers in an endless round of reciprocal violence.

In this war, all sides are net losers, save one: the government.

That is because “war is the health of the State.” When Randolph Bourne coined that phrase, he was referring to military warfare, and World War I in particular. But the reasoning behind his maxim also applies to the formalized civil war that is democracy.

The State and War
For Bourne, the State and the government are two different things. The government is a ruling organization that is distinct from the populace it rules. The State is much more than that, and much less.

More in that it includes everyone in the country. It is a mystic union of the entire populace, including both rulers and the ruled. It is the many becoming one and acting as one. E pluribus unum.

Less in that it is imaginary. The State is a fiction that exists only in the minds of its believers. It is a superstition, an incoherent concept, because the many cannot act as one. Only individuals act. Individuals act similarly when they obey the same commandments. But it is still the individuals who are choosing such obedience.

The State is a make-believe entity to which over-awed believers ascribe preferences, will, and agency: essentially, a god. True believers in this god (“patriots”) slavishly adhere to its preferences. They swallow the confused, incoherent notion that the State exists as a manifestation of their own collective will that works for their own collective benefit. The church and its god are one. This superstition that, in some vague sense, they are only enslaved to themselves makes such bondage easier to accept.

In other words, the State is a herd mentality: an inclination in a person to renounce his individuality and subsume himself into a herd, a pack, a tribe, a horde, a gang, a cult, a collective. The believers revere and defer to their own “togetherness” as if it were a god. Deutschland uber alles.

War is the health of this deified herd called the State because a state of war is a state of desperation, of flight or fight, of primal terror and hate. In such a besieged frame of mind, individuals dismiss the moral principles of civilization as unaffordable luxuries. The human soul regresses to unthinking indulgence in base animal impulses, renouncing civility for the law of the jungle. Toward enemy populations, it is eat or be eaten, kill or be killed, capture or be captured, plunder or be plundered.

Other human beings are no longer deemed useful as voluntary partners in creative work, mutually beneficial trade, and friendly company. Instead, they are either fellow conscripts or enemies.

Insiders are considered useful only insofar as they are dutiful members of your herd, your pack, your tribe, your horde, your gang, your cult, your collective: only insofar as they contribute to the strength in numbers necessary to overrun, eat, kill, capture, and plunder outsiders.

Refractory individualists who fall out of line are shamed and coerced into conformity. Failing that, dissidents are ultimately shunned as heretics, rogues, outsiders. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” And outsiders are excluded entirely from the moral community. They are considered menaces and only useful as prey, as slaves, as sources of loot.

In times of war, the pack must swarm in tandem; the herd must stampede in unison. In order for a collective to work coherently and deliberately toward a single war effort, it needs not only regimentation, but leadership. So people under siege seek a leader of the pack, a shepherd of the flock. This leadership is sought in the government.

But even an oligarchy can prove too fractious for coherently prosecuting a war. So the people ultimately long for a single strongman, a dear leader, a führer.

This is why governments are so eager to embroil their subjects in wars. The exigencies of war trigger bestial antagonism and collectivism that drive people to flock to the government’s feet like sheep and bleat to be shorn of their liberties.

Democracy as War
Democracy is a form of warfare. What sets it apart from other forms is that it is a civil war of legal plunder.

Legal plunder is a term coined by Frédéric Bastiat. We might also add legal murder and legal kidnapping. These activities, which we rightly regard as crimes when committed by anyone else, become uniquely legitimized when committed by agents of the imaginary State-god. Robbery becomes taxation, kidnapping becomes incarceration, murder becomes foreign policy.

Before the rise of democracy, legal plunder was simple and stark. The government was a distinct clique that “legally” plundered the people. The rise of democracy blurred the distinctions between rulers and the ruled, and thus disarmed popular resistance to the regime. With democracy, the plunder became highly participatory. Bastiat called it “universal legal plunder.”

By supporting the welfare state and high taxes, the less-rich plunder the affluent and the rich. By supporting industry regulation, protectionism, and subsidies, rich producers plunder their less-rich consumers and competitors. Bastiat said, “The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” And everybody plunders by proxy via the same middleman: the government, which gets a cut of every pile of loot. So the government has a strong material incentive to pit its subjects against each other.

