Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Drbusybody]

The term of copyright in the United States is now life of the author plus 70 years. Consider for example Burt Bacharach, who died earlier this year at age 94. The works he created since 1978 will not go into the public domain until 2094, at the earliest. Some of his collaborators are still living. The copyright term will be extended until 70 years after the last of them dies. Let’s just say for sake of argument his collaborator and ex-wife Carole Bayer Sager lives another 15 years. That will extend those copyrights until 2109. That means they were copyright protected for 127 years.

Is that what the Constitution means by “limited time”? Should Congress consider shortening the term of copyright? If so, what would be a reasonable term? And if Congress were to consider such a change, you can bet that people who profit from copyright would be out in full force to retain life of author plus 70 years.

[Kazinski]

Well the good news is that not every country is as beholden to the intellectual property cartel as the US, and it is an international internet.

A lot of books that are not available here are available via Canadian sites, at least for authors who died before 1972, a recently downloaded some Dashiel Hammet, I haven’t gotten to, as well as a several volumes of Winston Churchill.

Even going further back you don’t have anything to complain about until you’ve read all of Dickens, HG Wells, especially EM Forester, Major General Wolesley, Grants Memoirs.

Every time I pay for some recent schlock, and quit reading 3/4 of the way through I berate myself for not exhausting the great stuff tats free.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An Israeli newspaper, reporting on an American musician (Roger Waters) performing in Berlin while attired in Nazi-like attire (and with a gun), used a screen shot from a video and captioned it "fair use" under some section of some copyright law. Israeli? German? EU? American?

The (English language) paper publishes in Israel, with a web site and Matt Drudge then published a link to this story on his website.

So whose law applies?

[Currentsitguy]

Roger Waters is British. He's the former lead singer of Pink Floyd.

[Mr. Bumble]

Forgive Dr. Ed. He's spent the day consuming the "free" Bud Light that stores have taken to giving away.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, Dr. Ed's comfortably numb

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whatever...

[Gandydancer]

Israel's.

If it can be made illegal to break copyright protection schemes I guess the US could make it illegal to link to a copyright vio the way Drudge did, but AFAIK there is as yet no such law.

Otherwise the US doesn't seem involved, but given the atrocity that our legal system i devolving into who knows what bogus claims of extraterritorial application will be countenanced.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm generally appreciative of a long copyright time.

These people wrote and/or authored these works. They and their descendants deserve to benefit from them. Nobody "needs" the copyrighted work (unlike some patented materials, which are treated differently). And copyright "fees" for personal use are generally very modest. If by contrast, you're trying to make a buck off someone else's work....shouldn't they get some of it?

[Michael P]

These creators had much more recent material in the public domain when they started than what we have now. New material is locked up behind paywalls for so long that it's often lost before it enters the public domain.

Why not have copyright have a term that can be extended for a fee? Say, 14 years at a time, up to the current limit, with an increasing cost for each renewal? This encourages long copyrights only for works that have enduring interest.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Material is just as easily lost in the public domain, as in the copyrighted domain.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Material is just as easily lost in the public domain, as in the copyrighted domain."

Is this necessarily true for works with little current commercial value? Consider, for example, John Cage's most listenable piece, 4'33". Would somebody be willing to pay the John Cage Trust to use this composition in a public performance or pay significant mechanical royalties for a recording? I fear not and as a result I fear that this most significant of Cage's work is not nearly not heard enough.

I just checked and it appears that performances of 4'33" are available to not be listened to on Youtube. So, if there is anyone with a serious craving to not hear this most remarkable tune, all is not lost. Even if you can't dance to it.

see: https://edition.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/uk.silence/

[Armchair Lawyer]

While an amusing segway, turns out you can indeed "listen" to 4’33” if you choose to pay for it on itunes

[StellaLink_the dog]

As I mentioned, it's available on youtube where you can not listen to it for free. Don't see why I should pay to not listen to it on itunes.

[Nige]

Hey, what's the artist supposed to live on, fresh air?

[Gandydancer]

If you label the public performance of 4:33 "John Cage's 4:33" don't you now have to pay his estate?

[StellaLink_the dog]

If you were to follow the link in my post you would see that there was an attempt by the John Cage Trust to seek compensation for the "use" of his "composition." It was in the UK and the exact cause of action isn't clear to me. But, even in the UK there appears to be a question as to whether or not an enforceable copyright can exist for such a work. My suspicion is that it would be hard to enforce the copyright under US law, but I don't claim to know that.

[Gandydancer]

"We had been prepared to make our point more strongly on behalf of Mr Cage's estate, because we do feel that the concept of a silent piece -- particularly as it was credited by Mr Batt as being co-written by "Cage" -- is a valuable artistic concept in which there is a copyright."

It never got to court. The "co-written by 'Cage'" bit seems important. If Batt had merely titled the "piece" "A One Minute Silence" without the credit the Cage Trust would probably be SOL.

[Gandydancer]

“Material is just as easily lost in the public domain, as in the copyrighted domain.”

False. Either can be lost, of course, but the lack of a license cost to copy the former means copies are likely to exist in more places.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why not have copyright have a term that can be extended for a fee? Say, 14 years at a time, up to the current limit, with an increasing cost for each renewal? This encourages long copyrights only for works that have enduring interest.

So things that people want would continue to be copyrighted, and those things that most people don't care about might not. I'm not sure what that accomplishes, other than providing gubmint with some additional revenue.

[Kazinski]

“ I’m generally appreciative of a long copyright time”

Thanks for an interesting perspective, Walt.

But copyright is in the same section, actually the same sentence as patents in the constitution. I hope I don’t need to explain to you the public benefits of having patents expire after 17 years. After all both Walt Disney and Alexander Fleming had a spectacular creative insight in the same decade the 1920’s, maybe it seems particularly unfair that Flemings heirs only had 17 years to reap the benefits of penicillin, while Walt’s relatives got Congress to extend their rights on Mickey for a hundred years longer.

But.it is hard to compare the two, the awesome creativeness of birthing Mickey and putting him on the enormous silver screen can hardly be measured on the same yardstick as the literally microscopic achievement of harnessing a mold to kill bacteria.

This seems a pretty even measure of protection considering their relative contributions:

Walt Disney: Mickey Mouse 1929(and Snow White!), Life of the Author and 75 more years, still protected.

Alexander Fleming: Penicillin, 1928 (and the entire science of antibiotics), 17 years of patent protection, but never actually patented by Fleming.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Snark aside, let's have an honest discussion about it.

Currently copyright is lifetime of the author + 70 years, or lifetime + 50 years. I get the feeling you'd prefer it to be much less. Call it just lifetime of the author.

Imagine that is the case. Let's take a major Disney product...but not the one you are thinking of. Let's take "Iron Man," "Spider-Man" and the "Avengers". Disney (via Marvel) has invested enormously in it, over the last 10-20 years. Question is, if the copyright law was different...if it was just lifetime of the author...would they have? With the knowledge that Stan Lee could die at any time (as he did in 2018), and the copyrights to the characters would just be gone? And anyone could put out any number of different Marvel products, and Disney could do absolutely nothing about it.

The answer is...no. Marvel/Disney would not have invested in the entire project if they couldn't assure themselves of the copyright protections. Stan Lee himself would've lost out on a massive payday, because the corporation was looking ahead.

What the copyright does, is it allows for investment in the creative property, in addition to giving proper payment to the creator.

[Brett Bellmore]

Much as I enjoyed the Marvel universe films, the fact of the matter is if Stan Lee had died in the middle of filming one, (Actually, I think he did...) and the copyright went poof, that moment, they'd still have made a profit on the movie, because nobody would have had time to come out with a competing movie.

And it's not like the copyright on a character expiring means you'd lose the copyright on the film you just produced. It would just mean other people could make Iron Man movies, too.

[Martinned]

Well, Iron Man movies that didn't in any way depend on something written by someone who would be still alive. It's not like Stan Lee singlehandedly produced all the IP of those movies.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's not "just" a competing movie. It's the competing second movie. It's competing merchandise, competing licensing.

In many ways, a successful movie is like a loss-leader. It's all the follow up stuff where you can really make money. Eliminate the copy right or assurances of the copyright, and that all goes away. Every two bit shop starts spinning out Iron Man T-shirts, and you don't get a penny. But the upfront risk of putting the movie into production...that's all yours. Those two-bit shops aren't going to contribute there.

Faced with that risk from an IP front....it's better to make your own, new IP rather than try licensing something that can vanish in an instant.

[Martinned]

First of all, I'm not sure why you think Hollywood producing new IP would be a bad thing.

Secondly, every movie contains new IP. That's why the version of Mickey that is about to enter the public domain is only the Steamboat Willie version, not the more familiar version.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yes, the movie itself is covered under copyright. But "characters" are not covered under new IP. They're under the old IP.

That's why you get debates over Spider-Man, and who owns the film rights (Sony....Marvel) etc.

[Gandydancer]

We'd all do just fine if anyone could produce Iron Man products 17 years after Lee's death.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There are characters available in the public domain. They haven't done quite so well.

[Martinned]

Like which ones?

[Michael P]

I agree that Disney / Marvel would not have created those movies if Stan Lee was the exclusive owner of copyright. I think they would have employed simple workarounds. For example, they might have arranged matters to practically guarantee decades of protection, for example by arranging for young, healthy people under ironclad contracts to perform key parts of the creation of the work.

Works for hire, such as cases where a corporation would hold the copyright, already have special rules under copyright law: 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever comes first. That 95-year rule applies very broadly (it also covers works published before 1978, as long as the copyright was explicitly renewed in time), so there are ample existing workarounds in law.

Between the fact that corporations can keep copyrights alive for their full term, and that even small amounts of new creative content are protected in sequels as if they were entirely new works, I am not too worried about the ability of a Disney to profit from their newer works.

[Armchair Lawyer]

These workarounds, these very extended copyrights for copyrighted works though, they are the exact item that people are arguing should be shortened considerably.

I'm demonstrating what may happen in such a case.

[Michael P]

No, you're making a strawman. The rule was never "as soon as an author dies", so it's not realistic to think that is what it would be if we rationalize the duration of copyright. For example, see what BadLib wrote below.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not sure why you think it's a strawman, especially in the context of the example I used above (Marvel's IP).

Badlib's proposal "A “greater of (a) lifetime of author and (b) 40 years after publishing” would have exactly the same effects I proposed above. The second Jack Kirby or Stan Lee bit the dust, all the copyrights would go into the wind. They easily had the original copyrights more than 40 years ago.

[Gandydancer]

"The second Jack Kirby or Stan Lee bit the dust, all the copyrights would go into the wind."

Not for another 40 years. Reread what you quoted.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This was Bad Lib's proposal.

"A “greater of (a) lifetime of author and (b) 40 years after publishing” rule could ameliorate the problem of deterring investment in works created by old people or the impacts of the author getting hit by a bus unexpectedly."

Not 40 years after death. 40 years after the original copyright date OR the death of the author.

[Nelson]

AL, I can’t speak for BadLib. But I believe the “40 years after publishing” refers to the last publushed work, not the first. The way I read it, his proposal allows for the protection of an active IP by the creator.

BadLib, am I reading that wrong? I’m not a lawyer.

[Gandydancer]

My bad. =I= misread it.

[Michael P]

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."

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

Taking BadLib's proposal, as soon as Stan Lee died, somebody could make a movie with Lee's 40+-year-old characters -- but could not use any newer material or likenesses. The results would not look like Marvel's movies and could not use most of the plot devices (which rely on gadgets or characters or other story elements newer than that), and so would hardly compete in the market. It's like how Sherlock Holmes is now in the public domain -- but some aspects of his character (such as his movie-based habit of wearing a deerstalker cap) were developed after the first books, and those aspects are still copyrighted.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"(which rely on gadgets or characters or other story elements newer than that)"

You sure about that?

Thanos...1973. In the public domain (once Starlin passes away)
War Machine: 1979

Much of the comic and lore are well past your 40 year limit. Much of the likenesses are newer. Someone could put their original "spin" on a comic that looks a lot like the old ones....

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm. Maybe I finally have my explanation for why the movies have been making such huge changes to the characters: To thoroughly and unambiguously reset the clock on the copyright!

Like, why the hell was Antman not hank Pym? Why some goofy ex-con, instead? 'Cause the goofy ex-con being new, even if the copyright on the original Antman expired, you couldn't use the new character for a long while!

And here I'd thought it was writers who hated comic books deliberately trying to kill off the original franchise.

[Nige]

Scott Lang's been around for a good while in the comics - using him was a canny creative choice, he's a rare street-level character rather than yet another scientific genius, super-spy, god or moral paragon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Admittedly, I stopped reading Marvel comics back in the 90's. I found manga more to my liking, and they were starting even then to just screw with the characters for the sake of screwing with them.

[Nige]

Yeah, they did keep trying that thing of keeping comics relevant to the current younger generations, the fools.

