Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Huh. Never thought of this before.

What's on your mind?

makes the disclaimer

Naturally, his posts here (like the opinions of the other bloggers) are his own, and not endorsed by any educational institution.

seem curiously correct in today's educational climate. Used to be that the ideal was to fill student minds with facts while training students to think; one gets the distinct impression that both students and schools aren't interested in either facts or thinking.

[Nelson]

On October 27, 28, 30, and 31st, 2009, my partner and I went to the last four shows at the Spectrum in Philadelphia. Over the course of four nights, we watched Pearl Jam play 142 songs, 104 of them unique.

On Halloween, dressed as Jack and Sally, we were treated to a marathon of 42 songs as the band kept saying, "Fuck it, we'll pay the fine." and launched into another song.

I have been a Pearl Jam fan since Ten came out and have been to almost 40 shows. Every set list is unique, so every show is unique. But those four nights were something extraordinary. Even by the standards of a band that always puts on powerful shows, these four were special.

Have you had a concert experience like that, where your favorite band transcends themselves and puts on a show that sears itself into your brain?

[santamonica811]

I was interpreting an Arlo Guthrie concert (into sign language), and he decided that he would use "Alice's Restaurant" to, well, fuck with me. He announced to the crowd, "This song usually lasts between 15 and 25 minutes. But let's see what happens if I just keep going and going. Will the interpreter's fingers finally just fall off?"

He proceeded to segue from Officer Obie into a digression about Xerox printers, and then into Post-It Notes, and then talked about everything he could remember from his home office/recording studio. Then started talking and singing faster and faster.

So. Not a band, per se. But it definitely was seared into my brain, so maybe it qualifies on that front.

[Frank Drackman]

How do you "say" "Faggots" in ASL???
Arlo would be "Cancelled" today and have a whole Star Wars Bar Scene of freaks picketing his concerts (is he touring this year?)
for this bit from "Alice's Restaurant"

"And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them."

"Alice" is quite dated, 1: There ain't no draft no more (HT Milhouse Nixon) and 2: If there was, being a Faggot wouldn't get you a deferment, in fact, they'd probably send you some place "Special" (HT PFC J Winger)

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It rarely takes long for a discussion at this blog to deteriorate into bigotry, often for no apparent reason . . . Why?

Will any of the Conspirators address this issue, even if merely to acknowledge it?

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

Coach Jerry Sandusky ladies and germs, noted Bigotry/Klinger rooter-outerer...

[MoreCurious]

This could be the quickest that our favorite bigot has shown up to show off his infantile mind. I wonder if Volokh and the crew will notice. Probably not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why is Drackman your favorite.

I am confident the Conspirators notice the bigotry. I sense it does not bother them.

[Theendoftheleft]

Well, one reason is that you, AIDS, are an imbecilic troll who posts a lot of hypocritically bigoted nonsense. You do post A LOT, it seems, AIDS.

From my more limited time here, I'd say you account for about 70% of the bigoted content.

Carry on, clinger, till your betters tar and feather you.

[Nelson]

Way to keep it light and joyful, Frank.

[Frank Drackman]

I love "Alice's Restaurant" can do the whole 20 minute "Song" from memory, I'll show you...
"This song is called Alice's Restaurant, and it's about Alice, and the restaurant, but Alice's Restaurant is not the name of the restaurant, that's just the name of the song, and that's why I called the song Alice's Restaurant.
You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant
You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant
Walk right in it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant
Now it all started two Thanksgivings ago, was on - two years ago on Thanksgiving, when my friend and I went up to visit Alice at the
restaurant, but Alice doesn't live in the restaurant, she lives in the
church nearby the restaurant, in the bell-tower, with her husband Ray and Fasha the dog......

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I remember radio stations which would actually play that on request, the full 18 minutes. I too had it memorized, don't know if I could get it word for word correct, but close.

[Brett Bellmore]

Our campus radio station wouldn't play it, in fact they had that track on the record deliberately scratched out to prevent it. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

[Frank Drackman]

Really Stupid, it's an "Anti- War Mass-a-cree" of course now it's the DemoKKKrats who are the Wah Party, oh wait, they were in the 60's too, and it was that crazy Right Wing Milhouse Nixon who ended the Wah and improved relations with Roosh-a, sort of like "45" did
Amazing that Milhouse and "45" are more "Dovish" than Senescent J.

[not guilty]

Nixon did not end the Vietnam War. He agreed to a treaty ending American involvement on essentially the same terms as were offered at the beginning of his term. In the meantime, Nixon widened the war into Cambodia and Laos.

[Mr. Bumble]

From wikipedia:
Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet Nam (Hiệp định về chấm dứt chiến tranh, lập lại hòa bình ở Việt Nam), was a peace treaty signed on January 27, 1973, to establish peace in Vietnam and end the Vietnam War. The treaty included the governments of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam); the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam); the United States; and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam (PRG), which represented South Vietnamese communists.

[Frank Drackman]

Like I said, Milhouse ended the Wah.
LBJ sure as fuck didn't.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, do you think that treaty actually ended the war? Get a clue.

[Mr. Bumble]

I answered your false assertion. Now you want to move the goalposts with a new question. I was there so I "have a clue"
The communist north (as in Korea) broke the treaty by invading the south and the Dem controlled Congress reneged on the promises to supply needed equipment.

Lots of misinformation about the war floating around out there.

[Frank Drackman]

Always on Thanksgiving

[Pettifogger]

I well recall when I first became aware of Alice's Restaurant. I was an undergrad at UT Austin (just UT back then) in the late '60s. A folk music program came on a local radio station at 11:00 PM. We were sitting around the dorm discussing the world's problems. as undergrads are wont to do, when I noted that the song on the radio had been playing for a long time. We all started listening. We loved it.

[Jazzizhep]

Greg Gutfeld years ago on his show “Redeye” did something similar with “screw the closed captioning guy.” He started saying things like “hey, I’m writing the closed captioning. I can’t stand Greg Gutfeld. He comes on here night after night saying the dumbest things and I have to type it. How did this guy get a tv show?” You get the picture. Since it was on at 2:00am I always had the sound low and CC on. I laughed so hard I woke the missus up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Comedians do that all the time:

Blowjob. Blowjob. Blowjob.

He's just telling some dumb jokes, I'll let you know if he says anything funny. Anyway, let me tell you what I did this weekend. Two guys came over to my apartment...

[Nelson]

Wrong place

[Nelson]

No one has a favorite band that they went to see live and were blown away? I love live music and appreciate a good show.

For example, I’m not a Weezer fan, but I saw them at Firefly and was impressed with their performance.

Anyone?

[Brett Bellmore]

Went to a local Styx concert, a few months ago. It was pretty incredible. Gowan was literally playing the keyboard behind his back, and keeping up; He's quite a showman.

They brought one of their original members on stage as a surprise, but that was actually kind of sad, you could see he just wasn't up to actually playing, he hardly did more than stand there holding the guitar.

[Mr. Bumble]

Describes a Biden news conference.

[Nelson]

I'm always hesitant to go see bands I loved in the 80s for fear of that exact thing. The Met in Philly has Squeeze and The Psychedelic Furs coming in September, but I can't bring myself to go for fear they're not what they were.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I saw Squeeze about 4 months ago, they are still fantastic! Go.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I also saw them when they came to my college touring for East Side Story, and Paul Carrack was still with them. What a show that was!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Many many years ago I saw Joe Jackson playing at the late lamented Hammerjacks in Baltimore. I believe he was workshopping the songs that would eventually be the Laughter and Lust album. It was revelatory, he performed his old songs in new ways and his new songs were great. He and his band played with virtuosity and energy I've rarely seen, and I've seen a LOT of concerts. He is truly one of the most under appreciated performers around.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

All things being equal % below poverty level is the biggest factor in an American population’s Covid death rate…so Florida could have had a death rate similar to North Carolina had DeSantis not attacked public health officials. Bottom line—DeSantis killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden! Oh, and he also tortured innocent Muslims which is the favorite pastime of Muslims! All praise to Allah!!

[Brett Bellmore]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/covid19_mortality_final/COVID19.htm CDC age adjusted death rates, by state.

Florida, 2021, 111.7/100K
North Carolina, 2021: 107.5/100K

Pretty close to identical.

https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/why-do-covid-deaths-vary-by-state/ REALLY, I do mean really, informative analysis of the data, with regressions for various factors. One of the things it tells us is that, after you adjust for age, obesity, and vaccination over 65 (Vaccination at younger ages has very little predictive strength.) the 'stringency index', their measure of lockdown policies, has essentially no correlation with deaths at all.

"Stringency" did have a quite strong correlation with economic damage and suicides, so there is that, I suppose...

[hobie]

Brett, that CDC link proves yet again that mask-hating patriot states - where shit is kicked and the necks are highly red - lost out big time. The price of 'freedum' I suppose

[Brett Bellmore]

And the bioinformatics link shows that, after controlling for confounding variables, lockdowns did diddly squat to combat Covid, but were very effective at destroying economies and driving people to commit suicide.

The ideal strategy, according to what we now know, would have been to have sheltered and vaccinated only the most vulnerable, the elderly and/or sickly, and otherwise just go on with life as normal. Maybe subsidize gym memberships and encourage people to join Weight Watchers...

It is somewhat of a dire irony that the vaccine actually was pretty effective, at least for people who were actually at significant risk, and Trump was both responsible for it being available much faster than would have been the case, and pushing for people to take it, but his own supporters often weren't listening.

Life is full of such ironies.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Life is full of such ironies.”

I see the irony and willingly give Trump his due on the rapid vaccine development (though probably not the degree you do).

But the irony here is limited. The reason Trump’s supporters reject vaccines in absurdly large numbers originates with Trump himself. He was the one who taught the MAGA faithful to distrust and ignore COVID statistics. He is the one who demonized healthcare officials for sport. He is the one who promoted useless junk “cures”. He is the one who treated COVID press conferences as a performance art joke. He is the one who downplayed the seriousness of the disease.

In every way except vaccines, he saw the national pandemic as a partisan political playtoy. Why be surprised his followers and imitators used the same tactics against vaccines? If Trump taught his fanboys only one thing, it’s this: Honesty and civic responsibility has no place in today’s Right.

[hobie]

That's just supposition. Also, how the economy fared is not germane to the topic. If the controlling factor is age or infirmity then the states should be equal. Oregon has old people the same as Alabama.

But that ain't what happened is it? Apparently Alabama's old/infirmed people died a lot more than Oregon's. Are old people in Alabama sicker than in Oregon?

[Gandydancer]

They're blacker. Results in their being, in effect, older, I understand. Did you take that into account?

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course how the economy fared is germane; It represents an entry on the cost side of the cost benefit ledger.

[Frank Drackman]

You've obviously never been to a "Patriot State" (South Beach/Hilton Head doesn't count) (I like "Patriot State", can I use it? why am I even asking, in "Patriot" States we do what the fuck we want)
Only "Shit" that's kicked is out of naive tourists who make the mistake of visiting "The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change" late in the day,
And alot of Black-Necks in "Patriot States" hey, somebodies gotta tote dose Barges, lift dose Bales, get drunk, go to jail,

Frank

[blue heron]

And what does it say? Top line; "Vaccination rate is the single biggest predictor of age-adjusted deaths by state." And why didn't people get vaccinated in certain states? Because their Republican leaders poo poohed the idea and intimated that Covid was a hoax or no more than a bad flu.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except, as I point out, that's not really true. Trump was a real vaccine booster.

I think you might be confusing favoring the vaccine with mandating it. Republicans manage to be in favor of a lot of things they don't think should be compelled.

[blue heron]

I was thinking more of at the state level. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/10/19/pandemic-politics-red-state-governors-are-in-trouble-for-their-covid-leadership/

[Nige]

Republicans had to cater to a base that believed vaccines were deliberately designed to cull the global population. Otherwise, they don't really have problems compelling people to do stuff or not do stuff they don’t like.

[blue heron]

Very true Nige. Republicans don't like to compel, Brett says. So what do you do with the Washington woman who won't quarantine with tuberculosis? Does she have the right to infect her neighbors?

https://www.iflscience.com/woman-with-untreated-tb-is-still-dodging-arrest-warrant-in-washington-69093

[Gandydancer]

COVID and tuberculosis. Just the same.

In Lefty's fever dreams.

[Nige]

Gandy thinks someone said that covid and TB are just the same.

[grb]

Nige : "Gandy thinks...."

Assumes facts not in evidence.....

[Gandydancer]

blue heron: "Very true Nige. Republicans don’t like to compel, Brett says. So what do you do with the Washington woman who won’t quarantine with tuberculosis? Does she have the right to infect her neighbors?"

COVID and tuberculosis. Just the same.

In Lefty’s fever dreams.

[Nige]

Gandy STILL thinks someone said covid and TB are just the same.

[grb]

Gandydancer : “…. fever dreams.”

Two Points:

(1). It’s unprofitable to deal with trolls, so I’m reluctant to engage with you, but:

(2). The pandemic is very recent in the past, so even scoundrels can’t take refugee in poor memory. And what did we see? We saw the Right suddenly horrified (horrified!) that vaccines can be mandated or their use considered a point of civic virtue.

Now I know what you’re thinking. Today’s Right loves to be “horrified” and “victimized” and “oppressed”, finding those emotions entertaining. Given the raison d’etre of politics or governance for our contemporary rightie is pro-wrestling-style entertainment, their “victimization” has become a drug to them.

But all the phony indignation is still a bit much. You’ve faced vaccine mandates your entire life. Your siblings have. Your children have. Your friends, spouses and lovers have. Your parents, their parents, and their parents before them. And though we now anticipate howls of rage at the mention of responsible citizenship from the rotted-out nihilistic nothing that is today’s Right, it was galling nonetheless.

Nige was just pointing to your hypocrisy. Instead of whining about his comment, you might consider and benefit from it.

[Gandydancer]

The COVID "vaccine" was of course NOT a vaccine, but an experimental EUA-only gene therapy.

TB vaccines are not remotely in the same category. Neither are the two illnesses.

[Nelson]

"The COVID “vaccine” was of course NOT a vaccine, but an experimental EUA-only gene therapy."

Factually and scientifically inaccurate. Gene therapy? How gullible are you?

[Gandydancer]

What is in evidence is that YOU are ignorant about how MRNA "vaccines" work, and probably also about the CDC's attempted redefinition of the word "vaccine". But, go ahead, keep making an ass of yourself.

[Nelson]

"What is in evidence is that YOU are ignorant about how MRNA “vaccines” work"

Read and learn: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/03/17/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-are-not-gene-therapy-as-some-are-claiming/?sh=5dbde19f3d20

"the CDC’s attempted redefinition of the word “vaccine”."

Wait you mean when new technologies are invented that produce the same effect as an already-established technology, they call it the same thing? Crazy.

But, go ahead, keep making an ass of yourself.

Is that egg all over your face? I think it is!

[Gandydancer]

In your case the words “I” and “think” should never be in the same sentence. As you demonstrate:

“…when new technologies are invented that produce the same effect as an already-established technology, they call it the same thing? Crazy.”

But of course the MRNA “vaccines” do NOT “produce the same effect ” as actual vaccines. As one of the few fragments of Bruce Y. Lee’s article that contains actual information says, “When a cell wants to produce a protein, it uses the DNA to produce a copy of mRNA. That mRNA then serves as a blueprint for the protein that is built by the ribosomes in your cells. The DNA is in the nucleus of the cell. The ribosomes are not. Thus, the mRNA from a Covid-19 vaccine will not go into the nucleus but instead will simply go to the ribosomes, which in turn will manufacture the spike protein.” In other words, instead of using a gene to manufacture MRNA to produce the desired spike protein the MRNA “vaccines” simply inject MRNA, resulting in the production of spike proteins, hopefully for a short term and only near the injection site, but it doesn’t always work that way.

The point to take in, even if you're not smart enough to do it, is that the MRNA "vaccines" are performing the SAME FUNCTION as gene therapy: Providing MRNA to induce protein production.

This, again, it NOT the way actual vaccines work. Actual vaccines prep your immune system to respond to a virus by exposing it to weakened virus or dead virus fragments, not by triggering the manufacture of virus components who knows where.

That article by the propagandist Bruce Y. Lee is quite the specimen, btw. I like the way he picks a strawman opponent to trash as not providing the field in which he got his doctorate… then you look at Lee’s curricula vitae and you see WHAT?https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/?sh=204c24b70682

[Gandydancer]

No response yet, but I won’t be a dick and complain about that because Reason’s commenting software doesn’t tell you when you get a reply.

I do want to add that there is indeed a good argument for calling “gene therapy” a variety of MRNA therapy rather than MRNA therapy a variety of gene therapy. But, again, YOU wrote this:

“…when new technologies are invented that produce the same effect as an already-established technology, they call it the same thing? Crazy.”

…and that’s exactly what calling MRNA therapy “gene therapy” is an example of.

What is UTTER NONSENSE, however, is calling MRNA “vaccines” vaccines. There is NO EXCUSE for that. Yet THAT is what you chose to defend.

[blue-heron]

You appear to be an originalist in regards to medicine. Only illnesses that were present at the time of our founding father's shall be recognized and the only medicine allowed would have been readily available in the late 18th century. Any improvements in technology are clearly unconstitutional. Enjoy the leeches after you get the bleed at the barber shop.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That’s what is so scary about DeSantis—unlike Trump DeSantis just goes with the flow of the right wing echo chamber like Bush. Voting for president is all about mitigating downside risk and people like DeSantis have too much downside risk. Trump was incompetent and we got unlucky with Covid but had Covid not happened he would have been fine…Bush was on some level competent and he almost destroyed the country and DeSantis’ Covid response shows he has similarities to Bush.

[Gandydancer]

Desantis' resistance to COVID panic does nothing of the sort.

His failure to keep busing Invaders to Martha's Vineyard is troubling, and his failure to remain firm on Ukraine is as well, but he was pretty good on the COVID panic, as far as I know.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Obviously I agree with you because I want American white trash to die out…but Republicans like white trash because they vote for Republican politicians. So on some level I think DeSantis did a good job because he killed off around 20,000 white trash Americans.

[Gandydancer]

You're a really stupid individual.

[David Nieporent]

You "point out" lots of things that aren't true. Trump was not remotely a "vaccine booster." He did, after flailing around on covid policy, eventually settle on allowing accelerated vaccine development. And after the vaccines were developed, he made some half-hearted attempts to claim credit for that.

But by then, his base wasn't interested in them, because he had spent the previous year minimizing the virus and the pandemic, treating the whole thing as a joke at best and as an unfair impediment to his reelection at worst. So after a year of their cult leader saying that covid was no big deal, he had drastically undermined the demand for the vaccine and the argument for its utility.

[Frank Drackman]

and certain "Demographic Groups" don't trust the Government on matters Health Related after the experience with "The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male"
You know, where Syphilitic Negro Males were offered "Special Treatment" ( I guess you could call Lumbar Punctures "Treatment") for their "Bad Blood" (Underappreciated N. Sedaka tune, the Taylor Swift one isn't bad either)

Frank

[blue heron]

And I have suspicions about people that arbitrarily capitalize letters in sentences. We all have our prejudices.

[Gandydancer]

I have my suspicions about Lefty. Are they even human or do they hatch out of pods?

[Frank Drackman]

Its that German first languange thang, like how Japs can't pronounce "L" sounds, fortunately capitalized nouns sound the same as non capitalized nouns, so it's only my stupid non-standard Amurican accent that gets me those "You a'int from round' here, are ya??" remarks (have gotten them from Portland ME to Portland OR, most tolerant region is my native South, where they just ass-ume I'm some pathetic Yankee)

Frank "Verstanden?????"

[blue heron]

"Japs now?" Brings me back about 60 years ago when we played with our "japs and krauts" little plastic army men. Most of us leave that sort of derogatory racist epithet behind when we grow up. I guess some people never mature.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The major urban Democratic counties in the southeast had relatively low Covid death rates.

[Frank Drackman]

because they have relatively high Murder rates, good one, Napoleon.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Nope, because they masked even when the governors were opposed to it. Arizona is the largest state that did the least in 2020 to mitigate spread and it just happens to have the worst Covid death rate…it’s not a coincidence!

[blue-heron]

What an insipid non sequitur. Low covid rates have exactly zero causal relationship to high murder rates. Continue to fan the flames of bigotry, seems to be a specialty of yours.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Maine is the oldest state and it has a relatively low Covid death rate…adjusting for age is dumb because we transformed society to protect the elderly but states like Florida didn’t do enough to mitigate spread.

[Brett Bellmore]

Adjusting for age isn't dumb, because IF you get Covid, the mortality rate goes up exponentially as you get older.

Per the CDC, with 18-29 as the reference group
0-4 years, 0.3 x mortality (Mostly due to infants.)
5-17 years 0.1 x mortality
18-29 reference
30-39 3.5 x mortality
40-49 10 x mortality
50-64 25 x mortality
65-74 60 x mortality
75-84 140 x mortality
85+ 360 x mortality.

The rise in mortality rates is so profound that half of all Covid deaths were people 75 years old or older, even though they're a small fraction of the population.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Oh, so Maine has the worst Covid death rate?? Nope, because a population could do things to mitigate spread. So up until recently GA and SC and FL had similar death rates experiencing the same Covid waves with Florida only becoming a little worse as Covid became endemic which means we are no longer transforming society to protect the elderly.

[ducksalad]

Since you mentioned Maine, part of their response was to put up some signs:

https://www.wmtw.com/article/maine-creates-signs-telling-travelers-to-self-quarantine/32093474

What's your opinion on the government dividing the citizenry into "essential persons" and "non-essential persons"? Do you see any 14th Amendment issues? Any potential for abuse? Would you trust, say, Florida to make such a division? Suppose the next pandemic lasts decades instead of months, would you agree to having different driver licenses or maybe some sumptuary laws to make sure essential people get the appropriate privileges?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I order you to evacuate your crappy home right now, peasant! If you don’t follow my orders you won’t get the first responders your taxes pay for! Move peasant! MOVE! Oh, and we’re shutting down the schools for your dumbass white trash children!

Governor Ron DeSantis

[blue-heron]

Maine was admitted on March 5, 1820, making it the 23rd oldest state. Delaware is the oldest, followed by Pennsylvania. Was this a test of some kind?

[santamonica811]

Thought experiment: Trump is tried and convicted on at least one of his several criminal matters, and is sentenced to either (a) house arrest, or (b) a minimum security prison. (There is a literally zero likelihood that--for an entirely non-violent crime that he'd be put in a max prison, and he's not facing legal exposure for any alleged violent behavior re Jan 6.)

We all know that he can run for president from jail (I'll just use jail as shorthand for house arrest or min security prison). But let's assume he gets elected. What happens then? For house arrest, it's easily doable. A judge can certainly determine that your home is the White House for the next 4 years. So, he could serve his sentence there. I would think that this would be the end of diplomatic trips to Camp David (or the UN in NYC, et al).

But what would 4 years in Club Fed look like? Obviously, the Secret Service would have to have men inside, in order to protect him. What would such an incarceration look like?

Side-question: We all agree that Trump (as a convicted felon in this hypo) has an absolute right to run for president. The Constitution clearly lays out the few requirements (Age of X years. Resident of the US for Y years. Natural born citizen.) Being a felon is not listed there. (but cf, if one is convicted, after impeachment, in the Senate) But . . . there is also nothing in the Constitution that says that a prisoner who is running for president must be given rights more than the average convict. So, could Prisoner Trump be limited to, say, 30 minutes per day of internet access (assuming that this is what all other prisoners get in this facility)? Or limited in contact with media and other outside sources (other than his attorneys, natch)? Could contact with the outside world be taken away for bad behavior, just like all other prisoners?

**As I said; this is just a thought experiment. I don't care at all--in this particular thread--that liberals think Trump is awful and deserves 20 years in Gitmo. I don't care at all that MAGAs think it's all a witch-hunt. Save that for your own thread. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Not withstanding your fevered dream thought experiment, even as an ex-President he is entitled to secret service protection, so how would that work out if he faced any incarceration?

[Martinned]

Solitary confinement for his own protection, obviously. That's what US authorities do with countless others every day.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Jeffery Epstein?

[Martinned]

I'm not touching that one. That case has the unique ability to attract nutters from all over the political spectrum.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well is St. Helena an option?

[Martinned]

Even better, I discovered the other day that there's an island off Tristan Da Cunha that is literally called Inaccessible Island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaccessible_Island

[Frank Drackman]

Always, go jump in, Lava's fine!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Bush family protected Epstein…what were they hiding??

[Dr. Ed 2]

The BOP would build a special prison, probably on a military base, for security reasons.

[hobie]

Guantanamo?

[Frank Drackman]

No, more like a dormitory at Fort Meade MD like that rat John Dean stayed in for his 4 months of "Imprisonment".

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought Obama closed that.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, though it should have been closed. At least as a prison. Keeping the base, as an "In your face, we have a lease, and we're staying here until it runs out!" (It's perpetual...) exercise, is a different matter.