And it’s not just plunder. In the wars on terror and drugs, for example, Americans murder foreigners by proxy and cage their neighbors by proxy, all in order to “feel safer.”

What we have with an interventionist democratic state then is a Hobbesian state of affairs: a formalized proxy civil war of all against all. This kind of war is the health of the State, too. Democracy has the same impact on the human psyche as military war, only more low-grade and chronic.

Since lives and livelihoods are on the line, political battles also induce desperation. The desperate times offer an excuse for desperate measures: for excluding political enemies from the moral community. Non-violent drug offenders can be buried alive in prison for decades. Christian bakers can have their finances and lives ruined for exercising their right to refuse service. All’s fair in politics and war.

In order to overwhelm political enemies, voters resort to the same kind of rank tribalism as do jingoists. Instead of nations, the relevant collective “herds” are political parties, interest groups, “movements,” etc. Partisans shout down any disloyal dissent emerging from within their ranks.

Political violence is mob violence. The larger the crowd, the more anonymous its violence. And the impunity of anonymity, like the impunity of authority, unleashes man’s capacity for evil. Under the shielding anonymity of the lynch mob and the voting booth, any atrocity is on the table.

Partisans vilify members of enemy political tribes. To prosecute their inter-tribal warfare, they become reliant on the government apparatus, which they use to inflict and defend against proxy violence. Never mind that it is that very institution that enables and emboldens others to hurt them: that pits all sides against each other. All factions are so preoccupied with using the government against each other, they are oblivious to the fact that the machine of power is their true and common enemy.

Partisans, like patriots, clamor for leadership in order to be herded toward the sole objective of defeating the political enemy. They rally behind and take marching orders from their political leadership.

Democratic politics is a vital power ritual for the government. It makes the government all-important, all-relevant, all-preoccupying; this is especially so during election season. Each side’s enemy candidate is demonized as an existential menace who can only be warded off by throwing all support behind your party’s candidate. “Candidate X is not perfect, but we must stop Candidate Y!”

If your candidate wins power, you become doubly loyal to the regime to keep the enemy herds down. If your candidate loses, you become doubly determined to help your tribe regain its grip on the levers of power. Dismantling the machine is the last thing on your mind.

Using democratic politics to foment civil strife is how the government divides and more fully conquers its subjects.

Sanchez, D. (2016, November 5). Democracy is war by other means. Dan Sanchez. Retrieved September 8, 2022, from http://www.dansanchez.me/feed/democracy-is-war-by-other-means

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you really expect anyone to wade through this?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I stopped at "election denialism"....

It is nice when you get code words straight up front that tell you it ain't worth your time.

[Sarcastr0]

There is an oddly high number of right-wing monarchists on twitter. I think there's a Christian strain as well.

I don't think they do very well in the wild.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You do know most of that traffic is bots right? I don't think you do...

[gormadoc]

It is better to quote the important parts while pointing readers to the source. You'll notice that EV does not put entire court decisions in his posts.

[M L]

Skimmed this and it seems quite good and very much correct.

Unless I missed it, the author does not explicitly venture any prescription to address the problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've said something like this before: Democracy is basically a war game. Rather than going to war to decide who gets to rule, at ruinous cost, we hold a competition to see who would probably in the war. We call that an "election". But it requires numbers, organization, resources, in everything but the guns it's a war, which is what makes it a war game.

As long as elections are viewed as fair, they produce civic peace, because the loser of the election knows they'd lose a civil war, too. Allow cheating, and that certainty disappears.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not how people work - not everything is about checking how violence would turn out.

Consent of the governed is another thing. So is just civic loyalty to society.

Being terminally online may make you think otherwise, but humans are not by and large about to pop off and shoot everyone they disagree with so they can rule at last.

