Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Washington Post reports that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton requested the Texas Department of Public Safety to compile a list of individuals who had changed their gender on their Texas driver’s license and other department records during the past two years. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/14/texas-transgender-data-paxton/ This is the same Ken Paxton who previously advocated child abuse investigations of parents who provide gender affirming care for transgender adolescents.

What is with Mr. Paxton's strange fixation with other people's genitalia? It seems perverse to me.

[Doug Heffernan]

Maybe he wants cops to have the information so that they can use the correct pronouns when they pull over someone for a ticket?

[apedad]

You mean the information listed on a Texas drivers license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety is not good enough for the Texas Attorney General?!?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I recently had to renew my TDL and this renewal was an in person one. Texas is so hung up on illegals that the documentation requirements are extensive. Ridiculously so. And Texas would not accept the Texas issued expiring license as either proof of ID or proof of address. So no, it doesn’t seem that the state accepts its issued for much of nothing.

As for “what’s with Mr. Paxton?”, well, he’s just a bad, bad human being. You can comfortably expect that he’s planning something illegal or unethical. It’s how he rolls.

[Longtobefree]

You may have hit "REAL-id" rules rather than purely Texas madness.

[Davedave]

It seems like yet another case of everyone except the transphobe in question realising his obsession is because he is transgender. He'd be so much happier if he just admitted it to himself and acted accordingly, but instead it comes out as this irrational hatred.

[Nige]

Calling women they don't like 'secretly male' is a right-wing thing, maybe leave that style of transphobia/misogyny to them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretending it's a secret that, for instance the assistant Secretary of Health, is a guy, is a stupid Democratic rhetorical tick. It's not even the slightest bit secret that he's a guy.

[Nige]

Lots of people predicted that the current wwave of right-wing transphobia would also result in the targeting and harassment of cis women who were not conventionally 'feminine' in appearance. They were right. But since right wing transphobes said the same things about Michelle Obama, I think they'll happily let the conventionally 'feminine' thing slide when it suits them, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where "targeting" means nothing more than not humoring some guy's claim to be a girl. Levine is a guy, not a masculine looking girl. He fathered two kids back when he was admitting to being a guy. That's a pretty definitive test for being male.

[Nige]

Ah, so she is trans and your transphobia can’t cope with another person's identity. But any prominent trans person is going to be targeted for hate and harassment from the right, unfortunately, so yes, ‘targeted.’

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Ah, so she is trans and your transphobia can’t cope with another person’s identity."

Who's not coping with another person's identity, other than not seeing that person the same way that he sees himself?

"But any prominent trans person is going to be targeted for hate and harassment from the right..."

Who hates the assistant secretary of health?

Do you have any thoughts where you're not just pulling stuff out of your butt?

[Nige]

'Who’s not coping with another person’s identity, other than not seeing that person the same way that he sees himself?'

That. That's not coping. Also, it's a 'secret.'

'Who hates the assistant secretary of health?'

Transphobes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you don't have any thoughts without pulling things out of your butt.

[Nige]

I never let transphobes anywhere near my butt.

[Krayt]

I guess gathering up lists of people does bother folk, in some circumstances.

Lists of gun owners, or people who signed petitions to get something on the ballot, not so much.

[not guilty]

How is it of any concern to the Attorney General's office that a driver has changed the notation of gender on a driver's license?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Because he’s a Patriotic Believer in Liberty and it brings him joy to see how many people have availed themselves of their personal freedom?

No?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How is it of any concern to the Attorney General’s office that a driver has changed the notation of gender on a driver’s license?"

Good question. Has anybody asked him?

[not guilty]

The linked Washington Post article states that Paxton’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Probably to protect against identity fraud.

Dick becomes Jane -- and even if Dick's birth certificate is changed to read "Jane" (which Massachusetts now does), there's still gonna be copies of it floating around. Likewise other identifiable documents with Dick's name on them

So John then becomes Dick, and Jane is none the wiser because she is now Jane.

[Darth Buckeye]

Dick becomes Jane. I trust that Texas and its counties update their voter registration and poll lists to change Jane's registration. Otherwise you will have duplicate accounts.
In some states, this seems to be a feature. Live ballots will be mailed for Dick and Jane...perhaps to more than one address.

Such fun.

[TwelveInchPianist]

First "non-binary" senior administration official fired for stealing women's luggage, on two occasions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

20 years ago, he would NEVER have gotten a security clearance.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he's got a new, Umm "Aquaintance" Nome, Sane???

[Dr. Ed 2]

If he doesn’t know about — heck can’t see -- all the security cameras at an airport, how on earth is he qualified to evaluate the security in which decommissioned nuke plants secure their cask storage of nuke waste?

And it isn’t his stealing the luggage as much as him lying about it, because if he will lie about that, what else will he lie about?

It’s not his sexuality that bothers me but how on earth did he ever get hired to do this job? And the ones he inevitably had to have before this to be “qualified” for this job???

What makes me think that he danced through all those interviews, with no one daring to say he wasn’t qualified lest they be blacklisted as a transfobe or something.

[Frank Drackman]

Senescent Joe just had a Huge Shing-Ding at the White House celebrating nothing but Genitalia, of course Joe's a strange Pre-vert.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Joe's been credibly accused of sexual assault by Tara Reade, a former staffer in his office.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know if that's supposed to be an ironic commentary on the people promoting the accusations against Kavanaugh, but no, Biden has not been credibly accused by Tara Reade. She's not credible and her story isn't credible.

[Doug Heffernan]

'Tis the season to be jolly
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la ...
la

[BrotherMovesOn]

Anyone seeing Way or Water!

[Mr. Bumble]

Time to don gay apparel?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Avatar: Way of Water

[BrotherMovesOn]

3-D in a good theater is very cool.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Babylon Bee's review can be summed up as follows: "Three hours of running water, without a bathroom break." LOL!

Still, I'll probably see this one in the theater.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just check your testosterone at the door.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Please go away you effeminate little troll.

[Mr. Bumble]

Humorless nag. Feel free to mute me from your feed if my post bothers you so much.

[Michael P]

You may have missed the referent of the joke, a comment by the movie's director during an interview: "I always think of [testosterone] as a toxin that you have to slowly work out of your system."

[SRG]

Lasted 30 minutes for the first Avatar. Will not see the second. I am a huge SF fan - both books and film - but I have standards.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have a low taste in SF. I really do enjoy visual extravaganzas with plot holes that could swallow a planet.

I mean, The Postman is the absolute last Brin novel I'd ever have wanted to be made into a major motion picture. The Uplift Saga? I'd crawl across broken glass to see that as a movie.

But I'd also enjoy it if they made Ole Doc Methuselah into a major motion picture...

[SRG]

I've met David Brin a couple of times and he was a friend of a close friend of mine now sadly RIP. Uplift would be a great series for one of the streaming platforms. But there are a ton of novels, series, etc. I'd like to see adapted - e.g., Laumer's Retief series.

Avatar just seemed slow and pretentious.

I never read any L.Ron.

[Darth Buckeye]

I’ve met Brin too. I contribute to his blog…but that is an echo chamber of fanboys. Brin is a wonderful person, but he can be very dramatic and very emotional.

He takes offense easily and is quick to write lots of insults and putdowns. I am the same way and I learned to stop doing that because no one wants to read my angry posting. Sadly, Brin's fans encourage him to keep doing it.

I have people that matter to me who disagree with me. It makes me curate my arguments. If not for them, I would be as hyperbolic as Brin.

As for movies of the Uplift Saga, I think STARTIDE RISING is the best one for a streaming service series. It is one of my absolute favorite SF novels, along with RENDEZFOUS WITH RAMA.

[grb]

I’ve soured on Cameron’s films as a whole. Given his brilliance, you’d think he would try to build movies on something other than amalgamated clichés. You’d think he’d at least try. But he repeatedly uses every stock character formulation in the books. I suspect he calls them “archetypes”, but that’s just another term for worn-out clichés. Take Aliens, a movie I love. I think it recycled every single war movie character imaginable. The contrast with Alien – where all the characters were fresh and just a little off what you’d expect – is pretty strong. (The one exception in Aliens was the kid, who was smarter & more quick-witted than any adult)

[Nige]

Aliens made a lot of its war tropes feel incredibly fresh, but endless movies – war movies, cop movies, sf movies, horror movies – riffing on Aliens have long since staled them again, but I still find Aliens itself fresh. Avatar was unfogivably boring, though.

[SRG]

^^ what he said

[JasonT20]

We have more anti-woke nonsense here in Florida. This time, it will likely negatively affect my future pension benefits. The CFO of Florida (elected position, also one of three cabinet positions to advise the governor) is doing Ron DeSanctimonious's bidding and pulling state funds from BlackRock, the world's largest investment firm, and encouraging the state's pension fund managers to do the same. Why? Because that company has nominally signed on to ESG (environmental, social, governance) investment principles. And its CEO has talked about it publicly, drawing Republican politicians and pundits to target them.

Of course, the CFO isn't doing anything about the 10 other investment groups the state works with that also state their belief and use of ESG. And it also doesn't seem to have anything to do with BlackRock's performance, as the article notes that BlackRock is in the middle of the pack among the state's investment partners.

[Dr. Ed 2]

From what I understand, Blackrock is particularly noxious in this ESG (and DIE) stuff -- and Florida isn't the first state to pull out.

I've also noticed that Blackrock is buying a lot of advertising time on Fox News, which they never used to do. I can't imagine why.

And as to your pension, if it is like the pension in every other state, it is guarenteed by the full faith & credit of the state -- which means that the state has to bail out the fund -- or go bankrupt.

Be glad you are in Florida because there are a half dozen (Blue) states where the pension is on the brink of insolvency, and a lot more not all that much better, but Florida appears OK. See: https://www.americanmediaperiscope.net/post/state-pensions-facing-insolvency-what-will-happen-to-your-retirement

[Davedave]

"From what I understand"

You're a talking horse. There is very little you understand apart from chewing hay.

[ThePublius]

"Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. "

[Davedave]

Ed is neither civil, nor on topic. Naming himself after a talking horse does a disservice to talking horses.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Naming himself after a talking horse"

The horse was Mr. Ed, not Dr.

[bernard11]

Of course, of course.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A TV show that ran 60 years ago -- I had to look up the reference.
We aren't dating ourselves folks, are we?

[David Nieporent]

No. It's called cultural literacy.

"A horse is a horse, Of course, of course."

It was also on Nick at Nite for years.

[DrCoke]

Mr. Ed was a zebra, not a horse. I read this on Snopes so it must be true!

🙂

[SRG]

FWIW sharply rising rates have lessened the degree of insolvency of many DB funds.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OTOH, inflation will put pressure on a lot of state pension funds because of the need to give cost of living increases to retirees...

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, that's likely to POSITIVELY affect your future pension benefits. You did catch that they're dropping Blackrock on account of the firm prioritizing left-wing social causes over rate of return, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Read the last lime of the comment you replied to.

[David Bremer]

How does the last line contradict his statement? Sure, Blackrock may be in the middle. But if it were making decisions on pure economic factors, maybe it would be at the top.

The test isn’t how Blackrock is doing verus others in the market; it’s how a Blackrock concerned about ESG is doing versus one that isn’t. If my financial adviser made decision based on politics, rather than returns, I’d consider switching as well.

[jb]

Huh? Why would you drop an investment because it theoretically could be earning more even if its current performance is fine?

[Dr. Ed 2]

InvestOR not investment, and for breach of fiduciary duty.

[jb]

It's not a breach of fiduciary duty if they tell you what they're doing and why, and if many investors prefer your approach.

[David Nieporent]

Moreover, note the irony of David Bremer's argument. The state here isn't making decisions on pure economic factors. It's making investment decisions based on whether it likes the politics of the investment firm, rather than on the returns obtained by the investment firm.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well, they’re making them based on the expectation that those firms will be lower because they deny themselves investment opportunities. There was an article in Barrons a few weeks back suggesting that ESG returns are on balance a bit lower than comparable funds.

Is it true? Beats me, I haven’t looked at it.

[Sarcastr0]

It is also not relevant, since it is general information, and as to this specific fund "BlackRock is in the middle of the pack among the state’s investment partners."

[bevis the lumberjack]

I mean, it matters. I invest in companies myself rather than funds, except if a fund will give me exposure to something I don't understand enough to evaluate.

That said, as I said when this came up several weeks ago that I'd avoid ESG funds. Not for political reasons, but because they limit their returns by limiting their opportunities. That's a valid reason to decline to put money in them, although it sucks if Florida is making it political.

The only exception I'd make to the "limiting their opportunities" thing is funds that are designed to be focused. They invest in a smaller number of companies that they really, really have time to understand and those types of funds tend to not quite track the market as much. And typically they perform pretty well. But that's not what ESG is.

[Michael P]

Do you understand "regression to the mean"?

[bernard11]

I don't know about Sarcastro, but I understand it, and fail to see its relevance here, unless you think that the retirement system shouldn't be using managers much at all.

[Michael P]

The best-performing funds (here, within the ESG subset) over one reasonably long period seldom keep their position in the next comparable period; the positions are a random variable. If this fund is in the middle of the overall pack now, but better than the average ESG fund, we can expect it to regress to the ESG mean before long. Better to divest from it now.

[bernard11]

We can expect it to regress toward the mean, which is slightly different than to the mean.

But this is only if its returns really are just random, rather than the result of the work and judgment of the company. Of course this is pretty damn likely. Few funds, ESG or not, outperform with regularity.

That raises the question of why FL is using these companies at all, other than for administrative services.

[David Bremer]

But again, that doesn't address the fact that you believe that, because of the push for ESG, there is a reason to believe that the company could be earning more.

Imagine I ran a mutual fund, but one of our criteria was that the stocks in the fund had to be in companies with an even number of letters. Sure, in many years, we'll meet or even beat the market (after all, there are a lot of companies out there). But you'd never want to invest in my fund because I've declared about half of all investments off limits. As a result, over the long haul, you'd expect my fund to produce lower results than it would without the restriction.

Saying it was comparable to other funds maybe says the premium you pay to have ESG is negligible. But it's still a premium, and it's fine for the state to say it doesn't want to pay that.

[jb]

But maybe it's worth it to give up some return on ESG if the investment group is really smart and you are somehow confident that they will beat the market despite their ESG philosophy.

As an investor, you only care about whatever returns you can actually get, not what some nonexistent theoretical alternative might be able to get you.

[David Bremer]

...really smart and you are somehow confident that they will beat the market despite their ESG philosophy.

Set aside whether you can really beat the market, then I'd look for someone equally as smart who doesn't limit their investment options to a subset of companies. No matter what, you're still going to come out ahead in the long run.

Look, pay the ESG premium if you want. But don't pretend it doesn't exist.

[bernard11]

Imagine I ran a mutual fund, but one of our criteria was that the stocks in the fund had to be in companies with an even number of letters. Sure, in many years, we’ll meet or even beat the market (after all, there are a lot of companies out there). But you’d never want to invest in my fund because I’ve declared about half of all investments off limits. As a result, over the long haul, you’d expect my fund to produce lower results than it would without the restriction.

Depends on your strategy, of course. If you try to pick stocks you are probably a loser regardless. If you index across, say, companies in the S&P500 with an even number of letters I'd be surprised if you actually did worse than indexing across the whole 500, unless there is something funny going on with name lengths.

[Stephen Lathrop]

True or not, unless the fund has fallen off a cliff, present performance is not much of a guide to the information you actually need but can't have: what the fund will do in the future.

[David Bremer]

Because I could be making more. Imagine you are choosing between two investments with the same risk profile - one paying 5% returns and the other paying 7% returns. If you pick the one paying 5%, it means you're losing 2% per year.

Now, maybe there is a reason you are willing to accept lower returns, such as wanting to support a particular industry or business. But you're still incurring a loss.

[Nelson]

That's not what's happening, as was pointed out in the article. The rate of return is middle-of-the-pack for BlackRock. And there are many other companies that are ESG in Florida's pension. The reason for targeting BlackRock is the media attention it receives and what the base will think about his willingness to "take on" various "woke" companies.

It seems that Mr. DeSantis is sending out more signals of a Presidential run in 2024 and trying to draw the base away from Trump. With the amount of time left before things heat up, I believe that Trump won't be a viable primary candidate for conservatives in 2024. DeSantis is playing a long game and he's doing it very well.

[Nige]

'The reason for targeting BlackRock is the media attention it receives and what the base will think about his willingness to “take on” various “woke” companies.'

They know how to work their base. Hence Brett's reply.

[Armchair Lawyer]

ESG is a scam, and becoming more of one.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/elon-musk-tesla-esg-51653336436

[Nige]

Corporations and financial institutions greenwashing and virtue signalling? Quelle suprise, if true.

[shawn_dude]

And as noted above, Desantis' anti-ESG performance is also a scam.

[bernard11]

Everything DeSantis does is a performative scam.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Blackrock is also investing a lot in China and that is neither helpful to America nor good investments as China is increasingly shaky.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/blackrock-china-consumers-research-warning

Glen Beck has been a Cassandra on this for the past few years.

[bernard11]

Pardon me if I don't listen to investment advice from you or, worse, Glenn Beck.

[Commenter_XY]

It would be better for everyone if retirement monies (pensions, 401K plans, etc) were not mixed with politics (ESG are explicitly political criteria). The only relevant criterion to me wrt retirement monies is total return over time. That is it. This should be very simple.

I don't have a problem with people 'opting into' funds or investments that use their flavor of ESG to guide investment fund decisions on a voluntary basis. None at all. As long as that is voluntary, no problem.

Other: There is also some controversy with the company that Morningstar acquired that has the inside track on designating and evaluating ESG for mutual funds (antisemitism, as I recall).

I just don't like mixing my retirement monies with politics. It complicates things that should be very simple.

[Don Nico]

"I just don’t like mixing my retirement monies with politics. It complicates things that should be very simple."
Same here, C_XY.

[Sarcastr0]

This is, of course, ridiculous. Profit for profit's sake is itself a political decision.

Money is always going to have political rammifications. Just because you didn't notice them before doesn't mean they weren't there.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh....no = Profit for profit’s sake is itself a political decision.

If you said ideological, then yes.

I look at money+politics the same way I look at religion+politics or sex+politics: Too complicated! Untangle them and keep it simple. You'll be happier. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

They are impossible to untangle; only to ignore.

[bernard11]

Profit for profit’s sake is itself a political decision.

I don't get your point, Sarcastro.

Are you saying the corporation's decision to seek profits while disregarding any ill effects of its operations is political? Maybe, but here we are talking about financial investments made on behalf of others, which looks different to me.

[shawn_dude]

If you prohibit corporate lobbying, then yes, seeking profits without regard for one's impact on society is a moral and ethical issue but not inherently political. However, once you add lobbying in the mix, the two aren't so easily separated.

[Sarcastr0]

Why does it look different to you? A fiduciary duty includes plenty of discretion, which means choices may be evaluated accordinaly.

Edited to keep the typo - accordions need more respect.

[bernard11]

It looks different to me because as an investor I am not making any operational decisions for the company, which might affect others in various ways, often negatively. Corporate management does in fact make such decisions.

BTW, my opinion is that they should not be purely profit-driven in doing that.

[David Bremer]

It's not profit for profit's sake; it's profit for economic-security sake. You're investing retirement funds, and even small changes in return can have huge impacts on your return at retirement (and can make the difference between being secure or not).

And the fact the money may have "political ramifications" doesn't mean it's a political decision. If I choose to eat spicy foods, it will have gastrointestinal ramifications. But it was a decision based on taste and preference, not a gastrointestinal one.

[Sarcastr0]

By that logic, I could start taking on assassination jobs. You know, for my economic security.

If you're paying attention, the decision to eat spicy food is based on both taste and gastrointestinal ramifications.

[David Bremer]

Yes, you could. And you would have to balance the potential gains of that line of work with the potential risks and costs. My guess is that you'd find that you can get better returns elsewhere.

And if your argument comes down to the idea that all decisions have at least some political component, sure, I guess. Much like choosing milk over water shows my political support for family farmers. But then you've basically just changed definition of "political decision" so that you're always right.

[Don Nico]

You are truly reaching into the depths of sophistry, and you even know it.

[Don Nico]

" Profit for profit’s sake is itself a political decision."
Nonsense. It is a fiduciary responsibility to the investors. Get off the political high horse.

[Nelson]

I don’t think it’s that simple. Soulless corporate rape-and-pillage strategies come with built-in risks, just like any other strategy. If you are counting on the strength of your legal department and clearing enough profit to cover any fines or lawsuits when you get caught pushing things a little too far, you will not have a good reputation to fall back on.

This is the point and purpose of greenwashing, to be able to say, “Sure your iPhone was made with Uyghur slave labor. But that’s FoxConn, our manufacturer in China, and even though we won’t stop using them in our supply chain, have we told you about our pro-LGBT partnerships, our Toys for Christmas program, our food pantry, and our scholarship program for poor and at-risk youths?

See? Now you don’t feel bad about enjoying your iPhone because you can tell yourself that, even though they use slaves and are long-time partners with a brutal, state-run manufacturer, they do so much good that they can be forgiven a few slaves.

There are no moral disqualifiers in business. Customers and investors will ignore anything as long as you net more “good stuff” than “bad stuff”. As long as you make something they want or give them a great return, they don’t care.

[Don Nico]

"Soulless corporate rape-and-pillage strategies"
Your answer ducks the point of fiduciary responsibility completely
If you assume the answer before you start the analysis, you get the desired answer.

[Nelson]

I don't think you understand what the point of fiduciary duty is. It isn't a profit-maximizing duty. It is an anti-self-interest duty, designed to prevent the fiduciary from investing for their own benefit rather than the principal's. It has no requirement that you must always make the most profit possible.

Investing in the manner that was promised isn't a breach of fiduciary duty. Eliminating a specific category of investments (for whatever reason) from a fund isn't a breach of fiduciary duty. In fact, that's often the point of many funds, that they invest in limited sectors or areas of the world economy (emerging markets, small-cap, BRICS, etc.).

The difference between the average ESG fund and the average non-ESG fund is negligible. The difference between a specific ESG fund and specific non-ESG funds is impossible to predict. I guarantee that BlackRock's ESG fund outperformed other non-ESG funds in Florida's portfolio.

[bernard11]

It would be better for everyone if retirement monies (pensions, 401K plans, etc) were not mixed with politics (ESG are explicitly political criteria). The only relevant criterion to me wrt retirement monies is total return over time. That is it. This should be very simple.

Agree. When you are handling other people's money your personal political ideas should not affect your decisions. I do have a technical quibble with your comment, though. Total return is not enough. You need to consider risk also.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, you're right of course = need to consider risk. 100% agree. I am speaking of goals (maximize total return over time); not means or factors (controlling for risk, etc). But hell yeah, risk is huge.

[bevis the lumberjack]

This is the correct way to think of it.

[David Bremer]

I don't have a problem with people choosing ESG, so long as they are up front about it. Just like I don't have a problem with people who choose not to invest there because of it.

I knew an investment adviser who was a big believer in gold. So he would put his clients in 100% gold-focused funds (either actual bullion or gold-related stocks). Dumb if you ask me, but everyone has their philosophies. But, if he told his clients that's what he did and that it could affect overall returns, and his clients were still willing to go along with it, then I don't see the issue.

[Don Nico]

You should have a problem if you did not have any choice about who your employer choose to invest for you. If it is you personal choice, then just make yourself happy.

[Don Nico]

I fully agree.

[Nelson]

Agreed. I am fiscally conservative (personally and politically), so I lean towards low-risk, long-term investments in my retirement accounts. In my investment accounts I take a little more risk, but prefer to make a steady 10% with little chance of loss than play the boom-and-bust game and net 15% one year and 5% the next.

