Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[BrotherMovesOn]

What's on my mind?
The end of 2022.
Happy New Year.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems very unlikely that 2023 will be any better and is shaping up to be even worse, but we can always hope for a happy and better new year.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

America continues to improve, its progress shaped by the liberal-libertarian mainstream against conservatives' preferences and efforts.

Clingers -- including the Volokh Conspirators and their fans -- hardest it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This is the first year my kids didn't get any toys for Christmas. The theme was "masculine violence".

They're going to need it in their lifetimes. Democrat kids are wearing furry costumes and taking puberty blockers and learning how to give old men blow jobs. My kids are killing shit and chopping shit up.

[Nige]

RIP BCD's hamsters.

[Mr. Bumble]

Too late. Sam Britton already stole them.

[Nige]

That's what you told the kids, anyway.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hamsters are terrible pets being nocturnal.

[Nige]

That's why they had to go.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just make sure to oil the hamster wheel.

[Frank Drackman]

they go where the sun doesn't shine

[Aunt Teefah]

BCD in 15 years (assuming his kids haven't been imprisoned for doing a school shooting by then):

"My woke libtard kids won't visit me on the holidays or let me see my grandkids. They keep calling me an 'unhinged weirdo' who 'won't stop talking about gay sex', even though I'm the one who's normal! So much for the tolerant left..."

[not guilty]

A transcript of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony before the January 6 House investigating committee shows that she was initially represented by a lawyer, Stefan Passantino, who refused to tell her who was paying his fee and who encouraged her to testify that she did not recall events which she in fact did recall. She was also promised job opportunities during the time she was preparing to testify. She testified that Ben Williamson called her the night before she was to testify and said something to the effect of "Well, Mark [Meadows] wants me to let you know that he knows you're loyal and you'll do the right thing tomorrow and that you're going to protect him and the boss. You know, he knows that we're all on the same team and we're all a family. Do well. Let me know how it goes." https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2022/12/20220914_Cassidy-J.-Hutchinson-REDACTED.pdf

This conduct is improper and illegal on several counts. Among other violations of law, it amounts to witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512. The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3), specifically provides that whoever "directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony" commits an offense punishable by fifteen years imprisonment.

Covering another person's legal fees is a thing of value, not to mention the corrupt promises to find employment for a prospective witness.

I wonder. Will those who excoriated Bill Clinton for asking Vernon Jordan to arrange job interviews for Monica Lewinsky now call for accountability for those in Trump World who committed witness tampering and bribery?

[John F. Carr]

Fine, charge the lawyer and try to get him to turn on his bosses. I expect the prosecutable trail to go cold before it reaches Trump. You can't prosecute him for emitting an aura of corruption. You can prosecute him for saying "lean on Cassidy so she doesn't talk to Congress."

Makes you wonder how many witnesses were successfully dissauded from spilling their guts to the January 6 committee. You don't find out about it if it works unless the lawyer is dumb enough to put it in writing. Even then, prosecutors would need a clue that there is something to be found in presumptively privileged attorney-client communications.

[not guilty]

Mr. Passantino has considerable exposure here. It is noteworthy that any conspiracy to violate § 1512 is made actionable as a separate offense by subsection (k) of the statute. That carries up to twenty years imprisonment. If the DOJ is willing to offer it, Mr. Passantino might find an agreement to plead guilty to the than the more generalized conspiracy to commit a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371 more palatable than taking his chances with going to trial for more serious charges.

The firebug Mark Meadows also has major exposure for this and other conduct. (FWIW, offenses under §§ 201 and 1512 can also serve as predicate felonies for a prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. See, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). A RICO conspiracy and the substantive predicate acts can be punished cumulatively.) I suspect that DOJ will not cut Mr. Meadows any slack unless he directly implicates Donald Trump.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If the DOJ is willing to offer it, Mr. Passantino might find an agreement to plead guilty to the than the more generalized conspiracy to commit a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371 more palatable than taking his chances with going to trial for more serious charges.

In what sense is a § 1512 conspiracy "more serious" in this context? Are you really suggesting that Mr. Passantino is at risk of being sentenced to more than 60 months for this conduct? Even an aggressive Guidelines calculation (assuming CH I, which I realize isn't a given in Trumpworld) getting him to 30-37: doubling that seems pretty unlikely to me.

[not guilty]

The general conspiracy statute, § 371, carries a statutory maximum of five years imprisonment. Conspiracy under § 1512(k) to corruptly obstruct, or impede an official proceeding carries the maximum of twenty years specified in § 1512(c)(2). Bribery under § 201(b)(3) carries a fifteen year maximum. Consecutive sentencing is possible in the event of multiple convictions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, but there’s no mandatory minimum for any of them, so the difference only seem relevant if there’s a realistic chance of him getting sentenced to more than the statutory maximum. Which is why I asked, “ Are you really suggesting that Mr. Passantino is at risk of being sentenced to more than 60 months for this conduct?”

Are you?

(None of them are even class A or B felonies, so there’s not even the possibility of a longer supervised release term.)

[not guilty]

I haven't done a guidelines analysis, but I would think he is at considerable risk if he is charged with multiple offenses, goes to trial and is convicted of the charged offenses. An agreement to plead to a single count under § 371 and offer substantial assistance to the prosecution is the safest way to cap his potential exposure.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Considerable risk?

Your key...and only...witness for this supposed crime appears to have committed perjury about this very issue?

Unless you've got something else, no prosecutor would bring charges.

[John F. Carr]

The sentencing guidelines look to the underlying conduct. The January 6 defendants convicted of "seditious conspiracy" are being sentenced under the same guidelines section used for those convicted of mere "obstruction".

This is not an especially severe case of obstruction, tampering, bribery, or accessory after the fact. With a guilty plea it's conceivable he could avoid prison. I'm thinking of Tom Finneran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Finneran#Obstruction_of_justice_in_legislative_redistricting_case) as precedent. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia is busy and the plea deals may be more generous than usual.

[David Nieporent]

The US Attorney for the District of Columbia is busy and the plea deals may be more generous than usual.

Pretty sure this would fall under the Special Counsel's purview, not the USAO's.

[John F. Carr]

I think it is outside the authority delegated by the Attorney General: "The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021, as well as any matters that arose or might arise directly from this investigation or that are within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)."

He does reserve the right to clarify the division between US Attorney and Special Counsel.

[not guilty]

I would think that obstruction of justice by witness tampering is a matter arising out of the investigation of whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021. It is arguable that "this investigation" is limited to the DOJ investigation rather than Congressional investigation, but that seems a stretch.

[bernard11]

If the DOJ is willing to offer it

Is there any reason to think DOJ is going to pursue this? Garland looks awfully sleepy to me.

[not guilty]

Witness tampering is something that prosecutors tend to take seriously. Mr. Passantino is in a position to implicate those who arranged his representation and paid his fees, as well as those who may have worked to obtain the employment that was dangled before Ms. Hutchinson. Federal conspiracy charges are among prosecutors' favorite tools, with each conspirator being vicariously liable for the conduct of all of his cohorts. Ben Williamson called at the behest of Mark Meadows and entreated Ms. Hutchinson "to protect [Meadows] and the boss", so the criminality apparently reaches high up the food chain.

One may wonder as to how many other prospective witnesses, with less scruples than Ms. Hutchinson, were subjected to similar treatment. If other witnesses were approached, it is plausible that the participating actors were conducting an enterprise for purposes of a RICO prosecution. (Witness tampering and bribery can be predicate acts.)

[Reallynotbob]

I agree that witness tampering is a potentially potent charge in the context of a RICO prosecution. It brings the "corrupt" element to the fore and potentially pulls back the attorney-client privilege curtain.

But I would be surprised if DOJ took that route. RICO would require them to label some segment of Trumpworld a "corrupt enterprise." My guess is that, in addition to the usual difficulties with RICO prosecutions, such labelling will seem unnecessarily political when "simple" conspiracy gets DOJ to most of the leverage it wants anyway. Plus, you don't see many RICOs without wiretaps (partly because RICO is one of the tools for obtaining wiretap authority in the first place). There is no indication those exist here.

[not guilty]

Cassiday Hutchinson -- the holder of the privilege -- expressly waived attorney-client privilege in testifying before the January 6 House investigators.

With credible cooperators, wiretaps would be unnecessary. The unlawful entreaties to Ms. Hutchinson involved multiple persons, at least some of whom Mr. Passantino can identify. He contacted her and told her that he was her attorney -- that is not kosher. When she asked about signing an engagement letter, Mr. Passantino said "No, no, no. We're not doing that. Don't worry. We have you taken care of."

Ms. Hutchinson identified Eric Hercshmann as a participant in the attorney search. Mr. Herschmann has not been bashful about identifying other wrongdoers in Trump World to the House investigating committee; I surmise he would be forthcoming to DOJ as well.

On the evening before one of the House committee interviews, Ben Williamson called at the behest of Mark Meadows and entreated Ms. Hutchinson “to protect [Meadows] and the boss.” I would be very surprised if Mr. Meadows is not implicated up to his eyeballs.

As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), an "enterprise" includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. This definition includes both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises within its scope. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580 (1981).

Someone (or more likely several someones) paid a reluctant witness's legal fees and promised to arrange employment for her. If this is part of a pattern -- especially if other prospective witnesses were offered similar favors -- a RICO prosecution is plausible.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Your analysis on this point has generally been aggressive and a bit obsessive, but ultimately grounded in reality.

I’m worrying you’ve lost the thread. A RICO prosecution is not “plausible”. It is, on the contrary, absolutely and unequivocally not going to happen.

[Bob from Ohio]

"bit obsessive"

Like Captain Ahab.

[not guilty]

I don't claim that a RICO prosecution is likely, merely that it is plausible. As a practical matter, the DOJ probably wants to move more quickly that undertaking investigation of an additional theory at this point would require. (At least I hope so.) I am merely pointing out that there is evidence of predicate felonies having been committed.

[Zarniwoop]

Anyone who even thinks about RICO - regardless of political leanings - should consider reading this before posting:

https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/

But it's an important case! And the facts are terrible! This defendant did really bad things.

That's not what RICO means. RICO is not a fucking frown emoji. It's not an exclamation point. It's not a rhetorical tool to convey you are upset about something. It's not a petulant foot-stomp.

RICO is a really complicated racketeering law that has elaborate requirements that are difficult to meet. It's overused by idiot plaintiff lawyers, and it's ludicrously overused by a hundred million jackasses on the internet with an opinion and a mood disorder.

[David Nieporent]

While that's an excellent essay by Ken, it doesn't really apply to this discussion; he's talking about civil suits involving RICO. Criminal prosecutions under RICO are more straightforward. And they're undertaken by prosecutors who have actual expertise with RICO, as opposed to random plaintiffs' attorneys, who generally don't.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Your last sentence is true… which is why no one in the Trump orbit is going to be charged with racketeering.

[StellaLink_the dog]

[not guilty]

Katie Phang and Glenn Kirschner discuss the prospect of Mark Meadows cooperating with the DOJ investigation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGNKGQsMkR0

That possibility may explain why DOJ has to this point not acted on the Congressional referral of Meadows for prosecution for contempt of Congress regarding his refusal to appear before the January 6 investigating committee.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummmm -- there ARE lawyers dumb enough to put stuff like that in writing...

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Didn't Cassidy commit perjury? Why isn't she being imprisoned?

[Sarcastr0]

Turns out she didn’t commit perjury.

[not guilty]

Let's not sugarcoat this. At pages 55 and 56 of the transcript of her September 14 interview, Ms. Hutchinson testified that, during a break in her February 23 interview, she told her attorney Mr. Passantino that she had lied. Mr. Passantino responded that she hadn't lied -- the words she attributed to him were "They don't know what you know, Cassidy. They don't know that you can recall some of these things. So you saying 'I don't recall' is an entirely acceptable response to this."

Ms. Hutchinson subsequently fired Mr. Passantino, obtained new counsel, and requested an interview with the House committee to clarify her prior testimony. IOW, she did the right thing, and those responsible for her initial testimony are now in a world of hurt.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, the perjury is saying "I don't remember"?

Start building gibbets, there are a long line of people to hang! Fauci can start the party off.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You didn’t make it to the bottom of page 1 of the House W&M report about Trump’s taxes, so it’s no surprise that you’d also fail to read the entire paragraph of Not Guilty.

When was the last time you honestly bothered to comment about anything Brett?

The perjury is obviously claiming she couldn’t recall something that she absolutely did recall. Ms. Hutchinson absolutely did the right thing by retaining proper counsel and going back to correct the record once she was no longer under duress.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The perjury is obviously claiming she couldn’t recall something that she absolutely did recall."

I got that. I'm perfectly in agreement that this is real, legally and morally cognizable perjury.

I just want Fauci and Mueller in the cells flanking her's.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You recognize that she lied. That's good.

You fail to recognize that she did so because of the conflict of interest of her lawyer and the witness tampering. That's bad.

You also fail to recognize that once she was free of that duress, she voluntarily went back to tell the truth. That's also bad.

[Nige]

Amazing how a complete lack of evidence becomes no obstacle to imprisonment for you in certain cases.

[not guilty]

A witness who in fact does remember, but who willfully testifies that she does not remember, commits perjury if the subject of the testimony is material.

[Mr. Bumble]

Tell Fauci.

[not guilty]

As I have said before, when I receive a tu quoque reply, I know I have struck an exposed nerve.

[Mr. Bumble]

How so? My reply was not a retort to your factual statement but pointed to an individual who might have the same problem. There has been an almost endless list of individuals who seem to have memory issues.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Tell Fauci."

You have evidence that Fauci denied remembering something that he in fact did remember? You need to call the FBI. Just remember that your personal incredulity is probably not admissible evidence.

[Mr. Bumble]

Two words and you get confused. My comment was only referring to Fauci claiming no memory around 150 times during his recent deposition. Substitute anyone you want. You will have a large feild to choose from.

[StellaLink_the dog]

I'm not confused, you demented, bell-ended moron. Someone says that falsely claiming to not remember may be perjury and you suggest that Fauci falsely claimed to not remember. You know, comments get threaded and have context relative to the message replied to.

You wrote: "pointed to an individual who might have the same problem."
And what might that problem be? Liability for perjurious testimony, obviously.

If that was not the intended meaning of what you wrote, the solution is obvious -- take a little care so that the obvious meaning of what you write does not deviate from the meaning you intend, pervert.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...might..."

Thank you for your well reasoned, thoughtful and civil reply.

[John F. Carr]

When testifying falsely in criminal matters you will not be punished if you admit the lie when it "has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed." 18 USC 1623(d). I don't know if the same defense is available to testimony before Congress.

I remember a witness in the OJ Simpson trial being recalled very briefly to correct prior testimony. It was not treated as a serious matter.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Making a false sworn statement in violation of § 1623 is a different offense from perjury in violation of § 1621. There is of course a lot of overlap, but you’ve identified two key differences: section 1623 only applies to statements made in court or before a grand jury, and it contains the safe harbor provision, which § 1621 does not.

[Bob from Ohio]

"September 14 interview, Ms. Hutchinson testified that, during a break in her February 23 "

She can remember exact words from 7 months prior. Seems conclusive!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Stick to proofreading $41,500 residential deeds in Can't-Keep-Up, Ohio, Bob. Leave this level of lawyering to those who are up to it.

[Moderation4ever]

What makes you think she committed perjury? When has her testimony been refuted?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Trump really did leap for the steering wheel in "The Beast"?

[Moderation4ever]

Cassidy reported what was told to her by Anthony Ornato. Has Mr. Ornato ever testified that he did not tell Ms. Hutchison about what happened in the Presidential limousine?

[not guilty]

Mr. Ornato has reportedly told lawmakers and committee staff that he did not recall the conversation with Hutchinson. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthony-ornato-january-6-committee-interview-secret-service/ That is remarkably different from testifying affirmatively that he did not tell her.

[SimonP]

It seems he may not have "recalled" the conversation because he couldn't recall the precise color of the jacket she was wearing that day.

[David Nieporent]

He very well might have, but that wasn't her testimony.

[Frank Drackman]

Her hearsay? Guess you're not one of the "Mostly Lawyers" supposedly on this blog, see I admit I-ANAL, so my opinion is worth exactly what you pay for it (if anyone is willing to pay, shoot me a fax) but from my extensive Perry Mason/Boston Legal/Law & Order DVD Collection, pretty sure "Jack Ruby told me Lee Harvey told him he didn't shoot the POTUS" doesn't count
or does it? heck, a guy with a dick changed his name to "Rachel" put on a Sally Struthers wig, and is Assistant Secretary of Health, what do I know,

Frank "What? me worry?"

[not guilty]

Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony is not hearsay regarding the fact that Mr. Ornato made the statement that is attributed to him. It is hearsay if offered to prove the events that Mr. Ornato may have described.

And how on earth is Rachel Levine's gender presentation germane to this thread?

[Frank Drackman]

"Gender Presentation"?? You mean Dick Levine's Dick? (I made a funny, "Dick Levine's Dick") The whole Levine thing is just funny so I'll try and work it into convo as often as possible. "Did you see Liz Chaney's farewell?" "No, and I wouldn't (redacted) her with Dick Levine's Dick!"