[BadLib]

A "greater of (a) lifetime of author and (b) 40 years after publishing" rule could ameliorate the problem of deterring investment in works created by old people or the impacts of the author getting hit by a bus unexpectedly.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Prior to the Mickey Mouse copyright reforms of the 70s and later, copyright term was for 28 years with a renewal option in the 28th year for one additional 28 year term -- total of 56 years. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[bernard11]

Well, first, I'm not sure the Disney stuff should be driving the copyright issue.

Second, the investment business is something of a red herring, for a number of reasons. First, I don't see anyone proposing simply a life of the author rule. So you are building a straw man to use as a red herring, so to speak. Way back in 1831 the period was set at 28 years plus a 14 year renewal. Is a 42-year copyright really insufficient to give the creator a fair return?

And so what if Disney, when the end came, stopped making Mickey Mouse movies? Wouldn't someone else use the Disney material, so there is no loss of public benefit. After all, lots of movies, TV shows, plays, other derivative works, are based on public domain material.

Indeed, wouldn't we actually lose some of these with a longer term? And consider another issue. Suppose I find some obscure work and would like to use it to make a movie, or maybe just use some old, little-known, piece of music in a TV show. It may be quite difficult, if not impossible, to find the copyright owner.

That is, until I actually make the movie or use the music. The owner will no doubt appear rather quickly.

Regardless, it seems to me that placing things in the public domain after some non-ridiculous term encourages creativity, rather than suppressing it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Is a 42 year copyright really insufficient to give a creator a fair return"?

Let's have a thought experiment. Spider Man was originally created in 1962 by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. The first major Spider Man movie just barely fits in under that 42 year timeline (2002). While the other 5 Spider Man movies are after it, not to mention the rest of Marvel and Sony....

How would it feel if Lee was the creator, but then saw "someone else" make literal hundreds of millions off his property, and he didn't see a penny because of copyright law. Is that "right" in your opinion?

[Gandydancer]

Lee got plenty rich in the first 42 years, and the Spider Man movies in fact would in fact have made him richer even if he weren't directly paid a penny for his IP in them. If that IP expressed in a movie was such a gold mine where had he been for 42 years?

[Sarcastr0]

"How would it feel"

Great policy work.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Said by someone who has never published a creative work in his life.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I don’t have a book in me. I’m creative in other ways.
So what? Copyrights are not just for addressing the speculative feelings of original authors.

[bernard11]

First, let's not make law based on extreme outliers.

Second, no one stopped Lee or anyone else from making a Spiderman movie before 2002.

I'm not a Marvel guy, so let me ask this: What would a Spiderman movie made in, say, 1970, have looked like? To what extent does the success of Spiderman depend on movie-making techniques that Lee really didn't have anything to do with?

And I'll make another point. Your argument applies to any copyright period - 42 years, 100 years, whatever. How would it feel if Lee's descendants didn't make millions because the movie was made 101 years after Lee created Spiderman? Should someone somewhere be collecting royalties on Shakespeare's plays, Mozart's symphonies, etc.

Besides, making it X years after the death of the creator solves your problem rather easily. I mean, Lee's heirs surely have a vastly smaller moral claim than Lee himself. They didn't create anything, after all.

[Michael P]

There were some quite low-budget Spider Man movies from the late 1970s, including one from Japan. Various US studios tried to make bigger productions throughout the 1980s and 1990s, but comedies of errors led to them all falling apart (often in acrimonious litigation). It hardly makes a compelling case for prolonging copyright.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And indeed...it IS X years after the death of the creator.

Should it be 50 years after the death of the creator? Should it be 70 years after the death? Modest changes can be mentioned.

But what people are proposing here would be highly detrimental to those who create works worth copyrighting.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How would it feel if he had more than half the life expectancy of the typical US adult to profit from his work?

You act like he wouldn't have made any money at all absent the films.

Typical strawman nonsense from you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Nobody “needs” the copyrighted work"

Wrong -- for two reasons.
First, computer software is copyrighted and that actually IS needed.

But second, copyright can (is) used to preclude public access to works which would be roundly criticized if the public could access them. The Scientoligists are perhaps the best known example of this, but the entire field of psychology uses this approach, and that is a real issue in the field of education.

With a 27 year rule, I could be accessing some of the initial assessment exams of the early 1990s and be publicly evaluating them as an educator (instead of psychologist) and that would definitely be in the public interest.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And you would prefer for computer software to not be copyrighted?

For computer software, the field moves too quickly for the "author plus 70 years" to really matter in the real world.

[Michael P]

That is quite wrong. Lots of vintage computer works have historical significance and interest, but have been lost -- or are at significant risk of being lost -- because no one who owned the rights cared to preserve them. The speed at which the software field moves is a strong argument for much shorter copyrights in that field.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You can go ahead an preserve whatever you want. Buy the software, hold onto it for as long as you want to. The storage costs will by far exceed the costs of purchasing the copyright for an individual in most cases.

As for vintage computers...70 years is a long time (not even including the lifespan of the author). That's 1953 currently.

[Michael P]

That's now how any of this works. First, I'm talking about things from the 1980s and 1990s. Second, the media that someone bought software on in the 1980s or 1990s would have decayed by now -- and copyright law prevents them from making more than one backup copy of it. They're not allowed to make a backup of a backup, so the MFM-formatted hard drive that someone might have used as a backup medium in the 1980s are now effectively piles of rust that nothing can read (even if, through some miracle, they accurately retained the digital content).

[Armchair Lawyer]

You're talking about section 117 of the copyright act.

Here's the text.

(a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

Not sure where you're reading into it that you are limited to a "single" archival (backup) copy. Especially since it directly references multiple archival "copies". Such multiple archival copies would also likely fall under fair use, especially given your concerns over media degradation.

[Michael P]

Hm. I've always heard that the limit is one backup copy, although I cannot find a clear statement of why that is. Sites like https://wustl.edu/about/compliance-policies/computers-internet-policies/legal-ethical-software-use/ and https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat121201.html mention the restriction. The latter is from the US Register of Copyrights in 2001, and it doesn't appear that Section 117 has been amended since 1998.

Section 117 permits the owner of a copy of a computer program to make an additional copy of the program for purely archival purposes if all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful, [....]

[Armchair Lawyer]

There were likely significant concerns over keeping one backup copy for yourself, and giving the other copies to other people that led people to say "just one backup copy".

But according to section 117, there is no restriction as such that explicitly limits you to "one" copy. And again, fair use exemptions to transfer an older copy to a newer, more stable media would be very likely, so long as it stays for your archival.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The storage costs will by far exceed the costs of purchasing the copyright for an individual in most cases.

I’m not certain I understand this statement. What “storage costs” are you saying would exceed (let alone far exceed) the cost of purchasing the copyright for a given piece of software?

[Gandydancer]

In the real world I suspect the way old software is still used is via emulation. I suspect there may still be a lot of IBM 360 software (it was from the beginning a virtual machine, btw) still being used (perhaps as black boxes) on newer hardware. If it ain't broke....

[EscherEnigma]

You mean the thing which companies are still arguing is illegal in court (and often winning)?

If emulation is the way to keep things from becoming lost media, then that should be spelled out, not left to the discretion of the courts (which are often very bad at understanding technology).

[Gandydancer]

I don't understand the question in your first paragraph.

[EscherEnigma]

The legality of emulation is far from settled, and companies (such as Nintendo) have gone after emulators before.

They would rather see old games and software become lost then to see someone enjoy one without paying them for it. And they will not accept payment.

[Magister]

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

It is baffling how retroactive increases in the term of copyright promotes progress in the useful arts; it's not like anyone is going to go back in time and create more art because the copyright is longer. Extended copyright periods might motivate someone creating new works after that extension. The argument appears to have been that the US had to match other countries' copyrights or they wouldn't respect ours.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there's actually a strong argument that extending the period after the fact itself violated the "limited period" language.

[Martinned]

No, that violated the "promote" language. Extending the copyright period for works that already exist promotes nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

The argument would be it's not a "limited" period if it's not fixed, and can keep being extended.

[Martinned]

As long as the law at any given time contains a number, it's a limited period. A copyright that lasts for 1,000 years is for a limited period. The fact that the law can be amended is irrelevant. That's true for all statutes.

[ducksalad]

unreasonable limited necessary and proper speedy

The Framers were tragically vague in some of their writing. They thought they were being cautious and distrustful and putting in checks and balances, but they’d only experienced amateur grade evil like Lord North and some colonial governors. They could not have contemplated modern elected officials.

[BadLib]

In fact, it may deter innovation. If the copyright on something is near expiration, that may cause investment in new material rather than just milking the old material for a few more decades.

[Gandydancer]

"Extending the copyright period for works that already exist promotes nothing."

False. It creates the expectation that current work will get the same protection, which is an increment in the expected value of newly created IP that will have some marginal effect on incentivising its production.

The issue is whether that's worth it, not whether it exists.

[Martinned]

False. It creates the expectation that current work will get the same protection, which is an increment in the expected value of newly created IP that will have some marginal effect on incentivising its production.

False. The way you create that expectation is by writing it in the law on a forward-looking basis.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the limited time requirement is not enforceable. Congress is paid by business. Intellectual property treaty negotiators represent owners of intellectual property. Nobody represents the people.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Rewatching the fantastic Israeli action show Fauda with my teens (starting with season 1, and will work our way up to season 4). A bit of nudity in a few episodes we’ll skip, but other than that it’s great and on Netflix. Watch it in the original Hebrew and Arabic, with English subtitles.

[santamonica811]

Mixed reaction. I thought the first few seasons were truly excellent. But (like a thousand other TV shows), the quality and 'freshness' has worn off a bit . . . with the most-recent season appreciably less interesting and compelling. I still enjoyed watching Season Four, but not nearly as much as Season One. (Which was the first show I've ever actually binge-watched.) I'll be interested--once your family has finished the programme--if you/they have the same reaction as I did.

[Martinned]

You think teenagers can't handle "a bit of nudity"?

[Kazinski]

Yeah well, I watched Pretty Baby when it came out in the theaters. I was probably still a teenager, but I might have been 20, she was at the most 13 when it came out but 12 when it was filmed. But there was definitely a lot of nudity.

I didn’t have a credit card then, so they probably can’t put together a paper trail for an arrest or civil suit.

But if they could trace the purchase records Brooke Shields could probably sue anyone that watched the movie for about 55 million each, with a little lobbying.

https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault-survivors/?amp

[Martinned]

The question was about teens watching nudity, which every teenager with an internet connection does, not teens performing nudity.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The question was about teens watching nudity

Well, that probably explains why the post started with...

I watched Pretty Baby when it came out in the theaters. I was probably still a teenager

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Martin - this concept may be foreign to you, but there are plenty of people in this world — even in 2023 — who don’t want to see someone who is not their spouse naked, and who don’t want to watch nudity on TV either alone or with their teenage sons. Obviously you’re okay with that, and of course you are free to do as you like with yourself and your kids. But I find it interesting that the concept of a dad not wanting to watch nudity with his sons is so absolutely preposterous to you that you felt it worthy of your comment. In any event, as noted, you are free to do things differently, and I certainly won’t comment on your choice.

[Martinned]

I know that such people exist, and I enjoy mocking them. Why do you feel the need to fight for people’s right to be prudes?

[Gandydancer]

Why are so determined to mock "prudery"? What business is it of yours?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What's weird is telling us about it...

[Gandydancer]

There's nothing weird about Jacket expressing that reservation about the series. What’s weird is that you think it is.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

ObviouslyNotSpam: Not sure if that was directed at me, but if so, the reason I mentioned the bit of nudity I skipped is basically because I’m more often texting or emailing with family, friends, or fellow church members, so it’s just natural for us to give each other a heads up about such content if we’re recommending a new show or movie, as we know we share the same tastes/values for the most part, and would appreciate the heads up if one of our friends was telling us about a new show we may want to check out. In other words, it’s basically second nature, not something I intentionally made a point to mention.

Obviously, a lot of other VC commenters have different views, and that’s fine. Not sure why it struck Martin as so odd (I know it’s 2023, but I still think there are a fair number of parents, many of whom aren’t even religious or conservative, who would probably try to avoid watching nudity with their 14 y/o son, for example. I don’t think that makes all such parents Cotton Mather, lol.)

In any event, I had just posted the original comment to say that so far, my teens and I are enjoying Fauda, so if others haven’t seen it, I think it’s worth a watch. (The first season’s production value is a bit low, but the storyline is pretty riveting IMO. The other seasons have much higher production value, though I’m not sure they have as good of stories.tension, but still pretty good.)

Hope everyone has a blessed week.

[Martinned]

For the record, I love reading the reviews on the Focus on Family website: https://www.pluggedin.com/

The almost always tell you how the movie ends, which I like, and as extra service they tally all the naughty words.

[Nelson]

Yet more proof that Focus on the Family ruins everything.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why do you feel the need to fight for people’s right to be prudes?

Why do you think they don't have such a right?