I have never (and would never) make investment decisions based on ESG. I avoid companies with shady board and executive practices, but just because the risk to my investment is higher and I can find something else that gives a similar return without the downside exposure.

That said, as long as companies are transparemt about their investment strategies and products there is nothing inherently wrong with ESG. For some people it is impotant and it's their money. BlackRock has other, non-ESG products. Florida could just opt for those. Stepping away entirely smells like a political move.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It would be better for everyone if retirement monies (pensions, 401K plans, etc) were not mixed with politics (ESG are explicitly political criteria).

True in any universe where politics has no effect on investment outcomes. Do you know of any such place?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The issue of academia treating mentally ill students badly is back in the news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/11/11/yale-suicides-mental-health-withdrawals/

It isn't just Yale, a decade ago, Amherst College carted a rape victim off to the psych ward and -- much to Amherst College's surprise, she decided she didn't want anything more to do with Amherst College and went to the media about that.

I'll be blunt -- colleges, not just elite ones, would rather see a dozen former-students commit suicide than have one still-enrolled on do it. The latter is a "student death" which has to be recorded & reported while the former are just random strangers. And if kicking the student out causes the suicide, well sucks to be them.

Many will blame lawyers and liability for this attitude, but I think it is more the shift into seeing students as a fungible resource that is behind this. IHEs no longer care about potential alumni, it's more about this semester's bottom line as the average tenure for college presidents is now something like 5 years. And as Silverglate & Kors wrote 20 years ago, the attitude is "no trouble on my watch."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Another article about this; https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/when-mentally-ill-students-feel-alone/386504/

[John F. Carr]

I heard college students commenting on this attitude about 20 years ago. Since then, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts said MIT could be held financially liable for a student suicide. Now I expect schools here to be even more aggressive in kicking out mentally ill students.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm, while the parents sued, both the Superior & SJC said that MIT was NOT liable. See:
https://www.masslive.com/politics/2018/05/sjc_mit_not_responsible_for_gr.html

Now UMass lost a lawsuit in the '80s over a student suicide, and UM was woefully negligent. Amongst other things, the girl made a map of all the places on the MassPike where she could run off the road and kill herself and the UM Admin somehow acquired this map. She also calculated (accurately, incidentally) where she would land if she jumped off the 26 story library, which she proceeded to do. There was a lot more UM negligence thrown in as well.

But that didn't start this. And MIT didn't lose.

[John F. Carr]

I was sure I saw a case where the school was held liable. If it didn't happen, then in the immortal words of Emily Litella, never mind.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, there was another lawsuit, but that one was settled without ever going to trial. This one involved MITs alleged duty to notify a student's parents of the student's mental health issues.

Initially it was believed that she had incinerated herself in a dorm room fire, but it then came out that she'd taken sleeping pills or something (a non-lethal dose) and the fire was probably accidentally lit by candles she had in her room.

But the suit raised the issue of a duty of care -- and at the time I said that this is the consequence of colleges bringing back En Loco Parentis.

See: https://archive.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/04/04/parents_strike_settlement_with_mit_in_death_of_daughter/

[Dr. Ed 2]

See also: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/04/settlement-mit-suicide-suit

[Dr. Ed 2]

And this is the infamous Mt Holyoke OCR letter.
https://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/7.18.08-Mount-Holyoke-OCR-Letter.pdf

I should add that OCR Region I (the regions correspond with the Federal Circuits) is unique in totally ignoring ADA while Region II goes the other way -- at conferences it is essentially stated that ADA in academia depends if one is in Region I, Region II, or elsewhere.

[apedad]

I read recently that the iconic beat to the Mission Impossible theme is simply morse code for M and I.

Dash dash dot dot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's psychological -- any beat faster than your heart creates anxiety.
Remember the Jaws theme?

[Davedave]

"any beat faster than your heart creates anxiety."

Seek help, tachycardia is a condition that requires treatment, and apparently you have a resting heart rate of 100+.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/tachycardia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355127

[Davedave]

Yes, you can google and post links. Now try googling the BPM of popular relaxing songs.

[Nelson]

There are a lot of suprisingly effective practices that use your brain's subconscious (and genetic) reactions to stimuli. Petting a dog (probably any furry critter who.will sit still, but they used dogs) will lower the stress hormones in your brain, lower your blood pressure, and lower your heart rate. Running with a breathing pattern (three strides inhale, three strides exhale, for example) will increase your endurance and average pace. Having a conversation while doing static exercises (like wall sits) will delay your recognition of muscle pain and decrease the intensity of pain felt. Same for actively using your brain (trying to find a solution to a problem at work or a math problem, for example). As long as you don't know the answer and are trying to discover it, it distracts your mind, literally.

But they're just tricks to minimize negative reactions. Faster beats may make people feel more anxious, but it won't trigger a panic attack. Petting a dog will lower your bp and pulse rate, but it won't cure hypertension.

What Dr. Ed is talking about is what makes soundtracks so integral to a good movie.

[Michael P]

Do you understand the difference between "heart rate" and "resting heart rate"?

[DaveM]

Interesting. The rhythm pattern is 5/4, which has the unusual quality of being both unstoppable and unstable

[David Bremer]

This is the answer. We're used to 4/4 time. The theme has an unstable, exciting feel because of the time signature. For another example, listen to Gustav Holst "Mars, the Bringer of War."

[bernard11]

"Unstoppable?"

[Voize]

dash dash dot dot without pauses is Z, not M I

[Krayt]

Z? Cancel!

[apedad]

In 2nd Oath Keepers sedition trial, U.S. ties 4 more to Rhodes

(From the defense attorneys)

“This was not some highly organized group. It was really a bunch of people that were out of shape, overweight, elderly and who wanted to play military,” (Defense Attorney Scott) Weinberg said.

“The man who was supposed to be a threat to democracy … lost his truck,” (Defense Attorney Matthew) Peed said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/12/12/2nd-oath-keepers-sedition-trial-us-ties-4-more-rhodes/

HEY! That’s what I said on the 12/1 Thursday blog, “Little boys playing soldier.”

Bottom line, these were absolute, complete idiots.

And in case any of you mouth-breathing yahoos think “next time” will be better, no it won’t.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Read the introduction to Hitler's Mein Kampf about the "persons no longer with us."

Those are the people killed by the soldiers -- while Hitler ducked into a doorway...

If this truly was an organized attempt at sedition, the organizer(s) likely did what Hitler did and people will think things out better next time. HOWEVER if it was more an attempt to "petition to redress grievances", which I think it was, that's another story.

[Nelson]

Godwin's Law alert.

[Brett Bellmore]

This may become a problem.

[Nelson]

Yeah, maybe people should just not mention Hitler at all.

If the only example is one with Hitler or the Nazis, don't compare it to anything in the present. If it has never happened again in the 77 years since the end of WWII, it's a Nazi thing and using it is pure Godwin.

If it has happened somewhere else in the last 77 years, use that example. It isn't loaded like Nazi/Hitler references are.

[Davedave]

Defence lawyers are there to put things in the best possible light for their clients. Focusing on the obvious incompetence is a good strategy for them, but it only affects the sentence, not the adjudication of guilt. They are basically admitting their clients are guilty, because there's no point pretending otherwise.

The fact is that Donald's coup was an incompetent, embarrassing, ridiculous failure, but still treason.

[Nelson]

By definition, it wasn't treason. I don't even think Trump did anything intentionally in riling up the crowd. He was just airing his grievances (yet again) and stoking the anger of the crowd about the [insert hyperbolic, lying Trump election claim here]. He never thinks things through and never considers consequences. It's one of the reasons he was a terrible President.

[Brett Bellmore]

It wasn't treason any more or less than the Democrats egging on the Antifa/BLM rioters were engaged in treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Internal conflicts definitionally can't be treason. Insurrection, maybe, but not "treason".

[Nige]

Except Democrats didn’t egg on any rioters. They supported demonstrations against police violence. Trump egged on his supporters to overthrow the election result.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your Pulitzer worthy comments recommend you for a position at the WP of the NYT.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, the empty 'Lies! LIES!!'

Great commenting, chief.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, when a reporter stands in front of burning buildings telling you about the peaceful protest, he's lying.

[Sarcastr0]

Bumble just cried lies and provided no evidence other than that he hates some media entities.

You just did the same.

How lame.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sarcast0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HahVcBoyGzk

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't know where you see any reference to "lies". Do you find Nige's comments to be lies?

[Nige]

Yes, no lies were detected.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullbleep they didn't...

[Nige]

Oh yeah? Bleeping right they bleeping didn't you're full of bleep you bleeping bleepity bleep.

[David Nieporent]

Internal conflicts definitionally can’t be treason. Insurrection, maybe, but not “treason”.

What do you think insurrection is, besides "levying war against" the country?

[Davedave]

Obviously staging a coup is treason. It is a form of waging war against a country.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t even think Trump did anything intentionally in riling up the crowd. He was just airing his grievances (yet again) and stoking the anger of the crowd about the [insert hyperbolic, lying Trump election claim here]. He never thinks things through and never considers consequences.

Oh, I think that's clearly wrong. He absolutely knew what he was doing, and wanted and intended it. (Remember the testimony about the metal detectors: he wanted the Secret Service to stop using them for the crowd because, "They're not here to hurt me.") It wasn't like this was a spontaneous event; it was carefully planned.

And when the attack on the Capitol occurred, not only wasn't he shocked (unlike most congressional Republicans), and not only wasn't he upset, but he immediately leaped into action to take advantage of it, sending Rudy to reach out to GOP senators to delay certification.

[SRG]

Incompetence, of course, is no defence, though it can be a mitigation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then, as to insanity in academia, there is this: https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2022/12/14/the-sign-in-lee-jussims-window/

"Of course, there was the time when he sold him a horse, but delivered a mule." That line, from The Fiddler on the Roof, is somehow racist and derogatory against Blacks.

And these are Psychologists coming to this conclusion....

[John F. Carr]

Trump's lawsuit to stop the government from using items seized from Mar-a-Lago has been officially dismissed as of Monday.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/trump-v-united-states/?page=2

Docket items 200 and 201 are letters from somebody who decided that this case would be a good opportunity to air unrelated grievances. The judge has been getting a lot of mail (docket #201).

[Brett Bellmore]

I see the war against Musk is escalating. Wishcasting about his having lied on his immigration papers, so he could be deported. Unsourced stories about him not paying the rent.

It's amazing how fast he went from left-wing hero to zero, just by favoring free speech.

[Davedave]

Musk has never been a left wing hero. What the fuck are you on about? He's always been a pariah due to being an alt-right tech-bro with a history of racism, misogyny, and dubious business practices. The man was commonly compared to a Bond villain, fer chrissakes.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He has zero history of racism, in fact just the opposite. Of course to your side, everyone but yourselves is racist while y’all practice some of the most virulent racism going.

And y’all are pissed at Musk because he’s defending free speech and your side believes that nobody should have free speech other than yourselves.

Wish y’all could learn to simply practice what you preach but I guess that’s just asking too much.

[Nige]

Well, he's an apartheid emerald heir, for a start, and there have been many reports of racism in his factories. Lol at you believeing the billionaire when he claims he's defending free speech.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like conehead Bezos and his Democracy Dies in the Darkness rag?

[Nige]

Or any billionaire who owns major media outlets, yes.

(Remember when Trump was so mad at Bezos and the Washington Post he wanted the post office to charge more for Amazon deliveries, and accused them of getting away with murder on taxes? Which they probably were, but coming from him...)

[Dr. Ed 2]

The issue with Amazon's parcel post rates was/is legitimate.

Years back, everyone paid the same rate to mail something, and parcel post was both slower and cheaper than first class mail. About 10 years ago now, they changed the rates and now base parcel post rates on volume -- if you or I go to mail a parcel, it is only a few pennies less than first class (PriorityMail) and you are better off sending it that way.

But Amazon is charged WAY less, and as Trump pointed out, it is less than it costs the Post Office to deliver the package. THAT is what he wanted to change -- anyone believing in fairness would -- but would he have even noticed had the NYT not been lambasting him daily? Likely not.

[Nige]

No what he WANTED was to use the power of government to punish his enemies.

[bernard11]

Trump pointed out, it is less than it costs the Post Office to deliver the package.

Donald Trump has no clue what it costs the Post Office to deliver a package.

[Sarcastr0]

Bezos is pretty hands off with WaPo. Certainly compared to Musk and twitter.

Bezos may be worse generally, due to Amazon's labor practices. But Musk is absolutely more in your face annoying/pathetic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't know how anyone who believes in any of the social justice stuff could possibly purchase anything from Amazon. I don't.

His labor practices are right out of a Carnegie steelmill.....

[Nige]

Me either, but that's capitalism for you. Child labour doesn't stop people buying chocolate, slave labour doesn't stop people buying computers, sweatshops don't stop people buying cheap clothes and black lung didn't stop people burning coal.

[Don Nico]

Then don't buy a Tesla and don't use Twitter. And you are done with Elon.

[Sarcastr0]

And also I will make fun of him on the Internet.

[Bob from Ohio]

That will show him.

[Mr. Bumble]

If it makes you feel better, have at it. I'm pretty sure Elon doesn't care.

[Don Nico]

Go for it. He does not give a shit what you think or say.

[santamonica811]

Well, given his hypocritical banning of journalists today on Twitter, I think Musk clearly cares what *some* people write about him on the internet.

[Don Nico]

Elon may care about newspaper reporters. But he won't care about S_0.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett seems to think mocking Musk is part of the liberal war against him.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“He was openly against apartheid as a young man, so I’ll make up allegations against his father and project sins his father may or may not have committed on to him.” Lol at you for making up shit and expecting people to take it seriously.

You don’t want people to have free speech? Fine. I’ll mute you and diminish your speech just a tiny bit. Everyone else on here should do the same and give you a taste of your own medicine.

[Nige]

Not against it enough to be ridiculously wealthy from apartheid emeralds.

Funny, you actually think muting somone diminishes their free speech, no wonder you believe right-wing edgelords and thin-skinned billionaires are free speech absolutists.

[Ed Grinberg]

You don’t want people to have free speech? Fine. I’ll mute you and diminish your speech just a tiny bit. Everyone else on here should do the same and give you a taste of your own medicine.

Nah. His comments are always good for a laugh.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nige, look at why he left South Africa...

[Nige]

Because aparthied ended?

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, I know a couple of African-Americans. They both left South Africa because the ANC was a terrorist organization that was going around necklacing people. Getting control of the government didn't really reform them.

[Nige]

The white regime went around doing a few things too, so that's curiously prissy of them.

[Sarcastr0]

Taking things as you say, they were violent. Now they are not. You have an odd definition of not reformed.

[Nige]

I've always thought it a bit rich that anyone in the US with its history of lynchings would look down on SA *specifically* for the necklacing, for some reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not into the idea of collective guilt, Nige. I don't look down on SA, I look down on the ANC.

[Nige]

Of course you are, collective guilt for very specific groups of people, no collective guilt for others. There's individuals you believe have no guilt at all for the things they do!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I’ve always thought it a bit rich that anyone in the US with its history of lynchings would look down on SA *specifically* for the necklacing, for some reason."

Hanging was (and I believe still may be) an approved means of executions which otherwise pass 8th Amendment muster.

I'm damn sure that SCOUTUS would never approve placing a burning tire around someone's neck as a means of execution -- my guess is that it would be a 9-0 vote, probably with at least three opinions as to execution in general, but all would agree that this is barbaric.

[Nige]

Extrajudicial racist hangings were, of course, often accompanied by torture and burning, but even so that is a WEIRD defence of lynching.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Taking things as you say, they were violent. Now they are not."

Well, half right, anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

Those violent black South African leaders!!

This is getting into VDARE territory...

[bevis the lumberjack]

My son-in-law is South African.

His father is of Hungarian descent - interestingly when he was about a year old they hiked out of Hungary in 1956 carrying everything they could carry about a week in front of the Soviet tanks. His mother is Afrikaner.

The parents are proud South Africaners. The son, who lives here, thinks South Africa is an armpit.

I think there’s a generational thing going on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nige,

Musk arrived in Canada in June 1989.

Mandela was released from prison on February 11, 1990.

On July 2, 1993, Prime Minister de Klerk agreed to hold South Africa’s first all-race, democratic election.

On May 9, 1994, the newly elected, and now racially mixed, South African parliament elected Nelson Mandela as the first president of the nation’s post-apartheid era.

[Nige]

Then he gave all the apartheid emeralds back.

[bevis the lumberjack]

There are no apartheid emeralds. The mine was in Zambia.

Of course, this won’t change your schtick because the next time you change your mind due to an actual fact will be the first time it’s happened.

[Nige]

Change my mind about what? I'm not going to respect someone for inheriting apartheid-era wealth, or presume he's not racist, especially given the reports from his factories.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Musk does not give a shit about 'free speech' and you're a fool to believe otherwise.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Musk is probably single-handedly more responsible for advances in electric cars than any other person. He should be a left wing hero.

[Nige]

Never make billionaires your heroes - that's how you end up going to jail for somone like Trump.

[Moderation4ever]

There is no doubt that in the area of technology Musk is a good performer. Not just Tesla, but also SpaceX. The question is can he be as good with a social media company. The issues he faces with TWITTER are not technological, but social and he has not yet shown the skill set to handle the problems facing TWITTER. While his goals are good, he seems to be stumbling. He is spending far too much time making himself the issue rather than the addressing his goals. He is catching flak and the best response to that is not always to attack back, but instead move forward and prove your ideas work.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Twitter needed a complete overhaul. Musk is accomplishing that. It's amusing how many people have threatened to leave Twitter...and how few actually carried through on it.

[Moderation4ever]

So, I am not a Twitter user explain to me why Twitter needed a complete overhaul? Was there something functionally wrong with the company? Was it not making money? The impression I get is that people feel it was not expressing their viewpoint. Which is fine but if you are just trading one viewpoint for another is that an overhaul? Nothing I have seen to this point suggests that Elon Musk is doing anything to really improve Twitter's position. While Musk's goals are worthy, I am not sure he is succeeding at achieving them.

[Nige]

There were lots of serious security issues and lapses and really bad management going on, but the only issue Musk seems to want to overhaul is the right to post Hunter Biden nudes without consent.

[Michael P]

Yes, it was being effectively operated as a non-profit in service of leftist causes.

Employees had unlimited vacation time and permanent work from home. The company had stopped doing performance reviews altogether, according to a long-time Twitter employee. “As long as Twitter could just keep its head above water and be roughly cash-flow break-even, then that’s all that they cared about,” Musk said.

[Nige]

So 'a good place to work' is leftist now?

I suppose it is.

[bernard11]

Yes, it was being effectively operated as a non-profit in service of leftist causes.

Are you really claiming Musk bought Twitter as a profit opportunity?

He paid $44B for a money-losing company with about $5B in annual revenue, and only went through with the deal because the contract was too tight for him to weasel out.

He has a $1B annual interest bill on the $13B he borrowed as part of the purchase price.

He has taken to stiffing creditors (Who does that call to mind?)

He has reportedly told employees bankruptcy is possible.

I don't know what he is up to, other than a giant, expensive ego trip, but it's not an effort to make money.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"So, I am not a Twitter user explain to me why Twitter needed a complete overhaul"

1. It was not making money. It hadn't been profitable since 2019.

2. It's a problem when your employees are actively driving away pieces of your customer base, in order to suit their personal views. Doubly so when your business model depends on network effects.

[John F. Carr]

There could be a legitimate exodus of the small fraction of Twitter users who care about politics.

[bernard11]

There could also be an exodus of advertisers who don't want their products promoted next to a lot of Neo-Nazi or racist diatribes.

[jb]

A lot of advertisers have left Twitter, which is the thing that matters most.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with Twitter is that the parasite load had gotten impossibly high, and the parasites were in control. Nothing Musk could do would help without flushing them out, first.

But, of course, the moment the left lost formal control of Twitter, they set out to destroy it, instead.

[Nige]

This sounds like updated Nazi propaganda about the parasite communists and Jews that must be flushed out from their hiding places and who will try to destory our sacred institutions.

[Moderation4ever]

I think Senator McCarthy warned us years ago about communist infiltrator. First it was the State Department and now Twitter.

[Nige]

People tend to conventiently forget the raging xenophobia and anti-semitism that went with the Red Scare.

[Brett Bellmore]

Other people conveniently forget that, when the USSR fell, and we got a look at the KGB archives, it turned out that the State Department actually WAS lousy with communists working for the USSR.

Oh, and the Rosenbergs were guilty as Hell, don't forget that.

[SRG]

Julius was. Ethel, by no means sure.

[Nige]

Which the Red Scare did nothing to uncover, just ruined a lot of innocent peope's lives and stoked a lot of hate. The CIA were shit at spying compared to the KGB, that's why they went for special operations destabilising other countries instead of actual inteligence-gathering.

[Sarcastr0]

You should be sad that McCarthy provided a great way for anyone working with the USSR to hide by turning the investigation into showboating partisan buffoonery that highlighted ideology rather than actual espionage.

And yet, the right seems into the red-baiting bit over the espionage bit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’m not sure about Ethel….

[Brett Bellmore]

No, SRG, they both were.

I'm not making excuses for McCarthy, he was basically a fraud who happened to accidentally be right.

Which isn't the best way of being right, but accidentally right is still right.

[Dr. Ed 2]

McCarthy was drunk.
He was a hopeless alcoholic by the standards of a time when everyone drank like a fish. Alcohol killed him a couple of years later.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, McC was wrong even technically. He mistook association with allegiance. And because he thought he could get away without any decency because nationalism.

What should have been about counterespionage he made about ideology. Which is what he meant, and what people heard. Nowadays you can re-hear it to be about spies, but it was not.

He did great damage to our security, our nationalism, and to our culture for little gain.

[David Nieporent]

While his goals are good, he seems to be stumbling.

Same for the pilot of the Hindenburg.

Except I'm not sure that Musk's goals are good. If Musk's objective from the day he announced he wanted to buy Twitter — and certainly from the day he actually did buy Twitter — were to destroy the company, I am not sure what he would have done differently since then.

[Life of Brian]

If Musk’s objective from the day he announced he wanted to buy Twitter — and certainly from the day he actually did buy Twitter — were to destroy the company, I am not sure what he would have done differently since then.

Do you actually use Twitter, or just consume and regurgitate overwrought media articles about it? The system as a whole runs noticeably snappier now after a first-round architectural overhaul, and it's becoming increasingly easier to find and read the content you actually want rather than that which a bunch of whiny overpaid Gen Zers think you should want.

[Sarcastr0]

The system as a whole runs noticeably snappier now after a first-round architectural overhaul

Haha nope. You're seeing what you want to see. I don't think it's running slower either, but you're being foolish.

, and it’s becoming increasingly easier to find and read the content you actually want rather than that which a bunch of whiny overpaid Gen Zers think you should want.

Why do I think this is more about all the right-wingers banned for being white supremecists being let back on?

[Life of Brian]

Haha nope. You’re seeing what you want to see. I don’t think it’s running slower either, but you’re being foolish.

Ah, here comes another non-user mindlessly shooting from the hip. Elon specifically discussed his focus on boosting performance over the course of 2-3 weeks, ending with this note when it was done. And yes, Virginia, it's measurably noticeable.

Why do I think this is more about all the right-wingers banned for being white supremecists being let back on?

Good grief, man. We need a new corollary for Godwin's law for those that immediately resort to thought-free shitposting like this. Back to your troll hole with you now.

[Sarcastr0]

Elon specifically discussed his focus on boosting performance over the course of 2-3 weeks

Elon lies, LoB. Hope this helps!

Seems like your personal feeling is getting contradicted all over the place downthread.

[Life of Brian]

Elon lies, LoB. Hope this helps!

For someone who routinely wails about conspiracy theories, you sure are digging deep trying to salvage your ill-informed swipe!