Frank "Prefers women without Dicks"

[Frank Drackman]

She also has fake tits (big ones! why do chicks always go overboard with the tig bitties??) Might her testimony be a bit "augmented" also??

[not guilty]

Uh, how do you claim to know? Have you examined her?

[Frank Drackman]

nope, but I've passed gas on many "procedures", and even though I'm more of an "Ass-man" (people are always telling me, "you're an Ass, man!") I had 2 teenage daughters (they're still alive, just not teens) and while they're still un-augmented, quite a few of their teen friends weren't un-augmented (hey now!), no Senescent-J creepiness on my part, but like how AlGore was the inspiration for "Love Story", I was the one for "Amurican Beauty" except for I didn't get killed in the end (and bought a ZO6 instead of a Firebird)

Frank

[StellaLink_the dog]

So, Mengele, these friends of your daughters who had had cosmetic surgery -- in your experience, was there a correlation between the extent of "augmentation" and untrustworthiness, as you seem to have suggested?

Yeah, I know that you were attempting some sort of perverted humor. But, as usual, your attempts at humor are no laughing matter.

[Frank Drackman]

Just saying if you can't trust their tig ol bitties, what else would they "Augment"?????

Frank "more than a mouthful's a waste"

[StellaLink_the dog]

How about men with comb overs. Should we distrust Trump not because he's a compulsive liar who will lie about anything at any time but because of what he does in a futile attempt to cover up his baldness? How about Petraeus? Has he proven himself untrustworthy because of the whole classified documents stuff or because of the way he combs his hair? How about Flynn with the shoe lifts? How about women who wear makeup or heels?

You know, Mengele, in addition to being a lying demented asshole, you're also a dope.

[Frank Drackman]

Combover? not really fooling anyone, so no, more like the Hair Plugs our current Alzheimeric POTUS sports, but hey (man!) he was recruited to play Football at the Naval Academy at West Point with Hall of Famer Roger "Cornpop" Staubach!

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you thinking of somebody else, maybe?

[Frank Drackman]

Spawn of Chaney's not my "Cup o Joe" (get it?), but yes, those are some fake bitties, sagging ones, I'd say late 90's, Silicone, tends to settle with umm, "Handling".

Frank

[StellaLink_the dog]

Hey, there Mengele,

Cheney is 56 and has had 5 kids. It's possible for a woman of 56 who has had 5 kids to avoid the appearance issues you are bitching about, but it takes a lot of work and sometimes surgical help. It's hard work and requires maintaining a very low BMI. From casual observation it is impossible, I suggest, to tell whether an elderly woman's appearance faults* are due to gravity's affect on plastic or on natural tissue (in my opinion). If you knew a little more about biology and the aging process you would understand that.

*"appearance faults" in the context of this exchange. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong/faulty about a woman of 56 years looking like Cheney does.

[Frank Drackman]

Mrs. Drackman punched 2 out of her (redacted) and still has a hard belly and breast-ages as perky as the day (Night actually, in the ICU, that old Doctor/Nurse story) we met. No Surgery, (trust me, I'd know) just old fashioned crunches, lunges, pushups (I prefer push-ins)
OK maybe a little "Body Image Dysphoria" or whatever they're calling Karen Carpenter's Disease now a days, so she has to brush her teeth a little more often,

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"Cheney is 56" ... "elderly woman’s"

You hurt her more than accusing her of a boob job.

[Frank Drackman]

You beat me to it, 56 is cradle robbing for me

[StellaLink_the dog]

"You beat me to it, 56 is cradle robbing for me"

So you're what, about 62? You're a spring chicken (spring cock, perhaps) according to our precious snowflake Bob from Ohio. And, you're closer to Cheney's age than you are to mine. Face the facts, Mengele, you and Cheney and I are all old people. Elderly, if you want to bowdlerize it.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Are you thinking of somebody else, maybe?"

What's up with you slack jawed TrumpSuckers taking cheap shots at women associated with political positions you don't like? Why are you mocking Liz Cheney, for example, because of your unjustified implication that her bust line is a result of plastic surgery while ignoring the fact that every woman in the Trump clan, except, perhaps his youngest daughter, has been surgically modified? I'm not playing "what about" nor am I disparaging any of the Trump women, including Don Jr's blown up rubber doll. I'm just hoping that you can explain to me why you degenerates do this shit. Motes and beams and glass houses and mean spiteful bullshit.

[Frank Drackman]

Get back to me when "Orange Man" goes out of use

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Get back to me when “Orange Man” goes out of use"

As far as I remember, I've never used that expression. But there is a difference. In Cheney's case, you dill doughs are mocking an elderly woman for looking like an elderly woman. In Trump's case, people are mocking him for decorating himself like a circus clown.

[Bob from Ohio]

"elderly woman for looking like an elderly woman"

She's 56!

[StellaLink_the dog]

Yeah, she's 56. Considerably younger than me, but still elderly. If elderly does not describe those of 56 years, what does?

[Bob from Ohio]

Why don't you tell the next 56 year old woman you see she is "elderly". I'm sure she'll love it!

mid·dle-aged
/ˌmid(ə)lˈājd/
adjective
adjective: middle-aged; adjective: middleaged
(of a person) aged about 45 to 65.
"the crowd was predominantly middle-aged"
characteristic or typical of middle-aged people.
"a novel about middle-aged angst"

[StellaLink_the dog]

Jesus Christ on a Ritz cracker. I'm being criticized for being insensitive by the great and chivalrous, and secret snowflake, Bob from Ohio. Man up, Baby Boy.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Why don’t you tell the next 56 year old woman you see she is “elderly”. I’m sure she’ll love it!" Why should I tell an elderly woman that she's elderly If she already knows it and accepts it. If she is deluding herself into thinking she's a teenager or somethig, it's not my job to explain that she has a harmless delusion.

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm making fun of you.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"I’m making fun of you."

Ineptly.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" What’s up with you sl*ck-j*wed TrumpSuckers "

Prof. Volokh has expressly banned that term, when used to describe conservatives, from his blog.

Which he is entitled to do. Faux libertarian hypocrites have rights, too, including the right to establish rules at their white, male, right-wing blogs.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Prof. Volokh has expressly banned that term"

I've been testing your thesis about Volokh's over-sensitivity, and his commitment to free speech, for quite some time and I am happy to report that his currrent tolerance of bad behavior seems to be greater than you suggest. After all, if he tolerates bigoted dickwads throwing around the N-word like George Wallace and antisemites refering to Jews as k*s, how can he come down hard on those of us who antagonize the slack jawed TrumpSuckers just for the sport of it.

[darkknight9]

How much longer is this Ukraine/Russia thing gonna go on?

[John F. Carr]

Within a year there will be some serious negotiations.

[bernard11]

But over what?

Does Russia get to retain any Ukrainian territory? Does it pay any reparations? Are there war crimes trials?

If the answers are yes, no, no then hasn't Russia won, and Ukraine lost?

[JasonT20]

That's my perspective on this as well. Nothing short of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty over all its territory, requiring Russia to pay reparations to fund rebuilding, and prosecuting Russian military members and officials for war crimes could be considered justice.

As a matter of realism in politics and international relations, I get that Russia may have had some legitimate gripes about encroachment of NATO and the EU toward its borders.* I also get that Russia is highly unlikely to stop fighting under those terms, and that continuing the war until those terms are met may be in no one's best interests. It is also going to be difficult to maintain the unity of those currently supporting Ukraine and to sustain things like military and other aid, sanctions, and so on. The longer the war lasts, the more difficult that will be.

*No country has any inherent rights when it comes to who its neighbors choose to engage with in foreign relations. If Mexico decided that it wanted to buddy up with China, including joining a military alliance with them, that would certainly be a national security threat to the U.S. But it would never justify the U.S. invading Mexico, let alone the kind of all out warfare against civilians and civilian infrastructure like Russia is doing to Ukraine.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing short of restoring Ukraine’s sovereignty over all its territory,

Ukraine is unlikely to be willing to concede Crimea to Russia. But at the same time, the West is unlikely to be willing to militarily back Ukraine's efforts to regain Crimea, if the rest of Russia's aggression is rolled back.

[JasonT20]

Absolutely. Ukraine has every right and justification for wanting its borders pre-2014 to be respected and guaranteed.* But yes, it is a question of political realism as to whether the West would keep up its support long enough to force Russia to accept a full return to Ukraine’s recognized borders. Or that Russia could be forced to accept that.

*After all, it was part of a deal between Russia and Ukraine (and two other former Soviet republics) also backed by the UK and U.S. that their borders at that time were to be recognized and respected in return for removing nukes based there to Russian territory. (Ukraine wouldn’t have been able to use the nukes, at least not easily, as Russia’s military retained the codes.) That agreement stopped short of using the word “guarantee” regarding the borders of Ukraine, I think, which I understand is diplomatic language for it being backed by the threat of force if violated.

[John F. Carr]

How many wars end in justice, if you adjust for the victors writing the history books? Is it justice if there is an amnesty for war crimes, or for comparable offenses in the cases of resistance movements? Western culture has been spoiled by World War 2 which had a decisive victory over what most people consider evil.

[John F. Carr]

Yes, Russia may win at least a Pyrrhic victory. I would not be surprised to see a deal where Russia gains Crimea.

The two sides are still testing each other's endurance. Half of the current front line has not moved significantly in eight months. The other half has not moved significantly in three months. The lines are shorter now and Russia will have fewer weak spots and supply problems, which were the causes of the major retreats in the past six months.

What happens if next summer the lines are still static? Both countries' economies are wrecked. Both sides are running out of ammunition. Tens of thousands more people have died. The West is getting impatient because wars and refugees are expensive.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Within a year there will be some serious negotiations."

It's hard to see what Russia has to offer. A deal along the lines of "Just let us keep some territory and we promise not to invade you any more" seems like a non-starter.

[John F. Carr]

If Ukraine can't win on the battlefield a compromise may be necessary. The war can't go on forever. If Ukraine gets NATO membership, which will be a key negotiating point, Russia is much less likely to invade again.

[bernard11]

Is a referendum within Crimea a possibility?

[JasonT20]

Crimea already had a sham referendum before Russia annexed it in 2014. Any referendums, even if run without fraud, would not be legitimate in any Russian occupied regions because of the millions of Ukrainians that had their homes in those regions that were driven out, first by the Russian proxy separatists and the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and then really driven to enormous levels with the invasion.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's true, although I suppose if NATO were willing to defend Ukraine, they could do that now. No reason to extract concessions from Ukraine in exchange for NATO membership.

[StellaLink_the dog]

It's my impression that a country is not eligible for NATO membership if some of its territory is illegally occupied. So long as the Russians continue the illegal occupation of Crimea, which almost everyone in the world considers illegal, can Ukraine be considered for NATO membership?

Also, it's not obvious to me that granting Ukraine Nato membership would reduce Russian aggression and bellicosity rather than incite it.

[John F. Carr]

A country is eligible for NATO membership if the other NATO members agree to let it join. That will not happen until the Russian situation is resolved, or admission will expressly disclaim defense of Crimea.

A comparable situation is the conflict between the partition of Cyprus and the desire of EU members to have a common defense strategy. The EU is not going to go to war with Turkey over something that happened before Cyprus joined.

[David Nieporent]

? You kind of have that backwards. Turkey is a NATO member; Cyprus isn't.

[John F. Carr]

Two separate alliances in the two paragraphs.

The EU alliance is working towards a unified defense policy. If you want to get super-literal, the EU acquired an active invasion when it admitted Cyprus. So is the EU going to consider itself at war with Turkey? Probably not.

[Commenter_XY]

Whatever you do, don't ask Professor David Post that question*. 🙂

It will go on until Putin looks to his ' best friend' in the east (China), and sees something less than a best friend. Meaning, when Putin senses he has an emerging threat on his border with China, he will look for a way out of Ukraine, but keep Crimea (Sevastopol).

*Professor Post lost a wager to Yours Truly over how long Russia would be in Ukraine. I am still waiting to collect. I would like to have that glass of red with Professor Post.

[bernard11]

I too think China may be the joker in the pack here.

I doubt they are ready to try for Taiwan, or that it even makes sense for them, but who knows what their strategic thinking is or will be. If they get attracted to the idea of taking a chunk of Russian territory Putin may find he has to cut the resources devoted to Ukraine.

[Commenter_XY]

I truly hope you are right = I doubt they are ready to try for Taiwan...

[Frank Drackman]

"As long as it takes" I love Stalin quotes

[Frank Drackman]

My bad, Non-senescent Josef said
"As soon as it is no longer necessary for the security of the State"
Wow, that could be from a recent Karine Jean-Piere press conference

Frank

[StellaLink_the dog]

" I love Stalin quotes"

As well you should, Mengele.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey (man!) thanks for not calling me someone really disgusting and hideous, like Dr. Dick (ironic, dontcha think?) I mean Rachel Levine, current Ass-istant Secretary of Health (is there anything about him/her that looks remotely "Healthy"??).
Jeezo-Beezo, "Divine" looked more like a Chick,

Frank "Little Pink Flamingos, for you and me"

[Zirinets 2]

Thank you for sharing this post. Welcome to our academic services such as Computer science: Deduplication and Computer science papers and many more.

[John F. Carr]

Looking at the legal ethics angle instead of the obstruction of Congress angle, a blogger introduced a walkthrough of the testimony by writing, “So we’re going to structure this post like a mini-MPRE issue spotter exam.” (https://abovethelaw.com/2022/12/stefan-passantino-call-your-lawyer/)

(The above was intended as a reply to "not guilty" near the top of the comments.)

[not guilty]

That is a useful link.

I suspect that Mr. Passantino will be facing some serious professional disciplinary consequences down the road. The more immediate problem will be avoiding incarceration (or angling for a shorter term rather than a longer one).

[John F. Carr]

The American medical system is good at getting routine low-priced drugs into arms. If you can find the time for an appointment you can get a flu shot or a COVID shot or any of the standard childhood vaccines.

A parent I know is trying to get a prescription filled for a child. It’s a mid-priced medicine (four figures list price) so there are forms involved. After five hours of time calling four different offices, plus a couple hours of the doctor’s time, plus over three weeks of calendar time, the prescription is almost ready. The drug was supposed to be given once a month and the dose is now three weeks late. The process has to start over for the next dose because the insurance company made some administrative changes to the plan.

It could be worse. I met a pediatrician who prescribed a gene therapy that runs to seven figures. That is even harder to get through the system.

It could be worse. A friend of my family needed a scan to find out if a condition was caused by a malignant tumor. Canada’s health care system put her on a six month waiting list. It was. She died.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

That sounds fake. Canadian doctors can usually get expedited scheduling in cases like that, because early detection makes cancer so much less expensive.

[John F. Carr]

I heard the story unfold as it happened, but I didn't see the correspondence and forms. At one point they were looking around for people with connections to get strings pulled.

[Frank Drackman]

Common fallacy, how much did Ted Kennedy/John McCains Glioma treatment cost for a negligible increase in survival? Joe Maga gets sent home with a PCA pump (if he's lucky) which is actually the better treatment for in incurable disease.
Early screening for breast cancer hasn't increased the overall survival rate, ditto for lung cancer.
Colonoscopy is the rare exception as you can remove the polyps before they become cancerous, unfortunately there's not an equivalent procedure for the biliary system.

Frank "gonna die of something"

[Brett Bellmore]

Screening for prostate cancer definitely added years to my life: It found a cancer, and during the pre-op they discovered I had B-cell lymphoma.

I might have died of old age with the prostate cancer, but that lymphoma would have put me under the ground in under 6 months!

And, in fact, if they'd found it later it would likely have been cheaper; "Make a will out, you're gonna die" is always cheaper than chemo.

[Frank Drackman]

yeah, but can you still, um, never mind. Not clear from your response if you got treated for the Prostrate (old Chinese Urologist saying, "no one ever died from high PSA"
but thanks for your service (Not military, but thanks if you did, but for taking a Prostate C-bullet, Jay-hay's only got so many of those in His magazine, and that one might have been meant for me)

Frank "Watchful waiting (and jerking off)"

[StellaLink_the dog]

“Watchful waiting (and jerking off)”

Yeah, while typing with one hand and listening to Wagner with the volume too high. You and Toobin, though Toobin is probably listening to different dreck.

[Frank Drackman]

More of a CS&N (fuck Young) fan, but thanks for noticing!

[StellaLink_the dog]

"More of a CS&N (fuck Young) fan, but thanks for noticing!"

Even demented fucks have the right to like good music.

A wonderful, in my opinion, cover of a Stills song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIdfulZ1c5c

A most excellent vocal delivery by the violin player.

[Frank Drackman]

that's DR Demented Fuck, thank you very little. (Hey, I spent good money on that Korean kid taking my MCAT Exam (1982, not as strict on the ID requirements) did pass the Boards on my own (no choice, every Professor knew me, and not in a Biblical or other good way)

Frank Drackman M.D, D.F.

[Bored Lawyer]

Here is a data point. My wife has the flu this week. She was prescribed Tamiflu. They emailed the prescription to Walgreens, they called back, said it would cost us $ 79. I did some quick searching on GoodRx, told me at Costco it would be $ 15. So we had the prescription sent there. When I got there to pick up, they said their charge is actually only $ 9, no need for a coupon.
This strikes me as a warped market. I can see a few more dollars from one store to the other, but an almost 800% increase? I am having a hard time understanding why this should be the case.