[Nige]

'we hold a competition to see who would probably in the war. We call that an "election"'

This is so profoundly stupid. We hold elections because we are a communal, co-operative species who prefer peaceful ways of resolving dfferences and finding collective solutions to collective problems. We also love to argue about who's got the best solutions but sooner or later we have to pick a solution, and appoint or designate people to carry them out, and we don't actually want to get into physical fights over everything.

[M L]

Politics is, indeed, war by other means. That was said more than 200 years go I believe. "Democracy" is a near synonym for politics.

I don't agree that elections are "to see who would probably win in the war" as Brett said; who wins an election has very little to do with who would win a war.

But democracy/politics/elections is war by other, more peaceful means. It can have increasingly deleterious effects, as described in the article above. And the problem is that the power rituals and dog and pony shows serve and further the more perverse interests of the government, just as Randolph Bourne said War is the health of the State.

[Sarcastr0]

You have the quote backwards ML - war is politics by other means.

Though one evocative quote is not a great authority to appeal to. It leads you to saying really dumb stuff like "war by other, more peaceful means."

As to the rest of your take, I guess you're joining the libertarian monarchist guy who says streetcorner shouter stuff like politics and wars are intentional plots by "the government" to strengthen itself?

[Nige]

War is the failure state of democracy/politics/elections, not their model.

[dwb68]

By thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court, enacting so many dumb restrictions, and then having the arrogance to defend it, New York is spoiling gun control for the rest of the country. I know, the gun prohibitionists hope otherwise. But NY already thumbed their nose at the Supreme Court twice, it did not go well for them.

[Mr. Bumble]

Too bad there is no provision for contempt of the SC.

[Bob from Ohio]

United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (1906) is a criminal contempt case involving "Sheriff Joseph F. Shipp and five others of Chattanooga, Tennessee, having "in effect aided and abetted" the lynching of Ed Johnson" in violation of a S/C decision.

[John F. Carr]

You lose qualified immunity if you clearly defy an unambiguously on point decision related to constitutional rights. And then the government agency that employes you has to pay the plaintiff's legal fees. So not a great deterrent.

Part of the problem is the courts are too willing to do fine surgery on a statute to save part of it. If I were a judge I would throw out the entire list of sensitive places where guns are banned and not try to separate the good from the bad. There was a bill proposed, pre-Dobbs, that gave a dozen different abortion cutoff times in the alternative so judges could pick the strictest consitutional law instead of going through an injunction-amendment-review cycle. Same thing, in my opinion, not worth saving any part of.

[bernard11]

If I were a judge I would throw out the entire list of sensitive places where guns are banned and not try to separate the good from the bad.

Nah. You'd make sure your courtroom was on the list.

[Martinned]

Statement of President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden on the Death of Queen Elizabeth II

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was more than a monarch. She defined an era.

In a world of constant change, she was a steadying presence and a source of comfort and pride for generations of Britons, including many who have never known their country without her. An enduring admiration for Queen Elizabeth II united people across the Commonwealth. The seven decades of her history-making reign bore witness to an age of unprecedented human advancement and the forward march of human dignity.

She was the first British monarch to whom people all around the world could feel a personal and immediate connection—whether they heard her on the radio as a young princess speaking to the children of the United Kingdom, or gathered around their televisions for her coronation, or watched her final Christmas speech or her Platinum Jubilee on their phones. And she, in turn, dedicated her whole life to their service.

Supported by her beloved Prince Philip for 73 years, Queen Elizabeth II led always with grace, an unwavering commitment to duty, and the incomparable power of her example. She endured the dangers and deprivations of a world war alongside the British people and rallied them during the devastation of a global pandemic to look to better days ahead. Through her dedication to her patronages and charities, she supported causes that uplifted people and expanded opportunity. By showing friendship and respect to newly independent nations around the world, she elevated the cause of liberty and fostered enduring bonds that helped strengthen the Commonwealth, which she loved so deeply, into a community to promote peace and shared values.

Queen Elizabeth II was a stateswoman of unmatched dignity and constancy who deepened the bedrock Alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States. She helped make our relationship special.