The whole point of Guantanamo prison is the notion that the Constitution doesn't extend everywhere the US is calling the shots, so if you put a prison on somebody else's territory, you don't have to observe the constitutional niceties. A really offensive idea, IMO.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is your sarc meter broken?

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess. Thought you were serious.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The problem with torture as practiced by the Bush administration was they didn’t limit it to high level detainees AND the detainees didn’t end up having information because AQ was degraded by early 2002.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More like Offutt AFB.

[Kazinski]

Well State or Federal Conviction?

If it's federal he'll pardon himself as soon as he's president.

If it's in Georgia, Kemp, despite their antipathy, will pardon him as soon as he's convicted.

If it's New York, they'll reinstate the death penalty and Hochul will carry it out personally before the ink is dry on the death warrant and people will confuse Kathy Hochul with Kathy Griffin as long as there is an internet.

[Martinned]

Don't tell me well need to have the whole self-pardon argument again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the fact of the matter is that there's no actual textual basis for saying he couldn't pardon himself, though it would make a great basis for impeaching him a third time.

I suppose a lot depends on who controls Congress, doesn't it? If the Republicans control Congress, you'd likely get a federal statute removing convicted elected federal officers to federal jurisdiction, and then he'd be released on his own recognizance. Such a statute would have a decent chance of being upheld, I should think, though it wouldn't be a slam dunk.

Isn't the much more likely scenario that Democratic elections officials invoke Section 3 of the 14th amendment, and simply keep Trump off the ballot in every state where they're able to? I don't see how he wins if he's kept off the ballot in even one or two swing states.

[Martinned]

I suppose a lot depends on who controls Congress, doesn’t it?

It mostly depends on who controls the Supreme Court. There is no textual basis for lots of constitutional pronouncements, from the constitutionality of some (but not all) defamation law to Bush v. Gore. That's what you get if you have a brief and opaque constitution like the US. It's a delegation of constitutional lawmaking power to the Supreme Court.

That is fine, unless you also have a politicised Supreme Court. That combination occasionally gets you very politicised decisions, like Bush v. Gore and a hypothetical self-pardon case involving any president from either side.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not really endorsing the constitutionality of this hypothetical removal statute, just predicting that the Court would probably sign off on it; The Court is much more enthusiastic about federal supremacy than the text of the Constitution justifies, IMO.

Self pardons are a straightforward textual analysis: Absolutely no textual basis for rejecting them, the only available remedy is impeachment.

And, reminder: Bush v Gore was 7-2 on the EPC violation, a couple of the liberals on the Court just thought there was still time to do a recount that wasn't unconstitutionally structured, though they'd agreed the count before them was. I thought that it was a matter for the House to resolve, not the federal judiciary; The Florida legislature was about to vote to send the slate of electors selected in compliance with state law, while the state supreme court was going to send the slate they'd picked. The House had the responsibility of deciding which slate to count.

[Martinned]

Nobody would try to pass such a statute. People have long since given up on Congress to pass even something as obvious as that. They'd just rush to whichever court is most friendly to them and ask for an injunction of some sort.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Gore would have won under the laws Florida passed in order to prevent another 2000 like recount.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Keeping Trump off the ballot would spark civil unrest.

[Brett Bellmore]

Possibly considered to be a plus by the Democrats.

[Sarcastr0]

You're really going off the deep end, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, really? How do you think Democrats would react if a few state elections offices refused to put Biden on the ballot next year on the basis that he was medically disqualified, having dementia? You guys riot at the drop of a hat!

[Magister]

Is there a medical qualification? At least 35 years old, natural born citizen, US resident for 14 years, not from the same state as the Vice President (or maybe that's just a limit on the Vice President), not term limited (22nd amendment), not disqualified from holding an office of trust (maybe covers the President, pending the outcome of Josh Blackman's 500th post on the subject) by impeachment or rebellion (14th amendment).

Medical condition, tax returns, etc. may affect the decisions of voters, of course, but do not seem to be required. (California law requiring disclosed tax returns was struck down promptly.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, the existing precedent is that, unless you're in a state that's under military occupation by the opposing party, disqualification requires a criminal conviction, and doesn't prevent you from running or even winning, just from taking office.

I suppose if you want an exact analog, suppose that Biden cedes the nomination to Harris, perhaps for medical reasons, and Republicans refuse to put HER on the ballot because she's an insurrectionist? I mean, she did donate to bail funds that helped rioters who had attacked a federal courthouse, that's enough of a pretext if you don't care if the opposing party takes the claim seriously.

I think this is a really terrible path to go down, trying to win elections by disqualifying the opposition's candidates on a basis they don't think is legitimate.

[Magister]

You're pointing in the wrong direction, I think. The states where the Democratic Party has enough control to prevent Trump being on the ballot on spurious grounds are states where Trump would not win, so they're not going to want the negative optics. (The reverse is not quite true; a few states that went for Biden, like Wisconsin, have Republican control still because the state legislature is heavily gerrymandered.)

The third party candidates could be a real concern; some are clearly intended to divert votes, like the "ghost candidates" in legislative races.

[David Nieporent]

not from the same state as the Vice President (or maybe that’s just a limit on the Vice President)

It's neither. Nothing in the constitution forbids them from coming from the same state. What the constitution says is that a presidential elector can't vote for both a president and a vice president from their own state.

So, hypothetically, if Trump and DeSantis were on the same ticket in 2024, and that ticket won the Florida popular vote, the 30 electors from Florida could all cast their votes for Trump but not DeSantis (or vice versa) or 12 of them could vote for Trump for president and Matt Gaetz for vice president while 18 of them could vote for Tucker Carlson for president and DeSantis for vice president. Or whatever.

But regardless of how those electors chose to divide up their votes, as long as Trump and DeSantis each ended up with >270 electoral votes nationwide for their respective offices, they could each take office. There's no bar to that.

[blue-heron]

You mean like that time we broke into the Capitol and went to war with the Capitol Police?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

GOPe despises Trump more than any candidate in history…they want Rob DeSantos as their candidate.

[Kazinski]

Actually you could argue if he was elected.again by the American people after a felony conviction that THEY pardoned him.

It would seem an absurd result that the President of the United States is the only person in the entire country who can't be pardoned. If the constitution intended that, surely they could have said it more plainly. In fact they were plain about it, there is just one exception:

"he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

[EscherEnigma]

Actually you could argue if he was elected.again by the American people after a felony conviction that THEY pardoned him.

You can argue lots of things that aren't true.

[Kazinski]

Well if they reelected him then they are granting him the power to pardon himself, so really it's the same thing.

I think its a real stretch to think our textualist Supreme Court is going to impose a restriction that's not in the constitution, especially when the pardon power restriction that is explicitly in the constitution allows Congress to remove the president.

[Magister]

Traditionally a criminal Republican President would resign to be pardoned by the successor he appointed. Another norm broken by Trump.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush never resigned. The coup against Trump was orchestrated by Bush Republicans that wanted Pence as president. McConnell is a savvy political actor but his mistake was not holding on to the Articles of Impeachment and telling Trump he couldn’t run in 2020. And Trump is not a savvy political actor but his mistake was not holding up judicial appointments until McConnell agreed to his agenda.

[David Nieporent]

It would seem an absurd result that the President of the United States is the only person in the entire country who can’t be pardoned. If the constitution intended that, surely they could have said it more plainly. In fact they were plain about it, there is just one exception:

No, it would seem an absurd result that the POTUS is above the law. They put a million checks and balances in the constitution but they forgot to explicitly note that the president is a king.

"No man can be a judge in his own case" is a longstanding legal maxim.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe they can use where ever Ted Kennedy served his murder conviction.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Senate?

[Frank Drackman]

I support the Death Penalty but being in the same room as "Danang" Dick Blumenthal, Poke-a-hontas Lizzie Warren, Cory "I'm not gay" Bookman, Pat "Depends" Leahy (is he still alive?) is the definition of "Cruel & Unusual"

Frank

[Jerry B.]

If he’s convicted of sedition, don’t think he can run. I’d expect that such a charge might be in the offing, given the sedition convictions of the various Proud Boys, who supported him.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Democrats seem to be taking the position that if he’s accused of sedition, he can’t run, and never mind that he hasn’t been convicted.

That was how things worked right after the Civil war, but it WAS after a civil war, the people being disqualified were not in any position to contest it, and the factual predicate (as opposed to ‘guilt’) of the disqualification was not disputed.

AFTER the Civil war, the only application of Section 3 was to Victor Berger, a Socialist who actually was convicted. He was, none the less, permitted to be on the ballot, ran, was elected, and Congress simply refused to seat him on the basis of Section 3.

When the conviction was overturned, Congress seated him.

So the applicable precedent appears to be that,

1) Section 3 doesn’t imply you can’t run. 2) If you’ve just lost a civil war, and your state is under military occupation, no conviction is necessary. Otherwise a conviction is necessary.

[Sarcastr0]

The Democrats seem to be taking the position that if he’s accused of sedition, he can’t run

Who is saying that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, do you ever get tired of pretending you live in a cave?

For instance:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/18/trump-ballots-january-6/

https://www.lawfareblog.com/after-cawthorn-ruling-can-trump-be-saved-section-3-14th-amendment

[Brett Bellmore]

https://lailluminator.com/2023/04/14/election-officials-must-block-trump-the-constitution-demands-it/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-2024-bid-hit-challenge-group-disqualification-clause/story?id=93292873

[Brett Bellmore]

https://lawandcrime.com/trump/legal-efforts-to-disqualify-trump-from-holding-office-again-intensify-after-he-announces-2024-presidential-campaign/

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=125256

Note, they do not plan in ANY of these efforts, to require him to be actually convicted of insurrection. Their position is that just being accused of it by Democrats suffices.

[Sarcastr0]

None of these say Trump can't run based on allegations.

Al of them include some kind of due process, including a legal finding that it was an insurrection and he participated.

You've overstated and underdelivered yet again.

[Brett Bellmore]

You ARE hallucinating now, aren't you? Man, that sucks.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you trying to bluff your way out? All of your links include a judicial process making a finding of insurrection and Trump's involvement.

None of them are based on mere allegations.

[Gandydancer]

I assumed Gaslightr0 was lying, but looked at one of Brett's links just to make sure. And sure enough, https://electionlawblog.org/?p=125256 proposes a new statute and then disqualification of Trump before the election, but clearly says Trump can and should be disqualified from office without any such judicial process after winning enough electors to gain election on mere allegation that he has committed insurrection.

[Brett Bellmore]

And even the ones proposing some kind of judicial process aren't suggesting an actual criminal conviction for insurrection, such as resulted in Berger not being seated.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Democrats are Trump’s biggest supporters—him beating Hillary has been awesome for Democrats.

[Gandydancer]

"...The same point applies to electoral votes cast for Trump, on the assumption that he too is constitutionally ineligible to serve again as president... It’s easy to imagine Democrats in Congress on January 6, 2025 objecting to electoral votes cast for Trump on this basis. What about those Republicans, like Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, who already voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial because of his role in inciting the insurrection this past January 6? One might think that these GOP Senators would feel the tug of constitutional duty to disqualify electoral votes cast for Trump in 2024 on grounds of his ineligibility to serve again as president having 'engaged in insurrection' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

This is part of undeniable advocacy for throwing out Trump's electors without any necessity for judicial process against Trump. Gaslightr0 is gaslighting us.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You two can't read very well. This is a direct quote from the article you linked:

"Congress should enact a law now authorizing the Justice Department to file a civil suit in federal court to adjudicate Trump’s ineligibility. That way, if Trump is judicially ruled ineligible—becoming constitutionally equivalent to Obama—his name can be kept off the ballots in 2024, and no voter will waste a vote by casting a ballot for a constitutionally ineligible candidate.

Indeed, the argument can be made that unless Congress enacts this kind of statute to enforce section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no individual—including Trump—can be deemed ineligible based on the existence of this constitutional provision alone."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Foley is specifically calling for a judicial finding of ineligibility, in other words due process. And you still don't seem to understand what gaslighting actually means.

[VinniUSMC]

So, he could serve his sentence there. I would think that this would be the end of diplomatic trips to Camp David (or the UN in NYC, et al). But what would 4 years in Club Fed look like? Obviously, the Secret Service would have to have men inside, in order to protect him. What would such an incarceration look like?

If Trump were elected again... I have it on good authority that "no one tells the President, no one tells the President, no one tells the President what to do!"

But seriously, if he were elected while on house arrest, who's going to stop him from the usual President-y things? Or even just deciding to go golf? Secret Service ain't the President's jailers.

[Moderation4ever]

A simple solution would be the 25th Amendment. Because the President is limited in his freedom he cannot serve effectively, and he can be relieved of the duty and have it pass to the VP. So, pay attention to who is picked for VP.

[Bob from Ohio]

Section 4 of 25A requires consent of the majority of the cabinet and if disputed by the president, 2/3 of Congress.

Under what circumstances do you imagine the GOP would back the removal of the newly elected president? One who won an historical, against all odds, election. It would be primary suicide in 2026.

More likely would be under Section 4 of 25A, Trump steps aside for one day, the VP issues the pardon and then Trump resumes office.

[Moderation4ever]

As I noted pay attention to the VP pick. He chose someone in 2016 with integrity, you will not see Trump make that mistake as second time.

[Bob from Ohio]

If Trump wins [unlikely] then it would mean the American people decided his conviction [or indictment] was not serious enough. A pardon would not show a lack of integrity, it would reflect the people's will.

[Armchair Lawyer]

As a thought experiment....I imagine the supremacy of federal law would take precedence, and any state level prison sentence would be suspended via some mechanism until the end of Trump's presidency.

At a core level, the US is a democracy. One of the critical elements of a democracy is being able to elect one's own leaders. Effectively kneecapping the nationally elected leader by having a small minority in a locality convict them, effectively interferes with democracy as a while.

Whether that be a liberal enclave in New York convicting Trump, or a conservative enclave in Alabama convicting Biden....either scenario would allow a small radical minority to effectively kneecap the democratic choices of the nation.

[SRG]

Wrong way round. The Constitution makes no provision for the exemption of the president for crimes committed. Taken to its limit, your position becomes that the president shouldn't ever be impeached because the number of people impeaching him is orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people voting for him.

[Bob from Ohio]

A state cannot de facto remove a President from office by imprisoning him. The sentence would have to be suspended until term end, one way or another.

[Davedave]

He is not being removed from office. He's still President, he's just in jail. This has happened in various countries around the world, though generally the perps have been removed from office having been convicted. It would be truly extraordinary if the GOP didn't support doing the same if this ever happened to Trump, even given their current lunacies.

[Bob from Ohio]

He cannot function. He cannot meet freely with people. Cannot go to Congress. Cannot travel to foreign meetings.

Its a de facto removal.

[not guilty]

Uh, no. Removal would require impeachment followed by Senate conviction or the procedures specified in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

[Bob from Ohio]

I realize big words confuse you but look up "de facto"

[SRG]

I realise you know the meaning of de facto but what matters is de jure. And Trump will have brought it on himself, so volenti non fit injuria.

[not guilty]

It would not be a removal of any kind, Bob.

[Nige]

They'd just be taking him from one big house and putting him in another, not a removal at all.

[Frank Drackman]

I know, but Senescent Joe's in Orifice until January 20, 2025 or until death (I'm betting on death (natural! natural!)

[SRG]

There is nothing in the Constitution to support your position.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. Impeachment is different, as it takes place via the democratically elected representatives from throughout the country. That's rather different from 12 people from a single small district.

[EscherEnigma]

So you're in the "a president cannot be prosecuted for crimes" camp.

[SRG]

He's in the "Trump cannot be prosecuted" camp.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I said nothing about prosecution. I said that any sentence that interfered with the job duties would likely be suspended via some mechanism.

[John F. Carr]

He won't be convicted of federal charges before January 20, 2025.

Rules for placement of prisoners take into account length of sentence. If your sentence is long you may not qualify for a minimum security prison. If the rules are followed.

[not guilty]

Yogi Berra famously observed that "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." That having been said, I wouldn't assume that Trump won’t be convicted of federal charges before January 20, 2025. Reports are that the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation is in its final stages, and indictments may be forthcoming shortly.

The facts are fairly simple and straightforward, and if Trump has any defense other than nullification, it is not readily apparent. A jury trial could be completed in a matter of weeks rather than months.

[John F. Carr]

I agree that the trial should be more straightforward than, for example, Lay and Skilling of Enron (four months). I observe that federal felony cases often move very slowly from indictment or arrest to trial for no apparent reason, and in Trump we find a defendant with the means to hire aggressive counsel and the inclination to ask them to gum up the works.

[Bob from Ohio]

"indictments may be forthcoming shortly"

Like the Atlanta one?

[not guilty]

Indictment during August are likely in Atlanta. Federal indictments in D.C. regarding the Mar-a-Lago documents may or may not precede that. Jack Smith is playing his cards close to the vest.

[Gandydancer]

Thought experiment: What if pigs could fly?

[Magister]

They'd crap all over your car.

[Gandydancer]

santamonica811 has done the same to this comment section.

But you didn't HAVE to look up and open your mouth: "Yes, yes, from your sphincter to God's ears!"

[Magister]

You should demand your money back.

[Gandydancer]

I paid the same price to be shit on as you did, but I took cover while you just stood there, looked up and reveled in it.

[Jerry B.]

Anything can be air dropped - once.

[ducksalad]

There is some precedent on an inmate - full up incarcerated, not house arrest - being elected to public office and serving:

https://dcist.com/story/21/06/16/dc-jail-incarcerated-joel-caston-wins-anc-election-ward7/

It's a minor office but the jail officials let him attend virtual board meetings and host board meetings in the jail.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A foriegn national crashed a truck into a gate & says he wants to kill POTUS -- and is charged with.... I think this is at least as bad as Jan 6th....

[Michael P]

Obviously, depredation of property of the United States in excess of $1,000. That's a felony! What other charges could possibly obtain?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I didnt know it was a felony. But threatening to kill the POTUS comes to immediate mind.

[Life of Brian]

What other charges could possibly obtain?

I think I sense sarcasm, but just in case: the NY Post reported that the US Park Police originally envisioned charging him with "threatening to kill, kidnap or inflict harm on a president, vice president or family member, as well as assault with a dangerous weapon, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, trespassing and destruction of federal property."

Pretty spectacular downgrade in just 3 days.

[John F. Carr]

Felony depredation with a political motive can be punished as terrorism if the prosecutor so desires. Many January 6 defendants could have been punished as terrorists. Prosecutors decided not to go there.

[Kazinski]

The FBI made almost 300,000 illegal searches on the 702 database many of them for potential Jan 6th persons of interest, 19,000 were donors in a congressional race, and some were associated with BLM protests.

The 702 database is gathered for foreign intelligence purposes, but it contains almost all Americans emails, phone call records and every other sensitive electronic piece of information you can imagine, so it's only supposed to be used for legitimate foreign intelligence investigations.

The DEA has been caught out before using the 702 database, then "sanitizing" the information so it could hold up in court. There probably weren't any consequences.

Did the FBI poison the tree?

[Gandydancer]

For convenience: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-misused-intelligence-database-278000-searches-court-says-2023-05-19/

[bernard11]

The 702 database is gathered for foreign intelligence purposes, but it contains almost all Americans emails, phone call records and every other sensitive electronic piece of information you can imagine,

Really? Wow.

How many emails are sent every day in the US?

[Martinned]

Since this blog is permanently at risk of becoming completely parochial, let me offer something non-American.

I've long advocated - on this blog and elsewhere - that being tolerant towards intolerance doesn't work. (Not my idea, obviously.) You can't let parties participate in the democratic process whose objective it is to undermine/abolish democracy and/or the rule of law.

In Greece they've had a bit of an ambivalent history with this idea, because it was pretty much the justification that various governments - including the 1967-74 junta - used to oppress the communists. So it is interesting that the Court of Cassation now banned the successor party to Golden Dawn.

This blog post sets out the issues quite well: https://verfassungsblog.de/greeces-ambivalent-turn-to-militant-democracy/

[Martinned]

And yes, the Greek supreme court is called Areios Pagos (Άρειος Πάγος), just like in ancient Athens.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned, man of the world. Thanks for the link. I’ll put it on my “to do” list for the next bout of insomnia.

[Martinned]

Greece just had a parliamentary election last Sunday, which had a lot of moving parts. (Train crash, spyware scandal.) The conservatives (New Democracy) did well, but not quite well enough to be able to run the country on their own, so they'll probably push for a second round*, which would take place in July.

* Weird election system: This election was held under a normal "one man one vote" system. But if no government can be formed (with tight deadlines), they'll have a re-run in July where the largest party gets 50 bonus seats. In a legislature with 300 seats, those 50 would almost certainly put New Democracy over the top for an absolute majority.

[Mr. Bumble]

50 bonus seats. Dems would salivate for such a system.

[Martinned]

A couple of countries have such a system. It encourages parties to form larger blocks, and improves the odds that someone will end up with an absolute majority. I don't think either objective is sufficiently important to justify a fundamentally undemocratic law like this. Let the politicians form a coalition. Lock them up in a room if you have to.

(Speaking of which, I recently read Marco Polo's travelogue, and in the process learned about the papal election of 1268-1271. Yes, that took three years. In the end, the people of Viterbo locked the Cardinals in their palace, put them on water and bread, and ultimately even took the roof off to encourage them to hurry the f*ck up and elect someone.)

[Kazinski]

It does sound better than Israel's system. Italy has had a lot of electoral instability too.

[Martinned]

Italy also has (or had, I can't keep track) the bonus seats, albeit in a larger parliament.

Israel has basically ended up with the Swedish system, where a block of parties on the right competes in elections with a block of parties on the left. They are coalitions that are agreed before the election, and that stay pretty stable from one election to the next. That works fine (it's basically the US system), unless there is a group of MPs who don't belong to either block.

Israel's problem isn't the elections, it's the lack of a robust constitution that safeguards human rights and the rule of law.

[SRG]

And see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica

It takes its title in part from Areopagitikos (Greek: Ἀρεοπαγιτικός), a speech written by Athenian orator Isocrates in the 4th century BC. (The Areopagus is a hill in Athens, the site of real and legendary tribunals, and was the name of a council whose power Isocrates hoped to restore.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"In Greece they’ve had a bit of an ambivalent history with this idea, because it was pretty much the justification that various governments – including the 1967-74 junta – used to oppress the communists."

You said ambivalent; That sort of implies that it was also used unreasonably on occasion. Which party wrongfully got oppressed?

I mean, if you're going to have such a law, and not apply it to Communists and Nazis, what's the point?

[Martinned]

Communists in post-war Europe came in many shapes and sizes. For decades the Italian Communist Party (PCI) was the largest left-wing opposition party, while the Christian Democrats usually ran the country. Nobody would have accused them of being antidemocratic.

In Greece there was a civil war in the 1940s (as the blog post explains). But whether the communists continued to be antidemocratic after the death of Stalin I am not in a very good position to say.

In any event, militant democracy can hardly justify a military junta. (Not in Turkey, and not in Greece.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Communists in post-war Europe came in many shapes and sizes."

You could probably say the same about the Nazis.

" But whether the communists continued to be antidemocratic after the death of Stalin I am not in a very good position to say."

Your cave doesn't get wifi?

[Martinned]

You could probably say the same about the Nazis.

Not really, they were all in Argentina.

And I have excellent wifi, thank you. But my one year of classical Greek in high school doesn't position me very well for understanding modern Greek history from primary sources.

[Gandydancer]

We don't need to rely on primary sources to see that the Court of Cassation's objective it is to undermine/abolish democracy, so why is your ignorance about Greek commies so hard to dispel?

[Mr. Bumble]

Phew, I thought you said Court of Castration.

[Gandydancer]

I have no idea what a "Court of Cassation" is, but castrating those with members and sterilizing the rest sounds too good for them.

[Martinned]

A court of cassation is a supreme court that only does law.* Countries from France to the Netherlands to Greece have apex courts of that form. In all of those countries you typically get a first appeal on both facts and law, and then an appeal on law only to the court of cassation.

* In the Netherlands, the jurisdiction I know best, the Supreme Court may quash the judgment below if it is wrong on the law or if it is insufficiently reasoned. Judgments that are dubious on the facts often end up being quashed as insufficiently reasoned. ("The reasoning of the court below on [this area of evidence] is difficult to understand, so we have no choice but to quash it.")

[Ridgeway]

"But whether the communists continued to be antidemocratic after the death of Stalin I am not in a very good position to say."

Erich Honecker and Nicolae Ceaucescu say hello, and thank you for recognizing the difficult choices they had to make in the struggles against Fascism, Imperialism and overall Western decadence and no-goodery.

Alexander Dubcek would likely also have had some thoughts on how communists react when the people et a little too frisky with their "freedom."

[Davedave]

Are any of those Greek? No? Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

[Brett Bellmore]

So the argument would be that Greek communists are different from the communists of other countries, being too drunk on Ouzo to commit genocide, or something of that sort?