[bernard11]

Who is the "they" that quoted you the $79? Walgreen's, or the doctor?

While drug prices can certainly be mysterious, I've also found a lot of confusion in quoted prices until insurance coverage is clarified.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, $79 sounds like the cash price, $9 sounds like the copayment.

On a related note, my university advertises zero tuition for families with income under $75K. When in fact, the tuition by law is the same for all residents and the money is actually collected and put into a state account. It's just who it is collected from.

[John F. Carr]

Zero tuition if the paperwork goes through. I got screwed by my school when the administration refused to sign off on some financial aid paperwork until after the deadline to submit it. I know now that I should not have revealed the availability of that source of financial aid. At my income level it did not help me because the school reduced its own aid dollar for dollar based on what it thought I could get from another source. We see the same incentive in some government aid programs, if you make $X you get $Y and if you make $X+1 you get either $Y-1 or nothing at all. Unemployment can be better than a bad job.

[ducksalad]

For a while my department put a lot of effort into soliciting companies to donate money for merit-based scholarships.

Then we realized that our financial-aid office’s algorithm was to get every student to their federally-defined need level without regard to source. If we gave a valedictorian a merit-based scholarship, the financial aid office automatically reduced their other need-based grants by exactly the amount the amount of the merit scholarship.

Or more accurately, the merit-based scholarship simply displaced state money from the total pool of financial aid.

So basically, a $2000 corporate scholarship has zero value for recruiting talented students, certainly the student named did not get $2000 more than they would have otherwise, and it probably didn’t even result in each of 10,000 students getting $0.20 each extra. Most likely it freed up $2000 for more stuff like administration or (maybe optimistically) more classroom equipment.

If a company, for feel-good or PR purposes, wants to donate, we’ll accept it. We no longer go after it claiming that some individual student will directly benefit.

[jb]

I think a more optimistic way to think about it is that it would help the school to admit someone (else) deserving but who would be dependent on more tuition assistance than the school would otherwise have. Last year I listened to a podcast with a Director of Admissions for a private school and part of his job was delivering an overall tuition base to the school. In the end that means that some fraction of the class ends up needing to be rich folks that can pay full freight.

Of course, even through this optimistic lens it means the scholarship for the valedictorian ends up allowing some other person to attend the school rather than helping the valedictorian him/herself so I think it's fair to conclude that those sorts of scholarships really don't work as intended.

[Bored Lawyer]

It was Walgreen's, AFTER they ran it through insurance. Same for Costco.

[bernard11]

That is odd.

Possibly they have different contracts with the insurer or something. Who knows?

Alternatively, it may be that Costco, which generally has very good prices on prescriptions, may use them as a sort of loss leader, to get customers in the store. The average non-prescription ticket at Costco is likely much higher than the one at Walgreen's. Just conjecture, though.

[DaveM]

From a cost savings perspective, you only need insurance for drugs which have no generic equivalent. Last I read, roughly 80% of the drugs that most people will need have generics. Those are available from discount pharmacies such as Costco for literally pennies on the dollar, provided you don’t use your insurance but pay out-of-pocket. An 8x multiplier for insurance-covered brand name drugs vs. a generic is not at all unusual. A similar 2x-10x difference exists between the amount charged for many medical procedures vs. the amount actually paid by an insurer. On your next medical statement, look for the “adjusted” amounts. Those are the fictional, inflated "retail" costs that the insurer isn't going to pay.

Now, as to WHY there are such huge price differences, that turns out to be a rather complex answer, but essentially it all boils down to a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours system where the “retail” price for everything is wildly inflated to game calculations and to scare the dickens out of people so they’re forced to participate in the scheme.

Source: The Great American Healthcare Scam”, by Dr. David Belk.

[jb]

At least for drug prices you have some tools to shop around. If you need some non-diagnostic medical procedure, it seems basically impossible to get any provider to tell you with any accuracy what the price is going to be; comparing prices across providers is pure fantasy.

Just a reminder that basically every other developed economy in the world regulates health care pricing even if they otherwise have fairly free-market (e.g. Singapore) or insurance-based (Germany, Switzerland) systems. We don't have to move to a single-payer system to get rid of a bunch of the nonsense present in ours.

[Zarniwoop]

concur. I’d really like to see how a simple model of “providers can charge one price to all comers, whether a cash customer of insured, and they must tell people what that price is in advance of service" would impact US health care.

[Life of Brian]

Agree re transparency in advance of service (though that's getting easier to come by these days due to recent CMS regulations).

I think one-size-fits-all pricing is a bit trickier -- that would prohibit providers from pricing in risk of non-payment from cash customers, shadier insurance companies, etc. The net effect likely would be similar to what we've seen re forced elimination of de-risking by health insurance, credit cards, and so on -- higher rates across the board. Whether that's a bug or feature probably depends on where you originally fell on the risk pricing curve.

[jb]

Do the CMS regulations actually do anything useful? As far as I know, all the rules require is for hospitals to publish their list pricing, which has basically no relationship whatsoever with what anyone actually pays.

[Life of Brian]

I’m sure it’s not a perfect world, but lots of larger hospitals/medical groups now offer up-front pricing estimates — some of them expressly say they factor in your insurance coverage, and if you don’t have insurance then list pricing is what you’d expect to first hit the bill before negotiating it down.

In any event, it's more visibility than we had before when the first remote clue was when opening the (several months stale at that point) bill.

[Ben_]

You can buy the medication for cash and then fight with the insurance company to be reimbursed. You don’t need to make medical decisions on their schedule if you have the money.

[Michael P]

I'm looking forward to all the people who criticized Trump for supposedly racist Covid-inspired restrictions on travel from China to reminding us that it's still racist when Biden does it.

(But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.)

[Sarcastr0]

I would hope that when fact change, policies addressing said facts become different.

Not so for you it seems.

[Mr. Bumble]

What "changed facts" are you referring to?

[Sarcastr0]

The respective rates of infection in the US and China.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What were they then, and what are they now?

[Sarcastr0]

We had a high rate then and a lower rate now.
China had a lower rate then and a high rate now.

Do you deny that this is the case?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

China, where COVID originated, had a lower rate of infection than the US in the beginning of the pandemic?

Are you for real?

[Sarcastr0]

By the time we decided on travel restrictions, yes - the horse was already out of the barn.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're making up facts and goalseeking.

Trump did his travel ban on Jan 31.

[Nige]

You could look it up, you know.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The US only had six cases by Jan 31st when Trump did his first travel restriction.

From what you remember, do you think China had more than six cases or fewer than six cases on Jan 31st, 2020? Sarcastr0 asserts "the horse was out of the barn" and China had fewer than six cases.

[Nige]

Why are you asking? You could just show the figures.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think in Jan 31st when the US had six COVID cases and Trump instituted his first travel restriction that six COVID cases was more than the number of cases in China or six COVID cases was less than the number of cases in China?

I want you to think about and reason the answer for yourself. Are you NPCs even capable of doing that anymore?

[Nige]

This is great. I'll start a pool on how long this goes on for. Just post the links. If you DARE.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

24 days after China first announced it had even identified the virus as a novel one, you can't reason where the most infections were without someone telling you.

You've been groomed not to think, only to parrot.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, he’s thinking. He’s just been trained not to ever acknowledge the products of that thought if they contradict the narrative.

Of course, the US had more cases than had been detected, at that point, and the cat was out of the bag for good. China had seen to that, once they realized they had an epidemic on their hands: They quarantined internally, and expedited getting foreign carriers out into the rest of the world before the world knew what was happening.

But, yeah, Trump probably at least slowed things down a bit by partially closing our borders.

[Nige]

'you can’t reason where the most infections were without someone telling you.'

I'm just absolutely FASCINATED that you don't want to quote figures to back up your argument. I haven't even disagreed with you! It's so weird.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I want you to think through your recollections of the pandemic and draw your own conclusions.

1 day after the WHO declared COVID to be a Public Health Emergency and the US had six cases. Who had more cases China, or the US?

[Nige]

You want me to rely on my recollections? When you could just post the figures? Like I said, weird.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I want to see if a modern NPC whose been programmed by Mass Formation Psychosis is capable of independent reasoning.

Early in the pandemic that originated out of China and when the US only had six cases, who had more? China or the US?

[Nige]

I independently reasoned that you would drag this out for absolutely no reason. (Me too, I admit it.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There is a reason.

For everyone to see how stupid NPC programming makes people act. Look how fucking dumb you are when you can't admit the obvious.

Atleast Sacrastr0 disappears. You stick around to get your nose rubbed in your own piss over and over like a bad puppy.

[Nige]

If we keep this up long enough, will you start foaming at the mouth?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's so bizarre; you have such little self-awareness that you think I'm the one who looks stupid here.

[Nige]

I’ve been calling this whole thing stupid from the start, I’ll have you know.

[Kazinski]

Just Mute him and move on, I did.

Fun fact, out of 405 total comments when I muted him, Nige had 91, and had nothing to say in any of them.

Lifes too short.

[PaulS]

Are you confident that statistics were/are being reported by both the US and China in a consistent and accurate manner throughout the time period? Perhaps both China and the US are being more open in reporting their statistics now that Biden is president.

[Sarcastr0]

We had some alternative ways of verifying. One was the rates actually observed in travelers.

It would have been extraordinary if their rate was higher than ours by then somehow.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Trump did his travel ban on Jan 31st.

You do science policy research for the federal government? You’re a partisan hack who invents facts.

No wonder everything the federal government does turns to complete shit. It's filled with reality-twisting people like you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It would have been extraordinary if their rate was higher than ours by then somehow."

It was the origin location. Spread would have been faster there.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There's a different President!

[Nige]

A non-racist president.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No one cares about your Marxist power words anymore.

[Nige]

And yet here you are under Michael P's plaintive cries that calling Trump racist and Biden not is unfair when all Trump's ever done is be racist and Biden hasn't.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No one cares about your Marxist power words.

[Nige]

Proletariat?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"racist", "homophobe", "transphobe", "anti-semite".

Only morons and NPCs are afraid of those labels.

[Nige]

It isn't as if everyone doesn't already know what you are.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I don't care what you, the SPLC, the ACLU, or the ADL label me.

You won't silence me and put me in the same mental prison you are.

You won't even question the State like a good little bootlicker.

[Nige]

Why would you? You are what you are, you’re just mad at the unfairness of so many people finding it repulsive.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Fortunately for me, I'm not controlled by what other people think.

That's what differentiates people like me from people like you. You'll never be anything other than some parroting, bootlicking sheep stomped on repeatedly by the hypocritical elites you worship.

[Nige]

Really? I don't think that's true. You're difficult to distinguish from all the other cookie-cutter racists, homophobes, transphobes and anti-semites.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Oh noes, however will I gain yours and Sarcastr0's approval?

That's so important!

[Nige]

By being a better person?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fear not, BCD. The Volokh Conspirators will always defend your right to be a multifaceted bigot. That seems to be roughly half of the reason this white, male, right-wing blog exists.

[David Nieporent]

Weird how you think being a decent person is a "mental prison."

[David Nieporent]

Fortunately for me, I’m not controlled by what other people think.

I mean, you are, which is why you're so bitter about your station in life.

[TwelveInchPianist]

One who believes that poor kids are just as bright as white kids.

[Moderation4ever]

Well, I would not hold your breath either, because you are trying to set up a false equivalency. The Biden administration is responding to changes in the Chinese travel policies. The Trump administration was looking for a scapegoat for its own failures to address the pandemic early. One is not the same as the other.

[Michael P]

It's a strange day when BCD is more sensible than S_0 and M4e combined.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Have you considered that your conclusion is biased by your own ignorance?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Speaking of ignorance.

Who do you think had more COVID cases on Jan 31st, 2020? China or the US?

Sarcastr0 and moderation4eva think it was the US. Do you think they are right?

[Michael P]

You could at least try to answer the question that BCD has asked several times, but you must be either too ignorant or too partisan to do that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Speaking of ignorant, you obviously didn't consider the possibility that I have that racist, homophobic piece of shit muted.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol, not a safe enough space for you?

[Michael P]

So you decided to mouth off about what he said when you have him muted. And you accuse me of ignorance in the process. How typical of you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your statement of "It’s a strange day when BCD is more sensible than S_0 and M4e combined." can readily be dismissed as a poor conclusion on your part regardless of what BCD actually said or not based purely on his (and your) history.

He has nothing to add to anything other than vile hatred and bigotry, and you have a history of being objectively wrong about most things.

My comment stands. 🙂

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Serious question. “Day 1” of COVID was Dec 1st 2019. That was the first day of any reported symptoms reported anywhere.

“Day 32” of COVID was Jan 1st 2020 when they closed Wuhan’s wet market.

“Day 38” of COVID was Jan 7th, 2020 when China first announced they had identified the virus as a new coronavirus.

24 days later Trump instituted his first travel restriction.

What failures do you think the Federal government did in those 24 days? And do you think there is anyone else in the hierarchy of the Federal government who advised or contributed to them, or was it only President Trump involved in the analysis and decision making?

Source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7378494/

[Nige]

The question isn't whether it was justified or not, the question is why was Trump called racist for implementing it and Biden not. The answer is that Trump couldn't manage to do it without being a great big racist in the process.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but according to Nige, Trump is a racist. Nothing else matters.

[Nige]

Oh no. Being racist is just one facet of his multi-sided shitness.

[Moderation4ever]

You neglected to mention that Peter Navarro reported to the President on the infection in late December 2019. The Biden administration adjusted it policy within days of the Chinese changing travel policy. As you noted the Trump administration took over 24 days and then sought to place the blame on China. Why did the Biden administration work so much quicker, could it be competence?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)

Trump instituted his travel restrictions one day after WHO declared a Public Health Emergency.

It's so fucking funny watching you NPCs goal seek. You're all too ignorant and blinded by hate to ever make a good argument without faceplanting on your own stupidity.

[Nige]

It was definitely one pandemic measure he could count on his base supporting, because of the racism.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yawn. Your mindmasters only gave you one script and you're wearing it out.

[Nige]

It's what happened, why would I change it?

[Don Nico]

"Trump administration was looking for a scapegoat for its own failures to address the pandemic early"
No, closing the border made sense then and now.

[Ben_]

Yeah, it's the sensible policy (temporarily at least) in both cases.

Trump-haters care about Trump-hating though, not about policy or outcomes.

[David Nieporent]

No, closing the border made sense then and now.

But he didn't close the border! He only banned travel from China, even though covid had already spread. (Then, remember six weeks later when he announced a ban on travel from Europe, causing mass chaos at the airports?)

Liberals overreached when they declared that the ban on travel from China was racist. It wasn't. (Not only that, but it wasn't very proactive, despite Trump's bragging. We were something like the 30th country to announce such a ban.) The problem is that Trump's broad-spectrum racism was way overdetermined by that point, so liberals called everything he did, no matter how racially neutral, racist.

And Trump being Trump, he didn't try to point out that the decision was reasonable; instead, he smirked, leaned in, and said, "I like it when they call me racist because it means I'm getting attention, so I'm going to go around calling the virus all sorts of juvenile Asian nicknames."

[Ben_]

Yeah, terrible people politicized Covid from the very beginning. How many lives could have been saved if they had ever decided to act like responsible adults instead of hysterical, deranged Trump-haters?

[David Nieporent]

You mean the Trump who said that he didn't want any testing done because that would cause the increasing number of cases to be revealed which would be bad for his campaign?

[Ben_]

Dems politicized Covid from the very beginning, which you have just acknowledged.

Testing people who weren’t sick was pointless. All the policies that focused on anyone besides the vulnerable 5-10% were stupid distractions.

Everyone got Covid despite all the bullshit rituals Democrats kept demanding.

[Don Nico]

David,
As China was the point of origin of SARS-CoV-2 and as the infection data from Wuhan was massively falsified. Closing to border to travel from China was a good first step.

[Reallynotbob]

Please define "all the people."

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/

I recall (candidate) Biden called Trump xenophobic, but that was true in general. Trump himself said everyone was calling him a racist for the travel restriction, but that was also a self-serving characterization.

As the link explains, there was some expert opposition on efficacy ground, which I suppose one could cast as an argument implying the ban was racially motivated because it wasn't effective, but that's different from saying it was an accusation of racism. In the larger media, I recall there was a sense that if COVID was as bad a pandemic as predicted (it was) then no country-specific travel ban would work, which raised the question why China was being singled out (by a President openly hostile to China in general).

[Michael P]

https://www.splcenter.org/presscenter/splc-trumps-racist-response-covid-19-endangers-all-americans-including-immigrants

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/16/racism-coronavirus-china-europe/

Biden specifically tied the 31 Jan 2020 travel ban to xenophobia in a tweet: "We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering."

[Kenneth Almquist]

The tweet you quote doesn't even mention the so-called “travel ban,” much less “specifically tie” it to anything.

[Ben_]

"I’m looking forward to all the people who criticized Trump for supposedly racist Covid-inspired restrictions on travel from China to reminding us that it’s still racist when Biden does it.

(But I’m not holding my breath for that to happen.)"