Seems like your personal feeling is getting contradicted all over the place downthread.

"Seems like" you're engaging in your usual content-free position play. Be specific or buzz off.

[Sarcastr0]

Um, Elon Musk lying is not a conspiracy theory, it's just a rich asshole shooting his mouth off.

You stated your *personal* experience with twitter as a data source. Along with the honesty of Mr. Musk.

You are ridiculous. Does the fact that no one agrees with your personal assessment count as data as much as your own experience?

Or were you shooting your mouth off?

[Life of Brian]

Um, Elon Musk lying is not a conspiracy theory, it’s just a rich asshole shooting his mouth off.

Um, saying that Elon Musk having public discussions and leading engineering meetings for weeks to improve performance, announcing a specific metric for success, and people noticing that success, is all completely made up, is most certainly a conspiracy theory of the utmost proportions. Own it.

Does the fact that no one agrees with your personal assessment count as data as much as your own experience?

Ah, you've now doubled down from some sort of ill-defined "all over the place" to "no one agrees." All without supplying a single word to support your yammering.

What a pathetic attempt at a distraction from getting squarely caught ignorantly running your mouth.

The last word is yours -- I know you can't help yourself.

[David Nieporent]

No, I actually use Twitter. It's becoming increasingly harder to find and read the content I actually want, because lots of people I want to read are abandoning Twitter as a result of Musk's behavior.

More importantly, advertisers are fleeing Twitter like Republicans from an education, so Twitter is going to have a hard time actually staying in business.

[Mr. Bumble]

"It’s becoming increasingly harder to find and read the content I actually want, because lots of people I want to read are abandoning Twitter as a result of Musk’s behavior."

Create your own "twitter".

Blaming Musk for people leaving is childish. They left on their own rather than being shadow banned, blocked or cancelled.

[Life of Brian]

It’s becoming increasingly harder to find and read the content I actually want, because lots of people I want to read are abandoning Twitter as a result of Musk’s behavior.

People taking their marbles and going to a different site (to the extent any actually have other than Ken White's huffy fit last week) are of course a completely different phenomenon than the one I mentioned. But you knew that.

Twitter is going to have a hard time actually staying in business.

Uh huh. I have a feeling this is the start of the latest perpetual "oh, they've got him now for SURE" routine.

[David Nieporent]

No, it's not a different phenomenon at all. People quitting or being expelled, either way they're not on Twitter anymore.

[Nige]

'whole runs noticeably snappier'

It absolutely does not, in any way shape or form. Now, it doesn't run WORSE, either. But it definitely doesn't run better.

[Sarcastr0]

Musk is cozying up to far right idiots. He is also acting like a petty tyrant to his employees and now to is customers.

People are mocking him for that.

This mockery is an attack Brett says, and then Brett pretends he cares about free speech. While acting like criticism is violence.

[Mr. Bumble]

THE BABYLON BEE, AMERICA’S REAL PAPER OF RECORD: Government Warns That With Elon Owning Twitter They Will Only Control 97% Of The Media.

https://babylonbee.com/news/government-warns-that-with-elon-owning-twitter-they-will-only-control-97-of-the-media

[Sarcastr0]

Well, at least they didn't make the same trans joke they make most of the time.

Twitter is mostly the same for me. But so what? Musk is proving himself a very thinskinned and small man.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re supporting journalists that are opposed to free speech. And an administration that is hostile to it.

Imagine being a journalist who is virulently opposed to free speech. Obviously they don’t teach self awareness in J school.

I don’t care much for Musk, but what he’s trying to do is a helluva lot better for me (and you) than what the people you’re supporting are trying to do.

[Sarcastr0]

What he said he'll do is not what he's done. And also no longer what he's saying he'll do.

And my criticism were of what he's done. Sorry, I do not believe that unless I say Musk's farts smell like roses I'm cozying up to anti free speech journalists.

I also think twitter is a private company and has nothing to do with free speech.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It absolutely has to do with free speech. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

[Sarcastr0]

The decision to not associate is free speech.

Have you ever noticed that free speech as a value seems to always be in flux? That's because it's not a thing - too many competing expression-related actions going on at once in the private sector.

You can say free speech demands twitter play with you. No one should listen though.

[Nige]

Criticising Musk is now an attack of free speech? I'm sure MUSK thinks so, but he's a billionaire with a legion of fawning fanboys telling him he's awesome and the conservative right telling him he's a free speech champion, but what's your excuse?

[shawn_dude]

He favors free speech by kicking people off of twitter he doesn't like. (see Jack Sweeney.) Worse, though, is he's tying his companies to political partisanship which is resulting in declines in brand loyalty from Democrats. Meanwhile, he releases selective information from Twitter which results in one of the company's former executives being accused of pedophilia (without evidence) and driven from his home by crazies with death threats. But sure, Musk is a charming guy! Totally.

He's having his Howard Hughes/Michael Jackson moment where he's losing touch with reality.

[Life of Brian]

Meanwhile, he releases selective information from Twitter which results in one of the company’s former executives being accused of pedophilia

What additional information should he have released about Yoel Roth that somehow would have balanced out the picture?

[Michael P]

Perhaps the missing context was an explanation of why Roth's alma mater scrubbed his doctoral thesis, which advocated for underage use of hook-up apps like Grindr.

[shawn_dude]

Except, he didn't advocate for that. Rather, he noted that under-18yo people were already on Grindr and mentioned that this was not desirable but that the sites should consider safety strategies for them since they were already there. Musk was unhappy that this guy quit Twitter after he took over so he tweeted that Roth, who is openly gay, argued in favor of children on adult apps. The direct result of which was death threats serious enough to make Roth evacuate his own home. But hey, Musk has to keep talent at his companies somehow, right?

Also, the University of Pennsylvania didn't "scrub" his thesis. It's available as I type.

Given how conservatives are back on their "gays are pedophiles" schtick, this was just red meat for the loonies.

[Life of Brian]

Also, the University of Pennsylvania didn’t “scrub” his thesis. It’s available as I type.

Yeah, they put it back after being called out for pulling it down in violation of their own written mandatory publishing requirement.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, the excerpted text implied the paper was advocating for the OPPOSITE of what it said.

And you don’t give a fuck about false accusations of pedophilia. You just smugly change the subject to something nearby that intimates the same.

Dude, that is an extremely fucked up thing to play around with.

Jesus Christ, you’re the worst. Back to mute for you for a while, you sealioning dick!

[Nige]

None. The man who like to call people he doesn't like pedophiles just had to wave his hand and all you loyal yapping mutts went on the hunt.

[David Nieporent]

"Favoring free speech."

https://aaronrupar.substack.com/p/aaron-rupar-twitter-suspension-atrupar

[Sarcastr0]

Any of you free speech idiots care to comment on this?

[jb]

"Free speech as long as you don't say anything bad about Elon"

[apedad]

Florida Senate passes property insurance overhaul

The insurance industry has seen two straight years of net underwriting losses exceeding $1 billion each year in Florida. Six insurers have gone insolvent this year, while others are leaving the state.

The insurance industry says litigation is partly to blame. Loopholes in Florida law, including fee multipliers that allow attorneys to collect higher fees for property insurance cases, have made Florida an excessively litigious state, a spokesman for the Insurance Information Institute has said.

The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation has said the state accounts for 76% of the nation’s homeowners’ insurance lawsuits but just 9% of all homeowners insurance claims.

The legislation would remove “one-way” attorney fees for property insurance, which require property insurers to pay the attorney fees of policyholders who successfully sue over claims, while shielding policyholders from paying insurers’ attorney fees when they lose.

Attorneys groups have argued that the insurance industry is at fault for refusing to pay out claims and that policyholders sue as a last resort. The alternative, arbitration, tilts in favor of insurance companies, they say.

https://apnews.com/cac10890cd631c2fa8e33824ae58a3c6

Lawyers vs. insurance agents.

Ooooof…either way, the homeowners won’t be winners.

Of course I agree with those of you saying it’s their fault for living in a perennial disaster area.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can avoid a lot of the risk by simply building appropriately. Putting a house on stilts in a storm surge area, for instance.

[Krychek_2]

I used to do insurance defense. We'd get a good result for an insurance company and the insurance company would express its appreciation by telling us they were cutting our bills in half. Because there's a glut of lawyers, insurance companies know that they can do that and still find lawyers willing to represent them. So, if they're willing to do that to their own lawyers, does anyone seriously think they aren't doing that to their policyholders? (I remember one case, by the way, in which a roof had been completely blown away by a hurricane and the insurance company claimed it was normal wear and tear.)

Under this legislation it will, as a practical matter, be next to impossible for a homeowner with a denied claim to sue his insurance carrier. Which means that homeowners are now dependent on their insurance companies to do the right thing. Not holding my breath.

It's probably too much to hope that every legislator who voted for this loses his house in the next hurricane and gets told by his insurer to pound sand.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still, the absurd disproportion between lawsuits and number of policies suggests that Florida was too litigation friendly to begin with.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, there were abuses on both sides, but I don't think the cure is to tell innocent property owners with good claims that they are effectively locked out of court. Because at this point the insurance companies really have no incentive to honor their policies. They can tell someone whose roof was blown away by a hurricane that it's normal wear and tear, and unless that person has 5k up front to pay an arbitrator, who tend to be insurance company friendly, he is now out of luck.

[Absaroka]

"but I don’t think the cure is to tell innocent property owners with good claims that they are effectively locked out of court. Because at this point the insurance companies really have no incentive to honor their policies"

Can you flesh out how the proposed changes will make Florida worse for policy holders than is currently the case in other states?

My sense from a few other states is that most insurance companies do a reasonably good job of paying claims. We have lived through one natural disaster which generated a lot of claims and to my knowledge not many complaints. Not zero complaints, but far from "no incentive to honor their policies".

[Krychek_2]

I can't speak to the situation in other states. Under the new law in Florida, cases will go to arbitration, which means plaintiffs will need to come up with 5-10k up front for the arbitration fee. That's beyond the reach of many homeowners. And insurance companies will not agree to arbitrate in front of arbitrators that rule in favor of homeowners.

Previously, insurance companies paid the plaintiff's attorneys fees if they lost at trial, or if the case settled. No more, meaning homeowners, after paying for an arbitrator, will now also have to pay their own attorneys, which in many cases means there won't be enough in insurance proceeds to repair the damage.

Bad faith cases against insurers who deal in bad faith have now been abolished. Before, that insurer who claimed hurricane damage was wear and tear had to at least be worried about being sued for bad faith. No more. The worst that will happen to that insurer is that they may be forced to pay the claim that they should have paid in the first place.

You are right that some insurers do pay claims. Others (I won't name names) have a business model of not paying them. And those have no real incentive at this point to honor the policies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, the variable I would want to see is risk to exposure -- in other words, Florida does get more hurricanes than Massachusetts and hence there will be more CLAIMS in Florida, and if (hypothetically) the percentage of claims resulting in litigation remained constant, there still would be more suits in Florida.

[Brett Bellmore]

From the top comment: "The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation has said the state accounts for 76% of the nation’s homeowners’ insurance lawsuits but just 9% of all homeowners insurance claims."

[JasonT20]

But are the claims made in Florida the same kind of claims made in other states? Some types of claims might be more likely to draw lawsuits when they are denied. Or, it could also be that Florida insurers are uniquely incentivized to behave in a way that draws lawsuits, which I think is what a lot of the people criticizing the industry are saying.

[bernard11]

the absurd disproportion between lawsuits and number of policies suggests that Florida was too litigation friendly to begin with.

Let's not dismiss the possibility that it is too friendly to insurers who don't like to pay.

Probably some of both.

[Longtobefree]

(I remember one case, by the way, in which a roof had been completely blown away by a hurricane and the insurance company claimed it was normal wear and tear.)

Well, in Florida - - - - - - -

[Nige]

'Of course I agree with those of you saying it’s their fault for living in a perennial disaster area.'

A perennial disaster area that can't seem to acknowledge it's a perennial disaster area. As Brett says, you could build your house on stilts, but the question is why isn't every new house being built on stilts, and why wetlands aren't being protected and even restored, both steps that would mitigate the effect of the disasters.

[Mr. Bumble]

A simple answer is that in coastal areas people are able to by government subsidized insurance (subsidized by you and me of course).
If they were force to pay the real cost of insuring their property, they might think twice about where they build.

[Nige]

Presumably there are planning issues as well - why the hell is anyone allowed to build houses in areas where they will likely be destroyed?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ratables. Governments love anything that produces income for them.

[Brett Bellmore]

People should absolutely be permitted to build houses in areas where they'll likely be destroyed. And be required to absorb the consequences themselves.

But our regulatory institutions are really, really down on the idea of requiring people to absorb the consequences of their own decisions.

[Nige]

What the hell is the point and purpose of that? With the right corruption and indemnities, politicians can enable developers to build on flood zones and then leave the homeowners to suffer the consequences before repeating the process ad nauseum. Meanwhile, wetlands that protect other areas from floods get drained and developed and the damage spreads exponentially. This is an atrociously stupid policy.

[Brett Bellmore]

The point is that people be free to make their own choices. Something that is only sustainable if they are liable for the costs of those choices.

[Nige]

As far as I can tell, you're only interested in one set of of all the people involved in the decisions to suffer the consequences.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I guess "people who make stupid decisions" could be called "one set of people".

[Nige]

Being 'stupid' isn't a crime. Crookedly building housing on places houses shouldn't be built then indemnifying yourself against the consequences then doing it again is. Or if it isn't it needs to be.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and what part of "liable for the costs of those choices" are you not getting?

I'm saying people should be allowed to build on ANY plot of land they own, but insurance should not be subsidized, not directly and not by setting price controls on it.

So, go ahead and build on that flood plain, but you'd better either build on stilts or have enough money in the bank to periodically rebuild that house, because nobody else is going to pick up the cost of your deciding to do so; When it washes away we'll just point and laugh at you.

But, yeah, if you build that house on a flood plain up on stilts, why should anybody stop you? It's no skin off my nose if your garage floods one year in ten if I'm not forced to subsidize your insurance.

[Nige]

'Yeah, and what part of “liable for the costs of those choices” are you not getting?'

The part where the only people who end up liable are the people in the houses, not the actual people who built them or the politicians who let them build.

'I’m saying people should be allowed to build on ANY plot of land they own'

And in the context of Florida that's a charter for corrupt developers/politicians.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nige has explained his position multiple times, Brett.

You need to learn to read what other people are saying and concentrate on that, rather than what you want to say in response.

There are people who buy homes without having any idea that it was constructed on a flood plain. In your world, you say the homeowner has to eat all of the shit from that decision. Nige has repeatedly tried to get it through your skull that the construction company who built the home there, and the politicians who may have waived their hands to allow such zoning should also suffer consequences, rather than just the unlucky sod who got sold a foreseeable disaster.

[bernard11]

For once, I'm with Bumble.

It really is idiotic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nige has a point -- after hurricane Andrew in 1992, they wanted to do a study to see if particleboard was as strong as plywood and couldn't because they found that the 4x8 foot sheets of particleboard had only been attached with *four* nails, one on each corner.

This is jaw-dropping shoddy work...

One guy, whose house stood, said he complied with the Florida Building Code.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's how Florida identifies the houses that meet the building code, and which of the inspectors are on the take: By waiting for a hurricane, then seeing what's still standing.

[shawn_dude]

Having lived in Florida for over a decade and having gone through the start of this insurance mess, I can at least share some of what I experienced. In Tampa, hurricanes are rare due to weather patterns and large bodies of land like Cuba and the rest of Florida that limit the impact. Having said that, storm surge and wind force are different and Tampa gets a lot more of the former than the latter.

Background:
My home was on high ground for Florida, over 60 feet above sea level and on the top of a low hill. It was build in the 1920s which means a raised foundation. It had a brick curtain wall around the foundation. So it was on very short stilts, high ground, top of a hill, and in a non-evacuation zone. If my former home flooded, all of downtown Tampa would be under several stories of water first.

I lost insurance companies annually starting around 2008. My first loss was supposedly due to my raised foundation. The insurance company wanted my home on a slab. (?!) My shingle roof was about 10 years old and had another 10 years or so in its lifespan but my next insurance company dropped me because it was "too old." And on and on. I lost three companies in one year before I ended up on Citizens insurance (last resort). My insurance rates kept increasing year after year until they were 50% of my mortgage PI. By then the state government was getting a black eye over Citizen's size and the failing insurance market so they spun off accounts into small, Citizen-underwritten companies. This was just a political bandaid. The company I was spun off into lasted almost two years, though, so there's that. But it failed and I was back on Citizens again. Then I sold and moved West.

Stilts aren't going to help protect folks in Orlando from wind damage. They're only good for flooding, which is generally limited to a handful of miles from coastlines and rivers. Insurance companies deny coverage from wind damage and related water intrusion as a matter of standard operating procedure in Florida. Hiring lawyers to fight claims is cheaper than paying out.

Florida's agricultural lobby is strong. Both the sugar and turf industries rely on Florida wetlands to grow their crops and the resulting changes to the topography and ecosystems from their activities cause a myriad of issues. Recall Desantis' first year in office and his approach to the red tide issue. That turned out to be a brilliant PR move on his part. Also notice that nothing of any consequence regarding the turf and sugar industries have changed since.

One more thing to notice about Florida... I call it the "Great Wall of Florida." This is the shoulder-to-shoulder construction of very expensive, beach-front homes along the coasts. (It's the "Great Wall" because it effectively reduces public access to beaches. The wealthy sometimes hire security to keep people off beaches in front of their homes, too.) These homes are part of the same insurance pools as less vulnerable, inland homes that are worth a lot less. In addition to the turf and sugar industries, Florida has a booming "rich people" industry that is largely insulated from a lot of these issues at the expense of their fellow residents.

[John F. Carr]

In the long run premiums should rise to pay for for whatever risk the state has imposed. You could require my insurance company to buy me a new car if mine gets scratched. My insurance company would break even by charging me a premium comparable to the value of the car. If rates in Florida are not allowed to rise with risk, then there's a problem.

We have insurance-hostile laws in Massachusetts. An insurance company is liable for punitive damages for not offering to settle a case once liability has become clear, and once that provision kicks in policy limits no longer apply. We have generous prejudgment interest. Our rates might be higher than comparable states where the insurance company dares you to sue, but the consumer experience is much better.

[Voize]

The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation has said the state accounts for 76% of the nation’s homeowners’ insurance lawsuits but just 9% of all homeowners insurance claims.

The data missing here is whether homeowners in Florida prevail more or less often than in other parts of the country. Do incentives lead them to file more meritless suits, as the insurance regulator seems to imply, or are Florida insurers more likely to wrongly deny a claim?

[shawn_dude]

Probably a bit of both.

Having your roof ripped off in a storm can lead to a denied claim. I recall the year we had three hurricanes run through central Florida in three weeks' time. Hurricane 1 goes through, does some damage, and the homeowner makes a claim. Hurricane's 2&3 do even more damage given that the roof is no longer protecting because of the last storm. Insurance companies were requiring proof of which storm caused which damage. It was a mess.

I also heard of some homeowners who had very old roofs trying to use this as a way get their insurance companies to pay for a replacement, even if the roof's condition wasn't impacted by the storm.

So, in my experience as a former Floridian, it was "both." But that's not data, of course, just my opinion.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Inflation continues to be very high...more than 7% year over year. Core inflation at 6%...Wages continue not to keep up, as real wages have dropped year over year.

The Biden Economy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Looking at the prices I pay when going grocery shopping, I wonder if the inflation rate really dropped, or the market basket 'adjustments' finally started catching up with it?

This graph suggests that it may be slowing, a little. While underscoring what a nasty turn food prices took in 2021.

It certainly helps the numbers look better that they omit food and energy from "core" inflation. Because eating and using energy are optional, I guess.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"I wonder if the inflation rate really dropped"

So, here's the breakdown.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/13/heres-the-inflation-breakdown-for-november-2022-in-one-chart.html#:~:text=The%20November%202022%20consumer%20price,less%20than%20the%207.3%25%20expected.

The interesting one there is beef. There's been a drought in the west, so the cattle farmers are culling their herds. They can't support the larger herd. Culling the herds, leads to a surplus of beef in the short term. In the long term (next year), expect a spike in beef prices.

[bernard11]

Which is an illustration of why core inflation excludes food prices.

They are very volatile, and that can distort the short-run picture.

[Brett Bellmore]

So? Don't exclude them, just use a rolling average.

[bernard11]

I wonder if the inflation rate really dropped, or the market basket ‘adjustments’ finally started catching up with it?

Are you going to bring that moronic point up again?

[Sarcastr0]

The election is over, AL. Your side posted up too many insane people and lost.

You can stop pretending a worldwide thing is Biden’s fault now.

[Armchair Lawyer]

People suffering from current inflation hasn't stopped. Real wages dropping due to inflationary practices are like a tax.

[Nige]

So, you want wages increased to match inflation? Some sort of index-linked set minimum?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not what he said.

[Nige]

Yeah, that was my point.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Your point was to mislead as to what I want?

[Nige]

No, my point was you're complaining about wage stagnation, to which there is an obvious solution.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There is an obvious solution.

Get rid of the President, Congress, and their policies which are causing inflation, by reducing supplies, increasing costs, and increasing the money supply.

Your "solution" (wages linked to inflation) doesn't actually solve the problem. In many ways, it makes it worse, creating feedback loops.

[Nige]

Exactly. Any policy that directly helps workers will never be tolerated by you guys. You prefer pie-in-the-sky get-rid-of demands that are fundamentally totalitarian.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't care about inflation at all. You care about partisan tribal bullshit.

'People are suffering?! Maybe I can use this to attack Biden!!'

Your empathy is false, and you should work on acting more like a real actual human, not a robot programed only for GOP propaganda.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Personal strawman attack... a Sarcastro classic, where he tells you what you think in order to knock it down.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The problem with your response to Sarcastr0, AL, is that he's entirely correct.

You are not interested in anything about any subject, aside from how you can complain about it being the fault of a liberal.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Jason,

Unfortunately, there are many, many posts on this site which demonstrate you are wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ll allow rare exceptions, AL, but your posts almost invariably take the own the libs side of things. If the right does something bad, you point left. If the left does something bad, you say worse is yet to come. If the subject isn’t partsian, you bring in something that is.

There are lots of folks that hate Dems, or have an extremely right wing ideology. You don't seem to have much ideology at all, taking no factual positions just bag on those Dems Dems Dems.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah: Not inflating the currency. Federal spending, government spending in general, is totally out of control.

Per capita federal spending in constant dollars.

The more of the economy the government takes over, the less of it is left over for everybody else, and we get poorer. For over half a century after WWII, federal spending was never more than 22% of the economy, and usually under 20%. Covid was used as an excuse to push it up to more like 30%. A level we'd never previously seen outside the worst years of WWII. And this in nominal peace time!

Wealth for the government means austerity for everybody else.

[Nige]

Most of the wealth in the US is concentrated in a small percentage of private individuals and corporations, the same individuals and corporations who actually pay wages, and are thereby responsible for keeping them low.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the government likes it that way: If you were running a dairy, which would you rather milk: One cow, or 10,000 mice? The amount of milk would be the same...

And the mice won't be hiring your idiot son for a high paying, no work job, either.

And keep in mind that with 'progressive' taxation, the same amount of income yields more tax revenue the worse income inequality gets. That's some sick incentive there.

[Nige]

Republicans like it that way, too many Democrats like it that way or are too timid to do anything about it in case Republicans call them socialists. With right wing tax cuts for the wealthy the wealthy keep ending up with… more and more of the money!

[Sarcastr0]

This is not localized to the US, Brett. It's not a US policy problem so you can get your anti-government spending jollies. We've had big spending many times before without inflation. In fact, Reagan was known for it, albeit on the military side.

