Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Insomnia sucks!

[Kazinski]

I'm up late waiting for my brisket to get to 195f, then I'll wrap it and hit the hay.

[Commenter_XY]

Best of luck with that = Brisket

[Frank Drackman]

Was it slaughtered humanely??

Frank "Only eats food that has a face"

[Reallynotbob]

Wait, this is important. What temp are you cooking at? At what temp do you pull after wrapping? Tin foil or butcher paper? (And just because I'm nosy, what's your spray?)

[Kazinski]

I don’t spray, I had it at 225, but I put it up to 250 when I started to get sleepy.

I’ve had great results pulling it at 195 and then wrapping it, but last night I overshot it to 203, and it turned out perfect. I use tin foil to wrap.

I picked up the brisket at Costco, usually I use Choice cause that’s mostly what’s available, but they had Prime for 3.95lb for a whole brisket and the higher fat content stood up to the higher temp very well.

[Don Nico]

The usual wisdom is to wrap at 165° as that is where the stall begins. Then pull the wrapped brisket at 200° to 205°
The character of the meat will differ with the choice of wrap. If you like a more pot roast consistency use foil otherwise use paper.
But some folks prefer skipping the Texas crutch altogether for the smokiest result; that that takes longer and will dry the meat somewhat more.
De gustibus non disputandem

[Kazinski]

Well I should say that I didn’t smoke it, I gassed it in my oven, got home from Costco around 6, pulled it from the oven round 2.

Even when I smoke it 4-6 hours I usually finish it in my oven for whatever it takes to get the temp right, it just gives me more control.

[Don Nico]

My numbers are what people use when then BBQ the brisket. But in any case the stall will happen at 165°because that is when the maximum steam escapes from the surface cooling the meat. The wrap suppresses the evaporative cooling allowing the temperatur of the meat to rise through the stall.

I have never made brisket in the oven. For us it is either BBQ or boiled beef.

[Commenter_XY]

It would be great next Thursday if you and/or Kazinski posted your recipe directions next week. I love brisket, experiment with different recipes. I am always on the prowl for good stuff. 🙂

[bernard11]

I have a remarkable brisket recipe, but it won't fit in the margin.

No. Seriously, it's a deli recipe that involves just browning the meat, cooking onions in the skillet, then adding a lot of garlic and putting the brisket back in and slow-cooking for a few hours.

I'll get the details.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cousin of mine used to cater, and her brisket recipe was just slathering the brisket with garlic salt and braising it in a pan sealed with foil. It was pretty good, but I found this Barbara Kafka recipe was better.

Only changes I've made to it is to substitute fire roasted tomatoes, and to use several heads of garlic instead of just the one. Other than that, it's good to go.

[Commenter_XY]

I will look forward to that, bernard11.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've got a sovereign cure: An original edition of Alfred Korzybski's "Science and Sanity", his classic work on general semantics.

3 pages in, you're guaranteed to be asleep.

[SRG]

"as recommended by AE van Vogt". Accordingly :I tried to locate a copy from nearby libraries in England to no avail. It seems I had a lucky escape.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's one of those seminal works where somebody has a major insight that is incredibly important, but seems obvious in retrospect.

And then goes on and on about it for a thousand pages, instead of settling for a pamphlet.

[Moderation4ever]

That was the feeling of Pope Benedict and why he resigned.

[Kazinski]

Looks like the College Board has pulled a lot of the material from their AP African American studies course that got it banned from Florida.

From the NY Times:

"David Coleman, the head of the College Board, said in an interview that the changes were all made for pedagogical reasons, not to bow to political pressure. “At the College Board, we can’t look to statements of political leaders,” he said. The changes, he said, came from “the input of professors” and “longstanding A.P. principles.”

He said that during the initial test of the course this school year, the board received feedback that the secondary, more theoretical sources were “quite dense” and that students connected more with primary sources, which he said have always been the foundation of A.P. courses."

I can see it being a lot more compelling to read Fredrick Douglas himself, rather that read an Academic explaining Douglas thru CRT.

NPR adds: "Randi Weingarten, the president for the American Federation of Teachers, a labor union, said she is "disappointed" with the changes to the curriculum."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Concerns were being raised about the AP US History exam more than a decade ago -- and being ignored. What I think DeSantis did was force the conversation out into the open.

People can complain about the way he did it, but the right ought not be forced to follow the Marquess of Queensberry rules while the left is free to fight freeform.

[Nige]

Is this ‘concern’ at the same level as ‘a student made a complaint about the depiction of Mohammed?’

He hasn’t brought any conversation into the open, he’s facilitated the removal of black scholars and courses about black history from colleges. That’s not a conversation, that’s suppression. It goes with Florida school libraries having their shelves emptied.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "suppression"
The State of Florida voters (through their representatives in the state legislature and the executive officers they elect, such as the governor) get to decide what's taught in its schools & colleges (and what books are offered in public school libraries).
If you feel that some important viewpoints / facts aren't being taught, or that some important books aren't being offered, you're free to open your own school / college, and teach whatever you want, and offer whatever books you like. Seems fair to me.

[Nige]

Still suppression and book banning, and a clear signal of Republican priorities and intentions.

[Nelson]

The governor and the legislature are too far away. It is purely political for them. The local school boards and school administrators should be handling it. Local control is best.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Republicans claim to support that principle, but only when state or federal governments are acting in ways with which they disagree.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The local school boards and school administrators should be handling it. Local control is best."

Feel free to make that argument to the voters. If voters don't feel that the school boards and administrators are handling it correctly, they are free to have the decisions made elsewhere.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TiP, The question is less who should make the decisions, than whether anyone making the decisions should be empowered to say, "This subject I forbid." There is quite a lot of history to suggest that to empower government that way is unwise.

[bernard11]

Conservatives usually love local control, except when they disagree with the locals. It's a trademark piece of hypocrisy, repeated endlessly.

[Allutz]

Local control will result in the same thing...if it is allowed.

In practice the AFT and other advocacy group will harry any school board that tries to suppress propaganda in their schools, and most won't have enough resources to adequately resist. By making the State of Florida the main target, DeSantis has saved 100s of school districts tens of millions of dollars litigating in every court in the state.

We've seen the playbook of extremist leftists already on trans issues. Step 1) Hide what you are doing; 2) If caught, harass and defame the parents who caught you; 3) If the board tries to do anything, harass them and drag them into court; 4) If you lose, try a different way of doing things in secret.

[Nelson]

"any school board that tries to suppress propaganda in their schools"

What "propaganda" are school boards trying to suppress? The CRT that isn't being taught in K-12 schools? The existence of gay and trans people in America?

"We’ve seen the playbook of extremist leftists already on trans issues. Step 1) Hide what you are doing"

What are "leftists" doing that they are "trying to hide"?

"2) If caught, harass and defame the parents who caught you"

What did these supersleuth parents "catch" people doing?

"3) If the board tries to do anything, harass them and drag them into court"

I'm familiar with cultural conservatives dragging schools into court for a myriad of culture war delusions like CRT, gay, and trans issues. What issues are the "leftists" so litigious a out?

"4) If you lose, try a different way of doing things in secret"

To be fair, cultural conservatives have opted for conservative capture of the courts and government retaliation against those who speak out. So not.particularly secret, but definitely an identifiable playbook.

Your accusations are a more accurate portrayal of the behavior of cultural conservatives. Besides pushing back against the constant assault on open drbate and education that cultural conservatives have engaged in since the 60s, I'm not sure what "leftists" have done to secretly limit age-appropriate educational content that children are exposed to. There are a lot of conspiracy theories, unjustified accusations of "grooming", claims about CRT being taught that reveal the accuser's complete ignorance about the subject, and grandiose demands that parents (meaning each individual parent, since most parents aren't revolting over educational content) should have a unilateral veto over every tiny element of public education that they don't like.

Cultural conservatives are the whiniest bunch of grievance peddlers I've ever heard. Since I was barely able to understand the issues involved, cultural conservatives have been Chicken Little on topic after topic. Everything was about to lead to the downfall of America. Civil rights, sex education, contraception, interracial marriage, abortion, gay marriage, Obamacare, Covid vaccine requirements, and mail-in ballots (just to name a few) were all claimed to be the last push that would tumble us over into ruin. And with the exception of Griswold and Loving, that's an incomplete list from my 51 years on the planet.

Cultural issues aren't going to wreck America. Letting people make their own moral choices about things that don't involve anyone else isn't the harbringer of the end times. Get over yourself and your severely limited worldview.

Fiscal issues are what could bring us down. Deficit spending, supply-side economics, deficit spending, easy money from the Fed (although that 20 year idiocy seems to have finally ended), deficit spending, protectionism, deficit spending, non-TARP bailouts, deficit spending, too big to fail, deficit spending, and deficit spending are what will get up. Did I mention deficit spending?

Your laments over people turning away from your "perfect" cultural judgementalism is the death cry of the irrelevant. Focus on the things that can actually hurt us. Like deficit spending.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Schools don’t have to offer AP Black History — a course (and exam) that didn’t used to exist.

Isn’t this the FIRST year it was offered?

NB: Do not confuse this with AP US History, which has been around for over 40 years.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like a good and useful course for Americans to take. Who cares if it's newish.

[Frank Drackman]

What's the History?? they picked Cotton for 350 years until the White Man freed them. Now they kill each other (and other races) at a greater rate than any other race. Teach THAT.

Frank "Everyone says they want to have a "Frank Talk About Race" (get it? "Frank"?) and then when you have a Frank Talk About Race you're a Race-ist*

and I'm the one against killing babies of any race.

[FivebySixThree]

That regular AP History does not have sufficient content on all races and culture that contributed to the growth of the US as a nation is the real concern.

Shall we have AP Jewish US History? AP Hispanic US History? AP Catholic History?

If no to any, then what is the justification used?

This is the issue when it is decided one group has needs that supersede all others. That is not a good direction to take in history. At most all those categories deserve a chapter or two or simply be intermixed with the rest of the history based on years covered

[Sarcastr0]

I got no issues with AP History course that drill down on a particular perspective.

History is the study of perspectives as much as facts, after all.

Blacks do have a pretty unique perspective when it comes to the American experience.

What justification do I need? These are not required courses; they're electives.

[Nige]

'This is the issue when it is decided one group has needs that supersede all others. That is not a good direction to take in history.'

This is literally the history of the United States.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If no to any, then what is the justification used?

FivebySixThree, my justification would be that for groups which assimilated pretty well, the typical mainstream history covers their experiences in a similar way. There is not that much group distinction to teach, and if you did try to single out distinctions, it might be unwise to go that way instead of with emphasis on similarities. The story of Polish Catholic group immigrant experience has not been all that different from the story of Italian Catholic group immigrant experience, which has been pretty similar to Irish Catholic group immigrant experience. And all of those are not that different really than assimilated Jewish immigrant experience. You might note in passing that Protestants probably had at times a quicker path to assimilation, particularly during the early history of America, than did other groups. Thus, teach that we are a nation of immigrants, cite the processes, activities, and social evolutions which assimilated immigrants of all types have shared in common, and note some particular differences. Do not object if particular ethnicities want to drill down farther into their own histories, but do not treat that as urgent public education business.

To say that about those groups is to understand immediately that if you did it that way, nothing in that kind of lesson plan would much apply to the history of Black Americans, or indigenous Americans. Each of those groups has an American origin story quite different than all the others. The assimilation in America story is not a historical fit for their history. So that’s your justification.

[Nelson]

So anything new should be discarded? Due to our great national shame, slavery, black history in America is a huge subject. Even if you just look at 1865-2023, it is littered with tales of struggle, tragedy, and triumph. There is more than enough material to fill an AP course.

Why wouldn't it be included in the AP classes a school can choose from? And why should Ron DeSantis (or any other politician) micromanage the topics to be discussed? It's not like he is an expert, or will be teaching it, or has a child who has to take it (BTW, no one is forced to take any AP ciurse).

He is a politician using education and students to secure the hard right as part of his Presidential run. That's a terrible reason to force contributors to be banned and topics to be removed.

[John F. Carr]

When I took AP history I remember the Cold War being prominent. I don't think the hippies got much attention. I forget whether the civil rights movement was covered in AP history or elsewhere. Everybody knew about MLK and the bus boycott. It wasn't history, our parents watched it as it happened like their parents watched WW2.

[David Nieporent]

When I took AP history I remember the Cold War being prominent.

I don't. I don't remember us getting that far. We mostly ended after WW2, with kind of a brief, "Here's everything that happened after that." (At least, as best as I remember from 4 decades ago.)

[Sebastian Cremmington]

We learned on 9/11 some people did something and then George W Bush slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Same sort of thing here, except the cutoff for detailed history was WW I. Of course, in the early grades, the pull-down maps at the front of the classroom still marked the central Amazon basin as, "UNEXPLORED," which was pretty exciting, as we sat at our little desks with the disused inkwells.

[Sarcastr0]

You just assume CRT is involved.

Prove that or shut up.

[gallinalg85]

We don't need to. The left controls every major institution in this country. That shifts the burden of proof to your side to demonstrate that things are on the level.

[Nelson]

That’s not the way it works. You having a persecution complex doesn’t mean that the burden of proof shifts.

Ron DeSantis is running for President. Everything he is doing is performative and designed to signal to the Republican base. It isn’t real, it is politics.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, but why does the Republican base exist?

A politician addressing the concerns of his constituents -- will representative government survive this?

[Nige]

The entirety of western civilisation is threatened whenever the Democrats do it, as I recall.

[Nelson]

Because the world keeps changing and there will always be minority groups that are angry about that truth. The Republican base, like it's mirror twin on the left, is full of anger and resentment. That is the way you win a primary, by appealing to those motivated voters. And anger is a huge motivator in voting.

The problem comes when you start to govern. If you continue to play from the corner of the ideological spectrum, you are ignoring 80% of your constituents. That's become a problem in modern politics. Karl Rove may have popularized wedge politics, but Trump perfected it and DeSantis is running the same playbook.

You can't really believe that everyone who voted for DeSantis supports everything he does or tries to do. Nothing is that black-and-white and no intelligent adult would believe that.

When you say DeSantis is, "A politician addressing the concerns of his constituents", what you are really saying is, "a politician addressing the concerns of a small number of constituents at the expense of the rest of them.". Which is a play that someone looking to win a primary makes, not someone who just won a general.

Florida is the pawn in DeSantis' game. Hopefully the damage he does can be fixed quickly once he either moves to the White House or overplays his hand and loses both the White House and the Governor's mansion.

[Absaroka]

The short description at the top of the article Kazinski quoted reads "The official course looks different from a previous draft: No more critical race theory...".

Not a trustworthy source?

@Kazinski: +1 for reading Douglass ... that man could write.

[Sarcastr0]

But if you actually look up CRT in the article you get this:

"The College Board purged the names of many Black writers and scholars associated with critical race theory, the queer experience and Black feminism"
...
"The expunged writers and scholars include Kimberlé W. Crenshaw, a law professor at Columbia, which touts her work as “foundational in critical race theory”; Roderick Ferguson, a Yale professor who has written about queer social movements; and Ta-Nehisi Coates, the author who has made the case for reparations for slavery."

"Dr. Gates, who was a consultant to the curriculum, said he was “sorry that the College Board’s policy is not to require secondary sources in its curricula.” He teaches Harvard’s introduction to African American studies, “and academic subjects such as ‘Intersectionality’ and critical race theory, the 1619 Project, reparations for slavery, Black homophobia and antisemitism are fair game, of course, for such a class,”
==============
Seems more like guilt by association than anything like actual CRT to me. But then CRT has become quite broad on the right.

Douglass is one of the great writers of the American age. But don't denigrate secondary sources; it's not either-or.

[Nige]

'guilt by association'

It's a fake catch-all scare-label with no relation to what CRT actually is. It covers everything associated with black scholarship and subjects relating to black people. This isn't an accidental too-broad application of some principle. It IS the principle.

[Sarcastr0]

Some of the authors themselves say they work in the CRT realm. But that does not mean one should assume all of their writing is CRT; that would be ridiculous.

But then the right is ridiculous about CRT.

[Davedave]

TBF, CRT itself is pretty ridiculous too. Why try and shoe-horn everything, however irrelevant, into a framework of 'Marx was right'? Racism can be a a reflection of power imbalance, but suggesting it always is has become a tool of those who wish to deny the existence of certain forms of racism, predominantly antisemitism.

I won't say that it's impossible for anyone to write anything sensible and valid using CRT as a tool, but so far no-one has even come close. It's the preserve of shysters, fools, and covert racists.

[Nige]

Isn't CRT an elective course in a few law schools? About contract law?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I love when this trope is trotted out, as it isn't being applied everywhere even to stupid shit like math.

[Nige]

It isn't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes.

And people don't recognize it.

[Nige]

Oh yes, they have to be carefully TOLD it's there, otherwise they'd never notice it at all!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Davedave, have you read Coates on reparations? The notion of reparations has always made me uncomfortable. Coates made that much, much worse, because his argument was forthright, factual, historically well founded, and morally powerful.

That work is all but unanswerable. Anything to critique it would have to go to a question about justification for a countervailing ideology, with poor prospects to be similarly persuasive.

Maybe that is why it is easy to find people to denounce Coates, but apparently impossible to find anyone to refute him. If the College Board has decided to erase Coates, then they, and their entire enterprise, have a lot to answer for.

I can't believe your last paragraph comes from a person who has actually read Coates on reparations. That work ought to be one of the practical centerpieces of any AP course on black history.

Frederick Douglass ought to be another. Douglass was gifted with insight amounting almost to prescience. He even had something to tell us about the black experience in the mid-20th century, long after he was dead, which is quite a feat. But unlike Coates, Douglass had no record of that era to work with. And that era, of course, is what those who attack a curriculum about Black experience in America think they have the greatest imperative to get out of sight.

You cannot read Coates and continue to argue that baleful effects of anti-Black racism were all part of some bygone era, without political salience today. Coates proved that is not so. Truly, to borrow your own wording and better apply it, it is only shysters, fools and covert racists who would try to say otherwise.

[Davedave]

Stephen, I have just (re)read one piece in the Atlantic on the topic by that author, which I think I have read before, and I'm pretty sure I have read other pieces in the past by the same author. It's an eloquent and well-developed argument for reparations. I don't see the slightest link to CRT, though.

For what little it's worth, my stance on 'reparations' has always been that the argument could be rendered moot if the US took the pragmatic step of removing the negative effects of poverty and stigma from _all_ of those currently held down by them, regardless of the reason they are experiencing such detrimental things. That is plainly and obviously of benefit to the economy all-round, which makes it an easier sell.

[Reallynotbob]

Isn't that the Libertarian legal project? Shoehorn everything into it to see how far it can go. Actually, that's all paradigms. The fallacy is adhering only to one as though there is a single perspective to rule them all in all circumsances.

[bernard11]

TBF, the term "CRT" has become , to conservatives, shorthand for any discussion of race in history that goes beyond one sentence spoken by MLK.

Its just a catchall for things they don't want to talk about.

[bernard11]

And you base this on what information that you have about CRT?

An explanation by Tucker Carlson?

[Life of Brian]

But that does not mean one should assume all of their writing is CRT; that would be ridiculous.

Not nearly as ridiculous as positing that there's any actual likelihood at all that someone chooses to include the literal mother of intersectionality Kimberle Crenshaw in a curriculum for some other obscure writing of hers that may or may not even exist that somehow is not related to CRT. Or as ridiculous as the idea that you really believe there is such a likelihood and aren't just playing rhetorical games.

[Nige]

Are these dangerous intellectual polluting the minds of the young?

[bernard11]

There it is. Find someone who (maybe) said something bizarre and paint everyone you disagree with with that brush.

[Life of Brian]

Huh? Crenshaw was the one person Sarc cited above that was specifically tied (by her own words!) to CRT, so that's the person I addressed. Who's painting what?

[Nige]

Tied to actual CRT, not to the right wing shibboleth CRT.

[OtisAH]

Marge defined it, on the record in the House of Representatives in fact, as a “racist curriculum used to teach children that somehow their white skin is not equal to Black skin and other things." Because she is a deeply stupid person.

[Frank Drackman]

She described it exactly as it's taught, deeply stupid person.

[OtisAH]

You have no more understanding of “CRT” or how and when it’s taught than Marge has. So piss off, loser.

[Frank Drackman]

"Piss off"?? another Internet Tough Guy, you gonna take me behind the Google Gym and beat the hell out me??? Hey (man!) are you actually Senescent Joe?? I hear that Alzheimer's victims often hit the Caps lock by accident and don't notice, you know, because they have Alzheimer's.
Again if CRT's "not being taught" why the uproar about prohibiting it being taught.
And find an outlet for your anger (man!) Try jerking off, it won't make you go blind, and reduces the risk of Prostrate Cancer,

Peace,

Frank

[OtisAH]

Thought I told you to “piss off” loser? Yep, i did. So piss off, loser.

[Davedave]

I love the way CRT is now a simple identifier for loons of either stripe. Like people who say 'woke' unironically, whether for or against - all utterly intolerable (and intolerant) shitheads.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you run out of space, it can be either/or. With a fixed page count, secondary sources actually displace primary sources. You're either reading what Douglas said, or reading what some guy said about what Douglas said, you don't have time to do both.

[Sarcastr0]

The zero sum approach to syllabus writing is a great way to make a bad class.

A class of all primary sources is fine. All classes of only primary sources is going to be bad.

[Absaroka]

"Seems more like guilt by association than anything like actual CRT to me."

That's fine; you have an absolute right to disagree with the NYT!

[Sarcastr0]

I will disagree with their lede writer, since the lede disagrees with the content.

In general I disagree with appeals to authority, including of the NYT. Something isn't true or false just because the NYT writes it.

[Absaroka]

"In general I disagree with appeals to authority, including of the NYT"

I'm on board with that - the Grey Lady sometimes publishes bunkum. OTOH, it's not the National Enquirer, and so your "You just assume CRT is involved. Prove that or shut up." seemed rather over the top. As opposed to, perhaps, 'Well, I disagree with their phrasing, because...".

[Sarcastr0]

CRT is a boogeyman. It is not said in the article that CRT is involved.

Yeah, that comment remains unsupported bait.

Maybe I'm coming in a bit hot since this is such common bait, but it is bait in this case nonetheless.

[Life of Brian]

CRT is a boogeyman.

Yes, we're all very clear at this point that you believe that, and that article of faith makes you bend over backwards to dismiss/explain away/redefine away every single piece of evidence to the contrary.

[Frank Drackman]

I've seen every "Halloween" Movie, even the shitty ones (most)
The "Boogeyman" scared the shit out of me (OK, not as much as KC and the Sunshines "I'm your Boogie Man" did in 1977, when I thought Disco would take over from Rock )
It's not just the "CRT" it's all of the other Bullshit Schools do when they barely can teach peoples how to read (Yes, I'm an MD and never diagrammed a sentence in my entire Pubic School experience, did get taught about Diaphragm's though (Football coach drew a Diagram of a Diaphragm)
and the actual Diaphragm in medical school (Diaphragm gets short shrift, only 1 Pneumonmic and it's referring to the nerves that "Keep the Diaphragm alive" (C3, 4, and 5)

Frank

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yeah, that comment remains unsupported bait."

Um, as you point out, it's supported by the lede.

[Sarcastr0]

Ledes have no truth value in and of themselves.

[Don Nico]

Then what is your evidential bedrock? Or is it just what you prefer to think?

[Sarcastr0]

I try not to believe things that are badly supported.

I recommend checking out Will Bauds podcast where he talks to a real love CRT professor about what it is and where it shows up in classrooms.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0, want to help ease the world's smaller burdens? Stop using the ugly, paradoxically outworn neologism, "lede."

At the time that was invented, sometime in the 1970s probably, or a bit sooner, there was occasional possibility of confusion because lead-the-metal had become at times synonymous with the vertical spaces between lines of type, which lead-the-metal had for centuries been used to regulate. I do not say such hypothetical confusion ever confused anyone, just that it was possible to imagine it. But sticklers and worry-warts dreamed up a notion that might create confusion with the journalistic jargon, "lead," meant to refer to whatever thematic reveal, "led," presentation of a news article.

Context had always been sufficient to keep the terms straight—that plus the fact that in conversation you pronounced them differently. It was never an emergency worth taking care of. Folks who were somewhat less in the know about printing and journalism took up the fad; apparently, they thought somehow that showing they knew simultaneously that lead-the-metal played a role in printing, and a newspaper story began with a, "lead," made them seem smart. The guys who got melted lead on their shoes if they typed too fast on their Linotypes, and who knew they were on the way out, thought all that was pretty precious.

Now, please, stop saying, "lede," decades after any reason for it disappeared along with letterpress printing and rotogravure. It's ugly, it was never needed, and it doesn't make anyone seem sophisticated. It never did. The principal point of your story is your lead.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You just assume CRT is involved."
Not an assumption, a fact.

"Kimberlé W. Crenshaw, a law professor at Columbia, which touts her work as “foundational in critical race theory”

[Nige]

Yes. It's an elective course in a few law schools. How an elective course can be 'involved' outiside its own context is a mystery, unless you're on a good ol' hate campaign.

[Frank Drackman]

so if CRT's "Not being taught" why the uproar about prohibiting it from being taught??

[Nige]

Ask DeSantis, he's spearheading the uproar.

[Frank Drackman]

He seems pretty mellow, the uproar's from the Marxist Stream Media, think they're upset that Trump's Tax Returns went over as well as New Coke. (Hunter Biden loves Coke, New, Old, Classic)

Frank

[Nige]

He's valiantly protecting you from the Gay Black Trans Menace, you poor wee timorous beasties.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it’s an elective course in a few law schools."

They intended to use Crenshaw's writings in the AP high school class, you dope.

[Nige]

‘They intended?’ I thought it was already rampant and pervasive in all areas of education and required urgent exercise of state power to suppress? You still don’t even know what it is you tunnelhead!

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's the complaint. (Sorry I couldn't find it in text form.)

As an example, reparations are discussed from an exclusively advocacy perspective, with no counter-arguments.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, so the remedy is to get reparations out of the curriculum, instead of supplying counter-arguments? How do you justify that?