[Noscitur a sociis]

A recurring problem for stories where the protagonists work for western counterterrorism agencies: they have so many more resources than their adversaries that it’s hard to make it a fair fight (much less a difficult one) without making the good guys look completely inept. Fauda’s failure to figure out a solution is why I gave up after about the first season.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Noscitur - that’s fair. Though I think Season 2 was quite riveting and filled with tension, like Season 1. I do think Season 3 dropped off quite a bit. I haven’t watched much of Season 4 yet, but I’m hoping it brings back the excitement of the first two seasons.

[ninjamedic2293]

Will government policies preventing a secretary employed by a municipality from carrying a firearm in a place the government is prohibited by state law from preventing non-employees carrying firearms survive in the post-bruen world under a legal theory carved out regarding the government as an employer?

[Martinned]

Of course not. Everybody knows that what the US needs is more gunfights in government buildings.

[Gandydancer]

What the US needs is more gun-free zones to empower the likes of Nidal Malik Hasan and James Holmes, am I right?

[Kazinski]

Well, I’m not going to disagree with you, of course it depends on who gets shot.

Let’s face it, Angela Davis is still making a living off her bodyguard kidnapping a judge and blowing his head off with a weapon she supplied, in the Marin County Civic Center.

I’ll give it a 10/10 in style points. Blowing a judges head off right outside a Frank Lloyd Wright designed courthouse is as good as it gets.

I actually have two brothers in Law who were students of FLW’s most prominent protégé Fay Jones, and worked for his private firm when they graduated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would sovereign immunity protect the secretary from those injured by her reckless conduct with said firearm?

[David Nieporent]

Is the secretary a state or federal government?

[Gandydancer]

Your question makes no sense. Are cops a state or federal government?

They sometimes act as agents of one, as do government-employed secretarys.

If she blows someone away her employing her gun to do so could be part of her duties if the government made it so. Maybe they could give a annual bonus to gun-toting secretaries, the better to protect their buildings from attacks.

[David Nieporent]

My question makes as much sense as the original question. Sovereign immunity applies to the government, not to an individual government employee. I was pointing that out. She may enjoy qualified immunity, of course.

[Michael Ejercito]

Because the Secret Service keeps having gunfights in government buildings every day... /sarc

[Martinned]

Give every government employee the kind of training the Secret Service gets and come back to me.

[Michael Ejercito]

How much training does one need to not shoot people who wearing the wrong color clothes in the wrong 'hood.

I mean, some people keep proposing that people should have training before being allowed to possess firearms. It does not take that much training to know it's wrong to shoot people just because they wear the wrong c olor clothes in the wrong 'hood.

[Martinned]

Given how many innocent people get shot by government employees already in the US, apparently more than whatever the police is getting.

(This is a serious point, by the way. Part of the problem of US policing is that the US massively underspends on police training.)

[Gandydancer]

Security guards carry guns for not much more than minimum wage without anything like the training received by Secret Service agents. Sometimes that doesn't work out (see the TX Mexican mall Nazi), but they don't " keep having gunfights in government buildings every day" either.

So let's get back to you NOW.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The average citizen who carries a firearm legally gets even less training, and statistically speaking virtually none of them ever fires a shot in public (outside of a shooting range) in anything other than a self-defense situation where doing so is justified. Why? Because NOT drawing your weapon...which is usually concealed...and firing it isn't really something that requires any sort of real training.

[Martinned]

Statistically the average person has one testicle.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Everybody knows that what the US needs is more gunfights in government buildings.

What is it about sounding like a simple-minded third-grader that you enjoy so much?

[Martinned]

There is a lot of waffle out here that could do with a nice round of "can you explain this to a third grader?" It's a useful test to apply to make sure you're not just talking nonsense.

[John F. Carr]

The government as a proprietor has different and often greater rights than the government as a regulator.

[darkknight9]

I missed something... Thursday thread is now Monday?

Change is good I spose but... well just tell me that taco Tuesday is still Tuesday.

[Gandydancer]

No.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/18/thursday-is-the-new-monday-at-scotus/

VC doing one better and we get both.

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators, today is Memorial Day (formerly, Decoration Day). Take a moment today to remember those who gave their lives in service of this country, and those who grieve them.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed.

[Archibald Tuttle]

Spot on. I'll second that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

BULLSHYTE!!!!

Memorial Day is on Wednesday, May 31st.

This is just the 3-day weekend law of 1971(?).

[Mr. Bumble]

I believe it was actually May 30 prior to the three day weekend law.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Only in America (needless to say).

[Martinned]

Since this recently came up in relation to the FTC's proposed rule-making, it turns out the UK government is also thinking about non-compete clauses: https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2023/05/29/uk-proposes-stricter-approach-to-non-compete-clauses/

Tl;dr, the UK is considering capping them at 3 months.

[Michael P]

It's good that they are keeping non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses -- those legitimately protect the employer's proprietary business information. I've never understood broad non-compete clauses (e.g. of the form that someone leaving Google could not go to work at Apple or Amazon), and my home state frowns upon such broad contracts, so they have never been a significant factor for me. I can imagine how a lawyer or similar profession might be affected, though.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, non-competes are generally not allowed at all for lawyers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because you're special?

[Martinned]

In many areas lawyers have decided that lawyers are special, most notably the law of privilege. There isn't much the rest of us can do about that except mock them occasionally.

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome back. Have a nice dinner?

[bernard11]

I'm guessing because that would require barring clients from using a lawyer they've been using, just because he changed firms.

Not a good idea.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, though it's broader than that. The purported justification is that a client has the right to the lawyer of his choice and thus any restrictions on that right are invalid. It doesn't matter whether there was a pre-existing attorney-client relationship.

(There are very limited exceptions in some states for when attorneys sell their practices.)

[Kazinski]

Kind of an interesting study on global warming from Arhaus university and USGS.

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-sea-ice-arctic-summer-monthsand.html

This can’t be dismissed as fringe science from the skeptics it’s from the heart of the consensus

“Researchers from Aarhus University, in collaboration with Stockholm University and the United States Geological Survey, analyzed samples from the previously inaccessible region north of Greenland.

The sediment samples were collected from the seabed in the Lincoln Sea, part of the "Last Ice Area". They showed that the sea ice in this region melted away during summer months around 10,000 years ago. The research team concluded that summer sea ice melted at a time when temperatures were at a level that we are rapidly approaching again today.”

From the very heart of the Anthropogenic Global Warming consensus they say that in very recent geologic times, really just a few seconds ago in geologic terms that the Arctic was ice free.

That there is nothing unprecedented about the current warming. It’s absolutely impossible to say that something that happened 10,000 years ago during the time where humans, and almost every other species,except mammoths and giant sloths of course, were thriving is an existential crises.

And for even the most avid adherents of the Shasta Giant Sloth or the Woolly Mammoth, or even my personal favorite the Terror bird, you’ll have to admit their extinction had nothing to do with fossil fuels.

“Sea ice may soon disappear from the Arctic during the summer months—and it has happened before”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's always been hysteria to grab more control by the corrupt State.

[Nige]

Yeah, the way nation states have been so ethusiastically doing the actual things needed to deal with climate change since the warnings were first sounded decades ago shows exactly how invested they are in this power grab.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was that before or after the "cooling warnings"?

[Nige]

Yeah, it's been non-stop 'coolng warnings' since the 70s.

[Gandydancer]

"[S]ince the warnings were first sounded decades ago" was YOUR formulation, and the observation that they were complete crap even then is right on point.

"[T}he actual things needed to deal with climate change since the warnings were first sounded" are anyway an empty set if by "deal with" you mean affect it an any significant way. "[T}he actual things needed to deal with climate change" are to adapt to it as becomes necessary.

[Nige]

Except they weren't. Whatever the new ice-age thing was, it came and went quickly and existed mostly as headlines. The climate change warnings were there before, during, and ever since.

I see you've completely abandoned 'preparing for things we know are going to happen' as a thing sensible societies ought to do, opting instead for cleaning up the mess and living in the ruins.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How many have met their Paris Accord targets?

[Nige]

The Gambia is on track, I believe.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The climate work the nation states haven't succeeded in reducing CO2 because the objective of the work wasn't to reduce CO2.

It was to reduce human freedom.

[Nige]

Surely they were capable of acheiving that perfectly well without a cumbersome cover story they've effectively ignored for decades which demonises several sources of huge amounts of income.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think they've ever had an excuse like this to shut down farms like they're doing to the Dutch?

And what John Kerry wants to do here?

[Nige]

They're not shutting down farms in the Netherlands. They wanted to reduce nitrates because they fuck up all the waterways.

[Mr. Bumble]

"They wanted to reduce nitrates because they fuck up all the waterways." by shutting down thousands of acres of farmland (voluntarily of course hahaha).

[Nige]

They're owned by big corporations and heavily subsidised, they'd have been fine.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite.

[Nige]

Just look up European agricultural policy.

[Mr. Bumble]

You made the claim now provide the specific cite.

[Gandydancer]

"The plan comes as the Dutch government moves to halve its nitrogen emissions by 2030 in accordance with European Union conservation rules. But to meet that target, the government estimates that 11,200 farms will have to close, and 17,600 others will have to reduce their livestock numbers significantly."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/netherlands-buy-out-and-close-farms-meet-climate-goals

[Nige]

Yes, reducing livestock levels and nitrogen runoff is rather the point.

[Martinned]

@Bumble: Here's a cite about the financials of Dutch farmers, including specifically the farmers who might be affected by the nitrates policy.

https://www.ftm.nl/artikelen/inkomen-boeren-onder-de-loep?share=Y%2BLf%2B%2FGL9XiEDDXRl4sDgHCLlozyWElvJxrsjOHd8SN0dAWCn1zFw9ow4lmH1rk%3D

[Brett Bellmore]

You need to have a really short perspective to treat current warming as a horrific threat; Earth is currently in an ice age, we're just enjoying a brief inter-glacial period. Not even an unusually warm inter-glacial period, even.

It's quite possible that, by liberating all that sequestered carbon we've given ourselves a bit more time to enjoy not being buried under ice.

In order to create the appearance that things are unusually hot, and CO2 levels are unusually high, you really need to avoid looking at the long term. The planet's been out of whack ever since those coal seams stole almost all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere.

[Kazinski]

Brett taking a longer term view like that doesn’t meet the smell test.

As both all Climate Alarmists and Bishop Usher (b. 1625) will tell you the Earth’s history only goes back 6000 years, looking beyond that is against the laws of both God and Nature.

Now I won’t deny some “Scientists” claim that we are in an ice age now and it’s not a normal state for the planet:
“ It turns out that we are most likely in an "ice age" now. So, in fact, the last ice age hasn't ended yet!

Scientists call this ice age the Pleistocene Ice Age. It has been going on since about 2.5 million years ago (and some think that it's actually part of an even longer ice age that started as many as 40 million years ago).”

Hah! That’s the American Natural History Museum for you. Did Adam wear a bear coat to stay warm? I think not.

There are some who even claim that modern mammals and even primates too evolved 50 million years ago when CO2 levels were 2 and a half times higher that they are now (1000ppm v 400ppm) and temps were at Venus levels (OK that’s exaggerated only 4c higher than they are now).

But of course that’s meaningless, even if it’s true, because humans were extinct 50m years ago. That’s the real science.

[Nige]

How difficult is it that something that is happening right now is a threat? Talking the long term view, we should be, you know, doing something about it.

‘you really need to avoid looking at the long term.’

Even considering long term, the rise of CO2 and the steep rise of global temperatures are unprecedented. We’re not living on geological time, not as individuals, not as generations, and not as civilisations.

[Michael Ejercito]

There is no threat.

My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, posted all the data that we need on climate change.

https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=380576&p=4522430#post4522430

I’ll freely provide the “data”:

FUCK JOE BIDEN

Isn it any wonder he greatly influenced my own political views for twenty-five years?

That is like a miracle!

[Nige]

Yes, that does sum up the main opposition argument. 'Pwn the libs' would also gave sufficed.

[Michael Ejercito]

Chris started writing, "Fuck Joe Biden" before it was cool.

Too bad you never had the opportunity to oarticipate in online discussions with him on Usenet newsgroups.

[Nige]

Sounds absolutely riveting.

[Martinned]

That there is nothing unprecedented about the current warming.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to my friends who live in Amsterdam and who will have to swim to work.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Missing the point by ten miles.

[Nige]

No, that is exactly the point. We're not trying to cope with the effects of an ice-free Arctic 10,000 years ago, we're anticipating dealing with it in the near future, and furthermore we know what's causing it AND it's only one of many, many effects of global warming.

[Michael Ejercito]

Funny how all of your solutions are focused on inconveniencing the American people!

[Nige]

Funny how transitioning to sources of power that don't kill over a million people every year through pollution and won't fuck up the world's climate is seen as an inconvenience, and for American people in particular.

[BadLib]

Many people have promoted environmentally friendly power generation for decades but "environmentalists" devoted themselves to demonizing nuclear power generation and attempted to block such plants. They even push to shut down existing nuclear plants which are generating power which will necessarily instead be generated via burning of fossil fuels in the short and mid term.