At least you appear to believe the dumb things you say.

[Brett Bellmore]

"We’ve had big spending many times before without inflation."

Are you innumerate or something? Outside of the worst of WWII, the "big spending" you're talking about would be considered an extreme austerity budget by post 2007 standards. In terms of spending per capita, and percentage of economy spent by government, the last 15 years are off the chart! Literally the only time in the last century the government was spending this large a percentage of the economy was a couple years during World War Two!

It's like saying the fire crackers didn't blow my hand off, so I can safely hold onto a stick of TNT.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This is not localized to the US, Brett."

Would that it were, I'd be less pessimistic. This is a systematic problem across the entire developed world.

[Nige]

It is brazenly ridiculous that they keep raising military spending.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it is. They're raising ALL forms of spending. Basically the last lingering hints of spending restraint are gone.

I've observed before that, when somebody is sliding into debt, there comes a point where they realize they've passed the point of no return, that they ARE, inevitably, going to end up defaulting on their debts. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but eventually.

At that point, some people go the austerity route, to minimize the degree of the default. Other people set out to rip their creditors off for as much as possible before the spigot gets shut down.

Our government is firmly in the latter camp. They went straight from "we don't need to do anything about the debt yet" to "too late to do anything about the debt now, let's party!"

Now pretty much everybody in Washington is trying to squirrel away as much loot as possible before the party ends. They're barely even pretending any more, because they know it's not going to be much longer.

[Nige]

I prefer ‘increase speding in a way that benefits the poor, working and middle classes,’ even if it’s ridiculously constrained and limited, to ‘increase spending and concentrating even more wealth amongst the already wealthy while imposing austerity on the poor, working and middle classes.’

[Sarcastr0]

So *worldwide* government spending is out of control, and this is why inflation is a problem.

And then you compare sovereign debt to personal debt. In order to do pop-psychology on nations.

You're spinning quite a web. It's economically ignorant and more ideology than actual evidence.

Inflation is going down. Alongside the supply chain problem slowly ameliorating. Not saying supply chains are the only cause, but your single issue pessimism is just being a crank.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I prefer ‘increase speding in a way that benefits the poor, working and middle classes,’ even if it’s ridiculously constrained and limited,"

The federal government spending almost a third of the entire economy is "ridiculously constrained and limited" in your world? What did you want, 99%?

[Nige]

No, the benefits of spending to poor/working/middle class tend to be.

[bernard11]

when somebody is sliding into debt, there comes a point where they realize they’ve passed the point of no return, that they ARE, inevitably, going to end up defaulting on their debts. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but eventually.

At that point, some people go the austerity route, to minimize the degree of the default. Other people set out to rip their creditors off for as much as possible before the spigot gets shut down.

Our government is firmly in the latter camp. They went straight from “we don’t need to do anything about the debt yet” to “too late to do anything about the debt now, let’s party!”

This is a deranged rant.

[Mr. Bumble]

To obfuscate, dissemble and deflect?

[Nige]

If that obfuscated, dissembled and deflected you, you're easily obfuscated, dissembled and deflected.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0,

That's the current administrative and progressive Democrat narrative to deflect blame from Biden, and it's incorrect. To believe it is to also believe that the U.S. and its energy and monetary policies have no worldwide effect; and that some nebulous global condition or set of conditions caused inflation. We've heard Biden, et.al. claim it's covid, and then Putin, and so on. But never mentioned on your side is the current administrations profligate printing of money, and war waged on the fossil fuel industry.

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Print more money without hard assets backing it and the value of money goes down. Pretty simple at the base. Biden's fault. ('Though Trump bears some blame at the outset.)

Attack the oil industry and supply goes down, future supply goes down, and prices go up. Pretty simple.

Drive fuel prices up and cost of goods goes up, and in some cases supply drops, further increasing prices. Pretty simple.

[Brett Bellmore]

"(‘Though Trump bears some blame at the outset.)"

Some, yeah. His first year in office Trump proposed a budget with spending cuts. Modest ones.

Congress responded with massive spending increases, passed with a bipartisan veto proof majority. And Trump just gave up on spending restraint, and turned his attention to wars he had some chance of winning.

He should instead have kept sending up budgets with spending cuts, even if they were DOA, to maintain clarity about who was at fault.

[Sarcastr0]

To believe it is to also believe that the U.S. and its energy and monetary policies have no worldwide effect; and that some nebulous global condition or set of conditions caused inflation.

You mean like global supply chains?

Your suggestion is the domestic US policies *determine* worldwide inflation. That's on its face obviously wrong.

Inflation has, among it's other factors, monetary aspects. But it's also got simple supply and demand to it. And energy prices. And loads of other stuff.

It's not like you've been consistent in what you blame. It's the stimulus. It's domestic energy regs. It's propping up Ukraine.

Anyone on any side that blames one thing for inflation is trying to sell you something. That includes Biden. And whatever source you bought your line from as well.

[ThePublius]

Your use of quotes in "determine" is wrong, I never said that. You need to put works in my mouth to justify your argument?

[Don Nico]

"It’s propping up Ukraine. "
Indeed, the US promotion in the EU of massive spending to engage in a proxy war with Russia is taking a large toll. I recall that you do not believe the "proxy war" description. But it walks talks, squacks and swims like a proxy war. So call it what you will,
N.B. I did not say that Putin did not attack Ukraine first.

[Sarcastr0]

Um, whatever. Blaming inflation on that is just another hobby horse du joure.

It's in the mix. It's not the one sole reason.

[Don Nico]

S-0,
You need a prozac. I did not say a word, not a single one about inflation.
However, I will say that the BIden idea of capping Russia's oil prices is pure fantasy and it should make winter more miserable in europe.

[Sarcastr0]

We're talking about inflation in this thread, Don.

I'm a pretty happy dude, no need for drugs.

There is no drug for realpolitik on the brain. But that's not the be-all of foreign policy,.

[grb]

Don Nico : “But it walks talks, squacks and swims like a proxy war”

Here Don reminds me of a friend who’s extremely liberal (in a way), deeply unimformed, and addicted to his pet slogans. Like the Don, he somehow sees Ukraine as being solely about the U.S.

The outer reaches of political discourse – Right & Left – sometimes sound remarkably alike. Like the Don, my friend insists Ukraine is a “proxy war”. That Ukrainians are being raped, tortured and butchered in the occupied areas is irrelevant. That Putin’s invasion is a despot’s blundering attempt at legacy via masturbatory fantasies of Czarist empire, not worth mentioning. That Russia launched the first new war of conquest in Europe since they & Hitler carved-up Poland in ’39, a trifle. That Ukrainians are the ones actually fighting & dying to save their country, an embarrassment to be ignored.

Nope. It’s all about the nefarious aims of the evil United States. I expect Don and my friend would get along fine. They’d find much to agree on….

[Don Nico]

grb,
"Like the Don, he somehow sees Ukraine as being solely about the U.S. " Who said that? Only grb, the mind rapist.

I guess you don’t understand proxy wars or how US pushed NATO up to the Russian border after promising never to do that. Is Purin a “madman”? sure. But your denial of the facts of US driving escalation are simply blind. If you lived in Poland you might see the world differently. The assessment has nothing at all too do with my politics. It has everything to do with NATO and Russian escalation over the body of the Ukraine. “That Ukrainians are being raped, tortured and butchered in the occupied areas is irrelevant.” Who said that? Oh, it is you, trying to make a bogus point. No wonder that people say that NATO will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Your, “That Ukrainians are the ones actually fighting & dying to save their country, an embarrassment to be ignored.” is just more of your bombast meant to deny the scales that cover your eyes. Rant on, grb, Rant on. You fear the truth, because it offends your domestic politics.

[grb]

1. NATO was zero threat to Russia before this bit of adventurism, something Putin knew even if you don’t.

2. I don’t claim Putin is a madman, just a corrupt and exhausted fool. But you can see things from his eyes if you try. To secure his own power, he destroyed Russia’s nascent democracy. To save his person from criticism, he destroyed its independent media. To block threats from the law, he destroyed its judiciary. To reap wealth for himself & cronies, he hardwired corruption into the very fabric of the state. So after doing everything possible to eliminate any chance of Russia becoming a normal country, he turned to his “legacy”. But what was left? Just pseudo-historical diatribes about Ukraine not being a “real country” (just before the war) and delusional gibberish about himself as the new Peter the Great. (just after). What other country’s leader is as pathetic and contemptable?

3. Yep. I was expecting the “last Ukrainian” line. It’s Left and Right singing off the same music sheet again. Both are eager to give Russia everything it wants, but insist on hiding that goal behind copious crocodile tears about the “poor Ukrainians” - which is truly bullshit of the highest order. I don’t know how many times I seen a Putin apologist strike a theatrical pose and wail mournfully about the “poor Ukrainians”. Who the **** do they think that fools ?!?

3. There is no “domestic politics” from my perspective, because this is all about Ukraine, and their chance for a future. That’s the point I started with above. In response? You’ve perversely strived to prove everything I said about you was right. I didn’t need the help, but thanks….

[David Nieporent]

4. You omitted mockery of the howler about "NATO escalation over Ukraine."

[grb]

And had two (3)s to boot. Sometimes I need to take a few deep breaths and calm down, even as my fingers are poised over the keyboard.

[Don Nico]

"with Don Nico gushing a mental giant like Putin would run rings around Biden and his flabby western cohorts."
I challenge grb to produce exact quotes that would back up his bald-faced LIE.

[grb]

Don Nico : "bald-faced LIE"

Why not you go find it, and then triumphantly produce evidence of my gross exaggeration? It was the exchange just before the invasion and - yes - you said Biden and his allies were no match for Putin. As I mention below, it was also the exchange where I promised - absolutely promised - that Putin wouldn't invade. More the fool I, eh?

In short, you're full of it. You seem very excitable. You should work on that.

[Don Nico]

grb, You are so biased from a US-centric point of view that you truly do not understand what is happening. Of course Russia was threatened. And violating promises from US Presidents from Bush 1 and Clinton onward, the US kept tightening the vice. You say it is about Ukraine but Russia and China do not see it that way. Pay attention to other nations; they exist. Your politics oddly seems to be a Biden echo mouthpiece. You love to stick words in other’s mouths. I said noting about giving Mr Putin anything. It is your vivid imagination acting up. It is nice of you to absolve Mr Putin of mental instability. “What other country’s leader is as pathetic and contemptible?” Look no further than home or North Korea, different modalities to be sure, but similar degrees of megalomania.

[Sarcastr0]

You are so biased from a US-centric point of view

Don, you're the one calling this war a US proxy war.

That's the US-centric position. Calling everyone who doesn't acknowledge your take on the US pulling the strings currently the US-centric ones is ironic as hell.

[grb]

(1) Threatened with what? A NATO invasion – signed-off by the French, Hungarians, Italians and Montenegrins?!? There are times you just beclown yourself, Don.

(2) China, huh? Of course they “do not see it that way”. They want a world where they can herd their Uyghurs into camps and plow Taiwan under the waves. Damn if it doesn’t seem like I’ve paid closer attention to their wants than you have. God alone knows what kind of rainbow unicorns you see behind their aspirations.

(3) Once again, my “politics” aren’t politics at all. I support helping the Ukrainian fight off the ugliest & most brutal war on the European continent since WWII. Also, my “politics” are the same politics as dozens of countries supporting the Ukrainians. But I anticipate the response of someone so blind as you: All those other counties are just dupes of the U.S. too, right? Because a Germany or Latvia would never think to be horrified over a brutal war of conquest right on their doorstep. I bet hypnotism by the evil CIA as your go-to theory.

(4) Biden and Kim Jong-un! Beclown yourself indeed. I remember back before this whole mess started, with Don Nico gushing a mental giant like Putin would run rings around Biden and his flabby western cohorts. Given which leader has bungled every step from first decision to last, maybe ranking world figures ain’t your forte.

(5) Yes, in that same exchange I said Putin wouldn’t invade. In my defense, I had no notion how imbecilic and delusional he is.

[David Nieporent]

grb, You are so biased from a US-centric point of view that you truly do not understand what is happening.

I dunno; I would say the person who thinks the U.S.'s existence caused Russia to invade Ukraine is the one who is biased from a US-centric point of view. In reality, the U.S. had zero to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It was for Russian reasons, not American ones.

[Don Nico]

Yes S_0,
TO Biden it IS a proxy war.
TO Putin it is regional hegemony.
Got that?
Stop the blatant Biden fanboy blather nd see the world from a broader perspective.

[Don Nico]

GRB,
You are so full of DNC bullshit that you are not worth answering.
Your politics reek of US-centric blindness.
Try looking at the map of Nato year by year since 1992 when Russia was promised by the US that there would be no encirclement et.
As for China, you spout a whataboutism. You have no answer to the reality that the US has helped push Russia and China closer together.
The dozens of countries supporting Ukraine are driven by a US dominated NATO as well as fear the the war will spill over the Western border of Ukraine.
Then you repeat your LIE. Produce the evidence. Show the comment with date and link so that all can see it.
Wow, you were wrong about Putin. But you are in fact wrong about many things.

[Sarcastr0]

TO Biden it IS a proxy war.

Well, this is some made up shit.

Stop the blatant Biden fanboy blather nd see the world from a broader perspective.
Don, YOU are the one centering the US in this. Everyone replying to you has been pointing that out, and you can't seem to get it.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
You and grb are the ones who do not get that the Administration has made this their proxy war. You might think differently were there not 5000 miles between you and the front lines.
It is remarkable how grb in particular cannot accept that other rational people may have other ideas. Instead he can only engage is calling every idea contrary to his a QAnon conspiracy. Admittedly you do not go so far.

If you don't think that the US is pulling the strings, just consider who keeps escalating the technology used in the conflict.

[bernard11]

Print more money without hard assets backing it and the value of money goes down.

"Hard assets" are irrelevant.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah Biden’s destructive energy policy and it’s affect on energy prices didn’t have an impact on oil (a worldwide commodity) everywhere. Only in the US.

That’s why he’s going begging to oppressive dictatorships like Venezuela for more oil instead of just increasing production from domestic sources to drive down prices. Oil there is 50% cheaper than here. And the best part is that Venezuelan hydrocarbons don’t contain carbon, so they’re environmentally friendly to boot.

I guess as a government guy you’re a fan on guys like Maduro because they give folks lots of government and don’t say no, so you’re fine with Biden wanting to be his lapdog.

[Nige]

Weird that Bden's destructive energy policies somehow resulted in all-time record high fossil fuel industry profits. He's really squeezing them dry.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fossil fuel industry has been told that they're under a death sentence. Explicitly so. They've responded by ceasing all capital investments, since they won't be permitted to reap any return from them, and are busy just banking as much money as they can before they're shut down.

Same thing you'd do if you were single and told that you were going to be executed a year from now: You'd stop saving for the future, and live it up.

[Nige]

The fossil fuel companies had a choice between transitioning to other forms of energy production, or sticking with fossil fuels and putting the entire planet under a death sentence. Frankly, they're still being allowed to get away with murder. Literal murder, too, not your 'execution' metaphor.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I wish they had shut your ass off so you couldn’t run your computer to type this idiocy.

[Nige]

But muh freeze peach.

[ThePublius]

Nige, that's utter nonsense. First, if you really examine the alternative energy situation from an engineer's and an accountant's perspective, objectively, you will learn that for the world we live in the only reasonable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear; solar and wind with battery storage are a fools errand. Second, the fossil fuel industry is primarily in the exploration, extraction, refining and distribution business. Their assets, skills, infrastructure, and so forth, and not so easily transitioned to build nuke plants, windmills, PVs, and batteries.

They don't have a choice, but more importantly, neither do we!

[Nige]

Niclear isn’t a reasonable alternative because it has never been economically viable and people are generally terrified of it.

What a convincing argument: stopping doing the thing that is destroying the planet is HARD. Well, it’s not getting any easier, that’s for sure.

Of course we have a choice. You just don’t like it. But reliance on fossil fuels brought us to it, nothing else did.

[ThePublius]

The fact that people may be terrified of nuclear power is meaningless to me. Look at France, and Germany (pre-insanity).

Never economically viable??? And I take it you advocate for wind and solar? Ha, ha, ha. Nuke certainly is economically viable, even more so with today's fuel prices.

Nothing is destroying the planet.

I do not believe that man's use of fossil fuels and man's increased emissions of CO2 have anything to do with climate change. So there. I also KNOW that nothing has lifted more people out of misery and poverty than fossil fuels, in the entire history of the planet. So, even if it does warm the planet a bit, an insignificant bit, BTW, so be it. And the increased CO2 is better for agriculture, and CO2 absorbing forests, too, which we need. The planet is getting more crowded, deal with it!

[Nige]

It may be meaningless to you, less so to everyone else.

I advocate for sustainable clean sources of energy. Nuclear power has never been viable without huge subsidies. It's not the fault of the environmentalsists more nuke plants weren't built.

Even if you're the sort of crank that denies climate change, there's biodiveristy collapse. We are trying to deal with it, regardless of your kind of idiocy.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You have finally stumbled onto an accurate statement, although unintentionally. He drove the price of the product they sell through the roof, which drove their cashflow sky high.

But you (and apparently Biden) mistakenly believe that oil companies set the price that they get for their crude and natural gas. They don’t - prices are set by the transporters, refiners, and end users. The oil companies are price takers, not price setters.

Biden is bitching about them lowering their prices without the basic understanding of how oil markets work. Or he knows better and he’s just manipulating idiots like you. This is the genius setting our energy prices.

[Nige]

You said Biden's policies were responsible, now you're saying they've nothing to do with it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, that’s not at all what I said. You should quit talking about this because you apparently can’t comprehend it.

[Nige]

I just summed it up, not my fault it turned out stupid.

[jb]

...and yet energy costs are super high elsewhere as well. Perhaps there's something else going on.

From: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51338

"we expect net imports to fall to 3.4 million b/d in 2023 as domestic crude oil production increases to an all-time high of 12.6 million b/d." and

"We expect petroleum product net exports will reach new highs of 3.6 million b/d in 2022 and 3.8 million b/d in 2023."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You can stop pretending a worldwide thing is Biden’s fault now."

Yeah, damn all those worldwide banks printing dollars! There ought to be a law!

[Frank Drackman]

Lost? someone forgot to tell (Speaker erect) McCarthy

[SRG]

The Biden economy
There is a world outside the US, if you weren't too lazy to get out of your armchair.

But this is typical American stupidity. The article on inflation a day or so ago was at least as stupid for the same reason.

Why are you lot so fucking stupid about such matters?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Look in a mirror dude, because you obviously don’t know jack shit about energy and its impact on inflation. American stupidity indeed.

[Sarcastr0]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - energy policy comes up and you become extra agro and unwilling to engage.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s aggravating with all of these people (including you) spouting off all of these political talking points and thinking it’s so sophisticated when you haven’t even tried to learn the most basic aspects of the industry and the markets.

I tried to engage several months ago with a very long post walking through Biden’s actions a the impacts and how to mitigate and got a lot of nasty engagement from you and the Biden fanboys. Pretty much the reaction you get from the Trumpistas when you point out that he’s full of crap about the election.
I decided back then that I wasn’t going to bother to try because y’all just really don’t want to know.

Y’all don’t want to engage or learn anything. Easier to just bitch about the companies jacking up their prices without the most basic understanding that doing so is something they’ve never had the power to do.

[Nige]

Sounds like you can't handle disagreement or debate.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m not interested in back and forth political drivel. You don’t want to talk about facts and science and economics and incentives. You just want to support your team and rip the other. Having no team, particularly as it comes to energy, I find that tiresome.

You think what you’re doing is debate? You’re just throwing political shit at people. Look at your moronic response to my post above, where I tried to insert the most basic fact into timjus and you couldn’t handle it. Either you’re being disingenuous, or your brain is so fucked up by politics that stuff just can’t get through, or you’re just really really stupid. I have no interest in engaging in that.

[Nige]

You made some claims, then you made some more, I found them contradictory. Are you seriously kidding yourself you're not being political?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Saying that oil companies don’t set their products is political? Saying that the us industry could drill enough to tank oil prices if allowed/encouraged to do so is political?

No I’m not being political. I am stating facts. It’s you who is thinking politically because you’re infected with political stuff.

[Nige]

You said Biden's policies were hostile and caused the price increases. Then you listed a whole bunch of things which you claim are not oil companies but which all seem oil-company related that actually set the prices which have nothing to do with Biden but do boost oil company profits to record highs, and you then reiterated that Biden has nothing to do with prices, since he can;t seem to get them to go lower. Blaming Biden for something he's not doing is political.

[SRG]

Fuckwit, are you aware that other countries produce oil? Or that other countries buy oil? Or indeed, that trading between countries happens?

[Michael P]

The lengths to which you go to deny agency to Biden are amazing.

[SRG]

Merely pointing out that there is an outside world and not every adverse economic event can be laid at the feet of Biden is not "lengths".

But I guess you're one of those stupid seppos who doesn't understand how "international" works.

[bernard11]

It was .1% in November.

Do we need this silly argument again?

[bevis the lumberjack]

A respite because energy was down. If you think the inflation thing is over, well, I believe that you’re mistaken. The Fed hasn’t gone nearly far enough yet.

A question - are you old enough to have been an adult in, say, 1977 - 1982.

[bernard11]

Yes.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Then you remember the lengths that Volker had to go to in order to break inflation that was only a little less than this. We ain’t there yet.

[Sarcastr0]

Inflation seems to have been subsiding for 3 months now, albeit slowly.

Your doomsaying may come to pass, but your certainty should not exist.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Standard practice is to use the 12 month average. The one month number is typically too variable.

I find it odd you don't use core inflation, given how you promoted it above. Perhaps because the core inflation rate for the month is higher?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh what will you do if inflation goes down?

Probably go back to yelling about groomers or some such rot FOX tells you is the new owning of the libs.

It's all you do.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You're ranting again...

[Moderation4ever]

I just finished Annie Duke's new book Quit. The book explores the inportance of quiting, why people don't quit, and how to make better choices to quit. The authors notes how we have a negative view of quitting, preferring instead the quality of grit and determination that can carry a person to success. And while some carry through to success, some will fail costing them their fortune, their health, and even in some cases their lives. The book ends with the quote " Contrary to popular belief, winners quit a lot. That is how they win."

A good book easy to read, very informative. Definitely a must read if you are considering quitting something or if you're starting something new that you may need to quit in the future.

[DaveM]

In the words of that modern sage of Southern philosophy, Kenny Rodgers: You’ve got to know when to hold ’em / Know when to fold ’em / Know when to walk away / And know when to run // You never count your money / When you’re sittin’ at the table / There’ll be time enough for counting / When the dealin’s done.

https://youtu.be/7hx4gdlfamo

[DaveM]

Correction, I should have said as performed by Kenny Rodgers, not as written by him. The song itself was written by the incredibly talented Don Schlitz.

[Moderation4ever]

BTW - Kenny Rodger's song does come up in the book. The author notes the song talks about continuing once (hold'em) and quitting three times (fold'em, walk away, and run).

[David Nieporent]

OMG. Once is a typo. Three times is nails on a chalkboard. It's Kenny R-O-G-E-R-S, people.

[Illocust]

You don't quit. You move on. Jumping without somewhere else to go is a bad idea.

[Moderation4ever]

Again, addressed in the book need to have options.

[Nelson]

I have been reading a lot about Common Good Constitutionalism lately. I have some questions and would appreciate input from the law-folks here. IANAL, so if it's possible, please dumb it down to a bachelor-degree level. That said, here are my questions (for now):

1) Is this theory hostile to individual rights, or does it just claim that they are subordinate to the "common good"?

2) If law is "not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will of the legislators who created them", would that include the Constitution?

3) The "common good" is defined as a rational determination, but isn't majoritarian. How is this "good" determined?