And by the way, if what Florida and the College Board are asserting is that secondary sources can be ruled out, that imposes an impossible line drawing problem for Black history especially. No other advocacy on behalf of arguably abused classes of people shares Black history's expansive record of scholarship in support of political advocacy. Do you just throw W.E.B. Du Bois out of the curriculum because he was a scholar? What's up with that?

[bernard11]

Well, that's what the complaint from FL alleges, anyway.

But say it's true. Then why not, as SL suggests, provide counterarguments. Seems like what you should do if you were actually interested in educating the students, rather than shielding them from what you consider unpleasant ideas.

I mean, reparations are a subject of discussion. These kids are going to read about them. Shouldn't they be exposed to both sides of the question?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Shouldn’t they be exposed to both sides of the question?

Absolutely not! Not if the subject is reparations. That would mean you have to let school kids read Coates. When that happens, the whole lie flies out the window that this is all about a problem solved more than a century ago. The students would get to see irrefutable proof that government-mediated Jim Crow-style discrimination was an ongoing deal into the 1970s at least. And that a great many Blacks alive today suffered notable economic damages because of that.

It looks like Florida politicians, among quite a few from other Southern states, and some from the North too, want no part of a dialogue where subjects like that come up. Shame on the College Board for abetting them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, but how much did Johnson's Great Society give Blacks?
60 years of that -- and 50 years of Affirmative Retribution -- sorta outweighs any reparations claim.

[Nige]

Suh discussion should start with the fact that reperations have already been paid - to the slaveowners. This may or may not make white people feel like they're being blamed for something, so it has to be done with sensitivity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ONLY in DC were the slave owners compensated -- and you need to re-read the 14th Amendment ---

" Section 4... neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay ... any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

[Martinned]

reparations are a subject of discussion

Are they, though? It seems to me that all the people who want reparations are mostly talking to themselves. That's not much of a discussion.

[bernard11]

So are the people who oppose reparations.

[shawn_dude]

Martinned: not all...

https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/california-reparations/

[Ben_]

No one can prove anything is CRT because of "no true Scotsman" defense.

[Kazinski]

Florida: We don't like the CRT in the AP course.

College Board: It's OK now, we took it out.

https://news.yahoo.com/college-board-removes-crt-themes-164159181.html

"The updated syllabus removes several authors whom Florida officials identified as problematic, including those associated with critical race theory, the “queer experience,” and black feminism. It also removed required teachings on Black Lives Matter and the case for reparations from the curriculum, though both subjects are present on a list of options for a required research project."

[Nige]

Now that's what I call reactionary!

[Krayt]

“At the College Board, we can’t look to statements of political leaders,” he said.

We love democracy. Until we don't.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing says democracy like nonprofits jumping the moment an elected official says something!

That is the process you want to see in a free society!

[Nige]

We love academic freedom and independence, until we don't.

[Ed Grinberg]

State of Florida taxpayers are under no obligation to subsidize your notions of “academic freedom.” Like I said above, you’re free to open your own school / college, and then give the people who teach there as much freedom as you want.

[Nige]

Republicans can wreck education on all levels and destroy libraries when they get into power - so let's be clear that when they get into power, that is what they'll do.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You keep writing that, but it is completely beside the point. No one is arguing the Florida State Government doesn't have the power to do this, or that it violates the constitution. The question is whether having politicians deeply involved in curriculum decisions will actually make public education better, or worse. If some future governor demanded that public high schools teach that the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese, he would have the power and authority to do that also. Would you be okay with that?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The question is whether having politicians deeply involved in curriculum decisions will actually make public education better, or worse."

But you don't answer that in a vacuum. If people look at the curriculum being taught in their public school and observe that it's bad, they're going to use the levers available to them, which are elected officials.

And people are free to elect governors that will demand that the schools teach that the world is flat and the moon is made out of green cheese, but I don't see any evidence that people want that any more than they want the nutbag gender ideology and CRT crap.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TiP, you know, arguments for reparations have been a long-running theme in Black history, going back at least to, "40 acres and a mule." Which, by the way, disappeared from reality just after it got started. You cannot similarly disappear that history by calling it, "CRT crap."

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't people looking at the curriculum, it's partisan red meat and a lot of people insisting that stuff is happening that is not happening at any kind of scale.

People are free to elect partisan assholes who pass partisan asshole legislation. We are free to point out such asshole legislation is damaging and assholish.
You can hide behind 'but we're a democracy' but that's bullshit - you criticize government policy as unwise all the time!

It's not an argument with any integrity.

[Nige]

They're not making the case that the curriculum is bad, they've just decided to use political power to change the curriculum to suit their ideology and their fearmongering reactionary populism. If they had to make the actual case that the curriculum is bad they'd have to justify their arguments with proof and stuff.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Pianist, that sounds good in theory, but I don't think what's happening here is a bottom up drive for change. I doubt whether the vast majority of Florida voters have any idea what is or isn't being taught at public universities. They listen to what's told them by demagogic politicians (from both sides), who very often have other motives than improving public education. This seems to be more a top down driven process, and I think it is a dangerous precedent for public education.

[Absaroka]

Most voters don't have a particularly accurate view of what goes on in hospitals, with policing, or any number of other things. They listen to what’s told them by demagogic politicians (from both sides), and click hungry journalists, who very often have other motives than improving health care/policing/etc.

We can just let hospitals/public universities/the roads department/law enforcement/Wall Street run themselves as they see fit, or we can accept the imperfect rule that democracy provides.

Obligatory: #DemocracyWorstExceptOthers

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It simply isn't true that those are the only two options. There are some things in our system that get various degrees of shielding from the whims of the majority, and the politicians who ostensibly represent that majority.

[Absaroka]

Sure; the people can delegate power as they see fit. For example, consider the power to hire and fire professors. The people can delegate that to the legislature, which can delegate it to a Board of Regents, which can delegate it to departmental committees or whatever. And if whoever is at the end of that chain makes decisions that please the voters, everyone is happy. But if someone in that chain is making decisions the voters don't like, the end result of that conflict is not 'the voters pound sand'.

[ThanksForTheFish]

How can we possibly understand what a black man in the 1800's meant if a white person in 2023 doesn't give us context?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The originalists will figure it out for us.

[shawn_dude]

Ta-Nehisi Coates, secret white person.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Any lawyers out there who got burned out in their legal jobs (litigator here who works a lot, like most lawyers I know), and *successfully* switched to a new legal field or practice/firm type, and actually work fewer hours and are more happy/healthy? Or is that the holy grail that is always out of reach? If you successfully made the switch, what type of law did you switch to, and how big of pay cut did you end up taking? Thanks.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you do now, what’s wrong with it, and how much do they pay you?

There are absolutely no shortage of jobs with low six figure salaries and real 40-hour workweek expectations.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Litigation for government entity. Was in private practice litigation for a long time though (smaller law firm, 10-20 lawyers). 20+ years experience. Make between $170k-$200k. A bit of mid-life burnout I think. Supporting family, so options limited. Just wondering if anyone in here has gone from litigation to a bit slower paced practice and is happier, even if a pay cut was involved (at least initially). Thanks

[Moderation4ever]

I have met a number of lawyers who no longer practice and now do a variety of other jobs. I am always surprised considering the work done to get to be a lawyer.

I also think of one person I know who did a lot of family law and left for property law. The person never spoke well of the family law practice. I wonder if that type of work, divorces, would cause burn out.

[not guilty]

I've heard it said that criminal courts see bad people at their best, while family law courts see good people at their worst.

[John F. Carr]

I know somebody who left a high level but intense job at a law firm to be general counsel at a smaller company which let her spend more time with her family. Big fish in a big pond to big fish in a small pond. While I don't know details, she must have made a lot of contacts in her years at the big firm. She did have relevant prior experience. One doesn't wake up one day and say "I will become a general counsel, let me blast out my resume."

[David Bremer]

The people I have known who have gone in-house either go to an existing client, were recruited by someone they knew, or go to a large company that has an enormous in-house team.

The motivators I've always heard are a desire to work fewer hours or a desire to practice law without having to do all the business-generation stuff. I certainly understand both considerations.

[Sarcastr0]

I loved law school, and didn't like being a lawyer. Went from patent prosecution, to IP litigation, to corporate litigation. Taking a pay cut each time, though from quite a height.

Finally switched to doc review to give me time to go back to school in science policy.
And then accepted a job for like 50K in my career of choice to get a foot in. Paid those dues for like 6 months.

I was young and without children, and so had the luxury to do this. But it was a journey both externally and psychologically.

[Frank Drackman]

I hated Med School and love being a Doctor.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Thanks. Sounds interesting and like it worked out in the end, but not easy on the way? I’m 20* years in, and provider for family, so I can’t take as many risks, alas

[Kazinski]

Hunter's lawyers have finally admitted not only is the laptop Hunter's but that all the contents are Hunter's too:

“Mr. Mac Isaac’s intentional, reckless, and unlawful conduct allowed for hundreds of gigabytes of Mr. Biden’s personal data, without any discretion, to be circulated around the Internet.”

https://nypost.com/2023/02/01/hunter-biden-admits-infamous-laptop-is-his-in-plea-for-probe

Just a few weeks ago when the topic came up, there were still people here on the open thread asserting that the most incriminating of the documents could have been forged and Russian compromat was likely mixed in with genuine content in order to make it seem authentic.

Now we know, it was all genuine.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

No we don’t know that it was ALL genuine. We only know that there was a lot of Hunter Biden’s personal data on it. There could also be some forged stuff on it, and, the descriptions of it floating around the right-wing loop-a-dupe sites and media that you read could be misrepresenting what is there.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just when did the Russians plant this possible misinformation on Hunter's computer, which has been in the possession of the FBI since late 2019?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

I haven't the faintest idea. I'm just pointing out that the lines from Hunter Biden's lawyers' accusations, as quoted in the NY Post article linked to, don't in any way prove, or support, the hypothesis that EVERYTHING on the disc is genuine.

[Armchair Lawyer]

At this point, you're grasping at absurd conspiracy theories to justify your personal beliefs.

I mean, how do you KNOW it wasn't aliens, who were secretly putting documents on Hunter's computer? And simultaneously putting classified documents in Trump's house. You can't know....You can't prove everything was genuine...

Hunter's computer is real. The documents are real.

[Martinned]

Sure, who needs chain of evidence rules anyway?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Office, I swear the cocaine isn't mine. There's no chain of evidence from the drug dealer to me!

[Sarcastr0]

The government absolutely has to prove that the cocaine was actually in the possession of the defendant.

Dunno what crime you're tracking with requiring the cocaine to be bought from a 'dealer.'

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The government absolutely has to prove that the cocaine was actually in the possession of the defendant."

But they usually don't have to prove that the Russians didn't plant the cocaine on the defendant.

[David Nieporent]

The government doesn't have to prefute every theoretical alternate explanation for evidence. But if there are major gaps in chain of custody and such, it would need to do so.

If the cops search my house and find a kilo of heroin in the crawlspace (n.b.: purely hypothetical; I don't even have a crawlspace), the prosecution can say, "Look. It was found in his own home. Who else could've put it there?" And then, in practical terms, the burden would shift to me to come up with a plausible response to that.

On the other hand, if I have some property where a house is being built, and it's been an open construction site for the last year — one through which dozens of construction workers have passed and through which any passerby can wander, including people who have a motive to make me look bad — and cops find that same contraband, the prosecution absolutely has to show b.a.r.d. that it was me and not one of those numerous other people who put it there.

[Nige]

'I don’t even have a crawlspace'

Oh go on, where DO you keep your heroin, then?

[David Nieporent]

Crap. I walked into that one. Um… it's not even mine. It's a friend's.

[Nige]

Is being in possession of stolen data a crime the way being in posession of cocaine is? I wonder if Giuliani consulted a lawyer about that.

[David Nieporent]

We don't know the Russians planted anything, but if they did:

1) If it's on the laptop, obviously they would have planted it before late 2019 when the device was given over to the FBI.

2) Alternatively, who says it's on the laptop at all? Again: nobody except the repair shop owner and the FBI has seen a laptop. Everyone else has seen a disk image that purports to be a copy of the laptop's hard drive. Documents could have been planted on the copy, rather than on the laptop. Nobody has access to the laptop itself to compare the image to the laptop.

Remember, as The Washington Post reported, files on the disk image have been altered since it was purportedly left at the computer shop.

[Armchair Lawyer]

We've got another "you can't prove the aliens didn't plant information!" conspiracy nut.

[Nige]

If they can point to gaps where anyone, aliens or Russians, could have planted the information, then you may have a problem.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh boy.....

[Nige]

Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

[bevis the lumberjack]

"If you can't prove a negative, then it certainly must have probably happened because believing it makes me feel better"

Simply astounding

[Nige]

oops.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Remember, as The Washington Post reported, files on the disk image have been altered since it was purportedly left at the computer shop."

But they reported that regarding copies of the disk that had been circulating around, NOT copies obtained direct from the computer shop.

[Nige]

So all the info everyone's screaming about comes from copies that have been tampered with?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually the copies that have been tampered with are more of a distraction, all the stuff people were freaking about are in the original, too. The 'tampering' the WaPo found was fairly minor, and could have just been a product of somebody who didn't know what they were doing trying to copy stuff off it.

[Nige]

So, Republicans are using the tampered-with copies as a loud distraction to distract from the fact that it's just nude pictures of Hunter Biden and a few e-mails that require massive assumptions, or worse one single assumption about one single phrase, to be in any way incriminating, nobody knows what, or what else, is on the original, or rather the original 'copy.' But also the whole story has been suppressed.

[David Nieporent]

No, actually the copies that have been tampered with are more of a distraction, all the stuff people were freaking about are in the original, too.

WTF are you talking about, Brett? Unless you work for the FBI, you don't have and have never seen or talked to anyone who has seen the original.

[TwelveInchPianist]

CBS News analyzed a copy of the original, and found no evidence that it had been tampered with.

[David Nieporent]

CBS analyzed what someone claims is a copy of the original.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Documents could have been planted on the copy, rather than on the laptop. Nobody has access to the laptop itself to compare the image to the laptop."

How do you edit an image?

[David Nieporent]

It's not read only.

[Moderation4ever]

Do we actually know what was on the laptop? Most of the reporting seems to come from a copy that comes from a dubious source. The laptop may not have been tampered with but that does not say the copy was not altered.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : “…and just when did the Russians plant this possible misinformation on Hunter’s computer”

1. We know the majority of info on the laptop is legit because of three reasons : In the negative sense, none of it has been challenged; positively, in that some data was confirmed elsewhere, and (lastly) because it amounted to zilch, scandal-wise.

2. The origin story of the laptop’s emergence reeked to high heaven at the beginning, and that hasn’t changed. Even if you start off believing the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman tale is plausible, you’re still left with the “coincidence” that Rudy Giuliani (with his pair of criminal henchmen) spent two years rooting thru the sewers of Ukraine trying to buy Hunter dirt, and then magically saw the laptop fall into his hands just before the election. Note : Along the way, the CIA warned Trump they had recordings of Rudy trying to buy Biden kompromat from a Russian spy they had bugged.

3. So suspicion that some of the laptop data might be illegitimate is warranted, though lessened by the fact the laptop barely had three drops of “scandal” in all of its entirety, and even those were weak tea. However, I was always skeptical about the pictures, including the one in the linked NY Post story. Did Hunter Biden really decide to download & keep those humiliating photos? You gotta wonder about that, particularly as it would be the easiest way to supplement the laptop contents, dirty-tricks-wise.

[David Nieporent]

However, I was always skeptical about the pictures, including the one in the linked NY Post story. Did Hunter Biden really decide to download & keep those humiliating photos?

My understanding is that he's a Mac user. If he uses iCloud to store his photos from his phone, they would likely be automatically downloaded to his laptop. (Fun with the Apple ecosystem.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand computer forensics (not well), files have digital fingerprints and while it is possible to determine that all the files come from the same source, it is *not* possible to determine if that source was Hunter Biden.

Hence the admission that most of the files were Hunter's becomes pretty much an admission that they *all* were.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As I understand computer forensics (not well)

Understatement of the century.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Alternative hypotheses include

.. Maybe the digital fingerprints on some of the files are faked.

.. Maybe your whole idea of digital fingerprints is wrong.

.. Maybe you are a programmable loop-a-dupe typing whatever shit pops into your head

[Mr. Bumble]

Lots of maybes there. How about "maybe" it's all real?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Excuse me! I'm not the one who said "Now we know: it was all genuine." In order to gainsay that rather silly assertion, I don't have to prove any actual fact. I only have to show that there are alternative POSSIBLE explanations. So I can live with "maybe". The one who says "we know", and "all", is the one who cannot live with "maybe".

You were supposed to learn this in high school.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just out of curiosity, what, if anything, would convince you that the contents of Hunter's lap top are real and not the result of any "planted" Russian misinformation?

[Armchair Lawyer]

If Hunter changed parties, and ran as Trump's vice president, then he'd believe.

[Nige]

Which contents? The dick picks? Or the fairly harmless-sounding e-mails? Are we still waiting patiently for something really bad to emerge from the laptop? Is this the new 'The Storm Is Coming?'

[DaveM]

No, they couldn’t have faked the digital signatures on the emails. Those signatures use a form of encryption and decryption based on pairs of keys, one held in private, and the other shared. The keys are created by the Internet service providers and email vendors, not by the user.

Don’t think of digital signatures as just “fingerprints”, that’s an incomplete analogy. Think of them as unreadable text passed during a transaction that can only be made readable if one knows a secret that the sender devised.

Fingerprinting IS a feature, but it happens only after decryption. The signature is the output of an algorithm whose answer is derived from the text of the email itself. The algorithm is sensitive to the slightest change to the text — a single character added, changed, or removed will produce a different output.

These two features together make the digital signatures verifiable as to the sender, and verifiable as to the text they sign.

[Kazinski]

Neither Hunter or his lawyers have made the assertion that any of the documents were not genuine.

I'm going to take that as dispositive.

But you of course are still free to insist that you've proved your case with "geometric logic", as of course did Captain Queeg:
"Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers..."

[Mr. Bumble]

Great movie.

[Frank Drackman]

Fed MacMurray was such a slimeball

[Mr. Bumble]

An officer and not a gentleman? The services are full of them.

[Sarcastr0]

You are going to believe what you already wanted to believe based on no actual evidence, just assumptions.

Glad we all got to come along on that ride. It wasn’t very surprising.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's plenty of evidence. You seem to fall in the "But you can't prove the Aliens didn't plant the documents!" stream of logic

[Sarcastr0]

Noting that some files on a computer being genuine does not mean all files on said computer are genuine is not really a conspiracy theory.

The right wing obsession with Hunter Biden is a real sign of how little they have on Joe.

[DaveM]

And more to the point, only some of the files can be validated as being genuine (those that have been digitally signed, such as emails). Fortunately, once you have a verified email or text that references a file that isn't signed, you can still safely conclude that the file is genuine.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Noting that some files in Mar Lago being genuine does not mean all files in Mar Lago are genuine is not really a conspiracy theory....

I mean, you can't PROVE the aliens didn't magically insert fake files in the computer / Mar Lago. Sure.... It's Hunter's / Trump's property, and lots of the stuff has been validated, and in Hunter's case, nothing has actually been denied, but you can't PROVE it's all accurate...

Anything to pre-emptively distract.....

[Sarcastr0]

There is chain of custody, including photographs regarding Trump's purloined documents.

Requiring chain of custody is normal stuff. You have no idea what you're talking about, and are making a fool of yourself.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Nope. You can't PROVE the Russians didn't secretly insert the documents there.

See how much of an idiot you sound like with this planted information conspiracy nonsense.

[Sarcastr0]

Maintaining chain of custody is literally to address claims that evidence was planted or otherwise tainted.

Where it has been maintained, the argument that Russians secretly planted anything is going to be hard to make.

Where there is no chain of custody, or even eyes-on the evidence in question at all, the argument about the provenance of the evidence is important to address.

I hope this criminal law 101 has been edifying to you, but I'm not optimisitic.

[Nige]

Would you try that defence in court? 'Oh, sure they are huge gaps in the chain of custody and doubts about provenance, but if you can't prove Russian aliens inserted the documents you have to ignore them!'

[Frank Drackman]

Like the left wing obsession with "45", "Wait till his Tax Returns are released!!!" Shit, now they're talking about Stormy Danielson again.

[Nige]

Didn’t 45 just admit she was telling the truth but ‘statute of limitations nyah nyah?’ Weird definition of ‘left wing.’

[Frank Drackman]

Heard the Stormy Danielson story on PMS-NBC, that's as left wing as you can get, I just watch because once in awhile you can see Hallie Jackson's nipples (no truth to the rumor that PMS-NBC new "Weekend Schedule" will be endless loop of Hallie Jackson's Nipples)
OK, it is funny that that Anti-Semite-Homofobe Sharpton is a regular, of course now he's against Anti-Semitism/Homofobia

Frank

[Nige]

Well done you showing them what real obsessions look like.

[Kazinski]

All Hunter or his lawyers or the WH would have to do is dispute the authenticy of a single document that was released and that would cast serious doubt on the whole archive.

They haven’t, it’s ‘the dog that didn’t bark’.

[David Nieporent]

No, come on. You can't be that naive. There's a reason that people say "Cannot confirm or deny" when asked about sensitive stuff, even when the particular instance asked about is far-fetched.

The minute he singles out any document to dispute, that will cause people to ask him about all couple hundred thousand other ones, and any failure to dispute any one of them would be taken as an admission.

[Kazinski]

Cling to your fantasy as you like, but the fact that no one who does know, Hunter, his lawyers, the White House, the FBI, are claiming any of the documents are fake should give you a clue about how delusional you are.

You are stuck on last year's talking points long after the people who put out the talking points you swallowed have given them up as untenable.

[David Nieporent]

Um, without any new facts, why would the talking points change?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The minute he singles out any document to dispute, that will cause people to ask him about all couple hundred thousand other ones, and any failure to dispute any one of them would be taken as an admission."

OK. What's the problem?

[David Nieporent]

The problem is that nobody wants to make his full time job admitting or denying allegations. And you make even one mistake about calling something authentic that isn't, or vice versa…

[David Nieporent]

There’s plenty of evidence.

Name one piece of evidence that says that the disk image that's floating around contains all genuine files.

Please be sure to reconcile it with the forensic report that says otherwise.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Lets move those goalposts....

[David Nieporent]

No goalposts have been moved. I'm just pointing out that you're not even smart enough to understand the issue: Nobody. Has. Seen. The. Laptop.

[Armchair Lawyer]

They were moved a few light years....

Is there any evidence that the computer and the documents on it are genuine? Yes.

Many of the e-mails found on it have been validated against external people who obtained the e-mails, and they matched. There are signatures that match Hunter's signature for dropping off the laptop. There's more. But to say there's "no evidence" that the documents are genuine is inaccurate.

[Nige]

'Many'

That's not 'all.'

[David Nieporent]

Is there any evidence that the computer and the documents on it are genuine? Yes.

1) There is no evidence whatsoever about the computer.
2) There is evidence that a small percentage of the documents on it are genuine. There is evidence that a handful of the documents have been tampered with. There is nothing one way or the other about the bulk of the documents on the disk image that purports to be from the laptop.

Many of the e-mails found on it have been validated against external people who obtained the e-mails, and they matched.

Depends what you mean by "many." Thousands of the emails have been authenticated. But that is only a small percentage of the files on the disk image.

There are signatures that match Hunter’s signature for dropping off the laptop.

Who said it was Hunter's signature? The store owner claims not to know who dropped off the laptop.

[Nige]

Plenty of dodgy evidence, and oh so much made-up stuff.

[DaveM]

.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now we know, it was all genuine.

I’m not sure I follow. I don’t think anyone disputed some of the stuff purportedly found on the laptop was genuine Hunter Biden material (e.g. I don’t think anyone seriously disputed that the pictures he took of himself were pictures Hunter Biden took of himself). As I understand it, the dispute is whether 1. all of the material associated with the laptop is Hunter Biden’s and 2: whether the story about how the contents of the laptop got to the media is accurate. I don’t see anything in the Post story that establishes an answer to either question.

[Michael P]

Yes, the same people who have been pushing the Russian collusion hoax and the Russian Twitter bots lies want us to believe that Russia snuck fake Hunter Biden-related material onto the laptop between the time Hunter Biden used the laptop and the time that Hunter Biden dropped the laptop off at the repair shop. Maybe it happened when Hunter Biden broke the laptop, necessitating the repair.

[David Nieporent]

1) There is no "Russia collusion hoax."

2) Who said Hunter Biden dropped the laptop off at the repair shop? Even the repair shop owner admits he doesn't know who did that.

3) Assuming Biden did so, who says it was done between the time he used it and the time he dropped it off at the repair shop? It could've been done after that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Deny...Deny...Deny...

[Michael P]

Well, defame, too. He implies that the repair shop owner was either negligent or an active participant in evidence tampering.

[David Nieporent]

Those two possibilities exist, but others do as well.

[Sarcastr0]

This is nothing. You are just pounding the table at this point. Engage with the comment or don't bother replying; this angry and empty wankery just sad.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Tell me more about the aliens planting information in Hunter's laptop.

[Michael P]

It's not worth addressing blatant, fact-free, even assertion-free denialism beyond identifying it as such.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN is many things, but someone who makes fact-free assertions is not one of them.

You two, however...

[Michael P]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-emails-computer-repair-store-owner-john-paul-mac-isaac

You might want to slow down before you defend somebody for distorting what was said on record.

[David Nieporent]

What are you claiming I distorted?

[Michael P]

You said he "admits he doesn’t know who" dropped off the laptop, when his actual claim is that he can't be "100% sure".

[Stephen Lathrop]

You said he “admits he doesn’t know who” dropped off the laptop, when his actual claim is that he can’t be “100% sure”.

Michael P, I don't think I ever laughed out loud about anything I saw on this blog, until that one.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Which prompts the curious question of why anyone ever bothers to respond to you.

[David Nieporent]

Note that the same people who think it likely that the FBI planted classified documents at Mar-a-Lago think it impossible that Russians could have planted files on a disk image.

[Kazinski]

You should read the Columbia Journalism Review of Russiagate.

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php

"Bob Woodward, of the Post, told me that news coverage of the Russia inquiry ” wasn’t handled well” and that he thought viewers and readers had been “cheated.” He urged newsrooms to “walk down the painful road of introspection.”