[Gandydancer]

I haven't forgotten DaveLiarDave's refusal to acknowledge what was said in that article on 2020 US election vote totals even when it was quoted to him. Expecting him to acknowledge that Marxist-Leninists aren't democrats ANYwhere flies in the face of our experience with him.

[Davedave]

Oh look, the liar's back. I thought you abandoned that sockpuppet after revealing you couldn't do basic arithmetic, but no, here you are doubling down. Or at least trying to, though multiplying by two is obviously way above your level.

[Gandydancer]

Link up the exchange for us, why don't you? As lying goes you performance went even further than, say, Nige ever has. And that's quite the feat, DaveLiarDave.

[Martinned]

Communists on one side of the Iron Curtain were different from communists on the other side of the Iron Curtain, yes.

[Ridgeway]

The primary difference being that those on the Eastern side were in power, and those on the Western side were not. Totalitarians (right and left) love democracy and minority protections so long as they are out of power.

[SRG]

I lived in Italy as a kid, and I remember that in 1968 when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia, the Italian Communist Party put up posters everywhere comparing the Soviet action to the Nazis.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't forget, the Greeks invented Homosexuality, The (Very Wrong) Reverend Al Sharpton (On PMS-NBC almost every morning) said so.

“White folks was in the caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

Yeah, The "Reverend" doesn't know the difference between Astrology and Astronomy, he does love the Gyro's though.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone else think the "Reverend" looks like a bobble head?

[Frank Drackman]

More like a Black Mr. Potato Head

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems like you're bringing up the Sedition Acts again, albeit in a different form.

If you "can't let" people choose certain choices...then you've got to ask if you're really a democracy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

James Michael Curley won some race from prison.

[Martinned]

Given that you live in a country where the people can't democratically decide to have a 20 year old president or a ban on muslims voting, I'm not sure that I know what you're on about.

[Mr. Bumble]

You really need to cut back on the late night drinking.
Way off your game today.

[Gandydancer]

That the people can’t democratically decide to have a ban on Muslims voting is undemocratic?

Your brain is broken.

[Nige]

In fairness, this is just the logic of 'it's ok to ban books if elected officals do it' extended just a little.

[Gandydancer]

Not seeing the connection between the ability to vote while Muslim and forcing schools to stock tranny propaganda. Your brain, too, is broken

[Nige]

Extend the logic. Just a little.

[Gandydancer]

As if you know anything about logic.

[Nige]

You'll never succeed if you never try.

[Gandydancer]

So THAT's your explanation for your incapacity? Laziness?

I don't think so. Why appeal to laziness when stupidity and shamelessness suffice, and the number of your idiotic posts implies industriousness?

[Nige]

Are you talking to yourself?

[Gandydancer]

As I said, ^^^^^ stupidity.

[Martinned]

Human rights are a constraint on/limitation of democracy. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about that.

[Gandydancer]

Whose human rights are you protecting by suppressing minority rights to engage in the democratic process?

[Ed Grinberg]

compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach_(political_party)

FWIW, I think it -- banning political parties / politicians -- is an awful idea. Wouldn't fly here in the U.S.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, here we just rig things to keep them off the ballot, or exhaust them financially before the general election campaign.

[Life of Brian]

being tolerant towards intolerance doesn’t work

Which makes you... well, intolerant. But I suspect if asked, Orwell would have confirmed that some intolerance is better than others....

[SRG]

Recall Bertrand Russell's point about sets of sets vs sets of things. Intolerance about things is not the same as intolerance about intolerance.

[Life of Brian]

Definitional sophistry. At bottom, you're being intolerant of people who act and think in a way you disagree with. You've just declared your standard of intolerance to be the only true and correct one.

[Nige]

Tolerance isn't a form of morality, it's a social contract. We don't have to tolerate Nazis - to take an extreme example - because Nazi ideology is fundamentally intolerant. Tolerating Nazis is immoral.

[SRG]

Sophistry = "an argument I don't like but can't effectively refute".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Except he did effectively refute it by pointing out the fallacious nature of your use of "intolerance" as a euphemism for anything you don't like.

[Nige]

No, he asserted that is how he used 'intolerance' in order to avoid engaging with the argument.

[SRG]

Nope. He attempted to redefine "tolerance".

[Life of Brian]

Actually your set theory mumbo jumbo is the attempted redefinition. I simply called it out for the results-oriented bullshit it is.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

He attempted to redefine “tolerance”.

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

[Gandydancer]

Nope. YOU attempted to redefine “tolerance”, and he refused to let you get away with it.

Intolerance of the intolerant is still intolerance, by definition. Now, it's perfectly OK to be intolerant of the intolerant (like Lefty} if they're dangerous (which Lefty is), but that doesn't make shooting Leftys the democratic thing to do. It can be legitimate self-defense, however.

[Nige]

You're agreeing with him.

[Gandydancer]

Only in stupid-brain world. What's the color of the sky there?

[Nige]

'Intolerance about things is not the same as intolerance about intolerance.'
'it’s perfectly OK to be intolerant of the intolerant'

Of course you ALSO embody LoB's statement, rather than SRG, so maybe it's a wash.

[Gandydancer]

‘it’s perfectly OK to be intolerant of the intolerant’

As I’ve already observed, it’s intolerant to be intolerant of the intolerant, so if being intolerant is a bad thing then you’re condemning yourself.

On the other hand, I think t’s perfectly OK to be intolerant of the intolerable. And so I have little tolerance for you at all. I wouldn’t draw and quarter you, but a little whipping would probably improve things greatly.

[Nige]

Yes, that's the supposed paradox that fascinates stoned college students at 2am. But as you yourself argue, tolerance isn't a virtue if you're tolerating evil. Tolerance is a social contract. To be tolerant is seen as a good thing; but there are limits. For example this comment section tolerates your violent threats. Is that good or bad?

[Gandydancer]

What's bad is that you haven't been sufficiently whipped yet.

But you've put your stupidity on display once again.
That observation of mine is not a "threat". A threat would be my saying that I will whip you with a stick if you trespass on my property.

[Nige]

Gandy thinks he didn't make a violent threat.

[Gandydancer]

And Nige "thinks" I did.

But, as already noted, his brain is broken.

Irremediably so, apparently.

[Martinned]

Indeed. Which is why this is known as the paradox of tolerance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[Life of Brian]

Yes, that's a fantastic approach for those who get to draw the line between what should and should not be tolerated, isn't it? Dictatorship suddenly doesn't suck so much when you get to be the dictator.

[Nige]

Are you saying you're intolerant of that sort of thing?

[Gandydancer]

No, that is not why the intolerant invent a so-called “Paradox of Tolerance” to conceal what it is that they are and what they are about. They do it because they are sneaky propagandizing bastards who just love propagating Big Lies.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Popper, who proposed the paradox, describes the intolerant:

for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

That sounds a lot like today's Progressive as much as the alt right. Proponents of CRT do everything except promote violence. Antifa certainly meet all the criteria.

[Gandydancer]

"it may easily turn out that" is a pretty weaselly way to begin making an argument, if that's what he was doing.

[Nige]

'That sounds a lot like today’s Progressive as much as the alt right.'

Who's passing laws to ban 'CRT?'

[Gandydancer]

Who's arguing upthread for banning whomever Nige deems intolerant from having political parties?

Why that would be out local Prog pest, he of little brain and no self-awareness!

[Nige]

Someone you imagined completely?

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Who’s passing laws to ban ‘CRT?’

People who see it for the intolerant Marxist trash theory that it is?

[Nige]

The pretexts change from day to day.

[Nelson]

"Who’s passing laws to ban ‘CRT?’"

People who have an interest in political fights and culture wars, not education.

"People who see it for the intolerant Marxist trash theory that it is?"

I agree it's a trash theory. It is vastly inferior to most other theories about assessing history.

But most people never take a course in CRT in their entire college career. How is it that you think teachers all over the country, most of whom have never taken a course on CRT and none of whom have curricula or study materials that teach it, are magically teaching CRT?

It's the Immaculate Instruction, where knowledge spontaneously appears in a teacher's head without them ever learning it and in students' brains without them ever reading about it.

[Nelson]

CRT and Antifa, eh?

CRT is a college-level analysis of history not whatever mashup of motives the right fringe claims, but they refuse to engage in good-faith discussion. Hence the fallacy that it's being taught in high schools.

Antifa isn't a group. It's a movement like the militia movement and is equally diverse in motives, tactics, and goals. The Boogaloo Boyz are different than the Three Percenters or the Oathkeepers. Same with Antifa.

Saying "Antifa is X" is like saying "militias are X". It is a nonsensical statement.

"they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument"

Funny how you don't see what you are.

[ducksalad]

Martinned, please consider my modest counter-proposal along the same lines:

Freedom of speech would not apply to speech attacking freedom of speech.

All other rights would still apply, e.g. alleged violators would still get a trial and punishments for those convicted would be reasonable and proportionate. So, for example, some major TV personality arguing on prime time that hate speech isn’t covered would get 5 years in prison. A candidate arguing that Citizens United was wrongly decided might get 10 years probation and (as a convicted felon) a lifetime ban from public office. And either could still get a commutation with sufficient penitent groveling and the right connections.

For some comment like you just posted, a resident would probably just get taken to the station and released after a stern warning or a fine. Well, the first time.

Since you’re in a foreign country, you wouldn’t be covered. But if you showed up at a US airport they’d escort you to one of those little unlabeled rooms next to the inspection area, feed you bottled water and peanuts while you sat on a bench for 24 hours, and then put you on a plane back to Europe with big “Denied Entry to US” stamp in your passport.

As you see, my proposal is moderate and civilized.

[Martinned]

You seem to think that you've discovered some kind of gotcha. Here is the German constitution:

Article 18
[Forfeiture of basic rights]

Whoever abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (paragraph (1) of Article 5), the freedom of teaching (paragraph (3) of Article 5), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications (Article 10), the rights of property (Article 14) or the right of asylum (Article 16a) in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit these basic rights. This forfeiture and its extent shall be declared by the Federal Constitutional Court.

[Frank Drackman]

So almost all of the present Congress is guilty? To bad this isn't Germany.

[ducksalad]

It’s all in who gets to decide the boundaries of “the free democratic order”.

It sounds to me like a general loophole clause for the German government to violate any of the basic rights listed at discretion. IMO the fact that your government hasn’t gone overboard with this loophole is more because you’ve been blessed (so far, since the founding of the FRG) with a civilized political culture that elects responsible adults. Rather due to any superior doctrines about not tolerating intolerance.

PS If one reads the constitutions of various obviously authoritarian states, they've always got beautifully and expansively stated rights, with some loophole clauses about emergencies, necessities, or protecting the democratic order. It's almost a cliche in South America to postpone or reverse an election in the name of protecting democracy.

[Martinned]

It’s all in who gets to decide the boundaries of “the free democratic order”.

As you can see, that's what Germany has a Constitutional Court for. (Where the judges are somewhat too politically appointed, in my view. They have limited, non-renewable terms.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"German constitution"

We don't look to Germans for lessons you know.

That provision is a gross human rights violation. On brand for Germans though.

[Martinned]

Germany easily has the most carefully thought-through constitution I've ever seen, and it's served them well for the last 70 years. Germany has certainly been governed better during this period than the US.

[Gandydancer]

"You can’t let parties participate in the democratic process whose objective it is to undermine/abolish democracy and/or the rule of law."

So this prohibits the Court of Cassation from doing what?

[Gandydancer]

"You can’t let parties participate in the democratic process whose objective it is to undermine/abolish democracy and/or the rule of law."

Actually you can, so long as you outvote them. If you can't outvote them then you can't allow democracy, so why pretend?

[M L]

"I’ve long advocated – on this blog and elsewhere – that being tolerant towards intolerance doesn’t work. "

I agree. For example, those who seek to further aggrandize and centralize government power, are very intolerant toward other people's opinions and choices, and would take away their liberty and freedom to make choices and their ability to self-govern in their local communities.

Maybe we should stop tolerating this intolerance. Maybe we should start being sharply intolerant toward it instead.

[Mr. Bumble]

On a lighter note: Is Target vying to become the chain store version of Fredrick's of Hollywood? Will they be including a case of Bud Light with every purchase?
Asking for a friend.

[Martinned]

Apparently. https://www.pajiba.com/politics/target-caves-to-antitrans-bigots.php

[Gandydancer]

Now THERE's a deranged rant.

"No one stocking shelves for minimum wage should have to deal with a sentient beer gut smashing Pride displays. They didn’t sign up for that kind of confrontation, particularly in states like Texas and Florida where gunfights are the primary method of conflict resolution."

[Nige]

No lies detected, tho.

[Gandydancer]

Not by you, which is self-discrediting.

[Nige]

None so blind.

[Gandydancer]

...as Lefty faced with a problem requiring even a bit of awareness of reality. E.g., in Prog-world, "...in states like Texas and Florida where gunfights are the primary method of conflict resolution” that's just the way it is. Only racist bigots would roll their eyes at that.

[Nige]

Fair point. Gun owners are generaly too cowardly to do anything other than bluster and threaten.

[Gandydancer]

Says the blustery guy posting anonymously on the internet.

[Kazinski]

I can’t see any room for corporations to complain about a backlash. They spend billions on marketing to manipulate consumers to buy schlock they don’t need like bad beer, or another outfit indistinguishable from all the other clothes already in the closet they’ve only worn once (enough about my wife, I don’t want to make this personal).

If the marketing campaign missteps and the people all the sudden come to their senses and realize what they’re being sold no longer fulfils their deepest desires and actually never did, I can’t see any reason for anyone to complain, except the usual squawking when the mark gets light of the grift.

If I were not such a capitalist I’d probably be ok with throwing Dylan Mulvaney in prison, not for being trans but for being complicit in selling such bad beer. I’ve heard a lot of people say we should throw oil company execs in prison for less, but Exxon at least is selling a higher quality product that’s harder to produce at a much cheaper price (Bud Light sells for about 9$ a gallon).

[Mr. Bumble]

"(Bud Light sells for about 9$ a gallon)."
Not any more.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a product of the left taking over academia. It's getting very hard for a corporation to hire entry level managers without getting a certain percentage of left-wing activists who care more about the politics than the economics.

And a lot of corporations were hiring for long enough without vetting the new hires on this basis, that the activists have taken control, and they'll tend to do economically ruinous things like this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It’s a product of the left taking over academia.

In a contest between (1) reason, science, modernity, inclusiveness, and progress and (2) bigotry, superstition, backwardness, insularity, and dogma, which side would you expect to prevail in academia or at the modern American marketplace of ideas?

Along the partisan divide in American education, the race involve Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (the modern liberal-libertarian mainstream, which operates our strongest teaching and research institutions) against Hillsdale, Liberty, Wheaton, and Ouachita Baptist (schools controlled by conservatives, who turn campuses into low-quality, nonsense-teaching, dogma-enforcing, censorship-shackled hayseed factories).

Who should we expect to win?

Carry on, clingers. So far as your stale, ugly, delusional thinking could carry anyone in modern, improving-against-your-wishes America.

[hoppy025]

Sorry Kirkland, but your grooming little boys so that you can empty your glands into their bodies does not qualify as progress.

[Theendoftheleft]

Ha, AIDS, you ignorant bigot. As if academia really functioned as marketplace of ideas. That just PROVES how little you know about it. What percentage of academics prescribe to Kuhnian and/or Foucauldian explanations of their own disciplines? (What percentage do so in the leading institutions you yourself listed?) YOU have no idea, because YOU are an ignoramus.

Insularity, dogma, and bigotry explain you perfectly, AIDS, you fucking American moron.

WHO should we expect to win? The folks with evolutionarily superior memes. You know, the ones who breed, the ones who don't feed people leftist-liberal dogmas that render them weak, subject to ideological and physical domination and capture, and being outbred by people who hold values which rival your own. That's vis-a-vis intellectual zeitgeists within academia, within your country, and globally.

You're going to lose EVERYTHING. Fortunately, empirical science (unfettered by your liberal-leftist ideology) will persist and flourish in Europe and East Asia.

[Nige]

This just seems like a way of avoiding the ugly homophobia behind the threats and harassment.

[Gandydancer]

If you don't want to experience "homophobia" a good start for any business (or the US Army) is to not provoke it by promoting sexual degeneracy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you assert that gays are degenerates?

[Gandydancer]

SEXUAL degenerates, absolutely.

It's not the worst thing to be, but it is what it is.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You contend gays are immoral and corrupt?

What is wrong with you? Were your parents a Klan leader and a televangelist/faith healer?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When the Pride Pox spreads, homosexuals, dogs, and little boys are the only groups at risk.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘You contend gays are immoral and corrupt?What is wrong with you? Were your parents a Klan leader and a televangelist/faith healer?’.

How do you know he wasn’t raised in a traditional Muslim family? Or is that ‘Islamophobic’ to say? Is it OK when Muslims espouse such beliefs about the gays, but not when Christians do so? (If you imported 10 million run-of-the-mill Muslims into America tomorrow, would ‘homophobia' increase or decrease in your country? What about support for creationism?) Or is OK when Black and Asian Christians espouse such beliefs, but not when White Christians do so?

Or is calling out your double standards in that regard merely a function of a different pseudo-phobia?

Are you also implying that gays are somehow equal? Why can’t you overcome that religious, superstitious nonsense, clinger?

Whilst the world will undoubtedly be a worse place after America loses this cold war, AIDS, one can at least take solace in knowing that the entire world can now see through your superficial, hypocritical, and stupid liberal-progressive ideology, forms of discourse, and efforts to police thought and speech. THAT is real progress.

[Gandydancer]

I said they were sexual degenerates and will volunteer that their sexual activities are disgusting as well. As to “immoral and corrupt”, I’ll choose my own adjectives as I deem fitting and I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. In what sense “corrupt”? That homos on the bench take bribes in higher proportions than other kritarchs? I don’t have stats for that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I was relying on the dictionary, you bigoted, half-educated, deplorable, obsolete Volokh Conspiracy favorite.

People at a few legitimate law schools should ask the Volokh Conspirators -- every one of them, except for the few who do not work at legitimate law schools -- why their blog attracts such a striking concentration of bigots and features such a steady stream of bigoted content. Just to understand the situation.

[Gandydancer]

Anyone who claims to rely on dictionaries to provide a sound basis for understanding the meaning of what they say is LESS than half educated. What schools clowned themselves by giving you a credential? And, answer the question: In what ways do you imagine that fags are provably corrupt? If a dictionary will help feel free to quote it.

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, your entire value system is obsolete AND you’re a proven bigot. You need a new shtick, you unreflective, hypocritical airhead.

What percentage of your country’s law schools are illegitimate? 80 percent? Note that they’re mostly blue team-run institutions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In what ways do you imagine that fags are provably corrupt?

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators. Bigots. You cultivate them as an audience and flatter them. Your blog is saturated with it.

I have concluded that at least a couple of you are bigots. The others are appeasers of bigots. This is why you find yourselves at the disaffected fringe of modern legal academia, on the wrong side of history, on the weaker side at the marketplace of ideas, and on the losing end of the culture war.

Bigots.

Cowards.

Hypocrites.

[Theendoftheleft]

Ha! AIDS, you think by just throwing back at others the words used to accurately identify you (upon solid grounds) makes it so? The only hypocrite and coward here is you.

Don’t you DARE pretend to be equal, let alone the righteous and the good, ever again. It's easy to see through your pretenses, you evolutionary dud sub-moron.

[Theendoftheleft]

And the WRONG side of history? AIDS, you retard, you're going to lose this cold war! The entire world, from real left to the hard right (religious or secular), despises your liberal-progressive ideology.

You are losing global hegemony to people who despise your values.

No one is multiculting AT ALL except for Western nation-states that fail to meet replacement rate.

You are being outbred by people who reject your values.

You aren't just on the wrong side of history, AIDS, it is demonstrably (empirically) the case that yours is an evolutionarily inferior meme. Your entire weltanschauung is dying!

Back into the closet, AIDS! Go back to the shadow! You unequal worm.

[Nige]

'You brought it on yourselves by not being homophobic enough!'

[Gandydancer]

Isn’t “homophobic” supposed to be bad? If just not promoting sexual degeneracy is "homophobic", as you seem to be saying, then “homophobic” is obviously good.

[Nige]

Hating a group of people for who they are is bad, coming up with fevered sensational pretexts to justify it is also bad. Of course you embrace this.

[Gandydancer]

It's not obviously wrong to hate people for being evil if that's "who they are", but this whole "hater" business is sooooo tedious.

[Nige]

Classing people evil because of who they are is the same as hating them for who they are.

[Gandydancer]

Wrong again. I might be like you and like evil.

[Theendoftheleft]

Just think of (certain kinds of) Satanists recognizing but hating one another.

[Theendoftheleft]

'Hating a group of people for who they are is bad...'.

Question begging.

[bernard11]

It’s a product of the left taking over academia. It’s getting very hard for a corporation to hire entry level managers without getting a certain percentage of left-wing activists who care more about the politics than the economics.

Oh for Pete's sake. Brett's brain spins out another leftist conspiracy theme.

Target couldn't just have the stuff would sell, could it.

And note that they are responding to actual threats against their employees from the - you know, nonviolent - right. Threats provoked by RW organizations.

[Gandydancer]

Brett did not suggest any "conspiracy". Your cliche-ridden brain is broken.

[Nige]

It's not about the corporation or their marketing budget. It's the openly homophobic behaviour, the threats and intimidation, the triumphalism.

'I’ve heard a lot of people say we should throw oil company execs in prison for less,'

No, you haven't.

[Gandydancer]

Really. I wonder what AOC means by https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByAOC/comments/q1wgje/we_must_hold_oil_executives_accountable_by/

[bernard11]

Nothing wrong with Target removing stuff that doesn't sell.

Plenty wrong with RW threats against Target employees, motivated by the likes of DeSantis and MTG. Utter scum.

[Mr. Bumble]

Better that they shoplifted it and in a mostly peaceful way set it on fire in the parking lot.

[Gandydancer]

There are loons of every stripe, but Desantis or MTG "motivating" anyone to go off didn't happen. Target's "Pride" campaign did that.

[EscherEnigma]

Don't be absurd.

All the "controversies" that conservatives are complaining about aren't new. Beer company paying drag queens or trans people to promote their product? Been doing that for years. Target selling Pride apparal? Been doing that for years. Books in schools that acknowledge that gay people exist? Been there for years.

Conservative over-reactions, including violence, threats, and guns? That is new, and manufactured.

[Gandydancer]

"Beer company paying drag queens or trans people to promote their product? Been doing that for years."

They must have been discreet about it, because this "RW" never encountered that before. Did they advertise in "Man-Boy Love Weekly" and "Animal Bedmates" too? Link?

[EscherEnigma]

They must have been discreet about it, because this “RW” never encountered that before.

... did you seriously never hear about "Ru Paul's Drag Race"? It was kind of a big thing for a number of years. Lots of advertisers. Hell, I've never watched an episode and I know about it.

Aside from that, yeah, LGBT-focused advertising probably isn't a thing you see often, because (based on your online behavior) advertisers probably don't think you'd be receptive to such.

As for Dulaney (or whatever her name is), are you one of her followers? If not, then how did you see her promotion? Was it perhaps because someone waved it at you saying "oh my god, look at this, aren't you just so angry?!"

[Gandydancer]

I saw it excerpted somewhere, but it was more “Look how the Woke Army has gone crazy!” than “aren’t you just so angry?” Though disgust and contempt were certainly called for. AND it won’t work to boost recruitment, so there’s the stupidity, too.

I’m vaguely aware that there is a tranny called Rue Paul. Did Bud Light advertise there? Again, on “The Man-Boy Love Times”, too?

I think beer in general is nasty swill, so am in no position to retaliate against Tranheiser-Busch.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Target hasn't been selling tuck-friendly kids bathing suits for years.

[Nige]

What is a gusset, you twerp.

[Gandydancer]

“gus·set [ˈɡəsət] NOUN a piece of material sewn into a garment to strengthen or enlarge a part of it, such as the collar of a shirt or the crotch of an undergarment. a bracket strengthening an angle of a structure.”

You think this is what is meant by “tuck-friendly”? And why does such a feature help “tucking”?

What I mainly tuck in is my shirts, and what helps tucking is if they're not too short or too long. Nothing to do with gussets.

[Nige]

Yes. Nothing to do with 'tucking.' Exactly.

[Gandydancer]

As if it weren't you that suggested gussets had something to do with tucking?

I would say that was slippery except that it is such a failed attempt at being that.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘Beer company paying drag queens or trans people to promote their product? Been doing that for years’.

Indeed, Oceania WAS always at war with Eastasia, NEVER Eurasia.

[Martinned]

By the way, it sounds like you're all OK with Amanda Gorman's poem being declared inappropriate reading for Florida primary school children?

https://twitter.com/TheAmandaGorman/status/1661131819717390336

[Mr. Bumble]

Comment from another thread:

Bored Lawyer 8 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User

Here’s another example:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/no-florida-school-didnt-ban-amanda-gormans-poetry/

A school parent complained that five black-authored books in the library were, in her opinion, inappropriate. School reviews the complaint. Moves four of the five from the elementary-school section to the middle-school section of the school library. The fifth stays.