What if the people complaining abut Trump cared about something besides name-calling?

Can you imagine if they actually wanted institutions to work for people as much as they want to settle scores against Americans and signal their virtue?

[Commenter_XY]

The Twitter Files...I have to ask the constitutional lawyers: Is this level of interaction we now see documented between the FBI, DOJ, OGA (Other Governmental Agency) and social media companies, Big Tech companies really compatible with our individual 1A rights?

Am I wrong in thinking that the federal government used (coerced perhaps? I am thinking of those CEOs hauled before Congress - repeatedly 2019-22) private companies to achieve unconstitutional ends (suppression of free speech). How can any 'libertarian' think that this level (and kind) of interaction that results in free speech suppression is laudable? I personally have a hard time understanding how that behavior is legal.

Thought experiment: Make the 1A argument that what we see here is an unconstitutional act (suppression of political speech) by the federal government. I am not asking that you agree with the proposition, just make the constitutional argument.

I come here to VC to learn, and this question (did the fed gov unconstitutionally act to suppress 1A rights) is very much on my mind, just as a citizen. Has SCOTUS ever dealt with a case like this, where the fed gov was found to be using/coercing a private company to achieve a result that would otherwise be forbidden to the federal government (like censorship and suppression of political speech).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrats at the DHS published a warning that criticism of the Afghan withdrawal was extremist speech and should be monitored.

[Sarcastr0]

Twitter didn’t act on plenty of tweets and accounts the Government highlighted.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/

Not very good coercion then. Which makes sense since your proof is merely that a different branch of government was having hearings.

The Twitter Files people say they have lots of smoking guns that they do not actually establish.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What about the tweets and accounts they did act upon?

Anything regarding those?

[Sarcastr0]

They also act on tweets and accounts reported by anyone else.

Which I would want them to do, and which their advertisers wanted them to do.

So that seems pretty normal.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So it’s pretty normal for government agencies to coordinate with social media companies to censor people in your eyes. And you want them to do that.

Got it.

[Sarcastr0]

Was no coordination, as all of my comments you are replying to said.

Wrecked that strawman though.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If a government agency sends a list of tweets or accounts to censor to Twitter and Twitter acts on that list, it's not coordination?

You can't be serious.

[Nige]

Maybe if all the tweets or accounts were deleted routinely and automatically with no reference to the TOS. But if not? Pfft.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's against the Terms of Service to be skeptical of what the State dictates is The Science!

Sincerely,

Free Peoples Everywhere!

[Nige]

Deliberately spreading disinformation during a pandemic isn't skepticism of the state, or science.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Not toeing the State's line during a pandemic is deliberately spreading disinformation!

Sincerely,

Not Tyrants Everywhere!

[Nige]

No, deliberately spreading disinformation is deliberately spreading disinformation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Questioning the State is deliberately spreading disinformation!

Sincerely,
We PinkySwear We Aren't Authoritarians Everywhere!

[Nige]

Spreading disinformation is spreading disnformation. Trying to name it something else is, well, Orwellian.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Defining information the State doesn’t like as “disinformation” is historically what free countries do!

Sincerely,

We’re Not Fascists, I Swear Everywhere!

[Nige]

Defining deliberate disinformation as ‘questioning the state’ isn't what people with the public good at heart do. Pushing and promoting conspiratorial thinking is moe of a fascist project than taking measures to deal with a pandemic.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Deliberately spreading disinformation during a pandemic isn’t skepticism of the state, or science."

Fortunately, we can rely on the state to identify who is deliberately spreading disinformation and not just saying things that the state doesn't like.

[Nige]

Fortunately, we can depend on the right to defend deliberate disinformation, it’s basically their election platform now.

[Michael P]

He's never serious. He's Sarcastr0us.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sadly, he can be. Since they can't prevent the evidence from coming out, they've settled on a strategy of utter denial regardless of evidence.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm sure you haven't, but have you considered that your conclusion is simply wrong as usual?

[Mr. Bumble]

Back at you.

[Nige]

Pointing out to Republicans that the evidence doesn't show what they claim it shows is becoming quite a familiar activity, no matter how often it never stands up in court.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're not doing a bit of "pointing out", just "asserting".

I get that nothing has been revealed that YOU find objectionable. Because the censorship was working in your favor, and why would you object to that?

If the shoe had been on the other foot, you'd be totally outraged. But nobody actually expects you, of all people, to be impartial about objecting to outrages.

[Nige]

Absolutely no censorship has been revealed. ‘My side’ has heavily criticised twitter moderation failings and lapses for years, but unlike you we don’t construct a massive non-disprovable conspiracy theory about it within a culture war bubble that’s utterly impermeable to the experiences of anyone else.

Edit - the closest thing to censorship was benning the Washington Post story, which was not done at the request of anyone in government or in the Biden campaign, and which twitter has acknowledged as a mistake and which anyway had a massive Streisand effect. On the other hand, the government of the time brought pressure to bear to have the story un-banned for reasons that I don't think had anything to do with freedom of speech.

[StellaLink_the dog]

“the Washington Post story,”

Do you mean the NY Post writing about the Hunter Biden hard drive copy?

[Nige]

D'oh.

[Brett Bellmore]

"My side’ has heavily criticised twitter moderation failings and lapses for years"

It's becoming a trope: Both the left and the right complain about platform moderation: Republicans complain about being censored, and Democrats complain that Republicans aren't censored enough.

[Nige]

When 'my side' complains about stuff being left up it's usually death threats, rape threats, harassment, racist and homophobic abuse. Are you suggesting that is the stuff Republicans aren't being censored enough for?

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Anyone else” isn’t the fucking government and doesn’t have their actions limited by the Bill of Rights.

You’re acting as an enabler of the surveillance state.

You talk about their advertisers. What about the SEC and TWTR shareholders. Did they want to be lied to?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He's a Federal. Since he's low in the hierarchy, he bootlicks his elites.

[Nige]

And you're trying to sensationalise something that wasn't really all that sensational.

[Mr. Bumble]

So all this is and has been completely normal?

[Nige]

Normal compared to what?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Don't you live in the UK?

State censorship and surveillance is probably perfect normal for you.

You can go to jail for making a tranny cry, lol

[Michael P]

The UK has been jailing people for quoting the Bible for almost a decade. Very sad to have lost so much liberty.

[Nige]

No, I don't. Yes, after Brexit the UK is becoming steadily even more despotic, but it's despotism is aimed at unions, climate activists and journalists. Making 'trannies' cry is a national sport. You'd love it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Is that where they arrest you for praying?

[Nige]

For being weird outside an abortion clinic? Those anti-demo laws are pretty broad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, they asked her if she was praying.

That is the only part of the PSPO that she appears to be violating.

The order prohibits:

i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,

ii Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff,

iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or a member of staff,

iv Recording or photographing a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff or

v Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy.

[Nige]

Told you UK anti-demo laws are broad. Hey if she was a black lesbian basketball player you would be telling her tough shit, shouldn't have broken all those laws.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Hey if she was a black lesbian basketball player you would be telling her tough shit, shouldn’t have broken all those laws."

Lol. As I said in other threads, Brittney Griner was taken hostage to extract concessions from the US. I wouldn't trade arms dealers for such hostages, but I would support measures to retrieve them that would have you quivering in fear of WWIII, including going and getting them.

[Nige]

That was obvious, but oddly enough plenty here made the argument that she was getting no more or less than she deserved for breaking the sacred soveriegn laws of the country she was visiting. Anyway, yes, Brexit Britain is becoming more like Putin’s Russia, who could have seen that coming.

(Some sort of international agreement on how to deal with countries that take citizens hostage for money or exchange would be more useful than macho little military adventures, but ok.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Calm down, Chicken Little.

Your outrage is improper.

[Sarcastr0]

You have in no way established anything like a surveillance state.

The FBI did not demand anything of twitter, and twitter did not act as though anything was being demanded of it - it took any flags the FBI sent them and reviewed them as it would a normal report from an individual.

You jumping up and down and telling a story won't change the facts.

[Michael P]

Normal people didn't get weekly meetings with senior Twitter execs to color Twitter's judgment.

Normal people didn't have former employees or colleagues working as senior Twitter staff, pushing their preferred (but bullshit) narratives and actions.

[jb]

Depends. Were the accounts in fact violating Twitter's ToS and that Twitter would likely have acted on if some random other person had reported it? If so, I don't see a problem.

If the government is getting Twitter to do take down speech that they'd generally be inclined to leave up, that seems problematic. So far, though, I've seen no evidence that's what was going on.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, let me respond to you this way. Does it trouble you at all that this level of interaction even exists between social media companies, Big Tech and the Federal government? Independent of the political layer (Team R, Team D), do we even want the Federal government interacting like this at all? How is their behavior compatible with our 1A (free speech) rights?

This is what troubles me. It doesn't matter to me about the political party, because to me this behavior is manifestation of statism; a greater danger to us all. That is why as a libertarian, I am hugely bothered by the implications of this conduct by the FBI, DOJ, and OGAs. I don't want the Federal government selectively 'helping' to enforce ToS with any company, let alone social media and Big Tech. That is why we have courts; the courts enforce contract law.

This is also where I wonder if SCOTUS has ever had a case with that kind of question.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think we have a meeting of the minds as to what this level of interaction is.

I see the FBI reporting things they see, and twitter freely taking such information under advisement.

You see a much closer relationship, as suggested by the Twitter Files people. Though the messages they share bely that notion, from what I can tell. I see lower level people considering the flags, and some of it being elevated and some of it not.

I think it would be silly to forbid the government from flagging stuff, since illegal stuff does go on on twitter and it is there job to monitor for such stuff. And so long as they are there, noting other stuff they see is not coercive, as shown by twitter's subsequent treatment of said info.

Finally, Twitter is a minor company in the grant scheme - I lived fine before and will life fine if it goes down. It's not the vital link in Internet speech a lot of folks here have suddenly decided it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I see the FBI reporting things they see, and twitter freely taking such information under advisement."

Yeah, the FBI sees that somebody is saying something they don't want said. Not stuff that's illegal, just stuff the FBI doesn't want said.

And you don't find that problematic. I guarantee you would if the FBI habitually agreed with Republicans rather than Democrats about what sort of speech was disfavored.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, turns out saying the election is on a different day than it is may be something to highlight to twitter.

You bring no examples, just a conviction that the issue is being conservative.
It is manifestly not. Partisans of both flavors got banned.

The right stands for more than dick pics. threats of political violence, and lies about vaccines.
But in order to keep your persecution engines burning, you will reduce it to such.

[ducksalad]

We could start by deciding what constitutes coordination. Sarcastr0 is trying to claim that this Twitter thing wasn’t. An analogy:

Suppose a political candidate had a weekly scheduled conference call with the leadership of an independent PAC. The candidate comes to each meeting with a list of talking points he wants promoted. The independent PAC, based on these lists, does media campaigns highlighting some but not all of the talking points. Violation of FEC rules prohibiting coordination?

The PAC (too cheap to hire a lawyer and using Sarcastr0’s comments here as guidance) tries to claim it’s not a violation because (a) they didn’t do all the talking points on the candidate’s list, and (b) “anybody” could send them lists of talking points.

The FEC would respond that (a) having organized meetings with an action agenda is coordination, period, and (b) the candidate is not “anybody”, in fact, he and his staff are the one and only organization the law restricts from sending talking points.

Likewise for the Twitter case, the government is not “anybody”. “Anybody” isn’t restricted by the 1st Amendment. The government is the one and only organization the constitution restricts from interfering with speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Your analogy assumes an alignment of purpose that is not analogous to twitter and the USG.

[ducksalad]

Hey, an actual attempt at a counterargument. Thank you. But I think you are making a point against yourself. Because coordination is not always voluntary.

Let me first say that Twitter is well within their rights to align their purpose with the government’s, just like MSNBC can shill for Democrats or Fox can shill for Republicans, and only invite guests who support that mission. So if Twitter was seeking FBI input on who to ban, then that’s sleazy but I would concede there is no 1st Amendment violation. Although I still think the FBI in particular has a duty, separate from the 1st Amendment, to appear non-partisan, and they violated that.

But if Twitter’s purpose was not aligned, then this is case of law enforcement officers making repeated undesired contact to chill or hamper speech. If a police officer knocked on your door every week to “advise” you on what things not say, and you felt pressure to comply, that’s a problem. Even if it didn’t cross the line into criminal violation of your rights, surely you’d agree it’s a bad thing and ought to stop.

[Nige]

That's a strong argument for oversight and transparency of that kind of request, but should take into account the possibility that LEO are responding to reports by other twitter users, eg, if someone is being subjected to rape threats, death threats, that sort of thing. One would hope that the response isn't limited to a request to take them down, but if twitter have been ignoring them, or appearing to, as they have been known to do, the victim getting the support of law enforcement in pointing them out is hardly violating anyone's rights. Mind you I don't know if that actually happens, but I see no reason why it shouldn't, and everyone's being awfully vague about exactly what tweets the feds were flagging.

[ducksalad]

I realize it’s a matter of opinion where to draw the line.

If it’s about threats of criminal violence, I can maybe see a role for law enforcement. Direct attempts at business fraud, maybe. But even then, I suggest the line is this: the FBI can ask Twitter to shut someone down if and only if the FBI already has a warrant, supported by probable cause, to arrest that person for the same threat or fraud they are making on Twitter.

Disagreeing with election results? Hard no. Fringe whacked out totally wrong theories about election results that mislead the gullible? Still a hard no. Fringe whacked out totally wrong theories about COVID that mislead the gullible? Still a hard no.

[Nige]

'Twitter to shut someone down if and only if the FBI already has a warrant'

Kind of suggests that without a warrant, those sorts of threats can stay up if twitter doesn't get around to them. In what other area does the FBI require a warrant just to contact someone and draw attention to potentially dodgy activity? Yes of course, that sort of thing can be abused, but it can also serve a purpose.

'Disagreeing with election results? Hard no. Fringe whacked out totally wrong theories about election results that mislead the gullible? Still a hard no.'

Twitter agreed with you, you know. They didn't suspend Trump until AFTER Jan 6th, despite mutliple tos violations.

'Fringe whacked out totally wrong theories about COVID that mislead the gullible? Still a hard no.'

Two things - this can be closely associated with fraudulent activity, in fact it's pretty much a red flag, and it can also be associated with foreign interference - Putin is closely associated with the promotion of anti-vaxx material going back years. Surely this puts it in the realm of national security?

[ducksalad]

Surely this puts it in the realm of national security?.

No. A fault both progressives and the far right share is obsession with "foreign influence".

I'll read whatever foreign news, "news", or opinions I want to without any help from the government. Even if I base my vote for president on what some Russian said, tough luck, that's my right.

Trying to limit their citizens' access to foreign media is something places like China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia do.

[Nige]

‘Reading foreign news’ and ‘disinformation campaigns directed by foreign governments’ are not the same things, though i suppose they can overrlap. Limiting that access is, indeed, something that they do, so I’m not sure why you’d trust them as news sources, but like you say, that’s your right.

Crucially, the US has a long history of doing the same thing, and I don't see why countries targeted by US disinformation campaigns shouldn't also treat it as a national security issue. Or to put it another way, it'd be weird if they didn't.

[jb]

At least some of the stuff that was taken down was pre-election misinformation (e.g., spreading incorrect dates for the election). That sort of stuff is already illegal, so presumably less problematic?

[Kazinski]

Not a bad idea, but I wouldn't be that restrictive, if the speech is an attempt at fraud, or incitement they might not have
enough evidence for a warrant.

But all such attempts should be public, and Congress should make it a crime for the FBI or any government agency to try to restrict speech based on a political motive or for disagreeing with the government.

[SimonP]

Let's test this hypothetical from a different direction.

Suppose the government catches wind of a trend in social media, whereby private actors are promoting the consumption of bleach as an effective anti-COVID treatment. The promoters are very entertaining and apparently persuasive, and the algorithms for the social media outlets feeds their influence. The social media companies, for their part, are indifferent to this, since they make the same amount of money one way or the other.

What may the federal government do, in this scenario, if we treat any kind of "coordination" to control the spread of this clearly harmful information as presumptively unconstitutional?

If the analysis turns on the message I've chosen - telling people to drink bleach to fight COVID might be constitutionally unprotected fraud, etc. - then where could the line be drawn? Would we say that the federal government should be able to "coordinate" with social media companies to suppress treatment recommendations that constitute fraud? Treatments that have been proven to be ineffective (in the view of the FDA)? Treatments whose efficacy has yet to be established one way or another, but whose promotion demonstrably harms public health (in the estimation of the CDC)?

I can totally understand why conservatives are wary of this kind of coordination, if we were to think about someone like Trump or his cronies "talking with" Facebook to try to suppress the ads and messaging of political opponents. That would be chilling activity. But I also struggle to think of a better solution when our social media platforms are going nuts with propaganda and misinformation that is designed to undermine our national security, polarize our politics, and harm our public health.

[Nige]

'if we were to think about someone like Trump or his cronies “talking with” Facebook to try to suppress the ads and messaging of political opponent'

The twitter files did casually mention that Trump and his cronies were bringing pressure to bear, but left that whole avenue carefully unexplored.