[David Nieporent]

I read it, because Glenn Greenwald has been masturbating to it on Twitter. It says very little. There were thousands of stories published about Russia, and a couple of them were wrong. Also, oodles of people said things publicly about the investigation, and some of them exaggerated.

The very first part of the story has an egregious omission in it, which doesn't make the author look good.

[David Nieporent]

Are you coming from the Brett Bellmore school of reading? Assuming the article is correct, literally nothing in it says that "all the contents are Hunter's." Nothing says "it was all genuine." You just made that up.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, two days ago you weren’t even willing to admit it was his. There’s probably a lot of bullshit floating around as to what’s on it, but hopefully we can quit arguing ownership. Right?

[Michael P]

Then maybe the people who say things like "the laptop repair guy did not immediately make a forensic copy of the laptop storage" can realize that laptop repair usually involves different steps than forensic analysis of a suspect computer.

If we're really lucky, the people who say things like "some files were modified after the laptop was supposedly dropped off for repair" will tell us which files those are -- or at least whether they're files that have incriminating evidence, or merely files that normally get modified when a computer is booted up or logged into.

Finally, I would like a pony.

[Nige]

What I would like is for someone to explain the actual political scandal behind the laptop for me. So far, all the confirmed stuff is just embarrasing pictures of Hunter Biden and one single solitary phrase in an e-mail. Oh, and of course the theft and release of someone's personal data by a Trump operative.

[Bwaaah]

“What I would like is for someone to explain the actual political scandal behind the laptop for me.”

For what purpose would you “like” an explanation? Regardless of what parts of the controversy may be true or not true, the most important element of the controversy passes through you as if it doesn’t exist. (Hint: almost every left-leaning media outlet in the country spiked the story, implicitly treated it as false with almost no evidence to support that assertion, encouraged suppression of its dissemination, and then slowly trickled back to the story with only one [stupid] question: “What was the controversy?”)

Do you have a smirk on your face when you ask a question like that, or are you actually serious?

[Nige]

Wait, the real controversy is that some media looked at this, realised there was no actual controversy involved and didn't cover it as if it was the earth-shaking scandal the Republicans claimed it was? Cart going before the horse there. Did you come up with this reverse causality by yourself, or did you read that Martin Amis novel first?

[bevis the lumberjack]

The scandal so far is that the media squashed a legitimate story with the intent to influence the election. They engaged in misinformation, which they purport to hate.

More scandal may or may not occur in the future depending on what info is on the laptop as to Hunter's influence peddling career.

[Nige]

The story was not squashed, but it's a bit weird that a scandal that wasn't a scandal is a scandal because it wasn't covered as a scandal. Misinformation? Please.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The New York Post had all their social media taken anway to shut the story down. If you want to be seen as credible quit denying that things that actually happened did happen. Glib denial is stupid.

[Nige]

The NYPost had one tweet deleted and banned and got suspended over it. Nobody denies it happened, Twitter has admitted it shouldn’t have done it, but if you think that constitutes squashing the story you must think the entire story and the coverage of the story consisted of that one tweet, also that all of social media is just Twitter. But even if you genuinely think that in and of itself is a scandal, it has nothing to do with whether the supposed laptop itself contains anything scandalous, beyond Hunter Biden's pics.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The scandal so far is that the media squashed a legitimate story with the intent to influence the election.

bevis, when I was learning the practice of journalism, self-taught, on the job, in the early 1970s, I came upon a political operative who gave me what turned out to be wise advice. He said it was customary, during the run-up to an election, for political operatives like him to make up shocking shit about their opponents, and then try to get it into the paper when there was not time left to dig out the truth. He said also that it was similarly customary for newspaper editors to put stuff like that aside and not publish it, and then maybe look into it after the election, if it still seemed relevant.

I called that, "wise advice," because following it in subsequent years saved me from publishing a few real stinker stories. In short, what you demand as journalistic virtue has been customarily recognized for many decades as bad journalistic practice.

[bernard11]

the media squashed a legitimate story with the intent to influence the election.

There were stories everywhere. Stop believing that RW BS.

It took me two seconds to find this, from Oct 23, 2020.

And recall,

The New York Post reporter who wrote most of the article refused to put his name on it because of concerns about its credibility, two Post employees have said.

[Bwaaah]

I saw the New York Post's Twitter feed shut down, and saw no defense from a news media that used to promote free expression. Their silence was deafening to me, as is your deafness to that silence.

[Nige]

But did you see the story squashed? You did not. If anything it boosted the story way past its natural cycle. They also deleted all the Hunter Biden pics posted without his consent, was that squashing the story too?

[David Nieporent]

I saw the New York Post’s Twitter feed shut down,

No, you didn't. The feed was never shut down.

[Michael P]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/30/twitter-new-york-post-freeze-policy-reversal

Are you applying some stupid definition of "shut down" that does not include an account suspension?

[David Nieporent]

I am using "shut down" to mean what any normal person would mean by "shut down": it's no longer there anymore. Except perhaps for Josh Blackman, anyone who said, "I shut down my twitter account" would mean, "I deleted my account."

In reality, the NYPost twitter feed was still up for everyone to access. They were temporarily prevented from tweeting new things.

Here's what happened:
1. Twitter quickly labeled the tweeted link to the story as rules-violative, and froze the account so the NYP couldn't tweet new stuff, until they deleted that tweet.
2. The next day, Twitter said, "Oops, that doesn't actually violate the rules, we interpreted the situation wrongly. As soon as you delete that tweet, you can go back to tweeting. If you want to _retweet_ that same story, we will not penalize you for it."
3. Two weeks passed in which the NYP kept gleefully whining about being censored and didn't do as instructed, so they couldn't tweet, but it was entirely in their hands to be able to do so.
4. Finally, Twitter went in and manually rectified it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So, Twitter shut down the NYPost's account until they deleted a tweet which was perfectly accurate and consistent with Twitter's rules?

[David Nieporent]

So, Twitter shut down the NYPost’s account until they deleted a tweet which was perfectly accurate and consistent with Twitter’s rules?

Once more: the account was not shut down. Every twitter user on the planet could see and access all of the NYP's tweets. The NYP simply couldn't add new tweets.

But also again: yes, all the NYP had to do was delete the tweet, which would automatically unlock the account. And then, if it wanted, it could have reposted that tweet.

Silly to require that? Yes. But that was simply a function of the way Twitter worked technologically, not an attempt to suppress the story, because (a) the story was there; and (b) Twitter said they could repost it.

But the NYP didn't want that because they were benefitting from the Streisand effect.

[grb]

Bwaaah : “Hint: almost every left-leaning media outlet in the country spiked the story….”

Hint : That’s lying on an epic scale. Which is particularly brazen because it wasn’t long ago; everyone here sees it as an obvious lie. There were hundreds upon hundreds of stories on the laptop before the election throughout radio, television, internet, and newspapers. That included the N. Y. Times and WaPo (both of which I subscribe to). There wasn’t a single laptop detail not relentlessly covered in soul-deadening detail across all media.

Look, we get it: Conservative-world is addicted to snowflake pearl-clutching butt-hurt victimhood whining. These days, right-wingers are less homo sapiens that congealed globs of grievance. They’ve replaced Descartes’s cogito, ergo sum with “I whine, therefore I am.”

But you shouldn’t leave the real world entirely behind….

[David Nieporent]

“In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI.”

“Soon after that period of inactivity — and months after the laptop itself had been taken into FBI custody — three new folders were created on the drive. Dated Sept. 1 and 2, 2020, they bore the names “Desktop Documents,” “Biden Burisma” and “Hunter. Burisma Documents.”

Williams also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared.

Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/

“The possible “tampering” refers to emails created between Aug. 31, 2020 and Sept. 2, 2020, dates which fall more than a year after Biden had possession of the laptop.

In one case, on Aug. 31, 2020 — nearly a year and a half after the laptop left Biden’s possession — two blank email replies are created replying to an email from 2014. In another case, on Sept. 1, 2020, two draft emails were created and added to the email cache as a reply to an email from 2014. The next day, a variation of a Burisma email from 2016 is created and added to the cache.”

https://cyberscoop.com/hunter-biden-emails-possible-tampering-trump-allies/

[David Nieporent]

“September 1, 2020: Two draft emails are created and added to the cache as a reply to an email from 2014. The email and file metadata both indicate they are created on September 1, 2020.
September 1, 2020: New folders are created on their copy of the laptop drive, according to the Washington Post.
September 2, 2020: Another date when folders are created on their copy of the laptop drive, according to the Washington Post.
September 2, 2020: A variation of a Burisma email from 2016 is created and added to the cache. A phone number in the footer of the email is redacted and replaced with “Sent from my iPad”. The email and file metadata both indicate it was created on September 2, 2020.”

https://ddosecrets.substack.com/p/release-hunter-biden-emails-36-gb?s=r

[Michael P]

Notice what the first article doesn’t say? That any incriminating files were modified. You even quote it admitting that some of the folder creations postdated the NY Post expose.

Notice what the second doesn’t have? Forensic evidence, a chain of custody, or even the name of the person asserting the accuracy of the copy. Also missing: Any suggestion that those changes cited were significant to the incriminating evidence. They do make a big deal about when two PDFs were created, but don’t suggest that the underlying email files have any suspicious providence.

If not for double standards, you would seem to have no standards at all.

[Nige]

What incriminating files?

[David Nieporent]

There aren't any incriminating files.

[David Nieporent]

Which, as I've said several times over the last two years, is actually the strongest evidence against this being either Russian disinformation or a GOP dirty trick: there's nothing there. You'd think that if they were going to plant stuff, they'd have actually planted something that actually was incriminating.

[David Nieporent]

I have not changed my position since two days ago. We know (I mean, with a reasonable degree of certainty) that some of the material on the purported laptop is genuine. That's what we knew before, and that's what we know now.

[Michael P]

Do you have such a high standard of evidence for all matters, or only racism, er, Hunter's laptop?

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone who knows anything about legal investigations has that standard for evidence.

[Michael P]

If courts assumed that evidence of crime was Russian disinformation until private citizens disproved every fantastic yet unfounded conjecture about how the evidence might have been faked, we would have way fewer convictions than we do.

And you know it.

[David Nieporent]

Courts do not "assume that evidence of crime was Russian disinformation." Courts assume that documents are not admissible unless and until a foundation has been laid. You can't just wave a piece of paper around and have it treated as fact.

[Armchair Lawyer]

In this case, the FBI has the actual computer in question. So, if it comes to a court case, then the proper analysis will be present and accounted for. If files were altered, then typically the forensic analysts are good enough to discover this.

And if, some of these documents that were publically released, did not match what was on the laptop, then there would be valid grounds for disputing this. But none of those assertions have been made by the FBI.

But, we rely on the public reports, in all of these issues. If you're not going to rely on public reports and media reports, but only official communications from law enforcement David, then you should hold yourself to that standard all the time.

[Nige]

So why are you arguing that all the unconfirmed claims made by Republicans be taken as fact and if we don't you start warbling about aliens?

[Michael P]

It's pretty telling that you think a drive full of previously private, intimate pictures of Hunter Biden is just like a random piece of paper.

[Nige]

It's pretty telling that long after those same pictures failed to win Trump the presidency you're still pretending they're a big political scandal.

[David Nieporent]

It's. Not. A. Drive. It's a disk image of unknown origin that has passed through an unknown, untold number of hands.

[Nige]

The FBI confirmed that some data on the laptop was Hunter Biden's they never confirmed that the laptop itself was. This SEEMS to confirm it, albeit tacitly. But so far, whether the contents were tampered with or not, the major scandal is personal for Hunter Biden. There's nothing else there so far. 'Big guy' is supposed to be definitive proof of Joe Biden's involvement. but 'big guy' is never identified. Meanwhile, the shop owner and Rudy Giuliani stole Hunter Biden's data and blasted it all over the internet in an attempt to embarras Joe Biden duruing the 2022 election. It didn;t reall work. Sorry.

[David Nieporent]

I might have missed a story, but I don't think the FBI has confirmed anything. (Not publicly, I mean.)

[Nige]

Well, those pictures came from somewhere, and unless Hunter Biden's team comes out with claims that they're deep fakes it seems safe to assume they're his. The released e-mails are so anodyne it's hard to believe anybody would bother faking them. So it seems likely that some of his data did indeed get stolen, and Giuliani did receive it.

[David Nieporent]

I wasn't quarreling with the assertion that some of the documents are legitimate. I was quarreling with the assertion that "The FBI confirmed that some data on the laptop was Hunter Biden’s" Various media outlets have confirmed that — and the letter from Hunter Biden's lawyer seems to confirm that — but I don't think the FBI itself has said anything at all.

Remember that we have no idea whether the documents publicly floating around come from the laptop at all. Nobody has access to the laptop to compare it. So the files could come from anywhere.

[Nige]

True enough. The actual provenance of all of these is extremely murky.

[ragebot]

I still don't get the claim that the shop owner 'stole' the data on the laptop. My understanding is that the laptop was dropped off by someone claiming to be (and who actually was) Hunter Biden and a contract was signed (again by a real or fake) Hunter Biden to pay for the 'repair' work by a certain date or the laptop became the property of the shop owner. After that date passed with no payment the shop owner became the legal owner of the laptop and could do what ever he wanted with it. Maybe I am wrong but if so please explain where I went wrong.

[Nige]

He could claim the laptop, not the data on the laptop, or at least which he claims was on the laptop.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He could claim the laptop, not the data on the laptop"

He owned it, all of it. Ownership means full dominion and control of something.

[David Nieporent]

Tell you what: go make thousands of copies of your copy of The Art of the Deal and sell them to people on the grounds that you bought the book, you own it, and therefore you can do whatever you want with it. Let us know how that goes.

[Nige]

Not the data.

[David Nieporent]

My understanding is that the laptop was dropped off by someone claiming to be (and who actually was)

Should have left out the parenthetical.

a contract was signed (again by a real or fake) Hunter Biden to pay for the ‘repair’ work by a certain date or the laptop became the property of the shop owner. After that date passed with no payment the shop owner became the legal owner of the laptop and could do what ever he wanted with it. Maybe I am wrong but if so please explain where I went wrong.

Sure. Delaware law (and that of many, if not all, other states) defines how abandoned property works. It does not allow you to unilaterally declare that you're the owner of the property in question just because it's in your possession and the other person hasn't claimed it.

More importantly, ownership of the laptop is not the same as ownership of the contents of the laptop.

[DaveM]

I will say I find all this huffing and puffing about “all” files vs. “some” is beginning to sound like a very convenient distraction. Methinks thou dost protest too much, etc.

Since Hunter Biden is claiming harm from having his information shared, why can’t we just let him tell us which ones are real and which ones are not? Then we can drill down on those specific files and do the work to validate them.

[Sarcastr0]

I see some Fifth Amendment issues in your proposal.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The distraction is the point.

[Nige]

Distracting from what, the fact that there's nothing there except Hunter Biden being a bad boy?

[Armchair Lawyer]

That, we actually don't quite know....

I could take a guess, but it would only be a guess.

However, given the vast amount of work gone into attempting to smoke screen it, there may be some fire there.

[Nige]

No, you DEFINITELY don't know. As far as I can tell the distraction is about keeping people from noticing that there's nothing else there.

[grb]

Armchair Lawyer : "That, we actually don’t quite know…."

So you claim two of the most ruthless enemies of Joe Biden (Rudy Giuliani & the NY Post) have incriminating evidence about Hunter in their hands, but don't release it because (insert ludicrous conspiracy nonsense here).

Why post something that dumb, Armchair?

[David Nieporent]

Since Hunter Biden is claiming harm from having his information shared, why can’t we just let him tell us which ones are real and which ones are not?

There are hundreds of thousands of files on the disk image.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Presumably the number of files which actually have harm associated with them are much, much lower.

I don't think Hunter is going to be harmed by the release of the copy of the Windows/Mac update on his laptop.

[Sarcastr0]

files which actually have harm associated with them

????

[Nige]

'The revelation came in a petulant letter from Hunter’s lawyers'

There's some carefully factual reporting right there.

[ragebot]

Just some random thoughts.

I had to laugh at the comment that the only thing we know for sure is that Hunter Biden was/is a "bad boy". From what I have seen he is guilty of lying on a form required to purchase a fire arm and while it is not clear just what happened some how the fire arm wound up in a trash can and a SS agent recovered it which probably violates some laws, or at least SS rules.

The pix (which seem to be real by most accounts) document things like solicitation (and crossing state lines to accomplish it) not to mention drug use and purchasing illegal drugs.

Hunter Biden is currently under investigation for violating tax laws and while he has paid over a million dollars in back taxes the money seems to have come from a loan from his lawyer representing him in the case. Even so the investigation still continues and his legal team is not trying to set up some type of go fund me thing to help pay his legal team. Even the most jaded observer has to admit Hunter Biden has a history of getting big bucks for what certainly on the surface seems to be to buy influence, a lot of the time while he was on drugs. No one in their right mind would claim his paintings are worth close to anything they are selling for. Point is if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

There is also the issue of his out of wedlock kid which is still seeing ongoing legal action.

Bottom line is Hunter Biden has screwed the pooch so many times he has exceeded the 'bad boy' label.

[Nige]

Yeah, no matter how you try to amp it up with a whole lot of inferences, it's still just Hunter Biden being bad.

[bernard11]

admit Hunter Biden has a history of getting big bucks for what certainly on the surface seems to be to buy influence, a lot of the time while he was on drugs.

Not nearly as much as Kushner.

[ragebot]

While I try and keep up with the Hunter Biden mess I just read this on the internet (so you know it must be true).

Hunter has stated that the laptop was most likely stolen from him while overseas and that he has no recollection of dropping it off at a repair shop in DC especially since he lived at that time on the west coast. So the laptop was stolen and Rudy had to concoct a story to explain how it came into his possession.

While it is usually good practice to take what a crack head says and does under the influence this is really one of the strangest excuses I have seen.

[David Nieporent]

Basically, except that the repair shop is in Delaware, not DC.

EDIT: I'm not endorsing that as true; just saying that the claim is out there.

[Reallynotbob]

Remind me: what specifically is on the laptop that incriminates whomever it incriminates?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Chinese are not doing well in the US train car market -- https://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/mbta-opens-up-about-new-subway-car-delivery-delays/

While this is a local-to-Massachusetts issue, I wonder how much deeper it goes -- how much China really is imploding.

[Davedave]

The fantasies never end when you let a talking horse have access to the internet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A few short years ago, people were talking about the ChiComs taking over the railcar market. Now what does this evidence suggest?

[Davedave]

The evidence here suggests you're a fantasist, and that no claim you make should be taken seriously. Even if it were true, who cares what yellow-peril racists fantasized about 'a few short years ago'?

As it happens, you have China and Canada confused, which says a lot something about your xenophobic memory-tweaking.

[John F. Carr]

I do not blame this on China.

A group lowballed the bid on a public procurement contract to get its foot in the door. It had to start up a new factory in Massachusetts to meet "buy America" demands. Then the federal government cut off future opportunities because it wasn't American enough.

I had a job working on a project where the bid was way too low and the schedule way too aggressive. It wasn't malice. It was carelessness. The company had a shot at a huge hardware contract if some customer-specific software could be developed and how hard is it to develop software? They tossed the software part over to my division which found it much harder than expected.

[John F. Carr]

Letitia James and the Trump Organization have decided to give up on professional courtesy and go mud wrestling. James sued Trump et al. for being shady businessmen. Trump's lawyers filed 5,000 pages of answers including a denial that the Trump Organization even exists. James is demanding that the answer to her lawsuit be short, honest, and otherwise in compliance with the rules of civil procedure. The parties appear to have negotiated an agreement where the defendants will file a better answer instead of facing sanctions. I have no wish to be a trial judge, but I especially would not want to be the judge in this case. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ny-ag-fraud-trial-judge-warns-lawyers-delay-sanctions-2023-2

[Mr. Bumble]

It's a shame that James can't find the time to look into the NY governor's shady deals.

[Davedave]

Yes, well, Trump's behaviour keeps many criminal investigators busy. It is a shame he is so dishonest, true. And it is shameful that he committed treason while President, but that's a different thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure, whatever you say DeeDee.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Commander in Chief, by definition, can not commit "treason."

He can do other things, and Lincoln arguably did, but look up how "treason" is defined in the US Constitution and then tell me how the CIC can possibly do either -- as he is the CIC.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's silly, of course a President could commit treason.

You'd just have a harder time establishing it, than going after somebody further down the chain.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No he can't.

The CIC can't wage war against *himself* nor can he give aid & comfort to *his* enemies. Think about it for a minute....

[Commenter_XY]

Explain John Tyler.

[wolfefan]

Did Tyler commit treason when he was the President, or later?

[Commenter_XY]

Later, as a Senator (post presidency). Still though...

[Martinned]

They are not *his* enemies, they are the enemies of the United States. L'État, c'est moi is Louis XIV, not the United States.

[Davedave]

No surprise the Trump-traitors don't believe in republicanism.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, we don’t live in a monarchy.

[Kazinski]

That's a laughable assertion.

Say Congress declares war on Argentina, and the president orders the Atlantic fleet to sail to Argentina and surrender the fleet intact.

That's treason, and the president could and and probably would be convicted of Treason after his impeachment.

[Brett Bellmore]

The CIC isn't the United States, and treason is defined as waging war against the United states, or giving aid and comfort to the United States' enemies.

Forget "L'état, c'est moi.", this isn't the French monarchy.

[David Nieporent]

The CIC can’t wage war against *himself* nor can he give aid & comfort to *his* enemies. Think about it for a minute….

You seem to be terribly confused; the CIC is not the country. Like Trump, you don't understand that people owe allegiance to the country, not the president.

[Martinned]

On a related note, how is this for a headline?

Man caught with crossbow at Windsor Castle admits trying to harm Queen

Jaswant Singh Chail, 21, pleaded guilty to three charges, including an offence under the Treason Act, during a hearing at the Old Bailey on Friday.

The most serious charge under section 2 of the act said that “on December 25 2021 at Windsor Castle, near to the person of the Queen, you did wilfully produce or have a loaded crossbow with intent to use the same to injure the person of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, or to alarm her Majesty”.

He was also charged with making a threat to kill the Queen and having a loaded crossbow, an offensive weapon, in a public place.
(...)
Chail, from Southampton, entered his guilty pleas before the senior judge Mr Justice Jeremy Baker by video link from Broadmoor hospital. The allegations were not being treated as a terrorism offence but had been dealt with by the counter-terrorism division.

In 1981, Marcus Sarjeant was jailed for five years after pleading guilty under the 1842 Treason Act, which makes it an offence to assault the Queen, or have a firearm or offensive weapon in her presence with intent to injure or alarm her or to cause a breach of peace.

He fired blank shots at the Queen while she was riding down the Mall in London during the trooping the colour parade in 1981.

The last person to be convicted under the separate and more serious 1351 Treason Act was William Joyce, also known as Lord Haw-Haw, who collaborated with Germany during the second world war.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

[apedad]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, Dr Ed go to bed.

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[ragebot]

While I agree the prez can commit treason I have to ask what you think Trump specifically did that qualifies as treason. Hint grabbing a hot babes pussy may be objectionable but it is not treason, same goes for mean tweets.

[Sarcastr0]

Trying to strongarm Ukraine, and trying to overturn an election he lost are unamerican and disloyal to his oath, if not out-and-out treason.

[Davedave]

Staging a coup - an incredibly fucking incompetent coup, but still a coup - is obviously treason. The indictment is coming, it's just taking a while to get all his minions to confess first so there is no chance he can wriggle out of it.

[Krayt]

Letitia James and the Trump Organization have decided to give up on professional courtesy and go mud wrestling.

Has it ever been otherwise? It seems like he relishes not playing the game all the lousy politicians do, with their somber facades and dour pretendings, all fronting their own corruption.

He would know, having dealt with NYC building for decades, where permitting is ground zero for political corruption getting in the way until “something happens” and it gets back out of the way.

Not a fan of his policies — he is the opposite of a libertarian in most ways, whereas the two parties are half and half — opposite halves of course. Am a fan of tangling with these corruptions, independently.

Also, editing is still broken for html.

[John F. Carr]

I didn't mean to accuse Trump of being courteous. I meant to write, James and the lawyers for the Trump organization have decided to give up on professional courtesy. Filing an answer full of frivolous denials, while technically against the rules, is ordinarily tolerated. It helps both sides generate more billable hours, government and in-house counsel excepted.

[apedad]

US farmers sound alarm on single-most catastrophic thing headed for corn crops

A regulatory move within Mexico’s agricultural sector has U.S. farmers concerned it will "corn-er" their corn crop production.

American farmers are headed to Capitol Hill to voice concerns about Mexico’s proposed ban on U.S. imports of genetically modified corn, reportedly warning the move could become the most catastrophic thing to happen to corn farmers.

Mexico represents America’s biggest buyer of corn, purchasing more than $10 billion worth of yellow and white U.S. corn last season alone.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/us-farmers-prepare-single-most-catastrophic-thing-headed-corn-crops

This is similar to the to the current National Pork Producers Council v. Ross case (CA law that bans the sale of pork in California unless pregnant pigs are allowed at least 24 square feet [2.2 square meters] of space – regardless where the pigs are, even in other states), except where Ross is an inter-state affair, Mexico’s proposed ban is an inter-national affair.

And who’s going to say Mexico can’t set the standards of items sold in their country.

Same concept under Ross (see yesterday's blog).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Mexico is a sovereign county, California isn't.

The problem that Mexico might run into is NAFTA and US retaliation banning Mexican goods, which the US can do. Because the US (not California) is a sovereign country.

[Martinned]

Could have fooled me. I wasted many an afternoon on the various incarnations of the VC explaining to conservatives that US states aren't sovereign.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ouch -- poorly worded -- I should have said that California waived its sovereign powers over interstate commerce.

[Martinned]

Out of curiosity, when did it do that?

[Armchair Lawyer]

1850 or so.

[Martinned]

Did California have the power to regulate commerce with the states of the United States before it was incorporated into the Union?

As a statement about the California interim government (1846/48–1850) that doesn't seem right.

The California Republic had that power, but then that Republic may not have been a real thing, and in any event the California Republic didn't waive anything, they were conquered.

Before 1846 California didn't exist, so was in no position to waive anything.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Regardless of whether it HAD power, you asked when it WAIVED its powers...