They now promote solar and wind "in theory". However in practice when a specific site is chosen they fight it claiming it should be built "somewhere else" because some plant or animal that lives in the area may be impacted by the installation.

They now promote "home solar" -- until the utilities don't want to pay retail for the excess power that the home generates.

They even fight transmission lines that must be built to deal with the problems of "renewables" not producing power reliably year around near the location where the consumption of power is.

------

For the record, I'm in favor of home solar where feasible.

However homeowners shouldn't expect to get higher compensation for the power they push into the grid than the utility could buy it for elsewhere (including from their neighbors) and the utility may have already purchased the power they need via futures contracts so there may be no demand. The power being pushed back into the grid could be on an ongoing auction basis - perhaps in 15 minute increments as well as via "futures" contracts. Failure to deliver promised power should incur a high penalty.

Solar customers should expect to pay their share of the high costs of local distribution lines if they are using those lines to either draw power at some times or "sell" power at other times.

Going "off grid" should probably result in a quite high charge to come back "on grid" because if many customers decide to come back "on grid", abandoned and dismantled power infrastructure would need to be replaced to accommodate the new loads.

As well, solar customers should pay more for power when they draw it from the grid at times when that power is coming from "reserve generation capacity" as the non-solar customers have been paying for base load capacity (such as nuclear or hydro) and likely don't need the mostly idle expensive peaker plant power in most cases but the utility must keep much of that capacity available for solar customers, for example, when the sun is blocked unseasonable clouds but it's still very hot or humid.

[Nige]

If you think environmentalists are responsible for the current state of nuclear power generation you really don't have a clue who actually has a say about these things.

Also 'they' is doing a lot of work in terms of who is in favour of what.

[Nelson]

Stop, Nige. Environmentalists have absoluty been at the forefront of fighting nuclear power. It is the model example of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.". It is the dumbest of all the positions environmentalists take.

[Nige]

They've been on the forefront of a lot of things. I notice our overall dependancy on fossil fuels, for example, has only gone up despite their protestations. I suspect the woes of the nuclear indutstry have other sources.

[Nelson]

We would be much better off in regards to coal, one of the filthiest of fossil fuels, if we got more of our electricity from nuclear.

The woes of the nuclear industry are centered around NIMBYism, hysterical emphasis on the few times things went wrong (Three Mile Island, which was actually a safety system success), Chernobyl (a maintenence disaster that is almost impossible in the US), and Fukushima (built in an earthquake zone on the ocean ... what could possibly go wrong?), and intentional obstructionism by environmentalists who apparently hate nuclear more than coal because they're idiots.

[Nige]

I think there's more going on than that. NIMBYism and environmental concerns and a few horrific disasters never stopped an industry muscling in wherever it liked if it was profitable enough.

[Brett Bellmore]

You suspect the woes of the nuclear industry have other sources because you don't want to own them.

The nuclear industry is heavily enough regulated, and I'll admit that this is an industry that needs to be regulated, that hostile regulators can kill it off without having to do anything too open. All they had to do was churn the regulations enough that nobody could complete a plant on time, and they could make nuclear artificially uneconomical.

Nuclear is safe enough. It's actually TOO safe.

By that I mean, it has been forced to be so insanely safe, at great cost, that economics drive people to use much, much more dangerous sources of power. Sources it could have been both cheaper and safer than, if not forced to pursue safety to insane levels.

Death rates per TWH, based on accidents and pollution:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

Rooftop solar is quite a bit more dangerous, this number was for ground level solar farms. And, yes, the numbers for nuclear include accidents like Chernobyl.

If nuclear power were "only" required to be a bit safer than hydro, rather than 40 times safer, it would be the cheapest energy source out there, by far. The only reason it isn't the cheapest source of energy on offer is that it's forced to be TOO safe.

[Nige]

‘And, yes, the numbers for nuclear include accidents like Chernobyl.’

Does it take the 2,634 square km exclusion zone into account? I could certainly see oil or coal despoiling a similar-sized areas, and in fact they have, Texaco dumped toxic waste water and oil across over four thousand square kilometres in Ecuador for example, but they haven’t been turned into exclusion zones, people are left living in their cancer zones and corridors, which is obviously completely unfair to the real victim, nuclear power. It’s also a bit tricky to complain that nuclear power has been allowed to languish and then compare them to more entrenched energy industries. The argument isn’t that nuclear is over-regulated, but that oil and coal and gas are under-regulated. Black lung is making a comeback, I hear.

You can complain about over-regulation all you like, but that level of response on a political level suggests broad support and political will, not the supposedly all-powerful environmental lobby. The puny influence-free fossil fuel lobby might have had a part to play too, I suppose.

[Gandydancer]

"If you think environmentalists are responsible for the current state of nuclear power generation you really don’t have a clue who actually has a say about these things."

In Germany it was the Greens. The results on that are in.

[Nige]

That's a fairly recent development, though. Nuclear power has been around since the 1950s, the German Greens have only been around since 1993.

[Nelson]

So it only took them 30 years to destroy the gains made in the 40 years before they formed? I guess I'm missing your point.

[Nige]

In Germany? That just happened in the last few years. And only in Germany. Nuclear, supposedly the cleanest, cheapest, safest source of energy somewhow failed to establish itself and you keep blaming the people with the least influence on energy policy all the while nuclear power could have been doing just that.

[Nelson]

The Germans shut down their nuclear power plants for political, not economic, reasons. Same with France.

Nuclear has been treated like it is dirty and dangerous, politically. This is because of the efforts of environmentalists.

[Mr. Bumble]

Think of it as reparations for Mother Nature for all the land that should be underwater that you've stolen from her.

[Ben_]

"I’m sure that will be a great comfort to my friends who live in Amsterdam and who will have to swim to work."

Now they know you think they’re all too incompetent and backwards to solve straightforward civil engineering problems even with 5-20 decades to do it. Maybe they will stop being your friends.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It’s absolutely impossible to say that something that happened 10,000 years ago during the time where humans, and almost every other species, except mammoths and giant sloths of course, were thriving is an existential crises.

Kazinski, I will attempt the impossible. Consider something counterintuitive—that warming temperatures in the arctic could result in much more snow everywhere. What would happen if there were no winter ice cap on the Arctic Ocean?

Take a look at glaciers today, in the western U.S. Where are they still major features; where are they disappearing? They are disappearing from Glacier Park, and pretty much all the interior ranges of the Rocky Mountains. The last glacier in Idaho is down to about 30 acres, and will soon be gone.

Big glaciers are still much in evidence at Olympic National Park in Washington state. There, the average temperature is notably higher than in the Northern Rockies, and peak elevations are thousands of feet lower.

What explains that apparently paradoxical difference? Water. The Northern Rockies are relatively dry; the Olympic Mountains get abundant precipitation from the nearby Pacific. And in the winter, the Olympic Mountains are cold enough, for long enough.

It doesn't take extreme cold to make a glacier. It takes prolonged cold—anything just below the freezing point will do—and abundant water.

So consider the situation in the arctic, as it has been, and consider what the arctic is becoming. As the arctic has been in geologically recent time, winter temperatures low enough to make ice have not coincided with much precipitation. Sea ice prevented evaporation when it was cold, and made the winter arctic a desert. Despite a melting arctic ice cap in the summer, that still happens in winter.

What will happen if the winter sea ice is gone, and winter temperatures mildly below freezing persist over land for more than half the year? Probably a lot more snow on land in the arctic, in the sub-arctic, and in the northern U.S. And the more snow falls on land, the more prolonged will become freezing temperatures on land, as persistent snow reflects more solar radiation.

In 2015 northern New England got a brief taste of what could happen. Four huge snow storms during an interval of about 6 weeks, with smaller storms interspersed, dropped a record 110 inches on Boston. Some nearby coastal communities got more than 200 inches of snow in that same time frame. I lived in one of those.

Even after long experience in the Northern Rockies, I was unprepared for so much snow in so short a time. By the end of February my town had all but given up on road clearance. New one-way grids were improvised, to permit single-lane travel on every residential street. In a few instances, giant front-end loaders trying to keep the residential streets open inadvertently picked up cars buried completely out of sight. After two storms in quick succession dropped about seventy inches, schools closed for an entire week. Almost every fire hydrant in town was hopelessly buried. With snow banks beside the road so high, it became impractical to lift snow off the road and build the banks higher. Snow got loaded into dump trucks and hauled to dump sites where it was destined to persist almost into July.

That, of course, fell notably short of an existential crisis. Had my Massachusetts town—with typically robust snow clearance capacity—been even better equipped—like places in the Northern Rockies where 100-plus inch snow winters are the norm, and 400-inch winters do happen—then 2015 might have been taken in stride. But what would it be like in the urban Northeast if exactly the conditions of those 6 weeks in 2015 had begun earlier, and persisted instead for 20 weeks—and a resulting 700-inch snow pack had persisted until July everywhere? Are there any major cities in the world where such winter conditions are routine?

The 2015 experience suggested that long before true ice age conditions began, life in major urban areas might become impractical. That little taste of persistent, abundant winter precipitation led me to wonder what might happen if arctic warming removes the winter ice cap, and opens a vast new source of winter humidity in the northern hemisphere.

In the northern U.S., away from the Pacific coast, winter temperatures are already cold enough to make snow for long intervals. Those intervals might be further prolonged with more snow on the ground to reflect solar radiation. Newly available winter humidity could furnish more snow.

It may be comforting to suppose a change-over to ice age conditions must come gradually. It is not evident that a much-quicker transition to pre-ice-age conditions would be impossible, or anything but catastrophic if it happened.

[Mr. Bumble]

Stephen, you need to get drunk and then laid.

[Frank Drackman]

Who doesn't??

[Dr. Ed 2]

Quebec City, PdQ, averages 119 inches of snow, spread over 70 days. Memory is that they dump much of it in the river, which the US doesn't allow any more (except in DC) because of the debris that's inevitably in the snow. They also use a *lot* of salt -- have to because of the cobblestones.

As to Massachusetts in 2015, that was an exceptionally dry snow and hence the volume was a lot higher, compare to the Blizzard of 1978 which was a wet snow (with sleet intermixed) and the US Army had to be called in to open up Route 128 (now I-95).

What you're missing though is that an increased snowfall would more likely wind up in the Colorado River instead of a glacier, and the arid SouthWest wouldn't be as arid as it currently is.

When you look at the geology -- the historic erosion and such -- it looks like there once was a lot more water going through there than there is now -- and think of how we would benefit from the states of Arizona, Nevada, & New Mexico having more water.

[Commenter_XY]

Sigh. lathrop, there is medication for your wall of text issue.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe there is the need for a "READ MORE" for comments not that there is much hope for it since Blackman and Somin can't be bothered.

[OtisAH]

“Wall of text” applies if he posted all that with no paragraph breaks. That’s not a wall of text. It’s just more words than you care to read.

[Kazinski]

First of all Stephen, having no ice caps in either the north or south pole is the geologic norm.

But then as for very recent history, they are glaciers melting in Europe just as you describe in the US. The difference is when the glaciers melt in Europe they are finding human artifacts beneath them.

"Norway's melting glaciers continue to reveal incredible archaeological finds. Now, evidence of a Viking settlement high up in the Norwegian mountains has been discovered and dated by archaeologists."
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/viking-village-discovered-in-the-norwegian-mountains/

What that should tell you is two things: 1) current temperatures are normal and well within the range of natural variation, there is no climate crisis. 2) we are still coming out of a long cold period, the Little Ice Age which grew these glaciers, and claiming that temperatures a 100 years ago were optimal and the norm is not only wrong, it's unscientific.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, try some critical thinking, and be forthright. The key test of critical thinking is ability to answer the question, “How do I know that?”

Take a look at your linked article, about the “hobby archeologist,” and his find. What do you see there to assert the discovery in question was ever beneath a glacier? There was talk of glaciers. There was talk of stuff found in glaciers. None of it had anything to do with the new find the article is about, which you say was found under a glacier. The linked article did not say it was found under a glacier, or ever sited under a former glacier.

Note that finding human or animal remains at the melting toes of European glaciers is commonplace. That does not likely indicate anything except victims of accidents, where someone fell into a crevasse while attempting to cross an already existing glacier. Glaciers move downslope, until they reach a lower elevation featuring temperature regimes high enough to melt the ice as fast as it is delivered. At that point, whatever fell into the glacier, however long ago, may come to light, far down-slope from where the fatal mishap occurred.

If you suppose that pre-existing settlements once thrived in terrain which was later scoured by glaciers, and the glaciers then melted, disclosing identifiable remains of those long-ago settlements, I doubt that makes much sense. Glaciers bulldoze and sculpt solid granite mountain tops. The shape of the Matterhorn is the work of glaciers. If you have a topographic map of the high Rocky Mountains, you do not even need a north arrow to orient the map. Just look for the most extensive glacier-hollowed basins beneath the summit. They will be on the north and east sides of the mountains. (If you visit those basins, they will be found largely without vegetation, filled with shattered rock, looking nothing like anything shown in the photographs in your link.)