We first met the Queen in 1982, traveling to the UK as part of a Senate delegation. And we were honored that she extended her hospitality to us in June 2021 during our first overseas trip as President and First Lady, where she charmed us with her wit, moved us with her kindness, and generously shared with us her wisdom. All told, she met 14 American presidents. She helped Americans commemorate both the anniversary of the founding of Jamestown and the bicentennial of our independence. And she stood in solidarity with the United States during our darkest days after 9/11, when she poignantly reminded us that “Grief is the price we pay for love.”

In the years ahead, we look forward to continuing a close friendship with The King and The Queen Consort. Today, the thoughts and prayers of people all across the United States are with the people of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth in their grief. We send our deepest condolences to the Royal Family, who are not only mourning their Queen, but their dear mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother. Her legacy will loom large in the pages of British history, and in the story of our world.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/08/statement-of-president-joe-biden-and-first-lady-jill-biden-on-the-death-of-queen-elizabeth-ii/

[Mr. Bumble]

Interesting that the longest serving and best monarch were women (Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II).

[Martinned]

The first few women who ruled England all didn't last very long. (I.e. the empress Matilda, Lady Jane Grey, and Bloody Mary.) But since then women on the throne have been doing pretty well, indeed.

[Kazinski]

The best Queen England had was Queen Anne, ironically she was the daughter of one of England's worst Kings, James 2. Her reign solidified the transition to a limited monarchy, Robert Walpole who became the first Prime Minister started his career as a minister in Queen Anne's cabinet. She was also the last Stuart monarch.

During her reign England supplanted France as the preeminent military power in Europe and forced France to give up its designs on the United Provinces and Spanish Netherlands, at least until Napoleon. She did have to concede Spain to the Bourbon's although they were hardly any worse than the Habsburgs.

[Darth Buckeye]

It is the end of an age. Just wow.

[Mr. Bumble]

New monarch, new PM. This should be interesting.

[Aunt Teefah]

Bloody shambles innit mate. No petrol for me flat, and now some new wanker taking over at Noncingham Palace.

But for real, RIP Bozo - she had a good run.

[Mr. Bumble]

Always adding so much to the conversation.

[Nige]

Stop that. Comedy has been canceled for the duration.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Worse, they canceled this weekend's premiership games. Bloody outrage! What the hell am I supposed to watch now, American football?

[apedad]

“Part of the problem is the courts are too willing to do fine surgery on a statute to save part of it. If I were a judge I would throw out the entire list of sensitive places where guns are banned and not try to separate the good from the bad.”

Sheeesh….

One minute you guys think decisions are too broad, next minute you think they’re too narrow.

[Aunt Teefah]

"I have information that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton."

- Queen Elizabeth II, September 8, 2022

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're implying it was a suicide?

[ducksalad]

I believe in the Commonwealth (at least in Canada) they refer to it as self-euthanasia, and doctors sometimes recommend it.

[Aunt Teefah]

Pretty suspicious, certainly. Perfectly healthy 96 year olds don't just die like that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any recent gifts from Meghan?

[BrotherMovesOn]

You're still here?
Ugg

[SRG]

Well, the queen did meet Hillary Clinton, so who knows?

[ducksalad]

Question: how much role does Congress have in deciding what "privileges and immunities" are protected by the 14th Amendment?

For example, could Congress decide that publicly-funded health care is one of our privileges, and pass laws ordering all states to provide that privilege, and put Texas under a special master to ensure they implement it?

Could a very different Congress decide that one of our privileges is to live under a primarily laissez-faire capitalist system, and pass laws putting California and New York under pre-clearance regimes?

[Bored Lawyer]

Short answer, acc. to SCOTUS, none.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey Sarcastro, here's a fresh article from main Reason for you to stick in your tin foil hat file:

https://reason.com/2022/09/08/almost-40-percent-of-college-students-feel-uncomfortable-sharing-a-controversial-opinion-in-class/

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that sucks.

But it has nothing to do with your conspiratorial thesis about diversity offices across the nation intentionally making people afraid on purpose in the tens of thousands.