And that's when it was admitted to the union as a state.

[Martinned]

You can't waive a power you don't have. (Nemo transferre potest quod non ipse habet, if you're felling Latinly inclined.) So my question presupposes a question of when California ever had the power to regulate commerce with the several states.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You can sign a waiver, waiving a power and future abilities to have such power.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like the EU, this is just an excuse to impose agricultural trade restrictions after agreeing to free trade.

Anyway, the single most catastrophic thing headed towards corn is the war on fertilizer.

[Martinned]

Sure. Why would you ever accept the possibility that someone who disagrees with you might do so in good faith?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah yes, the "GMOs are bad for your health" argument.

Do you agree with that?

[Martinned]

I have no idea, not my field. But that's not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether EU lawmakers believed it when they adopted the laws in question, and I can promise you they did.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Wow....

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am fully prepared to believe that European politicians are stupid enough to believe the GMO scaremongering.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you can promise all sorts of things.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I can promise you they did"

Yes, Europeans are dumb. All the good genetic material emigrated to America.

[David Bremer]

Eh...I don't think you can. You could at best promise that they said those things. But whether they truly believe them is a whole other story.

I mean, if they were really worried about genetic modification, they wouldn't have been eating the corn from their youth, as corn (like many other crops) has been significantly altered from its original species. We just happen to be faster at it these days.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bremer, the notion that GMO technology just parallels traditional plant breeding is bunk. Traditional plant breeding is constrained by availability of precursors suited by evolution to cross breed. Those will all have made it through an evolutionary sieve that implies, among other things, at least some protection against major ecological disruptions.

GMO technology is without that safety net. You can put a jellyfish gene into a corn plant. What happens next in any ecological scenario where that modified organism gets loose is anyone’s guess. Nothing in Darwinian evolution ever tested what might happen when you combine the natural selection outcomes applicable to jellyfish with the natural selection outcomes applicable to maize.

More immediately, without any need to resort to Frankensteinian anxieties, the entire point of GMO agriculture is extermination of practically every species which shares physical space with a desired crop. GMO farming techniques deliver more comprehensive local extinctions, quicker and less expensively, than any method which preceded them. Plants and animals alike get wiped out, over millions of acres.

Get out of your car on a rural byway, surrounded by burgeoning GMO crops in abundance, and not an insect arrives to bite you. You hear no birdsong. You see no snakes, toads, or turtles. You will not see any predatory birds perched on utility poles, hoping to spot mice or voles. And of course there are not any plants in sight except the crop. Roundup has done for the rest. Which is why there are not animals there either.

That is ecologically ominous.

[Nige]

A whole generation if Indian farmers got royally fucked by GMO crops. Their suicide rate rocketed. GMO crops are just another way of locking down corporate control of agriculture.

[Don Nico]

OMG!

[Krayt]

In science, you address the arguement, not the arguer.

In politics, you presume dishonesty, that the cover story is a convenient lie. In trade like this, it's always about protecting domestic industry.

"But the science"...does not support anything wrong with GMO.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, I will not discuss the science, but ordinary powers of observation is all it takes to understand that ecologically speaking GMO agricultural methods are only slightly less destructive than comparably extensive lava flows would be.

For a bit more, see my reply to Bremer right above.

[Don Nico]

"only slightly less destructive than comparably extensive lava flows would be. "
The newspaperman knows how to exaggerate to the point of dishonesty

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, no lies, nor exaggerations either. You should be more careful, and more courteous.

If your measure of destruction is the percent of species which vanish from the affected area, then either phenomenon eliminates the overwhelming majority. Probably lava flows are slightly worse, but either way, only a tiny fraction of the previous plant species survive the onslaught.

If your measure of destruction also reckons the size of the affected area, then it isn't remotely close. GMO crops have been vastly more destructive to species in the U.S. than lava flows. The largest lava flows recorded in the geologic record of the U.S. during the last 20 million years were the flood basalts of the Columbia River Basin. Those did cover and still cover something on the order of 60,000 square miles in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

GMO crops, on the other hand, were recently estimated as covering ~46% of U.S. agricultural land. With total U.S. agricultural land put at ~1.4 million square miles, that gives you about 640,000 square miles of the U.S. on which almost all plant species except crop species get exterminated by GMO agriculture every year, with the consequent loss on that land area of every animal species—insects, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, plus unaccounted organism in the microbiome—which depended on those missing plants.

Note that 640,000 square miles approximates the entire area—not just the agricultural area—of the following states: California, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Tennessee, combined. Give that a moment of sober thought.

Imagine that effect as a policy proposal, framed this way: in exchange for notable gains in agricultural productivity, we propose a renewable program to wipe out annually almost all plant species except crops species in all those states.

Who in their right mind would entertain any such proposal? Do you think if that came up for a vote in each state, there would be even one state which voted to ratify it?

The only reason that has happened is widespread ignorance of the entire process involved in making GMO agriculture work. In the public mind, it has equated to a magic formula: good science equals more food. What's not to like? As a practical matter that is pure ecological idiocy, but very few people know enough about how GMO agriculture works to even think about the entire process.

If you want to quibble, you could object that not all GMO agriculture depends on use of Roundup Ready crops, but that would barely affect the reasoning, given the various quantities involved.

[ragebot]

Brett you need to get up to speed on the water table level in the Midwest that has dropped more than 100 feet in some cases. You can grow corn without fertilizer (with a much lower yield) but not without water.

[Nige]

Plus the fertilizer run-off is killing the Great Lakes, the Mississippi river and the Gulf Of Mexico.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you can grow much less corn without fertilizer. Which would be catastrophic, no?

But, yes, we should do something about increasing water supplies, no question about that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, conserving water supplies, I get that. Increasing water supplies, in Kansas? What's your plan?

[apedad]

Biden administration blocks controversial mine to protect major salmon fishery

The Biden administration has blocked a controversial proposed gold and copper mine in Alaska in order to protect the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) blocked construction for the Pebble Mine, citing its potential impact on Bristol Bay — a southwestern Alaska watershed that’s home to numerous animal species including the salmon.

(Damn tree huggers. But wait!!!)

The Obama administration EPA also blocked the mine, but the Trump EPA reversed this move, and appeared to be on track to approve the mine.

(Then) the Trump administration later reversed course after prominent conservatives including Donald Trump Jr. came out against it. Fox host Tucker Carlson also aired a segment critical of the project.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3836909-biden-administration-blocks-controversial-mine-to-protect-major-salmon-fishery/

If you got Biden and Carlson against you then you might as well give up.

Tucker’s segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03eOq2OXu1A

[apedad]

Jan. 6 defendant who sprayed line of police sentenced after tearful apology

A Jan. 6 defendant who sprayed a chemical irritant at about 15 police officers — and later bragged about it in a video interview — was sentenced Wednesday to 68 months in prison. This is one of the stiffest Jan. 6 sentences handed down to date.

Daniel Caldwell, a 51-year-old Marine Corps veteran, delivered a tearful apology in court to the officers he sprayed, expressing remorse for his actions that day and pleading with U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly for mercy.

“I must face my actions head on,” he said, before delivering a voluminous apology to the officers he attacked. “I hope that you and our country never have to face another day like January 6th.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/01/jan-6-defendant-sentenced-00080732

FUCK HIM.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fuck YOU....

*If* we still believe in "equal justice under law" -- and I don't think we do -- then the sentence should equal the offense.

It doesn't -- BLM activists did this and worse with impunity.

[apedad]

You don't see me BEGGING for mercy.

[Frank Drackman]

Everybody begging, now you begging too.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, the sentence is on the higher side of what I would expect, but the sentence is perfectly appropriate to me. You can't do that = spray crap on police officers (plural), then go bragging about it. Nope, you go to prison for a while.

[apedad]

You'll notice (which Dr Ed ignorantly dismisses), that, (Judge), "Kollar-Kotelly repeatedly described Caldwell as an 'insurrectionist. . . . '”

The violent BLM criminals (and yes they are criminals), were NOT insurrectionists.

[Michael P]

insurrection, n. - the act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

Burning down police precincts? Insurrection.

Establishing "autonomous zones"? Insurrection.

Overrunning police barricades to disrupt a rally by a bunch of tiki-torch-carrying dimwits? Insurrection.

The Jan 6th rioters were no more insurrectionists than a wide array of Antifa rioters.

[Sarcastr0]

So attempted damage to a government building is an insurrection?
Seems overbroad.

But using violence to disrupt the peaceful transition of power? Never happened. Never mind the court cases, it was all just silly fun.
Way not what happened. And by your above overbroad definition, still an insurrection.

[Michael P]

Nice straw man you have there. I suggest keeping it well away from Antifa.

[Sarcastr0]

A hypothetical anti-government wackadoodle successfully burns down a police station.

Insurrection?

[Michael P]

Not hypothetical: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/protests-looting-erupt-again-minneapolis-area-following-death-george-floyd-n1216881

Also not hypothetical: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12505784/seattle-riots-police-cement-burning-precinct/

You have a bad habit of dismissing reality as "hypothetical".

[Sarcastr0]

1) You need to look up what 'burned down' means.

2) You didn't answer the question. I made it a hypothetical for a reason; I want to confirm a general rule with you. In general, is anyone who hates the government and burns down a police station doing an insurrection?

3) When the fuck have I ever dismissed the stories you linked as hypothetical only? Or anything else for that matter? Don't make shit up about what I've said.

[Michael P]

No new goalposts.

[Sarcastr0]

I said burns down. You post stuff not about burning down.

You then ignore my hypothetical.

I have the exact same goalposts. You just don't wanna play.

[Life of Brian]

I said burns down.

Ah, there's the game -- they set a big fire and jammed the door shut so officers had to break their way out, but the building didn't BURN ALL THE WAY DOWN.

So for THIS incident, the degree of success suddenly matters. For Jan. 6, it was just that people supposedly tried.

Got it.

[Sarcastr0]

Read the thread, LoB.

I offered a hypo. Michael went off to stories that were not the same, saying I was turning real events into hypotheticals.

I did not say burning buildings is cool and good. Nor did I evince a double standard - I was calling out Michael's very low bar for insurrection.

If you see a double standard, point it out. But it seems to me you saw a comment and didn't bother to check the context.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're redefining "insurrection" to only mean January 6th, and nothing else.

[Nige]

We didn't hear anyone trying to label the BLM protests as 'insurrection' until you needed a false equivalence to draw with efforts to overthrow an election result.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Brett, that is correct.

Until the right dove into the false equivalence game, everyone agreed we hadn't had an insurrection in a while till Jan 06.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, screw that. You're just inventing a new definition for "insurrection" to clear your guys.

Here's the LEGAL definition.

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto,"

It doesn't require you to attempt to overturn an election. You just have to violently oppose the government's authority. Several "autonomous zones" did exactly that.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, in terms of "or gives aid or comfort thereto", a fair number of members of Congress would be implicated in insurrection, and by considerably more direct evidence than you've got against Trump. Just raising bail for insurrectionists would qualify.

[Sarcastr0]

It also doesn’t cover riots.

You didn't say anything like this about the Floyd protests or concomitant riots till Jan 06, so somehow I think your objective formal take is rather instrumental.

[Bob from Ohio]

“Kollar-Kotelly repeatedly described Caldwell as an ‘insurrectionist. . . . ‘”

So? Is she the Oracle of Insurrection or something? No, she's just an elderly Clinton judge.

Judges say lots of things. Some correct, some not. Lectures from the bench are always just postering.

[Commenter_XY]

I try to keep this one simple, apedad. Caldwell sprayed not one, not two, not three, but ~12 LEOs with a chemical irritant. You know, where I was raised....you don't do that and expect to walk away with a lenient warning. I could give two shits about the politics...you don't f**k with the cops like that. You respect their authority. Don't like it? Then save it for the judge, who will sort it out in short order - usually in the cops favor.

They are a thin blue line between order and anarchy on the streets. I get pissed at the acts of a few officers, but the vast majority of cops do the job professionally, and well.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems horribly disproportionate.

Firebombing a police car got between 12 and 15 months.

https://apnews.com/article/protests-and-demonstrations-new-york-city-minneapolis-prisons-fdc927cbf34e0da9f237f78c001e5008

Spraying police officers with a non-lethal spray got more than 5 years?

Seems those sentences should've been switched.

[Nige]

Why? Destruction of property is not as bad as asaulting a number of actual human beings, surely? Even if ACAB.

[Krayt]

Pretty much. I don't know where pepper or mace spray falls on the harm rating, but I wouldn't wanna be the spray victim who's told tough, better you than that police car destroyed. The car ain't that important.

[VinniUSMC]

It stings, and goes away. Harm rating? Roughly 0.5 out of 10.

[David Nieporent]

One need not subscribe to the left-wing argument that property damage isn't violence to acknowledge that attacking people is worse than attacking an empty car.

[bevis the lumberjack]

"They had insurance". LOL.

[Nige]

So did the cops, presumably. So what?

[Sarcastr0]

bevis, this does not seem responsive to: "One need not subscribe to the left-wing argument that property damage isn’t violence to acknowledge that attacking people is worse than attacking an empty car."

Which is a good point, and you should talk to it if you disagree.

[Bob from Ohio]

"attacking people [with a temporary non-lethal spray] is worse than [throwing a bomb]"

[Nige]

Yes. You see in one, nobody got hurt, in the other a bunch of people got hurt. See the difference? Want me to walk you through it again?

[Bob from Ohio]

Throwing a bomb is more dangerous than spraying some stuff that only has a minor temporary effect. Its just luck that no one was hurt.

[Nige]

One resulted in a car being wrecked, the other actually injured people, so their respective dangers as acts seem belied by the results.

[Bob from Ohio]

Would you rather get sprayed or have a firebomb thrown at you?

As I said, its just luck that the firebomb didn't injury someone.

The firebombers got slaps on the wrist because of their politics and race.

[Nige]

Why would I want either? Coulda wouldas are irrelevant. One resulted in injuries, one didn't. You really are struggling with this.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Well, nobody had a firebomb thrown at them, so it would seem your argument is your usual dumpster-logic.

[David Nieporent]

They didn't "throw a bomb." They torched an empty police car parked on the street.

[bevis the lumberjack]

How about when they burned down several blocks in Minneapolis? Where does that rank on your Scale-o-Violence?

[David Nieporent]

I do not think that the people who torched the police car were even in Minneapolis.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You dodged that point right spry like.

[Nige]

More like you walked right into that one.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They didn’t “throw a bomb.”

Being dumb today I see.

"Molotov cocktail, a crude bomb, typically consisting of a bottle filled with a flammable liquid and a wick that is ignited before throwing." Britannica

[David Nieporent]

Throwing a bomb is more dangerous than spraying some stuff that only has a minor temporary effect. Its just luck that no one was hurt.

No, it's not "just luck." They didn't throw an explosive into a crowd and just happen to hit the car without affecting any of the people. They torched an empty car parked by itself on the street.

[Bob from Ohio]

Being dumb today I see.

Throwing an incendiary explosive is not like tossing a beanbag, it explodes you know.

[David Nieporent]

You watch too much tv. A molotov cocktail ignites if done correctly; it almost never "explodes." Also, they didn't "throw" it, as if it could have landed anywhere if their aim were off. They walked up to the car and tossed it right into the open (broken) window.

[Life of Brian]

A molotov cocktail ignites if done correctly; it almost never “explodes.”

Hard to say if this is feigned or actual ignorance, but this is just plain wrong. Igniting vaporized fuel can cause quite violent explosions indeed. You probably experienced several thousand of them the last time you drove a car. A Molotov cocktail is specifically designed to widely disperse the fuel on impact to promote vaporization and make the resulting fireball as violent as possible.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A molotov cocktail ignites if done correctly; it almost never “explodes.”"

Being dumb again.

"When the bottle smashes on impact, the ensuing cloud of fuel droplets and vapour is ignited by the attached wick, causing an immediate fireball followed by spreading flames as the remainder of the fuel is consumed."

immediate fireball = explodes

How is "tossing" not "throwing"?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bob, you forgot to try and address the fact it was tossed into the car through a broken window from point-blank range.

I thought you said it was only luck that nobody got hurt?

C'mon man, don't ignore the parts of the argument that destroy yours. Those are the best parts of your nonsensical protestations.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, sure, attacking people is worse than attacking an empty car, I'll agree with that, with caveats; A very minor attack on people might not be as bad as a really bad attack on an empty car.

But the attack on the empty car was worse than what the dude actually got charged with after Biden's DOJ got done with throwing out a plea deal the dude had already signed.

I won't even say it's unheard of for the DOJ to throw out a plea agreement that's already been signed, in favor of something less. But they do that only rarely, and generally only when they've been caught in some serious misconduct on their end. Not just because they think the crime was no big deal, his heart was in the right place, cut the guy a break.

Which is essentially what happened here.

[Sarcastr0]

what the dude actually got charged with after Biden’s DOJ got done with throwing out a plea deal the dude had already signed.

Compare like with like. What someone pleads to is not the same as what someone did.

[Bob from Ohio]

You have a long history of downplaying arson.

Arson kills far more than bear spray which doesn't even kill bears.

[Nige]

Arson that kills is murder. Arson that doesn't is probably insurance fraud. Bear spray that doesn't kill is assault.

[Sarcastr0]

I had an issue with Brett's argument. Engage with my comment, please; don't just throw out accusations at me.

[Brett Bellmore]

My point is that it is basically unheard of for the DOJ to on its own initiative reduce an already agreed to plea deal, barring their having been caught doing something shady themselves, like hiding exculpatory evidence from the defendant. It's just not something they do.

Here they basically took a guy they already had nailed to the wall, and on their own initiative went to court with an argument that boiled down to, "Give the guy a break, who among us hasn't brought Molotov cocktails to a riot and committed arson? At least it was in a good cause."

[David Nieporent]

There are two problems with this:

1. You don't have the first clue what's heard of or unheard of in the criminal justice system. You know only slightly more about it than you do about the poetry of 18th century Ghana.

2. You've made up this narrative.

[Sarcastr0]

I have no idea what's unheard of for the DoJ to do. Do you?

[Dr. Ed 2]

But David, did they KNOW that the police car was empty?

And the other thing about car fires is that they are damn dangerous because the gas tank can suddenly dump 20+ gallons of gasoline into a working fire, and it almost instantly ignites. That may or may not technically be an “explosion” but definitely not fun for anyone standing anywhere near said rapid conflagration.

Tires explode — think about it, as they burn they get hotter and eventually pop — spewing chunks of burning rubber downrange. Get hit with a fist-sized chunk of burning rubber and you’d kinda notice it, particularly as it likely would stick to you.

As far as I am concerned, this stopped being just a property crime with the fire. Smashing it all to pieces with sledgehammers is destruction of property, but the fire made it a potential threat to human life. Even if they’d checked the back seat to make sure there wasn’t someone asleep in there….

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is a firefighter training video on Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions — it’s a LP gas tank, not gasoline, but it also has a pressure relief valve which gasoline tanks don’t.

Note two things — (a) that’s a supersonic shock wave and (b) the delay between the flash and bang — the camera was a considerable distance away.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0jtD_OWLU
When they go frame-by-frame, the white is unburnt propane vapor that hasn’t ignited yet — the metal frame of the car would force the gasoline vapor out sideways more.

THIS is why I maintain that lighting vehicles on fire is more than just a property crime. Remember too that an unchecked car fire will then melt overhead power lines which usually are 8,700 volts to ground and can electrocute people some distance away under the right circumstances.

[Absaroka]

I'm open to an authoritative counter-argument, but I don't think car gas tanks can hold enough pressure to get to BLEVE land.

[John F. Carr]

You get the "B" part, boiling, when the vapor pressure is higher than 1 bar. The liquid boils immediately on release of pressure when the tank bursts. The vapor pressure of propane at room teperature is about 9 bar. The vapor pressure of octane even at 200˚F is less than 1 bar.

Propane is meant to approximate LNG. Methane and ethane are under higher pressure, butane is under lower pressure but still over 1 bar. Octane is meant to approximate gasoline.

[Absaroka]

My googling was unable to find a single example of a BLEVE involving an automobile gas tank. Various sites for firefighters mention the usual propane tanks, etc, but not automobiles. If you have examples, I’d love to see them.

My sense is that there isn't a release of pressure when the tank bursts, because automobile gas tanks won't hold pressure - they are vented to ambient pressure.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Also, full automobile gas tanks are surprisingly not volatile. Whatever vaporized gas there may be in them is too rich to ignite in a low-oxygen environment.

I absolutely do not recommend trying this unless your life depends on making it work, but I was taught by a very smart fabricator that you can use a spot weld to fix a leak in gas tank, so long as you take the precaution to fill the tank completely first.

And you absolutely cannot safely weld on an, "empty," gas tank, unless you repeatedly steam clean it first. And even if you do that, you ought afterwards to prop the open tank against the corner of a masonry building, then reach around the corner with a torch to put the flame in the tank before you try welding on it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John — the references I’ve seen indicates gasoline boils at 100-400 degrees F depending on the mixture and they put Butane into winter gas to make it evaporate easier. (Otherwise, you’d never get the engine started.)

Burning gasoline produces a flame hotter than that — I believe the issue with BLEVE is that the liquid is already boiling in the tank and not that it starts to boil after the containment pressure is eliminated — although that definitely exacerbates things.

Take a #10 tin can and put a half inch of gasoline in it, put it somewhere safe and drop a lit match into it. You soon will see boiling gasoline in the bottom of the can. Now don’t do this, but imagine someone knocking the can over — what do you think will happen next?

My point is that the gasoline tank may or may not be under pressure, but (like the tin can) you’ll have a rapid conflagration if the boiling liquid gasoline is suddenly released onto the ground.

Stephen — You are right, and it is why there are no flames inside the open-top can of burning gasoline — after the initial ignition, all the oxygen is consumed and the rising heat prevents any more from getting into there.

And the same thing would happen if the can were full of gasoline — remember that liquid gasoline can not burn, only the vapor can.

But kick over said full can of burning gasoline — and what happens next?!?!?

[Absaroka]

"I believe the issue with BLEVE is that the liquid is already boiling in the tank and not that it starts to boil after the containment pressure is eliminated"

FWIW, there's a wiki article on BLEVE's, if you want a quick into to the basics.

"But kick over said full can of burning gasoline — and what happens next?!?!?"

You get a puddle of burning gasoline, not a BLEVE.

[David Nieporent]

But David, did they KNOW that the police car was empty?

Yes. They didn't attack it with artillery. They walked right up to it and dropped the m.c. in through a window that had previously been smashed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't think we believe in "equal justice" any more.

[apedad]

Point to a time when we ever believed in equal justice.

If anything, I think we (as a society) are MORE closer to equal justice than we've ever been.

Just because the seesaw is moving in a direction you don't like, doesn't mean it's not moving towards equalibrium.

[Sarcastr0]

The right likes to equate us alike things and then cry persecution.

That’s their problem, not ours.

[OtisAH]

Unfortunately it *is* our problem, too. It’s a big contributor to why we can never discuss, let alone address, actual problems.

[Sarcastr0]

It's our problem because we decide it's our problem.
We should instead tell them to take their bullshit and fuck off, and then deal with this country's issues without worrying about their whining, except for mockery purposes.

We actually do that a decent amount; hence all the impotent whining on the Internet.

[Moderation4ever]

We certainly didn't under Jim Crow, could it be worse now and why?

[BrotherMovesOn]

"I think we should shoot ILLEGAL aliens."

So, how many have you bagged Rambo Ed?
Oh, right, by "we" you meant 'people who aren't Dr. Ed'. Of course, let others take the risk while you egg 'em on from your keyboard. You're such a man!
You utter coward.

[Davedave]

"You’re such a man!"

No, he's a horse FFS.

[Ed Grinberg]

John Derbyshire on "Who-Whom-ism"

[Martinned]

In case of interest to people here, this US Law Professor statement on Proposed Law Reforms in Israel seems to have drawn signatories from across the political spectrum: https://uslawprofstatementisrael.com/

[Mr. Bumble]

Who should care?

[Martinned]

US law professors? People with an interest in Israeli politics?

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe the should follow the adage of physician heal thyself?
As an academic matter I suppose it's fine. As for a political matter, that is for Israelis to decide.

[Martinned]

Wait, so we're not allowed to have opinions about things that don't concern us? Are you trying to put the internet out of business?

[Bob from Ohio]

Bumble is I believe referring to not caring about a statement by a bunch of random [and largely] unknown law professors.

[Commenter_XY]

The political pendulum is swinging the other way, away from Aharon Barak and people who think like him. They (people like Aharon Barak and those who think like him) don't like that. Well, that is democracy for you. So there is a hue and cry.

When the actual legislation is presented for the first vote (takes 3 votes, ultimately), then I guess we can react to something. But right now, it is pure emoting.

What Israel chooses to do is their affair. It is not for me as an American (or a member of the Diaspora) to tell Israelis how to run their lives. They'll figure it out. It will work out in the end.

[Martinned]

Human rights, being *human* rights, are the common affair of all humans. Only dictators insist that their human rights violations are none of anyone else's business.

[Bob from Ohio]

Rules for selection of judges are not "human rights" and changing them is not a "violation" of "human rights"

Countries have lots of different ways of picking judges and judicial review is limited in plenty of nice countries, UK for instance.

[Ed Grinberg]

WTF? I've read a couple of articles about the proposed reforms and I honestly have no idea what supposed human-rights abuses you're referring to.

[Martinned]

To take an obvious example:

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
What is your objection to that?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I believe Martinned is saying that he believes that the reforms will impair that right,

[bernard11]

What Israel chooses to do is their affair. It is not for me as an American (or a member of the Diaspora) to tell Israelis how to run their lives.

True. OTOH, we are free to comment or criticize their policies, as we are those of any other government.

I do not share your confidence that "it will work out in the end."

[Bob from Ohio]

"This effort includes proposed reforms that would grant the ruling coalition absolute power to appoint Justices and judges, make it almost impossible for the Supreme Court to invalidate legislation, severely limit judicial review of executive-branch decisions, and curtail the independence of the Attorney General and legal advisers assigned to different government agencies."

These all sound pretty good.

[Ed Grinberg]

make it almost impossible for the Supreme Court to invalidate legislation, severely limit judicial review of executive-branch decisions

In the case of U.S. Supreme Court, most (though not all) people agree that it is supposed to be the final arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation / executive actions. Apparently this is not the case in Israel. For one thing, they don’t even have a constitution.