If the continental glaciers which once covered Manhattan ever returned and then vanished, it is doubtful that any sign of the former city would be found at all, or if it was found, in bits and pieces, they would be scattered far and wide, and likely under the sea.

In the article you linked, there are photographs. Nothing in the photographs suggests that the terrain around the find was glaciated as recently as 1,000 AD. Below the elevation of the site, you see evidence of former valley glaciation. The softish contours of that suggest extensive post-glacial erosion, with an inference that the glacial retreat in that area was geologically not recent. The site itself is mapped far above that glacially affected terrain. Photos show the site has what looks like a well-developed topsoil profile. Geologically recent glaciated terrain typically lacks that.

I should be cautious here. My own familiar point of comparison is the Rocky Mountains. Norway’s climate is obviously different.

But I did notice that a nearby village in the valley is counted in a Wikipedia article as being among driest places in Europe, with monthly winter precipitation totals less than an inch a month, and total precipitation less than 12 inches per year. Those are conditions close to desert-like.

I confess that baffles me a bit, given the lush greenery evident in all the photographs. But those desert-like conditions were attributed to rain shadow effects, typically meaning high mountains intervening between the site in question and an ocean.

Whatever the cause, if such a tiny amount of precipitation were tasked to build a glacier, it seems like the project would have had to begin ages ago, as may have happened in the Antarctic. It could not have begun in the brief geologic interval between the Viking age and the present, buried the site under a glacier, which then disappeared, all in about a thousand years. That is not plausible.

Note also that you have made the mistake to take glacial presence or disappearance as an indicator of temperature only. As I noted in my previous comment, a very wide range of cold temperatures exists below the freezing point. So long as site temperature remains largely within that range, it is not even remarkable to suppose sharply increased temperatures could deliver increased glaciation to a site, based solely on increased precipitation which the higher (but still-below-freezing) temperatures had enabled.

World-wide glacial retreat may look like near-conclusive evidence of planetary warming, but in any local instance, changes in precipitation must be taken into account—and of course those too could be attributable to man-made climate change. It is not a simple picture.

[VinniUSMC]

try some critical thinking

Take a look in a mirror, SL. Until then, just shut up. You know jack shit about fuck all.

[Gandydancer]

TLDR

[Voize]

This can’t be dismissed as fringe science from the skeptics

Creationists? Or does someone else deny the earth is older than 6000 years and has been warmer than it is now?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Define "year" -- prove it was defined the same way then.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, don’t think the “Definition” has changed, but the length (i.e. speed of the Earth’s rotation around the sun) certainly does vary, little faster some years, little slower others, probably due to Interstellar dust, gravitational pertubations from nearby stars (stop crowding me Proxima Centauri!!!) and oh yes, Relativity. (HT A. Einstein) Varies enough that Solar Eclipses can only be accurately predicted a few thousand years into the future, which is a nano-second in the lifespan of the Universe,

Frank

[Nige]

'That there is nothing unprecedented about the current warming'

This is an argument you are having with yourself. The two salient facts about climate change at this moment in time:

1. It is happening now and will directly affect the lives of everyone on the planet n the coming decades.
2. It is caused by human carbon emissions.

It's not much use to say humans were 'thriving' when the Arctic was ice free 10,000 years ago when they were existing at exactly the level you guys keep claiming we'll sink to if we stop pumping oil. I'll also note that other species and natural vegetation are not at this moment thriving at all, which has, as of yet, little to do with climate change, but climate change is certainly going to help finish them off, and that our agriculture and supply chains are pretty vulnerable to the sorts of disruption climate change is likely to bring.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nigealisms are NOT facts.

[Nige]

Bumblisms aren't even sentences.

[Gandydancer]

“Nigealisms are NOT facts” is too a sentence. It’s even true, unlike most Nigealisms, which are usually lies.

[Nige]

Everything you don't like is a lie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The impact of lake-effect precipitation off an ice-free Arctic Ocean is interesting.

[Kazinski]

Well you are completely wrong about "natural vegetation are not at this moment thriving at all", at least if you believe NASA.
"A new study reports that increased vegetation growth during the recent decades, known as the “Greening Earth”, has a strong cooling effect on the land due to increased efficiency of heat and water vapor transfer to the atmosphere."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming

It shouldn't be a surprise that increasing CO2 from 0.028% to .041% would allow plants to breath easier, so to speak, and to thrive. And the NASA observations certainly bear that out.

[Brett Bellmore]

During the last period of serious glaciation, the atmosphere got down to 180ppm CO2. That was actually getting dangerously close to the point at which C-3 photosynthesis, (The form used by most plants except the grasses.) shuts down. The planet nearly faced a major extinction event, that would have radically altered the biosphere. As it was, it still caused a major extinction event among mammals.

Even today, the reason you see so much grass around is that, even at about 400ppm, C-3 photosynthesis is handicapped relative to C-4 photosynthesis. They only really reach parity about 800-1000ppm.

Remember, most photosynthetic life evolved under CO2 concentrations many times higher than today's. CO2 is unnaturally LOW compared to most of the evolutionary history of the planet.

[Nige]

All you're saying is we'd be having a different type of crisis if there was too little C02 rather than too much, which just underlines the importance of getting the balance right.

There is an upper limit to how much CO2 plants can sequester, and plants have to survive climate shifts, severe weather events, desertification and wildfires to do even that much. To say nothing of human-driven habitat destruction, which has hitherto been the primary source of biodiversity loss.

[Nige]

“This is a warning sign about climate change. We should be cautious that the rainforests, which are at the forefront of the fight against global warming, are reaching the limits of their capacity to absorb carbon and cool the surface.” commented Dr. Rama Nemani, from NASA’s Ames Research Center.

Also, the rainforests are being burnt bit by bit every year. Can't grow while they're on fire. The same forces that are driving climate change are driving biodiversity loss, which includes plant and animal life, at a pace that has only been accelerating. The few dwindling wild forests and plains getting a CO2 boots is of minimal benefit if they're being gradually destroyed.

[Nige]

The actual take-away from the researchers should be highlighted, just in case anyone thinks Kazinski is taking his 'lesson' from them:

"The bad news is that we can see this happening very soon. The good news is that our data shows the trend is reversible and we can do something about it if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and set ambitious political goals. If we can keep temperatures stable or perhaps even make them fall, the sea ice would return to the area," says Henrieka Detlef.

This is echoed by Christof Pearce: "The study is a wake-up call, because we know that it will happen. This news is not making the situation more depressing, just more urgent. We have to act now so we can change it."

[bernard11]

“Sea ice may soon disappear from the Arctic during the summer months—and it has happened before”

And what happened to all the low-lying cities and other populated areas, I wonder. What was the effect on human civilization?

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing, you moron. Arctic sea ice melting has little effect on sea levels, just like melting ice cubes in a glass of iced tea.

[Nige]

Yes. The affect on the planetary albedo, on the other hand, will be significant, not to mention the North Atlantic Current, and let's not forget the Antarctic is melting, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are quite adept at dissembling. Not the point of my comment.

[Nige]

I agreed with your comment. Your comment was correct as a point of information. Except Bernard isn't a moron, just mistaken.

[Mr. Bumble]

Point taken. Perhaps I should have said his comment was "moronic" rather than him being a moron.

[bernard11]

Yes. It was a mistake.

But still, arguments about what happened ten thousand years or more years ago don't seem all that important to me.

What we are worried about is the impact of climate change on human civilization as it exists today, not the "thriving," - whatever that means in this context - human population of ten thousand years ago.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But still, arguments about what happened ten thousand years or more years ago don’t seem all that important to me.

That’s because you’re one of those "I fucking love science" and "trust the science" idiots who doesn’t know jack about science, nor comprehend what the issue here is. Namely, whether or not what is going on with the Earth’s climate is mostly a natural phenomenon vs primarily (or even substantially) a man-made one…which is very important when it comes to our response (if any) to that phenomenon. The history of Earth’s climate is pretty important in terms of evaluating that phenomenon.

[Nige]

That's not the issue. They've studied it. And concluded it's human driven. The issue is the utterly fucking dumb arguments twisted out of well-known facts by people who act as if they've made these discoveries all by themselves and ignore the conclusions of the people who actually studied them.

[Nelson]

"Arctic sea ice melting has little effect on sea levels, just like melting ice cubes in a glass of iced tea."

That's only true for the ice already in the water. The glaciers on land that melt will absolutely raise sea levels.

[Mr. Bumble]

"That’s only true for the ice already in the water." No shit Poindexter. Sea ice is ice in the water and what I addressed.

[Nelson]

No, you were trying to make a limited statement that could be misinterpreted to mean more than you actually said.

[Ben_]

The climate religion won’t care.

[Nige]

The climate-chage-denying religion didn't even read the article properly.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How about them studies on fluoride? Another right wing conspiracy come true.

[Sarcastr0]

“ The report found that a link between typical levels of fluoride added to water and possible harm to brain development is unclear, with a recommendation for more studies, according to records. But the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times the current recommended water fluoridation level, records show”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You wanna know something neat? The current recommendations are half of the old recommendations, and guess what many municipalities are still doing?

I know mine is.

[Sarcastr0]

So the real news is the rate revision years ago?

This is why you can’t get people to listen to you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The real news is the old guidance was wrong and people are still being harmed today based upon the old guidance,

But you being a Federal and a pathological bootlicker don't give a flying shit about citizens who get harmed by bureaucrats and only care about Federals getting away with harming millions without being held accountable.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m open to the idea that the science is pointing somewhere.

But your Bircher shit isn’t going to do a lot of convincing.

[Nelson]

Wait, is he really a John Birch Society member? I thought those went extinct years ago.

That would explain a lot of the crazy things he says.

[Sarcastr0]

Just that the floride was a Bircher thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Turns out they were right. Just like McCarthy was.

[Paladin_44]

American Society for the Preservation of Wooden Toilet Seats.
aka: The Birch John Society.

[Magister]

You live in a municipality that inflicts brain damage on the people who live in it? It would explain much.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ever since I had young kids, I've been investing in whole-house water filters.

That's one of the reasons my two young boys are masculine and healthy and not faggots, autistic retards or trannies.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Or Satanists, or other assorted Democrats for that matter.

[Magister]

That logic sounds like the fluoride talking.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Statistically speaking if you have young boys, they have been made gay, been transed, or autistic.

[Sarcastr0]

Well you are now well beyond any study.

But I’ve really come to see that you aren’t even a reactionary. You just want attention.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Meanwhile, you want to lick boots and gas light.

[Frank Drackman]

They filter out Fluoride Anions?? must be some damn small filters.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Two tanks of activated charcoal/bone char coming into the house. Then RO for drinking.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you tell your children that fairy tales are true?

Are they still gullible enough to fall for that?

[Theendoftheleft]

You tell people that you're equal and they're gullible enough to fall for that demonstrable falsehood. Still, you're probably just talking to your fellow Americans for the most part, so that's understandable.

[David Nieporent]

I know mine is.

Well, that explains a lot about you.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't know that fluoride in drinking water represents a big health hazard, but I wonder if it is still necessary to add the fluoride. Current dental hygiene and treatments, particularly sealing children's teeth, should have lowered the value of the fluoride.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ken Paxton was overwhelmingly impeached by the Texas House on Saturday. He’s now suspended pending the outcome of a trial in the Senate.

His wife is one of 31 senators, and as is typical of Paxton ethics, she is thinking whether or not she should recuse herself from the trial.

[Mr. Bumble]

Something I thought was interesting but haven't seen mentioned anywhere.
When leaving for Camp David Biden told the assembled reporters that he couldn't go to his Delaware home (not sure which one) because the Secret Service was "bullet proofing" it.
How does one "bullet proof" a house?

[Nige]

Just a quick coat of bullet-proof paint, but it takes a while to dry.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if there were polymers (applied as a "paint") designed to prevent wood from splintering -- protection from carbombs. A bullet is a more pointed projectile, but I'll bet someone's working on it...

[Brett Bellmore]

You take down the siding, and put this under it. The windows get covered with a heavy plastic film, or potentially laminated bullet resistant glass if you're really going hardcore.

[ducksalad]

Actually saw a tough spray on polymer, went on about 1/4" thick. It was intended to prevent walls from disintegrating into flying debris during a car bombing, but you could also do stuff like spray a melon with it and drop it from the roof of a three story building without it splitting.

Forgot the brand name.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The easiest way would be to strip off the exterior siding and insert something (steel? Kelvar?) and then put the siding back on. Windows get covered with Lexan(?) -- aka "ballistic glass" like was done with the White House. Then when the "Occupy Wall Street" nut fired at the White House back in the Obama Admin, the USSS reported finding one round in said "ballistic glass" and two more in the siding.

That was an AK -- hopefully the USSS has thought about a .50 cal, which I presume you can armor a building against.