[bevis the lumberjack]

This is precisely what I was referring to - last year’s survey - and I said that DEI people are. It themselves diverse and that they don’t actually believe in diversity. I never had a conspiratorial thesis, that sprung from your imagination.

And yeah that sucks is the best you got? It seems as if the DEI bunch sucks at their jobs and that we could save a lot of money (and reduce the need for all that evil college debt) by canning the whole kit and kaboodle.

[Sarcastr0]

Want me to link your post to you a fourth time? You said they are intentionally invoking fear. Which is a conspiracy, since they don't appear to be saying that. And also has zero evidence supporting it.

As to not believing in diversity, I don't know that policing peer-based social opprobrium is in their ambit.

You're finding a crisis in students feeling pressure to not be themselves. Do you think feelings of alienation and fear of peer judgment is just now a thing?!
I think there are things that could be done about it, like the recent anti-bullying push. But don't pretend this is new, emergent, partisan, or an emergency. It's Holden Caufield for the younger set.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ooh, you gonna punish me dad? No need. I know what I said and I know what I thought and I know that your mind reading skills need a lot of work. Can’t you just do a “sorry, I misunderstood”? I’ve done it. It really doesn’t hurt at all.

And you’re declining to notice that despite - or because of - the efforts all these DEI people that there is a significant subset of students of a certain political view that are scared to say what they think. The DEI people could be advocating for diversity of opinion, but for whatever reason they don’t.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Dude, you deliberately picked a fight with him. Now you're upset because he is fighting back? Calm down.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigots are uncomfortable being known as bigots these days?

That is one of the great achievements of the American mainstream during my lifetime. During my childhood the bigotry was open, common, even casual. That our vestigial bigots no longer want to be known as bigots -- at least, not in public -- constitutes great progress.

[IsaacDanielcm]

Okay, Groomer.

[shawn_dude]

Calling people gay or by association, a pedophile, lost a lot of its sting in the past two decades. The vast majority of the country, including loyal Republican voters, don't think there's a problem with being gay, getting married to the same sex, or believe the old stereotypes about gays.

Calling someone a pedophile says more about you than your intended target.

[Ridgeway]

BCD isn't afraid...

[bernard11]

Meanwhile the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the abortion rights amendment will go on the November ballot, despite the efforts of the scum-sucking Republicans on the canvassing board.

[Jimmy the Dane]

It is telling that demoncrats are the party of death and have made baby killing legality one of their top issues....

[jb]

It's telling that Republicans really love to adopt wildly unpopular political positions and then have to resort to anti-democratic tactics to either get them to stick or try to avoid the predictable blowback at the polls.

[Aunt Teefah]

“Let the states decide.”

“No, not like that!”

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hell, at least it's an actual policy position out of the Republican side. Lately it's seemed as if their only policy position has been "Trump was cheated!!!!" That seems to be the determining factor in all of their primaries.

[shawn_dude]

That and fear-mongering about black people and LGBT people. Which, to be honest, they've been doing since at least the 1970s (when most of the MAGA Republicans were already old enough to vote.)

[BrotherMovesOn]

You'd rather it not be on the ballot?
Not presented to the voters for affirmation?

[IsaacDanielcm]

It is also telling that modern women, when given political power, focus on "free" stuff for illegitimate mothers and killing babies.

[jb]

Presumably they mostly don't like the idea of having to carry their rapists' baby to term or put their lives at risk because some dumbass 80 year old dude doesn't understand that ectopic pregnancies aren't actually ever going to be viable so we don't really need to wait until she's already about to die to terminate it.

[shawn_dude]

You're upset about "killing babies" but also don't want "illegitimate mothers" to have access to the sorts of things they'd need to give birth to a healthy baby.

Do you see no contradiction here?

[Brett Bellmore]

Speaking as a former Michiganian, I assure you that the canvassing board is bipartisan in their suckage. The scum sucking Democrats on the board are just as bad. See the history of the Michigan Civil Rights initiative for proof of that.

[Sarcastr0]

You know what has nothing to do with the post you replied to? Whether Dems are just as bad.