[Martinned]

They don't? That will be news to every lawyer in Israel.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio....It is something I have been following along for a while now. It is all emoting bullshit. The political pendulum has swung the other way, and the 'Barak Brigades' are all butt-hurt about it. This democracy thing....surprise! The people want change. 🙂

When serious negotiations begin over what actual reforms will be put into place, and there will be reforms there is no escaping that, is when to really pay attention. We are quite a way from that (months).

Right now, it is bloviating and posturing.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, it's not like the open letter is signed by a bunch of JVP members. I don't recognize all the names, but I do know some — and when someone as Israel-friendly as Dershowitz signs, it's concerning.

[Commenter_XY]

There are now three different competing written reform proposals. More are coming before EOM. Then the serious discussion begins. I don't see any coalescing behind a final written piece of legislation before Shavuot, and even that is aggressive. That is months away. One acquaintance simply said, given the state of Israeli politics, it will be Shmini Atzeret before they vote. I just laughed, but it could well be true.

Israel's electorate voted for change. They will have it. I don't think the changes will amount to much in the end, to be honest. The Knesset will probably walk away with ability to approve judges, and provide for a narrowly tailored definition of 'reasonableness' with very limited applicability retained by the Court.

I see much sound and fury in the days ahead, ultimately signifying not too much.

[dwb68]

There are now 4 lawsuits against the ATF for the pistol brace rule.

I think that they are all on shaky ground*, change my mind.

*The lawsuits are making arguments that win on the internet.

[Absaroka]

I haven't looked at those lawsuits, but it will be interesting to see how many millions it takes to be 'in common use'. I don't know why the estimates vary so much, but even the low estimates are in the millions.

In tension with that, SBRs have been banned since 1934, so we'll get to see how many years it takes to be 'longstanding'.

[dwb68]

“constitutionally protected” is not the same as “can’t be licensed” see foot note 9 of Bruen “To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of … licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].”

They go on to say what kind of licensing might be unconstitutional: "That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry."

As applied to possession, Bruen allows licensing. Submitting your eform 1 brace is easier and cheaper than my FL permit, so it seems to satisfy the second criteria (no exorbitant fees or wait times, because the application permits me to have it i dont have to wait for my stamp). So: if generally Bruen allows licensing, whats the problem with licensing SBRs?

[Brett Bellmore]

Bruen allowed licensing on a shall issue, basically everyone qualifies basis. NFA licensing is a lot more discretionary than that.

[dwb68]

How? same fingerprint-based background check.

[dwb68]

I am not sure why you think NFA licensing is discretionary. The questions for the background check are the same as on the standard federal 4473 asked at a retailer. They cannot deny you unless the NFA item you are buying is illegal in your state, or you fail the background check.

The only two issues I see with NFA are "lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees ". Form 4s for supressors typically take 200+ days. Form 1 SBRs or other items take much less (1-2 months). Then there is the $200.

For the brace rule they waived the $200 and then said as long as you submit the eform1, you can possess it (no need to wait for the approval).
so registering braces is neither time consuming not has a fee.

For the pistol brace rule they waived the

[ragebot]

Not sure what you mean by 'cheaper' as after the initial free period it will cost $US200 from what I have read. This amount can exceed the cost of some firearms.

Maybe more to the point the suit has been brought by disabled vets who claim a brace makes the weapon safer by increasing accuracy/reducing stray bullets. Wonder how the ADA will weigh in on this as courts have basically said no matter the cost reasonable accommodations are a big OK.

Then there is always the no laws that limit the right to KABA argument.

While braces are marketed to make pistols easier to shoot the ATF seems to be taking the position that since they are being misused and placed on the shoulder when the pistol is fired they turn the pistol into a SBR. So what happens if someone puts a rubber pad (like a Limbsaver, Google it) on the back of a pistol and fires it from the shoulder does that turn a pistol into a SBR.

Not to mention the ATF has claimed that by adding a brace to a pistol makes it easier to hide seems like bullshit to me.

[dwb68]

no: for the brace rule they waived the $200

[ragebot]

no: for the brace rule they waived the $200

for how long

[Absaroka]

For 120 days. The way they are styling this is ‘We changed our minds, these have always been illegal SBRs, even though we told you exactly the opposite for years. But because we’re nice, we’ll give you a 120 day amnesty. After that you can’t register any more, at any price’.

(any more braced pistols, that is. If it was never a braced pistol, you can do a normal $200 SBR registration, but if it ever had a brace[1], it is contraband that must be destroyed. You bought one off a gun store wall and don’t follow gun blogs all the time, or you are deployed for the next 120 days … sux to be you)

[1] or ??presumably?? any of the offending features. E.g. Ruger Charger 22 pistols used to come with bipods. Or many kinds of iron sights. All the squishy things they now say might make it a rifle; I don't think the logic is limited to braces. But no one knows for sure.

[Absaroka]

"So: if generally Bruen allows licensing, whats the problem with licensing SBRs?"

The devil is in the details: "any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends". So the questions might be:

-is having to pay $200 abusive (compare to, say, a fee to register to vote)? (temporarily waived for braced pistols).
-is having to wait over a year for approval (my most recent NFA wait) abusive?
-is having to get prior written approval to take it across state lines (Form 5320.20) abusive?
-is it abusive that for, say, both a husband and wife to use an NFA item, that they must form a trust?
-is it abusive that you have to pay to have extra engraving done on the gun? (temporarily waived for braced pistols)

Which of those conditions could D.C. have imposed on Dick Heller?

I'm sure that different people will have different opinions on those questions. Ultimately, we'll find out what the Supremes think.

Of particular interest to them as they answer the questions, I hope, is to compare the degree to which the various processes actually reduce crime, versus the burden placed on the law abiding.

(as an aside, the legislative history here is that:
1)they were going to ban^H^H^H put a $200 tax on handguns in 1934
2)Someone said 'if we ban handguns, people will just cut down rifles, so let's ban short barreled rifles'
3)They removed the handgun ban, but forgot to remove the SBR ban.

So the ban^H^H^Htax doesn't make a lot of sense with or without pistol braces)

[dwb68]

for the brace rule you can possess it during the time between registration and approval, so they essentially waived the wait time too.

The argument no one has addressed: NFA is a criminal statute disguised as a tax. A ten year penalty for not paying a $200 tax is absurd.

Only one of the lawsuits addressed this and cited National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) - and then only peripherally.

I have not put much stock in the 2A angle or statutory ambiguity/APA angle, but the fact that NFA has a hefty penalty and the brace rule does not raise revenue is an interesting sleeper argument that could be fatal.

[Absaroka]

"for the brace rule you can possess it during the time between registration and approval, so they essentially waived the wait time too."

But afterwards ...

The argument is that until a couple of days ago, braced pistols were in common use for lawful purposes. So just like Dick Heller's pistol. So a temporary waiver of the wait or tax doesn't affect the conditions that Dick Heller will encounter if he wants to buy a braced pistol next year. At that time either the year long wait and $200 for weapons that are in common use is OK, or it isn't. Only the Supremes know for sure!

[Absaroka]

Another fun part: here is the final rule.

In the past months, ATF had a points based worksheet to tell if you had a legal pistol or illegal (10 years! $250k fine!) SBR. For example, a plain-round-buffer-tube AR, length < 26 inches, weight < 120 oz (and some other criteria) was unambiguously a legal pistol.

But (IANAL!!) in the final rule they seem to have dropped that in favor of 6 amorphous criteria (see page 6511 et seq.):

1)Surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder.
2)Weight and length consistent with the weight and length of rifles.
3)A length of pull...consistent with similarly designed rifles
4) Sights or scopes with eye relief that require shouldering of the firearm in order to be used as designed.
5)Necessary for the cycle of operations of the firearm
6)Consideration of marketing or promotional materials and likely use of the weapon in the general community.

I mostly get 4 and 5. But how do I tell what weight is 'consistent with the weight of a rifle'? You can find rifles that are lighter than, say, your average 38 Special revolver, and very short rifles like bullpups. So how do I tell that my particular pistol is/isn't an acceptable length/weight?

Number 6 is great, too. The earlier documents describe the ATF deciding things are rifles by watching how people used them on youtube and instagram. So I have a perfectly legal pistol today, but some dweeb starts posting on instagram and it becomes an illegal (10 years! $250k!) SBR?

It's early days - the final rule just published a couple of days ago - but there are sure a lot of people scratching their heads and trying to figure out what is or isn't legal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lawsuits against gun control are always on shaky ground, because the judiciary isn't terribly fond of the 2nd amendment, and the Supreme court has mixed feelings about it, so the sort of crap you'd never get away with in regards to the 1st amendment will frequently get a pass for guns.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court is fond of federal gun regulations. State regulations, not so much.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're fairly fond of gun regulations, period. The few state regulations that have been struck down were extreme outliers, not anything at all common. It's really not often recognized just how much worse on gun rights a half dozen states are than the rest of the country.

As for federal laws, the deference the Supreme court shows to federal legislation, compared to state legislation, is about what you'd expect given that they were all hand selected by federal office holders... Selecting the judge in your own case isn't much better than BEING the judge in your own case, in the end.

[Michael P]

Why has the Supreme Court not ended the US COVID emergency yet? Or at least, why does the President think it's incumbent on the Court to end it?

[Krychek_2]

Because it's not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to end it. Next question?

[Michael P]

Why did Joe Biden say "The COVID emergency will end when the Supreme Court ends it"?

Follow-up: How far will people like you go to avoid recognizing or addressing his senescence?

[Martinned]

Why did Joe Biden say “The COVID emergency will end when the Supreme Court ends it”?

Because he recognises that there's no telling what the GOP Supreme Court might do, and recognises that he is required to obey their decisions?

That said, I think Krychek put the point a bit too forcefully. It is certainly within the Supreme Court's powers to find that a given state of emergency isn't properly authorised by statute. In fact, in my view they ought to do that (more).

[Krychek_2]

I may have been a bit too forceful given the political realities, but I was answering the badly-phrased question of why doesn't the Supreme Court end the emergency.

[Michael P]

No, you were being a dick by intentionally ignoring context that I provided.

[David Nieporent]

It is certainly within the Supreme Court’s powers to find that a given state of emergency isn’t properly authorised by statute. In fact, in my view they ought to do that (more).

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court is not tasked with the power to roam around making assertions of law. If someone with standing brings a claim challenging the existence of an emergency, then, and only then, can SCOTUS weigh in.

[Martinned]

Thanks for clarifying what "court" means. For a while there, there was a real risk that we might get people confused in a blog full of lawyers.

[Krychek_2]

People who are 30 and with superlative cognitive functioning occasionally misspeak. In the meantime, "Senescent Joe" has been one of the most effective presidents of the past 30 years in terms of actual accomplishments -- keeping the Russians at bay in the Ukraine, multiple legislative achievements like the infrastructure passage, the national respect for marriage act, the inflation reduction act and the Science and CHIPS act. So you just keep snickering and he'll just keep getting stuff done.

[Michael P]

Hahaha. The guy who gave Russia a green light to invade Ukraine — which they promptly did — gets credit for “keeping the Russians at bay”. And the guy whose deficit spending drove inflation through the roof gets credit for a bill named “inflation reduction act”.

Go on, do Lizzie Borden next.

But let's play with this a bit: If he misspoke, what did he intend to say instead?

[Krychek_2]

I see you've been taking Fox News seriously. There was no green light, and the deficit is largely caused by the GOP's refusal to raise revenue. As for what he intended to say, he was commenting on a past decision, not lobbying for a future one.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and the deficit is largely caused by the GOP’s refusal to raise revenue."

Take a look at federal spending, per capita, and adjusted for inflation. In 1965, federal per capita spending, in constant 2019 dollars, was $3,782. By about 2005 it was three times that. Again, per capita, and adjusted for inflation. By 2021, it was $19,515.

Over five times the spending, per capita, adjusted for inflation. You're telling me we couldn't have stopped at, oh, just four times, or maybe even three times?

You're just going to take ever ballooning spending as a given, and complain that the Republicans weren't willing to raise taxes to match?

In fact, revenue and spending pretty much kept pace with each other until about 2007. The 2008 'emergency spending' ended that, and the Covid spending bills ended even the pretense of trying to spend within our means.

Things are NOT normal on the spending front today. We're in the middle of a spending spree that's utterly unprecedented outside of World War 2. In peace time. Spending insanely beyond our means has become the new normal!

[bernard11]

You're aware that about 25% of the national debt was run up during the Trump Administration?

You're aware that the Republicans pushed through a massive tax cut when they controlled the White and both houses of Congress?

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't you get roundly mocked for your green light nonsense last week? Or was that some other right-wing tool?

[Brett Bellmore]

As I recall, you got roundly mocked for pretending he didn't do it. Since he did, in fact, say that we wouldn't do anything if Russia just took another bite of Ukraine.

[Michael P]

Because he's S_0, he will not admit that "It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do" is, in fact, best interpreted as a green light to invade in a "minor incursion" sort of way.

[David Nieporent]

It was a garbage claim when people accused GHWB of giving a green light to Saddam Hussein to annex Kuwait, and it's a garbage claim now.

[Nige]

'best interpreted as a green light to invade'

Jesus Christ you can't be serious.

[bernard11]

“I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades, and it depends on what it does,” Biden said. “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion, and then we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, et cetera, but if they actually do what they are capable of doing with the force they’ve massed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia.”

The White House later clarified his remarks, saying any movement of Russian forces into Ukraine would be considered an invasion.

[Davedave]

That would be the Lizzie Borden who wasn't actually guilty of what she was accused of? Jesus, get a grip.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And giving $80B in corporate welfare to high-tech multinational conglomerates is now a liberal ideal!

lmao these people

[Frank Drackman]

The Inflation Reduction Act's really helping to reduce Inflation.
Actually if it wasn't for Senescent J stealing 1/2 the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, it'd be even higher. And you left out his ending the Afghanistan Wah that his butt buddy Barak America started back up in 2009.
"keeping the Russians at Bay??" might want to tell the Roosh-uns, and what's gonna happen when a Roosh-un Sub sinks the ship taking the M1 Tanks to You-Crane???

Frank

[Krychek_2]

OK, Frank, it's now official that you're completely nuts. Bush started the war in Afghanistan, and Trump made the decision to close it out.

[Frank Drackman]

And Barry Hussein went back in in 2009, check out the Combat deaths by year, and last time I checked, Senescent J was POTUS in August 2021 (somebody tell him)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

More US combat deaths in Afghanistan during Barry Hussein America's first 2 years in Orifice than "W"'s 8.

Total US UK Other
2001 12 12 0 0
2002 70 49 3 18
2003 58 48 0 10
2004 60 52 1 7
2005 131 99 1 31
2006 191 98 39 54
2007 232 117 42 73
2008 295 155 51 89
2009 521 317 108 96
2010 710 498 103 109
2011 563 415 46 102
2012 402 310 44 48
2013 162 128 9 25

Frank "Number's (man!)"

[Krychek_2]

So what? Obama inherited a war that Bush started and that Obama attempted to actually win. Biden and the Pentagon failed to appreciate just how quickly the Afghan forces would collapse once we stopped propping them up, but the decision to end the war was Trump's.

[Frank Drackman]

"Attempted" is the operative word there.
"Failed to appreciate"???? I guess that sounds better than "Massive Cluster Fuck", but hey (man) Senescent Joe had only been in Orifice 6 months (none of it while lucid)
and umm, you can check AlGores Internets, but pretty sure Senescent J mumbled the Oath 1-20-2021 he could have re-started Barry America's wah if (his Handlers) wanted him to.

And I'm feeling merciful not showing you the numbers from 14-16, so don't make me get Mid-Evil on your Ass,

Frank "Mike Drop"

[Ben_]

Biden didn’t inherit any Trump wars though. Anti-war people forgot to pretend to care about it after 2017.

[Nige]

Yeah, he should have ended those wars first thing and prosecuted the administration responsible. Horrible mistake not to.

[bernard11]

Inflation is down a good bit, as a matter of fact.

[bevis the lumberjack]

TIL that jacking energy costs up 40% is something done by an effective president. As is suppressing political speech. And creating a clusterfuck at the southern border. Who knew?

[Krychek_2]

Jacking up energy costs happened before Biden took office, and he has turned it around. We can debate which was worse, taking oil from the reserves or letting inflation continue to go up, but those were the two choices. By the way, did you see the news yesterday or the day before that during the worst of inflation, the oil companies were racking up record profits?

[Nige]

I have been informed here on the strongest possible terms that high prices and high profits are in no way related and to suggest they are is akin to believing in witchcraft.

[Krychek_2]

Nige, I am not a socialist. Far from it. But the news reports of just how much money the oil companies were making while many Americans were struggling to fill their cars and heat their houses makes me understand why some people are.

It reminds me of the old joke about it's easier to be a conservative than a liberal because it's easier to extend people in need the finger rather than a helping hand.

[Frank Drackman]

Wrong as usual, it's a Conservative is a Liberal who had her Gas Stove outlawed (Did you see Alexandria Casio-Cotex get her feathers all ruffled when the "Woke" called her out on her Gas Stove?? can't wait till they outlaw her fake tits (I kid AOC's fake tits))

Frank "Did you hear the one where Ted Kennedy abandoned a young woman to Asphyxiate (NOT drowned, there's a difference)

Frank

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, it didn’t and no, he hasn’t.

Oil has slipped out of fear of a recession that will reduce demand for a period of time. Unless you want to blame Biden for the recession expectation then you really can’t credit him for the lower oil price.

Longer term and more permanently the only solution to prices is more supply, which Biden is hellbent on stopping. In North America anyway. He’s fine with more supply from totalitarian places.

[bevis the lumberjack]

As to record profits, do you understand what happens to commodity company revenue when commodity prices increase?

And I bet you have no idea who sets prices for crude oil and natural gas.

[Sarcastr0]

Revenue != profits.

[Kazinski]

But capital investment comes out of profits, so a capital intensive corporation like an oil company needs a healthy stream of profits to reinvest in future production.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is a steady overhead. Rising profits remain rising profits.

[Nige]

Oh no how did they manage their capital investment when their profits were only moderately obscene?

[Frank Drackman]

Mr. Supply meet Mr. Demand, Demand, Mr. Supply,

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do *you* understand that oil companies are using your ignorance of blaming Biden to artificially raise their prices far beyond inflation to create these record profits?

As long as you're dumb enough to blame him for everything, they'll keep gouging your wallet and cheering you on.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Jason, who sets crude oil prices?

Look it up and see if you can recognizable how unsophisticated your claim about jacked up prices is.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you think I'm referring to the price of a barrel of crude, or perhaps some other mechanisms by which they can artificially inflate the cost?

If you do, then I can only ask "When was the last time you put crude oil in your car, and how well did that work out?"

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well you certainly dodged that one. You don’t know the answer, do you?

Or do you actually not understand where gasoline comes from? What was the underlying cause of the increase in gasoline prices?

And again - who sets crude oil prices?

[Sarcastr0]

bevis, you mistook revenue for profits.

Quit swinging your big authority around and say what you want to say, letting it stand in its own,

[bevis the lumberjack]

No I didn’t. I meant revenue. That’s the top line on an income statement and the line that is driven by commodity prices. Obviously if revenue skyrockets and costs stay constant then cashflow and profits also skyrocket.

Side note - eventually their costs will start increasing and will catch up but there’s always a lag of a year give or take as the supply companies and employees start extracting their share.

This moron was spouting the price gouging line because he doesn’t know shit about it. Oil and gas producers don’t set their prices out in the actual cash market. Prices are set by buyers at various delivery points - they’re known as posted prices.

There’s no gouging going on because the producers don’t have the power to do it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I guess the record PROFITS are just a weird coincidence eh?

Sheer fucking luck, I tell you.

[Nige]

'There’s no gouging going on because the producers don’t have the power to do it.'

Prices rise, proftis rise, it's all magic! I also note that oil companies are obscenely subsidised by public monies and prices do not reflect externalities such as pollution and climate change.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s not magic, it’s the simplest math of all. Obviously too complex for you though.

Oil companies are not heavily subsidized. And the cost of burning wood and ox dung to stay warm in the winter doesn’t include any of your bullshit externalities. Neither does filling the streets with horse shit as the primary mode of transportation.

You want to go back to a simple, dirtier time because you think it had no trade offs, fine. Turn your power off and find yourself a horse. Or a bike. But short of that, get out of here with your “not as I do” stupidity.

[Nige]

You really have internalised those dumb right-wing straw men, haven’t you? I want governments to take measures to deal with impending climate-related crises primarily caused by fossil fuel emissions. The measures require burning neither wood nor dung nor depending on horses for transport. But we’ll regress to a ‘simpler’ time soon enough if we continue to pretend it isn’t happening.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/?sh=56c63bdc4473

[Sarcastr0]

Oil companies are not heavily subsidized.

bevis, that is extremely not true:
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

[Absaroka]

"bevis, that is extremely not true:"

Can you explain some of the details in the cited paper? The 'About' section of the EESI web page seems to indicate they have a particular angle on things, so I want to make sure I understand the details of the subsidies we're talking about.

I went to the 'newer version' linked from your link, and the helpful infographic seems to say that the vast majority of these subsidies are for 'Foreign Fossil Fuel Income', so I thought I'd look at that. Going back to your linked paper, I see 'Foreign Tax Credit (26 U.S. Code § 901', so off I went to 26USC901. It is mostly general rules about taxation of multinational companies, but the thesis here isn't 'we do foreign taxes wrong', it is 'we subsidize oil companies'.

In that vein I see a section titled 'Certain payments for oil or gas not considered as taxes' and 'Foreign taxes on mineral income'.

I'm not a CPA, so the effects of those aren't all that clear. Since you seem to understand this stuff, could you explain in layman's terms how those provisions (or some other provision I missed) are unfairly subsidizing oil companies, and not just attempting to deal with some peculiar vagary of their business ?

To be clear, I'm not saying you, or the study you cite is wrong - I just don't understand the details. I know you aren't a fan of appeals to authority, so you do understand these details, and I'd sure welcome you sharing that expertise.

(I'm just focusing on that one, since it seems to be the largest, but some of the others seem odd, e.g. "While this deduction was available to domestic manufacturers, it nevertheless benefitted (sic) fossil fuel companies by allowing “oil producers to claim a tax break intended for U.S. manufacturers to prevent job outsourcing”"[1]. If this is some tax provision, good or bad, is generally applicable to all businesses, it seems odd to portray it as a subsidy to oil companies. I take the standard deduction every year, but that doesn't mean it is an unfair subsidy for bald old men.)

[1]n.b. that one has been repealed, but they list it as an example of a prior subsidy

[bevis the lumberjack]

Most of the time to the hydrocarbon users-but-haters (love the direct and secondary benefits but it’s fashionable to complain about the industry so they do) the subsidy thing is mostly “letting them deduct their expenses before calculating their taxable income”. I’ve also seen it defined as “their vehicles drive on public roads”.

What they seemingly intentionally ignore is that means that government is subsidizing every business that operates here. And they’ll never see this, but that definition means that government is subsidizing you and me. And THEM.

[Nige]

With that as a given, it's tough shit on the monumentally wealthy fossil fuel industry if governments change policy to reduce harm to citizens and promote less catastrophically destructive practices.

[Kazinski]

It may well be in the Supreme Courts jurisdiction to end it.

If the "Emergency" is being used to promulgate emergency regulations which go outside established democratic and administrative norms then the supreme court can and should say: "There is no emergency, you don't have the power to do that."

Which is basically what they said in the Eviction moratorium and OSHA vaccination mandate.

What is the purpose of still claiming there is an emergency other than clinging to "Emergency powers".

Since Biden was claiming the Covid emergency was justification for his student loan forgiveness that is probably one reason why he doesn't want to give up the pretense there is still an emergency.
https://time.com/6251720/covid-19-emergency-ending-student-loan-forgiveness/

"Biden’s legal justification for forgiving student debt relied on the HEROES Act, which allows the Department of Education to modify provisions of student loan programs to alleviate financial hardship borrowers might face during national emergencies."

[Brett Bellmore]

Unfortunately the NEA actually does leave whether there's an "emergency" up to the President. He says there's an 'emergency', there IS one, legally speaking, regardless of how stupid the claim is.

Congress can affirmatively act to end such an 'emergency', subject to the presentiment clause, which means Presidents get a chance to veto the revocation.

The National Emergencies Act is high on my list of laws that need to be repealed.

[Martinned]

Really, you think that states of emergency work like Liversidge v. Anderson?

I know of only one authority which might justify the suggested method of construction. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master, that's all." After all this long discussion the question is whether the words "If a man has" can mean "If a man thinks he has". I have an opinion that they cannot and the case should be decided accordingly.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they work like the NEA says they work: It's an emergency when the President says it's an emergency, and that's about it, no other standard is given.

[Martinned]

Then, as per Lord Atkin in Liversidge, at a minimum he should be required to show why that was a reasonable belief in a case brought by a plaintiff with proper standing.

[Nige]

About a thousand people are dying from covid every week in the US, might be one reason.

[Bob from Ohio]

Last death on May 11 I guess since Biden's ending the emergency then.

May 12, no one will die.

[Nige]

Isn't that what you want? The Republicans have been forcefully advocating for ignoring the pandemic and pretending it isn't happening and the real threat was the New World Order who would never allow the lockdowns to be lifted and would poison us with the vaccines. I'd say for Republicans, nobody has been dying from covid for a while now. And hey, now it's official.

[Frank Drackman]

1,500 die of Cancer every day what next? a Cancer "Emergency"?? Mandatory Colonoscopies! For everyone!

[Nige]

Free colonosopies might help bring that down a bit, actually.

[Frank Drackman]

Of Course! (you're an Idiot) Do you know most Children under 10 haven't had a Colonoscopy?!?!?!?!?!? and how many High School Girls have had a Physician instruct them on how to do a proper Breast Self Examination?? And for the Homos, how many young boys know how to examine their balls??? (most of them probably) Testicular Cancer actually kills more young men than Breast Cancer kills young women (and Men can get Breast Cancer too! and I mean "real" men, not women who've had their tits cut off)

Frank "you can do a better exam if you lick the breast first"

[Nige]

So, besides the fact that you're a creepy sex predator with serial-killer obsessions, you agree that better education and more access to services would reduce cancer deaths.