[SimonP]

Gosh, whodathunk?

[ducksalad]

Political candidates are supposed to try and influence elections and angle for positive media coverage. It's called "campaigning".

The FBI is not.

A sitting president is somewhere in between. A good president would know that talking with reporters, or even proactively contacting them to push a narrative, is OK. Asking a reporter not to talk with other candidates or asking them to suppress some story is unethical. Promising benefits or threatening to deny them is unethical.

Of course, Trump was not a good president and nothing he did would surprise me.

[SimonP]

I don't see any reason to entertain this mincing distinction when we're describing government actors asking Twitter to remove posts in accordance with its own policies as "coercion." If that's tantamount to "coercion," then I see no reason why a political campaign acting in the interests of the sitting head of federal law enforcement (as well as all the FTC, SEC, etc.) wouldn't be engaged in a similarly coercive act.

I wish someone would take up my hypothetical. If the government can't even attempt to persuade social media platforms to regulate their own content in accordance with those platforms' own policies, in furtherance of national security and public health, what can it do?

[Kazinski]

In your scenario the best way to counter it would be for the government to put out its own tweet with the facts, and even ask Twitter to promote that tweet.

The best way to counter bad speech is good speech, and I don't see anything wrong with Twitter boosting the good speech, but letting people make up their own mind.

[David Nieporent]

What may the federal government do, in this scenario, if we treat any kind of “coordination” to control the spread of this clearly harmful information as presumptively unconstitutional?

Obviously what the government can constitutionally do is counter-message.

But I also struggle to think of a better solution when our social media platforms are going nuts with propaganda and misinformation that is designed to undermine our national security, polarize our politics, and harm our public health.

Every would be censor argues that the speech he or she wants to censor is harmful. We made a decision in this country in 1791 — sometimes honored only in the breach — that censorship was ultimately more harmful.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

From Marbury v Madison:

"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."

[Reallynotbob]

Historical context: the FBI and other law enforcement bodies have long had relationships with AT&T, and Ma Bell before that, for streamlining pen register and tolls & luds subpoena processing. In some cities, they had on-site liaison offices in the telephone company building to handle wire-tapping requests etc.

So the notion of close government interaction with the communication tech companies is old hat. What I think is "new" about the Twitter data is seeing the government bringing information to a private organization for action according to the private organization's terms of service.

But is it a problem? We wouldn't balk at the FBI telling the Boy Scouts six of their scout masters are under investigation for an online pedophilia ring. That implicates a 1A right of association. And we wouldn't fret about the police giving retail stores the pictures of suspected shoplifting groups or pickpockets. We wouldn't think twice about the State Department telling an East Egg Rotary Club that the interesting foreign author they invited to speak is actually a disinformation agent.

Remember, the Twitter Files story is about a government helping a private business to do things the private business already wanted to do, in the form of its TOS.

[ducksalad]

“But is it a problem? We wouldn’t balk at the FBI telling the Boy Scouts six of their scout masters are under investigation for an online pedophilia ring. That implicates a 1A right of association. And we wouldn’t fret about the police giving retail stores the pictures of suspected shoplifting groups or pickpockets. ”

Those are real crimes, and thus within the scope of the FBI and the police. And I would in fact object if the FBI got the Boy Scouts to ban someone because the FBI didn’t really have enough evidence to move forward and thought it was a good way to get some punishment done. I would object strongly to the police labeling people shoplifters if it turned out they were not shoplifters, and the police were just looking for a punitive mechanism not complicated by stuff like probable cause, due process, and presumption of innocence.

“We wouldn’t think twice about the State Department telling an East Egg Rotary Club that the interesting foreign author they invited to speak is actually a disinformation agent.”

Unless the speaker was literally not an author,but some kind of imposter, I would object. If I was in charge of the State Department I’d certainly discipline any employee using their position to interfere with a private club’s choice of speaker, even a foreign one spouting noxious bullshit. Some guy goes home and tells a friend he's go suspicions about some author, OK. But anything that leveraged off the State Department’s authority or prestige? Nope, not acceptable. Doing it and claiming it was department business? Probably a firing offense.

[Reallynotbob]

You're modifying the hypotheticals in order to draw different lines you find easier. In the Boy Scouts example, the government is investigating but has not convicted-- yet I think our instinct is to say that this is an example of the government using its voice for the welfare of its citizens. The Boy Scouts will make the ultimate choice about whether to act on the unproven allegations. In the shoplifting example, there is no shoplifting until the people leave the retail store. The the police regularly identify caught and uncaught perps who work in such rings. It doesn't bother those business owners to get some intelligence about people's behavior. They can act or not act as they choose.

Regarding the Rotary Club example, you're attacking a straw man. Nobody said the State Department was "interfering." I said it was advising the club about who they had invited. It's kind of like saying, "Did you know you invited the KKK's grand wizard?" but I wanted an example less easily Google-able. Again, the club can do what it wants... but it might decide that the speaker does not align with its own values.

Where in any of that is a 1A violation? Where is the Government using the color of law to force citizen behavior?

[DaveM]

Federal government to Twitter: Here is a list of people you should "take a look at". Be a shame if anything happened to your service.

Twitter: Handled.

Feds: Well, OK, but what about persons 3, 5, and 9 on that list, what's the status on them? Do we really need to meet again?

Twitter: We couldn't find a reason to "handle" 3 and 9, but on further reflection, 5 is also "handled".

- - - -

No, there's no collusion here. The Feds aren't using Twitter by proxy to suppress speech they don't like, you're just imagining things!

[Sarcastr0]

Wow that is a really suggestive made up scenario you made up!

[jb]

All that's missing is anything after the first communication from the government!

[David Nieporent]

The Twitter Files…I have to ask the constitutional lawyers: Is this level of interaction we now see documented between the FBI, DOJ, OGA (Other Governmental Agency) and social media companies, Big Tech companies really compatible with our individual 1A rights?

I'm not thrilled with much of what the government was doing in this regard. They do seem to have been overzealous in hall-monitoring Twitter. (Presumably other companies, too, but we know specifically about Twitter.) But there are no 1A issues here. They did not coerce Twitter into doing anything; it was clear that Twitter was free to ignore them and often did.

Hauling the CEOs before Congress is a separate matter by separate actors. It was much worse, but there was no connection between that and the FBI's acts.

[Commenter_XY]

David....Yeah, I agree there were several instances where Twitter did not agree with the interpretation of the tweet and declined to remove it.

When you say you're not thrilled, what does that actually mean, though? If you are not thrilled, then what is bothering you about this kind of interaction?

You definitively stated there is no 1A issue here. That is an answer. If you had to argue the opposite, that there was a 1A issue, what would that argument be?

[David Nieporent]

When I say I'm not thrilled it means that if I had my druthers (and if I knew what druthers were) the FBI (and any other TLA) would severely limit the scope of this type of activity. If I were in charge, they would focus only on things that are potentially illegal, rather than taking it upon themselves to 'help' Twitter enforce its own policies.

I don't mind, say, the CDC making public statements about covid misinformation itself, and putting forth legitimate information. But there's no need for them to compile a list of specific tweets or tweeters and refer them to Twitter. It's constitutional as long as there's no "Remove this or else," but it's not something they should be doing.

Similarly, if the FBI has credible information that people are talking on social media about storming the Capitol, I don't have any problem with the FBI focusing on it. Or if the FBI believes that someone is surreptitiously acting as a foreign agent in his posts, and they want to flag that for twitter, fine. But they shouldn't just be finding every example of someone reciting MAGA talking points and reporting those to twitter.

(You understand that I'm not writing a formal policy memo here; this would take some work to put in actionable form. I'm just commenting online.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY — The constitutional argument you seek is simple to make. Publishers get 1A protection. That means that if the government threatens them, or implies threats, or colludes with someone to communicate a threat to the publisher, the publisher gets to laugh, put the whole thing in a story, and quote the government threats to prove the story. The government is not free to retaliate.

As a defense against the government, rushing to publish comments about imaginary conspiracies is far less satisfying than publishing accounts of actual government threats in detail, and laughing at them.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Shouldn't a Zionist colonial settler anti-Jew be inadmissible to the USA? The governing law is 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens (a)(3)(E)(ii) Participation in Genocide.

Any Zionist anti-Jew, who lives anywhere in stolen Palestine, is a colonial settler. In stolen Palestine there are

• oppressed native Palestinians, whom vicious bloodthirsty racial supremacist Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews have subjected to genocide, and
• vile disgusting Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews, whom the entire human race has a categorical imperative to hate, to scorn, and to loathe with neither qualification, reservation, nor equivocation.

---

As the international and US federal crime of genocide is defined, every Zionist colonial settler anti-Jew participates in genocide and is inadmissible to the USA. ICE and EOIR have no discretion in enforcement of this clause of § 1182, and the president must uphold the law. One must question whether ICE acts in conformity with the law in general. There is still a lot of murkiness in this story: Harvard Student Says He Was Barred From U.S. Over His Friends’ Social Media Posts.

[Frank Drackman]

Boy, Ben isn't nearly as big a tight ass as his ner'e do well brother.
Let me know when a "Zionist Anti Zoo" blows up an airliner over Lockerbie/Flys airliner into NYC skyscraper/Brings Shoe bomb onto airliner fucking up travel for the next 25 years

and I don't think you know what "Anti" means

Frank "Anti-Anti Jew"

[Jonathan Affleck]

I was raised ultra-orthodox Jewish.

I call a Zionist a depraved and evil Zionist an anti-Jew because the Zionist movement murders Judaism by transforming Judaism in a program of genocide.

The logic of a depraved white racist supporter of Zionist genocide against Palestinians is unique.

Depraved and evil white racial supremacist European Zionist anti-Jews started to plan genocide of Palestinians in 1881. In October 1946 the Nuremberg Tribunal hanged Julius Streicher for incitement to genocide. Streicher's incitement against Jews hardly differed from Zionist propaganda against Palestinians. In Dec 1946 the international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens.

In Dec 1947 the depraved and evil Zionist colonial settler leadership, which realized that the window was closing to get away with genocide, put the long planned genocide against Palestinians into operation. This genocide will not have ended until Palestinians return to their homes, property, villages, and country.

A depraved and evil white racist supporter of Zionist genocide against Palestinians believes the following subsequent events retroactively legitimize white racial supremacist European Zionist genocide against Palestinians.

Decades later Libya makes a revenge attack (Lockerbie) for US bombing raids on Libya in 1986.

Approximately a decade later Saudis, who were enraged at US involvement in Saudia, flew airplanes into the WTC and into the Pentagon.

Even later a British convert to Islam seems to have been recruited by persons, who were possibly connected with al-Qaeda, to shoe-bomb a transatlantic flight.

The propagandist for Zionist genocide against Palestinians uses a Pavlov trigger in a vain attempt to cause a reader reflexively to shut off his brains and to hate Palestinians. It is hard to be more atrocious and disgusting than this twisted propagandist. He believes that a person should be able to get away with an international (and US) capital crime because his ancestors practiced Rabbinic Judaism. The horrendously vile person considers Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims to be a single undifferentiated mass, each member of which can be hated for the actions of a completely unrelated individual, who is distant in time and space. The mindset of the despicably racist propagandist is a lot like the mindset of the worst of European antisemites.

[Don Nico]

Defining words in a Humpty-Dumpty fashion does not make your argument sound or even coherent.
Someone (not I of course) might write you off as a self-loathing anti-Jew.

[Jonathan Affleck]

I explained exactly why I consider a Zionist to be an anti-Jew.

A Zionist anti-Jew is mind-boggling in his deranged self-loathing.

Zionism is a phenomenon of illiteracy in Rabbinic Jewish intellectual culture.

Rabbinic Judaism is a domain specific religion, which is highly customized for medieval commerce and finance. An ordinary Jew was taught basic trade and contract law along with a Hebrew code, which made it possible to conduct a business transaction with another Jew even if the two Jews had no language in common.

The code was Hebrew Bible-based. A Rabbinic scholar or a poseq (equivalent to a mufti) like my grandfather understood business law in depth and studied the Holy Scripture, which is the Babylonian Talmud and whose critical sections are written in Babylonian Aramaic, which an ordinary Jew typically does not understand.

With economic modernization Rabbinic Judaism became irrelevant, Jews stopped studying the Talmud, the scholar class lost authority, and ordinary Jews were left only with the misunderstood Hebrew Bible code.

The Babylonian Talmud explicitly states that Rabbinic Judaism is for all intents and purposes a religion that is completely different from Biblical Judaism. The Babylonian Talmud also explicitly states that Palestine is not the homeland of those that practice Judaism.

In other words from the standpoint of someone, who is completely fluent in Rabbinic Jewish intellectual culture, Zionism is a complete lie and destroys Rabbinic Judaism. Because the vast majority of Jews are completely illiterate, an assertion, which is completely obvious to me, is shocking to someone illiterate in Rabbinic Jewish intellectual culture. Zionist anti-Jews gang report me for antisemitism. It's insane and even more outrageous from the standpoint of Palestinians because I am asserting that Zionist anti-Jews commit genocide on Palestinians in large part because of illiteracy in Rabbinic Jewish intellectual culture in combination with a ridiculous misunderstood fairy tale of a Roman Exile.

I explain the twisted and vicious antisemitism of a Zionist anti-Jew in When the Charge of Antisemitism is Justified.

[Don Nico]

JA,
Very interesting. I'd like to ask you more about your personal stance in Judaism.
Do you personally reject Talmudic Judaism in favor of a purely Hebrew Bible-based movement such as such as Karaite Judaism or an even more restricted Torah basis?

[Jonathan Affleck]

I was outside the Mosque of Abraham when Baruch Goldstein celebrated Purim in 1994 by spree-murdering worshipers. I had an epiphany that told me Zionist anti-Jews had murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide. I have not practiced Judaism since then.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I explained exactly why I consider a Zionist to be an anti-Jew.

Because you’re an antisemitic loon—yes, you’ve made that pellucid,

[Jonathan Affleck]

The screeching of a depraved genocide-supporting Zionist anti-Jew is obvious and distinctive. If one rejects racial supremacist Zionist nonsense, one has a mental defect according to a Zionist anti-Jew.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, your transparent lunacy was pretty obvious long before I learned about your virulent antisemitism.

[David Nieporent]

I was raised ultra-orthodox Jewish.

No, you weren't.

[Don Nico]

Care to explain how you know that.

[David Nieporent]

Like I said before, Martillo has been on the Internet a very long time, and his biography has fluctuated wildly. Also, he doesn't know basic facts that someone who actually were raised Haredi would know.

[Jonathan Affleck]

What does Davide Nieporent know about the ultra-orthodox?

For 30 years Zionist trolls, who never even found out my actual name, made up stuff about me.

[David Nieporent]

I'm talking about what you've said, not what other people said.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile.... As parts of the country are suffering under severe weather conditions and 10s of thousands of travelers are stranded the Biden crime family are sunning themselves (thanks to the kindness of strangers) in the US Virgin islands.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I don't think this is a photoshop.

https://media.patriots.win/post/mljW3eXajuao.jpeg

The grossest thing about a Biden family pic is how many of those people have had sex with each other.

[Frank Drackman]

If Hunter's not still a drug addict he does a great job at looking like one. His future? I see.... a bio movie similar to Howard Stern's "Private Parts"??? (I'd pay to see that)
Unfortunately more likely an "early" overdose death (he's 52, he's already outlived Jim Morrison by 25 years)

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

And Trump is in Florida.

What the fuck do you want? This is one of the lamer attempts at outrage bait I’ve seen.

[Frank Drackman]

Difference is that Trump lives there. Senescent J is "from Scranton". Outrage should be President Alzheimer's been in orifice almost 2 years and hasn't lifted Title 42 (I'm not outraged, but the peoples who always get outraged over incorrect pronouns sure don't seem to be)
Frank

[Don Nico]

Wow, I have to agree with you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"And Trump is in Florida. "

Unless you think he really won, he's no longer president.

They had to send the porkabus by its own jet to Biden to sign. Couldn't wait a single day.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you against Presidents taking vacations?

[Bob from Ohio]

He works 10-2 every day. Why does he need a vacation?

Cruz was on vacation too. Are you opposed to senators taking vacations?

[Sarcastr0]

Cruz took a vacation during a natural disaster in his state.
Biden is just taking a vacation.

You aren't against anything Biden is doing, you just wanna hate on him for whatever because you are kind of a child.

[Frank Drackman]

Senescent J's "taking a Vaction" During natural disasters in Several of the Several States,
Lets see, Blizzards in Buffalo, Southwest Can't Fly, Mexicans on the Border, sounds like a 90's Billy Joel song.
And there's just the general disaster of the Economy, hey, I didn't need 30% of my Stock Portfolio, buy low!!!!!!!!! And with no excuse of "Because Co-vid"
And don't even get me started on Secretary of Fucking Stuff Up Pete Booy-Judges Extended Gay-cation (Portugal? where next Thailand?? He and Chaz already getting tired of their pet babies)

Frank "Homophobics Much"

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Cruz took a vacation during a natural disaster in his state."

It wasn't a natural disaster it was due to incompetence in maintaining the natural gas pipeline network mostly. Then our brave and trustworthy state leadership tried to blame it on renewables.