The question I have is why NOW? They knew he would be POTUS in November of 2020 -- is there some increased risk now? Putin?

[Brett Bellmore]

Historically, gun control in the 20th century was mostly about the fears of politicians about being shot by the people, and Biden is a long time gun controller. So it would be reasonable to expect that he has serious concerns about being assassinated.

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect that they'd have started upgrading his private residence earlier, except that until recent polls, he probably didn't think he'd need it for another 4-5 years, so there wasn't any hurry.

[Mr. Bumble]

Kevlar wall paper?

[Brett Bellmore]

More like kevlar 'plywood'.

[Martinned]

Historically, gun control in the 20th century was mostly about the fears of politicians about being shot by the people

I wonder what made American politicians worry about that.

[Mr. Bumble]

You think assassination attempts on politicians is something uniquely American?

[Martinned]

You think being worried about being assassinated is something uniquely American?

[John F. Carr]

.50 caliber weapons are much rarer than ordinary rifles and much harder to conceal than handguns. Rarity means few people are good shots. The first shot is going off target because it had to punch through armor. I remember a Tom Clancy novel where snipers fired in pairs so one bullet would break the window and the other would go through the hole.

[Frank Drackman]

Same way they do a car, not like he's got this huge mansion.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why we have Memorial Day.

https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/29/luther-herschel-story-remains-medal-honor-georgia/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

For a moment, that link suggested we were going to be treated to a story recounting Herschel Walker's several Medals of Honor.

[Mr. Bumble]

Once an ass hole, always an ass hole!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He wasn't my candidate for senator from Georgia.

[Frank Drackman]

Ahh, Coach Jerry, did #34 (we don't call him by that "Other" name in Jaw Jaw) refuse your advances???

Frank

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS is busy working on the corpse of John Wayne Gacy for Democratic POTUS 2024 campaign.

He’s still trying to determine whether Gacy was cremated or not, though, and whether that will lower his chances relative to Biden amongst blue team voters.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Has Memorial Day grown too commercial?

Do people still decorate veterans' graves?

[Mr. Bumble]

Some do:
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2023/05/28/300k-graves-national-cemetery-receive-flower-memorial-day/

[John F. Carr]

It's the time of the year when we see stories about squirrels stealing flags and using them to decorate nests.

[David Nieporent]

Do people still decorate veterans’ graves?

Sure. My son's cub scout pack did that every year, for instance.

[Michael P]

A member of the tolerant left emailed a bomb threat to multiple Target stores, implying a loving continuation of the left's multi-century peaceful campaign of anti-hate bombings.

[Sarcastr0]

I hear she wanted to commit retail fraud. Not really a member of the left or right, chief.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite?

[Michael P]

You must be new here.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, I just like to break balls. Doesn't matter though because he has muted me.
Ass wipes never change.

[Gandydancer]

For convenience: https://www.tmz.com/2023/05/27/target-bomb-threat-lgbtq-ally-ohio-utah-pride-hoax/

[bevis the lumberjack]

John Cleese, the hero we don’t deserve.

https://movieweb.com/john-cleese-debunks-idea-of-removing-insensitive-scene-from-monty-pythons-life-of-brian-stage-show/

[Life of Brian]

Ah, that's a relief. I saw the rumormongering a few days ago and feared he had finally buckled.

[Krayt]

It's not insensitive, except in a pulling guilt onto yourself sort of way.

It's eerily prophetic. A man wants to be a woman and his friends to call him Loretta. And he wants to have a baby. After some banter that he's not physically set up for it, they agree he should have the right to have a baby, even if he can't.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No, Cleese's character loudly objects to that suggestion. The whole point of the running People's Front of Judea stuff is that no one ever agrees on anything.

But I agree with you, I don't see what's insensitive about the scene. If anything, all the characters except Cleese's are very supportive of Idle's character. And Cleese is just pointing out that he can't have babies.

[bernard11]

I don't get why that scene, at least as described at your link, would offend anyone.

I might cut it because it doesn't seem funny to me, but that's a different matter.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Apparently because it depicts people laughing at a trans person. That’s what another article said.

[Nige]

I wonder if anyone bothered to ask some actual trans people, since they felt such an overwhelming need to write about it anyway.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don’t get why that scene, at least as described at your link, would offend anyone.

Have you been in a coma for the past couple of decades?

[Nige]

There are red states where this show can't be performed. Because it'll have drag in it.

[Martinned]

Nothing too see, just a "never meet your heroes" guy trying to cheat his old friend out of some money. https://twitter.com/EricIdle/status/1659599331140468736

[bevis the lumberjack]

Cleese was always funnier than Idle anyway. So was Palin.

[Gandydancer]

Who are you saying is being cheated how?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are we approaching the point where 50 years of war on Heterosexual White (WASP initially) Men is about to end?

SCOTUS is going to have to toss Affirmative Retribution in admissions, I don't see how this court can't, and then what?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog of White Male Grievance

[Martinned]

You're right, us cis straight white guys have it tough!

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, even if Harrison Bergeron can dance better than Fred Astaire even wearing hobbles, it's still an unfair imposition to force him to wear them.

[Nige]

If Donald Trump can be elected president of the USA, white men are not being hobbled.

[Michael Ejercito]

Apply this logic to Barack Obama.

[Nige]

If Barack Obama can drive white people into such a racist frenzy they vote for Donald Trump as a corrective, white people are not being hobbled in any way shape or form.

[Frank Drackman]

wasn't really a "frenzy" more like waking up after a 2 week drunk (been there, done that) and running the most unpopular candidate since Richard Milhouse didn't help (heck, Milhouse won twice)

Frank

[Nige]

Edgebot wonders what it would be like to be a white man in the USA.

[Frank Drackman]

8 minutes to respond? thats just sad, even on a Holiday.
Don't really get why being referred to as "Edgebot" (I like it, would be better as "14 Inch Cock-Bot") is supposed to be an insult,
Been a "White man in the USA" since July 4, 1962 (can you get any more Amurican than that?)
Barry Hussein Osama beat a cripple in 2008 , and then a mental cripple in 2012, and umm, hmm, why didn't Senescent J run in 2016?? because BHO wouldn't support him, (BHO isn't stupid)

Frank

[Nige]

Edgebot thinks it's racist people.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Wait….I’ve been the target of a war since I was in high school? I wasn’t paying attention and missed the whole damn thing.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Python didn't depict lumberjacks in a very good light either.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Or barbers.

[Gandydancer]

There was only one singing faggot lumberjack, IIRC.
The rest were just embarrassed about him being one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your bigotry dooms the rest of your stale, ugly, right-wing thinking in modern America. So keep up the good work, asshole. Your betters — the people defeating you and the other conservatives in the culture war — thank you for your service, which helps us continue to shape America’s progress.

Carry on, clingers. But just so far as better Americans permit.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Although now that I think about it, the Lumberjack Song is probably insensitive to trans people also.

[EscherEnigma]

[...] 50 years of war on Heterosexual White [...] Men [...]

If that's actually been happening, I sure hope so. Given the prevalence of such men in all levels of government, corporations, the military, Hollywood, and every other high-status area in the US, it sure hasn't been an effective one.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is Jack Marshall.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/05/29/morning-ethics-warm-up-5-29-22-memorial-day-weekend-edition

[John F. Carr]

Once in a while a writer for one of the gadget publications comes up with something more interesting than speculation about the expensive new Mac you aren't going to buy.

https://9to5mac.com/2023/05/28/lost-ipad-pro-las-vegas/

The author left an iPad in a Vegas hotel. He called, they said they would help him get it back, but they didn't. The hotel sold it to a phone recycling business in Oklahoma City. He had enabled "find my device" so when the workers there tried to reset it Apple notified him and told him where the device was. He called the recyclers. They said they would help him get it back, but they didn't. Unable to reuse it without his password they sold it to an electronics scrapping company in China. It notified him one last time. "Chance, Chance, my mind is going, I can feel it."

When I worked for a large company c. 2010 we were warned that if we forgot the laptop password our department would be billed ~$2,000 for a replacement device. Boot passwords were unusual then. Now anybody's device can become a brick when lost, sold, or stolen.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

278000 = the number of illegal searches conducted by bureaucrats at the FBI.
0 = the number of bureaucrats at the FBI held accountable.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Uganda passed a law that created the new crime of "aggravated homosexuality" where if you have HIV and you gay molest a child you can face severe punishment.

Of course all the gay rights groups and the Biden Administration is up in arms. lol

[Michael P]

Under that law, a conviction for non-aggregated homosexuality can be punished with life in prison, right? That seems pretty severe as a base case. The death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" is relatively more severe.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well you shouldn't get what they give you in the US: a parade and a letter from the President.

[Sarcastr0]

You post like you want a reaction.
https://www.theonion.com/marilyn-manson-now-going-door-to-door-trying-to-shock-p-1819565904

Just not a serious person.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I got a reaction out of you, dipshit. You're my personal dancing monkey. I grind my organ and pitch you a peanut and you can't help but dance for me.

[Frank Drackman]

really? Marilyn Manson? On Memorial Day?? that's just wrong.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

SarcastrO is just wrong.

[SRG]

Musing on Herrera v Collins recently, and Rehniquist’s view that there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing an innocent man when no actual constitutional violation has been demonstrated, I was thinking of three separate lines of argument that regardless, the courts should accept that it is nonetheless against constitutional and legal principles.

First, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence – not by itself part of US law – taken together with 9A suggests that the right to life is a constitutional right and to be executed when innocent is hence a constitutional violation. And of course, being punished for something you didn’t do is cruel!

Second, the judicial power at the time of the Constitution, looking to a common understanding of the term, e.g., from English law – what the House of Lords sitting as a court was able to do – would have included the power to release an innocent man.

Third, which I only came across today when idly trawling, the Judiciary Act of 1789 requires judges to swear or affirm that they will administer justice – and the execution of an innocent man is so obviously unjust, regardless of due process or other legal protocols, that it’s a violation of a SC justice’s oath to permit it.

Now I am sure that this post includes a combination of naivety and ignorance about later jurisprudence and cases, but still…

[ducksalad]

OK, you've got a good argument.

Now, is it just to sentence an innocent man to life in prison? How about 30 years? 3 years? Some argue that prison is reversible, but of course it isn't: you've lost the years and they can't be given back.

If there is genuine uncertainty about guilt, then you shouldn't be taking someone's life or any part of it, and that's why proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be required even for less serious punishments.

Reminds me of a grading dispute a friend of mine had. He slipped the term paper under the prof's door before the deadline, but there was no proof of the time. The professor flatly stated that if it was on time, the student deserved an A for the course. If not, it was an F. So he gave him a C.

With the A or the F, there was a 50% chance of doing justice. With the C, we can be 100% sure the professor gave an incorrect grade that did not honestly assess the student's work.

My point is, milder punishments are not the appropriate way to deal with a system that convicts innocent people.

[Gandydancer]

Any system other than automatic refusal to convict will convict innocent people.

[SRG]

We know that. The issue arises when the system insists on punishing innocent people because the system’s process requires it.

The traditional response is that if the judicial system has proceeded properly but the convict is demonstrably innocent, the executive should step in and pardon him. But as a number of US governors over the years have demonstrated that this is an inadequate remedy, this response can be dismissed as unrealistic bullshit.

[Gandydancer]

The claim that someone who has been convicted is innocent is often false.

And the category of innocence you wish to address is maybe the least common one.

I don't anyway see any structural fix being proposed or even possible for this relatively minor problem.

[SRG]

What, in your opinion, is an acceptable rate of innocents convicted?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Rehniquist’s view that there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing an innocent man when no actual constitutional violation has been demonstrated,

Needless to say, neither Rehnquist nor anyone else (except maybe Dr. Ed) was arguing that innocent people should be executed. The issue in that case was how many chances we have to give people to argue that they’re innocent—and surely the answer isn’t “as many as they want.”

[SRG]

The issue in that case was how many chances we have to give people to argue that they’re innocent—and surely the answer isn’t “as many as they want.”

No, but nor is the answer, "only as many as the latest tough-on-crime legislation permits".

[blue-heron]

Tennis player Sloane Stephens says racist abuse is getting worse. Racist abuse is increasing by hostile fans at both a high school and college level. Globally it is heavily impacting soccer. With all the racial invective I read on these pages, is the overt racism a good or a bad thing from a libertarian perspective? Do these people need to just toughen up? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/may/29/sloane-stephens-says-racist-abuse-of-athletes-is-getting-worsehttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/racist-incidents-in-high-school-football-spark-talks-and-programshttps://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/06/college-sports-racist-abuse-rachel-richardson

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"a month after a Duke volleyball player, Rachel Richardson, said she had been subjected to racist chants from the crowd"

You mean...the chants that NOBODY (including any recordings of the game) besides her heard?

[Gandydancer]

Just ignore the whining.

[Martinned]

Cross-posting this question from the latest gun-nut thread:

Is there a constitutional right to travel/drive a car?