[Frank Drackman]

Man you have a Dirty Old Mind, you Dirty Old Man! Have you had an exam since Ben Casey was feeling up Candy Stripers?? You always gotta have a Chaperone, even if you're a chick examining a 17 year old Dude's "Package".
And actually, No, all Mammography has done is diagnose Cancers at an earlier stage. By the time a tumors 1cm diameter it's 90% through its natural history. When you adjust for earlier diagnosis 5 year survival for Breast Cancer is same as it was 50 years ago.
Has been a windfall for the Radiologists (if you can find any to read Mammograms, most are read by Radiologists in India)

Frank

[Nige]

Yeah, you're certainly a shining example of why those chaperones are necessary, you sweaty little bag of jitters.

[Frank Drackman]

Leave it to a Homo to be left with nothing but an Ad Homo attack.

[Nige]

Is that what you’re doing every time you launch a personal attack? Which is most of the time? As well as being a creepy sweatbag?

[Brett Bellmore]

A thousand every week, that's 52K a year.

That's about half the death rate from Diabetes, on a par with the flu in an average year, or kidney disease.

So, are we in a perpetual state of emergency because influenza exists?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

During the Trump presidency, didn't you argue that since the statute doesn't define what constitutes an emergency, the President gets to call whatever he wants an emergency?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As with most other things you claim as fact, 52k deaths a year is NOT 'on par with the flu in an average year.'

Only twice from 2010-2020 has the estimated deaths from influenza been over 50k. Three times in that timeframe it's been over 40k.

As usual, you are wrong.

[Nige]

It’s amazing that you think that the sudden arrival and ongoing persistence of a new disease that’s settling down to kill as many people as cancer on top of all the other existing deadly diseases killing people every year doesn’t constitute a crisis, an easily communicable dissease, no less, that’s running through new strains and variants like it’s going out of fashion.

Also, yes, every new flu season is a crisis that has to be prepared for in advance, like you do with predictable crises, unless you're Republican for some reason.

[apedad]

The DOJ (through ATF), just published National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA): Crime Guns - Volume Two.

One highlight is, "The primary source of stolen firearms is theft from private citizens vehicles, homes, and persons. While more than 95% of stolen guns originate via thefts from private citizens (see Figure BRL-01 below), FFL and commercial shipping thefts are nevertheless a direct source of crime guns.

(However), as of 2022, only fifteen states -- California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia1 – require private citizens to report when a firearm is stolen. As a result, while the reported number of firearms stolen annually from individuals is substantial, there is significant underreporting; a 2016 survey by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics indicated that only about 75% of private gun thefts are reported to law enforcement.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/national-firearms-commerce-and-trafficking-assessment-nfcta-crime-guns-volume-two

OK, so 95% of weapons stolen are stolen from private persons, and are now floating around in criminals' hands.

If responsible gun owners are serious about fixing this problem, then why can't we demand better gun safeguards among private ownership.

[gallinalg85]

I obviously would report it immediately if a gun was stolen, but how is it really going to make a difference? You open your drawer one day and realize the gun is gone. You report it. What does that do? Does it mean that the gun is no longer in a criminal's hand?

Also, guns are frequently left in cars. Why are they frequently left in cars? Because of rules YOU people put in place.

[Absaroka]

I agree we should reorient gun policy from things that don't work (cosmetic bans, the California roster, ...) to things that work.

One example: if you rent, you can't usually bolt down a safe, Why not institute a requirement that new build rentals include something like this. With the cost of wiring, I'd wager it's the same cost as smoke detectors. Even people who didn't own guns could use it for other valuables.

[santamonica811]

Tons of hotels certainly have them. Not at all a bad idea. And, if the code requires that they are "fireproof" (you know what I mean), it would have additional benefits in the event of that occurrence. You can get a decent-size safe for under $100. Add literally 1-2 dollars to the rent, to cover this expense.

[ThePublius]

"If responsible gun owners are serious about fixing this problem, then why can’t we demand better gun safeguards among private ownership."

I get that, but please keep in mind that private citizens whose guns have been stolen are crime victims. One might make the case that there are negligent gun owners, and they should secure dangerous instruments, but in the end, they are victims, too. Perhaps prosecuting gun thieves more aggressively, or at all, would help.

[Ed Grinberg]

"Liberals" dislike legal gun owners a whole lot more than thieves & violent criminals. Which is why they're always happy to impose ever-more-draconian restrictions / punishments on the former, while progressively reducing punishments on the latter.

[Bob from Ohio]

"thieves & violent criminals" are a large part of their voting base

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.twincities.com/2023/01/09/felon-voting-automatic-registration-mn-dflers-eye-expanded-access-to-the-polls/

[Bob from Ohio]

How will fixing the non-reporting problem, lead to better gun safeguards?

If a person doesn't want to waste his time, it doesn't matter much, he's not getting that gun back and its not going to protect anyone from that thief shooting someone.

[ragebot]

Saying 95%+ of guns stolen are stolen from private citizens begs the question of what percentage of guns are owned by private citizens. I have seen claims that there are four hundred million guns in the hands of private citizens but never seen reports of how many guns are still in a gun store but I would bet it does not come close to twenty million. Course I could be wrong.

[Michael Ejercito]

Because they gave no responsibility to you to keep someone else from stealing their properrty

[Moderation4ever]

There have recently been more lawsuits about religious freedom. Many have challenged laws that require people to do things they find religiously offensive like bake wedding cakes for same sex weddings or dispense birth control pills or abortion medications. But recently (January 2023) a group of religious leaders challenged Missouri's abortion ban saying it was enacted to enforce certain religious groups beliefs over others. There is no firm legal definition of when human life begins, and different religions have set the point at different points in a pregnancy. Catholics believe in life at conception and oppose the use of hormonal contraception, while most protestant are far more accepting of contraception. Suggesting they see life established later in the pregnancy. Is it legal to write a law that accepts some religious beliefs while ignoring others? Is that establishing religious beliefs in law in violation of the establishment clause of 1A? Should this case get as much attention as the cake baker's case?

I like to see this case followed as much as other 1A cases.

[gallinalg85]

First, whether something is deserving of religious protection is based on whether the belief is sincere, not whether it's valid. Are there are any sincere religious beliefs that the religion requires abortion? Second, generally applicable laws are generally protected unless they're enacted out of animus toward a specific religion. That isn't the case here.

Whatever your opinion on abortion, the religious argument for it is crap.

[DaveM]

To make an abortion lawsuit analogous to baking a cake, it would have to be a case about a baker being sued for refusing to put a cake into the oven, wait until it starts cooking, then opening the door, cutting it up, dumping the remains in the trash, and then posting a celebratory video on TikTok about how that empowers persons with ovens.

That’s not an easy lift.

[John F. Carr]

They are asking the courts to overturn a law because some religious people like the law. That is not impossible – precedent says schools can't be too hard on evolution to accomodate creationists – but it is hard. Blue laws have been upheld against claims that their original creators were Christian.

[Moderation4ever]

They are not asking for the law to be overturned because religious people like it, but because it was based on specific religious beliefs, that are not universally accepted, like life beginning at conception.

[Bob from Ohio]

"There is no firm legal definition of when human life begins"

In fact there is, its when a sperm fertilizes an egg and it implants in the womb. Its not a racoon in there.

Its not religion, its science.

[Nige]

Yeah, the Republicans are going to go after contraception.

[Moderation4ever]

You have given a biological definition, but not a legal one. Where in law does it say that human life begin at conception?

As to the racoon analogy, from a morphological perspective the human zygote and early fetus would be very similar to a racoon's, and it would like take trained eye to tell the differences when they start occurring. Farther along a average person would see the differences.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it would like take trained eye"

Yet, its still not a racoon.

[Krychek_2]

A racoon, and a human person, are not the only two choices.

[Bob from Ohio]

He said definition of human "life", not "person" Do you deny the fertilized implanted egg is human?

[Krychek_2]

It's human but it's not a human person, which is the legal distinction. Amputated limbs, cancerous tumors, and someone's tooth that just got pulled are all human life but not human persons, which is why they don't have civil rights. A wisdom tooth can't file a lawsuit saying, "I'm human life and I'm about to get killed by a dentist who's about to extract me," assuming it had the necessary consciousness and mental capacity to do so.

And that's what your side keeps conflating. Yes, a fetus is human life, because it's both human and alive. No, that doesn't confer legal rights on it unless you can also show personhood.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Amputated limbs, cancerous tumors, and someone’s tooth that just got pulled are all human life "

No they are not. None will ever grow into a full human person.

The state can act to protect a human life no matter its gestational age.

[Krychek_2]

The ability to grow into a full human person is not part of the definition of human life. Human life means being alive, and being human. But perhaps I should ask just exactly how do you define human life.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“What your DNA programs you to be is not part of human life”.

Got it. The Party of Science has its tropes for sure.

[Krychek_2]

If I had actually said that what your DNA programs you to be is not part of human life you’d have a point.

But again, the issue isn't human life. It's human personhood.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What the fuck is personhood? Who gets to judge that? How far off of the human norm do you have to be to be denied personhood? Do people with severe cognitive deterioration get personhood or is it ok to kill 'em?

I'm not arguing abortion here, I'm arguing science. At the moment of conception the whatever you want to call it is alive and it's human. If not, what species is it?

[Frank Drackman]

Where did you learn Science? from the back of a box of Count Chock-ula???
I learned mine from a used set of Encylopedia Britannica I got for Hannukkuh in 1970 (missing the M" and "S" volumes)
"Life is defined as any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli."

OK, by that definition Senescent J just barely qualified,

Frank

[David Nieporent]

A racoon, and a human person, are not the only two choices.

That's not what our OB/GYN said.

[Frank Drackman]

"Our" OB/GYN??
I guess you really are a (redacted)

Frank

[John F. Carr]

But sperm and egg are each alive before they meet, and they are human cells.

It is possible that some claimed virgin births in humans really are parthenogenesis, which has been observed in other vertebrates.

[Frank Drackman]

Keeping thinking that, and yes, your wife did catch Herpes from a Toilet Seat
could be a great "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode
"Honest Larry, it was Parthenogenesis"
(turns out "Parthenogenesis" is a 6'8 300lb linebacker for the Rams)

Frank

[bevis the lumberjack]

Now it’s the energy department coming after gas cooktops by working on writing a rule with zero legal authority to do so to solve a problem that the NIH says doesn’t exist.

Of course our Energy Secretary is an activist who has never done anything besides flap her lips and whose understanding of energy is pretty much limited to understanding that if you flip the switch the lights almost always come on. So what else would you expect?

[Krychek_2]

It's my understanding that the claim that the feds are getting ready to ban gas stoves is a hoax. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

[DaveM]

Let me google that for you. https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2023/are-gas-stoves-bad-for-your-health-heres-why-the-federal-government-is-considering-new-safety-regulations/

"On Jan. 9, 2023, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that it will consider measures to regulate hazardous emissions from gas stoves."

[Brett Bellmore]

Your understanding is wrong. They actually do plan to ban gas stoves, in the sense of imposing regulations on NEW gas stoves that would essentially cut off the supply.

Not in the sense of making existing ones contraband, and mounting door to door searches for them. Nobody thought they were about to do that, and that's all they've denied plans to do at this point.

[John F. Carr]

Look to municipal regulations to see the plans, both the current anti-gas movement and the recent anti-fireplace movement in California. "If you like your gas stove, you can keep your gas stove." Nobody's gas stove will be taken right away. It will be illegal to use gas in new houses and a kitchen remodel will have to replace gas with electric. By the time you move or remodel and can't have a gas stove it will be too late to vote against the plan.

[Ben_]

Feds and others. Here’s some examples:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2023/01/29/yes-chefs-the-government-is-coming-for-your-gas-stoves/amp/

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord. The Gas Stove Conspiracy continues.

[Bob from Ohio]

Did you read the column? NY and California and others are moving to ban new stoves. Its not a conspiracy, its lib herd response in action.

[Ben_]

It’s actual environmentalists making legally enforced rules to make Americans' lives worse.

Same with rules on light bulbs, toilets, dishwashers, water heaters, gas cans, cars, plastic straws, plastic forks, grocery bags, and dozens of other practical items.

[Bob from Ohio]

"dishwashers"

Our new dishwasher takes twice as long for a cycle as the prior one from the late 1990s.

[Ben_]

That’s your life made just a little worse.

[Sarcastr0]

Inky if you are a selfish antisocial asshole who doesn’t care about water use.

[Ben_]

Why should anyone care about water use? Getting any amount of water to people is merely an engineering exercise. Engineers are happy to do it. Plumbers and construction workers are also happy to do the work. We're all willing to pay to have the water sent to us (and if we aren't then we'll save water to cut our water bill).

The only people who want us to have shortages of water are environmentalist religious wackos and government officials who would rather use the money for pensions and giveaways to non-workers. And communist/leftists who want us to feel poor.

[Nige]

Meanwhile the droughts will continue until there's nothing left but dust.

[Ben_]

If the sources of water become more distant, the engineering effort will rise in price. Water bills will go up and people will conserve to avoid higher bills.

But environmentalists and the rest prefer to make Americans' lives worse artificially.

A large percentage of Americans live near rivers or other abundant water sources. Even the nutty environmentalist "drought" justifications don’t apply there. Their lives are still made worse though. Because ultimately that’s the intent.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, Ben. It'll all work out, so actually you should be selfish. Anyone requesting you to do anything for some greater good is actually seeking to immiserate you.
Certainly don't look into their arguments and educate yourself - that might make you understand that some things are bigger then your own personal needs!

This is an awful anti-social way to be and think.

[Ben_]

Forcing artificially worse lives on Americans isn't "the greater good". It's the exact opposite of "the greater good".

Intentionally making Americans' lives worse for the benefit of exactly no one (except your own environmentalist, religious self regard) is very selfish and anti-social.

[Nige]

Ah, yes, except for the environment, which everyone depends on for their basic survival.

[Ben_]

Using an extra few gallons of water to get dishes clean in half the time is completely irrelevant to the environment.

But the point is that you intentionally make life worse for Americans. The justification you use when you do it is a lot like any criminal’s justification for whatever he does.

[ThePublius]

"Conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory" are the new "racist" and "Racism" for progressives and dems, it seems.

It's not a conspiracy theory, Sarcastr0. It really is so! It's funded by a few billionaires who's aim is not to "save the children," but to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. Do some research.

[Nige]

Billionaires want to eliminate the use of fossil fuel? Hahahaha.

[ThePublius]

Yes!

Your reaction seems to spring from orthodoxy and not knowledge. The trope that billionaires are dirty oil barons is old and tired.

The Billionaires Behind The Gas Bans

[bevis the lumberjack]

I didn’t say ban. They’re going to regulate.

You tell me where the regulations will fall on the spectrum between light and draconian. Granholm is a political lackey and zealot who doesn’t know her ass from third base. How do you think she’ll lean?

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe wait to get mad at something until you know what it is.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe wait to criticize someone for getting mad at something until you know what it is, fuck face.

[Krychek_2]

At this point I think the odds are less than 50/50 that there will be *any* regulation, though time will tell. In Washington, stuff gets "considered" all the time that ends up never happening. What this looks like to me is that someone came up with a claim that they're bad for your health and for the environment, so immediately the Department "considered" what should be done about it, and will likely conclude that nothing should.

Let's see where things stand a year from now.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, maybe. The zealotry is really strong on this stuff right now, though, so I’m doubtful that cooler heads will prevail because I’m not sure there are any cooler heads.

The aggravating factor here is that this is a reaction to a “study” done by an advocacy group and they’re simply ignoring a much more comprehensive study by an unbiased branch of the same government as them that says there is zero problem here. So this is advocacy driven not data driven.

[Nige]

Yes, the zealotry, the anti-gas-cooker riots still haunt these curfewed streets.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I didn’t say ban. They’re going to regulate. "

Like they "regulated" incandescent light bulbs and toilets that actually worked well.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Well, you're dim-witted and full of shit, so I can understand why you'd complain about light bulbs and toilets which don't seem to work for you as well as they do everyone else.

[Kazinski]

You really should find better sources to get your news, or at least not be so gullible when you run across a bad source.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/11/business/gas-stoves-trumka/index.html

"For now, Trumka said, CSPC has not "coalesced" around a solution and is still gathering information and preparing to ask for public input.

"We try to look at ways to make things safe. That is goal one. And if we can do that, that's fantastic. But every option, if we fall short of that, is on the table," Trumka said.
Trumka did not retract his comments to Bloomberg News earlier this week where he said that "products that can't be made safe can be banned."

[Sarcastr0]

What do you think this proves is going on?

[Kazinski]

Welcome to the ranks of the intentionally obtuse.

Krychek said “ It’s my understanding that the claim that the feds are getting ready to ban gas stoves is a hoax.”

But here is the chairman of the CPSC saying they haven’t coalesced around a solution yet, but banning is on the table, if they can get away with it politically.

That’s what I think is going on, but certainly I don’t think it’s a hoax.

[wolfefan]

Josh posted last week on Josh Browder's DoNotPay, an alleged chatbot approach to law, and the notices he'd received that he could be charged with UPL. Most commenters dismissed this as the lawyers cartel trying to protect their jobs, comparing Josh's product to things like Legal Zoom. Just a note that, in addition to putting it's users at legal risk, Josh himself is being exposed as a serial liar and grifter. The best place to follow his ongoing de-pantsing is the Twitter feed of @KathrynTewson. Here's Kathryn noting his fake degree. https://twitter.com/KathrynTewson/status/1620581756666777601

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where in America is there Black Flourishing?

I mean there are communities that have been generationally run top to bottom by Democrats, and very progressive States and even localities that are run top to bottom by blacks themselves.

Where are contemporary examples of Black Flourishing?

[Ed Grinberg]

There isn't much flourishing in non-black "communities that have been generationally run top to bottom by Democrats, and very progressive States" either. I wonder why?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's so weird, all the problems the Democrats claim they exist to solve are so rampant amd exaggerated in the communities they control.

It's like what really matters to Democrats amd their subservient bootlickers is the proclamation of pure intentions. Even when their current doctrine is all about outcomes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When was the most recent day during which the Volokh Conspiracy did not publish racist content?

Some would argue that the proprietor's habitual publication of vile racial slurs attracts the class of conservative commenter inclined to express bigoted views, and that proprietor's regular use of vile racial slurs emboldens his deplorable, right-wing target audience to express unvarnished bigotry.

[Frank Drackman]

Some would consider "Klinger" a vile racial slur, Rev.olting Reverend Jerry

[Nige]

Are you trying to make a point about black people? Go ahead and make it, we're all friends here. No judgement.

[apedad]

I thought BCD was asking so he could develop a target list.

[Davedave]

He doesn't make his points explicit anymore because even for treason.com there are some limits on what is permissible. After his outright Hitler-worshipping Nazi rants got him banned for a while, he's stuck with allusions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One might reasonably expect that an ostensibly academic blog, associated with legitimate educational institutions, would draw a line at racist content -- but one would be wrong with respect to the Volokh Conspiracy.

The Volokh Conspiracy censors a few things, repeatedly, but racism (with other forms of bigotry) is not among them. To the contrary, the blog's management uses vile racial slurs regularly -- more often than monthly, for a period of years.

[Davedave]

Rev, you keep saying this, but I've never worked out what you are referring to. I see plenty of thinly veiled racism, head in the sand prejudice, and so-on round here, and mostly I don't read the pieces on here for that reason, but I keep wondering... What exactly is it you are talking about when you say that?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The racist content published at this blog is not thinly veiled. Neither is the other bigotry (homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, antisemitism, etc.), especially -- but not exclusively -- in the comments.

The bigoted tone is set at the top. The Volokh Conspiracy publishes a vile racial slur, on average, roughly 15 times each year. That disgusting pattern has persisted for years. (That isn't 15 uses of a vile racial slur -- that is 15 distinct posts and comment exchanges, most of which feature multiple uses of racial slurs.) This blog censors those who criticize or poke fun at conservatives, but the right-wing bigots -- racists, misogynists, gay-bashers, immigrant-haters -- are granted free rein.

The calls for violence from this blog's carefully cultivated collection of bigoted right-wing commenters are not thinly veiled. Volokh Conspiracy fans repeatedly and expressly call for liberals, gays, Blacks, women, Democratic judges, Muslims, and others to be gassed, placed face-down in landfills, shot in the face when opening doors, raped, sent to Zyklon showers, exterminated, shoved through woodchippers, and the like. The Volokh Conspiracy not only does not remove those comments; it lets those sentiments pass, and remain, without comment.

The Volokh Conspiracy is entitled to censor those who criticize or poke fun at conservatives. It also is entitled to publish vile racial slurs regularly. It is entitled to choose a target audience with a remarkable concentration of multifaceted bigots. The Conspiracy's playground, the Conspiracy's rules. Bigot-hugging, racial slur-hurling hypocrites have rights, too.

[Nige]

But if I were to imply he's racist, then I would be the intolerant one.

[Frank Drackman]

That they're pre-disposed to Violence?? not me! (HT Bill Keane)

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In my list of actors with power over blacks, who did I list first?

To people who are literate and aren’t ESL that would suggest Democrats were being incriminated.

Of course the usual dumbasses trot out Old Faithful "Das rayyyycist" instead of ever reconciling their own hand in the problems with black culture. About as broken of a record as Reverends clinger shtick

[Nige]

‘the problems with black culture’

The right have always had their own version of CRT to explain why the blacks are lesser beings and should be treated as such in a way that absolves slavery, Jim Crow and centuries of massive institutional and structual racism.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You don't acknowledge any problems in black culture?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The biggest problem in Black culture has long been and continues to be white people.

(This evokes Keith Richards: "I have never had a problem with drugs. I have had problems with police.")

(Also Keith: "There was a knock at our dressing room door. Our manager shouted, 'Keith! Ron! The police are here!' Oh, man, we panicked, flushed everything down the toilet. Then the door opened and it was Stewart Copeland and Sting.")

[Nige]

You don't acknowledge how history brought many black people to this point?

[Ben_]

Folks in red states who do what successful people do are flourishing, regardless of skin color. Black folks same as everyone else.

Also some in blue states, but there are more obstacles in the way in blue states. So Americans of every skin color have to struggle in blue states unless they’re wealthy enough to buy a house in a rich neighborhood. And even in rich neighborhoods you have wacko environmental religious nuts trying to take away your plastic straws and gas stoves and force you to compost.

[Nige]

The states with the worst poverty rates are Red States. The states with Cancer Alleys are Red States.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2021/11/04/us-poverty-rate-by-state-in-2021/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The states with ignorant (half-educated) residents are Republican states.

The states with shambling economies, dying towns, and declining industries are Republican states.

The freeloader states, subsidized by their betters, are Republican states.

The states with substandard medical facilities, educational institutions, cultural amenities, and infrastructure are Republican states.

Apparently, an element of clingers' ignorance is unfamiliarity with the meaning of flourish.

[Frank Drackman]

They're also states with large % of Afro-Amuricans, you Race-ist Pedofile.
44.17% 1 District of Columbia 385,810
37.94% 2 Mississippi 1,084,481
33.13% 3 Louisiana 1,564,023
33.03% 4 Georgia (U.S. state) Georgia 3,538,146
32.01% 5 Maryland 2,220,472
31.10% 6 Delaware 318,899
29.80% 7 Alabama 1,696,162
27.09% 8 South Carolina 1,680,531
23.50% 9 North Carolina 2,350,217
21.60% 10 Virginia 1,607,581

once you get out of the N-word neighborhoods, everyone of these states is pretty nice (even DC, not a State thought)

Frank

[Davedave]

Yes, 'Frank', it's almost like spending your effort oppressing your neighbours because of the colour of their skin is self-harming as well as evil...

[Davedave]

"The states with ignorant (half-educated) residents are Republican states."

No, they're 'united' states. You don't realise how backward and xenophobic the USA as a whole is. Democrats are less evil, but not good. They are still well to the right of what is considered the hardest right tolerable in mainstream politics elsewhere in the world.

[Nige]

This is true.

[Ed Grinberg]

If you don't like it, go to Russia. (And good riddance!)

[Martinned]

Because you think Russia is less right-wing than the US? And that's something you're ostensibly pleased with?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Instead of going to Russia, the liberal-libertarian mainstream will continue to push our vestigial bigoted, ignorant, obsolete Republicans and conservatives into increasingly desolate, declining parts of America. It will continue to prevail at the marketplace of ideas. It will continue to shape our national progress against the preferences of right-wingers, and it will continue to compel those clingers to comply until the culture war casualties die off in the natural course.

[Ben_]

Highest poverty level: California.

[apedad]

At DeSantis’ Urging, Florida Republicans Introduce Bills to Eliminate Unanimous Jury Requirement in Death Penalty Cases

The change comes as part of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis‘ sweeping criminal justice plan, which he has said is related to the case of Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz, who killed 17 people, but narrowly avoided a death sentence when one juror refused to vote for capital punishment.

“One juror should not be able to veto that,” DeSantis said Thursday at a news conference. “I don’t think justice was served.”

https://lawandcrime.com/politics/at-desantis-urging-florida-republicans-introduce-bills-to-eliminate-unanimous-jury-requirement-in-death-penalty-cases/

Note, this is for the sentencing phase only; there still has to be a unanimous jury for the guilty decision.

This is just a BS ploy by DeSantis to show that he's 'tough on crime' even though reducing the unanimous jury requirement will do NOTHING to reduce crime.

[Bob from Ohio]

"will do NOTHING to reduce crime"

Its not intended to do that, its intended to better punish murderers.

Nicholas Cruz murdered 17 people and unfairly escaped with HIS life.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Carlos de Luna didn't murder anybody and the state killed him anyway. Same with Rueben Cantu.

Omlets and eggs and all that, right?

[Frank Drackman]

Jury said he did, (unanimously)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

After seeing what those Democrat prosecutors were trying to do to Kyle Rittenhouse, how could you support those people having the ultimate power over others?

[Frank Drackman]

DIdn't the Jury find him not guilty. Actually I'd prefer a "Dexter" Superhero to take care of the really bad guys, and maybe a "Dexter-Light" for those lesser included offenses, like men wearing sandals in pubic, (please, wear the socks, wear the socks)

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

Collateral damage

[bevis the lumberjack]

This is bullshit and yet another example of why we can't be trusted with fair and rational application of the death penalty. All he's doing here is increasing the odds that an innocent person will get executed.