I get the reflex to respond to your side acting badly with pointing to the other side, but it's tu quoque. It's a fallacy - an off-topic fact that feels on topic to those for whom everything is about the zero sum political binary.

It's a reflex you should resist.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Sarcastro, I do understand that in your Bizarro universe, it's forbidden to put anything into context.

I don't live there.

[Sarcastr0]

Ensuring that no one says anything bad about the GOP without you saying something bad about Dems is not context.

'MI GOP did a shitty thing' is not made less true or less shitty by adding, 'MI Dems have also done shitty things.'

That may be a salve to your tribalism, but it is not substantively anything at all.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Reply was to Jimmy

[Michael P]

In good news, it looks like boffins from Oxford have come up with a nicely effective, cheap vaccine against malaria: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-62797776.amp

80% isn't as high as one would like, but it's leaps and bounds better than the previous best (Mosquirix). Hopefully this vaccine keeps more effectiveness over time.

[John F. Carr]

"Up to" 80%.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I saw this posited somewhere:

If the Holocaust happened as portrayed and the Allies saved all those Jews from the gas chambers, shouldn't the Jews be building monuments to their White Western rescuers, singing their praises instead of writing article after article, implementing policy after policy about how all Whites need to be sterilized and exterminated. They are ungrateful to their liberators.

This suggests the following dilemma:
If the Holocaust was real, and the Jews hate their liberators, doesn't that suggest Hitler might have been right about them?

However, if the Holocaust wasn't quite as advertised and Jews freely attack their liberators with no guilt, doesn't that suggest what we're told about the Holocaust isn't quite true?

[SRG]

I saw this posited somewhere:

Right, you just happened to come across it.

Do all of us write such articles, or is it only a radical few, who are no more representative of us than, say, Goebbels represented all of you?

And perhaps we're not quite as grateful as you might expect because our liberation was only a side-effect of the war against Hitler, many of us who attempted to flee the Holocaust were sent back, those liberated were sometimes treated abominably by their alleged rescuers - at least some Jews were murdered by GIs in refugee camps - see
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1888363320/reasonmagazinea-20/

And https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/american-response-to-the-holocaust

[SRG]

And https://aish.com/holocaust-survivors-torment-after-liberation/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is that the same book where that survivor talks about the Eagle and Bear torture, lol?

[SRG]

Fuck off, you neo-Nazi POS

[BravoCharlieDelta]

True or False:

There is testimony from one or more survivors that claims some sort of torture with eagles and bears?

[David Nieporent]

False. There is no such testimony.

One 82-year old guy was once quoted in a newspaper article 50 years later saying that the Nazis killed a few prisoners that way. It was probably not right (but the Nazis did have a zoo there with eagles and bears, so it's not like it's fantastical). The reporter didn't ask whether the guy was passing along a rumor or had seen it personally. And only neo-Nazis have brought it up since.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How does this blog -- ostensibly an academic blog -- attract such an astounding concentration of delusional, disaffected, right-wing bigots of various bigoted stripes?

By design, of course.

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will let you know how far and how long, though.

[Nige]

What sort of anti-semitic Nazi bullshit is this?

Possible answer: why would anyone build a monument to people like you, who claims membership of the tribe or class of people who liberated them. Stolen valour.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why would one wish the destruction of the liberators from genocide?

[Nige]

What, wish destruction on the soldiers who liberated the camps? Who did that?

[Nige]

Also easy to forget, for some reason, their exterminators were also white westerners. From that point of view any ambivalence would be entirely understandable.

[Ridgeway]

Now that BCD has outed himself as an actual Holocaust denier, I think we can all safely mute him.

No need to engage with him on any level.

[Both Sides]

This is the correct response. Well, mute or not, probably best not to engage with Holocaust deniers, especially about the Holocaust and Jews.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where do I "deny the Holocaust"?

next up:

DAS RAAAYYYYCIST!

[Sarcastr0]

bed-wetting by a bunch of programmed NPCs who are forbidden to be skeptical of any Jewish claims.

Seems like the Jewish claim you're skeptical of is the Holocaust.