4) What are the restrictions or limits of the power of the "common good" to nullify legislation or overpower individual rights?

5) I know that there is a large body of legal scholarship on natural law, but is there an easy way to explain how it interacts with the Constitution? I've always thought that the Constitution was informed and built off of natural law concepts (especially the Ninth Amendment).

6) From what I've read, Common Good Constitutionalism appears to be a huge departure from traditional conservative legal theory. It seems to be aimed at expanding today's system of special exceptions for religious people into a two-tiered justice system. Or perhaps even more than that, exporting an entire conservative moral code that isn't embraced by most people to the legal and justice system. Is that a fair reading of the theory?

7) Some of the issues that it seems to be taking aim at are contraception, abortion, and gay marriage. Is it a theocratic theory dressed up as a legal theory?

8) Is it an attempt to reset the foundation of Constitutional law away from individual rights and towards a moral standard? And if the latter, who determines what morality is used?

[Longtobefree]

1) Is this theory hostile to individual rights, or does it just claim that they are subordinate to the “common good”?

By definition, subordination to any group is hostile to individual rights.

[not guilty]

Old whine in new whineskins. Result oriented pandering to cultural scolds who perceive their deity to be such a weenie as to need help from Caesar.

I wish the religiously motivated would heed the admonition of the Apostle Peter: "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters." I Peter 4:15 (KJV).

[Michael D]

This is not as much a break from “traditional conservative legal theory” as it is from the classical liberal concept of individual rights. “For the common good” has been the refrain of every tyrant throughout history. So:

1) yes, it is in conflict with individual rights. The “good” cannot be determined by others, but only by the individual. To have a “common good” requires the subordination of the individual to the will of the majority.

2) I do not know enough about this concept to answer the question. However, there is the sort of common law concept of judge-made law applicable to the case they hear. But I doubt that is what is being advocated.

3) again, no telling what advocates say but the good can only be determined by each individual acting voluntarily and uncoerced. Majoritarianism is not a determinant of the good.

4) sounds to me like there are no limits other than achieving the common good.

Hard to answer all these questions without knowing specifics but this sounds like another form of Progressivism. We get told Progressivism is just the concept of pushing a handful of policies that are meant to achieve some sort of equitable outcome for all members of society. However, the ideology is not about a few policies or issues. It is a mechanism by which someone or some body of individuals or a select/elite determine the direction of “progress” society should take. The government is only a means of forcing individuals toward those goals by using both carrots and sticks. For example, if it is determined alcohol consumption is bad then alcohol should be prohibited. Or barring that, the ability to purchase it should be excluded on Sundays. I realize this is a simplistic example but I am just offering how government is used to achieve the “good”.

Democracy or dictatorship can both be Progressive. Nazis for example determined the good to be a society in which Jewish people were excluded from society but also sought to impose family and lifestyle rules on all members of the society. My example of Prohibition is one of a Progressive system in a democracy. In both, the individual is subordinated to the common good.

Ultimately, the common good is not a rights-based concept and empowers others to impose their will on individuals.

[Nige]

'Hard to answer all these questions without knowing specifics but this sounds like another form of Progressivism'

Ah yes, even when it's an explicitly conservative, religiously based doctrine, it's 'progressivism.' To everybody else it sounds like religious conservatism.

[Michael D]

What about conservatism is NOT progressive?

[Nige]

Isn't not being progressive the whole point of conservatism?

[shawn_dude]

Blue laws (prohibiting alcohol on Sundays) are not "progressive." If you look at the states that have them, like Florida, you'll find they all have one thing in common, and Democrat-majority legislatures is not one of them.

[Michael D]

You demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of progressivism. You seem to think it is only a “leftist” belief. It is an interventionist belief. The intervention of government to bring about the desired societal ends of the elite.

Who are the elite? An example might include someone in this forum who believes everyone else on here are “clingers”.

[Nige]

‘desired societal ends of the elite.’

No.

If you think the Rev is an 'elite' you have clearly lost all touch with the actual meaning of the word.

[Michael Masinter]

Florida does not have statewide blue laws restricting the sale of alcoholic beverages, including liquor, on Sundays; that's a matter for local governments. Although some small local governments still have blue laws, none of the state's large cities and counties still have them. In 2021, Tampa was the last major city to abolish its blue laws, presumably because the Super Bowl was held in Tampa that year. In Miami Beach and Miami, the principal fight is whether to allow bars to stay open until 5:00 am or to require closing at 2:00 am before reopening at 7:00 am.

[shawn_dude]

I left Tampa prior to 2021. Thank you for the clarification.

[Nelson]

Thank you for your detailed and hyperbole-free response. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.

"Ultimately, the common good is not a rights-based concept and empowers others to impose their will on individuals."

That is my understanding as well. Both the far left and the far right have a penchant for this type of argument, but I believe the center, both left and right, have been protective of and dedicated to an individual-rights reading of the Constitution.

While it seems that this new theory is coming from the far right, people like Ron DeSantis, Marco Rubio, and Rick Scott are playing footsie with it. A wingnut like Josh Hawley isn't surprising, but the Governor and both Senators from Florida live at various points of the center-right.

Is this becoming the new legal lodestar of conservative legal theory? Is it replacing originalism/textualism? And if so, what are the implications of a theory that advocates for legislating morality, elevating the executive above the legislative and judicial, and overtly challenging things like Griswald and Obergafell?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is this becoming the new legal lodestar of conservative legal theory? Is it replacing originalism/textualism?

No, its currently pretty much exclusively the province of Prof. Vermeule and a handful of Twitter randos.

[Nelson]

That's good to know. It seems like a very central-authority and coercive theory.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm hearing a lot from media sources that it's totes catching fire among young legal conservatives.

But seeing zero actual evidence of that other than the anecdotal takes they post from random folks named like Christian Hagertoast III who is a student at Hillsdale and just loves it.

[Nelson]

"A student at Hillsdale"

So a clueless fool with a penchant for theocratic authoritarianism?

[Noscitur a sociis]

1) Is this theory hostile to individual rights[?]

Yes.

2) If law is “not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will of the legislators who created them”, would that include the Constitution?

Yes.

3) The “common good” is defined as a rational determination, but isn’t majoritarian. How is this “good” determined?

By the Catholic Church.

4) What are the restrictions or limits of the power of the “common good” to nullify legislation or overpower individual rights?

Whatever Adrian Vermeule thinks they can get away with.

6) From what I’ve read, Common Good Constitutionalism appears to be a huge departure from traditional conservative legal theory. It seems to be aimed at expanding today’s system of special exceptions for religious people into a two-tiered justice system. Or perhaps even more than that, exporting an entire conservative moral code that isn’t embraced by most people to the legal and justice system. Is that a fair reading of the theory?

Yes.

7) Some of the issues that it seems to be taking aim at are contraception, abortion, and gay marriage. Is it a theocratic theory dressed up as a legal theory?

Yes.

8) Is it an attempt to reset the foundation of Constitutional law away from individual rights and towards a moral standard? And if the latter, who determines what morality is used?

Yes; the Catholic Church.

[Michael P]

Much better to rely on the Woke Church, then?

[Noscitur a sociis]

You got my number all right. I’m all in for wokeness, especially when comes to constitutional interpretation.

[not guilty]

"Much better to rely on the Woke Church, then?"

Michael P, do you take instruction on sexual morality from the most egregious enabler of child sexual abuse in the history of the world? Is RoCaMBLA an apt acronym?

[Michael P]

No, I do not take any instruction in morality from the Groomer Gang that has co-opted the Democrat party. What does the R stand for in the Communist Apologist MBLA?

[not guilty]

Roman Catholic Man-Boy Lust Association

[Nelson]

There are no actual examples of organized pedophilia from Democrats (or liberals or gays or trans people).

But from cultural conservatives? Just the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts have hidden and enabled hundreds of pedophiles, if not thousands. Throw in the various other churches and faith denominations that keep getting caught suppressing evidence of sexual predators of all stripes and it doesn’t seem to be the cultural left that supports groomers, does it?

Methinks cultural conservatives protest too much.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Are legal service prices too high?

So there was an interesting side post a while ago about the cost of legal services. And yes, it does appear that the cost of legal services is outpacing the rate of inflation handily since 1986. (See the link below).

This is affecting people, especially in the poorer and rural areas which are less able to normally afford high priced city services. It's also affecting the criminal defense system, as there aren't enough lawyers to defend these individuals, so they are languishing in jail longer.

Question is, what can we do about this? Now, naturally lawyers are thrilled by the shortage, as it keeps their salaries high. Lawyers didn't used to be quite so well paid...back in the 1950's Lawyers were paid well...but usually no more than twice the rate of a factory worker. Today, it's close to 4-5 times the rate of a factory worker. And lawyer salaries appear to increase at a faster rate than the national average for wages.

One thing we could do is reduce the barriers for entry into the profession. The barriers are significant...3 years of education after college (with loss of wages during that time), and often a hundred thousand dollars worth of debt. There is a question as to whether all that is really needed. As an initial step, potentially capping law school costs could be done, via either soft or hard means. As a potentially more dramatic step, a year of law school could be eliminated, and potentially replaced with an internship program at various law firms and programs (akin to a medical residency). This would allow the student to gain income, while assisting in reducing the legal workload.

Perhaps the most dramatic step would be to remove the legal school requirement from needing to practice law...one need only pass the bar exam to practice law legally. That may dramatically reduce barriers and allow for more people to practice law, people who could be qualified, but who don't have the time and resources to go through 3 years of legal schooling and 100,000 of debt.

Now, these proposals will be vigorously argued against by many of those in the legal profession...because of course, this would potentially increase the supply of lawyers, and reduce the salaries of those currently in law. Regardless, it should be important to consider. Not just the rich, powerful, and urbanites should be able to afford lawyers. Those who are middle class, poor, rural, or in prison should be able to access those services as well. And it may be in order to do this, we may need to change the barriers to entry.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/Legal-services/price-inflation#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Bureau,of%20change%20indicates%20significant%20inflation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I like what is being done in Europe -- make law an UNDERGRADUTE program, like we do engineering, nursing, and other fields. Maybe make it a 5 year degree (like nursing used to be) but keep it as a one-institution, one-admittance deal where students are either admitted to a law school they want to attend or they aren't -- instead of hoping one will be admitted four years hence.

The three year law degree was necessary in the 1970s when it included legal research and the West system -- which is all moot now as everything is computerized.

I like letting anyone take the bar exam -- we can't wind up with lawyers any worse than some of the ones we already have. As to public defenders, as an advisor, I had to go to court with undergrads and was *shocked* and what passed for public defense. I would say that I -- a non-lawyer -- could do a better job drunk than they did sober except that there was one who I don't think I ever saw sober.

And as to the sharp rise in law school tuition, you know what Bill Bennet said that student loans being available would do....

[shawn_dude]

The answer is probably automation. How much of the work the profession handles is boilerplate enough that it could be completed by software?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The U.S. already has the most lawyers per capita in the world. To the extent there’s a problem, I’m skeptical that it’s an under supply issue.

I’d also be interested in a more detailed breakdown of the data you’re looking at, my intuition is that increases in cost and salaries are likely driven more by changes at the high end.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That's an interesting question. In the long term, median (not mean) lawyer salaries have gone up dramatically. So, that's not just at the high end. In the shorter term, we'd need to find the numbers.

The U.S. simply having lawyers however isn't quite enough. We need to ask if they are being used in the most productive ways possible. For example, the average lawyer salary in France is just $66,500 a year, despite them having fewer lawyers per capita.

Clearly there's something odd about the US system that is artificially boosting the pay, and taking it away from the standard jobs required in the rural and criminal defense areas.

[David Bremer]

As I've told others, the driver of the cost of litigation isn't billable rates or the cost of lawyers; it's the time involved.

In 1986 (the year you use as a comparison), there were no emails and few (if any?) faxes. Maybe your case would have a couple boxes of documents of correspondence and business records, which you'd photocopy and label. Your legal research would probably be limited to some main cases found in headnotes.

Today, you'll have thousands of emails (and the cost of software to sort and review them), fights of ESI, and will need to sort through dozens of published and unpublished cases looking for the exact scenario presented in your case. And each of those cases will be three times longer than they used to be (and cite lots of other cases you now need to read). Judges have many more cases, so it will take longer to get a hearing and then longer to get a decision.

All this means cases take much more time than previously required. If you want to make litigation less expensive, make it more efficient.

[Allutz]

High end services, likely yes. Podunk rural services, likely no.

The fact is that rural lawyers usually make around 40-60k a year.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The Washington D.C. problem....

So, here's some interesting facts for you all to consider. Washington D.C. isn't really like most other national capitals. It's not a center of commerce or industry like London or Paris or Tokyo. Instead, its primary (only) business has been government.

Because of that, D.C. has historically been securely average to below average in its wages. As recently as the 1980's, DC's median household income ranked just below average when compared to the nation as a whole. And thus, it, in many ways, was representative of the country as a whole.

Then something happened. In the last 35 years, DC's median household income has shot up...dramatically, and well above the rate of the rest of the country. Today, DC's median income is #1, when compared to every other state. Its household median income is 35% above the national average. Its per capita income is 69% above the national average. DC, is in some ways, richer than even Silicon Valley

Why has this occurred? What has caused this dramatic spike in income for DC since the 1980's? Is it potentially problematic from a governance standpoint for the capital to be so rich compared to the country as a whole? And should this be rectified?

[apedad]

Short answer: Government contractors and lobbying.

“In 1975, total revenue of Washington lobbyists was less than $100 million; by 2006, it exceeded $2.5 billion.”

For govt contractors, 9/11 was the turning point as, “. . . federal procurement more than doubled in just a decade, from 2000 to 2010, even when adjusting for inflation. . . .”

Gotta spend and chase the $$$.

But the good thing is that NYC is still our financial capital and they don't kow-tow to DC.

Other centers, e.g., Silcon Valley (tech), Boston (education), Hollywood (mass culture), also act as counterpoints to DC's political strength.

[Sarcastr0]

I know you have a narrative in mind. Here are some other ideas than your empty-headed anti-government thinking.

-The median income in the District started going up about when suburbs became less appealing than living in the city. More demand means higher prices mean higher income people moving in.

-The population has been going up while cities stay the same size (city size is directly related to commute time), putting more pressure on cities at their size limit - NYC, LA, SF. DC for both structural and legal reasons has an especially small size, and cannot build up like other cities can. Again, price pressure up.

Certainly the size of government and power of lobbyists is a factor. But it is not the only one.

But the bottom line is that the world superpower's capitol city being wealthy is more utterly expected than a problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The median income in the District started going up about when suburbs became less appealing than living in the city."

And, how exactly did this drive up the median income in DC relative to the rest of the country? They have a monopoly on cities, or something?

[Stephen Lathrop]

If your wage scale is more minority friendly than elsewhere, you end up with a higher median income than elsewhere—while not necessarily paying anyone an outrageous wage. Leveling up from the bottom may be a good thing, which other areas should practice.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Because the high income people previously living in the suburbs now live in DC.

I have no idea if that’s what actually happened, but there’s nothing theoretically confusing about it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

In which case, the people living in the DC suburbs would again have some of the highest incomes in the country....

[Bob from Ohio]

"utterly expected than a problem"

The political capitals of most leading powers [Rome, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, France, England] were also the dominant economic centers.

A capital which produces nothing but government is definitely a problem.

[apedad]

Berlin and Frankfurt say hello.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah, that's why I didn't list Germany. "Most" doesn't mean anything to you?

[Don Nico]

Rome is not the economic center of Italy either except through its bureaucratic controls

[Noscitur a sociis]

DC was specifically chosen to avoid over-concentrating political power in one of our economic centers.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Trantor, too.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hi Bob,

Let me say this. It's actually not a problem for a capital to be just (or primarily) government. Examples include Canberra, Ottawa, Berlin, etc. But the key here is, these are "average" cities in their respective countries. They aren't richer than the other areas or cities by massive margins. Life is more expensive in other German cities.

It's when the capital soaks in all the resources of the country to enrich itself at the expense of the rest of the country that an issue may be apparent. Especially when it's "just government".

[Armchair Lawyer]

Except...

1. The population in DC is lower currently than it was in 1970.
2. The DC suburbs (Fairfax county, etc) are also some of the highest income counties in the country. Of the top 7 highest income counties in the country, 4 are DC suburbs.

[Sarcastr0]

1. The DC Metro Area is the metric you should look at. Gentrification reducing absolute density is a well known effect.
2. Explained above.

You are once again taking a complex issue and reducing it to one cause, so you can have a hobby horse to use as a cudgel. I suppose it's easy cognitively, but such simplicity is not how the world works.

[defaultdotxbe]

The problem with your counter narrative is that the size of government and power of lobbyists is the only factor that's unique to DC, and thus presents the most likely cause of the tremendous growth of DC income relative to the rest of the nation.

[Sarcastr0]

Except the effect isn't unique either - other cities have had an explosion of property values in that same timeframe. NYC, SF, and to a certain extent LA all spring to mind.

[Commenter_XY]

I have been reading 'The Twitter Files' with a growing sense of unease. I have a legal question.

If DHS or DOJ or FBI were meeting with C-Suite leadership of Twitter for the express purpose of censoring objectionable tweets (for whatever reason...misinformation, politics, whatever) the federal government identified, is that even legal? I was under the impression that it is not legal for the federal government to use private entities to carry out activities that would be unconstitutional if the federal government did them.

I get the politics piece. I am trying to understand the legal rationales (both ways...why it is legal to do that, why it is illegal to do that).

[Illocust]

Because twitter was collaborating without being threatened, it's legal. It shouldn't be legal for the government to have backdoor meetings like this with private businesses, but congress will never ban it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that guy from the mob wasn't threatening you, either. He was just commenting on how unfortunate it would be if your shop burned down.

Of course they were being threatened. It's fatuous to deny it.

[Nige]

So, where is the proof that someone said it would be unfortunate if Twitter burned down? Never happened. But the complete absence of threats is proof of threats, apparently. The complete absence of things is often the proof of things, in Brett's world.

[Illocust]

It's more like if a business is run by a mob bosses cousin. The mob is definitely willing and able to threaten anyone who steps out of line, and if someone new takes over they won't hesitate to do so. But in this particular case it was willing collaborators.

[Nige]

Wow if metaphors were proof, you'd have them nailed.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what a "backdoor" meeting is, but that's a loony position. Do you think that if there's a string of bank robberies in an area that FBI agents don't meet with bank security people and explain the situation, identify security risks, and discuss ways that the banks can beef up security to prevent future crimes? Or do you just think the FBI shouldn't do that?

[Ben_]

People communicating freely is implicitly analogized to bank robberies here.

[Nige]

'If DHS or DOJ or FBI were meeting with C-Suite leadership of Twitter for the express purpose of censoring objectionable tweets'

Which, of course, it's worth remembering, they did not.

[ThePublius]

They did so! Haven't you been following the twitter files?

[Nige]

I have. The Feds issued some vagueish warnings about possible efforts at foreign interference in the election. They mentioned the possibility of hacked material relating to Hunter Biden. That was it. They didn't tell them to censor anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, so what you're saying is that, no, you didn't read them. Maybe just some carefully curated excerpts.

Look up "weekly sync with FBI/DHS/DNI"; They were having regular formal meetings.

[Nige]

In none of those meetings did they ask for anything to be censored. In fact when asked by Twitter staff if some stuff should be censored, they demurred. On the other hand we know the actual government of the day, the Trump administration, made some requests, which were granted, but we don’t know what they were.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, you attended the meetings! Got transcripts?

[Sarcastr0]

Someone's been releasing the internal discussions of twitter for the certain journalists with quite the agenda to bring such things to light, Brett. Nothing like that has been discussed. So your demand for evidence rings quite hollow.

[Nige]

Oh so YOU attended the meetings and have transcripts?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You made up your mind that the meetings were nefarious without a scintilla of evidence.

It's typical Brett delusion to pretend that anyone challenging your evidence-free conspiracy bullshit has to pony up evidence themselves to disprove your imagined reality.

[Illocust]

No they asked for specific posts to be censored. That's now been documented thanks to the Twitter files.

[Nige]

Sure, documented in a metaphorical 'cousin of a mob boss' way, which is to say, you have to add sinister metaphors before it becomes proof of anything.

[David Nieporent]

They did so! Haven’t you been following the twitter files?

I have — by reading the actual Twitter Files threads, not random right wing wackos talking about them. That's not what the meetings were about.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter - don't just read what the right-wing web tells you about the upshot of those files (that includes those releasing the files - Musk is in with a pretty lame crowd). Read what the other side says.

So far, there has been little actual evidence of either working with the government or basing censorship decisions on partisanship. People will tell you there is evidence, but when you check it's all opinion and anecdotes.

[Ben_]

Hundreds of pages of “little actual evidence” released so far.

https://aflegal.org/afl-lawsuit-uncovers-more-damning-cdc-documents-revealing-twitters-partner-support-portal-for-covid-19-related-censorship-and-the-u-s-governments-advancement-of/

[Nige]

'more damning'

If they find any damning, it'll be the first.

[Sarcastr0]

A PORTAL!

Zounds, what a nefarious plot!!

[Ben_]

Government "partners" to censor. Leftists think that’s totally ok.

[Nige]

Government has contact with major global communication platform during global pandemic when communication is vital, conservatives mad because they want unfettered opportunity to spread politically motivated disinformation and kill lots of people.

[David Nieporent]

It's like postmodern research: you don't need to have evidence; you just need to say you have evidence.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ah, the basis of climate change "science".

[Nige]

You probably actually think so.

[Commenter_XY]

Right, I have not even gotten that far = objective evidence

I am still at square 1, Sarcastr0. Was it even legal? I think Illocust tried to answer it. Is it illegal for the federal government to use a private company to achieve an unconstitutional end (suppression of speech)? What's the relevant case law, and how would it apply here?

I mean. we'll all be looking at the evidence over the coming months. I am just wondering where it leads, legally.

[Ben_]

No one is going to jail, so the question of whether it’s technically illegal or not is academic.

Do you want your government partnering to censor or don’t you? Regardless of legality, they’ll do it again and keep doing it as long as enough people are ok with it. They have much to gain and not much to lose.

[David Nieporent]

Is it illegal for the federal government to use a private company to achieve an unconstitutional end (suppression of speech)?

It would be illegal for the government to say, "We demand you remove this, or else." (But when I say, "the government," I mean someone with enforcement power. It is not illegal — perhaps unfortunately — for legislators to be blowhards and to "demand" stuff.) It is not illegal for the government to say, "Hey, take a look at this post. Is that allowed under your rules?" The government can do that; you can do that, I can do that.

[Don Nico]

But the government has a way of being more "persuasive" in a mafiosi protection kind of way

[ducksalad]

“The government can do that; you can do that, I can do that.”

Sure. The government can also audit their taxes at discretion, decide with more or less absolute immunity to open investigations against them, while on the other hand declining to investigate or take action on crimes against them, subject them to destructive levels of discovery and subpoenas, and finally do pretty much anything at all to their overseas operations and employees including having client states do stuff that would be illegal here.

At a milder level they can withdraw special privileges, and it’s just the company’s problem if their business model has become dependent on those special privileges. Think Ron DeSantis and Disney if you want an example that might appeal to your political leanings.

They don’t need to do a whole lot of those things, just enough to make some news outlet, social media platform, or financial service company disregard principles they were perhaps only weakly committed to anyway.

Usually they don’t have to do or say anything explicit at all, it’s enough for the target to know it’s a possibility. Same reason I say “sir” and “ma’am” to ICE agents and sheriff’s deputies, and do what they say even if I know the law does not strictly require me to comply.

You and I can’t do that.

And you already knew all that.