[apedad]

Well, to be fair, (as noted) the guilty decision still has to be unanimous.

So it's not whether an innocent person will get executed; it's whether a guilty person should receive the death penalty.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If there’s doubt on the part of one or more jurors that might cause them to hedge their guilty vote by not voting for death (to leave open the possibility of correction if something new is discovered) it’ll take those doubts out of play. So innocents that are more likely to leave doubts in the minds of jurors will be disproportionately harmed.

[Absaroka]

I'm not sure I follow. Let's imagine a juror who is willing to convict if they are (just arbitrary numbers) 98% certain, but will vote for LWOP instead of death unless they are 99% certain.

In the case at hand, they are 98.5% sure, so they vote for conviction and against death.

With the new rules, my sense is they will be thinking either
A)'if I convict, I'm afraid the rest of the jury will vote for death, so I'll vote for acquittal' or
B)'it's my job to vote for conviction, so I will, and then I'll vote against the death penalty, and let the chips fall where they may'

But I'm not coming up with a narrative where our hypo-juror is going to vote to convict at a lower level of certainty under the new rules. Can you flesh out what you think the thought pattern would be?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Guilt or innocence is an easier decision than death because it’s not final. A mistake can be fixed. Not so with a death vote.

I’ve been a juror on a criminal case. Guilt or innocence was quite a bit easier than punishment. That’s going to be even worse in a death case. There’s no reason to do what DeSantis is doing other than to play to the mob on his side, which in the case of killing someone is unconscionable.

[Bob from Ohio]

The reason was the Parkland killer only got life.

Injustice deserves a response by the governor,

[David Nieporent]

"The jury was not as bloodthirsty as I wanted them to be" is not "injustice."

[Bob from Ohio]

He's alive, his victims are dead. Injustice.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Where are the governors when the worse injustice of an innocent getting executed happens. Laying low like the chickenshits that they are to avoid making anyone mad.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

A usually rational frequent commenter here once made the argument that it was acceptable that innocent people are occasionally executed because the death penalty in general is a public good.

[Life of Brian]

Guilt or innocence is an easier decision than death because it’s not final. A mistake can be fixed. Not so with a death vote.

The average time between sentencing and execution is well over 20 years now, and there are vast bevies of law students and pro bono attorneys committed to effectively outlawing the death penalty one case at a time who are ready, willing, and able to spend those 20 years combing the record and raising every conceivable appeal point.

The numbers in fact seem to suggest they've been a bit too successful: academics estimate that about 4% of defendants receiving a death sentence since the early 70s were actually innocent, while over that same time frame at least 190 death row inmates have been removed from death row, out of ~1500 executions and ~2500 current death row inmates -- that's nearly 5% even assuming the 190 doesn't go up any further from more recent entrants being taken off death row.

Is it mathematically possible that these days someone truly innocent will end up being executed? Of course. Is it likely in any real sense? At this point, I doubt it.

[David Nieporent]

Cameron Todd Willingham.

[Life of Brian]

Well, I did say in so many words that I thought it was unlikely "these days." Coming up with one possible case from ~20 years ago doesn't change that calculus.

[Sarcastr0]

What’s changed about our death penalty in the past 20 years?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I guarantee that if I studied the cases of everyone on death row I’d find someone who was most likely innocent.

[Life of Brian]

Sure -- the estimate is around 4% as I mentioned. But in this day and age it's extremely likely they won't actually end up being executed, and thus will end up with the same life sentence as would have resulted from a hung sentencing jury.

[bevis the lumberjack]

ok, if we're not executing then why bother with the trouble and increase the risk of an innocent ending up on the gurney. Why change the rules to make it easier to impose a death sentence?

He's risking something bad happening (to someone else, of course - it's always someone else) for no gain if your assertion is correct.

Texas executed a guy last month and another guy yesterday, so some people are still getting the needle. And the guy yesterday did his crime in the late aughts.

[Life of Brian]

Hold up. I didn't say we're no longer executing. I said we're (within the range of reasonable statistics) no longer executing innocent people.

There are still plenty of people on death row who actually did do things so unfathomably heinous (often repeatedly) that even the bleedingest of bleeding hearts can't imagine a way to exonerate them. But that same person on a jury can just say "no" (no rationale required and facts be damned) and derail the process from the start.

I don't know that the proposed 8 of 12 threshold is the ideal one -- were I king for a day I might start with 10 or 11 just to take the edge off the above rogue juror problem. But these days a unanimous requirement is becoming just another tool for activists to de facto eliminate the death penalty altogether.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I know. I agree. Take a minute to look at a Texan named Kenneth McDuff. Once he got to be an adult, any time he was out of prison he was killing. Mostly young women. A true monster.

I don’t know what to do about McDuff (who has been executed and who deserves zero sympathy) but unfortunately the laws that allow us to execute McDuff allow us to execute guys like DeLuna and Cantu.

This isn’t about bleeding hearts, it’s about stopping arrogant, incompetent cops and prosecutors and judges from killing innocent people. The only way to stop that is to stop executing in total because we can’t rely on those folk’s judgment.

[Commenter_XY]

I take it that you oppose the death penalty, bevis.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I was fine with it when I was younger but I’ve seen enough appallingly bad convictions to understand how mistake prone cops and prosecutors are. No way we should trust the government with the power to judicially kill.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Will it pass muster with SCOTUS?

I am not a fan of capitol punishment as you run the risk of making martyrs -- far better to let them rot in prison.

[Mr. Bumble]

Today is Groundhog Day: six more weeks of winter.

On Open Thread Thursday, every day is groundhog day.

[Bob from Ohio]

IDK, no long "not guilty" posts on Trump's many and horrid crimes today.

[John F. Carr]

A week after indictments from Fulton County were imminent, they are still imminent.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are Trump-level wingnuts tired of winning yet?

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters -- the liberal-libertarian mainstream, shapers of American progress against conservatives' ugly and stale preferences for a half-century -- permit. Culture war casualties get to whine about it, but they will continue to comply with the preferences of the culture war's winners.

[Frank Drackman]

"Klingers"??? thats the Rev.olting Rev Jerry Sandusky we all love!!! Where you been (man!)??. Got a whole new month of time to use in the Prison library computer??

Frank

[not guilty]

I elected to sleep late this morning.

I am encouraged to see that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has begun to show some fortitude after initially giving Donald Trump a pass. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-risks-zero-to-4-years-jail-ny-hush-money-2023-1 Even if the offenses currently under investigation are relatively minor, Trump deserves to be called to account.

[Nige]

First comment - insomnia!
Last comment (briefly) - slept late!

[Bob from Ohio]

I knew I'd summon you. Stupid me.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, I have to ask you a question. I am just curious. You were a criminal defense lawyer for 28 years. You tried a gazillion cases. Let me ask this: Is it really true as a litigator that you never, ever ask a question of a witness you do not already know the answer to?

You ever see a fellow litigator forget that rule and get blown away by a witness?

[not guilty]

The exception to the rule of not asking a question to which you don't know the answer is a question to which the answer doesn't matter.

[John F. Carr]

There is a video online by a famous and long-dead lawyer explaining this, with examples of lawyers who asked one question too many.

[David Nieporent]

Wait, dead lawyers are making videos now?!?

[John F. Carr]

When they aren't busy voting.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Stolen election" wingnuts are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[David Nieporent]

Disagree. If Trump is prosecuted for the hush money thing, it will be (rightly) seen as a pathetic attempt to salvage antiTrumpism because they couldn't get him for anything new or real.

[santamonica811]

David,
Not sure I agree. If it ended up being the only prosecution attempted? . . . sure, then maybe. But if there are multiple prosecutions, for a variety of bad acts, then I don't think so. It will be more, "This is a really bad guy who has done bad things for decades. The filthy rich usually get away with everything, but apparently not this guy."

(If the evidence ends up being incredibly weak; then Trump will hugely benefit. But from the tiny bit we've learned so far, it seems like there will be lots of evidence, and lots of corroboration. His base will scream foul, of course. But independents? I think they're open to being persuaded by facts."

[John F. Carr]

New York Penal Code 175.05 requires "intent to defraud". If a jury thinks Trump's motive was covering up an embarrassing story and not cheating on taxes, he walks. We don't even know if Trump caused the false entries. The New York Times reported in 2018, "Prosecutors said that Trump Organization executives were involved in reimbursing Mr. Cohen for that payment, accepting his phony invoices that listed it as a legal expense." Which executives? Did Trump tell Cohen to submit the payment as a legal expense and then tell his people it was legit? Did Cohen decide on his own to bill hush money as a legal fee, without Trump ever seeing the invoice or the business record?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Making a martyr out of Trump will come back to haunt the Dems.

[santamonica811]

I dunno. To the idiots firmly lodged in Trump's anal cavity, Trump repeatedly lying about documents, fighting subpoenas, obstructing law enforcement every conceivable step of the way somehow turned him, in their eyes, into a victim.

I would not give one second of thought worrying about how the mentally or intellectually ill might react to a fair dinkum prosecution.

[ragebot]

Well this is a real pile of shit. Wonder how the ADA age discrimination stuff will deal with it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/should-there-be-a-maximum-age-restriction-for-buying-a-gun/ar-AA172pOB?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=00eddb711f6a4b4bb2587c2979842cda

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's amazingly stupid. While developmental schedules are fairly predictable on the starting end of things, the decline at the other end is wildly idiosyncratic; Some people go senile in their 50's, some people are sharp as a tack at 100.

And that's setting aside the fact that it's a constitutional right, so the only age that matters is the age of majority.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does the Constitution establish a minimum or maximum age for gun possession?

[Frank Drackman]

You call yourself a Football Coach?!?!?!?
No, it doesn't.

Frank

[David Nieporent]

The acronym "ADA" is almost universally understood to be a reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act (which, duh, applies to disabilities, not age). There's no general Age Discrimination Act under federal law. There's one that applies to employment (the ADEA), and the FHA also bans age discrimination. Neither of those, obviously, would be relevant here.

[Frank Drackman]

The American Diabetes Association had the claim to "ADA" before that, if I had a nickle for every "1500 KCAL ADA Diet" I wrote an order for in Med School.... (How to describe the ADA Diet?? every food that you like, isn't allowed, every food that's disgusting/tasteless is)

Frank

[apedad]

Man Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Attempting to Travel Overseas to Join ISIS-K

Defendant Proposed Plot To Start Conflict In United States Between Government And Militias

A Beavercreek, Ohio, man, who was arrested by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force at John Glenn International Airport in 2018 while trying to travel to Afghanistan to join the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) or ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K), was sentenced today (2/1/23), in federal court.

Naser Almadaoji, 23, an Iraqi-born U.S. citizen, was sentenced to 10 years in prison, followed by 15 years of supervised release.

Almadaoji pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization in November 2021. He admitted to attempting to provide material support – himself, as personnel – to foreign terrorist organizations, namely ISIS and ISIS-K.

Almadaoji explained to an individual whom he believed to be an ISIS supporter that he wanted “weapons experts training, planning and executing, hit and run, capturing high value targets, ways to break into homes and avoid security guards. That type of training.” He began making travel plans in September 2018.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-sentenced-10-years-prison-attempting-travel-overseas-join-isis-k

Seems like we get these type of convictions about every other month/quarterly.

Makes me wonder how many we're not catching - although there hasn't been any internationally-supported terrorist attacks in years (and yes there have been individual attacks but those seem to be one-offs).

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wonder how it is constitutional to prosecute this -- the distinction I would make is between going and joining the French Foreign Legion (which I presume is legal) and shipping arms to France, which is illegal without US Govt permission.

Yes, terrorism sucks and we ought to try to prevent it, but not at the expense of the Constitution.

[John F. Carr]

The prohibitions are related to traditionally recognized government interests, foreign commerce and foreign policy. The law does not prohibit support of terrorism in general. It prohibits assitance to any entity on the official list of designated foreign terrorist organizations. See https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/

[ducksalad]

I get the concern that a person who would go join ISIS might also be dangerous here.

But idea that some like-minded people might be making it over to Syria undetected, with a high probability of dying, staying, or being denied re-entry to the US, doesn't bother me. Somewhat the opposite.

[Michael P]

To the Russia collusion hoax and the Twitter bot lies, we can now add the burner phone delusion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/rolling-stone-jan-6-article-debunked/

[grb]

I’ve asked this before and got incoherent answers back, but let’s try again: What is the “Russia collusion hoax” anyway?

1. The Justice Department Inspector General found the initial investigation of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign was warranted. So that’s not the R.C.H.

2. Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel came after Trump bragged about firing Comey to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” After that, a special counsel was inevitable; no R.C.H. can be found there either.

3. Mueller was actually one of the best special counsels in the whole sordid history of the species. He was quick, didn’t leak to the media, and proved excessively conservative in his findings. No R.C.H. can be found in his conduct.

4. And his investigation uncovered so much unsettling detail. You had Don Jr. saying (in writing) he’d welcome secret help from the Russian government for Daddy’s campaign, you had Trump’s campaign head giving secret briefings to a listed Russian spy, you had Trump’s fixer Cohen going to Moscow throughout the campaign to negotiate a secret business deal with Kremlin officials, you had Trump associates discussing a bribe to Putin to sweeten that deal, you had Trump lying when asked about his Russian business dealings during the campaign, you had Trump’s son-in-law asking if he could use Russia’s secure communication lines to talk to Moscow – just so his own government couldn’t hear.

On and on and on. The complete list is much longer. There was never any lack of things discovered, which makes Mueller’s brisk investigation even more remarkable. No R.C.H. to be seen.

5. And that includes this : Trump asked Michael Cohen to suppress a sex tape circulating around Moscow. He used Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze as a go-between, who reported back : ‘Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know … .’ Both men testified before the grand jury. For the record, everyone thinks the tape was faked by Russian criminals, but still: No R.C.H.

So you have a legitimate investigation conducted by legitimate appointees in a legitimate manner who uncovered scads of legitimate grounds to investigate after underway.

Where is the “Russia collusion hoax” in all this ?!?

[ThePublius]

Man, you are delusional! You absolutely ignore all of the evidence that this was a hoax perpetrated by the Clinton campaign and DNC, aided by the FBI and press. How can you be so biased and blind?

Wow.

[David Nieporent]

Can't tell if this is a parody or not. Nothing he said had anything to do with the actions of the Clinton campaign or DNC

[grb]

ThePublius : “Man, you are delusional!”

Someone is, to be sure…. Some points:

(1) Durham ran an investigation twice as long as Muller’s trying to prove your hoax bullshit. It was a clownish failure. Even Durham doesn’t dispute there were legitimate grounds to investigate Trump. After the DOJ Inspector General found the inquiry well-founded, Durham made cryptic comments otherwise – but only because he loved playing the tease to his right-wing fanboys. In the end, he only claimed there were grounds for a “partial” not “full” investigation of Trump. But that’s a mighty thin reed to justify your jokey hoax crap, isn’t it?

(2) Sure there was FBI misconduct securing one FISA warrant for one peripheral figure. Of course that was the second counterintelligence warrant for said person, Carter Page. The first was issued well before he had the slightest connection to Trump; the second (faulty) one was issued after that connection ended. Both concerned Page’s contacts with Russian Intelligence. By all accounts he was ultimately clean, but liked skating very close to the edge.

3. Please note the bizarre Trump-Russia connections listed above, all discovered well after your tenuous grounds for claiming hoax ended. Of course I can provide more, starting with Mueller’s extensive documentation of Russian efforts to make Trump president. Here’s one : Russian Intelligence hacked the email of Clinton friend John Podesta, then sat on the messages they’d stolen over five months. So when did they begin releasing them? Per Muller’s report, less than one hour after the Access Hollywood story first appeared, rocking the Trump campaign back on its heels. Their boy was in trouble; they rushed to help.

4. You want delusional? They would be someone who finds the very idea of Trump-Russia collusion unthinkable. The unofficial end of Mueller’s tenure was post-Report on 24July2019, when he testified before Congress. The headline was he didn’t have grounds to criminally charge Trump over conspiring with a foreign government to secure their aid in his election campaign

On 25July – the very next day – Trump tried to strongarm Zelensky into securing Ukrainian aid for his election campaign. Maybe Mueller just lacked a phone transcript…..

[Moderation4ever]

You are trying too hard. The Russian Hoax is not about facts and evidence, but rather an article of faith.

[grb]

I've found facts & evidence to be an anathema to today's Right...

[Kenneth Almquist]

Cudos to grb for undertaking this, though, because periodically re-establishing that the “Russia collusion hoax” isn't a real thing is worthwhile. Otherwise the continuous talk about it on the right makes it easy to be fooled into believing it actually occurred.

[Michael P]

That's a lot of attempted diversion from what you know damn well.

The Russian collusion hoax was the lie that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton. Claims like at https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion or https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/brennan-editorial-trump-russia-1.4787823

All your pointing to dumb side aspects of this, while ignoring things like the DOJ's lies to the FISA Court, shows how full of partisan delusion you are.

[Nige]

Except everything that has emerged in reports suggests there were, and still are, reasonable grounds for suspicion that collusion occurred, and even if they didn't quite prove collusion, they most definitely proved that Trump knew about the interference and welcomed it, and that he and his campaign was riddled with dodgy Russian connections. Of course you'd rather huff and puff about a hoax than deal with any of that.

[David Nieporent]

Sorry, not a "lie."

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

[Michael P]

A "link" is not collusion, you liar.

[Michael P]

Another hoax: Your claim that the Mueller investigation didn't leak. It leaked like a sieve, and outlets like Rolling Stone delighted in the leaks: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mueller-leaks-trump-obstruction-817555/

[David Nieporent]

I see you're using the Brett Bellmore approach of wishing something were true, googling until you find a headline that you think supports your wishes, and then stopping without even bothering to read the article.

That article actually says entirely the opposite of the investigation "leaking like a sieve" — a lazy metaphor. It says "After nearly two years of tight-lipped silence, the investigative team is leaking…" Keep reading (or just look at the date of the story), and you'll see that this was written after the investigation was done and the Mueller report had been submitted.

[Michael P]

Yes, you're moving the goalposts (the original claim was "didn’t leak to the media", not "he only leaked after finishing his investigation") and selectively quoting a biased source. See https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/25-leaks-about-the-mueller-investigation-and-the-problems-they-may-cause and https://www.newsweek.com/mueller-leaks-russia-investigation-freedom-watch-sessions-wray-doj-fbi-755748

[David Nieporent]

selectively quoting a biased source.

It was your own source, you dishonest lunatic!

[Michael P]

It's also funny that you glom onto the Russia pee tape with "everyone thinks the tape was faked by Russian criminals". Maybe that's the common belief now that cooler heads have prevailed, but that's not what Christopher Steele and his adherents thought. They desperately wanted the Steele dossier and its claims of Russia collusion to be true, and they desperately wanted the pee tape to be real. You are engaging in revisionist history of the saddest and most blatantly partisan kind.

[Nige]

Maybe they did want it to be real, maybe they didn't, but nobody claimed it really was real without actual evidence of its existence, unlike, say, the Hilary Clinton spirit cooking video or 'that' Hunter Biden video some of you claim to have enjoyed. Even when a couple of fake pee videos appeared online, they were quickly debunked, usually by people on the left. Hoinestly, given all the fuss generated around the Huinter Biden laptop, you've got some nerve to refer to the buzz around the pee tape speculation as definitive proof of something or other.

[Michael P]

And on and on and on. Your rebuttals are full of distortions, omissions and irrelevancies. There was a Russia collusion hoax, there were Twitter Russia bot lies, and there still are burner phone delusions.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ilhan Omar has reached the "finding out" stage of her House career.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Guys like Bob from Ohio have reached the "finding out" stage of the culture war in modern America.

For conservatives, it is time for the lamentations of their women . . . and Bob from Ohio (like a number of the Conspirators and their fans) is one of those women.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats what got you in trouble Jerry, treating men like women.

[Mr. Bumble]

Breaking:
Incestuous, bigamist, anti-semite, tax cheat removed from House foreign affairs committee.

[David Nieporent]

Fortunately for you, you're not important enough to sue for defamation.

[Mr. Bumble]

It’s not defamation if its true:https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/02/daily-mail-ilhan-omar-married-her-brother.php

Of course you won't bother to read it.
"If ignorance is bliss, t'is folly to be wise".

[Sarcastr0]

Gould’s story follows his trip to Minneapolis last week and his meeting with my original Somali source (who has authorized me to say so). His name is Abdihaikm Osman Nur (Gould gives his name as Abdihakim Osman). I first met him in August 2016 at a public place in downtown Minneapolis. Abdi had called me after the publication of my initial Omar-related Power Line post, “Ilhan Omar: Her back pages.” We were afraid of each other, but we have become good friends as I have continued meeting with him since then and developed other sources with his help.

Do you see the flaw in this story?

[Mr. Bumble]

Please point it out. By the way you quoted a paragraph, not the story.

[Sarcastr0]

It's one random, and melodramatic, dude talking shit.

You don't build a story on that alone.

[David Nieporent]

It's not true because someone asserts it. There is zero evidence that they are brother and sister, and the story makes no sense for many reasons:

1) If he were her brother he'd be a citizen also, for the same reason she'd be, and wouldn't need her to get him citizenship.
2) And if for some reason he weren't a citizen, she could've sponsored him for a green card legally, as her brother, rather than by entering into a fraudulent illegal marriage.
3) If he married her in a sham for the purpose of getting a green card, then why did he leave the country after they divorced, which defeats the whole purpose?

[BrotherMovesOn]

You're talking to Mr. Bumble here, DMN.
He's not a lawyer so, whoosh.
He's just an effeminate and annoying little troll.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I thought BravoCharlieDelta was the effeminate one and Mr. Bumble was the incel, but these clingers generally look similar to me.

[Frank Drackman]

Any Hole that earthworm you call a dick will fit I guess.

[Frank Drackman]

Fortunately for you, you’re not important enough to sue for defamation either.

[Yogis_dad]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution: Congress shall have the power ... to declare war.

It seems the Executive Branch, designed by the founders to work for Congress by faithfully executing the law, has decided that its management of the foreign policy of the United States includes the power to wage proxy war in Central Europe against a nuclear armed Russia and to expend more than $100 billion without consulting Congress and without explaining the aims of this action.

When Americans begin to die from radioactive fallout, will Congress finally exercise the authority the Constitution reserves to this elected body?

[apedad]

Without consulting Congress?!?

Congress Approved $113 Billion of Aid to Ukraine in 2022

Since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine less than one year ago, Congress has approved more than $113 billion of aid and military assistance to support the Ukrainian government and allied nations. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 omnibus appropriations package included an additional $47.3 billion of emergency funding to provide humanitarian, military, and economic assistance to Ukraine on top of the $65.8 billion of funding already approved in three other emergency funding packages enacted by Congress.

Of the $113 billion approved in 2022, about three-fifths ($67 billion) has been allocated toward defense needs and the remaining two-fifths ($46 billion) to nondefense concerns such as general Ukrainian government aid, economic support, and aid for refugee resettlement. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided cost estimates of the four funding packages at the time each was passed. In total, CBO estimated that $6.6 billion of the $113 billion would be spent in FY 2022 and another $37.7 billion in FY 2023. Furthermore, CBO estimated more than half of the approved funds would be spent by the end of FY 2024 and more than three-fourths by the end of FY 2026.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/congress-approved-113-billion-aid-ukraine-2022

[Dr. Ed 2]

We haven't declared war since 1941 -- and Congress *does* have the power of the purse....

[David Nieporent]

It seems the Executive Branch, designed by the founders to work for Congress by faithfully executing the law, has decided that its management of the foreign policy of the United States includes the power to wage proxy war in Central Europe against a nuclear armed Russia and to expend more than $100 billion without consulting Congress and without explaining the aims of this action.

1) Congress has been consulted every step of the way. Congress has authorized all of this.

2) Not in 1789 and not in 2023 does providing weapons to a belligerent constitute "declaring war." Prof. Somin has argued several times against the Obama administration's position (relating to Libya) that dropping bombs by itself doesn't constitute waging war. But nobody thinks that supplying another country with weapons falls in that category.

[David Bremer]

Were you as concerned about this when the Bush administration used the Authorization for the Use of Military Force to begin fighting all sorts of wars that went well beyond what was related to 9/11?

Or would it just be easier to come out and admit that this has nothing to do with principle, but is just another way to complaint that Trump (who also fought foreign proxy wars) didn't win?

[Don Nico]

What proxy wars were they?

[shawn_dude]

Syria

[Ben_]

Liberal Bill Maher called "right wing" for not being all in on BlueAnon conspiracy theories and having the integrity to tell the truth sometimes:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/02/progressives-label-bill-maher-as-right-wing-after-cnn-announces-theyre-adding-him-to-friday-night-programming/

[Ben_]

Girl sacrificed for trans ideology:

https://notthebee.com/article/watch-this-mother-give-a-powerful-testimony-about-how-a-school-secretly-transitioned-her-daughter-then-withheld-custody-placing-her-in-boys-home

- she had adolescent issue
- school encouraged her to pretend to be a boy
- boys beat her up for up for using boys bathroom
- she ran away and was sex trafficked
- judge at hearing demanded trans orthodoxy
- they put her in a boys home
- she was abused there
- she ran away again
- she was sex trafficked again
- trans profiteers who were supposed to help her tried to use her to generate fees and pursue their own agenda

Democrats in Virginia oppose a bill to let parents be involved in the process before Democrat institutions can do this to children.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Fact:

LGBTQP+ identification has exploded recently.

One can conclude you are not "born that way". Since its not nature it must be nurture.

Fact:

People who have LGBTQP+ have significantly poorer health and life outcomes.

Question:

Who would intentionally nurture an identification in someone knowing it will reduce their quality of life?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Real Fact: Young people want to do outrageous things.

Real Fact: Young (boys) in the 1970s grew long hair, and then had earrings.

Real Fact: Young people in the 1990s listened to rap music with quite obscene lyrics. (The market for Rap CDs was White Suburban Teenagers….)

I should note that all of this happened during good economic times — the long hair started in the late ’60s, with Stagflation not arriving until 1974.