Weird attempt to be cagey right after you put it on the table like that.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Or, you know, the one I specifically referenced:

“‘In the camp there was a cage with a bear and an eagle,’ he said. ‘Every day, they would throw a Jew in there. The bear would tear him apart and the eagle would pick at his bones.’"

You know, or that one. Right? Like the one I specifically referenced. Wouldn't it seem like that one? You know?

[Sarcastr0]

That is a random story that did not appear in your OP.

In other words, it's a new goalpost.

You're continuing to play games. Almost as though you know that your remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But you are amusing yourself, for it is your adversaries who are obliged to use words responsibly, since we believes in words. You have the right to play. You even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, you discredit the seriousness of your interlocutors.

[Both Sides]

Going against my own advice, but your original quote began, "If the Holocaust happened as portrayed. . . ." The "if" is Holocaust-denier phrasing, but of course you could clear it up by saying that what you meant was "Given that the Holocaust happened as portrayed. . . ."

More broadly, I will point out that folks like BCD are strong counter-evidence to the "Nazis were LEFTISTS, 'Socialist' is in their party name!" take. Among many other problems with that argument, modern Nazi types (as BCD appears to be) are clearly aligned with the modern political right-wing (which BCD obviously is). That is, I stress, not to say that all, or even most, modern right-wingers are Nazis. It is, however, to say that Nazis are right-wingers.

[Sarcastr0]

You're getting pretty well roasted, as I'm sure you knew you were courting but did anyway for weird negative attention seeking reasons.

What I want to call out others have not yet is this 'ungrateful' bullshit.
That kind of entitlement to generations of fealty is the thought process of someone who doesn't understand how doing good things works.

We're not entitled to shit from the Jews; we did a good thing because it was good. As with all people, they are each free individuals, and that means allowing them to make their own decisions. To insist otherwise is as much of a plantation as the strawman Republicans talk about for Democrats and African Americans.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm getting roasted? lol what?

I posed a question, and in return I got a bunch of name-calling, crying, and bed-wetting by a bunch of programmed NPCs who are forbidden to be skeptical of any Jewish claims. Even some of the most absurd ones.

[Nige]

I can't believe you turned out to be a Holocaust-denying anti-smeitic racist neo-Nazi. Whatta twist.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

DAS RAAAAYYYCCCIIIST!

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/042/151/jnjyxa31o8_thats_racist_animated1.gif

[Nige]

Well, it is.

[Martinned]

O wow. I thought Trumps judicial appointments were generally pretty sane (because Trump didn't get involved in them). But this story about Judge Cannon looks pretty bonkers: https://twitter.com/PeterVroom1/status/1567676844203249664

[John F. Carr]

The substance of the tweet: she's too inexperienced to be a federal judge.

I wonder if she had heard of a motion in limine when she was nominated.

[David Nieporent]

The "story" — a series of pointless gotcha tweets — is not bonkers at all. She had the right experience to be a judge, which is why the ABA (an officially non-partisan, but quite liberal organization) gave her a qualified/well-qualified rating.

You can tell the guy is engaged in spin, because he writes: "In an attempt to show writing experience, Cannon listed 17 short articles from a 2-mo undergrad stint at El Nuevo Herald." But that's not "in an attempt to show writing experience." It's answering the question fully, as she was supposed to do.

Basically, he's seizing on a bunch of unimportant stuff that doesn't have anything to do with whether she's qualified to be a judge.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I remember many years ago reading in a William O. Douglas autobiography that he didn't care about ABA judicial nominee ratings, because he felt the organization was too conservative.

[Michael P]

It looks like my alma mater struck the right tone in response to a professor writing something sadly typical of the left yesterday: https://twitter.com/CarnegieMellon/status/1567975991330615297

[not guilty]

In a blistering order, Judge Donald Middlebrooks has dismissed the scattershot damages lawsuit filed last spring by Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton and a multitude of other defendants. The judge retained jurisdiction to adjudicate issues pertaining to sanctions. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22277852-trump-v-clinton-order-to-dismiss-docket-267-sept-8-2022