National press reports that as the books were “banned.”

[Martinned]

You will note that I didn't say "banned". It's a red herring, and I'm not interested in having that conversation.

Do you actually have a view about the books that were removed? Otherwise it's not a very illuminating example.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gorman said it was, though, and you linked to her saying that. So, what's your beef?

[Martinned]

My beef is that removing it from a school library because some parent disagreed with it on content grounds is outrageous and ought to be unconstitutional.

[Michael P]

They didn't remove the book. They put it in a different section of the same library (to be clear: the same building, not a different facility within the same library system).

[Nige]

How accomodating of them towards a racist adult.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who says they were accommodating to a racist adult? The adult wanted it removed, they reviewed it, declined to remove it, but decided it was in the wrong section, and moved it.

What's the problem?

[EscherEnigma]

Your obvious and rampant dishonesty?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nope. My comments are 100% factual. Folks on your side are being dishonest.

[Nige]

There's no reason to object to it other than racism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe, but the school didn't accommodate her request to remove it. They moved it based on their own evaluation.

[Nige]

In an effort to placate her and her type. Won't work.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why do you keep insisting, without evidence, that they moved the book in an effort to placated someone?

They reviewed the book, decided on their own that the book was a better fit for the middle school section (which is, by all indications, correct), and moved it.

Why are you guys trying to stretch the facts to align with your narrative? Fact matter, you know.

[Nige]

No other reason to do so.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Except the reason they gave, which was that the book was more appropriate and had greater interest for the middle school students.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you knew who requested the review, you might not ask the question as to whether or not she's racist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm not questioning whether or not the person who made the complaint was racist. It doesn't matter.

The school simply realized that the book would be better suited for the middle school section than the elementary section while responding to the complaint from the potentially racist complainer. They didn't accommodate her. Her request was that the book be removed, not moved.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's an elementary school library. Elementary. It probably SHOULD be devoid of anything particularly controversial or political. The kids aren't there to be politically influenced. They're there to pick up a little bit of literacy and numeracy, and learn the ins and outs of going to school!

If the parents want to indoctrinate their kids in left-wing talking points, (Or right-wing, for that matter!) they can do it at home, can't they?

That's the key thing, here: Elementary school content shouldn't be partisan! And that poem was as partisan as could be.

[Martinned]

Amanda Gorman is only "controversial or political" if you've first taught kids to be racists. Nobody is born a racist, prejudice is taught.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, bullshit, you're just a fish not noticing the water; You don't notice the extreme partisan nature of that poem because it matches your own.

"We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it.
That would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy, and this effort very nearly succeeded."

A reminder: There is a huge partisan split on how January 6th is viewed. Basically only Democrats agree with her characterization of it.

To be clear, I probably wouldn't have made this particular call myself, but it's not outrageous to think that controversial texts don't belong in elementary school.

[Sarcastr0]

extreme partisan nature of that poem

Telling on himself saying it's partisan to think J06 was bad.

And, of course thinking partisan means it’s okay to remove the poem is telling on himself again.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It was moved to the middle school area.

That's fine. Lots of books get moved to the middle school area. They're still easily accessible. In fact, if an elementary school student wants to go to the middle school area, there's no barrier.

[Brett Bellmore]

It’s telling that you think it ISN’T partisan.

According to a CBS New poll, 85% of Democrats think that January 6th was an insurrection, and an attempt to overthrow the government. Only 21% of Republicans agree that it was an insurrection, and 18% that it was an attempt to overthrow the government. (Practically no split, though, on whether people approved of what happened, though.)

You don’t get much larger of a partisan divide than that.

But the split wasn't about whether January 6th was "bad". It was about whether it was an attempt to overthrow the government, or 'just' a riot.

[Sarcastr0]

Why is ANY action warranted?

I don't care how common books being moved is, why should THIS book be moved?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because some parents complained, duh.

I realize you think that parents shouldn't have any input into the nature of their children's educations, but that's not actually a widespread view.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Why is ANY action warranted?"

Because....
1. A Parent complained that the book was placed in the wrong section.
2. The library looked at the book and the expected interest level.
3. The expected interest level was for grades 4-8
4. That more closely matched the middle school area (grades 6-8) as compared to the elementary school area (K-5)
5. So the book was moved to the area that more closely matched its expected interest level.

Same reason that Harry Potter 5 is in the middle school area, along with Percy Jackson.

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP base being fucked up doesn’t mean reality is partisan, Brett.

Also telling you only look at D and R. Because your world is overdetermined for everything to be partisan. Mine is not.

And both of you - a parent complaining does not require action.

Censorship by busybody is censorship. You should both be ashamed.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Moving a book to a different section of a library isn't censorship...anymore than Harry Potter 5 is censored.

You're being silly, and creating a story out of nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The GOP base being fucked up doesn’t mean reality is partisan, Brett."

You insisting it's the GOP base rather than the Democrat base being fucked up, though, that's just an example of your being partisan.

Look at the poll numbers at CBS News, that I linked to: The numbers for the independents split the difference between Republicans and Democrats, as is normally the case. A pity they didn't break out the independents on the insurrection/riot question, but they probably would have split the difference on that question, too.

Whether January 6th was good or bad, practically no party line split, even the QANON idiots are split down the middle on that, everybody else agrees that it was bad.

Whether it was just a riot, or an insurrection? Yeah, that's totally political, with the parties having opposite opinions.

[Sarcastr0]

Saying 'well these people are mad about this book, so it's okay to censor it' is not a good way to be, Brett.

Whether it was just a riot, or an insurrection? Yeah, that’s totally political, with the parties having opposite opinions.

Don't you say opinion polls don't matter? Way to turn out a dime to go full postmodernist what a subset tells pollsters is enough to decide what to censor.

[Life of Brian]

Saying ‘well these people are mad about this book, so it’s okay to censor it’ is not a good way to be, Brett.

The only way Brett could possibly be saying that is if you consider the act of curating age-appropriate material for elementary school children to be "censorship."

If you do, man up and we can have that conversation.

[hoppy025]

Brett, the reason it was bad is because it didn't accomplish anything . I supported their cause, but if you're going to do that, you need to actually win.

[Nige]

‘Because some parents complained’

A racist complained. Racists must be pandered to at all times.

'that’s just an example of your being partisan.'

It ain't the Demicrat base stripping libraries like locusts.

[Nelson]

"1. A Parent complained that the book was placed in the wrong section."

One parent, with no requirement to specifically identify the inappropriate content. Books usually have an age rating, but one parent who disagrees can force a review. That isn't concerning to you?

"2. The library looked at the book and the expected interest level."

What does interest level have to do with age appropriateness? How interesting a book is is unrelated to how appropriate it is.

"3. The expected interest level was for grades 4-8"

Again, interest level isn't the standard. Appropriateness is. In this case it is just as appropriate for elementary school as middle school. So why deny it to elementary students?

"4. That more closely matched the middle school area (grades 6-8) as compared to the elementary school area (K-5)"

So if it is appropriate for elementary students, they don't get to have it in their section of the library? It has to be apprppriate for every single student in a broadly general category? Teaching down to the least member of broad group is such a fantastic way to enclurage stretching your intellectual wings.

"5. So the book was moved to the area that more closely matched its expected interest level."

Based on a single complaint and against the identified age level of the book. Apparently objective assessment isn't important in the face of the town crank's latest complaint.

I find it insane that rational adults think that one lone parent in a school of hundreds should be able to make baseless claims about what is or isn't appropriate and the school is required to indulge their random opinion.

No threshold like "if X number of parents make the same specific complaint we should look into it" or "if the specific text in a book (not a parent's personal, subjective interpretation of it) is inappropriate it should be moved. Nope, just one parent based on their personal opinion. No objectivity required.

The school district is then required to waste resources examining the claim, even if it has no basis. And if it's even a little bit mixed (like this situation), the default.is to humor the crazy person?

This is taking the tyranny of the minority and putting it on steroids. No single person should have the power to unilaterally waste public resources like this.

"Same reason that Harry Potter 5 is in the middle school area, along with Percy Jackson."

The Harry Potter books get darker and more mature as he gets older, but the first ones are rated 8+. The Percy Jackson books don't "age up" as severely as Harry Potter; they are all in the 8-10+ range.

Both of them are appropriate for third graders. Unless some religious wingnut complains that they are promoting witchcraft and Devil worship, of course. Then crazy has credibility and objectove standards don't

This idea of one parent being able to waste public resources based solely on their subjective opinion is a terrible, terrible idea.

This is the same nanny state bullshit as explicit lyric warnings. We shouldn't have to cater to the least common denominator.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Books usually have an age rating, but one parent who disagrees can force a review. That isn’t concerning to you?"

No, it isn't. Why should it?

[Life of Brian]

Both of them are appropriate for third graders.

I really, really hope you see the irony of this conclusory statement after a screen and a half of railing about unilateral value judgments (which isn't even correct, given that the ultimate decision was made by the school's review committee, suspiciously enough named that it very nearly sounds like that's precisely their purpose of existing).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why is ANY action warranted?"

Because the school decided the book was on the wrong shelf. Please try to keep up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Apparently objective assessment isn’t important in the face of the town crank’s latest complaint."

Huh? Who says there wasn't an objective assessment?

[Nelson]

"No, it isn’t. Why should it?"

Brett, because a single person should never have that much power. Consensus and professional knowledge count for something.

[Nelson]

"I really, really hope you see the irony of this conclusory statement after a screen and a half of railing about unilateral value judgments"

LOB, the age ratings are the exact opposite of unilateral value judgements. You understand that books are regularly assessed for age level by large groups of people, right?

My point is that there should be a higher threshold for a challenge than just one person and it there should be a standard for review (requiring specific complaints). This "parents need to be heard, even if it's just one crank" is unsustainable.

[Nelson]

"Because the school decided the book was on the wrong shelf. Please try to keep up."

And yet, it was determined to be age appropriate by people whose only concern was applying general standards.

When a school board is faced with an activist parent, the "let's just get them out of our hair so we can get back to our real job" instinct is strong. Activist parents are a minority, but they are vocal and a collosal waste of time for the people who have to deal with them.

[Nelson]

"Huh? Who says there wasn’t an objective assessment?"

The age rating was an objective assessment. There was no one screaming in their face.

The school board facing the activist parent? Not nearly that objective, are they?

[Life of Brian]

LOB, the age ratings are the exact opposite of unilateral value judgements. You understand that books are regularly assessed for age level by large groups of people, right?

I understand that you described different assessments by those large groups of people for Harry Potter and Percy Jones, and then provided your own unilateral judgment that both were equally appropriate for 3rd graders.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“And yet, it was determined to be age appropriate by people whose only concern was applying general standards.”

And the school isn’t saying that it’s not age appropriate, they’re just saying that it’s more age appropriate for middle schoolers. And given the nature of the book, that seems correct to me.

Again, there's no evidence that placating the parent had anything to do with the decision.

[Life of Brian]

and this effort very nearly succeeded

All other issues aside, why do the proponents of this work want small children to be brainwashed with shameless lies like this?

[Nige]

The number of books and works of art that are seen by the right as partisan, offensive, brainwashing and divisive is never going to actually stop growing until all the books and poems and art are gone.

[Gandydancer]

Actually it would necessarily stop growing as soon as the number of them stopped growing (no need to decrease to zero), which anyone not mathematically challenged as you would realize immediately.

For how many microcephaly studies have you volunteered, btw? At least you could be useful to science.

[Nige]

The culture war has become the War On Culture.

[Gandydancer]

Do you think that you're Blackocentric Black? Mathematical ignorance is not a "culture" for White people.

[Nige]

Culture for white people like you is getting upset that gay people buy stuff and kids read poems by black people.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The quoted passage is a reference to the American Civil War. I doubt that many Democrats would say that the passage also describes the January 6 insurrection. The Civil War was a fight to preserve slavery, but the arguments that slaverholders made to convince non-slaveholders to fight for slavery centered on the idea that if slavery was abolished, black people would seek and eventually achived political and social equality with white people. “Delaying democracy” means pushing back, at least temporarily, the day in which black people are allowed to vote. In contrast, the January 6 insurrection was about overturning the result of one election. The Confederates believed in democracy for whites only; the January 6 insurrectionists seem to have given up on democracy entirely. And the Confederates attempted to split the Union (“destroy the country”), whereas the January 6 insurrectionists wanted Trump to preside over all of it.

You have to be pretty extreme to think that any reference to the American Civil War is now partisan.

[Life of Brian]

The quoted passage is a reference to the American Civil War.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. The author herself specifically tied those lines to January 6:

However, she struggled to finish the poem until January 6, when supporters of former President Donald Trump rioted in the U.S. Capitol in a bid to stop President Joe Biden’s election by being certified by Congress, needless violence that left five dead.

Gorman told the newspaper the events of that day inspired some of the final lines of the poem: “We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it, would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy. And this effort very nearly succeeded. But while democracy can be periodically delayed, it can never be permanently defeated.”

[Moderation4ever]

What was partisan about the poem? Would you consider Robert Frost controversial because he read a poem at Kennedy's inauguration?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've already pointed out what was partisan: Basically everybody but QANON followers agree that January 6th was bad, but there's a stark political split on whether it was just a riot, or an attempt to overthrow the government. And the poem is firmly on the Democratic side of that divide.

Frost's poem, by contrast, didn't stick a wedge in a political divide and start hammering on it. It wasn't partisan at the time. But I bet it would cause quite a stir if delivered at a Republican inauguration these days.

[Moderation4ever]

Please, this is all you have to criticize. Amanda Gorman gave us a great poem and a wonderful recitation. All you can see is division because that is all you want to see. Thomas Jefferson wrote a great and wonderful document. One with ideas that he himself could not live up to, but he could put forward. Amanda continues to put forth ideas that the nation can strive to, can continue to climb the hill. The poem was not removed for anything other than spite, and your reasoning shows this.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "... January 6th was bad, but ..."

January 6th attempted to block the constitutional transfer of power because your guy, Trump, wouldn’t accept the election he lost. It was one more strategy in a long line of them to overturn an election.

These included pressuring state officials not to certify their results, insisting Justice Department officials claim fraud investigations were underway when they didn’t even exist, asking state officials to launch fraud investigation absent evidentiary cause, pressing the Georgia Secretary of State to deliver a specified number of new votes beyond his certified returns, demanding the Vice President block election certification by non-constitutional means, dozens of junk lawsuits without the slightest grounds, and two months of virulent ranting agitprop lies, which led to the riots Trump promoted and cheered as a TV spectator and fan.

[hoppy025]

There was plenty evidence of fraud, but courts never heard it. The fact is, Democrats changed tons of rules last minute and then didn't even pretend that it was legitimate.

[grb]

There are three classes of Election Deniers:

(1) There are the cowards/panderers like DeSantis, too afraid to call out Trump for his bullshit.

(2) There are the freaks, always talking about fantasy “evidence” they never produce.

(3) There are the weasels, who think it’s clever to fudge election procedure changes by the state executive or judicial branches as “fraud”, even though (a) we were in the middle of a pandemic, (b) there has never been an election without any changes to procedures, and (c) all they did was make it easier to vote.

Of course, on the last point I recognize how infuriating that is to right-wingers, who loathe voters, would like to see them quashed in large numbers, and never tire of voter-harassment bills.

But the real question is this: What class is hoppy025? My guess is a mix of all three. A little bit of posturing about something he knows is nonsense, a touch of tin-foil-hat freak faith, and scads of weaseling….

[Nelson]

"There was plenty evidence of fraud"

There isn't any evidence of fraud above the typical level. It's been deeply and repeatedly looked into, often by people who desperately wanted to find voter fraud (see: Arizona).

"but courts never heard it"

Yes, they did. The election fraud side didn't produce any evidence when the time came for them to show their cards. Not one piece of hard evidence.

"Democrats changed tons of rules last minute and then didn’t even pretend that it was legitimate."

Most of them were legitimate, as court cases months later showed.

But let's play make believe and say the changes weren't legitimate. Here's what you (not me) are saying:

Legal voters cast their votes according to the rules that existed at the time they voted.

Your position is that voters who followed the rules should be disenfranchised because they didn't know that in the future the rules would be deemed inappropriate? Really?

Explain why a citizen's legal vote should be taken away from them because they followed the rules.

[Nige]

‘Basically everybody but QANON followers agree that January 6th was bad’

This is actually a lie. As I recall one Republican politician said Jan 6th was bad, and she immediately became a pariah. The rest have not, or have endorsed it utterly.

But children need to be protected from a POEM.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This is actually a lie", followed by the lie.

[Nige]

Oh? How many Republican politicians have condemned Jan 6th as an attempt to overthrow an election result and the associated Big Lie about election fraud? I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you yourself are on eggshells about J06 and the 2020 election generally.

'It's bad but...' 'Trump did nothing wrong' 'The election was legit but the courts...'

You don't want the GOP to be as crazy as it is. Or yourself, for that matter.
You need to look in the mirror, between predictions the liberals will start killing people and Dems putting conservatives in camps.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nige, it's a lie because nobody became a pariah as a result of saying that what happened on January 6th was "bad". That's the opinion of a massive majority of Republicans, per a poll I linked to above.

Now, cooperating in the Democrats' efforts to impeach a Republican President for things Republicans don't think he's guilty of? Accepting a seat on a committee where the Democrats decided the Republicans couldn't have their own pick of their own members? Yeah, that sort of thing will make you a pariah.

[Nige]

You have avoided answering the question, I see. The answer is: some of them actually did! At the time! Not so much now. I was mixing up Megan McCain's treatment after condemning the election fraud fraud with Jan 6th. Mea culpa.

[bernard11]

Basically everybody but QANON followers agree that January 6th was bad,

Bullshit, Brett. Lots of people right here talked about it being just a bunch of tourists, and IIRC, that includes you.

And Trump himself called the insurrectionists "beautiful people," and said he loved them.

Don't rewrite history.

[Nige]

He's promised to pardon them if elected. He's also called for civil war two or three times, which is ideologically consistent with wanting the violent overthrow of democracy.

[hobie]

Brett, I'm framing this comment for the next time we have a prayer-in-school discussion

[Nige]

Left wing talking points seems to expland to include a lot of things the right have decided to hate. 'If we hate this then not hating it is political!'

[Mr. Bumble]

It wasn't removed.
Parent's concern was that content wasn't appropriate for their elementary school age child. How is that "outrageous"?
"Unconstitutional" how?

[Martinned]

What do you mean it wasn't removed? It was in the library, they took it out, and they put it somewhere that is not the library. How is that not "removed"? Are you really going to fight me on every word I use to avoid the actual principle here?

[Mr. Bumble]

"A school parent complained that five black-authored books in the library were, in her opinion, inappropriate. School reviews the complaint. Moves four of the five from the elementary-school section to the middle-school section of the school library. The fifth stays."
Guess we have different definitions for "removed".

[VinniUSMC]

Martin has different definitions for lots of things. The post just above this he claimed "this blog is permanently at risk of becoming completely parochial" and offered up some of his own lefty orthodoxy. Hard person to take seriously.

[Nige]

Yeah 'removed' from one section because some racists complained. And as we've seen with Target, you don't want to piss off right wing bigots - the bomb threats and harassment do follow.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Removed"; It has two more letters than "moved" because it's a different word, with a different meaning.

[Nige]

That's why removed is the more appropriate word.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Removed from one section and put in a more appropriate section. i.e. moved.

Why do you want it in a less appropriate section so bad?

[Nige]

There's nothing inappropriate about it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who said it was inappropriate?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, if a parent complained that Harry Potter was Satanic or whatever, and in the course of reviewing the complaint, the library discovered that the book was in the non-fiction section and moved it to the fiction section, would you complain that the book was banned, removed, or censored?

How is this different?

[Nige]

The racist cranks have decided to target this book and other books by black authors. They won't be happy with just restricting them to older kids.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They won’t be happy with just restricting them to older kids."

They're not restricted to older kids. They're in the middle school section of a K-8 school library. Elementary school age kids can still access it.

[Nige]

Yeah, they tried to placate the racist. They'll be back.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yeah, they tried to placate the racist. They’ll be back."

You keep saying that, without evidence. They tried to put the book in the most suitable place in the library. That's what you guys are making a big deal out of.

[Nige]

Yes we’re making a big deal about it because we don’t want to to go any further, or we’ll end up with actual laws being passed banning books.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If they move books to more appropriate shelves, soon we'll have a law banning books? Quite a stretch.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What do you mean it wasn’t removed? It was in the library, they took it out, and they put it somewhere that is not the library."

They mean it wasn't removed. It was in the library, they put it on a different shelf in the same library, and it's still in the library.

[Martinned]

They took it out of the elementary school liberary, and put it in the middle school library. So they moved it, and they removed it from the elementary school library.

Why are you so keen to have an argument about wordplay instead of actual principles?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why are you so keen on ignoring that the elementary school library and the middle school library are the same library, and we're just talking about moving it from one shelf to another?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you don't get to have that argument both ways: you shouldn't care because moving it was a little thing, and moving it was a good idea because it was partisan propaganda.

You don't get to care and demand we don't care.

You've really done a lot of work throwing arguments up there, some wrong, some mutually contradictory.

This is in service of censorship - state action removing access to books. You seem really into it. You've been into every censorious action done by state or private entities along the way so long as it's regarding paper books held by government institutions.

Twitter, well, they don't get freedom of association.

I don't see how you can call yourself a libertarian at this point.

[Brett Bellmore]

I did not, in fact, say that it was a good idea. To quote myself upthread, "To be clear, I probably wouldn’t have made this particular call myself".

But I'm getting really tired of your relentless insistence on pretending that moving a book from one shelf to another in the very same room is an act of censorship.

What happened is trivial: On reviewing the book, they decided it was on the wrong shelf in the library. That is literally all that happened. And you're making it out to be a visit by the Firemen in Fahrenheit 451!

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is in service of censorship – state action removing access to books. You seem really into it.

Why do you keep insisting on making up your own facts? The state has not removed access to books. As noted below, the school said, "However, to be clear, even though The Hill We Climb is located in the middle grades area of our media center, it remains accessible to all students."

[Gandydancer]

"...and they put it somewhere that is not the library."

I think they SHOULD have put it in a landfill along with the other garbage, but this claim by Martinned is anyway ignorance on stilts.

[Nelson]

"Parent’s concern was that content wasn’t appropriate for their elementary school age child. How is that “outrageous”?"

Because there is an age rating onnit and it includes elementary students. It's outrageous because one crank is given unchallengable credibility but the people who rate books for a living are dismissed out of hand.

Reasonabke people see "one unknowledgeable person ourweighs many professionals to be ridiculous.

[Gandydancer]

The decision to relocate the book was not made by one person. You are an ignorant loon.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

My beef is that removing it from a school library

Why are you pontificating on the subject when you clearly don't have the slightest idea what actually happened? (None of the books were removed from the library.)

That's a rhetorical question, BTW. Your idiocy is well established.

[Michael P]

He is Deeply Concerned that the library moved a book from one section to another.

[Sarcastr0]

Why though? There's not a lot of good reasons for any action at all.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Who knows. Maybe they thought the content was more middle-school appropriate?

[Sarcastr0]

A single person.

You're arguing a process was followed, so it's okay.

That's how authoritarians rationalize.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Also as below, an organization designed to assess interest levels for a book.

[Nelson]

Uh, you may want to walk back on that one. It was deemed appropriate for elementary school students.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. It was deemed more appropriate, and more suited to the interests of middle school students.

Why is it so important to you to make lots of middle school students walk over to the elementary school section, when you can have a few elementary school students walk over to the middle school section?

[Gandydancer]

" It was deemed appropriate for elementary school students."

By who? And they are entitled to overrule local authorities, why?

[Life of Brian]

Don't prevaricate -- a single person flagged the issue. The school's materials review committee looked into it and agreed.

How many complaints do you think should have accumulated before that review process began?

[Nelson]

Five similar compalints at least. Preferably more, with consideration given to the age appropriateness rating determined by objective professionals.

[Life of Brian]

Five similar compalints at least. Preferably more

If the materials review committee is acting objectively what's the concern with the lower threshold, and why does that concern outweigh the delay this would cause in circumstances where something grossly inappropriate slipped through the cracks?

with consideration given to the age appropriateness rating determined by objective professionals.

What evidence do you have that the materials review committee themselves are not objective professionals?

[Gandydancer]

...

[Bob from Ohio]

"That’s how authoritarians rationalize."

"right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is bad now

[TwelveInchPianist]

A single person.

No. From the article linked above:

"Staff members on the school’s materials review committee ultimately decided four of the five books would be “more appropriate” for middle school-aged children and thus moved the books to the middle-school section of the library...Minutes from a meeting of the review committee show the panel found the vocabulary used in Gorman’s poem was “determined to be of value for middle school students.”"