Under the ECHR there have been cases about forms of house arrest that weren't contingent on a criminal conviction. (Because they were used for terrorists where the evidence came from confidential intelligence sources.) The basic conclusion is that there are limits to how much you can restrict people's freedom to move around without actually convicting them of a crime.

I assume that, under the US constitution, it would similarly be difficult if the government (following some non-criminal process) pointed at someone and told them they weren't allowed to leave their home town. Even if that was based on at least some "process", I'd assume that would violate the due process clause.

So where does that leave a hypothetical law/order that effectively leaves someone unable to drive a car for the rest of their life? OK, you can get a ride from someone else or take a taxi, but in some parts of the US not being able to drive would be a substantial restriction on your freedom to move around. Unconstitutional?

[Martinned]

P.S. My favourite is Nada v. Switzerland (2012), which concerned a guy who wasn't even in Swizterland. Instead, the plaintiff was in the Italian exclave of Campione d'Italia. The problem was that he had an international travel ban, and that Campione d'Italia is only 2.7 sq km big. So he was basically stuck on a mile of shore of Lake Lugano, because the Swiss wouldn't let him cross the border, not even to travel to elsewhere in Italy.

I'm not sure if I agree with this judgment, but the ECtHR found this a violation of art. 8 ECHR (right to private life) but not of art. 5 (right to be free from arbitrary detention).

[Gandydancer]

I read this far: "The Federal Court was of the opinion that the uniform application of UN sanctions would be endangered if the courts of States Parties to the European Convention or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were able to disregard those sanctions in order to protect the fundamental rights of certain individuals or organisations."

So, join the UN and your citizens lose any protection of their fundamental rights by their own country.

That's not exactly what's happening here (Italy staying out of it, I gather), but it's still a true observation. Switzerland also says it has no say about whether it wishes to exclude this guy. It's not clear to me why he at one point qualified for a "special exemption" or who, if anyone, had the power to issue it.

Also whether the US could Constitutionally enter into any such agreement is unclear. I hope not, but whether one can rely on SCOTUS not to be packed with unAmerican crazies is uncertain.

[Martinned]

When they were first introduced (at the insistence of the US), the UN sanctions regime was extremely dodgy, from a due process point of view. Over time, the judiciary in various places stepped in (most notably the ECJ in Yusuf and Kadi v. Council), and ultimately the UN Security Council also introduced a degree of due process.

[John F. Carr]

A judge in Pennsylvania (I think) observed that COVID-19 restrictions were so severe as to be presumptively unconstitutional. I do not know the fate of that case.

There is a constitutional right to interstate travel, but not to any particular mode of travel. No-fly list isn't an infringement because you can still drive. Taking your license away isn't an infringement because you can still hire a ride. And so on.

There is a common law right to use public roads, subject to regulation the limits of which I do not understand.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which overmatched right-wing dope -- Stickman or McCullough -- do you have in mind?

[Mr. Bumble]

Cross posting my reply from "gun nut" thread

Mr. Bumble 17 mins ago

Equating not being able to drive a car to banning freedom of movements is quite a stretch, even for you.
Seems like millions of people have managed to walk across Latin and South America to illegally cross our border. No car involved.

[Gandydancer]

Actually trucks, buses and trains are commonly involved.

[David Nieporent]

Under the ECHR there have been cases about forms of house arrest that weren’t contingent on a criminal conviction. (Because they were used for terrorists where the evidence came from confidential intelligence sources.) The basic conclusion is that there are limits to how much you can restrict people’s freedom to move around without actually convicting them of a crime.

I assume that, under the US constitution, it would similarly be difficult if the government (following some non-criminal process) pointed at someone and told them they weren’t allowed to leave their home town. Even if that was based on at least some “process”, I’d assume that would violate the due process clause.

Is this pretrial confinement? Or just a-trial confinement? Because the legal authority to detain someone pretrial, in the U.S., exists, and it encompasses the lesser authority to restrict someone's movements (including house arrest) pretrial. But if it's in lieu of actually prosecuting someone, then yeah, wildly unconstitutional.

[Martinned]

No, this is an order putting curfews on people without any intention of prosecuting them for anything ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/01/terrorism.law

[OtisAH]

On This Memorial Day…

https://digbysblog.net/2023/05/29/on-this-memorial-day/

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in case you missed it, the Texas legislature adopted a bill giving the secretary of state the power to take over the running of elections in Houston and literally nowhere else in Texas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/28/texas-republicans-pass-voting-bills-targeting-large-democratic-county/

[Brett Bellmore]

It does look, though, like the elections are being terribly mismanaged there, doesn't it?

Uncounted mail-in ballots discovered in Harris County add uncertainty to two Democratic races

Is there some reason they should also have taken over elections administration in places that weren't screwing up, too?

[Sarcastr0]

Assuming Harris County is an outlier (and you haven't really supported that it is) there are ways to initially address issues that look less like the GOP is monkeying Democratic votes.

[Gandydancer]

It's up to YOU to demonstrate that Houston isn't an outlier and that other jurisdictions are also screwing up. Only Democrats imagine that removing corrupt and/or incompetent Democrats from administering elections is to be assumed by default to be a partisan act.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It’s up to YOU to demonstrate that Houston isn’t an outlier

At which law school did you learn allocation of burdens? I have a hard time believing even South Texas College of Law Houston should be saddled with responsibility for your judgments.

[Martinned]

What Sarcastr0 said. Applying this law only to counties with more than 3.5m/4m inhabitants serves no plausible purpose other than to allow Republicans to screw with Democratic votes.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What Sarcastr0 said.

Said no honest person ever.

[Gandydancer]

Bullshit. It's directed at Houston because Houston is demonstrably corrupt and/or incompetent. If that isn't true of, e.g., Dallas it would be imposing the same controls on Dallas that serves no plausible purpose other than to allow Democrats to escape the singling out that they have earned.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bullshit. It’s directed at Houston because Houston is demonstrably corrupt and/or incompetent.

Houston is corrupt and/or incompetent.

Laredo, McAllen, Lubbock, etc. are efficient and righteous, as are West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, and a few other red state paradises.

So sayeth the clinger catechism.

[Martinned]

Except it doesn't hinge on a finding of any shortcomings. It sets rules for possible future shortcomings. And those could, you'll have to admit, occur anywhere.

[Estragon]

““I wrote this letter to you today to express my feelings of remorse considering my participation in Jan 6. As I said previously, my actions and behaviors that fateful day were wrong and as I now understand, criminal. This is what has brought me before you today and why you must hold me responsible. The events of Jan. 6 are unfortunate and while I believe in peaceful protest and redress of government, violence is never the answer.”

-Jessica Watkins

[Estragon]

I leave it to the reader to assess the genuineness of this statement given some of Ms Watkins’ past comments. She has 8 and a half years to think it over.

Extra credit: would judge Duncan have referred to this defendant as a “he”?

[Gandydancer]

Trump has promised pardons, so for that reason (and others -- see, e.g., the the J6 "Shaman") maybe not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Belt and suspenders; Would YOU want to count on Trump winning, or actually delivering on that pardon if he did?

I am not terribly fond of courts demanding expressions of remorse. The truly guilty lie about feeling remorseful, the mistakenly convicted innocents are forced to lie about having been guilty or be penalized a second time. It's all such a farce.

[Estragon]

Who is demanding an apology? who is being punished twice? Stewart Rhodes didn’t feel the need to apologize

[Gandydancer]

Apologies extracted under threat are unlikely to be sincere.
In other news, water is wet.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Apologies from half-educated, deluded gun nuts and superstitious, un-American, right-wing assholes are likely to be worthless, too.

[Estragon]

“I have no gripes with the government… I shouldn’t have been there. I should have paid more attention to what was being said [and] on my phone…to Officer Harry Dunn: I would like to truly apologize. when he came up those stairs and expressed that they were killing his friends and carrying out his buddies on stretchers, all I said was ‘really’? I didn’t know what was happening on the west side…I didn’t know I was hurting anyone and I could have done more and I apologize. I think about that a lot… I know I should have done more. I apologize.”

-Kenneth Harrelson

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

For those who enjoyed Radiolab's SCOTUS podcast 'More Perfect.' It's been on hiatus for a few years now, but it's back! The first new one was on Al Smith of Employment Division v Smith, and included input from Prof. Garrett Epps. The second one is on Justice Thomas, and is quite balanced and interesting. I haven't listened to the third one yet, which is on the press reporters who cover the court.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Every time I bring up my scientific and work experience to apply to the panic you accuse me if credentialism. Perhaps you shouldn’t sit on the porch of your glass house and throw stones.

[Mr. Bumble]

What's pathetic is the failure to address the debt other than to increase it.
$100,000 for every man woman and child in the US (legal and illegal) and always growing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What’s genuinely sickening is the Federal Republicans are arguing for a reduction in the rate of growth, not a reduction in actual spending.

And the Federal government needs $4T more debt to get through just two more years, which means they are running a real deficit of $2T a year,

And that means the Federal Government now requires $6T to $8T a year just to operate as pathetically bad and corrupt as it does now.

There is no taxing their way out of this. No Bernie Sanders wealth grab, no crushing middle class taxes, no economy eroding business taxes, there is no way this can continue much longer.

The Federal Class is looting the tax payer as quickly as possible before it all collapses.

[OtisAH]

I’d say you entirely misunderstanding “work requirement” criticism after all this time and after so many many many people have explained the issues is more pathetic than either of those choices.

[EscherEnigma]

Depends if you support work requirements as social policy or fiscal policy.

If you support them as fiscal policy, they're fine, they reduce welfare rolls.

If you support them as social policy, they're trash, they don't push non-working recipients to work, and they often kick working people off the rolls because the paperwork burden is too onerous for many working poor (especially when the government office keeps bank hours when people are, you know, working. And poor people have a harder time taking time off for such things, as their jobs have fewer benefits and flexibility).

As such, the support/opposition makes perfect sense: GOP supports work requirements as a matter of fiscal policy, but lie about it and say it a social policy thing (ignoring that it doesn't work as social policy).

Democrats oppose it because they don't care about the fiscal policy, and recognize that it fails as social policy.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Trump and Ted Cruz have come out in support of Paxton, of course.

The Governor and Lt. Governor haven't made a peep.

[Krayt]

On the other hand, impeachment requires supermajority to keep it from being a partisan removal. The guy must have done something so wrong it convinces his own party and supporters he must go.

This is a case where such was obvious. So was Nixon, eventually.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You used the actual word "credentialism".

And my "little bit of knowledge" encompasses a degree and 35 years of experience. If I was taking the side your political masters - none of whom know jack shit about energy - have influenced to you to take you'd be praising my knowledge to high heaven.

And whatever paltry little bit I know about it dwarfs the knowledge that you and everyone you know has. If I'm an idiot on this what does that make you?

[Nige]

Haven't the biggest increases always been from Republican administrations?

[Stephen Lathrop]

$100,000 for every man woman and child in the US (legal and illegal) and always growing.

Not a problem, Bumble, as long we keep the nation's wealth distribution the way it is now, and assign responsibility to retire the debt accordingly. Also, keep in mind that it can't be done any other way. When government needs more money to retire debt, the only way it can get it is from people who have money.

[Martinned]

$100,000 for every man woman and child in the US (legal and illegal)

And what is the value of the assets owned by the Federal Government divided by the number of inhabitants of the US?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can the President increase the budget or is that what Congress does?

[Mr. Bumble]

If that's your claim, provide a cite. In any event it's irrelevant to my comment which only addresses the fact that the continued increases need to stop.

[Frank Drackman]

Nope

[Sarcastr0]

You want the collapse. You say it all the time.

It’s almost as though you have no core, just angry reactions.

[Nige]

Are you making excuses now?

[Moderation4ever]

There is a simple rule that the party responsible for the debt is the other party. So, I your guy is President it is Congress that is responsible and if the other party holds the Presidency then the President is the responsible party.

[Nige]

It always need to stop when a Democrat is president.

[bevis the lumberjack]

With all due respect I was a VP at three different companies and language that I came up with has been embedded into Texas law verbatim. And I made millions of dollars doing it.

Let’s keep the baseball analogy going - you don’t know your ass from third base about climate change and energy and all of the idiotic insults you pile on me won’t ever change that. Revel in your ignorance all you want.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm -- half of the MLB coaches are wrong -- every day -- by definition as half the teams playing loose.

Just sayin....

[Mr. Bumble]

Again, not the point of my comment. It needs to stop. Period!

[Nige]

I don't even disagree. It's just not something Republicans are interested in. You could do more to balance the books by going after white collar crime and tax evasion and auditing the military than by making life even tougher for poor people.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Only low-information types and foreigners believe the President sets the spending levels.

You're most likely both.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, what is the current status of Steamboat Willie?

Isn't that supposed to go public soon?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think $2T deficits and >100% debt to gdp ratios are sustainable?

Or the signal of a catastrophic trajectory?

I do have some core principles and values. One of them involves realizing the Federal Government as it is today is the greatest threat to human freedom in the world.

[Sarcastr0]

I do.