[David Nieporent]

Usually they don’t have to do or say anything explicit at all, it’s enough for the target to know it’s a possibility.

So, in other words, not only do you not have any evidence that there were any threats, but you now claim that it doesn't matter whether you have any evidence of threats, and in fact it doesn't matter whether there actually were any threats. It's enough that you personally feel like there could have been.

[Ben_]

What's your point here? Threats can be implied.

You're really trying hard to make it easier for the government to work together with the private sector to censor and repress people.

[Ben_]

They had a "Partner Services Portal" for their government partners to login. They used it to coordinate censoring and banning. Facebook had a similar program.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/elon-musk-reacts-america-first-legal-uncovers-damning-evidence-revealing-secret-twitters-partner-support-portal-used-government-censor-dissenting-covid-19-viewpoints/

If you said the Covid vaccine didn’t prevent infection with Covid, the CDC would get you censored.

[Nige]

I love how all the misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theorying about the pandemic and the vaccine suddenly in retrospect get boiled down to one apparently innocuous and blameless little statement.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben, you kinda linked to the dumbest person on the Internet. Did you mean to do that?

Because for one thing, the portal wasn't secret. Only an idiot would...oh, right.

[Ben_]

Where’s CNN’s report on it? I’ll link to that.

Hiding news from people is a lot dumber than reporting it. I know you like people to be ignorant and to believe fantasy stories so you can trick them into serving your interests instead of theirs.

Yeah, Gateway Pundit reports lots of stuff and a bunch of it turns out wrong. Same for CNN though.

These are links to actual documents. People should decide for themselves whether, like you, they value their ignorance of these FOIA documents and this “Partner Services Portal”. I’m sure many of you guys won’t look so you can keep saying “little actual evidence”.

[Nige]

CNN won't give the added value of sinister metaphors.

[David Nieporent]

Again: anybody could/can report a tweet/post to Twitter/Facebook/etc. The government, Steve Bannon, Vladimir Putin, LeBron James, you, me. Anyone. The government does this much more frequently than LeBron James, you, or me, so the companies created a separate link for them to use. But it's still just a report. And Twitter/Facebook/etc. were free to do whatever they wanted with those reports.

[Ben_]

The “Partner Services Portal” was only available to censorship partners. Many in government used it in partnership with Twitter to censor.

That’s not "anyone".

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. All the portal allowed them to do was make reports. Twitter, not "many in government," decided what to do with those reports.

And anyone could make reports.

[Ben_]

You’re totally allowed to say you endorse government partnering with media to work around free speech protections.

I will say that I think civil rights workarounds are bad.

[Sarcastr0]

This was not partnering.

It also looks like it was more about actual criminal activity, not speech.

Unless you mean the other portal, which was used to make complaints, and which both parties used, and which evinces no partisan favoritism.

[Ben_]

You’re totally allowed to contend that government can censor whatever by saying "criminal activity".

[David Nieporent]

You’re totally allowed to contend that government can censor whatever by saying “criminal activity”.

The government didn't censor anything. Twitter had (still does) the constitutional, legal, and contractual rights to remove content if it wanted. Twitter did not lose that right just because a government official called particular tweets to its attention.

That the government pointed out certain posts to Twitter does not mean the government was making the decision to remove them. Twitter was free to accept or reject any request the government made.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re totally allowed to contend that government can censor whatever by saying “criminal activity”.

Not without evidence you can't! And you have no evidence.

[ThePublius]

I'm really tired of the name calling on here. You have become a frequent one, Sarcastr0, which is out of the character for you.

[Davedave]

That's a really disingenuous thing for a far right piece of shit like you to say while you go around abusing people for what they are, rather than what they say. If you don't like being called a scumbag, stop behaving in scumbag ways.

[Frank Drackman]

But what if I want to continue beating my wife???

[Ben_]

"the portal wasn’t secret"

Say "little actual evidence" and pretend nothing is going on. Then as soon as someone reveals evidence, immediately change to it wasn’t a secret, everyone knew about it all along.

[Nige]

It's not really a 'change' it's just a statement of fact.

[Michael P]

Then pretend that every random citizen was on equal footing with government agents who had privileged access to the censors.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, why in the world would law enforcement have any kind of special privileges? It's not like they...oh, wait...

[Michael P]

For the sake of decency, you could at least pretend not to enjoy the taste of boot polish, or compliance to authoritarian thugs, so much.

[Sarcastr0]

Law enforcement gets to do stuff that looks like breaking and entering and get away with it as well! Someone call the governor!!

I'm not particularly pro-cop, I'm just not a knee-jerk idiot.

[Moderation4ever]

I have the opinion that the Twitter files can be read however you like. Should companies meet with government official, well it happens all the time. Companies are going to look to the government for information, what they do with the information is the company's responsibility.

What I do get a sense of is that once you start moderating content it difficult to stop. You start with the most Is egregious, but as you work to the fine line of acceptable or unacceptable things get difficult and you may well overcompensate. That certainly seem to have happen with Twitter.

[Nige]

Once you start moderating, it’s difficult to DO, because some of it is automated, some of it is human-based, and there are a huge volume to moderate, all of it subject to error, misjudgement, blind spots and edge cases with no obvious application of the rules. However even the staunchest ‘moderation is censorship’ types seem to agree that the most egregious does indeed require moderation, eg child porn, ie, moderation is necessary.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem I think, is that there's always content on the edge, and you have to have some at least quasi-objective way of distinguishing this side of the edge from that side.

If you don't, the edge keeps moving as you get rid of stuff on it.

Twitter, it seems, lost track of those quasi-objective criteria, because too much content they REALLY wanted to sanction didn't meet them.

[Nige]

Again, you’re telling yourself a story, one that's certainly not supported by the Twitter Files. Moderation of 'edge stuff' doesn't stop because that 'edge stuff' doesn't actually go away, it's always coming back, so your 'moving edge' theory is just a thing you made up to justify your preconceived conclusions.

[Ben_]

"the Twitter files can be read however you like"

Anything can be. That’s not an excuse.

[shawn_dude]

One thing to keep in mind when reading these files is that they are not complete; the files are curated by the folks releasing them. One of those persons, Musk, has declared Democrats as the "party of hate." There's an aspect of partisanship here that colors the result.

In addition to all the questions these files raise, ask yourself what information wasn't included and why?

[Michael P]

Is there any evidence that Musk did any such curation? According to Bari Weiss, the only condition Musk placed on the reporters' access was that they publish their stories on Twitter first. (They've since published them on Weiss's new media site also.)

The only people we know "curated" the material were the left-of-center reporters and former FBI stooge James Baker, who was fired from Twitter because his curation of the material was a gross conflict of interest.

[Ben_]

Democrats started it:

https://www.10news.com/news/coronavirus/assemblywoman-lorena-gonzalez-says-f-k-elon-musk-after-ceo-threatens-move-tesla-out-of-california

If Democrats weren’t such assholes and bullies, Musk might still be on your team.

[Nelson]

"In addition to all the questions these files raise, ask yourself what information wasn’t included and why?"

That is the origin story of most conspiracy theories. There is no evidence that anything like that was done here. Your question lacks any foundation, exactly like "stolen elections".

If evidence that Musk manipulated information is discovered, then and only then is your implication of dishonesty justified.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don't be a nitwit. A publisher armed with the 1A can listen to threats from the government and tell them to fuck off. It's especially easy if you have the market presence of Twitter, but even a tiny weekly newspaper can do it.

[OtisAH]

Big Baby is making a “MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT” today. I assume this was a scramble based off of the poll yesterday claiming DeSantis has a 25pt lead over Turnip.

My guesses are:

1. A new lolsuit. Dunno what it would be about but it would be ridiculous whatever it is. Rated “unlikely.”

2. Announces his running mate. Nothing says a candidate cannot name a running mate two years before the election. If this is it I hope he names DeSantis. For the laughs. Rated “possible but not likely.”

3. Announces his candidacy for Speaker. This has all the hallmarks of a Turnip plan. It keeps attention on him (and off Ron); it sends the Marge’s, Gyms, and Mattys into a tizzy; and, most importantly, it owns the Libs somehow. Rated “possible.”

[MoreCurious]

Imagine how disheartening it must be for Trump to realize that the number of people (other than prosecutors) who care about what he says and does is diminishing every day. That will change, of course, on the day of the indictment (which I predict will be in mid-January).

[Estragon]

LOL all of these guesses were completely wrong!

Trading cards!! Perfect for the huckleberry in your life

[OtisAH]

The MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT arrived a few minutes ago and, boy, was I way off.

The MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT announced Big Baby’s official Donald Turnip Trading Card collection, featuring cartoons of Turnip as a superhero (man, this site REALLY needs to allow pics). Collect them all! They are “very much like a baseball card, but hopefully much more exciting.” And they’re only $99 each!

Here’s the url because the knowledge some of you dopes will buy them is hilarious: collecttrumpcards.com

“GET YOUR CARDS NOW!”

“Don’t wait. They will be gone, [he believes], very quickly!”

[Ben_]

You look really smart making a big deal out of it.

[OtisAH]

I mean it’s a MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT. It’s already a big deal.

Go buy some, Ben. They were created with people like you in mind. Glad to help.

[Bob from Ohio]

"MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT"

Like a "MAJOR PRIZE" of a lamp?

[Nige]

In fairness, it's the first real indication that DeSantis might actually have a shot at the title.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Ben, the one looking foolish here is the one mocking Trump's big new trading cards initiative.

[Ben_]

Trump is hyping something he’s selling for a profit. What a complete moron!

[Sarcastr0]

You can sell dumb silly things and get mocked for it, Ben.

Having a profit motive.
Being a clown.

Both can be true of the same action!

[Bob from Ohio]

Many politicians sell stuff now. Shirts etc.

Ocasio-Cortez has an elaborate web site for overpriced merchandise.

[Nige]

Not sure Trump does anything other than raise money for himself now.

[Sarcastr0]

Lord knows no one mocks AOC.

[Frank Drackman]

With that fake Rosie Perez accent? She mocks herself (and I'd pay good money to watch her mock herself)

[not guilty]

Grifters gotta grift.

[shawn_dude]

Grifter gonna grift!

[Nige]

Trading cards, if I haven’t just mistaken satire for reality. It’s trading cards. $99 each.

[OtisAH]

“Digital” trading cards. Turnip has jumped into the NFT market.

[Nige]

Can CryptoTrumpBucks be far behind?

[OtisAH]

I doubt the Baby Jesus loves me that much, but I’ll pray a little harder and see if that helps make CryptoTurnipBucks a reality.

[apedad]

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday revealed a new foray into NFT sales, sharing a website that offers a series of what he called “digital trading cards” for $99 each.

On a website called CollectTrumpCards.com, the 45th president is selling a series of artworks featuring likenesses of the 45th president depicted as a superhero with laser eyes, an astronaut, a John Wayne-like cowboy and, of course, a dark-suited Trump surrounded by gold bars and one of him golfing.

In a video accompanying the launch, Trump says they are “just like a baseball card, or other collectibles.”

(yahoo)

Clowns gotta clown.

[not guilty]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument this week in United States v. Joseph W. Fischer, the government's appeal of District Judge Carl Nichols's dismissal of one count of a January 6 indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), attempt to corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings2022.nsf/1D6FA815302719F785258916005C9654/$file/22-3038.mp3 The argument, which was scheduled for fifteen minutes per side, ran eighty minutes.

The judges asked both counsel about the meaning of the word "corruptly" as used in the charged statute, a question that the District Court's opinion did not address, and as one judge observed, the parties had not briefed. I wonder what the significance of that is. Perhaps the appellate court will use this appeal to provide guidance to the judges presiding over trials of January 6 defendants regarding the required culpable mental state.

[John F. Carr]

If federal courts could issue advisory opinions, now would be the time. Better to have all the defendants tried under the same version of the law, whatever that may be.

[not guilty]

Judge Nichols's treatment of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) is definitely an outlier among his fellow D.C. District Judges. At least fourteen of his colleagues have ruled to the contrary. Marcy Wheeler has collected links to the other judges' opinions. https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/03/08/judge-carl-nichols-upends-dojs-january-6-prosecution-strategy/

[John F. Carr]

Lower courts are tougher on defendants than higher courts when it comes to corruption-related offenses. In recent years, see "Bridgegate", the Sarbanes-Oxley fish case, and United States v. Tavares (1st Cir. 2016). Maybe the cases won't be thrown out entirely on appeal, but they could be sent back for new trials if the law is read more narrowly than the prosecution likes. Say, the prosecution gets a jury instruction that would allow conviction for burping loudly and the Appeals Court says loud noises are not a crime but scaring Congress into leaving the chamber is. There was evidence of disorderly conduct and of acts that would scare a reasonable member of Congress. Which did the jury base the conviction on?

[not guilty]

Not to mention McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), which narrowed the definition of public corruption and made it harder for prosecutors to prove that a political official engaged in bribery.

[apedad]

Justice Department Secures Landmark Agreement with City and Police Department Ending “Crime-Free” Rental Housing Program in Hesperia, California

The Justice Department announced today it has secured a landmark agreement to resolve a race and national origin discrimination lawsuit against the City of Hesperia, California, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. The department’s lawsuit alleged that the City and Sheriff’s Department engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Black and Latinx individuals and communities in Hesperia, in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, through the adoption and enforcement of a so-called “crime-free” rental housing program.

The program required all rental property owners to evict tenants upon notice by the Sheriff’s Department that the tenants had engaged in any alleged “criminal activity” on or near the property — regardless of whether those allegations resulted in an arrest, charge, or conviction. In addition, the program encouraged housing providers to evict entire families when only one household member engaged in purported criminal activity and even notified landlords to evict survivors of domestic violence.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-landmark-agreement-city-and-police-department-ending-crime-free

Huh...didn't know this existed.

[apedad]

And here's the other side: http://www.crime-free-association.org/rental_housing.htm

[Jacob Grimes]

Oh ffs the DOJ is now using Latinks.

[OtisAH]

How terrible for you. Hopefully you have a strong support system at home to pull you through this terrible ordeal.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look up HUDs eviction policy for families when a child is arrested for drugs -- same thing. And that is HUD.

[David Nieporent]

It's not the same thing. One can oppose the HUD policies also, but those involve public housing — the government acting as landlord. This involves private housing. The government tells a building owner: you must evict your tenants (without due process) or you yourself will be punished.

Reason has covered this in the past.

[gormadoc]

The "minister for higher education" of Afghanistan has now made it clear that they will further disallow female education, probably a complete ban. Apparently it conflicts with "Islam and Afghan values." He's also declared that members of the Taliban don't have to prove their qualifications to attend university.

[John F. Carr]

Also in Afghanistan, there was a clash with Pakistan where the border has not been precisely determined.

And there's trouble in Nagorno-Karabakh. A Russian blogger blames it on Azerbaijan. He may be biased.

And there's trouble between Serbia and Kosovo. More than usual.

[Aunt Teefah]

More bad news for the many Elon Musk dickriders on here who claim he loves to pRoTecT fREezeE pEAcH:

https://www.axios.com/2022/12/14/twitter-elon-musk-jet-tracker-account-suspended

He is now planning to file a frivolous SLAPP suit against a college kid who had the temerity to post public information of where his private jet is flying. Purely coincidentally I'm sure, said jet has made multiple stops at Little St. James Island. As it turns out, I guess everyone needs their safe space.

[Ed Grinberg]

Your understanding of "free speech" is . . . odd.
(checks name)
Ah, OK, I get it. Preventing you from doxxing people violates your "free speech," right? I suppose so does preventing you from throwing bricks through people's windows?

[jb]

It was Musk's own understanding of free speech until it turns out it wasn't:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, being doxed at the same time he was getting death threats may just have changed his mind, I suppose.

[jb]

Sure. He's discovering that free speech absolutism isn't viable and for good reasons.

But this is very clearly backing off his free speech principles despite Ed's attempt to redefine the term.

[OtisAH]

I am unsurprised that you having no idea what doxxing means has no effect on you confidently using the term.

[Nige]

It's not really doxxing, though, it's his jet. On the other hand he was quick to let libsotiktok, everyone's favourite doxxer and channeler of bomb threats, back on.

[Illocust]

Doxxing is not retweeting someone's post. It is revealing their identity or location. You'll notice that Libsoftiktok does the former not the latter, but a left wing reporter fiddly did the latter for no public benefit.

[Nige]

Libsoftiktok targeted people that invariably ended up doxxed, threatened, harassed and abused.

[Brett Bellmore]

Libs of Tictok just reposted other people's posts, nothing more. As Illocust says, that's not doxing. OTOH, providing somebody's real time location? Yeah, that's doxing.

They didn't like Libs of Tictok, because they exposed left-wing people who posted stupid shit to ridicule. Which may have motivated some people to dox those people, but it wasn't itself doxing them.

[Nige]

Every time it 'reposted,' a torrent of hate, abuse, harassment and doxxing was directed at the target. They knew what they were doing, and it was evil.

[bernard11]

Are we not responsible for the wholly foreseeable consequences of our actions?

If I do X, which appears innocent, a number of times, and this results in very bad consequences for someone whose only offense is disagreeing with me, is it OK for me to just keep on doing X?

[Sarcastr0]

Bomb threats, Brett. Regularly. Shutting down hospitals. That puts people at risk.

Fuck you and your blithe 'this is no big deal.' You'll justify pogroms as not being real if it's the right doing them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that does put people at risk. Was Libs of Tictok doing any of that? Nope, not a bit of it.

Again, just reposting PUBLIC posts. No more identifying information than the people had posted themselves. That's not doxing, that's pointing and snickering.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that does put people at risk. Was Libs of Tictok doing any of that? Nope, not a bit of it.

Weird that the moment the account starts going in on a hospital the bomb threats start.

This isn't really a very trick puzzle!

[Ben_]

Weird that when leftists want to silence someone, they always claim they’re victims of threats. Often with no evidence.

[Nige]

This from the guy who thinks without evidence that meetings were full of cliched Mafia dialogue. Libsoftiktok targeted people and institutions for abuse, harassment, doxxing, threats and it's faked innocence of cause and effect.

[VinniUSMC]

Weird that Sarcast0 calls people dumb, but when called out for misusing a term like “doxxing” he just doubles down on being stupid.

And Nige, right on cue. If I quote you, does that mean that I've targeted you? No? Stop being a moron.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't mention doxxing.

Our terminology about shitty online behavior isn't really airtight.

Doesn't mean that account isn't fucking awful and doesn't care a fig for collateral damage as it owns the libs.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Again, just reposting PUBLIC posts."

ElonJet posted PUBLIC data about where the jet flew. That is not doxxing.

[Nige]

'If I quote you, does that mean that I’ve targeted you? No? Stop being a moron.'

If the people you quote keep getting threats, harassment and bomb threats as a result, yes, you are targeting me.

[Aunt Teefah]

Brett now supports curtailing free speech to preserve safe spaces. Does this newfound appreciation for safety extend to people who face actual, credible threats? Or just right wing billionaires who want to avoid embarrassment?

[Brett Bellmore]

Where did I say that I agreed with Musk about this? All I did was speculate what would have motivated him.

[bernard11]

All I did was..

Ah. The Brett Shuffle makes another appearance.

[Aunt Teefah]

Publishing publicly available flight records (regardless of whether that is "doxxing" or any other moronic claptrap you want to label it) is plainly protected by the First Amendment. And you think that is somehow comparable to throwing bricks through someone's window? Are you really that fucking stupid? If you want to adequately defend your pedo hero, you're gonna need to come up with better reasoning than that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Speech critical of The Squad or millennial reporters is also clearly protected by the 1A as well but that doesn’t stop the caterwauling about putting people in danger.

Certainly the same argument could be made about posting someone’s flight information.

The left is being two faced on this, which seems to be a requirement for the politically zealous in this age. Right or left.

[Aunt Teefah]

Has someone in "The Squad" filed a lawsuit to try to shut down 1A-protected speech critical of them? Do you have a citation or a link to that having occurred? Or just more non sequitur false equivalencies?

"the same argument could be made about posting someone’s flight information."

Ok, make it then. Specifically. Explain exactly how publishing the flight records of billionaire Elon Musk's private jet - which are already publicly available for any bad actor who wants to access them - poses a credible threat of actual violence.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The same way that criticizing a female congressperson endangers their life. It doesn’t.

That was my point.

[Aunt Teefah]

Well it sounds to me like you have no point at all. Maybe if a "female congressperson" filed a SLAPP lawsuit against someone for criticizing or embarrassing her, you would. But until then . . .

[bevis the lumberjack]

AOC is whining about being put in danger by criticism more often than she isn’t doing so. Just to pick one.

You’re declining to acknowledge the comparison simply because of a pathetic inability to criticize your own side.

[Nige]

She's 'whining' about being put in danger when that 'criticism' results in death threats. What's she supposed to do, pretend her life hasn't been threatened? How is her talking about death threats against freedom of speech, but not the death threats? There's a comparison, all right, it just makes you look kind of dumb by characterising her reacting to death threats as 'whining,' and she still never silenced anyone the way Musk did, just engaged in her own speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Death threats have become normalized. That does not mean they are not unacceptable.

That's not whining. Good lord.

[Aunt Teefah]

I’m happy to criticize “the Squad” or any other politician when warranted. But they have done nothing analogous to what Elon did here. Despite receiving the most death threats of any politician (wonder why), they haven’t filed frivolous lawsuits against their critics to try to shut them up. So I’m having a hard time understanding why you insist on fixating on them as part of your defense of your favorite Epstein-connected billionaire.

[Davedave]

You really make yourself look very stupid when you show you can't identify your own side. The Squad are far right nutjobs in fancy dress, they're on your team.

[Moderation4ever]

I am a bit surprised by this as I heard a pilot say that people can request that aircraft identification numbers not be released to keep their movements private. So, this move by Musk appears to be more a stunt than a necessity.

[Illocust]

I mean equally applying the rules of Twitter is quite a stunt. If the rules haven't been changed they should be applied to everyone.

[grb]

I recently read two WWII memes on the last election:

(1) A Description of the midterms as the “Dunkirk Election”: This captures how the Democrats surprisingly good showing was an miraculous escape from calamity and unspeakable evil. It recognizes there are many important battles yet to win & everything still hangs in the balance. Very clever & apt formulation!

(2) The second is a riff on Churchill : It describe those in the GOP who turned a blind eye to Trump’s incompetence, criminality and sleaze for political gain: “You were given the choice between dishonour and political defeat. You chose dishonour and you will have political defeat.”

Also on the money…..

[Nige]

[Ben_]

Here’s the end result of aggressive Covid policy: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/14/china/beijing-zero-covid-easing-streets-impact-intl-hnk-mic

All they did was take an extra year or two of everyone’s life spent standing in testing lines and locked under house arrest. Result: everyone gets Covid anyway. It was obvious over a year ago that would be the end result. The only question was how long they’d spend in denial of the inevitable.

[grb]

Thanks for introducing the subject of covid! A few threads back, I linked a study that attempted to estimate how many tens of thousands needlessly died because the GOP remade itself into the anti-vaxx party.

The logic was (and is) irrefutable: Anti-vaxx misinformation, propaganda and hysteria went from a tiny fringe minority spread across the ideological spectrum to a widely-held view of one party. This occurred because the Right & GOP saw political gain in anti-vaxx agitprop. It was reflected in the massive difference in vaccination rates by party. Given the difference in covid deaths between the vaccinated & unvaccinated, useless deaths had to follow.

Now DeSantis vies to lead America’s new anti-vaxx party in his most shameless & contemptable stunt yet. It just goes to show that Trump was more symptom than cause. The moral and intellectual rot in today’s Right didn’t come from him – it’s at the core of everything they are.

[Ben_]

But also the vaccines don’t prevent Covid. And people resent being coerced into medical procedures that are objectively not for their benefit. And we all saw public health officials tell lies (which they later admitted to) during the pandemic.