You claim that there are lots of good arguments for no action at all. What are they, given that the book was more appropriate for middle school age children?

[Nelson]

The pro-freedom, pro-education, pro-knowledge position would be that, as a work deemed age appropriate for elementary students, it should remain in the elementary library.

The restrictionist position is that a single parent and a school board being pressured by an activist should remove everything that is appropriate for elementary students if a parent makes a vague complaint.

Objective standards are so passe. Side with the lone, whiny parent screaming, “won’t anyone think of the children?!?!?””.

[Life of Brian]

Side with the lone, whiny parent screaming, “won’t anyone think of the children?!?!?””.

Interesting -- you responded to this comment after responding to mine that specifically mentioned that the determination was made by the materials review committee of the school, not a lone parent.

Yet you're still wrapping your complaints around the "lone parent" straw man.

Why?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The pro-freedom, pro-education, pro-knowledge position would be that, as a work deemed age appropriate for elementary students, it should remain in the elementary library."

What elementary library? It's a different section of the same library.

[Nige]

https://www.jta.org/2023/05/24/united-states/the-florida-mom-who-got-amanda-gormans-poem-restricted-says-shes-sorry-for-promoting-the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion

[TwelveInchPianist]

What does the mom have to do with what section of the library the book is in?

[Gandydancer]

What do the previous views of the parent have to do with a decision of the materials review committee that she didn’t have a vote on?

[Nige]

They were trying to placate a racist. Shame on them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You haven't shown any evidence that they were trying to placate a racist, but I know facts and evidence never stop leftists from making things up to support the narrative.

[Krayt]

Well, it does contain "hate massages". I'll put those on my bucket list.

[Martinned]

Does it though?

[Krayt]

Read the photo copy of the complaint carefully.

“hate massages”

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it doesn't seem to be particularly obscene. Perhaps a bit partisan for an elementary school reading list, though.

I am a bit annoyed by the current tendency to call deciding that something isn't suitable for an elementary school a "book ban". Like elementary school children actually SHOULD be exposed to everything out there.

[Martinned]

I assume MLK is also not suitable for elementary schools for the same reason?

[Michael P]

When you assume, you make an ass out of yourself.

[Mr. Bumble]

Only the FBI wiretaps.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I assume

Which is one of your many, many problems.

[Nige]

Three responses, three refusals to answer the question. Two responses variations on each other.

[Gandydancer]

"Only the FBI wiretaps" is in fact a direct answer to the question, and the two deriding "I assume" are perfectly appropriate responses to a question in that form. No one is obliged to jump through hoops at your command.

No all of us consider studying MLK's texts the equivalent of Bible studies for Christians. He generated a lot of crap even when he wasn't plagiarizing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I assume MLK is also not suitable for elementary schools for the same reason?"

Probably more suitable for middle school students too. So what?

[Gandydancer]

It’s not so long that it can’t be quoted here in full:

"When day comes, we ask ourselves, where can we find light in this never-ending shade?

The loss we carry. A sea we must wade.

We braved the belly of the beast.

We’ve learned that quiet isn’t always peace, and the norms and notions of what “just” is isn’t always justice.

And yet the dawn is ours before we knew it.

Somehow we do it.

Somehow we weathered and witnessed a nation that isn’t broken, but simply unfinished.

We, the successors of a country and a time where a skinny Black girl descended from slaves and raised by a single mother can dream of becoming president, only to find herself reciting for one.

And, yes, we are far from polished, far from pristine, but that doesn’t mean we are striving to form a union that is perfect.

We are striving to forge our union with purpose.

To compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters and conditions of man.

And so we lift our gaze, not to what stands between us, but what stands before us.

We close the divide because we know to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside.

We lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another.

We seek harm to none and harmony for all.

Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true.

That even as we grieved, we grew.

That even as we hurt, we hoped.

That even as we tired, we tried.

That we’ll forever be tied together, victorious.

Not because we will never again know defeat, but because we will never again sow division.

Scripture tells us to envision that everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid.

If we’re to live up to our own time, then victory won’t lie in the blade, but in all the bridges we’ve made.

That is the promise to glade, the hill we climb, if only we dare.

It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit.

It’s the past we step into and how we repair it.

We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation, rather than share it.

Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.

And this effort very nearly succeeded.

But while democracy can be periodically delayed, it can never be permanently defeated.

In this truth, in this faith we trust, for while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us.

This is the era of just redemption.

We feared at its inception.

We did not feel prepared to be the heirs of such a terrifying hour.

But within it we found the power to author a new chapter, to offer hope and laughter to ourselves.

So, while once we asked, how could we possibly prevail over catastrophe, now we assert, how could catastrophe possibly prevail over us?

We will not march back to what was, but move to what shall be: a country that is bruised but whole, benevolent but bold, fierce and free.

We will not be turned around or interrupted by intimidation because we know our inaction and inertia will be the inheritance of the next generation, become the future.

Our blunders become their burdens.

But one thing is certain.

If we merge mercy with might, and might with right, then love becomes our legacy and change our children’s birthright.

So let us leave behind a country better than the one we were left.

Every breath from my bronze-pounded chest, we will raise this wounded world into a wondrous one.

We will rise from the golden hills of the West.

We will rise from the windswept Northeast where our forefathers first realized revolution.

We will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the Midwestern states.

We will rise from the sun-baked South.

We will rebuild, reconcile, and recover.

And every known nook of our nation and every corner called our country, our people diverse and beautiful, will emerge battered and beautiful.

When day comes, we step out of the shade aflame and unafraid.

The new dawn blooms as we free it.

For there is always light, if only we’re brave enough to see it.

If only we’re brave enough to be it."

According to some this garbage is "poetry". Or even, upthread, "great poetry".

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, teach them something useful, like how to read

[Moderation4ever]

How about taking the Gorman poem and teaching kids to read poetry. It is a little trickier than prose and a good skill to learn.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe start with Dr. Seuss?

[Brett Bellmore]

Just don't use Dick and Jane.

God, did I ever hate Dick and Jane; I was reading normal adult level books at home, (Because Mom taught us all to read before kindergarten, of course.) and Dick and Jane at school.

Same with my son, whose favorite book in kindergarten was White Fang, while they served up literary dreck at school. Though thankfully not Dick and Jane level dreck.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot Spot.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wish I could...

[Martinned]

I can see why you might prefer Dr. Seuss over Gorman: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/02/six-dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-racism

[Brett Bellmore]

At that age I actually preferred Arthur Dent.

Yes, I'm well aware that, the supply of actual racism being inadequate, they've turned on Dr. Seuss.

I must highlight this particularly Orwellian line, by the way:

"Publication of six Dr Seuss books will cease, the company that preserves and protects the author’s legacy said on Tuesday,"

The company that preserves and protects the author's legacy will preserve and protect it by ceasing publication of some of his books. Let that sink in. They'll preserve the author's legacy by trying to make it harder to read some of his books.

And they actually said that unironically. You find yourself wondering what rhyme Dr. Seuss would have made about that.

[Absaroka]

When your program calls the author of 'The Sneetches' racist...time for a debugging session.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure I understand your confusion. Your reputation would also be much better if you stopped talking.

[Gandydancer]

He's not confused. Neither are we. You're a loon, and we all know it.

[Gandydancer]

To teach how to "read poetry" requires an actual example or two of poetry. This trash isn't that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It got moved to the middle school area.... That's all.

They moved the book from one area of the library, to a different, more appropriate area of the library.

Lots of stuff is in the middle school area. That doesn't mean it's banned. Doesn't even mean it's not accessible by the elementary school students. You can just walk right in.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Just for reference for people...Middle School in Florida is grades 6-8.

Taking a look at the listed interest level for the book at hand, it goes from grades 4-8.

https://lernerbooks.com/shop/show/21438

As such, placing such a book in the middle school area (for grades 6-8) is entirely appropriate and acceptable, because that's where the majority of its listed interest level lies. "Could" you put it in the primary kids section? Sure. But then those middle schoolers who were interested in the book wouldn't find it in their section.

[Nelson]

"that’s where the majority of its listed interest level lies"

So screw those kids who should be able to have it in their library. They can wait for two years to learn things.

Age appropriate materials should be available to the ages that they are appropriate for. All of them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So screw those kids who should be able to have it in their library. They can wait for two years to learn things."

Again, it's the same library. The elementary school kids who want to read it can walk a few feet to the middle school section.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Age appropriate materials should be available to the ages that they are appropriate for. All of them.

I have good news for you Nelson!

Dear Parents: Bob Graham Education Center remains committed to providing a quality program of library media center services to our students that includes quality materials in a variety of formats and reading levels that offer a well-balanced coverage of subjects and support the diverse interests, needs, and viewpoints of our school community. Recently, there has been media coverage regarding one of the books in our collection entitled The Hill We Climb. This text was reviewed and placed in the middle grades area of our school media center. As an additional point of information, The Hill We Climb is classified as Young Adult in Titlewave by Follet and categorized as Middle Grades in Accelerated Reader. However, to be clear, even though The Hill We Climb is located in the middle grades area of our media center, it remains accessible to all students.

[Sarcastr0]

This is becoming a pattern.

A very small percentage of parents are requesting books be removed. Their reasons tend to lean well beyond obscenity towards nothing that might upset their their right-wing reality with facts.

Some schools are acquiescing, thus allowing a small minority of partisans to make content decisions.

And those around here are just folding this in as fine in their war against our educational system, which they are sure is all totally partisan, and so support this censorship system as cool and good.

This is why libertarians with a persecution complex are not libertarians for long.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The book was not removed.

Anymore than Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was removed, or the Percy Jackson books were removed.

It was moved to the area that more closely matched its appropriate interest level. The middle school area (in the case of all three books).

It is still easily accessible....

[Sarcastr0]

Utterly bullshit. Book was in place, no longer in a place. It was removed.

Your trying to expand the scope and pretend nothing happened shows you know this is hard to defend.

But you're going to try anyway. Because you are a reactionary tool who will defend anything your side does.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, your argument is that Maya Angelou is censored? Percy Jackson? Steven King? All because they aren’t placed in the kids section of the library?

No. That’s silliness. And if they were placed in the kids section, then those who would be looking for the books couldn’t find them as easily.

You place books in the areas where the interest levels of the books are. The interest level for this book more closely matches that of the middle schoolers than the elementary schoolers.

By placing the book in the wrong section, you actually make it harder for those groups (like middle schoolers) to find the book they are interested in. This book isn’t a book of Dr. Suess poems. It’s just a little more complicated. And more appropriate for middle schoolers, and more closely matching their interest level. As according to national organizations.

[Sarcastr0]

OK so now libraries are all about what the kids want? That’s not how my school library was.

And the idea that this book is unavailable elsewhere in other libraries in the school is utterly unsupported.

You’re flailing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

lol. You're the one that's flailing!

The book was removed! ........... from one shelf and put on another! Oh no!

[Mr. Bumble]

Engaging with ass wipes will only get you dirty.

[Nelson]

From one shelf to another nearby? You know this .. how?

There is a physical separation between elementary and middle school library areas. They are often in a completely different building, since elementary and middle schools are usually in different places.

Playing the "they're just moving it a few feet away" false narrative is typical disingenuousness from cultural conseevatives.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This school is a K-8 school, middle school and elementary school in the same place. Here's what the school says:

This text was reviewed and placed in the middle grades area of our school media center...However, to be clear, even though The Hill We Climb is located in the middle grades area of our media center, it remains accessible to all students.

Do you have any reason to think they're lying?

[Gandydancer]

"And the idea that this book is unavailable elsewhere in other libraries in the school is utterly unsupported."

Um... yes it is, but that was probably not your meaning.

Bob Graham Education Center (i.e., the school): "...to be clear, even though The Hill We Climb is located in the middle grades area of our media center, it remains accessible to all students."

[Nelson]

"All because they aren’t placed in the kids section of the library?"

I believe the point you're missing is that they are appropriate for some of the students that use that library, so they should be available in that library.

You think that removing all books that are appropriate for 4th and 5th grade students, but not for kindergarteners, from the elementary library is a reasonable policy?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why do you keep acting as if there's more than one library? It's been explained to you several times that the book is still in the same library.

[Kleppe]

"Utterly bullshit. Book was in place, no longer in a place. It was removed."

If I move a bowl from one cupboard to another has it been removed from my house?

[Sarcastr0]

Libraries are not cupboards. Some people who would have had access no longer do.

A child would understand this.

[Absaroka]

If a precocious 1st grader isn't allowed to get books from the middle school (or high school) library, that ought to be fixed posthaste.

Like some others in this thread, when my first grade teacher handed out 'See Spot Run' for reading hour, I asked for something a little more interesting. She got me some better books by the next day (Hardy Boys? Black Beauty? Robinson Crusoe? ... been a while). A teacher who says 'nope, sorry, you're a first grader, no higher level books for you' ought to be reprimanded. You don't have to stock War and Peace or Shakespeare in the elementary library, but if a kid is ready for them the school needs to get them from whatever library stocks them.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not buying the 'no harm no foul' argument. There was a change made. This change seems difficult to justify.

Whether the status quo after is okay or not is besides the issue.

Defenses of the change I've seen are 'Jan 06 was not so bad, actually' and 'we need to kowtow to each and every request, no matter how right-wing.' Neither are very satisfying.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're pretty determined to pretend there's no difference between "Jan 6th wasn't too bad" and "January 6th wasn't an attempt to overthrow the government".

[Davedave]

Both are absurd lies that only traitors attempt to tell. Trump staged a fucking coup. It was ridiculously, pathetically inept, but it was without question an attempted coup. We know that, you know that, so what's the point in this continued farce? Just admit it, he's a traitor, you're a traitor, and the J6 insurrectionists are getting off lightly because they are not being executed for outright treason.

[Gandydancer]

"Both are absurd lies that only traitors attempt to tell. Trump staged a fucking coup. "

Call this guy DaveLiarDave every time and you'll never be wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

A "Coup" is a violent attempt to overthrow a government. Now, if Trump had actually directed anybody to attack the Capitol, you might make a case for a coup, albeit a really stupid and hilariously doomed one.

But nobody has produced the least scrap of evidence he did any such thing.

In fact, what he was attempting was to leverage Republicans refusing to count EC votes to get an investigation of election irregularities, or worst case, throw the election into the House by denying anyone an outright majority. Aside from treating the EC count as discretionary rather than ministerial, it was dependent on the rules actually operating, not being set aside by force.

That wasn't an exercise of force, but rather procedural abuse. As such, it was actually disrupted by the crowd breaking into the Capitol, rendered his actual strategy non-viable, forcing him to concede!

[bernard11]

Aside from treating the EC count as discretionary rather than ministerial,

Which itself is no small matter, plus he also encouraged his goons to "persuade" Pence to take that view.

You are are absolutely demented when it comes to Trump.

[Gandydancer]

bernard11 "[Trump] encouraged his goons to “persuade” Pence to take that view. / You are are absolutely demented when it comes to Trump."

^^^^ Pence hid the bruises pretty well, I think.

[Brett Bellmore]

I swear, Bernard, the next time the Democrats pull some BS parliamentary maneuver, I'm going to call that a "coup", just because words apparently aren't supposed to have meanings.

[Nige]

Like you weren't gearing up to do that anyway. You've been calling peaceful demonstrations about controversial legslation 'coups' for a while now.

[Gandydancer]

Lying Nige: “You’ve [Brett] been calling peaceful demonstrations about controversial leg[i]slation ‘coups’ for a while now.”

Link?

No, statements along the line of "If J6 was a coup, then this is one too" don't count. A link from before J6 is really what you need to make your point.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“I’m not buying the ‘no harm no foul’ argument. There was a change made. This change seems difficult to justify.”

They moved it from the elementary school shelf to the middle school shelf, and justified it by saying that it was more appropriate for middle school students. What difficult about that?

[Sarcastr0]

It's not clear there wasn't already a copy in the middle school, their justification was that someone complained, and you're decided it's not properly in that library based on...nothing clear, just wanna allow censorship.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"their justification was that someone complained, and you’re decided it’s not properly in that library based on…nothing clear, just wanna allow censorship."

No. Their justification for reviewing the book was that someone complained. Their justification for moving the book was that the school decided that the book should be on a different shelf.

And moving a book from one shelf to another is not censorship.

[Gandydancer]

It should have been de-accessioned for being utter crap unworthy of occupying any space in the library.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Some people who would have had access no longer do."

Huh? Who no longer has access?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Book was in place, no longer in a place. It was removed."

Its in the same room! Just a different shelf.

[EscherEnigma]

It's almost like conservatives have been passing laws to require libraries to take immediate action on the basis of one complaint or something, with rather severe penalties if they don't.

Throw in that the state used intentionally vague language for what criteria should be used, and it's obvious why the pattern is happening: conservatives want it to.

[Nige]

Between this and Target they're not really hiding their racism or homophobia. They think they've demonised the word 'woke' so much that it's okay now. But they're just a small bunch of obsessives endlessly congratulating each other online and accepting the most outrageous bullshit as received truth and given way too much deference.

[VinniUSMC]

Ok groomer

[Nige]

For example.

[Gandydancer]

QK, nitwit.

[Nige]

ad infinitum.

[Gandydancer]

OK, jackass.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its "inappropriate reading" for anyone, her Biden poem was so, so bad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

By the way, it sounds like you’re all OK with Amanda Gorman’s poem being declared inappropriate reading for Florida primary school children?

As has been pointed out, it has been declared more appropriate for middle school students. Consumers of left-wing medial sources sure buy into a lot of misinformation.

[Gandydancer]

Her crap is crap and it's an atrocity that any library would stock it.

[M L]

My research indicates there are approximately 130,930 schools in the United States from K-12. Each of those schools presumably has a library with thousands, hundreds of thousands or more of publications and materials in print and electronic format.

Of all the things in the world to be interested in or concerned about, the exclusion of a single poem from the curation of some far flung school district that your kids don’t attend seems exceptionally bizarre. And for you it’s on the other side of the world?

Your link didn’t even point us to this random poem I’ve never heard of that you want us to weigh in on. You just linked to some whiny SJW patent nonsense referring to "book bans." Is the poem a great classic or something?

[Sarcastr0]

Suddenly anecdotes don't just not matter, they don't even need to be addressed!

Wow.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Your link didn’t even point us to this random poem I’ve never heard of that you want us to weigh in on. You just linked to some whiny SJW patent nonsense referring to “book bans.” Is the poem a great classic or something?"

https://www.npr.org/sections/inauguration-day-live-updates/2021/01/20/958743170/poet-amanda-gorman-reads-the-hill-we-climb

You want us to believe that you have the capability to research how many K-12 schools there are in the US, but you can't google "Amanda Gorman poem"?

What you choose to research, and what you willfully choose to remain ignorant of when you argue about a topic is revealing.

[M L]

Sure. It reveals that I am more interested in letting people make their own decisions rather than poking my nose in and telling them what to do.

[Sarcastr0]

Except you're on the wrong side for letting people make their own decisions.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It reveals that you don't seem to understand which facts actually matter in an argument.

A poor trait for anyone, let alone a lawyer.

[M L]

It depends what the argument is.

"Should this book be in schools?" is one argument you could have. That appeals to low IQ types and authoritarians who think that their dull blather is important or interesting, and that their opinions should be imposed as a one size fits all solution for every school from Albuquerque to Afghanistan.

A different, more interesting argument you could have is, "Who decides whether this book is in which schools?" I made it clear what I was talking about, sorry you couldn't understand this.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree the question is best engaged with on the procedural level.

On that level, your answer is 'random racists.'

That is not the pro-freedom answer.

[M L]

No, my answer is the local school board.

“Random racists” wouldn’t even be an answer to the question. Are the random racists on the school board? Are they federal judges? State judges?

Do all random racists get to decide, or just some of them? If only some, who decides which random racists get to decide? Do the random racists decide by majority vote and what if there’s a tie? Who decides if the random racists are sufficiently random and racist?

[Sarcastr0]

Your following of procedure is empty then. Because this is some racist protesting, and the school board saying they were acting out of an abundance of caution.

If your procedures allow such arbitrary decisions that remove books for no given reason other than 'caution', you need to examine your incentives and procedures.

Or, you know, use them as cover for your right wing kulturkampf.

[TwelveInchPianist]

and the school board saying they were acting out of an abundance of caution.

If your procedures allow such arbitrary decisions that remove books for no given reason other than ‘caution’, you need to examine your incentives and procedures.”

You just love making up facts, don’t you? Where did the school board say they were “acting out of an abundance of caution”?

They didn’t remove the book, and they did give a reason other than caution, they said that the book was more appropriate for middle schoolers. The dishonesty here is shocking.

[M L]

"Your following of procedure is empty then. Because this is some racist protesting, and the school board saying they were acting out of an abundance of caution."

As TIP noted, you are making up facts.

But setting that aside, no. Your idea of procedure is empty, not mine. As I already explained.

"If your procedures allow such arbitrary decisions that remove books for no given reason other than ‘caution’"

All procedures allow for arbitrary decisions. Judges can make arbitrary decisions. They can be racist. Even what counts as "arbitrary" is subjective and subject to disagreement. The only question is who decides.

[Gandydancer]

" The dishonesty here is shocking."

You're "shocked" when Gaslightr0 is dishonest? Seriously????

[TwelveInchPianist]

You still haven't shown any evidence that random racists are calling any shots here.

[SRG]

Here's more information about the ignorant cunt who complained about the poem and some other books.

https://www.jta.org/2023/05/24/united-states/the-florida-mom-who-got-amanda-gormans-poem-restricted-says-shes-sorry-for-promoting-the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion

The Florida mom who sought to ban Amanda Gorman’s poem says she’s sorry for promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

[Gandydancer]

The appropriate committee declined to change the status of four books and moved another to a different shelf. Were this "cunt" a Nazi wouldn't matter in the slightest since she didn't make the decisions. That you object to it and that you're a cunt doesn't matter in the slightest either.

[apedad]

Found this page the other day: https://www.cbp.gov/tags/accountability-and-transparency

It lists cases where people have died while under U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody.

While we can – should – and do argue about polices and politics, I think we can all agree that more govt. transparency is better.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not being contentious but describe “transparency”.

[apedad]

This sounds good:

Openness, accountability, and honesty define government transparency. In a free society, transparency is government's obligation to share information with citizens. It is at the heart of how citizens hold their public officials accountable.

Governments exist to serve the people. Information on how officials conduct the public business and spend taxpayers’ money must be readily available and easily understood. This transparency allows good and just governance.

Government transparency is traditionally broken into three different types: proactive disclosure, requesting public records, and campaign finance disclosure.

https://ballotpedia.org/Government_transparency

Obviously we're not in the best situation (at all govt levels), but I feel we're moving (albeit painfully slowly), in the right direction.

[Gandydancer]

Your description of the list is wrong.

Currently the first case listed is: “Tucson agents involved in fatal shooting of man, while responding to shots fired call”

Doesn’t sound like he “died while under(sic) U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody.”

Less deceptive would be “killed while resisting being taken into custody”.

[Michael P]

Stealing valor is constitutionally protected, but being a trans Indian is a crime. What a country: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/artist-who-falsely-claimed-native-american-heritage-sentenced-violations-indian-arts

[John F. Carr]

https://www.doi.gov/iacb/act
"The Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA) of 1990 (P.L. 101-644) is a truth-in-advertising law that prohibits misrepresentation in the marketing of Indian art and craft products within the United States. It is illegal to offer or display for sale, or sell, any art or craft product in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization, resident within the United States. ... For example, products sold using a sign claiming "Indian Jewelry" would be a violation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act if the jewelry was produced by someone other than a member, or certified Indian artisan, of an Indian tribe. Products advertised as "Navajo Jewelry" would be in violation of the IACA if they were produced by someone who is not a member, or certified Indian artisan, of the Navajo tribe."

[Magister]

Stolen valor is apparently illegal if done as fraud to obtain money. The case linked involves someone claiming to be a Native American artist to sell his work, and the penalty doesn't seem worse than criminal trademark infringement might bring.

[Gandydancer]

"... but being a trans Indian is a crime."

Liar.

Didn't have to do anything but read the url to detect it, either.

How stupid do you think we are?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Minnesota cracks down on the third-party menace:

https://ballot-access.org/2023/05/24/minnesota-bill-stiffens-definition-of-a-qualified-party/

[Nelson]

God, I hate that shit. Make the threshold for ballot access low and adopt ranked-choice voting. Problem solved.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Copied from another thread - replying to the "relgious right mobilized in the 1970s to defend racist private schools" meme.

Here’s a *pro-IRS* account of the events by an author who is (or was) an aide to Preet Bharara, so judge for yourself if the author is a right-wing troglodyte.

https://cafe.com/article/we-want-them-burned-the-1978-irs-controversy-over-discriminatory-schools/

TL;DR version:

The controversy erupted in 1978. The IRS would have pressured private schools into having racial quotas, on pain of losing tax-exempt status and in many cases having to close in consequence.