Real Fact: These LBGTQ youth are just the most recent incarnation of a recurring youthful rebellion. And teenage angst.

[Ben_]

"Who would intentionally nurture an identification in someone knowing it will reduce their quality of life?"

People who care about themselves and want to applaud themselves and get kudos from others like themselves. Democrats in professional classes will tell their own children to work hard, study, stay out of trouble, and otherwise live according to bourgeois values. For everyone else's children, they’ll publicly celebrate the opposite choices.

[Ben_]

There are some exceptions. Look how that turns out: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democratic-leaders-non-binary-child-arrested-anti-cop-protest-climate-change-nightmares.amp

[Michael P]

Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence. Did Katherine Clark in fact teach her child "to work hard, study, stay out of trouble, and otherwise live according to bourgeois values"?

[Ben_]

I think she is one of the exceptions. So probably no.

But Dems will publicly celebrate every one of these peoples' choices that led up to the end. And then pretend the last choices that got them arrested for terrorism don't follow from the earlier ones.

And they'll congratulate themselves for their woke bona fides as these young people are sentenced to prison or suffer other, maybe worse consequences.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The issue I had with a Black Dean at UMass was neither that he was Black, nor his political agenda.

Instead, I was of the opinion that encouraging young Black men to get arrest wasn't exactly in *their* best interest -- it was politically helpful to the Dean but not the young men.

[Nige]

'People who have LGBTQP+ have significantly poorer health and life outcomes.'

Especially in Virginia, holy shit.

[Ben_]

Also everywhere else.

[Nige]

One would hope that kind of appalling bullying and abuse is not common.

[Ben_]

Hope doesn't keep anyone safe or make problems go away.

[Nige]

That's why we oppose your hateful transphobic bullshit every way possible.

[Ben_]

You like to congratulate yourself.

[Nige]

What, did I make you feel small or something?

[Nige]

She ran away because she was bullied for being trans and had to hide being trans from her family and it's the fault of 'trans ideology' not bullies and intolerant parents? The Virginia Care system is rife with abuse and it's the fault of trans ideology? Every horrible thing that happened to her was a result of either horrible intolerance or institutional failings and having parents she was too scared to come out to. I'd try to shift the blame to 'trans ideology' too, if I was that parent.

[Ben_]

Did the school that likes trans ideology so much keep her safe? No.

Did the school that likes trans ideology so much make it easier for her to be bullied? Yes.

Did the government that demanded trans orthodoxy keep her safe? No.

Did everyone who wasn’t keeping her safe work against the parents — making it less likely the parents could keep her safe? Yes.

Did she have a safe place to go when they divided her from her parents because of trans ideology? No.

All the trans ideology believers threw her to the wolves and she got hurt. Why shouldn’t the parents blame them? When you act according to trans ideology and it directly leads to a child being harmed, then you’re (largely, if not completely) to blame for the harm.

Where’s the ideology that keeps kids safe instead of using them? Not at the school. Not in that courtroom. They are all too full of self-regard for their personal woke bona fides to be interested in how any of it turns out.

[Nige]

Interesting admission that trans kids do, in fact, face appalling dangers and hatred and OF COURSE merely paying lip-service to something you call ‘trans ideology’ isn’t sufficent to keep them safe. No amount of saying ‘trans ideology’ in relation to what are clearly appalling institutional failings and transphobic violence makes ‘trans ideology’ responsible for the kid’s suffering. I also note that the kid did NOT feel safe in their home and did NOT trust their parents. To look at that sequence of events and think that what is needed is more transphobia, less access to health services and suppports for trans kids, forcing trans kids to stay in the closet because even sympathetic teachers will be obliged to inform parents the kids don’t feel safe telling or face legal consequences. I mean, that’s what this is all about in the end, you WANT trans kids to be too scared to say they’re trans to anyone.

[Ben_]

They were all so extremely desperate to meddle in her family life to advance their woke ideology.

[Nige]

How were 'they' meddling? She was the one who didn't feel safe telling her family. It was the bullying at school that made her run away. It's not 'trans ideology' for the school to claim to be trans-accepting and then allow trans kids to be bullied mercilessly. That's transphobia trying to hide itself.

[Ben_]

A teenager quarrels with her parents? No way!

It’s not an opening for government assholes to meddle. They did though, and we can all observe the consequences.

They’re going to keep doing this to other families whenever they get the chance until someone stops them. And you’ll be there trying to justify it and make it easier as the damage mounts.

[Nige]

Government assholes didn’t meddle, he got bullied, and his family was so scary to him he had to run away.

Nobody did anything to the family. The kid didn’t feel safe telling them he was trans, making him isolated and vulnerable – that’s on the family.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A person with a penis and a person with a vagina are having sex.

The person with the penis identifies as a female. Are those two people having heterosexual sex or are they having homosexual sex?

If you say they are having homosexual sex, can the person with the vagina get pregnant?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Better question -- if the person with a penis can be female, why can't she also be a lesbian?

Thirty years ago, Rush Limbough joked about such "Male Lesbians" -- but today, well.....

[BrotherMovesOn]

Better question - why are you not in a crook in the Rio Grande setting up your scope?
You serial liar, erstwhile murderer (nah, we know you don't have the stones), slanderer of Marcus Camby, disgruntled terminated UMass employee, claimant that Edward Rowe Snow plagiarized from your family's oral history (LOL) and all-around history buffoon. You don't know history and you don't know the law. You're just a weird, sad old man looking for validation of your relevance. (hint: you're never gonna find it)
You fucking embarrassment to New England.

[Kazinski]

Well that escalated quickly.

[Frank Drackman]

really, that got out of hand fast!

[John F. Carr]

Twenty years ago, John Kerry took a little heat for telling a joke about a man thinking he was a lesbian.

[Kazinski]

A couple of weeks after Sarah Huckabee Sanders was criticized for banning the term 'Latinx' by executive order, a democratic legislator from Connecticut is introducing legislation to also ban the word in State communications:

"But state Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr. of Waterbury, the bill’s chief sponsor and one of five Hispanic Democrats who put their names on the legislation, said Latinx is not a Spanish word but is rather a “woke” term that is offensive to Connecticut’s large Puerto Rican population.

“I’m of Puerto Rican decent and I find it offensive,” he said."

https://whdh.com/news/democrat-backed-connecticut-bill-would-ban-latinx-term/

[Nige]

Sensitive bunch.

[Don Nico]

I also find the term personally offensive. Anglos should describe themselves not other ethnicities.

[FivebySixThree]

you cannot divide people if they all have the same label or worse get to choose their own

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Who you calling Anglo?

[shawn_dude]

What evidence do you have that the Latinx term was coined by anyone other than Latino/a persons?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Newsmax and OAN overestimated their bargaining positions -- turns out an audience of downscale, delusional losers is not very attractive from a commercial perspective because there are only so many "miracle cure" and "magic supplement" peddlers able to afford commercials -- and consequently are well on their way toward becoming YouTube or TikTok channels.

Fox likely will continue to profit from its narrowcasting -- targeting a relatively small but loyal audience of goldbugs, bigots, and elderly people who think it's the '70s and wish it were the '50s -- but the market seems inclined to reward just one voice from the clingerverse on mainstream media.

[Frank Drackman]

Must be alot of elderly people staying up late, as Fox's "Gutfeld!" is beating that lame ass Colbert and whoever the other ones are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The market supports several mainstream broadcasts and a single wingnut broadcast. The clinger audience is a fraction of the overall audience. Fox News boasts about being number one but their numbers are dwarfed by the network programs.

[MoreCurious]

Apparently the Chinese have flown a surveillance balloon over the United States. Should our military shoot it down? Why or why not?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It would risk the payroll of too many of our politicians and federal bureaucrats to have real conflict with China.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Figure out a way to capture it and take a look at their tech?

[shawn_dude]

Which may be the purpose of the trip across our skies.

[FivebySixThree]

they are labeling it a surveillance balloon to hide the real threat they perceive, China has more than ample means to spy on our country by other means but a high altitude balloon is the perfect mechanism by which to deploy anything from radioactivity, chemical agents, to engineered forms of diseases.

that is the real threat and now tracking them becomes very important because the vector hasn't been publicly acknowledged before.

don't laugh it off, Japan succeeded with this same method in WW2

[shawn_dude]

Or it's a PR stunt.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, we've got to borrow those trillions from somebody.

[shawn_dude]

Fly a drone up there and drop a Winnie the Poo bear in the sensor basket.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"and consequently are well on their way toward becoming YouTube or TikTok channels."
LOL
YouTuber little Sean Spicer says "Like and subscribe!"
LOL

[ragebot]

Lets have a contest for the worst Biden gaffe. My entry is when he said 'More than half the women in my administration are women'. There are so many ways to take this I really don't know where to start.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/president-biden-more-than-half-the-women-in-my-administration-are-women/ar-AA173cW5?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=7177a1c68fd44fcd8b700207294dedc2

[Ben_]

"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids."

[Frank Drackman]

“You got more questions. If you have a problem figuring out if you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Not really a "Gaffe" but I still enjoy

"Corn-Pop was a Bad Dude!!!!"

[Kenneth Almquist]

I have a fondness for this video: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/05/01/president-s-speech-white-house-correspondents-dinner

[ragebot]

had to dig down to find this and it is funny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=508aCh2eVOI&t=186s

[SRG]

ChatGPT converts the law against perpetuities to an aria:

Verse 1:
A gift of wealth, a legacy so bright
With strings attached, a future in sight
But hold, dear heirs, this wealth can't last
Forevermore, it must come to pass.

Chorus:
The law against perpetuities, a rule so true
Guards against endless waiting, for what is due
For wealth and property, a limit must be set
So future generations, can enjoy the debt.

Verse 2:
A time frame given, so future's secured
Not lost in limbo, but free to be ensured
So plan your future, with this rule in mind
And wealth so grand, will not be left behind.

Chorus:
The law against perpetuities, a rule so true
Guards against endless waiting, for what is due
For wealth and property, a limit must be set
So future generations, can enjoy the debt.

Outro:
And so, dear heirs, this gift with care
Will last a lifetime, beyond compare
With joy and happiness, it will remain
A future secured, by the law against perpetuities.

[Michael P]

Now we have a quantification of what Biden greenlighted as "a minor incursion": 20% of Ukraine's remaining territory.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/joe-biden-offered-vladimir-putin-20-percent-of-ukraine-to-end-war-report/ar-AA1727Wd

[Nige]

He greenlighted the war that started last year this January? Time's arrow keeps getting reversed here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

House Republicans demonstrated their devotion to principle and position on antisemitism by removing Rep. Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Shortly after House Republicans demonstrated their principles and antisemitism by placing Rep. "Jewish Space Lasers" Greene and Rep. "Let's Fantasize About Killing Uppity Latina Women" Gosar on several prestigious House committees.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, and not a step beyond, no matter how much you whimper and whine.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, here comes that fictional gas stove ban.

Gas Stoves Are Back Under Scrutiny With New US Limits Proposed

Essentially the proposed ban consists of promulgating a minimum efficiency standard that almost all gas stoves will fail to meet, and which would preclude a lot of normal functions of gas stoves.

"“This approach by DOE could effectively ban gas appliances,” said Jill Notini, a vice president with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, a Washington-based trade group. “We are concerned this approach could eliminate fully featured gas products.”

The trade group is still evaluating the rule, but “it appears” that 95% of the market would not meet the proposed levels, Notini said."

[Brett Bellmore]

Best case, they're aiming at the sort of fiasco we've seen with dish washers, where you have to pre-wash your dishes to guarantee they'll be clean, and the thing runs for three hours. Or clothes driers, where the drier insists on shutting off while the clothes are still damp.

The stoves will be deliberately crippled, in an effort to force people to switch to electric stoves.

[David Nieporent]

Neither of those things are true. (To the extent you're having trouble getting your dishes clean, you should look to your cleaning agent, not the dishwasher, as the culprit.)

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, David, if it comes down to you or my lying eyes, I'm going with my lying eyes every time. Why would you think any different?

I mean, sure, maybe there are youngsters around who have never gotten to use a fully functional dishwasher or clothes drier, and think the modern ones are just the way these things (don't) work. But most of us ARE old enough to remember when you could dump dirty dishes in and they'd come out clean an hour later, and the clothes would come out of the drier dry.

[M L]

I love how the response is always to gaslight about this.

“What do you mean? There’s nothing wrong with the appliances. Better clean out your dryer vent.”

I mean, generally these new appliances are going to be able to minimally “work” under perfect conditions, when they are brand new. But again everything costs at least twice as much, takes twice as long and works half as well, at best.

Also those who don’t have a large family, kids who spend a lot of time outside, and healthy cooking from scratch for most meals, their demand on appliances is a small fraction of those that do.

My mom has some old model dryer. The heat that thing puts through the clothes at max settings is nothing like the pitiful modern ones. There are also some commercial appliances still made today that blow residential ones out of the water, I assume they are very pricy though.

[David Nieporent]

My clothes come out of the dryer dry. My dishes come out of the dishwasher clean. I've been on this earth for more than 5 decades, and while I don't remember the first one very well, I remember the subsequent ones. Dishwasher cycles are longer than they used to be, but they work just as well, and if you're normal you just run it overnight anyway so it doesn't matter. That is an efficiency tradeoff. On the other hand, they work much better in other ways, like being a LOT quieter than dishwashers of decades past were.

[Nige]

Remember to add salt when things start to come out slightly cruddy, Brett.

[Ben_]

A good cleaning agent plus twice as long as before is now just as good as the same cleaning agent and the shorter time from before.

[ThePublius]

Not so, David. During the Obama admin the standards were changed to lower the temp in dishwashers and clothes washers, and this resulted in long run times and less-clean dishes and clothing.

I moved, and got myself a pre-Obama washer-dryer pair that work remarkably better than later ones. Throw some TSP in with the wash and experience clean clothes, like your mom and grandmom did.

[Sarcastr0]

Apparently all the Republican devices have been sabotaged by the government and suck now.

No one else seems to notice an issue, but they sure do!

[Ben_]

Just because you’re remorseless about making Americans' lives worse doesn’t mean they aren’t made worse.

[Sarcastr0]

Americans lives have been pretty tops for some time now.

It's a great time to live in America.

Go move elsewhere if you hate it so much.

But you don't actually hate it. Your life is not actually miserable. You're just really addicted to political resentment for some weird reason.

[Ben_]

Just because you're remorseless about making Americans' lives worse doesn't mean Americans' lives are objectively bad compared to some random standard. It's merely that Americans' lives are made worse than our lives would be without Democrats' intentional actions.

Sure we hurt them. But they can still walk, can't they? What's the complaint about?

Sure we broke their car window. It still drives, doesn't it? What's the complaint about? Some people can't afford a car.

Sure we stole from them. They can still afford food though. What are they so unhappy about?

We're The Good Guys!

[Nige]

Americans lives are mostly fine but the externalities are coming to bite them on the ass.

[Ben_]

Your newest justification: you know the future.

Stop making up stories and just acknowledge that you enjoy making Americans' lives worse.

[M L]

You are exactly right. It's infuriating what they have done to appliances.

It costs twice as much, takes twice as long, and works half as well, due to federal regulations made up by some unelected bureaucrat.

That's best case. More like 3x if it works at all.

[David Nieporent]

Appliances are a lot cheaper in constant dollars than they were decades ago. Of course, you can choose ones with lots more bells and whistles and run up the price if you want; those bells and whistles simply weren't available at any price back then. (Try getting a fridge with WiFi in 1980!)

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't WANT the bells and whistles on most of my appliances!

I don't want the stupid clothes dryer to have a humidity sensor, so that it can automatically stop drying the clothes while they're still damp!

I don't want the stupid dish washer to have twenty different settings, none of which get the dishes clean in under an hour, and all of which require particularly dirty dishes to be pre washed.

Seriously, the only bell on any of my appliances I actually appreciate is the "You left the fridge door open!" bell, and that didn't exactly require much in the way of brains.

[Ben_]

People who intentionally make your life worse don’t care what you want.

[David Nieporent]

Ben_ to black people: stop whining about slavery and discrimination and police brutality. Why, we sort of ended those things.

Ben_ to white people: requiring that appliances be energy efficient is really about intentionally making your life worse.

[Ben_]

You know there’s no slavery any more, right? Why should we listen to anyone whining about something they only know about from ancient stories?

My distant ancestors were enslaved too. And yours. Probably everyone's. Do you expect sympathy for the legacy of your ancestors' enslavement that you carry with you? Why not?

Because it’s ancient history maybe. Because you’re not trying to play that particular game for your own personal profit, I guess. You have better games.

Or maybe you actually earn your income instead. That’s possible, even for Democrats sometimes.

[David Nieporent]

The negative pregnant with regard to slavery is noted.

[Absaroka]

A yearish ago we bought a freezer, and the only thing it does is keep food cold and ring a bell if the door is open more than N minutes.

Our not-new dryer has two settings - timed dry and a sensor. The sensor isn't wonderful - it does tend to either under or over dry. But what's the matter with timed dry? It doesn't seem to be outlawed - I picked a random cheap dryer and it has a timed dry setting.

(I'm generally opposed to mandated design, as opposed to pricing. For example, the scuttlebutt I hear is that current low-water-use toilets work pretty well, but they sure didn't for the first few years. And they don't address the problem that the guy cursing his low-flush toilet while his lawn sprinklers water the street in front of his house, while if you increase the price people magically figure out whether they are better off with a new toilet, or drought resistant yards, or whatever)

[David Nieporent]

1) You don't need to get the bells and whistles. You can buy a cheap machine that doesn't have them. You can also spend more and get them.
2) I don't want to say you're a liar, but you're incompetent. Dryers do not leave clothes damp. It doesn't happen. If you think so, you're using it wrong.
3) Dishwashers do not require pre-washing. Again, if you think so, you're using it wrong.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

where you have to pre-wash your dishes to guarantee they’ll be clean, and the thing runs for three hours

I appear to have purchased a superior dishwasher. Maybe Brett Bellmore's shitty dishwasher is all that is available in the can't-keep-up backwaters inhabited by clingers?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kirkland, I can explain this. Backwater right-wingers buy their appliances at Walmart. Walmart long ago corrupted its own supply chain, with demands for wholesale goods at impossibly low prices. It stands to reason that major brands did what they had to do: cut corners on materials, reliability, and performance for the Walmart sales lines. So even when they buy the same brands, the complaining right wingers get less quality. But that has nothing to do with government. It's just the free market at work.

Mind you, I can't prove that, but I also cannot see why it would not happen. Free market theory predicts it. Right wingers ought to celebrate such a striking confirmation of their ideology.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The stoves will be deliberately crippled, in an effort to force people to switch to electric stoves.

Bellmore, if they force you to switch to an electric induction stove, they won't be able to pay you to go back to gas. For my entire adult life, not having a gas stove was a deal breaker. If I was considering a new place to live, there had to be a gas stove, or I kept looking for a different place. An electric stove was right out; would not consider it.

A year ago, I got an induction electric stove. There is nothing I ever did on gas that I cannot do better, quicker, easier, cleaner, safer, and less expensively with induction electric. It's more powerful, and it's less powerful. Low simmer is way easier and more controllable than before. I can boil water for a pot of rice almost quicker than I can measure the rice to put in the pot. No open flame. No stove top mess. If you happen to boil something over onto the stove top, you can grab a paper towel and wipe it clean right up to the edge of the pot without injury, while your meal keeps cooking in the pot. Lift the pot off the stove top, and a few seconds later the power goes off. Not even much residual heat in the stovetop when you turn the power off. After I installed the induction stove, my combined gas and electricity bill went down.

I hated the toilet redesigns, although they got better. I remain disheartened by what has happened to refrigerator durability. Because of a real technological breakthrough, your stove crusade turns out to be just silly.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, how does your induction stove work during blackouts? I know I've cooked on gas during one, I'm wondering how they stack up in that regard.

[Ben_]

Do you think Sarcastr0 ever gets tired of dishonest denials in the face of obvious efforts like this?

[apedad]

How about dishonest assertations from BB?

His title, “And, here comes that fictional gas stove ban,” is proven FALSE by the very link he provided.

“The Energy Department said the standards, which would result in $1.7 billion in reduced energy costs, were mandated by Congress and are technologically feasible for both gas and electric cooktops.

‘We are not proposing bans on either,’ the department said in a statement. ‘Every major manufacturer has products that meet or exceed the requirements proposed today.’”

[Ben_]

"It's not called a ban", said the people who want to limit your choices and make your life worse.

[Nige]

You said it was a ban, it's not a ban, but with some deliberate inferences it can be the SAME as a ban.

[Ben_]

It's only a ban on some stoves so it’s not called a ban.

Ever get tired of meddling in peoples' lives to intentionally make their lives worse? Ever get tired of dishonest evasion to pretend you’re not doing that?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ever get tired of meddling in peoples’ lives to intentionally make their lives worse? Ever get tired of dishonest evasion to pretend you’re not doing that?

Ben seems to have misplaced a comment that would fit a discussion of abortion.

[Nige]

Putting down fossil fuel pipelines when fossil fuels are heating the world to boiling point makes lives worse but somehow you don't care.

[M L]

"We will still allow some bullshit gas stove that nobody would have dreamed of manufacturing or buying voluntarily. The rest are banned. But now you can't call it a ban!"

Just another day of dishonest, repulsive leftists.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the department proposing the standards says they're feasible. What did you expect them to say? "Bwah ha ha! Kiss your gas range goodbye, peon!"?

What they don't say is that they're only "feasible" by drastically degrading the performance of the appliances, and that most of the existing appliances would become illegal to sell. The industry rep explained that.

Here's what they did to dishwashers, despite a legal mandate to retain functionality. Similar problems crop up with other appliances once the efficiency mafia take action, like my dryer which literally has a humidity sensor to shut it off short of the clothes actually being dry.

[Nige]

So, again, not a ban. Come back and whine some more if it does turn into a ban.

[Ben_]

So you made people’s lives worse and you’re changing the subject to words.

[Brett Bellmore]

As long as it's theoretically possible for somebody somewhere to own a gas range, he's not going to admit that it's a ban.

[M L]

Do you think the drafters of the Constitution would have agreed that Congress has the power to dictate the energy consumption specifications of all household appliances? (or delegate that power to the executive).

[Sarcastr0]

There were some amendments that changed stuff after the civil war, ML. You keep forgetting that.

[M L]

Sarcastro, you are always good for a laugh.

Which of said amendments do you think is pertinent to the power of Congress to dictate the energy consumption specifications of household appliances?

Please answer, thanks.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is, and I'm not joking, the "We killed the last people who thought we didn't have the last word on what we can do." 'amendment'.

[Sarcastr0]

Shades of having to flush the toilet 10 times these days.

Brett, losing a war has consequences. One of those was we got to change the relationship between the Federal government and the States, because the Southern states kept using their freedom to do awful things.
We are more free for it, and if it makes gives you a formalist headache, that shows the problem with formalism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Did I call it or what? Sarcastr0 thinks the Union killing a lot of people amended the Constitution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0 thinks the Union killing a lot of people amended the Constitution.

Well, it settled the nullification question.

[Brett Bellmore]

Killing people only "settles" questions for as long as they continue to believe you'll kill them if you try to reopen them.

[Nige]

A thing that hasn’t happened hasn’t happened and you’re MAD.

[shawn_dude]

This so-called "gas stove ban" also applies to electric ranges and cooktops.

NOW THEY'VE GONE AFTER ELECTRIC TOO!

OMG. panic mode.

#RageFarm

[apedad]

[Michael Ejercito]

Here was an interesting comment that I found on Quora.

https://www.quora.com/Some-gun-control-supporters-seem-to-have-animus-against-all-non-cop-gun-owners-instead-of-just-muggers-and-carjackers-and-gang-members-Why-It-doesnt-make-sense/answer/Seraphina-Aizen?comment_id=314087977&comment_type=2

We should have empathy for the young man who has to work late nights in the ghetto to support his family.

I mean, I can understand why such a man would want to be able to buy a gun from a gang member in a back alley, no questions asked.

I can understand why he would not want to have cops force him down on the sidewalk at gunpoint, just to search him.

I can understand why he wouldn’t want cops to break down the door of his home and barge in to search for contraband, all based on a hunch.

I can understand why he would not want to talk to the cops if questioned about something.

I do understand why people want civil rights.

The problem is, those who would rob this young man, those who would gun down his son for wearing the wrong colors on the wrong street corner, those who would sexually abuse his daughter, also have these civil rights.

These civil rights keep cops from using harsh, brutal policing tactics needed to keep people safe.

Compunding this problem is that a political parrty is pandering to a bunch of whiny activists who complain about mass incarceration and school-to-prison pipelines and police brutality and systemic racism and “Hands Up, Dion’t Shoot”- in ither words, complaining about the police actually doing their jobs.

Someone even called police officwers murderers for shootingh someone dead as that someone was stabbing them!

Stony Brook Professor Under Fire For Denouncing Officers Who Shot Suspect …Who Was Stabbing Them

Defaming cops is subversive speech that should be outlawed, and there’s an entire political party pandering to these anarchists!

These civil rights are the reason there are so many parking lot shootings and school shootings and drive-by shootings in the ghetto, just like you described. They restrain the police from searching people and punishing people and stuff.

Without civil rights, there would be no ghettoes.

I understand the viewpoint of those who want to keeop their civil rights.

But in the end, those who sacrifice safety for the illusion of freedom will neither be safe nor free.

[Nige]

Black people: caught between a rock and a hard place and I’m siding with the hard place!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Next up, the Chinese Balloon Shoot-Down scandal. Balloon—loaded with files from Hunter Biden's laptop—shot down and recovered from Atlantic off North Carolina. Biden administration suppresses the story.

At a White House press conference, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre denied any knowledge of what the balloon carried. "To us, the point of that balloon overflight remains inscrutable," Jean-Pierre said.

[Jmaie]

Shot down by a $400K missile, now we're sending salvage vessels and the navy is patrolling to make sure the Chinese don't get to it first.

Seems like doing it the hard way, if it was me I'd have sent a helicopter up with a harpoon gun and snagged long ago. I'm sure there's a reason we handled it the way we did...

[Stephen Lathrop]

If we had a helicopter capable to get to that altitude, the Chinese would definitely want to know about it.

[Jmaie]

Ah, missed that part.

Thanks.