I know you hate people who are not like you and seek out opportunities to justify your hatred. But don’t pretend to be surprised when they react mistrustfully to that hatred.

[Nige]

How is it not for people benefit to take a vaccine that reduces their chances of catching covid, and reduces its severity if they do catch it?

[YepThatGuy]

Are you honestly unaware that real, live, healthy children exist? And that exposure to -- and the subsequent development of natural defenses to -- viruses by those kids is far better than whatever is in the latest update of the jab?

[Ben_]

There was never a net benefit to children getting the Covid shots. They were supposed to have it done to them on the off chance that they might not infect someone else. Even that turned out to be essentially useless.

Many of them are still pushing the shots for children though, even though we now know the bad outcomes from Covid shots are much more common and more serious than the risks to children from Covid.

[Nige]

We do not, of course, know that, either, speaking of anti-vaxx disinfo.

[David Nieporent]

And that exposure to — and the subsequent development of natural defenses to — viruses by those kids is far better than whatever is in the latest update of the jab?

Please tell me what medical school you flunked out of.

[Nige]

No, I've never heard that. There is no natural immunity to covid. People have caught it mutliple times. It keeps evolving and mutating, presumably becuase of the way it's been allowed to run through so much of the population, but that's just my hypothesis. Meanwhile the vaccines reduce chances of catching it and reduce severity of you do catch it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There is no natural immunity to covid."

"Meanwhile the vaccines reduce chances of catching it and reduce severity of you do catch it."

Your level of medical understanding is such that just opening your mouth drains comprehension from the people around you.

All the vaccine does is trick your body into thinking it has contracted the disease, and reacting in the same manner it would IF you'd caught the disease! It would be literally impossible for a vaccine to give you immunity if natural immunity wasn't a thing!

[Nige]

'All the vaccine does' that's a miracle of modern medicine there, Brett that has saved millions of lives. These vaccines can't give people full immunity because there are too many variants arising, that's why vaccinated people still catch it, and why people catch it multiple times. That's what happens when your policy is to just let it rip through populations, mutating merrily.

[Don Nico]

GRB,
Your logic was refutable and based on a poor undestanding of covid-19 epidemiology and the variations in apparent virulence throughout the world. You completely ignored countries with high vaccination rates that had mortality rates equal to or exceeding the US.
You neglected the needless death due to hospitals canceling surgeries and diagnostic tests of people with often fatal disease.

Your present whine about vaccines ignores that the efficacy and effectiveness of present vaccines is ~25% and than again variants that have a morbity of ~0.15%.
Try following the science, rather than your political masters for a change

[Yatusabes]

Wondering why Professor Eugene Volokh, 1st Amendment legal expert, has not provided legal commentary on the hottest legal topic in America right now, the Twitter Files, vis a vis the FBI, CDC, et al being accused of censorship by proxy. It appears Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss have provided proof that the Feds did just that

Professor Volokh, what say you?

https://reason.com/tag/social-media-common-carrier/

[Josh R]

Does DeSantis believe his anti-vax rhetoric, or is he trolling for electoral advantage? I'm not sure the latter is effective.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What anti-vax rhetoric? There wasn't any in your link.

[Josh R]

Calling for a grand jury to investigate willful fraud propagated about safety and effectiveness strikes me as trolling.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why? Clearly we were oversold on some aspects of its effectiveness, like the ability to prevent transmission.

[Nige]

'Oversold on some apsects of its effectiveness.'

They should have been more cautious, but that hardly constitutes fraud, unless you can find proof of someone saying 'lol let's oversell this!' Not like claiming ivermectin was a cure.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They should have been more cautious, but that hardly constitutes fraud,"

Didn't say it was. That's what the grand jury will investigate. But that isn't trolling, or anti-vax rhetoric. I haven't seen any evidence that DeSantis is claiming anything about the vax that wasn't true.

[Josh R]

It’s trolling to call a grand jury when there is no evidence of fraud. Plus, DeSantis said the vaccine is "purported" to prevent symptoms. That's trolling that endangers public health.

[David Nieporent]

Also, it seems unlikely that a Florida grand jury would have jurisdiction over most of the stuff he supposedly wants them to look at. The state of Florida isn't allowed to overrule the FDA.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Plus, DeSantis said the vaccine is “purported” to prevent symptoms. That’s trolling that endangers public health."

This is what the petition to empanel the grand jury said, in context:

"Petitioner has determined that there are good and sufficient reasons to deem it to be in the public interest to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate criminal or wrongful activity in Florida relating to the development, promotion, and distribution of vaccines purported to prevent COVID19 infection, symptoms, and transmission."

[Josh R]

Given there are not good and sufficient reasons to suggest criminal or wrongful activity, that's trolling.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Petitioner has determined that there are partisan and selfish reasons to declare a public investigation to waste State funds for his future ambitions."

Fixed that bullshit for you.

[Davedave]

"Clearly we were oversold on some aspects of its effectiveness, like the ability to prevent transmission."

What an absurd lie. The vaccination program clearly and obviously prevented transmission, which is the only claim of that nature that was ever made. If you don't get covid, you ain't transmitting it onwards. Simple enough even brain-damaged idiots can understand it.

[Josh R]

That was the case for alpha and to a lesser extent delta. But for omicron, the vaccine has been pretty bad at preventing infection. Perhaps that aspect was oversold for omicron based on the data from earlier variants, but when the omicron data came in, we were all informed of it.

[grb]

Beyond that, the vaccines made a massive difference in the rates of serious illness and/or death from covid. When the pandemic was at its height, the people who filled the hospitals (to the bursting point) were overwhelmingly unvaccinated. The people dying were overwhelmingly unvaccinated.

It just makes it more pathetic to see the anti-vaxx line parroted by people in this thread - who don’t seem to understand they’ve been duped. And “leaders” like DeSantis? Who are willing to see thousands of needless deaths for cheap political theatrics?

They’re beyond contempt. Trump maybe be a worthless turd of a human being, but even he didn’t play cartoon politics with something that saves lives.

[grb]

Quote :

"Another way to think about the protection vaccination provides is to compare the ratios of death rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated. For the month of March, “unvaccinated people 12 years and older had 17 times the rate of COVID-associated deaths, compared to people vaccinated with a primary series and a booster dose,” says Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service commander Heather Scobie, deputy team lead for surveillance and analytics at the CDC’s Epidemiology Task Force.* “Unvaccinated people had eight times the rate of death as compared to people who only had a primary series,” suggesting that boosters increase the level of protection"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-covid-deaths-for-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people/

Something to remember while watching DeSantis sleaze after the anti-vaxx vote.....

[Brett Bellmore]

That quote actually illustrates what came to really royally piss me off. Notice how they divide people into two groups, “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated”, and utterly ignore that a rather large percentage of the “unvaccinated” had already had Covid, and might as well have been vaccinated?

As of March this year, according to the CDC, approximately 95% of Americans have anti-Covid antibodies in their blood. 70% of Americans have had at least one Covid shot.

Of the 30% “unvaccinated”, that 5% who never had Covid are responsible for the entire difference in death rates. Failing to acknowledge prior infections is hugely understating the level of risk THEY are facing. It’s about 6 times higher than the stats you cited suggest.

[David Nieporent]

and utterly ignore that a rather large percentage of the “unvaccinated” had already had Covid, and might as well have been vaccinated?

That you religiously believe this does not make it true.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Notice how they divide people into two groups, “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated”, and utterly ignore that a rather large percentage of the “unvaccinated” had already had Covid, and might as well have been vaccinated?"

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/974529

[Don Nico]

Jason that report is contradicted in multiple peer reviewed manuscripts and its conclusions were not accepted by most if not all public health authorities in the EU.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Of the 30% “unvaccinated”, that 5% who …. (gibberish)”

I’m trying to make sense of this, but damn if it isn’t a puzzler. Because even even granting Brett’s (doubtful) command of facts, nothing has changed. Vaccination remains a powerful bar against serious illness or death from covid. The unvaccinated remain significantly overrepresented among covid’s seriously ill and dying.

Brett carves out these subgroups of the “good” unvaccinated and the “bad” unvaccinated, and then blames everything on the latter. However questionable as fact, that is meant to function as an excuse. But of what? I don’t see how it excuses the Right’s rancid cartoon politics on vaccines. It certain doesn’t erase the shame of those unvaccinated dead, who might have lived if they hadn’t listened to their party’s toxic bullshit. Please note this also ignores the possible benefits of vaccination as a complement to natural immunity.

(There were actual studies on that which I sure Don Nico could quote if (that is) he didn’t think the sole function of science is to lay down smoke screens to shield right-wingers from criticism.)

[Brett Bellmore]

What’s good or bad about having caught a virus? It’s not a moral thing, it’s purely a medical issue: Having caught a bug gives you some degree of immunity to it. I mean, that’s the principle of vaccines: They make your body react as though you had the disease, hopefully without the same bad effects. If the immune system wasn’t capable of mounting a response to an infection, vaccines would be useless!

So my point is that the above cited statistics actually UNDERSTATE how important it is to get the vaccine if you’ve never had Covid. The unvaccinated who haven’t had Covid are much worse off than those numbers suggest, because the idiot health officials are insisting on issuing numbers that don’t distinguish between the people who are REALLY at risk, and the people who are no more at risk than if they’d gotten vaccinated.

Look, if you ignore real world biology, it drives you to adopt objectively stupid policies, like insisting that people who are already immune to Covid be treated as though they were immunologically naïve.

I actually rationally decided it would be worth getting a booster, and because of these stupid policies, booster shots were not available to people who had Covid but hadn’t been vaccinated.

There’s a REASON they give people who’ve been vaccinated already booster shots instead of just fully vaccinating them all over again: The full series is a waste of vaccine on the already vaccinated, and carries a higher risk of adverse reactions.

The same reasoning applies to people who’ve already had Covid, for the exact same biological reasons. But government policy was relentless in ignoring biological reality!

[Don Nico]

"Don Nico could quote if (that is) he didn’t think the sole function of science is to lay down smoke screens to shield right-wingers from criticism."
You imputing such motives is baseless and shows only that your partisan politics stoops to ever lower levels.
I do not have time to waste feeding you a long peer reviewed literature which I doubt that you even glance at.

Your only interest is promulgating the line of the Democrat party. You actually show no interest in the dead from either COVID or its ill conceived responses from US public health departments. They are only mudballs to throw at others.
You have never shown the slightest response from large bodies of evidence world wide.

[grb]

Don, if your strategy is to wear me down until I’m too weary to reply, you may have finally found something you’re good at. Let’s do the numbers again:

(1) The unvaccinated were seriously ill and died from covid at significantly higher rates than the vaccinated.

(2) One political opposed vaccinations for political reasons. This was reflected in much lower vaccination rates among its adherents.

(3) This must have a cost.

So what have you brought to this discussion? Nothing, as always. I invited you to give an estimate of the cost but you ignored the request. I can’t even tell whether you have specific objections to points 1, 2 & 3 above, because there is NEVER any substance to your responses. You show up with your grab-bag list of studies and insist science is darn complicated, therefore it’s illegitimate to discuss anything that would discomfort today’s Right. I may have questions about Brett’s point, but he HAS a point. He’s not just blowing smoke.

So once again : What is the healthcare consequences of one political party depressing the covid vaccination rate of their adherents by 20-30%? What is your estimate? Sure, science is hard, but there were consequences….

[grb]

Brett,

My summary :

(1) Yes, “good” and “bad” are only rhetoric, but I get rhetorical at times. I’m tempted to make the same point about “immunologically naïve”, but suspect that’s a real medical term of which I’m unaware.

(2) You make one solid charge: Insisting that everyone get vaccinated and including people who had covid before (and therefore benefited less from the shots) denied vaccination to others who needed it more because of short supplies. But was that true? I rather recall healthcare officials begging people to come in for vaccination.

(3) And that’s the only real negative you suggest for the government’s vaccination push. Oh, you damn it for being ham-fisted and clumsy for failing to make finer distinctions, but that’s a pretty mild criticism of agencies acting in the middle of a national pandemic.

(4) And it doesn’t begin to explain or justify the Right’s anti-vaxx crusade in all of its toxic manifestations. That was something truly new and ugly on the American political landscape.

(Though if you were paying attention, the Right did a warm-up exercise in exploiting vaccines for political gain years earlier, with the HPV vaccination. It was on a much smaller scale, but very similar. They leeched on to a rational medical decision for Culture War reasons, created a long list of post hoc reasons to oppose it, and raised the issue to a hysterical fever pitch. It’s worth a look back to see the forbearer of the covid anti-vaxx crusade)

[Nige]

'Notice how they divide people into two groups, “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated”'

Or 'polluted' and 'pureblood' to used the preferred terms of the right.

[Don Nico]

"Beyond that, the vaccines made a massive difference in the rates of serious illness and/or death from covid. "
Care to provide serious medical evidence about that claim for the prevalent omicron sub-variants.
Nave a read of the recent paper, "Considerations of hybrid immunity and the future of adolescent COVID-19 vaccination"
http://www.thelancet.com/infection Published online November 24, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00759-9.
And ask yourself why Denmark has stopped vaccinate people under 16.

[grb]

That’s an awful lot of handwaving & misdirection to obfuscate two points :

(1) The covid death rate for the unvaccinated in the United States is significantly higher than that of the vaccinated. Granted, things might be different next to lava vents deep under the oceans of Europa and if (when) you produce a study proving that, its a point well taken.

In the meantime : The death rate for the unvaccinated in the United States is significantly higher than that of the vaccinated.

(2) One political party has labored hard to sow fear & mistrust against vaccinations. (Hint: The Republicans)

[Don Nico]

Again, gut your partisan BS. If you wantto speak about medical reality fine. Learn something beyond your partisan puff pieces.
But you have NO answer concerning omicron and the lack of vaccine effectiveness. And there is a whole world beyond the US borders to consider before you make medical pronouncements. But you seem to be blind to that.
But go ahead. Duck the comment and live in fantasy

[Don Nico]

"Granted, things might be different next to lava vents deep under the oceans of Europa and if (when) you produce a study proving that, its a point well taken."
A typically meaningless response.
But as a direct answer to your blah-blah If you look world wide, you will find countries with low vaccination rates and low mortality rates. And those with high vaccination rates and high mortality. And all intermediate combinations. Unfortunately those statistics do not support you partisan crappola.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Beyond that, the vaccines made a massive difference in the rates of serious illness and/or death from covid."

Did DeSantis ever suggest otherwise?

[grb]

Certainly. When he appointed a anti-vaxx loon as Florida Surgeon General. DeSantis’ appointee, Joseph A. Ladapo, told people not to take two of the vaccines, saying they lead to cardiac death. He had friendly interviews with major anti-vaxxer types like Stew Peters, who advertised their talk as “EXCLUSIVE Interview w/ FL Surgeon General DROPS NUKES Exposing C19 Bioweapon Jab.” During the talk, Peters claimed athletes were dying in droves from the vaccine and Ladapo didn’t say a word against this lie. Afterwards, Peters followed-up with a long discussion on vaccines causing “penial disfunction.”

Another sit-down was with “X22 Report”, a podcast infamous for promoting QAnon conspiracy theories. Ladapo spent most of the talk trashing vaccines. Another media event was with Sherri Tenpenny, who claims vaccines cause autism. On-air, Tenpenny said no vaccine has been proven safe and that they all cause harm. Ladapo didn’t utter a word in protest.

Why would he? Florida’s Surgeon General tells people this about vaccines: “There is nothing special about them compared to any other preventive measure.” Instead of getting vaccinated they should exercise and eat more fruit. Apparently the death rate of vaccinated against unvaccinated are numbers DeSantis’ guy ignores.

He signed a petition against approving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – saying more research was needed – while endorsing quack cures like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine at the same time, for which there’s almost no evidence at all. Meanwhile, Florida surpassed 50,000 coronavirus deaths in late ’21, with about one of every 400 Florida residents alive in March 2020 dead from the virus. A large number of those dead would have lived if they’d been vaccinated. Do you think DeSantis cares? He appointed Ladapo because he was a vocal anti-vaxx freak, not in spite of it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"When he appointed a anti-vaxx loon as Florida Surgeon General. DeSantis’ appointee, Joseph A. Ladapo, told people not to take two of the vaccines, saying they lead to cardiac death."

All people, or just the age groups where there are serious questions about whether or not the risk is justified?

And you still haven't provided an example of where DeSantis claimed that vaccines didn't a difference in the rates of serious illness and/or death from covid. So your last comment was bullshit.

[Ben_]

The words they imagine people might have said are pretty bad though.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“What an absurd lie. The vaccination program clearly and obviously prevented transmission, which is the only claim of that nature that was ever made.”

This is just wrong. As has been pointed out, there’s some evidence it reduced the rates of transmission of early variants, but the virus quickly adapted to the vaccine.

But Fauci claimed that once you get the vaccine, “you become a dead end to the virus”.

Biden said, “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations”.

There was never any evidence to support these kinds of claims.

[Sarcastr0]

Either you're playing games with what counts as the vaccine, or you're just wrong.

[Don Nico]

S-0,
Old slow Joe did make that claim. Sorry.

[Sarcastr0]

This was what I took issue with: "there’s some evidence it reduced the rates of transmission of early variants, but the virus quickly adapted to the vaccine."

[Don Nico]

Ah, but that is what happened, althought I would agree that "rather quickly" is a large exaggeration until the lambda and omicron variants appeared.
The rather quickly is accurate with respect to Omicron which has also adapted to circumvent the most widely use monoclonal antibody therapies–a turn for the worse for those of us who are immuno-compromised.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you neglecting the boosters?

[Don Nico]

S_0, I am not neglecting any of the boosters, even the new bivalent variety nor any of the monoclonial antibody treatments.
The virus has evolved to be ever more adaptable and able to escape the antibodies. The most effective immunity is that provided by the B and T cells. Unfortunately, many immuno-compromised people have very weakened B and T cell defenses.

[Sarcastr0]

The virus has evolved to be ever more adaptable and able to escape the antibodies.

That is not at all clear from what I've been seeing.

And immuno compromised people are important policy stakeholders, but not part of TiP's condemnation that I have issues with.

[jb]

The Fauci claims and the Biden claims are pretty different. Fauci explicitly acknowledges the possibility of breakthrough infections, but then points out that they're generally close enough to asymptomatic that you're unlikely to further spread the virus yourself. I think that statement is consistent with the state of the vaccines and relevant variants at the time.

Biden seems to have initially focused his comments on the fact that the vaccine reduces the risk of severe illness or death (definitely true) but later does say that you won't get the virus if you're vaccined. That's definitely an overstatement, but not really representative of most of the claims Biden and others were making about the vaccines at the time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“…almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they’re going to transmit it,” Fauci said.”

That, in conjunction with that claim that you become a dead end to the virus, suggests a negligible risk of transmission. There was never any evidence to support such a claim.

" That’s definitely an overstatement..."
Some might even say a lie.

[Life of Brian]

Calling for a grand jury to investigate willful fraud propagated about safety and effectiveness strikes me as trolling.

I'm old enough to remember when "Big Pharma" was one of the favorite slurs of the left, and questioning whether clinical trials might have been fudged to satisfy a profit motive was routine. The abruptness of the snap-pivot over the past couple of years is enough to give one whiplash.

[shawn_dude]

Still is a slur, really. Check out the response to insulin prices. (Twitter nonsense tie-in, too!)

Maybe having a deadly pandemic and wanting to respond responsibly to the coming wave of deaths and cascading healthcare failures that it would create was a bigger motivator in this instance?

"Keeping grandma alive" isn't much of a conspiracy theory, at any rate.

[Life of Brian]

Maybe having a deadly pandemic and wanting to respond responsibly to the coming wave of deaths and cascading healthcare failures that it would create was a bigger motivator in this instance?

I very much agree that at least back in the early days, fear was a prime factor in overriding people's more typical institutional skepticism (on a number of levels).

But that has no bearing at all on whether, in calmer times, we should look back and understand if and how that dynamic was exploited.

[shawn_dude]

...questioning whether clinical trials might have been fudged to satisfy a profit motive...

It could be that, or it could be that slow clinical trials included in their cost a large number of preventable deaths. Thus, speeding up the trials in an emergency, while increasing risk, also decreases deaths. While there might have been corporate exploitation, that wouldn't have outweighed the immediate need or changed the cost/benefit calculation enough.

And your point was to claim that Democrats were being hypocritical in their sudden embrace of the industry during a pandemic and then later that it's about "look[ing] back" and seeing how it was "exploited." No, they weren't being hypocritical; they were doing the job they were elected to do--govern responsibly. Democrats and Republicans aren't here to implement a mutual suicide pact.

[Life of Brian]

And your point was to claim that Democrats were being hypocritical in their sudden embrace of the industry during a pandemic and then later that it’s about “look[ing] back” and seeing how it was “exploited.”

No, my point was that lefties are being hypocritical by now, today, continuing to reflexively circle the wagons around the industry that used to be one of their favorite whipping boys. It's classic turncoat tribalism.

[shawn_dude]

You say that, but haven't answered my example of Democratic opposition to things like the price of insulin. One example of the party working with vaccine-makers in the midst of a pandemic that has resulted in over a million US deaths doesn't automatically undo issues with things like epi pens and insulin.

[Nige]

They weren't being pro-pharma, they were being pro-vaccine.

[Nige]

You go into a pandemic with the Big Pharma you have, not the Big Pharma you wish you had.

[Ben_]

You might want to look up the definition of "rhetoric".

I hope you don't actually think that medical procedures should be immune to investigation.

[grb]

No, he doesn’t. He strongly promoted vaccines at first and made a proud show of getting his first shot. Then he starting whoring for the Right’s fringe, appointed an anti-vaxx loon as Florida Surgeon General, and refused to answer whether he got boosted. Try and get your head around the cowardice of that! He refused to admit he’d gotten a vaccination boost because that would imply support.

And, no, I don’t think it’s effective in the end (anymore than his sleazy stunt with immigrants). But he’s focused on the Right’s base now, not the archetypical suburban mom.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree here. I think the smarter move would be to show he is effective in getting the vaccine to people who want it and that he respects people who don't want it. This is more a head on attack on the vaccine. Probably will not hurt him but will not really help much.

[Don Nico]

His promotion of vaccines may be due to guilt over funding gain of function research in Wuhan.

[grb]

Wow. Just freak’n WOW. I fully expect Don to brief us on the latest QAnon conspiracies now. Seems like that’s where the road he’s on leads to…..

[Don Nico]

It is no qAnon theory.
Check the articles by Jeffrey Sachs, hardly a rightist in any sense of the word and the leader of The Lancet’s COVID-19 task force. You won't because your political masters have told you those are the droids we're looking for

[Sarcastr0]

Don, you just went in for pop-psychology based on intimations Covid-19 was created, and partially with US funding.

That's off-the-wall bananas nuts.

I don't like Sachs' article for connecting some dots that aren't quite right to connect, but you go waaaaaay beyond that.

Do better.

[Don Nico]

The case for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are very far from clear. What Fauci's branch of the NIH did was to fund research that would have been illegal if done in the US.
You may not like Sachs' article, but I do respect him for spending a very great amount of time on the topic and not just swallowing the Fauci and CDC line.

[Don Nico]

S_0, In Oct 21 last year Science, the official journal of the AAAS published this:
"NIH says grantee failed to report experiment in Wuhan that created a bat virus that made mice sicker"
An ongoing controversy over what constitutes virology research that is too dangerous to conduct—and whether the U.S government funded studies in China that violated a policy barring funding for such risky research—has taken a new turn. While denying once again it had helped create the virus that sparked the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) revealed in a letter sent yesterday to Republicans in Congress that experiments it funded through a U.S.-based nonprofit in 2018 and 2019 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China had the “unexpected result” of creating a coronavirus that was more infectious in mice.