Of course the evangelical schools opposed this. They weren't alone. There was broad opposition. For example:

“Livaughn Chapman, the Black Headmaster of Boston’s Roxbury Community School, said, “Our school mostly enrolls black kids, not because we discriminate against whites, but because we’re in a mostly black community and that’s who applies. If this procedure is applied to us, it would shut us down.”

“Nathan Dershowitz—controversial trial lawyer Alan’s brother—appeared as counsel for several interlocking Jewish school groups and argued that [IRS Commissioner Jerome] Kurtz “failed to recognize the unique and special considerations which affect Jewish religious schools…the fact remains that few non-Caucasian Jews settled in America.””

The proposed policy was so unpopular (even after the Carter admistration claimed to dial it down a bit) that Congress forbade any funding for it.

This IRS attack galvanized many evangelicals into entering the political arena, much to the dismay of goodthinkers, who in classic Orwellian fashion spun the *opposition* to racial quotas as racist. Sophisticated people like this Preet Bharara aide have a more nuanced take, but for the rubes, the racist-evangelical legend is a good campfire horror story.

[apedad]

The Cookie Monster's Cookies Aren't What You Think

Although one would assume Cookie Monster would obviously eat cookies, you might be surprised to discover that those big round cookies he happily piles into his mouth are actually painted rice cakes decorated to resemble cookies. While you may see it as uniquely cruel to give rice cakes disguised as cookies to everyone's favorite friendly, googly-eyed Muppet — according to a tweet by the monster himself, he's apparently not a fan — there's actually a very good reason Cookie Monster can't have any real cookies.

According to David Borgenicht's "Sesame Street Unpaved" (via The Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Book), the reason Cookie Monster can't have any cookies is two-fold. The chocolate and oil in normal cookies would turn the fabric of the Muppets greasy, and we assume that it's no picnic scrubbing melted chocolate and crumbs from the fur of a Muppet to begin with. The secondary reason for the lightweight "cookies" is that, thanks to Cookie Monster's design, the "rice cookies" pass through the space of Cookie Monster's mouth and land harmlessly on the head of his puppeteer, preventing some messy bloopers.

https://www.mashed.com/736854/the-cookie-monsters-cookies-arent-what-you-think/

So . . . what other ‘truths’ are out there which turned out to be false (and I already know what some of you are going to write)?

[Mr. Bumble]

Bomb thrower!

[John F. Carr]

I know somebody who used to be a puppet wrangler for a children's TV show. It's a real job title. Not a job I would want, dealing with sweaty fur.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So . . . what other ‘truths’ are out there which turned out to be false (and I already know what some of you are going to write)?

Wait… you thought they were actually jamming real cookies in there?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm personally shocked it was actually something as edible as a rice cake. I guess they wanted to retain the option of having one of the live actors take a bite?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Another IRS Whistleblower comes out, alleges retaliation.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/22/second-hunter-biden-irs-whistleblower-emerges-after-five-years-on-case/

That makes five whistleblowers against the Biden Administration, 3 from the FBI and 2 from the IRS. Two directly involved in investigating the Biden Family.

When will whistleblowers actually be protected from retaliation....?

[Sarcastr0]

You got wrecked the last time you came in hot about this, and the time before. IIRC, you claimed people were being prevented from applying for any other jobs when that did not turn out to be true. And you also didn't realize there was an established track record for firing for cause, or at least decided to ignore that.

I guess you're just a glutton for punishment, and can't bother to wait for any facts to come in that might ruin your really good narrative.

Hint: don't trust the accuser as your only factual source of what's going on. Wait a bit, lest you be an angry fool.

[Brett Bellmore]

" you claimed people were being prevented from applying for any other jobs when that did not turn out to be true."

YOU got wrecked for making that untrue claim. They had to quit their jobs to apply for any other job.

Only in your fantasy world was that him losing the argument.

[Sarcastr0]

They had to quit their jobs to apply for any other job

First, that's not that weird or oppressive.

Second, that is not what AL claimed - he claimed they could not quit, and could not apply, and could not be paid.

It was quite silly, he's too dumb to realize that. You're not, but you're not above editing reality a bit to make something more defensible.

[Brett Bellmore]

At this point you seem to be hallucinating what other people are claiming.

[Sarcastr0]

"But here’s where it starts to get evil. The security clearance just stayed suspended…for weeks…for months…for a year. And during that time, the FBI whistleblowers weren’t allowed to report to work. OK, fair enough. They also weren’t paid….they were on unpaid leave. Not quite right, but OK…

Now, where it gets really evil is that the FBI Whistleblowers said “well, we still need to get by. Can we get another job while we’re on leave.” But since they were FBI employees, they needed to get permission from the FBI to have a second job. And the FBI just sat on or denied the applications."

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/22/monday-open-thread/?comments=true#comment-10074580

This was easily checked, and yet you decided to just call me a liar instead.

Lazy and shitty. Do better.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it was easily checked, and he was exactly correct: They were put on unpaid leave, and prohibited from taking other employment.

You're hallucinating him saying that they couldn't quit. Where did he say that?

He was saying that they shouldn't HAVE to quit just to get some temporary work, because the goddamn whistleblower statute prohibits retaliation of this sort.

[Sarcastr0]

As Noscitur pointed out, I was mistaken. Apologies, I do have egg on my face.

Though now what AL calls evil is kinda...normal for government workers?

[Absaroka]

"kinda…normal for government workers?"

I suspect the sample size of 'put on indefinite administrative leave without pay' is too small to really know how often 'and no, you can't do any other work either' is also added.

But IMHO if you aren't paying your employee, refusing to let them get another job while you make up your mind about their continued employment is kind of a jerk thing to do. If it is normal, shame on us.

[Sarcastr0]

If you want to neck down the scope that much, sure. But the whole can’t get a new job without telling the current one is the common practice.

I’m not saying it doesn’t suck, I’m saying it’s not an evil plot to make them suffer, as AL has decided is true, and furthermore that I am pretty into that suffering myself.

[Absaroka]

"But the whole can’t get a new job without telling the current one is the common practice."

Indeed. I have done so, for consulting jobs on the side. And the usual criteria is 'will this interfere with the employee's current job'. If not, approval is routine[1]. And if you are on leave, your second job is pretty unlikely to interfere with your current non-existent duties.

Suppose someone's welfare benefits were suspended, and they were told they couldn't work in the interim either, so they had no income at all. No sympathy there?

[1]and if not, it isn't. The only disapproval I ever saw was a guy working 3 jobs and was so tired he was frequently nodding off at work. He got told to pick which job he wanted.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Abrasoka,

Indeed. Although to be clear, it wasn't working a second job without "telling" the first one. It was permission needed to be sought (and granted) from the FBI before seeking a second job.

And not "granting" that permission for an employee that was suspended without pay was particularly evil. Especially long term.

[Sarcastr0]

AL has never heard of conflicts review, and he's sure it's a conspiracy.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah yes, the conflict with your job responsibilities, which you don't have....because you're on leave without pay....

[Absaroka]

"AL has never heard of conflicts review, and he’s sure it’s a conspiracy."

Well, if an FBI agent says 'I'd like to moonlight as head of security for Pablo Escobar', then the FBI should absolutely veto that. Was that the case here? What were the jobs for which permission was denied?

(that's a question for Sarc and AL)

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what's going on. Maybe the beurocracy is taking a while. Maybe the jobs they are asking about have conflicts. Maybe they're not going through the wickets right.

I don't think we have the info to declare it is an evil conspiracy against whistleblowers. Maybe it's true, but we are nowhere near pulling that trigger.

And, moreover, my pushing back does not mean I support the suffering of whistleblowers either.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ab,

I don't have details on the exact job. But, I'll post the testimony. You can make up your own mind.

The retaliation did not end with Friend’s indefinite suspension. Despite informing Friend
that he could seek outside employment, the FBI refused to sign off on his requests to obtain it or
to provide him with the documents necessary for other employment. He testified:
Q. Did you take any steps to seek outside employment?
A. I submitted two FD-331s requesting outside employment.
The first one was rejected. And the second one I submitted
with also a caveat that I requested my training records, which
the FBI has yet to furnish me.
Q. So the first form that was rejected, who rejected that?
A. I was told that it was rejected by the executive management
of the Jacksonville Field Office.
Q. Did you get a reason for why it was rejected?
A. No.
Q. And then you submitted a second form for outside
employment and asked for records. What records did you
request?
A. I’m seeking my firearms training records as well as my
training records in general to prove my employment. Both of
those are necessary to gain employment from the second
outside entity. That’s not the first request of those records
that I’ve made either.
Q. . . . And have they given you the requested records?
A. No.
Q. Do you know why they have not given you the records?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Who has been denying your request to obtain your records?
A. I made a request to the firearms training unit and sent an
email to their general counsel. And I sent the second request
for outside employment to the chief security officer of
Jacksonville Division.
Coincidentally, Jennifer Moore, who serves as the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI’s
Human Resources Branch, testified that the agency’s failure to give Mr. Friend his records was a
“mistake” that she “owned.”128 Ms. Moore specifically testified:
Q. That wasn’t done intentionally. What happened to Mr.
Friend wasn’t done intentionally. These are just all
coincidences?
A. I’m not sure what you’re referring to that happened to Mr.
Friend.
Q Mr. Friend, where you denied his firearms training
documents . . . .
A We did, and I owned that. That was a mistake . . . [m]istakes
happen when you have a 37,000 employee organization.129
***
Q. So it was a mistake not to give Mr. Friend his training
records that he requested[?]
A. Yes, sir.130

[Absaroka]

AL: thanks. Would you happen to have a link to that? As the Gipper says, trust but...

Sarc: "I don’t think we have the info to declare it is an evil conspiracy against whistleblowers. Maybe it’s true, but we are nowhere near pulling that trigger"

Does the FBI admitting a mistake change your position?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ab,

Here you go. Worth a long read.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-05-17-fbi-whistleblower-testimony-highlights-government-abuse-misallocation-of-resources-and-retaliation-sm.pdf

In regards to series of "mistakes" like this, (Where 3 separate requests were apparently mistakenly ignored) I think we need to ask...was the mistake rectified? I don't see any evidence for that.

I also think we need to ask the hypothetical question, if the FBI deliberately withheld this information, but was called to account before Congress, what would they argue?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lazy and shitty. Do better.

Jeez, what a dick.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Especially after Sarcatr0 admitted he was ultimately wrong...

Don't get me wrong. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. But to double, triple down on it, when people tell you you're making an error....In something so simple to check....

I just shake my head.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude I said I was wrong and said I had egg on my face. I did come in too hot.

Meanwhile you said I was into these people suffering because I was a bad person. Never got a backdown on that bullshit.

Fuck off with your tone policing. You don't get to say shit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not sure what to tell you Sarcastro....

Your position seems to be...
1. "Well, we can't just straight out fire you, but..."
2. "We can put you on leave without pay for more than a year AND we can tell you that seeking any outside employment while you're on leave without pay for a year is forbidden"
3. "So good luck surviving without income for a year. Unless you resign. Hint Hint. Because we can't fire you. But if you just resign, this all goes away".

Tell me...is that your position? If it's not, which part did I get wrong?"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Captain Tone Police Here to Tell Everyone Not To Tone Police!

[Sarcastr0]

Sarcastr0 ignores all that. Because he want the object lesson made. He doesn’t want whistleblowers. He wants these people who would dare speak up to SUFFER. Because he’s a partisan nutter.

That's some hot shit, dude.

Have you ever admitted to being wrong about anything on here, ever?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Tell me…is that your position? If it’s not, which part did I get wrong"

[TwelveInchPianist]

“He wants these people who would dare speak up to SUFFER.”

Seems like a reasonable inference from your comments to me.

And stop being a dick, Sarcastro.

[Gandydancer]

When the whistleblowers first came up Gaslightr0 said it "looked bad" and offered his saying that as proof that he wasn't just a kneejerk partisan for the Biden administration.

I kid you not.

Someone observed that Gaslightr0 would almost certainly never again suggest that the Biden's treatment of the whistleblowers was bad behavior by the Biden administration.

And here he is defending it.

LOL!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Second, that is not what AL claimed – he claimed they could not quit, and could not apply, and could not be paid.

I think you’re mistaken. From Armchair Lawyer’s first post in the previous thread:

So, for a year, they are sitting, without pay, and unable to actually get another job. Unless of course they resign from the FBI (which is exactly what the management want).

[Armchair Lawyer]

Gracias

[blue heron]

Hope the IRS blows their whistle at the lummoxes who granted both the Oathkeepers and Three Percenters non profit status. Let's give all the nazis 501 (c) 3 status.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/irs-granted-tax-exempt-status-124125185.html

[Moderation4ever]

Where will the failed Twitter Presidential Announcement rank in the history of goof-ups. Is it the equivalent of Gov. Michael Dukakis riding in the tank? How much effort will be necessary to recover? Before you answer consider that DeSantis's primary opponent likes punching down.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's actually more of an embarrassment for Musk than for DeSantis. DeSantis gets the credit for attracting so many viewers that the platform crashed, Musk the blame for his platform crashing.

It did, however, take the edge off the announcement, which didn't help DeSantis any. The MSM could cover it as "Twitter crashes" instead of "DeSantis attracts record number of viewers".

Musk's approach to rocket development, fly it, see what breaks, fix it and fly again, is probably not as well suited to consumer level internet platforms...

[Moderation4ever]

It is worth noting that Musk as a private entrepreneur get away with fly it, break it, fix it. That same acceptance is rarely given to government web site start-up problems.

[Absaroka]

In fairness, 'fly it, break it, fix it' usually means 'fly it early, see what breaks, fix it quickly' and iterating that cycle quickly enough that you get a stable product quicker and cheaper than the traditional approach[1]. But if you go for the traditional 'spend years and megabucks in development' and then it's badly broken out the gate and the fixes take forever, you can't really hide behind 'fly/break/fix'.

[1]and it works *for non critical systems*, I've done it many times myself

[Brett Bellmore]

We do it here on some of our tool designs. Sometimes even intentionally. 😉

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Healthcare.gov cost $1B and crashed at launch.

Don't worry though, when they do healthcare it's super efficient and great, just not when they do healthcare websites.

[Moderation4ever]

While talking about the MSM you should note that Fox was right up there laughing. Fox would be the natural choice for DeSantis to announce and so the station likely got a good laugh out of what happened.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fox would be the natural choice if they were still a conservative media outlet.

[Nige]

Except for DeSantis supposedly being anti-Big Tech.

[Bored Lawyer]

Trump spent almost as much time in bankruptcy courts as he did in women's dressing rooms. So his punching down on the Twitter failure I discount.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump likes to pile on and keep piling. I am guessing the DeSantis's Twitter problem (I really don't think disaster is the right word) will be part of his shtick for a long time if not through the campaign.

[Ben_]

Should we announce on Twitter?

Cons:
- Technical issues
- Partisan jerks on the internet might complain

Pros:
- Not dealing with Democrat activists pretending to be news people.
- Backing from the world's richest and most influential person.

[Sarcastr0]

the world’s most influential person

[Ben_]

Yes. Though it's possible he's only in the top five or something. Who is more influential?

There's clearly no one in the US that a politician would prefer to have onboard.

[Sarcastr0]

Clearly, you are way too online.

[Ben_]

Zero influential names offered. Musk still clearly in the lead.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, I could point to any number of political leaders of the US. Or China/India. Or the head of the IMF or WHO. Or someone like Oprah who has plenty of followers just not on the Internet.

Bottom line, you're limiting yourself to within the US, and further limiting yourself to online presence. And you confuse attention for influence.

[Ben_]

Oprah is still alive?

And you apparently don't know the names of those "influential" people at the IMF and other places. Why do Democrats crave foreigners' approval so much?

[Aunt Teefah]

"Who is more influential?"

Desantis' opponent, Donald Trump, is literally orders of magnitude more influential than Elon Musk. As are scores of celebrities, athletes, singers, and the like. Elon is very influential with the *freaking epic* Pepe meme/NFT investor crowd . . . which might account for as much as 5% of the population. Outside of that, he is (correctly) seen as just another rich weirdo.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Before you answer consider that DeSantis’s primary opponent likes punching down.

I agree that Trump is likely to spend a lot of time over the next few months saying things like,

“Rob,” My Red Button is bigger, better, stronger, and is working (TRUTH!), yours does not! (per my conversation with Kim Jung Un, of North Korea, soon to become my friend!).

I don’t agree that that’s going to be a net benefit for the Trump campaign.

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, reading some of the stuff he's been saying lately, I think the easiest way to kill off his election prospects is to just hand him a live microphone.

Of course, the Democrats don't want to kill off his primary election prospects, just his prospects in the general election.

[EscherEnigma]

Before you answer consider that DeSantis’s primary opponent likes punching down.

... are there any Republican candidates that don't like punching down? I'm pretty sure that the GOP spent the last six year pushing those folks out of the party.

[dwb68]

Companies discovering (belatedly) that they can't sell to only 30% of America and still survive: What, me, worry? Bud Light was a one time event!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You figure bigots are 70 percent of the American market?

How is everything else going in 1922?

[Davedave]

For once, I have to agree with him. At least 70%, probably more like 95%, of Americans are basically far right. The others are mostly a hair to the left of that. Vanishingly few have political views that wouldn't get them ostracised if they mentioned them in a social context in Europe.

[EscherEnigma]

... is this about Target?

First off, Target's summer Pride thing isn't new. They've been doing this annually for a while now.

Second, there's nothing about having a Pride display that means other people can't shop there are or aren't desired as customers. Do you think non-Christians should boycott Wal-Mart for it's annual Christmas displays? Should whites boycott Albertsons for their Cinco de Mayo displays? Should football fans boycott over soccer world cup displays?

Third off, you do realize that Bud Light has been sponsoring queer people and advertising to us for decades, right? Same with Coors. Same with almost every major brand out there. And while conservative gripes have been common, until the last two years they were acutally declining.

That this year suddenly conservatives are flipping the fuck out is not because the companies changed, it's because conservatives changed.

[M L]

I'm not following all this closely but I saw Target had a swimsuit for little girls with penises, advertising "Tuck pouch" or something. Bet that was new this year.

[Sarcastr0]

The performative whining at Target isn't new though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who can forget Target-targeting conservative poster girl and QAnon-linked criminal Melissa Rein Lively, who (seems to have undergone a transformation of sorts)?

[EscherEnigma]

If by "little girls" you mean "sold in adult sizes only", then sure.

That said, why would it be immoral to sell trans-friendly clothes to trans-teens?

You need to stop policing other people's bodies so much.

[Nige]

Conservatives don't know what a gusset is. Fair enough, lots of people don't, but they could have just looked it up. Except they needed something else stupid to get mad at.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it’s because conservatives changed"

They decided to not roll over anymore.

[EscherEnigma]

... oh my.

All these years, whenever I've seen an ad that's clearly targeting heterosexual men, have I been "rolling over" by shrugging my shoulders and moving on with my life? By not invoking performative outrage every time a product or advertisement isn't catering to me, have I been "rolling over"?

How distressing.

In case that wasn't clear, I'm skeptical that you've been "rolling over" for the decades in which you've ignored LGBT-focused advertising.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, movement
conservative blog has operated for

TWO (2) DAYS

without publishing a vile racial slur
and has published racial slur at least

FOURTEEN (14) TIMES

between January 1, 2023 and today
(that's 14 discussions featuring slurs --
often multiple slurs -- not just 14 slurs).

[This assessment does not address the homophobic, antisemitic, Islamophobic, misogynistic, and xenophobic slurs and other forms of bigotry incessantly and enthusiastically published by this remarkably white, strikingly male conservative blog.]

[Kleppe]

Never seen anyone as fixated on race as this bubba. It's all he talks about.

[Frank Drackman]

In Coach Sandusky's defense, it is difficulty to get talented Colored Players who want to spend 4 (long) years in "Happy Valley" (Been there, didn't seem all that happy)

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It seems to bug you when better Americans call out racists and other conservative bigots.

Good.

[Frank Drackman]

find be a "Better" American and I'll let you know (from a distance)

[Bwaaah]

"when better Americans call out racists"

Hmmm. Better people? You know Better people? And what about the Worse people? Am I a Worse person, dear Arbiter?

Though the n-word has been most widely used in reference to people with dark skin, that's incidental to its function as a placeholder for the contempt its speaker holds for the subject of which he speaks. At its core, the n-word is a denial of the subject's humanity, and of the subject's worthiness of the kind of consideration that Better people deserve.

Say this to yourself, Rev.: "Those Republicans. They're vile, disgusting people who mess things up for everybody else." (for the Better people)

Now say it this way to bring it all together: "The Republicans are a bunch of damned n______ers."

No. That's not what you mean? This isn't about race, of course. No. It's about every excuse you've ever had for your own BIGOTRY, IN ALL ITS FORMS, and the contempt that blinds you to the humanity in those you summarily detest.

Racism isn't, strictly speaking, a problem. It's an instance of a problem, that problem being bigotry and the infinite variants that we invent therein.

You're like a stick in the mud, buddy. Loosen up there. The n______ers, ummm, the Republicans, are getting to you.

[MoreCurious]

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The frequency of vile racial slurs at this white, male, right-wing blog is enough to make one speechless!

[blue heron]

Is this study accurate? Do libertarians care more about men's than women's rights?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12867

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Libertarians . . . or faux libertarians, such as members of

Libertarians for Statist Womb Management

Libertarians for the Drug War

Libertarians for Authoritarian, Bigoted, and Cruel Immigration Policies and Practices

Libertarians for Government Killing (Ideally Involving Non-Whites)

Libertarians for Big-Government Micromanagement of Ladyparts Clinics

Libertarians for Massive Military Spending

Libertarians for Government Funding of (Certain) Religion

Libertarians for Government Gay-Bashing

Libertarians for Government Retaliation Against Corporations Who Dislike Censorship and Bigots

Libertarians for Torture and Attacking the Wrong Country

[Ed Grinberg]

"Libertarian Concern for Men's, But Not Women's, Reproductive Autonomy"
A sane person -- whether libertarian or not -- recognizes that abortion involves more than just "women's rights," i.e., that a human life is being extinguished. Ignoring this aspect of the issue doesn't make you a libertarian, it makes you ... deranged.

[blue heron]

That's why it makes so much sense to grant rapists custodial and legal rights for their offspring.

[Michael P]

Why do leftists like you want that?

[blue heron]

Actually we think that women should have autonomy over their own bodies and uteruses. It is the conservatives who want to grant fatherhood status to rapists and force the victims of rape to carry their children to term. Did you miss that part?

[Michael P]

Oh, you were throwing out a spectacularly stupid straw man rather than something spectacularly stupid that you actually believe.

[Nelson]

People who believe a fertilized egg is a separate person have cornered the market on "spectacularly stupid".

[blue-heron]

sorry - censored.

[not guilty]

Elmer Stewart Rhodes is scheduled to be sentenced today. His attorneys are asking for a sentence of time served. The presentence report suggests, and the government recommends, 135-168 months of imprisonment. https://www.scribd.com/document/643801119/gov-uscourts-dcd-239208-570-0-3-1-part-1-1#

Defense counsel curiously characterizes Mr. Rhodes founding and leadership of the Oath Keepers as a factor in his favor. The defense also urges a downward departure from sentencing guidelines for acceptance of responsibility -- never mind that Mr. Rhodes has never acknowledged the wrongfulness of his conduct.

I must confess a grudging admiration for the chutzpah required for a submission such as this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You expect this guy (or his lawyers) to exhibit sound judgment and engage in reasoned argument?

[Frank Drackman]

Nope, but I expect Jerry Sandusky to keep on San-dusk-ying

[John F. Carr]

Another recent defendant's sentencing memorandum could be boiled down to "the sentencing guidelines are not evidence-based so don't use them." He got a lengthy sentence. Not as long as the government asked for.

[SRG]

FWIW I discovered not too long ago that I had Stewart Rhodes' email address because about 10 years ago he'd been cc'd on someone's reply to me, after I had emailed them concerning the difference in attitude between Britain and the US on jury nullification.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lucky you haven't been visited by the FBI.

[SRG]

Lucky? I was hoping I would get a visit, for the lulz.

[John F. Carr]

Rhodes got 18 years and became the first January 6 defendant to be sentenced as a terrorist. As a matter of sentencing policy, use of force to protest a government policy or to influence the government can be punished under guidelines applicable to terrorism. The statutory maximum still applies. The guidelines sentence of a terrorist should be calculated as for a serious felony by a career criminal no matter what the facts. The Justice Department has generally not requested terrorism enhancements. It would be bad optics to to call protesters terrorists.

[John F. Carr]

A minor correction to my statement based on reading the government’s sentencing memorandum. There are two similar terrorism enhancements. The one requested by the government does not require sentencing as a career criminal. The criminal history enhancement applies if the defendant is convicted of one of a list of predicate offenses. The list includes vandalism and murder but not seditious conspiracy or obstruction.

[Bob from Ohio]

He never entered the building, assaulted no person, broke no door, carried no weapons. Terrorist!

Still luckier than the guy who got 4 years for putting his feet up on Nancy's desk.