At the time, I couldn't quite figure out why Cruz wanted to get out of Texas so bad as he's a Canadian who should be used to the cold. And, he went to Mexico , a place with a culture he is unfamiliar with and where they speak a language he doesn't understand. Sometimes I think he's just a putz. But surely, we couldn't have a putz serving as a Republican senator, could we?

[Nige]

The degree to which the US is utterly unprepared and uncoordinated when it comes to disaster response is frightening. Republicans are ideologically opposed to disaster planning because it might involve a hint of a concession that climate change is real, but Democrats aren't much better if they just don't bother. Poor show all round, and people dying.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Republicans are ideologically opposed to disaster planning because it might involve a hint of a concession that climate change is real"

That's just stupid, nothing more. Republicans just view disaster planning as a rational response to weather, rather than "climate"; It's not like floods, hurricanes, and blizzards are novel, after all.

Yes, we are having more disasters. There are several reasons for this:

With growing population, we're now building into riskier areas.

The increased penetration of 'renewable' energy is making our electric grid less resilient. The reluctance of public utility regulators to permit rate increases to pay for enhanced reliability figures in here, too. Rather than working to prevent blackouts, we're being primed to get used to them.

And we're seeing a general institutional decay as cronyism takes over. The government has enough leverage over the private sector to protect it's favorites, now.

[Nige]

'Republicans just view disaster planning as a rational response to weather, rather than “climate”'

If they even used such face-saving wordplay to support disaster preparedness, I wouldn't mind. But they don't.

'Building in riskier ares' - that's funny, you've been dismissing the arguments of environmentalists for decades when it comes to allowing building in risky areas, also about making energy grids resilient. Now you're blaming the same people wha made the warnings rather than the people who completely ignored them.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got a list of areas which environmentalists approve of?

[Nige]

Places that won't flood, or whose destruction won't cause flooding elsewhere.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about extreme temperatures or earthquakes or volcanoes or wild fires or,or,or....?
Even your one example would be impossible to achieve.

[Nige]

That’s what they want you to think. Mind you, I'd probably avoid building in places now experiencing extreme temperatures, volcanoes and wildfires, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

"you’ve been dismissing the arguments of environmentalists for decades when it comes to allowing building in risky areas, "

Got me confused with somebody else? My consistent position on building in risky areas has been, "Let people do it, and require them to bear all the costs themselves, too."

" also about making energy grids resilient."

Now you've got me confused with somebody else, AND you're fantasizing about environmentalists and grid resilience.

The closest environmentalists got to caring about grid resilience was using it as another excuse to fight global warming by abandoning reliable energy sources.

In practice they're like medieval phlebotomists claiming to be fighting anemia by bleeding people white.

[Nige]

'Got me confused with somebody else? My consistent position on building in risky areas has been, “Let people do it, and require them to bear all the costs themselves, too.”'

No, that's also a stupid attitude that ignores the warnings of environmentalists.

'The closest environmentalists got to caring about grid resilience was using it as another excuse to fight global warming by abandoning reliable energy sources.'

Fossil fuels are causing global warming. If there are problems with resilience it's because some grids are run to maximise profit, not to provide power, and they will gladly cut off people's power if they think they can pressure them to pay more, and because fossil fuel companies resist the changeover while propagandising every failing of theirs as the fault of renewables.

[Mr. Bumble]

It is really hard to take you seriously. Electric utilities are highly regulated and have to jump through hoops to do anything. Most of the current probles are the result of decades of environmentalist resistance to building or maintaining things that work.

[Nige]

No it isn't. Passing off neglect of infrastructure as being the fault of environemntalists is a cute wheeze, though.

[Frank Drackman]

they could have used some "Global Warming" in Buffalo last week. Fewer peoples would have frozen to death.

[Ben_]

"The increased penetration of ‘renewable’ energy is making our electric grid less resilient."

Whatever makes life worse for Americans...

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, they want Americans to be cold and poor. Better to control.

[Ben_]

It doesn’t have to be a cunning strategy.

If you have a grudge against group A, and you have to weigh pros and cons of something, you’re not going to give a lot of weight to possible hardships suffered by group A.

[Nige]

If you want to blame people for hardships caused by responding to climate change or climate change itself, the same people are to blame - fossil fuels and their pet politicians who denied and delayed.

[Ben_]

"As parts of the country are suffering under severe weather conditions and 10s of thousands of travelers are stranded the Biden crime family are sunning themselves (thanks to the kindness of strangers) in the US Virgin islands."

Remember last year when Ted Cruz went on vacation with his young children and it was supposedly bad?

They only pretend to believe in principles in order to level attacks.

[Sarcastr0]

Leaving the country during a national disaster is not the same as taking a vacation during a shitty holiday season.

[Ben_]

Exactly the same. Except Biden doesn’t need to try to provide a happy family life for young children.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Leaving the country during a national disaster..."

The national disaster is the current administration.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Leaving the country during a national disaster "

It was a Texas disaster and Cruz is a senator, not an executive officer like Biden.

NYC mayor left NYC last weekend, mayors don't have any responsibilities during bad weather I guess.

[Ben_]

"mayors don’t have any responsibilities during bad weather I guess"

Another example of not even pretending to serve the public.

[Sarcastr0]

The mayor of NYC sucks I guess. I know, I can criticize members of my party of choice! It's like my superpower.

Senators are leaders, and have responsibilities as such. Symbolism matters to humans, turns out.

If there were a natural disaster level event, I would want Biden to postpone.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Symbolism matters to humans, turns out."

Um, like pretending to care about climate change but not postponing your vacation one day so to sign a huge bill so they have to fly the bill on its own plane?

"President Biden@POTUS
One of the reasons I ran for office was to confront the existential threat climate change poses to our nation and to the world." 10:00 AM · Dec 29, 2022

Symbolism!

[Sarcastr0]

No, I said *humans*. Real people do not get offended by the logic pretzels you gin up.

[Bob from Ohio]

Man pretends to care about the environment but has some pieces of paper sent by jet to his vacation site the day after he leaves.

Logic pretzel indeed.

[David Nieporent]

Man pretends to care about the environment but has some pieces of paper sent by jet to his vacation site the day after he leaves.

I'm sure that's the talking point you saw on Newsmax, but of course it's made up, like everything else there:

“The White House received the bill from Congress late afternoon on Wednesday. The bill was delivered to the President for his signature by White House staff on a regularly scheduled commercial flight,” a White House official told pool reporters.

[Ben_]

"I know, I can criticize members of my party of choice! It’s like my superpower."

What if it wasn’t about you?

[Sarcastr0]

Bob only mentioned the mayor of NYC because he thought I would circle the wagons and defend him.

But I’m not a tool.

[Reallynotbob]

To paraphrase something I once saw.... "I really don't care. Do you?"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is it good for democracy when people in government coordinate with people in the private sector to censor regular citizens on topics the people in government don't want any challenges on?

[Frank Drackman]

Nope. Sounds like something a certain English King did in the 18th Century, unfortunately our current Overlords (HT Reverend Sandusky) aren't 3,000 miles away.

[Moderation4ever]

Has anyone heard a good analysis of what is happening with Southwest Airlines? They cannot be blamed for the weather, but they certainly don't seem to be able to recover from the problem the weather created. Other airlines seem to have done better.

I have never traveled with Southwest. I have used smaller carriers in the past, but I tend to find that when your done paying piecemeal for things the major carriers seem price competitive. All of which makes me think that airlines have certain fixed cost they cannot escape and so airline operations must follow natural rules. I am wondering if Southwest was trying to push the natural limits and found out the hard way that it cannot be done.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I hope every woke corporation implodes.

Good riddance.

[Jerry B.]

The Post says endemic understaffing and an antiquated computer system contributed to the problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/12/28/southwest-airlines-flight-cancellations/

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess that's what happens when you are still running Windows 7.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Woke Southwest probably used its technology budget to sponsor gay sex orgies at their headquarters. Biden was likely the guest of honor.

[Reallynotbob]

Doubtful. That might have fixed the understaffing problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

According to a private insider account I was privy to, the problem is actually that the old CEO, Herb Kelleher, was very operations focused, spent all his time making sure things were working as well as possible.

But in 2004 he retired, and got replaced with Gary Kelly, an accounting guy, who focused on the financial bottom line, instead. And then appointed another accountant Chief Operating Officer, the position that was supposed to be dedicated to keeping things running day to day.

They started focusing exclusively on the short to mid term bottom line, and investments in dependability didn't contribute to that. So the airline was just coasting on past investments and banking the money that should have gone to keeping things running.

In 2022 Kelly retired, and the new CEO was very operations oriented, but he has a couple decades of neglect to fix, and has to replace the people Covid had been used as an excuse to offload on account of temporarily low flight numbers, and that's not going to happen over night. When a fairly ordinary winter storm hit, their scheduling system broke down, and though all the assets were there to fly, the system for scheduling the flights was down, and everybody had to sit there idle for lack of flight plans.

If they actually survive the next 5-10 years, they could become a properly functioning airline again. The question is, will they?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm sure the Federals will toss them several of our children's billions in a bailout, then whine about it on Tiktok like they're doing now.

[bernard11]

I'm doubtful they can survive in their current form.

This is going to cost them a ton of money, and a lot of future business. Their brand is seriously damaged.

[Reallynotbob]

Companies have survived worse. Most folks have a bottle of Tylenol in the medicine cabinet....

[Brett Bellmore]

I tend to think that, too. The problem being not so much the brand, because people looking for the cheapest ticket possible don't care much about "the brand". The problem is that if you spend a couple decades banking profits by being the low price guy by refraining from making necessary investments, during the catch-up period when you're backfilling those investments you're not the low price guy anymore. You have higher prices relative to service.

Airlines are not a high margin business to begin with, there isn't a lot of room form SWA to climb out of that hole, because I'm pretty confident the bean counters weren't taking those savings and banking them in a fund with SWA's name on it. They were just taking them.

And he got massive plaudits for running SWA into the ground.

This isn't an isolated problem. It's a problem that's being taught in business schools and rewarded with peer approval.

[jb]

More problematically, since they're not on any of the airfare search engines, people have to more actively choose to search/fly on Southwest than any of the other carriers. This demands a certain degree of brand loyalty that they'll have considerably eroded this past week.

[jb]

As far as I can tell, it's just really bad IT systems. The current system still requires people to talk on the phone in order for the planning team to understand where crew members are and for crew members to get information on where they're supposed to be going. I guess in theory that could be overcome by having a LOT of slack capacity, but it would be a lot easier and cheaper to just have those communications to be possible via computers.

Beyond that, their scheduling computer doesn't seem to actually be tied into any operational data so it doesn't know whether or not a given flight actually occurred. This means that someone needs to do something manual every time there's a problem, which makes the "you have to do everything over the telephone" even worse.

I keep reading articles blaming the fact that they're a point-to-point network rather than hub-and-spoke. I think that makes the scheduling problem harder, but if they just knew where everyone was and could update schedules on the fly in some ways the point-to-point network would be a lot more resilient to big disruptions like this since you could easily route around problems at big hubs.

[ducksalad]

Just a wild ass guess I'd say it's the usual tension: resiliency versus "lean" and "just in time" principles. Southwest seems like the kind of company that would push those principles to their max.

[Reallynotbob]

I live Southwest's home town. There has been significant local coverage. You're not wrong. The storm was the major cause, but SWA uses a point-to-point flight routing scheme. That keeps them efficient in normal times, which controls ticket costs and increases satisfaction because most travelers don't want to fly to Atlanta to get to Charlotte (looking at you, Delta). But the other major airlines use hub-and-spoke, which is less efficient but allows more concentration of resources in the big hubs. So Delta, e.g, has many more personnel available for flights at the hubs where they can be redeployed more easily. SWA has people spread all over the country and moving them from El Paso to Little Rock is challenging. Once the winter storm (unusually large and at an unusually busy time) took out enough of their point-to-point airports, the system couldn't redeploy, and the union/regulated hour safety limits compounded the problem.

The unions are also being vocal that the scheduling system is outdated. That appears to be true. I cannot evaluate what % of the problem outmoded technology played, vs. the flight routing scheme, vs. other issues.

[Frank Drackman]

I love changing planes in Atlanta, do some of my best drinking on Concourse B

[bernard11]

I think it never occurred to Southwest that some really bad weather might hit during a peak travel period, like say the end of December.

Fundamentally, they seriously under-invested in IT, despite the fact that their point-to-point approach made adjusting to these sorts of situations more complicated for them than for hub-oriented airlines.

Maybe devoting some of that $5B or so they spent on stock buybacks before the pandemic to IT would have helped.

[jb]

It would be really cool if someone could make an executive compensation system wherein if you screwed up the company ten years from now by doing something that goosed the stock in the short term that you’d somehow suffer the consequences for it. I suspect the American economy would be at least 10% better off if such a thing were feasible and common.

[Kazinski]

Southwest was the 3rd largest US Airline in 2019, barely edging out United. And it's the only carrier I know of that has no baggage fee.

I think SW problem is their schedule is more dependent on coordinated flights and multiple transfers to provide more cost effective service than other airlines with very few long haul nonstops. That worked well for many years, although many people avoided them because 2 or 3 transfers going from the West Coast to the Midwest can get old, but often it was significantly cheaper than a competing nonstop. But the pandemic and supply chain issues has wrecked that model and they are disproportionately suffering for it.

[Frank Drackman]

ahhhhh "Because Covid" Strikes Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

are you Pete Booty-Judge?? bet he doesn't get his "Baggage" lost when he goes on Gay-cation to Thailand (Yeah, right, he was in "Portugal")

Frank

[jb]

As for Southwest's size it depends how you count.

If you look at the US domestic market, Southwest is #1 in terms of both number of flights and number of passengers, and #2 in terms of revenue.

American, Delta and United are bigger overall because they also have extensive international networks, which Southwest mostly lacks.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If there are governments and organizations who adopt goals to reduce your quality of life and limit your freedoms to reduce GHG, meet regularly to report progress on those goals, and publish their goals for all to see; are governments actively trying to reduce your quality of life? Or is that just a conspiracy theory?

[Nige]

It's a conspiracy theory if you're claiming the reasons for taking measures against climate change, ie that it will lead to massive instability and mass migrations which will effect people's quality of life on a scale far worse than the measures will, are fake. Also, how is cleaner air and water, restored and protected ecosystems and access to public transport a reduction in people's quality of life?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

haha yeah, that's what giving trillions via the pure and ethical UN to African nations will do and letting China and India keep emitting carbon far beyond anyone else.

haha yeah!

[Nige]

'letting China and India keep emitting carbon far beyond anyone else.'

It's better than the fossil fuel industry carrying on with their depredations, but 'letting' them? Not sure what you're proposing here, though actually China's per capita emissions are less than the US and they are way, way ahead in the development of sustainable energy sources, including nuclear.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you're trying to save humanity from extinction by carbon emissions, what's more important? Total emissions or per capita emissions?

How do climate reparations reduce GHG?

[Nige]

'what’s more important?'

Accuracy and honesty are important, you had neither.

'How do climate reparations reduce GHG?'

What are you referring to? Try to be honest and accurate this time.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Which metric is more important to global warming? China's per capita emissions or China's total emissions?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-a-first-u-n-climate-summit-will-discuss-climate-reparations/

Of course another fact you were completely ignorant of. Something that has been debated for 30 years, you never had a single clue about.

[Nige]

Both are quite important metrics for analysis, but it certainly suggests that contra your claims, they are closer to getting them under control than most other industrliased nations.

I asked what YOU were referring to, not always necessarily the same as what a thing actually IS. So, basically aid for the places worst-hit (and least emitting.) That’s just basic humanitarianism.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dude, do you know how to read?

[Nige]

I know how to read, I also know you're a wee bit of a liar, so I can't take it for granted that we share a common understanding of things.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If we're trying to save humanity from extinction from GHG, which should we care about more?

Per capita emissions or total emissions?

[Nige]

Care about both.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Weird how I asked you a binary choice question and you equivocate instead.

I guess you're waiting for someone else to tell you what to say.

[Nige]

Total emissions are pretty important, yeah. But China's total emissions are a fraction of what western countries have been emitting since the industrial revolution. It's not even close.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So if we're trying to save humanity from extinction by GHG, we have to take into consideration who emitted more GHGs since the Industrial Revolution and not whose emitting the most now?

And this makes sense to you?

[Nige]

It makes sense because the countries that have effectively caused climate change really shouldn't be pointing their fingers at other countries which didn't, and at least one of which is doing way more about climate change than they are.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It makes sense because the countries that have effectively caused climate change really shouldn’t be pointing their fingers at other countries which didn’t,

So the principle of not finger pointing is more important that reversing climate change. But climate change is an existential threat to humanity, that must mean finger point is a greater than existential threat to humanity.

and at least one of which is doing way more about climate change than they are.

You're a Chicom shill. That's why you're such a pro-Democrat bootlicker and China apologist. You want America to suffer as much as possible so you embrace her internal enemies (the Democrats) and shill for her external ones (the Chicoms).

[Nige]

'So the principle of not finger pointing is more important that reversing climate change'

No. But you seem to think that if you point the finger at China and India enough, everyone'll forget the western countries that are still pumping out more emissions than those two combined.