I look at Japan. I look at successful big companies like Google. Debt isn’t costless, but we are also not near a crisis point at the moment. Because national debt is not a credit card.

Plenty of ways out, none of which are the rights old saw of austerity plus tax cuts.

But the big thing is you alternatively lament America digging its own grave and root for it’s fall. Which is inconsistent and more an indicator of a sad dude looking to get a reaction for being so shocking than someone serious.

[Nige]

Wow, McCarthy was negotiating with the wrong guy all along.

[Sarcastr0]

You spent a long time working for companies with an incentive to mimics global warming. This means when you insist it’s not something to worry about and offer as proof your own authority we should believe you when you rage against Biden.

You are soaked in bias.

Then you get angry when we point out how weak your substantive arguments are.

If you have facts maybe we could connect, knowing the scope of your biases. But your opinions? Sorry, not going to work for much around here.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’ve been separated from that industry for almost a decade.

And a political zealot such as yourself calling anyone else soaked in bias is laughably lacking in self awareness.

The only place you’ve addressed my substantive arguments is in your imagination. I simply point out that the same plan that failed so spectacularly in Germany isn’t going to work here and y’all come back with name calling. Your orthodoxy doesn’t allow any dissent.

You have no facts of your own, as all you do is parrot idiotic politicians.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Smart people draw conclusions by evaluating the argument, not by counting the subscribers to a particular side.

There are billions of people who argue God is real. What say you?

[Mr. Bumble]

The law of holes or the first law of holes, is an adage which states: "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." It is used as a metaphor, warning that when in an untenable position, it is best to stop making the situation worse.

[Michael P]

The "Steamboat Willie" copyright is scheduled to expire on 1 January 2024, yes. Newer aspects of the Mickey Mouse character will continue to be protected by copyright.

Disney has been using the character in short clips to identify the company, probably because it expects to use trademark law to go after anyone who tries to use what falls into the public domain -- I would guess in addition to arguing that the defendant infringed some more recent Mickey Mouse copyright.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What does Donald Trump think of Ted Cruz' wife?

Related: What kind of husband and father is Ted Cruz? Is he a "Josh Hawley masculinity" type?

Carry on, clingers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your point?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/government-financial-position-and-condition.html

I don't think that math is going work out like you had hoped.

[Frank Drackman]

Irrelevant: not like I can just walk into the Capitol and put my feet on a desk.

[Nige]

I'm not sure the Democrats ever deny responsibility for the debt they accrue, but they're not the party that preaches small government and fiscal respnsibility yet who keep expanding the government and skyrocketing the debt.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, there's a huge, HUGE difference between taking on debt to invest in something productive, that will create an income stream that makes it easier to make the interest payments, and pay off the principle in a reasonable period, and taking on debt for day to day expenses because you like living above your means.

The US is in the latter position. We're not going deeper into debt because we found some wonderfully productive investment that was worth borrowing to get in on. We're going to debt because politicians want to buy votes, and money spent buying votes is a LOT less effective if it's coupled with taxes enough to pay for it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do you look at Japan for?

Decades of stagnation? Declining population?

But the big thing is you alternatively lament America digging its own grave and root for it’s fall.

You seem to think America is synonymous with the “Federal Government”. I can lament the fall of the American quality of life while simultaneously root for the fall of the people who are causing it.

Which is inconsistent and more an indicator of a sad dude looking to get a reaction for being so shocking than someone serious.

Oh, if my only tone met your approval! Please guide me and provide me pointers so my comments can pass your high standards. Make sure you include how to triple down on lies, then beg for a bunch of atta-boys when you announce your mea-culpa.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you explain, in your mind, how the President decides the Federal budget and how those appropriations come into law?

[Michael Ejercito]

Note thety did not do this to Rick Perry, who was indicted for abuse of power.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

John McCain preached on building a border wall and repealing Obamacare.

When he had the chance to do both, he was the deciding vote against building a wall and repealing Obamacare.

Federal Republicans play kabuki theater with their voters but always serve the Federal Class, which their voters are not part of.

[Mr. Bumble]

Japan is what you get when you follow the advice of Paul Krugman.

[Nelson]

Do you realize you're making the argument that Republicans are equally responsible for us reaching the debt limit?

From 2017-2019 Rs controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. What happened to the deficit and spending when they were in charge?

[Nige]

Can you explain why the Republicans have been trying to extract a ransom from *the president* by holding the economy hostage?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I’m not making any argument other than stating the fact that the House of Representatives, in virtually all cases, initiates spending bills.

How the fuck do you people not know this?

And surely you don’t think I’m going to defend what a bunch of Federal/Establishmet Republicans do? lol come on. I’m not some bootlicking Democrat who excuses literally everything their political masters do.

[Nelson]

Most people know that. But just because they initiate it doesn't mean the Senate has to pass it, or the President has to sign it.

All three are responsible for spending, since it can't happen without the agreement of all three.

[Gandydancer]

Nige's idiocy was "Haven’t the biggest increases always been from Republican administrations?", not "from all three branches working together to destroy fiscal integrity".

[Nige]

Typical Republican blame-dodging.

[Nelson]

No, Nige. The only time blame can be put squarely on one party is when they control all three (House, Senate, and White House).

2021-2023: Dem
2017-2019: GOP
2009-2011: Dem
2005-2007: GOP
2003-2005: GOP
1993-1995: Dem

There were extenuating circumstances in 2021 (pandemic) and 2009 (Great Recession) that made unexpected spending by the Federal government necessary. Other than that, those are the only times you can blame only one party.

The same can be said for the only time we have had a surplus in my lifetime, during the Clinton administration. The GOP didn't do it alone, and neither did the Dems.

[Nige]

This is literally the only circumstances you guys will sing paeans to bipartisanship.

[Nige]

That's because they keep rhetorically pandering to the most extreme weirdoes in the Republican electorate but know the policies themselves are too stupid to enact.

[Mr. Bumble]

If the initial reports are true a two year $4trillion increase in the debt limit is hardly ransom.

[Nige]

It was never *really* about the debt.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When Bush was President and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate, who decided the spending?

[Nige]

Did they threaten to crash the economy of they didn’t get their way?

Of course Republicans went ahead and crashed the economy themselves.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you answering a different question or something?

They were in control during the 2008 financial crisis.

[Kazinski]

Well according to the the Washington press corp, the Democrats had the votes to get a debt ceiling increase passed during the lame duck session after the election. After all they did pass the budget then because they didn't want the new Houses's majority to have a say.

But the reason they didn't increase the debt ceiling then was the wanted to use it as a political hammer on the GOP to paint them as partisan and extreme. And they tried that. But when the House passed an debt increase with spending cuts and the polls were showing that 75% of the voters thought the GOP plan was better than a clean increase, then Biden had to cave.

Me, I thought both were wrong and Rand Paul was right.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz has Inherited Brett’s reading of the liberal mind and finding all sorts of bad faith plots explaining what looks like Republican bad acts as De, plots instead.

As with Brett, it’s all unsupported speculation.

[Kazinski]

Because it was what the people wanted.

"Sixty percent of Americans say Congress should only raise the nation’s debt ceiling if it cuts spending at the same time, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/05/23/politics/cnn-poll-debt-ceiling-increase-spending-cuts/index.html

I'm not sure what the rational is on deferring to the president on this, I don't remember the House deferring to the President much when Trump was president. I do remember Nancy ripping up his SOTU speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Who is deferring to the President?

[Sarcastr0]

Rotating debt good when a company does it. Bad when a country does.

Because you use a cost benefit based on ROI. Wrong metric entirely on both counts.

You misunderstands how Google and the like work these days, and how a nation gets successful.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Getting to live in the freest, richest, and most powerful society humanity has ever known seems like a reasonable ROI though?

[bernard11]

Removed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Haha yeah that's why Nige!

You should be a political advisor!

[Michael P]

Maybe he was advocating that the US should sell off its national parks and wildernesses so that loggers can clear-cut mountains, miners can dig up what is left, and petrochemical companies can pump oil and gas from any ground that cannot be clear-cut or mined.

[Commenter_XY]

Think twice about citing Japan. It has been a rough 30 years, economically, in part due to absurdly high debt levels relative to GDP.

[Life of Brian]

Rotating debt good when a company does it. Bad when a country does.

"Rotating" debt. How... euphemistic.

Our approach toward debt is more like the "you go back, Jack, do it again, wheel turnin' round and round" sort of rotating.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Rotating debt good when a company does it. Bad when a country does."

That comment was so defiantly irrelevant to my point that I have a hard time believing you didn't know it had nothing to do with it.

[Currentsitguy]

You think all the property the Federal Government owns is limited to National Parks?

[Martinned]

That looking at the government's debts but not its assets is a bit of a wonky way to do bookkeeping.

[Martinned]

Do yourself a favour and look at the figures in terms of GDP per person employed. Japan has had a pretty good 21st century so far, except that demographics are killing it. (No pun intended.)

For the avoidance of doubt, there's no evidence of a relationship between Japan's government debt levels and the rate at which its people retire.

[Sarcastr0]

It has been a rough 30 years, economically, in part due to absurdly high debt levels relative to GDP.

That is not at all what I hear. As Martinned noted, Japan's economy has been just fine, after the comedown from it's excesses in the 1980s.

What issues do you see, and what causal connection to the national debt are you making?

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/09/21/140665883/its-not-what-you-owe-its-who-you-owe

[Martinned]

Out of curiosity, which country were you attempting to describe there?

[Martinned]

Listening to Paul Krugman makes you age faster? Wow, that's quite a discovery!

[Frank Drackman]

Japan's pretty nice. Not alot of "Floyd George's" trying to pass bogus bills if you get my (Tokyo) Drift.
And you can smoke everywhere.

Frank "Still Smokin"

[Frank Drackman]

First "Klinger" of the week! better use them before the end of the month, I'm watching you Coach Sandusky!!!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

The Netherlands of course, at least until recently.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You know which country I’m talking about, and there’s only one metric of the three where even the most effete and servile European sybarite could quibble.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unless you plan to sell off assets to reduce the debt I don't see the point.

[Gandydancer]

It's nice that the Feds own Yosemite Valley, but how does that help them pay interest on bonds?

[Nige]

Even when you voted for someone stupid enough to want to do those things they were still too stupid to actually get done.

[Gandydancer]

"Mickey Mouse copyright" has at least a double meaning.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Perry was cleared.

[ducksalad]

I greatly dislike Rick Perry. Nevertheless, that indictment was absolute BS and the legislature was right to ignore it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Note thety did not do this to Rick Perry, who was indicted for abuse of power.

Are indictments now substantial proof of guilt?

[ducksalad]

Most of Nevada, the majority of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, almost half of California and Wyoming.

Rights to vast amounts of offshore seabed

The gold reserve
The petroleum reserve
National defense stockpiles of various rare minerals

The artwork in the National Gallery
Contents of the Smithsonian
Contents of the National Archives (after scanning them onto a few CDs)

White House furniture
The Capitol furniture

The Navy’s ships and planes
The Air Force’s planes (hold back a few nukes and missiles)
The entire computing capacity of the NSA

The District of Columbia. Unlike the land listed above, we could include sovereignty over the area and the population along with the deed to the land.

[Michael P]

No. I was just giving prominent examples of other assets that Martinned might have been advocating that the US government sell in order to pay down its bloated debt.

[Gandydancer]

The claim was, "...looking at the government’s debts but not its assets is a bit of a wonky way to do bookkeeping."

He didn't exclude Nation Parks in expressing this claim, why should we do so when interpreting it?

Feel free to tell us what assets you want to sell when you rephrase it to make it defensible.

[Michael Ejercito]

Was the prosecutor disbarred?

[Martinned]

Because it allows them to charge fees? https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/fees.htm

[Martinned]

As per the above, national parks absolutely belong on the assets side of the government's balance sheet.

(For their market value if sold. The fact that the government doesn't *want* to sell them is irrelevant. I don't want to sell my house either, but that doesn't change the fact that it belongs on my personal balance sheet at market value.)

[Martinned]

Norway is freer and richer than the US, but I'll grant you that the US has more guns.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I was talking about the absolute wealth of the country, but if you want to talk about the wealth of the different people living there: I will concede that Norway, one of the richest countries in Europe, are somewhat wealthier in nominal terms than the people of the poorest U.S. states (who are themselves, of course, much wealthier than people in almost every other part of Europe).

The question of freedom is even more clear cut, but I don’t expect you to be persuaded: the sensible Europeans have all long ago decamped for a country where you can actually dry your laundry.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fees don't even cover the cost of operating and maintaining the parks.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, that’s the only way I could see to take what you posted. Google is good because they are making investments. The US is bad because they aren’t.

[Martinned]

No, but they could. And that's what an asset is, something that allows you to generate cash flows. What the owner chooses to do with that asset is irrelevant.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If the U.S. charged fees that were high enough to do what you're claiming they could do, most people would stop using the parks because they couldn't afford/justify paying such exorbitant fees for their use.