Both should have tossed a molotov cocktail at a NYC cop car, that is only worth one year and one day.

[Nige]

He is going to jail for 18 years for Trump. It's a cult.

[Zarniwoop]

I’m sure he’ll be a first-day pardon if TFG gets skip-reelected.

(I initially typed “re-elected”, but that seems to imply continuity of office. I’m sure y’all get the point that it’s more of a Grover C situation)

[Nige]

DeSantis has issued a similar promise. Which is kind of pathetic, to be honest.

[John F. Carr]

Rhodes is much more culpable than the desk guy and the goat horns guy, who were punished more harshly than they deserve.

[not guilty]

It looks like Rhodes has been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment -- more than the government recommended. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/politics/oath-keepers-stewart-rhodes-sentenced.html

[John F. Carr]

The government requested 25 years, near the midpoint of the advisory sentence for a level 39 offense by a first offender. He appears to have been sentenced at level 36 instead.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why does the Volokh Conspiracy attract such a remarkable concentration (and broad assortment) of bigots?

Is it because the proprietor sets the tone with habitual publication of vile racial slurs?

Is it because this blog seeks to attract bigots with a bizarre fixation on drag queens, transgender parenting, Muslims, transgender restrooms, lesbians, transgender sorority drama, and the like?

Is it because an archaically bigoted audience is a natural or perhaps unavoidable consequence of catering to a conservative (Republican, Federalist Society, faux libertarian) audience?

Is it because this is the only American legal blog (associated with legitimate institutions, albeit involuntarily) that flatters bigots and tolerates if not welcomes bigoted content?

Is the rampant, everyday bigotry at this blog a false flag operation conducted by liberal-libertarian mainstreamers seeking to unfairly discredit the Conspirators, Republicans, conservatives, and the Federalist Society?

Is there another reason (or are there other reasons)?

Thank you.

[blue heron]

I have asked myself the same question. I think that the libertarian veneer and dressing adds a certain amount of false cover for their intense anger and (self) hatred. But the monster is never far from the surface.

[MoreCurious]

The V.C. has become a joke — a shadow of its former self. Does anyone remember when you could come here, follow and maybe participate in a debate, and actually learn things? And have you noticed that some of the more enlightened conspirators almost never post anymore? I suspect that’s because the site’s been hijacked by bigots and morons, and is useful only for the entertainment value. It’s kind of a shame that Volokh and his cronies have given up and allowed the V.C. standards to sink to middle-school levels. It’s beginning to look as if they will continue to ignore the garbage until it stinks so badly that even our regular nutjobs will migrate to some other blog.

[Nelson]

"And have you noticed that some of the more enlightened conspirators almost never post anymore?"

I've only been here for about two or three years, but I noticed that a lot of the people who posted the most thought-provoking things when I first got here don't post any more.

I wish we had fewer bomb-throwers and paleoconservatives masquerading as libertarians and more smart people making principled arguments while recognizing that disagreeing with someone doesn't make them your enemy.

I read posts talking about the past on VC, with robust debates on legal and social issues from a wide variety of perspectives, and I think, "that sounds amazing". Then I watch paleocons swarm a post by Mike with relentless ad hominem attacks, and think, "this isn't that".

While robust free speech is as libertarian as ut gets, I wouldn't mind having someone who would slap down a poster when they talk about wanting to see another poster face down in a landfill with a bullet in their skull.

It seems like the least common denominator is being allowed to become least-er and least-er every day.

I don't know what the solution is, but maybe having some of the Conspirators and/or their guests participate in threads (their own or others from that day) would help.

While I don't always agree with the posters, they are usually thoughtful and intelligent people. Even Josh Blackman, as extreme and conspiracy-minded as he can get sometimes, is a bright and earnest man.

[MoreCurious]

They truly were the good old days. Every viewpoint from left to right was represented and thoroughly and thoughtfully debated. The blatant racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and hate did not exist. Foul, vulgar language was rare. Morons -- whose names I won't mention, but you know who they are -- hadn't yet begun to drag the V.C. into the toilet. Even Josh, however you feel about his views, contributes to conversations in a respectful, adult way. Too bad Volokh and his colleagues seem to have their heads in the sand.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I believe the current Volokh Conspiracy is what Eugene Volokh and Josh Blackman want it to be. I sense it is close to what a few other Conspirators would like it to be. The better Conspirators have largely abandoned this flaming shitstorm.

[Allutz]

Because what you call bigotry is simply understanding statistics such as 13/51+ and the truth will be discussed anywhere it is not censored. This blog is only lightly censored.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is 13/51 a QAnon reference? I am not familiar with it.

What I call bigotry is gay-bashing, racism, immigrant-hating, white supremacy, antisemitism, misogyny, Islamophobia, hatred of anything within four ZIP codes of transgender tolerance, and the like. Do you have a different list?

The most prominent points about this blog’s censorship involve partisanship and hypocrisy.

[John F. Carr]

The governor of Belgorod asked armed civilians not to try to help fight an invasion by Ukrainian or Ukrainian-backed forces. There was too much risk of friendly fire. Russian and Ukrainian soldiers are hard to distinguish.

I thought it was an interesting variation on the "Red Dawn" scenario where members of the civilian militia get to be the heroes.

[John F. Carr]

Fox News ran a story based on an article in a trade publication on the lasting effects of the Bud Light boycott. This is the memorable part for me:

"The whole industry is in shock. Even Bud's competitors aren't really dancing on the grave because they know it could have happened to them," Beer Business Daily editor and publisher Harry Schuhmacher told Fox News Digital.

Anheuser-Busch may not be any more depraved and immoral than its competitors. It is unlucky to have thought of a marketing gimmick first.

Just to be safe, I won't buy beer from companies with marketing departments.

[Moderation4ever]

Just to be safe I will not buy my beer from a company trying to please too large a group of consumers. I stick to the small breweries that don't market to the lowest common denominator of flavor.

[Brett Bellmore]

I buy an occasional beer for cooking purposes, and maybe occasionally drink a shandy. That's about it.

[Davedave]

This explains so much. A fucking shandy!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Anheuser-Busch may not be any more depraved and immoral than its competitors.

In your world, Anheuser-Busch and Target, Disney, etc. are depraved and immoral, rather than the bigots?

This is why better Americans have been stomping your right-wing preferences into irrelevance, and shaping our national progress against the wishes and efforts of conservatives, for more than a half-century.

Carry on, clingers. Until replacement.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Mrs. Paul Pelosi being "Replaced" as "Madam Speaker"???? by a Repubiclown from CA (they still have Repubiclowns in CA? will wonders never cease?)
You really need to get out more, Jerry, I know it's a little difficult in your current "House of Correction"

Frank

[EscherEnigma]

It is unlucky to have thought of a marketing gimmick first.

Y'all keep saying shit like this, and it's a-historical.

Beer companies were some of the first to embrace advertising to the LGBT community and sponsoring Pride events. That happened decades ago: turns out that when a community faces social ostracization, legal disenfranchisement, and mostly uses bars as their community-centers, they drink more then the average American!

So sure, the specific gimmick might be new, but that Budweiser (and Coors, and Smirnoff, and so-on) advertise to queer folk, often using, queer folk, is hardly new.

Y'all throwing a hissy fit and boycotting because of a paid promotion? That was new.

[Bob from Ohio]

"hissy fit and boycotting "

How dare cons do this, only libs can throw a hissy fit and boycott!

Sucks our side is learning.

[EscherEnigma]

Now, if only you could learn to follow a conversation, you might have understood why your response is irrelevant.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are the one who brought up the "new" alleged tactic.

[EscherEnigma]

What an odd response.

[Nige]

'Sucks our side is learning.'

It's like freedom fries died for nothing. Or all those coffee machines. Or all that NFL merchandise. Do you have the memory of a goldfish or what?

[Sarcastr0]

"The whole industry is in shock"

Yes, you are all very powerful, this is much bigger than it appears; you are not impotent aging whiners at all.

[John F. Carr]

The Sacketts won their nearly two decade long case against the EPA at the Supreme Court. The court ruled that the Clean Water Act protects wetlands like non-navigable swamps at the edge of a navigable river, but not distant property that the EPA's field officers might claim to have an intermittent hydrologic connection.

The reversal was unanimous, but the liberal justices thought wetlands might be covered by the act farther from navigable waters than the conservative justices thought.

[SRG]

Kagan is quite correct that "adjacent" does not require a touching. merely nearness.

[Bob from Ohio]

"merely nearness"

Nope.

“adjacent” next to or adjoining something else.

"adjoining" next to or joined with

"next to " in or into a position immediately to one side of; beside. [Oxford Languages via google"

[SRG]

To use an example similar to Kagan's, if your house is on the other side of a narrow road from a golf course, you would not deny that the house was adjacent to a golf course just because there was a road between the two properties.

[Bob from Ohio]

The road makes it not "adjacent".

If Congress meant "near", it would have.

[SRG]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent#dictionary-entry-1

1a
: not distant : NEARBY

https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=adjacent&title=21st
adjacent, adjoining
There is sometimes confusion between adjacent and adjoining. Adjacent things can be close to or next to each other, but not necessarily touching • He dodged into an adjacent alley • The noise from an adjacent bus station. Adjoining things are next to and touching each other • The bathroom adjoining her hotel room • A lease of land adjoining a road.

Congress chose the term "adjacent", not "adjoining"

[SRG]

As Bob already accepts Oxford:

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/2414#eid217282867

A.1: Next to or very near something else

Adjoining and contiguous can only mean next to or touching.

[Bob from Ohio]

The examples are wrong since “adjacent” means "next to or adjoining something else", not near.

I got 5 votes on my side,

[SRG]

Bob: did you not read the OED citation just above your post?

"Next to or very near something else"

Do you know the meaning of the word "or"?

[Nige]

It's the kind if distinction you draw when you *want* to let waters get polluted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Took long enough.

[Martinned]

Who needs clean water anyway?

[Brett Bellmore]

Who needs the rule of law, anyway?

[Mr. Bumble]

Dare you to drink any water on the Sackett's property.

[Ben_]

The decision wasn’t about water, it was about representative government versus bureaucratic diktats.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What does me filling in a low spot in my property that holds an inch of water after it rains, but is a Mike from any body of water, affect the cleanliness of our water?

If anything this decision will force the EPA to stay in mission.

[Nige]

Because hydrology.

[David Nieporent]

Unanimous decision; Stephen Lathrop's conspiracy theory hardest hit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What conspiracy theory? Are you referring to the indisputable fact that the this case was cooked up by land development interests—with which the Sacketts apparently agreed—to use the Sacketts as willing pawns?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Thank you for providing a crystal-clear illustration of what David Nieporent was talking about.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, so you do agree that professional excavator Sackett deliberately filled an indisputable wetland—which at the time was unambiguously a regulated wetland—because he wanted his legal sponsors to take a shot at getting the Supreme Court to rewrite the law? And we can all forget the bullshit from the bench about poor hapless landowners clueless about what the law might be, because there is no evidence that happened in this case, right? You do agree with that?

Do you have even a working farmer's practical knowledge of geology, hydrology, and wetland biology? Did you look at any of the pictorial evidence in the case? Sackett dumped fill in a bog so wet it would suck your boots off. Why would he do that if he didn't know it was a wetland? What Sackett did was the exact conduct which got the Clean Water Act passed in the first place—he filled a marsh to make a new building lot.

Also, make it worth my while and I will give you handsome odds. The only reason Sackett's lot was not in fact within an indistinguishable boundary zone between Priest Lake itself, and a permanent wetland which even this court said it would acknowledge, was because previous fill operations had obliterated the boundary zone. Whether those were done legally or illegally is an interesting question which might turn on when they happened.

Is it your view that if someone fills in an indistinguishable boundary area, and gets away with it, that means the entire upstream area which the modification cuts off loses its regulated status and becomes ripe for unregulated fill and development? That will shortly become a pivotal question relevant to development strategies targeting wetlands throughout the nation, so keep your eye on that question. There will be a consulting gold mine in seeking out and identifying such orphan wetlands, long ago cut off by fill from their regulated parent waters, and now thanks to the Alito court newly deregulated.

Alito decided he didn't like what the Clean Water Act accomplished. He and his ideological bloc decided to get around congress, and take over that kind of policy from the bench. You call me a conspiracy theorist. Do you think Kagan is a conspiracy theorist too?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now do the monkey selfie!

[David Nieporent]

Do you think Kagan is a conspiracy theorist too?

Kagan rejected your argument about Sackett's land.

[Kazinski]

Half the cases SCOTUS decides are cooked up by people who want the court to rule on something and are looking for a good case to get them to do so.

The Justices themselves are careful to pick and choose the cases that are the cleanest path to ruling on the question they want to decide.

Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe, was hand picked by two feminist lawyers who were looking for the perfect case to challenge Texas's abortion law. So what?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Justices themselves are careful to pick and choose the cases that are the cleanest path to ruling on the question they want to decide.

Kazinski, in this context, the word, "question," is unacceptably vague. Kagan asserts the Court has improperly substituted, "policy," and I tend to agree.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kagan's dissent is sufficient to blow the majority out of the water. Like Dobbs on abortion, like Bruen on gun rights, there is nothing judicious going on in Sackett II. In each instance an overweening and ill-advised right-wing majority means to set itself over Congress, and establish the Supreme Court as the nation's final policy arbiter on a particularly sensitive subject.

As in those other cases, the majority in Sackett II advances tendentious legal mis-interpretations, rules off-limits substantial case law it finds inconvenient, and sets up pure ideology as a master over subject matter it does not even comprehend well enough to misunderstand. No doubt if this majority did know what the consequences of its reasoning would be, or how far beyond clean water issues those legal consequences could spread, this majority would endorse whatever havoc followed. It is an ignorant, heedless, ideologically driven power bloc, with little else on its mind than to impose its own policy preferences arbitrarily. There is no legitimacy to be had from such a court.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Kagan’s dissent"?

It was 9-0.

[Absaroka]

"Kagan’s dissent "

Which dissent is that?

From the 2012 decision:

"SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. GINSBURG, J., and ALITO, J., filed concurring opinions."

From the 2023 decision:

" ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined."

"there is nothing judicious going on in Sackett II. In each instance an overweening and ill-advised right-wing majority... the majority in Sackett II advances tendentious legal mis-interpretations...sets up pure ideology as a master ... It is an ignorant, heedless, ideologically driven power bloc"

Your majority here is a majority of 9 ... who are all right wing ideologues? I guess if they disagree with you they must be!

[Stephen Lathrop]

You got me there, Absaroka. I got carried away because I read it.

But in the end Kagan agreed on the outcome. In your next-to-last graph, where you quote me, every word I wrote is accurate. This really is a 9-0 decision in which there is nevertheless a clear majority, and a clear minority.

Kagan basically says she agrees on handing the Sacketts the win; she disagrees on all the reasoning, and on all the policy stuff which matters to Alito, and which will create noxious decisions against environmental sanity until it gets corrected. Did you read her concurrence, or just stick to the syllabus?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ds will at some point assemble political power sufficient to stem the environmental destruction Sackett II will predictably unleash. When that happens, congress should redefine the scope of the clean water act—and begin by omitting the contentious, “waters of the United States" terminology. Congress should instead define ecological consequences as subject matter under the Commerce Clause, and at the same time remove that question from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

Congress should then write a clean water act with scope defined by any overlay of moving, standing, or tidal water, or ground water so often saturated that it characteristically affects vegetation types. Call that kind of overlay a significant geological/ecological nexus, defined in terms of the inherent biological, hydrological, and geological characteristics of the landscapes under consideration, as those were found prior to human modification.

If that sounds radical to you, you probably do not know that a similar policy has been at work for decades under cooperative management of the National Park Service and various other federal, state, and local political jurisdictions. It remains a work in progress, but it is pointed in the right direction—toward restoration of damaged natural assets, and a general expansion of the geographic scope of ecological improvement.

Foreseeable ecological disruptions will not be mitigated in the slightest by reasoning that the people who cause them cannot be bothered, or prefer for ideological reasons to stay ignorant. No doubt that reasoning would challenge the preferences of today’s ecologically and geologically ignorant supreme court majority. But it would prove surprisingly easy to live with for most folks who practice land management of some sort for a living.

Although they might differ in their conclusions, biologists, farmers, extractive industry managers, engineers, architects, and land developers alike typically go to work every day with good fundamental understandings of practical geological, hydrological, and ecological issues. The Sacketts, in the professional excavation business, would by that standard have been in no doubt at all. (Okay, I’m pretending about their pretense. Even in the present case, they were not credibly in any doubt that they filled a regulated wetland on purpose.)

To whatever extent a geology/ecology nexus might prove a challenge, the right solution is not to cater to a kind of confusion our society cannot continue to indulge. The right solution is to educate everyone—even victims of nature deficit disorder, whose numbers have increased in proportion to increased urban living. Hopefully, most such education can be of the academic sort, but as always, some of it will come in the school of hard knocks, via adverse regulatory experiences. In time, almost everyone will get the message. The fate of this nation, and the world, depend on that happening, by the way.

[Ben_]

Wow! An acknowledgment that Congress should decide something instead of the high priests at the EPA.

Progress.

[blue-heron]

As a long time cancer survivor who was exposed to benzene and lost a kidney, I thank god for the high priests of the EPA and the administrative state. Congress is totally beholden to big money corporate interest and polluters, call me a romantic but I still like to think that the people at the Biden EPA still care about the health of Americans. This conservative Supreme Court does not and neither do most libertarians or their think tanks. Your "liberty" trumps Americans health and welfare every time. I only hope that the effects of water pollution from the corporate megafarmers who are the ones that are really going to benefit from this are visited upon the members and families of the court and the people at Cato and the Pacific Legal Foundation who so readily enable gross polluters in this country.

[SRG]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf: Tyler v Hennepin

A state government can’t seize your property for non-payment of taxes and hold onto the excess of proceeds when the property is sold.

[Michael P]

Good. Common sense finally prevails.

[hoppy025]

Here are my thoughts. Transgenders are mentally ill. Every day, they do more to prove it than anyone on the outside can.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/24/us/florida-travel-advisory-human-rights-campaign/index.html

[not guilty]

When and where did you get your medical/mental health training, if any, hoppy025?

[SRG]

PragerU, no doubt.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not necessarily. Could have been FreeRepublic, the Volokh Conspiracy, Instapundit, RedState, Stormfront, Gateway Pundit, Power Line, 4chan, Legal Insurrection, Heritage, or reason.com.

[Nelson]

Damn! That was perfect!

[Anon]

While mainstream analysis appears to conclude the recent successes of anti-Putin militias are a counter-productive to the Ukrainian cause, it occurred to me how elated commenters (some of whom several months ago had unironically suggested Ukraine should counter-invade Russia) would be.

[Ben_]

Democrats and Microsoft censor Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy for climate religion heresy:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/linkedin-censors-presidential-candidate-who-says-fossil-fuels-required-prosperity

Ramaswamy:

"Now they’re censoring presidential candidates for arguing that fossil fuels are required for prosperity. They didn’t censor me because it’s false. They censored me because it’s true…"

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Could you point to where in that jumble it claimed that Democrats were censoring Ramaswamy?

[blue heron]

When I first heard about the concept of libertarianism I thought cool, rationalists, albeit consumed by self interest, that revered freedom and liberty, that would call them from both sides of the plate and not adhere to the party line. Then I noticed that the deviation from the norm, always veered right, you seldom if ever see a libertarian take a humanistic or leftward approach to anything. Why is that? Are you just conservatives in drag, that occasionally like to smoke weed? I think what unnerves me the most about the whole concept is the worship of the freedom to discriminate. If the nazi or bigot refuses you a meal or a rental, you are free to move with your feet or let the market settle it. That doesn't work in the real world, especially not in towns where everybody feels the same way.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Then I noticed that the deviation from the norm, always veered right, you seldom if ever see a libertarian take a humanistic or leftward approach to anything.

Yes, all those right-leaning deviations from the norm...like open borders, legalization of currently illicit substances, support for same-sex marriage before it was publicly popular, legalization of prostitution, etc, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the taking economic liberty seriously bit; On the left they tend to think only rightwingers could possibly do that.

[ducksalad]

I've noticed quite a few on the left seem to have a dictionary in which the definition of "freedom" is "fairness". They just can't separate the two concepts.

Some libertarians make the opposite error, defining "fairness" as whatever results in a laissez-faire society. I think a more honest approach is to acknowledge that liberty results in some people being allowed to act in ways that an ordinary person would consider unfair, and that we're willing to pay that price, or at least pay more of it than non-libertarians.

[blue heron]

I think that is a fair and honest accounting which I don't disagree with. I happen to be jewish, when I moved into my town and visited a mechanic for the first time decades ago, he told me that they gassed jews that ventured in there. Another time I entered the small town cafe and heard a waitress say in a loud voice that "it smells like a jew in here." The KKK used to meet on Sundays on the patio. I walked out of both establishments, never to return. You can't legislate hatred. But if every motel or landlord or restaurant had a similar attitude and redlining took place against all minorities, I do have a problem with that and I think it would not be a libertarian style free market solution that I would advocate.

[Sarcastr0]

the definition of “freedom” is “fairness”. They just can’t separate the two concepts.

Economic freedom is hardly the only definition of freedom:

Freedom of speech
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear

We used to agree on at least the top 2. Not even those anymore.

[ducksalad]

Economic freedom isn’t the definition of freedom, but it’s an essential and inseparable part. Because being effectively authoritarian on economics requires being authoritarian on most everything else.

Freedom from search and seizure has to be compromised if you want to effectively control some category of moveable property, or you wish to prevent concealment of wealth.

Freedom of speech has to be compromised if you want to effectively control advertising.

Freedom of religion has to be compromised if you object to churches amassing wealth and property.

Freedom of association has to be compromised if the government is not satisfied with consumer’s choices of what to buy and who to buy it from.

Bodily autonomy itself needs to be compromised once you collectivize health care, which immediately leads to claims that private behavior is costing taxpayers money.

No, Sarc. Being in favor of personal freedoms but not economic freedoms is not really a viable position. You can care more or be more motivated about one than the other, but reductions in one necessarily degrade the other.

[Sarcastr0]

You say that economic freedom is the the one that matters. You argue that spending money is the only way to operationalize every other freedom.
Except I could argue the same about economic freedom, turning every one of your examples on you head. Who cares how much money you have if the government can seize it anytime, etc.

But more importantly, economic freedom is more or less useful the more money you have. That is an awful thing to make the lodestone of your society!
Look at civil rights, how even the poor deserve dignity - freedom of identity.

FDR was not alone in his broader definition of freedom. I myself believe he saved capitalism in the US by looking beyond economics to operationalize freedom in a way that worked for people who weren't wealthy.

I would also disagree that freedom is the only true good that exists, and that we should build our society around the exaltation of economic freedom above all other values.

[ducksalad]

No, I didn't say it's the one that matters.

I said rights come as an interdependent package and attacking one degrades the others. And yes, one could equally well show that it works the other way: degrading freedom of speech hurts economic freedom.

[Sarcastr0]

Well then maybe we are closer to being on the same page than I thought.

Because of course some freedoms are in tension. Civil rights and freedom of association is the famous one, but I'd say the first half of the 100s, from trustbusting to the New Deal showed how operational freedom of choice was suffering as economic freedom was maximized, and the solution was to rebalance the two some.

Though, again, I do think there are other values than freedom worth striving for as a society. Like fairness, and dignity, and positive nationalism, and fulfillment. Freedom is pretty boss though.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not "Freedom of worship", its Freedom of Religion.

Freedom of worship just means you can pray the way you want, Freedom of Religion means you can act on your beliefs in your daily life.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's not freedom of religion either. It's free exercise of religion. Perhaps that can be read as only protecting specifically religious practices, not "act[ing] on your beliefs in your daily life."

[Magister]

Those are all the expected libertarian positions. The deviations from the norm are most commonly support for authoritarians on the right.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

For example?

[Sarcastr0]

Censorship. Protest. Voting. Sex. Drugs. Immigration. Special pleading on criminal law.

[Davedave]

There are actual libertarians, in other countries - and even in the US. On the whole, though, the US version is just a euphemism for fascists/neo-Nazis.

[Ed Grinberg]

Libertarians are really "fascists/neo-Nazis" because ... what? They don't think Jack Phillips should have to "bake that cake!"? You're full of shit.

[ducksalad]

I assume you at least glance at the articles here. Would you say Fiona Harrigan or Elizabeth Nolan Brown "always veered right"? If so, I'd say you have an outlier opinion on what counts as right.

[Davedave]

No, treason.com is crazy right wing. If you don't recognise that, you're sitting just next to full-blown Nazis.

[ducksalad]

Someone help me out here. Is Davedave real, or is he a right winger doing a false flag operation to make progressives look even worse than they are? I sincerely can't tell.

[Davedave]

Get help. You don't have to go through life being a completely insane hate-filled bigot.

[EscherEnigma]

I would assume that they're considering libertarians/Libertarians holistically.