'You want America to suffer as much as possible so you embrace her internal enemies (the Democrats) and shill for her external ones (the Chicoms).'

I guess we've reached a definitive answer on the original conspiracy theory question.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, you are aware there is this country called China??, and that this Country has like 3 Billion Peoples?? (Lots of fucking going on in China HT. C. Rock)
Long way of saying "Per Capita Emissions" don't mean shit,

Frank "my emissions are nocturnal"

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Leftist global warming policy is about transferring wealth to the third world. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Nige]

We're SUPPOSED to be wringing the Third World dry and leaving it a social, economic and ecological wasteland!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why won't making the third world more prosperous increase GHG?

[Nige]

So, we have to keep the Third World poor to protect the First World from the effects of the disaster being caused by the First World even though the Third World is bearing the brunt of the effects of the disaster?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Will making the Third World more prosperous increase GHG or decrease GHG?

[Nige]

Depends. Have we developed sustainable energy sources that can be implemented at scale yet so a developing nation doesn't have to rely on carbon emitting sources of power? If not, we'd better get a move on.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Weird how I asked you a Yes or No question, and you equivocated instead of answering it.

[Nige]

It's a dumb question that you're asking because Chinese per capita emissions are less than most western countries but you need to keep pushing the lie that China is some sort of unstoppable carbon-emitting monster.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's a strawman of my argument lol

[Nige]

Oh? What were you trying to say, then?

[Frank Drackman]

I hear Pete Booty-Judge has the secret to Nuclear Fusion in his basement.
Oh wait, that's his husband Chaz's (redacted)
never mind

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You can't reconcile your greenhouse gas religion's obvious flaws and contradictions.

Who cares who emitted more GHG since the Industrial Revolution? Why does that give China a pass to emit more in the future? Who cares what their per capita emissions are? Why isn't reducing their total emissions important?

Why is transferring wealth to third world nations and increasing their emissions more important than keeping their emissions reduced?

Aren't we trying to save humanity? Clearly, if China and India get exemptions for these bullshit reasons and 3rd world countries get wealth to boost their emissions the primary premise of your religion must be false.

It isn't the most important thing to reduce GHG to save humanity. Whatever the principles are that allow China & India to keep emitting and the wealth transfer to 3rd world countries are clearly superior principles to reducing GHG to save humanity.

It's so fucking obvious if you were allowed to reason about it on your own. But you're not. You're an NPC.

[Nige]

'Who cares who emitted more GHG since the Industrial Revolution?'

Because that's what's causing climate change right now.

'Why is transferring wealth to third world nations and increasing their emissions more important than keeping their emissions reduced?'

You're the one claiming money that is essentially disaster relief will increase GHG emissions, I've no idea how.

'Clearly, if China and India get exemptions'

What exemptions? No-one is exempt from the effects of climate change.

'3rd world countries get wealth to boost their emissions'

This claim seems... unsound.

'You’re an NPC.'

Does being an NPC mean my arguments aren't as dumb and incoherent as whatever the hell it is you just did?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Because that’s what’s causing climate change right now.

So today's GHG aren't causing climate change?

You’re the one claiming money that is essentially disaster relief will increase GHG emissions, I’ve no idea how.

Disaster relief? You're not serious. Making countries more wealthy increases GHG.

What exemptions? No-one is exempt from the effects of climate change.

China, India are exempt from making CO2 reductions for the next ten years you low information boob.

Does being an NPC mean my arguments aren’t as dumb and incoherent as whatever the hell it is you just did?

You trying to spin climate reparations as "disaster relief" is about as Sacrastr0 as I've ever seen you.

[Nige]

'So today’s GHG aren’t causing climate change?'

No. There making it more difficult to reverse, but they're not causing it.

'Making countries more wealthy increases GHG.'

Not if the money's used to develop sustainable energy projects, but I expect it'll mostly be used to help people displaced and disposessed by climate change.

'China, India are exempt from making CO2 reductions for the next ten years you low information boob.'

They didn't plant the CO2 bomb, but that won't save them as it goes off.

'You trying to spin climate reparations as “disaster relief” is about as Sacrastr0 as I’ve ever seen you.'

Climate change is a rolling disaster. This gives relief to the countries worse effected, but least responsible.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Current emissions aren't causing climate change but we must reduce them so we don't cause climate change. Except for China ans India.

Carbon zero isn't a punishment it makes the air cleaner, but we can't saddle China and India with a better environment because they didn't contribute GHG in the distant past, only in the recent past.

Climate change has already impacted poor nations, but not rich nations, so much so that we must give them billions in "disaster relief". And these billions will be used wisely by their leaders and won't lead to increases GHG not that that matters because current GHG isn't cause climate change anyways!

Neat.

[Nige]

'Current emissions aren’t causing climate change but we must reduce them so we don’t cause climate change'

Look if you're just going to act stupid... er, it is an act isn't it?

'but we can’t saddle China and India'

It is up to the Indians and the Chinese to do that, being soveriegn nations and all.

'And these billions will be used wisely by their leaders and won’t lead to increases GHG not that that matters because current GHG isn’t cause climate change anyways!'

Oh. Not an act, then.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

If CO2 is truly harmful, why should the third world get a pass?

[Nige]

They don't get a pass. They are literally bearing the brunt of climate change.

[Ben_]

They want life to be worse for Americans.

[Nige]

Clean air and clean water and no climate chaos is worse?

[Sarcastr0]

How little you talk about making life better for Americans (note: the homeless need not apply).

You spend all your time yelling about the other side for stuff you yourself aren't doing either.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How much of those billions the Democrats sent to Ukraine went to help the homeless in America?

[Nige]

You're right. Give most of the military budget to the homeless.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm with you. The Democrat military is as bad as the Democrat DOJ.

Both institutions should be burned to the ground.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"How much of those billions the Democrats. . ."

How much of the trillions that the Republicans gave away to rich people in their tax "reform" went to help the homeless in America?

Both are stupid questions. Sending the billions to Ukraine has nothing to do with helping or not helping homeless people in America and neither does Trump's magnanimity with respect to the non-productive class.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Letting people keep their own money via a tax cut isn't "giving money away" unless you live in a world where you think the government owns all the money.

Sending the billions to Ukraine has nothing to do with helping or not helping homeless people in America

Why aren't you correcting Sarcastr0 to whom my comment was directed?

[Nige]

You could do more to help solve homelessness by making it illegal to object to new developments on the grounds of house values than by spending billions.

[Frank Drackman]

Well duh, none of it, unless Vlodomir Borat paid some homeless chick a Franklin to "salute Little Vlodomir"

[Ben_]

It’s not about me.

[Sarcastr0]

It's certainly not about a better life for Americans, it's all about yelling at the other side.

Which, to be fair, is my vice as well. Though I don't get on a high horse about it.

[Ben_]

Your specialty is defending destructive policy using misdirection.

Imagine if policy could be discussed based on merits... But people would have to value the outcomes of policy above narcissism and social positioning for that to happen. So instead we lurch from disaster to disaster as The Good Guys slowly corrupt and undermine every part of American life.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben, I've said it many times. Disagreeing with you about what good policy is doesn't mean I hate Americans or want to see them suffer.

You also don't want to see Americans suffer; or I've at least see no evidence you do.
But you've got yourself wound so tight you can't deal with other points of view, and see everything as evil or based on something other than good faith.

It's making you miserable. You never post anything positive, only anger and frustration.

[Ben_]

But that doesn’t explain why Americans need to pay for climate sins and third world countries don’t.

[Nige]

They are paying for it. In floods, droughts, famines, extreme high temperatures.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

And again, NOTHING from the Second Circuit on the injunctions regarding the state's gun laws that they stayed, but promised to "expedite the appeal."

So the unconstitutional laws remain in place while the Klinton/Obongo appointees on the Second Circuit diddle around, but when a state tells a gay man he didn't get a "marriage" license or told a slutty woman that she had to wait 24 hours to kill her baby, then they are of course going to be "irreparably" harmed and the laws must be stayed immediately.

Because in modern liberal society, killing babies and finishing in another man's lower intestine are the highest attributes of man.

[MoreCurious]

There is a tiny possibly that some day you'll say something more thoughtful and intelligent than a middle-school student. But your bizarre obsession with sex between men will ensure that you'll never be recognized as anything other than an inarticulate, uneducated, basement-dwelling weirdo. Keep posting so we can keep laughing at you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The top WH COVID advisor recently confessed on camera that there "wasn't a study in the world that shows masks are effective" confirming what many of us have been saying all along

Why do so many Branch Covidians still insist on the self harm of wearing a mask ans harming their children by masking them? Is it because they're stupid?

[elnurmamedrafiev]

No, it's purely about control. Promulgate an unreasonable position and see how many fight back. If they don't push back on the most unreasonable, yo know they won't push back on anything. So in the end analysis, it's about testing the limits of your control.

[Nige]

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302

'This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that several personal protective and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are associated with reductions in the incidence covid-19'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think you know more than Dr. Jha?

https://twitter.com/MerissaHansen17/status/1607759286662270976

Here are his own words.

[Nige]

The BMJ seems to think they knows more than Doctor Jha, and they have the studies to prove it. He'll be delighted when he finds out, I'm sure.

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, a few seconds clipped to show what you want. Play the entire interview.

[Nige]

Oh dear was he being dishonest and inaccurate again? Shocking.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wrong. But as an NPC you've been given a cognitive out so you're all good and you never have to have your mask wearing belief challenged.

[Nige]

I'm not the one posting carefully cut clips to prove myself right. I bet you got that from somone else just like you and either didn't check or didn't care. NPC indeed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What part is carefully cut and how do the missing parts change what it appears him to be saying in this video I posted?

[Nige]

Watch it and see for yourself. You should have done that BEFORE linking to the clip.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What context is missing that will make that clip not mean what it's saying?

[Josh R]

Jha said (my emphasis):

There is no study in the world that shows that masks work that well. So you’re never going to get the kind of benefit from mandatory year-round masking as you would from making substantial improvements in indoor air quality.

It appears he was comparing masking to air filtration ("that" likely modifies an earlier statement about filtration). He was not saying what you claimed (no study shows masks are effective).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Which part of that was missing from the clip I shared?

[Josh R]

Which part of that was missing from the clip I shared?

What preceded the clip which would tell us what "that" refers to. Also, you previously claimed Jha said there:

wasn’t a study in the world that shows masks are effective.

You left out "that" which is a key word.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1605606044914266112?

Fuller context. It doesn't change the meaning. Neither does me forgetting the "that".

Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Even giving your interpretation the benefit of the doubt he says "cut 30, 60, or 80%" and the "that" was referring to that. So no mask study shows it can cut respiratory infections by 30%.

My point stands.

[Nige]

It completely contradicts what you claimed it said, but sure.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No it doesn't, lmao

[Nige]

Only in the sense that it's the opposite of what you claimed, otherwise spot on.

[Josh R]

Your original post did not sound like you were claiming Jha said there were no studies in the world that masks cut down on respiratory infections by 30, 60 or even 80%. If masks reduce infections by 20%, they are a useful tool.

[David Nieporent]

Those aren't actually his own words, liar. You fabricated the quote and then cut off his sentence in the middle, to change his statement from one about the comparative benefits of masks to one about whether masks are effective.

[ducksalad]

Yes, of course, and so what.

A 30mph speed limit on the interstate would reduce highway fatalities. It's about deciding what levels of risk are acceptable.

"The minimum possible risk regardless of sacrifice required" isn't aligned with most people's value systems.

[Nige]

Well, that's the goalposts good and shifted. The current deat rate in the US from covid is 400 a day. Shall we set the 'acceptable sacrfice' there, or does it rise and fall depending, just so long as you can stop people wearing masks because culture war?

[ducksalad]

Actually, yes, the vast majority of people, including myself, have decided that the consequences both for themselves and those around them of going maskless are acceptable.

I didn't pick the highway thing at random. Anyone who drives is inflicting risk on others. The death rate is over a 100 per day. Most people drive anyway, and virtually everyone accepts products that have travelled on highways. Even though buying stuff that travelled by truck does in fact kill people.

[Nige]

How much did the death rate and the degree of risk drop for driving through the simple expedient of wearing a seatbelt? Regardless of what the vast majority decided about their own acceptable personal level of risk, wearing them is legally mandated, and that's not the only legally mandated safety feature when it comes to driving.

Personally, I'm all in favour of minimising risks posed by driving by developing public transport infrastructure, but that's neither here nor there.

[ducksalad]

Way back in the 80s, people opposed to seat belt laws (like myself) made slippery slope arguments. It could lead, we said, to stuff like having to wear a helmet to ride a bike, or kids not being allowed to walk to school or play outdoors unsupervised, or perhaps everyone having to wear special health/safety apparel. We had a long list, forgive me if I don't remember precisely.

We were told that slippery slope arguments are invalid. How old are you, Nige? Were you one of the people back then denying such things would ever happen?

[Nige]

And you think you were validated in your concerns? Because wearing bike helmets is not mandated, kids are allowed to walk to school and play outdoors unsupervised. There's a reason 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy.

[ducksalad]

Where have you been? There are bicycle helmet laws in many places. Only a few crack down systematically and sincerely, mostly it's just another available excuse to stop people the cops wanted to stop anyway.

Did you read any of the literally dozens of articles at Reason about moms jailed or CPSed for letting kids play outside?

The people who deny slippery slopes are generally those with burning, barely concealed desire to be at the bottom of that slope.

[Nige]

Sure. But they're nowhere near universal to every jusridiction where safety belt laws have been enacted. In fact they're quite rare, and quite recent, so that slope is neither steep nor slippery, have nothing to do with safety belts and everything to do with the growing use of bicycles for transportation. Whether helmets should be legally mandated is a debate that should definitely be had. The same with those CPS stories. They're horrifying, but not that common. Unlike Covid deaths. 400 a day and counting.

[ducksalad]

I assuming you’re talking about the individual holdouts who are still wearing masks or making their kids wear them, rather than the controllers who (thankfully) are almost gone now.

A lot of the holdouts are just germophobes. It’s triggered by stimuli, the idea of uncleanliness, and the COVID PDAs were extreme stimuli for them. They had other behaviors before 2020 that were just less obvious to the casual observer.

There are also some with social anxiety disorders who’ve always wanted to cover their faces, but prior to 2020 did not have a socially acceptable excuse to do so.

Maybe still a few doing some political signaling but I think those have mostly moved on to other things.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Slava Ukraini!

lmao

[Nige]

Odd that people at high risk from covid, the immunocompromised and people with disabilities and people who care about and come into contact with those people don’t feature in your roundup of ‘holdouts.’

[ducksalad]

Reading comprehension, Nige. We're specifically referring to people who wear masks when studies show they aren't in a group with significant benefits.

We're not criticizing nurses, chemotherapy patients, etc and no one with ordinary reasoning ability would imagine otherwise.

[Nige]

But people not in those groups might not - certainly they *should* not but that's obviously not the case for many - want to spread covid to anybody in those groups they come into contact with.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I hope you're wearing your mask while typing your replies. That why the only thing you'll spread is dumbass bullshit and not dumbass bullshit + COVID.

[Nige]

You think you can catch covid through the internet? Man, that's good disinfo you're imbibing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Says the guy who thinks wearing one of those paper masks will keep him from catching COVID!

Man, that’s good disinfo you’re imbibing.

Better get the FBI to coordinate with Volokh to not censor me then!!

lmao

[Nige]

So you know as little about masks as you know about vaccines and climate change. No surprise.

‘Better get the FBI to coordinate with Volokh to not censor me then!!’

The fact that you consume and transmit so much of it certainly puts the FBI censorship story to rest.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

wrong lol

[Nige]

Here come the FBI to censor you, so.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Volokh doesn't collude with government agencies and campaigns to censor people though.

[Nige]

Nonsense, I demand the Volokh Files be released at once!

[ducksalad]

When my wife was undergoing some fairly severe chemo, she wore a mask, but certainly did not expect (or even want) the rest of her co-workers to wear one.

And during the worst periods when the white cells were at zero, she stayed home. She didn't demand that she go to office and everyone else stay home.

There's a body of law on reasonable accommodations. Generally the one person with a peanut allergy doesn't get to make everyone stop eating or possessing peanuts. The accommodation is usually something like being allowed to work from home or given an individual office.

[Nige]

Her co-workers didn't wear masks when she was undergoing chemo during a pandemic? Either they're assholes, or rightwing disinfo about masks had its effect on them.

[ducksalad]

Did I say during a pandemic?

Not that it really makes a difference. Someone with zero white blood cells can be killed by ordinary endemic illnesses.

And at some point we’ll need to declare that Covid is endemic and get on with life. Actually most of us already have. It's now order-of-magnitude comparable with seasonal flu and that's about how seriously we intend to take it.

It’s pitiful that some people out there are clinging to Forever Covid. They want it to continue, maybe pretending they are living in an emergency gives their life meaning.

However, it’s not nearly as pitiful as Republican state governors suddenly doing the Forever Covid Dance on immigration. Gorsuch was perfectly right to call them out on it. He’s turning out to be our best SC justice.

PS When you believe that literally every other co-worker at a large organization is an “asshole” or disinformed, and you alone are the one who is decent and informed, it might be time to…..well, nevermind.