NIH says the organization holding the parent grant, the EcoHealth Alliance, failed to immediately report this result to the agency, as required. A newly released progress report on that grant also shows that EcoHealth and WIV conducted experiments changing the virus that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), which is raising additional questions. … The [NIH} report describes studies conducted at WIV between June 2018 and June 2019 on recently collected bat coronaviruses circulating in the wild in China. Some examined whether their spike proteins, which the viruses use to attach to and infect cells, could when expressed in a previously known bat coronavirus called WIV1, bind to the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 cell receptor in a mouse model.

That is not QAnon. The article in Science does strongly suggest that the NIH has been less than transparent or fully truthful in funding work done in China.

[shawn_dude]

Two words: Primary voters.

He's aiming for the Whitehouse and his first challenging hurdle is getting selected as the nominee. If he plays his card right, he could be "president for life."

[bevis the lumberjack]

DeSantis was not antivax. I saw him asked a question shortly after the vaccine was available and he explicitly said he intended to receive it when his normal turn came. He didn’t want to cut in line because he was governor.

[shawn_dude]

And then he changed his tune as the right politicized the pandemic and he's gone further to the right since. It's all a performance, of course, to keep his name in the news and endear himself to the average GOP primary voter.

[M L]

The right politicized the pandemic. Good one!

[shawn_dude]

How soon conservatives try to pretend Trump wasn't president and didn't say that the pandemic would disappear after the election.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
ALL THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IS COVID, COVID, COVID. ON NOVEMBER 4th, YOU WON’T BE HEARING SO MUCH ABOUT IT ANYMORE. WE ARE ROUNDING THE TURN!!!
4:31 AM · Oct 27, 2020

[bevis the lumberjack]

Everybody politicized the pandemic.

We were very poorly served by our government and our media. Too much effort wasted owing the libs/cons and the narrative to information ratio was stratospheric. Even our public health officials politicized it, much to our detriment.

[Don Nico]

You certainly got that right.

[Nige]

Yes, one side politicised the pandemic by treating it as if it were real and advocating enacting measures in response, the other politicised it by saying it was a authoritarian Malthusian plot to kill loads of people using poisons in the vaccine and enact lockdowns which would never be lifted. Everybody indeed.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Oregon's governor commuted every death sentence in the state because it was "immoral." Remember the left throwing a tantrum when Trump pardoned people they don't like? I guess they lawless exercise of power is only okay when it's someone other than a leftist lesbian doing it.

[Nige]

You mean when Trump pardoned the many, many people from his adminsitration and his campaign who had been convicted of crimes? Or when he promised to pardon anyone of crimes related to Jan 6th if re-elected? Yeah, we remember. Good for this guy commuting the death sentences, though.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

So in other words, you're a corrupt leftist. Thanks.

[Estragon]

These people were not pardoned in any meaningful sense— they are simply going to spend the rest of their life in prison and not be executed by the state.

To take just one name off the top of my head— Eddie ghallager got pardoned. He’s out of the pokey, roaming! See the difference?

[Nige]

Is it corrupt leftism to oppose the death penalty? What am I saying, it's corrupt leftism to cross the road according to you people.

[apedad]

Dems push to 'decolonize' Puerto Rico, give territory option of statehood, independence

House Democrats on Thursday will call up legislation aimed at ending Puerto Rico’s status as a U.S. territory and giving Puerto Rican voters a say in whether the island becomes a U.S. state, an independent country or some other form of non-territory status.

"I do have to say, with only a few legislative days left in this Congress, no path forward in the Senate, I’m not sure why this matter warrants an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee when so many outstanding issues remain," Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, said Wednesday night.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-push-decolonize-puerto-rico-territory-option-statehood-independence

While we should make a final decision on PR, I agree with Rep. Burgess about this sudden urgency.

And I think PR should become the 51st state seeing as they're already US citizens.

[Bored Lawyer]

"this sudden urgency"

Let's see. The country is evenly divided. The House is about to be controlled by the GOP, with very narrow margins, and the reverse is the case in the Senate.

Adding PR would add one guaranteed Dem Congressman, and two Dem Senators.

That explains the urgency.

[bernard11]

Did not the most recent Republican platform, whenever it was, call for statehood for PR?

[shawn_dude]

In the last midterm, PR voters in Florida went for the GOP. While the island itself might go for the Dems (and that's a big "might"), they don't vote that way in swing states like Florida. So those voters might be the focus of this action.

[Don Nico]

My recollection is that in recent elections and polls Puerto Ricans have not been in favors of statehood or (even worse) independence.
Can anyone cite votes in the past 10 years?

[Brett Bellmore]

Your recollection is right: Every time, keeping the status quo wins. Well, every time they permit an honest vote.

The pro-statehood forces tend to rig things. For instance, this supposedly "yes/no" referendum on statehood, in 2020:

I say "supposedly", because while the ballot language purported that it was just an up down vote on statehood, the actual legal text, and this was widely publicized, required immediately negotiating independence if statehood failed. The pro-statehood party did it that way because they know the status quo is more popular than statehood, but independence is the least popular option by far. So they keep rigging the votes so that the only real options are statehood or independence.

In fact, let me give 'Occasional Cortex' some credit here: She was quite clear about what had been going on, back in 2020:

"U.S. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): "Despite five plebiscites, “statehood” has never received an unequivocal mandate from Puerto Rican voters. The two most recent referenda were marred by voting irregularities and dismal participation. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice refused to validate the results of the 2017 referendum. While yet another nonbinding status vote is scheduled for November, the recent primary fiasco in Puerto Rico does not inspire much confidence that the outcome will be any more reflective of popular opinion than previous votes. ... For true, legitimate change, Puerto Rico’s status must be resolved from the ground up. Plans for altering the Island’s relationship with the U.S. should not just garner the consent of the Puerto Rican people; they should originate with them. In fact, many in Puerto Rico would view Congress pushing statehood not as an end to colonization, but the culmination of it.""

****

So, just a few hours ago, the House voted to hold a binding referendum. No surprise, the status quo was not permitted to be an option.

Now, I personally think we should either cut them totally loose, or make them a state; Having territories is a hangover from our dabbling in colonization way back when. But it's pretty clear that's not what the people living in Puerto Rico want!

[Don Nico]

Let Puerto Rico be independent.

[shawn_dude]

De-colonizing PR means the status quo (a US colony/territory) is unacceptable. So yeah, no surprise that wasn't an option.

There are benefits of having PR as a state and there are issues. The bottom line is that it isn't just up to the PR what happens here. The US also gets a say. I'm all for either making them a state or letting them become independent; in either case they are fully equal as voting citizens of their country.

[Don Nico]

Shawn,
Why do you deny Puerto Ricans the choice of their own range of options. You are you are any mainlanders to say opposite?

[Bored Lawyer]

Looks like Trump has entered the utter farce mode:

https://collecttrumpcards.com/

His chances of getting the GOP nomination are now slightly higher than Mao Tse Tung.

[shawn_dude]

What are his chances of earning another $100M off his dwindling base in the mean time, though?

[apedad]

Whitmer kidnapping: 3 men who aided plot sentenced to at least 7 years in prison

The three men found guilty of backing a 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer over COVID-19-era lockdown measures were sentenced Thursday.

Pete Musico, who along with Joe Morrison and Paul Bellar was convicted of providing material support for a terrorist act, as well as two other crimes, was sentenced to a minimum of 12 years in prison. Morrison received a minimum of 10 years, while Bellar was sentenced to a minimum of seven.

Morrison and Bellar apologized to Whitmer during their sentencing hearing Thursday.

"Your honor, I am not the boogeyman that the prosecution is trying to claim that I am. I’m a father, I am a husband, I am a friend and a neighbor. I made mistakes. I acted recklessly and carelessly with my words. I got around the wrong people, I fed off their energy," Morrison said. "I send my sincere apology to the governor, to her family and all law enforcement who were affected by what conspired with this whole thing... If I could, your honor, I’d take it all back."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-gov-gretchen-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-3-men-sentenced

Sucks to be them.

[Jerry B.]

“”I got around the wrong people, I fed off their energy,” Morrison said”

That would be the FBI, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Always. Jan 06 was Antifa, every mass shooter is a leftist, and these folks were just entrapped by the FBI.

[bernard11]

Non-political questions.

Why is customer service so terrible virtually everywhere?

Is there a more brazen, more frequently told, lie than "We are experiencing unusually high call volumes," and its relatives?

If I'm going to be in hold for 30+ minutes, why the hell can't I turn off their music and periodic announcements so I can do something while I wait? Especially galling are the announcements that tell me how easy it would be to do whatever I'm trying to do on their website, when the only reason I'm calling is that I couldn't do it on the website.

Yes. I've had a couple of weeks of this shit.

[Mr. Bumble]

The answer to your questions is that it is cheaper to force you onto a website than to pay a person (even in India or wherever) to take your call.

Best customer service I've discovered so far is Discover. Always a US based rep and never more than a few minutes wait.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’ve complained to my family about they lately as well. Multiple times. Customer service compared to even a decade ago has deteriorated markedly.

A little of it is maybe generational in that the current youngs are maybe a little more self absorbed than earlier and not so suited to serve.

But I think the majority of it is simply overdone cost cutting. Trying to serve the same number of customers with less head count.

I hate the omnipresent “we’re experiencing higher than normal call volume” thing too. Over the last couple of weeks if made at least two CS calls where I got that message and then the agent immediately picked up the call. Not only are they lying, they don’t even care enough to hide it.

[Life of Brian]

The better systems these days will give you the option of leaving your number and calling you back when it's your turn in line. The functionality has been around for a decade or more, but finally seems to be catching on and is a win-win for everyone. Hopefully more will continue to adopt.

[bernard11]

The better systems these days will give you the option of leaving your number and calling you back when it’s your turn in line.

Yes. That's a good approach, though answering in a reasonable time would be better. I wonder why it's not more widely used.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because they're counting on a lot of people just giving up and going away.

It's like the time my HP desktop computer had the graphics card go bad. I called the help line, they put me through a bunch of largely irrelevant diagnostics, then the last diagnostic they asked me to do was to reformat the hard drive and reinstall the OS and all the software. For a glitchy graphics card!

It was a step designed to cause people with a hardware issue covered under warrantee to throw their hands up and fix it themselves. Worked, too.

[bernard11]

Because they’re counting on a lot of people just giving up and going away.

Not very good customer relations.

[not guilty]

A U.S. District Judge in Texas, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, has opined that provision of contraceptives to minors under Title X of the Public Health Service ("PHS") Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300 et seq., violates the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children and a Texas statute relative to parental consent to medical care. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.330752/gov.uscourts.txnd.330752.63.0_2.pdf

The Supreme Court has held that the constitutional right to privacy regarding contraception extends to minors, opining that "where a decision as fundamental as that whether to bear or beget a child is involved, regulations imposing a burden on it may be justified only by compelling state interests, and must be narrowly drawn to express only those interests." Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 686 (1977). Judge Kacsmaryk's only discussion of the right to privacy was relegated to a footnote which states:

Relying on the "right of privacy," the Supreme Court has held the State may not impose a blanket prohibition on the distribution of contraceptives to minors. See Carey v. Pop. Servs., Intern., 431 U.S. 678, 694 (1977). "That the constitutionally protected right of privacy extends to an individual's liberty to make choices regarding contraception does not, however, automatically invalidate every state regulation in this area." Id at 685-86. The correctness of Carey's holding on blanket bans of contraceptives is also in doubt insofar as it relies on Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). See Dobbs [v. Jackson Women's Health Organization,] 142 S.Ct. at 2301 (Thomas, J., concurring) (urging the Court to reconsider Griswold because it is "demonstrably erroneous").

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do so many Democrats want to do sexual-related things with kids without the parents knowing?

[not guilty]

I wonder if Mr. Deanda (the Plaintiff in the Texas lawsuit) would prefer his daughters copulating with no contraception to them doing so with it. Like it or not, sex happens.

States whose school curriculum emphasize abstinence have higher rates of teen pregnancies (as well as higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases) than states with broader sex education programs. Since 2015, the same 10 states have been in the top 10 for the highest rate of teen pregnancy, and all are in the South except for one: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama. Of the 10 states with the most cases of STDs among the 15-24 age group, five of them also rank among the top 10 states with the highest rate of teen pregnancy. https://www.innerbody.com/abstinence-only-states-have-highest-rates-teen-pregnancy-stds

I don't have data on point, but I suspect that families that stress abstinence and sexual "purity" are at higher risk for unwanted pregnancy than families with a more tolerant view toward sex and contraception.

[ragebot]

I suspect if you controlled for race nation wide you would not be happy with the results.

[Sarcastr0]

Why the fuck would you do that? I didn't take you for one of the white supremacism set around here.

You want a policy where we only give sex ed to the blacks?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Uhhh... where do you think Planned Parenthood has clinics?

In white neighborhoods or black ones?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This white, male, right-wing blog attracts so many bigots that one wonders whether the Volokh Conspiracy generates racists, misogynists, Islamophobes, xenophobes, white nationalists, antisemites, and homophobes or, instead, merely attracts them.

The proprietor's regular use of vile racial slurs is an evidentiary point in this context.

Carry on, bigoted clingers.

[David Nieporent]

The correctness of Carey‘s holding on blanket bans of contraceptives is also in doubt insofar as it relies on Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). See Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,] 142 S.Ct. at 2301 (Thomas, J., concurring) (urging the Court to reconsider Griswold because it is “demonstrably erroneous”).

Without having read the whole opinion, that sounds like a judge who was mentored by Aileen Cannon. You don’t get to ignore Supreme Court cases because of a one-justice concurrence.

[M L]

The whole world must learn of our peaceful ways. By force!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ig2qZEiNv8

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Democraps are writing letters to Meta encouraging them to keep Trump off Facebook. If this doesn't have a "chilling effect" on the 1st Amendment, I don't know what does.

[SRG]

Twitter has suspended the accounts of more than half-a-dozen journalists. (Matt Levine hasn’t been suspended yet, but I assume that’s an oversight.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/12/15/twitter-journalists-suspended-musk

The suspensions Thursday evening came without warning or explanation from Twitter. They include Washington Post technology reporter Drew Harwell, who discovered he was unable to log into his account or tweet around 7:30 p.m. Thursday.

Aaron Rupar, a Substack writer with nearly 800,000 followers on Twitter, had his account suspended minutes earlier, according to screenshots taken by other users.

New York Times technology reporter Ryan Mac also appears to have been suspended around the same time. He had published an article on Wednesday about Twitter suspending accounts that used public data to track the location of Musk’s private plan.

CNN reporter Donie O’Sullivan had just posted a tweet about Musk’s claim that a “crazy stalker” had chased his young son in Los Angeles this week when he was suspended, according to screenshots.

Matt Binder, a Mashable reporter, was tweeting about O’Sullivan’s suspension when his account also went dark.

Independent journalist Tony Webster’s account was also suspended as of Thursday evening. So were the accounts of Keith Olbermann, a former MSNBC host, and Intercept reporter Micah Lee.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Now give Musk's explanation.

[Sarcastr0]

Which lacks evidence, and has been denied by all those who have been banned.

Add in his *ridiculous* poll that he pulled the moment it wasn't going the way he wanted, and it becomes clear his explanation isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They don't know it.

[SRG]

We do know it but it's bullshit. Pointing out that someone is tracking Musk's jet is not the same as tracking Musk's jet,

Matt Levine reports the interesting idea that to date, Tesla buyers tend to be liberals, progressives, etc. and right-wingers tend to shun it as they've not bought into electric cars in general. What Musk is doing is pissing off the left and appealing to the right in the hope that this will get right-wingers to buy Teslas. (Whether they have any money left over after buying Trump NFTs, I don't know.)

[VinniUSMC]

What Musk is doing is pissing off the left and appealing to the right in the hope that this will get right-wingers to buy Teslas.

lol, impressive mind-reading. Crazy, but impressive.

[SRG]

Crazy, yes, but that only makes it more Muskesque. Interesting to see whether indeed sales rise in conservative states, or whether places like Texas suddenly let car companies sell directly to consumers.

[Brett Bellmore]

They were all accounts that were posting real time tracking data on other people, (Or links to the same.) something Twitter now officially regards to be a form of doxing. They've said that they'll even permit delayed tracking data, if it's enough of a delay to be unusable by a stalker. Just not real time.

Private information and media policy

I expect this did become an issue on account of the practice resulting in a crazed stalker attacking the car his son was in.

[Sarcastr0]

They were all accounts that were posting real time tracking data on other people,

This is the explanation. It has no supportive evidence.

Of course you believe it without question.

[VinniUSMC]

Doesn't it? Rupar says he posted a link to the Facebook account of the jet tracker.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is manifestly *not* posting real time tracking data.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did Twitter ban people who posted a link to a site hosting Biden laptop files?

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. Going off topic with a false equiavalence. Always the sign you've got nothing.

This isn't about what Twitter can do, this is about Musk being a thin skinned, petty man whose championship of free speech now convinces no one.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They are the exact same thing you gaslighting bootlicker.

A link to Elon's realtime location is just one off to posting the location itself.

Everyone who isn't a bootlicking moron knows it, yet you claim it is manifestly not the same.

[Sarcastr0]

There were broad and serious discussion from twitter higher-ups with zero sign of bad faith regarding the NY Post article.

OTOH for this there were zero discussions, just banning and Musk lying about it.

You love your false equivalences more than anyone I know. And this includes declaring anyone pointing out they're false to be a bootlicker.

Go talk about the motives of the Federals who you have never met. Or buttsex. Been a while since you posted about the rampant members in rectums epidemic.

[Nige]

'They are the exact same thing'

Did they post the location of the laptop? Its assasination co-ordinates?

[VinniUSMC]

Which is manifestly *not* posting real time tracking data.

Seems like a good argument to make then.

“There is evidence that they were posting links to location data, but it wasn’t real-time and as such doesn't meet Musks new 'rule'” instead of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “nuh-uh, didn’t happen!”

[Sarcastr0]

It linked to Facebook, dude. An open website on Facebook.

This is not a ban with any functional upshot at all. Just a baby tantrum.

[Nige]

‘of the practice resulting’

No actual evidence of this, though.

With that in mind, though – is libsoftiktok still on twitter?

Also it would be interesting to see a file dump of the interactions that lead to this decision, a la the Twitter Files, to complare and contrast.

[VinniUSMC]

LIBSOFTIKTOK!!!!!

Did libsoftiktok post the locations of people? Yes or no. One simple question. Answer it truthfully.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You don't understand why that disgraceful account of bigots you probably contribute money to was even mentioned, do you?

Answer truthfully.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Reposting a video made by a liberal is hate speech!

lmao you fkn' ppl r retarded

[Ben_]

Anything the special people aren’t completely happy with is hate speech and causes injury or death when it’s allowed to be heard. Didn’t you know?

[Nige]

Everyone's special, Ben. Even you.

[VinniUSMC]

Oh look, it's Jason. Hi Jason. Are you still stupid?

You don’t understand why that disgraceful account of bigots you probably contribute money to was even mentioned, do you?

Yup, still stupid.

I don't Twitter. I don't follow libsoftiktok. I don't care about either. I'm specifically addressing the assertion that the boogeyman is "doxxing" people by apparently re-posting things that those people posted. If you want to claim that they are making bomb threats or whatever, show your work. Since I don't expect you are capable of doing so however, I'm just going to say, fuck off, slaver.

[Nige]

If you're so completely fucking pig-ignorant of what they do, whay are you defending them?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you're incapable of answering a simple question, yet you demand the same of others?

If you don't follow or care about the issue, why are you here injecting your idiocy into someone else's conversation?

You aren't addressing anything, because you're too dumb to recognize what it was the brought LoTT into the conversation in the first place - which is presumably why you couldn't answer my simple question.

Maybe read Brett's claim about what he thinks brought about this rule change? Actually, given your reading comprehension problems, perhaps you should have someone draw you a simple picture with some crayons you haven't yet eaten.

[Nige]

Bomb threats to children's hospitals. That's what you're defending.

[VinniUSMC]

I'm not defending shit. I asked you a simple question. I don't give a single fuck about libsoftiktok or Twitter.

Show your work, where did the boogeyman say the mean things?

[Nige]

You are indeed defending shits. If you DON’T GIVE A SINGLE FUCK why are you defending an account that has targeted a children’s hospital, resulting in bomb threats?

[John F. Carr]

Aside from the original stalker, who has some right to complain, I see a bunch of people who picked a fight with the owner of a company over something stupid and got the attention they wanted by having him refuse to do business with them.

[Nelson]

"that were posting real time tracking data on other people"

So jets are now people? Because the jet was the thing being tracked using publicly available data, not people.

Unless Elon is a Transformer, he isn't a jet.

[Sarcastr0]

No one can seriously defend Musk as a free speech advocate now.

But this commentariat is full of unserious posters. I'm up to 4 so far. Brett is the only one in there for more than empty libs owning, tho.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Serious posters accept your stupid weak arguments! Unserious posters don't!

[Sarcastr0]

U R very serious poster.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do you bring to the table except strawmen, bootlicking, and gaslighting?

Literally nothing.

[Nige]

On the contrary, this presumably accords with their concept of free speech quite closely: pwning the libs, a rich man's whims applauded, transparently bad-faith pretexts, 'liberal' media targeted, war on trans people as a national sport, etc, etc.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They were posting assassination coordinates.

[Nige]

Aka public data about his jet, so, incredibly dangerous, if someone has a stinger missile handy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did you hear about that Democrat who jumped on the hood of a car the Democrat thought Elon was in?

[Nige]

Was he fired out of a rocket launcher, missed the jet and landed on the car?

[Ben_]

This is where Sarcastr0 pretends that posting exact recipes and itineraries to murder specific individuals obviously deserves the highest form of free speech protection, beyond any question.

Sarcastr0 likes to pretend to have principles in order to launch attacks on others for falling short of adherence to pretend principles.

(No one cares about my suggestion, but I'd just allow this stuff to be posted on a 7 day delay. Don't suspend anyone, let them post. But when it's real-time location information that might be used for harassment or worse, don't allow anyone to see it until after 7 days.)

[Nige]

Well if you put it like that, which is to say if you lie outrageously about it, then it's fine.

[Ben_]

- Someone posts itinerary information.
- Using itinerary information, some nutcase commits a crime an against Elon's 3-year-old son.
Leftist Journalists: an attack on a 3-year-old? Lol. We're going to make sure this itinerary information keeps getting posted. Journalism!!!
Elon: not on Twitter. One week suspension.
Sarcastr0: See! If he cared about free speech he'd celebrate these guys giving out his 3-year-old son's itinerary. If he's not willing to subject his 3-year-old son to risks of future attacks, he's not "a free speech advocate".

Everyone out there who thinks a 3-year-old's travel itinerary isn't the most sacred free speech material, beyond even a question of moderating posts containing it, Sarcastr0 says you're not "serious". But he’s just pretending.

Remember when Biden sent the FBI to raid journalists who obtained a copy of his adult daughter’s diary —- even though the journalists didn’t publish anything in the diary and made an effort to turn it over to law enforcement? Yeah, using the FBI that way was totally cool, but a private company’s 7-day suspension relating to crimes against the owner's 3-year-old son is just scary, ya know?

[Ben_]

Also the UN and EU are taking the an attack on a 3-year-old? Lol. side. Of course they are.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63996061

[Nige]

'Using itinerary information, some nutcase'

No evidence of that.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

[SRG]

Another innocent on Death Row, and the lethally incompetent justice system, as usual, is more concerned about process than innocence.

https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2022/12/state-lawmakers-cross-party-lines-to-work-together-pushing-for-clemency-for-cleveland-prisoner-on-death-row.html