I assume this, because I had a similar initial reaction, and then subsequent reaction, to libertarians/Libertarians. Some of the ideas sound nice in theory. But the people... well, y'all are just awful.

[Moderation4ever]

I would say that the articles take a pretty balanced approached, what you may be thinking of is the commentors. Commentors often take a right or even hard right approach. This is very visible when they claim that Reason is a now a left-wing site and all the authors are leftist. Another indicator in comments is that Rand Paul, a libertarian gone to right is praised, while Justin Amash, a libertarian stalwart is demonized.

[SRG]

FWIW I don't think that either Paul are true libertarians. They restrict their libertarian principles to the Federal government, while being surprisingly unconcerned about invasions of liberty by (Republican) states.

[ducksalad]

Two comments on “worship of the freedom to discriminate”.

1. There might be a few commenters here who worship that as a standalone right or first principle. For most of us, it’s not. It’s a necessary consequence of respecting both freedom of association and private property.

To make an analogy: do you specifically “worship” the right of a woman to engage in sex-selective abortion after pressure from her husband to produce only a son? I assume not. I would guess what you do worship is her right to have an abortion without her personal motives being policed by anybody.

It’s really about where you draw the boundary between private and public. For me it’s usually somewhere around the property line. For a lot of progressives, it seems to be limited to the brain (excluding the speech centers) and the reproductive organs, and it certainly doesn’t include the wallet.

2. You make an argument about it not being realistic to take your business elsewhere or let the market settle things. Let’s be direct here: that’s not really your objection and you know it.

If a town of 1000 loses its last grocery store, no court steps in and says that’s going to starve the gay population (along with everyone else) and therefore the owner may not shut down. Most everyone, I imagine you included, would say it’s about markets and distances to the next town. But if the grocery instead put up a “no gays served”, you might argue about the driving, but we all know it’s really about bigotry in what you consider to be a public space, but I consider to be the grocery owner’s private space.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you object to the Republican Party's (and Volokh Conspiracy's) strident push for limitless expansion of special privilege for religion? Should an employer be entitled to fire an employee who won't dispense a prescription because of alleged superstitious belief? Should restaurants and hotels be entitled to refuse to serve Catholics, Jews, evangelicals, and/or Opus Dei members?

Should universities be permitted to fire, or refuse to hire, professors who are bigots or who believe (or claim to believe) that fairy tales are true? Should Georgetown University be entitled to fire Prof. Barnett because he is a right-winger who associates with a bigot-hugging blog? Should Harvard be permitted to fire a professor who rejects evolution not on reasoned or scientific grounds but rather because that professor views the Bible not only as nonfiction but indeed as the inerrant word of an imaginary man in the sky?

Or are you just interested in carving out safe spaces for clingers?

[ducksalad]

“Do you object to the Republican Party’s (and Volokh Conspiracy’s) strident push for limitless expansion of special privilege for religion?”

I support those “special privileges” that are exemptions from laws that shouldn’t have been topics for regulation in the first place, and IMO that constitutes most of the federal code. It would be even better if everybody got the exemption, but I’m not in favor of oppression in the name of equality of oppression. Exceptions are good and each exception helps us leverage the next one, either by extending the definition of religion, or by making the public understand that the sky won’t fall if your employer doesn’t buy your condoms. TLDR version: Yes.

“Should an employer be entitled to fire an employee who won’t dispense a prescription because of alleged superstitious belief?”

Yes.

“Should restaurants and hotels be entitled to refuse to serve Catholics, Jews, evangelicals, and/or Opus Dei members?”

If it’s random oddball cases rather than a systemic unavailability of restaurants due to a long-standing public+private coordinated policy of discrimination, then Yes.

“Should universities be permitted to fire, or refuse to hire, professors who are bigots or who believe (or claim to believe) that fairy tales are true?”

Private university yes. Public universities would need to show how their belief was relevant to the job, if it is, yes.

“Should Georgetown University be entitled to fire Prof. Barnett because he is a right-winger who associates with a bigot-hugging blog? Should Harvard be permitted to fire a professor who rejects evolution not on reasoned or scientific grounds but rather because that professor views the Bible not only as nonfiction but indeed as the inerrant word of an imaginary man in the sky?”

Yes. Although I would say neither is entitled to accreditation or recognition by the government. Making some degree of academic freedom a condition for receiving federal grants or eligibility for student loans is reasonable.

“Or are you just interested in carving out safe spaces for clingers?”

Everyone from clingers to Khmer Rouge should have their own spaces.

[blue-heron]

I was just reading this article about the first Jewish Miss America being denied hotel rooms on her national tour. Obviously black musicians and ballplayers faced the same discrimination. Is this really the paradigm you want to return to? Make america ugly again? https://theconversation.com/white-house-plan-to-combat-antisemitism-takes-on-centuries-of-hatred-discrimination-and-even-lynching-in-america-206062

[Michael Ejercito]

Should an employer be entitled to fire an employee who won’t dispense a prescription because of alleged superstitious belief?

This is the law as it stands now.

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/jury-awards-240000-muslim-truck-drivers-eeoc-religious-discrimination-suit

[ducksalad]

Posted this before reading your other comment. I may have mischaracterized your opinion, if so, sorry.

[bernard11]

Partly about bigotry, and partly about "fairness," if you want to call it that.

Why should only gays be forced to drive to the next town to buy groceries? And if the store there adopts the same policy? Suppose other businesses in town - restaurants, barbershops, banks, whatever - bar gays. Then it is effectively part of a plan to drive gays out of town.

IOW, it is more complex than you make it. I think it is perfectly OK to have laws designed to squelch systemic discrimination.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"And if the store there adopts the same policy? Suppose other businesses in town – restaurants, barbershops, banks, whatever – bar gays. Then it is effectively part of a plan to drive gays out of town."

I haven't perused the extensive archives of CNN, HuffPo, the Daily Beast, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc., but if a situation like you described existed, that's where it would presumably be reported. Even Fox might have an item on it.

So are there any stories about such anti-gay towns?

[ducksalad]

I'm not opposed to some sort of government action if it's really "systemic". So I'm not burning with outrage about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I do not believe that gays in Portland were suffering systemic deprivation of baked goods. I do not believe that men anywhere suffer systemic deprivation of access to fitness clubs. I do not believe that women suffer systemic deprivation of access to mixed drinks. And so, the Christian baker, the Curves gym, and the "Men Only" bar in my old hometown of Round Rock, were all IMO things we can tolerate in the name of liberty.

[bernard11]

So I’m not burning with outrage about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Good. Some libertarians are. Plenty of complaints here.

As to the rest, well, I think the whole "intrusion on liberty" business is a pretty a weak argument.

Then there are arguments about holding yourself out as a public accommodation and then refusing service for no reason, as well as implicitly casting aspersions on a whole group of people, etc. Not to mention the slippery slope arguments. At what point does it change from idiosyncratic to systemic? One bar, two, ten?

Regardless, how would you feel about a law that said you can discriminate, but have to put up a sign, to spare people the embarrassment and discomfort of being refused?

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't say I'm burning with outrage about the 1964 civil rights act. Maybe smoldering a bit over its extension beyond state actors.

[ducksalad]

How about this: Requiring a large sign along the lines of “Warning: The Government Has Determined That This Business Refuses to Refrain from Discrimination. It Is Not a Public Accommodation. You Are Strongly Advised Not to Enter”, including a mandatory skull and crossbones in government specified format. I could also see limiting the “privilege” of posting such a sign to sole proprietors or partnerships, not doing business with the government, and not enjoying any special rights-of-way. So the electric company can’t do it, Walmart can’t do it, the supermarket probably can’t do it, and most ordinary businesses won’t want the controversy and the shame.

Since you mentioned it, I’d also support such a compromise on foods regulated by the USDA or FDA. You can sell raw milk, or unenriched pasta, or uninspected meat, as long as it’s labeled with a skull and crossbones and a bilingual label stating that it has not been approved for safety by the government. No sales to children or impaired people. No outright fraud, e.g. packaging sand and labelling it salt.

BTW: North Carolina used to have an inspection system for restaurants when I was a kid. Instead of pass/fail, they simply issued an “A” “B” or “C”. the certificate was large and had to be posted right over the counter. The doomsayers here would predict that such a system would force us all to eat in dirty “C” restaurants, except for privileged rich whites. In reality, it was extremely rare to see any restaurant not maintain an “A”, and the few “B” and “C” catered mainly to people looking for some kind of authentic primitive experience.

[Nige]

'You can sell raw milk, or unenriched pasta, or uninspected meat, as long as it’s labeled with a skull and crossbones and a bilingual label stating that it has not been approved for safety by the government.'

Watch how quick socio-economic pressures and cynicism renders these staples for the poor with safer foods out of their price range, then any effort to correct this would be protrayed as anti-poor, or 'if they don't want to exist in a state of perpetual low-grade food poisoning, if they're lucky, maybe they should try managing their finances better.'

[ducksalad]

Socialist claptrap that does not actually come true. Some libertarians do engage in magical thinking about markets, but they are nothing compared to Marxists. Literally tens of millions dead and you refuse to change your mind.

Unenriched pasta is sold in Italy. Raw milk is sold in the UK. Your claim of what will happen is objectively false based on the evidence.

[Nige]

What, you think rich people will do anything except reap the benefits of deregulation, socialise the losses and let the poor bear the brunt? Haven't you read any history? Predatory lenders, cancer corridors, shitty health insurance, badly funded education - it's all about heaping it on the poor people so the rich can do what they like. Why wouldn't deregulated food be any different? Raw milk and unenriched pasta are boutique artisinal items currently. But when all foods have cheaper, nastier, unregulated versions, it won't be the trendy middle class hipsters buying them. You don't need to be Marx to spot that happening.

[EscherEnigma]

Two comments on “worship of the freedom to discriminate”.

You missed the bigger bit.

Modern Libertarians/libertarians only care about non-discrimination law when it comes to gay people.

Think about it, there are literally hundreds of non-discrimination lawsuits every year. Hundreds yearly. But what do you see articles about?

You saw, for over a decade, articles regarding the same half-dozen cases that involved gay people. Over and over and over again.

Stated preferences vs. revealed preferences and all that jazz, Libertarians/libertarians don't actually care about non-discrimination laws. They just care about laws that protect queers.

[ducksalad]

IMO it’s because those cases were (again, IMO) filed by people who weren’t the least bit blighted by systemic discrimination. Or if they were, the cases they filed were not good examples. They were objecting to someone acting out their bigotry in their own quite small private spaces that, while commercial, were in no sense a vital public resource, and for which there were many, many easily accessible alternatives.

Or to put another way: those people in Portland were hunting bigots and very much punching down. Their target was not a very sympathetic character, but I can still recognize who was seeking confrontation and who just wanted to disengage.

[EscherEnigma]

... I mean, even if we accept your "opinion" as fact†, you're still agreeing that libertarians/Libertarians (as a group) are lying about what they care about.
________
†I don't.

[ducksalad]

Let me get this straight - your complaint is that libertarians don't advocate strongly enough for the right to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or national origin. Therefore, they really just hate gays.

Do I understand you correctly?

[EscherEnigma]

I wouldn't phrase it as a "complaint", but as an observation, but essentially, yes.

If you claim you're upset about X because Y, but X makes up a fraction of a percent of cases of Y, no one should take you seriously that you care about Y.

[SRG]

The oddity in the US, from a British perspective, is the “conservative libertarian” – which is quite literally a contradiction in terms. British conservative thought, from Burke to Oakeshott, explicitly disdains the untried/untested, and ideology, in favour of tradition, gradualism, and a degree of pragmatism. Full-on libertarianism has never been tried at any kind of scale anywhere, which should put conservatives off – and also suggests that it’s unimplementable.

A pragmatic or heuristic libertarianism, which is to say, uses libertarian principles as a tie-breaker between choices where there is no real-world evidence to choose between them, and which does not reject real-world outcomes merely because they contradict libertarian axioms, is another matter entirely. But many American libertarians are unhappy to have to do without some cherished principles regardless of how unrealistic.

[Michael P]

On Monday, someone suggested that criminal charges might yet come for Rachel Rollins. Will that person now apologize for suggesting that Dems are held to the same standard as Republicans?

https://themessenger.com/opinion/a-rollins-defense-for-trump-justice-department-again-declines-to-prosecute-one-of-its-own

[Kleppe]

There's a two-tier justice system in the United States. Has been for a long time.

[M L]

I've been assured many times that the DOJ holds the DOJ accountable.

[EscherEnigma]

And the SCOTUS holds the SCOTUS accountable.

I mean, at least with the DOJ that's plausible. The DOJ actually has the capability to discipline people in the DOJ.

But even if Roberts did think Thomas's bribes gifts were out of line, what actual power does he have to do anything about it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I dare say that if Roberts recommended charges to the House for impeachment, they'd likely pay some attention to them.

[Zarniwoop]

I don’t. The pure GOP will to submit any excuse that prevents another S.Ct. appointment going to a (D) president would triumph in about 0.22 seconds.

Frankly I was surprised Thomas didn’t resign and allow Trump another appointment. Well, until I learned how much Thomas liked those $500K “adventures with friends”, curiously favorable off-the-books real estate transactions, and Ginni’s totally-coincidental employment opportunities.

[not guilty]

"But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils[.]" I Timothy 6:9-10 (RSV).

[M L]

"curiously favorable off-the-books real estate transactions"

Curiously favorable to the buyer, actually. He should have paid more. It was on the books, though.

[M L]

The main difference is that SCOTUS is the head of one of the three branches of the federal government, and the DOJ is not. Any “independent” power within the DOJ is unconstitutional by definition.

[Michael P]

Three teens steal a car, speed, and crash into a retiree's car. The 70-year-old dies from his injuries. Accountability looks like the mayor firing the police chief for asking why the mayor interfered in the case and caused chain-of-custody problems for any prosecution -- with no charges against any of the teens.

How many more people have to die before leftists will enforce laws?

https://americanwirenews.com/no-charges-for-chicago-teens-who-killed-70-yr-old-with-stolen-kia-mayor-fires-police-chief-who-asked-questions/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How many more breaths will you take before your brain decides you aren't worth the effort?

Nobody here gives a fuck about your partisan whining.

[Ed Grinberg]

How many more people have to die before leftists will enforce laws?

[The Twin Cities have] broken under the weight of insidiously lenient politically progressive policies on crime... It goes all the way to the top, with an attorney general, Keith Ellison, who thinks a stolen car is the car’s fault.
...death[s] brought about by...political farce.
(source)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That Democrat who raged at that White conservative kid and ran him over and killed the boy for being White just had his charges reduced to near nothing.

[Bored Lawyer]

MEanwhile, SCOTUS came out with three decisions today: the Waters of the US case with the EPA (which some discussed above), the Takings case of the 94-year-old woman who owed $15,000, so her $40,000 house was seized, and a procedural decision about preserving arguments for appeal that were the subject of summary judgment.

[John F. Carr]

The summary judgment decision struck me as wrong. If you lose a ruling on a motion in limine, don't you need to make a pro forma motion again at trial to preserve the issue? Similar situation.

[Bored Lawyer]

Their holding was only on pure issues of law. If you raise such an issue on summary judgment, and then the district court shoots you down, why should you have to raise it again at trial? The reasoning sounds right to me. (Although it can be risky to rely on this, since it is not always clear what is a pure issue of law and what is not.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you lose a ruling on a motion in limine, don’t you need to make a pro forma motion again at trial to preserve the issue?

I'm sure some jurisdictions maintain the kind of farcical formalism that would require it, but as a general rule - no. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 103(b).

[Dan Schiavetta]

I've never heard of such a requirement. Making an application on something that's already decided is sure to piss off the trial judge and you don't want to do that.

[John F. Carr]

I see from the notes to rule 103 that it was amended in 2000 to resolve a circuit split on the need to renew a motion at trial. I may have heard about the need to renew a motion in limine before 2000.

The amendment applies to all rulings on evidence whether they occur at or before trial, including so-called "in limine" rulings. One of the most difficult questions arising from in limine and other evidentiary rulings is whether a losing party must renew an objection or offer of proof when the evidence is or would be offered at trial, in order to preserve a claim of error on appeal. Courts have taken differing approaches to this question. Some courts have held that a renewal at the time the evidence is to be offered at trial is always required. See, e.g., Collins v. Wayne Corp., 621 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1980). Some courts have taken a more flexible approach, holding that renewal is not required if the issue decided is one that (1) was fairly presented to the trial court for an initial ruling, (2) may be decided as a final matter before the evidence is actually offered, and (3) was ruled on definitively by the trial judge. See, e.g., Rosenfeld v. Basquiat, 78 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 1996) (admissibility of former testimony under the Dead Man's Statute; renewal not required). Other courts have distinguished between objections to evidence, which must be renewed when evidence is offered, and offers of proof, which need not be renewed after a definitive determination is made that the evidence is inadmissible. See, e.g., Fusco v. General Motors Corp., 11 F.3d 259 (1st Cir. 1993). Another court, aware of this Committee's proposed amendment, has adopted its approach. Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Differing views on this question create uncertainty for litigants and unnecessary work for the appellate courts.

[Michael Ejercito]

Something worth discussing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/13q49hy/column_these_experts_sold_the_us_on_a_disastrous/

They’ve held credentials from some of the world’s most elite universities — Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Oxford. They’ve been welcomed into the highest government policy councils. They became fixtures on television news shows and were quoted incessantly by some of the nation’s leading newspapers.
They’re a cadre of academics and scientists who pushed a discredited solution to the COVID pandemic, shunning masks, school closings, even vaccines, all in the name of reaching the elusive goal of “herd immunity,” resulting in what may have been hundreds of thousands of unnecessary American deaths.
That’s the contention of “We Want Them Infected,” a painstakingly documented new book by Jonathan Howard, a neurologist at New York University and a veteran debunker of the pseudoscience contaminating our efforts to fight the pandemic.
In 2019 you would have been considered a quack if you suggested that the best way to get rid of a virus is to spread the virus. But that became mainstream and influenced politicians at the highest levels.
— Jonathan Howard, M.D.
Howard takes his title from Paul Alexander, an epidemiologist in the Health and Human Services Department during the Trump administration.

I will start by pointing out that there were no lockdowns during the swine flu pandemic, nor the Hong Kong flu pandemic (Woodstock did not have social distancing) nor the Asian flu pandemic.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"But that became mainstream and influenced politicians at the highest levels."

This is delusional.

[M L]

A reputed federal informant and whistleblower who went missing after he was reported to have turned over a trove of secret files about Deutsche Bank was found dead at a Los Angeles school this week, a police official said Wednesday...

Records of the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner-Coroner do not list a cause of death. The office deferred a preliminary finding to allow for additional examination and toxicology testing, according to records released Thursday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reputed-federal-informant-whistleblower-found-dead-l-reported-missing-rcna26382

10 months later . . . .

..his death has been ruled an accident. The coroner says he died of blunt force trauma to the torso. The coroner says he died of blunt force trauma to the torso...It concludes that he died while trying to climb down a tree after getting trapped on a breezeway connecting two buildings at a Los Angeles high school.

https://twitter.com/davidenrich/status/1623075399814070280

[M L]

1 year prior to the news of the death:

Man’s disappearance still shrouded in mystery

https://beverlypress.com/2021/04/mans-disappearance-still-shrouded-in-mystery/

[M L]

Sadly, it seems Val’s girlfriend Marie is now missing as well. She went missing 13 months ago, at the same time Val died . . . https://namus.nij.ojp.gov/case/MP91740

Just a case of two people having bad luck, troubled personalities and such by nature, probably why they were attracted to each other.

[Jerry B.]

The trolls are out in force today. DNC find some spare change in the sofa?

[EscherEnigma]

Hey now, no need to be insulting. That's Reason's core audience you're talking about.

[Kazinski]

I'm at my cabin now for the summer, which is off the grid. Last two days have been cloudy with intermittent thunderstorms so my solar panels are useless, and my batteries are getting depleted. I don't have a windmill but it wouldn't make a difference anyway because it's pretty calm out.

Its not that bad, but I'd sure feel better if there were a couple of states or a few major cities in a brownout or blackout too.

What's taking the transition to renewables so long, I'm feeling lonely.

[Absaroka]

"Last two days have been cloudy with intermittent thunderstorms so my solar panels are useless,"

Do you have an MPPT controller? What is the rated voltage of your panels and battery array? We get >10% of rated power from our panels even in heavy clouds.

(More correctly, the first toe-in-the-water system I put together wouldn't even keep up with self discharge on cloudy days, but subsequent better designed systems deal adequately with cloudy days)

[Mr. Bumble]

“What’s taking the transition to renewables so long, I’m feeling lonely.” Are you also feeling stupid? Wise up and get a gas or propane powered generator.
Be thankful you didn't get there in an EV.

[Absaroka]

"Wise up and get a gas or propane powered generator."

I have one. Solar is lots, lots, lots nicer!

[Kazinski]

Well of course I have a generator, and I can use it as an alternative power source, but I prefer not too.

I have to run my well off the generator when my tank is empty, its a 40 gal pressurized tank. My well is 410′ and uses a 220v 13amp pump that's 3000 watts, my inverter is only 2000 watts max. Try using household solar panels for that without a grid connection. My refrigerator and stove and generator and hot water heater all run on propane. My stove and hot water heater do use a modest amount of electricity to control them, but I turn off the power during the day when I don’t need them, and I can use a lighter to operate the stoves cook top when the power is off.

There’s no point in living off the grid if you have to pay tens of thousands for the aggravation of running your own utility.

[Frank Drackman]

"Fossil" Fuels are "renewable" just takes a while.

[Ben_]

What’s up with these people? Well, it’s more-or-less what you thought it was.

A peer-reviewed study links leftist extremism with narcissism and psychopathy:

https://nypost.com/2023/05/25/left-wing-extremism-linked-to-psychopathy-narcissism-study/

The “dark-ego-vehicle principle.”

“According to this principle, individuals with dark personalities — such as high narcissistic and psychopathic traits — are attracted to certain forms of political and social activism which they can use as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality…"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You could have knocked me over with a feather.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The cited study identifies the following predictors of anti-sexual assault activism, listed from strongest to weakest:
* Altruistic personality (altruistic people more likely)
* Age (younger people more likely)
* Gender (females more likely)
* Sexual harassment myth acceptance (people who reject the myths more likely)
* Narcissistic personality (narcissists more likely)
* Adult sexual assault history (victims more likely)

The last two are not actually statistically significant, although the result for narcissistic personality does become statistically significant when males are excluded from the sample.

In the hands of Ben and the New York Post, anti-sexual assault activism becomes “leftist extremism.” The first four items on the list--the ones that are statistically significant--are ignored in favor of the fifth item, and another item (psychopathy) is added.

Even if the study showed what Ben claims, it still wouldn't be OK to sexually assault women.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04591-4

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What is "cognitive infrastructure" and why do the people in government believe they should control it?

[not guilty]

Does the ubiquity of globes evince a conspiracy to brainwash people into disbelieving that the earth is flat? Kandiss Taylor (an election denier from Georgia) is reportedly making that claim. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/kandiss-taylor-globes-anti-flat-earth-brainwashing-1234741082/

By the way, where are the four corners of the earth referenced in Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1? (Isaiah 40:22 refers to the circle of the earth.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This guy isn't important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page.

[Michael P]

Unlike this 16 corners (plus 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24-hour Days within a single rotation of Earth) guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

[John F. Carr]

You remind me of a science fiction novel where the world was obviously a bowl. Everybody could see the land curving up in the distance. But it really was round. The apparent rising in the distance was due to light refraction.

[Frank Drackman]

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20910166-the-wall-of-darkness
Arthur C. Clarke's "The Wall of Darkness" still freaks me out.

[not guilty]

Ron DeSantis has reportedly said that, if elected president, he would consider pardoning some of those convicted on charges related to the January 6 insurrection, possibly including Donald Trump if he is charged with federal offenses. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/25/desantis-jan-6-attack-trump/

Another good reason not to vote for DeSantis.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't see this really helping him in the primary and it certainly will hurt or be of no help in the general election. The people speaking up hardest for the January 6th Insurrectionists are pretty much the nuttiest on the fruitcake scale. I don't see much support from the average person.

[Ben_]

Biden is taking the weekend off. That means one of three things:
1. He will give the Republicans what they want to get the debt ceiling deal done tomorrow. Or
2. He doesn’t consider it very important. Or
3. There’s more than enough time for him to sleep all weekend and come back Tuesday, plus get a deal done, plus 72 hours before the bill is voted on, and all the rest of the process.

Pretending it’s a crisis will be a lot harder with Biden sleeping all weekend in Delaware.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who is surprised that Democrat Rachael Rollins had no charged pressed against her by the Democrat DOJ.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Late but remarkable - a Republican dominated house committee voted today to recommend to the full Texas House that AG Ken Paxton be impeached. I’m stunned but impressed - the guy was a corrupt embarrassment.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Would you classify Louie Gohmert as a Trump Republican or member of the GOPe??