[Nige]

'Did I say during a pandemic?'

Apologies, made an assumption.

'And at some point we’ll need to declare that Covid is endemic and get on with life.'

Covid being endemic doesn't preclude widescale social changes to live with it, including mask-wearing becoming more common and regular vacccinations, as with the flu.

'It’s pitiful that some people out there are clinging to Forever Covid'

Which people are pitiful? The people who remain vulnerable? Their friends and families and workmates?

'When you believe that literally every other co-worker at a large organization is an “asshole” or disinformed,'

Like I said, I made an erroneous assumption. But as you point out yourself, your wife was hugely vulnerable, even without covid.

[ducksalad]

Just to be clear here, I respect anyone’s choice to wear a mask, and my first comment wasn’t supposed to be an insult, it was my real experience with people around here (South Texas) who still wear one. For example, my students who wear one tend to also be uncomfortable with being singled out for a question and engage less with the other students. Another friend, foreign born but here for many decades, told me he’d always thought handshaking was dirty, but did it to avoid offending anyone. Covid got him out of it.

And all of them are just fine and I work with them everyday. We’ve all got our personal quirks. If that friend had just said he felt queasy I never would have offered to shake hands all those years. If a student just said please don’t call on me I wouldn’t. And if someone I’m interacting with wants me to mask up I still do it without asking why. No need to leverage a pandemic among reasonably polite people.

My wife did not want to make her problem everyone else’s problem. She felt protective measures were her own personal responsibility. Within the immediate family she might ask us to do stuff, but not casual acquaintances or co-workers.

[Nige]

'I respect anyone’s choice to wear a mask'

I'm glad you clarified or I might have mistaken most of your comments for extreme disresepect and disparagement.

'Covid got him out of it.'

Yes, its been a running joke, how 'great' covid has been for introverts, but I wouldn't hang a thesis on it.

'And if someone I’m interacting with wants me to mask up I still do it without asking why'

That's a decent attitude.

'My wife did not want to make her problem everyone else’s problem'

I respect that, and if was pre-pandemic it probably never came up as a realistic option. Now, though?

[jb]

If you're going to use quote marks you should probably use the actual words that Dr. Jha said inside them, which were:

"There is no study in the world that show that masks work that well", with the "that well" specifically making a comparison to improvements in indoor air quality. So to start with, that's a very different statement than your "quote" about whether or not they're effective.

But just to be clear how dishonest people are being trying to cherry-pick this part of the video to portray Dr. Jha as being skeptical of the efficacy of masks, you just need to rewind the tape in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8MiQRx_GKA&t=871s) to the part where he says "I think the evidence on this is pretty clear: if you're wearing a high-quality mask it clearly makes a difference and I don't think that evidence is all that controversial."

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

Happy New Year to everyone!
Recently, in the kerfuffle about Article 42 quite a few Republican officials sought recourse in the Constitution's Guarantee Clause, accusing the Biden administration to abandon their constitutional duty to protect them against the "invasion" of migrants at the Southern borders. As far as I could find out, the "invasion" part of the Clause has only been thoroughly touched upon in the developing immigration "wars" of the 90s (with complaints from Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Texas).
There has been no definite word from SCOTUS on the issue — the 2012 decision about Arizona taking the defense of the border into their own hands, goes far beyond the "derelection of duty" of the federal government doing their bit — and then there is the particular issue of Anthony Kennedy's "constitutional lyrics."
Jonathan Turley, not exactly an ardent foe of the MAGA world argues that in the constitutional context, "invasion" refers to an organized military intervention only, not to what colloquially is caused by an onslaught of genuine or not so genuine refugees (https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3547357-invasion-or-evasion-crisis-at-the-border-is-a-political-not-constitutional-problem/ ). He refers to a short passage in Federalist #43 by Madison that refers to military invasion but there can be doubts whether or not that excludes any other meaning.
Could there also been something gained for the states' interpretation by including the "Domestic Violence" part in the very same Section 4 of the Article IV?
Several Appellate Court decisions in the 90's support the interpretation given by Turley. They think it is a political issue the courts have no part to play in (Gorsuch, anyone?)
There is one monograph, prepared for the Congressional Research Service by Kate Manuel in 2016 that lays out the legal panorama without going too deep into the challenging the Appellates' decisions. Also, the 90's decisions had to deal with the states main beef, trying to get compensation from the feds.
Given the recent developments at SCOTUS, would the reference to the Federalists satisfy the conservative majority and their newly reformulated principle of finding precedent in the times of the founding fathers? or in original meaning? or in original intent?
Mind you, I for one find little interest at this instance to discuss the political merits of one or the other side; I am interested in the way constitutionalists handle or should handle the issue.
Enjoy!

[Nige]

It's also often rhetorically referred to as a 'flood of migrants,' maybe they should just pile sandbags against their front doors? Hey, maybe if they say migrants 'spread like a disease' they'll start wearing face-masks?

[elnurmamedrafiev]

80 IQ mestizos are a disease.

[Nige]

Wear a mask.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He's not an idiot. lol

[Nige]

Oh yes. Yes he is.

[Frank Drackman]

Take yours off, oh, that's your face, sorry.

[David Nieporent]

Wear a mask.

I mean, I think it's attached to the hood.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The commentariat on this blog is less interested in legal issues than it used to be. Since nobody else seems inspired to answer your question, here's my take as a non-lawyer:

The Constitution mentions invasion twice. It says that, “No State shall...engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Later it says that, “The United States...shall protect each [state] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” It seems clear to me that both of these passages envision the deployment of military force, not immigration and customs agents, which means that they are talking about a military invasion.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

“The results of the statutorily required recount in 3 races were expected to be released on December 22nd however, inexplicably, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs petitioned the courts to have the results go directly to her office and asked to postpone the release until December 29th.”

Weird.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2022/12/discrepancy-2022-pinal-county-recount-expected-questions-persist/

[StellaLink_the dog]

Best I can tell by reading the article that you linked to is that about 300 ballots in Pinal County were not counted -- about .3% of the votes in Pinal County. But, they are getting counted and the AG race may be affected. That's what the recount is supposed to do.

Interesting features of the article:

Constantin Querard is a " well-respected consultant." Ha, ha ha.

"Net benefit to GOP candidates in the 100s possibly? Yikes!" Well, yes, shit happens which is why there is a mandatory recount going on.

"It is believed that the issue with Pinal’s tally was known before Hamadeh and gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake filed their separate election challenges in Arizona courts." Who is doing all the "believing" and what is the cause of it? Saying something is "believed" without stating the reason behind the belief is just a slimy way of perpetuating rumors and conspiracy theories. Very much Trump-like.

"If that is the case, then both candidates were denied information that could have changed their election challenges which focused only on the mismanagement in Maricopa County on Election Day."
Bullshit, just bullshit. If the Pinal County issue were known, it would emphasize how important it is to have mandatory recounts is close elections. For Lakes's election challenge, it would not have had any affect on the outcome as a couple hundred votes wasn't going to change anything.

[jb]

Weird that she seemed to be trying to make sure that they don't miss 300 votes from a Republican-leaning county instead of just submitting the votes when there's still a discrepancy in the tally?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is it good for Democracy or bad for Democracy to have the person whose supposed to be in charge of keeping the NIH ethical be the wife of the head of the NIH?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure you understand what the NIH office of bioethics does.

It's a policy/program office, not a compliance office.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What’s Joe Biden doing to this little kid's genitals in this picture?

https://media.patriots.win/post/6ecxIenncUKJ.jpeg

Any guesses?

[JasonT20]

Maybe it is like this photo. I mean, it looks like creepy Joe has his hand down the girl's swimsuit, right!?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's clearly not Joe's hand down her pants, whereas in my photo it's clearly Joe's hands cupping that little kids balls.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"it’s clearly Joe’s hands cupping that little kids balls."

Bullshit.

[ducksalad]

You’re right: the picture’s not even clear enough to be sure whether it’s a boy or a girl. Maybe Biden was checking.

Seriously, it looks to me like Biden thought the kid was going to hand him something, but it turned out the kid wanted to stretch out the T-shirt to show what was printed on it.

No need for this silly stuff where there are credible assault allegations from an adult victim willing to go on the record with specific dates and places.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"credible assault allegations"

I don't know enough to say whether the allegations are credible or not. One thing that bothers me is that it's my impression that men who commit these sorts of sexual assaults are habitual offenders. Clinton, Trump, Weinstein, Epstein, Cosby, etc. The only consistent allegation against Biden, as far as I know, is that he's a serial hair sniffer and a little too quick to hug people who aren't really interested in being hugged. Creepy and inappropriate, but a far cry from being, for example, a compulsive pussy grabber.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There’s also the diary of his daughter that referenced inappropriate naked showers with her while she was a young child.

It would be neat if you could share that full context and quote about the pussy grabbing so we can determine if you're a lying piece of shit or not.

[David Nieporent]

Even assuming it's genuine, that's not what it said.

[StellaLink_the dog]

And this oozing pus-filled chancroid on the flaccid dick of right wing America calls someone a "lying piece of shit."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We know it's genuine because the Democrat FBI went around arresting and raiding everyone who had seen it.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"We know it’s genuine because the Democrat FBI went around arresting and raiding everyone who had seen it."

Another lie.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"It would be neat if you could share that full context and quote about the pussy grabbing so we can determine if you’re a lying piece of shit or not."

You don't know what the context of the pussy grabbing quote is? I know you're a dumb knob, but even you can't be that dumb, can you?

[Ben_]

Government schools:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-28/learning-to-read-one-tiktok-at-a-time

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How imagine how much you'd have to hate your children to put them in a government school these days.

[Ben_]

Some of the government schools do ok. Especially for rich neighborhoods. That’s what sustains the system and allows it to continue its destruction elsewhere.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Constitutionally speaking, can one Congress pass ten years of budgets that bind future Congresses?

What about one year?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not even five minutes.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I wonder why they thought they could with this omnibus for 2023?

[Brett Bellmore]

It gave them something to complain about if a Republican House refused to go along with the spending. That's all.

[JasonT20]

The next Congress can undo every single part of the omnibus in a few days when they are sworn in if they want to. They could even override a veto by Biden if they had enough votes for it. Why is this so hard to understand? Congress can pass laws that will remain on the books until it passes new laws. That doesn't "bind a future Congress" either.

[Frank Drackman]

Haven't seen any Reverend Sandusky/Kirtland posts today, did Stuttering John Fetterman finally sign the Commutation? is the "Reverend" in Outprocessing at Joliet State Prison retrieving his broken Timex Digital Watch and Prophylactics (one unopened, one "Soiled")??? waiting for Elwood to pick him up in the "Sandusky-mobile" and get the Band back together?? Where are ya Reverend?!?!?!?!?!?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, faux conservative
blog has operated for

38 DAYS

without using a vile racial slur and for

THREE YEARS

without imposing (new) viewpoint-driven censorship

During 2022, this conservative blog used a vile racial slur in

THIRTEEN

different discussions (dozens of individual uses of the vile racial slur), which was (believe it or not) a substantial improvement over its 2021 record of using a vile racial slur in

EIGHTEEN

different discussions.

(Still no update on the proprietor’s enthusiastic endorsement of disgraced, un-American loser John Charles Eastman.)

[Frank Drackman]

So Jerry, do you like the new Blues-mobile or what??
But hey, things have changed a bit since you went "Inside". When you play at Bob's Country Bunker, the Beer ain't free, just make sure you tell him you're the "Good Ole' Boys"

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are the defender the Volokh Conspiracy deserves.

[Frank Drackman]

Remember to check in with your PO until you get a "Job". Shouldn't be hard for a Man of the (cum) Cloth.

[bernard11]

I have just learned that Yoram Barzel has passed away. He was a fine teacher and terrific individual.

Those interested in the economics of property rights will (or should) be familiar with his extensive and insightful work.

[SRG]

More junk science - supposedly one can determine likely guilt or innocence from 911 calls, but the man whose idea it is won't let anyone do a proper analysis and won't let non-law types into his seminars.

And of course there are plenty of prosecutors and judges who'll go along with anything that makes convictions more likely.

Is the US justice system filled with morons or malignant scum that such evident garbage gets through?

https://www.propublica.org/article/911-call-analysis-fbi-police-courts

[bevis the lumberjack]

Oh, no. This is worse than bite mark experts and Keith Pickett and his Miracle Dogs.

The biggest problem is that judges are in no way qualified to serve as scientific gatekeepers so it’s a battle of experts. And there’s an underlying assumption that the state’s experts are acting on altruism and the defense’s are whoring their opinion for money.

That fact and the attitude shown by prosecutors in this article are #1 on the list of reasons we can’t be trusted with a death penalty.

[David Nieporent]

I’m not sure it’s worse than bite mark experts, because those people actually pretended to be experts convincingly enough to fool courts and juries. Based on the article, it seems pretty clear that the people using this brand of junk science are savvy enough not to try to call it expert scientific evidence. They’re just weaseling it into trials.

But they’re all charlatans, of course. The problem is that the courts simply don’t take their gatekeeper roles seriously in the criminal context.¹ Judges that would never let this crap in a civil case will simply handwave when a prosecutor uses it.
​
​
¹Or, rather, I should say in the prosecution context. Defense attorneys who try to introduce novel scientific evidence are met with extreme skepticism. And when it's established rather than novel — for example, when people try to offer Elizabeth Loftus to testify about the fallibility of memory — the courts will say that it's common sense and juries don't need to hear from an expert.

[Ben_]

Yet that doesn’t stop you guys from demanding we go along with public health officials.

How many studies did they do before they told us to stand 6 feet apart to be safe from Covid? Precisely zero. People like you pretended the inane spitballing from all the public health officials was "science".

[SRG]

Take your whataboutism and fuck off.

[Ben_]

What if you could actually learn something and stop being a complete asshole to anyone who doesn’t automatically believe so-called "experts" though? It’s possible for other people to learn things. Why not you?

[Sarcastr0]

You know how you never make things better?

Here is a manifest injustice. Your thought is ‘how can I use this to yell about Democrats?’

Do better.

[Ben_]

What if you could learn a lesson to not blindly trust so-called experts though?

Your cognitive dissonance on "experts" isn’t about me.

[Sarcastr0]

Since you can’t seem to learn the lesson of how to stay on topic, I’m not really sold on your anti-expert expertise myself.

[Ben_]

I stayed on my topic.

[Nige]

No, that's monomania.

[SRG]

Fuck off. You posted on someone else's topic - with some bullshit whataboutism.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Which of the two of us have ever mentioned public health officials and what in the world does it have to do with what we’re talking about?

In case you didn’t understand we’re discussing junk science being used to courtrooms to convict people some of whom are innocent.

Wanna be pissed at the government? Read up on Keith Pickett and see what cops and prosecutors allowed him to do so as to railroad people into prison.

[Ben_]

"Which of the two of us have ever mentioned public health officials and what in the world does it have to do with what we’re talking about?"

Dems blindly trust public health "experts" and insist that everyone else must also blindly follow them, regardless of their methods or their truthfulness.

If you can’t figure out how that relates to a thread about "experts" bullshitting in another setting, then I won’t waste my time trying to explain it.

[Nige]

We tend not to accuse public health officials of, eg, being puppets of a secret elite cabal out to impose tyranny on the entire globe via a fake virus and a poison vaccine and endless lockdowns and mask-wearing, if that's what you mean by 'blindly following.' Actual criticism of public health officials tend to be more on point.

What's annoying you is the same people who can easily spot this cod science also easily spot yours.

[Ben_]

Straw man defeated. Kudos.

[Nige]

Thing is, studies have shown all the recommended measures combined worked quite well. So I guess when confronted with the choice of believing qualified health officals who said social distancing could help reduce the spread of an airborne virus and unqualified internet cranks who rolled their eyes and said this was obviously ridiculous, we made the right choice.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah I agree. I meant worse as in somehow farther from science and probable.

But the bite mark assholes have done a lot more damage. Including probably some executions of innocents.

[Frank Drackman]

except if you haven't been born yet and had a chance to kill anyone, open season on them.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Brilliant, Mengele, just brilliant — smuggling your save the zygote bullshit into a sane and reasonable discussion about what is good evidence and what is the equivalent of reading Taro cards. Wankers gonna wank, I guess.

Just curious, do your daughters run the other way when they see you coming?

[Mr. Bumble]

You continue to be one of the bright parts of the VC, with your thoughtful, well reasoned and civil comments.

[StellaLink_the dog]

You don't like my comments, you can lick my moon cup.

[Mr. Bumble]

What a generous offer. So gracious of you, but I'll pass.
Looking forward to more of your thoughtful comments.

[Frank Drackman]

other way around, they run towards me, and away from their mother.... Not that dramatic, just she pushed them to the girly things, gymnastics, ballet, when they preferred field hockey (don't even think it, I've been trying to get them to go Lesbo for years, they like the Salami) Coached them both in Juniors Tennis, one played Division 1, both got Engineering degrees and are military Pilots, 1 Marine (Reserve when she's not flying 737's) 1 Air Farce F-16, (OK, "Semi" military)
And philosophically, they make me look like the Dolly Llama, they both do Krav Maga (they did get that from their mom) and and rarely go unarmed...

Frank "I have Pictures!"